421 réponses à ce sujet

[BrookerT]

Grub Killer8016 wrote...

BrookerT wrote...

Grub Killer8016 wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

You know what really bothered me?

The change to thermal clips. Just...why?

Thank EA for turning ME into a shooter of sorts. If EA didn't go along with Bioware, ME2 and 3 would be very different.

But ME1 was a shooter. You still shot people using guns

EA introduced shooting mechanics. Rolling, ammo, more comabt based. ME1 was all about the story, not gameplay.

No, it was about both. There were combat trailers and story trailers. In fact the games "tactical" combat was one of its advertising buzzwords. All of the pictures on the back of the box are of Combat. Same with all games. If a game is advertised on its combat it needs to be good. ME1 was advertising as a shooter-RPG with a story, ME 2 was advertised as a shooter-RPG with a story, ME 3 was advertised as shooter-RPG with a story. The comnbat aspect was a common theme in all the games.

[rapscallioness]

Wrex was awesome. I loved Grunt, too, though.

I think if Wrex had been a perma squaddie in ME2, we would have gotten more...entertainment from him.

Grunt had more story. More face time. A real loyalty mission.

[Grub Killer8016]

BrookerT wrote...

Grub Killer8016 wrote...

BrookerT wrote...

Grub Killer8016 wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

You know what really bothered me?

The change to thermal clips. Just...why?

Thank EA for turning ME into a shooter of sorts. If EA didn't go along with Bioware, ME2 and 3 would be very different.

But ME1 was a shooter. You still shot people using guns

EA introduced shooting mechanics. Rolling, ammo, more comabt based. ME1 was all about the story, not gameplay.

No, it was about both. There were combat trailers and story trailers. In fact the games "tactical" combat was one of its advertising buzzwords. All of the pictures on the back of the box are of Combat. Same with all games. If a game is advertised on its combat it needs to be good. ME1 was advertising as a shooter-RPG with a story, ME 2 was advertised as a shooter-RPG with a story, ME 3 was advertised as shooter-RPG with a story. The comnbat aspect was a common theme in all the games.

True, but just because you shoot people just doesn't make a game all shooter.

[BrookerT]

Grub Killer8016 wrote...

BrookerT wrote...

Grub Killer8016 wrote...

BrookerT wrote...

Grub Killer8016 wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

You know what really bothered me?

The change to thermal clips. Just...why?

Thank EA for turning ME into a shooter of sorts. If EA didn't go along with Bioware, ME2 and 3 would be very different.

But ME1 was a shooter. You still shot people using guns

EA introduced shooting mechanics. Rolling, ammo, more comabt based. ME1 was all about the story, not gameplay.

No, it was about both. There were combat trailers and story trailers. In fact the games "tactical" combat was one of its advertising buzzwords. All of the pictures on the back of the box are of Combat. Same with all games. If a game is advertised on its combat it needs to be good. ME1 was advertising as a shooter-RPG with a story, ME 2 was advertised as a shooter-RPG with a story, ME 3 was advertised as shooter-RPG with a story. The comnbat aspect was a common theme in all the games.

True, but just because you shoot people just doesn't make a game all shooter.

Correct, so none of the games are all shooters. It was a large part of each game however. In fact, bigger in ME1, as there was a combat final boss fight than ME3 were there was a debate of sorts with the Illusive man.

[Grub Killer8016]

BrookerT wrote...

Grub Killer8016 wrote...

BrookerT wrote...

Grub Killer8016 wrote...

BrookerT wrote...

Grub Killer8016 wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

You know what really bothered me?

The change to thermal clips. Just...why?

Thank EA for turning ME into a shooter of sorts. If EA didn't go along with Bioware, ME2 and 3 would be very different.

But ME1 was a shooter. You still shot people using guns

EA introduced shooting mechanics. Rolling, ammo, more comabt based. ME1 was all about the story, not gameplay.

No, it was about both. There were combat trailers and story trailers. In fact the games "tactical" combat was one of its advertising buzzwords. All of the pictures on the back of the box are of Combat. Same with all games. If a game is advertised on its combat it needs to be good. ME1 was advertising as a shooter-RPG with a story, ME 2 was advertised as a shooter-RPG with a story, ME 3 was advertised as shooter-RPG with a story. The comnbat aspect was a common theme in all the games.

True, but just because you shoot people just doesn't make a game all shooter.

Correct, so none of the games are all shooters. It was a large part of each game however. In fact, bigger in ME1, as there was a combat final boss fight than ME3 were there was a debate of sorts with the Illusive man.

No game is complete without a final boss. That's one of the reasons why I was dissapointed with ME3.

[MassStorm]

jreezy wrote...

MassStorm wrote...

cyclopsgd wrote...

obZen DF wrote...

