41 réponses à ce sujet

[czeuch]

I play table RPGs and also PC/console for more than a decade now. I've played Baldur's Gate, all 6 Neverwinter Nights, all Dragon Ages but the last one, and others that I don't remember now.

 

I can now say, after playing this series twice, that this is the best RPG I've played. No other RPG, not even other game (aside from Metal Gear which have a strong story too) gets close to ME in terms on involvement, story, empathy, compelling, etc.

 

You have multiple choices in the dialogs, your actions have real impact across the whole series, you build a squad of 3, whereas we usually control 4 or more characters in other games, the game is built in such a way that you will know almost all aspects from it by doing mains and side missions (many games will do that only if you try Platinum trophies or 100% Achievement), etc.

 

So I give 10/10 to this series

[Vixzer]

Yep! I quite agree and darn it I so want to play it all over again!!

[fraggle]

Yep! I quite agree and darn it I so want to play it all over again!!

 

That's what I currently do. Play all classes, try different dialogue paths and actions. So much fun.

I've been playing RPGs for a long time, and while I have my favourites, ME tops all of them. I don't know how it does it I was never even a Sci-Fi fan.

[themikefest]

Yep.

 

The player can do numerous playthroughs and still miss content. The trilogy has replay value

[AlleyD]

I passed on my copies of the series to my grandson's friend a few weeks ago, he'd never heard of Mass Effect series at all.

 

I'm jaded with the series, but wanted to hear what a next generation gamer thought of the series.

 

 "Best" rpg of all time? He thinks they're the greatest games he's ever played, been playing obsessively ever since, hasn't touched anything else. Currently on his 3rd playthru'

[geth47]

To this day, Im surprised to to the point of being shocked. Of how much I ended up liking this series. And the number of times Ive came up with excuses in order to replay it. I mean, I do have hundreds and hundreds of games in my steam library. Many of them left untouched (ohhh, the irresitible sales...), dozens of them on origin, and I think about a hundred at gog. And yet, Im always coming back to Mass Effect. Because, you know, there may be still some combination of decisions that I havent tried yet. Some party composition Ive never experienced, some line of dialogue I may never have heard...

 

I do know Bioware since its infancy. I started as an Interplay fan. When I heard of mass effect, it was after a few years without a console. I knew of the knights of the old republic game, even though I never owned the original Xbox nor a gaming PC during the 2000s. 

 

I was only able to play ME1 really late, I think around the game the arrival DLC was released for ME2, and in antecipation for the much more famous ME2, when it was winning all kinds of awards. The first impression on my mind was: "Yeah, its not just PS2 with better lighting, it does look like next gen stuff."

 

But there were some negative observations too:

 

"Yeah, its just Bioware trying to make a new KOTOR but with characters and races of their own. Its a star wars of sorts with elements of blade runner, star trek, maybe galactica... Basically, an homage to classic sci-fi tv and movies. But this time they dont need to pay licensing fees nor share profits."

 

"Oh boy! They do like to recycle enviroments..."

 

"This game can be beaten in just a few hours if you know what to do, but they make you walk (theres no way Im gonna call this running) from point to point and drive a slow vehicle through a difficult terrain so that the game may appear much bigger than it really is. they are really living in the shadow of baldurs gate 2 and the legendary 200 hours it took to complete it."

 

"What do you mean I need to allocate points to aiming with a particular gun? Is this some sort of joke? I need to allocate points PLUS manually aiming? What the...??? If it is a shooter, its my aiming skills that should count. If its truly a rpg of sorts, once you give it points the character should fight for himself. Just like in kotor. Who designed this?"

 

Not the best start to a relationship, but it was what I had with mass effect. At first.

 

The game obviously had flaws. ME2 and 3 also had their share of them, and I was quite  aware of them. But there was something about it that started to fascinate me. I wanted to replay it. And again, and again. Sometimes, in order to review certain moments that I liked. Another times, in order to try out a very different experience.

