152 réponses à ce sujet

[Sanunes]

The_Other_M wrote...

OR they could find Doc Brown and have him jerry-rig a Flux-Capacitor to a Mac Walter's car, travel back in time to December 2010 and warn BioWare of the future.

Actually, I would go back to when they were working on Mass Effect and tell them that spanning the story across multiple games won't work and just make three independant titles.

[Kungfu Nando]

Neizd wrote...

Well I wouldn't mind possibility to have improved ME3 but not in remake form. A lot of people paid for the game, and some of them were fans that were waiting for it for years... and those loyal people are supposed to pay for something that should already be made? Truth be told there is not much that BW can do about the game unless they will make TON of DLC that will gradually change those game aspects:

- Autodialoque
- Fetch type quest (or just add more)
- Add more endings for everyone
- Do something for ME2 squadmates
- Give Tali in game model (maybe remake the love scene or something) since this photoshop face while being nice it's BADLY photoshoped face.
- Do something about Kai Leng...maybe more apperances so we can better get to know the man.

TBF They could do alot of this with single player DLC. Arrival and LotSB worked almost seemlessly into the game, don't see why we couldn't have 2-3 quality DLC add-ons that expanded on these short comings and made the game as a whole feel more because of them. So far levi looks like a good mix of ME2 and DA2 DLC's best points, they just need to cut down on the auto-dialogue or have something akin to Dragon Age 2's personality auto-dialogue i.e more paragon points autos a paragon statement. Hell they could even add tali's face if they had time/resources.

For Kai Leng, while some may find annoying have a DLC feature him and have him seem more threating by kicking your ass and winning or injurying a teammate, making them not playable in a mission or two or just for the DLC or even better make you go solo half way by critically injurying both your squadies, maybe adding a few extra lines at the ceberus base? Garrus "Kai Leng you bastard, time for a rematch!", 

[Terror_K]

magnetite wrote...

You can't please everyone, that's a fact. Not just with Mass Effect 3. That goes for anything. No matter how a product is, there's always going to be someone who doesn't like particular things about it. Whether it be video games, vacuum cleaners, or other items. There's always someone who will complain. Some people even just complain to complain. No one is born negative, but there are some people out there who make up stuff just to get a reaction out of someone.

At this point, Bioware really has no legal obligation to comply. They made their stance with the Extended Cut. However, some have this idea where every single person who plays the game must be satisfied.

Business doesn't really work like that. Instead of hanging on to certain people who didn't exactly get what they wished for, there is always someone who will play this game and not cause a riot on the internet for six months or more about the ending or whatever the issue is.

Life also doesn't work like that. Some things just don't work out the way we planned.

There's a difference between not appealing to everybody and not appealing to a good portion of the fanbase you got with the first entry, as well as not living up to the promises and claims as to what the series was going to be. Not to mention retooling and changing up the series as you went for the sake of mass appeal and broadening your audience to the point of alienating many of the original fans.

When I don't like something at all, I generally don't complain, and if I do I certainly don't keep complaining repeatedly. I just avoid it entirely, because I realise it's something not for me, and not meant for me. Mass Effect is a different case, because it's something that was for me at the start, but was changed to not be so. Ex-writer Drew Karpyshyn himself said in a recent interview that from what he's seen and heard of ME3, it's gone in a very direction than they initially planned. It shouldn't have. I'm not saying that the game needed to be the exact same thing for all three parts, but it should have stuck to its roots. Instead ME2 and ME3 had this "retooled by the network" feel to them, like most of the changes were made not for the betterment of the game as a natural evolution of innovation and improvement, but merely as a publicity stunt to broaden appeal to the more mainstream market.

Simply put: Mass Effect started out as a game for sci-fi geeks and ended up as generic pap.

Sanunes wrote...

Actually, I would go back to when they were working on Mass Effect and tell them that spanning the story across multiple games won't work and just make three independant titles.

