198 réponses à ce sujet

[Bizantura]

Perfect game, no. Enjoyable, yes.

[GimmeDaGun]

Rotacioskapa wrote...

CINCTuchanka wrote...

That's just, like, your opinion man.

That's just, like, almost 70k fans opinion man.

:D:D Ah, that poll I remember. I voted on it more than once, because I wanted Bioware to change the endings myself... oh wait, but that was before the EC. :lol: Just take a look at the date when the poll was created. 

Modifié par GimmeDaGun, 25 février 2013 - 11:37 .

[Aezync]

 Okay, I've seen some posts that are defending Mass Effect 3, so let me elaborate as to why I feel it was a let down. 
I'll start with those of you bashing ME2 and contrasting it to ME3. I think some of you believe that Mass Effect 2 is predictable and unrealistic while Mass Effect 3 had to be predictable, meaning there was no way to avoid it, and thus is realistic. I cannot agree with you in your comments against Mass Effect 2, as it is probably the most realistic and least fantastic of the trilogy.
To begin, project Lazarus is not far-fetched in the slightest. The technology available, supported by limitless resources, brilliant minds, and many other factors, is capable of completing a task such as the LP. Now remember, it took 2 years, billions of credits, and incredible effort (involving a whole team of skilled scientists) to recreate one man. Now you may think that a story revolving around that premise is completely unreal as it is impractical for any entity to commit to such a project, but remember, it's Cerberus, a human terrorist organization that follows its leader's motto, which was something along the lines of "human dominance at any cost". 

Now the protoreaper event was a clever story element in many ways, if you see beyond the admittedly silly looking aesthetic. First, let's keep in mind that Mass Effect's lore supports this. Now you may be thinking that the lore expresses that a reaper be born at the end of each cycle. But under these circumstances, and the probabilty of the project being halted, it is a reasonable decision that the protoreaper be made during the cylce, as it would take less time for the reaper to be completed and then summon the reapers than it would for the reapers to fly from dark space. Therefore, while the protoreaper may be silly in design, lets remember that the decision is reasonable and not totally fantastic. 

Also, the god child would like to speak with you.

Now Mass Effect 3, as I've stated earlier, features many inevitablities, which means that the story is predictable. Now please note that I would like to differentiate this from what Mass Effect 3 was expected to be, something that expresses artistic integrity, like both of its predecessors.

Curing the genophage and the Geth/Quarian war were MANDATORY, as in, they were heavily IMPLIED to be in the 3rd, so it was not hard to guess that they would be. I see little artistic integrity in the way they played out. Those things had to happen, but those options did not have to be so uninspired. For example, when curing the genophage, you have two options: cure it or don't. And I'm not saying that they should not be options, as it would be a joke if they weren't, but you should have more than just two. There should've been some sort of other compromise, something unexpected, something suprising. I don't know, I'm not on the level of the writers of Mass Effect/Mass Effect 2 in terms of creativity and storytelling. I couldn't have predicted the vast majority of the things that they wrote.

And finally of course one of the greatest faults of the game is its technical shortcomings, but everyone knows about that because we've all experienced them immersively from time to time.

But okay, I get it. You guys think I'm only criticizing Mass Effect 3. I am.
But let me tell you, Mass Effect 3 is a great game.
But, is it a good Mass Effect game?
Hardly.

[bloodshed17]

I dont understand why they would end the trilogy in a cliffhanger (talking about the destroy ending and the gasp at the end). They already stated it was going to be the end of shepards story so why end it in a way that seems like it leads into another chapter of Shepards life. That was one of the major things I didnt like.Dont understand why they would include the gasp at the end without any sort of explanation for it like who it was. My opinion.

[RukiaKuchki]

leeboi2 wrote...

This thread AGAIN! Seriously? **** my life, it's only the 400000000000000000000000000th thread of this nature in the last year.

