173 réponses à ce sujet

[JCENAdaBest]

 I have literally spent the last 20 mins reading every comment and I do feel like a looser for doing so but i care about the ME franchise and people's opinions on it. 

A few things I wanna clear up...
1. I understand and respect people's opinions and I don't feel my opinion is fact at all; the title may imply this but I was being slightly devious and used it to get quick replies due to its blunt form.
2. I didn't mean to cause people to think that I thought ME1 graphics were better than ME2 graphics and that is entirely my fault however, I do believe that ME1 had better graphics for it's time than ME2. ME2 never really allowed me to bask in the beauty of the universe. 
3. I am currently playing through ME2 for the 4th time and that is why despite loads of threads on this subject I had to start my own to get how I feel about ME2 off my chest.
4. I know ME2 is a hybrid of an RPG and an action game but I was expecting a sequel that perfected ME1 not that changed into something I hate much like what Resident Evil 5 did to RE4.
5. Finally, to keep this reply short, I never stated that my opinions are fact or are the most commonly shared, they are strictly personal and I was interested in other people's opinions. 

In a paragraph:

I think ME1 is better than ME2 for lots of reasons but in short it's because ME1 was an RPG  only that didn't feel constricted to corridors and it had a story that made me (as Shepard) feel important and made me do missions that progressed through the story rather than the chore of gathering my own team that is already chosen for me. I hated the shallow control over Shepard in ME2 with few weapons and items alike and I felt like the whole game was a streamlined action game with hints of what the first game was and what this game could have been... much like RE5. If I had known this upon release I would have rented it as the sequel I crave is a Mass Effect RPG adventure with depth, control and an immense story that allows me to feel as though I am the most badass human soldier to ever exist and only I can save the galaxy. = CHEESE but you can't confuse what I'm saying. 

PS. Everything was opinion only.

[Da Mecca]

I understand why you feel that way.

Good news is though ,just looking at the screens alone ME3 seems to be shaping up to be the perfect combination of the two in terms of design and gameplay mechanics.

ME2 is done. ME1 is done. Is time to look towards the future.

[ExtremeOne]

Harmless Crunch wrote...

ExtremeOne wrote...

Ok Op this idea that Mass Effect 1 was a great game is a myth .

So bassiclly you dislike the OP's opinion but your opinion is fact? And you cant simply say "Oh I didnt like ME1 so the millions of others who did are idiots derp".

ExtremeOne wrote...
It was pathetic from a combat point of view and the graphics looked like PS1 graphics.

Sure the combat was clunkier than ME2 but it was far from pathetic. And how is this

Worse (Graphiclly) than this?

ExtremeOne wrote...
Mass Effect 2 has better graphics and story as well game play.

Okay the graphics are better in ME2 but as this is has been pointed out before the style of story is different in each game. With ME1 being bigger and more epic, whislt ME2 is more personal and darker. Its obvious you prefered ME2's style of plot but still you cant say one is better than the other.

ExtremeOne wrote...
If ME 1 was suppose to be a mix of rpg and shooter games then it failed and was a disaster.

So a game that sells over 2 million copys and has a critic score on Metacritic of 91% is a disaster?

ExtremeOne wrote...
No Mass Effect 2 crushes Mass Effect 1......

ExtremeOne wrote...
.....and that is the cold hard truth deal with it

   

What I am saying is the idea that Mass Effect 1 was a great game is a myth from a game play and story side of things . The story of pending alien invasion has been done in movies and in tv shows . so what new things did Mass Effect 1 do from a story idea.  Even the player choice idea has not exactly worked out quite like Bioware said it would.  Tv shows like V told the story of aliens invading with conquest in mind . If the story in ME 1 was so great then why does this franchise have so many story issues . Oh and speaking on game play the combat sucked ass in the game .  But yet ME 1 got scores of 90 + when it come out .  Mass Effect 2 is much better at game play but now as we all learned the story in ME 2 really means nothing going into ME 3 .  Oh and one other thng as a sci fi fan there is nothing sci fi about Mass Effect outside of the geth which is a poor version of the Borg from Star Trek . 
The whole scene in ME 2 with Shepard talking Legion is almsot the same as wehen Picard talked to the captured Borg soldier in ST NG .  The krogans are basically the klingons from Star Trek .  Oh and whats with the idea of Shepard being some type of Space god in this franchise .  If you see it as great then fine .  I will give Mass Effect 1 one thing it did created a save that can carry from game to game that is innovative . 

