825 réponses à ce sujet

[Kamfrenchie]

already answered ignore the double post

Modifié par Kamfrenchie, 15 juillet 2012 - 09:30 .

[Urdnot Amenark]

Oransel wrote...

That's right. It's a bad, mediocre game. 

Redeeming features:

Garrus
Tuchanka arc
Rannoch arc
Weapon mods
Smooth combat system

What makes it bad? (bolded the parts that are intolerable)

Auto-dialogue. Canon Shep. Core of the game is abandoned.
Almost no side missions, but tons of fetch quests. Fact.
No Galaxy exploration. No vehicles. No little missions on the faraway planets.
No ME2 characters as a squadmates or even proper LI's. Fact.
Game is very short, compared to previous games. I am not speaking about main plots only.
Crucible. Asspull.
Choices did not matter that much. Rachni, geth, Collectors base have little to no consequence. 
Introduction/beginning. Bad writing from a C-class movie about wars.
Catalyst's existence. Very badly written Deux Ex Machina.
Overall plot is very weak - Kai Leng power armor, Cerberus and so on. Bad writing.
Bugs. Tons of them. 
Journal. How hard was to implement it?
Endings. just bad even with EC they deserve 4/10
Artistic integrity.
that stupid kid, and Shepard's nightmares about him.
the rest of the games are irrelevant thanks to the endings.
Insults from Bioware.

Bad game is bad.

Another of these?

Alright I'll bite. Auto-dialogue was only bad with the deep conversation system dumbed down. Outside of that, it was pretty good. Canon Shep? As in a Shepard that is either impounded for hir ties with Cerberus or the Arrival incident, or because you can't join Cerberus after ME 2? "Core of the game" is an extremely subjective term, so I'm calling that a moot point.

As for the side missions issue, there are about ten or so N7 missions you can do outside of the main gameplay. I will say that I do agree with the fetch quests issue. I'm assuming by galaxy exploration, you mean "no planets other than those in mission or the Citadel for you to explore". In that sense I also agree.

While no ME2 players were squadmates, most of them did have pretty decent missions - Jack and Grunt's especially. No proper LI's? Define proper, because you have Garrus, Tali, Liara, Kaidan/Ashley, Cortez, and Traynor. Your statement is patently false.

Game is kind of short, I'll agree, but it has a lot of action interspersed in it to counterbalance that aspect.

Crucible? Calling it an "asspull" isn't a valid criticism. Perhaps an overused trope of sci-fi, but far from an "asspull".

I agree that I wished the Rachi and Collector base decisions mattered more and were more divergent - they did an excellent job in terms of the situation with the Genophage. 
The Introduction was far from C-class writing.
People seem to be unable to understand what a MacGuffin and a Deus ex Machina are. An uberpowerful superweapon that was supposed to be able to destroy the Reapers and eventually does destroy the Reapers isn't a Deus Ex Machina, since it was clearly telegraphed as central to plot's conflict. If that weapon had suddenly revealed itself after players met the Catalyst, then it would qualify.

I also disagree on the writing of the plot in general. Certain aspects suffered, but it wasn't terrible overall. 
I recently saw a Cerberus agent fall through a floor while fighting, so I definitely agree there, though they aren't bad enough to ruin my experience. The journal change was definitely one of my chief problems with the game designwise.

For me the EC made the endings a lot better, especially on default since it is now possible to get the optimal ending regardless of whether you import or not without multiplayer. Of course you're entitled to your own opinion. Since it's Bioware's product, they are entitled to maintaining their vision, even if it disagrees with what would normally be expected; while I despise the choice, I admire their guts. 

As for the dream sequences, I loved them since they perfectly conveyed Shepard's inner struggle in the war against the Reapers and the toll that the sacrifices of those he cared for began to take on him. Great food for thought. Perhaps you feel the rest of the games are irrelevant, but I don't see them that way. While the ending may not be the highlight, one can't leave out the incredible journey that led to the conclusion, and there's always fanfic writing if you want real results.

