174 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryzaki]

I have to agree about Shepard being pretty stunted. And yes I'm sick of him being an emotional crutch. At the very least I should be able to call all of them out of their sh*t without being renegade.

[The Spamming Troll]

sumoaltus wrote...

Thank you iakus for that articulate and intelligent response. I see your point exactly as far as a story goes. Yes, ME1 has a definitive beginning, middle, and end, and it does leave the remainder of the plot open. But here's the beauty of ME2. They were able to take Cerberus, an unknown splinter group, and throw them into the mix without really messing with the whole "flow" with the story. Now yes, I know the reapers weren't mentioned that much, but were they really mentioned a lot in ME1 as well?

Yes and no, it's tough to add to this without spoiling the game, but to me, most of the game was concentrated around Saren, and what has happened between his fued with Anderson in the past, and 2183. If you read Revelation what I'm talking about will make a lot more sense. ME2 wors the same way. Yes, the Reapers are the true enemy, but Shepard's focus is mainly taking down the other antagonists, the Collectors, supposed agents of the Reapers.

So in conclusion yes, ME takes a drastic turn in the second installment, but that's what a lot of mid sequel titles do before the massive conclusion of the next installment, when it all finally falls together.

the thing is ME2 is more parts gears of war, then mass effect1. i have a feeling ME3 isnt going to resemble ME1 at all. i dont think making cerberus a household name is nearly as importnat as ME2 having a story that follows what i did in ME1. whats this "flow" you speak of in ME2?  ME2s story doesnt advance untill the last mission. ME1 revolved around saren because he was half the story. ME2 is 12 sepereate short stories with one story mission, that being the SM. im not looking for more alien species, merc groups, or hanar squadmates. i have 1/3rd of my journey left, im not looking for questions, im looking for answers.

honestly ME2 gives me blue balls. i feel like im playing a game that had so much potential, but just left so much behind.

[Kane-Corr]

ME2 is a better game than 1....however....we need Story, a bit more customization/influx of core rpg elements, and the atmosphere(music, setting) for the final installment to be everything we hoped it would be.

[james1976]

BiancoAngelo7 wrote...

OP,

if you think you're going to settle this debate by highlighting one of the main issues that people have with ME2 and why they feel it wasn't nearly as good as it could have been, then I think you overestimate your capacity to put the ME1vsME2 debate to rest.

All I have to say is, if you can honestly play ME1 and then ME2 in a short time span, and then not notice everything that was taken out, gutted or in some cases "streamlined" until it was barely recognizable then you have amazing tunnel vision.

Yes, ME2 is a great game.

Yes, it had numerous improvements like combat, graphics, production values, amount of content etc.

However,

it is a horrible sequel to ME1, instead being a good/great prequel to ME3.

it has completely gutted most of the RPG elements from the GAMEPLAY that was in ME1

it has completely removed all elements of immersion replacing them with cheap industry cliches like loading screens, missino complete screens, teleporting, and PRESSS F TO END MISSION

Planet exploration and the feeling of a vast universe, and the amazing skyboxes that came with it, has been completely removed.

The galaxy map was made WORSE from ME1 to ME2, replacing an amazingly beautiful animated cutscene of the Normandy travelling between systems to moving a toy ship and "buying" fuel for it, as well as having ugly worlds with no detail and lazy descriptions for them.

I could go on.

I am sorry, but writing that short blurb that ME2 is about recruiting characters is tantamount to saying

"there should be no ME2vsME1 debate because the Devs told us on the game box that the game was going to be a bunch of side quests, and all of the other flaws and disappointments in the game are non-existent."

I agree with you whole heartedly.

[Lumikki]

One thing to say for OP, absolute zero point to try solve ME1 vs ME2 discussion, because it will NEVER end. Because disagreement between different players is here to stay.

Modifié par Lumikki, 31 décembre 2010 - 12:04 .

