341 réponses à ce sujet

[Firesaber82]

It was the writing. Yeah the overall plot doesn't really tie into much (it's almost a giant side quest to the Reaper threat itself), but having just replayed it, the characters man the characters! even just getting to choose all your responses, the introduction of renegade and paragon interrupts...

As much as the Weapons and Armor systems were stripped down, almost all other aspects of the game saw improvement over ME1. And it tied up in such a satisfying ending to any game ever... We were all pumped for ME3...

I'll stress it again, the writing of the characters (even Shepard) was superb.

Modifié par Firesaber82, 21 juillet 2012 - 04:25 .

[flanny]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

flanny wrote...

because ME2 was such a great game you could see past it's faults and ME3 is a average game meaning you see all it many...many faults

What about ME 1's faults?

I can't remember any noticeable faults in ME1, other than the gameplay, which wasn't bad.  

[JPN17]

ME2 had an amazing setting, characters and universe immersion. Good graphics, good voice acting, and decent combat. In those regards it was great. What it lacked was a logical coherent story and I've always been adamant that ME2's story was extremely poor. The reapers are basically ignored, for some reason the collectors are thrust into the spotlight as some kind of major threat (which is ridiculous) and despite the fact they were with you during ME1 and know all about the reapers, Liara is more concerned about revenge because the Shadow Broker took her turncoat partner, Garrus fights gangs on Omega and the VS strolls around space doing absolutely nothing. No one cares about the reapers in ME2 and that's the main problem with the game. The loyalty missions were fun to play, but let's be real here. What's more important finding a way to stop the reapers or going to uncharted space to find Jacob's dad's pseudo kingdom?

[Ylhaym]

Wait till the next Bioware game comes out... Then people will complain on how horrible it is compared to this amazing game called Mass Effect 3... I saw posts during the first few weeks after the release of ME 3 that claims DA2 is better game than ME3... I mean seriously?

[v TricKy v]

Ylhaym wrote...

Wait till the next Bioware game comes out... Then people will complain on how horrible it is compared to this amazing game called Mass Effect 3... I saw posts during the first few weeks after the release of ME 3 that claims DA2 is better game than ME3... I mean seriously?

An explanation:
You get a piece of crap. Two years later you get a even bigger piece of crap. Of course the first one is still crap but you like it because it´s the smaller piece of crap. Simple

[AresKeith]

and then when we ask them to improve on something from the last game, they cut it out the game

[Ylhaym]

v TricKy v wrote...

Ylhaym wrote...

Wait till the next Bioware game comes out... Then people will complain on how horrible it is compared to this amazing game called Mass Effect 3... I saw posts during the first few weeks after the release of ME 3 that claims DA2 is better game than ME3... I mean seriously?

An explanation:
You get a piece of crap. Two years later you get a even bigger piece of crap. Of course the first one is still crap but you like it because it´s the smaller piece of crap. Simple

If your explanation is true, then we shoulve been seeing stuff like,

"DA2 is bigger crap than the crap called DA:O. DA:O is crap because it isnt worthy of being called spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate" or something....

...

but what we see is posts on how amazing DAO and ME2 is... Don't get me wrong, both games deserve the praise... What im trying to say is its kind of stupid to just totally ignore one game's flaws while you trash the other game for having it... 

[Those Protheans]

Xemnas07 wrote...



One of the BIGGEST complaints I've seen is how the ME2 cast was shelved in ME3.... Umm, did ANYONE play ME2, where the ENTIRE ME1 cast (except for Tali, she's in every game) was shelved and didnt even have decent cameo's like Thane, Grunt, Mordin, and Miranda did in ME3. Unless you bought LotSB DLC, and only Liara showed up then

I didn't even read anything after this.
Take your head out of your ass and think for a moment, then you will begin to see ME3 as a streaming of s**t.
You just need to think first.

Modifié par Those Protheans, 21 juillet 2012 - 06:16 .

[tanisha__unknown]

[quote]Xemnas07 wrote...

That's not to say i didn't love the game, because I did. BUt seriously, think about it...

TL:DR - Please just read the whole thing it's not that long.

One of the BIGGEST complaints I've seen is how the ME2 cast was shelved in ME3.... Umm, did ANYONE play ME2, where the ENTIRE ME1 cast (except for Tali, she's in every game) was shelved and didnt even have decent cameo's like Thane, Grunt, Mordin, and Miranda did in ME3. Unless you bought LotSB DLC, and only Liara showed up then.[/quote]There were five surviving squad mates in ME1. You met Kaidan/Ashley again, but since you're with Cerberus now, they refuse to have anything to do with you. Bit disappointing, but OK, not unplausible. Tali and Garrus become a member of the squad again, Liara's fate is outlined well in LotSb and Wrex is busy helping his species on Tuchanka, which was in my opinion also quite plausible concerning what we learned in ME1.

