421 réponses à ce sujet

[blueumi]

if you don't like mass effect 1 thats fine but the least you should do is respect it because with out the first game you can't have the rest
take resident evil 1 i'm not that big of a fan of that it's ok but people love it but I love resident evil 4
so i still respect the game for making resident evil 4 possible

[clarkusdarkus]

ME1 will be known for making the series, ME3 will be known for f******g up the series. ME1 had a story you could do in what order you want, complete side missions on actual planets,customise a hell of a lot more, was an actuall RPG...... u guys mention the same copy and paste planets/corridors but whilst playing the game in 2007 that was the last thing on my mind, i was immersed and didnt care for graphic textures etc as i didnt buy the game for that.....it's ok looking back 5 years ago then saying it..

[flanny]

I play bioware games primarily for the story and RPG elements, that's why i consider ME1 to be the best and ME3 to be the worst

[Kastrenzo]

Uh, the underlying fact of why Mass Effect became so popular was because of ME2.

ME1 never was much of a hit.

[Shepardtheshepard]

Kastrenzo wrote...

Uh, the underlying fact of why Mass Effect became so popular was because of ME2.

ME1 never was much of a hit.

Uh, the underlying fact of why Mass Effect 2 became so popular was because of ME1.

Sequels always sell better than the originals.

[Mathias]

shepdog77 wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

Scepsis wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

Scepsis wrote...

I agree completely OP.
*flameshield engaged*

No it's fine. You're completely entitled to your wrong opinion.

^This right here is exactly why BSN is as much of a hellhole as it curently is.

What? You're wrong. It's ok, i'm not getting after you for it.

It's your opinion that his opinion is a wrong opinion, just like I think you opinion is a wrong opinion that my opin---- OH MY GOD I'VE GONE CROSS EYED!!!

No you can have an opinion and still be wrong. Saying it's my opinion so i can't be wrong is a cop out.

[Mathias]

clarkusdarkus wrote...

ME1 will be known for making the series, ME3 will be known for f******g up the series. ME1 had a story you could do in what order you want, complete side missions on actual planets,customise a hell of a lot more, was an actuall RPG...... u guys mention the same copy and paste planets/corridors but whilst playing the game in 2007 that was the last thing on my mind, i was immersed and didnt care for graphic textures etc as i didnt buy the game for that.....it's ok looking back 5 years ago then saying it..

This.

[dbt-kenny]

i liked the game

[dirty console peasant]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

It's a great story...but a bad game

Redeeming features:

Virmire
Ilos
Noveria
The ending
The Biotic classes
The music
The plot
The characters
The tension (up to a point)

What makes it bad?

1. Tedious exploration...  - which was taken out of ME3
2. with a barely controllable vehicle... - which was taken out of ME2
3. that leads to repetitive missions... - which is a problem that ME3 doesn't have
4. which re use the same surroundings and enemy factions - Again, an issue that ME3 doesn't have
5. Dialogue "choices" that lead Shepard to say the same thing no matter what - which is worse than auto dialogue, really...an illusion of choice to make the game seem deeper than it is
6. Shooting a gun on any level that's lower than 15 - Improved upon in ME2, and again in ME3
7. Bugs, and lots of them - Still a bit of a problem
8. Clunky combat overall - Improved upon in ME2 and 3
9. Re used sound bits - A non issue in the sequels
10. Unrealistic scope of time - would Saren really wait for you to run around a bunch of unmapped planets? Really? - Improved upon by making the side missions fit within the narrative in ME3
11. Any weapon reliant class - Made better in the sequels
12. A clunky inventory system - Non exsistent in the sequels.


There you have it. If you nit pick a game enough you can find problems in it. Ones that can be improved upon.

Okay I numbered your gripes so that I could adress them easier

• That "tedious exploration" gave the universe a sense of scope
• That glitchy Tank with no handling was actually really fun once you got the hang of it
• Because all of ME3s side missions are fetch quests
• Surroundings I will give you, but ME1 had Geth, Merc, Husk, and Rachni Enemies ME3 only had Geth, Cerberus, and Reapers therefore the count is 4:3
• Some of the time, however you could decide the meaning behind what Shepard was saying
• Most of my playthroughs are as a soldier (easier to just shoot things and use squadmate powers)  never had a problem with the guns once you got used to them
• there are more bugs and they are worse in ME3 than in ME1 Black Screen (Xbox 360), Face Import, Vangaurd, Rocket, etc.
• I for one am not playing ME to play another shooter, I am playing it to play an RPG, that is not what I am playing in ME2, or ME3.  ME1 was an RPG with Shooter elements,  ME2 and ME3 were Shooters with RPG elements.
• what are you even talking about
• ME2 had the same problem, but I will give that to you in ME3
• Just save up some creds and buy the good stuff
• More customization (two gun mods and an ammo mod that is not class reliant)

