292 réponses à ce sujet

[Sajuro]

Wulf3n

1: the point was to recruit a team of specialists so you would be prepared for whatever happened on the suicide mission, which you were

2 Again, the plot is getting the characters, getting their loyalty, and sending them against the enemy. If there had been another story, people would be complaining that things felt too cramped.

3: While the side missions are non mandatory, I feel the pacing is better than ME1 where you have your three 'dungeons' laid out before you at the start then "Hey, we lost on STG team on virmire while they were looking at Saren, no need to hurry though". In ME2, you were recruiting team members when Illusive Man comes and tells you to get your ass to Horizon because it just went dark. Then you do some more missions to build up your specialist team and hurry over to the collector cruiser to find out where they live. Though the Reaper IFF mission can be put off forever, it isn't quite as hurried as 'a scientist has gone missing in the Artemis Tau cluster, you need to find her before saren does!" Shep: "I'll do it later". Finally after the crew is abducted, it lets you dick around but punishes you by killing the crew.



4.Less switching between "Asari boobies" and "OMG REAPERS!" and fun squad banter. Also less tense moments like Wrex on Virmire immediately preceded by Ash talking about her 'boom stick'.



5. Gameplay and story are tied in since in both games the gameplay and story drive each other.



All in all, Mass Effect 1 was more of a Science Fiction movie, while Mass Effect 2 was a 'rule of cool' action movie set in space.

[Commander Kurt]

I loved both games, and given how many times I've played them I really can't blame spoilers for me enjoying ME1 more.

But it is rather childish on my part. In ME1 I was fighting the good fight with my friends. In ME2 my hand was forced, I didn't trust the people on my side, and I didn't like the way the game made me feel. Simple as that.

Both games have managed to leave me aching for the next chapter, and although they are different (short-stories vs novel) I think the story is actually quite good in both. ME2 is also a lot more focused towards the younger crowd (renegade turning into Dirty Shepard, everything badassified, boobies!!) which makes me sad indeed.

Modifié par Commander Kurt, 01 décembre 2010 - 07:19 .

[RiouHotaru]

I'd argue that I felt more connected to my squad in ME2 than I was in the original. At least they feel like characters with interesting personalites and stories. I mean, why do you think the non-humans in ME1 were more popular overall than the humans?

[Lunatic LK47]

RiouHotaru wrote...

I'd argue that I felt more connected to my squad in ME2 than I was in the original. At least they feel like characters with interesting personalites and stories. I mean, why do you think the non-humans in ME1 were more popular overall than the humans?

Remind me to buy you a box of alcoholic drinks. You said it for me, and this is coming from an ex ME1 fan.

[ForceXev]

I think ME1 definitely had the better plot overall. ME2's overall story with the Collector's was entirely forgettable, and the giant human reaper puppet thing was travesty. On the other hand, there was a lot more to like in all of the side stories in ME2, and the character development in ME2 was excellent. I think in a lot of ways ME2 is mostly a setup for ME3, and if they do it right, the payoff for a lot of the stuff that they started in ME2 will make it worth it. The conflict between the Geth and the Heretics, the Quarian political struggles, the secret motives of the Illusive Man... all these seeds are planted in ME2 but they won't be followed through until we get ME3. ME1 stands on its own much better than ME2.

[rma2110]

ME1 is where most of us were introduced to Shepard and the ME universe. Nothing can beat the first time you fall in love with a story., or the air of mystery and discovery in ME1. Specters, reapers, asari, quarians, turians, it was all new to us. I love the way the story in ME1 slowly revealed itself.



I still love Mass Effect 2 more. The world is much more vibrant and alive. I love the crew more and even enjoy talking to most of them. I even loved the loyalty mission and getting t know more about each of them. The combat was more fun and the game play more fluid. No more 20 minutes of weeding out inventory for every 10 mission.

[Rip504]

Because it just is. And it is on a differnt engine and ME will never be the same. It still is a great game,but ME1 is a stand alone classic.

"Ps. Geth are EVIL!!! HaHaHa"

Modifié par Rip504, 01 décembre 2010 - 08:13 .