Actually, that's what they already did with the trilogy, and I think that's a major part of the problem with it. Instead of making a proper trilogy that ran together well and really depended on the other entries like they should have, BioWare decided to make three completely separate games that could stand on their own. They admitted to this, and admitted that they did so for the sake of broadening the game's appeal and so as not to put off potential newcomers who could get lost without the other parts. This is why we got decisions that didn't mean squat and a storyline that overall lacked proper flow: too much making sure everybody could "get it" and each part could stand-alone.

Patrick Weekes basically admitted to this when called on the utter trash that was the culmination of the Rachni Queen decision in ME3 by saying that they didn't want to restrict content to new ME players based on a decision made three games ago. That's an absolutely atrocious excuse considering that's what one of the key features of the trilogy was supposed to be: choices and consequences importing over a trilogy. And then we find out that BioWare's entire mindset and way of going about it was completely counter-intuitive to this, and that despite all their claims of our choices mattering and having varied outcomes, they just won't. All because they care more about these potential new fans missing out on content rather than their existing ones being properly rewarded and getting the content we were promised across the trilogy.

Modifié par Terror_K, 24 août 2012 - 08:00 .

[Kataphrut94]

Isn't it a bit soon for a remake? Like, 30 years too soon? Besides, a game like Mass Effect 3, with it's voice acting and graphics and stiry and connections to the previous games in the trilogy, doesn't really lend itself to a remake.

[Terror_K]

Kataphrut94 wrote...

Isn't it a bit soon for a remake? Like, 30 years too soon? Besides, a game like Mass Effect 3, with it's voice acting and graphics and stiry and connections to the previous games in the trilogy, doesn't really lend itself to a remake.

We're not talking about a reboot ala the new Tomb Raider and Devil May Cry, nor about a remake like the new Baldur's Gate: Enchanced Edition or X-Com: Enemy Unknown, or like the more recent HD reduxes. We're talking about redoing ME3 again and doing it right this time. Something that is actually what was promised and didn't sacrifice roleplaying and player agency for action and broad appeal. Something that replaces the existing ME3 completely and pretends it didn't happen.

Modifié par Terror_K, 24 août 2012 - 08:28 .

[Kataphrut94]

Terror_K wrote...

Kataphrut94 wrote...

Isn't it a bit soon for a remake? Like, 30 years too soon? Besides, a game like Mass Effect 3, with it's voice acting and graphics and stiry and connections to the previous games in the trilogy, doesn't really lend itself to a remake.

We're not talking about a reboot ala the new Tomb Raider and Devil May Cry, nor about a remake like the new Baldur's Gate: Enchanced Edition or X-Com: Enemy Unknown, or like the more recent HD reduxes. We're talking about redoing ME3 again and doing it right this time. Something that is actually what was promised and didn't sacrifice roleplaying and player agency for action and broad appeal. Something that replaces the existing ME3 completely and pretends it didn't happen.

Then you're not going about it the right way. The point of a remake is to recreate an outdated product with contemporary values and technology. You do not do that to a product that is less than six months old and already and you especially don't use it as an oppurtunity to kick the original creation in the head and replace it with a democratically-approved risk-free fan-pandering alternative.

The birght side of this is that Mass Effect 3 will always exist, you cannot replace it nor cover up it's existence and to even attempt to do so is futile and immature. If that's what you'd like to happen, then I wish you good luck, because you will need it in spades.

Modifié par Kataphrut94, 24 août 2012 - 08:56 .

[Terror_K]

Kataphrut94 wrote...

The point of a remake is to recreate an outdated product with contemporary values and technology. You do not do that to a product that is less than six months old and already and you especially don't use it as an oppurtunity to kick the original creation in the head and replace it with a democratically-approved risk-free fan-pandering alternative.