 

I cant put a finger on a single aspect of the trilogy that made me fall in love with it. Maybe its the conjunction of all the aspects, and the sinergy they create. Theres the fact that humanity starts not as the heads of the federation, but kinda of a disliked underdog, a third world country trying to enter the first class. Theres the fact that your created character (who could be either male of female) is fully voiced, and truly represented humanity in the views of the galaxy. Theres the great care in creating a lore for everyting: Species, planets, even every item. Theres the personality of the characters, and the way you can influence them. Theres the funny side of the renegade choices, and the heroic virtues of being a paragon. There are the different romance options and how they play out during the course of 3 games. There are the very different classes and powers you can use. The way your squad-mates give a new flavor to each mission, lots of replay value and how they can compensate or enhance shepard. Theres the fact that everything appears to have importance and to be alive. The places in the series are worth visiting. The characters are worth knowing even when you dislike them. As well as their fates. I remember that the first time I played mass effect 2 I recruited legion a little too soon (I had no idea, and was quite happy with a geth on the team). But because I delayed entering the omega four relay (I wanted to do all missions possible first) everyone except for the doctor perished. The 2 very minor characters from the engineering deck were lost. And so did the lad from deck 3 with a baby daughter waiting for him. "No. Thats not right." So the next time I made sure they all escaped alive. Mass Effect allows you to tailor several aspects of the game so that by the end of the trilogy, because of your actions, some people could be together or separated, alive or dead, certain people could be empowered or not, some races could even have been doomed to extinction.

 

No other game does that for you. Its a game series that presents itself in a way that no other does, so I guess its natural for people to like it in a way that they like no other. The trilogy really grown up on me. From "just a rehash of a big hit star wars game without splitting money" to "this is unlike  anything ive ever experienced from a videogame. and greater!" is quite a long road. 

 

Some people may say that silent protagonists are better. Or that games were much bigger and with way more text back when voice talent was a scarce luxury. While I do respect the classics, I´m of the opinion that a book with 1600 pages is not necessarily better than one with just 582 pages. Not by virtue of the number of pages alone. Quantity does not equal quality. Older rpgs with no motion capture and with few or no voices may have more of a literary quality, but dramatic quality like we have on a tv show or movie is not objectively inferior to a book. These are two very different approaches to tell a story, none being superior or inferior to the other by their nature. Good writing, beautiful graphics, powerful soundtrack, talented voice-actors and body language do help tell a story from a cinematic perspective. Ive been there, and done that during the 80s, 90s... And I still think mass effect is a classic, and a very impressive series. 

 

Im a older guy than most of you, and Ive been playing games since the mid 80s. I was having fun during my childhood with primitive 8 bit machines.  Ive played on Arcades, computers, portables, home consoles... Very different kinds of games in all kinds of genres (and even some that seem to challenge classification). I had arrived at a point in my life during the last decade that nothing seemed fresh anymore. Nothing was a surprise when it came to games. Little did I know that the best moments of my gaming life were yet to come. I never would have guessed that I would purchase a gaming pc, 3 games from a series, plus spend quite a lot on DLC and play 3 games for what? dozens of full plays? plus the hours devoted to the online module in which I collected all the medals and all the inventory. That I would try every path, every decision, every romance, every class. Yes, it was a happy discovery. And those were the best moments of my gaming life. And those KEEP being the best moments of my gaming life. I cant wait to set up my new pc (my old one broke) and replay it again.

[Ieldra]

Uh....am I living on a different planet?

 

The trilogy is an impressive piece of storytelling - by the standards of video games, at least - but as a roleplaying game it was mostly a failure since ME2, and it became an utter failure with ME3. It works for you if you like Bioware's vision of Commander Shepard, but if you don't and want to make your own, and start doing that in ME1 where it's still somewhat possible, your character will be destroyed piece by piece as the trilogy moves forward, and become completey unrecognizeable somewhere in ME3.

[olnorton]

Uh....am I living on a different planet?

Quite possibly, are you still in the Serpent Nebula?

The trilogy is an impressive piece of storytelling - by the standards of video games, at least - but as a roleplaying game it was mostly a failure since ME2, and it became an utter failure with ME3. It works for you if you like Bioware's vision of Commander Shepard, but if you don't and want to make your own, and start doing that in ME1 where it's still somewhat possible, your character will be destroyed piece by piece as the trilogy moves forward, and become completey unrecognizeable somewhere in ME3.

