inherit
4578
0
5,014
griffith82
Hope for the best, plan for the worst
4,259
Mar 15, 2017 21:36:52 GMT
March 2017
griffith82
|
Post by griffith82 on Nov 17, 2018 12:57:49 GMT
To me Mass Effect 2 is the best, simply because it made me want to play through multiple times. Also I liked seeing a more personal side to the galaxy, which is where the real story is In 2. In 1 I had my Shepard and that was it. After 2 came out I created many more. Also my wife is smarter than me, teaches English and I think will be trying to get her doctorate in the next few years...she's explained the intracies of getting a doctorate for this but I was half listening. Anyway, for all the talk about ME2 and DA2 falling apart under a microscope, she says both of them are the strongest from a writing standpoint... And also Andromeda is not bad either from a writing standpoint. ME3 she has issues with. Still likes it, just says it's the worst done out of the four ME games. My position: -ME1 still has the best put together setup and main story. Sure there's nostalgiagoggles on, and the early Citadel part still makes me (literally) fall asleep, but I otherwise still enjoy going through that. 8/10 -ME2 is the best single game, though its role in the trilogy is most suspect and the shine of it is fading to me. 9/10 -ME3 is my favorite. I used to tie ME2 and ME3 but I've finally decided that I most enjoy playing ME3. It's really bothersome issues aside. For the ending, it's a big ol shrug from me and a hope that some of my theories are right. A tainted game (as opposed to ME2's shine), but the taint is also fading to me and I expected this. 8.5/10 (but again, my personal fav) -MEA is playable as the newest title. That counts to me. And I don't consider it a bad game, but only fine or good. It will never be my favorite, but its the modern game for now and if it leads to something better, my disappointment about it will also fade. 7/10 I want a game that I can say finally surpasses ME1 in *all* ways, but I haven't seen that yet. Each ME2, ME3, and MEA all surpass in various ways. Give me a next game with a fantastic main story and this may finally happen. Pretty much my feelings except for Andromeda. I enjoy it quite a bit probably a 8.5 from me. Only disappointment is the no dlc. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2018 13:36:48 GMT
Force whatever take you want onto what I've said. It's up to you. I don't think anything has been ruined at all. None of the games are Pullitzer quality literature. They're games. None of the games are real life either. They're original sci-fi fantasy written by a group of authors/game developers (that is, they weren't based on the work of another author like some other games are). We're consumers of their authoriship only, so even though we can interact with the game it will always be within whatever range the authors choose to put into it AND they chose to END the ME Trilogy with ME3. They aren't a disease, they are endings to a fictional story. That's all, nothing more.
As games, I've replayed all 4 of them several times. I've gotten far more than my money's worth in enjoyment out of each and every one of them. If they write more that appeals to me, I'll buy them. My only requirement is that they be SP since I simply cannot play online. It's as simple as that.
Lol you can like the games all you want but that does not make them good. For you to think that nothing was ruined in ME2 or ME3 suggests to me that you have not taken an objective look at those games. Me3's ending in particular prove that the writers had no idea what they were doing when writing the plot. And I don't care if it's an original ip or not, there is no excuse to handle the overarching plot of the trilogy that poorly. being a video game or being an original ip is no excuse for bad writing and Bioware has proven this because they made Kotor, DAO, ME1, etc. It being a fictional story is irrelevant. I get that you liked the games, and there are certainly things to like about them, but you are lying to yourself if you say that the writing is not inconsistent. You would also be lying to yourself if you said games are not capable of having consistent writing. I just don't get how you can make excuses for the terrible writing when bioware themselves have proven that they are capable (or at least were) of making games like kotor or ME1. DAO is one of my favorite games of all time and that's part of the reason why I am so harsh on Bioware because it seems like everything after that they just didnt care about, at least as far as the consistency of the writing goes. I don't care how many times you have replayed the games, that does not help your argument here at all, if anything it just makes you seem more biased. Here's something you probably didnt know; I used to be a huge Bioware fan. I beat ME2 more than 20 times in fact. It wasn't until I took an objective look at the game that I realized how bad a lot of the writing is. And it only got worse with DA2, ME3, etc. I wanted to like Bioware games but it just seemed like Bioware didnt care about writing a good plot anymore. They can usually write characters well, and if there's one underrated aspect of MEA it's the characters. I love the characters in the game, it's just unfortunate that the plot is so uninteresting (though it is more coherent than ME2's and less contrived than ME3's). My point here is there is nothing stopping Bioware from having good, consistent writing yet they just are not seemingly capable of it anymore. You can LIKE the games all you want, but to say that the writing is not inconsistent is simply wrong. I don't think you've looked objectively at ME1. It wasn't the be all and end all of game story writing. Its story has numerous flaws and inconsistencies in the writing. ME2 and ME3 did not ruin anything because the writing, in my humble and objective opinion, was about the same quality as that of ME1... which is certainly not Pullitzer material. Don't get me wrong, I like the Trilogy. I've played it more than 30 times completely through.
