-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Mass Effect 3: Omega |OT| Fuck with Aria [Out now]
- Thread starter EatChildren
- Start date
I think it can all be played before the ending or post ending.
None of the ME3 stuff is post-game. When ME3 is done, it's done. Although you can play it afterwards if you so choose, all the DLC chronologically takes place before the ending, and is best played in the middle of a ME3 playthrough.
It's part of why I'm waiting for the Citadel DLC before I go back and replay ME3 with all three DLCs.
I don't know about Omega, but you should purchase Leviathan. It's not post game DLC and it makes the story of ME3 better.
But Shadow Broker was post-game DLC? Chronologically it fits in after the Suicide Mission.
Sanctuary
Member
Couldn't have said it better.
Did not know that. But it can be played before the suicide mission. I did.(ps3 version)
Oh, you definitely can, but indications are that it's supposed to occur post end of ME2.
Winnie the Pimp
Member
Fuck this, with all the hate these games (except 1) get on GAF i am now REALLY confused whether ya'll are genuinely HATING these games but are still playing them out of some morbid curiosity or to see just HOW bad Bioware fucked it up or that some of you guys actually truly enjoy ME2 or/and ME3 and these DLCs!
I only played and finished 1 and really enjoyed it, and i KNOW that 2 and 3 are supposedly very different and kind of abandoned the direction that 1 was going in but judging by some of these threads it really seems to me that these games are cringeworthy/extremely bad and not in any way worth playing through for me even
So can someone give me an unbiased (as far as even possible lol)non cynical opinion on whether ME2+3 are actually worth playing through (keep in mind i have tons of other great games to play so if they're mediocre only then i might just forget about em and call it a day)
I only played and finished 1 and really enjoyed it, and i KNOW that 2 and 3 are supposedly very different and kind of abandoned the direction that 1 was going in but judging by some of these threads it really seems to me that these games are cringeworthy/extremely bad and not in any way worth playing through for me even
So can someone give me an unbiased (as far as even possible lol)non cynical opinion on whether ME2+3 are actually worth playing through (keep in mind i have tons of other great games to play so if they're mediocre only then i might just forget about em and call it a day)
Fuck this, with all the hate these games (except 1) get on GAF i am now REALLY confused whether ya'll are genuinely HATING these games but are still playing them out of some morbid curiosity or to see just HOW bad Bioware fucked it up or that some of you guys actually truly enjoy ME2 or/and ME3 and these DLCs!
I only played and finished 1 and really enjoyed it, and i KNOW that 2 and 3 are supposedly very different and kind of abandoned the direction that 1 was going in but judging by some of these threads it really seems to me that these games are cringeworthy/extremely bad and not in any way worth playing through for me even
So can someone give me an unbiased (as far as even possible lol)non cynical opinion on whether ME2+3 are actually worth playing through (keep in mind i have tons of other great games to play so if they're mediocre only then i might just forget about em and call it a day)
If you love the ME universe, they're totally worth playing. People mostly hate ME2 and ME3 because they went further into the third person shooter style while taking out some of the RPG elements like a proper inventory or planet exploration. You still land on alien planets, but its mostly on foot in linear maps. And because of some weird decisions going with the overall story.
Not because they're bad games, because they actually aren't bad games.
But if you don't mind these things and just want to see more of the universe and more of the ME1 characters and new interesting characters, go for it!
Winnie the Pimp
Member
Thanks... Actually what i enjoyed most in ME1 was the sense of a brave new Sci Fi world to explore, even if it was often just hinted at rather than you doing it. The atmosphere and look of the world it created, the citadel etc. so if those things are still present to a degree in 2 and 3 i guess i might get enjoyment from them yet!
D
Deleted member 81567
Unconfirmed Member
I'm probably gonna get and play this tonight.
One question: do you fuck Aria?
One question: do you fuck Aria?
WrenchNinja
Member
No.
Fuck this, with all the hate these games (except 1) get on GAF i am now REALLY confused whether ya'll are genuinely HATING these games but are still playing them out of some morbid curiosity or to see just HOW bad Bioware fucked it up or that some of you guys actually truly enjoy ME2 or/and ME3 and these DLCs!
I only played and finished 1 and really enjoyed it, and i KNOW that 2 and 3 are supposedly very different and kind of abandoned the direction that 1 was going in but judging by some of these threads it really seems to me that these games are cringeworthy/extremely bad and not in any way worth playing through for me even
So can someone give me an unbiased (as far as even possible lol)non cynical opinion on whether ME2+3 are actually worth playing through (keep in mind i have tons of other great games to play so if they're mediocre only then i might just forget about em and call it a day)
What you're reading as hate is actually more disappointment on Bioware's squandering of what some saw as major potential for what the series could have been.
Sanctuary
Member
It mostly depends on what side of the fence you tend to lean towards in regards to the shooter and RPG aspects. Personally, I loved the hell out of the first game for it's atmosphere and introduction to the new universe. The combat was pretty clunky, but it was entirely serviceable and biotics were extremely fun to play with. The downside is that the classes felt too "samey" after you diverged from the three archtypes. Still one of the must play games of this generation if you a) enjoy science fiction and b) enjoy RPGs in the slightest. The first game is simply something you have to experience at least once.
