andy69156915 wrote...
I finally figured out the main reason I find ME1 to be the worst in the series. The game didn't know what it wanted to be. It was a game that wasn't sure if it wanted to be an RPG or a shooter, and so it tried to do both at maximum and ended up falling short of both. He who chases 2 hares catches neither, jack of all trades, good at everything but amazing at nothing. Its RPG elements weren't as good as Dragon Age's or SW Knights of the Old Republic's or something, and its shooter elements were far from good and there were average third person shooters last gen that did better at it (GUN, Metal Arms Glitch in the System, Max Payne 1&2). Its attempt to do both made it fall short of both.
Which left Bioware with a choice, do it again and once again make a game that fails at both genres, or diminish one side and focus on the other. Bioware chose to focus on the shooter side and diminish the RPG side, that was the path they took. And if you ask me, that ended up working for the best because ME2&3 felt more focused in their game design because the series finally got focused on what kind of game it wanted to be.
Now it could be argued that it was the wrong path, and that they should have diminished the shooter elements while focusing on the RPG side. But that is a what-if, we don't know how that would have turned out. I suspect it would have ended up like DA:O was when using a bow, mostly just a lot of standing around and letting auto attack do all thw work while constant digital dice rolls determined your hit rate and stuff. Or like Valkyria Chronicles gameplay set in the ME universe, except characters wouldn't die if left untreated and the movement stamina was removed. Or like Resonance of Fate with less insane anime acrobatics and gun-fu. I assume those because DA:O is a Bioware game and Bioware likes to use similar gameplay styles if they can help it, and the other 2 are RPGs where everyone uses guns and are clearly RPGs with shooter elements instead of the other way around. If any of those had been the case for how it would have turned out, I'm glad they instead focused on the shooter elements instead because that would have made ME less interesting to me. Don't get me wrong, I like every game mentioned there, but I don't think they would have been good for ME (series, not the pronoun) or have fit the series lore or style.
And before anyone brings up how awesome ME1's rpg elements were because of Noveria... No. Noveria was awesome, I admit. It had probably a dozen ways to accomplish your goals. Just getting a garage pass had tons of ways, you could tell the corrupt admin about the Hanar smuggler, tell him his secretary was an internal affairs spy, blackmail Lorik, make Lorik testify, or give the admin Lorik's evidence. 5 ways just to get a freaking pass is amazing, lots of options. But that was not all ME1 was, Noveria was unique unto itself. No other part of the game was like Noveria, every other place was totally linear and to the point. If every part of the main quest of ME1 was like Noveria, that place would be a good argument. But no where else was like that place, and so it's kind of moot to bring up.
Well, that's just your opinion. If you prefer the more linear style of ME2 and ME3, that's your right. But it doesn't make the people who prefer the openness of the first game wrong in any way. The original premise of the game was what got me interested in the series and that included exploring a huge galaxy. I prefer that openness and non-linear gameplay. I personally believe ME2 is the worst in the series because it's so linear and combat-focused.
Modifié par EpicBoot2daFace, 19 mai 2013 - 08:02 .
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