Don't think of her as being destroyed, but rather evolving over time into someone completely unrecognisable.

[czeuch]

Uh....am I living on a different planet?

 

The trilogy is an impressive piece of storytelling - by the standards of video games, at least - but as a roleplaying game it was mostly a failure since ME2, and it became an utter failure with ME3. It works for you if you like Bioware's vision of Commander Shepard, but if you don't and want to make your own, and start doing that in ME1 where it's still somewhat possible, your character will be destroyed piece by piece as the trilogy moves forward, and become completey unrecognizeable somewhere in ME3.

 

At least you have a trilogy to play with the same character. In the Neverwinter Nights, of the 6 games, I believe you can only play with the same character twice.

Dragon Age, only from Origins to Awekening.

 

Tell me a better RPG where you can evolve your chracters. I'm not talking about table RPGs.

[Ieldra]

Don't think of her as being destroyed, but rather evolving over time into someone completely unrecognisable.

Amounts to the same thing. In a roleplaying game, it's the GM's story but my character. The GM determines the events of the story, but I determine how my character reacts to them. The evolution of my character, the traits she expresses at any given point in the story, should be in my hands and in my hands only, as far as that's possible to implement in a video game.
 

At least you have a trilogy to play with the same character. In the Neverwinter Nights, of the 6 games, I believe you can only play with the same character twice.
Dragon Age, only from Origins to Awekening.

Tell me a better RPG where you can evolve your chracters. I'm not talking about table RPGs.

The thing is, I can't. I can't "evolve my character", I can only watch as the writers evolve my character into something that isn't my character anymore, instead expressing traits I painstakingly avoided to express earlier in the trilogy.

Being able to continue a character through several games telling different chapters of one story is rarely done in video games, yes, and thus somewhat desirable, but not at that price, and there are different designs that are as established in storytelling, like in DA's, where I experience the differerent chapters of the story from different viewpoints. One is not intrinsically better than the other.

[czeuch]

Amounts to the same thing. In a roleplaying game, it's the GM's story but my character. The GM determines the events of the story, but I determine how my character reacts to them. The evolution of my character, the traits she expresses at any given point in the story, should be in my hands and in my hands only, as far as that's possible to implement in a video game.

 

Yes but none have done so far. It's not as simple. Table RPGs offers endless opportunities. Can't be done in a videogame. Some aspects can, but not all of them. Imagine each interaction with an NPC or event, you would need to express emotions, reactions and actions. That's quite complex to a point it wouldn't be fun.

[geth47]

No pre-programmed rpg can ever offer you the almost endless possibilities of a true rpg with a real master reacting to your every action, idea or speech. One simply can not demand the same amount of freedom from a pre-recorded software. Really, its apples and oranges. Actually, given their quite different states (the biggest similarity being the name RPG) I think youre trying to compare cuts of meat and lettuces.

 

 

Personally, having played D&D and numerous others rpgs in the 90s (Gurps, Fighting Fantasy, Tagmar and others), Ive never seen a dungeon/game master develop a story quite like mass effect. Never was I allowed to alter the balances of powers over kingdoms as I could in the trilogy. Yes, I had so-called freedom, to act as I was pleased, but my action never had big repercussions. 

 

Sure, there are times when I would prefeer to have a bigger list of possible solutions, like when dealing with the rachni queen. I think both choices suck and offer immense risk. I wish there could be a Pontius Pilate solution (the middle option) of washing my hands and let the council decide. Or maybe try to secure a deal a la Space Seed (a classic trek episode) and let the queen be confined to a planet with the council and the alliance trying to acompany her development and possibly have diplomatic relations for a while. She would not simply go scott free without even leaving her phone number or email address. On the order hand, I would not be ready to commit genocide over a species presumed to be lost that was re-discovered.  My choice is not covered, by the options, but then I rationalize that between a possible risk for the galaxy and trying to trust the words of the queen (she did sound sincere) the general concept that genocide is to be avoided and that sparing her life is of paramount importance prevails. 