The writing in ME:A is, again in my humble and objective opinion, at least on par with what the Trilogy's writing was... again, none of it is Pullitzer stuff. I also honestly think I can claim to be more objective that you since you're admitting to now being essentially a jaded ex-fan of Bioware. I've never been an overly enthusiastic fan of any single dev nor have I become particularly jaded about any of them. Any of them are quite capable of producing a good game or a bad one at any given point in time. All of them have different strengths AND different weaknesses.
All of the games have numerous plot issues, numerous places where lore conflicts with itself, and characters that are, at times, rather cliche or wooden. Exactly how well developed was Tali's character in ME1... not really at all. Garrus? All we knew about him was his dad liked rules and he didn't. Wrex? All he did was whine about the genophage. Liara was the total cliche damsel in distress. Shepard? Most of the time it didn't matter what you selected, he/she said the exact same thing in the exact same tone of voice... the character development was all in the player's head... thinking that it made some sort of significant different if the cue line was nice or rude even when the resulting line was identical. In addition, some of the conversations had a wonky sequence... places where if the player selected some lines, the flow of the conversation made no real sense. There were also many places where selecting different lines in sequence would result in the NPC giving the same information over and over again (e.g. the conversation with the VI on Feros about the Thorian comes to mind). That's not indicative of great writing either.
ME2 was, IMO, better written than ME1. The level of character development was certainly a step up. Shepard essentially stopped uttering identical lines when the player chose different cue lines. Conversations flowed more naturally with less repeated information. ME3 tried a different technique by introduicng autodialogue instead of creating different cue lines when Shepard was going to utter the same identical line anyways. It didn't go over with the fans well, but that doesn't make the writing quality in ME1 better than ME3. There were moments in ME3 that were exceptionally well written regardless of how you got to those decision points (the scenes with Mordin on Tuchanka regarding curing the genophage are a great example). The situation holds together from any of paragon, renegade or combination positions and it is moving and suspenseful. The situation on Rannoch with Tali is also well done. Even in the ending, the various different conversations you can have with TIM are well written... beats the heck out of the conversation you have with either Ashley or Kaidan on Virmire as you're leaving them to die (Really great line (NOT) - "I'm sorry, I had to make a choice.").
The big difference as I see it is that ME:A missed with it's audience... it's an environmental story at a time when that's not really what the game-playing public were into for themes. Add in the fact that the audience was heavily expecting and totally bent on desiring another Shepard story... and the lack of receptiveness to a story based on such a different theme area was completely predictable. Once the school-aged meming took over, there was not chance at all for the game to succeed. I said myself months before release that the game had a "snowball's chance in H*LL of succeeding. Conversely, ME1 was the right theme with the right tone at the right time for the audience. The audience was expecting nothing because it was the first game in the series and a unique concept for its time. That doesn't make it a superior game... just a game that was better received.
There are so many gameplay areas where ME1 is completely inferior to ME:A, I won't even begin to list them. Yes, some because of the tech progress that has been made since 2007. Others though are just better level design in ME:A. Go back and play the UNC stuff in ME1, as blind as you can... drive the mako around those barren planets for hours looking for stuff that just isn't there... because blind you shouldn't know that you will only find 3 "turd-shaped" minerals, 2 othe objects, maybe a thresher maw or a small band of mercs, and 1 objective "cookie-cutter" facility... then try to tell me that the ME:A planets are more boring. They have more varied terrain. Items can be found in context and the setting is used in context with the quests (Elaaden's underground lake comes to mind here, the setting where you find the Angaran resistance fighter torturing her kett captive on Voeld also comes to mind, and Mithrava being a sanctuary for a cult of reclusive Angara.
