Aller au contenu

Photo

Mass Effect in Retrospect, Part 1


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
63 réponses à ce sujet

#1
Legion of 1337

Legion of 1337
  • Members
  • 820 messages

Wow. It’s been….a long, long time, since I’ve been here, been part of this community, since I even gave Mass Effect a bit of thought. I moved on to other games as people do, but as with any fandom, there are many people who will always be here because it is so well loved. And while I can still say I admire it, I can no longer count myself as part of the fandom, simply because I have, since I recently gave it some more thought, realized that Mass Effect is not the Crown Jewel I thought (or wished) it was. And that’s why I’m here: I never reviewed Mass Effect. I never saw the point, I loved the series, so gushing over it would be pointless. But having stepped back, I feel there’s a lot that needs to be said, because I feel this is something that ultimately COULD have been a masterpiece, but ultimately wasn’t.

 

I am well aware that having been gone so long and these forums being as active as they are, everything I'm going to say has probably already been said by somebody at some point. So in effect this may all be pointless. But I'm doing it anyway, for me. I feel the need to compile all my thoughts into a coherent review, to determine once and for all my definitive thoughts on ME. As I have a lot, this will be rather long, which is why today I'm just posting Part one, which conerns the actual gameplay, which I consider to be the game's biggest flaw. When this thread dies I'll post more (or, if by some miracle it sticks around, I'll ptu up part two in a couple days) - I had no intention of this whole thing being so long but as I sat there typing what came to my head and the word count started approaching 10000 I figured there was no way I'm putting it all in one thread. However, for those who don't feel like reading all of it, the TL'DR of the entire review is right here at the top.

 

The TL;DR:

 

Mass Effect is not a bad game. But it’s not fantastic. It simply has too many narrative, mechanical and gameplay problems to make it so. I think these games get high review scores because unlike a lot of other games before them, they actually TRIED to have an epic story with extensive characterization and an awesome sci-fi setting. You can tell they were TRYING to make something that was truly one-in-a-million. But I think ME is being given points for effort rather than points for actually being that good – there simply aren’t enough games that try to do this kind of epic storytelling and many of us gamers, critics and consumers alike, eat it right up because we don’t have much else. However, if we really want video games to be taken as serious art, as they should be, then you have to hold your standards for what constitutes a good narrative to the same level as a book or a film or a tv show, and we simply don’t do that. We’re getting better, but we’re still too easily duped by flashy looks-like-its-epic stories like Mass Effect’s that are, in fact, quite flawed. No matter how attached you get to the characters, it doesn't hide the narrative's gaping holes and the critically flawed gameplay. Giving it top marks because you love the cast simply doesn't give the game the scrutiny it needs.

 

The Meat and Potatoes:

 

I wasn’t quite sure how to break this down: by game? I like to think of the whole trilogy as one big story, and in theory that’s what it’s supposed to be, but as it actually stands the story is so jarringly separated by each entry that ignoring discussion of the difference between each game is futile. How do I break down the many interconnected elements of the story and world interaction, like the story, the characters, the environment, the dialogue system and the morality system? They’re so intertwined it’s very difficult, and any given angle you approach it from may cause one to go off on tangents and find it difficult to get back on track with a jarring shift in the text.

 

Well, difficult as it may be, I’m going to try to break it down and focus my review, because otherwise it will turn into a disorganized, incoherent mess, I am quite sure of that.

 

The Combat:

 

Let’s get the worst of it out of the way, shall we? Despite everything I’ve said above, Mass Effect’s biggest flaw is not its story – it’s the moment-to-moment combat you slog through the game with.  It doesn’t matter which game you pick, it’s never very good, though it must be admitted each game was better than the previous one.

 

Mass Effect 1 doesn’t appear to know whether it wants to be an RPG or Gears of War, and as a result features gameplay so banal, clunky and badly designed I now find it a chore to get through, and it makes playing Mass Effect 1 very difficult for me entertainment-wise. The shooting mechanics are clunky and strange, with Shepard being given all types of weapons and constantly picking up all kinds of weapons, yet being unable to hit the broadside of a barn with the ****** things until he levels up his skill with said weapon, making shootouts in the early part of the game, where the enemies have the same accuracy they always do, tedious at best since you have to get basically to point blank range or get really good at compensating for that ridiculous sniper rifle scope sway in order to kill anything.  Isn’t Shepard supposed to be a combat veteran Spec Ops badass? Is that not why they pulled him in in the first place? The cover system is really quite bad, overly sticky and yet also entirely clunky and unresponsive at the same time.

The way powers are used is quite stupid. Biotics are supposed to be like ME’s magic that you’d find in fantasy RPGs, so why am I restricted to using them in very specific, one-shot ways? The reset timers on those are so long until you level them up that you find yourself shooting people with pistols most of the time rather than using your badass superpowers. Why aren’t biotics more active? Why can’t I telekinetically pick up a crate and start tossing it all over the room and smashing enemies with it? Why can’t I pick up enemies and do the same thing? Why can’t I ****** rip people in half? Why can I only stun them in place and then be forced to shoot them with my shitty ass guns? What the hell happened to the good ol’ mana bar? Same with tech abilities – why are these cooldown timers? Why aren’t they literal gadgets and inventory items I pick up and use? A system like that would allow for a lot more variety in tech gadgets as well. In fact, the general lack of interesting items in a supposed RPG, being limited to a fuckton of increasingly-powerful guns and armours makes the gameplay less diverse than it conceivably could be. OH, that would require giving you an actual inventory instead of the equipment slot system the game currently uses? Oh well golly gee Bioware I didn’t know you had no idea how terrible an idea your slot system is. Oh, you designed it for an Xbox controller and an inventory is hard to navigate with a controller? Well boo-****** hoo, I don’t care about the limitations of that shitty-ass console, I want good design, period.

