270 réponses à ce sujet

[JamesFaith]

Domecoming wrote...

Yate wrote...

Domecoming wrote...

Seeing these images bring back some good memories.

Mass Effect 3 definitely lacked exploration, and it shows:

This is really dumb.

First off, the 'multiplayer quests' are N7 quests, they weren't any smaller or weaker than most of the N7 quests in ME2. They had characters, plot, unique dialogue, a lot more than most of the ME2 ones which were basically just "shoot mercs".

Secondly, the hubquests in ME3 were WAY larger than in ME1/ME2. You're counting Grunt's ME3 mission (one of the best parts of the whole trilogy for many) with flipping the water switches in Feros.

Finally, I'm trying to think about how you have only 5 fetch quests for ME1. There's that couple on the Citadel, the two consort missions, Samesh, two Chorban quests, Conrad, Schells, Opald, the Citadel AI... all missions with no combat or anything, just running around talking to people.

This is a biased piece of crap.

*facepalm*

The chart, even if it's not 100% accurate, perfectly illustrates the lack of exploration in ME3, which is one of the issues OP mentions. Exploration, as in, scanning the systems, finding stuff and landing on actual planets to do side missions, is almost nonexistent in ME3.

Conrad, Schells, Opold and others aren't counted as fetch quests, they're already counted among "Hub World" quests, marked red on the chart.

This is classical example of manipulated graph serving to only purpose - to justify one premise.

Really, fetch quest on hub world had different cathegory then fetch quest out of Hub world? How big difference is between talk to Samesh, go upstair, talk to cleric, return to Samesh (Hub quest) and  overhear someone, travel to planet, scan, return to Citadel (fetch quest)? 

Modifié par JamesFaith, 23 novembre 2012 - 09:15 .

[Dr_Extrem]

Seival wrote...

I think, that I should reply to OP in my favorite "mirror style".

Don't let the door hit you on the way out. There are a lot of people who actually like ME3 and the ending, and don't like haters whining. The less haters we have - the better.

...What?... I don't have to show much toleration to the ones who show little toleration to me.

well . you are among the haters as well .. you are just the other side of the medal.

[Mr.House]

Finn the Jakey wrote...

Re-using multiplayer maps and objectives does not count as an actual developed side quest a la ME1 and 2.

The only proper ones I can think of are:
-Asari monastery
-Rachni mission with Grunt
-Cerberus scientists

The Rannoch ones are important to the main plot so don't count.

ME2 side quest didn't have dialog, it was just land on a planet, kill things on a linear path and get to the end of the level. That's it. ME3 N7 missions had dialog, objectives and a story, not random shooting. ME1 still has the best side missions though.

[Seival]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Seival wrote...

I think, that I should reply to OP in my favorite "mirror style".

Don't let the door hit you on the way out. There are a lot of people who actually like ME3 and the ending, and don't like haters whining. The less haters we have - the better.

...What?... I don't have to show much toleration to the ones who show little toleration to me.

well . you are among the haters as well .. you are just the other side of the medal.

No, I just like showing haters a mirror.

But if people are not saying something about "fanboys stay here to lick Bioware ego in hope they will get discount" (and this is exactly what OP said in the end of his post), I reply quite nicely.

Modifié par Seival, 23 novembre 2012 - 08:54 .

[Eterna]

Happy to see you go. Maybe now you can start living instead of being a condescending d-bag.

[Applepie_Svk]

Seival wrote...

No, I just like showing haters a mirror.

But if people are not saying something about "fanboys stay here to lick Bioware ego in hope they will get discount" (and this is exactly what OP said in the end of his post), I reply quite nicely.

Comming from the same person who said that we should eliminate differences because they are dangerous.

Arcian wrote...

We spent three games killing indoctrinated people, so why should anyone treat you as an exception?

ouch...

Modifié par Applepie_Svk, 23 novembre 2012 - 08:57 .

[devSin]

Perhaps unsurprisingly, I agree with a lot of that criticism, and although it's a shame you've reached the point of just giving up and walking away from the whole thing, I definitely understand it.

Although I don't think I can say I hate the game, I do hate what it's done to the trilogy and to Shepard's story, and there are parts of it that I very much do despise.

Best of luck in finding future games that you can better appreciate (or at least tolerate).

Modifié par devSin, 23 novembre 2012 - 09:04 .

[Captain Crash]

JamesFaith wrote...

This is classical example of manipulated graph serving to only purpose - to justify one premise.

