I still remember way too bady how he destroyed the Dragon Age Franchise in one game.
Now he get's to destroy an epic Trilogy. Especially considering that Ray Muzyka and Greg Zeschuk have left BioWare, the new Studio Chef Aaryn Flynn anounced that Casey Hudson will be in charge for it.
Wow, one epic first mistake step on your career ladder in an important business position...shouldn't we all know better how awful that man is for gaming?
I already see enemies dropping from the ceiling and the return to Mass Effect 1 in terms of reused maps and areas Q_Q
What do you think about it?
OMG o_O Casey Hudson is in Charge for Mass Effect 4 - NOOOOOOOOO!
This topic is locked from further discussion.
have you been under the rock for a while? its probably EA's orders to downgrade ME3 let alone approve his vision of a non-sense endings.
well it will be entertaining to see the ammount of bs he will talk before the game is released.
as for me, no more day 1 or preorders to bioware, it will have to be an amazing game to buy it, an by amazing i mean the second comming of jesus
I'd rather there not even be a Mass Effect 4, there is no need for it. I don't care who's in charge, that series should be done.
Whatever. I thought ME 3 was excellent and I'm one of the half dozen or so people who enjoyed Dragon Age 2. Maybe we could form a club or something, perhaps including all the people who liked Far Cry 2. We could use my house for our meetings, although someone would end up sitting on an uncomfortable stool.
Meh, after the piles that were DA2 and ME3, which were both crappy enough that I couldn't finish them, I'm no longer a Bioware customer.dagreenfish
I agree, I never finished Mass Effect either.
From what I've seen, Not many people admit that ME3 was complete crap. So many people are in denial.
[QUOTE="dagreenfish"]Meh, after the piles that were DA2 and ME3, which were both crappy enough that I couldn't finish them, I'm no longer a Bioware customer.JoeJoeLaker
I agree, I never finished Mass Effect either.
From what I've seen, Not many people admit that ME3 was complete crap. So many people are in denial.
Because it plain wasn't. The game itself was awesome...until it came to the end. The outrage about it was because the conclusion to an epic trilogy was terrible.
Also, I wonder if those who say ME3 was bad have ever played ME1 & 2. Because if you didn't it would of course NOT have the effect to the person who did play them.
[QUOTE="JoeJoeLaker"]
[QUOTE="dagreenfish"]Meh, after the piles that were DA2 and ME3, which were both crappy enough that I couldn't finish them, I'm no longer a Bioware customer.Justforvisit
I agree, I never finished Mass Effect either.
From what I've seen, Not many people admit that ME3 was complete crap. So many people are in denial.
Because it plain wasn't. The game itself was awesome...until it came to the end. The outrage about it was because the conclusion to an epic trilogy was terrible.
Also, I wonder if those who say ME3 was bad have ever played ME1 & 2. Because if you didn't it would of course NOT have the effect to the person who did play them.
My outrage has nothing to do with then ending, in that I never even got there. Of course I played 1 & 2. Trying to transfer my saves over and not being able to keep Shep's face on either of my characters was the first dissapointment. Even after the patch, my renegade Shep's face still won't transfer.
But the biggest dissapointment was the gameplay.
The combat felt like a dumbed down, button mashing action sequence. If I wanted to play Gears of War I would play Gears of War, not a crappy copy of its combat system. In the previous games, while going through levels, it felt like you were fighting your way through to somewhere for a purpose. ME3 had a little of that, but it also had quite a bit of gettind dropped in a room and fighting waves upon waves of enemies (This was also one of the bad things about DA2's combat) which is boring and feels pointless not epic.
A HUGE part of the previous games for me was the personal interaction with the characters and crew. This was very lacking in 3 and felt wooden and forced and the warmth is gone. Before, you could go to various parts of the ship and expect to be able to interact and talk to certain crew members and revisit conversations. In 3, unless there was new dialog, they wouldn't even look at you. The crew feel just like placeholders. You get Dr. C. back in her old quarters, but when Mordin shows up, she just dissapears until after the genophage mission.
Other aspects of gameplay were "streamlined" and less interactive. You barely get to deal with sidequests. You have to happen to walkby and hear something and pick a side or some such. Feels pointless.
