631 réponses à ce sujet

[McFlurry598]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

McFlurry598 wrote...

I did read your OP.  I simply assumed you hated the endings, you seem like the kind of guy. Yes it is bashing on them; the 40+ Game Awards and over 75+ Perfect Scores seem to disagree with you, about not considering it the best game of all time.

So because other people say ME3 is perfect, I should agree? That's not really my style. I'd give each of the games a solid 8/10. Those reviewers have not spent the amount of time with these games that I have. Most of them, anyways. Through multiple playthroughs I have noticed these flaws and thus have a more informed opinion than I otherwise would. That said the people who give ME3 perfect scores are no more right or wrong than me. I said maybe the games are overrated. I never once said they were bad, only flawed. Maybe I'm crazy, who knows. I'm just sharing an opinion. There's no hate behind it, only objectivity and honesty.

No you shouldn't agree,  that's not my style either. But judging the games on a few flaws that all games have is just..terrible.  If every game was based on the flaws, nothing would have a 10/10. I'm not hating on you, but I have to disagree.  Critics judge games on the story line, not combat mechanics and etc. Take Aliens:Colonial Marines for instance, the story objective is terrible, the plot is terrible, the gameplay is terrible, that game is terrible. Mass Effect is the only game series with import character features. This trilogy is isimply my favorite RPG/Sci-Fi shooter. Following close is Halo and most Bethesda games. Though I respect your opinion, I think it's wrong to base a games rating on a few flaws that most games share. If you to reccommend this trilogy to a friend, or family member, what would you say?

[ElectronicPostingInterface]

Mr.House wrote...

One could say the same about ME to ME2, as for many like me did not enjoy ME2 because we found it a waste of time before ME3 was even announced, let alone in production. ME3 feels like a proper continuation to ME, ME2 feels like a filler, even if I ignore ME2. The day Bioware decided to create ten new characters that could die in the middle chapoter was the day the series was gonig to blow up. You do not do that. You do not side line majoity of the old main characters from the first chapter to introduce all these new characters, and also make it possible for them to die. This is poor planing and a big DO NOT DO in a trilogy. Bioware bit off way more then they could chew by not doing proper planing, tyring to make ME2 and ME3 stand alone, trying to appease newcomers in both games and simply careing more about money then giving a good product.

I suppose everything is accounted to taste - I liked the direction and tone they went with for ME2. I felt like it was a fun place to be and explore, to meet people and experience cool stories. It is definitely stylistically not the same as Mass Effect 1, and if you wanted more of the same there, I can see you would be disappointed. I liked Mass Effect 1, but I enjoyed what I saw was the evolution of the series as the world had been more established to the player.

I agree it wasn't a wise decision, but I thought they were going to honor it. Or at least honor it a little better than they did, but they work for EA and EA rushes games and forces microtransactions, so that was naive.

I definitely don't agree ME2 reeks of caring more about money than anything else - I always felt it was a well designed, well thought out game in of itself that moved on from ME1 but didn't disrespect it. The Suicide Mission is one of my favorite moments in gaming, ever. Actually no. It is my favorite.

ME2 is what invested me so deeply into the series and made me care about defending it in 3.

Modifié par PKchu, 28 février 2013 - 11:33 .

[Legion of 1337]

It's not "overrated", but it's got more flaws than you think. The reason we think it's so awsome is because no other video game series has ever tried to do what Mass Effect did - just the fact that they tried was worthy of merit in and of itself, regardless of whether it was done effectively.

While only ME1's plot was any good, the characters will go down in history as the best in any video game, hand\\s down, and that's why Mass Effect is so good.

[xtal84]

McFlurry598 wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

McFlurry598 wrote...

I did read your OP.  I simply assumed you hated the endings, you seem like the kind of guy. Yes it is bashing on them; the 40+ Game Awards and over 75+ Perfect Scores seem to disagree with you, about not considering it the best game of all time.

So because other people say ME3 is perfect, I should agree? That's not really my style. I'd give each of the games a solid 8/10. Those reviewers have not spent the amount of time with these games that I have. Most of them, anyways. Through multiple playthroughs I have noticed these flaws and thus have a more informed opinion than I otherwise would. That said the people who give ME3 perfect scores are no more right or wrong than me. I said maybe the games are overrated. I never once said they were bad, only flawed. Maybe I'm crazy, who knows. I'm just sharing an opinion. There's no hate behind it, only objectivity and honesty.

No you shouldn't agree,  that's not my style either. But judging the games on a few flaws that all games have is just..terrible.  If every game was based on the flaws, nothing would have a 10/10. I'm not hating on you, but I have to disagree.  Critics judge games on the story line, not combat mechanics and etc. Take Aliens:Colonial Marines for instance, the story objective is terrible, the plot is terrible, the gameplay is terrible, that game is terrible. Mass Effect is the only game series with import character features. This trilogy is isimply my favorite RPG/Sci-Fi shooter. Following close is Halo and most Bethesda games. Though I respect your opinion, I think it's wrong to base a games rating on a few flaws that most games share. If you to reccommend this trilogy to a friend, or family member, what would you say?

