|
Your donations keep RPGWatch running!
RPGWatch Forums » Comments » News Comments » BioWare - Mass Effect Trilogy Update and Trailer

Default BioWare - Mass Effect Trilogy Update and Trailer

November 6th, 2012, 00:54
So.. basically they started work on ME1 for PS3 back in April. The rest just sounds like a collection of the three games. Am I missing something here? They're not actually doing any work on the xbox or PC versions, right?
Maylander is online now

Maylander

SasqWatch

#21

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Bergen
Posts: 5,657
Send a message via MSN to Maylander

Default 

November 6th, 2012, 01:08
Originally Posted by ChaosTheory View Post
Perfect example of how everyone's interests are different… I thought the best part of the game was visiting all the other planets and investigating the little mysteries. The Mako was a great way to do it IMO. You actually felt like you were exploring. What's more, is if you didn't care about collecting the stuff for the rather useless side quests (matriarch writings, etc) you could just skip it and stick to the "main" part of each planet. What you did, and to what extent, was up to you.

To me, this was the single-greatest flaw of the next 2 games. For everything they did to improve the characters/drama in the sequels, taking out that pure exploration aspect was unfortunate.

And I thought the game length for all 3 games was perfect because, again, you could do whatever side quests you wanted, or you could stick to the main plot. Kind of like Skyrim. If you do all the side quests, you're easily over 100hrs. If you do the main plot, far less. The game is what you make of it.
I can't really pick out what exactly bored me in the game. I enjoyed the exploration, and I'm one of the few who actually enjoyed exploring on planets with the Mako. Overall, it was a fun game, but I just got burned out on those side quests. I got overwhelmed because it was not that easy to track which star systems you have been to and which you haven't, and searching all over for new quests was more of a pain to me than actually fun. I realize I could have just advanced the main plot, but at that point I was sick of the game so I didn't.

Still, I'd give it a solid 8.5/9.0 on a scale of 1-10 in terms of overall fun factor. It was fun while it lasted, for sure. I have some fond memories of that game, and I'm sure someday I will replay it again and try to work my way through the trilogy. I tend to just get bored and never finish games, but it's usually better when I replay them a 2nd time.
Fluent is offline

Fluent

Fluent's Avatar
RPG Fiend
RPGWatch Team

#22

Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,373

Default 

November 6th, 2012, 02:38
Yeah, I had to create an excel spreadsheet to keep track of which systems I'd visited. Too bad the exploration took you to practically identical mine, outpost, spacecraft. I can understand why someone would get bored of it. Very lazy of Bioware….
Thrasher is offline

Thrasher

Thrasher's Avatar
Wheeee!
RPGWatch Donor

#23

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 10,333

Default 

November 6th, 2012, 11:18
Mass Effect had the mystery going for it - as it was the first game. It also wasn't streamlined into oblivion - which was a huge issue with the next two games.

It felt non-linear to a much larger degree as well, which was vitally important to me. The Mako concept was fantastic - but the execution sucked.

Being naive, I expected them to improve that for the sequels - and I was shocked to learn that they dumped the freeform exploration entirely, as well as item modification and inventory.

ME2 was very, very polished and a true AAA experience in terms of production values. Sadly, it lost a LOT of the flavor because of excessive streamlining.

ME3 got some of it back, which was nice - but the game felt rushed and shallow. It was just a mess - and for once the issue wasn't the mechanics but the actual content. It needed at least another 6 months in development. Actually, I'd say it needed a full year of polish and care.
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#24

