171 réponses à ce sujet

[Si-Shen]

I am just going to reply to the OP's topic title question.

Personal choice and likes.
An example, MY personal choice is that I enjoy them both equally. Did I like all the changes, no, but there were parts of ME1 I did not like either so it balances out.

[Whatever42]

tonnactus wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Really?  The immersion went up for me,

Press B to end the mission...

Wow... this mine looks exactly like the last 6 mines I've been in....

[The Spamming Troll]

Phaedon wrote...

There is nothing wrong with preferring ME1 over ME2. What's wrong are stupid posts like:

1) ME2 had no story.
2) ME2 was not an RPG.
3) ME2 had worse characters.

ME2s story starts as soon as it finishes. shepard dies, becomes a zombie, introduces himself to the collectors, the end. ME2s story is about a collection of small stories. i couldnt even list how many plot holes there are in ME2. it was written by 7th graders.

ME2 has as many RPG elements as red dead redemption. is RDR an RPG?

ME2s story is mainly about the characters, so if anyone says ME1 had better characters, that means ME2 is a horrible game. and alot of people have said that.

CoolioThane wrote...

Both were fantastic by their own
merits. However, I like to think of ME2 as The Two Towers to the
Fellowship of the Ring that was ME1. ME1 introduced us to the universe
in such an amazing way, with a whole lore...fantastic, like how FoTR did
for the LotR (If we discount the Hobbit having done this)

ME2,
as with Two Towers, in my opinion, was great for what it was, but I
thought of it as a sort of build up to ME3. ME2 was feckin' brilliant,
but of course sacrificed the stellar story that ME1 had in
order to build up our team of characters for ME3. Saying this, the story
in ME2 was good I thought, but didn't touch ME1. However, I found ME2
more fun to play in a way and the characterisation I found to be better
and more personal.

This leads to ME3, and the universe was
intoduced in ME1, with the antagonists set, and the goal sort of clear.
ME2 gave us the tools and the characters with which we could face the
antagonists portrayed in ME1. Now, as in RotK, we take the fight to the
main protagonists, and hopefully defeat them in clearly the best of the
trilogy.

(I liken ME2 to the two towers as it stikes me that The
Collector threat in ME2 seemed away from the main reaper threat from
ME1, and I always thought that Saruman was a different threat from
Sauron. Collectors = Saruman, Sauron = Reapers sort of thing, as Saruman
and the collectors both worked for the main antagonist...

This
is mostly bull, but I am trying to say that ME2 bridged the gap
excellently between the opening and the conclusion, and though it may
have upset some people, the stage is set for the best of the
series...Mass Effect 3

have you played ME3 already? dont assume ME3 is going to be anything more then ME2s slopfest. if ME3 comes out and ends up being a crappy story with minimal RPG elements, would you still say ME2 is a great setup for ME3. or would you finally come to the conclusion that bioware screwed up the ME series.

i honestly think ME2 is only going to be mass effect2:episode 2. to me, that blows donkey nuts.

[Whatever42]

The Spamming Troll wrote...
have you played ME3 already? dont assume ME3 is going to be anything more then ME2s slopfest. if ME3 comes out and ends up being a crappy story with minimal RPG elements, would you still say ME2 is a great setup for ME3. or would you finally come to the conclusion that bioware screwed up the ME series.

i honestly think ME2 is only going to be mass effect2:episode 2. to me, that blows donkey nuts.

You're really quite the gloomy pessimist.  You can actually apply that logic to all of life. We're all going to die, so what does it matter? Oh, I could have fun today but tomorrow it won't count for anything because I'll get hit by a car so why bother?

Pessimism may mean less disappointment but it's also a lot less fun.

[Praetor Knight]

Not Zombie, Revenant a much better point of comparison if one wants to minimize that.



And I like both games, and I don't care 'bout no RPG this or RPG that anyway.

[Whatever42]

SpaceDesperado wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...
have you played ME3 already? dont assume ME3 is going to be anything more then ME2s slopfest. if ME3 comes out and ends up being a crappy story with minimal RPG elements, would you still say ME2 is a great setup for ME3. or would you finally come to the conclusion that bioware screwed up the ME series.

i honestly think ME2 is only going to be mass effect2:episode 2. to me, that blows donkey nuts.

You're really quite the gloomy pessimist.  You can actually apply that logic to all of life. We're all going to die, so what does it matter? Oh, I could have fun today but tomorrow it won't count for anything because I'll get hit by a car so why bother?

