253 réponses à ce sujet

[uberdowzen]

I think people forget how linear ME1 was. If you consider the Feros colony to be a quest hub from ME2 than Feros (just as an example) is just as linear as any ME1 level. I think ME1's levels seem more non-linear than ME2's because you had the map in ME1. Just for the record:



*Eden Prime - Linear

*Therum - Linear

*Feros - Mostly Linear

*Virmire - Linear accept for (arguably) the assualt of Saren's research facility

*Noveria - Non Linear

*Second to last planet - Linear

*Finale - Linear

[Darth_Trethon]

ME1 was a great game IN ITS TIME. ME2 just makes it look like a pile of suck. The story in ME2 is far better, the main campaign is a lot better, fewer side quests but far superior in quality as opposed to the copy pasted approach to side quests of ME1 and the combat is far better. Hell even the planet scanning is better than the mako for one reason only.....you can avoid scanning through simple modding and still keep playing completionist playthroughs that are perfect for ME3 importing....nothing in a million years can help you avoid the mind numbing time wasting driving through mostly empty maps only to get to the same copy pasted buildings you've seen a trillion times.

[seraph313]

I don't mind doing twenty-hundred loyalty missions, since they don't look exactly the same, like ME1. However, it would have been cool if there was more interaction between NPC's like Wrex and your squad members, i.e. Tali, Garrus. Mining sucks, but its better than driving the Mako up a near vertical cliff, only to fall a billion feet and go up another.  Definitely better. And you dont have to mine EVERYTHING to get what you need.

The combat felt better. A little rainbow six-ish. Need more key-mapped powers.

The 'you might kill your whole squad' was a bit hyped up (not BioWare's fault), so it wasn't a surprise when one did (although I thought he was loyal, oh well).

I do miss the loot , even if it was pointless in ME1 once you got the Predator M and specter X gear. I'm a pack rat , I do so like my stuff. I like the larger environments in ME 2 with several primary missions (Ilium and Omega), one more would have been better. IMO, scrap half the smaller 'scan-for' side quests for one more Omega-type place (echem..DLC..bahrrmmr....).

Finally, where BioWare shines, for some reason I give a damn about (most of) the characters, so their comments to each other and about stuff kind of flesh out the environment. And the little things, like the certain person in a certain bar talking about this thing from the community, like the Red vs. Blue easter eggs in Halo, are awesome.

After ME 1, I wanted ME 2. After ME 2, I will get ME 3.    Just dont get swallowed by EA please.
EA Games...We Own Everything.

[SithLordExarKun]

I dont see why people must criticize ME2's story. DAO's story is just as simple and generic and yet nobody is relentlessly bashing it. Sometimes it isn't the story but the journey that makes it interesting. ME2 felt more like a character driven story like DAO



Look at great films like Alien,Aliens and the Terminator, generic storylines but great films..

[uberdowzen]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

I dont see why people must criticize ME2's story. DAO's story is just as simple and generic and yet nobody is relentlessly bashing it. Sometimes it isn't the story but the journey that makes it interesting. ME2 felt more like a character driven story like DAO

Look at great films like Alien,Aliens and the Terminator, generic storylines but great films..

Yes but the quests in DAO tie into the plot more than ME2s. The problem some people have with ME2's plot is that the actual plot consists of about 5 30 minute long missions.

[Terror_K]

ME1's story and structure was far better. ME2 was basically the same thing over and over, i.e. find potential recruit, do mission to get them, overcome final obstacle, get them, do their loyalty mission, rinse and repeat 10 times. Thankfully the writing was strong enough to pull it off and make you mostly forget it, but its still pretty noticeable. ME3 should have a more similar structure to ME1 because I don't think they could do it twice, but at the same time I suspect it will be more like ME2 but with different factions and groups instead of individuals. The best thing, if this is the case, would be to mix it up and combine the two styles.

Vena_86 wrote...

