[quote]darknoon5 wrote...
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.
[Quote]
On what difficulty are you playing that you thing that your squadmates dont need babysitting anymore??
Garrus and Miranda still die in a heartbeat on insanity because of stupid behavior.(so i dont use them anymore)
Tali shot drones with carnage shot that were 20 meters away.Their accuracy and hitrate was ok.Even Liara did good with a spectre pistol and combat optics.And pistols with marksmen were the best weapons in Mass Effect.
The Epic Mass Effect 2 vs Mass Effect 1 Debate
Débuté par
uberdowzen
, avril 26 2010 10:45
Retour en haut
#127
Posté 29 avril 2010 - 08:44
darknoon5
-
- Members
- 1 596 messages
[quote]tonnactus wrote...
[quote]darknoon5 wrote...
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.
[Quote]
On what difficulty are you playing that you thing that your squadmates dont need babysitting anymore??
Garrus and Miranda still die in a heartbeat on insanity because of stupid behavior.(so i dont use them anymore)
Tali shot drones with carnage shot that were 20 meters away.Their accuracy and hitrate was ok.Even Liara did good with a spectre pistol and combat optics.And pistols with marksmen were the best weapons in Mass Effect.
[/quote]No, they really don't. Hardcore is lowest.
Give them a position every now and them, leave power use on but use their powers to supplement your own and that's all I need, compared to orders every 10secs in ME1.
Tali is poor, but that's because of her lack of decent powers and weapon selection
[quote]darknoon5 wrote...
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.
[Quote]
On what difficulty are you playing that you thing that your squadmates dont need babysitting anymore??
Garrus and Miranda still die in a heartbeat on insanity because of stupid behavior.(so i dont use them anymore)
Tali shot drones with carnage shot that were 20 meters away.Their accuracy and hitrate was ok.Even Liara did good with a spectre pistol and combat optics.And pistols with marksmen were the best weapons in Mass Effect.
[/quote]No, they really don't. Hardcore is lowest.
Give them a position every now and them, leave power use on but use their powers to supplement your own and that's all I need, compared to orders every 10secs in ME1.
Tali is poor, but that's because of her lack of decent powers and weapon selection
#128
Posté 29 avril 2010 - 08:49
tonnactus
-
- Members
- 6 165 messages
??darknoon5 wrote...
No, they really don't. Hardcore is lowest.
Give them a position every now and them, leave power use on but use their powers to supplement your own and that's all I need, compared to orders every 10secs in ME1.
Every 10 seconds?
At level 20 on insane in Mass Effect i stopped to give them any orders.Master barrier and/or immunity was enough to protect them and their also use their powers in a good way.Now Mordin wouldnt use incinerate against shielded enemies(not as effective as overload,but still usefull to reduce shields and panick them),where enemies techs always did that.
Modifié par tonnactus, 29 avril 2010 - 08:51 .
#129
Posté 29 avril 2010 - 08:59
darknoon5
-
- Members
- 1 596 messages
10 secs is an exagerration lol. Isn't that much obvious:blink:tonnactus wrote...
??darknoon5 wrote...
No, they really don't. Hardcore is lowest.
Give them a position every now and them, leave power use on but use their powers to supplement your own and that's all I need, compared to orders every 10secs in ME1.
Every 10 seconds?
At level 20 on insane in Mass Effect i stopped to give them any orders.Master barrier and/or immunity was enough to protect them and their also use their powers in a good way.Now Mordin wouldnt use incinerate against shielded enemies(not as effective as overload,but still usefull to reduce shields and panick them),where enemies techs always did that.
I guess, but incinerate isn't that useful imo beyond armor. Besides, if it was made that way, people would be using powers like throw on shields.
#130
Posté 29 avril 2010 - 09:07
tonnactus
-
- Members
- 6 165 messages
[quote]darknoon5 wrote...
I guess, but incinerate isn't that useful imo beyond armor.
[Quote]
Mordins incinerate could take away the shields or regular troopers.And it panick them,give you the opportunity to make good and save shots.
[Quote]
Besides, if it was made that way, people would be using powers like throw on shields.
