EPTMass Effect 3 - Page 34
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
| ||
|
Steelavocado
United States2123 Posts
I must say that the multiplayer is quite enjoyable. It is very unique compared to anything I have ever played. I haven't played the single player demo yet but as of now I might buy the game just for multiplayer. I recommend DLing the demo ASAP. + Show Spoiler + My ID is avocado123 if you want to hit me up sometime | ||
|
Tobberoth
Sweden6375 Posts
On February 20 2012 12:42 GGTeMpLaR wrote: ME1: A+ ME2: A-/B+ ME3: Looks like it will be a C+/C based off all I've seen but hopefully I am underestimating it. I really don't understand how people can have this opinion. The only thing that got me through ME1 was the fact that I could play ME2 afterwards. I had to spend about 5 minutes in ME2 before I realized how much better than ME1 it was. ME1 is a mediocre shooter with mediocre RPG/squad elements, in a decently short game. ME2 is a great shooter with weak RPG/squad elements in a game where you actually feel like doing anything other than the main missions. I don't disagree when people say ME2 was simplified, but seriously, there was no loss. The inventory system was definitely the worst part of ME1 since you just wanted to put on the best gear and everything else was junk, possibly switching weapon/armor enhancements for each fight (assuming you knew what you would be up against). The stats system was more or less the same, just forced to spend way more points, often with abilities you actively didn't care about. Really, the opinion that ME1 is a better game than ME2 blows my mind. | ||
|
Aela
97 Posts
ME1: A+ ME2: A-/B+ ME3: Looks like it will be a C+/C based off all I've seen but hopefully I am underestimating it. ME1: B+ ME2: D ME3: D+ | ||
|
The Chief
Australia138 Posts
| ||
|
Latham
9562 Posts
Although a little bit of the magic is starting to wear off for me. I understand this is a demo and all, but I'm starting to get a bit bored. I've memorized the 2 maps perfectly. The AI while dynamic, aggressive and on higher difficulties buffer, usually poses no threat. Grunts through grenades which make you relocate all the time, centurions smoke up the area with the same effect, nemesis snipe you, phantoms are pretty deadly but again easy to deal with and finally Atlas mechs for which everyone has rockets now. Hell I have 22 stacked up already, and I'm only lv 20 Human Female Vanguard. I don't like the way weapons progress. I don't see much of a difference between my Katana I and my friend's Katana VI, both get the job done. Buying packs is fun and infuriating at the same time. As Vanguard I usually get some shit LMG which is completely unusable instead of a new assault/pistol/shotgun. Hard to unlock other classes/races. Haven't used sniper rifles yet so can't comment much, but they seem powerful. Saw Widow blow heads off on gold. LMGs are shit needlers. They do not deal damage, they shoot needles. Unusable for me at this stage. Always favor other weapons over them. Assault rifles are nice but the Mattock seems to take the cake - perfect aim, decent magazine clip, no spread. Ravager is nice burst but I can't aim with it as Vanguard. Maybe it's different for Soldiers/Engineers? Shotguns - as effective at close rage as you think they should be. Pistols - this one gets me every time. They hit as hard as an assault rifle does. My Phalanx II rapes face. Very good weapons surprisingly. Hope they put some more balance into weapons. Also the weigh thing is weird. Every class can "fight" with any weapon it chooses, but it has a weigh cap, and the weapons weighs X itself. If you put a sniper rifle on a Vanguard you get a nice -169% power regen speed. If you run with only a pistol you skyrocket to a +200-300% regen speed. Obviously some classes profit more than others from this system. | ||
|
ragnorr
Denmark6097 Posts
