184 réponses à ce sujet

[voteDC]

SuperMegaWolf wrote...
Would you, right now, buy ME2 and ME3 remade to be more like ME1?

In a heartbeat.

Perhaps I am in the minority but I far prefer how Mass Effect 1 did things.

Xeranx wrote...
ME2 had me bunkering down in cover forever in possible hopes that the other side would run out of ammo. If I stepped from behind cover, my shields...what shields?

ME3 had a bit of the same as ME2 - what shields? - when I step from behind cover. It also had enemies try to flank me (good, and there were some elements of this in the first game as well as there were in ME2, but it pulled it off better in ME3). Still, I spent a lot of time in cover and leap frogging to different spots. Considering what ME3 was, this combat angle is fine or good.

ME had me employ tactics. I could actually snipe from great distances. On Therum, I could snipe Geth Walkers at least (well the scope would measure) 100m+. I could neutralize a waiting party from long range. And that same party could take shots at me from that distance as well.

ME also allowed me to employ grenades to such a degree that I could actually guesstimate where my target would be after I detonate a charge. I was able to upgrade every single piece of armor and weaponry I came across. Shields actually functioned well and it heightened the ideas behind some characters and made them viable (Tali, being Quarian, is technologically savvy and her shielding shows this). 

Yeah, I prefer the first game. Everything surrounding combat was internally consistent with what we were told as per the narrative. Krogans were dangerous. If they got within a few feet, they'd charge and you'd be hard-pressed to successfully dodge out of the way. There weren't Geth Colossus troops firing arcing fire at you. Their fire had a wide spread in the first game so you had to really get out of the way to avoid damage and be sure you're out of the blast's radius. Cooldown was a much better mechanic than ammo especially since you never run out of ammo in any subsequent game anyway. Powers had aoe effects and didn't arc after enemies. You had the ability to miss. Enemies also had the ability to punish you if they got you with an ability. Having to switch weapons because of sabotage is an excellent tactic against an armed individual. That's seconds lost in any close quarter fight which means someone's going down. I could go on.

I couldn't agree with you more if I tried.

Modifié par voteDC, 03 août 2012 - 02:08 .

[tanisha__unknown]

No. Gameplay was not outstanding. This was handled better in the second and third part. Now, if I imagine the clunky combat of ME1 in the amounts it occurs in ME2 and ME3, it makes me shudder. This would be pinnacle station over 40+ h.

Mix of best of 3 games

From ME3:
- Combat
- Skills system
- Weapon armor system
- Level design
- Some sidequests structure (Asari Temple, Victus Jr.)

From ME2:
- Conversations + interrupts

From ME1:
- Writting and narrative
- Some sidequests structure (Those based in conversation and talking to people)
- Deeper and more conversations with squadmates
- Customizable armor for companions
- Exploration

Simply perfect

This

Modifié par Jinx1720, 03 août 2012 - 02:15 .

[SNascimento]

ME1 was the weakest in the series, so the answer is obviously no.

[Yuanrang]

No, I love ME to death and I find it to be one of the best games of its time (and possibly all time as well), but there are a number of glaring issues with it that I find annoying. It just feels clunky, and while Mass Effect 2 and 3 removed or restricted many of the gameplay mechanics that I enjoyed (Planet exploration, armor and weapon modifications), I would still not want ME 2 and ME 3 to be the same. I would rather copy elements of ME into ME 2 and ME 3, like planet explorations on the Mako, the equipment system (just more streamlined), integrated some skill design into the newer games but... yeah, I love them all, but going completely back to ME is not a smart move.

[TheImmortalBeaver]

Mass Effect 1 had an amazing story weighed down by a terrible mess of a game. In fact, the ME1 gameplay is probably some of the worst stuff I've ever played. It gets worse and worse every single time I try to run through it again. I would buy it in a heartbeat if it was like ME2 or 3 though, as I much preferred those.

[Mister Mida]

People who think that ME (1)'s game design is compatible with ME 2 and 3's or vice versa have absolutely no knowledge of game design.

[Grubas]

Proper dialogchoices, exploration and Mako? Here!Take my money!!!!!

[VinWizzy]

I played Mass Effect 2 first the year it released but Mass Effect is my favorite in the series story wise. The gameplay doesn't match up to the rest but I wouldn't say it's bad, just average. Character wise I liked ME2 better. It also had better hubs (Illium being my favorite). Combat wise, I would say ME3 but only by a bit. The game was good (great the first time) but is my least favorite in the series and it's not because of the endings (partially but I could care less).

[Imp of the Perverse]

Nope. I enjoyed ME1 when it came out, but have played through the series a couple of times since ME3 was released, and ME1 had a lot of gameplay shortcomings that the sequels improved upon.

