73 replies to this topic

[Linkenski]

My top 5 improvements:

1. Combat was a definite improvement. Biotics felt like superheroes and it was awesome.

2. Atmosphere trumphed in places, particularly the Mars Archives mission and the Geth Dreadnought.

3. More squad-banter in-gameplay

4. The voice-acting was better than ever.

5. Better choreography in action-packed moments.

 

My top 5 things i liked less:

1. The amount of autodialogue felt like an big step backwards.

2. The cinematography was overall worse. Weird angles and camera movements at times.

3. Linear progression and mission-structure. Nothing like Feros or Noveria in ME1.

4. The Citadel was the only hub and it sucked. A complete step backwards compared to ME1 and ME2.

5. Michael Bay style of writing. Story had a "Bigger = Better" mentality, which is counterpoint to my belief.

[Vazgen]

Likes

1. Character building. The game has the most potential for various character builds in the trilogy.

2. Emotional experience. It was the most emotional game of the trilogy for me.

3. More alive squadmates who move around the ship and talk to each other.

4. The feeling of war, fear and desperation which absolutely fits the theme.

5. Customization options with the return of weapon mods, a lot of different weapons, more armor pieces.

 

Dislikes

1. Autodialogue. I felt disconnected, a system like DA:I should've worked better if cinematic approach is not possible.

2. More rule of cool, less realism. Referring to certain magic-like powers for biotics, Sabotage working on organics, omni-blades.

3. Weapon balance completely thrown away with DLC mods, DLC weapons and weapon upgrades. 

4. Low amount of screen time for ME2 companions. You should've been able to at least get your romance as a squadmate.

5. Removal of neutral dialogue option. I used it quite often in previous games and didn't like that I was forced to choose between paragon or renegade the entire time.

[themikefest]

someone to romance(Samantha)

combat even though I didn't like Shepard being able to run forever

having a shuttle pilot I can talk to

being able to talk with space hamster even if it was in the Citadel dlc

being able to walk around in the hanger instead of just looking at it like I did in ME2

 

dislikes

autodialogue

not telling  characters to get lost

lack of ME2 squadmates

not being able to have squadmates dead without dying yourself

forced emotions 

[Linkenski]

Yeah, forced emotions was a big one, man. That moment after Thessia where Shepard is all moany and doesn't wanna pick up the call and then freaks out on Joker for being himself? That was just too much in the same time-frame, not to mention Shepard's Pixar-look when the kid dies in the intro. Seriously, get this Pixar crap out of our Mass Effect. I thought Bioware were aiming for realism?

[Kurt M.]

Likes:

 

1) Total freedom of classes and weapons (you wanna be an Adept Sniper? be my guest).

2) Weapon customization and return of the "I-X" system.

3) Combat rolls and infinite sprint duration.

4) More weapon and armor variety, with tons of good choices in each category.

5) You don't feel like a freakin' therapist instead of a soldier.

 

Dislikes:

 

1) ...why the &%$# did you changed the cool "take that, beotch!" Slam animation from ME2 to a standart ME3's "throw a generic power" ' one??

2) While ME2's Shockwave was incredibly useful against bunkered down enemies, ME3's one loses that functionality and it's pretty nerfed in general. Again, don't know why ¬¬

3) ....little else, really.

[Kurt M.]

Dislikes

3. Weapon balance completely thrown away with DLC mods, DLC weapons and weapon upgrades. 

 

I don't completely agree with that one. The Javelin, Black Widow, Claymore, Wraith, Talon....are still some of the best weapons in their category, and they are all vanilla. Heck, I've been using nothing but the Talon in this latest Novaguard playthought.

 

Althought I agree that DLC weapon mods are just superior to vanilla' ones.

[RedCaesar97]

Five things I like better in ME3 than ME1/ME2:

1. No more weapon restrictions on classes (but... )

2. Open and varied environments (but... )

3. A lot of unique weapons (but... )

4. Some of the best writing in the series (but... )

5. The addition of multiplayer was an extremely pleasant surprise, if initially unwanted. 

 

 

Five things I disliked in ME3 compared to ME1/ME2:

1. The ending. (In almost any other game, it would have been good. On its own it is pretty good. But as an end to Shepard's story? Nope.) 

