285 réponses à ce sujet

[Kel Riever]

Yep, it is. From the point of view of story.

It could have used the production value of ME2 & 3, but for the love that is everything Mass Effect, if you were going to blow the story to the point of ruining the entire series, you might as well have stuck to ME1

[taggen86]

tonnactus wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Better combat? The combat is just ME2's, now with incredibly awkward ninja rolls. 

Biotic and tech powers are usefull again. Tech bursts. Enemies force you out of cover with grenades. All enemies try to flank, not just some lame, stupid ,slow and dumb shotgunners. Mods for weapons. The weight system.

The amount of weapons.

Mass Effect 3 combat is far better then the idiotic  shooting gallery Mass Effect 2 was.

Yeah This is so true. people seem to forget how bad the combat was in ME2. it is extremely painful to replay it after ME3.

[tonnactus]

taggen86 wrote...

Yeah This is so true. people seem to forget how bad the combat was in ME2. it is extremely painful to replay it after ME3.

Of course. No one except maybee people who like soldiers and infiltrators would play a multiplayer with Mass Effect 2 combat mechanics. They are just that awfull.

Modifié par tonnactus, 09 juillet 2012 - 06:22 .

[Tirranek]

It also had some of the worst characters.

[SNascimento]

ME2 combat, bad? Never.
.
ME3 is a improvement over it, but ME2 combat was and still awesome.

[AlexPorto111]

I disagree.I am replaying ME1 and while the game is amazing,the combat and the mako are really boring.The side quests are fun,but weird,becuase Shepard is on a race against time to stop Saren,yet he can help the Consort with her problems.Also a lot of bugs and frame rates issues.But the story and the characters are still awesome just like i remembered.

Overall my favorite its still ME3 - ME2 - ME1.

[tonnactus]

SNascimento wrote...

ME2 combat, bad?
.

Of course. Duck a mole in small linear corridors:

[Shepard108278]

o Ventus wrote...

Fingertrip wrote...

ME3 took everything up to a better level, more RPG elements, better combat- a very awesome story as well. ME3, by any design- is the best out of all of the games. Your choices, ACTUALLY made a difference, and changed the whole outcome. NONE OF THAT mattered in ME1 or ME2. Seriously.

That's because ME3 was the culmination of the trilogy, when all of the major plot points met their conclusion.

And no, ME3 is not the best, by "any" design.

I disagree. It is the best.

[BeastSaver]

marcustheMezz wrote...

There are many reasons to love ME1, but for me there is one that really puts it above the rest:
Trolling the council, I have never laughed so hard at calling them just to mess with them and hanging up.
As for the mako I really did miss that old hunk of junk.
I miss infinite ammo, even with explanation, thermal clips are inferior in every way and just don't make any sense. 

If you get Conrad Verner in ME3, you can have a conversation with him about thermal clips vs. letting your weapons cool down.

Modifié par BeastSaver, 10 juillet 2012 - 02:27 .

[DukeOfNukes]

[quote]TheDarkDefender wrote...

Well I'd say that no matter how much Saren dissaproved of humanity expanding and wanting more say on the Citadel, he would never have attacked human colanies and killed thousands of people if he hadn't been indoctrinated and, obviously, at this point in the game Shepard and Anderson know nothing of Indocrination. But Anderson is certain that he would and to achieve this would ally himself with the Geth, and after he says this you DO have to agree, a dialogue wheel comes up and the options are something like ''I agree'', ''I'll stop him'' and ''Not if I can help it''. I admit I haven't read Revelation, but unless Saren is so evil in it that killing every human seems in character for him, there is no justifiction for this.[/quote]
He is. Part of the reason he sabotages Anderson is that he hopes it will cause the council to rethink letting the humans have an embassy. He also "steals" Sovereign because he thinks he can use it as a weapon against humanity. That part never really bugged me...but I guess I can see why it would bug you.