I miss the more elaborate loot system a little (though randomly generated loot is kind of skinner boxy) and thought they should have stuck with overheating rather than switching to thermal clips since it was one of the things that set ME apart from other games (though I have to say I hate using the particle rifle, so maybe it was for the best.) I'd also like it if they had done a proper PC port and given us some key configuration options, rather than "spacebar, do everything!" At least they structured it in a way that lets you fix it via game editors.

The first game's character cards were dull compared to ME3 (though ME2 was definitely too dumbed down.) Point allocation boiled down to increasing stats by nearly imperceptible percentages rather than giving you the ability to fundamentally manage how your powers worked. Guns had the same problem - there were a lot of them but they were all just statistical variations on the exact same five weapons.

The slow individual cooldowns meant powers never played a consistent role in firefights, you'd just save them for when things got tough rather than being able to build an entire character around stringing together combos.

The new weapon weight/cooldown system allows a lot more flexibility in characters and gives you a reason to not always pick the absolute strongest weapon, meaning there are effectively more weapons available to you. ME1 may have had more weapons, but at any given time you really only had one or two obvious choices for a given weapon slot, the rest were obsolete.

[cyclopsgd]

i would like it with mass effect 2 gameplay but mass effect 1 story exploring

[cyclopsgd]

Feanor_II wrote...

Mix of best of 3 games

From ME3:
- Combat
- Skills system
- Weapon armor system
- Level design
- Some sidequests structure (Asari Temple, Victus Jr.)

From ME2:
- Conversations + interrupts

From ME1:
- Writting and narrative
- Some sidequests structure (Those based in conversation and talking to people)
- Deeper and more conversations with squadmates
- Customizable armor for companions
- Exploration

Simply perfect

From ME3:
- Weapon armor system

From ME2:
- Conversations + interrupts
- combat
- skill system
- level design
- Gun sounds
- side quest structure

 From ME1:
- Writting and narrative
- Some sidequests structure (Those based in conversation and talking to people)
- Deeper and more conversations with squadmates
- Customizable armor for companions
- Exploration

[Reever]

Jinx1720 wrote...

No. Gameplay was not outstanding. This was handled better in the second and third part. Now, if I imagine the clunky combat of ME1 in the amounts it occurs in ME2 and ME3, it makes me shudder. This would be pinnacle station over 40+ h.

Mix of best of 3 games

From ME3:
- Combat
- Skills system
- Weapon armor system
- Level design
- Some sidequests structure (Asari Temple, Victus Jr.)

From ME2:
- Conversations + interrupts

From ME1:
- Writting and narrative
- Some sidequests structure (Those based in conversation and talking to people)
- Deeper and more conversations with squadmates
- Customizable armor for companions
- Exploration

Simply perfect

This

Must quote this again!

[chemiclord]

Oh, hell the hell no.

ME1's gameplay was downright ATROCIOUS at times. I honestly almost didn't buy ME2 because of how god awful and boring playing ME1 could be.

[Xeranx]

I think those who exaggerate ME's shortcomings in regards to combat don't understand or refuse to acknowledge that the pace was set for exploration and to gain familiarity with the setting. This is not a holier-than-thou remark.

I booted ME up again today for the first time in months and going through everything it made me understand that ME isn't a game I or anyone was supposed to rush through. There's a whole lot of information there that was deemed necessary to know. Isn't it how we are able to call the developers on various points in the subsequent games? Why are we able to say, "no that's wrong", "that makes sense", or "I don't like it, but I see why they did it"? They carefully structured a narrative which went to lengths to explain almost everything. This is why people still argue pro vs anti thermal clips often.

My take on it is, if you're intention is to rush through a game, then ME was not for you. DA:O was also a game that you couldn't rush through. Everything was done to deliver a coherent idea of what was going on. If a developer is going to set a pace like that, then you're not looking at an action/thriller. You're more than likely looking at a drama.

[Scottus4]

I think those who exaggerate ME's shortcomings in regards to combat don't understand or refuse to acknowledge that the pace was set for exploration and to gain familiarity with the setting.

What does that even mean? The combat was bad. It was very repetitive with very little depth or tactical strategy. How does bad mean "set for exploration"? That's some Bethesda level nonsense-speak right there.

[vonSlash]

No, but I'd buy a remake of 1 with the "style" of ME2 and the gameplay of ME3.

[Xeranx]

Scottus4 wrote...

I think those who exaggerate ME's shortcomings in regards to combat don't understand or refuse to acknowledge that the pace was set for exploration and to gain familiarity with the setting.

