Aller au contenu

Photo

People hating on ME3 yet thinking ME2 is "perfect"


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
1093 réponses à ce sujet

#276
The Heretic of Time

The Heretic of Time
  • Members
  • 5 612 messages

David7204 wrote...

I hope I don't need to point out that having 'true' control of a character would be impossible from a technical perspective and ridiculous from a narrative perspective.

Some games come pretty damn close to giving 'true'control of the player character, and actually manage to do this well. These games also have a better story than Mass Effect.


A few examples of games that give us a lot more control over the PC and also have a better story than Mass Effect are:

- Vampire The Masquerade: Bloodlines
- Fallout
- Arcanum
- Planescape: Torment
- Dragon Age: Origins

#277
David7204

David7204
  • Members
  • 15 187 messages

AlanC9 wrote...

Not really like a satellite. The Normandy wasn't in orbit -- if it had been in orbit it wouldn't have crashed. So the ship's velocity relative to the planet could have been anything between zero and orbital velocity.

There's not really enough information to say anything about this one way or another. If nothing else, the attack could have thrown it out of orbit. Or it could have been in an orbit assisted by the enginers.

There's no reason for them to be so close to the planet unless they were doing something with it.

#278
Redbelle

Redbelle
  • Members
  • 5 399 messages

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

Soooooo. What would you have made ME2 about?

The same thing, just without unnecessary stupid stuff like Lazarus, Cerberus's plan, the Collector's methods and motives, a two year leap in time, no progression in the main plot, characters that are there for no other reason than to be cool, and past characters who developed off-screen in nonsensical ways.


Wait amin. you just yanked alot of plot development out of the narrative that was able to occur because these events occured.

You say no cerberus plan? Does that mean that Shep goes after the collectors as an alliance marine? With or without the original Normandy. And if without because the old one got blown up.......

1. How did Shep survive and get recovered?

2. How did he get a new ship?

How then would you introduce Miranda as an ice queen with dogged persistence and a relationship with Shep......?

I'd go on, but in tearing up all those area's you've highlighted, raises question's as to how event's could play out if certain event's in ME2 had not happened.

ME2's story, for all it's implusibility, asks you to take one leap of faith. That a dead man can be brought back to life. The rest is just a procession of event's starting with the key premise of the game. Defeat the Collectors. Becaue they are harvesting humans.

This however is not a bridge to far. Shep is our character. Of course we need him to continue playing. And the fact is that he did not die in the minds of the gamers. They saw him struggle, fade into the blackness of space in re=-entry, but never saw him actually die. And then, we see through our character#'s eye's which implies he is very much alive...... though drugged to the gills.

If Shep had been torn limb from limb and fed into a meat grinder and his remains sprayed into a Varren enclosure, this approach would not have worked. Critically, to his resurrection. It was not chance that showed the manner of Shep's death the way it did in the beginning of ME2.. Shep didn't die like Thane or Mordin or Wrex. It was simply implied, with a very convincing set of circumstances to back up the implication, and then handed to the character's to embellish the details as to how Shep died and returned.

Modifié par Redbelle, 13 juillet 2013 - 11:01 .


#279
mass perfection

mass perfection
  • Members
  • 2 253 messages
Like how there're people who absolutely hate Mass Effect's plot,but praise Assassin's Creed?

#280
IntelligentME3Fanboy

IntelligentME3Fanboy
  • Members
  • 1 983 messages

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

IntelligentME3Fanboy wrote...

ME3>ME2>ME1


Dafuq? You're talking about gameplay right? Or did you perhaps put the arrows in the wrong direction?


Gameplay-wise:

ME3>ME2>ME1


Story-wise:

ME1>ME3>ME2

overall-wise.ME1's gameplay is one of the worst i've seen

#281
MassivelyEffective0730

MassivelyEffective0730
  • Members
  • 9 230 messages

Mcfly616 wrote...

People call Synthesis: "space magic". Yet, we've seen it before. Hello, Project Lazarus.


Which Lazarus is explained for the most part. Whether or not you agree to suspend you disbelief is up to you.

It's much better than the "essence of who you are" or "organic energy" or "final evolution of all life" or "DNA for synthetics" or a long list of other gripes about it.

People blame ME3 for autodialogue. Which actually made its debut in ME2.


Yet the autodialogue in ME3 is incredibly pervasive, especially in regards to rp'ing, and seen as much worse than the autodialogue in ME2.

People say your choices don't matter in ME3. Well, your choices matter in ME2 about as much as they do in 3.....if not even less.


