A rant on... Mass Effect 3

[Leferd]

I'm still under the old impression that every new member is just an alt of Eldar

That's pretty much a given SOP unless proven otherwise.

[DarthDeven]

 

i guess that's pointless trying to ask for opinion here

You're asking for opinions? I thought that you where making numbered statements.

 

i made that clear in my first post.it was the reason i made that post

it was to ask your opinions(genuine,not the mockery)

 

 

The general gist is, lighten up. We were all noobs once and you can give and take with the ribbing.

 

No one is attacking anyone personally, and atleast in these topics, there's been no vitriol -just having some fun.

 

These topics have been eyerolled because they have already been discussed to death for years and are essentially beating dead horses. Fairly or not, newer posters who commit unwritten board faux pas will be subject to light mockery. It's all pretty subjective on what constitutes what. Most regulars don't want to engage in old topics with serious discussion because it's not an interesting topic anymore. Thus the resort to humor and mockery.

 

That's pretty much standard for most boards I've been associated with, albeit that there are varying levels of moderation from community to community. This one isn't very heavy handed, especially when compared to BioWare.

then my bad,i apologize to you all,i wasn't aware of this

still there no reason to mock me because i arrived later

i know what you mean,but i would rather ignore it than mock the guy,(in my opinion)

let's get restarted,shall we?

can we be friends (to anyone that posted)?

Edited October 4, 2014 by DarthDeven

[Zoraptor]

A serious analysis, well OK.

 

1) None of the Mass Effects are 'proper' RPGs. The character development part was always very very RPG lite. I find little reason to care if what was always primarily a shooter with upgradeable powers remains that way.

1a) Even the conversation based system was never more than RPG lite. There were plenty of forced decisions and 'fake choices' in every game.

1b) The minigames for hacking and the like were, like most minigames, pointless whether it be frogger equivalents or code matching. Don't care when they were there, don't care when they (and associated skills) were removed

 

2) Bell curve story is accurate. Like most games the end is poor, like many games the beginning is too.

2a) The really bad parts: Deus Ex Machina, Kai ****, Matrix 2 style 'end boss'.

2b) The good parts: Tuchanka, Rannoch in particular. Notably, both were built up very well over all three games of the series

2c) ME2 is to blame for many of ME3's story problems, it didn't do its job as part of a coherent narrative

 

3) I liked a lot of the misc changes

3a) Can't say I like the change to exploration exactly, but then exploration in ME1 was terrible, and in ME2 boring and repetitive- so ME3's was an improvement.

3b) I did like the incidental overheard missions.

3c) Allers was dumb, Vega was there so new players could get information on prior events since he wasn't there either

3d) Once they changed the requirements I couldn't care less about the MP hooks.

3e) Don't have any more problem with day 1 dlc than with any other, but Javik should not have been dlc, from a story perspective.

 

Overall I'd still rate ME3 highest of the three games. It had the best combat overall which has always been the meat of ME, whatever anyone says. Its story shone when it had been built up properly by the prior titles, but stank when it was newly introduced stuff or retcons. The end was rubbish, but then the ends of both previous games (and most games in general) were hardly stellar either. Mainly though, I've never been a particularly big ME fan and didn't have massive expectations going in.

[licketysplit]

Mass Effect- great story and characters, decent combat and RPG mechanics, superb atmosphere and pacing.

 

Mass Effect 2- better combat, still great atmosphere and pacing, map design takes a huge hit, RPG mechanics nerfed to hell. Still great characters.

 

Mass Effect 3- a complete copy of everything from Mass Effect 2, with a janky cover system and the worst ending I've ever seen. 

Edited October 4, 2014 by licketysplit

[RodWarrior]

A serious analysis, well OK.

 

1) None of the Mass Effects are 'proper' RPGs. The character development part was always very very RPG lite. I find little reason to care if what was always primarily a shooter with upgradeable powers remains that way.

1a) Even the conversation based system was never more than RPG lite. There were plenty of forced decisions and 'fake choices' in every game.

1b) The minigames for hacking and the like were, like most minigames, pointless whether it be frogger equivalents or code matching. Don't care when they were there, don't care when they (and associated skills) were removed

 

2) Bell curve story is accurate. Like most games the end is poor, like many games the beginning is too.

2a) The really bad parts: Deus Ex Machina, Kai ****, Matrix 2 style 'end boss'.

2b) The good parts: Tuchanka, Rannoch in particular. Notably, both were built up very well over all three games of the series

2c) ME2 is to blame for many of ME3's story problems, it didn't do its job as part of a coherent narrative

 

3) I liked a lot of the misc changes

3a) Can't say I like the change to exploration exactly, but then exploration in ME1 was terrible, and in ME2 boring and repetitive- so ME3's was an improvement.

