80 réponses à ce sujet

[kelsjet]

Imho, both games are too dissimilar for an valid comparison. ME1 was obviously more in touch with the RPG side of the franchise while ME2 is pretty much an action/third person shooter. The only area where I do think we can make a valid comparison is in the storyline of the two games (which is somewhat similar as it is) and character interactions (where I think ME2 will probably take the W).

Both games are great fun in their own right though. But comparing them on a mechanics and general gameplay level is like asking the question, "What do you like, and RPG or an FPS?"
To which the answer doesn't really give us much.

Modifié par kelsjet, 01 février 2010 - 08:29 .

[Miths]

I loved ME1, though there were certainly aspects of it I considered rather flawed, long before ME2 came along and made those flaws stand out like a sore thumb.

To borrow Devos' system from above.
In favour of ME2:

- Vastly improved and proper shooter mechanics that make ME2 combat play out pretty much or almost as well as some of the best third person shooters, like Uncharted 2 or Gears of War 2, rather than the clunky shooter and stats based bastardization we got in ME1.
And yes, I personally like the addition of the ammo system. Having to duck down behind cover to reload regularly just feels "right" to me. Perhaps just because I've gotten used to it playing a fair amount of shooters the last two years.

- A more varied and more interesting selection of locations (Omega, Illium or the new Citadel sections make the Citadel in ME1 look really bland, and the mission settings are generally also much better in ME2), sporting much better architectural and general visual design.

- An improved graphics engine, particularly in terms of lighting and shaders. Still some ugly, jagged edged textures here and there though (playing the PC version at 1920x1200 with everything maxed).

- Characters, dialogue, voice acting and quests/missions that are even better and more varied than ME1.

- No cumbersome inventory management and other RPG stables that certainly still work well in some games (DA:O for instance), but really didn't in ME1.

- Good consolidation and reimplementation or creation of old and new skills. Although I'm playing as a soldier, so I'll refrain from commenting on biotic and tech powers, aside from what my squad mates use.

- The scanning/probing mini game might become a bit tedious after a while (I still find it pretty relaxing though, 20 hours into the game), but it definitely beats planet exploration in the Mako. Though I am looking forward to seeing what they have planned with that Hammerhead thing.

In favour of ME1:

- It was a great game when it was released, and still is in terms of story and dialogue. I think I would have a very hard time going back to replay it again after trying the combat in ME2 though.

- The RPG fan in me did initially miss the weapon and armor variety from ME1 during my first couple of hours in ME2, but frankly there weren't that many good armor choices anyway in ME1, and most of the weapons were just recolored versions with different stats.
And as I've already said, managing the inventory was cumbersome at best, on both the 360 and PC.

Edit: Why does this forum insist on making all these extra line shifts between paragraphs? It looks horrible. Another forum platform only optimized for the two main browsers (I'm using Opera 10, which is obviously not one of them)?

Modifié par Miths, 01 février 2010 - 08:46 .

[JTwizzy88]

2nd one. I actually want to replay both in order but the thought of having to replay all those dreadful MAKO levels is keeping me from starting.

[Veex]

exboomer wrote...

Except that ME was never meant to be a straight shooter, it was meant to be a RPG with shooter elements not a shooter with RPG elements.

I disagree. If Mass Effect as a series was not intended to have shooter combat where player skill and placing shots is the priority they wouldn't have changed the system. They simply failed to iterate on the combat properly in the first.

[Kalfear]

MasterChief13Va wrote...

I just finished Mass Effect 2.  I loved the first one but find myself loving the second one more.  Maybe's it the darker story or newer characters but I can't help loving the second one.  

Which one do you like more and why? 

Well your answer clear as day on the forum posts, most prefered the first one but most of them said their peace and moved on already while the other side sticking around to argue!

Myself, I prefered the first one because the first one was a RPG with shooter combat! part two is a Shooter with a story but the RPG elements are gone for the most part.

I play Bioware games to interact with my squad mates, form personal connects, impact the world around me. You could do that in #1 on a eepic level. In #2, you simply following a linear story and watching from the side lines as it unfolds, unable to effect change or create personal bonds of any type of meaning or depth.

