631 réponses à ce sujet

[Bourne Endeavor]

txgoldrush wrote...

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.

Mass Effect 1 did no such thing. Cerberus was little more than your run-of-the-mill mook sidequest group. They were extremists in ME1 and completely retconned to justify the deviation in ME2, only to be retconned again to fit the Sith Empire shift in ME3. Cerberus is by and far the worst example of inconsistency in the entire series.

I will acknowledge the squad development felt somewhat lacking at times but only Tali showed very little growth. Alas, your bias toward ME3 is widely known already on this forum.

[d-boy15]

ME2 did have a plot... the problem is those writers decide not to continued it.

The plot of ME2 is set up to the Dark Energy plot, Tali mention about dark energy on Haelstorm
(twice if you investigate about it on Flotilla), the collector build a human reaper, Harbinger taunts
about the potential of each races.

So, ME2 did have a plot but after writers decide to go with Singularity plot, the set up in ME2 is
gone and the plot is become nothing.

[BD Manchild]

Looking over those points I can't argue with any of them; replaying the series I find myself having the same thoughts. I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say ME1 or ME2 are overrated, but I do agree that both games are more flawed than most give them credit for.

Modifié par BD Manchild, 01 mars 2013 - 09:52 .

[nos_astra]

David7204 wrote...

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

Fine, it doesn't have one that holds up to scrutiny.

When people say ME2 is a bad bridge between ME1 and ME3 defenders usually claim it's a good stand-alone and has good characters.

When you point out how the game fails to justify its own story, the actions of the antagonist, the actions of the protagonist and the mere presence of most of the characters it introduced defenders claim it's ME3's fault for not following up.

So it's a stand-alone game that needs to be retroactively validated by its sequel? 

Modifié par klarabella, 01 mars 2013 - 10:32 .

[nos_astra]

d-boy15 wrote...

ME2 did have a plot... the problem is those writers decide not to continued it.

The plot of ME2 is set up to the Dark Energy plot, Tali mention about dark energy on Haelstorm
(twice if you investigate about it on Flotilla), the collector build a human reaper, Harbinger taunts
about the potential of each races.

So, ME2 did have a plot but after writers decide to go with Singularity plot, the set up in ME2 is
gone and the plot is become nothing.

Calling this a plot is flattering it. It was little more than background noise and far from developed enough to carry the trilogy.

The Reapers leave ME tech to speed up development of space-faring species along paths they desire which causes the dark energy build up they set out to prevent. 

Does that sound good to you?

Modifié par klarabella, 01 mars 2013 - 10:29 .

[iamthedave3]

Actually, ME 2 does have a poor plot.

I've said several times that the content of Shepherd's 'suicide squad' is utterly stupid and their preparations are farcical. When you finally go into the suicide mission you still know basically nothing. There's no attempts made to scout around the Omega-4 relay, try to use the Reaper code on an unmanned drone to scan in advance, or indeed do ANYTHING that would prepare them adequately. If the Collectors were semi-competent or - you know - had more than one ship, the Normandy would have been obliterated in time for the Collectors to catch the latest episode of The Magic Roundabout - Turian edition.

Furthermore the whole idea of 'loyalty' is backwards. Why would Zaeed need to be loyal to Shepherd to fight at his full strength? He's the universe's best mercenary, who fights for his life as a living. Samara, the super-meditative semi-emotionless justice machine, who's been doing this for century upon century, can't focus on the job at hand unless she settles things with Morinth? Ridiculous. Jack's presence on the team - much as I love the character - is based entirely on her being a cool character and has nothing to do with her suitability. The fact that the loyalty mission makes sense for Jack is an indictment against her inclusion. In almost every case, the characters either shouldn't need 'loyalty' to fight their asses off, or the fact that it's believable makes their presence on the team questionable.

ME 2 has lots of problems. But it has good characters, good romances, lots of excellent squad dialogue, and is generally a lot of fun with an awesome fist pump ending that in no way pays off the whole 'suicide mission' idea.

Which highlights an important point: If a game makes the player feel good about themselves when it's over, they can forgive an awful lot, or just ignore it. If it makes them feel bad...

So yeah. I stand shoulder to shoulder with Klarabella. It's bollocks. But entertaining bollocks.

Modifié par iamthedave3, 01 mars 2013 - 10:23 .

[David7204]

That is completely absurd. Samara and Zaeed can't be inspired by heroism because they're experienced? Ridiculous.

[Dean_the_Young]

Mr.House wrote...

PKchu wrote...

"have to disagree. ME2 did absolutely nothing to move the overarching plot forward."

More heresy: don't think this is the end all be all of what the middle game of a trilogy has to be. ME2 contributes to the trilogy in character development and making you like and care about the setting more by going on these awesome experiences.

