409 réponses à ce sujet

[KnifeForkAndSpoon]

Try playing ME 1 and 2 back to back. You'll see it's pretty much the same game just the first one has a few more stats and the second has a bit better graphics.

[AdmiralCheez]

KnifeForkAndSpoon wrote...

Try playing ME 1 and 2 back to back. You'll see it's pretty much the same game just the first one has a few more stats and the second has a bit better graphics.

The only way I play 'em IS back to back.  They really do feel like part of the same story when you do that, and the differences in gameplay make you appreciate what's good about both.

[Almostfaceman]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

KnifeForkAndSpoon wrote...

Try playing ME 1 and 2 back to back. You'll see it's pretty much the same game just the first one has a few more stats and the second has a bit better graphics.

The only way I play 'em IS back to back.  They really do feel like part of the same story when you do that, and the differences in gameplay make you appreciate what's good about both.

+1

[TomY90]

KnifeForkAndSpoon wrote...

Try playing ME 1 and 2 back to back. You'll see it's pretty much the same game just the first one has a few more stats and the second has a bit better graphics.

I have done that and in my opinion you are completely 110% ...... WRONG!!!!!!!!!

ME1 was overloaded with side missions (was confused for the most part especially considering you are hunting a rogue spectre and trying to stop him from finding the conduit I doubt he/she had the time to find keepers on the citadel and do constant errands for the alliance) 
too much inventory to collect
terrible graphic refresh rates
cover system was useless
the weapons system was lazy and complicated (especially having to carry a range of ammo types just in case you come up against a different kind)
characters give 20 minutes conversations whenever you say hello (do not mind conversations with characters in fact i love conversations in game with characters but was too much conversations)

whereas ME2 was a much more simplified game (for the better) the inventory system gone for good (i hope so), cover system actually works, 
further immersion in dialogue with moves you can do (i.e. push someone out the window) to make your shepherd feel special
improvements to the weapon system (thank god for that)
much more concentrated story (granted its more linear that ME1 but it does give the game more focus that going randomly around the galaxy for random reasons but do feel in a way more side missions are more than welcome)
conversations improved and simplified to short but sweet conversations (I do admit though the quality of them are their but the quantity is not more needed but at the similar level of size of conversations)

Overall I believe the series is taking the correct route but I do feel they need to remember the RPG side of the game and remember character immersion as well as a large indepth world which all of that will help bring the game together to great a brilliant RPG (though I know bioware do not need any assistance in making a good RPG)

[Jaron Oberyn]

mrsph wrote...

Just remember the tedious inventory, horrible animations, sup-par voice acting, stupid MAKO, elevators, combat that was both boring and idiotic *DEEP BREATH*, copy and pasted locations, two storyline planets that are essentially clones of each other, OMNI-GEL, and enemies that could bum-rush you across a hallway in five seconds.

and... that list is getting too long.

That's a matter of opinion. The inventory was much better than ME2's. The animations, specifically the combat and weapon holstering animations, were far better than ME2's copy of UT3 where they hold the gun so far away from their chest like it's a piece of dynamite they wanna get rid of. Elevators weren't as bad as people make them out to be. The mako was much better than the hammerhead. Landrovers are much better. I suppose you thought the enemy AI in this game was better since they essentially run an gun halo style.

-Polite

[Zulu_DFA]

mrsph wrote...

The enemies in the original Mass Effect are even dumber. They either:

A: Run at you like a fat kid towards cake and beat you to death.

B: stand out in the open without ever bothering to take cover.

That's the ME2 you're talking about.

In ME1 they also:

C: dropped you with biotics.

D: switched off your weapons

E: sniped you from afar.

mrsph wrote...

The ones in Mass Effect 2 may also be dumb as rocks, but hey, at least they actually try and use tactics on you now.

Tactics? In ME2? ROFLMAO.

Have you played F.E.A.R.? When one group of bots pins you down with suppressive fire and another flanks you through an adjacent corridor... When they throw three-four grenades into the room they know you're in before entering and finishing you off... When they pull back, if you're to slow to drop them fast? And that's only that's not scripted.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 03 avril 2011 - 02:57 .

[HappyHappyJoyJoy]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

mrsph wrote...

The enemies in the original Mass Effect are even dumber. They either:

A: Run at you like a fat kid towards cake and beat you to death.

B: stand out in the open without ever bothering to take cover.

That's the ME2 you're talking about.

In ME1 they also:

C: dropped you with biotics.

D: switched off your weapons

E: sniped you from afar.

I noticed this during my recent replays.  Having to deal with Sabotage, Throw, and snipers - much less enemies with Adrenaline Rush! - was tricky.  

ME2 is pretty dull by comparison.  Sure, they have other attacks, but nothing makes you basically defenseless like Throw or Sabotage. 

[Dracotamer]

Sorry to say it but I agree 100% with the OP.