[quote]Another huge complaint was that your choices from ME2 (Collector base choice, rachni, etc.) had little to no impact in ME3...... What?  NOT ONE SINGLE choice from ME1 was reflected with great significant impact on ME2, the only choices that were really apparent was your choice of councilor and whether you saved the council or saved the humans, and those had VERY little impact on the game as a whole.[/quote]True, that was a bit disappointing, but ME2 was supposed to be the second game. It would have been hard to have a branching story at that part of the trilogy. Honestly, demanding to see a major impact from every mission you did in ME1 was probably too much. I think the emails were OK for the minor missions, the major decisions like council were reflected in you gaining your spectre status (or not regaining it), though it does not really matter wether or not you're a spectre. This could have been handled better, I'll give you credit. However, as long as the third game was not released, you could assume that there were going to be repercussions or rewards for making some decisions in ME1, like if you let the rachni queen liv, she would either support you or you would have to  fight another enemy, whereas if you killed her, the Rachni would be gone, no benefits nor penalties for that. That was handled very poorly in ME3

[quote]Yet another complaint was that ME3 voided everything from ME1, are you kididng? the ENTIRE main plot of ME2 had NOTHING to do with what happened in ME1, and the story archs are kinda side-lined (such as Wrex being Clan Urdnot's leader) and were only gave a mention in a convo with said character. The only thing ME2 added to the story as a whole was that the Protheans were turned into slaves.... okay? Cool. Couldnt put that into a DLC?[/quote]I have to give you credit for that, the main plot was quite poor.

[quote]People complain that the RPG factor was dumbed down in ME3 and forgotten..... again, HUH? in ME2, there was almost NO rpg factor, Besides having more Dialogue choices in convos than ME3 (which people complained ruined the flow of a dramatic scene) everything else was even less RPG than ME3. For example, that leveling system was a lot more simple and less complex, less choices, less points, less levels, etc. There was less armor choice and a LOT less weapon choice with NO mods whatsoever. The only real RPG factor was the upgrades, and those were hell to get as you had to scan countless planets for minerals.[/quote]The dialogue choices were the characteristic that made ME1 (and ME2) feel like an RPG. They improved that in ME2 with the interrupt system, where paragon and renegade interrupts would significantly alter the outcome of any dialogue. Weapon and armor  customization were nice in ME1, but not the most important thing that made the game feel like an RPG. By choosing between neutral, renegade and paragon you had distinct options, each one made Y O U R Shepard special. In ME3, due to autodialogue and the lack of a neutral option Shepards are not so different anymore as they were in ME1 and ME2. It is this freedom of choice to play either as a do-what-I-say-or-I-will-kick-you-in-the-nuts reckless bastard or a look-at-the-benefits-if-we-cooperate paragon or a I-do-what-I-have-to-do-neutral character that made the game a R O L E - P L A Y I N G game.

[quote]The combat system was good, but got kinda boring; take cover, shoot til it's dead, move up, repeat. They improved the combat system GREATLY with better maps and a dive roll. ADDING A DIVE ROLL DOES NOT MAKE IT A GENERIC SHOOTER!! THERE IS A REASON IT IS A SUCCESSFUL GAMEPLAY MECHANIC!! The roll simply makes for better and more exhilirating combat.[/quote]True, but the amount of combat seems to have increased and makes up a significant larger part of gameplay. ME has always been a shooter/RPG hybrid. The dialogues and partly the customization of your gear can be atrributed to the RPG part, the actual combat parts were more like a shooter.
As stated, by now you spend way more time fighting hordes of enemies compared to the previous games (I might be mistaken there. Has anyone measured that? I would be interested if anybody did). Furthermore, considering that dialogue options were limited compared to the previous games and that combat was significantly improved (which is by no means a bad thing) and increased, I conclude that the game tends to be the most shooterlike ME game. In my opinion combat has already increased rapidly with the 2nd game and there were parts in ME2 where I was really annoyed about how much enemies would turn up while you spend a good amount of time walking through some map. This occured to me during the IFF mission when there was an insane amount of husks respawning out of nowhere (actually from the fround, but let's not be too nitpicky here).
Concerning the amount of shooter vs RPG, in my opinion, it's ME3>ME2>ME1 considering how much shooter there is. In my opinion, ME1 was about 50/50 shooter/RPG, whereas ME2 was already rather a shooter than an RPG.
[quote]The last complaint is that ME3 was too short; about 25 hrs on insanity and completionist playthrough. ME2 was 30 hours as the same, and HALF the game dealt with loyalty missions which had NOTHING to do with the main story. Sure the loyalty of your team affected the outcome of the suicide mission, but that's ALL it did for ME2. Don't get me wrong, I liked the loyalty mission aspect, but when HALF the game (15hrs, maybe less) is based on them, that just sidelines the main plot, which again, had NOTHING to do with ANYTHING from ME1 and added NOTHING to the overall plot of the trilogy. Oh, and ME2 was not about fighting Reapers (people complain that ME3 was about fighting Cerberus, not reapers) it was about fighting the collectors, and besides Husks and the occasional Harby possession, there was no fighting of the Reapers.[/quote]Everything you say here is true in my opinion.