[/quote]
They could make it that way that mordin use incinerate on enemy shields,like all eclipse tech do this.Or that thane use warp on shielded enemies like all the vanguards.But i have to do this myself to end battles faster then not doing this.
I guess, but incinerate isn't that useful imo beyond armor.
[Quote]
Mordins incinerate could take away the shields or regular troopers.And it panick them,give you the opportunity to make good and save shots.
[Quote]
Besides, if it was made that way, people would be using powers like throw on shields.
[/quote]
They could make it that way that mordin use incinerate on enemy shields,like all eclipse tech do this.Or that thane use warp on shielded enemies like all the vanguards.But i have to do this myself to end battles faster then not doing this.
#131
Posté 29 avril 2010 - 09:09
SlowDownGandhi
-
- Members
- 1 messages
I'm sorry, but in terms of story writing and pacing the transition from ME1 and ME2 was like going from an Oscar winner to an Uwe Boll flick. In ME1 just about every main mission ended with some kind of advancement to the overall plot. In ME2 it's like the actual plot was just an afterthought.
It's as if Cerberus were like "ok, we need you to gather this team of operatives, because it's absolutely vital the survival of the universe and if you don't do this then we're all royally screwed.... oh and there's these bug guys abducting people, if you could find the time to kill them it would be lovely." Although the Collectors are the main antagonists you only spend about 10% of the entire story actually fighting to stop them. Instead the majority of the story is spent on completing what essentially are glorified side missions. The plot, for the most part is completely static unlike in ME1 when things were moving and after each mission it actually felt like you were closer to stopping Saren.
The missions themselves were too short, too repetitive and for the most part unrelated to the main narrative. I honestly don't see why there has to be a firefight ever single time I go to recruit somebody. The same goes for the loyalty missions, every single one with the exception of Thane's essentially was "go to point A to point B, killing enemies C along the way. Once at point B either kill boss D or do action E". This wouldn't be so bad if they actually added to the character development, which for the most part they didn't. Tali's mission, which was the only one with any actual dialogue, was the only thing that came remotely close to adding to the character, and even that became generic once you got past the trial. As for the L7 missions, I never honestly felt any incentive to complete them because none of them felt as if they added anything to the narrative. In ME1 you had the Cerberus sideplot, which, although not much, gave a purpose to some of the UNC missions. In ME2 it's all "go wreck [insert gang's] facility because, uh, they're bad and we don't like them".
After the story the biggest issues were the lack of exploration and the removal of the inventory system. One of the best part of ME1 was being able to return to Zhu's Hope and Noveria after the mission, for whatever reason you can't do that in ME2 and it sucks because it leaves you unable to see what impact you had on the story/characters/environment. In addition the hubs were tiny and the lack of ME1 locations, especially on the Citadel were huge buzzkills. I really wanted to revisit some of the other systems from ME1, and their lack I felt left a huge hole on the galaxy map.
As for gameplay yeah, the combat was much better in ME2, and honestly anything said against it really is just nitpicking, although I really would like ME1's skill system and weapons customization back. In the end though ME is such a story-driven series that it doesn't matter how good the combat is if the narrative that strings it all together is totally weak. Things need to happen for reasons and honestly in ME2 I just couldn't bring myself to care about those reasons.
It's as if Cerberus were like "ok, we need you to gather this team of operatives, because it's absolutely vital the survival of the universe and if you don't do this then we're all royally screwed.... oh and there's these bug guys abducting people, if you could find the time to kill them it would be lovely." Although the Collectors are the main antagonists you only spend about 10% of the entire story actually fighting to stop them. Instead the majority of the story is spent on completing what essentially are glorified side missions. The plot, for the most part is completely static unlike in ME1 when things were moving and after each mission it actually felt like you were closer to stopping Saren.
