51 réponses à ce sujet

[Captain Crash]

I preferred ME1....  simply because I liked the levelling up jingle in ME1 far more then ME2's   

[Phate Phoenix]

I preferred ME1's system, because it had greater character customization for all members of the team, and it felt like I could really pick how I wanted to play. I never really noticed an increase in power in ME2's system, not until I got to the final bar, and, really, only then when I went for the single-enemy choice. Also, I really hated carrying around two points that I couldn't use.

Like the look of ME3's. Hope it allows for in-mission leveling. That was one of my greater pet-peeves. Also I just hate the MISSION ACCOMPLISHED screen.

[CroGamer002]

ME2 is better.

Most level ups in ME1 are just pointless.

[Warkupo]

I vastly prefer ME2 in just about every capacity.

[Il Divo]

ME2. While ME1 may have had more ranks per skill/more levels, often times I wouldn't notice the effects of a level up because the bonus was so minor. In ME2, every rank of a skill involves a decent upgrade to Shepard's abilities.

[Chaos Gate]

ME2's levelling system felt utterly meaningless to me. Not only was there barely anything to invest points in, but the rewards were pitiful. Advance one level, get fire ammo; advance another level, get ice ammo. Gee whiz.

In ME1, there were so many options you could take with your character, because there were so many available skills. And while progress on developing these chosen attributes was abit slow, it all paid off in the end, because to me my Shep felt alot harder, sharper and stronger then he did at the start of the game.

[Someone With Mass]

ME2, because there I didn't have to step out of the Hammerhead to get the killing blow with my pistol in order to get the highest amount of XP. Or hunt down every single enemy on the map.

That said, I hope there are optional objectives in ME3 I can complete for more XP in the end.

[Sidney]

The leveling in ME1 was really dull because it felt like it didn't matter the incremental changes were just, ugh, so pointless.

ME2 I also liked the short and long-term planning not just what do I want to put points into now but the do I spend now or later for a higher level I might not have the points for.

What I didn't like in ME2 were the leftover points, that left me feeling like I'd wasted time making those levels.

[Smeelia]

I kind of prefer the fixed experience rewards of ME2.  It meant you could complete the mission any way you wanted and never worry about missing out on experience.  I'd still generally kill every enemy in ME2 but I never felt obliged to.  It also opens the possibility of alternative routes that don't involve killing without adding extra rewards to one particular route (even if it wasn't really used much).  I do like gradual progression in other games but the mission structure kind of makes sense in Mass Effect and works quite well for the most part.

In terms of skill gains, I do prefer gradual increases in power with each level (or better yet, new tactical options through new abilities) so ME1 probably comes out a little ahead there (since ME2 sort of misses out some levels).  In fairness though, since levels in ME1 took constantly increasing amounts of experience the difference between the two isn't that great (in ME1 you wait longer for the next level and then gain skills, in ME2 you gain a few levels before the next actual skill).

The actual choice of skills is a bit more complicated though and I think both systems are a bit weak in this area.  In ME1 you can get several different skills with different functions, which is nice, but you soon reach a point where you just use all of your skills against every enemy and combat tends to become trivial.  ME2 had the advantage of the global cooldown but then it went too far the other way where even if you have a few different skills you'd mostly just use the one that "works best" against that enemy (overload against shielded enemies, incinerate against armour and so on).  ME1 did have that "sweet spot" where abilities were varied and useful without being overpowered but then ME2 made it more important to coordinate the abilities of your squad since you could each only use one at a time.

If they could take the best of both and deal with the issues it could certainly be an awesome system.

[Slayer299]

I liked ME1's leveling up system better. I had more skills/options instead of the simplified (excuse me, steamlined) skills/powers in ME2.

Even if it was incremental with ME, it was better getting upgrades like Carnage than having to spend 10 points and wait 6 levels before 1 power had any use as was the case in ME2 and then repeat. That and having left over points because of how the system is setup is ridiculous, even if you respec when you're level 30.

Neither system was perfect, but ME's was better in my eyes. Hopefully ME3 system works out the bugs on this.

[Daiyus]

Honestly, I'm split. I loved ME1's finer adjustments, and passive improvements. I also preferred ME1's skill set in general. That being said, the way ME2's powers evolve do allow at least more direct control on the power itself. The problem this only happens once, once it's maxed. I'd like to see a longer progression in each skill, with evolutions along the way. That way skill lines actually become skill trees, which provide options. Given that system I'd be happy with a lower number of skills (stick to the ones in ME2 if needs be).

[Repearized Miranda]

Daiyus wrote...

Honestly, I'm split. I loved ME1's finer adjustments, and passive improvements. I also preferred ME1's skill set in general. That being said, the way ME2's powers evolve do allow at least more direct control on the power itself. The problem this only happens once, once it's maxed. I'd like to see a longer progression in each skill, with evolutions along the way. That way skill lines actually become skill trees, which provide options. Given that system I'd be happy with a lower number of skills (stick to the ones in ME2 if needs be).

They are doing the skill trees for ME3/

Personally, I like ME2's way of getting points because there wasn't a need to "kill anything and everything that moved." Not to mention the absurd amount of points needed once you hit 40 and beyond. Not sayng it was a bad system because such games as those on Myspace have the mechanic. Hpwever, with that comes the "top out" skill mentality which meant that you top out every skill - not the ones that are crucial to your character or squadmate. Everybody wanted to be a master at every abilty which I think may have been the reason for the asinine amount of points needed. It seemed like it was a double-edge sword. And leftovers in ME2? How many didn't have leftovers in ME1? There really wasn't much thought put into ME1's system.