After playing ME2, all I can say is "cant wait for DA:O2" and FallOut:New Vegas by Obsidian so can go back to RPG style play. While the story in ME2 is great, once you rerad it once, there really no meaning or drive to play it out a 2nd time as you cant change anything or effect anything (other then right at end). The same story plays out the same way over and over and over.

[Kalfear]

LyonVanguard wrote...

I actually liked the first one better. Its not the story but the gameplay. The fact that the equipment menu is so comboluted and non user friendly really left me scratching my head. ME1 was not perfect but why downgrade it? I would have really liked to see Miranda wearing the Phoenix or Onyx armor sets. The helmet system is also really downgraded.

They went with realism and left out the user experience. Its still a good game but as far as mechanics (except battle system and hacking) it is a downgrade.

PS: I know this has been said 1,000 times.

LOL and yetthere is board trolls like Darthcain that will claim its never been said by anyone at all!

Honestly, only 1000 is downplaying how often its been said here by different people

[Miths]

Kalfear wrote...

...

Myself, I prefered the first one because the first one was a RPG with shooter combat! part two is a Shooter with a story but the RPG elements are gone for the most part...

Just out of curiosity, those of you suggest that ME2 is "a shooter with a story" (or similar phrasings), have you ever actually played a straight up third (or first) person shooter?

An exceptional example of the genre like Uncharted 2 on the PS3 has a pretty solid story (in a Hollywood style action/adventure blockbuster sort of way), likable main characters, exceptional voice acting (on par with ME2) and great and often very funny verbal sparring between the characters.
But even so, Uncharted 2 - and most other shooters - is a completely linear experience where dialogue is served up in cut scenes or during combat, and you're pretty much always pressing forward in a straight line to the next check point and the next cut scene.

I don't know how you've played ME2, but I've spent a very substantial number of hours (21 hours in so far, just getting started on all the loyalty missions now) exploring non-combat areas (Omega, Illium, The Citadel etc.), talking to a whole lot of characters using interactive dialogue choices, upgrading and replacing my weapons and armors, feeding my fish, scanning planets for minerals, flipping through my journal trying to decide in which order to do my quests, checking up with my crew after missions to hear if they had anything new to say, and basically done many of those out-of-combat things I've been doing in RPGs for over a decade - minus picking up a lot of "phat loot" and rummaging through my inventory and complex stats screens every 5-10 minutes (not that I don't still find those things enjoyable in some RPGs, but I haven't missed them in ME2).

Outside of combat ME2 is really nothing like a typical shooter - even those that do have a decent story and a fairly substantial amount of dialogue.

[miltos33]

I can't believe I would ever say this but even if Mass Effect 2 is less of an RPG it is more fun than the first game.

[sleepforever]

hey Bioware, u gave us a master peice in the first mass effect, y dont they keep it lke that as they alllllllllllways did with the games b4??????

so dumb!! Casey Hudson leave ur job bro, let the real guys like the producers of KOTOR, Jade Empire, Baldurs gate 1 and 2 teaching u and to make some good games that r worth 75$ !!!!

im a real hardcore Bioware fan since the real beginning (Im sure im the first one who bought Baldurs gate 1 when it was released!) and this is not what U BIOWARE fed me with along the years!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Modifié par sleepforever, 01 février 2010 - 11:03 .

[Houkkaaja]

I haven't played games this good since Baldur's Gate 2. They're still not quite as awesome as the Broken Sword and Monkey Island -series, but they are pretty damn awesome. I would say that so far ME 2 has been even better in every way, except for three little problems.

1. Sniper rifle not as fun
2. Biotics kinda useless against everything but the weakest enemies (though still more fun than in ME1)
3. Not enough Wrex!

I'd give ME 2 95/100, for being superior to most games, movies, books and music.

Modifié par Houkkaaja, 01 février 2010 - 11:08 .

[Chris2112534566]

they both have their Pros and Cons but all in all i have to give ME1 and ME2 2 gigantic thumbs up

[kelsjet]

Miths wrote...
Just out of curiosity, those of you suggest that ME2 is "a shooter with a story" (or similar phrasings), have you ever actually played a straight up third (or first) person shooter?

I believe they (we?) have indeed played shooters. The most common comparison is actually made with Gears of War (in fact ME2 has been called 'Gears of War with dialog options' quite regularly by a lot of people). I don't think anyone would argue that ME2 and Gears of War, from a gameplay/combat standpoint are very very similar in both feel and mechanics.

