Was curious about this (why everyone loves ME1 over the other ME's.) Whenever I start a new character in ME1, its the one which I blow off the most side missions and try to run through it as quickly as I can to get it over with so I can transfer Shepard over to the next game. I've completed the game before with finishing all the side missions and exploring all the planets I found. I don't hate the game, but I find the two sequels much more enetertaining in almost all aspects.
My problems with the first Mass Effect:
-Combat wasn't all that great. It's usually walking into a overused room design with 20 enemies waiting there to charge you and gangbang you screaming "I'LL DESTROY YOU! THEY'RE EVERYWHERE! HOLD THE LINE! GO GO GO!" It's even more fun when multiple npc's are screaming them at the same time.
-Squadmates were useless. I only used Wrex and Liara for their biotics. They were killed very quickly, and whenever I command them to go to cover, they end up running elsewhere.
-People go on about it being much more open-world. By open world, I assume they're talking about the giant wasteland with 2 objects to go smash a button pattern at, and one of the five overused side-mission-building-clones. Don't get me wrong, I like the concept of having a more open-world, adventure based Mass Effect, and the Mako was fun, but I found it was really done poorly in ME1.
-People also talked about character lore and interactions being much better. I really felt there wasn't any more character conversations in ME1 than the other ME's. Sure, ME3 you didn't get as many dialogue wheels, but there was alot more dialogue in general. Squadmates would talk to eachother, be seen in different locations, and would have something to say or comment after every mission/side mission (minus the MP maps.) ME2 seemed to have alot more character depth with dialogue wheels and character backgrounds (ME1 might > ME2, but from what I remember it was about the same). ME1 conversations seemed to have a dialogue wheel pop up and whatever you pick would give you the same character reaction and/or same words Shepard will say.
-Powers were really useless, minus the ones that increase your weapon abilities. Lift and throw were useful BC they kept the enimies CC'd, but everything else did minimal damage in comparison to your weapons. If you run into a boss, it's just spam all your available cooldowns and pew pew away. I felt the shared global cooldown design was a million times better.
-From an role-playing perspective, I would think most people would be annoyed with Shepard carrying 4 weapons and only being able to use 1-2 if you weren't a soilder. Along with fixing that problem, I also liked the cooldown timer being affected by weapon weight. Definitely added an RPG element between available choices and how it affects your gameplay.
-The choices of gear and weapons was a nice RPG styled part of the game. But 99% of everything you pick up gets junked. And there really was nothing unique from one weapon to another, minus the damage done. I feel like ME3 did a much, much better job at nailing the different weapon choices and modifications, along with the custom gear, where ME1 was just one of the few skins with differen't stats. The ammo slot was the only part I really liked about it.
-ME1 had less drastic choices you had to make (from what I recall.) Besides having Kaidan or Ashley die and the council live or die, there wasn't all that much. Sure, you send Anderson to fight the guards or deck Udina, but it gave you the same results. If you killed everyone at Feros or not it really didn't play a roll in the story. ME2 was the same way with a lack of choices. ME3 had many more options with who dies by saving them or ignoring/completing a side mission, what glactic races are affected by your choices, etc.
-ME3 did a good job with the skill points and giving you a selection of choices to pick from as you go farther up the talent tree. ME1 was just a big 'ol list to drop points into to increase stats slightly.
I'm not trying to rip on ME1, but I personally didn't enjoy it nearly as much as I did with 2 & 3. I can see why people could complain about 2, alot. But 3 seemed to have the best of both worlds, between combat, character interaction, lore, & RPG elements with gear and leveling (minus the horrible, horrible, horrible ending. I feel like people hate on the game simply bc of that, but I can kinda understand that. I was seriously pissed when I completed the game. But that's a conversation for a different page.)
Please don't start raging and sh*t over this. Just leave your reasons why you dis/agree.
Cheers
Why did everyone love ME1?
Débuté par
sumSOTY
, sept. 30 2012 12:40
Retour en haut
#2
Posté 30 septembre 2012 - 12:43
JamieCOTC
-
- Members
- 6 341 messages
Nostalgia plays a big part of it, but compare ME1 to other games AT THE TIME and you'll get a better understanding. ME1 has a lot of problems, but it has the better overall plot, imo.
#3
Posté 30 septembre 2012 - 12:51
JeffZero
-
- Members
- 14 400 messages
Not everyone does. Outside BSN, I've found most like it the least. For my money, it's very good but comes in third.
#4
Posté 30 septembre 2012 - 12:54
sammysoso
-
- Members
- 913 messages
I miss the tone, the classic sci-fi vibe of the whole game. From the art design to the audio to the music to the film grain.
The plot was really the only one in the series that was good the entire way through. The Collector plot was weak and ME3's plot didn't keep its focus (it alternated between good, bad, and confusing)
The characters were better, more subtle and realistic. ME2's were too broad and most of them didn't need to be there. Really, subtlety left the series after ME1 and I didn't like that.
Mechanically? ME1 was awful and the series has steadily improved since. I also didn't like the micro-managing of inventory, glad they cut that out.
Funnily enough, the Virmire decision ended up being the choice with the most tangible consequences. Everything else came down to war-assets.