On February 20 2012 17:40 Tobberoth wrote: I really don't understand how people can have this opinion. The only thing that got me through ME1 was the fact that I could play ME2 afterwards. I had to spend about 5 minutes in ME2 before I realized how much better than ME1 it was. ME1 is a mediocre shooter with mediocre RPG/squad elements, in a decently short game. ME2 is a great shooter with weak RPG/squad elements in a game where you actually feel like doing anything other than the main missions. I don't disagree when people say ME2 was simplified, but seriously, there was no loss. The inventory system was definitely the worst part of ME1 since you just wanted to put on the best gear and everything else was junk, possibly switching weapon/armor enhancements for each fight (assuming you knew what you would be up against). The stats system was more or less the same, just forced to spend way more points, often with abilities you actively didn't care about. Really, the opinion that ME1 is a better game than ME2 blows my mind. ME2 combat system was much better than ME1, ME1 also had alot of down time during missions which did not exist to the same degree in ME2. That being said, the story and dialog was so much better in ME1, i felt the world in ME1 was much more open than in ME2 which i really missed | ||
|
HaXXspetten
Sweden15718 Posts
Other than that it's looking amazing, hell even the multiplayer is awesome despite all odds  | ||
|
Tobberoth
Sweden6375 Posts
On February 20 2012 18:34 ragnorr wrote: ME2 combat system was much better than ME1, ME1 also had alot of down time during missions which did not exist to the same degree in ME2. That being said, the story and dialog was so much better in ME1, i felt the world in ME1 was much more open than in ME2 which i really missed I disagree with this, still. I've not beaten ME2 yet so I don't know how it will unfold (working on loyalty/last dossiers), but from ME1 and up to where I am in ME2, I'd say the twists are more interesting in ME1 but the characters are more interesting in ME2. The collectors have me really interested, I want to know more about them, but it's not really the same as the whole deal with Sovereign etc in ME1 which made you really hyped for the next mission. I prefer the characters in ME2 though, I feel like there's more depth here and I love the loyalty missions because you get to know more about them. I really don't see the dialogues being worse in this and while ME1 might "feel" more open, there was more or less no substance since exploring planets was so ridiculously boring. The "mission" nature of the game means you're slightly more restricted in that there's a lot of areas you can't return to once you're done, then again, when did you do this in ME1? You went to Noveria, dealt with the issue, then never docked there again. | ||
|
killa_robot
Canada1884 Posts
On February 20 2012 18:57 Tobberoth wrote: I disagree with this, still. I've not beaten ME2 yet so I don't know how it will unfold (working on loyalty/last dossiers), but from ME1 and up to where I am in ME2, I'd say the twists are more interesting in ME1 but the characters are more interesting in ME2. The collectors have me really interested, I want to know more about them, but it's not really the same as the whole deal with Sovereign etc in ME1 which made you really hyped for the next mission. I prefer the characters in ME2 though, I feel like there's more depth here and I love the loyalty missions because you get to know more about them. I really don't see the dialogues being worse in this and while ME1 might "feel" more open, there was more or less no substance since exploring planets was so ridiculously boring. The "mission" nature of the game means you're slightly more restricted in that there's a lot of areas you can't return to once you're done, then again, when did you do this in ME1? You went to Noveria, dealt with the issue, then never docked there again. All ME2 is, is the characters. If you didn't learn more about them, the entire game would consist of you stopping the collectors at like two planets, exploring a couple of old ships, and then going through the relay. I'll spoiler this just in case but.... + Show Spoiler + You don't learn anything about the collectors. No I'm serious. Nothing noteworthy at all. They're just an unknown race that remains unknown even after the game is beaten. I would have liked ME2 more had it had a few less characters and a bit more plot. That's not to say I didn't enjoy it, I just felt a bit let down by the end of the game. | ||
|
ZeaL.
