1638 réponses à ce sujet

[SwobyJ]

Damn, did I HAVE to kill that Human Reaper? I wanted to hug it. Ugh, all I got to choose was what to do with it afterward.

[dreamgazer]

Reorte wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

iakus wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

I had some control over Shepard's fate, actually. So did many others.

Yeah, I could
Let the Reapers enslave the galaxy (under new management)
Exterminate an entire for of life
Force the galaxy to sumbit to the Qun

In addition, Commander Shepard could, based on the above act:
Electrocute himself
Walk into an explosion
Disintegrate in a beam of space magic

Sorry, not good enough.  Not by a long shot. 

Whether you consider it good enough or not isn't in question.  You did have some control. 

Yeah, and "Your money or your life" is a choice too.

False equivalence, of course, but indeed it is. 

[CptData]

dreamgazer wrote...

Reorte wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

iakus wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

I had some control over Shepard's fate, actually. So did many others.

Yeah, I could
Let the Reapers enslave the galaxy (under new management)
Exterminate an entire for of life
Force the galaxy to sumbit to the Qun

In addition, Commander Shepard could, based on the above act:
Electrocute himself
Walk into an explosion
Disintegrate in a beam of space magic

Sorry, not good enough.  Not by a long shot. 

Whether you consider it good enough or not isn't in question.  You did have some control. 

Yeah, and "Your money or your life" is a choice too.

False equivalence, of course, but indeed it is. 

There's always a third option: breaking that guy's knee caps. And then you better run.

Technically, the "Refusal Ending" is said "knee cap breaking" since it's the FOURTH option out of a set of three more or less useful options. Doesn't end well 'though.

I guess the man is talking about -real- choices. Like the thing with the Cure - actually, BW showed they're able to do it. If you do some mistakes, like letting Wrex die in ME1, destroy the cure data in ME2, losing Mordin in the Suicide Mission, you better sabotage the cure in ME3 or the Krogans may come back in force. And they won't be friendly.

Here, in that plot BW showed how most of ME was intented to work out in the long run. You can also say the same about the Quarian/Geth-storyline. But the big picture? Here BW failed. Shepard gets railroaded in the Crucible plot, s/he's not allowed to take another option that to finish that thing and fight the Reapers on foot on Earth. No other choice is available.

Know what I mean? Secondary, 'though very importing plots work flawless with different ways to solve 'em, but ht main plot is railroading Shepard to the three-plus-one decision on the Citadel/Crucible. No way to change that fate.

[Redbelle]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Redbelle wrote...
And if anything ME3 was more streamlined than ME2.

Heavy weapons. Gone.

This is a bit dishonest. The weapons system in ME3 is far more intricate than ME2. Highlighting one feature that was removed and failing to mention everything added is not good practice for discussion.

Drivable tanks. Gone.

True.

Holstering weapon. Gone.

Lol.

Environmental Hazards in SP. Gone.

Less than ME2 to be sure, but it still exists in the geth dreadnaught mission and at least one N7 mission.

Door and Terminal Hacking. Gone.

True. I'm actually curious about this: was the feedback largely negative? I enjoyed these minigames but I could also see a scenario where many find them annoying.

True about the more intricate weapon upgade system...... and it does have it's Pluses..... But something that bugs me is that many of these upgrades are ones you just...... purchase. Now granted, you have ones you pickup on missions, but this way of using weapons that says that everything you want must be picked up or purchased......

It makes me wish they had brought back the mechanic of collecting stuff to make even more awesome stuff that you can't get anywhere else! Which by the way....... Gone.

The key critique I have with the new weapon system. It's basically the same as the MP system in that it treats Shepard as just another MP/NPC character instead of a hero character. When you do find a heavy weapon in MP mode, you find it attaches on your back..... but make the wrong move and for some reason you drop it. Given the hardest battle in Shepard's career it's..... puzzling..... why doesn't he bring the big boom ba ba boom's to the party that he was able to carry one game prior?

