268 réponses à ce sujet

[sevalaricgirl]

I love them both but I am partial to ME1. I'm a proud Kaidan fangirl. I love the combat more in ME2 though. It was a lot of fun to play. The rpg elements were better in the first. ME3 is supposed to be a combination of both and we are anxiously awaiting its arrival in this household.

Modifié par sevalaricgirl, 01 juin 2011 - 09:38 .

[marshalleck]

Mesina2 wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

Oh I'm sorry, there IS a reason.

So the reason is to establish that
a) Shepard is not immune to giant space lasers (who'd have thunk it?) and
Shepard can be resurrected from any death (no matter the level of physical trauma) for 4 billion credits a pop.

Shepard's death didn't re-establish the reapers as a threat to anything other than Cerberus' bank account. The Collector attack on the Normandy cost humanity 4 billion credits and *nothing* else.

In other words, you didn't payed attention.
Which even smudboy gave a point to him. And we all know hoe smudboy is stubborn.

Let me quote what he actually said:

"Mass Effect 1 end on the high note. We killed the Reaper, yay! If we can kill one, we can kill all. Maybe we can beat them, maybe we can actually do this. This is bad for the Reapers. They don't want us having hope. So what's the best way to get rid of that hope? Well you find the person that created it and beat the crap out of them! Which is exactly what they did. In the begging of the game by the Collectors and thus the Reapers,finding Normandy and blowing it to bloody hell, it reminds everyone including Shepard, the crew and the gamer that Reapers are baddest threat that galaxy has ever seen. And just because you killed one of them that doesn't mean that they can't reach out and touch you, in very very not good way. I think it did excellent job in bringing the atmosphere of the game from one of hope to back down to one desperation."

Do I have to bold key parts?

Of course, you're forgetting how Bioware went and undermined their new oh-so-lethal threat by having Shepard and pals run them off Horizon on foot, backed up by two GARDIAN betteries. 

So much for the Collector threat. Even their cruiser is a giant wuss. They'd be torn to shreds in seconds if they ever encountered a single Alliance cruiser or dreadnought, not to mention the whole Arcturus fleet should they ever try to hit Earth, which would be necessary for them to complete the human-reaper hybrid. The Collectors were never an actual threat to the galaxy; they would have run out of humans in the Terminus, and being unable to get more humans from Earth due to a) inability to survive an attack on Arcturus, which stands between Sol system and rest of the galaxy, and an increasing Alliance presence at Terminus colonies, their "plan" to build the human-reaper for who-knows-what purpose was doomed to failure with or without Shepard around to stop it. It would have inevitably stalled.

Modifié par marshalleck, 01 juin 2011 - 10:01 .

[Bewiz]

"Then as I kept playing I realized that ME2 lacked almost everything that made ME1 great. I kept playing but lacked the enthusiasm and suspense that I had while playing ME1. I found myself only playing to finish the story and not really enjoying it as much."

sums up my thoughts exactly...
[edited out all the hating]

amazing how much debate theres about these games

Modifié par Bewiz, 02 juin 2011 - 02:31 .

[mopotter]

mi55ter wrote...

I'd like to play devil's advocate- how many people that have played both, would go back now to another full playthru of ME1 instead of another playthru of 2? I think people would choose 2, more reward for less time investment.

I have and will continue to play both.  My guess is, people who enjoy the story will continue to play it.  The ones who care more about the game play and just liked the story, probably won't.  

[Iakus]

mi55ter wrote...

I'd like to play devil's advocate- how many people that have played both, would go back now to another full playthru of ME1 instead of another playthru of 2? I think people would choose 2, more reward for less time investment.

I've done that several times since ME 2 came out.  I find ME 1 far more rewarding than ME2

Modifié par iakus, 01 juin 2011 - 11:01 .

[Smilietime]

Da Mecca wrote...

Smilietime wrote...

You probably played the wrong class.

