Support NeoGAF

[Photolysis]

You are complaining that the multipayer isnt soloable?

Given that the joining in MP is quite poor, and you often end up in games with 2-3 players it would be nice if the rewards or difficulty scaled based on the number of players in the game.

 

[Tess3ract]

The overarching plot didn't add much at all compared to 1, but the individual stories of all the characters hit me a lot more than anything in 1 ever did.

I didn't care for any of them that weren't in me1 other than zaeed and maybe thane. ALL OF THEM had daddy issues of sorts. it was frustrating.

It's why I compared it to dr phil. You're sorting out your teammates personal problems just so they'll give it their all at the end. It feels very weak and I don't feel like a badass at all.

 

[shinobi602]

Well, some people like to see the things that happen in the game actually matter be it choices the player makes or whatever Bioware chooses to make canon. Typically, when your protagonist dies in stories and they go to whatever magical place, they learn a bit about themselves. What did Shepard learn from dying? Nothing. Usually when people die and are then resurrected a couple of years later, it is a huge deal. Did NPCs react realistically when Shepard was brought back to life? Nope. She died for their sins and no one cared.

There isn't a monopoly on what stories can and cannot do. If there was, things would be pretty boring. It's always nice to break the mold, but it can take a skilled writer to do such a thing. The handling of Shepard's death was bad. It had no weight to it, no impact. It was unimportant and was put into the game just because they thought it would be cool. If they moved his death to the end of the game and the Reaper invasion beginning, then it would have been important. It would have had impact. More importantly, it would make people want to get the next game just to see what happens.

But the way ME2 was present, her death was inconsequential. The events of the Arrival are rendered unimportant as well save for the status of Shep at the beginning of the third game. Even if you didn't play the Arrival, your Shep stilled killed 300,000 batarians. Your punishment was disproportionate to your crime and it comes off as a slap on the wrist and it just becomes unimportant.

Smudboy's analysis can be nitpicking at times, but he is correct on others. If you don't want a clumsy story, you shouldn't start the second entry off by killing your protagonist unless you have a thematic plan for them. Bioware doesn't have the skill to pull it off, just like with the kid in the intro. We are meant to connect to him. But why? Because we saw him playing with a toy? Because we spoke a couple of lines to him before he disappears? If our interaction with the kid was more substantial, then watching his shuttle get blown to bits would've had more weight to it. In fact, they could've had an escort mission where you try to get him to a shuttle on foot and death and destruction literally all around you. Then you finally reach a shuttle, put him on there, but you stay so you can meet up with the Normandy and then as you watch it fly away, then it gets destroyed. But, ME3 spoilers ahead

Spoiler

the kid has a much bigger part than we think

. If that's true, then everything is moot.

There is a reason why people who like ME2's story is a minority. The overall plot goes no where. The decisions you made in the previous games don't seem to matter. It's episodic nature doesn't help the main plot much. Bioware's decisions about Shep don't make sense or have little impact. Characters' reactions to Space Jesus don't seem to be... realistic, especially if said Space Jesus looks like a decaying zombie for a bit. And shots of asses that take up half the screen.

I enjoyed ME2 and I liked that they wanted to develop the characters more, but there were better ways to go about all of it.

I understand what you're saying, really I do. But the thing I'm getting at is, smudboy consistently gives off a feeling that there are things you can and can't do when writing a story. He literally says "There are rules for good storytelling". I find that to be pure bullshit. People's imagination are what make stories great.

It doesn't MATTER if "nothing is gained by killing off Shepard" or half of the other things he talked about. My main point is everyone views stories differently, through their own eyes. To him, ok it didn't create an impact, and for many others. But maybe for others it did. Maybe others took it different. I'm just saying that when it comes to storytelling, it is absolutely one of the things I can say is subjective and not objective. That's just my opinion...