I agree with your sentiment that flaws don't-- and shouldn't-- define the experience. I'd probably give ME1 a 4/5 and ME2/ME3 3.5/5 scores; where at the same time I'd give Call of Duty 1 and 4 perfect 5s. But I still prefer the Mass Effect games and love them much more. The perceived quality or level of "perfection" of something does not necessarily indicate its value.

[tanisha__unknown]

PKchu wrote...

I always thought the Mass Effect series did a good job of overcoming its own flaws to be a great experience in a holistic sense.

Agree with you. OP has a point, the game design is flawed, but as pointed out, that's true for any game.

Best games that were ever made? No.

Not even the best RPGs or shooters that were ever made.

All in all, they are still well done (mostly), very immersive and pretty much my favority SciFi franchise.

[McFlurry598]

Jinx1720 wrote...

PKchu wrote...

I always thought the Mass Effect series did a good job of overcoming its own flaws to be a great experience in a holistic sense.

Agree with you. OP has a point, the game design is flawed, but as pointed out, that's true for any game.

Best games that were ever made? No.

Not even the best RPGs or shooters that were ever made.

All in all, they are still well done (mostly), very immersive and pretty much my favority SciFi franchise.

Please don't state your opinions like they are a proven fact, that just irritates me when people do that

Modifié par McFlurry598, 28 février 2013 - 11:40 .

[spirosz]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

I would say that the games have a story that will completely invest you and characters that you will be able to connect to. I would also say that all the aspects of the combat take a while to learn, but will be very rewarding once they are learned. The thing is though, I realize that these games are an aquired taste and that the combat will take a while to learn. I showed these games to a few friends of mine and they couldn't get into it. This series isn't for everyone. It is one of the most rewarding series to get into if you have the taste for it, however. Saying that I would give these games an 8/10 isn't an insult. That is generally the highest score I will give a game. That's just the way my mind works. I haven't seen a masterpiece yet. This series is also my favorite RPG series and I have defended it many times, especially on these forums. The games aren't masterpieces to me though. That's why I say they are overrated. Both ME2 and 3 deserved the GOTY awards they got, but they aren't game experiences I feel that are perfect. Mainly, that seems to be the opinion around here. It's easy to praise, it's easy to criticise, but it's difficult to do both at the same time. That's what I try to do.

Exactly, as much as I disliked what happened in ME3 - it had great elements in it, that neither ME1 or ME2 ever achieved and the same thing can be said for the other two games, they each have their share of highs and lows, but neither is a masterpiece, yet ME2 was close to being one of my favourite games (it's my favourite of the series),  Just basing it off story elements alone, it's pretty bad - but I loved it for the characters and the the way I was able to craft my Shepard. 

Personally, I blame inconsistency as the main flaw of the series and I'm personally talking about different writers for the same characters (and story) throughout the series.  It's mindblowing how a certain writer can craft such wonderful work and you give it to someone else and it just loses it's vibe, you know?  Now, I'm not saying any writer is bad and I understand that it's not realistic to expect everyone from ME1 to stay on Bioware till ME3, people get other job opportunities, etc, but that's where a lot of my beef comes from.  

Modifié par spirosz, 28 février 2013 - 11:48 .

[SyK18]

I'm not agree with you on the first ME. Mainly because it was the first game, it was creative and innovative. Were there problems? Yes, but not enough to make you put it down and never play again.

Half agree on ME 2. Yes it did not advance the main plot, but the story was supposed to be about the Collectors and since they were going to put it on the PS3, it needed to feel as a standalone. Scanning was stupid, i rather have the MAKO and planets from ME. Gunplay got better, but goddamn that thermal clip bull****.

ME3 - fully agree.

BTW look at all the flaws that you stated for the first ME. All were "fixed" and that's why you ME 2 and ME 3 was what it was. There is no need to bash on the first ME. Go ahead on the others, they deserve it.

[xAmilli0n]

Mr.House wrote...

ME series is overrated imo. ME and ME3 where ok but nothing mind blowing. ME2 is one of the most overated piece of trash ever chucked out in the video game industry.

Decent games, but there are better stuff out there, and Bioware has also created better games then ME1,2 and 3.

While I wont go and say ME2 was trash, I do believe the series had become an overhyped juggeranught by the time it hit ME3 (whose fault this is, I wont even try to get into).  ME2 is just the weakest in the series.

I enjoyed the series (still do, and will continue to buy their games) but as I've played other games and spent time away from ME, I realized that it really didn't deserve to be on the pedestal I had put it on.

Overrated?  Yes.  Still good games?  Yes.  Has a large fanbase of overzealous fans that bounce between fanatical worship and rabid hate? Yes.

[ElectronicPostingInterface]

Perhaps this is heresy, but the plot of ME2 never bothered me much. It's a non-traditional video game structure, more like a TV series or a series of comic books than a singular plot. It's like saying TV is bad for not being a movie. I thought the way events played out and the experience of them worked very well as a total package.