[quote]At least ME3 concludes MOST of the story archs that started ME1, and FOCUSES specifically on that. Granted it did not continue the Collector Base/Baby Reaper arch.[Quote]Again, true, the main plot of ME2 was not picked up in ME3 again, whereas the major issues of ME1 came to a conclusion (genophage, reaper threat, the geth)

[/quote]ME2 was also quite buggy.[/quote]Oh so true. With ME2 on my win7 x64 machine, I often end up some wall. ME3 crashes more often, but there are usually a lot of autosaves that make this more or less bearable.

[quote]EDIT: Also, ME2 never really moved me or gave me goosebumps, except for Miranda saying, "I don't have that fire that youd do." etc, and Grunt saying "Shepard is my battlemaster, he has no match." ME3 moved me to tears, and gave me goosebumps every 2 seconds and made me jump for joy at times.[/quote] There is an exception. The end of overlord brought me close to tears. Apart from that, I found Mirandas, Jacks and Mordins missions and dialogues quite moving. I have to give you credit that ME3 brought me close too tears way more often, mainly because I cared for the characters. However, the foundation for that was laid in ME2. I don't know wether it would have stirred the same reactions if I had started with ME3 [quote]Much better writing[/quote]Not concerning the main plot, the crucible, though some of the writing exceeds the one of ME2 by far. [quote]and focus on dialogue, char interactions, and action imo.

Now, ignoring ME3 endings, cuz I agree they sucked, and besides ME2 having more dialogue choices, are these NOT THE EXACT SAME ISSUES people have with ME3? Or am I missing something? Hypocritical, dontcha think?

In my opinion, people are letting their feelings for the endings affect how they feel about the rest of the game, causing them to ignore that ME2 had many of the same flaws, yet everyone praises ME2.[/quote]Imagine you're eating the most delicious piece of strawberry cake you ever came across. You come to the last bite and the little chocolate covering on this final bite turns out to be dog poo. I won't remember this cake for how delicious it was for the most part, I'll remember it for the dog poo.
Besides, ME3 has major flaws apart from the ending. I only joined the forums when ME3 was released, so I don't exactly, but apart from the ending, I guess similar complaints were made by fans who preferred ME1 over ME2.

[v TricKy v]

Ylhaym wrote...

v TricKy v wrote...

Ylhaym wrote...

Wait till the next Bioware game comes out... Then people will complain on how horrible it is compared to this amazing game called Mass Effect 3... I saw posts during the first few weeks after the release of ME 3 that claims DA2 is better game than ME3... I mean seriously?

An explanation:
You get a piece of crap. Two years later you get a even bigger piece of crap. Of course the first one is still crap but you like it because it´s the smaller piece of crap. Simple

If your explanation is true, then we shoulve been seeing stuff like,

"DA2 is bigger crap than the crap called DA:O. DA:O is crap because it isnt worthy of being called spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate" or something....

...

but what we see is posts on how amazing DAO and ME2 is... Don't get me wrong, both games deserve the praise... What im trying to say is its kind of stupid to just totally ignore one game's flaws while you trash the other game for having it... 

Almost right but there are games like the ones you mentioned which are pure gold or mostly gold and the problem is that most devs make to much changes to the golden formula and that lead to some kind of snowball effect where fans get more dissappointed with every following game because too much features are added or removed instead of improving the features which made your game great.
I bet that this is one of the reasons Cod games sell as much as they do. They wont change their games much now because that would turn a lot of people off. It´s the same thing that happened with DA2 or ME3 as an example

[KotorEffect3]

flanny wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

flanny wrote...

because ME2 was such a great game you could see past it's faults and ME3 is a average game meaning you see all it many...many faults

What about ME 1's faults?

