184 réponses à ce sujet

[Tain87]

Keep the graphics and combat but everything else more like me 1 yes

[D Wrecks]

Only for the health and shield mechanics. There was something about a Krogan charging you knowing your shields were not going to save you that made the game intense and exciting.

[ShinAnubisXIII]

Yes I would. Sadly, its never going to happen.

[Terror_K]

Raptr569 wrote...

While the story in ME1 is the best the graphics and gameplay are better in ME3.

Regarding the bolded, I'm guessing whenever people keep saying that the "gameplay is better in ME3" I'm guessing they are referring solely to the combat side of things alone and not the rest of it, particularly the roleplaying side of things. Because I utterly fail to see how ME3 was better gameplay wise beyond the TPS combat aspects (which I can understand, because ME3 actually did that aspect pretty well. Shame it was about the only thing it did).

[BaladasDemnevanni]

MsKlaussen wrote...

I mean can anybody see having bought something like ME2 or 3 over say, the Fallout game of the time? Not even a question based in any sort of sober pot-free reality is it?

 I could see myself buying ME2 and 3 over Fallout. On the other hand, I would gladly trade Mass Effect 1 in heartbeat for the Obsidian experience. And I'm about as sober as it gets at the moment.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 07 août 2012 - 01:41 .

[Terror_K]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

I could see myself buying ME2 and 3 over Fallout. On the other hand, I would gladly trade Mass Effect 1 in heartbeat for the Obsidian experience. And I'm about as sober as it gets at the moment.

I actually wish Obsidian had been the ones that did ME2 and ME3. They're a developer that still has their priorities right when it comes to making RPGs, and beyond needing a better QA department, make generally solid titles. And comparing KotOR 2 and NWN2 to ME2/ME3 and DA2, they do a far better job of making sequels to BioWare games than BioWare do.

[Someone With Mass]

Terror_K wrote...

I actually wish Obsidian had been the ones that did ME2 and ME3. They're a developer that still has their priorities right when it comes to making RPGs, and beyond needing a better QA department, make generally solid titles. And comparing KotOR 2 and NWN2 to ME2/ME3 and DA2, they do a far better job of making sequels to BioWare games than BioWare do.

LOLNO. Then we'd have characters no-one would care about.

[Terror_K]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

I actually wish Obsidian had been the ones that did ME2 and ME3. They're a developer that still has their priorities right when it comes to making RPGs, and beyond needing a better QA department, make generally solid titles. And comparing KotOR 2 and NWN2 to ME2/ME3 and DA2, they do a far better job of making sequels to BioWare games than BioWare do.

LOLNO. Then we'd have characters no-one would care about.

Yeah... 'cause Vega, Allers and Kai Leng were faaaaaan-taaaaastic! <_<

That said, I do actually agree to a degree there: Obsidian's characters have never been as memorable or interesting as BioWare's. Still... the gameplay would be better. More consistent. And even Obsidian couldn't have done a worse job with the import feature than we already have.

[bydoritos]

If you're talking about gameplay and combat, my answer is no.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Terror_K wrote...

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

I could see myself buying ME2 and 3 over Fallout. On the other hand, I would gladly trade Mass Effect 1 in heartbeat for the Obsidian experience. And I'm about as sober as it gets at the moment.

I actually wish Obsidian had been the ones that did ME2 and ME3. They're a developer that still has their priorities right when it comes to making RPGs, and beyond needing a better QA department, make generally solid titles. And comparing KotOR 2 and NWN2 to ME2/ME3 and DA2, they do a far better job of making sequels to BioWare games than BioWare do.

They probably would have been better, but that's more credited to Obsidian's story-telling ability than anything else. Their plots have always been more developed than the Bioware style. Considering Mass Effect 1, Neverwinter Nights, Dragon Age 2, and Baldur's Gate 1. I'd actually amend that statement to say they make better games in general than Bioware, not just sequels.

