Mass Effect 3 Page 2

  • Page

    of 99 First / Last

  • spindizzy 10 Dec 2010 09:59:13 6,542 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Genji wrote:
    Dumbed down? Seriously? All they did was unclutter the weaponary and upgrades so you're not carting loads of crap around, and making the skills bars shorter, so you see more result for each skill increase.

    I wouldn't even call it "simplified". More like "streamlined". ME1 was needlessly complex. Not "deep" - just confusing and annoying.

    I liked it, by the way. Wouldn't have finished it otherwise. But imo ME2 is better in just about every way that's important.

    I completely agree. My only complaint about ME2 was that it somehow felt more hemmed in, and limited, (especially the citadel) which jarred a bit sometimes.
  • disusedgenius 10 Dec 2010 10:00:58 5,431 posts
    Seen 9 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    ecureuil wrote:
    better locations
    Not even close.

    For my part: ME2 improved some things, made other bits worse. ME2 was the sum of it's parts, ME1 was much more. ME2 was an amazing experience, ME1 was a more inspiring journey and more replayable.

    I expect ME3 to follow similar lines.
  • Genji 10 Dec 2010 10:01:43 19,689 posts
    Seen 3 years ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Well, I'm actually glad that they didn't just recycle the citadel from the first game, instead of creating new areas.

    I do agree that the areas in ME2 seem to be smaller, but I never really found that to be an issue.
  • disusedgenius 10 Dec 2010 10:05:43 5,431 posts
    Seen 9 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Genji wrote:
    I do agree that the areas in ME2 seem to be smaller, but I never really found that to be an issue.
    It was a huge one for me, just completely stifled the feeling of place imo.

    Oh, and for the the record I actually like both soundtracks equally. The Suicide Mission theme is just incredible, especially in game.
  • Widge Moderator 10 Dec 2010 10:07:06 13,700 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    On the soundtrack, just been listening to Daft Punk - Tron:Legacy and that OOZES Mass Effect...

    _ _ _

    www.inverted-audio.com

  • SteveHolt 10 Dec 2010 10:25:46 425 posts
    Seen 5 months ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    Genji wrote:
    Well, I'm actually glad that they didn't just recycle the citadel from the first game, instead of creating new areas.

    I do agree that the areas in ME2 seem to be smaller, but I never really found that to be an issue.

    I think they decided that every quest should last 1 hour, not more and not much less. It's like they simply refused to make a monster, 100+ hours game.

    I often felt that Shepard was rushing through his own gameworld, kinda makes sense since there's a clear and present threat, but I wish I could have spent more time in those awesome places.

    It simply feels like Bioware didn't make the most out of them - and DLC failed to fix that. I mean, take the Krogan world, Omega, the nomad fleet, just to name a few, they could have done a full-fledged expansion pack for each of those worlds.
  • superflyninja 10 Dec 2010 11:03:16 465 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    oh this is a tough one. I LOVE ME1 and ME2. But for different reasons....ME1 was more about the unkown and felt truly expansive. I got lost in the citadel so many times. but in a good way. It really felt like this gigantic awe inspiring place. I know im in the minority but I loved the mako missions. They gave such a sense of isolation. Driving around on some barren rock in the middle of nowhere really did make you feel alone and gave a sense of exploration.
    On the bad side the combat was shit, same layouts for a lot of the bases on those worlds.

    ME2....didnt dumb things down but streamlined I agree. I no longer felt like an explorer but this made sense because of the urgency of the story. You were funneled down a path. My biggest gripe was the planet scanning. I spent as much time manually scanning a planet as i did driving a mako in ME1. and had more fun with the mako rather than moving a cursor around a grid. Of course ME2 made great strides with combat etc.
    I would like ME3 to be more exploration focused i gotta say. And I agree with previous comments, the settings (krogan homeworld,omega,the location for the thief DLC etc) were stunning.but too hemmed in.

    Put away those firey biscuits

  • Hermiod 10 Dec 2010 11:09:10 3,702 posts
    Seen 1 week ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Genji wrote:
    Well, I'm actually glad that they didn't just recycle the citadel from the first game, instead of creating new areas.

    I wouldn't have minded being able to go back to the old areas to see what sort of state they were in after the Reaper attack - sort of like wandering around the now trashed Pacific City in Crackdown 2.
  • Deleted user 10 December 2010 11:17:43
    I thought both games were more or less equally outstanding, in their own ways, with a slight preference for ME2.

    As for ME3, there's no game I'm looking forward to more (other than Fifa 12).
  • ecu 10 Dec 2010 13:32:14 77,023 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    disusedgenius wrote:
    ecureuil wrote:
    better locations
    Not even close.

    So you're saying the first has better locations? How, exactly?