You probably played ME1 after 2 and 3, or you played ME1 this year.
Otherwise you wouldn't think it's 'bad'. ME1 is my personal fav.

he probably hasnt played it at all

this so much

This new-comers arrive here and than spit on the classic that made the entire saga.
It's like saying that the new trilogy of Star Wars is better than the old one because it has better graphic and special effects without comparing the techincal development of the time in which said film/game was made.......generally this is what kids or noobs think.

The ignorance is strong with these comments.

Thanks for the advice Darth Pointless

Modifié par MassStorm, 29 juillet 2012 - 08:29 .

[BrookerT]

Grub Killer8016 wrote...

BrookerT wrote...

Grub Killer8016 wrote...

BrookerT wrote...

Grub Killer8016 wrote...

BrookerT wrote...

Grub Killer8016 wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

You know what really bothered me?

The change to thermal clips. Just...why?

Thank EA for turning ME into a shooter of sorts. If EA didn't go along with Bioware, ME2 and 3 would be very different.

But ME1 was a shooter. You still shot people using guns

EA introduced shooting mechanics. Rolling, ammo, more comabt based. ME1 was all about the story, not gameplay.

No, it was about both. There were combat trailers and story trailers. In fact the games "tactical" combat was one of its advertising buzzwords. All of the pictures on the back of the box are of Combat. Same with all games. If a game is advertised on its combat it needs to be good. ME1 was advertising as a shooter-RPG with a story, ME 2 was advertised as a shooter-RPG with a story, ME 3 was advertised as shooter-RPG with a story. The comnbat aspect was a common theme in all the games.

True, but just because you shoot people just doesn't make a game all shooter.

Correct, so none of the games are all shooters. It was a large part of each game however. In fact, bigger in ME1, as there was a combat final boss fight than ME3 were there was a debate of sorts with the Illusive man.

No game is complete without a final boss. That's one of the reasons why I was dissapointed with ME3.

Yeah, but doesn't disprove my original point, shooting has been a major point for all games.

[BrookerT]

MassStorm wrote...

jreezy wrote...

MassStorm wrote...

cyclopsgd wrote...

obZen DF wrote...

You probably played ME1 after 2 and 3, or you played ME1 this year.
Otherwise you wouldn't think it's 'bad'. ME1 is my personal fav.

he probably hasnt played it at all

this so much

This new-comers arrive here and than spit on the classic that made the entire saga.
It's like saying that the new trilogy of Star Wars is better than the old one because it has better graphic and special effects without comparing the techincal development of the time in which said film/game was made.......generally this is what kids or noobs think.

The ignorance is strong with these comments.

Thanks for the advice Darth Pointless

Let the anger flow through you

[clarkusdarkus]

ME1 will always be the best of the series, i miss my sledgehammer rounds X and my condo from pinnacle station. it's even debatable that the texture models used in ME3 were inferior to those from 2007 in ME.......ME1 will be known for making the series, ME3 will be known for ruining it.

[Grub Killer8016]

BrookerT wrote...

Grub Killer8016 wrote...

BrookerT wrote...

Grub Killer8016 wrote...

BrookerT wrote...

Grub Killer8016 wrote...

BrookerT wrote...

Grub Killer8016 wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

You know what really bothered me?

The change to thermal clips. Just...why?

Thank EA for turning ME into a shooter of sorts. If EA didn't go along with Bioware, ME2 and 3 would be very different.

But ME1 was a shooter. You still shot people using guns

EA introduced shooting mechanics. Rolling, ammo, more comabt based. ME1 was all about the story, not gameplay.

No, it was about both. There were combat trailers and story trailers. In fact the games "tactical" combat was one of its advertising buzzwords. All of the pictures on the back of the box are of Combat. Same with all games. If a game is advertised on its combat it needs to be good. ME1 was advertising as a shooter-RPG with a story, ME 2 was advertised as a shooter-RPG with a story, ME 3 was advertised as shooter-RPG with a story. The comnbat aspect was a common theme in all the games.

True, but just because you shoot people just doesn't make a game all shooter.

Correct, so none of the games are all shooters. It was a large part of each game however. In fact, bigger in ME1, as there was a combat final boss fight than ME3 were there was a debate of sorts with the Illusive man.

No game is complete without a final boss. That's one of the reasons why I was dissapointed with ME3.

Yeah, but doesn't disprove my original point, shooting has been a major point for all games.

So, if a game was based on philosophy, shooting would be the major point? You're missing the point.

[Mcfly616]

legion999 wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

legion999 wrote...

TW2
The Walking Dead
Spec Ops: The Line.
Kingdoms of Amalur
Hell there's dozens more that I haven't played.

dozens that you haven't played? So you can't compare them genius......KoA? Ok......the Walking Dead? That's a joke right.....yeah, I guess you have your opinions.....sadly, the fact of the matter is that not one of the games you listed will be a Game of the Year candidate.....

I'm not comparing them. You stated that they're not made with same quality which is complete horse****.
And what's your point?

