290 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryvack]

 I agree with op 100%.

No matter how polished ME2 & 3 are...ME1 still holds the top spot for me.

- nothing beats Sovereign & Saren period... even a million reapers + harbinger,  have nothing on these two.  (Sovereign's voice was amazing...Harbenger's is generic...all reapers should sound the way that Sovereign did)

- Mako > hammerhead...freaking hammerhead missions feel so out of place...so arcadey.   

- character/squadmate customization kicked ass in ME1...everything is too streamlined in ME2 and probably so in ME3

- ME2's mission ending screen was a bad Idea....it really pulls the player out of the game/story.

ME3 is looking very epic and as a huge ME fan...I can't wait.  ME1 holds  a very special place in my heart though...can't top that experience imo.

[Cainne Chapel]

wrdnshprd wrote...
*snip*

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.

In regards to the armor point, I do see where you're coming from but
when I say GEAR I mean more than just armor.  While yes the
DR/Shields/Biotic and Tech protection were important in ME1, they were
arguably less so in ME2 simply due to the fact that a lot of the
shields, etc, were tied to Shepard personally.  and honestly I rather
wear the armor I'm visually pleased by than being ruled by (for the most
part) useless Stats.  Hell at this point I could beat ME1 without ever
changing the basic gear you got from the outset of the game.  Its not
very difficult to do

But the thing is most of the choices in regards to skills were moot at best.  They were small nearly inconsequential increases that only mattered when you put PLENTY of points into it.  Honestly I never liked having to put points into pistols or assault rifles, etc. 

I'm glad ME2 got rid of that system and made all party members proficient in the weapons they used.  and most of the other skills points all got rolled into to your class skills or something of that nature.  Which, when most all the skills involved combat (save for charm/intimidate) I think was much more apt to being streamlined and making each "tick" matter instead of being nearly pointless on its own.

Still in ME1 you got more than enough skills points to be proficient in nearly EVERYTHING on your list.  Same with ME2 as well.

But if you didn't notice a difference between skill level 1 and 4 in ME2... I would venture there wasn't much of one in ME1 as well between skill level 1 and 16 (or whichever tick they topped out at)

But I do agree the story is all subjective and opinionated, But i enjoyed the story in both really, i just adored the characters in 2 more due to the expansion on their personalities

[mghjr6]

easygame88 wrote...


ME1 had a much better atmosphere.

Matter of opinion, that. I was thrilled in ME2 when I first stepped onto Omega. We saw the ugly side of things...and it didn't look like the same pre-fab pretty side on a different planet.

I stilll get great replay value out of both titles.

[Justicar]

You guys are fast to wear Nostalgia Glasses.

[AlanC9]

easygame88 wrote...
Whereas in ME2 you just scanned a planet and then entered a shooting gallery in a linear hallway...every single time. 

Of course, when you say "every single time" you don't actually mean every single time.

Why do so many people on this board feel compelled to intensify their statements to the point where they're lying?

[element eater]

2 has better action gameplay and graphics but 1 has better story, exploration, vehicle sections, bigger hubs, characters and customisation.

its too early for me to comment on on 3 but i dont think i will like it more than 1 from what ive seen so far it seems much more like an improved version of 2 than anything

Modifié par element eater, 28 février 2012 - 07:51 .

[mghjr6]

Ryvack wrote...

 I agree with op 100%.

No matter how polished ME2 & 3 are...ME1 still holds the top spot for me.

- nothing beats Sovereign & Saren period... even a million reapers + harbinger,  have nothing on these two.  (Sovereign's voice was amazing...Harbenger's is generic...all reapers should sound the way that Sovereign did)

- Mako > hammerhead...freaking hammerhead missions feel so out of place...so arcadey.   

- character/squadmate customization kicked ass in ME1...everything is too streamlined in ME2 and probably so in ME3

- ME2's mission ending screen was a bad Idea....it really pulls the player out of the game/story.

ME3 is looking very epic and as a huge ME fan...I can't wait.  ME1 holds  a very special place in my heart though...can't top that experience imo.

