|
So late to the party on this one, but the difference in how the combat in ME3 feels compared to the combat in previous games is astounding. Holy poo poo this is fun. I've done two 100% runs of ME1 and ME2 to get to this point so I could import (lost my save along the way so had to redo everything  ) and I played them both as a soldier. Which loving sucked, shooting the same bullet sponge enemies with the same kind of weapons in the same ways, and nothing to really shake up the gameplay at all.I now understand that Soldier, while very survivable, is an incredibly boring class choice because after switching to Vanguard, the pace of combat is insane and hilariously fun. Have to move so quickly from enemy to enemy to stay alive and killing but it's way, waaaay more fun than "find cover, pop out of cover with Adrenaline Rush to kill enemies, rinse, repeat." Apart from that failure on my part to explore the various other class options out of some stupid desire to have the "real" Shep (ugh), I am extremely impressed by the feel of the game. Pace in general seems to be outrageously better in ME3, like, god drat, Bioware actually figured out how to make a damned good third-person shooter at last. They finally got that part right, it's not just stringing together samey combat segments to get to story elements of varying quality. Combat is fun as hell. I am incredibly disconcerted by all the talk about how the ending sucks (I haven't been spoiled on details, just seeing everyone talking about the ending and then a big block of spoiler text), but this might be a game where I forgive a totally lovely ending just because the gameplay itself is awesome. If someone could help me out, I don't have time for and don't plan to play multiplayer - is it safe to use cheating to make war readiness better across the board to get the best possible ending provided I don't derp my way across the galaxy otherwise? It's a shame they couldn't do-over Mass Effect 1 and 2 with this gameplay and pace. I guess I won't know just how bad the ending is until I get there, but so far, apart from the series' steep decline from initial attempted neato sci-fi world-building to ME2/ME3 old sci-fi pulp quality writing, it's a blasto. Err, blast. Huge breath of fresh air after the dramatically slower and less refined play of the previous games in the series. Hope the apparently sour note of the ending isn't too sour.
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2012 20:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 07:41 |
|
|
Are the previous games this loving awesome as a Vangaurd? Screw Soldier, what was I thinking, this is rad. Frantic. I'm surprised to see so many criticisms of the combat, I suppose because 1. I generally don't play cover shooters so things that might be expected in cover shooters and are absent here aren't registering for me, and 2. I've got S.T.A.L.K.E.R. games when I want fantastic gunplay realism and an open world where you make your own way. Within the confines of the Mass Effect franchise, this game seems dramatically superior to the previous ones. Great elements of "oh, there's diversity and that's cool" despite unfortunate and noted (as opposed to excused) pandering/fanservice, it's a little "one step forward, two steps back" there but it would be difficult to please everyone with a stake in the discussion of whether and how games should be progressive. Fewer camera angles blatantly intended for titillation might be a start, what works in film is very different than what works in games as film is a mature medium (and there's still plenty of exploitative schlock, don't get me wrong) - I feel like there are some aspects of the devs trying to be "cinematic" and aping famous angles or shots without really doing anything with the "cinematography" the way that a good director would. Industry's got a long way to go there and it's suppressed by a pretty large base that encourages that kind of rote stuff, though, no special blame for Bioware from me though I do feel as industry leaders they could be doing more to improve things if they had either the talent or the guts (and I don't genuinely know which is lacking). The story is great so far, excellent character interaction (reminds me much more of Dragon Age: Origins and other high points in Bioware "banter" writing in years past). I'm not very far in, just got to the talk of the Catalyst for the first time and it already seems like I can predict how it's going to end - I'm not going to feel insulted that it doesn't somehow live up to the collected expectations of millions of people who all played through two games and spent four years waiting for this. I also didn't feel insulted at the end of Fallout 3 (pre-DLC retcon), so maybe I'm tolerant of lovely endings. But then I don't know how it ends, maybe it really is just so goddamned bad there's no excusing it, I dunno. I do look forward to the journey to that point, though, as it seems like it's going to be a lot of fun along the way. Maybe I'll do some multiplayer, even. I've edited the Coalesced.bin to change some things, does the game know to default to fair and standard values for multiplayer play, or do I need to avoid going online to prevent trouble?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2012 07:23
|
|
|
Calantus posted:Why are people saying the combat in this one is better than ME2? Or really that anything but the epicness feeling - and some of the set pieces - are better in 3 than 2? I enjoyed ME3 up until the ending, but I also felt that 2 had tighter mechanics (*tries to sprint* *rolls into chest-high wall*), deeper characterization, better enemies, a better UI, and better level design. What am I missing that makes ME3 better up until the end? Pace of combat is more to my liking, for one thing. Though I'm loving around with the coalesced file to make it that way. I like that for once, when you sprint, you haul rear end. You're a genetically engineered super soldier in three ways - first, alliance military genetic engineering; second, ME2 rebuilt you faster, better, stronger  and third, N7 designation is the endpoint of a 6-stage training program, plus exemplary service using N6 training... So why in the gently caress does shep go so god damned slow in ME1/ME2? - time dilation does not a fast movement make.Also this is the first time I've played non-soldier and holy poo poo soldier has nothing on vanguard. My entire perception of the game could be skewed if Vanguard was anything like this in previous games, though I think it's inarguable that ME1's gunplay was extremely mediocre. ME2 had respectable, if samey, gunplay. DLC weaponry trivialized in-game weaponry - once you had the Mattock you're screwing yourself by not using it, and nothing performs nearly as well as the Geth shotgun. For squadmates (as a Soldier, this was my only perspective on that), the Kasumi DLC SMG was clearly superior to any of the other guns. The only gun worth grabbing from the main game is the Widow. But it still was a massive improvement over ME1, regardless. ME3's gunplay is better than ME2's, and combat seems to be better laid out. Most combat situations are variations on point defense and have a "multiplayer game" feel to them that I like. I could go back and replay ME2, certainly. But man gently caress ME1 after this, there's no way I could go back to trudging around like an elephant with an eating disorder after the quick pace of everything in this game.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2012 16:10
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:Yeah. Singleplayer feels like a gently caress you to vanguards half the time. But I'm also hitting a lot of bugs here too. In general, while I know the intended synergy is with shotguns, I end up going at it differently. If you can be sure to stay in ammo, packing the automatic sniper rifle and a very very light SMG for backup, with a weapon power's added ammo capacity, longer range encounters where you are unable to really play to the Vanguard strengths become much less of a chore. Sort of turns you into a mini-soldier for those instances, but with Pull! And the rest of the time you can human ping-pong all you want. Either the SMG or the auto sniper are killer up close, shooting from the hip.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2012 05:46
|
|