236 réponses à ce sujet

[Kel Riever]

I really can't see disliking ME1 over ME3 from the point of view of the entire game. Now, I am not saying the OP is saying what I am about to, but I find blind faith stick tar in their eyes fanbois of ME3 try to come down on ME1 because they will literally say anything to defend ME3. It is not only damn silly, it is evident how hard they are shoving their heads in a place the sun doesn't shine, and is fairly unconvincing.

ME1 had issues, but most of the issues with the game are 20/20 hindsight issues. The issues at the time are on the boards for all to see and BioWare attempted to correct them, though they clearly failed in some areas, such as a way too stripped down skill tree in ME2 and replacing the Mako with the most boring thing in a video game in a long time...Planet scan...

However, there's a reason ME1 pretty much was as popular as it was. For any problems it had, it was awesome and launched the enterprise. I disagree with that it didn't seem to know where it was going, but even if I took that point of view, it didn't matter enough to diminish the overall feeling of the game. Pretty much, it shows why the problems of Mass Effect 3 aren't its production, despite all the complaints about it. ME3's bad camera angles, and various bugs would have been complaints, but not rift tearing ones, if it wasn't for that the player was left with the most atrocious attempt at an ending(s) for one of the most epic game trilogies of all times. Don't screw up your endings, because really, it is what people are going to remember. Worse, when you blow your endings, it isn't time to double down on stupid. Anyway, that's about ME3. Even if someone wants to argue how ME3 knew where it was going, if you know you are going to hell in a handbasket, it doesn't make it better...

Modifié par Kel Riever, 20 mai 2013 - 07:32 .

[Mathias]

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

Games are games.

It was still received well by other people, hence why I said your personal opinion isn't really all the relevant.

And yet Mass Effect 1 was a popular hit, and most people who played it really enjoyed the game. But how could that be if good gameplay is needed for the game to be good? Riddle me that.

And, yes, while Mass Effect might certainly be popular (at least as more of a cult classic), it is eclipsed in popularity by its sequels, who shifted increasingly towards better gameplay rather than a renowned story.

Games are games. And what defines a game? Its gameplay.

There are plenty of people out there who enjoyed Mass Effect 1 more than the other two. And don't even break out the nostalgia argument on that one. A lot of people couldn't stand a lot of the gameplay mechanics in Resident Evil, but it succeeded so well in other departments that it became one of most popular and successful franchises in gaming.

And there are just as many, if not more, who enjoyed the sequels more than ME.

Not sure about that, from most of the polls i've seen a lot of people prefer ME1 over ME3.

Secondly, it was some of the true "survival horror" gameplay elements that made RE so popular. It's innovative gameplay is what really hooked people.

And Mass Effect's innovative gameplay is what really hooked people as well. Even though the gameplay "wasn't good". 

Modifié par Mdoggy1214, 20 mai 2013 - 04:53 .

[andy6915]

Kel Riever wrote...

Now, I am not saying the OP is saying what I am about to

Glad you said that. Because the fact is, I absolutely have mentioned a fair number of ME3 flaws, and you should go look at some of my ending related posts before EC happened if you want to see how not much of a fanboy of ME3 I am (hell, I called ME3 worse then Dragon Age 2*). I could list quite a number of things ME3 totally bungled... But I still find it better then ME1.

*
http://social.biowar...ndex/11907956/1

My own post from that thread, made over a year ago before EC-

andy69156915 wrote...

Now by this point, both games have been out a while, enough for the games to sink in a bit and our likes and dislikes of the game to be pretty much settled in us,  and the intial "shock" to be gone, what game is worse?

I personally think ME3 is the bigger problem game. I actually still quite like DA2, I like the characters, Kirkwall, the new combat. It's not nearly as grand feeling as Origins, but it's still much more grand then Awakening was. Heck, I like DA2 more then Awakening by quite a large margin, even if it doesn't match Origins. Really, only the reused environments and the rather lackluster ending really bother me, and ME3's ending is even more lackluster then DA2's was (who knows, the EC ending might change that though). Besides, DA2 was just following 1 characters rise to fame and how they got swept up in really big problems, nothing too big at stake. Well, the mage civil war was a huge deal, but that only really got introduced in DA2, and the conclusion to that is awaiting the next game. But because it's more a personal story, it being a little lackluster didn't bug me much, it was never supposed to be a big epic adventure like its predecessor was. It was just a nice little lead-in to bigger events later. The hype was just "eh, it will be pretty good", so if it was disappointing it wouldn't sting too much. Bigger they are, harder they fall, and DA2 was never that big to begin with so it didn't have far to fall. It's hype, for me at least, wasn't high enough to destroy it.