Well, the meaning of the choices, events, decisions, and action in ME2 were ideally supposed to be brought into ME3 to solve.

It was not ME2's place to make the choices matter. It was ME2's place to make more variables for ME3.

Don't get me started on the waste of time narrative focus on the Collectors.


Which was indeed a weak story as written. But the reason it seems so out of touch with the story is because (in my opinion) ME2 was gearing up for a different story, a different ME3 than what we got. It was building up to a different ME3, one that apparently never left the conceptual stages.

Shoehorned into joining Cerberus.


Much like how I'm shoehorned into being an alliance poster boy in ME3? At least in ME2 you can be vocal about how you dislike and hate Cerberus. I can't even badmouth Hackett and Anderson, or talk to Ashley or Kaidan about why I like Cerberus.

Taking away nearly the entire original crew (stunting character growth), and over-populating the Normandy with a bunch of comic book heroes.


To the original crew, I say good riddance to bad eggs. I don't care about their character growth. I'd have gladly left both Ashley and Kaidan on Virmire if I could. I'd have left Liara on Therum, or killed her for being related to Benezia, Saren's henchwoman. That's how my Shepard is. I don't want Tali going with me. Garrus and Wrex are alright, I suppose. There was nothing about their characters that interested me or made me like them.

On the other hand, I absolutely adore the ME2 team. They are my dream team, and, in my opinion, some of the best squadmates and characters in video game history.

People hate the Catalyst (I'll admit, I hate the fact it appears as a child. Kids are just annoying). But come on, that human Reaper fetus is just god awful. And imo, trying to come up with something different and thoughtful is better than just coming right out and saying "hey we're idiots...now abort this human Reaper fetus"


The Human Reaper is pretty bad, yes. But it's certainly much better than Sir-Lite-Brite and how he's suddenly changing the very narrative of the story.

Don't try to deflect the problems with one thing by saying that something else has problems.

Don't get me wrong, the Suicide Mission is awesome. It just makes ME2 that much more of a drag, because I'm trying to get to the last mission. But it honestly baffles me when people trash ME3s ending, then immediately praise ME2's from a narrative standpoint. Narratively speaking, ME2's ending is the most ordinary and mediocre ending of the trilogy.


It's also the most fulfilling, and you get to do what you set out to do. There is no sudden and inexcusible shift in the narrative of the story. There is no change in theme.

First, you kill the Reaper fetus (god, that's not a great start). Then, you get up and escape the Collector base while being chased by seeker swarms. Base explodes, we tell TIM to shove it, and then we see Reapers coming. (Okay, I'll admit that last bit gives me chills). That (for the most part) seems like the script of a Michael Bay action film. (While fun, it isn't anything to put on a pedestal)


That's not the point of ME2's ending. ME2's ending is to serve as a buildup to ME3. To prepare the action.

And I don't tell TIM to shove it. I tell him to get his forces ready and to get behind me, even though I blow up the Collector Base.

I do tell Hackett and the alliance to shove it after Arrival. Same with Anderscum and the Council.

Meanwhile, I had chills the entire time after going up the beam in ME3 (Extended Cut). We all have our preferences though.


And I was shaking my head in disappointment about how bad the recent Normandy evacuation scene was, and how my expectations were being fulfilled. Which is to say, the bad **** was still bad in my opinion.

#282
MassivelyEffective0730

MassivelyEffective0730
  • Members
  • 9 230 messages

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

IntelligentME3Fanboy wrote...

ME3>ME2>ME1


Dafuq? You're talking about gameplay right? Or did you perhaps put the arrows in the wrong direction?

Gameplay-wise:

ME3>ME2>ME1


Story-wise:

ME1>ME3>ME2


ME2>ME1>>>>>>>>>>>ME3 for story

ME2>ME3>ME1 for gameplay. ME3 may have had better gameplay, but I do prefer ME2's gameplay to ME3's.

This is how I do feel.

#283
BaladasDemnevanni

BaladasDemnevanni
  • Members
  • 2 127 messages

mass perfection wrote...

Like how there're people who absolutely hate Mass Effect's plot,but praise Assassin's Creed?


Just for fun: in AC's case, depends what part of the plot we're talking. Image IPB

Of course, I thought AC3's ending was even worse than ME3's. It just didn't have the same level of build-up, since it was just another story.

#284
mass perfection

mass perfection
  • Members
  • 2 253 messages

IntelligentME3Fanboy wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

IntelligentME3Fanboy wrote...

