Mass Effect 3

[Drowsy Emperor]

Can we get a link to that video, youtube is full of fakes.

[Purkake]

The animations are pretty bad, certainly not something you'd put in any sort of promotional material...

 

[Drowsy Emperor]

It looks exactly like the second game. Take that as you will.

 

The video is horribly edited/slapped together as if to show only the worst moments in the animation of each character.

[Malcador]

That Cerberus wannabe Dread was kinda...cool ?

[Tale]

Have we seen any images of the Prothean companion, yet?

 

 

Or the Reaper companion?

 

[HoonDing]

At least it looks like a RPG again.

[Malcador]

At least it looks like a RPG again.

 

How do you mean ?

[Orogun01]

However, you'll have to agree that the "betterment" process the creators of AC faced was a lot simpler than the one that had to be done for ME1? Hence, how missteps are a lot more understandable in that context...

I think that the main difference in the transitions of both series its that AC was more linear whilst ME became broader. AC was always an action/adventure sandbox game with great combat mechanics and they maintained that while they changed the mechanics.

 

ME went from being an RPG/shooter to a shooter with dialog, mainly because no one likes shooter mechanics based on RPG-like progression (DX, AP, ME1) The solutions that BW took were far more drastic than anything Ubi had to face. But it was their noncommittal choice of direction which made ME2 not quite a good third person shooter and not fully an RPG, leaving a half breed that displeases both extremes of target consumers (the shooter and RPG purists respectively)

What I fear its that this lack of clear direction will continue onto ME3 with mechanics that have the same lukewarm effect.

[Tale]

Who's saying that ME2 wasn't a good shooter? The complaints I see are always about it not having enough inventory.

[Gfted1]

Or the Reaper companion?

 

 

Wait, what? Isnt that the enemy? Is it romanceable?

[Nepenthe]

Dear god that "gameplay" video looked just awful. And Ray Muzuka really should stop promoting stuff, he looked and sounded really awkward on the stage.

I agree, it was like he adapted to the fact that his audience wasn't mostly native speakers by talking to them like they were retarded children. It was really painful. Missing Casey Hudson and Jesse H.

 

ME went from being an RPG/shooter to a shooter with dialog, mainly because no one likes shooter mechanics based on RPG-like progression (DX, AP, ME1) The solutions that BW took were far more drastic than anything Ubi had to face. But it was their noncommittal choice of direction which made ME2 not quite a good third person shooter and not fully an RPG, leaving a half breed that displeases both extremes of target consumers (the shooter and RPG purists respectively)

What I fear its that this lack of clear direction will continue onto ME3 with mechanics that have the same lukewarm effect.

While I don't disagree with you in theory, I still think calling ME2 "a shooter with dialog"ue is a crude simplification and displays an agenda in whoever does it.

[Majek]

Who's saying that ME2 wasn't a good shooter? The complaints I see are always about it not having enough inventory.

I will say that any day. The shooting part of combat is really basic. And the static camera makes right corners annoying and left corners too easy. There's no shooting from cover because you always stand up before you shoot.

[Drowsy Emperor]

The shooting was unexciting crap, even by 90ties standards. But RPG players are immune to bad combat so whatever.

[entrerix]

The shooting was unexciting crap, even by 90ties standards. But RPG players are immune to bad combat so whatever.

 

 

i used to be immune. I'm starting to get pickier though. New Vegas spoiled me, that game was both a good rpg, AND a fun shooter (with the right weapons).

[Drowsy Emperor]

I agree, New Vegas was a fun shooter most of the time. ME2 was dull, too much on the rails and too low on actual player involvement. Every encounter played out more or less the same.

ME3 will be like that as well which is why I'll skip it altogether.

[Gromnir]

I agree, New Vegas was a fun shooter most of the time. ME2 was dull,

 

almost the opposite reaction. for all that me2 were hardly a crpg and its shooter mechanics was lame, at least it had a handful o' characters and quests that kept us involved through the better part o' an entire play-through.

 

fo:nv...

