JaegerBane wrote...
Somewhat. I wouldn't necessarily say that an apparent difference in age is equivalent to the Star Trek-esque species changes that occurred in Dragon Age 2, but yes, there was some discrepency between how characters looked.
That being said, any rational person would be able to tell they're the same game series even if the faces of a few characters are a little off. It sounds like you're *looking* for differences rather than reacting to them - if you're going to try and list all the stuff that didn't look how they should vs the stuff that did, the list is going to be massively skewed in the latter's favour, so I'm not sure where you're going with that one.
I'm not trying to claim ME3 is perfect - just that saying it's barely related to the others of the series is pure hyperbole.
What I actually meant was that it was a Mass Effect game, but only just. It has most of the same ingredients, but not in the right amount in the right places, and things that seemed to matter and be a focus in the original game just aren't in ME3. It's like it's trying to distance itself as much as possible from the original game without actually doing it, if you can understand that. ME1 was at least
trying to be an RPG and
trying to give players the ability to roleplay the protagonist character, while ME3 just seems to want to be about TPS combat and telling players who Shepard is rather than letting them direct him/her anymore. Just about
all the things they said Mass Effect was supposed to be about as a game originally just went away by the time ME3 came along.
And to be fair regarding your other main point, I wouldn't say a
lot of stuff looked wrong in ME3 compared to the others. In fact, not much more than what I listed was. Most characters looked the same and were recognizable, and it still had the Mass Effect visual style with regards to architecture, ship designs, etc. But it just weirds me out that certain characters just looked so off and different for no discernable reason at all. I could excuse Bailey and Udina because with their stations, perhaps they put some some effort into trying to look younger, but Anderson just didn't look right throughout the whole thing, Oriana no longer looks like Miranda's clone at all and has a completely different facial structure, and Matriarch Aethyta looked absolutely
nothing like she did in ME2, where she had a great design, and in ME3 just looks like a generic background asari. In a game that was already wasting time and resources on stuff that was largely superflous and/or unwanted, why didn't they simply reuse the same models they had from ME2? What is BioWare's obsession with unneeded visual retcons in the middle of their series' lately? There's just no consistency with BioWare these days. I'm not :looking for differences," and not
all differences are bad ones. But unnecessary differences that ruin immersion and break the consistency and integrity of the mythos, lore and style for no logical or reasonable reason
are bad.
NightAntilli wrote...
How people consider ME2 to be 'more
RPG' than ME3 is beyond me. ME2 had no weapon mods, less weapon
leveling, smaller skill trees...
Again, as I stated, ME3 was technically a stronger RPG when it came to the statistical crunching side of things, but where it fell down was in the actual
roleplaying and narrative side of things. So while ME3 might have been technically more of an RPG, ME2 retained more of the factors a lot of players prefer in their CRPGs than ME3 did, even if these factors aren't as defining as the statistical stuff.
I too was calling for more statistical RPG gameplay elements to return after ME2 pretty much watered them right down, and was happy when I heard that they were in ME3. But I wasn't expecting it to come at the cost of my choices not mattering, no longer being able to control or define my Shepard as much as I used to, an absolute complete focus on combat and the only thing really mattering being the biggening of some arbitrary number.
Retour en haut