Pessimism may mean less disappointment but it's also a lot less fun.

Yes but this is his opinion based upon the direction bioware is going and what they did with ME2 and DA2. He has a right to feel this way.

Never said he didn't. But if I'm convinced a game will be no good, I don't troll the boards for months on end spouting doom and gloom. So why do people do it?

Ranting and letting off steam usually doesn't take months, short of a mental illness. The "haters" clearly post here in an effort to convince Bioware that people hate their game and they should stop trying to innovate. It won't work because Bioware's been around the Internet as long as anyone and knows its mostly useless noise.

If you're convinced this isn't the game for you, stop with the picket line and just go find a game you like. If there are really enough people interested in your kind of games, someone will make them.

[Chaos Gate]

Because Mass Effect 2 was garbage. Complete and utter tripe. Mediocre rubbish pushed off the mainstream production line to be fed to the masses. I've never been so disappointed with a game in my entire life.

- No story whatsoever.
- Ridiculously stupid two dimensional characters, verging on the comical.
- Barely any continuity from the first game, as originally promised.
- No sense of depth, as the events and the universe simply had no magnitude.
- RPG elements that were stripped down to the point that they really didn't need to be there.
- Too few sidequests, that were meaningless, regardless.
- A laughable level up system, that in the end was inconsequential.
- Mind numbingly tedious planet scanning.
- The good commander was somehow converted from intergalactic hero to pitiful social worker.

And yes, my bitterness has gone on for this long - when each of the above points dawned on me as I played Mass Effect 2 for the first time, it felt like an additional twist of the knife in my heart. When one of your favourite game developers brazenly abandons your high expectations in order to cater to a bunch of attention deficit disordered teenagers, you'd feel pretty hurt too. I come here to vent, and I will continue to do so, even if it is fruitless.

Modifié par Chaos Gate, 12 mars 2011 - 02:10 .

[Gatt9]

Ozzyfan223 wrote...

I can see maybe the story being a bit lesser in the sequal, but that should be expected in a 2nd entry of a trilogy. And the lack of armor and weapons. Everything else, graphics, characters, acting, gameplay, settings, missions, etc. is improved in ME2.

opinions are individual, sure. But the biggest gripe I see with people who distaste ME2 is the lack of armor and weapon choices. How can that be enough to hinder the experience that much? Playing through ME1, looking back, was a bit of a chore. I'm getting sick and tired of people on this forum saying ME2 is the beginning of Bioware's downfall, when in fact, both from a personal stand point and critical stand point, it is their best game.

Also, in terms of story, I haven't had a game build up a final mission so much and have it be much more satisfying than anticipated.

edit: yes, opinions will differ, but dismissing ME2 is stupid.

You don't understand the issue.

ME1 was an RPG,  with character development,  loot,  customization,  and exploration.

ME2 was a Shooter,  with none of that,  that came in a box labelled RPG.  Worse,  by all Shooter standards,  it was pretty bad.  AI's terrible,  Level design is terrible,  Weapons are horrible and repetative with little differentiation.  I will bet you my next paycheck that if you change out the graphics and dialogue,  and submit the game to reviewers it'll get panned by every one for it's horrible gameplay.

As far as the critics go,  last year saw the releases of: Starcraft 2,  Grand Turisom 5,  Bioshock 2,  Red Dead Redemption.  Yet Mass Effect 2 gets all those rewards?  Given what we already know about the gaming press,  kinda makes it obvious that the Publisher got the awards,  not the game.

Because by Shooter standards,  it's bad.  By RPG standards,  it's even worse.  Yet it beats out the biggest releases of the year?  Riiiight.

[Praetor Knight]

social workers have tough jobs, not pitiful.

Modifié par Praetor Shepard, 12 mars 2011 - 02:17 .

[The Spamming Troll]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

SpaceDesperado wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...
have you played ME3 already? dont assume ME3 is going to be anything more then ME2s slopfest. if ME3 comes out and ends up being a crappy story with minimal RPG elements, would you still say ME2 is a great setup for ME3. or would you finally come to the conclusion that bioware screwed up the ME series.

i honestly think ME2 is only going to be mass effect2:episode 2. to me, that blows donkey nuts.

You're really quite the gloomy pessimist.  You can actually apply that logic to all of life. We're all going to die, so what does it matter? Oh, I could have fun today but tomorrow it won't count for anything because I'll get hit by a car so why bother?