ME1 was also the only game were Ashley was really well-written (it's off and on in ME3, didn't exist in ME2)...what a wasted character.
The plot was really the only one in the series that was good the entire way through. The Collector plot was weak and ME3's plot didn't keep its focus (it alternated between good, bad, and confusing)
The characters were better, more subtle and realistic. ME2's were too broad and most of them didn't need to be there. Really, subtlety left the series after ME1 and I didn't like that.
Mechanically? ME1 was awful and the series has steadily improved since. I also didn't like the micro-managing of inventory, glad they cut that out.
Funnily enough, the Virmire decision ended up being the choice with the most tangible consequences. Everything else came down to war-assets.
ME1 was also the only game were Ashley was really well-written (it's off and on in ME3, didn't exist in ME2)...what a wasted character.
#5
Posté 30 septembre 2012 - 01:07
sumSOTY
-
- Members
- 67 messages
sammysoso wrote...
I miss the tone, the classic sci-fi vibe of the whole game. From the art design to the audio to the music to the film grain.
The plot was really the only one in the series that was good the entire way through. The Collector plot was weak and ME3's plot didn't keep its focus (it alternated between good, bad, and confusing)
The characters were better, more subtle and realistic. ME2's were too broad and most of them didn't need to be there. Really, subtlety left the series after ME1 and I didn't like that.
Mechanically? ME1 was awful and the series has steadily improved since. I also didn't like the micro-managing of inventory, glad they cut that out.
Funnily enough, the Virmire decision ended up being the choice with the most tangible consequences. Everything else came down to war-assets.
ME1 was also the only game were Ashley was really well-written (it's off and on in ME3, didn't exist in ME2)...what a wasted character.
I agree, ME2 plot was blah. Really off topic. Most of the game was collecting squad members and doing their chores. There were also too many of them. (Only addition from ME2 I liked was Grunt, Thane, and Miranda. Dat ass.) They could have added the collectors to show what became of the protheans, and have had Shepard die/brought back and working for the Illusive man, but still focus on something more creative with the Reapers.
ME3 I found the plot enjoyable. It all tied together and worked out (gathering a big-a*s army to take down the Reapers.) Although I question why the goal was to retake Earth over every other planet, before the Citadel was moved there. Still, I felt it was the most solid story that didn't drift away from the intended plot.
And Ashley in ME1 I found annoying as hell. She acted like such a brat to any other woman in the ship. I laughed so hard when I heard the whole sex-change rumor about her. I didn't buy it but wasn't surprised others did.
#6
Posté 30 septembre 2012 - 01:12
SeeNoEvilHearNoEvil
-
- Members
- 267 messages
The only reason people love ME1 over the others is because it was the first game, the game hijacking them into a new universe...
That's about it.
In my eyes, if you don't like them all, you don't like any of them.
That's about it.
In my eyes, if you don't like them all, you don't like any of them.
#7
Posté 30 septembre 2012 - 01:14
chris2365
-
- Members
- 2 048 messages
It was the first game, so it has that sense of exploration, discovery, nostalgia, etc. It also had a pretty solid plot, good missions (Virmire, Noveria, etc.)
Personally, I place it last, pretty much for all the reasons you listed. I've done 1 completitionist playthrough (everything completed) and from there, I make modifications using the save editor. The combat was tedious (in comparison with ME3), the inventory is a hassle, too many sidequests (I'm still mad for getting only 5 EMS for my game-long treasure hunt for those Asari matriarch writings
), reused locations etc.
It's still a very good game, I just prefer ME2 and ME3 over it
Personally, I place it last, pretty much for all the reasons you listed. I've done 1 completitionist playthrough (everything completed) and from there, I make modifications using the save editor. The combat was tedious (in comparison with ME3), the inventory is a hassle, too many sidequests (I'm still mad for getting only 5 EMS for my game-long treasure hunt for those Asari matriarch writings
), reused locations etc.It's still a very good game, I just prefer ME2 and ME3 over it
Modifié par chris2365, 30 septembre 2012 - 01:16 .
#8
Posté 30 septembre 2012 - 01:26
Aurora313
-
- Members
- 4 616 messages
I loved it beause it was about the only shooter/rpg I've wanted to run through and play multiple times. Loved the characters, loved the story (hated and still hate a certain blue-skinned character, but don't want to start a flame war) and Virmire - by god, Virmire. That was a f*cking hard choice because I love both the VSs and had used them both constantly until that mission.
My only complaint is that some of the combat is a little buggy, and I was forced to associate with the aforementioned hated character for the sake of plot.
My only complaint is that some of the combat is a little buggy, and I was forced to associate with the aforementioned hated character for the sake of plot.
#9
Posté 30 septembre 2012 - 01:33
ZombieGambit
-
- Members
- 3 560 messages
It's mostly nostalgia. The Mass Effect universe was new and unique and the thought about the direction the story might go since it was a planned trilogy from the beginning was interesting.
The combat was godawful, the inventory system was even worse, the graphics were decent at best, the environments were bland at best and recycled at worst, but the plot and the universe were amazing, however, so it kind of made up for it.
