290 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Matt VT Schlo wrote...

Lets all be honest: ME2's story consisted of 25 hours of somewhat pointless crew recrutiing, and 3 hours of MAIN STORY. How can anyone say ME2 had the 'superior' story? Just delusional

Because it simply isn't necessary for an RPG to contain only one story. 

Back in the old days RPG fans understood this. I blame KotOR.

Edit: though now that I think about it, I don't remember a professional RPG release that's used the BG2 style in over a decade, except maybe SoZ.

Modifié par AlanC9, 28 février 2012 - 05:40 .

[Aimi]

AlanC9 wrote...

shadowkiller74 wrote...

ME2 had a story? And here I thought I spent most of the game having to do things that had absolutely nothing to do with the main quest.

ME2 had a story in the same way a season of an episodic TV drama like, say, Buffy the Vampire Slayer has a story. Some episodes are about that season's Big Bad, some are about his minions, some are about the Scoobies, some are just the Slayer doing Slayer things.

I like that approach fine. Worked in BG2, works now.

I don't think I've ever seen somebody describe how I felt about ME2's story so well. I certainly had issues articulating it. Thanks.

Modifié par daqs, 28 février 2012 - 05:38 .

[TheLostGenius]

 Agreed OP. ME1 had an amazing story. ME2 had obsessive character development that might not lead to much in 3. As we can see in early footage and the demo, ME1 cast seems to be much more important than the ME2 cast.

All ME2 did, was essentially replace the Shadow Broker with The Illusive Man.

No Mako = Immersion of exploring the galaxy BROKEN.

[Han Shot First]

Considering that Mass Effect 2 was a better game than Mass Effect 1 overall, it has already been topped.

[Cainne Chapel]

wrdnshprd wrote...

the problem with mass effect 2 is that its not really an rpg from a gameplay perspective..

very little in the way of gear
hardly any stat customization (what little ME2 had was laughable)
the skill system was simplified and there was very little consequence to picking skills

-ME2 had WAY more gear than ME1. Most of ME1's gear was a reskin, I-X doesn't count as new gear. ME had basically 2 reskins of each weapon category and around 6-7 reskinned armors.  ME2 had way more variety in terms of weapons because each was mechanically different and Armor choice was about the same overall, except for the % it added to various things.  ME1 had very little actual stat customization as well outside of different mods.
There was very little consequence to picking skills in ME1 as well, ME2 just condensed them and made them matter more rather than little .5 increment upgrades.


also, the main story was practically non-existent IMO.. i understand this is a subjective opinion, but you are never going to convince me that the story in ME2 was compelling.. cause it just wasnt IMO. i will grant you that some of the crew members had some decent backstory though.. and layer of the shadowbroker was extremely well done.. but when a 2 hour DLC pack is the best part of ME2, there is something wrong.
- I happened to enjoy the mini stories in ME2 quite a bit, sure the overarching story was a little shallow in a sense, but the same could be made of ME1's recycled overarching plot.  The character stories were ME2's strength I felt and I did feel a connection to each character in ME2 moreso than I did in ME1 in a lot of instances so I dont think the story fell flat at all.

also, there were very little impact on the choices that we made.. yes, there was one or two choices that had some impact (the one at the end for example), but overall not really.
- I'd say there were about the same amount of choices between ME1 and ME2, of course until 3 comes out we wont know the extent, but I did like the little nods here and there in ME2 in regards to some choices made in ME1.  But then I didn't expect wildly divergent narratives based on ME1 choices in ME2


and finally, the sniper rifle was god mode on default difficulty. like it made combat a yawn fest..
-ME1 had WAY more GOD mode capability than 2... believe me.

was ME1 perfect? absolutely not. there were some graphic glitches and the inventory system WAS a bit overdone (ME2 just went in the opposite direction). but at least it had some resemblance of an rpg (gameplay wise), there was more than a couple of compelling choices in the story, and the overall story arc was phenomenal.

as for ME3. well, the fact that we arent going to be able to customize the stats of our squad's armor, and there are no mods for shepard's armor, already put it at a disadvantage when comparing to ME1.. im not looking for an omni-gel inventory system again.. but can we at least get some modification slots? if someone could link me proof that this is incorrect, i would GLADLY take being proven wrong.
-Well we can mod are weapons and armor appearance.... everything else is tied directly to sheps stat points in terms of health/shielding. So What mods would we really NEED for Sheps armor?  Same goes with our squadmates, their stuff is tied to their skill points.


edit:  one area i will also agree on that ME1 fell short in was exploration.. for the most part it was pointless, as were the mining and material missions.

just my 2 cents.

