716 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

BG doesn't deserve respect because Bioware polished it into BG2 and NWN doesn't deserve respect because it led to HoTU or eventually MoTB in the hands of Obsidian.

[Killroy]

Ok, the second part.

Shepard being an emotional wreck for no reason.

I know this is your opinion, but I mean, playing ME3, isn't there plenty of reasons for Shepard to maybe get a bit emotional? You know actually start displaying human emotions for the first time in the trilogy?

No, because it's the same melodramatic response forced on every Shepard, no matter their personality. My primary Shep was an Earthborn Sole Survivor. He was made of tougher stuff than that. But one kid dies and he has PTSD? Kaidan gets banged up and he can't function without Liara telling him what to do? Everyone else was keeping their s#it together just fine, but Shepard was losing his mind. It was bad, clunky writing to try to force an emotional response out of the player through Shepard.

War, death, destruction. I shouldn't have to cite examples because anyone who's witness all that death and knowing all that was going on elsewhere and the chances of stopping it are slim, would probably get a bit emotional and overwhelmed in their more private moments may be. Shepard being emotional, I don't think a "wreck" is an accurate term, was one of the better things in ME3 for me, he actually was humanised more.

Shepard can be a sociopath up until he's forced to be an emotional wreck. Why would someone who has no qualms about killing people for pretty much any reason become a soft, ineffective pansy who needs his hand held just because a kid died?

Unless you find him an emotional wreck for no reason more of a disliking at your presumably male protagonist not being an emotionless psychologically scarred manly "I don't feel things" super soldier anymore? That in ME3 there was a slight tweak into making him less of a generic video game protagonist? Cause if you didn't like Shepard emoting as a human being, that's fine, but its hardly a problem or a sign of weak writing in ME3.

That's a BS argument. We were in control of Shepard's personality and emotions up until that point, but BioWare forced PTSD and a weak constitution on us. We could treat death like it didn't matter at all until then.

[LinksOcarina]

No I understood what it meant. It's my opinion though that there is no worst in the trilogy. They were all brilliant. I like them all because they were all MASS EFFECT. Each game was enjoyment because you got to fight new enemies, meet new people, and reconnect with old ones. ME1 had you pursuing a rogue spectre in order to stop a reaper invasion. When the Alliance saved the council in my play through and destroyed sovereign I almost cried. It was ******* brilliant. In ME 2 you had to stop the collectors from creating a human reaper that would have eventually taken the citadel.You used team work and friendship to overcome the enemy. And in ME 3, you finally meet the might of the reapers. You gathered alliances and brought the fight to the reapers. There is no such thing as a perfect game. There is always something someone is going to complain about. But ME 1 should deserve everyone's respect. Without it, we would have MASS EFFECT. It all has to start somewhere. I can see in ten years time the same stuff about ME A. By then the third MEA is going to be so advanced we are gonna look back and see how "small" MEA really was and be like "it was the worst in the trilogy". Why? Its what got us hooked. It was a masterpiece. But I digress, my point is that in my own opinion cause after all that's what this is, ME 1 is the core for everything in the Mass Effect series.

 

Id doesn't matter though.

 

No one here is saying we don't like the trilogy or even the games at all. (even those who hate the ending). We just are saying that one or parts of a single game are not that good...

 

Not being good is not a bad thing. It's how games are. 

 

No need to worry about what people say in their opinions. 

 

For example, this 2 and half hour piece on the trilogy...I agree with some points, disagree with others, but the ultimate point in the end is the trilogy as a whole is still fantastic.

 

 

Nothing or no one is taking anything away from that. 

[SKAR]

Id doesn't matter though.

No one here is saying we don't like the trilogy or even the games at all. (even those who hate the ending). We just are saying that one or parts of a single game are not that good...

Not being good is not a bad thing. It's how games are.

No need to worry about what people say in their opinions.

For example, this 2 and half hour piece on the trilogy...I agree with some points, disagree with others, but the ultimate point in the end is the trilogy as a whole is still fantastic.

https://www.youtube....h?v=hct5WeBmsUM

Nothing or no one is taking anything away from that.

