597 réponses à ce sujet

[Blueprotoss]

D24O wrote...

ME3 was tha wurst gaem I ever played. Everything was bad.

Hopefully this is sarcasm because if its that bad then ME3 wouldn't have quickly outsold ME1 and ME2.

I am disappoint wrote...

I'll just go with the plot, a better plot and maybe some of the things might have been forgivable.

If its plot then you should be looking at ME2 while the story is still subjective. 

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 07 septembre 2012 - 02:24 .

[Sanunes]

I think the biggest problem for me with Mass Effect 3 is everything after the alleyway with the two Brutes that burst through the wall (right now I stop playing at this point). At this point it really stopped feeling like everything that I experienced in all three games.

The problem is that isn't one specific issue that bothers me, its a lot of different things so each additional problem makes all the other ones seem bigger then it did a moment before. For I really didn't like the Horde Mode, Marauder Shields, how slow everything inside the Citadel feels, etc.

[xxskyshadowxx]

It's a tie between the fact that it's part of the trilogy in name only for the most part, and the fact that the devs clearly wanted to milk the CoD cash cow.

[D24O]

Blueprotoss wrote...

D24O wrote...

ME3 was tha wurst gaem I ever played. Everything was bad.

Hopefully this is sarcasm because if its that bad then ME3 wouldn't have quickly outsold ME1 and ME2.

Lettuce lean-beef cereal for a moment. ME3 was one of tha worst games ever.

[I am disappoint]

Blueprotoss wrote...

D24O wrote...

ME3 was tha wurst gaem I ever played. Everything was bad.

Hopefully this is sarcasm because if its that bad then ME3 wouldn't have quickly outsold ME1 and ME2.

I am disappoint wrote...

I'll just go with the plot, a better plot and maybe some of the things might have been forgivable.

If its plot then you should be looking at ME2 while the story is still subjective. 

Don't blame ME2 for the problems in ME3.
Hence I have an issue with the plot, as in it is terrible and full of plot holes.

They turn Mass effect in an shooter game like Call of duty, of course it will sell well.
Bioware cut the ropes off that was keeping them on the ground and they tried to grab the branch of a big tree too, if the branch breaks, so do Bioware.

Modifié par I am disappoint, 07 septembre 2012 - 02:38 .

[puppy maclove]

1. The Ending - WTF.... who ever thought this was "artistic"... just no..on so many levels..NO - you messed up on a George Lucas level. The ending makes the star wars prequels acceptable.

2. Choices dont matter - AT ALL!!!!
3. The .... "cough"...plot..."cough"
4. Star child - someone is taking too much medication or not enough... why?
5. EMS - implemented poorly in story
6. Not enough LI dialogue - side story
7. Side quests & fetch quests
8. The worst journal in gaming history... whats next pen & paper? Honestly?
9. The trial at the start of the game - way to disconnect from your player!!!!!!!! This could have been awesome but no.
10. The amount of bull fed to us by BioWare before the release of the game.

[Blueprotoss]

D24O wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

D24O wrote...

ME3 was tha wurst gaem I ever played. Everything was bad.

Hopefully this is sarcasm because if its that bad then ME3 wouldn't have quickly outsold ME1 and ME2.

Lettuce lean-beef cereal for a moment. ME3 was one of tha worst games ever.

If thats the case then ME3 wouldn't have sold 3 million + copies in March.  Sale numbers are what establishes whether a game is universally "bad" or "good" just like how ET barely sold some of its product stock.

[InvincibleHero]

The multiplayer bugs such as vanguard desynch and Rio being very undependaple as a map.

[D24O]

Blueprotoss wrote...

If thats the case then ME3 wouldn't have sold 3 million + copies in March.  Sale numbers are what establishes whether a game is universally "bad" or "good" just like how ET barely sold some of its product stock.

Accually, appealing to popularity is a logical fallacy. 

[RyuGuitarFreak]

The final mission not being up the Suicide Mission in ME2.

