73 respuestas en este tema

[JCFR]

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.

Nice summary, really neat.
 

I should also note that ME2 also had powers that required you to spend points in another power first to unlock it.

Yes, but since it took fewer points to max out the bars and their actual number dropped the progression felt - to me - really shallow - especially with the way ME2 was designed (since it was all about collecting team-members).
Let me give you an example:
After playing a few hours and finally adding Tali to my team, i assigned her and had a bunch of points to invest into her levelling, which made me able to max out two of her skills instantly.
So actual having to "work" or "plan ahead" to unlock some skill never really happened to me in ME2... and it appeared to me, that at least one skill in every class/team-member was not necessary useful and could be ignored (like Mordins freeze - half of the enemies it did not work on and on the other half fire was more effective).
 

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.

Maybe. It has been a while since i played ME1 last time... and i'm a kind of gamer, who doesn't read up on Guides how to level this or that class (stupid MMO-trend in my opinion). I wanna find that out by playing myself and by that it often takes more than one playthrough to find the optimal way for me.
 

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.

Ah, yes,i remember that tactic. But i always had the feeling, this was because the enemy-AI was incompetent.
And i think, the same critic could go to ME2 and ME3. It's always: Landing on planet, go a few steps, cover appear, go into cover, enemies spawn, shoot, shoot, use skill, shoot, shoot. All dead, go a few steps, cover appears and once again...
I don't wish to nag but this combat-system feels a bit overused... especially since this is the onlyway combat flows.
 

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.

It would've defintivly helped, if the developers would've designed it that way.
 

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.

Matter of taste. If you prefer it this way, then it's absolutly ok. I just wish for a bit more... variety.
 

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, but how shall that work out? If i get a new armor in... let's say Diablo3, i wanna see it on my character. It shouldn'T just be better in terms of stats, it should look different from what i've already got.

And to those who nag about top-tier-items and "omnigel cannon fodder": In my opinion finding items belongs to any Rpg. It is one of it's driving mechanics. And yes, it was one of the flaws of ME1, that you could get top-tier-items pretty early in the game.
But if it would've worked out in the way: starting with tier 1 at the beginning, getting tier 2 in the middle and reaching tier 3 in the end, no one would've b*tched about it.
so why not designing ME in that way instead of minimizng the customisation? It worked in KotoR and DA:I.
 

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.

Woah, that's debatable!
I mean, yes sometimes there are no-good-features which need to be removed (like this endless scanning in ME2). But if you keep removing features, just because they didn't fully work out, at some point you will end up with a hollow, featureless but mass-compatible shell of a game.

Yes, the inventory in ME1 was awful designed and the way of getting items not well balanced, but is this already enough to remove it completly? Customisation is one of the core-features of any Rpg. I loved it in Diablo, i loved in in the BG-series, i loved it in KotoR... it's even one of the things i like to do in Borderlands (even finding those different heads and skins). But Me2 just ripped it out of the game instead of improving it.
 

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.

ME is at the point, where it can't get no more streamlined. Any more streamlining is dumbing it down. It is time to add some features... do something new to divert itself from it's predecessors and take a step up.
Maybe it's because i'm an oldschool-gamer... maybe it's because i like complexity... having to put some thought into what i`m doing and plan a bit ahead (wether it's through customisation or skill-progression) that i feel this way, but streamlining is the worst trend and it has to be stopped.

Anyway, thanks for your detailed opinion - i appreciate it.

