I feel like ME3 had a larger scope than ME2. ME2 delivered better on the scope of the game percentage-wise, but ME3 didn't despite delivering much more overall than ME2 did (respecting previous games' choices, multiplayer, etc.). So, numerically speaking, ME2 was a 90/100 (90%), but ME3 was a 130/150 (86%).
Why is the general consensus here that ME2 is better than 3?
Débuté par
ProtoMan 2.0
, avril 09 2012 02:17
Retour en haut
#177
Posté 09 avril 2012 - 03:40
ProtoMan 2.0
-
- Members
- 79 messages
Nauks wrote...
ME2 was a perfect sequel, did mostly everything right, and improved the game in a way that felt more like next gen than a sequel on the same console, the Empire Strikes Back of the ME series if you will.
ME3 is Mass Effect's Empire strikes back and Return of the Jedi, ME2 is more like a spinoff inbetween book.
#178
Posté 09 avril 2012 - 03:41
Heather Cline
-
- Members
- 2 822 messages
I feel that though ME2 lacked proper storyline and overall arching plot it did not fail to deliver on gameplay, it did not fail to deliver on most of it's promises. There was very little auto-dialogue. There was no texture popping issues, there were very little graphic issues or lighting issues. The ending was what was promised no lies about it.
Fact is ME2 delivered on every note that was promised except for s/s romance options but we were informed through interviews just prior to launch that they were removed. Sure it upset most fans of the s/s romance options but the fact was the game delivered where it was said to deliver. ME3 did not deliver in every area.
Yes it was larger in scope but they failed to deliver on many promises and the game is still in alpha stage it shouldn't have been shipped in this condition.
Fact is ME2 delivered on every note that was promised except for s/s romance options but we were informed through interviews just prior to launch that they were removed. Sure it upset most fans of the s/s romance options but the fact was the game delivered where it was said to deliver. ME3 did not deliver in every area.
Yes it was larger in scope but they failed to deliver on many promises and the game is still in alpha stage it shouldn't have been shipped in this condition.
#179
Posté 09 avril 2012 - 03:49
Dominator24
-
- Members
- 285 messages
Yep sums it up great.phouria wrote...
brett0560 wrote...
I think there are a few reasons some people like ME2 more than ME3:
1. They hate the ME3 ending.
2. They may like the ME2 companions more (legion, and thane anyone?).
3. They liked visiting and exploring more hub worlds, like omega, not just the citadel.
4. They probably liked the suicide run for ME2 end game, where your choices actually had a huge emotional impact (not saying this isn't also in ME3).
5. This may just be me, but ME2 seemed to have more content.
As for me, I like both equally, and since I haven't finished 3 yet (right at the end, don't want to beat it yet) I shouldn't judge.
those 5 reasons pretty much sum how i felt. thanks dood.
#180
Posté 09 avril 2012 - 03:51
Siansonea
-
- Members
- 7 282 messages
Mass Effect 2 was a fun game to play, and I liked the new characters, but from a story standpoint it was a glorified side quest. Not to mention the fact that it had some glaringly ridiculous story problems.
The Lazarus Project had "we need a time jump, and we need to reset the character level and skill tree" written all over it. And I can't think of a worse way of doing that. Shepard could have been captured and held by Cerberus or the batarians or really just about anybody if they just wanted a time jump and to take away all your ME1 candy. But death and resurrection? Facepalm. Talk about swatting a fly with a sledgehammer. And the significance of the event in the ensuing story is little more than a footnote, or a punchline. So much for that dramatic potential. They didn't even use it to build suspense, they could have done so much more with it than they did, which just underlines what a mundane problem it was used to address.
Working for Cerberus was also problematic. Shepard knew exactly who Cerberus was, and what they were capable of, yet she signs on the dotted line with the Illusive Man after talking to a traumatized quarian, Tali, and a bunch of Cerberus lackeys? Regardless of the fact that they connect the dots that the Collectors are working for the Reapers, how does Shepard know that chasing the Collectors is the most important task in the fight against the Reapers? And how does a loyal Alliance soldier and Council Spectre justify betraying BOTH groups by getting in bed with a human supremacist organization?
