Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
1122
0
May 17, 2024 22:53:12 GMT
Deleted
0
May 17, 2024 22:53:12 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2016 21:54:15 GMT
Now you're more interested in making assumptions about what I like and don't like Try focusing on your question... and hear this - How the game play is in ME3 is not going to magically change halfway through ME3 just because you don't like it. So, if you don't like it... don't continue playing it. Actually I can almost bet you never really played or finished a decent RPG in your life or a shooter with decent controls for that matter, how's that for assumptions? No need to act so defensive about a game, you sound like you need to install an heatsink to help you cooldown no offense. If somebody doesn't like the shooting parts in this game immensely, then what else? Also according to you my impressions aren't gonna change and the characters/dialogue/shooting are supposed to remain as bland as they are now, so I ask you what makes you love it so much? maybe I'll end up loving it too for the same reasons. I bet you're just disappointed that I'm not biting to go into some sort of detailed rant about every fault that ME3 has. It's not going to get any different than it is now. Isn't that just logical? You're a good ways into the game and you don't like anything about it. Your post parrots pretty much every other complaint about ME3 out there. What is it you want me to tell you? To numerical list back to you everything you don't like and try to convince you to like it instead? I'm not being defensive about anything. You obviously don't like the game. I'm OK with that. My advice is don't continue with it. Why aren't you OK with the fact that I like the game? Why do you have to imply that, as a result of me liking this particular game, that I"ve never finished a decent RPG? I'm not the only person on the planet that has enjoyed playing ME3. There is a group here who have and there also is another group here who haven't (that's just a fact). So... here's the rant. What I like about ME3 - I like that, unlike ME1, ME3 doesn't pretend to give the player choices between dialogue that is exactly the same or essentially the same. I like not having to interrupt that dialogue by making fake choices on a dialogue wheel. I like that ME3 takes the time to wrap up a lot of little bits and pieces that just never went anywhere in ME1. As I said before, ME3 contains one of the best story arcs in the entire trilogy - the genophage arc. When you make your decisions throughout that arc, you ARE influencing the game and your character's development significantly. It also contains the culmination of the geth/quarian war - which IMO is another very good story arc with a few more really significant choices. I like James, Samantha, and Steve as new characters in the game. I like that Garrus, Tali and Liara are all back. I did like TIM's character better in ME2, although Sheen's performance is still great in ME3. I don't really miss a lot of the ME2 characters as principals in the game... and you do get to meet up with all of them again eventually. I generally prefer cinematics and voiced dialogues to reading loads of text onscreen even though this does limit the number of choices available in an RGP game. I like the way the leveling up of powers was simplified rather than having all those 1 point step ups that one had in ME1 that didn't make any difference really. In ME3, when you select the next level of the a power, you can really do something different than the step before. I like the way all the power and tech combos work together. In ME1, I could basically play the game the same way with every class of PC. That changed in ME2 and continued in ME3. The battles really do flow differently if you're a vanguard vs. an adept vs. a soldier. I like not having to garbage a ton of useless gun loot throughout the game or having to sort through a ton of useless inventory after every mission (which was how it was done in ME1). I do like somewhat linear combat levels because I don't think being perpetually lost on a battlefield equates to good gameplay. I do prefer having ammo rather than having overheating infinite guns with bullet-sponge enemies (which is what was there in ME1). I understand ME3 multiplayer is quite good... but my internet does not allow me to play online games. I would love it if Bioware could insert a splitscreen mode in the Trilogy... but I accept that ain't gonna happen. The bottom line here is that nothing, though, is going to suddenly and drastically change about the gameplay now halfway through the game. If you don't like it now (and you don't), you're not going to suddenly start liking it 2 or 3 or 5 missions from now... guaranteed. If you want to waste more of your time playing a game that you don't like... go for it. I won't stop you. You can then join all the other negatives nancies here who have apparently done that and must get some sort of enjoyment out of coming here and railing on a game they've never liked. |
|
inherit
115
0
2,712
capn233
1,708
August 2016
capn233
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by capn233 on Dec 17, 2016 23:26:04 GMT
Fun fact ME 2's shooting is even less polished then ME3's. If you are talking strictly about the shooting, really the only benefit in ME3 is that you can use soft cover more easily because you don't have the goofy animation where you point the weapon up when blocked by an object like in ME2. Otherwise the basic mechanics are pretty similar, but they stripped out range modifiers. Cover penetration was obviously added, but although I like to take advantage it is unclear that this was a great idea given that enemies don't ever really get this benefit. I would agree that movement and changed shield gate properties allow you to run and gun more freely with any class, for ME2 nearly everything is geared towards forcing the player into cover for most encounters, except for Vanguard. |
|
inherit
115
0
2,712
capn233
1,708
August 2016
capn233
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by capn233 on Dec 17, 2016 23:28:14 GMT
Oh as far as story stuff goes, the first time I played through ME3 I liked it well enough, at least through the Rannoch arc. Liked the Tuchanka arc the best, Rannoch was ok despite deciding to do a 180 on the Geth.
