181 réponses à ce sujet

[De1ta G]

TookYoCookies wrote...

Soultaker08 wrote...

zippythecellist wrote...

De1ta G wrote...

zippythecellist wrote...

Same here. The first game was great, the 2nd game was even better, and the 3rd game...was totally mediocre at best. What a shame. The ending of the 3rd was bad, but it was the lack of REAL side quests and any kind of RPG system that really ruined it for me.

It's a shame you feel that way about Mass Effect 3. Missions like Grissom Academy or any other mission that didn't have 'Priority' in front of it seemed like REAL side quests to me and good ones too. And I thought 3 had a better rpg system than 2, other than the auto-dialog. I preferred auto-dialog to the game having to pause every 10 seconds so that I can push my analog stick up or down and hit A. Mass Effect 3 cinematics flow a lot better and the voice acting is a lot better than the previous games. And then add in the "emotional rollercoaster" element it had in it and I believe it's the overall best game of the series and deserved the perfect scores it got, regardless of how the endings turned out.

Dude, please tell me you are trolling right now. There were TWO real side missions, (the academy and ardat-yakshi monestary) and there was no trace of an RPG game left in ME3. Both of the previous games easily had 10-15 hours alone in real side missions, and had more actual role playing. Of course game mechanics are going to be better in the latest game of a series though...which sadly, is the only positive thing I can say about ME3.

the side missions in ME1 all felt really horible, please tell me you are trolling right now

Side missions in ME1 were fine. A holographic child ended mass effect 3. A HOLOGRAPHIC CHILD. Mass effect 1 wins.

See, your allowing the ending to ruin an incredible game for you. You shouldn't do that.

[RoboticWays]

One was a great RPG. Two was a great story-driven action title, and Three was a masterpiece of both until the ending.

[Ozida]

shepdog77 wrote...

@zippythecellist and TookYoCookies.   I'd rather have fewer side missions with much more substance and flavor, as opposed to "Land on random planet, enter copy/paste building or cave, do pointless objective, rinse & repeat." Quality over Quantity

Yeah, this is way “better” than “don’t land on a planet at all, scan it quickly, obtain pointless staff, run away from Reapers, again and again”. How about quantity AND quality?

Modifié par Ozida, 23 juillet 2012 - 02:11 .

[blueumi]

shepdog77 wrote...

@zippythecellist and TookYoCookies.   I'd rather have fewer side missions with much more substance and flavor, as opposed to "Land on random planet, enter copy/paste building or cave, do pointless objective, rinse & repeat." Quality over Quantity

you would get a full story and charector interaction on most of the mass effect 1 side missions and at least they were not liniar fetch quests that last all of five mins

[zippythecellist]

Soultaker08 wrote...

zippythecellist wrote...

De1ta G wrote...

zippythecellist wrote...

Same here. The first game was great, the 2nd game was even better, and the 3rd game...was totally mediocre at best. What a shame. The ending of the 3rd was bad, but it was the lack of REAL side quests and any kind of RPG system that really ruined it for me.

It's a shame you feel that way about Mass Effect 3. Missions like Grissom Academy or any other mission that didn't have 'Priority' in front of it seemed like REAL side quests to me and good ones too. And I thought 3 had a better rpg system than 2, other than the auto-dialog. I preferred auto-dialog to the game having to pause every 10 seconds so that I can push my analog stick up or down and hit A. Mass Effect 3 cinematics flow a lot better and the voice acting is a lot better than the previous games. And then add in the "emotional rollercoaster" element it had in it and I believe it's the overall best game of the series and deserved the perfect scores it got, regardless of how the endings turned out.

Dude, please tell me you are trolling right now. There were TWO real side missions, (the academy and ardat-yakshi monestary) and there was no trace of an RPG game left in ME3. Both of the previous games easily had 10-15 hours alone in real side missions, and had more actual role playing. Of course game mechanics are going to be better in the latest game of a series though...which sadly, is the only positive thing I can say about ME3.

the side missions in ME1 all felt really horible, please tell me you are trolling right now

No, I'm not trolling. Yeah, ME1's side missions might have been landing on a planet and exploring said planet for a bunker to fight through, but that's a LOT better than "lol herp derp scan planet to retrieve **** for fetch quest." Hell, my favorite part of ME1 was getting to explore the planets. No idea why they removed that...oh, right. Trying the foolish task of making an RPG appeal to casual gamers and the COD crowd.

