Aller au contenu

Photo

Annoyance with Mass Effect 1: Call This Karmic Balance


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
149 réponses à ce sujet

#1
Solaris Paradox

Solaris Paradox
  • Members
  • 401 messages
To be fair: I understand what aspects of this game people liked that would cause disappointment with Mass Effect 2. For example, the Citadel. It took me three times as long to fully explore the place and its sidequests than it did for me to clean out all four of ME2's town sections combined. Has that geniune BioWare RPG feel to it.

To be blunt: disappointment I can understand, but when people state point-blank that ME1 is actually a better game on the whole than its sequel... yeah, that's where my open-mindedness comes to a swift and violent end--violent enough to sheer the anchor off a geth dropship, if you catch my meaning.

I've given this a good deal of thought over the past month or so (when you're unemployed, you have plenty of time to waste thinking about the videogames you could be playing if only your little brother weren't hogging the damn Xbox), but it wasn't until I finished my recent Hardcore run of Mass Effect 1 that I realized just how many aspects of ME1 drive me BATCRAP FUDGING UP-THE-MOUNTAINSIDE MADCAPS INSANE. And that's why I think Mass Effect 2 is, objectively, a better game in spite of its lacking aspects (in summary: less emphasis on exploration, more focus on episodic character-based sideplots and less on the main plot, greater balance in focus toward action and less toward RPG elements in general, and so on, and so forth). I say "objectively" because the sheer volume of problems that can't be defended or justified is just too great for its high points to really make up for them.

And yeah, some of you may be thinking something involving the words "wall of text" about now. Stuff it, I'm a nerd and I reserve the right to be unnecessarily long-winded.

1. The first and most obvious issue is the unforgivable repetition in regards to sidequests. Setting aside the moon-buggy portions leading up to them, consider the sidequests themselves. There are a grand total of five structures which see frequent re-use throughout the game:

- Exhibit A: The Four-Room Warehouse (as seen on over 9000 planets over the course of the game).
- Exhibit B:  The Underground Facility (which comes in two varieties: "filled with miscellaneous mechanical things" and "filled with really smucking big crates").
- Exhibit B-point-5: The Cerberus Facility (one big room... wow... and it looks suspiciously like the Underground Facility).
- Exhibit C: Mine Tunnels (home to crime lords, husks, rachni, and a crapload of random crates)
- Exhibit D: The Ship (No matter who's ship it is, it's always the same set of hallways, rooms, and one really big cargo bay).

Now, repeating the same four-and-a-half buildings over and over is irritating enough; when the sidequests inside them consist of occasional interesting dialogue conversations buried in a sea of random enemy groups who like to shout either "I WILL DESTROY YOU!" in horribly unconvincing stock VO (versions for both genders, equally annoying), "ENEMIES EVERYWHERE!" in horribly unconvincing stock VO (versions for both genders, equally annoying... although one wonders what enemies are "everywhere"--all I see are me and my two squadmates all huddled together behind the same crate...), "HOLD THE LINE!" in horribly unconvincing stock VO (apparently only men are epic enough to be commanding officers in Mook Squads) and the krogan growl of "WATCH OUT!", all of which feel the need to repeat themselves approximately once every one-point-thirty-eight-seconds... the blocks of texts that usually pop up to tell the sidequest's stories don't really satisfy. Like, at all. Suffice it to say that the next time I hear the words "ENEMIES EVERYWHERE!", be it in real life or otherwise, I'm going to drop something large and heavy on someone else's big toe.

2. The moon buggy. Punctuating all of the sidequests are massive empty sections of bumpy terrain where you bounce along like a drunk looking for quick-time events to play! There are never any trees, swamps, or other environmental changes beyond the shape of the mountains--just textures, backgrounds, and some meter that occasionally pops up to tell you that getting out of your vehicle in a situation where you wouldn't want to get out of your vehicle anyway is going to get you killed. Beautiful. I never thought I'd miss the random chunks of wilderness Baldur's Gate forced you to wade through between each actual location. At least those kept the gameplay coming at you. As it is, the novelty factor of exploring uncharted worlds didn't last more than two planets for me. It's times like this when I hate being a completionist.

As a side note, why the hell is a sniper rifle so good against a heavily-armored moon-tank, and why the deuce does it make a splashing sound when the bullet hits? Also, I have to sit in place for half a minute and waste 15 omni-gel to repair just enough hull integrity to withstand two hits, and my kinetic barriers take about two years to recharge. Alliance Military vehicle technology sucks.

3. The combat. My god, the combat. There are very few games where I actually actively dislike playing on the upper difficulties and swear off them immediately after unlocking everything associated with their completion, but by god this is one of them. In Mass Effect 2, and in real life for that matter, enemies and squadies strategically (or mindlessly-but-still-at-least-looking-like-they-know-what-they're-doing, anyway) stick behind cover, move from hiding place to hiding place, making an active effort not to get shot. In ME1, your squadmates seem to delight at shooting through walls when they know an enemy is present, or shooting through YOU, and even better, whenever we happen to be in close proximity during a firefight, they always find a way to get between me and the enemy I'm shooting at. ALWAYS. And the 360 version lacks the kind of squadmate-control that would alleviate these issues. The only real use I get out of my squadmates is to use them as a diversion, and to occasionally use one of their powers.

As for the enemies, they love to abuse the fact that "run around like @#$%ing morons" screws up console-controls in a shooter something righteous, especially at close range. And apparently this game's idea of a charging krogan is a krogan with omnidirectional superspeed whom you can neither dodge, shake off, melee, or otherwise avoid (pro tip: save your squadie's biotic "Throw" or "Lift" for the inevitable krogan charge if you happen to hear "WATCH OUT!" amongst the annoyingly-badly-voiced stock voices in the enemy squadron).

4. Inventory: You're Doing It Wrong.

It's great to have a lot of different armors and upgrades and weapons to choose from.

Ten versions of every item is a little much. Especially when the inventory screen scrolls by so slowly...

5. Last but certainly not least: the goddamn achievements are goddamn obnoxious. Want all of the Achievements? Well, for starters, you have to play the game twice, because there's an achievement for that, you know! And then there's the achievement for beating the game on the UNLOCKABLE Hardcore Difficulty and another for the UNLOCKABLE-THROUGH-HARDCORE Insanity difficulty, meaning you have to play three times! Because just letting the player brave Insanity mode on their first playthrough if they so desired to drive themselves mad would just be too kind. But it's a good thing you have three playthroughs on your agenda, because over the course of those playthroughs (and however many more it takes), you must:
- Play a playthrough in which you use each squadmember for pretty much the entire game--as there are six members, you will take at least three playthroughs to do this.
- Play a Paragon run and Renegade run for the obligatory morality-meter achievements.
- Use every single ability in the game 75 times AS SHEPARD, because counting the abilities of your squadmates would make too much sense.
- Use medi-gel 150 times. Yes, that's right, this game has an achievement for failing.

This is, bar none, the worst list of Achievements I've ever had the misfortune to dedicate myself to achieving. The annoying part is, I like this game enough to be obsessively kleptomaniac about it--and its achievements. Image IPB


In conclusion:
With exception to the achievements, these are all major issues that dominate the experience. Frankly, the only way you can play this game without wasting hours of your life wading through one of the most tedious and repetitive gaming experiences you'll ever encounter in the RPG genre is to avoid sidequesting altogether and just play the main story missions (which are all awesomeness made awesome). And even then the inventory is bound to get under your skin.

Problems like these usually result in games being universally lambasted--the only saving grace is that most of it's purely optional. But if you're going to cite Mass Effect 1's "wide open feel" and all that jazz as a reason for it actually being better than Mass Effect 2... no. Just, no. Absolutely no. Argument invalid. Not valid. Not right. Wrong. Dr. Cox musical levels of wrong.

Say what you want about Mass Effect 2's shortcomings in certain areas--at least that game only ever wasted your time when you were probing planets that weren't Uranus.

Modifié par Solaris Paradox, 04 septembre 2010 - 11:06 .


#2
FlyingWalrus

FlyingWalrus
  • Members
  • 889 messages
Everything that has been said here has already been used as a point, a counterpoint, a counter-counter-counterpoint, and perhaps even a tea cozy; all in the "Disappointment with Mass Effect 2" thread.

Some people will whine about anything without consideration of their stance. These complaints are born of an emotional argument rather than one rooted in objective logic.

These are the same people saying that Alpha Protocol was a better game than Mass Effect 2.

Nice of you to try to point out the obvious to the ones who seem to gloss it over, but some people are simply set in their ways.

Ultimately, worthy intent on a wasted thread.

#3
Fugiz

Fugiz
  • Members
  • 213 messages
I hope Bioware makes whatever tool or content for determining the choices in ME1 on the PS3 also available on the Xbox, because playing thru ME1 when you know you could be playing the more entertaining ME2 with your choices available is just torturous.



Yes, I agree those "Prefab buildings" are annoying...

#4
upsettingshorts

upsettingshorts
  • Members
  • 13 950 messages
I'd throw in:

"More skills and abilities to level up isn't always better" - especially when many of them apply to firearms where 0 points invested means you fire your weapon with the accuracy of a drunk six year old, and max points invested means you can depress the trigger for what seems like an eternity and still hit a target the size of a single-serving pizza. Such absurdity only gives the illusion of customization because Shepard is so breathtakingly incompetent without investment in firearms he should be proficient at from the start.

The clunky use of grenades - Maybe this is more subjective than your point and my previous one. But I love the Flashbang/Inferno grenades in ME2, not necessarily due to their effectiveness but because they move and behave like grenades. The 'nades in ME1 never seemed to end up where I wanted them, and rarely seemed to be of any use outside of the Paragon ending of Feros.

The GUI is much much better in ME2. I think this is a fairly common opinion, though.

Graphically the focus on fewer worlds has unquestionably led to a dramatic improvement in the detail of each N7 mission. Do the hub worlds seem more like malls? Yeah, kinda, but that doesn't annoy me as much as it does other people because...

...your spend much less time jogging around. Theres a TON of open space in ME1. Space that isn't being used for anything. Space in the Citadel between things that are actually interesting. Space between the landing zone and objectives in unexplored worlds. Space between firefights in combat missions. Lots of empty space that only seems to kill time and bore me. And don't tell me that sidewalks and vast empty plains are part of the roleplaying experience.

Of course ME2 has its flaws, but I agree 100% that statements of Mass Effect 1 being an objectively better game are at best nostalgia and at worst self delusion.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 04 septembre 2010 - 10:50 .


#5
Solaris Paradox

Solaris Paradox
  • Members
  • 401 messages

FlyingWalrus wrote...

Everything that has been said here has already been used as a point, a counterpoint, a counter-counter-counterpoint, and perhaps even a tea cozy; all in the "Disappointment with Mass Effect 2" thread.


Let's just say I'm accomodating the laziness of those who'd rather not sift through over nine thousand pages of forum fluff to find it.

#6
Solaris Paradox

Solaris Paradox
  • Members
  • 401 messages

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I'd throw in:

"More skills and abilities to level up isn't always better" - especially when many of them apply to firearms where 0 points invested means you fire your weapon with the accuracy of a drunk six year old, and max points invested means you can depress the trigger for what seems like an eternity and still hit a target the size of a single-serving pizza. Such absurdity only gives the illusion of customization because Shepard is so breathtakingly incompetent without investment in firearms he should be proficient at from the start.


Truth. It's on about the same level of stupid as Sonic and the Secret Rings forcing the player to level up and equip speed upgrades before they can accelerate at anything resembling a reasonable rate or run at speed one would typically associate with a Sonic game. The logic behind me being so terrible with weapons despite everyone regarding me as some badass war hero who single-handedly saved a colony from annihilation is something to think about. This said, I don't mind the way the talent trees work other than the accuracy issue.

The clunky use of grenades - Maybe this is more subjective than your point and my previous one. But I love the Flashbang/Inferno grenades in ME2, not necessarily due to their effectiveness but because they move and behave like grenades. The 'nades in ME1 never seemed to end up where I wanted them, and rarely seemed to be of any use outside of the Paragon ending of Feros.


Actually, yeah, that's a fair point, but the "sticky bomb" use of the grenades in ME1 is pretty nifty if you can get them to land in a good spot (or on the enemy) and time the detonation properly. I didn't get much use out of them regardless, though; the "back" button is a really, really awkward button to put the grenades on.

The GUI is much much better in ME2. I think this is a fairly common opinion, though.


This isn't about what's better or worse, though, it's about what's legitimately bad on its own two feet.

Graphically the focus on fewer worlds has unquestionably led to a dramatic improvement in the detail of each N7 mission. Do the hub worlds seem more like malls? Yeah, kinda, but that doesn't annoy me as much as it does other people because...

...your spend much less time jogging around. Theres a TON of open space in ME1. Space that isn't being used for anything. Space in the Citadel between things that are actually interesting. Space between the landing zone and objectives in unexplored worlds. Space between firefights in combat missions. Lots of empty space that only seems to kill time and bore me. And don't tell me that sidewalks and vast empty plains are part of the roleplaying experience.


Exploration is, anyway. Just give me a wide open town area and slap a fast-transport option on it for the times when I can't be bothered to walk it manually and I'm happy--pretty much what ME1 did. Not being able to stroll through the Presidium in ME2 annoyed the crap out of me.

Pointless empty spaces are useless, yeah, but the town sections in ME2 felt so constricted that they felt artificial. There's a happy medium somewhere, if only the designers had known where to find it.

Of course ME2 has its flaws, but I agree 100% that statements of Mass Effect 1 being an objectively better game are at best nostalgia and at worst self delusion.


My thoughts exactly, yes.

#7
Guest_Spuudle_*

Guest_Spuudle_*
  • Guests

FlyingWalrus wrote...

Everything that has been said here has already been used as a point, a counterpoint, a counter-counter-counterpoint, and perhaps even a tea cozy; all in the "Disappointment with Mass Effect 2" thread.

Some people will whine about anything without consideration of their stance. These complaints are born of an emotional argument rather than one rooted in objective logic.

These are the same people saying that Alpha Protocol was a better game than Mass Effect 2.

Nice of you to try to point out the obvious to the ones who seem to gloss it over, but some people are simply set in their ways.

Ultimately, worthy intent on a wasted thread.


Agreed!

#8
FlyingWalrus

FlyingWalrus
  • Members
  • 889 messages

Solaris Paradox wrote...

FlyingWalrus wrote...

Everything that has been said here has already been used as a point, a counterpoint, a counter-counter-counterpoint, and perhaps even a tea cozy; all in the "Disappointment with Mass Effect 2" thread.


Let's just say I'm accomodating the laziness of those who'd rather not sift through over nine thousand pages of forum fluff to find it.

Very well. But I hope you'll forgive me when I say that I don't see the value in making "our side's" own complaint thread. Not only is it a little hypocritical, but it's also about a game that is about to become three years old; water under the bridge, says I.

T'would be like complaining about the graphics in Baldur's Gate. :lol:

Good luck with your thread anyhow. I may pipe in for a comment or two later on.

#9
AntiChri5

AntiChri5
  • Members
  • 7 965 messages
Agree with everything except what you said about achievements.



In ME 1 achievements actually meant something becaise you had to work towards them.

#10
Mister Mida

Mister Mida
  • Members
  • 3 239 messages
You couldn't just post this wall of text on the 'Disappointment' thread, or are you trying to drag this discussion all over the BSN?

#11
Terror_K

Terror_K
  • Members
  • 4 362 messages

Upsettingshorts wrote...

The GUI is much much better in ME2. I think this is a fairly common opinion, though.


I disagree strongly. ME1 admittedly had a lot of flaws but the GUI definitely wasn't one of them. It was damn near perfect. The ME2 GUI absolutely horrid. It's lacking, confusing and poorly laid out. I'm still not even entirely sure what it means 8 months later. That's why I simply ignore it. If this and the "Mission complete" screens were gone in ME3 the game would already be one point better automatically. I don't see how anybody can consider the mess of a HUD that ME2 has an improvement in any way, shape or form.

And yeah... they're called "achievements" for a reason. It's bad enough that most of the "achievements" these days in games would more accurately be described as "inevitables"

Modifié par Terror_K, 04 septembre 2010 - 11:47 .


#12
Code_R

Code_R
  • Members
  • 722 messages
Well your big list does cover all ME1s problems, its still a better game than ME2 purely based on story telling. I dont care about crappy inventories, repeated enemy bases and badly designed terrain for the mako to fail driving up, because the plot is what its about in a good quality RPG. I'd still take moon buggies over scanning, since it makes sense that I am the commander and not the mineral requisition officer, and I still take Saren over the collectors as he actually has character and presence as the villian.

This blog I saw earlier makes most of the best points: 

http://social.bioware.com/718939/blog/

Modifié par Code_R, 04 septembre 2010 - 11:48 .


#13
CARL_DF90

CARL_DF90
  • Members
  • 2 473 messages
A good plot can only support so much. I absolutely LOVE story based games and the Mass Effect series is one of the best around, but honestly replaying ME1 for story variations can get really irritating at times. Solaris Paradox makes some really good points. Please my friends, do not be so quick to dismiss his claims.

#14
AntiChri5

AntiChri5
  • Members
  • 7 965 messages
Yeah a plot does not make a game.



When judging which is the better game the number one issue to consider is gameplay. Nothing else really matters.



Yes, Mass Effect is a better story then Mass Effect 2. But Mass Effect 2 is a better game then ME 1.

#15
tonnactus

tonnactus
  • Members
  • 6 165 messages

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I'd throw in:

"More skills and abilities to level up isn't always better" - especially when many of them apply to firearms where 0 points invested means you fire your weapon with the accuracy of a drunk six year old, and max points invested means you can depress the trigger for what seems like an eternity and still hit a target the size of a single-serving pizza. Such absurdity only gives the illusion of customization because Shepard is so breathtakingly incompetent without investment in firearms he should be proficient at from the start.


The only weapon that didnt work good without points in it is the sniper.Thats it.
All other weapons are usable even with zero points.And i rather have stat based shooting then retarded ammo powers anyway.And good that krogans were actually dangerous enemys like it should be.

#16
tonnactus

tonnactus
  • Members
  • 6 165 messages

AntiChri5 wrote...
But Mass Effect 2 is a better game then ME 1.

For people who like combat classes,yes.All other classes ar far more interesting in the first game,with far more possibilities then now.

Modifié par tonnactus, 04 septembre 2010 - 01:25 .


#17
upsettingshorts

upsettingshorts
  • Members
  • 13 950 messages

tonnactus wrote...
The only weapon that didnt work good without points in it is the sniper.Thats it.
All other weapons are usable even with zero points.And i rather have stat based shooting then retarded ammo powers anyway.And good that krogans were actually dangerous enemys like it should be.


I've never been in the military.  I've never even fired a rifle* or handgun.  I have however had extensive experience with shotguns and clay pidgeons. Now, I don't know how much you know about them, but basically clay pigeons are small targets - about the size of a hand - that are hurled through the air at a reasonably high speed at a distance of anywhere from 20 to 80 yards.

Now I'm a rank amateur.  Once I learned the basic techniques (ranging from how to hold the gun to how to point a shotgun - its different than aiming with ironsights - to how to stand) I never practiced again - it was more of a fun distraction than a serious hobby.  I would hit these targets at anywhere from a 70-85% rate pretty consistently.

Again, rank amateur, small targets, moving more quickly than almost every enemy in Mass Effect and I'm hitting them most of the time.  Heck, on "trick" shots I've been able to hit two clay pidgeons at once with one shot.  It's not the hardest thing in the world.  Granted I'm standing still and know where the targets will be coming from.

Commander Shepard is a highly trained special forces marine and the default reticule for assault rifles, shotguns and pistols is the so big you could drive a motorcycle through it.  It's completely idiotic and without auto-aiming that I turn off because I have self-respect - the vast majority of shots fired miss, period.  I can understand this when using ME2's light machine gun - pre accuracy upgrade - but for highly advanced infantry assault rifles... ugh.  The only explanation is that Shepard starts out hopelessly incompetent.

Then by the time you've maxed out your skills, you can hit a target the size of a clay pidgeon at 100 yards for as long as you feel like depressing the trigger at full auto in the case of the assault rifle.  It's bogus.

* Well, a .22 rifle modified to fire small shotgun-shell like cartridges was the first gun I ever fired.  At some balloons.   Then the amused instructor handed me a 12 gauge.  I went flying backwards after shooting that one.  Then he taught me about posture and how to hold the gun... and the lessons began.

tonnactus wrote...

AntiChri5 wrote...
But Mass Effect 2 is a better game then ME 1.

For
people who like combat classes,yes.All other classes ar far more
interesting in the first game,with far more possibilities then now.


Explain.

Terror_K wrote...

I disagree strongly. ME1 admittedly had a
lot of flaws but the GUI definitely wasn't one of them. It was damn
near perfect. The ME2 GUI absolutely horrid. It's lacking, confusing and
poorly laid out. I'm still not even entirely sure what it means 8
months later. That's why I simply ignore it. If this and the "Mission
complete" screens were gone in ME3 the game would already be one point
better automatically. I don't see how anybody can consider the mess of a
HUD that ME2 has an improvement in any way, shape or form.


Well I personally thought the 360 interface was one of the more clunky ones I've ever used.  PC ME1 was fine.  PC ME2 is good because I liked the way hotkeys worked - it wasn't perfect but at least I could continue the action without pausing.  I hate having to pause in games like ME2 - it breaks up the tension and rhythm of the game.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 04 septembre 2010 - 01:44 .


#18
AntiChri5

AntiChri5
  • Members
  • 7 965 messages
No they are not.



Running into a room, turning on singularity, then going to the fridge and getting a coke was never fun.



I have played through both ME 1 and 2 on insanity with every class on insanity. Caster classes are still great fun.



I am quite literally in the middle of my NG + Insanity Adept right now (i post from my iphone, generally during loading screens, which sits in my lap while i play). The only level that was the least bit frustrating was Tali's recruitment.

#19
Fatal v1

Fatal v1
  • Members
  • 50 messages

Solaris Paradox wrote...
Say what you want about Mass Effect 2's shortcomings in certain areas--at least that game only ever wasted your time when you were probing planets that weren't Uranus.

That was a nice read. This made me lol. :lol: I actually bought ME1 close to it's release(360, used), but returned it 2 days later because of the, well I want to call it lag. I'm actually planning on buying it again and give it another shot. Hopefully there was an update that will help with the "lag".

#20
theelementslayer

theelementslayer
  • Members
  • 1 098 messages

tonnactus wrote...

AntiChri5 wrote...
But Mass Effect 2 is a better game then ME 1.

For people who like combat classes,yes.All other classes ar far more interesting in the first game,with far more possibilities then now.


Ummmmm thats opinion. In my opinion I play adept primarly and I love ME2 much more then ME1. Sigularity traps enemies that arent just health, warp bombs, warp ammo. In ME1 it would always be the same progression of warp, singularity, when that was done lift, then throw. Rinse and repeat. In ME2 I can use singularity to trap enemies and then warp bomb, or get someone to pull the enemy and then I throw it off a cliff. Nope I think ME2 was much better for all classes then ME1.:wizard:

#21
upsettingshorts

upsettingshorts
  • Members
  • 13 950 messages

Fatal v1 wrote...
That was a nice read. This made me lol. :lol: I actually bought ME1 close to it's release(360, used), but returned it 2 days later because of the, well I want to call it lag. I'm actually planning on buying it again and give it another shot. Hopefully there was an update that will help with the "lag".


You mean the texture pop in?  No, it's the same.  Wasn't quite as bad on PC, but still noticable.

#22
Kriztaen

Kriztaen
  • Members
  • 265 messages

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Of course ME2 has its flaws, but I agree 100% that statements of Mass Effect 1 being an objectively better game are at best nostalgia and at worst self delusion.


There is also what some people might call personal taste. I liked Mass Effect 1 more than the second for a variety of reasons, yet still love both games almost equally despite their faults considering the greater whole.

In the end it is really up to the individual player. I hated planet scanning, it seems quite a few people actually like it.

Also just to be clear, the Achievements may have been tedious at some points but almost every single one gave us in-game bonuses. Something that 9/10 games (ME2 included save for an XP bonus on one) fail to provide.

I have always felt that being rewarded for achievements beyond "grats on more useless gamerscore" is something that would add more replay value to many games.

But really, this subject has been argued to death already, some people prefer one game, the other prefer another. Also saying someone who likes one game over another is falling for nostalgia or whatever other reasons is to be quite frank: self righteous and assuming facts for silly reasons. Its like if I said someone was being dumb for liking vanilla ice cream more than chocolate because vanilla was the first flavour they ever tried.

It all comes down to personal preference. People should start realizing that and stop assuming others are "blinded" in some way for not feeling the same.

#23
Fatal v1

Fatal v1
  • Members
  • 50 messages

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Fatal v1 wrote...
That was a nice read. This made me lol. :lol: I actually bought ME1 close to it's release(360, used), but returned it 2 days later because of the, well I want to call it lag. I'm actually planning on buying it again and give it another shot. Hopefully there was an update that will help with the "lag".


You mean the texture pop in?  No, it's the same.  Wasn't quite as bad on PC, but still noticable.

Is that what it is? Well I'll get it and try again. I'm really wanting to see how different ME2 will be with an imported character.

#24
tonnactus

tonnactus
  • Members
  • 6 165 messages

Upsettingshorts wrote...


Commander Shepard is a highly trained special forces marine and the default reticule for assault rifles, shotguns and pistols is the so big you could drive a motorcycle through it.  It's completely idiotic and without auto-aiming that I turn off because I have self-respect - the vast majority of shots fired miss, period. 


Then you obviously made something wrong.Dont know if it is possible to completly turn off aim assistence in Mass Effect on Pc,but i hit enemies every time i aim with lowest aim assistence possible on the box.

The classes:

The sentinel: Versatile biotic in the first game,boring defense stripper in the second as much crowd control as a soldier/ no lift,no throw, no stasis
Engineer:Boring defense stripper with a toy.No power comparable with shutdown powers like sabotage and damping in the first game
Vanguard: Charge bot on higher difficulties.Other biotics didnt work as long as defenses are up
Adept:basicly singularity and warp spam.Gimped soldier against enemies like ymir and geth primes.Ridicoulos,because melee stopped a geth prime from shooting,a throw with 1000 newton force didnt.

Infiltrator: Gimped soldier,gimped engineer,gimped sniper.

Modifié par tonnactus, 04 septembre 2010 - 02:03 .


#25
xlavaina

xlavaina
  • Members
  • 904 messages
You're pretty much totally correct OP. ME1 is not a better game than its sequel and all those who claim so obviously don't have much taste in video games, nor much sense. (By the way to all those who think ME1 > ME2, there is a difference between thinking ME1 is better than ME2, and liking ME1 more than ME2.)