825 réponses à ce sujet

[Prosarian]

Pantanplan wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Silly fans can't even realize that it is Shepard thats the Deus, not the Catalyst.

Deus ex machina : a person or thing (as in fiction or drama) that
appears or is introduced suddenly and unexpectedly and provides a
contrived solution to an apparently insoluble difficulty.

How the hell is Shepard a deus ex machina, and the Catalyst not? Let's see:

1) Shepard has been present since the beginning of the series, since heshe is the protagonist. Therefore heshe is not "introduced suddenly and unexpectedly".

2) Heshe provides solutions to seemingly impossible situations, but always within the context of the story, and the solution always arises naturaly from already established plot points (the cure, for example. Maelon worked on it in ME2. The Shroud was used to repair Tuchanka's atmosphere. Cure+Shroud= Cure for all Krogan. The means to spread the cure have already been established in the plot)

3) Therefore, he does not "provide a
contrived solution to an apparently insoluble difficulty".

Now, the Catalyst:

1) "Appears or is introduced suddenly and unexpectedly", as his existence was barely foreshadowed, and he appears in the last 10 minutes if the game.

2) He "provides a
contrived solution to an apparently insoluble difficulty", where the apparently insoluble difficulty is the Reaper War, and the contrived solution are the Crucible's functions. Yes, the Crucible was introduced in the beginning of the game, but its "solutions" are never explained, and the player learns about them in the end of the game.

Long response, but I'm sick of people denying that the Catalyst is a DEM. He fits the very definition.The Crucible itself isn't, but its functions are. The Crucible could be described more as an asspull.

Pretty sure he means 'deus' as in God, not DEM.

[bydoritos]

The fact that there is no vehicles does not mean nothing, since ME2 also didn't had vehicles (only with the DLC)
Yes there is no exploration.. agree on that.
the auto dialogue sucks
the fetch quests sucks.
the catalyst is terrible.
and the original endings were terrible.

but I did like the Extended Cut.
and I enjoy every single moment of my 40+ hours on my first playthrough (except the ending)

So no, it's not a bad game.
there is some problems with the game, like the auto dialogue and the fetch quests, but I don't think is a bad game.
ME2 was better.

[eye basher]

corporal doody wrote...

stonbw1 wrote...

It's wild to see how many people in retrospect love ME2. Don't you all remember that the game was SLAMMED on these boards for being COD-ish, no RPG, boring story... and oh yeah.. a stupid terminator. But now, I suppose, it is amazing... go figure.

YUP YUP!!  i say the exact same thing!!! it is SOOOOOO freakin hilarious!!

Yep and this is just one of the many reasons why i don't take this place seriously anymore.

[robertthebard]

eye basher wrote...

corporal doody wrote...

stonbw1 wrote...

It's wild to see how many people in retrospect love ME2. Don't you all remember that the game was SLAMMED on these boards for being COD-ish, no RPG, boring story... and oh yeah.. a stupid terminator. But now, I suppose, it is amazing... go figure.

YUP YUP!!  i say the exact same thing!!! it is SOOOOOO freakin hilarious!!

Yep and this is just one of the many reasons why i don't take this place seriously anymore.

...and if there were an ME 4, there would be comparisons to ME 3 too, nature of the beast.

[ZergRush]

It was below my expectations. So, at least for me, it was disappointing, not actually bad.

With time though, I learned to enjoy ME3 for what it IS, as opposed to to crucify the game for what it IS NOT.

IMHO; ME2>ME3>ME1. But that's like... my opinion. Please, have mercy on this one

[Daniel_N7]

To compare the negative reactions Mass Effect 2 had - mostly because of the streamlined RPG mechanics and highly reduced customization options - with the backlash of Mass Effect 3 post-launch is... intellectually dishonest, to say the least. You guys can pretend all you want, but you're wrong.

Is Mass Effect 3 a bad game? No. Is it a great game? No.

It is a very well produced game - good gameplay mechanics, great voice acting, amazing soundtrack. And it has some very good moments of humor and character interaction.

But that doesn't hide the fact that it is a failed game. With Mass Effect 1 and 2 BioWare set the ground for an absolute homerun. Mass Effect 3 was a sure win. BioWare could be strolling down the red carpet, straight into every GOTY award by the end of the year.

And they failed.

Why? My opinion? Simple.

A bad lead writer, and the executive producer that failed to see it.

[Kel Riever]

Daniel_N7, and an ongoing desire to not fix the problem.

[t_i_e_]

Melancholic wrote...

I really like it.

I must have extremely poor taste.

