Aller au contenu

Photo

Mass Effect 3 is a bad game


  • Ce sujet est fermé Ce sujet est fermé
825 réponses à ce sujet

#126
Jadebaby

Jadebaby
  • Members
  • 13 229 messages

Applepie_Svk wrote...

BiO_MaN wrote...

I would just like to point out auto-dialogue isn't necessarily a bad thing, I know some people who liked the change, saying that it made conversations much more smoother and realistic. I don't agree with them, but just saying, that that one is subjective.


/facepalm...:?


Just like some people thought the combat was too hard so had to introduce narrative?

Actually, not even, because at least with that, ME was supposed to be all about the story.

No, if people want "realistic" conversation that flow smoother, they should play a game where you don't get to choose what you say.

Even the term "realistic", in this instance,  is subjective, because I find it more realistic to actually choose what I say.

#127
LaughingDragon

LaughingDragon
  • Members
  • 211 messages

HagarIshay wrote...

LaughingDragon wrote...
Choices do not matter is an opinion, not a fact? Let's examine this further.

Evidence 1: ME1, decision to kill the last rachni queen, wiping out their entire race forever. (no more queen, no more eggs, no more racnhi)

Evidence 2: ME3 - Rachni are back in the game, in the exact same way, except instead of the queen there is a fake queen. Either way, the decision to "kill the last queen" and "wipe them out forever" does not matter in ME3.

If this case is argued before a judge and jury of peers, it comes out as fact the choice did not matter.


You see the queen coming back in either form but only one is the orginal as "my choice doesn't matter". It does matter, otherwise the queen will act as if you saved her even if you didn't. She didn't. And she betrays you afterwards. Maybe the choice didn't matter enough for you, and that is fine, but for other people it did. It's all subjective.


When a game offers a choice to the player, to kill the last queen of a species and wipe out a race forever, it is reasonable to expect that choosing to save the queen results in a very different outcome than choosing to exterminate.

A reasonable person would agree that a choice of save or exterminate is a significant difference.

This choice is reflected in ME3 in a way that is not consistent with the precedent set, and is not fulfilled in a reasonable and meaningful way. 

Not only are the Rachni back, which is completely inconsistent with exterminate choice, but in the case of save choice the difference is renaming a game object.

#128
CronoDragoon

CronoDragoon
  • Members
  • 10 411 messages

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.


It happens with every game. Same thing happened when BG2 was released, and then when Origins was released people compared it unfavorable to BG2, by then the best game evar by popular opinion.

#129
MegaSovereign

MegaSovereign
  • Members
  • 10 794 messages

CaptainZaysh wrote...

The OP has a bad face.


And he smells like poopoo.

#130
spirosz

spirosz
  • Members
  • 16 354 messages
It's a good game, just not up to the quality of ME1 and 2. It does certain things better than the original two, but does a lot of things worse, which doesn't help the replayability for me, personally.

#131
Armass81

Armass81
  • Members
  • 2 762 messages

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.



One of the best games of the decade? Did we play the same game?

The story part of Alpha Protocol is good but the poor gameplay, broken leveling system, glitches aplenty and AI or should I say AS (artificial stupidity) ruin the game. Alpha Protocol is one of the examples of poor managing in game development.

Modifié par Armass81, 13 juillet 2012 - 05:00 .


#132
LaughingDragon

LaughingDragon
  • Members
  • 211 messages

CronoDragoon wrote...

The correct statement is then "some choices do not matter plot-wise," which is absolutely true but sounds less impressive than a general statement about all choices in the game, so people go with the latter hyperbole.


I like the way you just phrased it. That is what I meant to imply with my original statement.

#133
LinksOcarina

LinksOcarina
  • Members
  • 6 536 messages

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.
Almost no side missions, but tons of fetch quests.
No Galaxy exploration. No vehicles.
No ME2 characters as a squadmates or even proper LI's.
Game is very short, compared to previous games. 
Crucible.
Choices did not matter.
Introduction/beginning.
Catalyst's existence.
Overall plot is very weak - Kai Leng power armor, Cerberus and so on.
Bugs. Tons of them. 
Journal.
Endings.
Artistic integrity.
that stupid kid, and Shepard's nightmares about him.
the rest of the games are irrelevant.
Insults from Bioware.

Bad game is bad.


Got anything worthwhile to say, like why you feel these things?

Otherwise I have no reason to tell you why I think you are wrong. 

