457 réponses à ce sujet

[Jamie9]

Fixers0 wrote...
The Soundtrack of Mass Effect 2 is decent, but fails to impress me, and on certain occasians the music (or the lack thereof) even becomes intrusive.

Gameplay-wise i find the second game to be too restrictiveand uninteresting, and too repetive, as well as the fact the whole point of the game seems to be limited to gun down PMC mooks and occiasonally space-bugs and space-zombies. 

I obviously aren't going to argue with musical taste, as that's as subjective as things get, but you found the gameplay in ME2 uninteresting and ME1's interesting?!?

How?

"Gameplay-wise i find the second game to be too restrictiveand
uninteresting, and too repetive, as well as the fact the whole point of
the game seems to be limited to gun down PMC mooks and occiasonally
space-bugs and space-zombies."

That's how I'd describe the first game. In ME2 and ME3, playing as a biotic was COMPLETELY different to a soldier. In ME1, it plays pretty similarly.

[De1ta G]

That's how I'd describe the first game. In ME2 and ME3, playing as a biotic was COMPLETELY different to a soldier. In ME1, it plays pretty similarly.

Yes, exactly. In Mass Effect 1, you were better off playing as a soldier because you could use any weapon you wanted. All the other classes restricted what weapons you could train in and replace them with powers that were almost useless. Biotic skills weren't all that great(as long you had Liara you'd be good), and Tech skills were close to useless. 

[mauro2222]

Han Shot First wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

SuperMegaWolf wrote...


What plot hole?

Some people unable to comprehend simple storylines ask theirself why saren didnt just walk to the citadel console and let sovereign in.

Or rather, some people like yourself like to make excuses for the largest plot hole in the series out of sheer nostalgia, while simultaneously nitpicking every flaw in the plot of Mass Effect 2 or Mass effect 3.

The entire plot of Mass Effect 1 is set in motion when Saren attacks Eden Prime for the Conduit. The problem with this storyline is that Saren was a Spectre with indoctrinated commandos in tow, and did not need the Conduit to teleport Geth to the Citadel. He did not even need the Eden Pime beacon, as he already had a Prothean beacon on Virmire.

Plugging in that massive plot hole requires mental gymnastics on the part of the player and lots of head canon. Head canon however, does not mean that plot hole didn't exist.

Again with this? Saren nor Sovereign knew what the hell the Conduit was.

[Ozida]

De1ta G wrote...
Oh, didn't see that. It's hard to explain. I'll try though.

Starting with biotics. Specifically lifting biotics such as singularity and lift. Whenever used, the enemies would start flying around all over the place(bit of an exaggeration). It was hard to shoot them and my game would lag a little. Also getting hit by a throw was very annoying. It would knock me on the ground and paralyze me completely for like 5 seconds.

Health/taking damage. It is sometimes hard to tell if you are about to die. Your character doesn't react to getting shot and the controller doesn't vibrate. Also, enemies don't react to getting shot either, when they charge you can't stop them without killing them or a successful biotic(which can be difficult to do sometimes).

Assault rifles: Very, very inaccurate to where they are almost just weak weapons and overheat too fast(the spectre assault rifle doesn't but that's the only one.

Movement: You could print for like 3 seconds. They way you moved made it to where, once combat starts, your shields are down before you can even get to cover. And you didn't even know you were taking damage because you didn't react to it.

Overall it just didn't really feel as though you were acutally engaged in combat. 

Thank you, those are valid points. But by the word "control" in your post did I understood correctly that it was not PC (not sure which platform you used)? Some of those problems you have mentioned I actually had with both ME1 and ME2, but I am pretty sure that it was a clear indicarion for health damage, and biotics worked fine for me too. Also talking about Assault rifles, I though they have made it inaccurate on purposes to get closer to real life weapons (my uncle is a military man. He once let me to shoot the gun and it was almost knocked out from my hands). At least,t aht what I thought each time I missed.

[Pitznik]

tonnactus wrote...

Pitznik wrote...


Maybe because ME2 weapons were actually different from each other, and different values in 3 stats weren't the only difference?

These stats are still needed despite the difference  to know if one weapon is better then another. I dont want to find out in gameplay by looking at shield- and healthbars. And yes,actual numbers like in the first would be far better then bars. Thats why pages like this are created:

https://docs.google....bWc&output=html

With that I can agree. Weapons in ME2 and especially ME3 are so different and have so many specific perks and own mechanics the real stats should be displayed ingame. Bars actually only cause confusion. I kind of forgot that in ME1 was both bars and numbers, so my post was a mistake, I apologize.