[blueumi]

RoboticWays wrote...

One was a great RPG. Two was a great story-driven action title, and Three was a masterpiece of both until the ending.

i have no idea what rpgs you play if you think mass effect 3 is anything like an rpg

[shepdog77]

blueumi wrote...

RoboticWays wrote...

One was a great RPG. Two was a great story-driven action title, and Three was a masterpiece of both until the ending.

i have no idea what rpgs you play if you think mass effect 3 is anything like an rpg

I consider any game that lets me assume the role of the protagonist in a narrative setting to be an rpg.  Hence ROLE-PLAYING.

[De1ta G]

zippythecellist wrote...

Soultaker08 wrote...

zippythecellist wrote...

De1ta G wrote...

zippythecellist wrote...

Same here. The first game was great, the 2nd game was even better, and the 3rd game...was totally mediocre at best. What a shame. The ending of the 3rd was bad, but it was the lack of REAL side quests and any kind of RPG system that really ruined it for me.

It's a shame you feel that way about Mass Effect 3. Missions like Grissom Academy or any other mission that didn't have 'Priority' in front of it seemed like REAL side quests to me and good ones too. And I thought 3 had a better rpg system than 2, other than the auto-dialog. I preferred auto-dialog to the game having to pause every 10 seconds so that I can push my analog stick up or down and hit A. Mass Effect 3 cinematics flow a lot better and the voice acting is a lot better than the previous games. And then add in the "emotional rollercoaster" element it had in it and I believe it's the overall best game of the series and deserved the perfect scores it got, regardless of how the endings turned out.

Dude, please tell me you are trolling right now. There were TWO real side missions, (the academy and ardat-yakshi monestary) and there was no trace of an RPG game left in ME3. Both of the previous games easily had 10-15 hours alone in real side missions, and had more actual role playing. Of course game mechanics are going to be better in the latest game of a series though...which sadly, is the only positive thing I can say about ME3.

the side missions in ME1 all felt really horible, please tell me you are trolling right now

No, I'm not trolling. Yeah, ME1's side missions might have been landing on a planet and exploring said planet for a bunker to fight through, but that's a LOT better than "lol herp derp scan planet to retrieve **** for fetch quest." Hell, my favorite part of ME1 was getting to explore the planets. No idea why they removed that...oh, right. Trying the foolish task of making an RPG appeal to casual gamers and the COD crowd.

They may have been trying to appeal to casual gamers but that's not the only reason. A lot of people hated the Mako. And you weren't exploring anything. Those planets were like 95% empty. It was unnecessary and tedious to ride around on a planet with a bunch of rock mountains generated to get in your way. Then you ran into a building full of baddies and all hell broke loose. Once you got what you came for you exited and Returned to Normandy.

[RoboticWays]

ME1 side missions were awful. Every system you traveled to, Hackett would patch in and explain some sort of issue. (Involving Geth or sometimes bandits/slavers) Then you would be dropped down in that god awful mako and drive around for 10 minutes until you found the objective. Then you would be thrusted into the frustrating combat system that ME1 has. The only cool thing about those side missions was the exploration of so many different planets. But even then the way you explored them was terrible, and boring. The only interesting side quests were the one with the bomb (where it ended up being a trap) and the ex-alliance officer being holed up with a group of psycho biotics. The rest of them were boring Geth traps with terrible, drawn out battles between your mako and the Geth Armatures. If you could combine the open spaces, vivid exploration and RPG elements of ME1, The emotions and storytelling of ME2, and the combat system of ME3, then you would have the best game of all time.

[TookYoCookies]

shepdog77 wrote...

@zippythecellist and TookYoCookies.   I'd rather have fewer side missions with much more substance and flavor, as opposed to "Land on random planet, enter copy/paste building or cave, do pointless objective, rinse & repeat." Quality over Quantity

Since when do fetch quests have any substance or flavor? ME3 sidequests were all pointless objectives that you had to rinse and repeat over and over. There was no quality to them. Did you play the same game?

[zippythecellist]

shepdog77 wrote...

@zippythecellist and TookYoCookies.   I'd rather have fewer side missions with much more substance and flavor, as opposed to "Land on random planet, enter copy/paste building or cave, do pointless objective, rinse & repeat." Quality over Quantity

Screw that. I'd rather have a lot of side missions that have substance and flavor...not just a few! They are charging $60 for this stuff, so they better make worthwhile content in the future.