[Linkenski]

And for the love of god Bioware, don't spend time on developing Action Mode for ME4. Your fans hate it. Mass Effect isn't and shouldn't play like a generic shooter like CoD or Gears of War. It should strive to be more than just a shooter and you're effectively appealing to the wrong crowd with the inclusion of Action Mode (and the exclusion of several dialogue choices for RPG mode players because you had to go the middleway between choreographed cutscenes and idle animations for interactive dialogue)

[Vazgen]

And for the love of god Bioware, don't spend time on developing Action Mode for ME4. Your fans hate it. Mass Effect isn't and shouldn't play like a generic shooter like CoD or Gears of War. It should strive to be more than just a shooter and you're effectively appealing to the wrong crowd with the inclusion of Action Mode (and the exclusion of several dialogue choices for RPG mode players because you had to go the middleway between choreographed cutscenes and idle animations for interactive dialogue)

Why does Action Mode hurt the game? You simply put a flag on choices in RPG mode and pick flagged lines automatically in the Action Mode. You don't need to remove any line to implement it. Just like you don't need to remove anything to have the Story Mode. I'd say let them stay, it gives a choice to the players. That said they probably have numbers about the number of people playing on Action and Story modes compared to RPG mode, so they should base their decision on those numbers.

[themikefest]

Why does Action Mode hurt the game? You simply put a flag on choices in RPG mode and pick flagged lines automatically in the Action Mode. You don't need to remove any line to implement it. Just like you don't need to remove anything to have the Story Mode. I'd say let them stay, it gives a choice to the players. That said they probably have numbers about the number of people playing on Action and Story modes compared to RPG mode, so they should base their decision on those numbers.

No they shouldn't.

 

How many tried action mode and after a few hours or whatever didn't like it and switched to story mode or whatever? Would you count those as liking action mode?

 

I tried it and after about 10 minutes, I hated it and went back to rpg mode. Did my time playing that mode count as liking action mode?

[Orikon]

Only 5? That's gonna be hard.

 

1. Modern Sci-Fi feel.

Movie-like,modern,blockbuster--whatever you wanna call it--Mass Effect 3 had a much more modern approach,presentation and vibe regarding the story,art direction,armor and ship design,characters,dialogue and themes than the previous two games,especially when compared to the "old sci-fic" vibe of ME1,and that's something I always liked from day one.

Mass Effect 3 shows the Mass Effect's Sci-Fic universe in its best light,be it the atmosphere,the characters,the design of different locations,the music,its emotional/action-packed moments,etc. In my opinion ME3 is where the trilogy really shines.

 

2. Combat.

'Nuff said. 

 

3. Classes are much more defined and offer way more freedom then in previous games.

 

4. The DLC. Citadel,Omega,Leviathan and From Ashes easily beat any other DLC from ME1/ME2 (maybe with the exception of LotSB),and perfectly fit into the storyline.

 

5. Relationships. Relationships in ME3 are handled way more realistically and not in such a "video-gamey" manner like in ME2/ME1.

 

Dislikes:
 

1. The finale.

The finale of ME3,which was supposed to be a well-written and designed,action-packed,exciting and emotional final battle to save the galaxy,with major choices and consequences,turned out to be a boring,repetitive slug through London with a single track playing all the time,and unfinished content and plot holes all over the place.

 

2. Lack of side-missions.

The game would've been much better if all some of those fetch quests on the Citadel were turned into actual quests in which you actually visit those planets,interact with characters and actually retrieve the object personally rather then just magically teleporting it to the Normandy. I was looking forward to actually seeing Dekunna and escorting the civilians myself instead of going to the system and simply scanning the area.

 

3. The Journal.

Eww....

 

4. Lack of a neutral option in dialogue.

While I can get what the devs was trying to accomplish,the lack of a neutral option was a bit weird. Not everyone is a pure Paragon/Renegade.

 

5. Forced emotions at certain points in the story.

Shepards semi-depression after Thessia and during Priority:Earth was completely unnecessary,and should've been at option for the player to choose.

[taglag]

  I guess the modding of weapons was Okay, but ME3 just left such a bad taste in my emotion's, I have never liked it, The ending just busted the whole game for me ( I wanted a star war's ending I guess "The first one, which was episode 4 I think" ).

 

  I don't play online, and I hated that part being placed in ME3 too.

