205 réponses à ce sujet

[DanHarbinger]

Oransel wrote...

I love ME1 and ME2, but I strongly dislike ME3 and ironically, that's because of how much I love previous games. Core problem is the massive drop of quality in almost all areas of game, compared to previous installments.

Don't get me wrong, there were good heartwarming and emotional moments with characters and I will even say they were the best ones in the whole trilogy. Some of the sidemissions were good and enjoyable (my personal favorite is Legion's history lesson inside virtual reality), Tuchanka and Rannoch were the only valid arcs of overall plot (however, I have a lot of problems with not being able to get krogan support after sabotaging cure if Wrex is alive. It makes no sense). Combat is fluent and is most enjoyable of all 3 games. Voice acting is great. Lot's of flashbacks to ME1 and ME2, featuring your small decisions.

All of the above positive moments are very nice and touching, but negative is outweighting by far.

1. ME3 Crucible plot is unoriginal, lazy and weakest plot possible, even if it was done right. But it was not because...
2. Major storyline is plagued with plotholes, lack of any logic (Cerberus, coup, moving citadel to Earth etc.), OOC moments for the sake of already bizzare plot, thematic breakdance, rude violations of established universe rules, forced emotions and plain bad writing - start of the game is the worst offender. It's just bad writing, nothing else. I was not that offended by endings, actually, they were born from the overall weakness of plot and are nothing more than the pinnacle of it's degradation (which managed to break the tolerance of even the most accepting players) and for the record, EC did nothing to fix their core problems.
3. Your squad is smaller than in previous game without any justification, but laziness, lack of time or economy of resources. ME2 squad is downplayed in general, often in insulting manner.
4. RPG elements (not stupid combat, but dialogue and character role play) are reduced to critical level. Paragon Shepard gets defined personality you have no control on anymore, while Renegade players have to deal with bi-polar psycho Shep, as well without any control over him. 55% of dialogue is in auto-mode, while remaining is butchered to 2 options. If you are lucky, once in a while there would be attempts to intimidate/persuade someone, but they happen like 5-7 times through the game.
5. Bugs and glitches. Lots and lots of them and zero attempt to fix them from Bioware.
6. Terrible lack of proper exploration, sidemissions (quality lacks again in several of them, rachni is the worst from logic part, but has nice Grunt moments) and hub worlds, with plague known as fetch quests. Saving whole elcor race by launching a shuttle?.... Really?....
7. Overall focus on combat

And of course metagame problems - day1 DLC, awful way of dealing with the ending controversy, broken promises and so on.

So yeah, unfortunately for me, I absolutely love ME1 and ME2 and hate ME3. All I hope unrealistically is that upcoming "great", "huge" DLC will do something about at least some of the problems I listed. I want to love ME3, but I just can't.

Fantastic summation. Deviation or subversion of the original formula, i.e what made the game great has instituted its demise. It utterly astounds me that those who conceived the original Mass Effect lore, who imbued the franchise with so much emotion and allure could even justify the propagation of the gross drivel that is Mass Effect 3. Yes, there are virtues, redeeming features but predominantly, it's a complete subversion.

[Benchpress610]

GiarcYekrub wrote...

Benchpress610 wrote...

Sorry to interject in this discussion; you keep asking for proof, but can you provide solid proof of the contrary yourself? The only thing you have provided so far is pure conjecture. There is no reason (other than head-cannon) no to take the start-brat assertions as fact.

Why do I need proof? I'm not the one getting angry about hypothetical head canon, mine scenario is also hypothetical but I'm happy that it isn't inconsistent with the fact, my argument is that so is the "Reaper King" head canon is being taken as fact and people are getting worked up about it, to me thats not the fault of Bioware. The Catalyst never does anything, its abilities are unknown, until Bioware write them, to infer that it breaks ME1 is absurd

OK, if I understand you correctly, you’re saying that you don’t need to prove your point while demanding others to prove the contrary? ...
 
Well, let’s try it. If I remember his drivel the star-brat said: “The Citadel is part of me”, “I created the Reapers”, “I control them”, “they are MY solution”.  Did he or did he not say these things? Please present concrete evidence why we should not take these statements at face value.
 
On your last point; where was he in ME1 while we were chasing after Saren and the conduit? Why did they need the keepers anyways? His mere existence calls into question the whole ME1 plot.
 

Modifié par Benchpress610, 20 février 2013 - 07:13 .

[bleetman]

Ryoten wrote...

It made me not trust Bioware/EA, and actually slightly loath the companies because of the way they treated their customers by passive aggresively attacking them.

Yep.

That and, y'know, literally calling them stupid and lying to them.

[xtal84]

DanHarbinger wrote...

Oransel wrote...

I love ME1 and ME2, but I strongly dislike ME3 and ironically, that's because of how much I love previous games. Core problem is the massive drop of quality in almost all areas of game, compared to previous installments.

Don't get me wrong, there were good heartwarming and emotional moments with characters and I will even say they were the best ones in the whole trilogy. Some of the sidemissions were good and enjoyable (my personal favorite is Legion's history lesson inside virtual reality), Tuchanka and Rannoch were the only valid arcs of overall plot (however, I have a lot of problems with not being able to get krogan support after sabotaging cure if Wrex is alive. It makes no sense). Combat is fluent and is most enjoyable of all 3 games. Voice acting is great. Lot's of flashbacks to ME1 and ME2, featuring your small decisions.

All of the above positive moments are very nice and touching, but negative is outweighting by far.

1. ME3 Crucible plot is unoriginal, lazy and weakest plot possible, even if it was done right. But it was not because...
2. Major storyline is plagued with plotholes, lack of any logic (Cerberus, coup, moving citadel to Earth etc.), OOC moments for the sake of already bizzare plot, thematic breakdance, rude violations of established universe rules, forced emotions and plain bad writing - start of the game is the worst offender. It's just bad writing, nothing else. I was not that offended by endings, actually, they were born from the overall weakness of plot and are nothing more than the pinnacle of it's degradation (which managed to break the tolerance of even the most accepting players) and for the record, EC did nothing to fix their core problems.
3. Your squad is smaller than in previous game without any justification, but laziness, lack of time or economy of resources. ME2 squad is downplayed in general, often in insulting manner.
4. RPG elements (not stupid combat, but dialogue and character role play) are reduced to critical level. Paragon Shepard gets defined personality you have no control on anymore, while Renegade players have to deal with bi-polar psycho Shep, as well without any control over him. 55% of dialogue is in auto-mode, while remaining is butchered to 2 options. If you are lucky, once in a while there would be attempts to intimidate/persuade someone, but they happen like 5-7 times through the game.
5. Bugs and glitches. Lots and lots of them and zero attempt to fix them from Bioware.
6. Terrible lack of proper exploration, sidemissions (quality lacks again in several of them, rachni is the worst from logic part, but has nice Grunt moments) and hub worlds, with plague known as fetch quests. Saving whole elcor race by launching a shuttle?.... Really?....
7. Overall focus on combat

And of course metagame problems - day1 DLC, awful way of dealing with the ending controversy, broken promises and so on.