To beat the dead horse though, when I finished the game I figured I must have botched a bunch of choices, but it turned out I didn't.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
1122
0
May 17, 2024 22:53:12 GMT
Deleted
0
May 17, 2024 22:53:12 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2016 23:46:14 GMT
What does blowing a husk's leg off have to do with anything? No you can't rip an arm off an Atlas. How ever with right Sniper Rifle (Widow, Black Widow, Javelin) You can break the cockpit screen and kill the guy controlling it. Thus allowing you to hijack the Atlas for yourself. You know, I always thought that hijacking an Atlas was restricted to the Grissom Academy mission because I could never pull it off afterwards. I have always wound up destroying the Atlas, I always use a sniper rifle and target the cockpit. Is there a trick to it? It's really about going after the center of the cockpit with one of the more high-powered SRs right from the moment you get the shields down... so that you pierce the cockpit before the armor goes down. I've only been able to hijack a couple of mechs using a lower damage SR like the Indra... and I had to use a piercing mod V level at that. It also helps to get your squad focusing only on enemies other than the mech. More often than not, though, the armor goes and you wind up blowing up the mech before you pierce the glass. The most reliable mechs to hijack for me are the ones in the Omega DLC when I only have Aria with me. |
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Dec 18, 2016 0:30:11 GMT
Fun fact ME 2's shooting is even less polished then ME3's. If you are talking strictly about the shooting, really the only benefit in ME3 is that you can use soft cover more easily because you don't have the goofy animation where you point the weapon up when blocked by an object like in ME2. Otherwise the basic mechanics are pretty similar, but they stripped out range modifiers. Cover penetration was obviously added, but although I like to take advantage it is unclear that this was a great idea given that enemies don't ever really get this benefit. I would agree that movement and changed shield gate properties allow you to run and gun more freely with any class, for ME2 nearly everything is geared towards forcing the player into cover for most encounters, except for Vanguard. Better use of soft cover. Ability to penetrate cover so you don't have to sit and wait for them to pop up to kill them. Ability to be more mobile and active rather then just getting behind cover and popping up just to shoot people in the face and back down. That is an improvement all around. Oh as far as story stuff goes, the first time I played through ME3 I liked it well enough, at least through the Rannoch arc. Liked the Tuchanka arc the best, Rannoch was ok despite deciding to do a 180 on the Geth. To beat the dead horse though, when I finished the game I figured I must have botched a bunch of choices, but it turned out I didn't. No 180 on Geth. Ending was fine. |
|
inherit
2156
0
Dec 28, 2016 23:20:33 GMT
2
edfftw
11
Nov 21, 2016 20:22:05 GMT
November 2016
edfftw
|
Post by edfftw on Dec 18, 2016 6:10:50 GMT
So... here's the rant. What I like about ME3 - I like that, unlike ME1, ME3 doesn't pretend to give the player choices between dialogue that is exactly the same or essentially the same. I like not having to interrupt that dialogue by making fake choices on a dialogue wheel. I like that ME3 takes the time to wrap up a lot of little bits and pieces that just never went anywhere in ME1. As I said before, ME3 contains one of the best story arcs in the entire trilogy - the genophage arc. When you make your decisions throughout that arc, you ARE influencing the game and your character's development significantly. It also contains the culmination of the geth/quarian war - which IMO is another very good story arc with a few more really significant choices. I like James, Samantha, and Steve as new characters in the game. I like that Garrus, Tali and Liara are all back. I did like TIM's character better in ME2, although Sheen's performance is still great in ME3. I don't really miss a lot of the ME2 characters as principals in the game... and you do get to meet up with all of them again eventually. I generally prefer cinematics and voiced dialogues to reading loads of text onscreen even though this does limit the number of choices available in an RGP game. Actually before I started playing I thought ME3 was supposed to do just that, eliminate all those options that resulted in the same answer but it goes much further than I expected and I definitely notice a lot less dialogue and some of the choices are made for me even though I have full decisions turned on, interaction with other more generic NPCs is severely lacking too. I don't dislike the charcters necessarily, Garrus and Ashley always been cool to have as squadmates because I wanted to play mostly with guns but as far as backstory they didn't have a lot to tell and still don't. Jack in contrast has a great backstory, Samara and Thane also have interesting stories to tell and both DLC characters Zaeed and Kasumi deserved to be explored further, all of these and even some NPCs like Aria T'loak would've been great squadmates to recruit and have on the normandy permanently. Nearly all the squadmates in 2 are interesting and have a lot to say. |
|
inherit
2156
0
Dec 28, 2016 23:20:33 GMT
2
edfftw
11
Nov 21, 2016 20:22:05 GMT
November 2016
edfftw
|
Post by edfftw on Dec 18, 2016 6:26:10 GMT
What does blowing a husk's leg off have to do with anything? No you can't rip an arm off an Atlas. How ever with right Sniper Rifle (Widow, Black Widow, Javelin) You can break the cockpit screen and kill the guy controlling it. Thus allowing you to hijack the Atlas for yourself. It doesn't? you can't have combat without enemies and you surely can't have a better experience If all enemies feel the same way. Controls are better, enemies so far seem a lot worse, just caught a cannibal throwing grenades, felt a bit unexpected from this type of enemy, fought turian as well, more cerberus and also a harvester, so far all feel pretty much the same and my bullets don't seem to punch them back as much as it did to the mercs in 2, you could really tell when a bullet hit them as their reactions and animations were better. Exception would be the Geth, and I didn't like fighting those that much for that reason. I will surely play a few more missions and get through Tuchanka but I can see myself shelving it, I can only take mediocre shooting with great RPG elements and characters, or great shooting with not so great RPG elements, so far the game doesn't seem to excel at either one. |
