457 réponses à ce sujet

[Andy the Black]

Been saying ever since I finished Mass 2 that the only thing it has over Mass 1 is graphics, combat, and the UI. Mass 1 has a better story, stronger characters, and is a deeper RPG.

As for Mass 3? Well, I love it at least as much as I love Mass 1, but then it's not been out long so my feeling might change over the next year or so.

The thing I miss the most from Mass 1 is the planetary exploration. Love or hate the Mako planetary exploration should have been a defining feature of the entire Mass Effect series.

I feel I should make it clear that the Mass Effect series as a whole is awesome and one my favorite game franchises in over 20 years of gaming.

Modifié par Andy the Black, 24 juillet 2012 - 02:05 .

[SuperMegaWolf]

I agree. They totally should've included the death star.

[Dark_Caduceus]

Arcian wrote...

Dark_Caduceus wrote...

Arcian wrote...

Dark_Caduceus wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

SuperMegaWolf wrote...

Only because ME1 actually is the best.

It is 4 in the morning where I live so I am too damn tired to get into it but I can list a ton of reasons why ME 2 alone blows ME 1 out of the water.

Yeah, I mean at least ME2 doesn't have a coherent plot or... wait... nevermind.

So it does have a coherent plot?

...

Honestly, I didn't like ME2's story. It was very much a character-driven game.

That and it was full of sensationalist trash, audience pandering, stupid and contrived plot devices and enough plot holes to qualify as a moderately effective sieve.

[MstrJedi Kyle]

Planet explosions were the best part

[Jamie9]

DarthKilby wrote...

Planet explosions were the best part

Planet explosions?!? Wow, what did I miss?

[SNAKEATEN]

Debatable, OP.

[SuperMegaWolf]

Jamie9 wrote...

DarthKilby wrote...

Planet explosions were the best part

Planet explosions?!? Wow, what did I miss?

Read back about 4 or 5 posts

[Andy the Black]

Jamie9 wrote...

DarthKilby wrote...

Planet explosions were the best part

Planet explosions?!? Wow, what did I miss?

Oops. My dyslexic deamon strikes again.

[SuperMegaWolf]

SNAKEATEN wrote...

Debatable, OP.

Naw man. ME1 had the best story. The series was set up to be an epic scifi story rpg. Therefore ME1 is the best game in that it had a good story and the most rpg elements.

[wright1978]

ME1 for me has a very good central story, great rpg charcterisation via dialogue wheel but little else hanging off the central story and the combat gameplay is weak.

For me ME2 brings everything to the table. It has a solid central story(if not as epic), great characters each with their own fanastic stories, retained the great rpg characterisation via dialogue wheel and also had vastly improved combat.

ME3 suffers from the fact they severely damaged the rpg characterisation features by mutilating the dialogue wheel and bypassing it completely by adding in tonnes and tonnes of auto-dialogue. Combat is once again great and the central story is there but without the glue that is the rpg characterisation features it feels the porrest of the games for me.

[tonnactus]

Agreed.

[Rhayak]

I dunno, the meter i always use to judge the overall quality of a game, beyond all details, is how much it makes me want to replay it.

In this regard, ME1 is only slightly inferior to the second one.

[SuperMegaWolf]

wright1978 wrote...

ME1 for me has a very good central story, great rpg charcterisation via dialogue wheel but little else hanging off the central story and the combat gameplay is weak.

For me ME2 brings everything to the table. It has a solid central story(if not as epic), great characters each with their own fanastic stories, retained the great rpg characterisation via dialogue wheel and also had vastly improved combat.

ME3 suffers from the fact they severely damaged the rpg characterisation features by mutilating the dialogue wheel and bypassing it completely by adding in tonnes and tonnes of auto-dialogue. Combat is once again great and the central story is there but without the glue that is the rpg characterisation features it feels the porrest of the games for me.

No way man. If you play ME2 right after you beat ME1 it's really disjointed and obvious that they started going in a completely different direction. ME2 barely has a plot. It's just full of character subplots. The story is  about recruiting a crew for some random "suicide mission" that strives to fit in with the story set up in ME1.

If you care about characters more than a well thought out, well written, plot you'll love the Battlestar Galactica Reboot they did a few years ago.

Modifié par SuperMegaWolf, 24 juillet 2012 - 02:22 .

[MstrJedi Kyle]

I get the feeling that a lot of people confuse the ME2 character subplots with the actual plot of the game. The recruitment quests and their loyalty quests were fantastic, but they don't bring anything to the overall plot of the game let alone the series. That's just my thoughts though.

Modifié par DarthKilby, 24 juillet 2012 - 02:22 .

