182 réponses à ce sujet

[Argentoid]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

Argentoid wrote...

Nitrocuban wrote...

Whitout any doubt ME3 had the best gameplay, but the story ...

... was way better than ME2 (excluding the last 30 minutes).

There are not enough powerful drugs and indoctrination techniques in the world that could ever fool me into believing ME3 had a better narrative than ME2.

"LLELELELELELELLE EVERYONE WHO ZINKS ME3 IS BETTER WRITTEN IZ INDOCTRINATUD!!! CUZ U KNOW... POTHOLES AND STUF! AND THE UNDING! HOW COULD ME FORGET?"

I mean really? REALLY? You think ME2 is better written? You are way more indoctrinated than me, pal. Holy crap, I could make a list about awful writing in ME2.

Modifié par Argentoid, 14 novembre 2013 - 01:53 .

[SNascimento]

ME2 is indeed better written. Its narrative is the best one in the trilogy, with some room to spare.

Modifié par SNascimento, 14 novembre 2013 - 02:45 .

[ElitePinecone]

Kunari801 wrote...

I agree with you on the Mako, it's the uncharted maps that really suck.  I've also seen videos of people trying to drive up 90-degree clif faces.  If they'd drive the Mako like a real off-road it works better, just requires one to go around the steeper clifs. 

The levels that are specifically designed for the Mako (Virmire, the Feros Skyway, Noveria, Therum) work quite well and are pretty fun, and even on some of the flatter Uncharted Worlds the handling isn't too bad. 

I just think there was just a feeling of landing on an uncharted planet and finding secrets which the game has never managed to recapture since ME1 - it's been a good space opera-y RPG, but never with that sense of exploration and discovery that was in the first game. 

Maybe the larger maps were also a part of that, now that I think about it, or the sense that Shepard was out exploring the galaxy (rather than recruiting a team or rushing to "take back Earth"). 

[Argentoid]

SNascimento wrote...

ME2 is indeed better written. Its narrative is the best one in the trilogy, with some room to spare.

Ok... Maybe the characters are well written.

But the story? Is pure "daddy issue" after "daddy issue": "Shepard! Please help me find mah sister!" "Shepard, do everything!" "Shepard! Shepard! Shepurd!"

Humans-are-special nonsense, Cerberus' stupid retcon, Project Lazarus is freaking terrible tecno-space magic. Shepard is a goddamn brick after waking up (First words: "This pistol doesn't have a thermal clip!") And... Shepard is no different compared to any condecorated Alliance soldier, wasn't he/she special because of the Cipher? Where's the Reapers plan B? You know... to take over the Citadel? Oh wait, it's just "lets make a baby reaper".

Yeah, right "the best one in the tirlogy". Don't make me laugh.

[RZIBARA]

Argentoid wrote...

SNascimento wrote...

ME2 is indeed better written. Its narrative is the best one in the trilogy, with some room to spare.

Ok... Maybe the characters are well written.

But the story? Is pure "daddy issue" after "daddy issue": "Shepard! Please help me find mah sister!" "Shepard, do everything!" "Shepard! Shepard! Shepurd!"

Humans-are-special nonsense, Cerberus' stupid retcon, Project Lazarus is freaking terrible tecno-space magic. Shepard is a goddamn brick after waking up (First words: "This pistol doesn't have a thermal clip!") And... Shepard is no different compared to any condecorated Alliance soldier, wasn't he/she special because of the Cipher? Where's the Reapers plan B? You know... to take over the Citadel? Oh wait, it's just "lets make a baby reaper".

Yeah, right "the best one in the tirlogy". Don't make me laugh.

KO

[Obadiah]

ElitePinecone wrote...
...
I just think there was just a feeling of landing on an uncharted planet and finding secrets which the game has never managed to recapture since ME1 - it's been a good space opera-y RPG, but never with that sense of exploration and discovery that was in the first game. 
...

Yup. I always enjoy the Mako missions. I wish Bioware had done something like that with the the Hammerhead, but I suppose the found N7 missions in ME2 on the different planets were their substitute, but because they were all so straight forward, they didn't the same appeal to me.

[Mcfly616]

SNascimento wrote...

ME2 is indeed better written. Its narrative is the best one in the trilogy, with some room to spare.

Hahahahahahaha





What narrative?

