457 réponses à ce sujet

[Conniving_Eagle]

For example, Oblivion is more of an RPG than Skyrim, but I think Skyrim is a much better game. However, it's still a toss-up with Morrowind.

I give ME1 a 9/10, ME2 a 10/10 and ME3 a 6/10 (that's generous).

[Heather Cline]

ME1 was the best in the series. 2 lacked cohesion of story and overarching plot and storyline. 3... just don't even go there.

[revo76]

[Tonymac]

ME1 was a far superior game in every respect! For you naysayers - what year did it come out? Thats what I thought! Have some respect. Its an old game, but it was leaps ahead of anything that existed at the time. Where else have you ever seen a thing like a Thorian? Where else did you get to roam ALL over the citadel (I would actually get lost at times - especially at first)? Remember Virmire? Captain Kirrahe? Vigil? Sovereign?

ME1 was a Masterpiece. It had depth, an incredible story, and did not leave you feeling robbed at the end. If you play games for fun, ME1 was THE GAME.

Mass Effect 2 was also a wonderful work of art. The only issue was that they had hired writers (specifically the lead) who had no imagination. The Terminator knockoff was like a slap in the face. We went from fighting Sovereign to fighting Ahhhnold due to some uninspired writing and lack of care on the part of the team. It was the beginning of the end. I liked the enhanced combat, and the game was well designed. The story though, was kind of fubar, having you hijacked by Cerberus and all.

ME3 had some wonderful moments in it, but all in all appears to me the be the work of a depressed man in a middle aged crisis. The hopelessness, the despair, the dark and sombre mood of the whole thing is sickening. They should have hired a good lead writer, or at least one that takes his meds. Why is it against the rules to make a game that leaves you having had a lot of fun and is happy at the end? At least in 2 you can decide the outcome - just like you had choices in ME1. In ME3, they dropped the ball, then picked it up, dusted it off, and did a pretty good job with what they had. I liked the EC, but I think the game should have been massively different.

[SuperMegaWolf]

If you've played RPG's you'd know that combat in ME1 wasn't that bad.

[MstrJedi Kyle]

Arcian wrote...

DarthKilby wrote...

Arcian wrote...

DarthKilby wrote...

I wish that BioWare simply fixed their game instead of what they did do. We like the Mako but the controls are weird/bad. So they scrapped it. We like to customize but the inventory was kinda cluttered. So they scrapped it. I think the only thing they did improve was combat but that didn't need improving. Sure it wasn't as seemless as most generic TPS but that's because Mass Effect wasn't a TPS.

Yes it did, combat in ME1 was a trainwreck.

But combat wasn't the main focus of the game. At least, not at first, it is now of course.

Two very important things I have to say about that:

1) It was marketed as an Action RPG, and every single main story level in the game had mandatory combat sequences with the exception of the Normandy being grounded right before Ilos. So please, don't give me any BS about combat not being the main focus. Mass Effect was BioWare's attempt to enter the shooting niche (and an opportunity to tell a cool story, but that was 2nd priority), and it's something Casey Hudson outright admitted in the Final Hours app.
2) Even if combat had not been the main focus of the game (which it was), that's not an excuse for it being a crappy feature.

When you spend more time talking to people than shooting them that's not a combat based game. And combat wasn't a crappy feature. Like I said before it wasn't as seamless as it is now but it is still workable. Weapons don't glitch out, powers work when you use them. Wasn't seamless but it worked, which doesn't make for crappy combat.

[The Angry One]

I'm pretty bad at shooter gameplay in general.
If I play ME1 on hardcore, I get my ass handed to me. If I play ME3 on insanity, I breeze through it with maybe encountering a problem a couple of times through the game (mainly Grissom Academy).

So. Which game's combat is broken again?

[MstrJedi Kyle]

The Angry One wrote...

I'm pretty bad at shooter gameplay in general.
If I play ME1 on hardcore, I get my ass handed to me. If I play ME3 on insanity, I breeze through it with maybe encountering a problem a couple of times through the game (mainly Grissom Academy).

So. Which game's combat is broken again?

The harder one, because apparently hard games are bad these days.

[Humakt83]

I disagree, while it is a great game overall, ME1 is clearly the worst game in the trilogy for me.

Combat is terrible compared to sequels. and there's lots of it. Planet exploring (and I even like Mako) is a chore. All the boring similar warehouses that many sidequests use. Citadel may be huge but it is also empty, you spend majority of time running or using elevators. Weapons, inventory and skill systems are lacking with different Shepard's not being different enough gameplay-wise. There are also plenty of glitches, and graphics have aged.

I recently started a new playthrough for ME trilogy and many of the problems I listed have been present (Bring Down The Sky sure was boring to play).

Modifié par Humakt83, 24 juillet 2012 - 12:25 .

[Conniving_Eagle]

DarthKilby wrote...
When you spend more time talking to people than shooting them that's not a combat based game. And combat wasn't a crappy feature. Like I said before it wasn't as seamless as it is now but it is still workable. Weapons don't glitch out, powers work when you use them. Wasn't seamless but it worked, which doesn't make for crappy combat.