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 15,258

Default 

November 6th, 2012, 16:45
Originally Posted by ChaosTheory View Post
Perfect example of how everyone's interests are different… I thought the best part of the game was visiting all the other planets and investigating the little mysteries. The Mako was a great way to do it IMO. You actually felt like you were exploring.
As you said, different interests and all that.
I may have felt like I was exploring, but after a planet or three Iīve also felt like I was exploring pointlessly, so for me all that planetary stuff was mostly to the experienceīs detriment.
Player got usually alerted about a side quest upon entering a system via comm, getting to main objectives pretty much always meant just driving to "!" and there was rarely anything unique off the path. Pretty much the only moment where the exploration felt truly rewarding to me was discovery of the prothean sphere and the only side quest where an "open world-y" approach resulted in a suitably meaty experience was Bring Down the Sky.
ME2 preserved the "investigating little mysteries" aspect, it just cut to the chase, so to say, and added more level variety, which is why I actually consider its exploration aspect to be better than in ME1, even though the actual process of exploration just boils down to checking the systems for anomalies .
I liked how the Mako was used in ME1īs main quest though - these parts were all linear, but worked well at providing breaks from gameplay mold and adding scope to the locales.

That said, when looking at the trilogy as one huge game, I donīt really mind ME1īs side quest planets since they do add a sense of scope and sorta frontier vibe to the setting, but by the time ME2 starts itīs pretty much a been-there-done-that matter and I welcome the change of foci in the gameplay mix.

Originally Posted by ChaosTheory View Post
collecting the stuff for the rather useless side quests (matriarch writings,
Are you kidding!? Matriarch writings are crucial in ME3īs Conrad Verner encounter!

Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
Mass Effect had the mystery going for it - as it was the first game. It also wasn't streamlined into oblivion - which was a huge issue with the next two games.
No, it wasnīt.
ME was already a streamlined iteration of KotOR, an already streamlined game.
Like ME2 and ME3, combat gameplay is already "shooter with powers", except shooting sucks, powers lack variety and punch (maybe except for singularity and lift) and interesting encounter design is almost non-existent. Plus, a pretty significant chunk is spent fighting in Mako, which is effectively free of RPG influences.
Loot system is horrible, inventory is horrible and frogger minigame is omnipresent.
A lot of time dialogue choices result in Shepard saying an exactly same thing.
As implied above, exploration carries some atmosphere, but from the gameplay standpoint itīs a filler through and through.
All in all, ME1īs "RPG aspects" bore a lot of redundancy and were often detrimental to the experience. Streamlining them "to oblivion" was an act of mercy .

Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
It felt non-linear to a much larger degree as well,
That may be true on the level design front, but when it comes to high level structuring, personally I consider ME2 to be the game that provides the most non-linearity in the trilogy.
Both games have mandatory prologue, both games have about the same amount of "planetary side quests" and in both games the meatier quests are designed to be completed in one go.
The difference is in the distribution of what I consider meaty content.
Prologues, endgames and running around hub(s) aside, both games come with the set of meatier self contained "episodes". ME1īs episodes are longer and usually more elaborate (Liara rescue being an exception) than the ones in ME2, but ME2 contains much, much more ofīem.
Also, ME1 effectively has only one hub warranting quest-related re-visits, whereas ME2 has four.
For better or worse, ME2 was simply designed as a game with a slimmer core story than ME1, but made up for it by containing a crapload more of not core plot related stuff. It can also be completed without ever visiting the Citadel, Illium or Tuchanka or engaging in quite a few of those meatier quests, whereas in ME1 pretty much all thatīs meaty is mandatory.
As a result, for me the sense of free roaming is stronger in ME2 than in ME1.
DeepO is offline

DeepO

DeepO's Avatar
deep outside

#25

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Prague
Posts: 2,332

Default 

November 6th, 2012, 21:44
Rationalize all you want.

ME1 > ME2

JDR13 is online now

JDR13

JDR13's Avatar
SasqWatch

#26

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida, US
Posts: 18,240

Default 

November 7th, 2012, 11:26
Originally Posted by DeepO View Post
No, it wasnīt.
YES IT WAS!!!!!

ME was already a streamlined iteration of KotOR, an already streamlined game. Like ME2 and ME3, combat gameplay is already "shooter with powers", except shooting sucks, powers lack variety and punch (maybe except for singularity and lift) and interesting encounter design is almost non-existent. Plus, a pretty significant chunk is spent fighting in Mako, which is effectively free of RPG influences.
Indeed, Mass Effect was very streamlined. I'd say KotOR was the first of the "new Bioware formula" - but it can easily be argued to have been streamlined for consoles from BG2.