[GhostwriterDoF]

Isn’t Shepard the bridge between ME 1 and 2? After all, why did Cerberus go to such trouble and expense for the recovery, and more specifically, to make sure Shepard is brought back as He or She was? What makes Shepard so special? I discovered an answer to that on Eden Prime.



And what about the other members of the crew, in ME2, each with their own past issues that are somehow tied into what’s going on currently across the Galaxy? Even the Shadow Broker had a specific interest in each of our recruited members of the crew, too. We’ve also learned in ME2 that not all Geth are necessarily Geth, and the Reapers have lots of agents and business associates, through dealings by the Collectors. They are still seeking to enable their return.



As for the game mechanics, and gamer preferences between 1 and 2, I have yet to finish my first ME1 play-through. It is interesting to see what people are passionate about, what they get from and take out of their gaming experiences. ME2’s lack of weapon/armor/upgrade variations, and limited Squad-mate and class customization stands out for me.



Still, I don’t think we can define what an RPG really is, though we can identify the classic elements that have become familiar to us. It is up to the games to define, by how much they can draw us in, to the Roles, the Worlds and the Universes of the Stories that play out before us.

[Dominus]

The moment I clicked onto this topic many hours ago, I knew this topic was doomed... it's like adding gasoline to conrad on fire - It's kind of amusing for a while, but ultimately isn't going to go anywhere you didn't expect.

[haberman13]

As a previous poster mentioned: ME2 blue balls you.



So much promise, so much hype, and she is a pretty lady ... then you get to know her.



ME1 is the slightly chunkier wife at home, but she takes care of you.



ME2 is ... disappointing.

[TheNexus]

http://t3.gstatic.co...3vov7T0waBX1yps

Modifié par TheNexus, 30 décembre 2010 - 07:15 .

[haberman13]

"haters gonna hate" is an oversimplification.



I want to like ME2, badly. But I can't get past the acne under all of her makeup.

[sinosleep]

I'm going to keep this short and sweet and maybe for once actually stop posting a thread when I say I'm going to.



ME 2 > ME 1 from a gameplay and mechanics perspective in nearly every way.



ME > ME 2 with regards to the central plot, but I'm still not sold on it being Dostoevsky.

[Gaxe]

So it's true what they say, ME1 is better.  I don't blame them for failing with ME2, it's hard to live up to a great game. Almost humanly impossible in most cases.  Most movies rarely have a strong part II or even part III.

[sumoaltus]

I honestly think both games are phenomenal, and one isn't better than the other.



They're different, they tie in to eachother, and they make us wonder what is in store for us in ME3. One thing that really opened the world of ME2 to me was when I first stepped onto Omega as Shepard and made my way towards club Afterlife.

[Schneidend]

Gaxe wrote...

So it's true what they say agreed upon by a segment of the fanbase, ME1 is better.

Fixed that for ya.

I like both games a great deal, enough so that if I did a top ten list of my favorite games, the only two franchises with multiple entries would be Mass Effect and Baldur's Gate. ME2 comes out on top for me, however.

Hmm...Hell, I'll give it a whirl:

• Baldur's Gate 2
• Mass Effect 2
• Final Fantasy Tactics
• Dragon Age: Origins
• Disgaea 3
• Borderlands
• Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic 2
• Baldur's Gate
• Castelvania: Symphony of the Night
• Team Fortress 2

[slimgrin]

What's unfortunate about ME2, is they jettisoned most of the great ideas they had in ME1.

[james1976]

slimgrin wrote...

What's unfortunate about ME2, is they jettisoned most of the great ideas they had in ME1.

Yup.  They could have used what they did in ME1, refined it, and then expanded on it with the upgrade/research system. 

[Seraphim Veluvian]

There's no need for argues. And no need to compare MA1 and MA2. Both of them require admirations. They have several similarities and are so different in the same time, that makes them unique. Hope the third part have the same progress.

[BiancoAngelo7]

james1976 wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

What's unfortunate about ME2, is they jettisoned most of the great ideas they had in ME1.