So yeah, unfortunately for me, I absolutely love ME1 and ME2 and hate ME3. All I hope unrealistically is that upcoming "great", "huge" DLC will do something about at least some of the problems I listed. I want to love ME3, but I just can't.

Fantastic summation. Deviation or subversion of the original formula, i.e what made the game great has instituted its demise. It utterly astounds me that those who conceived the original Mass Effect lore, who imbued the franchise with so much emotion and allure could even justify the propagation of the gross drivel that is Mass Effect 3. Yes, there are virtues, redeeming features but predominantly, it's a complete subversion.

All of these problems that people keep whining about are not real problems in the game, with the exception of #5, bugs. They are all made up complaints based on your own expectations. Your expectations don't matter, BioWare or any other developer can create whatever type of game they want. Yeah, so some PEOPLE who are part of the leadership of the development teams made promises, but people can be stupid and fallible.

1. Regarding a lazy and unoriginal plot ... that's purely subjective. Most people have huge complaints about linearity. Again: this is YOUR problem. Linear is treated as a negative word because of idiots misusing it and branding things with their own expectations. In my subjective opinion the linear plot of ME3 was one of its strong points; it did away with terrible side quests of clicking on f**king space monkeys and other monotonous crap. Mass Effect 1 had a strong element of exploration, many people agree on this (myself included) but the developments they made with ME2 were obviously not going to allow for that. And they didn't. If you think that ME2 has more exploration than ME3 you are being willfully obtuse. There is no more exploration in 2 than 3. If you cite the Firewalker DLC (gack) or Overlord ... no. Just no. That was not exploration in the same vein as ME1. So your complaint is an unoriginal plot. Well, I refer you to ME2's equally unoriginal plot that was never even remotely tense (my opinion) until the suicide mission.

2. Regarding plot holes ... yeah, these can be found in each game in the series. This one is pointless to touch on here.

3. Again, this is not an objective problem with the game like bugs. This is your opinion. But going on this logic anyway, are you forgetting that you can have up to 7 squadmates in ME3 and only 6 in ME1? Why do you want more anyway? Fewer squadmates means more focus on less characters as opposed to the sprawl that was ME2's sometimes-good sometimes-not loyalty missions. It also allows room for new characters like Cortez and Traynor.

4. Yet again, this is not an objective flaw with the game. ME2 was exactly the same in terms of combat to role-playing ratio. While ME2 still retained the middle, neutral dialogue which I very much appreciated, ME3's focus on removing most of Shepard's neutral dialogue obviously added room for more in other places. And if you don't like combat ... why are you expecting to get whatever it is that you do want from a Mass Effect game? Did you play the first two? There was shooting. Lots.

5. I agree with this point. The game being rushed was made obvious by some unfortunate glitches, particularly during conversations with characters warping around, body parts bending the wrong way or characters facing the wrong way. Far buggier than ME2, something BioWare would do well to fix in a patch.

6. Once again, a notion of promised exploration is an unfounded expectation brought into the game by you, the player. There was zero exploration in ME2, at least if you're referring to the type that ME1 had. If anything, ME3 improves on the side quests by making them actually interesting and revolving around your former squadmates and collecting war assets. The side quests in ME2 were vanilla N7 missions, which are still present, albeit in a different form, in ME3.

7. Focus on combat? So what. It's improved and I would argue better in every way than ME2. You no longer get "stun locked" horribly by anything which almost always lead to frustrating deaths that were out of your control, the powers feel meatier, there are more powers open to you as well as more levels and specification. Even if this were a valid complaint (which it isn't - because the bloody franchise has always had shooting in it) it would be an extremely weak one since you should have expected this having played ME2.


It's tiring. All these same complaints that are pure subjectivity, repeated over and over. They do not make Mass Effect 3 an objectively bad game. They highlight the complainants as naive and unreasonable.

[N7Keller]

I'm not. That's all I care about. I have no idea what others think, so I wont guess.

[Iakus]

xtal84 wrote...

All of these problems that people keep whining ...

Stopped reading

[Mobuse]

I'm OK with the endings by now, thanks to the EC.....but I think Bioware shot themselves in the foot with these sequel-unfriendly endings.....

[Oransel]

GiarcYekrub wrote...

Why do I need proof? I'm not the one getting angry about hypothetical head canon, mine scenario is also hypothetical but I'm happy that it isn't inconsistent with the fact, my argument is that so is the "Reaper King" head canon is being taken as fact and people are getting worked up about it, to me thats not the fault of Bioware. The Catalyst never does anything, its abilities are unknown, until Bioware write them, to infer that it breaks ME1 is absurd

Sorry, I do not argue with trolls. If you want, you can continue talking with Benchpress610 as me makes valid points

Benchpress610 wrote...

OK, if I understand you correctly, you’re saying that you don’t need to prove your point while demanding others to prove the contrary? ...
 
Well, let’s try it. If I remember his drivel the star-brat said: “The Citadel is part of me”, “I created the Reapers”, “I control them”, “they are MY solution”.  Did he or did he not say these things? Please present concrete evidence why we should not take these statements at face value. 
 
On your last point; where was he in ME1 while we were chasing after Saren and the conduit? Why did they need the keepers anyways? His mere existence calls into question the whole ME1 plot. 
 

xtal84 wrote...

All of these problems that people keep whining about are not real problems in the game, with the exception of #5, bugs. They are all made up complaints based on your own expectations. Your expectations don't matter, BioWare or any other developer can create whatever type of game they want. Yeah, so some PEOPLE who are part of the leadership of the development teams made promises, but people can be stupid and fallible.