Lastly, if you're referring to the Refusal ending, I found that far from an insult. That kind of ending is what fans wanted - albeit perhaps with a chance of winning conventionally based on one's EMS - but it actually meant something, and gave players hope for the future; unlike the current galaxy that waited too long to fight the Reapers, the next would receive that warning and have the chance, most likely to defeat them once and for all. It was rather poetic, and I find that the Refusal ending is what a true science fiction ending was. 

Interesting assessment otherwise.

[G1MEE50K]

I highly agree with you. And it frustrates me how nobody else realizes this it seems.
Especially the auto-dialogue. It's a HUGE problem.

[3DandBeyond]

TheIdiocyWizard2.0 wrote...

The Conduit actaully creates a problem in the first place. Without the Conduit, Saren would not have been able to get into the Citadel and close the arms around Soveriegn in the first place. Hell, the only reason you're looking for the Conduit in the first place is because Saren is.
So no, the Conduit is not a DEM because:
1. It actually helps the bad guys and
2. Because it doesn't actually solve the problem of stopping the Reapers, which is the overall conflict of the story. Realistically, you could have used the Conduit and make it on to the Citadel, but still fail to stop the Reapers.

The Conduit is actually closer to a MacGuffin.

tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MacGuffin

Exactly.  And the conduit is always what it is, it only gets more fully explained in a fairly credible albeit convenient way.  The catalyst is this ever changing malleable thing that must fit in with the magical mystery machine (that is now a battery) and that emerges as the owner and primary resident of the true magical mystery machine, the citadel.  And the citadel that has been with us from the very beginning of ME is now the keeper of the magical solution selectors.

Again, had there been some things early in ME1 that hinted at some intelligence residing on or near the citadel, something the foreshadowed the kid, he and his magical devices might not be the strong DeMs that they are.

There are many places where he could have made an appearance (not a visual one, but one that hints at him), but that never happened because he was never part of the reaper equation.

The catalyst as a concept was ok, but only if the MacGuffin crucible had been made into some sensible logical device that actually powered some sensible thing within the citadel even.  But the introduction of the kid with choices to solve his problem just changes everything.  It's like someone just threw a bunch of ideas up in the air and grabbed a few that fell on the floor and put them together to make an ending, which is basically what they did.

A DeM and a MacGuffin are used as a substitute for actually writing explanations for things and finding ways to solve problems.  They are often outside of a story's main logic.  The conduit follows the story's logic in that it involves mass relays.  DeMs are also extremely unlikely things that happen that go outside of your ability to suspend your disbelief.  They are truly suprising elements with no prior or substantial current explanation.  The star kid being there cannot be reconciled with the rest of ME from 1 through 3.  There were many events that happened that don't make sense if the citadel was a part of the kid and his home.  This alone makes him not believable as existing there.

The conduit is an explained plot device that does not totally devolve into fantasy.
The kid as catalyst, citadel, choices, and crucible form a mass and a mess of stuff that is abruptly dropped on us without prior information and no credible explanation.

The conduit actually moves from being a MacGuffin to just being a normal plot device once it is fully understood.  The crucible is a total MacGuffin because it always remains a bit of an unknown.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 15 juillet 2012 - 10:23 .

[AresKeith]

3DandBeyond wrote...

TheIdiocyWizard2.0 wrote...

The Conduit actaully creates a problem in the first place. Without the Conduit, Saren would not have been able to get into the Citadel and close the arms around Soveriegn in the first place. Hell, the only reason you're looking for the Conduit in the first place is because Saren is.
So no, the Conduit is not a DEM because:
1. It actually helps the bad guys and
2. Because it doesn't actually solve the problem of stopping the Reapers, which is the overall conflict of the story. Realistically, you could have used the Conduit and make it on to the Citadel, but still fail to stop the Reapers.

The Conduit is actually closer to a MacGuffin.

tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MacGuffin

Exactly.  And the conduit is always what it is, it only gets more fully explained in a fairly credible albeit convenient way.  The catalyst is this ever changing malleable thing that must fit in with the magical mystery machine (that is now a battery) and that emerges as the owner and primary resident of the true magical mystery machine, the citadel.  And the citadel that has been with us from the very beginning of ME is now the keeper of the magical solution selectors.

