302 réponses à ce sujet

[Darth Drago]

ME3 Will likely be a shorter game than ME2 was and considering how much shorter ME2 was compared to ME1 thats not good.

The so called final battle against the Reapers will be as cheesy as the final battle in ME2 the only difference is you’ll end up having to upload a hybrid genophage computer virus that will somehow spread through all the Reapers.

I do not want to have more stupid questions in my dialog asking “what is the genophage?” for example again in ME3. This kind of crap should have been just left in a codex entry.

Any time that is spent retelling what happened in the first 2 games is wasted development time that could be used to do something like actually making a epic game rather than another so-so one that could have been made by anyone.

Look at Bungie and their Halo trilogy for how a game developer makes a solid game trilogy. One that frankly blows away everything that Mass Effect could ever have hoped to have been now.

[Lord Coake]

Did you just say that Mass Effect isn't as good as Halo? I bet you were surprised at Halos attempt at a "plot twist" too, weren't you?

[Dick Delaware]

EAWare_amirite wrote...

"I thought ME1 was pretty good, but there are some serious rose-coloured goggles being worn on this thread."

Odd how it is more acceptable around here to say you like KOTOR or BG2 over ME2, but if someone says they liked ME1 more accusations of nostalgia or rose-tinted glasses get thrown around.
I recently got ME1 after ME2, I think ME1 kicks ass and is better than ME2 so far.
Saren is pretty cool.

I am one of those weird folks that didn't think KotOR I was that great. I loved it when I was 13, and it was my first RPG, but looking back, it was hardly brilliant. It had only one decision that actually mattered, a slew of unlikeable or annoying characters, and that painfully black-and-white Star Wars setting and morality. For all it's flaws, I preferred Obsidian's deconstruction of the whole Force thing, despite the cluserf*ck of an ending.

If you like ME1 better than ME2, great, there were some things that were legitimately better about it, like the main story. The antagonist is very cool too, Harbinger in the second part was lacking. The overall writing, exploration of themes (Mordin and Legion regarding technology) and characters are better in the second one and set up some great moral dilemmas, IMO. But some of the complaints really are romanticising the first game - the driving sections suddenly were good and added a lot to the game, the sidequests were all of a sudden interesting despite being set on identical worlds with one method of completion (combat), and it ignores that ME1 was way more linear and your choices mattered less than in ME2.

And let's not even get into how people call the character system in ME2 "dumbed-down", as if the original had some sort of complex character system with a variety of viable builds. Your Soldier Shepard looks almost identical to my Soldier Shepard. Yeah, maybe some innovation is warranted, but I much prefer the abilities and powers of the second game.

In ME2, doing loyalty quests, who you pick for certain tasks, actually matters. Also, there are a few dialogue-based missions like Samara and Thane's, which were excellent. In ME1, there was far too much filler combat in between the dialogue. While this exists in the sequel with it's abundance of chest-high walsl, it's not nearly as prevalent as it was in the original.

Modifié par Dick Delaware, 20 avril 2010 - 08:23 .

[Darth Drago]

Lord Coake wrote...

Did you just say that Mass Effect isn't as good as Halo? I bet you were surprised at Halos attempt at a "plot twist" too, weren't you?

-As a trilogy story yes, Halo blows away Mass Effect in keeping with game design/mechanics, lore and story from one game to the next. That says a lot since it the first 2 games were also on an older game system when it came to game design/mechanics thath they could have done for the final game.

What’s BioWares excuse? Butcher or drastically change game mechanics, gameplay and lore in the first sequel.

Plot twists, whoopee. ME2 had one that I wouldn't have called a big one about the Collectors true origin. Anyone who played ME1 wouldn’t have likely been shocked at that when you have the Keepers and their origin. Even the destined (probable) fate of humanity was all but told to you. Play Mordins recruiting and loyalty quests again with subtitles on for more on that.

Modifié par Darth Drago, 20 avril 2010 - 08:20 .

[EAWare_amirite]

"If you like ME1 better than ME2, great, there were some things that were legitimately better about it, like the main story. The antagonist is very cool too, Harbinger in the second part was lacking. The overall writing, exploration of themes (Mordin and Legion regarding technology) and characters are better in the second one and set up some great moral dilemmas, IMO. But some of the complaints really are romanticising the first game - the driving sections suddenly were good and added a lot to the game, the sidequests were all of a sudden interesting despite being set on identical worlds with one method of completion (combat), and it ignores that ME1 was way more linear and your choices mattered less than in ME2."