The missions themselves were too short, too repetitive and for the most part unrelated to the main narrative. I honestly don't see why there has to be a firefight ever single time I go to recruit somebody. The same goes for the loyalty missions, every single one with the exception of Thane's essentially was "go to point A to point B, killing enemies C along the way. Once at point B either kill boss D or do action E". This wouldn't be so bad if they actually added to the character development, which for the most part they didn't. Tali's mission, which was the only one with any actual dialogue, was the only thing that came remotely close to adding to the character, and even that became generic once you got past the trial. As for the L7 missions, I never honestly felt any incentive to complete them because none of them felt as if they added anything to the narrative. In ME1 you had the Cerberus sideplot, which, although not much, gave a purpose to some of the UNC missions. In ME2 it's all "go wreck [insert gang's] facility because, uh, they're bad and we don't like them".
After the story the biggest issues were the lack of exploration and the removal of the inventory system. One of the best part of ME1 was being able to return to Zhu's Hope and Noveria after the mission, for whatever reason you can't do that in ME2 and it sucks because it leaves you unable to see what impact you had on the story/characters/environment. In addition the hubs were tiny and the lack of ME1 locations, especially on the Citadel were huge buzzkills. I really wanted to revisit some of the other systems from ME1, and their lack I felt left a huge hole on the galaxy map.
As for gameplay yeah, the combat was much better in ME2, and honestly anything said against it really is just nitpicking, although I really would like ME1's skill system and weapons customization back. In the end though ME is such a story-driven series that it doesn't matter how good the combat is if the narrative that strings it all together is totally weak. Things need to happen for reasons and honestly in ME2 I just couldn't bring myself to care about those reasons.
#132
Posté 29 avril 2010 - 09:18
geordie73
-
- Members
- 6 messages
ME1 was a flawed master piece, ME2 was just a good game. I think they changed too much in ME2.
Playing through ME1 again (4.5 play throughs) and it just feels a better game, but i will admit i may feel differently after a few play throughs of ME2 (1.5 play throughs)
Playing through ME1 again (4.5 play throughs) and it just feels a better game, but i will admit i may feel differently after a few play throughs of ME2 (1.5 play throughs)
#133
Posté 29 avril 2010 - 09:47
bjdbwea
-
- Members
- 3 251 messages
@ SlowDownGandhi
Without spoiling more than you already did, there's one more loyalty mission that doesn't involve mowing down dozens of enemies. Apart from that, I completely agree with you. And don't even get me started on the amazingly dumb side mission in ME 2, some of which would even be too simple for little children. To think that people complained about the ME 1 side missions... at least you could explore planets, at least you had a spoken briefing and debriefing. All gone.
Without spoiling more than you already did, there's one more loyalty mission that doesn't involve mowing down dozens of enemies. Apart from that, I completely agree with you. And don't even get me started on the amazingly dumb side mission in ME 2, some of which would even be too simple for little children. To think that people complained about the ME 1 side missions... at least you could explore planets, at least you had a spoken briefing and debriefing. All gone.
Modifié par bjdbwea, 29 avril 2010 - 09:47 .
#134
Posté 29 avril 2010 - 10:05
STG
-
- Members
- 831 messages
bjdbwea wrote...
... at least you could explore planets, at least you had a spoken briefing and debriefing. All gone.
And they even slightly expanded Hackett's character.
#135
Posté 29 avril 2010 - 10:33
uberdowzen
-
- Members
- 1 213 messages
tonnactus wrote...
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.
I consider the Citadel to be another quest hub.
Also in the final fight, that's not non linearity, that's having two options, both of which lead to the same door. If we're going to consider that non linear, then I'd like to put forward the Mordin's recruitment quest as non linear because at one point you have to choose whether to make a frontal assualt on the next encounter or go up the stairs and snipe. I'm being sarcastic by the way.
#136
Posté 29 avril 2010 - 11:12
tonnactus
-
- Members
- 6 165 messages
uberdowzen wrote...
Also in the final fight, that's not non linearity, that's having two options, both of which lead to the same door.
You fight different enemies.Rocket turrets and krogans are not the same.
#137
Posté 29 avril 2010 - 11:16
tonnactus
-
- Members
- 6 165 messages
bjdbwea wrote...
@ SlowDownGandhi
Without spoiling more than you already did, there's one more loyalty mission that doesn't involve mowing down dozens of enemies. Apart from that, I completely agree with you. And don't even get me started on the amazingly dumb side mission in ME 2, some of which would even be too simple for little children. To think that people complained about the ME 1 side missions... at least you could explore planets, at least you had a spoken briefing and debriefing. All gone.