Again, had there been some things early in ME1 that hinted at some intelligence residing on or near the citadel, something the foreshadowed the kid, he and his magical devices might not be the strong DeMs that they are.

There are many places where he could have made an appearance (not a visual one, but one that hints at him), but that never happened because he was never part of the reaper equation.

The catalyst as a concept was ok, but only if the MacGuffin crucible had been made into some sensible logical device that actually powered some sensible thing within the citadel even.  But the introduction of the kid with choices to solve his problem just changes everything.  It's like someone just threw a bunch of ideas up in the air and grabbed a few that fell on the floor and put them together to make an ending, which is basically what they did.

A DeM and a MacGuffin are used as a substitute for actually writing explanations for things and finding ways to solve problems.  They are often outside of a story's main logic.  The conduit follows the story's logic in that it involves mass relays.  DeMs are also extremely unlikely things that happen that go outside of your ability to suspend your disbelief.  They are truly suprising elements with no prior or substantial current explanation.  The star kid being there cannot be reconciled with the rest of ME from 1 through 3.  There were many events that happened that don't make sense if the citadel was a part of the kid and his home.  This alone makes him not believable as existing there.

The conduit is an explained plot device that does not totally devolve into fantasy.
The kid as catalyst, citadel, choices, and crucible form a mass and a mess of stuff that is abruptly dropped on us without prior information and no credible explanation.

The conduit actually moves from being a MacGuffin to just being a normal plot device once it is fully understood.  The crucible is a total MacGuffin because it always remains a bit of an unknown.

and the Starbrat says the Crucible was designed to give it new possiblities or something like that, how does that even work since no one ever even to been to that place or know what the Crucible does since it was first created billions of years ago

[Maxilion]

Oransel wrote...

That's right. It's a bad, mediocre game. 

Redeeming features:

Garrus
Tuchanka arc
Rannoch arc
Weapon mods
Smooth combat system

What makes it bad? (bolded the parts that are intolerable)

Auto-dialogue. Canon Shep. Core of the game is abandoned.
Almost no side missions, but tons of fetch quests. Fact.
No Galaxy exploration. No vehicles. No little missions on the faraway planets.
No ME2 characters as a squadmates or even proper LI's. Fact.
Game is very short, compared to previous games. I am not speaking about main plots only.
Crucible. Asspull.
Choices did not matter that much. Rachni, geth, Collectors base have little to no consequence. 
Introduction/beginning. Bad writing from a C-class movie about wars.
Catalyst's existence. Very badly written Deux Ex Machina.
Overall plot is very weak - Kai Leng power armor, Cerberus and so on. Bad writing.
Bugs. Tons of them. 
Journal. How hard was to implement it?
Endings. just bad even with EC they deserve 4/10
Artistic integrity.
that stupid kid, and Shepard's nightmares about him.
the rest of the games are irrelevant thanks to the endings.
Insults from Bioware.

Bad game is bad.

The end did it for me .. all was well with the game right up until the end .. I did everything right, right from ME1 to the end of ME3 .. I think that a "perfect" end will be that Shepard reunite with his crew and you will see shortly what happened next .. or even better that you get to see a few years into the future how it looks then. Shepard goes into a bar, meet Garrus and some other old Normandy comrades, Joker and EDI is there, perhaps? Shepard says he got married and now have children and have finished with the military and adventures ... where is the end I would like to see ... instead it was just junk to look at the end ... disappointed and sad, I can now agree that ME3 is a bad game ...

[Oransel]

Urdnot Amenark wrote...

1. Alright I'll bite. Auto-dialogue was only bad with the deep conversation system dumbed down. Outside of that, it was pretty good. Canon Shep? As in a Shepard that is either impounded for hir ties with Cerberus or the Arrival incident, or because you can't join Cerberus after ME 2? "Core of the game" is an extremely subjective term, so I'm calling that a moot point.

2. As for the side missions issue, there are about ten or so N7 missions you can do outside of the main gameplay. I will say that I do agree with the fetch quests issue. I'm assuming by galaxy exploration, you mean "no planets other than those in mission or the Citadel for you to explore". In that sense I also agree.