[quote]Of course I know eye-witness testimony is the least reliable form of evidence but the guy identified Saren by name and said Nihlus knew him, unless Saren is a very popular name for Turians the Council should have seen this pointed to Saren Arterious' guilt. To be honest I had never thought that maybe the Council might suspect Anderson and Shepard of coaching the witness, but in any court of law a judge has to take it on faith that the police haven't coached witnesses so I don't see why this should be different. And something else that bugs me about that scene is if you ask how Saren knew about the beacon, he says Nihlus' files were passed to him after his death, even if there was no proof, would you really give the accused murderer access to anything of the victims, nevermind classified documents.[/quote]
Nihlus was trained by Saren. It makes sense that his files would be sent to the Spectre who trained him in the event of his death. Also, I'm willing to overlook that the council was being douchebags about the dock-workers testimony because...well, they're pretty douchey throughout the entire game.

[quote]Prehaps I do remember it wrong, I have played it 12 times but the last time was over a year ago. But I'm pretty sure there's a conversation with the Council over the holographic comm thing and one of them says they gathered a fleet to defend the Citadel. I can't remember the exact words but they say they did this because shepard warned them Saren might attack, it sticks in my mind because the first time I played I was really confused and thought I'd missed something out because no one had mentioned an attack on the Citadel before this and Shepard hadn't warned the Council of anything.[/quote]
You're right. They do think Saren is going to attack, so they recall the entire citadel fleet. Where they jump to this conclusion, I dunno. But they did come to the conclusion that Saren wanted to take down the citadel. I don't think you're really SUPPOSED to understand why they make this decision, however. It's supposed to be entirely bewildering...like, wtf are they thinking?[/quote]

[quote]Finn the Jakey wrote...

Saren -Of course not, I would never be involved with Geth in any way despite my MASSIVE GETH ARM AND IMPLANTS[/quote]
Sarens arm was supposed to be a simple prosthetic...not really geth in any way. Same with his implants...they are pretty common in the ME universe. It was designed to give US the hint of geth/Reaper "control"...but to the people IN UNIVERSE, it would have seemed fairly normal.

[quote]BeastSaver wrote...

If you get Conrad Verner in ME3, you can have a conversation with him about thermal clips vs. letting your weapons cool down. [/quote]
Which was actually kinda insulting. They have Shepard arguing on behalf of the Thermal Clips, and talking down to Conrad like Thermal clips are a genious invention. Oddly enough, however, Conrad is winning the conversation until Shepard comes out and says "excuse me, but I think we all know better than YOU do."

[capn233]

tobin1455 wrote...

1. Anyone else missing the mako?
2. Did anyone else notice that the facial animations and lip syncing are actually better in mass effect 1 or is that just me?
3. Which mass effect game in the trilogy is your favorite ?  and why?
4. The reapers where machines then they became cyborg terminator rip offs. What happend?  (please answer)
5. What the hell happend to MY shepards story in mass effect 3 ?  Bioware said it was their story of MY shepard....WTF?

1.  Sort of.  What I miss more were the uncharted planets that were open and had (relatively) unique vistas.  I did not miss the ultra steep grades and the Mako's lack of horsepower.  In any event, it was nice and gave you a feel that the galaxy was indeed a big place.  I do not miss the Mako for combat missions.

2. I don't think they are really any better.

3. Mass Effect 2.  It feels like the most complete package with the best characters, an actually decent final sequence where things you did in the game actually have an infiluence.  Combat mechanics are better than either of the other games in certain ways, although it was a bit weaker on "RPG elements" (ie redundant and or useless items).  Weapon and power balance was good (unlike ME3), music was great (ME3 recycles a whole lot of music from ME1 and ME2), story was good, characters were the best in the series.  Mass Effect was great, and it was my favorite game until I played ME2, and I can understand why some people prefer it.  But the characters weren't as dynamic, combat mechanics were somewhat clunky, and the difficulty curve was essentially completely backwards.  And even though the skyscapes for the uncharted worlds were fairly different, there were only a handful of building configurations so the combat portions on side quests were all fairly similar.  The voice acting also wasn't particularly great if I want to be very critical.  Briefly for ME3, the story seems more linear, the combat mechanics were made easier for no reason (there are some improvements compared to ME2, but on the whole they screwed it up), weapon balance is poor, side missions are less interesting than in the previous games, poorly handled ME2 characters, sidelined Harbinger for no reason, and had a rubbish end sequence.

4. They became biomechanical constructs.  Which isn't all that big a deal since Sovereign wasn't too specific, and Shepard sort of made some assumptions.  Even in the Prothean beacon message you see the odd image of a circuit board with some sort of junk "growing" onto it.  Many people cry about the design of the proto-Reaper, but it isn't nearly as bad as some other flaws in the other games.

