815 réponses à ce sujet

[wizardryforever]

Okay, there seems to be a lot of things that people like more about ME1 than the equivalent things in ME2.  The main question I have is why?  Be honest with us (and yourself) here.  Is at least part of the reason you like ME1 better because of nostalgia?  "Why did they change it, now it sucks!" is something I read all too frequently on these forums.  If you played ME2, then went back and played ME1 (nevermind story continuity here) could you honestly say that you would still like ME1 more?

I personally liked almost everything in ME2 better than in ME1, everything was an improvement to me.

[Sajuro]

I found the combat to be better and I though the plot was better than ME1(better characters).

[JThompson6577]

A lot of it also seems to be like the people who accuse their favorite band of selling out. They saw this little BioWare game and had a ton of fun with it, told all their friend who played it and had a ton of fun and told all their friends...



Cut to two years later and ME2 is this huge game everyone's waiting for, Hell it was big enough to get a midnight opening at Gamestop (don't kid yourself God of War 3.) And alot of people who stumbled across the first game by accident feel somehow betrayed by the game and are trying to find things to hate about ME 2.

[NanQuan]

I played ME2 right after ME1 (cuz I was late to the party) and I saw a tremendous improvement in 2. I was ecstatic over the upgrades made to the series and I have every confidence that ME3 will improve on ME2. I actually find it hard to go back an play ME1 because I get frustrated with some of the problems that exist in that game but aren't present in 2.

[smudboy]

Sajuro wrote...

I found the combat to be better and I though the plot was better than ME1(better characters).

[Count Viceroy]

There were fewer characters so by default they'll be better.

In my opinion ME1 was an story based rpg with a shooter gimmick, where as Me2 is a story based shooter with rpg gimmicks. It's a pretty strong turn around and it's going to alienate a lot of people who don't like one or the other.

Personally. I play shooters as much as I play rpgs so either way was fine with me. I however don't think "story>gameplay and as long as the story is good I can tolerate ****ty gameplay", as some on the forum seems to advocate.

Story and gameplay play equal parts in my enjoyment of the game, and for me ME2 took a huge leap forward in terms of pure enjoyable gameplay while the story took a short step back. Overall it's a win and therefore Me2 comes out ahead in my book. It's also the bridge between the start and the ending of a trilogy, so it's going to be a bit stale.

Modifié par Count Viceroy, 04 octobre 2010 - 09:13 .

[Gibb_Shepard]

Much better soundtrack, much, much better story.

[Jonesey2k]

I do get a warm feeling when playing ME1 again. I have fond memories, that game sucked my in like few others.

[FuturePasTimeCE]

mass effect is awesome...

[Iakus]

ME 1's story was an epic space opera. The characters were exceptional, but mortal, with mortal flaws. They rose up to face impossible. It ends with a vow to "find a way to stop the Reapers"



ME 2's story was a disjointed mess. Build a team that does not interact with each other. Stop an alien force you don't bother to learn anything about (except when EDI gives you an infodump). Continuity goes right out the window.



Was ME 2 better graphically? Sure. Better gameplay? I don't think so, but I could live with the changes. Story? ME 1 blows ME 2 out of the water. And that's what I think matters most in a game.

[Never]

I love the combat and interrupt systems in ME2, but ME1 just had so much more, idk, character. I can replay it over and over. ME2 is great for a lot of reasons, but I've only played it all the way through 3 times.

[Never]

Brodyaha wrote...

I played ME1 and loved it.
I played ME2 and loved it.
There were differences about both I loved/hated.
I loved how they got a way from the Mako, and some of the world exploration. ME1 always had the same environments, and the Mako was clunky.
I disliked how Shepard's humanity was taken away in ME2--both metaphysically and character-wise--and that hasn't been addressed at all except for, "I got better." Sorry, that doesn't cut it.
I love the new characters of Mordin, Legion, and Thane. Garrus, Tali, and Liara had good character development.
I hate how all we get of Kaidan and Ashley is a Horizon cameo. And despite Shepard being eloquent in almost every other scene, the best way s/he can greet her former friend/lover is, "it's been too long. How've you been?" Because, it's not like they were with her/him since Eden Prime, that s/he had to choose one over the other on Virmire, and that s/he didn't potentially consummate a relationship with them before Ilos. Not at all.
I loved the customizable armor in ME2. I love how I don't have to sell everything or convert it into omni-gel.
I do think the weapon variety was chopped down too much though.
The DLC is far better in ME2. Bring down the Sky was good, but LotSB and Overlord and Kasumi...
I love the music of both.
ME2 has paragon/renegade interrupts. Awesome.

I think those two reasons are why I can replay ME1 more often.

[GodWood]

I enjoyed both games and thought ME2 was superior in most ways however I hate how the style changed from an epic space opera to some comic book sci-fi pulp.



