236 réponses à ce sujet

[Bleachrude]

I'm not sure TWD _IS_ a game....

As weird as it sounds...to me it felt more akin to the japanese visual novels and I'm not sure I would ever classify those as a game.....

[dreamgazer]

Bleachrude wrote...

I'm not sure TWD _IS_ a game....

As weird as it sounds...to me it felt more akin to the japanese visual novels and I'm not sure I would ever classify those as a game.....

Meh, they remind me more of Sierra's point-and-click adventures.

"Interactive adventure" probably fits those better, but only if we're splitting hairs about mediums.

[FlamingBoy]

dreamgazer wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

 Especially Walking Dead and that game won lots of GOTY awards.

So did Mass Effect 3. 

:innocent:

Yeah, but it didn't "rake" those awards in like me2 did (at least thats how I remember it, it been a while )

[GraphicOps]

Hello, I very rarely post until I catch one that is a interesting thread.

I love Mass Effect 1! This has nothing to do with Gameplay and everything to do with story and who my Shepard was.

I'll admit now that their were plenty of times I got pissed off at certain gameplay mechanics that cost me to restart certain parts, but I loved the freedom of the game. I loved that I could make some BA combinations of mods (A much greater majority than ME3 or 2) with weapons and armor. Or that their were tons of side missions compared to 2 and 3. That there was a mission in every Solar System in the game.

Me 2 and 3 can't compare to that. Mass Effect is like and loved because it had life! There is something called Variety and Mass Effect had tons of it. You can still find tiny secrets some interactions you might not of gotten the first time you played.

If you visit the Citadel after every main story mission or after certain side missions new missions open up. Mass Effect 2 was Linear and Mass Effect 3 was Linear and I base an ending on whether it has the emotional capacity to make me shed a tear.

When I thought Shepard was dead when I played the first one I almost cried and had they killed him and ended it there it would of been great still, would've been sad. But he would of been a Hero.

Btw, this is why your choices from any of the game's did not have much impact. In order for the game to have that much choice (they wrote themselves into a wall) they would have had to create drastically different story arcs in the game and instead of taking a few years it would've taken almost 5 to 7. We would of had Mass Effect 2 probably when Mass Effect 3 came out if they would've done it right.

In my opinion they went the wrong way and tampered with the "magic" and freedom of the world they created.

Gameplay is important, but for Mass Effect if the story in 1 wasn't good and didn't have that emotional draw and choice to it, it would not have hooked anyone and would've been mostly disregarded. Gameplay doesn't always involve the Combat, lots of games have interesting gameplay and are amazing! Like Heavy Rain.

In Mass Effect the Story is part of the gameplay, at least in one. Everything after was catering to Shooters.

Modifié par GraphicOps, 20 mai 2013 - 02:51 .

[Slayer299]

Sorry OP, but you're just totally wrong about ME1. Sure, the combat was a bit iffy at times and a few others, but the RPG elements were good, as well as the story. It did have the problem of trying to be both a RPG and a TPS to it, so one would suffer because of it. But ME1 overcame those flaws with the story, the exploration, atmosphere and the 70's-ish music that drove it. Sure, it had its flaws, but those were completely overlookable because of the rest of the game.

I have to say I *HATE* people who state that people who like ME1 is due to 'nostalgia' and 'rose-tinted glasses', since they are such broadly arrogant statements to make. Has it occurred to you that some people may indeed actually be *playing and enjoying* ME1 presently? Or that you can see the flaws but the rest of the game is so good you can enjoy the game still w/o having rose-tinted glasses?

DAO is a ridiculous choice to use, it was a great game, but it also had about seven (7) years of development time to it and it still suffered from some definite flaws to it.

As to BW's reasoning to focus on combat I can see that as a way to pull in more casuals who might not be as interested in the RPG elements (although ME2 did pull it off overall, minus the horrific skill system). ME3 completely failed in the story/RPG elements but succeeded in the combat improving.

So (to me) ME3 sucked eggs story/RPG wise, but managed to 'improve' the combat, and that is not a good way to keep your players into your game.

[dreamgazer]

FlamingBoy wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

 Especially Walking Dead and that game won lots of GOTY awards.

So did Mass Effect 3. 

:innocent:

Yeah, but it didn't "rake" those awards in like me2 did (at least thats how I remember it, it been a while )

ME3 did pretty well. Not that it really matters either way. 

Modifié par dreamgazer, 20 mai 2013 - 02:55 .

[FlamingBoy]

andy69156915 wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

Me1 was a unique game, its essentially an rpg with shooter elements (think about that classification, there is no other game with that sort of game play).

Yeah there is, I mentioned 2 such games in my first post. Valkyria Chronicles and Resonance of Fate are both of the classification, VC more so then the other. Watch some gameplay vids-



http://www.youtube.c...h?v=DY_wuHcn3YI

quote from first post-

"Or like Valkyria Chronicles gameplay set in the ME universe, except characters wouldn't die if left untreated and the movement stamina was removed. Or like Resonance of Fate with less insane anime acrobatics and gun-fu. I assume those because DA:O is a Bioware game and Bioware likesto use similar gameplay styles if they can help it, and the other 2 are RPGs where everyone uses guns and are clearly RPGs with shooter elements instead of the other way around."

EDIT: Switched second video, didn't like it, switched back.

You actually right, totally forgot about valkeria, but as I recall its a turn base game, so its not really the same uniqueness as me1
I am not familiar with the other one

So I stand by the original statment of me1 being "one of a kind"

[FlamingBoy]

dreamgazer wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

 Especially Walking Dead and that game won lots of GOTY awards.

So did Mass Effect 3. 

:innocent:

Yeah, but it didn't "rake" those awards in like me2 did (at least thats how I remember it, it been a while )

ME3 did pretty well. Not that it really matter either way. 

Yeah they did alright, and like you said it does not matter. Only how we shape the future will

[Sajuro]

KingZayd wrote...

ME1's only problem was its combat.

Also that Shepard had no choice but to derp hard if you ever wanted to talk to Wrex
the ending was the worst (oh you made a renegade choice at one point in the game? then you must have wanted the entire council dead and humans to reign supreme, heil humanity!) of the trilogy in my opinion, at least after the EC.
Renegade, Paragon, and Neutral were the same dialogue paths except for one or two lines (between 'Thank you for noticing', none, and 'I am offended by that')  of difference.

[Kungfu Nando]

I think the funny thing about mass effect one, two and three is how they each cancel others weaknesses and strengths. ME3 needed ME1/2s conversation systems. ME1 needed ME3 much better gameplay. ME2 needed ME3s customizing of weapons and armor, while it needed ME1/3s skill customization. I always said that if ME3 gave us basically mass effect 2 (story and exploration but not mining) with it's combat and upgrades it would have been near perfect. I also think both games could have stuck to ME1s "hard science" approach and immersion. I liked the decontamination, helmets and hard suits etc.A lack of a central villain hurts both sequels as well as saren help drive the story, harbinger was to impersonal but understandably so and kai leng/ TIM was not focus or intimidating enough.

[IMNOTCRAZYiminsane]

I didn't really like ME1 at all

ME3>ME2>ME1

Shoot me I don't care but besides the story ME1 was just annoying Story is one thing but gameplay is another unlike some people I DO care about gameplay and if it's terrible I'm going to dislike the game while some people can do multiple trilogy playthroughs i have a problem with that and since I just got ME1 (ps3) the bugs are horrible

After playing ME1 twice couldn't even think of ME single player anymore

[ref]

IMNOTCRAZYiminsane wrote...

I didn't really like ME1 at all

ME3>ME2>ME1

Shoot me I don't care but besides the story ME1 was just annoying Story is one thing but gameplay is another unlike some people I DO care about gameplay and if it's terrible I'm going to dislike the game while some people can do multiple trilogy playthroughs i have a problem with that and since I just got ME1 (ps3) the bugs are horrible

After playing ME1 twice couldn't even think of ME single player anymore

I don't mean to sound rude here, but by the sounds of it you didn't play ME1 first before ME2/3. So it doesn't suprise me you don't like the gameplay.

Out of curiosity, did you like DA2 and it's combat compared to Origins?

I don't know about anyone else, but an incredible story can get me through bad gameplay. (For the record, I didn't think ME1's combat was bad at all).

Modifié par Refara, 20 mai 2013 - 05:59 .

[Excella Gionne]

Inventory and gameplay were disappointing for anyone who played it the first time. My first time playing it on the PS3 made me not want to play ME at all. But you know, once you get the hang of everything it's not that bad. But yes, it does lack in variety and I think it was best that Bioware changed the Weapon overheat system to thermal clips. But I love ME though, the costumes had variety and I didn't know Wrex's costume: Mercenary X was even in ME1. After that, I made him wear it forever. But getting back to the point, it really lacked gameplay variety. You can just run & gun and that's what I do all of the time. And due to how lame the gameplay was, I nearly died many times on Casaul the first time around. Medi-Gel took way too damn long to cool-down. I'm glad ME3 took off cool-down for Unity. But ME2's upgraded Unity(Despite the cool-down)was the best Unity. Oh, and I forgot. SNIPER RIFLES suck a lot in ME1. There was no point in using it.

[Kataphrut94]

I would argue that Mass Effect 1 was the most concise of the games in terms of pure story. While there were a few superfluous elements (I would argue that Feros and Noveria were just unnecessary padding), the main plot of Saren, Sovereign & the Conduit was fairly straight-forward.

Mass Effect 2 was really the point where things became too divergent; it took background premises like Cerberus, the genophage & the quarians and brought them into the forefront, putting the ongoing Reaper plot mostly on standby. Arguably those elements were more interesting than the fairly mediocre 'humanity first' plot ME1 had going, but so little of it worked outside of that little bubble.

The fact that ME3 was able to provide closure for such superfluous characters as Jack, Thane, Miranda & Grunt in the context of ME1's established story speaks well of it, but you can't deny the game struggled in doing the work of two games. This is also why the Tuchanka & Rannoch arcs were so good; they had a consistent impact throughout all 3 games and characters that tied in logically to them.

[andy6915]

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

IntelligentME3Fanboy wrote...

ME1 SUCKS! I couldn't care less about role playing

Bah, go away, troll! We were having a relatively civilized discussion about our plebeian opinions on the nature of games before you arrived.

I agree. I already told the guy off earlier myself, and I'm the guy who made this thread which exists to put ME1 down. Like I said to him, "there's reasoned opinions and there's going overboard and you just went overboard". Guy needs to call it back a bit... Well, not a bit, more like a lot.

[andy6915]

Slayer299 wrote...

I have to say I *HATE* people who state that people who like ME1 is due to 'nostalgia' and 'rose-tinted glasses', since they are such broadly arrogant statements to make. Has it occurred to you that some people may indeed actually be *playing and enjoying* ME1 presently? Or that you can see the flaws but the rest of the game is so good you can enjoy the game still w/o having rose-tinted glasses?

"Has it occurred to you that some people may indeed actually be *playing and enjoying* ME1 presently?"

Considering I am doing exactly that as I type this... Yeah, I think that occured to me. If you had read the thread, you would know that I'm doing a ME1 playthrough right now. That is actually why I made this thread, I finally put my finger on the precise thing ME1 did wrong compared to the others thanks to playing it again. It's the people that call it stuff like "the best game ever" "flawless" "the RPG elements are amazing, look at Noveria as the only real example of that" that I call nostalgia.

Slayer299 wrote...
DAO is a ridiculous choice to use, it was a great game, but it also had about seven (7) years of development time to it and it still suffered from some definite flaws to it.

Of course it had flaws, no game on the entire planet, in the history of gaming, has been flawless. Not one. Amd I doubt a flawless game will ever be made. But the RPG elements are in a different league compared to any ME game, without exception.

Slayer299 wrote...
As to BW's reasoning to focus on combat I can see that as a way to pull in more casuals who might not be as interested in the RPG elements (although ME2 did pull it off overall, minus the horrific skill system). ME3 completely failed in the story/RPG elements but succeeded in the combat improving.

So (to me) ME3 sucked eggs story/RPG wise, but managed to 'improve' the combat, and that is not a good way to keep your players into your game.

ME3 failed? Really? Other then auto dialogue and a terrible ending, tell me where ME3 truly failed at its story elements? You know, besides minor flaws, because I could give you an typhoon of ME1 minor story flaws if you want to go down that road. As for RPG elements... I would argue ME3 actually did that better by not trying to stretch itself too thin like ME1 did. Level ups actually matter for one thing, not just "throw force upgraded from 1050 newtons to 1100 newtons" or "assault rifles are 3% more accurate and damaging now", so you have much more choice in how you set your character up.

Kataphrut94 wrote...

I would argue that Mass Effect 1 was the most concise of the games in terms of pure story. While there were a few superfluous elements (I would argue that Feros and Noveria were just unnecessary padding), the main plot of Saren, Sovereign & the Conduit was fairly straight-forward.

Mass Effect 2 was really the point where things became too divergent; it took background premises like Cerberus, the genophage & the quarians and brought them into the forefront, putting the ongoing Reaper plot mostly on standby. Arguably those elements were more interesting than the fairly mediocre 'humanity first' plot ME1 had going, but so little of it worked outside of that little bubble.

The fact that ME3 was able to provide closure for such superfluous characters as Jack, Thane, Miranda & Grunt in the context of ME1's established story speaks well of it, but you can't deny the game struggled in doing the work of two games. This is also why the Tuchanka & Rannoch arcs were so good; they had a consistent impact throughout all 3 games and characters that tied in logically to them.

I can't and don't deny it. I said earlier in this very thread that I would have greatly preferred if ME3 had actually carried over choices in a meaningful way, and not some bull about clones Rachni queens and stuff.

I agree about ME1's padding, and how ME2 put the plot on standby. I even mentioned the ME2 plot problem myself earlier... It's feeling like some people seriously haven't read all my posts in this thread=].

Modifié par andy69156915, 20 mai 2013 - 08:21 .

[ShinAnubisXIII]

So tell me something. If ME1 is so utterly, terribly, disgustingly, impersonation of Satan(ily) bad to a decree where the game becomes 'a chore' and 'torture' to play, -and everyone who disagrees with it, is a rose-tinted glass wearing fanboy- why are you even talking about it 6 years after release? Might as well put it into the darkest corner of the shelf and totally forget about it, eh? Go and build a shrine for the so superiour ME2/3 gameplay and pray to the shooter gods each day, jeez. Hyperbole at it's best sometimes

[andy6915]

Shin-Anubis wrote...

So tell me something. If ME1 is so utterly, terribly, disgustingly, impersonation of Satan(ily) bad to a decree where the game becomes 'a chore' and 'torture' to play, -and everyone who disagrees with it, is a rose-tinted glass wearing fanboy- why are you even talking about it 6 years after release? Might as well put it into the darkest corner of the shelf and totally forget about it, eh? Go and build a shrine for the so superiour ME2/3 gameplay and pray to the shooter gods each day, jeez. Hyperbole at it's best sometimes

If that was to me... I haven't said anything like that, or even alluded to that. At all. In any way. Period.

[Little Princess Peach]

I did not like the combat system in me1, if you go back to me1 after playing 2 and 3 it's hard to control

[EphemeralOne]

I absolutely adored ME1 when it was first out. Actually watching someone else play it made me go out and buy an Xbox 360 console and the game. It was vastly different to anything I had ever played before, and having your avatar actually have full-dialogue while maintaining the morality-based storytelling that Bioware is so famous for made me fall in love with the universe.

It certainly helped that Bioware created a complex and intriguing universe in which to dump us, and expanded it out without getting to drawn into the techno-babble that often plagues the sci-fi genre.

The storytelling of the first was spectacular and the level of interaction with your squadmates was comparable to KOTOR and Jade Empire, but with better combat mechanics. All in all the game was breathtaking and quite groundbreaking for its time.

The problem is in trying to compare the second and third games to the first. I wholeheartedly agree that the combat mechanics in ME2 and ME3 are vastly superior to ME1. Ultimately it is the advantage of trial and error.

Personally I hated with a fiery passion the different types of equipment and armour and mods. Hated! I found it to be a bore not worth the time, and then there was the dreaded full inventory to deal with. Was very pleased they did away with that. Yes, as a result of that we lost quite a bit of customisation, but overall it streamlined gameplay by compromising on mild modifications to a select range of pieces. Honestly I think ME3 did this the best. Gave us range without burying us in options by having to sift through specifications.

Also hated the Mako and the planet exploration. Hours wasted sitting and driving around planets was not enjoyable to me. Particularly when controlling a vehicle like the Mako. I don't know how many times I slogged away trying to drive up 90 degree cliff faces only to be rewarded with a crappy mod. It wasn't enjoyable at all, and I think it makes more sense to use the scanning/probe option.

Shepard and ground team is really not required to go hunting for mineral deposits on the ground. Not with the technology that they have available to them. Again, I think this was a smart move on Bioware's part.

The interrupts in ME2 were again groundbreaking and a welcome addition and evolution of the morality genre. How many people have gotten perverse pleasure out of punching Ms al-Jilani for her "disingenuous assertions" mid way through her questioning, instead of letting her finish it? Much more realistic and very rewarding as a gamer. Or opening a new orifice in Kai Leng's abdominal wall? Very rewarding.

Now, all that being said, I don't think it's really fair to compare all three games. ME3 had the advantage of mass trial and error and huge amounts of feedback compared to ME1 which was released in, what, 2007/8? Technology has advanced and trying to compare ME1 to ME3 now isn't going to give you a good idea of exactly how amazing ME1 was when it was first released. Hence all the awards and the massive fanbase.

That said, I really struggle now, after being spoiled with the combat mechanics of ME2 and ME3, to play through ME1.

Modifié par EphemeralOne, 20 mai 2013 - 09:54 .

[voteDC]

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...


Some people on here are wearing some very rose tinted glasses when it comes to ME1&2. Just ignore them. They're often wrong anyway.

While that may be true for some, it is not in my case. Or at least I hope not.

I'm playing Mass Effect 1 now, just finished Feros and picked Kaidan as my love interest during the confrontation.

For me Mass Effect 1 is the best of the series. There isn't anything in it that I don't like. Now that isn't me saying there isn't anything that needed to be improved, just that I like everything there.

An example would be the dice roll in the combat. I loved that stats played as big a part as my ability to place a cross-hair, it gave me a real sense of progression that I never got from Mass Effect 2 and 3.

Yet I would have liked, for example, to have seen where you were shooting on an enemy taken into account with the dice-roll. Head shots give more damage but carry a greater risk of a miss.

The inventory needed Dragon Aging so that identical items were listed together (Cryo-Round III x2), instead of individually. Yet it never annoyed me to the lengths it seems to have done to others, I confess to being an inventory diver. I can spend ages comparing items, sorting through them and trying different combinations on Shepard and my squad.

Some people like myself do genuinely prefer how the first game did things. Other prefer the changes of the second and third.