Pessimism may mean less disappointment but it's also a lot less fun.

Yes but this is his opinion based upon the direction bioware is going and what they did with ME2 and DA2. He has a right to feel this way.

Never said he didn't. But if I'm convinced a game will be no good, I don't troll the boards for months on end spouting doom and gloom. So why do people do it?

Ranting and letting off steam usually doesn't take months, short of a mental illness. The "haters" clearly post here in an effort to convince Bioware that people hate their game and they should stop trying to innovate. It won't work because Bioware's been around the Internet as long as anyone and knows its mostly useless noise.

If you're convinced this isn't the game for you, stop with the picket line and just go find a game you like. If there are really enough people interested in your kind of games, someone will make them.

inovative????? what exactly is inovative in ME2. the new ammo system? the gears of war type shooter elements? the story my 7 year old cousin could have came up with? your pulling at strings that arent even there.

am i in the wrong topic here, or isnt this very topics purpose to compare one game to the other? bioware listens to its forum, ME2 is a complete shoutout to the old forum. you do know where blasto the hanar came from dont you?

someone did make a game i liked. its call mass effect. then those same people ripped it apart adn gave me something completely different. ME2 doesnt follow what i did in ME1, at all. thats my biggest gripe(besides enemy protections, i ****ing hate enemy protections). im playing a game that doesnt represent the one that came before it. even tho you might hink ME2 is better, it will never have the same things that ME1 gave "us."

ME2 didnt need mass effect, it needed gears of war.

Modifié par The Spamming Troll, 12 mars 2011 - 02:38 .

[Praetor Knight]

Both are great games for different reasons. /thread

[88mphSlayer]

Thompson family wrote...

88mphSlayer wrote...


ME1 just has a better setup and denouement... the start of ME1 starts with completely different concerns, protagonist's purpose and antagonist motives, etc. than the ending, everything evolves and changes into a completely different - and more exciting story by the ending, it resolves and the player is left feeling like the Mass Effect universe will never be the same

ME2 you pretty much get a lot of what you need to know about TIM being shady and collectors possibly working for the reapers in the first hour of the game, and when you finish neither has changed, the player is left feeling like the Mass Effect universe hasn't changed at all (not to mention, the collectors can just never match the threat of the reapers, they always suffered the "little brother" syndrome)

Now here's criticism stated in a calm, rational way that respects the reader. No "dumbed down" BS. This is something worth replying to.

If there's one thing we can all agree on, I think it is that Saren was a great villian. That's lacking in ME2.

However, I have to disagree with 88mphSlayer and say that the uneasy alliance -- and even dependence -- on TIM is far more interesting to me. More complex and less dramatically satisfying, but more interesting. It make me look forward to ME3 far more than ME1 made me look forward to ME2.

Whether you were Paragon or Renegade, or anything in between, ME1 ended the same way. In ME2, you could spit in TIM'S eye at the end, or do what he wants and be his ally -- or dupe.

My Shep never missed a chance to tug at TIM's leash. He'd fly straight to the Citadel and report to Anderson before going to Omega. He'd upload the agent's info to the Alliance. And of coure, he made TIM furious at the end -- and laughed about it.

There's more to be said, but I definitely think that the claim that ME1 had a better story is quite debateable.

actually i fully agree with you on the "uneasy alliance", to me that was the centerpiece of ME2 and a lot more thought provoking than was Saren was doing in ME1

i think the difference at the end of the day is that what Saren was doing became less and less important by the end of ME1 because something so much bigger became apparent it even changed how we saw Saren as just a puppet in a bigger picture

as interesting as it was to find what was at the heart of the collector base, and that TIM was still super shady about it, to me it didn't have the galaxy-wide impact that the first game's revelation had

i guess the question is whether ME3 makes our choices at the end of ME2 become galaxy-wide, then you could say the ending of ME2 was really a "to be continued" interruption of a much greater arc, which would be fine with me and probably most players really

i think maybe the "tightness" of plot of the first game gives it an inherent advantage

we can all agree tho that reapers attacking earth is probably going to overshadow the attack on the citadel, if they can pull ME2's arc into that then i think people will reconsider ME1 as the best in the trilogy atm

[Greybox_Inception]

storywise (ME1), and with the renegade and paragon features. ME1 had good consistency.

gameplay (ME1), not so much. ME2 is better than ME1 regarding overall gameplay.