I blame Mac Walters.

[wizardryforever]

I think a lot of the issues people have with the story stem from a combination of nostalgia and what I like to call "sequel syndrome."  In most media, even books, the first work in the series introduces the setting and the characters and the events.  That magic is lost in the sequel, since the character (though not necessarily the reader/watcher/player) will already know all of this stuff, so it seems like the setting isn't as rich somehow.  It's not quantifiable, and the story can be as good if not better, but because of the sequel syndrome, people will like it less.  I don't see how ME1's story was any more cohesive than ME2's story.  You know almost nothing about Saren or what his goals are, except that he hates humans and is somehow involved with what happens on Eden Prime.  He's looking for somethig called the Conduit and the Reapers, but we don't know what those are.  Yet we still feel compelled to stop him, and go to exactly four story worlds before the final confrontation begins.  We only talk to Saren three times in the whole game, and only twice in person.  I just don't get the "ME1's story was awesome, but ME2 has tons of plot holes!" argument.  ME1 had just as many plotholes, some of them just as glaring as the ones in ME2, but they get handwaved or otherwise glossed over.  Why?  Nostalgia, plain and simple.

Oh hell, I fear I've opened one huge can of worms there.

Modifié par wizardryforever, 04 octobre 2010 - 09:33 .

[Crippledcarny]

The only thing Mass Effect 1 did better than 2 was helmet toggle.

[bjdbwea]

This again? No, it's not nostalgia. I've played ME 1, then ME 2, then ME 1 again, then ME 2 again. Yes, I prefer ME 1. It has:

• A better written and better presented main story.
• A more believable setting.
• Companions that play an actual role during the story.
• Better written romances.
• More and better chances to give Shepard personality and let Shepard act like a human.
• Exploration on planets.
• Larger hub worlds that feel more alive.
• Less linear levels, no doors that constantly close behind you.
• Spoken briefings for side quests, and also interaction with NPCs and decisions during the side quests.
• A better RPG system and an inventory.

And I could go on, but it has all been mentioned in the numerous threads that describe the flaws of ME 2. LotSB is pretty much like I hoped that ME 2 as a whole would have been, though. Then I might even have preferred it over ME 1.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 04 octobre 2010 - 09:50 .

[Iakus]

wizardryforever wrote...

I think a lot of the issues people have with the story stem from a combination of nostalgia and what I like to call "sequel syndrome."  In most media, even books, the first work in the series introduces the setting and the characters and the events.  That magic is lost in the sequel, since the character (though not necessarily the reader/watcher/player) will already know all of this stuff, so it seems like the setting isn't as rich somehow.  It's not quantifiable, and the story can be as good if not better, but because of the sequel syndrome, people will like it less.  I don't see how ME1's story was any more cohesive than ME2's story.  You know almost nothing about Saren or what his goals are, except that he hates humans and is somehow involved with what happens on Eden Prime.  He's looking for somethig called the Conduit and the Reapers, but we don't know what those are.  Yet we still feel compelled to stop him, and go to exactly four story worlds before the final confrontation begins.  We only talk to Saren three times in the whole game, and only twice in person.  I just don't get the "ME1's story was awesome, but ME2 has tons of plot holes!" argument.  ME1 had just as many plotholes, some of them just as glaring as the ones in ME2, but they get handwaved or otherwise glossed over.  Why?  Nostalgia, plain and simple.

I considered that when I first completed ME 2 and felt extremely underwhelmed.  So I started a fresh ME 1 game, played it through, and imediately imported to ME 2, and played that through.

 I could see the storyline differences immediately.  ME 1 main missions were all about unraveling what the Conduit was, what the Reapers were, and what Saren was up to.  You don't see that in ME 2.  The Collectors are practically afterthoughts.  It's all about "build the team and earn their loyalty"  Not that this couldn't have been intersting, but the missions are so insular.  Nothing done in a loyalty mission affects anything in the game but the on/off switch in the Suicide Mission.  None of them get you any closer to understanding the Collectors or the Reapers.  None of them affectwhat the character says or doesin the game.  Not that they really interact with each other anyway.  It's a game full of side missions, with three "main story" missions as filler.

Playing ME 2 makes me want to play ME 1 again.  Playing ME 1...makes me want to play ME 1 again.

Oh hell, I fear I've opened one huge can of worms there.

Yes, yes you did

Modifié par iakus, 04 octobre 2010 - 09:49 .

[scotchtape622]

Gameplay wise, ME2 is vastly superior in practically every way, story wise, ME2 is not as good IMO.

[Ser Isely]

wizardryforever wrote...

