103 réponses à ce sujet

[Winterking]

I wouldn't have a very different opinion. Mass Effect 3 ending is a problem but I never felt it was the biggest problem.

 

My biggest problem with Mass Effect 3 is wasted potential. It could've been much better even if the ending was the same. 

 

That being said I still think ME3 got more things right than wrong and I don't think it's the worse of the trilogy.

[God]

All in all, there were a lot more problems with ME3 than the ending. 

 

While I would have liked the premise of the ending to have been something different (assimilation/harvest plot instead of a tech singularity), I'm fine with the concept behind it.

 

It needed a lot of repair and cleaning up from the utterly shoddy execution, and needed a rewrite to make it more coherent, but the overall concept is fine. Even the choices and their consequences.

[prosthetic soul]

F for the failure should be given to you! 

Aaand here we go with the unneeded vitriol. 

[God]

Aaand here we go with the unneeded vitriol. 

 

There's nothing vitriolic about his post at all.

[prosthetic soul]

There's nothing vitriolic about his post at all.

Coming from you that's pretty hypocritical. 

[Display Name Owner]

I don't know. It was fun, I liked a lot of it, but the problems with the story aren't limited to the ending. But the strange thing is that in my case it was the dissatisfaction with the ending that led me to start fixating on all the other issues. Without that maybe I'd have just been able to ignore them.

 

Still, even ignoring the ending, the Crucible was still whipped out of Liara's pocket like a piece of loose change. Cerberus are still taking up a sizeable chunk of the game regardless of what you did with the Collector Base, and after years of waiting to see what the Reapers were all about they feel like secondary villains. We're still nagged about saving planet Erf in a way that makes no sense until the Citadel gets moved there. The Rannoch arc is still trying its very hardest to push me towards the loveable little Geth, which it ultimately ruins with the Pinnochio code. I'm starting to sound bitter, but my point is that the ending was far from ME3's only misstep.

[Iakus]

I don't know. It was fun, I liked a lot of it, but the problems with the story aren't limited to the ending. But the strange thing is that in my case it was the dissatisfaction with the ending that led me to start fixating on all the other issues. Without that maybe I'd have just been able to ignore them.

 

Still, even ignoring the ending, the Crucible was still whipped out of Liara's pocket like a piece of loose change. Cerberus are still taking up a sizeable chunk of the game regardless of what you did with the Collector Base, and after years of waiting to see what the Reapers were all about they feel like secondary villains. We're still nagged about saving planet Erf in a way that makes no sense until the Citadel gets moved there. The Rannoch arc is still trying its very hardest to push me towards the loveable little Geth, which it ultimately ruins with the Pinnochio code. I'm starting to sound bitter, but my point is that the ending was far from ME3's only misstep.

All true.

 

But it's the train wreck of an ending that's keeping me from enjoying it as at least a mindless shooter with light rpg elements.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Tiptoe through the plot holes, by the ass pulls, be careful where you step.

[NeonFlux117]

I still would have had major issues with the games level design, enemy AI and lack of any exploration. Also only 1 hub world... Compared to the 4 of ME2. Also no vehicle.... Lame.

 

 

And I'm not even getting into how poorly written Legion was in ME3 and also how archaic and silly Cerberus and Kai Lame were in ME3.

 

 

There were lots of things wrong with ME3. Not just it's abyssal ending. But.... it was the icing on the cake of mediocrity that was ME3's single player.

 

 

But hey, The multiplayer in ME3 was very well done. The AI in the MP was way better than the AI in the single player, which is a paradoxical occurrence, in and of itself.

[prosthetic soul]

How is it hypocritical? Definition fail right there.

 

If anyone here is hypocritical, it's you. You dish a lot of punches verbally to people (as well as accusing them of things they don't do), only to scream bloody murder if they so much as retort your points at all. 

 

Reported.

I have never done any of that.  Stop bloody lying through your teeth.   And it was entirely unneeded telling me you reported me to the moderators.  Stop trying to add fuel to the fire.

[Isaidlunch]

I was satisfied with the ending and didn't think it was any worse than the rest of the story, which I had serious issues with right from the very beginning ("We fight or we die!"). For ME3 to be my dream game the entire story would have to be different.

[WizzyWarlock]

After playing ME3 a bit more last night, I've come to realise the main problem with it. ME1 and especially ME2 was basically a story with a game attached, ME3 changes that to a game with a story attached. I'm not sure if that'll make sense to people, but it's basically that the story took front and centre in ME1 and ME2, the game was basically you chasing that story. I feel that's different in ME3, there's a lot of 'gamey' things in there, less focus on the story - where's the middle conversation option gone? - even the level design is very 'gamey' with areas feeling more like multiplayer arenas than actual places people might live in, the only exception being the newly designed Citadel which I find is much better.