On a sidenote about the child dying, Mac Walters recently did an interview and mentioned about that scene:

You’ve seen the [E3 gameplay] opening now. It’s not so much that the child dies, it’s that Shepard senses the loss. So we’re feeling that through Shepard’s eyes, as it were. You see the look on Shepard’s face and you say, ‘Yeah I can understand how that would be hard for him.’

 

[Last Baron]

Downloading the demo gets you XBL Gold until the game's release, yes?

 

[Tess3ract]

Other than the fact Walters is an idiot, when playing people don't think "I'm controlling shepard." the overwhelming majority go "I'm commander shepard"

This is partly why they're so bad, they lack substance and "oomph". Frequently in bioware games they do a thing where you're supposed to feel bad for, but there's zero emotional attachment to whoever the character is.

 

[shinobi602]

Other than the fact Walters is an idiot, when playing people don't think "I'm controlling shepard." the overwhelming majority go "I'm commander shepard"

This is partly why they're so bad, they lack substance and "oomph". Frequently in bioware games they do a thing where you're supposed to feel bad for, but there's zero emotional attachment to whoever the character is.

Meh, guess it just boils down to personal tastes... I genuinely felt pretty emotional at that scene with the child, personally.

 

[CrazyDude]

Well, some people like to see the things that happen in the game actually matter be it choices the player makes or whatever Bioware chooses to make canon. Typically, when your protagonist dies in stories and they go to whatever magical place, they learn a bit about themselves. What did Shepard learn from dying? Nothing. Usually when people die and are then resurrected a couple of years later, it is a huge deal. Did NPCs react realistically when Shepard was brought back to life? Nope. She died for their sins and no one cared.

There isn't a monopoly on what stories can and cannot do. If there was, things would be pretty boring. It's always nice to break the mold, but it can take a skilled writer to do such a thing. The handling of Shepard's death was bad. It had no weight to it, no impact. It was unimportant and was put into the game just because they thought it would be cool. If they moved his death to the end of the game and the Reaper invasion beginning, then it would have been important. It would have had impact. More importantly, it would make people want to get the next game just to see what happens.

But the way ME2 was present, her death was inconsequential. The events of the Arrival are rendered unimportant as well save for the status of Shep at the beginning of the third game. Even if you didn't play the Arrival, your Shep stilled killed 300,000 batarians. Your punishment was disproportionate to your crime and it comes off as a slap on the wrist and it just becomes unimportant.

Smudboy's analysis can be nitpicking at times, but he is correct on others. If you don't want a clumsy story, you shouldn't start the second entry off by killing your protagonist unless you have a thematic plan for them. Bioware doesn't have the skill to pull it off, just like with the kid in the intro. We are meant to connect to him. But why? Because we saw him playing with a toy? Because we spoke a couple of lines to him before he disappears? If our interaction with the kid was more substantial, then watching his shuttle get blown to bits would've had more weight to it. In fact, they could've had an escort mission where you try to get him to a shuttle on foot and death and destruction literally all around you. Then you finally reach a shuttle, put him on there, but you stay so you can meet up with the Normandy and then as you watch it fly away, then it gets destroyed. But, ME3 spoilers ahead

Spoiler

the kid has a much bigger part than we think

. If that's true, then everything is moot.

There is a reason why people who like ME2's story is a minority. The overall plot goes no where. The decisions you made in the previous games don't seem to matter. It's episodic nature doesn't help the main plot much. Bioware's decisions about Shep don't make sense or have little impact. Characters' reactions to Space Jesus don't seem to be... realistic, especially if said Space Jesus looks like a decaying zombie for a bit. And shots of asses that take up half the screen.

I enjoyed ME2 and I liked that they wanted to develop the characters more, but there were better ways to go about all of it.

Spoiler

What do you mean much bigger part than we think? The kid just ends up dieing, I don't see how it can play any other part.

 

[Photolysis]

I understand what you're saying, really I do. But the thing I'm getting at is, smudboy consistently gives off a feeling that there are things you can and can't do when writing a story. He literally says "There are rules for good storytelling". I find that to be pure bullshit. People's imagination are what make stories great.