That's highly ironic considering most of ME3's failings can be attributed to the fact that BioWare kicked its own original creation in the head for the sake of pandering to potential new fans at the expense of its old ones. When you've established a series, it should be made for its fans. Getting new ones is fine, but it shouldn't come at the expense of the existing ones and end up changing the souce material in the process until it ends up becoming something it wasn't.

The birght side of this is that Mass Effect 3 will always exist, you cannot replace it nor cover up it's existence and to even attempt to do so is futile and immature. If that's what you'd like to happen, then I wish you good luck, because you will need it in spades.

That's not a bright side at all. Mass Effect 3 would be almost better off not existing the way it turned out. At least it wouldn't have been such an insult and made the other entries come across like a complete waste of time. It's almost like BioWare make a deliberate effort to spit in the eyes of their old fans and their own old original concepts the way they go about things lately.

[inko1nsiderate]

Terror_K wrote...
Patrick Weekes basically admitted to this when called on the utter trash that was the culmination of the Rachni Queen decision in ME3 by saying that they didn't want to restrict content to new ME players based on a decision made three games ago. That's an absolutely atrocious excuse considering that's what one of the key features of the trilogy was supposed to be: choices and consequences importing over a trilogy. And then we find out that BioWare's entire mindset and way of going about it was completely counter-intuitive to this, and that despite all their claims of our choices mattering and having varied outcomes, they just won't. All because they care more about these potential new fans missing out on content rather than their existing ones being properly rewarded and getting the content we were promised across the trilogy.

I'm not convinced any of that is true.  The problem with the Rachni is like any problem with any sequel in a video game that allows you to make choices.  DA2 outright retcons out some choices you can make in previous games, as in they never got made by you, at least if you killed the Rachni the real queen stays dead and there are consequences because the abomination queen goes crazy and betrays you.    I've heard this business about Patrick Weekes, but are we talking about the fan paraphrased interview that Patrick Weekes later denounced on Twitter or the unconfirmed post that is supposedly by him that floated around Penny Arcade?  Either way, the source is less than reputable.  

I think this Rachni decision really shows how they had to include the impact of prior decisions, but it really got in their way of making the Rachni have any import on ME3's story besides a cameo, so they decided to avoid retcons by having the Reapers create an abomination.  It might not change the gameplay of that level, but it changes the tone of the enounter, and it really constrains the possible outcomes of the encounter as well.  If the trilogy had been planned from the beginning, they could have had a longer time to figure out ways to make the Rachni decision matter without having to make 100 different versions of the final installment of the trilogy (namely by changing how it plays out in ME1 and ME2 so that if the Rachni show up again in ME3 you already saw it coming).  But no matter what you do, if you want a previous decision to have a huge impact, you essentially have to write separate games or have particular endings unlock only if you took certain and very specific actions.  How pissed would Renegade players be if they could only get the best ending if they had gone full Paragon?

I don't think the Rachni is the best example of this.  I think the beginning of ME3, the inclusion of Vega, and a few other instances in game are better examples of this.  There are so many bits of dialogue that are clearly thrown in to 'remind' players about previous choices or facts about the universe, things they really should already know if you played ME1 and ME2.  

Modifié par inko1nsiderate, 24 août 2012 - 09:33 .

[Eterna]

Bocks wrote...

Lokiwithrope wrote...

FluffyCannibal wrote...

Am I the only person that actually enjoyed ME3?!

You're not alone.

The fact that it was enjoyable does not make it good.

I'm sorry, but that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

[Kataphrut94]

Terror_K wrote...

Kataphrut94 wrote...

The point of a remake is to recreate an outdated product with contemporary values and technology. You do not do that to a product that is less than six months old and already and you especially don't use it as an oppurtunity to kick the original creation in the head and replace it with a democratically-approved risk-free fan-pandering alternative.

That's highly ironic considering most of ME3's failings can be attributed to the fact that BioWare kicked its own original creation in the head for the sake of pandering to potential new fans at the expense of its old ones. When you've established a series, it should be made for its fans. Getting new ones is fine, but it shouldn't come at the expense of the existing ones and end up changing the souce material in the process until it ends up becoming something it wasn't.

