|
On March 25 2017 21:26 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2017 14:16 Sermokala wrote:
I don't really see in what world you can argue objectivly how ME3 isn't better then ME1. The game was really good for what it was in its age but from any way you can argue it ME3 was better. The ending wasn't good but name another good scifi ending. Even foundation can't claim to have a good ending. The same world in which "facial animations destroy the game completely" is an argument. The story is incoherent and peppered with plotholes because the writers changed and didn't follow up on things that happened in ME1/2. The ending was not only "not good", it was insulting - especially considering that the ME3 end had to be the best one, it ended the trilogy. Which again is down to not having the original writers. Yeah, the gameplay was more polished which is to be fucking expected in the third instalment of a trilogy, but that doesn't make it a better game. Not to mention that "others don't have good endings" is really not an argument or excuse for doing the same lazy thing. And i certainly haven't forgotten the KotOR2 ending. Which sucked too. Show nested quote +
DA:I was the only other dragon age other then DA:O and DA2 so I don't understand why you don't think it was a dragon age game. Surely you don't want a forced party composition and a bland story in every rpg you play.
Its real fustrating whenever anything big happenes theres a gray annoying box that opens up in the bottom right about a pointless achivement thats just lazy design for something that doesn't mean or matter at all.
Because it didn't feel like Dragon Age. First of all, it's an entirely different subgenre (like ME:A), secondly, i don't know where that "bland story" comes from - DA:I is as bland and stereotypical as it gets. Still was good fun, as i said i enjoyed it - but a lot of people didn't because "it's not Dragon Age". Don't argue with me, argue with Metacritic reviews, reddit and god knows where they blew the game up.
The way you somehow dismiss the basic things you argue about a game for misitfys me. first you say objectivly and then you start sliceing the argument up and adding these werid conditions about it. It doesn't matter if its the third one the combat is simply better. not just on a polish level but on a conceptual level. The first ME had much worse low points. Noveria was a cramped mess of an alien ripoff and the rachni are a werid mess of venomorph from dota. Liaras planet is an empty rock world where you can get her. The geth are used far too many times as the only enemy you fight and the story is clearly leading onto something bigger then just saren from the first world. what does a protheian vision and a protheian becon have anything to do with a renegade specter agent whos buddying with the geth to fight the human colonies? I don't know where the low stories are in ME3 but even the ending where you're fighting on earth again is a pretty decent world. The only bad parts of the game are an hour or so at the most? Granted its what you're left with after everything but objectivly ME3 has a lot better story then ME1. Reapers and cerberus are better then geth. the weapon selection and customization is better and the powers are just better.
I'll give you the hinterlands kills a ton of the game and they pushed way too many open world things on it but the story is way more then bland. Starting out with what happenes as you start the game and then the whole seige
+ Show Spoiler +serious horus vibes comeing from the guy "I saw the throne of the gods and found it empty" then you actualy lose and everyone has to evacuate into the blizzard
|
ME3 was a massive fanselfjerk for the most part. There was almost no story to dig in and it's pretty much what you are criticizing DAO for (gathering armies/allies), but rather you running around doing fanservice events (some of them pretty good i must say, playing ME2 forte, the characters and how emotionally invested most players already were with them, i mean, Garrus is a bro, you can feed me whatever with a Garrus in there, and i will shallow it with a smile), That you enjoyed it more than ME1 doesn't make it objectively better. You have to give it credit for what it did, and it was making a setting interesting enough for you to care for. That's the story.
DAI, great for you, I didn't give me any vibes whatsoever, it was all a "oh yeah, i saw that coming. And that one. And that one. Oh look now i am raising a sword while looking amazing for being the best make errand boy of all times." But i will be honest, i was very negative towards that game for many of their decissions, so i guess its only the natural response.
|
On March 25 2017 14:16 Sermokala wrote:
I don't really see in what world you can argue objectivly how ME3 isn't better then ME1. The game was really good for what it was in its age but from any way you can argue it ME3 was better. The ending wasn't good but name another good scifi ending. Even foundation can't claim to have a good ending.
DA:I was the only other dragon age other then DA:O and DA2 so I don't understand why you don't think it was a dragon age game. Surely you don't want a forced party composition and a bland story in every rpg you play.
Its real fustrating whenever anything big happenes theres a gray annoying box that opens up in the bottom right about a pointless achivement thats just lazy design for something that doesn't mean or matter at all.
