Results 1 to 20 of 32
03-02-2013, 07:12 PM #1
- Join Date
- May 2012
How does Mass Effect 3 compare to ME2?
I have just finished Mass Effect 2 (late to the party), right after finishing ME and I must say: I did not enjoy the sequel as much as I did the first game.
I am interested in seeing the conclusion to the trilogy, though, so I must ask: how is the third game in comparison to the other two? I know of the ending drama that swept the internet (no spoilers, please), but I also want to know how does it compare in its gameplay and specially the combat.
I have reservations about having to get Origin just for this as I have no other games on it, so I'd like to be sure I'll enjoy the ride more than I did on ME2.
03-02-2013, 07:28 PM #2
It's more akin to ME2 than the first one. It brings back some elements from the first one (inventory/equipment handling has returned tho not identical to ME1, the structure is more similar to the first game etc) but still plays closer to ME2. The combat has been refined even further and has the best feel and gameplay to it out of the three games, but it still follows the same mechanics as the ME2 combat.
If you didn't like ME2, it's hard to say whether you'll enjoy the third game. I'd personally recommend it as I think it's the best one out of the three (and if you've gotten into the characters and how the plot has developed, I can't imagine just ignoring how those things continue further). The ending is better now with the patch as well, even if still a bit wonky at places. But then again I also adore ME2 and think it's far superior to the (rather good) first one, so make of that what you will.
Last edited by Flint; 03-02-2013 at 07:32 PM.Give me steam and how you feel to make it real.
03-02-2013, 11:54 PM #3
Mechanically ME3 brought back some of the customisation of ME1 along with the improved combat of ME2. ME3 suffers from two issues - firstly people got upset because of a day one DLC release (which was standard practice long before ME3) and because the ending is bad. Up until the end though IMO it's one of the better games for gameplay. Some of the dialog trees are a bit simpler but I don't really know if that's just because of a conscious choice, or because the game was heading towards a definitive ending. That said I didn't notice a significant amount of difference.
03-02-2013, 11:57 PM #4
i was in a similar boat. i enjoyed me1 immensely and was pretty disappointed in the sequel. i have a lot of issues with me3 and it definitely does not surpass the first game for me, but it was a better experience than me2 and i was happy to have the story resolved.
03-02-2013, 11:59 PM #5
Kind of with Soldant tbh. However I would say it might be worth waiting until the final ME3 DLC is out later on this year before playing as that might well add a bit more flesh to the games bones in terms of story.
04-02-2013, 01:21 AM #6
Scanning planets is much less of a chore in ME3. That's a huge plus!
04-02-2013, 02:03 AM #7
I don't know how to convince somebody that ME3 is good if they think ME2 was substantially worse than ME1, for I don't share that view.
I will say, however, that the development of ME3 was enacted with the criticism of those who liked ME1 better than ME2 in mind.
04-02-2013, 02:59 AM #8
What did ME2 do or not do for you that ME1 did?
If it's that ME2 took away inventory management and customization, ME3 brought it back although it's not as much as ME1.
If it's combat and talent trees, ME3 is just like ME2, with slight tweaks.
The rest I found ME2 and 3 very close together. I'd still suggest you get it and play it. Unless you absolutely hated 2, there's no reason not to try 3 out.
Also 3 gets so much more flak than it deserves because it wasn't a perfect game and had problems both in game and outside of the game and the internet is the internet.
04-02-2013, 03:25 AM #9
ME3 was a small step back towards ME1 in gameplay. In short, it's somewhat better than ME2, but not as good as ME1. Still, progress in the right direction is a welcome thing.
04-02-2013, 03:27 AM #10
Hmm. I can't think of any gameplay mechanic that 3rd doesn't do better than the 2nd. Even the paragon/renegade system is ( marginally ) better. The combat is mostly same with more biotic and tech combos so that's good. There is limited weapon customization and it's good enough for what it does. Normandy feels more alive in the 3rd because the squad members will visit each other and talk or just use the intercom to chat, almost after every mission even the guys who weren't there will comment on what happened.
So yeah, the first is still my favorite but its combat isn't very good in my opinion compared to the sequels. 3 isn't ALL that better than 2 but after playing through all of them a few weeks back in a marathon, I realized how much those small things added up to make a better experience.
PS: 3rd has a multiplayer that is utterly addicting if you like ME combat.
