290 réponses à ce sujet

[Cornughon]

Mass Effect 1 wasn't perfect at all, driving around rocks with the Mako was such a... Also reused and repetitive "enemies everywhere" generic science labs.
The inventory/upgrade/skill system wasn't THAT great.

So in Mass Effect 2 they tried to tackle all the shortcomings of ME1: the repetitive and frustrating driving around was replaced with a gets-boring-fast scanning 'minigame'. The numerous fairly small and always the same layout science labs/tech facilities/mines were replaced with less side quests, but every one of them different and on a larger map area (well if you don't count the planet surfaces from ME1) a lot of them straight forward corridor shooting stuff, but also some totally different stuff, like deactivating the beacon on that crashed freighter on the edge of a ravine...

The inventory has been streamlined to being almost non-existant, some upgrades became skills. The skills have been streamlined (a little too much: it became from "tedious" to "there could be more"... ME3 seems to be an in-between which is good)

In ME2 there is much more depth added to your (potential) squadmates among things, all of them 2 different missions, although some of them are the usual run-of-the-mill corridor shooters.

Mass Effect 1's story is excellent, and I too like Saren/Sovereign better than Collectors/Harbinger. Also because it's ofcourse the first in a franchise and everything is still 'new', it seems more 'special' although this 'problem' is something which people who played ME2 first don't have as much.

Also I prefer the manouverability of the Hammerhead over the bouncyness of the Mako, even though the Hammerhead has armor made out of cardboard.

I love Mass Effect 1, but I like part 2 a bit more, it's a more 'complete' game, even with the few shortcomings the first part didn't have.

[Justicar]

Mx_CN3 wrote...

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.

Good post. I agree completely.

I totally agree with your opinion on Vigil/Sovereign/Saren/Wrex. They were definitely the best points of the game. While some would argue that you'd expect the main antagonist to be the best part, character, world and inventory blandness are essential in such a game as this.

[gabe2gg]

Vazen wrote...

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.

yes so that makes the customization in ME2 better.


Wait ME2 didnt even have customization...

[Zubie]

Cainne Chapel wrote...

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!)

I guess we'll just agree to disagree.

Though yes, Mordin is my favorite ME character. Good example of a well written and well rounded character.

[Mx_CN3]

Cainne Chapel wrote...

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!)

Definitely agreed.  Mordin, Legion, and, to a lesser extent, Tali, all had fantastic plots surrounding them, with some truly difficult moral choices.  In ME1, you're basically given the options of how you're going to do something*, ME2 gave you the options of what you want your character to do.

Oh, Garrus also.  And Zaeed (again, lesser extent).  If I cared about Jacob, him too.

*There were a few exceptions (Wrex, Virmire, Council), all of which had big consequences, but the fact is that there are still a small number of them.

[KotorEffect3]

Is nostalgia like a drug to some people? I loved ME 1 but in my opinion ME 2 already topped it.

[tobynator89]

they already did

[KotorEffect3]

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.

Running animations are a pretty minor issue.  I consider gameplay and story to be more important.

[Cainne Chapel]

easygame88 wrote...

Cainne Chapel wrote...

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!)

I guess we'll just agree to disagree.

Though yes, Mordin is my favorite ME character. Good example of a well written and well rounded character.

It appears we will have to agree to disagree (actual pleasant disagreements on BSN!? Shocking!)

But you are my new best friend since you like Mordin *nods*. 

For that I'll have to send you a virtual cookie!

Personally I'm partial to Jack, Tali, Legion, Mordin, Grunt and Zaeed, but i like all the characters in ME series really.

[Hotdog3D]

I liked ME1 for story and characters but combat and exploration sucked comparing to other modern games. ME2 fixed combat a bit, got rid of really dumb equipment and developed characters even more.
I consider ME2 to be a better game than ME1 overall.
About ME3? We'll see, I don't like some spoilers I saw/read, but, the combat is improved, AI is finally not horrible, higher max-lvl, more abilities, more interesting classes, better meele. It also seems they'll develop characters even further and characters are what's most interesting for me anyway.

[JerZey CJ]

But they already topped ME1 with ME2 and DA:O

[Draconis6666]

Ryanianmc wrote...

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

This is the entire point though, there is no challenge to the combat in ME 1.

You can either sit and let everythign come to you and kill them 1 by 1,

or just use biotics to which everything in the game is rediculously weak

or you can just be a soldier shock trooper and use immunity spam to be unkillable on any difficulty but Insanity, and even then you can only die to rockets.

but beyond that you dont even need immunity spam because you can just run to the left and half the enemies wont hit you anyway because of the terrible targeting system. Same way you can park just the front end of the mako behind a rock with 90% of it sticking out and never take any damage because they all shoot at the rock.

[aksoileau]

ME was a great game, loved it. But ME2 was even better. The only issue I had was with the dirty dozen thing. While I loved having a ton of team members, it really cut down on individual dialogue... Ex Garrus and his calibrations.

ME1 still holds it own, but the age is unfairly apparent since ME2 was such a huge upgrade.

[wrdnshprd]

Cainne Chapel wrote...