 

  Let's see, I did like that it was pretty long, and took awhile to finish, I hated that you mostly could not get all three ending if you did not play online, or use a cheat engine of some kind.

 

  The fuel was a real problem trying to do everything, and have enough money. and avoid the reapers coming to get you while exploring (PING), if you did not use a walk through to tell you which planets to go to to get items, and also where free fuel might be while trying to find all the dumb arse war, and rep items. Course if you play on line you were I guess okay.

 

   I just replayed it my second (after waiting over two years ) with MEHEM mod installed for the happy ending, and I was not nearly so sick at the end as I was the first time, It helped, but still the war points are just to me really sucky.

 

  I did not notice that much difference between ME2, and ME3 in game play myself, though I see people brag about how much better the game battle play was in ME3, I just don't see a huge difference.

 

  some of the cut scene's were pretty good in ME3, but they were pretty good in some of the others too.

 

  I want to find something grand about ME3, but I just don't feel it.

[XAN]

Why does Action Mode hurt the game? You simply put a flag on choices in RPG mode and pick flagged lines automatically in the Action Mode. You don't need to remove any line to implement it. Just like you don't need to remove anything to have the Story Mode. I'd say let them stay, it gives a choice to the players. That said they probably have numbers about the number of people playing on Action and Story modes compared to RPG mode, so they should base their decision on those numbers.

Because it's embarassing when the game asks me whether I want to play the game how it is meant to be played, or I want to play a dumbed down version made for people who don't know how to play RPGs, or another dumped down version made for extremely unskilled players.

 

This feature just prevents people from getting the full Mass Effect experience. If you are an "action mode" player, you are taking out the decisions from the game, which is the game's biggest feature. As for "story mode" there is a casual difficulty setting in the game already, and Mass Effect isn't one of the harder games out there. The hardest thing is getting used to the controls. People who are not playing "RPG mode" are simply playing the game wrong and preventing themselves from experiencing the full game.

[Vazgen]

Because it's embarassing when the game asks me whether I want to play the game how it is meant to be played, or I want to play a dumbed down version made for people who don't know how to play RPGs, or another dumped down version made for extremely unskilled players.

 

This feature just prevents people from getting the full Mass Effect experience. If you are an "action mode" player, you are taking out the decisions from the game, which is the game's biggest feature. As for "story mode" there is a casual difficulty setting in the game already, and Mass Effect isn't one of the harder games out there. The hardest thing is getting used to the controls. People who are not playing "RPG mode" are simply playing the game wrong and preventing themselves from experiencing the full game.

Why is it embarrassing to you? I view it the same way as when it asks to choose difficulty. I think the best Mass Effect experience comes from playing on Insanity. I don't however suggest to remove every other difficulty option and don't say that people who play on other difficulties are playing the game wrong. There is no such thing as playing the game wrong, so long as the player has fun. People have different tastes. One might try Action mode and get into RPGs, another one might try RPG mode and then, after a few playthoughs, decide to play Action mode to just have fun with shooter aspects of the game. Why should they be forced into one or the other? 

I agree on Story mode, Casual difficulty on RPG mode does the same. 

 

@Mike, you're right on that, but as I recall you can't switch between modes without restarting the character. So if they also keep the "hours played on a character" (can be extracted from save files) indicator they can combine those two and figure out the numbers. It won't be perfect, but should give the general picture. 

[Vazgen]

I agree with the list except dislike N4. Biotics were nerfed in ME2, ME3 actually improved them by introducing biotic combos and removing protection from the enemies. ME1 version is still my favorite and the truest to the lore IMO, but ME3 biotics are more powerful than in ME2 so it's not really fair to list nerfed biotics as a negative to ME3.

[Linkenski]

I don't see how ME3 needed biotics either. Actually I think Biotics is the best way to go no matter what considering almost all enemies are organic in the game.

But biotic combos was in ME2 as well. It just wasn't as big of a deal.