1. Regarding a lazy and unoriginal plot ... that's purely subjective. Most people have huge complaints about linearity. Again: this is YOUR problem. Linear is treated as a negative word because of idiots misusing it and branding things with their own expectations. In my subjective opinion the linear plot of ME3 was one of its strong points; it did away with terrible side quests of clicking on f**king space monkeys and other monotonous crap. Mass Effect 1 had a strong element of exploration, many people agree on this (myself included) but the developments they made with ME2 were obviously not going to allow for that. And they didn't. If you think that ME2 has more exploration than ME3 you are being willfully obtuse. There is no more exploration in 2 than 3. If you cite the Firewalker DLC (gack) or Overlord ... no. Just no. That was not exploration in the same vein as ME1. So your complaint is an unoriginal plot. Well, I refer you to ME2's equally unoriginal plot that was never even remotely tense (my opinion) until the suicide mission.

2. Regarding plot holes ... yeah, these can be found in each game in the series. This one is pointless to touch on here.

3. Again, this is not an objective problem with the game like bugs. This is your opinion. But going on this logic anyway, are you forgetting that you can have up to 7 squadmates in ME3 and only 6 in ME1? Why do you want more anyway? Fewer squadmates means more focus on less characters as opposed to the sprawl that was ME2's sometimes-good sometimes-not loyalty missions. It also allows room for new characters like Cortez and Traynor.

4. Yet again, this is not an objective flaw with the game. ME2 was exactly the same in terms of combat to role-playing ratio. While ME2 still retained the middle, neutral dialogue which I very much appreciated, ME3's focus on removing most of Shepard's neutral dialogue obviously added room for more in other places. And if you don't like combat ... why are you expecting to get whatever it is that you do want from a Mass Effect game? Did you play the first two? There was shooting. Lots.

5. I agree with this point. The game being rushed was made obvious by some unfortunate glitches, particularly during conversations with characters warping around, body parts bending the wrong way or characters facing the wrong way. Far buggier than ME2, something BioWare would do well to fix in a patch.

6. Once again, a notion of promised exploration is an unfounded expectation brought into the game by you, the player. There was zero exploration in ME2, at least if you're referring to the type that ME1 had. If anything, ME3 improves on the side quests by making them actually interesting and revolving around your former squadmates and collecting war assets. The side quests in ME2 were vanilla N7 missions, which are still present, albeit in a different form, in ME3.

7. Focus on combat? So what. It's improved and I would argue better in every way than ME2. You no longer get "stun locked" horribly by anything which almost always lead to frustrating deaths that were out of your control, the powers feel meatier, there are more powers open to you as well as more levels and specification. Even if this were a valid complaint (which it isn't - because the bloody franchise has always had shooting in it) it would be an extremely weak one since you should have expected this having played ME2.


It's tiring. All these same complaints that are pure subjectivity, repeated over and over. They do not make Mass Effect 3 an objectively bad game. They highlight the complainants as naive and unreasonable.

You are saying that making garbage games is justified because there can be at least one poor soul who will enjoy it? I sincerly hope that when you will go to a restaurant you will be served rotten meat or vegetables and manager of restaurant (who took your money already) will tell you that there is nothing wrong with this dish because some hobo who is fed this in the back alley, really enjoys it. I do not even need to go in detail about points, because such opening and ending statement can be written only by troll who hopes to laugh at disgruntled fans. As I said, I don't argue with trolls.

However, just to humiliate you more as I have nothing else to do atm:

1. Exploration/sidemissions welcome you to point 6. As far as overall plot goes, you are entitled to your opinion, but fact is that ME2 plot was not as overdone as ancient superweapon one. By the way, I am slightly dissapointed that you decided to ignore my points about why ME3 plot was not done right, so I assume you agree with them Good.

2. So, you say that one occasional plot hole in ME2 equals dozens of them in ME3? Reeeeally?.... troll confirmed once again

3. You gave absolutely no valid reason to justify drop of quality here.  As I see it,13 squadmates are infinitely better than 7 as it gives you diversity. I know you argue here for the sake of arguing and trolling, but you should at least have some skill in justification trolling.

4. Are you serious (I know you're not, but still)? ME2 dialogues were multi-phased (going through all investigate options on left dialogue field and finally giving a core statement on right one lead to another wheel with new investigate options and new statements) while ME3 was simplistic (often it was bare investigation - end conversation) + they had neutral option (you say "it added room in other places" which is pure lol) + there was more investigation + more interupts + more persuasion options... And speaking of ratio, have you played Mass Effect 2 recently? Because ammount of dialogue and it's diversity is by far better than in ME3, that's simply a fact. I am glad that you agreed on defined auto-dialogue Shepard, by ignoring my most vital argument. Good.

5. Good.

6. What a funny kid you are. While ME2 had lesser ammount of exploration, it still was there, although in different form (launch shuttle-small mission). So, according to you it is unreasonable to expect exploration which was in previous games to appear in third one? Get good. ME2 had infinitely better and more diverse exploration missions, compared to ME3 signal-shuttle-done attitude. ME2 N7/Cerberus/loyalty sidemissions were not only by far outnumbering ME3 analogues (infamous graphic comparsion awaits), but were done better for the most part.

7. Again wrong, because ratio of combat/other activities in ME3 is nowhere near ME2 which had much more gameplay options compared to go shoot Cerberus in linear halls which is ME3 in a nutshell.

This exchanging is over.

Modifié par Oransel, 20 février 2013 - 09:13 .

[LTKerr]

Oransel wrote...

I love ME1 and ME2, but I strongly dislike ME3 and ironically, that's because of how much I love previous games. Core problem is the massive drop of quality in almost all areas of game, compared to previous installments.

Don't get me wrong, there were good heartwarming and emotional moments with characters and I will even say they were the best ones in the whole trilogy. Some of the sidemissions were good and enjoyable (my personal favorite is Legion's history lesson inside virtual reality), Tuchanka and Rannoch were the only valid arcs of overall plot (however, I have a lot of problems with not being able to get krogan support after sabotaging cure if Wrex is alive. It makes no sense). Combat is fluent and is most enjoyable of all 3 games. Voice acting is great. Lot's of flashbacks to ME1 and ME2, featuring your small decisions.

All of the above positive moments are very nice and touching, but negative is outweighting by far.

