285 réponses à ce sujet

[jeffyg93]

paleobones wrote...

I'd rather stand in an elevator listening to the news and some chatter from my crew then watch a lame loading screen. Better immersion. Also I drove my Mako like a possessed speed freak. Good times.

Except those conversations lasted for like 5 seconds out of the 30 second loading time. And the loading screens in ME3 are much, much shorter.

[N-Seven]

I would say #2 is my favorite, because you there was no end in sight. Let this sci-fi TV show go on forever!!!

#1 was a bit clunky in execution and was still figuring things out. Iffy engine and good god the simon mini-game and the 'scan the reapers' mission, etc. Good enough as an intro to a great universe though.

[paleobones]

fr33stylez wrote...

DukeOfNukes wrote...
...and I knew that with Shepards death and the Normandy burning, so too went my dreams for the franchise.

The whole Shepard death/space magic resurrection bit was the beginning of the end.

This is how I feel too.

[babachewie]

I tried playing it earlier. Its extremely dated now. Its hard to get into it again.

[TheDarkDefender]

HD Remake? lol it's already in HD, I think it was one of the first to be proper 1080p for the Xbox in fact.
Anyway ME1 does have the best story but it is also full of plot holes and crappy dialogue. For instance;
-Anderson hears Saren was on Eden Prime and killed Nihlus, he then creates this story where Saren is trying to ''wipe humanity from the face of the galaxy'' and you have to agree with him, just because he's kinda right doesn't explain how he knows this.
-When you go to the Council to expose Saren they dismiss the dock-workers eye witness testimony because 'he may be traumatized' even though he specifically said it was a Turian called Saren, he didn't pick him out of a line-up. Anderson then brings up the subject of Shepards vision, Saren asks how is he going to defend himself against dreams and they don't let Anderson speak about it, but the vision Shepard got from the beacon has nothing to do with whether Saren is guilty or not.
-And at no point does Saren, Matriarch Benezia or Soveraign (when you chat with him) mention anything about attacking or that their plans involve The Citadel in any way, they do of course but how does Shepard know this? The only time that Shepard is warned that Soveraigns gonna attack the Citadel is from Vigil on Ilos but Shepard has already warned the council and had them assemble a fleet by then.
Anyway these are just a few that really annoy me. If they did re-release it (which they would only do if they could release it on all platforms, which is very unlikely being as Microsoft published it) and they took out the illogical parts then I definitely would buy it again.

[Dark_Caduceus]

TheDarkDefender wrote...

HD Remake? lol it's already in HD, I think it was one of the first to be proper 1080p for the Xbox in fact.
Anyway ME1 does have the best story but it is also full of plot holes and crappy dialogue. For instance;
-Anderson hears Saren was on Eden Prime and killed Nihlus, he then creates this story where Saren is trying to ''wipe humanity from the face of the galaxy'' and you have to agree with him, just because he's kinda right doesn't explain how he knows this.
-When you go to the Council to expose Saren they dismiss the dock-workers eye witness testimony because 'he may be traumatized' even though he specifically said it was a Turian called Saren, he didn't pick him out of a line-up. Anderson then brings up the subject of Shepards vision, Saren asks how is he going to defend himself against dreams and they don't let Anderson speak about it, but the vision Shepard got from the beacon has nothing to do with whether Saren is guilty or not.
-And at no point does Saren, Matriarch Benezia or Soveraign (when you chat with him) mention anything about attacking or that their plans involve The Citadel in any way, they do of course but how does Shepard know this? The only time that Shepard is warned that Soveraigns gonna attack the Citadel is from Vigil on Ilos but Shepard has already warned the council and had them assemble a fleet by then.
Anyway these are just a few that really annoy me. If they did re-release it (which they would only do if they could release it on all platforms, which is very unlikely being as Microsoft published it) and they took out the illogical parts then I definitely would buy it again.

Oh there were definitely issues, likely more than the ones you mentioned above. But it had such great promise and it was at least a good deal more coherent than the travesties that came afterwards.

[Dark_Caduceus]

paleobones wrote...

fr33stylez wrote...

DukeOfNukes wrote...
...and I knew that with Shepards death and the Normandy burning, so too went my dreams for the franchise.

The whole Shepard death/space magic resurrection bit was the beginning of the end.

This is how I feel too.

Oh definitely, I'm interested in finding out who's idea it was to kill off the protagonist in the first five minutes of the story, only to bring him back immediately afterwards.

[MurderHouse]

Definitely liked 2 the most. Like the upgrades in 3 but I didn't get disappointing several times playing through 2. Even though the powers and skills were enhanced like being able to go around corners the power and effect of them seemed feeble comparatively.

Dat concussive shat in 2 was super bad ass. Just doesn't seem to have the power in 3.I mean it went from a BOOM to a pop. Knit picking but man the effect isn't as intense.