|
inherit
35
0
7,697
crashsuit
1,753
August 2016
crashsuit
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, KOTOR, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
crashsuit
crashsuit
2,140
2,789
|
Post by crashsuit on Dec 18, 2016 7:33:00 GMT
if the OP is so negative on the game now, they should probably quit and move on... before they get locked into spending their lives on a forum complaining about a game they just never liked Or even worse, what if they got so invested in complaining, that after the original forum shut down, they had to make an account on the new forum just so they could keep complaining. Good thing none of the other forum members here fit that description, though. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
1122
0
May 17, 2024 22:53:12 GMT
Deleted
0
May 17, 2024 22:53:12 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2016 13:45:19 GMT
So... here's the rant. What I like about ME3 - I like that, unlike ME1, ME3 doesn't pretend to give the player choices between dialogue that is exactly the same or essentially the same. I like not having to interrupt that dialogue by making fake choices on a dialogue wheel. I like that ME3 takes the time to wrap up a lot of little bits and pieces that just never went anywhere in ME1. As I said before, ME3 contains one of the best story arcs in the entire trilogy - the genophage arc. When you make your decisions throughout that arc, you ARE influencing the game and your character's development significantly. It also contains the culmination of the geth/quarian war - which IMO is another very good story arc with a few more really significant choices. I like James, Samantha, and Steve as new characters in the game. I like that Garrus, Tali and Liara are all back. I did like TIM's character better in ME2, although Sheen's performance is still great in ME3. I don't really miss a lot of the ME2 characters as principals in the game... and you do get to meet up with all of them again eventually. I generally prefer cinematics and voiced dialogues to reading loads of text onscreen even though this does limit the number of choices available in an RGP game. Actually before I started playing I thought ME3 was supposed to do just that, eliminate all those options that resulted in the same answer but it goes much further than I expected and I definitely notice a lot less dialogue and some of the choices are made for me even though I have full decisions turned on, interaction with other more generic NPCs is severely lacking too. I don't dislike the charcters necessarily, Garrus and Ashley always been cool to have as squadmates because I wanted to play mostly with guns but as far as backstory they didn't have a lot to tell and still don't. Jack in contrast has a great backstory, Samara and Thane also have interesting stories to tell and both DLC characters Zaeed and Kasumi deserved to be explored further, all of these and even some NPCs like Aria T'loak would've been great squadmates to recruit and have on the normandy permanently. Nearly all the squadmates in 2 are interesting and have a lot to say. Well, as I said, the style of the dialogues is not going to change now that you're halfway through the game; so if it's going to take a major change in that area for the game to "get better" for you, there is just no point in your continuing to play it. FIN |
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Dec 18, 2016 14:50:18 GMT
What does blowing a husk's leg off have to do with anything? No you can't rip an arm off an Atlas. How ever with right Sniper Rifle (Widow, Black Widow, Javelin) You can break the cockpit screen and kill the guy controlling it. Thus allowing you to hijack the Atlas for yourself. It doesn't? you can't have combat without enemies and you surely can't have a better experience If all enemies feel the same way. Controls are better, enemies so far seem a lot worse, just caught a cannibal throwing grenades, felt a bit unexpected from this type of enemy, fought turian as well, more cerberus and also a harvester, so far all feel pretty much the same and my bullets don't seem to punch them back as much as it did to the mercs in 2, you could really tell when a bullet hit them as their reactions and animations were better. Exception would be the Geth, and I didn't like fighting those that much for that reason. I will surely play a few more missions and get through Tuchanka but I can see myself shelving it, I can only take mediocre shooting with great RPG elements and characters, or great shooting with not so great RPG elements, so far the game doesn't seem to excel at either one. And yet it has the same impact. You really seem to be reaching to complain about something. I have seen many reasons many games are bad but you are the first decrying and entire game simply because the enemies don't flinch as much as you would prefer. I genuinely can't take you seriously anymore. Please stop playing the game right now. |
|
inherit
115
0
2,712
capn233
1,708
August 2016
capn233
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by capn233 on Dec 18, 2016 15:08:20 GMT
No 180 on Geth. Ending was fine. They did do a 180 on Geth since they ended up determining they wanted to be like organics and didn't mind the reapers giving them their future. Apparently they are more fickle then we thought. As for the ending, "Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
1122
0
May 17, 2024 22:53:12 GMT
Deleted
0
May 17, 2024 22:53:12 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2016 15:39:26 GMT
No 180 on Geth. Ending was fine. They did do a 180 on Geth since they ended up determining they wanted to be like organics and didn't mind the reapers giving them their future. Apparently they are more fickle then we thought. As for the ending, "Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." I know you'll probably disagree... but I tend to think the seeds of the geth wanting to be "like organics" were sown in ME1... with the reference to them building a religious shrine on Feros. The second reference to making a religious shrine is in ME2 during the Reaper IFF mission, which uses the spires the geth used in converting people into husks. My thought was that perhaps the shift is a side-effect of the Reaper upgrades... making them more human and a means for the Reapers to eventually justify eliminating/harvesting the geth as well. |
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Dec 18, 2016 16:05:38 GMT