3b) I did like the incidental overheard missions.

3c) Allers was dumb, Vega was there so new players could get information on prior events since he wasn't there either

3d) Once they changed the requirements I couldn't care less about the MP hooks.

3e) Don't have any more problem with day 1 dlc than with any other, but Javik should not have been dlc, from a story perspective.

 

Overall I'd still rate ME3 highest of the three games. It had the best combat overall which has always been the meat of ME, whatever anyone says. Its story shone when it had been built up properly by the prior titles, but stank when it was newly introduced stuff or retcons. The end was rubbish, but then the ends of both previous games (and most games in general) were hardly stellar either. Mainly though, I've never been a particularly big ME fan and didn't have massive expectations going in.

1) Character development as in skills and level up I agree.

1a) I disagree. If you compare to even IE games you see that it have a lot of C&C and dialogue moves forward. I mean, it's not all the time, but really, it never is in any game. "False choice" is part of branching dialogue, no matter what. It's Called giving you a chance of RPing, even if the conversation have to move on in a specific way.

1b) True.

2) I actually liked the beginning of the first and third game on the first time I played. After that, not so much... But I think it did a good enough job. The ending of the first 2 games are very well done, giving a nice closing feeling but leaving it open for the next one. The beginning of 2 was the dullest to me, with all the "Sheppard must die and you must go with cerberus **** if you killed them in every chance you had in the other game. But the story must go on, so... forgivable. The ME3 ending, well...

2a) See above:

2b) I agree about Tuchanka. The Krogans are a really special part of the ME story.

2c) I don't think ME2 was the villain. I think it was the way they present the story on ME3, very linear and interaction-lite. I mean, Sheppard talks for the most part without your input. That's lame. It almost became a cut scene game, with no choice at all.

 

3) I didn't.

3a) I really disagree. I think ME1 was my favorite, except for the ****ing elevators. ME3 scenarios felt like corridors with only one thing of interest. ME1 had the best feeling for roaming around and getting quests.

3b) I didn't. It was just fetching quests and you couldn't even ask about the motivations or the mission itself. "Hey, this guy forgot his wallet in reaper space. I'm a nice guy, so let's go get it! I won't even tell him, 'cause the surprise will be worth it!"

3c) Vega feel very out of place in my opinion, compared to the other companions, even the companions of other games. Allers almost didn't have anything to share, just her love. Meh.

3d) WHY THE HELL THEY PUT MP IN THE GAME?

3e) I agree about Javik, disagree about day 1 dlc. 

 

My favorite ME is 1, 'cause of the feeling i had when playing for the first time. It was awesome. ME2 was a better game overall, even if i didn't like the direction they took (less RPG more GoW). ME3 made me really fight for finishing it because of the whole "play itself" narrative. It was the biggest disappointment I had with it.

 

Anyway, sorry to use your post as the base for mine

[DarthDeven]

 

A serious analysis, well OK.

 

1) None of the Mass Effects are 'proper' RPGs. The character development part was always very very RPG lite. I find little reason to care if what was always primarily a shooter with upgradeable powers remains that way.

1a) Even the conversation based system was never more than RPG lite. There were plenty of forced decisions and 'fake choices' in every game.

1b) The minigames for hacking and the like were, like most minigames, pointless whether it be frogger equivalents or code matching. Don't care when they were there, don't care when they (and associated skills) were removed

 

2) Bell curve story is accurate. Like most games the end is poor, like many games the beginning is too.

2a) The really bad parts: Deus Ex Machina, Kai ****, Matrix 2 style 'end boss'.

2b) The good parts: Tuchanka, Rannoch in particular. Notably, both were built up very well over all three games of the series

2c) ME2 is to blame for many of ME3's story problems, it didn't do its job as part of a coherent narrative

 

3) I liked a lot of the misc changes

3a) Can't say I like the change to exploration exactly, but then exploration in ME1 was terrible, and in ME2 boring and repetitive- so ME3's was an improvement.

3b) I did like the incidental overheard missions.

3c) Allers was dumb, Vega was there so new players could get information on prior events since he wasn't there either

3d) Once they changed the requirements I couldn't care less about the MP hooks.

3e) Don't have any more problem with day 1 dlc than with any other, but Javik should not have been dlc, from a story perspective.