I was very disappointed with Mass Effect in terms of mechanics - and I think it's the worst part of the game. The character system was hollow and boring compared to D20 - and I especially missed the computer hacking stuff from KotOR.

Strangest of all was the inventory system. It's one of the worst inventory UIs I've ever seen - and that includes indie games. The KotOR UI was miles ahead of it - and that was designed for the even more restrictive Xbox 1 controller. Really odd.

Loot system is horrible, inventory is horrible and frogger minigame is omnipresent.A lot of time dialogue choices result in Shepard saying an exactly same thing. As implied above, exploration carries some atmosphere, but from the gameplay standpoint itīs a filler through and through.
As I said above, the mechanics were not done well - but the solution is not to remove them entirely. I'd much rather have bad versions of interesting gameplay than I want them removed. But that's me.

All in all, ME1īs "RPG aspects" bore a lot of redundancy and were often detrimental to the experience. Streamlining them "to oblivion" was an act of mercy .
Streamlining them was an act of design laziness and incompetence. It was an act of making the game into a hollow corridor/cover shooter

That may be true on the level design front, but when it comes to high level structuring, personally I consider ME2 to be the game that provides the most non-linearity in the trilogy.
What? High-level structuring? I'm talking about the overall gameplay structure. In Mass Effect - you have an entire galaxy at your disposal - with many, many planets to land on and explore. No, they weren't handled well - but again the solution is to remove the space exploration almost entirely? That's what you call better non-linearity?

Both games have mandatory prologue, both games have about the same amount of "planetary side quests" and in both games the meatier quests are designed to be completed in one go.
The difference is in the distribution of what I consider meaty content.
Prologues, endgames and running around hub(s) aside, both games come with the set of meatier self contained "episodes". ME1īs episodes are longer and usually more elaborate (Liara rescue being an exception) than the ones in ME2, but ME2 contains much, much more ofīem.
True, ME2 has a higher amount of linear content. I agree with that. Unfortunately, they all boil down to linear corridor/cover shooter areas.

Also, ME1 effectively has only one hub warranting quest-related re-visits, whereas ME2 has four.
ME1 has a huge and elaborate hub - and ME2 has boring and featureless hubs after you visit them first.

For better or worse, ME2 was simply designed as a game with a slimmer core story than ME1, but made up for it by containing a crapload more of not core plot related stuff. It can also be completed without ever visiting the Citadel, Illium or Tuchanka or engaging in quite a few of those meatier quests, whereas in ME1 pretty much all thatīs meaty is mandatory.
As a result, for me the sense of free roaming is stronger in ME2 than in ME1.
Well, I had zero sense of free roaming in ME2, I'm afraid. I agree that the content was tighter and more interesting - but it had all but lost the sense of mystery and freedom. Also, the cover-based combat was EXTREMELY predictable - and you knew exactly when enemies would appear before you engaged them. I almost fell asleep playing ME2 - it was so predictable.
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#27