5.  Good question.  I don't really know what the dev motivations were, so I won't write a treatise that is pure speculation.

[grey_wind]

tonnactus wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Better combat? The combat is just ME2's, now with incredibly awkward ninja rolls. 

Biotic and tech powers are usefull again. Tech bursts. Enemies force you out of cover with grenades. All enemies try to flank, not just some lame, stupid ,slow and dumb shotgunners. Mods for weapons. The weight system.

The amount of weapons.

Mass Effect 3 combat is far better then the idiotic  shooting gallery Mass Effect 2 was.

Biotic and Tech powers were useful in ME2 as well. You simply had to know when to use them and when not to. In ME3 you can brainlessly discharge any power at an enemy and it will do some form of damage - the ME3 powers only seem more useful because deploying them requires less thinking.
Tech and biotic bursts were cool in concept but terrible in execution. As an Adept you can go through the entire game on Insanity blowing sh!t up without ever pausing and with absolutely zero consequences. It makes the already easy gameplay even more stupidly broken.
The grenades are also a joke. Enemy grenades do far more damage to you and have a far greater impact radius than your own grenades. The aiming system for the grenades is downright terrible.
Enemies flanked you in ME2 as well, though I'll give it to you that ME3 does it better.
The weapon mods are cool. No arguing about that, though I wish there were more.
The wieght system is the biggest problem with ME3's combat. It's so horrendously broken that it should never have even been implemented. It completely nerfs classes that rely on weapons (like the Soldier) while overpowering the "spellcasters" (like Adepts and Vanguards) to ludicrous degrees. It's such an abysmal failure on every front that how someone can call it a good thing is beyond me.

ME2's combat may not have been as fluid or stylish as ME3's, but it was far better balanced and actually required you to think about which weapons to use and which allies to bring with you on a mission to complement your class because you couldn't mindlessly keep spamming powers and power explosons every time you ran into an enemy.

[BeastSaver]

[quote]BeastSaver wrote...

If you get Conrad Verner in ME3, you can have a conversation with him about thermal clips vs. letting your weapons cool down. [/quote]
Which was actually kinda insulting. They have Shepard arguing on behalf of the Thermal Clips, and talking down to Conrad like Thermal clips are a genious invention. Oddly enough, however, Conrad is winning the conversation until Shepard comes out and says "excuse me, but I think we all know better than YOU do."


[/quote]

I thought it was amusing, because I actually agree with Conrad...they may call them thermal clips, but they are really ammo. One of the things I disliked about ME2 was the difficulty of finding thermal clips, so not being able to use my weapons. At least they are plentiful in ME3, but I still prefer letting weapons cool down (much like power cool-down that still is in game).

Modifié par BeastSaver, 10 juillet 2012 - 06:04 .

[fchopin]

ME1 is the best, nothing to add really, if ME2 followed as it should have we could have had a good conventional win in ME3.

[Tonymac]

The Angry One wrote...

I loved the Mako. I loved the attempts to create a seamless world with the airlocks and, yes, the elevators. I loved a carefully crafted universe with real science used to justify fantastic elements. I loved how everybody wore proper armoured suits. I loved the attention to detail. I loved the feel of the SR-1. I loved Sovereign and Saren, both in their respective ways effective antagonists. I loved the final battles. I loved the ending.

I loved Mass Effect 1, and I believe that's because it's developers loved it too, and it shows.
It may not have been perfect. Nothing is, but it was a genuinely gratifying experience from beginning to end.

QFT, and seconded.

[o Ventus]

grey_wind wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Better combat? The combat is just ME2's, now with incredibly awkward ninja rolls. 

Biotic and tech powers are usefull again. Tech bursts. Enemies force you out of cover with grenades. All enemies try to flank, not just some lame, stupid ,slow and dumb shotgunners. Mods for weapons. The weight system.

The amount of weapons.

Mass Effect 3 combat is far better then the idiotic  shooting gallery Mass Effect 2 was.

