341 réponses à ce sujet

[Jonathan Sud]

Your opinion on ME2 is based on it's effects on ME3, which makes your argument null and void to me.

[Leon Felps]

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.

-ME1’s cast was pretty involved outside of the Ash character.  You have to count the DLC as part of the game,
so you really are given more than 50% of ME1’s cast to play with; only 7 total which
includes Shepard and the 1 that dies.

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.

-I can't really argue that me2's story was impacted much by me1's choices.  That said, me2 was not the end of the line and seemed more of a stand alone tale; develop the universe, give more cause and effect for later, etc.  ME3, being the last entry, was expected to tie the results together while any previous game could just playout for the most part.  I may be wrong but aside from some romance options and charatcer survivals, me3 could play out nearly the same for all events regardless of an import file.    

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?

-ME2 was not the end.  ME1's universe was further explored, characters developed and story progressed.

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.

-No.  ME3 did a good job of end result power/gear rpg elements, but it was really dumbed down overall.  ME2 wasn't the best or anything, but you needed more effort than finding 10 mods and weapons along your normally very limited guided combat path to upgrade.  Also, upgrades, gear, quest items need only be purchased and all in the same place; the Citadel and UPS store in the Normandy are the same really.  ME3 may have had multiple options for weapons and mods, but most are garbage and not even a filler between end game stuff; which is available almost right away.  ME3 had no cities in the rpg sence outside of the normandy and citadel. Nor could you return in any function to a place once you completed a mission.  I won't even start with how lazy it is to scan an area and find a surprise armada just chilling out.

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.

-Not really much to discuss here as ME2 and ME3 are both average at best shooters to me.  I agree with you as far as improved combat mechanics in 3.  I like it.  Your opinion though about better maps and it not getting boring.  Maybe it's the ending, but I don't really want to play again; I'm very slowly grinding 1 mission at a time on my insanity playthough whereas I imediatley jumped in and quickly did playthoughs after beating 1 and 2.  Aside from like the Krogan arc, I thought ME2's battle grounds were just as large as the best of ME3 but had a better flow, enemey placement and scense of interaction. 

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.

-They are both short.  Nothing to argue as that is the normal nature of rpgs, especially branch chain ones.  The better RPGs are "long" from replay value and main story diversions.  Only reason to play ME3 more then once is if you really want that super sweet level 10 black widow.  Then it's only 1.1 playthoughs as you can purchase it to max.  ME2 offered more path choices that I cared about about but that is just me.  As far as enemey's go, I think people are more disappointed that Cerberus takes up the majority of the LAST game over the primary enemy, epsecially since they were so minor as antagonists before.  If it is just the selection, ME2 seemed more diverse to me with Krogans, geth, vorcha, mercs and collectors.

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.

-Don't know how you can compare me2's ending to 3's since there are different expectations;  ME2 did just fine in concluding it's personal story arc.  This is just personal preference but I more interested in the Mass Efffect series because of the cast.  ME3 "ended" the reaper conflict fine, not the place for ending opinion, but left me very much without closure for my crew(s).  Hell, gabage photoshopped pictures along the lines of Miranda and her sister with a caption saying "Directing the rebuilding effort with their fathers' funds." would've been nice had they survived.

ME2 was also quite buggy.

-ME3 seemed like it skipped the beta test phase as well.

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.

-That's all on you.  Not right or wrong.  I thought Shepard dying in space in ME2's opening as the most memorable, but that's just me.

I thought ME3 was a great one time playthough game.  It's better as a shooter than 2 just from the game mechanics, but they both aren't great shooters as I'd rather play halo, bf, cod, gow, etc for that.  I like ME2 better as a game because it's more fun as a shooter and rpg combo.  It's all preference.  Alien maybe a better movie that Aliens, but I'd rather watch Aliens anytime over Alien now that I've seen them both.

Modifié par Leon Felps, 19 juillet 2012 - 04:40 .

[Zarathustra666]

I think the answer is: 1) Gameplay. This is important, and ME2's gameplay is MUCH better than its predecessor. and 2) People. Mass Effect 2 is about your relationships, your squadmates, the people around you. In this sense, it has much more role playing than ME1. And that's why I love it more than I love ME1 (and I love them both).

[MattFini]

Scepsis wrote...

