And no one can really take proffesional site such as ign and gamespot seriously. There is too much politics involved. between those sites and major publishers111987 wrote...
ME3 has over, what was the number, 75 perfect reviews?
CronoDragoon wrote...
erezike wrote...
What does it means really?
Me 2 has nothing to be ashamed off. top user scores of 2010...
loved by most.
It means that people are willing to overlook ME2's flaws because they love the game for other reasons. ME3 does not get this courtesy, probably because the ending left a bitter taste in people's mouths.
Guest_LineHolder_*
KaiserShep wrote...
ME2 emphasizes so much on the character aspect that people are less inclined to care about the overall plot as much. The story could have been about anything, and it still would've been great because the best part of Mass Effect has always been the smaller stories and character development. This is something that I hope BioWare brings back for another Mass Effect game. We don't need some big bad that threatens the entire galaxy. Having strong characters and interesting, smaller scale stories to revolve around the main conflict is all that's really needed to be a perfectly satisfying game.
As I've said in the past, people are more than willing to forgive quite a lot of flaws, if the game delivers things that satisfy players in other respects.
erezike wrote...
The difference is in the number of flaws.
Me 2 had little flaws while me3 has major flaws.
everyone has flaws that the difference between a good rating to a bad one.
Are they big and numerous or are they small and few
So what are we really argueing on here
Modifié par CronoDragoon, 26 juin 2013 - 04:16 .
CronoDragoon wrote...
erezike wrote...
The difference is in the number of flaws.
Me 2 had little flaws while me3 has major flaws.
everyone has flaws that the difference between a good rating to a bad one.
Are they big and numerous or are they small and few
So what are we really argueing on here
Mass Effect 3 does not have numerous flaws, or at least, many of these flaws are "little flaws." The immediate reaction to ME3 was telling on these boards; you literally could not count the number of posts that declared the game was incredible except for the ending. The ending is the one big flaw, and because of it all these other little flaws became big flaws.
erezike wrote...
The difference is in the number of flaws.
Me 2 had little flaws while me3 has major flaws.
everyone has flaws that the difference between a good rating to a bad one.
Are they big and numerous or are they small and few
erezike wrote...
First the VS were never too smart to begin with on me1. ashley was always too suspicios and kaiden was always too much of a goody goody wrex was the brain in me1. the VS heard the rumors of shepard coming back from the dead and working for the terrorist organization . how could they know its even shepard. the same face yes, but they dont know anything more than that. and now shepard shows just up when the collectors attack right after they almost got killed. they were shaken, their behaviour is understandable. it show they are human beings.
Going through the omega 4 relay means taking risks, installing the reaper tech was the only way. edi was made part reaper tech and has already proven itf value, it was a risky game but sometimes you cant play it safe. you have to take risks. the timing for leaving the ship was problematic. my best guess is that they assumed this process to be of very low risk and were proven wrong. shepard wanted to make as much as possibile in due time and decided to go off ship in order to complete another mission. it could also be the case that testing iff needed the normandy not to be in ftl speed which would further slow down shepard progress
.
Harby wanted shepard, becauase shepard was uniqe. this is why he didnt simply destroy the normandy, he expected to find shepard on the normandy. harbinger couldnt know that the normandy would be able to overcome the collectors hacking. he underestimated edi's capabilities.
I accept tim arguements, it was an obvious trap but maybe not to all players which is why it gives shep the chance to be mad about it.
Tim later talk strategy with you, because peraphes now after you have managed to overcome their computers you can also encrypt your transsmisions in a realiable manner. And peraphes it is a risk he is willing to take. earlier it wouldnt have benefited him for shepard to know about the collectors. he could have only lose an advantage for informing shepard of the trap. now he has to inform shepard of his plans in order to advance their fight against the collectors. its not ideal but it all he has.
Harbinger allows Edi acess, in order to have easier hacking into the normandy and take control from it. if he wouldnt have enabled the connection he would a much harder time doing so.
The reapers were gathering information the species, they were building their prototype in secret and preparing for their assault on the galaxy. the collectors premature harvesting was part of this plan.
It could have played a better role if mass effect 3 had a better following plot which is easily done.
But drew left for start wars and his plots were neglected in favor for macs movie.
CaptainZaysh wrote...
Bourne Endeavor wrote...
Why it is objectivity is because the basis for my criticism is not emotion, but through the use of literacy tools at our disposal.
That's absurd, pompous and narcissistic. Also, "literacy" doesn't mean what you think it means.
Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 26 juin 2013 - 04:34 .
erezike wrote...
You dont need other people to tell you how many flaws there are in mass effect 3.
Just look for yourself, and read through this thread. they are numerous and enormous;
KaiserShep wrote...
Bourne Endeavor wrote...
LineHolder wrote...
The ME2 bashing on this forum seems to have two reasons, to me, anyway.