ME3 though, was touted the be the "grand epic final of an amazing trilogy". I mean, it was IT. It was the final, supposed to be what everything was leading up to, the biggest and most in depth of the series. It was built up to be the Bioware game to end all Bioware games. It was to be the biggest, bestest, baddest, epicest, lethalist, saddest, happiest, maddest, everythingest game ever. Bioware hyped it to be such, the fans did, gaming "journalism" did, everyone was hyping it to be that. It was massive in hype. Well, again... bigger they are, harder they fall. If it didn't live up, it was going to hit the ground like a meteor the size of Alaska, and the fallout would be just as bad (metaphorically). Unlike DA2, its fall in the event of disappointment was going to be Earth shattering. And... It was exactly the opposite of its hype. It fell. The game was smaller then the previous games, less to do, less dialog, less importance of events, endings that were just "option R, B, G", less choice. It was almost the total opposite of what the hype claimed. It isn't a bad game by any means, but for what it was built up to, it being not as good as it was supposed to be made it sting like the game completely sucked. It was built up the be the alpha and omega, but it just ended up... Good. Frankly, it ending up like DA2 and being only good when it's all that was expected from it would have felt much less painful.

Bottom line, what game is better? I honestly don't know, both are pretty good. But what game fell short of what it was meant to be, was worse compared to its potential? ME3, no question. DA2 lived up to what I expected out of it far better then ME3 did.


So, what's everyone else's opinion on this?

Does ^that sound like a ME3 fanboy? Anyway, you did say that you wasn't saying I was being one... But I just wanted to make it clear to anyone else who might be getting the wrong idea about me.

Modifié par andy69156915, 20 mai 2013 - 05:33 .

[KaiserShep]

ME3 definitely has a bigger, more cinematic feel to the entire thing, which is oddly ironic, as ME1 probably had the most expansive environments and a lot more exploration involved. The same is pretty much true of ME2. Despite ME1's strengths, admittedly, I play ME3 more than the both of them combined.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 20 mai 2013 - 05:41 .

[CronoDragoon]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

I was saying you don't need to have good gameplay to be a good game, and then I brought up Walking Dead as an example.

I respectfully disagree. In order for me to without qualification call something a good game, it needs good gameplay. Otherwise the best I can say about it is that it has a good story.

Now, if you want to say that a game doesn't need good gameplay for people to like the game, then I'll obviously agree.

[Ledgend1221]

What's all this nonsense about not needing to have good gameplay?
That's the whole reason it's a game. It needs to have good gameplay.

Otherwise it's just an interactive movie.

I mean seriously?
The people who are defending the combat in ME1 are as bad as people who defend the Auto-dialouge in ME3.

[Mathias]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

I was saying you don't need to have good gameplay to be a good game, and then I brought up Walking Dead as an example.

I respectfully disagree. In order for me to without qualification call something a good game, it needs good gameplay. Otherwise the best I can say about it is that it has a good story.

Now, if you want to say that a game doesn't need good gameplay for people to like the game, then I'll obviously agree.

But that is basically what I said. What you're saying is that in your opinion, a game needs good gameplay for you to consider it a good game.

[Mathias]

Ledgend1221 wrote...

What's all this nonsense about not needing to have good gameplay?
That's the whole reason it's a game. It needs to have good gameplay.

Otherwise it's just an interactive movie.

So what? Last time I checked you can win or lose at an interactive movie. Go play Dragon's Lair and tell me that's not a game.

I mean seriously?
The people who are defending the combat in ME1 are as bad as people who defend the Auto-dialouge in ME3.

So the people who think the combat wasn't that bad in ME1, are as bad as the people who defend the absolute butchering of one of the most fundamental and defining elements of the franchise, in the finale of the trilogy?

[AresKeith]

Ledgend1221 wrote...

The people who are defending the combat in ME1 are as bad as people who defend the Auto-dialouge in ME3.

lol

[Iakus]

Ledgend1221 wrote...

What's all this nonsense about not needing to have good gameplay?
That's the whole reason it's a game. It needs to have good gameplay.

Otherwise it's just an interactive movie.

meh, Me3 felt mor elike an interactive movie than ME1 ever did.

But then, I consider autodialogue a gameplay feature...

[CronoDragoon]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

But that is basically what I said. What you're saying is that in your opinion, a game needs good gameplay for you to consider it a good game.

It's not the same thing. I can like something and enjoy it even if it's bad. 80's movies come to mind. When I like a game with bad gameplay I'm not going to say it's a good game. I'm going to say "the gameplay is crappy but I liked the story." One is explicitly subjective in a way the other is not.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 20 mai 2013 - 06:43 .

[CronoDragoon]

iakus wrote...

meh, Me3 felt mor elike an interactive movie than ME1 ever did.

True, and not just autodialogue but also the way that missions can feel more scripted due to set pieces.

[Kel Riever]

@andy69156915: Yah, you got my point. Like I said, I know you weren't being one. There are others, though, some who have already posted... Anyway, even though I disagree, I made sure to read your post pretty thoroughly.

[Mathias]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

But that is basically what I said. What you're saying is that in your opinion, a game needs good gameplay for you to consider it a good game.

It's not the same thing. I can like something and enjoy it even if it's bad. 80's movies come to mind. When I like a game with bad gameplay I'm not going to say it's a good game. I'm going to say "the gameplay is crappy but I liked the story." One is explicitly subjective in a way the other is not.

But what you just said is still entirely subjective. There are more elements that go into games these days than just gameplay. If a video game lacks in the gameplay department, but shines in the rest, that doesn't mean it's an overall bad game. 

Modifié par Mdoggy1214, 20 mai 2013 - 07:50 .

[Leonardo the Magnificent]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

Games are games.

It was still received well by other people, hence why I said your personal opinion isn't really all the relevant.

And yet Mass Effect 1 was a popular hit, and most people who played it really enjoyed the game. But how could that be if good gameplay is needed for the game to be good? Riddle me that.

And, yes, while Mass Effect might certainly be popular (at least as more of a cult classic), it is eclipsed in popularity by its sequels, who shifted increasingly towards better gameplay rather than a renowned story.

Games are games. And what defines a game? Its gameplay.

There are plenty of people out there who enjoyed Mass Effect 1 more than the other two. And don't even break out the nostalgia argument on that one. A lot of people couldn't stand a lot of the gameplay mechanics in Resident Evil, but it succeeded so well in other departments that it became one of most popular and successful franchises in gaming.

And there are just as many, if not more, who enjoyed the sequels more than ME.

Not sure about that, from most of the polls i've seen a lot of people prefer ME1 over ME3.

Secondly, it was some of the true "survival horror" gameplay elements that made RE so popular. It's innovative gameplay is what really hooked people.

And Mass Effect's innovative gameplay is what really hooked people as well. Even though the gameplay "wasn't good". 

No, it wasn't. People might appreciate ME's story, but they rarely appreciate its actual gameplay because, unlike RE, it didn't work well. RE had excellent gameplay for the time period, from the inventory, to the ammunition system, to the environment. ME's was subpar. ME might have an excellent story, but it isn't an excellent game, just as RE might be an excellent game, even if it doesn't have an excellent story. Gameplay is the defining element of an actualy game, whether you like it or not. That's why they're games, and at this point, we're just going around in circles.

[IntelligentME3Fanboy]

me1 is worse than Custers revenge

[Reorte]

ME1 needs the most polishing up to get it as good as it could possibly be but if all three games got that polishing (but were otherwise as they are now - i.e. same characters, same plot, same missions, just all of them being done as well as could be imagined) then it would unarguably be the best.

[CronoDragoon]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

But what you just said is still entirely subjective. There are more elements that go into games these days than just gameplay. If a video game lacks in the gameplay department, but shines in the rest, that doesn't mean it's an overall bad game. 

It's actually not entirely subjective, unless your just making an extreme relativist argument for the worthlessness of any type of analysis.

[Linkenski]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

I was saying you don't need to have good gameplay to be a good game, and then I brought up Walking Dead as an example.

I respectfully disagree. In order for me to without qualification call something a good game, it needs good gameplay. Otherwise the best I can say about it is that it has a good story.

Now, if you want to say that a game doesn't need good gameplay for people to like the game, then I'll obviously agree.

In the case of The Walking Dead i don't even think the gameplay is lacking. Gameplay can be any way for the player to interact with the game he's playing and in TWD you get to choose a lot of dialogue and ocasionally defend yourself from a timed zombie attack, but in my experience choosing dialogue when there is a timer on it, and when the choices are hard it made my adrenalin start going as much as when i'm being chased by cops in GTA for instance.

I know what most people refer to when they say gameplay, which is being in control over the "action" rather than having a little control in a more directed experience, but really it can be a lot of things.

Lately more devs have begun using the term "experience" a lot, and while it's a vague way to describe what they are making it can also be a good way, because it's really what anyone is looking for when they're playing a video game. You want entertainment and you don't just want to watch something that's entertaining, you want to be in it. Naturally the less interactive a game feels the less it entertains usually.

That's also one reason why many disliked the autodialogue in ME3, and why people prefer scanning copy-paste-ish planet surfaces in a Mako rather than scanning a planet with a GUI interface. One is more interactive and gives more freedom than the other.

But to return to what i was saying about TWD, i think to some people it's enough to have control over what happens in the story, and while choice in video games are all illusions in the end it often works for players when they are in the moment. I think The Walking Dead is great and i consider it to have great gameplay as well.

Modifié par Linkenski, 20 mai 2013 - 09:53 .

[Aaleel]

I've never really had a problem with the combat in ME1. The game in general ran like crap on the Xbox when it first came, but I still never thought it was bad gameplay. Then once I moved it to PC, got smooth gameplay, mapped stuff to hotkeys I didn't really have any problems with the gameplay at all.

