290 réponses à ce sujet

[Legion64]

No! The first Mass Effect is no match for ME3!

*Image used as emote/commentary removed per Site Rule #2*

Modifié par Selene Moonsong, 28 février 2012 - 09:08 .

[mybudgee]

I have one comment to refute the claims of the OP: ENEMIES EVERWHERE! GO! GO GO !!

[Arrtis]

They took immunity away from soldiers....gave them adrenaline rush...would have prefered 90% less damage reduction constantly as shocktrooper.

[Ryanianmc]

Slashout wrote...

I just re-started ME1, and I am having a hard time playing it.
Gameplay and mechanics are way tighter and pleasant in ME2 already.

Sure it's nice to discover a new universe. But it's also very fun to see it evolve.
ME2 toped ME1 in my books. And I am eagerly waiting for ME3, and from the few reviews released, I have read snipset like "the best the saga has to offer". So unless something goes horribly wrong, this will be very very fun.

I think most folks just simply don't know how to play ME1 correctly.  They are stuck with the ME2 frame of mind.  If  you go back and give ME1 a serious look you will understand what I am talking about.

[Unicronshepard]

the problem was that all of me2 was character development....

ifyou just played me2 for the story... excluding character stuff... its over in what 5 missions??

yes, absolutely the environments in me2 were better, combat was better, mining was HORRIBAD fuel was HORRIBAD but whatever. ammo was ok, but the thing that me was built upon was the intense story, and although i loved running into people i interacted with in me1, i felt you were extremely limited in me2 from just going out and exploring, and just enjoying the game for what it was at your own pace. instead you are shoehorned like cattle from one mission to the next.


also i cannot get over how terribly the guys in the me3 demo run, it blows my mind. being able to climb over a boulder 1.5 inches tall is revolutionary for me though, i cant wait for ME3

[Matt VT Schlo]

I agree with OP, first will always be the best. If for no other reason than sentimentality. However, I agree it was much closer to a true RPG, unlike the 3rd person shooter ME2 was overall.

[Jaxtar]

Arrtis wrote...

ME1 had a better story.
ME2 had better gameplay.
ME1 had better codex.
ME2 was mostly a copy and paste of the same codex and questionable changes like the ammo change.
I would have prefered to keep the gun that never runs out of bullets and never heated up instead of using thermal clips.
Thermal clips did not make sense to me...you get additional ammo for every clip for all your weapons.
And none of them diminish when you start using them up.
Hell you can reload after every shot and no run out for a long time....
Well anyways I say ME2 kinda loses it for logic and integrity to the story and game.
enemies have infinite heavy ammo and regular ammo but I do not...
Greater variety of mods for ME1 more customization.
Sledgehammer rounds.
Proton rounds.
inferno,chemical,etc etc there were tons of mods.
ME2 we just get rid of it all and give you squad upgrades....no AMPs no tech tools...no grenade mods......much was lost to make ME2 combat a more traditional shooter.

This:)

[Ivoryhammer]

I think I liked ME2 better, the graphics are better, equipment was less complicated, relationships with Tali and Garrus.

[Namevah]

Arrtis wrote...
much was lost to make ME2 combat a more traditional shooter.

Which was, personally, a great decision. I hate when my character can't shoot a target because I haven't invested enough points into that particular talent. It made even less sense when you realize that Shepard is suppose to be a kicka** soldier.

[Hunter of Legends]

Ryanianmc wrote...

Slashout wrote...

I just re-started ME1, and I am having a hard time playing it.
Gameplay and mechanics are way tighter and pleasant in ME2 already.

Sure it's nice to discover a new universe. But it's also very fun to see it evolve.
ME2 toped ME1 in my books. And I am eagerly waiting for ME3, and from the few reviews released, I have read snipset like "the best the saga has to offer". So unless something goes horribly wrong, this will be very very fun.

I think most folks just simply don't know how to play ME1 correctly.  They are stuck with the ME2 frame of mind.  If  you go back and give ME1 a serious look you will understand what I am talking about.

No, ME1 gameplay just sucked.

[NY ASS4551N]

Ryanianmc wrote...

vader da slayer wrote...

Ryanianmc wrote...

 Hello my fellow mass effect fans.
I decided to provide a compresive analysis as to why I think it would be impossiable to top ME1. 

Number 1.

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

Number 2.

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

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)

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)

These are the main reason's why I feel ME2 is behind ME1.  Sure ME2 is a great game, with clear advantages over ME1.
However I don't feel they make ME2 and better game.  From what I've seen so far it looks like ME3 is going to be a clone of ME2.   I have no dought I will spend many of hours with it.  