The skill tree's are awesome in 3 though.

[DukeOfNukes]

-Anderson hears Saren was on Eden Prime and killed Nihlus, he then creates this story where Saren is trying to ''wipe humanity from the face of the galaxy'' and you have to agree with him, just because he's kinda right doesn't explain how he knows this.

Anderson is basing this off his past experience. When he met Saren, he clearly wanted humanity to die off. One of the first lines Shepard hears from Saren is "You humans need to learn your place." If you want to know how Anderson knows all this, read the first book. However, he's a secondary character, you don't have to know HOW he knows what he knows/feels. You don't HAVE to agree with him...you just have to believe that Saren has it out for humanity, which is blatantly obvious from the get-go.

-When you go to the Council to expose Saren they dismiss the dock-workers eye witness testimony because 'he may be traumatized' even though he specifically said it was a Turian called Saren, he didn't pick him out of a line-up. Anderson then brings up the subject of Shepards vision, Saren asks how is he going to defend himself against dreams and they don't let Anderson speak about it, but the vision Shepard got from the beacon has nothing to do with whether Saren is guilty or not.

A single dock-worker who is also a smuggler, coward, and lazy is not a reliable testimony. Eye witness testimony isn't really held in the regard that you think it is, either. The second that witness's credibility is gone, anything he said is worthless. There's nothing to prove to the council that he named Saren from the beggining, and that Shepard and Anderson didn't lead him into it. As for the vision, Shepard and Anderson brought it into evidence as proof of Sarens plan.

-And at no point does Saren, Matriarch Benezia or Soveraign (when you chat with him) mention anything about attacking or that their plans involve The Citadel in any way, they do of course but how does Shepard know this? The only time that Shepard is warned that Soveraigns gonna attack the Citadel is from Vigil on Ilos but Shepard has already warned the council and had them assemble a fleet by then.

Shepard doesn't know. Not REALLY sure where you get your information from...but I'm starting to doubt you played or at least remember the game. Shepard LEFT the Citadel to go after the Conduit on Ilos...because he thought it was a weapon they would use to bring the Reapers back into the Galaxy. The Council DID NOT listen to him at any point, they put him in lockdown. The fleet was assembled because...ITS THE CITADEL FLEET. It stays at the Citadel. The Alliance 5th fleet was assembled nearby because, once on Ilos, Shepard had Joker go to Hackett and head in to re-inforce the Citadel fleet.

[Sifr]

I've been replaying it and yeah, while it does have its issues with some of the dialogue, I think it still holds up as a strong entry. Kirrahe's hold-the-line speech still knocks my socks off everytime because of how awesome it is.

Really, the only thing I think makes it better than 2 and 3 is that I can actually explore the Galaxy and planets, despite the fact most of the roaming around has to be in that god-forsaken Mako.

I really missed planet roaming in two and it was gone in three. Seriously, instead of scanning for those Turian banners or Batarian holy texts, why couldn't we have had a mission where we fight through a station/temple/base etc against Reapers/Cerberus/Mercs to find them?

Strange as it to say, I prefer the first one in some ways because the sequels made the Mass Effect universe bigger, but made your ability to interact with it smaller?

Modifié par Sifr1449, 09 juillet 2012 - 05:36 .

[fr33stylez]

Dark_Caduceus wrote...

paleobones wrote...

fr33stylez wrote...

DukeOfNukes wrote...
...and I knew that with Shepards death and the Normandy burning, so too went my dreams for the franchise.

The whole Shepard death/space magic resurrection bit was the beginning of the end.

This is how I feel too.

Oh definitely, I'm interested in finding out who's idea it was to kill off the protagonist in the first five minutes of the story, only to bring him back immediately afterwards.

Who knew the only obstacle from reviving organics from the dead was a few billion credits?

You'd think the Asari or Salarians, with the millenia head start they had over humans, would've discovered this at one point.

[Grimwick]

Dark_Caduceus wrote...

paleobones wrote...

fr33stylez wrote...

DukeOfNukes wrote...
...and I knew that with Shepards death and the Normandy burning, so too went my dreams for the franchise.

The whole Shepard death/space magic resurrection bit was the beginning of the end.

This is how I feel too.

Oh definitely, I'm interested in finding out who's idea it was to kill off the protagonist in the first five minutes of the story, only to bring him back immediately afterwards.

Well, personally I wasn't that bothered by this. They needed to stop Shepard being seen as an icon/hero - I mean how boring would ME2 have been if everyone loved Shepard everywhere he went. They also needed to change the setting and I thought it was a clever, if not 100% well thought out, way of doing so and was relatively realistic.