What does that even mean? The combat was bad. It was very repetitive with very little depth or tactical strategy. How does bad mean "set for exploration"? That's some Bethesda level nonsense-speak right there.

How is the combat in ME2 or ME3 not repetitive?  ME2 forces you to camp.  There's very little to no tactical play at work there.  ME3 forces you to be moved around because of flanking forces.  It's similar to what we got in the first game, just better.  Even then, is it only just about combat?  I didn't get into ME because of combat.  In fact, it was the whole shooter aspect that kept me gambling with how low the price of the game could be before Circuit City finally closed its doors in the States.  I'd heard some things about it, but I wasn't prepared to make a committment that would cost me around $50.

Believe it or not, there is tactical play in ME.  Modding gear is a great part of that.  Deciding what you and your squad will focus on is another.  ME2 severely crippled this aspect.  ME3 brought it up from what ME2 messed with, and it still didn't make Tali a viable asset in the field like the first game did.  And that what happened in the first game played into what we knew of Tali as a kind of tech expert.  Where she could only wear light armor, her shields did most of the tanking for her.  It's why she was a semi-permanent fixture on my squad.  I had two of any of the following with me most of the time (character missions made me take others): Tali, Garrus, and Ashley.  And that's regardless of what class I'm using.

Being able to crouch, move while crouching (smaller target keeps you from getting hit as much), and using the sci fi (rather than more conventional) grenades also had an impact on tactics.  ME2 arced powers just like ME3 did.  In ME, you didn't have a lazy mechanic like that.  You had to place your powers and abilities.  ME3 had more conventional grenades that limited my use of them.  My squad not so much since they have incredible aim where I can be short or long most of the time.  So overall, tactics was a whole lot better in ME than in either ME2 or ME3.

Another thing, you could actually run in ME to get to another area for cover you needed to.  Watch Shepard take off in combat in ME and compare that to ME2 and/or ME3.

Seriously, I do feel people are exaggerating when they say combat in ME was bad.

As for your Bethesda-level nonsense speak, tell me if anything I said was wrong.  Was there not a lot of information given to you by the narrative of the game?  Were you enticed to take notice of your surroundings or were you bogged down by waves of near endless enemies?  I mean, if that's exciting for you, great.  Me, if I want action, I'll seek it out.  I'm more about being completely immersed rather than seeing cool explosions all the time.  That gets old.

[Scottus4]

Even then, is it only just about combat?

In the context of a discussion about combat, yes, only combat matters.

ME2 doesn't "force" you to camp. People have done object rho on Insanity without ducking into cover once during the fight. The majority of classes have abilities that if used correctly allow you to play very aggressively (I think the only class lacking something like that innate to the class is Adept, which is why I've only done 1 insanity Adept play through, but even then you can pick up stasis and rock a mattock).

Were you enticed to take notice of your surroundings

Complete immersion is you focusing on what you're doing instead of being so bored that you start staring into literal space. Soaking in the environment should be able to be done without breaking immersion. I was still blown away by the Shadow Broker's base because the map is designed to give you some awesome sight lines while you're moving across the ship. Basically ME2 and 3 are Half-Life 2, where these great vistas are designed to be seen by players moving through the space and flooring them, rather than having to be something where after several playthroughs you go "Oh, that's kind of neat I guess".

Modifié par Scottus4, 04 août 2012 - 03:55 .

[thompsonaf]

ME2 and ME3 simply cannot compare to the weapon and armor customization of ME1. You know what was possible in ME1?

Wrex + Ashley + Shep(soldier) running this loadout.
Spectre X shotgun w/ 2xRail Ext IV + HE X ammo mods

We wrecked everything, Geth Colossus's went down in a few hits. I also did Spectre X assault rifle w/ 2xFrictionless X + HE X ammo. Combine that with overload and you have a fully automatic machine gun firing high explosive bombs. Those are just two out of dozens of ways you could customize your weapons.

Should I bring up squad armor and mods? Add in 2xKinetic Exos and you had one hit kill melee attacks. What about biotics working on shielded enemies? Know you, abilities working according to lore? Sniping guys from across the map? Running down Geth Armatures in the mako and pushing them off the feros skybridge, driving around desolate aliens worlds and hearing the cries of the rachni in the distance. Yeah. That stuff must be too hardcore.

ME2 and ME3 are fun, I won't deny that. But they took a turn for the worst. I actually like how ME2 handled skills(the power evolutions were nice) but the tedious cover based combat, complete lack of customization, squadmate superhero costumes, and completely un-important plot really dragged it down.