Some people focus on enjoying the JOURNEY, of the game. Mass Effect 2 is all about the characters. Love them, hate them. Bioware talks on and on about how story is important, but what they are actually good at is the characters. And that culminates with the suicide mission. The terror is about them, losing something you actually care about, more than the the faceless innocents of the first game (still present here, in the form of colonists).

If niether of those things is a good enough explanation, then keep in mind that Bioware's best writers are busy doing 8 rpg's worth of stories for Star Wars the Old Republic. I can't wait to play another Drew Karpyshyn story.

There shouldn't be a wrong class.

But I will say if he didn't play Vanguard he's missing out on some crazy fights.

I was speaking to the Origonal poster.

Really, most complaints I see about Mass Effect 2 are really just lame nit-picks. If you enjoyed the story, watching a video where someone tries to come up with plot holes (where none ACTUALLY exist) doesn't make it a bad story.

[Lady Olivia]

To the people who think that Shepard's death at the beginning of ME2 was a sound move and a good plot device (which is almost a contradiction in terms), I have this to say:

You all seem to agree that the death/resurrection is somehow justified by the requirement that Shepard must join Cerberus. But really, how would the plot of ME2 be different if she were working for the Council the entire time instead? What would change? Except the voice actors; and one melodramatic cutscene.

Even if we can come up with some key moments where the fact that the employer/financier/info-supplier is Cerberus and not somebody else, by the time the game ends it no longer matters, because Shepard turns her back on them. So however you turn it, it's a pointless waste of words and resources.

But even with its many problems, I still feel the story of ME2 is better than the story of ME1. I just don't see how and why the majority here seems to think just the opposite. There wasn't a single key moment in ME1 where I didn't facepalm at the silliness, assumptions, skipped steps, info dumps and whatnot. I wonder if there's somebody here with the energy and patience to show me how exactly ME1 is superior, storywise, to ME2.
 

[Iakus]

Smilietime wrote...

You probably played the wrong class.

Some people focus on enjoying the JOURNEY, of the game. Mass Effect 2 is all about the characters. Love them, hate them. Bioware talks on and on about how story is important, but what they are actually good at is the characters. And that culminates with the suicide mission. The terror is about them, losing something you actually care about, more than the the faceless innocents of the first game (still present here, in the form of colonists).

If niether of those things is a good enough explanation, then keep in mind that Bioware's best writers are busy doing 8 rpg's worth of stories for Star Wars the Old Republic. I can't wait to play another Drew Karpyshyn story.

I'd have loved it if the game was all about the characters.  But it's not.  It's all about the character.  As in, one character at a time.

When you aren't chatting with them in the Normandy, or doing their loyalty quest, these characters are mindless husks.  They have almost nothing to say.  Not to Shepard.  Not to the other squadmate.  Not to the NPCs.  

And before anyone points it out, no ME 1 wasn't great at this either, but the characters weren't the focus of that one.  If you want to see a more character based game, look at the Dragon Age games.  I swear, the character interactions with each other and the npcs, not to mention their integration into the main story,  saved that game for me.

You have twelve unique beings on the Normandy, and they never speak to each other.  Hardened criminals don't react to having a justicar on board.  Nobody minds having a murderous superbiotic on board, or a violent krogan, or a geth, for that matter.  I thought this was a game about building a team and getting them to work together?

As Shepard, you could be holding the cure to the genophage in your hand, weighing the merits of unleashing the krogan on the galaxy again, and they wouldn't have a blessed thing to say about the matter.  

Oh, wait...

[marshalleck]

Hey, that's not fair. Tali minds having a geth aboard the Normandy. At least until Shepard is able to dispel 300 years worth of violence and mutual animosity with a few magic words.

Modifié par marshalleck, 01 juin 2011 - 11:24 .

[Da Mecca]

marshalleck wrote...

Hey, that's not fair. Tali minds having a geth aboard the Normandy. At least until Shepard is able to dispel 300 years worth of violence and mutual animosity with a few magic words.

