171 réponses à ce sujet

[spacehamsterZH]

spacehamsterZH wrote...
So, anyone wanna take bets how long it's going to take for this thread to go horribly wrong?

Nyoka wrote...
Only if "videogame" means "pewpew!"

45 minutes. Not bad.

[Il Divo]

Ozzyfan223 wrote...

Everything else, graphics, characters, acting, gameplay, settings, missions, etc. is improved in ME2.

And while I may agree with the above, these are still only our opinions. I can understand more than a few reasons why some fans prefer Mass Effect, especially with regard to the setting. Music, I think, is another point to consider.
Also keep in mind that your personal standpoint applies only to you; others rate video games differently.

Modifié par Il Divo, 10 mars 2011 - 10:58 .

[Jaesun999]

Area Design for the main quest areas was (in my opinion) WAY better in Mass Effect, probably due to the longer development time. Not to say Mass Effect 2's areas were terrible or anything, Some of them were very enjoyable. Game Mechanic wise however, Mass Effect 2 wins hands down.

Really wish/hope a level design editor could be with Mass Effect 3. Would be nice.

[Feanor_II]

Both are great game. It's curious but inmy opinion ME2 solved many of ME1 flaws...... but in exchange it broke things that were all rigth.

Just finished ME1 last week in a new playthrough and now I continue in ME2, I consider ME2 to be slightly better game, if only it had (improved) planet exploring with free roaming and inventory for party members....

Also, I think that afeter both ME games the game core is almost done and they "just" need to adapt the game script in gaming levels/missions, I don't think that they will rebuild it as they did on DA2 son we won't see substantial diferences, not after seeing that DA2 isn't the acclaimed game that BioWare and EA expected. Yeah I know that it's not a piece of cake, but they don't have to program the game core itself.

Area Design for the main quest areas was (in my opinion) WAY better in
Mass Effect, probably due to the longer development time. Not to say
Mass Effect 2's areas were terrible or anything

Yeah, but I think the problem was in the game's plot, it was structured in a lot of main missions (Intro, Freedom Progress, Garrus, Mordin, Jack, Grunt, Thane, Samara, Tali recruit and loyalty, Collector ship & base, Horizon, Reaper, Miranda, Jacob, Legion loyalty) while ME1 had less missions (Eden Prime, Citadel, Therum, Noveria, Feros, Virmire & Illos + Citadel) that forced the levels to be more compressed.

Modifié par Feanor_II, 10 mars 2011 - 11:32 .

[The Spamming Troll]

ME2 should have never been made. thats what i think.

[AdmiralCheez]

sweet potatoes should have never been made. thats what i think.

[shep82]

Whoo71 wrote...

ME1
Pros: Excellent execution of plot and back story, introduction of bright characters
Cons: Gameplay, PC port quality, squad interactions

ME2
Pros: Squad interaction, PC version quality, gameplay
Cons: Plot, RPG Elements, Health recharge, impact of ME1 choices

IMO ME 2 has the better plot.

[JKoopman]

Ozzyfan223 wrote...

Everything else, graphics,

ME2 has better environmental detail and ambience, but the "improved" lighting engine really screws up the appearance of character models. Heck, compare ME1 Shiala to ME2 Shiala...




ME1's characters look soft and smooth and light-balanced, whereas ME2's characters look like they're constantly under a harsh spotlight and their skin looks like it's made out of sandpaper. It's like someone jacked the contrast way up in ME2; there's very little in the way of gradients between full-bright and pitch-black.

Now, this may ultimately come down to personal preferrence, but that means that one can't simply say that "the graphics were better in ME2."

Ozzyfan223 wrote...

characters,

The characters were better? Again, personal taste. Garrus and Tali were both characters in ME1, and while I feel that Tali is actually improved upon on the sequel they turned Garrus from a frustrated cop whose unsure of himself into an angsty Dirty Harry clone regardless of whether you steered him towards "Paragon" or "Renegade" in ME1. Grunt makes a ******-poor replacement for Wrex. Jack is almost universally despised as a "Wow! Look how X-treme she is!" character. Jacob is like talking to a brick wall. Samara is wooden...