Oh.I forgot to mention that in Mass effect you had teammeetings with your whole team after each main mission.Not its jacob and miranda,only one time mordin was a part of.The other squadmembers dont matter i guess...
#138
Posté 29 avril 2010 - 11:29
Brako Shepard
-
- Members
- 675 messages
Seeing as there was only around 3 meetings in total in the original Mass Effect. It still doesn't change the fact that team members have more background and interaction on the Normandy this time around.
#139
Posté 29 avril 2010 - 11:34
tonnactus
-
- Members
- 6 165 messages
4.Therum,Ferros,Noveria, Virmire.Brako Shepard wrote...
Seeing as there was only around 3 meetings in total in the original Mass Effect.
#140
Posté 30 avril 2010 - 12:03
uberdowzen
-
- Members
- 1 213 messages
tonnactus wrote...
uberdowzen wrote...
Also in the final fight, that's not non linearity, that's having two options, both of which lead to the same door.
You fight different enemies.Rocket turrets and krogans are not the same.
Yeah again that's not really non linearity.
#141
Posté 30 avril 2010 - 12:04
tonnactus
-
- Members
- 6 165 messages
uberdowzen wrote...
tonnactus wrote...
uberdowzen wrote...
Also in the final fight, that's not non linearity, that's having two options, both of which lead to the same door.
You fight different enemies.Rocket turrets and krogans are not the same.
Yeah again that's not really non linearity.
And we not have even this in Mass Effect 2.One possible route on all missions.Thats it.
#142
Posté 30 avril 2010 - 12:09
uberdowzen
-
- Members
- 1 213 messages
tonnactus wrote...
uberdowzen wrote...
tonnactus wrote...
uberdowzen wrote...
Also in the final fight, that's not non linearity, that's having two options, both of which lead to the same door.
You fight different enemies.Rocket turrets and krogans are not the same.
Yeah again that's not really non linearity.
And we not have even this in Mass Effect 2.One possible route on all missions.Thats it.
I gave an example, the part on Mordin's recruitment mission. That's just as non linear as the part in the finale.
#143
Posté 30 avril 2010 - 01:50
RyuGuitarFreak
-
- Members
- 2 254 messages
Seriously. I can't understand how people think that ME1 had a story THAT better than ME2. ME1 is about going after a bad guy who has an evil plan and you have to uncover it and stop the bad guy. Besides the HUGE Sovereign revelation, what's so great about it that ME2 can't stand against it? And I'm sorry about you but give me the loyalty missions a thousand times over the missions at the planets (Feros, Citadel) and all the UNC stuff Which mostly you shoot geth or mercenaries. And that's what you did on ME2 too, wasn't it? At least on loyalty missions you had respectful cutscenes without repeated animations and I was discovering more about characters I liked.
"This wouldn't be so bad if they actually added to the character development, which for the most part they didn't." WTF? Sorry if I'm being disrespectful but that's BS. Gameplay differences or not the loyalty missions themselves are loose ends the characters have which the story about it always adds to the character development.
The best part of ME1 and no game on the franchise will ever top its feeling, is that it was the first contact, everything is new, you get to be a spectre, there's a lot to see at the codex about the galaxy, etc, etc, but IMO some people overrate it too much, or underrate ME2 story and setting too much. ME2 made a very good job to expand the universe visiting the (until then misterious) Terminus Systems. You get to know Tuchanka, the Quarrian flotilla, an asari world, Citadel's counterpart in the Terminus, discover more about Cerberus, etc, etc.
"This wouldn't be so bad if they actually added to the character development, which for the most part they didn't." WTF? Sorry if I'm being disrespectful but that's BS. Gameplay differences or not the loyalty missions themselves are loose ends the characters have which the story about it always adds to the character development.
The best part of ME1 and no game on the franchise will ever top its feeling, is that it was the first contact, everything is new, you get to be a spectre, there's a lot to see at the codex about the galaxy, etc, etc, but IMO some people overrate it too much, or underrate ME2 story and setting too much. ME2 made a very good job to expand the universe visiting the (until then misterious) Terminus Systems. You get to know Tuchanka, the Quarrian flotilla, an asari world, Citadel's counterpart in the Terminus, discover more about Cerberus, etc, etc.