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 15,258

Default 

November 8th, 2012, 15:52
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
As I said above, the mechanics were not done well - but the solution is not to remove them entirely. I'd much rather have bad versions of interesting gameplay than I want them removed. But that's me.
As I see it, in the case of ME1 "bad versions of interesting gameplay" equals to uninteresting, dull gameplay, so..
Thatīs sorta the essence of why I like ME2 more than ME1 (more, as in, say, 8.5/10 vs. 8/10 though) - I think ME2 is a better story shooter with RPG elements than ME1 is RPG. When I want a quality RPG fix I go for Wizardry 8, Mask of the Betrayer or whatever, not ME1.
I like ME1 for its setting, story elements and cinematic flair, which are aspects that got mostly positively expanded upon in ME2 (the core plot definitely got worse, but combat got overall more exciting and I generally like the "minute-to-minute" writing in ME2 more).
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
Streamlining them was an act of design laziness and incompetence. It was an act of making the game into a hollow corridor/cover shooter
Sorry, I canīt hear you over the sound of vanguard charging.
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
What? High-level structuring? I'm talking about the overall gameplay structure. In Mass Effect - you have an entire galaxy at your disposal - with many, many planets to land on and explore. No, they weren't handled well - but again the solution is to remove the space exploration almost entirely? That's what you call better non-linearity?
Yes. In ME2 there are also many planets you can land on, except theyīve removed the "and explore" part, which is not exactly a big loss in my book since I consider the "and explore" part largely crap in ME1 . In this case, anything was better than status quo. What they did not remove though, was the sense of discovery.
And you also have "an entire galaxy at your disposal" in ME2.
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
True, ME2 has a higher amount of linear content. I agree with that. Unfortunately, they all boil down to linear corridor/cover shooter areas.
They boil down to atmospheric environments, combat and dialogues, aka good stuff .
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
ME1 has a huge and elaborate hub - ME2 has boring and featureless hubs after you visit them first.
Well, Citadel is bigger and somewhat more elaborate (Presidium rules), but it becomes a boring and featureless hub after you visit it for the second time . You canīt even get Shepard drunk there, pfft.
The point was, in ME2 there are 4 hubs you may want to revisit (loyalty missions, but also, eh, shopping!), ME1 has one.
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
I agree that the content was tighter and more interesting -
/thread
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
but it had all but lost the sense of mystery and freedom.
Not in my book. I do agree with the mystery part to some extent, but I also think it makes sense that the setting feels at its most mysterious in the first part of the trilogy.
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
Also, the cover-based combat was EXTREMELY predictable - and you knew exactly when enemies would appear before you engaged them. I almost fell asleep playing ME2 - it was so predictable.
ME1 was not a paragon of unpredictability either and its combat was so overwhelmingly limp I was routinely almost falling asleep in the middle of it (and still won, of course).
Last edited by DeepO; November 8th, 2012 at 17:02.
DeepO is offline

DeepO

DeepO's Avatar
deep outside

#28

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Prague
Posts: 2,332

Default 

November 9th, 2012, 21:40
It's already out. I saw it in 2 different shops, Saturn & Gamestop. Today.

“ Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius – and a lot of courage – to move in the opposite direction.“ (E.F.Schumacher, Economist, Source)
Alrik Fassbauer is offline

Alrik Fassbauer

Alrik Fassbauer's Avatar
TL;DR

#29

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Old Europe
Posts: 16,037

Default 

November 9th, 2012, 21:53
Originally Posted by DeepO View Post
ME1 was not a paragon of unpredictability either and its combat was so overwhelmingly limp I was routinely almost falling asleep in the middle of it (and still won, of course).
If that's the case, then you're lucky the combat in ME2 didn't put you in a coma.
JDR13 is online now

JDR13

JDR13's Avatar
SasqWatch

#30

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida, US
Posts: 18,240

Default 

November 9th, 2012, 23:38
So far the combat has been almost effortless in ME2. But I did import my ME1 Adept Shep.
Thrasher is offline

Thrasher

Thrasher's Avatar
Wheeee!
RPGWatch Donor

#31

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 10,333

Default 

November 12th, 2012, 11:05
Originally Posted by DeepO View Post
As I see it, in the case of ME1 "bad versions of interesting gameplay" equals to uninteresting, dull gameplay, so..
Thatīs sorta the essence of why I like ME2 more than ME1 (more, as in, say, 8.5/10 vs. 8/10 though) - I think ME2 is a better story shooter with RPG elements than ME1 is RPG. When I want a quality RPG fix I go for Wizardry 8, Mask of the Betrayer or whatever, not ME1.
That's certainly where we differ. Though I ultimately felt let down compared to KotOR - I think the mechanics were enough to represent interesting gameplay.

While the inventory UI was abysmal, I did enjoy modifying weapons and grenades. I liked how encounters didn't feel predictable based on terrain and I really loved the Mako - even if it became dull towards the end.

The character development system, while clumsy and somewhat dreary - at least presented the illusion of choice and made me consider things more carefully. ME2 was just too streamlined and straightforward. I don't remember ever feeling like there was a meaningful choice involved.

