815 réponses à ce sujet

[yummysoap]

I enjoyed playing ME2 more than I enjoyed playing ME1, but there's no denying some things are better in ME1.



Most importantly Mass Effect 1 actually had a story that went beyond character subplots. I loved the characters in Mass Effect 2 and the way their stories were told and the interactions between them and Shepard, and I think for the most part they're far superior to the ME1 counterparts, but without a proper overarching plot, a proper antagonist, and a goal beyond "lets hit dem collectors and then kill a big robot" it becomes pretty evident that Mass Effect 1 far exceeds its successor in the way of having a proper storyline.

[Icinix]

I do regularly go back and play ME1. Love ME2, just enjoy ME1 more.



ME1 was more of a genre blender. ME2 has galaxy map that acts as a level selector. (That's not a bad thing, just different)

[Vendetta11]

Crippledcarny wrote...

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

LOL! I agree that I miss the helmet toggle in ME2......

[Iakus]

wizardryforever wrote...

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.

Well, ME 2 files them as story missions, so tehy are considered "main" missions.  Technically.  The problem is, they're basically side missions filed as main missions. 

Don't get me wrong, the missions are, generally speaking, good.  I like personal missions.  You learn more about the galaxy, about the character, and do them a favor (usually involving shooting lots of people).  But really, what makes them different from any other personal mission in any other Bioware game, where you learn something about the world you're in, learn about the character you're helping, and often get to kill a lot of enemies?  Dragon Age had them too.  The personal missions are very well-done...side missions.  With a mortality on/off switch for the Suicide Mission. 

I wanted the missions to tie more into the central story, finding Collector  or Reaper influence previously unknown.  Maybe the Collectors bust in while you're doing a loyalty mission, gunning for Shepard.  As it is, they are way too isolated both from each other and the main story, like a bunch of DLC rather than a central game.

Another problem is that most of the character development is in fact in the loyalty mission.  Have you noticed that the third squadmate is eerilly silent?  Almost never saying anything, and when he or she does, it's just an offhand comment?  Charactariztion should be throughout the game.  They should chime in when a choice has to be made, when a plan is being made.  They should voice their opinions when someone talks. 

[Count Viceroy]

smudboy wrote...

Brodyaha wrote...


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

Double posting a quote makes you feel extra important doesn't it.

[MassEffect762]

Story and it's execution - I prefer ME1.

Music - I prefer ME1.

Combat - Very slim edge to ME1. I found biotics more enjoyable, add to that grenades, kneeling and not having to cover every second and it was barely more enjoyable. (The constant cover and neutered skills in ME2 are unacceptable to me.)

The ME2 weapons department were almost perfect.(ammo "powers" and thermal "ammo" let it down)

Inventory - I prefer ME1.

ME1 is like a big kid that needs to run some of the fat off but is generally in shape.(sound concept)

ME2 is like a starving kid that needs to be nourished but shows promise.(armor pieces)
(improve store stock, bring back armor/weapon upgrades ala ME1, bring back serious squad armor)

I could have ignored all the things about ME2 that displeased me had the story not fallen so flat imo.

That's all in the past now, oh well.

Modifié par MassEffect762, 04 octobre 2010 - 11:18 .

[Doug4130]

loved them both, but 2 stole the show for me; the characters, voice acting, movements, music, no annoying as hell inventory system, squad members looked unique, I could go on and on, but I hope 3 is as much of an improvement compared to 2 as I thought 2 was to 1

[smudboy]

MassEffect762 wrote...

Story and it's execution - I prefer ME1.

Music - I prefer ME1.

Combat - Very slim edge to ME1. I found biotics more enjoyable, add to that grenades, kneeling and not having to cover every second and it was barely more enjoyable. (The constant cover and neutered skills in ME2 are unacceptable to me.)

The ME2 weapons department were almost perfect.(ammo "powers" and thermal "ammo" let it down)

Inventory - I prefer ME1.

ME1 is like a big kid that needs to run some of the fat off but is generally in shape.(sound concept)

ME2 is like a starving kid that needs to be nourished but shows promise.(armor pieces)
(improve store stock, bring back armor/weapon upgrades ala ME1, bring back serious squad armor)

I could have ignored all the things about ME2 that displeased me had the story not fallen so flat imo.

That's all in the past now, oh well.

This.

Very good details.