I can't remember any noticeable faults in ME1, other than the gameplay, which wasn't bad.  

What about copy and paste environments?  What about redudant cluttered inventory?  I seem to recall DA 2 got slammed hard for it's copy and paste environments (which was a legitimate criticism).  Now in ME 1's case the copy and paste stuff is at least restricted to sidequests but it is there in spades.

[AresKeith]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

flanny wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

flanny wrote...

because ME2 was such a great game you could see past it's faults and ME3 is a average game meaning you see all it many...many faults

What about ME 1's faults?

I can't remember any noticeable faults in ME1, other than the gameplay, which wasn't bad.  

What about copy and paste environments?  What about redudant cluttered inventory?  I seem to recall DA 2 got slammed hard for it's copy and paste environments (which was a legitimate criticism).  Now in ME 1's case the copy and paste stuff is at least restricted to sidequests but it is there in spades.

maybe because Mass Effect was a starter game, and Bioware wanted to see if fans will it like the game, so ofcourse its gonna have flaws but its still a great game

[Dean_the_Young]

And what about partial written subplots with no resolution? (Armistace Banes.)

How about the many Cerberus references that were so mindbogglingly vague, three games later we still don't know the extent of Cerberus responsibility for a number of its alleged crimes? (Case in point, Cerberus often gets blamed for colony of the dead despite nothing in the game saying that they instigated it.)

Or the frankly dull and sub-standard moral choices on the required plotline, all of which were a variation of 'kill this person or spare them', with the ultimate result that the sparing them was always the greater than/equal to choice in subsequent content and in-game rewards?

How about the lack of planning the choices and world-building themes had behind them, not knowing where they would go in the future and in many cases being dropped outright?

And it's less game play than a game mechanic, but the inventory system and in-game economy was broken as hell.

[KotorEffect3]

AresKeith wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

flanny wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

flanny wrote...

because ME2 was such a great game you could see past it's faults and ME3 is a average game meaning you see all it many...many faults

What about ME 1's faults?

I can't remember any noticeable faults in ME1, other than the gameplay, which wasn't bad.  

What about copy and paste environments?  What about redudant cluttered inventory?  I seem to recall DA 2 got slammed hard for it's copy and paste environments (which was a legitimate criticism).  Now in ME 1's case the copy and paste stuff is at least restricted to sidequests but it is there in spades.

maybe because Mass Effect was a starter game, and Bioware wanted to see if fans will it like the game, so ofcourse its gonna have flaws but its still a great game

Yes it's still a great game despite the flaws but so are the sequels.

[Vox Draco]

First of all: I liked ME2, but it never had the same impact on me like ME1. It was fun, I played it a couple of times, but in the end I had the feeling that ME3 realyl had to deliver now. And at first it did, in a way..at least it made me ignore the many flaws like the fetch-quests and some storylines are superb...up unti lteh ending.

Then it becomes apparent that the whole mess ME3 left the franchise in started already in ME2. Part 2 had many, many characters, some of them actually cool, many not so much. Almsot everyone had recruiting-quests, and pesonal quests making up the most time of the game..and almost nothing of it had any releveance to the main plot, you know, the Reapers are coming...or aren't they?

ME2 wasted valuable time to thicken the actual plot, properly foreshadow the upcoming events, pave teh way for a satisfying way to defeat the threat, and the only hint of the real logically sound purpose the Reapers saw in the Harvest, procreation, was  discarded in favor of...smething stupid that wasn't really significant in the franchise or even adressed in ME2...

That's the amazing thing for me in ME2...a whole game in a supposed connected trilogy telling one coherent storyline is wasting so much damn time with nothing that pushes the plot forward...

The other things, gameplay, fighting, dialogues, all of this was in a way an improvement for me. LEss RPG? there wasn't that much in ME1 either, to be fair. But the plot, the plot was so weak, and not even the army of characters can make up for the fact they failed in setting up their grand finale with this middle-part properly... 

[AresKeith]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

flanny wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

flanny wrote...

because ME2 was such a great game you could see past it's faults and ME3 is a average game meaning you see all it many...many faults

What about ME 1's faults?

I can't remember any noticeable faults in ME1, other than the gameplay, which wasn't bad.  