3. While no ME2 players were squadmates, most of them did have pretty decent missions - Jack and Grunt's especially. No proper LI's? Define proper, because you have Garrus, Tali, Liara, Kaidan/Ashley, Cortez, and Traynor. Your statement is patently false.

4. Game is kind of short, I'll agree, but it has a lot of action interspersed in it to counterbalance that aspect.

5. Crucible? Calling it an "asspull" isn't a valid criticism. Perhaps an overused trope of sci-fi, but far from an "asspull".

6. I agree that I wished the Rachi and Collector base decisions mattered more and were more divergent - they did an excellent job in terms of the situation with the Genophage. 

7. The Introduction was far from C-class writing.

8. People seem to be unable to understand what a MacGuffin and a Deus ex Machina are. An uberpowerful superweapon that was supposed to be able to destroy the Reapers and eventually does destroy the Reapers isn't a Deus Ex Machina, since it was clearly telegraphed as central to plot's conflict. If that weapon had suddenly revealed itself after players met the Catalyst, then it would qualify.

9.I also disagree on the writing of the plot in general. Certain aspects suffered, but it wasn't terrible overall. 
I recently saw a Cerberus agent fall through a floor while fighting, so I definitely agree there, though they aren't bad enough to ruin my experience. The journal change was definitely one of my chief problems with the game designwise.

10. For me the EC made the endings a lot better, especially on default since it is now possible to get the optimal ending regardless of whether you import or not without multiplayer. Of course you're entitled to your own opinion. Since it's Bioware's product, they are entitled to maintaining their vision, even if it disagrees with what would normally be expected; while I despise the choice, I admire their guts. 

11. As for the dream sequences, I loved them since they perfectly conveyed Shepard's inner struggle in the war against the Reapers and the toll that the sacrifices of those he cared for began to take on him. Great food for thought. Perhaps you feel the rest of the games are irrelevant, but I don't see them that way. While the ending may not be the highlight, one can't leave out the incredible journey that led to the conclusion, and there's always fanfic writing if you want real results.

12. Lastly, if you're referring to the Refusal ending, I found that far from an insult. That kind of ending is what fans wanted - albeit perhaps with a chance of winning conventionally based on one's EMS - but it actually meant something, and gave players hope for the future; unlike the current galaxy that waited too long to fight the Reapers, the next would receive that warning and have the chance, most likely to defeat them once and for all. It was rather poetic, and I find that the Refusal ending is what a true science fiction ending was. 

Interesting assessment otherwise.

1. Mass Effect series have always been about conversation. About character you create. Dumbing it down to 2 options is like if CoD had only one weapon. Each Shepard of each player was unique. Some were paragons, some were renegades, some romanced Liara, some romanced Garrus, whatever. Some players were pro-human, some were not. In previous games you decided what the reaction to certain situation of Shepard would be. In other terms, you had full control on what a person Shepard is. In ME3 you have canon Shep who is by some reason upset by child's death (I play Renegade). Shepard is forced into paragon, non-pro-human, romancing Liara, having no control on what he says (Ashley dialogue at hospital, for example). This is bad. Very bad.

2. Let's be honest maskofreason.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/me3quests.png

3. Proper romances with ME2 squadmates.

4. Maybe.

5. It is cheap, unoriginal writing without any forshadowing.

6. Ok

7. "What do we do?!" - "We fight or we die!"... Yeah, A-class writing.

8. Crucible is not a DEM, I already said what it is. Catalyst as a character, on the other hand, is DEM.

9. Maybe.

10. Customer is always right, though.

11. Renegade Shep would never dream about some boy (especially Shepard of Torfan legacy), that's the problem. See point 1. And yes, fanfics are the only way to write your own ending now.