[Marauder Shieldz]

RenegonSQ wrote...

After playing ME1 again, I'd say Both 1 & 2 are almost equally good.

[SuperMegaWolf]

DarthKilby wrote...

I get the feeling that a lot of people confuse the ME2 character subplots with the actual plot of the game. The recruitment quests and their loyalty quests were fantastic, but they don't bring anything to the overall plot of the game let alone the series. That's just my thoughts though.

My feelings exactly. If anyone has a contrary view about the plot of ME2 please explain your reasoning.

[spirosz]

Not for me. Best story, but the mechanics and such, no. The gameplay was tedious for me, especially on the higher difficulties - there was no challenge, it was just annoying. Only three characters are memorable for me, Wrex, Sovereign and Saren. The music wwas great and the game is still amazing to this day for me, but I much prefer ME2 over it.

ME3 hit's a lot of highs for me as well, that does better than it's predecessors, but fell flat on too many key elements for me.

[Sanunes]

Regarding planet exploration, I really just want to know why people consider it exploration. Don't get me wrong, I really enjoy exploring new areas, but what is given in ME1 doesn't feel like exploration to me.

The map is completely uncovered and gives minor help to travelling across the planet and there is a marker for where the side quest is located, what isn't marked are the resources and the lootable objects which aren't any different then a treasure box or possible drop from an enemy.

[De1ta G]

SuperMegaWolf wrote...

Story was awesome, ability to customize, emphasis on exploration/discovery, loot, unique universe based mechanics, forced to make hard choices, hidden/integrated loading screens, random cow-alien that robs you.

The only cons were the combat and the lame sad piano music.

As someone who grew up playing rpg's I didn't mind the clunky combat. There was a lot that made it unique. It would have been great if they tried to improve it instead of turning it into a generic 3rd person cover shooter. Plenty of those exist already. There aren't any othe good scifi action/rpg's that I know of.

It went downhill in ME2. I was hoping they'd make ME3 more like 1...but no luck.

Now I love Mass Effect 1 but it has it's flaws as much as any game does. 

Story was awesome is an opinion. I liked it but there's really nothing to get into about that. I thought the story was awesome in all three games and the entire story has a whole was awesome as well.

Ability to customize... Well yeah you got like a thousand upgrades you could put on your weapons and armor but most are useless. 

Exploration/discovery... don't kid yourself. The planets were almost completely empty and they were all rocky mountains and valleyes. I don't see how discovering mumified salarians could be they satisfying either. And there were, what, three different types of indoor locations on the planets? And also the Mako is a pain to drive around. You can get used to the controls, yes, but it's just tedious to drive around.

Loot... Here we go. I guess if you like having to press 5 buttons when they light up so that you can unlock a create with items that you already have or items you aren't even going to look at, then it can be a pro. That inventory system sucked and the loot was unecessary. I got tired of having to sell all of my crap, except the stuff I was using and my squad was using, to the recquistion guy on the Normandy. And weapons had like 2 or 3 models with 2 or three different colors.

Not sure what you mean by "unique universe based mechanics"

Your forced to make hard choices in all the games, though Mass Effect 3s choices can lead to the extinction of Krogan, Quarians, or Geth. 

Loading screens? Really. ..

The combat is definitely a con but it's more than just clunky. It's bad. Almost everything about it was. "Enemies everywhere!" and "Hold the line!". When you shot at an enemy, the only way to tell if you were hitting the it is if its health started dropping. There was hardly any feel to the combat.

There is plenty of RPG elements in all three games.The way you use talents points is actually more rpg like in 2 and 3 then it is in 1! And I wouldn't call Mass Effect 2 and 3 generic at all. When comparing them to a generic TPS like, say, GoW... you see how much of an RPG Mass Effect 2 and 3 are.

Also, how about voice acting, cinematics, character development? All things that make the game come alive, and which game was best in those elements? Mass Effect 3 was.

You can break down every part of every game and find things wrong with them, even the parts that you think are just perfect.

[Jamie9]

SuperMegaWolf wrote...
Naw man. ME1 had the best story. The series was set up to be an epic scifi story rpg. Therefore ME1 is the best game in that it had a good story and the most rpg elements.

ME1 had the best overall arc, but ME2 had the best character development, with all 12 characters having entire missions dedicated to them.

[ZLurps]

I think each game in trilogy have their own strenghts, but game I'm going keep replaying in series is ME1. I guess it may become something like new Deus Ex for me (every time it gets mentioned, somebody is installing it).