I am also going to add some points of my own
      13.  Squadmates acutally wear armor and that armor can be customized in the same way as your own
      14.  Unlimited ammo with cooldown mechanic.  yes you could mod your gun to fire forever, but you would have to                 sacrifice damage in order to do that
Overall IMO ME1>ME2>ME3


Edit: Also there were the optional side objectives of not harming innocents (Feros, and that mission that you only get if paragon)
So I count that one and a half of your 12 points as actually valid

Modifié par Shepard Cmdr, 30 juillet 2012 - 01:14 .

[tonnactus]

Kastrenzo wrote...

Uh, the underlying fact of why Mass Effect became so popular was because of ME2.

ME1 never was much of a hit.

Yes, thats why they made a sequel,right? Some people here seems to have problems with basic logic.

[tonnactus]

Shepard Cmdr wrote...

Because all of ME3s side missions are fetch quests

???

The Grissom Academy Quest isnt a fetchquest. Neither Aralakh Company. None of these quest must be completed, so they are sidequest.

Modifié par tonnactus, 30 juillet 2012 - 12:22 .

[Shepard Wins]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

It's a great story...but a bad game

(...)

What makes it bad?

 - Tedious exploration...  - which was taken out of ME3 Exploration was brilliant. Dropping the Mako for the first time was easily one of my favourite and most memorable moments of ME series. It gave you this immense feeling of being a small spec in a gigantic galaxy. Desolate planets had amazing feeling to them. I used to get so much into the game when driving about in the Mako that I'd make up chatter for my party and say it out loud to the screen ("Garrus, watch that rock... We're gonna hit it... I said watch it, damnit! - Sorry, Commander, but these controls really need calibrating. Badly."). Also, the first encounter with a Thresher Maw... Scary stuff.
 - with a barely controllable vehicle... - which was taken out of ME2 look above; besides the Mako is, contrary to the popular belief, very much controllable, at least on PC, just takes getting used to and handling it the right way
 - that leads to repetitive missions... - which is a problem that ME3 doesn't have yeah right, go to planet X and fetch me the Socks of Mighty Symbol of Whatever, so I'll give you War Assets; repeat ad nauseam
which re use the same surroundings and enemy factions - Again, an issue that ME3 doesn't have Buildings were copy-pasted to save space; never bothered me in ME1. I'd just think they were the same type of building (much like spaceship classes). Easily plausible in a universe were most things were fabricated via omnitool from omnigel using a set of schematics.
Dialogue "choices" that lead Shepard to say the same thing no matter what - which is worse than auto dialogue, really...an illusion of choice to make the game seem deeper than it is Quite the contrary, it's a clever way of maintaining player choice while implementing necessary railroading required to drive the story forward; besides even while Shepard said the same things no matter what choice was made in some convos, those were mostly minor cases in sidequests, and what Shepard actually said was usually neutral enough to fit all three dialogue choices; the character description was done by the player making a choice, not the actual dialogue line.
Shooting a gun on any level that's lower than 15 - Improved upon in ME2, and again in ME3 not sure what you mean here, I've always played a soldier and had no problem using guns throughout the entire game
Bugs, and lots of them - Still a bit of a problem no game is bug free and in ME1 there were mostly minor journal bugs
Clunky combat overall - Improved upon in ME2 and 3 I love ME1 combat, had much more of RPG feel to it while being dynamic at the same time. I really loved ME1 biotics. I also love ME2 combat but I prefer ME1
Re used sound bits - A non issue in the sequels Maybe it's called a leitmotif
Unrealistic scope of time - would Saren really wait for you to run around a bunch of unmapped planets? Really? - Improved upon by making the side missions fit within the narrative in ME3 Would the Reapers wait for you to deliver gazillion parcels to random people? Really?
Any weapon reliant class - Made better in the sequels Look above; Soldier rocks in ME1, maybe you haven't been using the perks
A clunky inventory system - Non exsistent in the sequels. Inventory was great in ME1; proper RPG inventory. I don't mind what they did in ME2 since it was such a good game but I love ME1 inventory.


There you have it. If you nit pick a game enough you can find problems in it. Ones that can be improved upon.

There you have it, ME1 is awesome and for me, the bestestestest of all ME games. ME1>/ME2   >  ME3 (that's a more than/equal sign between ME1 and 2, in case it was unclear 

[Soultaker08]

I disliked Me1 as a game , but i played it twice for story reasons.