[mauro2222]

I like the gameplay of ME1, it's more lore fitting. That's something I like in any game.

Well, except when someone sends me flying and ragdolling over the floor and outside the map.

[Jamie9]

mauro2222 wrote...
Again with this? Saren nor Sovereign knew what the hell the Conduit was.

Exactly, Sovereign likely thought it was a weapon.

Hell, knowing what we do now, maybe Sovereign thought it was the Crucible.

[De1ta G]

Ozida wrote...

De1ta G wrote...
Oh, didn't see that. It's hard to explain. I'll try though.

Starting with biotics. Specifically lifting biotics such as singularity and lift. Whenever used, the enemies would start flying around all over the place(bit of an exaggeration). It was hard to shoot them and my game would lag a little. Also getting hit by a throw was very annoying. It would knock me on the ground and paralyze me completely for like 5 seconds.

Health/taking damage. It is sometimes hard to tell if you are about to die. Your character doesn't react to getting shot and the controller doesn't vibrate. Also, enemies don't react to getting shot either, when they charge you can't stop them without killing them or a successful biotic(which can be difficult to do sometimes).

Assault rifles: Very, very inaccurate to where they are almost just weak weapons and overheat too fast(the spectre assault rifle doesn't but that's the only one.

Movement: You could print for like 3 seconds. They way you moved made it to where, once combat starts, your shields are down before you can even get to cover. And you didn't even know you were taking damage because you didn't react to it.

Overall it just didn't really feel as though you were acutally engaged in combat. 

Thank you, those are valid points. But by the word "control" in your post did I understood correctly that it was not PC (not sure which platform you used)? Some of those problems you have mentioned I actually had with both ME1 and ME2, but I am pretty sure that it was a clear indicarion for health damage, and biotics worked fine for me too. Also talking about Assault rifles, I though they have made it inaccurate on purposes to get closer to real life weapons (my uncle is a military man. He once let me to shoot the gun and it was almost knocked out from my hands). At least,t aht what I thought each time I missed.

Yeah I play on the 360. An improvement in Mass Effect 2 was what would happen when your shields went down. You know, it would sort of break. 

Anyway assault rifles are inaccurate when automatic but closer to how ME2 and 3 does it(with the gun lifting up). 

[Fixers0]

Jamie9 wrote...

That's how I'd describe the first game. In ME2 and ME3, playing as a biotic was COMPLETELY different to a soldier. In ME1, it plays pretty similarly.

No, it's other way around, classes in Mass Effect 2 and 3 are Pretty much about what set of super-powers one recieves rather then an actual reflection on one's military training, like the fact that you had Electronics and Decryption skills which alllowed them to more effectively interect with electronics objects in the world, rather then Flaming ball of Lore-rape or Ice ball of unbelievabilty, again Mass Effect one wasn't pefect but it was certainlly feels more natrual then what we got from the last two games.

[De1ta G]

Fixers0 wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...

That's how I'd describe the first game. In ME2 and ME3, playing as a biotic was COMPLETELY different to a soldier. In ME1, it plays pretty similarly.

No, it's other way around, classes in Mass Effect 2 and 3 are Pretty much about what set of super-powers one recieves rather then an actual reflection on one's military training, like the fact that you had Electronics and Decryption skills which alllowed them to more effectively interect with electronics objects in the world, rather then Flaming ball of Lore-rape or Ice ball of unbelievabilty, again Mass Effect one wasn't pefect but it was certainlly feels more natrual then what we got from the last two games.

You have to believe in anything when your using something like an omi-tool. Why should it not shoot out fire and ice? Don't even get me started on Electronics and Decryption skills, they were pitful attempts at making a way to open locked creates with loot that cluttered your inventory.

[Jamie9]

Fixers0 wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...

That's how I'd describe the first game. In ME2 and ME3, playing as a biotic was COMPLETELY different to a soldier. In ME1, it plays pretty similarly.

No, it's other way around, classes in Mass Effect 2 and 3 are Pretty much about what set of super-powers one recieves rather then an actual reflection on one's military training, like the fact that you had Electronics and Decryption skills which alllowed them to more effectively interect with electronics objects in the world, rather then Flaming ball of Lore-rape or Ice ball of unbelievabilty, again Mass Effect one wasn't pefect but it was certainlly feels more natrual then what we got from the last two games.