You spend more time in ME1 exploring/shooting people than you do talking to them. No weapon variation whatsoever, simplistic AI easily abused by biotics, an unorthodox cover system, etc - Combat in ME1 IS CRAPPY, there's no way around that. However, just because it's crappy doesn't mean you have to mind it. In my opinion, Mass Effect is one the the best games of this generation, and I can easily look past the faulty combat.

[SuperMegaWolf]

Humakt83 wrote...

I disagree, while it is a great game overall, ME1 is clearly the worst game in the trilogy for me.

Combat is terrible compared to sequels. and there's lots of it. Planet exploring (and I even like Mako) is a chore. All the boring similar warehouses that many sidequests use. Citadel may be huge but it is also empty, you spend majority of time running or using elevators. Weapons, inventory and skill systems are lacking with different Shepard's not being different enough gameplay-wise. There are also plenty of glitches, and graphics have age.

I recently started a new playthrough for ME trilogy and many of the problems I listed have been present (Bring Down The Sky sure was boring to play).

Almost all of your complaints can be fixed with a 3rd person shooter.

Hav you ever played the first Dragon Warrior? It's a pretty awesome game, but you would hate it. Does that mean that it's a bad game?

[Conniving_Eagle]

The Angry One wrote...

I'm pretty bad at shooter gameplay in general.
If I play ME1 on hardcore, I get my ass handed to me. If I play ME3 on insanity, I breeze through it with maybe encountering a problem a couple of times through the game (mainly Grissom Academy).

So. Which game's combat is broken again?

How do you fare in ME2? I think it performs the best in terms of difficulty. ME1 is incredibly easy for me, even without an imported character, and if what I heard about ME3 is true - that Insanity just gives the enemies higher HP/Armor/Shields/Barriers, then that should be incredibly easy as well.

[The Angry One]

Arcian wrote...

Are you for real? That's no excuse. Deus Ex came out in 2000 and it's still a better game than ME1. The only thing ME1 has on Deus Ex is graphics.

HAHAHAHA. No.

So is Deus Ex, except, you know, 7 years older and still vastly better.

Go away, Mac.

[The Angry One]

Arcian wrote...

SuperMegaWolf wrote...

If you've played RPG's you'd know that combat in ME1 wasn't that bad.

For a shooter, it was bad, and that was what they marketed the game as.

I have right here in my hands the CE of Mass Effect 1, Xbox 360 version (even though I don't own a 360, long story).

Look at the list of features and see which one is dead last on the list.

• Customise your character and embark on an epic adventure in an immersive, open-ended storyline.
• Interplanetary exploration of an epic proportion.
• Incredible, real-time character interation.
• Thriling tactical combat as you lead an elite squad of three.

[SuperMegaWolf]

Arcian wrote...

SuperMegaWolf wrote...

If you've played RPG's you'd know that combat in ME1 wasn't that bad.

For a shooter, it was bad, and that was what they marketed the game as.

I'm pretty sure ME1 was classified as an RPG and an Epic scifi story. Not a shooter. Did you watch the trailer for it?

It even says "science-fiction role-playing perfected" on the game's casing (box). Doesn't say it's a shooter.

Modifié par SuperMegaWolf, 24 juillet 2012 - 12:39 .

[Grand Wazoo]

For me, ME1 is the best in the trilogy by far. Not going to compare the narratives because it's not even a contest at this point, but I really liked the combat, it was actually challenging and they did a pretty decent job of blending the RPG combat and shooting. It had flaws sure, but I'll take ME1's combat over it's streamlined successors any day.

Modifié par Grand Wazoo, 24 juillet 2012 - 12:36 .

[SuperMegaWolf]

Dear, Arcian

It wasn't a shooter. It says it's an rpg on the box and it says it has real time combat. It doesn't mention shooting.

[Klijpope]

ME1 is incredibly sparse. The plot is relatively simple and comes upon you as abruptly as the Crucible appears in 3. It's still fun, for the most part, but despite being the best VAed game up to that point listening back to it now its just so flat and unemotive, which pretty much half the dialogue's begin with "Tell me about..."

Basically, ME1 is like an uncharted world - kinda fun and nice to explore, and some bits are interesting and fun to drive over, but generally pretty sparse with a lot of tooing and froing.

Having just started ME2 again just after completing ME1 it is clear that this is the better game. The overall plot is smaller than in ME1, but it is better paced and foreshadowed. ME2 is just such a more lush experience - I actually think it is the camera framing that does a lot of this. And it looks amazing, and the gameplay stands up well. The interrupts are perhaps the coolest new addition - there's not enough of them in 3.

ME1 is definitely enjoyable, but ME2 is quite clearly the superior experience. It seems those who favour ME1 care most about plot and inventory (based on what people keep highlighting), whereas I favour character and atmosphere.