|
|
inherit
3164
0
Aug 19, 2021 11:58:46 GMT
426
souljahbill14
297
Jan 31, 2017 21:13:13 GMT
January 2017
souljahbill14
|
Post by souljahbill14 on Nov 17, 2018 15:42:19 GMT
Lol you can like the games all you want but that does not make them good. For you to think that nothing was ruined in ME2 or ME3 suggests to me that you have not taken an objective look at those games. Me3's ending in particular prove that the writers had no idea what they were doing when writing the plot. And I don't care if it's an original ip or not, there is no excuse to handle the overarching plot of the trilogy that poorly. being a video game or being an original ip is no excuse for bad writing and Bioware has proven this because they made Kotor, DAO, ME1, etc. It being a fictional story is irrelevant. I get that you liked the games, and there are certainly things to like about them, but you are lying to yourself if you say that the writing is not inconsistent. You would also be lying to yourself if you said games are not capable of having consistent writing. I just don't get how you can make excuses for the terrible writing when bioware themselves have proven that they are capable (or at least were) of making games like kotor or ME1. DAO is one of my favorite games of all time and that's part of the reason why I am so harsh on Bioware because it seems like everything after that they just didnt care about, at least as far as the consistency of the writing goes. I don't care how many times you have replayed the games, that does not help your argument here at all, if anything it just makes you seem more biased. Here's something you probably didnt know; I used to be a huge Bioware fan. I beat ME2 more than 20 times in fact. It wasn't until I took an objective look at the game that I realized how bad a lot of the writing is. And it only got worse with DA2, ME3, etc. I wanted to like Bioware games but it just seemed like Bioware didnt care about writing a good plot anymore. They can usually write characters well, and if there's one underrated aspect of MEA it's the characters. I love the characters in the game, it's just unfortunate that the plot is so uninteresting (though it is more coherent than ME2's and less contrived than ME3's). My point here is there is nothing stopping Bioware from having good, consistent writing yet they just are not seemingly capable of it anymore. You can LIKE the games all you want, but to say that the writing is not inconsistent is simply wrong. I don't think you've looked objectively at ME1. It wasn't the be all and end all of game story writing. It's story has numerous flaws. ME2 and ME3 did not ruin anything because the writing, in my humble and objective opinion, was about the same quality as that of ME1... which is certainly not Pullitzer material. Don't get me wrong, I like the Trilogy. I've played it more than 30 times completely through. The writing in ME:A is, again in my humble and objective opinion, on par with what the Trilogy's writing was... again, none of it is Pullitzer stuff. I also honestly think I can claim to be more objective that you since you're admitting to now being essentially a jaded ex-fan of Bioware. I've never been an overly enthusiastic fan of any single dev nor have I become particularly jaded about any of them. Any of them are quite capable of producing a good game or a bad one at any given point in time. All of them have different strengths AND different weaknesses.
All of the games have numerous plot issues, numerous places where lore conflicts with itself, and characters that are, at times, rather cliche or wooden. Exactly how well developed was Tali's character in ME1... not really at all. Garrus? All we knew about him was his dad liked rules and he didn't. Wrex? All he did was whine about the genophage. Liara was the total cliche damsel in distress. Shepard? Most of the time it didn't matter what you selected, he/she said the exact same thing in the exact same tone of voice... the character development was all in the player's head... thinking that it made some sort of significant different if the cue line was nice or rude even when the resulting line was identical. In addition, some of the conversations had a wonky sequence... places where if the player selected some lines, the flow of the conversation made no real sense. There were also many places where selecting different lines in sequence would result in the NPC giving the same information over and over again (e.g. the conversation with the VI on Feros about the Thorian comes to mind). That's not indicative of great writing either.
The big difference as I see it is that ME:A missed with it's audience... it's an environmental story at a time when that's not really what the game-playing public were into for themes. Add in the fact that the audience was heavily expecting and totally bent on desiring another Shepard story... and the lack of receptiveness to a story based on such a different theme area was completely predictable. Once the school-aged meming took over, there was not chance at all for the game to succeed. I said myself months before release that the game had a "snowball's chance in H*LL of succeeding. Conversely, ME1 was the right theme with the right tone at the right time for the audience. The audience was expecting nothing because it was the first game in the series and a unique concept for its time. That doesn't make it a superior game... just a game that was better received.
There are so many gameplay areas where ME1 is completely inferior to ME:A, I won't even begin to list them. Yes, some because of the tech progress that has been made since 2007. Others though are just better level design in ME:A. Go back and play the UNC stuff in ME1, as blind as you can... drive the mako around those barren planets for hours looking for stuff that just isn't there... because blind you shouldn't know that you will only find 3 "turd-shaped" minerals, 2 othe objects, maybe a thresher maw or a small band of mercs, and 1 objective "cookie-cutter" facility... then try to tell me that the ME:A planets are more boring. They have more varied terrain. Items can be found in context and the setting is used in context with the quests (Elaaden's underground lake comes to mind here, the setting where you find the Angaran resistance fighter torturing her kett captive on Voeld also comes to mind, and Mithrava being a sanctuary for a cult of reclusive Angara.
Lots and lots of this |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2018 15:56:27 GMT
I don't think you've looked objectively at ME1. It wasn't the be all and end all of game story writing. It's story has numerous flaws. ME2 and ME3 did not ruin anything because the writing, in my humble and objective opinion, was about the same quality as that of ME1... which is certainly not Pullitzer material. Don't get me wrong, I like the Trilogy. I've played it more than 30 times completely through. The writing in ME:A is, again in my humble and objective opinion, on par with what the Trilogy's writing was... again, none of it is Pullitzer stuff. I also honestly think I can claim to be more objective that you since you're admitting to now being essentially a jaded ex-fan of Bioware. I've never been an overly enthusiastic fan of any single dev nor have I become particularly jaded about any of them. Any of them are quite capable of producing a good game or a bad one at any given point in time. All of them have different strengths AND different weaknesses.