I like ME1 for its setting, story elements and cinematic flair, which are aspects that got mostly positively expanded upon in ME2 (the core plot definitely got worse, but combat got overall more exciting and I generally like the "minute-to-minute" writing in ME2 more).
ME had the mystery - and that's because you knew nothing about the setting. I love beginnings - it must be said. That's because I'm an explorer at heart - and I love the discovery of a new world.

ME2 felt boiled down and streamlined - and I didn't care for the main villain or most of the characters. That's down to personal preference, of course - but I really think the game smacked of trying to be edgy and "modern" - not unlike what they did in DA2.

Yes. In ME2 there are also many planets you can land on, except theyīve removed the "and explore" part, which is not exactly a big loss in my book since I consider the "and explore" part largely crap in ME1 . In this case, anything was better than status quo. What they did not remove though, was the sense of discovery.
Certainly, they removed the sense of discovery for my part. I didn't feel like I was discovering or exploring. I felt like I was going from linear corridor to linear corridor. Limited mystery and almost pure focus on combat over exploration.

And you also have "an entire galaxy at your disposal" in ME2.
It just didn't feel like it. It felt like you were on a timer to get your team together.

They boil down to atmospheric environments, combat and dialogues, aka good stuff .
Actually, I prefer exploration above all - and in ME2 - I felt it was 75% cover-based shooter combat and 25% dialogue. Since I was never a big fan of Bioware dialogue or characters - you see my problem.

Well, Citadel is bigger and somewhat more elaborate (Presidium rules), but it becomes a boring and featureless hub after you visit it for the second time . You canīt even get Shepard drunk there, pfft.
I think it was interesting throughout my entire first playthrough. Then again, I thought they'd really nailed an interesting atmosphere. Also, the music in ME1 was just superior in every way.

The point was, in ME2 there are 4 hubs you may want to revisit (loyalty missions, but also, eh, shopping!), ME1 has one.
Problem was that I didn't feel like revisiting any of them. Shopping? Please

/thread
Cute, but I was talking about the sidequest content vs the sidequest content. I agree that the sidequests in ME2 were handled better - except for the vital exploration aspect. They boil down to linear shooter paths with limited exploration - but at least they were unique and had unique visuals. That made the actual content more interesting - but the exploration was all but gone. I prefer ME1 - though I'd obviously want an improved version of it.

Not in my book. I do agree with the mystery part to some extent, but I also think it makes sense that the setting feels at its most mysterious in the first part of the trilogy.
Indeed.

ME1 was not a paragon of unpredictability either and its combat was so overwhelmingly limp I was routinely almost falling asleep in the middle of it (and still won, of course).
Not much in this world is a paragon of anything. That's hardly relevant here. It was a LOT more unpredictable for me, personally. If you couldn' tpredict enemy placement and combat in ME2 - then I have to say I'm surprised, given your experience with games. I was really quite shocked at how obvious they'd made almost every single combat setup. Just sad.

Also, while the combat mechanics were clumsy and awkward in ME1 - I felt combat in ME2 much, much more predictable. You did the same thing over and over. It was so streamlined and with such a small amount of powers.

ME1, at least - didn't telegraph where you should be taking cover - and you didn't approach all fights in exactly the same way.
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#32