Why!?! The game had false advertisement, was not finished and supports charging you extra for content on day 1 that is story critical that they didn't finish!!!

 Your supporting other gaming companies to follow EA / Bioware's path. Lieing, not finishing products and charging you more on release day! Are you SURE you want to support this?

[AlexMBrennan]

It is a very well produced game

Did you see the running animations? The cheap background sprites? Tali's picture? I wouldn't call a game that's this unpolished "very well produced"

[robertthebard]

Kel Riever wrote...

Daniel_N7, and an ongoing desire to not fix the problem.

I agree, instead of pandering to the "fairy tale, we all live happily ever after" crowd, they should cut everything past the "final" reaper beam in London, and roll the credits.

[Daniel_N7]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

It is a very well produced game

Did you see the running animations? The cheap background sprites? Tali's picture? I wouldn't call a game that's this unpolished "very well produced"

I'll correct that for you: it is a game with high production value. And you're right.

[AlanC9]

Kamfrenchie wrote...

There is not just one criterion

Yep. That's because people keep changing the definition of DEM. You're on your third one.

The problem is that you were doing better earlier. DEM really does mean a last-minute intervention. It is not a phrase that's supposed to be used for any plot contrivance whatsoever.

For instance, the voice recording Tali finds in ME1 is not a DEM -- it comes in too early, and facilitates rather than resolves the plot. That makes it a silly plot contrivance rather than a DEM.

[Kamfrenchie]

robertthebard wrote...

Pantanplan wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Silly fans can't even realize that it is Shepard thats the Deus, not the Catalyst.

Deus ex machina : a person or thing (as in fiction or drama) that
appears or is introduced suddenly and unexpectedly and provides a
contrived solution to an apparently insoluble difficulty.

How the hell is Shepard a deus ex machina, and the Catalyst not? Let's see:

1) Shepard has been present since the beginning of the series, since heshe is the protagonist. Therefore heshe is not "introduced suddenly and unexpectedly".

2) Heshe provides solutions to seemingly impossible situations, but always within the context of the story, and the solution always arises naturaly from already established plot points (the cure, for example. Maelon worked on it in ME2. The Shroud was used to repair Tuchanka's atmosphere. Cure+Shroud= Cure for all Krogan. The means to spread the cure have already been established in the plot)

3) Therefore, he does not "provide a
contrived solution to an apparently insoluble difficulty".

Now, the Catalyst:

1) "Appears or is introduced suddenly and unexpectedly", as his existence was barely foreshadowed, and he appears in the last 10 minutes if the game.

2) He "provides a
contrived solution to an apparently insoluble difficulty", where the apparently insoluble difficulty is the Reaper War, and the contrived solution are the Crucible's functions. Yes, the Crucible was introduced in the beginning of the game, but its "solutions" are never explained, and the player learns about them in the end of the game.

Long response, but I'm sick of people denying that the Catalyst is a DEM. He fits the very definition.The Crucible itself isn't, but its functions are. The Crucible could be described more as an asspull.

All well and good, if Liara didn't tell the Council, at the beginning of the game, that all the Protheans were missing to complete the weapon was the Catalyst, and nobody knows what it is.  Of course, since we know that Crucible has to be joined with the Citadel to work anyway, even w/out SC, the Protheans were doomed, since the Citadel fell first, unless the information we gleaned from Vigil, in ME 1, is invalid?  So you spend the entire game garnering resources to build and defend Crucible, and trying to figure out what the Catalyst is, but it's a DEM because you don't figure it out until the end of the game?  I'm sorry, but by that very definition, and the way it's explained in your post, that is exactly what the Conduit is.  After all, you spend all of ME 1 trying to figure it out, and you don't until the end of the game.  Not liking a plot device =/= DEM.

but the conduit is explained when it's introduced, and it isn't a big reaper of/galactic change button. Plus we were searching for the conduit for the whole game, while we had the crucible plans for the whole game. The conduit doesn't solve an impossible probelm either.

The crucibl is much more contrieved

[AlanC9]

Kamfrenchie wrote...
but the conduit is explained when it's introduced,

Explained when it's introduced? You're joking. The Conduit is mentioned in Tali's voice recording, but Shepard has no idea what it actually is until he meets Vigil.

[Savber100]

How about this? I don't care about the changes and I think ME3 is a great game.

Not the best but not bad...

So quit assuming that your opinions are universal because it simply isn't. 

Modifié par Savber100, 15 juillet 2012 - 04:29 .

[inversevideo]

MetioricTest wrote...

inversevideo wrote...