United States5955 Posts
On February 20 2012 19:04 killa_robot wrote: All ME2 is, is the characters. If you didn't learn more about them, the entire game would consist of you stopping the collectors at like two planets, exploring a couple of old ships, and then going through the relay. I'll spoiler this just in case but.... + Show Spoiler + You don't learn anything about the collectors. No I'm serious. Nothing noteworthy at all. They're just an unknown race that remains unknown even after the game is beaten. I would have liked ME2 more had it had a few less characters and a bit more plot. That's not to say I didn't enjoy it, I just felt a bit let down by the end of the game. + Show Spoiler + Uknown race? They're just protheans that got fucked up by the reapers. Not really super important but it was hard to miss that fact. | ||
|
Shockk
Germany2269 Posts
On February 20 2012 19:29 ZeaL. wrote: + Show Spoiler + Uknown race? They're just protheans that got fucked up by the reapers. Not really super important but it was hard to miss that fact. Yeah but there's nothing apart from that. You learn this one single bit of info and then you're done with them, finished. They remain targets for your guns and nothing more. The freaking Geth have more story in ME2 than the Collectors do. | ||
|
kheldorin
Singapore539 Posts
On February 20 2012 19:39 Shockk wrote: Yeah but there's nothing apart from that. You learn this one single bit of info and then you're done with them, finished. They remain targets for your guns and nothing more. The freaking Geth have more story in ME2 than the Collectors do. That's not a bad thing. How much of Lord of the Rings is actually about Sauron? They needed to established the ME universe and each of the character's stories are a gateway to that. We get to learn a lot about the politics and the relationships between the races and planets. It adds a lot more depth to the universe than just "alien invades, a hero needs to stop them" type of story. It's also a stepping stone for ME3 as now we actually have to unite everyone to fight against the reapers. | ||
|
vgijamven
Sweden95 Posts
On February 20 2012 18:24 The Chief wrote: How the fuck can you think ME2 wasn't anything less than a 9/10... seriously.... I'll explain. Have you played the first game? While it probably had some flaws that I'm too fanboyish to see (like overheating bug, inventory), it was a great game for me and one of my absolutely favourite of all time. The reason why I and probably many others dislike the second game is that it ditched most of the RPG elements and customizations of the game and made it into a sci-fi shooter with some thrown in RPG elements in an attempt to satisfy everyone. However, it was so clear that they had gone from an RPG focus in the first game, to an action focus in the sequel. This upset (and rightfully so) many of the Mass Effect 1 fans who loved the game as a sci-fi RPG. When the sequel instead became a sci-fi shooter instead, the hate was bound to happen. Slightly off-topic on the developer's POV for making games: + Show Spoiler + I can of course understand the developers for wanting to broaden their market. All developers do this today. To do this they had to make the game more action focused, since there are a lot more shooter fans than there are role-playing fans. Developers are constantly striving to do blockbuster games. The combat system was absolutely excellent in ME2, I can't take that away from the game. But with so few options to customize the characters when they level'd up, the retarded feature of scanning planets for resources for strange upgrades, instead of for example exploring, made one miss the old system. In ME2 they also simplified a lot of stuff. For example, they implemented the heat clips instead of just having to wait for the weapon to cool down. They basically took away customization of weapon and armor and the inventory. I can agree that the inventory part of ME1 was a bit tedious at times since you got so many items that quickly filled your inventory and to have to go and sell them all the time. The mini-games in ME2 are easy and boring. That being said, they were relatively easy in ME1 too but at least they could be somewhat challenging on the hardest level and there was an actual possibility to fail them, unlike in ME2 where you have to have some sort of brain disease to not beat them. The biggest flaw of ME2 in contrast to ME1 is that while ME1 really felt like a big open universe, ME2 does not in any way. It doesn't feel big, you can't land on planets and explore them which was my favourite feature - to explore the planets for minerals, bad guys and lost artifacts was something that while being optional really created the feel of a massive universe - and the Mako car was ridiculously fun to ride! | ||
|
Crushinator
Netherlands2138 Posts
| ||
|
ZeaL.