How did it pander to new fans? It's widely accepted fact that people who get the best experience out of Mass Effect 3 are the ones who've been with the series since ME1, because they get to see all the returning characters and over-arching subplots come to a close. Anyone who starts with ME3 can get by, but without the necessary context (not to mention half the characters being dead on a new game in 3) they simply do not get the same experience out of a game, which for all intents and purposes is pure fanservice the whole way through.

The birght side of this is that Mass Effect 3 will always exist, you cannot replace it nor cover up it's existence and to even attempt to do so is futile and immature. If that's what you'd like to happen, then I wish you good luck, because you will need it in spades.

That's not a bright side at all. Mass Effect 3 would be almost better off not existing the way it turned out. At least it wouldn't have been such an insult and made the other entries come across like a complete waste of time. It's almost like BioWare make a deliberate effort to spit in the eyes of their old fans and their own old original concepts the way they go about things lately.

On the basis of what? Being a flawed product does not equate to being unworthy of existance. It is unlikely this game shall ever be remade in the near future, since from a technological level it is at a point where a remake simply would not be worth the additional effort. And you cannot remake something if all you plan to do is recreate it at a fundamental level, especially when that involves cementing over the creator's original intentnion and covering it up with a load of crowd-pleasing fan ******.

Modifié par Kataphrut94, 24 août 2012 - 09:37 .

[inko1nsiderate]

Eterna5 wrote...

Bocks wrote...

Lokiwithrope wrote...

FluffyCannibal wrote...

Am I the only person that actually enjoyed ME3?!

You're not alone.

The fact that it was enjoyable does not make it good.

I'm sorry, but that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

I mean, yes and no.  From an individual's perspective it makes it good if you enjoyed it, but from some larger perspective it could still suck.  The idea behind mass consumed media, or mass consumed art, is to have the largest impact on the largest number of viewers/consumers.  If you can get your point across, or have your art affect, a single person you've succeeded as an artist, but if you fail to affect most of your fan base in a similar way then you've failed an artist who uses mass media.  If a particular set of life experiences is required to enjoy a piece of 'art' that is meant to be enjoyed by millions of people then you're doing something wrong as an artist.

Another way to see this is that the game can have a huge impact on a single player, or a group of players, but be utterly forgetable to history.  Generally, we consider long lived and classic works to be of higher quality, as they speak to the human condition throughout time.  You could also analyze the techniques used to produce the art.  You can still get a powerful and profound message from a work that throws all the rules out, but those rules are often there for a reason and will make your work 'bad' from a technical standpoint.  And by technical, I mean the formal aspects and thinking behind writting, visual storytelling, and storytelling in general. 


To use a rhetorical argument to drive the point home:  A lot of people enjoy things like Jackass: The Movie, but that clearly doesn't speak to its quality. 

[ufc345]

Bocks wrote...

Lokiwithrope wrote...

FluffyCannibal wrote...

Am I the only person that actually enjoyed ME3?!

You're not alone.

The fact that it was enjoyable does not make it good.

What the heck did I just read

[Terror_K]

inko1nsiderate wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
Patrick Weekes basically admitted to this when called on the utter trash that was the culmination of the Rachni Queen decision in ME3 by saying that they didn't want to restrict content to new ME players based on a decision made three games ago. That's an absolutely atrocious excuse considering that's what one of the key features of the trilogy was supposed to be: choices and consequences importing over a trilogy. And then we find out that BioWare's entire mindset and way of going about it was completely counter-intuitive to this, and that despite all their claims of our choices mattering and having varied outcomes, they just won't. All because they care more about these potential new fans missing out on content rather than their existing ones being properly rewarded and getting the content we were promised across the trilogy.

