|
Well, the ending ruined the whole series for me. I don't see a reason to go back and replay any of the games now that I know that all the mass effect relays blow up regardless of the choices I make. Absolutely terrible Bioware, a 10/10 game for me went down to 6/10 in a matter of the last WTF 10 minutes.
|
I've had about a day to stew over Mass Effect 3 and it's ending.
+ Show Spoiler +I think the worst thing about the ending isn't that it is poorly written (seriously wtf was that) and doesn't really seem to fit into the Mass Effect universe but that it takes away your ability to control almost anything about it. For me that's what Mass Effect was all about, taking your own path through the game and effectively changing the way the story looked. By taking away that power the player had or the illusion thereof was a really terrible mistake by BioWare. It's left me with no desire to replay ME3, which otherwise was a really good game.
What was the point of making a fresh playthrough of the first two games to get all the outcomes and Shepard I wanted if In the end I'm presented with this? I know I won't be buying any DLC unless it somehow fixes all this crap.
|
I went into my kitchen and sat down on the floor for 5 minutes trying to figure out what I wanted to pick.
I knew what I wanted right away. Hero saves the galaxy, evil is perished. Standard shit...but noooo it all had to be these really mocked up and wierd choices. I couldn't make sense of half of what happend after the london bit.
Didn't like what I picked, but reading so far that the others are somewhat..or well just as terrible.
|
I'd give the game a 9 before the last 15 mins, the -1 is because pretty much all of the music is recycled and the new music doesn't impress me much.
But the last 15 minutes makes the game drop to a 7/10, the ending is that nonsensical.
+ Show Spoiler +Even ignoring the silly way it ends, it also feels completely rushed. There is like NO further explanation regarding the Reapers. You are told the general idea of why they do what they do, but that's all. Also, Sovereign and Harbinger made the Reapers cool, that child does not.
And why are all cinematics the same? You are told the relays will only be destroyed when you pick the renegade ending, but in both the other ones they are destroyed as all, for no reason? And the crash scene afterwards barely changes either, only a character or 2 depending on choices. Were they in too much of a hurry to add any variety apart from the beam colours, or to add any characters that could potentially die in ME2? (Anyone got Tali/Garrus in the final scene?)
That said, they did manage to deliver on alot of other points. Joker and EDI were hilarious as always, Tali was even more hilarious drunk (EMERGENCY INDUCTION PORT!) and Garrus was the best bro as always. Combat was smooth, and imo even better than ME2. Multiplayer is also tons of fun.
|
On March 11 2012 09:51 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2012 08:28 semantics wrote:On March 11 2012 06:06 Whitewing wrote:On March 11 2012 05:01 semantics wrote:On March 10 2012 18:19 JulsFoF wrote:On March 10 2012 17:45 Serelitz wrote:On March 10 2012 17:32 JulsFoF wrote:On March 10 2012 16:46 Leporello wrote:
The thrill is gone. Story-wise, I'd compare this series to the TV show "LOST". Initially, it is so good and compelling.
Godly synthetic creatures mysteriously leave and re-enter the galaxy over vast distances of space and time, controlling all natural life in the galaxy via mass-extinction. Epic! Spooky! Then the writers don't know where to take it so they give you a bunch of character side-plots (ME2). Then, they don't know how to actually explain any of these "mind-bending" premises they initially started with, so it all just kind of ends with a whole lot of ambiguity.
Personally, I didn't hold any hope for the story when I saw and played the boss of ME2. The fact that they made a "Terminator", and the fact that my Shepard killed it by shooting it with his gun, affirmed for me that BioWare was more than willing to abandon all the intrigue of the game for easy solutions.
