290 réponses à ce sujet

[OMGOSHNESS]

Draconis6666 wrote...

tez19 wrote...

Lol whoever thinks ME2 is better than ME1 is exactly the type of 'gamer' Bioware is catering towards now. These casual's wouldn't know a good game if it smacked their follow the crowd sheep mentality in the face.
They are not real gamer's, and they are all that is wrong with the gaming community.

If true gamer's include people like you, I think its time I find something else to classify myself as. Elitist snobs,(and trolls which is probably what this post is anyway) are even moreso whats wrong with the gaming community than casual gamers.

Well put. It's sad knowing some of my fellow ME fans are complete ass holes like this guy. Comparing the first two games are like apples and oranges and in the end, there's extremely strong and valid arguments for both sides. Calling people out for their opinion just makes you look pathetic.

[Severyx]

Ryanianmc wrote...

Number 1.

Virgin lore and epic background to the mass effect universe. (including first contact war)

It's fairly common that it's very difficult to top the novelty of a new good setting.

Number 2.

Complete ability to gear you and your squad mates to min/max with armor/weapon mods and armor / weapons

And an absurdly irritating item system to go with it. I'm glad that part was done away with. It wasn't more RPG-like, just a feature that was out of scope and improperly implemented.

Number 3.

More of a sand-box experience - Roaming around on charted worlds with the mako connected you with you galaxy in a more tangible way. (yes, somewhat annoying at times)

I'm not sure I could call this a sandbox experience. Not a proper one, anyways. Sure, the nature of the landing missions were off the beaten path and there was no forced conclusion, but there was hardly anything to do besides experiment with the crazy Mako physics.

Number 4.

Dynamic Combat Freedom - IE: Attack that that pack of geth colossus's on foot instead of with mako (or foot attack that thresher maw)

Again, this is not a feature I would be praising, honestly. The Mako was supposed to be the greatest combative choice against giant geth quadpods, but I guess shooting a towering synthetic with a pea-shooter works too. Just improperly implemented in my opinion.

I know a lot of people are praising ME1 over ME2, but the only real changes were the thermal clips, reigned in inventory and ability spread, and lack of near-pointless roaming encounters. People have gotten over the novelty of everything ME1 introduced by the time ME2 came out, so a lot of things ME2 did very well were swept under the rug by a portion of players and replaced with BSN buzzwords like 'plot holes' (which were hardly ever consistent or well thought out), 'ammo', and 'Raaagh Hammerhead'.

Just a thought or two.

Modifié par Severyx, 01 mars 2012 - 06:36 .

[Savber100]

tez19 wrote...

SNascimento wrote...

ME2 has: higher metacritic score, higher user metacritic score, it was the game of the year 2010 while ME won a couple awards and AIAS winner (which is a award choosen by game developers).
.
There is just nothing to argue about.

LOL, keep doing what the mainstream tell you to do son. Heaven forbid you think for yourself you sheep.

The irony that you sound exactly like the whining 12 yrs old gamers you despise. 

Ah;.. the sad result of a self-entitled society where even the dumb and slow are elevated to such elitist heights. 

[Arlionis]

ME1 is my favorite game to this day, I grew up reading sci-fi novels and I loved how it really captured many of aspects of classic sci-fi, I also loved the sense of exploration and vastness it gave and what made me feel.

[Nathan Redgrave]

It's not terribly hard to top ME1. The game's flaws dragged down its considerable virtues.

[Haventh]

I don't think I prefer one over the other actually. Mass Effect was a great game, the story was great, the classic sci-fi feel, and I rather liked the combat. Ok I will admit that I am a sucker for Shotgun with carnage to carve paths of destruction.

Then there is the squad banter, which could be rather amusing sometimes. Also the first game has a sort of myserious feel when I first played it. I kept asking myself what is really going on, it was obvious who my enemy was, but his drive were not clear. Talking with sovereign, talking to vigil, Ilos and the battle of the citadel was the greatest part of the game. Supeb finish.

Mass Effect 2 is a different game, and the story does not live up to ME's story, but the combat is very fun, and they seemed to have improved on many areas like clothing texturesi. The storyline feels more epic than actually mysterious in ME 2, which is fine I think I just wish they didn't have so many plot holes.

So for some ways of looking at it, I prefer ME, for other reasons I prefer ME 2.

And just a side note, I hated that freaking Mako and the explorable words. I'm playing an RPG, not a freaking racing game or adventure game- It would be more acceptable if they put more thought into the world, they looked pretty much the same for me after going to a few, and they seemed very rushed, at least some of them, too strange looking mountains.

I await with my ME 3 jugement after I have played ME 3, and I do intend to play it.

Modifié par Haventh, 01 mars 2012 - 07:51 .

[AtreiyaN7]

Ryanianmc wrote...

neubourn wrote...

Ryanianmc wrote...

Number 2.

Complete ability to gear you and your squad mates to min/max with armor/weapon mods and armor / weapons

And yet...everyone equipped these items:

Colossus Armor
HMWA AR
HMWSG Shotgun
HMWSR Sniper
HMWP Pistol

That is part of the awesomeness of ME1!
When did you gear you entire squad with colossus gear in me2 to shave off another 30 sec of that geth colossus on foot?  