I think if we had weapon mods in guns we setup before leaving the Normandy, we'd want to swap out an assault rifle more often for something else (a weapon mod that works against shields in one gun, anti-armor mod in another, etc.)  Also, with the limitation on weapons for the classes, why couldn't some classes simply carry more than one of the same type of gun?  They seem to have a lot of room on their back/belt, and I doubt a soldier would want anything else but an assault rifle and maybe a sniper rifle.

[Icinix]

smudboy wrote...

(snip)... why couldn't some classes simply carry more than one of the same type of gun?  They seem to have a lot of room on their back/belt, and I doubt a soldier would want anything else but an assault rifle and maybe a sniper rifle.

Shepard can carry 17 weapons and one mammoth heavy weapon, but a Krogan can only carry two weapons?

I second this in a massive way.  Especially Shepard only carrying a couple of weapons. Really don't want to be running around ME3 with my screen filled with clipping weapons.  Purely aesthetic I know, but I'm sensitive like that.

[Therion942]

No, I really don't think it's a case of Rose-Tinted Glasses. I think it's more a case that BioWare pulled a Kansas City shuffle on us with the direction of the story. ME2 is a great game so long as you don't look at it too hard, the second you start peeling back layers, things begin to fall apart very quickly.



Gameplay was improved greatly over its predecessor, but they cut too much from the depth of the classes. Yes, they got rid of one of the absolute banes of RPGs - bloated passives - but they didn't put anything else in their place. The game could definitely use a whole lot more active skills.



The story falls so flat it hurts if you bother with more than one playthrough after the wow-factor has worn off. The characters have more dimensions to them, but they're not connected to anything, they all have a massive case of "Why are you even here?" Now I can deal with a group of heroes who justify themselves for sticking around, but I daresay most of the crew just clams up after you solve their daddy issues. That is poor form. ME2's music is equal in my eyes to ME1's



Back to combat again, there is a jarring switch from narrative to shooting that I'm annoyed by in ME2, in ME1 the shooting - while very tedious and often times boring - is at least organic in the setting and pacing of the game, in ME2 that's not the case.



Overall the game sort of reeks of a huge disconnect between the writing team and the gameplay team, we live now in an era where the gameplay should be designed by the writing, not -around- the writing.

[008Zulu]

ME2's combat is better over ME1, except the global power cooldown. ME2 has limited credit earning potential, you could get nearly unlimited credits in ME1, but the weapons & upgrades you had access to were restricted by your level. ME2 has a hover tank but ME1 had explorable worlds.



Overall, I like ME2 better, but I wish they kept a few more of the things that made ME1 fun.

[mander83]

Brodyaha wrote...

I played ME1 and loved it.
I played ME2 and loved it.
There were differences about both I loved/hated.

This is exactly how I feel. There were good/bad parts to both games. I can't decide which I like better because I simply love them both so much.

[Wrathra]

MassEffect762 wrote...

Story and it's execution - I prefer ME1.

Music - I prefer ME1.

Combat - Very slim edge to ME1. I found biotics more enjoyable, add to that grenades, kneeling and not having to cover every second and it was barely more enjoyable. (The constant cover and neutered skills in ME2 are unacceptable to me.)

The ME2 weapons department were almost perfect.(ammo "powers" and thermal "ammo" let it down)

Inventory - I prefer ME1.

ME1 is like a big kid that needs to run some of the fat off but is generally in shape.(sound concept)

ME2 is like a starving kid that needs to be nourished but shows promise.(armor pieces)
(improve store stock, bring back armor/weapon upgrades ala ME1, bring back serious squad armor)

I could have ignored all the things about ME2 that displeased me had the story not fallen so flat imo.

That's all in the past now, oh well.

I agree almost completely with this post.

[Sajuro]

mander83 wrote...

Brodyaha wrote...

I played ME1 and loved it.
I played ME2 and loved it.
There were differences about both I loved/hated.

This is exactly how I feel. There were good/bad parts to both games. I can't decide which I like better because I simply love them both so much.

This, now all we need is a pinnacle station for ME2 and I'll be keeping my copy of Mass Effect 2 in the 360 until 3 comes out.

[MrnDvlDg161]

Quite the dead horse that continues to be a presistant Necromorph of subjects isn't it? lol

ME1? The travel and distance of things sucked thus the closeness of those same locations, being smaller did a bit of a difference with the trade off of more people, npc's, and environment that was alive instead of desolation, quiet, and terrible background music.

Think of how the Presidum would have been if it mirrored the surroundings of Illum? That would have made it 10x better... but you know before there was an ME2, there was an ME1 and some things have been learned....while some others were simply changed.