In Mass Effect 1, you simply fight a spawn of the Reaper, while the Reaper itself laughs off an entire fleet of firepower as it flies into the heart of the Citadel. It is only at a perfect moment of weakness, with you killing Saren at the same moment that the fleet fires a full salvo, that the Reaper is near-miraculously destroyed. Then in Mass Effect 2, you just shoot the thing in its eye a hundred times with a pistol.... agreed... i dont get how people can actually love ME2 and 3. Dont get me wrong i love ME 1 and KotoR 1. they are 2 of the best games that are out there. but bioware just goes the easy way and people dont stop throwing money at them... its the same with the new CoD / The elder scrolls games. Makes me sad. Seems like there arent a lot of gamers who still want high quality games. All the good games are old ones like the first deus ex or the 1st gothic. i really hope that there will be some really good games in the near future but i somehow doubt it. That's called nostalgia. ME1 dialogue barely changed no matter what you picked and the gameplay was horrible. but the story was epic!!! and thats the point of rpgs. i dont really care about the change of the dialogs if the basic one is still very good and tells a good story. all the fancy stuff they introduced in me2 and 3 just tries to cover up a crappy continuation of the story. Lol the point of an rpg is that you can effect the story... Just because the game has a story doesn't make it an rpg.. Good or bad story is not a game type. No, the point of an rpg is that you play a character in a story, thus the 'Role Playing'. There are so many RPGs that don't involve you actually having any influence at all on the story, it's going to play out the way it does period. Try playing any RPG that isn't made by bioware for example, they're all pretty much completely linear in the way the story works. Edit: woah 4000th post. You've never played a non video game, classified as an rpg have you? Just becuase gaming companies who make dungeon crawlers, strategy/tactics and adventure games shove rpg as a tag doesn't make it one. You're not role playing if you can't effect the story, when you play a role you play on a set premise to which you can adapt it how ever you want, allowing you to relate to the character though influence. That's like saying reading book's you role play the novels, you don't at most you act out the roles but unable to direct the character the connection is not formed, you're along for the ride you're not the driver. http://insomnia.ac/commentary/on_role-playing_games/http://insomnia.ac/commentary/the_rpg_conundrum/Else by your definition name video games that aren't rpgs. Because it be hard pressed to say that any game with a single player mode isn't an rpg. I play tons of Pencil and Paper RPGs, the RPG part just means it's a game in which you role-play a character. Thus why it's called 'role playing'. You can't limit RPGs to just games that give you tons of choices to manipulate the story, hell, I've played in D&D games before where we were railroaded harder than you are in ME3.
Well it depends on the D&D and your DM but yes often start and finish are set, but when you create a character or assume a character you're still able to manipulate and effect how that character reaches the end. Games like FF don't allow this, the whole way you reach from start to finish is set in stone and your characters development is set in stone. You confuse what makes an rpg an rpg, it's funny that you say limit rpgs to games that allow character choices. The reason for that limitation is becuase else like i've already pointed out then every video game is an rpg game. So then what makes a game more or less rpg? the story? well that doesn't make sense compelling story is not hallmark of an rpg, by such lax definitions you're unable to discern what makes something you just end up calling everything that something. So then why call it an rpg at all life everything is an rpg why call anything an rpg as then it's not a unique trait.
|
United States7483 Posts
On March 11 2012 11:24 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2012 09:51 Whitewing wrote:On March 11 2012 08:28 semantics wrote:On March 11 2012 06:06 Whitewing wrote:On March 11 2012 05:01 semantics wrote:On March 10 2012 18:19 JulsFoF wrote:On March 10 2012 17:45 Serelitz wrote:On March 10 2012 17:32 JulsFoF wrote:On March 10 2012 16:46 Leporello wrote:
The thrill is gone. Story-wise, I'd compare this series to the TV show "LOST". Initially, it is so good and compelling.
Godly synthetic creatures mysteriously leave and re-enter the galaxy over vast distances of space and time, controlling all natural life in the galaxy via mass-extinction. Epic! Spooky! Then the writers don't know where to take it so they give you a bunch of character side-plots (ME2). Then, they don't know how to actually explain any of these "mind-bending" premises they initially started with, so it all just kind of ends with a whole lot of ambiguity.
