@bojackhorseman: We might just have to agree to disagree, then.
For instance, ME1 had a thermal overload system in instead of standard ammo, and while not particularly well balanced, it fit very well with the scifi setting thematically. They nixed the weapon and armor upgrade system completely, and reduced the number of your abilities significantly. Grenades went AWOL. There were only two weapons of each type (before DLC). They added a uninspired rock-paper-scissors system with shields/armor/barriers and ammo types. By adding the global power cooldown, they made the combat much more gunplay-centric. On the story front, I, for one, didn't feel the setup for ME2 gave the player much agency in choosing to work for Cerberus, or even how to do so, and having Shepard just throw her hands up and take orders from Illusive Man the whole game never felt right (especially for paragon Shepards). The retcon of the Geth into a morally grey ally was also groan inducing. The pacing is basically the same, imo, barring some annoyingly hidden, forced mission counters at the end of ME2 (and all the probing). I couldn't particularly stand Miranda, Jacob, or Jack. Having said all that, I will concede that ME1's planets and base interiors were plain and/or excessively reused, but the Mako was fine. It just needed a few tweaks to the controls and suspension.
On the other hand, ME3 was an good evolution of 2, bringing back several ideas that were lost (like weapon modifications and grenades) and iterating smartly on ideas from 2 (like with more branching abilities). The story also flowed smoothly from the end of 2 (I really enjoyed the Arrival DLC), and barring the phoned-in ending, was overall much more satisfying for the roleplayer.
Yeah, and the thermal overload system was terrubbbble. So poorly executed. Can't really say it made any more or less thematic sense than the heat clips in the second game, and those at least made the game a lot more enjoyable. Grenades did not go AWOL, they were moved to the ability slot, and that was a smart move, as they were freaking bad in the first game. As for abilities, I can't say I recall there being fewer, but I do recall it being a lot more enjoyable to actually use the abilities you had. Spec towards ability use, and cooldowns became shorter.
You really do yourself a disservice by claiming there were only two weapons of each type, because according to the Mass Effect 2 wikia there were six assault rifles, and only two of them were DLC weapons (one being free), so in just that one example it's literally double what you claim it be. On top of that, additional weapon types were added, like submachine guns and most importantly heavy weapons.
The shielding system on enemies was just fine, and actually made you use your different ammo types. I think the setup for the story was very good, and I really liked the dynamic between The Illusive Man and Shepard, especially if you played as a paragon, so we obviously disagree there. There was no retcon of the Geth. I already knew from the first game that we'd be at the center of choosing the faith between the Geth and the (insert Tali race, can't remember the name), and for that to happen we would obviously have to get more friendly with the Geth. And I'm glad that happened, cause Legion is one of the best Bioware characters in a long, long time.
I'm not saying Mass Effect 2 did everything right, but they really made the only sensible choice when going in that direction, and more or less perfected it with Mass Effect 3. If they had just built on top of the mess that was Mass Effect 1, we'd have a much poorer series as a whole. It's easy to forget just how bad the gameplay of that game was. If they had built upon ME1, they'd have built upon quicksand, instead they made a really solid foundation with ME2 and built upon that.
Log in to comment