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 15,258

Default 

November 13th, 2012, 19:47
Well, I think weīre on the brink of posting in circles and this thread is kinda old heh, so just a few quick notes:
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
ME2 was just too streamlined and straightforward. I don't remember ever feeling like there was a meaningful choice involved.
Yep, it was too streamlined, but on the other hand classes, powers and guns felt more distinct.
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
It just didn't feel like it. It felt like you were on a timer to get your team together.
Interesting. Personally Iīd say that the main quest in ME1 was presented as a more pressing matter, itīs even called Race Against Time, eventually. The trip through Omega relay was presented as a suicide mission so it felt more justified to fuck around to me.
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
That made the actual content more interesting - but the exploration was all but gone.
Thankfully. Remember, it sucked in ME1 .
There were two ways how to deal with it - either improve it dramatically or drop it. Dropping it may have not been the better solution of the two, but I generally consider exploration to be an aspect where being poor is worse than being none.
When it comes to discovery, for me the only such moments in ME1 were when Iīve arrived at "!", aka quest destination, and learned whatīs up. Rest was just driving to map icons with predictable content.
ME2 preserved those "!"īs in the form of anomalies.
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
If you couldn' tpredict enemy placement and combat in ME2 -
Of course I could, but this was far from being an issue big enough to make ME2īs combat less fun than ME1īs for me. I could usually predict combat in ME1 too anyway.
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
Also, while the combat mechanics were clumsy and awkward in ME1 - I felt combat in ME2 much, much more predictable. You did the same thing over and over.
Maybe you did, I didnīt. But then again, unlike ME1, ME2 actually doesnīt patronize players about picking difficulties for their first playthroughs, so I have no experience playing it on anything below hardcore.
DeepO is offline

DeepO

DeepO's Avatar
deep outside

#33

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Prague
Posts: 2,332

Default 

November 14th, 2012, 10:30
Originally Posted by DeepO View Post
Well, I think weīre on the brink of posting in circles and this thread is kinda old heh, so just a few quick notes:
That's what happens when we try to make a subjective experience into an objective thing

We're just exchanging - and I agree it's near the point where it's no longer interesting.

Yep, it was too streamlined, but on the other hand classes, powers and guns felt more distinct.
Classes and powers? Not really. Guns? Yeah - they removed all mods and boiled them down to a tiny selection. Fair enough.

Interesting. Personally Iīd say that the main quest in ME1 was presented as a more pressing matter, itīs even called Race Against Time, eventually. The trip through Omega relay was presented as a suicide mission so it felt more justified to fuck around to me.
Eventually? Yeah - towards the end, it becomes a race against time. But it starts out very open and very much about discovery and exploration. That's what I like.

Thankfully. Remember, it sucked in ME1 .
The lack of variation, yes. Not the exploration - which was far beyond ME2. Well, to me.

There were two ways how to deal with it - either improve it dramatically or drop it. Dropping it may have not been the better solution of the two, but I generally consider exploration to be an aspect where being poor is worse than being none.
There are many ways to deal with it. There's change it or add something entirely new. Then there's improve it to whatever degree.

As I already prefer ME1 - I wouldn't need a dramatic improvement. Not at all. Anything but total removal.

When it comes to discovery, for me the only such moments in ME1 were when Iīve arrived at "!", aka quest destination, and learned whatīs up. Rest was just driving to map icons with predictable content.
ME2 preserved those "!"īs in the form of anomalies.
There were several things to discover on planets - though most were minor objects. But the layout was too similar. That said, the encounters at the "!" were quite different and had unique story content. If you really think ME2 planet scanning was a good match, well…

Of course I could, but this was far from being an issue big enough to make ME2īs combat less fun than ME1īs for me. I could usually predict combat in ME1 too anyway.
Oh, I see. I couldn't really predict combat in ME1 - certainly not like ME2. You don't mind being able to predict when combat starts - and that goes a long way to explain how you might have enjoyed ME2 so much. I hate the predictable.

Maybe you did, I didnīt. But then again, unlike ME1, ME2 actually doesnīt patronize players about picking difficulties for their first playthroughs, so I have no experience playing it on anything below hardcore.
Ehm, patronize players? ME1 the computer game patronized you somehow?

I must have missed that. Then again, I've always played Veteran (3 playthroughs). Just seemed right.
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#34

