91 réponses à ce sujet

[BatmanPWNS]

simfamSP wrote...

NucularPikinic wrote...

 It's a giant side quest.

Most decisions from Mass Effect 2 don't even really matter in ME3. Even the supposedly biggest decision (the Human Reaper Larvae) is thrown out of the window.

Too many squadmates (Jacob is pretty lame and even in ME3 he's a jerk to romance FemShep). But the priiiiize.

And how is ME3's lack of recognition of ME2's decisions ME2's fault? And too many sqaud mates? Wasn't one of the biggest complaints for ME3 the LACK of sqaud mates?

I don't understand BSN logic. It's either too fundamentally complex for my comprehension, or it just doesn't exist. Still, it's your opinion, you go and live with it xD

Agreed with the bold. I don't see how you can blame ME2 for what ME3 did wrong.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

MattFini wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

Had Bioware actually used Shepard's death to explore him or her as a character or give us a moment of self reflection, I might have loved it as well. As it is, the ME2 intro and ME3's ending are actually quite close to each other in terms of quality IMO.

To me, the death of Shepard was a really bold way of establishing to the player that ME2 was going to turn the universe on its ear. 

By killing "you" in the intro, you're taken out of the world of the Alliance and seperated from everyone you knew and cared about.  

Then you're "reborn" into the enemy's hands, and you're not even sure you can trust this terrorist group that has resurrected you.

I think it works really well to estabish the ME2 experience.

And yet not once does the game slow down to reflect on this. ME2's intro has so much going for it, and failed to do anything with it. With what they did, having Shepard simply be in a coma would done just as well.

For ME2 who was meant to be the personal chapter, it sure as hell did a poor job dealing with Shepard, when it really should have hold a lot focus on him.

ME3's intro?  Just underwhelming, rushed trash.  A desperate attempt to get to the action asap.  

There's no comparison in my mind.

All Bioware intros after DA:O have sucked.

[BlessedSoldier]

NucularPikinic wrote...

 It's a giant side quest.

Most decisions from Mass Effect 2 don't even really matter in ME3. Even the supposedly biggest decision (the Human Reaper Larvae) is thrown out of the window.

Too many squadmates (Jacob is pretty lame and even in ME3 he's a jerk to romance FemShep). But the priiiiize.

1 part: Arguable

Second part: Thats Mass Effect 3's fault for retconning the last 2 games right out of the lore.

3rd part: It was an experiment. It showed that a smaller squad was better but the characters were still quite good.

[WYLDMAXX]

This one likes ME2. Its was the game that introduced this one to the MEU.

[SpamBot2000]

Do they? Weird if they do.

[wright1978]

I love ME2.
I'm not very fond of ME3.

[charlieDotRose]

Mass Effect 2 was a good game, was the first one I played, I skipped the first one

[Whatever42]

Most of the arguments against ME2 were based on comparisons to ME1: not enough character management, no planet exploration, no longer with the alliance, too much of a shooter game, introduction of "ammo".

They acknowledge that ME1 had serious problems (character management was bad, exploration was dull and repetitive) but that Bioware should have fixed them instead of scrapped them.

Others attacked the change in direction of story - they hated that Shep was no longer an alliance marine but a scummy cerberus operative. They tore apart the plot of ME2 (ignoring the massive problems with the ME1 plot) to try to objectively prove that ME2 was clearly inferior, although they failed ultimately because their dislike was subjective (although perfectly valid).

ME3 is generally liked (the endings notwithstanding) because its very similar to ME2, with some of the shortcomings fixed. It's what people largely expected so they're happy (again, endings notwithstanding). Those ME1 fans were somewhat blind-sided and never forgave.

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 30 août 2012 - 08:41 .

[Seboist]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Most of the arguments against ME2 were based on comparisons to ME1: not enough character management, no planet exploration, no longer with the alliance, too much of a shooter game, introduction of "ammo".

They acknowledge that ME1 had serious problems (character management was bad, exploration was dull and repetitive) but that Bioware should have fixed them instead of scrapped them.

Others attacked the change in direction of story - they hated that Shep was no longer an alliance marine but a scummy cerberus operative. They tore apart the plot of ME2 (ignoring the massive problems with the ME1 plot) to try to objectively prove that ME2 was clearly inferior, although they failed ultimately because their dislike was subjective (although perfectly valid).

ME3 is generally liked (the endings notwithstanding) because its very similar to ME2, with some of the shortcomings fixed. It's what people largely expected so they're happy (again, endings notwithstanding). Those ME1 fans were somewhat blind-sided and never forgave.