Okay, there seems to be a lot of things that people like more about ME1 than the equivalent things in ME2.  The main question I have is why?  Be honest with us (and yourself) here.  Is at least part of the reason you like ME1 better because of nostalgia?  "Why did they change it, now it sucks!" is something I read all too frequently on these forums.  If you played ME2, then went back and played ME1 (nevermind story continuity here) could you honestly say that you would still like ME1 more?

I personally liked almost everything in ME2 better than in ME1, everything was an improvement to me.

I agree, I still play the first one and have fun but part 2 seems so much better. I cant wait to see what we get for 3. 

[wizardryforever]

iakus wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

I think a lot of the issues people have with the story stem from a combination of nostalgia and what I like to call "sequel syndrome."  In most media, even books, the first work in the series introduces the setting and the characters and the events.  That magic is lost in the sequel, since the character (though not necessarily the reader/watcher/player) will already know all of this stuff, so it seems like the setting isn't as rich somehow.  It's not quantifiable, and the story can be as good if not better, but because of the sequel syndrome, people will like it less.  I don't see how ME1's story was any more cohesive than ME2's story.  You know almost nothing about Saren or what his goals are, except that he hates humans and is somehow involved with what happens on Eden Prime.  He's looking for somethig called the Conduit and the Reapers, but we don't know what those are.  Yet we still feel compelled to stop him, and go to exactly four story worlds before the final confrontation begins.  We only talk to Saren three times in the whole game, and only twice in person.  I just don't get the "ME1's story was awesome, but ME2 has tons of plot holes!" argument.  ME1 had just as many plotholes, some of them just as glaring as the ones in ME2, but they get handwaved or otherwise glossed over.  Why?  Nostalgia, plain and simple.

I considered that when I first completed ME 2 and felt extremely underwhelmed.  So I started a fresh ME 1 game, played it through, and imediately imported to ME 2, and played that through.

 I could see the storyline differences immediately.  ME 1 main missions were all about unraveling what the Conduit was, what the Reapers were, and what Saren was up to.  You don't see that in ME 2.  The Collectors are practically afterthoughts.  It's all about "build the team and earn their loyalty"  Not that this couldn't have been intersting, but the missions are so insular.  Nothing done in a loyalty mission affects anything in the game but the on/off switch in the Suicide Mission.  None of them get you any closer to understanding the Collectors or the Reapers.  None of them affectwhat the character says or doesin the game.  Not that they really interact with each other anyway.  It's a game full of side missions, with three "main story" missions as filler.

Playing ME 2 makes me want to play ME 1 again.  Playing ME 1...makes me want to play ME 1 again.

Oh hell, I fear I've opened one huge can of worms there.

Yes, yes you did

People have argued over whether or not the loyalty missions count as story or side missions before.  I can see both sides of the argument, but I think the loyalty missions are story missions, they are just character driven stories and not the overarching story of the game.  If they took out the loyalty missions, people would complain that character development was a joke.  Compare ME1, in which you have six characters, and yet only two of them have personal missions.  The missions get Shepard involved in the characters' lives, and make said characters seem more real, not walking codex entries like Tali and Liara were in the first game.

But even if you consider the loyalty missions as side missions, they are much better constructed than any in ME1, and they flesh out the universe, that rich setting that so many moan is not in ME2.  And besides, I fully expect some loyalty decisions to have a real impact on the story in ME3, such as Tali's loyalty, Legion's loyalty, Mordin's loyalty and so on.  Just because they don't impact the story now, doesn't mean they never will.  This is another reason why ME2 can seem underwhelming, and why people think choices don't matter.  The story continues beyond this game, and people want instant gratification for their choices.

[Nhani]

It's a mixed bag for me - they both represent two different approaches to the overall same problem, each with its pros and cons. Both have their series of mind boggling, head desking moments where I just look at the screen dumbfounded and wonder in what kind of alternate reality what just happened would ever make any kind of sense, and both of them tend to be fairly liberal about just how much of the codex they consider canon and happily break with any part of it they don't want to bother with at the time.

I much prefer the romances of Mass Effect 1, especially with how they tied together with the narrative and how they offered more opportunities for your own personal Shepard to act out his or her own uncertainties and frustrations; on the other hand, Mass Effect 2 offered more directly touching moments for me due to its greater focus on the close supporting cast. The Reveal™ in Mass Effect 1 felt much more ominous, but the final mission in Mass Effect 2 struck me as having a much stronger setup, and gave a greater feel of actually having a whole team with you, rather than just bringing two and having the remainder sit around the Normandy playing cards.

So yeah; they're two very different approaches, and I can very much see both the merits and drawbacks of both. I'm actually quite curious to what extents BioWare might compromise between them for the third installment.

[smudboy]

Brodyaha wrote...


ME1 introduced the universe.  ME2 expanded on that universe and the plot currents.  Both feature Shepard as a hero.