Shepard's mild reactions to TIM's numerous manipulations and machinations is also derpworthy. Oh, you sent us into a trap, TIM? Well, don't you do it again! Oh, you did it again? Well, don't you do it a third time! Ugh.
And then there's the Suicide Mission. All that recruiting, just to shut off a partially built Human Reaper? How was stopping that one science experiment helpful to the galaxy, especially since while chasing these wild geese, the real Reapers were arriving on our doorstep? You know, the Reapers that are actually mobile and dangerous, with the strength of numbers?
Yeah, Shepard was an IDIOT in ME2, but hey, it sure was fun running around Omega and Illium.
The Lazarus Project had "we need a time jump, and we need to reset the character level and skill tree" written all over it. And I can't think of a worse way of doing that. Shepard could have been captured and held by Cerberus or the batarians or really just about anybody if they just wanted a time jump and to take away all your ME1 candy. But death and resurrection? Facepalm. Talk about swatting a fly with a sledgehammer. And the significance of the event in the ensuing story is little more than a footnote, or a punchline. So much for that dramatic potential. They didn't even use it to build suspense, they could have done so much more with it than they did, which just underlines what a mundane problem it was used to address.
Working for Cerberus was also problematic. Shepard knew exactly who Cerberus was, and what they were capable of, yet she signs on the dotted line with the Illusive Man after talking to a traumatized quarian, Tali, and a bunch of Cerberus lackeys? Regardless of the fact that they connect the dots that the Collectors are working for the Reapers, how does Shepard know that chasing the Collectors is the most important task in the fight against the Reapers? And how does a loyal Alliance soldier and Council Spectre justify betraying BOTH groups by getting in bed with a human supremacist organization?
Shepard's mild reactions to TIM's numerous manipulations and machinations is also derpworthy. Oh, you sent us into a trap, TIM? Well, don't you do it again! Oh, you did it again? Well, don't you do it a third time! Ugh.
And then there's the Suicide Mission. All that recruiting, just to shut off a partially built Human Reaper? How was stopping that one science experiment helpful to the galaxy, especially since while chasing these wild geese, the real Reapers were arriving on our doorstep? You know, the Reapers that are actually mobile and dangerous, with the strength of numbers?
Yeah, Shepard was an IDIOT in ME2, but hey, it sure was fun running around Omega and Illium.
#181
Posté 09 avril 2012 - 03:59
78stonewobble
-
- Members
- 3 252 messages
Siansonea II wrote...
Mass Effect 2 was a fun game to play, and I liked the new characters, but from a story standpoint it was a glorified side quest. Not to mention the fact that it had some glaringly ridiculous story problems.
The Lazarus Project had "we need a time jump, and we need to reset the character level and skill tree" written all over it. And I can't think of a worse way of doing that. Shepard could have been captured and held by Cerberus or the batarians or really just about anybody if they just wanted a time jump and to take away all your ME1 candy. But death and resurrection? Facepalm. Talk about swatting a fly with a sledgehammer. And the significance of the event in the ensuing story is little more than a footnote, or a punchline. So much for that dramatic potential. They didn't even use it to build suspense, they could have done so much more with it than they did, which just underlines what a mundane problem it was used to address.
Working for Cerberus was also problematic. Shepard knew exactly who Cerberus was, and what they were capable of, yet she signs on the dotted line with the Illusive Man after talking to a traumatized quarian, Tali, and a bunch of Cerberus lackeys? Regardless of the fact that they connect the dots that the Collectors are working for the Reapers, how does Shepard know that chasing the Collectors is the most important task in the fight against the Reapers? And how does a loyal Alliance soldier and Council Spectre justify betraying BOTH groups by getting in bed with a human supremacist organization?
Shepard's mild reactions to TIM's numerous manipulations and machinations is also derpworthy. Oh, you sent us into a trap, TIM? Well, don't you do it again! Oh, you did it again? Well, don't you do it a third time! Ugh.