Oh yeah...deja vu all over again...this one made me do one of those particuarly long, protracted yawns (accompanied by a kind of inhuman moan) that made both made my eyes water and my jaw muscles over-extend. The funny thing is, with every one of these 'ME3 disappoints/ME3 is rubbish/the ending of ME3 is rubbish/I'll never play a game again/I demand an explanation from Bioware' - type threads, the OPs seem to think that they're here to enlighten us, to point out flaws that no one else has had the intellect to notice over the past year, to recommend ways that the game should have finished, to get an explanation from Bioware... I mean...seriously? Since when did it become so difficult to accept the fact that you paid for something that, in the end, you just didn't like? I hated Dead Space 3 after being almost fanatical over 1 & 2. Am I harassing the devs with demands for changes? Am I bombarding the forums with repetitive lists of what went wrong (in my opinion ofcourse)? Am I having an emotional breakdown? Errr...no.  

[Aezync]

RukiaKuchki wrote...

leeboi2 wrote...

This thread AGAIN! Seriously? **** my life, it's only the 400000000000000000000000000th thread of this nature in the last year.

Oh yeah...deja vu all over again...this one made me do one of those particuarly long, protracted yawns (accompanied by a kind of inhuman moan) that made both made my eyes water and my jaw muscles over-extend. The funny thing is, with every one of these 'ME3 disappoints/ME3 is rubbish/the ending of ME3 is rubbish/I'll never play a game again/I demand an explanation from Bioware' - type threads, the OPs seem to think that they're here to enlighten us, to point out flaws that no one else has had the intellect to notice over the past year, to recommend ways that the game should have finished, to get an explanation from Bioware... I mean...seriously? Since when did it become so difficult to accept the fact that you paid for something that, in the end, you just didn't like? I hated Dead Space 3 after being almost fanatical over 1 & 2. Am I harassing the devs with demands for changes? Am I bombarding the forums with repetitive lists of what went wrong (in my opinion ofcourse)? Am I having an emotional breakdown? Errr...no.  

If you actually liked the game then you would voice your opinion against the developer.

For what reason did Bioware sell an incomplete product? They haven't done so before. They've produced many amazing games, why stop at the one that they will be most recognized for?

[Evo_9]

Rotacioskapa wrote...

Evo_9 wrote...

Also the human reaper would like a word with you.

Still better than the Catalyst.

catalyst makes more sense than the human reaper.

[Aezync]

Evo_9 wrote...

Rotacioskapa wrote...

Evo_9 wrote...

Also the human reaper would like a word with you.

Still better than the Catalyst.

catalyst makes more sense than the human reaper.

Did you even read what I wrote?

[NightAntilli]

Uh.. Before I start.. I still hold the opinion that ME1 is the best while ME2 is the worst. To each their own. People value different things. But try to remain consistent when you're giving certain reasons as to why something is better/worse, because this thread smells like bias to me. Why? Well..

How can you say ME2 had a better storytelling than ME3? Just because something is unexpected doesn't make it good. Look at dragonball evolution. No one expected that Goku would return to normal from his oozaru state, just by believing in himself, and it sucked ass. Hell look at your own example of something unexpected being bad, the ME3 ending. I for one, found ME2 completely predictable. The only real surprise was finding out that the collectors were GMO protheans, and even then, it didn't change the course of the story, which made it a fun fact rather than an unexpected plot point. ME3 surprised me more than ME2, although it still doesn't come close to the epic list of surprises in ME1. The protagonist dying would mean something if it actually changed something significant, meaning he stayed dead, but the fact that he's revived is in turn completely predictable, kind of nullifying the surprise factor.

How exactly does ME2 have better mechanics than ME3? ME3 has deeper biotic and tech mechanics, more melee options, more verticality in gameplay. It has a deeper weapon system, it has a more expanded RPG system... Just because they dropped the ball with one button doing everything doesn't mean the gameplay is worse. If you go back and play ME2 after ME3, you'll realize how much you'll miss the new cover and melee mechanics, despite its flaws.
And that the running animation actually is so bothersome makes me believe you're grasping at straws. If you're worried about running animations, you can't be talking about ME3 being a good game but not a good Mass Effect game, especially since ME1 had the worst running animation ever.