ME3>ME2>ME1


Dafuq? You're talking about gameplay right? Or did you perhaps put the arrows in the wrong direction?


Gameplay-wise:

ME3>ME2>ME1


Story-wise:

ME1>ME3>ME2

overall-wise.ME1's gameplay is one of the worst i've seen

I agree.Thermal clips should have been in Mass Effect day one.And the Vanguard Charge.Shepard couldn't even sprint for three seconds and it took him like 5 minutes before he could sprint again.What kind of conditioning does the Alliance have in their training?

#285
Guest_EntropicAngel_*

Guest_EntropicAngel_*
  • Guests

mass perfection wrote...

Like how there're people who absolutely hate Mass Effect's plot,but praise Assassin's Creed?


What does a complete other game have to do with this?

#286
AresKeith

AresKeith
  • Members
  • 34 128 messages

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

mass perfection wrote...

Like how there're people who absolutely hate Mass Effect's plot,but praise Assassin's Creed?


Just for fun: in AC's case, depends what part of the plot we're talking. Image IPB


Yep lol, Because I hate Desmond's side of the story, but I don't mind the Assassin's story

Ezio in Revelations and Connor's Assassin's plot were kinda weak

#287
mass perfection

mass perfection
  • Members
  • 2 253 messages

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

mass perfection wrote...

Like how there're people who absolutely hate Mass Effect's plot,but praise Assassin's Creed?


Just for fun: in AC's case, depends what part of the plot we're talking. Image IPB

Of course, I thought AC3's ending was even worse than ME3's. It just didn't have the same level of build-up, since it was just another story.

AC has one of the biggest scientific errors I've seen.So you have the complete memory in perfect detail of ALL your ancestors in your genes?Plot-wise,how did Altair become the highest ranking Assassin,right behind Al Mualim,when he's arrogant and sees himself as above the way of the Creed?

#288
The Heretic of Time

The Heretic of Time
  • Members
  • 5 612 messages

mass perfection wrote...

Like how there're people who absolutely hate Mass Effect's plot,but praise Assassin's Creed?


I don't see how Assassin's Creed is related to any of this. But if you want to know my opinion: Yes, AC's plot sucks too. It's crazy and it has a terrible ending as well.

The individual plots of the individual characters were okay though. I did like Ezio's story, Altair was a bad-ass and I loved Haytham (Connor was super boring in comparison to his father though).

#289
crimzontearz

crimzontearz
  • Members
  • 16 785 messages
Let's see

For all their inconsistencies ME1&2 made me want to replay them, as a matter of fact I started NG+ the moment I finished them as I could not imagine not to

I finished ME3 and.my first thought was to never replay any of the games in the trilogy again

ME1&2 win

#290
MassivelyEffective0730

MassivelyEffective0730
  • Members
  • 9 230 messages

David7204 wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I can assure you that terminal velocity is irrelevant to this because Shepard is moving at a greater speed than terminal velocity. It's a separate case entirely from Shepard falling from outside the atmosphere at high velocity. It's a bit too limiting in the way you're trying to use it. It would be the case if Shepard was falling from say an aircraft moving at 180 miles per hour relative to the Earth. Meanwhile Shepard is falling significantly faster due to a higher velocity from being ejected in space. Drag will increase, but Shepard is moving so fast at such a velocity that the drag he will not be able to be brought down to terminal velocity by the drag before the impact.

Also, I did just remember this. Alchera has only 83% of the atmosphere of Earth. This means the resistance on Shepard as he falls will be significantly weaker as he falls. His velocity would slow at a lesser rate than on Earth.


Significantly less air resistance also means significantly less heat. Alchera also has significantly less gravity than Earth.

What evidence do you have that Shepard is moving at this supposed speed of thousands of miles per hour?


The fact that he's being ejected from a starship that is moving at such speeds?

And the heat is still going to be hot enough to incinerate Shepard. And even if he lives by some lucky fluke, the impact will kill him since he'll be hitting faster with less air to slow him down. 

Realistically, he's going to get splattered. Don't try to deny it. The only thing keeping him from such is.... plot contrivance.

Which I'm ok with. I actually don't mind Lazarus. In fact, I adore the implications of it.

#291
David7204

David7204
  • Members
  • 15 187 messages
That's not a scientific error if it's the entire focus of the story.

#292
mass perfection

mass perfection
  • Members
  • 2 253 messages

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

IntelligentME3Fanboy wrote...