That's understandable. Like OP said, it was virgin fiction. It falls into it's own category. As someone who values the overall experience presented over how it compared to other games, I get it. But the demand is heavy for a modern game not to simply be part 1 redux, so to speak.

[Cainne Chapel]

easygame88 wrote...

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.

Thing is those easygame... unless the planet HAD a sidemission you couldnt land on it... So it was its own "Planet scanning" system so to speak.  

Also lets not forget the plethora of similar bunkers with random boxes and bases in ME1, those were very linear shooting galleries as well.

Personally i rather have a tighter narrative driven side mission, than aimlessly driving around in the Mako, which while fun at first... doesn't lend itself well to lasting impressions on multiple playthroughs.  As for squad banter, there wer eplenty of times in ME1 where there wasn't much either.  But that IS one of things I hope is back in ME3 more (from the demo it at least SOUNDS like its back more)

personally i liked the atmosphere in both games.  Also dont forget in ME1 we were in the central hub of galactic civilization, clean, sterile, etc. in ME2 we are in the grimy underbelly, dirty, hopeless.  So I think they both fit.

Modifié par Cainne Chapel, 28 février 2012 - 07:55 .

[mghjr6]

Cainne Chapel wrote...

easygame88 wrote...

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.

Thing is those easygame... unless the planet HAD a sidemission you couldnt land on it... So it was its own "Planet scanning" system so to speak.  

Also lets not forget the plethora of similar bunkers with random boxes and bases in ME1, those were very linear shooting galleries as well.

Personally i rather have a tighter narrative driven side mission, than aimlessly driving around in the Mako, which while fun at first... doesn't lend itself well to lasting impressions on multiple playthroughs.  As for squad banter, there wer eplenty of times in ME1 where there wasn't much either.  But that IS one of things I hope is back in ME3 more (from the demo it at least SOUNDS like its back more)

personally i liked the atmosphere in both games.  Also dont forget in ME1 we were in the central hub of galactic civilization, clean, sterile, etc. in ME2 we are in the grimy underbelly, dirty, hopeless.  So I think they both fit.

Well stated.

[Cainne Chapel]

element eater wrote...

2 has better action gameplay and graphics but 1 has better story, exploration, vehicle sections, bigger hubs, characters and customisation.

its too early for me to comment on on 3 but i dont think i will like it more than 1 from what ive seen so far it seems much more like an improved version of 2 than anything

Not necessarily bigger hubs.... there was a LOT of empty space in the citadel A LOT.  Personally I preffered ME2's approach.  As for characters, ME2 has MUCH better character development than one did (heck thats the point of ME2 in a sense) and customization between 1 and 2 is a wash for me.  I like the amount of dress up I can do in 2 over 1 (the colors!).

But yes ME3 looks to be much better in the customization sense

[Zubie]

AlanC9 wrote...

easygame88 wrote...
Whereas in ME2 you just scanned a planet and then entered a shooting gallery in a linear hallway...every single time. 

Of course, when you say "every single time" you don't actually mean every single time.

Why do so many people on this board feel compelled to intensify their statements to the point where they're lying?

Sorry, I guess I should have mentioned the 1 or 2 missions that this wasn't the case.

[Cainne Chapel]

mghjr6 wrote...

Ryvack wrote...

 I agree with op 100%.

No matter how polished ME2 & 3 are...ME1 still holds the top spot for me.

- nothing beats Sovereign & Saren period... even a million reapers + harbinger,  have nothing on these two.  (Sovereign's voice was amazing...Harbenger's is generic...all reapers should sound the way that Sovereign did)

- Mako > hammerhead...freaking hammerhead missions feel so out of place...so arcadey.   

- character/squadmate customization kicked ass in ME1...everything is too streamlined in ME2 and probably so in ME3

- ME2's mission ending screen was a bad Idea....it really pulls the player out of the game/story.

ME3 is looking very epic and as a huge ME fan...I can't wait.  ME1 holds  a very special place in my heart though...can't top that experience imo.