    The Citadel is the best thing in the series, but everything else in 1 is a bit bland to the point of seemingly randomly generated. There were only about 5 proper planets and they were all really poorly designed. Every area in 2 is better.
  • _Price_ 10 Dec 2010 13:33:51 3,074 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    disusedgenius wrote:
    For my part: ME2 improved some things, made other bits worse. ME2 was the sum of it's parts, ME1 was much more. ME2 was an amazing experience, ME1 was a more inspiring journey and more replayable.

    This. A thousand times this. This all over with a cherry on top.

    ME2 is a great game - and I tend to expect no less from Bioware, but ME1 is an absolute cast-iron classic that I'll still play long after the current gen. consoles have been replaced (see also Deus Ex, FFVII, KotOR).
  • ecu 10 Dec 2010 13:36:26 77,023 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I'm just not seeing it. I thought the first was fairly average with a good story, nothing more. Can't understand how people love it so much, but I guess they were in the right place for it.
  • Deleted user 10 December 2010 15:36:07
    Personally, I would like to see Mass Effect 3 fall somewhere between Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2's two equally excellent stools:

    Mass Effect's blue-cool atmospheric sci-fi and 'otherworld-y' sense of exploration; Mass Effect 2's stylish interactive cinematic flair and streamlined gameplay.
  • Deleted user 10 December 2010 15:37:28
    ecureuil wrote:
    I'm just not seeing it. I thought the first was fairly average with a good story, nothing more. Can't understand how people love it so much, but I guess they were in the right place for it.

    The first one was epic with a far better story, sure it had flaws but rather than fix and improve these flaws in the second game they just removed them and stuck in all new even more flawed things. There is no inventory now, the levelling up and character development is all but gone, the loot is gone. Loot is great in RPG games, but rather than improve it from ME1 and make better loot they just got rid of it.

    And they took the Mako out, then charge for a DLC vehicle, why not improve the Mako driving sections? in ME1 there were dozens of planets to land on and just explore in your little vehicle it gave the game a great atmosphere and premise, sure it wasn't perfect but I was thinking 'imagine what they'll do in the second game'...oh wait they just removed it and now I have to probe planets in a shit mini game and I'm forced to do it if I want my team to research things.

    My biggest complaint in Me2 is combat, there's just far too much of it and it gets old pretty quickly, every area has boxes strewn around and you know enemies are coming, the combat is faster and more visceral than Me1 but also felt less tactical. I never felt my character change and get stronger as I did in Me1 and adapt tactics to match his abilities, the battles were the same thing over and over....like a 3rd person shooter.





  • WinterSnowblind 10 Dec 2010 15:44:01 1,246 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    I really don't know how anyone could claim ME2 was "dumbed down". Streamlined is really the perfect word, they took out the unnecessary crap and made a more fun game. Yes, things like the inventory were gone but that was used for nothing more than breaking down whatever you pick up into omni-gel. It was needless, nothing they removed took away from any of the depth.

    I do agree though that the areas felt more closed off and some of the worlds you visited did feel too small, I'd love to see ME3 return to some of the bigger environments.

    I also didn't hate the mako, but the problem was that every planet you went down to was barren. At most you'd find a warehouse with some hostiles on it and it just became very tedious. More things to actually find while roaming and perhaps some quests that didn't just involve shooting everything would have helped.
  • superflyninja 10 Dec 2010 16:01:07 465 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    WinterSnowblind wrote:
    I also didn't hate the mako, but the problem was that every planet you went down to was barren. At most you'd find a warehouse with some hostiles on it and it just became very tedious. More things to actually find while roaming and perhaps some quests that didn't just involve shooting everything would have helped.
    At least you got to go down to the planets.and not just run your cursor over a grid.There were some spectacular planets to visit.And it was always a surprise to find the ruins of a pyramid or get the vehicle to the top of a particularly tricky to navigate mountain and take in the vista.Even little things like some planets not having a breathable atmosphere etc really gave a little depth to the worlds. I agree the base layouts on the planets were gash. What I was expecting for ME2 was the return of visiting the planets but with unique bases etc on them. In fact it was one of the features of ME1 that I thought had huge potential.

    Put away those firey biscuits

  • ecu 10 Dec 2010 16:07:56 77,023 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    The mako stuff in the first game was terrible. It also completely removed you from the game when you realised that every planet was basically the same, with some slight colour changes. It totally pulled me out of the experience, I'm glad they got rid. Going down to the planets isn't a good thing if all the planets are the same, and what vistas? There were no vistas, they're even more boring in this game than they are in real life. It's a shame because I really liked the idea of visiting different planets. It was very disappointing when I had that slow realisation that the variation is never going to change, then you begin to realise exactly what they've done with this system.
  • superflyninja 10 Dec 2010 16:21:58 465 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    ecureuil wrote:
    Going down to the planets isn't a good thing if all the planets are the same, and what vistas? There were no vistas, they're even more boring in this game than they are in real life.
    I disagree entirely! Enjoy watching your Scary Movie boxset.