[Justicar]

If the OP was the reason ME1 was better than ME2 well I disagree.

If someone were to think ME1 was better they'd say the plot was better (because ME1 actually had one, lol).

I still think ME2 was better due to better gameplay balance and better character development.

[wizardryforever]

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.  Hell, AlanC9 is right, BG2 (regarded by many as the best RPG ever) was character driven, with lots of little sidequests that added more to the game than the main plot.

As for the individual points in the OP, I will say that everything ME1 had (in a macro sense), with the exception of planet exploration, is still there in ME2.  And in ME2 it is no longer cumbersome, it lets you enjoy the game without interfering in the flow of gameplay and story.

ME3 seems to be bringing back the plot driven aspect of the story, while keeping all the much improved gameplay from ME2 (even improving on that), making for the best of both worlds for most people.  So yes, you can top ME1.  Even if you scoff at the notion that it already has been done with ME2, it will be done with ME3.

[Lancelot Albion]

Revan312 wrote...

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..

[Han Shot First]

Justicar wrote...

If the OP was the reason ME1 was better than ME2 well I disagree.

If someone were to think ME1 was better they'd say the plot was better (because ME1 actually had one, lol).

I still think ME2 was better due to better gameplay balance and better character development.

That was my take on the first two games as well.

I thought ME1 had the stronger story, though ME2 was a much more polished game with improved gameplay. Overall I give Mass Effect 2 the edge because while it had the weaker story, that story was by no means 'bad.' It was good and well written, but not as compelling as the story of the first game.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 28 février 2012 - 06:58 .

[Justicar]

Also character development for some was amazing

[Lightweight Nate]

ME3 seems to have polished up ME1's wooden combat immensely. It feels much better than ME2 as well. They've also brought back a lot of the customization from ME1 and polished up that godawful inventory greatly. I'm happy with what they did. ME3>ME1>ME2.

[Spaghetti_Ninja]

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.

Go ahead, I'm ready for a good laugh.

Number 1.

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

ME2 expanded on the universe a lot more than ME1 did, not only was the Codex larger but you got to know species like Krogan, Quarians and even the Batarians a bit better. In ME1, you were told about alien cultures, in ME2, you actually got to VISIT them!!

Number 2.

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

The gear and inventory system were both TERRIBLE. A disgrace to RPGs everywhere. There were like a handful of weapon skins that you could marinally improve with mostly useless mods, the vast majority simply got turned into magic omni-gel or sold from credits, the 99999 cap of which you hit halfway through the game. The only gear upgrade you really needed was the Spectre gear - the rest was way too same-ish and generic to make a difference in gameplay. It was an abortion and fortunately they were smart enough to cut it from the game and replace it with ME2's awesome technology upgrade system.

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)

ME1 was anything but a sandbox game. All sidequest planets were dead with an occasional identical dungeon where nothing really happened except you kill some geth, or rachni or whatever.

It was even more railroaded than ME2 - RAILROADED. At least in ME2 you were completely free to pick whatever squadmate, loyalty mission, or sidequest you wanted. In ME1 the option was Feros, Novaria, Planet with Liara on it, Virmire, Ilos, done. It doesn't even come close to the diversity and richness of ME2. Not just in environments, but characters, storytelling, overall mood. ME1 was just BLAND.

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)

So what the hell is ''Dynamic'' about it? There is no cover, less variation in weapons than in ME2, squad AI is a whole lot worse than in ME2... the only thing you change by going on foot is that you expose yourself and likely die on higher difficulties, because you were obviously supposed to use the MAKO. How would anyone in their right mind list this as a positive?

My conclusion: ME2 was the superior game in every way. Better story, better characters with more background and personality, better RPG systems that were actually well-thought out and refined, better gameplay, combat, better graphics and variety in weapons and armour, better EVERYTHING.

[tankarmarx]

E-Type XR wrote...

They already have.

It was called ME2.

This.

For me, it's a struggle to get through ME1 just so I can get my saved games in order for ME3.

The only thing that helps me play ME1 is knowing I get to follow it up immediately with ME2.  Well, that and the understanding that if I don't do it myself then I won't get to see the results in ME3 in my own game.  Watching different paths on YouTube just isn't the same.

I didn't hate ME1, nowhere close, but I think there were a lot of flaws in it that were definitely improved in ME2.

[Zubie]

ME2 had better gameplay and that's pretty much it.

Though this has been the case for Bioware's last few titles. Improved gameplay at the cost of almost everything else.