Personally, I didn't hold any hope for the story when I saw and played the boss of ME2. The fact that they made a "Terminator", and the fact that my Shepard killed it by shooting it with his gun, affirmed for me that BioWare was more than willing to abandon all the intrigue of the game for easy solutions.
In Mass Effect 1, you simply fight a spawn of the Reaper, while the Reaper itself laughs off an entire fleet of firepower as it flies into the heart of the Citadel. It is only at a perfect moment of weakness, with you killing Saren at the same moment that the fleet fires a full salvo, that the Reaper is near-miraculously destroyed. Then in Mass Effect 2, you just shoot the thing in its eye a hundred times with a pistol.... agreed... i dont get how people can actually love ME2 and 3. Dont get me wrong i love ME 1 and KotoR 1. they are 2 of the best games that are out there. but bioware just goes the easy way and people dont stop throwing money at them... its the same with the new CoD / The elder scrolls games. Makes me sad. Seems like there arent a lot of gamers who still want high quality games. All the good games are old ones like the first deus ex or the 1st gothic. i really hope that there will be some really good games in the near future but i somehow doubt it. That's called nostalgia. ME1 dialogue barely changed no matter what you picked and the gameplay was horrible. but the story was epic!!! and thats the point of rpgs. i dont really care about the change of the dialogs if the basic one is still very good and tells a good story. all the fancy stuff they introduced in me2 and 3 just tries to cover up a crappy continuation of the story. Lol the point of an rpg is that you can effect the story... Just because the game has a story doesn't make it an rpg.. Good or bad story is not a game type. No, the point of an rpg is that you play a character in a story, thus the 'Role Playing'. There are so many RPGs that don't involve you actually having any influence at all on the story, it's going to play out the way it does period. Try playing any RPG that isn't made by bioware for example, they're all pretty much completely linear in the way the story works. Edit: woah 4000th post. You've never played a non video game, classified as an rpg have you? Just becuase gaming companies who make dungeon crawlers, strategy/tactics and adventure games shove rpg as a tag doesn't make it one. You're not role playing if you can't effect the story, when you play a role you play on a set premise to which you can adapt it how ever you want, allowing you to relate to the character though influence. That's like saying reading book's you role play the novels, you don't at most you act out the roles but unable to direct the character the connection is not formed, you're along for the ride you're not the driver. http://insomnia.ac/commentary/on_role-playing_games/http://insomnia.ac/commentary/the_rpg_conundrum/Else by your definition name video games that aren't rpgs. Because it be hard pressed to say that any game with a single player mode isn't an rpg. I play tons of Pencil and Paper RPGs, the RPG part just means it's a game in which you role-play a character. Thus why it's called 'role playing'. You can't limit RPGs to just games that give you tons of choices to manipulate the story, hell, I've played in D&D games before where we were railroaded harder than you are in ME3. Well it depends on the D&D and your DM but yes often start and finish are set, but when you create a character or assume a character you're still able to manipulate and effect how that character reaches the end. Games like FF don't allow this, the whole way you reach from start to finish is set in stone and your characters development is set in stone. You confuse what makes an rpg an rpg, it's funny that you say limit rpgs to games that allow character choices. The reason for that limitation is becuase else like i've already pointed out then every video game is an rpg game. So then what makes a game more or less rpg? the story? well that doesn't make sense compelling story is not hallmark of an rpg, by such lax definitions you're unable to discern what makes something you just end up calling everything that something. So then why call it an rpg at all life everything is an rpg why call anything an rpg as then it's not a unique trait.
What makes an RPG an RPG used to be what you're describing, but the categorization has changed over the years to refer to a game that makes use of RPG like elements: primarily that of character growth in terms of stats and experience points (or some variant of it). The other thing that makes it an RPG is a focus on the characters, typically (not always but often) an RPG will provide a lot of background information and character development for the characters.
|
On March 11 2012 11:39 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2012 11:24 semantics wrote:On March 11 2012 09:51 Whitewing wrote:On March 11 2012 08:28 semantics wrote:On March 11 2012 06:06 Whitewing wrote:On March 11 2012 05:01 semantics wrote:On March 10 2012 18:19 JulsFoF wrote:On March 10 2012 17:45 Serelitz wrote:On March 10 2012 17:32 JulsFoF wrote:On March 10 2012 16:46 Leporello wrote:
The thrill is gone. Story-wise, I'd compare this series to the TV show "LOST". Initially, it is so good and compelling.