[mineralica]

ME1 story was more clear about what will happen next - I knew that its all about gathering data which will help finding the Conduit and later it will be epic fight with Saren. The problem was that side missions were in different systems with plot mission, and running across the galaxy to be sure Shep will complete all quests is a bit strange. Plus, major time was spent on fighting with terrain, not enemies.

ME2 has more exciting missions, but no obvious connection and explanation between them. When TIM gave new dossiers I wondered why do Shep need another assassin-sniper when Garrus plays in that field, what will another biotic do when we have Jack and why not to leave poor quarian alone and use Mordin as tech expert. Going through O4 I expected real game will start there, after all of this recruitment and loyality missions. Well... I'll wait until ME3, and if I'll be forced to recollect squad again...

And about spoilers - if all local press wouldn't print "Shepard dies at the beginning of ME2... but survives" on the cover with screenshot of exploding SSV Normandy, beginning would be far more interesting. If "No one left behind" achievement wouldn't appear too early, final fight will be more exciting, too.

[CroGamer002]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

The story of ME2 is inferior because the arcade shooter has no reason to have a story at all.

Therefore, the story, the plot and the lore were neglected/disregared during development.

OMG you don't know what is arcade shooter, you are /insults not allowed/.

[CroGamer002]

Sajuro wrote...

All in all, Mass Effect 1 was more of a Science Fiction movie, while Mass Effect 2 was a 'rule of cool' action movie set in space.

And it's still SF movie.

[Ieldra]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

Undertone wrote...

What surprises me is that some people want even more simple simplicity then what already is. And while ME2 certainly has some improvements, some of the stuff was just plainly taken out instead of fixed.

When it comes to story, ME1 hands down beats ME2 in every department.

That is what frightens me with the shooter crowd. Those who have been intrigued enough to come over either complain about too much dialogue or too many cut-scenes and should Bioware continue to cater to them... the end result will be anything except pleasant. The way Christiana Norman is has me nervous at times. She seems far too keen on implementing more shooter elements however I digress.

The story in Mass Effect is widely superior primarily because it exists. Mass Effect 2's story has immense potential yet was plagued with an overly dramatic opening, frequent departures to tackle side missions and virtually no development of any kind to the antagonists. Why it receives any praise as a whole is because the recruitment and loyalty missions were definitely worthwhile. In the end ME2 is a collection of adamantly rendered side quests and a fantastic expansion game to ME. I have difficulty citing it a sequel. Of course, that does not mean I do not love it.

There's nothing I could add to that. I can take ME2 as it is because it does some things right, and because it's the middle of a supposed trilogy, but if ME3 goes off into the same direction then it will be a game series that doesn't do the fascinating setting justice.

[Ieldra]

Mesina2 wrote...

Sajuro wrote...

All in all, Mass Effect 1 was more of a Science Fiction movie, while Mass Effect 2 was a 'rule of cool' action movie set in space.

And it's still SF movie.

There was too much comic-book superhero stuff added (Samara, Kasumi), and some fantasy-style magical elements like Reave and Dominate. It's in serious danger of leaving its supposed genre behind.

[Da_Lion_Man]

I didn't spoil myself at all, after I finished ME1, I started ME2 and had a lot of "WTFTHISISBULL****!!" moments.

[Cairodin]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

Sajuro wrote...

All in all, Mass Effect 1 was more of a Science Fiction movie, while Mass Effect 2 was a 'rule of cool' action movie set in space.

And it's still SF movie.

There was too much comic-book superhero stuff added (Samara, Kasumi), and some fantasy-style magical elements like Reave and Dominate. It's in serious danger of leaving its supposed genre behind.

Well, actually it's not leaving its genre behind.  We've been told explicitly that Mass Effect is a Space Opera, which is basically fantasy set in space.  Sooo it's ok to have magical elements not necessarily explained by technology/hard science.  Hence, element zero and biotics.

[Mister Mida]

ME2's main story is probably the worst I've ever seen in a Bioware game while all the subplots involving the squaddies ranged from average to great.

[Milana_Saros]

wulf3n wrote...