#144
Posté 30 avril 2010 - 01:55
Brako Shepard
-
- Members
- 675 messages
The loyalty missions are...whats the word? Basically everyone realises they might not make it, and before they die they want to make a few thinsg right. To me that says alot about the characters and I thought it was very well done indeed.
#145
Posté 30 avril 2010 - 02:12
Terror_K
-
- Members
- 4 362 messages
What made ME1's story superior was that it was a bit of a mystery that unfolded as you went and gradually altered the focus and significance as you went along, unwrapping things gradually and revealing what's really going on. By the time you get to the end the focus and intent is very different to what it was at the beginning, and on top of that each major place provides a different experience and situation to deal with, each with their own mysteries and aspects to uncover.
ME2 is basically just basically getting people for a suicide mission and going on it; there's very little mystery as to what's to come, no unfolding plot and little difference from one objective to the next. It basically consists of "try to recruit person, no mission to get person, get person, do loyalty mission for person, gain loyalty and take them on suicide mission" rinsed and repeated 10 times. Thankfully the quality of the writing and the difference in situations you come across stop it being overly repetitive and boring, but its essentially the same thing over and over and there's nothing really overarching narrative-wise related to it that unfolds and has you doing anything really different. Sure, there are the what I'd called "Illusive Man" missions that get more to the point of the plot, but they aren't as well done as ME1's were and the focus remains the same throughout. Sure, there's a couple of twists in ME2, but none that really change the purpose and focus of your mission or give it a truly new perspective.
Both games are extremely well-written, and Mass Effect 2 definitely has fantastic stories within the missions themselves, but the overall story is extremely straightforward and simple compared to ME1's; it basically comes down to "recruiting people for suicide mission" while ME1's shifts as it goes.
ME2 is basically just basically getting people for a suicide mission and going on it; there's very little mystery as to what's to come, no unfolding plot and little difference from one objective to the next. It basically consists of "try to recruit person, no mission to get person, get person, do loyalty mission for person, gain loyalty and take them on suicide mission" rinsed and repeated 10 times. Thankfully the quality of the writing and the difference in situations you come across stop it being overly repetitive and boring, but its essentially the same thing over and over and there's nothing really overarching narrative-wise related to it that unfolds and has you doing anything really different. Sure, there are the what I'd called "Illusive Man" missions that get more to the point of the plot, but they aren't as well done as ME1's were and the focus remains the same throughout. Sure, there's a couple of twists in ME2, but none that really change the purpose and focus of your mission or give it a truly new perspective.
Both games are extremely well-written, and Mass Effect 2 definitely has fantastic stories within the missions themselves, but the overall story is extremely straightforward and simple compared to ME1's; it basically comes down to "recruiting people for suicide mission" while ME1's shifts as it goes.
#146
Posté 30 avril 2010 - 03:03
Freakaz0idx
-
- Members
- 392 messages
Mass effect- Story/Exploration
Mass effect 2- Action
ME1 had an amazing story and exploration like I never played before. It was just EPIC, from the time Shepard is introduced, he and Ash Williams rushed to a window to stare at the Citadel, til the time you blast through the conduit into a destroyed wasteland, have the Council lives in your hands and kill Saren, then the awesome music starts playing, the just had suspense and major progression. You could really feel emerged in the game and the choices you made meant something.
With ME2 the battle system just completely blew ME1 out of the water with the improved weapons/powers and movement. All environments were unique. I loved that you had cool armor right off the bat and you didn't have to search for minerals in the damned MAKO. But after a while it became painfully obvious that they ditched the epic storyline/exploration for the Point A to Point B action and the mineral scanner was a crutch. I was never fully into this game like ME1, it just didn't feel right story wise. I hate how all the Illusive man had was his empty comments and smokescreens (even though it will have a purpose in ME3). And the way they neglected and nerfed the Citadel and it's characters was the ultimate kick in the nads. I was also disgusted by the way they made default choices for a new game when this is an RPG and your personal choices are the whole point of even playing, it's like being a new game paragon is pointless.