MIddle chapter is ment to bridge 1 and 3, to get you ready for the final and do something big.

Empire Strikes Back: We witness the rebels get defeted badly to the point they have to retreat big time, we see Han get captured and brought to Jabba, we at lkeast see the Emperor after hearing about him and we find out there is a big connection between Darth Vader and luke. They manged to make you care about the characters, not introduce too many new characters that took away the old characters and it built oyu up for the final.

At best, ME2 starts to build up the genophage and geth/quarian plotline.

To make it worse, ME2 only potentially starts up the genophage and rannoch plotlines, because those missions (and, in the case of Tali and Legion, those characters) were purely optional.

Optional missions are a lot like killable characters: the plot has to compensate in case the mission is 'dead', which means more or less re-introducing the key concepts and relations necessary for the plot. In the genophage arc, ME3 got around this by more or less building the finale from the ground arc, introducing us for the first time to Eve, the Dalatrass, Krogan History, and the Shroud. Rannoch, however, had to spend time outright re-introducing the same characters and the same dynamics as before, and in doing so fell victim to shifting emphasis and wasting time re-treading old paths.

[MassStorm]

ME2 is the worst part of the trilogy. The entire plot of that game seeing how ME3 developed is utterly pointless.

Storywise ME1 and ME3 present many similarities but ME2 is totally an episode on his own which fails to bridge between the two games.

[nos_astra]

David7204 wrote...

That is completely absurd. Samara and Zaeed can't be inspired by heroism because they're experienced? Ridiculous.

Define "inspired by heroism". And how does this translate to loyal?
And how does bing loyal translated to "being able to do the ****ing job you were recruited to do"?

It reminds me a lot of the posts where you were using the phrase "meaningful heroism" which seemed to imply that for meaningful heroism the protagonist has to be fawned over and worshipped by virtue of being the protagonist.

Modifié par klarabella, 01 mars 2013 - 10:32 .

[Dean_the_Young]

d-boy15 wrote...

ME2 did have a plot... the problem is those writers decide not to continued it.

The plot of ME2 is set up to the Dark Energy plot, Tali mention about dark energy on Haelstorm
(twice if you investigate about it on Flotilla), the collector build a human reaper, Harbinger taunts
about the potential of each races.

So, ME2 did have a plot but after writers decide to go with Singularity plot, the set up in ME2 is
gone and the plot is become nothing.

The Dark Energy Plot was never a plot in ME2: it was at best foreshadowing for something that never had to be the theory that was never  raised in-universe. The cues are just as valid in the context of the Crucible (which uses dark energy) as any other effectively fan-theory that involved the term. The Dark Energy Plot as the writers were thinking of it was never an established goal.


As for Harbinger's taunts about the potential of the races, that's already resolved in ME2 and ME3: Reapers are made of people, and the 'merit' of the civilization corresponds to the type of ship. There was nothing really left dangling after ME2, and rather than a plot it was really just a reflection of their preservationist tendencies which are expounded upon in ME3.

[David7204]

Except that Shepard isn't fawned over because s/he's the protagonist, and it's moronic to suggest that? Have you considered that the massive fan reaction of Shepard's fate happened for a reason? Clearly people care about Shepard very deeply. Is it just because s/he's the protagonist?

Modifié par David7204, 01 mars 2013 - 10:31 .

[Yestare7]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Think about all the problems you've had with each of the games. Just think about it. Are these games really amongst the greatest of all time? Was there really a legacy to keep? 

Yes. These games moved me more than any I have played.





Y

[Nightdragon8]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Think about all the problems you've had with each of the games. Just think about it. Are these games really amongst the greatest of all time? Was there really a legacy to keep? Is it really worth it to get worked up over them?

ME1

- Poor shooting mechanics

- Poorly designed and repeatdley used buildings for side quests.

- Redundant, time consuming side quests. Find the writings, collect minerals, etc.

- "Illusion of choice" speech options. You're character would say the same thing no matter what you chose.

- Buggy at certain moments and in certain situations. The infinite falling motion comes to mind.

- Characters that were predictable, mainly looking at Garrus, Ashley and Kaidan.

ME2

- Didn't advance the main plot in any significant way.

- The death at the beginning really felt like an excuse to introduce new characters. I know it was the purpose, but it was extremely obvious.

- Getting upgrades involved tedious planet scanning.

- Higher difficulty = Slap armor on everything.

- Extremely predictable combat. Run into a room, take place behind the obvious cover. Level design felt uninspired.

- Paragon/Renegade speech system limited players very much.


ME3

- A lot of scripted interactions with your squad mates. Having choice in your reaction is half the interest.

