308 réponses à ce sujet

[Rikketik]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Rikketik wrote...

jreezy wrote...

Rikketik wrote...
It is true that there is more auto-dialogue in ME3, but then again, it's the final part of the trilogy. It's about the war with the Reapers and finally ending it; the bulk of the character development took place in ME1 and ME2 when there was time for that. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

David Silverman is that you?

Who is David Silverman?

Bioware's marketing director.  Since you said something good about ME 3 you must be him.  Because you aren't allowed to have a positive attitude toward ME 3 on the bsn otherwise,

Ah, OK. Thanks for explaining. I googled his name, but the only David Silverman's google found where an atheist guy and someone who wrote for the Simpsons. So I was a little confused.

But if I have to be a marketing director for BioWare to not mind the auto-dialogue, then so be it. I don't necessarily like the lack of choice in some situations, but I don't think it's the first sign of the anti-christ like most of BSN seem to do.

[Terror_K]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Typical tactic.  If someone says something remotely positive about ME 3 it must be a bioware employee in diguise!!!

He just won't stop with the social commentary.

[Father_Jerusalem]

I don't consider Apple Jacks to actually taste like apples.

[Father_Jerusalem]

jreezy wrote...

Rikketik wrote...
It is true that there is more auto-dialogue in ME3, but then again, it's the final part of the trilogy. It's about the war with the Reapers and finally ending it; the bulk of the character development took place in ME1 and ME2 when there was time for that. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

David Silverman is that you?

While I may disagree with you a lot, I always found your posts to be more interesting than the cliched "If you like ME3, you're clearly a paid BioWare troll".

Clearly, I was wrong on that count.

[AlanC9]

I gotta go with jreezy on this one. Saying that being part 3 of the trilogy is a good reason to have fewer dialog options isn't very sensible. It may be the best use of your development resources, or it may not, but being the endgame won't change that.

[Pitznik]

Bioware's RPGs always had linear plot, they never pretended to be sandbox and it is actually their strong point. I'm playing ME2 currently and amount of choice what will happen isn't greater than in ME3, the middle option is pretty much useless, it either repeats the more renegade or more paragon options, or achieves the same progress without any points at all.

What ME3 lacks is optional side missions - that is indeed a flaw, and makes it feel more linear. ME2 got it right, there were quite a few side missions, most of them very short, but interesting. ME1 side missions were very boring and repetitive.

[Fidget6]

Wait, you don't consider Mass Effect an RPG but you consider Red Dead to be one?

[Allen Spellwaver]

rediculous point.If ME3 is not an RPG then ME2 is closer to a shooter.ME2 has even less RPG elements.ME3 is more like a balance between 1 and 2.

Modifié par Allen Spellwaver, 21 juillet 2012 - 08:13 .

[Allen Spellwaver]

Rikketik wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Rikketik wrote...

jreezy wrote...

Rikketik wrote...
It is true that there is more auto-dialogue in ME3, but then again, it's the final part of the trilogy. It's about the war with the Reapers and finally ending it; the bulk of the character development took place in ME1 and ME2 when there was time for that. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

David Silverman is that you?

Who is David Silverman?

Bioware's marketing director.  Since you said something good about ME 3 you must be him.  Because you aren't allowed to have a positive attitude toward ME 3 on the bsn otherwise,

Ah, OK. Thanks for explaining. I googled his name, but the only David Silverman's google found where an atheist guy and someone who wrote for the Simpsons. So I was a little confused.

But if I have to be a marketing director for BioWare to not mind the auto-dialogue, then so be it. I don't necessarily like the lack of choice in some situations, but I don't think it's the first sign of the anti-christ like most of BSN seem to do.

My question is why so many people try to prove that 'ME3 is bad and don't even deserve a praise' as a nature rule?

[Fredvdp]

Allen Spellwaver wrote...

rediculous point.If ME3 is not an RPG then ME2 is closer to a shooter.ME2 has even less RPG elements.ME3 is more like a balance between 1 and 2.

