By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
S.T.A.G.E. on 26 September 2012
Edit Thread
Khuutra said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

Your decisions didnt affect three much at all. Very little in truth because the game was so highly cinematic. If you wanted a game that trully gauged the consequences for your actions the Witcher 2 did it best without all of the nonsense. I'll agree that character customization in 2 wasnt as good as 3 but the pacing of the RPG elements was better in two than three. It seems that with every game they streamline a certain part of it (After EA bought them).

I played two multiple times and experienced more variation in it than three (between itself and one), which  is why I went back and started over part one or used the comic book to change the story a bit to play through twice. I've found zero reason to play three twice. The only real thing that counts is who lives or dies leading you to the people who are in the game. Part three is an insignificantly changed story which leads to the three choices at the end.

There is no element of this which I can acquiesce to.

Every single major decision you've made throughout the series is reflected in ME3, one way or another, often in combination with each other. Let Balak go in ME1? Well, he's back! But I didn't, so I had someone else to shoot now.  Talked Charr and Ereba into shacking up? That ended up mattering, and it's even sadder if you didn't (soul-crushing in a really despairing way). Conversations you had in the first two games determine who lives and dies in the third one; a lot of people can't figure out how to keep Miranda alive simply because their previous decisions force them into scenarios that border on unwinnable.

Or how about Rannoch, or Tuchanka, where peace and survival may be impossible to achieve based on the decisions you've made up to that point? Or Priority: Citadel, where you may have to kill the Virmire Survivor depending on who made it through the first two games, and how you've treated the Survivor the whole time?

There were literally hundreds of decisions throughout the first two games that were reflected in ME3 in one way or another, some minor and some major, but all of them acknowledged, all of them ultimately mattering. There are more ways to go through ME3, more consequences to see, than the first two games combined - and that's not an opinion, that's a mathematical fact.

And "pacing of the RPG elements" doesn't make any sense. There are two elements of RPGness in Mass Effect, and those are character customization and decision-making. ME3 had more of both than did ME2, and more decision-making (and consequences) than ME1.

And my original point stands: the writing in ME1 was weakest, the combat in ME1 was weakest, the worldbuilding in ME1 was weakest, the characters in ME1 were weakest. The asari were paper cutouts blue space-women until their culture was explored in ME2; the krogan were basically dead opposites of the asari; the salarians were "the smart ones"; the turians were "the military ones"; this extended to every aspect of the universe. The setting matured and became more real and believable over the course of the series, not less, and all of the characters did the same thing.

I cannot think of a single meaningful metric by which I would place ME1 at the top of the food chain in this series.


Pacing of Mass Effect RPG elements in part three:

1) Speech (maxing out of speech) points was almost pointless. it only played into who  lived and died. In Part 1 and 2 the RPG element of speech went a long way preventing wars, changing peoples opinions of you and more. In part three it didnt matter. Renegade and Paragon had some of the same responses and reactions as well. It was pointless to fight the linearity of the game. If you say something different you should get a different reaction. We might as we have just sit and watched the child in the beginning run from us instead of trying two different styles and giving him a staggeringly similar response.

2)  Farming for resources on certain planets expanded the longevity if your playthrough. 2 and 3 did not have this and were finished quicker due to the casualized farming experience. They also provded a chance for you to gain exp in battles with terrestrial creatures.

3) Armor- The armor in ME3 is so weak its not even funny. In part one you found or purchased more potent armor than before. The resistance these bits of armor from (obviously from part 2) had was horrible compared to the last game. 

4) The balance of party choice- Even though you were rewarded for sticking with one memeber in previous Mass Effect titles they all had a tactic which benefited a mission. In hindsight, its funny we are having this argument but I realized in Part three the only person I used over and over again was Javik. This was never so for me in other Mass Effects where I would switch from character to character to utilize their valuable points. Javik was like the ultimate partner which created a lack of balance in the crew. 

5) Where are the side missions? The first mass effect had good side missions but part two had great side missions. This game had the least amount of playthrough time out of all of my Mass Effect titles because of it. My first play through of ME1 was about fifty hours, about forty+ for two ME2 and ME3 was like twenty hours (not counting multiplayer). I mean, I think we can all agree that ME3 was the vastly more streamlined experience.

In conclusion ME1 had issues, but it was more of an RPG than any of them will ever be. Even though two was my favorite one deserves a proper dose of respect and acknowledement because without the love and constructive criticism part one attained there would be no expectation for part two. It was the truer RPG experience. With part one you felt as if you were shepard with all the choices you made and things you did.