887 réponses à ce sujet

[bjdbwea]

Yeah, KotoR 2 was promising, but the developers had way too little time. In the end, overall, it was the most disappointing game I've ever played. Primarily exactly because the predecessor was truly outstanding, and the expectations to its successor of course high.

And I feel the same about ME 2. It doesn't feel just as unfinished as KotoR 2, but it's right there too on top of the list of biggest gaming disappointments. At least Obsidian tried, whereas BioWare cut out so much features from the beginning, no doubt to save development time as well.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 09 août 2010 - 08:30 .

[Solid N7]

Titanium Man wrote...

Me, I think Mass Effect 3 should use ME2's combat and ME1's skill system, with a bit of customization available for weapons. I agree that ME1 went too far with customization, but ME2 had too little. Just finding the sweet spot would be fine.

this^^

[mdouglas86]

I read about the first 6 pages or so and decided I couldn't read the other 20, but these are my thoughts in response to the first few posts....



I don't understand why people always have this tendency to draw a line in the sand and stand firmly on one side or the other. To not admit that ME2 was a far better game than ME1 gameplay-wise is just stupid. Or to say that ME2 isn't any different from Gears of War or some other TPS is also way overstating their case. That said, people claiming that ME2 was as deep and rich in customization as one could ever desire is also ridiculous.



I think anyone who finds themselves firmly on one side of the argument or the other should read Scarecrow's compendium of improvements thread that continues to float around these forums. It's a really long read, but it's probably the best example showing how much room for improvement that there really is for ME3.



That comment about deep weapon and armor customization was a little comical at best... I mean, NO ONE in their right mind is asking for ME1 inventory with a bajillion items, but just take a look at Halo: Reach or any of the recent Modern Warfare games when it comes to armor and weapon customization. With Reach's armor pieces, they're purely aesthetic alterations, but you can customize a hell of a lot, and that's with an FPS. With MW2 you're able to unlock attachments to guns which effect weapon performance and they are implemented in a very streamlined and uncumbersome way (i.e. unlock and equip however you want). You could really make weapons your own in that way.



I won't even touch on exploration because it wasn't great in the first game and completely cut out in the second. I don't want to give the impression that I disliked either game, because I liked them both immensely, but to anyone suggesting that they just stick with what we saw in ME2, I think you're really selling yourself short of what we should reasonably be able to expect. And to those that think ME is not an RPG because feature x,y, or z isn't exactly the same as Magic: The Gathering, I think you need to step out of your mom's basement and embrace the 21st century.

[Lumikki]

Solid N7 wrote...

Titanium Man wrote...

Me, I think Mass Effect 3 should use ME2's combat and ME1's skill system, with a bit of customization available for weapons. I agree that ME1 went too far with customization, but ME2 had too little. Just finding the sweet spot would be fine.

this^^

I disagree.

I mean Yes to ME2 combat and ME1 customation. How ever, ME1 skill system was not so good. Not amount of it, but how it was done. What I'm trying to say, sure I would like to have more skills and specially non-combat skills. How ever, I don't want ME1 skill system. Why? Because some of those skills where pointless and some skill had negative affect to combat side. So, yes to more skills, but skill has to have gameplay and reason to exist. Not just some decorative list to make it look like there is choises or skills what player is forced to keep max just to enjoy the gameplay. More like usefull skill, but as choise with different benefits.

[i love lamp x3]

mdouglas86 wrote...

I read about the first 6 pages or so and decided I couldn't read the other 20, but these are my thoughts in response to the first few posts....

I don't understand why people always have this tendency to draw a line in the sand and stand firmly on one side or the other. To not admit that ME2 was a far better game than ME1 gameplay-wise is just stupid. Or to say that ME2 isn't any different from Gears of War or some other TPS is also way overstating their case. That said, people claiming that ME2 was as deep and rich in customization as one could ever desire is also ridiculous.

