631 réponses à ce sujet

[FlamingBoy]

its an interesting theory op

[inko1nsiderate]

Is a game entirely gameplay, or is it story, characters, universe, and authorial voice as well? If video games are supposed to be anything besides just gameplay, then the gameplay itself should enable new ways of telling stories and engaging the player. By that metric ME has significant gameplay flaws, but is able to engage its audience in a way other games have failed to do. I'd call that a success, even if the gameplay itself is highly overrated. With the ending of ME3 and Bioware sticking to their guns, they've basically thrown the bird to Ebert and said 'suck on this authorial voice Roger!' 

And well... that's something.

Modifié par inko1nsiderate, 01 mars 2013 - 05:14 .

[The Heretic of Time]

spirosz wrote...

I'm seeing - Witcher glory and praise more than award-winning ME2 glory.

Where do you see Witcher glory on this (or previous) page. I don't see any. Yeah sure, maybe in my signature, but certainly not in any posts.

Oh, and I see more people with Witcher signatures as well. Well, not surprise there. The Witcher (2) simply is a very very good game. BioWare could learn a lot from CD Projekt RED. 

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 01 mars 2013 - 05:48 .

[The Heretic of Time]

Mcfly616 wrote...

I didn't "retroactively" blame anything on ME2. I knew as I was playing it that ME3 would have problems. The entire game is based on recruiting a team of badasses to go take out a base.


It's one of the things that hindered Episode 3 (besides George Lucas and Hayden Christensen). They waited too long to explain many things. And left the burden of starting/tying up everything to the final installment.


I was turned off by ME2 the minute I picked it up. So many things I came to love about the first game, were completely absent in the sequel. EA's handprints were evident from the jump. If anything, ME3 is an improvement. But this is all besides the point.

+1

This post sums it up perfectly. I couldn't agree more.

[inko1nsiderate]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

I didn't "retroactively" blame anything on ME2. I knew as I was playing it that ME3 would have problems. The entire game is based on recruiting a team of badasses to go take out a base.


It's one of the things that hindered Episode 3 (besides George Lucas and Hayden Christensen). They waited too long to explain many things. And left the burden of starting/tying up everything to the final installment.


I was turned off by ME2 the minute I picked it up. So many things I came to love about the first game, were completely absent in the sequel. EA's handprints were evident from the jump. If anything, ME3 is an improvement. But this is all besides the point.

+1

This post sums it up perfectly. I couldn't agree more.

What hindered episode 3 is that episode 1 and 2 were utter loads of ****.

Modifié par inko1nsiderate, 01 mars 2013 - 05:58 .

[Indy_S]

inko1nsiderate wrote...

What hindered episode 3 is that episode 1 and 2 were utter loads of ****.

They were bad Star Wars and rather average movies, not quite utter loads of ****.

They should have tried to resolve things earlier, though. I don't understand why Mass Effect 2 didn't try to resolve anything other than incredibly poor planning.

[inko1nsiderate]

Indy_S wrote...

inko1nsiderate wrote...

What hindered episode 3 is that episode 1 and 2 were utter loads of ****.

They were bad Star Wars and rather average movies, not quite utter loads of ****.

They should have tried to resolve things earlier, though. I don't understand why Mass Effect 2 didn't try to resolve anything other than incredibly poor planning.

Nope.  Utter loads of ****.

Modifié par inko1nsiderate, 01 mars 2013 - 06:07 .

[dreamgazer]

Indy_S wrote...

inko1nsiderate wrote...

What hindered episode 3 is that episode 1 and 2 were utter loads of ****.

They were bad Star Wars and rather average movies, not quite utter loads of ****.

No, no, they're really utter loads of dung---from the writing and acting to the overdone visuals. 

[Indy_S]

inko1nsiderate wrote...

Nope.  Utter loads of ****.

I like RLM but I disagree with him. They're poor/hack action movies and little more.

[Col.Aurion]

I've known it was overrated for years.

[txgoldrush]

Fans overrate in in two ways.......fans overrate the hardness of the scifi and then act like a great crime when "space magic" happens. Not everything has to be explained and its simply not as hard of sci fi as you think. And before you cry about Space Magic...look no further than Star Trek. The Prophets anyone?