    Put away those firey biscuits

  • sirtacos 10 Dec 2010 16:25:22 7,316 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    TBF I think people are seeing the flaws of ME1 - some of them anyway, namely in the combat and linearity - magnified in ME2. Nothing much changed, really, except that the game world got buckets of polish, environments looked miles better (albeit smaller), and interactions got a crapload of variation thrown in take for example the club where you can seduce the alien succubus and then choose between her mum and her.
    ME1 did have an intangible feeling of pioneering space exploration or whatever, I'll give it that. The second one was more of a gritty - almost Star-Warsy - tightened and funnelled experience. But IMO, it was all the better for it.

    I loved ME1, but I had to force myself to overlook many flaws that actually distracted me and took away from the immersion. I don't remember a single instance where I had to do this in ME2. And I submit (lols) again that ME2 doesn't have any tangible flaws that aren't shared by its predecessor. It's just more focused, so they're easier to notice without all the extraneous crap. (Gotta admit though; that planet-scanning stuff was kinda shite.)

    I think disusedgenius nailed it on the head. I just prefer the sequel.
  • Pumpatron 10 Dec 2010 16:33:02 376 posts
    Seen 15 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    I'd like to see some changes to the combat for Mass Effect 3, I mostly enjoyed the combat in ME2 but at times it got a bit formulaic and static in my opinion.

    1. A quick cover-to-cover move.

    I'd love there to be a way for moving from cover to cover quickly, similar to the move in Gears of War. I think this would make the combat more fluid and make moving around the battlefield easier and more enjoyable, well at least it would for me.

    2. Enemies without x-ray vision.

    The enemies in Mass Effect 2 virtually always know exactly where you are. When I'm positioned behind a large piece of cover that I can move along and shoot out from the right or left sides, they instantly start shooting at the side I've moved to before I've even popped out. What's the point of me re-positioning when they know where I'm going?

    3. More varied level design.

    Most of the combat areas in ME2 felt very square and boxy. Of course they have to build areas that are cover friendly, but it'd be nice to see it done in a less obvious way. I'm not sure how they'd achieve this, but hey I'm not a game designer. More curves might help.

    I'd also like the levels to be a bit larger, I don't mean in length - just less linear. I'd like to be able to explore a bit.

    I'd also like some KFC, but that has nothing to do with Mass Effect 3.
  • disusedgenius 10 Dec 2010 16:34:39 5,431 posts
    Seen 9 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    ecureuil wrote:
    So you're saying the first has better locations? How, exactly?

    The Citadel is the best thing in the series, but everything else in 1 is a bit bland to the point of seemingly randomly generated. There were only about 5 proper planets and they were all really poorly designed. Every area in 2 is better.
    I disagree, most of the places in 1 felt like actual places - the drive in the mountains, the research facility with and actual journey to get around, even the bloody elevators. The second might have had better linear gaming levels, GearsofWarConvinientMidHeightCoverlol and all, but the first was much better in terms of an actual environment.

    Almost every hub location was underwhelming in the second. Boxed, small rooms, little in the way of genuine design to it. Also a complete lack of a sense of scale, all of the main places in ME1 felt huge and epic, even if they weren't.
  • sirtacos 10 Dec 2010 16:36:36 7,316 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    You can't say those moving platforms on the 'abandoned' alien ship didn't have a sense of scale, surely. Come on now.
  • disusedgenius 10 Dec 2010 16:39:15 5,431 posts
    Seen 9 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    sirtacos wrote:
    You can't say those moving platforms on the 'abandoned' alien ship didn't have a sense of scale, surely. Come on now.
    That's not exactly a hub section and though ME2 had moments, that's what they were: a series of connected moments.
  • Kay 10 Dec 2010 16:48:58 17,921 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    This seems a good place as any to quickly ask - I'm on the verge of getting ME1, because I like the idea of an RPG with flexible dialogue and choice, and this series seems to be pick of the bunch in terms of western RPGs at the moment. However, I'm no sci-fi fan, and never have been. Will that count against my enjoyment of the game (especially since the story and setting seem to be its main appeal)? If so then I won't bother.
  • superflyninja 10 Dec 2010 16:49:28 465 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    disusedgenius wrote:
    ecureuil wrote:
    So you're saying the first has better locations? How, exactly?

    The Citadel is the best thing in the series, but everything else in 1 is a bit bland to the point of seemingly randomly generated. There were only about 5 proper planets and they were all really poorly designed. Every area in 2 is better.
    I disagree, most of the places in 1 felt like actual places - the drive in the mountains, the research facility with and actual journey to get around, even the bloody elevators. The second might have had better linear gaming levels, GearsofWarConvinientMidHeightCoverlol and all, but the first was much better in terms of an actual environment.

