104 réponses à ce sujet

[Phaedon]

kraidy1117 wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

 Okaaaay...let's recap

• You like extremely huge inventories filled with useless upgrades. Check.
• You don't like a variety in squadmates. Check ?
• You somehow decided that the maps in ME1 are bigger than those of ME2 ? Check.
• You liked elevators. Check.
• You didn't like the exclusion of the horrid inventory. Check.

You have the right to have an opinion of your own, but I see some flaws in your logic there. ME2 as an expansion of ME1 ? Watered down ? Because there is no inventory ? Gimme a break.

-Upgrades added modification to your wepaons, which is absent in ME2

-Quality over quanity. Too many squadmates in ME2= a lot of them where poor quality

-The Cittidal in ME2 was a joke comapred to the one in ME. There might be more hub worlds that are unune but they are small with very little side missions.

-Only thing I agree with you here

-You fix the inventory stystem, don't get rid of it and replace it with no inventory system.

I can pick at your logic too.

• The whole point of that feature was to walk down the paved road of old-school RPGs. No thanks, I prefer trying completely different weapons than 4  versions of the same gun with upgrades that have no dramatic effect between themselves and their next version.
• I disagree completely. Character development in ME1 was almost non-existent. Garrus was just a dude sitting by the Mako and whining about C-Sec, Tali would be there just for you to ask her questions about the Quarians, Kaidan and Ashley would just tell you their opinion on stuff plus talk a bit about  their backstory. The only characters with "real" character development were Wrex and Liara. In ME2, every single squadmate has his own story thanks to their recruitment missions.
• You seem to forget a)Omega, b)Illium and c)Tuchanka.
• I'd swear there was an inventory in ME2.

[Computer_God91]

DarthCaine wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...

Face it, people prefer ME writing.

I can agree that the main plot was better in ME1, as will most people, but ME1 party members were the worst party members BioWare has ever made. They were all boring as hell.

And you wanna talk about writing? Go check out the threads with epic lines and see that most lines people post are from ME2. ME2 had far better writing in dialogue, there was more humor, more epic lines etc.

Here :

that's debatable, that video proves nothing. I think mass effect 1 had better funny/epic dialogue then ME2. I also think that the first Commander Shepard is suck a jerk was better then the second.

Why does everyone complain about the barren worlds that you drove on, I never had a problem with them and some were different, whether it be just a snowy tile set or valcano. Alot of planets in space are just barren worlds, look at our own solar system, Mercury - Barren, Venus - Barren and cloudy, Mars - Barren with ice caps. Space isn't littered with Earthy worlds its littered with barren rocks, so its expected that you'd see alot of the same barren rock worlds.

[KotOREffecT]

Ragnarok521 wrote...

Wouldn't "Plot moment" be the loyalty missions?

I'm talking about the decision you make on Ilos, the fact that Ash and Kaiden needed that to emotionally connect to more, where as Thane's flashbacks for example, alow me to connect with him. I didn't have to make a decision between him and Mordin in some end all dramatic moment. Those two for example, are just very well written characters.

[Kat313]

Phaedon wrote...

• I disagree completely. Character development in ME1 was almost non-existent. Garrus was just a dude sitting by the Mako and whining about C-Sec, Tali would be there just for you to ask her questions about the Quarians, Kaidan and Ashley would just tell you their opinion on stuff plus talk a bit about  their backstory. The only characters with "real" character development were Wrex and Liara. In ME2, every single squadmate has his own story thanks to their recruitment missions.

In ME1 you can actually renegade Kaiden and help Ash overcome her trust and alien issues. Also, Garrus, Wrex, and Tali have (albeit Tali's is very small) personal missions

[kraidy1117]

mrsph wrote...

Probably because every planet that wasn't a storyline one was a huge pain in the ass to drive the Mako on. The only way I can even enjoy the first game is to turn on superspeed and just run to the base.

That was another problem with the Mass Effect side quests, nearly all of them were "drive to three separate bases and kill those guys."

Yes there was problems, but getting rid of it was not a good solution.

[Gorn Kregore]

DarthCaine wrote...

Does it make you feel big and manly having to sort through tons of useless crap and driving up 90 degrees hills? You feel like a genius adding adding a few extra skill points?

ME1 was a watered down RPG that didn't appeal to RPG elitists nor shooter fans. ME2 fixed that mistake, and is now one of the highest rated games ever, and has a higher user score than ME1 on EVERY site.

