457 réponses à ce sujet

[wright1978]

SuperMegaWolf wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

ME1 for me has a very good central story, great rpg charcterisation via dialogue wheel but little else hanging off the central story and the combat gameplay is weak.

For me ME2 brings everything to the table. It has a solid central story(if not as epic), great characters each with their own fanastic stories, retained the great rpg characterisation via dialogue wheel and also had vastly improved combat.

ME3 suffers from the fact they severely damaged the rpg characterisation features by mutilating the dialogue wheel and bypassing it completely by adding in tonnes and tonnes of auto-dialogue. Combat is once again great and the central story is there but without the glue that is the rpg characterisation features it feels the porrest of the games for me.

No way man. If you play ME2 right after you beat ME1 it's really disjointed and obvious that they started going in a completely different direction. ME2 barely has a plot. It's just full of character subplots. The story is  about recruiting a crew for some random "suicide mission" that strives to fit in with the story set up in ME1.

If you care about characters more than a well thought out, well written, plot you'll love the Battlestar Galactica Reboot they did a few years ago.

Think we'll have to agree to disagree as i think while the Collector main plot of ME2 is a smaller scale story in comparison with the huge epic story of ME1 is in my opinion very good and reveals what happened to the protheans. I also think the twist of being fored to see the universe through a different prism via Cerberus is an extremely good tool and i've never felt any disjointedness between ME1 and ME2 whereas i feel a huge sense of disjointness between 2 and 3.  Hanging that central plot a whole bunch of fantastic character stories that are the recruitment and loyalty missions. ME2's my favourite game because it combines a good plot with sub plots. Now the fact that ME3 runs off and ignores ME2's central plot isn't ME2's fault.

[tonnactus]

Arcian wrote...

2) Even if combat had not been the main focus of the game (which it was), that's not an excuse for it being a crappy feature.

There was nothing crappy about it. Assault rifles should be shoot in bursts and from cover. Doing this,they were accurate enough.

[Jamie9]

SuperMegaWolf wrote...
You probably haven't played many rpg's. A game having leveling up mechanics does not = rpg. ME1 was more of an rpg than the others. It also had a more complete story arc (which is why I considered it awesome). The exploration elements, although bland, are there to provide an arena for power leveling which is something that exists in rpgs. It became more streamlined and shooterlike because people complained. They couldn't handle something that differed from their AAA action/shooter setpiece game.

Power levelling and grinding SUCK. They are monotonous tasks that you perform to get your character to the best it can be. Thank God this generation of games has realized this, and it's being erased from RPGs.

I play RPGs to get myself immersed in a great world. Experience the characters, play how you want to play.

I have never played RPGs to grind mobs. Frankly, I don't have enough time in my life to spend hours grinding my character.

Modifié par Jamie9, 24 juillet 2012 - 02:51 .

[tonnactus]

Dark_Caduceus wrote...

That and it was full of sensationalist trash, audience pandering, stupid and contrived plot devices and enough plot holes to qualify as a moderately effective sieve.

Mass Effect 2 was a piece of crap. The worst Bioware game to date. Even Dragon Age 2 was miles better.

[Jamie9]

tonnactus wrote...

Arcian wrote...

2) Even if combat had not been the main focus of the game (which it was), that's not an excuse for it being a crappy feature.

There was nothing crappy about it. Assault rifles should be shoot in bursts and from cover. Doing this,they were accurate enough.

Accuracy wasn't the problem (seriously, it was really easy to hit things). The problem was how dull and uninteresting the combat was. I play ME1 on casual so I can just skip through the combat, as opposed to playing Hardcore on ME2 and ME3.

[tonnactus]

Jamie9 wrote...
. Thank God this generation of games has realized this, and it's being erased from RPGs.

Except that the most sucessfull rpg still has that.

[SuperMegaWolf]

Soultaker08 wrote...

Me2 > Me3 >>>Me1

shoot me if you want.

the combat was garbage, exploration with mako was horrible, only did it for the side missions that always had those copy and paste bases, with the same copied and pasted rooms, because hackett thought you as the first human spectre should be doing any annoying sh*t he comes up with.

The customization was rather small, everything looked the same. (stats changed ... wow!)

The dialogue options seemed endless when i first played ME1, but now after i have played it several times for different playthroughs i see that most options are just saying the same.

The Citadel was really bigger than in Me3 and Me2, but the greatest part of it was empty or just used for 5 minutes of an overall gameplay of 20-30 hours.

Noveria and Feros may seemed like big hub worlds, but like the citadel there was not much to do , it was mostly unused

So pls send me your version of Me1, you must have played a different game :/

My version was the same as yours. It was primarily an rpg....which is why stat changes were important. You obviously don't really like rpg's which is why you didn't like ME1. I really like rpg's which is why I was disappointed when they moved away into action oriented sensationalism. There are already pleanty of scifi games like that for this generation. There aren't any good scifi rpg's. The closest is ME1. You probably are more into shooters and feeling good about characters. Rpg's are generally about building up a team/character to progress a big story arc. You should try playing Dragon Warrior for the NES. It is critically considered a great game but I bet you will hate it and consider it a terrible game because you don't understand rpg's. It's about the open/hub feeling and being able to explore those areas. It's not about being funneled through a bunch of flashy parts of a game.

[tonnactus]

Jamie9 wrote...

Accuracy wasn't the problem (seriously, it was really easy to hit things). The problem was how dull and uninteresting the combat was.

What was dull and uninteresting?

[Jamie9]

tonnactus wrote...
Except that the most sucessfull rpg still has that.

I assume you're referring to The Elder Scrolls? I didn't grind on that game, it wasn't at all necessary. The enemies scale to your level, making power levelling pointless (unless you exploit 100% invisibility or other such tricks).