Yup.  They could have used what they did in ME1, refined it, and then expanded on it with the upgrade/research system. 

Agreed.

[ThePatriot101]

@slimgrin:

Ideas? Really? Couldn't get any more specific than that? I'd like to see the list of these "ideas" are because people using generic terminology to slam something sounds very very fishy talk for saying "I don't like it and people should listen because I don't like it".

I still can't believe that people honestly believed that in order for ME2 to be great the story had to have Shepard already curb-checking the Reapers by the end. Where's the creativity in that? It's like with JRPGs where almost every one deals with destroying the evil that plagues the universe.

Did anyone get the gist that Bioware was making ME2 darker than ME1? Did anyone gather that ME2 was going to have a different story than ME1?

Half the people complaining about ME2 I've seen advocate for the things that most other games (some not worth mentioning) already did or do on a regular basis. Nobody likes a "writer" who writes basically the same book over and over. And I'm not talking about people like Tom Clancy and Stephen King who write in a particular style repeatedly. I'm talking about someone who write something which if you switched around just the names you'd get any one of the number of stories they wrote nearly identically.

Modifié par ThePatriot101, 31 décembre 2010 - 02:00 .

[Sparda Stonerule]

ThePatriot101 wrote...

@slimgrin:

Ideas? Really? Couldn't get any more specific than that? I'd like to see the list of these "ideas" are because people using generic terminology to slam something sounds very very fishy talk for saying "I don't like it and people should listen because I don't like it".

I still can't believe that people honestly believed that in order for ME2 to be great the story had to have Shepard already curb-checking the Reapers by the end. Where's the creativity in that? It's like with JRPGs where almost every one deals with destroying the evil that plagues the universe.

Did anyone get the gist that Bioware was making ME2 darker than ME1? Did anyone gather that ME2 was going to have a different story than ME1?

Half the people complaining about ME2 I've seen advocate for the things that most other games (some not worth mentioning) already did or do on a regular basis. Nobody likes a "writer" who writes basically the same book over and over. And I'm talking about people like Tom Clancy and Stephen King who write in a particular style repeatedly. I'm talking about someone who write something which if you switched around just the names you'd get any one of the number of stories they wrote nearly identically.

I agree. Honestly some people are upset because they have no idea how to stop the Reapers. They feel the whole game should have been exploring the Galaxy and trying to find a way to stop the Reapers. I believe that's stupid and generic. In ME 2 we assembled a team and lined up possible allies to fight the Reapers with. To me assembling the people of the Galaxy is vastly more interesting than "well we checked all these planets and finally found some super weapon to help fight the Reapers, is anyone nervous about them showing up anymore? I'm not."

I mean honestly over the Reapers entire lifespan no race has ever taken out the entire lot. Assuming there's some magical and easy way to kill the Reapers is silly. Heck even Vigil in ME 1 kind of stated that at least this cycle has early warning and because of the Prothean effort the Keepers no longer work for the Reapers. That's already a big advantage for us. Even adding to that the Collectors were the only thing that had any link to the Reapers that Shepard knew about. He knows they are real, and TIM tells him that the Collectors may be linked with the Reapers. He had nothing else to go on, no other clues, not even a hint of anything else Reaper related. ME 2 was a logical step in the story that focused on the people of the Galaxy. If some people are really so bored by the people of the Galaxy then I have no idea what they wanted out of the entire Mass Effect story arc. ME 1 set the Universe up and let us see Citadel Space and introduced us to the Species. ME 2 set up more characters and made (me at least) care about saving the Galaxy. 

That's just my two cents and I know a lot of people just want the standard story. However assuming ME 3 will pull this together nicely then I enjoy this deviation of the Savior of the Galaxy story.

[JamieCOTC]

I've seen this said about ME2 in other forums and I must agree, "ME2 is a great game, but it's a sh*tty sequel."