United States5955 Posts
On February 20 2012 21:02 Crushinator wrote: I personally think ME1 was so much worse than ME2 purely because of combat, it was just so extremely tedious it almost ruined the game for me. The customization of character and items in Mass Effect 1 was also extremely poorly done, just extremely not fun. While I agree that ME2 could have had more depth, alot more infact, I prefer a simple system to an extremely terrible but complex one. I dunno man. There was a lot of fun stuff you could do with weapon mods in ME1 that got taken away. Like explosive rounds + 2x scram rails on a sniper rifle turning it into a bigass grenade launcher or 2x frictionless material on pretty much anything to turn it into a gun with infinite ammo. Yeah it was a pain to omnigel/sell stuff but there was a lot more customizability and everytime you found a sludge canister/go to the merchant you're a lot more excited cause you might get an actually decent quarian armor or one of the Savant amps/omni tools. The fact that a lot of powers are useless in ME2 with shield/barrier/armor is also very annoying on insanity where a number of powers are essentially useless. There's something to be said for getting your first spectre class gear and then totally butt raping some geth. There isn't any comparison in ME2 for significant damage boosts besides the few weapons you get early on. Edit: Forgot about the special weapons training guns. The widow is nice now that I think about it. Claymore is.. not that great compared to the eviscerator and haven't played soldier. Point still stands though. ME1 had the potential for much more powerful weapon upgrades which made collecting it more fun. I dunno, I enjoy that stuff at least. | ||
|
valaki
Hungary2476 Posts
| ||
|
seiferoth10
3362 Posts
On February 20 2012 20:23 vgijamven wrote: + Show Spoiler + I'll explain. Have you played the first game? While it probably had some flaws that I'm too fanboyish to see (like overheating bug, inventory), it was a great game for me and one of my absolutely favourite of all time. The reason why I and probably many others dislike the second game is that it ditched most of the RPG elements and customizations of the game and made it into a sci-fi shooter with some thrown in RPG elements in an attempt to satisfy everyone. However, it was so clear that they had gone from an RPG focus in the first game, to an action focus in the sequel. This upset (and rightfully so) many of the Mass Effect 1 fans who loved the game as a sci-fi RPG. When the sequel instead became a sci-fi shooter instead, the hate was bound to happen. Slightly off-topic on the developer's POV for making games: + Show Spoiler + I can of course understand the developers for wanting to broaden their market. All developers do this today. To do this they had to make the game more action focused, since there are a lot more shooter fans than there are role-playing fans. Developers are constantly striving to do blockbuster games. The combat system was absolutely excellent in ME2, I can't take that away from the game. But with so few options to customize the characters when they level'd up, the retarded feature of scanning planets for resources for strange upgrades, instead of for example exploring, made one miss the old system. In ME2 they also simplified a lot of stuff. For example, they implemented the heat clips instead of just having to wait for the weapon to cool down. They basically took away customization of weapon and armor and the inventory. I can agree that the inventory part of ME1 was a bit tedious at times since you got so many items that quickly filled your inventory and to have to go and sell them all the time. The mini-games in ME2 are easy and boring. That being said, they were relatively easy in ME1 too but at least they could be somewhat challenging on the hardest level and there was an actual possibility to fail them, unlike in ME2 where you have to have some sort of brain disease to not beat them. The biggest flaw of ME2 in contrast to ME1 is that while ME1 really felt like a big open universe, ME2 does not in any way. It doesn't feel big, you can't land on planets and explore them which was my favourite feature - to explore the planets for minerals, bad guys and lost artifacts was something that while being optional really created the feel of a massive universe - and the Mako car was ridiculously fun to ride! That's the first time I've ever heard someone praising the Mako. You must have a serious case of nostalgia if you're praising the Mako. For me gameplay is #1 because.. I play video games to play them, so obviously gameplay is a big part of that, making ME2>ME1 for me. I was disappointed with the story of ME2, but the gameplay made up for it. | ||
|
Crushinator
Netherlands2138 Posts
On February 20 2012 21:19 seiferoth10 wrote: That's the first time I've ever heard someone praising the Mako. You must have a serious case of nostalgia if you're praising the Mako. For me gameplay is #1 because.. I play video games to play them, so obviously gameplay is a big part of that, making ME2>ME1 for me. I was disappointed with the story of ME2, but the gameplay made up for it. My god the Mako was frustrating, I ragequit and didnt look back for quite some time due to that piece of shit. Getting angry just thinking about it. | ||
|
HaXXspetten
Sweden15718 Posts
On February 20 2012 21:24 Crushinator wrote: My god the Mako was frustrating, I ragequit and didnt look back for quite some time due to that piece of shit. Getting angry just thinking about it. The Mako was a fun vehicle, but... really? You thought the side-missions on uncharted worlds were the good part? The fuck? -.- | ||
| ||
