1638 réponses à ce sujet

[Invisible Man]

I have to agree with Mcfly here. on every planet in me1 there were objects of interest that aren't marked on the map, not all of those were mineral deposits (a lot were, but not all), you also had mines, prefab dwellings, research outposts... there were fake distress calls that lead to geth ambushes, and I admit when playing a sniper character I liked taking shots at 200-300 meters against targets I could barely make out at that distance. I'm not trying to say you're wrong, as I don't see a right or wrong answer in this particular discussion. I'm just adding my likes to this conversation.

---edit (typos, lack of sleep)

Modifié par Invisible Man, 16 février 2014 - 08:20 .

[Mcfly616]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

I don't find it immersive along with a few other people (how can someone carry 74 Assault rifles?). Just boring. I really dislike the genre "RPG" because now it seems like just adding a bunch of collecting and selling of randon items just for the sake of collecting and selling a bunch of random items. It's time consuming and just makes parts of the game seem like a chore. If I wanted to manage a vast amount of inventory I would join the Navy's Supply Corp.

 not sure who said RPG consists of loot and random items just for the sake of it....Borderlands was all about that, and I wouldn't consider it an RPG.


However you're aware of the fact that you don't have to pick up the loot. That sorta thing is optional. Nobody's forcing you. Which furthers my point about ME2. In ME1 you had a lot of freedom and choice concerning nearly every aspect of the gameplay. In ME2, such freedoms are greatly reduced if not completely removed. I never said ME1s inventory was perfect or even good.....however, I am saying that it's much better than the nonexistent inventory in ME2. 


Somethings better than nothing. Especially when something is completely optional. You can still have nothing if you want. But for those of us that like 'something', we should have that option.

I find ME2's and ME3's inventory superior as there is actually a choice to be had between different weapons (no matter how small it may be in ME2). ME1 offers nothing but the same weapons for each category with nothing to differentiate them except for DPS. I said elsewhere that for ME2 even the Tempest vs Shuriken debate is deeper than the entirety of ME1's inventory debate as it at least include's the players tactics and gameplay into consideration.

ME3 has the best inventory system in the trilogy. But Idk why you're comparing guns. They're guns. We are discussing the inventory system. Which ME2 doesn't even have.....


So, I could careless if all of ME1s guns look the same, seeing as how I'm not even discussing that subject. It was a system that organized your stuff. ME2 didn't even have that. It was more of a shooter. You pick your loadout at go....


Armors, omnitools, biotic apps....I like customization, and ME1 offered more variety. The inventory contained these things. 

Modifié par Mcfly616, 16 février 2014 - 08:12 .

[TuringPoint]

Mcfly does have a point, however, the "open-ended" nature of combat was formless. Having a path at least sets up a variety of different situations; with formless combat you essentially approach every situation with the same handful of tricks, and the fact that there was no cover in these arenas meant awkward combat, or simply using the same abilities over and over until the enemy was dead.

I did think they did a nice job with combat in the DLC for ME1, but the DLC combat was less open-ended in the sense that it had paths. It was a nice balance though, thinking about the X57 mission or the simulator.

I do miss being able to snipe enemies, then again I remember the cheese of dodging rockets, and my teammates standing uselessly next to me, complaining about getting shot but doing nothing about it. Accidentally getting hit by that Geth Colossus projectile one time in a hundred having to reload.

Strafing around endlessly in the Mako, firing turrets at the enemy endlessly.

If they have the technology to do open-ended combat well, now, I look forward to it. I suppose what I'm suggesting is they might not have had the tech to do it the way they wanted to, so they reconsidered their direction on combat and exploration.

Also, remember that the real levels were comparably linear, not to mention endlessly repetitive in a way none of the "linear" maps were in ME2 or 3. (most open-ended combat was for the mako, and didn't involve strategy)

Modifié par Alocormin, 16 février 2014 - 08:14 .

[Mcfly616]

I liked the fact that ME1 didn't force me to play it like a cover-based shooter. I liked that I didn't necessarily have to take cover in every firefight. And it wasn't because it was easier, it was because the game allowed for it. ME1 is just a different beast than the sequels.



Squadmate AI sucked, level design was quite bland.....but we still had complete tactical freedom. If they could improve on the things that sucked, then it'd be all good. I never understood throwing the baby out with the bathwater.....But Bioware certainly makes a habit of completely scrapping good ideas that weren't implemented well the first time around 

Modifié par Mcfly616, 16 février 2014 - 08:19 .

