Jump to content

Home

Mass Effect 3


leXX
 Share

Recommended Posts

@ jigos: You misread what I said. I said I don't hold BioWare to a higher standard than other developers. I still hold every developer to a high standard, I just don't hold BioWare to a HIGHER standard because I'd rather place developers on equal ground to each other no matter what kind of game they make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

@ jigos: You misread what I said. I said I don't hold BioWare to a higher standard than other developers. I still hold every developer to a high standard, I just don't hold BioWare to a HIGHER standard because I'd rather place developers on equal ground to each other no matter what kind of game they make.
there can still be an argument to be made there, though. nobody pours money into game development quite like Bioware (except maybe Blizzard or Microsoft), and yet we get games from relatively small companies like CD Projekt that turn out amazing (The Witcher and its sequel, anyone??).

 

so, if you're looking for a reason to hold Bioware to a higher standard, that would be the one, IMHO. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you've just nullified your point within the point itself (Inception), if money doesn't matter to make a good video game, then why should I think it matters to begin with?

 

As I said before, no matter the developer, I hold them on equal ground because I think any developer can make a good game.

 

Just because Mass Effect is in the "epic" category doesn't mean I'll hold it higher than say... New Super Mario Bros. U which had a tiny budget in comparison. Both games made promises, both are trying to aim for certain goals in their creation, both developers went about achieving whatever it they wanted to achieve using the tools and budget they had. If it's a good game, it's a good game, the price tag of its development shouldn't matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

So, I decided to try a full back-to-back playthrough of all 3 games. After the whole ME3 ending debacle, I figured I could never bring myself to do it, but with the advent of MEHEM, I thought I might be able to stomach it.

 

It was interesting playing them so close together, allowing comparison without too much rose-tinting due to faded memories. It did highlight a lot of the mechanical clunkiness of ME1. I probably found the general slowness of just moving around levels the most frustrating. Shepard ambles along like an invalid, obviously one of several methods they used to deal with their loading/streaming issues. There were issues with combat as well, but I still prefer some elements of it. Individual cooldowns, weapon proficiency tied to talent progression, etc. The constant attempts by party members to shoot through walls was not so hot though.

 

Overall I still like the story of ME1 the best. Both sequels got derailed by focusing their attention on the Collectors and Cerberus. Plus just the general feel of the game. There's just something about the atmosphere of ME1 that the sequels failed to capture IMO.

 

ME2 is, in some ways, probably the sweet spot for a lot elements in the series. Mechanically, the combat is generally an improvement (although I hate the universal cooldowns with a passion). AI is obviously a lot better. Some of the new powers are good. The interrupt system is too QTE-like for my tastes, but some of the outcomes are nice, at least for those of us that enjoy setting people on fire or pushing them out windows. One thing that really bugged me was the prevalence of clipping/collision issues. A number of times I got trapped trying to exit cover and ending up walking up a wall into a ceiling or the like, having to use console commands to get myself out. Sloppy work.

 

The story is a mixed bag. The whole Collector and Human Reaper plot was a complete waste of a third of the trilogy IMO, not to mention it transformed Cerberus from some minor terrorist outfit that got a throwaway mention in ME1 into some massive galaxy-spanning organisation with more resources and power than most governments, setting it up to take far too much screen time in 3. And killing Shepard off simply as a means to reset his level and get rid of the original crew was a poor choice, and the first hint of the dreaded space magic with his miraculous resurrection. Where it did well was in the character interactions, always Bioware's narrative strength. It's just a shame that this content (half the game) was focused on housekeeping tasks to gain loyalty, rather than being used to drive the overarching narrative forward. The suicide mission concept was arguably a poor choice. While a nice idea in principle, adding real consequence with the potential for characters to die, they effectively sidelined the entire cast for 3 as they couldn't rely on any of them being present. That's a real problem when you just devoted a significant portion of the game to building up said characters.

 

And on to ME3. I'm still not sure what the deal is with the start. I really wish they hadn't cut the trial. If you played the Arrival DLC in ME2, the idea is seemingly that you were prosecuted for wiping out a Batarian system in a show trial, a scapegoat to forestall a war. That's fair enough, although they could have thrown in a few extra lines of dialogue to make that more apparent. But if you didn't play Arrival, the Codex says a team of Alliance marines blew up the relay, not Shepard, in which case his/her apparent incarceration at the beginning of ME3 is somewhat odd (collusion with Cerberus perhaps?). Whatever explanation they originally intended was obviously sacrificed in the name of getting to the action as quick as possible to keep the shooter crowd interested. Then there's the kid. I guess this is now the archetypal example of Biowarian hamfisted attempted emotional manipulation. As to the rest of the story, that has been done to death by now, so there's probably no point rehashing it. I have plenty of issues with it, but I will say that one area where it improves over ME2 is that most major character interactions are in service of driving the main plot forward.

 

Combat-wise, there were some nice additions like combinations of powers, but overall I think I preferred the combat in ME2. The introduction of multiple levels with ladders and such is a nice concept, but it is never really taken advantage of in combat areas. Plus instant kill melee enemies in a cover shooter - bleh.

