128 réponses à ce sujet

[Nerevar-as]

lightsnow13 wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Let's face it. ME1's gameplay was far from perfect (In my opinion, it was the weakest feature in the game that always kept me from playing it because the gameplay was so broken and boring) and I think they corrected a lot of those mistakes in ME2 and I am also happy that they're keeping that tone for ME3, which will more than likely allow for smoother gameplay.

If I don't have fun during the 70% percent of the game (I can easily finish ME1 in about 6 hours if I'm not doing the side missions, which mostly involves shooting things), I'm probably not going to feel motivated to return to that game.

This is exactly my thinking too. ME1 was horrendous. No exceptions. Everything about the game was just awful. Whenever I go back to play it  (to create another shepard - although now I have all the shepards I  need...so I'll probably never play it again) I always find it irritating. It's so broken. Just point in the general direction and shoot. If you have heat dampeners on your weapons, that's even better. Broken pistol ftw much?

ME2 far surpassed ME1 in gameplay. Abilities actually matter in ME2. In ME1 it was basically spam your abilities - don't forget to level them up so they do a small inth of a difference - and boom! You'll win the fight! In ME2, one leveled up ability drastically changed it. Sometimes even providing a smaller effect. Eventually you can level it up so you can choose between 2 different types of that ability.

Idk, people who like ME1...can't seem to accept that ME2 had better gameplay. It's like they'd be betraying all their memories of playing ME1. I'm not saying ME2 had better dialogue (although, I do think that. ME1 had repeated lines for quite a few of the paragon/renegade answers). But it certainly had better combat.

What difficulty level did you play? Because save for some moments in Insanity there was nothing that wouldn´t go down before overheat and dispersion became an issue. And 1/3 through the game you got the Spectre weapons and there were no limits anymore. So I´m surprised people complain that much about how bad shooting was in ME1, when in ME2 it´s cover, shoot, back to cover before dying, regen, and so on. I enjoyed most of it, but it was often too repetitive.

[Terror_K]

lightsnow13 wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Let's face it. ME1's gameplay was far from perfect (In my opinion, it was the weakest feature in the game that always kept me from playing it because the gameplay was so broken and boring) and I think they corrected a lot of those mistakes in ME2 and I am also happy that they're keeping that tone for ME3, which will more than likely allow for smoother gameplay.

If I don't have fun during the 70% percent of the game (I can easily finish ME1 in about 6 hours if I'm not doing the side missions, which mostly involves shooting things), I'm probably not going to feel motivated to return to that game.

This is exactly my thinking too. ME1 was horrendous. No exceptions. Everything about the game was just awful. Whenever I go back to play it  (to create another shepard - although now I have all the shepards I  need...so I'll probably never play it again) I always find it irritating. It's so broken. Just point in the general direction and shoot. If you have heat dampeners on your weapons, that's even better. Broken pistol ftw much?

ME2 far surpassed ME1 in gameplay. Abilities actually matter in ME2. In ME1 it was basically spam your abilities - don't forget to level them up so they do a small inth of a difference - and boom! You'll win the fight! In ME2, one leveled up ability drastically changed it. Sometimes even providing a smaller effect. Eventually you can level it up so you can choose between 2 different types of that ability.

Idk, people who like ME1...can't seem to accept that ME2 had better gameplay. It's like they'd be betraying all their memories of playing ME1. I'm not saying ME2 had better dialogue (although, I do think that. ME1 had repeated lines for quite a few of the paragon/renegade answers). But it certainly had better combat.

It depends what you mean, IMO.

I personally wouldn't say that ME2 had "better gameplay" per se. It had tighter gameplay that was less flawed from a technical standpoint, but my main issue is that I didn't feel that the gameplay suited what Mass Effect was originally going for, so in that sense I find it more flawed, even if ME1's gameplay was technically more flawed. Had Mass Effect intended to be a pure-class shooter instead of an RPG then I would have said ME2 would have unquestionably had better gameplay, but Mass Effect isn't supposed to be a pure TPS game. The TPS gameplay was basically copy'n'pasted from every other successful pure TPS game and wedged in there, rather than properly adapted to the RPG nature of the game, so while it's tighter, more competent and overall better gameplay in that regard, it's also fairly generic and nothing particularly special for the most part.

So basically, what game has "better gameplay" is really a point of view. As clumsy as it is, I prefer ME1's gameplay, despite its flaws, because it feels like it's at least trying to be an RPG, trying to give me some options and fit the rest of the universe and style of the game and what the developers were going for. ME2's core combat gameplay felt too tacked on and removed from the rest of the game. You can tell that they simply threw out the old gameplay and stapled on some generic TPS elements and left them hanging there without much effort to make it fit into the rest of it. As a result the gameplay is generic, simple and tedious. But this, also, is a matter of opinion.

So I can agree that Mass Effect has better gameplay and has better combat when just looked at overall, but I don't think it's the better Mass Effect. And I don't think most of the changes made to the gameplay were made for the right reasons either. Too much pandering to the mainstream and trying to make the gameplay more attuned to the Gears, Halo and CoD set... not enough actually growing the game and making a better Mass Effect.

[krossbow]

The thing is, i DO Think that mass effect two is, hands down, a "funner" game. Going from mass effect 1 to 2 blew me away.


THAT BEING SAID, I fail to see "Why" they had to remove the RPG elements! It was gameplay, and ONLY gameplay that needed to be upgraded; they could easily have kept in more talents and customization without hurting the game in the slightest.

Talent points and different armors would have allowed for much larger character specializations for different "Styles" of gameplay without adversely effecting the cover based combat.

[EGD Eric]

Why not an energy based system, with individual cooldowns? Problem solved. Anyway, its too late now. I came here to see if they fixed this mistake from ME2, and it seems they didn't...