611 réponses à ce sujet

[Bleachrude]

Geez...am I the only one that actually LIKES all of the ME games? (I would score all 3 of them at least a a 85/100)

Me2 had its problems but I think it is also where people actually fell in love with the characters and the setting. People were interested in a sequel to ME1, but ME2 is where I think many became passionate about it...

[Sailears]

RZIBARA wrote...

No, in fact, I like ME3 more than ME2. With all of it's problems. (I like ME2, just an FYI)

Hmm not that it matters, but...

ME2 - I would have liked to see a completely different plot, which makes sense given the ending of ME1.
Axe and merge half the characters (Jack and Miranda should be one character for instance). Get rid of the working for Cerberus. Meet Legion at the start, investigating reaper origins or whatever, shift half of ME3's expositions into ME2. Discover the Crucible by the end of ME2.

That would leave ample room to tie up all the loose ends in ME3 satisfactorily.

Maybe it's because the main story of the reapers matters more to me than petty trifles of minor characters.

I like ME2 for what it is - a fantastic game, but for me a poor sequel.

Modifié par Curunen, 13 septembre 2013 - 12:06 .

[Display Name Owner]

ME2 is a good game, but honestly, it gets propped up on a pedestal way too much. ME3 did a number of things better than 2. Even taking ME2 on it's own merits, it really baffles me when people call it perfect, because it's far from it.

[KaiserShep]

ME2 was a great experience for me on my first playthrough, and I was thorough enough that I got every possible asset to carry over to the next game, but upon replaying it, a lot of things just don't hold up to scrutiny at all, and oddly, in ways that are worse than a lot of the things that happen in 3. One of the things that always nagged me the most was the removal of the entire team from the ship, so that it's completely undefended when the Collectors board. It's especially silly if you were thorough in finishing up all of the available missions before hitting the the derelict reaper. Of course there's other, more tedious things that become tiresome chores when done more than once, like hacking and the dreaded planet scanning.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 13 septembre 2013 - 12:57 .

[fchopin]

Mass Effect died after ME1 was made but came back to life in ME3.

[Tonymac]

ME 1 and 2 were heads and shoulders above ME3. The writing for 3 was horrendous. The endings ruined 3 for me - zero replayability.

I still play 1 and 2 though.

[JonathonPR]

There is only the First and True Mass Effect. ME2 and ME3 are too generic to hold my interest on their own. I am still waiting for a sequel to the First and True Mass Effect which I shall call the Second and Righteous Mass Effect. Until such a game is made the Mass Effect universe is dead to me.

[o Ventus]

Curunen wrote...

Axe and merge half the characters (Jack and Miranda should be one character for instance).

I hate to David it up here, but wow, this sounds really dumb. You want to merge characters who are 180 degree opposites? In what ways would Miranda and Jack becoming one character be a good thing?

[KaiserShep]

Obviously the ones to combine are Jacob and Miranda, so you can get this.

[Seboist]

Tonymac wrote...

ME 1 and 2 were heads and shoulders above ME3. The writing for 3 was horrendous. The endings ruined 3 for me - zero replayability.

I still play 1 and 2 though.

And the writing for 2 wasn't horrendous? The same game where someone dies and is brought back and everyone treats it like Shep just wope up from a nap isn't horrendous writing? What about how humans are being turned into liquid goo for a three eyed giant baby arnold because of "human diversity"?

And what creates zero replability for the series is that they're linear railroaded corridor shooters whose choices mean jack(and no not just 3's endings).

[Sailears]

o Ventus wrote...

Curunen wrote...

Axe and merge half the characters (Jack and Miranda should be one character for instance).

I hate to David it up here, but wow, this sounds really dumb. You want to merge characters who are 180 degree opposites? In what ways would Miranda and Jack becoming one character be a good thing?

I can't recall exactly, but I posted something on here maybe last year or so with a more detailed overview on an alternate ME2 plot, including how different characters are recruited.

That's where it made sense for Jack and Miranda to be another single character, and the tie in to Cerberus with that story. I know it sounds stupid out of context.

[3DandBeyond]

Gabbenator8787 wrote...

 Do you agree with the above statement or not? Was ME 3 bad as a whole or just the awful matter in which it ended? IMHO opinion ME 3 felt too much like a FPS at times with all the previous RPG charm of the prior games almost completely stripped away. Certainly having a very limited dialogue wheel is one the many things that ultimately hamper the replayability factor. 