Well-

Nope you are probably right.

[Harmless Crunch]

Phaedon wrote...

Harmless Crunch wrote...

@Phaedon
Ah I should of explained better.
I meant these kind of threads often just repeat themselves.
Often the same points come up over and over. Not to say that these kind of threads don't have any disscusion at all but I still could copy and paste everything I've said in previous threads like this and it would still fit into the conversation at hand.

Again I should have explained better but the repition of these kind of threads are amazing...
Or maybe I'm just talking out of my arse as I haven't actually participated in this disscusion yet.

Sorry, my bad for assuming the worst.

I don't think that there is a point to these threads anymore. You were disappointed with ME2? Want some ME1 elements to return? That's okay, but the subject has been discussed way too much. The OP does have a decent excuse, however.

It's funny how these threads attract the same users again and again though, and some of the exaggerations from both sides are mildly entertaining.

Yeah I agree with some of what the OP said but the topic has been going on for a long time.
It is odd that the same users apear on these threads....
Oh and sorry for taking so long to reply.

[InvincibleHero]

I think people put ME1 on a pedestal yet cannot even verbalize why exactly. I think this: The sense of wonder is gone by ME2. You have met your first quarian, krogan, asari, salrian, etc and fought the geth. Being a dirty harry type spectre above the law just gave it coolness. Seeing the citadel for the first time was impressive no doubt. ME1 was leaps above previous sci-fi games and the graphics advancements were part of it. it also had a who dunnit type of exposition with red herrings strewn throughout. In ME2 basically hand-fed plot points by Illusive Man.

ME2 made advancements and refined many things and IMO was much better. There had to be loads more dialog in ME2 and certainly more RPG choices. Graphics and gameplay were like going from a Yugo to a Camry. Cutscenes were done way better with more action. The missions had more choice/plot points in ME2. The diversity of actions is even more astounding. You could torture a prisoner for info. Socking a raving scientist pales when you can also slug a reporter. I love both games, but give the edge to ME2.

So I think most people miss the new car scent big time. Me2 does have been there done that but does that really make it worse? That would be saying a sequel in any media could never be better than the first. Some people seriously believe that which is a shame.

Modifié par InvincibleHero, 02 juin 2011 - 12:51 .

[Iakus]

InvincibleHero wrote...

I think people put ME1 on a pedestal yet cannot even verbalize why exactly. I think this: The sense of wonder is gone by ME2. You have met your first quarian, krogan, asari, salrian, etc and fought the geth. Being a dirty harry type spectre above the law just gave it coolness. Seeing the citadel for the first time was impressive no doubt. ME1 was leaps above previous sci-fi games and the graphics advancements were part of it. it also had a who dunnit type of exposition with red herrings strewn throughout. In ME2 basically hand-fed plot points by Illusive Man.

ME2 made advancements and refined many things and IMO was much better. There had to be loads more dialog in ME2 and certainly more RPG choices. Graphics and gameplay were like going from a Yugo to a Camry. Cutscenes were done way better with more action. The missions had more choice/plot points in ME2. The diversity of actions is even more astounding. You could torture a prisoner for info. Socking a raving scientist pales when you can also slug a reporter. I love both games, but give the edge to ME2.

So I think most people miss the new car scent big time. Me2 does have been there done that but does that really make it worse? That would be saying a sequel in any media could never be better than the first. Some people seriously believe that which is a shame.

I look at ME 1 in comparison to the plot.  And ME2's failure to continue it.

As a character story and interaction goes, I look to Dragon Age for comparison.  ME 2 completely fails as a character-centered, loyalty based story in comparison (both MEs do, really, but at least the first one had a stronger plot to fall back on)  

It's funny how ME 2 is considered by so many to be the bestest rpg EVAR!  Yet, on some important (to me, anyway) Dragon Age 2, that pariah of Bioware games, did leaps and bounds better.

[InvincibleHero]

iakus wrote...

InvincibleHero wrote...