As for holstering weapons..... okay. Tad anal. But the point really speaks to a wider issue. BW didn't look at the character and consider how to make the weapon switches seamless. A minor detail.

But for a AAA developer it is details like this that you expect to be ironed out on the side of favouring seamless graphical representation. It's something that a model designer and animator get together and ask, how can we make this better so that it fits the game without us having to ask our audience to let it slide......

If a company allows one aspect of game design slide..... does that not invite other's in the company to take the same, 'meh' attitude towards the finer details of their aspect of game development? For a triple A developer I don't think this let it slide and hope the fans don't notice approach is one that developers can afford. Both from a customer satisfaction POV, and a pride in your work and desire to make it as good as, if not better by comparison, than other developer's titles that do the same kind of thing.

Regarding terminal hacking...... Simple answer. Action mode. Works as in ME3 to open doors. you just interact and they open Shepard waves her magic door opening auto hack tool.

Choose RPG mode, and you get the hacks back making it a challenge to get the really awesome gear. Or even to get a 'reprogram the security bots to attack their operators' ala ME2's Garrus recruitment mission.

I'm not going to say hacks should be in all modes. One story I head that convinced me of this was an ME fan who mad a problem with motor control in his hands making hacks nearly impossible. Therefore, to get through the hacks that continued the story, he had to wait for a friend to come and do them for him.

That guy deserves his action mode play style where the obstacles to advancement are lowered to the point where he can play the game without needing the help of others.

But, I don't think that viewpoint should infer that my playthough be forced down to the other guys level. I want to play at my level and that means doing the memory games of ME2 and the spatial awareness and reacion times of ME1 mini game hacks........

And we can have it both ways! Action mode for one! RPG mode for another!

Modifié par Redbelle, 13 février 2014 - 12:15 .

[Ghost Lightning]

Did...did it turn good since the one time I played it?

[Reorte]

dreamgazer wrote...

Reorte wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Whether you consider it good enough or not isn't in question.  You did have some control. 

Yeah, and "Your money or your life" is a choice too.

False equivalence, of course, but indeed it is. 

No false equivalence - there's control in both circumstances, it's a question of whether or not its meaningful. Both the game and the robbery provide you with some choices that are better than others even if all you've got control over are some crappy choices. That's all very well if you've manoeuvred yourself into that position. It makes sene if circumstances beyond your control leave you with only those choices, although railroading you into that situation makes for a poor RPG.

[JamesFaith]

iakus wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...

Different people, different tastes, no universal solution. You canť take in account all tastes of all potentional buyers and even your own fan forum isn't good indicator about these tastes (like f.e. case of suddenly missed MAKO proved).

Different people, different tastes, hundreds, if not thousands of choices made over five years and three games.

All funnelled into a Walter White ending.

Bravo, Bioware.  Bravo.

You mean Walter White ending which happenned nearly year after ME3?

I know you love cherry-picking from notes of Casey and Mac and turning them to memes but this one doesn't work.

[Iakus]

[quote]JamesFaith wrote...

Different people, different tastes, hundreds, if not thousands of choices made over five years and three games.

All funnelled into a Walter White ending.

Bravo, Bioware.  Bravo.[/quote]

You mean Walter White ending which happenned nearly year after ME3?

I know you love cherry-picking from notes of Casey and Mac and turning them to memes but this one doesn't work.

[/quote]

What's your point?  Would it be better if I said "Walter White-like?"

The term works because the Lead Writer made the comparison in the first place.  Difference is, he thought it was a good thing.  I...disagree.

[SlottsMachine]

I'm a hater. I hate.

[OdanUrr]

Anger ruins joy, steals the goodness of my mind, forces my mouth to say terrible things. Overcoming anger brings peace of mind, leads to a mind without regrets. If I overcome anger I will be delightful and loved by everyone.