ME1 - Clear Enemy
- Clear Objectives
- Main character essential to the plot (as well as some support characters)
- Cliched story yes, but executed to such a degree that i couldn't care less.

ME2 - Unclear "main" enemy
- Confusing objective
- Interchangeable characters, non of which necessary to the plot.(except mordin...once)
- 7 short stories.

Well put. I loved the ME1 story. I had my faithful squad, I was a proud Alliance soldier and had another Alliance soldier at my side (Kaidan). We went out there to gain victory over an obvious enemy and managed to save the Citadel after an epic battle. The scene where the rescuers found Kaidan under some rubble and he shaked his head thinking I was dead made me feel like he really mattered. Yes, I'm aware that it's a fixed video clip but still it made me feel like the squad mates mattered. They had their own opinions and views of our mission and what we stand for.

In ME2...everything was all over the place. I was forced to work for Cerberus which I chased after in ME1 during several side quests. My squad was also forced on me. I was torn away from my loayal companion whom I always considered as a second-in-command. Instead of 1 solid story with interesting, hair rising twists, I got several mini-stories that were mandatory to gain my squad's loyalty. And after all these disconnected side missions had been done, I blast into the enemy base, blow it up into hell and the end.

Lolwut?

Edit: And-an retardness

Modifié par Milana_Saros, 01 décembre 2010 - 10:38 .

[CroGamer002]

^It could have lot worse like in Deus Ex 2 when you had all options from start.

[onelifecrisis]

Zurcior wrote...

 Like many on these forums, I didn't feel as invested in Mass Effect 2's story as I did Mass Effect 1's.  And sure enough, I began to wonder why this was. And then I remembered something. Something many of us fell victim to: A massive troll unleashed spoilers about major plot points in the game before it was releashed! I began to wonder whether or not that already knowing the story ruined my experience of the story.

 If I didn't already know that the Collectors were Protheans, would I have (right then and there) felt the same shock I felt in ME1 when it was revealed that it was actually the Reapers who built the Citadel and mass relays? If I didn't already know about the human-reaper, would it have blown my mind as I was experiencing it? Was my perception and judgement of the story clouded because of what I already knew?
 
 What do you think? Do you feel the same way?

When I first played ME2 I had not seen any trailers, nor read any spoilers. I had played ME1, I had seen ME2's score on Metacritic, and I had read one spoiler-free review which said that I could import my ME1 save. I was 100% spoiler-free, and I still didn't like the story in ME2.

- Shepard and Normandy are destroyed... then both rebuilt!? WTF?
- Shepard agrees to work with/for Cerberus with no fuss!? WTF?
- Shepard is told to go gather a team for... what!? What exactly am I gathering these people for? What's our plan? Do we even have one? And why do these people agree to work with me without even asking where I'm going or what I'm doing when I get there?
- Shepard meets up with Liara and OMG THIS IS THE WORST WRITING EVAR

I could go on, but you get the idea.
To answer your question: spoilers didn't spoil this game.

Modifié par onelifecrisis, 01 décembre 2010 - 11:36 .

[wulf3n]

rma2110 wrote...
The world is much more vibrant and alive.

Funny this is the exact opposite of what i felt. To me the "world" felt much more bland and static. For starters none of the civilian npc's move, the cities are all broken up and small, missions always require you to go some where else in the city that can only be accessed by hover car, and each mission ended with a complete brain wipe because shepard always ends up back in the dock with no recollection of getting there. In ME1 everything was connected, you could go where ever you wanted, battles could happen anywhere, explore new worlds, complete missions you didn't even know existed. The freedom ME1 created is what made it alive.

If the trend continues, ME3 will just be you chatting to squadmates on the normandy then going straight to the next combat location, rinse and repeat.

Ok, im not sure which points im trying to defend here but i'll do my best. 

Sajuro wrote...
1: the point was to recruit a team of specialists so you would be prepared for whatever happened on the suicide mission, which you were

I was under the impression the objective was to stop the collectors.  We gather "irreplaceable" people to help us with this because...well because were told to  i still haven't seen any evidence to show that recruiting these people or going through the relay was necessary. Compared to ME1 where the objective is to stop sarens plan, the council gives us some leads, and tells us to go nuts...may not be brilliant but it makes sense.