Personally, I don't find the gameplay all that exciting once I end up in easy-mode land with my Spectre gear. *shrug* And now...back to watching the Psych season premiere.

[Ryanianmc]

Its also *VERY* close in terms which is better imo. I am most certainly not advocating ME2 was far behind ME1. By that token I also feel ME3 will deliver. ME1 = 100% awesomeness / ME2 98.9 awesomeness to clarify. It actually took me quite a bit of time to really make a decision as to which I felt was the better overall game. (over 500 hours in each game)

[Il Divo]

Nathan Redgrave wrote...

It's not terribly hard to top ME1. The game's flaws dragged down its considerable virtues.

That sums up my feelings as well. There's alot of great things about ME1. It's just that there's more not so great things to deal with.

[iceman00behave]

NY ASS4551N wrote...

You know, I used to think that way, until I took off my nostalgia glasses and replayed ME1, only to realize how bad it is compared to ME2 and ME3.

First, ME1 had a terrible combat system if you really think about it. Since there was infinite ammo and the A.I was pretty dumb, all you had to in combat was just stay back from the enemy and shoot them one by one.

One top of that, the menu system was cluttered and clunky, especially since your inventory would get filled so much, that you would spend 1/4 of the game just sorting it out. The graphics were bland. Armor and weapon varieties are actually higher in ME2 and ME3, since most armor and weapons in ME1 reacted the same.

I could go on and on, but my point is that ME2 and ME3 mostly improves on ME1, and it would be foolish to think otherwise.

The graphics in ME1 were some of the absolute best at the time (and still hold up IMO), and the only real complaint I can see with them is the slow loading textures (and some minor glitches).  ME had its fair share of issues, but bland graphics was not one of them IMO.

[Il Divo]

iceman00behave wrote...

The graphics in ME1 were some of the absolute best at the time (and still hold up IMO), and the only real complaint I can see with them is the slow loading textures (and some minor glitches).  ME had its fair share of issues, but bland graphics was not one of them IMO.

Are there really people who think ME1's graphics are outdated? Sure, things have gotten better, but this isn't N64 level 3D we're talking.

[Nathan Redgrave]

Il Divo wrote...

Are there really people who think ME1's graphics are outdated? Sure, things have gotten better, but this isn't N64 level 3D we're talking.

I would say that BioWare in general is falling a bit behind when it comes to graphics, although this is in part because of their over-reliance on stock animations, which at times makes graphical shortcomings like clipping far too obvious.

[Repearized Miranda]

wizardryforever wrote...

The first game's story is regarded as superior largely because it is plot driven, as opposed to the sequel, which is character driven.  People seem to be under the illusion that all stories must be plot driven to be good, characters be damned.  I don't get this mindset.  Numerous movies and almost all TV shows are character driven, and they don't get this "it has no plot!" complaint.

Haha! I frequent another forum where folks feel plot driven writing is bad! You do have a point though! I think the "has no plot" cries are due to people confusing [/b]plot with story[/b]. So much so that if something in the plot isn't satisfactory, the story is bad.

I mean, the ****storm that was: "Cerberus is after my ass now!" when this was stated in ME1 and ME2 [Talk to Jacob after the SM] (regardless of your decision made). We've known since 2007, that they were bad, but they just "never turned" until 2012. We dismissed Cerberus just as the Turian Council dismissed the Reapers, and now we're pissed about it? That seemed plot-driven, but its leader seemed to be the character-driven part of it. TIM was more than bad guy. He was/is a wonderful mastermind who puffed and scoffed Shepard's idealogies while spouting his own. in the same breath. But no! Shepard, Jacob and Miranda are his "yes people" until they find out he played them. He's supposed to do that given his character. So, Cerberus turning is the result of this homogenous solution!


Even Shepard turning (no spoiler, just an example) - which would be a "plot-point" to help move the story along. The part of the story being Shepard trying to get closer to the Reapers to get them and using TIM to do thisI Loads of things would happen here to make this part a success or unsuccessful depending on how the writer (player) feels. It may be unbelievable to some - even if they look deeper than just the surface - to figure out what Shepard is doing and the reasoning.

The franchise as a whole is all about story, but there has to be some give and take somewhere. While ME3 seems to be a hybrid of the story (plot/character-driven - distribution is irrevelent) - at the end of the day, it's all about what drives it. People just pick out what they want - despite you putting it in their faces!

Again, who wanted to smack the **** out of that condescending Turian (not Garrus)? And how dare he thinks he'll get an "I told you so!" from me (Femshep) and that's just being nice!! 

I also think the problem lies with pacing as plot-driven stories happen so fast if you blink, you miss something (Miranda: TIM's dead already and you didn't allow me to send him off properly! Damn you're impatient, Shepard!) however, character-driven ones go at a much slower pace (All this dialogue between the three of us before TIM bites the bullet!) And it's not easy to find a balance, so why even try to? (Not discouraging ME3's effort, but while it won't be 90/10 in either direction, I highly doubt it'll be 50/50) Sometimes, you have to take what you can get because you can't always get what you want - nor do you.

As far as the character-driven element in the case of ME3, that has to do with how the characters were handled from 2 to 3; however, that isn't to say that the first game didn't have it's share. Given how each game was written, I do understand the way some characters were handled from game to game.