2. They pretty much threw out the enemy protection mechanics from ME2.

3. Too many missions starting you directly into combat. This is annoying if you need to activate ammo powers, hot-key powers, and what-not.

4. Changes to combat system felt half-baked or poorly implemented. 

5. Needing to play through almost the entire game to get all weapons, mods, and armor. Requires two playthroughs (or 1 1/2 playthroughs) to unlock all bonus powers.

[RedCaesar97]

Dislikes

3. Weapon balance completely thrown away with DLC mods, DLC weapons and weapon upgrades. 

 

 

I don't completely agree with that one. The Javelin, Black Widow, Claymore, Wraith, Talon....are still some of the best weapons in their category, and they are all vanilla. Heck, I've been using nothing but the Talon in this latest Novaguard playthought.

 

Althought I agree that DLC weapon mods are just superior to vanilla' ones.

 

There was weapon balance? Since when? Some guns were always crap.

 

And in single player, the Javelin is only good on one class, the Infiltrator, and only with a specific setup so you can one-shot the few shielded enemies you see.

[Rusted Cage]

Five things I like better in ME3 than ME1/ME2:

1. No more weapon restrictions on classes (but... )

2. Open and varied environments (but... )

3. A lot of unique weapons (but... )

4. Some of the best writing in the series (but... )

5. The addition of multiplayer was an extremely pleasant surprise, if initially unwanted. 

 

 

Five things I disliked in ME3 compared to ME1/ME2:

1. The ending. (In almost any other game, it would have been good. On its own it is pretty good. But as an end to Shepard's story? Nope.) 

2. They pretty much threw out the enemy protection mechanics from ME2.

3. Too many missions starting you directly into combat. This is annoying if you need to activate ammo powers, hot-key powers, and what-not.

4. Changes to combat system felt half-baked or poorly implemented. 

5. Needing to play through almost the entire game to get all weapons, mods, and armor. Requires two playthroughs (or 1 1/2 playthroughs) to unlock all bonus powers.

I've got to admit that I still enjoy MP from time to time despite being pretty set against it to begin with. One thing I absolutely hate about it, though, is it's unlock system (whatever it's called where you purchase packs using credits). Despite my N7 stats page saying I've put 80 odd hours into it, I still cannot play as a Salarian Infiltrator using a Scorpion because I haven't unlocked them yet.

 

Of course, the failure could be all mine considering I'm not that good at it - I can top leaderboard on Silver and do fairly well for myself on Gold but I am nowhere near good enough to solo Gold. So it could be that I'm not following a correct formula (I've read that you need to ensure all your common - uncommon characters and weapons are unlocked via cheap packs before moving on to the Spectre 90000 credit packs), or I'm not spending enough money, or that I suck.

[Kurt M.]

There was weapon balance? Since when? Some guns were always crap.

 

And in single player, the Javelin is only good on one class, the Infiltrator, and only with a specific setup so you can one-shot the few shielded enemies you see.

 

Some guns will always be crap. You can't expect every single gun to be awesome. But there's enough variety in each category anyway. Heck, even Assault Rifles included, IF you've all the DLC's (Typhoon, Lancer, Harrier, Mattock...). If there's one category it may be *really* unbalanced, that'd be SMG's (the Hurricane practically pwns them all), and still some people love the Blood Pack Punisher, or the Hornet.

 

Pistols? You've the Arc Pistol, Scorpion, Acolyte, Paladin, N7 Eagle...

 

In shotguns you've the Geth Plasma, Wraith, Eviscerator, Reegar Carbine, N7 Piranha, N7 Crusader....

 

Sorry, but maybe apart from AR and SMG's, there are tons of good weapons to choose from, both DLC and non-DLC.

 

And the usage of the Javelin is up to your Shepard, and your gameplay method, not the enemies that there are. And anyways, you can say the same about the Widow, or every single-shot sniper rifle out there.

[Vazgen]

There was weapon balance? Since when? Some guns were always crap.

And in single player, the Javelin is only good on one class, the Infiltrator, and only with a specific setup so you can one-shot the few shielded enemies you see.