I can't fully agree with that because what is good in ME3 is really good.  The big problem with ME3 is that had they ended it well (and in keeping with the foundations laid in ME1 and 2), much of the discussion and comparisons would be far less incendiary.

If the Star Kid had never existed, the kid in the rest of it might have been at least partly overlooked - I dislike him from the start but mostly could force forget him.

If the ending had been amazingly great, then any weaknesses in the rest of the game would have paled and not matter so much.

The fact is that the game had a microscope turned on it because people tried very hard to see how the ending related to the rest of it (and the other 2 games).

Any open questions from 1 and 2 should have been answered in 3, but some weren't (a lot weren't).  Any failures of the first 2 games should have been addressed and fixed in 3, but it didn't serve that purpose either.

If it became too much of an FPS with that "too many cutscenes" (autodialogue) feeling to it, that was certainly an internal problem with 3 itself, and made it far too linear ultimately.  This was a game with a true chance to be fully open-ended and though 1 and 2 had to end in specific ways so at the end they were linear, this one was linear from the beginning.

The whole idea of Mass Effect at the beginning was not that small choices changed internal stories and did nothing toward shaping the end--it was that all choices changed things and shaped the end.  The fact that 1 and 2 had to be more linear and yet they ended up feeling more like your choices shaped their endings and 3 could have been far less linear and ends up feeling like your choices do nothing for the endings, makes it more like other mundane shooters.  It's this core mechanic of the game that makes it seem far less like a role playing game and more like a movie where you sometimes shoot a gun and sometimes get to choose the flavor of ice cream all will eat.

The brilliance of the first 2 is that though they end one and only one way in terms of the big outcome for the big foes, they feel more like all those choices matter.  It makes the choices and the story you feel like you're creating far more important than shooting mechanics.  The lack of brilliance in ME3 is that the mechanics of shooting becomes far too important because it ends up feeling like you didn't do much to shape the story at all.  At heart, you have maybe 3 big choices that mean something to the key players, but don't mean anything to the goal of the story.  Curing the genophage doesn't feel like it helped in destroying the reapers.  Getting the geth and quarians reconciled doesn't feel like it did anything either.  When you first play the game (at least this is how it was for me), it feels like these are momentous decisions and what guides you is some idea that if you do it wrong, it will ruin everything, including your chances to get rid of the reapers.  That feeling quickly falls away when you see such decisions don't do that at all-no matter what you decide to do.

Ultimately, ME3 had to become more of a cool looking shooter, as a distraction for where the story failed and where the game failed to deliver on good story content.  You need pew pew in place of actual missions because the reaper tag fetch quests were substituted for missions.  You need pew pew in place of choice dialogue because auto-dialogue was directing the game in a linear manner.

The fact that this seems to be the trend (Omega furthered this opinion), and yet gamers really want great story content is just at odds with common sense.  Other games are inserting choice related to endings as a sort of homage to what players are saying they want.  It's odd that one of the best examples of how good (and how bad) choice could be implemented in a game seems determined to remove it.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 13 septembre 2013 - 01:36 .

[Kunari801]

@OP: 

The Mass Effect series died with Anderson.

3DandBeyond wrote...
...Other games are inserting choice related to endings as a sort of homage to what players are saying they want.  It's odd that one of the best examples of how good (and how bad) choice could be implemented in a game seems determined to remove it. 

Agree with what you said 3D, and wanted to comment on your ending statement here. I think many of us Mass Effect fans expected a range of ending from "Reapers win" to "Shepard kicked ass" instead of the RBG. The questions of merging with the Reapers or controlling them were already handled in other arcs, it did not need to be addressed again at the end.  Even if they insisted on the RBG, they could have flavored it as I just described.  Even the EC doesn't give the player a real range of endings, it just flavors the RBG a bit more than stock.  

Modifié par Kunari801, 13 septembre 2013 - 04:39 .

[Propelled Rage]

3DandBeyond wrote...
When you first play the game (at least this is how it was for me), it feels like these are momentous decisions and what guides you is some idea that if you do it wrong, it will ruin everything, including your chances to get rid of the reapers.  That feeling quickly falls away when you see such decisions don't do that at all-no matter what you decide to do.

Ultimately, ME3 had to become more of a cool looking shooter, as a distraction for where the story failed and where the game failed to deliver on good story content.  

+1

I can so so relate to this feeling of unknown when you are in your first playthrough. What about that war asset, what about those those peace points, but I didn't destroy the geths in ME2 I wouldn't get the requiste assets now, did you save the maelon dta, YOU DIDN'T...

