147 réponses à ce sujet

[tonnactus]

InvaderErl wrote...

The old Biotic system required less thinking.
 

And this system now requires it?
First,use singularity(the onyl ability that affect "protected enemies). Shoot away the protection.Then they float,use warp for the detonations.Thats its basicly on hadcore and insanity.

[JonDoe297]

tonnactus wrote...

JonDoe297 wrote...

So now your adept cant solo everything he sees.

Oh, really not???

That isn't really the most difficalt part of the game. Try that in an area with time constraints, or enemies coming at you from more than one direction.

[InvaderErl]

tonnactus wrote...

InvaderErl wrote...

The old Biotic system required less thinking.
 

And this system now requires it?
First,use singularity(the onyl ability that affect "protected enemies). Shoot away the protection.Then they float,use warp for the detonations.Thats its basicly on hadcore and insanity.

Yes

because you actually need to take a step or two, because no matter how disparagingly you want to put it it doesn't change the fact that there was an approach that was called for, and if you don't have Sing then you need to come up with a different approach.

ME1 was pathetically easy with even a halfway decent Biotic, it was sad how puny the Tech classes looked in comparison.

JonDoe297 wrote...

InvaderErl wrote...

The
old Biotic system required less thinking.

It was just
spam/spam/spam until everything around you was dead. I would just roll
out Liara anytime I had a problem fight because by the halfway mark she
was utterly unstoppable.

With armor/shields/barriers you need to
use teammates and your own abilities to actually combat their defenses.

Exactly, in ME2 no one is superpowered, they're usefull
when used as a team. In ME1 you just need Liara and someone like Wrex
and nothing has a hope of living.

Absolutely right. I think you'd need to stand there and actually let them kill you to lose while rolling a Wrex/Liara team.

Modifié par InvaderErl, 19 juin 2010 - 09:59 .

[Seipher05]

JonDoe297 wrote...
Yes the system in ME2 isn't amazingly innovative, but at least the vindicator is notiably different from the first rifle, where as in ME1 there are so many different types that are not neccesary.

Noticeably different is not what you said, you said they were all useful in different situations, which they're not. In essence, ME2 did away with the abundance of linear weapons, but did nothing to address the linear aspect itself.

JonDoe297 wrote...
In ME2 you have to use your squadmates, like Jacob who has Incediary ammo, which can be upgraded to apply to the whole squad.

So a system that forces me to use a specific teammate with a specific form of a specific power is a "more accessible" system than an inventory screen? Sorry, but that really doesn't make sense.

JonDoe297 wrote...
Each teammate in ME2 is unique with their own abilities that have to be used in certain situations. In ME1 it was basically, combat, biotic or tech and some chracters were just better than others, rendering some chracters kinda useless.

No ally character in ME1 is better in all three fields than every other character. Considering that each team member in ME1 represents one "class" (combat, biotic, tech, blend) how are any of them "useless"?

In fact, could you please clarify the point you're trying to make here? Which character is better than the others at everything? Which character is completely useless?

JonDoe297 wrote...
So now your adept cant solo everything he sees. Once again, squad based tactical combat. Use your team to deal with what they are good at. Use your own abilites for what they are good at, instead of just nuking everything with biotics.

Problem is, the only "skill" you need your team for is shooting. Biotics are usless until Shields/Armor are gone, so you don't need to use biotic team mates. In addition, tech powers are limited to Overload (get rid of shields), AI Hacking (gives your team yet another gun shooting at your enemies), and Combat Drone (another gun shooting), all of which serve the exact same purpose as just bringing a teammate who has Assault Rifles.

If the only skill you need is guns, that isn't "squad based tactical combat", because who is in your squad is irrelevant, as long as they can bring a gun or gun-like power to the table. 

Lastly, since each teammate only has, at most, 3 abilities, overlap renders each of them that less necessary and/or distinct. For example, Tali and Legion both have AI Hacking and Combat Drone, which means their Loyalty Power is the only skill that sets them apart. However, they both have different weapons skills, so the deciding factor between them isn't "what do they do best", it's "what type of gun do I want to bring"? 
 

JonDoe297 wrote...
They aren't less usefull, now you just have to think of them as a squad and use them accordingly. There isnt't a character like Kaiden who can do everything pretty well, now you need all three members of your team to do things.