1. ME3 Crucible plot is unoriginal, lazy and weakest plot possible, even if it was done right. But it was not because...
2. Major storyline is plagued with plotholes, lack of any logic (Cerberus, coup, moving citadel to Earth etc.), OOC moments for the sake of already bizzare plot, thematic breakdance, rude violations of established universe rules, forced emotions and plain bad writing - start of the game is the worst offender. It's just bad writing, nothing else. I was not that offended by endings, actually, they were born from the overall weakness of plot and are nothing more than the pinnacle of it's degradation (which managed to break the tolerance of even the most accepting players) and for the record, EC did nothing to fix their core problems.
3. Your squad is smaller than in previous game without any justification, but laziness, lack of time or economy of resources. ME2 squad is downplayed in general, often in insulting manner.
4. RPG elements (not stupid combat, but dialogue and character role play) are reduced to critical level. Paragon Shepard gets defined personality you have no control on anymore, while Renegade players have to deal with bi-polar psycho Shep, as well without any control over him. 55% of dialogue is in auto-mode, while remaining is butchered to 2 options. If you are lucky, once in a while there would be attempts to intimidate/persuade someone, but they happen like 5-7 times through the game.
5. Bugs and glitches. Lots and lots of them and zero attempt to fix them from Bioware.
6. Terrible lack of proper exploration, sidemissions (quality lacks again in several of them, rachni is the worst from logic part, but has nice Grunt moments) and hub worlds, with plague known as fetch quests. Saving whole elcor race by launching a shuttle?.... Really?....
7. Overall focus on combat

And of course metagame problems - day1 DLC, awful way of dealing with the ending controversy, broken promises and so on.

So yeah, unfortunately for me, I absolutely love ME1 and ME2 and hate ME3. All I hope unrealistically is that upcoming "great", "huge" DLC will do something about at least some of the problems I listed. I want to love ME3, but I just can't.

So much THIS.

I love science fiction and I love games where you can make choices like KotOR or Deus Ex so obviously I loved this franchise, I played ME (all side missions, even mineral extraction D:) more than 8 times and ME2 more than 15 times. Multiple Shepards, classes, etc. I even bought 3 DLC's (Kasumi, Shadow Broker and Overlord, though I truly regret buying the latter) to play even more hours and before playing ME3 I recommended this franchise to all my gamer friends. However, while playing ME2 I saw a little drop of quality and a change of course, so to speak:  less RPG in almost everything (non pure-paragon or pure-renegade players are punished; no skill/powers system, etc), more shooter, less main story (you only see the main enemy three times), smaller maps, no inventory system, no exploration, etc. Of course there were good stuff like character story and better gameplay/graphics, I'm not denying that.

Some months before the ME3's demo was released I thought that if Bioware was going to follow that path, maybe ME3 was going to be a little disappointment. I didn't want Mass Effect franchise to turn into a pure shooter blackbuster like CoD or Gears of War; I don't love shooters for the sake of shooting things just because, but I tolerate that gameplay if the story and other elements are excellent (Half-Life or Deus Ex, for example). However, that path opened in ME2 told me main story and Michael Bay-esque explosions and plot were not only possible but probable. I knew how EA works and what happened to other companies/studies/franchises bought by them so by that time I was a little afraid my favourite franchise could end up like that. And then, 6 months before the release date, I saw the demo. Mi gozo en un pozo as the Spanish proverb says, which means I felt disappointed to say the least, my hopes were destroyed and left to rot. The little naïve girl inside me wanted that to be just a demo, something unpolished and made to sell the game to CoD or GeoW players. I even pre-ordered the game at all...

And finally I played the game...

[xtal84]

Oransel wrote...

1. Exploration/sidemissions welcome you to point 6. As far as overall plot goes, you are entitled to your opinion, but fact is that ME2 plot was not as overdone as ancient superweapon one. By the way, I am slightly dissapointed that you decided to ignore my points about why ME3 plot was not done right, so I assume you agree with them Good.

2. So, you say that one occasional plot hole in ME2 equals dozens of them in ME3? Reeeeally?.... troll confirmed once again

3. You gave absolutely no valid reason to justify drop of quality here.  As I see it,13 squadmates are infinitely better than 7 as it gives you diversity. I know you argue here for the sake of arguing and trolling, but you should at least have some skill in justification trolling.

4. Are you serious (I know you're not, but still)? ME2 dialogues were multi-phased (going through all investigate options on left dialogue field and finally giving a core statement on right one lead to another wheel with new investigate options and new statements) while ME3 was simplistic (often it was bare investigation - end conversation) + they had neutral option (you say "it added room in other places" which is pure lol) + there was more investigation + more interupts + more persuasion options... And speaking of ratio, have you played Mass Effect 2 recently? Because ammount of dialogue and it's diversity is by far better than in ME3, that's simply a fact. I am glad that you agreed on defined auto-dialogue Shepard, by ignoring my most vital argument. Good.

5. Good.

6. What a funny kid you are. While ME2 had lesser ammount of exploration, it still was there, although in different form (launch shuttle-small mission). So, according to you it is unreasonable to expect exploration which was in previous games to appear in third one? Get good. ME2 had infinitely better and more diverse exploration missions, compared to ME3 signal-shuttle-done attitude. ME2 N7/Cerberus/loyalty sidemissions were not only by far outnumbering ME3 analogues (infamous graphic comparsion awaits), but were done better for the most part.

7. Again wrong, because ratio of combat/other activities in ME3 is nowhere near ME2 which had much more gameplay options compared to go shoot Cerberus in linear halls which is ME3 in a nutshell.

This exchanging is over.

1. It's not a fact that you think this story is more overdone than that story. That's your opinion. Re: exploration, what shuttle missions are you talking about? N7 missions? Hammerhead missions?

2. How does this make me a troll? Is a troll just someone who disagrees with you? Here's a story weakness/plot hole for ME2 for you (in my opinion): what does the game have to do with the other two parts of the trilogy? Mostly nothing. Still a great game, but doesn't do much to advance the story, which if I understand correctly is what a lot of the fuss is about. The story.

3. Again...what? Here for the sake of trolling? How am I trolling any more than you? Bloody hell it's impossible to post words to these forums anymore. A hint of argument and automatically = troll! You like more squadmates than less. Good for you. That is NOT an objective reason as to why ME3 sucks. It is a personal gripe that some people may have.

4. As I said, I did like having the neutral conversation options because I used them quite often, but it can't be measured as some objective failure. You can measure it against ME1 and ME2, sure, and say there are fewer responses to most situations. That is no doubt true. What is not universally true, however, is that this unarguably diminishes the game. I would have liked the neutral options intact, but the reality is that this likely made room for more dialogue in other places. Maybe not the depth you would have preferred; in a bunch of places I don't like the black and white options either, but to each their own.

