429 réponses à ce sujet

[SithLordExarKun]

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...


Because ME1 still did many things better than ME2,

I agree, like how ME1's cut and paste pirate bases and UNC side quests are far superior to ME2.

[awpdevil]

hands down me 2.

[Terror_K]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...


Because ME1 still did many things better than ME2,

I agree, like how ME1's cut and paste pirate bases and UNC side quests are far superior to ME2.

While the places themselves design-wise are not, I do feel the missions related to them were far better integrated into the narrative, universe and game than the N7 Missions were. As admittedly samey as the ME1 UNC missions were, at least some of them had you properly introduced into them via the likes of Admiral Hackett, Nassana Dantius, Helena Blake, etc. and also provided you with some unique dialogue moments from you and your crew and even a moral decision to make and a showdown with somebody. The N7 were admittedly a little more original and varied, but felt incredibly lazy and tacked-on, with almost no interaction between you and anybody, next to no dialogue, very few moral choices and barely any proper set-ups or conclusions. Especially with ones that involved you finding datapads all over the place that are apparently your enemies communicating with each other about your presence. Quite frankly they felt more like poorly tacked-on DLC rather than part of the original game... the ME1 sidequests at least felt properly integrated.

Both methods are flawed for sidequests in different ways, and the answer to what would work best is neither and both. I hope BioWare takes this into account with ME3 that gives us the varied sidequests in different and original locales of ME2, but with the integration, presentation and depth of the ME1 ones.

[SithLordExarKun]

Terror_K wrote...

While the places themselves design-wise are not, I do feel the missions related to them were far better integrated into the narrative, universe and game than the N7 Missions were. As admittedly samey as the ME1 UNC missions were, at least some of them had you properly introduced into them via the likes of Admiral Hackett, Nassana Dantius, Helena Blake, etc. and also provided you with some unique dialogue moments from you and your crew and even a moral decision to make and a showdown with somebody. The N7 were admittedly a little more original and varied, but felt incredibly lazy and tacked-on, with almost no interaction between you and anybody, next to no dialogue, very few moral choices and barely any proper set-ups or conclusions.

Incredibly lazy and tacked on? Thats excatly  how i felt about the UNC missions about the first game.
I didn't mind driving around the mako on UNCs but what sense of "exploration" is there when its simply the same planet with different textures with the same generic pirate bases?

The few lines of dialogue didn't change the fact that the UNC missions were horribly designed, yes, the N7 missions too had flaws such as being too short and not much dialogue but it was a breath of fresh air driving on cut-and-paste-with-different-texture planets.

But i would agree with you to a certain extent about the dialogue about the missions being intoduced to you which felt alot better than randomly landing on some N7 planet.

Terror_K wrote...
Especially with ones that involved you finding datapads all over the place that are apparently your enemies communicating with each other about your presence. Quite frankly they felt more like poorly tacked-on DLC rather than part of the original game... the ME1 sidequests at least felt properly integrated.

  Just like how the UNC missions felt poorly tacked on with the same identical pirate base at every landable UNC planet.

Terror_K wrote...
Both methods are flawed for sidequests in different ways, and the answer to what would work best is neither and both. I hope BioWare takes this into account with ME3 that gives us the varied sidequests in different and original locales of ME2, but with the integration, presentation and depth of the ME1 ones.

Maybe the answer would be to take the best of both and weaknesses of none?

Modifié par SithLordExarKun, 18 février 2010 - 04:27 .

[SSLA_Andy]

Hmm... hard to say. I really liked both storylines in ME1 & ME2. I enjoyed the combat in ME2, but missed the inventory system of ME1. Still, ME2 is my favorite of the two.

[Terror_K]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
Especially with ones that involved you finding datapads all over the place that are apparently your enemies communicating with each other about your presence. Quite frankly they felt more like poorly tacked-on DLC rather than part of the original game... the ME1 sidequests at least felt properly integrated.