I think people put ME1 on a pedestal yet cannot even verbalize why exactly. I think this: The sense of wonder is gone by ME2. You have met your first quarian, krogan, asari, salrian, etc and fought the geth. Being a dirty harry type spectre above the law just gave it coolness. Seeing the citadel for the first time was impressive no doubt. ME1 was leaps above previous sci-fi games and the graphics advancements were part of it. it also had a who dunnit type of exposition with red herrings strewn throughout. In ME2 basically hand-fed plot points by Illusive Man.

ME2 made advancements and refined many things and IMO was much better. There had to be loads more dialog in ME2 and certainly more RPG choices. Graphics and gameplay were like going from a Yugo to a Camry. Cutscenes were done way better with more action. The missions had more choice/plot points in ME2. The diversity of actions is even more astounding. You could torture a prisoner for info. Socking a raving scientist pales when you can also slug a reporter. I love both games, but give the edge to ME2.

So I think most people miss the new car scent big time. Me2 does have been there done that but does that really make it worse? That would be saying a sequel in any media could never be better than the first. Some people seriously believe that which is a shame.

I look at ME 1 in comparison to the plot.  And ME2's failure to continue it.

As a character story and interaction goes, I look to Dragon Age for comparison.  ME 2 completely fails as a character-centered, loyalty based story in comparison (both MEs do, really, but at least the first one had a stronger plot to fall back on)  

It's funny how ME 2 is considered by so many to be the bestest rpg EVAR!  Yet, on some important (to me, anyway) Dragon Age 2, that pariah of Bioware games, did leaps and bounds better.

Well did you expect a reaper showdown in part two of the trilogy.  The fact that ME1 ended with a major win and ME2 ended with a mini-victory is kind of headscratching not that I'll complain about that. Doesn't make reapers out to be that much of a threat.

DA:O is my personal favorite RPG. Was BGII with ToB for the longest time.

I dont' think it is the plot of ME2 so much as the exposition of it. It is revealed in ACTI the collectors are the focus of the mission when it should have been built up a little more. We saw them on video before we fought them which was a bad idea. The tension (killing by early reveals) and pacing is more of a problem than the story itself which was good enough for a videogame. Then again besides the relay run IN ME1 I felt no time pressure either. Both were pretty laid-back low tension affairs. I thought recruitment worked better than randomly bumping into the best krogan the best quarian and best turian to do the job. Serendipity overload in ME1.

[onelifecrisis]

Mesina2 wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

Oh I'm sorry, there IS a reason.

So the reason is to establish that
a) Shepard is not immune to giant space lasers (who'd have thunk it?) and
Shepard can be resurrected from any death (no matter the level of physical trauma) for 4 billion credits a pop.

Shepard's death didn't re-establish the reapers as a threat to anything other than Cerberus' bank account. The Collector attack on the Normandy cost humanity 4 billion credits and *nothing* else.

In other words, you didn't payed attention.
Which even smudboy gave a point to him. And we all know hoe smudboy is stubborn.

Let me quote what he actually said:

"Mass Effect 1 end on the high note. We killed the Reaper, yay! If we can kill one, we can kill all. Maybe we can beat them, maybe we can actually do this. This is bad for the Reapers. They don't want us having hope. So what's the best way to get rid of that hope? Well you find the person that created it and beat the crap out of them! Which is exactly what they did. In the begging of the game by the Collectors and thus the Reapers,finding Normandy and blowing it to bloody hell, it reminds everyone including Shepard, the crew and the gamer that Reapers are baddest threat that galaxy has ever seen. And just because you killed one of them that doesn't mean that they can't reach out and touch you, in very very not good way. I think it did excellent job in bringing the atmosphere of the game from one of hope to back down to one desperation."

Do I have to bold key parts?