I would have much preferred if they gave a tad more explanation other than 'it just cost lots of money' perhaps by saying Cerberus stole the technology..? But overall I didn't mind and i felt that the Normandy attack scene was pretty good.

[Lalalandia]

Mechanically ME1 is a worse game with a more annoying combat interface and braindead teammate AI (I could never trust ME1 squad mates with their powers) and the Mako was acurse. That being said in terms of space opera, scope and feel ME1 did it all better. The locations felt bigger with the Crucible in ME2 feeling much smaller than it did in ME1, the space navigation encouraged this feeling of being in a much larger universe.

While I criticise the Mako I never understood why it was cut completely rather than being turned into the hammerhead and still allowed to roam the surface of planets. Yes the never ending identikit prefabs were tedious but they still reinforced the idea that these were planets you could visit. ME2 replaced these with micro-levels some of which were quite well done and some of which were the size of a postage stamp (the 'turn on the generator' planet stands out here). ME3 just gave up altogether which eliminated one of my favourite parts of a space game, exploration.

Me1 had the more satisfying antagonist too with a large unknowable, lethal reaper threat hanging in the background with a tragic indoctrinated fallen hero in Saren whereas ME2 had the Human Slurpee Baby and ME3 had Star Child. Is there any need to elaborate further?

[Dominus]

...or that the series wasn`t so tainted with negativity like it is right now.

That's a big part of it. I've been a fan since launch, but never journeyed to the boards until after the ME3 trailers popped up. Then I saw all this list of mainstream complaints.

Anyone else missing the mako?

Not as much the mako as I do the planet exploration(sans the sloped-terrain issues)

Did anyone else notice that the facial animations and lip syncing are actually better in mass effect 1 or is that just me?

I did not. That's news to me.

Which mass effect game in the trilogy is your favorite ? and why?

The first for various reasons: The combat set a precedent that's hardly been touched, I loved the locales like virmire and such. The alien models and animations were very slick, and the story had great intrigue - perhaps not of enormous depth, but still mysterious nonetheless.

The reapers where machines then they became cyborg terminator rip offs. What happened?

The power of mainstream. Embrace it!

What the hell happend to MY shepards story in mass effect 3 ? Bioware said it was their story of MY shepard....WTF?

I don't even know what you mean. Shepard is shepard. Do you mean the face codes?

[TheDarkDefender]

DukeOfNukes wrote...

-Anderson hears Saren was on Eden Prime and killed Nihlus, he then creates this story where Saren is trying to ''wipe humanity from the face of the galaxy'' and you have to agree with him, just because he's kinda right doesn't explain how he knows this.

Anderson is basing this off his past experience. When he met Saren, he clearly wanted humanity to die off. One of the first lines Shepard hears from Saren is "You humans need to learn your place." If you want to know how Anderson knows all this, read the first book. However, he's a secondary character, you don't have to know HOW he knows what he knows/feels. You don't HAVE to agree with him...you just have to believe that Saren has it out for humanity, which is blatantly obvious from the get-go.

-When you go to the Council to expose Saren they dismiss the dock-workers eye witness testimony because 'he may be traumatized' even though he specifically said it was a Turian called Saren, he didn't pick him out of a line-up. Anderson then brings up the subject of Shepards vision, Saren asks how is he going to defend himself against dreams and they don't let Anderson speak about it, but the vision Shepard got from the beacon has nothing to do with whether Saren is guilty or not.

A single dock-worker who is also a smuggler, coward, and lazy is not a reliable testimony. Eye witness testimony isn't really held in the regard that you think it is, either. The second that witness's credibility is gone, anything he said is worthless. There's nothing to prove to the council that he named Saren from the beggining, and that Shepard and Anderson didn't lead him into it. As for the vision, Shepard and Anderson brought it into evidence as proof of Sarens plan.

-And at no point does Saren, Matriarch Benezia or Soveraign (when you chat with him) mention anything about attacking or that their plans involve The Citadel in any way, they do of course but how does Shepard know this? The only time that Shepard is warned that Soveraigns gonna attack the Citadel is from Vigil on Ilos but Shepard has already warned the council and had them assemble a fleet by then.

Shepard doesn't know. Not REALLY sure where you get your information from...but I'm starting to doubt you played or at least remember the game. Shepard LEFT the Citadel to go after the Conduit on Ilos...because he thought it was a weapon they would use to bring the Reapers back into the Galaxy. The Council DID NOT listen to him at any point, they put him in lockdown. The fleet was assembled because...ITS THE CITADEL FLEET. It stays at the Citadel. The Alliance 5th fleet was assembled nearby because, once on Ilos, Shepard had Joker go to Hackett and head in to re-inforce the Citadel fleet.

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.

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.

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.

Anyway, don't get me wrong I love the game, I wouldn't have played it 12 times if I didn't, but it's just these small things, and they are small - they don't ruin the game by any stretch, they just bug me.