[Nero Narmeril]

Ok... Maybe the characters are well written.

But the story? Is pure "daddy issue" after "daddy issue": "Shepard! Please help me find mah sister!" "Shepard, do everything!" "Shepard! Shepard! Shepurd!"

Humans-are-special nonsense, Cerberus' stupid retcon, Project Lazarus is freaking terrible tecno-space magic. Shepard is a goddamn brick after waking up (First words: "This pistol doesn't have a thermal clip!") And... Shepard is no different compared to any condecorated Alliance soldier, wasn't he/she special because of the Cipher? Where's the Reapers plan B? You know... to take over the Citadel? Oh wait, it's just "lets make a baby reaper".

Yeah, right "the best one in the tirlogy". Don't make me laugh.

Inb4 people claiming 'everything's better than ME3'.

[dorktainian]

SNascimento wrote...

ME2 is indeed better written. Its narrative is the best one in the trilogy, with some room to spare.

   

I dunno bout the narrative, but the game itself is the best of the trilogy by a fair way. 

Suicide Mission agogo. 

[trenq]

SNascimento wrote...

ME2 is indeed better written. Its narrative is the best one in the trilogy, with some room to spare.

ME1 has better narrative, ME2 has the best characters & dialogues. ME3 felt a little empty, without Patrick i would hate ME3.

[ElitePinecone]

Obadiah wrote...
I suppose the found N7 missions in ME2 on the different planets were their substitute, but because they were all so straight forward, they didn't the same appeal to me.

Yeah, I enjoyed some of those (and the variety of encounters was nice) but the scripting and level design meant they weren't really the same as exploration in ME1. 

Something that I remember from the first game is being able to approach an enemy group from a bunch of different directions (sniper rifles were actually useful!), and the feeling that there *was* a frontier of undiscovered alien planets with no infrastructure where criminals would realistically hide out. Or... things like the tiny Alliance frontier bases, small colonies, planets where nobody had been for hundreds of years that held crashed escape pods. In ME2 and ME3 pretty much every planet is either habitable or has really well-developed infrastructure, we basically never land on chunks of rock. 

There's a stylistic issue also: ME1 featured sealed armour suits that looked like they could plausibly be deployed in all sorts of crazy space environments and planets with no atmosphere, whereas from ME2 onwards with the emphasis on distinctive companion appearances, it would've looked ridiculous to have Jacob or Miranda walking around in their default outfits that were basically clothes. I definitely preferred the military standard look of ME1, which at least attempted to treat space as something that would need good protection and an actual suit. 

[Mathias]

[quote]Argentoid wrote...

[quote]Mdoggy1214 wrote...

[quote]Argentoid wrote...

[quote]Nitrocuban wrote...

Whitout any doubt ME3 had the best gameplay, but the story ...[/quote]

... was way better than ME2 (excluding the last 30 minutes).

[/quote]

There are not enough powerful drugs and indoctrination techniques in the world that could ever fool me into believing ME3 had a better narrative than ME2.


[/quote]

"LLELELELELELELLE EVERYONE WHO ZINKS ME3 IS BETTER WRITTEN IZ INDOCTRINATUD!!! CUZ U KNOW... POTHOLES AND STUF! AND THE UNDING! HOW COULD ME FORGET?"

I mean really? REALLY? You think ME2 is better written? You are way more indoctrinated than me, pal. Holy crap, I could make a list about awful writing in ME2.

[/quote]

Did ya pop a blood vessel during that fit?

[quote]
Ok... Maybe the characters are well written.
[/quote]

And indeed they are.

[quote]
But the story? Is pure "daddy issue" after "daddy issue": "Shepard! Please help me find mah sister!" "Shepard, do everything!" "Shepard! Shepard! Shepurd!"
[/quote]

Whatever issues some of the squad mates took with their fathers were all unique from each other, engaging and well written. As for them asking Shepard for help, well I'm not sure if you've noticed this but Shepard helping other people has been a common theme throughout the entire trilogy. There was that whole thing with solving the galaxies problems before they could unite in ME3.

[quote]
Humans-are-special nonsense
[/quote]

Don't see how that as a result of bad writing.

[quote]
Cerberus' stupid retcon
[/quote]

What retcon? We knew barely anything about them in ME1, it wasn't until ME2 where their organization was fully fleshed out. It wasn't until ME3 (the one that you claim had better writing) that they became full blown Bad Guy.