12. No, I am not talking about Refusal, but about how Bioware handled the situation.

[KotorEffect3]

bad thread is bad

[DDiablo2008]

Mass Effect was a terrific game, One of the best that I have ever played. The storyline was dynamic and original. The original ending and the newer ending were phenominal, Bioware really stepped up to the plate. If sheperd had died at the end I would have been fine with that why does the hero always have to survive being a martyr means you become immortalized as a hero. thank you BioWare

[Muhvitus]

I like to compare ME series to alien movies. While alien 3 could work as independent movie, it would be OK or good if there wouldn't be alien 1 and 2. But after you have seen alien 1 and 2 and then watch the alien 3, it is total crap. Same seems to apply to ME3 somewhat.

[Sovereign24]

Overall I would consider it a good game. Tuchanka was one of my favourite moments in the whole series.
 
Priority Earth really sucked though, which is why it left a bad taste in my mouth. And I'm not even just talking about the ending, the entire Earth bit sucked.

Modifié par Sovereign24, 16 juillet 2012 - 08:19 .

[Kataphrut94]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

bad thread is bad

^ this.

[ioannisdenton]

Taesuun wrote...

corporal doody wrote...

Alpha Protocol was a BAD game!! and I disliked it very very much!!

Fallout 3 was a great game!! but i cant bring myself to beat cuz i get bored with it.

Alpha Protocol is one of the best games of this decade.. Game where your choices do indeed matter. But it's a stand-alone game, a lot harder to build a trilogy.. BioWare should probably try out a stand-alone as well.

Fallout 3 was not a good game, maybe medicore. Certainly very far from its predecessors greatness.

Alpha protocol has an insane amount of consequances. Even the a small line can differate thins and future actions.
Such a great underated game. Critics need to be shot .
Me3 on the other hand , critics never mentioned anything about it's flaws Critics Need to be shot

[Eterna]

Mass Effect 3 haters are silly. The only way they'd ever call Mass Effect 3 good is if it was Mass Effect one.

[dbkkk]

3DandBeyond wrote...

TheIdiocyWizard2.0 wrote...

The Conduit actaully creates a problem in the first place. Without the Conduit, Saren would not have been able to get into the Citadel and close the arms around Soveriegn in the first place. Hell, the only reason you're looking for the Conduit in the first place is because Saren is.
So no, the Conduit is not a DEM because:
1. It actually helps the bad guys and
2. Because it doesn't actually solve the problem of stopping the Reapers, which is the overall conflict of the story. Realistically, you could have used the Conduit and make it on to the Citadel, but still fail to stop the Reapers.

The Conduit is actually closer to a MacGuffin.

tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MacGuffin

Exactly.  And the conduit is always what it is, it only gets more fully explained in a fairly credible albeit convenient way.  The catalyst is this ever changing malleable thing that must fit in with the magical mystery machine (that is now a battery) and that emerges as the owner and primary resident of the true magical mystery machine, the citadel.  And the citadel that has been with us from the very beginning of ME is now the keeper of the magical solution selectors.

Again, had there been some things early in ME1 that hinted at some intelligence residing on or near the citadel, something the foreshadowed the kid, he and his magical devices might not be the strong DeMs that they are.

There are many places where he could have made an appearance (not a visual one, but one that hints at him), but that never happened because he was never part of the reaper equation.

The catalyst as a concept was ok, but only if the MacGuffin crucible had been made into some sensible logical device that actually powered some sensible thing within the citadel even.  But the introduction of the kid with choices to solve his problem just changes everything.  It's like someone just threw a bunch of ideas up in the air and grabbed a few that fell on the floor and put them together to make an ending, which is basically what they did.

A DeM and a MacGuffin are used as a substitute for actually writing explanations for things and finding ways to solve problems.  They are often outside of a story's main logic.  The conduit follows the story's logic in that it involves mass relays.  DeMs are also extremely unlikely things that happen that go outside of your ability to suspend your disbelief.  They are truly suprising elements with no prior or substantial current explanation.  The star kid being there cannot be reconciled with the rest of ME from 1 through 3.  There were many events that happened that don't make sense if the citadel was a part of the kid and his home.  This alone makes him not believable as existing there.

The conduit is an explained plot device that does not totally devolve into fantasy.
The kid as catalyst, citadel, choices, and crucible form a mass and a mess of stuff that is abruptly dropped on us without prior information and no credible explanation.

