82 réponses à ce sujet

[DoctorPringles]

ME 1 wasn't spectacular, but I thoroughly enjoyed ME 2... So I'm a number "4" I guess?

[Canez fan 1988]

Sirsmirkalot wrote...

I'm a group 2 person.

ME1 

Superior locations
While the locations in both games offer a variety of differant worlds, the places in mass effect 1 have a lot more immersion. Part of is due to their superior individual stories along with their place in the main storyline (more on this below).

I stopped reading there. You can't be serious.

[Kordeshkistriakor]

I loved both games, although for slightly different reasons. While ME1's story really is a fair bit better, I feel that ME2's story was quite good as well; I really enjoyed the expansion of your squadmate storylines, which was something I feel ME1 occasionally lacked. Despite that, the epic scale and depth of ME1's story makes it the clear winner.

However, with ME1 the story just doesn't hit you as hard on your nth playthrough, and those little annoyances that make its gameplay experience less than ideal continue to wear at you.

But with ME2, although the story doesn't reach the same heights, the gameplay is much better, and so the experience holds up much better over multiple playthroughs.

So I end up bieng part of category one, loving them both, albeit for slightly different reasons.

I will admit am as much a fan of action-oriented games as RPGs if you're some sort of purist that believes that that reduces the weight of my argument. (If you aren't then please disregard)

Modifié par Kordeshkistriakor, 06 février 2010 - 07:11 .

[jbg927]

person 2 here. I like me2 but miss all of the things that the OP already listed!

[ME2Shephard]

Canez fan 1988 wrote...

Sirsmirkalot wrote...

I'm a group 2 person.

ME1 

Superior locations
While the locations in both games offer a variety of differant worlds, the places in mass effect 1 have a lot more immersion. Part of is due to their superior individual stories along with their place in the main storyline (more on this below).

I stopped reading there. You can't be serious.

Again someone who can't face the fact that someone has difference in opinion. Again ignorance is bliss.

For once I would like see someone who enjoyed ME2 more than the first be more open to constructive criticism.

[TuringPoint]

ME 1 had a more well-defined main plot progression. Being able to argue with Saren was interesting, and there was nothing like that in ME 2. With all the possibility of intrigue and drama that indoctrination created in ME 1, there was none of that in ME 2. It was just about surviving. The saving grace was that ME 2 was better told.



I'd say the story-telling is much better and more polished in ME 2. ME 1 had text boxes and generic levels (using boxes to change things up, seriously?), a mildly crappy graphics engine for its generation (varied vistas on each planet, but nothing as dramatic as the horizon on Ilium), and static conversations (really, really striking improvement. The vast majority of people criticising ME 2 still consent to how much better ME 2 was at conveying the story successfully in these ways). ME 2 was cinematic, gripping, and entertaining in ways ME 1 never approached. It is not just fanboyism talking here, there really are tangible ways ME 2 is a significant step forward. The type of story they were trying to tell might've been difficult to sell, but some of us were sold.

[TuringPoint]

ME2Shephard wrote...

Canez fan 1988 wrote...

Sirsmirkalot wrote...

I'm a group 2 person.

ME1 

Superior locations
While the locations in both games offer a variety of differant worlds, the places in mass effect 1 have a lot more immersion. Part of is due to their superior individual stories along with their place in the main storyline (more on this below).

I stopped reading there. You can't be serious.

Again someone who can't face the fact that someone has difference in opinion. Again ignorance is bliss.

For once I would like see someone who enjoyed ME2 more than the first be more open to constructive criticism.

How is it constructive if it doesn't even make sense?  Are you even trying to see where we're coming from?

[ME2Shephard]

@Alocormin: By saying I stopped reading right there and posting the quote of the mans first paragraph, shows that Canez won't give the poster the time of day to explain himself/herself. He/She said "More on this below." I believe what he was trying to say is that the planets and missions you did on that planet allowed for more character immersion. If people would take time and read what others have to say then comments like the one I posted would cease to exist.