[Vazgen]

I don't see how ME3 needed biotics either. Actually I think Biotics is the best way to go no matter what considering almost all enemies are organic in the game.

But biotic combos was in ME2 as well. It just wasn't as big of a deal.

ME2 had in fact better combos IMO. Physics combos were fun and fitted lore more that biotic explosions. There were very few combos in ME2. I played it quite some time ago and may be wrong but from what I remember only Warp resulted in biotic explosions and Throw - in physics combo.

[Gothfather]

Pros

 

1) Combat balance

2) fewer companions - there is a limited budget and a "set" dialogue budget. I'd rather have fewer companions but with deeper and richer dialogues with companions then lots of companions with shallower dialogue. The over all amount of Dialogue is the same but the net result is that feels like less because the conversations are spread out over too many companions. With a party of 3 you only need 2 companions so having the riches of Me2 was really a waste as you couldn't use them.

3) interrupts - I thought being able to react to a situation within a cutscene was great

4) More inclusive and representative of the types of people we meet in the real world.

5) Banter system was improved, Characters moved around on the Normandy. I still wish you were able to actually TALK to people outside the Normandy. When you are not in combat is it really so hard to imagine Shepard having a conversation with a squad mate? Why must all dialogue be explored on the Normandy?

 

 

Cons

 

1) The citadel felt smaller (but i am pretty sure it was larger than ME1) The presidium felt huge in ME1 because they were not afraid to have large open negative spaces which you couldn't enter but could see across. There were few negative spaces in ME3 on the citadel you always ran into the "wall" painting that tried to make you think there was a vast open area beyond. This never match the large open spaces that ME1 conveyed.

2) interrupts - having interrupts tied to the morality system was yet another reason to min/max your morality instead of acting based on the situation not the mechanics of the game.

3) Lack of hard choices in the game, not everyone can be saved (or rather you shouldn't be able to save everyone.) In ME3 you can save EVERYONE! the worse crisis to face the universe and Shepard is so damn super dooper that he saves EVERYONE! With the exception of one terminally ill Drell and Mordin. There was no Virmire choice, in every case it was queue heroic music and Shepard saves the day and everyone wins. YUCK! As the reaper crisis intensifies Shepard is able to go through the crisis without having to make any hard choices. In the concept art book for ME3 collectors edition they specifically state that the boy Shepard see die on earth is meant to represent all the lives Shepard can't save. It haunts Shepard through ME3 yet Never again does Shepard have to make any choice that cause people to be lost. In the arrival DLC Shepard has to make a choice about destroying the relay but even then its not a choice because it happens regardless but at least there was this idea that Shepard WILL have to sacrifice some people to save others in the up coming war, except NOPE Shepard doesn't in ME3 cause Shepard is a Super dooper awesome trooper!

 

Cons for the whole series not just what was bad in ME3 vs the first two games

 

1) Crappy romance timing. The trip to Ilos was a terrible place to have the romance reach its end, it would have been significantly better if you had the romance on the trip to Virmire because it would have been possible to lose Kaiden or Ashley after you made that Romantic connection. It seems that the writers feel that sex is the climax of a relationship and thus it should only be reach at point X as a reward. Rarely do the Romances seem to be organic, this was mitigated by the Citadel DLC as here at least the romance continued but so often its have sex and romance is over in terms of impact progression in the story.

 

2) The fact that our choices has little or no impact on content. Save the Rachni queen or not pffft who cares you are still going to get the same content of Rachni showing up as enemies and still going to get the quest to "save the queen" in ME3 with insignificant tweaks to it. Sure it impacted your War assets but in the end with all the DLCs there were so many war assets available it had negligible effect. If you make a franchise that is about making choices that impact the universe then make sure you are willing for it to GATE content. Don't do X then you don't get A content. You did Y then you don't get B content. This increases replayability and truly makes our choices have meaning.