[darkway1]

Blueprotoss wrote...

Mordak55 wrote...

Good read you manage to put down several points I have thought as well. I guess the excuss is that the plot is secondry to the "shooty gun" side of the game to attract all the FPS new fans they wanted. 

Yet ME3 was't trying to be a "pure Shooter" while ME2 tried to.  Eiher way the series that trying "to attract all the FPS new fans they wanted is currently with Battlefield 3, Halo 4, and Gears of War: Judgement.

darkway1 wrote...

I personally thought the relationships between Shepard and crew were very shallow this time round and the people you did care about were characters established back in Mass2,Edi should have been a love interest,Aria should have been a love interest for example........without fresh content,the bond between Shepard and crew seemed slightly detached (for me).....the only real highlight was Tali,her chat about setting up home was a great personal insight to what drives her....I liked that.

Without that character/player bond it kinda tainted the impact of the end,I just felt that I was finishing the game,rather than sacrificing my self in order to save x,y and z ......I replayed Mass2 in order to explore the many relationships and my hope was that these relationships would continue to flourish in Mass3.......of course this didn't really happen in Mass3 and now that we know Shepard dies.....it kinda kills the whole replay aspect of the game.

The "shallowness" could be explained by the effects of war and how you're not overflowing with squadmates.

It seems you're confusing yourself here because ME3 is just one game and should be judged so like most games are when they're in a series. 

I understand your point of view but for me the war was to big and epic to connect with .....my connection came from the crew,the way the war affected my crew was some thing I could relate to.........for example I liked the new synthesis ending because it had a direct effect on EDI,I can see the results of my sacrifice on a personal level,so it's some thing I can relate too......synthesis effecting the whole universe is something I just can't relate to,nor do I care.  I can't and won't judge Mass3 as a stand alone game as it's a continuation of the Mass franchise.......the best bits about Mass3 were plots and characters continued from Mass2.....Tali and the geth,Krogan etc...........Mass3 gave me nothing new other than resolving already mentioned crew plots and an ending to the franchise it's self.

[Blueprotoss]

I am disappoint wrote...

Don't blame ME2 for the problems in ME3.
Hence I have an issue with the plot, as in it is terrible and full of plot holes.

Yet you are currently blaming ME3 for ME2's problems.  If you really think that the plot is terrible and full of plot holes then you'll have to look at ME2 and ME1.  ME3 isn't really a stand alone game ever when its possible to treat each ME game as such. 

I am disappoint wrote... 

They turn Mass effect in an shooter game like Call of duty, of course it will sell well.
Bioware cut the ropes off that was keeping them on the ground and they tried to grab the branch of a big tree too, if the branch breaks, so do Bioware.

ME is far from CoD especially when ME is an Action RPG and CoD is a FPS.  Either way the most action based ME would still be ME2.  Haters gonna hate.

[Blueprotoss]

D24O wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

If thats the case then ME3 wouldn't have sold 3 million + copies in March.  Sale numbers are what establishes whether a game is universally "bad" or "good" just like how ET barely sold some of its product stock.

Accually, appealing to popularity is a logical fallacy. 

Popularity isn't a fallacy while you trying to turn opinions into facts is a fallacy.

[D24O]

Blueprotoss wrote...

Popularity isn't a fallacy while you trying to turn opinions into facts is a fallacy.

Do two fallacies make a phallus?

[D24O]

Alright Protoss, I'm just messing with you. 3 was a good game despite some flaws.

[Chaotic-Fusion]

Blueprotoss wrote...

I am disappoint wrote...

Don't blame ME2 for the problems in ME3.
Hence I have an issue with the plot, as in it is terrible and full of plot holes.

Yet you are currently blaming ME3 for ME2's problems.  If you really think that the plot is terrible and full of plot holes then you'll have to look at ME2 and ME1.  ME3 isn't really a stand alone game ever when its possible to treat each ME game as such. 