[Jotamide]

Amen. We all know ME1 combat was terrible, but the story was so engaging and well done it kept me hooked until the very end. Exploring the world and finding useless minerals added a little extra to it.

If ME2 had the same combat mechanics as ME1 I doubt I've would have beaten it given its lore.

[DxWill103]

Do you judge games based soley on RP features? In Me1's case, they aren't even that stellar. There are many more factors that go into the rating of a game besides if it has a clunky inventory and dull boring exploration on a barren rocky planet.

[wrdnshprd]

Cainne Chapel wrote...

wrdnshprd wrote...

the problem with mass effect 2 is that its not really an rpg from a gameplay perspective..

very little in the way of gear
hardly any stat customization (what little ME2 had was laughable)
the skill system was simplified and there was very little consequence to picking skills

-ME2 had WAY more gear than ME1. Most of ME1's gear was a reskin, I-X doesn't count as new gear. ME had basically 2 reskins of each weapon category and around 6-7 reskinned armors.  ME2 had way more variety in terms of weapons because each was mechanically different and Armor choice was about the same overall, except for the % it added to various things.  ME1 had very little actual stat customization as well outside of different mods.
There was very little consequence to picking skills in ME1 as well, ME2 just condensed them and made them matter more rather than little .5 increment upgrades.


also, the main story was practically non-existent IMO.. i understand this is a subjective opinion, but you are never going to convince me that the story in ME2 was compelling.. cause it just wasnt IMO. i will grant you that some of the crew members had some decent backstory though.. and layer of the shadowbroker was extremely well done.. but when a 2 hour DLC pack is the best part of ME2, there is something wrong.
- I happened to enjoy the mini stories in ME2 quite a bit, sure the overarching story was a little shallow in a sense, but the same could be made of ME1's recycled overarching plot.  The character stories were ME2's strength I felt and I did feel a connection to each character in ME2 moreso than I did in ME1 in a lot of instances so I dont think the story fell flat at all.

also, there were very little impact on the choices that we made.. yes, there was one or two choices that had some impact (the one at the end for example), but overall not really.
- I'd say there were about the same amount of choices between ME1 and ME2, of course until 3 comes out we wont know the extent, but I did like the little nods here and there in ME2 in regards to some choices made in ME1.  But then I didn't expect wildly divergent narratives based on ME1 choices in ME2


and finally, the sniper rifle was god mode on default difficulty. like it made combat a yawn fest..
-ME1 had WAY more GOD mode capability than 2... believe me.

was ME1 perfect? absolutely not. there were some graphic glitches and the inventory system WAS a bit overdone (ME2 just went in the opposite direction). but at least it had some resemblance of an rpg (gameplay wise), there was more than a couple of compelling choices in the story, and the overall story arc was phenomenal.

as for ME3. well, the fact that we arent going to be able to customize the stats of our squad's armor, and there are no mods for shepard's armor, already put it at a disadvantage when comparing to ME1.. im not looking for an omni-gel inventory system again.. but can we at least get some modification slots? if someone could link me proof that this is incorrect, i would GLADLY take being proven wrong.
-Well we can mod are weapons and armor appearance.... everything else is tied directly to sheps stat points in terms of health/shielding. So What mods would we really NEED for Sheps armor?  Same goes with our squadmates, their stuff is tied to their skill points.


edit:  one area i will also agree on that ME1 fell short in was exploration.. for the most part it was pointless, as were the mining and material missions.

just my 2 cents.

regarding the gear differences between ME1 and 2..

are you seriously going to say ME2 had MORE gear?  sorry no way lol..  you may think that the gear was just a simple 'rehash' per say.. but you can say that about pretty much any RPG, especially a single player one.  if you started a fresh character, there were plenty of things to think about regarding gear:

damage reduction
shields
biotic/tech protection

each type of armor specialized in a certain type of stat, and some were good at all 3, and some maybe 2.  yes, if you were on your 6th playthrough on the same character where you were at or close to level 60, there is very little difference.  but you cant tell me these decisions didnt matter on your first playthrough.. of course they did. 

and thats not even getting into the armor mods..

yes, generally when you picked the 3 or 4 armor mods you were happy with it was a progression upgrade after that.. but there were a ton of different specs to go with.  and, again, explain how that is any different than any rpg out there.

however, in ME2 did it really matter ? we could have gone through the entire game without even touching our armor and it wouldnt have mattered one bit.  and the thing is, if we went with any of the DLC armor, we COULDNT do anything with our armor, except revert back to our original set.

