424 réponses à ce sujet

[Headcount]

Red Dust wrote...

www.youtube.com/watch

This.

[Terror_K]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Beyond that, ME1 at least understood what sidequests were and realised that not everything has to revolve around the one thing.

Mass Effect 1 may have understood what sidequests were. Unfortunately, it had absolutely no clue what good sidequests are actually composed of. Imo, ME1's efforts were laughable in comparison to KotOR and Jade Empire in terms of both content and structure.

I'll admit some of them could have been done better, but we're not comparing them to KotOR and Jade Empire; we're comparing them to ME3. And ME3's sidequests are probably the worst BioWare's ever done in a game. Heck... they even copy-pasted the much maligned fetch-quests from DA2, for God sakes! About the only one that was even remotely close to decent I can remember was Aria's one, because at least that had some variation and choice within it.

[CronoDragoon]

Terror_K wrote...
I've been playing video games for almost 30 years. I think I've played enough games to judge the good from the bad, thank you very much.

I will admit that Mass Effect 3 was mostly garbage because it was Mass Effect 3. It's more of a horrible sequel and final chapter than it is a horrible game

Hmm. I'm not entirely surprised you conflate the two concepts, since I've seen Chrono fans do the same thing for years now. Not that I think ME3 is a bad sequel, either.

Disagree on all counts. ME1 is the strongest, the planet exploration was largely good, the gameplay had more to it and was more original than ME3's, the inventory was admittedly flawed but at least had more to it than just guns and armour, and most of the main story did have significance to the plot given that the plot was actually to chase down Saren and find out what was going on with him, The Geth, Sovereign, the Prothean beacon, etc. and the whole Reapers thing was purposefully kept a mystery until the latter parts of the game. Beyond that, ME1 at least understood what sidequests were and realised that not everything has to revolve around the one thing.

1. The planet exploration was beautiful scenery, and that's about it. And collecting Omni-Gel. God, I don't miss Omni-gel.

2. The gameplay was more original because it was the first of the series. You cannot really be complaining that ME3 didn't invent a new battle system as the third game of a trilogy, right? 

3. Most of ME1's story is throwaway. You can get through the main story in under 10 hours easy.

4. Mass Effect 3's sidequests (not fetch-quests which are boring, but sidequests) are superior, because they actually have stories being told. Grissom Academy is the best side-quest in the series.

but things like the lack of dialogue choices, the autodialogue, the on-the-rails linearity of the narrative, the pathetic lazy sidequests that are either weak fetch-quests or repurposed MP maps with a tacked-on story, the clumsy Journal and the pretty much entire focus on combat don't help.

I'm not claiming the game's flawless. I'm claiming it's not bad. Despite all the flaws I believe exist in Mass Effect 1, I still think it's a great game. But people won't forgive Mass Effect 3's flaws because of the ending. I hear many ME1 fans handwave gameplay complaints, claiming they only play BW games for story. Which I sort of agree with. But as a game, it's still a large part of the experience and must be heavily weighed when speaking of the quality of a game and not its place on your favorite games list.

But did it get more things right than it got things wrong? Heeeelllll no!

Fantastic music, 95% great dialogue with the ocassional derp line, superior shooting system, great character development, compared against your above flaws. The pluses outweigh the minuses in my book.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 14 septembre 2012 - 04:00 .

[Ghost Lightning]

*reads title*

[The Spamming Troll]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
I've been playing video games for almost 30 years. I think I've played enough games to judge the good from the bad, thank you very much.

I will admit that Mass Effect 3 was mostly garbage because it was Mass Effect 3. It's more of a horrible sequel and final chapter than it is a horrible game

Hmm. I'm not entirely surprised you conflate the two concepts, since I've seen Chrono fans do the same thing for years now. Not that I think ME3 is a bad sequel, either.

Disagree on all counts. ME1 is the strongest, the planet exploration was largely good, the gameplay had more to it and was more original than ME3's, the inventory was admittedly flawed but at least had more to it than just guns and armour, and most of the main story did have significance to the plot given that the plot was actually to chase down Saren and find out what was going on with him, The Geth, Sovereign, the Prothean beacon, etc. and the whole Reapers thing was purposefully kept a mystery until the latter parts of the game. Beyond that, ME1 at least understood what sidequests were and realised that not everything has to revolve around the one thing.