And then there's the Suicide Mission. All that recruiting, just to shut off a partially built Human Reaper? How was stopping that one science experiment helpful to the galaxy, especially since while chasing these wild geese, the real Reapers were arriving on our doorstep? You know, the Reapers that are actually mobile and dangerous, with the strength of numbers?
Yeah, Shepard was an IDIOT in ME2, but hey, it sure was fun running around Omega and Illium.
*lol* You are correct in that it actually IS a gloryfied and major sidequest.
I accept that... But IMHO the gunplay in ME1 is still so horrible I cannot replay it and ME3 ending shock made go replay ME2 (after trying ME1).
So though I haven't decided whether 2 or 3 is the best I have all but certainly ruled out ME1 as my personal favorite.
#182
Posté 09 avril 2012 - 04:10
BatmanPWNS
-
- Members
- 6 392 messages
The autodialogue destroy all my possible renegade Shepard personality and the squad doesn't help with no Vanguard or Senintel (If you have no Kaidan)
#183
Posté 09 avril 2012 - 05:28
Kakita Tatsumaru
-
- Members
- 958 messages
I felt like ME2 Shepard was mine. I felt like I was playing someone else Shepard in ME3.
#184
Posté 09 avril 2012 - 05:39
Shadow of Terror
-
- Members
- 815 messages
ME2 had better level design, better in mission/sidequest gameplay.
ME3 side missions equalled "hey, run around on this multiplayer map for me". Then the main quests on insanity, weren't much better. Teammate choices mattered less, there were stupid things like "pick a teammate to repair this" and "here, I know you spent the whole game using nothing but biotics, but here, aim this targeting system at this reaper for us will you?" also the "handle a **** ton of strong enemies until you activate everything/survive the time limit"
There were a few things, gameplay wise, that has just made it less fun to replay. Add the fact you can bumrush the game, skip over everything, and there's not difference in the ending (like, the end of a trilogy ending), it makes you feel as if all those other quests were... well... pointless.
ME3 side missions equalled "hey, run around on this multiplayer map for me". Then the main quests on insanity, weren't much better. Teammate choices mattered less, there were stupid things like "pick a teammate to repair this" and "here, I know you spent the whole game using nothing but biotics, but here, aim this targeting system at this reaper for us will you?" also the "handle a **** ton of strong enemies until you activate everything/survive the time limit"
There were a few things, gameplay wise, that has just made it less fun to replay. Add the fact you can bumrush the game, skip over everything, and there's not difference in the ending (like, the end of a trilogy ending), it makes you feel as if all those other quests were... well... pointless.
#185
Posté 09 avril 2012 - 05:44
MichaelSD
-
- Members
- 91 messages
One word: choices. I had more choices to make.
Also, I the whole game design was better: levels. characters, story, etc.
Also, I the whole game design was better: levels. characters, story, etc.
#186
Posté 09 avril 2012 - 06:41
poerksen
-
- Members
- 128 messages
I feel sleepy going through all the dialog in ME3. Waaaaayyy too much auto-dialog. Replaying the game is a pain (which is why I dropped it, incl. the ending), because all you do is sit and listen to what you have already heard. So half of the gaming is pretty boring. Dialog is also more interesting in ME2. I do not like ME3 shepard for some reason, something about him has changed ?
ME2 is much longer than ME3. More bang for your buck. The loyalty-missions, story-missions and side-missions are more interesting, the characters are more interesting, The world is more immersive, because you get to visit more locations and talk to many different people. Level-design is way better. I understand why we did not get to visit the hub-worlds (under attack prob), but that does not mean we should not be able to visit new places or do an interesting side mission that might affect the final mission in some way...
ME2's final missions completely demolishes ME3's Earth Mission, which is absolutely horrible in comparison. Your decisions throughout the game have no interesting impact on the Earth mission other than a few short cinematics that are pointless.Were are my teammates? What are they doing? Did some of them die? Where are the Krogan, Elcor, Volus...... It was completely underwhelming. Remember listening to the short radio messages of team 2 having a hard time and giving progress reports. Simple, but immersive.
