91 réponses à ce sujet

[fr33stylez]

ME3, as a ridiculous game as it was, had little to do with ME2 having a complete filler storyline.

- Killing and resurrecting Shepard after 2 years with Cerberus magic and money ? Really? Not even believable in the ME universe
- Railroaded into working with a group presented as nothing but terrorist in ME1. Shepard works with TIM blindly before even presented proof he's trustworty. OVerall, Shepard has brain damage.
- Collector threat is not urgent, and the scale of what they're doing can be covered in a DLC. They building a Human-Repaer - so what? They weren't even near complete after 2 years and needed much more. Implausible they would kipnapped millions of more humans without anyone noticing (relies too much on idiot plot).
- Even if they had succeeded, again, so what? What were they gonna to with that Reaper? Charge the Citadel again, this time without the Geth?
- Reapers would've arrived anyways in the galaxy and can Reap and harvest at a much more effective rate than Collector guerrilla-style kidnappings can do (what were the Collectors doing in ME1?)
- In order to support direction of weird plot, Council has amnesia. Ah yes, Reapers.
- Apparently, there's not proof of the Reapers, despite Sovereign exploding on the Citadel and having the Turians even make a weapon based off its technology. Apparently the keepers ate Sovereign even though they move like old robots. Silly.
- Overall, you learn nothing about the Reapers and how to stop them. Instead, you learn about a superweapon blueprint that's been on Mars this whole time on the first real mission of ME3.

ME2 is still way better than ME3. But let's just say I'm surprised when people bash ME3's plot without acknowledging that ME2 basically set this path in motion.

Modifié par fr33stylez, 30 août 2012 - 10:41 .

[VintageUtti]

To me the general vibe is that ME2 is considered the best of the trilogy. I can see why people would say that but ME1 is my favorite while I would put ME2 in 2nd. I think combat is best in ME3 but overall I enjoyed the gameplay variety of the loyalty missions in ME2 the most, and playing as Joker was a nice bonus. With plot I think ME1 is best, and the conversations with Sovereign and Vigil are probably my favorite story moments in the trilogy.

I don't know how I would rank the squadmates across the games; yes there is a lot in ME2 but I hate how they stop talking to you if you don't romance them. So in that respect I like ME3's interactions better and how they have autodialogue with each other. I actually loved the long conversations you have in ME1 on the Normandy with the original team and both ME2 and ME3 suffer because Wrex isn't a permanent squadmate.

Modifié par VintageUtti, 30 août 2012 - 10:42 .

[Epique Phael767]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

People hate ME2? More than ME3? I must have missed that.

[Grub Killer8016]

OP, the BSN changes in terms of opinion daily. ME1 will always be the best in my opinion.

P.S. OP: your Shepard looks a lot like mine.

Modifié par Grub Killer8016, 30 août 2012 - 10:43 .

[DeathScepter]

Just say, Story is more solid in ME 2 than ME 3

[corkey sweet]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

People hate ME2? More than ME3? I must have missed that.

I must have missed that one as well.

[Humakt83]

You  Mass Effect 1 fanboys should replay Mass Effect 1 to see how badly it has aged. It is clearly the worst game in the trilogy. Average to bad gameplay with lots of running around, copypaste buildings where sidequests take place, terrible mountain ranges for driving Mako, least dialogue, least developed characters, encyclopedia discussions, worst graphics, worst cinematic scenes, least actual content, dumb enemy AI & shortest game. Moreover skill system is nothing to write home about, not enough variation between different classes. Least impressive powers too and besides Geth, enemy forces were lackluster. And do not delude yourself, majority of the game time is spent on running/driving around.

Yes, it still has its strong points and I once considered the game epic, but sequels are clearly better games.

Modifié par Humakt83, 30 août 2012 - 11:19 .

[Nicottia]

Tbh ME2 was the best of all 3 in my opinion. ME1 was awesome but too short and you had mako... first 5 planets were fun, after that it became a pain in the .... Oh not to mention that you got ninja'ed into romance if you spared Kaidan/Ashley and ofc Liara always having a crush on our Shepard.

ME2 had awesome, more personal story, more squad mates, more cutscenes with your squad mates, decisions reflecting the ending, a lot of cameos from ME1... ME3 lacked it all.

ME3 story is beautiful nonetheless, but you can tell that EA & Bioware changed their writers for ME3.

How I felt after I finished ME1, ME2 and ME3?

