283 réponses à ce sujet

[Lukanp]

There was so much more to do in ME2 imo, the amount of interaction with your crew was in a league of it's own, the dialogue choices were richer and there was a lot of attention to detail all around. I even enjoyed the scaning minigame more than what was implemented in ME3, expolring world's for hidden missions just added to the immersion. Strangly enough, I liked the techinical aspects of ME2 better as well, the lighting and animations stand out as good exaples. Heck, even the loading screens were done with care. Additionally, we actually had a fair amount of sidequests, where ME3 is limited to those aoe Citadel fetch quests, which have slowed the game for me considerably. Not saying ME3 is a bad game, fair from it. It's brilliant on occassions, but as a whole it feels more rushed in comparison to its predecessor.

Modifié par Lukanp, 04 avril 2012 - 02:13 .

[spirosz]

I prefer the crew over the first and third (except for Wrex - it's Wrex, come on.) I was able to relate better to them and overall I found them to be more fleshed out and interesting. Overall though, ME1 had the best story, ME2 had the best characters and ME3 was the best package overall - Rannoch and Tuchanka are two of the best missions in the entire series, for me at least.

You can tell ME3 was rushed in a lot of places, but I won't even get into what could of been achieved with the last title...

[duckofyork]

There is a small catch you guys are forgetting. ME2 DIDN"T HAVE AN ENDING. Yeah ofcourse it ended better, it was nothing but a prelude to ME3. The ENTIRE story line of ME2 was meaningless in every conceivable way. It was nothing but enjoyable character development. I loved ME2 but it was nothing but an interlude between 1 and 3. You cannot compare its ending to 3's because it didn't need an ending, the collectors were an afterthought during ME2 they meant so little. You were literally fighting them so you wouldn't have to deal with them come ME3, and if you cut me2 out between 1 and 3 you miss almost nothing.

You can't really compare exploration either, exploration was essentially the goal of ME2, building a crew and figuring out what the collectors are up to. In me3 it is the end of the galaxy, ofcourse it is more linear, your purpose is more linear.

They just arent comparable.

[DigitalAvatar]

Mass Effect 2 had the best final mission in the series by far, even with the flimsy Collectors/Human Reaper drek. ME2 had a larger variety of squaddies, with some very memorable characters, and their unique missions were pretty good.

[UpLiftingVanguard]

Despite the cheesy terminator reaper, the end run felt epic (pretty much on par with the London one in ME3) and following that I felt that I had connected and achieved something for the greater good of the galaxy.

In ME3 I was somewhat disconnected and despite the ending implying I had essentially "saved" the galaxy I wasn't exactly chuffed with myself or proud of Shepard despite the follow up.

ME2 also had a lot of little quirks that gave the game more immersion, this is also what ME3 lacked hence why it felt rushed.

[AkiKishi]

duckofyork wrote...

There is a small catch you guys are forgetting. ME2 DIDN"T HAVE AN ENDING. Yeah ofcourse it ended better, it was nothing but a prelude to ME3. The ENTIRE story line of ME2 was meaningless in every conceivable way. It was nothing but enjoyable character development. I loved ME2 but it was nothing but an interlude between 1 and 3. You cannot compare its ending to 3's because it didn't need an ending, the collectors were an afterthought during ME2 they meant so little. You were literally fighting them so you wouldn't have to deal with them come ME3, and if you cut me2 out between 1 and 3 you miss almost nothing.

You can't really compare exploration either, exploration was essentially the goal of ME2, building a crew and figuring out what the collectors are up to. In me3 it is the end of the galaxy, ofcourse it is more linear, your purpose is more linear.

They just arent comparable.

Ironic that the game that did not need an ending had a better ending than the one that did.

[rizuno]

More involvement with my squad and crew and I miss loyalty missions I can see where it wouldn't make sense to have "loyalty" requirements in ME3 bc if they're not loyal by now...I mean, come on! But it would be nice to have a mission in which we run off with Garrus and I don't know, run into his father. A nice Shadow Broker themed mission with Liara and Feron. Ash's sisters, Kaiden's biotic squad. An Edi vs. her Cerberus programmers. Anything (though I love him) to figure out why James is actually there.