[Jamie9]

tonnactus wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...

Accuracy wasn't the problem (seriously, it was really easy to hit things). The problem was how dull and uninteresting the combat was.

What was dull and uninteresting?

The way that no matter where you hit an enemy, they wouldn't react at all. That is the key missing component of ME1's combat IMO. There was no gratification in the combat.

If I shoot a mech in the legs in ME2, their legs come off and they start crawling after me. It's that kind of gratification that makes combat interesting for me.

Of course, enemies don't do that in Dragon Age: Origins, but the combat in that was strategic, and not action-oriented.

Modifié par Jamie9, 24 juillet 2012 - 03:00 .

[tonnactus]

Jamie9 wrote...

tonnactus wrote...
Except that the most sucessfull rpg still has that.

I assume you're referring to The Elder Scrolls? I didn't grind on that game, it wasn't at all necessary.

Then try it on a decent difficulty and tell me how much sucess you have without smithing,alchemy and enchanting. Your weapons will barely scratch mobs and forsworn will tear you appart in one power attack.

[Master Alenko]

I disliked ME1. It's funny, I originally played ME3 then ME1, ME2 and ME3 again. It may be because I was used to the ME3 combat style. But I remember playing ME1 I kept dying over and over again for ages until I got used to the controls.

I didn't like the citadel either, I found it hard to know where to go on citadel missions because it was so big. They'd tell you where to go but I would have searched for the particular place for ages. Or maybe I'm just dumb. LOL.

Although, the major thing that sticks out to me in ME1 and ME2 was the bigger decisions, ME3 did have them but not as big as ones in the first two, like saving Ash or Kaidan. I plan on playing through the trilogy again, so I don't hate it THAT much.

[Jamie9]

tonnactus wrote...
Then try it on a decent difficulty and tell me how much sucess you have without smithing,alchemy and enchanting. Your weapons will barely scratch mobs and forsworn will tear you appart in one power attack.

The skills level up by simply using them though, so I don't really see any reason to grind them. Sure, you can, to get ahead of the game, but I see no enjoyment in doing so.

[F4H bandicoot]

You dislike what made it an interesting and unique game?? Madness...

[Han Shot First]

Although I like Mass Effect 1, I think it is the weakest game in the series.

Besides having the series' biggest plothole, the alien squadmates aren't well developed and often come across as walking codex entries. The gameplay was also a mess, even for 2007. The inventory & the equipment system was equally atrocious.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

SuperMegaWolf wrote...

If you've played RPG's you'd know that combat in ME1 wasn't that bad.

I've played more than enough RPGs and shooters to hate the combat in ME1.

[De1ta G]

You probably haven't played many rpg's. A game having leveling up mechanics does not = rpg. ME1 was more of an rpg than the others. It also had a more complete story arc (which is why I considered it awesome). The exploration elements, although bland, are there to provide an arena for power leveling which is something that exists in rpgs. It became more streamlined and shooterlike because people complained. They couldn't handle something that differed from their AAA action/shooter setpiece game.

I've played plenty of RPGs. Most notably open-world RPGs. I know what kind of RPGs you're referring to and that is not Mass Effect. Mass Effect is a Space-opera shooter with RPG elements. It wasn't that way from the start and it isn't that way now. Also, those games that are called "true RPGs" I hate, like D&D and whatever. They are pretty much just statistics.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Han Shot First wrote...

Although I like Mass Effect 1, I think it is the weakest game in the series.

Besides having the series' biggest plothole, the alien squadmates aren't well developed and often come across as walking codex entries. The gameplay was also a mess, even for 2007. The inventory & the equipment system was equally atrocious.

Also, this. ME1 had Bioware's worst cast of characters, by far (ignoring Baldur's Gate 1).

[SuperMegaWolf]

ME2 and ME3 are excellent when taken as stand alone games but taken as a continuation of ME1 they both fall short and suck.

[tonnactus]

Jamie9 wrote...

Of course, enemies don't do that in Dragon Age: Origins, but the combat in that was strategic, and not action-oriented.

As was the Mass Effect combat on the highest difficulty. Biotics were essential for dealing with krogans before the player get master immunity and tech powers like damping were necessary to handle the biotic terrorist missions.
Just some examples. For players that like biotics and tech Mass Effect combat was far away from dull.

By the way,i still couldnt cripple most enemies neither in Mass Effect 2 nor 3 like in Fallout...

[De1ta G]

SuperMegaWolf wrote...

ME2 and ME3 are excellent when taken as stand alone games but taken as a continuation of ME1 they both fall short and suck.

lol wut?

EDIT: Sorry but that was what my initial reponse was to that. The games need each other to be complete.

Modifié par De1ta G, 24 juillet 2012 - 03:07 .

[SuperMegaWolf]

Han Shot First wrote...

Although I like Mass Effect 1, I think it is the weakest game in the series.

Besides having the series' biggest plothole, the alien squadmates aren't well developed and often come across as walking codex entries. The gameplay was also a mess, even for 2007. The inventory & the equipment system was equally atrocious.

What plot hole?

[tonnactus]

SuperMegaWolf wrote...


What plot hole?

Some people unable to comprehend simple storylines ask theirself why saren didnt just walk to the citadel console and let sovereign in.

[SuperMegaWolf]

De1ta G wrote...

SuperMegaWolf wrote...

ME2 and ME3 are excellent when taken as stand alone games but taken as a continuation of ME1 they both fall short and suck.

lol wut?

EDIT: Sorry but that was what my initial reponse was to that. The games need each other to be complete.

They actually don't. Bioware put a lot of work in to ensure that you never actually needed to play previous games.

ME2 randomly diverged and ME3 was terrible because it couldn't bring everything back together. If this trilogy existed in another medium (book or movie) it would critically ridiculed for it's lack of coherence.