ME2 made massive improvements to many things (my opinion of course), but many people think that it was too dumbed down and made more for the shooter crowd. Upon my initial playthrough I was slightly disappointed with the way biotics had been changed, but everything else seemed to be a massive improvement in my eyes. The combat had been tweaked a great deal, and was decided more through your aim instead of a behind the scenes RNG as in the first. The production values skyrocketed compared to the first, and the universe as a whole was much more realized. The characters were all very interesting as well, even if you didn't particularly care for some of them (I'm looking at you Jack!).
Many people criticize the funneling set pieces that the game added, which made it sometimes feel like you were simply being ushered from action sequence to action sequence. While I can understand those viewpoints, the change didn't bother me simply because the combat mechanics themselves were improved as much as they were, and the new cover system somewhat required the levels to be less open and more narrow. People also lament the loss of customizable armors for squadmates as well as a "dumbed down" inventory system and less generic stat points to distribute. I'm a huge RPG fan, yet I found all of these changes to be mostly improvements, because it removed much of the useless clutter found in the first. You still had weapon upgrades, only you did not have weapon mods to switch in and out (mostly a psychological effect since everyone primarily used the same weapons, armors and mods in the first game anyway). The stat points for skills also largely played out the same, but came in bigger chunks for upgrades, so it "looked" like you actually had less than you really did.
They also removed the planet exploration from the first, which many people also miss. I can't actually agree entirely with that. I enjoyed some aspects of the planet exploration greatly for the atmosphere and true sense of exploring, but quite often they were horrible; mostly due to the map design and how it interacted with the very wonky to control Mako (think tank from Aliens). I would have probably greatly enjoyed planet exploration in ME2 as well had Bioware decided to actually fix what was wrong with it instead of scrapping it--but I don't really miss what was in ME. Overall I think ME2 improved practically everything from the first, except that the first had a more immediate, or urgent storyline and an antogonist that you actually gave two shits about, whereas in the second it wasn't quite as compelling. Oh yeah, forgot to mention one of the biggest changes for replayability; the classes are actually unique now. Sure, they will mostly play somewhat similar (since they all use guns), but the class powers truly make them feel unique, and the Vanguard and Infiltrator offer completely new playstyles over the first game.
Should you play ME3? Despite all of the hate for the game because of the endings (I just can't see how an ending can "ruin" the entire playing experience up until that point. It just makes no logical sense. You either liked it or you didn't before the endings.), I personally felt moderately lukewarm about the entire experience. Maybe that's why the endings didn't bother me as much as it did many others. The game seemed to have simply lost that special something and headed even more towards a typical TPS (it's still not your basic TPS, but it just feels like it more often than not). I didn't particularly care at all about the majority of the squadmates (unlike ME2 where everything seems much more personal) since half of them were just pandering to fan picks and a new dudebro was introduced--probably at the request of someone at EA--that I can't imagine anyone actually likes. The game polished up the graphics a great deal, and everything really does look better overall, and they also improved the actual combat quite a bit, but as funneling as ME2 could be, the actual gameplay just felt way too much like a straight up TPS, and it happened so often that it was overkill for me. If you really like repetitive shooting galleries, then you might find ME3 much more enjoyable than I did. I don't hate it, I just simply never felt the urge to replay it once. And I replayed ME2 probably twelve times. Although it certainly didn't hurt that ME2 had some of the best DLC of practically any game so far--as far as actual added content goes. Pray that ME3 can end up with something anywhere close to as good as LoTSB and Overlord.
To sum it up though, the first two games (and third to some) are must play games. They are hybrids of TPS and RPGs, but the quality of the voice acting and interactions with NPCS and the dialogue in general are what make it something truly special. Think of it more as one giant sci-fi movie trilogy that instead of simply watching, it makes you really feel like you're in it playing a major part in it's outcome. The best analogy would be the original Star Wars trilogy, and for me, they rate about the same as the movies, where Empire (ME2) is the darkest, as well as the best overall.
Edit: heh, I just realized you specifically stated ME2/3, so you've probably already played the first. (time for bed)
Winnie the Pimp
Member
Thanks Sanctuary!
I take from your impressions that i will now for certain play ME2 where i was unsure before, and then decide from there whether ME3 is worth being tackled
I take from your impressions that i will now for certain play ME2 where i was unsure before, and then decide from there whether ME3 is worth being tackled
Thanks Sanctuary!
I take from your impressions that i will now for certain play ME2 where i was unsure before, and then decide from there whether ME3 is worth being tackled
Eh, you probably won't resist to buy ME3 if you like ME2 as much as ME1. Just to see what happen to all the characters you've met in ME1 and ME2 during the Reapers war. If you like ME2 combat, you'll love ME3 improvements, so all those shooting missions won't bother you. At least they didn't for me.
Cyber Caesar
Member
Mass Effect 1 set the bar very high in terms of storytelling and never got back to that level of excellence. Just keep tempered expectations. Overall it's a great franchise worthy of playing.
