457 réponses à ce sujet

[JamesT91]

depends on your opinion, if your the kind of person that likes RPG's then yes 1 is by far the best game.

2 is ok not quite as good as 1 as it was part shooter part rpg

3 was unfortunately one of the worst games ive ever played thats supposedly an rpg

shooter fans like 3 best because the development team for one of the biggest rpg game companies in the world somehow have it in their collective head that the key to a good series is to start as an rpg and steadily take away everything that started the series off well
( obviously each person is entitled to their own opinion but most of the polls and forums where people argue for ME3 as a good game are people that have never even played the first 2)

Modifié par JamesT91, 24 juillet 2012 - 05:34 .

[De1ta G]

JamesT91 wrote...

depends on your opinion, if your the kind of person that likes RPG's then yes 1 is by far the best game.

2 is ok not quite as good as 1 as it was part shooter part rpg

3 was unfortunately one of the worst games ive ever played thats supposedly an rpg

shooter fans like 3 best because the development team for one of the biggest rpg game companies in the world somehow have it in their collective head that the key to a good series is to start as an rpg and steadily take away everything that started the series off well
( obviously each person is entitled to their own opinion but most of the polls and forums where people argue for ME3 as a good game are people that have never even played the first 2)

Here we go again with people thinking a RPG is. 

Mass Effect was never the kind of RPG you are thinking of. It's always been Action/Adventure/TPS with RPG elements.

[Ozida]

It just makes me very sad when people claim ME1 "worst game in the series" and give such high reviews to ME3.

All the designers, writers and developers put so much work in creating a whole new fr***ing universe in ME1, and the only thing people complain about is the combat system? "Oh, the exploration mission on Mako sucked... oh, the plot was stupid... oh, characters were dull"... If you disliked ME1 so much, why did you even bothered playing ME2 & ME3? Why do people even still replay ME1 in this case? To disgust themselves even more?


This is exactly what happens when the last game out of three is created for new players, rather than those who played the trilogy from the beginning and can appreciate all the smaller things the whole experience began with.

Modifié par Ozida, 24 juillet 2012 - 05:34 .

[Blacklash93]

ME2, as a stand-alone title, is the best and most enjoyable in the series. But it had a stupid main plot and too many daddy issues.

ME1 is the best story in the context of the entire trilogy. But the gameplay was usually awful and frustrating.

Neither is anywhere near perfect.

Modifié par Blacklash93, 24 juillet 2012 - 05:44 .

[JamesT91]

De1ta G wrote...

JamesT91 wrote...

depends on your opinion, if your the kind of person that likes RPG's then yes 1 is by far the best game.

2 is ok not quite as good as 1 as it was part shooter part rpg

3 was unfortunately one of the worst games ive ever played thats supposedly an rpg

shooter fans like 3 best because the development team for one of the biggest rpg game companies in the world somehow have it in their collective head that the key to a good series is to start as an rpg and steadily take away everything that started the series off well
( obviously each person is entitled to their own opinion but most of the polls and forums where people argue for ME3 as a good game are people that have never even played the first 2)

Here we go again with people thinking a RPG is. 


Mass Effect was never the kind of RPG you are thinking of. It's always been Action/Adventure/TPS with RPG elements.

i didnt say it is the perfect RPG, i simply said that it is the closest to an RPG in the series

Modifié par JamesT91, 24 juillet 2012 - 05:37 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Ozida wrote...

It just makes me very sad when people claim ME1 "worst game in the series" and give such high reviews to ME3.

All the designers, writers and developers put so much work in creating a whole new fr***ing universe in ME1, and the only thing people complain about is the combat system? "Oh, the exploration mission on Mako sucked... oh, the plot was stupid... oh, characters were dull"... If you disliked ME1 so much, why did you even bothered playing ME2 & ME3? Why do people even still replay ME1 in this case? To disgust themselves even more?


This is exactly what happens when the last game out of three is created for new players, rather than those who played the trilogy from the beginning and can appreciate all the smaller things the whole experience began with.

Sorry, I've been playing since ME1 launched on Xbox all those years ago. And I still find the combat terrible, the exploration bland, and the characters dull. I appreciate all the extra difficulty which goes into designing a new setting. That doesn't change my final verdict on ME1's placement.

[JeffZero]

Well, Ozida, ME1 is the worst game in the series and ME3 is the best. I apologize that this makes you so sad, but it's my opinion.

[BatmanPWNS]

Ozida wrote...

It just makes me very sad when people claim ME1 "worst game in the series" and give such high reviews to ME3.

All the designers, writers and developers put so much work in creating a whole new fr***ing universe in ME1, and the only thing people complain about is the combat system? "Oh, the exploration mission on Mako sucked... oh, the plot was stupid... oh, characters were dull"... If you disliked ME1 so much, why did you even bothered playing ME2 & ME3? Why do people even still replay ME1 in this case? To disgust themselves even more?


This is exactly what happens when the last game out of three is created for new players, rather than those who played the trilogy from the beginning and can appreciate all the smaller things the whole experience began with.