In my opinion it's the role-playing that makes a game an RPG, and ME2 did that much better than ME3 because of its dialog system. ME3 has too much auto-dialog and Shepard is not always who I want him to be. This is especially true for Shepard's reaction to [SPOILER REMOVED. Just realized I'm in general discussion.] I wasn't even allowed to laugh with Joker's joke, even as a renegade.

Modifié par Fredvdp, 21 juillet 2012 - 08:25 .

[Aloren]

Terror_K wrote...
Funny, I feel the opposite. Especially with ME3. The game is just so... weak.

ME1 = RPG-Lite with TPS elements.
ME2 = RPG-Lite/TPS hybrid
ME3 = TPS with lite RPG elements.

Well, to me ME3 is a good compromise between  1 and 2.
Its RPG aspects compare to what was in ME1 (skill tree, weapon mods, decisions...)
And its combat is better than in ME2.
I just wish there were more real sidequests hubs in ME3 (like on Noveria or Zhu's hope in ME1, or Ilium and Omega in ME2).

[Terror_K]

Pitznik wrote...

Bioware's RPGs always had linear plot, they never pretended to be sandbox and it is actually their strong point. I'm playing ME2 currently and amount of choice what will happen isn't greater than in ME3, the middle option is pretty much useless, it either repeats the more renegade or more paragon options, or achieves the same progress without any points at all.

What ME3 lacks is optional side missions - that is indeed a flaw, and makes it feel more linear. ME2 got it right, there were quite a few side missions, most of them very short, but interesting. ME1 side missions were very boring and repetitive.

ME1 and ME2 at least allowed you to do things in the order you wanted though. That kicked the bucket in ME3 almost entirely. It's a wonder they even gave us the galaxy map at all in ME3... almost like it was simply there because it was in the other two.

Plus, ME1 had Noveria... a planet that allowed you to accomplish the same mission dozens of different ways. What happened to that concept in ME3? ME3 is just the same, boring rollercoaster ride every damn playthrough. Not to mention that it so forcibly puts you back on the tracks in such horrible, weak ways (i.e. Council dead or alive? Doesn't matter: new Council is pretty much identical. Rachni Queen alive or dead? Doesn't matter, new clone replaces her. Squaddie's from prior games alive or dead? Doesn't matter, some weak substitute chump steps in and does whatever they did anyway, making their seemingly special nature and uniqueness redundant.)

[Allen Spellwaver]

Fredvdp wrote...

Allen Spellwaver wrote...

rediculous point.If ME3 is not an RPG then ME2 is closer to a shooter.ME2 has even less RPG elements.ME3 is more like a balance between 1 and 2.

In my opinion it's the role-playing that makes a game an RPG, and ME2 did that much better than ME3 because of its dialog system. ME3 has too much auto-dialog and Shepard is not always who I want him to be. This is especially true for Shepard's reaction to the dead kid or the fall of Thessia, where you are forced into sadness. I wasn't even allowed to laugh with Joker's joke, even as a renegade.

All right,Thessia Thessia Thessia...Why do people forget shooting Mordin or Legion?Thessia is rushed for the love of god.Why this rushed senario become the whole game??

[Fredvdp]

Allen Spellwaver wrote...

All right,Thessia Thessia Thessia...Why do people forget shooting Mordin or Legion?Thessia is rushed for the love of god.Why this rushed senario become the whole game??

The game is full of examples like these. I can't possibly list them all.

Modifié par Fredvdp, 21 juillet 2012 - 08:27 .

[Allen Spellwaver]

Fredvdp wrote...

Allen Spellwaver wrote...

All right,Thessia Thessia Thessia...Why do people forget shooting Mordin or Legion?Thessia is rushed for the love of god.Why this rushed senario become the whole game??

The game is full of examples like these. I can't possibly list them all.

Oh yeah?Then try to list.By the way I just punched that admiral again and feel very satisfying.

[Fredvdp]

Allen Spellwaver wrote...

Fredvdp wrote...

Allen Spellwaver wrote...

All right,Thessia Thessia Thessia...Why do people forget shooting Mordin or Legion?Thessia is rushed for the love of god.Why this rushed senario become the whole game??