[Mcfly616]

Okay....ME2 terminal/door hacking sucked balls as much as planet scanning. It was neither fun or challenging. It's time consuming yet utterly pointless. It didn't give you "really awesome gear" either. (as if ME2 had any). ME3 is better off with it's complete removal. (hell, ME1's timed button pressing crap was harder than ME2's symbol/picture matching. Neither were any good)


ME2 easily had the most linear gameplay/level design out of the trilogy. Compared to it's predecessor, it's inventory system is nonexistent, power attributes were butchered, and it's a genuine corridor shooter.

Modifié par Mcfly616, 13 février 2014 - 01:56 .

[ImaginaryMatter]

Mcfly616 wrote...

ME2 easily had the most linear gameplay/level design out of the trilogy. Compared to it's predecessor, it's inventory system is nonexistent, power attributes were butchered, and it's a genuine corridor shooter.

All of the games are corridor shooters to the same degree. ME2's inventory system while not as good as ME3 beats ME1 by offering options in functionality rather than color choice.

[Sion1138]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

ME2 easily had the most linear gameplay/level design out of the trilogy. Compared to it's predecessor, it's inventory system is nonexistent, power attributes were butchered, and it's a genuine corridor shooter.

All of the games are corridor shooters to the same degree. ME2's inventory system while not as good as ME3 beats ME1 by offering options in functionality rather than color choice.

ME1's items had stats, so I don't know what you're talking about.

[3DandBeyond]

Smeffects wrote...

I havent posted here since Citadel DLC. I had Mass effect out of my head the whole time really, than i read something about the next Mass effect and i started to think, I just replayed all 3 and all DLC over a couple of weeks. My dislike for the ending has greatly recuded, its more like a "meh" to me now and it doesent take away from everything else it had. It got me thinking when stuff like Man of steel rubs me off as well, but in another way.

Man of steel is just boring, it has no soul, no humor or anything on top of the stupidity of many plot devices. The only joke is made at the end of the story, exactly when time wasent for jokes anymore. What i watched was a boring action movie that took itself super seriously in a plot that was forced in so many way and somehow decided it should only not be serious at the ending. It tried too hard to copy The dark knight or Batman begin which are good, but overrated movies but very good nonetheless, they took themselves seriously and yet still had some heart in it, some humour, some purpose and didnt end anti-climaticly with jokes that did not match the rest of the movie.

Now unto my feeling about mass effect complete trilogy, it was good, even the 3rd. The story never took itself more serious than it needed to be, even in the 3rd one. The humour, the light heart, the atmosphere where still present in all 3 games, the ending wasent that far out of place. Yes it was odd and a down grade considering some of the more brilliant moments in the game, but it wasent pure trash, it wasent "totally" out of place. It could have been better, which is not all that wrong or bad.

My old score for ME3 was like a 7 and now with a different state of mind, id say a fairer score from me would be a 8.5. The whole package of the story, some moment of brilliance, strong music, strong scenary, stellar voice acting and until the ending, solid story telling.

Mabye its the kids that grew in the 80s in me, but i need to remind people that sometimes things can be good without being complicated in a story. A good story is just good. Omega DLC and Citadel DLC were both very enjoyable for that very reason, story wise. Its pretty simple stuff, yet done well enough like a good 80s action movie. Theres always room for simple well done story, im hoping this is the way the Next Mass Effect goes. Play to your strong suit bioware, have brilliant moments, have a good blend of humour and serious moments. You might not get a preorder out of me anytime soon, but if you show me you can still deliver this, i might reconsider.

I bolded what for me is one of the more important parts of your post--there are other pieces as well but this is at the core of much of what I felt about the ending.  It was like BW went all crazy and tried to stuff everything into it and so it ended up being a lot of nothing that made sense.  Instead of using the K.I.S.S. method--you know KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID, they went and tried to create something they thought was esoteric and all that.  Should have been more straightforward and in line with all the rest of the game.

I'll say what I've always said about ME3.  I never hated it.  To be sure, I totally disliked some aspects of it.  I didn't like the fetch quests and reaper tag.  I didn't like the trumped up way the crucible was explained as necessary-it was lazy.  If you write a story and show that people along the way do what is said to be impossible, I find it nauseating to then trump up this idea that now you really mean it's impossible, really really really.  The only reason the crucible was needed was because this time the writers meant it when they used the word impossible.  And then, in order to avoid appearing silly (or some such reason) they had to make the crucible be something way more super de dooper special than a space cannon.  Except it is a space cannon that now can do wildly crazy things.  Vomit.

I intensely disliked the EMS system.  It was craptastic and existed to funnel all players into the 3 choices.  There was no rhyme or reason as to the arbitrary numbers given to things, except that if you lost assets somewhere, you gained them somewhere else.  Why do that if all you're going to do is even things out?  Lose the geth, gain some quarians, and so on.  Save the collector base or don't-it doesn't matter.  EMS will save you.

I disliked how ME2 characters were treated.  I disliked some new characters:  Allers, Kai Leng, and so on.  I can only assume that whoever wrote them into the game had issues.  Kai Leng was straight out of the Adam West Batman tv series, or some crappy cartoon show.  Allers, well it's obvious why she was in the game-product placement.

The problem is where ME3 was good it was really really good.  But when it was bad (as in the ending), it made me examine the rest of the game where it was a lot easier to see what was not so good.  Some of it was obvious along the way, but it didn't stink so much until I went back and looked at it again, because I was trying to find out where this ending came from.

For me, there were also a lot of things that were not in chronological order or that were repeated--as in dialogue with Liara and then with James.  It's like Liara has no idea what the heck is going on-first on Mars and then later if she is your LI.

I disliked the kid in the game even before the ending-I disliked him at the beginning.  I disliked the dreams-could have been great, without the kid.

But where I loved ME3, I loved it and then BW ripped out my heart at the end and stomped it on the ground and repeatedly claimed to have no idea or no need to change anything, because the ending was just super fine.

Then Leviathan-made the ending stupider, made Leviathan itself stupid since the goal there was to get the Leviathans to help and outside of killing one reaper, they sit out the rest of the "war". 

I'm not going to give BW credit where it's undeserved.  I've given them much credit for creating this wonderful series with characters that came to life in a way for most of us.  I can't understand how the trash of an ending would ever be considered by them to be a fitting one for these characters.  MEHEM has helped make it better.  It didn't do everything, nor could it because many of the mistakes in the game stem from that one word:  impossible.  ME1 and ME2 set up a milieu where the impossible was made possible-where people could work together and determine their future and overcome.  ME3 squashed that.  I don't hate it.  I never have.  But I remain extremely disappointed and disturbed by the way they chose to end it.  I've played games with bad endings before, but I didn't care that much about the games.  This one I did.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Sion1138 wrote...

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

All of the games are corridor shooters to the same degree. ME2's inventory system while not as good as ME3 beats ME1 by offering options in functionality rather than color choice.

ME1's items had stats, so I don't know what you're talking about.

The problem with ME1 was that there was a definite answer to the question what is the best weapon setup.

In ME2 the answer is a bit more nuanced as that question depends on the individual players tactics, skill, and gameplay.

[Mcfly616]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

ME2 easily had the most linear gameplay/level design out of the trilogy. Compared to it's predecessor, it's inventory system is nonexistent, power attributes were butchered, and it's a genuine corridor shooter.

All of the games are corridor shooters to the same degree. ME2's inventory system while not as good as ME3 beats ME1 by offering options in functionality rather than color choice.

half of ME1 took place in wide open areas, so....not sure where you get a corridor shooter from that. Sure, there were some corridors (show me a game without one), but we were not running through corridors from point A to point B like we were on every single mission throughout ME2. Tight narrow paths, herding us like cattle to our destination with no freedom of approach to combat other than: "straight ahead". This was not the case at all in ME1



And I'm not sure what ME2 inventory system you speak of. There wasn't one. I'm not sure what inventory you saw in ME1 either, as everything had stats:  armor, weapons, and upgrades where you could literally see exactly how capable they are. Seems damn functional to me. If not the most specific tracking of capabilities throughout the whole series. Seems just about everything in ME1s inventory is more "functional" than any gear you get in ME2. 

Planet scanning and then going back to your ship and getting a 20% boost in biotic damage....stuuuupid. I think I'd rather go to that Hanar shop on the Presidium and get me some badass heavy armor that upgrades my Shields to 400 (paying for it with my hard earned creds), slap medical exoskeleton on that bad boy, and kick some ass. Seems more legit than " hey I just found some mineral on some planet, lets go to the "research" terminal, push a button and we'll magically be better at biotics, or shooting or whatever."

Modifié par Mcfly616, 13 février 2014 - 04:25 .

[3DandBeyond]

JamesFaith wrote...

iakus wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...

Different people, different tastes, no universal solution. You canť take in account all tastes of all potentional buyers and even your own fan forum isn't good indicator about these tastes (like f.e. case of suddenly missed MAKO proved).

Different people, different tastes, hundreds, if not thousands of choices made over five years and three games.

All funnelled into a Walter White ending.

Bravo, Bioware.  Bravo.

You mean Walter White ending which happenned nearly year after ME3?

I know you love cherry-picking from notes of Casey and Mac and turning them to memes but this one doesn't work.

The point here is that it was BW (Casey) that said that ME3's endings would be vastly different for all that played the games because of all the choices.  The hype was there obviously because his idea was that it would be like no two people had been playing the same game-always unrealistic, but....  He emphasized the point that the endings could be so different because they didn't have to funnel into some next game (tell that to ME NEXT).  What we ended up with are these vastly similar endings with ramifications (the what comes after) that are very similar.  And for many of us it's not that the choices lead to different things, but that each one is a version of just how screwed up Shepard can leave the galaxy, with or without the reapers being alive still. 

Gee we only chased after the reapers or their proxies for 3 games, hundreds of hours, 7 years, and all to NOT fight them and in 3 of 4 endings, to NOT destroy them.  And the one ending that lets us destroy them is a bundle of nonsense and crap.  Satisfying.

[KotorEffect3]

Ghost Lightning wrote...

Did...did it turn good since the one time I played it?

It has always been good and much better than.......................






























custom avatars

[Iakus]

3DandBeyond wrote...

The point here is that it was BW (Casey) that said that ME3's endings would be vastly different for all that played the games because of all the choices.  The hype was there obviously because his idea was that it would be like no two people had been playing the same game-always unrealistic, but....  He emphasized the point that the endings could be so different because they didn't have to funnel into some next game (tell that to ME NEXT).  What we ended up with are these vastly similar endings with ramifications (the what comes after) that are very similar.  And for many of us it's not that the choices lead to different things, but that each one is a version of just how screwed up Shepard can leave the galaxy, with or without the reapers being alive still. 

Gee we only chased after the reapers or their proxies for 3 games, hundreds of hours, 7 years, and all to NOT fight them and in 3 of 4 endings, to NOT destroy them.  And the one ending that lets us destroy them is a bundle of nonsense and crap.  Satisfying.

Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black

Henry Ford 

[s17tabris]

I was annoyed and disappointed with many parts of ME3 (not just the ending), but I never hated it. After EC, I just no longer cared about the ME series.

Modifié par arr0whead, 13 février 2014 - 04:18 .

[ImaginaryMatter]

Mcfly616 wrote...

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

All of the games are corridor shooters to the same degree. ME2's inventory system while not as good as ME3 beats ME1 by offering options in functionality rather than color choice.

half of ME1 took place in wide open areas, so....not sure where you get a corridor shooter from that. Sure, there were some corridors (show me a game without one), but we were not running through corridors from point A to point B like we were on every single mission throughout ME2. Tight narrow paths, herding us like cattle to our destination with no freedom of approach to combat other than: "straight ahead". This was not the case at all in ME1



And I'm not sure what ME2 inventory system you speak of. There wasn't one. I'm not sure what inventory you saw in ME1 either, as everything had stats:  armor, weapons, and upgrades where you could literally see exactly how capable they are. Seems damn functional to me. If not the most specific tracking of capabilities throughout the whole series. Seems just about everything in ME1s inventory is more "functional" than any gear you get in ME2. 

Planet scanning and then going back to your ship and getting a 20% boost in biotic damage....stuuuupid. I think I'd rather go to that Hanar shop on the Presidium and get me some badass heavy armor that upgrades my Shields to 400 (paying for it with my hard earned creds), slap medical exoskeleton on that bad boy, and kick some ass. Seems more legit than " hey I just found some mineral on some planet, lets go to the "research" terminal, push a button and we'll magically be better at biotics, or shooting or whatever."

ME1's main missions are equally corridory as ME2 (Therum corridors, Feros corridors, Virmire Corridors; Noveria is really the only mission to actually present a choice in corridors), however, ME2 does tend to offer more tactical choices (for example, the end of Jacob's LM because much less tedious if you can flank the enemy's position). Also, ME1's side missions are superficially open, yes they do take place outside, but there is very little reward (there's shifty space cow and that's about it) for deviating off path (the map marks everything so it's really an option of visiting stuff in ABC or CBA, I think most people don't find that particularly liberating).

ME2's weapons offer a much more diverse selection, even with two weapons of each type. The Shuriken vs Tempest discussion alone has much more depth than any of the weapon's in ME1 as play style, tactics, builds, etc. effect which one is better for a given situation, where in ME1 every weapon is the same except for slight differences (often negligible) in DPS. ME1's method of diversifying the weapon set up through mods becomes moot because of skill trees, so there is a definite optimal build for every weapon (aka 2 rail extensions and shredder/tungsten ammo). As far as weapons are concerned ME1 and ME2 you progress through the game occationally upgrading your weapons to do slightly more damage, only for ME2 you don't have to navigate a clunky inventory system and there is a meaningful choice in terms of weapon selection. In ME1 there is one gun with different colors, in ME2 you at least have a choice, even though it may only be two but that choice opens so many more options.

Armor in both games is mostly a matter of aesthetics. Although in ME1 the scaling is much worse which leads to essentially invincible Shepards even on Insanity at relatively early levels. Even the aquisition method is basically the same in the games, you go down to a planet, kill some people, and somewhere along the way you'll get an upgrade. And despite how unfun planet scanning is the time spent scanning can easily be reduced to a few minutes scanning wealthy planets to obtain more than the necessary minerals to upgrade everything, which is much less than the time one could spend selling/converting Lancer assault rifles alone.

Overall ME2 provides everything ME1 does, only without as much tediousness, and a few improvements in terms of gameplay and level design.

Edited for some grammar

Modifié par ImaginaryMatter, 13 février 2014 - 05:55 .

[Nightwriter]

Bitter yes. Hateful no.

[78stonewobble]

I kinda sorta accept the War asset / EMS system as I can't see any other way to have done it.

Other than crafting a story that depends on certain decisions to have been made "correctly".

Ie. kill off the arachnids? Loose the game ... or Thessia... because they would have been needed to beat the reapers overall or on that planet...

While interesting, I think it would also have garnered alot of anger from people with savegames.

Personally I loved to read about every single war asset I collected, but I can see how that would not seem enough for everyone.

The chance to see the war assets in action I think would have mitigated this somewhat.

The whole overhearing conversations was a bit laughable as well, but it's a minor thing here.

I think the main problem is those anonymously and simply gathered assets.... They should have been built into real gameplay as smaller side missions, but then again I might not have liked developer ressources going to that instead of ie. the good missions we do have.