159 réponses à ce sujet

[leapingmonkeys]

Never played ME1. I was planning on buying it and playing it after ME3, but then ME3 made the entire ME franchise irrelevant, so I've not done that now.

ME2 was clearly a more enjoyable gaming experience to ME3. Did it have flaws? Sure. Every game does. The point however is that ME2 was an enjoyable experience while ME3 was not. One can go into endless debates as to why, but really, unless Bioware is going to step up and fix ME3, there is no point to the debates (much the same way that ME3 renders the rest of the ME line pointless).

ME2 provided a proper wish fulfillment experience. One got to become to hero of the universe (if that was what one wanted). One could lead one's team into doom (if that was what one wanted). One could suffer casualties but still win through at the end (if that was what one wanted). It did a reasonable job of making good on the promise to allow one's in-game decisions to actually impact ones in-game experience.

Plus it had good climax scenes. Coming through the mass relay with the IFF and the resulting battle sequence was exciting. Taking out the human reaper was exciting. The final escape was stirring. I personally found no such scenes or experiences in ME3. ME3 felt completely linear and boxed in with no climaxes or thrills. My experience through out ME3 was one of waiting-for-something-to-happen which was then cut short by a contrived, singular ending that had no connection to anything I had done prior in the game.

ME2 was entirely superior to ME3. ME2 is why I was excited to purchase ME3. ME3 is why I won't purchase anything else from Bioware. I think that kinda says it all.

[Bleachrude]

The storyline for ME2 I thought was somewhat disjointed...Never understood why "having to hold their hands" would make them loyal or not...

I understand picking the right person for the job, but the whole "is he or she loyal" is where I disagree quite strongly with the suicide mission...

(My other problem with the suicide mission is that if you recruit Kasumi, it actually makes it HARDER to be successful 100% on it).

[nevar00]

Easily.

To put it simply: guess what? Your choices mattered! The ending built up based on what you did all game. Who you had recruited, whether or not they were loyal... it all impacted which of the different endings you could get.

[D1ck1e]

After playing ME2 a cople of times, I replayed ME1. At first I thought it felt clumsy, but the further I got in the story, the more I was remembering why I had bought ME2 in the first place.

ME1 was by far the better story.

[Jayelle Janson]

ME1 had the best story, ME2 had the best gameplay.

[Joccaren]

Mass Effect 1 was by far the best game in the series, ME2 a second and ME3 was just... Good until the ending.

[Bleachrude]

Again...how was ME1's story better?

It made no sense...Exactly why did Saren need the conduit again?

[ahandsomeshark]

Jamie9 wrote...

Acidrain92 wrote...
we are all entitled to our opinion I suppose, but I still like ME3 more than 2. Its incredibly gripping and the character interactions and relationships are brought to amazing highs. People keep talking about Kasumi/Zaeed dialogue, but what they dont realize is that if that dialogue wasnt there it would just be "Can it wait a bit? I'm in the middle of some Callibrations" for the hundredth time. The DLC char. dialogue is to make everything seem less robotic. Besides who doesnt love that everyone walks around the ship and talk to other NPCs now?

Rpg elements are much better than ME2. Power customization is much more refined, weapon variety is staggering, weapon customization works well and alters the appearance of your weapon.

Gameplay is as tactical as ever. Using melee attacks to get up close and stab somebody over cover, being able to roll out of the way and jump over things without going into cover first. Its very helpful and it might be hard for me to go back to ME2 after this.

I dont really consider the fetch quests to be side missions, just something that you can do while collecting secondary war assets. N7 missions feel a lot better than some of the random planet side quests in ME2 due to actual voice acting, even though they are basically multiplayer map missions, they still feel more important this time around. And loyalty missions are basically for alien species now and not specific squad mates.

also, why would anybody want 16+ squad mates? That seems ridiculous to me. Sure it would have been nice to get Jack and Grunt on your squad or something because they dont seem to have anything else better to do, but every one of those characters? pfft.

overall ME3 is a much better experience to me, and I can partially forgive the ending because of it.