I can see issues with the level design and use of space in ME1 sidequests, so? I can also see similar issues in ME2 in levels and prop use. Repetition in gaming code and design is why games don't take up 5 discs on the 360. It is not me over looking it, they attempt to spruce up the places and the fact they are really the same basic level with moved around bits is a non-issue that is not negatively impacting my fun.

You would have to know if someone was a driving detractor back at ME1 launch that somehow changed their view. Driving isn't suddenly good; the people that liked it then, like it now. I prefer the wheeled tank with shields, machine guns, and active HUD.

Do you think the interest in ME1 is sudden? The game is grade A and I am loving it. I wish I got it back at launch instead of waiting. The game is not as bad as you are making it out and the positives about it are not sudden. I feel more confined and on rails when playing ME2, actually.

Few dialogue missions, don't you mean those were the only dialogue missions?

I am getting a good mix of dialogue and combat in ME1. ME2 the dialogue felt like it was getting in the way of combat if I wasn't on the Normandy. I haven't even beat ME1 yet and the game is feeling epic.

[Dick Delaware]

EAWare_amirite wrote...
I can see issues with the level design and use of space in ME1 sidequests, so? I can also see similar issues in ME2 in levels and prop use. Repetition in gaming code and design is why games don't take up 5 discs on the 360. It is not me over looking it, they attempt to spruce up the places and the fact they are really the same basic level with moved around bits is a non-issue that is not negatively impacting my fun.

That's fair.  However, it's not just the identical maps I have an issue with, it's the identical quest design of all the sidequests, apart for the ones that you can solve without travelling anywhere (i.e. the preaching hanar). Every single sidequest in ME1, you explore, take fifteen minutes to head to a generic copy-and-pasted bunker because you got stuck in a mountain range, then fight a whole bunch of mooks. Then, you have two minutes of dialogue afterwards. Now, some of this dialogue can be good, such as the Corporal Toombs sidequest, I just wish I didn't have to go through so much tediousness to get to it.

I'm not saying the N7 missions were anything special, but at least I didn't have to drive around a barren landscape just so that I could get to an identical destination. Instead, I'm dropped off right where I'm supposed to be.

I also thought the galaxy collection missions were just pointless nonsense fetch quests as well. I'm a Spectre hunting down a rouge agent who poses a threat to humanity, rummaging through some mummified salarian's corpse seems pretty benath me. However, that being said, I enjoyed a lot of the side quests that did not involve travel (i.e. Snap Inspection was hilarious, I Remember Me, etc.)

EAWare_amirite wrote...
You would have to know if someone was a driving detractor back at ME1 launch that somehow changed their view. Driving isn't suddenly good; the people that liked it then, like it now. I prefer the wheeled tank with shields, machine guns, and active HUD.

I didn't like it partially because of the controls, partially because of the slow pace and lack of any sort of tactics. It mostly amounted to shooting things with your turret and going up various ramps. I prefer to just be in front of where I need to be, with my powers and my abilities at my disposal. Fights on the Mako consisted of just firing the turret ==> wait to reload ==> hit jump to avoid incoming rucket ==> fire turret again ==> rinse and repeat.

EAWare_amirite wrote...
Do you think the interest in ME1 is sudden? The game is grade A and I am loving it. I wish I got it back at launch instead of waiting. The game is not as bad as you are making it out and the positives about it are not sudden. I feel more confined and on rails when playing ME2, actually.

I thought ME1 was pretty good as well. I liked it - wouldn't be posting here if I thought it sucked. I just think some folks aren't really being objective here.

The reason I feel so on-rails with ME1 is that it's basically BioWare's 4 Star Maps formula coming in again. Likewise, there are no consequences for inaction, even though the quest on your journal is marked "Race Against Time: Saren". In ME2, screwing around leads to some nasty consequences for your crew - yes, it can be gamed, but it's present.

EAWare_amirite wrote...
Few dialogue missions, don't you mean those were the only dialogue missions?
I am getting a good mix of dialogue and combat in ME1. ME2 the dialogue felt like it was getting in the way of combat if I wasn't on the Normandy. I haven't even beat ME1 yet and the game is feeling epic.