All of the games have numerous plot issues, numerous places where lore conflicts with itself, and characters that are, at times, rather cliche or wooden. Exactly how well developed was Tali's character in ME1... not really at all. Garrus? All we knew about him was his dad liked rules and he didn't. Wrex? All he did was whine about the genophage. Liara was the total cliche damsel in distress. Shepard? Most of the time it didn't matter what you selected, he/she said the exact same thing in the exact same tone of voice... the character development was all in the player's head... thinking that it made some sort of significant different if the cue line was nice or rude even when the resulting line was identical. In addition, some of the conversations had a wonky sequence... places where if the player selected some lines, the flow of the conversation made no real sense. There were also many places where selecting different lines in sequence would result in the NPC giving the same information over and over again (e.g. the conversation with the VI on Feros about the Thorian comes to mind). That's not indicative of great writing either.
The big difference as I see it is that ME:A missed with it's audience... it's an environmental story at a time when that's not really what the game-playing public were into for themes. Add in the fact that the audience was heavily expecting and totally bent on desiring another Shepard story... and the lack of receptiveness to a story based on such a different theme area was completely predictable. Once the school-aged meming took over, there was not chance at all for the game to succeed. I said myself months before release that the game had a "snowball's chance in H*LL of succeeding. Conversely, ME1 was the right theme with the right tone at the right time for the audience. The audience was expecting nothing because it was the first game in the series and a unique concept for its time. That doesn't make it a superior game... just a game that was better received.
There are so many gameplay areas where ME1 is completely inferior to ME:A, I won't even begin to list them. Yes, some because of the tech progress that has been made since 2007. Others though are just better level design in ME:A. Go back and play the UNC stuff in ME1, as blind as you can... drive the mako around those barren planets for hours looking for stuff that just isn't there... because blind you shouldn't know that you will only find 3 "turd-shaped" minerals, 2 othe objects, maybe a thresher maw or a small band of mercs, and 1 objective "cookie-cutter" facility... then try to tell me that the ME:A planets are more boring. They have more varied terrain. Items can be found in context and the setting is used in context with the quests (Elaaden's underground lake comes to mind here, the setting where you find the Angaran resistance fighter torturing her kett captive on Voeld also comes to mind, and Mithrava being a sanctuary for a cult of reclusive Angara.
Lots and lots of this Doesn't bother me... go on living with your rose colored glasses on. They suit you.
Compare: 'There's no light. They always said their would be a light." (Benezia's death scene in ME1) with "Earth, Shepard. I wish you could see it as I do. It's so perfect." (TIM's death scene in ME3).
|
|
inherit
9002
0
Oct 13, 2023 22:02:03 GMT
681
natetrace
437
Jul 13, 2017 17:36:20 GMT
July 2017
natetrace
|
Post by natetrace on Nov 17, 2018 15:58:40 GMT
I hate tearing down the first Mass Effect to support Andromeda, but there is truth that it's easily surpassed by it's three sequels in many areas. 1 is still my 2nd favorite, behind 2.
Lots of hilarious and cringey dialogue, yes. From Shepard telling Liara don't question their feelings, don't use your logic doctor, just get swept up in the storm to Shepard declaring the citadel and it's fleet could be wiped out in a single surprise attack! You're just a machine...and machines can be broken!
I love ME1, silly lines and all, but I think there are many casual players who really enjoyed it then, and played five hours of Andromeda, before letting their Rose colored glasses take over. I hate saying casual but after 50 plus playthroughs, I feel like I have to.