Weapon customisation was good yes. Gameplay is better because it's the newest game. That's what games do when they get newer, they refine themselves. Most people play Mass Effect for its story and their characters, but they also enjoy the gameplay. It's just that story is usually of higher importance.

N7 missions were cheap. If you had played multiplayer at all before playing these, immersion was utterly destroyed upon reaching these missions.

ugh this so much. I'd played the demo multiplayer a bunch and played it when the game came out and had basically already memorized every spect of most of the maps used. It was basically a joke.

[The Spamming Troll]

shouldnt the title say "ME1"

[The Spamming Troll]

Bleachrude wrote...

Again...how was ME1's story better?

It made no sense...Exactly why did Saren need the conduit again?

you cant discount ME1s story because ME3 shat all over it.

[ahandsomeshark]

leapingmonkeys wrote...

Never played ME1. I was planning on buying it and playing it after ME3, but then ME3 made the entire ME franchise irrelevant, so I've not done that now.
.

buy it anyway play it, then just have your Shepard die during the ME2 suicide mission. And pretend it's cannon.

But seriously you need to play ME1, the game will probably seem pretty unpolished compared to most games out now but it's so good. It really changed my entire perspective on what video games could accomplish. Of course playing it makes ME3 even more disappoining in comparison. Cause you see the difference between a company wanting to push the boundaries of innovation and a company that apparently lost it's way at some point.

[Blindspy]

ME2 was far and away the best game in terms of immersion into the universe. Excluding the ending, ME3 had the highest highs and lowest lows, emotionally. Assuming they fix the ending, hard to choose.

[Devos]

Ignoring the last act, ME3. In terms of game play ME3 all the way. ME3 is much more focused, it's less varied as a result but it has some big pay offs set up right the way back in ME1. I love ME2, I love it's dirty dozen structure and looking at the trilogy as a whole I'm glad all three games have a unique feel.

Sadly the last act of ME3 does exist and taking that into account, ME2 wins out. ME2 let you keep alive every squad mate and your entire crew in the suicide mission, when it did it made you really feel you actions had mattered. It would have been easy for it follow the tropes of the genre and massacre most the squad regardless of the player's actions but it didn't. (Seven Samurai, Dirty Dozen, Thirteenth Warrior) It bucked the trend to give the player's actions more weight. ME2 ends with a satisfying finale that you are promised from the first act, the exact result of which there are many permutations.

[leapingmonkeys]

ahandsomeshark wrote...

leapingmonkeys wrote...

Never played ME1. I was planning on buying it and playing it after ME3, but then ME3 made the entire ME franchise irrelevant, so I've not done that now.
.

buy it anyway play it, then just have your Shepard die during the ME2 suicide mission. And pretend it's cannon.

But seriously you need to play ME1, the game will probably seem pretty unpolished compared to most games out now but it's so good. It really changed my entire perspective on what video games could accomplish. Of course playing it makes ME3 even more disappoining in comparison. Cause you see the difference between a company wanting to push the boundaries of innovation and a company that apparently lost it's way at some point.

I really had been planning on doing just that.  But I just cannot get into the ME games anymore now that I know there is only one possible outcome irrespective of what I do earlier on.  For me, it really takes the wind out of my sails to play a game that is supposedly "co-created" by the players, where my decisions are supposed to have impact, just to wind up at the same ending irrespective of what I do.

Hopefully Bioware will realize that their paying customers are trying to do them a favor, stop disrespecting us and fix the ME3 game.  If they restructure ME3 such that there are multiple, distinct outcomes that actually reflect my prior decisions rather than their pre-conceived notion of a single "dramatic" ending (apparently they think that "drama" means "nihilistic"), then I will go back start a new game from ME1.