In the end however, I maintain when all the dust has settled, ME1 will remain the most comprehensive and complete rpg experience of the entire mass effect series.  Thank you for reading.

if by gear you/your squadmates you mean change the texture/color of the armor they are wearing. and if by roaming around you mean fighting terrible vehicle physics and badly designed terrain. then yes ME1 was better.

as far as gameplay goes, ME2 wins hands down, the story in ME1 was better however due purely to the nature of the story while the character developement in ME2 was far better.

I wont say either or which is better gameplay wise - I remember playing M2 for a while and going back to ME1 and thinking "wow the combat is terriable".  After spending lots of time with the game however I found gearing  your squad and using better tatics to be just as, (or more) comprehensive as ME2.

In a nutshell this is ME2

Hide in cover - (enemy wont advance) attack
and thats it.  There are exceptions to this such as husk zergs etc... but thats the most of it

ME1 - polar opposites - NPC tend to engage player character aggressively which require you to gear and bring correct squad to counter.

I agree with what you said with ME2, however I disagree with you with ME1. In ME1, most of the time, you could just stay at a distance from the enemy, and lure the enemies to you, so you could pick them off one at a time, which was pretty boring. However, ME3 definitely sets it right for the combat, since the game is designed so that you have to move around the area to kill the enemy.

[Tazzmission]

Ivoryhammer wrote...

I think I liked ME2 better, the graphics are better, equipment was less complicated, relationships with Tali and Garrus.

the gameplay was alot better in me2.


as much as i love me1 it did have its faults regarding combat

[Moonshadow_Dark]

ME1 got topped with ME 2. Then ME 3 rolled around.....

[Unicronshepard]

also mako was --ap but so was the hover--ap i wonder if me3 has a hover-mako or a mako that could steer correctly

[Totally_Mad_Rat]

Absolutely agree with #3. I've spent dozens of hours just riding Mako with no particular reason. It was the most atmospheric thing in the whole franchise so far. I miss that unique feeling of deep space's romanticism.

[Slashout]

Ryanianmc wrote...

Slashout wrote...

I just re-started ME1, and I am having a hard time playing it.
Gameplay and mechanics are way tighter and pleasant in ME2 already.

Sure it's nice to discover a new universe. But it's also very fun to see it evolve.
ME2 toped ME1 in my books. And I am eagerly waiting for ME3, and from the few reviews released, I have read snipset like "the best the saga has to offer". So unless something goes horribly wrong, this will be very very fun.

I think most folks just simply don't know how to play ME1 correctly.  They are stuck with the ME2 frame of mind.  If  you go back and give ME1 a serious look you will understand what I am talking about.

I played ME1 the day it was released and played it 2 times before ME2.
Then played ME2 and finished it. I am now redoing ME1 and 2 to get a new save that I like. So I'll finish ME1, I am pretty far in the game right now.

ME 1 was great at the time and I did give it a "real look" I did do everything there was to do in one playthrough twice... and I am on m yway for a third time now. But there was tons of painful things. The inventory system was aweful, the cover system needed a lot of work, some of the minigames were nice though.
But all in all. ME2 was better for me.

Modifié par Slashout, 28 février 2012 - 08:08 .

[Jaxtar]

Ivoryhammer wrote...

 relationships with Garrus.

Ya i really became a fan of calibrations after ME2 <_<

Modifié par Jaxtar, 28 février 2012 - 08:07 .

[MrStabHappy42]

ME2 is better IMO

[doc piccolo]

their dosage of good is equal

[Ryanianmc]

NY ASS4551N wrote...

Ryanianmc wrote...

vader da slayer wrote...

Ryanianmc wrote...

 Hello my fellow mass effect fans.
I decided to provide a compresive analysis as to why I think it would be impossiable to top ME1. 

Number 1.

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

Number 2.

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

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)

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)

These are the main reason's why I feel ME2 is behind ME1.  Sure ME2 is a great game, with clear advantages over ME1.
However I don't feel they make ME2 and better game.  From what I've seen so far it looks like ME3 is going to be a clone of ME2.   I have no dought I will spend many of hours with it.  

In the end however, I maintain when all the dust has settled, ME1 will remain the most comprehensive and complete rpg experience of the entire mass effect series.  Thank you for reading.

if by gear you/your squadmates you mean change the texture/color of the armor they are wearing. and if by roaming around you mean fighting terrible vehicle physics and badly designed terrain. then yes ME1 was better.

as far as gameplay goes, ME2 wins hands down, the story in ME1 was better however due purely to the nature of the story while the character developement in ME2 was far better.