ME1: intense but epic ending. I even had a tear in my eye cause I thought that Shepard died for a second.

ME2: full epicness.

ME3: I felt sad, in a good way though, touched.

In ME3 the writers focused so much on the main questline they forgot to cover some decent relationships with squadmates and of course the endings don't really reflect most important decisions you made during all the games.

[tonnactus]

Humakt83 wrote...

You  Mass Effect 1 fanboys should replay Mass Effect 1 to see how badly it has aged.

Done a weak ago. Still the best by far. And i dont have to cringe when watching run animations.

Modifié par tonnactus, 30 août 2012 - 11:30 .

[Baa Baa]

Fans of Smudboy? idk

[Baa Baa]

tonnactus wrote...

Humakt83 wrote...

You  Mass Effect 1 fanboys should replay Mass Effect 1 to see how badly it has aged.

Done a weak ago. Still the best. And i dont have to cringe when watching run animations.

Yeah I played it a month ago. Still enjoy the RPG, exploring, and even the combat once I get everything leveled up enough.

[Andy the Black]

Mass 3 is the worst in the trilogy for me. It's still an awesome game though.

1) Being forced to work with Cerberus. An organization that is established as terrorists in Mass 1.
2) The story is weak ass in comparison to Mass 1 and 3's. It's just filler and does nothing for the overall trilogy.
3) To much focus on recruiting squad mates.
4) Not enough interactions with them squad mates. Really, how much calibration does a gun need?
5) Poor RPG elements.
Most of these things are fix in Mass 3.

Mass 2 does a lot right though, just it's all done better in 3. Except it's loading screens are way better than the static boring screens in Mass 3.

[Kulbelbolka]

ME2 storyline is complete filler. The thing is that it doesn't matter since it's the best game in trilogy.

[The Spamming Troll]

enemy protections. i hate the train of thought that leads a developer to "enemy protection." ill just never understand why armor/shields'barriers can completely nullify abilities, but dont do much at all to stop weapons fire. ill never understand how it works in game, and ill never understand how a developer could be happy with implementing such a BS challenge with something like 'enemy protections.'

i also disliked the disconnected story to ME1(and then ME3). it not that dieing at the begininng of the game to be resurected inthe next cut scene is so bizare and rediculouse. or waking up knowing how to reload a weapon, or any other nonsenes thats all to easy to point out. i just see no point to ME2. ME2s story has me recruit a GREAT squad, only to negate the fact that i recruited the best squad in the galaxy and instead gives me noobie vega, and EDI(which i dont understand at all), an uninteresting prothean(how that possible?) in ME3. ME2 introduces the games main antagonist, then shiffles him to the side, for what reason?

i cant remember not liking much else. which to me means those two things they got wrong, they got REALLY wrong.

[Legion of 1337]

ME2 caused ME3's ending debacle. ME2's plot was fractured and unrelated to everything else in the entire series. The only thing they did well was the actual recruitment/loyalty missions for the squadmates - the character development and dialogue in ME2 was excellent, even with characters that are essentially filler.

[Pantanplan]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

enemy protections. i hate the train of thought that leads a developer to "enemy protection." ill just never understand why armor/shields'barriers can completely nullify abilities, but dont do much at all to stop weapons fire. ill never understand how it works in game, and ill never understand how a developer could be happy with implementing such a BS challenge with something like 'enemy protections.'

i also disliked the disconnected story to ME1(and then ME3). it not that dieing at the begininng of the game to be resurected inthe next cut scene is so bizare and rediculouse. or waking up knowing how to reload a weapon, or any other nonsenes thats all to easy to point out. i just see no point to ME2. ME2s story has me recruit a GREAT squad, only to negate the fact that i recruited the best squad in the galaxy and instead gives me noobie vega, and EDI(which i dont understand at all), an uninteresting prothean(how that possible?) in ME3. ME2 introduces the games main antagonist, then shiffles him to the side, for what reason?

i cant remember not liking much else. which to me means those two things they got wrong, they got REALLY wrong.

I don't remember that. Didn't biotic and tech attacks damage enemy shields and barriers?

Modifié par Pantanplan, 31 août 2012 - 05:36 .

[xcrunr1647]

As far as plot and character development, I think ME2 far outshines ME3.

The reason I play ME3 so much more is because 1) I find the gameplay much more fluid and 2) I very much enjoy the multiplayer.