Sorry but, I do not share your view, and you just read my reasons why. Despite ME3 showing lots of signs of time constraints, it is more than worthy of sharing the Mass Effect name, even more so than ME2. Was ME2 the one of the three that you played first? That would explain a lot of things.

Modifié par NightAntilli, 26 février 2013 - 02:14 .

[MassPredator]

Mass Effect 3 was a high improvement in gameplay and a high downgrade in everything else..... that´s why i keep playing multiplayer.....

[M74]

Mass Effect 3 is what it is. Nothing will change for the better.
I hoped to get a bit more Mass Effect with the DLCs, which I enjoyed playing.
Now I play Mass Effect until I destroyed the Cerberus base and skip the rest.
This way, with my own fantasy, Mass Effect has a better ending.

[Evo_9]

Aezync wrote...

Evo_9 wrote...

Rotacioskapa wrote...

Evo_9 wrote...

Also the human reaper would like a word with you.

Still better than the Catalyst.

catalyst makes more sense than the human reaper.

Did you even read what I wrote?

yes

[Degs29]

I wouldn't care if everyone else besides me thought otherwise, I still think ME3 is the best in the series. Without the obvious slip up at the end, I would have said it was as near perfect a game as I've ever played. As it is, it's still one of my top three favourite games of all time, if not THE favourite.

Of the three games, I'll probably hardly ever touch ME1, but I imagine I'll play through ME2 and ME3 quite a bit unless the next gen consoles distract me with something else.

[Aezync]

NightAntilli wrote...

Uh.. Before I start.. I still hold the opinion that ME1 is the best while ME2 is the worst. To each their own. People value different things. But try to remain consistent when you're giving certain reasons as to why something is better/worse, because this thread smells like bias to me. Why? Well..

How can you say ME2 had a better storytelling than ME3? Just because something is unexpected doesn't make it good. Look at dragonball evolution. No one expected that Goku would return to normal from his oozaru state, just by believing in himself, and it sucked ass. Hell look at your own example of something unexpected being bad, the ME3 ending. I for one, found ME2 completely predictable. The only real surprise was finding out that the collectors were GMO protheans, and even then, it didn't change the course of the story, which made it a fun fact rather than an unexpected plot point. ME3 surprised me more than ME2, although it still doesn't come close to the epic list of surprises in ME1. The protagonist dying would mean something if it actually changed something significant, meaning he stayed dead, but the fact that he's revived is in turn completely predictable, kind of nullifying the surprise factor.

How exactly does ME2 have better mechanics than ME3? ME3 has deeper biotic and tech mechanics, more melee options, more verticality in gameplay. It has a deeper weapon system, it has a more expanded RPG system... Just because they dropped the ball with one button doing everything doesn't mean the gameplay is worse. If you go back and play ME2 after ME3, you'll realize how much you'll miss the new cover and melee mechanics, despite its flaws.
And that the running animation actually is so bothersome makes me believe you're grasping at straws. If you're worried about running animations, you can't be talking about ME3 being a good game but not a good Mass Effect game, especially since ME1 had the worst running animation ever.

Sorry but, I do not share your view, and you just read my reasons why. Despite ME3 showing lots of signs of time constraints, it is more than worthy of sharing the Mass Effect name, even more so than ME2. Was ME2 the one of the three that you played first? That would explain a lot of things.

That's true, unexpected things aren't necessarily good, as seen in the finale. But Mass Effect 2 was able to successful surprise the player and entertain them. I can't imagine if someone played the game (provided they had an interest of course) and didn't enjoy the experience, even if they did feel that the story was inferior to the original's, and to that I agree whole heartedly. But really, to make 2 greater than the orignal is incredibly difficult as one must recreate the same tone and feel that the player experienced when they were first introduced to everything, because everything was a mystery, and of course surprises (the good kind) were everywhere.