That's understandable. Like OP said, it was virgin fiction. It falls into it's own category. As someone who values the overall experience presented over how it compared to other games, I get it. But the demand is heavy for a modern game not to simply be part 1 redux, so to speak.

Thats the thing too, its always going to be impossible to capture that First game feeling on the 2nd or 3rd game, simply because for most fans, the 1st game is what introduced them to that particular game world.  So its going to be hard if not downright impossible to ever uproot those feelings.

Hell ME1 is the reason I came here, ME2 is the reason i'm STILL here. ME3 looks like the reason I'll STAY here

Same goes with my other favorite series, Uncharted, I love 1 2 AND 3 and think each one is better than the last one, but of COURSE I'll always remember 1 most since that introduced me to Drake and Elena and Victor.

So while I liked ME2 more than ME1, I still love ME1 the most due to it being my introduction to a GREAT series

[Sons OfLesbians]

you should probably make change the thread title so it says "you can't top ME1 for me" because ME1 was already topped for me, and for many other people, by ME2. honestly im playing through ME1 for the sixth a last time before ME3 comes out, and im having a difficult time trying to play it. my only motivation is that it will eventually go in to 2 and then 3.

[Hell OX77]

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.

well the game is not even out yet so to you. wait and play the game to find out. 
viking out 

[mghjr6]

Sons OfLesbians wrote...

you should probably make change the thread title so it says "you can't top ME1 for me" because ME1 was already topped for me, and for many other people, by ME2. honestly im playing through ME1 for the sixth a last time before ME3 comes out, and im having a difficult time trying to play it. my only motivation is that it will eventually go in to 2 and then 3.

Yeah, that's the big problem with a thread title like that. This is a very subjective topic, and a thread about a subjective topic quickly becomes volitile.

[Paul Rodney]

You cant be serious? me1 had depth but me2 had much greater character depths and you actually cared about them. In me1 u had all this unnessesary customization and so much GODAM looting that you'd walk into a room to find all these godam crates.

Driving the Mako sucked (couldnt even aim down with the turrent) and when u went exploring there were about 3 main map designs that were ALL exactly the same.

[mghjr6]

jreezy wrote...

Ryvack wrote...

- ME2's mission ending screen was a bad Idea....it really pulls the player out of the game/story.

Yup. Mission debriefs with council > mission complete screen.

Agreed there, although the debriefs usually ended with me wanting to punch the Turian council member.  <_<

[mghjr6]

Paul Rodney wrote...

You cant be serious? me1 had depth but me2 had much greater character depths and you actually cared about them. In me1 u had all this unnessesary customization and so much GODAM looting that you'd walk into a room to find all these godam crates.

Driving the Mako sucked (couldnt even aim down with the turrent) and when u went exploring there were about 3 main map designs that were ALL exactly the same.

So... ME1 had reach, and ME2 had flexability...

[Zubie]

Cainne Chapel wrote...

As for characters, ME2 has MUCH better character development than one did (heck thats the point of ME2 in a sense)

Did it though?  I mean, I get that it was supposed to be a character driven story, or maybe thats just what they say to cover the fact that the game had no story at all really. Hardly any plot progresion.

Story aside though, the characters didn't have much to talk about. When they did it was usually about the same thing everytime. Calibrations anyone? Not saying ME1 had amazing development for all its characters (Garrus and the quarian codex come to mind), but Kaidan, Ashley, Liara and Wrex were really great; had tons to talk about and their characters really grew over the course of the game.

Just my opinion of course but I feel Bioware's characters in general haven't been too great in their last few games.

[Vazen]

Sorry dude but the customization in ME was tedious as hell. But before you make assumptions like that you should actually either play the game, or look up what the customization is because it is tons better that ME2.

[yahtzo]

E-Type XR wrote...

They already have.

It was called ME2.

And that's all that needs to be said.

[Zubie]

Vazen wrote...

look up what the customization is because it is tons better that ME2.

What customization?

Your weapon loadout and the roughly 6 talents you had?

ME1 sucked in this regard but they just removed most of it instead of trying to make it better.

Modifié par easygame88, 28 février 2012 - 08:21 .

[Mx_CN3]

Justicar wrote...