No 180 on Geth. Ending was fine. They did do a 180 on Geth since they ended up determining they wanted to be like organics and didn't mind the reapers giving them their future. Apparently they are more fickle then we thought. As for the ending, "Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." Legion specifically mentioned in ME 2 about the Geth trying to understand organics. And understand why the Quarians did what they did during the Morning War. Geth "becoming more human" is the logical end point of that. They learn how organics think and act to allow better interaction with them. The second bit is hard to swallow. Because it requires a lot of not paying attention to be able to say it. Or you must be one of those refuse ending players. You know the people who place their ego as far more important then trillions of lives. Geth are in a literal war for survival against a group that is thousands of years more advanced. Geth suffer from the crippling dependency on other Geth. A weak point that the Quarians were already able to focus on to massive Geth casualties and pushing them to the break of destruction. A weakness the Reapers already exploited to gain control of them. And would continue to exploit in the war. Which would only hurt the Geth as their intelligence is reduced with every Geth program destroyed. Which means as war goes on they would get progressively stupider and less effective. It is a necessity to ensure their own survival. |
|
inherit
2156
0
Dec 28, 2016 23:20:33 GMT
2
edfftw
11
Nov 21, 2016 20:22:05 GMT
November 2016
edfftw
|
Post by edfftw on Dec 18, 2016 20:14:39 GMT
And yet it has the same impact. You really seem to be reaching to complain about something. I have seen many reasons many games are bad but you are the first decrying and entire game simply because the enemies don't flinch as much as you would prefer. I genuinely can't take you seriously anymore. Please stop playing the game right now. You're the one who shouldn't be taken seriously really, It's laughable to say that crappy enemies isn't a big factor in how much better or worse the combat will be in a game where combat represents at least 80% of its gameplay. unless off course you're somebody who prefers LESS instead of more or in this case worse enemies instead of better. YMIR mechs could be shot in the head for a massive explosion or in the arms until one would blow up and render it useless, how fun is it to shoot an atlas If it doesn't matter where you shoot or If nothing particularly exciting or of strategic value happens? playing on hardcore and always aiming for the cockpit always ends up blowing up the mech or maybe I can't have it in that mission where you save Eve but controlling it is as bland as bland could be so not much of a point in doing so. Normal mechs in ME2 also could be used to your advantage in battle, as their explosion would stun nearby enemies, grenades also seemed to stun enemies, I didn't notice that in 3 either, it just seems to damage their health, but I could be wrong. And this is why gaming is so bland and streamlined these days, because some people are way too easy to please or biased towards certain developers. Plus I've never been registered in the original bioware forums nor made any previous complaints about the game. It is my right to complain If I want to though, and it's also my chocie to keep playing or not so save yourself from telling me what to do. All I wanted to hear was already answered, enemies will remain as bland which is defintely quite unexpected tbh, the previous game nailed it in terms of "tactical shooting" and it was a definite improvement over ME1, so it's not unrealistic to expect that a different weapon/upgrade would influence enemy reactions, but aside from fire ammo or turning them into nothing with turrets there's not much else to be seen. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
1122
0
May 17, 2024 22:53:12 GMT
Deleted
0
May 17, 2024 22:53:12 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2016 21:07:45 GMT
And yet it has the same impact. You really seem to be reaching to complain about something. I have seen many reasons many games are bad but you are the first decrying and entire game simply because the enemies don't flinch as much as you would prefer. I genuinely can't take you seriously anymore. Please stop playing the game right now. You're the one who shouldn't be taken seriously really, It's laughable to say that crappy enemies isn't a big factor in how much better or worse the combat will be in a game where combat represents at least 80% of its gameplay. unless off course you're somebody who prefers LESS instead of more or in this case worse enemies instead of better. YMIR mechs could be shot in the head for a massive explosion or in the arms until one would blow up and render it useless, how fun is it to shoot an atlas If it doesn't matter where you shoot or If nothing particularly exciting or of strategic value happens? playing on hardcore and always aiming for the cockpit always ends up blowing up the mech or maybe I can't have it in that mission where you save Eve but controlling it is as bland as bland could be so not much of a point in doing so. Normal mechs in ME2 also could be used to your advantage in battle, as their explosion would stun nearby enemies, grenades also seemed to stun enemies, I didn't notice that in 3 either, it just seems to damage their health, but I could be wrong. And this is why gaming is so bland and streamlined these days, because some people are way too easy to please or biased towards certain developers. Plus I've never been registered in the original bioware forums nor made any previous complaints about the game. It is my right to complain If I want to though, and it's also my chocie to keep playing or not so save yourself from telling me what to do. All I wanted to hear was already answered, enemies will remain as bland which is defintely quite unexpected tbh, the previous game nailed it in terms of "tactical shooting" and it was a definite improvement over ME1, so it's not unrealistic to expect that a different weapon/upgrade would influence enemy reactions, but aside from fire ammo or turning them into nothing with turrets there's not much else to be seen. In my experience, creative people are not really inclined to risk making more and better creative works by the people who just continually rip their efforts to shreds. They more likely tend to get discouraged and quit. We wouldn't even have an ME2 if some people who were "way too easy to please" didn't like ME1 despite its recognizably clunky combat, dialogue issues, several bugs, and assorted other flaws. |
|
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: 10,669 Likes: 18,573
inherit
2309
0
May 17, 2024 19:53:27 GMT
18,573
sjsharp2010
Go Team!