ME3>ME2>ME1


Dafuq? You're talking about gameplay right? Or did you perhaps put the arrows in the wrong direction?

Gameplay-wise:

ME3>ME2>ME1


Story-wise:

ME1>ME3>ME2


ME2>ME1>>>>>>>>>>>ME3 for story

ME2>ME3>ME1 for gameplay. ME3 may have had better gameplay, but I do prefer ME2's gameplay to ME3's.

This is how I do feel.

ME2 better story-wise than ME1?Wrong.

#293
mass perfection

mass perfection
  • Members
  • 2 253 messages

David7204 wrote...

That's not a scientific error if it's the entire focus of the story.

Which makes zero sense and has a weak explanation.

#294
David7204

David7204
  • Members
  • 15 187 messages

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

The fact that he's being ejected from a starship that is moving at such speeds?

And the heat is still going to be hot enough to incinerate Shepard. And even if he lives by some lucky fluke, the impact will kill him since he'll be hitting faster with less air to slow him down. 

Realistically, he's going to get splattered. Don't try to deny it. The only thing keeping him from such is.... plot contrivance.

Which I'm ok with. I actually don't mind Lazarus. In fact, I adore the implications of it.


There's no proof of that. Even if the Normandy was moving at high speeds, it's not moving in the direction of the planet, which is what counts.

It's clear you can't support these very silly conclusions at all.

#295
Mcfly616

Mcfly616
  • Members
  • 8 988 messages

Redbelle wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

People call Synthesis: "space magic". Yet, we've seen it before. Hello, Project Lazarus.

People blame ME3 for autodialogue. Which actually made its debut in ME2.

People say your choices don't matter in ME3. Well, your choices matter in ME2 about as much as they do in 3.....if not even less.

Don't get me started on the waste of time narrative focus on the Collectors.

Shoehorned into joining Cerberus.

Taking away nearly the entire original crew (stunting character growth), and over-populating the Normandy with a bunch of comic book heroes.

People hate the Catalyst (I'll admit, I hate the fact it appears as a child. Kids are just annoying). But come on, that human Reaper fetus is just god awful. And imo, trying to come up with something different and thoughtful is better than just coming right out and saying "hey we're idiots...now abort this human Reaper fetus"



Don't get me wrong, the Suicide Mission is awesome. It just makes ME2 that much more of a drag, because I'm trying to get to the last mission. But it honestly baffles me when people trash ME3s ending, then immediately praise ME2's from a narrative standpoint. Narratively speaking, ME2's ending is the most ordinary and mediocre ending of the trilogy.

First, you kill the Reaper fetus (god, that's not a great start). Then, you get up and escape the Collector base while being chased by seeker swarms. Base explodes, we tell TIM to shove it, and then we see Reapers coming. (Okay, I'll admit that last bit gives me chills). That (for the most part) seems like the script of a Michael Bay action film. (While fun, it isn't anything to put on a pedestal)

Meanwhile, I had chills the entire time after going up the beam in ME3 (Extended Cut). We all have our preferences though.


Soooooo. What would you have made ME2 about?

easy. I wouldn't have created a completely new villain. I wouldve kept the focus on the Reapers. I wouldn't have killed off the protagonist for shock value and a clean slate. I would've continued to develop existing squadmates, and added several more recruits (not 10). I wouldn't have completely removed features that fans criticised in ME1. I wouldve refined them.

The Reapers would've invaded halfway through ME2. That way, the war would be drawn out over the course of half the trilogy (1 and half games), instead of trying to cram the entire invasion, war and resolution into a single installment.

#296
mass perfection

mass perfection
  • Members
  • 2 253 messages

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

mass perfection wrote...

Like how there're people who absolutely hate Mass Effect's plot,but praise Assassin's Creed?


I don't see how Assassin's Creed is related to any of this. But if you want to know my opinion: Yes, AC's plot sucks too. It's crazy and it has a terrible ending as well.

The individual plots of the individual characters were okay though. I did like Ezio's story, Altair was a bad-ass and I loved Haytham (Connor was super boring in comparison to his father though).

Conor was such an idealistic coward.

#297
The Heretic of Time

The Heretic of Time
  • Members
  • 5 612 messages

mass perfection wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

IntelligentME3Fanboy wrote...

ME3>ME2>ME1


Dafuq? You're talking about gameplay right? Or did you perhaps put the arrows in the wrong direction?