That being said, I am more interested in finding out why people are interpreting ME2 being a shooter to have such negative connotations. Even if ME2 is 'just a shooter' it is still a fun game. Yes, the RPG elements are pretty much absent. Yes, most classes barring the Soldier are somewhat superfluous, but just because it is more a shooter then anything else doesn't necessarily mean the game is 'bad' or 'reduced' in some way.

As far as whether ME2 is linear or not, that can only be decided depending on how you define linearity.
For example, if you take level design, ME2 is totally linear. There is 1 path through a level and you pretty much can't go wrong as long as you keep going forward (this is by design I believe). If, however, you define linearity by "do I have an option to do this mission now or not?" then yes, you can partially embed ME2 in the 'non-linear' bucket, but doing so would be tenuous at best, since there really is only 1 main story arc (again, by design).

All this still does not detract from the primary observation. ME2 is totally a third person shooter/action game since that is what drives its core mechanics, and I will still assert that being a shooter does not mean the game is 'bad' under any interpretation.

[Sailears]

Quoting myself from another forum:

Curunen...
One thing that irritates me a little in this game are the more obvious
videogame cliches. Things like ********* - 'Assuming control', and all
that 'boss' nonsense, and the scions. Reminds me of Halo, which is not
good. At times it is quite cheesy, in that it is made blatant that it
is a game. Personally I would have them sacrifice the gameplay for
story every time, though I can't see that happening.

I appreciate things are not all rosy in ME1. For instance you have the 'boss' Sovereign, although I can overlook that because it fits well into the story. I just feel ME1 to be more epic story, whereas ME2 is more 'game'.

I'm not keen on the modular nature of ME2; the whole Mission complete screen. The galaxy map minigame (flying the ship) doesn't do it for me either.

I do like the variety in the locations, the humour, the interactions in ME2. These are certainly improvements.
The N7 missions and planet scanning: they are ok, though the scanning becomes tedious. However, I miss the driving around in the Mako, and some of the wonderful skyscapes of the uncharted worlds. I agree there were far too many and it was monotonous in ME1, but if you only do a few in a playthrough, I find them fun.
If that can be combined with some of the detail in the N7 missions, it would be wonderful.
So majority can be scanned, and some can be landed on and are a cross between N7 and UNC Mako driving worlds.

I would certainly prefer fewer, deeper squad members (or at least some of them can have deep dialogue, and some can be superficial).

Anyway, I digress. At the moment I prefer ME1, though that may be because I am still settling into the ME2 way of doing things.
I don't miss the repetitive nature of ME1. I do miss some aspects of the gameplay, and the fact that story and game flowed a lot better.

Finally, there should be separate keys for cover, use and sprint, not all one key. That is one of the most irritating things in ME2.




******* Edited: I forgot this was the non spoiler forum.

Modifié par Curunen, 01 février 2010 - 11:28 .

[DarthCaine]

Kalfear wrote...

LyonVanguard wrote...

I actually liked the first one better. Its not the story but the gameplay. The fact that the equipment menu is so comboluted and non user friendly really left me scratching my head. ME1 was not perfect but why downgrade it? I would have really liked to see Miranda wearing the Phoenix or Onyx armor sets. The helmet system is also really downgraded.

They went with realism and left out the user experience. Its still a good game but as far as mechanics (except battle system and hacking) it is a downgrade.

PS: I know this has been said 1,000 times.

LOL and yetthere is board trolls like Darthcain that will claim its never been said by anyone at all!

Honestly, only 1000 is downplaying how often its been said here by different people

Actually you're the only troll on these boards. Just check Gamespot's user score and see how many disagree with you

Why don't try counting how many said in this thread that they prefer ME2 over ME1 (assuming you can actually count)

Face it, you're in the minority

Go back to the DAO forums, nobody wants trolls here

Modifié par DarthCaine, 01 février 2010 - 11:38 .

[potatoman22]

second one by far,hated the characters in the first one,hated the locations the second one has some flaws but its so much better than the first mostly because of much better characters and locations

[Birdman117]

When I play a video game, I mainly look at the story.



So from a story perspective, I loved them both equally.