Sanctuary
Member
I think another way to look at it though is that the first game was more of the start up of a grand space opera; and as I said in my wall of text above, more immediate or urgent. So yes, I think as a self-contained story as much as an act can be, it did it the best by far.
However, the second wasn't really a slouch in the writing aspects either, it simply changed the format to more of an episodic nature. Instead of one grand chapter, it was broken up into many more bite-sized chapters that didn't have to be played in an entirely sequential order. I truly believe that the second had much more emotional involvement than the first, whereas the first had more awe factor, especially because everything was fresh.
Yeah, if you end up enjoying the second, you probably should pick up the third just to see the story completed. I dunno about the combat not bothering someone though. I typically don't play FPS/TPS (been there, done that from the 90s on up) and I absolutely loved the combat in the second aside from the lame squad AI (especially on Insanity). The actual combat mechanics may have been improved in the third, but it definitely doesn't feel the same as the second. The second had a ton of action, but it wasn't so overbearing as it is in the third--where it just feels like it's non stop, and the way the enemies would move sometimes was borderline comical. Bioware claimed to have massively improved the AI in the third, but all they really did was give it a very minor tweak and threw twice as many enemies at you hoping that you wouldn't notice.
Snacks the sober sea lion
Member
I know this is the Omega thread, but I don't get many chances to talk about where this series went wrong.
As much as I like ME2's combat, it never had the same feeling as ME1's (which I only played on PC, so no interface problems for me in combat). An enemy is charging, you knock them over with Throw or Neural Shock. An enemy is particularly troublesome, you use a tech power to get rid of their shields and/ or disable their weapon, then kill them before it wears off (especially fun as Infiltrator). Mass Effect 2 doesn't have any equivalent response. Shields only function as an extra layer of health that goes down faster when hit with certain attacks. There's no urgency to kill them once the shield is down, and since biotics were rebalanced to be ineffective against shields but recharge far, far faster, enemies without shields are complete pushovers. You can permanently stunlock a Krogan because Throw will recharge before he can even get up. Rather than using powers effectively because they take forever to recharge (which serves to make the combat both frustrating and more interesting, so I can't entirely disapprove of it being changed), you just find the right power (Warp/Overload/Incinerate in almost every situation) and use it over and over again.
For the rest of the game, Mass Effect 2's philosophy I would describe as "If it had a problem, smash it into bits, sweep it aside, and pretend it never existed." The Mako controlled like it was full of helium. Well, okay. But Bioware already showed they could fix that with the Hammerhead. Unfortunately, they didn't think to try that until after the game was finished. So, we're left with absolutely no planetary exploration whatsoever. Rather than fix one of the most vital aspects of an RPG about having your own space-adventure, Bioware simply removes it entirely. This should be an enormous red flag. Just by removing this, Bioware prevented the series from ever reaching its full potential. There's no real exploration. You go somewhere, and either scan or the game automatically drops you into a mission. Not to mention the complete downgrading of hubs. The original Presidium was huge, interesting, and looked great. While it wasn't the most convenient, it did have warp travel, which they could have built upon. Again, removing rather than refining.
As for the writing, while I don't like Mass Effect 1's space-religion mumbo-jumbo (EMBRACE ETERNITY), Shepard acted professional, the characters were interesting, there were actually some dilemmas you could talk to them about (telling off Ashley for her anti-alien prejudice or justifying it, encouraging Garrus's recklessness or not). Mass Effect 2 makes the universe significantly LESS interesting. Why? Because it's the same as Earth. They have clubs, same as humans, drug trade, same as humans, kingpins (Aria) same as humans, bureaucracy, stock trade, basically everything is just human society transplanted into space and with aliens doing it. Thane could be made into a human character and he would be almost no different whatsoever. I have the feeling Drell only exist because they didn't want Thane to be another human or turian squadmate. And the rest of the races getting the shaft. Elcor? You can't even have a conversation with all two of the ones featured in the game. Volus? Unanimously criminals. The only parts of the universe that really benefited from Mass Effect 2 were the Geth and Quarians.
I don't even need to say the usual, "Oh, but they're still good." Sure, they are. But neither 2 nor 3 are the sequels Mass Effect deserved, and the series is a huge missed opportunity.
As much as I like ME2's combat, it never had the same feeling as ME1's (which I only played on PC, so no interface problems for me in combat). An enemy is charging, you knock them over with Throw or Neural Shock. An enemy is particularly troublesome, you use a tech power to get rid of their shields and/ or disable their weapon, then kill them before it wears off (especially fun as Infiltrator). Mass Effect 2 doesn't have any equivalent response. Shields only function as an extra layer of health that goes down faster when hit with certain attacks. There's no urgency to kill them once the shield is down, and since biotics were rebalanced to be ineffective against shields but recharge far, far faster, enemies without shields are complete pushovers. You can permanently stunlock a Krogan because Throw will recharge before he can even get up. Rather than using powers effectively because they take forever to recharge (which serves to make the combat both frustrating and more interesting, so I can't entirely disapprove of it being changed), you just find the right power (Warp/Overload/Incinerate in almost every situation) and use it over and over again.