Godly synthetic creatures mysteriously leave and re-enter the galaxy over vast distances of space and time, controlling all natural life in the galaxy via mass-extinction. Epic! Spooky! Then the writers don't know where to take it so they give you a bunch of character side-plots (ME2). Then, they don't know how to actually explain any of these "mind-bending" premises they initially started with, so it all just kind of ends with a whole lot of ambiguity.
Personally, I didn't hold any hope for the story when I saw and played the boss of ME2. The fact that they made a "Terminator", and the fact that my Shepard killed it by shooting it with his gun, affirmed for me that BioWare was more than willing to abandon all the intrigue of the game for easy solutions.
In Mass Effect 1, you simply fight a spawn of the Reaper, while the Reaper itself laughs off an entire fleet of firepower as it flies into the heart of the Citadel. It is only at a perfect moment of weakness, with you killing Saren at the same moment that the fleet fires a full salvo, that the Reaper is near-miraculously destroyed. Then in Mass Effect 2, you just shoot the thing in its eye a hundred times with a pistol.... agreed... i dont get how people can actually love ME2 and 3. Dont get me wrong i love ME 1 and KotoR 1. they are 2 of the best games that are out there. but bioware just goes the easy way and people dont stop throwing money at them... its the same with the new CoD / The elder scrolls games. Makes me sad. Seems like there arent a lot of gamers who still want high quality games. All the good games are old ones like the first deus ex or the 1st gothic. i really hope that there will be some really good games in the near future but i somehow doubt it. That's called nostalgia. ME1 dialogue barely changed no matter what you picked and the gameplay was horrible. but the story was epic!!! and thats the point of rpgs. i dont really care about the change of the dialogs if the basic one is still very good and tells a good story. all the fancy stuff they introduced in me2 and 3 just tries to cover up a crappy continuation of the story. Lol the point of an rpg is that you can effect the story... Just because the game has a story doesn't make it an rpg.. Good or bad story is not a game type. No, the point of an rpg is that you play a character in a story, thus the 'Role Playing'. There are so many RPGs that don't involve you actually having any influence at all on the story, it's going to play out the way it does period. Try playing any RPG that isn't made by bioware for example, they're all pretty much completely linear in the way the story works. Edit: woah 4000th post. You've never played a non video game, classified as an rpg have you? Just becuase gaming companies who make dungeon crawlers, strategy/tactics and adventure games shove rpg as a tag doesn't make it one. You're not role playing if you can't effect the story, when you play a role you play on a set premise to which you can adapt it how ever you want, allowing you to relate to the character though influence. That's like saying reading book's you role play the novels, you don't at most you act out the roles but unable to direct the character the connection is not formed, you're along for the ride you're not the driver. http://insomnia.ac/commentary/on_role-playing_games/http://insomnia.ac/commentary/the_rpg_conundrum/Else by your definition name video games that aren't rpgs. Because it be hard pressed to say that any game with a single player mode isn't an rpg. I play tons of Pencil and Paper RPGs, the RPG part just means it's a game in which you role-play a character. Thus why it's called 'role playing'. You can't limit RPGs to just games that give you tons of choices to manipulate the story, hell, I've played in D&D games before where we were railroaded harder than you are in ME3. Well it depends on the D&D and your DM but yes often start and finish are set, but when you create a character or assume a character you're still able to manipulate and effect how that character reaches the end. Games like FF don't allow this, the whole way you reach from start to finish is set in stone and your characters development is set in stone. You confuse what makes an rpg an rpg, it's funny that you say limit rpgs to games that allow character choices. The reason for that limitation is becuase else like i've already pointed out then every video game is an rpg game. So then what makes a game more or less rpg? the story? well that doesn't make sense compelling story is not hallmark of an rpg, by such lax definitions you're unable to discern what makes something you just end up calling everything that something. So then why call it an rpg at all life everything is an rpg why call anything an rpg as then it's not a unique trait. What makes an RPG an RPG used to be what you're describing, but the categorization has changed over the years to refer to a game that makes use of RPG like elements: primarily that of character growth in terms of stats and experience points (or some variant of it). The other thing that makes it an RPG is a focus on the characters, typically (not always but often) an RPG will provide a lot of background information and character development for the characters.