Objectively? Both games have combat. The first game has the mako to explore planets with. The third game had planetscanning and multiplayer.
There's no Kai Leng in me1 throwing up the plot shield doing anime flips while making everyone else look like an idiot while he's flailing around with a sword.
Cerberus is more realistic and scaled down in me1. The cerberus you get in me3 is stupidly evil, stupidly rich and stupidly incompetent.
The villains aren't reading the script in me1 or at least they don't appear to as blatantly.
The science at least tries to make sense.
So objectively as a story to be experienced. An interactive novel if you will. Because both games had very easy combat mechanics and a low difficulty ceiling with obvious ways to be overpowered or cheese the encounters even on the highest difficulty.
Me1 beats Me3 any day of the week.
|
On March 25 2017 22:31 Sermokala wrote:
Granted its what you're left with after everything but objectivly ME3 has a lot better story then ME1.
You called him out for saying objectively and you keep saying objectively lol.
ME3 is probably a better game overall than ME1, with the combat and polish and multiplayer and everything, but I have more fond memories of ME1 and could tell you more about the story arcs (main and side missions) off the top of my head than I could about either 2 or 3. Combat is trash and I've never been able to replay it with a new character, but my first playthrough of ME1 was definitely the most memorable and special of the series.
It's dangerous to throw around the word objectively when you're comparing games.
|
ME1 is my favourite for sentimental reasons, but its gameplay did not age well (combat is clunky and side quests on uncharted planets are a fucking chore). However comparing it to ME2 or 3 is an exercise in futility, they are too different from each other on several levels.
After 13 hours of Andromeda I can say I like this game. It has its share of problems but none are severe enough for me to call it a failure. And PeeBee is so cute holy shit <3
|
On March 25 2017 19:58 Disengaged wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2017 14:16 Sermokala wrote:
I don't really see in what world you can argue objectivly how ME3 isn't better then ME1. The game was really good for what it was in its age but from any way you can argue it ME3 was better. The ending wasn't good but name another good scifi ending. Even foundation can't claim to have a good ending. ME3 is better in alot of ways but the story is not one of them. ME1's story is the best in the series but its gameplay is the worst. There are quite a few gems in ME3 like Tuchanka and Citadel, and a few others but those aren't enough to save it, story wise.
ME:A has the same gameplay as ME1 terribly buggy it's sometimes funny.
|
On March 26 2017 03:37 Madkipz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2017 14:16 Sermokala wrote:
I don't really see in what world you can argue objectivly how ME3 isn't better then ME1. The game was really good for what it was in its age but from any way you can argue it ME3 was better. The ending wasn't good but name another good scifi ending. Even foundation can't claim to have a good ending.
DA:I was the only other dragon age other then DA:O and DA2 so I don't understand why you don't think it was a dragon age game. Surely you don't want a forced party composition and a bland story in every rpg you play.
Its real fustrating whenever anything big happenes theres a gray annoying box that opens up in the bottom right about a pointless achivement thats just lazy design for something that doesn't mean or matter at all. Objectively? Both games have combat. The first game has the mako to explore planets with. The third game had planetscanning and multiplayer. There's no Kai Leng in me1 throwing up the plot shield doing anime flips while making everyone else look like an idiot while he's flailing around with a sword. Cerberus is more realistic and scaled down in me1. The cerberus you get in me3 is stupidly evil, stupidly rich and stupidly incompetent. The villains aren't reading the script in me1 or at least they don't appear to as blatantly. The science at least tries to make sense. So objectively as a story to be experienced. An interactive novel if you will. Because both games had very easy combat mechanics and a low difficulty ceiling with obvious ways to be overpowered or cheese the encounters even on the highest difficulty. Me1 beats Me3 any day of the week.
The Mako was terrible and all the planet side side quests were worse. The third game having multiplayer that wasn't half bad is a huge advantage. Saren in ME1 not doing anything apparently after eden prime is much worse then Kai leng being a letigimate representation of Cerberus that ME1's faceless geth never had. Cerberus didn't really exist in ME1 and in 3 shows how much they prepared but with the preparation of the fully mechanical illusive man and the manpower of the refugees. I don't see how Cerberus was incompetent in ME3 at all. They had spys and infiltrators everywhere human like indoctinated kidnapping would allow you and they were able to do a lot of damage without completely ending the thin string humanity was trying to be on throughout the game. The science made sense in a scifi sense of just trying to explain anything. Nothing makes sense under enough scrutiny. Saren apparently was indoctrinated but later had to get implants beacuse he wasn't fully taking to it but then had enough self will to possibly kill himself in the final scene?
Anything that includes something as dumb as the mako for as long as ME1 did loses automaticaly to ME3.
On March 26 2017 03:50 Duka08 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2017 22:31 Sermokala wrote:
Granted its what you're left with after everything but objectivly ME3 has a lot better story then ME1. You called him out for saying objectively and you keep saying objectively lol. ME3 is probably a better game overall than ME1, with the combat and polish and multiplayer and everything, but I have more fond memories of ME1 and could tell you more about the story arcs (main and side missions) off the top of my head than I could about either 2 or 3. Combat is trash and I've never been able to replay it with a new character, but my first playthrough of ME1 was definitely the most memorable and special of the series. It's dangerous to throw around the word objectively when you're comparing games.
I called him out for saying objectively and then making arbitrary declarations that made no sense.
Heathen ME2 was the best scifi property of the modern age fight me irl 1v1 pvp. Suffer not a heretic to live.
But real I have better memories of ME1 but I'm never going to go back to it like I'm never playing FF7 or KH1. I objectivly belive ME3 gets way too much of a bad rap for the ending when the majority of the game was fantastic.
ME:A isn't really digging me in yet the planet scanning is worse then ME2 with how tedious the warping around is. My kingdom for some vandium.
|
Man, vanguard is so freaking overpowered in this game once you max it with the 75 defense for 5 second buff. Played 3 classes through Eos (soldier, agent and vanguard) and it was definitly the best (and the faster). Soldier is on a weird spot, not having adrenaline really makes it awkward to play, and barricade doesn't really make up for it with how drawn out combats tend to be with him and that enemies in this game have a tendency to attempt to melee you, and agent, well, it's a beast at cheesing encounters, but too slow for me.
Would like to try technician aswell, but i am digging hard the vanguard ;D
|
On March 26 2017 07:27 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2017 19:58 Disengaged wrote:On March 25 2017 14:16 Sermokala wrote:
I don't really see in what world you can argue objectivly how ME3 isn't better then ME1. The game was really good for what it was in its age but from any way you can argue it ME3 was better. The ending wasn't good but name another good scifi ending. Even foundation can't claim to have a good ending. ME3 is better in alot of ways but the story is not one of them. ME1's story is the best in the series but its gameplay is the worst. There are quite a few gems in ME3 like Tuchanka and Citadel, and a few others but those aren't enough to save it, story wise. ME:A has the same gameplay as ME1 terribly buggy it's sometimes funny.
Same gameplay?
Highly disagree. Just because it has a few bugs doesn't make it the same. Andromeda's gameplay is far more fluid and responsive and overall feels so much better. The only thing I hate is the automatic cover. I hated it in ME1 and I hate it in Andromeda.
In my opinion, Andromeda is a much better version of ME1, it does mostly everything better, but sadly the story isn't one of them.
|
Have played through Eos. Really happy with the game. I can see myself playing this at l least two more times
|
On March 26 2017 10:15 Godwrath wrote:
Man, vanguard is so freaking overpowered in this game once you max it with the 75 defense for 5 second buff. Played 3 classes through Eos (soldier, agent and vanguard) and it was definitly the best (and the faster). Soldier is on a weird spot, not having adrenaline really makes it awkward to play, and barricade doesn't really make up for it with how drawn out combats tend to be with him and that enemies in this game have a tendency to attempt to melee you, and agent, well, it's a beast at cheesing encounters, but too slow for me.
Would like to try technician aswell, but i am digging hard the vanguard ;D
I'm unhappy with technician in my game at least. I 123 things I'm not sniping with overload incinerate and then lance. Usually it kills anything big near me that needs to die.
Gun verity is pretty good but the powers are worse then ME3 I havn't upgraded skills in 8 levels and I don't really notice any issue.
|
For anyone who plays with the shield like I do. In the options you can set it to be toggled on and off instead of push (and hold) to be activated. I found it a huge improvement for my movement and orientation during the battle.
Also which melee weapon do you enjoy the most? I'm currently hitting hard with the burning sword. Has some synergy with a talent that makes burning do more dmg but idk if it really works that way. ~~
|
There's a nice variety of guns but frankly, I'm a bit disappointed with their lack of oomph so to speak. Especially for Assault Rifles (my go-to for every ME game). I tried to use the Sandstorm and it took like a minute to kill basic kett enemies. So I've mostly been sticking with using the P.A.W.
|
On March 27 2017 20:40 Artisreal wrote:
For anyone who plays with the shield like I do. In the options you can set it to be toggled on and off instead of push (and hold) to be activated. I found it a huge improvement for my movement and orientation during the battle.