The game is full of examples like these. I can't possibly list them all.

Oh yeah?Then try to list.By the way I just punched that admiral again and feel very satisfying.

This is a no spoiler forum, so I can't go into detail.

[Terror_K]

Aloren wrote...

Well, to me ME3 is a good compromise between  1 and 2.
Its RPG aspects compare to what was in ME1 (skill tree, weapon mods, decisions...)

I fail to see how. There pretty much were no decisions in ME3, and all the ones you made before were pretty much useless. The game is the same damn thing every playthrough. Nothing you do matters, and it's all about just raising this stupid, arbitrary number rather than your choices having any real meaningful impact. Nobody is special, nothing you do changes anything really, and you still end up with the same lame ending with the same stupid non-sensical choices no matter what you did beforehand. And that's if you even allowed to take control of a character that in ME3 because just as unique and just as much yours or mine as Batman, Nathan Drake, Master Chief, Marcus Fenix or Ezio. Heck, I had more control over Niko in GTA IV than I did over Shepard in ME3!

How is it a good compromise between the two when combat is the only thing that matters and you have as much control over the game as you do over yourself plummeting to the ground with a 2 tonne rock tied around your waist?

And its combat is better than in ME2.

Combat is pretty much the only thing that ME3 did better than its predecessors. And it wasn't worth the cost or losing the stuff that really mattered. ME3's biggest issue overall is that too much focus was put on the combat at the cost of the stuff that truly made ME3 great. What's the point in perfecting what is essentially the icing on a cake if the cake itself is awful because you threw out or skimped on almost all the decent ingredients to do it?

[Allen Spellwaver]

Fredvdp wrote...

Allen Spellwaver wrote...

Fredvdp wrote...

Allen Spellwaver wrote...

All right,Thessia Thessia Thessia...Why do people forget shooting Mordin or Legion?Thessia is rushed for the love of god.Why this rushed senario become the whole game??

The game is full of examples like these. I can't possibly list them all.

Oh yeah?Then try to list.By the way I just punched that admiral again and feel very satisfying.

This is a no spoiler forum, so I can't go into detail.

Jesus,I just borke the law!

[Terror_K]

jreezy wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
Squaddie's from prior games alive or dead? Doesn't matter, some weak substitute chump steps in and does whatever they did anyway, making their seemingly special nature and uniqueness redundant.)

Funny you should mention this, I found Padok Wiks to be a more enjoyable character than Mordin Solus, especially considering Mordin's character assassination if you supported the Genophage throughout Mass Effect 2.

I haven't taken a pro-Genophage Shepard into ME3 with Mordin alive (the only one I have had Mordin dead), so I haven't seen that (not likely to, can't bring myself to take any more characters through the same samey sameness again. 13+ playthroughs in ME1 and all but two of them are wasted.). Let me guess... Mordin just acts the same no matter how your own Shepard reacted in ME2, right?

Yeah... not exactly a positive tick for ME3 there. More half-assery. But I'm sure its worth it to have James "Pointless" Vega, Diana "Waste of Space" Allers, Kinect support and multiplayer! <_<

[Fredvdp]

Allen Spellwaver wrote...

Fredvdp wrote...

Allen Spellwaver wrote...

Fredvdp wrote...

Allen Spellwaver wrote...

All right,Thessia Thessia Thessia...Why do people forget shooting Mordin or Legion?Thessia is rushed for the love of god.Why this rushed senario become the whole game??

The game is full of examples like these. I can't possibly list them all.

Oh yeah?Then try to list.By the way I just punched that admiral again and feel very satisfying.

This is a no spoiler forum, so I can't go into detail.

Jesus,I just borke the law!

LAAAAAWWWW

What I'm saying is there are many instances where you only have two choices. Often a choice doesn't translate into what you meant and often the two choices mean the exact same thing. For example, "We're in this fight together" versus "we're in this fight together, Anderson." I did four playthroughs. My Shepards were the same characters in all of these playthroughs, even if I tried to role-play as different individuals. None of these Shepards were who I wanted them to be because the game didn't allow it. ME1 and ME2 handled this much better.