[DigitalAvatar]

duckofyork wrote...

There is a small catch you guys are forgetting. ME2 DIDN"T HAVE AN ENDING. Yeah ofcourse it ended better, it was nothing but a prelude to ME3. The ENTIRE story line of ME2 was meaningless in every conceivable way. It was nothing but enjoyable character development. I loved ME2 but it was nothing but an interlude between 1 and 3. You cannot compare its ending to 3's because it didn't need an ending, the collectors were an afterthought during ME2 they meant so little.

ME2 was deliberately the second part of a trilogy. It wasn't supposed to have a definitive ending. However the point is that the final mission, which can for practical purposes be considered the ending, was unequivocally the best in the series.

Modifié par DigitalAvatar, 04 avril 2012 - 02:19 .

[duckofyork]

BobSmith101 wrote...

duckofyork wrote...

There is a small catch you guys are forgetting. ME2 DIDN"T HAVE AN ENDING. Yeah ofcourse it ended better, it was nothing but a prelude to ME3. The ENTIRE story line of ME2 was meaningless in every conceivable way. It was nothing but enjoyable character development. I loved ME2 but it was nothing but an interlude between 1 and 3. You cannot compare its ending to 3's because it didn't need an ending, the collectors were an afterthought during ME2 they meant so little. You were literally fighting them so you wouldn't have to deal with them come ME3, and if you cut me2 out between 1 and 3 you miss almost nothing.

You can't really compare exploration either, exploration was essentially the goal of ME2, building a crew and figuring out what the collectors are up to. In me3 it is the end of the galaxy, ofcourse it is more linear, your purpose is more linear.

They just arent comparable.

Ironic that the game that did not need an ending had a better ending than the one that did.

Mass Effect 2's ending was obvious, the reapers are coming.  That was going to be the ending from day 1 it is impossible to screw that up.  The ending to a minimum 60+ hour series on the other hand?  There are 1,000,000 ways to screw that up, and yes Bioware chose one of those 1,000,000 ways, but I dont find that particularly surprising.  they cant please everyone with the ending, yet they can with me2 because the ending was going to be the same no matter what me2 was about ie the reapers are coming.

[mitthrawuodo]

Harbinger's a better villian than TIM and he deserved more time in ME3 (who's still a good villian)
The squad and their loyalty missions

On the ending the choices you made up to it did affect but like ME3 the colour of the explosion depended on one choice so always remember that ME2 didn't have the best ending either. It's just ME3 had more pressure on it and was also crap

[Whereto]

I just think you could pull off a rush job with me2 due to its smaller scope, but due to me3's huge scope, short cuts were easy to to identify and came to the forefront. In that reason is why I think people are very critical of the game, cause it could of been so much more.

Modifié par Whereto, 04 avril 2012 - 02:20 .

[Il Divo]

duckofyork wrote...

There is a small catch you guys are forgetting. ME2 DIDN"T HAVE AN ENDING. Yeah ofcourse it ended better, it was nothing but a prelude to ME3. The ENTIRE story line of ME2 was meaningless in every conceivable way. It was nothing but enjoyable character development. I loved ME2 but it was nothing but an interlude between 1 and 3. You cannot compare its ending to 3's because it didn't need an ending, the collectors were an afterthought during ME2 they meant so little. You were literally fighting them so you wouldn't have to deal with them come ME3, and if you cut me2 out between 1 and 3 you miss almost nothing.

You can't really compare exploration either, exploration was essentially the goal of ME2, building a crew and figuring out what the collectors are up to. In me3 it is the end of the galaxy, ofcourse it is more linear, your purpose is more linear.

They just arent comparable.

Beyond of course, the development of Cerberus and TIM as former allies/antagonists of Shepard, the entire Genophage arc with Maelon's research, the addition of Legion's perspective into the Geth Quarian conflict, in addition to all the side characters amongst everything else. Context makes everything better.

Modifié par Il Divo, 04 avril 2012 - 02:19 .

[duckofyork]

and come on, the human reaper? Are people seriously forgetting how f***ing lame that was? I guess everything looks sunnier on the other side.