MattFini wrote...

I can promise you I'm not looking at them with rose colored glasses.

I liked them more than ME3. By a lot. I certainly don't begrudge anyone who feels differently.

I enjoyed parts of ME3, but it just didn't work for me like the other two did.

Then you are a decent individual.
I loved ME3, you love ME1. To each their own my friend.

No, no, it's ME2 that I loved!

But honestly, I can find enough to enjoy in 3 that I don't consider it a wash. I just wish the story engaged me more.

The graphics were great and the combat was a blast.

[Taboo]

I prefer two to one.

One is a bit of a slog to me sometimes.

[yukon fire]

From a technical standpoint the ability for the player to control the narrative in ME2 was amazing and was on the cusp of something truly unparalleled in all of gaming. That's why its outright disgusting that instead of building upon it and making something quite groundbreaking, BioWare decided they couldn't be bothered by even some of the simplest things (Tali's face anyone) and decided to cash in on what they had made while burning it all to the ground. Its... just evil.

[Mr.House]

I never got the "chore" feeling.

[Mr.House]

yukon fire wrote...

From a technical standpoint the ability for the player to control the narrative in ME2 was amazing and was on the cusp of something truly unparalleled in all of gaming. That's why its outright disgusting that instead of building upon it and making something quite groundbreaking, BioWare decided they couldn't be bothered by even some of the simplest things (Tali's face anyone) and decided to cash in on what they had made while burning it all to the ground. Its... just evil.

I controlled the narrative of ME2? How? Why was i forced to work with Cerberus? Why was the Alliance and Council made very incomptent so Cerberus looked like the only choice? Why could I not have Ash,Kaidan,Liara or Kaidan join me instead of them getting horrible cameos and being shafted? Why did none of my choices from ME make a real diffrence? Why during the last choice did I only have the option to give the base to Cerberus or blow it up? Why does being a sole survior mean nothing all of a sudden?

You didn't control the narritve at all in ME2. You where forced into it no matter what.

[Mr.House]

Scepsis wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

I never got the "chore" feeling.

Really?
The Mako alone has made me ragequit more times than MW3!

Was not a big fan of the Mako but I was distracted at ooing at the sky on planets. Some of those stars...

[Ticonderoga117]

Mr.House wrote...

Scepsis wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

I never got the "chore" feeling.

Really?
The Mako alone has made me ragequit more times than MW3!

Was not a big fan of the Mako but I was distracted at ooing at the sky on planets. Some of those stars...

Just those mountains were a pain.
Seriously, that would've fixed 90% of the Mako's problems. Use actual map design. No more HUGE-HIGH mountains that have like 2 ways up in any quick manner.

[F4H bandicoot]

And make each base unique and different, not all identical
Problem sort of solved.

[George Costanza]

I think ME2 is the best one. Some reasons:

1. It gives you lots of squad mates. I like that. I like having plenty of people to choose from.
2. The endgame was one of the best examples of the beauty of choice based narratives that I've ever played. All the decisions you make impact who lives and who dies.
3. From the point you go through the relay for the suicide mission, the game becomes ridiculously exciting.
4. Improved combat.

[Rhayak]

Because, mining aside (though i found it strangely addictive at times), it was a game that took every fun aspect of ME1 and put it on steroids, while shaking off most of the boring parts.

MORE shooting, and also titanically improved. ME greatly benefitted from an injection of Gears of War.
MORE characters and therefore dialog
MORE missions (to me, the best loyalty mission still is Jacob's one, no matter how bland he is).
MORE menacing enemies and final boss (i always found the geth and krogan from ME1 to be pretty unimpressive, as was Saren in Grasshopper form.)
MORE USE for technology-oriented Shepard and Squadmates other than hacking loot crates.
MORE unique skills that differentiate classes. Thank you Bioware for Biotic Charge.
A LOT MORE different weapons
BETTER SHOPPING where you just buy upgrades instead of returning to the same store ten thousand times, hoping for better ranks of armor-guns to pop up.
BETTER SETTINGS From tropical planets to the innards of a Reaper. Oh yeah.