 

honestly, the gameplay stopped being intriguing after the first couple hours... tops. blame on bethesda, obsidian or interplay for all we care, but combat were fundamentally the same at low levels and high. skillz and special were broken at least as bad as me2's quasi character development although fo:nv had all the trappings o' a crpg so we expected more. with comprehension and a high int, we were able to make virtual every noteworthy skill check in the game by 10th or 12th level... and with how pointless vats were, am wondering if we ever genuine needed to put points in energy weapons or guns (although we eventual maxed those out too.) we never genuine had to change tactics, save for how we went about trying to keeps various party mates alive. some o' the joinable npcs woulda'/coulda' been intriguing, but they weren't developed much, and they were mostly insular... save for arcade complaining 'bout robots. oh, and don't get us started on luck and gambling in fo:nv... more busted than original fo gambling.

 

am s'posing that obsidian tried to give the players hard choices... moral ambiguous choices. fail. first you gotta make Gromnir care 'bout a faction or person, and obsidian were so wedded to the sandbox that they forgot the raison d'etre. also, it sure as hell woulda' made far more sense to has the caesar legion be the protectors o' civilization-- maintain dam and generate power, but with a commensurate human cost o' slavery and tyranny. as it were, although the ncr clear were not good guys, the legion were bad guys. waste. maybe loyalty to the setting forced obsidian to adopt a lame triumvirate o' house/ncr/legion, but we gots no sympathy for a developer whose slavish devotion to cannon results in bad writing.

 

vegas setting were surprising uninspired. generic. am not caring if it were feeling accurate to locals, 'cause it just didn't evoke no sense o' wonder.

 

now am sure that peoples gots equal numbers (more criticisms) o' me2 than we has identified for fo:nv. those criticisms is no doubt valid. even so, we found the setting and characters o' me's universe to be far more compelling than what we got from fo:nv. if fo:nv gameplay woulda' been more engaging, then perhaps the sandbox approach coulda' worked. sadly, fo:nv were just kinda... drab. boring.

 

aside--

 

dead money actual were a marked improvement for fo:nv as we got some actual focus. failed with the horror, but at least we were genuine curious to see how the story would eventual unfold. sure, chrisA again went with wacky concept over meaningful development, but take away the bald girl's scars, and annoying muteness (am not certain how many times we missed her "dialogue" 'cause we were avoiding speakers or poison clouds,) and she were intriguing enough. god/dog mostly got on our nerves, and the dialogue (especially at the end) were full o' hokum, but we could deal. dean were groovy. *shrug* too bad dead money gameplay were so terrible. no spooky or scary... tactical reload. use your own character as a pmd? stoopid. even so, we enjoyed dead money even if the poison clouds and hidden speakers shtick were lame.

 

honest hearts sucked. am not gonna waste additional breath.

 

haven't played owb, but it sounds interesting.

 

 

boring? fo:nv were the game that got far too dull too quick.... other than the ghouls in the rockets. lots o' choices. lots o' quirky.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[entrerix]

im going to play ME3, not really because i care about the overall story, but just because i actually had a LOT of fun playing ME2, everything else aside, it was like a fun interactive blockbuster movie, with a decent score, and some cool moments.

 

so if ME3 is half as fun, then it will still be more than worth my time.

 

edit: and i agree with a lot of what gromnir is saying (or at least can see how he would feel that way), but even with that, new vegas was my favorite game of the last 5 years, easy.

Edited August 17, 2011 by entrerix

[Drowsy Emperor]

Bioware makes character driven games and the ME2 crowd was for me dull in its stereotypical portrayal, whether they be out of a blockbuster movie or out of Bioware's stock dialog and drama that they've collected over the years. That and I disliked the gung ho protagonist from the voice to the responses. That said over the years I've developed a strong antipathy towards the sci-fi blockbuster partly because I liked them too much when I was a kid and partly because my taste in movies has refined.

The game is essentially a homage to something I can barely watch now which makes me more biased then most.