They have been bashed, re-bashed --- praised --- re-praised. I like them both as neither cannot exist without the other...even if there is a forced re-make due to changing platforms. With that I still feel sorry for someone that will have to settle for ME2 being their ME1 because it just isn't the case and their being highly cheated out of something.

Better enviorments --- ME2. Story oriented-drama-Li drama, motivating ending ---- ME1.

Edit:  I also think the reason why ME2 is played again and again, is because its a  Re-play friendly game. You can't just pop in ME1 and do a playthrough --- its  along damn game with moving parts. ME2 is a bit less large in scope and its more readily aviable for you to play again and again because of its streamlined story and action.

Modifié par MrnDvlDg161, 05 octobre 2010 - 03:46 .

[MrnDvlDg161]

but here is a good question. Those with 360's. Are you getting ME3 for your 360 or are you going to get ME3 for the PS3



AHhhhh.....

[Water Dumple]

Both games have their merits, but ME2 appears to be much more refined in general. I prefer its soundtrack, combat system, dialogue, graphics, and characters greatly to ME1. Its primary sacrifice is the overall story arc; the story mostly just disappears for a while, then pops in again in the middle and ending to remind you what the point of all that random team building was all about. However, it's a video game and I'm used to stories/objectives far worse, so I can't dismiss it over that. The emphasis this time seems to be on characters rather than story arc, and ME2 really nails that.

I can't go back to ME1 anymore. The meandering pace going from area to area, the awkward and unpolished combat, and more generic characters put it behind ME2. That isn't a problem, though; isn't a sequel supposed to add to and surpass the original? I could write an essay on all the little things I thought each game did better or worse, but in general, it all adds up to make ME2 a better game.

Modifié par Water Dumple, 05 octobre 2010 - 03:46 .

[MrnDvlDg161]

Water Dumple wrote...

Both games have their merits, but ME2 appears to be much more refined in general. I prefer its soundtrack, combat system, dialogue, graphics, and characters greatly to ME1. Its primary sacrifice is the overall story arc; the story mostly just disappears for a while, then pops in again in the middle and ending to remind you what the point of all that random team building was all about. However, it's a video game and I'm used to stories/objectives far worse, so I can't dismiss it over that. The emphasis this time seems to be on characters rather than story arc, and ME2 really nails that.

I can't go back to ME1 anymore. The meandering pace going from area to area, the awkward and unpolished combat, and more generic characters put it behind ME2. That isn't a problem, though; isn't a sequel supposed to add to and surpass the original? I could write an essay on all the little things I thought each game did better or worse, but in general, it all adds up to make ME2 a better game.

I rather said it late but ME2 is a more re-play friendly game due to its compact and streamlined make-up. Yes ... it is expanded but the world and places you go to are more focused and condensed with culture, things going around in the background, NPC chatter, flying cars,  news casts, light shows, background noise and holo-commericals.

[Pauravi]

bjdbwea wrote...

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.

You state those things like facts but that's just, like, your opinion, man.  Asserting it does not make it so.
Frankly, IMO, almost everything you listed there was done better in ME2, and in majorly obvious ways.

- The main story in ME1 was fantastic, certainly.  In ME2 it isn't as broad in scope, but I feel that the character-based plot is presented and written just as well.  I'm sure some people find them less compelling than the huge epicness of ME1, but I find it just as compelling on a more personal level.

- More believable setting?  The setting is the same, what is more believable about it?  If anything, ME2's darker, grittier places (like anywhere in Omega) felt more realistic.  Everything about the feel of the environments was better in ME2, I think.

- WTF?  In ME1, with the exception of Liara, each non-alliance character has some very minor "in", after which they are almost entirely irrelevant and unnecessary.  They provide really no real reason to actually take them with you other than to fill out the party.  This is particularly true with Garrus and Wrex, neither of whom are story-relevant, especially since Dr. Michel has all the info you need.  They were just shoehorned in, and in fact you can leave them behind.  Even Tali is irrelevant after she gives you the information.  In ME2, however, the bulk of the story revolves around the fact that you will need them to complete your mission.  And you do. 

- I felt that the romances were FAR better written and paced in ME2.  In ME2 you have more conversations and you have to actually help them deal with something incredibly important, and personal, and help them grow as a person.  In ME1 all you have to do is listen to Ash talk about her sister and grandpa and all of a sudden she wants to sleep with you.  Liara wants to romance you almost immediately just by default.  The romances feel much more organic in ME2.

