253 réponses à ce sujet

[Cascadus]

I'm of opinion they're fairly evenly matched. ME1 did some things better than ME2, and ME2 did some things better than ME1 and made more questionable design choices that did not need to be changed and left ME1 better in that aspect.
But I will mention trying to fling Metacritic at people is really friggin' pointless. Going 'Metacritic rates it higher so it's better!' is ridiculous. Especially saying that if it sells better than it's predecessor than it's automatically better. If t were the case, Modern Warfare 2 would be considered a good game. You could easily point out that higher sales might have more to do with a more mainstream approach to the game or the stronger advertising campaign rather than being a better game.

Modifié par Cascadus, 27 avril 2010 - 03:58 .

[BatarianBob]

It shouldn't be a "vs" type of thing.



They should team up to beat the crap out of Dragon Age.

[Sevrun]

I posted something over in the ME3 wishlist that would be very well suited here, but since I don't know how to link it properly I'll simply resort to the old fashioned cut/paste technique. 

The changes for Mass Effect between 1 and 2 were pretty substantial, and I won't lie, I'm not happy with every single change that was made.  However, I am happy with the game overall.


  1.  I don't like how the Thermal clips work, I think you should only have to dump it if you overheat it.  I overlook that one because of a bug I'd get on my 2nd playthrough and later where my weapons would get STUCK overheated.

 
2.  I liked some of the vehicle areas, but not the controls...  it gave you an opportunity to see so much more of the planet even if you never actually went there.

  3.  The inventory system in the first one was admittedly a bit inconvenient at times, but I don't care for how
they did the equipment in the second either, it's all percentage adjustments to either my hp, or tech powers or some other thing.  I have to as when the armor stopped actually protecting my furry butt (ugly image, but you'll live) and just became a stat booster?  Those bullets they're shooting at me aren't going to deplete my ability to storm a
location until I'm dead, which makes those fancy leg-plates kinda useless.  I DO however like that I have to actually go to my armory (or quarters) to change out my armor or weapons.  I just wish I had more than perhaps 3 choices for any given area of armor (head, chest, etc.)  Following up on a game that had such a VAST abundance of different
items, which lent the galaxy the feel of a much larger place with so many companies competing you're left with what feels like almost NOTHING for equipment.  That's staggering.

  4.  The powers in 2...  probably my biggest complaint right there.  Leaves me feeling like the game was designed for a console first and tucked onto the PC as a sidenote.  Or that they may have thought having.... what 8 or 9 powers
per character was overboard?  Not sure on the exact count from ME1 since it's been a while since I've fired it up.

  5.  I have to say that in the technical department, ME2 is superior in many ways and it expands upon the story beautifully.  But I didn't care for feeling cramped on mission after mission.  Yeah, if you take an honest look at
the missions in ME1, they were pretty linear.  But somehow they managed to maintain a feeling of being a part of a larger place, and that feeling just isn't there in ME2.  I was nearly struck dumb by just how flimsy my armor in the first one looked after having played the second. Then I realized I was looking at medium armor

Overall, Mass Effect 2 was designed to be simpler.  Why bother buying armor upgrades when they really don't matter?  I saw only slight effects of researching weapons upgrades (likely vital in Hardcore/Insanity modes, but I have
to avoid intense stress)  so a large portion of even the simplified game can be safely tucked by the wayside.  Part of me just shrugs and says that's what you get for trying to make console (Xbox) gamers more comfortable with the game.  But I am still able to recognize when I'm being biased, and since I do not like the Xbox at all, that's likely my
predjudiced view talking.

  So I'm left wondering...

Why? 
My son is 4 years old.  He's fully capable of playing and beating Mass Effect 2.  He can make the character run, he can make the character shoot, and that's really all you have to do if you turn on auto level-up and play a soldier.  The conversations would slow him down until he realized the fastest way past them and back to the shooting.  Gear
doesn't seem to matter, so why bother with it?

  I know this is starting to sound like a bash ME2 post, but it isn't meant that way, I do enjoy the game.  But these are questions that have bugged me ever since I started playing the game right after release.  It is probably simpler to sum it up like this...  They put so much work into the framework of the game, but didn't put nearly enough meat on it's bones to be worth that much effort.

  ME1 had this almost overwhelming feel of you having been thrust into a galaxy far, far away (don't think
that old Bastard has trademarked that yet ) with all the depth and
complexity that came with such a journey.  ME2 makes me feel like a NY
city carriage horse with those funny blinders on so that I can only see
what's right in front of me.  When I step back from playing ME2 and look
at how it's built, I can almost see this great skeletal creature...
starved for content.