Gameplay-wise:

ME3>ME2>ME1


Story-wise:

ME1>ME3>ME2


ME2>ME1>>>>>>>>>>>ME3 for story

ME2>ME3>ME1 for gameplay. ME3 may have had better gameplay, but I do prefer ME2's gameplay to ME3's.

This is how I do feel.

ME2 better story-wise than ME1?Wrong.


True, ME2's story is even worse than ME3's story. At least ME3 had a story that was directly related to the premise set by ME1 (even though ME3 did retcon a whole lot of ME1).

ME2.... man, ME2 barely even had a story to begin with! The story in ME2 was completely shoven to the background in favor of contrived loyalty missions.

#298
AlexMBrennan

AlexMBrennan
  • Members
  • 7 002 messages

So tell me people, how is it possible to hate ME3 yet love ME2 at the same time? How can you point out all the flaws in ME3 yet be absolutely blind to the flaws of ME2? I would very much like to know that.

The obvious answer is that ME2 is the 2nd game in a trilogy, and people are willing to forgive a lot more (e.g. the holding pattern plot) expecting an epic payoff in the finale. Since that never materialised, people are doubly upset about ME3.

Secondly, as flawed as ME2's plot may be you still end up achieving something (blowing up the enemy base) whilst ME3 has no sense of achievement at all (you fail, and then the enemy summons a magical elevator, delivers exposition and lets you win)

#299
mass perfection

mass perfection
  • Members
  • 2 253 messages

Mcfly616 wrote...

Redbelle wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

People call Synthesis: "space magic". Yet, we've seen it before. Hello, Project Lazarus.

People blame ME3 for autodialogue. Which actually made its debut in ME2.

People say your choices don't matter in ME3. Well, your choices matter in ME2 about as much as they do in 3.....if not even less.

Don't get me started on the waste of time narrative focus on the Collectors.

Shoehorned into joining Cerberus.

Taking away nearly the entire original crew (stunting character growth), and over-populating the Normandy with a bunch of comic book heroes.

People hate the Catalyst (I'll admit, I hate the fact it appears as a child. Kids are just annoying). But come on, that human Reaper fetus is just god awful. And imo, trying to come up with something different and thoughtful is better than just coming right out and saying "hey we're idiots...now abort this human Reaper fetus"



Don't get me wrong, the Suicide Mission is awesome. It just makes ME2 that much more of a drag, because I'm trying to get to the last mission. But it honestly baffles me when people trash ME3s ending, then immediately praise ME2's from a narrative standpoint. Narratively speaking, ME2's ending is the most ordinary and mediocre ending of the trilogy.

First, you kill the Reaper fetus (god, that's not a great start). Then, you get up and escape the Collector base while being chased by seeker swarms. Base explodes, we tell TIM to shove it, and then we see Reapers coming. (Okay, I'll admit that last bit gives me chills). That (for the most part) seems like the script of a Michael Bay action film. (While fun, it isn't anything to put on a pedestal)

Meanwhile, I had chills the entire time after going up the beam in ME3 (Extended Cut). We all have our preferences though.


Soooooo. What would you have made ME2 about?

easy. I wouldn't have created a completely new villain. I wouldve kept the focus on the Reapers. I wouldn't have killed off the protagonist for shock value and a clean slate. I would've continued to develop existing squadmates, and added several more recruits (not 10). I wouldn't have completely removed features that fans criticised in ME1. I wouldve refined them.

The Reapers would've invaded halfway through ME2. That way, the war would be drawn out over the course of half the trilogy (1 and half games), instead of trying to cram the entire invasion, war and resolution into a single installment.

I would've made the Reaper War another three games.First one being about finding about the Crucible and destroying Cerberus before they get out of hand.The second being about building alliances.The third being about finishing the Crucible and learning about the Reapers and destroying them.

#300
MassivelyEffective0730

MassivelyEffective0730
  • Members
  • 9 230 messages

David7204 wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

The fact that he's being ejected from a starship that is moving at such speeds?

And the heat is still going to be hot enough to incinerate Shepard. And even if he lives by some lucky fluke, the impact will kill him since he'll be hitting faster with less air to slow him down. 

Realistically, he's going to get splattered. Don't try to deny it. The only thing keeping him from such is.... plot contrivance.

Which I'm ok with. I actually don't mind Lazarus. In fact, I adore the implications of it.


There's no proof of that. Even if the Normandy was moving at high speeds, it's not moving in the direction of the planet, which is what counts.

It's clear you can't support these very silly conclusions at all.


You just moved the goalpost David.