Why do I spend the entire game collecting EMS? Kind of similar to upgrading your ship in ME2 and doing loyalty missions, but they at least had an impact. My choices mattered.
All that ME3 manages to deliver is better control of shepard during combat and that is it.
The enemies were more varied in ME2 aswell in my oppinion, ME2 Squad > ME3 Squad. Vega and Ashley are boring. Diana Allers = But why?, Cortez is even worse than Jacob, who was my least favorite character in ME2. Javik had an interesting background, but he had nothing to say during missions and the mission to retrieve him is basically just horde mode and mp. Nothing of interest at all.
ME2 had cool bad guys; Harbinger, Collector General and TIM were cool enough.
ME3: Kai Leng, really? Damn he was lame, lamest villain i've ever seen. Looked like something taken out of an anime. The Terminator from ME2 was cooler than him. Felt like he had some kind of inferiority issue toward shepard. Come on, the guy called on his allies every single time. Why don't you run home to mummy instead Kai Leng.
TIM also got lame.
ME2 is much longer than ME3. More bang for your buck. The loyalty-missions, story-missions and side-missions are more interesting, the characters are more interesting, The world is more immersive, because you get to visit more locations and talk to many different people. Level-design is way better. I understand why we did not get to visit the hub-worlds (under attack prob), but that does not mean we should not be able to visit new places or do an interesting side mission that might affect the final mission in some way...
ME2's final missions completely demolishes ME3's Earth Mission, which is absolutely horrible in comparison. Your decisions throughout the game have no interesting impact on the Earth mission other than a few short cinematics that are pointless.Were are my teammates? What are they doing? Did some of them die? Where are the Krogan, Elcor, Volus...... It was completely underwhelming. Remember listening to the short radio messages of team 2 having a hard time and giving progress reports. Simple, but immersive.
Why do I spend the entire game collecting EMS? Kind of similar to upgrading your ship in ME2 and doing loyalty missions, but they at least had an impact. My choices mattered.
All that ME3 manages to deliver is better control of shepard during combat and that is it.
The enemies were more varied in ME2 aswell in my oppinion, ME2 Squad > ME3 Squad. Vega and Ashley are boring. Diana Allers = But why?, Cortez is even worse than Jacob, who was my least favorite character in ME2. Javik had an interesting background, but he had nothing to say during missions and the mission to retrieve him is basically just horde mode and mp. Nothing of interest at all.
ME2 had cool bad guys; Harbinger, Collector General and TIM were cool enough.
ME3: Kai Leng, really? Damn he was lame, lamest villain i've ever seen. Looked like something taken out of an anime. The Terminator from ME2 was cooler than him. Felt like he had some kind of inferiority issue toward shepard. Come on, the guy called on his allies every single time. Why don't you run home to mummy instead Kai Leng.
TIM also got lame.
Modifié par poerksen, 09 avril 2012 - 07:03 .
#187
Posté 10 avril 2012 - 08:29
Lotion Soronarr
-
- Members
- 14 481 messages
SynheKatze wrote...
ME2 feels like a complete game. No rushed narrative, no rushed development, no traces of 'what could have been', more side missions, more variety in said missions, more balanced difficulty levels (Insanity is mindboggingly boring now), better dialogue...
HAHAHAHAHA!
ME2 plot feels like it was never proof-read by anyone. Not that ME3 is much better....
#188
Posté 10 avril 2012 - 08:38
FlamingBoy
-
- Members
- 3 064 messages
mass effect 2 did not disappoint, at least for me
me3 dissapointed even before release with add on like kinect and multiplayer, then after release with diana allers, starchild, no hub worlds, and others. everything felt rushed
me3 dissapointed even before release with add on like kinect and multiplayer, then after release with diana allers, starchild, no hub worlds, and others. everything felt rushed
#190
Posté 10 avril 2012 - 08:41
Benny8484
-
- Members
- 452 messages
ME2
Better Ending
Could have kasumi in squad
Better Story
Graphics were better and faces actually worked
Shadow Broker DLC
Exploration
Better Ending
Could have kasumi in squad
Better Story
Graphics were better and faces actually worked
Shadow Broker DLC
Exploration
#191
Posté 10 avril 2012 - 08:47
Kaiser Arian XVII
-
- Members
- 17 286 messages
FlamingBoy wrote...
mass effect 2 did not disappoint, at least for me
me3 dissapointed even before release with add on like kinect and multiplayer, then after release with diana allers, starchild, no hub worlds, and others. everything felt rushed
This.