I think they've gotten a lot right and wrong.  Equipment management right... amount available or lack of real influence of it... wrong.  The vastness of the story, from the opening scene to how your friends have grown or changed...  F*in RIGHT!  and the sudden compression of the galaxy in upon you...  wrong.  Many of my complaints I would not have noticed (except the lack of equipment variety) had it not borne the name Mass Effect.
  I am both hopeful and nervous about the third installment, I'm hopeful that they'll bring back some of the expansive _feel_ of the first and nervous for just how simplified ME2 has become and I do not wish to see them continue that path.  Yes, ME1 needed some simplification but I feel they overdid it.

 
I'll shut the heck up now.

Modifié par Sevrun, 27 avril 2010 - 05:43 .

[Zinoviy]

1. There is no "debate"; both games are composed of different elements and strategic story-telling. Anything given by the community is purely opinion and should be acknowledged as such(but, oddly enough, never is:huh:).

2. Everything regarding both games has been hashed out. Again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.



And again.

Ending note, I love both BioWare and the Mass Effect universe they've created.

[Sevrun]

lol I always tell people when I'm giving my opinion or observable 'fact' which is potentially disproven And don't worry, we'll keep attacking this stuff with a potato masher until LOOOOONG after ME3 is here and gone. lmao

[AlanC9]

Sevrun wrote...
Why? 
My son is 4 years old.  He's fully capable of playing and beating Mass Effect 2.  He can make the character run, he can make the character shoot, and that's really all you have to do if you turn on auto level-up and play a soldier.  The conversations would slow him down until he realized the fastest way past them and back to the shooting.  Gear
doesn't seem to matter, so why bother with it?

But then he could win ME1 too, if he could just learn how to equip the newest armor and weapons. It's not like ME1 equipment was something that required strategy.

[Sevrun]

AlanC9 wrote...

Sevrun wrote...
Why? 
My son is 4 years old.  He's fully capable of playing and beating Mass Effect 2.  He can make the character run, he can make the character shoot, and that's really all you have to do if you turn on auto level-up and play a soldier.  The conversations would slow him down until he realized the fastest way past them and back to the shooting.  Gear
doesn't seem to matter, so why bother with it?

But then he could win ME1 too, if he could just learn how to equip the newest armor and weapons. It's not like ME1 equipment was something that required strategy.

Very true, but that wasn't the only simplifaction I was pointing out either.

[ObserverStatus]

vhatever wrote...

ME2> Me1

Wrex is kroganese for sux.

You go to hell and you die!

[Sevrun]

Nice one Bobo but don't let Vhat get to ya, he/she just likes trying to get under people's skin

[ObserverStatus]

Yeah, I know, I'm just always looking for an excuse to post that.

[Ryzaki]

DarthCaine wrote...

http://social.biowar...596/polls/1670/



/thread

...did you fail to notice the fact that Mass Effect has more  nearly  2x the amount of reviewers? 

Plus let's see how high ME2 scores are when ME3 comes out and that new car smell has gone away.

Edit: No I'm not saying Me2 is a bad game. It's a great game. But its not OMG sooo much better than ME1.

...truth be told that's more personal preference.

Ah blast it this is why I stay out of these threads.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 27 avril 2010 - 07:08 .

[Massadonious1]

ME1 for the story, ME2 for the gameplay.



That's about as simple as I can put it without getting into the details.

[LtRadczek]

Sevrun wrote...

I posted something over in the ME3 wishlist that would be very well suited here, but since I don't know how to link it properly I'll simply resort to the old fashioned cut/paste technique. 

The changes for Mass Effect between 1 and 2 were pretty substantial, and I won't lie, I'm not happy with every single change that was made.  However, I am happy with the game overall.


  1.  I don't like how the Thermal clips work, I think you should only have to dump it if you overheat it.  I overlook that one because of a bug I'd get on my 2nd playthrough and later where my weapons would get STUCK overheated.

 
2.  I liked some of the vehicle areas, but not the controls...  it gave you an opportunity to see so much more of the planet even if you never actually went there.