The series plotlines are very overrated, especially ME1 (which except for a couple moments don't develop the characters). The ME series is a characters and themes series more than a plot driven one. The plots are standard fare, the characters make it stick out and the dark themes make this franchise stick out even more (this may be the most dark and emotional space opera I have ever seen). This is why ME1 is the weakest of the trilogy....it does characters the worst.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 01 mars 2013 - 06:45 .

[Fixers0]

txgoldrush wrote...

The series plotlines are very overrated, especially ME1 (which except for a couple moments don't develop the characters). The ME series is a characters and themes series more than a plot driven one. The plots are standard fare, the characters make it stick out and the dark themes make this franchise stick out even more (this may be the most dark and emotional space opera I have ever seen). This is why ME1 is the weakest of the trilogy....it does characters the worst.

That's just your baseless retroactive headcannon. Both ME 1 and 3 were plot based narratives, the only execption was Mass Effect 2 which didn't even bother to give us a plot at all.

[mass perfection]

Just compare Mass Effect to the terrible games being made and released today and you'll see why it's "overrated".

[Biotic Sage]

Well "overrated" is all relative to one's own opinion about that which is "overrated." When I played through ME1 for the first time, I had little to no expectations. It looked boring when I saw a friend of mine playing it once, and I only tried it because my roommate had it and let me borrow it. Playing through that game is honestly one of the most transcendent and revelatory experiences I've had in my entire life. It was a slow crescendo to an explosion of amazement and awe, that showed me the future of what video games could achieve in terms of storytelling. KOTOR hinted at this way back in '03, but even KOTOR still felt like what my previous notion of "a video game" was (albeit a very excellent example of a story-based RPG); Mass Effect completely broke down and reconstructed my understanding of video games.

So overrated? Not in this player's opinion.

[AlanC9]

Fixers0 wrote...

That's just your baseless retroactive headcannon. Both ME 1 and 3 were plot based narratives, the only execption was Mass Effect 2 which didn't even bother to give us a plot at all.

I wouldn't say it didn't have a plot. It just had the plot structure of an arc-driven TV show, or a traditional RPG, rather than a movie or newfangled plot-heavy RPG.

Which isn't necessarily a good thing. I think BG2 would get slammed for its unfocused plot if it were released today.

Modifié par AlanC9, 01 mars 2013 - 07:16 .

[Ticonderoga117]

I would say it's over-rated because the finale, the game where everything that they needed to do right, dropped the ball completely. ME3 was the game where choices and divergent narrative could really shine because there is no fourth game. They could've crafted something that kept both ME1 and ME2 relevant. They could've created a game where both the "Everyone needs to die for me to feel anything" and "I just want a cohesive narrative" crowds happy. They could've created one of the best endings in a video game franchise... but didn't. Then they had the nerve to use "Art" as a defense. That is what made this franchise over-rated. They dropped the ball and hid behind art.

[txgoldrush]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

I would say it's over-rated because the finale, the game where everything that they needed to do right, dropped the ball completely. ME3 was the game where choices and divergent narrative could really shine because there is no fourth game. They could've crafted something that kept both ME1 and ME2 relevant. They could've created a game where both the "Everyone needs to die for me to feel anything" and "I just want a cohesive narrative" crowds happy. They could've created one of the best endings in a video game franchise... but didn't. Then they had the nerve to use "Art" as a defense. That is what made this franchise over-rated. They dropped the ball and hid behind art.

No, ME1 is the overrated one....it failed to develop its characters not named Wrex properly, relied on contrivances (just as people accuse ME3 of doing), and had terrible game design, maybe bioware's worst other than DA2.

And it is more cohesive than you think.....ME1 showed hints of what Cerberus would be for example. And the synthetic vs organic conflict started here as well.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 01 mars 2013 - 07:53 .

[Fixers0]

AlanC9 wrote...

I wouldn't say it didn't have a plot. It just had the plot structure of an arc-driven TV show, or a traditional RPG, rather than a movie or newfangled plot-heavy RPG.