I don't know why you went to the lengths of writing out what he said. I understood him just fine the first time, and he's wrong. Do I have to bold the key parts of my response? Actually, let me just edit part of what you wrote instead:

"it reminds everyone including Shepard, the crew and the gamer that Reapers are baddest threat that galaxy has ever seen. And just because you killed one of them that doesn't mean that they can't reach out and cost Cerberus some credits"

Ooo. Scary. If the Reapers keep it up, Cerberus might have to make budget cuts!

[FrostedFlake84]

Im willing to bet that most people who say that ME2 storyline is better than ME1 actually played ME2 first. Actually I almost did that myself, but i decided against it and got 1 first. Playng 2 first then playing 1 would seem like a big step back, so obviously if you did this you would enjoy the better looking fast paced ME2 over 1. Especially if you spent 10s of hours on it.

[Savber100]

Collectors managed to kill Shepard, kidnap millions of human colonies, and start on the creation of a Reaper and managed to do this with a only a single ship at their disposal.

Pshaw... totally not a threat because to be truly threatening you NEED to have a BIG army with BIG guns. Collectors aren't true men who face their enemies headon. Instead they're chickens that flee from puny human weapons which means that they're not a credible threat.

...yeah because every enemy needs to hoplessly outnumber the good guys in order to be a credible threat.

FrostedFlake84 wrote...

Im willing to bet that most people
who say that ME2 storyline is better than ME1 actually played ME2
first. Actually I almost did that myself, but i decided against it and
got 1 first. Playng 2 first then playing 1 would seem like a big step
back, so obviously if you did this you would enjoy the better looking
fast paced ME2 over 1. Especially if you spent 10s of hours on
it.

Here's where I suggest you stop. Making false assumptions simply because you don't understand the subjective opinions of people liking ME2 over ME is not going get you anywhere.

Modifié par Savber100, 02 juin 2011 - 01:55 .

[Mr. MannlyMan]

marshalleck wrote...

Hey, that's not fair. Tali minds having a geth aboard the Normandy. At least until Shepard is able to dispel 300 years worth of violence and mutual animosity with a few magic words.

Pretty artificial "conflict" if you ask me, considering her stance on Geth in general and her father's work.

This isn't clumsy writing? No? Bioware didn't write the book on what constitutes good writing and bad writing; this is just a poorly written scene. They probably could've followed it up with further development for both characters, but they didn't. Too bad.

I honestly believe that 7-9 squadmates total would've been much better than 12; considering all of the focus they got, it would have been much more productive to focus on quality relationships and interactions rather than try to come up with our "dirty dozen". As always, quality trumps quantity.

I did, however, like the concept of a squadmate-driven story. Execution was very flawed, though.

[onelifecrisis]

FrostedFlake84 wrote...

Im willing to bet that most people who say that ME2 storyline is better than ME1 actually played ME2 first. Actually I almost did that myself, but i decided against it and got 1 first. Playng 2 first then playing 1 would seem like a big step back, so obviously if you did this you would enjoy the better looking fast paced ME2 over 1. Especially if you spent 10s of hours on it.

Flamebaiting?

[FrostedFlake84]

Savber100 wrote...

Collectors managed to kill Shepard, kidnap millions of human colonies, and start on the creation of a Reaper and managed to do this with a only a single ship at their disposal.

Pshaw... totally not a threat because to be truly threatening you NEED to have a BIG army with BIG guns. Collectors aren't true men who face their enemies headon. Instead they're chickens that flee from puny human weapons which means that they're not a credible threat.

...yeah because every enemy needs to hoplessly outnumber the good guys in order to be a credible threat.

FrostedFlake84 wrote...

Im willing to bet that most people
who say that ME2 storyline is better than ME1 actually played ME2
first. Actually I almost did that myself, but i decided against it and
got 1 first. Playng 2 first then playing 1 would seem like a big step
back, so obviously if you did this you would enjoy the better looking
fast paced ME2 over 1. Especially if you spent 10s of hours on
it.

Here's where I suggest you stop. Making false assumptions simply because you don't understand the subjective opinions of people liking ME2 over ME is not going get you anywhere.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with my assumption at all. Actually makes plenty of sense. Some people have even stated that they did just that.