  3.  The inventory system in the first one was admittedly a bit inconvenient at times, but I don't care for how
they did the equipment in the second either, it's all percentage adjustments to either my hp, or tech powers or some other thing.  I have to as when the armor stopped actually protecting my furry butt (ugly image, but you'll live) and just became a stat booster?  Those bullets they're shooting at me aren't going to deplete my ability to storm a
location until I'm dead, which makes those fancy leg-plates kinda useless.  I DO however like that I have to actually go to my armory (or quarters) to change out my armor or weapons.  I just wish I had more than perhaps 3 choices for any given area of armor (head, chest, etc.)  Following up on a game that had such a VAST abundance of different
items, which lent the galaxy the feel of a much larger place with so many companies competing you're left with what feels like almost NOTHING for equipment.  That's staggering.

  4.  The powers in 2...  probably my biggest complaint right there.  Leaves me feeling like the game was designed for a console first and tucked onto the PC as a sidenote.  Or that they may have thought having.... what 8 or 9 powers
per character was overboard?  Not sure on the exact count from ME1 since it's been a while since I've fired it up.

  5.  I have to say that in the technical department, ME2 is superior in many ways and it expands upon the story beautifully.  But I didn't care for feeling cramped on mission after mission.  Yeah, if you take an honest look at
the missions in ME1, they were pretty linear.  But somehow they managed to maintain a feeling of being a part of a larger place, and that feeling just isn't there in ME2.  I was nearly struck dumb by just how flimsy my armor in the first one looked after having played the second. Then I realized I was looking at medium armor

Overall, Mass Effect 2 was designed to be simpler.  Why bother buying armor upgrades when they really don't matter?  I saw only slight effects of researching weapons upgrades (likely vital in Hardcore/Insanity modes, but I have
to avoid intense stress)  so a large portion of even the simplified game can be safely tucked by the wayside.  Part of me just shrugs and says that's what you get for trying to make console (Xbox) gamers more comfortable with the game.  But I am still able to recognize when I'm being biased, and since I do not like the Xbox at all, that's likely my
predjudiced view talking.

  So I'm left wondering...

Why? 
My son is 4 years old.  He's fully capable of playing and beating Mass Effect 2.  He can make the character run, he can make the character shoot, and that's really all you have to do if you turn on auto level-up and play a soldier.  The conversations would slow him down until he realized the fastest way past them and back to the shooting.  Gear
doesn't seem to matter, so why bother with it?

  I know this is starting to sound like a bash ME2 post, but it isn't meant that way, I do enjoy the game.  But these are questions that have bugged me ever since I started playing the game right after release.  It is probably simpler to sum it up like this...  They put so much work into the framework of the game, but didn't put nearly enough meat on it's bones to be worth that much effort.

  ME1 had this almost overwhelming feel of you having been thrust into a galaxy far, far away (don't think
that old Bastard has trademarked that yet ) with all the depth and
complexity that came with such a journey.  ME2 makes me feel like a NY
city carriage horse with those funny blinders on so that I can only see
what's right in front of me.  When I step back from playing ME2 and look
at how it's built, I can almost see this great skeletal creature...
starved for content.

I think they've gotten a lot right and wrong.  Equipment management right... amount available or lack of real influence of it... wrong.  The vastness of the story, from the opening scene to how your friends have grown or changed...  F*in RIGHT!  and the sudden compression of the galaxy in upon you...  wrong.  Many of my complaints I would not have noticed (except the lack of equipment variety) had it not borne the name Mass Effect.
  I am both hopeful and nervous about the third installment, I'm hopeful that they'll bring back some of the expansive _feel_ of the first and nervous for just how simplified ME2 has become and I do not wish to see them continue that path.  Yes, ME1 needed some simplification but I feel they overdid it.

 
I'll shut the heck up now.

Ok, I think that this is more along the lines of what the OP wants to see, so I'll respond.

1. I've never run into this thermal clip glitch, but yea, canon-wise, thermal clips are awful. Gameplay-wise, they make sense within the shooter genre, which is what this game is much more geared towards than ME1. I'm not bothered at all by the inclusion of ammo, since I play a lot of shooters, (Big xbox fan) but what I would really like to see for ME3 would be a combination of the thermal clip system from ME2 with the overheat system of ME1. Something like, you have a certain amount of 'heatsinks' you can carry, but you only really need to use them if your gun overheats. Now, guns would stay hot for longer than they did in ME1, so using a heatsink would be better, but you still have to manage your 'ammo.' Something along those lines.