It doesn't MATTER if "nothing is gained by killing off Shepard" or half of the other things he talked about. My main point is everyone views stories differently, through their own eyes. To him, ok it didn't create an impact, and for many others. But maybe for others it did. Maybe others took it different. I'm just saying that when it comes to storytelling, it is absolutely one of the things I can say is subjective and not objective. That's just my opinion...

There are generally considered rules for good storytelling, same as for writing in general. This doesn't mean that say an author has to adhere to every little spelling and grammar rule, but there should be should be a good reason for it if you go out your way to break the rules.

The reason why the 'rules' exist is because most of the time when these are broken the result ends up being bad. To continue using a writing example, misusing grammar will often give you something that flows extremely awkwardly, rather than creating something new and amazing.

Killing off your protagonist at the start to bring them back a few minutes later is extremely unconventional. It could have been done well and added something, but it did not, and that's why it was bad storytelling. It doesn't add anything... there's no reason for it to exist.

Whilst storytelling is subjective to an extent, there is quite a bit of agreement on what makes a good story. If I wrote something inane like "There was a cat. The End." then by pretty much anyone's standards that's a terrible and boring story and they would be right to be critical of it. You can't just defend something like that by saying "well, it's subjective".

This argument could also be used to invalidate almost any criticism of pretty much anything, no matter how well thought out and justified.

 

[Wonko_C]

Spoiler

What do you mean much bigger part than we think? The kid just ends up dieing, I don't see how it can play any other part.

I knew it, The first time I played the demo and the scene

Spoiler

with the kid in the vent with his "no one can save me" in ominous voice and then vanishes I thought he was a ghost, or connected to the reapers or some other race or something.

 

[EatChildren]

I understand what you're saying, really I do. But the thing I'm getting at is, smudboy consistently gives off a feeling that there are things you can and can't do when writing a story. He literally says "There are rules for good storytelling". I find that to be pure bullshit. People's imagination are what make stories great.

If this were an absolute truth then terrible fan faction would actually be good. Good literature follows particular and logical guidelines to better convey it's story and themes. It's not so much that there are rules, but instead tried and true methods to develop a cohesive, believable narrative that never puts a burden on the reader/watcher/player to take a huge leap of faith. There's rhyme and reason to good story telling.

Personal interest in a particular story isn't so much the issue here, as you cant really tell someone what they should and shouldn't like. But can still critique a piece of narrative, relative to other narrative, and point out where it went wrong.

Personally, I don't feel ME2's story is a bad story, not in the 'terrible fan fiction' sense. I don't have a problem with majority of the themes, major plot points, nor the developments. What I do have a problem with is how the story itself is told, specifically the abundance of tangent plot threads all disconnected from each other (especially the core narrative), the lack of a characterised and developed antagonist, poor exposition of major themes, and the lack of core narrative developments full stop. These all make for what I consider and objectively badly told story, especially compared to the first game, which managed to be surprisingly consistent with it's themes and developed it's narrative in an interesting way.

 

[Tess3ract]

You can't just defend something like that by saying "well, it's subjective".

B-b-b-but it's ART! You can't judge art, troll.

 

[WrenchNinja]

I understand what you're saying, really I do. But the thing I'm getting at is, smudboy consistently gives off a feeling that there are things you can and can't do when writing a story. He literally says "There are rules for good storytelling". I find that to be pure bullshit. People's imagination are what make stories great.

It doesn't MATTER if "nothing is gained by killing off Shepard" or half of the other things he talked about. My main point is everyone views stories differently, through their own eyes. To him, ok it didn't create an impact, and for many others. But maybe for others it did. Maybe others took it different. I'm just saying that when it comes to storytelling, it is absolutely one of the things I can say is subjective and not objective. That's just my opinion...

It DOES matter. Just saying it doesn't does not make it so. Death isn't something you can brush off in a story that has some semblance of seriousness, and this is coming from a comic reader who regularly has to deal with shitty deaths.

