Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5

Author Topic: mass effect vs 1 vs 2 vs 3  (Read 9039 times)

Urist McScoopbeard

  • Bay Watcher
  • Damnit Scoopz!
    • View Profile
Re: mass effect vs 1 vs 2 vs 3
« Reply #30 on: December 27, 2012, 07:58:11 pm »

Damnable NanoTrasen patenting their anti-reaper spess magik!
Logged
This conversation is getting disturbing fast, disturbingly erotic.

fenrif

  • Bay Watcher
  • Dare to be stupid.
    • View Profile
Re: mass effect vs 1 vs 2 vs 3
« Reply #31 on: December 27, 2012, 09:11:43 pm »

Er, you have united the forces of the whole galaxy. If you do that, it means you are going to destroy a hugely overpowered enemy. Yeah you destroyed them using MAGIK! but they are hugely overpowered so you had to find something that could destroy them even if you have rallied the whole galaxy.

Why did you have to destroy them though?

And that's not even what I'm talking about, I'm talking about the vast differences in relative military power between A reaper in ME1 and Hordes of reapers in ME3. Not the fact that you unite the whole galaxy to defeat them. They go down repeatedly in ME3 to far far less than the forces of a galaxy united. I dont even think you do unite the whole galaxy in ME3?

Logged

MetalSlimeHunt

  • Bay Watcher
  • Gerrymander Commander
    • View Profile
Re: mass effect vs 1 vs 2 vs 3
« Reply #32 on: December 27, 2012, 09:31:52 pm »

Sovereign might well have been more powerful than your average Reaper. They definitely don't all have the same level of power, what with Harbinger being described as the largest and having three main lasers to the usual one.
Logged
Quote from: Thomas Paine
To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.
Quote
No Gods, No Masters.

GreatJustice

  • Bay Watcher
  • ☭The adventure continues (refresh)☭
    • View Profile
Re: mass effect vs 1 vs 2 vs 3
« Reply #33 on: December 27, 2012, 10:01:53 pm »

Mass Effect 1's combat was repetitive as anything and got very annoying very fast, not to mention the inventory. I swear they reused the same "generic planet" level several times, and they reused the even more repetitive "generic bunker" level more than THAT. There was plenty of cool story and side missions, but I couldn't be bothered to get it all done when so much of it amounted to "Here's some backstory, now fight in the same goddamn bunker against an enemy of some sort!".

ME2's combat, meanwhile, at least felt pretty fun. Sure, it was a pile of hiding behind cover and shooting ducks who poked their heads out, but it was still satisfying. The amount of side content suffered, but it was generally a lot less generic than ME1 so it all worked out.

ME3 I haven't played, not in the least because the DLCs for ME2 and ME3 itself aren't on steam, and I'm not buying anything through that stupid Cerberus network.
Logged
The person supporting regenerating health, when asked why you can see when shot in the eye justified it as 'you put on an eyepatch'. When asked what happens when you are then shot in the other eye, he said that you put an eyepatch on that eye. When asked how you'd be able to see, he said that your first eye would have healed by then.

Professional Bridge Toll Collector?

warhammer651

  • Bay Watcher
  • [prefstring: Attack_Attack_Attack]
    • View Profile
Re: mass effect vs 1 vs 2 vs 3
« Reply #34 on: December 27, 2012, 10:20:53 pm »

My biggest problem with 2 is that it just felt unnecessary. Nothing particularly changed, and 90% of the story missions are  "go here, recruit this guy". At least the first game got that shit out of the way in the first act, leaving a decent amount of room for chasing the BBEG
Logged
Tell me your mother isn't a Great Old One, please.

fenrif

  • Bay Watcher
  • Dare to be stupid.
    • View Profile
Re: mass effect vs 1 vs 2 vs 3
« Reply #35 on: December 27, 2012, 10:51:32 pm »

My biggest problem with 2 is that it just felt unnecessary. Nothing particularly changed, and 90% of the story missions are  "go here, recruit this guy". At least the first game got that shit out of the way in the first act, leaving a decent amount of room for chasing the BBEG

The writers of ME3 agree with you, apparently. ME2 was completely unnecessary! :P
Logged

Darkmere

  • Bay Watcher
  • Exploding me won't bring back your honey.
    • View Profile
Re: mass effect vs 1 vs 2 vs 3
« Reply #36 on: December 27, 2012, 11:05:56 pm »

I did like the parts on the chart where the maker includes things like, picking up a datapad during a plot mission to pad the fetch quest part. And splitting off some missions into a worse category because s/he didn't like them.

By that logic, all 60-whatever mineral scans from 1 should count as separate fetch quests. Or is it okay when it's just one quest with 60 fetches?
Logged
And then, they will be weaponized. Like everything in this game, from kittens to babies, everything is a potential device of murder.
So if baseless speculation is all we have, we might as well treat it like fact.