 

Mass Effect 2 saw the combat go increasingly Gears of War, and also let Bioware’s trademark laziness rear its ugly head with regards to character progression. Rather than try to make the RPG mechanics work and give us truly diverse and interesting combat, they basically ditched almost all of it, reducing abilities to 3 or 4 per class, with a lot of overlap between them (the ammo types, for example). So basically it was Gears of War with a few superpower sprinkles on top. Except the shooting was nowhere near as good as Gears of War – it was floaty, still a bit clunky, and all the guns felt like you were shooting BB guns instead of firearms, both in terms of their actual handling and impact and in how they sound. Seriously, those are the most pathetic weapon sounds I’ve ever heard. All in all, the gameplay was dumbed down and simplified to the point of being utterly boring. It may not be as painful to play as ME1, but ME2’s combat is definitely still boring to partake in.

 

Mass Effect 3 has the best combat. It’s still not as good as Gears in the shooting department, not even close, but it is finally solid feeling. The guns still sound like peashooters but they have some weight to them when you shoot people (well, some do). Also, Shepard can finally hit the broadside of a barn. Killing things is meaty, it feels like you’re hurting enemies. The abilities are more varied, which is good, but you still don’t have an inventory, and you can’t use tech and biotic powers actively. At least biotics have rather quick cooldowns now, so I can spam them all over the place. Without a doubt, powers in ME3, while still rather limited, are far more fun to use (Nova, I’m looking at you – that should have been in ME from the beginning, it’s an excellent ability from a design AND gameplay standpoint).

 

A consistent problem I have with all the games is that you can never have more than two squadmates with you, even though everything would go much smoother and be much easier if everyone helped out. It would also build a better sense of team between all the characters. I know the control interface for that many teammates would be complex, but honestly, the squad control mechanics are dogshit anyway, so ditch those entirely and just have your squad follow you around on their own. Having Shepard and his posse roaming around, people talking with each other and commenting about where they are and what they’re doing would really do wonders for the sense of camaraderie that supposedly exists between them but is basically never shown because all but two of them are always on the goddamn ship.

 

The Environment:

 

Mass Effect’s combat areas are not very good, at all. They almost entirely consist of simple corridors, literal or figurative (thank you impassible doors and waist-high walls), where they place some enemies in front of you and you shoot them til they die. This continues through all the games, and it’s one of the things that Bioware simply never got good at. They don’t know how to design interesting levels for shooter gameplay, it’s as simple as that, and the gameplay suffers even more for it.

 

In addition, Mass Effect 1 suffers from an extremely bad case of copy-and-paste. I called the character building dumb-down an example of Bioware’s laziness, but it’s not the most egregious example. Bioware may put a lot of effort into ME, but they put it disproportionately into certain things and not into others. ME1’s “dungeons”, as it were – the random bases you fight in on planets for sidequests or exploration, or spaceships in space – are all EXACTLY THE SAME. There’s 4 types, and that’s IT. For the WHOLE GAME. It’s so lazy it boggles the mind how they could have thought it was acceptable game design. The repetition of fighting in the same ****** place over and over on dozens of planets makes sidequests utterly unbearable and is why I have never gotten to level 60 in a single runthrough of ME1 since the first time I played it: I simply cannot be assed to do the sidequests. They are painfully grindy, repetitive and boring. While combat may be the biggest flaw of the entire series, the level design of Mass Effect 1 is that particular game’s biggest, and ultimately most harmful flaw.

 

Another sign of Bioware’s laziness is how they handled their botched Mako concept. As terrible as the sidequests may have been due to the copy-and-pasted bases, and as barren as ME’s planets were (though to be fair, most planets really are just giant hunks of rock), exploring the galaxy and driving across vast planetscapes was one of the most awesome things in the game. It really gave you a sense of place and a sense of scale and amazement at the setting. Unfortunately, their programmers fucked up the Mako, and hard. We all hate the Mako. But the solution was not to AXE PLANET EXPLORATION YOU IDIOTS. The solution was to FIX THE MAKO’S CODING. JESUS. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water – or in this case, throw out the unpolished diamond. The solution is not to ditch the diamond, the solution is to polish the diamond. The lack of exploration makes ME2’s levels incredibly small and even more corridor-like. The sense of scale, which should be even greater since you’re out in the wild Terminus systems with plenty of uncharted worlds, is completely gone. Everything is claustrophobic, linear and cramped, even the Citadel, which didn’t need to be made smaller but was. Omega and Illium are missed opportunities for expansive and interesting hub levels, instead simply serving as glorified corridors along which you meet your questgivers.

 

The ME1 Citadel also had its fair share of problems, namely that it was barren and sparse and didn’t feel like an actual place with actual people in it, just a bunch of bare walls with simple boxes and whatnot scattered around and a bunch of static NPCs who never move and rarely ever talk, like a bunch of animatrons in a Wax Museum. In fact that was a problem with ME1’s non-combat levels in general.

 

ME3’s Citadel is probably the best. It’s still not that open and big, but it’s more open and big than ME2 and unlike ME1 feels like a place people actually live. The environments are detailed, people converse, people move (well, sometimes), and it generally feels more like a city than a hospital (that’s what ME1’s Citadel reminded me of – sterile, grey, everyone sitting around). ME3’s other levels aren’t big, but they at least LOOK big, using invisible walls and cliffs (it’s really fond of cliffs) rather than obstructing objects to box you in. You can now at least see the world around you, even if you can’t go there. The sidequest levels are also now UNIQUE – ME2’s were unique but they were so samey-looking because they environment was so tiny that it didn’t make them any less boring. ME3’s are each crafted to be different from each other and give you a sense of scale and place, even if they are still boring from a gameplay perspective.