Biotic and Tech powers were useful in ME2 as well. You simply had to know when to use them and when not to. In ME3 you can brainlessly discharge any power at an enemy and it will do some form of damage - the ME3 powers only seem more useful because deploying them requires less thinking.
Tech and biotic bursts were cool in concept but terrible in execution. As an Adept you can go through the entire game on Insanity blowing sh!t up without ever pausing and with absolutely zero consequences. It makes the already easy gameplay even more stupidly broken.
The grenades are also a joke. Enemy grenades do far more damage to you and have a far greater impact radius than your own grenades. The aiming system for the grenades is downright terrible.
Enemies flanked you in ME2 as well, though I'll give it to you that ME3 does it better.
The weapon mods are cool. No arguing about that, though I wish there were more.
The wieght system is the biggest problem with ME3's combat. It's so horrendously broken that it should never have even been implemented. It completely nerfs classes that rely on weapons (like the Soldier) while overpowering the "spellcasters" (like Adepts and Vanguards) to ludicrous degrees. It's such an abysmal failure on every front that how someone can call it a good thing is beyond me.

ME2's combat may not have been as fluid or stylish as ME3's, but it was far better balanced and actually required you to think about which weapons to use and which allies to bring with you on a mission to complement your class because you couldn't mindlessly keep spamming powers and power explosons every time you ran into an enemy.

This.

[forthary]

To be fair, ME1 is indeed the best title in the series. I felt that ME1 was created by inspiration, not necessity like ME2 or ME3, though the original writers did a great job with ME2. If there was a special someone that I could spend my time with in ME1 though, I would say the game stands out on it's own, and you don't really need ME2 or ME3 to experience the series at it's finest.

[Klijpope]

1. Yes, I miss the Mako. I liked the cameo it made in 3…
2. I think 2 has the best lip synching - however, the digital acting is best in 3.
3. Do not really have one, as such. All 3 have their own brilliance, and all 3 have their own flaws, different each time.
4. Organics vs Synthetics, that was ME1. ME2 muddies the water by showing the other side of the debate, and that reapers are synthetic/organic hybrids. So not WTF for me.
5. I got my Shepard's story in ME3 - I've run 3 Shepards thru it, and each time it has felt different and personal to each one. Even if several of the outcomes of events were the same, the journey through them felt different.

Eg: Shep2 killed the geth because Legion died in ME2, and he could not identify with the VI, but mainly because he was jumping Tali; Shep3 killed the geth because all through he did not feel he could trust Legion, and at the last moment this was proved true because Legion was going to destroy the creators (a glitch in ME2 prevented the renegade choice to keep Legion/Tali loyal, so I had to lie to Tali to win back Legion). Shep2 destroyed Maelon's data and he and Wrex had an uneasy alliance; Shep3 destroyed Maelon's data but won back Wrex's trust so they ended up fast friends again.

Shep1 saved Eve and she was able to bring reconciliation to the Quarians and Geth; she chose Synthesis. Shep2 was one bad mutha; he chose destroy. Shep3 ended up choosing Control. All felt like different journeys. They were, however, the same game.

Modifié par Klijpope, 10 juillet 2012 - 03:59 .

[Revthejedi]

Tonymac wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

I loved the Mako. I loved the attempts to create a seamless world with the airlocks and, yes, the elevators. I loved a carefully crafted universe with real science used to justify fantastic elements. I loved how everybody wore proper armoured suits. I loved the attention to detail. I loved the feel of the SR-1. I loved Sovereign and Saren, both in their respective ways effective antagonists. I loved the final battles. I loved the ending.

I loved Mass Effect 1, and I believe that's because it's developers loved it too, and it shows.
It may not have been perfect. Nothing is, but it was a genuinely gratifying experience from beginning to end.

QFT, and seconded.

THIS! 

[Broham]

The Angry One wrote...

I loved the Mako. I loved the attempts to create a seamless world with the airlocks and, yes, the elevators. I loved a carefully crafted universe with real science used to justify fantastic elements. I loved how everybody wore proper armoured suits. I loved the attention to detail. I loved the feel of the SR-1. I loved Sovereign and Saren, both in their respective ways effective antagonists. I loved the final battles. I loved the ending.

I loved Mass Effect 1, and I believe that's because it's developers loved it too, and it shows.
It may not have been perfect. Nothing is, but it was a genuinely gratifying experience from beginning to end.