Overall it's my least favorite to play, but it's my favorite plot wise.
The combat was godawful, the inventory system was even worse, the graphics were decent at best, the environments were bland at best and recycled at worst, but the plot and the universe were amazing, however, so it kind of made up for it.
Overall it's my least favorite to play, but it's my favorite plot wise.
#12
Posté 30 septembre 2012 - 01:45
artificial-ignorance
-
- Members
- 923 messages
I actually agree, I don't understand why some people call ME1 the best of the trilogy. It was a clunky game with many issues (I for one cannot understand the thought process behind the mako and how the game testers didnt realize that it was garbage). And the recycled side missions! <_< Don't get me started on that!
In my opinion, ME3 > ME2 > ME1. ME3 was incredibly epic and at some points in the story even brought me to tears (albeit manly tears), and the overall game design behind ME2 was fantastic. The only thing going for ME1 was the story, which, in all of the mass effect games, is pristine.
In my opinion, ME3 > ME2 > ME1. ME3 was incredibly epic and at some points in the story even brought me to tears (albeit manly tears), and the overall game design behind ME2 was fantastic. The only thing going for ME1 was the story, which, in all of the mass effect games, is pristine.
Modifié par artificial-ignorance, 30 septembre 2012 - 01:49 .
#13
Posté 30 septembre 2012 - 01:48
RedCaesar97
-
- Members
- 3 845 messages
Story-wise (plot, characters, setting, atmosphere), it may be the best in the series, although that is just an opinion. I've seen a lot of people on BSN like it better since it was more RPG-like than the other games in the series. I've also seen some people prefer the combat better in ME1 than in the other games.
Personally, I think Mass Effect 1 is a game greater than the sum of its parts. Or perhaps to put it another way, it is a good game despite itself, for many of the same reasons you mention. It is still the first game in the series and the game that introduced me to the Mass Effect universe. I played the ever-loving crap out of that game. Still do.
I actually think that Mass Effect 2 is the best game in the series, but that is because I pretty much play the games for the combat now. But that is another post altogether. I think I will stop here.
Personally, I think Mass Effect 1 is a game greater than the sum of its parts. Or perhaps to put it another way, it is a good game despite itself, for many of the same reasons you mention. It is still the first game in the series and the game that introduced me to the Mass Effect universe. I played the ever-loving crap out of that game. Still do.
I actually think that Mass Effect 2 is the best game in the series, but that is because I pretty much play the games for the combat now. But that is another post altogether. I think I will stop here.
#15
Posté 30 septembre 2012 - 01:51
CDRSkyShepard
-
- Members
- 2 538 messages
Well, I'm one of those that says "If it ain't a dialogue wheel, it ain't character interaction." So...that sums up my feelings on ME3's "character interaction" right there. There were overall less wheels, and less choices per wheel. My Shepard said things I would never have thought she'd say, and there wasn't a damn thing I could do about it. I felt like I was playing Halo and watching MC do his thing, and occasionally I'd get to pick something to say.
ME1's inventory system was much more confusing than most RPGs, but by dumbing it down as much as they did for 2 and 3, it just didn't feel like an RPG anymore. It sort of did, because you could choose how to approach a situation with characters, but as far as weapon and power stats? Nothing. I think ME3 did the best job with power evolutions by far, and with weapons (with the exception of continuing to use ammo mods as powers, and very little variety of weapon mods :/), but what about all the other stuff? My omni-tool? Biotic amps? Squadmate armor and stats? I would've preferred a type of streamlined inventory screen for all that. Also, side-by-side comparisons were non-existent. People who like to play RPG games want a balance between control and tedium, and I think 3 did the best job out of all of them for striking this balance, but IMO it still wasn't enough.
ME1's decisions were HUGE at the time. I blame ME3 for not capitalizing on them, and making things overall basically the same (plus or minus a few hundred WA points here and there) in the main narrative. On Noveria, you determined the fate of an entire race (which didn't matter because the Reapers brought them back anyway trolololo). On Feros, you gained the Cypher and determined the fate of the colony (which you only heard about in emails afterward). On Virmire, you sacrificed a squadmate, and I agree with sammysoso, that is the decision that made the most impact. It determined a squadmate going forward, even if it really didn't change the overall narrative. It affected the game on a personal level. At the end of the game, you determined the course of galactic politics...or, at least, that's what you were told. But, in the end, it really didn't matter in the grand scheme of things. *Sigh* It didn't affect your ability to mobilize an allied fleet at all (again, a few hundred points here and there are arbitrary and don't count as an "impact", because you can easily make those up). So, the point is this: ME1 had ground-shaking choices that ME3 neutered. That's ME3's fault, not ME1's.
Also because of ME3, ME2 feels like a gigantic waste of time, and will suffer because of its sequel, story-wise. The story was strong enough to carry its own provided ME3 provided the answers to the unanswered questions. It didn't. (Why did the Reapers send the Collectors to abduct humans? Why did they need humans so badly? Etc.) Again, ME3's fault, not ME2's. They also brought in a whole slew of awesome and beloved characters for ME2 and then just discarded them in ME3. What a waste.