NO Mako (lordy lordy hallelujah. Hammerhead not much funnier tho)
FAR LESS Citadel Jogging
NO loot system where you have to spend halves of hours selling junk.
SORTA FUNNY minigames replacing Simon when hacking
NO being completely invincible, even on insanity, once you get God's Armor and God's Gun.
GREAT final mission and ending.

Modifié par Rhayak, 19 juillet 2012 - 10:06 .

[fchopin]

I don’t think ME2 is amazing so don’t include me with everyone.

I dont think you want to know what i think about ME2.

[Ieldra]

I find the two games hard to compare.

(1) I think ME2 showed where Bioware's writing is strongest: in creating interesting characters. What they're not so good at is continuing characters' stories after the first chapter. The ME3 appearances of ME1 and ME2 characters both were mostly disappointing.

(2) ME2 appears good in hindsight because ME3 has an uneven quality. Compare Tuchanka and Rannoch with Thessia and Sanctuary - there are worlds between them, in emotional impact, in writing, character interaction, visual presentation, even in level design. ME2's major missions were not as good as ME3's best, but better than ME3's worst except for the visuals. An additional problem is that the missions got less interesting towards the end of the game, with Priority:Earth being a real downer, especially compared to the expectations people had for the last mission of the trilogy.

Personally, I find that ME3 has removed many aspects of ME2 I found annoying: locations now feel like locations instead of game levels, missions are more connected to the main plot and the leveling and combat system is *way* more interesting. On the other hand, I find that character writing in ME3 tends to be more streamlined, conventional and mainstream, including Shepard's. It's too obvious that the writers wanted to please everyone with their treatment of old characters and ended up pleasing no one in all too many cases. The only characters, likeable or not, which I found had a striking personality were new ones - Javik, Samantha, Vega, EDI, honorable mention to Joker and Garrus as exceptions. Everyone else appeared watered down from their previous incarnations, and the autodialogue didn't help at all. ME3 also forced every one of my Shepard out of character in at least one place in a non-trivial way.

All in all, while I think ME3 is overall much better, ME2 presented a much more unified experience. Once you got used to its strengths and weaknesses, it's rather enjoyable throughout any single playthrough. ME3, on the other hand, has truly great and inspiring moments the likes of which I've never experienced in any other game, but also the most disappointing moments of the trilogy, and where ME3 fails, it fails hard.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 19 juillet 2012 - 10:34 .

[Hendrik.III]

I don't really go into details when playing a game, I kinda judge on the feel it gives me on first playthrough. ME1 was great, ME2 was still good - what I disliked most was how small the citadel was, ME2 did feel a bit restricted. ME3 just felt like a final scene, which had the right atmosphere, the right speed... and a wrong ending.

People are just venting now, saying all kinds of crap that doesn't mean a thing just to use it to bash ME3. I still feel sick that the ME3 ending casts such a shadow over the whole series, but that doesn't make ME2 a masterpiece.

[wright1978]

ME2 was a fantastic game. The favourite game in series for me.

It kept at its core the player characterisation of Shep which was butchered via auto-dialogue and limited dialogue options in ME3.

Choices from ME1 felt like they influenced the tone of ME2. Killed the council, the atmosphere on the citadel is very different from an experience where you saved them. E-mail system helped too.

I liked the setting within Cerberus. It allowed a freedom to explore a more nuanced portrayal of the player loyalties which unfortunately was abandoned and railroaded in ME3. Be pro-alliance, anti-alliance, pro-Cerberus, anti-Cerberus etc.

Combat was a big step up from ME1. It’s fun and engaging.

I enjoyed the loot and research aspect over Me1’s cumbersome and poor inbventory system.

ME2 balanced the content ME1 squad with adding interesting new squaddies. Me3 failed in this balance as they had none of ME2’s squaddie additions as squaddies.
Garrus and Tali represented the old guard and Liara got a hefty piece of DLC. Loyalty missions and recruitment missions were of extremely high quality and really added to the characterisation of squaddies.

Multiple hubs, freedom to play missions in order you wished.

Plenty of side missions. These missions often had a unique twist to them which was a big difference to ME1’s. Choose to save spacesport or colony from missile explosion, explore crashed spaceship etc, fog based mission.

The suicide mission. A final mission that really took account of the choices you made. Didn’t bother talking to your squad and upgrading the Normandy and people die. Make bad choices of team leader, biotic bubble etc and people die. Don’t rush to rescue crew, crew die etc. Suicide mission was visually stunning and a truly fantastic finale.