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

im ME1 skill progression was more about concequence than impact.  as an engineer for example, every point i invested in regarding armor/weapons, was one less point  i was putting in regarding skills/class bonus.  and if you wanted the ability the armor or weapon provided (marksman for pistols for example or shield recharge for armor), you had to continue to invest.

also, generally you got some type of unlock in each skill (such as marksman) about every 2 levels, and if you wanted to continue to progress with that skill, you had to keep investing in pistols.. which again, prevented you from investing in the other skills.

with ME2, they did have skill progression that caused other abilities to unlock, but it wasnt the same.  in ME2, all i unlocked were additional skill ROWS.  i didnt see anything like marksman where i had to continue to advance in pistols in order to continue to advance in marksman..

luckily this is something they are bringing back with ME3.  i like the branching system they have.  its more of a modification system than we've seen in the past, but it looks like there are actual concequences for my choices.

i understand that by the time i got to the end of the game.. there really isnt choice.  but, again, show me an RPG where this ISNT the case..  i care more about how i advance my character during my playthrough.  i want actual choice and conceqence in how i build my character.  in ME1, i felt that,  in ME2 i didnt.

as for ME3, i think MOST of this will return.. there seems to be actual choice and concequence in how i advance in skill, and also in how i mod my weapons..  i would just like the same choice and concequence in how i spec my armor.  sadly, this doesnt seem like its going to be there.

[earthonline]

 So far ME3 looks awesome from the spoilers, so maybe it will top it

[Zubie]

Cainne Chapel wrote...

It appears we will have to agree to disagree (actual pleasant disagreements on BSN!? Shocking!)

But you are my new best friend since you like Mordin *nods*. 

For that I'll have to send you a virtual cookie!

Personally I'm partial to Jack, Tali, Legion, Mordin, Grunt and Zaeed, but i like all the characters in ME series really.

Let's just hope ME3 tops both so it won't matter.

[SonvarTheMighty]

Personally I feel ME1 had a better overall story but as a total package I enjoyed ME2 a lot more. ME3 is looking like it will be the best overall.   I'll find out in about a week.  

Modifié par SonvarTheMighty, 28 février 2012 - 09:04 .

[Zubie]

Draconis6666 wrote...

This is the entire point though, there is no challenge to the combat in ME 1.

You can either sit and let everythign come to you and kill them 1 by 1,

or just use biotics to which everything in the game is rediculously weak

or you can just be a soldier shock trooper and use immunity spam to be unkillable on any difficulty but Insanity, and even then you can only die to rockets.

but beyond that you dont even need immunity spam because you can just run to the left and half the enemies wont hit you anyway because of the terrible targeting system. Same way you can park just the front end of the mako behind a rock with 90% of it sticking out and never take any damage because they all shoot at the rock.

We won't even talk about singularity....

But let's be honest here. ME2 wasn't difficult either. ****, even I can beat it on Insanity without much difficulty.

ME3 seems to be a lot tougher though.

[AndrewRogue]

Number 1.
Virgin lore and epic background to the mass effect universe. (including first contact war)

The vast majority of which is fairly easy to miss due to being poorly integrated into the narrative itself, confining a lot of potentially useful information to Codexes which, frankly, is poor form.

Number 2.
Complete ability to gear you and your squad mates to min/max with armor/weapon mods and armor / weapons

Tedious busy work for the most part (get item with higher stats, equip item with higher stats, equip mod for primary enemy type on mission, done) that also did little to help visually define similarly shaped characters (Shep, Kaidan, Ashley, Liara).

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)

Right. Exploring barren and awkwardly laid out planets in a clunky vehicle, and being forced to three radically different points of said barren and awkwardly laid out planet, really made me feel for the planet. There was nothing alien or interesting to the planets if you didn't read the blurbs, and, even then, they weren't particularly interesting.

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)

In the few situations where you had an option, intentionally gimp yourself one way or another. Hurrah!

Note: I do like ME1. Just... these aren't really good "this game is clearly the best" selling points.

[AgentWhale]

ME1 = Original SF epic.

ME2 = Cable Sci-Fi TV Series.

ME3 = Michael Bay's Space Marines.

[NOD-INFORMER37]

Not this **** again

[AgitatedLemon]

My subjective opinion is better than your subjective opinion.

[Tezlaa]

'You can't top ME1 guys!'
'Yeah the improved graphics and combat mean nothing!'
'I was into this series before it became popular...'

Damn Mass Effect Indies

[RoboticWater]

Tezlaa wrote...

'You can't top ME1 guys!'
'Yeah the improved graphics and combat mean nothing!'
'I was into this series before it became popular...'

Damn Mass Effect Indies

Well, improved graphics don't really mean much.
It's the athstetic that matters and ME2 retained ME's cool athstetic.

Modifié par BlahDog, 28 février 2012 - 10:29 .

[Someone With Mass]

Most of the "RPG elements" in ME1 were tedious as hell and became rather obsolete at a certain point.

Never really felt anything for the Mako parts either, with the exception of the main story missions, where they were kind enough to not put 60 degree slopes everywhere. I honestly could do well without those planets, where the only things that changed were the skyboxes and color palettes. Just pick out a spot on the Normandy and land in the shuttle instead of driving around in a vehicle for fifteen minutes, only to find some old trinket. Exploring can be done on foot.

Judging from the demo, ME3 is doing the weapon, mod and armor management infinitely better than the previous games by not forcing the player to go through such busy work as sorting out all the junk after each fight, while still keeping a good level of customization.

As for the story in ME3 compared to the rest, I can't really tell yet.