ME2, however. Things you had to actually consider:

Do I (or my squadmates) want to stay alive longer?
Do I ^ want to do more or less damage with a power?
Which power is more effective for me ^? This does not mean the "certain powers for certain defenses" as all power do damage. (ie: While Incenerate is effective against armor, Warp works just as well if not better) Overload ia effective against shields, but that's not the only power that can penetrate them.
How should I evolve it?

Of course, all of these questions hinge on the difficulty setting you play on and play-style which such can also affect.

There the "I made the wrong decision problem." I wish you could also reallocate points; however, did you consider the above questions if any? This problem can easily be fixed, but there's still as good amount of consideration involved.

After you return to the Normandy, SAVE it (create new save) and do the following:

Make sure you have enough Element Zero to Retrain your powers or learn another squadnate power. Consider the variables before retuning and if you feel you've made a mistake, reload that save. If they implement where it can be done for squadmates, do likewise.

Also, with ME2's system you knew how many points were needed for evolution. 10. This meant 40 for squadmates and at most 70 for Shepard, but again, how many players completely topped out? I'd imagine it's the same with the new trees in ME3, but instead of 70, one would need 288! (36 points/2 evolution * eight powers), Is it necessary to do that as it would take away the uniqueness of each character whether it's Shepard or a squadmate.

Lastly, I felt like I earned these points - especailly if I'm playing on Insanity. I'm not thinking like: "I did all of this for 2 measly points?" (that's probably why ME2's system isn't liked by some). However, I'd rather waste ten points and finish ME2, then go after 800K+ while taking forever to finish ME1 (unless you're going for the ach.)

In short, neither system is perfect; however, I don't think both games should have taken the same approach because they are different games. ME1 seemed like stats and then gameplay while ME2 seemed to be the exact opposite; however, while they strive to find a perfect, but inperfect balance, at the end of the day, players will just want to play the game.

[Sailears]

From the screens, I already prefer how it looks in ME3.

And I prefer ME2 levelling and point system over ME1 because:
- less "filler" points, and the ability to respec.
- can have more fun in combat without having to worry about getting every last enemy (on foot) to maximise the XP gained.

What I'd additinally like to see is discrete XP gain for completing smaller tasks, rather than a huge lump at the end of a mission.
Hopefully the whole "mission" concept will be different (not keen on the modular nature of it), so this could tie in nicely with the above suggestion.

[mulder1199]

greatly enjoyed being able to concentrate on leveling up my skills with specific weapon types in ME1

[InvaderErl]

ME2.

As was just said I didn't like all the "filler" points that ME1 used, it felt like an artificial way to fake depth on a system that really didn't have any.

ME2's wasn't perfect, I could have used MORE of it but I liked the point system they used since it added a greater sense of "Do I want X now or do I want to save some points up and get Y in a level or two?" and I thought the power evolutions used at the end were a great move on the part of the dev's.

That ME3's leveling up looks like ME2's taken to the next level makes me a very happy camper indeed.

[toksikshok]

me1 and mostly for the fact that there were 60 lvls and you had to do at least 3 playthroughs to achieve lvl 60..that was cool

[Wulfram]

Mesina2 wrote...

ME2 is better.

Most level ups in ME1 are just pointless.

After the early game, about half of level ups in ME2 are entirely pointless, because you have to save up the points before getting anything.

[LPPrince]

ME1's. I actually spent all my points in that system, unlike being forced to have a point left behind for no reason in ME2.

[InvaderErl]

Wulfram wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

ME2 is better.

Most level ups in ME1 are just pointless.

After
the early game, about half of level ups in ME2 are entirely pointless,
because you have to save up the points before getting anything.

That's not true, but you are given the choice of leveling up abilities you might not be currently putting any points into vs. continuing to spec in the one's you've already developed. Forcing players to make choices like that was a good move on BW's part.

Modifié par InvaderErl, 16 juin 2011 - 06:17 .

[Kabanya101]

I prefer ME1's experience system, but ME2 is more logical in a real life situation. Like after a mission, you can review what you did and learn from the mistakes to improve on for the next mission. That would be experience, which seems to work better than the ME1 system.

But, leveling up in ME1 was better than ME2. At least, at the start of the game. When you earned lots of points to build skills up quickly was rewarding, it wasn't until the end of ME1 reaching a level 60 for the very last point that it was pointless.

ME2's system was a nice counterbalance to ME1, because you didn't have to level up ridiculously high to get enough points to max a skill out. But the problem with ME2, skills didn't improve all that well until the final upgrade. Which made each level up pointless until you had enough for the final point for an upgrade.

ME1 system was slightly better, and I mean very slightly, cause like I said before, leveling up in ME1 was good up until a 40 or so, then that's when it became pointless. ME2 upgrades were so minor, that it didn't matter to level up until like every four levels.

[eye basher]

ME1 because i absolutly loved having to beat the game 3 times just to get to lvl 60 even if i can get to 59 in the first playthrough.

[legion624]

Another thing I want them to bring back is a higher max level. One of the challenges of ME1 was trying to reach level 60. In ME2, if you play all the missions and DLC, you are maxed at level 30 before you even beat the game, then all of the exp in the 2nd playthrough is for nothing.

[legion624]

Also, where are you guys seeing pictures of the level up screen for ME3? I haven't seen any.

[SafetyShattered]

Dude ME1 completely. In ME1 it takes forever to reach the level cap. In ME2 I got it in one playthrough. Just more of an incentive to play again. Plus in ME2 your options are extremely limited.

[Lumikki]

Both are equal, meaning any LEVEL UP's sucks.