 

One of the most striking things was the amount of auto-dialogue in ME3. Playing all 3 games back-to-back, you really notice it. In ME1, everything Shepard says is chosen by the player. There are also "investigation" options to ask about specific topics in virtually all convos. In ME2 this is mostly the same, although auto-dialogue makes an appearance and there are less investigate options. There are also fewer Charm/Intimidate choices offered, mostly being replaced with interrupts. In ME3, auto-dialogue makes up the majority, and when you do get a choice it is almost invariably just 2 options. This is probably one of the more egregious missteps of ME3 IMO. They pared back so many features, but player choice in characterising Shepard was one of the hallmarks of the series. Given the direction they seem to be trending, I wonder if ME4 will be a straight out shooter.

 

As far as MEHEM goes, it's pretty amateur in its execution, but I'm willing to give the guy a pass because, according to the readme, it was the first time he ever did any editing like that and the fact that we even got such a mod is something I never thought would happen. Plus it completely excises Casper from the game, so that earns it major points. It doesn't really resolve the major underlying problems with the plot, but it trims out the space magic and does the best it can within the limitations of the available source material and editing tools. Worth a look for anyone that found the original ending/s distasteful enough to prevent a replay.

Edited by DarthParametric
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the most striking things was the amount of auto-dialogue in ME3. Playing all 3 games back-to-back, you really notice it. In ME1, everything Shepard says is chosen by the player. There are also "investigation" options to ask about specific topics in virtually all convos. In ME2 this is mostly the same, although auto-dialogue makes an appearance and there are less investigate options. There are also fewer Charm/Intimidate choices offered, mostly being replaced with interrupts. In ME3, auto-dialogue makes up the majority, and when you do get a choice it is almost invariably just 2 options. This is probably one of the more egregious missteps of ME3 IMO. They pared back so many features, but player choice in characterising Shepard was one of the hallmarks of the series. Given the direction they seem to be trending, I wonder if ME4 will be a straight out shooter.

 

 

For a while I thought I was one of the only ones who noticed that. At first it wasn't too obvious since I was caught up in the euphoria, but playing ME3 a second time really made me realize how it's basically a Gears of war clone. While there were a lot of good moments in ME3, they were overshadowed by a lot of bad things in ME3.

 

I agree that Mass Effect 1 had the best plot. It really made me fear the Reapers, and it gave the feeling that you are exploring the unknown when out in the Attican Traverse. Mass Effect 2 tried to continue that, but the Collecters made the Reapers simply seem a challenge. In Mass Effect 3, Reapers seemed more like stupid robots. This came from the God kid explaining how "the reapers are not interested in war".

 

I think they should never have explained the motives of the Reapers, keeping their history mysterious would probably have made for a better ending

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I have argued before that the concept of the Reapers was much better when they were the unfathomable Cthulian monsters with motives beyond human comprehension, as they were depicted in ME1.

 

As to the auto-dialogue, I think it was mentioned a number times throughout the thread. I was already aware of it myself, it was just much more obvious having played the previous games right beforehand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The writing in ME2 and ME3 wasn't that bad, but they sure as hell stopped feeling like role-playing games. If BioWare had more time then maybe we would have had three different endings.

 

Ending 1: Crucible is a superweapon, blows Reapers all to hell, good guys win.

Ending 2: Crucible doesn't activate, Harbinger harvests Shepard, you play as Harbinger and help the Reapers win.

Ending 3: Crucible activates, but your war assets aren't high enough to win the war, so nearly everyone dies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't arguing against you. I was agreeing with you. :xp: Jeebus. Do people actually read these threads?

 

I was agreeing as well :xp: seems confusion is common >_>

 

 

@Chaos - while it is in interesting premise that really wouldn't work. Playing as harbinger would simply defeat the player utterly, and frankly even the concept of the original endings are better that that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I have an evil ending/player bias haha.

 

Well, I would have included an ending where the Reapers win and not some lame philosophical victory, but an actual physical victory. I was hoping ME3 would be like KotOR where somehow a renegade Shepard could become controlled like Saren and betray his/her allies and join the Reapers. I loved the Reapers... until star child made them all into a bunch of pussies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if it is, hopefully they don't try to oversell it in concept or attach a ridiculous price tag to it. From most of the comments I've seen, Omega wasn't worth $15. Given that they're not gonna change the ending, one can only wonder what relevance (beyond simple game play and more ducats for the franchise) any new dlc would have now. Guess I'll find out when it hits YT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is fairly old news. It was officially announced a month or so back (as seen by the date on the article), but it has been known about since files for it were unearthed in the Leviathan DLC back in August. It would appear to be partially or wholly set on the Citadel. I don't think there have been any firm conclusions regarding plot as yet, but scuttlebutt points to it including a date with your LI. At the very least it will feature the involvement of some party members, the VS seemingly confirmed via Tweets from Sbarge as the article notes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I have an evil ending/player bias haha.

 

Well, I would have included an ending where the Reapers win and not some lame philosophical victory, but an actual physical victory. I was hoping ME3 would be like KotOR where somehow a renegade Shepard could become controlled like Saren and betray his/her allies and join the Reapers. I loved the Reapers... until star child made them all into a bunch of pussies.

 

If you pick the refusal option in the Extended Cut, the Reapers do win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
[youtube=hd]6zSmIEGQPTE

 

I think it would actually be pretty cool to see an officially licensed ME Capcom beat 'em up, a la the likes of X-Men/Marvel vs Street Fighter.

 

Yeah. I'm surprised SNK and Tatsunoko have tried their hand at it, but all the more glad for it. Now tekken is on there. I wonder how long it will be before we see Disney VS Capcom. Y'know, since it now owns Marvel.

 

Eventually I ponder the likes of MK, DC, Nintendo, and others trying their hand at some point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...