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.

You are not at all alone.  If it weren't for Vigil, Sovereign, Saren, and Wrex, I would not care in the least if my copy of ME1 were to completely disappear.

The gameplay was just garbage.  You can beat the entire game, probably even on insanity, by only using marksman (I think that's what the pistol special power is).  You can beat most of it with minimal weapon and armor upgrades.  If you do upgrade, you can simply walk into a group of enemies and take them down at your leisure.  Higher difficulties amount to only more time spent killing instead of, you know increasing the difficulty.

I don't get why people think the planet stuff was exploration.  A common occurrance on the side mission planets is to spend 5 minutes scaling a boring, incredibly triangular looking mountian, finally getting to the top and seeing the great view of... another boring, incredibly triangular looking mountain.  Every base reused the same 3 or so layouts, as did all of the ships in space (though some crews, through some miracle, apparently decided to stack their cargoes differently).  The fact that there was land on does not mean there was exploration.  By that logic, someone could go "exploring" in a corn field.  What matters about exploration (to me, at least), is taking the time to look through all the corners and finding something unique, that you knew you would not find if you hadn't looked (I felt that Skyrim did this a little better [though I still found most of it boring], as did some of the areas in World of Warcraft).

The Mako was absolute garbage.  It had its own laws of physics.  The weapons had a mind of their own.  People whined about the Hammerhead being too fragile, but have you ever used the Mako on insanity?  Never before have I seen 3 shots from a sniper rifle destroy a heavily armored vehicle.

The areas on foot were incredibly bland.  You'd be lucky to see a plant or a crate, sometimes a railing.  Big areas filled with nothing, wow that's exciting!

Inventory system had a total of what, maybe 30 weapons?  Instead of powering them up in Mass Effect 2 via research, you instead just got new models with slightly better stats.  In this sense the weapons across the two were the same, except ME2 didn't have the hassle of having to sort through 50 of nearly identical guns.  Mods were interesting, I'll grant that (except, again, there were an artificially large number of them, through the I-X system).

Other than the overall story, I'd say that the only thing that ME1 did equal or better was the soundtrack, or general sound effects (with interactions).  I liked the very electronic sound we'd get from pressing buttons, and I liked the electronic soundtrack.  That said, the orchestral music of ME2 was still great, I would just like to see a bit of both.

So, yeah, overall ME2 was a better game.  ME1 had a few cool things going for it, but there were just too many good ideas that turned out badly.

[Cainne Chapel]

easygame88 wrote...

Cainne Chapel wrote...

As for characters, ME2 has MUCH better character development than one did (heck thats the point of ME2 in a sense)

Did it though?  I mean, I get that it was supposed to be a character driven story, or maybe thats just what they say to cover the fact that the game had no story at all really. Hardly any plot progresion.

Story aside though, the characters didn't have much to talk about. When they did it was usually about the same thing everytime. Calibrations anyone? Not saying ME1 had amazing development for all its characters (Garrus and the quarian codex come to mind), but Kaidan, Ashley, Liara and Wrex were really great; had tons to talk about and their characters really grew over the course of the game.

Just my opinion of course but I feel Bioware's characters in general haven't been too great in their last few games.

Personally I feel pretty much ALL of the squadmates, if conversated with, grew over the course of the story as much if not more than Liara, Ash, Kaidan in ME1

and yes there IS plot progression and background expansion IN ME2 so you really cant say it had no story at all just because you personally didn't like it.  Story was there, heck I've heard people call ME1 derivative and wrote it off because of that *shrug* to each their own.

That said I feel most of the characters in ME2 can have subtle personality shifts depending on how you approach them and you can learn from them even more so than youc ould the crew in ME1 (Garrus and Tali included I feel are even better and more well rounded as characters thanks to the inclusion of ME2)


EDIT: Also to re-answer your statement in a few words as to great characters in ME2: Mordin

Yes there's 11 more characters than just mordin, but Mordin alone is worth all the plot in ME2. (and he's not even my favorite one!)

Modifié par Cainne Chapel, 28 février 2012 - 08:28 .