However, to a great extent, such is seen in the story of Mass Effect 2, where it is supported by the strong foundation built in the first game, but avoids elaborating upon what is already been explained and attempts to develop a uniqueness. Let me elaborate: in the first game, you encounter your team mates randomly or by chance, and they aren't reknown or special in any significant way.  In 2, you are given the (Mass Effect) Universe's best of the best, a significantly different approach than the first's. This not only shows how capable Bioware is of creating a new experience, which notabley required a great deal of creative input, but also shows how they have been lacking in ME3.

Furthermore, while I do see clearly that your perspective of the protagonist dying and being resurrected as a predictable event, you must ask: "by what means and by whom Shepard was recreated"? It wasn't a generic recreation scene where the military invests into rebuilding you. Instead, you are revived by a terrorist orginization that is known to be lawfully (in respect to TIM's view on humans) evil. Does that not surprise you? You went from being a marine to being a substituent of a terrorist group. And the Prothean/Collecter twist was a great implementation by Bioware; it wasn't essential to the story but it feels signficant and elated. These are just a few examples of what Mass Effect 2 did right, and what Mass Effect 3 (see earlier "Inevitablity" posts) did wrong.

It's true that the gameplay of Mass Effect 3 is superior to the previous'. I shouldn't have used such a general word, instead I'll refer to ME3's animations. The cover system, non-existant recoil, weird body physics, running animation, and even reloading system feels unrealistic and dare I say fantastic. This is not what Mass Effect should behave like. Bioware usually doesn't produce something as poorly put together as that (referring to DA2, the abomination) . And not to mention, its just fundamental and at the same time incredibly important to the player's experience. ME1's running animation was bad. They fixed it to a certain extent in the second. They made it worse in the third. Does that make any sense?

On a final note, no, I began playing ME2 after I had beaten ME twice. 

[OneMore1968]

Sorry OP. Have to disagree and Mass Effect continues to be the best sci-fi trilogy ever made. I've been playing the whole series for the past 5 years and I still go back to it. I do have many other PC games (15 years worth actually). Not just saying that, I come back to Mass Effect again and again.

Sure, there are weak points in all three games. There will never be a game written that doesn't have some point where you clutch your head and think OMG, developer's what were you thinking. But on the whole, Mass Effect ticks most of the boxes and I personally think it will be some time before anything takes it's place.

And I believe the main plotlines for the whole trilogy had been put in place as ME was being planned/written. Have you read any of the books/comics which fill in a great many of the other events in the timeline. For example, Paul Grayson. So the technology was developing and isn't too fantastic within the realms of Mass Effect lore. The Prothean/Collector story was always planned that way as far as I know. So I don't think ME2 was supposed to be seen as a "surprise".

And, the weird mechanics you mention. I've played several games based on the UR engine and they all seem to have strange animations. Maybe its more to do with that than Bioware's implementation. I dunno, just suggesting.

In ME2, it was seemed fixed because you could only run so far before stopping, which was incredibly annoying. Unless you hacked the Coalesced.bin file. I don't think that any of what you mention severely impacts the game experience.

Me, I'm too busy looking at the sumptious graphics (some of the textures are poor but that is being worked on in the community) and the combat system is superb. I used to get caught out on the cover problem but if you play it enough, you will get used to that believe me. All three games offer a different experience. Developer's do want to write games that take advantage of the very latest technology but they also have to consider the many people who don't have that and want to play their games, so they have to strike a balance somewhere.

[Col.Aurion]

Torch the Franchise, for it is dead, and prevent its pestilence from spreading further.

[Logos77]

I really enjoyed ME3. The only part I hate is the non-skippable beginning (by my 8th single player playthrough, the game should spare me that intro and earth/mars mission) and that darn ladder in Leviathan.