As much as I dislike ME1's fault, I have to agree with the point of creating a whole universe. Back then it was new, it was different and it felt great to learn everything about it.

[SuperMegaWolf]

De1ta G wrote...

JamesT91 wrote...

depends on your opinion, if your the kind of person that likes RPG's then yes 1 is by far the best game.

2 is ok not quite as good as 1 as it was part shooter part rpg

3 was unfortunately one of the worst games ive ever played thats supposedly an rpg

shooter fans like 3 best because the development team for one of the biggest rpg game companies in the world somehow have it in their collective head that the key to a good series is to start as an rpg and steadily take away everything that started the series off well
( obviously each person is entitled to their own opinion but most of the polls and forums where people argue for ME3 as a good game are people that have never even played the first 2)

Here we go again with people thinking a RPG is. 

Mass Effect was never the kind of RPG you are thinking of. It's always been Action/Adventure/TPS with RPG elements.

If it was always that why did they put loot, exploration, stats, and exp for each enemy kill in the first game? Seems like that's how they started out and then they changed it to what you're describing in the second game.

[JeffZero]

JamesT91 wrote...

depends on your opinion, if your the kind of person that likes RPG's then yes 1 is by far the best game.

2 is ok not quite as good as 1 as it was part shooter part rpg

3 was unfortunately one of the worst games ive ever played thats supposedly an rpg

shooter fans like 3 best because the development team for one of the biggest rpg game companies in the world somehow have it in their collective head that the key to a good series is to start as an rpg and steadily take away everything that started the series off well
( obviously each person is entitled to their own opinion but most of the polls and forums where people argue for ME3 as a good game are people that have never even played the first 2)

RPGs have been my favorite genre since 1997. I've played approximately six shooter games in my entire life.

ME3 is still my favorite. Atmospherically, narrative-wise, and combat-wise, yes. Musically. Aesthetically. I prefer ME2's characterization overall, and I dig some of ME1's brilliant vistas, but that's about it. 3 wins in all other categories.

[JeffZero]

BatmanPWNS wrote...

Ozida wrote...

It just makes me very sad when people claim ME1 "worst game in the series" and give such high reviews to ME3.

All the designers, writers and developers put so much work in creating a whole new fr***ing universe in ME1, and the only thing people complain about is the combat system? "Oh, the exploration mission on Mako sucked... oh, the plot was stupid... oh, characters were dull"... If you disliked ME1 so much, why did you even bothered playing ME2 & ME3? Why do people even still replay ME1 in this case? To disgust themselves even more?


This is exactly what happens when the last game out of three is created for new players, rather than those who played the trilogy from the beginning and can appreciate all the smaller things the whole experience began with.

As much as I dislike ME1's fault, I have to agree with the point of creating a whole universe. Back then it was new, it was different and it felt great to learn everything about it.

I prefer ME2 for fleshing it out more, honestly. ME1 introduced me and I was spellbound, but it was much more fun to actually go to seedier places I'd heard about, as well as the Flotilla, etc.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

SuperMegaWolf wrote...

If it was always that why did they put loot, exploration, stats, and exp for each enemy kill in the first game? Seems like that's how they started out and then they changed it to what you're describing in the second game.

Great question. Let's also consider why they decided to make it a realtime tps built on the unreal engine, if it was meant to be a traditional RPG in the first place.  

Edit: Of course, I don't remember much freeform explanation ever taking place in pen and paper. Sure, your DM might let you decide between going left and right, but on the scale of Mass Effect? Hardly.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 24 juillet 2012 - 05:41 .

[De1ta G]

Mass Effect was great when it came out. Combat still sucked then but there was no other Mass Effect game to compare it to. The game was good enough to take a look at the second one. It was vastly improved. Mass Effect 3 improved on Mass Effect 2 features, thus making Mass Effect 3 the best.

Modifié par De1ta G, 24 juillet 2012 - 05:43 .

[MassStorm]

JeffZero wrote...

Well, Ozida, ME1 is the worst game in the series and ME3 is the best. I apologize that this makes you so sad, but it's my opinion.

Not to be unpolite but i find this statement a nonsense....so you like Mass Effect as a saga but you don't like the game that basically created the world, the lore and the enitre setting for the rest of the games??? I'm confused

[JeffZero]

MassStorm wrote...

JeffZero wrote...

Well, Ozida, ME1 is the worst game in the series and ME3 is the best. I apologize that this makes you so sad, but it's my opinion.

Not to be unpolite but i find this statement a nonsense....so you like Mass Effect as a saga but you don't like the game that basically created the world, the lore and the enitre setting for the rest of the games??? I'm confused

I can call something the worst in a trilogy and still love it, y'know. ME1 is an 85/100 or so for me. That's stlil high praise.

But introducing something isn't as good as fleshing it out, making it work, testing it, and seeing if it holds true. That's what ME2 and ME3 did with the cultures we learned about, but did very little with, as we hunted Saren in ME1.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

JeffZero wrote...

MassStorm wrote...

JeffZero wrote...

Well, Ozida, ME1 is the worst game in the series and ME3 is the best. I apologize that this makes you so sad, but it's my opinion.