 

In Mass Effect, there are a handful of decisions you may take regarding a certain event, but over the course of 3 games Shepard touched so many lives, impacted so many places, helped shape so many events that the final list of the consequences is so big that they created a logistical nightmare for the team creating the fourth main title in the series. No wonder they had to find a new setting totally divorced in space and time from the effects of shepards actions.

 

From a technical perspective regarding the rules, it may not be the best rpg (after the main game, in combat I would call it a shooter with powers and the chance to develop abilities). But as far as fun factor and personal satisfaction go, along with immersion in the universe and sympathy for the characters, in my case I would say it takes the cake. 

[laudable11]

It's the best game series I've played, but it stopped being a rpg after ME1.

[angol fear]

It's the best game series I've played, but it stopped being a rpg after ME1.

It has never been a RPG. Since Mass Effect 1it's an action RPG.

[Gago]

It's my all time favorite game series with the third one leading the charge. 

[Dantriges]

Personally, having played D&D and numerous others rpgs in the 90s (Gurps, Fighting Fantasy, Tagmar and others), Ive never seen a dungeon/game master develop a story quite like mass effect. Never was I allowed to alter the balances of powers over kingdoms as I could in the trilogy. Yes, I had so-called freedom, to act as I was pleased, but my action never had big repercussions. 

 

You mean even if you save the world, you are only saving the status quo?

[geth47]

Most of the times, yes. Usually I would play with low-level characters. We could dismantle a few gangs, overthrown a few criminal bosses, stop a small-attempt of insurrection, but before they would constitute large threats. Its only after long campaigns with the same people that we reach the "kill the dragon, save the world" status.

 

Only on very rare occasions I took charge of a very powerful character from a strong group. As I remember they were always predefined by the master, and not one that I would come up with and develop in conjunction with the master. 

 

But yes, most of the times you save the king, or the kingdom, but you dont get to choose who the next king is gonna be. You cant all of a sudden make everyone part-orc or part elf, or rewrite everyones genetic structure so that now we all have the same race. You are fighting for the world but not reshaping the world for the most part. Your impact is not bigger than the average police officers in your city, or sheriffs during a western. At most, your impact is similar to a James Bond type of character at the service of his country.

 

In mass effect you can pretty much decide (by direct or indirect results of your actions or inactions) if the old council will die and an entire new one will succeed them or if they will be saved. Thanks to you the human race is elevated in power from a third world country to a major political faction. You can choose who the first human councilor is gonna be in the new council. You will witness the people at the citadel and all over the galaxy reacting differently to humankind because of your decisions. You decide if the most powerful dreadnought from the council races will explode or resist. You can determine if the rachni go extinct or are given a second (or third) chance. You can have a crew that is almost entirely decimated, suffer a few losses or survives mostly intact in large numbers. You can end the conflict between turians and krogans, between the geth and quarians (siding with each one of them or even by making them be at peace), you can cure the genophage or not. You can influence if wreav is the krogan ruler, wrex or none of them because both died. You can destroy all synthetics, assume control over the reaper forces and turn them into a benign power of assistance, or even recreate the essence of all organic life and synthetics. 

 

So yes, you do have a vast influence. In small matters, personal matters, political matters, even the very nature of life. It doesnt get more influential than that. 

 

The way you can interfere with the events is so vast, so diverse, that it made simply impractical for bioware to make a direct follow-up to the trilogy. Unless they decided to canonize one set of decisions and arbitrarily decided to chose a canonical ending. And this would be a great disservice to the series. One of the things that make it so fascinating is that one shepard isnt necessarily better of more adequate than another. Shepard can be a man or a woman, from several backgrounds, several types of carrer, several classes, several psychological profiles, be gay, hetero, bi, asexual, faithful, unfaithful, black, white, Hispanic, asian, mixed, redhead, blond, brunette, bald... and he or she could have taken all kinds of the decisions. All of them possible to have occurred, but none of them guaranteed to have happened. 

 

As for the game being a true rpg, the first game is a rpg of sorts in which you manually shoot but with assistance from allocated points. Its a mix of shooter and rpg. 2 and 3 are mostly shooters with special powers (its possible to play with some classes like biotic without shooting during most of the segments in ME3) with some rpgs elements when it comes to dialogues and leveling up.