[quote] 
Project Lazarus is freaking terrible tecno-space magic.
[/quote]

Given the far advanced technology that exists in the Mass Effect universe, and the billions of credits poured into the project, I don't see how in a sci fi universe this would be far fetched.

[quote]
Shepard is a goddamn brick after waking up (First words: "This pistol doesn't have a thermal clip!")
[/quote]

Huh?
 
[quote]
And... Shepard is no different compared to any condecorated Alliance soldier, wasn't he/she special because of the Cipher? Where's the Reapers plan B? You know... to take over the Citadel? Oh wait, it's just "lets make a baby reaper".
[/quote]
 
No he's special because he's an incredibly skilled soldier, and has a natural talent to lead and inspire hope to others. He was pretty much a prodigy for the alliance. The cipher wasn't some Super Soldier Serum that made him like Captain America.

[quote]
Yeah, right "the best one in the tirlogy". Don't make me laugh.
[/quote]

Sorry but I have not heard one valid reason as to why ME2 had a poor or worse narrative than ME3.

[Iakus]

Argentoid wrote...

SNascimento wrote...

ME2 is indeed better written. Its narrative is the best one in the trilogy, with some room to spare.

Ok... Maybe the characters are well written.

But the story? Is pure "daddy issue" after "daddy issue": "Shepard! Please help me find mah sister!" "Shepard, do everything!" "Shepard! Shepard! Shepurd!"

Humans-are-special nonsense, Cerberus' stupid retcon, Project Lazarus is freaking terrible tecno-space magic. Shepard is a goddamn brick after waking up (First words: "This pistol doesn't have a thermal clip!") And... Shepard is no different compared to any condecorated Alliance soldier, wasn't he/she special because of the Cipher? Where's the Reapers plan B? You know... to take over the Citadel? Oh wait, it's just "lets make a baby reaper".

Yeah, right "the best one in the tirlogy". Don't make me laugh.

Indeed.

ME2 had a lot (some might say too many) really interesting characters.  But the plot itself did almost nothing with them. They rarely, if ever, interacted with each other.  Almost no time was spent actually learning about the COllectors, the mission, or what would be expected of them

"We need an engineering expert to hack this door"
"Whew!  Good thing we have three of them.  This could have been awkward!"

ME3, while it tried to have a stronger main plot and more interaction, sadly failed to actually deliver with the characters.  Silly retcons, personality transplants, and going for sexy style over depth and continuity (seriously, they forgot Thane was a potential LI!)  did terrible things to fan favorites. 

It doesn't help that the plot got thrown out the window in the last ten minutes as well.

[AlanC9]

ElitePinecone wrote...
Something that I remember from the first game is being able to approach an enemy group from a bunch of different directions (sniper rifles were actually useful!), and the feeling that there *was* a frontier of undiscovered alien planets with no infrastructure where criminals would realistically hide out. Or... things like the tiny Alliance frontier bases, small colonies, planets where nobody had been for hundreds of years that held crashed escape pods. In ME2 and ME3 pretty much every planet is either habitable or has really well-developed infrastructure, we basically never land on chunks of rock. 

But most of the N7 missions are on chunks of rock. We just land right at the thing we're interested in.

[ElitePinecone]

That was probably badly phrased - I meant "chunks of rock" as an uninhabited, uncharted space, instead of a constructed level with borders.

ME1's uncharted worlds felt like big open spaces that the player had to find the content in, whereas the N7 levels were defined "levels" in environments that were meant to feel big. If that makes sense. Maybe I just preferred the exploration aspects of the first game, since everything from ME2 onwards felt confined even if the art design indicated we were on a larger planet.

(The prefabricated facilities in ME1 were samey but utilitarian, whereas in ME2's N7 missions every building was designed for the specific level and looked like it'd been there for decades - it wasn't the same sort of colonial outpost or whatever.)

[marcelo caldas]

It is what it is.

[Argentoid]

[quote]Mdoggy1214 wrote...

[quote]Argentoid wrote...

[quote]Mdoggy1214 wrote...

[quote]Argentoid wrote...

[quote]Nitrocuban wrote...