The anti-enders want to seem reasonable and avoid looking obstinate.
The pro-enders want to point out the deficiencies in ME2 to absolve ME3 of all accusations of bad writing.
While I can't deny that, as evident of what I just wrote above. I will say I love ME2 for what it is; a character-centric and episodic story based on their individual problems, which are far more interesting. My reason for criticising it is not to appear less obstinate, but to avoid bias.
ME2 emphasizes so much on the character aspect that people are less inclined to care about the overall plot as much. The story could have been about anything, and it still would've been great because the best part of Mass Effect has always been the smaller stories and character development. This is something that I hope BioWare brings back for another Mass Effect game. We don't need some big bad that threatens the entire galaxy. Having strong characters and interesting, smaller scale stories to revolve around the main conflict is all that's really needed to be a perfectly satisfying game.
As I've said in the past, people are more than willing to forgive quite a lot of flaws, if the game delivers things that satisfy players in other respects. The plot can be riddled with holes and some things might not make sense, but if the players can get attached to the characters, care about their story, and like the ending, they tend to let things slide. If Mass Effect 3 actually had a satisfying ending, it would be the same story. We'd still have everyone bellyaching over the plot holes and betrayal of characterization blah blah blah, but it would still be forgiven by a lot of people for the same reason many, including myself, forgive it in the other two games.
Modifié par Armass81, 26 juin 2013 - 04:41 .
dreamgazer wrote...
erezike wrote...
The difference is in the number of flaws.
Me 2 had little flaws while me3 has major flaws.
everyone has flaws that the difference between a good rating to a bad one.
Are they big and numerous or are they small and few
Tell that to this writer. He has an entire series of articles on ME2's problems, taking on concepts and characters.
dreamgazer wrote...
erezike wrote...
The difference is in the number of flaws.
Me 2 had little flaws while me3 has major flaws.
everyone has flaws that the difference between a good rating to a bad one.
Are they big and numerous or are they small and few
Tell that to this writer. He has an entire series of articles on ME2's problems, taking on concepts and characters.
dreamgazer wrote...
erezike wrote...
The difference is in the number of flaws.
Me 2 had little flaws while me3 has major flaws.
everyone has flaws that the difference between a good rating to a bad one.
Are they big and numerous or are they small and few
Tell that to this writer. He has an entire series of articles on ME2's problems, taking on concepts and characters.
Bourne Endeavor wrote...
And I have little doubt had the ending been good, we would let much of this go.
CronoDragoon wrote...
erezike wrote...
You dont need other people to tell you how many flaws there are in mass effect 3.
Just look for yourself, and read through this thread. they are numerous and enormous;
How many threads on this board have you seen about the Normandy evac scene? A lot, right? You would think it's this huge flaw or something.
Meanwhile I've never heard anyone complain about the fact that Mass Effect 1, from the very first mission, is built on contrivance. Think about how you find out Saren is up to something. It's not due to any work on Shepard's part, any deductions or politics or anything. Some dude was sleeping behind some boxes - even though geth are literally crawling over the entire area - and happened to wake up and see Saren shoot Nihilus. Then, Saren doesn't bother checking the area to ensure there's no witnesses - even though this is a human colony and they would definitely notice a turian Spectre - and takes off, leaving this lazy dude available to tell Shepard what he saw.
THAT is extremely lazy writing, and is at least as stupid as Shepard calling for a Normandy evac.
you don't want to add unncessary plot holes when you're going to pull an ending out of left field like that (if you disagree, that's fine, but to me the ending was not only horrible but completely out of left field).
Bourne Endeavor wrote...
Risks are fine if they are not inherently stupid. The crew makes no effort to test the IFF. What if it were a virus that cripples the Normandy... yeah. Better even, it could have disabled or sabotaged EDI, whose subsequent rampancy would be severe. If nothing else, dock the ship in a safe environment to minimize risk. Were they to perform the installation while in Citadel space, the Collectors would be screwed. Instead, the crew compounds the situation by leaving the Normandy. By making assumptions, you are inventing a narrative that was not properly articulated, which is the job of the writers. Omitting the actual mission is a complete cop out, especially as this is the only time in the entire series - Citadel DLC notwithstanding - we bring the entire crew on a mission. No adequate reason is ever presented to justify these actions.
Bourne Endeavor wrote...
CaptainZaysh wrote...
Bourne Endeavor wrote...
Why it is objectivity is because the basis for my criticism is not emotion, but through the use of literacy tools at our disposal.
That's absurd, pompous and narcissistic. Also, "literacy" doesn't mean what you think it means.
And yet still accurate, otherwise you would have refuted my points. The whole basis of criticism is established on rules in literature writers must abide by, although some creative leeway does exist with some. And yes, I meant "literary." My mistake.
CronoDragoon wrote...
Bourne Endeavor wrote...
And I have little doubt had the ending been good, we would let much of this go.
