E3 2011: Mass Effect 3
Mass Effect 3 builds upon the foundation of the last game with improved cover and combat mechanics, larger scale battles, and more thorough character customization.
Mass Effect 3
-
Andrew Yoon posted a new article, E3 2011: Mass Effect 3.
Mass Effect 3 builds upon the foundation of the last game with improved cover and combat mechanics, larger scale battles, and more thorough character customization.-
-
I'm glad to see this franchise die (though I strongly doubt it will, EA doesn't let cash cows die) after seeing the direction EA has taken it. From solid RPG with basic shooter elements to stupid gears of war ripoff with a few character statistics and some dialogue.
I blindly preordered the 2nd based on the first, I will not be preordering the 3rd, based mostly on the 2nd and everything I've read/watched about this upcoming title.
-
-
-
-
You compare it really easy, especially once they implemented that fast regenerating health for every class and gave anyone the option to carry assault rifles (making Soldier obsolete). The whole point of Mass Effect is to be presentationally just like a major shooter bros are familiar with (Gears in gameplay, Halo in visuals) and then at the macro level of gameplay layer on top of that some light RPG character building stuff, and being able to pick from any three missions at a time. Cause that's what Bioware actually knows what to do.
The result is a surprisingly fun shooter RPG even though its aims and ends are rather cynical. So the idea of making the shooting in ME3 better than in ME2 totally fits the franchise for me, cause that game was always as much a shooter as it was an RPG, if not a shooter foremost. Coupled with this other stuff about better customization, I think this makes for good news.-
-
Personally, I don't think ME2 gained that much by cutting the stuff they cut, like the inventory and a lot of the character building. I didn't care, the whole point for me in ME1 was to roam around and check out the galaxy and be sweet roaming around doing space science action, so it didn't really affect my enjoyment of the game. But the whole thing of "oh the inventory sucked so we got rid of the inventory but what we have is a screen you can go to that shows a list of armors, or weapons, or special buffing items for you to select from - not an inventory though!" kind of self defeating.
-
-
-
-
Well there's just very little truth to this. I can perfectly understand why some people prefer ME1 to ME2, mainly because of the story, but blaming it on the improvements to the combat system is just absurd. ME1 action was already shooter action, but it was clunky at that, and ME2 made it better all around. The lack of an inventory could be argued as a simplification that they didn't need to make, but I'm having a hard time seeing how junking / selling obsolete weapons could make or break an entire game for you. As for the dialogue and RPG elements, there were just as much of those in ME2 and it was all just as well, if not better, produced.
In short, ME2 was really no less a RPG than ME1 was. The one clear advantage the first part holds over it's otherwise superior sequel is the story that had more juice to it. This coming from someone who has played through both of them back to back nearly 3 times now.
-
-
-
I liked the games in general but I have some issues with it all so far.
The cover system makes all the enemies become controlled by the same simple AI. Predictable, Stupid and boring.
Also seems like everything in these games shares the same animation for running around with guns. Hunched over tactical stance. Doesn't matter if your a 2-Ton Krogan, or scrawny little girl, giant geth humanoid attack robot, you'll all look the same when holding the same weapons. Why even have aliens if everything is exactly the same. -
-
-
-