Whitout any doubt ME3 had the best gameplay, but the story ...[/quote]

... was way better than ME2 (excluding the last 30 minutes).

[/quote]

There are not enough powerful drugs and indoctrination techniques in the world that could ever fool me into believing ME3 had a better narrative than ME2.


[/quote]

"LLELELELELELELLE EVERYONE WHO ZINKS ME3 IS BETTER WRITTEN IZ INDOCTRINATUD!!! CUZ U KNOW... POTHOLES AND STUF! AND THE UNDING! HOW COULD ME FORGET?"

I mean really? REALLY? You think ME2 is better written? You are way more indoctrinated than me, pal. Holy crap, I could make a list about awful writing in ME2.

[/quote]

Did ya pop a blood vessel during that fit?

[quote]
Ok... Maybe the characters are well written.
[/quote]

And indeed they are.

[quote]
But the story? Is pure "daddy issue" after "daddy issue": "Shepard! Please help me find mah sister!" "Shepard, do everything!" "Shepard! Shepard! Shepurd!"
[/quote]

Whatever issues some of the squad mates took with their fathers were all unique from each other, engaging and well written. As for them asking Shepard for help, well I'm not sure if you've noticed this but Shepard helping other people has been a common theme throughout the entire trilogy. There was that whole thing with solving the galaxies problems before they could unite in ME3.

[quote]
Humans-are-special nonsense
[/quote]

Don't see how that as a result of bad writing.

[quote]
Cerberus' stupid retcon
[/quote]

What retcon? We knew barely anything about them in ME1, it wasn't until ME2 where their organization was fully fleshed out. It wasn't until ME3 (the one that you claim had better writing) that they became full blown Bad Guy.

[quote] 
Project Lazarus is freaking terrible tecno-space magic.
[/quote]

Given the far advanced technology that exists in the Mass Effect universe, and the billions of credits poured into the project, I don't see how in a sci fi universe this would be far fetched.

[quote]
Shepard is a goddamn brick after waking up (First words: "This pistol doesn't have a thermal clip!")
[/quote]

Huh?
 
[quote]
And... Shepard is no different compared to any condecorated Alliance soldier, wasn't he/she special because of the Cipher? Where's the Reapers plan B? You know... to take over the Citadel? Oh wait, it's just "lets make a baby reaper".
[/quote]
 
No he's special because he's an incredibly skilled soldier, and has a natural talent to lead and inspire hope to others. He was pretty much a prodigy for the alliance. The cipher wasn't some Super Soldier Serum that made him like Captain America.

[quote]
Yeah, right "the best one in the tirlogy". Don't make me laugh.
[/quote]

Sorry but I have not heard one valid reason as to why ME2 had a poor or worse narrative than ME3. [/quote]

Fair enough. You cannot turn on your brain for once. 

Anderson could have done the same thing Shepard did... but the Cipher was the only thing that made Shepard absolutely unique.

Now, what was the point of Project Lazarus? Yeap, none. (Stupid story mechanic to make the player fast-forward 2 years)

And seriously, didn't you just get what I said of Shepard being a brick? He/she has no emotions, after waking up for 2 years you at least you would feel completely strange and thereof show some emotions. But noooo... let's just ask Miranda where the hell is my thermal clip.

Cerberus did have a major retcon... from a black-ops Alliance group to a full-blown human terrorist organization with cells and moles everywhere. Yeah! I totally buy that! 

Asking what is wrong with the shoehorned, lack of fundamentals of "human r speshiul" is like saying that you have nothing against the "Synthesis" ending. 


EDIT: Oh BTW, ME2 has no plot. So no narrative then.

What I can defend from ME3, is that it has a strong plot. But the intro and the ending are absolutely weak.

Modifié par Argentoid, 14 novembre 2013 - 11:26 .

[Whitering]

ME3 would have the best narrative if the devs hadn't dumped on the indoctrination theory but instead embraced it. It would have been one of the best sci fi twisters of all time but alas...

I will echo others and say ME 1 has the best story, ME2 best companions and better missions overall, and ME3 better ummmm...let's say gameplay though it doesn't super appeal to me.

[SwobyJ]

Lazurus Project made Shepard partly synthetic, even if his core systems are organic (making him still human).

