Mass Effect 1 may have the best combat in the series.

[ksn0va]

Well, now I've seen everything...

 

[Vykrel]

i totally disagree. the combat was one of the worst parts about the game, specifically the gun play.

skill isnt taken into account at all. when you first start, your guns are so inaccurate that it doesnt matter how good your aim is, and when youve leveled up your skills and everything, your guns are so accurate that it doesnt matter how BAD your aim is.

ME2 and ME3 actually require the player to aim... i much prefer that.

 

[socialmenace42]

Snip

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree.

The way your weapons and armor progressed wasn't well balanced at all, and created a difficulty curve that just turned on a dime halfway through the game. The first half, it's practically impossible to hit anything more than 10 meters away. The second half, on the other hand, is a laid back stroll down piss-easy street, where your guns are so powerful, accurate, and efficient, and your armor so beefed up, that using powers, cover, and squad tactics just becomes a detour.

Speaking of powers, cover, and squad tactics, using them was finicky as fuck. I don't even bother trying to take cover in Mass Effect 1, because it's completely useless. Powers have to be aimed with pinpoint precision to be any use, and if you miss, you've just wasted that power for the entire fight because they take so long to cool down. This makes hot-keying useless (and even if it wasn't, only being able to hot-key one power in the first game, on console anyway, is a joke) because you can't trust it. Therefore, whenever you want to use any power, either your own or one of your squad's, you have to break the flow of the combat by going into the power wheel, and painstakingly selecting every last target (which is particularly annoying if the thing you wanted to target has taken that last second to move behind a rock).

AI, both enemy and friendly, is pants. Enemies only have two battle tactics, 1) Run right at you, or 2) Stand still. Every biotic enemy spams stasis everywhere, and every tech enemy spams sabotage. These are the two 'stun lock' attacks in the game, and stun locks are always bullshit. On the other side of the battle, your allies don't do anything useful unless you specifically direct them to, and that's just when they're not actively getting in your way, or getting themselves killed in 3 seconds so I have to waster medi-gel reviving them (Garrus, I love you and all, but in ME1 you were by far the worst for this).

Last, but not least, the frame rate goes to shit whenever anything more than a minor scuffle occurs.

Not to say ME2's combat was perfect. I still think it was way better than the first game's, however, it did indeed rely too much on cover, and there wasn't a great enough sense of progression. For all its other faults, I'd say ME3 had by far the best combat in the trilogy. With a much greater variety of enemy classes, all of whom had their own clearly defined roles on the battlefield, and all of whom had AI that actually worked. Cover based shooting still underpinned the system, but it wasn't your only option. It had more weapon variety than the previous two games, and powers were an essential and fluid component of the system.

Don't think I have ever agreed with anyone more than right now. There seriously is little point using cover in ME1 since your enemies rarely do, they tend to go more for the clusterfuck tactic; run in close and get the shotgun out. Sniping before level thirty-odd is near impossible since the crosshairs swim around more eratically than Michael Phelps on acid, the best weapons in the game basically ended up being pistols, being the most reliabl at short to mid range.

Now I love me some Mass Effect, I realy do. But the combat has steadily improved throughout the games. I did like the idea they tried in the first game with weapons that never have to be reloaded, but the heat build up realy interrupted the flow of combat.
The move to thermal clips felt natural and ME2 ended up having an interesting variety of weapons (At least with the DLC) even if some of the powers were either flat or hillariously overpowered (sentinel tech-armor anyone?) and the inability to roll does make the movement more clunky (In retrospect compared with ME3 at least IMO) the AI are considerably more advanced and believable and being able to map multiple powers makes a huge difference to the flow of combat.
ME3 took what ME2 did right in combat and did it better. More variable powers, better movement in combat, a huge range of weapons that all behave differently, much better components for armour, better AI and the infinitely underappreciated weapon modification system.

Mass Effect was a fantastic game but I was certainly glad that they improved the combat in the two later installments.