It seems like this was all an attempt to make the game faster paced and more action oriented to appeal to a wider market at the expense of what made the games more unique and special.
To me, ME3 is to its series as RE5 is and DA2 is to their respective series. A huge let down and step in the wrong direction.
[QUOTE="JoeJoeLaker"]
[QUOTE="dagreenfish"]Meh, after the piles that were DA2 and ME3, which were both crappy enough that I couldn't finish them, I'm no longer a Bioware customer.Justforvisit
I agree, I never finished Mass Effect either.
From what I've seen, Not many people admit that ME3 was complete crap. So many people are in denial.
Because it plain wasn't. The game itself was awesome...until it came to the end. The outrage about it was because the conclusion to an epic trilogy was terrible.
Also, I wonder if those who say ME3 was bad have ever played ME1 & 2. Because if you didn't it would of course NOT have the effect to the person who did play them.
mass effect 3 great? no, it was mediocre, had a lot of ups and downs, and many "side quests" like galactic eavesdroping and "space exploration" that were nothing more than busy work to add gameplay time
and yes i did play the three of them, with all their dlcs.
[QUOTE="JoeJoeLaker"]
[QUOTE="dagreenfish"]Meh, after the piles that were DA2 and ME3, which were both crappy enough that I couldn't finish them, I'm no longer a Bioware customer.Justforvisit
I agree, I never finished Mass Effect either.
From what I've seen, Not many people admit that ME3 was complete crap. So many people are in denial.
Because it plain wasn't. The game itself was awesome...until it came to the end. The outrage about it was because the conclusion to an epic trilogy was terrible.
Also, I wonder if those who say ME3 was bad have ever played ME1 & 2. Because if you didn't it would of course NOT have the effect to the person who did play them.
Ehh, it was average.
[QUOTE="Justforvisit"]
[QUOTE="JoeJoeLaker"]
I agree, I never finished Mass Effect either.
From what I've seen, Not many people admit that ME3 was complete crap. So many people are in denial.
dagreenfish
Because it plain wasn't. The game itself was awesome...until it came to the end. The outrage about it was because the conclusion to an epic trilogy was terrible.
Also, I wonder if those who say ME3 was bad have ever played ME1 & 2. Because if you didn't it would of course NOT have the effect to the person who did play them.
My outrage has nothing to do with then ending, in that I never even got there. Of course I played 1 & 2. Trying to transfer my saves over and not being able to keep Shep's face on either of my characters was the first dissapointment. Even after the patch, my renegade Shep's face still won't transfer.
But the biggest dissapointment was the gameplay.
The combat felt like a dumbed down, button mashing action sequence. If I wanted to play Gears of War I would play Gears of War, not a crappy copy of its combat system. In the previous games, while going through levels, it felt like you were fighting your way through to somewhere for a purpose. ME3 had a little of that, but it also had quite a bit of gettind dropped in a room and fighting waves upon waves of enemies (This was also one of the bad things about DA2's combat) which is boring and feels pointless not epic.
A HUGE part of the previous games for me was the personal interaction with the characters and crew. This was very lacking in 3 and felt wooden and forced and the warmth is gone. Before, you could go to various parts of the ship and expect to be able to interact and talk to certain crew members and revisit conversations. In 3, unless there was new dialog, they wouldn't even look at you. The crew feel just like placeholders. You get Dr. C. back in her old quarters, but when Mordin shows up, she just dissapears until after the genophage mission.
Other aspects of gameplay were "streamlined" and less interactive. You barely get to deal with sidequests. You have to happen to walkby and hear something and pick a side or some such. Feels pointless.
It seems like this was all an attempt to make the game faster paced and more action oriented to appeal to a wider market at the expense of what made the games more unique and special.
To me, ME3 is to its series as RE5 is and DA2 is to their respective series. A huge let down and step in the wrong direction.
The combat isn't as sharp as other Western third-person shooters, but it's certainly better than the sh*tty combat of the first game. Saying that the combat was "dissapointing" is moronic.
As for the squad banter, ME3 has far more than the last two games. That is not an opinion, that is fact.
[QUOTE="dagreenfish"]
[QUOTE="Justforvisit"]
Because it plain wasn't. The game itself was awesome...until it came to the end. The outrage about it was because the conclusion to an epic trilogy was terrible.