Kaiden doesn't do "everything" well; his shooting skills are limited to pistol, which is why a team that includes Kaiden generally needed a combat proficient character as well, to balance him out; if I brought Kaiden, I usually had one of Ashley, Wrex, or Garrus along as well, and the choice among those three was further influenced by whether I thought I'd need a little extra Tech (Garrus), Biotics (Wrex), or Firepower (Ashley). How is that not "thinking of them as a squad and using them accordingly"? 

In ME2, you don't need that balance, you need guns, and that's about it. If the enemy has Shields/Armor, who cares that Samara has Biotics, they're useless! Using Tali's attack drone is equivalent to just bringing along Grunt and his Assault rifle.

The only thing your team needs is guns, and that's it.

JonDoe297 wrote...
And the system in ME1 wasn't linear?? I think picking up a gun that is better than the last sounds pretty linear. 

Yes it was linear, and I even said ME1 didn't do a good job in this area. That being said, I'm afraid I fail to see how pointing out a flaw in ME1 makes the repetition of that flaw in ME2 better...

JonDoe297 wrote...
In ME1 you could easily use the assault rifle in any situation and win. You didn't need to use the shotgun upclose, and you didnt need to snipe the enemy from far with the sniper rifle, the assault did just fine. You cannot deny that the shooting mechanics in ME2 are better in almot every concieveable way. Accuracy and skill actually matter.

So, you can't use the Assault Rifle in every situation and win? At best, it's the exact same scenario as ME1, and considering this a sequel, I would have expected them to improve flaws, not keep them. 

JonDoe297 wrote...
Which goes back to my point that the RPG elements are still present in ME2, they are just found in different locations.

Err, problem is, you criticized them in ME1 (bonuses are too small and so are irrelevant), while you praised them in ME2 (innovative and unique abilities)

Modifié par Seipher05, 19 juin 2010 - 10:08 .

[tonnactus]

JonDoe297 wrote...


That isn't really the most difficalt part of the game. Try that in an area with time constraints, or enemies coming at you from more than one direction.

Now one with time constraints:

http://social.biowar...8/index/2841785

[Seipher05]

Seipher05 wrote...

JonDoe297 wrote...
Yes the system in ME2 isn't amazingly innovative, but at least the vindicator is notiably different from the first rifle, where as in ME1 there are so many different types that are not neccesary.

Noticeably different is not what you said, you said they were all useful in different situations, which they're not. In essence, ME2 did away with the abundance of linear weapons, but did nothing to address the linear aspect itself.

JonDoe297 wrote...
In ME2 you have to use your squadmates, like Jacob who has Incediary ammo, which can be upgraded to apply to the whole squad.

So a system that forces me to use a specific teammate with a specific form of a specific power is a "more accessible" system than an inventory screen? Sorry, but that really doesn't make sense.

JonDoe297 wrote...
Each teammate in ME2 is unique with their own abilities that have to be used in certain situations. In ME1 it was basically, combat, biotic or tech and some chracters were just better than others, rendering some chracters kinda useless.

No ally character in ME1 is better in all three fields than every other character. Considering that each team member in ME1 represents one "class" (combat, biotic, tech, blend) how are any of them "useless"?

In fact, could you please clarify the point you're trying to make here? Which character is better than the others at everything? Which character is completely useless?

JonDoe297 wrote...
So now your adept cant solo everything he sees. Once again, squad based tactical combat. Use your team to deal with what they are good at. Use your own abilites for what they are good at, instead of just nuking everything with biotics.

Problem is, the only "skill" you need your team for is shooting. Biotics are usless until Shields/Armor are gone, so you don't need to use biotic team mates. In addition, tech powers are limited to Overload (get rid of shields), AI Hacking (gives your team yet another gun shooting at your enemies), and Combat Drone (another gun shooting), all of which serve the exact same purpose as just bringing a teammate who has Assault Rifles.

If the only skill you need is guns, that isn't "squad based tactical combat", because who is in your squad is irrelevant, as long as they can bring a gun or gun-like power to the table. 

Lastly, since each teammate only has, at most, 3 abilities, overlap renders each of them that less necessary and/or distinct. For example, Tali and Legion both have AI Hacking and Combat Drone, which means their Loyalty Power is the only skill that sets them apart. However, they both have different weapons skills, so the deciding factor between them isn't "what do they do best", it's "what type of gun do I want to bring"? 
 