I am disappoint wrote... 

They turn Mass effect in an shooter game like Call of duty, of course it will sell well.
Bioware cut the ropes off that was keeping them on the ground and they tried to grab the branch of a big tree too, if the branch breaks, so do Bioware.

ME is far from CoD especially when ME is an Action RPG and CoD is a FPS.  Either way the most action based ME would still be ME2.  Haters gonna hate.

Yes. After Bioware flat out stated they were going after CoD's audience, and then this:

http://gamingbolt.co...-others-bioware 

[TheDeadYoshi]

I agree with most of the points raised so far so I'll just add that I was really let down that side quests had to be overheard when passing strangers, you couldn't engage with any new minor characters. Thats what made the ME universe feel so big in the past games, you got a sense that so much was happening outside of the main plot. Now you just eavesdrop on someone talking about needing omni-gel or someone needing biotic amps etc... its so boring.

Bring back the fish-happy Krogan!

[I am disappoint]

Blueprotoss wrote...

I am disappoint wrote...

Don't blame ME2 for the problems in ME3.
Hence I have an issue with the plot, as in it is terrible and full of plot holes.

Yet you are currently blaming ME3 for ME2's problems.  If you really think that the plot is terrible and full of plot holes then you'll have to look at ME2 and ME1.  ME3 isn't really a stand alone game ever when its possible to treat each ME game as such. 

Am I blaming ME3 for ME2 problems?
I don't recall the Catalyst, Crucible and Cerberus to be a problem plot wise, in ME2.
Mass effect 3 is said to be the best place to start in this trilogy.

I did look at ME2 and ME1 and saw no problems between the two games, however ME3 is where the trouble begins.

Modifié par I am disappoint, 07 septembre 2012 - 02:56 .

[TheDeadYoshi]

TheDeadYoshi wrote...

I agree with most of the points raised so far so I'll just add that I was really let down that side quests had to be overheard when passing strangers, you couldn't engage with any new minor characters. Thats what made the ME universe feel so big in the past games, you got a sense that so much was happening outside of the main plot. Now you just eavesdrop on someone talking about needing omni-gel or someone needing biotic amps etc... its so boring.

Bring back the fish-happy Krogan!

'There are no fish...'

"Whaaaaaat?" 

[Blueprotoss]

darkway1 wrote...

I understand your point of view but for me the war was to big and epic to connect with .....my connection came from the crew,the way the war affected my crew was some thing I could relate to.........for example I liked the new synthesis ending because it had a direct effect on EDI,I can see the results of my sacrifice on a personal level,so it's some thing I can relate too......synthesis effecting the whole universe is something I just can't relate to,nor do I care.  I can't and won't judge Mass3 as a stand alone game as it's a continuation of the Mass franchise.......the best bits about Mass3 were plots and characters continued from Mass2.....Tali and the geth,Krogan etc...........Mass3 gave me nothing new other than resolving already mentioned crew plots and an ending to the franchise it's self.

There's nothing wrong with a debate and seeing the other person's points, but ME3 is still one game.  If some people get this critical about ME3 then I'm surprised that others aren't that critical on other series.  Either way each ME game is Bioware's story while we given choices based on what have been shown to us.  Most of the things that happened in ME3 are based on the events of ME1 and ME2.

[Blueprotoss]

D24O wrote...

Alright Protoss, I'm just messing with you. 3 was a good game despite some flaws.

I figured that while you did have me worried a little bit because you weren't acting like your usual self..

[fainmaca]

Blueprotoss wrote...
If thats the case then ME3 wouldn't have sold 3 million + copies in March.  Sale numbers are what establishes whether a game is universally "bad" or "good" just like how ET barely sold some of its product stock.

Not necessarily when applied to a sequel. All that tells you is how many additional people Bioware and EA managed to pull in with their bombastic advertising campaign and how much word of mouth boosted sales. I don't know about you, but I bought ME3 because the previous titles were good, not because its own value had been proven. In fact, most of the pre-release announcements about smaller squad size, MP content and moar zombies made me doubt its value. It was only because I'd enjoyed the previous games that I was convinced to buy this one. Had it been a standalone title, i would have passed on it.