Also, I wonder if those who say ME3 was bad have ever played ME1 & 2. Because if you didn't it would of course NOT have the effect to the person who did play them.megadeth1117
My outrage has nothing to do with then ending, in that I never even got there. Of course I played 1 & 2. Trying to transfer my saves over and not being able to keep Shep's face on either of my characters was the first dissapointment. Even after the patch, my renegade Shep's face still won't transfer.
But the biggest dissapointment was the gameplay.
The combat felt like a dumbed down, button mashing action sequence. If I wanted to play Gears of War I would play Gears of War, not a crappy copy of its combat system. In the previous games, while going through levels, it felt like you were fighting your way through to somewhere for a purpose. ME3 had a little of that, but it also had quite a bit of gettind dropped in a room and fighting waves upon waves of enemies (This was also one of the bad things about DA2's combat) which is boring and feels pointless not epic.
A HUGE part of the previous games for me was the personal interaction with the characters and crew. This was very lacking in 3 and felt wooden and forced and the warmth is gone. Before, you could go to various parts of the ship and expect to be able to interact and talk to certain crew members and revisit conversations. In 3, unless there was new dialog, they wouldn't even look at you. The crew feel just like placeholders. You get Dr. C. back in her old quarters, but when Mordin shows up, she just dissapears until after the genophage mission.
Other aspects of gameplay were "streamlined" and less interactive. You barely get to deal with sidequests. You have to happen to walkby and hear something and pick a side or some such. Feels pointless.
It seems like this was all an attempt to make the game faster paced and more action oriented to appeal to a wider market at the expense of what made the games more unique and special.
To me, ME3 is to its series as RE5 is and DA2 is to their respective series. A huge let down and step in the wrong direction.
The combat isn't as sharp as other Western third-person shooters, but it's certainly better than the sh*tty combat of the first game. Saying that the combat was "dissapointing" is moronic.
As for the squad banter, ME3 has far more than the last two games. That is not an opinion, that is fact.
*sigh* try working on your reading comprehension. The first two games played more like rpg's with elements of a shooter. The 3rd plays like a sub-par 3rd person shooter which tries to focus more on action than other gameplay elements. There are other dedicated 3rd person shooters that do it way better. Also, the format of many of the combat situations and missions also changed. Fighting wave after wave in a single room is basically a crappy emulation of their newley created multi-player feature. All of that indeed makes it dissapointing. Different people have different expectations and opinions on what makes something good. Your comment is about as intelligent as saying: "Liking ME3 is moronic."
As for there being more banter: quantity =/= quality. Also banter between squadmates =/= personal interaction with Shepard. I maintain that the interaction between game characters and Shep seemed much less genuine.
[QUOTE="megadeth1117"]
[QUOTE="dagreenfish"]
My outrage has nothing to do with then ending, in that I never even got there. Of course I played 1 & 2. Trying to transfer my saves over and not being able to keep Shep's face on either of my characters was the first dissapointment. Even after the patch, my renegade Shep's face still won't transfer.
But the biggest dissapointment was the gameplay.
The combat felt like a dumbed down, button mashing action sequence. If I wanted to play Gears of War I would play Gears of War, not a crappy copy of its combat system. In the previous games, while going through levels, it felt like you were fighting your way through to somewhere for a purpose. ME3 had a little of that, but it also had quite a bit of gettind dropped in a room and fighting waves upon waves of enemies (This was also one of the bad things about DA2's combat) which is boring and feels pointless not epic.
A HUGE part of the previous games for me was the personal interaction with the characters and crew. This was very lacking in 3 and felt wooden and forced and the warmth is gone. Before, you could go to various parts of the ship and expect to be able to interact and talk to certain crew members and revisit conversations. In 3, unless there was new dialog, they wouldn't even look at you. The crew feel just like placeholders. You get Dr. C. back in her old quarters, but when Mordin shows up, she just dissapears until after the genophage mission.
Other aspects of gameplay were "streamlined" and less interactive. You barely get to deal with sidequests. You have to happen to walkby and hear something and pick a side or some such. Feels pointless.
It seems like this was all an attempt to make the game faster paced and more action oriented to appeal to a wider market at the expense of what made the games more unique and special.