[snakespirit]

So, if you don't consider the Mass Effect trilogy or Red Dead Redemption a "True RPG" then what do you consider it to be?

I like to think that the first two Gothic games with the Night of the Raven addon for the second one are True RPGs. Perhaps even Dragon Age: Origins (you have so many dialogue choices there and so much potential for character development). Dragon Age II was meh in this department - they used the Mass Effect choices wheel and while I really enjoy the sarcastic Hawke, I miss the several dialogue choices from Origins.

My favourite Mass Effect game from the trilogy is ME2 - Mass Effect 1 was a great game, and still is, I just thought that most of the side quests were a bit boring and all that Mako driving for resources was a bit boring as well. ME2 mostly got rid of the Mako resource searching in favour of Scanning the planets - I really like doing that, even though it's a bit time consuming.

[Pitznik]

Terror_K wrote...

ME1 and ME2 at least allowed you to do things in the order you wanted though. That kicked the bucket in ME3 almost entirely. It's a wonder they even gave us the galaxy map at all in ME3... almost like it was simply there because it was in the other two.

Not entirely true. ME1 gave you full choice after the first Citadel part played out, but it was a very short game without side missions. ME2 was linear, but in intelligent way - beginning, first batch of recruitment in whatever sequence, forced Horizon, second batch of recruitment/loyalty, forced Collector ship and so on. Plot was completely linear, but many short recruitment/loyalty and side missions were giving the impression of more choice.

Terror_K wrote...
Plus, ME1 had Noveria... a planet that allowed you to accomplish the same mission dozens of different ways. What happened to that concept in ME3? ME3 is just the same, boring rollercoaster ride every damn playthrough. Not to mention that it so forcibly puts you back on the tracks in such horrible, weak ways (i.e. Council dead or alive? Doesn't matter: new Council is pretty much identical. Rachni Queen alive or dead? Doesn't matter, new clone replaces her. Squaddie's from prior games alive or dead? Doesn't matter, some weak substitute chump steps in and does whatever they did anyway, making their seemingly special nature and uniqueness redundant.)

Lot of variables from previous two games forced authors to streamline the plot. It would be great to have different plot for every set of major variables, but it was technically impossible, and new player coming with default playthrough could see only a small part of the game. I suppose it would be bad from business point of view, which is hard reality. Actually "clone can do the same as dead character" part is true only in the Tuchanka arc, other main and side quests involving old characters play out quite differently, people without Legion, Miranda, Kasumi or Thane alive get different experiences, and less possible outcomes.

Players had somewhat unrealistic expectations, and Bioware made a big mistake actually confirming those expectations to be true in various interviews and PR. That is indeed their fault.

Modifié par Pitznik, 21 juillet 2012 - 08:44 .

[Allen Spellwaver]

Fredvdp wrote...

Allen Spellwaver wrote...

Fredvdp wrote...

Allen Spellwaver wrote...

Fredvdp wrote...

Allen Spellwaver wrote...

All right,Thessia Thessia Thessia...Why do people forget shooting Mordin or Legion?Thessia is rushed for the love of god.Why this rushed senario become the whole game??

The game is full of examples like these. I can't possibly list them all.

Oh yeah?Then try to list.By the way I just punched that admiral again and feel very satisfying.

This is a no spoiler forum, so I can't go into detail.

Jesus,I just borke the law!

LAAAAAWWWW

What I'm saying is there are many instances where you only have two choices. Often a choice doesn't translate into what you meant and often the two choices mean the exact same thing. For example, "We're in this fight together" versus "we're in this fight together, Anderson." I did four playthroughs. My Shepards were the same characters in all of these playthroughs, even if I tried to role-play as different individuals. None of these Shepards were who I wanted them to be because the game didn't allow it. ME1 and ME2 handled this much better.

ME1 and 2 you can't do anything that really renegenda.More like you were making jokes.But in ME3 you can be a hardass and don't count the consequences.Although those scenes are in small number and just like you said you can't pretend to be nothing happened after Thessia's fall.But shooting Mordin really reminds me of those scenes back to old BioWare games for the first time after Jade Empire.