Until then, I really cannot find any reason to play any of the ME games anymore.  Sad given that I replayed ME2 multiple times to see how my decisions changed the final result (different people surving, different results when passing through the final relay with the IFF, etc).  But I suppose that is another one of those telling indicators - played ME2 multiple times, played ME3 once and see no reason to play any of the ME games again.

Modifié par leapingmonkeys, 01 avril 2012 - 04:01 .

[HKR148]

ME2's last suicide mission was quite fun to play; regardless of that human reaper-thingy which rubs some people in a wrong way... you've felt like you were being a pure-badass in there instead of hugely fleshed-out battle on Earth and that ending debacle in ME3.

[Cody]

ahandsomeshark wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...

Acidrain92 wrote...
we are all entitled to our opinion I suppose, but I still like ME3 more than 2. Its incredibly gripping and the character interactions and relationships are brought to amazing highs. People keep talking about Kasumi/Zaeed dialogue, but what they dont realize is that if that dialogue wasnt there it would just be "Can it wait a bit? I'm in the middle of some Callibrations" for the hundredth time. The DLC char. dialogue is to make everything seem less robotic. Besides who doesnt love that everyone walks around the ship and talk to other NPCs now?

Rpg elements are much better than ME2. Power customization is much more refined, weapon variety is staggering, weapon customization works well and alters the appearance of your weapon.

Gameplay is as tactical as ever. Using melee attacks to get up close and stab somebody over cover, being able to roll out of the way and jump over things without going into cover first. Its very helpful and it might be hard for me to go back to ME2 after this.

I dont really consider the fetch quests to be side missions, just something that you can do while collecting secondary war assets. N7 missions feel a lot better than some of the random planet side quests in ME2 due to actual voice acting, even though they are basically multiplayer map missions, they still feel more important this time around. And loyalty missions are basically for alien species now and not specific squad mates.

also, why would anybody want 16+ squad mates? That seems ridiculous to me. Sure it would have been nice to get Jack and Grunt on your squad or something because they dont seem to have anything else better to do, but every one of those characters? pfft.

overall ME3 is a much better experience to me, and I can partially forgive the ending because of it.

Weapon customisation was good yes. Gameplay is better because it's the newest game. That's what games do when they get newer, they refine themselves. Most people play Mass Effect for its story and their characters, but they also enjoy the gameplay. It's just that story is usually of higher importance.

N7 missions were cheap. If you had played multiplayer at all before playing these, immersion was utterly destroyed upon reaching these missions.

ugh this so much. I'd played the demo multiplayer a bunch and played it when the game came out and had basically already memorized every spect of most of the maps used. It was basically a joke.

Opposite for me. It gave me more immersion into the game. Having known that my MP characters had fought their before. Try to hold the base and/or weaken it's defenses constantly. Just so that later Shep can have a better chance to take over? That was awesome. In an rpg sense it made what I did in MP actually take part into the story in some way.

[Joccaren]

Bleachrude wrote...

Again...how was ME1's story better?

It made no sense...Exactly why did Saren need the conduit again?

Because Sovereign had no idea why the Keepers weren't responding. In order to find out, he had to find the Conduit, and figure out what the Protheans had done. He had Saren do this. Sovereign then used Saren as a quick infiltration unit to control the Citadel whilst he docked with it, and take the entire place completely off guard - except Shepard. Without knowing where or what the Conduit was, Sovereign wouldn't have been able to come to the conclusion/mine the Prothean archives on Ilos to find out why the Keepers weren't responding, and wouldn't have known how to fix it.
It makes sense up until the ME3 ending, but that is more a problem with the ME3 ending than the ME1 story.

[Joccaren]

CodyMelch wrote...

Opposite for me. It gave me more immersion into the game. Having known that my MP characters had fought their before. Try to hold the base and/or weaken it's defenses constantly. Just so that later Shep can have a better chance to take over? That was awesome. In an rpg sense it made what I did in MP actually take part into the story in some way.

You'll find story wise its actually the opposite. Shepard goes in first and secures the area, then your MP characters go in and hold it against assaults by enemy forces. Shepard does the battle first, and your MP character holds the points Shepard captured.

[Sgt Reed 24]

lol no.

ME2 was the worst of the three.

ME1 > ME3 > ME2.

[Stalker]

I think ME2 was the best in the series so far, yes.

Admitted, ME3 has multiplayer, better combat, vastly improved graphics and better soundtrack.
... but on the contra-side it has a lot of little bugs, huge plot-holes, disappointing character development, almost no interactive story-telling and last but least ruined the whole trilogy with it's ending.

ME2 > ME3 > ME1

Modifié par Mr Massakka, 01 avril 2012 - 01:06 .

[Walsh1980]

Well Mass Effect 2 definitely left me more satisfied. The Suicide Mission may be my favorite end to a game ever. Mass Effect 3 does a LOT of stuff better, most importantly to me character interaction and emotion, something that was a little lacking in ME2. If ME's finale were more like the Suicide Mission, where what you did throughout the game and what choices you make during had an impact... i'd say ME3 easily takes the crown, where it stands though, I can't really choose... that damn ending...

Modifié par Walsh1980, 01 avril 2012 - 01:14 .

[KaptainKyle]

ME2 is my favourite game ever, so.... yeah. Even if ME3s ending was magnificent, i'd still miss the sense of freedom and exploration mass effect 2 gave me.

[nicksmi56]

In my eyes, it's the best of the series. As great as the rest of ME3 was, I still had more emotional resonance with ME2

[Bleachrude]

Joccaren wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...

Again...how was ME1's story better?

It made no sense...Exactly why did Saren need the conduit again?

Because Sovereign had no idea why the Keepers weren't responding. In order to find out, he had to find the Conduit, and figure out what the Protheans had done. He had Saren do this. Sovereign then used Saren as a quick infiltration unit to control the Citadel whilst he docked with it, and take the entire place completely off guard - except Shepard. Without knowing where or what the Conduit was, Sovereign wouldn't have been able to come to the conclusion/mine the Prothean archives on Ilos to find out why the Keepers weren't responding, and wouldn't have known how to fix it.
It makes sense up until the ME3 ending, but that is more a problem with the ME3 ending than the ME1 story.

No..you're putting the cart BEFORE the horse.

Why didn't Saren simply WALK into the citadel BEFORE Eden prime when he was STILL a spectre in good standing (Best spectre EVER)

All the conduit was a backdoor into the citadel itself since the protheans couldn't use the mass relays anymore.

There was no reason for Saren NOT to simply walk into the Citadel, 

Think about it for a while....Saren and Sovereign go to Eden prime to figure out what the protheans did, find out about the conduit and then its a race to find the conduit which is a backdoor into the citadel...But Saren neved NEEDED a backdoor to get into the citadel UNTIL Eden prime....

[Sgt Reed 24]

jlb524 wrote...

TMA LIVE wrote...
I heard from a bunch of people that ME2 is still the better game, and the "Empire" of the series.

I think it's still the worst of the series.

TMA LIVE wrote... 
It had better individual stories.

Maybe but...they didn't fit together at all and the whole experience was disjointed.

TMA LIVE wrote... 
You were more closer to the characters because of the loyalty missions.

I didn't feel it...maybe b/c the character dev was limited to these missions and didn't spill out into other areas...having no squad banter/interaction hurt in this area.  Hell, ME1 had more squad interaction b/c of the elevators.  The ME1 and ME3 crews actually felt like a team made up of people who knew each other/liked each other/hated each other/etc.  In ME2, if felt like they were a bunch of strangers you pulled together to do one mission because they never fricken talked to one another.  Which is funny considering ME2 is supposed to be 'the' character driven game of the series (though, I think Hudson said this b/c the ME2 main plot was so awful).  I thought ME3 did a better job there.

^ This

All of it.

ME2 was nothing but loyalty missions which btw... had absolutely nothing to do with the story of the game (stopping the collectors/reapers).