The conduit actually moves from being a MacGuffin to just being a normal plot device once it is fully understood.  The crucible is a total MacGuffin because it always remains a bit of an unknown.

Well done that was a nice post  

[SpamBot2000]

ioannisdenton wrote...

Alpha protocol has an insane amount of consequances. Even the a small line can differate thins and future actions.
Such a great underated game. Critics need to be shot .
Me3 on the other hand , critics never mentioned anything about it's flaws Critics Need to be shot

The thing about AP was, it obviously suffered from conflicting design choices and was kinda stupid at times... I mean, how come the chinese spy dude can take several clips from an assault rifle at point blank range right in the face and just keep coming at you? How does turning invisible for a moment make sense in a modern setting? But the thing is, because the choice element to the narrative worked pretty nicely, the player looking for that still finishes the game with a degree of satisfaction and no pressing urge to rage. Obsidian got that the conversation options were a central gameplay mechanic that deserved real character and plot development based on them. BioWare, while pioneers of the whole approach, just seemed to forget about it and now regards conversations as just breaks in the shooty action they now feel is the essence of ME. The lead writer himself came up with the Action mode, indicating how much he feels divergent narratives are worth. This approach was already clearly implemented in Arrival, pretty much the worst ME DLC to date, what with the railroading and the horde mode achievement and the exclusion of companions. Incidentally, looks like the Leviathan DLC is going to reprise some of these classic moments of entirely missing the point of what made ME any good in the first place. 

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 16 juillet 2012 - 10:22 .

[Red Son Rising]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

bad thread is bad

this. twice

[taggen86]

Well at least everybody schould be able to agree on that the game mechanics and the combat (where you spend 90% of the game) were far far superior in 3 than in 1-2. 1s combat was fun but somewhat buggy and broken, ME2 combat was a big shooting gallery and too slow. ME3 was full of strategy, had an awesome weight system, extremely satisfying combo detonations, granades that stopped camping, I could go on forever. ME2 is almost unplayable after 3. The combat designer in me3 schould be promoted.

Modifié par taggen86, 16 juillet 2012 - 10:48 .

[dsl08002]

in its current state its not the best one in the triology, its on the last place but it has the potential to be the best game in the triology.

[StElmo]

Its not a bad game, it's just an average game.

[Discouraged_one]

Moral of the thread is, ME1 & 2 are better.

[3DandBeyond]

taggen86 wrote...

Well at least everybody schould be able to agree on that the game mechanics and the combat (where you spend 90% of the game) were far far superior in 3 than in 1-2. 1s combat was fun but somewhat buggy and broken, ME2 combat was a big shooting gallery and too slow. ME3 was full of strategy, had an awesome weight system, extremely satisfying combo detonations, granades that stopped camping, I could go on forever. ME2 is almost unplayable after 3. The combat designer in me3 schould be promoted.

But this is exactly the point.  ME was never a shooter.  It wasn't even meant to be.  I won't say the combat was great in ME1-it wasn't and yes it's better in ME3, but the cost is too high.  They had to make all walls waist high, they ripped apart the story and created busy work fetch quests to make it seem longer than it was.  Play the game without doing any of the fetch quests and get back to me as to how "deep" it is.

What ME3 does is like taking a musical group, say a rock and roll band and on its last gig on its last tour the band decides to play only opera music.  How well has any group (or singer) done in doing something similar?  Anyone here own Rod Stewart sings the blues or Pat Boone's rap songs?  How about Metallica sings the collected works of the Backstreet Boys?

You dance with the one that brung you.  ME3 has some awesome stories, but the writing is terrible at the beginning and in many places.

One example has been said, "we fight or we die".  Wow, the pathos, the drama-a gun to the head makes more sense at this point than doing anything in this galaxy if the "hero" thinks nothing but standing together will work-explain to me exactly what this will do if strategy and tactics and conventional weapons won't work.  I can see it now, Bob the reaper is with his posse ready to attack when he comes upon a group of humans holding hands.  They look upon each other and it becomes clear to Bob just what is about to happen.  He turns to Hal and Dave, his reaper pals, and shouts, "let's get the hell out of here!  They're about to sing Kumbaya again!  I can't take it anymore-they win!"