And I like NWN 1.
#192
Posté 10 avril 2012 - 05:23
Mykel54
-
- Members
- 1 180 messages
ME2 is my favourite without a doubt. For me the ME universe is not only facing the reapers, i mean the reapers aren´t the central part. Sure they are the villains, but the real thing is living and experimenting the universe. ME1 did an awesome job at this, but ME2 expanded a lot on it through the many different companions.
You still had the sense of urgency, of fighting an unknown enemy (collectors) but the world wasn´t in "Oh my god Reapers are invading!" mode. People acted normally, and you could face many varied enemies other than reaper husks over and over again.
I also loved the grey morality of the setting, specially thanks to the stellar role of TIM. Cerberus goes from being your average evil guys in ME1 to being a grey organization in ME2 that is helping you stop the collectors. You can´t fully trust TIM, as he seems to betray you at times, and that is what is best about him. Shepard is conflicted between his allegiance to the alliance and now to cerberus.
I also enjoy much more how weapons work in ME2 over ME3 (i find most of the new weapons really silly and unrealistic, while other are unnecessary overpowered copies, like black widow over widow, really?) and how you get them after the mission´s end. I hate how in ME3 you find stuff all over the levels, it looks so random and gamey that it breaks the inmersion.
ME2 plot is only weak if you account the Arrival DLC into it. If you ignore that dlc, the plot makes perfect sense and you can imagine how the reaper invasion would play out without crucible, god child, lolcerberus with kai leng, etc. ME2 plot was clearly based around the dark energy build up plot that was later scrapped, there are several references to it like Dholen and Parassini.
After seeing the letdown that is ME3 ending (the rest of the game is average) i think i will just ignore it and headcanon something else.
You still had the sense of urgency, of fighting an unknown enemy (collectors) but the world wasn´t in "Oh my god Reapers are invading!" mode. People acted normally, and you could face many varied enemies other than reaper husks over and over again.
I also loved the grey morality of the setting, specially thanks to the stellar role of TIM. Cerberus goes from being your average evil guys in ME1 to being a grey organization in ME2 that is helping you stop the collectors. You can´t fully trust TIM, as he seems to betray you at times, and that is what is best about him. Shepard is conflicted between his allegiance to the alliance and now to cerberus.
I also enjoy much more how weapons work in ME2 over ME3 (i find most of the new weapons really silly and unrealistic, while other are unnecessary overpowered copies, like black widow over widow, really?) and how you get them after the mission´s end. I hate how in ME3 you find stuff all over the levels, it looks so random and gamey that it breaks the inmersion.
ME2 plot is only weak if you account the Arrival DLC into it. If you ignore that dlc, the plot makes perfect sense and you can imagine how the reaper invasion would play out without crucible, god child, lolcerberus with kai leng, etc. ME2 plot was clearly based around the dark energy build up plot that was later scrapped, there are several references to it like Dholen and Parassini.
After seeing the letdown that is ME3 ending (the rest of the game is average) i think i will just ignore it and headcanon something else.
#193
Posté 10 avril 2012 - 05:42
Sangheili_1337
-
- Members
- 143 messages
For me, I liked ME 2's non linearity. You can recruit you squad mates in any order for the most part and their missions is on the same quality level as what you want in a main mission. There are more hub worlds which makes the game more immersive. The low squadmate count in ME 3 really bothered me and you don't even have access to all of them for the majority of the game.
As far as I am concerned, ME 3 did three major things that were superior to ME 2. The major plot points are far superior to that of the second game. The genophage and Quarian-Geth story arcs are very well done. The upgrades at level up are also better with more choice added. The third is that the combat is more refined but it isn't drastic and doesn't make a whole lot of difference to me.