MetioricTest wrote...

A "bad game" wouldn't have had the immense outcry over it's terrible ending.

Big Rigs Over The Road Racing is a bad game. Mass Effect 3 is a classic.

I respectfully disagree. The first two games, in the series, were superior to the third installment.

The ending, of the 3rd game, seems like a repudiation, of what came before, in the previous two games.

Leaving the ending, of ME3, aside, ME3, as a standalone product, seems to have more in common, in terms of play and feel, to something like 'Resistance:Fall Of Man' , than it does with either ME or ME2.

I don't get where you're coming from. ME3 and ME2 play so similarly. If ME3 is in common with anything then so is ME2.

So much depends on your definiton of 'play'.

The shoot and cover mechanics are the same, and perhaps somewhat improved.

The dialogue options are reduced.  Note, I did not say that there is less dialogue. In fact, there may actually be more dialogue, but the dialogue wheel isemployed far less, in this game, than in the previous two.
The curtailment, of the dialogue wheel, has the effect of distancing the player, somewhat, from Shepard.  You are no longer shaping much of the conversations that occur, you are rather placed in the role of a spectator.

This 'stepping back, from a more active involvement , in conversations, is more in line with many shooters, rather than an RPG.  In ME2, I had more conversations with characters, and less watching of conversations. Hence the game plays more like a shooter, than the previous two. I have nothing agaist shooters, and I enjoy them, but what attracted me, to the ME series, was that it was an RPG first, and a shooter 2nd.

[Oransel]

bad game is bad

[robertthebard]

Kamfrenchie wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

All well and good, if Liara didn't tell the Council, at the beginning of the game, that all the Protheans were missing to complete the weapon was the Catalyst, and nobody knows what it is.  Of course, since we know that Crucible has to be joined with the Citadel to work anyway, even w/out SC, the Protheans were doomed, since the Citadel fell first, unless the information we gleaned from Vigil, in ME 1, is invalid?  So you spend the entire game garnering resources to build and defend Crucible, and trying to figure out what the Catalyst is, but it's a DEM because you don't figure it out until the end of the game?  I'm sorry, but by that very definition, and the way it's explained in your post, that is exactly what the Conduit is.  After all, you spend all of ME 1 trying to figure it out, and you don't until the end of the game.  Not liking a plot device =/= DEM.

but the conduit is explained when it's introduced, and it isn't a big reaper of/galactic change button. Plus we were searching for the conduit for the whole game, while we had the crucible plans for the whole game. The conduit doesn't solve an impossible probelm either.

The crucibl is much more contrieved

What?  We had no idea what the Conduit was, other than it existed, until after we talk to Vigil.  Which is when?  Right at the end of the game.  The Conduit does indeed solve one problem, it gets you into the Citadel, in the Mako, instead of requiring you to back track all the way back to somewhere the Normandy can pick you up.  Without it, you're stuck on Ilos while the events on the Citadel transpire, and without the code from Vigil, you can't do anything anyway, but watch as Sovereign summons the Reapers.  So no, if Crucible is a DEM, so is the Conduit, since they are similar in how you learn about them, and the fact that they do solve an insurmountable problem, which in the case of the Conduit is regaining control of the Citadel.

[xcomcmdr]

grey_wind wrote...

Objectively, ME3 is a good game, not great, taken as a stand alone title.
But compared to what came before it and what the devs made it out to be, it's a turd.

A bipolar turd.

[zsom]

No.

[jeffyg93]

I liked it. Can't decide between ME2 or ME3 for my personal favorite in the series. Mass Effect 3 has simply drawn more emotions out of me than, well, pretty much any form of fictional entertainment. Curing the genophage, peace on Rannoch, the fall of Thessia, Thane's death, squadmates around the memorial in the EC, Normandy flying off, etc. The combat far surpasses ME1, and built from the foundation that ME2 built. I was disappointed with the original endings, but most of my issues were addressed in the EC. Some people will just never be pleased though.

[robertthebard]

xcomcmdr wrote...

grey_wind wrote...

Objectively, ME3 is a good game, not great, taken as a stand alone title.
But compared to what came before it and what the devs made it out to be, it's a turd.

A bipolar turd.

So I watched most of the vid, and it comes down to I hated most of the endings so the game sucked.

[LaughingDragon]

If you want to judge ME3, please take a moment to compare the amazon/metacritic scores to those of ME1 and ME2.

Jordan fades back...shoots...Aaaand that's the game!

[ZergRush]

Oransel wrote...

bad game is bad

And vice-versa