What about copy and paste environments?  What about redudant cluttered inventory?  I seem to recall DA 2 got slammed hard for it's copy and paste environments (which was a legitimate criticism).  Now in ME 1's case the copy and paste stuff is at least restricted to sidequests but it is there in spades.

maybe because Mass Effect was a starter game, and Bioware wanted to see if fans will it like the game, so ofcourse its gonna have flaws but its still a great game

Yes it's still a great game despite the flaws but so are the sequels.

thats the thing, when we gave them feedback about those flaws, we wanted them to improve on it. Some of them they did improve and I'm grateful for, but most of the other things they got lazy and cut them out or dumped them down. Same goes for ME3 where we wanted them to improve on the just cut it out and got lazy, that was the problem.

[Dean_the_Young]

That's the kind of vague, unspecific, and highly subjective claim that's not only highly questionable, but effectively meaningless.

[Legbiter]

Gorgeous game with memorable characters, great pathos and the suicide mission was the best gaming sequence of my life.

[ElementL09]

Barely no RPG factor in ME2, then saying loyality missions have nothing to do with the main story?
I guess side missions aren't RPG enough.

Combat sucked in Mass Effect. It did. Mass Effect 2 combat was good and fun at times depending on what class your playing as.

Also in ME2 you fought a Human Reaper, which there was going to be some significance to this and dark energy but then ME3 came along.

ME3 is quite buggy (not trying to play devils adovicate, it just is my from experience).

Now Mass Effect 2 wasn't a perfect game when compared to Mass Effect 3, but it was better as it actually rewarded the players and their choices. Saved the Rachni? You meet that chick on Illium who gives a message to you from the Rachni Queen. Saved Wrex? Clan Urdnot Leader.

Now when you get into ME3, look at your decesions and how they played out. Saved the Rachni? Doesn't matter, Rachni Queen turns into princess peach and gets captured again and you have to save her again (also I understand why the developers had to do this, but it could have been handled in a much more beneficial way for new and old players alike). Destroyed the Collector Base? Didn't matter, the Illusive Man still salvaged parts from it.

Mass Effect 2 seem so much more of an improvement (after Mass Effect 2) then Mass Effect 3. Sure Mass Effect further improved on combat, and it graphically looks better at times, but that was it.

[tonnactus]

I dont know. It was a piece of overrated crap. Pokemon in Space without something worth to be called a plot.

Mass Effect 2 was the point were the writing in the series went downhill. Right at the beginning of the game.

Even Dragon Age 2 is miles better then this.

Modifié par tonnactus, 21 juillet 2012 - 11:06 .

[DarklightZERO]

I do agree with the OP. ME2 was given a pass due to it being in the middle of the series.

BW really dropped the ball with ME2, instead of having a proper lead up to the next game they seem to have based the entire development on marketing phrases
"Shepard dies at the beginning."
"You will have to assemble the best team this galaxy has ever known"

[AresKeith]

DarklightZERO wrote...

I do agree with the OP. ME2 was given a pass due to it being in the middle of the series.

BW really dropped the ball with ME2, instead of having a proper lead up to the next game they seem to have based the entire development on marketing phrases
"Shepard dies at the beginning."
"You will have to assemble the best team this galaxy has ever known"

Yes, the story behind ME2 was meh, but the "leaked" ending for ME3 would've tied in ME2 to the main story

[Asch Lavigne]

I rank ME2 as the worst of the trilogy. The story was dumb, and for most of the game had nothing to do with Reapers. There was so much I wanted to say and ask TIM but you couldn't.

I get that the game focused more on your characters than the story but still I had a hard time getting into it. Half of those people I don't understand why I recruited. Like Kasumi, what good is a thief for this sort of thing, unless we need her to steal back the colonists. Though I did really like Kasumi, I just don't get why we needed a thief. The cast was way too big in my opinion. I also didn't understand how joining up to take down the Collectors automatically meant everyone believed in Reapers.

I felt like the whole game was just a bunch of small missions strung together, I didn't feel like I was playing a game with an actual beginning, middle and end, aside from when the plot kicked in I felt like everything I did was not connected to anything else. There's another thing, the plot kicking in and being told, nope, now you have to do this.

While the combat was significantly improved from 1, everything else was cut out. Anything that needed fixing or improvement Bioware just felt it was easier to cut it out of the game rather than fix it. Oh yeah, and there was hardly any RPG elements to the game.

[tonnactus]

AresKeith wrote...


Yes, the story behind ME2 was meh, but the "leaked" ending for ME3 would've tied in ME2 to the main story

Except that dark energy was only hinted and the "plot" was to stop the collectors? What exactly Shepard learned about dark energy in Mass Effect 2? Next to nothing.

[o Ventus]

AresKeith wrote...

Yes, the story behind ME2 was meh, but the "leaked" ending for ME3 would've tied in ME2 to the main story

This. ME3 is what invalidated ME2.