  Just like how the UNC missions felt poorly tacked on with the same identical pirate base at every landable UNC planet.

I wouldn't say the UNC missions felt tacked on so much as cut-and-paste really.

Put it this way, the UNC missions felt like BioWare came up with a bunch of interesting situations that were well set-up but integrated in the same rinse-and-repeat manner (find a planet, find a base, kill some guys, have exchange or find object, finish).

N7 missions felt like BioWare came up with a bunch of interesting places, gimmicks and setpieces for varied sidequests, but that they weren't properly set-up and given a proper narrative or integrated properly.

I see it like this: UNC missions are a box of chocolates that despite claiming to be varied are all just filled with the same type of fudge. N7 missions are like a box of chocolates containing many different centres, but BioWare forgot to give them the proper chocolate coating.

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
Both methods are flawed for sidequests in different ways, and the answer to what would work best is neither and both. I hope BioWare takes this into account with ME3 that gives us the varied sidequests in different and original locales of ME2, but with the integration, presentation and depth of the ME1 ones.

Maybe the answer would be to take the best of both and weaknesses of none?

Pretty much, yeah. Give us more missions that are varied and original like the N7 ones, but integrate them better, make them feel more important and give us more dialogue and choices like in the UNC ones.

Modifié par Terror_K, 18 février 2010 - 05:01 .

[WillG027]

Utterly dissapointed in ME2.

They've taken out all of the RPG elements that made the franchise stimulating, and dumbed it down into a shooter.

A big step in the WRONG direction.



I really can't state just how dissapointed I am in Biowares decision to do this considering the massive potential that the ME world has for endless RPG elements, characters and sidequests.



ME2 was an opportunity, with the greater technical abilities of the newer game engine, to really create an RPG experience that a PlayerCharacter could really immerse themselves into.

Instead we get DeadSpace with a better story.

.

I just hope Bioware swings totallly the other way with ME3 and creates a RPG world that we can live in without having to be forced to strafe down a corridor holding a gun most of the time.

[Darth Drago]

Terror_K wrote...

I see it like this: UNC missions are a box of chocolates that despite claiming to be varied are all just filled with the same type of fudge. N7 missions are like a box of chocolates containing many different centres, but BioWare forgot to give them the proper chocolate coating.

Keep in mind though the UNC box of chocolates contained 34 while they had few flavors I got my moneys worth with the quantity.

The N7 box only contained 13 and some of them left a bad after taste in my mouth and left me wondering why they spent all the time with the packaging over quantity and quality.

[Arhka]

Mass Effect 1 for RPG elements, better powers(tech and biotic), and squad. Mass Effect 2 for streamlining some issues from the former, but sacrificing some of 1's advantages. Both for story progression.

[Righteousham]

Overall I would have to say I preferred the first for its story, but liked the combat and upgrade systems from the second.

[bruce302ford]

Terror_K wrote...

Well, I've played through ME2 two and a bit times... just gone back to play ME1 again for another import. I have to say that I prefer the original game having gone back.

ME2 does a lot of stuff better, but they just culled or dumbed-down far too much for my liking. ME2 also doesn't feel quite as polished as the original game... it has fluff like buying fish and model ships, yet doesn't integrate its sidequests as well as ME1 did, hasn't got as many of them and there are far too many samey substitutions for your import decisions rather than actual different consequences that have any real meaning. Too much import related stuff is either merely an easter egg with no real bearing on the story or is relegated to a news report or email. ME1's inventory and looting system may have been a cluttered mess, but I still prefer it to ME2's almost non-existent joke of a system.

I'll fully admit that ME2 has some great writing, presentation and smoother combat. The interrupts are awesome too, and the loyalty missions are all fantastic. I also liked the new Normandy, that characters had more to say and the splitting of skills at the 4th level. But BioWare went to far with their streamlining, and for that, despite it's problems, ME1 is, to me, the superior game. If ME2 hadn't cut too much and had consequences from imports that actually felt like they had an impact on the universe, I'd probably have found it the superior game. Seems like BioWare were more concerned about bringing in the new audience rather than making the game for the existing one, and that seems to include import stuff. The game was supposed to be designed as a trilogy, but ME2 felt too far removed from the original to quite pull that off, and was made far too newcomer-friendly.