2. I feel like I'm one of the few people that really enjoyed the Mako sections in ME1. They made the universe seem so huge and daunting, and the emptiness of the planets really gave you a sense that the galaxy is a big, lonely place. I was excited to hear about the Hammerhead addition, but ultimately I felt disappointed by it, simply because of the lack of exploration. Gimme ME1 uncharted worlds with ME2's hammerhead, and I'd be in heaven.

3. Honestly, I don't really understand why so many people say that there are so few weapons in ME2 compared to ME1. I'm aware that there a ridiculous amount of VARIANTS in ME1, but that's all they were. Variants. There was only two different gun models for each weapon class, meaning only 8 gun models, in the entire game. Sure they all had different colors, and had wildly different stats, but they all functioned exactly the same as the others. And no, I don't really count overheating and accuracy rates to be functioning differently. Now, in ME2, all the guns function MUCH differently, and they all have certain advantages and disadvantages over their counterparts, that none of them are redundant. For instance, take the shotguns. You have a single-shot shotgun with lots of power, to a rapid fire shotgun with 8 rounds in a clip, and everything in between, to suit your playstyle. And then there are heavy weapons. Dear lord these things are awesome. I don't care if Fallout 3 did it first, but goddamn do I love my mini-nuke launcher! And don't even get me started on the Blackstorm! Also, in ME1, I found the different ammo types to be redundant, as there was barely any noticible differences between them besides bullet color and kill effect. Plus, in ME2, I don't have to worry about forgetting to change my ammo powers for certain situations, as the symbol shows up on my gun! (You have no idea how much I forgot to change ammo types in ME1)

4. Ok, I think the limited powers thing is because there were alot of annoying stats in ME1. I hated how my character sucks at using every gun until you level up his stats for each specific gun. Shepard is a fully trained soldier! He should be able to pick up any gun at any time, and be able to use it effectively. However, I do miss my charm and intimidate skills. I've heard alot of people who missed dialogue options because their paragon/renegade scores weren't high enough. But anyways, I don't mind either system, but it would be cool if in ME3, they combined both systems.

5. Ok, I think the reason why ME1 "felt" alot bigger, was simply because of immersion. For instance, where there would be an in game elevator ride, in ME2, there would be a load screen instead. All the load screens where you are going from place to place completely breaks the immersion, and makes it feel as if you are just teleported into the next area willy nilly, whereas in ME1, you actually saw Shepard being transported from area to area. Also, the hub worlds in ME1 were huge compare to ME2. For example, Noveria. That place was great because there were a lot of CONNECTED areas, (In other words, no load screens in between these areas) and because there were alot more NPCs. Not only that, but there were more NPCs that actually talked to you. And the whole thing where you have to deal with Anoleas before you even begin the main quest of going to the research place was great because you could go about this any way you wanted. Plus, there were usually so many side quests in the hub worlds, like on Feros. You could choose to get the whole colony functioning again, while simultaneously dealing with the Geth. There was just so much to do!

So yea, sorry for the long post. I was hoping this would be the sort of discussion the OP was looking for?

Also, sorry if some of this doesn't make sense. It's about 3 am right now, so bear with me!

Modifié par LtRadczek, 27 avril 2010 - 07:54 .

[Terror_K]

Darth_Trethon wrote...

I wasn't flinging poo I was flinging facts.....and I provided a definite resolution to the argument. Sure there may be people who will continue to remain in severe denial of facts but both the sales and scores of ME2 leave no doubt about which is better.....and better by a long shot at that.

Using that logic we could say that GTA IV, Modern Warfare 2, Gears of War, Halo 3, etc. are all better games too. And these are mostly overly simplified titles lacking in any real depth and marketed at the masses. Even if ME2 is a "better game" that doesn't mean its a better RPG than the original, because its not. And that's not even going into the fact that the gaming media have been nothing but a sad joke over the past half a dozen years or so, handing out  9's and 10's left, right and centre. How many so-called professional critics lauded Modern Warfare 2 as genius, only to have thousands of players merely shrug and say it was "okay... not great" afterwards, despite the sales? And how come despite not getting quite as good review scores almost everybody has since said Bad Company 2 is a far superior game? What about GTA IV: one of the highest rated of the series, and yet there are many players who say its nowhere near as fun as the previous titles and sacrificed sandbox fun for ultra realism and an annoying cousin calling you every five minutes?

[Zulu_DFA]

Corehaven22 wrote...

ME 1 > ME 2

Totally agree.

Corehaven22 wrote...
ME 1 was a far larger game than 2. The story and plot was far better, instead of the " get companion, do companion mission, get another companion, do that companion mission, then do end game". The central plot was only a couple or three missions long, and the rest were side plots involving people you got for your ship.

Uh... this is not entirely correct... Compare:

ME1: 1) Eden Prime --> 2) Citadel --> 3) Feros --> 4) Noveria --> 5) Virmire --> 6) Therum --> 7) Ilos & Final battle

ME2: 1) Lazarus station --> 2) Freedom's Progress --> 3) Horizon --> 4) Collector ship --> 5) Derelict Reaper --> 6) Final Battle.

The problem is, without Mako rides and exploration element those missions feel much shorter. Same goes to the N7 missions. Some of them need 2 minutes to complete, while the UNC missions in ME1 took some time and... thinking (of course if you are capable of some) to work your way around mountain ridges...

Also, there is this middle part thing, which prohibitedn the developers to expand too much on the "BIG CHOICES" part. That's why the Council's role was downplayed and the plot delved deep in the squadmates' dirty laundry, which is, with some exceptions, quite irrelevant in the big picture.

Corehaven22 wrote...
Planet scanning was horrible. The Mako and planet side exploration was entirely absent, also making the game far shorter. A lot of people hated the Mako, but I loved it. It was a hell of a lot more fun than planet scanning, and for me it added an important level of immersion to exploring the universe.

Actually there was no such thing as mineral gathering in ME1. It was a completely optional sidequest. Commander Shepard was marking mineralrich spots in he Galaxy on behalf of the Alliance Geological Survey, for the miners to come later and dig the stuff. Resource gathering makes no sense genrewise (ME is anything but a strategy game) and plotwise (Cerberus spent 4 billion credits to revive Shepard and 20 to build the Normandy. I suppose they could lend Shepard some pocket money to just buy as much Eezo, a hee needs to make a few upgrades). This whole plannet scanning buisness is sick from the very start. And besides that, mining gas giants, seriously?

Corehaven22 wrote...
Armor and guns were barely there in comparison to the first game. Also making the game less content heavy.

Same here. Even though there were just a few models visually representing different guns, it felt like a big galaxy with all those manufacturers supplying all lines of weapons and equipment with different stats. And they were moddable! Ammo apgrades were ammo upgrades, not some silly enchantments that you are required to be of a specific class to attain!

Corehaven22 wrote...
So what ME 2 is in comparison to the first game is a highly dubbed down sequel that had about half the content of the first game if that. By content I mean items, story, locations, etc. All were severely downgraded.

In favor of a more fluent combat. Yeah , sure. Where are the enemy snipers? Support troops? Acid spitting creeps?
Actually I don't see how BioWare could even hope to make ME into a shooter of at least an equal quality as any "pure" shooter of the same budget.

Corehaven22 wrote...
While ME 2 is a fine game, it almost feels like a beefy expansion pack rather than a full fledged game. Except for the fact they took out half the stuff from the first game. You dont axe cool and important features unless they are broken. You improve on them and make them right. What they did instead was throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Even the music in ME1 was way better. It alone constituted a sense of epicness of an adventure among distant stars. In ME2 it's just a background noise.

On the bottom line, the only aspects, that were really improved since ME1 are the voice acting (not that it was bad in  ME1, but the Martin Sheen is Martin Sheen) and the juicy graphics.

[Zulu_DFA]

Terror_K wrote...

Darth_Trethon wrote...

I wasn't flinging poo I was flinging facts.....and I provided a definite resolution to the argument. Sure there may be people who will continue to remain in severe denial of facts but both the sales and scores of ME2 leave no doubt about which is better.....and better by a long shot at that.

Using that logic we could say that GTA IV, Modern Warfare 2, Gears of War, Halo 3, etc. are all better games too. And these are mostly overly simplified titles lacking in any real depth and marketed at the masses. Even if ME2 is a "better game" that doesn't mean its a better RPG than the original, because its not. And that's not even going into the fact that the gaming media have been nothing but a sad joke over the past half a dozen years or so, handing out  9's and 10's left, right and centre. How many so-called professional critics lauded Modern Warfare 2 as genius, only to have thousands of players merely shrug and say it was "okay... not great" afterwards, despite the sales? And how come despite not getting quite as good review scores almost everybody has since said Bad Company 2 is a far superior game? What about GTA IV: one of the highest rated of the series, and yet there are many players who say its nowhere near as fun as the previous titles and sacrificed sandbox fun for ultra realism and an annoying cousin calling you every five minutes?

Scores are a subjective thing, that is often influenced by certain entries in the product's budget... And the sales tell us that the Playboy & Hustler magazines constitute "better" trademarks, than any one videogame.

Seriously, when sombody states that sales and scores "prove" that ME2 is better than ME1, I take it the person can't say anything else to support their opinion.

Also I'm kinda curious what is the proportion between both games' costs and revenues. And also how much of the ME2 success is due to the ME1 success as opposed to ME2 own qualities / PR hype...

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 27 avril 2010 - 09:22 .

[uberdowzen]

Wow, it's almost like no one read the OP. Oh well, it was worth a try.

[Dethateer]

I'm curious: is there actually any point to this? It'll only end in annoyance for everyone participating, and exactly 0 minds changed/conclusions reached, just like every other thread on this.

[uberdowzen]

Dethateer wrote...

I'm curious: is there actually any point to this? It'll only end in annoyance for everyone participating, and exactly 0 minds changed/conclusions reached, just like every other thread on this.

Well, the idea was to try and avoid what happened in all the other threads by having a more structured debate. That pretty much went out the window. It's amazing how in 11 short hours this has devolved into "another one of the ME2 v ME1" threads. Depressing...

[Dethateer]

Hey, it's the internet. Expecting people to act in an orderly fashion is like expecting them not to run over each other to get out of a building on fire.

[uberdowzen]

Lol, I just checked, it actually went down hill by the third post.

[Costin_Razvan]

Ryzaki: Very few people ( with an actual brain mind you ) are saying ME2 is vastly superior to ME1. I miss the dark lighting ( compared to the Bright one of ME2 ), the Mako, the squad elevator chatter ( not the elevators themselves ), the wide planets ( as in how big Feros, Virmire etc. were to the ME2 planets )



I do not miss the generic planets of ME1 and the fail combat system, or the loot system.



That said take a look at metacritic.

[DarthCaine]

[quote]Costin_Razvan wrote...

Very few people ( with an actual brain mind you ) are saying ME2 is vastly superior to ME1[/quote]Oh, so having different opinions and tastes from yours makes me stupid ? I don't know why I even bother replying
[quote]the Mako[/quote]Yeah, driving around in nothingness and going up 90 degrees slopes just to get to an annoying minigame is awesome[/quote][quote]an the wide planets ( as in how big Feros, Virmire etc. were to the ME2 planets )[/quote]Feros compared to Tuchanka, Illium or Omega? Small
Virmire compared to any of above? Tiny

It's funny how these threads are made by the same few people and suddenly they think they're the majority

Modifié par DarthCaine, 27 avril 2010 - 10:13 .

[DarthCaine]

Terror_K wrote...

Darth_Trethon wrote...

I wasn't flinging poo I was flinging facts.....and I provided a definite resolution to the argument. Sure there may be people who will continue to remain in severe denial of facts but both the sales and scores of ME2 leave no doubt about which is better.....and better by a long shot at that.

Using that logic we could say that GTA IV, Modern Warfare 2, Gears of War, Halo 3, etc. are all better games too.

IMO:
ME2>=GTA4>ME1>MW2>Gears of War> Halo 3

Modifié par DarthCaine, 27 avril 2010 - 10:12 .

[Ryzaki]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Ryzaki: Very few people ( with an actual brain mind you ) are saying ME2 is vastly superior to ME1. I miss the dark lighting ( compared to the Bright one of ME2 ), the Mako, the squad elevator chatter ( not the elevators themselves ), the wide planets ( as in how big Feros, Virmire etc. were to the ME2 planets )

I do not miss the generic planets of ME1 and the fail combat system, or the loot system.

That said take a look at metacritic.

Ah true. *shrugs* I personally preferred Me1 and like I said this is mainly personal preference.

Also if we're going to use Metacritic as a ruler as to how "good" something is Halo is vastly superior to ME.

http://www.metacriti...xbx/halo?q=halo

as is RE4.

http://www.metacriti...2/residentevil4

And...some football game.

http://www.metacriti...s/drm/nfl2k1?q=

and Super Mario Galaxy. (oh who am I kidding SMG is the better game!)

http://www.metacriti...rmariogalaxy?q=


and Tekken 3.

http://www.metacriti.../psx/tekken3?q=

...hm...maybe tekken 3 is actuall better than ME. Might want to take that off.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 27 avril 2010 - 10:22 .