Yup

[Knottedredloc]

 
1. Anyone else missing the mako?
YES! The Mako was freaking awesome and I hated that piece of crap hammerhead in ME2
 
2. Did anyone else notice that the facial animations and lip syncing are actually better in mass effect 1 or is that just me?
Didn't really notice.
 
3. Which mass effect game in the trilogy is your favorite ? and why?
ME1 is the best game easily. I loved the entire mood of the game. It really had that hardcore Sci-fi feel to it with the rich exploration and strange places to visit.   The great characters, interesting plot and satisfying conclusion make ME1 the best. ME2 destroyed everything.   Outside of better controls and the addition of Mordin, ME2 was a disaster to the Mass Effect series.   When Bioware kill off Shepard at the beginning of ME2 it was the symbolic death of direction and vision of ME1. ME3 trying to capture some of the ME1 vision back but I think the damage created by ME2 was too great. ME3 storyline should have spanned two games and the ME2 plot should not have existed IMO.

4. The reapers where machines then they became cyborg terminator rip offs. What happend? (please answer)
ME2 happened and the EA-ifcation of Bioware happened.

 5. What the hell happend to MY shepards story in mass effect 3 ?
ME2 happened and the EA-ifcation of Bioware happened.

Modifié par Knottedredloc, 10 juillet 2012 - 05:24 .

[Broham]

Knottedredloc wrote...

*snip*
 
3. Which mass effect game in the trilogy is your favorite ? and why?
ME1 is the best game easily. I loved the entire mood of the game. It really had that hardcore Sci-fi feel to it with the rich exploration and strange places to visit.   The great characters, interesting plot and satisfying conclusion make ME1 the best. ME2 destroyed everything.   Outside of better controls and the addition of Mordin, ME2 was a disaster to the Mass Effect series.   When Bioware kill off Shepard at the beginning of ME2 it was the symbolic death of direction and vision of ME1. ME3 trying to capture some of the ME1 vision back but I think the damage created by ME2 was too great. ME3 storyline should have spanned two games and the ME2 plot should not have existed IMO.


*snip*

Never really considered that. Its a good point considering the overall story of ME took a different direction in ME2.

The main plot of ME2 (why are collectors collecting humans?) really seemed like something that could have been handled with a 2-3 hour DLC. All the squaddie recruitment/loyality quests and various side quests worked well enough, but if they would have written the main plot of ME2 to be Shepard's journey to figure out the reaper threat and attempt to prevent the invasion, it would have been a better jump into ME3.

• Shepard, knowing about the reaper threat now, attempts to retrace Saren's journey to find direction in unravelling the mystery. Along the way, more of the galaxy is visited (unexplored and council race worlds) and we find out more about Sovereign's past work and other agents.
• Shepard and the SR-1 are never attacked and destroyed. Shepard keeps SR-1. Maybe SR-2 could be introduced later (escapes on a newly completed SR-2 from earth in ME3). I always thought killing and "rebuilding" Shepard was a "clever" way to bring new players in on ME2... but ME3 supported no background for a new Shepard anyway. The player (new or old) just jumps in. To me, this kills the point of killing Shepard at the beginning of 2.
• Shepard travels the galaxy looking for clues and in the process recruits the squadies by assisting them with their own situations.
• During the journey, Shepard remains with the alliance, but is still contacted by (and works with) Cereberus/TIM which gives a lead to the collectors being a small part of a bigger picture (expanded on through DLC later).
• Shepard's investigation eventually has Shep cross paths with Harbinger and it's agents (there is the possiblity that batarians (at least a large number of them) have been indoctrinated by the reapers). Important people in the know see Shepard battle with the indoctrinated batarians and attempting to stop the reaper initiative; to the galaxy as a whole and even the council (dense fools), Shepard is instigating war between the alliance and batarians (and possibly the terminus systems thanks to his/her various exploits throughout the game). Shepard is not a discrete Spectre...
• Discovering Shepard's earlier involvement with Cereberus adds fuel to the fire. The alliance is in a bad spot since Shepard is still one of their rank.
• Earth and the alliance are left in a bad position with the galactic community going into ME3 thanks to Shepard. Though Shep slowed the reaper incursion and prevented an indoctrinated batarian initiative:

• war between terminus and the council is a high possibility
• the other races are now looking down at the alliance for "attacking" the batarians and annihilating a system + a relay
• the other races now see Cereberus as the true human agenda/ideal in the galaxy. Humans cannot be trusted 

It would have been harder for a "war mongering" Shepard to convince the galaxy to trust humans and unite with him/her in ME3. ME3 would start the same way with Shepard on earth standing trial and the alliance at the council's mercy, trying to appease them with Shepard.

[tonnactus]

grey_wind wrote...

Biotic and Tech powers were useful in ME2 as well.

Most of them were a waste. Only those for removing "protections" were worth it. (tech powers)

Being an adept in Mass Effect 2 only singularity and warp were actually decent(. But completly worthless against ymir mechs and geth primes.

You simply had to know when to use them and when not to. In ME3 you can brainlessly discharge any power at an enemy and it will do some form of damage - the ME3 powers only seem more useful because deploying them requires less thinking.

What thinking? Rock, paper scissors? Shields(smg,overload), Barrier(warp,smg), armor(heavy pistol,sniper,incinerate)

Thats it with the "thinking". Every child could do this. With more evolutions regarding powers,the new weight system,the weapon mods, there is far more thinking involved at least on  how to build a character then before.

Tech and biotic bursts were cool in concept but terrible in execution.

Why?

As an Adept you can go through the entire game on Insanity blowing sh!t up without ever pausing and with absolutely zero consequences.

??
What consequences Mass Effect 2 has? Make a mistake. Go in cover,regerate shield and health in seconds. Thats its.

The grenades are also a joke. Enemy grenades do far more damage to you and have a far greater impact radius than your own grenades.

Then you made something wrong. There are enough vids on you tube that show how devastating all types of grenades are.

Enemies flanked you in ME2 as well, though I'll give it to you that ME3 does it better.

They didnt. They not go beyond a specific point in the map. Somewhere they just stop.

And only some of them did(slow,easy to kill shotgunners)

The wieght system is the biggest problem with ME3's combat. It's so horrendously broken that it should never have even been implemented. It completely nerfs classes that rely on weapons (like the Soldier) while overpowering the "spellcasters" (like Adepts and Vanguards) to ludicrous degrees.

Why the weight system nerf soldiers who dont have a lot worthwile active powers to begin with?

[CronoDragoon]

Kel Riever wrote...

Yep, it is. From the point of view of story.

It could have used the production value of ME2 & 3, but for the love that is everything Mass Effect, if you were going to blow the story to the point of ruining the entire series, you might as well have stuck to ME1

Well, you can hang out with your telepathic plants and singing insects. I'll be over here with character development.

[elitecom]

Broham wrote...

Knottedredloc wrote...

*snip*
 
3. Which mass effect game in the trilogy is your favorite ? and why?
ME1 is the best game easily. I loved the entire mood of the game. It really had that hardcore Sci-fi feel to it with the rich exploration and strange places to visit.   The great characters, interesting plot and satisfying conclusion make ME1 the best. ME2 destroyed everything.   Outside of better controls and the addition of Mordin, ME2 was a disaster to the Mass Effect series.   When Bioware kill off Shepard at the beginning of ME2 it was the symbolic death of direction and vision of ME1. ME3 trying to capture some of the ME1 vision back but I think the damage created by ME2 was too great. ME3 storyline should have spanned two games and the ME2 plot should not have existed IMO.


*snip*

Never really considered that. Its a good point considering the overall story of ME took a different direction in ME2.

The main plot of ME2 (why are collectors collecting humans?) really seemed like something that could have been handled with a 2-3 hour DLC. All the squaddie recruitment/loyality quests and various side quests worked well enough, but if they would have written the main plot of ME2 to be Shepard's journey to figure out the reaper threat and attempt to prevent the invasion, it would have been a better jump into ME3.

Definitely I agree. Although ME2 is by no means equal to ME3 in terms of plot holes and estrangement from what Mass Effect 1 established, the plot of the game wasn't really relevant to the overall plot of the franchise. The Collectors could've indeed been handled in some kind of expansion pack or something, but the main plot of Mass Effect 2 should've focused on finding a weakness to the Reapers or something along that direction. With the way the plot of Mass Effect 2 was made, some Crucible like plot was bound to happen in Mass Effect 3.