The balance was about some weapons being very powerful but nerfed your power cooldowns. Spectre weapons were balanced by their price. Some DLC weapons are clearly superior, weapon mods (Ultralight Materials) throw that weight limitation away. One might use Avenger in place of Mattock because of its lower weight and full auto mode but then comes the Lancer that is clearly more effective. One can also use Ultralight Materials mod and bring Mattock to Avenger's weight.
What I like about ME3 weapons is that every weapon can work, despite being inferior. You played with Katana, I played with Avenger + Predator. Sure, there are more effective weapons but the starting ones are not rendered useless later in the game.

[Kurt M.]

Spectre weapons were balanced by their price.

 

By their price? Don't make me laugh. You take a crap in ME1, and you can sell it for a thousand credits. It's super-easy to reach the 10 million limit, even without Dr. Michel and being a Paragon. That's not balanced in the slightest.

 

[Vazgen]

I mean Mass Effect 3 Spectre weapons - Black Widow, Wraith and Paladin. ME1 weapon system is not balanced at all. 

[Kurt M.]

Ah, Spectre Requisitions, not Spectre weapons D:

[dgcatanisiri]

Top likes/improvements from ME1/2

1. Smaller party size. Too many of my ME2 companions, much as I like their characters, go unused in combat because there's just too many of them. While I may have my preferences, at least the ME3 squad all feel like they have a place in the story.

2. Character interaction. While I'd like to have a better banter system for when the characters are out in the field, the Normandy felt alive in a way it hadn't before because the crew moved around the ship, in addition to the ship-based crew, giving a better sense that the Normandy had a full compliment, rather than just the party.

3. This could easily be in the top spot - same-sex male romance options. I mean, don't get me wrong, I do and have complained about the handling of it, but they're THERE, which, given the rather pointed absence to this point, makes this a thing to be happy about.

4. Combat was improved, which I liked. I mean, personally, I preferred ME1's system all together, but the combat handles a lot better than it did in 2, and it's a lot harder to run out of ammunition entirely.

5. The DLC was much better than previous games, allowing for more character interaction and allowing there to be more than just Shepard talking to just a couple of characters with silent companions.

 

Top 5 Dislikes (a much harder to pick just five category)

1. The removal of the neutral dialogue options/not enough dialogue spots. These tie together, because the dialogue offers so little in the way of variation this time around. There are multiple points that Shepard stops feeling like the character I spent the last two games building, replaced with BioWare's Shepard, who acts and reacts in the ways they so choose - Shepard's break up over the boy on Earth and the fall of Thessia, assumed friendships abound, and the general sense of the game wanting the player to react in a certain way, rather than giving a reason for it. As much as an uninterrupted flow of the dialogue may seem more cinematic, THIS ISN'T A MOVIE, IT'S A VIDEO GAME. Take advantage of the medium, don't try and make it something it's not.

2. Friendships and Romances. The romances are at their shallowest for a BioWare game - for the most part, after locking in a romance, you get nothing from them aside from one or two line differences until the romance scene. Depending on how that plays, DLC aside, you could go from the middle of the Rannoch arc to the endgame without having any further acknowledgement of your romance. This is despite that there's a plot-mandated breakdown for Shepard in the aftermath of Thessia - if you're going to require Shepard to fall apart at this point, let us explore it, rather than just have them accept that blame and that's the end of it. And the friendships aren't much better - this is a flaw of the series as a whole, but there's no way to vary the interactions with previous characters, they're always assumed BFFs with Shepard. It's at its worst with Garrus and Liara, but it can still be seen with every other former party member, aside from Ashley/Kaidan, who can actually be sent away, as if they had no reason to question Shepard's loyalty after being their work with Cerberus in ME2.

3. Worldbuilding, and the lack thereof. The aliens of Mass Effect have never been so human, and that's not a good thing. In ME3, they might as well just be humans with mandibles, hair tentacles, or masks. Part of this, I'm willing to guess, is the fault of having lost Chris L'Etoile, who wrote Thane and Legion in ME2, and they got to be far more alien than the others. Thane speaks of the differences of drell brains and human brains, that they literally have different thought processes, while Legion and the geth explicitly did not want to be more human in ME2, questioning the independence we so value, yet this is the geth's ultimate goal in ME3.

4. Forced emotion. This ties in to the above mention of railroading. Shepard's emotional devastation at Thessia's fall is dramatically unearned - what's their connection to it, why does this hurt more than Earth did? At most, Thessia matters as Liara's homeworld, but if we're not connected to Liara? That connection falls flat. Why does Shepard care so much about this one boy from Earth? Even if you can justify the character having the connection, you need to make sure that you justify that connection for the player.