ME1 from start to finish is a hero's journey and epic space opera. ME3 was just plain inconsistent, with smashing hits and terrible misses, and no real climax to speak of. ME2 was nice and solid, but was undermined by its successor.
In terms of RPG games, ME1 sets the bar much like KotOR does. It's a shooter/RPG hybrid, and BioWare's first shooter...in fact, I'm pretty sure it was the first shooter/RPG hybrid. You can't really knock it for gameplay because of that, and the powers are great if you know how to use them. There's pros and cons of all three games and their uses of powers. Actually, once you get used to it the combat isn't that bad, either, it's just not as refined.
In the end, if people hadn't gone crazy over ME1, there would be no ME2 or ME3. It's the game that sold the series. They may have tried to make improvements (some welcome, some not), but those improvements wouldn't be there if the original game hadn't captured the hearts and minds of fans. Don't forget, they basically copy-pasted the Saren confrontation from ME1 into ME3 with TIM.
ME1's inventory system was much more confusing than most RPGs, but by dumbing it down as much as they did for 2 and 3, it just didn't feel like an RPG anymore. It sort of did, because you could choose how to approach a situation with characters, but as far as weapon and power stats? Nothing. I think ME3 did the best job with power evolutions by far, and with weapons (with the exception of continuing to use ammo mods as powers, and very little variety of weapon mods :/), but what about all the other stuff? My omni-tool? Biotic amps? Squadmate armor and stats? I would've preferred a type of streamlined inventory screen for all that. Also, side-by-side comparisons were non-existent. People who like to play RPG games want a balance between control and tedium, and I think 3 did the best job out of all of them for striking this balance, but IMO it still wasn't enough.
ME1's decisions were HUGE at the time. I blame ME3 for not capitalizing on them, and making things overall basically the same (plus or minus a few hundred WA points here and there) in the main narrative. On Noveria, you determined the fate of an entire race (which didn't matter because the Reapers brought them back anyway trolololo). On Feros, you gained the Cypher and determined the fate of the colony (which you only heard about in emails afterward). On Virmire, you sacrificed a squadmate, and I agree with sammysoso, that is the decision that made the most impact. It determined a squadmate going forward, even if it really didn't change the overall narrative. It affected the game on a personal level. At the end of the game, you determined the course of galactic politics...or, at least, that's what you were told. But, in the end, it really didn't matter in the grand scheme of things. *Sigh* It didn't affect your ability to mobilize an allied fleet at all (again, a few hundred points here and there are arbitrary and don't count as an "impact", because you can easily make those up). So, the point is this: ME1 had ground-shaking choices that ME3 neutered. That's ME3's fault, not ME1's.
Also because of ME3, ME2 feels like a gigantic waste of time, and will suffer because of its sequel, story-wise. The story was strong enough to carry its own provided ME3 provided the answers to the unanswered questions. It didn't. (Why did the Reapers send the Collectors to abduct humans? Why did they need humans so badly? Etc.) Again, ME3's fault, not ME2's. They also brought in a whole slew of awesome and beloved characters for ME2 and then just discarded them in ME3. What a waste.
ME1 from start to finish is a hero's journey and epic space opera. ME3 was just plain inconsistent, with smashing hits and terrible misses, and no real climax to speak of. ME2 was nice and solid, but was undermined by its successor.
In terms of RPG games, ME1 sets the bar much like KotOR does. It's a shooter/RPG hybrid, and BioWare's first shooter...in fact, I'm pretty sure it was the first shooter/RPG hybrid. You can't really knock it for gameplay because of that, and the powers are great if you know how to use them. There's pros and cons of all three games and their uses of powers. Actually, once you get used to it the combat isn't that bad, either, it's just not as refined.
In the end, if people hadn't gone crazy over ME1, there would be no ME2 or ME3. It's the game that sold the series. They may have tried to make improvements (some welcome, some not), but those improvements wouldn't be there if the original game hadn't captured the hearts and minds of fans. Don't forget, they basically copy-pasted the Saren confrontation from ME1 into ME3 with TIM.
#16
Posté 30 septembre 2012 - 01:56
CALIxBIRDY
-
- Members
- 63 messages
artificial-ignorance wrote...
I actually agree, I don't understand why some people call ME1 the best of the trilogy. It was a clunky game with many issues (I for one cannot understand the thought process behind the mako and how the game testers didnt realize that it was garbage). And the recycled side missions! <_< Don't get me started on that!
In my opinion, ME3 > ME2 > ME1. ME3 was incredibly epic and at some points in the story even brought me to tears (albeit manly tears), and the overall game design behind ME2 was fantastic.
you understand the the games gets new additions and updates to grapics and gameplay. i understand your reasoning by likeing me3 (its my fav of the triligy too) but older games tend to not be as good as newer ones. it was a good game at the time
#17
Posté 30 septembre 2012 - 01:58
voteDC
-
- Members
- 2 522 messages
[quote]sumSOTY wrote...
-Combat wasn't all that great. It's usually walking into a overused room design with 20 enemies waiting there to charge you and gangbang you screaming "I'LL DESTROY YOU! THEY'RE EVERYWHERE! HOLD THE LINE! GO GO GO!" It's even more fun when multiple npc's are screaming them at the same time. [/quote]Which is of course wholy worse than walking into narrow corridors filled with chest high walls.