What you are describing is how faithful to the lore the combat was, not how how interesting or fun to play.

ME1's combat was boring. All enemies were fought in the same way. Unless you are on Insanity, there is never a reason to change your weapons or add ammo powers, because they are useless.

Every gun feels the same, the biotics felt extremely weak compared to the two sequels.

If my combat has to be a little bit less "natural" to actually be fun, then fine. It's not as if the gameplay is pure canon anyway. Do you really think Shepard kills 3,000 enemies without being caught by a stray shot?

[tonnactus]

Jamie9 wrote...

Every gun feels the same, the biotics felt extremely weak compared to the two sequels.

Yeah,of course:

www.youtube.com/watch

Modifié par tonnactus, 24 juillet 2012 - 07:19 .

[ZLurps]

tonnactus wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...

Every gun feels the same, the biotics felt extremely weak compared to the two sequels.

Yeah,of course:

www.youtube.com/watch

Also:

aaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! *splat*

[Kingthlayer]

Having just replayed Mass Effect 1 I have to agree. I actually played 1 than 2 and instead of going into 3 I went back to 1 and did it again. That's the sign of a quality game right there IMO. There is just something lacking in Mass Effect 3 that doesn't allow me to replay the game, I can't really put my finger on it either, I know it's not the ending because I just pretend they don't exist, I'll deal with them if I can ever get that far in Mass Effect 3 again.

[RiouHotaru]

ME1 was terrible, gameplay-wise. And the story wasn't without seriously massive gaps too.

It was Bioware's first attempt into the idea of blending an RPG with a shooter. Obviously the later entries smoothed out the bugs.

[Krunjar]

Rose colored glasses .. hell rose colored brain.

[RiouHotaru]

Alright, let's break this down.

The Angry One wrote...
Combat is actually a challenge.

Really?  A challenge?  Have you played on Hardcore or Insanity?  Enemies use Immunity, which renders them nigh bulletproof (but not knockback proof) for almost half-a-minute or more.  Cover was useless and sticky as hell, guns were model swaps with little to no discernable differences and the only guns worth using were Spectre-level with Frictionless Materials, Scram Rail, and Inferno or the Toxic rounds.

The Angry One wrote... 
The story is coherent.

Terribly paced though.  The beginning and end are fine, but like DA:O, everything in between the game dragging and kicking it's feet while you try to get around.  It makes less sense for Shepard to be going around doing the sidequests in ME1 than in either of the other two games.

The Angry One wrote... 
There's neutral dialogue.

Which was pointless because of how point-dependent the P/R system was.  Since you had to gain points in P/R to unlock ranks of Charm/Intimidate, there was little room for waffling.  Not to mention using skill points in a conversation skill made little sense unless you were an RP purist.

The Mako is great. Exploring planets for random things is awesome.

Mako's controls were awful (especially on the PC), and the planets were empty outside of the anomalys, which were always the same item pickups or hacking for mods.  And don't get me started on the planets all being texture/palette swaps of each other with horrific terrain mapping.

The Citadel remains the biggest and most detailed of all 3 games and that's withother hubs.

Which likely everyone did about one or two tours of and then immediately switched to fast-travel because Shepard's movement speed in ME1 was slow as balls.  Yes it was nice looking?  But no, too big for more than a few goes.

Then there's the little details. Staying on the Normandy when docking with a hub world, attempts at an almost seamless world, "XO Pressly has the deck" and so on.

So the little details of the crew conversations in ME2 and 3, which was one of things people complained about, goes completely under the radar?

Ironically Pinnacle Station (yes I bought Pinnacle Station, shut up) reminds me a LOT of ME3 multiplayer.

Only worse.

It's amazing that folks overlook or overhype ME1's good points while simultaneously underplaying or ignoring it's glaring flaws.  Believe me, it was a great game at the time, but it had it's seriously ridiculous issues.

[Armass81]

Gameplay is quite bad, inventory system is poor, but the damn story and setting and feeling is excellent. Its such a great shame they never found a decent balance between the cohesive story and good gameplay in any of the games. Other half is always lacking in all of the games. 3rd strike, youre outta here.

Modifié par Armass81, 24 juillet 2012 - 08:49 .

[KIERONOO]

 I only played mass effect 2 and 3 on ps3. I have a Xbox though. I wonder if it's worth picking up all 3 on Xbox? I want verner goddammit:wizard:

[Jamie9]

KIERONOO wrote...