Secondly I am open to criticism. If someone has something intellectual to say then I enjoy reading it and whether my views are different from theirs, I am still entitled to my opinion just as you and everyone else on the forum is. I don't have to agree with you but you won't hear me say "You can't be serious" over something that is opinionated. I just thought it was a tasteless comment that wasn't warranted unless Canez actually read his whole argument.

[ericgrimes]

I wish there were more things to do, bigger areas and cities, and better boss fights ME 2 but that is just me.

[TuringPoint]

It's not constructive criticism if it ignores everything good about what the game is and goes for everything the game doesn't have which the OP wants to play.  The OP or anyone else who prefers ME 1 can go ahead and play it over and over again, and they won't have anything to complain about un-constructively.  

So some people think there was more character immersion with the ME 1 system. I can't understand why, even with the justification given, and I won't go so far as to say that's a lie - but it has nothing to do with my perception. I don't know where to begin for discussing that particular issue.  Except to offer that the environments were more attractive, more gameplay friendly, the cinematic dialogue was more engrossing and involved the player in the context of the game world more extensively.

Modifié par Alocormin, 06 février 2010 - 08:02 .

[ME2Shephard]

That's fine. Everyone on here is entitled to their opinion and no one should be told they wrong for believing that. It's the same thing if I was a Baptist and you were a Methodist and told you, your beliefs in god don't bere any truth and you're going to hell for believing that.



I believe there was a enough character immersion in both games. The first game had it by the mission(side quests) being open ended. By that I mean you choose to let Balak live or die. The second game had the interrupts. It allowed you to really believe that you choices in the first game mattered and that your actions in the game mattered. Both games I plunged into the character known as Shepard. But i was still disappointed in the game. I still think the game was way to linear and that the exploration factor of the game was cut way short.

[ericgrimes]

maybe it is because the character talked back and forth between themselves will you were walking around they, but it also maybe they would have talked more in the conversation with other NPCs making them seem more life like.

[ME2Shephard]

Sirsmirkalot wrote...

I'm a group 2 person.

ME1 

Superior locations
While the locations in both games offer a variety of differant worlds, the places in mass effect 1 have a lot more immersion. Part of is due to their superior individual stories along with their place in the main storyline (more on this below).

A better story
I've said it before and I'll say it again : Mass Effect 1 felt like you were dragged into an epic battle against Saren and the Reapers, while Mass Effect 2 felt like a trek arround the galaxy to collect 10 crewmen. The main antagonists were pushed too far to the background, since during the majority of the game you're doing nothing that relates to them even the slightest (it's like someone pressed the pause button on the main story). It really didn't feel like you were saving the galaxy from the reapers or anyone else anymore. PI Shepard anyone?

ME1 : Story about fending off a galactic threat where you pick up your crew along the way.
ME2 : Story about picking up 10 differant crew members to kill the "badguys".

Better weapon customization
Mass effect 1 allowed me to adapt my weapons, and those of my teammates, a lot more to the current situation. While trying to maintain an oversight of the inventory was nigh impossible, the results of the little bit of tinkering were awesome.

An ending that made the hairs in your neck stand up straight
I've finished Mass Effect 1 about 6 times in total now, and it still has one of the best endings in the entire gaming history if you ask me. The whole setup of the ending was so much more greater and epic. Saving the galaxy guns blazing with an armada of ships is just that more epic than finishing off a beehive that for the most of the game, was no concern to you.

Better immersion
The hand designed intermezzo's during missions on the makko really shined and gave the game a bigger scope.
Also, seeing your crewmembers run arround in vacuum with nothing but breather masks is beyond awkward and steers away from the semi-realistic impression that I got from ME1.

And then there were also no "mission end" screens. I can forgive you a lot Bioware, but those Mission End screens are beyond ridiculous. Complete and utter immersion and gameflow destroyers. After playing all your games for nearly a decade, I find these "Missions end" screens to be your worst decision ever.