People complain about the larger narrative not being vital in light of ME3. Really i couldn’t care. Yes its a smaller scale story, deling with saving human colonies from being harvested before main invasion. It provides closure on what the fate of the protheans was and introduced a great new villain in Harbinger. The fact ME3 ignored this isn’t me2 fault but a shortcoming of ME3.

[WolfyZA]

Mass Effect 2 was so brilliant because people played it thoroughly.. To understand the lore of the universe.. Where the characters came from... And seeing how their characteristics change throughout the game.. Tricking you to into believing that they are indeed real people with real problems.

THEN BOOM ME 3 happened.. All those Codecs you read to understand the lore of the universe backfired on it self... All those loyalty missions you did only resulted in 5 - 10 minute cameos. So obviously many felt disappointed to do all that research and effort to prepare for ME 3, that just gave majority HARDCORE fans a slap in the face going.. LOL MADE YOU LOOK!

Sure Mass Effect 2 didn't also tie up with ME 1, but ME 2 was suppose to be "the calm before the storm". Preparing for the big battle... Or thats how I saw it at least.

[warlock22]

SNascimento wrote...

Because it was a masterpiece.

This^
It had the best characters and the most to choose from. All of them had interesting backstorys, I do feel they should have had Liara in the squad but there was a good reason for why she wasn't.  The dialogue was the best in ME2, well writen, lots of it and no auto dialogue. It had the best Normandy imo and some of the most memorable places to (dont get me wrong there were some great places in ME1 as well). Your choices in ME1 matter in ME2, and the way thre story was presented was done the best in ME2, if we got the Dark Energy ending (the original one) in ME3, then ME2 would have made sence and tied in perfectly. However sence we didn't get the DE ending in ME3 then ME2 doesn't seem to mach up, the best we can say is we slowed the reapers down. Since it makes no sence for the reapers to be abducting humans without the DE ending. Aside from that ME2 was just a complete game, perfect imo.

[warlock22]

WolfyZA wrote...

Mass Effect 2 was so brilliant because people played it thoroughly.. To understand the lore of the universe.. Where the characters came from... And seeing how their characteristics change throughout the game.. Tricking you to into believing that they are indeed real people with real problems.

THEN BOOM ME 3 happened.. All those Codecs you read to understand the lore of the universe backfired on it self... All those loyalty missions you did only resulted in 5 - 10 minute cameos. So obviously many felt disappointed to do all that research and effort to prepare for ME 3, that just gave majority HARDCORE fans a slap in the face going.. LOL MADE YOU LOOK!

Sure Mass Effect 2 didn't also tie up with ME 1, but ME 2 was suppose to be "the calm before the storm". Preparing for the big battle... Or thats how I saw it at least.

Fully agree, well said!

P.S You mean ME3 right?

Modifié par warlock22, 19 juillet 2012 - 11:14 .

[mnomaha]

warlock22 wrote...

WolfyZA wrote...

Mass Effect 2 was so brilliant because people played it thoroughly.. To understand the lore of the universe.. Where the characters came from... And seeing how their characteristics change throughout the game.. Tricking you to into believing that they are indeed real people with real problems.

THEN BOOM ME 3 happened.. All those Codecs you read to understand the lore of the universe backfired on it self... All those loyalty missions you did only resulted in 5 - 10 minute cameos. So obviously many felt disappointed to do all that research and effort to prepare for ME 3, that just gave majority HARDCORE fans a slap in the face going.. LOL MADE YOU LOOK!

Sure Mass Effect 2 didn't also tie up with ME 1, but ME 2 was suppose to be "the calm before the storm". Preparing for the big battle... Or thats how I saw it at least.

Fully agree, well said!

P.S You mean ME3 right?

Also agree. Miss Effect 3 has no replayability for me. Everything I loved (especially Thane) has been cruelly ripped away in lieu of the greed for a new/nextgen fanbase.

[KotorEffect3]

Mr.House wrote...

I never got the "chore" feeling.

It comes from copy and paste environments on barren planets.  Stuff like Feros or Virmire don't feel like a chore but those sidequest planets do and I spend more time on the sidequest planets.