ME1 wasn't some complex game. Go play some oldschool hardcore cRPGs if you get off on stuff like that, but as sales have shown complex =/= fun.

this,

ME1 is just a shooter in a closet

[Phaedon]

Kat313 wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

• I disagree completely. Character development in ME1 was almost non-existent. Garrus was just a dude sitting by the Mako and whining about C-Sec, Tali would be there just for you to ask her questions about the Quarians, Kaidan and Ashley would just tell you their opinion on stuff plus talk a bit about  their backstory. The only characters with "real" character development were Wrex and Liara. In ME2, every single squadmate has his own story thanks to their recruitment missions.

In ME1 you can actually renegade Kaiden and help Ash overcome her trust and alien issues. Also, Garrus, Wrex, and Tali have (albeit Tali's is very small) personal missions

I am aware of that. None of these however, except perhaps for the Dr.Saleon mission had any impact on these characters' development. 

Wrex was like 'OK let's go raid this base. Yeah, thanks this armor is a POS, but I'll wear it anyway"
Tali was like 'Oh hey, mind having the common decency to, you know, give me a copy of those stuff you picked up so that I can use them on my Pilgrimage. ya?kthnxbai."

Modifié par Phaedon, 11 novembre 2010 - 11:00 .

[Kat313]

And another thing about the difference in side missions. Upon getting into ME2, one of the first things i noticed about the random planet side-missions was that almost all of them had no real story or characters, and were just shoot 'em up missions. This did make me a bit down. For example, there's the side mission in ME1 where you help those soldiers fend off rachni, a mission where you talk down biotic terrorists who are infuriated over their mistreatment and so on. It looks like in ME2, Bioware decided to take side missions like that and call them DLC.

[Gokuthegrate]

ME1 was the better RPG. ME2 was the better shooter.

Hopefully BW will combine the missing elements of ME like mods for ME3.

[KotOREffecT]

Atleast with ME 2's side missions, is that they were just that, little side missions. A little something to kill time and for more level up and some resources. They were actually fun, creative, unique and some even had a bit of story going for them. I esp liked the long connected ones, like the one about one of the merc gangs, their base was huge and fun. Even the mission where you fight a crap load of husks rushing at you was very exciting.



ME 1 your suppose to be in a race against time, yet your off taking hour long Mako drives trying to look for the same exact cut n paste base. Yes the dialogue was better, and the little talks with 5th Fleet before a mission but still.



ME 2 did it better, regardless if they could of made even better, they atleast made it better.

[KotOREffecT]

Gokuthegrate wrote...

ME1 was the better RPG. ME2 was the better shooter.
Hopefully BW will combine the missing elements of ME like mods for ME3.

This makes no sense. ME 1 pretty much failed at the RPG elements, but had an amazing story decent combat and some great characters, and amazing moments and writing. It was better at story.

ME 2 striped some stuff away, and refined other things to make it simpler, but could be richer. Still has amazing characters, great moments good writing. It was better at characters. 

[Kat313]

Sigh, i think this concentrated bit of forum posting in this thread has taught me more about different gamer's opinions and styles than I learned in the last year. I actually enjoy it, especially when its like how it is right now and no one's going crazy, calling some one stupid or anything. XD

[Khayness]

DarthCaine wrote...

Does it make you feel big and manly having to sort through tons of useless crap and driving up 90 degrees hills? You feel like a genius adding adding a few extra skill points?

ME1 was a watered down RPG that didn't appeal to RPG elitists nor shooter fans. ME2 fixed that mistake, and is now one of the highest rated games ever, and has a higher user score than ME1 on EVERY site.

ME1 wasn't some complex game. Go play some oldschool hardcore cRPGs if you get off on stuff like that, but as sales have shown complex =/= fun.

Omg, it's on!

No user scores and sale numbers will convince me that Mass Effect is less of a game than its sequel.

Sure, ME2's combat actually made it rewarding and fun, but the "nuke it" approach towards the inventory and vehicle section still leaves me with the sour "the game it could have been" feeling.

The Overlord DLC can't compensate for the Mako driving on the snowy peaks of Noveria, on the awesome Prothean Highway, the beaches of Virmire or the Ilos tunnels, nor for the loss of exploration. I just avoid the mineral/Asari Writings/League of One gathering quests overall and enjoy the exploration and the immersive atmosphere granted by the huge soaring suns on the horizon.

[kraidy1117]

KotOREffecT wrote...

Atleast with ME 2's side missions, is that they were just that, little side missions. A little something to kill time and for more level up and some resources. They were actually fun, creative, unique and some even had a bit of story going for them. I esp liked the long connected ones, like the one about one of the merc gangs, their base was huge and fun. Even the mission where you fight a crap load of husks rushing at you was very exciting.