10,669
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 Dec 18, 2016 21:40:02 GMT
What does blowing a husk's leg off have to do with anything? No you can't rip an arm off an Atlas. How ever with right Sniper Rifle (Widow, Black Widow, Javelin) You can break the cockpit screen and kill the guy controlling it. Thus allowing you to hijack the Atlas for yourself. You know, I always thought that hijacking an Atlas was restricted to the Grissom Academy mission because I could never pull it off afterwards. I have always wound up destroying the Atlas, I always use a sniper rifle and target the cockpit. Is there a trick to it? Hijacking an Atlas can be done as I've done it a fwe times but it's not easy as genreally I end up destroying them as well but I have gained control of a few of them. |
|
inherit
1407
0
Sept 2, 2016 19:28:30 GMT
4,343
shechinah
Ser Barksalot - Hiatus
2,584
Sept 2, 2016 18:49:21 GMT
September 2016
shechinah
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by shechinah on Dec 18, 2016 21:56:15 GMT
You know, I always thought that hijacking an Atlas was restricted to the Grissom Academy mission because I could never pull it off afterwards. I have always wound up destroying the Atlas, I always use a sniper rifle and target the cockpit. Is there a trick to it? Hijacking an Atlas can be done as I've done it a fwe times but it's not easy as genreally I end up destroying them as well but I have gained control of a few of them. I'm starting to wonder if I just have really lousy luck with them  |
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Dec 18, 2016 21:59:07 GMT
And yet it has the same impact. You really seem to be reaching to complain about something. I have seen many reasons many games are bad but you are the first decrying and entire game simply because the enemies don't flinch as much as you would prefer. I genuinely can't take you seriously anymore. Please stop playing the game right now. You're the one who shouldn't be taken seriously really, It's laughable to say that crappy enemies isn't a big factor in how much better or worse the combat will be in a game where combat represents at least 80% of its gameplay. unless off course you're somebody who prefers LESS instead of more or in this case worse enemies instead of better. YMIR mechs could be shot in the head for a massive explosion or in the arms until one would blow up and render it useless, how fun is it to shoot an atlas If it doesn't matter where you shoot or If nothing particularly exciting or of strategic value happens? playing on hardcore and always aiming for the cockpit always ends up blowing up the mech or maybe I can't have it in that mission where you save Eve but controlling it is as bland as bland could be so not much of a point in doing so. Normal mechs in ME2 also could be used to your advantage in battle, as their explosion would stun nearby enemies, grenades also seemed to stun enemies, I didn't notice that in 3 either, it just seems to damage their health, but I could be wrong. And this is why gaming is so bland and streamlined these days, because some people are way too easy to please or biased towards certain developers. Plus I've never been registered in the original bioware forums nor made any previous complaints about the game. It is my right to complain If I want to though, and it's also my chocie to keep playing or not so save yourself from telling me what to do. All I wanted to hear was already answered, enemies will remain as bland which is defintely quite unexpected tbh, the previous game nailed it in terms of "tactical shooting" and it was a definite improvement over ME1, so it's not unrealistic to expect that a different weapon/upgrade would influence enemy reactions, but aside from fire ammo or turning them into nothing with turrets there's not much else to be seen. There was never a need to shoot off a YMIR's arms. Aiming for head or chest was all that needed to be done. You claim you know all about how to take on Atlas yet you ignore that shooting at the exhaust port on back increases damage. As if if you blow off the armor plating on the crotch or shoulder plating and shoot at it. You do increased damage. The crotch part will cause a stun effect on them. As well the set up around YMIR's head and large explosion it really was only useful if you are a Soldier or Infiltrator class. As a Vanguard trying to do what with a shotgun was more likely to end with my own death from the explosion. Atlas how ever I can take down using weak spots just as easily with a Solider or Infiltrator as much as a Vanguard. And thanks to increase in power combo capabilities and weak points I can effectively attack an Atlas without being kicked down on for not having the right class. And that isn't taking into account the capability to high jack it with right weapon set up. Which can be very useful on higher level difficulties as it gives you a weapon capable of 1 shoting most bad guys around you. And since the Mech takes all the damage you are safe till you get out or mech explodes. So yea YMIR's can explode and only effect enemies within their range. While with an Atlas I can take control of it, us the guided missile and massive Lost Planet 2 VS Shotgun sized weapon to slaughter them. Then slowly hunt down the few remaining survivors and punch them to death with the Atlas. And the capability to do that puts the Atlas light years a head off YMIR. Which is basically just a bomb which will kill you just as much as it will harm the other guys unless you are sitting safely back with a sniper rifle. Grenades lack stunning effect. At least unless it is used to take out their shield because you can combo them with powers to do more damage. If they are primed with fire, electric or ice a frag grenade will trigger either a Fire, Tech, Cryo explosion. Which besides give a little bonus damage it also will do x2 damage to armor or x2 damage to shield/barrier or slow enemies down by 30%. Depending on if it is fire, tech or cryo explosion. This is why I said I can't take you seriously anymore. You have yet to even scratch the basic surface of the combat in the game and are declaring it bland and boring without understanding it all. I was willing to give you time to learn the game but then you started to make judgements without fully understanding it. And your moaning and complaining about it didn't help either. I would much rather you stop playing then have someone moan and complain about something they don't seem to fully understand. And use extremely superficial comparisons to validate their uneducated complaints. |
|
inherit
115
0
2,712
capn233
1,708
August 2016
capn233
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by capn233 on Dec 19, 2016 1:11:57 GMT