[M74]

It's been said before, but one thing it took me a while tolerating in ME3 was the way Shepard is running. That looks ridiculous. Besides the ending... yadayada.... what I do like, is, you can make the Normandy do what the ship is supposed to be capable of. Stealth mode. My Normandy is undetectable by the Reapers on the galaxy map. And I implemented the extended fuel cells from ME2. Oh, and I like the N7 hoody Shep is wearing. The gun pack DLC is awesome, too.

From the graphics, it wasn't much different from ME2, nothing to complain about that. Everything looked OK to me (we know it's not Crysis or Farcry graphics-wise).

EA should have given BioWare simply a bit more time to finish ME3. Also, I don't know the details who developed, but I think ME3 had not the same developers.

I recommend the game and the trilogy despite the ME3 endings. As said before, I play through until I have finished off Cerberus and that's it. I don't play priority Earth at all. That's my decision - in my ME3 game there is no creepy Catalyst to deal with and no moonwalker who talks sh.....t.

[MassStorm]

ME3 is a enjoyable game. Perfect?? Certainly not...but which game honestly can achieve what ME games did. They created an immense universe and characters we all love. That said my main problem with the game/trilogy as it looks now clearly showed the fact that BW did not plan how the trilogy was about to end. You can clearly see this in several part of ME2 with Tali recruitment mission of Haestrom and the Human Repaer which makes sense only in the dark energy storyline perspective.

ME3 is criticized just because by concluding the trilogy made evident that some part of ME2 are simply pointless. In my modest opinion storywise the problem is to be found in ME2 rather than in ME3. Actually ME1 and ME3 quite fit together with coherence to the main problem of the universe. Organics vs Synthetics (Geth as main enemy of ME1, Reapers/Cerberus (reaper-pawns) in ME3).

Modifié par MassStorm, 26 février 2013 - 11:42 .

[HenkieDePost]

Meh, I freaking love Mass Effect 3 for the story except the endings, so I do not really agree with you on most things. I did like the extended cut dlc a little bit, just because it added closure on a galactic scale, but for me the big problem of the extended cut dlc is that they did not really added closure on a personal scale. It is only implied that Shepard lives, but we don't get to see anything of that. We don't really get to see what the squadmates themselves will do after the the war, wat becomes of the normandy, etc etc and those were the thing which intrested me the most, and I really hoped these things would receive some closure as well in future dlc's.

Anyway, I really enjoyed the game overall, but I just can't be satisfied with the added refusal ending and the fact that we barely get to see what becomes of Shepard and his squad, while the new game might not even feature them at all.

So either way, I would like to see a movie about what happens after the ending, or even better, Mass Effect 4 starts some years after the ending, which would give us an awesome basis for a new game.

[AlanC9]

Aezync wrote...

Curing the genophage and the Geth/Quarian war were MANDATORY, as in, they were heavily IMPLIED to be in the 3rd, so it was not hard to guess that they would be. I see little artistic integrity in the way they played out. Those things had to happen, but those options did not have to be so uninspired. For example, when curing the genophage, you have two options: cure it or don't. And I'm not saying that they should not be options, as it would be a joke if they weren't, but you should have more than just two. There should've been some sort of other compromise, something unexpected, something suprising. I don't know, I'm not on the level of the writers of Mass Effect/Mass Effect 2 in terms of creativity and storytelling. I couldn't have predicted the vast majority of the things that they wrote.

So you're telling us that you don't actually know what you wanted?

[kairiesaysrawr]

Are people really still talking about this? I mean, yeah, Mass Effect 3 wasn't what we all expected.
The ending....bleh
Still, the overall game was very enjoyable to me.
Especially the Multiplayer portion.
And it's not like they haven't tried to make it up.
They released FIVE Multiplayer DLC for FREE. I don't know about you, but I don't recall many games doing that.
They even tried an Extended Cut. (It didn't cover ALL plotholes, I commend the effort though)
I love the Mass Effect Series enough to look past that one mistake.
I mean, seroiously, what do you guys want from them?