ME3's release-date sales figures are really only marginally valuable in weighing up its worth. Just like an addition to any popular franchise. Take TOR, for example. Huge release, massive dropoff in player numbers. I can remember not being able to log into my characters for over an hour due to server queues, but now when I log on I often see only a handful of people on the Imperial/Republic side of the server. The game hadn't proved its value, but the marketing dept had really gone hell-for-leather to push the game, and it was frikkin' star wars. A lot of people who have stated their dislike for the game needed next to no persuasion to buy it in the first place.

TLDR: ME3 would have shifted most of those units due to a really well planned out marketing drive and previous consumer goodwill. Not because of its inherent value as a 'good' game.

[Blueprotoss]

Chaotic-Fusion wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

I am disappoint wrote...

Don't blame ME2 for the problems in ME3.
Hence I have an issue with the plot, as in it is terrible and full of plot holes.

Yet you are currently blaming ME3 for ME2's problems.  If you really think that the plot is terrible and full of plot holes then you'll have to look at ME2 and ME1.  ME3 isn't really a stand alone game ever when its possible to treat each ME game as such. 

I am disappoint wrote... 

They turn Mass effect in an shooter game like Call of duty, of course it will sell well.
Bioware cut the ropes off that was keeping them on the ground and they tried to grab the branch of a big tree too, if the branch breaks, so do Bioware.

ME is far from CoD especially when ME is an Action RPG and CoD is a FPS.  Either way the most action based ME would still be ME2.  Haters gonna hate.

Yes. After Bioware flat out stated they were going after CoD's audience, and then this:

http://gamingbolt.co...-others-bioware 

You should read the article first before trying to use it to defend your point because CoD was asked in the question and Gears of War was the answer.  The cover system is what Bioware wanted from Gears because Gears perfected the cover system in third person shooters after the death of Killswitch.

[Chaotic-Fusion]

Blueprotoss wrote...

Chaotic-Fusion wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

I am disappoint wrote...

Don't blame ME2 for the problems in ME3.
Hence I have an issue with the plot, as in it is terrible and full of plot holes.

Yet you are currently blaming ME3 for ME2's problems.  If you really think that the plot is terrible and full of plot holes then you'll have to look at ME2 and ME1.  ME3 isn't really a stand alone game ever when its possible to treat each ME game as such. 

I am disappoint wrote... 

They turn Mass effect in an shooter game like Call of duty, of course it will sell well.
Bioware cut the ropes off that was keeping them on the ground and they tried to grab the branch of a big tree too, if the branch breaks, so do Bioware.

ME is far from CoD especially when ME is an Action RPG and CoD is a FPS.  Either way the most action based ME would still be ME2.  Haters gonna hate.

Yes. After Bioware flat out stated they were going after CoD's audience, and then this:

http://gamingbolt.co...-others-bioware 

You should read the article first before trying to use it to defend your point because CoD was asked in the question and Gears of War was the answer.  The cover system is what Bioware wanted from Gears because Gears perfected the cover system in third person shooters after the death of Killswitch.

They're looking at games like CoD or GoW in an effort to attract new audiences. That says a lot about their new strategy. You're claiming that ME3 is nothing like CoD.

[fainmaca]

@Blueprotoss:

We’ve done a lot of research about what people like about Mass Effect, Mass Effect 2 and other games too; what do they like about Gears Of War? Why does that game do what it does?

Same goes for Assassin’s Creed, Halo, Call Of Duty and lots of RPG games too… we’ve looked at all these games to see what’s resonating and what’s not.”

Seems pretty clear-cut to me. What troubles me about that statement is that the RPG games are the afterthought there.

Modifié par fainmaca, 07 septembre 2012 - 03:07 .