I don't give two shits what the modern interpretation is. An RPG is not any game where you progressively get stronger, get more items, and most importantly a game isn't an RPG just because it has fucking stats. (I'm looking at you Todd Howard and every game "reviewer" who says Call of Duty has RPG elements since you can level up) An RPG is a game where you take a role, and you roleplay it. No, not just play as someone.
That's what every video game is, you are playing as someone. An RPG is where you ROLEPLAY as one, where you pretend, where your actions have consequences, where you interact, where you grow in ways more than stats and item builds and the way you grow in those ways affects the game in significant ways. Where the journey is more important the destination, and where the entire game is an experience. That's what an RPG is. Not "Oh, this item gives me +10 strength so it's an RPG"
|
United States7483 Posts
On March 11 2012 11:49 Candadar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2012 11:39 Whitewing wrote:On March 11 2012 11:24 semantics wrote:On March 11 2012 09:51 Whitewing wrote:On March 11 2012 08:28 semantics wrote:On March 11 2012 06:06 Whitewing wrote:On March 11 2012 05:01 semantics wrote:On March 10 2012 18:19 JulsFoF wrote:On March 10 2012 17:45 Serelitz wrote:On March 10 2012 17:32 JulsFoF wrote:
[quote]
agreed...
i dont get how people can actually love ME2 and 3. Dont get me wrong i love ME 1 and KotoR 1. they are 2 of the best games that are out there. but bioware just goes the easy way and people dont stop throwing money at them...
its the same with the new CoD / The elder scrolls games. Makes me sad. Seems like there arent a lot of gamers who still want high quality games.
All the good games are old ones like the first deus ex or the 1st gothic.
i really hope that there will be some really good games in the near future but i somehow doubt it. That's called nostalgia. ME1 dialogue barely changed no matter what you picked and the gameplay was horrible. but the story was epic!!! and thats the point of rpgs. i dont really care about the change of the dialogs if the basic one is still very good and tells a good story. all the fancy stuff they introduced in me2 and 3 just tries to cover up a crappy continuation of the story. Lol the point of an rpg is that you can effect the story... Just because the game has a story doesn't make it an rpg.. Good or bad story is not a game type. No, the point of an rpg is that you play a character in a story, thus the 'Role Playing'. There are so many RPGs that don't involve you actually having any influence at all on the story, it's going to play out the way it does period. Try playing any RPG that isn't made by bioware for example, they're all pretty much completely linear in the way the story works. Edit: woah 4000th post. You've never played a non video game, classified as an rpg have you? Just becuase gaming companies who make dungeon crawlers, strategy/tactics and adventure games shove rpg as a tag doesn't make it one. You're not role playing if you can't effect the story, when you play a role you play on a set premise to which you can adapt it how ever you want, allowing you to relate to the character though influence. That's like saying reading book's you role play the novels, you don't at most you act out the roles but unable to direct the character the connection is not formed, you're along for the ride you're not the driver. http://insomnia.ac/commentary/on_role-playing_games/http://insomnia.ac/commentary/the_rpg_conundrum/Else by your definition name video games that aren't rpgs. Because it be hard pressed to say that any game with a single player mode isn't an rpg. I play tons of Pencil and Paper RPGs, the RPG part just means it's a game in which you role-play a character. Thus why it's called 'role playing'. You can't limit RPGs to just games that give you tons of choices to manipulate the story, hell, I've played in D&D games before where we were railroaded harder than you are in ME3. Well it depends on the D&D and your DM but yes often start and finish are set, but when you create a character or assume a character you're still able to manipulate and effect how that character reaches the end. Games like FF don't allow this, the whole way you reach from start to finish is set in stone and your characters development is set in stone. You confuse what makes an rpg an rpg, it's funny that you say limit rpgs to games that allow character choices. The reason for that limitation is becuase else like i've