In all other points I enjoyed ME 2 far more. There was more character development and interactions, there was no auto dialogue so Shepard feels more along the lines i want. I don't want my Shepard to have nightmares about some dumb kid, I don't want my Shepard to be railroaded in his decision making, I don't want Shepard to accept the starchild's logic. The enemy variety left a lot to be desired but it was understandable given the setting.
The ending of ME 2 was great, there is no comparison. ME 3 has the worst ending I ever seen for any medium. Was the boss fight in ME 2 lackluster gameplay wise? Yes but outside of that the ending was incredible. You have to make the right decisions in order to get everyone to survive. Every squad mate is utilized and you feel like you accomplished something. There is choice involved. You can have a ending bad enough that you can't live to the next game or triumph with a perfect outcome. You had choice.
I have a hard time understanding anyone who would argue ME 3 is better.
As far as I am concerned, ME 3 did three major things that were superior to ME 2. The major plot points are far superior to that of the second game. The genophage and Quarian-Geth story arcs are very well done. The upgrades at level up are also better with more choice added. The third is that the combat is more refined but it isn't drastic and doesn't make a whole lot of difference to me.
In all other points I enjoyed ME 2 far more. There was more character development and interactions, there was no auto dialogue so Shepard feels more along the lines i want. I don't want my Shepard to have nightmares about some dumb kid, I don't want my Shepard to be railroaded in his decision making, I don't want Shepard to accept the starchild's logic. The enemy variety left a lot to be desired but it was understandable given the setting.
The ending of ME 2 was great, there is no comparison. ME 3 has the worst ending I ever seen for any medium. Was the boss fight in ME 2 lackluster gameplay wise? Yes but outside of that the ending was incredible. You have to make the right decisions in order to get everyone to survive. Every squad mate is utilized and you feel like you accomplished something. There is choice involved. You can have a ending bad enough that you can't live to the next game or triumph with a perfect outcome. You had choice.
I have a hard time understanding anyone who would argue ME 3 is better.
Modifié par Sangheili_1337, 10 avril 2012 - 05:44 .
#194
Posté 10 avril 2012 - 05:52
Calibrategoodtimes
-
- Members
- 57 messages
Whoaa definitely some high expectations from some people.
Looking back it feels like they made ME2 as a sequel for ME1 for the players of ME1. ME3 feels like its too suited for new players (multiplayer, auto dialogue etc) And whilst i have no problem of new players, the point is its mass effect 3 not 1, you should really play (or understand) the others to appreciate the story.
I started with me2 so i'm in an awkward spot regarding my favourite as i read the story to 1 whilst purchasing 2 on steam. I absolutely loved me2, lots of various things to do, great gameplay and the characters really stood out. The story whilst dodgy in places progressed to where i thought it would (end the collectors) and I had a blast playing it.
Now with me3. I enjoyed me3 (barring the obvious) but i didn't have a blast playing it. There were too many times where i thought well what are they doing now or why cant i find out more about that. I had this in me2 why haven't i got it in me3? It just felt like the time and resources(anyone?) were taken from deepening the story into pleasing the 99% (multiplayer + kinect etc)
I'l always enjoy each game just 1+2 are about level for depth and enjoyment whilst me3 feels like a feeble attempt to recruit the COD players for a few months and leave the real fans with 3/4 of the chocolate bar.
Looking back it feels like they made ME2 as a sequel for ME1 for the players of ME1. ME3 feels like its too suited for new players (multiplayer, auto dialogue etc) And whilst i have no problem of new players, the point is its mass effect 3 not 1, you should really play (or understand) the others to appreciate the story.
I started with me2 so i'm in an awkward spot regarding my favourite as i read the story to 1 whilst purchasing 2 on steam. I absolutely loved me2, lots of various things to do, great gameplay and the characters really stood out. The story whilst dodgy in places progressed to where i thought it would (end the collectors) and I had a blast playing it.