 

Overall I'd still rate ME3 highest of the three games. It had the best combat overall which has always been the meat of ME, whatever anyone says. Its story shone when it had been built up properly by the prior titles, but stank when it was newly introduced stuff or retcons. The end was rubbish, but then the ends of both previous games (and most games in general) were hardly stellar either. Mainly though, I've never been a particularly big ME fan and didn't have massive expectations going in.

1) Character development as in skills and level up I agree.

1a) I disagree. If you compare to even IE games you see that it have a lot of C&C and dialogue moves forward. I mean, it's not all the time, but really, it never is in any game. "False choice" is part of branching dialogue, no matter what. It's Called giving you a chance of RPing, even if the conversation have to move on in a specific way.

1b) True.

2) I actually liked the beginning of the first and third game on the first time I played. After that, not so much... But I think it did a good enough job. The ending of the first 2 games are very well done, giving a nice closing feeling but leaving it open for the next one. The beginning of 2 was the dullest to me, with all the "Sheppard must die and you must go with cerberus **** if you killed them in every chance you had in the other game. But the story must go on, so... forgivable. The ME3 ending, well...

2a) See above:

2b) I agree about Tuchanka. The Krogans are a really special part of the ME story.

2c) I don't think ME2 was the villain. I think it was the way they present the story on ME3, very linear and interaction-lite. I mean, Sheppard talks for the most part without your input. That's lame. It almost became a cut scene game, with no choice at all.

 

3) I didn't.

3a) I really disagree. I think ME1 was my favorite, except for the ****ing elevators. ME3 scenarios felt like corridors with only one thing of interest. ME1 had the best feeling for roaming around and getting quests.

3b) I didn't. It was just fetching quests and you couldn't even ask about the motivations or the mission itself. "Hey, this guy forgot his wallet in reaper space. I'm a nice guy, so let's go get it! I won't even tell him, 'cause the surprise will be worth it!"

3c) Vega feel very out of place in my opinion, compared to the other companions, even the companions of other games. Allers almost didn't have anything to share, just her love. Meh.

3d) WHY THE HELL THEY PUT MP IN THE GAME?

3e) I agree about Javik, disagree about day 1 dlc. 

 

My favorite ME is 1, 'cause of the feeling i had when playing for the first time. It was awesome. ME2 was a better game overall, even if i didn't like the direction they took (less RPG more GoW). ME3 made me really fight for finishing it because of the whole "play itself" narrative. It was the biggest disappointment I had with it.

 

Anyway, sorry to use your post as the base for mine

 

all right it's my time(again) 

to post

ME1 was the most detailed for me

 

1)it had Sovereign and Saren,the best villians of the series,hands down

2)it had pseudo RPG elements that gave a little more immersion to the game,like being able to customize the armor of your squadmates

3)i agree that the mako was clunky,but it was better than having no exploration at all

4)side quests in this game weren't so abundant,but they were nice (Terra Firma quest,Doctor Michelle(i think that's her name) blackmailer,some hovewer weren't so good

5)the Citadel was the best of all three games

6)it had a proper merchant system(with persuasion lowering buy prices and intimidate raising selling prices) that sold upgrades,weapons,armor,alien armor,grenades

7)The story was the best,very detailed and good moments 

8)it had Wrex

9)it had actual non-combat related abilities 

10)it gave me immersion that the next two games never managed to achieve

11)it was less focused on action and more on dialogue

these are my personal points for ME1

 

now i'll reply to yours

 

1) i don't think so,there was a reason for those abilities to remain,they could have been improved instead of being cut

 

1a)agree on that one

 

1b)i see the minigames as a way to stop from the action,again,they could have been improved

 

2)The first part of the first game was amazing,showing you the solar system as you go to the bridge and then you see your character watching on the pilot ****pit

that was epic ,the second game's beginning i felt meh and wtf? no matter what you have to die so two years could pass and justify why there's a new ship,a new crew and new gameplay mechanics that was the only part of ME2 that i actually hated,i was kind of WTF when i was forced to be in cerberus,then i moved on and the game was great,

the third game's beginning felt exactly what i espected it to be,a build up to immediate action  then the autodialogue and the forced action sequence confirmed my fear.

 

2a)i agree on that,Kai Leng,the space kiddo and deus ex machina,but the story felt tied on together so bad,felt forced.

 

2b)yeah,tuchanka is the only part that i remotely liked,but it got covered by dozens of plotholes and bad plot devices in the other parts of the game

 

2c)this is kind of interesting,i used to blame ME2 for ME3's problems,but i realized that actually was ME3 that wasn't doing its work,the lead writer was the same as the second part of ME2's main story,so Mac Walters is to blame.

