181 réponses à ce sujet

[Paradox6006]

De1ta G wrote...

blueumi 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.

no i'm sorry when you can ****** off almost every fan old and new then no it is not perfect

there are dull missions like the geth consensis also it's linier
has stupid moments with enimes jumping out of the floor
has one of the worst endings to a game ever
it's not perfect far from it

The geth consensis mission was put in there to help justify picking the geth over the quarians if you have to choose between them. There's no fighting but it's not like it takes a long time to do and  there is some interesting stuff you learn when you play it the first time, not dull at all.

I've never seen enemies jump out of floor so I don't know about that

Worst endings to a game ever is a bit of an exaggeration, it could of been a lot better but it's tolerable.

And nothings perfect

I agree with you and honestly I've played more times through ME3 than ME1 or 2 because the gameplay is just so fun. I mean if you have a great story then it's good for like 2 playthroughs, but when you have a good story & great gameplay then it is worth many more playthroughs.

If you guys want a good story go read a book or something?

[F4H bandicoot]

Considering I have like more than 10 playthroughs of 1, about 7 playthroughs of 2, and 2 playthroughs of 3 ( A number which probably won't increase) and yet I still love playing 1 and 2, 3 is a disaster.

[zippythecellist]

Paradox6006 wrote...

I agree with you and honestly I've played more times through ME3 than ME1 or 2 because the gameplay is just so fun. I mean if you have a great story then it's good for like 2 playthroughs, but when you have a good story & great gameplay then it is worth many more playthroughs.

If you guys want a good story go read a book or something?

I do not even know how to respond to that. Are you saying you actually have no problem with game devs producing sub-par games? ME3 definitely wasn't the worst game I've played, but certainly sub-par compared to the rest of the series. But I'm sure we all know the rEAson for that...<_<

And honestly, a great story with many different choices adds so much replay value. I must have played through ME 1&2 about 7-9 times each just to make all the choices. If I just wanted to shoot things, I'd play COD or GOW. When I want to shoot things while playing through a great story, I play ME. Don't know why publishers think turning a great RPG into a mediocre TPS with even more mediocre multiplayer is going to reel in the casual cod crowd.

[SackofCat]

I still get goosebumps/excited when I hear and see that opening cinematic.

[SackofCat]

"If you guys want a good story go read a book or something?"

A good story just gets in the way of the pew pew.

[robertthebard]

zippythecellist wrote...

Paradox6006 wrote...

I agree with you and honestly I've played more times through ME3 than ME1 or 2 because the gameplay is just so fun. I mean if you have a great story then it's good for like 2 playthroughs, but when you have a good story & great gameplay then it is worth many more playthroughs.

If you guys want a good story go read a book or something?

I do not even know how to respond to that. Are you saying you actually have no problem with game devs producing sub-par games? ME3 definitely wasn't the worst game I've played, but certainly sub-par compared to the rest of the series. But I'm sure we all know the rEAson for that...<_<

And honestly, a great story with many different choices adds so much replay value. I must have played through ME 1&2 about 7-9 times each just to make all the choices. If I just wanted to shoot things, I'd play COD or GOW. When I want to shoot things while playing through a great story, I play ME. Don't know why publishers think turning a great RPG into a mediocre TPS with even more mediocre multiplayer is going to reel in the casual cod crowd.

I didn't find ME 3 to be subpar until the last sequence, and I don't play it, so it doesn't affect me.  I couldn't see a logical way to survive what looks like a direct hit from a Reaper's destructo beam, so I stuck to my view and quit right there.  The fact is, I enjoyed the time I spent getting to that point, and have no problem with the idea that I could fail to stop the Reapers.  Everybody that came before me did, or we would have a different story.  The lack of "and they all lived happily ever after" doesn't bother me.

[Ieldra]

I think the three games had very different strengths and weaknesses:

ME1:
*A good, self-contained main plot with an interesting antagonist
*Very little in character stories
*OK to good main missions.
*No secondary missions.
*Many side missions with identical locations, but they involved some talking which made them more than a chore.
*Great planet exploration.
*No mini-quests
*OK Collection quests.