    Almost every hub location was underwhelming in the second. Boxed, small rooms, little in the way of genuine design to it. Also a complete lack of a sense of scale, all of the main places in ME1 felt huge and epic, even if they weren't.
    oh you eloquent bastard :D i agree entirely. A lot of what I loved about the openness of ME1 is very intangible....but you describe it well!

    Put away those firey biscuits

  • Deleted user 10 December 2010 17:10:44
    They have said ME3 will have a richer RPG experience, vehicle exploration will make return though will be different than in ME1, there will be more combat options, so looks like they are aiming to please everyone, which is nice.

    Landing on a planet for the first time in ME1 and realising the scale was a memorable moment in gaming for me, and becoming a spectre.
  • intpleeus 10 Dec 2010 18:07:13 28 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    I just played ME1 again recently, and its story doesn't make any sense. Consider the first few hours:

    The prologue: (1) Saren kills Nihlus and Shepard hears gunshot; (2) Shepard arrives at the loading bay, witnesses Sovereign depart and finds the body of Nihlus; (3) Saren arrives at the spaceport, commands the geth to plant explosives; (4) Saren uses the beacon; (5) Shepard arrives at the spaceport and disarms the explosives; (6) Shepard uses the beacon; (6) Saren is aboard Sovereign; (7) Benezia informs Saren that Eden Prime survived and Shepard used the beacon. So Sovereign departed from Eden Prime before Saren commanded the geth to plant explosives, and yet Saren appears to have escaped Eden Prime aboard Sovereign before he commanded the geth to plant explosives. Talk about a continuity confusion.

    Now consider the puzzling trial of Saren. The Council decides the testimony of one "traumatised dockworker" is not enough, and so Captain Anderson asks "what about Shepard's vision!?", but he is told that "dreams" will not be admitted into evidence. But evidence for what and against who? The content of Shepard's vision would have nothing to do with Saren. The vision was of synthetics wiping out the protheans 50,000 years ago, not Saren and the geth attacking the colony on Eden Prime. Moreover, the only witness of Saren on Eden Prime was the aforementioned dockworker, but Shepard and Anderson seem to have been watching the cutscenes, because both have an unwavering conviction that Saren killed Nihlus, commanded the geth to plant explosives, used the beacon, and escaped on Sovereign. But why? Neither of them saw Saren do any of these things, and the dockworker only claims to have seen Saren murder Nihlus.

    Finally, if Saren is still a Spectre and trusted by the Council, why doesn't he just stroll into the Citadel Control Room and activate its dormant Mass Relay function? The whole search for Ilos and the Conduit makes sense only because Saren has been exposed as a traitor and cannot enter the Citadel except through its "backdoor", i.e. the Relay Monument. At the beginning of the story, he wouldn't even need Sovereign or geth fleet, because nobody would understand what was happening until an army of Reapers appeared. There is no reason for Saren to be on Eden Prime in the first place place, and there is no reason for him to be looking for the Conduit, or at least Bioware forget to give us any such reason.

    I like ME1, but its got more than a few plotholes. Alright, that's enough nitpicking.
  • Scimarad 10 Dec 2010 18:42:04 8,567 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Widge wrote:
    On the soundtrack, just been listening to Daft Punk - Tron:Legacy and that OOZES Mass Effect...

    I think you just sold me that album...

    You're absolutely right about the Saren issues at the beginning. I can only assume he had some other smaller ship stashed somewhere but in that case WTF sovereign still hanging around for anyway. Well, apart from giving you that great view of it disappearing up into the sky.

    Also I thought it was a tad bizarre that Nihlus didn't say something like "Oh Saren it's y...WHAT THE FUCK IS ALL THAT CYBERNETIC SHIT GROWING OUT OF YOU!?! EWW!!!"
  • INSOMANiAC 10 Dec 2010 18:44:27 3,833 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Kay wrote:
    This seems a good place as any to quickly ask - I'm on the verge of getting ME1, because I like the idea of an RPG with flexible dialogue and choice, and this series seems to be pick of the bunch in terms of western RPGs at the moment. However, I'm no sci-fi fan, and never have been. Will that count against my enjoyment of the game (especially since the story and setting seem to be its main appeal)? If so then I won't bother.

    Well..... its a Sci fi game........

    But then im not really into all that stuff but i found the game to bbe excellent. Only you can tell us! but you can get the game used for around a fiver so its not a big loss to find out

    Steam - iN5OMANiAC
    PSN - iN5OMANiCAL

  • morriss 10 Dec 2010 19:13:07 71,129 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I just hope ME3 won't take forever now they have to take all the extra time to get it to run for PS3 as well as 360/PC.
  • Page

    of 99 First / Last

Log in or register to reply