There were plenty of quests that offered a combination of great dialogue and combat. Mordin, Tali, Garrus, Legion, and Jacob's quest all had a mix of combat and plenty of well-written dialogue. Even a few of the more combat-centric ones, like Grunt's quest had some great bits around Tuchanka, or Zaeed's, particularly if you're playing renegade.

However, I also understand why some folks might like the first game better. And I think I speak for everyone when I say that it's completely essential for serious, ass-biting consequences to be front-and-center in ME3.

Modifié par Dick Delaware, 20 avril 2010 - 10:56 .

[Benji1306]

At the OP: BioWas has gone mainstream. You can deny it, or agree with it.. argue all you want, but its true

[Dick Delaware]

Benji1306 wrote...

At the OP: BioWas has gone mainstream. You can deny it, or agree with it.. argue all you want, but its true

BioWare has been mainstream for ages now. It's not like they were Troika Games or something.

Modifié par Dick Delaware, 20 avril 2010 - 09:26 .

[EAWare_amirite]

I'm not saying the N7 missions were anything special, but at least I didn't have to drive around a barren landscape just so that I could get to an identical destination. Instead, I'm dropped off right where I'm supposed to be.

N7 missions are less and even more limited to the same formula; kill crap for 3 min then move on. There are exceptions in both games. Although ME1 for me is seeming deeper, it touched on the topic of euthanasia. The content is just rich.



Rummaging for artifacts beneath you? Don't do it. I find it interesting and an additive for the lore Salarians are found in so many places researching, considering their short lifespans.



I prefer the Mako, a wheeled tank. Nowhere do I consider it beneficial to be "fast" travel. Fast is reserved for racing games not tank exploration. Saying a tank is slow, is redundant.



hit jump to avoid incoming rucket ==> fire turret again ==>; would be the min/max approach. I however am enjoying playing the game and don't feel the need to make it easier or simpler by using that tactic. Using that tactic is a choice that cheapens the game and is up to the player to us, not a fault of the mechanics are exploited.



The dialogue missions I have experienced in ME1 have been fun mini-puzzles, sadly I failed a few. The dialogue missions in 2 are not puzzles and have no alternate outcomes, just pick the responses and it will eventually get resolved. The interrogation in Thanes' loyalty is a great example of how simple the dialogue missions are.



The other dialogues in 2 are clearly derivatives of the dialogue ME1 has, only fewer in number. So far every main quest in ME1 has had a nice crew meeting on the Normandy to discuss what was found or done. Scenes like that are sparse in 2.

ME1 is just offering so much, I can feel the difference. ME2 sadly polished away too much.

[Srau]

Caught while exaggerating a little are we, no ?
I know you are only doing your job but that would be nice to not overestimate our credulity.

Modifié par Srau, 20 avril 2010 - 09:53 .

[J.G]

not going to lie kind of worried about ME3

[-Skorpious-]

Darth Drago wrote...


ME3 Will likely be a shorter game than ME2 was and considering how much shorter ME2 was compared to ME1 thats not good.

The so called final battle against the Reapers will be as cheesy as the final battle in ME2 the only difference is you’ll end up having to upload a hybrid genophage computer virus that will somehow spread through all the Reapers.

I do not want to have more stupid questions in my dialog asking “what is the genophage?” for example again in ME3. This kind of crap should have been just left in a codex entry.

Any time that is spent retelling what happened in the first 2 games is wasted development time that could be used to do something like actually making a epic game rather than another so-so one that could have been made by anyone.

Look at Bungie and their Halo trilogy for how a game developer makes a solid game trilogy. One that frankly blows away everything that Mass Effect could ever have hoped to have been now.

Factor in the all the recruitment/loyalty missions and ME2 is easily a much longer game than ME1; at least when comparing main story missions (I haven't tried adding time spent on sidequests for either game).

And I do in fact enjoy Halo as a series, but ME1 had more story, emotional responses from the player, and "wow" moments than the entire trilogy put together. Halo CE was the only Halo game that truly got the single-player campaign right; the two sequels focused too much on multiplayer to have memorable campaigns. 

J.G wrote...

not going to lie kind of worried about ME3

Usually the second act of most trilogies are the most controversial. With both ME and ME2 released, we have the opportunity to let Bioware know what aspect of which game we prefer more in ME3. Plus, we don't have to worry about importing ME3 decisions into ME4, as there will never be a ME4. This allows Bioware to take the story into any direction they desire without having to worry about future consequences.

Modifié par -Skorpious-, 20 avril 2010 - 10:15 .

[Terror_K]

Jebel Krong wrote...

they were completely minor parts of the game - mass effect 2 had many more major missions - all the plot worlds and the loyalty quests, meant that you didn't need to rely on very minor characters on N7 missions for any consequence going forward. i know which one i prefer...

Yes... because the universe feels  oh so much more real and deep when the only choices and consequences relate to the main plot and absolutely nothing else that happens outside of that that effects anything <_<

I mean, seriously... why do you not want to be able to have your cake and eat it too like we could in ME1? That's not going to take anything away from the main-plot stuff we're already getting... it's just going to add more depth and give us more of a reason to do sidequests. What's the point in really doing them if there's no real pay-off? Usually in other RPGs the sidequests not only have a pay-off but are an interesting diversion from the main story and expand the universe. ME1 did this... ME2 almost failed utterly.

and conrad was a joke, nassana could (and maybe should) have been any asari with no change to gameplay/consequence.

Okay, Conrad was admittedly bugged, but at least the mission and content itself was cool. As for Nassana, in ME2
the dialogue and scene played out when you got to her quite differently if you had met her and whether you had done her sidequest or not than if you hadn't, which gave it three distinct variations. A random asari would have given you only one variation there. You say that main plot stuff is more important, but keep in mind that Nassana got more effort into her import stuff than Garrus did, who didn't change an iota whether you'd recruited him in the first game or not.

[Darth Drago]

-Skorpious- wrote...

Darth Drago wrote...


ME3 Will likely be a shorter game than ME2 was and considering how much shorter ME2 was compared to ME1 thats not good.

The so called final battle against the Reapers will be as cheesy as the final battle in ME2 the only difference is you’ll end up having to upload a hybrid genophage computer virus that will somehow spread through all the Reapers.

I do not want to have more stupid questions in my dialog asking “what is the genophage?” for example again in ME3. This kind of crap should have been just left in a codex entry.

Any time that is spent retelling what happened in the first 2 games is wasted development time that could be used to do something like actually making a epic game rather than another so-so one that could have been made by anyone.

Look at Bungie and their Halo trilogy for how a game developer makes a solid game trilogy. One that frankly blows away everything that Mass Effect could ever have hoped to have been now.

Factor in the all the recruitment/loyalty missions and ME2 is easily a much longer game than ME1; at least when comparing main story missions (I haven't tried adding time spent on sidequests for either game).

-Sorry but no, at least with my experience with both games.

ME1 playtimes:
63hours 02 minutes, 58 hours 10 minutes, 46 hours 32 minutes, 64 hours 33 minutes and 64 hours 32 minutes. -the last two games I will admit to messing around a bit more in (doing some research for some things).

ME2 playtimes: (only 4)
48 hours 44 minutes, 54 hours 15 minutes, 46 hours 22 minutes and 62 hours 54 minutes (this one includes the Hammerhead missions). All others just included Zaeed.  

I’m the type who doesn’t skip dialog on the first run through or just go directly to quest locations. I like to look around a bit and enjoy the setting.

Modifié par Darth Drago, 21 avril 2010 - 12:55 .

[KainrycKarr]

Does not bode well for continuation of LI and squadmates.

[DnVill]

Dick Delaware wrote...

Benji1306 wrote...

At the OP: BioWas has gone mainstream. You can deny it, or agree with it.. argue all you want, but its true

BioWare has been mainstream for ages now. It's not like they were Troika Games or something.

EA indoctrinating Bioware 

[screwoffreg]

I am curious what they define as stand alone, that is such a vague statement. If they mean completely in a vacuum from the other games, to the extreme they you could basically not even be aware its a trilogy at all...that means all the interactions in ME 3 will be very superficial...



I am not sure I get the philosophy behind this, to be honest. Other games have done sequels and the like while maintaining continuity...hell movies have been doing it for decades lol

[TJSolo]

screwoffreg wrote...

I am curious what they define as stand alone, that is such a vague statement. If they mean completely in a vacuum from the other games, to the extreme they you could basically not even be aware its a trilogy at all...that means all the interactions in ME 3 will be very superficial...

I am not sure I get the philosophy behind this, to be honest. Other games have done sequels and the like while maintaining continuity...hell movies have been doing it for decades lol

The fact it is a trilogy does not agree with being treated as a standalone. They wanted to address new customers in ME2 and still want to address new customers in ME3, at some point they need to close the doors and allow for proper continuation in the product.
Doing that will not bar people from coming in and trying to catch up but if they haven't joined the trilogy by that time it is obvious trying to widen the market appeal will just be more detrimental to the base of fans they have.

[Dick Delaware]

EAWare_amirite wrote...
N7 missions are less and even more limited to the same formula; kill crap for 3 min then move on. There are exceptions in both games. Although ME1 for me is seeming deeper, it touched on the topic of euthanasia. The content is just rich.

Yet, you can never even talk to Julia about the situation. It's still a very shallow quest, and it's hardly intelligent because it touches on euthanasia in a superficial manner. Using your logic, I could say that the quest with the dispute between the quarian and the volus over the credit chit is "deep" because it touches on racial stereotypes.

EAWare_amirite wrote...
I prefer the Mako, a wheeled tank. Nowhere do I consider it beneficial to be "fast" travel. Fast is reserved for racing games not tank exploration. Saying a tank is slow, is redundant.

It would be better if it was faster, but that's not my point. My point is that it was a pain in the ass to traverse around mountains, planets were barren, and it took way too long to get anywhere. Travelling around was tedious filler without the interesting exploration of say, a Fallout 3, flawed as it was. Even though your moving speed was way too slow in F3, there were some pretty cool spots with a variety of enemies, interesting level designs and the occasional interesting bit to read there.

EAWare_amirite wrote...
hit jump to avoid incoming rucket ==> fire turret again ==>; would be the min/max approach. I however am enjoying playing the game and don't feel the need to make it easier or simpler by using that tactic. Using that tactic is a choice that cheapens the game and is up to the player to us, not a fault of the mechanics are exploited.

I can't believe that you're conflating using the only tactics on the Mako that work with min/max powergaming.

This is just absurd. So you're saying that because the Mako mechanics suck so bad that I can exploit them so easily by jumping and shooting, that I'm "cheapening the game"? My point was that there are no tactical options from the Mako and that combat on it is far more boring than combat on foot. Glad to see we agree there.

EAWare_amirite wrote...
The dialogue missions I have experienced in ME1 have been fun mini-puzzles, sadly I failed a few. The dialogue missions in 2 are not puzzles and have no alternate outcomes, just pick the responses and it will eventually get resolved. The interrogation in Thanes' loyalty is a great example of how simple the dialogue missions are.

There are a few ways to do the interrogation, whether you want to go good cop/ bad cop. The result is still the same, but there is variety.

You can fail some of the dialogue-based missions, and sometimes there are multiple outcomes. In Samara's quest, if you bring up Family, Justicars, or you bore Morinth, she will leave and you can't get Samara's Loyalty. Likewise, if you get Morinth alone, you can side with her if you feel she's more useful than Samara, provided you've withstood her attempts to control your mind.

There are a few ways things can go with Tali. You can fail to get her loyalty if you sell her father out because the Flotilla becomes divided. You can also gain her loyalty at the expense of her getting exiled, get Veetor and Kal'Reegar from the crowd to speak out against the trial, and obviously, use negotiation if you have the appropriate paragon/renegade points. I admit, it's silly that it comes down to clicking on the shiny button if you have enough karma points, but there are plenty of options, and this exact same thing was prevalent in ME1 too.

I'd prefer a lack of karma score to begin with, but that's a different topic altogether.

EAWare_amirite wrote...
The other dialogues in 2 are clearly derivatives of the dialogue ME1 has, only fewer in number. So far every main quest in ME1 has had a nice crew meeting on the Normandy to discuss what was found or done. Scenes like that are sparse in 2.
ME1 is just offering so much, I can feel the difference. ME2 sadly polished away too much.

There are overall more lines of dialogue in the sequel than in ME1:

www.rpgsite.net/articles/152/189/mark-meer-interview.html

Mark Meer: I spent most of last summer recording my ME2 dialogue - it's HUGE. I'd
estimate I spent at least twice as much time in the booth as I did for
the first game.

I can't find it right now, but I've read sources that say ME2 had overall more lines of dialogue than the first game did. I'll try to get that when I'm feeling less lazy. Anyway, this seems to be true based on my experience playing both games.

Modifié par Dick Delaware, 21 avril 2010 - 03:03 .

[screwoffreg]

Well technically Baldurs Gate II was "stand alone" in that you didn't need to play the first game...



The again, they never made the promise that anything but your PC would carry over...

[Dick Delaware]

screwoffreg wrote...
I am curious what they define as stand alone, that is such a vague statement. If they mean completely in a vacuum from the other games, to the extreme they you could basically not even be aware its a trilogy at all...that means all the interactions in ME 3 will be very superficial...

It is vague. Technically, of course it's standalone - obviously you don't need ME1 and ME2 to play ME3. I think there's a bit of overreaction going on here since we really don't know what standalone means, but some of the concerns are justified.

screwoffreg wrote...
I am not sure I get the philosophy behind this, to be honest. Other
games have done sequels and the like while maintaining
continuity...hell movies have been doing it for decades lol

Completely different situation. A movie is linear. Likewise, game sequels are also linear since they establish a canon from previous games. Mass Effect is different in that it's an RPG without a set canon, which means that it's interactive and that there are choices and consequences which will change the story as you go along. The end point might be the same (it's hard to imagine an ending of ME3 where you're not fighting the Reapers, since that's what the whole series is about), but you could have diverging paths in between that differ greatly.

Fallout 1 is a great example of this. Yeah, you end up meeting the Master, but how you eventually get to him can vary.

The issue here isn't whether ME3 is going to be a sequel or a continuation from ME2 - of course it's going to be a continuation. The issue is whether our choices in the previous games will have significant consequences in terms of the content that you experience.

Modifié par Dick Delaware, 21 avril 2010 - 03:01 .

[Darth Drago]

Dick Delaware wrote...

There are overall more lines of dialogue in the sequel than in ME1:

www.rpgsite.net/articles/152/189/mark-meer-interview.html

Mark Meer: I spent most of last summer recording my ME2 dialogue - it's HUGE. I'd
estimate I spent at least twice as much time in the booth as I did for
the first game.

I can't find it right now, but I've read sources that say ME2 had overall more lines of dialogue than the first game did. I'll try to get that when I'm feeling less lazy. Anyway, this seems to be true based on my experience playing both games.

-Obviously, since there is also a crap load of full motion video cut scenes in ME2.

[screwoffreg]

Well, I know Bioware has said they are well aware of users request to flesh out more RPG elements. Even so, ME is primarily a shooter first, the founders of the company have said as much...



I have faith ME 3 will be a good game though. Whether it will be great remains to be seen.

[kraidy1117]

ME was not longer then ME2 ME with everything done and all things found on the uncharted planets took me 35 hours.



ME2 with everything done took me 55 hours. Sigh, some times people go overboard.

[EAWare_amirite]

Yeah Julia was in a state to "talk" about the situation...

Who needs to have a diatribe about euthanasia in a game? It was touched on, I didn't need anymore else then what I got to appreciate it.

Hmm, racial stereotyping is one of the constant background ideas for ME. The chit does not stand out because of it.

Who the hell is talking about logic, I am talking about preference.

I never said the Mako was bad, again I prefer it as the vehicle for combat and exploration. I only denounced the min/max tactics because they are cheap and lessen my fun when playing games. I don't like exploiting or cheating when I am playing for fun.

No, I didn't get Oblivion in space. I am sad about that BUT the Mako , planets, and vistas make up for it. You don't feel there was exlporation? Did we play the same game? Are you discounting the feels the game offered on your first playthrough? Cause I am on a first playthrough and loving it. The ambience and scale is so crisply somber at times.



The interrogation ends the same way no matter what you do and their is no way to fail it. It is not a dialogue puzzle like some of the encounters ME1 has. It feels more like a long Quick Time Event.



"There are overall more lines of dialogue in the sequel than in ME1:"

Let me see, the number would be 30% more dialogue but 50% more characters, which is an actual loss of dialogue.

Why do you feel the need to dissect my enjoyement of ME1 and counter every positive point I put out?

This goes back to my first post here, I could say I liked KOTOR or BG2 more than ME2 but saying I like ME1 more causes so much flack. So odd.

ME1 is more fun for me. That is all.