For the rest of the game, Mass Effect 2's philosophy I would describe as "If it had a problem, smash it into bits, sweep it aside, and pretend it never existed." The Mako controlled like it was full of helium. Well, okay. But Bioware already showed they could fix that with the Hammerhead. Unfortunately, they didn't think to try that until after the game was finished. So, we're left with absolutely no planetary exploration whatsoever. Rather than fix one of the most vital aspects of an RPG about having your own space-adventure, Bioware simply removes it entirely. This should be an enormous red flag. Just by removing this, Bioware prevented the series from ever reaching its full potential. There's no real exploration. You go somewhere, and either scan or the game automatically drops you into a mission. Not to mention the complete downgrading of hubs. The original Presidium was huge, interesting, and looked great. While it wasn't the most convenient, it did have warp travel, which they could have built upon. Again, removing rather than refining.
As for the writing, while I don't like Mass Effect 1's space-religion mumbo-jumbo (EMBRACE ETERNITY), Shepard acted professional, the characters were interesting, there were actually some dilemmas you could talk to them about (telling off Ashley for her anti-alien prejudice or justifying it, encouraging Garrus's recklessness or not). Mass Effect 2 makes the universe significantly LESS interesting. Why? Because it's the same as Earth. They have clubs, same as humans, drug trade, same as humans, kingpins (Aria) same as humans, bureaucracy, stock trade, basically everything is just human society transplanted into space and with aliens doing it. Thane could be made into a human character and he would be almost no different whatsoever. I have the feeling Drell only exist because they didn't want Thane to be another human or turian squadmate. And the rest of the races getting the shaft. Elcor? You can't even have a conversation with all two of the ones featured in the game. Volus? Unanimously criminals. The only parts of the universe that really benefited from Mass Effect 2 were the Geth and Quarians.
I don't even need to say the usual, "Oh, but they're still good." Sure, they are. But neither 2 nor 3 are the sequels Mass Effect deserved, and the series is a huge missed opportunity.
MaddenNFL64
Member
You read that alot, the missed opportunity part. Most of the critics of the series say that. Can't say I disagree if thats the directions you wanted it to go. I think the way they went still makes a fantastic series.
It's just not that big a deal in my mind. ME3 is still a great game to me. Despite the hate the ending gets, I can't see anyone who enjoys videogames not enjoying playing ME3.
edit: and i just read the rest of the thread. Sorry for contributing to the beating of the dead, pulpy mash that is the ME1 vs. ME2/3 horse.
It's just not that big a deal in my mind. ME3 is still a great game to me. Despite the hate the ending gets, I can't see anyone who enjoys videogames not enjoying playing ME3.
edit: and i just read the rest of the thread. Sorry for contributing to the beating of the dead, pulpy mash that is the ME1 vs. ME2/3 horse
.
Sanctuary
Member
I somewhat agree with some of your gripes, but that still didn't lessen the experience overall for me. I also don't really buy into the "too much like Earth" complaint though. Look at how most of the aliens are designed in the first game; humanoid.
If you want to complain about how now relatable these aliens are (who would have actually been influenced by one another, as well as Earth), then you can't leave out the fact that they also are designed to look humanoid. I for one thought the Drell were very human like, yet also distinctly alien, and not simply by their appearances. Did you even flesh out Thane's story?
The greater focus on the Quarians and Geth is also not a negative, since they didn't actually get any kind of real exposure in the first game. The Geth were simply "the bad robots you kill" until the second game. Adding even more dialogue to random, not-quite-essential aliens may have fleshed out the universe a bit more, but it also would have cost more money to make, or else something else would have had to have been sacrificed in the process. It almost seems like some people simply wouldn't be satisfied without it being an almost open world game in scope, while retaining it's tightness in design. Good luck with that before the next gen.
Cyber Caesar
Member
My honest take on the entire series is that Drew didn't tell them what to do with the Reapers so the story fell apart. The rest of the game is excellent.
Jibbajabbawockky
Member
I take from your impressions that i will now for certain play ME2 where i was unsure before, and then decide from there whether ME3 is worth being tackled
I'd definitely give ME2 a chance if you enjoyed ME1. If you end up enjoying the combat and overall feel of ME2, then you'll probably be fine with ME3, since its mostly a refined version of ME2, for better or worse.
Yeah... except for the part where the whole third game mostly hinges on the whole Reaper story. ME3 was at its best when not directly dealing with the Reaper/Cerberus stuff, like the Genophage or the Quarian/Geth material.
Snacks the sober sea lion
Member
The elcor aren't humanoid. The turians, while still pretty humanoid, have a completely different biology. But since the combat in Mass Effect does revolve around shooting, it would be pretty tough not to have bipedal squadmates, so I've always excused most of the alien design. Even the asari being identical to humans aside from their hair is okay because it's an intentional tribute to the "green alien girls" in old scifi stuff like Star Trek. But that's why I expect their culture to be a little more unique. I mean, what did Mass Effect 2 add to the asari? Right, they have Jedi and sexual vampires now. Huh.
Of course I've done Thane's story. He was raised to be an assassin, his wife was killed by gangsters, he's estranged from his son, he has Hollywood-style PTSD. Oh, right, and he has SPACE-CANCER (I know it's caused by humidity and not actually any sort of cancer, but the effect on story and character is nearly identical). None of this requires him to be an amphibious alien raised by jellyfish.