Another example is when you pass by Ashley.  I like her but man did they really work to make her a bit trashy in places in the game.  My Shepard says she has been kept out of the loop that Ashley was promoted and Ashley whose last words to my Shepard were kind of hateful says, "sorry for keeping you out of the loop, ma'am."  The next time they have a conversation Ashley is in full attack mode and then continually gets nasty one minute and apologetic the next.  Ok, pick one.  I could see her being conflicted, but some of what she says is just plain stupid and insulting.  Shepard says to trust her and Ashley says she does and then she gets nasty again.  A lot of the conversations with people are like this.  The writing while great in parts is atrocious in others.  Romance Liara and it's like a love me, love me not bipolar event.  And it's like that almost everywhere.

ME was not a realy action RPG.  It was an RPG.  It was story heavy, character heavy.  That you got to shoot was even less than secondary to everything else.

Even so, at the end, it's neither an action RPG or an RPG.  It originally was a huge cutscene followed by one choice among 3.  It now is one huge cutscene, broken up by explanation meant to explain the original endings but not to create real connections with the other parts of the story.  The kid says you can choose synthesis and Shepard doesn't ask how people can have their DNA changed-Shepard asks how his/her DNA can be broken down.  Yeah, uh I didn't need to know that.  I needed to know why a Shepard that wanted to destroy the reapers would even be listening to any garbage that didn't allow that to happen or make it happen.  I needed to know where I could go to continue the ME story and actually work to defeat the reapers, not how I could solve the catalyst's trumped up problem and make his solution work.  I needed an exit that didn't mean instant death for those in this cycle, but allowed them to be heroic and find a strategy and do the impossible.  Because the Shepard I played never saw anything as impossible-in fact that made her work harder to prove impossible doesn't exist.  But, the writers decided that bad writing and artificial lazy plot devices (MacGuffins and Deus ex Machinas) were so much better than actually allowing people the chance to do the impossible once again.  You like a good story-this ending is not for you.  Look at it beyond the superficial and it failes.  You like action-this ending is not for you.  So, I'm wondering just who it was directed toward.

[AresKeith]

3DandBeyond wrote...

taggen86 wrote...

Well at least everybody schould be able to agree on that the game mechanics and the combat (where you spend 90% of the game) were far far superior in 3 than in 1-2. 1s combat was fun but somewhat buggy and broken, ME2 combat was a big shooting gallery and too slow. ME3 was full of strategy, had an awesome weight system, extremely satisfying combo detonations, granades that stopped camping, I could go on forever. ME2 is almost unplayable after 3. The combat designer in me3 schould be promoted.

But this is exactly the point.  ME was never a shooter.  It wasn't even meant to be.  I won't say the combat was great in ME1-it wasn't and yes it's better in ME3, but the cost is too high.  They had to make all walls waist high, they ripped apart the story and created busy work fetch quests to make it seem longer than it was.  Play the game without doing any of the fetch quests and get back to me as to how "deep" it is.

What ME3 does is like taking a musical group, say a rock and roll band and on its last gig on its last tour the band decides to play only opera music.  How well has any group (or singer) done in doing something similar?  Anyone here own Rod Stewart sings the blues or Pat Boone's rap songs?  How about Metallica sings the collected works of the Backstreet Boys?

You dance with the one that brung you.  ME3 has some awesome stories, but the writing is terrible at the beginning and in many places.

One example has been said, "we fight or we die".  Wow, the pathos, the drama-a gun to the head makes more sense at this point than doing anything in this galaxy if the "hero" thinks nothing but standing together will work-explain to me exactly what this will do if strategy and tactics and conventional weapons won't work.  I can see it now, Bob the reaper is with his posse ready to attack when he comes upon a group of humans holding hands.  They look upon each other and it becomes clear to Bob just what is about to happen.  He turns to Hal and Dave, his reaper pals, and shouts, "let's get the hell out of here!  They're about to sing Kumbaya again!  I can't take it anymore-they win!"