#134
Dutchess

Dutchess
  • Members
  • 3 501 messages

Pantanplan wrote...

renjility wrote...

Oransel wrote...

Auto-dialogue. Canon Shep.


The holiest of games, ME1, has not as much dialogue as you may think. Upon replaying the game I noticed many times that Shepard would say the exact same line when I picked a different option. ME3 is simply more honest in this and does not bother to let you choose between three options that lead to Shepard saying the same line anyway.

This only happened a few times in ME1. Believe me, I've played ME1 4 times, twice as paragon, one with a renegade Shepard, and one with only neutral responses. Most of the dialogue was completely different. I did the same thing with ME3, and the changes were almost negligible. The majority of the dialogue in ME3 is auto-dialogue, while in ME1 there are only a few instances where the dialogue is the same in disguise.


It happened fairly often. Especially when talking to the Council or when Shepard talks about the vision of the Prothean beacon. And no, not only with neutral responses. I rarely pick the neutral option. I have a somewhat mixed playthrough, a full renegade and a full paragon one. Sometimes the upper and lower choices are exactly the same. And I think it's a bit of an overestimation to call the majority of the dialogue in ME3 auto-dialogue. Yes, it's probably more than the times ME1 had three identical  fake options, but personally I find those fake options more silly and useless than auto-dialogue.

#135
Ageless Face

Ageless Face
  • Members
  • 2 786 messages

o Ventus wrote...

HagarIshay wrote...

You see the queen coming back in either form but only one is the orginal as "my choice doesn't matter". It does matter, otherwise the queen will act as if you saved her even if you didn't. She didn't. And she betrays you afterwards. Maybe the choice didn't matter enough for you, and that is fine, but for other people it did. It's all subjective.


No, it doesn't matter because the Reapers just somehow artificially create a rachni "Breeder" to spawn Ravagers if you killed them off in ME1. The only context of it making sense is if you kept them on Noveria. Did you save them or kill them? It doesn't matter, either way, the Reapers are making Ravagers.

@bold- Lolno.


Then like I said, maybe the choice didnt have enough impact as you would like. That is a valid complaint, even if subjective. But to say your choice didnt have any impact at all, that is not true.

as for the bolded- hey you never know:P

Modifié par HagarIshay, 13 juillet 2012 - 05:04 .


#136
Dutchess

Dutchess
  • Members
  • 3 501 messages

simfamSP wrote...

renjility wrote...

Oransel wrote...

Auto-dialogue. Canon Shep.


The holiest of games, ME1, has not as much dialogue as you may think. Upon replaying the game I noticed many times that Shepard would say the exact same line when I picked a different option. ME3 is simply more honest in this and does not bother to let you choose between three options that lead to Shepard saying the same line anyway.


But the option is there. As long as there is a sort of arbitary symbiosis with the player and the character, roleplaying is possible.

Wow, symbiosis, arbitary? Did I even use those two words write or did I make a paradox? :lol: I can never grasp that word.

Still, I think ME2 got it PERFECT. Very little autodialogue, and many different options. The BSN might disagree, but I think DA2 did it even better.


Okay, you find the lie of choice preferable. I'd rather they skip the lie, like they did in ME3 and just let Shepard say what they want him/her to say so badly and only bother me when I can make an actual choice, not a fake one. I'm not saying I prefer auto-dialogue over the chance to choose, but when there is no real choice they might as well give me that one line immediately.

I haven't spotted overlap in the ME2 dialogue options indeed, so I agree that game did it best. 

#137
webhead921

webhead921
  • Members
  • 899 messages
I think that it does some things extremely well and other things not so well. I think my personal enjoyment of the game is much higher than its actual quality. But that's just my opinion, you don't have to go spreading it around

#138
JPR1964

JPR1964
  • Members
  • 791 messages

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.


you say  it!

But, Agreed!

JPR out!

#139
Guest_FemaleMageFan_*

Guest_FemaleMageFan_*
  • Guests

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.
Almost no side missions, but tons of fetch quests.
No Galaxy exploration. No vehicles.
No ME2 characters as a squadmates or even proper LI's.
Game is very short, compared to previous games. 
Crucible.
Choices did not matter.
Introduction/beginning.
Catalyst's existence.
Overall plot is very weak - Kai Leng power armor, Cerberus and so on.
Bugs. Tons of them. 
Journal.
Endings.
Artistic integrity.
that stupid kid, and Shepard's nightmares about him.
the rest of the games are irrelevant.
Insults from Bioware.

