388 réponses à ce sujet

[Creator Limbs]

StreetMagic wrote...

What floundering are you talking about?

Go away pug, this doesn't concern you.

[o Ventus]

Mr.House wrote...

Middle chapter of a trilogy not focusing on the main plot, and people wonder why ME series exploded into  of crap and just blame Mac.

I'm still not seeing the problem.

Unless you're implying that the main plot of the trilogy had something resembling literary merit.

Modifié par o Ventus, 03 octobre 2013 - 10:35 .

[Ravensword]

o Ventus wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Middle chapter of a trilogy not focusing on the main plot, and people wonder why ME series exploded into  of crap and just blame Mac.

I'm still not seeing the problem.

Unless you're implying that the main plot of the trilogy had something resembling literary merit.

I think he's talking about the monster of the week plot where Shepard spends most of the entire game recruiting people and solving the various characters' personal issues--thus requiring Shepard to make a lot of personal errands--rather than preparing for the Reapers.

Modifié par Ravensword, 03 octobre 2013 - 12:12 .

[Ravensword]

StreetMagic wrote...

Ravensword wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Middle chapter of a trilogy not focusing on the main plot, and people wonder why ME series exploded into  of crap and just blame Mac.

I'm still not seeing the problem.

Unless you're implying that the main plot of the trilogy had something resembling literary merit.

I think he's talking about the monster of the week plot where Shepard spends most of the entire game recruiting people and solving the various characters' personal issues and making a lot of personal errands, rather than preparing for the Reapers.

It's a valid observation.

I just think in the end, I preferred the character based game. **** the reapers. What a collosal waste of time.

That too, though I suspect that's more of a hindsight bias, but it's understandable why people might think that having such OP enemies might've made the story a bit tougher to develop and having a more conventional foe would've been easier.

In any even, this is getting OT, and the fact that we're discussin story elements of the ME series is likely to attract David again.

[Seboist]

Part of why GTAV sold better is because it's simply the better game. ME3 and it's associated trilogy(of semi-reboots) are a complete failure when it comes to choices(not just the endings) and other mechanics like the first two games lacking basic TPS mechanics that Gears of War made standard in '06.

[SNascimento]

The point of ME2 was to really create the Mass Effect galaxy. While you running "errands" and stuff, you were getting to know the galaxy, its civilization and conflits and character that tied everything together.

You see, it's so easy to see how ME2 is succesful in this that I really think people that criticize ME2 saying it didn't advance the plot are just repeating it mindlessly.

Just ask what were the two best missions in ME3. Most people will answer Tuchanka and Rannoch, or at least one of these two. And the why those missions were great have everything to do with ME2. I mean, what do they have in common? The reapers are on the background. And all the things that made them great, the characters (except Wrex) and the conflicts were developed in ME2. Just think about it, by the end of ME1, have you ever thought choosing between the Quarians and the Geth would be so difficult?

Actually, it's interesting to note that if you pick the trilogy greatest moments, the reapers will be in the background in a lot of them. I feel they were underdeveloped, and this has nothing to do with ME2. It has to do with the fact they shared a lot of space with Cerberus in ME3 and Priority Earth, a mission that should be the greatest in the series, was so lackluster.

[Clips7]

i didn't go thru all of these pages, so you'll have to excuse me if it's been said already...but it's not so much GTAV is a better game, these are two completely different gaming genre's...you can't compare the two...

The only other game that the ME comes close to that it should be compared to, is that star-trek game or that star-wars game...ME3 was a big budget game, but there is alot more going on in the GTA game in terms of missions, environments and the depth of it's gaming world in general and as such that game required alot more monetary resources than ME3...the GTA series has a huge following anyway, so even if you mention the next GTA, you'll have folks lining up and camping out waiting for the next release in the next 5 or 7 years...

[Kataphrut94]

SNascimento wrote...

The point of ME2 was to really create the Mass Effect galaxy. While you running "errands" and stuff, you were getting to know the galaxy, its civilization and conflits and character that tied everything together.

You see, it's so easy to see how ME2 is succesful in this that I really think people that criticize ME2 saying it didn't advance the plot are just repeating it mindlessly.

Just ask what were the two best missions in ME3. Most people will answer Tuchanka and Rannoch, or at least one of these two. And the why those missions were great have everything to do with ME2. I mean, what do they have in common? The reapers are on the background. And all the things that made them great, the characters (except Wrex) and the conflicts were developed in ME2. Just think about it, by the end of ME1, have you ever thought choosing between the Quarians and the Geth would be so difficult?