 

Unfortunately ME3 also suffers from having terrible sidequests. Like TERRIBLE sidequests. ME1 may have been a chore to play, but at least you got to explore a location and experienced a little sidestory. 90% of ME3’s sidequests consist of “Hear random people talking about something they need, go find the thing they need on some planets using the ship’s scanner, go back to the Citadel and tell them you found it.” No exploration, no combat, no nothing. Just pick it up on the scanner. I thought about speaking about the Galaxy map too but ultimately that’s an irrelevant little nitpick that doesn’t matter much – well, except the mineral mechanic in ME2. Horrible. Simply horrible. It’s grinding, pure and simple, and it needs to be removed. Replace it with anything – XP, level, finding certain objects on sidequests, I don’t care, just get rid of this mining crap. It is boring beyond belief.

 

***********************************************************************************************************************************************************************

In Part 2: The Story and Dat Ending



#2
angol fear

angol fear
  • Members
  • 834 messages

"But having stepped back, I feel there’s a lot that needs to be said, because I feel this is something that ultimately COULD have been a masterpiece, but ultimately wasn’t."

 

Too bad for you, because it is actually one of the very few masterpieces of the video game history.


  • Cknarf aime ceci

#3
teh DRUMPf!!

teh DRUMPf!!
  • Members
  • 9 142 messages

The TL;DR:

 

Mass Effect is not a bad game. But it’s not fantastic.

 

I think this is a good summary, not only of Mass Effect, but BioWare's works in general. Some drones/gaming journalists overrate them, and some haters rail on them excessively. Truth is, they're not that good, but they're not that bad either.



#4
ImaginaryMatter

ImaginaryMatter
  • Members
  • 4 163 messages

Too bad for you, because it is actually one of the very few masterpieces of the video game history.

 

...

 

Among bro shooters? Eh, maybe. At the very least, the game/series suffers strongly from gameplay/story segregation; which alone prevents it from being a masterpiece. Such a thing is important in the medium, just how like any movie with a good script but poor cinematography and visuals wouldn't be a masterpiece (speaking of visuals the series isn't particularly strong on that front either and I'm not talking about the graphics resolution).



#5
sH0tgUn jUliA

sH0tgUn jUliA
  • Members
  • 16 812 messages

Too many "9s" and "10s" are being given out these days. It's like grade inflation.

 

There aren't many games, let alone movies made these days that aren't full of plot holes and ass pulls, or that do the same old sh*t. This is why GRR Martin's Game of Thrones series is so popular despite his penchant for killing off characters for the hell of it - it started out fine, but now it seems like he's writing the books for the money and doesn't know how to end this mess. That's just my opinion. Endings are difficult to write anyway, and when you have a mess to end they're even more difficult.

 

Mass Effect is not perfect. It's a good solid 8 across the board. It's not a masterpiece, but it's several cuts above a lot of video games I've played.


  • eyezonlyii et Vazgen aiment ceci

#6
Arcian

Arcian
  • Members
  • 2 466 messages

"But having stepped back, I feel there’s a lot that needs to be said, because I feel this is something that ultimately COULD have been a masterpiece, but ultimately wasn’t."

Too bad for you, because it is actually one of the very few masterpieces of the video game history.

It's objectively NOT a masterpiece. A masterpiece would be something like Grim Fandango, Ocarina of Time or Shadow of the Colossus.

#7
Coyotebay

Coyotebay
  • Members
  • 190 messages

You focus more on gameplay and environment design in this one, while discussions on these boards tend to lean more toward the story and characters, so this is a good change of pace.  I remember a lot of what you say about ME1.  I noticed right off how every planet was more or less the same except for the color of the dirt, and had the same set of buildings and caves.  It wouldn't have taken Bioware that much time to at least double the number of interior maps on these planets, and even just change the wall textures up in buildings that are the same for some variety.  It actually made the game feel quaint to me, like a game from the 90s.  And I remember the tons of weapons you got to choose from, with little difference in effectiveness.  You could tell right away that Bioware got a much bigger budget to work with in ME2, with all the unique individual level deisgns for missions.  I also saw from the first mission how they stripped down and dumbed down a lot of the gameplay, no doubt to appeal to the console kids.  The expansive rpg character development system from ME1 was gutted.  And they replaced the planet exploration with planet scanning, which I agree was a bad move (although I did like the planet scanning until it started to get tedious).  I agree that ME3 had the best gameplay of the three.  The only thing that was lame was the return of planet scanning with Reapers thrown in to chase you around, which was just stupid.

 

I cut games like this some slack over books and movies/tv shows.  In these games, you have multiple choices and outcomes in different plot threads that can impact other plot threads and the main story arc.  In other mediums, you just tell your one story and that's it.  ME may not be perfect, but it has a higher level of difficulty than your standard linear story.



#8
ImaginaryMatter

ImaginaryMatter
  • Members
  • 4 163 messages

I think this is a good summary, not only of Mass Effect, but BioWare's works in general. Some drones/gaming journalists overrate them, and some haters rail on them excessively. Truth is, they're not that good, but they're not that bad either.

 

The reason why the series, especially the first game, is so near and dear to my heart is because it's a world building space opera, which is very unique among video games. I think why so many people who rail on them excessively is because as the series progressed it became more of an epic space shooter; which isn't necessarily bad, but the market is already filled with those kinds of games and the majority of them are better at it than Mass Effect is.