04-02-2013, 03:49 AM #11
In terms of combat IMO the second and third games are far and away better than ME1. The combat is much more fluid, powers are far more useful and easier to use, and the general flow of combat is better. The entire "cover shooter" criticism is pointless because ME1 was a cover shooter too - a clunky one which was primarily action-based with a thin RPG element that just got in the way. I think the biggest problem is that people wanted an RPG, not an action game... but Mass Effect was always primarily an action game.
04-02-2013, 04:42 AM #12
04-02-2013, 05:13 AM #13
04-02-2013, 05:16 AM #14
04-02-2013, 10:17 AM #15
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
I'm in the same boat of thinking 1 is the pinnacle of the series and the sequels never really matched the tone it captured (I hate to use the word but the finale last 1-2 hous of 1 felt more epic than any other part in the series). Gameplay in 2 and 3 is far better though I miss the scale the Mako added especially in the main story missions. I would also say I think 2 had a bit more variety to the combat but that may just be the fact 3 feels very similar.
The third has some good character moments but the main story is even less substantial than in 2 with a number of hugely important points left unexplained. It really feels like the game was the bare minimum they could get away, almost all the side missions were very underwhelming and the main quest feels like it should have been the side stories. Apparently the DLC fills in some plot holes, the fact that is even a thing explains some of what is wrong.
And then you get to the ending which I think should just be seen to truly understand how much the ball was dropped (you never know maybe you will be one of the few that don't mind it)
It's probably worth playing from a academic standpoint but don't go in with high expectations and its probably very enjoyable.
04-02-2013, 10:22 AM #16
04-02-2013, 10:41 AM #17
While I enjoyed me2 highly the main issue I had it was storytelling. Distinct episodes not connected with each other, like episodes of tng season 1 and 2 while me1 felt more like last 3 seasons of ds9 with occasional baseball game.
04-02-2013, 10:47 AM #18
I'm with jnx on this one.
I agree that the gameplay gets better with every iteration. Not that it's great in either of them, though. Since you more or less start off with every ability you'll get, the entire game more or less means resorting to two or three standard approaches for every enemy. While these abilities are improved, there's not a lot of variation. Seeing as every mission is more or less "go there and kill people/things" it gets kind of monotonous IMO.
The story is what makes the games good and IMO the story got progressively worse over the course of the series. Well, less good anyway. Yes, the story of ME2 was mostly... well, redundant, but ME3 was more or less glorified fetch quests/DA:O ripoff with less soul. Sure, ME3 is more epic in scale, but ME2 had more weight to me. ME2 is probably the only game in the series that moved me personally. Failing to get to my crew in time and losing Samara to a bunch of bugs, all because of choices that I made as a leader, had a real impact on me. The overall story is best in ME1, hands down.
As for replayability, I already know the story so that marginalizes ME1's greatest advantage. ME3 has the best combat and the least annoying filler content (scanning...), so that takes the prize.
EDIT: Oh, and I wasn't horrified by ME3's ending (I played the enhaced edition). It wasn't what I had hoped, but it didn't infuriate me either. It was more or less what I had come to expect, having read some of the controversy but avoided spoilers.
Last edited by Fanbuoy; 04-02-2013 at 10:50 AM.
04-02-2013, 03:13 PM #19
- Join Date
- May 2012
04-02-2013, 03:14 PM #20
My memories of ME2 aren't as vivid as those of ME3, so... I enjoyed ME3 a lot, and it had some truly great moments. However, I think ME2 was the best of the series. In ME3 I missed the extensive dialogue options from the previous games, the loyality missions - yes, even the hacking mini-game. Planetary scanning was a chore in both games, though, especially since getting caught by the Reapers in ME3 had no consequences beyond an automatic quickload, rendering the challenge moot.
As for the mentioned moments of the story, I don't think there's a clear winner for me. While Mass Effect 2 had the Biotic God and a singing salarian who tickled my funnybone, ME3 made me shed some manly tears on Tuchanka ("Had to be me.") and Earth ("Meet me at the bar") for example.
I'd say ME1 is the weakest of them.
Last edited by c-Row; 04-02-2013 at 03:20 PM.- If the sound of Samuel Barber's "Adagio For Strings" makes you think of Kharak burning instead of the Vietnamese jungle, most of your youth happened during the 90s. -