I'm not convinced any of that is true.  The problem with the Rachni is like any problem with any sequel in a video game that allows you to make choices.  DA2 outright retcons out some choices you can make in previous games, as in they never got made by you, at least if you killed the Rachni the real queen stays dead and there are consequences because the abomination queen goes crazy and betrays you.    I've heard this business about Patrick Weekes, but are we talking about the fan paraphrased interview that Patrick Weekes later denounced on Twitter or the unconfirmed post that is supposedly by him that floated around Penny Arcade?  Either way, the source is less than reputable.  

I think this Rachni decision really shows how they had to include the impact of prior decisions, but it really got in their way of making the Rachni have any import on ME3's story besides a cameo, so they decided to avoid retcons by having the Reapers create an abomination.  It might not change the gameplay of that level, but it changes the tone of the enounter, and it really constrains the possible outcomes of the encounter as well.  If the trilogy had been planned from the beginning, they could have had a longer time to figure out ways to make the Rachni decision matter without having to make 100 different versions of the final installment of the trilogy (namely by changing how it plays out in ME1 and ME2 so that if the Rachni show up again in ME3 you already saw it coming).  But no matter what you do, if you want a previous decision to have a huge impact, you essentially have to write separate games or have particular endings unlock only if you took certain and very specific actions.  How pissed would Renegade players be if they could only get the best ending if they had gone full Paragon?

I don't think the Rachni is the best example of this.  I think the beginning of ME3, the inclusion of Vega, and a few other instances in game are better examples of this.  There are so many bits of dialogue that are clearly thrown in to 'remind' players about previous choices or facts about the universe, things they really should already know if you played ME1 and ME2.

But that's kind of the problem: simply reminding players of their choices isn't enough if that's all it does. That's not a proper consequence of your prior actions... a mere mention of it and some minor cosmetic changes, then business as usual. BioWare said our decisions matter, but reducing them to a bunch of throwaway lines, some weak substitutions and having them just add up to a stupid arbitrary number for the ending isn't our choices matter at all. It's a cop-out. A weak, half-assed cop-out. BioWare claimed that the third part of the trilogy was going to be the most varied and divergent, but it was the most linear and lacking of the lot.

The Rachni Queen is just poorly handled, lazy and weak. At the very least if the Rachni Queen was killed we should have got a completely different mission for Grunt and his krogan team with no Rachni Queen at all, and perhaps to actually give the Renegade choice an additional reward a lack of Reaper converted Rachni enemies. That wouldn't have created that much extra effort to make, and would have given an acceptable consequence with some impact and two completely different missions based on that choice that would add to the replay value of the game. Instead the actual content is pretty much exactly the same save for a few lines and then --as par for the course for ME3-- lazily resolved through that same stupid arbitrary EMS number.

BioWare didn't even try and give us proper consequences. Almost everything was a lazy, half-assed cop-out that ends up just making the game 95% the same in every playthrough, especially when combined with the complete lack of choices and autodialogue, and things like keeping the Virmire Survivor out of half of the damn game. Retconning and giving weak substitutions that just result in the same outcome for the most part anyway isn't neccessary, it's just laziness and poor design. Especially when the series was supposed to be about choices and consequences for the most part.

If that's the case, then Mass Effect 3 tells me that nothing I do matters and everything will fall into the place in almost the exact same way no matter what I do. That's a great message for a supposedly heroic film about fighting against the odds and really makes Shepard look like a hero, doesn't it? Why bother trying and making choices, when it doesn't do a damn thing?

[Terror_K]

Kataphrut94 wrote...

How did it pander to new fans? It's widely accepted fact that people who get the best experience out of Mass Effect 3 are the ones who've been with the series since ME1, because they get to see all the returning characters and over-arching subplots come to a close. Anyone who starts with ME3 can get by, but without the necessary context (not to mention half the characters being dead on a new game in 3) they simply do not get the same experience out of a game, which for all intents and purposes is pure fanservice the whole way through.