Not to be unpolite but i find this statement a nonsense....so you like Mass Effect as a saga but you don't like the game that basically created the world, the lore and the enitre setting for the rest of the games??? I'm confused

I can call something the worst in a trilogy and still love it, y'know. ME1 is an 85/100 or so for me. That's stlil high praise.

But introducing something isn't as good as fleshing it out, making it work, testing it, and seeing if it holds true. That's what ME2 and ME3 did with the cultures we learned about, but did very little with, as we hunted Saren in ME1.

Agreed.

Also, despite the apparent negative connotation, calling something the worst in a set does not, by necessity, indicate that it is lacking in quality. If I said to you that the Dark Knight is the worst of the Batman trilogy, that does not mean I think it's a bad movie, only that it's lacking in comparison to the other two.

[Ozida]

JeffZero wrote...

Well, Ozida, ME1 is the worst game in the series and ME3 is the best. I apologize that this makes you so sad, but it's my opinion.

Well, it's easy to fix as "best" and "worst" is just subjective opinions.



P.S. I guess, I just feel bad for people who are OK to use their imagination to cover plotholes and create their own endings, but get upset over small glitches with Mako or "inconvenient" combat system. (Not meant as a personal insult to JeffZero).

[KotorEffect3]

Jamie9 wrote...

Well, I consider ME1 to be the worst in the series. It's still amazing, just ME2 and ME3 are better. Think about the 6 squadmates in ME1. How bland were they compared to ME2 and ME3's roster?

Garrus and Tali only became fan-favorites through ME2, that's when they became awesome.

Tali showed more personality on Freedom Progress than she did in the entirety of ME 1.

[SuperMegaWolf]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...

Well, I consider ME1 to be the worst in the series. It's still amazing, just ME2 and ME3 are better. Think about the 6 squadmates in ME1. How bland were they compared to ME2 and ME3's roster?

Garrus and Tali only became fan-favorites through ME2, that's when they became awesome.

Tali showed more personality on Freedom Progress than she did in the entirety of ME 1.

It seems all anyone cares about is character interaction and candy. No one wants any substantial plot progress.

[De1ta G]

Ozida wrote...

JeffZero wrote...

Well, Ozida, ME1 is the worst game in the series and ME3 is the best. I apologize that this makes you so sad, but it's my opinion.

Well, it's easy to fix as "best" and "worst" is just subjective opinions.



P.S. I guess, I just feel bad for people who are OK to use their imagination to cover plotholes and create their own endings, but get upset over small glitches with Mako or "inconvenient" combat system. (Not meant as a personal insult to JeffZero).

Inconvienent is one way of describing the combat systems, but that's just if you want to be nice about it.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Characters keep people focused in a story. Why did I watch the Avengers? Why watch Firefly? Star Wars? Simple: investment. Give me a stake in caring about happens. Then worry about plot progress.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 24 juillet 2012 - 05:49 .

[De1ta G]

SuperMegaWolf wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...

Well, I consider ME1 to be the worst in the series. It's still amazing, just ME2 and ME3 are better. Think about the 6 squadmates in ME1. How bland were they compared to ME2 and ME3's roster?

Garrus and Tali only became fan-favorites through ME2, that's when they became awesome.

Tali showed more personality on Freedom Progress than she did in the entirety of ME 1.

It seems all anyone cares about is character interaction and candy. No one wants any substantial plot progress.

For a video game, its plot progression is substantial enough.

Modifié par De1ta G, 24 juillet 2012 - 05:49 .

[JeffZero]

Ozida wrote...

JeffZero wrote...

Well, Ozida, ME1 is the worst game in the series and ME3 is the best. I apologize that this makes you so sad, but it's my opinion.

Well, it's easy to fix as "best" and "worst" is just subjective opinions.



P.S. I guess, I just feel bad for people who are OK to use their imagination to cover plotholes and create their own endings, but get upset over small glitches with Mako or "inconvenient" combat system. (Not meant as a personal insult to JeffZero).

I think none of the games in the series are perfect, per se, but then, I'm not sure I've ever played the perfect game as far as bold, sweeping games are concerned. A game like Tetris can be "perfect" insofar as it has a very limited scope and accomplishes it perfectly, although those sorts of games aren't really my cup of tea. I prefer the ones that try for much, much greater heights, even if they'll likely never achieve them completely.

And, like you said of course, it's so subjective. 

[JeffZero]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...
Agreed.

Also, despite the apparent negative connotation, calling something the worst in a set does not, by necessity, indicate that it is lacking in quality. If I said to you that the Dark Knight is the worst of the Batman trilogy, that does not mean I think it's a bad movie, only that it's lacking in comparison to the other two.

Exactly.

[Ozida]

De1ta G wrote...
Inconvienent is one way of describing the combat systems, but that's just if you want to be nice about it.

OK, I just have to ask: is this because I played it on PC? Because, honestly, I had no problems with combat system in ME1. In ME2 & 3 it was improved, I will not argue with that, but it didn't bothered me that much in ME1 either.