Although I do think your assessment of their making RPGs is off considering that in recent history they've made: 1) Alpha Protocol, 2) Dungeon Siege 3, and 3) New Vegas. All far more action-oriented than their previous titles (KotOR 2, Neverwinter Nights 2, Fallout 2, Planescape, etc).

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 07 août 2012 - 03:19 .

[Xeranx]

Terror_K wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

I actually wish Obsidian had been the ones that did ME2 and ME3. They're a developer that still has their priorities right when it comes to making RPGs, and beyond needing a better QA department, make generally solid titles. And comparing KotOR 2 and NWN2 to ME2/ME3 and DA2, they do a far better job of making sequels to BioWare games than BioWare do.

LOLNO. Then we'd have characters no-one would care about.

Yeah... 'cause Vega, Allers and Kai Leng were faaaaaan-taaaaastic! <_<

That said, I do actually agree to a degree there: Obsidian's characters have never been as memorable or interesting as BioWare's. Still... the gameplay would be better. More consistent. And even Obsidian couldn't have done a worse job with the import feature than we already have.

I disagree.  Kreia was a remarkable character.  I find her to really be better than Jolee Bindo and see elements of her character in Flemeth from time to time.

But yes, I don't see how other characters would have fared.  While Obsidian is on the right track, they do need to work on developing personalities.  I think they got a bit lucky with a few.  For whatever reason, I remember liking Miranda in KOTOR II though I don't remember why.  Part of me is thinking that there's a bit of a parallel with her and ME2's Jack, but I have to play the game again to see if that's true.

Also, want to throw this in here, Obsidian has a better method of conveying maturity in dialogue than Bioware as I've noticed.  Where people look at Star Wars and envision a black and white story, they did well to present more grey.

Modifié par Xeranx, 07 août 2012 - 03:55 .

[Obitim]

Yep

[Merci357]

No. The gameplay of ME2 and ME3 is fine. Why would I want the horrible ME1 inventory back? The clunky Mako? So thanks, but no thanks. Sure, ME1 had an amazing story, and the conclusion in ME3 was terrible - but that happens when you change the lead writer.

[elitecom]

Raptr569 wrote...

ME_Fan wrote...

No, but I would buy ME1 again if it was remade like ME3 or even ME2.

I'm with this.

While the story in ME1 is the best the graphics and gameplay are better in ME3.

I'd rather not see Bioware do a George Lucas and go back and change ME1 to fit their new "artistic vision".

[Snowman217]

NO! ME1 was the best plot wise (though all three are great), but its gameplay...god is it bad. And don't even get me started on the inventory...

ME1 with ME2 or 3 gameplay? HELLS YEAH!

[Aimi]

No. I would buy ME1 if it were remade to be more like ME2.

[Beelzebubs]

ME2 > ME1 > ME3

[darknoon5]

Terror_K wrote...

Raptr569 wrote...

While the story in ME1 is the best the graphics and gameplay are better in ME3.

Regarding the bolded, I'm guessing whenever people keep saying that the "gameplay is better in ME3" I'm guessing they are referring solely to the combat side of things alone and not the rest of it, particularly the roleplaying side of things. Because I utterly fail to see how ME3 was better gameplay wise beyond the TPS combat aspects (which I can understand, because ME3 actually did that aspect pretty well. Shame it was about the only thing it did).

Sometimes more is less. The RPG aspects of ME1 are worse then ME3's because their execution is so horrible. Inventory was never necessary for the ME games, and the weapon modding systems, levelling up and choice of weapons/armours is all superior in ME3, imo. Or do you really think going through 150 retextured weapons and armours and deleting all but the ones you're equipping superior gameplay?

If we talk about roleplaying in terms of dialogue, yes, ME1 did better as a whole, though it has it's share of illusion of choice moments (which are co-incidentally often the stupidest lines and at some of the most important moments) and derptastic Shepard. I think ME3 is fine with all but a handful of the auto-dialogue as Shepard is partially pre-defined as a character, but it needed the neutral option to balance it out.