5. Yep.

6. Again, please remind me of all the missing exploration from ME3 which is apparently present in ME2. I played every mission and every piece of DLC. I don't remember any open roaming exploration a la ME1. Also, using the age old forum tactic of trying to insult someone by calling them a kid is lame, congratulations.

7. I still fail to see how ME2 is any less combat oriented than ME3. In general? The side missions? The main story line? All of those, or just some? I really don't see how they differ that much.

Sorry, you can't just end an exchange on the internet when you feel like it, short of not coming back to look.

[SoloShepard]

Not bothered by the ending at all since the EC. Loved all 3 games. Still among my most enjoyable video game experiences of all time. Can't wait for the new DLC (just wish it wasn't the last)

[SiriusXI]

DanHarbinger wrote...

Oransel wrote...

I love ME1 and ME2, but I strongly dislike ME3 and ironically, that's because of how much I love previous games. Core problem is the massive drop of quality in almost all areas of game, compared to previous installments.

Don't get me wrong, there were good heartwarming and emotional moments with characters and I will even say they were the best ones in the whole trilogy. Some of the sidemissions were good and enjoyable (my personal favorite is Legion's history lesson inside virtual reality), Tuchanka and Rannoch were the only valid arcs of overall plot (however, I have a lot of problems with not being able to get krogan support after sabotaging cure if Wrex is alive. It makes no sense). Combat is fluent and is most enjoyable of all 3 games. Voice acting is great. Lot's of flashbacks to ME1 and ME2, featuring your small decisions.

All of the above positive moments are very nice and touching, but negative is outweighting by far.

1. ME3 Crucible plot is unoriginal, lazy and weakest plot possible, even if it was done right. But it was not because...
2. Major storyline is plagued with plotholes, lack of any logic (Cerberus, coup, moving citadel to Earth etc.), OOC moments for the sake of already bizzare plot, thematic breakdance, rude violations of established universe rules, forced emotions and plain bad writing - start of the game is the worst offender. It's just bad writing, nothing else. I was not that offended by endings, actually, they were born from the overall weakness of plot and are nothing more than the pinnacle of it's degradation (which managed to break the tolerance of even the most accepting players) and for the record, EC did nothing to fix their core problems.
3. Your squad is smaller than in previous game without any justification, but laziness, lack of time or economy of resources. ME2 squad is downplayed in general, often in insulting manner.
4. RPG elements (not stupid combat, but dialogue and character role play) are reduced to critical level. Paragon Shepard gets defined personality you have no control on anymore, while Renegade players have to deal with bi-polar psycho Shep, as well without any control over him. 55% of dialogue is in auto-mode, while remaining is butchered to 2 options. If you are lucky, once in a while there would be attempts to intimidate/persuade someone, but they happen like 5-7 times through the game.
5. Bugs and glitches. Lots and lots of them and zero attempt to fix them from Bioware.
6. Terrible lack of proper exploration, sidemissions (quality lacks again in several of them, rachni is the worst from logic part, but has nice Grunt moments) and hub worlds, with plague known as fetch quests. Saving whole elcor race by launching a shuttle?.... Really?....
7. Overall focus on combat

And of course metagame problems - day1 DLC, awful way of dealing with the ending controversy, broken promises and so on.

So yeah, unfortunately for me, I absolutely love ME1 and ME2 and hate ME3. All I hope unrealistically is that upcoming "great", "huge" DLC will do something about at least some of the problems I listed. I want to love ME3, but I just can't.

Fantastic summation. Deviation or subversion of the original formula, i.e what made the game great has instituted its demise. It utterly astounds me that those who conceived the original Mass Effect lore, who imbued the franchise with so much emotion and allure could even justify the propagation of the gross drivel that is Mass Effect 3. Yes, there are virtues, redeeming features but predominantly, it's a complete subversion.

Yeah, true. Tantastic summation. Thing is, all the other flaws become es visible whn compared to the horrific endings

[SiriusXI]

xtal84 wrote...

DanHarbinger wrote...

Oransel wrote...

I love ME1 and ME2, but I strongly dislike ME3 and ironically, that's because of how much I love previous games. Core problem is the massive drop of quality in almost all areas of game, compared to previous installments.

Don't get me wrong, there were good heartwarming and emotional moments with characters and I will even say they were the best ones in the whole trilogy. Some of the sidemissions were good and enjoyable (my personal favorite is Legion's history lesson inside virtual reality), Tuchanka and Rannoch were the only valid arcs of overall plot (however, I have a lot of problems with not being able to get krogan support after sabotaging cure if Wrex is alive. It makes no sense). Combat is fluent and is most enjoyable of all 3 games. Voice acting is great. Lot's of flashbacks to ME1 and ME2, featuring your small decisions.

All of the above positive moments are very nice and touching, but negative is outweighting by far.

1. ME3 Crucible plot is unoriginal, lazy and weakest plot possible, even if it was done right. But it was not because...
2. Major storyline is plagued with plotholes, lack of any logic (Cerberus, coup, moving citadel to Earth etc.), OOC moments for the sake of already bizzare plot, thematic breakdance, rude violations of established universe rules, forced emotions and plain bad writing - start of the game is the worst offender. It's just bad writing, nothing else. I was not that offended by endings, actually, they were born from the overall weakness of plot and are nothing more than the pinnacle of it's degradation (which managed to break the tolerance of even the most accepting players) and for the record, EC did nothing to fix their core problems.
3. Your squad is smaller than in previous game without any justification, but laziness, lack of time or economy of resources. ME2 squad is downplayed in general, often in insulting manner.
4. RPG elements (not stupid combat, but dialogue and character role play) are reduced to critical level. Paragon Shepard gets defined personality you have no control on anymore, while Renegade players have to deal with bi-polar psycho Shep, as well without any control over him. 55% of dialogue is in auto-mode, while remaining is butchered to 2 options. If you are lucky, once in a while there would be attempts to intimidate/persuade someone, but they happen like 5-7 times through the game.
5. Bugs and glitches. Lots and lots of them and zero attempt to fix them from Bioware.
6. Terrible lack of proper exploration, sidemissions (quality lacks again in several of them, rachni is the worst from logic part, but has nice Grunt moments) and hub worlds, with plague known as fetch quests. Saving whole elcor race by launching a shuttle?.... Really?....
7. Overall focus on combat

And of course metagame problems - day1 DLC, awful way of dealing with the ending controversy, broken promises and so on.