[blueumi]

RoboticWays wrote...

ME1 side missions were awful. Every system you traveled to, Hackett would patch in and explain some sort of issue. (Involving Geth or sometimes bandits/slavers) Then you would be dropped down in that god awful mako and drive around for 10 minutes until you found the objective. Then you would be thrusted into the frustrating combat system that ME1 has. The only cool thing about those side missions was the exploration of so many different planets. But even then the way you explored them was terrible, and boring. The only interesting side quests were the one with the bomb (where it ended up being a trap) and the ex-alliance officer being holed up with a group of psycho biotics. The rest of them were boring Geth traps with terrible, drawn out battles between your mako and the Geth Armatures. If you could combine the open spaces, vivid exploration and RPG elements of ME1, The emotions and storytelling of ME2, and the combat system of ME3, then you would have the best game of all time.

you make some valid points I still like mass effect 1 best but fair points none the less

[De1ta G]

Don't forget about the Mass Effects inventory system. Acquiring 5 of the same items and then finding 5 better versions of them. There were 2 assault rifle models! They just had different colors. I've never understood inventory systems in "true RPGs". How is it immersive to have a thousand pounds of equipment in your pockets or maybe a bag or something.

[RoboticWays]

blueumi wrote...

RoboticWays wrote...

One was a great RPG. Two was a great story-driven action title, and Three was a masterpiece of both until the ending.

i have no idea what rpgs you play if you think mass effect 3 is anything like an rpg

What is the definition of an RPG?
Role-playing game
Customizable character (Just keeping the last name)
Customizable backstory for said character.
Points to level up different skills
Weapons/weapon mods
Very limited, but still, sandbox environment.
No matter how vague the RPG elements are in this game, ME3 still qualifies as an RPG, its just focused more on action and story.

[blueumi]

shepdog77 wrote...

blueumi wrote...

RoboticWays wrote...

One was a great RPG. Two was a great story-driven action title, and Three was a masterpiece of both until the ending.

i have no idea what rpgs you play if you think mass effect 3 is anything like an rpg

I consider any game that lets me assume the role of the protagonist in a narrative setting to be an rpg.  Hence ROLE-PLAYING.

don't you take on the role of most people in video games and sorry I'm just from the mind set of d and d where you level up improve weapons and armer have inventory thats what rpgs have in my opinion each their own

[De1ta G]

zippythecellist wrote...

shepdog77 wrote...

@zippythecellist and TookYoCookies.   I'd rather have fewer side missions with much more substance and flavor, as opposed to "Land on random planet, enter copy/paste building or cave, do pointless objective, rinse & repeat." Quality over Quantity

Screw that. I'd rather have a lot of side missions that have substance and flavor...not just a few! They are charging $60 for this stuff, so they better make worthwhile content in the future.

My first playthrough of ME 3 was 35 hours(this includes the prothean dlc)

ME 1 didn't reach 30 hours after doing everything and that's with the planet  "exploration"

ME 2 prob has the most content that's because of all the free dlc that game out with the cerberus network

All cost $60 when they came out. All have reletively the same ammount of gameplay time. 2 and 3 have more than 1 though.

[Sulligy]

blueumi wrote...

for me the first game was the best second was decent and the third is no where near as good as the first two games

Same with me. To all those people that say that ME1 had crap combat, they should play KOTOR. It had the worst combat ever, but the game was so good that nobody cared. If ME3 had dumb combat, but actually fun side-missions, and a good ending, there would be alot less haters.

[RoboticWays]

De1ta G wrote...

Don't forget about the Mass Effects inventory system. Acquiring 5 of the same items and then finding 5 better versions of them. There were 2 assault rifle models! They just had different colors. I've never understood inventory systems in "true RPGs". How is it immersive to have a thousand pounds of equipment in your pockets or maybe a bag or something.

Lol, You're right.
Every gun looked the same, just different stats and colors.
I did like the differences in armor though, they at least offered some sort of variety.
ME3's armor system is customizable, but pretty disappointing, before the game came out, i was hoping for something more along the lines of Halo's multiplayer armor. (Just with different recharge rates, damage resistance, melee boosts, etc.)

[De1ta G]

blueumi wrote...

shepdog77 wrote...

blueumi wrote...

RoboticWays wrote...