ME2 has a different target audience than ME1.
Everyone seems to have the answer for which game is better. But in reality that answer only applies to the question "Which type of game appeals to more people." And yes the answer to that is ME2. But that doesn't make it a better game. It is a better shooter but not a better RPG with key elements such as immersion, freedom, diversity, detailed character developement. Its a different game for a different taste. Now that would be all nice if we were talking about two unrelated games but that is not the case.

ME1 should be the number one reference for the sequel and not current trends. And for that matter the sequel might be a better game for the majority of people but in the end it remains a worse Mass Effect.

I dont give a **** what all those mainstream game critics say. They ignore that ME2 is a sequel and just look at it like "how much GoW is in the game?". Furthermore they only rush through games without getting involved which rules out any in-depth insigths or comparison from these "critics" which are just as casual as the next best guy from the streets.
In short:
ME2: better shooter with better grafics, awesome as stand alone game, failure as a sequel
ME1: better epic RPG adventure on galactic scale and better Mass Effect

^ This.

[Gundar3]

Terror_K wrote...

ME1's story and structure was far better. ME2 was basically the same thing over and over, i.e. find potential recruit, do mission to get them, overcome final obstacle, get them, do their loyalty mission, rinse and repeat 10 times. Thankfully the writing was strong enough to pull it off and make you mostly forget it, but its still pretty noticeable. ME3 should have a more similar structure to ME1 because I don't think they could do it twice, but at the same time I suspect it will be more like ME2 but with different factions and groups instead of individuals. The best thing, if this is the case, would be to mix it up and combine the two styles.

Vena_86 wrote...

ME2 has a different target audience than ME1.
Everyone seems to have the answer for which game is better. But in reality that answer only applies to the question "Which type of game appeals to more people." And yes the answer to that is ME2. But that doesn't make it a better game. It is a better shooter but not a better RPG with key elements such as immersion, freedom, diversity, detailed character developement. Its a different game for a different taste. Now that would be all nice if we were talking about two unrelated games but that is not the case.

ME1 should be the number one reference for the sequel and not current trends. And for that matter the sequel might be a better game for the majority of people but in the end it remains a worse Mass Effect.

I dont give a **** what all those mainstream game critics say. They ignore that ME2 is a sequel and just look at it like "how much GoW is in the game?". Furthermore they only rush through games without getting involved which rules out any in-depth insigths or comparison from these "critics" which are just as casual as the next best guy from the streets.
In short:
ME2: better shooter with better grafics, awesome as stand alone game, failure as a sequel
ME1: better epic RPG adventure on galactic scale and better Mass Effect

^ This.

I see truth in this.  I suppose "inventories" as what we expect do not make an rpg, but thats my normal rallying cry.  Intresting.

[SithLordExarKun]

Vena_86 wrote...

ME2: better shooter with better grafics, awesome as stand alone game, failure as a sequel
ME1: better epic RPG adventure on galactic scale and better Mass Effect

Better mass effect? Thats subjected to ones opinion going by your own words. And you one to talk about ME1 having better character development? No, with the exception of garrus and wrex, the rest felt like walking codex's(like liara talking about her job as an archilogist which gave little to no depth of her character)

Modifié par SithLordExarKun, 29 avril 2010 - 05:48 .

[DarthCaine]

Darth_Trethon wrote...

ME1 was a great game IN ITS TIME

ME1 is a still a good game, but it never was a really great game. It tried so hard to be better than KOTOR and failed in every way (for one, Wrex and Kaidan were bland boring versions of Canderous and Carth)

A really great game is timeless (for example, KOTOR is still the best RPG I've ever played and MGS1 is still the greatest game with the greatest story I've ever seen). I play adventure games from like 15 years ago and they're still much better than most new games

Modifié par DarthCaine, 29 avril 2010 - 06:17 .

[tonnactus]

uberdowzen wrote...