5. Character usage. Beyond the above about the friendships and romances, there's the simple fact that too much of the plot is built around the characters who matter, the previous companions, being removed without problems. Sure, this is a flaw of the structure of the trilogy as a whole, having been written as three separate games, rather than three acts of a single story, but it's manifested at its worst here. These are the characters who we're supposed to be connected to, and yet because several of them COULD be absent, a lot of the times, their overall usage makes them FEEL absent. Because there's all this time giving content to the guaranteed variables or the ones who, in a default worldstate where BioWare, rather than the player, are deciding who's alive and who's dead, it gives certain characters more of a spotlight and other characters less, despite being able to fill those roles in the plot. Tali's involvement in things effectively ENDS at Rannoch. Ashley pretty much runs out of content the second her feet cross Normandy's airlock.

[Barquiel]

Likes

- I really liked the dynamic Normandy, with the crew moving about and having conversations with each other (+ squadbanter during missions)
- the side quests, though fewer, capture the tone of the main story and integrate well into the storyline
- Shepard felt more alive to me. I felt like she was nothing but an emotionless hollow shell with a gun before, especially in ME2
- Combat was the best in the series and multiplayer has been surprisingly fun
- The character interaction was something that steadily improved as the series progressed

Dislikes

- ME1 and ME2 didn't have great stories (ME2's plot is virtually non-existent...), but I felt that the story in ME3 was completely falling apart after Rannoch
- ME3's exploration is almost non-existent (it wasn't much better in ME2 though)
- the lack of hub worlds disappointed me terribly (I loved Illium in ME2)
- the journal was horrible and unorganized
- Kelly > Traynor

[Mordokai]

- Kelly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Traynor

 

FTFY

[Hair Serious Business]

LIKES:

• ME3 finally brings homosexuality(Traynor and Cortez)
• You class is finally recognized(now you do feel like Adept for change)
• Combat is way better(unlike in ME2 in where combat was pure "cover & shoot")
• Relationships greatly improved(...let's not talk about ME1 way of relationships and ME2 "do me a favor and we bang" style.)
• Citadel DLC(need I say more)

DISLIKES:

• You choices are overthrown(it's like what you did in ME1 and ME2 has little meaning)
• When it comes to faces graphics are huge let-down in here(compare how your character looked in ME2 and how does it look in ME3)
• Despite great improving when it comes to relationship "talk" is still stuck after completing mission(but unlike ME1 and ME2 it is not stuck after completing any mission to get "talk" it is stuck after completing "specific mission" which will give you option to finally "talk")
• Joker x EDI(because having most wanted LI wanting to bed robot and not real woman/man is same as saying that sex toys are lot better then real thing)
• Kids(thanks to ME3 I'm never having kids  )

[q5tyhj]

1. Combat Roll

2. Combos

3. Guns

4. DLC content

5. Music (I know some will disagree, but Clint Mansell, so eff you) 

[JCFR]

Oh geez... now that i think about, it's really hard for me to find things ME3 did better (in my opinion) Than ME2.

To me, they're quite similar, in heir pros, and their cons... but let me try:

 

Like:

The Cameos of characters

Not having to scan all those planets fore minerals

The dlcs (only one worth buying in ME2 was Shadowbroker)

More unique weapons

 

dislike:

RPG-system still bare minimum (ME1 was more deep - in terms of classes, character-progression and party-customisation)

Level-pipes (Mostly all levels feel like "run from a to b and do some cover-shootouts inbetween". All is so closed up - not even alternative-routes.)

Normandy was still nothing more than a hub between missions.

Lack of interesting sidemissions (apart of scanning planets for something).

the ending ( yes,i know, it's a bit overdiscussed but still, those last 10-15 Minutes ruined the whole experience)

[RedCaesar97]

dislike:

RPG-system still bare minimum (ME1 was more deep - in terms of classes, character-progression and party-customisation)

Level-pipes (Mostly all levels feel like "run from a to b and do some cover-shootouts inbetween". All is so closed up - not even alternative-routes.)

 

I see these two complaints come up on a regular basis, but I do not understand these complaints at all.