To me, ME3 is to its series as RE5 is and DA2 is to their respective series. A huge let down and step in the wrong direction.
dagreenfish
The combat isn't as sharp as other Western third-person shooters, but it's certainly better than the sh*tty combat of the first game. Saying that the combat was "dissapointing" is moronic.
As for the squad banter, ME3 has far more than the last two games. That is not an opinion, that is fact.
*sigh* try working on your reading comprehension. The first two games played more like rpg's with elements of a shooter. The 3rd plays like a sub-par 3rd person shooter which tries to focus more on action than other gameplay elements. There are other dedicated 3rd person shooters that do it way better. Also, the format of many of the combat situations and missions also changed. Fighting wave after wave in a single room is basically a crappy emulation of their newley created multi-player feature. All of that indeed makes it dissapointing. Different people have different expectations and opinions on what makes something good. Your comment is about as intelligent as saying: "Liking ME3 is moronic."
As for there being more banter: quantity =/= quality. Also banter between squadmates =/= personal interaction with Shepard. I maintain that the interaction between game characters and Shep seemed much less genuine.
Gameplay elements such as, what exactly? The RPG elements in the first two aren't as prevalentas you're making them out to be. The first Mass Effect was very much a cover-based third-person shooter. An inane leveling system, pain-in-the-ass inventory management, and pointless "exploration" doesn't make it an RPG, and I'm glad Bioware got rid of those ridiculous mechanics. Fighting waves of enemies was present in all three games in the series, don't pretend that it started with the third.
[QUOTE="dagreenfish"]
[QUOTE="megadeth1117"]
The combat isn't as sharp as other Western third-person shooters, but it's certainly better than the sh*tty combat of the first game. Saying that the combat was "dissapointing" is moronic.
As for the squad banter, ME3 has far more than the last two games. That is not an opinion, that is fact.
megadeth1117
*sigh* try working on your reading comprehension. The first two games played more like rpg's with elements of a shooter. The 3rd plays like a sub-par 3rd person shooter which tries to focus more on action than other gameplay elements. There are other dedicated 3rd person shooters that do it way better. Also, the format of many of the combat situations and missions also changed. Fighting wave after wave in a single room is basically a crappy emulation of their newley created multi-player feature. All of that indeed makes it dissapointing. Different people have different expectations and opinions on what makes something good. Your comment is about as intelligent as saying: "Liking ME3 is moronic."
As for there being more banter: quantity =/= quality. Also banter between squadmates =/= personal interaction with Shepard. I maintain that the interaction between game characters and Shep seemed much less genuine.
Gameplay elements such as, what exactly? The RPG elements in the first two aren't as prevalentas you're making them out to be. The first Mass Effect was very much a cover-based third-person shooter. An inane leveling system, pain-in-the-ass inventory management, and pointless "exploration" doesn't make it an RPG, and I'm glad Bioware got rid of those ridiculous mechanics. Fighting waves of enemies was present in all three games in the series, don't pretend that it started with the third.
Oh, oh, oh, I can do that too!
The Shooter elements in the first two aren't as prevalent as you're making them out to be. The first Mass Effect was very much an RPG. An inane combat system, pain-in-the-ass overheating weapons and "pointless" wait-to-target aiming retical doesn't make it a Shooter.
Leveling, inventory management, and exploration are hallmarks of RPG games even if you put negatively evaluative adjectives infront of them.
Let's see, how else is it not an RPG... An epic story driven game where you take on and in this case shape the persona of the heroic protagonist, who embarks on an journey to save the world from an unknown threat. All the while expoloring worlds, gaining levels and skills, whilst collecting a diverse group of playable characters to aid you on your quest. Yup, nothing like a quintessential rpg.
Like I said, the gameplay elements between the RPG and Shooter nature of the previous games were more in balance. The "waves of enemies" wasn't nearly as prevelant in the first two. You were rarely locked in a single room other than boss fights. In ME3, it's done to the extent to where your just fighting to fight, not to get anywhere and achieve a purpose.
[QUOTE="JoeJoeLaker"]
[QUOTE="dagreenfish"]Meh, after the piles that were DA2 and ME3, which were both crappy enough that I couldn't finish them, I'm no longer a Bioware customer.Justforvisit
I agree, I never finished Mass Effect either.