 

 

3)if those changes were done well,i wouldn't complain,but,oh man,those changes were done so badly,that if i were to write them all,i could stay two days writing them and there will still be things to talk about

 

3a)i kinda liked the elevators,instead of a loading screen (LOADING....),there's a small dialogue exchange between companions,it was kinda neat,Bioware could have improved it

 

3b)completely agree RodWarrior 

 

3c)Vega was bland and very boring,we should have got Wrex as Squad member,Allers is just a waste of space

 

3d)i dunno dude,i was annoyed as much as you are.

 

3e)yeah,Javik was one of the two squadmates that i liked,but a prothean cut for Day one DLC in ME it's insane.

ME1 was my favourite too,ME2 actually took like 5 steps foward,but it took 3 steps backwards too.

 

Edited October 5, 2014 by DarthDeven

[Meshugger]

ME1 - "Meh"

ME2 - "What is this trite?!"

ME3 - Never played

[RodWarrior]

DarthDeven, about the elevators, let me explain: really loved the banter and news, but really hated when they didn't have anything to say and it took 15+ sec to reach the destination.

 

Btw I totally agree with your ME1 opinions.

 

And just to talk a bit more about stuff:

 

- Really, really hated the companions zaeed dialogue. YUNO TALK TO ME LIKE A REAL PERSON??

 

- Really hated the "more cutscenes, less player choice" that happened in ME3. It was seriously my biggest problem with the game, and I really almost didn't finished because of this!

 

- Minor problem: YUNO LET ME CHOOSE MY GRAPHICAL OPTIONS????

Edited October 5, 2014 by RodWarrior

[Nepenthe]

So much neckbeard

[Bryy]

Mass Effect 1 was the best story but worst gameplay. The 70s camp was really lost in ME2, only to resurface in the Reaper Baby.

[Leferd]

What is really inexcusable is the lack of film grain. Why Bio, why?

[Bryy]

What is really inexcusable is the lack of film grain. Why Bio, why?

The film grain was always there, it was just toggle-able.

[Leferd]

 

What is really inexcusable is the lack of film grain. Why Bio, why?

 

The film grain was always there, it was just toggle-able.

For ME 3? Not on Xbox 360 there isn't.

[Humanoid]

I don't feel ME1's combat was meaningfully worse than its sequels, indeed it's superior in a couple of ways - less dependence on cover and better-feeling biotics (Charge aside). And it's not a case of rose-tinted goggles because I played ME2 first. The worst time I've had with raw gameplay in any ME game was playing an Adept in ME2: aside from a few telegraphed "hey, you should totally thow those enemies we'ce placed on this convenient balcony" moments, all my spells felt more or less like slower, weaker bullets.

[Zoraptor]

My big issue with ME2's combat was that near everything felt plink-plink, not just biotics. And as such playing on higher difficulties was not actually more difficult, it just meant that everything took a lot longer and was a lot more boring.

 

I actually quite liked ME1's overheating mechanic.

[Gorth]

I consider the Mass Effects series "Lite" Entertainment, the kind get from a Steven Seagal movie (with all the "depth" of a such). Hence, not sure if there is a point of an indepth analysis. It basically boils down to, what did i like and what did i not like in each installment.

 

Summary of memories for each game:

 

ME1: Had the best combat and felt the least restrictive. Minigames sucked big time and companions were forgettable. Bioware still had this idea that their space opera games needed jailbait in the form of blue skinned alien children for people to have a crush on.

 

ME2: Minigames still sucked big time and now the combat sucked too. Redeeming factor was more interesting companions and a larger variety in the mission types, even if the linearity of each mission would give a mathematician wet dreams.

 

ME3: Combat still sucked, but at least most of the minigames were gone and only that hovercraft Thing remained. Yay!!! Companions were a mixed bag and the beginning of the game was such a turn off, that I needed three runups to finally stick with the game. Middle part was quite (i would even say "very") good and the ending is in hard competition with Kotor2 for the title of most messy video game ending.

 

I did like the DLC's by the way, generally adding interesting things to the game (not the item dlc's, but those with companion/story elements).

 

I would heck out ME4 if a such were to be released some day.

 

PS: Dear Bioware, when can we have a patch for ME3 that lets us skip those horrible, useless "dream sequences" with the stupid child? I really wanted to let that Reaper just squish him right away and be rid of that completely unneccesary element.

[Malcador]

The dream sequences were awesome, moved me to go get a glass of water. Probably could have done Shepard suddenly getting PTSD by having the kid pop up during action or something else than some Clint Mansell aided forest trip.

[Orogun01]

The dream sequences were awesome, moved me to go get a glass of water. Probably could have done Shepard suddenly getting PTSD by having the kid pop up during action or something else than some Clint Mansell aided forest trip.

