56 réponses à ce sujet

[KBABZ]

I never said anything about weapon ammo! But on that subject, I don't know which I prefer. Getting sabotaged is one of the most infuriating things in the game (next to freezing when entering a bunker or walking up to Kaidan). And with the Spectre-X weapons, the heat dispersal is so efficient that you effectively have unlimited ammo on the most powerful weapons. Thermal Clips allow for more balancing in terms of how much ammo there is per clip and overall. But I was impressed that Bioware bothered to explain the change in the game's own universe.

I never had the mystery dissolve thing because my first experience with Mass Effect was with the entire Trilogy all in one go about seven or eight months ago. But I agree with cap and gown's idea behind the science of it; with long-running stories you have to wait for, mysteries can be hyped up to the point where the truth can turn out to be rather disappointing. This is also probably why I'm more critical of ME2 than most. It literally feels like the Reapers bow out so that the Collectors can appear out of nowhere as much lesser villains. The ending cutscene literally felt like "remember these, the REAL villains??" to me.

I think what lets ME1 down the most are the visuals. Say what you will about graphics being unimportant, but compared to ME2 and 3, 1 just feels like a step down. Everything looks plasticy, rubbery and not that immersive, and is miles away from visuals that you can believe in for the sequels. ME1 and 2 also suffer for their non-linear story. I've never been a fan of game letting me choose what to do next because it causes the story to lose focus.

As an example, in ME1 and 2 you can often choose from three to four different story Missions at any one time. What this means is that missions feel rather disconnected from each other, because Bioware has no idea what order you're going to choose to do things. As a result, there's less composure and momentum with the plot. This manifests in the DLC as well; Bring down the Sky, Arrival, Leviathan... they all have very little impact to the story of the game they appear in. It also makes the game look shorter whilst feeling longer. ME1 can feel like a really short game when you can see two-thirds of it after leaving the Citadel (Theseus, Feros and Noveria). And yet when it takes a whole day just to clear those Missions out the game can feel unbearably long at the same time.

Compare this with ME3, whose story is told in a strictly linear fashion that ebbs and flows as the war gets worse. You leave Earth, go to Mars, need to go to Menae, cure the Genophage, the Cerberus coup happens, they all are able to play off of the things that happened beforehand. And it feels like the story goes somewhere; you never know what might happen next.

This has an effect on the gameplay as well. Because ME1 and 2 have no idea when we're going to do certain Missions, they all have rather the same difficulty, with no gradual ramp of difficulty increase until you get to Virmire or complete some other critical story mission like Horizon. ME3 is able to subvert this by introducing Brutes, Banshees, new Cerberus troop types and more.

Modifié par KBABZ, 16 décembre 2013 - 12:54 .

[Thesandman87]

I find ME1 to be more RPG than FPS, while ME2 and especially 3 distanced themselves from RPG significantly and simplified alot of things while bringing in FPS mechanics, I hands down prefer ME1 for the simple fact it's more RPG than the other 2, but I enjoy all 3

[KBABZ]

I think ME3 struck the best balance for my personal preferences. I like the simplicity of action games and the customization of RPGs, but I don't like the barebones selection of action games or the overcomplicatedness and reliance on states of RPGs. So ME2 was too simple whilst ME1 was too complicated. ME3 I felt hit the right balance, particularly with its mod system and the character upgrade system.

Modifié par KBABZ, 18 décembre 2013 - 01:40 .

[cap and gown]

KBABZ wrote...

This has an effect on the gameplay as well. Because ME1 and 2 have no idea when we're going to do certain Missions, they all have rather the same difficulty, with no gradual ramp of difficulty increase until you get to Virmire or complete some other critical story mission like Horizon. ME3 is able to subvert this by introducing Brutes, Banshees, new Cerberus troop types and more.

Except, if you get the DLC then you can run into Banshees right after Menae, and Atlases right after Mars. Running into Banshees that early is rather awkward because it messes up the Asari Monastary story line. (Unlike in the base game where doing the Monastary mission after Thessia is taken into account.)