I think anyone who finds themselves firmly on one side of the argument or the other should read Scarecrow's compendium of improvements thread that continues to float around these forums. It's a really long read, but it's probably the best example showing how much room for improvement that there really is for ME3.

That comment about deep weapon and armor customization was a little comical at best... I mean, NO ONE in their right mind is asking for ME1 inventory with a bajillion items, but just take a look at Halo: Reach or any of the recent Modern Warfare games when it comes to armor and weapon customization. With Reach's armor pieces, they're purely aesthetic alterations, but you can customize a hell of a lot, and that's with an FPS. With MW2 you're able to unlock attachments to guns which effect weapon performance and they are implemented in a very streamlined and uncumbersome way (i.e. unlock and equip however you want). You could really make weapons your own in that way.

I won't even touch on exploration because it wasn't great in the first game and completely cut out in the second. I don't want to give the impression that I disliked either game, because I liked them both immensely, but to anyone suggesting that they just stick with what we saw in ME2, I think you're really selling yourself short of what we should reasonably be able to expect. And to those that think ME is not an RPG because feature x,y, or z isn't exactly the same as Magic: The Gathering, I think you need to step out of your mom's basement and embrace the 21st century.

agreed. as far as im concerned the armor system is on it's way to being ideal. you can to add attachment pieces, they just need more. me1's armor system was awful. i could find the best armor in the game but if it looked dumb.. idc i'd stick with my not-as-good but better looking armor. that's not how it should work.

[Terror_K]

i love lamp x3 wrote...

agreed. as far as im concerned the armor system is on it's way to being ideal. you can to add attachment pieces, they just need more. me1's armor system was awful. i could find the best armor in the game but if it looked dumb.. idc i'd stick with my not-as-good but better looking armor. that's not how it should work.

Yes, but armour should also act like armour as well, which the ME2 armour fails at. The reason the ME2 system "works" so well is because there isn't really a "best armour" because no piece really protects you more than the other. All they do is offer bonus effects, but there's no actual protection values at all A piece of armour that gives you more thermal clip capacity isn't protecting you from damage any more than wearing nothing is.

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

i love lamp x3 wrote...

agreed. as far as im concerned the armor system is on it's way to being ideal. you can to add attachment pieces, they just need more. me1's armor system was awful. i could find the best armor in the game but if it looked dumb.. idc i'd stick with my not-as-good but better looking armor. that's not how it should work.

Yes, but armour should also act like armour as well, which the ME2 armour fails at. The reason the ME2 system "works" so well is because there isn't really a "best armour" because no piece really protects you more than the other. All they do is offer bonus effects, but there's no actual protection values at all A piece of armour that gives you more thermal clip capacity isn't protecting you from damage any more than wearing nothing is.

ugh. there's nothing like semantics, when BW does actually conform to those rpg genre conventions you love so much...

[Terror_K]

Jebel Krong wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Yes, but armour should also act like armour as well, which the ME2 armour fails at. The reason the ME2 system "works" so well is because there isn't really a "best armour" because no piece really protects you more than the other. All they do is offer bonus effects, but there's no actual protection values at all A piece of armour that gives you more thermal clip capacity isn't protecting you from damage any more than wearing nothing is.

ugh. there's nothing like semantics, when BW does actually conform to those rpg genre conventions you love so much...

What... so it's too much to ask to have armour actually protect you like armour does? Like it did in ME1 and, oh... I dunno... EVERY other RPG in existence? [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/angry.png[/smilie]

[tonnactus]

Oh that a game displays at least the stats of the small amount of weapons without to look at the Mass Effect Wikia.

I guess even this is to much number crunching...

[Fhaileas]

mdouglas86 wrote...

I read about the first 6 pages or so and decided I couldn't read the other 20, but these are my thoughts in response to the first few posts....

I don't understand why people always have this tendency to draw a line in the sand and stand firmly on one side or the other. To not admit that ME2 was a far better game than ME1 gameplay-wise is just stupid. Or to say that ME2 isn't any different from Gears of War or some other TPS is also way overstating their case. That said, people claiming that ME2 was as deep and rich in customization as one could ever desire is also ridiculous.

I think anyone who finds themselves firmly on one side of the argument or the other should read Scarecrow's compendium of improvements thread that continues to float around these forums. It's a really long read, but it's probably the best example showing how much room for improvement that there really is for ME3.

That comment about deep weapon and armor customization was a little comical at best... I mean, NO ONE in their right mind is asking for ME1 inventory with a bajillion items, but just take a look at Halo: Reach or any of the recent Modern Warfare games when it comes to armor and weapon customization. With Reach's armor pieces, they're purely aesthetic alterations, but you can customize a hell of a lot, and that's with an FPS. With MW2 you're able to unlock attachments to guns which effect weapon performance and they are implemented in a very streamlined and uncumbersome way (i.e. unlock and equip however you want). You could really make weapons your own in that way.

I won't even touch on exploration because it wasn't great in the first game and completely cut out in the second. I don't want to give the impression that I disliked either game, because I liked them both immensely, but to anyone suggesting that they just stick with what we saw in ME2, I think you're really selling yourself short of what we should reasonably be able to expect. And to those that think ME is not an RPG because feature x,y, or z isn't exactly the same as Magic: The Gathering, I think you need to step out of your mom's basement and embrace the 21st century.

Are we forgetting about the fact that there were Light, medium and heavy armors, of the Human, Turian, Quarian and Krogan kind with different stats (regardless of the roman numerals next to the name) in ME1? People who liked the first one liked the variety. Stores with a large number of items to choose from. ME2 has stores with 4 items max, 2 being goldfish and 1 being a model ship.

Outfitting your characters was so integral to the gameplay of Mass Effect 1, I cannot believe they'd alter the core style so much by replacing it with the crappy system Mass Effect 2 uses. The new system is so insipid it actually verges on being confusing, because you're always feeling like there should be more to it, if only you could figure it out. But you can't. Because there really is nothing to it. New items and upgrades are simply handed to you as you wander around the levels. I would prefer to happen across some unique randomly generated item that some guy on a remote world drops. The combinations of upgrades and weapons and abilities were nearly endless in ME1, and heavily rewarded people who put the time and thought into making really creative combinations. It makes our characters "our own" and adds to our emotional investment in the story. Without character customization, we are left without the ability to truly create the character that we relate to. Why did they remove it in ME2!? Terrible move.
 
Personally I thought the planets were different enough. Sure we'd all have loved them to be ten times as big and populated with hundreds of different species, foliage, buildings and characters. Fortunately for me I'm aware that time, budget and technology are limiting factor. So perhaps that's why I liked the planets of ME1 much more than you. I loved the Mako and find planet scanning less resolving the problem and more taking out everything fun about Mako sections and leaving the boring collectathon aspect in. Mako was great for the vehicle/foot action and gorgeous vistas. What people hated were the 90 degree mountains, RC car handling and Simon Says collecting. Planet scanning is nothing but a variant of the latter. 

Anyway rejoice, because apparently your opinion was the popular one and now you have what I consider the dullest, mind-numbingly boring planet exploration mechanic we'll probably ever seen in a videogame.There's really no unique characters, dialog, or stories to them. It's just "this base is overrun" or "some mechs are out of control" followed up with some combat.

[tonnactus]

mdouglas86 wrote...
To not admit that ME2 was a far better game than ME1 gameplay-wise is just stupid.

Tell me what classes you played in the first game. On what difficulty. And then we could discuss about how good the gameplay for the different classes is now compared to the first game.

Modifié par tonnactus, 10 août 2010 - 12:48 .

[Lumikki]

tonnactus wrote...

mdouglas86 wrote...
To not admit that ME2 was a far better game than ME1 gameplay-wise is just stupid.

Tell me what classes you played in the first game. On what difficulty. And then we could discuss about how good the gameplay for the different classes is now compared to the first game.

It doesn't matter what class or difficulty you play . Because if it would matter then both games would be equal good, because some class and/or with different difficulty, something is better than other. Meaning both games has bad and good points. You can't just judge games based one class, you have to evaluate it to with all classes. Also difficulty setting is there to adjust everyone personal taste of difficulty. What difficulty players choose doesn't make game good or bad, because it's personal taste. if You can't find easyer or harder enough setting, it's your personal problem. That doesn't mean everyone else has same problem.

We all know that bionic classes are "strong" in ME1 and weapon classes in ME2. That's not big deal and doesn't make one better than other.

Modifié par Lumikki, 10 août 2010 - 01:21 .

[Gibb_Garrus]

tonnactus wrote...

mdouglas86 wrote...
To not admit that ME2 was a far better game than ME1 gameplay-wise is just stupid.

Tell me what classes you played in the first game. On what difficulty. And then we could discuss about how good the gameplay for the different classes is now compared to the first game.

I'm sorry, but there is no way in hell you can justify ME 1 being better than ME 2 gameplay wise, no fuking way. You are an me 1 fanboy.

[haberman13]

Gibb_Garrus wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

mdouglas86 wrote...
To not admit that ME2 was a far better game than ME1 gameplay-wise is just stupid.

Tell me what classes you played in the first game. On what difficulty. And then we could discuss about how good the gameplay for the different classes is now compared to the first game.

I'm sorry, but there is no way in hell you can justify ME 1 being better than ME 2 gameplay wise, no fuking way. You are an me 1 fanboy.

I would say the only thing ME2 did better was combat (sort of) and cutscene quality.  Everything else failed.

The reason I say "sort of" is because ducking behind walls, waiting for a shield regen, and then pew pew for awhile; rinse and repeat, isn't exactly fun.  If anything it is monotonous.

[Gibb_Garrus]

haberman13 wrote...

Gibb_Garrus wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

mdouglas86 wrote...
To not admit that ME2 was a far better game than ME1 gameplay-wise is just stupid.

Tell me what classes you played in the first game. On what difficulty. And then we could discuss about how good the gameplay for the different classes is now compared to the first game.

I'm sorry, but there is no way in hell you can justify ME 1 being better than ME 2 gameplay wise, no fuking way. You are an me 1 fanboy.

I would say the only thing ME2 did better was combat (sort of) and cutscene quality.  Everything else failed.

The reason I say "sort of" is because ducking behind walls, waiting for a shield regen, and then pew pew for awhile; rinse and repeat, isn't exactly fun.  If anything it is monotonous.

thats why god created the vanguard, charging from cover to cover is ridiculously fun.

[brfritos]

Gibb_Garrus wrote...

haberman13 wrote...

Gibb_Garrus wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

mdouglas86 wrote...
To not admit that ME2 was a far better game than ME1 gameplay-wise is just stupid.

Tell me what classes you played in the first game. On what difficulty. And then we could discuss about how good the gameplay for the different classes is now compared to the first game.

I'm sorry, but there is no way in hell you can justify ME 1 being better than ME 2 gameplay wise, no fuking way. You are an me 1 fanboy.

I would say the only thing ME2 did better was combat (sort of) and cutscene quality.  Everything else failed.

The reason I say "sort of" is because ducking behind walls, waiting for a shield regen, and then pew pew for awhile; rinse and repeat, isn't exactly fun.  If anything it is monotonous.

thats why god created the vanguard, charging from cover to cover is ridiculously fun.

So the only class worthing playing is the Vanguard?
Because the rest, even the soldier, is like haberman13 said.

And the soldier in ME2 is a class way better than in ME1, it really was improved.

One other note: from a FPS standview point, ME2 is a failure too.
If you people are looking for shooting things, there's better games out.

I still think there's a chance for ME3, though, the weak points can be correted easily.

[Darth Drago]

brfritos wrote...

...I still think there's a chance for ME3, though, the weak points can be correted easily.

I wonder how many thought that of the problems (weak areas) Mass Effect 1 had only to see how those problems (weak areas) were “resolved” in Mass Effect 2? I see another rebooting of the series when ME3 comes out that will likely be just as drastically changed as ME2 was from ME1.

[Fhaileas]

Darth Drago wrote...

brfritos wrote...

...I still think there's a chance for ME3, though, the weak points can be correted easily.

I wonder how many thought that of the problems (weak areas) Mass Effect 1 had only to see how those problems (weak areas) were “resolved” in Mass Effect 2? I see another rebooting of the series when ME3 comes out that will likely be just as drastically changed as ME2 was from ME1.

Actually, I don't see that as a bad thing relative to the dismal state of the series is in its current iteration.

[mdouglas86]

tonnactus wrote...

mdouglas86 wrote...
To not admit that ME2 was a far better game than ME1 gameplay-wise is just stupid.

Tell me what classes you played in the first game. On what difficulty. And then we could discuss about how good the gameplay for the different classes is now compared to the first game.

I'm not talking about one class or another specifically.  I'm just talking about the core elements of gameplay.  ME1 cover was largely irrelevant, aiming and shooting felt way worse than in ME2 also.  I don't know about you, but I feel like I had to use the power wheel much more in ME1 than ME2.  That took me out of the intensity of doing everything in real time.  I liked being able to bend biotics around cover and having to aim them manually, not just click a button on the pause menu to watch it happen when you resume play.  All of these things are important additions to ME2. 

If you read my post, you'll notice that I did in no way say that ME2 has no problems in any of its core systems, however.  I like playing as a biotics-based class, and these classes were disproportionately nerfed on insane difficulty in comparison to other classes.  I think they need to do a whole lot with the protection systems found in the second game, exploration, the upgrades system, and other things.....

BUT, the core gameplay of combat (i.e. responsiveness, simplicity of controls, etc...) was better in ME2 and I consider that to be beyond debatable. 

[mdouglas86]

Fhaileas wrote...

mdouglas86 wrote...

I read about the first 6 pages or so and decided I couldn't read the other 20, but these are my thoughts in response to the first few posts....

I don't understand why people always have this tendency to draw a line in the sand and stand firmly on one side or the other. To not admit that ME2 was a far better game than ME1 gameplay-wise is just stupid. Or to say that ME2 isn't any different from Gears of War or some other TPS is also way overstating their case. That said, people claiming that ME2 was as deep and rich in customization as one could ever desire is also ridiculous.

I think anyone who finds themselves firmly on one side of the argument or the other should read Scarecrow's compendium of improvements thread that continues to float around these forums. It's a really long read, but it's probably the best example showing how much room for improvement that there really is for ME3.

That comment about deep weapon and armor customization was a little comical at best... I mean, NO ONE in their right mind is asking for ME1 inventory with a bajillion items, but just take a look at Halo: Reach or any of the recent Modern Warfare games when it comes to armor and weapon customization. With Reach's armor pieces, they're purely aesthetic alterations, but you can customize a hell of a lot, and that's with an FPS. With MW2 you're able to unlock attachments to guns which effect weapon performance and they are implemented in a very streamlined and uncumbersome way (i.e. unlock and equip however you want). You could really make weapons your own in that way.

I won't even touch on exploration because it wasn't great in the first game and completely cut out in the second. I don't want to give the impression that I disliked either game, because I liked them both immensely, but to anyone suggesting that they just stick with what we saw in ME2, I think you're really selling yourself short of what we should reasonably be able to expect. And to those that think ME is not an RPG because feature x,y, or z isn't exactly the same as Magic: The Gathering, I think you need to step out of your mom's basement and embrace the 21st century.

Are we forgetting about the fact that there were Light, medium and heavy armors, of the Human, Turian, Quarian and Krogan kind with different stats (regardless of the roman numerals next to the name) in ME1? People who liked the first one liked the variety. Stores with a large number of items to choose from. ME2 has stores with 4 items max, 2 being goldfish and 1 being a model ship.

Outfitting your characters was so integral to the gameplay of Mass Effect 1, I cannot believe they'd alter the core style so much by replacing it with the crappy system Mass Effect 2 uses. The new system is so insipid it actually verges on being confusing, because you're always feeling like there should be more to it, if only you could figure it out. But you can't. Because there really is nothing to it. New items and upgrades are simply handed to you as you wander around the levels. I would prefer to happen across some unique randomly generated item that some guy on a remote world drops. The combinations of upgrades and weapons and abilities were nearly endless in ME1, and heavily rewarded people who put the time and thought into making really creative combinations. It makes our characters "our own" and adds to our emotional investment in the story. Without character customization, we are left without the ability to truly create the character that we relate to. Why did they remove it in ME2!? Terrible move.
 
Personally I thought the planets were different enough. Sure we'd all have loved them to be ten times as big and populated with hundreds of different species, foliage, buildings and characters. Fortunately for me I'm aware that time, budget and technology are limiting factor. So perhaps that's why I liked the planets of ME1 much more than you. I loved the Mako and find planet scanning less resolving the problem and more taking out everything fun about Mako sections and leaving the boring collectathon aspect in. Mako was great for the vehicle/foot action and gorgeous vistas. What people hated were the 90 degree mountains, RC car handling and Simon Says collecting. Planet scanning is nothing but a variant of the latter. 

Anyway rejoice, because apparently your opinion was the popular one and now you have what I consider the dullest, mind-numbingly boring planet exploration mechanic we'll probably ever seen in a videogame.There's really no unique characters, dialog, or stories to them. It's just "this base is overrun" or "some mechs are out of control" followed up with some combat.

I'm not really sure why you're quoting me in this.  I make it pretty clear in my post that I don't think ME2 did everything right.  That was pretty much the entire point of my post, to say that being too extreme on either side of the argument is just stupid.  ME2 was a great game, I think most rational people will agree with that.  But, like I said in my original post, stuff they cut out like planet exploration and any kind of inventory/mod system for weapons and armor is just laziness in my opinion. 

I can't agree that planet exploration in the first game was terribly rewarding though.  It was literally the SAME planet with snow effects of volcano effects and shooting space pirates in slightly different versions of the same hideout.  I think what everyone wanted was to take that system and make it less cookie-cutter-ish and epic.  What we got instead was planet scanning.  Like I said, many improvements to be made in ME3, hopefully they listen to the community.  Read scarecrow's compendium for a list of reasonable and easily implemented improvements... Hopefully Bioware does the same.

[tonnactus]

Lumikki wrote...


It doesn't matter what class or difficulty you play .

It matter for people who played this classes and difficulties.

[tonnactus]

Gibb_Garrus wrote...


I'm sorry, but there is no way in hell you can justify ME 1 being better than ME 2 gameplay wise, no fuking way. You are an me 1 fanboy.

I just have to link some vids:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sn-Za1IxfAw

Better for me is if i have fun with it or not. Spamming singularity and warp bombs isnt fun for me.
Using heavy weapons on ymir mechs and geth primes isnt fun for me.
I rather would like it when they make heavy weapons soldier exclusive and i could lift them right at the start.


I admit that the soldier class is really improved over the dull immunity spammer of the first game,but that its basicly.

[tonnactus]

Gibb_Garrus wrote...


thats why god created the vanguard, charging from cover to cover is ridiculously fun.

I becomes old very fast if thats the only viable thing the class could use aside from using ammo powers on harder difficulties.

[tonnactus]

mdouglas86 wrote...



I'm not talking about one class or another specifically.  I'm just talking about the core elements of gameplay.  ME1 cover was largely irrelevant, aiming and shooting felt way worse than in ME2 also. 

When starting on insanity from level 1 in the first game,cover was relevant for all classes,even the soldier.It was still
advisable for all classes that dont have immunity for a large part of time,because snipers could kill players even with colossus armor.Also,in a game with powers powers are also part of the core.Not only shooting and cover.
And both,tech and biotic powers were nerfed(evolved area overoad:3 m/even basic overload had more range in the first game that have less enemy waves)

I don't know about you, but I feel like I had to use the power wheel much more in ME1 than ME2. 

I never had a problem with that. But the system now is still far worser then in fallout or oblivion,where 8 powers could be mapped. 2 more mapped powers instead of one isnt a big deal.

BUT, the core gameplay of combat (i.e. responsiveness, simplicity of controls, etc...) was better in ME2 and I consider that to be beyond debatable. 

I dont know about pc,but on the xbox,if i loaded a savegame or sometimes died, all squadmates powers were on an other place then they were before. Thats why i never mapped squadmate powers.Simplicity?

Squadmates always forget what weapons i want them to use when i load the savegame.Simplicity?

For long time,problems with squadmammo exists and sometimes they still overwrite my ammo.Serious gameplay bug.

The game never "remembers" the "ammo powers" after a reload. Simplicity?

[brfritos]

Darth Drago wrote...

brfritos wrote...

...I still think there's a chance for ME3, though, the weak points can be correted easily.

I wonder how many thought that of the problems (weak areas) Mass Effect 1 had only to see how those problems (weak areas) were “resolved” in Mass Effect 2? I see another rebooting of the series when ME3 comes out that will likely be just as drastically changed as ME2 was from ME1.

I don't think ME3 will be a reboot again, ME2 already did this and Bioware is intended to follow what they created for this game, whatever we like it or not.
If Bioware do this again, then they will certainly hurt the fan base.

I'm fine with one reboot, but changing everything again?!
And I'm fine with the reboot per se, but not the way they did, let's make this clear.

I think that the combat portion of the game won't be changed, but I hope they improve it, is extremelly easy to predict when a battle will occur, I notest this on my very first playthrough.
Some larger maps with different routes will be good too.
If the battles were like the first time in Freedom's Progress, where you don't expect to open a door and be attacked, it will be very good.

I think that the missing elements from the first game, like inventory and some customization in your weapons will return, you can see this in the way they constructed Kasumi, Overlord and in the way that the Firepower DLC works.
So, the immersion and connection with the universe we are playing will be better.
What I really want to see is better story writing and mission interconnection, the loyalty's missions are very loose and don't mix very well in the game.
The same problem I saw in the first game is still present on this: your decisions don't affect deep the progression of the story. I'm not talking about the future, but in the present.
Remember when you called Ashley a coward, what happened after that?
Shame that this was the only thing and after the conversation she returned to the old state "I'm here to serve you".

I don't see all the "now the characters have personality" that many cry out loud, I still have the impression that my party members are there to serve me and that's all.

I didn't liked many of the "resolves" that Bioware gave to problems of ME1 (but liked some of the decisions, like the armor parts), but I'm willing to give them a chance in ME3.
The universe and the proposal of the game is very interesting.

What I think Bioware didn't realized yet - and that's is my fear for ME3 - is that a game like this will never sell 10 million copies, not matter what they did.
Not because the game is hard, not because people are called dumb, not because it's a FPS/TPS/A-RPG (whatever they call it ) and not because of casual gamers, but because the style of the game is restricted.

It's like heavy metal: many people like the big bands, such Iron Maiden and Metallica, but the bulk of the style is very restricted to a particular audience.
Like Mass Effect.

Modifié par brfritos, 10 août 2010 - 07:12 .