I like ME2 a lot, but something got lost in the translation. The worst part was Shepard being sidelined in his/her own story. Don't even get me started on the reset button, the end boss, the scores of missed opportunities or the "not so threatening" antagonists. Anyway, to the OP, you presented your case very well, but we'll just have to agree to disagree. Both games are great, both have their strengths and weaknesses, but I just feel the story and atmosphere was better in the first game. 

Modifié par JamieCOTC, 31 décembre 2010 - 02:14 .

[sumoaltus]

Sparda Stonerule wrote...

I agree. Honestly some people are upset because they have no idea how to stop the Reapers. They feel the whole game should have been exploring the Galaxy and trying to find a way to stop the Reapers. I believe that's stupid and generic. In ME 2 we assembled a team and lined up possible allies to fight the Reapers with. To me assembling the people of the Galaxy is vastly more interesting than "well we checked all these planets and finally found some super weapon to help fight the Reapers, is anyone nervous about them showing up anymore? I'm not."

I mean honestly over the Reapers entire lifespan no race has ever taken out the entire lot. Assuming there's some magical and easy way to kill the Reapers is silly. Heck even Vigil in ME 1 kind of stated that at least this cycle has early warning and because of the Prothean effort the Keepers no longer work for the Reapers. That's already a big advantage for us. Even adding to that the Collectors were the only thing that had any link to the Reapers that Shepard knew about. He knows they are real, and TIM tells him that the Collectors may be linked with the Reapers. He had nothing else to go on, no other clues, not even a hint of anything else Reaper related. ME 2 was a logical step in the story that focused on the people of the Galaxy. If some people are really so bored by the people of the Galaxy then I have no idea what they wanted out of the entire Mass Effect story arc. ME 1 set the Universe up and let us see Citadel Space and introduced us to the Species. ME 2 set up more characters and made (me at least) care about saving the Galaxy. 

That's just my two cents and I know a lot of people just want the standard story. However assuming ME 3 will pull this together nicely then I enjoy this deviation of the Savior of the Galaxy story.

See this is what I want this thread to revolve around, intelligent discussion about why ME2 is better/worse than ME1.

This is also the point I was trying to make in my oroginal post as well. Great post my friend.

[slimgrin]

ThePatriot101 wrote...

@slimgrin:

Ideas? Really? Couldn't get any more specific than that? I'd like to see the list of these "ideas" are because people using generic terminology to slam something sounds very very fishy talk for saying "I don't like it and people should listen because I don't like it".

I still can't believe that people honestly believed that in order for ME2 to be great the story had to have Shepard already curb-checking the Reapers by the end. Where's the creativity in that? It's like with JRPGs where almost every one deals with destroying the evil that plagues the universe.

Did anyone get the gist that Bioware was making ME2 darker than ME1? Did anyone gather that ME2 was going to have a different story than ME1?

Half the people complaining about ME2 I've seen advocate for the things that most other games (some not worth mentioning) already did or do on a regular basis. Nobody likes a "writer" who writes basically the same book over and over. And I'm not talking about people like Tom Clancy and Stephen King who write in a particular style repeatedly. I'm talking about someone who write something which if you switched around just the names you'd get any one of the number of stories they wrote nearly identically.

Ideas to keep:

-Overheating weapons, not heat clips. Meant the game wans't your typical shooter.

-Strong overarching plot, not introducing a pointless distraction like the Collectors. The plot in ME2 suffered as a result. It's called sequel-itus

-Level design that isn't on-the-rails linear. Hub worlds in ME1 felt like real locations, not video game levels.

-Remote outposts. We had them in ME1. It provided great atmosphere, felt like I was truly in space. 

-Dialog skills in ME1, a brilliant concept. Gone. 

Just a few of the ideas that got shot out of the airlock for ME2. No matter. ME2 fanboyz defend the game to it's last detail. Carry on.

 

Modifié par slimgrin, 31 décembre 2010 - 02:21 .