I wont say either or which is better gameplay wise - I remember playing M2 for a while and going back to ME1 and thinking "wow the combat is terriable".  After spending lots of time with the game however I found gearing  your squad and using better tatics to be just as, (or more) comprehensive as ME2.

In a nutshell this is ME2

Hide in cover - (enemy wont advance) attack
and thats it.  There are exceptions to this such as husk zergs etc... but thats the most of it

ME1 - polar opposites - NPC tend to engage player character aggressively which require you to gear and bring correct squad to counter.

I agree with what you said with ME2, however I disagree with you with ME1. In ME1, most of the time, you could just stay at a distance from the enemy, and lure the enemies to you, so you could pick them off one at a time, which was pretty boring. However, ME3 definitely sets it right for the combat, since the game is designed so that you have to move around the area to kill the enemy.

Nope.  In fact I just created and completed soldier where I can pop immunity and tank entire legions of crap.  Its really fun and quite a change from another spec such as adapt.

Do you really want a u-tube of me killing a geth colossus with geth snipers all around and geth rocket drones?  You can go on the offensive you just need to know how to execute it

Modifié par Ryanianmc, 28 février 2012 - 08:13 .

[Revan312]

Gameplay, and strictly gameplay i.e. the actual mechanics of shooting, were much improved in ME2, though the customization was gutted so that all dozen weapons felt more unique..

Story wise, which is why I even play RPG's as the mechanics in ANY Bioware game leave something to be desired, was faaar better in ME1, simply because it wasn't written like a Michael Bay film.. ME2 felt like Bad Boys 2 in space with all the ridiculous over the top lines and dialogue deliveries that come with it.

The main enemy was much better in ME1.
The main arc and story was much better in ME1
The actual feel of the universe imo was better in ME1 (more clinical and subdued- personal preference in sci-fi)
The plot wasn't so "humans are teh best" centered in ME1.
Finally, the work involved from locations, backgrounds and animations were all better in ME1 imo.

ME2 had better combat, a slew of 'gotta please em all, gotta please em all' missions for your crew and a terrible ending.. *shrug* I'm with the OP..

[Raxxman]

ME1 was more a throwback to games like Starflight 1&2 and StarControl 2. It kinda wanted to be the next generation of these games.

ME2 was when they released that people rather be dragged around by their noses more.

Horses for courses, Playing Starflight was one of the gaming experiances of my life, ME1 is closer to that than ME2 so I enjoy it more.

[Art3m]

The two are so different, that in fact it's wrong to compare them. ME1 was a next gen (well, they stated this) RPG. ME2 was made as a current gen shooter with a plot based on ME. I like ME as RPG, but i prefer ME2 as a shooter. ME2 lacks so many features, small ones, from original (like better shooting sounds and traces from slugs and lights on guns showing weather it's on or off) wich gave ME the deep feeling of plausibility. Should I mention better lip-sync? XD Film grain is cool also) Damn i sound like an old fart already...

[Crackseed]

Unicronshepard wrote...

if they dont manage to fix the HORRID running animations on the demo that looked like they had a geth shotgun up their whatsits then i too will agree outright.

The presence of one odd animation completely invalidates everything else the sequel does huh? Good lord >.>

Even if our characters currently run like we're hugging a precious cheeseburger to our chest and fleeing the scene of McDonald's thieves [AMG AMG AMG] in a completely hilarious fashion, ME3 will still probably eclipse both prior games. 

I think I'm putting the label of "2nd most shallow ME fan" by your name, superseded only by the gentlemen I encountered in GameStop who claimed, with absolute seriousness, that if ME3 did not contain sideboob, it was a pale farce of an ME sequel.

Modifié par crackseed, 28 février 2012 - 08:14 .

[Arrtis]

Dry County wrote...

Arrtis wrote...
much was lost to make ME2 combat a more traditional shooter.

Which was, personally, a great decision. I hate when my character can't shoot a target because I haven't invested enough points into that particular talent. It made even less sense when you realize that Shepard is suppose to be a kicka** soldier.

Makes less sense to get rid of viable technology and get rid of timed/remote detonated grenades.
Medi-gel use to heal wounds also now it does what unity does.
If I get a 3 slot AR with 2 heat dampening with frostbite rounds which reduced my rate of fire and I am able to fire it endlessly without worry of overheating with decent damage....why would I switch to a gun that overheated quickly?
They said in the codex that it was better to fire more rounds quickly which resulted in every getting thermal clips....but you do not worry about that with a gun that fires endlessly.