Me2 was my favourite game and will be until we see new hub worlds in me3

Me2>Me3>>>>>>>>>Me1

But hey we are on the Me3 forum, so everything said against Me1 is invalid

[Klijpope]

ME1 was a good game, for its time. It had the best VA so far in gaming in 2007.

So playing it again last week was quite interesting.

ME1 is incredibly sparse, whether it is those uncharted worlds or just convos with your squadies. It has a massive scope but is incredibly shallow. The plot belts along but it has many of the same problems as ME3 (abrupt introduction of plot points, very convenient evidence found just when needed, etc). However, the presentation is good and it serves its purpose of sketching in the ME universe.

ME2 raised the game dramatically, and will probably be the one remembered for years. The presentation is lush, the voice acting excellent, the characterisations deep and meaningful. The overall plot is thin but it serves its purpose. Combat is competent and fun, and the camera framing gives it an expansiveness.

ME3 has significantly improved the combat. Presentation wise it suffers from the fact that it's hard to wring more out of the consoles and because the engine is showing its age; textures and graphics are actually better than before but not all elements have been improved equally so the results look mixed. In terms of writing it has some of the very best in the series, and the VA is amazing, both Meer and Hale, but the individual elements that gel don't necessarily hold together. It feels different because it is missing a few side missions to spread out your progress.

IMO, it goes ME2>ME3>ME1.

And I do think nostalgia has an influence. ME1 feels like KOTOR in terms of structure; ME2 and ME3 are doing something different. And I think that's why people say ME1 is more rpg than the others - just because it fits the format Bioware were using for years. The following games are trying to evolve the formula, and I think ME2 gets the structure the most right.

ME3's structure worked less well because it needed to funnel into and ending - the final acts of all BW rpgs are fairly linear.

ME3 is clearly the best game of the year so far. I doubt it will hold on to that, unless Halo 4 and Dishonored are total turkeys.

[th3warr1or]

I would put up with ME1's gameplay if it meant I didn't get a crappy ending like ME3.

[Ericus]

ME1 is still my favourite of the 3 games. It's not perfect, but the story and characters are amazing. And the combat is good enough in my opinion.

[dirty console peasant]

tonnactus wrote...

Shepard Cmdr wrote...

Because all of ME3s side missions are fetch quests

???

The Grissom Academy Quest isnt a fetchquest. Neither Aralakh Company. None of these quest must be completed, so they are sidequest.

Yes those are technically side quests, but the majority of the side quests are fetch quests that are obtained by eavesdropping.

At least in ME1 there was actual gameplay for every side quest.

[clarkusdarkus]

Klijpope wrote...

ME1 was a good game, for its time. It had the best VA so far in gaming in 2007.

So playing it again last week was quite interesting.

ME1 is incredibly sparse, whether it is those uncharted worlds or just convos with your squadies. It has a massive scope but is incredibly shallow. The plot belts along but it has many of the same problems as ME3 (abrupt introduction of plot points, very convenient evidence found just when needed, etc). However, the presentation is good and it serves its purpose of sketching in the ME universe.

ME2 raised the game dramatically, and will probably be the one remembered for years. The presentation is lush, the voice acting excellent, the characterisations deep and meaningful. The overall plot is thin but it serves its purpose. Combat is competent and fun, and the camera framing gives it an expansiveness.

ME3 has significantly improved the combat. Presentation wise it suffers from the fact that it's hard to wring more out of the consoles and because the engine is showing its age; textures and graphics are actually better than before but not all elements have been improved equally so the results look mixed. In terms of writing it has some of the very best in the series, and the VA is amazing, both Meer and Hale, but the individual elements that gel don't necessarily hold together. It feels different because it is missing a few side missions to spread out your progress.

IMO, it goes ME2>ME3>ME1.

And I do think nostalgia has an influence. ME1 feels like KOTOR in terms of structure; ME2 and ME3 are doing something different. And I think that's why people say ME1 is more rpg than the others - just because it fits the format Bioware were using for years. The following games are trying to evolve the formula, and I think ME2 gets the structure the most right.

ME3's structure worked less well because it needed to funnel into and ending - the final acts of all BW rpgs are fairly linear.

ME3 is clearly the best game of the year so far. I doubt it will hold on to that, unless Halo 4 and Dishonored are total turkeys.

ME3 is far from best game of the year, one of the worst in my opinion, i had way more fun with dragon's dogma than ME3....but unfortunately network propaganda will make sure ME3 wins awards....10/10 my a***.........each to there own tho

[Dark_Caduceus]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

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

An incoherent story in a game series with apparently prides itself on good story telling isn't nitpicking. It's sufficient to lay low any claim of Mass Effect 2 (or 3) being a "good game", much less when comapred to Mass Effect 1.