[Invisible Man]

StreetMagic wrote...

Run n gun is still viable. Just depends on the class and weapon. At least, if you want to call Adrenaline Rush or Vanguard as "run n gun".

I think this is the case in ME3 though more than ME2. It seems easier to get mowed down in ME2, even on a soldier. You have to rely on cover a lot more, but in ME3 I find myself flanking out in the open almost all of the time.

I usually find I don't need to flank at all, I'm good at making headshots, and arcing power attacks over or around cover. and an armor piercing mod to a sniper rifle is quite useful in that regard too.

[GraphicOps]

Yes, I do. It deserves to be hated. It's only redeemable quality is that without ME3 doing what it did. I think that developers would continue with ideas like this and try to get away with them. Had Mass Effect 3's ending not had so much outrage a lot of other games that came out would be worse off and Microsoft probably wouldn't have gotten chastised at E3 for their DRM Policies.

Mass Effect 1 was awesome! Very interested to see the next two BioWare games after close examination of watching Let's Play Videos and knowing how these games end.

[Reorte]

Mcfly616 wrote...

Squadmate AI sucked, level design was quite bland.....but we still had complete tactical freedom. If they could improve on the things that sucked, then it'd be all good. I never understood throwing the baby out with the bathwater.....But Bioware certainly makes a habit of completely scrapping good ideas that weren't implemented well the first time around

That's very much it, too much replace instead of fix if broken. Although the bland, identikit environments meant that ME1 became repetitive it at least didn't feel like you were being plonked here for a mission, then whisked off and plonked in another one and so on. It was especially telling in some of the main missions, where the combat and non-combat scenes were properly integrated. Normally wandering around the Citadel, but get into a fight in Chora's Den, things like that.

[GreatBlueHeron]

The super love for me1 looks like nostalgia. I played in order 2, 3 then 1. I do love the first game, but it's not the pinnacle of greatness. I was loling at the hud and cheesy VO lines. The interiors on free explore are repetitive. Combat is stilted (though the ability to crouch is nice). The level of choice felt consistent across all three games. I can't say that I have a favorite me game--I like them all. Hands down my personal favorite series of all time.

About that ending...meh. I still want to save geth/edi, but reaper code has got to go (according to the game). Can't do anything about it. Looking forward to the next game.

[ElSuperGecko]

I've never hated ME3. It's an awesome game, and I'm still enjoying playing it to this day. There's not too many games I can say that about.

[marcelo caldas]

starlitegirlx wrote...

caldas wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Disappointed, bitter apathy more like. It has its great moments, but by and large, its an incarnate realization of the decline of BioWare in general.

I'd say DA2 and ME3 are the "incarnate realization of the decline of BioWare in general".

Responding OP's question: I never hated it, ME Trilogy are the best games I ever played, on the other hand ME3 endings ARE pure trash. They stink so bad that BW can't even go public with the next plot out of fear.

So true. Actually I think they can't go public because they screwed the ending up so massively that they can't figure out how to go forward. And honestly, I don't think they initially planned on going past 3 games but when they made the third and saw it was technically the most successful of the three I believe, they decided to go for more, but by then they had already screwed the galaxy. I believe the only reason they did the ending cut DLC was because they wanted to salvage what they could of their new cash cow.

Let's face it, they already are playing the new ME. Casey Hudson posts about this on twitter. It was not hard to just move forward even with a new game engine because it's already something they have to in place. But I really don't think they ever intended to move past three when they were making it the third. Or at least if they did, they didn't foresee the problems their ending would present in doing so. That was some serious writing ones self into a corner. So now they cannot release the story because I believe they probably have yet to come up with one.

They never meant to make a sequel out of it, Hudson hifself said that they could come up with anything because they had no restrictions or issues of continuing M3. Even when they started to talk about the next ME it was just nonsense, things like ME4 doesn't have to be before, during or after ME3 (WTF?) or about cameos (Garrus doing nothing important on the Citadel?). Now they have to do it becouse fans only want to move foward.

I too prefer something in the near future, but, the Rachni wars could be a good prequel, I would definitely play it.
And it has everything BW wants, a big war, all races and not dealing with ME3 disaster.

Modifié par caldas, 16 février 2014 - 07:12 .

[marcelo caldas]

StreetMagic wrote...

I think ME2 compensated a little (a little! Don't ****ing bite my head off ) by giving you a big squad, and giving you the freedom to personalize your loyalties and storyline. It's very malleable in that respect. They didn't necessarily want you to play all of it. Hudson's gone on record that he counted on some loving this or that character and hating others. The whole game revolved around characters. "The funny thing is that people will say 'other than gathering your crew and building your team and getting ready for this mission, there's not much story there.' But that is the story."

ME2 is the best game for sure, of course not the best plot (ME1 is), but the overall experience is a 10 out of 10. That game was fun as hell, immersive, lots of diferent enemies to fight (not 3 factions with 6 identically enemies each), slow paced that you could enjoy everything in their own time.
ME3 improved the gamepaly greatly, but the game itself was weakened to fit the multiplayer (squad interaction, enemy factions and weapon balance metric?)
The multiplayer was owesome, but I don't want to have the next ME because of that.

[KrazyKiko]

Mcfly616 wrote...

Well, ME2 is certainly my least favorite game of the trilogy based on the fact that alot of my favorite aspects from ME1 were completely absent. In fact, ME2 made me have to reimagine what I thought of when I heard the words "Mass Effect", because it was a completely different game/animal/breed. It was a sequel in name and characters only (hell, the character part is even in question: cough*Liara+Garrus*cough). Everything else (gameplay, narrative, mechanics) was a reboot.

Yes!  Most certainly my feelings too.  A small annoyance - the "old fashioned" Mission Summary screen that plastered the TIM face.  Seriously?  The first had subtle loading screens and what I would content a smoother transition to new scenes.  ME3 fixed some of it, but still nothing like ME1.  

[CronoDragoon]

Idc what a professional butcher does. I know what the term "butchered" means. Seeing as that's exactly what I said, and that I didn't bring up a butcher at all....seems you're confused. I do know that when a Crime Scene Investigator says that the young lady was "butchered" beyond all recognition, that obviously means she's much less than she once was. When a coach says his team got butchered, I know that means they got ran out of the building.

The butcher comparison was meant to illustrate that trimming things down can sometimes be really really good. Now, I think most people agree that ME2 trimmed down things like weapon customization and inventory too much. Hence ME3. When I'm talking about things being refined I'm referring to what they eventually evolved into in ME3. ME1 was too bloated and messy. ME2 was too streamlined. ME3 hit the right balance. Is that fair?

Where were the hallways? Every mission. Every single mission in ME2 you are walking down a linear path. Whether it be a man made hallway, or outside. You have no where to go but straight on any given mission. 

Yep, missions. Something ME1 was light on. I'll take corridor missions over riding 5 minutes to pick up some palladium any day.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 16 février 2014 - 05:17 .

[Karlone123]

I do not hate ME3, otherwise I would have gotten rid of it. I feel disappointed by ME3 still, the game did not have an interesting, dynamic atmosphere ME2 delivered which instead felt flat and a bit lifeless. ME2 had fun and unique missions like two of Samara's missions and as well as Garrus' missions, these were memorable and designed to be playable. ME3 missions were too much of the same and bore little of no importance to me as the only result amounted to a meter bar in the war assets.


I wish the war assets had more interaction, such as sending units to attack or defend star systems. It feels like positive feedback from ME2 was ignored and Bioware went with a less exciting direction with less variation and more stale atmosphere, less player involvement. less mission diversity and such. The game did not feel fun that much. If I would give ME3 a rating, it would be 7 out of 10, enjoyable enough, which is step down from a 9/10 I would give ME2.

[Oransel]

I hated ME3 for a long time. Now? I came to peace with what it is and enjoy the best it has to offer. I am still very sad that it has not lived up to it's potential, though.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Mcfly616 wrote...

ME3 has the best inventory system in the trilogy. But Idk why you're comparing guns. They're guns. We are discussing the inventory system. Which ME2 doesn't even have.....


So, I could careless if all of ME1s guns look the same, seeing as how I'm not even discussing that subject. It was a system that organized your stuff. ME2 didn't even have that. It was more of a shooter. You pick your loadout at go....


Armors, omnitools, biotic apps....I like customization, and ME1 offered more variety. The inventory contained these things. 

The guns are an example of how lacking the ME1 inventory system is. It doesn't offer customization, every item is just an upgrade over some previous item, that's why you have a definite best omni-tool, assault rifle, armor, etc. Like ME2 only had two SMGs to choose between, but those weapons were completely different from each other, so when deciding which one to equip you have to consider play style, tactics, etc. None, of them were the "best" SMG. In ME1 you're just comparing the numbers.

I think an inventory system should only exist if it offers players the chance to customize characters for differents rolls, forms of gameplay, etc. Like offering defensive gear for tanking or light gear for damage dealing. It seems like where you see customization I see an illusion of customization. I like picking gear based off how I play a particular character not because one item has better numbers than another item.

The armor and weapon mods were a good idea, and I'm glad they came back in ME3.

Modifié par ImaginaryMatter, 16 février 2014 - 05:54 .

[Raizo]

I no longer hate it ( not sure if I ever did ) but I do still feel as if it were a disappointing follow up to ME1 and ME3. There are moments of brilliance ( mostly the combat, the skill trees and the amount of weapons ) but overall the game feels like a chore to play, I don't enjoy myself when playing it. Engaging with NPC's feels hollow ( thanks to the 'new' eavesdrop dialogue system ), I just don't give a **** about any of them or what they want because I'm not actually interacting with them. Planet scanning feels like more of a chore than it was in ME2 and I hated planet scanning in mE2, that is saying a lot. I also feel as if the War Asset gameplay mechanic is very flimsy, ME3 is game all about numbers, blatantly so. Bioware should have done a better job of hiding this gameplay mechanic, instead they shove it in our face and as such it is impossible to play ME3 without kinowing that everything you do or say comes down to a number.

[Reorte]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

The guns are an example of how lacking the ME1 inventory system is. It doesn't offer customization, every item is just an upgrade over some previous item, that's why you have a definite best omni-tool, assault rifle, armor, etc. Like ME2 only had two SMGs to choose between, but those weapons were completely different from each other, so when deciding which one to equip you have to consider play style, tactics, etc. None, of them were the "best" SMG. In ME1 you're just comparing the numbers.

I think an inventory system should only exist if it offers players the chance to customize characters for differents rolls, forms of gameplay, etc. Like offering defensive gear for tanking or light gear for damage dealing. It seems like where you see customization I see an illusion of customization. I like picking gear based off how I play a particular character not because one item has better numbers than another item.

The armor and weapon mods were a good idea, and I'm glad they came back in ME3.

The guns themselves sometimes had a little bit of variety and choice but not much (e.g. less accurate but more powerful, although when you could it was simply SPECTRE weapons). Purely in terms of the base weapon ME2 was much better than ME1, and ME3 better still. The mods on the other hand did make a difference - the way of managing them was poor but the concept good. Personally I prefer something a bit inbetween; I'm not really keen on the whole gun level 1 to 10 thing but do like variety and the ability to customise.

[Mcfly616]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Yep, missions. Something ME1 was light on. I'll take corridor missions over riding 5 minutes to pick up some palladium any day.

 

Not sure what game you played. I had plenty of missions in ME1 that didn't force me to run down endless corridors. Never bothered picking up any minerals either. Not sure why you would do that unless you actually liked it.....you know, seeing as it's completely optional.


I'll take ME1s open side missions over ME2s endless corridors on every mission.

[Lee T]

Never hated it. It was a huge disappointment though, and I still feel that way.

What brought me in Mass Effect was the concept of having the impact of your decisions carrying over three games.

Mass Effect 2 was already a big let down, almost no impact of the previous game and some very stupid situations like having a totally silent Grunt along in Solus' mission, shows how much they cared for the story and the characters.

Mass Effect 3 as a whole was another step in the wrong direction furthermore the ending was completely disconnected from the rest of the game, and the rest of the games, making the whole premise (overarching decisions) moot.

I did buy ME1 and ME2 and every DLC. I did force myself to play ME2 with everyone of my ME1 characters to bring them in ME3 (as it's own game there's not much point in playing ME2 more than once imo). I played through ME3 once, didn't get the DLC and didn't play any other ME games since.

So yes as far as I'm concerned I still do not like ME3, it did ruin the trilogy as a whole for me and time hasn't changed that.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Mcfly616 wrote...


However you're aware of the fact that you don't have to pick up the loot. That sorta thing is optional. Nobody's forcing you. Which furthers my point about ME2. In ME1 you had a lot of freedom and choice concerning nearly every aspect of the gameplay. In ME2, such freedoms are greatly reduced if not completely removed. I never said ME1s inventory was perfect or even good.....however, I am saying that it's much better than the nonexistent inventory in ME2. 


Somethings better than nothing. Especially when something is completely optional. You can still have nothing if you want. But for those of us that like 'something', we should have that option.

You really need to stop making half-assed arguments like this. Tip for the future: "it's optional" isn't an argument.

In purchasing any product, the customer's goal is satisfaction. If I have to ignore large segments of the game, on which a significant amount of development time was spent, then I'm going to tell the developer either "fix or remove". From a consumer perspective, it's a complete waste of time.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Yep, missions. Something ME1 was light on. I'll take corridor missions over riding 5 minutes to pick up some palladium any day.

Agreed.

[Mcfly616]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...


The guns are an example of how lacking the ME1 inventory system is. It doesn't offer customization, every item is just an upgrade over some previous item, that's why you have a definite best omni-tool, assault rifle, armor, etc. Like ME2 only had two SMGs to choose between, but those weapons were completely different from each other, so when deciding which one to equip you have to consider play style, tactics, etc. None, of them were the "best" SMG. In ME1 you're just comparing the numbers.

I think an inventory system should only exist if it offers players the chance to customize characters for differents rolls, forms of gameplay, etc. Like offering defensive gear for tanking or light gear for damage dealing. It seems like where you see customization I see an illusion of customization. I like picking gear based off how I play a particular character not because one item has better numbers than another item.

The armor and weapon mods were a good idea, and I'm glad they came back in ME3.

uhh guns are not an example of how lacking the inventory system was at all. All it's an example of is how lacking the guns are in aesthetic and mechanical variety. 


I agree, the inventory should exist in order to customize our characters for different roles.... which is exactly what ME1 did. Light Armor, medium armor, heavy armor, this omnitool or that omnitool. I could give Liara a biotic amp that maximizes cooldown time as I give Wrex the one that maximizes duration. Polonium rounds, chemical rounds, radioactive rounds.....


I roleplay my characters with more freedom in ME1 than I've ever been able to with the second game. Where we choose between a gun that's fully auto or one that's burst fire. And then we get to choose between 1 of 2 outfits for them. Yay. So many options.

You take your aesthetic variety (one gun shoots different than that gun) and I'll take my gameplay variety. (this gun does more damage than that gun, this omnitool/biotic amp/ammo is better than that other kind)


Or there's always ME3 where they offered both.

[Darks1d3]

Mcfly616 wrote...

ImaginaryMatter wrote...


The guns are an example of how lacking the ME1 inventory system is. It doesn't offer customization, every item is just an upgrade over some previous item, that's why you have a definite best omni-tool, assault rifle, armor, etc. Like ME2 only had two SMGs to choose between, but those weapons were completely different from each other, so when deciding which one to equip you have to consider play style, tactics, etc. None, of them were the "best" SMG. In ME1 you're just comparing the numbers.

I think an inventory system should only exist if it offers players the chance to customize characters for differents rolls, forms of gameplay, etc. Like offering defensive gear for tanking or light gear for damage dealing. It seems like where you see customization I see an illusion of customization. I like picking gear based off how I play a particular character not because one item has better numbers than another item.

The armor and weapon mods were a good idea, and I'm glad they came back in ME3.

uhh guns are not an example of how lacking the inventory system was at all. All it's an example of is how lacking the guns are in aesthetic and mechanical variety. 


I agree, the inventory should exist in order to customize our characters for different roles.... which is exactly what ME1 did. Light Armor, medium armor, heavy armor, this omnitool or that omnitool. I could give Liara a biotic amp that maximizes cooldown time as I give Wrex the one that maximizes duration. Polonium rounds, chemical rounds, radioactive rounds.....


I roleplay my characters with more freedom in ME1 than I've ever been able to with the second game. Where we choose between a gun that's fully auto or one that's burst fire. And then we get to choose between 1 of 2 outfits for them. Yay. So many options.

You take your aesthetic variety (one gun shoots different than that gun) and I'll take my gameplay variety. (this gun does more damage than that gun, this omnitool/biotic amp/ammo is better than that other kind)


Or there's always ME3 where they offered both.

Meh, I'm going to have to go with ImaginaryMatter here. ME1 had the illusion of choice. Sure, there were all sorts of weapons and armor to choose from. But there only a few that were worth using. The others paled in comparison(Like those Banshee assault rifles. No matter what level you chose or found, they sucked compared to other ARs that were the same level. Or the Onyx light armor compared to, well, everything else). I don't know if anyone here has played the Armored Core games on the playstation and PS2, but they had the same kind of problem. There were hundreds of parts and weapons to customize your mech with. But there were only a handful of parts and weapons that were worth using. If you went into a match without those weapons and parts, you got owned. And you had cookie cutter mechs that dominated everything. Like the Kawasawa MK2 in Armored Core 2. Way OP. Chromehounds on the Xbox had similar problems. ME3 struck the right balance IMO.