ME2

Superior combat
Saying that I love the combat on my infiltrator, Soldier or Vanguard doesn't cut it. I'm really, really blown away by your combat mechanics in this game. I've never liked shooting as much in a third person shooter as I do in this game, and I've played a lot of them. This is also the main reason why I'm gearing up for a 4th playthrough.

Better armor customization
Another thing that I like a lot more. It feels similar to tweaking my armor in ME1, but than with a bigger impact concerning my choises. Along with that, the option to color my armor to my liking = win.
Note : this only applies to the PC, not the partymembers.

Better companions
The partymembers that you can recruit feel more diverse and more human as you talk to them. Also, their backgrounds are more compelling to me. I just wish that the manner on which you recruit them had something to do with the main story!

Thank you for your time.

And Bioware, despite the flaws don't let anyone tell you you can't be proud of this product. 
I myself am already looking forward to your next one.

I hope my english wasn't too bad!

There is the post of which Canez commented on. You apparently didn't read this either so that's why I'm posting it for you again. He has pro's on both games. He doesn't completely bash ME2. There is your constructive criticism alocormin

Modifié par ME2Shephard, 06 février 2010 - 08:13 .

[Youmu]

Dunno why you say that group 1 can't accept that "ME2 has flaws". Of course it does. It just has less of them than ME1 did.

Does ME2 have a metric ton of sidequests? No, and it definately could use more. Was ME1's tons of sidequests any fun? No, a whole lot of them involved driving around with Mako in mountains which alone was tedious, topped off with either a bunker, funky on-ground building or a mine. Or rarer instances, a freighter (which again, was the same over an over again). ME2 has less, but made them all unique, they aren't just lazily copypasted. I'd love to see more, especially in the way ME1's sidequests expanded on the lore of the world. Possibly the Hammerhead DLC expands on that, since there's absolutely no content ingame now, where a tank would be useful, but it might as well be just one map where the tank can be used. Or then it's a dozen additional worlds to explore, which should make everyone happy.

Does ME2 have metric ton of weapons and armor? No. But the few it has are of higher quality. Sniper rifles in ME1 were all the same; they just had different numbers, and a different color. They didn't function any differently from eachother, unlike the ME2's rifles which include fast firing rifles with lower damage, and the massive damage dealing slow monsters. Sure there could be more, there could always be more, but it's not like BW has unlimited money and time to spend on that. A bit more indepth modding system for guns á la ME1 could do some good since the current research system is rather linear (no choosing between higher ROF/lesser damage, or lesser ROF/higher damage, for example).

Looting boxes in ME1 was essentially useless after a while, as huge majority what boxes had was inferior weapons, which was just ended up sold (until you had max of 10 million credits) after which you could either tediously omnigel them (of just stop opening the bloody boxes altogether). ME2 economy in that regard is much better, you can't buy every single thing, and there's limited amount of money, you have to prioritize what you want. Some complain about they can't afford everything as it was a bad thing. You couldn't afford everything in Dragon Age either, the top-end gear sold in shops was way too expensive to buy more than 1-3 bits of them on average play through. Sure I wouldn't mind ME2 having a loot system that has better inventory, feeds less garbage to my pockets and so on, but as it is, ME2's system is better. ME3 could re-introduce it all I care, but I wouldn't really cry about it missing from ME3 either. 

Sure, level cap got axed to 30 from 60, most of skills got axed off, all skills were compacted to 4 steps. ME1's skills had 12 steps, ME2 has 4. But it costs 10 points to max a skill in ME2 due to the costs getting higher. And each step in ME2 gives a larger benefit than in ME1. ME2 just simplifies it a bit by compressing ME1 skill of, say, Tactical Armor from 12 steps to 4 steps with 1st step giving Shield Boost, 2nd step giving Advanced Shield Boost, and 3rd step giving Master Shield Boost, with 4th step evolving it to more specialized skill of your choice.