ME3 fixed some of those issues but backtracked on some as well. I didn't want (I don't know if others feel this way) guns to go back to I-X levels. I just wanted gear and ammos mods back, and maybe selective fire for the assault rifles. I wanted real armor mods and customizable armor and mods for squadmates. ME3 introduced a horrendous amount of auto-dialogue and the kasumi/zaeed style dialogues with long term squadmates(garrus, etc..) was just wrong.

Man this is getting way to long, tl;dr ME1 had the best combined elements and I would re-buy ME2/ME3 if they got remade into the style of the first game. But we all know that will never happen, not with the current evolution of Bioware game development.

[Scottus4]

Wrex + Ashley + Shep(soldier) running this loadout.

It isn't really customization when there's a clear best team. Anyone I know in real life who has played ME1 ran this setup. You can see from a mile away how overpowered this team is.

Frictionless materials also isn't really customization. For the most part, it is basically just straight up better than everything else.

Choices in ME3 are about playstyle differences. Choices in ME1 are whether or not you want to be godly or not.

Also, I don't really want to hear you both talk about how it is cool hitting harder with a rifle than you do with a tank shell and realism in the same post.

Modifié par Scottus4, 04 août 2012 - 04:25 .

[Father_Jerusalem]

Xeranx wrote...

Scottus4 wrote...

I think those who exaggerate ME's shortcomings in regards to combat don't understand or refuse to acknowledge that the pace was set for exploration and to gain familiarity with the setting.

What does that even mean? The combat was bad. It was very repetitive with very little depth or tactical strategy. How does bad mean "set for exploration"? That's some Bethesda level nonsense-speak right there.

Seriously, I do feel people are exaggerating when they say combat in ME was bad.

Seriously, I do feel that you are looking back on ME1 with rose colored glasses and ignoring all the improvements the other games made. 

Combat in ME1 was PAINFUL. Not for the characters. For the players. I just finished my last ever playthrough of ME1. Now I never have to touch that terrible, horribly clunky game again.

[Xeranx]

Scottus4 wrote...

Even then, is it only just about combat?

In the context of a discussion about combat, yes, only combat matters.

ME2 doesn't "force" you to camp. People have done object rho on Insanity without ducking into cover once during the fight. The majority of classes have abilities that if used correctly allow you to play very aggressively (I think the only class lacking something like that innate to the class is Adept, which is why I've only done 1 insanity Adept play through, but even then you can pick up stasis and rock a mattock).

Were you enticed to take notice of your surroundings

Complete immersion is you focusing on what you're doing instead of being so bored that you start staring into literal space. Soaking in the environment should be able to be done without breaking immersion. I was still blown away by the Shadow Broker's base because the map is designed to give you some awesome sight lines while you're moving across the ship. Basically ME2 and 3 are Half-Life 2, where these great vistas are designed to be seen by players moving through the space and flooring them, rather than having to be something where after several playthroughs you go "Oh, that's kind of neat I guess".

I didn't know that this discussion was only about combat.  The thread title implies it could be about anything.

Regardless, you questioned tactical gameplay in the first and actually made the statement that it was nonexistent to which I countered and stated that there's a lot of tactical bits in ME and it eclipses any tactical elements in ME2. 

You're also using an addition to the game (dlc) to bolster a point that's not reflective in the base game.  Object Rho and Bekenstein are better renditions of what combat should have been in ME2 (and Bekenstein isn't all it's cracked up to be anyway).  Even then, each one sends wave after wave of enemies to take you down.  They are the exception since they were made after the game was sold.  Everything I mentioned about ME was there when the game released.

Apart from dlc, can you mention anything in the base game that gave you pause to look around?  Without going back to look at the game.  Also, it didn't take me a few plays to realize areas that I was visiting.  I had no choice but to get a look at various pieces as I went through the game.  Best introduction to looking at the environment is the Mako dropping from the Normandy.  You see a bit of the sky and then you touch down and get a better view of what's there.  The whole thing gives you a certain feeling about it.  That kind of immersion allows me to take things further and imagine what might be or what could have been.  Using Jacob's loyalty mission for example, it's about as conventional as anything.  It's nice to look at, but it doesn't mean much because I can see pictures of some locales that offer somewhat similar views.  I can go to where my parents grew up and see the same. 

In ME, I enjoyed coming across animal remains, walking on planets covered in red light, traversing snowy hills in the Mako, looking at a lush landscape of a planet that's hazardous to the health of many who would visit without proper protection, etc.  Many instances of truly beautiful areas that managed to tell me something or cause me to wonder about what could have possibly gone on there.  I didn't have to have several runs to start asking questions.  I did this as I played through the game the first time.  I remember Ashley talking about how the inner chamber of the Citadel was good for a combat situation.  It made me stop and look around and realize she was right.  The focus was straight down the middle.  Anyone coming up the elevator would have had people with higher ground taking them out as they tried to get to the top.  The fact that Bioware used a character to highlight that detail around the beginning of the game shows that a lot went into trying to pull the player in and get them to absorb anything and everything possible from the overall narrative.