A plot is a series of events that make up a story, Mass Effect 2's for the most part unfortunatly, doesn't seem to live up to this basic narrative quality, with events having little if not no connecntion to eachother.

AlanC9 wrote...
Which isn't necessarily a good thing. I think BG2 would get slammed for its unfocused plot if it were released today.

Hence the narrative of Mass Effect 2 got critized heaviliy for it's lack of cohesion.

Modifié par Fixers0, 01 mars 2013 - 08:36 .

[David7204]

Saying ME 2 didn't have a plot is flatly stupid.

[Fixers0]

David7204 wrote...

Saying ME 2 didn't have a plot is flatly stupid.

Only if the sun is rising West.

[MECavScout01]

David7204 wrote...

Saying ME 2 didn't have a plot is flatly stupid.

ME2 is my favorite game of all time.

The main plot was very weak and completely pointless in terms of relevance to the series.

The Collectors are building a new Reaper that they've been working on since Shepard's death 2 years ago in 2183. They'll likely need several more years to complete it, especially since after 2 years, it's still only in its larval/infancy stage. As shown by the end of Arrival, 6 months have passed between the Reaper invasion and the destruction of the Bahak Relay. 

It's never stated how long it's been in game Arrival was after the SM, but I do know that Shepard has been in alliance custody for 6 months after the Arrival incident, which makes it pretty much certain that Arrival took place after the SM.

Also, the SM was in 2185. ME3 begins in 2186. That's at most one year of development that could have gone to the Reaper larva. Seeing that after 2 years, it was still only in the larval stage, it means that that year of development probably wouldn't have amounted to a significant amount of progress (especially since the alliance, Cerberus, and the Council were aware of the Collectors actions of abducting human colonies, and, on the part of Cerberus anyway, were taking an active part preventing that). The reason the Collectors were building the Reaper was to replace Sovereign, and to presumably (speculation from EDI given in game) use it to activate the Citadel relay and bring the Reapers back from dark space.

Now the final bit here is that the Reapers have awakened and have been flying towards the galaxy since the end of the first game in 2183. Between ME1 and ME3, that's 3 years. 

What was the point of the Collectors kidnapping whole human colonies if the Reapers were going to fly towards the galaxy from dark space and get there in 3 years, when the replacement Reaper was going to take several years, if not decades, to complete? Why not hold the Collectors back until the arrival of the Reapers, so that, among other consequences, the Reapers have one more asset to utilize/ Also, Shepard is never resurrected (there's no reason to bring him back) thus preventing the person who had the most knowledge of the Reapers from uniting the galaxy. That would make the Reapers job that much simpler.

The answer is that there is no reason at all. ME2, in the context of the given information and in hindsight with ME3, is completely and utterly pointless to the series.

I don't like or agree with it (ME2 is my favorite video game of all time afterall), but that's the way it is.

Modifié par MECavScout01, 01 mars 2013 - 09:06 .

[Necrotron]

I always thought Mass Effect was very derivitve and no where near perfect, but it contained all of the elements that made a great story, until the final moments of Mass Effect 3, where they went and retconned a lot of good things and stole any sense of satisfaction from the player by having the main villain arbitraily decide to defeat himself and let Shepard pick a solution he deemed satisfactory. It was very jarring because it sort of threw on it's head all of themes established throughout the series, and just generally felt like a troll. But oh well, enough on that.

Mass Effect was simply a wonderful, fun, emotion filled jaunt through a (until the ending) consistent and colorful sci fi universe. It felt awesome to experience. Mass Effect 1 was epic for it's time for the sense of scale and exploration it portrayed. I remember riding the Mako and thinking, 'omg, I'm totally driving a space tank on a foreign planet!' Mass Effect 2 continued the memorable squadmates and great dialogue and had probably the best ending of a video game ever, with a suicide mission that took into account all of your decisions. Mass Effect 3 did almost everything right to be just good enough to be the epic conclusion, but went for a triple backflip at the end and ended up falling on it's face. Sadly, it will always have that 'Star Wars: Episode I' type of mark on it now.

But all in all, Mass Effect made a wonderful universe with the budget to back up great games.