Are there some cool characters? Yes, by virtue of there being so damn many that at least some of them have to resonate. Very few of them have the breadth of character that Ashley or Kaidan or Wrex had in ME1, nor do you explore as much in the way of their individual pasts and personalities (with the exception of Jack, who ruins it by being so d*mn unlikable). Many are simply walking character cliches. Legion and Mordin are really the only new characters introduced in ME2 that were truly interesting to me.

Ozzyfan223 wrote...

acting,

The acting was better? While I can't think of any specific instances off the top of my head where the "acting" in ME2 was attrocious, neither can I think of any specific instance where it was better than what we saw in ME1. Please explain.

Ozzyfan223 wrote...

gameplay,

Purely a matter of opinion.

Ozzyfan223 wrote...

settings,

Again, purely a matter of opinion. There were some nice settings in ME2. There were also some not-so-nice settings in ME2. But what was wrong with the setting of ME1? I thought Noveria, Feros, Virmire and the final battle on the Citadel were amazing, and certainly rival anything in the sequel in both appearance, length and operational diversity.

Ozzyfan223 wrote...

missions, etc. is improved in ME2.

ME2 has more missions than ME1, but ME1's missions were typically 2-3 times larger than any mission in ME2 and were usually compartmentally structured with many different gameplay segments making up one large super-mission (eg: compare the entirety of the Feros, Noveria or Virmire missions to any single recruitment, loyalty or story mission in ME2).

[The Spamming Troll]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

sweet potatoes should have never been made. thats what i think.

your like mark twain + john elway with that witty comeback.

Modifié par The Spamming Troll, 10 mars 2011 - 11:56 .

[DoctorCuddles]

Is it wrong to say I like both equally?

Obviously both games have their pros and cons, but I dont have a favourite, personally I hope Bioware take the best bits from both games and then make the ultimate game for ME3 =)

[AdmiralCheez]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

sweet potatoes should have never been made. thats what i think.

your like mark twain + john elway with that witty comeback.

You probably missed my earlier post.

And yeah, I'm a f*cking genius.  One day, people will appreciate me for my unsurpassed intellect and lightning-quick wit.

And then I'll take over Argentina or something.

[Pwener2313]

ME2 is better because it's a sequel. Sequels are always better.

/sarcasm

[SlurpinTaxt]

Thompson family wrote...

I was playing EuroFighter 2000 on full difficulty before some of the people on this forum were born.

ME2 is a vast improvement.

Ok thompson, we get it, youre hardcore, stop browbeating us with your elitism

[UKStory135]

I only had two problems with ME1, the clunky inventory and the Mako. They streamlined one of them and they got rid of the other. I dont like planet scanning, but it might take up a couple of hours out of a 40 hour game. The Mako and inventory systems took up half or more of the 45 hours of play, especially after you leave the Citadel. Thus I like ME2 more.

[Pwener2313]

SlurpinTaxt wrote...

Thompson family wrote...

I was playing EuroFighter 2000 on full difficulty before some of the people on this forum were born.

ME2 is a vast improvement.

Ok thompson, we get it, youre hardcore, stop browbeating us with your elitism

What the hell is EuroFighter?

[creature from the black bethesda]

I like RPGs that's how. Sure, ME2 was a better shooter but I wanted to play the sequel to what I considered a good RPG. I mean ME1 had all the makings of an RPG, putting points to be better with certain weapons, putting points into what was basically speech, leveling up powers, currency meant something more (of course you would still get the max soon enough), you chose from a variety of weapons, you could upgrade those weapons, choose from a variety of armors, upgrade those armors. The only real problem was the inventory system, Bioware didn't need to almost completely destroy it, just fix it, like putting things into categories such weapons/armor/weapon upgrades/armor upgrades and bunch same items together such as having 3 cool down or whatever it was called it would say Cool Down (3).