|
|
SwobyJ
N4
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Posts: 2,097 Likes: 2,161
inherit
2698
0
2,161
SwobyJ
2,097
January 2017
swobyj
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
|
Post by SwobyJ on Nov 17, 2018 16:09:37 GMT
My position: -ME1 still has the best put together setup and main story. Sure there's nostalgiagoggles on, and the early Citadel part still makes me (literally) fall asleep, but I otherwise still enjoy going through that. 8/10 -ME2 is the best single game, though its role in the trilogy is most suspect and the shine of it is fading to me. 9/10 -ME3 is my favorite. I used to tie ME2 and ME3 but I've finally decided that I most enjoy playing ME3. It's really bothersome issues aside. For the ending, it's a big ol shrug from me and a hope that some of my theories are right. A tainted game (as opposed to ME2's shine), but the taint is also fading to me and I expected this. 8.5/10 (but again, my personal fav) -MEA is playable as the newest title. That counts to me. And I don't consider it a bad game, but only fine or good. It will never be my favorite, but its the modern game for now and if it leads to something better, my disappointment about it will also fade. 7/10 I want a game that I can say finally surpasses ME1 in *all* ways, but I haven't seen that yet. Each ME2, ME3, and MEA all surpass in various ways. Give me a next game with a fantastic main story and this may finally happen. Pretty much my feelings except for Andromeda. I enjoy it quite a bit probably a 8.5 from me. Only disappointment is the no dlc. Factors that bring down MEA for me: -the tech I used --> I can only play MEA on Medium to High at the very most, depending on the PC I use, and I feel MEA is a game with a style tested to only be really appreciated (at least by me) on Ultra; also, my framerate ain't too great either -really the animations bothered me almost but not quite as badly as the meme-ers. They still make me laugh (there's still weird walking-away Ryder animations in scenes). -almost every aspect of the game appears half-baked; still pretty great for a game generally, but disappointing for a full priced AAA RPG (that said, I acknowledge that all MET games have something of this problem, so I never give any a 10/10 no matter my attachment) -strangely flat plot and characterization. I'm not saying the MET was masterpiece, but while in MET I'd uncommonly raise my eyebrow at a line or two, in MEA I'd outright balk at parts, whether because they were so awkward for context or because they were so trope-y beyond even MET content. For once in the series I felt like I was in a basically-ok saturday morning cartoon - outside of the more brutal subjects and scenes of course. -jetpacking is a gimmick that overstayed its welcome. I do welcome it as included in the next game, but I hope it retreats as a feature like is the case with various features through the games -experienced more early-release bugs than ME2 or ME3, not to ignore some annoying ME3 bugs. -while I think I generally *like* the MEA squad characters more than I liked, say, the ME1 characters at the time, I don't think they're actually as *good* so far; hard to explain -the open world schtick, through both DAI and MEA, hasn't grabbed me so far. Sure I liked parts of it, but both games don't illustrate anything close to a mastery of the concept and just pad out my time -related to the above... I think the padding out of our time in the game is intentional. For DAI it feels like it was set up to be tied to MP/MTX but they retreated (but War Table and Power etc would have played into it), and in MEA they actually did some of it, where you might feel at least a bit gimped unless you were completionist (fine, but look at the sidequesty and grindy content...) or engaged in MP for faster item/resource acquisition. Did it break the game? It neither broke DAI nor MEA. But I think there was a design there with at least the faint whiff of Dead Space 3, and that's annoying. MEA is a game up to 100-120 hours (maybe 80) per full playthrough, which I think could have been conveyed in much closer to the older games' duration (30-60). -I accept the premise better than many people do, but it doesn't grab me, still After all this time, maybe I could revise my score to a 7.5-8, but I'm unsure, and this score would be absolute maximum. I think it competes with ME1 in my mind, but that's also kind of damning with faint praise, given that this is a game that is a decade all (with all its clunkyness). |
|
inherit
3164
0
Aug 19, 2021 11:58:46 GMT
426
souljahbill14
297
Jan 31, 2017 21:13:13 GMT
January 2017
souljahbill14
|
Post by souljahbill14 on Nov 17, 2018 16:18:36 GMT
Doesn't bother me... go on living with your rose colored glasses on. They suit you.
Compare: 'There's no light. They always said their would be a light." (Benezia's death scene in ME1) with "Earth, Shepard. I wish you could see it as I do. It's so perfect." (TIM's death scene in ME3).
What Rose-colored glasses? I’m seem to be missing something and I’m genuinely confused . Please explain as I’m genuinely curious. And my personal ranking for the series is 4) ME2 3) ME1 2) ME3 1) MEA |
|
inherit
Scribbles
185
0
Oct 31, 2024 18:26:04 GMT
31,574
Hanako Ikezawa
22,991
August 2016
hanakoikezawa
|
Post by Hanako Ikezawa on Nov 17, 2018 16:20:42 GMT
My personal ranking list of the ME games.
1.ME3
2.MEA
3.ME1
4.ME2
|
|
inherit
♨ Retired
24
0
Member is Online
25,825
themikefest
15,489
August 2016
themikefest
21,655
15,426
|
Post by themikefest on Nov 17, 2018 16:22:02 GMT
ME2>ME3>ME1>MEA
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2018 16:36:00 GMT
Doesn't bother me... go on living with your rose colored glasses on. They suit you.
Compare: 'There's no light. They always said their would be a light." (Benezia's death scene in ME1) with "Earth, Shepard. I wish you could see it as I do. It's so perfect." (TIM's death scene in ME3).