As to the OP. No. The only remake I'd buy is ME1 with ME3/ME2 gameplay, as long the Mako was kept and the dialogue wasn't touched. I'd glady get rid of the mini-games, re-do the combat system and replace the whole innane inventory and modding thing ME1 had going. I'd also rather they scrapped squadmate armour and just went for the ME3 system so they look more distinct.

[Imp of the Perverse]

darknoon5 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Raptr569 wrote...

While the story in ME1 is the best the graphics and gameplay are better in ME3.

Regarding the bolded, I'm guessing whenever people keep saying that the "gameplay is better in ME3" I'm guessing they are referring solely to the combat side of things alone and not the rest of it, particularly the roleplaying side of things. Because I utterly fail to see how ME3 was better gameplay wise beyond the TPS combat aspects (which I can understand, because ME3 actually did that aspect pretty well. Shame it was about the only thing it did).

Sometimes more is less. The RPG aspects of ME1 are worse then ME3's because their execution is so horrible. Inventory was never necessary for the ME games, and the weapon modding systems, levelling up and choice of weapons/armours is all superior in ME3, imo. Or do you really think going through 150 retextured weapons and armours and deleting all but the ones you're equipping superior gameplay?

If we talk about roleplaying in terms of dialogue, yes, ME1 did better as a whole, though it has it's share of illusion of choice moments (which are co-incidentally often the stupidest lines and at some of the most important moments) and derptastic Shepard. I think ME3 is fine with all but a handful of the auto-dialogue as Shepard is partially pre-defined as a character, but it needed the neutral option to balance it out.

As to the OP. No. The only remake I'd buy is ME1 with ME3/ME2 gameplay, as long the Mako was kept and the dialogue wasn't touched. I'd glady get rid of the mini-games, re-do the combat system and replace the whole innane inventory and modding thing ME1 had going. I'd also rather they scrapped squadmate armour and just went for the ME3 system so they look more distinct.

That sums it up pretty well, the items in ME1 were mostly a lot of fluff you'd need to sort through, and determining which to use boiled down to looking through for the best numbers, rather than making a decision based on playstyle. Allocating skill points was also a bit inferior, with ME3 giving you a lot more control over how your powers work.

When it comes to dialog though I can't see a huge problem with ME3's autodialog. As much as I like having the option to act as a paragon or renegade, it ultimately means that you make one choice at the beginning of the game (am I a paragon or a renegade this time?), and that decides 90% of your remaining dialog. Also when searching for information, I can't remember a conversation in the entire series where I'd do anything other than exhaust every available question one by one. That might as well be automatic, especially if it means giving a better flow to the dialog.

I haven't seen many games that really do a good job of solving these problems, though I'd say Dragon Age: Origins did pretty well, and, to an even greater extent, Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Both of those games relied on your being able to read the exact wording of your response though, so that you wouldn't miss any nuances. Given the amount of dialog in the mass effect series, and the fact that the player is voiced (something I would never want to change in ME) I don't think that would be practical.

[Ice Cold J]

MerchantGOL wrote...

Ice Cold J wrote...

From ME1 to ME3, the GAMEPLAY got progressively better.

From ME1 to ME3, the STORYLINE got progressively worse.

yeah noooo. having gone back and played it last week the me1 plot while good isnt as good, Kai leng alone makes Saren Look completley incompetent.and the Thorian sucks as a concept and is a bit of a wtf

Kai Leng is terrible. He nearly gets beaten by a terminal Drell, chickens out when the Council is one door away AND with 2-3 Phantoms as backup, needs a freakin' GUNSHIP to "win" at Thessia, and consistently gets owned (by me anyway) at Cerebus' base.
The Thorian is an odd addition when you look at the overall story, but playing ME1, when you don't know what The Reapers really are and haven't seen them before, it is a legit threat. A BIT cliched by sci-fi standards, but it's a challenge for Shepard to overcome. One of many additional tasks Shepard must complete in ME1. ME1 makes Shep feel like a galactic Marshall; with a mission, but fixing problems wherever he comes across them.