Almost everything about it was about pandering to new fans. While this began in ME2, the watering down of the RPG elements in favour of action and TPS ones and the tone and shift in style, both in gameplay and in content, is evidence enough of this. The shoe-horning of multiplayer into the series, which was something a great majority of fans were opposed to, and Kinect support. The adding of the Action Mode with less dialogue choices so the game plays out like movie, not to mention the dialogue choices as a whole being trimmed and the autodialogue. Amping up the action and doing things like turning Ashley into Miranda 2 and putting style over substance as well.

The list goes on, and I've listed it too many times to go into much more depth than that. The whole game now screams that it's for a different audience than the first. The original game was for sci-fi geeks who loved RPGs, while now it's just pandering mainstream pap aimed at the masses. If I didn't know any better, I'd suspect Casey Hudson had been kidnapped part the way through the development of ME2 and replaced by Cliffy B.

That's not a bright side at all. Mass Effect 3 would be almost better off not existing the way it turned out. At least it wouldn't have been such an insult and made the other entries come across like a complete waste of time. It's almost like BioWare make a deliberate effort to spit in the eyes of their old fans and their own old original concepts the way they go about things lately.

On the basis of what? Being a flawed product does not equate to being unworthy of existance. It is unlikely this game shall ever be remade in the near future, since from a technological level it is at a point where a remake simply would not be worth the additional effort. And you cannot remake something if all you plan to do is recreate it at a fundamental level, especially when that involves cementing over the creator's original intentnion and covering it up with a load of crowd-pleasing fan ******.

Being a flawed product is one thing. Being a flawed product that spat in the face of its predecessors, it's original fans and turned the entire series into a colossal failure and waste of time is another. ME3 is so flawed that it not only killed its own replayablity and the overall quality of the IP, but it killed the previous two games too. Mass Effect 3 should never have come to light in the form it took. It was an awful end to the trilogy that not only failed to live up to its predecessors, but permanently stained them as well. I used to love ME1 and despite many issues with ME2, largely enoyed it too. Now I can barely stand to look at them, let alone play them, because the final part was a colossal failure that made everything I did in the other two a complete waste of time.

[Snypy]

ufc345 wrote...

Bocks wrote...

Lokiwithrope wrote...

FluffyCannibal wrote...

Am I the only person that actually enjoyed ME3?!

You're not alone.

The fact that it was enjoyable does not make it good.

What the heck did I just read

I enjoyed ME3 as well. But to be completely honest, it didn't fully live up to my expectations.

[fainmaca]

Remaking ME3 would be a bold move. Far bolder than anything today's Bioware would be willing to risk. It would take time, money and effort, something that EA/the BioBrass will likely not permit.

However, it would be an unprecedented amount of fan-appeasement, and would likely generate a huge amount of goodwill IF it worked. That's a big if.

What might work is if they use the current version to support the new version by things such as MP revenue and DLC sales. Theoretically the development of this new version would be a little more cost effective as mechanically the game is pretty much there, with a little tweaking here and there (auto-dialogue is one of the huge problems with the game as it is, but that is not a mechanical problem. They still have the ability to carry out fully-animated interactive conversations. I'd say the main mechanical problems are things like the do-everything button.) So there's no need to rework the internal guts of the game itself, just the story aspect. That should make it cheaper right away. Then those people they distracted with all of the gimmicks like Kinect and the MP tie-in could be assigned to more useful aspects such as vehicle gameplay and, as Terror_K said, alternative modes of progression as opposed to pew-pew-pew.

The tools are lying at Bioware's feet, and I know that gamers would buy an 'Alternative Edition' (not a replacement, but an alternative option, or a different CHOICE, if you like. If you prefer the current version, that's fine.) IF the game had merit. Bioware would have to show that they could make something truly meaningful before gamers would be willing to take a chance with them again.