Hear-hear. Well said.
Lets just hope that Mass Effect 3 will be some conglomeration of the best features of ME and ME2.  With these great forums and the oh-so-devoted, painstakingly thorough developers at Bioware, we know our comments are not falling on deaf ears.  Three Cheers for the Canadians.

[Andorfiend]

Overall, ME 1 is a better game IMHO. Both are good games. Both have areas where they are better than the other, but ME 1 has more of them.



And, sadly, the areas where ME 2 shines are more about flash, and less meat and potatos. Visually, ME 2 is far superior. Graphics are better, the levels are better looking, the background vistas are gorgeous, the framerate is better, and the level designs are more varied.



In terms of plot, dialogue, drama, character growth, and RPG crunchiness ME 1 wins hands down. In terms of interesting characters I'd give the nod to ME 2 for having a full spectrum of interesting characters, although it does lose points for having fewer places and ways to interact with those characters and for having no discernable villian after the excellent Saren/Sovereign duo in ME 1. And it wasn't because the plot didn't allow it either. It would have been perfectly possible to build the Collector General/Harbinger into an interesting antagonist, all it would have taken were a few actual dialogues with him, instead he just shouts silly insults and boasts about how unstoppable he is as you blast him into ash for the umpteenth time. Weak.



While the inventory of ME 1 was flawed due to a lack of basic utility functions like sorting, stacking and bulk sales I do think the mod system had more depth and interest than ME 2s lackluster upgrade system.



The combat systems of both have flaws. ME 2s has more polish, but I find it really, really annoying that I seem to be forced to use a machine pistol because nothing else in the game has enough ammo. That sucks out loud. Also I miss maps and my radar screen and I find it really annoying that I can apparently shoot a teammate because he walked behind my character but between him and the camera. That's just stupid.



The Mako from the first was not a bad concept, but it's appalling handling was legendary and the fact that every planet in the galaxy seems to be infested with mountain ranges that make the Alps look like pimples didn't help. Nontheless I'm not sure the mindless scanning system is an improvement. I call it a draw. :/



I think the new system of fewer but more distinctive powers in ME 2 is an improvement, although I don't think shields/armour should negate throw and pull. I do also like it that each squadmate get's a distinct power. (Although some are just reskins like Barrier/Fortification.)

[wangon]

Andorfiend wrote...


The Mako from the first was not a bad concept, but it's appalling handling was legendary and the fact that every planet in the galaxy seems to be infested with mountain ranges that make the Alps look like pimples didn't help. Nontheless I'm not sure the mindless scanning system is an improvement. I call it a draw. :/
)

wrong.  i could shoot, run over, or blow up anything from space cows mercs or geth ( the big turtle looking geth and space cows being my favorite hit and runs).  Planet scanning would have been a bad idea for a sega genesis game let alone a X-Box 360 game.  And while the giant mountains were anoying for grid scans, once you finally climbed thats monster mountain running the mako off the cliff was a blast.  Finally, the first time i landed on the moon and watched the earth come up over the horizen i thought that was the cooled thing, looking at and orb with a square grid pattern not so much

ME1 > ME2 
With collecting my team and then heading to the end boss, ME2 is the first disc and the last hour or so of a normal 2-4 disc RPG,

Modifié par wangon, 18 février 2010 - 06:54 .

[bjdbwea]

ME 1 all the way. More polished, story miles ahead of ME 2, better missions, larger levels, planet exploring, RPG elements, an inventory, way less dumbed down... ME 1 all the way.

