It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
thelovebat: With Shepard he can do shotgun diplomacy to convince them The Reapers are more important business, you know Bioware is going to do this in ME3.
All depends on what your character did with Tali and Legion in ME2, the results will be imported to ME3. I'm hoping for a Quarian and Geth fleet to join me in kerb-stomping some Husks.
avatar
SebasM: I keep hearing this from other gamers but I simply can not understand it in any way. I don't want to argue your opinion, just to understand it. I can not find one gameplay aspect in which ME2 is not better than its predecessor.
avatar
Jarmo: I liked having lot's of different equipment and armour for the team, not just "+1 but looks the same" tripe. It was just stupid for one guy to wear huge armour while the other go around in bikinis but gets the same protection.

I liked exploring the planets on mako. Could have been more variation there, could have been done better. Instead we got a "rub this planet until you find the magic spot". Some like this better because it takes less time. Boring as hell busywork but takes less time.

I don't like the "skulk behind a conveniently placed obstacle and then return fire" combat that's the combat meme of the past few years.

Limited ammo, is not realistic if it's done like: "You can only carry 7 clips for your SMG because it's the rule, but you can also carry a machine gun and 7 clips for that, so no worries." It's just a gameplay limitation, and an annoying one at that.

Simply, all of these are just steps from standard CRPG mechanics towards standard FPS mechanics, and I much prefer the former.
Not only that, but limited ammo goes directly against codex entries from ME1 describing how ammunition works.

Without unlimited ammo, the sniper rifle is a useless weapon in ME2.