already pointed out then every video game is an rpg game. So then what makes a game more or less rpg? the story? well that doesn't make sense compelling story is not hallmark of an rpg, by such lax definitions you're unable to discern what makes something you just end up calling everything that something. So then why call it an rpg at all life everything is an rpg why call anything an rpg as then it's not a unique trait. What makes an RPG an RPG used to be what you're describing, but the categorization has changed over the years to refer to a game that makes use of RPG like elements: primarily that of character growth in terms of stats and experience points (or some variant of it). The other thing that makes it an RPG is a focus on the characters, typically (not always but often) an RPG will provide a lot of background information and character development for the characters. I don't give two shits what the modern interpretation is. An RPG is not any game where you progressively get stronger, get more items, and most importantly a game isn't an RPG just because it has fucking stats. (I'm looking at you Todd Howard and every game "reviewer" who says Call of Duty has RPG elements since you can level up) An RPG is a game where you take a role, and you roleplay it. No, not just play as someone. That's what every video game is, you are playing as someone. An RPG is where you ROLEPLAY as one, where you pretend, where your actions have consequences, where you interact, where you grow in ways more than stats and item builds and the way you grow in those ways affects the game in significant ways. Where the journey is more important the destination, and where the entire game is an experience. That's what an RPG is. Not "Oh, this item gives me +10 strength so it's an RPG"
If that's your definition, what the hell is your complaint then? ME 3 gives you that way more than almost every other video game out there. Hell, I'm replaying it now after finishing it once, the first time I didn't load a file from ME2, this time I am, and there are huge differences.
|
fuck this ending. i just want to be happy when it ends- i've worked hard enough to save the galaxy, now just let me fucking roam and have fun and show me ripe and old in retirement with the 80 babies i made
|
On March 11 2012 12:09 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2012 11:49 Candadar wrote:On March 11 2012 11:39 Whitewing wrote:On March 11 2012 11:24 semantics wrote:On March 11 2012 09:51 Whitewing wrote:On March 11 2012 08:28 semantics wrote:On March 11 2012 06:06 Whitewing wrote:On March 11 2012 05:01 semantics wrote:On March 10 2012 18:19 JulsFoF wrote:On March 10 2012 17:45 Serelitz wrote:
[quote]
That's called nostalgia. ME1 dialogue barely changed no matter what you picked and the gameplay was horrible.
but the story was epic!!! and thats the point of rpgs. i dont really care about the change of the dialogs if the basic one is still very good and tells a good story. all the fancy stuff they introduced in me2 and 3 just tries to cover up a crappy continuation of the story. Lol the point of an rpg is that you can effect the story... Just because the game has a story doesn't make it an rpg.. Good or bad story is not a game type. No, the point of an rpg is that you play a character in a story, thus the 'Role Playing'. There are so many RPGs that don't involve you actually having any influence at all on the story, it's going to play out the way it does period. Try playing any RPG that isn't made by bioware for example, they're all pretty much completely linear in the way the story works. Edit: woah 4000th post. You've never played a non video game, classified as an rpg have you? Just becuase gaming companies who make dungeon crawlers, strategy/tactics and adventure games shove rpg as a tag doesn't make it one. You're not role playing if you can't effect the story, when you play a role you play on a set premise to which you can adapt it how ever you want, allowing you to relate to the character though influence. That's like saying reading book's you role play the novels, you don't at most you act out the roles but unable to direct the character the connection is not formed, you're along for the ride you're not the driver. http://insomnia.ac/commentary/on_role-playing_games/http://insomnia.ac/commentary/the_rpg_conundrum/Else by your definition name video games that aren't rpgs. Because it be hard pressed to say that any game with a single player mode isn't an rpg. I play tons of Pencil and Paper RPGs, the RPG part just