[chaosaeon]

@KBABZ -

But they didn't explain in the story why the ammo was the way it was. Yes they said "the victor would be whoever could put the most rounds out faster" but considering how they presented the idea of thermal clips ; ejecting them to immediately cool you weapon so it doesn't overheat . . . this would mean that if you ran out of clips, you gun is still actually FULL of ammo because the ammo in mass effect is actually a metal block that grains are shaved from to fire. Yet they actually say when you are "out of clips, you cannot fire" which should be wrong. When you're out of clips all that would mean is your weapon is now susceptible to overheating again. What they should've done was have the clip system in place, but when you run out, you must keep your rate of fire very low or the weapon will overheat for a set time, still imposing caution while not utterly disregarding their own lore.

That and the nonsense of having ammo as a personal power. The effects of ammo types were supposed to come from the different types of metal and augmentations used on the block of ammo stored in the weapon. Unless of course we are supposed to believe that a block of cryo ammo fits into a carnifex pistol for a vanguard, but an engineer just can't fit that same square block into that same square hole.

My biggest flaws in ME1 are the lack of diversity of the activites you could do while exploring world/ the same buildings over and over, the way every item was separate in the inventory instead of ordered like "Sledgehammer rounds lvl 7 - x2", and the fact that every character type carried all guns on their body, like an adept carrying a shotgun, sniper and assault rifle while being able to use none of them.

In ME2, I really disliked that they made weapons all effective at some things and not effective at other things. It made me feel like I have to stop using my shotgun as a Vanguard just because enemies with shields appeared. Having biotic powers work better on barriers and tech better on shields makes perfect sense, but making them all weapon sensitive was too much. I would prefer not to feel obligated to change my weapon and playstyle 7 different times in one fight, lest I end up wasting "ammo" because I didn't want to sit back and spend 5 minutes with a SMG just because the enemy had shields or a barrier. I much preferred in ME1 where your weapon AND ammo type were ALL up to personal preference and you weren't penalized for them.

Modifié par chaosaeon, 18 décembre 2013 - 06:03 .

[KBABZ]

Didn't Shepard say in 3 that the primary heat sink was removed to make way for the heat clip, meaning that if you attempted to fire your weapon would overheat instantly?

I do agree on the ME1 flaws. The UNC worlds are cute, but the environment design is devoid of details like foliage, and the Mako moves too slowly (compared to the Hammerhead which is exhilarating to drive due to the speed it travels at).

cap and gown wrote...

Except, if you get the DLC then you can run into Banshees right after Menae, and Atlases right after Mars. Running into Banshees that early is rather awkward because it messes up the Asari Monastary story line. (Unlike in the base game where doing the Monastary mission after Thessia is taken into account.)

Not really my point, but I agree the Banshees showing up in Leviathan is weird (and it's only on the first world!).

I'll use Mass Effect 1 as an example again. By having the three Missions available right from the start, all of them feel very same-y in terms of the combat difficulty. You don't see any new "oh dang" enemies like Marauders, Brutes, Banshees or Harvesters as you go through them because the game designers have to compensate for the fact that you could do any of them first. A similar problem occurs in Prince of Persia '08; all the levels have the same approximate difficulty (outside of some traps added after a boss is encountered) because the game designers have no idea which order you'll be doing them in.

It also impacts the storytelling; many of the revelations in ME1 feel very low-key because the game doesn't know the order you'll be doing them in. Same with Prince of Persia; you have a fantastic linear sequence of events, followed by a long glut of ho-hum that is concluded with a fantastic linear ending. ME2 would have been like this had it not been for the recruitment and loyalty missions being so interesting with the characters involved, but even it has to put the entire game on hold for a brief Collector excursion that continues the 'real' story.

Modifié par KBABZ, 18 décembre 2013 - 06:14 .

[KBABZ]

Double-post, derp.

Modifié par KBABZ, 18 décembre 2013 - 06:14 .