[theSteeeeels]

did u say just say theres nothing sci-fi about mass effect ?????? wow

[Savber100]

OP should change the title to "ME vs. ME2 = NO ONE WINS!"

Seriously, do people honestly think that bickering and debating ONLINE will persuade anyone? ;P

[darknoon5]

(Before I post this, sorry if any of this is covered, I haven't read the rest of the thread)

ME1 is a great game, but ME2 is a better game, at least in my opinion. ME1 had a more compelling plot and a larger feel sometimes. (repetitive side quests made the galaxy feel small, but individual locations such as the citadel felt larger)

ME was always a hybrid RPG/shooter. The first mass effect, for example, didn't have attributes such as strength, constitution etc, or saving throws. Which was fine, because, for me, RPG's are about customization of your character, and having control over your characters actions and the stories development, which ME2 does.

ME2 was also much stronger in the shooter component, which was something the first game was weak in, with boring, dull firefights, where as in the second game they are more challenging and fun. Many of the supposed "rich RPG features" from the first game were just annoying and hindered my immersion and enjoyment, such as the terrible inventory. ME2 went a bit far in completely removing the inventory imo, however I much preferred the situation in ME2 as I could focus more on the story, characters and universe without having to pause constantly to ensure my inventory isn't full.

Another example of an RPG element which was tedious opposed to fun was the ridiculous variety of reskinned and useless weapons in ME1. (two different models for each weapon, plus geth AR, and like, 5-6 different noticeable rates of fire:unsure:) In ME2, even though there were far less weapons, the few you had were much more diverse, and it wasn't just "omni-tool everything except spectre gear," before firefight I had to make decisions on shotgun based on playstyle. Simiarly, the vindicator or revenant depends on your playstyle, as does mantis or viper, and carnifex and predator, where as lancer AR and spectre AR do not depend on playstyle at all.

Not saying ME2 was better in every aspect (weapon customization) but generally I found it was actually streamlined and not dumbed-down. What was important was still there, and that was an immersive universe, interesting characters, difficult (more so then the first, I'd argue. See, geth base) choices and fun gameplay. Just my two cents.

[armass]

Well there were many things i didn't like in ME1 though i like the game alot.

- The sidemission worlds were pretty boring sandboxes, it's exciting when you stand on a red alien sand world or a frozen moon with freezing winds the first time, but on the fifth time it kinda wears on you. Even the living words were just mountains and moss, no trees or streams or animals anywhere(except on couple of worlds). Also, all the bases, mines and buildings had the same design, they were just copypasted with some of the boxes and furniture put in different places = lazy design.
- Battle felt a little clunky.
- Inventory was a mess. That 150 item limit really got on my nerves, when it came in the middle of mission. If you carry 100+ rifles along with you, why even add some arbitory limit?
- Graphics felt a little odd in some places, Saren's base felt undeveloped, rooms looked pretty awful in there, so bare and colorless with hodgepodge of chairs and other equipment. Felt like lazy design there. also that texture popping was pretty awful, at least in xbox version.
- The whole thing with the council and Shepard apparently having no evidence was railroaded pretty badly. Humans gaining power at the renegade end really made no sense when you look at the fleet and colony population strenghts of the various species.

But unlike apparantly many players i did like the mako. I really don't understand why so many complain they had a hard time driving it. I didn't.

Modifié par armass, 02 mai 2011 - 09:14 .

[Mr_Commander_Shepard]

ME1 had better plot design, and had more meaning than ME2 in my opinion. I bought ME 2 to see what was gonna happen further in the story not for brand new gameplay and story. In my opinion we could have just played ME1 and the LotSB and Arrival DLC and got more meaning to the story than ME2 itself, then play ME3.

The combat and graphics were by far better in ME2. Tho i didn't like the customization and lack of weapons and armor to be found or bought at stores. I like the rpg base of the game and the action part was really cool as well tho. Now that they don't have to worry about the continuation of the plot now it will probably be the best out of the three in all regards. My opinion.

[wright1978]

I like both games but think ME2 is the better game. From the sounds of it ME3 is going to take ME2 and try and improve upon it which is all i can ask of Bioware.

ME not sci-fi? That's nuts it clearly is. I think it is a fairly innovative and interesting one too. Sure you can infer all kinds of influences for races but nothing is new in any type of fiction, certainly not star trek.

[Kabanya101]

Savber100 wrote...