Now don't get me wrong the environments in 2 and 3 look very good indeed but in terms of actual layout, they are no better than the first game.
[quote]sumSOTY wrote...-Squadmates were useless. I only used Wrex and Liara for their biotics. They were killed very quickly, and whenever I command them to go to cover, they end up running elsewhere. [/quote]Then you were setting their powers wrong and not using the squad commands.
Rarely would my squad fall down. Run in front of me with annoying regularity to be sure, but dying was a rarity.
[quote]sumSOTY wrote...-People go on about it being much more open-world. By open world, I assume they're talking about the giant wasteland with 2 objects to go smash a button pattern at, and one of the five overused side-mission-building-clones. Don't get me wrong, I like the concept of having a more open-world, adventure based Mass Effect, and the Mako was fun, but I found it was really done poorly in ME1. [/quote]I don't think I hear open world mentioned to be honest. What I do hear is how the first Mass Effect gives the illusion of exploration.
This is very true. The unexplored worlds play a part in that but there is also places like Virmire with the alternate route into Saren's base
[quote]sumSOTY wrote...-People also talked about character lore and interactions being much better. I really felt there wasn't any more character conversations in ME1 than the other ME's. Sure, ME3 you didn't get as many dialogue wheels, but there was alot more dialogue in general. Squadmates would talk to eachother, be seen in different locations, and would have something to say or comment after every mission/side mission (minus the MP maps.) ME2 seemed to have alot more character depth with dialogue wheels and character backgrounds (ME1 might > ME2, but from what I remember it was about the same). ME1 conversations seemed to have a dialogue wheel pop up and whatever you pick would give you the same character reaction and/or same words Shepard will say. [/quote]It was the the way I played but the only character who stopped having new things to say to me was Garrus in the first game.
The big issue was that most of the conversation options in the first game were available to you from the start, so you could burn through them very quickly, Tali being the best example.
ME2 and 3 locked the new dialogue to certain points, so if you visited regularly it gave the impression that they didn't have anything to say. The same way in which ME1 gave the illusion of exploration.
Got to say though that I love the interrupts.
-Powers were really useless, minus the ones that increase your weapon abilities. Lift and throw were useful BC they kept the enimies CC'd, but everything else did minimal damage in comparison to your weapons. If you run into a boss, it's just spam all your available cooldowns and pew pew away. I felt the shared global cooldown design was a million times better.
[quote]sumSOTY wrote...-From an role-playing perspective, I would think most people would be annoyed with Shepard carrying 4 weapons and only being able to use 1-2 if you weren't a soilder. Along with fixing that problem, I also liked the cooldown timer being affected by weapon weight. Definitely added an RPG element between available choices and how it affects your gameplay.[/quote]Shepard could use every weapon in the first game. The proficiency of which depended on your class and the points you put into the weapon. More than once I've pulled out a shotgun with my Adept, with which I've been completely untrained, because it was the right choice at the time.
I can see the reasoning behind the weight system but found that it forced you to choice between powers or guns. With ammo being a 'power' you can attach to individual weapons, it definately was a system that favoured the gun side of the combat.
[quote]sumSOTY wrote...-The choices of gear and weapons was a nice RPG styled part of the game. But 99% of everything you pick up gets junked. And there really was nothing unique from one weapon to another, minus the damage done. I feel like ME3 did a much, much better job at nailing the different weapon choices and modifications, along with the custom gear, where ME1 was just one of the few skins with differen't stats. The ammo slot was the only part I really liked about it. [/quote]Can't really argue against the amount of tat that we picked up.
However to be honest I found that the weapons, while not as visually distinct, made the combat more different because of the larger stats impact on the combat.
[quote]sumSOTY wrote...-ME1 had less drastic choices you had to make (from what I recall.) Besides having Kaidan or Ashley die and the council live or die, there wasn't all that much. Sure, you send Anderson to fight the guards or deck Udina, but it gave you the same results. If you killed everyone at Feros or not it really didn't play a roll in the story. ME2 was the same way with a lack of choices. ME3 had many more options with who dies by saving them or ignoring/completing a side mission, what glactic races are affected by your choices, etc. [/quote]There was also the Rachni choice. The side missions, save the scientists or deal with the Warlord, that came about because of paragon or renegade.
Of course they had no real impact in the end than any of the choices in ME3 than a few points in the War Assets.
Though how you played the game, paragon or renegade, made a difference to the endings in Mass Effect 1. The endings where the count live and where they die change depending on your paragon or renegade level.
Not to a huge amount that is true but it gave the player the impression that not only how well they played but how they played made a difference.
[quote]sumSOTY wrote...-ME3 did a good job with the skill points and giving you a selection of choices to pick from as you go farther up the talent tree. ME1 was just a big 'ol list to drop points into to increase stats slightly.[/quote]Can't say I agree I'm afraid. I thought the difference between, for example, the start level of singularity in ME1 and the top level was much greater than the same power in Mass Effect 3. They just occurred far more gradually.