I think people forget how linear ME1 was. If you consider the Feros colony to be a quest hub from ME2 than Feros (just as an example) is just as linear as any ME1 level. I think ME1's levels seem more non-linear than ME2's because you had the map in ME1. Just for the record:

*Eden Prime - Linear
*Therum - Linear
*Feros - Mostly Linear
*Virmire - Linear accept for (arguably) the assualt of Saren's research facility
*Noveria - Non Linear
*Second to last planet - Linear
*Finale - Linear

You only proove my words.Me 1 had alternatives.Not many,but they existed.Me 2 has nothing of this and shepardt also could not decide in which order he do the main missions.You forgot:

Citadel, become a spectre. Non linear,Barla Von or Harkin.

Final fight: Non linear,rocket turrets or fight a strong krogan group.

[tonnactus]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Vena_86 wrote...

ME2: better shooter with better grafics, awesome as stand alone game, failure as a sequel
ME1: better epic RPG adventure on galactic scale and better Mass Effect

Better mass effect? Thats subjected to ones opinion going by your own words. And you one to talk about ME1 having better character development? No, with the exception of garrus and wrex, the rest felt like walking codex's(like liara talking about her job as an archilogist which gave little to no depth of her character)

Kaidan: His story about the training on Jump Zero isnt worser then that of jack.

Liara: Growing up as a pureblood,dont follow her mothers path.

Ashley:Problem that her grandfather was the only human ever surrender to an alien army.

Non of this background stories are worser then the ones in the sequel.Especially that of the stereotypical former lonely rich girl story.

Modifié par tonnactus, 29 avril 2010 - 07:55 .

[darknoon5]

I personally prefer ME2 over ME1, but both rank in my top 5 game list, both are amazing, and both have advantages over each other.

[Brako Shepard]

darknoon5 wrote...

I personally prefer ME2 over ME1, but both rank in my top 5 game list, both are amazing, and both have advantages over each other.

Best comment of tbe thread. And the reason I favour Mass Effect 2 over the original, is simply because they improved the mission gameplay so much. I will no doubt have the same feeling when Mass Effect 3 comes out, and look back at fond memories of Mass Effect 2, but prefer the upgraded gameplay of Mass Effect 3.

Yes games need a great story, but excellent gameplay is even more important in video games.

Modifié par Brako Shepard, 29 avril 2010 - 07:53 .

[Masticetobbacco]

Darth_Trethon wrote...

It goes like this: ME2 is a trillion times better than ME1. The end. Problem solved.



http://www.metacriti...3&button=search

Of course a tiny bit of good taste, common sense and the ability to check out metacritic would have solved this issue long before threads were made about it.

remember, the ME franchise is supposed to be an action RPG franchise, not a dedicated shooter.

many idiots at metacritic are only obsessed with the pew pew quality of ME2. While ME2 did have superior graphics and gameplay, ME1 had a much better story and feel to it.

ME1 felt more like an RPG. The Mako was great too. ME2 leaned more towards the shooter side and tried to impress with graphics and shooting, which of course attracted many 10-15 year old kids. I can't believe they would also remove the Mako, and the hammerhead missions are just a terrible replacement.

[Masticetobbacco]

Brako Shepard wrote...


Yes games need a great story, but excellent gameplay is even more important in video games.

gameplay>story.....?

what?!!! maybe in a shooter, fighting, or racing game, but Mass effect is a story telling RPG.

[darknoon5]

Brako Shepard wrote...

darknoon5 wrote...

I personally prefer ME2 over ME1, but both rank in my top 5 game list, both are amazing, and both have advantages over each other.

Best comment of tbe thread. And the reason I favour Mass Effect 2 over the original, is simply because they improved the mission gameplay so much. I will no doubt have the same feeling when Mass Effect 3 comes out, and look back at fond memories of Mass Effect 2, but prefer the upgraded gameplay of Mass Effect 3.

Yes games need a great story, but excellent gameplay is even more important in video games.