From what I've seen, Not many people admit that ME3 was complete crap. So many people are in denial.
Because it plain wasn't. The game itself was awesome...until it came to the end.
I will never understand this. I really won't.
A good majority of ME3 up towards the ending is on the same level of just bad as it. I mean, for f*ck's sake, the FIRST LEVEL was horrendous. LAUGHABLY horrendous. And inbetween that is more mediocre combat (Took BioWare three games to barely get on the same level as Gears of War 1 did in 2006?), the writing (Romances with fanfiction-level writing? Yep, it's a BioWare game), the characters (Kai Leng might seem cool if you're 14 and just watch a lot of anime), and oh gee those side missions (Other than, like, three missions, it's justnonsensical busy work. What is this, Mass Effect 2's plot?).
If you liked the game through and through, great. But I just can't understand it when people praise the game, except the ending. It's like cutting a turd in half and saying "Yeah, but this half is amazing. That half... that's sh*t, man! Gross"
[QUOTE="megadeth1117"]
[QUOTE="dagreenfish"]
I agree, I never finished Mass Effect either.
From what I've seen, Not many people admit that ME3was complete crap. So many people are in denial.
dagreenfish
Because it plain wasn't. The game itself was awesome...until it came to the end.
If you liked the game through and through, great. But I just can't understand it when people praise the game, except the ending. It's like cutting a turd in half and saying "Yeah, but this half is amazing. That half... that's sh*t, man! Gross"
Perhaps they, I don't know, legitimately enjoyed playing through the game and don't feel the need to nitpick the hell out of everything they play. Try playing Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City if you want to know what a truly abysmal game is. Like it or not, calling ME3 "garbage" is ridiculous.
[QUOTE="megadeth1117"]
[QUOTE="dagreenfish"]
*sigh* try working on your reading comprehension. The first two games played more like rpg's with elements of a shooter. The 3rd plays like a sub-par 3rd person shooter which tries to focus more on action than other gameplay elements. There are other dedicated 3rd person shooters that do it way better. Also, the format of many of the combat situations and missions also changed. Fighting wave after wave in a single room is basically a crappy emulation of their newley created multi-player feature. All of that indeed makes it dissapointing. Different people have different expectations and opinions on what makes something good. Your comment is about as intelligent as saying: "Liking ME3 is moronic."
As for there being more banter: quantity =/= quality. Also banter between squadmates =/= personal interaction with Shepard. I maintain that the interaction between game characters and Shep seemed much less genuine.
dagreenfish
Gameplay elements such as, what exactly? The RPG elements in the first two aren't as prevalentas you're making them out to be. The first Mass Effect was very much a cover-based third-person shooter. An inane leveling system, pain-in-the-ass inventory management, and pointless "exploration" doesn't make it an RPG, and I'm glad Bioware got rid of those ridiculous mechanics. Fighting waves of enemies was present in all three games in the series, don't pretend that it started with the third.
Oh, oh, oh, I can do that too!
The Shooter elements in the first two aren't as prevalent as you're making them out to be. The first Mass Effect was very much an RPG. An inane combat system, pain-in-the-ass overheating weapons and "pointless" wait-to-target aiming retical doesn't make it a Shooter.
Leveling, inventory management, and exploration are hallmarks of RPG games even if you put negatively evaluative adjectives infront of them.
Let's see, how else is it not an RPG... An epic story driven game where you take on and in this case shape the persona of the heroic protagonist, who embarks on an journey to save the world from an unknown threat. All the while expoloring worlds, gaining levels and skills, whilst collecting a diverse group of playable characters to aid you on your quest. Yup, nothing like a quintessential rpg.
Like I said, the gameplay elements between the RPG and Shooter nature of the previous games were more in balance. The "waves of enemies" wasn't nearly as prevelant in the first two. You were rarely locked in a single room other than boss fights. In ME3, it's done to the extent to where your just fighting to fight, not to get anywhere and achieve a purpose.
And I agree with that, ME1 was a terrible shooter and a terrible RPG with a very interesting universe filled with memorable characters and fantastic voice acting. If it wasn't for the strong narrative, the first Mass Effect would have been labeled trash, and rightly so.