ME2 has Shepard, by choice at least, learning more about AIs, their POV, and can even ally with some of them.
In ME1 you could not ally with an AI in any way, shape, or form. You didn't care to truly understand them or the scale of their knowledge, and well, Soverign knew you wouldn't care to know.
Dialogue consisted of "You're just a machine, and machines can be broken!", which was about as intelligent as "Stupid machine!", but also depending on your own POV, just as correct.

In ME2, you are pushed by the morality system (compared to ME1/ME3) to either be full Paragon (heal your scars, but probably be more friendly to AI), or full Renegade (scarrage shows you to be practically a Terminator inside, but probably be more hostile or dominating to AI).

In either case, it shows Shepard as part machine, even if his core is human and inspiring. ME3 continues this subtle evolution of character, while presenting Shepard to us as only a soldier. That is, at least, the thematic purpose of it, imo.

Modifié par SwobyJ, 14 novembre 2013 - 11:26 .

[Argentoid]

SwobyJ wrote...

Lazurus Project made Shepard partly synthetic, even if his core systems are organic (making him still human).

ME2 has Shepard, by choice at least, learning more about AIs, their POV, and can even ally with some of them.
In ME1 you could not ally with an AI in any way, shape, or form. You didn't care to truly understand them or the scale of their knowledge, and well, Soverign knew you wouldn't care to know.
Dialogue consisted of "You're just a machine, and machines can be broken!", which was about as intelligent as "Stupid machine!", but also depending on your own POV, just as correct.

In ME2, you are pushed by the morality system (compared to ME1/ME3) to either be full Paragon (heal your scars, but probably be more friendly to AI), or full Renegade (scarrage shows you to be practically a Terminator inside, but probably be more hostile or dominating to AI).

In either case, it shows Shepard as part machine, even if his core is human and inspiring. ME3 continues this subtle evolution of character, while presenting Shepard to us as only a soldier. That is, at least, the thematic purpose of it, imo.

That's good and all, but Shepard could have done the same without being an synthetic/organic mish-mash. Plus, there is no mention of what is being part-machine until the last 30 minutes of ME3. Even the Geth (AFAIK) do not recall Shepard being synthetic/organic mix.

Anyway, I like your viewpoint.

Modifié par Argentoid, 14 novembre 2013 - 11:30 .

[Linkenski]

@Argentoid Do you honestly think ME3 has an all-round good plot aside from the ending? It's your typical BIoware "let's gather forces", essentially ME2 but on a bigger scale in concept, but it relies on one big contrived plot-device (the crucible) as well as the Catalyst. ME2 might not have much of a plot, but it had some memorable subplots and the gamey side of ME2 was better than ME3 IMO, because the linearity and lack of proper exploration feels so absent from ME3.

Also, am I the only one who liked the "Shepard dies thing"? I know why people think it's stupid (killing the protagonist just to revive him right after) but I think it was a memorable... stamp, i guess, to the trilogy akin to Luke Skywalker losing his arm in Star Wars or alike. I know it's style over substance, but sometimes that's cool too, as long as it doesn't dominate the narrative.

I'd argue that while there are moments in ME2 where there is no clear plot to speak of, every assignment from TIM forms a plot and that was good enough for me. I'm okay with ME2's video-gamey narrative and I'd love to see it again in ME4.

I can agree that the middle subplots of ME3 (Tuchanka and Rannoch) are good conclusions... kinda, but for me Tuchanka fails because the plot needed the mother of all thresher maws (cheap, much?) to destroy the Reaper Destroyer. It's like "get outta here!" think about all the planets you've visited in ME1 that have thresher maws, and then suddently the first time you hear about Kalros is on your mission to cure the genophage, and strangely enough it happened to be just on that particular spot on this huge ass planet that is Tuchanka? Sorry, but I thought it was lame and forced.

And that Citadel coup... every single conversation with TIM... gahd. I really don't like ME3's overall plot at least half of the time I'm playing it.

Modifié par Linkenski, 14 novembre 2013 - 11:39 .

[SwobyJ]

Argentoid wrote...

SwobyJ wrote...

Lazurus Project made Shepard partly synthetic, even if his core systems are organic (making him still human).

ME2 has Shepard, by choice at least, learning more about AIs, their POV, and can even ally with some of them.
In
ME1 you could not ally with an AI in any way, shape, or form. You
didn't care to truly understand them or the scale of their knowledge,
and well, Soverign knew you wouldn't care to know.
Dialogue consisted
of "You're just a machine, and machines can be broken!", which was
about as intelligent as "Stupid machine!", but also depending on your
own POV, just as correct.