[AlanC9]

The thing is, I can't. I can't "evolve my character", I can only watch as the writers evolve my character into something that isn't my character anymore, instead expressing traits I painstakingly avoided to express earlier in the trilogy.

Which traits are you thinking of? I was hit by RP restrictions too, but I didn't see ME1 as being any better in this regard than the sequels were. Bio games after NWN have generally been fairly restrictive relative to other RPGs.

[geth47]

Well, to be fair, there are a few things that you just cant avoid, like shepard and liara becoming friends, even though in ME1 you can be rude to all of them. 

 

If you dont like a particular character, make sure he or she dies. But this cant be done in the case of Liara till the final minutes of mass effect 3, and depending entirely on your number of assets. 

[angol fear]

As for the game being a true rpg, the first game is an rpg of sorts in which you manually shoot but with assistance from allocated points. Its a mix of shooting and rpg. 2 and 3 are mostly shooters with special powers (its possible to play with some classes like biotic without shooting during most of the segments in ME3) with some rpgs elements when it comes to dialogues and leveling up.

 

Could you be more precise? Why the first is a mix of shooting and RPG and the others shooter with RPG elements?

[Dantriges]

Most of the times, yes. Usually I would play with low-level characters. We could dismantle a few gangs, overthrown a few criminal bosses, stop a small-attempt of insurrection, but before they would constitute large threats. Its only after long campaigns with the same people that we reach the "kill the dragon, save the world" status.

 

Only on very rare occasions I took charge of a very powerful character from a strong group. As I remember they were always predefined by the master, and not one that I would come up with and develop in conjunction with the master. 

 

But yes, most of the times you save the king, or the kingdom, but you can choose who the next king is gonna be. You cant all of a sudden make everyone part-orc or part elf, or rewrite everyones genetic structure so that now we all have the same race. Youre fighting for the world but not reshaping the world for the most part. Your impact is not bigger than the average police officers or sheriffs during a western. 

 

Hm, probably depends on the setting and the GM. Especially in a published setting with metaplot, the developers can´t recognize every possibility when publishing a new setting book and publishing some for different outcomes wouldn´t turna profit, given the small margins and the nature of the P&P RPG market as a smal cottage industry.

 

Homebrew, well theoretically everything could happen but depends on the DM of course. I let my players release the ancient race who could eat the Reapers for breakfast (in a setting where swords are still a thing), reassemble the godking of the dragons and I think raising a sunken continent was next (under controlled conditions so we don´t drown everyone) and then breaking the hold the dark gods have over the dark elves. Oh and we raised a dead god.   All in defining the characteristics of next age and whose god´s principles are in ascendance. Which would probably change a lot over time.   But somehow I never let them rearrange kingdoms, redrawing paper maps is a hassle, drawing a new continent is easier.

 

Probably also depends on the setting. In Exalted you are expected to rearrange kingdoms and fighting the eldritch horrors the creators of the world turned into or the undead armies of the void who want to kill everything, could be a thing. But compared to D&D it´s a rather small product.

 

Perhaps saving the world is more interesting to most players than reshape everything, perhaps you want to get rid of something that you don´t like but in longer campaigns it´s probably safer to save the setting you become attached to, than reshape it on a large scale. And well if youwant to play in the setting some changes like merging races or upgrading the tech level could be a problem.

[geth47]

Could you be more precise? Why the first is a mix of shooting and RPG and the others shooter with RPG elements?

 

Sure thing, Angol Fear.

 

 

In the first game, the preponderant factor when you aim is the number of points you have allocated to that particular type of weapon. When you distribute points and enhance that particular talent you dont just increase the damage or rate of fire as one would expect. You actually improve your aim.

 

The Mass Effect 1 mechanic was projected in a way that even if youre very good at games like Doom, Quake, Unreal tournament and could snipe a flying bird on Arma or Battlefield youre still gonna miss the target with a sniper, even if you made a precise shot, because you will suffer penalty from your lack of points. On the other hand, if you have many points invested, even a slight miss will register as a hit. The prevailing factor is the number of points youve spent. The amount of talent must come primarily from shepard, and only secondarily from the player. 