Geen

  • Bay Watcher
  • I'm gonna live forever, or die trying.
    • View Profile
Re: mass effect vs 1 vs 2 vs 3
« Reply #37 on: December 30, 2012, 10:12:23 pm »

Aaaaahhh EA. You probably wonder why most people with a brain cell hate you.
Couldn't be the ending; that TOTALLY made sense.
I just realized something. What ME3 needed was a good old case of Old Man Henderson.
This. This so very hard.
Logged

mainiac

  • Bay Watcher
  • Na vazeal kwah-kai
    • View Profile
Re: mass effect vs 1 vs 2 vs 3
« Reply #38 on: December 31, 2012, 12:07:17 am »

Also, I'm not sure where the "everything was unstoppable in 1, then it wasn't and that sucks" arguments come from. The threat was already there in 1, active, incoming. If it were truly unstoppable, the game would be unwinnable?

It really sucks from a sci-fi ideas perspective.

Mass Effect was interesting because it provided an out for the old sci-fi problem of nukes vs. cavemen.  Cosmic time scales being what they are it's very unlikely that several races would develop exactly the same technology levels at the same time.  Just look at what happened on earth when one group of people got ahead by a tiny amount of time in cosmic terms, there was no competition..  Realistically the Federation and the Klingons shouldn't be fighting in space, one of them would have nukes while the other was still living in caves.

But Mass Effect...
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Logged
Ancient Babylonian god of RAEG
--------------
[CAN_INTERNET]
[PREFSTRING:google]
"Don't tell me what you value. Show me your budget and I will tell you what you value"
« Last Edit: February 10, 1988, 03:27:23 pm by UR MOM »
mainiac is always a little sarcastic, at least.

fenrif

  • Bay Watcher
  • Dare to be stupid.
    • View Profile
Re: mass effect vs 1 vs 2 vs 3
« Reply #39 on: December 31, 2012, 12:42:55 am »

  Realistically the Federation and the Klingons shouldn't be fighting in space, one of them would have nukes while the other was still living in caves.

That assumes an incredible amount about a situation no human has ever had even the remotest of experience with.
Logged

mainiac

  • Bay Watcher
  • Na vazeal kwah-kai
    • View Profile
Re: mass effect vs 1 vs 2 vs 3
« Reply #40 on: December 31, 2012, 12:52:16 am »

That assumes an incredible amount about a situation no human has ever had even the remotest of experience with.

No it doesn't.  We understand the time scale the evolution of intelligent life takes place on, billions of years.  It's just elementary statistics from there.  Unless you are taking issue with one of the premises of space opera, which is kinda conceding the whole space opera has an implausibility issue.
Logged
Ancient Babylonian god of RAEG
--------------
[CAN_INTERNET]
[PREFSTRING:google]
"Don't tell me what you value. Show me your budget and I will tell you what you value"
« Last Edit: February 10, 1988, 03:27:23 pm by UR MOM »
mainiac is always a little sarcastic, at least.

fenrif

  • Bay Watcher
  • Dare to be stupid.
    • View Profile
Re: mass effect vs 1 vs 2 vs 3
« Reply #41 on: December 31, 2012, 01:10:19 am »

We understand the time scale the evolution of human life takes place on, we assume that would apply to other intelligent life.We also are assuming that the evolution of intelligent life all starts at different times, or takes the same amount of time to develop technologically.

You say it's elementary statistics, but it's elementary statistics built on a foundation of a lot of assumptions based on our species. I mean for all we know another intelligent life form may not exist, or have ever existed, or ever exist again. Which would mean that realistically the federation wouldn't exist and it'd just be the klingons with nukes.

Logged

mainiac

  • Bay Watcher
  • Na vazeal kwah-kai
    • View Profile
Re: mass effect vs 1 vs 2 vs 3
« Reply #42 on: December 31, 2012, 01:35:59 am »

We understand the time scale the evolution of human life takes place on, we assume that would apply to other intelligent life.We also are assuming that the evolution of intelligent life all starts at different times, or takes the same amount of time to develop technologically.

The first assumption is generally part of space opera.  My entire point is that space opera is built upon unrealistic assumptions and this is one of the set of assumptions that taken together is unrealistic.
The second point is generally part of space opera cannon.  I was specifically praising Mass Effect for changing this point.
And I don't really see how point three offers an out.  Perhaps if a race stagnated technologically for hundreds this wouldn't be an issue.  But I am unaware of any space opera that takes this approach except for Mass Effect and Orson Scott Card's Homecoming Saga (which incidentally does deal with the exact issue of cavemen vs. spacepeople.)  So I am not assuming point three, it's the cannon of space opera that is assuming for me.

I'm not talking about the real world here.  I'm talking about the cannon of space opera universes and how they generally have a glaring plot hole in them.  This is a plot hole that ME1 closed but ME2 reopened.
Logged
Ancient Babylonian god of RAEG
--------------
[CAN_INTERNET]
[PREFSTRING:google]
"Don't tell me what you value. Show me your budget and I will tell you what you value"
« Last Edit: February 10, 1988, 03:27:23 pm by UR MOM »
mainiac is always a little sarcastic, at least.