Drew Karpshyn did have a Reaper storyline planned out. It's foreshadowed in Tali's missions in ME2, but they threw out his storyline when he left.
Of course I've done Thane's story. He was raised to be an assassin, his wife was killed by gangsters, he's estranged from his son, he has Hollywood-style PTSD. Oh, right, and he has SPACE-CANCER (I know it's caused by humidity and not actually any sort of cancer, but the effect on story and character is nearly identical). None of this requires him to be an amphibious alien raised by jellyfish.
Drew Karpshyn did have a Reaper storyline planned out. It's foreshadowed in Tali's missions in ME2, but they threw out his storyline when he left.
NightAntilli
Banned
ME1 had something ME2 didn't have.. Fights could happen anywhere. For example, take the Citadel, particularly Chora's Den. Just a club right? Well, fights happened there.. You were ambushed on your way there.. Take Feros.. Just a colony right? Well, fights happened there as well. Point is, the levels supported both combat and exploration at the same time. In ME2, these things were pretty much always completely separate, and the combat levels were sealed off from exploring once you completed a mission, which imo sucked. The missions themselves in ME2 might've been more interesting, but the setup of missions in ME1 felt like a part of the world, and that also made them arguably more interesting than ME2 missions because of the additional immersion and engagement. You could visit a peaceful place once and have that same place be a bullet fest moments later. That stuff just doesn't happen in ME2.
Yeah the stable framerate and improved combat was most welcome in ME2. It was necessary actually. Releasing the second game just as buggy and clunky would've been a huge failure. I just felt a little disappointed that it came at the expense of other things, especially because they were so small and added so much to the immersion.
I remember the first time I played ME2, and being completely annoyed by the plague zone on Omega after recruiting Mordin, and finding out I couldn't go back in there again to explore how the place changed after clearing the plague.. And that's where I started feeling the restraints of the game compared to ME1, and having all places feel small. Not only the Citadel, but also Omega, Illium and Tuchanka. Sure, they were big if you take the combat levels into account, but very small on the exploration side, especially since a lot of the levels in ME1 that you couldn't visit again, had you driving around in the Mako. Think about finding Liara, or the Virmire mission etc. It still had an exploration taste to it, even if it was a linear combat mission in essence. It felt big and immersive. That's one of the reasons I liked the Overlord DLC in ME2, because it was slightly closer to ME1 in that regard.. But ME2 felt like a really linear and restraining game in general. And that's where I agree with a lot of people when they say that it feels like a TPS rather than an RPG. It still remains an RPG though despite what people say.. TPS don't put emphasis on dialogue while all the ME games still do
The first time I played, and I recruited Mordin, and had to land again to go get Archangel, that simply annoyed me. It didn't feel like a continuity, but as a bunch of pieces thrown together that just happen to work as a whole. That's how I felt the whole time playing game actually, while ME1 felt like a continuous game.. Let's just say that ME1 felt like a very delicious food, while ME2 felt like tasting each ingredient of that food separately.
I also had no problem with the elevators in ME1.. Your characters would interact with each other in there and you'd hear galaxy news on the radio and stuff. You only had to actually use each elevator once (except the one to the Normandy if I remember correctly) because if you didn't like them you could quick travel using those car/cab things and you'd get a short loading screen instead. Don't remember their name right now. So I think the elevator hate was blown out of proportion. I also loved the feeling that you could get lost on the Citadel when you started out in ME1. It made it feel big. ME2 nor ME3 have that.
Yes, fighting Cerberus in ME1 was repetitive, and that was less repetitive in ME2. The sidemissions in ME2 are arguably better than ME1, but in ME1 there's a clear distinction between side missions and the core story. In ME2 those lines are pretty blurry. I don't know which approach is better, although the core story of ME1 is better.
You know, I wonder why they didn't just let us pilot one of those drop shuttles in ME2. It seems like a perfect vehicle for exploration. Yeah. It wouldn't be too hard to simply mount some simple guns on the thing.. Would make more sense than finding this full working Hammerhead vehicle on a deserted planet in the middle of a freaking volcanic eruption... I mean, the drop shuttles are known to be durable.. So.. Instead of having place for 14 people, let it have 4 people, mount some guns and a scanner on it if you wish, and boom, you have a full working exploration vehicle. It could've even been another side-mission or whatever.. Upgrading it just like you were upgrading the Normandy. No need for this weird Hammerhead thing. But meh.. The Hammerhead worked too, except in ME3 we get to learn that it was lost.
I loved the Mako. For some reason, when people think of the Mako they only think of the barren planets, but they forget that it also played a key role in the exploration of the level design on core planets and main story of the first game. The main missions on Feros, Virmire, Ilos, Therum all used the Mako and did a brilliant job too. The missions would be a lot more dull without it.. Sadly, both ME2 and ME3 failed with vehicle missions.