 

Maybe someone can explain it to me so I understand where you are coming from? Mainly:

1. How is ME1's RPG system more "deep" than ME2 or ME3? I just do not see it.

 

Everything it ME1 had was just an obstacle towards getting something better, instead of something different. That is not "deep" to me. In ME1, there were only three weapons, armor, amps/tools:

 1. Crap weapons, armor, amps/tools

 2. Soon to be crap weapons, armor, amps/tools

 3. Colossus armor X, HMWA (Spectre) X weapons, Serrice Council X amps/tools

 

And ME1 powers fit into the same category: Basic, Advanced, Master.

 

ME2 and ME3 have power evolutions which can fundamentally improve the power significantly. ME2 also had weapons that handled uniquely from each other. And with the protection system fundamentally gave the weapons their own niche as well. 

 

And early going in ME1 was a slog early game (or extremely tedious/frustrating on Insanity), but became a complete snoozefest once you levelled up enough and got some decent gear. ME2 and ME3 could be challenging all game. 

 

 

2. With the exception of ME1's planet themselves, each mission was very linear, but I never see anyone complaining about that.

 

And what is wrong with linearity? Specifically, ME2, and ME3 use cover-based shooting mechanics for its combat. (ME1 does as well at the beginning until you level up enough so that it no longer matters.) Using cover-based shooting requires linear environments, otherwise you just end up getting shot in the back all the time.

 

And unless your environments are of a (nearly-) completely open-world design, you need linearity. But even open world games like fantasy RPGs use linear environments, such as dungeons or missions. So I do not see what the big deal is.

 

 

 

But these are my views, and I really would like to see what I am missing and want someone to explain to me why people complain about ME2/ME3 linearity and why ME1 is considered to have more "deep" RPG elements.

[Rusted Cage]

Yeah, every time you pick something up you have to turn it into omni-gel because your inventory is full of shite you don't need. I guess, though, that anyone new to the series could spend a while being absorbed by the inventory system's illusion of depth.

[JCFR]

I see these two complaints come up on a regular basis, but I do not understand these complaints at all.

 

Maybe someone can explain it to me so I understand where you are coming from? Mainly:

1. How is ME1's RPG system more "deep" than ME2 or ME3? I just do not see it.

 

Everything it ME1 had was just an obstacle towards getting something better, instead of something different. That is not "deep" to me. In ME1, there were only three weapons, armor, amps/tools:

 1. Crap weapons, armor, amps/tools

 2. Soon to be crap weapons, armor, amps/tools

 3. Colossus armor X, HMWA (Spectre) X weapons, Serrice Council X amps/tools

 

And ME1 powers fit into the same category: Basic, Advanced, Master.

 

ME2 and ME3 have power evolutions which can fundamentally improve the power significantly. ME2 also had weapons that handled uniquely from each other. And with the protection system fundamentally gave the weapons their own niche as well. 

 

And early going in ME1 was a slog early game (or extremely tedious/frustrating on Insanity), but became a complete snoozefest once you levelled up enough and got some decent gear. ME2 and ME3 could be challenging all game. 

 

 

2. With the exception of ME1's planet themselves, each mission was very linear, but I never see anyone complaining about that.

 

And what is wrong with linearity? Specifically, ME2, and ME3 use cover-based shooting mechanics for its combat. (ME1 does as well at the beginning until you level up enough so that it no longer matters.) Using cover-based shooting requires linear environments, otherwise you just end up getting shot in the back all the time.

 

And unless your environments are of a (nearly-) completely open-world design, you need linearity. But even open world games like fantasy RPGs use linear environments, such as dungeons or missions. So I do not see what the big deal is.

 

 

 

But these are my views, and I really would like to see what I am missing and want someone to explain to me why people complain about ME2/ME3 linearity and why ME1 is considered to have more "deep" RPG elements.

 

Ok, i will try to explain, what i mean.

 

First: The classes of ME1 and 2 are mainly the same, but in Me1 every class had more skills (some passive) and some of them were only made accessable, by levelling others to a certain degree. It was impossible to max them all out (at least as far as i know). And to upgrade skills like persuasion, a certain level of the paragon/renegade-bar was required.

In this way, classes felt more individual and could be adapted to your own playstyle by maxing one skill and ignoring another one completly.

In ME2 there were - if i remember correclty - 4-6 skillbars and you could max out almost every one of them pretty fast.

