159 réponses à ce sujet

[weltraumhamster89]

ahandsomeshark wrote...

Dear Bioware,

Basically if you could take ME2's planets+characters+side missions+the suicide mission gameplay+ ME1's story (and an optional side mission to set the mako on fire) and exploration+ ME3 combat and equipment system I would give you all my money.

all of it.

I would THROW my money at them if they added maybe also the roleplaying-part from ME1.

[yahtzo]

I agree ME2 is the best. I liked the focus on the characters and it had an ending that could change depending on the choices you made in the game (kind of weird the 2nd game in the trilogy is the only one to get this right?)

And Suicide Mission = best song in the series.

[SNascimento]

Yes, I think it will go down as the best game in the series.

[kilgorek]

ahandsomeshark wrote...

kilgorek wrote...

What's with the complaints against ME 3 for lack of exploration, while liking ME 2?

ME 1 is the only game in the series with any type of exploration.

because there's hub worlds at least in ME2, and you don't just land on a planet, do a mission, then leave forever. And you can find random missions scanning planets.

Yes, you do.

The levels are all terribly linear and streamlined in ME 2 just as in ME 3. Although, ME 3 has more rounded off environments which actually allow for a tad more exploration, though nothing substantial.

[RebelByDesign]

ME2 is my favourite. I don't think it's perfect and there are things I wish they'd kept from ME1, but I find it the most immersive, the most replayable and think it has the most fun combat of the three.

[michael99887766]

SilentPhenomed wrote...

And I can't see how the plot completely unravels at the end unless you are one of the people who didn't understand it.

This is why everyone gets annoyed at the pro-ending crowd. By all means argue that you don't think the plot unravels or that you enjoyed the ending, but please cut the condescention. We understood it perfectly - we just thought it was crap.

[TMA LIVE]

When ME2 came out, despite ME1 having a better main story, I still preferred ME2, because I thoughts it was a better made game. Weapons felts special. Combat was more improved. classes felt more specialized. Exploring the galaxy for minerals was interesting. And the loyalty missions really allowed each individual character to shine. Which is something I think James Vega really needed in ME3, since he never got a chance to have a loyalty mission, where he could be more in the spot light as a character. And the episodic nature of the game really made it feel like a TV series, where you'd wonder what'll happen next to Shepard and his crew.

Though right now I do think ME3 is better, I might think differently once I replay the trilogy.

The minerals minigame I didn't mind, because you were working towards a goal of improving your ship for the suicide mission, or improving your equipment. It made sense for a scanner to pick up hot spots, and hit them with a prob for mining. But in ME3, apparently the Normandy's scans can break down an entire planet filled with colonies and cities, and locate a book on the ground? Which I obtain by shooting it with a prob?

There also wasn't any random missions. Like finding an SOS signal after scanning a planet, and suddenly do a mission. So discovery was gone in ME3. Sure you'd discover a random asset on a planet, but the game doesn't go into detail of what exactly you found. If I found ships full of people, it wouldn't go into detail about that. I'd just read about it later. Plus the journal doesn't update to tell you if you already have it, or if the system that does is unlocked.

I also felt like the upgrade system was a bit useless in ME3. Upgrading a gun to level 10 didn't have much effect over a Level 1 gun. So it came off as more of a waste of money. I felt like there were too many guns in my inventory that I didn't know what to do with. Unlike ME2, where the number was so small, you can figure out what was best for Team Members, and your Shepard. So I wished I could have sold any gun that was useless to me, instead of gathering a pile of weapons.

And because there were no loyalty missions, I felt like everyone's story was done. There was nothing more to add to them. Garus and Liara are your buddies, and have nothing more to offer beyond that. Unless your romancing them, their stories are done. They're just along for the ride. Same with the VS. Once they join the Normandy, their stories are done.

And though they added some Kasumi like dialogue between missions, I felt like there was less personal dialogue with the crew. In the ME series, you have at least 5 main conversations, and 2 romance conversions. Each involves you getting to know them. But because we already know them, there's nothing left to learn.

Modifié par TMA LIVE, 31 mars 2012 - 08:46 .

[MPSai]

ME2 feels more solid and has better pacing. Not that ME3 sans ending was terrible, though it did still have a few other missteps. Kai Leng for one.

[Liber320]

Gameplay wise, I really preferred 3. I especially hated how everyone had shields/barriers on higher difficulties, and the collectors were more a pain in the ass than fun but challenging enemies.

I can't comment on the stroy, as it's not as fresh in my mind as 3, so I would be a bit biased, but I found 3 to be much more emotional, which gives it a big advantage imo.

And as others have said, the mission structure sucked and was way too "gamey", it made it harder for me to get immersed.

[Jamie9]

I'll just leave this here. Bask in the glory of this music and remember that you made sure the Collectors didn't take anyone else. NOT ONE MORE!