In the end it proved to be nothing but an exercise in vain, making my efforts look like stupid and inconsequential.

[MegaSovereign]

3DandBeyond wrote...
The lack of brilliance in ME3 is that the mechanics of shooting becomes far too important because it ends up feeling like you didn't do much to shape the story at all.  At heart, you have maybe 3 big choices that mean something to the key players, but don't mean anything to the goal of the story.  Curing the genophage doesn't feel like it helped in destroying the reapers.  Getting the geth and quarians reconciled doesn't feel like it did anything either.  When you first play the game (at least this is how it was for me), it feels like these are momentous decisions and what guides you is some idea that if you do it wrong, it will ruin everything, including your chances to get rid of the reapers.  That feeling quickly falls away when you see such decisions don't do that at all-no matter what you decide to do.

Curing the genophage wasn't about destroying the Reapers. Neither was resolving the Quarian/Geth conflict. The game makes it very clear that every subplot within ME3 is about playing politician in order to get the resources on your side. 

Your criticisms have some ground but they can be applied to every game in the series. You can argue that first two games were better at creating this illusion of choices mattering, but that's about it. There was never any major fork in the road. 

Ultimately, ME3 had to become more of a cool looking shooter, as a distraction for where the story failed and where the game failed to deliver on good story content.  You need pew pew in place of actual missions because the reaper tag fetch quests were substituted for missions.  You need pew pew in place of choice dialogue because auto-dialogue was directing the game in a linear manner.

Every mission in each Mass Effect has shooter combat elements. You can criticize the story content all you want but it literally has nothing to do with the flow of gameplay. Every Mass Effect game was linear in terms of combat design. There is an illusion of choice associated with more dialogue wheels but the fact is that auto-dialogue wasn't implemented to make missions more linear than they already were in the other two games. 

The fact that this seems to be the trend (Omega furthered this opinion), and yet gamers really want great story content is just at odds with common sense.  Other games are inserting choice related to endings as a sort of homage to what players are saying they want.  It's odd that one of the best examples of how good (and how bad) choice could be implemented in a game seems determined to remove it.

While Omega's plot was fairly bland and predictable, it was one of the best examples in terms of choices affecting outcomes. Dialogue with Aria throughout the mission directly influenced the DLC's final outcome, and there is a pretty good variety there.

[SilJeff]

Absolutely not. All three games are great, and I still play the whole trilogy

[Iakus]

Mass Effect series died with the Lazarus Project as an excuse to work for Cerberus.

[Zaalbar]

Mass Effect 1 & 2 are my favourites.

My problem with ME3 from a main narrative perspective is that Bioware decided to go in a different direction that mostly ignores the plot of ME 2 and the inclusion of star brat pretty much invalidates the main plot of ME1.

That said I still very much enjoy ME3, I just would have liked it to have been more consistent with the narratives of ME1&2.

[AlanC9]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Your criticisms have some ground but they can be applied to every game in the series. You can argue that first two games were better at creating this illusion of choices mattering, but that's about it. There was never any major fork in the road. 

I thought that was the argument -- that the earlier games were better at the illusion. (Doens't apply to me since I never bought into the illusion in the first place, probably because I've been with Bio too long to fall for it.)

[rashie]

Had more fun in ME2 then ME3, even with the weaker plot and largely irelevant main plot i strongly prefer both its gameplay and its character interactions more then the third installment along with there not being the same feeling of urgency that ME3 had with more freedom in what order to approach the main plot missions.

[Nole]

So much about "bad writing", the majority of the gamers don't give a **** about the plot and your so precious writing.

[rashie]

WittingEight65 wrote...

So much about "bad writing", the majority of the gamers don't give a **** about the plot and your so precious writing.

I think most gamers that pick up an RPG do give a **** about the plot and its writing but yes, the "faults" of ME2 or ME3 is not nearly as bad as some people on BSN seems to think,  assuming the plot holes and bad writing is not on the same scale as ME3's original ending, which is fine post EC but still just about average in terms of endings.

[RZIBARA]

iakus wrote...

Mass Effect series died with the Lazarus Project as an excuse to work for Cerberus.

I could agree with this

[SlottsMachine]

iakus wrote...

Mass Effect series died with the Lazarus Project as an excuse to work for Cerberus.

You would have preferred some other excuse?

[SlottsMachine]

I would have liked it if Shepard had willingly agreed to work with Cerberus, it would have been an interesting dynamic. And I don't even like Cerberus.