[quote]sumSOTY wrote...I'm not trying to rip on ME1, but I personally didn't enjoy it nearly as much as I did with 2 & 3. I can see why people could complain about 2, alot. But 3 seemed to have the best of both worlds, between combat, character interaction, lore, & RPG elements with gear and leveling (minus the horrible, horrible, horrible ending. I feel like people hate on the game simply bc of that, but I can kinda understand that. I was seriously pissed when I completed the game. But that's a conversation for a different page.) [/quote]Which is absolutely fair enough, it would be a boring world if we all liked the same things.
It's just for me ME1 ticked all the boxes for what I enjoy in a game. The next two wanted deperately to ape the cinematic third person shooters and in that regard they just don't measure up/
[quote]sumSOTY wrote...Please don't start raging and sh*t over this. Just leave your reasons why you dis/agree.
Cheers[/quote]Hopefully I have managed to explain myself in a reasonable manner.
[quote]Wifflebottom wrote...
Nostalgia goggles[/quote]I'm playing Mass Effect 1 again on my PC at the moment, so I fail to see how it is nostaligia that is responsible for my thoughts.
-Combat wasn't all that great. It's usually walking into a overused room design with 20 enemies waiting there to charge you and gangbang you screaming "I'LL DESTROY YOU! THEY'RE EVERYWHERE! HOLD THE LINE! GO GO GO!" It's even more fun when multiple npc's are screaming them at the same time. [/quote]Which is of course wholy worse than walking into narrow corridors filled with chest high walls.
Now don't get me wrong the environments in 2 and 3 look very good indeed but in terms of actual layout, they are no better than the first game.
[quote]sumSOTY wrote...-Squadmates were useless. I only used Wrex and Liara for their biotics. They were killed very quickly, and whenever I command them to go to cover, they end up running elsewhere. [/quote]Then you were setting their powers wrong and not using the squad commands.
Rarely would my squad fall down. Run in front of me with annoying regularity to be sure, but dying was a rarity.
[quote]sumSOTY wrote...-People go on about it being much more open-world. By open world, I assume they're talking about the giant wasteland with 2 objects to go smash a button pattern at, and one of the five overused side-mission-building-clones. Don't get me wrong, I like the concept of having a more open-world, adventure based Mass Effect, and the Mako was fun, but I found it was really done poorly in ME1. [/quote]I don't think I hear open world mentioned to be honest. What I do hear is how the first Mass Effect gives the illusion of exploration.
This is very true. The unexplored worlds play a part in that but there is also places like Virmire with the alternate route into Saren's base
[quote]sumSOTY wrote...-People also talked about character lore and interactions being much better. I really felt there wasn't any more character conversations in ME1 than the other ME's. Sure, ME3 you didn't get as many dialogue wheels, but there was alot more dialogue in general. Squadmates would talk to eachother, be seen in different locations, and would have something to say or comment after every mission/side mission (minus the MP maps.) ME2 seemed to have alot more character depth with dialogue wheels and character backgrounds (ME1 might > ME2, but from what I remember it was about the same). ME1 conversations seemed to have a dialogue wheel pop up and whatever you pick would give you the same character reaction and/or same words Shepard will say. [/quote]It was the the way I played but the only character who stopped having new things to say to me was Garrus in the first game.
The big issue was that most of the conversation options in the first game were available to you from the start, so you could burn through them very quickly, Tali being the best example.
ME2 and 3 locked the new dialogue to certain points, so if you visited regularly it gave the impression that they didn't have anything to say. The same way in which ME1 gave the illusion of exploration.
Got to say though that I love the interrupts.
-Powers were really useless, minus the ones that increase your weapon abilities. Lift and throw were useful BC they kept the enimies CC'd, but everything else did minimal damage in comparison to your weapons. If you run into a boss, it's just spam all your available cooldowns and pew pew away. I felt the shared global cooldown design was a million times better.
[quote]sumSOTY wrote...-From an role-playing perspective, I would think most people would be annoyed with Shepard carrying 4 weapons and only being able to use 1-2 if you weren't a soilder. Along with fixing that problem, I also liked the cooldown timer being affected by weapon weight. Definitely added an RPG element between available choices and how it affects your gameplay.[/quote]Shepard could use every weapon in the first game. The proficiency of which depended on your class and the points you put into the weapon. More than once I've pulled out a shotgun with my Adept, with which I've been completely untrained, because it was the right choice at the time.
I can see the reasoning behind the weight system but found that it forced you to choice between powers or guns. With ammo being a 'power' you can attach to individual weapons, it definately was a system that favoured the gun side of the combat.
[quote]sumSOTY wrote...-The choices of gear and weapons was a nice RPG styled part of the game. But 99% of everything you pick up gets junked. And there really was nothing unique from one weapon to another, minus the damage done. I feel like ME3 did a much, much better job at nailing the different weapon choices and modifications, along with the custom gear, where ME1 was just one of the few skins with differen't stats. The ammo slot was the only part I really liked about it. [/quote]Can't really argue against the amount of tat that we picked up.
However to be honest I found that the weapons, while not as visually distinct, made the combat more different because of the larger stats impact on the combat.