ME2:
*A weak, self-contained main plot with a cheesy antagonist
*Great character stories
*Mediocre to OK main missions (SM was great)
*Mediocre to excellent secondary missions (Recruitment missions and LMs)
*Many side missions in interesting locations, but with zero (!) talking, which made them feel like a chore.
*Zero planet exploration
*A few mini quests
*Annoying planet scanning

ME3:
*A good, multi-pronged main plot (Crucible, Uniting the Galaxy, Cerberus) which was perhaps a little too ambitious for the short development time.
*Character involvement and interaction between excellent (Javik, EDI, Liara) and abysmal (the ME2 cast)
*Main missions between excellent (Rannoch, Tuchanka) and abysmal (London)
*Mostly excellent secondary missions (everything between priority missions and N7 assignments)
*Fewer side missions but in interesting locations and with some character involvement.
*Zero planet exploration
*Rather nice fetch quests, but with...
*Very* annoying planet scanning (PC)

I think ME3 comes out on top overall. It's just tainted by the abysmal last real mission, the original ending and unbalanced autodialogue. With regard to sidequests, there appears to be a rule in place: Interesting locations, character interaction, many of them: choose any two.

As for ME1 nostalgy, I have that, too. That's because beginnings are more interesting than endings as a rule. With ME1, we got a new, fascinating world to explore. ME2 added great characters. ME3, while being the best overall as I see it, means saying goodbye. At least, with the EC we now know that all is well with the galaxy we are leaving behind.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 23 juillet 2012 - 12:29 .

[flanny]

BatmanPWNS wrote...

Personally, when I first saw ME1 trailers, I thought they were pretty wierd and awkward.

this, I only got the game as at the time i considered bioware to be a mark of quality (how times have changed). Glad i did buy it though as it's one of the best games i've ever played

[flanny]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I think the three games had very different strengths and weaknesses:

ME1:
*A good, self-contained main plot with an interesting antagonist
*Very little in character stories
*OK to good main missions.
*No secondary missions.
*Many side missions with identical locations, but they involved some talking which made them more than a chore.
*Great planet exploration.
*No mini-quests
*OK Collection quests.

ME2:
*A weak, self-contained main plot with a cheesy antagonist
*Great character stories
*Mediocre to OK main missions (SM was great)
*Mediocre to excellent secondary missions (Recruitment missions and LMs)
*Many side missions in interesting locations, but with zero (!) talking, which made them feel like a chore.
*Zero planet exploration
*A few mini quests
*Annoying planet scanning

ME3:
*A good, multi-pronged main plot (Crucible, Uniting the Galaxy, Cerberus) which was perhaps a little too ambitious for the short development time.
*Character involvement and interaction between excellent (Javik, EDI, Liara) and abysmal (the ME2 cast)
*Main missions between excellent (Rannoch, Tuchanka) and abysmal (London)
*Mostly excellent secondary missions (everything between priority missions and N7 assignments)
*Fewer side missions but in interesting locations and with some character involvement.
*Zero planet exploration
*Rather nice fetch quests, but with...
*Very* annoying planet scanning (PC)

I think ME3 comes out on top overall. It's just tainted by the abysmal last real mission, the original ending and unbalanced autodialogue. With regard to sidequests, there appears to be a rule in place: Interesting locations, character interaction, many of them: choose any two.

As for ME1 nostalgy, I have that, too. That's because beginnings are more interesting than endings as a rule. With ME1, we got a new, fascinating world to explore. ME2 added great characters. ME3, while being the best overall as I see it, means saying goodbye. At least, with the EC we now know that all is well with the galaxy we are leaving behind.

really!?