They did do a 180 on Geth since they ended up determining they wanted to be like organics and didn't mind the reapers giving them their future. Apparently they are more fickle then we thought. As for the ending, "Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." I know you'll probably disagree... but I tend to think the seeds of the geth wanting to be "like organics" were sown in ME1... with the reference to them building a religious shrine on Feros. The second reference to making a religious shrine is in ME2 during the Reaper IFF mission, which uses the spires the geth used in converting people into husks. My thought was that perhaps the shift is a side-effect of the Reaper upgrades... making them more human and a means for the Reapers to eventually justify eliminating/harvesting the geth as well. Yes we see some Reaper worship in ME1, but of course those are the Heretics not the true Geth. Also it isn't really explored in a lot of detail in that game, so it is unclear the motivation behind that shrine on Feros. Saren says that Sovereign scoffs at the devotion of the Heretics, but is that just disdain for things much less advanced then him, or does it really mean it didn't want worship? I don't know. Dragon's teeth are Reaper tech, and the heretics didn't seem to make shrines with them in ME1, and in ME2 on IFF it was the Cerberus personnel that were involved with those teeth as the only Geth platform around was Legion and he wasn't there to make husks or anything, just to get the data core. Mostly Legion seems to speak about how the true Geth do not want to be involved with the Reapers, talks often about the difference between organics and Geth, agrees with ideas like not applying organic morality to Geth, and even call "benign anthropomorphism" racist. The only hint he might want to be more organic is the N7 armor, but it isn't clear to me that this meant all the runtimes really wanted to be an individual as opposed to simply emulating Shepard's exploits. The Geth grand plan in ME2 times is to build the massive Dyson like array that they can all upload into so they can share data more readily. Seems pretty far from trying to become individual bipeds running around like organics. I can buy that after the Quarians pull a typical bone-headed Quarian move and attack that they would accept Reaper help. But after an alternative means of defeating or making peace with the Quarians is available, I don't understand why they would want to retain the Reaper upgrade code. Nor did it really make much sense for whatever upgrades to turn 1100 runtimes into a single individual anyway. Maybe you are right and the upgrades changed their cognition. Or maybe it wasn't the upgrades at all and they had finally suffered enough to become conscious and alive.  Hey Legion, look at this upgrade code.
Hmmm. It doesn't look like anything to me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
1122
0
May 17, 2024 22:53:12 GMT
Deleted
0
May 17, 2024 22:53:12 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2016 1:35:39 GMT
I know you'll probably disagree... but I tend to think the seeds of the geth wanting to be "like organics" were sown in ME1... with the reference to them building a religious shrine on Feros. The second reference to making a religious shrine is in ME2 during the Reaper IFF mission, which uses the spires the geth used in converting people into husks. My thought was that perhaps the shift is a side-effect of the Reaper upgrades... making them more human and a means for the Reapers to eventually justify eliminating/harvesting the geth as well. Yes we see some Reaper worship in ME1, but of course those are the Heretics not the true Geth. Also it isn't really explored in a lot of detail in that game, so it is unclear the motivation behind that shrine on Feros. Saren says that Sovereign scoffs at the devotion of the Heretics, but is that just disdain for things much less advanced then him, or does it really mean it didn't want worship? I don't know. Dragon's teeth are Reaper tech, and the heretics didn't seem to make shrines with them in ME1, and in ME2 on IFF it was the Cerberus personnel that were involved with those teeth as the only Geth platform around was Legion and he wasn't there to make husks or anything, just to get the data core. Mostly Legion seems to speak about how the true Geth do not want to be involved with the Reapers, talks often about the difference between organics and Geth, agrees with ideas like not applying organic morality to Geth, and even call "benign anthropomorphism" racist. The only hint he might want to be more organic is the N7 armor, but it isn't clear to me that this meant all the runtimes really wanted to be an individual as opposed to simply emulating Shepard's exploits. The Geth grand plan in ME2 times is to build the massive Dyson like array that they can all upload into so they can share data more readily. Seems pretty far from trying to become individual bipeds running around like organics. I can buy that after the Quarians pull a typical bone-headed Quarian move and attack that they would accept Reaper help. But after an alternative means of defeating or making peace with the Quarians is available, I don't understand why they would want to retain the Reaper upgrade code. Nor did it really make much sense for whatever upgrades to turn 1100 runtimes into a single individual anyway. Maybe you are right and the upgrades changed their cognition. Or maybe it wasn't the upgrades at all and they had finally suffered enough to become conscious and alive. Hey Legion, look at this upgrade code.
Hmmm. It doesn't look like anything to me.
Yep - called it... I knew you'd disagree. That's OK. My only real point is that I don't think it was a full 180 (maybe a 120)  I think it was one possible direction they considered taking the story in from the outset, but as you said, left it undeveloped in ME1... like they did with a lot of basic concepts... some of which we never did hear from again... like Banes. Still... worship is a "human thing" and the idea of the geth worshipping Sovereign was introduced in ME1. Saren even mentions Sovereign being insulted by their worship. All of this was before the geth concept of "heretics" vs. "true geth" was introduced in ME2 and before, for all we know, the idea of making them into heretics was even considered. The first 180 may have indeed been removing the idea of them wanting to be more human in ME2. |
|
inherit
738
0
4,632
Link"Guess"ski
3,882
August 2016
linkenski
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda
Linkenski
asblinkenski
Linkenski
|
Post by Link"Guess"ski on Dec 19, 2016 1:37:35 GMT
ME3 sucked, and I agree, but on occasions it's kind of good, so really it's just a mixed bag as a fan. As a standalone game I think it's completely fine, save the ending, but as a fan who loved ME1 and especially ME2 I was thoroughly disappointed in so many fundamental aspects of the third game; the premise of the plot; the autodialogue; the awful side-quests; the unimaginative writing at times; the jesusification of Shepard and more.