[bryceax]

I liked ME3 far more than the second (up until the ending). It's gameplay, pacing, customization, and ESPECIALLY emotional impact were all improved. Through my first play-through I kept texting one of my friends to tell him how amazing it was. I also preferred having a few less characters that often had Kasumi dialogue, because the rest of their special interactions and the way they moved around the Normandy was so much better. What the third game was missing for me was exploration, in the form of hub worlds and vehicle missions. It does make sense story wise to be in more of a rush than the previous games, but an extra hub area with associated missions could be a great DLC.

[Nightwriter]

The first 98% of ME3 blew ME2 out of the water. It's narrative was gripping, well thought out, paced beautifully, and had a sense of thoroughness and storytelling command that was worthy of applause.

Then the ending came along and smacked you down from the high that created so hard that it is unclear whether ME3 is better than ME2 or even ME1. I do think ME2 had too many structural flaws to qualify as being better than ME3, though.

ME3 didn't have ME2's squad, and only gave me peripheral interactions with the characters I most cared about, so I felt surrounded by someone else's favorite characters. I guess that is a mark against it for me regardless of the endings. The VS, Liara, Tali, and Garrus are characters I like and don't mind having around, but when they're the only characters I get to have around, and the ones I feel the strongest bond with are gone... it's an emptier experience for me.

[Jamie9]

Out of curiosity, who before ME3 was even announced officially, thought that we would have pretty much the full ME2 squad for ME3?

We knew we'd be getting the VS back, but since ME2 was all about building a squad I naturally assumed you'd keep them around for ME3.

[Aaleel]

Jamie9 wrote...

Out of curiosity, who before ME3 was even announced officially, thought that we would have pretty much the full ME2 squad for ME3?

We knew we'd be getting the VS back, but since ME2 was all about building a squad I naturally assumed you'd keep them around for ME3.

I didn't, they can all die on the Suicide Mission.  You were guaranteed to have the VS and Liara in ME3 so I knew they would be there.  Plus it was just too many of them as well.  The only ones I really expected to see if alive were Tali & Garrus because they had been around for two games, would make no sense to leave them out of the third.  Any character tied to a major decision in ME2.  Legion/rewritten Geth, Mordin/Genophage.

The rest aside from Miranda after I found out Cerberus was an enemy, I didn't really count on seeing. 

[ahandsomeshark]

Jamie9 wrote...

Out of curiosity, who before ME3 was even announced officially, thought that we would have pretty much the full ME2 squad for ME3?

We knew we'd be getting the VS back, but since ME2 was all about building a squad I naturally assumed you'd keep them around for ME3.

I didn't think we'd have the FULL squad but I figured there'd at least be some kind of choice, like how you choose between Dr. Michel and Dr. Chakwas, I figured you'd have a set number of squad spots and would be able to pick and choose from the ME1 and ME2 squads (maybe not every single one of them but most of them) as to who would join the normandy and who would do something else as a war asset, with maybe a few mandatory characters. 

Cause while I would prefer a bigger squad my issue isn't so much size as it is make up. Like for my infiltrator shep there was really no reason to have Tali, Garrus AND Edi all as tech heavy players, and then only one biotic in Liara. I figured they'd let us choose an effective squad based on our Shepard's builds.

Edit: 
And then when it got closer to the release date and the squad details were pretty much set I figured you'd probably have sections of the game where they could join you as a temporary squad mate. 

Modifié par ahandsomeshark, 31 mars 2012 - 09:30 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

ME1: hated the inventory system & shooting mechanics. Best main story line. There is a feeling that actions will matter at some point.

ME2: hated the global cooldown. Improved shooting mechanics. Timed missions created an urgent feel. Better character development although Jacob was still a piece of cardboard. Actions make a difference.

ME3: don't like the tie in with MP/iOS apps. RPG aspects lacking -- too much auto-dialog. MP is fun on its own. Plot is very unevenly paced and takes a downturn after Thessia. Hard work for gathering all the resources and assets is not rewarded in the end. Actions taken in the past or in this game do not make any difference. And the horrible journal.

first two games are about even at around 9.0. Last game if include MP = 6.0.

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 31 mars 2012 - 09:39 .

[Nightwriter]

Jamie9 wrote...

Out of curiosity, who before ME3 was even announced officially, thought that we would have pretty much the full ME2 squad for ME3?

We knew we'd be getting the VS back, but since ME2 was all about building a squad I naturally assumed you'd keep them around for ME3.

I never thought that would be the case. I just thought I would get more content with the characters who weren't on my squad. I hoped Miranda would be involved in the Cerberus subplot, and Jack too, for instance. Instead they are kind of just... cast aside.

[Jamie9]

You see I envisioned ME3 very differently to how it turned out. I still enjoyed the finished product even with its autodialogue, lack of choice and no exploration. Oh, and terrible ending :/

I expected to have almost the full squad of ME2 and ME1 back. Yes, 16-18 squad members. But every main mission could have casualties, akin to the Suicide Mission. I thought they'd take that idea that worked so well and run with it. So, say for that comm tower on Menae: You have to send a squad member to go get it. Depending on who you send they might die.

