34 réponses à ce sujet

[TuRiAn_AllY]

 I was thinking about mass effect 2, it was fun... for the 30 hours it took to beat the entire game, and side mission (and having everyone survive) cool... i look back and see mass effect 1 took me wayyy longer to do everything
Mass Effect 1 had insane amounts of customization, between the plentiful character skill trees, weapon mods, and other small features
Mass Effect to shortened the skill trees into half and completely did away with the weapon mods
As i played mass effect 2 i noticed there were SEVERAL times shepard just spoke, without me choosing what, this happened minimal times in the first game, but many times in the sequal
the combat was amped up but i still almost prefer the mass effect 1 style
The ending of mass effect 1 was also better
The overall game of me1 was better
my main problem was the length though, mass effect 2 is such a short game

Don't talk about how much better the combat is in 2 because its supposed to be an RPG not a shooter, i hope they remember that in me3...

[Spartas Husky]

Kind a.... ME 1: 9.5/10



ME 2: 8/10



DOnt know if it is creative oversight....listening to much to EA or what but they lost steam. we'll see.

[xiiz]

ME1 has around the same amount of gameplay, it just feels like it takes longer because of all the timesinks, driving around on planets on the Mako, going back to your ship after each mission etc. In ME2 when you do side missions, you just do the fighting and the objective. In ME1 you drove around for several minutes, getting to the fight, and drove some more if you wanted to explore the rest of the planet. (For minimal rewards) ME2 feels shorter because it's so much more fast paced.

Looking back on time played, it's basically the same.

Also idk about you, but when I played ME1 I took long pauses inbetween because I'd get bored driving around, doing seemingly the same things over and over again. In ME2 the breaks were far less regular, because I kept wanting more, it was far more varied.
Just my opinion, anyway. 
 

Modifié par xiiz, 17 mai 2010 - 10:39 .

[DukeOfNukes]

The way me and my friends look at is that ME2 is a better GAME, while ME1 was a better EXPERIENCE. The gameplay aspects of ME2 are VASTLY improved...the combat, the level design, etc. The story, leveling system, and overall epic feel of the first game, however, was not matched.

[Xhantus]

TuRiAn_AllY wrote...

As i played mass effect 2 i noticed there were SEVERAL times shepard just spoke, without me choosing what, this happened minimal times in the first game, but many times in the sequal

If you noticed in ME, there were times where even though you chose different dialogue wheel responses there was only one line that was voice-acted. In ME2 they just removed the dialogue wheel if all options would have the same voice-acted line.

TuRiAn_AllY wrote...

my main problem was the length though, mass effect 2 is such a short game

I felt the same thing. However, I don't know if that is simply perception due to the fact that the majority of the game is recruiting members and gaining loyalty.

For me, I felt as if that part was the preparation or first act of the game and everything after (ie the suicide mission) was the "meat" of the game. Since you only do one mission after recruiting everyone, it makes it feel very short.

TuRiAn_AllY wrote...

Don't talk about how much better the combat is in 2 because its supposed to be an RPG not a shooter, i hope they remember that in me3...

True, but I have to say that as a soldier and infiltrator, the combat in ME2 was more fun.

Modifié par Xhantus, 17 mai 2010 - 10:46 .

[Nozybidaj]

DukeOfNukes wrote...

The way me and my friends look at is that ME2 is a better GAME, while ME1 was a better EXPERIENCE. The gameplay aspects of ME2 are VASTLY improved...the combat, the level design, etc. The story, leveling system, and overall epic feel of the first game, however, was not matched.

I'd agree with that more or less.  I do enjoy the combat in ME2 more and the technical aspects of their digital acting and cinematography improved a lot, but the story and overall feel of the game really took a nosedive.

[Shotokanguy]

I feel like I can customize my Shepard plenty with armor, different weapons, and other "small features" that you say were also in ME1.



And I thought even if you liked ME1 more, it was universally agreed that it had better combat. Why do people say it's a shooter? You shoot, yes, but all of that stuff is controlled by stats! Numbers! That's what an RPG is, according to the elitists!



your opinion is bad, sry

[Faust1979]

they didn't remove weapon mods because I upgraded my weapons a lot and made them better you just research them now

[AlbertoAquilani]

Both are fine games in their own ways. Mass Effect 2 is a more tighter, defined experience.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

TuRiAn_AllY wrote...
i look back and see mass effect 1 took me wayyy longer to do everything

When you get your first girlfriend, you fascination with endless games will evaporate. 

Mass Effect 1 had insane amounts of customization,

Choosing the color of your armor?  Weapons doing +1% or two +0.5%? 

between the plentiful character skill trees, weapon mods, and other small features

Let me do my psychic impression.  What are... things that made no sense, things that were useless, and baseless?