[TMA LIVE]

I liked that there was more happening on the screen, and how the camera tried to keep up with it. I liked the dodge and cover system better. And I liked the Multiplayer. I also liked the emotional beats more, since it hit more home there. And I liked how Shepard reacted more then being a statue for a lot of the dialogue scenes.

 

Beyond that, ME2 is still my favorite. I think it hit the sweat spot when it came to RPG and third person shooter, with the right amount of polish.

[Iakus]

1 Workbenches and weapon customization

2 Modular armor.  For Shepard, at least

3 Squad banter

4 Atmosphere (darkened areas, zero-g tube to the geth dreadnought, underwater sequence in Leviathan)

5 Shooting range at the Spectre office.  Actually wish more was done with it.

 

1 Autodialogue.  Binary dialogue choices

2 Ashley going mute for the second half of the game

3 Creepy stalker side missions

4 Geth turning from a cool, truly alien life form, into a race of would-be Pinocchios

5 And I'm sure everyone sees this coming.  THE FREAKING ENDING!

[Vazgen]

Currently playing ME2 and have to say that binary dialogue choices started from there. Except instead of having Paragon vs Renegade choices there are "more or less Paragon/Renegade". I find it harder to roleplay ME2 than ME1 or ME3. Perhaps because my character is not a wannabe bada** like ME2 tries to portray him.

[Linkenski]

I liked that there was more happening on the screen, and how the camera tried to keep up with it. I liked the dodge and cover system better. And I liked the Multiplayer. I also liked the emotional beats more, since it hit more home there. And I liked how Shepard reacted more then being a statue for a lot of the dialogue scenes.

 

Beyond that, ME2 is still my favorite. I think it hit the sweat spot when it came to RPG and third person shooter, with the right amount of polish.

I agree but I swear 70% of BSN is about to go nuts everytime someone says this. RPG is not just the stats and stuff. The dialogue options are a huge part too and ME2 balances that much better than ME3.

 

I'm so presumptious. Sorry.

[wright1978]

Top 5 things
1) combat was smoother and more intuitive.
2) some of the big choices were done well. Rannoch/Genophage
3) crew interaction/moving about
4) omega dlc (interesting choices could sway aria's actions or leave her confused)
5) introducing a Prothean squadmate.

Worst things
1) the ending. Priority earth was deeply mediocre, which then fell into utter linear trainwreck ending. Atrocious hole ridden nonsense all entangled round the appalling decision to introduce the poorly thought out antagonist as a dem to decide what ending the player is allowed.
2) the intro. Appalling intro. Some of the dialogue is embarrassing and has been understandably ridiculed.
3) characterising autodialogued and removal of neutral options. Removing the sense of immersion and control over your character was pretty criminal. Trying to instil a fixed characterisation onto a player characterised protagonist in final game of trilogy was just wrong.
4) the treatment of me2 squaddies. Barring the odd exception they were largely relegated to poorly done cameos and used to create drama through their deaths. Still really annoyed about the fact Miranda was excluded from the Cerberus arc and forced into a silly rehash of her loyalty mission.
5) earth focus. The reapers are coming to wipe out all advanced life, not just earth. Silly plotting revolving about how to liberate earth rather than how to defeat the reapers was everywhere. They had the plot device to make earth important in the end, I just wished they'd written more maturely before then rather than reducing everything down to a cheap marketing slogan.

[Vazgen]

 

lol what? you find it harder to roleplay Shepard in ME2 than ME3 and ME1???
ME1 he basically said the same things and ME3 he was in full auto mode most of the time

 

ME2 had the most balanced and best dialogue system in the trilogy (only the reputation system was missing)

Yes, I find it harder. Why? Because ME2 Shepard gets railroaded as much as ME3 one, except with even less variety to his character. In ME3 you can choose to act as a Paragon or Renegade character. In ME2 you are forced to pick either "neutral" or Paragon/Renegade option a lot of times - same binary options with less variety between outcomes. Add to that the disconnection between paraphrases and actual dialogue, as well as Paragon/Renegade system that basically forces you to pick non-neutral options and you get a game where it is almost impossible to play a non-Schwarzenegger character. 