Another example is when you pass by Ashley.  I like her but man did they really work to make her a bit trashy in places in the game.  My Shepard says she has been kept out of the loop that Ashley was promoted and Ashley whose last words to my Shepard were kind of hateful says, "sorry for keeping you out of the loop, ma'am."  The next time they have a conversation Ashley is in full attack mode and then continually gets nasty one minute and apologetic the next.  Ok, pick one.  I could see her being conflicted, but some of what she says is just plain stupid and insulting.  Shepard says to trust her and Ashley says she does and then she gets nasty again.  A lot of the conversations with people are like this.  The writing while great in parts is atrocious in others.  Romance Liara and it's like a love me, love me not bipolar event.  And it's like that almost everywhere.

ME was not a realy action RPG.  It was an RPG.  It was story heavy, character heavy.  That you got to shoot was even less than secondary to everything else.

Even so, at the end, it's neither an action RPG or an RPG.  It originally was a huge cutscene followed by one choice among 3.  It now is one huge cutscene, broken up by explanation meant to explain the original endings but not to create real connections with the other parts of the story.  The kid says you can choose synthesis and Shepard doesn't ask how people can have their DNA changed-Shepard asks how his/her DNA can be broken down.  Yeah, uh I didn't need to know that.  I needed to know why a Shepard that wanted to destroy the reapers would even be listening to any garbage that didn't allow that to happen or make it happen.  I needed to know where I could go to continue the ME story and actually work to defeat the reapers, not how I could solve the catalyst's trumped up problem and make his solution work.  I needed an exit that didn't mean instant death for those in this cycle, but allowed them to be heroic and find a strategy and do the impossible.  Because the Shepard I played never saw anything as impossible-in fact that made her work harder to prove impossible doesn't exist.  But, the writers decided that bad writing and artificial lazy plot devices (MacGuffins and Deus ex Machinas) were so much better than actually allowing people the chance to do the impossible once again.  You like a good story-this ending is not for you.  Look at it beyond the superficial and it failes.  You like action-this ending is not for you.  So, I'm wondering just who it was directed toward.

exactly, though I like the new combat, that shouldn't have been the main focus. They basically ripped away the RPG element that helped build ME, and made it more action for EA to draw in new fans. Most of the writing are terrible, but with some good ones too.

I guess thats why the called ME3 a stand-alone game and a best start for new player, because if you play it without saves, they give you the worst possible start and no mention of Harbinger at all

[o Ventus]

taggen86 wrote...

Well at least everybody schould be able to agree on that the game mechanics and the combat (where you spend 90% of the game) were far far superior in 3 than in 1-2. 1s combat was fun but somewhat buggy and broken, ME2 combat was a big shooting gallery and too slow. ME3 was full of strategy, had an awesome weight system, extremely satisfying combo detonations, granades that stopped camping, I could go on forever. ME2 is almost unplayable after 3. The combat designer in me3 schould be promoted.

Full of strategy? ME3 largely suffers from the same problem ME1 did, just in a different form. I'm not talking about buggy gunplay, I'm talking about strong biotics, especially if you're an adept or ever had Liara in your squad. Self detonations for everybody, right?

Awesome weight system? All that managed to do is nerf classes like the soldier, while simultaneously buff classes like adept and angineer. The soldier's utility was being able to carry all 5 weapon types and still be viable, but the weight system renders that impossible. Adepts and engineers, on the other hand, can just equip a pistol and super-spam powers for self detonations, rendering the entire point of the weight system... well... pointless.

Grenades that stopped camping? I don't know about anyone else, but enemies in my games rarely threw grenades, and when they did, I could easily just move back to wherever I was sitting. If I didn't, I could just move 5 feet to the side and sit there instead. The grenades did next to nothing to prevent campers.

The only "satisfying" detonations are tech bursts and biotic explosions, for the sole reason that they are almost 100% consistent. I don't know about anyone else, but fire and cryo explosions don't trigger almost half the time, even when you know FOR SURE that you're using the correct combo powers, at the correct times.

[o Ventus]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

bad thread is bad

Sycophant is sycophant.