So by the end of the game you'd have a much smaller squad, and then your war assets would dictate if you got a good ending, and your remaining squad members would dictate Shepard's fate. Alas, we didn't get that

[ahandsomeshark]

Jamie9 wrote...

You see I envisioned ME3 very differently to how it turned out. I still enjoyed the finished product even with its autodialogue, lack of choice and no exploration. Oh, and terrible ending :/

I expected to have almost the full squad of ME2 and ME1 back. Yes, 16-18 squad members. But every main mission could have casualties, akin to the Suicide Mission. I thought they'd take that idea that worked so well and run with it. So, say for that comm tower on Menae: You have to send a squad member to go get it. Depending on who you send they might die.

So by the end of the game you'd have a much smaller squad, and then your war assets would dictate if you got a good ending, and your remaining squad members would dictate Shepard's fate. Alas, we didn't get that

Yeah I didn't envision this but it would have been pretty intense. 

But as far as squad size people keep saying they couldn't give you as big of a squad because there might be a ton of dialogue recorded for characters that aren't alive in every game, but how is that really any different from the dialogue for the post Horizon characters in ME2? Or for grunt, or for legion. There was no guarentee they'd all be in your game in ME2.

[Acidrain92]

bryceax wrote...

I liked ME3 far more than the second (up until the ending). It's gameplay, pacing, customization, and ESPECIALLY emotional impact were all improved. Through my first play-through I kept texting one of my friends to tell him how amazing it was. I also preferred having a few less characters that often had Kasumi dialogue, because the rest of their special interactions and the way they moved around the Normandy was so much better. What the third game was missing for me was exploration, in the form of hub worlds and vehicle missions. It does make sense story wise to be in more of a rush than the previous games, but an extra hub area with associated missions could be a great DLC.

This. I think people are just looking at ME2 so fondly because of what a huge step up it was from ME1 in terms of managability and gameplay.

ME3 in my opinion improves on everything that ME2 improved on. It isnt a "Mass Effect 1 to Mass Effect 2" quality gap, but in my opinion it is still a much better game.

now if only they could fix that Journal and the ending....

[ahandsomeshark]

Also one of my major issues with ME3 that I don't think I've mentioned before is the economy, now I found the mining as tedious as everyone else but I also REALLY don't like how retraining your powers costs $$$ now, especially when money isn't really abundant in game like in some RPG's, I would prefer at least having the option of playing some mini game to increases resources, than having to forgo changing bonus powers and re-specing squad mates.

[ahandsomeshark]

Acidrain92 wrote...

bryceax wrote...

I liked ME3 far more than the second (up until the ending). It's gameplay, pacing, customization, and ESPECIALLY emotional impact were all improved. Through my first play-through I kept texting one of my friends to tell him how amazing it was. I also preferred having a few less characters that often had Kasumi dialogue, because the rest of their special interactions and the way they moved around the Normandy was so much better. What the third game was missing for me was exploration, in the form of hub worlds and vehicle missions. It does make sense story wise to be in more of a rush than the previous games, but an extra hub area with associated missions could be a great DLC.

This. I think people are just looking at ME2 so fondly because of what a huge step up it was from ME1 in terms of managability and gameplay.

ME3 in my opinion improves on everything that ME2 improved on. It isnt a "Mass Effect 1 to Mass Effect 2" quality gap, but in my opinion it is still a much better game.

now if only they could fix that Journal and the ending....

I've played both ME2 and ME3 a ton since ME3 came out and still prefer 2. I just think it's a better overall game.

[earthonline]

 I like both
but ME3 a bit more (despite the ending)

[Jamie9]

ahandsomeshark wrote...
Yeah I didn't envision this but it would have been pretty intense. 

But as far as squad size people keep saying they couldn't give you as big of a squad because there might be a ton of dialogue recorded for characters that aren't alive in every game, but how is that really any different from the dialogue for the post Horizon characters in ME2? Or for grunt, or for legion. There was no guarentee they'd all be in your game in ME2.

The voice actors they used for the replacement generic characters were already doing voices on ME3 (other Krogan, Salarian etc.). And since all the ME2 characters used the same costumes (apart from Jack) they actually didn't really spend that much on assets for ME2 characters at all.

Sigh. It's a shame. This game had possibly the most potential out of any established game I've ever seen. There was SO much BioWare could have done with it.

[Matheus1618]

Even before I reached the ending of ME3, I thought ME2 was the superior game. ME2 seems to me a more well thought out game. The journal worked, for one. The many different squad-members offered a nice variety of perspectives on the universe (Miranda absolutly pro-Cerberus, Jack absolutly anti-cerb, Tali and Legion, so forth). I liked the side-quests (which seemed severaly lacking in ME3). Even the suicide mission seemed more epic than retaking earth (and subsequently destroying the unicerse :/ )