#9
sH0tgUn jUliA

sH0tgUn jUliA
  • Members
  • 16 812 messages

For one, I was glad they got rid of the inventory system. One of the hilarious things in most RPGs is the way characters become pack mules, and eventually hire pack mules to carry more stuff they don't need or will ever use. Did I really need to have ten different levels of incendiary ammo? No. It's more time sitting with a vendor selling crap or turning it into omni-gel. It was a real pain on the console since you HAD to keep tabs on it. On the PC you could just give yourself Colossus X, Spectre grade weapons, and be done with it and turn everything into omni-gel, or sell it. Whatever.

 

It's like one of the things you work toward in RPGs is unlocking those additional inventory spots, and upping your strength so you can carry more crap. How many f***ing swords do you need? At least in Skyrim you could have a house and get display cases for some of the artifacts.

 

Comparing Mass Effect to the epic space shooters is that Mass Effect even in its last incarnation was at minimum 20 hrs, whereas you could go through one of these other shooters in a matter of 6 hrs. and all you're doing is shooting. Mass Effect was a RPG/shooter. It is a hybrid, and that is what makes it fun.



#10
ImaginaryMatter

ImaginaryMatter
  • Members
  • 4 163 messages

For one, I was glad they got rid of the inventory system. One of the hilarious things in most RPGs is the way characters become pack mules, and eventually hire pack mules to carry more stuff they don't need or will ever use. Did I really need to have ten different levels of incendiary ammo? No. It's more time sitting with a vendor selling crap or turning it into omni-gel. It was a real pain on the console since you HAD to keep tabs on it. On the PC you could just give yourself Colossus X, Spectre grade weapons, and be done with it and turn everything into omni-gel, or sell it. Whatever.

 

It's like one of the things you work toward in RPGs is unlocking those additional inventory spots, and upping your strength so you can carry more crap. How many f***ing swords do you need? At least in Skyrim you could have a house and get display cases for some of the artifacts.

 

Comparing Mass Effect to the epic space shooters is that Mass Effect even in its last incarnation was at minimum 20 hrs, whereas you could go through one of these other shooters in a matter of 6 hrs. and all you're doing is shooting. Mass Effect was a RPG/shooter. It is a hybrid, and that is what makes it fun.

 

I'm glad they got rid of the inventory system and looting for the most part; although I wished they got rid of the leveling system too (why is Shepard, an elite operative, starting at level 1?).

 

As for running length I feel like parts of all 3 games, are padded out with boring stuff that doesn't add anything. Cutting the filler out of ME3 I had a 12 - 14 hour game which still included those lengthy exposition scenes.



#11
sH0tgUn jUliA

sH0tgUn jUliA
  • Members
  • 16 812 messages

I'm glad they got rid of the inventory system and looting for the most part; although I wished they got rid of the leveling system too (why is Shepard, an elite operative, starting at level 1?).

 

As for running length I feel like parts of all 3 games, are padded out with boring stuff that doesn't add anything. Cutting the filler out of ME3 I had a 12 - 14 hour game which still included those lengthy exposition scenes.

 

Well they could have done like they did in Sphincter Cell Blacklist and given you an elite operative with crappy weapons - "Having trouble getting through the campaign? Buy the weapons add on pack." And like all Ubisoft games you have to be connected to their server to play it, so no hacking allowed.



#12
AlanC9

AlanC9
  • Members
  • 35 733 messages

It's objectively NOT a masterpiece. A masterpiece would be something like Grim Fandango, Ocarina of Time or Shadow of the Colossus.


Well, I agree with you on one of those, anyway.

The OP should probably give us his own definition of a gaming masterpiece, if only to help with context.

#13
Jorji Costava

Jorji Costava
  • Members
  • 2 584 messages

Among bro shooters? Eh, maybe. At the very least, the game/series suffers strongly from gameplay/story segregation; which alone prevents it from being a masterpiece. Such a thing is important in the medium, just how like any movie with a good script but poor cinematography and visuals wouldn't be a masterpiece (speaking of visuals the series isn't particularly strong on that front either and I'm not talking about the graphics resolution).

 

While I'm in full agreement with you as far as ME3 not being a masterpiece, I actually don't think story/gameplay segregation is as big a deal as it's often made out to be. Games aren't the only media with some version of narrative dissonance.

 

Consider West Side Story: Guys break into song and dance before a knife fight, and then they have the knife fight after the song is finished. Is there some sort of tension between the musical and non-musical portions of the film which points to a deep conceptual flaw in musicals as a whole, or is it just a convention of the genre which, if you don't like, then musicals aren't for you? How about Shakespearean soliloquy? One moment, Iago is speechifying menacingly about his evil plans to no one in particular; the next, he appears to be a sane, if amoral a-hole. What's going on here?

 

I'll be the first to say that ME3 and similar games have way too much combat, and that this affects their narrative aspirations, but I don't think that story/gameplay segregation is the underlying problem with games in general, let alone ME3.



#14
ImaginaryMatter

ImaginaryMatter
  • Members
  • 4 163 messages

While I'm in full agreement with you as far as ME3 not being a masterpiece, I actually don't think story/gameplay segregation is as big a deal as it's often made out to be. Games aren't the only media with some version of narrative dissonance.

 

Consider West Side Story: Guys break into song and dance before a knife fight, and then they have the knife fight after the song is finished. Is there some sort of tension between the musical and non-musical portions of the film which points to a deep conceptual flaw in musicals as a whole, or is it just a convention of the genre which, if you don't like, then musicals aren't for you? How about Shakespearean soliloquy? One moment, Iago is speechifying menacingly about his evil plans to no one in particular; the next, he appears to be a sane, if amoral a-hole. What's going on here?