 

FNV felt novel, like most sandbox games the first time around. Lots of stuff to explore, some of it clever and interesting. The weapon sound/visual effects of the wild west arsenal was a lot of fun for as long as it was viable. When we got to the Fallout gear, I started to lose interest. In fact my interest was directly proportional to the ratio of wild west elements to stock fallout themes, with the latter turning me off in general. The story and characters were no more than a backdrop for the exploration so far as I am concerned. I'm not going to replay it, because the novelty is gone but I was quite immersed for a while.

The most fun I've had since the Witcher, even though I'd rate FNV below it.

ME2 below that, DA below that and ME 1 on the bottom.

Edited August 17, 2011 by Drowsy Emperor

[Gromnir]

ps keep in mind that we complained a great deal 'bout the excessive use o' family drama 'mongst the me2 crew. way too much with the daddy issues and messed up childhood stuff that all gotta sudden be dredged up and resolved before a life and death mission to save intelligent life in the galaxy? yeah. anywho, as silly as were the me2 DRAMA, fo:nv made an even greater mistake by being dull. is not that me2 did well, but rather that fo:nv mostly failed with the writing.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Slowtrain]

ps keep in mind that we complained a great deal 'bout the excessive use o' family drama 'mongst the me2 crew. way too much with the daddy issues and messed up childhood stuff that all gotta sudden be dredged up and resolved before a life and death mission to save intelligent life in the galaxy? yeah. anywho, as silly as were the me2 DRAMA, fo:nv made an even greater mistake by being dull. is not that me2 did well, but rather that fo:nv mostly failed with the writing.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

WOuld you say it was more or less dull than FO3?

 

I'm curious to what degree NV might simply have been hamstrung by the base mechanics of FO3.

[WDeranged]

Having recently replayed (and still kind of playing) Fallout 3 I can definitely say NV's writing is far more sensible, you could argue it lacks drama but if you're into piecing together how people fit into a world it's all very well done, I haven't tried any of the DLC yet though, they've ramped up the excitement a bit from what I hear.

[Gorgon]

FONW is so over the top it's kinda hard to take anything seriously. That does tend to limit characterization, on the other hand it leaves ample room for super heroes/villains like the burned man.

[Gromnir]

ps keep in mind that we complained a great deal 'bout the excessive use o' family drama 'mongst the me2 crew. way too much with the daddy issues and messed up childhood stuff that all gotta sudden be dredged up and resolved before a life and death mission to save intelligent life in the galaxy? yeah. anywho, as silly as were the me2 DRAMA, fo:nv made an even greater mistake by being dull. is not that me2 did well, but rather that fo:nv mostly failed with the writing.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

WOuld you say it was more or less dull than FO3?

 

I'm curious to what degree NV might simply have been hamstrung by the base mechanics of FO3.

 

tough call. am thinking that the writing and quest design were better in fo:nv. however, the setting were used more effective in fo3. fo purists probable not like to hear this, but am thinking dc were utilized better than vegas. yeah, part o' the problem is that vegas landmarks is often commercial, so obsidian couldn't use in their game. even so, for a casual visitor o' both dc and vegas, we were far more engaged by dc.

 

as for mechanics... dunno. we do know that many changes implemented by obsidian did NOT help. initial seeming decrease in skill point pool were not accurate as we overpowered far more quickly in fo:nv than in fo3. raise your hand if you didn't take comprehension perk after reading the description? decrease vats power not matter much if naked head-shots almost invariable result in instakills. etc.

 

*shrug*

 

again, blame who you will, but it took a very short amount o' time to became King O' The World in fo:nv, and tactics never had to change... save that the first time we encounter cazadores we were messed up pretty bad.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[WDeranged]

raise your hand if you didn't take comprehension perk after reading the description?

[Gromnir]

raise your hand if you didn't take comprehension perk after reading the description?

 

fair enough. that not change the fact that it is bad game design to include perks/traits/whatever that requires the player to be foolish or self-sacrificing to forgo.

 

HA! Good Fun!