The improved gameplay was welcome but it can still be improved (where the **** is my blindfire?) but I was also extremely annoyed with how the shields didn't really mean **** anymore, might as well have just given me regular regenerating health. In ME1 I liked to go Engineer because I would make my shields very strong quickly and I could tank things with my light armor/high shields and incredibly good pistol while still using engineer powers.

I just like RPGs to be more about the points you must invest wisely than player skill (I'll buy Gears of War if I want to play a normal TPS).

/rant

[SlurpinTaxt]

Pwener2313 wrote...

What the hell is EuroFighter?

I dont know, and Im not sure what it could possibly have anything to do with the topic were discussing but just go with it or he will make you feel bad about not beating contra without cheetz

[morrie23]

ME2 was one step forward and two steps back for me. For all the improvements they made with the gunplay, ME2 is a step back in terms of core story and immersion.

[Pwener2313]

SlurpinTaxt wrote...

Pwener2313 wrote...

What the hell is EuroFighter?

I dont know, and Im not sure what it could possibly have anything to do with the topic were discussing but just go with it or he will make you feel bad about not beating contra without cheetz

What the hell is Contra???

[AdmiralCheez]

morrie23 wrote...

ME2 was one step forward and two steps back for me. For all the improvements they made with the gunplay, ME2 is a step back in terms of core story and immersion.

Really?  The immersion went up for me, and I thought the strong characters and emotional content made up for the sort of blech main plot.

Better gunplay and increased emotional involvement are probably what increased my immersion, now that I think about it.  Loading/level complete screens never bugged me.  I actually liked them since the loading graphics were all pretty and stuff, plus the end level screens reminded me of the old Starcraft victory screens.

Well, okay, Starcraft did it better, but it had this.

[Captain Crash]

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

ME1 was the better experience; ME2 was the better video game.

And this is the reason I have completed ME about 10 times and still want to do another almost 4 years now after release. ME2 I have done 4 plays.  While superior and improved in many ways the gaming experience just hasnt gripped me as much. Dont get me wrong I love ME2 but there is something missing...

Modifié par Captain Crash, 11 mars 2011 - 12:28 .

[morrie23]

Yup Admiral, I found ME1 more immersive, I can literally see the seams between all the different modules that constitute ME2. The mission complete screens and the lack of inter-party banter really make it stand out in my mind. The immense suspension of disbelief needed to enjoy the core plot also ruins the immersion for me. But this is just my opinion, no need to go spreading it around.

Modifié par morrie23, 11 mars 2011 - 12:40 .

[AdmiralCheez]

morrie23 wrote...

Yup Admiral, I found ME1 more immersive, I can literally see the seams between all the different modules that constitute ME2. The mission complete screens and the lack of inter-party banter really make it stand out in my mind. The immense suspension of disbelief needed to enjoy the core plot also ruins the immersion for me. But this is just my opinion, no need to go spreading it around.

Like I said, sweet potatoes.  What makes and breaks my immersion is different from what makes and breaks yours.  I can respect that.

BTW, Lazarus Project was plenty eyeroll-invoking for me, too, and I would greatly appeciate a chattier squad.  I want the team to act like a team.

EDIT: WHY HELLO THERE TYPO

Modifié par AdmiralCheez, 11 mars 2011 - 12:52 .

[morrie23]

Aye, sweet potatoes. I can totally see why people like ME2 more than ME1. I try not to get involved in those sort of debates, too many opinions being stated as fact. Agree with Lazarus, I also find most of the Cerberus/Collector missions eyeroll/WTF-inducing, tis a shame when most of the loyalty missions are fried gold. (+ the DLC is some of the best stuff BW have done, then again I'm biased about one in particular)

Modifié par morrie23, 11 mars 2011 - 12:51 .