 

I'll be the first to say that ME3 and similar games have way too much combat, and that this affects their narrative aspirations, but I don't think that story/gameplay segregation is the underlying problem with games in general, let alone ME3.

 

At best with story/gameplay segregation you're using the wrong medium to tell a story. It's not necessarily wrong, but it does leave a lot to be desired. And in most video games you are left with a subpar movie that has segments of fun, or not so fun, shooty bits.

 

At worst though you do have the dissonance. It's frustrating or it usually undercuts whatever story you are trying to tell. In ME3 you have a narrative that is ostensibly about choice yet you have game mechanics that, if anything, promotes fatalism (unless the narrative is about the illusion of choice and inescapable fate...!). As an example, and this is very minor, think about the leveling mechanics I talked about above. In the story Shepard is supposed to be an experienced, well trained soldier; yet at the beginning of the game he starts off as a scrub with less ability than James or the old Anderson.



#15
Jorji Costava

Jorji Costava
  • Members
  • 2 584 messages

At best with story/gameplay segregation you're using the wrong medium to tell a story. It's not necessarily wrong, but it does leave a lot to be desired. And in most video games you are left with a subpar movie that has segments of fun, or not so fun, shooty bits.

 

At worst though you do have the dissonance. It's frustrating or it usually undercuts whatever story you are trying to tell. In ME3 you have a narrative that is ostensibly about choice yet you have game mechanics that, if anything, promotes fatalism (unless the narrative is about the illusion of choice and inescapable fate...!). As an example, and this is very minor, think about the leveling mechanics I talked about above. In the story Shepard is supposed to be an experienced, well trained soldier; yet at the beginning of the game he starts off as a scrub with less ability than James or the old Anderson.

 

There are a couple of things that need to be disentangled here, so I'll start with some background. "Ludonarrative dissonance" is one of the most used and misused terms in the games crit scene, and as far as I can tell, it has at least two distinct meanings. The first has to do with gameplay/narrative segregation: To take the classic example, in Max Payne 3's cutscenes, Max is a used up addict who can barely stand up straight; in gameplay, he's shooting rockets out of midair.

 

But in the original sense of the term (stemming from Clint Hocking's discussion of Bioshock), ludonarrative dissonance refers to a conflict between gameplay and theme. Hocking argued that Bioshock's mechanics support Rand's 'philosophy' of rational self-interest by rewarding players for pursuing ever-more power, while the narrative was a critique of Randian Objectivism. It would be the equivalent of making a movie about the evils of technology that consists 90% of CGI and helicopter shots.

 

These two concepts are frequently conflated. What I'm arguing is that while the second is interesting and significant, the first is overblown.

 

As far as Shepard starting out mechanically weak despite the fact that he's supposed to be really experienced, this is exactly what I was trying to get at with my examples. The rival gangs in West Side Story are supposed to hate each other, so why are they singing and dancing together? Iago is supposed to be supremely calculating, so why is he bloviating about all of his plans to no one in particular? Isn't he worried about someone dropping in and overhearing everything he says? The answer is that this is just part of the convention of musicals and Shakespearean theater that you have to buy into to get into these works at all. Same with gameplay/plot conflicts, I say.

 

Whether or not ME's gameplay promotes fatalism (although I'm not sure how it does so; would you explain?) would fall into that second category of ludonarrative dissonance; that's a more interesting discussion IMO, but the point is that it's quite different from basic gameplay/story dissonance.


  • Aimi aime ceci

#16
Excella Gionne

Excella Gionne
  • Members
  • 10 444 messages

You generally do all of the work. What good would more than 2 squadmates do?


  • sH0tgUn jUliA aime ceci

#17
ImaginaryMatter

ImaginaryMatter
  • Members
  • 4 163 messages

There are a couple of things that need to be disentangled here, so I'll start with some background. "Ludonarrative dissonance" is one of the most used and misused terms in the games crit scene, and as far as I can tell, it has at least two distinct meanings. The first has to do with gameplay/narrative segregation: To take the classic example, in Max Payne 3's cutscenes, Max is a used up addict who can barely stand up straight; in gameplay, he's shooting rockets out of midair.

 

But in the original sense of the term (stemming from Clint Hocking's discussion of Bioshock), ludonarrative dissonance refers to a conflict between gameplay and theme. Hocking argued that Bioshock's mechanics support Rand's 'philosophy' of rational self-interest by rewarding players for pursuing ever-more power, while the narrative was a critique of Randian Objectivism. It would be the equivalent of making a movie about the evils of technology that consists 90% of CGI and helicopter shots.

 

These two concepts are frequently conflated. What I'm arguing is that while the second is interesting and significant, the first is overblown.

 

As far as Shepard starting out mechanically weak despite the fact that he's supposed to be really experienced, this is exactly what I was trying to get at with my examples. The rival gangs in West Side Story are supposed to hate each other, so why are they singing and dancing together? Iago is supposed to be supremely calculating, so why is he bloviating about all of his plans to no one in particular? Isn't he worried about someone dropping in and overhearing everything he says? The answer is that this is just part of the convention of musicals and Shakespearean theater that you have to buy into to get into these works at all. Same with gameplay/plot conflicts, I say.

 

Whether or not ME's gameplay promotes fatalism (although I'm not sure how it does so; would you explain?) would fall into that second category of ludonarrative dissonance; that's a more interesting discussion IMO, but the point is that it's quite different from basic gameplay/story dissonance.