Bad game is bad.

Autodialogue is a system that makes cutscenes much more dynamic. Shepard is able to walk from point to point and express more facial expression due to this. You may not like it but the execution was done good in my opinion. 
Example 
Asari counsellor: i understand you are looking for something called the catalyst.
Shepard : do you know where it is?* she sort of says it quietly*
*they procede to talk in a more quiet place(
i have not seen anything like this in the previous titles.

Would you rather have tons of scanning missions then? Also saying having no side missions is a bit of a stretch. The concept of side mission is an optional quest. If i wanted i could play legion's geth server shut down or not or even play the rachni mission with grunt if i want to. It is not necessarily required to get to the next phase.

Now this is where i have problems. I do realize that bioware gave us the option of having romances in the mass effect series. Heck every playthrough i had has a li apart from one. But romances should not be used to judge a game's criteria. I remember when they did not give awakening the higher score because it had no romances.. Maybe if there was a way to tie in li and character writing when it comes to reviews but...just one of the pet peves.

Having no ME2 players as companions is subjective. Other people would want to see them while other people might want the original ME cast. Subjective relativism i guess.

This i can somewhat agree the game is not very short but shorter than the previous title. Although this is where it wins in my opinion. In Mass effect 2 i have a problem. I am on a suicide mission right? very important. Jacbo comes to me and tells me i have personal issues. So i put on preparing on hold to help this guy and his daddy issues? This is a major problem i had with the title. In this one it ties in much more and the reaction to shepard on some of these missions is great . I.E. ardat yakshi mission - you can tell she was wondering why the hell she is there in the first place.

crucible is a subjective matter.

Choices did not matter? Why because they did not show you a long hour cutscene of what you did in the past? Also aren't they different ways in which you can cure the genophage in the game? or diffferent ways in which you can settle the geth-quarian problem. PLayers stay dead right? You get dialogue on what you did, the boy you saved in project overload you get to meet. I just had a problem with oriana in this title but it did not draw away from my experience<jack character development was woaaah btw>

I could go on but i do not want to type more. Time to eat cereal:wizard:

#140
spockjedi

spockjedi
  • Members
  • 748 messages
I hate that dreams, especially the one in the middle of a romance scene.

#141
3DandBeyond

3DandBeyond
  • Members
  • 7 579 messages

BiO_MaN wrote...

I would just like to point out auto-dialogue isn't necessarily a bad thing, I know some people who liked the change, saying that it made conversations much more smoother and realistic. I don't agree with them, but just saying, that that one is subjective.

Game being short, I'd disagree with as well. ME1 took me about 25-30 hours to complete (completionist on normal), ME2 - 25 hours (Insanity, Completionist), ME3 - 30 hours on Insanity, Completionist). The only one I'm not sure about is the ME1 one, but even it if were longer, it'd be because of fake exploration (don't get me wrong, I liked the Mako and going on planets, but there isn't exactly a lot of variety, and most of the side-quests and planets are copy-pasta).


Each of the games featured artificial gameplay extenders and ME3 used it as an artform.  The auto-dialogue was one form it took.  You needed to fully leave a lot of areas and come back repeatedly in order to get the whole conversation.  Now, I liked a lot of them, but really that was just a time waster.  And time wasting was another reason for EMS.  You had to enter the "tech lab" war room repeatedly to check it or to then talk to Hackett or Anderson.  In doing so, you had to pass through those "scanners" for no reason at all.  Why were they there?  To take up time.  There's no rational reason for them to have been there.

Then there are also doors that take forever to open--for no reason at all.  Liara whether an LI or not is a central character and you get some upgrades and info by going to see her-her door takes the longest to open of any door anywhere, for no reason.

Then there's reaper tag.  You scan a system and alert reapers as to your presence.  First of all the scanning missions are BS.  Wooooowie, I found a whole fleet and some fuel.  What imagination, what fun!  What garbage.

Ok, in the game you are told if you alert the reapers you need to leave and complete a mission before you can come back so they won't "get" you.  No you don't have to do this.  You just have to be quick, scan and run, move out of the system a bit, come back, scan and if you find something, come back and get it before the reapers catch you.  Why would they tell you you have to leave, do a mission, and come back?  To take up time.