On another note... The storyline in ME2 sucks.. In ME1 a lot of things had more importance. The story was unpredictable and everything happened for a reason. As an example, your accident with the prothean beacon at the beginning of the game is what gave you the visions, which is triggered your interest to find out what they mean, is what made the council doubtful of you because they saw them as delusional dreams, it was the reason to get cypher to understand the vision better, which allowed you to understand the messages on Ilos left by the protheans etc. The beginning is connected to the end in all ways.
In ME2, you never really use the cypher, and lots of things seem backwards. It's like they didn't really know how to continue the story.. So they thought of improvements to the mechanics instead, and then tacked the story on there later. ME2 story can be completely ignored if you look at it. At the end of ME2,
(not to mention ME2 didn't use the cypher at all), so
, and whether or not you keep
, cerberus will come after you in ME3, the reapers are still coming. You could literally skip ME2 and start with ME3, and the only thing you'd actually miss is the new characters, and a few details that could be easily implemented in the codex or in a single mission in ME3. It's the same reason people were saying that the Arrival DLC undermines the whole ME2 game story-wise.. Arrival could've also been used at the end of ME1 and would've worked perfectly.
Case and point, ME2 should have gone beyond "the reapers are coming" since ME1 already did that. Don't get me wrong.. ME2 is still one of my fav games this gen, but, ME1 is higher on my list because of the story.. I'm not trying to hate on ME2, it's just my opinion. I do think it's the worst of the three.
Overall...
- ME1 had barren planets which were tedious to explore, shooting mechanics were crap, cover mechanics were crap, all classes played almost the same, had a bunch of time-wasting elevator rides, terrible performance and pop-in issues, tedious inventory and skill tree system, weapons overheating bug, getting stuck in environments, annoying mini-games..
- ME2 had almost no RPG mechanics whatsoever, main story sucked compared to ME1, was mainly a bunch of side quests, planet scanning was a drag (imo worse than mako), barely any exploration because of way too small locations (Citadel, Omega and so on), awful loading times, repetitive mini games, predictable fighting environments, being stuck in environments, apathetic characters (barely interacted with each other), lack of weapons and armor.
- ME3 has inferior journal, less exploration than ME1, confusing ending, glitches like teleporting characters, lip-sync issues, ME1 import issues, too much disc swapping (X360 only), too many shallow side quests, slightly less choice during conversations.
On the flipside..
- ME1 had the best overall story, the most exploration, the deepest RPG elements and conversations, the most immersion.
- ME2 had improved shooting mechanics, better sidequests, better DLC support, better performance, better animations in conversations, better graphics, better action, better and more character support, each class was really unique.
- ME3 had improved cover-based mechanics over ME2, more verticality in gameplay, more cinematic moments, more variety in enemies, more emotional peaks and valleys, slightly deeper RPG elements than ME2 (weapon mods, skill trees etc), bigger Citadel, best interaction between characters, more variety in weapons..
I apologize if I forgot anything on any of the games. But point is....
Reading what people are saying and comparing it to the pros and cons of all three, it doesn't seem that people hate ME3 because it's actually worse. It's because they disliked the ending that they're nitpicking about everything in ME3, even if it's superior than in the prior ones in many (if not most) ways. The issues of the other two listed above are not somehow irrelevant. You can easily love ME3 for what it is and simply forget about the ending for a second, but most people have chosen otherwise. I don't really get the hate for ME3 specifically while the other ones also had huge flaws, if not bigger flaws... But whatever.
Yeah the stable framerate and improved combat was most welcome in ME2. It was necessary actually. Releasing the second game just as buggy and clunky would've been a huge failure. I just felt a little disappointed that it came at the expense of other things, especially because they were so small and added so much to the immersion.
I remember the first time I played ME2, and being completely annoyed by the plague zone on Omega after recruiting Mordin, and finding out I couldn't go back in there again to explore how the place changed after clearing the plague.. And that's where I started feeling the restraints of the game compared to ME1, and having all places feel small. Not only the Citadel, but also Omega, Illium and Tuchanka. Sure, they were big if you take the combat levels into account, but very small on the exploration side, especially since a lot of the levels in ME1 that you couldn't visit again, had you driving around in the Mako. Think about finding Liara, or the Virmire mission etc. It still had an exploration taste to it, even if it was a linear combat mission in essence. It felt big and immersive. That's one of the reasons I liked the Overlord DLC in ME2, because it was slightly closer to ME1 in that regard.. But ME2 felt like a really linear and restraining game in general. And that's where I agree with a lot of people when they say that it feels like a TPS rather than an RPG. It still remains an RPG though despite what people say.. TPS don't put emphasis on dialogue while all the ME games still do
The first time I played, and I recruited Mordin, and had to land again to go get Archangel, that simply annoyed me. It didn't feel like a continuity, but as a bunch of pieces thrown together that just happen to work as a whole. That's how I felt the whole time playing game actually, while ME1 felt like a continuous game.. Let's just say that ME1 felt like a very delicious food, while ME2 felt like tasting each ingredient of that food separately.
I also had no problem with the elevators in ME1.. Your characters would interact with each other in there and you'd hear galaxy news on the radio and stuff. You only had to actually use each elevator once (except the one to the Normandy if I remember correctly) because if you didn't like them you could quick travel using those car/cab things and you'd get a short loading screen instead. Don't remember their name right now. So I think the elevator hate was blown out of proportion. I also loved the feeling that you could get lost on the Citadel when you started out in ME1. It made it feel big. ME2 nor ME3 have that.