Sajuro wrote...
2 Again, the plot is getting the characters, getting their loyalty, and sending them against the enemy.

which could have all been achieved if TIM just hired a couple of few platoons of mercs...and mordin.

Sajuro wrote...
3: While the side missions are non mandatory, I feel the pacing is better than ME1 where you have your three 'dungeons' laid out before you at the start then "Hey, we lost on STG team on virmire while they were looking at Saren, no need to hurry though". In ME2, you were recruiting team members when Illusive Man comes and tells you to get your ass to Horizon because it just went dark. Then you do some more missions to build up your specialist team and hurry over to the collector cruiser to find out where they live. Though the Reaper IFF mission can be put off forever, it isn't quite as hurried as 'a scientist has gone missing in the Artemis Tau cluster, you need to find her before saren does!" Shep: "I'll do it later". Finally after the crew is abducted, it lets you dick around but punishes you by killing the crew.

Im all for bioware moving away from their tired formula of Start Mission : Three Places to go to : Story Mission : Final mission. Im just saying that if the start says the characters are necessary for the satisfactory completion of the mission, then you better damn well make them necessary, if you make a big hype about loyalty,  then actually bring in situations where their "loyalty" comes into play...bioware seemed to have mixed up loyalty and focus. When you finally get to the suicide mission they practically say, hey anyone could have done this, and hell you don't even need our loyalty if you pick your people right. kind of makes the previous 12 missions pointless.

Sajuro wrote...
5. Gameplay and story are tied in since in both games the gameplay and story drive each other.

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean that one aspect cant suffer because of the other.

Modifié par wulf3n, 01 décembre 2010 - 12:15 .

[SimonTheFrog]

Spoilers are your own fault. I avoided the spoiler section of the forum (and other stuff) before i played ME2 and i was genuinely "surprised" by all the "twists" (that was sarcasm... none of the twists (TIM setting up a trap, Collectors being once Protheans etc)...where exciting at all.) So, even if that was spoilered for you, you didn't miss much.



And i also agree that the shooting part is arcady.



But i don't agree that the writing is generally a weakness of ME2. The game features some of the most interesting and emotionally touching dialogs and scenes i've seen in a game for a long time. And some others may not be exceptional in a breathtaking way, but most are believable and mature to a high extend. It's just too bad that they are usually found in side-quests/recruitment quests and not during the main arc. The dialogs and subjects in the main arc are sometimes bordering being an insult to the grown up player concerning a believable universe or a plot that leaves room for reflection.

And i'm not blaming the writers that had to write the dialogs. I blame high level decision on what the plot was about.

[Moondoggie]

I enjoy both games. On the one hand i find ME2 easier to just pick up and play whenever. Simple to get into and enjoyable combat. ME1 suffers in the combat department so it takes a bit longer to get into. I found that when i first played too but it has a great story and atmosphere. I'll never forget the first time i saw the citadel it was beautiful.



Back on subject i do feel ME1 had a better story than ME2 simply because ME2 deviated into a weird side story i guess to bring in new enemies. The collectors offered variety but felt a little out of place. Also Harbinger was supposed to be the main bad guy and yet we learn very little about it or it's motives. We barely hear anything about the reapers and learn nothing new. And i thought the reapers were the main plot of the game. All that great backstory we learned in the first game went out the window to the collectors and their giant human reaper thing that was never actually explained at all. Why do they need a human reaper? What is it's purpose? It was just there and it irked me a little.



As far as characters i muched prefered ME2's offerings not just because their were more but because they seemed to all have their own personalities and fighting styles you could play with learning which combinations work best. They had that in ME1 but i felt it was handled better in ME2 biotics are not quite as gamebreaking as they were in the first game and everyone has their weaknesses. And the backgrounds and storylines for individual characters were really well handled in ME2 i didn't quite get as attached to the ME1 cast because i found many of them quite boring. I thought Garrus and Tali especially were much better in ME2.