 

I think I get what you're saying with the musicals but I don't think leveling mechanics apply. First, I don't think leveling is a core or necessary part of a game or even an RPG (I don't really want to get into a 'what is an RPG' debate though), I don't think it's a genre convention that has to be accepted just because something says 'epic RPG' on the box. This is different from something like a musical, which take place in some sort of non-literal, surreal world where expressing almost any kind of emotion or conflict is done through music and dance numbers and in the world of a musical it makes perfect sense in West Side Story (as an aside I think it would be weirder if the gangs literally fought each because then you would have characters adhering strictly to the real world while the rest of the scenes wouldn't). Ultimately, in West Side Story they have to fight through dance or else it's not a musical, it's a necessary part of being a musical; Mass Effect though can leave out the leveling mechanics and it doesn't not make it a game or an RPG or whatever. Either way it doesn't have too large of an impact on the story for me (it's like #216 on the list of things that bothered me the most), although I think the game would be better off without, both narratively and gameplay wise -- I don't really like ME's leveling mechanic as a gameplay mechanic.

 

I'll into the other stuff later, it's getting late and I'm getting kinda rambly.



#18
sH0tgUn jUliA

sH0tgUn jUliA
  • Members
  • 16 812 messages

You generally do all of the work. What good would more than 2 squadmates do?

 

 

Actually they'd make it seem like you do less of the work. You'd kill fewer mooks. You'd still do all of the talking because no matter how they felt about it, you could still do the dumbest thing and they'd all still love you and idolize you. Except for Wynne. She'd leave. Or Sebastian who would throw a tantrum and threaten to come back with a big army and kill you. lol. Sorry, wrong game.


  • SporkFu aime ceci

#19
SporkFu

SporkFu
  • Members
  • 6 921 messages

Actually they'd make it seem like you do less of the work. You'd kill fewer mooks. You'd still do all of the talking because no matter how they felt about it, you could still do the dumbest thing and they'd all still love you and idolize you. Except for Wynne. She'd leave. Or Sebastian who would throw a tantrum and threaten to come back with a big army and kill you. lol. Sorry, wrong game.

It's tough enough getting kills as it is now, except when I play a dual-wielding stealth rogue and backstab everything, before Garrus steals them all.  :D


  • sH0tgUn jUliA aime ceci

#20
TurianRebel212

TurianRebel212
  • Members
  • 1 830 messages

Wow. It’s been….a long, long time, since I’ve been here, been part of this community, since I even gave Mass Effect a bit of thought. I moved on to other games as people do, but as with any fandom, there are many people who will always be here because it is so well loved. And while I can still say I admire it, I can no longer count myself as part of the fandom, simply because I have, since I recently gave it some more thought, realized that Mass Effect is not the Crown Jewel I thought (or wished) it was. And that’s why I’m here: I never reviewed Mass Effect. I never saw the point, I loved the series, so gushing over it would be pointless. But having stepped back, I feel there’s a lot that needs to be said, because I feel this is something that ultimately COULD have been a masterpiece, but ultimately wasn’t.

 

I am well aware that having been gone so long and these forums being as active as they are, everything I'm going to say has probably already been said by somebody at some point. So in effect this may all be pointless. But I'm doing it anyway, for me. I feel the need to compile all my thoughts into a coherent review, to determine once and for all my definitive thoughts on ME. As I have a lot, this will be rather long, which is why today I'm just posting Part one, which conerns the actual gameplay, which I consider to be the game's biggest flaw. When this thread dies I'll post more (or, if by some miracle it sticks around, I'll ptu up part two in a couple days) - I had no intention of this whole thing being so long but as I sat there typing what came to my head and the word count started approaching 10000 I figured there was no way I'm putting it all in one thread. However, for those who don't feel like reading all of it, the TL'DR of the entire review is right here at the top.

 

The TL;DR:

 

Mass Effect is not a bad game. But it’s not fantastic. It simply has too many narrative, mechanical and gameplay problems to make it so. I think these games get high review scores because unlike a lot of other games before them, they actually TRIED to have an epic story with extensive characterization and an awesome sci-fi setting. You can tell they were TRYING to make something that was truly one-in-a-million. But I think ME is being given points for effort rather than points for actually being that good – there simply aren’t enough games that try to do this kind of epic storytelling and many of us gamers, critics and consumers alike, eat it right up because we don’t have much else. However, if we really want video games to be taken as serious art, as they should be, then you have to hold your standards for what constitutes a good narrative to the same level as a book or a film or a tv show, and we simply don’t do that. We’re getting better, but we’re still too easily duped by flashy looks-like-its-epic stories like Mass Effect’s that are, in fact, quite flawed. No matter how attached you get to the characters, it doesn't hide the narrative's gaping holes and the critically flawed gameplay. Giving it top marks because you love the cast simply doesn't give the game the scrutiny it needs.

 

The Meat and Potatoes:

 

I wasn’t quite sure how to break this down: by game? I like to think of the whole trilogy as one big story, and in theory that’s what it’s supposed to be, but as it actually stands the story is so jarringly separated by each entry that ignoring discussion of the difference between each game is futile. How do I break down the many interconnected elements of the story and world interaction, like the story, the characters, the environment, the dialogue system and the morality system? They’re so intertwined it’s very difficult, and any given angle you approach it from may cause one to go off on tangents and find it difficult to get back on track with a jarring shift in the text.

 

Well, difficult as it may be, I’m going to try to break it down and focus my review, because otherwise it will turn into a disorganized, incoherent mess, I am quite sure of that.