1. The planet exploration was beautiful scenery, and that's about it. And collecting Omni-Gel. God, I don't miss Omni-gel.

2. The gameplay was more original because it was the first of the series. You cannot really be complaining that ME3 didn't invent a new battle system as the third game of a trilogy, right? 

3. Most of ME1's story is throwaway. You can get through the main story in under 10 hours easy.

4. Mass Effect 3's sidequests (not fetch-quests which are boring, but sidequests) are superior, because they actually have stories being told. Grissom Academy is the best side-quest in the series.

but things like the lack of dialogue choices, the autodialogue, the on-the-rails linearity of the narrative, the pathetic lazy sidequests that are either weak fetch-quests or repurposed MP maps with a tacked-on story, the clumsy Journal and the pretty much entire focus on combat don't help.

I'm not claiming the game's flawless. I'm claiming it's not bad. Despite all the flaws I believe exist in Mass Effect 1, I still think it's a great game. But people won't forgive Mass Effect 3's flaws because of the ending. I hear many ME1 fans handwave gameplay complaints, claiming they only play BW games for story. Which I sort of agree with. But as a game, it's still a large part of the experience and must be heavily weighed when speaking of the quality of a game and not its place on your favorite games list.

But did it get more things right than it got things wrong? Heeeelllll no!

Fantastic music, 95% great dialogue with the ocassional derp line, superior shooting system, great character development, compared against your above flaws. The pluses outweigh the minuses in my book.

i disagree with your opinion.

[Lionfranky]

It isn't just nostalgia that make people think ME2>>>ME3. In ME2, you could feel you are building force gradually as you do each royalty mission. Sure it wasn't overall advance in plot, but that was forgiveable.
When I got to final mission, I failed few times. So I had to think again and replay the whole game.
When I finally managed to save all the crews, I felt so satisfied. My effort paid off.
In ME3? There was no such thing. All things boiled to EMS even then, it doesn't affect the final mission.
And not to mention tons of fetch, evedropping quests. If I were to get those quests, I would go to WoW.
Mass Effect should never resort to those lame excuses to fill up contents.

[The Spamming Troll]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Beyond that, ME1 at least understood what sidequests were and realised that not everything has to revolve around the one thing.

Mass Effect 1 may have understood what sidequests were. Unfortunately, it had absolutely no clue what good sidequests are actually composed of. Imo, ME1's efforts were laughable in comparison to KotOR and Jade Empire in terms of both content and structure.

so why wouldnt bioware steal from the good aspects of its previously made games like sidequests from jade empire instead of sidequests from DA2?

[AlanC9]

As usual with threads like this, all we're really proving is that different people want different things in their games. Several of Terror_K's problems with ME3 are things that I was pleasantly surprised to get.

[Terror_K]

CronoDragoon wrote...

1. The planet exploration was beautiful scenery, and that's about it. And collecting Omni-Gel. God, I don't miss Omni-gel.

It was atmospheric and made the universe feel vast, epic and both empty and full. It made me feel I could just go out into the void and be part of the whole universe and not just be dragged along on a linear story confined by a set narrative.

2. The gameplay was more original because it was the first of the series. You cannot really be complaining that ME3 didn't invent a new battle system as the third game of a trilogy, right?

The gamplay was more original because it tried something new, while ME2 cut and watered down most of these concepts in favour of just ripping off pure shooter mechanics and jamming them into an RPG without properly adapting them for the change in game styles. Instead of being a game that is a decent blend of RPG and TPS, ME2 and ME3 are essentially TPS combat with powers shoehorned into an RPG. I don't expect ME3 to change things up too much, but what I'm saying is that it's not a particuarly deep system and completely focused on combat and combat alone (though this is admittedly a issue ME2 started, and ME3 did add some more depth to it).