I don't really cry after loss of weapon proficiency skills, nor armor wearing skills, nor the Charm/Intimidate. I'd always end up maxing the weapon of my choice, armor, paragon/renegade attribute. Plus it doesn't really make sense for Shepard being unable to use pistols accurately in first place, (s)he's been in the military a long time, and titled hero more than once!

Mass Effect has been more about the story, universe and lore first and foremost. Inventory and skill systems are more or less supporting bits to it, while I certainly would be upset if it was completely removed. For collecting massive amounts of loot and building a massive skill sheet, I'd play ARPG like Diablo. For the story, I'll play an RPG like the Mass Effect universe.

td;dr: Mass Effect 2 is awesome, Mass Effect 1 not so much, Mass Effect 3 stands to improve from ME2 regardless. Also; maybe awesome DLC coming.

Modifié par Youmu, 06 février 2010 - 08:20 .

[TuringPoint]

Ok. You know, I'd like to really analyze the two games in-depth with how many choices each had, the types of choices, etc. The linear thing, I don't mind, because ME 2 is a little more hand-crafted as a total experience. Open ended games like Morrowind or Space Rangers lose my interest quickly because of how much content is re-used in order to create that open-endedness. I would've liked more exploration, and while I may be disappointed by that lacking in ME 2, I find the rest far too compelling to care all that much. The two games are at least equal in my mind, but I found ME 2 to be a lot more intense and engrossing for all its linear qualities.

[Canez fan 1988]

ME2Shephard wrote...

Canez fan 1988 wrote...

Sirsmirkalot wrote...

I'm a group 2 person.

ME1 

Superior locations
While the locations in both games offer a variety of differant worlds, the places in mass effect 1 have a lot more immersion. Part of is due to their superior individual stories along with their place in the main storyline (more on this below).

I stopped reading there. You can't be serious.

Again someone who can't face the fact that someone has difference in opinion. Again ignorance is bliss.

For once I would like see someone who enjoyed ME2 more than the first be more open to constructive criticism.

It's one thing to have a different opinion, its a whole another thing to have an opinion that is so far out in left field that it can't be comprehended. I don't deny any flaws in ME2, but that is definitly not one of them.

[TuringPoint]

Canez is trying to explain ^

ME2Shephard wrote...

There is the post of which Canez commented on. You apparently didn't read this either so that's why I'm posting it for you again. He has pro's on both games. He doesn't completely bash ME2. There is your constructive criticism alocormin

Well, you misunderstood me.  I wasn't exactly saying I agreed with Canez, and I wasn't saying anyone was one-sided bashing ME 2.  They were just ignoring many of the good qualities of ME 2 and only mentioning, in brief, the most minor improvements.  

Canez, I think what this guy thinks of as superior locations is defined by being a generic sized box with some terrain to bounce across and maybe come across something of marginally unique value, with some random generator mechanics thrown in for good measure, which don't make one play through all that different from the next.

But Sirsmirkalot didn't explain this, so it was a little confusing.

Modifié par Alocormin, 06 février 2010 - 08:26 .

[Andorfiend]

Alocormin wrote...

ME 1 had a more well-defined main plot progression. Being able to argue with Saren was interesting, and there was nothing like that in ME 2. With all the possibility of intrigue and drama that indoctrination created in ME 1, there was none of that in ME 2. It was just about surviving. The saving grace was that ME 2 was better told.

I'd say the story-telling is much better and more polished in ME 2. ME 1 had text boxes and generic levels (using boxes to change things up, seriously?), a mildly crappy graphics engine for its generation (varied vistas on each planet, but nothing as dramatic as the horizon on Ilium), and static conversations (really, really striking improvement. The vast majority of people criticising ME 2 still consent to how much better ME 2 was at conveying the story successfully in these ways). ME 2 was cinematic, gripping, and entertaining in ways ME 1 never approached. It is not just fanboyism talking here, there really are tangible ways ME 2 is a significant step forward. The type of story they were trying to tell might've been difficult to sell, but some of us were sold.