[NRieh]

ME3:
*A good, multi-pronged main plot

I'm really sorry to disappoint you, but 3\\4 of that "main plot" consists of 1-2 characters. Without knowing where they come from - it has zero value. Grissom for a new starter does not tell a thing, as he does not know what is Jack. Mordin, Tali, Legion - most of their lines bound to your feelings about previous parts. Alenko\\Williams characters are pointless for some one who never took virmire decision and did not have Horizon-1. 

To put it simple - ME3 exploits your existing relations, emotions and feelings. You love genophage line because you confronted Wrex in ME1 and had Mordin's line ME2. You love geth\\quarrian because of Legion and Tali. Mars and coup makes sense to you, if you romanced\\cared for existing and well written character that survived Virmire.  

You say ME3 is great? Take away all your feelings and emotions that you aquired during first two games. If you still consider remaining part any cool - congratz.
Even ME2 could survive as decent stand-alone project, without playing ME1 (and PSPers still have no ME1, afaik).

ME3 without first two parts personal experience is not even mediocre. And those who had it are ready to forgive much for the chance to see old characters and have some more of MEU, but some things even their existing love to universe and characters can not fix.

Modifié par Nrieh, 23 juillet 2012 - 03:01 .

[Memnon]

SackofCat wrote...

I still get goosebumps/excited when I hear and see that opening cinematic.

Same here ... the more I think about how much I loved ME1, the more irritated I get at how this trilogy ended

[F4H bandicoot]

Stornskar wrote...

SackofCat wrote...

I still get goosebumps/excited when I hear and see that opening cinematic.

Same here ... the more I think about how much I loved ME1, the more irritated I get at how this trilogy ended

ME2 has some of these moments too, The normandy Reborn springs to mind.

[De1ta G]

Nrieh wrote...

ME3:
*A good, multi-pronged main plot

I'm really sorry to disappoint you, but 34 of that "main plot" consists of 1-2 characters. Without knowing where they come from - it has zero value. Grissom for a new starter does not tell a thing, as he does not know what is Jack. Mordin, Tali, Legion - most of their lines bound to your feelings about previous parts. AlenkoWilliams characters are pointless for some one who never took virmire decision and did not have Horizon-1. 

To put it simple - ME3 exploits your existing relations, emotions and feelings. You love genophage line because you confronted Wrex in ME1 and had Mordin's line ME2. You love gethquarrian because of Legion and Tali. Mars and coup makes sense to you, if you romancedcared for existing and well written character that survived Virmire.  

You say ME3 is great? Take away all your feelings and emotions that you aquired during first two games. If you still consider remaining part any cool - congratz.
Even ME2 could survive as decent stand-alone project, without playing ME1 (and PSPers still have no ME1, afaik).

ME3 without first two parts personal experience is not even mediocre. And those who had it are ready to forgive much for the chance to see old characters and have some more of MEU, but some things even their existing love to universe and characters can not fix.

If you don't play Mass Effect 3 with a ME>ME2>ME3 import, then you are playing it wrong.

[Memnon]

F4H bandicoot wrote...

ME2 has some of these moments too, The normandy Reborn springs to mind.

Agreed ... Suicide Mission as well

[NRieh]

If you don't play Mass Effect 3 with a ME>ME2>ME3 import, then you are playing it wrong.

Is there anything written on a gamebox or in origin description, that tells those who use imports get more from game then those who don't, while all pay same $$?...

And how does it change things, that as stand-alone project ME3 is just awful (apart from combat mechanics). While first two could have both good and bad, but were all-sufficient?

I replayed 1&2 each time before starting 3, and played them without 3 manyl times. And I always played on imports. All I want to say - ME3 does not have anything good in plot on it's own. At all. All "good" works only beacuse there were 1&2.

[JimTasty]

I can't even begin to describe how enamored I was when you first dock in the Citadel in ME1 and exploring every nook and cranny of the station

[robertthebard]

Nrieh wrote...