- I don't see really any more places in ME1 than ME2 for Shepard to grow as a person.  You pretty much just pick an archetype for him through your own choices; he is a largely static character otherwise.  He has a particular sense of justice and morality (that you pick), perhaps a certain partner in romance (that you pick), and other than that he pretty much lives for "the mission".

- "Exploration"?  You mean driving around dozens of empty, identical planets looking for rocks or nameless mercs inhabiting carbon-copy sheds?  Yeah, I'm fine without that.  Frankly, I find doing the side-missions in ME1 pretty painful.  Smaller, distinctive planets with more distinctive missions and enemies is better.

- Wat?  You're telling me that you think Feros or Noveria feels more "alive" than Omega?  Or even Nos Astra?  There is more organic NPC interaction just in Afterlife than in Feros and Noveria combined!

- Even if some of the areas were less linear (some of the ME2 areas you can roam freely in, like in Jacob or Jack's loyalty missions, but... why?), they were far and away more unique and inventive.  Frankly I don't think it really takes much away from the game that you can't stop at the door to Nassana's penthouse and walk all the way back to the bottom of the tower for no particular reason.

- If they had to take out spoken briefings for side quests to make room for other, more important dialogue, then I'm glad they did it.  I didn't really miss it.  Voice is one of the biggest space-taker-uppers in a game.  Also, there are interactions and decisions in "side quests" (I assume you mean optional quests, which includes every loyalty mission).

- I think the RPG system was just as good, in that it allowed you to role play your personality in exactly the same way.  It also allowed you to pick a class and customize it in meaningful ways.  An inventory is not integral to RPGs, I could care less about it.  ME1's inventory sucked, and in fact, inventory sucks as an idea period in Mass Effect.  I'm glad they got rid of it.  The way they did it was more realistic.  Soldiers go into battle wearing body armor and carrying whatever guns and ammo they're going to use.  They do not pick up every dropped pistol and lug around 45 suits of armor and 27 shotguns (if that were even possible) in the hopes that some random vendor will inexplicably want to purchase them.  I think Bioware kept all the best parts of the RPG genre that were appropriate for the ME setting.  Hoarding hundreds of items wasn't one of them.

Modifié par Pauravi, 05 octobre 2010 - 04:52 .

[Whereto]

me2 was a better game but me1 had something me2 doesnt. It had a plot.

[Foolsfolly]

Therion942 wrote...

No, I really don't think it's a case of Rose-Tinted Glasses. I think it's more a case that BioWare pulled a Kansas City shuffle on us with the direction of the story. ME2 is a great game so long as you don't look at it too hard, the second you start peeling back layers, things begin to fall apart very quickly.

Gameplay was improved greatly over its predecessor, but they cut too much from the depth of the classes. Yes, they got rid of one of the absolute banes of RPGs - bloated passives - but they didn't put anything else in their place. The game could definitely use a whole lot more active skills.

The story falls so flat it hurts if you bother with more than one playthrough after the wow-factor has worn off. The characters have more dimensions to them, but they're not connected to anything, they all have a massive case of "Why are you even here?" Now I can deal with a group of heroes who justify themselves for sticking around, but I daresay most of the crew just clams up after you solve their daddy issues. That is poor form. ME2's music is equal in my eyes to ME1's

Back to combat again, there is a jarring switch from narrative to shooting that I'm annoyed by in ME2, in ME1 the shooting - while very tedious and often times boring - is at least organic in the setting and pacing of the game, in ME2 that's not the case.

Overall the game sort of reeks of a huge disconnect between the writing team and the gameplay team, we live now in an era where the gameplay should be designed by the writing, not -around- the writing.

Why didn't Saren hack the Citadel when he was Spectre and allowed to do anything anywhere he wanted? Or why didn't Soverign and the geth fleet move on the Citadel instead of hitting Eden Prime in an effort to find the Conduit? All that search did was give Shepard time to catch up and stop them. Had they attacked the Citadel in a surprise attack instead of Eden Prime they would have had krogan, geth, and Soverign leveling the Citadel fleets and Saren, one of the best Spectres, on the inside sabotaging everything during the chaos.

Both games actually fall apart if you look hard enough. Their stories both only make enough sense to be enjoyable. And they're both great games. I prefer 2 to 1, however, because of the gameplay and characters. Really dug the characters in ME2 more. They were better fleshed out thanks to each one having Loyalty quests. We get Legion for a small small part of the game and he's still more interesting than everyone but Wrex from ME1's crew.

[Foolsfolly]

Pauravi wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

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.