In ME2, you are pushed by the morality
system (compared to ME1/ME3) to either be full Paragon (heal your scars,
but probably be more friendly to AI), or full Renegade (scarrage shows
you to be practically a Terminator inside, but probably be more hostile
or dominating to AI).

In either case, it shows Shepard as part
machine, even if his core is human and inspiring. ME3 continues this
subtle evolution of character, while presenting Shepard to us as only a
soldier. That is, at least, the thematic purpose of it, imo.

That's
good and all, but Shepard could have done the same without being an
synthetic/organic mish-mash. Plus, there is no mention of what is being
part-machine until the last 30 minutes of ME3. Even the Geth (AFAIK) do
not recall Shepard being synthetic/organic mix.

Anyway, I like your viewpoint.

No he could not have. It was the subtle self-wondering if he was actually a machine (which he does state a few times, and others wonder it as well) made to think he was Shepard, that brings Shepard to possibly (your choice) reach better understanding with the Geth. And it was Legion's semi-separation from the Consensus that leads it to possibly reach better understanding with organics, Shepard, and Tali. Or not. Up to us. They didn't make Shepard a pure synthesis for a reason - synthesis was shown as the great evil in ME2, done by the Harbinger overlord that was really MEAN about it

Shepard is sometimes a stupid brooding action hero that never explains stuff with words. lol. So we have to understand his own narrative through the characters, settings, etc. We can't understand him by just running around as him, in itself. I think this is intentional. This also happened in KOTOR, for example, where we don't learn about Revan by only being him, but instead through context given by other characters.

To be clear though, again, Shepard is NOT an outright mix in ME2. He's partly synthetic with implants, but not with total mentality.
I have personal speculations that this somewhat changes in ME3 (and a bit in ME2, in how he percieves some things), but for ME2 it's easy enough to say that he still considers himself 100% human in regular interactions.
He's just a little more.. open to other possibilities as well. Possibilities he would never have considered if he, I dunno, met a friendly Geth on Ilos or something.

Modifié par SwobyJ, 14 novembre 2013 - 11:42 .

[SwobyJ]

Linkenski wrote...

@Argentoid Do you honestly think ME3 has an all-round good plot aside from the ending? It's your typical BIoware "let's gather forces", essentially ME2 but on a bigger scale in concept, but it relies on one big contrived plot-device (the crucible) as well as the Catalyst. ME2 might not have much of a plot, but it had some memorable subplots and the gamey side of ME2 was better than ME3 IMO, because the linearity and lack of proper exploration feels so absent from ME3.

Also, am I the only one who liked the "Shepard dies thing"? I know why people think it's stupid (killing the protagonist just to revive him right after) but I think it was a memorable... stamp, i guess, to the trilogy akin to Luke Skywalker losing his arm in Star Wars or alike. I know it's style over substance, but sometimes that's cool too, as long as it doesn't dominate the narrative.

I'd argue that while there are moments in ME2 where there is no clear plot to speak of, every assignment from TIM forms a plot and that was good enough for me. I'm okay with ME2's video-gamey narrative and I'd love to see it again in ME4.

I can agree that the middle subplots of ME3 (Tuchanka and Rannoch) are good conclusions... kinda, but for me Tuchanka fails because the plot needed the mother of all thresher maws (cheap, much?) to destroy the Reaper Destroyer. It's like "get outta here!" think about all the planets you've visited in ME1 that have thresher maws, and then suddently the first time you hear about Kalros is on your mission to cure the genophage, and strangely enough it happened to be just on that particular spot on this huge ass planet that is Tuchanka? Sorry, but I thought it was lame and forced.

And that Citadel coup... every single conversation with TIM... gahd. I really don't like ME3's overall plot at least half of the time I'm playing it.

I would like: (ME1+ME2+ME3)* x2
*the good parts

[RZIBARA]

ME3 plot > ME2 plot (oh wait, what plot?)

[Argentoid]

RZIBARA wrote...

ME3 plot > ME2 plot (oh wait, what plot?)

INB4 

ME2 subplots (daddy issues) > ME3/ME1