TL:DR - Please just read the whole thing it's not that long.
One of the BIGGEST complaints I've seen is how the ME2 cast was shelved in ME3.... Umm, did ANYONE play ME2, where the ENTIRE ME1 cast (except for Tali, she's in every game) was shelved and didnt even have decent cameo's like Thane, Grunt, Mordin, and Miranda did in ME3. Unless you bought LotSB DLC, and only Liara showed up then.
Another huge complaint was that your choices from ME2 (Collector base choice, rachni, etc.) had little to no impact in ME3...... What? NOT ONE SINGLE choice from ME1 was reflected with great significant impact on ME2, the only choices that were really apparent was your choice of councilor and whether you saved the council or saved the humans, and those had VERY little impact on the game as a whole.
Yet another complaint was that ME3 voided everything from ME1, are you kididng? the ENTIRE main plot of ME2 had NOTHING to do with what happened in ME1, and the story archs are kinda side-lined (such as Wrex being Clan Urdnot's leader) and were only gave a mention in a convo with said character. The only thing ME2 added to the story as a whole was that the Protheans were turned into slaves.... okay? Cool. Couldnt put that into a DLC?
People complain that the RPG factor was dumbed down in ME3 and forgotten..... again, HUH? in ME2, there was almost NO rpg factor, Besides having more Dialogue choices in convos than ME3 (which people complained ruined the flow of a dramatic scene) everything else was even less RPG than ME3. For example, that leveling system was a lot more simple and less complex, less choices, less points, less levels, etc. There was less armor choice and a LOT less weapon choice with NO mods whatsoever. The only real RPG factor was the upgrades, and those were hell to get as you had to scan countless planets for minerals.
The combat system was good, but got kinda boring; take cover, shoot til it's dead, move up, repeat. They improved the combat system GREATLY with better maps and a dive roll. ADDING A DIVE ROLL DOES NOT MAKE IT A GENERIC SHOOTER!! THERE IS A REASON IT IS A SUCCESSFUL GAMEPLAY MECHANIC!! The roll simply makes for better and more exhilirating combat.
The last complaint is that ME3 was too short; about 25 hrs on insanity and completionist playthrough. ME2 was 30 hours as the same, and HALF the game dealt with loyalty missions which had NOTHING to do with the main story. Sure the loyalty of your team affected the outcome of the suicide mission, but that's ALL it did for ME2. Don't get me wrong, I liked the loyalty mission aspect, but when HALF the game (15hrs, maybe less) is based on them, that just sidelines the main plot, which again, had NOTHING to do with ANYTHING from ME1 and added NOTHING to the overall plot of the trilogy. Oh, and ME2 was not about fighting Reapers (people complain that ME3 was about fighting Cerberus, not reapers) it was about fighting the collectors, and besides Husks and the occasional Harby possession, there was no fighting of the Reapers.
At least ME3 concludes MOST of the story archs that started ME1, and FOCUSES specifically on that. Granted it did not continue the Collector Base/Baby Reaper arch.
ME2 was also quite buggy.
EDIT: Also, ME2 never really moved me or gave me goosebumps, except for Miranda saying, "I don't have that fire that youd do." etc, and Grunt saying "Shepard is my battlemaster, he has no match." ME3 moved me to tears, and gave me goosebumps every 2 seconds and made me jump for joy at times. Much better writing and focus on dialogue, char interactions, and action imo.
Now, ignoring ME3 endings, cuz I agree they sucked, and besides ME2 having more dialogue choices, are these NOT THE EXACT SAME ISSUES people have with ME3? Or am I missing something? Hypocritical, dontcha think?
In my opinion, people are letting their feelings for the endings affect how they feel about the rest of the game, causing them to ignore that ME2 had many of the same flaws, yet everyone praises ME2.
Modifié par Xemnas07, 18 juillet 2012 - 10:20 .
Retour en haut
.