Modifié par TheDarkDefender, 09 juillet 2012 - 05:04 .

[JyrikGauldy]

tobin1455 wrote...

 I still love Mass effect 2 and 3 don`t get me wrong but there`s something about the original that gets my blood pumping. Maybe its shepards crazy adventures in the mako or that the series wasn`t so tainted with negitivity like it is right now.

 (remember there are NO wrong answers)

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?

Nooooooo they weren't, its just you

[Dark_Caduceus]

Grimwick wrote...

Dark_Caduceus wrote...

paleobones wrote...

fr33stylez wrote...

DukeOfNukes wrote...
...and I knew that with Shepards death and the Normandy burning, so too went my dreams for the franchise.

The whole Shepard death/space magic resurrection bit was the beginning of the end.

This is how I feel too.

Oh definitely, I'm interested in finding out who's idea it was to kill off the protagonist in the first five minutes of the story, only to bring him back immediately afterwards.

Well, personally I wasn't that bothered by this. They needed to stop Shepard being seen as an icon/hero - I mean how boring would ME2 have been if everyone loved Shepard everywhere he went. They also needed to change the setting and I thought it was a clever, if not 100% well thought out, way of doing so and was relatively realistic.

I would have much preferred if they gave a tad more explanation other than 'it just cost lots of money' perhaps by saying Cerberus stole the technology..? But overall I didn't mind and i felt that the Normandy attack scene was pretty good.

Yes, Shepard as n icon is the pretext, but not a good reason.

Stepping outside the bounds of the story; anyone, from a twelve year old to Ernest Hemmingway can tell you this is a retarded move, because it doesn't accomplish anything, Shepard is brought back to life right afterwards.

He doesn't even experience character growth because his death doesn't change his personality at all, it's nothing but sensationalism and the reasons given in-game as well as out-of-game are terrible.

You can't even argue that they needed an opportunity change Shepard's appearance/class/setting because they did that in ME3 without any real justification at all.

[Carmen_Willow]

Mass Effect 2 is my favorite. I think Shepard (paragon) is more realistic than in Mass Effect 1 (really way too boy scout/girl scout in 1), the romances were better, and the NPC's were given more in depth back stories, etc.

The combat is better in 2 as well, and the story kept me moving. In Mass Effect 1, I stopped playing because the time on the Citadel s just seemed to be endless. I lost patiences with it and put it away. It was playing Mass Effect 2 and loving it so much, that gave me the resolution to go back and play through ME 1. I'm glad I diid, it was a great story, but it was too "slow."

I think Mass Effect 2 was an excellent blend of role play and action. I just wish they'd had the "reputation" system in place in 2 because I hated some of the decisions I had to make to get the outcome I desired for my characters.

[DeadpoolBub]

Mass Effect 1 is a good game. But I think 2 & 3 are superior.

ME1 was brilliant for it's time. But now that the whole trilogy is out, its story & the world is about all it has now. The gameplay is too clunky. Plus, I personally think the writing & acting got better over the course of the series. For example, on my last playthrough a couple weeks ago I brought Liara with me on Noveria to see her reaction to her mother's death. The acting was sort of awkward & nowhere near as emotional as the performances in the latter 2 games. & I don't get why everyone loves the exploration, it's the same 4 maps over & over again.

But like I said, ME1 is still a great game... I just feel ME2 & ME3 are superior.

[marcustheMezz]

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. 

[RiouHotaru]

I always found it funny that the Council dismisses eye-witness testimony, especially since there weren't supposed to BE any turians on Eden Prime besides Nihilus. So if an eye-witness states that a second turian killed the one named Nihilus, I'm liable to believe him because the ONLY person matching that description is Saren.

But the Council readily accepts Tali's audio file, which could have been doctored.

[taggen86]

1.Mass effect (awesome story,atmosphere, music and exploration but broken combat system)
2.Mass effect 3 (good story, awesome game mechanics, cool missions but bad in roleplaying, graphics and exploration)
3.Mass effect 2 (cool missions and atmosphere but the main story (human reaper?!?) doesnt make sense and combat is extremely heavy and slow)

Each has its own strengths and weaknesses, but overall i prefer ME1 which provides more freedom and choices to the player and has the best story overall. i also love the huge areas u can explore in the missions. The galaxy felt so damn huge in 1. 

Modifié par taggen86, 09 juillet 2012 - 06:13 .

[Toki]

It's my favorite, mainly for the experience of playing through it. I love Garrus/Wrex, I love the story, I love Saren, I love all of the missions, and I love the exploration. I can't say that it's the best, but it's my personal favorite.

[tonnactus]

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.

Modifié par tonnactus, 09 juillet 2012 - 06:05 .