Darkmere

  • Bay Watcher
  • Exploding me won't bring back your honey.
    • View Profile
Re: mass effect vs 1 vs 2 vs 3
« Reply #43 on: December 31, 2012, 03:51:31 am »

Also, I'm not sure where the "everything was unstoppable in 1, then it wasn't and that sucks" arguments come from. The threat was already there in 1, active, incoming. If it were truly unstoppable, the game would be unwinnable?

It really sucks from a sci-fi ideas perspective.

Mass Effect was interesting because it provided an out for the old sci-fi problem of nukes vs. cavemen.  Cosmic time scales being what they are it's very unlikely that several races would develop exactly the same technology levels at the same time.  Just look at what happened on earth when one group of people got ahead by a tiny amount of time in cosmic terms, there was no competition..  Realistically the Federation and the Klingons shouldn't be fighting in space, one of them would have nukes while the other was still living in caves.

But Mass Effect...
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

That concept is interesting, but completely irrelevant to Mass Effect.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Logged
And then, they will be weaponized. Like everything in this game, from kittens to babies, everything is a potential device of murder.
So if baseless speculation is all we have, we might as well treat it like fact.

Shadowlord

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: mass effect vs 1 vs 2 vs 3
« Reply #44 on: December 31, 2012, 05:47:57 am »

Never heard of this 'Leviathan' DLC before. *googles* Ah, it's RECENT. Came out months after I finished the game, and it extended the backstory without being free! How clever, EA. I know your finances are kind of iffy, but I'm not planning to throw any more money at you any time soon.

Sovereign might well have been more powerful than your average Reaper. They definitely don't all have the same level of power, what with Harbinger being described as the largest and having three main lasers to the usual one.

From what I recall, Sovereign was the equivalent of a Reaper battleship, whereas the Reapers you kill in ME3 (usually through trickery) were usually much smaller, e.g. Reaper destroyers.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

They're also not...
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Honestly, I was not too disappointed with ME3, but I bought it for XBox 360, waited until after the extended/improved endings came out, and played through ME1 and 2 on the 360 first as well. I also didn't buy any of the DLC for any of the games, so I didn't feel like I wasted a bunch of money on it. It was worth what I did spend, and I wouldn't have wanted to waste my money on the PC version to be forced to install Origin. The only real down-side to the console version is the disk-swapping. But there's no Origin. :V

I felt like they improved the gameplay in ME2, and again in ME3, in that they removed boring mind-numbing shit in each game. They took out the "50% of your time is inventory management" from ME1 in ME2, and simplified planet scanning from ME2 for ME3 so you didn't feel compelled to waste 5 minutes scanning every planet to get all the resources. Sure, the plot kind of went "Well, okay, now you have to beat them somehow, and we can't really just let you come up with ideas and do them because uhhhh this isn't that kind of game and it isn't psychic. You'll follow our railroad plot and like it." But whatever. They're telling a story, which you can change parts of, and choose the ending from among a few choices, but not really rewrite on any grand scale.

How much you do in ME2 basically determines how easy or hard it will be to succeed or get the 'best' ending in ME3. If you did EVERYTHING in ME1, and all your companions' loyalty quests in ME2, and lost nobody on the final mission in ME2, then you won't have to do the multiplayer in ME3 to boost your 'score' (but it can still be fun).

Your actions across all three games, in the end, have little effect on the outcome, and you get the same choices at the end no matter what as long as you have enough 'points' from doing/collecting stuff (or not losing people, etc - basically contributing to the war effort). If you didn't have enough, you'd have less choices. Not sure if it's possible to have no choices and fail. You can do the multiplayer up to a point and it boosts your effective score to twice what it normally is if you play MP enough (it decays over time if you stop playing MP too, but once you pass the point where it checks the effective score for the final result, it doesn't matter anymore). (I didn't need to, but still played it a bit. After that mission, because I didn't realize where the cutoff was.)

However, what happens through the games, the path you took to get there, who lives and who dies, that will still have been different, and EA probably intentionally had everyone get the same choices at the end (instead of the ending being decided by your actions across all three games) to avoid forcing people to replay all three games just to get all the different endings. (There is a bit of customization of the endings, but that is mostly clips)

I assume anyone reading this would have the extended/revised ending DLC, which is basically a free patch as long as you don't buy a pre-owned copy of the game. If you do buy it pre-owned, they want $10 for a key, and you're better off just buying it new if it's $35 or less. In a retail store if you want them to get the least money possible. For a console, so Microsoft or Sony get a cut too (theoretically) and you don't have to deal with Origin.

Have I mentioned I hate that EA used Origin's name for their digital distribution platform, after killing them and desecrating the corpse? Okay, I have a long memory. I'll just go complain about how modern Republicans aren't living up to the model set by Abraham Lincoln now.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2012, 05:56:55 am by Shadowlord »
Logged
<Dakkan> There are human laws, and then there are laws of physics. I don't bike in the city because of the second.
Dwarf Fortress Map Archive
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5