[Valmar]

After playing ME3 a bit more last night, I've come to realise the main problem with it. ME1 and especially ME2 was basically a story with a game attached, ME3 changes that to a game with a story attached. I'm not sure if that'll make sense to people, but it's basically that the story took front and centre in ME1 and ME2, the game was basically you chasing that story. I feel that's different in ME3, there's a lot of 'gamey' things in there, less focus on the story - where's the middle conversation option gone? - even the level design is very 'gamey' with areas feeling more like multiplayer arenas than actual places people might live in, the only exception being the newly designed Citadel which I find is much better.

 

I disagree. The story was just as prevalent as it ever was. If anything ME3 was the MOST story driven of the entire series. ME1 had a story (loved the story actually) but it also had a ton of completely unrelated side quests distracting from it. ME2 was practically devoid of story, relying mostly on character development and side stories almost exclusively with the main story being rather smacked together just for the sake of existing. It really only served as a means to introduce the characters, of whom the game paid the most catering to. ME3 however? It's nothing but one central story especially compared to the other two. Practically everything you did in that game in some way or form all tied into to the main storyline.

 

Honestly, for me, that was one of my faults with it - no opportunities to explore and escape the central theme for a little while. Though its understandable, given the circumstances of the story (reapers). Still, its no wonder I still prefer the missions of the first two. I feel like I get so much more variety in the others since theres so many stories and missions. Though like I said that can also distract from the overall story. Oh I have to stop Saren? Can it wait for a bit? I'm killing rachni on some rock somewhere and wiping out a nest like Starship Troopers. Ooo, look, space monkeys! Punch! Hey, theres a giant prothean pyramid over there! HOLY **** THERSHWAHDAHAHFH------

 

 

 

I have mixed feelings about the neutral option, though. Sure, in theory, its good. In practice though? Well... maybe it was just my experience but for me the middle option rarely played out any different. It always felt like an illusion of choice. I remember there being quite a few instances where I'd reload the game specifically to see what the middle choice would be only to find out that it was the same thing. As Mass Effect has this really annoying habit of having the dialogue text not actually represent the real spoken line of dialogue I think the presented "neutral" text was more to set the desired interpretation of tone.

 

Though in fairness I never played a full on neutral so I could be off bases. Maybe I'll try it next time I play just to see.

[Joseph Warrick]

I don't consider the ending the biggest problem of the game because it's easily avoidable. And Citadel is the real ending anyway. I can easily pretend the ending doesn't happen.

The overly limited player input in dialogue and mission order choice bother me more because they affect the whole playthrough.

[Linkenski]

@valmar while I think you're right that ME3 is the most completely focused story in the series but in my opinion it is too much, because it's a 30 hour mostly consisting of story kind of game and to have constant references to "WAR!" in every single corner is both strengthening to the narrative but at the same time it gets exhausting to sit through, at least for me it did.

I don't think Video Games should strive to be like books or movies. I think it would've been fine with some more mundane quests on the citadel other than "we need your help, urgent larger-than-life matter, you'll get our support". The only one I can remember was the one with Liara's mother but thanks to autodialogue that was a dialogue of almost pure cut scene with interrupts.

But tl;dr is, I think having a 30 hour story completely focused on what would've been a 2 hour movie plot is too much and Bioware shouldn't hesitate to have some fun with making more diverse side-quests in the future even if they don't wholly fit in with the tone, but that's just my opinion.

[WizzyWarlock]

Valmar, I do agree the story is there in ME3, but.. well, I'm having a hard time describing it. It just feels 'gamey', that's the only word I can think of. It's little things that take control away, making the story more like a cutscene between missions, it's the map designs that feel like 'game' maps rather than realistic locations, it's the linear feel to the game that gives the sense you don't have a lot of say in how things progress.

 

It combines into a feeling of being led from one game map to another, interspersed with story cutscenes. I would call it something akin to Call of Duty, where you shoot stuff on some standard map, have a cutscene that tells a bit more story, then shoot stuff again, then another cutscene. I don't really feel like there's a lot of depth to it, it just feels like a standard 'game'.

 

Certainly hard to describe, but it's the feeling I'm getting as I'm playing through it at the moment.

[TMA LIVE]

For me, the rest of the game is still a rushed product, with a lot of stuff I liked about the past games cut out. There's still too many palette swaps when it comes to choices. There's no exploration. There's only one hub. Auto dialogue. Lack of more choices. Main cast being less cool as the ME2 cast. Rushed storytelling.

 

It wouldn't have been my game of the year. It's better then ME1, but not by much.