You can think the argument is bullshit and deny it all you want but there are rules to writing a story. You can ignore or bend some of them but throwing all those rules out...it rarely ever makes a coherent, cogent or satisfactory story. I mean we have years and years of literary and writing analysis to go on and you think nothing matters. Imagination, opinions, hurrah. How did you personally feel about no one giving a shit story wise, that Shepard was "clinically dead" for two years and came back from the dead? How did you feel that Shepard never thinks about this or his own mortality? The guy is dead for two years, you would think he would reflect on that. Two years of his life is missing, everyone he ever knew has moved on. What about the parents for Spacer Shepard? But you're right, who gives a shit really.

 

[exmachina64]

Spoiler

What do you mean much bigger part than we think? The kid just ends up dieing, I don't see how it can play any other part.

Spoiler

He does get an entire page in the art book, if that means anything.

 

[Kem0sabe]

It DOES matter. Just saying it doesn't does not make it so. Death isn't something you can brush off in a story that has some semblance of seriousness, and this is coming from a comic reader who regularly has to deal with shitty deaths.

You can think the argument is bullshit and deny it all you want but there are rules to writing a story. You can ignore or bend some of them but throwing all those rules out...it rarely ever makes a coherent, cogent or satisfactory story. I mean we have years and years of literary and writing analysis to go on and you think nothing matters. Imagination, opinions, hurrah. How did you personally feel about no one giving a shit story wise, that Shepard was "clinically dead" for two years and came back from the dead? How did you feel that Shepard never thinks about this or his own mortality? The guy is dead for two years, you would think he would reflect on that. Two years of his life is missing, everyone he ever knew has moved on. What about the parents for Spacer Shepard? But you're right, who gives a shit really.

There are some general rules to storytelling and writing, that said, some of the greatest works of fiction i´ve had the pleasure of reading, don´t follow standard writing techniques. Take José Saramago for example, nobel prize winner and author of Essay on Blindness and the Stone Raft, he refused to use any kind of "normal" punctuation in his works, and his story telling was sometimes hard to follow, even so he was a genius.

Or David Mitchell´s work Cloud Atlas, it´s a surreal piece of work with a very "out there" storytelling technique, and... it works.

There are very little rules for how to tell a good story, it all bogs down to content, if that content is good, people will enjoy it, even if you tell it backwards.

 

[HarryHengst]

There are generally considered rules for good storytelling, same as for writing in general. This doesn't mean that say an author has to adhere to every little spelling and grammar rule, but there should be should be a good reason for it if you go out your way to break the rules.

The reason why the 'rules' exist is because most of the time when these are broken the result ends up being bad. To continue using a writing example, misusing grammar will often give you something that flows extremely awkwardly, rather than creating something new and amazing.

Killing off your protagonist at the start to bring them back a few minutes later is extremely unconventional. It could have been done well and added something, but it did not, and that's why it was bad storytelling. It doesn't add anything... there's no reason for it to exist.

Whilst storytelling is subjective to an extent, there is quite a bit of agreement on what makes a good story. If I wrote something inane like "There was a cat. The End." then by pretty much anyone's standards that's a terrible and boring story and they would be right to be critical of it. You can't just defend something like that by saying "well, it's subjective".

This argument could also be used to invalidate almost any criticism of pretty much anything, no matter how well thought out and justified.

So many paragraphs and all you are saying is that people who disagree with you are dumb for not understanding literature like you do. Please try again and make a better argument because this is just silly. You are not making an argument that the story isnt good because of X and Y, you are doing it based on 'it could be good but i didnt like it so it wasnt'.

It DOES matter. Just saying it doesn't does not make it so. Death isn't something you can brush off in a story that has some semblance of seriousness, and this is coming from a comic reader who regularly has to deal with shitty deaths.