ME3:
*A good, multi-pronged main plot

I'm really sorry to disappoint you, but 34 of that "main plot" consists of 1-2 characters. Without knowing where they come from - it has zero value. Grissom for a new starter does not tell a thing, as he does not know what is Jack. Mordin, Tali, Legion - most of their lines bound to your feelings about previous parts. AlenkoWilliams characters are pointless for some one who never took virmire decision and did not have Horizon-1. 

So intead of leaving "teasers" about past games, they should just disregard all the previous chapters so that somebody that didn't play them isn't tempted into buying them?  I hope you're not in a marketing job, because you're not going to last very long.

To put it simple - ME3 exploits your existing relations, emotions and feelings. You love genophage line because you confronted Wrex in ME1 and had Mordin's line ME2. You love gethquarrian because of Legion and Tali. Mars and coup makes sense to you, if you romancedcared for existing and well written character that survived Virmire.  

To put it simply, ME 3 carries on the story, albeit sometimes oddly, of the first two games.  Interactions with characters from previous games are great for people that played them, and good for the company if they can make it interesting enough to make people that didn't play the first two to go out and get 'em.  I'm not sure why you'd want to say this is a bad thing.

You say ME3 is great? Take away all your feelings and emotions that you aquired during first two games. If you still consider remaining part any cool - congratz.
Even ME2 could survive as decent stand-alone project, without playing ME1 (and PSPers still have no ME1, afaik).

ME3 without first two parts personal experience is not even mediocre. And those who had it are ready to forgive much for the chance to see old characters and have some more of MEU, but some things even their existing love to universe and characters can not fix.

It's odd that you state this as some kind of universal truth or something, because I've seen plenty of posts by people that have played all three that it would make a good stand alone game.  So what is it that you're trying to say, exactly, because you're all over the place with blanket statements that just don't add up considering the actual climate in the community.

[De1ta G]

Nrieh wrote...

If you don't play Mass Effect 3 with a ME>ME2>ME3 import, then you are playing it wrong.

Is there anything written on a gamebox or in origin description, that tells those who use imports get more from game then those who don't, while all pay same $$?...

And how does it change things, that as stand-alone project ME3 is just awful (apart from combat mechanics). While first two could have both good and bad, but were all-sufficient?

I replayed 1&2 each time before starting 3, and played them without 3 manyl times. And I always played on imports. All I want to say - ME3 does not have anything good in plot on it's own. At all. All "good" works only beacuse there were 1&2.

Of course it doesn't have a good plot on it's own. It's the final piece of the series. This is where everything comes together from the first two. Would Return of the Jedi stand out on it's own? Heck no.

[robertthebard]

Stornskar wrote...

F4H bandicoot wrote...

ME2 has some of these moments too, The normandy Reborn springs to mind.

Agreed ... Suicide Mission as well

I was actually disappointed by that, but only because they reused the name.

[NRieh]

It's odd that you state this as some kind of universal truth or something, because I've seen plenty of posts by people that have played all three that it would make a good stand alone game.

Glad for them. I thought forum is a place where people share their own personal opinions. Sorry for telling mine before checking "the actual climate in the community".

So what is it that you're trying to say, exactly

I'm trying to say exactly, that talks about ME3 being best of series make me really smile. Because if you take old bottle of good wine, and pour wine from that bottle into something else (better - shiny and glittering) - you'll, definetely, will still have some bottle of good wine. But that won't be because of that shiny new bottle.

Would Return of the Jedi stand out on it's own? Heck no.

Nice example, because it would feel on it's own much better than ME3 without 1&2.
And, actually, my SW-love started from ep5 - it was first one that I could get on video - just saying.

[XavierHollywood]

Nrieh wrote...

ME3:
*A good, multi-pronged main plot

I'm really sorry to disappoint you, but 34 of that "main plot" consists of 1-2 characters. Without knowing where they come from - it has zero value. Grissom for a new starter does not tell a thing, as he does not know what is Jack. Mordin, Tali, Legion - most of their lines bound to your feelings about previous parts. AlenkoWilliams characters are pointless for some one who never took virmire decision and did not have Horizon-1. 