Is this fair to the staff at Bioware, who have (come on, admit it) put a lot of work into this version? Not really. It can't be easy to see your creation eaten by the fires of the community. Does the fanbase have any right to demand this? Again, no. BUT Bioware do have a responsibility to their own franchise. When you create something, you have to care for it properly, cater for its needs, not for what you want it to need. Mass Effect is their child, and can they honestly say that it has been done justice with ME3 as is?

The real question is, would I buy a new, story and choice oriented version? Yes, if it could show me that it was good and lived up to the original plans and vision of the franchise. I would even engage in these MP weekends they keep having and buy all of the ME3 DLC, if I thought it would help show my support of such an endeavour. After playing the first two games, I spent roughly $1000 on associated merchandise in the form of lithographs, T-shirts, books, comics etc because I wanted to do something to help contribute to the development of ME3 (also because the stuff is pretty cool, but that's another matter entrely). I felt like I was being a part of it. After this shoddy showing, I no longer feel any desire to contribute to the company by buying their stuff. But that desire to contribute would return if I saw Bioware trying to make good.

So let Bioware see it here. If they made a new, alternative version of the game, allowing the current version to remain and continuing to support that as well, and they could prove that this new version fulfilled a lot of expectations, would you buy it?

[fainmaca]

Kataphrut94 wrote...

How did it pander to new fans? It's widely accepted fact that people who get the best experience out of Mass Effect 3 are the ones who've been with the series since ME1, because they get to see all the returning characters and over-arching subplots come to a close. Anyone who starts with ME3 can get by, but without the necessary context (not to mention half the characters being dead on a new game in 3) they simply do not get the same experience out of a game, which for all intents and purposes is pure fanservice the whole way through.

Casey Hudson: There has never been a better time to get into the Mass Effect franchise.

...Or something very close to that. Point is, Mass Effect 3 was designed with new players in mind. Previous characters have no serious impact upon the story, Vega was put in as a hand-holding exposition machine, and previous elements are simply giving flavour to the environment, rather than being meaningful.

Players who have gone through the other two games have the most contextual understanding of what's going on, yes, but they also have the most frustrating one. I would not call that the 'best experience' by a long shot. Those returning characters and sub-plots you mention? They're all dealt with in a way that infuriates and frustrates anyone with a prior investment in the trilogy. Its a far cry from 'pure fanservice all the way through'.

[crypticcat 2o2p]

fainmaca wrote...

Kataphrut94 wrote...

How did it pander to new fans? It's widely accepted fact that people who get the best experience out of Mass Effect 3 are the ones who've been with the series since ME1, because they get to see all the returning characters and over-arching subplots come to a close. Anyone who starts with ME3 can get by, but without the necessary context (not to mention half the characters being dead on a new game in 3) they simply do not get the same experience out of a game, which for all intents and purposes is pure fanservice the whole way through.

Casey Hudson: There has never been a better time to get into the Mass Effect franchise.

...Or something very close to that. Point is, Mass Effect 3 was designed with new players in mind. Previous characters have no serious impact upon the story, Vega was put in as a hand-holding exposition machine, and previous elements are simply giving flavour to the environment, rather than being meaningful.

Players who have gone through the other two games have the most contextual understanding of what's going on, yes, but they also have the most frustrating one. I would not call that the 'best experience' by a long shot. Those returning characters and sub-plots you mention? They're all dealt with in a way that infuriates and frustrates anyone with a prior investment in the trilogy. Its a far cry from 'pure fanservice all the way through'.

Please don't talk for everyone. I mean, if all that hate and bile is what it takes to be considered a true fan of the franchise, then please count me out. My days of listening to the Cure while juggling with razorblades are long behind me.

[ThePinkFoxx]

DuckSoup wrote...

Ah. Yet another entitled fan who thinks the team at Bioware have nothing better to do with their lives than spend years recreating a game for ungrateful and picky people with their bottomless budget. 

Get over it and play something else.

 

Yep I totally agree... why does everyone act like Bioware owes them some huge favor?

Modifié par ThePinkFoxx, 24 août 2012 - 12:02 .