All comments

I have mixed feelings about Mass Effect 3, not because I doubt that it will be a good game but that it will be as great as Mass Effect 2.

The greatest appeal of ME2 was the character development via the loyalty missions but somehow with the universe falling to pieces it would be out of place to play counsellor. I hope Bioware have found a solution.

For some reason, maybe because Im sick in the head, I think Liara looks hot.

No. I would...

http://images.gamersyde.com/image_mass_effect_3-18...

Dat lensflare!

Well, most likely the war will just be going on in the background, you'll probably still be able to fly around and to side quests like always :P

I need this game in my veins!!!

I have a feeling ME3 will disappoint, it seems to be going in the wrong direction. ME1 was much better experience than ME2, better story, better characters, better locations/worlds and much better RPG elements with deeper character progression.

ME3 looks more like ME2 but with even more action and I'm actually not at all excited about it. I really hope i'm wrong.

I feel the same, not even remotely excited for it atm. Maybe closer to release? Probably just gonna be a rental tho, just like ME2 was.

I think the guys at Bioware are good enough to actually tie it all together in a nice ending, storywise. It's the gameplay that bothers me. ME2 sucked balls beause of how they dumbed it down, but also because of the story that felt more like filler than the previous game, that had a rather epic scope. Hopefully 3 will go back to the more epic feel of ME1.

Are there any interesting environments at all in this game?

Liara is back as a squad member, thx god.

As for the story, I dont think it will be on the same levek as ME1 and ME2. It's like Halo: first game was all about questions (why, who etc). In Halo 2 you discovered all the secrets about your enemies and the Halos with great story telling. And Halo 3 was all about kicking the covis asses lol. No big secrets anymore. Instead you had to fight one huge battle after another. Action nonstop.

There is not much room for ME3s story. We know the true identity of the Collectors, what kind of things the Reapers are, their targets, etc

I'm sure ME3 will be a very action oriented game, story wise.

Samara >>> Liara by miles. Pity they dont seem to plan to give us Samara back full time...

Yeah, they say their making the RPG stuff better this time, but ME2 was a shcok to me. Got it at midnight on launch and put it in and had NO idea what had happened to the franchise. ME1 was my favorite game ever at the time (and remains my second favorite, after Dragon Age: Origins) and ME2 was good, but ME1 was so much better, and ME2 didn't realize any of the awesome potential of ME1.

Mn yeah sure they streamlined some of the RPG elements in ME2 but saying the actual combat was worse is just crazy! the combat in ME2 was smoother, faster and more responsive than ME1. the shooting mechanics just played better... yea sure they went a bit far in streamlining the RPG elements but they say they are emending that for ME3 and from what I have seen they seem to have done so. I would say the same for Dragon age .. the second game sure had issues with environments and the scale of the world being stripped down but the actual combat gameplay was a definite improvement over the first... and I licked the story was more focused. if they keep the improvements of DA2 such as the combat and have the same scale and depth of the first game then all will be good in my books. Streamlining doesn't always mean dumbing down!

Bring back the RPG elements (they did promise this ), give the conversations more depth, multiple choices and i think it will be fine.

The thing is that ME1 felt like an RPG with action elements whereas ME2 felt like a crappy shooter with a few RPG elements. That's thebig differnce for me. They shifted focus from RPG to shooter. They removed a lot of choice, made the story arc and side questing way more simple and binary feeling and stuff like that. Yes, the shooting was better but oviously at the expense of what made the original good. And i don't really understand how the shitty plot in 2 is even comparable to the first game. I mean we had a mystery, we had saren and then we had the reveal with the reapers and the final battle against sovereign, i don't see how the filler bullcrap in ME2 was even close. It just felt so flat compared to the scope of the first game. And the last boss, was that shit supposed to be intimidating? You fucked up a fully functional reaper in ME1, how is a half-built one supposed to be a threat? :P

Nah, ME1 ha a nice story arc with good twists and some likeable characters, ME2 pretty much failed in all of that imo. The new characters were super boring, the story just felt like filler untill we could get back to the real shit and deal with the reapers in ME3 and the RPG elements were almost all gone or so dumbed down that they could just as well be removed.