ME 1 your suppose to be in a race against time, yet your off taking hour long Mako drives trying to look for the same exact cut n paste base. Yes the dialogue was better, and the little talks with 5th Fleet before a mission but still.

ME 2 did it better, regardless if they could of made even better, they atleast made it better.

The side missions in ME2 had hardly any dialog or a point

[KotOREffecT]

I agree, ME 2's side missions def could of benefited with more dialogue.



ME 3 needs to combine them both for the perfect side mission.

[tallon1982]

I think with ME2 Bioware tried to address the issues of ME1 like the inventory system, the mako and the elevators which are just cosmetic issues. Was the story better? Yes and no. ME1 took a story that's somewhat been done before as did ME2. They basically took the best things within the scifi genre and made it into a rather great game. You had the race against time to save the galaxy against Saren in ME1 and in ME2 you have the race against time to stop the Collectors. It is essentially the same story told through a different means. I think a lot of people get too worked up over it and can't just sit back to see the stories in their own right.



ME2 is a good story in that it helps add to characters we already know (Garrus, Tali, Joker and Dr. C). For the most part ME2 is that place holder for the finale that is ME3. I think once we get the other DLCs that bridge ME2 to ME3 the story will be better. ME1 is the base that the sequels build off on. It won't be perfect thanks to loopholes but that aside don't just bash a game for small things like inventory or mako rides.

[Kat313]

@Kraidy1117, at least you get what I'm saying. I felt like the ME1 side missions were of better quailty because most of them seemed to have an effect on the ME universe. Where as side missions in ME2 (yes, for the most part, not ALL of them) only affected the same old mercs and cerberus. You'd never hear about their effects on the news for example.

[Phategod1]

I agree with Phaedon this thread has become a B!tch fest for people who want ME2 to be another FF clone ME1 was a great game but had a ton pf problems from a useless inventory, ridiculous loading screens i.e. elevator sequences, shotty controls, limited squad command. With the exception of a good villain ME2 improved on ME1 in every way.

[Mr. MannlyMan]

Phategod1 wrote...

I agree with Phaedon this thread has become a B!tch fest for people who want ME2 to be another FF clone ME1 was a great game but had a ton pf problems from a useless inventory, ridiculous loading screens i.e. elevator sequences, shotty controls, limited squad command. With the exception of a good villain ME2 improved on ME1 in every way.

...you forgot about the shoddier N7 plots in ME2, the restricted character progression (also meaning that Intimidate/Charm options are now tied to your alignment meters, which messes with the balance), the total lack of an actual controllable vehicle aside from the few DLC installments that used it, dialog gaffs (such as the lack of interaction between Wrex and your old squaddies), more errors in the Codex, unchangeable squadmate armor (and general lack of protective clothing), etc...

Nope. Not better in every way, but ME2 was an overall more polished experience. Still, Bioware really should go back to the first game and really consider which aspects they think they can bring back and improve upon to make ME3 an even better experience.

Modifié par Mr. MannlyMan, 12 novembre 2010 - 12:02 .

[DarthCaine]

Phategod1 wrote...

With the exception of a good villain ME2 improved on ME1 in every way.

Well I think The Illusive Man had that role in ME2 instead of Harbinger

[Kat313]

DarthCaine wrote...

Phategod1 wrote...

With the exception of a good villain ME2 improved on ME1 in every way.

Well I think The Illusive Man had that role in ME2 instead of Harbinger

True, but I think that also depends on your choices. A renegade Shep who gave him the collector base intel may be buddy buddy with the Illusive Man in ME3. or not

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

DarthCaine wrote...

Phategod1 wrote...

With the exception of a good villain ME2 improved on ME1 in every way.

Well I think The Illusive Man had that role in ME2 instead of Harbinger

I'm curious as to how the Illusive Man was in any way a villain in ME2.

[Kat313]

Mr. MannlyMan wrote...

...you forgot about the shoddier N7 plots in ME2, the restricted character progression (also meaning that Intimidate/Charm options are now tied to your alignment meters, which messes with the balance), the total lack of an actual controllable vehicle aside from the few DLC installments that used it, dialog gaffs (such as the lack of interaction between Wrex and your old squaddies), more errors in the Codex, unchangeable squadmate armor (and general lack of protective clothing), etc...

Nope. Not better in every way, but ME2 was an overall more polished experience. Still, Bioware really should go back to the first game and really consider which aspects they think they can bring back and improve upon to make ME3 an even better experience.

Nice post, I really agree with a lot of this and I think it caters well to both sides of the debate. 

[Da_Lion_Man]

Hey just a question... what happened to Smudboy? Did he get banned? Because it's been a long while since he posted.