[AkiKishi]

duckofyork wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

duckofyork wrote...

There is a small catch you guys are forgetting. ME2 DIDN"T HAVE AN ENDING. Yeah ofcourse it ended better, it was nothing but a prelude to ME3. The ENTIRE story line of ME2 was meaningless in every conceivable way. It was nothing but enjoyable character development. I loved ME2 but it was nothing but an interlude between 1 and 3. You cannot compare its ending to 3's because it didn't need an ending, the collectors were an afterthought during ME2 they meant so little. You were literally fighting them so you wouldn't have to deal with them come ME3, and if you cut me2 out between 1 and 3 you miss almost nothing.

You can't really compare exploration either, exploration was essentially the goal of ME2, building a crew and figuring out what the collectors are up to. In me3 it is the end of the galaxy, ofcourse it is more linear, your purpose is more linear.

They just arent comparable.

Ironic that the game that did not need an ending had a better ending than the one that did.

Mass Effect 2's ending was obvious, the reapers are coming.  That was going to be the ending from day 1 it is impossible to screw that up.  The ending to a minimum 60+ hour series on the other hand?  There are 1,000,000 ways to screw that up, and yes Bioware chose one of those 1,000,000 ways, but I dont find that particularly surprising.  they cant please everyone with the ending, yet they can with me2 because the ending was going to be the same no matter what me2 was about ie the reapers are coming.

Not only did they not screw it up, they made one of the best levels in video game history.

Bioware chose the mother of all screw ups.

[AkiKishi]

duckofyork wrote...

and come on, the human reaper? Are people seriously forgetting how f***ing lame that was? I guess everything looks sunnier on the other side.

Yes it was lame it looked like a T-800. However it was not some kid with a "stealth" device.

While you can say the T-800 is stupid , it's the human shaped core of a human Reaper. It makes sense.

[TjM78]

I liked having more sqaudmates

[Lukanp]

duckofyork wrote...

There is a small catch you guys are forgetting. ME2 DIDN"T HAVE AN ENDING. Yeah ofcourse it ended better, it was nothing but a prelude to ME3. The ENTIRE story line of ME2 was meaningless in every conceivable way. It was nothing but enjoyable character development. I loved ME2 but it was nothing but an interlude between 1 and 3. You cannot compare its ending to 3's because it didn't need an ending, the collectors were an afterthought during ME2 they meant so little. You were literally fighting them so you wouldn't have to deal with them come ME3, and if you cut me2 out between 1 and 3 you miss almost nothing.

I disagree, using such logic implies that middle chapetrs in any trilogy are meaningless, since most of the time, they're heavy on character buildup and don't reslove the actual story, ending in cliffhangers often enough. Yet despite or rather because of their structure, they are often the best parts of their series. I agree that on the whole both sequels are too different in their aproach to enter into any direct comparisons.This topic however has been created to shed some light on areas, which are very much comparable and have been executed beter by the predecessor.

Modifié par Lukanp, 04 avril 2012 - 02:30 .

[duckofyork]

BobSmith101 wrote...

duckofyork wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

duckofyork wrote...

There is a small catch you guys are forgetting. ME2 DIDN"T HAVE AN ENDING. Yeah ofcourse it ended better, it was nothing but a prelude to ME3. The ENTIRE story line of ME2 was meaningless in every conceivable way. It was nothing but enjoyable character development. I loved ME2 but it was nothing but an interlude between 1 and 3. You cannot compare its ending to 3's because it didn't need an ending, the collectors were an afterthought during ME2 they meant so little. You were literally fighting them so you wouldn't have to deal with them come ME3, and if you cut me2 out between 1 and 3 you miss almost nothing.

You can't really compare exploration either, exploration was essentially the goal of ME2, building a crew and figuring out what the collectors are up to. In me3 it is the end of the galaxy, ofcourse it is more linear, your purpose is more linear.

They just arent comparable.

Ironic that the game that did not need an ending had a better ending than the one that did.

Mass Effect 2's ending was obvious, the reapers are coming.  That was going to be the ending from day 1 it is impossible to screw that up.  The ending to a minimum 60+ hour series on the other hand?  There are 1,000,000 ways to screw that up, and yes Bioware chose one of those 1,000,000 ways, but I dont find that particularly surprising.  they cant please everyone with the ending, yet they can with me2 because the ending was going to be the same no matter what me2 was about ie the reapers are coming.

Not only did they not screw it up, they made one of the best levels in video game history.

Bioware chose the mother of all screw ups.

That is debatable.  I thought Tuchanka and Rannoch in ME3 were both better than the me2 finalle.  The human reaper combined with harbinger having no gravitous were kinda let downs for me.  It was good,  I just know that the ending of 2 did not get this kind of fan reaction after it was released.  I have only seen this reaction since 3.  That tells me it is just push back against 3's ending and not a statement about how tremendous 2's was.  And again 2 had it easy, its just not that hard to get that ending right.  Very few trilogies end well.... lord of the rings *cough*  six endings *cough* thats cheating *cough*

[fainmaca]

Gee... so much to choose from.

Its longer, gives every squadmate who isn't DLC an almost equal slice of screentime/character growth, and you can have a unique feel to the ending you get over that of other Shepards due to the fact that your choices matter during the end battle.

In the end, though, Bioware proved to be more courageous in the construction of ME2, taking on what seems like a much bigger workload with the complexity of the suicide mission mechanics and getting such a broad cast to work together.

[duckofyork]

Lukanp wrote...

duckofyork wrote...

There is a small catch you guys are forgetting. ME2 DIDN"T HAVE AN ENDING. Yeah ofcourse it ended better, it was nothing but a prelude to ME3. The ENTIRE story line of ME2 was meaningless in every conceivable way. It was nothing but enjoyable character development. I loved ME2 but it was nothing but an interlude between 1 and 3. You cannot compare its ending to 3's because it didn't need an ending, the collectors were an afterthought during ME2 they meant so little. You were literally fighting them so you wouldn't have to deal with them come ME3, and if you cut me2 out between 1 and 3 you miss almost nothing.

I disagree, using such logic implies that middle chapetrs in any trilogy are meaningless, since most of the time, they're heavy on character buildup and don't reslove the actual story, ending in cliffhangers often enough. Yet despite or rather because of their structure, they are often the best parts of their series. I agree that on the whole both sequels are too different in their aproach to enter any direct comparisons.This topic however has been created to shed some light on areas, which are very much comparable and have been executed beter by the predecessor.

I would actually agree with you.  I guess I mistated.  What I mean is the second in a trilogy is ALWAYS the easiest to execute.  As you just articulated.  Bioware got 2 right, ofcourse they did it doesnt need a conclusion it is simply a build up of what is to come.  ME3 would have been difficult for anyone to have gotten right, even for bioware pre EA.  Current bioware screwed the ending more than most would but it still was a very difficult task in comparison.

[Fortack]

duckofyork wrote...

[...] It [ME2] was nothing but enjoyable character development.

Which is why ME2 is so much better because characters are the best part of the ME series.

Combat is also much better in ME2.

[FKA_Servo]

duckofyork wrote...

and come on, the human reaper? Are people seriously forgetting how f***ing lame that was? I guess everything looks sunnier on the other side.

Human reaper was beyond lame. When it looked like you weren't going to have face it as a boss, I thought it was refreshing, because fighting it would be so predictable. When it clawed it's way back up, I got whiplash from the facepalming.

While the moment to moment stuff and companion stuff was pretty good, overall, almost all of ME2 (and now, in retrospect, nearly the entire franchise) was a giant missed opportunity. The best thing about ME2 was the switch up in gameplay. The further improvements there were one of the better things in ME3 (although I generally still like what they did with the story up to the end).

Modifié par TommyServo, 04 avril 2012 - 02:37 .

[MarkVsColin]

The way the ending was effected by choices you made through the game, it gave the game great replay value unlike ME3 endings which are really almost the same whatever choices you made

[AkiKishi]

Any failure of ME2 you can put onto ME3 for not catching the ball. At the end of ME2 Joker hands you an info pad with Reaper blueprints on it, and tons of other useful stuff,which is not even considered in ME3.