[KaiserShep]

After playing ME3 a bit more last night, I've come to realise the main problem with it. ME1 and especially ME2 was basically a story with a game attached, ME3 changes that to a game with a story attached. I'm not sure if that'll make sense to people, but it's basically that the story took front and centre in ME1 and ME2, the game was basically you chasing that story. I feel that's different in ME3, there's a lot of 'gamey' things in there, less focus on the story - where's the middle conversation option gone? - even the level design is very 'gamey' with areas feeling more like multiplayer arenas than actual places people might live in, the only exception being the newly designed Citadel which I find is much better.

 

As far as the level design is concerned, I don't get how ME2 could be considered to be anything other than being the "game-iest" of the three. Every single level was clearly designed to be some sort of combat arena. It seldom ever looked like a room had any purpose other than to be a shooting gallery. I bring up this example often, but Purgatory station is the shining example of how far this goes in that game. The final level goes so far as to have the environment shift just to become a cover shooter zone. Those floor panels that lift up to create waist-high walls could not possibly serve any other purpose. Granted, ME3 still has a bit of this feel, but not nearly as much, and Citadel, Omega and Leviathan did improve upon this.

[Valmar]

@valmar while I think you're right that ME3 is the most completely focused story in the series but in my opinion it is too much, because it's a 30 hour mostly consisting of story kind of game and to have constant references to "WAR!" in every single corner is both strengthening to the narrative but at the same time it gets exhausting to sit through, at least for me it did.
 

 

I agree. Like I said, that was actually a fault I had with the game. The game felt more depressing for me because EVERYTHING I did had to do with the war. It made narrative lore sense, of course, but it wasn't as fun as the other two games where I could just go around doing random things completely unrelated to the overall plot. I was only arguing that because of ME3's refusal to ever break away from its story it is therefore the most heavily story-driven title of the trilogy. Everything in the game, other than like the Citadel DLC which feels absolutely looney toony by comparison, all tied back to the war.
 

 

Valmar, I do agree the story is there in ME3, but.. well, I'm having a hard time describing it. It just feels 'gamey', that's the only word I can think of. It's little things that take control away, making the story more like a cutscene between missions, it's the map designs that feel like 'game' maps rather than realistic locations, it's the linear feel to the game that gives the sense you don't have a lot of say in how things progress.

 

It combines into a feeling of being led from one game map to another, interspersed with story cutscenes. I would call it something akin to Call of Duty, where you shoot stuff on some standard map, have a cutscene that tells a bit more story, then shoot stuff again, then another cutscene. I don't really feel like there's a lot of depth to it, it just feels like a standard 'game'.

 

Certainly hard to describe, but it's the feeling I'm getting as I'm playing through it at the moment.

 

I still disagree. For me the other games felt significantly more 'gamey'. Infact if ME3 was more gamey I suspect it wouldn't get as much flack as it does.  As for map design... eh. I didn't really get the impression you did. I thought the map designs were fine. In the very least they weren't any less believable than the maps in the rest of the series. If anything I give it credit for having better mission maps than the first game which were essentially copy-paste areas being reused for every other side mission. Don't even get me started on the planets. Oh look, this planet is nothing but giant towering mountains to drive over. I haven't done this a hundred times already.

 

I never played Call of Duty but even still I find any comparison to it and Mass Effect to be inherently flawed. Your complaint, honestly, seems to be more like "I didn't like the story" rather than "it didn't have story". Mass Effect 3 was heavy-handed with its story for practically the entire course of the game. Perhaps that is why you feel like it just moves on from piece to another - because unlike ME1-2 you are never allowed to break free from the story. If you took everything out of ME1 and ME2 that didn't tie into the main storyline I suspect you'll find those stories to not only be shorter but also just as 'gamey'.

 

As for getting say for how things progress... personally, unlike Bioware, I don't think ME3 is the place to start the trilogy. I view the trilogy as one game, its meant to be played as such. ME1-ME2 were the parts of the game where you get to shape the story. ME3 was supposed to be the conclusion showing you how all those choices played out. Which it is to some extent, even if I think they should have done more with it in parts. In truth our actions and choices from ME2 shaped the story of ME3 more than ME1 shaped neither story at all. So maybe think of it this way... ME1 is the introduction to the universe. ME2 is the shaping of events. ME3 is the conclusion of those events. That's how it plays out, anyway.

[Linkenski]

I have to give WizzyWarloc's argument some merit though. It was an issue I had with ME3 as well: Missions often start right into combat, there are longer stretches of combat before cutscene/conversation than in ME2 and many of the conversations are strictly non-interactive. I get the feeling he was thinking mostly of the N7 missions which were just easily-made from a development POV to make the game longer and making grinding war-assets tie more into actual gameplay. It was an easy way to recycle the multiplayer maps for SP, so for those I didn't mind seeing Shepard and Hackett autodialogue at every beginning and ending of those.