Yes, fighting Cerberus in ME1 was repetitive, and that was less repetitive in ME2. The sidemissions in ME2 are arguably better than ME1, but in ME1 there's a clear distinction between side missions and the core story. In ME2 those lines are pretty blurry. I don't know which approach is better, although the core story of ME1 is better.
You know, I wonder why they didn't just let us pilot one of those drop shuttles in ME2. It seems like a perfect vehicle for exploration. Yeah. It wouldn't be too hard to simply mount some simple guns on the thing.. Would make more sense than finding this full working Hammerhead vehicle on a deserted planet in the middle of a freaking volcanic eruption... I mean, the drop shuttles are known to be durable.. So.. Instead of having place for 14 people, let it have 4 people, mount some guns and a scanner on it if you wish, and boom, you have a full working exploration vehicle. It could've even been another side-mission or whatever.. Upgrading it just like you were upgrading the Normandy. No need for this weird Hammerhead thing. But meh.. The Hammerhead worked too, except in ME3 we get to learn that it was lost.
I loved the Mako. For some reason, when people think of the Mako they only think of the barren planets, but they forget that it also played a key role in the exploration of the level design on core planets and main story of the first game. The main missions on Feros, Virmire, Ilos, Therum all used the Mako and did a brilliant job too. The missions would be a lot more dull without it.. Sadly, both ME2 and ME3 failed with vehicle missions.
On another note... The storyline in ME2 sucks.. In ME1 a lot of things had more importance. The story was unpredictable and everything happened for a reason. As an example, your accident with the prothean beacon at the beginning of the game is what gave you the visions, which is triggered your interest to find out what they mean, is what made the council doubtful of you because they saw them as delusional dreams, it was the reason to get cypher to understand the vision better, which allowed you to understand the messages on Ilos left by the protheans etc. The beginning is connected to the end in all ways.
In ME2, you never really use the cypher, and lots of things seem backwards. It's like they didn't really know how to continue the story.. So they thought of improvements to the mechanics instead, and then tacked the story on there later. ME2 story can be completely ignored if you look at it. At the end of ME2,
the collectors are destroyed
no more relevance to them in the next installment
the base
Case and point, ME2 should have gone beyond "the reapers are coming" since ME1 already did that. Don't get me wrong.. ME2 is still one of my fav games this gen, but, ME1 is higher on my list because of the story.. I'm not trying to hate on ME2, it's just my opinion. I do think it's the worst of the three.
Overall...
- ME1 had barren planets which were tedious to explore, shooting mechanics were crap, cover mechanics were crap, all classes played almost the same, had a bunch of time-wasting elevator rides, terrible performance and pop-in issues, tedious inventory and skill tree system, weapons overheating bug, getting stuck in environments, annoying mini-games..
- ME2 had almost no RPG mechanics whatsoever, main story sucked compared to ME1, was mainly a bunch of side quests, planet scanning was a drag (imo worse than mako), barely any exploration because of way too small locations (Citadel, Omega and so on), awful loading times, repetitive mini games, predictable fighting environments, being stuck in environments, apathetic characters (barely interacted with each other), lack of weapons and armor.
- ME3 has inferior journal, less exploration than ME1, confusing ending, glitches like teleporting characters, lip-sync issues, ME1 import issues, too much disc swapping (X360 only), too many shallow side quests, slightly less choice during conversations.
On the flipside..
- ME1 had the best overall story, the most exploration, the deepest RPG elements and conversations, the most immersion.
- ME2 had improved shooting mechanics, better sidequests, better DLC support, better performance, better animations in conversations, better graphics, better action, better and more character support, each class was really unique.
- ME3 had improved cover-based mechanics over ME2, more verticality in gameplay, more cinematic moments, more variety in enemies, more emotional peaks and valleys, slightly deeper RPG elements than ME2 (weapon mods, skill trees etc), bigger Citadel, best interaction between characters, more variety in weapons..
I apologize if I forgot anything on any of the games. But point is....
Reading what people are saying and comparing it to the pros and cons of all three, it doesn't seem that people hate ME3 because it's actually worse. It's because they disliked the ending that they're nitpicking about everything in ME3, even if it's superior than in the prior ones in many (if not most) ways. The issues of the other two listed above are not somehow irrelevant. You can easily love ME3 for what it is and simply forget about the ending for a second, but most people have chosen otherwise. I don't really get the hate for ME3 specifically while the other ones also had huge flaws, if not bigger flaws... But whatever.
Cyber Caesar
Member
I learned so much from NightAntilli's post it's a good read. I have to agree with him on just about everything. Please take the time to read it.
This thread is getting off track and Eat wouldn't be happy. I like it when Eat is happy.
This thread is getting off track and Eat wouldn't be happy. I like it when Eat is happy.
Doublesith
Member
Eat Children was right. Every. Single. Thread.
Meccanical
Member
Getting back on track, isn't the subtitle a little misleading...since...you know.