Really, fetch quest on hub world had different cathegory then fetch quest out of Hub world? How big difference is between talk to Samesh, go upstair, talk to cleric, return to Samesh (Hub quest) and  overhear someone, travel to polan, scan, return to Citadel (fetch quest)? 

Agreed, extremely flawed and biased graph with one agenda, a pop at ME3.

[Raging_Pulse]

Mr.House wrote...

Finn the Jakey wrote...

Re-using multiplayer maps and objectives does not count as an actual developed side quest a la ME1 and 2.

The only proper ones I can think of are:
-Asari monastery
-Rachni mission with Grunt
-Cerberus scientists

The Rannoch ones are important to the main plot so don't count.

ME2 side quest didn't have dialog, it was just land on a planet, kill things on a linear path and get to the end of the level. That's it. ME3 N7 missions had dialog, objectives and a story, not random shooting. ME1 still has the best side missions though.

The difference being that there are only six N7 missions, and you acquire them by talking to Specialist Traynor... While in ME2 there are 17, and as short and linear as they are, you still had to go out there and find them by yourself. And some of them do have an interesting backstory.

ME3 ones had a dialogue? Come on, I mean how much ineresting dialogue you had while shooting waves of Cerberus troopers on Fighter Base, Communications Hub, Cerberus Lab and other maps.

Agreed on ME1 sidemissions.

Modifié par Domecoming, 23 novembre 2012 - 09:17 .

[Grubas]

Captain Crash wrote...
Agreed, extremely flawed and biased graph with one agenda, a pop at ME3

wrong. this chart ilustrates perfectly how unfinished ME3 has been released. Having all this placeholders at every corner. Making everyones Shepard think of Liara, when he finally meets the maker, was not the only letdown in this game.

Modifié par Grubas, 23 novembre 2012 - 09:33 .

[Dr_Extrem]

Domecoming wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Finn the Jakey wrote...

Re-using multiplayer maps and objectives does not count as an actual developed side quest a la ME1 and 2.

The only proper ones I can think of are:
-Asari monastery
-Rachni mission with Grunt
-Cerberus scientists

The Rannoch ones are important to the main plot so don't count.

ME2 side quest didn't have dialog, it was just land on a planet, kill things on a linear path and get to the end of the level. That's it. ME3 N7 missions had dialog, objectives and a story, not random shooting. ME1 still has the best side missions though.

The difference being that there are only six N7 missions, and you acquire them by talking to Specialist Traynor... While in ME2 there are 17, and as short and linear as they are, you still had to go out there and find them by yourself. And some of them do have an interesting backstory.

ME3 ones had a dialogue? Come on, I mean how much ineresting dialogue you had while shooting waves of Cerberus troopers on Fighter Base, Communications Hub, Cerberus Lab and other maps.

Agreed on ME1 sidemissions.

me2 had 25 n7 missions. monastary, rachni queen and cerberus scientists are more like the loyalty missions from me2.

http://masseffect.wi...iki/Assignments

http://masseffect.wi...m/wiki/Missions

[Deadpool9]

Good.  Good.

Modifié par Deadpool9, 25 novembre 2012 - 08:37 .

[MegaSovereign]

I'll take the Tuchanka Bomb sidemission over any of the side missions in ME2.

Loyalty missions made up the bulk of ME2's playtime. A lot of them had a direct affect on the main plot arcs of ME3. I don't see how you can call them side-missions.

[SpamBot2000]

If the graph is so wrong, why not make one that shows the correct amount of missions?

Oh, right. The graph isn't wrong because the figures are inaccurate, it is wrong on the deeper level of not proclaiming the magnificence of ME3 uncritically. Well, graphs are like that sometimes. Perhaps you could replace missions with "Level of Awesome", which for ME3, as everybody knows, is higher than for any other thing anywhere ever, at a permanent +3000 to whatever anyone else says.

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 23 novembre 2012 - 09:44 .

[TheThirdSpectre]

Please......Enough about the ending for f***'s sake! I believe you need to look up a certain article (Someone on the BSN has a link in thier sig) on the internet about why 95% of players are wrong about the ending.

Every single f***ing time I come on this forum, there is ALWAYS a thread about the ending.

The ending does not take away the fact that I love this game. I was satisfied by the EC, but yes, it could have been better.

You know the answer to why most fools hate the ending? EA...

[jstme]

MegaSovereign wrote...

I'll take the Tuchanka Bomb sidemission over any of the side missions in ME2.

Loyalty missions made up the bulk of ME2's playtime. A lot of them had a direct affect on the main plot arcs of ME3. I don't see how you can call them side-missions.

