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?
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.
As you said, different interests and all that.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.
Are you kidding!? Matriarch writings are crucial in ME3´s Conrad Verner encounter!collecting the stuff for the rather useless side quests (matriarch writings,
No, it wasn´t.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.
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.It felt non-linear to a much larger degree as well,
No, it wasn´t.
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 it´s a filler through and through.
All in all, ME1´s "RPG aspects" bore a lot of redundancy and were often detrimental to the experience. Streamlining them "to oblivion" was an act of mercy .
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". ME1´s episodes are longer and usually more elaborate (Liara rescue being an exception) than the ones in ME2, but ME2 contains much, much more of´em.
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 that´s meaty is mandatory.
As a result, for me the sense of free roaming is stronger in ME2 than in ME1.
As I see it, in the case of ME1 "bad versions of interesting gameplay" equals to uninteresting, dull gameplay, so..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.
Sorry, I can´t hear you over the sound of vanguard charging.Streamlining them was an act of design laziness and incompetence. It was an act of making the game into a hollow corridor/cover shooter
Yes. In ME2 there are also many planets you can land on, except they´ve 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.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?
They boil down to atmospheric environments, combat and dialogues, aka good stuff .True, ME2 has a higher amount of linear content. I agree with that. Unfortunately, they all boil down to linear corridor/cover shooter areas.
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 can´t even get Shepard drunk there, pfft.ME1 has a huge and elaborate hub - ME2 has boring and featureless hubs after you visit them first.
/threadI agree that the content was tighter and more interesting -
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.but it had all but lost the sense of mystery and freedom.
ME1 was not a paragon of unpredictability either and its combat was so overwhelmingly limp I was routinelyAlso, 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 routinelyalmostfalling asleep in the middle of it (and still won, of course).
As I see it, in the case of ME1 "bad versions of interesting gameplay" equals to uninteresting, dull gameplay, so..
That´s 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).
Yes. In ME2 there are also many planets you can land on, except they´ve 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.
They boil down to atmospheric environments, combat and dialogues, aka good stuff .
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 can´t 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.
/thread
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.
ME1 was not a paragon of unpredictability either and its combat was so overwhelmingly limp I was routinelyalmostfalling asleep in the middle of it (and still won, of course).
Yep, it was too streamlined, but on the other hand classes, powers and guns felt more distinct.ME2 was just too streamlined and straightforward. I don't remember ever feeling like there was a meaningful choice involved.
Interesting. Personally I´d say that the main quest in ME1 was presented as a more pressing matter, it´s 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.It just didn't feel like it. It felt like you were on a timer to get your team together.
Thankfully. Remember, it sucked in ME1 .That made the actual content more interesting - but the exploration was all but gone.
Of course I could, but this was far from being an issue big enough to make ME2´s combat less fun than ME1´s for me. I could usually predict combat in ME1 too anyway.If you couldn' tpredict enemy placement and combat in ME2 -
Maybe you did, I didn´t. But then again, unlike ME1, ME2 actually doesn´t patronize players about picking difficulties for their first playthroughs, so I have no experience playing it on anything below hardcore.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.
Well, I think we´re on the brink of posting in circles and this thread is kinda old heh, so just a few quick notes:
Yep, it was too streamlined, but on the other hand classes, powers and guns felt more distinct.
Interesting. Personally I´d say that the main quest in ME1 was presented as a more pressing matter, it´s 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.
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 I´ve arrived at "!", aka quest destination, and learned what´s up. Rest was just driving to map icons with predictable content.
ME2 preserved those "!"´s in the form of anomalies.
Of course I could, but this was far from being an issue big enough to make ME2´s combat less fun than ME1´s for me. I could usually predict combat in ME1 too anyway.
Maybe you did, I didn´t. But then again, unlike ME1, ME2 actually doesn´t patronize players about picking difficulties for their first playthroughs, so I have no experience playing it on anything below hardcore.
There are less overlaps in ME2, and ME1 does not come with gameplay changing powers such as tactical cloak, tech armor or charge.Classes and powers? Not really.
There are 4 distinct guns (+ one rare geth rifle, iirc) in ME1 and pistols outperform all.Guns? Yeah - they removed all mods and boiled them down to a tiny selection.
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 it´s 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).Eventually? Yeah - towards the end, it becomes a race against time. But it starts out very open and very much about discovery and exploration.
Not planet scanning, the "!" encounters you could discover by it. I´m 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.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…
Yes!Ehm, patronize players?
There are less overlaps in ME2, and ME1 does not come with gameplay changing powers such as tactical cloak, tech armor or charge.
Insightful as usual .Dude…just stop. Seriously.
ME2 was pretty dumbed down in terms of abilities, and no amount of rationalization is going to change that.
Why not, I thought you enjoy engaging in useless arguments.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.