It's true that ME 2 has superior tools for conveying a story. The interactive cutscenes in particular. But ME 1 told a better story with it's weaker tools. It also had a much stronger antagonist. Saren was a villian you could love to hate. You argued with him, fought him, disagreed with him, strove to understand him, and in the end maybe even gave him a brief moment of redemption. In ME 2 the split the antagonist into two beings and they were both weaker for it. You could argue with TIM but not shoot him and you could shoot Harbinger ( again and again and again) but not talk with him. Tim and Harbinger together are still not half the antagonist that Saren was.

[TuringPoint]

I agree, Saren was a stronger antagonist. But I found it very refreshing that they went away from focusing on the antagonist/protagonist formula, which is the formula they've used for every single game, and a formula which has its own flaws - at least in my view. One flaw is that it overshadows the rest of the world with the protagonist and antagonist, and the inhuman nature of the Reapers would never have been presented to the player. I for one appreciate that they were doing something different, rather than thinking they should've done everything in the same basic way with improvements. Not every story has to be about an antagonist and a protagonist to be a decent story.

So some people love to play games with an inspiringly interesting antagonist.  So do I.  But that also limits the sort of storytelling you can do.

There is a sort of antagonist for the War Hero Shepard, in Haliat.  The Sole Survivor background has no antagonist, unless you want to consider it Cerberus - and yet it isn't Cerberus that defines a SS Shepard, but the fact that he survived a surprise Thresher Maw attack.  I find this interesting.  I like to think about the way the world and environment puts pressure on an individual to mark what direction they head in, and to me it seems like a very mature type of storytelling.  I really like it.

But I still think you have a point, all that considered.  Bioware could've done a better job of making the pressure of the suicide mission evident in the psychology of each follower, which they only did to a very limited degree by saying the generic, "completing unfinished business so... wait, what was the explanation?  Yeah.  So we aren't distracted during the mission."  I mean, it kind of made sense, but it wasn't presented all that well.  So I definitely think ME 2 could've been more cohesive.

Ah!  Thank you for giving me a chance to consider my thoughts like this.  This has been valuable.

Modifié par Alocormin, 06 février 2010 - 08:43 .

[ME2Shephard]

So you are saying his opinion is wrong then? If it so far out in "left field" as you claim it can't be comprehended and should hold no merit? If you actually read his post then you would have read his points hold merit. The end mission screens would be like if I went to a movie theatre and then,  just as the climax hits, BAM, someones cell phone rings, taking me out of the "movie theatre expierence." That's what he was trying to say. All I was trying to say is that maybe you should continue read the post and then come up with a conclusion from there. He still had good things to say about ME2.

Edit: This was directed towards Canez, no one else

Modifié par ME2Shephard, 06 février 2010 - 08:43 .

[TuringPoint]

ME2Shephard wrote...

So you are saying his opinion is wrong then? If it so far out in "left field" as you claim it can't be comprehended and should hold no merit? If you actually read his post then you would have read his points hold merit. The end mission screens would be like if I went to a movie theatre and then,  just as the climax hits, BAM, someones cell phone rings, taking me out of the "movie theatre expierence." That's what he was trying to say. All I was trying to say is that maybe you should continue read the post and then come up with a conclusion from there. He still had good things to say about ME2.

No, no one is saying it's wrong, they're just saying it's out in left field.  His points  hold merit, sure.  But some of his points aren't justified by any sort of evidence or explanation.

And there's no reason he should have to justify his points.  They stand on their own as his qualitative opinion.  Neither should anyone with a completely different subjective opinion have to justify disagreement when they aren't even given solid grounds for disagreeing.  

Modifié par Alocormin, 06 février 2010 - 08:39 .