Also which melee weapon do you enjoy the most? I'm currently hitting hard with the burning sword. Has some synergy with a talent that makes burning do more dmg but idk if it really works that way. ~~
The only thing as a vanguard that makes you stop is when you were too reckless and some of your health gets chipped away, so i am using the kett sword which steals health. That way i am completely inmortal outside of mobs who can catch you at melee and oneshot you. I want to try the frost weapon aswell to see if it freezes enemies, but that hasn't been really required thus far.
On March 26 2017 12:46 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2017 10:15 Godwrath wrote:
Man, vanguard is so freaking overpowered in this game once you max it with the 75 defense for 5 second buff. Played 3 classes through Eos (soldier, agent and vanguard) and it was definitly the best (and the faster). Soldier is on a weird spot, not having adrenaline really makes it awkward to play, and barricade doesn't really make up for it with how drawn out combats tend to be with him and that enemies in this game have a tendency to attempt to melee you, and agent, well, it's a beast at cheesing encounters, but too slow for me.
Would like to try technician aswell, but i am digging hard the vanguard ;D I'm unhappy with technician in my game at least. I 123 things I'm not sniping with overload incinerate and then lance. Usually it kills anything big near me that needs to die. Gun verity is pretty good but the powers are worse then ME3 I havn't upgraded skills in 8 levels and I don't really notice any issue.
Yeah, got that feeling with the infiltrator, so i stopped playing him. Also, with how the skill system works, classes who could use a myriad of abilities are not that hot.
|
On March 27 2017 22:04 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2017 20:40 Artisreal wrote:
For anyone who plays with the shield like I do. In the options you can set it to be toggled on and off instead of push (and hold) to be activated. I found it a huge improvement for my movement and orientation during the battle.
Also which melee weapon do you enjoy the most? I'm currently hitting hard with the burning sword. Has some synergy with a talent that makes burning do more dmg but idk if it really works that way. ~~ The only thing as a vanguard that makes you stop is when you were too reckless and some of your health gets chipped away, so i am using the kett sword which steals health. That way i am completely inmortal outside of mobs who can catch you at melee and oneshot you. I want to try the frost weapon aswell to see if it freezes enemies, but that hasn't been really required thus far.
The remnant gauntlet? Yeah that freezes opponents for a short time.
|
I just fought two architects back to back they make the grind to improve the viability of the planet worth it. I wish there was more visible changes past when you unlock the vaults but its alright.
Does anyone know what the big ring things are suppose to do in a settlement? I can't' really get my mind around what they're for.
|
I think I remember that when I was investigating site 1 on Eos and walked into those things Ryder said something about them having to do with water. I just don't quite remember what exactly they do.
|
The new combat is indeed more fluid and indeed much more dumber.
In 2 and 3 you felt that your team mates had some impact on the game and you could control them and trigger combos.
Here they are just bullet sponges to ignore or revive for the most parts ...
|
How have you guys been doing on the romance front? I've been enjoying the Peebee romance. Granted it has a bunch of similarities to Jack's romance (way less insults though), but watching her develop as a character like that was really nice.
Also the fact that now every time I approach her to have a chat, she opens the conversation with "Yes. Whatever it is." is very sweet. That level of commitment from her actually touched my heart a little.
Also I got 100% viability across all planets super easy and waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay before finishing the game. And my only reward was the game trying to spoil that + Show Spoiler +Meridian would be settled
|
On March 28 2017 02:44 Holy_AT wrote:
The new combat is indeed more fluid and indeed much more dumber.
In 2 and 3 you felt that your team mates had some impact on the game and you could control them and trigger combos.
Here they are just bullet sponges to ignore or revive for the most parts ...
I can agree with that the companions are bullet sponges to ignore. I don't agree with it being dumber though.
Previously it played a lot like a tactics game such as Valkyria Chronicles. Now it plays as a shooter, they are different genres with different focuses. The open world makes deciding approach vectors and set ups much more important. Then you hit one of the vaults and have a door with enemies behind where you can't really kite or set up well. Then it feels like a Mass Effect shooter again and you ALT + F4 the game for a while (only happened once and I was just looking for a spot to stop since I needed to go).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