[Vena_86]

Atmosphere, Freedom, Story, More NPC interaction, Scientific accuracy, Consistency, Customization, Character progression, Logic.

[DinoCrisisFan]

ME2 was dumbed down

[Lumikki]

ME1 was dumbed down

[MassEffect762]

Vena_86 wrote...

Atmosphere, Freedom, Story, More NPC interaction, Scientific accuracy, Consistency, Customization, Character progression, Logic.

That was during Microsoft if I'm not mistaken, right?

Makes me wish I had a few billion dollars lying around to buy Bioware.

[Iakus]

Chaos Gate wrote...

- No story whatsoever.

I disagree.  There was story.  There were in fact, twelve stories.  Twelve totally unrelated stories scattered all over the galaxy.  Loosely bound by an extremely anemic overarching "plot"  It was a book with no spine, so the chaptrers are all over the place.  Nothing connected.  Not good for a "bridge" story.

- Ridiculously stupid two dimensional characters, verging on the comical.

Slight disagreement here too.  THe characters had good material.  But their potential was never realized.  Instead we get over-the-top angsty superhero types rather than morally complex antiheroes. 

- Barely any continuity from the first game, as originally promised.

Agreed

- No sense of depth, as the events and the universe simply had no magnitude.

Agreed.  ME 1 felt huge and ancient.  ME 2 just felt pedestrian.  No wonder in the galaxy.

- RPG elements that were stripped down to the point that they really didn't need to be there.

If you mean "ME 2's gear was boring" I agree.

- Too few sidequests, that were meaningless, regardless.

Agreed.  What's fun about "Land.  Kill everything around the shuttle, then leave"?  And those are the more involved quests!

- A laughable level up system, that in the end was inconsequential.

"Hey, what's this button do?"  ::click::  "Hey, cryo ammo!"

- Mind numbingly tedious planet scanning.

I actually didn't mind scanning too much.  Not that I wouldn't welcome the Mako back with open arms.

- The good commander was somehow converted from intergalactic hero to pitiful social worker.

Even worse, compare how you can respond to the Council with how he can respond to TIM.  "Thank you sir, may I have another?"

And yes, my bitterness has gone on for this long - when each of the above points dawned on me as I played Mass Effect 2 for the first time, it felt like an additional twist of the knife in my heart. When one of your favourite game developers brazenly abandons your high expectations in order to cater to a bunch of attention deficit disordered teenagers, you'd feel pretty hurt too. I come here to vent, and I will continue to do so, even if it is fruitless.

I have nothing against more exciting gameplay.  I just have to wonder if it was necessary for "awesome story" to take two to the head for the sake of "awesome combat"

All of this is "In my opinion" of course.  Wouldn't want to offend anyone

Modifié par iakus, 12 mars 2011 - 04:07 .

[DinoCrisisFan]

BioWare actually said that they want to obtain Call of Duty's audience.

[Lumikki]

Vena_86 wrote...

Atmosphere, Freedom, Story, More NPC interaction, Scientific accuracy, Consistency, Customization, Character progression, Logic.

Gameplay, combat, useless items.

Fixed

[Chaos-fusion]

They're about the same as far as I'm concerned, they just both have different strengths. Finding a good middle ground for ME3 would be ideal for me.

MassEffect762 wrote...

That was during Microsoft if I'm not mistaken, right?

Makes me wish I had a few billion dollars lying around to buy Bioware.

Hey, we could start a fund! I have about £32 lying around from the DA2 I didn't buy to get us started.

Modifié par Chaos-fusion, 12 mars 2011 - 04:12 .

[Taritu]

Of course you can. Mass Effect had a far better main story and in general more immersion than ME2, even if you think ME2's gameplay was superior (I'm not entirely of that camp, since I don't like invulnerable barriers I squat behind, but that's just me apparently.)

[Fiery Phoenix]

Vena_86 wrote...

Atmosphere, Freedom, Story, More NPC interaction, Scientific accuracy, Consistency, Customization, Character progression, Logic.

All of these characteristics, especially the underlined ones, are definitely not something I often see in a game published by Electronic Farts.

I liked ME2. I really did. But there was something missing. There definitely was something missing. I'm praying that ME3 gives us back the magic ME1 had.

Modifié par Fiery Phoenix, 12 mars 2011 - 04:33 .