Ehm... Tuchanka bomb sidemission had just as much direfct effect on the plot. Dialogue,different EMS---> potnetially different ending. Is it side mission? Why it is side-missionery then ,say, getting Grunt loyality?

[Mr.House]

Domecoming wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Finn the Jakey wrote...

Re-using multiplayer maps and objectives does not count as an actual developed side quest a la ME1 and 2.

The only proper ones I can think of are:
-Asari monastery
-Rachni mission with Grunt
-Cerberus scientists

The Rannoch ones are important to the main plot so don't count.

ME2 side quest didn't have dialog, it was just land on a planet, kill things on a linear path and get to the end of the level. That's it. ME3 N7 missions had dialog, objectives and a story, not random shooting. ME1 still has the best side missions though.

The difference being that there are only six N7 missions, and you acquire them by talking to Specialist Traynor... While in ME2 there are 17, and as short and linear as they are, you still had to go out there and find them by yourself. And some of them do have an interesting backstory.

ME3 ones had a dialogue? Come on, I mean how much ineresting dialogue you had while shooting waves of Cerberus troopers on Fighter Base, Communications Hub, Cerberus Lab and other maps.

Agreed on ME1 sidemissions.

I'm more talknig about the breifing on the shuttle and the debreifing back on the ship, but also the dialog that plays duri ng the mission is uniuqe for each character, this is something ME2 lacked. Yes some had intresting background info but the number is very low. For example let's take he reactor mission in ME3 for example It starts off with some small, easy to figure out puzzlkes and dialog then you have a few waves of Reaper troopers, then you have to send a squadmate to help the other team and if oyu don't they die. AFter the dinal wave you turn the reactor on and leave, if the other team lived they thank you and then you get a debreifing from Hackett. In ME2 if you got a debreifing it was in email form, not voiced. So while yes ME2 had more then ME3, they where of low quality. In fact Overlrod is how N7 missions should have been like.

[Mr.House]

jstme wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

I'll take the Tuchanka Bomb sidemission over any of the side missions in ME2.

Loyalty missions made up the bulk of ME2's playtime. A lot of them had a direct affect on the main plot arcs of ME3. I don't see how you can call them side-missions.

Ehm... Tuchanka bomb sidemission had just as much direfct effect on the plot. Dialogue,different EMS---> potnetially different ending. Is it side mission? Why it is side-missionery then ,say, getting Grunt loyality?

Because you do not have to do it, it is a side mission because it is optional content. I complete the racchni mission, I can now do the cure mission, but I still have the choice to do the bomb mission. However I do not need to do it at all. Almost everything in the game affects ems, by that stance everything, even fetch quest could be considered main missions.

[Zjarcal]

Where's my discount damn it... WHERE'S MY DISCOUNT?!?

[jstme]

Mr.House wrote...

jstme wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

I'll take the Tuchanka Bomb sidemission over any of the side missions in ME2.

Loyalty missions made up the bulk of ME2's playtime. A lot of them had a direct affect on the main plot arcs of ME3. I don't see how you can call them side-missions.

Ehm... Tuchanka bomb sidemission had just as much direfct effect on the plot. Dialogue,different EMS---> potnetially different ending. Is it side mission? Why it is side-missionery then ,say, getting Grunt loyality?

Because you do not have to do it, it is a side mission because it is optional content. I complete the racchni mission, I can now do the cure mission, but I still have the choice to do the bomb mission. However I do not need to do it at all. Almost everything in the game affects ems, by that stance everything, even fetch quest could be considered main missions.

You do not have to do loyality missions,either. It is optional content. 

[corporal doody]

Commander Casanova wrote...

Too much focus on Liara?

No such thing.

imma have to disagree as well.

Liara is rather "cold" for a good chunk of the game.


But you hate the game and are leaving OP?  


Dont go away mad.....JUST GTFO

SEE YA!!!

[AlanC9]

Finn the Jakey wrote...

Re-using multiplayer maps and objectives does not count as an actual developed side quest a la ME1 and 2.

Why does it matter where the map came from?

The only proper ones I can think of are:
-Asari monastery
-Rachni mission with Grunt
-Cerberus scientists

The Rannoch ones are important to the main plot so don't count.

Wait....  if a mission is important, it doesn't count as a sidequest?  So the problem with ME3 is that it doesn't have enough unimportant missions?

You also forgot Grissom Academy and the Tuchanka platoon and bomb missions. Oh, wait, the Tuckanka missions are too important to count, right?