By that, classes lost weight to me and i also got the feeling, that using skills got less important (there were some levels i completed mainly with shooting).

Me2 was more like a 3rd-person-shooter than an action-rpg.

 

And the class-system took another dump from ME2 to ME3, since now every class could use every weapon with just a (tiny) cooldown penality. 

Everyone feels so alike...

I wished biotics f.e. to feel more like mages, not being able to use any weapon except pistols and insted throwing biotic-energy (as the equivalent of mage-fireballs)- Rremeber when Samara was first introduced by finishing of a bunch of mercenaries solely without using anything but biotics? That looked badass. 

Or technicians to have to use their surroundings by making fuses explode, or placing turrets (like the traps of a rogue).

 

Second: Since ME2 it is impossible to customise your party.Yes, you can equip weapons and chose from some few skins, but that's it. No different armors with different stats or something like that. And even the customisation of your own shepard-character is bare minimum with a handful of exchangeable armor-mods. 

 

The only thing in terms of combat-mechanics, Me2 did better than ME1 was the fact, that the cover-mechanics finally worked (in ME1, everyone just rushed at me - making cover useless).

I once tried to play through the game without using a skill once, and eventhough it did not work out as i thought, i was still shooked, how rare i was forced to actual use one... and even then it was mainly "break the shield" or "push him back".  And some combos i hoped to work out, did not -  like pulling a group of enemys to one place with singulariy and then throw a grenade in the crowd, or thow a bunch of crates at them.  The most fun thing, you can do with your biotic-skills is to throw some enemy into an abyss.

 

 

Yes, ME1 had it's flaws... many in fact. But it was the FIRST in this franchise... a prototype... and such things always have a hard time, since there are no predecessors it can be measured on.

It's the sequels which have to polish on those flaws and add on... and eventhough ME2 was more polished, there was no addition or improvement in it's Rpg-core-features. The opposite, it was more shallow.

Instead of fixing things like the inventory and item-system, they deleted it... and that's - in my opinion - the worst thing to do with Rpg-features.

And ME3 for the third game in this franchise not beeing any better, feels lackluster to me.  

[RedCaesar97]

Ok, i will try to explain, what i mean.

First, I want to thank you for the time to try to explain it to me. It helps me to try and see it from your point of view. Some of what you say makes sense. Some of it seems to be purely a matter of opinion.
 
I want to address this part first:
 

First: The classes of ME1 and 2 are mainly the same, but in Me1 every class had more skills (some passive) and some of them were only made accessable, by levelling others to a certain degree. It was impossible to max them all out (at least as far as i know). And to upgrade skills like persuasion, a certain level of the paragon/renegade-bar was required.
In this way, classes felt more individual and could be adapted to your own playstyle by maxing one skill and ignoring another one completly.
In ME2 there were - if i remember correclty - 4-6 skillbars and you could max out almost every one of them pretty fast.
By that, classes lost weight to me and i also got the feeling, that using skills got less important (there were some levels i completed mainly with shooting).
Me2 was more like a 3rd-person-shooter than an action-rpg.

 
 
In terms of number of power/talent bars:
 
In ME1, each class had up to 13 talent bars:
- 8 powers (combat/weapon/biotic/tech and/or first aid skills)
- 2 passive bars: class passive and Spectre Training
- 2 persuasion bars: Charm and Intimidate
- 1 bonus talent (if unlocked)
 
12 points per bar, for a total of 156 points.
At level 60 (which required a minimum second playthrough to achieve), you had 102 points to spend.
So you could max 8 of the 13 bars (96 points) plus half another bar (6 points). 
 
In ME2, each class had up to 7 talent bars:
 - 5 powers
 - 1 class passive
 - 1 bonus power (if unlocked)
 
10 points per bar, for a total of 70 points.
At level 30 (achievable in one playthrough) you had 51 points to spend if you did not abuse a glitch.
So you could max 5 of the 7 bars (50 points) plus 1 point in another bar.
 
I should also note that ME2 also had powers that required you to spend points in another power first to unlock it. 
 
 
Now on the surface I would say that Mass Effect looks to have more builds or playstyles, but in practice I do not find that is the case. Generally speaking, each class in ME1 really has two distinct builds, each built around its class passive, and a bonus power does not change it much (Level 50 single playthrough builds). I find Mass Effect 2 has more builds and playstyles just by changing its class passive, and/or choosing a different bonus weapon.
 