The immersion, characters, making you care about the world - I think that's enough to validate the existance of ME2 in the series.

Modifié par PKchu, 28 février 2013 - 11:53 .

[xAmilli0n]

PKchu wrote...

Perhaps this is heresy, but the plot of ME2 never bothered me much. It's a non-traditional video game structure, more like a TV series or a series of comic books than a singular plot. It's like saying TV is bad for not being a movie. I thought the way events played out and the experience of them worked very well as a total package.

ME2 is fine as a stand alone game, but it really is out of place in the trilogy.

[AlanC9]

The Mad Hanar wrote...
Now I'm not saying the series was bad. I'm just saying that I'm not quite sure it deserves the title of one of the best ever, given it's flaws. I'm also saying that when considering the flaws, ME3 isn't really that bad when compared to the first two.

While all the games are flawed, and ME3 isn't unique in its level of flaws,  it doesn't necessarily follow that it's not one of the best series ever. "Unflawed" isn't the right criterion for that.

[ElectronicPostingInterface]

xAmilli0n wrote...

ME2 is fine as a stand alone game, but it really is out of place in the trilogy.

If you look at the series now, yes. They didn't really payoff a lot of things in ME3.

That's the fault of them not designing ME3 to fit better with 2, not the fault of 2. 

[Tempest_]

PKchu wrote...

Perhaps this is heresy, but the plot of ME2 never bothered me much. It's a non-traditional video game structure, more like a TV series or a series of comic books than a singular plot. It's like saying TV is bad for not being a movie. I thought the way events played out and the experience of them worked very well as a total package.

The immersion, characters, making you care about the world - I think that's enough to validate the existance of ME2 in the series.

I agree.

It was unconventional and certainly not to everyone's taste, but I enjoyed the structure they went with.

[xAmilli0n]

PKchu wrote...

xAmilli0n wrote...

ME2 is fine as a stand alone game, but it really is out of place in the trilogy.

If you look at the series now, yes. They didn't really payoff a lot of things in ME3.

That's the fault of them not designing ME3 to fit better with 2, not the fault of 2. 

Fair enough.

[o Ventus]

People blow the identical dialogue in ME1 way out of proportion. Yes, it happens, but whenever I see someone post about it on BSN, they insinuate that it happens every other dialogue pick. That's pure hyperbole. Ditto for the renegade/paragon in ME2. You are in no way forced down a path 90% of the game for a blue or red check.

[Argolas]

Mass Effect had me the moment I first saw the Citadel. Despite everything, no regrets.

[SNascimento]

ME1 is overrated by fans here and is not as great both its sequels, ME2 is a masterpiece of gaming, ME3 has big issues, but still a top tier game.

[xAmilli0n]

Argolas wrote...

Mass Effect had me the moment I first saw the Citadel. Despite everything, no regrets.

I think this is the key for me.  Despite what I think of it now, I have no regrets of having taken the journey from ME1 to ME3.

[Maxster_]

PKchu wrote...

xAmilli0n wrote...

ME2 is fine as a stand alone game, but it really is out of place in the trilogy.

If you look at the series now, yes. They didn't really payoff a lot of things in ME3.

That's the fault of them not designing ME3 to fit better with 2, not the fault of 2. 

Oh please. The entire premise of ME2 makes no sense.
They could never finish that reaper, nor they could ever crush entire Systems Alliance fleet with a single transport, which is easily destroyed by a single frigate. This excuse of a plot also makes Harbringer an idiot.

[Mcfly616]

Drewton wrote...

Every time I go back to Mass Effect, even 3, I'm remind that it's just better than 95% of the games out there.

this.


People always bash the series. But never provide any games that they think fit the word "great". To which I'm sure many people could pick apart in glorious fashion.

[Mr.House]

PKchu wrote...

Perhaps this is heresy, but the plot of ME2 never bothered me much. It's a non-traditional video game structure, more like a TV series or a series of comic books than a singular plot. It's like saying TV is bad for not being a movie. I thought the way events played out and the experience of them worked very well as a total package.

The immersion, characters, making you care about the world - I think that's enough to validate the existance of ME2 in the series.

See the issue is ME2 didn't make me care about these characters except for five of them, but I much rather have the old charatcers I was already attached to and prefered. Also my immersion was broken more times in ME2 then ME3 and ME, in fact the game starts with breaking my immersion thanks to project Lazarus. ME2 was ment to be something and it simply failed for me because everything it tried to do simply did not impress me, really made me mad(Illum, Horizon, the ocuncil meeting ect) and simply did not live up to my expectations. As a game, a Bioware product and as a middle chapter. I typicaly love middle chapters(ESB,Two Towers, Godfather part 2 ect) but with the ME series, it's not the case because I felt burned and it was not a product I thoguht I was going to get.

Also not not help I did not enjoy garrus and Tali at all in ME2 so the two returning characters just made matters worse for me.