SpaceDesperado wrote...
For part 2 you didn't like managing the huge amounts of items in your inventory but you disliked having less armor pieces, weapons, and customising your squadmates. Okay well first of all as you have said, the items in ME1 are full of the same crap but that doesn't mean you to pick them all up. There is no need to manage such an inventory if you know what your team need and doesn't need. That is why there is a quick button for you to turn these items into omni-gel. I am sorry if it was a bit complicated remembering what armor/updates/weapons you and your main squad had. Anyways if you wanted to compare them just pick and choose, perferably one that has a higher ranking letter than your current one, not press the "take all" button. The weapons, armor, and mods you speak of in the ship in ME2 have either been given to us from the beginning, given to us after just completing a linear level, or cost money which is given to you in abudance for something as "important" as modding your ship. This is not an RPG, this is a linear system of upgrading useless things in the game that do not matter.
I'm not the person you initially responded to, but I figured I'd add my two cents in anyways. I just wanted to point out that if you were one of those people who did two playthroughs on a single character simply to get to level 60 for your import Shepard, the ability to turn weapons into omni-gel becomes kind of pointless depending upon your play style. I never killed anything in the Mako because you'd get somewhere around a third of the same experience if you had been out of the Mako, so there was probably 3 or 4 points maximum to when I'd need omni-gel to repair it. Likewise, I never saw a point in using omni-gel to hack into things given how ridiculously easy the decrypting system was and thus I never needed it for that purpose either.
Personally, I prefered the inventory system in Mass Effect 2 over Mass Effect. Rather than having a ton of guns that I am simply going to pick up and use until I get something better, I only have to worry about picking up a couple of different kinds of guns until I find the one that I think is best. I do not think the upgrades are worthless either. Assuming you play Mass Effect 2 with not a single upgrade, the game play experience becomes very challenging in the same way that you'd have a hard time playing Mass Effect with only the basic equipment that you started the game with.
Do not get me wrong though, I think the Mass Effect 2 system needs improvement. Rather than going from a bunch of guns down to only a few guns, I'd like to see BioWare come up with a way to give each of the weapons their own advantages rather than simply making one the ultimate weapon of it's class. The Revenant/Mattock is a pretty good example. Technically, the Mattock has a massive damage output, but has a tiny weapon clip so you have to make every shot count. This is very different from the Revenant, which has a pretty good damage output and such a massive ammo clip that I've never been able to run out of it.
Assuming BioWare can do something similar to that for all weapons classes in Mass Effect 3, I'd like the new system even more.
SpaceDesperado wrote...
For part 3, i have already explained why i disagree with this. In short, ME1 had such little things going on in the exploration planets because of the time spent working on the new engine, new ip, and next-gen consoles according to bioware. They promised us for ME2 they would enchance/update the experience. I did not want instead, more linear missions to do for no apparent reason other to get more useless rewards. Name one of the great side-quests that actually mattered, none, so why do them besides doing the same style of shooting all over again?
What exactly do you mean by side quests? Technically, anything that is not relevant to the main plot of the game is a side quest. If that is what you mean, I have to disagree with you as the loyalty missions seemed to matter quite a bit. Mordin's loyalty mission affected the presence of the Genophage. Legion's loyalty mission affected the military presence of the Heretic Geth. Kasumi's loyalty mission dealt with an intelligence threat to the Alliance. If you count the loyalty missions as side quests, I have to disagree. Several of them actually had an impact upon the lore of the Mass Effect universe.
Assuming that you are indeed refering to any quest beyond a main quest, I think the Mass Effect 2 side quests mattered FAR more than the ones you got from Mass Effect. None of those quests had much impact, if any that I can recall, upon the Mass Effect lore short of the fact that they added a little more light upon certain aspects of the universe. None of them allowed you to actually impact the lore, or even accomplish your primary missions of finding Saren, in the slightest.
If you mean those mundane missions that you'd pop up on a planet with, then I agree wholeheartedly. I was extremely irritated when one of those missions literally consisted of showing up on a planet and turning a protective radiation shield back on. Short of monetary gains, those missions did not matter and I hope it is something that they will improve upon in Mass Effect 3. At least I got to make some choices in the side quests of Mass Effect, but these silly tasks in Mass Effect 2 had no purpose at all.
Anyways, I'm not worried about Mass Effect 3. As someone else pointed out, Dragon Age and Mass Effect are handled by different teams. Simply because one of them performed poorly (Dragon Age 2 was certainly not what I expected, but I enjoyed it enough to play it two times to completion since its Tuesday release) does not mean that the other one will. I enjoyed Mass Effect 2 more than I enjoyed Mass Effect and I expect that I will enjoy Mass Effect 3 in the same way as Mass Effect 2, possibly even more than Mass Effect 2.
Modifié par DarkSeraphym, 11 mars 2011 - 12:28 .