JonDoe297 wrote...
They aren't less usefull, now you just have to think of them as a squad and use them accordingly. There isnt't a character like Kaiden who can do everything pretty well, now you need all three members of your team to do things.

Kaiden doesn't do "everything" well; his shooting skills are limited to pistol, which is why a team that includes Kaiden generally needed a combat proficient character as well, to balance him out; if I brought Kaiden, I usually had one of Ashley, Wrex, or Garrus along as well, and the choice among those three was further influenced by whether I thought I'd need a little extra Tech (Garrus), Biotics (Wrex), or Firepower (Ashley). How is that not "thinking of them as a squad and using them accordingly"? 

In ME2, you don't need that balance, you need guns, and that's about it. If the enemy has Shields/Armor, who cares that Samara has Biotics, they're useless! Using Tali's attack drone is equivalent to just bringing along Grunt and his Assault rifle.

The only thing your team needs is guns, and that's it.

JonDoe297 wrote...
And the system in ME1 wasn't linear?? I think picking up a gun that is better than the last sounds pretty linear. 

Yes it was linear, and I even said ME1 didn't do a good job in this area. That being said, I'm afraid I fail to see how pointing out a flaw in ME1 makes the repetition of that flaw in ME2 better...

JonDoe297 wrote...
In ME1 you could easily use the assault rifle in any situation and win. You didn't need to use the shotgun upclose, and you didnt need to snipe the enemy from far with the sniper rifle, the assault did just fine. You cannot deny that the shooting mechanics in ME2 are better in almot every concieveable way. Accuracy and skill actually matter.

So, you can't use the Assault Rifle in every situation and win in ME2? C'mon dude. At best, it's the exact same scenario as ME1, and considering this a sequel, I would have expected them to improve flaws, not keep them. 

JonDoe297 wrote...
Which goes back to my point that the RPG elements are still present in ME2, they are just found in different locations.

Err, problem is, you criticized them in ME1 (bonuses are too small and so are irrelevant), while you praised them in ME2 (innovative and unique abilities)

[tonnactus]

InvaderErl wrote...


Yes

because you actually need to take a step or two, because no matter how disparagingly you want to put it it doesn't change the fact that there was an approach that was called for, and if you don't have Sing then you need to come up with a different approach.

ME1 was pathetically easy with even a halfway decent Biotic, it was sad how puny the Tech classes looked in comparison.

And in Mass Effect you needed warp as the the second step to kill enemies,because often enough you couldnt prevent them to use immunity and even then they have a ridicolous amount of protection and health(thorian creepers/krogans,the mercs in the tonn actus base).And killing enemies with immunity on just with weapons ...
Forget it if they are not low level enemies like batarian troopers.

I also disagree that techs were weak in the first game.The only weaknesses techs had are tough charging enemies with immunity.So only krogans were a problem.But for this case i had my team. Otherwise,biotics and soldiers get owned with damping,sabotage and neuralshock.Even on insanity.

[JonDoe297]

tonnactus wrote...

JonDoe297 wrote...


That isn't really the most difficalt part of the game. Try that in an area with time constraints, or enemies coming at you from more than one direction.

Now one with time constraints:

http://social.biowar...8/index/2841785

Me1 solo:

[tonnactus]

Seipher05 wrote...
. Biotics are usless until Shields/Armor are gone, so you don't need to use biotic team mates. In addition, tech powers are limited to Overload (get rid of shields), AI Hacking (gives your team yet another gun shooting at your enemies), and Combat Drone (another gun shooting), all of which serve the exact same purpose as just bringing a teammate who has Assault Rifles.

I also want to add that the fact this game have ammo powers that did exactly the same as tech/biotic powers make those powers less usefull,i would even say obsolete.Disruptor ammo is better then overload.Just for the single fact you activate it once and could use it the whole mission while overload has a 12 second cooldown on squadmates.

[Pocketgb]

Arguing over which game is more 'balanced' in a technical matter is pretty silly for a Bioware game. This is mainly due to two reasons: 1. In a Bioware game you're almost always outnumbered and balancing a game based on this is always difficult, and 2. Bioware games are hardly ever balanced anyways.



The combat aspects in both games have largely been designed in a 'from-the-ground-up' fashion. Where we go from there is to determine which game has the more interesting systems. For me, ME2 has been a bit more fun to play and I find a few of the systems - mostly in regards to equipment - far more intriguing: they're not terribly traditional and it would been pretty sweet to see more depth added for ME3.

[tonnactus]

JonDoe297 wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

JonDoe297 wrote...


That isn't really the most difficalt part of the game. Try that in an area with time constraints, or enemies coming at you from more than one direction.

Now one with time constraints:

http://social.biowar...8/index/2841785

Me1 solo:

And what do you want to proof with this? Im not the one that claimed that the adept coulnt solo Mass Effect 2.I also dont claimed that he cant solo Mass Effect. But at least rockets and snipers could kill the adept early game and later too.Now shepardt just have to go in cover some seconds,even on insanity. And singularity stops rocket drones to shoot at shepardt.

[Christianson]

Well I like shooters and rpg games so Im fine with both and fine with whatever me3 is.

[JonDoe297]

Seipher05 wrote...

Kaiden doesn't do "everything" well; his shooting skills are limited to pistol, which is why a team that includes Kaiden generally needed a combat proficient character as well, to balance him out; if I brought Kaiden, I usually had one of Ashley, Wrex, or Garrus along as well, and the choice among those three was further influenced by whether I thought I'd need a little extra Tech (Garrus), Biotics (Wrex), or Firepower (Ashley). How is that not "thinking of them as a squad and using them accordingly"? 

In ME2, you don't need that balance, you need guns, and that's about it. If the enemy has Shields/Armor, who cares that Samara has Biotics, they're useless! Using Tali's attack drone is equivalent to just bringing along Grunt and his Assault rifle.

The only thing your team needs is guns, and that's it.

So, you can't use the Assault Rifle in every situation and win in ME2? C'mon dude. At best, it's the exact same scenario as ME1, and considering this a sequel, I would have expected them to improve flaws, not keep them. 

In ME2 the other weapons have a use. Pistols are usefull against armour, SMGs are useful against shileds, shotguns upclose, assultrifles mid-long range, sniper longrange/headshots.

Err, problem is, you criticized them in ME1 (bonuses are too small and so are irrelevant), while you praised them in ME2 (innovative and unique abilities)

I dont think I praised them in ME2, I was saying how those elements are still there but they are in a different area of the game. In ME1 the purpose of new armour was in increase the last one by a small amount, in that linear system we mentioned. In ME2 there is one set of armour that does one thing, and another set that does a different thing so you can use the armour that suits your character. This is instead of picking up a new armour set every mission and equiping it for its minor improvment.

I never once said that ME2 is a perfect game without any room for improvment, all I said was that the RPG elements were not striped from the game and that the combat was inproved. Certainly ME2 could have had more customization and they could have made it work, but ME2 is in itself a great game. I enjoyed, and continue to enjoy the hell out of that game. The gameplay is fun and it works. Of course everyone wants more from it, but Mass Effect is a game that gives as much as any game can give.

[del_diablo]

Seipher05 wrote...

Problem is, the only "skill" you need your team for is shooting. Biotics are usless until Shields/Armor are gone, so you don't need to use biotic team mates. In addition, tech powers are limited to Overload (get rid of shields), AI Hacking (gives your team yet another gun shooting at your enemies), and Combat Drone (another gun shooting), all of which serve the exact same purpose as just bringing a teammate who has Assault Rifles.

 

You forgot Fireball and Iceball, 2 essential skills to incarnate your enemies. While Iceball is not useful at all, Fireball gives instant death and homing along with decent damage against shields and armor burning.
Overload was useless, Drones was completely useless(except when those bloody mechs wanted to attempt melee combat).

So far my current experience is that Assault rifle so far seems completely overrated compared to Mass Effect 1, where it was the godly weapon(only surpassed by the sniper rifle when over 20 meters range). But I have not touched the upgrade of it yet, there might still be hope.
The sniper rifle on the other hand seems like the perfect weapon with 1 hit kills, or high damage rapid fire on the other model.
Going to do a Vanguards playtrough later, to test proper melee combat.

But honestly, Adapt is the far most overrated class.

[Seipher05]

JonDoe297 wrote...
In ME2 the other weapons have a use. Pistols are usefull against armour, SMGs are useful against shileds, shotguns upclose, assultrifles mid-long range, sniper longrange/headshots.

The Assault Rifle is good against Armor and Shields, so it negates the need for the pistol and SMG. The shotgun in ME1 can be used up close as well, so I'm not sure how in ME2 it's viable while in ME1 it isn't, and the Sniper Rifle is also a long-range weapon in ME1, so I'm not seeing your point really.

Secondly, your above quote didn't address my other point, namely:

Seipher05 wrote...

Kaiden doesn't do "everything" well; his shooting skills are limited to pistol, which is why a team that includes Kaiden generally needed a combat proficient character as well, to balance him out; if I brought Kaiden, I usually had one of Ashley, Wrex, or Garrus along as well, and the choice among those three was further influenced by whether I thought I'd need a little extra Tech (Garrus), Biotics (Wrex), or Firepower (Ashley). How is that not "thinking of them as a squad and using them accordingly"? 

Err, problem is, you criticized them in ME1 (bonuses are too small and so are irrelevant), while you praised them in ME2 (innovative and unique abilities)

JonDoe297 wrote...
I dont think I praised them in ME2, I was saying how those elements are still there but they are in a different area of the game. In ME1 the purpose of new armour was in increase the last one by a small amount, in that linear system we mentioned. In ME2 there is one set of armour that does one thing, and another set that does a different thing so you can use the armour that suits your character. This is instead of picking up a new armour set every mission and equiping it for its minor improvment.

My question was how is a 5% increase in ME1 "too little", but a 5% increase in ME2 is acceptable?

JonDoe297 wrote...
I never once said that ME2 is a perfect game without any room for improvment, all I said was that the RPG elements were not striped from the game and that the combat was inproved.

Well, "RPG Elements' is such a subjective term, really. My biggest problem was the lowered number of skills for squadmates, the lack of real equipment options, and castrated biotics.

JonDoe297 wrote...
Certainly ME2 could have had more customization and they could have made it work, but ME2 is in itself a great game. I enjoyed, and continue to enjoy the hell out of that game. The gameplay is fun and it works. Of course everyone wants more from it, but Mass Effect is a game that gives as much as any game can give.

I like ME2 as well. My biggest contention was that a lot of the flaws you were pointing out in ME1 were present in ME2, at least IMO. 

[Sidney]

Seipher05 wrote...

Problem is, the only "skill" you need your team for is shooting. Biotics are usless until Shields/Armor are gone, so you don't need to use biotic team mates. In addition, tech powers are limited to Overload (get rid of shields), AI Hacking (gives your team yet another gun shooting at your enemies), and Combat Drone (another gun shooting), all of which serve the exact same purpose as just bringing a teammate who has Assault Rifles.

You only need swords in Dragon Age and BG2 or guns in FO1,2,3...so what?

Usually people gripe about how overpowered mages are - and all an adept is is a mage. While yes, you can just shoot shields, barriers and armor down you aren't operating at a very high level of effectiveness. You combo up Overload to wipe shields, Warp to take out armor and then shoot or do whatever you want works well. That's actually fun.

Plus, you can use various biotics through armor and they work nicely on barriers.

I'm sorry I don't see the issue, if you could hit with biotics then people would gripe about just spamming warps out there and killing off everything.

[Seipher05]

Sidney wrote...
You only need swords in Dragon Age and BG2 or guns in FO1,2,3...so what?

 
Difference is bows and magic are viable, equally effective alternatives, biotics and tech aren't.

Sidney wrote...
Usually people gripe about how overpowered mages are - and all an adept is is a mage. While yes, you can just shoot shields, barriers and armor down you aren't operating at a very high level of effectiveness. You combo up Overload to wipe shields, Warp to take out armor and then shoot or do whatever you want works well. That's actually fun.

I'm not sure how this refutes my point, namely that biotics are underpowered. According to you, Biotics requires Overload to be effective, but I don't recall guns needing another power in order to function, or tech skills having a Biotic prerequisite.

Put another way, do swords in DA require I use spells beforehand? Do bows require swords to soften up the victims before they work? Do spells need bows to lower defenses before they are an option?  

Sidney wrote...
I'm sorry I don't see the issue, if you could hit with biotics then people would gripe about just spamming warps out there and killing off everything.

The issue is that Biotics are glorified finishing moves, they're pretty and nice, but not a viable tactical option.

[Epic777]

Seipher05 wrote...

Sidney wrote...
You only need swords in Dragon Age and BG2 or guns in FO1,2,3...so what?

 
Difference is bows and magic are viable, equally effective alternatives, biotics and tech aren't.

Sidney wrote...
Usually people gripe about how overpowered mages are - and all an adept is is a mage. While yes, you can just shoot shields, barriers and armor down you aren't operating at a very high level of effectiveness. You combo up Overload to wipe shields, Warp to take out armor and then shoot or do whatever you want works well. That's actually fun.

I'm not sure how this refutes my point, namely that biotics are underpowered. According to you, Biotics requires Overload to be effective, but I don't recall guns needing another power in order to function, or tech skills having a Biotic prerequisite.

Put another way, do swords in DA require I use spells beforehand? Do bows require swords to soften up the victims before they work? Do spells need bows to lower defenses before they are an option?  

Sidney wrote...
I'm sorry I don't see the issue, if you could hit with biotics then people would gripe about just spamming warps out there and killing off everything.

The issue is that Biotics are glorified finishing moves, they're pretty and nice, but not a viable tactical option.

I completely disagree, biotics are very powerful, heck the adept hardly uses guns, Singularity is good at just about every protection in the game, with Singularity an adept can easily self combo. Biotics tend to be very good at crowd controllers. As with me1 it helps in me2 to have combined arms, usually a balanced team of biotics/combat/techs. Combat experts need to have a balanced team, I am sure you could have a team of all biotics, techs or combat experts but your only going to make it harder on yourself.

[Seipher05]

[quote]Epic777 wrote...
I completely disagree, biotics are very powerful, heck the adept hardly uses guns, Singularity is good at just about every protection in the game, with Singularity an adept can easily self combo. Biotics tend to be very good at crowd controllers. As with me1 it helps in me2 to have combined arms, usually a balanced team of biotics/combat/techs. Combat experts need to have a balanced team, I am sure you could have a team of all biotics, techs or combat experts but your only going to make it harder on yourself.[/quote]
[/quote]

I'm glad you had a better experience with Biotics than I did!

Like I said, what I wrote is entirely my opinion, and based on what I saw, biotics was severely limited by the "shields cancel out all Biotics" mechanic

[Sidney]

Seipher05 wrote...

I'm not sure how this refutes my point, namely that biotics are underpowered. According to you, Biotics requires Overload to be effective, but I don't recall guns needing another power in order to function, or tech skills having a Biotic prerequisite.

The issue is that Biotics are glorified finishing moves, they're pretty and nice, but not a viable tactical option.

Guns are the baseline in the game and if you are patient enough you can take out a YMIR with guns. Good luck with that but you are correct it can be done in a long slow unpleasant way. In much the same way biotics can rip down shields in a long slow painful way with Shockwave.

I'm not sure how biotics are only "finishing moves" . I don't know which weapon sounds the final gasp for most foes - and it might be the guns because I hate to waste a power on a mostly dead foe- but dear god the bulk of my damage comes from my biotic powers.

[Onyx Jaguar]

It depends on what difficulty you are playing. I found biotics quite effective on normal (and lower I presume) while on Hardcore they were strictly on support and on insanity they were not of as much use.

[HTTP 404]

biotics in ME2 was disconcerting at first for me mainly after playing biotics in ME1.



I just beat ME2 as a biotic on insanity and after a while I didnt find the game any more difficult than vangaurd or soldier (Infiltrator sniper was ridiculously easy for me). Shielded oppenents are slowed down by singularity making it possible to combo with warp explosion, guns, squadmates overload. it takes more finessing in ME2 for combat IMO than ME1. (emphasis on IMO)

[BladedRose]

Raizo wrote...
 

In other ways ME1 is too much of an rpg. For example, I decided to replay ME1 again recently, I got about as far as the Presidium ( after completing Eden Prime ) before ME1 began to wreck my head. It's too big, too much walking to get from point A to B, to many people to talk to, sidequest to do  and most of these require a relativly high Charm/Intimidate score in order to see all possible outcomes, it's too soon in the game for ME1 to be getting the player bogged down with this much distractions. I love rpg's ( I would not have invested time in the ME univese if it were not an rpg ) and have beaten ME1 before and I feel overwhelmed just being in the Presidium, think of how intimidating this can be for a gamer new to ME universe, a gamer new to rpg's. It's so funny how everyone ( myself included ) ****es about how small the Citadel is in ME2 and yet now that I've gone back to ME1 I now think it is too big.

See I loved this part of the game.  I will point out though, that it is perfectly possible to get around the Citadel using the rapid transit system and complete the game doing barely any of the sidequests.