 

The Combat:

 

Let’s get the worst of it out of the way, shall we? Despite everything I’ve said above, Mass Effect’s biggest flaw is not its story – it’s the moment-to-moment combat you slog through the game with.  It doesn’t matter which game you pick, it’s never very good, though it must be admitted each game was better than the previous one.

 

Mass Effect 1 doesn’t appear to know whether it wants to be an RPG or Gears of War, and as a result features gameplay so banal, clunky and badly designed I now find it a chore to get through, and it makes playing Mass Effect 1 very difficult for me entertainment-wise. The shooting mechanics are clunky and strange, with Shepard being given all types of weapons and constantly picking up all kinds of weapons, yet being unable to hit the broadside of a barn with the ****** things until he levels up his skill with said weapon, making shootouts in the early part of the game, where the enemies have the same accuracy they always do, tedious at best since you have to get basically to point blank range or get really good at compensating for that ridiculous sniper rifle scope sway in order to kill anything.  Isn’t Shepard supposed to be a combat veteran Spec Ops badass? Is that not why they pulled him in in the first place? The cover system is really quite bad, overly sticky and yet also entirely clunky and unresponsive at the same time.

The way powers are used is quite stupid. Biotics are supposed to be like ME’s magic that you’d find in fantasy RPGs, so why am I restricted to using them in very specific, one-shot ways? The reset timers on those are so long until you level them up that you find yourself shooting people with pistols most of the time rather than using your badass superpowers. Why aren’t biotics more active? Why can’t I telekinetically pick up a crate and start tossing it all over the room and smashing enemies with it? Why can’t I pick up enemies and do the same thing? Why can’t I ****** rip people in half? Why can I only stun them in place and then be forced to shoot them with my shitty ass guns? What the hell happened to the good ol’ mana bar? Same with tech abilities – why are these cooldown timers? Why aren’t they literal gadgets and inventory items I pick up and use? A system like that would allow for a lot more variety in tech gadgets as well. In fact, the general lack of interesting items in a supposed RPG, being limited to a fuckton of increasingly-powerful guns and armours makes the gameplay less diverse than it conceivably could be. OH, that would require giving you an actual inventory instead of the equipment slot system the game currently uses? Oh well golly gee Bioware I didn’t know you had no idea how terrible an idea your slot system is. Oh, you designed it for an Xbox controller and an inventory is hard to navigate with a controller? Well boo-****** hoo, I don’t care about the limitations of that shitty-ass console, I want good design, period.

 

Mass Effect 2 saw the combat go increasingly Gears of War, and also let Bioware’s trademark laziness rear its ugly head with regards to character progression. Rather than try to make the RPG mechanics work and give us truly diverse and interesting combat, they basically ditched almost all of it, reducing abilities to 3 or 4 per class, with a lot of overlap between them (the ammo types, for example). So basically it was Gears of War with a few superpower sprinkles on top. Except the shooting was nowhere near as good as Gears of War – it was floaty, still a bit clunky, and all the guns felt like you were shooting BB guns instead of firearms, both in terms of their actual handling and impact and in how they sound. Seriously, those are the most pathetic weapon sounds I’ve ever heard. All in all, the gameplay was dumbed down and simplified to the point of being utterly boring. It may not be as painful to play as ME1, but ME2’s combat is definitely still boring to partake in.

 

Mass Effect 3 has the best combat. It’s still not as good as Gears in the shooting department, not even close, but it is finally solid feeling. The guns still sound like peashooters but they have some weight to them when you shoot people (well, some do). Also, Shepard can finally hit the broadside of a barn. Killing things is meaty, it feels like you’re hurting enemies. The abilities are more varied, which is good, but you still don’t have an inventory, and you can’t use tech and biotic powers actively. At least biotics have rather quick cooldowns now, so I can spam them all over the place. Without a doubt, powers in ME3, while still rather limited, are far more fun to use (Nova, I’m looking at you – that should have been in ME from the beginning, it’s an excellent ability from a design AND gameplay standpoint).

 

A consistent problem I have with all the games is that you can never have more than two squadmates with you, even though everything would go much smoother and be much easier if everyone helped out. It would also build a better sense of team between all the characters. I know the control interface for that many teammates would be complex, but honestly, the squad control mechanics are dogshit anyway, so ditch those entirely and just have your squad follow you around on their own. Having Shepard and his posse roaming around, people talking with each other and commenting about where they are and what they’re doing would really do wonders for the sense of camaraderie that supposedly exists between them but is basically never shown because all but two of them are always on the goddamn ship.

 

The Environment:

 

Mass Effect’s combat areas are not very good, at all. They almost entirely consist of simple corridors, literal or figurative (thank you impassible doors and waist-high walls), where they place some enemies in front of you and you shoot them til they die. This continues through all the games, and it’s one of the things that Bioware simply never got good at. They don’t know how to design interesting levels for shooter gameplay, it’s as simple as that, and the gameplay suffers even more for it.

 

In addition, Mass Effect 1 suffers from an extremely bad case of copy-and-paste. I called the character building dumb-down an example of Bioware’s laziness, but it’s not the most egregious example. Bioware may put a lot of effort into ME, but they put it disproportionately into certain things and not into others. ME1’s “dungeons”, as it were – the random bases you fight in on planets for sidequests or exploration, or spaceships in space – are all EXACTLY THE SAME. There’s 4 types, and that’s IT. For the WHOLE GAME. It’s so lazy it boggles the mind how they could have thought it was acceptable game design. The repetition of fighting in the same ****** place over and over on dozens of planets makes sidequests utterly unbearable and is why I have never gotten to level 60 in a single runthrough of ME1 since the first time I played it: I simply cannot be assed to do the sidequests. They are painfully grindy, repetitive and boring. While combat may be the biggest flaw of the entire series, the level design of Mass Effect 1 is that particular game’s biggest, and ultimately most harmful flaw.