[ME2Shephard]

Alocormin wrote...

I agree, Saren was a stronger antagonist. But I found it very refreshing that they went away from focusing on the antagonist/protagonist formula, which is the formula they've used for every single game, and a formula which has its own flaws - at least in my view. One flaw is that it overshadows the rest of the world with the protagonist and antagonist, and the inhuman nature of the Reapers would never have been presented to the player. I for one appreciate that they were doing something different, rather than thinking they should've done everything in the same basic way with improvements. Not every story has to be about an antagonist and a protagonist to be a decent story.

So some people love to play games with an inspiringly interesting antagonist.  So do I.  But that also limits the sort of storytelling you can do.

There is a sort of antagonist for the War Hero Shepard, in Haliat.  The Sole Survivor background has no antagonist, unless you want to consider it Cerberus - and yet it isn't Cerberus that defines a SS Shepard, but the fact that he survived a surprise Thresher Maw attack.  I find this interesting.  I like to think about the way the world and environment puts pressure on an individual to mark what direction they head in, and to me it seems like a very mature type of storytelling.  I really like it.

But I still think you have a point, all that considered.  Bioware could've done a better job of making the pressure of the suicide mission evident in the psychology of each follower, which they only did to a very limited degree by saying the generic, "completing unfinished business so... wait, what was the explanation?  Yeah.  So we aren't distracted during the mission."  I mean, it kind of made sense, but it wasn't presented all that well.  So I definitely think ME 2 could've been more cohesive.

Ah!  Thank you for giving me a chance to consider my thoughts like this.  This has been valuable.

Now you and I have something in common. True Saren was a better antagonist but having TIM , Harbinger, and the Collectors I thought made up for it. The story in my mind was still great, although I wished you fought the collectors more than 3 missions and only heard about them having dealing with the Vorcha when recruiting Mordin. I still thoroughly enjoyed it. I wish that they would have been involved more when it came to the recruiting quests though. Like in the first game, it was all about the Geth and you fought them where ever you went. In ME2, the Collectors didn't make me feel like they were a major threat. But learning about Harbinger and TIM, that made it more interesting. The was still that conflict between Paragon Shepard and Cerberus.

@Alocormin: Very well spoken. I have no response to what to your above post. That was very well put and I couldn't agree with you more.

Modifié par ME2Shephard, 06 février 2010 - 09:01 .

[TuringPoint]

Shepard had to fight and be a pillar of strength. If you measure a hero against an antagonist, and that's the primary focus, then the only story you're telling is whether or not the hero is better than the antagonist. A little boring. Good dialogue - I liked trying to convince Saren he was wrong, although I would've liked more in ME 1.

[Canez fan 1988]

ME2Shephard wrote...

So you are saying his opinion is wrong then? If it so far out in "left field" as you claim it can't be comprehended and should hold no merit? If you actually read his post then you would have read his points hold merit. The end mission screens would be like if I went to a movie theatre and then,  just as the climax hits, BAM, someones cell phone rings, taking me out of the "movie theatre expierence." That's what he was trying to say. All I was trying to say is that maybe you should continue read the post and then come up with a conclusion from there. He still had good things to say about ME2.

Edit: This was directed towards Canez, no one else

First and foremost, an opinion cannot be wrong. That's why it's an opinion.

Secondly, I specifically quoted a segment of his post because that is what immediately stuck out to me. End mission screens were bad. However your cinema analogy is a bit of an exaggeration as to why they are useless.
 
Anyways, I didn't thoroughly read his post because that one statement he made completely eroded any credibility he had in my eyes.

Modifié par Canez fan 1988, 06 février 2010 - 09:19 .

[ME2Shephard]

@Canez: Fair enough. I can understand you logic there. And I know an opinion can't be wrong... I didn't think that I would have had to say that but. About the end mission screens exaggeration, I could give you about commercials instead. It was a simile so of course it was going to be exaggerated.