Freeza Under The Shower
Member
It was asked specifically. And to some extend, any thread about the franchise is going to be about the franchise.
This one happened to be focused on story as spanning three games, not just one.
To rephrase for clarity's sake: the primary product value of ME was continuous story between games.
Halo 4´s story being a pile of completely nonsensical steamy shit is apparently not as big a deal as the same happening to the larger thread in the Mass Effect games.
But that doesn't mean nobody cares. I for one, have no interest in Halo 4 for that reason, despite owning pretty much the entire franchise. I will admit I saw what was happening in Halo 3 and hated that plot element.
The same element that has destroyed any semblance of 'story' in Assassin's Creed 2 and has happily continued to not give a shit since. Which is a damn shame, since there really is an pseudo-historical richness to AC that is unrivaled in gaming.
(Particularly the fact that Altaïr is basically a "muslim hero", which makes him a one of a kind of Western presentation in video games. As well as the historical power struggle -or myth thereof - that formed the context. )
Case in point being that shitty writing is as much "common" in this industry as it is a way of getting rid of "previously collected baggage". Nobody asks about the clusterfuck that is Modern Warfare's "plot", but there actually a plot there. (imagine that)
It's funny to consider that what would have been Bioware's lasting legacy (and I do mean: classic for the ages) has been taken over by Telltale's The Walking Dead and it's doing more than "just good" as a result.
(continuous story over multiple episodes)
Short version: the value proposition of continuous story works, but sadly ME is not the franchise that will benefit from it.
jediyoshi
Member
General Mass Effect OTs are in Gaming Community. The fact you didn't even tie your post back into Omega was enough to make the point.
Freeza Under The Shower
Member
Maybe. I obviously don't agree, but if you consider parts to be parts and nothing but parts, I could see the logic. I just don't believe there are parts without wholes.
And this one is a special kind of whole, if that point wasn't clear.
That said, I won't pursue it further. Omega is way overpriced though.
Just got around to playing this DLC.
If it had been included in the main game it would have been a standard, forgettable mission, but for $15 I was disappointed.
The first time I got excited was talking to the elcor, because I thought it was using new character animations. Realized there I wasn't into Omega that much.
I understand people were looking forward to this DLC. I never cared about Aria as a character or the ability to potentially romance her (or any squad mates).
I was hoping the rumours about the Omega 3 relay/return of the collectors/harbinger being the focus of the DLC were true.
Got the same feeling during this DLC that I did during any interaction with Kai Lang in the main game that it was forced and licensed-novel driven.
Really enjoyed Leviathan for the varied gameplay and (what I felt were) interesting lore additions and have consistently enjoyed the main games.
I will continue to buy Mass Effect single player DLC, but this one was not for me.
If it had been included in the main game it would have been a standard, forgettable mission, but for $15 I was disappointed.
The first time I got excited was talking to the elcor, because I thought it was using new character animations. Realized there I wasn't into Omega that much.
I understand people were looking forward to this DLC. I never cared about Aria as a character or the ability to potentially romance her (or any squad mates).
I was hoping the rumours about the Omega 3 relay/return of the collectors/harbinger being the focus of the DLC were true.
Got the same feeling during this DLC that I did during any interaction with Kai Lang in the main game that it was forced and licensed-novel driven.
Really enjoyed Leviathan for the varied gameplay and (what I felt were) interesting lore additions and have consistently enjoyed the main games.
I will continue to buy Mass Effect single player DLC, but this one was not for me.
That's almost certainly not the case. What probably happened is that Walters wanted to go his own way with the story and brought it kicking and screaming to the point in which he wanted it. It's not so much that Drew didn't tell them what to do as Walters was one of the lead writers in the first game and Drew worked in the second game, it's just that Walters had a different vision.
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
Can't believe they tacked on an achievement for "completing all the sidequest" for this DLC where all the sidequests involved are basically just pixel hunts, urgh.
Good DLC, the final battle was challenging in Insanity, although
was a WTF moment. And that last speech Aria's gave to Omega was just terribly corny.
Good DLC, the final battle was challenging in Insanity, although
Nyreen's death
NightAntilli
Banned
Leviathan is more worth it than Omega.
Leviathan is pretty good from what I hear. Omega is decent if you are into Aria and Omega. Otherwise, I wouldn't say it's worth it at that price.
You didnt say one thing about ME1 who, personally, i think it make the first game better than the other two
When you discover the Sovereign is not a ship but the mastermind behind all and you actually speak with him
Was a big OMG and one of my best moment in videogame
Agreed completely - I went in about 4 years late on ME1 (and the rest of the franchise) blind, to the point where I had no idea what a Reaper was or how they fitted into the universe. That particular reveal was fucking amazing as a result, not to mention that as a level/mission Virmire is one of the series high points
Melchiah
Member
And that's exactly why the ME1 experience is partly ruined for me, and probably for many others as well. If we had known at the time of ME2's PS3 release, that the 1st one was coming to PS3 as well (which EA completely denied at the time), I would have postponed playing the sequels. It's like watching the later seasons of Babylon 5, before being able to watch the first ones. The experience is diminished, and I must say I'm quite bitter about it.