I suppose not. You make a good point.

[Killroy]

Says the one who just finished putting down ME3.

The point clearly went over your head.
 

All I said was that ME3 was good until the end, I don't have to put down ME1 just to think ME3 was good.  However, I did enjoy it more than the rest. If you enjoyed ME1 more, that's great. I just didn't. It was enough to get me through the door for ME2 and ME3. If you want to argue that ME1 was perfect and had no plot flaws or any other flaw whatsoever and the series was somehow ruined with ME2 and/or ME3 then I'm gonna have to ask you to adjust those rose tinted nostalgia glasses because the entire series had issues from the very beginning.

You conceded that ME3 was very flawed before the end, but then pretended those flaws didn't exist. You make no sense.
 

What did we explore in ME1? Rock planets with nothing on it and invisible walls to keep you back if you stray too far and a random half buried pod with a medallion in it...for reasons "You've collected 100 Turian insignias" congrats. You did about as much "exploration" in ME2 as you did in ME1. The Maps just looked bigger in ME1.  The illusion of a wider planet.

 
You clearly didn't do any side missions in ME1. I explored Prothean ruins and got a Beacon-like glimpse of early, primitive humanity as seen by the Protheans. I found and ended a biotic cult that was bent on genocide. I encountered an old Nemesis with a Bond-villain plan for my death and turned the tables on him. Etc.
 

Just because we joined Cerberus for a few months and saw some projects before does not mean we know everything about them or where they got their cash from. We basically knew nothing about them throughout the entire trilogy (aside from some codex entries) and only caught a glimpse in ME2.  Why do you think the option exists for Shepard to ask Jack to tell him what's in the files? Because Shepard and the player is like Jon Snow at this point. Neither of us "Know nuthin'" about Cerberus.

You clearly weren't paying attention. Miranda tells you a crapload about Cerberus. She's an exposition character, there to explain Cerberus to the player. We know where Cerberus' funding comes from, what their goals are, how limited their resources are/are not, etc.
 

I'm not saying Cerberus was well written, my opinion is that none of the villains are well written. However, I still liked Saren, Sovereign, and TIM even when they had their derp moments.   I agree that we should have been fighting the Reapers more, perhaps added some sort of ship battle or something. idk.  If anything I think Cerberus was added just for villain variety because fighting two or three types of Reaper forces would get boring.

So it was bad game design? Before the ending? Hmmm...
 

I think the ME team's biggest problem was that they introduced these larger than life OP villains and had no realistic means of defeating them.  Anything BW was gonna use to destroy them is gonna be an asspull no matter what. Ironically, IMO, the only realistic seeming means of beating them turned out to be Cerberus related; controlling Reaper forces and turning their own creations against them was the most sound explanation to beating them. It would have stopped them from using everyone as puppets giving ground forces some relief during the fight to focus fire on the actual Reapers.

That they wrote themselves into a corner and didn't have the balls to make a no-win outcome doesn't make ME3 better.
 

Note:  I personally think the Reapers should have been smaller and humanoid but just with a massive galaxy wide military and advanced tech or something.  While the Reapers were larger than life in ME1, there was just no place for the ME team to go with them but down.

How would being humanoid robots make them less threatening? The problems with executing their plans and motivations doesn't stem from aesthetics.

[Sifr]

 

Note:  I personally think the Reapers should have been smaller and humanoid but just with a massive galaxy wide military and advanced tech or something.  While the Reapers were larger than life in ME1, there was just no place for the ME team to go with them but down.

 

I can see what you're saying, but since the Geth (smaller, humanoid machines) were the primary adversary we faced in ME1 anyway, wouldn't that be a little redundant to have the Reapers be essentially no different from the robots mooks we've been mowing through?

[SKAR]

The point clearly went over your head.


You conceded that ME3 was very flawed before the end, but then pretended those flaws didn't exist. You make no sense.


You clearly didn't do any side missions in ME1. I explored Prothean ruins and got a Beacon-like glimpse of early, primitive humanity as seen by the Protheans. I found and ended a biotic cult that was bent on genocide. I encountered an old Nemesis with a Bond-villain plan for my death and turned the tables on him. Etc.


You clearly weren't paying attention. Miranda tells you a crapload about Cerberus. She's an exposition character, there to explain Cerberus to the player. We know where Cerberus' funding comes from, what their goals are, how limited their resources are/are not, etc.


So it was bad game design? Before the ending? Hmmm...


That they wrote themselves into a corner and didn't have the balls to make a no-win outcome doesn't make ME3 better.


How would being humanoid robots make them less threatening? The problems with executing their plans and motivations doesn't stem from aesthetics.

I felt they were more menacing as huge starships.

[Killroy]

I felt they were more menacing as huge starships.

And that was obviously the point. They're huge, unknowable threats like Eldritch horrors. Making them less-big humanoid robots just makes them more pedestrian. And it would give the Council a solid case to make that the Reapers really were just Geth.

[Prince Enigmatic]

No, because it's the same melodramatic response forced on every Shepard, no matter their personality. My primary Shep was an Earthborn Sole Survivor. He was made of tougher stuff than that. But one kid dies and he has PTSD? Kaidan gets banged up and he can't function without Liara telling him what to do? Everyone else was keeping their s#it together just fine, but Shepard was losing his mind. It was bad, clunky writing to try to force an emotional response out of the player through Shepard.
 

 

Ok I can get where you are coming from here. But there have been other moments in the trilogy where the same outcome or things happen to Shepard as well as Shepard's reaction to certain events, regardless of origin, psych profile and whether they are paragon or renegade. 

 

I think making Shepard actually show signs of stress and strain from all the pressure in ME3, no matter how forced it may have been to some people, wasn't the worst thing the writers did. If anything i felt it was an attempt to try and make Shepard less bland and stoic a protagonist. 

[SKAR]

And that was obviously the point. They're huge, unknowable threats like Eldritch horrors. Making them less-big humanoid robots just makes them more pedestrian. And it would give the Council a solid case to make that the Reapers really were just Geth.

True. To see a huge starship right over your head spewing demon spawn at you, who wouldn't $#¡t their pants?

[SKAR]

Ok I can get where you are coming from here. But there have been other moments in the trilogy where the same outcome or things happen to Shepard as well as Shepard's reaction to certain events, regardless of origin, psych profile and whether they are paragon or renegade.

I think making Shepard actually show signs of stress and strain from all the pressure in ME3, no matter how forced it may have been to some people, wasn't the worst thing the writers did. If anything i felt it was an attempt to try and make Shepard less bland and stoic a protagonist.

I agree with you. Like Anderson said, every soldier has scars. Even if it wasn't noticeable Shepard was a soldier and even if it wasn't full on PTSD he felt the brunt of most of his actions. To say he wasn't affected in some way doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If you saw innocent civilians get blown away wouldn't you be affected? Of course you would.

[Killroy]

Ok I can get where you are coming from here. But there have been other moments in the trilogy where the same outcome or things happen to Shepard as well as Shepard's reaction to certain events, regardless of origin, psych profile and whether they are paragon or renegade.

They never forced Shepard to be a creampuff before that. If my Shepard was going to crack under pressure it would have been on Akuze. And why would a hardcore, sociopathic Renegade react that way at all?
 

I think making Shepard actually show signs of stress and strain from all the pressure in ME3, no matter how forced it may have been to some people, wasn't the worst thing the writers did. If anything i felt it was an attempt to try and make Shepard less bland and stoic a protagonist.

No one else was cracking under the pressure. Liara, essentially a teenager who was a timid scientist a few years prior, was tougher and more reliable under stress than Shepard.
And I don't give credit for failed attempts at bad ideas.

[The Elder King]

I agree with you. Like Anderson said, every soldier has scars. Even if it wasn't noticeable Shepard was a soldier and even if it wasn't full on PTSD he felt the brunt of most of his actions. To say he wasn't affected in some way doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If you saw innocent civilians get blown away wouldn't you be affected? Of course you would.

I would. I don't know if any soldier would. And I still don't see why Shepard has to. Or to be 'shocked' by that single death, and couldn't have problem dealing with the possible deaths of his friends in the previous games. 

 

 

 

I think making Shepard actually show signs of stress and strain from all the pressure in ME3, no matter how forced it may have been to some people, wasn't the worst thing the writers did. If anything i felt it was an attempt to try and make Shepard less bland and stoic a protagonist. 

It might not be. Though there are better ways to make Shepard not bland and stoic. Forcing every single Shepard to reach in the same way, and to have problems when a certain situation occur, and not other deaths Shepard might've suffered is not a good idea, for me at least.

[Dalinne]

One aspect I felt missing in Mass Effect 2 was the fact that Shepard was completely OK with being dead! That was a hell of a trauma, no matter what type of Shepard you made (badass, paragade, renegon, psycopath, goodie...)

[SKAR]

They never forced Shepard to be a creampuff before that. If my Shepard was going to crack under pressure it would have been on Akuze. And why would a hardcore, sociopathic Renegade react that way at all?


No one else was cracking under the pressure. Liara, essentially a teenager who was a timid scientist a few years prior, was tougher and more reliable under stress than Shepard.
And I don't give credit for failed attempts at bad ideas.

she was like 108 which is probably 28 in Asari years. you see people you care about die countless times and tell me if that doesn't affect you. If it doesn't you may want to get a psychological evaluation.

[SKAR]

I would. I don't know if any soldier would. And I still don't see why Shepard has to. Or to be 'shocked' by that single death, and couldn't have problem dealing with the possible deaths of his friends in the previous games.

It might not be. Though there are better ways to make Shepard not bland and stoic. Forcing every single Shepard to reach in the same way, and to have problems when a certain situation occur, and not other deaths Shepard might've suffered is not a good idea, for me at least.

Of course soldiers would be affected. They're peoplej ust like the rest of us. Not machines. Seeing people die changes you.

[GeneralXIV]

I child died in front of them... I think that's enough to make anyone have some negative thoughts... especially when you think that there were millions of children dying and millions of adults too...

[The Elder King]

Of course soldiers would be affected. They're peoplej ust like the rest of us. Not machines. Seeing people die changes you.

Shepard already did see people die though. Plenty of times. The ME3 prologue wasn't the first time he saw someone dying. 

[SKAR]

Shepard already did see people die though. Plenty of times. The ME3 prologue wasn't the first time he saw someone dying.

You think he wasn't affected? People hide things.

[SKAR]

I child died in front of them... I think that's enough to make anyone have some negative thoughts... especially when you think that there were millions of children dying and millions of adults too...

ex******actly.

[The Elder King]

You think he wasn't affected? People hide things.

I'm not claiming that seeing people dying doesn't affect us. I'm saying that Shepard already went though that stage. So the events of ME3 don't have necessarily to lead every Shepard to reach in the same way. 

[SKAR]

If seeing people die doesn't affect you, even loved ones: sociopath. If seeing people die doesn't affect you, makes you happy, and you enjoy suffering and/or killing: Psychopath.

[GeneralXIV]

If I saw a child die... and the thought of a planet full of people... a planet which was the birthplace of the human race even if I wasn't born there... so many people dying and my planet gone... I'd do more than just look away haha. I always cry at the start of Mass Effect 3... It's the music

[Han Shot First]

Shepard having been through traumatic events in the past wouldn't realistically make him or her more immune to PTSD or survivor's guilt. Nor does the most traumatic event in a person's life have to be the trigger for symptoms. That's just not how it works. In fact the opposite is true...the more psychological trauma in a person's life, the more susceptible they are to it.

 

The handling of Shepard's survivor's guilt may have been a bit clunky ay times, but any argument that Shepard was too tough, or too battle-hardened to be affected by PTSD, has no basis in reality.

[Hammerstorm]

If seeing people die doesn't affect: sociopath. If seeing people die doesn't affect you, makes you happy, and you enjoy suffering and/or killing: Psychopath.

 

And what?

 

Some roleplay their Shepard that way. some want to make him a soldier that is sad but still make the tough decisions. And some want to make a Shepard that crack under the pressure. 

 

That is what most people was annoyed about. They lost the option to roleplay.