And your description of an RPG can be applied to many games that don't fall under that genre, like the recent Batman titles from Rocksteady or even the Uncharted series.
I really don't understand what you're saying in your last sentence either. Fighting to achieve a purpose? You do know it's a video game, yes?
If you liked the game through and through, great. But I just can't understand it when people praise the game, except the ending. It's like cutting a turd in half and saying "Yeah, but this half is amazing. That half... that's sh*t, man! Gross"Lord_Nas3kNo it's not like that at all. That is a flawed analogy.
If you liked the game through and through, great. But I just can't understand it when people praise the game, except the ending. It's like cutting a turd in half and saying "Yeah, but this half is amazing. That half... that's sh*t, man! Gross"[QUOTE="dagreenfish"]
[QUOTE="megadeth1117"]
Because it plain wasn't. The game itself was awesome...until it came to the end.megadeth1117
Perhaps they, I don't know, legitimately enjoyed playing through the game and don't feel the need to nitpick the hell out of everything they play. Try playing Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City if you want to know what a truly abysmal game is. Like it or not, calling ME3 "garbage" is ridiculous.
one thing is enjoying the game, i have enjoyed games that in general are called terrible or with really bad design, but that doesn't make them less terrible nor would i come here saying they are great. You can enjoy mass effect 3, i for one enjoyed it, but you can't come "hey i enjoyed it so let's ignore the bunch of crappy design decisions they made and call it a great game"
And i don't think anyone really believe mass effect 3 is terrible, is mediocre with some great points and others not so great,
[QUOTE="megadeth1117"]
[QUOTE="dagreenfish"]If you liked the game through and through, great. But I just can't understand it when people praise the game, except the ending. It's like cutting a turd in half and saying "Yeah, but this half is amazing. That half... that's sh*t, man! Gross"Krelian-co
Perhaps they, I don't know, legitimately enjoyed playing through the game and don't feel the need to nitpick the hell out of everything they play. Try playing Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City if you want to know what a truly abysmal game is. Like it or not, calling ME3 "garbage" is ridiculous.
one thing is enjoying the game, i have enjoyed games that in general are called terrible or with really bad design, but that doesn't make them less terrible nor would i come here saying they are great. You can enjoy mass effect 3, i for one enjoyed it, but you can't come "hey i enjoyed it so let's ignore the bunch of crappy design decisions they made and call it a great game"
Now, I never said that. I just think there is a difference between "deeming a game terrible" and "not enjoying a game, but recognizaing that it is otherwise well made". I'm no fan of the Metal Gear Solid series, but I'm not going to go into MGS threads and claim that those games are terrible, it's just not my type of game. On the other hand, something like Game of Thrones (the game, of course) is just horrible and could more or less be proven so. I don't see how someone can lump Mass Effect 3 in the same category as truly terrible games.
[QUOTE="Krelian-co"]
[QUOTE="megadeth1117"]
Perhaps they, I don't know, legitimately enjoyed playing through the game and don't feel the need to nitpick the hell out of everything they play. Try playing Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City if you want to know what a truly abysmal game is. Like it or not, calling ME3 "garbage" is ridiculous.
megadeth1117
one thing is enjoying the game, i have enjoyed games that in general are called terrible or with really bad design, but that doesn't make them less terrible nor would i come here saying they are great. You can enjoy mass effect 3, i for one enjoyed it, but you can't come "hey i enjoyed it so let's ignore the bunch of crappy design decisions they made and call it a great game"
Now, I never said that. I just think there is a difference between "deeming a game terrible" and "not enjoying a game, but recognizaing that it is otherwise well made". I'm no fan of the Metal Gear Solid series, but I'm not going to go into MGS threads and claim that those games are terrible, it's just not my type of game. On the other hand, something like Game of Thrones (the game, of course) is just horrible and could more or less be proven so. I don't see how someone can lump Mass Effect 3 in the same category as truly terrible games.