If you can look aside those things or if they don't even bother you you'll think the game is amazing and even if you hate the ending you'll probably say the game is "95% perfect" or whatever. For me it's kind of a 6/10 game but because I love Mass Effect and I wanted it to be as good as ME2 is (at least in my head) I went in for the long haul and ended up having a generally frustrated playthrough and then several more because after all it does take all the bold directions the series had been building towards -- it just does it in a way that was less than fulfilling for my tastes, including the mostly well-done Tuchanka arc.
I think overall it was the consistent lack of player agency and roleplaying that bothered me the most including the lack of a neutral attitude for Shepard. If those were in the game I would've thought this game was a lot better.
|
|
inherit
1480
0
1,080
gothpunkboy89
2,311
September 2016
gothpunkboy89
|
Post by gothpunkboy89 on Dec 19, 2016 5:13:04 GMT
ME3 sucked, and I agree, but on occasions it's kind of good, so really it's just a mixed bag as a fan. As a standalone game I think it's completely fine, save the ending, but as a fan who loved ME1 and especially ME2 I was thoroughly disappointed in so many fundamental aspects of the third game; the premise of the plot; the autodialogue; the awful side-quests; the unimaginative writing at times; the jesusification of Shepard and more. If you can look aside those things or if they don't even bother you you'll think the game is amazing and even if you hate the ending you'll probably say the game is "95% perfect" or whatever. For me it's kind of a 6/10 game but because I love Mass Effect and I wanted it to be as good as ME2 is (at least in my head) I went in for the long haul and ended up having a generally frustrated playthrough and then several more because after all it does take all the bold directions the series had been building towards -- it just does it in a way that was less than fulfilling for my tastes, including the mostly well-done Tuchanka arc. I think overall it was the consistent lack of player agency and roleplaying that bothered me the most including the lack of a neutral attitude for Shepard. If those were in the game I would've thought this game was a lot better. It has always struck me as funny when people complain about ME 3. Because every single one of those complaints can be equally leveled against ME 1 and 2. Always fascinates me how people can say it was bad game X but perfectly ok in game Y. |
|
inherit
2156
0
Dec 28, 2016 23:20:33 GMT
2
edfftw
11
Nov 21, 2016 20:22:05 GMT
November 2016
edfftw
|
Post by edfftw on Dec 19, 2016 6:16:59 GMT
It has always struck me as funny when people complain about ME 3. Because every single one of those complaints can be equally leveled against ME 1 and 2. Always fascinates me how people can say it was bad game X but perfectly ok in game Y. No they can't be equally leveled, ME1 combat wasn't great but wasn't that bad as some claim, it also had a lot more RPG elements to it that were dropped in the sequels with ME3 having the least. Did the combat improve immensely as some claim specially in relation to how much less RPG it has become? Not at all, the game still feels very clunky and now stripped out of the core elements that made it interesting it just feels like a generic shooter. At least ME2 had great characters and way more dialogue and interaction, and not all the missions felt like shooting from start to finish, even without the exploration of amount of side quests from the first, it still managed to turn out pretty good. I'm currently at the Citadel after repelling the Cerberus attack, completed Tuchanka which was a chore tbh and the only good thing about it was the very end with Mordin Solus. Also so far I have seen about 3 or 4 paragon actions and one single charm/intimidate option in the dialogue. None of the characters say that much either when you decide to have a talk. You claim I haven't scratched the surface of the combat, didn't I mention I was playing solely as soldier with squadmates that use primarily guns? Brutes and Atlas mechs can drop their panties? so what? It's not nearly as fun as ripping their limbs off and getting a nice explosion that can be used strategically, but it isn't just about stategy, blowing husks legs off was fun, and more realistic actually. But apparently you prefer less enemy reactions, I don't even know what to say to that! lol Dragon's Dogma, a totally different game, is largely fun because the enemies have a multitude of reactions, If they didn't the combat would be so damn bland. Also took the time to shoot cerberus troops on the foot, arm, etc, you only get an animation AFTER the final shot, and it's really crappy btw, there's one single animation before that to simulate the kickback from your bullets when they hit, but seems random or only when you shoot at the center of their body. Shooting the arm of a YMIR FYI was quite useful If you shot its machinegun arm he'd still have quite some health left but would be rendered useless and die quickly afterwards rather than just "shooting at the middle". To me seems a lot better to have enemies that require the player to think rather than bullet sponges but each to their own! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
1122
0
May 17, 2024 22:53:12 GMT
Deleted
0
May 17, 2024 22:53:12 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2016 10:01:26 GMT