 

In Kotor, the battle was automatic. Even if all the people involved resorted to swords, the game would not turn into Soul Calibur or Samurai Shodown by allowing you personal control of every move your character could make. There are invisible dices being rolled in order to determine -  by a rpg mechanic being applied to all the parts, talents and weapons -  in order to determine who scored a hit and who missed. Who took damage and how much damage this part suffered. 

 

Mass Effect 1 is a little ambiguous. Theres too much reliance on personal aim to be a rpg, but also too much dependence on allocated points to be a true shooter. Its really a hybrid. A weird, but unique combination.

 

 Mass Effect 2, on the other hand, is a very conventional shooter when it comes to using weapons. The rpg elements include only the way you improve damage, rate of fire, amount of ammo.. But never the aim. Aside from some very exceptional weapons and talents that allow us to make time go slower thus allowing easy aiming. One could also count talents that will freeze the enemy, thus allowing you to aim more easily, but those will assist the aim, while not improving the aiming itself.

 

And in ME3 you could install periscopes on certain guns in order to better zoom. 

 

But 99% of the time, Mass Effect 2 and 3 are true shooters. The rpg elements are now confined to dialogues, special talents, upgrades, items you could carry. As a rule, they are not supposed to increase your aim, nor your own personal talent (as a player) will be sabotaged by the game simply because you did not allocate a certain amount of points to a particular weapon.

 

Mass Effect 3, with very short cool-downs (specially if you just use pistols and/or smgs) and the fact that explosions are so easy to trigger can also be considered a shooter that can double for an action game in which you rely almost solely on special powers. You can see for yourself by going to youtube. Plenty of people building characters in the vanguard and biotic classes who seem to have an aversion to conventional weapons. Ive tried it myself with the biotic class (single player and mp), as well as vanguard (mp only, I don´t like the vanguard class), and I know its totally possible to play the biotic in this manner. And quite fun in fact if you know what to do. 

[AlanC9]

Well, to be fair, there are a few things that you cant avoid, like shepard and liara becoming friends, even though in ME1 you can be rude to all of them. 
 
If you dont like a particular character, make sure he or she dies. But this cant be done in the case of Liara till the final minutes of mass effect 3, and depending entirely on you number of assets.

Good point. One of the problems with having a trilogy where the PC has known the NPCs for years is that you end up with this sort of issue. Writing everything to a neutral tone would be even worse than what they did, and multiple tones for all those interactions would burn a lot of wordcount.

[AlanC9]

The Mass Effect 1 mechanic was projected in a way that even if youre very good at games like Doom, Quake, Unreal tournament and could snipe a flying bird on Arma or Battlefield youre still gonna miss the target with a sniper, even if you made a precise shot, because you will suffer penalty from your lack of points. On the other hand, if you have many points invested, even a slight miss will register as a hit. The prevailing factor is the number of points youve spent. The amount of talent must come primarily from shepard, and only secondarily from the player.

ME1 got a lot of grief for this because Shepard -- a supposedly expert soldier -- would miss a lot at low levels. This isn't a problem with the system, it's a problem with starting Shepard at level 1. Zero-to-hero levelling often causes gameplay/story incoherence.
 

Mass Effect 1 is a little ambiguous. Theres too much reliance on personal aim to be a rpg, but also too much dependence on allocated points to be a true shooter. Its really a hybrid. A weird, but unique combination.

Unique? I thought action-RPGs were a thing. Plus, Jade Empire.

I'm also not clear on how a power-focused style is any more of an action game than, say, NWN2 is. You've got abilities determined by your class and level. Reflexes don't seem to come into it -- most of the SP vids I've seen show people pausing to unleash powers.

[czeuch]

ME1 got a lot of grief for this because Shepard -- a supposedly expert soldier -- would miss a lot at low levels. This isn't a problem with the system, it's a problem with starting Shepard at level 1. Zero-to-hero levelling often causes gameplay/story incoherence.

 

You won't miss a lot if you use the correct weapons