Aller au contenu

Photo

One reason Mass Effect 2 is better than Mass Effect 3?

Débuté par Mutineer81 , avril 04 2012 12:55

  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
283 réponses à ce sujet

#276
Siran
Posté 12 septembre 2012 - 03:33

Siran
  • Members
  • 1 760 messages

Astralify wrote...

Siran wrote...

ME2 was no different except that you could choose if you want to ask the question on the top left or on the lower left first. That's only an illusion of interaction.


And it was way better than the passive "Zaeed" style in ME3. Click-to-hear ruins the immersion. Period.


And going up to a squadmate, clicking through the same dialogue options and hearing the exact same answers so many times you visit them after a mission is totally immersive, riiight. ME3 still had a dialogue-wheel, but only when it was needed, not like ME2 that had it for everything, even dialogues without any choices.

Modifié par Siran, 12 septembre 2012 - 03:34 .

#277
Guest_starlitegirlx_*
Posté 12 septembre 2012 - 06:51

Guest_starlitegirlx_*
  • Guests
ME2, while having an entirely new cast minus joker, tali and garrus, (w/ wrex appearance if you didn't kill him) has:

1. fantastic boss battle at the end with great end choice to destroy or keep the base AND it wasn't just a boss battle though I call it that, it was the entire suicide mission from the minute they fly through the omega relay. The whole thing is amazingly done. There is such a sense of unity whereas nothing in ME3 gives me a sense of unity. In fact, the crew is all wrapped up in their own stuff despite end of the galaxy issues they are facing. The best we get in ME3 is seeing various crew in london around Anderson's headquarters. But again, no unification. ME1 even had the unification with the debriefs after main missions. Maybe they weren't all fighting at once like how ME2 was set up, but it was clear they were all connected. That was entirely gone in ME3.

2. It's got cohesion. You're recruiting and doing loyalty missions but it's all with one objective- get a strong team, keep them focused on the mission and destroy the collector base. ME3 has you all over the place with cerberus and trying to ally forces and fight battles at different locations and ferret out info at the citadel. Too much going on at once and so cohesion is lost entirely. You know the reapers need to be destroyed in ME3 but the story is so all over the place with Shepard doing a million different things to accomplish this task that the reapers become trivial in a way. Cerberus takes up too much time as does the collection of all the minor war assets, and they were pretty minor. Plus, too much politics. It was like a strategy and political game to a degree with a lot of shooting.

3. Choices made became reduced to war assets. A numbers game. Very disturbing.

4. what RT said. - oh and I hated those dreams. WTH? was that?!?!?!

#278
Guest_starlitegirlx_*
Posté 12 septembre 2012 - 06:58

Guest_starlitegirlx_*
  • Guests

Siran wrote...

Astralify wrote...

Siran wrote...

ME2 was no different except that you could choose if you want to ask the question on the top left or on the lower left first. That's only an illusion of interaction.


And it was way better than the passive "Zaeed" style in ME3. Click-to-hear ruins the immersion. Period.


And going up to a squadmate, clicking through the same dialogue options and hearing the exact same answers so many times you visit them after a mission is totally immersive, riiight. ME3 still had a dialogue-wheel, but only when it was needed, not like ME2 that had it for everything, even dialogues without any choices.


But you could CHANGE your choices of responses which changed the game as you continuted to play. That is a much different game than having most of it cutscenes with no choices at all. The left choices where you investigate remain the same mostly, but the right ones give you different paths. And if you didn't want to do it you could speed through them pretty quickly by either being neutral on all things or if memorized, but aim for that choice and push the x button (on xbox anyway). Also, in many cases, you could limit conversations entirely if you had played them that much that you were bored with them. Quick answers. No investigations. Move forward quickly. But you were stuck with all those cutscenes most of the time and they were long and tedious. Most games let you skip cutscenes, especially longer ones. ME3 was horrible with that particularly in dealing with hackett before certain missions and after them. Just let me move on and play. I've heard it 9 times already.

#279
Star fury
Posté 12 septembre 2012 - 11:26

Star fury
  • Members
  • 6 401 messages
Companions. So many and so different from all galaxy.

Suicide mission. It was great up until silly final boss.

#280
Lhawke
Posté 13 septembre 2012 - 12:45

Lhawke
  • Members
  • 189 messages
One reason which made it a better game for me was control over what Shepard said. There are other reasons I thought me2 was a far superior game but this is the main one.

#281
duhflushtech
Posté 14 septembre 2012 - 07:50

duhflushtech
  • Members
  • 23 messages
There are a few reasons, but my main one was the greater number and variety of the side missions. ME2 kept a sense of largeness about the galaxy because there were a lot of random places to explore in person, whether it be a large planet area or just the inside of a small base or ship. I get that the galaxy is under attack in 3 and that you have less time to go off on random, unconnected missions, but BW could have and should have made more missions that you actually suited up for instead of just scan-->resources, or sending us to a couple places we already go to in MP (that's cool, but it's not enough).

For example, when you are sent to fetch some obelisk, or the batarian pillars, or the shadow broker wet squad, or some of those other citadel-based fetch quests in the game, why not have the player actually go planetside and pick them up or rescue them rather than just magically and effortlessly beam them up to the ship via scanning? Side missions, even really quick and small scale ones (for example in ME2, going after the cerberus operative captured by eclipse, or randomly discovering the injured quarian), gave a sense of a larger galaxy that had things going on that you weren't necessarily a part of all the time.

Modifié par duhflushtech, 14 septembre 2012 - 07:50 .

#282
Zenon
Posté 14 septembre 2012 - 08:11

Zenon
  • Members
  • 602 messages

Babydel wrote...

Only thing that ME2 had on ME3 is a Krogan squad member, but then Grunt had no personality at all. ME3 is a tiny bit more linear then ME2 as well, but generally ME3 is a far superior game.


I agree.  While I like all parts and see the series as a whole, ME3 evolved to become the best part of all for me.

#283
Lil Creps
Posté 14 septembre 2012 - 08:21

Lil Creps
  • Members
  • 6 messages
You can't really explain why ME2 was better than ME3 talking about one specific reason. There are, in fact, various reasons why it was better. For example the locations were atmospheric and very memorable, Ilium was very beautiful and industrious, while Omega was the world full of mud and criminals ( I actually hated Omega levels in the first place, but when i completed the game i wanted to play omega levels more and more often) ME2 had different hub worlds, where you could actually walk doing nothing or explore them,(Omega, Ilium, Tuchanka, Citadel) Different bars and clubs (upper Afterlife, lower Afterlife, vip Afterlife, Darkstar, Eternity) and if comparing them with ME3, ME2 had 5 clubs total and ME 3 only one. I understand that there’s a war going on and people are dying, but still it was a nice addition to ME2 to have so many clubs.

Teammate abilities were very useful, especialy if you didn't have any ammo powers, you could always rely on grunt or jacob for using the fire ammo, Garrus for anti-armor ammo and Thane for sting ammo. ME3 doesn't have that and that dissapoints me a lot.

The mining on the planets was a great thing to do, while still annoying. It provided you with tons of new upgrades for the ship, weapons and the crew.

The last mission was amazing, heart pumping, because you never knew who was coming back and if you did something wrong, like you put Jacob as a tech specialist instead of Legion or Tali, you could always restart the mission again lol. The boss may be silly, but at least ME2 had a boss, while ME3 didn’t. Wait…Marauder Shields ?

Modifié par Lil Creps, 14 septembre 2012 - 08:40 .

#284
johnj1979
Posté 14 septembre 2012 - 08:02

johnj1979
  • Members
  • 327 messages
Where do you begin that ME 2 is better than ME 3

Let’s see for one the story of ME 2 is way way better than ME 3

I still want to play ME 2 I got bored of ME 3 after the first month

ME 3 plays like Shepard is dreaming or someone is telling the story of Shepard, ME 2 plays like it part of the events in the galaxy

ME 2 plays like it IS continuing the story of ME 1, ME 3 plays like it is stand-alone and not part of the Mass Effect universe

I liked the DLC of ME 2, so far I don't like the DLC for ME 3

Shepard’s actions in ME 2 influenced the ending of ME 2, Shepard’s actions in ME 3 do nothing in the game
Retourner dans General Discussion


  1. The BioWare Forum
  2. → Mass Effect
  3. → Mass Effect 3
  4. → General Discussion