Khuutra said:
1) Is that a joke? If you don't have enough Reputation in ME3, you can't make peace between the geth and quarians, and that's just the start of it. The Reputation system in ME3 was much better than the zero-sum system of ME1 or the all-or-nothing system of ME2, because it allowed you to play the way you wanted while still being able to maintain choice-making.
2) You are the first person I've ever talked to who has defended the resource farming in ME1 and ME2. They are terrible. We are all better of for not having to deal with that insidious slog.
3) THe Armor in ME3 is highly customizable and functional. No it doesn't give you thirty-five different sets of armor to dick aorund with, all of which do mostly the same thing with one clear best; it allows you to set up individual pieces that give you bonuses according to your playstyle, so that the armor is actually meaningful (my Vanguard Shep runs +60% weapon damage at all times). ME3's armor system was the best simply because you actually had to pick your benefits and they actually affected your combat performance.
4) Javik is the ultimate partner because he is awesomely written, not for his combat abilities - though Dark Channel is phenomenal if you have any kind of biotics on Shepard, I'll grant you that. Each Shepard synergizes well with different teammates. In ME1, the key to winning on any difficulty is to bring along Liara and let her use Singularity whenever she feels like it.
5) The side misisons in ME3 were all over the place, though they often didn't feel like side missions because they were all delivered very urgently. ME1 and ME2's campaigns aren't actually longer than ME3's; you can finish ME1 in about 9 hours if you don't dick around and just go do the missions, and that's with the enormous bloat of the Mako sections.
That is the biggest problem with ME1 in terms of pacing: bloat. It (and ME2, to a lesser degree) is full of tedious bullshit that does not actually benefit the player, it only serves to lengthen individual playthrough time. ME3 cuts away a lot of that.
You still haven't addressed that ME1's writing, characters, worldbuilding, and combat are the worst of the series.
|
1) Using one case is not a supporting argument. In ME1 and ME2 it was very important at any time to have points built up towards your speech stats. You also affected minor characters which carries over into the next game. A true RPG does this and doesn't just leave things to default. ME1 did this even more so than part 2 and part 2 was my favorite of the two. The conversations in part two between characters built into other branching conversations and didnt just end abruptly like they did in part 3. The only character that had got proper convo trees was Javik. This was was definitely created to the be a streamlined end. Certain decisions you made in part 1 and 2 made your partners either like you alot of completely write you off until the mission was over. This isnt so in ME3 which was highly streamlined. Its like in ME3 Get on ashleys good side or else when you confront her there will be a problem.
2) I might be one of the first people, but like many vocal people in the gaming world, I am a minority kind of like us on this forum. Im sure you'll find there are plenty who actually liked the farming if you look hard enough. I dont generally like farming but ME1 made it less tedius than other games. Also ME2 didnt have much when it came to resource farming. Nine out of ten levels times you would never enter a planet and even worse so in part three.
3) ME3 is highly customizable in a way that a first person shooter would. I maintain that the same armor we used in part two were incredibly weak in this version. We can agree to disagree on this.
4) In ME1 you didnt need Liara as you could use Kaiden for biotics (or be one yourself), but Liaras story played a role as to why she was needed more. Her singularity (as you said) was important as well, but not enough of a reason not to switch it up with other characters at certain points of the game. For the most part it was balanced in ME1. When Samara and Jack came along in ME2 I used Liara even less. I am sure for many people Liara was bumped to secondary status until her classic DLC mission.
5) The side missions felt like streamlined normal missions because you had to gain as many war assets as you could. Everything revolved around that goal to unlocking the proper ending.
As for your questions about the writing I feel part one had the glue that caused people to stick to the ME series as a desired source for gaming. It had the strongest story arch. ME3 built up to anti-climactic (again I haven't played the DLC) ending. Again..it was still my experience from beginning to end and at least that should be respected. I might find the time to play ME3 again...but outside of playing the multiplayer with friends I dont really see the point in playing the game more than once. Its the same streamlined experience. I dont have multiple saves, just one streamed save from my 360 (because my last one with all my saves from 1-2 (renegade and paragon) red ringed) with part 2 to 3.
World building? I dont even know if this term is possible in the ME franchise. The most places that can be affected however is only possible in ME1 though based on your decisions. There were so many side missions that affected the storyline linking to the shadow broker in the first game that put the pieces together but kept you wanting more without having the episodic feel. The shadow broker was kept as an unknown in part one which also helped the story arch further. Who is this guy? Where is he? What is he doing? I am going to play to find out more. The only thing I can give to you is that the combat mechanics in ME3 is better than all of them beyond a shadow of a doubt. EA definitely was a huge part of this decision I am sure. Even though I liked the conservative aspects of ME1 and ME2's action, part three was definitely more action packed. In all I would consider ME3 the action game of the series.