But even if I thought the combat was trash, it wouldn't stop me from finding something a good game especially an RPG. Story is most important in that regard, if I don't care about the story of the characters, why reason do I have to finish let alone replay an RPG. If I cared about combat first and foremost I would just start up an action game.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

iakus wrote...

Ledgend1221 wrote...

What's all this nonsense about not needing to have good gameplay?
That's the whole reason it's a game. It needs to have good gameplay.

Otherwise it's just an interactive movie.

meh, Me3 felt mor elike an interactive movie than ME1 ever did.

But then, I consider autodialogue a gameplay feature...

TW2 had more autodialogue. It was done better. It wasn't the "push the button"  type we had. It was the "make the choice" and listen for five minutes and enjoy some popcorn. What I hated though was just when you had your hand full you had to make another choice.

[Bleachrude]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

iakus wrote...

Ledgend1221 wrote...

What's all this nonsense about not needing to have good gameplay?
That's the whole reason it's a game. It needs to have good gameplay.

Otherwise it's just an interactive movie.

meh, Me3 felt mor elike an interactive movie than ME1 ever did.

But then, I consider autodialogue a gameplay feature...

TW2 had more autodialogue. It was done better. It wasn't the "push the button"  type we had. It was the "make the choice" and listen for five minutes and enjoy some popcorn. What I hated though was just when you had your hand full you had to make another choice.

Hmm...so does this mean that it works for the various "pick a side" conversations which were auto-dialogue...

[Slayer299]

[quote]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?
[/quote]

"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. [\\quote]

I'm not the one who made the comment about nostalgia and rose-tinted glasses, you did and its still broad-sweeping and arrogant. 

[quote]
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. [/quote]

And its not like DAO was a totally diff't game from ME now was it? DAO wasn't trying to be a TPS and an RPG. I never said any game would be perfect, just your example was between an older more traditional RPG and a RPG/TPS hybrid, the two are apples and oranges.

[quote]
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. [/quote]

What, ME3 couldn't be a fail and not because of serious flaws in it outside of the ending? Wrong. I'm not going to go into the list of problems with it, but I stated that *I* found it to suck eggs, I've stated my grievances elsewhere and I'm not in the mood to re-list them for you or debate them because you obviously are quite happy with it as is. 

[quote]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.[/quote]

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=].
[/quote]

Yeah, I did read the OP, but not 7 pages down to see every reply you made. 

edit - annoying formatting

Modifié par Slayer299, 21 mai 2013 - 12:07 .

[Mathias]

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

Games are games.

It was still received well by other people, hence why I said your personal opinion isn't really all the relevant.

And yet Mass Effect 1 was a popular hit, and most people who played it really enjoyed the game. But how could that be if good gameplay is needed for the game to be good? Riddle me that.

And, yes, while Mass Effect might certainly be popular (at least as more of a cult classic), it is eclipsed in popularity by its sequels, who shifted increasingly towards better gameplay rather than a renowned story.

Games are games. And what defines a game? Its gameplay.

There are plenty of people out there who enjoyed Mass Effect 1 more than the other two. And don't even break out the nostalgia argument on that one. A lot of people couldn't stand a lot of the gameplay mechanics in Resident Evil, but it succeeded so well in other departments that it became one of most popular and successful franchises in gaming.

And there are just as many, if not more, who enjoyed the sequels more than ME.

Not sure about that, from most of the polls i've seen a lot of people prefer ME1 over ME3.

Secondly, it was some of the true "survival horror" gameplay elements that made RE so popular. It's innovative gameplay is what really hooked people.

And Mass Effect's innovative gameplay is what really hooked people as well. Even though the gameplay "wasn't good". 

No, it wasn't. People might appreciate ME's story, but they rarely appreciate its actual gameplay because, unlike RE, it didn't work well. RE had excellent gameplay for the time period, from the inventory, to the ammunition system, to the environment. ME's was subpar. ME might have an excellent story, but it isn't an excellent game, just as RE might be an excellent game, even if it doesn't have an excellent story. Gameplay is the defining element of an actualy game, whether you like it or not. That's why they're games, and at this point, we're just going around in circles.

We're going around in circles because you don't want to admit that this is just your opinion. You say it isn't excellent, well I think Mass Effect is an excellent game,  and so do a lot of other people. You say a game can't be good if it doesn't have good gameplay. Well then how is that a game like Mass Effect 1, can get a 91/100 from 74 critics, and a 8.7 user score, if the game isn't good?

Modifié par Mdoggy1214, 21 mai 2013 - 12:21 .

[Tron Mega]

the walking dead by telltale was one of the most memorable and enjoyable games ive ever played.

also had one of the worst gameplay in a game that ive played.

what does that make the walking dead then???