and i will acknnowledge the omni-gel inventory system DID need to get revamped, but it certainly didnt need to get as simplified as it did.


regarding skills, again, i have to scratch my head..

as with above, i will grant you that if you were on your 6th playthrough of the same character, skills really didnt matter..

but again, you cant tell me choices didnt matter on a fresh playthrough..

did i want to focus on dialogue or skills first?
what about armor.  did i want to upgrade my skill there or weapons?
did i want to have ashley focus on assault rifle or sniper
if i played engineer, did i want to be good with a shotgun or pistol
what about class bonuses? 

that looks like a lot of choices there IMO..

whereas in ME2, i felt very little impact on the choices i made skill wise during the game.  and there certainly werent choices like the ones above. 

as for story, thats all subjective.. im glad you found the story to be impactful in ME2.  personally, besides a couple of companion backstories, i found it lacking at best.  again, when layer of the shadowbroker is the most impactful content in the game (IMO), there is an issue story wise.

Modifié par wrdnshprd, 28 février 2012 - 07:34 .

[tez19]

I agree with OP. BIOWARE IN STEEP DECLINE.

[gabe2gg]

DxWill103 wrote...

Do you judge games based soley on RP features? In Me1's case, they aren't even that stellar. There are many more factors that go into the rating of a game besides if it has a clunky inventory and dull boring exploration on a barren rocky planet.

yes and scanning planets for minerals is so much better...

[GracefulChicken]

Um, I dont know about some of you, but I was trying to replay ME1 and ME2 to pass time until ME3 drops, but I personally find ME1 almost unplayable now. Granted, the stories are much better told, and the loot system (although insanely annoying sometimes) was more interesting, but the gameplay is horrid to me now. ME2's gameplay was a big step up as far as I'm concerned, although I agree the story telling did suffer, but not to a degree that made me dislike ME2 in any way whatsoever. I'm satisfied with it, played it dozens of times. I loved ME1 when it came out, leading up to ME2's release... but it didn't stand the test of time for me.

[Justicar]

Am I the only one that thinks ME1's plot was the only better thing about it? classes were designed terribly, uncharted worlds were boring and repetitive and the inventory was absolute **** except for creating omni-gel. ME1 had a few great lines (Saren, "I'll blast your VIRTUAL ass into ACTUAL dust", Sovereign etc) many people forget Mordin, Samara, Joker of course and so many others had great dialogue as well ().

ME2 improved classes, characters, inventory and unfortunately BioWare were NOT able to create a plot for the curse that is the "middle of the trilogy" but were able to mask it with great character development, dialogue, relatively amazing gameplay and interesting choices.

[mghjr6]

I was shocked when I first visited these forums and saw all the griping from both standpoints about ME1 vs ME2. To me, I had decided long ago that they were both enjoyable in their own ways; different experiences that were merely comparable. Both were fantastic. Yes, I have a hard time doing a completionist playthrough of ME1 now because of all the planet-wandering Mako sequences. I want to find the big Prothean artifact on Eletania, but I don't want to make my way around the near-vertical mountains around it. BUT... the first time I played it, every moment of that game was euphoria, and I still get that feeling sometimes.

As for weapons... let's simply say that by the time I've beaten the VI at the training base on Luna (before even visiting one of the story planets - I always do Therum first), I've bought at least the Spectre VII version of whatever weapon I'm using primarily, and at this point the enemies are a lawn and I'm a lawnmower. The assault rifles alone in ME2 offered more variety than the weapons in ME1. ME2 just didn't allow you to dress your squad up like the Power Rangers.

As far as ME3 goes, all I can say is that you haven't even played the game, and from what I've seen it blends the best of both worlds. I see nothing to complain about.

[Zubie]

Spaghetti_Ninja wrote...

It was even more railroaded than ME2 - RAILROADED. At least in ME2 you were completely free to pick whatever squadmate, loyalty mission, or sidequest you wanted. In ME1 the option was Feros, Novaria, Planet with Liara on it, Virmire, Ilos, done.

I strongly disagree with petty much your entire post but this part made no sense.

In ME2, instead of Feros, Novera, Therum etc....you just had the painfully linear recruitment missions, so I don't get your point there. Also he meant sand box as in you got to explore uncharted planets and possibly run into side missions and such. Whereas in ME2 you just scanned a planet and then entered a shooting gallery in a linear hallway...every single time. Half the time Shepard and Co. didn't even utter a single word on those missions. Yeah, talk about bland.

ME1 had a much better atmosphere.