So yeah, unfortunately for me, I absolutely love ME1 and ME2 and hate ME3. All I hope unrealistically is that upcoming "great", "huge" DLC will do something about at least some of the problems I listed. I want to love ME3, but I just can't.

Fantastic summation. Deviation or subversion of the original formula, i.e what made the game great has instituted its demise. It utterly astounds me that those who conceived the original Mass Effect lore, who imbued the franchise with so much emotion and allure could even justify the propagation of the gross drivel that is Mass Effect 3. Yes, there are virtues, redeeming features but predominantly, it's a complete subversion.

All of these problems that people keep whining about are not real problems in the game, with the exception of #5, bugs. They are all made up complaints based on your own expectations. Your expectations don't matter, BioWare or any other developer can create whatever type of game they want. Yeah, so some PEOPLE who are part of the leadership of the development teams made promises, but people can be stupid and fallible.

1. Regarding a lazy and unoriginal plot ... that's purely subjective. Most people have huge complaints about linearity. Again: this is YOUR problem. Linear is treated as a negative word because of idiots misusing it and branding things with their own expectations. In my subjective opinion the linear plot of ME3 was one of its strong points; it did away with terrible side quests of clicking on f**king space monkeys and other monotonous crap. Mass Effect 1 had a strong element of exploration, many people agree on this (myself included) but the developments they made with ME2 were obviously not going to allow for that. And they didn't. If you think that ME2 has more exploration than ME3 you are being willfully obtuse. There is no more exploration in 2 than 3. If you cite the Firewalker DLC (gack) or Overlord ... no. Just no. That was not exploration in the same vein as ME1. So your complaint is an unoriginal plot. Well, I refer you to ME2's equally unoriginal plot that was never even remotely tense (my opinion) until the suicide mission.

2. Regarding plot holes ... yeah, these can be found in each game in the series. This one is pointless to touch on here.

3. Again, this is not an objective problem with the game like bugs. This is your opinion. But going on this logic anyway, are you forgetting that you can have up to 7 squadmates in ME3 and only 6 in ME1? Why do you want more anyway? Fewer squadmates means more focus on less characters as opposed to the sprawl that was ME2's sometimes-good sometimes-not loyalty missions. It also allows room for new characters like Cortez and Traynor.

4. Yet again, this is not an objective flaw with the game. ME2 was exactly the same in terms of combat to role-playing ratio. While ME2 still retained the middle, neutral dialogue which I very much appreciated, ME3's focus on removing most of Shepard's neutral dialogue obviously added room for more in other places. And if you don't like combat ... why are you expecting to get whatever it is that you do want from a Mass Effect game? Did you play the first two? There was shooting. Lots.

5. I agree with this point. The game being rushed was made obvious by some unfortunate glitches, particularly during conversations with characters warping around, body parts bending the wrong way or characters facing the wrong way. Far buggier than ME2, something BioWare would do well to fix in a patch.

6. Once again, a notion of promised exploration is an unfounded expectation brought into the game by you, the player. There was zero exploration in ME2, at least if you're referring to the type that ME1 had. If anything, ME3 improves on the side quests by making them actually interesting and revolving around your former squadmates and collecting war assets. The side quests in ME2 were vanilla N7 missions, which are still present, albeit in a different form, in ME3.

7. Focus on combat? So what. It's improved and I would argue better in every way than ME2. You no longer get "stun locked" horribly by anything which almost always lead to frustrating deaths that were out of your control, the powers feel meatier, there are more powers open to you as well as more levels and specification. Even if this were a valid complaint (which it isn't - because the bloody franchise has always had shooting in it) it would be an extremely weak one since you should have expected this having played ME2.


It's tiring. All these same complaints that are pure subjectivity, repeated over and over. They do not make Mass Effect 3 an objectively bad game. They highlight the complainants as naive and unreasonable.

Of course Bioware can make the game they want. But if it is a bad game, why can"t we be disappointed about it and measure it on other games out there, or previous games bz the same compay？ We sounldn"t just accept media without judging it, just because it is a companz"s product. Someone"s product can alwazs be critizised, especiallz when customers pay for it.

[alsonamedbort]

Oransel wrote...

GiarcYekrub wrote...

Why do I need proof? I'm not the one getting angry about hypothetical head canon, mine scenario is also hypothetical but I'm happy that it isn't inconsistent with the fact, my argument is that so is the "Reaper King" head canon is being taken as fact and people are getting worked up about it, to me thats not the fault of Bioware. The Catalyst never does anything, its abilities are unknown, until Bioware write them, to infer that it breaks ME1 is absurd

Sorry, I do not argue with trolls. If you want, you can continue talking with Benchpress610 as me makes valid points

Benchpress610 wrote...

OK, if I understand you correctly, you’re saying that you don’t need to prove your point while demanding others to prove the contrary? ...
 
Well, let’s try it. If I remember his drivel the star-brat said: “The Citadel is part of me”, “I created the Reapers”, “I control them”, “they are MY solution”.  Did he or did he not say these things? Please present concrete evidence why we should not take these statements at face value. 
 
On your last point; where was he in ME1 while we were chasing after Saren and the conduit? Why did they need the keepers anyways? His mere existence calls into question the whole ME1 plot. 
 

xtal84 wrote...

All of these problems that people keep whining about are not real problems in the game, with the exception of #5, bugs. They are all made up complaints based on your own expectations. Your expectations don't matter, BioWare or any other developer can create whatever type of game they want. Yeah, so some PEOPLE who are part of the leadership of the development teams made promises, but people can be stupid and fallible.

1. Regarding a lazy and unoriginal plot ... that's purely subjective. Most people have huge complaints about linearity. Again: this is YOUR problem. Linear is treated as a negative word because of idiots misusing it and branding things with their own expectations. In my subjective opinion the linear plot of ME3 was one of its strong points; it did away with terrible side quests of clicking on f**king space monkeys and other monotonous crap. Mass Effect 1 had a strong element of exploration, many people agree on this (myself included) but the developments they made with ME2 were obviously not going to allow for that. And they didn't. If you think that ME2 has more exploration than ME3 you are being willfully obtuse. There is no more exploration in 2 than 3. If you cite the Firewalker DLC (gack) or Overlord ... no. Just no. That was not exploration in the same vein as ME1. So your complaint is an unoriginal plot. Well, I refer you to ME2's equally unoriginal plot that was never even remotely tense (my opinion) until the suicide mission.