I've fulled admitted that when looked at completely isolated, ME3's combat system is the best. I still think it's too "pure TPS" and not adapted for the RPG side of things enough... but it's still the best system. That said, it's about the only part of ME3 that's fully done right and better than the other two.

3. Most of ME1's story is throwaway. You can get through the main story in under 10 hours easy.

Never done it. Even my Renegade "do only what needs to be done" has got an 18 hour playtime. But then, I never skip dialogue.

4. Mass Effect 3's sidequests (not fetch-quests which are boring, but sidequests) are superior, because they actually have stories being told. Grissom Academy is the best side-quest in the series.

So do ME1's. And they usually have more choices. ME3's bigger sidequests like Grissom, the Ardat-Yaksi Monastery, Jacob's one, etc. have a bit more meat to them in general, and are more akin to optional main quests like ME2's loyalty missions than actual sidequests. They also generally lack choices within them. Grissom Academy was fairly solid, but I don't recall much in the way of variation.

I'm not claiming the game's flawless. I'm claiming it's not bad. Despite all the flaws I believe exist in Mass Effect 1, I still think it's a great game. But people won't forgive Mass Effect 3's flaws because of the ending. I hear many ME1 fans handwave gameplay complaints, claiming they only play BW games for story. Which I sort of agree with. But as a game, it's still a large part of the experience and must be heavily weighed when speaking of the quality of a game and not its place on your favorite games list.

Again, it's not just the ending. The game barely feels the same style any more. It's so damn linear, there's barely any dialogue choices, autodialogue with too many uncontrollable cinematics or Shepard just blathering on without any input from the player. The game forces you on the rails constantly, with the main plot being completely linear (i.e you have to do Mars, then Menae, then Sur'Kesh, then Tuchanka, then Rannoch, then Thessia, etc. in that exact order and ONLY that order) and BioWare forces you to adhere to their story at every damn turn it can. And it is their story, because it never feels like mine any more. Shepard is no longer mine now, as he/she is told how to feel and think and speak without my input, saying things that he/she would never say because they contradict prior actions and looking sad, angry or happy automatically. Nothing I did in the prior games mattered, with dozens of incredibly forced excuses to make sure nothing changes, characters who died are just substituted with others who do the same thing and circumstances end up the same, while all the while everything gets ground up and turned into an arbitrary number with no real depth to it. Thus ME3 not only renders itself completely irrelevant, but the prior two games utterly pointless as well. Then there's the completely retarded story-points such as the whole Deus Ex crucible nonsense that came out of nowhere and pretty much anything to do with Cerberus and Kai Leng (especially the Cerberus takeover and Thessia).

Fantastic music, 95% great dialogue with the ocassional derp line, superior shooting system, great character development, compared against your above flaws. The pluses outweigh the minuses in my book.

The music was decent, but I found ME1 and ME2's better. Both had far more memorable and unique pieces, while much of ME3's sounded the same.

The dialogue was a mixed bag. The biggest issues were that there wasn't enough control over it, and Shepard too often just said stupid things with no choice. Some dialogue was just lame, especially those that were weak substitution-related dialogue where they stretched for excuses for things to stay on the rails despite the changes and too many characters just literally said the exact same things, despite the fact they are supposed to be different people with different personalites. For example, Ashley and Kaidan are more often than not just female and male clones of each other, with little effort to personalize them beyond key, individual moments.

Superior shooting system I'll give you, but the entire system was still far too built around solely combat and not adapted for the RPG side of things enough. It wasn't worth shooting finally being perfected at the expense of the almost complete inability to roleplay Shepard any more.

Character development is a mixed bag too. James and Allers are a waste of space with no depth, and while Samantha and Steve have more depth and are a bit more interesting, far too often they had giant neon signs over them saying "GAY LOVE INTEREST" without any subtelty. Javik I'll admit was good, and Garrus and Liara not too bad, even if I felt the fact Liara was my love interest and the game didn't reflect this enough (and cheating was horribly handled). Joker and EDI were great actually. Ashley and Kaidan were awful though... with the former becoming Alt Universe Alliance Miranda suddenly, and both of them getting cut out of most of the damn game, while also too often being clones of each other (as I said above). ME2's squaddies either too often got the shaft as a whole, or had other characters cheaply take their places and make them seem insignificant and meaningless. Mordin doesn't seem special when Padok can just step in and be Mordin 2, and the same goes for Grunt, Jack and Thane with their missions.

