60 réponses à ce sujet

[Mcfly616]

How is that? ME2 level cap was half that of ME1, it had less attribute points to be used and the skill trees were smaller. Surely that must mean "power attributes were butchered in ME2". Except that in practice the exact opposite happened. Powers become more meaningful, diverse and interesting. As did the 6 classes that now felt unique.

 

 They cut the skill tree off at the knees. ME2 was by far the worst in the trilogy in that regard. One of things that turned me off in the first 10 minutes of the game. It was terrible. One of major contributing factors in making it a shooter with rpg elements, instead of the rpg with shooter elements that the series started out as. Add to that the thermal clips and endless corridors, complete with "Mission Complete" screens, and we've got our quasi-arcade shooter gameplay.

 

 

They should've just refined their original vision instead of essentially rebooting the gameplay to cater to the masses.

[Vazgen]

How is that? ME2 level cap was half that of ME1, it had less attribute points to be used and the skill trees were smaller. Surely that must mean "power attributes were butchered in ME2". Except that in practice the exact opposite happened. Powers become more meaningful, diverse and interesting. As did the 6 classes that now felt unique.

ME2 did it right but it was lacking variety in the end. Final versions of powers were almost always Radius vs Damage. ME3 took the concept farther and has the best character building capabilities of the trilogy. ME2 is second and ME1 is the last in that regard. In ME1 any two characters with the same skills played the same. It was not the case in ME2 where you could choose whether to focus on AoE with weaker damage or high damage on a single target.

[MegaIllusiveMan]

I agree putting 2 there. For me, the Story was the best and unexpected. Plus, the dark mood of the game.

 

In 3, we already would've known what it would happen: Stop the Reapers. And I think that since many people disliked the endings and the final mission, so...

 

Of Course, there is ME1, but I don't think it could make it on that list, because a while back, it was great(on the first time), but repeating the Mako Exploration countless times on the same hill planets, same old recycled places and the clumsy combat Mechanic was, TBH, a bit of a disaster. So, ME2 Got nominated.

 

I think the same could be told of KotOR 2, because of the innumerous bugs and glitches that were never fixed.

[Mcfly616]

KotOR 2 was made by Obsidion, not Bioware.

[Han Shot First]

ME1 wasn't really a very good game. If you include gameplay as a requirement then it falls way short of ME2 and ME3.

 

I think it was a great game at the time it was released, and in many ways still is. It's just that the wonky gameplay elements are more noticeable now than they were in 2007.

[SNascimento]

I think it was a great game at the time it was released, and in many ways still is. It's just that the wonky gameplay elements are more noticeable now than they were in 2007.

I don't think so. Gears was released the year before and had already showed what could be done with TPS gameplay. 

ME1 is great no doubt, but it's great despite its many, many flaws. And that is a statement of how incredible the Mass Effect galaxy and character are. And how well you can intereact with those. 

[Kurt M.]

ME1 wasn't really a very good game. If you include gameplay as a requirement then it falls way short of ME2 and ME3.

 

Are you really comparing games with 5 years of difference between them? (ME1 -> 3).

[jstme]

In my totally objective opinion ME2 deserves the first place. But ME1 should have been in the top 10 because ,while it was less "gamey", it was actually more "sci-fy"yi then the sequel.  

Also, DE:HR not there in top 25? How come? And MOO in the very bottom? Well,at least the people that made the list redeamed themself somewhat by ME3 not being there

[Malanek]

Are you really comparing games with 5 years of difference between them? (ME1 -> 3).

No. The basic shooting mechanics in ME1 were pretty substandard, the the game balance was terrible and the Mako was perhaps the worst vehicle implementation I can remember playing. I wasn't just comparing it to ME2, I was comparing it to other games released before ME1. The strength of ME1 was only the story and the world created imo.

[Lee T]

They cut the skill tree off at the knees. ME2 was by far the worst in the trilogy in that regard. One of things that turned me off in the first 10 minutes of the game. It was terrible. One of major contributing factors in making it a shooter with rpg elements, instead of the rpg with shooter elements that the series started out as. Add to that the thermal clips and endless corridors, complete with "Mission Complete" screens, and we've got our quasi-arcade shooter gameplay.
 
 
They should've just refined their original vision instead of essentially rebooting the gameplay to cater to the masses.

Agreed. I'll had the global cool down to these problems preventing you from making any combo within one character skill set. Something that was perfectly fine in the first. Ho global cooldown how much I hate thee !

[Lee T]

Also, DE:HR not there in top 25? How come? And MOO in the very bottom? Well,at least the people that made the list redeamed themself somewhat by ME3 not being there

That's because they only put one game per franchise. I suppose they wrote Deus Ex because, in it's own time, it was more ground breaking than Deus Ex HR was nowadays, even though Deus Ex HR was a very good game on it's own.