means it's a game in which you role-play a character. Thus why it's called 'role playing'. You can't limit RPGs to just games that give you tons of choices to manipulate the story, hell, I've played in D&D games before where we were railroaded harder than you are in ME3. Well it depends on the D&D and your DM but yes often start and finish are set, but when you create a character or assume a character you're still able to manipulate and effect how that character reaches the end. Games like FF don't allow this, the whole way you reach from start to finish is set in stone and your characters development is set in stone. You confuse what makes an rpg an rpg, it's funny that you say limit rpgs to games that allow character choices. The reason for that limitation is becuase else like i've already pointed out then every video game is an rpg game. So then what makes a game more or less rpg? the story? well that doesn't make sense compelling story is not hallmark of an rpg, by such lax definitions you're unable to discern what makes something you just end up calling everything that something. So then why call it an rpg at all life everything is an rpg why call anything an rpg as then it's not a unique trait. What makes an RPG an RPG used to be what you're describing, but the categorization has changed over the years to refer to a game that makes use of RPG like elements: primarily that of character growth in terms of stats and experience points (or some variant of it). The other thing that makes it an RPG is a focus on the characters, typically (not always but often) an RPG will provide a lot of background information and character development for the characters. I don't give two shits what the modern interpretation is. An RPG is not any game where you progressively get stronger, get more items, and most importantly a game isn't an RPG just because it has fucking stats. (I'm looking at you Todd Howard and every game "reviewer" who says Call of Duty has RPG elements since you can level up) An RPG is a game where you take a role, and you roleplay it. No, not just play as someone. That's what every video game is, you are playing as someone. An RPG is where you ROLEPLAY as one, where you pretend, where your actions have consequences, where you interact, where you grow in ways more than stats and item builds and the way you grow in those ways affects the game in significant ways. Where the journey is more important the destination, and where the entire game is an experience. That's what an RPG is. Not "Oh, this item gives me +10 strength so it's an RPG" If that's your definition, what the hell is your complaint then? ME 3 gives you that way more than almost every other video game out there.
I have the feeling that either we didn't play the same game, or you didn't play RPG's as they used to be.
ME3 is RPG only in that you can talk to NPC's, and not even that on "Action Mode". I guess the game was pretty good and reminded me in a lot of ways of ME1 and ME2 both in some aspects, but it was by no means some awesome RPG. That's not to mean it's not an awesome game, but I think it barely makes the cut as an RPG.
|
I guess I just don't understand today's gamers or critics. To me there is really nothing enjoyabe about this game, what could have been a good sci-fi RPG turned out to be a bad shooter with awful dialogues. Nothing to explore, which was the main appeal for me. Shepard is still incredibly annoying, no matter how you decide to play it. At least someone spoiled me the (terrible) ending so I don't have to waste my time on this rubbish. Such a disappointing series after a promising Mass Effect 1...
|
I didn't mind the ending too much, but the game overall wasn't so fun. I don't remember how it was in ME and ME2, but I remember the optional quests being more engaging in those and not so trivial. The ones in ME3 are pretty much go to some planet and kill some cerberus. Despite the entertainment value being a letdown, I'm still sort of satisfied it's all over.
|
On March 11 2012 12:22 MilesTeg wrote:
I guess I just don't understand today's gamers or critics. To me there is really nothing enjoyabe about this game, what could have been a good sci-fi RPG turned out to be a bad shooter with awful dialogues. Nothing to explore, which was the main appeal for me. Shepard is still incredibly annoying, no matter how you decide to play it. At least someone spoiled me the (terrible) ending so I don't have to waste my time on this rubbish. Such a disappointing series after a promising Mass Effect 1...