2. Regarding plot holes ... yeah, these can be found in each game in the series. This one is pointless to touch on here.

3. Again, this is not an objective problem with the game like bugs. This is your opinion. But going on this logic anyway, are you forgetting that you can have up to 7 squadmates in ME3 and only 6 in ME1? Why do you want more anyway? Fewer squadmates means more focus on less characters as opposed to the sprawl that was ME2's sometimes-good sometimes-not loyalty missions. It also allows room for new characters like Cortez and Traynor.

4. Yet again, this is not an objective flaw with the game. ME2 was exactly the same in terms of combat to role-playing ratio. While ME2 still retained the middle, neutral dialogue which I very much appreciated, ME3's focus on removing most of Shepard's neutral dialogue obviously added room for more in other places. And if you don't like combat ... why are you expecting to get whatever it is that you do want from a Mass Effect game? Did you play the first two? There was shooting. Lots.

5. I agree with this point. The game being rushed was made obvious by some unfortunate glitches, particularly during conversations with characters warping around, body parts bending the wrong way or characters facing the wrong way. Far buggier than ME2, something BioWare would do well to fix in a patch.

6. Once again, a notion of promised exploration is an unfounded expectation brought into the game by you, the player. There was zero exploration in ME2, at least if you're referring to the type that ME1 had. If anything, ME3 improves on the side quests by making them actually interesting and revolving around your former squadmates and collecting war assets. The side quests in ME2 were vanilla N7 missions, which are still present, albeit in a different form, in ME3.

7. Focus on combat? So what. It's improved and I would argue better in every way than ME2. You no longer get "stun locked" horribly by anything which almost always lead to frustrating deaths that were out of your control, the powers feel meatier, there are more powers open to you as well as more levels and specification. Even if this were a valid complaint (which it isn't - because the bloody franchise has always had shooting in it) it would be an extremely weak one since you should have expected this having played ME2.


It's tiring. All these same complaints that are pure subjectivity, repeated over and over. They do not make Mass Effect 3 an objectively bad game. They highlight the complainants as naive and unreasonable.

You are saying that making garbage games is justified because there can be at least one poor soul who will enjoy it? I sincerly hope that when you will go to a restaurant you will be served rotten meat or vegetables and manager of restaurant (who took your money already) will tell you that there is nothing wrong with this dish because some hobo who is fed this in the back alley, really enjoys it. I do not even need to go in detail about points, because such opening and ending statement can be written only by troll who hopes to laugh at disgruntled fans. As I said, I don't argue with trolls.

However, just to humiliate you more as I have nothing else to do atm:

1. Exploration/sidemissions welcome you to point 6. As far as overall plot goes, you are entitled to your opinion, but fact is that ME2 plot was not as overdone as ancient superweapon one. By the way, I am slightly dissapointed that you decided to ignore my points about why ME3 plot was not done right, so I assume you agree with them Good.

2. So, you say that one occasional plot hole in ME2 equals dozens of them in ME3? Reeeeally?.... troll confirmed once again

3. You gave absolutely no valid reason to justify drop of quality here.  As I see it,13 squadmates are infinitely better than 7 as it gives you diversity. I know you argue here for the sake of arguing and trolling, but you should at least have some skill in justification trolling.

4. Are you serious (I know you're not, but still)? ME2 dialogues were multi-phased (going through all investigate options on left dialogue field and finally giving a core statement on right one lead to another wheel with new investigate options and new statements) while ME3 was simplistic (often it was bare investigation - end conversation) + they had neutral option (you say "it added room in other places" which is pure lol) + there was more investigation + more interupts + more persuasion options... And speaking of ratio, have you played Mass Effect 2 recently? Because ammount of dialogue and it's diversity is by far better than in ME3, that's simply a fact. I am glad that you agreed on defined auto-dialogue Shepard, by ignoring my most vital argument. Good.

5. Good.

6. What a funny kid you are. While ME2 had lesser ammount of exploration, it still was there, although in different form (launch shuttle-small mission). So, according to you it is unreasonable to expect exploration which was in previous games to appear in third one? Get good. ME2 had infinitely better and more diverse exploration missions, compared to ME3 signal-shuttle-done attitude. ME2 N7/Cerberus/loyalty sidemissions were not only by far outnumbering ME3 analogues (infamous graphic comparsion awaits), but were done better for the most part.

7. Again wrong, because ratio of combat/other activities in ME3 is nowhere near ME2 which had much more gameplay options compared to go shoot Cerberus in linear halls which is ME3 in a nutshell.

This exchanging is over.

Dude, are you even slightly capable of carrying on a semblance of civilized conversation, or do you always hav/e to belittle everyone you disagree with by calling their opinions wrong, calling them funny kids, or calling them trolls?

[Indy_S]

SiriusXI wrote...

Of course Bioware can make the game they want. But if it is a bad game, why can"t we be disappointed about it and measure it on other games out there, or previous games bz the same compay？ We sounldn"t just accept media without judging it, just because it is a companz"s product. Someone"s product can alwazs be critizised, especiallz when customers pay for it.

I think this is very true. Except I'd put 'y's where some of the 'z's are.

[Oransel]

xtal84 wrote...

1. It's not a fact that you think this story is more overdone than that story. That's your opinion. Re: exploration, what shuttle missions are you talking about? N7 missions? Hammerhead missions?

2. How does this make me a troll? Is a troll just someone who disagrees with you? Here's a story weakness/plot hole for ME2 for you (in my opinion): what does the game have to do with the other two parts of the trilogy? Mostly nothing. Still a great game, but doesn't do much to advance the story, which if I understand correctly is what a lot of the fuss is about. The story.

3. Again...what? Here for the sake of trolling? How am I trolling any more than you? Bloody hell it's impossible to post words to these forums anymore. A hint of argument and automatically = troll! You like more squadmates than less. Good for you. That is NOT an objective reason as to why ME3 sucks. It is a personal gripe that some people may have.

4. As I said, I did like having the neutral conversation options because I used them quite often, but it can't be measured as some objective failure. You can measure it against ME1 and ME2, sure, and say there are fewer responses to most situations. That is no doubt true. What is not universally true, however, is that this unarguably diminishes the game. I would have liked the neutral options intact, but the reality is that this likely made room for more dialogue in other places. Maybe not the depth you would have preferred; in a bunch of places I don't like the black and white options either, but to each their own.