Actually, it's interesting to note that if you pick the trilogy greatest moments, the reapers will be in the background in a lot of them. I feel they were underdeveloped, and this has nothing to do with ME2. It has to do with the fact they shared a lot of space with Cerberus in ME3 and Priority Earth, a mission that should be the greatest in the series, was so lackluster.

I agree completely. ME2s biggest strong suit was it's world-building and making the galaxy more fleshed out. In regards to the complaints about it not advancing the plot, I still think it could have done so without sacrificing any of the good stuff. All they needed to do is change up the main story missions (generally the least interesting parts) and make them actually build towards something for ME3. As it stands, the stuff that isn't the loyalty and recruitment missions is just a low-key pissing contest between Cerberus and some insect flunkies. Change that, keep the good stuff intact and you'd improve both ME2 and ME3

[The Night Mammoth]

SNascimento wrote...

The point of ME2 was to really create the Mass Effect galaxy. While you running "errands" and stuff, you were getting to know the galaxy, its civilization and conflits and character that tied everything together.

You see, it's so easy to see how ME2 is succesful in this that I really think people that criticize ME2 saying it didn't advance the plot are just repeating it mindlessly.

Just ask what were the two best missions in ME3. Most people will answer Tuchanka and Rannoch, or at least one of these two. And the why those missions were great have everything to do with ME2. I mean, what do they have in common? The reapers are on the background. And all the things that made them great, the characters (except Wrex) and the conflicts were developed in ME2. Just think about it, by the end of ME1, have you ever thought choosing between the Quarians and the Geth would be so difficult?

I thought the Rannoch arc was deeply flawed. The Tuchanka arc was great thanks to developments in ME2, but ME2 didn't advance the plot any further toward it. ME2 was good at world building, not ploy advancing. 

Actually, it's interesting to note that if you pick the trilogy greatest moments, the reapers will be in the background in a lot of them. I feel they were underdeveloped, and this has nothing to do with ME2. It has to do with the fact they shared a lot of space with Cerberus in ME3 and Priority Earth, a mission that should be the greatest in the series, was so lackluster.

They're basically absent for the whole of ME2 and you're saying that has nothing to do with their lack of development?

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 03 octobre 2013 - 01:09 .

[The Night Mammoth]

CronoDragoon wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Yeah, I don't know if immersion is really the way to put it. I've been immersed by games with varying levels of graphics for many years now, from the tinted pixels and 2d environment of Pokemon Red to the limits pushing Halo 4 with all its motion capture cinematics. Higher fidelity graphics is simply the natural result of improving technology and talent, this not necessarily a conscious decision being made by developers because better graphics give a definite or quantifiable improvement to games. I don't think people are more immersed today than they were, say, when Knights of the Old Republic came out.

If you go back and watch some of those KOTOR cutscenes, they can be really painful at times. Are we talking about strictly graphics when discussing, say, terrible cutscene animations? I think we are, insofar as "graphics" often represents the mechanical nature of the visual presentation. So yes, I think I'd be more immersed by a KOTOR with HD graphics and cutscenes that didn't look like claymation puppets on a string.

People going back to older games might feel that way. But at the time I don't think people were less immersed in games like KOTOR depsite their less impressive graphics and animations. 

Also, I'll have to partially disagree with you that better graphics isn't an explicit goal of developers. It was a stated goal of SE when discussing the future of the Final Fantasy series, one of the self-proclaimed hallmarks of which was "cutting-edge graphics." Certainly not all developers take graphics as seriously as the Final Fantasy developers, but the desire is there for at least some companies.

Certainly for some developers, like Crytek for example. Part of their marketing strategy is based on their graphical capability. I'm not suggesting better graphics isn't a good thing in most cases, but I don't think it makes better or more immersive games.

[SNascimento]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

I thought the Rannoch arc was deeply flawed. The Tuchanka arc was great thanks to developments in ME2, but ME2 didn't advance the plot any further toward it. ME2 was good at world building, not ploy advancing.

You mean the genophage plot? Of course it did. Maelon's data in a huge part of the cure. But of course, the important thing was getting to know Mordin and everything about the Genophage and his view of the issue. Actually, this mission is one of my favorite in ME2. Mordin's philosophies, how he try to explain what he did and why are outstanding.

"ME2 was good at world building, not ploy advancing.". And is that a flaw? Because I don't see it that way.

The Night Mammoth wrote...

They're basically absent for the whole of ME2 and you're saying that has nothing to do with their lack of development?

Why, yes. You don't need to explore the reapers in all three games. What I believe ME2 could have done is instead of making Arrival a DLC, it should have been part of the game, connected to it.

But it was during the war that we would get to know the Repaers.

[The Night Mammoth]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

SNascimento wrote...