[quote]sumSOTY wrote...-ME1 had less drastic choices you had to make (from what I recall.) Besides having Kaidan or Ashley die and the council live or die, there wasn't all that much. Sure, you send Anderson to fight the guards or deck Udina, but it gave you the same results. If you killed everyone at Feros or not it really didn't play a roll in the story. ME2 was the same way with a lack of choices. ME3 had many more options with who dies by saving them or ignoring/completing a side mission, what glactic races are affected by your choices, etc. [/quote]There was also the Rachni choice. The side missions, save the scientists or deal with the Warlord, that came about because of paragon or renegade.
Of course they had no real impact in the end than any of the choices in ME3 than a few points in the War Assets.
Though how you played the game, paragon or renegade, made a difference to the endings in Mass Effect 1. The endings where the count live and where they die change depending on your paragon or renegade level.
Not to a huge amount that is true but it gave the player the impression that not only how well they played but how they played made a difference.
[quote]sumSOTY wrote...-ME3 did a good job with the skill points and giving you a selection of choices to pick from as you go farther up the talent tree. ME1 was just a big 'ol list to drop points into to increase stats slightly.[/quote]Can't say I agree I'm afraid. I thought the difference between, for example, the start level of singularity in ME1 and the top level was much greater than the same power in Mass Effect 3. They just occurred far more gradually.
[quote]sumSOTY wrote...I'm not trying to rip on ME1, but I personally didn't enjoy it nearly as much as I did with 2 & 3. I can see why people could complain about 2, alot. But 3 seemed to have the best of both worlds, between combat, character interaction, lore, & RPG elements with gear and leveling (minus the horrible, horrible, horrible ending. I feel like people hate on the game simply bc of that, but I can kinda understand that. I was seriously pissed when I completed the game. But that's a conversation for a different page.) [/quote]Which is absolutely fair enough, it would be a boring world if we all liked the same things.
It's just for me ME1 ticked all the boxes for what I enjoy in a game. The next two wanted deperately to ape the cinematic third person shooters and in that regard they just don't measure up/
[quote]sumSOTY wrote...Please don't start raging and sh*t over this. Just leave your reasons why you dis/agree.
Cheers[/quote]Hopefully I have managed to explain myself in a reasonable manner.
[quote]Wifflebottom wrote...
Nostalgia goggles[/quote]I'm playing Mass Effect 1 again on my PC at the moment, so I fail to see how it is nostaligia that is responsible for my thoughts.
Modifié par voteDC, 30 septembre 2012 - 01:59 .
#18
Posté 30 septembre 2012 - 02:09
brettc893
-
- Members
- 1 512 messages
It had the best writing and more gameplay.
Oh, and Nostalgia/Bias. The game IS a clunky, boring POS to play.
Oh, and Nostalgia/Bias. The game IS a clunky, boring POS to play.
#19
Posté 30 septembre 2012 - 02:16
Datdude1970
-
- Members
- 626 messages
JamieCOTC wrote...
Nostalgia plays a big part of it, but compare ME1 to other games AT THE TIME and you'll get a better understanding. ME1 has a lot of problems, but it has the better overall plot, imo.
^this...
The story was phenomenal, but the nostalgia of exploring this universe and uncovering things for the first time along with the unmistakeable atmosphere driven by an unforgettable sound design is what drives the love for the first installment, at least for me.
Kinda like this - when I played Metroid Prime for the first time, it immediately became and continues to be my favorite game of all time. Just the setting and sound design along with great gameplay and the whole mystery of what this world I am exploring was going to be made it a great first game for me to play for last gen consoles.. Have I played games since then that have been better in almost every aspect? Of course, but it doesn't change the fact that this is my favorite still.
Love all 3, including the ending, but ME1 is that one that tugs at my heart.
Oh, and one other decision that is pretty weighty - Urdnot Wrex is dispensable...
#20
Posté 30 septembre 2012 - 02:43
BrotherArdis
-
- Members
- 91 messages
The music and visual style. A very limited palette of colours - the game is dominated by blue, white and gray in various shades, with brown coming as a close second, and only has very small additions of others - and almost all of them are cold, the green vegetation of Virmire being one of the very few examples of warm colours. A specific type of music, sort of like the 80's electronic music. These two, applied consistently throughout the game (unlike 2 and 3) accounted for a highly unique mood that no other video game before or after had, and which 2 and 3 didn't even bother to recreate, as the developers probably realized they'd fail if they tried.
The feeling of discovering a new, unknown universe. This actually is partly due to the game being the first in the series, but not exclusively. First off, the universe is new both to you, the player, and to the characters - I'd bet neither Shepard nor Ashley or Kaidan had ever before been to the Citadel or anywhere else that you visit in the game, or have met a lot (if any) aliens, so, as you view the universe from Shepard's perspective, you're discovering it along with him and his mates. Second, the exploration. Wherever you go, it's empty. Civilization is only starting to even touch the places you visit. Even the hub worlds, aside from the Citadel. Noveria - a station on an unwelcoming, inhospitable ice planet. Feros - a single settlement on a long deserted world of ancient ruins. Virmire - a single installation on a sparsely (if at all) inhabited planet. Other minor places have even less than that, only small, makeshift habitats of prefab elements. Aside from that it's just great, empty spaces that haven't been explored yet,a howling wind and strange, alien suns.