 

[CannibalCorpses]

I wholeheartedly agree, Mass Effect 1 combat was much better. It's the only one of the three where i felt i could actually die...the sequels were too linear in their approach to combat and you did what was expected or you failed to get anywhere.

As usual i will say the series was 'dumbed down for the dumb generation of gamer' of which i am not a part.

 

[Legion]

The way I would describe it:

Mass Effect 1 had the best idea for a combat system, but it wasn't done as well as it could have been.
Mass Effect 2 had an average idea for a combat system, but it was created very well.
Mass Effect 3 tried to mix the above two, and while it wasn't that interesting, it was probably the most balanced.

The first games major issue was balancing. Adepts and soldiers were crazily overpowered. Adepts because you could use around 6 different abilities at once, and soldiers because with the right armour mods and perks, you could make yourself almost invincible even on the hardest difficulty.

The second game had a fantastic atmosphere, but the problem was that due to so many enemies having armour and shields, biotic powers felt rather pointless. This is because by the time you shot down all of their armour or shield, you only really needed a headshot or two to finish them off anyway, so the powers weren't even needed.

The third game was probably the smoothest of the three. They didn't have the overpowered classes, but at the same time, the abilities had more "oomph" to them. It was very satisfying to hit two targets at once with throw, and the perks made the classes have more variety.

Although to be honest, I did actually enjoy Mass Effect 1's combat the most. Even though it was easily the most broken. I think it was more down to level design and enemies more than anything else. The second and third game felt like Gears of War without the gore and the adrenaline rush from charging at an enemy with a shotgun.

 

[Magicman10893]

Oh God no.

The weapons had no weight. You shoot a guy (with a silly 'pewpewpew' sound) and all it does is lower his health bar. No other reaction. Unless you use hammerhead ammo in which case it goes to the other extreme and ragdolls him against the wall like he's been hit by a train. Same with abilities, come to think of it. They either have no visible effect beyond lowering health bars or they result in ridiculous ragdolling.

Compare to ME3 where enemies will stagger and flinch depending on where they get hit, how hard and whether they have extra protection. They panic if they get set on fire. They convulse if they're being hit with electricity. They're heads pop on a successful headshot. Actual visual feedback.

In ME1 biotics were stupidly overpowered. You had multiple abilities that could instantly ragdoll any enemy, rendering them helpless. Play a biotic Shepard, take Liara and Wrex with you and you can ragdoll anyone who looks at you funny. Tech abilities on the other hand could... lower enemy shields a bit? Hack an enemy synthetic who would be useless because the AI sucked? Yay.

Once again, compare with ME3 where the abilities have varied uses against different enemies, biotic abilities don't automatically render enemies helpless and tech abilities actually help. Also, you can combine abilities for added effects.

ME1 had bugger all enemy variety. In terms of mechanics there were enemies that melee you (husks, varren), enemies that shoot at you (almost everyone else), the occasional biotic that can ragdoll you in an incredibly annoying fashion and Krogan who regenerate (and shoot you).

Compare with ME3. Enemies can lay down smokescreens. Enemies have shields that require them to be disarmed or flanked. Enemies can spawn turrets or repair allies. Enemies can cloak. Enemies can spawn smaller enemies when injured or killed. Enemies can use drones. Enemies can buff one another. Enemies can consume their own dead to gain armour. There are mechs that you can hijack if you kill the pilot. Even the basic shooty enemies can throw grenades to flush you out of cover. Variety!

Hell, even the level-up system in ME3 was better. You can diversify each skill a bit and add extra effects to the basic one. Plus the difference between each level is actually enough to be noticeable. In ME1, levelling up just made the numbers slightly larger in tiny increments. You levelled up! Now the 'warp' skill does +2% damage and has -%5 cooldown. Thrilling! Deep!

So yeah, it is my view that the combat in ME3 shits all over the combat in ME1.

I feel the need to shake your hand. Thank you for saving me the trouble of writing all of this down!

In addition, the weapons in ME1 had no variety to them. They all looked roughly the same (two different models for each of the 4 types of weapons) and all had the same firing animations and sounds as the others in their respective class. The only difference between them is purely statistical and felt boring as hell. The only noticeable difference, due to the gradual progression of enemy health and such, was the amount of shots fired before overheating. Then that becomes irrelevant once you unlock the Spectre Master Gear. By the end game you'll end up having the same exact weapon as every other character in every other class from every other player in the world. Armor is identical in appearance in terms of 3D model and again, the only difference is statistical and by end game you'll most likely be wearing the Predator L/M/H series or the Colossus.

ME2 and ME3 by comparison had weapons that all felt and behaved differently with noticeable difference and roles in combat. Sure, all the snipers and handguns were good against armor, shotguns and SMGs where good against shields, and assault rifles were balanced, but you still had a reasonable choice between these guns. Prefer accuracy over rate of fire or damage? There's a gun for that in practically every category of gun. Prefer straight up damage at the expense of accuracy? There's a gun for that. On top of that, they all had unique appearances, sounds, and some different animations.

ME3 then went a step further and introduced weapon attachments. I liked the upgrades from ME1, but the attachments from ME3 offered some really nice and varied upgrades. You could do anything from reducing the spread of your shotgun blasts to adding a thermal scope to your sniper rifle to putting a damn omniblade bayonet to your assault rifle. You could try and compensate for your gun's weaknesses, such as improving the accuracy of the Revenant, or boosting it's strengths, like increasing the damage of the Claymore (although I don't know why you would need that).

Then armor not only had different models, but the also offered different unique bonus effects. You can use armor to boost your class's strengths or compensate for weaknesses. Also there was the fact that you could paint your armor how you wanted. My only complaint about the armor system is the bonuses don't feel very strong unless you stack multiple ones with the same effect.

My only gripes about the gameplay changes from ME1 to ME2 and ME3 was the lack of ability to equip armor to squad mates.

 

[Lilani]

Really? The upgrade system was fine, sure it could have been improved but it works. Hammerhead rounds with shotguns are amazing. Its the shitty inventory system that makes it annoying.

I won't argue that it doesn't work, but it just takes too long to deal with. I haven't played it in quite a while, but I do remember navigating all the menus and screens for weapon upgrades, thinking "Why does this take so long, and why do I have to do it so often?!?!" Perhaps I was stopping to upgrade more than you were supposed to, but I felt like I had to. I couldn't just sit still while I knew I'd just found some new weapon or upgrade that could make my life that much easier.

 

[Count Viceroy]

As someone who loves FPS's and 3rd person shooters as much as he does RPG's ME1's combat was tolerable at best and I feel took away some of my enjoyment of the game. Don't get me wrong though, still loved and played the game to death, but it wasn't for its combat, that's for sure. I do appreciate the updated mechanics for 2 and feel they really nailed it in 3, even if I do miss some of the removed customization - Polonium rounds <3.

However, I'd still would have wanted to see a better system than the massive ret-con that was thermal clips. And even if you accept the in-universe explanation for them, the game mechanics aren't following them, which makes it even worse. I.E. Clips should be a universal ammo currency for all your weapons, ala Dead space 3. Oh well.

 

[Tom_green_day]

It had no weapon variety (save classes, obviously), no easy way to tell you were losing health (like 2), powers that weren't easy to use (had to keep using the wheel to choose), poorly designed areas that were copy and pasted around the place. At least enemies had variety.

 

[wolf thing]

on paper it had mush more futuristic style combat, more speculative fiction style combat. it not perfect but having a soldier carry all the types of weapons into combat, the guns folding up and having infinite ammo. it great way to make the unviers more futuristic: this was sadly retcond, and very poorly may i add, in the second game which then lead bioware on to constantly shit on science and there own fiction. it tern what was solid science fiction in pulp fiction. but dont get me wrong the gameplay from a design level was much better, like way better and many of the powers, although a little rested in there effect compare to what they could do in cutsence, were cool as well.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

The only thing I really appreciated about ME1's combat was the fact that the sniper rifle actually moved around when you were zoomed in. It does bother me a bit in games the way you can have a sniper rifle with the strongest scope in the game, and somehow in the middle of combat without any iron sighting you can hold that sucker perfectly still. In ME1 it felt like using the sniper rifle actually took some effort and finesse, rather than just feeling like a more accurate version of every other gun with a longer cooldown.

Yeah. And then they ruined it in Mass Effect 2 by making it fun to use, the bastards.

I didn't enjoy ME1 combat nearly as much as I enjoyed ME2. The things I didn't like about ME2 combat were fixed in ME3. But let's not talk about ME3 because it never ends well. No pun intended.

 

[Bonecrusher]

ME1 combat = Halo
ME2 and ME3 combat = Gears Of War

so, if you are a FPS fan, you will prefer ME1 (as I do)
if you are a Xbox fan you will prefer ME2 and ME3 combat.

ME2 and ME3 is a really shame, because they put weird reloading and cover systems that was not in the first game.

Of course, my preference is System Shock (1, 2) and Deus Ex (1) style combat, but who cares PC games nowadays...

 

[00slash00]

No, Mass Effect 3 had the best combat, it was amazingly good. Mass Effect 1 automatically fails for not having the Vanguard's charge. Mass effect 1 had the best story though with Mass Effect 3 lagging behind because of that which shall not be named and then Mass Effect 2's crappy story coming in last.

i dont understand why everyone hates the story of mass effect 2. i personally found it to have the most interesting story of the series and the story of mass effect 1 interested me the least. basically mass effect 1, to me, is just the game i have to put up with in order to get to the vastly superior other games

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

i dont understand why everyone hates the story of mass effect 2. i personally found it to have the most interesting story of the series

I don't get it either. It was more self-contained and character driven so maybe that's why. I thought it was great because it was so character driven. It's the best game in the series. It improved almost everything and it expanded Mass Effect universe a lot.

 

[Vuliev]

ME1 combat = Halo

wat

I'm really curious as to how you arrived at that comparison, because it's a tenuous stretch at best. Both games have regenerating shield and medpacks, but the actual shooty (and cover-y) bits couldn't be more different. Halo only lets you have the two weapons, but there's a wide variety to choose from (and that variety isn't purely statistical.) The armor mods in Reach and 4 are rather limited in scope (and you're only allowed one at a time), and the gameplay reflects that because you need a team with a variety of mods so that you have a rounded approach to challenges.

Mass Effect gives you things other than guns to use that actually have significant tactical value, but because they're dynamic in an RPG sense, they (as with most western RPGs) break combat once you hit critical mass. And while the weapon specialization in ME actually gives you a sense of progression (and forces you to do more than simply pick up a weapon and start firing), the perks from leveling have the same combat-breaking issues. ME has a strong base for a true gun-based action RPG, though it was executed far worse than it should have been--and that poor execution is analogous to the BXR heyday of Halo 2. Good base, poor execution.

TL;DR: Halo is an out-and-out FPS, one that single-handedly changed the FPS genre; Mass Effect had a strong base for an third-person action RPG, but mishandled the delivery.

 

[cerebreturns]

I loved ME1s combat, was actually a rpg, not a hybrid action shooter.

That being said I don't think 2/3s combat is bad...it's just much simpler and less tactical, it does flow a lot better and seem more stylistic and moveish though.

 

[BrotherRool]

i dont understand why everyone hates the story of mass effect 2. i personally found it to have the most interesting story of the series

I don't get it either. It was more self-contained and character driven so maybe that's why. I thought it was great because it was so character driven. It's the best game in the series. It improved almost everything and it expanded Mass Effect universe a lot.

It depends how you're defining story. ME2 has the best characters and character stories of all the games (although ME3 improved the awful Bioware relationship system to a point that created some better individual moments) but the main plot is awful at best with the Collectors fitting really poorly into any place in the trilogy and a lot of silly forced conflict. (No-one considered maybe taking a picture of that dead Reaper to show to the council? No-one thought that maybe you could shuttle a council member over to the Collector base and then the council would assemble a force to stop Cerberus taking control? You spend the whole game harvesting Reaper tech to improve your chances in the upcoming battle and then suddenly there's a point where it's bad to do this again. ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL. etc)

And Cerberus fits really badly into the canon of ME. I loved the Illusive Man but that was because I hadn't played the game where you see his organisation trying to turn your friends and allies into cockroach-human hybrids and I can fully understand why people hate being forced to work with them from that perspective. I always thought they were more like the IRA or something and less like the mad scientists they turned out to be in ME1.


But the plot of ME1 is also stupid (worst beginning plot to a game I've ever played) and the plot to ME3 is...yeah. So ME2 does a really good job of doing fun things with fun characters and if you're calling that the story (which is fair enough) then in my opinion it really is the best of the series. (ME1 has better world building though. Even if the dialogue that does it is dumb, with Shepard asking really stupid questions that she should already know)

 

[Mikeyfell]

Mass Effect 2 had better combat because the Biotic and Tech powers were...uh, what's the word...Useable.
ME1's biotic and tech powers were about as useful as farting on your TV, The Sniper was the only half decent weapon on the higher difficulties, after you dumped all your experience into your pistol and sniper and equipped a couple heat syncs there was no situation you couldn't shoot your way out of by holding down the trigger.

ME2 had a much bigger range of actual worthwhile combat strategies.
And Mass Effect 3 was an unplayable broken mess with controls designed by dog without a brain that didn't understand the concept of buttons.

 

[repeating integers]

I will say I very much appreciate how, in ME1, biotic powers went through shields as if they weren't there like they are supposed to do. In the followup games the devs apparently decided game balance was more important than actually adhering to the game's internal lore and made shields block biotics, which is shit.

 

[Exius Xavarus]

The only thing I really appreciated about ME1's combat was the fact that the sniper rifle actually moved around when you were zoomed in. It does bother me a bit in games the way you can have a sniper rifle with the strongest scope in the game, and somehow in the middle of combat without any iron sighting you can hold that sucker perfectly still. In ME1 it felt like using the sniper rifle actually took some effort and finesse, rather than just feeling like a more accurate version of every other gun with a longer cooldown.

Everything else sucked, though. The upgrading system was totally convoluted and took way too long to mess with.

While movement on the sniper rifle was nice for realism, I felt like it was too much. Shepard was even more unsteady than Leon Kennedy, and that was pretty unstable. It was a nice feature, but in battle or not, sitting there while holding out the sniper rifle, Shepard waves half a foot, if not more, in either direction. It hurts the realism, for me, when I can hold it steadier under the same conditions as an untrained civilian, than a highly trained commander. :/ Unless all the areas Shep and Gang go to are very, very windy.

I honestly thought ME1 had the weakest combat of all three games. To be brutally honest, I thought ME2 had the best combat of the trio. The universal cooldowns sucked, sure, but ME2 was so much more fast-paced. ME3 even more fast-paced. I loved it to bits, but with something they're trying to turn primarily into a shooter, I like streamlined RPG mechanics more, as opposed to more in-depth RPG mechanics. That's not to say I didn't like them, though. If they'd balanced it out I think an RPG shooter is quite viable.

In ME1's case, however...no. Tech is absolutely worthless. The only Tech abilities even remotely worth it are Overload and, to a lesser extend, AI Hacking. Although AI Hacking didn't do much for me. But with Tech being worthless, I had no reason to bring anyone that specializes in it. As a Sentinel, I was greatly disappointed. Because all I did was cast Overload to break their shield and fire off with my nerf pistol. That's literally about it. I'd use Warp on occasion but not very much. Sure, ME1 had potential, but I don't think it was executed very well(this is ignoring all the bugs I constantly experience that really really hampered my experience).