You can think the argument is bullshit and deny it all you want but there are rules to writing a story. You can ignore or bend some of them but throwing all those rules out...it rarely ever makes a coherent, cogent or satisfactory story. I mean we have years and years of literary and writing analysis to go on and you think nothing matters. Imagination, opinions, hurrah. How did you personally feel about no one giving a shit story wise, that Shepard was "clinically dead" for two years and came back from the dead? How did you feel that Shepard never thinks about this or his own mortality? The guy is dead for two years, you would think he would reflect on that. Two years of his life is missing, everyone he ever knew has moved on. What about the parents for Spacer Shepard? But you're right, who gives a shit really.

Maybe Shepard did, but we didnt see it because there were krogans to headbutt and direct controls to assume? You may not like that, but you too are arguing that the story is bad because it didnt show things YOU wanted to see. Which is fine, but dont turn that into a point for the objective quality of the story. Its your opinion, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Tess3ract]

There are dumb people and smart people all over, but that is neither here nor there.

As for his claims, they are correct.

Take José Saramago for example, nobel prize winner and author of Essay on Blindness and the Stone Raft, he refused to use any kind of "normal" punctuation in his works, and his story telling was sometimes hard to follow, even so he was a genius.

Or David Mitchell´s work Cloud Atlas, it´s a surreal piece of work with a very "out there" storytelling technique, and... it works.

There are very little rules for how to tell a good story, it all bogs down to content, if that content is good, people will enjoy it, even if you tell it backwards.

Content is important, but delivery is just as important. When it comes to how a story is told, it's as important as the story or plot itself. You can have a great plot but it's meanless if there's no delivery. You can get a great story out of "there was a cat on the porch" but if all you say "there is a cat on the porch" then who the fuck cares?

w/r/t shepard dying, it's never touched upon except other people saying it and how they moved on. Shepard never does anything, never acts human as to the fact he fucking DIED, nothing. They could have taken it out saying he was like...put in stasis by collectors and abso-fucking-lutely nothing would be different.

 

[Photolysis]

So many paragraphs and all you are saying is that people who disagree with you are dumb for not understanding literature like you do. Please try again and make a better argument because this is just silly. You are not making an argument that the story isnt good because of X and Y, you are doing it based on 'it could be good but i didnt like it so it wasnt'.

I don't know how you managed to miss the point of my post so badly, but evidently it went flying way over your head.

In fact, you managed to so blatantly misrepresent my post that it's verging on trolling. I suggest you read it again.

Let me clarify I do agree that Shepard being killed didn't really serve any major purpose. Well, purportedly it set him up for working for Cerberus, but that could have been done another way. STILL, I firmly stand by my stance, people COULD find it intriguing, even if they didn't expand on it at all. It will always be something subjective to me...just can't my feeling that *shrug*

But it didn't really bother me at all....it didn't make me feel "Ahh wow, this story is CRAP NOW"...I guess mainly I just have lower standards than many here, and actually, that might be a good thing lol. I enjoy things a lot more, it seems like.

It wasn't enough to make me immediately say "gosh, that's a bad story", but I can think of many more examples which all add up to a badly told story. There is a lot of good stuff in ME2, particularly the side missions and loyalty missions. But the execution of the main plot is generally bad due to a large amount of missteps.

 

[shinobi602]

Let me clarify I do agree that Shepard being killed didn't really serve any major purpose. Well, purportedly it set him up for working for Cerberus, but that could have been done another way. STILL, I firmly stand by my stance, people COULD find it intriguing, even if they didn't expand on it at all. It will always be something subjective to me...just can't my feeling that *shrug*

Shepard's death didn't really bother me at all....it didn't make me feel "Ahh wow, this story is CRAP NOW"...I guess mainly I just have lower standards than many here, and actually, that might be a good thing lol. I enjoy things a lot more, it seems like.

 

[Tess3ract]

People COULD find something intriguing but we're not talking about if someone could find it good or entertaining. Someone somewhere finds playing with dog crap entertaining.

I think people here are trying to discuss or critically explain why something is bad or a bad example of literature.

I mean sure, "video game story" and there's the fact they're never as good as real books, but for a game that pushes the story really hard, it's easy to then analyze what is given and (if you have the perspective on the subject) realize the faults. You can like the game overall but still be disappointed with things, as nothing in life is perfect. For others, the story being "bad" to them has more importance than other things.

 

[universalmind]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gayz4s82LHs

((((((((((

 

[Tess3ract]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gayz4s82LHs

((((((((((

I lost my shit at the dancing garrus/liara lmao

 

[TheSeks]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gayz4s82LHs

((((((((((

LMAO at Anderson's "walk slowly" speed. It's just his sprint animation that locks.

lol Garrus and Liara crouching.

 

[Patryn]

Ok, seriously, at this point the negativity surrounding ME3 is even getting to me.

I know what people are saying, and I know that I'll probably be disappointed, but I want to like the game, and I'm feeling like people are saying that it's impossible.

Now I know that I had my issues with ME2, but this is a new game and a new chance. Basically, I want to believe it'll be at least decent.

But everything I see is just "THIS GAME SUCKS HARDCORE." It's getting a little depressing.

 

[Trey]

For example breather masks/exposed skin in a vacuum, I really could not give a shit! lol It had almost zero bearing on my enjoyment of the game.

This kind of stuff irks me. You can suspend disbelief at perfect human genetic manipulation, bringing people back from the dead, space cuddlefish, an element that allows electricity to be concentrated enough to travel faster than light and manipulate gravity (the fuck?), and hot blue aliens, but god forbid someone's skin is exposed in hard vacuum.

Shepard dying sucked.

Multiplayer demo is fun though.

 

[Blake'sGrave]

Ok, seriously, at this point the negativity surrounding ME3 is even getting to me.

I know what people are saying, and I know that I'll probably be disappointed, but I want to like the game, and I'm feeling like people are saying that it's impossible.

Now I know that I had my issues with ME2, but this is a new game and a new chance. Basically, I want to believe it'll be at least decent.

But everything I see is just "THIS GAME SUCKS HARDCORE." It's getting a little depressing.

Don't worry man, it's just Gaf being Gaf, it's been getting to me a bit as well but I'm sure people'll change their tune once the game comes out and fixes some of the issues (obviously not all of the issues, but frankly I'm too excited to care that much)

edit: Not saying that some of the criticism isn't legitimate, because it is, but people need to calm down a bit

 

[TheSeks]

But everything I see is just "THIS GAME SUCKS HARDCORE." It's getting a little depressing.

Given the leaked script and the demo? The game will suck hardcore. Don't get me wrong, I'm going to play it but I'm going to be angry at how far Bioware's slid into shitsville about it.

 

[shinobi602]

This kind of stuff irks me. You can suspend disbelief at perfect human genetic manipulation, bringing people back from the dead, space cuddlefish, an element that allows electricity to be concentrated enough to travel faster than light and manipulate gravity (the fuck?), and hot blue aliens, but god forbid someone's skin is exposed in hard vacuum.

Exactly.

 

[Tess3ract]

I'm not sure why you'd get depressed because someone else doesn't like a thing?

Hate to say it, but like the other poster said, it's GAF being GAF...if I went by what others have been saying about a multitude of other games here, I wouldn't own half of the games I do.

If you loved ME1 and enjoyed ME2, there's no reason you shouldn't like ME3. SOME things even I think should be fixed, but in NO way affect it so much that the game will be the worst shit to come out since E.T. Adventures.

Oh, I'll play the game yeah. Am I going to rip it apart like I do every single other game (because nothing in the world does not deserve critical dissassembly, nothing.)? You bet. If you just roll over and be like "I see that I don't like this and it affects my enjoyment, but it's just X so I'm not going to point these things out or fuss about it" then you deserve to get the Madden XCVIII dribble (to make an example using games that are rehashed every year) that comes out of game development today. Nothing is changed without someone making a stink.

 

[shinobi602]

Ok, seriously, at this point the negativity surrounding ME3 is even getting to me.

I know what people are saying, and I know that I'll probably be disappointed, but I want to like the game, and I'm feeling like people are saying that it's impossible.

Now I know that I had my issues with ME2, but this is a new game and a new chance. Basically, I want to believe it'll be at least decent.

But everything I see is just "THIS GAME SUCKS HARDCORE." It's getting a little depressing.

Hate to say it, but like the other poster said, it's GAF being GAF...if I went by what others have been saying about a multitude of other games here, I wouldn't own half of the games I do.

If you loved ME1 and enjoyed ME2, there's no reason you shouldn't like ME3. SOME things even I think should be fixed, but in NO way affect it so much that the game will be the worst shit to come out since E.T. Adventures.

Also yea, why do you let other people's opinions affect you to that point? The thrashing the ME series gets here has no bearing on my feelings of the games, in fact it's probably my favorite franchise this gen. Don't take it so seriously my friend.

 

[Lostconfused]

Ok, seriously, at this point the negativity surrounding ME3 is even getting to me.

I know what people are saying, and I know that I'll probably be disappointed, but I want to like the game, and I'm feeling like people are saying that it's impossible.

Now I know that I had my issues with ME2, but this is a new game and a new chance. Basically, I want to believe it'll be at least decent.

But everything I see is just "THIS GAME SUCKS HARDCORE." It's getting a little depressing.

Even I can't stand Mass Effect threads anymore. And it's not just the negativity. It's the constant bickering.

"Mass Effect 2 sucks!"
"No you suck! Everyone likes it except losers like you!"

And on and on it goes .

If you loved ME1 and enjoyed ME2, there's no reason you shouldn't like ME3. SOME things even I think should be fixed, but in NO way affect it so much that the game will be the worst shit to come out since E.T. Adventures.

Unfortunately for me I loved ME1 and hated ME2.

 

[Patryn]

I'm not sure why you'd get depressed because someone else doesn't like a thing?

A metaphor.

 

[Trey]

Even I can't stand Mass Effect threads anymore. And it's not just the negativity. It's the constant bickering.

"Mass Effect 2 sucks!"
"No you suck! Everyone likes it except losers like you!"

And on and on it goes .


Unfortunately for me I loved ME1 and hated ME2.

It's not just the ME2 defenders who are throwing insults. Unfortunately people don't like to discuss their opinions in a civil manner.

 

[Red Blaster]

Don't worry man, it's just Gaf being Gaf, it's been getting to me a bit as well but I'm sure people'll change their tune once the game comes out and fixes some of the issues (obviously not all of the issues, but frankly I'm too excited to care that much)

edit: Not saying that some of the criticism isn't legitimate, because it is, but people need to calm down a bit

Someone should ban this "Gaf" poster, sounds like a real asshole.

 

[Tess3ract]

A metaphor.

I get the joke, but I'm the guy on the left. IMO everyone should be able to notice the little things like that.

 

[ironcreed]

if I went by what others have been saying about a multitude of other games here, I wouldn't own half of the games I do.

If you loved ME1 and enjoyed ME2, there's no reason you shouldn't like ME3. SOME things even I think should be fixed, but in NO way affect it so much that the game will be the worst shit to come out since E.T. Adventures.

Well said. Mass Effect has had technical warts since day 1. Remember the horrendous pop-in and stuttery as hell frame rate in the first one? Sometimes you would have to wait 10 seconds minimum for a character to load out of a blob, lol. Still, I played it repeatedly and loved it to death.

In short, I have been waiting since 2007 for the conclusion and I'll be damned if internet bandwagon hate and little things like funny animations are going to change my mind. Being Mass Effect, I know it will probably have some issues here and there, but I know the game itself will more than deliver for me. Just as the previous 2 have, and that is all that matters to me... technical shortcomings or not.

 

[MNC]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gayz4s82LHs

Ahahahahahahahaha has this been posted yet?

 

[mxgt]

Like 10 posts up

That video is killing me, the running animations are fucking terrible, sweet jesus

 

[Trey]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gayz4s82LHs

Ahahahahahahahaha has this been posted yet?

Yes, go find it and finish your quest.

 

[Patryn]

The final thing I'll say: I am damned curious to see how reviews for this game will go. At the very least I know that Giant Bomb is eager to play it, but is very wary about how it will be.

 

[ScreenSplitter]

Well said. Mass Effect has had technical warts since day 1. Remember the horrendous pop-in and stuttery as hell frame rate in the first one?

My god, I remember thinking my Xbox was broken for that. The whole game looked like a fucking claymation.

Oh, wanna hear something funny guys? Waited 4 days for the multiplayer to become available, then I've lost my HDMI cable. RATS.

 

[MNC]

Yes, go find it and finish your quest.

I pressed space and now I completed the quest!

 

[shinobi602]

Well said. Mass Effect has had technical warts since day 1. Remember the horrendous pop-in and stuttery as hell frame rate in the first one? Sometimes you would have to wait 10 seconds minimum for a character to load out of a blob, lol. Still, I played it repeatedly and loved it to death.

In short, I have been waiting since 2007 for the conclusion and I'll be damned if internet bandwagon hate and little things like funny animations are going to change my mind. Being Mass Effect, I know it will probably have some issues here and there, but I know the game itself will more than deliver for me. Just as the previous 2 have, and that is all that matters to me... technical shortcomings or not.

Lol, exactly.

 

[Tess3ract]

Like 10 posts up

That video is killing me, the running animations are fucking terrible, sweet jesus

Like I said earlier, you know what it reminds me of?


This:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXmZX8iz2SE

 

[heliosRAzi]

Spoiler

What do you mean much bigger part than we think? The kid just ends up dieing, I don't see how it can play any other part.

Someone who played the game says he has a bigger part. His name is In it For the Tank and he posts in the ME3 thread on SomethingAwful.

 

[Metalmurphy]

Like I said earlier, you know what it reminds me of?


This:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXmZX8iz2SE

Same "problem" Mirrors Edge has, they use the same "world model" for the first person view, instead of using just a fpv model like this:

So they have to make it do those weird animations so it fits in the first person FoV, except it's not really a problem because you're never supposed to see that.

But Mass Effect has no excuse since it's not a first person game.

 

[Kurtofan]

Meh, guess it just boils down to personal tastes... I genuinely felt pretty emotional at that scene with the child, personally.

What got to me was the huge ass reaper, bam! The monstrous thing destroying two ships full of people like that.That was pretty great.

Edit:I really like the enemies' design, both husks and cerberus troopers, really great stuff.

 

[Samara]

I played some MP this morning. Oh WOW, I'm not too bad I think. But what the hell is Cerberus feeding these guys with. They are massive and...THEY'RE USING HAVE JET PACKS. I didn't see that in the SP demo. ha, you should've seen my face when I saw that.

Anyway, I don't like the A button, it does way too much. I tried reviving my teamates only to find myself rolling around and getting killed in the process.

Wont be playing much, but its fun nonetheless

 

[Bisnic]

Whatever the graphic complaints are, i have a hard time to believe ME3 wont have some amazing looking places like the Collector Ship on ME2 in the final build.

Spoiler

All in glorious 60 FPS on PC.

Hopefully it is just a demo issue.

 

[thetrin]

hmm

did they just make the transition from get into cover -> vault faster or is it a straight vault animation?

It's a straight vault, and if you do it across a counter, you slide across the counter. It's pretty awesome.

 

[ironcreed]

What got to me was the huge ass reaper, bam! The monstrous thing destroying two ships full of people like that.That was pretty great.

The sound delivered quite an effective impact as well. The ominous, giant creaking sound the Reapers make and the huge explosions really set that 'holy shit, a fucking invasion/extermination' sort of tone. Can't wait.