Now that is just my opinion and someone may have a different opinion on the matter and I would like to hear it.
 
 
And I also completed entire missions in ME1 just by shooting. And I was an Adept. Throw up a barrier > shoot > throw up a barrier again when ready > shoot. Enemies are dead. Never used any of my other abilities.
 
 

And the class-system took another dump from ME2 to ME3, since now every class could use every weapon with just a (tiny) cooldown penality. 
Everyone feels so alike...

I agree with you on this to a great degree. I believe the power combo system has a lot to do with it, as each class can power combo so it makes each class less unique. In ME2, only biotics could combo, and only the Adept could do it on their own. (Vanguard could to some small degree.)

Removing the weapon restriction was nice, but then they tied weapon weight into the new cooldown system which I think was mistake. I think it would have been batter if they were separate. Have it so the Adepts, Engineers, and Sentinels had the least weapon weight capacity, Vanguards and Infiltrators a medium weight capacity, and Soldiers the most weight capacity.

I wished biotics f.e. to feel more like mages, not being able to use any weapon except pistols and insted throwing biotic-energy (as the equivalent of mage-fireballs)- Rremeber when Samara was first introduced by finishing of a bunch of mercenaries solely without using anything but biotics? That looked badass. 
Or technicians to have to use their surroundings by making fuses explode, or placing turrets (like the traps of a rogue).

I disagree. Powers should compliment weapons and vice-versa. In ME1 powers were mainly about disabling enemies so you they could not shoot you, or buffing you so you could shoot them easier or take more enemy fire before dying or taking health damage. In ME2, powers were mainly about disabling enemies or removing defenses.

In ME3, you can essentially do what you want: complete the game without firing a shot. Every class can do it.
 

Second: Since ME2 it is impossible to customise your party.Yes, you can equip weapons and chose from some few skins, but that's it. No different armors with different stats or something like that. And even the customisation of your own shepard-character is bare minimum with a handful of exchangeable armor-mods.

I will agree with this to some extent. I like how ME2 gave each squadmate its own look, but it was totally stupid how no one liked to wear armor into battle. This was rectified somewhat in ME3 where squadmate outfits do have different stats.

I do think that armor stat buffs and armor customization should be kept separate.

Yes, ME1 had it's flaws... many in fact. But it was the FIRST in this franchise... a prototype... and such things always have a hard time, since there are no predecessors it can be measured on.
It's the sequels which have to polish on those flaws and add on... and eventhough ME2 was more polished, there was no addition or improvement in it's Rpg-core-features. The opposite, it was more shallow.
Instead of fixing things like the inventory and item-system, they deleted it... and that's - in my opinion - the worst thing to do with Rpg-features.
And ME3 for the third game in this franchise not beeing any better, feels lackluster to me.

I am going to disagree with you opinion that features should be improved in sequels. Sometimes features need to be removed outright, particularly if they are in opposition to the game mechanics you want to achieve.

In my opinion, ME2 did not outright remove some features so much as they streamlined features. Case in point, the inventory: it is still there, just streamlined. Since there are no multiple types of (crap) amps/omni tools, they do not need to be there. It is just weapons now. And you choose them before a mission or if a mission has a weapons locker. Weapon mods were removed since they were no longer needed (and some were now research upgrades) and ammo mods are now powers for some classes and squadmates.

ME2 also streamlined some powers and passives into other skills or passives. They were not removed. If they were removed, it was because they no longer fit the core game mechanics and needed to be removed.


I will agree that ME3 feels lackluster. I think they tried to expand the combat mechanics but a lot of it feels half-baked or poorly implemented, or homogenizes the gameplay between the classes.

[Kurt M.]

I agree with Caesar. In ME1 there was a clear "top weapons-equipment" tier, and the rest of them were just omnigel cannon fodder. While ME2 mitigated that problem, ME3 finally fixed it almost completely. The variety of weapons and it's superb balance (maybe not perfect, but superb nonetheless) means that you can stick even to your Oldvenger (Avenger, sorry ), and make it viable even on Insanity difficulty, thanks to weapon upgrading and mods. Now you can choose your weapons having in mind your personal tastes, and not merely it's raw power.

 

For example, some people may not like the M-99 Saber, or prefer the Viper over it, but I just love it