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 15,258

Default 

November 14th, 2012, 19:16
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
Classes and powers? Not really.
There are less overlaps in ME2, and ME1 does not come with gameplay changing powers such as tactical cloak, tech armor or charge.
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
Guns? Yeah - they removed all mods and boiled them down to a tiny selection.
There are 4 distinct guns (+ one rare geth rifle, iirc) in ME1 and pistols outperform all.
ME2 comes with 5 basic weapon types, the guns within each category have different properties and have different gameplay feel, plus thereīs a wild card of sorts in the form of heavy weapons.
The absence of mods is surely a minus overall, no argument here. There are 6 "mods" in the form of ammo powers though and some of these are more impactful than the mods in ME1, especially on higher difficulties.
For example, tungsten ammo in ME1 makes syntheticsī health bar go down faster and thatīs it. In ME2, disruptor ammo causes more damage to shields, has a chance to disable enemy weapons for a while, deals more damage to synthetics and has a chance to stun them for a while.
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
Eventually? Yeah - towards the end, it becomes a race against time. But it starts out very open and very much about discovery and exploration.
Along with the command of the Normandy you obtain three main missions and your Shepard is already 100% convinced that the main antagonist is on the brink of bringing back dudes who wiped out a galactic civilization before, so itīs pretty much race against time right from there. The quest "Race Against Time" itself appears in your journal once you finish either Feros or Noveria, which can be pretty early, especially since Feros is presented as urgent (colony under attack).
ME2 has two missions which come at certain points and canīt be postponed (makes sense story-wise) and the galaxy opens up pretty much fully roughly 1/3 into the game (btw, the galaxy isnīt fully open in ME1 either - some systems only become available once a main mission is completed), so I donīt see much difference in the basic gameplay structure. Except in ME2 the meatier content is spread out between more episodes (whereas ME1 comes with few large chunks of linear content), resulting in overall a more "customizable" experience in my book.
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
That said, the encounters at the "!" were quite different and had unique story content. If you really think ME2 planet scanning was a good match, well…
Not planet scanning, the "!" encounters you could discover by it. Iīm starting to think you somehow missed the existence of this type of side content. These scenarios were mostly short and simple, but were fairly varied in flavour, level/art design and (back)story.
Iīm talking about quests like this. Compared to ME1, these quests came short in terms of dialogues, but didnīt generally feel as repetitive otherwise, to me.
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
Ehm, patronize players?
Yes!
There are 5 difficulty levels in ME1, but only 3 are open for a first playthrough.
I say "I want more challenge!", ME1 says "finish me twice first."
Unlike in ME2, higher difficulties in ME1 suck, but thatīs besides the point.
DeepO is offline

DeepO

DeepO's Avatar
deep outside

#35

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Prague
Posts: 2,332

Default 

November 14th, 2012, 19:24
Originally Posted by DeepO View Post
There are less overlaps in ME2, and ME1 does not come with gameplay changing powers such as tactical cloak, tech armor or charge.
Dude…just stop. Seriously.

ME2 was pretty dumbed down in terms of abilities, and no amount of rationalization is going to change that.
JDR13 is online now

JDR13

JDR13's Avatar
SasqWatch

#36

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida, US
Posts: 18,240

Default 

November 14th, 2012, 19:28
Originally Posted by JDR13 View Post
Dude…just stop. Seriously.

ME2 was pretty dumbed down in terms of abilities, and no amount of rationalization is going to change that.
Insightful as usual .
DeepO is offline

DeepO

DeepO's Avatar
deep outside

#37

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Prague
Posts: 2,332

Default 

November 14th, 2012, 19:30
Nope, just to the point.

I suppose I could help drap out a useless argument by regurgitating the same things over and over again.
JDR13 is online now

JDR13

JDR13's Avatar
SasqWatch

#38

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida, US
Posts: 18,240

Default 

November 14th, 2012, 19:43
Originally Posted by JDR13 View Post
I suppose I could help drap out a useless argument by regurgitating the same things over and over again.
Why not, I thought you enjoy engaging in useless arguments.
After all, you just started one.
DeepO is offline

DeepO

DeepO's Avatar
deep outside

#39

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Prague
Posts: 2,332

Default 

November 14th, 2012, 19:54
Originally Posted by DeepO View Post
Why not, I thought you enjoy engaging in useless arguments.
After all, you just started one.
Not every opinon that differs from yours is an "argument".
JDR13 is online now

JDR13

JDR13's Avatar
SasqWatch

#40

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida, US
Posts: 18,240
RPGWatch Forums » Comments » News Comments » BioWare - Mass Effect Trilogy Update and Trailer
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 21:37.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch