149 réponses à ce sujet

[theelementslayer]

Sable Phoenix wrote...

AntiChri5 wrote...

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.

Mass Effect 2 is a better shooter than Mass Effect 1.  Better game?  Not so much.

Your opinion, majority disagrees with you. Jus sayin:devil:

[brfritos]

Solaris Paradox wrote...


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.

To be fair if you really think about it, achievements ARE stupid.

- Incineration Specialist, incinerate a certain number of armors.
Well, YOU HAVE TO DO THIS if you want to kill a Krogan, so why this is an achievement?
The same goes for Overlord and Warp, you'll use them, so why rewarding a player for it?

- Make some enemies scream as they fall or are set on fire
Oh, Really? Killing someone and make them scream is an achievement?
If this count, I want something better, like killing a Krogan that have barriers and armor only with my fists.

This have to hurt, either for you or for the Krogan, so surelly someone will scream!

- Retrieve mineral resources by scanning and probing a planet in the galaxy map
Well, the game FORCE YOU TO DO THIS, so again, why this is an achievement?

- Highly Trained
Watching the videos will make me a better fighter?
Amazing!

Also, why using medi-gel is an achievement for failing? If my health is low I will use it.
In ME2 if my shields are down I will use it too.
Using a resource is a failure?
Actually, the failure goes down on this matter, using something in the game is an achievement?

You make good points on some ME1 flaws, BTW, but I hardlly agree that ME2 is better than ME1.
In fact, the two games have some big problems that wonder me how on earth they got "9/10" notes, since there a lot of serious issues in both.
For example, in ME1 your decisions hardly have repercutions.
I wish more things like when you call Ashley a coward in the beginning, it has repercutions for what you said.
Shame that's the only moment in the game, for example.

Also, Horizon is the best example why the AI in ME2 is not good either: the fight is tough not because the enemy is smart, more coordinated or powerfull.
Is tough because your weapons and armor aren't upgraded.

My biggest complain about ME2 is not 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 or anything like this, to use your own words.
I totally agree with you on this points, but there's another thing ME2 do that's even worst: it force you towards a path.
This is unforgivable for a game calling itself "RPG".

In ME1 if I do not want to scan a planet, recruit a squad mate, make side-quests I still have available any weapon, armor, upgrades and options for persuading other people.
In ME2 if you choose to ignore some of this or choose your own path, the game punishes you in some form (don't have some upgrades, weapons, paying more for products and so on).
So you have to do the recruitment and loyalty missions, you don't have a choice.

That's my biggest disappointment with ME2.
 

[AntiChri5]

Sable Phoenix wrote...

AntiChri5 wrote...

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.

Mass Effect 2 is a better shooter than Mass Effect 1.  Better game?  Not so much.

Wether you identify as a shooter or rpg fan what made ME 1 flawed was how poorly implemented so many things were.

Leveling, inventory, exploration, combat all of them were deeply flawed.

[Harley_Dude]

brfritos wrote...
Also, Horizon is the best example why the AI in ME2 is not good either: the fight is tough not because the enemy is smart, more coordinated or powerfull.
Is tough because your weapons and armor aren't upgraded.
 

That last map on Horizon sucked. The husks in ME2 cannot be meleed away from you (at least on hardcore and insanity) and you can't use your powers when being hit. Since the map allowed you to be easily flanked I kept getting pinned against cover by husks and had no defensive way to get away from them. If I managed to kill one I sometimes could cast singularity and get away but mostly I died.

[Solaris Paradox]

AntiChri5 wrote...

Agree with everything except what you said about achievements.

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

No.

Using medi-gel one hundred and fifty times is not "working" toward anything. You either failed hard enough to need a hundred and fifty medi-gels, intentionally spammed them to work toward the Achievement, or just happened to register 150 medi-gel uses throughout your multiple playthroughs. Either way, you didn't work toward it.

When you got the "Ally" achievements, it was because you fully intended to use those characters for entire straight playthroughs. You intentionally ignored the possibility of experimenting with different character combinations in favor of going for an achievement, or you just played through the game again with a specific party combination--the achievement does one of two things: forces you to replay the game, or undermines the squad-member system by locking you down to one or two specific characters per playthrough.

Using an ability seventy-five times is not an achievement, especially when you used it on a wall. Achievements like the "Use Neural Shock 75 times" achievement force you to look for opportunities to spam certain abilities--rather than think of ways to use them effectively in a combat-tactics situation. Making them further exclusive to what Shepard himself does forces you to play the game multiple times, as multiple classes, to get all of the achievements.

Let me be clear: I love replay value. I hate, however, when games try to coerce me to replay games with Achievements designed to force multiple playthroughs. Dragon Age and inFAMOUS having a set of achievements for two sets of moral choices is about as enforced as I can tolerate my replay value. Having a set of achievements that force you to spam things out over the course of three different playthroughs is jumping the shark.

Modifié par Solaris Paradox, 04 septembre 2010 - 10:24 .

[Solaris Paradox]

brfritos wrote...

- Incineration Specialist, incinerate a certain number of armors.
Well, YOU HAVE TO DO THIS if you want to kill a Krogan, so why this is an achievement?
The same goes for Overlord and Warp, you'll use them, so why rewarding a player for it?

Technically you can shoot through shields and armor, warp armor, etc. There's nothing forcing you to use Incinerate or even keep a squadmate on hand with the ability--it's just an effective tactic. ME2 handled its "Do this X number of times" achievements better than ME1, although they're still a stupid kind of achievement.

25 times is much less grueling than 75 times.
It counts squadmates' actions, so you can do it all in one playthrough.

The only one that struck me as annoying was Brawler, because meleeing something and then lining up a killing shot while they're stumbling back is annoying. Still, there were more than enough husks in the Derelict Reaper to make getting the achievement less tiresome than it would have been otherwise.

Also, why using medi-gel is an achievement for failing? If my health is low I will use it.
In ME2 if my shields are down I will use it too.
Using a resource is a failure?
Actually, the failure goes down on this matter, using something in the game is an achievement?

Using medi-gel requires that you take health damage. If you're even halfway decent, you won't take enough damage to need to use seventy-five medi-gels in a single-playthrough. Between the limited supply you have and the lengthy cooldown period, the gameplay system is built to encourage you to avoid taking enough damage to need much medi-gel--there's even an achievement for taking more damage to your Shields than your actual health. To have used seventy-five medi-gel, you either have to have been doing poorly, or have simply played the game multiple times. Or have been playing on Insanity, in which the "charging" krogan will probably have you frantically mashing the medi-gel button at some point or other.

You make good points on some ME1 flaws, BTW, but I hardlly agree that ME2 is better than ME1.

It's not so much that ME2 is a better game as it is that ME1 is a worse game, if you take my meaning. I don't mean to place Mass Effect 2 on a pedestal, I'm just saying that its predecessor has more serious issues.

Also, Horizon is the best example why the AI in ME2 is not good either: the fight is tough not because the enemy is smart, more coordinated or powerfull.
Is tough because your weapons and armor aren't upgraded.

...Horizon? I blew through that place without a problem, you're going to have to explain that to me.

Of course, my insanity run was as an Infiltrator, so I always had the Tactical Cloak to fall back on when my current cover wasn't going to cut it any longer, so that might have had something to do with it.

My biggest complain about ME2 is not 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 or anything like this, to use your own words.
I totally agree with you on this points, but there's another thing ME2 do that's even worst: it force you towards a path.
This is unforgivable for a game calling itself "RPG".

I can't see why. Being able to meander a bit is always nice, but ultimately you have a goal and have to complete it eventually. This isn't an Elder Scrolls game or anything. ME2's story quests aren't any more linear than ME1's story quests, there are just a whole lot more of them in this case.

Modifié par Solaris Paradox, 04 septembre 2010 - 10:19 .

[Solaris Paradox]

Code_R wrote...

Well your big list does cover all ME1s problems, its still a better game than ME2 purely based on story telling.

If all I wanted was story, I would simply watch the cutscenes on YouTube. If what you're doing in-between those cutscenes isn't worth doing, the game has failed its duties and is advised to commit seppuku at the earliest opportunity.

The actual main story missions are awesome, mind you. Feros, Noveria, Therum, Virmire, Ilos, all epic win. It's the other planets that bug the crap out of me, and even in the main story missions the basic issues with combat and inventory still hold true.

tonnactus wrote...

And good that krogans
were actually dangerous enemys like it should be.

Krogan should not have omnidirectional superspeed. An object in motion stays in motion unless acted on by an outside force. Krogan should charge, stumble, and carry inertia like any other massive hulk enemy would, not rush up and circle-strafe like some wacko Sonic the Hedgehog FPS player would.

...Let me put it this way. When an enemy has the ability to run up to the player and keep up with them unerringly, even when the player uses Storm in an attempt to escape, the combat system should not automatically force you to use your totally ineffective close-range melee attack instead of firing your shotgun, and the enemy should never be immune to knockdown. These factors turn an "annoying" enemy into a "cheap" enemy. Like I said, save your biotics for these bruisers. It's the only way to get them to stop trying to violate you while you run.

Modifié par Solaris Paradox, 04 septembre 2010 - 10:11 .

[brfritos]

Solaris Paradox wrote...

brfritos wrote...

- Incineration Specialist, incinerate a certain number of armors.
Well, YOU HAVE TO DO THIS if you want to kill a Krogan, so why this is an achievement?
The same goes for Overlord and Warp, you'll use them, so why rewarding a player for it?

Technically you can shoot through shields and armor, warp armor, etc. There's nothing forcing you to use Incinerate or even keep a squadmate on hand with the ability--it's just an effective tactic. ME2 handled its "Do this X number of times" achievements better than ME1, although they're still a stupid kind of achievement.

25 times is much less grueling than 75 times.
It counts squadmates' actions, so you can do it all in one playthrough.

The only one that struck me as annoying was Brawler, because meleeing something and then lining up a killing shot while they're stumbling back is annoying. Still, there were more than enough husks in the Derelict Reaper to make getting the achievement less tiresome than it would have been otherwise.

So, you're an Engineer or a Infiltrator, have a resource at your disposal and won't use it?
And if you do is an "achievement"?
Why bother playing the class in the first place?

You're saying you have a car, but won't use it if you need to travel to another city?
Why having the car then?

Technicaly speaking, of course. 

Solaris Paradox wrote...

brfritos wrote...

Also, Horizon is the best example why the AI in ME2 is not good either: the fight is tough not because the enemy is smart, more coordinated or powerfull.
Is tough because your weapons and armor aren't upgraded.

...Horizon? I blew through that place without a problem, you're going to have to explain that to me.

Of course, my insanity run was as an Infiltrator, so I always had the Tactical Cloak to fall back on when my current cover wasn't going to cut it any longer, so that might have had something to do with it.

Once I understanded better the game mechanics Horizon becames a breeze too.
But tell me honest, in your first playthrough (my first ME2 was in Veteran) you don't have a hard time?

Solaris Paradox wrote...

brfritos wrote...

My biggest complain about ME2 is not 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 or anything like this, to use your own words.
I totally agree with you on this points, but there's another thing ME2 do that's even worst: it force you towards a path.
This is unforgivable for a game calling itself "RPG".

I can't see why. Being able to meander a bit is always nice, but ultimately you have a goal and have to complete it eventually. This isn't an Elder Scrolls game or anything. ME2's story quests aren't any more linear than ME1's story quests, there are just a whole lot more of them in this case.

No, I'm not talking about meander or open world, I'm talking about "choices".

In ME1 if I choose not to do ANY side quests in the game, only the main missions, it won't be denied upgrades for my weapons, armor and I still be able to gather money for my expenses.

You have the choice to do this in ME2, right?

You have the choice NOT to do the loyalty missions and still have the weapons upgrades available to you, right?
Also, you have the choice not to do ANY side quest and you still have all the armor upgrades available to you, correct?
Of course, let's not talk about money, since it doesn't make any sense the way you obtain it in the game.

And last but not least, having an immortal squad mate in the suicidal mission is the ultimate proof how ME2 is "wonderfull".  <_<

[Terror_K]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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.

Oh, you were referring to the GUI of the tactical screen. I thought you meant the general HUD itself. My bad.

[javierabegazo]

Solaris Paradox wrote...

AntiChri5 wrote...

Agree with everything except what you said about achievements.

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

No.

Using medi-gel one hundred and fifty times is not "working" toward anything. You either failed hard enough to need a hundred and fifty medi-gels, intentionally spammed them to work toward the Achievement, or just happened to register 150 medi-gel uses throughout your multiple playthroughs. Either way, you didn't work toward it.

When you got the "Ally" achievements, it was because you fully intended to use those characters for entire straight playthroughs. You intentionally ignored the possibility of experimenting with different character combinations in favor of going for an achievement, or you just played through the game again with a specific party combination--the achievement does one of two things: forces you to replay the game, or undermines the squad-member system by locking you down to one or two specific characters per playthrough.

Using an ability seventy-five times is not an achievement, especially when you used it on a wall. Achievements like the "Use Neural Shock 75 times" achievement force you to look for opportunities to spam certain abilities--rather than think of ways to use them effectively in a combat-tactics situation. Making them further exclusive to what Shepard himself does forces you to play the game multiple times, as multiple classes, to get all of the achievements.

Let me be clear: I love replay value. I hate, however, when games try to coerce me to replay games with Achievements designed to force multiple playthroughs. Dragon Age and inFAMOUS having a set of achievements for two sets of moral choices is about as enforced as I can tolerate my replay value. Having a set of achievements that force you to spam things out over the course of three different playthroughs is jumping the shark.

Yup, I agree with this entire post. IMO the ONLY things ME1 did better than ME2 concerning achievements was the Stat bonuses. It's nice to get an Acheivement and have it give you some tangible reward, whethere it's an ingame stat bonus, or Avatar rewards, it's nice to get something .

the other thing was the fact that you couldn't get all achievements in one playthrough. In my first playthrough of ME2, I got every single achievement my first playthrough and it was a little disappointing. Give me more secret achievements, I dont' want "inevitable" achievements.

[Kavadas]

AntiChri5 wrote...

Sable Phoenix wrote...

AntiChri5 wrote...

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.

Mass Effect 2 is a better shooter than Mass Effect 1.  Better game?  Not so much.

Wether you identify as a shooter or rpg fan what made ME 1 flawed was how poorly implemented so many things were.

Leveling, inventory, exploration, combat all of them were deeply flawed.

I'm certainly a shooter fan first and foremost but ME1 was a better game.  It was a richer world.  It was a better plot.  Some mechanics were flawed but at least they existed.  TBH, the inventory never bothered me.  I would love to have the damage/shield mechanics of ME1 in ME2 replete with the armor/weapon sockets and devices to fit into them (leaving the current N7 armor pieces to be merely aesthetic, or give them their own sockets and a new series of devices to fit into them individually which is balanced for piecemeal composition).

ME1 had a massive scope and feel to it.  ME2 made me feel claustrophobic.  There were no wide open plains to rove over in a cool vehicle (don't even get me started on the Hammerhead... hate it), I never felt like I was exploring, all of the combat maps were just one way tunnels...

ME2 really had two major flaws:

1.  Complete lack of scope in the world;
2.  Desperately needed the Mako with some minor suspension/gravity tweaks and planets to explore.

If ME2 had those two things I could completely overlook the bad storyline, annoying characters, lack of plot essential missions, lack of deep item customization (or in the case of weapons, any customization at all).

I knew ME2 was going to be a huge disappointment the minute I landed on the Citadel, went over to a taxi, selected "Presidium", and got dumped in Anderson's embassy office.

Very disappointing...

[Mr. MannlyMan]

ME1's atmosphere > ME2's, hands down. The story was more engrossing and held more weight, and the writing was also slightly better (though there was less of it).



Other than those, the world exploration, and the over-simplified inventory of ME2, the second game is better.



To be fair, though, there's a fair amount of denial coming from both sides of the argument. It doesn't seem like many people here know how to keep an objective debate going for very long...

[ExtremeOne]

Fugiz wrote...

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...

   


I do not think that will happen since the xbox 360 has Mass Effect 1 on Games on Demand and plus EA has to help the PS3 gamers out since ME 1 will never be on the PS3. 

[ExtremeOne]

Mr. MannlyMan wrote...

ME1's atmosphere > ME2's, hands down. The story was more engrossing and held more weight, and the writing was also slightly better (though there was less of it).

Other than those, the world exploration, and the over-simplified inventory of ME2, the second game is better.

To be fair, though, there's a fair amount of denial coming from both sides of the argument. It doesn't seem like many people here know how to keep an objective debate going for very long...

  


i would say thats more on the ME 1 fans who think ME 1 is untouchable and has no flaws. ME 2 has some story telling issues but graphics wise and game play its better than ME 1. once the ME 1 fans admit that ME 1 is not all that good from a video game perspective then we can talk 

[PD ORTA]

AntiChri5 wrote...

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.

Agreed. Gameplay is allways the most important factor, and in this respect ME2 is far in advance of ME1.

[Kavadas]

PD ORTA wrote...

Agreed. Gameplay is allways the most important factor, and in this respect ME2 is far in advance of ME1.

What specifically about ME2's gameplay makes it superior to ME1's?  I can point to only a single advancement: the cover system.

Everything else is more or less identical as far as the combat engine goes.  Sure, there were a few tweaks here and there like thermal clips and whatnot but when people say ME2 was light years ahead of ME1 I just scratch my head because the cover mechanic was the only one in which I noticed serious positive refinement.

Am I missing something else?

ME2's gameplay is better than ME1's, basically.  But not by much, and not in many areas (I can only think of one and I just played both games back to back).  That said, ME2's combat engine isn't that much better than ME1's.

Heck, you can't even crouch in ME2

Modifié par Kavadas, 05 septembre 2010 - 08:16 .

[Terror_K]

PD ORTA wrote...

AntiChri5 wrote...

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.

Agreed. Gameplay is allways the most important factor, and in this respect ME2 is far in advance of ME1.

Disagree. ME2's gameplay is as shallow and simple and linear and boring as hell.

[Solaris Paradox]

Terror_K wrote...

Disagree. ME2's gameplay is as shallow and simple and linear and boring as hell.

Shallow? No. Linear? Simple? Maybe so. Those aren't flaws, necessarily. Sometimes it just keeps things from being too convoluted.

Boring as hell, though? To each their own, but I had a blast with Mass Effect 2 and many others share that sentiment. On the other hand, I'm currently playing Mass Effect 1 and forcing myself not to wander off and play something else. Insanity mode is annoying. Not hard, just annoying. I have no trouble surviving, but goddamn does it take a long time to kill anything.

[Solaris Paradox]

Kavadas wrote...

What specifically about ME2's gameplay makes it superior to ME1's?  I can point to only a single advancement: the cover system.

The cover system, yes. That the enemies don't run around like idiots in a manner specifically designed to remind you why shooters on consoles don't control as well as they could is also a plus. I have an easier time taking advantage of my powers. Greater weapon variety (as in different weapons with different actual functions) is pretty fun to have, too. Sidequests that don't make me want to gouge my eyes out with thumbtacks are another high point. Squadmates are a lot more managable, at least compared to the console version of ME1. Squadmates function automatically in a fashion that doesn't have them constantly running around in between you and what you're trying to shoot at, which is awesomesauce. Headshots/legshots/etc. make the guns feel more like guns and less like random-chance dicerolls. And quality is accompanied by quantity in this case, since there are more missions (ones that are worth playing, that is).

That said, ME2's combat engine isn't that much better than ME1's.

Engine isn't everything. As I've mentioned, my qualm isn't so much that Mass Effect 2 is a better game as it is that Mass Effect 1 is a worse one. So much of the content is throwaway content. Worthless. Waste of space and waste of time. Combine that with the combat engine issues, crap AI, mis-designed inventory, and squad-control issues, and the game has problems. You can say of ME2, "oh it's too linear too much action not enough RPG and the plot was worse," but I say of ME1 "It's nonlinear and most of the nonlinearity sucks eggs. And the gameplay is clunky. And the inventory sucks." ...et cetera.

Heck, you can't even crouch in ME2

You can't accidentally crouch, either. Which happens sometimes during tense situations, since it's triggered by pressing the analog stick.

[Solaris Paradox]

brfritos wrote...

So, you're an Engineer or a Infiltrator, have a resource at your disposal and won't use it?

And if you do is an "achievement"?
Why bother playing the class in the first place?

You're saying you have a car, but won't use it if you need to travel to another city?
Why having the car then?

Technicaly speaking, of course. 

...You read the part where I said "The achievement is still stupid but at least this game handles it better than Mass Effect 1 did." Right?

brfritos wrote...

Once I understanded better the game mechanics Horizon becames a breeze too.
But tell me honest, in your first playthrough (my first ME2 was in Veteran) you don't have a hard time?

My first was on Normal and only the boss at the end gave me trouble--not enough to kill me, but god damn was that laser annoying.

I was also playing as a Soldier and (during that playthrough) just letting my squaddies use their powers when and how they felt like it. It wasn't that much trouble. All of the enemies come at you from one direction at a time, so pick an effective cover point and shoot wisely.

Hell, I think I was still abstaining from using my DLC weapons at that point.

No, I'm not talking about meander or open world, I'm talking about "choices".

In ME1 if I choose not to do ANY side quests in the game, only the main missions, it won't be denied upgrades for my weapons, armor and I still be able to gather money for my expenses.

Not nearly as much of any, mind you.

You have the choice to do this in ME2, right?

You have the choice NOT to do the loyalty missions and still have the weapons upgrades available to you, right?
Also, you have the choice not to do ANY side quest and you still have all the armor upgrades available to you, correct?
Of course, let's not talk about money, since it doesn't make any sense the way you obtain it in the game.

While you're at it, I really wish that other game I played last year let me have the super secret ultimate weapon without fighting the super uber secret boss to get it. Because it's totally not fair to force me to do a sidequest to get an extra item.

...No, seriously, you're complaining that the game won't let you get everything without doing the quests where the stuff is found. That. Doesn't. Make. Sense.

And last but not least, having an immortal squad mate in the suicidal mission is the ultimate proof how ME2 is "wonderfull".  <_<

...Immortal squadmate? Wha...?

Modifié par Solaris Paradox, 05 septembre 2010 - 09:20 .

[Kavadas]

Solaris Paradox wrote...

The cover system, yes. That the enemies don't run around like idiots in a manner specifically designed to remind you why shooters on consoles don't control as well as they could is also a plus.

The AI is better?  Could of fooled me... I don't really notice any difference between either games whether it's squadmates or enemies.

I have an easier time taking advantage of my powers.

Uhhh... in both games ability execution is identical so how is it easier in ME2 (I've only played the PC versions each and my control scheme is identical to the key in both games except since ME2 doesn't let me crouch or throw grenades CTRL and G no longer do anything)?

Greater weapon variety (as in different weapons with different actual functions) is pretty fun to have, too.

Yeah, I'll happily concede this.  It was great to see some variation within weapon classes themselves.  Definitely a +1 for ME2.

Sidequests that don't make me want to gouge my eyes out with thumbtacks are another high point.

Yeah but ME2's mining is the most horrible mechanic instituted between both games so I'll be gracious and call it even.

I would glady take generic Mako missions over mining any and every time, wouldn't you?  At least I got to fight something and drive around in the Mako (which I always enjoyed).

Squadmates are a lot more managable, at least compared to the console version of ME1. Squadmates function automatically in a fashion that doesn't have them constantly running around in between you and what you're trying to shoot at, which is awesomesauce.

As I mentioned, I haven't noticed any real improvement in squad AI between either games.  The only comment I can really make is that ME2's UI is so vague in regards to squad AI and health that most of the time I don't even notice that someone is about to die.

The "place squadmates in real time" commands are a great addition, though.

As for being more manageable you only say that because any and all item customization was completely ripped out of the game.  Of course it's more manageable when all you can do is select two weapons for them and assign some skill points between four skill lines.

I enjoy the acquisition of weapons in ME2 more but I dearly miss the socket system of ME1 (at least for weapons).

Engine isn't everything. As I've mentioned, my qualm isn't so much that Mass Effect 2 is a better game as it is that Mass Effect 1 is a worse one. So much of the content is throwaway content. Worthless. Waste of space and waste of time.

I pretty much felt the same way about the equally worthless and yawn-inducing recruiting and loyalty missions which, unfortunately, comprises the overwhelming bulk of ME2's content and dwarfs the game's actual plot missions three or four times over.

Combine that with the combat engine issues, crap AI, mis-designed inventory, and squad-control issues, and the game has problems. You can say of ME2, "oh it's too linear too much action not enough RPG and the plot was worse," but I say of ME1 "It's nonlinear and most of the nonlinearity sucks eggs. And the gameplay is clunky. And the inventory sucks." ...et cetera.

As I mentioned before the only real advancement between ME1 and ME2's combat engine was refinement of the cover mechanic.  The AI is just bad in ME2, IMO.  Squad control in ME2 is identical to ME1 in every way sans the "real time squad placement" commands.  That was the only addition ME2 made.

You can't accidentally crouch, either. Which happens sometimes during tense situations, since it's triggered by pressing the analog stick.

I don't play ME on consoles so it's a non-issue for me.

I wonder what the results would be if you polled PC and XBox players separately as to which game they enjoyed more.

Modifié par Kavadas, 05 septembre 2010 - 09:25 .

[Solaris Paradox]

Kavadas wrote...

The AI is better?  Could of fooled me... I don't really notice any difference between either games whether it's squadmates or enemies.

Enemies don't run around like idiots because that happens to make console shooter controls hard to work with, and your squadmates have the sense not to shoot through the hallway wall in a vain attempt to attack the enemies in the next room. Also, they aren't constantly running back and forth to thwart my attempts to shoot around them, and aren't constantly positioning themselves between me and my target. I've also never encountered a case where my own squadmate and an enemy are hiding behind the same cover, completely unaware of each other's existence. It's happened in ME1, believe it or not.

Uhhh... in both games ability execution is identical so how is it easier in ME2 (I've only played the PC versions each and my control scheme is identical to the key in both games except since ME2 doesn't let me crouch or throw grenades CTRL and G no longer do anything)?

Primarily because my powers feel more straightforward and I never have to stop and think about exactly which direction the enemy will fly off like a ragdoll. Powers used by Shepard are easy to guide and powers I command my squadmates to use aren't affected by whatever random direction they happen to be facing the enemy from, which made the effects of a lot of biotic powers in ME1 somewhat unreliable ("Throw," for example).

It also helps that there's only ever one cooldown at a time to keep track of and it's visible on-screen during gameplay (i.e. you don't have to check your power wheel).

It's a subtle difference, but it's little things like that that just make it feel more streamlined.

Yeah, I'll happily concede this.  It was great to see some variation within weapon classes themselves.  Definitely a +1 for ME2.

That and more than just the four weapon classes. Heavy Weapons in particular are a welcome addition, although one or two of them are kind of "That's awesome, but not that useful" kinds of deals, you know?

Yeah but ME2's mining is the most horrible mechanic instituted between both games so I'll be gracious and call it even.

Not even. The planet-probing is boring, but only wastes as much time as you deign to invest in it. If you only ever pick up large deposits of elements and only mine when you're shooting for a specific upgrade, it doesn't waste NEARLY as much of your time as ME1's moon-buggy and stock-building sidequests do. Really, it's only really bad when you try to clean out entire solar systems, which is a tedious and unnecessary process that only serves to leave you with too much surplus.

The 50,000-units-of-every-element that the game gives you for your subsequent playthroughs also takes some of the edge off. Hell, 50,000 units of Element Zero is probably more than you'll ever need for any of those upgrades.

I would glady take generic Mako missions over mining any and every time, wouldn't you?  At least I got to fight something and drive around in the Mako (which I always enjoyed).

Honestly? I have to go through the Mako to reach every single sidequest in the game that isn't in a town or story section or a spaceship. The mining thing I only have to put up with every so often, and they're broken up with a lot more of what a certain other member of these forums would call "pew-pew." It doesn't feel nearly as annoying when there are longer and more frequent periods of honest fun in between my brief mining stints.

As I mentioned, I haven't noticed any real improvement in squad AI between either games.  The only comment I can really make is that ME2's UI is so vague in regards to squad AI and health that most of the time I don't even notice that someone is about to die.

The "place squadmates in real time" commands are a great addition, though.

I was referring to actual orders you can give, actually--the "place squadmates" thing. The console version of ME1 has a few general orders like "stay put" and "follow me." ME2 lets me direct my squadmates to different places, strategically positioning them so that me and my team can take advantage of the lay of the land to effectively fight enemies, or sending one of them out to act as a diversion. Can't do that in ME1--not the 360 version, anyway. The PC version wins out in this regard, I hear. Too bad this clunker can't run it.

As for being more manageable you only say that because any and all item customization was completely ripped out of the game.  Of course it's more manageable when all you can do is select two weapons for them and assign some skill points between four skill lines.

Wasn't referring to that at all. Inventory's sorely lacking in ME2, but honestly I'd rather have a lacking inventory than one that's too full and doesn't scroll fast enough to compensate for how many items there are. And ten versions of every item IS too much. It just means there are nine versions that are obsolete once you have the tenth.

I pretty much felt the same way about the equally worthless and yawn-inducing recruiting and loyalty missions which, unfortunately, comprises the overwhelming bulk of ME2's content and dwarfs the game's actual plot missions three or four times over.

...They're actual missions in actual unique areas with actual cutscenes and all the bells and whistles that accompany a game designed with an actual budget. Say what you will, but there's no arguing with the fact that those "yawn-inducing" missions beat the living crap out of repeating the moon-buggy-barren-wasteland/small-stock-three-room-structure sidequest tagteam twenty goddamn times.

As I mentioned before the only real advancement between ME1 and ME2's combat engine was refinement of the cover mechanic.  The AI is just bad in ME2, IMO.

There's no "in my opinion" to the quality of an AI. One runs around like an idiot and the other at least pretends to know that staying in cover is a good idea. One operates within the limitations of what you can do with a controller and the other actively frustrates by manuevering in a way specifically designed to make console control a pain in the ass. Simply put... I had fun playing Mass Effect 2 on Insanity. It was challenging, but satisfying. I'm not having fun playing Mass Effect 1 on Insanity. It's easy and feels like a battle of attrition. The way enemy powers work is part of that, but most of it is just how the enemies run around (or fly around) like idiots. And how blasting an enemy with a tank cannon sends them flying far enough to land on a nearby mountaintop but doesn't do enough damage to register a noticible change in their health bar.

I don't play ME on consoles so it's a non-issue for me.

Lucky nugnugget. My computer can't even run Mass Effect.

[brfritos]

Solaris Paradox wrote...

brfritos wrote...

And last but not least, having an immortal squad mate in the suicidal mission is the ultimate proof how ME2 is "wonderfull".  <_<

...Immortal squadmate? Wha...?

This a no spoilers section, but there's a certain squad mate, female, that can't be killed until the last part of the suicide mission.
If she's not loyal and you send her to lead the second fire team, she will die. Or you can let her be carried by the seeker swarms.

In this two situations she magically return from the dead, in exchange for another squad mate, of course.
You think this is acceptable?

This also indicates that you really don't have much choice in the game, only the ones that the devs force you to do.

[Christmas Ape]

In this two situations she magically return from the dead, in exchange for another squad mate, of course.

You think this is acceptable?

Somehow this is the first I've ever heard of this happening. Which seems unlikely - I've been here a while now, you'd think I'd have heard about that if it were true.

[Solaris Paradox]

brfritos wrote...

This a no spoilers section, but there's a certain squad mate, female, that can't be killed until the last part of the suicide mission.
If she's not loyal and you send her to lead the second fire team, she will die. Or you can let her be carried by the seeker swarms.

In this two situations she magically return from the dead, in exchange for another squad mate, of course.
You think this is acceptable?

This also indicates that you really don't have much choice in the game, only the ones that the devs force you to do.

Sounds like a glitch to me.