[Jared_704]

ME2 has a Tali Romance. Although there's a few things I miss from the first one like banter between the crew. I want more dialogue out of both of them.

[MasterChief13Va]

I know I've said that I loved the battle systems and the hacking and I'm a fan of TPS's, but I agree with you.  I like the RPG element of the game more than the TPS element of the game.  Although the shooting in the first was lacking, the story was epic (just as the second) but it had that great RPG feel.  The second one doesn't and though I'm probably not as disappointed with Bioware as you, I do wish they kept the same RPG elements and mixed it in with the awesome TPS mechanics that they included into ME2.

Thanks for your comments 

exboomer wrote...

MasterChief13Va wrote...

I just finished Mass Effect 2.  I loved the first one but find myself loving the second one more.  Maybe's it the darker story or newer characters but I can't help loving the second one.  

Which one do you like more and why? 

I love the first one a lot more. This game IMO has been dumbed down to appeal to the shooter fans who lack the patience to build up their characters like you could in ME.  The whole "feel" of the game has been changed and I for one am VERY disappointed in what Bioware did.

[DutRankEC]

Houkkaaja wrote...

I haven't played games this good since Baldur's Gate 2. They're still not quite as awesome as the Broken Sword and Monkey Island -series, but they are pretty damn awesome. I would say that so far ME 2 has been even better in every way, except for three little problems.

1. Sniper rifle not as fun
2. Biotics kinda useless against everything but the weakest enemies (though still more fun than in ME1)
3. Not enough Wrex!

I'd give ME 2 95/100, for being superior to most games, movies, books and music.

I gotta disagree.

1. What's fun about it in ME1? I like it better in this one since they added a slow down time to line up your shots.
2. I can't tell you how many times Incenerate and Cloaking has saved me. Same with Warp and Overload. If you haven't played on Insanity yet then try playing that way without Biotics/Tech and see how far you get.
3. Wrex isn't really relevant to the new crew, so I think there was just enough if him in this game.

I mean we all have different opinions, and I respect everyone's.(Except for the people who flat out say the game sucks) But these are just my thoughts.

[NucleoSynthesis]

The first is centered in the main story , and the second in the side quests , i like the two games ,

[Cyrilmak]

Mass Effect 1. Inventory, more customization and my beloved Mako. Not to mention Marina Sirtis who has the best breasts of any woman in real life.

[dolphin1329]

I like the ME2 more because I'm doing more then just rushing the enemy with my assault rifle as I did in ME1.

[mmmu]

This second installment in the series struck me as the better of the two. I really loved the first Mass Effect and that probably helped me to love the second even more. I'm a roleplaying geek (and I speak of the roleplaying in the sense of immersively being the character, not the RPG-roleplaying), and with the imported ME1 character I instantly got dragged into this massively immersive world. I played 40 hours in 4 nights and finished the game in absolute awe. I don't remember last time a game dragged me so deeply with it. Both games are masterpieces, but on an emotional level, the second one took the trophy for me.

[Kalfear]

Miths wrote...

Kalfear wrote...

...

Myself, I prefered the first one because the first one was a RPG with shooter combat! part two is a Shooter with a story but the RPG elements are gone for the most part...

Just out of curiosity, those of you suggest that ME2 is "a shooter with a story" (or similar phrasings), have you ever actually played a straight up third (or first) person shooter?

Last shooter I played was FallOut3 which had a terrible and short story
before that was Halo as I got it free on my old XBox system. Story was about as crappy as one can write with out eliminating the story completely!

MAss Effect2 is clearly a step up in story telling for shooter games (BTW: Uncharted is listed as a adventure game, not a shooter) but ME franchise is suppose to be equal parts shooter and RPG and part 2 simply isnt.

[Vornesoul]

The second by far.



I hated the Mako with every fiber of my being. For being such a large machine it sure did bounce around. It was slow, the land it covered was boring, flat and with little texture. Vimire was the only place I drove that thing that I didn't wish I had ductape to force it into the forward position.



I hated two of the squadmates, Ashley and Liara. I only dislike one party member in the second game, Jack.



Although the I miss all the loot from the original, I feel that the actual gameplay makes up for it. Much more streamlined and fluid. I don't feel like I am placing points into boring stat upgrades that have little effect anymore.



The game as a whole is just better. A better FPS. A better RPG. A better game.