The only thing I hate more than a "walk in cutscene" is a "slow walk in cutscene"

[HoonDing]

Kai Leng was more annoying than all Star Children put together.

[DarthDeven]

Kai Leng was more annoying than all Star Children put together.

it's too bad because that character(Kai leng) had potential and i heard that was totally different  in the books

he used guns and knives and instead of being a space ninja he was a total badass,written the same guy who did the first game's story

but in ME3 

 

this hack came from another universe to destroy ME's

 

 

I consider the Mass Effects series "Lite" Entertainment, the kind get from a Steven Seagal movie (with all the "depth" of a such). Hence, not sure if there is a point of an indepth analysis. It basically boils down to, what did i like and what did i not like in each installment.

 

Summary of memories for each game:

 

ME1: Had the best combat and felt the least restrictive. Minigames sucked big time and companions were forgettable. Bioware still had this idea that their space opera games needed jailbait in the form of blue skinned alien children for people to have a crush on.

 

ME2: Minigames still sucked big time and now the combat sucked too. Redeeming factor was more interesting companions and a larger variety in the mission types, even if the linearity of each mission would give a mathematician wet dreams.

 

ME3: Combat still sucked, but at least most of the minigames were gone and only that hovercraft Thing remained. Yay!!! Companions were a mixed bag and the beginning of the game was such a turn off, that I needed three runups to finally stick with the game. Middle part was quite (i would even say "very") good and the ending is in hard competition with Kotor2 for the title of most messy video game ending.

 

I did like the DLC's by the way, generally adding interesting things to the game (not the item dlc's, but those with companion/story elements).

 

I would heck out ME4 if a such were to be released some day.

 

PS: Dear Bioware, when can we have a patch for ME3 that lets us skip those horrible, useless "dream sequences" with the stupid child? I really wanted to let that Reaper just squish him right away and be rid of that completely unneccesary element.

ME1:i agree on the minigames,but the combat for me in Mass Effect wasn't well developed,but still kind of enjoyable,i consider it my favourite because it's more 'tactical' than more focused on the action

the companions weren't so bad,Wrex was good IMO

the best part of it was the story,none of the other two had it like in ME1

 

ME2:well,i agree,the minigames still weren't good enough,the  character development was great

i disagree on the 'variety' for me the missions weren't so varied,it was mainly (main/n7/majority of sidequests)a shooting gallery from point a to point b with occasional rewards,with some fetch quests

(Fish,Normandy Engine FBA,kitchen supplies and the drink for the doctor)

and several actual side quests

 

in ME2 they started adding the 'eavesdropping fetch quests',like the salarian on Illium,but you actually talk to the quest giver unlike ME3.

i disliked the combat since it was more changed for TPS introducing 'ammo' and more prone to action.

 

ME3:already expressed on that one,but KOTOR 2 had problems because Lucasarts wanted them to launch the game a year before they could finish it,so it's justified,ME3 instead had 3 extra months of development and  all they did was a big mess

 

the dlcs are actually criminal in this case because 90% of the dlcs were ripped off from the original game

i agree with you on the dreams,they were terrible and annoying

 

 

i don't have high hopes for ME4,it will never be the great game we loved(unless you enjoyed all three)

[Humanoid]

 

Kai Leng was more annoying than all Star Children put together.

it's too bad because that character(Kai leng) had potential and i heard that was totally different  in the books

he used guns and knives and instead of being a space ninja he was a total badass,written the same guy who did the first game's story

but in ME3

 

If you count stealing breakfast cereal and peeing in vases to be badass, sure.

[Bryy]

the dlcs are actually criminal in this case because 90% of the dlcs were ripped off from the original game

Besides the day one DLC, what do you think is cut content?

[Orogun01]

 

the dlcs are actually criminal in this case because 90% of the dlcs were ripped off from the original game

Besides the day one DLC, what do you think is cut content?

 

Cut content, why the hell do developers not put everything in the game? Use those assets somewhere for God's sake.

[DarthDeven]

 

the dlcs are actually criminal in this case because 90% of the dlcs were ripped off from the original game

Besides the day one DLC, what do you think is cut content?

 

Omega was intended to be visitable,including the omega mass relay and a second voyage from it(there are cut lines of dialogue between Aria and Shepard in the unpatched vanilla game)

and the beta script had insights and a mission on the reapers(Leviathan of Diz)

the only content that wasn't cut was the Citadel DLC and the EC

 

[Tale]

There's a massive gap between content cut from an early script, then implemented later as DLC, and content cut from the game itself to sell as DLC.