OP should change the title to "ME vs. ME2 = NO ONE WINS!"

Seriously, do people honestly think that bickering and debating ONLINE will persuade anyone? ;P

The bickering isn't suppose to persuade anybody, its just done to catch the develops eye on how to improve the game and make it more appealing than its predicesters.

And yes, Mass Effect was better than the sequel, not only because it was dumbed down, but because they took away the RPG aspect of the first one. I love games that are RPGs, more than first person shooters. And that's what the developers wanted to do, they wanted to make the game a shooter and not an RPG, Bioware wanted fans from the Halo and Call of Duty fan groups.

It was dumb, they took away loot, they made ammo, and took customization. class trees and builds were terrible as well in ME2.

Yes, I understand with so and so armor and being a level 60 soldier you could walk into a firefight and take six to seven straight missles without dying, but I liked that better than: "OMG, run to cover, poke head out, fire gun, use class power over and over, find ammo, and walk through one corridor to the extraction point." I'd rather be a super soldier that can do and go wherever he wants (alternate routes), than being pinned down for 10 minutes spamming Adrenaline Rush over and over. And going through the level in one way.
Everyone says the soldier is so strong in ME2, that's only because they use AR over and over, that's not strong, that's just being a one trick pony. The soldier in ME1 was strong physically (more health and wear stronger armor), yet they are as weak as any other class in ME2, aside from the sentinel because of power armor. And they had more and useful powers.

And universal cool down, what moron came up with that in ME2. They should get a round house kick. I mean seriously, why even have more than one power in a class if you can use one at a time. "Jee, I'm a soldier what am I gonna use, ammo powers are useless, how about concussive shot, too weak, oh well AR."

Ammo, this is the future. What am I a rat scrounding around for ammo, when I had infinite ammo. Bring back the old guns, who cares if the over heat. If I'm in a firefight with a sniper that gets ten shots at most, and one with 1.5 shots to cool down, I'm taking the second. In ME2, the shotguns and snipers had so little ammo, there was no point in using the gun cause you'd run out after five enemies.

class trees blew. They took ALL passives away, and left everyone with crummy ammo powers. I hated my soldier in ME2, ammo powers replace Immunity, Overkill, Adrenaline Rush, and Assassination. Powers were down to one to two per class.

Do I even have to say anything about character and teammate custumization? Just bad.

Vehicles? Mako could use some work, but don't take it completely away, yet another dumb move by Bioware.

What happened to searching, everythings linear, not even a blind man could miss any of the upgrades in ME2.

Jeez Bioware, thanks for hyping up ME2, and then it blows. It got me mad, but DA2 pissed me off the most. Don't get me started on that.

[didymos1120]

ExtremeOne wrote...
Oh and one other thng as a sci fi fan there is nothing sci fi about Mass Effect outside of the geth which is a poor version of the Borg from Star Trek . 

OK, one, the Borg themselves borrowed plenty from other SF sources. Hive minds, tech-assisted or naturally occuring, were old Sci-Fi hat decades before the original Star Trek series came out, much less TNG.  Two, get your allusions straight, damn it: the geth/quarian backstory is far more inspired by BSG than it is Star Trek. In fact, it's not really inspired by Star Trek at all. Three, "nothing sci fi about Mass Effect outside of the geth" is quite possibly the wrongest thing you've ever said, and that's saying something.

[shnizzler93]

Mass Effect 2 is a better game.

Mass Effect 1 is a better experience.

/thread
/opinion

[armass]

Things i didn't like in me2:

- Shepards death in the beginning of the game, what really was the point of Shepard dying, other than trying to add some drama, that wasn't executed or explored at all? Why not just have Shepard go into a coma or something, would have made more sense, and would explain the level drop also.
- Countless retcons, plotholes and strange events too numerous to list here. See Smudboy, if you wanna deeper analysis on some of them.
- Cerberus railroading
- The plot...simply was too undeveloped, ME2 as a whole just felt like a sightseeing tour through the galaxy and the party members pasts than a sequel.
- Collectors were handled poorly. Only 3 encounters, mysteries and their answer are thrust at you instead of slowly revealed. Faceless enemy, no interactions at all. Also why did they have only one ship???!
- Legions intro was very poorly handled, he was supposed to be stalking you. Show, don't tell.
- Sidemissions were hyped as being different and more awesome than me1, in teh end what did we get: Bases on some rock planets where you fight some mercs and pirates over and over again. And some stupid locations where all you do is run around and press some buttons, not even any enemies around to kill.
- The last boss ---- just no.
- Hammerhead was pretty poorly made, including missions.
- the rpg elements were barely there, if at all. Game developed into a plain shooter with conversations.
- Normandy's fuel system, what was the point with that thing? Totally obsolete design choice.