Overall though, the main points for me is that most of the things I got into the series for and loved about it were so lacking, watered down or missing from ME3, it made it a total fail. Add to this the fact that our choices just didn't matter and it was as linear and railroading as hell, and overall it not only meets up to expecations, but has almost none of what I feel are the key factors of the series. To me most of the few factors they did right are things I just don't care that much about. Combat was always the least interesting feature, IMO. I got into it for the roleplaying, the idea that choices would matter, for the dialogue choices and the feeling I can explore this great sci-fi universe. ME3 had pretty much NONE of that any more.

[LilyasAvalon]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

Oh, you were being serious? Let me laugh harder.

In all seriousness, it COULD have been a great game, it COULD have been game of the DECADE let alone game or the year. But it was rushed, it was fiddled with far too much to appeal to a 'larger' audience and bring in the initial flash of cash rather than a steady stream.

After all that **** about how we'll take back Earth and how we'll tie up loose ends... I'm sorry, but no matter what Bioware does, unless they take this game back and make it what it SHOULD have been, this'll be the most disappointing trilogy I have EVER played.

[Terror_K]

AlanC9 wrote...

As usual with threads like this, all we're really proving is that different people want different things in their games. Several of Terror_K's problems with ME3 are things that I was pleasantly surprised to get.

That's all very well, but a game should stick to what it's trying to be or do. It should remain faithful to its original vision, style and source material. It shouldn't change these things and become something else just for the sake of broad appeal and pandering to those who want something else entirely.

That's why Mass Effect 3 is a failure as a whole. Not because it's a bad game per se, but because it's bad at sticking to its roots and the original game. I'm sure plenty of people will say the changes made over the series were "improvements" but improvements for who exactly? If Mass Effect 4 really ends up just being an outright Call of Duty clone and gets hailed as the best game ever by the vast majority just because 10 million CoD players love CoD clones, that doesn't make it the best Mass Effect game and it doesn't mean it's been improved.

Most people who think Mass Effect improved just mean that the game was made "more for them" than anything else. And sure... it's easy to throw back, "ME1 wasn't better, it was just more for you!" which is true, but it was the original game, and it was attempting to be what it was. And that's what the games should be like. Not exactly the same, but the whole series should be going for the same thing, the same audience, the same style, etc.

But it didn't. It basically got retooled for the sake of broadening its audience.

[Mcfly616]

J. Reezy wrote...

Rex Fallout wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

OzzyJack wrote...

I keep hearing about 75 perfect scores, but who gave these perfect scores? Anyone know? As I'm genuinely curious about this statement.

I know that ME3 scored well in nearly, if not all the reviews I've read, but never have I come across a perfect i.e. 10/10 score.

Also, ME3 is for me a very much the weak link in the trilogy and no more than a 7/10 IMO, but to each their own.

Game Informer was one of the publications to give it a perfect 10.

Before you go ahead and bash them for being a mainstream publication, you should know they rarely ever give out perfect scores....

They've only given out 2 in the last year, and ME3 was one of them

2 in a year?  Far too many.  A 10/10 means that it is perfect...

Not exactly. That's not Game Informer's description of the score.

yeah, it isn't....I think they specifically say "no game is perfect"

[LilyasAvalon]

I love how people forgot how well money talks in the business world. The whole 'gaming journalism' industry is corrupt as ****.

[ChandlerL]

But I had hope... to only ultimately face a no win scenario.

Cap'n Kirk wouldn't have put up with that s**t.

[Slayer299]

OP, there's nothing about it that could possibly fit it into the "best game ever made" category. And mumba1511's JJJ laughing video was perfectly valid IMO.

[ChandlerL]

Terror_K wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

As usual with threads like this, all we're really proving is that different people want different things in their games. Several of Terror_K's problems with ME3 are things that I was pleasantly surprised to get.