This is really all I'm saying here. There's plenty to complain about in each game if you have the desire to do so. Because of the ending, many fans found the desire to do so.
Modifié par Armass81, 26 juin 2013 - 04:52 .
MassEffectFShep wrote...
I can see your point, but IMO timing and placement in the story has a huge effect. Nobody cared about the dockworker who contrivedly sees Saren b/c it's in the first mission of the game--the player is accustoming to the universe as a whole, the characters, the combat, etc., so a contrivance like that just isn't going to matter (besides, Saren's voice was on Tali's omnitool that we hear on the Citadel, so it's likely possible to shift plot points around and arrive at the same location in the plot).
The Normandy evac scene in and of itself isn't a huge deal, other than it's part of the final moments in the game, where (a) plot *really* matters b/c it's our last chance to make sense of the story, and (
Bourne Endeavor wrote...
Their skepticism is not the issue. The instant you mention Cerberus (you're forced to), they go on a tangent and lose any form of reason, speculating Cerberus might be behind the colony attacks despite the correlation being nonexistent. Not once does the narrative allow us to challenge them, citing Shepard's reasons.
Risks are fine if they are not inherently stupid. The crew makes no effort to test the IFF. What if it were a virus that cripples the Normandy... yeah. Better even, it could have disabled or sabotaged EDI, whose subsequent rampancy would be severe. If nothing else, dock the ship in a safe environment to minimize risk. Were they to perform the installation while in Citadel space, the Collectors would be screwed. Instead, the crew compounds the situation by leaving the Normandy. By making assumptions, you are inventing a narrative that was not properly articulated, which is the job of the writers. Omitting the actual mission is a complete cop out, especially as this is the only time in the entire series - Citadel DLC notwithstanding - we bring the entire crew on a mission. No adequate reason is ever presented to justify these actions.
While this angle is mentioned, the narrative never attempts to justify why the Reapers have any interest in Shepard or why she is unique. And no, "You defeated Sovereign" is not enough. In fact, Harbinger undermines his supposed agenda by willingly opting to kill Shepard in every one of their encounters instead of actually attempting to abduct him - the very beginning of the game goes against this logic. When the villain in a position to win uncontested, it is the responsibility of the narrative to provide legitimate context why this option is either not chosen or thwarted. At no point do we ever discover why Shepard is unique, if anything, the series seems to downplay that aspect.
Harbinger already knew of EDI's capabilities. She only just hacked his entire ship two plot missions ago. That is not underestimating the enemy, it is plain incompetence.
That would be fine, if Shepard was given the option to contest or make mention of it prior to the mission. At no instance are we able to call into question the remarkably coincidental circumstances until the end, where Shepard is forced into a passive aggressive whine. Regardless, TIM's justifications are completely illogical and you are again investing the narrative. The games does not ever speculate on these claims and TIM's betrayal is never mentioned thereafter.
You are speculating here. Nevertheless, he still allows vital data to be analyzed, when there is no reason to provide his enemies with such. His ambush is also laughably inept as an army of Collectors on their own ship cannot prevent three soldiers from escaping.
Except their plan had no basis, nor conclusion. They could never have acquired the necessary amount of humans to finish and the narrative does not even attempt to explain the rationale behind their motivation or how the Human-Reaper would function. This is especially rendered meaningless when Arrival revealed they had a backdoor alternative that was significantly better and far less conspicuous. ME3 beat it into the ground when the Reapers arrived six months later.
[.
Modifié par erezike, 26 juin 2013 - 05:00 .
erezike wrote...
I will start by saying that the most important thing with plot holes, is that the player wont need to be paying for them.
Writer mistake should be payed by the writer and not the player.
Modifié par CronoDragoon, 26 juin 2013 - 04:57 .
CronoDragoon wrote...
Bourne Endeavor wrote...
And I have little doubt had the ending been good, we would let much of this go.
This is really all I'm saying here. There's plenty to complain about in each game if you have the desire to do so. Because of the ending, many fans found the desire to do so.
Tonymac wrote...
I agree. Its part of human perception - how we think. We go back, look at things, review.... assimilate. You hate one thing (ending), then you go back objectively to piece it all apart, and find a ton of other things. I think it comes from Biowares treatment of Shep, who is in a way us.
Modifié par CronoDragoon, 26 juin 2013 - 05:00 .
CronoDragoon wrote...
I agree with you to a certain extent about when the contrivance happens, but not about shifting plot points. If you don't need to prove Saren's guilt, then you never go after Tali in the first place, she dies to thugs, and Saren is free to move about the cabin. You'd have to coincidentally find and save Tali, which is still very lazy writing.
MassEffectFShep wrote...
IDK, it's been a while since I've played so I might be overlooking some major points. I guess my point is that, with *some* plot points, it might be possible to shift a couple of points around and make something happen to seem less contrived. But yeah, probably not with all plot points.
Retour en haut