EphemeralOne wrote...

Also hated the Mako and the planet exploration. Hours wasted sitting and driving around planets was not enjoyable to me. Particularly when controlling a vehicle like the Mako. I don't know how many times I slogged away trying to drive up 90 degree cliff faces only to be rewarded with a crappy mod. It wasn't enjoyable at all, and I think it makes more sense to use the scanning/probe option.

Shepard and ground team is really not required to go hunting for mineral deposits on the ground. Not with the technology that they have available to them. Again, I think this was a smart move on Bioware's part. 

I loved the Mako. It added a real sense of size to the universe. Yet nothing you did in those sections was mandatory, you could head straight to the objective and bypass all the collectables if you wanted. These days when playing I only stop for a collectable or mineral if it is directly on my way to the objective, I still end up with more than enough to get bonuses and war assets in the follow-ups.

I think a big issue many have with the Mako was not making use of the map to plan a route, instead they just headed in a straight line.

The probing system was just dull but at least it had a point in ME2. I kind of wondered why they kept the scanning mechanic in ME3 since they told you exactly where to go.

EphemeralOne wrote...The interrupts in ME2 were again groundbreaking and a welcome addition and evolution of the morality genre. How many people have gotten perverse pleasure out of punching Ms al-Jilani for her "disingenuous assertions" mid way through her questioning, instead of letting her finish it? Much more realistic and very rewarding as a gamer. Or opening a new orifice in Kai Leng's abdominal wall? Very rewarding.

The interrupts were one of the few changes I liked. It added real tension to the conversations the first time you played. Do you hit the interrupt or wait to see if there is a better option further along the conversation.

Modifié par voteDC, 20 mai 2013 - 01:49 .

[Linkenski]

Yes ME1 was unfocused and the two main missions Feros and Noveira isn't everyone's cup of tea, but i think it's the impression you are left with when you leave an experience that determines how you percieve its quality. In the case of ME1 the narrative, art, music and everything really, in the final parts are so good that by the time the credits roll all i could think was: "This is one of the best games i've ever played!"
Sometimes just being in a world that makes you immersed is enough, even if the pacing isn't as steadt everywhere in the game. That's how I see it.

[Raging_Pulse]

Linkenski wrote...

Yes ME1 was unfocused and the two main missions Feros and Noveira isn't everyone's cup of tea, but i think it's the impression you are left with when you leave an experience that determines how you percieve its quality. In the case of ME1 the narrative, art, music and everything really, in the final parts are so good that by the time the credits roll all i could think was: "This is one of the best games i've ever played!"
Sometimes just being in a world that makes you immersed is enough, even if the pacing isn't as steadt everywhere in the game. That's how I see it.

^ So much this.

[KaiserShep]

I only started playing Mass Effect from the beginning in March, and having vanilla Mass Effect 3 be my first sampling of the series at all, it was kind of jarring to go to the more rigid gameplay. That aside, all the information and lore in the game kept me hooked. It didn't matter if the pacing was slow, and even slower if you did every side mission (which I did). It was still pretty entertaining to me.

Mass Effect 1 also had the most sensible galaxy map. It always struck me as a bit weird how you're now manipulating a tiny ship on the map, whereas ME1 had you pointing and selecting locations via the map console in the CIC.

Anyway, as corny as some things were in the first game, the turning points were so good, and the narrative was so solid, that if it were granted some of the mechanics of the 2nd and 3rd game, and the sharper dialogue of ME2, it would be a pretty good contender for one of the most perfect games I've ever played. 

Modifié par KaiserShep, 20 mai 2013 - 04:20 .

[Zekka]

Most of mass effect 1's problems were technical because bioware didn't know how to do proper shooter combat and it was also their first time making an xbox360 game using unreal engine 3.

When I think about it mass effect 1 is one of those games in need of a remake. I thought bioware were going to remake it since the ps3 version and trilogy pack were coming out.