You state those things like facts but that's just, like, your opinion, man.  Asserting it does not make it so.
Frankly, IMO, almost everything you listed there was done better in ME2, and in majorly obvious ways.

- The main story in ME1 was fantastic, certainly.  In ME2 it isn't as broad in scope, but I feel that the character-based plot is presented and written just as well.  I'm sure some people find them less compelling than the huge epicness of ME1, but I find it just as compelling on a more personal level.

- More believable setting?  The setting is the same, what is more believable about it?  If anything, ME2's darker, grittier places (like anywhere in Omega) felt more realistic.  Everything about the feel of the environments was better in ME2, I think.

- WTF?  In ME1, with the exception of Liara, each non-alliance character has some very minor "in", after which they are almost entirely irrelevant and unnecessary.  They provide really no real reason to actually take them with you other than to fill out the party.  This is particularly true with Garrus and Wrex, neither of whom are story-relevant, especially since Dr. Michel has all the info you need.  They were just shoehorned in, and in fact you can leave them behind.  Even Tali is irrelevant after she gives you the information.  In ME2, however, the bulk of the story revolves around the fact that you will need them to complete your mission.  And you do. 

- I felt that the romances were FAR better written and paced in ME2.  In ME2 you have more conversations and you have to actually help them deal with something incredibly important, and personal, and help them grow as a person.  In ME1 all you have to do is listen to Ash talk about her sister and grandpa and all of a sudden she wants to sleep with you.  Liara wants to romance you almost immediately just by default.  The romances feel much more organic in ME2.

- I don't see really any more places in ME1 than ME2 for Shepard to grow as a person.  You pretty much just pick an archetype for him through your own choices; he is a largely static character otherwise.  He has a particular sense of justice and morality (that you pick), perhaps a certain partner in romance (that you pick), and other than that he pretty much lives for "the mission".

- "Exploration"?  You mean driving around dozens of empty, identical planets looking for rocks or nameless mercs inhabiting carbon-copy sheds?  Yeah, I'm fine without that.  Frankly, I find doing the side-missions in ME1 pretty painful.  Smaller, distinctive planets with more distinctive missions and enemies is better.

- Wat?  You're telling me that you think Feros or Noveria feels more "alive" than Omega?  Or even Nos Astra?  There is more organic NPC interaction just in Afterlife than in Feros and Noveria combined!

- Even if some of the areas were less linear (some of the ME2 areas you can roam freely in, like in Jacob or Jack's loyalty missions, but... why?), they were far and away more unique and inventive.  Frankly I don't think it really takes much away from the game that you can't stop at the door to Nassana's penthouse and walk all the way back to the bottom of the tower for no particular reason.

- If they had to take out spoken briefings for side quests to make room for other, more important dialogue, then I'm glad they did it.  I didn't really miss it.  Voice is one of the biggest space-taker-uppers in a game.  Also, there are interactions and decisions in "side quests" (I assume you mean optional quests, which includes every loyalty mission).

- I think the RPG system was just as good, in that it allowed you to role play your personality in exactly the same way.  It also allowed you to pick a class and customize it in meaningful ways.  An inventory is not integral to RPGs, I could care less about it.  ME1's inventory sucked, and in fact, inventory sucks as an idea period in Mass Effect.  I'm glad they got rid of it.  The way they did it was more realistic.  Soldiers go into battle wearing body armor and carrying whatever guns and ammo they're going to use.  They do not pick up every dropped pistol and lug around 45 suits of armor and 27 shotguns (if that were even possible) in the hopes that some random vendor will inexplicably want to purchase them.  I think Bioware kept all the best parts of the RPG genre that were appropriate for the ME setting.  Hoarding hundreds of items wasn't one of them.

Ditto.

[Gibb_Shepard]

MrnDvlDg161 wrote...

but here is a good question. Those with 360's. Are you getting ME3 for your 360 or are you going to get ME3 for the PS3

AHhhhh.....

What kind of question is that? Play ME2 and ME3 on PS3, or play the whole trilogy on 360? Hmm... Let me think about that for a bit.

[StarcloudSWG]

Pauravi: Yes, exactly. ME 1 laid the groundwork out in broad strokes. ME 2 filled it in and made it more alive.

I used the cheats to get the "one set" of weapons that I needed, to set the level, and then I just completely ignored the useless and pointless inventory system in ME 1, to concentrate on the important story part. I don't think people really understand that an "inventory system" is not, inherently, an essential part of any RPG.

Modifié par StarcloudSWG, 05 octobre 2010 - 06:12 .