 

It's more stuff like the 'Rescue Primarch's Son' and 'Save Quarian General' or whatever his rank was that just feel overly video-gamey and uncreative.

[Valmar]

I have to give WizzyWarloc's argument some merit though. It was an issue I had with ME3 as well: Missions often start right into combat, there are longer stretches of combat before cutscene/conversation than in ME2 and many of the conversations are strictly non-interactive. I get the feeling he was thinking mostly of the N7 missions which were just easily-made from a development POV to make the game longer and making grinding war-assets tie more into actual gameplay. It was an easy way to recycle the multiplayer maps for SP, so for those I didn't mind seeing Shepard and Hackett autodialogue at every beginning and ending of those.

 

It's more stuff like the 'Rescue Primarch's Son' and 'Save Quarian General' or whatever his rank was that just feel overly video-gamey and uncreative.

 

Remember the initial point though He said that the first two games were story first, game second. ME3 is game first, story second. Except ME3's entire game is nothing but the central story. Where as ME1 and ME2 are considerably more open-world. Like I said earlier if you were to play nothing but the story-specific missions in the first two games you'd probably come to the same conclusion about it that you do with ME3. The difference is that unlike ME3 the first two titles actually had the majority of all its 'story' focus elsewhere. They had all kinds of little stories and plots and exploration going on. The majority of those games 'story' actually had nothing to do with the main story.  ME3, in contrast, is nothing BUT the main story. It never lets you really break out of the confines of the main story no matter where you go. It's constantly looking your shoulder going "this is the story! Get immersed in my story!"

 

Another difference in ME1 and ME2 is that the gameplay is less polished and refined - especially in ME1. To the point that some people actually consider the gameplay the worst aspect of the game. ME3, despite its story issues, has really solid combat and control. So its easier for it be a scapegoat since it stands out more. Where as in the first two games, the first especially, the combat is more of an afterthought. If the first two games had the same combat system you'd probably have people complaining it focused too much on combat and gimped the story. Since the combat isn't exactly a gem of ME1 and ME2 its easier for people to overlook the combat and say "hey, so much story!" even if that isn't really the case.

 

Frankly, personally, I wish ME3 was more game first and story second. I'd probably have more fun with it if the story wasn't constantly being shoved down our throats.

[ImaginaryMatter]

I would have still thought it was a pretty underwhelming shooter. My issues with ME3 (and other parts of the series) from it's art direction, to certain story elements, and everything in between existed long before the ending. If I found the ending satisfying I probably would have walked away with some positive emotions but that's about it. At least the Citadel DLC exists.

[Kabraxal]

There are still some rocky parts, but ignoring what seems to be their intended ending that has no real connection to the series and creating one that actually fits?  The game and the trilogy would be among the best in the industry.  It's a testament to 1 and 2 that they still manage to stand out on their own.  Too bad the great things in 3 are dragged down by an anchor that I hope is finally obvious to most in Bioware.  We don't need the next ME spiraling out of control in the last 10 minutes...

 

I can't believe that 3 years later, the endings still leave such a sour taint on everything.  It still feels like you are playing an ME game up to the beam run and then someone decided to smash an entirely different game onto the end.  The starbrat still makes no actual sense in relation to the rest of the story.  It was simply an idea somone got married to and refused to accept that it just didn't work in this particular story.  

[WizzyWarlock]

The difference is that unlike ME3 the first two titles actually had the majority of all its 'story' focus elsewhere. They had all kinds of little stories and plots and exploration going on. The majority of those games 'story' actually had nothing to do with the main story.  ME3, in contrast, is nothing BUT the main story. It never lets you really break out of the confines of the main story no matter where you go. It's constantly looking your shoulder going "this is the story! Get immersed in my story!"

I think this might be the issue I'm having with ME3; the lack of choice and freedom. To me, an RPG should give you plenty of options and decisions to make, it shouldn't be a linear path from A to Z with very little side avenues to take. That could be the reason I'm seeing it as 'gamey', it's not playing like a typical RPG, it doesn't play like the first two games where I could travel to Virmire or Noveria under my own decision, or recruit Thane, Samara or Tali in whatever order I wanted, it basically tells me I have to do this now, and now this, and now this. As I said before, it reminds me a lot of Call of Duty, it's just a bunch of shooter sections interspersed with movie clips. That's why I see it as 'gamey'.

I have the same problem with MMO's. My first MMO was EverQuest which let me level up wherever I wanted, go to any part of the world I wanted, fight whatever creatures I wanted and do whatever quests. After World of Warcraft, everything is linear, you go from one quest hub to another performing set tasks, and it's those MMO's I just can't enjoy. I need a bit of freedom in my RPG's, otherwise I just don't view it as an RPG.