Just ask what were the two best missions in ME3. Most people will answer Tuchanka and Rannoch, or at least one of these two. And the why those missions were great have everything to do with ME2. I mean, what do they have in common? The reapers are on the background. And all the things that made them great, the characters (except Wrex) and the conflicts were developed in ME2. Just think about it, by the end of ME1, have you ever thought choosing between the Quarians and the Geth would be so difficult?

I found choosing between the quarians and geth as easy in ME3 as I would have at the end of ME1.

Oh, that too.

Other than the fact that it's not likely a difficult decision for most people because they've decided on their preference long before, such is the controversial nature of the geth, adding a third option immediately took away a whole lot of indecision.

[Seboist]

ME2 engaged in world destroying not world building with it's complete disregard of continuity and the greater plot.

There's no shortage of "FUs" to ME1 in that in name only "sequel", from "ah yes reapers", the small and heavily implied to be destroyed in ME1 Cerberus turning into "SPECTRE" from James Bond, Reapers going from being machines with contempt for organics to now needing them into reproduce(in a completely moronic fashion) and the biggest slight of them all being ME2's ending and Arrival DLC completely nullifying ME1's plot(If Reaepers can just fly here in two years with no drawbacks then what's the point of ME1?).

[Seboist]

SNascimento wrote...
Of course it did. Maelon's data in a huge part of the cure.

No, it didn't. It only affects one NPC and the genophage can be cured without it.

Besides, any relevance it had was diminished by the fact that Mordin's loyalty mission was completely optional.

[The Night Mammoth]

SNascimento wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

I thought the Rannoch arc was deeply flawed. The Tuchanka arc was great thanks to developments in ME2, but ME2 didn't advance the plot any further toward it. ME2 was good at world building, not ploy advancing.

You mean the genophage plot? Of course it did. Maelon's data in a huge part of the cure. But of course, the important thing was getting to know Mordin and everything about the Genophage and his view of the issue. Actually, this mission is one of my favorite in ME2. Mordin's philosophies, how he try to explain what he did and why are outstanding.

None of those things advanced the plot towards curing the genophage. 

"ME2 was good at world building, not ploy advancing.". And is that a flaw? Because I don't see it that way.

Yes it's a flaw. Mass Effect is a trilogy. Putting the plot on hold for a third of it is a bad thing, and it shows in both ME2 and ME3. 

The Night Mammoth wrote...

They're basically absent for the whole of ME2 and you're saying that has nothing to do with their lack of development?

Why, yes. You don't need to explore the reapers in all three games.

Yes, you do. Mass Effect is the story of Shepard's fight against the Reapers. They're the antagonists. It'd be fine if ME1 and 2 were stand alone games, but they aren't, they're building towards a third installment. 

What I believe ME2 could have done is instead of making Arrival a DLC, it should have been part of the game, connected to it.

God no. Arrival was terrible. It succeeded in turning Shepard and the Alliance into bigger morons and making the Collectors completely irrelevant in their own game.

But it was during the war that we would get to know the Repaers.

That never happened, in the end. 

[CronoDragoon]

The Night Mammoth wrote...
People going back to older games might feel that way. But at the time I don't think people were less immersed in games like KOTOR depsite their less impressive graphics and animations.

Well, I can only speak for myself when I say that I was less immersed the first time I played it, which was only ~a year after it came out, due to the animations in cutscenes which were at best recreations of the dueling gameplay animations. It's obvious when a game is just using a skill or gameplay animation for its cutscenes, and I don't like it. It breaks my immersion when I think, "That is the exact same animation as 'Flurry'". YMMV.

[AresKeith]

Seboist wrote...

SNascimento wrote...
Of course it did. Maelon's data in a huge part of the cure.

No, it didn't. It only affects one NPC and the genophage can be cured without it.

Besides, any relevance it had was diminished by the fact that Mordin's loyalty mission was completely optional.

That annoyed me

[SNascimento]

Eva dies if you didn't get Maelon's data, don't she?

[SNascimento]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

bla bla bla

I believe you're wrong. 

ME2 is perfect the way it is and it only made the trilogy stronger. ME3's issues are because of ME3 and it alone. 

[CronoDragoon]

Seboist wrote...

No, it didn't. It only affects one NPC and the genophage can be cured without it.

Sure, but whether or not Eve is alive can have significant consequences concerning the race direction of the krogan.

[2Pac]

SNascimento wrote...

Eva dies if you didn't get Maelon's data, don't she?

Basically, I didn't even know that till i played through all the games as a renegade but still eve will  die of too much
trauma if you don't save maelons data. How inconvenient.