That ME2's leveling system was simpler than ME1's is true, yet it only make it better. In ME1, for the most part, each skill point you used barely changed the power. In a weapon proficiency skill tree for example, you could have one level that gave a 1% damange bonus and the next one would give a 2% damage bonus. So basically what ME2 did was change it so instead of having to spend 10 skills points in a power with each one changing 1% of that power damage, you could have only one that change 10%.
It also means that, instead of being able to invest every single point as you earn them, you sometimes have to wait and save up points to have enough to invest in the next level of something. It means that some abilities, instead of being independent, are tagged on as enhancements to other abilities. It means that you have leftover points you cannot use because you don't have enough to invest in the next level of anything. In some cases, it means that you have to choose one enhancement option over another. The design dictates that you cannot have both.
But if there one thing that is clear to me after spending sometime discussing games is that many times feeling alone is more important than the qualitiy of the mechanics of the game. I've seen more than one people here saying how they liked to snipe people in ME1 from a mountain after getting out of the Mako. And there was no solid gameplay mechanic that supported or enhanced it, it was as plain as it could be while still being functional.
That's level / battle design more than mechanics. Yeah, I'm one of those players who really enjoyed sniping out enemies from afar in ME1. I've not found many opportunities to use the sniper rifle in ME2&3 - there are a few places where you can surprise them and take out one with the sniper rifle, but as soon as you do that, they're swarming, usually at medium range.
Say what you will about the Mako missions; the player had opportunities to use different strategies in approaching enemy outposts. Most of ME2&3's levels are corridors - you arrive in a specific location within that corridor and are led by the nose through it.
So it's no surprise to me that a lot of times when people say ME1 is the best of the trilogy it has to do with either the narrative/characters or the feeling of that game. Because I dare say that if we look at the game mechanics of ME1 we're bound to conclude they are much worse than those of ME2 and ME3. They are serviceable at best.
Serviceable in that you have a HUD display showing the status of squadmates' health and shields - and you can use medi-gel, shield boost, barriers before they actually go down.
Serviceable in that you have a dynamic minimap showing enemy movements.
Serviceable in that you have actual numbers to help you choose equipment.
ME2 gave me the ability to send different squadmates to different locations, but with no knowledge of their health & shield status, I'm disinclined to send them through enemy fire - and without a dynamic minimap, I don't know where to send them.
I could use ME1's inventory system to change equipment and mods on the fly. It seems to me like ME2&3 became more a matter of trial and error, and using metagame knowledge to choose equipment loadouts, squadmates, etc. Due to ME3's weight mechanic, my soldier often carries only one weapon in that game, further limiting my tactical options. Of course, I've always wondered whether that weight mechanic applies to squadmates - the game doesn't tell me.
So I have never viewed the combat changes from ME1->ME2 as an improvement; quite the contrary. I would, however say that ME3 combat is an improvement over ME2's, but still prefer ME1's over both of them.
Retour en haut