[Xeranx]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Xeranx wrote...

Scottus4 wrote...

I think those who exaggerate ME's shortcomings in regards to combat don't understand or refuse to acknowledge that the pace was set for exploration and to gain familiarity with the setting.

What does that even mean? The combat was bad. It was very repetitive with very little depth or tactical strategy. How does bad mean "set for exploration"? That's some Bethesda level nonsense-speak right there.

Seriously, I do feel people are exaggerating when they say combat in ME was bad.

Seriously, I do feel that you are looking back on ME1 with rose colored glasses and ignoring all the improvements the other games made. 

Combat in ME1 was PAINFUL. Not for the characters. For the players. I just finished my last ever playthrough of ME1. Now I never have to touch that terrible, horribly clunky game again.

Nope, not in the least.  I never registered combat as being painful.  It took getting used to and not much either.  The same people who come down on ME combat also came down on Alpha Protocol combat.  Never had a problem with either and actually enjoyed them.  I also stopped putting only frictionless materials in my weapons to stop them from overheating at all.  Last few games in ME I forgot about using spectre gear and went with rosenkov weapons.  Think that's the name of the company.  And I used Ursa armor for most of my crew for the aesthetics. 

So no, I'm not viewing ME through rose-colored glasses.  I'm not some unthinking fool who can't see where things may be better or worse.  In fact, discussing a great many of these details across the games have allowed me to see what my preferences are and why.  So, again, no.  20/20 vision for me. Thanks.

[Father_Jerusalem]

Xeranx wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Xeranx wrote...

Scottus4 wrote...

I think those who exaggerate ME's shortcomings in regards to combat don't understand or refuse to acknowledge that the pace was set for exploration and to gain familiarity with the setting.

What does that even mean? The combat was bad. It was very repetitive with very little depth or tactical strategy. How does bad mean "set for exploration"? That's some Bethesda level nonsense-speak right there.

Seriously, I do feel people are exaggerating when they say combat in ME was bad.

Seriously, I do feel that you are looking back on ME1 with rose colored glasses and ignoring all the improvements the other games made. 

Combat in ME1 was PAINFUL. Not for the characters. For the players. I just finished my last ever playthrough of ME1. Now I never have to touch that terrible, horribly clunky game again.

Nope, not in the least.  I never registered combat as being painful.  It took getting used to and not much either.  The same people who come down on ME combat also came down on Alpha Protocol combat.  Never had a problem with either and actually enjoyed them.  I also stopped putting only frictionless materials in my weapons to stop them from overheating at all.  Last few games in ME I forgot about using spectre gear and went with rosenkov weapons.  Think that's the name of the company.  And I used Ursa armor for most of my crew for the aesthetics. 

So no, I'm not viewing ME through rose-colored glasses.  I'm not some unthinking fool who can't see where things may be better or worse.  In fact, discussing a great many of these details across the games have allowed me to see what my preferences are and why.  So, again, no.  20/20 vision for me. Thanks.

I love Alpha Protocol combat. 

ME1 combat makes me want to punch babies.

[Crackseed]

You were forced to camp in cover Xeranx? >.>

Did you ever play a Vanguard on Insanity? I never camped. It was a hilariously awesome charge fest across the map slamming into isolated elements and then doubling back with more charges and power combos.

Even without the Vanguard, any class could easily forego cover for a more enjoyable and aggressive roaming style if you so choose. Greater risk, but it was not a requirement to "camp" in cover in ME2. ME3 only improved upon this.

Honestly, doing Argus Rho's 5 waves mission on Insanity was some of the most crazy fun I've had in an ME game to date and ME1 had nothing even remotely comparable on the combat front.

For the other facets, ME1's story is hard to argue against, but even though people hold the dialogue system up as "better", I would disagree. ME1 forced constant retreats over alot of the same dialogue, especially where companions were concerned. The illusion of the middle choice also was a glaring issue.

The Mako sequences were also about as fun as watching paint dry, even if I feel they could have implemented a greatly improved version into ME3 if possible.

ME1 did many awesome things and for me, it'll always be a crucial part of the trilogy, but the combat/mechanics backing it are atrocious enough that after multiple completions, I cannot visit it again outside of nostalgia purposes.

Modifié par crackseed, 04 août 2012 - 05:24 .