There are also a lot more places (cutscenes) that are unskippable.  This takes up time.   Ask yourself why the ending is in slow motion.  Shepard never had that happen before-injured or not when in the game have you never been able to run and roll and move and all?  Why did they need to do this to this extent?  You basically can't even move at some points and even if you are replaying it you can't skip the cutscene parts at all.  Why?  It's slow motion to make the game seem longer.  That's it.  You could make the case for it adding to the feeling of it, but I found it incredibly annoying.  At the most important part of the game where you should be racing and where adrenaline should be surging, where everything is hitting the fan, the game stops.  If it was in real time, that whole sequence from the beam hitting Shepard to Anderson dying wouldn't take very long at all.

Then there are the slow motion dreams.  Filler.  Time wasters.  They would be far better without the kid, but there's no reason all of them have to be slow motion.

Actual gameplay time isn't that long.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 13 juillet 2012 - 05:29 .


#142
Little Princess Peach

Little Princess Peach
  • Members
  • 3 446 messages
Me3 is like dragon age 2 if you played it before playing the other games in question its awsome better than sliced bread but if you played the other games you end up wondering why you wasted all that time and effort on something that lasted 5 minutes

#143
moater boat

moater boat
  • Members
  • 1 213 messages
Yes, it is bad. The only reason to play it is because of the first two. Judged on its own merits it sucks, and more importantly, judged by the same standards that made the first two great, it is an abysmal failure.

#144
VinWizzy

VinWizzy
  • Members
  • 359 messages
No but I do agree with some of the things you listed:
Mostly the journal, quests (annoying and should not have been in the game), the prologue (rushed imo), and Kai Leng. I'm 50/50 on auto dialogue. It works good in some situations but in others not so much. Jennifer Hale and Mark Meer did great jobs though.

#145
Persephone

Persephone
  • Members
  • 7 989 messages

Tali-vas-normandy wrote...

Me3 is like dragon age 2 if you played it before playing the other games in question its awsome better than sliced bread but if you played the other games you end up wondering why you wasted all that time and effort on something that lasted 5 minutes


Good for you. I played DAO and DAII. I prefer DAII, warts and all.

#146
Guest_FemaleMageFan_*

Guest_FemaleMageFan_*
  • Guests

Persephone wrote...

Tali-vas-normandy wrote...

Me3 is like dragon age 2 if you played it before playing the other games in question its awsome better than sliced bread but if you played the other games you end up wondering why you wasted all that time and effort on something that lasted 5 minutes


Good for you. I played DAO and DAII. I prefer DAII, warts and all.



we should be friends

#147
taggen86

taggen86
  • Members
  • 145 messages
Nope, it is awesome.Not perfect but the big moments and the combat system are amazing.Currently on my 3rd playthrough and have played over 100 hours multiplayer:)

Modifié par taggen86, 13 juillet 2012 - 07:21 .


#148
jsadalia

jsadalia
  • Members
  • 370 messages
You need to play more bad games for reference. Mass Effect 3 is not one of them.

#149
WarGriffin

WarGriffin
  • Members
  • 2 666 messages
Mass Effect 3 works fine as a stand alone game and it doe have it's geniune moments of greatness

However for all the hype it got and as the closing of a trilogy?
ME3 doesn't come close to living up to those expectations. For all the talk of battling for Earth... London feels no different from any of the other levels. -IMHO Earth should have been the midpoint of the game-
It pretty much ignores anything in the previous games that hurt it's conflict or plot-
The plot is streamlined and Shepard the character your suppose to shape... Is clearly the Head Writers Shepard not the players intrepretation. This isn't a good thing to do in the third game after letting players build who thier Shepard is for two games.

And I know who is gonna come in a defend that giving Shepard a more canon persona helps brush out themes or is so This character can serve as foil/antithesis to him.

Your missing the point, I don't give a **** about ME3's Shepard cause it's no longer my Shepard I've seen through ME 1-2. It's the Writing teams Shepard.

ME1 and ME2's endings make you feel you've accomplished something... ME3's ending even with the EC...Doesn't make me feel anything.


Me2 might have had a weak main plot but made up for it by building the ME universe

#150
Binary_Helix 1

Binary_Helix 1
  • Members
  • 2 655 messages
Agrreed.

It's not just the ending that needs a redo. The entire game needs one.

Modifié par Binary_Helix 1, 13 juillet 2012 - 07:32 .