;)

the combat was amped up but i still almost prefer the to be bored.

Fixed for you.   :kissing:

[MassEffect762]

Mostly agree with OP.

ME2 isn't anything to brag about, even it's combat is faulty.(most praised improvement, right....)

Reactive targets = nice.
Heavy weapons = nice.

Heat sink("ammo") implementation = poor.(infinite team-mate "ammo"/ no eventual cool down)
Weapon customization = shallow, a joke("power" ammo)
No self crouch = sad, no execuse for that.(imo)
Univeral power cooldowns = not very fun, even with quick cooldowns.
No grenades = Wrong. Inferno gernade power doesn't cut it.

Modifié par MassEffect762, 18 mai 2010 - 12:30 .

[praetor_alpha]

I support this thread.

[Elvis_Mazur]

I disagree. Mass Effect 2 >> Mass Effect 1.

[Sawp]

You can't compare a game that is 2 years old with a new game.
Mass effect 2 isn't "better" , it is logic that they improved on something that already exists. 
For mass effect 1 , it was impossible. 

At least mass effect 1 was good enough to make you buy the sequel.
So what's the point about saying that ? 

[Spartas Husky]

You can't compare what it was to what it is? I think making a sequel is.....making a new game based on a previous title and only way to make it better is comparing what your idea is for the new game, and what was done in the previous one.



Keeping what worked, maybe refining it a little, and changing what doesn't work.

[Nozybidaj]

MassEffect762 wrote...

Mostly agree with OP.

ME2 isn't anything to brag about, even it's combat is faulty.(most praised improvement, right....)

Reactive targets = nice.
Heavy weapons = nice.

Heat sink("ammo") implementation = poor.(infinite team-mate "ammo"/ no eventual cool down)
Weapon customization = shallow, a joke("power" ammo)
No self crouch = sad, no execuse for that.(imo)
Univeral power cooldowns = not very fun, even with quick cooldowns.
No grenades = Wrong. Inferno gernade power doesn't cut it.

Hehe, that is a very good point.  While the combat is the most improved aspect in ME2, it still is lackluster compared to other titles it is trying to imitate.

[MrFob]

Nozybidaj wrote...

DukeOfNukes wrote...

The way me and my friends look at is that ME2 is a better GAME, while ME1 was a better EXPERIENCE. The gameplay aspects of ME2 are VASTLY improved...the combat, the level design, etc. The story, leveling system, and overall epic feel of the first game, however, was not matched.

I'd agree with that more or less.  I do enjoy the combat in ME2 more and the technical aspects of their digital acting and cinematography improved a lot, but the story and overall feel of the game really took a nosedive.

That is the way I see it too. It probably has to do with the fact that
ME1 was so exciting because it was completely new. But on the other hand, while
ME2 has a lot of gameplay improvements, I think they overdid it a little with
the dark and gritty characters. ME1 had an epic feel to it because you had
a team of heroic characters at your side. In ME2, it always feels like you are
playing a bunch of reckless outlaws (even if you play paragon). I hope that
with ME3 they find a better balance again but keep the gameplay improvements
(with some more customization options maybe).

Modifié par MrFob, 18 mai 2010 - 01:18 .

[Lumikki]

TuRiAn_AllY wrote...

Don't talk about how much better the combat is in 2 because its supposed to be an RPG not a shooter, i hope they remember that in me3...

BS. Both of Mass Effects are as excelent  action RPG games, just little different ways.

I find is funny how players seperated both games, but don't understand even how close to same they really are.

ME2 has better combat system, if you can't see it, you are totally blind. Basicly combat in both games are 3rd person shooter. In PC version both requires you to target with mouse when you shoot target. In ME2 it's just done little better. You can actualy shoot arm off from those robots or make head shot. That's not possible in ME1, because in ME1 player allways make general target hit.

Also weapons are little better in ME2, example sniper riffle is actually very usefull and pistol feels more like pistol now, not like small submachine gun.

ME1 is better in the small detail related squad members and npcs. In ME2 they simplified these stuff way too much. Example no weapon or armor modifications for squad members in ME2.

Also story was little better in ME1 as ME2's missions where too much about squad members and not enough main story.

How ever, that doesn't make one game better than other, just little differently balanced.

Modifié par Lumikki, 18 mai 2010 - 01:23 .

[Spartas Husky]

Lumikki wrote...

TuRiAn_AllY wrote...

Don't talk about how much better the combat is in 2 because its supposed to be an RPG not a shooter, i hope they remember that in me3...

BS. Both of Mass Effects are as excelent games, just little different ways.