What Rose-colored glasses? I’m seem to be missing something and I’m genuinely confused . Please explain as I’m genuinely curious. And my personal ranking for the series is 4) ME2 3) ME1 2) ME3 1) MEA What does your personal ranking of the games overall have to do with comparing the quality of writing in each game? Can you honestly tell me that looking for 5 or 6 items on a barren planet is more stimulating than exploring the various locations on, say, Havarl - where there are numerous animals that can attack you from anywhere in the jungle, where there are many different crates hidden all over the world, where some of those can lead to a puzzle that causes you to climb to the top of not just one, but two different structures (and I'm not even talking about Mithrava here)? Can you honestly tell me that parting with either Kaidan or Ashley on Virmire was better written than the various scenes arguing with Mordin about curing/not curing the genophage? or the conversation with Legion/Geth VI prior to making the decision that resulted in either his death or Tali's? Can you honestly tell me that making a choice in ME1 betweeen a nice cue or a rude one that resulted in the exact same line being said by Shepard is better writing than having those choices result in a different lines being said (a la ME2) and then even, on occasion resulted in Shepard taking a completely different action (for example, a renegade Shepard could select an option that would push the merc out the window with an interrupt but could also select a slightly less renegade dialogue line that resulted in him/her only pushing the merc up against the window) without the interrupt even appearing)?
My personal ranking of the games is that they are actually all about equal in quality overall... each with their own different strengths and weaknesses. Quole admitted to a bias in his first post responding to mine... he's an ex-huge-fan of Bioware. That means he has a biased opinion... and agenda to prove that the earlier games were better written overall than the newer ones... that's not being objective... that's having "rose-colored" glasses... i.e. not prepared to even discuss where ME1 was weaker than the subsequent games.
Character Development - ME2 was strongest
Scenes being written to create suspense/emotion - ME3 was strongest
Using the setting to create connection to the story being told - ME:A was strongest Connecting with its intended audience - ME1 was strongest (which mostly has to do with having to good opening combined with a total lack of the audience "expecting" anything; it also had the most appeal to players used to playing table-top games).
|
|
inherit
3164
0
Aug 19, 2021 11:58:46 GMT
426
souljahbill14
297
Jan 31, 2017 21:13:13 GMT
January 2017
souljahbill14
|
Post by souljahbill14 on Nov 17, 2018 16:39:28 GMT
What Rose-colored glasses? I’m seem to be missing something and I’m genuinely confused . Please explain as I’m genuinely curious. And my personal ranking for the series is 4) ME2 3) ME1 2) ME3 1) MEA What does your personal ranking of the games overall have to do with comparing the quality of writing in each game? Can you honestly tell me that looking for 5 or 6 items on a barren planet is more stimulating than exploring the various locations on, say, Havarl - where there are numerous animals that can attack you from anywhere in the jungle, where there are many different crates hidden all over the world, where some of those can lead to a puzzle that causes you to climb to the top of not just one, but two different structures (and I'm not even talking about Mithrava here)? Can you honestly tell me that parting with either Kaidan or Ashley on Virmire was better written than the various scenes arguing with Mordin about curing/not curing the genophage? or the conversation with Legion/Geth VI prior to making the decision that resulted in either his death or Tali's? Can you honestly tell me that making a choice in ME1 betweeen a nice cue or a rude one that resulted in the exact same line being said by Shepard is better writing than having those choices result in a different lines being said (a la ME2) and then even, on occasion resulted in Shepard taking a completely different action (for example, a renegade Shepard could select an option that would push the merc out the window with an interrupt but could also select a slightly less renegade dialogue line that resulted in him/her only pushing the merc up against the window) without the interrupt even appearing)?
My personal ranking of the games is that they are actually all about equal in quality overall... each with their own different strengths and weaknesses. Quole admitted to a bias in his first post responding to mine... he's an ex-huge-fan of Bioware. That means he has a biased opinion... and agenda to prove that the earlier games were better written overall than the newer ones... that's not being objective... that's having "rose-colored" glasses... i.e. not prepared to even discuss where ME1 was weaker than the subsequent games.
I think you may have me confused with somebody else. I didn’t say anything about bad or good writing in any game. And I stated my ranking because I wanted to show that I’m not someone who looks at the games in the trilogy as being untouchable and perfect and MEA being “unworthy” of being a Mass Effect game. |
|
SwobyJ
N4
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Posts: 2,097 Likes: 2,161
inherit
2698
0
2,161
SwobyJ
2,097
January 2017
swobyj
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
|
Post by SwobyJ on Nov 17, 2018 16:41:34 GMT
Personal:
1. ME3 (close with 2; might drop to #2 or #3 if I think about the ending too much and too jadedly)
2. ME2
3. ME1 (close with A; depends on qualities I prioritize)
4. MEA
'Objective':
1. ME2 (better single game experience than ME3)
2. ME3
3. MEA (comes with A being modern, 1 being clunker)
4. ME1
There's several respects I'd put ME1 on #1 or #2 though, so don't misunderstand. It is just an older game with older issues and cheezier writing than many of us remember.
I think one of the few things most (not all, sure) fans can agree on is that MEA is not the best ME game. And I think much of Bioware themselves know this, so if they do another game, it should aim to be not just better, but much better. Yeah.