There's nothing subjective about ME2 being a complete waste of time that abandoned the main plot of the reapers in favor of daddy issue therapy and fighting color coded filler bad guys. Nor, is it subjective that it introduced pulp schlock rubbish like Lazarus and this thing..





ME1 may have been your typical cliche prophecy story against big bad ancient evil but it was without question better than this pathetic excuse of a sequel.

Edit: And I just have to LOL at the claims from the devs and the fanboys that it was a "character driven story". Yeah, one where most of them don't even acknowledge each other's existence, lmao.

Modifié par Seboist, 30 août 2012 - 09:56 .

[Hydralysk]

I don't remember ever hating ME2, I usually see lots of people say they liked ME1 better but not that they hated ME2.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Seboist wrote...

Yo Kai Leng, I’m really happy for you. Imma Let you finish, but the human reaper is the dumbest boss of all time. OF ALL TIME!

[tonnactus]

Its Pokemon in Space.Thats why.

[Seboist]

simfamSP wrote...

And how is ME3's lack of recognition of ME2's decisions ME2's fault? And too many sqaud mates? Wasn't one of the biggest complaints for ME3 the LACK of sqaud mates?

Because most of 2's decisions were either already non-important(Ex. Ronald Taylor and Sidonis) or were rendered moot by the fact that they were completely optional in the case of all the loyalty missions and that's aside from the Renegade/Paragon issue. It's the same reason why the ME2 squad didn't return as squadmates(unless you're top fanwank material like dudebro Vakarian and space waifu Tali).

They were barely above the level of DLC "choices" like in BDTS or Overlord.

[tonnactus]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...


- Everything surrounding the Lazarus Project.
- Shepard's revival is played for jokes but has no actual plot significance.
- Cerberus railroading.
- Virmire Survive is mind numbingly stupid.
- Everything about the Collector Ship.
- TIM betrays you for no reason.
- Going through the Omega 4 Relay blind.
- Baby Reaperminator.

You forgot "Ah yes,reapers".

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

ATiBotka wrote...

I love all of the games. But for me:

ME1 > ME3 > ME2

This

although ME2 has very few RPG elements, it was easily a better game than ME3.

[tonnactus]

The Charnel Expanse wrote...


People who complain about ME2 are basically people whose opinions you should ignore because they care more about narrative than gameplay, apparently having never heard of these things called books that are 100% narrative without any of that pesky gaming getting in the way.

The gameplay was awfull for every non Soldier and Infiltrator. Actually ,even playing these classes it was a boring whack a mole in tight corridors with retarded enemies who rarely flank and waited to be killed.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

simfamSP wrote...

And how is ME3's lack of recognition of ME2's decisions ME2's fault? And too many sqaud mates? Wasn't one of the biggest complaints for ME3 the LACK of sqaud mates?

ME3? Try ME1, which to date is still Bioware's smallest cast of characters (tied with ME3 if you don't count Javik). It's also probably Bioware's worst cast of characters, imo.

[tonnactus]

Cerbrus operative wrote...

The funny thing is that during ME2 time from January 2010 to ME3 release on March 2012, I don't remember anybody other than Sumdboy complaining and hating on ME2.

Sure:

http://social.biowar...index/1472797/1

[tonnactus]

Seboist wrote...

Edit: And I just have to LOL at the claims from the devs and the fanboys that it was a "character driven story". Yeah, one where most of them don't even acknowledge each other's existence, lmao.

Its funny.  Dragon Age 2 ,also disliked by a lot of people, did character interaction better then Mass Effect 2. There was banter,the development of some kind of friendship.

Mass Effect 2 has ...
... nothing.

Not even real teambuilding.

All those characters only exist for Shepard alone and this makes them to puppets, not characters.

Its an epic fail as an "character driven" game.

Modifié par tonnactus, 30 août 2012 - 10:31 .

[tonnactus]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...


ME3? Try ME1, which to date is still Bioware's smallest cast of characters (tied with ME3 if you don't count Javik). It's also probably Bioware's worst cast of characters, imo.

Of course. Character that could solve their problems alone are boring...

[BaladasDemnevanni]

tonnactus wrote...

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...


ME3? Try ME1, which to date is still Bioware's smallest cast of characters (tied with ME3 if you don't count Javik). It's also probably Bioware's worst cast of characters, imo.

Of course. Character that could solve their problems alone are boring...

Only in Mass Effect's case.