true dat, mass effect 3 is by no means terrible, in fact it has some awesome parts, its just not the epic ending i was expecting, not to mention the bad side quests :x
[QUOTE="megadeth1117"]
[QUOTE="Krelian-co"]
one thing is enjoying the game, i have enjoyed games that in general are called terrible or with really bad design, but that doesn't make them less terrible nor would i come here saying they are great. You can enjoy mass effect 3, i for one enjoyed it, but you can't come "hey i enjoyed it so let's ignore the bunch of crappy design decisions they made and call it a great game"
Krelian-co
Now, I never said that. I just think there is a difference between "deeming a game terrible" and "not enjoying a game, but recognizaing that it is otherwise well made". I'm no fan of the Metal Gear Solid series, but I'm not going to go into MGS threads and claim that those games are terrible, it's just not my type of game. On the other hand, something like Game of Thrones (the game, of course) is just horrible and could more or less be proven so. I don't see how someone can lump Mass Effect 3 in the same category as truly terrible games.
true dat, mass effect 3 is by no means terrible, in fact it has some awesome parts, its just not the epic ending i was expecting, not to mention the bad side quests :x
Yeah, I agree, some of the N7 side quests were unmemorable (the one at Grissom Academy was great), but planet scanning is quite awful. ME3 certainly isn't perfect, but it's easier to forgive it's flaws when I enjoyed so much of the main game. I even enjoyed the "unusual" ending and commend Bioware for not just phoning in a "Return of the Jedi" happy ending.
If you liked the game through and through, great. But I just can't understand it when people praise the game, except the ending. It's like cutting a turd in half and saying "Yeah, but this half is amazing. That half... that's sh*t, man! Gross"[QUOTE="dagreenfish"]
[QUOTE="megadeth1117"]
Because it plain wasn't. The game itself was awesome...until it came to the end.megadeth1117
Perhaps they, I don't know, legitimately enjoyed playing through the game and don't feel the need to nitpick the hell out of everything they play. Try playing Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City if you want to know what a truly abysmal game is. Like it or not, calling ME3 "garbage" is ridiculous.
The only people that call ME3 garbage are the Bioware haters, the only logical thing they can do/say is say how bad the ending was, which in fact was bad, although rest of the game was pretty damn good.
If people hate ME cause they didn't like it or enjoyed the series cause it's not their thing that's fine, people who call the games crappy or garbage are just idiot trolls who love to hate Bioware.
[QUOTE="dagreenfish"]
[QUOTE="megadeth1117"]
Gameplay elements such as, what exactly? The RPG elements in the first two aren't as prevalentas you're making them out to be. The first Mass Effect was very much a cover-based third-person shooter. An inane leveling system, pain-in-the-ass inventory management, and pointless "exploration" doesn't make it an RPG, and I'm glad Bioware got rid of those ridiculous mechanics. Fighting waves of enemies was present in all three games in the series, don't pretend that it started with the third.
megadeth1117
Oh, oh, oh, I can do that too!
The Shooter elements in the first two aren't as prevalent as you're making them out to be. The first Mass Effect was very much an RPG. An inane combat system, pain-in-the-ass overheating weapons and "pointless" wait-to-target aiming retical doesn't make it a Shooter.
Leveling, inventory management, and exploration are hallmarks of RPG games even if you put negatively evaluative adjectives infront of them.
Let's see, how else is it not an RPG... An epic story driven game where you take on and in this case shape the persona of the heroic protagonist, who embarks on an journey to save the world from an unknown threat. All the while expoloring worlds, gaining levels and skills, whilst collecting a diverse group of playable characters to aid you on your quest. Yup, nothing like a quintessential rpg.
Like I said, the gameplay elements between the RPG and Shooter nature of the previous games were more in balance. The "waves of enemies" wasn't nearly as prevelant in the first two. You were rarely locked in a single room other than boss fights. In ME3, it's done to the extent to where your just fighting to fight, not to get anywhere and achieve a purpose.
And I agree with that, ME1 was a terrible shooter and a terrible RPG with a very interesting universe filled with memorable characters and fantastic voice acting. If it wasn't for the strong narrative, the first Mass Effect would have been labeled trash, and rightly so.
And your description of an RPG can be applied to many games that don't fall under that genre, like the recent Batman titles from Rocksteady or even the Uncharted series.
