228 réponses à ce sujet

[KotorEffect3]

hellcat420 wrote...

the lack of stupid space magic ammo powers alone makes me1 better than 2 or 3.

I don't see how ammo powers is at all a bad thing.  It is sure better than having to into the UI to equip and unequip guns with certain ammos several times a mission.

[voteDC]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

hellcat420 wrote...

the lack of stupid space magic ammo powers alone makes me1 better than 2 or 3.

I don't see how ammo powers is at all a bad thing.  It is sure better than having to into the UI to equip and unequip guns with certain ammos several times a mission.

It just annoyed me that my Shepard somehow forget how to equip ammo mods.

Why should my Adept Shepard be unable to use Cryo Ammo in ME 2+3, when it was the primary ammo mod she used in the first game.

[hellcat420]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

hellcat420 wrote...

the lack of stupid space magic ammo powers alone makes me1 better than 2 or 3.

I don't see how ammo powers is at all a bad thing.  It is sure better than having to into the UI to equip and unequip guns with certain ammos several times a mission.

well for one thing all the changes like that turned the combat into run and gun ****** fest that was so easy its annoying. same thing with overheating weapons. the thermal clips require no fire control at all. just hold down teh trigger till something is dead. then repeat on the next badguy. 

[CptData]

voteDC wrote...

I think that over time Mass Effect has turned from an action-rpg to an action game with RPG elements.

That's not a bad thing in itself of course. For me though that wasn't really what I wanted from the series and that is why I like the first game more.

In that field, ME2 was perfect. It felt RPGish enough to get considered as one, even if it lacked "looting" and a proper skill tree like ME1.
The main case why ME2 can be considered as real RPG is the amazing job BW did with the characters. I'm maybe not entirely happy with the story since it definitely comes with a lot of plot holes and such, but it was still better than what we saw in ME3. ME3 comes with a good story in the first two third, but the last third is mediocre at best. Plus: you can't alter your way how to deal with the war that much. In ME2 you had the biggest freedom to do what you want, ME1 lacked good side missions (the planets felt a bit boring), but you had much freedom to play Shepard the way you want. And you had three equally treated romances. Same for ME2.

It is ME3 that failed in many parts. RPG? You can't really play Shepard like you want. Autodialogue, pre-set path of missions, you can't really alter the way how you do it. You can't make your job easier by doing this mission or ignoring another, but you can royally screw up by ignoring some - like the bomb on Tuchanka.
Most older characters from ME1 and ME2 got not much more than cameos, the romances weren't treated equally anymore, giving the player the illusion only ONE out ot all those romances was intented by the developers.

Well. It's not just the endings (which got an upgrade and feel more bearable now). It's the mainstream part, the removal of RPG experience. As I said, looting and skilltrees aren't essential to a RPG. Character development and story are so much more defining factors - and those got abandoned in the last part of the trilogy.

ME3 is a Mona Lisa with a 'stache added by Da Vinci - that's what BW calls "artistic integrity" or somethin'