Had ME2 continued the story that was built up in the first game i probably would have been more satisfied. Working with Cerberus was a bit of a strange plot point but acceptable with the council being reluctant to do anything about the missing humans however the council U turn on Reapers is highly confusing and feels like they just did it to push you towards Cerberus. I mean they were saved from Soverign they saw the damage one reaper did would they not be a bit more worried about the threat of more? They had better come up with a viable explaination in ME3 or it'll just look dumb.



I hope in ME3 they stay on task and don't kill the story in favour of introducing new characters and also don't try to throw in confusing nonsensical plot points. And also for the love of god explain Harbinger a bit more and why we should be scared of it.

[Luigitornado]

I stayed away from most news of ME2, and I enjoyed the game, and its story.

If you didn't like ME2, and you constantly complain about it, then why don't you just quit playing ME and move on?

And telling me that fans have a right to complain when they are unhappy, won't change the fact that most of you sound like whiney Salarian heads.

[onelifecrisis]

Luigitornado wrote...

I stayed away from most news of ME2, and I enjoyed the game, and its story.

If you didn't like ME2, and you constantly complain about it, then why don't you just quit playing ME and move on?

And telling me that fans have a right to complain when they are unhappy, won't change the fact that most of you sound like whiney Salarian heads.

Since I am one of the whiners, I'll reply to that.

Personally, I loved ME2. I still do. It's one of my favourite games ever. I love the gameplay, the music, the humour, some of the characters, and some of the drama. I even quite like the art style. However, the OP asked specifically about the story and whether spoilers had spoiled it for people. For me, the story (or "plot" or whatever) was one of the game's weaknesses, even though I had seen no spoilers at all.

Modifié par onelifecrisis, 01 décembre 2010 - 12:26 .

[Siegdrifa]

SimonTheFrog wrote...
But i don't agree that the writing is generally a weakness of ME2. The game features some of the most interesting and emotionally touching dialogs and scenes i've seen in a game for a long time.

The story telling is here and good quality, huge work on rtc and dialogue.
Every time i play this game i do all the dialogue and don't get bored.

But the main plot is a ghost.

You learn after 20 minutes that collectors living beyond the omega4 relay is abducting human, se we have to build a team to get there and kick their ass.
After 35 hours later, this is what we do, no more.
I enjoyed many mission in ME2, but they are just here to give you some time to play, they are not here to devloppe the main story.
In fact, the mean story is only 4 or 5 mission and represent less than 20% of the game.
Background alone don't make the whole story.

When i remember at some classic japanese RPG, nearly all the contant and sub story are dedicated to the main plot devloppement.
Let's look at FF7, for every character you meet, you do their "own quest" to settle the score with their past (i usualy LMAO when i hear that quest from squad mate in ME or DAO is a new concept... seriously). But when you do them, you don't feel disconected from the main plot devloppement at all. It give very high consistance to the story.
In ME2 it is totaly disconected... how the fate of Jacob father is help to you quest to stop collectors? How dealing with Thane or Samara's offspring will lead you to undercover an important twist to collectors ?

If you look at another japanese game, like Legend of Mana, you will mostly do only sub quest, the big difference is, in fact every sub quest in this game lead you to a final objective and are important for the world devloppement (and saving this world).
It's not just blend sub quest that you can deal or not and won't really influence what is happening during ME2, no matter how well told they are (and they mostly are ! it save the game in fact).

ME2 is one of the bast game i ever played in 27 years of video gaming, but ME2 main plot is also one of the most badly treated i ever saw.


If we had to adapt ME2 main plot devloppement to ME1, than ME1 would look like this :
Begining of the game, you want to stop a rogue specter, after citadel, just delet feros / neveria / vermire / ilos, do all the side mission in the mako (because there is no real devloppement to do and you want at least play the game a little), then go back to kill the rogue specter. end of the story.

Modifié par Siegdrifa, 01 décembre 2010 - 01:05 .

[BlackwindTheCommander]

I always felt the story was weaker without a visible and clear main antagonist.



ME1: Saren- We know who we're fighting, and thus feel we have a goal to work for and need to complete.



ME2: Harbringer- We never have any actual interaction with Harbringer, besides the occasional gunfight. Hes more of a pressence where as Saren was a character, and thus not nearly as engaging.