I really don't understand what you're saying in your last sentence either. Fighting to achieve a purpose? You do know it's a video game, yes?
lol you guys are arguing about your own opinions and trying to make the other see it...thats pretty pointless...you guys do recognize that right?If you liked the game through and through, great. But I just can't understand it when people praise the game, except the ending. It's like cutting a turd in half and saying "Yeah, but this half is amazing. That half... that's sh*t, man! Gross"[QUOTE="dagreenfish"]
[QUOTE="megadeth1117"]
Because it plain wasn't. The game itself was awesome...until it came to the end.megadeth1117
Perhaps they, I don't know, legitimately enjoyed playing through the game and don't feel the need to nitpick the hell out of everything they play. Try playing Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City if you want to know what a truly abysmal game is. Like it or not, calling ME3 "garbage" is ridiculous.
um... I didn't write either of those post you are quoting and attributing to me... :o
[QUOTE="megadeth1117"]
[QUOTE="dagreenfish"]If you liked the game through and through, great. But I just can't understand it when people praise the game, except the ending. It's like cutting a turd in half and saying "Yeah, but this half is amazing. That half... that's sh*t, man! Gross"dagreenfish
Perhaps they, I don't know, legitimately enjoyed playing through the game and don't feel the need to nitpick the hell out of everything they play. Try playing Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City if you want to know what a truly abysmal game is. Like it or not, calling ME3 "garbage" is ridiculous.
um... I didn't write either of those post you are quoting and attributing to me... :o
My bad, I must've f**ked up the quotes.
Not really the opinion part happend early ON when megadeth said:
[QUOTE="megadeth1117"]
The combat isn't as sharp as other Western third-person shooters, but it's certainly better than the sh*tty combat of the first game. Saying that the combat was "dissapointing" is moronic.
jsmoke03
My response to that was:
Different people have different expectations and opinions on what makes something good.
dagreenfish
After that, the arguement was more about the genre classification of the earlier ME games. Which can be a legitimate debate and I think both sides made their points and we seem to have come to somewhat of consensus.
And I agree with that, ME1 was a terrible shooter and a terrible RPG with a very interesting universe filled with memorable characters and fantastic voice acting. If it wasn't for the strong narrative, the first Mass Effect would have been labeled trash, and rightly so.
And your description of an RPG can be applied to many games that don't fall under that genre, like the recent Batman titles from Rocksteady or even the Uncharted series.
I really don't understand what you're saying in your last sentence either. Fighting to achieve a purpose? You do know it's a video game, yes?
megadeth1117
To answer megadeth's last question: By "fighting just to fight"meant that it didn't feel like they incorporated into the game well. In the earlier ME games, it felt more like you were fighting through the levels to get somewhere to achieve a purpose or get to someone. The combat felt like it was integrated into the story and plot. There is some of that in ME3, but there's a lot of "Wait here in this room and fight things for seven minutes... ok times up! let's progress the story a little."
[QUOTE="jsmoke03"]
Not really the opinion part happend early ON when megadeth said:
[QUOTE="megadeth1117"]
My response to that was:
[QUOTE="dagreenfish"]
Different people have different expectations and opinions on what makes something good.
dagreenfish
After that, the arguement was more about the genre classification of the earlier ME games. Which can be a legitimate debate and I think both sides made their points and we seem to have come to somewhat of consensus.
And I agree with that, ME1 was a terrible shooter and a terrible RPG with a very interesting universe filled with memorable characters and fantastic voice acting. If it wasn't for the strong narrative, the first Mass Effect would have been labeled trash, and rightly so.
And your description of an RPG can be applied to many games that don't fall under that genre, like the recent Batman titles from Rocksteady or even the Uncharted series.
I really don't understand what you're saying in your last sentence either. Fighting to achieve a purpose? You do know it's a video game, yes?
megadeth1117
To answer megadeth's last question: By "fighting just to fight"meant that it didn't feel like they incorporated into the game well. In the earlier ME games, it felt more like you were fighting through the levels to get somewhere to achieve a purpose or get to someone. The combat felt like it was integrated into the story and plot. There is some of that in ME3, but there's a lot of "Wait here in this room and fight things for seven minutes... ok times up! let's progress the story a little."
Fair enough. I personally didn't mind that in ME3 because, for the first time in the series, the actual gameplay didn't feel like a chore.
Oh man. If Mac Walters is lead writer again, I'm out.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment