2 réponses à ce sujet

[Drethon]

I'll bet ME3 is pretty well hammered
down by now and my thoughts will be ignored but I may as well voice
them anyway.

After playing through both ME1 and ME2 a number
of times I keep going back to ME 1 for deep replayability and ME 2
more just for quick fun.  Its hard to really hammer down the
differences but I think its in the depth of combat and mission
background.

As to combat, it seems like ME 2 has lost the
combat variety.

In ME 1 you can use weapons throughout but the
powers allow for a greater variety in tactics.  The powers
seemed to be used more to lock down the combatants in one area of the
battle field so you could clear it and then move onto the next area. 
Lift this target, knock that one back, focus fire on this other one. 
In ME 3 the powers seem to have become more of an alternate ammo
source.

Also the combat in ME 2 seems to be more of a pop up,
fire once and take cover.  ME 1 seemed to be more of lay out
powers strategy then lay down fire until the weapon overheated (or
all targets are dead), then take cover while weapon and powers
recover.  This seems to be in part due to the limited ammo and
in part due to how quickly damage was taken out of cover even on the
easy levels.  I liked the ME 1 version better personally.

Then
there is how ME 1 had more RPG targeting and ME 2 had more FPS
targeting.  I'm not particular either way but it would be nice
to have the choice as to combat style rather than to be forced into
it depending on which game is being played.  Perhaps even have
it be dependent on the chosen profession.

As to mission story
line ME 2 seems to have sacrificed depth for breadth.  Its
possible I'm imagining this due to the number of extra missions
provided in ME 2 but it just feels like the missions are very short
and lacking in the once choice leads to another choice direction. 
The shadow broker mission broke this mold and was quite excellent as
to providing a whole different world within the game (similar to the
rachni, the geth and the cerberus mission groups in ME 1) and I would
love to see more like this in ME 3.

Overall I can't really
complain about either game and will preorder ME 3 as soon as the
collector's edition is available (as I'm hoping the content will be
worthwhile) but I would like to see more digging into the depth of
the worlds within the world of Mass Effect rather than the focus on
the main quest with some minor off shoots that ME 2 feels like vs ME
1.

Anyway, this is just some of my random $0.02... looking
forward to what ever Bioware comes out with next (including SWTOR)!

[CmdrKankrelat]

While I thought ME2 was overall better than ME1, I agree with you that LotSB could be a great sign of things to come in ME3. IMO ME2 was deep (talk to your squadmates, do their loyalty missions - they're developed quite well) and well as broad, but if ME3 could hit the perfect balance between the good features of ME1 (i.e., planet exploration, combat system) and ME2 (i.e., faster recharge times on powers, better hub worlds, better inventory and level-up) then it will be one of the greatest games ever made.

[GODzilla]

I'm currently replaying Mass Effect 1 and there are many things I like more than ME2.


The whole story doesn't feel as fragmented as in ME2, more like one story-arc. And the more I think about it the more ME2 seems to be designed like an advertising platform. The way the short episodes make it possible to place an unlimited amount of DLCs into the game. Or these short message popups on the screen, like web browser popups getting you the latest in useles advertising.

Plus ME2 is the first game were the US-mentality of EA finally got to Bioware, which is a canadian developer. Or was. -.-

Think about it: Not only the whole DLC-thing, making it a necessity to program ME2 in short episode style to sell many DLCs. Then the Sims-like mini-DLCs featuring new weapons or clothes. And last but not least their attitude towards nudity: ME2 got more violent --> we get hit-reactions for instance. This is okay, because violence is good. In the USA. But nudity and sex is bad. Yes it creates life, yes it should be natural, but hey, they know better.

And what happened? They turned the sensual and erotic sex-scene from Mass Effect 1 into that embarassing mupped show-sex where clothed rag-dolls are looking rediculous. [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/sick.png[/smilie]

If this development continues in ME3 then good night. [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/pinched.png[/smilie]

Bottom line...can be found in the "Art of Mass Effect" book imho: ME1 features a unique yet continous art style. Everything was build on a mentality, they really thought about the background, why something would look the way it does. I feel like this process was not continued for ME2, which was rather developed to be simply "cooler and more badass **** yeah!" [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/wondering.png[/smilie]

Example? The Normandy. In ME1 it was created with moder u-boats in mind. Dark with bright computer screens. And what do we get in ME2? A Normandy that is most likely designed after 50 Cents living room. *blink blink* everywhere. No military vessel, but a luxary-liner.

Replaying ME1 and re-reading the artbook again really opened my eyes for these things and I hope Bioware were digging a little bit for their "roots" when they designed Mass Effect 3. Then again there is still EA...they're not  interested in a good story arc or a coherent art style. They just want money. And then more money...

Modifié par GODzilla_GSPB, 11 janvier 2011 - 10:45 .