Modifié par armass, 02 mai 2011 - 09:28 .

[Ozzelll]

I love both the games. I simply can't put one before the other. I think that both of the games have their good AND bad points.
Now, me1 had a weaker combat system(obviously), altough it was tolerable. But there are two main points that got really annoying at some parts of the game. Firstly, the Mako. It was fun for a while but it took too big part of the game, and the bumps got really disturbing. Then, don't take me wrong I love inventories, but the amount of items... I never even tried half the items and ammo upgrades(I prefered to use tungsten/shredder ammo). The most annoying part was when at towards the end of the game it constantly got full and I had to reduce item after item into omni gel.

On the other hand me1 presented an immersive and fascinating galaxy with planets to explore(which I loved despite the mako) and an epic story that nearly got me in tears.
I also loved the fact that each time you returned to the citadel there were new people and side quests to complete, which gave you an impression of a persistent world.

Me2 increased the number of "hub" worlds but also made them smaller. In my opinion the worst part of me2 is the linear design of maps and the removal of exploration.
On the other hand, dialogue was made more interactive and the story still kept me captivated. Graphics were also improved and on the "most" part animations were improved. However, something that annoyed lots of femshep players(including me) was the infamous gorilla walk that did not suit female Shepard at all. I still have no idea why they removed the perfectly good femshep walk from me1...

[termokanden]

A few words for Kabanya101:

I remember quite a few places in ME1 that didn't have alternate routes. In fact, the norm in that game is NOT to have them. I don't really see how that has changed. The non-combat exploration was indeed less linear though. But once you were "on a mission" it was pretty clear where you were going the whole time.

And if you find yourself pinned down for 10 minutes, perhaps you need to change your playstyle a bit? I will agree though that Soldiers need a more interesting selection of powers in ME3. Other classes might suit you better.

[Walker White]

Kabanya101 wrote...

The bickering isn't suppose to persuade anybody, its just done to catch the develops eye on how to improve the game and make it more appealing than its predicesters.

Except that

(1) This thread covers absolutely no new ground; everything here has been said before.

(2) The people in this forum are not representative of the customer base.  If you listened to this forum, ME2 was the most disastrous flop that BioWare has produced outside of DA2.

[jakal66]

Walker White wrote...

Kabanya101 wrote...

The bickering isn't suppose to persuade anybody, its just done to catch the develops eye on how to improve the game and make it more appealing than its predicesters.

Except that

(1) This thread covers absolutely no new ground; everything here has been said before.

(2) The people in this forum are not representative of the customer base.  If you listened to this forum, ME2 was the most disastrous flop that BioWare has produced outside of DA2.

This This This and This, people think that we are the only fanbase,perhaps we're the harcore fanbase but believe me there are millions of people who bought this game and have never even got close to a forum,specially console players...as many PC players first come to the forum for tech issues...
This doesn't mean we don't count or that they don't listen to us but we're definately not the big majority.

Casual players are the big number and where the money is and where the companies are putting their eyes on.

Again I say that I enjoy both games for what they are, and my opinion is that people who say ME2 had no sotry depth are clearly exaggerating.I just played a playthrough in ME1 and it's not that huge of a story...

I thought the collectors were a worthy foe,and remember the 2nd game in a trilogy has to be a connector,and I think it did the job well.Of course it's not perfect but neither was ME1

[Pani Mauser]

JCENAdaBest wrote...


5. Finally, to keep this reply short, I never stated that my opinions are fact or are the most commonly shared, they are strictly personal and I was interested in other people's opinions. 


PS. Everything was opinion only.

The way you named your thread makes it look like you think that your opinion is some form of ultimate truth.  If you called it something like 'List of reasons why I like ME1 more than ME2', it would make it clear that you just want to share your opinion, not impose it on others. Sometimes the way how you say things can overshadow what you want to say.

[KainrycKarr]

ExtremeOne wrote...

Harmless Crunch wrote...

ExtremeOne wrote...

Ok Op this idea that Mass Effect 1 was a great game is a myth .