Are you so shallow that you judge the quality of a game if it gets GOTY? 

umm yeah...you are essentially comparing them...I stated that so far this year, no other game "has the overall quality" as ME3....meaning the overall package.....the story-telling, the gameplay, the replayability, customization, soundtrack......and you went ahead and said games that you admit never playing, have the same quality as ME3. How would you know if you never played them? Oh right, You wouldn't.....your point is moot....and quite literally ass backwards

[BrookerT]

Grub Killer8016 wrote...

BrookerT wrote...

Grub Killer8016 wrote...

BrookerT wrote...

Grub Killer8016 wrote...

BrookerT wrote...

Grub Killer8016 wrote...

BrookerT wrote...

Grub Killer8016 wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

You know what really bothered me?

The change to thermal clips. Just...why?

Thank EA for turning ME into a shooter of sorts. If EA didn't go along with Bioware, ME2 and 3 would be very different.

But ME1 was a shooter. You still shot people using guns

EA introduced shooting mechanics. Rolling, ammo, more comabt based. ME1 was all about the story, not gameplay.

No, it was about both. There were combat trailers and story trailers. In fact the games "tactical" combat was one of its advertising buzzwords. All of the pictures on the back of the box are of Combat. Same with all games. If a game is advertised on its combat it needs to be good. ME1 was advertising as a shooter-RPG with a story, ME 2 was advertised as a shooter-RPG with a story, ME 3 was advertised as shooter-RPG with a story. The comnbat aspect was a common theme in all the games.

True, but just because you shoot people just doesn't make a game all shooter.

Correct, so none of the games are all shooters. It was a large part of each game however. In fact, bigger in ME1, as there was a combat final boss fight than ME3 were there was a debate of sorts with the Illusive man.

No game is complete without a final boss. That's one of the reasons why I was dissapointed with ME3.

Yeah, but doesn't disprove my original point, shooting has been a major point for all games.

So, if a game was based on philosophy, shooting would be the major point? You're missing the point.

If it was advertised as one, then yes

[legion999]

Mcfly616 wrote...

legion999 wrote...

I'm not comparing them. You stated that they're not made with same quality which is complete horse****.
And what's your point?

Are you so shallow that you judge the quality of a game if it gets GOTY? 

umm yeah...you are essentially comparing them...I stated that so far this year, no other game "has the overall quality" as ME3....meaning the overall package.....the story-telling, the gameplay, the replayability, customization, soundtrack......and you went ahead and said games that you admit never playing, have the same quality as ME3. How would you know if you never played them? Oh right, You wouldn't.....your point is moot....and quite literally ass backwards

Ok then. I stand by my point there are dozens of games made with the same quality as ME3.

And are you just going to ignore the GOTY comment as well?

[tholloway93]

i liked the story, and its natural you make later games to be improved upon

[Marauder Shields N7]

 ME1>ME2>ME3

Deal with it.

[KotorEffect3]

Marauder Shields N7 wrote...

 ME1>ME2>ME3

Deal with it.

Nostalgia goggles. 

[Pitznik]

ME1 is an awesome game. Atmosphere, aesthetics, plotline.

Still, both ME2 and ME3 are better. That's not a fact, that is my opinion.

[Grubas]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Marauder Shields N7 wrote...

 ME1>ME2>ME3

Deal with it.

Nostalgia goggles. 

your nostalgia argument has been dissmised by me and some others. Why do you still stick to your flawed logic? are you trolling? is this a troll thread?

[Han Shot First]

While I don't think Mass Effect 1 was a bad game, I also don't think ti is the end-all-and-be-all of the Mass Effect universe. I think far too many fans put ME1 on a pedestal out of nothing more than nostalgia. It had its share of flaws as well, and both ME2 and ME3 were better games.

[MegaSovereign]

Marauder Shields N7 wrote...

 ME1>ME2>ME3

Deal with it.

That's an air-****ing-tight argument you have there.

[fchopin]

-10 FOR OP.

[spirosz]

The main problem is, Bioware likes to take out certain aspects instead of improving on it - that again, depends on the circumstance and if it's worth keeping - I believe they should of kept the inventory system, but improve upon it, instead of making it a cluster**** like in ME1. The Mako - the vehicle itself was fine, the planets it road upon were horrible, unless it was Virmire or Noveria, mission planets. What'd they do, take it out. I would argue the statistical elements for RPG sake, but I don't really care about those, since I don't think they define RPG's.

[SlottsMachine]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Point is, any game can seem bad with the right amount of nit picking.

This should have been your main point. But we all play Mass Effect 1,2,3 for different reasons which would explains why different people harp on different flaws.

[spirosz]

GeneralSlotts193 wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Point is, any game can seem bad with the right amount of nit picking.

This should have been your main point. But we all play Mass Effect 1,2,3 for different reasons which would explains why different people harp on different flaws.

This.