[clarkusdarkus]

Shepard Cmdr wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

It's a great story...but a bad game

Redeeming features:

Virmire
Ilos
Noveria
The ending
The Biotic classes
The music
The plot
The characters
The tension (up to a point)

What makes it bad?

1. Tedious exploration...  - which was taken out of ME3
2. with a barely controllable vehicle... - which was taken out of ME2
3. that leads to repetitive missions... - which is a problem that ME3 doesn't have
4. which re use the same surroundings and enemy factions - Again, an issue that ME3 doesn't have
5. Dialogue "choices" that lead Shepard to say the same thing no matter what - which is worse than auto dialogue, really...an illusion of choice to make the game seem deeper than it is
6. Shooting a gun on any level that's lower than 15 - Improved upon in ME2, and again in ME3
7. Bugs, and lots of them - Still a bit of a problem
8. Clunky combat overall - Improved upon in ME2 and 3
9. Re used sound bits - A non issue in the sequels
10. Unrealistic scope of time - would Saren really wait for you to run around a bunch of unmapped planets? Really? - Improved upon by making the side missions fit within the narrative in ME3
11. Any weapon reliant class - Made better in the sequels
12. A clunky inventory system - Non exsistent in the sequels.


There you have it. If you nit pick a game enough you can find problems in it. Ones that can be improved upon.

Okay I numbered your gripes so that I could adress them easier

• That "tedious exploration" gave the universe a sense of scope
• That glitchy Tank with no handling was actually really fun once you got the hang of it
• Because all of ME3s side missions are fetch quests
• Surroundings I will give you, but ME1 had Geth, Merc, Husk, and Rachni Enemies ME3 only had Geth, Cerberus, and Reapers therefore the count is 4:3
• Some of the time, however you could decide the meaning behind what Shepard was saying
• Most of my playthroughs are as a soldier (easier to just shoot things and use squadmate powers)  never had a problem with the guns once you got used to them
• there are more bugs and they are worse in ME3 than in ME1 Black Screen (Xbox 360), Face Import, Vangaurd, Rocket, etc.
• I for one am not playing ME to play another shooter, I am playing it to play an RPG, that is not what I am playing in ME2, or ME3.  ME1 was an RPG with Shooter elements,  ME2 and ME3 were Shooters with RPG elements.
• what are you even talking about
• ME2 had the same problem, but I will give that to you in ME3
• Just save up some creds and buy the good stuff
• More customization (two gun mods and an ammo mod that is not class reliant)

I am also going to add some points of my own
      13.  Squadmates acutally wear armor and that armor can be customized in the same way as your own
      14.  Unlimited ammo with cooldown mechanic.  yes you could mod your gun to fire forever, but you would have to                 sacrifice damage in order to do that
Overall IMO ME1>ME2>ME3


Edit: Also there were the optional side objectives of not harming innocents (Feros, and that mission that you only get if paragon)
So I count that one and a half of your 12 points as actually valid

[*]i agree with all of this, you know when people nitpick when they mention reused soundbites........who in there right mind was playing ME1 in 2007 and thinking of textures or reused sound bits........for the love of god how was u not immersed.....sometimes i feel people nitpick for argument sake.

[10K]

Only thing I hated were the crappy terrain on the exploratiom planets. The mako was fine, but that terrain made me cringe. Besides that I have no problems with ME1, if the terrain could be some how fixed I'll think about playing it again. It is just too much work trying to complete side quest with all that driving into ditches only to get stock or think you are about to reach the top of a mountain but the mako just stops and begins to slide back down.

[F4H bandicoot]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

@clarkusdarkus: Welcome to my world.

But seriously, twelve hours of "I will destroy you!" or "Enemies everywhere!" in the same room gets pretty annoying.

Also, it's funny how people are saying Bioware paid off reviewers that gave them a good score. "I DIDN'T LIKE THE GAME SO IT'S TEH SUXXORZ!!!! lol"

This actually happens alot, Ubisoft (I think it was them anyway) threatened one review site that they would not pre release games to them unless their scores for ubi games picked up.
Ea are probably all over the same type of thing.

[legion999]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

@clarkusdarkus: Welcome to my world.

But seriously, twelve hours of "I will destroy you!" or "Enemies everywhere!" in the same room gets pretty annoying.

Also, it's funny how people are saying Bioware paid off reviewers that gave them a good score. "I DIDN'T LIKE THE GAME SO IT'S TEH SUXXORZ!!!! lol"

Paid off is perhaps too strong a word [1]. Encouraged to give a good score so they get games early and/or for free and advertising is perhaps more accurate.

[1] Yep paid off is a word and not a phrase.

Modifié par legion999, 30 juillet 2012 - 02:04 .