It has always struck me as funny when people complain about ME 3. Because every single one of those complaints can be equally leveled against ME 1 and 2. Always fascinates me how people can say it was bad game X but perfectly ok in game Y. No they can't be equally leveled, ME1 combat wasn't great but wasn't that bad as some claim, it also had a lot more RPG elements to it that were dropped in the sequels with ME3 having the least. Did the combat improve immensely as some claim specially in relation to how much less RPG it has become? Not at all, the game still feels very clunky and now stripped out of the core elements that made it interesting it just feels like a generic shooter. At least ME2 had great characters and way more dialogue and interaction, and not all the missions felt like shooting from start to finish, even without the exploration of amount of side quests from the first, it still managed to turn out pretty good. I'm currently at the Citadel after repelling the Cerberus attack, completed Tuchanka which was a chore tbh and the only good thing about it was the very end with Mordin Solus. Also so far I have seen about 3 or 4 paragon actions and one single charm/intimidate option in the dialogue. None of the characters say that much either when you decide to have a talk. You claim I haven't scratched the surface of the combat, didn't I mention I was playing solely as soldier with squadmates that use primarily guns? Brutes and Atlas mechs can drop their panties? so what? It's not nearly as fun as ripping their limbs off and getting a nice explosion that can be used strategically, but it isn't just about stategy, blowing husks legs off was fun, and more realistic actually. But apparently you prefer less enemy reactions, I don't even know what to say to that! lol Dragon's Dogma, a totally different game, is largely fun because the enemies have a multitude of reactions, If they didn't the combat would be so damn bland. Also took the time to shoot cerberus troops on the foot, arm, etc, you only get an animation AFTER the final shot, and it's really crappy btw, there's one single animation before that to simulate the kickback from your bullets when they hit, but seems random or only when you shoot at the center of their body. Shooting the arm of a YMIR FYI was quite useful If you shot its machinegun arm he'd still have quite some health left but would be rendered useless and die quickly afterwards rather than just "shooting at the middle". To me seems a lot better to have enemies that require the player to think rather than bullet sponges but each to their own! Well, you're through Tuchanka... best of the game (in the opinion of more people than I).. and you still don't like anything about it. So quit already. Go back and play ME2 again or pick up one of the other games in your library you like so much. Oh... and look what "way too easy to please" person is now suddenly defending a less than perfect Bioware game as being "not as bad as some people claim." (Gotcha). Name one RPG element that was dropped between ME1 and ME3. Leveling up is still there; weapons upgrades are still there; customization of the character is still there; selection of dialogue, still there;, tracking of certain choices made; still there; codex, still there; journal, still there; ability to change the order of missions, still there; ability to skip over some missions and have the consequences of doing do reflected in the game, still there, etc.... done a little differently, certainly... but not "dropped" altogether... and, IMO, some of those elements were much better done in ME3 than in ME1. Also, you also seem to be implying that the missions in ME3 feel like shooting from start to finish... Let's take Grissom Academy (which is a side mission) - You start with a short battle, then talk with Kahlee Sanders about biotic students and her relationship with Anderson, then you proceed to an area where to rescue Reilly Belarmine and talk with him about his sister, who you can talk with and rescue after another short battle, then you proceed to Orion Hall, where you can talk with Jack, you talk with Kahlee Sanders over the radio, and you talk with some of the students, after the next battle which includes lots of banter with Jack and the students in it, you encounter another group of biotic students and can catch up with David Archer about how he's been doing at the Academy since you sent him there in ME2, then there is another battle, again with a lot of banter going on after which you proceed to the shuttle where you have yet another conversation with Jack and Kahlee. The mission ends with a vid comm discussion with Anderson. Now let's look at an ME1 side mission - Luna VI - Earths moon - you can go to collect a few items of salvage from a probe by playing the same sort of "frogger-type" hack game as you do for every crate, mineral, probe and wreckage in the entire game (i.e. you can probably repeat that same game 100 or more times over the course of the game if you bother to try to collect all the loot), then you have the option of shooting out two side groups of turrets, but you can go to the main facility without doing that bit of shooting. Once you shoot out the 6 turrets on the main facility, you enter 3 different buildings and shoot out a bunch of drones, then you shoot out 8 stationary VI pillars. After which you're rewarded with a text message that says HELP in binary code and a level up to a specialization class... no dialogue whatsoever. You can't even get your squadmates to comment on the view of earth from the moon. ... and the Luna mission isn't an aberration from the norm... MOST of the side missions have, at most, one or two lines of auto-dialogue delivered at the end by one of your squadmates. Only a few involve even a couple of lines of interactive dialogue with an NPC... and most of them have absolutely no impact on the outcome of the game in ME1. |
|
inherit
♨ Retired
24
0
May 17, 2024 21:07:26 GMT
24,302
themikefest
14,831
August 2016
themikefest
21,655
15,426
|
Post by themikefest on Dec 19, 2016 13:38:07 GMT
I've played the games numerous times. I can list more dislikes than likes for each game, but I still play them.
The combat wasn't bad for all 3 games. The part that stuck out the most and laughed at was Shepard's forever run in ME3. I will admit it did make going through the game faster.
|
|
I think it was one possible direction they considered taking the story in from the outset, but as you said, left it undeveloped in ME1... like they did with a lot of basic concepts... some of which we never did hear from again... like Banes. Still... worship is a "human thing" and the idea of the geth worshipping Sovereign was introduced in ME1. Saren even mentions Sovereign being insulted by their worship. All of this was before the geth concept of "heretics" vs. "true geth" was introduced in ME2 and before, for all we know, the idea of making them into heretics was even considered. The first 180 may have indeed been removing the idea of them wanting to be more human in ME2.