That's all very well, but a game should stick to what it's trying to be or do. It should remain faithful to its original vision, style and source material. It shouldn't change these things and become something else just for the sake of broad appeal and pandering to those who want something else entirely.

That's why Mass Effect 3 is a failure as a whole. Not because it's a bad game per se, but because it's bad at sticking to its roots and the original game. I'm sure plenty of people will say the changes made over the series were "improvements" but improvements for who exactly? If Mass Effect 4 really ends up just being an outright Call of Duty clone and gets hailed as the best game ever by the vast majority just because 10 million CoD players love CoD clones, that doesn't make it the best Mass Effect game and it doesn't mean it's been improved.

Most people who think Mass Effect improved just mean that the game was made "more for them" than anything else. And sure... it's easy to throw back, "ME1 wasn't better, it was just more for you!" which is true, but it was the original game, and it was attempting to be what it was. And that's what the games should be like. Not exactly the same, but the whole series should be going for the same thing, the same audience, the same style, etc.

But it didn't. It basically got retooled for the sake of broadening its audience.

Interesting way of putting it mate. I've been reflecting on what you wrote here and contemplating if that is what bothers me about ME3. In an effort to broaden appeal, they may have sacrificed the soul of their IP--that je ne sais quoi, that magic, that resonated with the folks.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Is ME one of the best franchises ever? without a doubt.

ME has always been full of huge flaws, but they made the games so interesting that you didn't care, ME3 has one flaw so huge that it made you care about the rest of them.

[Jadebaby]

Everything before Priority Earth was amazing (Bar Liara's Gift).

[Jadebaby]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Is ME one of the best franchises ever? without a doubt.

ME has always been full of huge flaws, but they made the games so interesting that you didn't care, ME3 has one flaw so huge that it made you care about the rest of them.

qft

[AlanC9]

Terror_K wrote...

That's all very well, but a game should stick to what it's trying to be or do. It should remain faithful to its original vision, style and source material. It shouldn't change these things and become something else just for the sake of broad appeal and pandering to those who want something else entirely.

That isn't how I see some of the changes. For me, getting away from loot, sidequests, and nonlinearity makes the game a better RPG. The CRPG genre is defective, and has been almost from the beginning. I'm just sorry they didn't get rid of credits while they were at it -- needing cash makes sense in some gameworlds, but hasn't the Alliance ever heard of expense accounts?

That's why Mass Effect 3 is a failure as a whole. Not because it's a bad game per se, but because it's bad at sticking to its roots and the original game. I'm sure plenty of people will say the changes made over the series were "improvements" but improvements for who exactly? If Mass Effect 4 really ends up just being an outright Call of Duty clone and gets hailed as the best game ever by the vast majority just because 10 million CoD players love CoD clones, that doesn't make it the best Mass Effect game and it doesn't mean it's been improved.

No, it wouldn't mean that the game had been improved. Nor would it mean that the game hadn't been improved. Who the other fans are and what they think is irrelevant. In the end, we all get to evaluate games for ourselves.

[wright1978]

Terror_K wrote...

What a load of tripe. The endings were the least of ME3's problems. It was still an awful game, even if you completely ignore them. ME3 is nowhere even remotely CLOSE to being one of the best games ever made... hell, it's not even close to being BioWare's best game, and it's by far the worst of the trilogy.

ME3 was a pathetic, rushed, half-assed and misfocused piece of garbage that lived up to pretty much none of the promises.

Yep worst game in the trilogy by a long way imo.

Modifié par wright1978, 14 septembre 2012 - 07:26 .

[Brovikk Rasputin]

Yes it is.

[Destr1er]

Not only is it not the best game ever, it is easily not the best game in the trilogy.

Things aren't looking good for Bioware. EA forcing bolted on multiplayer and multiplayer only in the future is going to lead to another legendary studio on the pile of dead EA has aquired.

[Optimus J]

JBPBRC wrote...

No. ME2 was better.

Yes, ME2 and ME3 have huge flaws.

How many people you see not overlooking ME2 huge flaws for the sake of overall game play?

Now, ME3?

Can you see the inverse proportions?