[FrostedFlake84]

onelifecrisis wrote...

FrostedFlake84 wrote...

Im willing to bet that most people who say that ME2 storyline is better than ME1 actually played ME2 first. Actually I almost did that myself, but i decided against it and got 1 first. Playng 2 first then playing 1 would seem like a big step back, so obviously if you did this you would enjoy the better looking fast paced ME2 over 1. Especially if you spent 10s of hours on it.

Flamebaiting?

I dont care anything about flames. My life is not conneceted to this forum and how many people like me on here.

[Iakus]

InvincibleHero wrote...


Well did you expect a reaper showdown in part two of the trilogy.  The fact that ME1 ended with a major win and ME2 ended with a mini-victory is kind of headscratching not that I'll complain about that. Doesn't make reapers out to be that much of a threat.

Not at all.

Though I personally believe that Lair of the Shadow Broker or Arrival would have made much better ME 2 main stories 

I can't say if ME2's victory was major or minor.  I'm not certain what exactly was accomplished, how the Omega IV relay and what was happening in the base fit into the Big Picture.  WIth ME 1 we know, Citadel opens, Reaping begins.  Yeah I've heard plenty of theories about ME 2.  But nothing concrete.

DA:O is my personal favorite RPG. Was BGII with ToB for the longest time.

You have good taste.   Though personally BG2 is still king.  DAO is still really good.

I dont' think it is the plot of ME2 so much as the exposition of it. It is revealed in ACTI the collectors are the focus of the mission when it should have been built up a little more. We saw them on video before we fought them which was a bad idea. The tension (killing by early reveals) and pacing is more of a problem than the story itself which was good enough for a videogame. Then again besides the relay run IN ME1 I felt no time pressure either. Both were pretty laid-back low tension affairs. I thought recruitment worked better than randomly bumping into the best krogan the best quarian and best turian to do the job. Serendipity overload in ME1.

That's part of it.  And not a small part either.  But also if this is all about teambuilding I kinda expected:

For it to matter that you have a geth and a quarian on the same ship at the same time
for Jack's hatred of Cerberus to amount to more than one hissy fit with Miranda
For Jacob's hostility towards Thane to amount to anything
For anyone to actually have an opinion on a mission
For Liara to actually remember Garrus, Tali, or Miranda
For anyone besides Kelly or Joker to express misgivings about having Legion or Grunt on board
For the hardened criminals on board to be uneasy about Samara.  
For Samara to point out when you're being "unjust" like she said she would.

And so on

[Savber100]

FrostedFlake84 wrote...

I see absolutely nothing wrong with my assumption at all. Actually makes plenty of sense. Some people have even stated that they did just that.

Feel free to believe what you will. I think people that like ME over ME2 runs over babies with cars and shoot homeless people for a living. True story!

[Siansonea]

I just completed two complete ME1-ME2 playthroughs with my Infiltrator and my Sentinel to customize my characters for ME3 import. I did "speedruns" in ME1, since most of the sidequests don't seem to matter anyway, and I was careful in ME2 with each of them to give them very different savegame results (different Suicide Mission survivors, mainly). My Infiltrator didn't even do the Arrival and Lair of the Shadow Broker missions. My Sentinel did Arrival right after Horizon (and the events of Arrival are what influenced his endgame decision regarding the Collector Base). My take away from those two playthroughs? Mass Effect 1 is still awesome, but Mass Effect 2 has awesome moments too. Mass Effect 2 has the difficult position of being the 'connector' between the beginning and the end, and as such it has to be a pretty linear experience. They made it better by supplying so many awesome characters, character stories, and places to make the experience worthwhile. My hope is that Mass Effect 3 combines the awesome story stuff from the first game and the awesome character stuff from the second game, and kicks them both up a notch.

[HTTP 404]

op is not the first to say that.... I rather enjoyed me2. its a good game. each to their own right?