5. Yep.

6. Again, please remind me of all the missing exploration from ME3 which is apparently present in ME2. I played every mission and every piece of DLC. I don't remember any open roaming exploration a la ME1. Also, using the age old forum tactic of trying to insult someone by calling them a kid is lame, congratulations.

7. I still fail to see how ME2 is any less combat oriented than ME3. In general? The side missions? The main story line? All of those, or just some? I really don't see how they differ that much.

Sorry, you can't just end an exchange on the internet when you feel like it, short of not coming back to look.

1. It's a fact. Superweapon plot is far more overdone than anything resembling Collector's plot. I would like to direct you to Fifth Element, Star Wars, Babylon 5, Battlestar Galactica, any fantasy etc. for comparsion. And yes, exploration is both hammerhead and shuttle missions.

2. You give one weakness (which is doubtful IMO since ME3 is bad and no connection to it from ME2 is not a bad thing), while I gave you at least 8, yet you say that's nothing because reality can't be measured objectivelly. How is that not a troll logic?

3. Cutting content is the negative factor. Plain and simple. There is no reason to suggest that 7 squadmates were more quality done than if it was 13-14.

4. Same - cutting the content and RPG aspect in RPG game is a negative factor, even if someone likes it. Again, my hobo example still stands. 

6. Every send of a shuttle to unknown area in ME2 was followed by small mission. There were many of them and they were well done. ME3 has sending a shuttle and that's done. Would I prefer ME1 style? Yes. Is ME2 worse than ME1 in that department? Yes. Is ME2 still better than ME3? Yes.

7. What can I say here?.. I could suggest that you should play ME2 again. Just randomly - Thane loyalty mission, crashed ships exploration missions, hammerhead, Normandy SR-1 salvage and more were done without any shots.

It looks like you do not believe in objective reality, In that case, this conversation would be over.

Modifié par Oransel, 21 février 2013 - 06:40 .

[DarthLaxian]

you bet i am still peeved about this treatment by bioware (the promotional lies (no A, B or C ending amongst others), the bad game and that god damned extended cut)

i could rant about this, but i will not - enough said that i am still pissed of

greetings LAX

[KevShep]

New plot direction, New plot device(crucible) and a reaper war....

Thats too much for just one game!

[DarthLaxian]

Mademon wrote...

I didn't buy any DLC (yet?), though that could change depending on the reception of the last release // my interest in it. I'm bitter, but hopeful for future releases.

i didn't do that either - and never will, even more as i see the game as a screw up and total fail (i enjoyed parts of it, but on the whole it is such a dismal effort!)

greetings LAX

[Conquerthecity]

 I wouldn't use the word hurt. Bitter is far more fitting. There was so much potential in this universe and its characters, but they messed it all up. And I'm not even talking about just the last ten minutes. More like all of ME3 with the exceptions of Rannoch, Tuchanka, and romancing Kaidan as ManShep. 

I still cannot fathom how anyone thought the godchild was a good idea. It might have made sense if they were pressured for time and he was a last minute addition, but the Final Hours app and all that points to him at least being somewhat planned. 

Modifié par Mungolian_, 21 février 2013 - 08:41 .

[GiarcYekrub]

Benchpress610 wrote...

GiarcYekrub wrote...

Benchpress610 wrote...

Sorry to interject in this discussion; you keep asking for proof, but can you provide solid proof of the contrary yourself? The only thing you have provided so far is pure conjecture. There is no reason (other than head-cannon) no to take the start-brat assertions as fact.

Why do I need proof? I'm not the one getting angry about hypothetical head canon, mine scenario is also hypothetical but I'm happy that it isn't inconsistent with the fact, my argument is that so is the "Reaper King" head canon is being taken as fact and people are getting worked up about it, to me thats not the fault of Bioware. The Catalyst never does anything, its abilities are unknown, until Bioware write them, to infer that it breaks ME1 is absurd

OK, if I understand you correctly, you’re saying that you don’t need to prove your point while demanding others to prove the contrary? ...
 
Well, let’s try it. If I remember his drivel the star-brat said: “The Citadel is part of me”, “I created the Reapers”, “I control them”, “they are MY solution”.  Did he or did he not say these things? Please present concrete evidence why we should not take these statements at face value.
 
On your last point; where was he in ME1 while we were chasing after Saren and the conduit? Why did they need the keepers anyways? His mere existence calls into question the whole ME1 plot.
 

No what I'm saying why get angry about your own personal head canon? Why blame Bioware for inconsistencies in your head canon? What I'm saying may not be true but nothing in the game contradicts it as far as I'm aware

LOL, So you believe its word? Even if you do lets take a look those statements:

“The Citadel is part of me”,
This would be true of a VI, Avina could even use this statement

“I created the Reapers” &“they are MY solution”
Its not unusual for VI's to use the first person when refering to its imprinter, both Vigil and the Thessia VI refer to the actions of the Protheans in the first person. Even the Shepard VI on the citadel says "I am commander Shepard"  and refers to Shepards exploits as its own.

“I control them”
If the Citadel is part of him, then he is in fact saying  the Citadel can control them,  this is the essence of the
control choice however it requires Shepard to issue the commands. The fact the Citadel/Crucible/Shepard combo can control them is not in dispute and clearly shown in game.

Where was he in ME1? For me inactive waiting to be pluged into the crucible.
The keepers maintained the citadel and were supposed to repond to Soveriegn signal to open the relay to dark space but were prevented by the Protheans from Ilos. I don't see how contradicts anything.

[SpamBot2000]

I'm still hurt by it. And still offended. Because it seems obvious that the ending was not made in good faith, as a lawyer might put it. Just a cynical torch job designed to terminate the setting, sold with a campaign of lies and misrepresentations. This is how little they thought of their audience. And some have indeed proven worthy of that estimation.

[GiarcYekrub]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

I'm still hurt by it. And still offended. Because it seems obvious that the ending was not made in good faith, as a lawyer might put it. Just a cynical torch job designed to terminate the setting, sold with a campaign of lies and misrepresentations. This is how little they thought of their audience. And some have indeed proven worthy of that estimation.

Think you played a completely different game to me

[archangel1996]

ME3 was not hype, ME3 was trust, pure trust
They cleaned their asses with my trust

Modifié par archangel1996, 21 février 2013 - 03:13 .