Example - dialogue wheel when meeting Jacob (linked in AutoDialogue thread)

1) You are forced to choose between two options and those options are not Paragon vs Renegade but rather neutral vs Renegade. 

2) Choosing "Who are you?" results in Shepard saying "Are you with Miranda?" which makes no sense since Shepard doesn't even know who Miranda is. "Who are you?" should result in Shepard asking "Who are you?", "What's your name?"... 

[Current Future]

I'll avoid ME3's ending, because at this point what needs to be said?

 

Improvements:

1. Smaller roster: Don't get me wrong, I love (most of) ME2's squad mates, but when Jacob says "We don't stand a chance without the right specialists," it drives me up a wall.  The only time I get the feeling squad members who I don't take on a mission contribute are Horizon and the finale.  So why is it important for me to get all 11 companions, Jacob?
2. BroShep (or whatever he's called): Mark Meer finally emotes!  Still not enough for me to vastly prefer Jennifer Hale, though.  I love Meer's NPCs, but his Shepard is bad.
3. Enemies: We're finally fighting the Reapers!  ME1 sets them up as the ultimate villain, then we get the Collectors thrown at us.
4. Squad Interaction: In ME1 all we get is those elevator discussions; in ME2 it's actually worse.  I love seeing what my crew gets up to: whether it's having a quiet chat, trying to one-up each other or just playing poker.
5. Detonations: They were barely noticeable before, but the sound of a biotic det is music to my ears.

Downgrades:

1. Plot: Dark Energy thread was shoved off a cliff, it's remains were gathered then set on fire, its ashes were then scattered in the Antarctic.  Also, would have loved to have seen and/or participated in Shepard's trial.
2. Exploration: The Mako maneuvered like a drunk rhino, but at least you got to see what was out there; the Hammerhead had the durability of wet paper, but... you get the idea.
3. Promises: You're going to see Palaven! Yeah, there's nothing like seeing the heart of the Turian empire... on fire... from a nearby moon!  Your decisions will matter!  Um, not really - when you consider...
4. DLC: Having to pay extra for content that should have been there in the first place (Omega) or should have been available to everyone on launch (From the Ashes.)
5. Auto-dialogue: If it were like DA II,were the auto-dialogue reflected the tone of your decisions: sarcastic, diplomatic or direct, I would have been OK with that; not ideal, but OK.

I could add more - on both sides - but these were the first things that came to mind.

[shillyard]

I guess I won't take the 5/5 approach, but instead take this thread to comment generally.

 

When I play these types of games, and I seem to do it this way every time, I'll play about 1/3 of

it and then restart, playing a different character, trying all the different powers and making

different decisions until I've basically tried them all.  Then I'll restart with the favorite and finish

the game.

 

ME2 was good in that sense since most of the characters had unique powers and available

guns so played differently.  I ended up completing the game with an adept, vanguard and soldier

as they were all different and fun to play.

 

When I did the same thing with ME3, all the characters ended up being so similar in play

(and the story outcomes wrt to story decisions also, although I'm not entire sure with that) that

I finished just once (non extended cut).  Essentially, with the gun mods available, you can

find one you like and make it pretty utilitarian (no one gun for armor, one for shields, one for

range, etc. as in ME2).  So, with the weight system and since you have one gun, the recharge

rate is so fast and the combo's so easy that every class can mow through the competition with

continually pressing one or two buttons:  warp/throw/warp/throw,

incinerate/overload/incinerate/overload, charge/nova/charge/nova, concussive shot x inifinity, etc.

So all characters end up feeling the same.