That said, there are people that did end up enjoying MEA more as an experience than the other games, but these people fit into what MEA was going for: more open locations, puzzle vaults, less military, open classes, etc. I just think this stuff didn't outweigh the flaws in more people's opinions.
But I also think it is a minority (even far smaller than those totally outraged by the ME3 endings) that consider MEA some abomination. At worst, it's usually seen as a failure to launch, but a failure is different than some abomination. And at best, MEA is seen as a great game with many flaws, but a great game is not necessarily some GOTY - MEA was far from that.
As I think DAI didn't quite shed the spirit of DAO off of it - though in my opinion tried to - MEA did even worse at shedding the MET, even though it grew another layer. But this is another thing Bioware may be aware of and may incorporate into another game.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2018 16:48:30 GMT
What does your personal ranking of the games overall have to do with comparing the quality of writing in each game? Can you honestly tell me that looking for 5 or 6 items on a barren planet is more stimulating than exploring the various locations on, say, Havarl - where there are numerous animals that can attack you from anywhere in the jungle, where there are many different crates hidden all over the world, where some of those can lead to a puzzle that causes you to climb to the top of not just one, but two different structures (and I'm not even talking about Mithrava here)? Can you honestly tell me that parting with either Kaidan or Ashley on Virmire was better written than the various scenes arguing with Mordin about curing/not curing the genophage? or the conversation with Legion/Geth VI prior to making the decision that resulted in either his death or Tali's? Can you honestly tell me that making a choice in ME1 betweeen a nice cue or a rude one that resulted in the exact same line being said by Shepard is better writing than having those choices result in a different lines being said (a la ME2) and then even, on occasion resulted in Shepard taking a completely different action (for example, a renegade Shepard could select an option that would push the merc out the window with an interrupt but could also select a slightly less renegade dialogue line that resulted in him/her only pushing the merc up against the window) without the interrupt even appearing)?
My personal ranking of the games is that they are actually all about equal in quality overall... each with their own different strengths and weaknesses. Quole admitted to a bias in his first post responding to mine... he's an ex-huge-fan of Bioware. That means he has a biased opinion... and agenda to prove that the earlier games were better written overall than the newer ones... that's not being objective... that's having "rose-colored" glasses... i.e. not prepared to even discuss where ME1 was weaker than the subsequent games.
I think you may have me confused with somebody else. I didn’t say anything about bad or good writing in any game. And I stated my ranking because I wanted to show that I’m not someone who looks at the games in the trilogy as being untouchable and perfect and MEA being “unworthy” of being a Mass Effect game. Indeed - I was attributing your lol response to quole. So, my question is, why cut into a conversation just to issue a mocking comment instead of adding something constructive to the discussion? |
|
inherit
3164
0
Aug 19, 2021 11:58:46 GMT
426
souljahbill14
297
Jan 31, 2017 21:13:13 GMT
January 2017
souljahbill14
|
Post by souljahbill14 on Nov 17, 2018 16:50:09 GMT
You may still have me confused. I didn’t lol anything.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2018 16:53:28 GMT
You may still have me confused. I didn’t lol anything. OK, my sincere apologies. I'm an aged person with bad vision and I honestly misread your post. |
|
inherit
3164
0
Aug 19, 2021 11:58:46 GMT
426
souljahbill14
297
Jan 31, 2017 21:13:13 GMT
January 2017
souljahbill14
|
Post by souljahbill14 on Nov 17, 2018 16:54:38 GMT
You may still have me confused. I didn’t lol anything. OK, my sincere apologies. I'm an aged person with bad vision and I honestly misread your post. No harm, no foul. We’re good. |
|
inherit
3035
0
May 28, 2024 15:29:11 GMT
2,341
sil
1,551
Jan 28, 2017 10:19:12 GMT
January 2017
sil
|
Post by sil on Nov 17, 2018 22:40:31 GMT
ME:A's planets were fine. The problem was that we needed more planets like H-047c, and to have some of the side missions spread over them. There were so many planets that sounded interesting to land on, and we landed on ones that were quite vanilla.
|
|
inherit
4578
0
5,014
griffith82
Hope for the best, plan for the worst
4,259
Mar 15, 2017 21:36:52 GMT
March 2017
griffith82
|
Post by griffith82 on Nov 18, 2018 1:58:57 GMT
ME:A's planets were fine. The problem was that we needed more planets like H-047c, and to have some of the side missions spread over them. There were so many planets that sounded interesting to land on, and we landed on ones that were quite vanilla. Yeah I'd have liked that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2018 2:08:34 GMT
ME:A's planets were fine. The problem was that we needed more planets like H-047c, and to have some of the side missions spread over them. There were so many planets that sounded interesting to land on, and we landed on ones that were quite vanilla. Nah... one low-gravity moonscape was interesting; 12 just in 4 different colors of rock would not have been more interesting for me. They could have used more content/habitation on H-047c, making it more the size of the other worlds; but that would not have really fit in with the lore of the planet having been blown apart within such a short period (i.e. within the 600 years between when the Initiative tagged the planet as a golden world and when we landed on it. |
|
inherit
4578
0
5,014
griffith82
Hope for the best, plan for the worst
4,259
Mar 15, 2017 21:36:52 GMT
March 2017
griffith82
|
Post by griffith82 on Nov 18, 2018 2:10:16 GMT
ME:A's planets were fine. The problem was that we needed more planets like H-047c, and to have some of the side missions spread over them. There were so many planets that sounded interesting to land on, and we landed on ones that were quite vanilla. Nah... one low-gravity moonscape was interesting; 12 just in 4 different colors of rock would not have been more interesting for me. They could have used more content/habitation on H-047c, making it more the size of the other worlds; but that would not have really fit in with the lore of the planet having been blown apart within such a short period (i.e. within the 600 years between when the Initiative tagged the planet as a golden world and when we landed on it. I think he meant the unique type of planets. More alien. |
|
inherit
9002
0
Oct 13, 2023 22:02:03 GMT
681
natetrace
437
Jul 13, 2017 17:36:20 GMT
July 2017
natetrace
|
Post by natetrace on Nov 18, 2018 4:31:06 GMT
Yeah the next Mass Effect should have some strange planets. I also still say weird new aliens. Intelligent weird aliens, not just bizarre looking animals. If I'm going to run into a giant cerebellum with a mustache, I want to talk to it.
|
|
N7eezo
N2
Posts: 107 Likes: 195
inherit
10582
0
Nov 10, 2018 18:57:33 GMT
195
N7eezo
107
Nov 10, 2018 16:38:19 GMT
November 2018
element7ero
|
Post by N7eezo on Nov 18, 2018 10:24:06 GMT
IMO the games have to have different rankings, one for story and one for game play, maybe even other ones for graphics, fun to play and such  I've very much enjoyed each single one of the Mass Effect games so far and they are my favorite games of all time. I'm already longing for the Mass Effect game, no matter when or where it takes place, even though I have some preferences: Story MET "sidequel" instead of prequel/sequel. Examples: think P.I or C-Sec on Citadel space station, outlaw/smuggler on Omega/in a part of the Milky Way. MET multiverse/time travel to sidestep/avoid/alter the ME3 endings MEA2 follow up with the Ryder or new protag(s), more alien(s), story expansions. Game play / mechanics ME3+MEA combined, basically a refined ME3 with vertical elements, thanks to the jump jets. MEA skills, classes still exist, but are "optional", research, build and modify and customize armor/weapons Most importantly however to me is that the next Mass Effect game has a fantastic SP mode with great characters, a good story and expansions  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2018 11:39:22 GMT
While I wouldn't mind some more alien environments, within the initial context of an Initiative looking for a home, Ryder going off continually to planets that are not prospective for habitation by the species in the Initiative would not make a whole lot of sense story-wise. Of course, as the story moves forward in time, such activity would make more sense now that they have found a new home. I would expect to see more alien alien species and planets in the sequels. They needed to set the story up first and they've done that. With the remnant tech on Meridian, it seems logical to me that they'll now "discover" something similar to Mass Relays existing in the Andromeda universe and that will open up the exploration of the galaxy to more locations both within Heleus and beyond it. With the small numbers of humans and Milky Way species, I also think it's likely that our principle species that will account for the larger urban areas people are wanting will be aliens from within Andromeda... that is, of course, assuming this story doesn't get short-circuited by "fan impatience."
|
|
sjsharp2010
N7
Go Team!
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect Andromeda, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Posts: 12,750 Likes: 20,688
Member is Online
inherit
2309
0
Member is Online
20,688
sjsharp2010
Go Team!
12,750
December 2016
sjsharp2010
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect Andromeda, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
|
Post by sjsharp2010 on Nov 18, 2018 13:20:42 GMT
My ranking is
1. ME2
2. ME3
3. MEA
4. ME1
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2018 13:49:25 GMT
I apologize for the wonkiness of how I'm editing my post; but it needs a change and, for some reason right now I can't edit, quote, or even like any posts on the forums. I can only use the "Other Reply Options" button. I have filed an inquiry with the mods and hopefully something will get worked out soon. At any rate, the post I made above contains a serious typo and requires a change:
While I wouldn't mind some more alien environments, within the initial context of an Initiative looking for a home, Ryder going off continually to planets that are not prospective for habittion by the species in the Initiatve would not make a whole lot of sense story-wise. Of course, as the story moves forward in time, such activity would make more sense now that they have found a new home. I would expect.... (rest as before). Thank you for your patience.
|
|