Sequels have their own strenghts too (ME3 ignoring about everything past 3/4th. from Cronos station) and I think it's important that they aren't carbon copies of ME1, but for my taste ME2 was bit too much character focused in expense of main plot progression. What comes to ME3... I can handle Ash getting dolled up, I can somehow stand EDI and Kai Leng, etc. but towards to end there's just too many cheesy twists that I simply just can't ignore them all.

Modifié par ZLurps, 24 juillet 2012 - 02:33 .

[Soultaker08]

Me2 > Me3 >>>Me1

shoot me if you want.

the combat was garbage, exploration with mako was horrible, only did it for the side missions that always had those copy and paste bases, with the same copied and pasted rooms, because hackett thought you as the first human spectre should be doing any annoying sh*t he comes up with.

The customization was rather small, everything looked the same. (stats changed ... wow!)

The dialogue options seemed endless when i first played ME1, but now after i have played it several times for different playthroughs i see that most options are just saying the same.

The Citadel was really bigger than in Me3 and Me2, but the greatest part of it was empty or just used for 5 minutes of an overall gameplay of 20-30 hours.

Noveria and Feros may seemed like big hub worlds, but like the citadel there was not much to do , it was mostly unused

So pls send me your version of Me1, you must have played a different game :/

[Pitznik]

- combat which is quite boring, quite slow and suddenly becomes very easy
- inventory, which is one big mess
- economy, that makes you hit the credits limit halfway through the game
- new weapons that don't feel any different, play exactly the same, just have different stats
- awful exploration, 80% of Mako wall climbing, 20% of doing something remotely interesting

Too many flaws and too significant to better than ME2 or ME3. Great story indeed, but game is mostly about actually playing it, and that's not a strong side of ME1.

Modifié par Pitznik, 24 juillet 2012 - 02:42 .

[SuperMegaWolf]

De1ta G wrote...

SuperMegaWolf wrote...

Story was awesome, ability to customize, emphasis on exploration/discovery, loot, unique universe based mechanics, forced to make hard choices, hidden/integrated loading screens, random cow-alien that robs you.

The only cons were the combat and the lame sad piano music.

As someone who grew up playing rpg's I didn't mind the clunky combat. There was a lot that made it unique. It would have been great if they tried to improve it instead of turning it into a generic 3rd person cover shooter. Plenty of those exist already. There aren't any othe good scifi action/rpg's that I know of.

It went downhill in ME2. I was hoping they'd make ME3 more like 1...but no luck.

Now I love Mass Effect 1 but it has it's flaws as much as any game does. 

Story was awesome is an opinion. I liked it but there's really nothing to get into about that. I thought the story was awesome in all three games and the entire story has a whole was awesome as well.

Ability to customize... Well yeah you got like a thousand upgrades you could put on your weapons and armor but most are useless. 

Exploration/discovery... don't kid yourself. The planets were almost completely empty and they were all rocky mountains and valleyes. I don't see how discovering mumified salarians could be they satisfying either. And there were, what, three different types of indoor locations on the planets? And also the Mako is a pain to drive around. You can get used to the controls, yes, but it's just tedious to drive around.

Loot... Here we go. I guess if you like having to press 5 buttons when they light up so that you can unlock a create with items that you already have or items you aren't even going to look at, then it can be a pro. That inventory system sucked and the loot was unecessary. I got tired of having to sell all of my crap, except the stuff I was using and my squad was using, to the recquistion guy on the Normandy. And weapons had like 2 or 3 models with 2 or three different colors.

Not sure what you mean by "unique universe based mechanics"

Your forced to make hard choices in all the games, though Mass Effect 3s choices can lead to the extinction of Krogan, Quarians, or Geth. 

Loading screens? Really. ..

The combat is definitely a con but it's more than just clunky. It's bad. Almost everything about it was. "Enemies everywhere!" and "Hold the line!". When you shot at an enemy, the only way to tell if you were hitting the it is if its health started dropping. There was hardly any feel to the combat.

There is plenty of RPG elements in all three games.The way you use talents points is actually more rpg like in 2 and 3 then it is in 1! And I wouldn't call Mass Effect 2 and 3 generic at all. When comparing them to a generic TPS like, say, GoW... you see how much of an RPG Mass Effect 2 and 3 are.

Also, how about voice acting, cinematics, character development? All things that make the game come alive, and which game was best in those elements? Mass Effect 3 was.

You can break down every part of every game and find things wrong with them, even the parts that you think are just perfect.

You probably haven't played many rpg's. A game having leveling up mechanics does not = rpg. ME1 was more of an rpg than the others. It also had a more complete story arc (which is why I considered it awesome). The exploration elements, although bland, are there to provide an arena for power leveling which is something that exists in rpgs. It became more streamlined and shooterlike because people complained. They couldn't handle something that differed from their AAA action/shooter setpiece game.