Heh thanks. And I agree. Whilst roleplaying and the story are key parts of ME1 & ME2, ME2 doesn't fail in this regard, and in a few ways is more of an RPG then ME1(more choices that look like they'll have big cosequences, suicide mission, better character development, interrupt system).
The story is weaker, but it's a port to ME3-it's bridging the gap, making more content, adding deeper depth to the Galaxy, and giving us many ways to prepare for the coming of the reapers (Quarians, Krogans etc.) and is used to show the reapers are finally coming.
However, gameplay is also a key part of any game. Most people who obsess over how ME2 only has 12 useful upgrades instead of 12000 useless ones or doesn't have an inventory both don't know how to define an RPG, and both forget ME2 made seamless gameplay improvements in 90% of the areas imo. The guns are actually different, not just re-textures with the same rate of fire and slightly differing damage and accuracy-the gun you choose is much more important, and different guns are useful in different situations. The game can actually fully live up to the shooter part in it's name, unlike ME1, where the balance just wasn't right.
But the mako was awesome, level cap is too low, no inventory is slightly too far, needs to be more armour+components, biotics aren't very useful, etc. etc.

Either way, I love both games, and would rate both near 10/10. My two cents.

Modifié par darknoon5, 29 avril 2010 - 08:01 .

[tonnactus]

Brako Shepard wrote...


Yes games need a great story, but excellent gameplay is even more important in video games.

Exzellent gameplay??

All good shooters have enemy snipers.The krogans in Mass Effect 2 also somehow forgot how to use assault rifles and are almost dead when they reach shotgun range.This is braindead and not excellent gameplay.

Is this so much worser then the battles in Mass Effect 2?



I doubt it...

At least this is more amazing and satisfying then gun blazing with the revenant or widow.

Modifié par tonnactus, 29 avril 2010 - 08:10 .

[darknoon5]

tonnactus wrote...

Brako Shepard wrote...


Yes games need a great story, but excellent gameplay is even more important in video games.

Exzellent gameplay??

All good shooters have enemy snipers.The krogans in Mass Effect 2 also somehow forgot how to use assault rifles and are almost dead when they reach shotgun range.This is braindead and not excellent gameplay.

Is this so much worser then the battles in Mass Effect 2?



I doubt it...

Yes, but enemy and squad AI are improved, even if they have a habit to vault over cover. I found it generally more challenging, although it lacked enough armature/collosus style fights imo:unsure:
Squad mates are actually useful outside powers-especially with sniper and shotguns. (Garrus and Grunt, anyone?)
All good shooters have some kind of heavy weapons and guns with varying rates of fire, reload ties and, hell, a RELOAD SYSTEM. ME1 had NONE of these. ME2 took 1 or 2 steps back, but about 20 foward. Don't claim the gameplay isn't good. I'd say it is excellent-not as good as Halo, maybe, but still very fun.

[tonnactus]

[quote]darknoon5 wrote...


Yes, but enemy and squad AI are improved,
[/quote]

Intelligent enemies would always try to flank you if their numbers are higher then that of the enemy team.This barely happens in Mass Effect.Most the time you could stay comfortable in cover and dont have to worry about that.
So where is the improvement?That their weapons made more damage??

[quote]
Squad mates are actually useful outside powers-especially with sniper and shotguns. (Garrus and Grunt, anyone?)
[/quote]
There were also usefull in the first game outside of powers.Mass Effect allies sometimes shoot you in the back.The one in 2 alsways run into your line of fire and complain about it.
[/quote]
All good shooters have some kind of heavy weapons and guns with varying rates of fire, reload ties and, hell, a RELOAD SYSTEM.

[/quote]

This was called overheat in Mass Effect.I also dont remember that shotguns and sniper rifles fired as fast as assault rifles.

Modifié par tonnactus, 29 avril 2010 - 08:22 .