ME2 and 3 do not have that. They are more generic games with colourful locations, lots of big explosions, badass one liners and hot women. Don't get me wrong - what they do, they do well (as was with ME1), but those things you can find in most other space operas; they don't have that unique feel that ME1 created.
So basically - it was all about the mood.
Funnily enough, while combat in ME1 was indeed tedious and took away from the enjoyment, it served to emphasize the rest of the game - combat sucked, so your attention focused on things that were done well - the characters, the world, the plot (what little of it there was - let's face it, ME1's plot in essence wasn't the height of mankind's creativity. A heroic space commander goes out and saves the universe from ancient alien monsters, possibly doing a hot, alien chick in the process. It was about how that story was delivered, not what the story was about : P). I guess that's partly why people perceive ME1 as having a superior plot and richer characters.
The feeling of discovering a new, unknown universe. This actually is partly due to the game being the first in the series, but not exclusively. First off, the universe is new both to you, the player, and to the characters - I'd bet neither Shepard nor Ashley or Kaidan had ever before been to the Citadel or anywhere else that you visit in the game, or have met a lot (if any) aliens, so, as you view the universe from Shepard's perspective, you're discovering it along with him and his mates. Second, the exploration. Wherever you go, it's empty. Civilization is only starting to even touch the places you visit. Even the hub worlds, aside from the Citadel. Noveria - a station on an unwelcoming, inhospitable ice planet. Feros - a single settlement on a long deserted world of ancient ruins. Virmire - a single installation on a sparsely (if at all) inhabited planet. Other minor places have even less than that, only small, makeshift habitats of prefab elements. Aside from that it's just great, empty spaces that haven't been explored yet,a howling wind and strange, alien suns.
ME2 and 3 do not have that. They are more generic games with colourful locations, lots of big explosions, badass one liners and hot women. Don't get me wrong - what they do, they do well (as was with ME1), but those things you can find in most other space operas; they don't have that unique feel that ME1 created.
So basically - it was all about the mood.
Funnily enough, while combat in ME1 was indeed tedious and took away from the enjoyment, it served to emphasize the rest of the game - combat sucked, so your attention focused on things that were done well - the characters, the world, the plot (what little of it there was - let's face it, ME1's plot in essence wasn't the height of mankind's creativity. A heroic space commander goes out and saves the universe from ancient alien monsters, possibly doing a hot, alien chick in the process. It was about how that story was delivered, not what the story was about : P). I guess that's partly why people perceive ME1 as having a superior plot and richer characters.
Modifié par BrotherArdis, 30 septembre 2012 - 02:44 .
#21
Posté 30 septembre 2012 - 02:49
Metalunatic
-
- Members
- 1 056 messages
Hardcore ME fans mostly think it's the best game in the series while casuals prefer the more ''action packed'' sequels.
Biggest reasons for me personally is the story and EXPLORATION. There is none of the latter in ME2 or 3.
Biggest reasons for me personally is the story and EXPLORATION. There is none of the latter in ME2 or 3.
Modifié par Metalunatic, 30 septembre 2012 - 02:53 .
#22
Posté 30 septembre 2012 - 03:11
Orangey
-
- Members
- 43 messages
It's official the word casual has lost all meaning.
In all seriousness I think part of the love for ME1 is nostalgia like others said; because it was a new world to explore that we knew nothing about so it sticks out better in our minds. I admit out of all of them I think ME1's plot has a better structure than the later games which seemed to have attempted to set there plot up as 'acts' but with limited success. That said my favorite is still ME2 even if the inventory mechanics are really dumbed down compared to 1 and even 3.
In all seriousness I think part of the love for ME1 is nostalgia like others said; because it was a new world to explore that we knew nothing about so it sticks out better in our minds. I admit out of all of them I think ME1's plot has a better structure than the later games which seemed to have attempted to set there plot up as 'acts' but with limited success. That said my favorite is still ME2 even if the inventory mechanics are really dumbed down compared to 1 and even 3.
#23
Posté 30 septembre 2012 - 03:21
dreamgazer
-
- Members
- 15 742 messages
Better story and a tighter plot, richer dialogue options that evenly cater to both paragon and renegade Shepards, exploration, an actual inventory/barter system, less of a compulsion to explode, explode, explode and a tighter focus on actual science-fiction.
And yes, I think ME2 is great, too.
And yes, I think ME2 is great, too.
#24
Posté 30 septembre 2012 - 03:23
brettc893
-
- Members
- 1 512 messages
Metalunatic wrote...
Hardcore ME fans mostly think it's the best game in the series while casuals prefer the more ''action packed'' sequels.
Biggest reasons for me personally is the story and EXPLORATION. There is none of the latter in ME2 or 3.
Guess I'm not Hardcore enough then.
#25
Posté 30 septembre 2012 - 03:35
GottvonHoff
-
- Members
- 389 messages
For me, it's because it had an awesome credits music. I mean, the story was awesome, but that song really helped sink in the sense of accomplishment when I finished ME1 for the first time.