Now with me3. I enjoyed me3 (barring the obvious) but i didn't have a blast playing it. There were too many times where i thought well what are they doing now or why cant i find out more about that. I had this in me2 why haven't i got it in me3? It just felt like the time and resources(anyone?) were taken from deepening the story into pleasing the 99% (multiplayer + kinect etc)
I'l always enjoy each game just 1+2 are about level for depth and enjoyment whilst me3 feels like a feeble attempt to recruit the COD players for a few months and leave the real fans with 3/4 of the chocolate bar.
#195
Posté 10 avril 2012 - 05:57
Esmeraldita95
-
- Members
- 43 messages
MingWolf wrote...
-Better side-quests
-Better dialogue from NPCs
-Good character development
-Variety of enemies
-Minigames
-Get to blow up pyjaks on tuchunka
^This and a lot of variety of members
#196
Posté 10 avril 2012 - 06:19
Zanath
-
- Members
- 73 messages
No. ME3 had better textures and better fighting, but it had VASTLY inferior roleplay (autodialog, removal of the neutral option, and on top of that even the paragon/renegade are mostly the exact same thing), even worse plot (the deus ex machina in ME2 was ugly, but the one in ME3 is ugly AND ridiculous AND is the entirety of the scenario, which means that it drags the whole game down with it) and waste a LOT of the potential for interesting choices and situation (ME2 took great pain to make us constantly unsure if Cerberus was ruthless but doing what was needed, or extremists looking for an excuse ; ME3 just made them the bad guys that hampers the fight against the Reapers rather than doing their own part in their own way).ProtoMan 2.0 wrote...
Mass Effect 3 was in most ways an improvement to Mass Effect 2.
ME3 had more writing per character, but fewer characters. ME3 had actual choices that changed some things (save for the ending of course), but so many of them were just re-confirming the choices already made in ME1 that it felt like if your choices didn't matter in the end - so, funnily enough, it felt like ME3 had actually LESS choices than ME2.
ME3 was far too much on a rail - ME2 at least gave some bit of illusion of freedom.
Even without the ending debacle, ME2 is far superior. ME3, while still quite good, is filled with very serious flaws.
#197
Posté 10 avril 2012 - 06:26
brfritos
-
- Members
- 774 messages
78stonewobble wrote...
Siansonea II wrote...
Mass Effect 2 was a fun game to play, and I liked the new characters, but from a story standpoint it was a glorified side quest. Not to mention the fact that it had some glaringly ridiculous story problems.
The Lazarus Project had "we need a time jump, and we need to reset the character level and skill tree" written all over it. And I can't think of a worse way of doing that. Shepard could have been captured and held by Cerberus or the batarians or really just about anybody if they just wanted a time jump and to take away all your ME1 candy. But death and resurrection? Facepalm. Talk about swatting a fly with a sledgehammer. And the significance of the event in the ensuing story is little more than a footnote, or a punchline. So much for that dramatic potential. They didn't even use it to build suspense, they could have done so much more with it than they did, which just underlines what a mundane problem it was used to address.
Working for Cerberus was also problematic. Shepard knew exactly who Cerberus was, and what they were capable of, yet she signs on the dotted line with the Illusive Man after talking to a traumatized quarian, Tali, and a bunch of Cerberus lackeys? Regardless of the fact that they connect the dots that the Collectors are working for the Reapers, how does Shepard know that chasing the Collectors is the most important task in the fight against the Reapers? And how does a loyal Alliance soldier and Council Spectre justify betraying BOTH groups by getting in bed with a human supremacist organization?
Shepard's mild reactions to TIM's numerous manipulations and machinations is also derpworthy. Oh, you sent us into a trap, TIM? Well, don't you do it again! Oh, you did it again? Well, don't you do it a third time! Ugh.
And then there's the Suicide Mission. All that recruiting, just to shut off a partially built Human Reaper? How was stopping that one science experiment helpful to the galaxy, especially since while chasing these wild geese, the real Reapers were arriving on our doorstep? You know, the Reapers that are actually mobile and dangerous, with the strength of numbers?
Yeah, Shepard was an IDIOT in ME2, but hey, it sure was fun running around Omega and Illium.
*lol* You are correct in that it actually IS a gloryfied and major sidequest.