Anyone who thinks ME1 was a better game than 2 is clearly a bit mental. 2 surpassed it in almost every single aspect bar the unnecessary clutter of finding random guns in boxes and a couple of extra things in the character points system that could be construed as "better RPG" elements. Other things like the Mako were also very poorly done, and if I recall, the vast majority of reviews the game mentioned this at the time, but now all of a sudden because it was missing in ME2, it was a lesser game? Absolute bollocks. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the main drive of any RPG lies with the strength of the main story arch and the characters, no? ME2 was the perfect sequel in every way. Yes, I said sequel. The way some people bang on, you'd think the two games were separate franchises from different devs competing with each other.

Bravo! At least you get it.

ME2's solution to 1 wasn't solving problems that were brought up, but rather to strip the entire game clean and go with a fairly bare bones (compared to the 1st) action game.

It's not better than ME1. It's just a wholly different game. ME1 made the franchise popular immediately and you can't blame people for getting alienated by ME2.


Also this idea that they're bringing RPG elements back is a funny notion. Honestly I don't believe it.
Didn't they delay this game to make it more accessible or some such nonsense?It may not necessarily mean dumbing down, but it certainly takes away your attachment to your character and the feeling that you are in control.
Problem is this was the game's main selling point. You have choices and this is your character that you get to carry through the entire trilogy.
It's damaging to reduce your ability to feel connected to your character in a game that is built around an ongoing story over 3 games.

Given Bioware's history in games and RPG's, it makes you wonder what the hell they were thinking.

Don't worry guys, Kinect will ensure this game's going to be good
http://art.penny-arcade.com/photos/i-wDXQbxt/0/L/i-wDXQbxt-XL.jpg

Bravo to you too sir! well at least there is one other person on here who agrees that the changes in ME2 were largely for the better. and ME3 looks to be introducing more of this "RPG Depth stuff" while maintaining ME2's streamlined interface... I'm looking forward to playing the demo... I have the game pre ordered, but it will be good to get an early look at this much talked about multiplayer.

truth. streamlinging doesnt always mean dumbing down, but in mass effects case it certainly did. things that needed refinement and fixes where instead stripped out completely. the inventory system WASNT perfect in ME1, but it's better then the piss poor excuse that was in ME2. ME1 didnt have perfect mako vehicle sections, but it's better then non at all in ME2. the ONLY elements ME2 improved on was the combat, litterally everything else was dumbed down or stripped out completely. that's not progression, that's a step backwards as far as i'm concerned. stat alocation was non-existent. armour was limited and only applied to you, you no longer had control over what your fellow teammates wore. it all felt incredibly lazy. they couldnt be bothered to improve things, so they took them out. hopw can that even be considered a better game? location too where uninteresting and lacked the variety of the first game, they also contained way less side missions per main city hub.

frankly, every since EA bought bioware they have gotten worse and worse. dragon age 2 was laughably bad. ME2 was a bare boned shell of it's former self. i really want to believe ME3 is a "return to form", but i just dont see it happening. they've clearly gotten a taste of the mainsteam money, and i can't imagine they'll sacrifice that to make a good RPG. mass of gears of war effect....no thanks.

i don't like saying this but QFT!

this was my major argument with mass effect 2.. but hey i got accused of been a fanboy and to fuck off.

Agreed.

Butthurt fans of garbage loot ammo and armor that didn't affect the game at all are mad cause ME2 aws indeed better.

Good thing ME3 is like that and not like the slow boring piece of shit ME.

Sorry Mr White i disagree, ME2 is a different experience to ME1 in more ways than one, and i prefer the first in many ways, to me ME2 shares a lot in common with halo 2 when compared to its predecessor, when compared to the first game, it is no where near the same caliber but when compared to other games in its shared genre its brilliant.