 

Another sign of Bioware’s laziness is how they handled their botched Mako concept. As terrible as the sidequests may have been due to the copy-and-pasted bases, and as barren as ME’s planets were (though to be fair, most planets really are just giant hunks of rock), exploring the galaxy and driving across vast planetscapes was one of the most awesome things in the game. It really gave you a sense of place and a sense of scale and amazement at the setting. Unfortunately, their programmers fucked up the Mako, and hard. We all hate the Mako. But the solution was not to AXE PLANET EXPLORATION YOU IDIOTS. The solution was to FIX THE MAKO’S CODING. JESUS. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water – or in this case, throw out the unpolished diamond. The solution is not to ditch the diamond, the solution is to polish the diamond. The lack of exploration makes ME2’s levels incredibly small and even more corridor-like. The sense of scale, which should be even greater since you’re out in the wild Terminus systems with plenty of uncharted worlds, is completely gone. Everything is claustrophobic, linear and cramped, even the Citadel, which didn’t need to be made smaller but was. Omega and Illium are missed opportunities for expansive and interesting hub levels, instead simply serving as glorified corridors along which you meet your questgivers.

 

The ME1 Citadel also had its fair share of problems, namely that it was barren and sparse and didn’t feel like an actual place with actual people in it, just a bunch of bare walls with simple boxes and whatnot scattered around and a bunch of static NPCs who never move and rarely ever talk, like a bunch of animatrons in a Wax Museum. In fact that was a problem with ME1’s non-combat levels in general.

 

ME3’s Citadel is probably the best. It’s still not that open and big, but it’s more open and big than ME2 and unlike ME1 feels like a place people actually live. The environments are detailed, people converse, people move (well, sometimes), and it generally feels more like a city than a hospital (that’s what ME1’s Citadel reminded me of – sterile, grey, everyone sitting around). ME3’s other levels aren’t big, but they at least LOOK big, using invisible walls and cliffs (it’s really fond of cliffs) rather than obstructing objects to box you in. You can now at least see the world around you, even if you can’t go there. The sidequest levels are also now UNIQUE – ME2’s were unique but they were so samey-looking because they environment was so tiny that it didn’t make them any less boring. ME3’s are each crafted to be different from each other and give you a sense of scale and place, even if they are still boring from a gameplay perspective.

 

Unfortunately ME3 also suffers from having terrible sidequests. Like TERRIBLE sidequests. ME1 may have been a chore to play, but at least you got to explore a location and experienced a little sidestory. 90% of ME3’s sidequests consist of “Hear random people talking about something they need, go find the thing they need on some planets using the ship’s scanner, go back to the Citadel and tell them you found it.” No exploration, no combat, no nothing. Just pick it up on the scanner. I thought about speaking about the Galaxy map too but ultimately that’s an irrelevant little nitpick that doesn’t matter much – well, except the mineral mechanic in ME2. Horrible. Simply horrible. It’s grinding, pure and simple, and it needs to be removed. Replace it with anything – XP, level, finding certain objects on sidequests, I don’t care, just get rid of this mining crap. It is boring beyond belief.

 

***********************************************************************************************************************************************************************

In Part 2: The Story and Dat Ending

 

 

lol, GTFO. Mass Effect is the greatest trilogy in the history of gaming and the best single player experience I've ever played and that includes HL2, RE4 and RDR. But Mass Effect stands on it's own. 



#21
CptFalconPunch

CptFalconPunch
  • Members
  • 466 messages

As you grow, your tastes grow and change, and so does your environment which causes these changes. You just can't hold onto something forever. No matter how deeply in love you fall with something, it won't last forever.

 

Has there ever been something that you loved so much, but after years passed, that feeling went away more and more, exposing more flaws? Well, that is just human nature :)

 

I do agree with most of the points though. Can't deny I hold the same opinion more or less.

 

But you know what? I loved the games and I still like them. Definently the good, outdo the bad.

 

Also you should drop the comparisons to TV or movies or books. Games are a medium where you act, so different parts of the brain are involved.



#22
von uber

von uber
  • Members
  • 5 525 messages

lol, GTFO. Mass Effect is the greatest trilogy in the history of gaming and the best single player experience I've ever played and that includes HL2, RE4 and RDR. But Mass Effect stands on it's own.


You need to play more games then.

#23
ImaginaryMatter

ImaginaryMatter
  • Members
  • 4 163 messages

You need to play more games then.

 

He may have a point. How many gaming trilogies are there? Mass Effect might win by default (I can only think of FFXIII).



#24
sH0tgUn jUliA

sH0tgUn jUliA
  • Members
  • 16 812 messages

Trilogy, perhaps....

 

But game? no. It cannot compare with the number of hours I racked up playing Morrowind and Oblivion for a single play through. I haven't finished Skyrim. I didn't buy the DLC for the 360, because I got sidetracked. I bought that big pack for the PC with all the DLC for all the games, and am loathe to install it because once I do there goes another 1000 hours of my life. Of course I'm one of those obsessive people who has to explore every single pixel of the map.


  • SporkFu et Vazgen aiment ceci

#25
Cknarf

Cknarf
  • Members
  • 2 946 messages

^

"So... Dragonborn, huh?"

"Yep. Level 62."

"You gonna kill Alduin anytime soon?"

"UGH I'LL DO IT WHEN I'M READY."


  • SporkFu, sH0tgUn jUliA et Vazgen aiment ceci