Conclusion- Mass effect 1 > Mass effect 2
In ME3 keep the amazing battle system, and pleeease bring back the EPIC. Should not be hard.
Mass effect 2- Action
ME1 had an amazing story and exploration like I never played before. It was just EPIC, from the time Shepard is introduced, he and Ash Williams rushed to a window to stare at the Citadel, til the time you blast through the conduit into a destroyed wasteland, have the Council lives in your hands and kill Saren, then the awesome music starts playing, the just had suspense and major progression. You could really feel emerged in the game and the choices you made meant something.
With ME2 the battle system just completely blew ME1 out of the water with the improved weapons/powers and movement. All environments were unique. I loved that you had cool armor right off the bat and you didn't have to search for minerals in the damned MAKO. But after a while it became painfully obvious that they ditched the epic storyline/exploration for the Point A to Point B action and the mineral scanner was a crutch. I was never fully into this game like ME1, it just didn't feel right story wise. I hate how all the Illusive man had was his empty comments and smokescreens (even though it will have a purpose in ME3). And the way they neglected and nerfed the Citadel and it's characters was the ultimate kick in the nads. I was also disgusted by the way they made default choices for a new game when this is an RPG and your personal choices are the whole point of even playing, it's like being a new game paragon is pointless.
Conclusion- Mass effect 1 > Mass effect 2
In ME3 keep the amazing battle system, and pleeease bring back the EPIC. Should not be hard.
#147
Posté 30 avril 2010 - 03:10
Brako Shepard
-
- Members
- 675 messages
Terror_K wrote...
What made ME1's story superior was that it was a bit of a mystery that unfolded as you went and gradually altered the focus and significance as you went along, unwrapping things gradually and revealing what's really going on. By the time you get to the end the focus and intent is very different to what it was at the beginning, and on top of that each major place provides a different experience and situation to deal with, each with their own mysteries and aspects to uncover.
I won't disagree with you on how Mass Effect had a great story that unfolded as you went along. But thats because it was the first game. The second game we all knew what was going to happen, or atleast what the main objective was...to stop the reapers.
This is why I keep saying that Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2's stories cannot be compared. Judge them on faults by all means, but the actual story bases are completely different. One is not worse than the other because of a lack of mystery, its just a different setting.
People have to get that around there head, because we know even more going into the final part of the trilogy, and if they keep comparing stories, they won't enjoy the last story either.
#148
Posté 30 avril 2010 - 03:24
DarthCaine
-
- Members
- 7 175 messages
There was absolutely nothing epic about ME1 or it's story.
KOTOR was epic. Planescape: Torment was epic. The Witcher was epic.
Heck, even DAO was more "epic" than ME1
ME1 tried so hard to be better than KOTOR and failed in every way (for one, Wrex and Kaidan were just bland boring versions of Canderous and Carth)
KOTOR was epic. Planescape: Torment was epic. The Witcher was epic.
Heck, even DAO was more "epic" than ME1
ME1 tried so hard to be better than KOTOR and failed in every way (for one, Wrex and Kaidan were just bland boring versions of Canderous and Carth)
Modifié par DarthCaine, 30 avril 2010 - 03:26 .
#149
Posté 30 avril 2010 - 03:27
Terror_K
-
- Members
- 4 362 messages
I think you still can compare the two different stories and say ME1's is superior. Overall its structure is better and its far less simple. ME2 has great stories within the story, but the overall story is pretty weak... its the strength of the writing itself that raises it up and stops it from being mediocre and repetitive. ME2 has a technically inferior overarching story simply because it lacks any real flow and is so disconnected and meandering. ME2 is like Dragon Age in that it has a rather simple and unoriginal overall story, but the writing within is so good that it makes up for it. ME1 on the other hand just does a far better job overall and has a better structured and more original story that flows well. If these games were films or novels, ME1's would clearly be the better watch or read.
#150
Posté 30 avril 2010 - 03:28
uberdowzen
-
- Members
- 1 213 messages
Wrex is more interesting than Canderous. I'm with you on Kaidan though.