I guess I just don't understand people with different tastes in games. I mean wow someone finds this game enjoyable and it blows your mind? This game was good, but the ending was terrible of course as most people agree on. Other then that don't see how you dislike the game, but again that is opinion and sucks you don't enjoy it like some of us do.
|
On March 11 2012 13:10 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2012 12:22 MilesTeg wrote:
I guess I just don't understand today's gamers or critics. To me there is really nothing enjoyabe about this game, what could have been a good sci-fi RPG turned out to be a bad shooter with awful dialogues. Nothing to explore, which was the main appeal for me. Shepard is still incredibly annoying, no matter how you decide to play it. At least someone spoiled me the (terrible) ending so I don't have to waste my time on this rubbish. Such a disappointing series after a promising Mass Effect 1... I guess I just don't understand people with different tastes in games. I mean wow someone finds this game enjoyable and it blows your mind? This game was good, but the ending was terrible of course as most people agree on. Other then that don't see how you dislike the game, but again that is opinion and sucks you don't enjoy it like some of us do.
Why is that whenever someone dislikes a game, people get super defensive about it? A lot of people don't like this game, that doesn't mean you don't have to like it or it makes it any less fun for you. It means they don't like it. This isn't the Mass Effect 3: Cocksucking General Thread. For the record, I loved a lot of this game for what it was. I enjoyed the combat on a pretty decent level, I felt some of the writing was pretty good, and I even liked some of the side quests. I, like most, abhor the endings but I can look past that if the rest of the game was good. I feel this game is a solid 7/10, above average. I got a bit more than I expected, honestly.
However, people are completely justified to disagree and I encourage them to as long as they do so in a semi-intelligent manner. Because I would rather participate in a thread where people actually say what they think on a game than 800 posts of "OMG THIS GAME IS SO AWESOME, LET'S TALK ABOUT HOW AWESOME IT IS ALL. DAY. LONG."
(not that circlejerking isn't fun as fuck sometimes  )
|
So for some reason it says that the war map thing is offline. It's the one that's placed in front of you after every mission, and you see areas / theatres of war. Does anyone know what causes this? I've seen other people having the same problem after a google search, but I dunno what it's about.
What is that war map anyway? What does it show when it works? Is it like in assassin's creed when you send out your assassins and stuff?
|
On March 11 2012 13:57 Euronyme wrote:
So for some reason it says that the war map thing is offline. It's the one that's placed in front of you after every mission, and you see areas / theatres of war. Does anyone know what causes this? I've seen other people having the same problem after a google search, but I dunno what it's about.
What is that war map anyway? What does it show when it works? Is it like in assassin's creed when you send out your assassins and stuff?
Mine's off too. I had thought that it was only because I had yet to reach the part of the game in which it becomes "online."
|
amazing so far for me. very enjoyable and multiplayer is great.
|
Also, I haven't touched multiplayer really at all yet. I heard that you need to go into MP to get certain endings, or was I misinformed? Because my bro told me that you can get a pretty decent ending if you get some percentage in MP or something.
|
On March 11 2012 14:00 Karliath wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2012 13:57 Euronyme wrote:
So for some reason it says that the war map thing is offline. It's the one that's placed in front of you after every mission, and you see areas / theatres of war. Does anyone know what causes this? I've seen other people having the same problem after a google search, but I dunno what it's about.
What is that war map anyway? What does it show when it works? Is it like in assassin's creed when you send out your assassins and stuff? Mine's off too. I had thought that it was only because I had yet to reach the part of the game in which it becomes "online."
So did I, but I'm getting suspicious... Especially as apparently it's not working for certain people. Oh well here's hoping =)
|
On March 11 2012 13:57 Euronyme wrote:
So for some reason it says that the war map thing is offline. It's the one that's placed in front of you after every mission, and you see areas / theatres of war. Does anyone know what causes this? I've seen other people having the same problem after a google search, but I dunno what it's about.
What is that war map anyway? What does it show when it works? Is it like in assassin's creed when you send out your assassins and stuff?
I don't exactly know what the war map does(forgot the content of the thead i read about it @ http://google.com) but I remember it becomes avaible if u play co-op 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