I find is funny how players seperated both games, but don't understand even how close to same they really are.

ME2 has better combat system, if you can't see it, you are totally blind. Basicly combat in both games are 3rd person shooter. In PC version both requires you to target with mouse when you shoot target. In ME2 it's just done little better. You can actualy shoot arm off from those robots or make head shot. That's not possible in ME1, because in ME1 player allways make general target hit.

Also weapons are little better in ME2, example sniper riffle is actually very usefull and pistol feels more like pistol now, not like small submachine gun.

ME1 is better in the small detail related squad members and npcs. In ME2 they simplified these stuff way too much. Example no weapon or armor modifications for squad members in ME2.

Also story was little better in ME1 as ME2's missions where too much about squad members and not enough main story.

How ever, that doesn't make one game better than other, just little differently balanced. Both games are action RPG games.

ooo, better than I was thinking it out.

Simply put thank you.

ME1 had good detail on the majority, small details.+++/--

ME2 had good detail on the minority, big details.++/---

[shnizzler93]

I'm doing a 100% playthrough of ME1 right now, but even with me fully exploring everything, I'm still several hours short of the time spent in one playthrough of ME2 (and no, I did not scan for minerals on every planet, not even close).



To the person that said that infinite squad ammo was dumb, EVERY other third-person shooteris like that.

[Ecael]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

TuRiAn_AllY wrote...
i look back and see mass effect 1 took me wayyy longer to do everything

When you get your first girlfriend, you fascination with endless games will evaporate. 

That's a bit ad hominem right there, isn't it Rinpoche?

MassEffect762 wrote...

Mostly agree with OP.

Heat sink("ammo") implementation = poor.(infinite team-mate "ammo"/ no eventual cool down)
Weapon customization = shallow, a joke("power" ammo)
No self crouch = sad, no execuse for that.(imo)
Univeral power cooldowns = not very fun, even with quick cooldowns.
No grenades = Wrong. Inferno gernade power doesn't cut it.

-Heat sink wasn't implemented well in terms of plot, but in terms of gameplay it was the result of encouraging the use of the cover system (which I hardly used in ME1 because my characters were invincible after a certain point). If there weren't any heat sinks, people's first thought would be to hold the fire button down until they got to 10% health coming out of cover.

-Weapon customization was replaced by upgrades. Unless you stick with the resources you are given without planet-scanning (which I stopped doing because it was a timesink), budgeting the remaining resources becomes a task of customization. Otherwise, the upgrades are more akin to progression (you upgrade gradually as you progress throughout the game).

-There isn't self-crouch because people abused it in ME1 and in ME2's beta. They would shoot while crouching right behind cover (instead of up against it) while being extremely hard to hit. It's actually still possible in some areas where you can spin 90 degrees from the side - in those parts, you can shoot without any retaliation.

-Heavy Weapons replaced grenades, although it would be nice to have those as an extra option again.

-Whether or not the universal power cooldown was a good idea is debatable, but I'm quite sure it's again the result of the necessary cover system - you would spam powers and never shoot your weapon, barely getting hit each time.

[Spartas Husky]

Ecael wrote...

When you get your first girlfriend, you fascination with endless games will evaporate. 

...truth with most.

whether or not is unfortunate, mine
has
not even began to wither...although my gf's patient sure did

duno

if is sad, or just funny[smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/tongue.png[/smilie]

Modifié par Spartas Husky, 18 mai 2010 - 03:26 .

[cachx]

Don't talk about how much better the combat is in 2 because its supposed
to be an RPG not a shooter

Oh boy, I don't even want to start...

ME1 was much shorter. A completionist playthrough (well every quest done except the metal collection one) took around 18 hours, if you stick to the plot the game could be finished around the 10 mark. While a ME2 playthrough takes around 21 hours (and that's without mining or doing all the extra  n7 missions).

The rest of the points are subjective, so no reason to argue those. e gustibus non est disputandum

[RyuGuitarFreak]

cachx wrote...

Don't talk about how much better the combat is in 2 because its supposed
to be an RPG not a shooter

Oh boy, I don't even want to start...

ME1 was much shorter. A completionist playthrough (well every quest done except the metal collection one) took around 18 hours, if you stick to the plot the game could be finished around the 10 mark. While a ME2 playthrough takes around 21 hours (and that's without mining or doing all the extra  n7 missions).

The rest of the points are subjective, so no reason to argue those. e gustibus non est disputandum

Yeah. I don't get when people say ME1 is longer. First playthrough 26h completionist achievement. I get impressed of people that drive the Mako through everywhere on every or most planets searching for resources, when it's completely uncessary to get the assignment and IMO, BORING AS HELL. First play on ME2: 40h with most N7 missions.