I accept that... But IMHO the gunplay in ME1 is still so horrible I cannot replay it and ME3 ending shock made go replay ME2 (after trying ME1).
So though I haven't decided whether 2 or 3 is the best I have all but certainly ruled out ME1 as my personal favorite.
I like ME1 more than ME2/ME3, but combat wise gameplay ME3 has the best of all.
If in ME1 Shepard was godlike specially after acquiring Spectre gear, in ME2 Shepard is a sissy little children incapable of gunning down a simple soldier (those blue suns/eclipses/vorcha are nasty).
In ME3 you have more variety in strategy and when you find a booslike fight, like Brutes, Banshees and Primes, they are really though, is better balanced.
Those Marauders are also a pain, they undo all of your work by ressurecting killed enemies (no wonder Marauder Shields is our heroe.
).Shame that Bioware empowred the player too much in the beginning, so you became godlike fast, but try to import a save from ME1+ME2 and lower your Shepard to level 20 with a save editor.
The experience is much better IMHO.
But the ending killed the replay value of ME3, so most people don't bother with and I can't really blame them.
#198
Posté 10 avril 2012 - 06:35
SynheKatze
-
- Members
- 600 messages
Lotion Soronnar wrote...
SynheKatze wrote...
ME2 feels like a complete game. No rushed narrative, no rushed development, no traces of 'what could have been', more side missions, more variety in said missions, more balanced difficulty levels (Insanity is mindboggingly boring now), better dialogue...
HAHAHAHAHA!
ME2 plot feels like it was never proof-read by anyone. Not that ME3 is much better....
Well, I was referring to the fact that the game allowed you to look at some of the problems of the galaxy more deeply. The genophage, the geth conflicts and all the relationships between governments were all build up in that game. That is not to say the main mission is not a complete waste of time (given ME3).
#199
Posté 10 avril 2012 - 06:45
stonbw1
-
- Members
- 891 messages
I guess a lot of people forget the never-ending mocking that went on about ME2 and the Terminator-analogies. Somehow, time has made that ridiculous ending a great ending.
I also guess a lot of people forget about the flimsy premise for the loyalty missions in ME2. Here again, time has made those meaningful.
I guess again that a lot of people also forgot about the cut n paste combat zones and venues in ME2. Apparently, time has revealed variety.
ME3 was much more enjoyable to ME. [Flame Shield Up]
I also guess a lot of people forget about the flimsy premise for the loyalty missions in ME2. Here again, time has made those meaningful.
I guess again that a lot of people also forgot about the cut n paste combat zones and venues in ME2. Apparently, time has revealed variety.
ME3 was much more enjoyable to ME. [Flame Shield Up]
#200
Posté 10 avril 2012 - 06:48
Cazychel
-
- Members
- 101 messages
For me:
The characters in ME2 had more depth, more dialogue and a more integral part in the story. In ME3 after all, I didn't have very much to do with them. They had all their thing and interesting dialogue, too (most of all Jarvik). The most interesting parts happened with those characters, that were not part of your crew anymore. (But these moments are pure gold and good payoff for playing ME2!!)
The universe felt bigger in ME2. But that might simply be the hub worlds and being able to talk to much more people. Omega was really good and intense. The side quests were more interesting, too. ME3 had a few good ones, as well, though. (Especially if it did not involve scanning a planet.)
Cerberus and TIM were excellent parts of ME2 (and of ME3, too).
Cazy
The characters in ME2 had more depth, more dialogue and a more integral part in the story. In ME3 after all, I didn't have very much to do with them. They had all their thing and interesting dialogue, too (most of all Jarvik). The most interesting parts happened with those characters, that were not part of your crew anymore. (But these moments are pure gold and good payoff for playing ME2!!)
The universe felt bigger in ME2. But that might simply be the hub worlds and being able to talk to much more people. Omega was really good and intense. The side quests were more interesting, too. ME3 had a few good ones, as well, though. (Especially if it did not involve scanning a planet.)
Cerberus and TIM were excellent parts of ME2 (and of ME3, too).
Cazy