[kairiesaysrawr]

NightAntilli wrote...

Uh.. Before I start.. I still hold the opinion that ME1 is the best while ME2 is the worst. To each their own. People value different things. But try to remain consistent when you're giving certain reasons as to why something is better/worse, because this thread smells like bias to me. Why? Well..

How can you say ME2 had a better storytelling than ME3? Just because something is unexpected doesn't make it good. Look at dragonball evolution. No one expected that Goku would return to normal from his oozaru state, just by believing in himself, and it sucked ass. Hell look at your own example of something unexpected being bad, the ME3 ending. I for one, found ME2 completely predictable. The only real surprise was finding out that the collectors were GMO protheans, and even then, it didn't change the course of the story, which made it a fun fact rather than an unexpected plot point. ME3 surprised me more than ME2, although it still doesn't come close to the epic list of surprises in ME1. The protagonist dying would mean something if it actually changed something significant, meaning he stayed dead, but the fact that he's revived is in turn completely predictable, kind of nullifying the surprise factor.

How exactly does ME2 have better mechanics than ME3? ME3 has deeper biotic and tech mechanics, more melee options, more verticality in gameplay. It has a deeper weapon system, it has a more expanded RPG system... Just because they dropped the ball with one button doing everything doesn't mean the gameplay is worse. If you go back and play ME2 after ME3, you'll realize how much you'll miss the new cover and melee mechanics, despite its flaws.
And that the running animation actually is so bothersome makes me believe you're grasping at straws. If you're worried about running animations, you can't be talking about ME3 being a good game but not a good Mass Effect game, especially since ME1 had the worst running animation ever.

Sorry but, I do not share your view, and you just read my reasons why. Despite ME3 showing lots of signs of time constraints, it is more than worthy of sharing the Mass Effect name, even more so than ME2. Was ME2 the one of the three that you played first? That would explain a lot of things.

this guy ^^^^^

[shodiswe]

liggy002 wrote...

Aezync wrote...

Siran wrote...

aren't you a bit late to the party?

Yes but why aren't they doing anything about it? They can't just let the Shepard trilogy end like this..

Why would they? Do they not care about the fans anymore?

That is the million dollar question.  Why aren't they doing anything about it?  Some would say that the EC was a proper fix but I disagree.

Tbh, I don't think there is anythign they could do that wouldn't endup comming back as a backlash. People don't agree on what needs to be changed, either it will be too little and people are grumpy, or it was too much and people feel it blew up all their headcanons and in some cases destroyed endign peopel were happy with, and effective made them invalid.

I don't think they could "fix" the ending for everyone, even if they were given ten times the budget they had for ME3.

I can see why they went for the minimalist way in the EC even if I personaly would have wanted more.

What was needed was for it to be great or at least a lot better than it's current or pre EC state from the start when the first player finnished the game.

So, yes I dislike the end gameplay like I've mentioned before (with extensive explaining), and no, I don't think it can be fixed for everyone as it stands at the moment. All I'm currently hoping for is that they keep it in mind for the next game. That they really do think it through, consider the view people might have on certain design ideas.

Modifié par shodiswe, 26 février 2013 - 06:30 .

[Nerevar-as]

kairiesaysrawr wrote...

Are people really still talking about this? I mean, yeah, Mass Effect 3 wasn't what we all expected.
The ending....bleh
Still, the overall game was very enjoyable to me.
Especially the Multiplayer portion.
And it's not like they haven't tried to make it up.
They released FIVE Multiplayer DLC for FREE. I don't know about you, but I don't recall many games doing that.
They even tried an Extended Cut. (It didn't cover ALL plotholes, I commend the effort though)
I love the Mass Effect Series enough to look past that one mistake.
I mean, seroiously, what do you guys want from them?

A proper resolution (that is, that makes frakking sense) to a more than 100 hour story.  Before this, I´d think that´s what everybody wanted, and not whatever was thrown their way.