To put it simple - ME3 exploits your existing relations, emotions and feelings. You love genophage line because you confronted Wrex in ME1 and had Mordin's line ME2. You love gethquarrian because of Legion and Tali. Mars and coup makes sense to you, if you romancedcared for existing and well written character that survived Virmire.  

You say ME3 is great? Take away all your feelings and emotions that you aquired during first two games. If you still consider remaining part any cool - congratz.
Even ME2 could survive as decent stand-alone project, without playing ME1 (and PSPers still have no ME1, afaik).

ME3 without first two parts personal experience is not even mediocre. And those who had it are ready to forgive much for the chance to see old characters and have some more of MEU, but some things even their existing love to universe and characters can not fix.

Wait, what the heck??  ME3 is of course dependant on the two previous games that came before it.  Thats true for any trilogy.  Would Return of the King be as strong as it is if Fellowship and Two Towers didnt exist?  Would A Storm of Swords be as good without A Game of Thrones and A Clash of Kings before it??

For any strong narrative series to thrive of course it must be strongly connected to the previous installments.  If you want each to be completely stand alone, then there is no point in making a trilogy.  Might as well just make a new series with each new game.

[SSPBOURNE]

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.

ME3 has more of an RPG system than 2 does.

[NRieh]

Would Return of the King be as strong as it is if Fellowship and Two Towers didnt exist?

You were talking about the book, I assume...
Profesor J.R.R. Tolkien never wrote LotR as 3 DIFFERENT books, neither he tried to sell them each separately and make more money. Neither he wrote last part after\\while selling first two ones, knowing that people will buy it anyway, just to know how it ends.

From his point of veiw - it were just chapters of ONE single book (with Silmarillion as a prequel), and that's how he wanted to publish it. It was publisher's idea to split LotR into 3 volumes (for several reasons, including post-war economical ones) and give each part separate title (and aslo leave "Silmarillion" totally aside - probably for good, it was much revised and rewritten later). It was either this or cuting texts, so Tolkien agreed to make 3 books instead of 1.

This example fits videogames and ME trilogy even less then any movie. 

ME3 has more of an RPG system than 2 does.

Specify "RPG system"?..

Modifié par Nrieh, 24 juillet 2012 - 07:56 .

[XavierHollywood]

Nrieh wrote...

Would Return of the King be as strong as it is if Fellowship and Two Towers didnt exist?

You were talking about the book, I assume...
Profesor J.R.R. Tolkien never wrote LotR as 3 DIFFERENT books, neither he tried to sell them each separately and make more money. Neither he wrote last part afterwhile selling first two ones, knowing that people will buy it anyway, just to know how it ends.

From his point of veiw - it were just chapters of ONE single book (with Silmarillion as a prequel), and that's how he wanted to publish it. It was publisher's idea to split LotR into 3 volumes (for several reasons, including post-war economical ones) and give each part separate title (and aslo leave "Silmarillion" totally aside - probably for good, it was much revised and rewritten later). It was either this or cuting texts, so Tolkien agreed to make 3 books instead of 1.

This example fits videogames and ME trilogy even less then any movie. 

ME3 has more of an RPG system than 2 does.

Specify "RPG system"?..

the books, movies, tv shows whatever medium its not important.  IF you are building a long series and if it is going to be split up, you want your subsequent titles in that series to tie in with the previous works.  In fact, one of the major complaints from many ME fans is that the series DOSENT tie in enough with each previous title.

Yes ME3 might not be the a good example of a stand alone game, but it really SHOULDNT be considering its the culmination of dozens of hours of exposition, lore, characters, conflicts, etc etc.  Its the finale of a three part series. It is OBLICATED to have a strong connection to the previous two titles.

If you want a series that completely stands on its own where the previous entries mean little to nothing, then play Final Fantasy or The Elder Scrolls instead.

[XavierHollywood]

double post

Modifié par XavierHollywood, 24 juillet 2012 - 08:09 .