- Many of the things that were important or good in ME1 and ME2 were really made irrelevant. Almost seemed like the team did it on purpose. A lot of squad mates were cut, decisions were completely disregarded or made irrelevant in the grand scheme of things and romantic relationships were actively destroyed.

- War assets in the place of a seen difference.

- Side quests that combined the tediousness of ME1 fetching with ME2 scanning. They improved the scanning, but removed the exploration involved with fetching.

- Horrible journal system.

- Uninspired characters, such as Kai Leng, being of major importance in the game.



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.

ME1

Not sure what you mean by poor shooting mechanics, as in its not CoD and skill based like a few games at the time =p IE Fallout

For buildings honestly all games have that issue and it may have been the style they where going for. You know the whole "Prefab" socity that may be realistic for a newly space fairing race.

The choices... honestly while yea there are a few choices no matter what you say gives you the same or simulor results there I think where only 2-3 choices where they where exactly the same sentence.

the 5 playthoughs and maybe 6 incomplete playthoughts I have never had the infinte falling issue. I have fell though the world a few times but thats a QA not finding those places, and there are bound to me a few.

Predictable charecters... honestly go read TVtropes and you will find out that no character is not predictable. Even a character that is completely random is in fact a predictable character.


ME2

The "plot" honestly it did and didn't at the same time. I mean unless it was going to be the reapers arive in ME2 there in all honesty nothing they could have done, The only thing I can think of is, have Reapers arive and have the war going on right there. and then in ME3 have it be the "retake earth" kind of arc.

I guess I agree, but I think this ties into the whole Plot thing than anything else.

The mining scanner while cool at first, doesn't help replayablity by the 4th playthough I ended useing gibbed to give me the resources

I agree with the difficultly just adding armor, but in reality it should have had armor to begin with, I mean going to use a robot in combat and have no armor??

Well the pattern was to easy to spot, about the only planet that didn't do this as much is, Oker's mission where combat was almost around every corner But in reality its the same for ALL cover combat games.

I agree, made playing a mixed alignment Shep practically imposable.

ME3

Meh, there really is only so much they could have done with the space they where allowed to do, sadly hardware specs take president over content.

In a way it had to come down to numbers either hidden or shown to the player. As for the things in all honesty I sort of agree but in reality how can most events in ME really effect the universe as a whole. While they seem like major events to your scale really was all but a blip on the radar when the galaxy was in big picture.

As for the relationships FemShep got hosed and I agree really wasn't right. Thane dies (tho in reality the time was limited to begin with) But Jacob... ouch....

The fetch quests... the only way it could have been pulled off well is if they had cometed of a ground vehicle you know having to go down to the planet do strike on a planet get what you needed to get then get out. but it would then have seen as "padding" so it was a damned if you do damned if you dont sort of thing.

yea Journal broken pretty much.

Well you can't have a character being able to upstage the Hero/player

[iamthedave3]

David7204 wrote...

That is completely absurd. Samara and Zaeed can't be inspired by heroism because they're experienced? Ridiculous.

I already know you're a troll so move along.

[David7204]

I guess that's like a 'Get of Jail Free' card in any kind of argument now, huh?

[nos_astra]

David7204 wrote...

Except that Shepard isn't fawned over because s/he's the protagonist, and it's moronic to suggest that? Have you considered that the massive fan reaction of Shepard's fate happened for a reason? Clearly people care about Shepard very deeply. Is it just because s/he's the protagonist?

Shepard is a self-insert. In fanfiction this sort of character is usually frowned upon because they end up being Mary Sues and can (and usually will) stand in the way of good storytelling.

The fans are basically the co-authors of Shepard's story and their being in love with their super badass avatar was not what we were talking about.

We were talking about in-universe events and their justification: Why does Zaeed, who's been doing his job for decades without any need to feel especially inspired by the guy who calls the shots, suddenly have to be loyal (aka inspired) by Shepard to function?

Modifié par klarabella, 01 mars 2013 - 10:42 .

[iamthedave3]

David7204 wrote...

I guess that's like a 'Get of Jail Free' card in any kind of argument now, huh?

No, I only say it when it's true, and you've demonstrated it elsewhere in other threads.

You want a discussion, go ahead and make a substantive counter-argument. To expand on what I said slightly, every one of Shepherd's squad - with arguably the exception of Garrus (since Shepherd inspired him so much in the first game) - is a self-made man or woman. They're all heroes in their own right, who could have entire games with them as the protagonist. That's how bad ass they are. 