[KitsuneRommel]

tonnactus wrote...

You only proove my words.Me 1 had alternatives.Not many,but they existed.Me 2 has nothing of this and shepardt also could not decide in which order he do the main missions.You forgot:

Ah yes, "main missions." Recruitment quests are not optional, you know.

[tonnactus]

KitsuneRommel wrote...



Ah yes, "main missions." Recruitment quests are not optional, you know.

I dont care about sidequests.And recruitment missions are not more then that,no matter if they are optional or not.

Modifié par tonnactus, 29 avril 2010 - 08:21 .

[uzivatel]

Most ME2 problems are imo caused by the decision to have some 12 squad members.
The recruit missions are generally good, but once those are finnished, we are left with too many loyalty mission. Many of the loyalty missions are not bad at all (BioWare tried some different things and thats good), but after short while it gets somewhat tiresome, repetive and weird (there are human colonies missing and I am solving family issues of the crew? talk about priorities).
Oh, and there were too many characters to care about.

Other than that, ME2 has been huge improvement in pretty much every way.

tonnactus wrote...

You only proove my words.Me 1 had alternatives.Not many,but they existed.Me 2 has nothing of this and shepardt also could not decide in which order he do the main missions.

This is actually huge improvement in ME2.

Modifié par uzivatel, 29 avril 2010 - 08:37 .

[Unit-Alpha]

Darth_Trethon wrote...

ME1 was a great game IN ITS TIME. ME2 just makes it look like a pile of suck. The story in ME2 is far better, the main campaign is a lot better, fewer side quests but far superior in quality as opposed to the copy pasted approach to side quests of ME1 and the combat is far better. Hell even the planet scanning is better than the mako for one reason only.....you can avoid scanning through simple modding and still keep playing completionist playthroughs that are perfect for ME3 importing....nothing in a million years can help you avoid the mind numbing time wasting driving through mostly empty maps only to get to the same copy pasted buildings you've seen a trillion times.

I wouldn't go that far, but you have somewhat of a point. The only things I perfered in ME1 was the spacey feeling, the massive, non-linear maps (minus the terrible sidequest ones), the large numbers of items, and the squadmates.

The combat in ME2 was much better; I love the ammo system; the visuals are better, as was the VAing, sound, sidequests, skilling, inventory, pacing, and another half dozen things.


But ME1 is still great, easily in my top 5.

[darknoon5]

[quote]tonnactus wrote...

[quote]darknoon5 wrote...


Yes, but enemy and squad AI are improved,
[/quote]

Intelligent enemies would always try to flank you if their numbers are higher then that of the enemy team.This barely happens in Mass Effect.Most the time you could stay comfortable in cover and dont have to worry about that.
So where is the improvement?That their weapons made more damage??

[quote]
Squad mates are actually useful outside powers-especially with sniper and shotguns. (Garrus and Grunt, anyone?)
[/quote]
There were also usefull in the first game outside of powers.Mass Effect allies sometimes shoot you in the back.The one in 2 alsways run into your line of fire and complain about it.
[/quote]
All good shooters have some kind of heavy weapons and guns with varying rates of fire, reload ties and, hell, a RELOAD SYSTEM.

[/quote]

This was called overheat in Mass Effect.I also dont remeber that shotguns and sniper rifles fired as fast as assault rifles.

[/quote]Yes, there was ONE pistol, ONE shotgun, ONE assault rifle and ONE sniper (the variants don't really count, they just do more damage)
ME2 has more weapon types, more weapon varieties, and yeah. /Point
No, they really weren't. Garrus would launch a sabotage at a thorian creeper then miss a voley of fire at point blank with anything other then Sniper, and like shotugn squaddies would need babysitting. Biotics could only use the crap pistols. Tali, Wrex and Ashley were ok if they were in decent position in cover, but yeah.
I think enemy AI is improved, and I don't have the issues you seem to very much if at all. And I've got the insanity achievement.