[mongoosephantom]

Ice Cold J wrote...

MerchantGOL wrote...

Ice Cold J wrote...

From ME1 to ME3, the GAMEPLAY got progressively better.

From ME1 to ME3, the STORYLINE got progressively worse.

yeah noooo. having gone back and played it last week the me1 plot while good isnt as good, Kai leng alone makes Saren Look completley incompetent.and the Thorian sucks as a concept and is a bit of a wtf

Kai Leng is terrible. He nearly gets beaten by a terminal Drell, chickens out when the Council is one door away AND with 2-3 Phantoms as backup, needs a freakin' GUNSHIP to "win" at Thessia, and consistently gets owned (by me anyway) at Cerebus' base.
The Thorian is an odd addition when you look at the overall story, but playing ME1, when you don't know what The Reapers really are and haven't seen them before, it is a legit threat. A BIT cliched by sci-fi standards, but it's a challenge for Shepard to overcome. One of many additional tasks Shepard must complete in ME1. ME1 makes Shep feel like a galactic Marshall; with a mission, but fixing problems wherever he comes across them.

Leng is a tool and a coward. He is the only villain i dont respect and i hate him so much that i wanted to keep stabbing his face with an omni-blade until i eviscerated it. Also ME1 is the best when it comes to story but worst when it comes to gameplay and ME3 is the other way around 

Modifié par mongoosephantom, 08 août 2012 - 03:26 .

[Cainne Chapel]

as much as I liked ME1, No i would not want ME2 or 3 to be like one.

and while ME1 was great at its time, its story really isn't anything amazing, but it did have the luck of being the first out of the gate so to speak so it will ALWAYS be remembered fondly.

Granted ME1 story is still great, I'd rate it above 2 and 3, despite the fact that i love 2 and 3 as well.

But as it were I prefer the gameplay of 3 and the squad of 2 so they all occupy equal strengths in my eyes and i have no need for either of them to be re-done so to speak. (although bringing ME1s gameplay more inline with 2 or 3 would be nice,,, its system can be very clunky even for someone who has beaten it 20+ times)

[Menagra]

ME1 reigned supreme in RPG attributes and had a unique feeling that was very much "mass effect" and I wish the other 2 games had that. The gameplay in ME1 was not as good, and some of the cinematics also not as good. However I personally miss how ME1 felt huge and open with so many planets to explore. I mean planet exploration with a vehicle better than the mako would be awesome. Where you can climb cliffs and stare at beautiful moons. I mean that part of Mass Effect was surely lost, the loving attention to detail. I also wish there was an epilogue. Bioware always peeves me because they abandon epilogues. Dragon Age origins had a much bigger epilogue for Bioware and I still thought that was just a skeleton of what it could be. Really wish western RPG's would pick up that attribute from JRPG's.

[Cainne Chapel]

What RPG attributes did ME1 have that were lost in 3 infrared?

though I do agree I wish we had more "exploration" in 2 and 3, I'd prefer it not be like in ME1. Granted at first blush ME1 seemed very open and expansive, but in actual practice (and subsequent playthroughs) it loses its luster quite quickly as there WASN'T that much attention to detail and all the planets were, in a way, cookie cutter outside of the skyboxes and color of terrain.

Now if they could expand on that and give us fully fleshed out worlds with actual decent missions (similar to overlord) I know thats asking a lot but that would be ideal.

But dont forget, ME2 and ME3 had some great detail going on in the backgrounds that ME1 just couldnt match. Like Palaven's moon and Zaeed's side mission from 2 are some exampled of awesome vistas I liked, as well as the ones in overlord.

as it is though I thought ME2 and 3 still had that "mass effect" feeling as to me ME was more about the characters than so much the "planets" or RPG attributes" (which, lets face it, it one were pretty pointless overall)

[wright1978]

Beelzebubs wrote...

ME2 > ME1 > ME3

This.