One was a great RPG. Two was a great story-driven action title, and Three was a masterpiece of both until the ending.

i have no idea what rpgs you play if you think mass effect 3 is anything like an rpg

I consider any game that lets me assume the role of the protagonist in a narrative setting to be an rpg.  Hence ROLE-PLAYING.

don't you take on the role of most people in video games and sorry I'm just from the mind set of d and d where you level up improve weapons and armer have inventory thats what rpgs have in my opinion each their own

You can try to take the role the character your playing in most games, but in most games you can't choose what kind of role you're going to play. All Mass Effects you can. 

[blueumi]

RoboticWays wrote...

blueumi wrote...

RoboticWays wrote...

One was a great RPG. Two was a great story-driven action title, and Three was a masterpiece of both until the ending.

i have no idea what rpgs you play if you think mass effect 3 is anything like an rpg

What is the definition of an RPG?
Role-playing game
Customizable character (Just keeping the last name)
Customizable backstory for said character.
Points to level up different skills
Weapons/weapon mods
Very limited, but still, sandbox environment.
No matter how vague the RPG elements are in this game, ME3 still qualifies as an RPG, its just focused more on action and story.

valid point I just never got over them taking my inventory
I think I would just like it to have some more rpg as it's mostly action thats all

[De1ta G]

RoboticWays wrote...

De1ta G wrote...

Don't forget about the Mass Effects inventory system. Acquiring 5 of the same items and then finding 5 better versions of them. There were 2 assault rifle models! They just had different colors. I've never understood inventory systems in "true RPGs". How is it immersive to have a thousand pounds of equipment in your pockets or maybe a bag or something.

Lol, You're right.
Every gun looked the same, just different stats and colors.
I did like the differences in armor though, they at least offered some sort of variety.
ME3's armor system is customizable, but pretty disappointing, before the game came out, i was hoping for something more along the lines of Halo's multiplayer armor. (Just with different recharge rates, damage resistance, melee boosts, etc.)

Well at least ME 3 armor sytem has more than ME 2 does.  You only had like 10 colors in ME 2. Patterns 2 and 3 looked awful. It's not as customizable as I would like but like a said. Better than ME 2s.

[RoboticWays]

x7he pr0digyx wrote...

blueumi wrote...

for me the first game was the best second was decent and the third is no where near as good as the first two games

Same with me. To all those people that say that ME1 had crap combat, they should play KOTOR. It had the worst combat ever, but the game was so good that nobody cared. If ME3 had dumb combat, but actually fun side-missions, and a good ending, there would be alot less haters.

What we expected BW to do is bring the two together.
Good ending
Good side missions
Good combat
I think that's what everybody expected when Casey Hudson said that it was going to bring elements from both of its predecessors. 

[blueumi]

RoboticWays wrote...

De1ta G wrote...

Don't forget about the Mass Effects inventory system. Acquiring 5 of the same items and then finding 5 better versions of them. There were 2 assault rifle models! They just had different colors. I've never understood inventory systems in "true RPGs". How is it immersive to have a thousand pounds of equipment in your pockets or maybe a bag or something.

Lol, You're right.
Every gun looked the same, just different stats and colors.
I did like the differences in armor though, they at least offered some sort of variety.
ME3's armor system is customizable, but pretty disappointing, before the game came out, i was hoping for something more along the lines of Halo's multiplayer armor. (Just with different recharge rates, damage resistance, melee boosts, etc.)

i have played games with worse inventory systems really two worlds one and sacred 2 spring to mind though I liked sacrid 2 but my god two worlds sucks

[blueumi]

RoboticWays wrote...

x7he pr0digyx wrote...

blueumi wrote...

for me the first game was the best second was decent and the third is no where near as good as the first two games

Same with me. To all those people that say that ME1 had crap combat, they should play KOTOR. It had the worst combat ever, but the game was so good that nobody cared. If ME3 had dumb combat, but actually fun side-missions, and a good ending, there would be alot less haters.

What we expected BW to do is bring the two together.
Good ending
Good side missions
Good combat
I think that's what everybody expected when Casey Hudson said that it was going to bring elements from both of its predecessors. 

scared now thats what they say about dragon age 3 and that game is ment to be nothing but rpg not a hybrid like mass effect was

[De1ta G]

I've never been a real fan of the so called "true rpgs". To me, they seem more like statistics with pictures than anything else.