So bassiclly you dislike the OP's opinion but your opinion is fact? And you cant simply say "Oh I didnt like ME1 so the millions of others who did are idiots derp".

ExtremeOne wrote...
It was pathetic from a combat point of view and the graphics looked like PS1 graphics.

Sure the combat was clunkier than ME2 but it was far from pathetic. And how is this

Worse (Graphiclly) than this?

ExtremeOne wrote...
Mass Effect 2 has better graphics and story as well game play.

Okay the graphics are better in ME2 but as this is has been pointed out before the style of story is different in each game. With ME1 being bigger and more epic, whislt ME2 is more personal and darker. Its obvious you prefered ME2's style of plot but still you cant say one is better than the other.

ExtremeOne wrote...
If ME 1 was suppose to be a mix of rpg and shooter games then it failed and was a disaster.

So a game that sells over 2 million copys and has a critic score on Metacritic of 91% is a disaster?

ExtremeOne wrote...
No Mass Effect 2 crushes Mass Effect 1......

ExtremeOne wrote...
.....and that is the cold hard truth deal with it

   

What I am saying is the idea that Mass Effect 1 was a great game is a myth from a game play and story side of things . The story of pending alien invasion has been done in movies and in tv shows . so what new things did Mass Effect 1 do from a story idea.  Even the player choice idea has not exactly worked out quite like Bioware said it would.  Tv shows like V told the story of aliens invading with conquest in mind . If the story in ME 1 was so great then why does this franchise have so many story issues . Oh and speaking on game play the combat sucked ass in the game .  But yet ME 1 got scores of 90 + when it come out .  Mass Effect 2 is much better at game play but now as we all learned the story in ME 2 really means nothing going into ME 3 .  Oh and one other thng as a sci fi fan there is nothing sci fi about Mass Effect outside of the geth which is a poor version of the Borg from Star Trek . 
The whole scene in ME 2 with Shepard talking Legion is almsot the same as wehen Picard talked to the captured Borg soldier in ST NG .  The krogans are basically the klingons from Star Trek .  Oh and whats with the idea of Shepard being some type of Space god in this franchise .  If you see it as great then fine .  I will give Mass Effect 1 one thing it did created a save that can carry from game to game that is innovative . 

How Extreme.

[Someone With Mass]

I think the only advantage ME1 has over ME2 is atmosphere. The rest is pretty meh compared to the sequel.

[laudable11]

javierabegazo wrote...

Lol, I remember in intense firefights, having to hit the Back button was a huge pain in the butt

I loved the nades in ME1. I remember trying to hit the back button in ME2.. lol

Modifié par laudable11, 02 mai 2011 - 10:29 .

[marshalleck]

didymos1120 wrote...

ExtremeOne wrote...
Oh and one other thng as a sci fi fan there is nothing sci fi about Mass Effect outside of the geth which is a poor version of the Borg from Star Trek . 

OK, one, the Borg themselves borrowed plenty from other SF sources. Hive minds, tech-assisted or naturally occuring, were old Sci-Fi hat decades before the original Star Trek series came out, much less TNG.  Two, get your allusions straight, damn it: the geth/quarian backstory is far more inspired by BSG than it is Star Trek. In fact, it's not really inspired by Star Trek at all. Three, "nothing sci fi about Mass Effect outside of the geth" is quite possibly the wrongest thing you've ever said, and that's saying something.

Surely ExtremeOne's virulent brand of nonsense should be expected from someone whose experience with science fiction begins with Star Wars and ends with Star Trek. 

[Epic777]

marshalleck wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

ExtremeOne wrote...
Oh and one other thng as a sci fi fan there is nothing sci fi about Mass Effect outside of the geth which is a poor version of the Borg from Star Trek . 

OK, one, the Borg themselves borrowed plenty from other SF sources. Hive minds, tech-assisted or naturally occuring, were old Sci-Fi hat decades before the original Star Trek series came out, much less TNG.  Two, get your allusions straight, damn it: the geth/quarian backstory is far more inspired by BSG than it is Star Trek. In fact, it's not really inspired by Star Trek at all. Three, "nothing sci fi about Mass Effect outside of the geth" is quite possibly the wrongest thing you've ever said, and that's saying something.

Surely ExtremeOne's virulent brand of nonsense should be expected from someone whose experience with science fiction begins with Star Wars and ends with Star Trek. 

Cold.....

[javierabegazo]

Alright, that's enough nastiness for one thread.