 I only played mass effect 2 and 3 on ps3. I have a Xbox though. I wonder if it's worth picking up all 3 on Xbox? I want verner goddammit:wizard:

Despite ME1 being the weakest in the trilogy (IMO), it has an amazing story. And I play Mass Effect for the story.

So if you also play ME for the story, I'd say buy the Trilogy for the Xbox, as there are a lot of things removed from ME2 that are only present if you played ME1. You'll feel a lot more of the friendship between Shep and Garrus, Tali, Liara, Wrex, the VS. All the emotions played in ME3 are amplified if you play ME1.

If you play for the combat, don't bother picking it up.

EDIT: Also, yes. Conrad Verner is awesome and I demand DLC dedicated to him.

Modifié par Jamie9, 24 juillet 2012 - 09:04 .

[ZLurps]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Alright, let's break this down.

The Angry One wrote...
Combat is actually a challenge.

Really?  A challenge?  Have you played on Hardcore or Insanity?  Enemies use Immunity, which renders them nigh bulletproof (but not knockback proof) for almost half-a-minute or more.  Cover was useless and sticky as hell, guns were model swaps with little to no discernable differences and the only guns worth using were Spectre-level with Frictionless Materials, Scram Rail, and Inferno or the Toxic rounds.

The Angry One wrote... 
The story is coherent.

Terribly paced though.  The beginning and end are fine, but like DA:O, everything in between the game dragging and kicking it's feet while you try to get around.  It makes less sense for Shepard to be going around doing the sidequests in ME1 than in either of the other two games.

The Angry One wrote... 
There's neutral dialogue.

Which was pointless because of how point-dependent the P/R system was.  Since you had to gain points in P/R to unlock ranks of Charm/Intimidate, there was little room for waffling.  Not to mention using skill points in a conversation skill made little sense unless you were an RP purist.

The Mako is great. Exploring planets for random things is awesome.

Mako's controls were awful (especially on the PC), and the planets were empty outside of the anomalys, which were always the same item pickups or hacking for mods.  And don't get me started on the planets all being texture/palette swaps of each other with horrific terrain mapping.

The Citadel remains the biggest and most detailed of all 3 games and that's withother hubs.

Which likely everyone did about one or two tours of and then immediately switched to fast-travel because Shepard's movement speed in ME1 was slow as balls.  Yes it was nice looking?  But no, too big for more than a few goes.

Then there's the little details. Staying on the Normandy when docking with a hub world, attempts at an almost seamless world, "XO Pressly has the deck" and so on.

So the little details of the crew conversations in ME2 and 3, which was one of things people complained about, goes completely under the radar?

Ironically Pinnacle Station (yes I bought Pinnacle Station, shut up) reminds me a LOT of ME3 multiplayer.

Only worse.

It's amazing that folks overlook or overhype ME1's good points while simultaneously underplaying or ignoring it's glaring flaws.  Believe me, it was a great game at the time, but it had it's seriously ridiculous issues.

Actually not every Spectre gun is the best gun. Depends of course which factor you favour over some other.

My first playthrough was on normal difficulty, then after couple of other PT's on normal, veteran or hard core, I didn't see enemies spamming immunity. Cover works well enough.

Depending of play style, sniper rifle with Hi-ex and kinetic materials was pretty good, then pistol with appropiate skill, tungsten or shredder and frictionless materials is the best DPS dealer. Assault rifles were decent too.

Mako was fine and I also play on PC. However, if you suffer from FPS drops, it can get difficult I guess. 

I finished ME1 two and a half times during this year to import characters to ME2 and from there to ME3. I don't know, I think one of these days I'm going to try ME1 insanity.

[SNAKEATEN]

RiouHotaru wrote...

It's amazing that folks overlook or overhype ME1's good points while simultaneously underplaying or ignoring it's glaring flaws.  Believe me, it was a great game at the time, but it had it's seriously ridiculous issues.

This. 

It's actually really sad how some will rip apart even the smallest of flaws with ME2 / ME3, yet say the original was practically perfect. 

[clarkusdarkus]

ME1 was far from perfect but easily the best of the series for me......i'll take same gameplay required side quests over fetch quests anytime, and the citadel felt more alive than it did in ME2/3......also using the glitch to equip squadmembers with any armor was cool.....each to there own though

[palician]

I played me1 on the xbox 360 & I cant remember being able to revisit noveria,feros or virmire.Was it only on the pc version.