Why do a group of individually powerful, self-motivated warriors need to be 'inspired to fight harder'? Especially when the thing they need to fight so hard to do is NOT DIE, something they're all - I would propose - quite motivated to fight for anyway or else they'd all  be long dead. All these people need is a leader to direct their talents.

In theory the idea of 'loyalty' should tie into how likely they are to obey Shepherd's commands as opposed to doing what they think would be best in the situation, however that's not the case. They do what they're told to do anyway, but unless their individual loyalty mission is completed, they don't do it QUITE well enough and die as a result. Presumably because they're distracted?

Modifié par iamthedave3, 01 mars 2013 - 10:50 .

[David7204]

That's exactly what we're talking about. No, you see, any clown can write a video game story with a 'super-badass' self insert. Any clown can write a story with an 'avatar.' And believe it or not, that doesn't instantly make characters popular and emotionally compelling! Clearly, something else is at work here. Something you've decided to simply ignore. And something that applies just as equally in-universe as out of it.

Modifié par David7204, 01 mars 2013 - 10:47 .

[Dean_the_Young]

@Klarabela

There's also the borderline sycophantic tendency for almost all sympathetic characters to praise the player Shepard on how great/awesome the Commander is, and to be appropriately conciliatory and submissive to Shepard's will, while the single most common characteristic of Bad People is that they're rude to Shepard and disrespectful.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 01 mars 2013 - 10:44 .

[nos_astra]

David7204 wrote...
That's exactly what we're talking about. No, you see, any clown can write a video game story with a 'super-badass' self insert. Any clown can write a story with an 'avatar.' And believe it or not, that doesn't instantly make characters instantly popular and emotionally compelling! Clearly, something else is at work here. Something you've decided to simply ignore. And sometimes that applies just as equally in-universe as out of it.

The possibility of customization and the recognition of the avatar's every second step as noteworthy and special by the universe is what endears Shepard to the player..

Many players feel a comparable level of attachment to their main avatars in MMORPGs.

Modifié par klarabella, 01 mars 2013 - 10:53 .

[David7204]

Dean_the_Young wrote...


@Klarabela

There's also the borderline sycophantic tendency for almost all sympathetic characters to praise the player Shepard on how great/awesome the Commander is, and to be appropriately conciliatory and submissive to Shepard's will, while the single most common characteristic of Bad People is that they're rude to Shepard and disrespectful.

That is simply not true at all.

Yes, characters praise Shepard after completeing missions successfully, but it's not blind praise. Fail any loyalty mission in ME 2 and the character in question becomes bitter and resentful. Make a choice that a squadmate disagrees with, and they voice their concerns pretty often. There are dozens of instances through the series where squadmates confront Shepard over major or minor issues.

[David7204]

klarabella wrote...

David7204 wrote...
That's exactly what we're talking about. No, you see, any clown can write a video game story with a 'super-badass' self insert. Any clown can write a story with an 'avatar.' And believe it or not, that doesn't instantly make characters instantly popular and emotionally compelling! Clearly, something else is at work here. Something you've decided to simply ignore. And sometimes that applies just as equally in-universe as out of it.

It's the possibility of customization and the recognizing every second step as noteworthy and special that endears the player to Shepard.

Many players feel a comparable level of attachment to their main avatars in MMORPGs.

You're wrong.

The reason that both players and characters in-universe respect and love Shepard is incredibly simple.

S/he's a hero. That's all there is to it.

[nos_astra]

David7204 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...


@Klarabela

There's also the borderline sycophantic tendency for almost all sympathetic characters to praise the player Shepard on how great/awesome the Commander is, and to be appropriately conciliatory and submissive to Shepard's will, while the single most common characteristic of Bad People is that they're rude to Shepard and disrespectful.

That is simply not true at all.

Yes, characters praise Shepard after completeing missions successfully, but it's not blind praise. Fail any loyalty mission in ME 2 and the character in question becomes bitter and resentful. Make a choice that a squadmate disagrees with, and they voice their concerns pretty often. There are dozens of instances through the series where squadmates confront Shepard over major or minor issues.

It is blind praise. What you do and how you do it barely matters. Whatever bitterness there is, it never has any consequences because ultimately Shepard is right in whatever he does and the character is wrong for not realizing this.

Just have a look at the amount of hate the only two characters receive who are squadmates AND stand up to Shepard without folding right after being scolded.

Modifié par klarabella, 01 mars 2013 - 10:58 .

[Kondorr]

OP, objectively you are right... but this game is more than the systems you described... it's the emotions, the attachments you form while experiencing these games... it might not be perfect... but it damn sure is epic, touching and at its heights... absolutly mindblowing...

So is the game it self medicore... might be...
Is the overall package medicore... no sir!

RPGs have had always worse gameplay mechanics in favor of better story ...