 

Why I'm reading here is I've started a second ME3 full run.  What I've found so far is if you don't

upgrade the guns at all and take enough wt to be at 0% recharge, it actually plays a

lot like ME2.  You have to be a bit smarter in when to use your powers, and you need to

use multiple guns:  for example, you need at least one hard hitting gun or you can't do

anything to armor (and can't throw incinerate fast enough kill the big creatures before

they reach you).

 

So I think the wt system was the big error along with the upgrades available, and I think

they should have gone to more of a combination of ME2 and ME1.  The weapon upgrades

should have been stuff like ammo types and magazine capacity and many 'upgrades'

should be moved to 'weapon training'.  For example the combat types would have

available things like stabilization or less kickback or 'you training has made you so

keen eyed that you can use the sniper scope to see through smoke'.  So anyone can

use any weapon but only the combat specialists can get really good.  Along those lines,

they combat specialists can have access to an ammo upgrade skill tree:  anyone can use

cryo ammo but only with an upgraded combat ability will it totally freeze someone.

 

As far as number of weapons:  soldier the full five, hybrid 3 and others 2.  Any 2 or 3 or

5, and part of the skill tree for adept, for example, would be +25% power damage and

force or a third weapon:  an adept can be more weapony or powery.  Soldier would

have available heavy weapon training:  so his main 'non gun power' would be a missile

launcher or something similar.

 

As far as story structure.  I've found I pretty much dislike the 'side missions', and

I also don't understand why bioware seems so adverse to having missions unavailable

based on choices.  I think I'd prefer a 30 hour game where all the missions are part of

the main story, and depending on choices you might only do 60% of them.  Am I really so

off base in if I enjoyed that first run through, I'd restart with a new character and do

the other half of the game.

[RVallant]

no you are completely right

I remember when ME2 was released "hardcore" RPG players were pissed with it lol

sure they cut a lot of stuff from ME1 but it was better in almost every way (especially the dialogue system and choice and consequence)

 

good thing that most players still liked ME2 (its widely regarded as the best of the trilogy and rightfully so) hopefully ME4 will go that route (more character focused etc.)

 

They were pissed because it leaned into becoming a corridor shooter.

 

I like ME2, don't get me wrong, but it is considered the 'best' shooter in the trilogy not the best RPG experience. That should go to ME1 or 3 and I say that because;

 

 While the dialogue was improved over ME1 the squad dynamics were poor, it was stone-walling from start to finish (read: "Calibrating weapons") it was SO bad that they had to take the ****** out of it in the third game. ME3 returns to ME1's style of allowing character growth while adding even more dialogue and conversational options.

 

There's other things but they're mostly minor take them or leave them points. 

[DarthLaxian]

There's only two things I liked better:

 

1. Selecting your own weapons (though I absolutely hated that they influences power CD for gameplay reasons...come on that's retarded and an SP-Game does not need balancing (that aspect could have easily been cut from SP))

 

2. Gameplay (fighting etc. felt a lot more fluid

 

Top 5 Things I disliked (note: I am not ordering them - so the first is not the least bad or anything):

 

1. Ending (total bust - have they been drunk/stoned or hung over when writing this? -.-)

 

2. Linearity (come on - part of the fun of ME1 was doing the missions in the order you liked...same for picking up the squadmates in ME2 -.-) and railroading (why exactly would I turn over my ship to the Alliance? - I "stole" it from Cerberus, so it's private property now! Why would I agree to being imprisoned? - I have a war to prepare for! Why did Alliance command waste all this time? etc.)

 

3. Sense of being disconnected (so we are building this huge weapon but can't visite the sights it's built at? we can't go direct parts of the larger war effort etc.)

 

4. Characters - the ME2 (or ME1) Team of companions was so much better and the game does not do them justice IMHO

 

5. War-Assets you don't get so see (also: No large battles? - Yes, the earth mission is supposedly this large invasion but we aren't seeing much of that -.- same for the space battle, we are only seeing the initial engagement, nothing more...)