[hubris0]

There's a lot in ME2 I thought were improvements, like Interrupts (though they should have been more common), side-mission maps that aren't cookie-cutter, character deaths based on your choices, infighting on your team, and making Heavy Weapons so much more useful than grenades were in ME1. I loved Samara and Thane, progressing the geth, and the creepiness of Harbinger (at first, before it started to get old and annoying),

On the other hand, I felt genuinely insulted the first time I saw the words "Press F to End the Mission" on my screen, they replaced the genuinely-awful Mako with no planetary exploration at all, the shallow leveling system made me feel completely pigeonholed in my abilities, the Bypass minigame is an abomination, and the "hub" worlds and the Citadel felt limited. Also, many of the fights weren't challenging, or even hard, but just really, really, really long.

So, if complexity, depth, and customization were the only factors, it would solidly be ME1. However, that dang Mako--with its center of gravity six feet over its roof and shock absorbers ordered from the Acme company and installed by Willey Coyote--might be enough of a strike against ME1 to make ME2 the winner.

Modifié par hubris0, 18 février 2010 - 06:53 .

[Keithhy]

I have to say I liked ME2 more, although ME1 definitely had more things going for it.

The reason being: ME2 may have had less depth and an infinitely less dramatic story (save for the final mission - which was still inferior to the battle of the Citadel), but it did nearly everything else better. Ammo, so that you can't just spam bullets, reliance on your squad, more shooter elements, and hopefully, the Hammerhead.

So while I found ME1 to be a more interesting and dramatic game, I probably had slightly more fun in ME2.



Here's hoping ME3 is the best of both! (And that we don't end up owning the reapers with Dark Energy. That would be totally dog on Bioware's part.

[Johndoex9112]

ME2 was superior in every way over mass effect 1 gameplay, story, etc. that's not to say that ME1 wasn't amazing.

[laughing sherpa girl]

I cant separate them. I see them as a continuum. Some functions of ME1 are better than ME2 and some functions of ME2 are better than ME1. Irregardless, even though in ME1 you were playing a game, in ME2 that game becomes an epic story that your a part of. This is still in light of the fact that ME2 is far more action oriented. Speaking of action, for those wanting to be superman and stand up when under fire.. Better talk with some vets.. You plant you die, you stand, you die.. Combat in ME2 is far more realistic, but so is the underlying story. It really doesnt matter how you end ME2. your actions are going to have dire effects in ME3. its all down to how you accept the consequences for your decisions in ME2 that will effect the story in ME3.. I really like that.. very very subtle..

[Forest03]

Game mechanics (for the most part) and mission designs (environmental, tactical), character design, and the player's ability to affect the game world's future are much better in ME2. Some may argue on the latter, but remember that there are 3 squad members (Tali, Legion, Mordin) whose personal missions and the way the player finished them could have drastic influences on events in ME3. ME1, though more cohesive, was quite linear.

Plot and gameplay integration, immersion, and "role play" are far superior in ME1. The gameplay was very well integrated with the main plot. Every time you added a character to your team, every time you visited a major planet, it got you closer to attaining your goals of defeating Saren and gathering information about the Reapers. It sometimes felt like you were being led by the nose, but you knew that the role your main character played meant something to the ME universe - and certainly a hell of a lot more than it did in ME2. ME2 sent you all over the place, and yet only a few missions were plot-critical, and most of the new team members were nothing but cannon fodder.

ME2's interface and the way it handled inventory are way better. It was simplified in order to allow the player to spend more time on the action and interacting with the NPCs and squad members. Granted, the overall narrative was about as shallow as camel spit drying in the Sahara, but at least they made the characters varied and the dialogue interesting. Some of the item customizations should not have been removed, but the slight improvement in the skills compensated for this. As for the complaints about the skill trees themselves, notice that much of the whining has to do with the nerfing and cheesballing of the Adepts. Personally, I found all the other classes balanced and adequate.

Unfortunately, ME2 focused way too much on working for the squad members instead of further plot progression, even though a few characters (old and new) have now had their roles expanded with a potential to greatly affect ME3's plot elements. The narrative barely had anything to do with the original (and still the main) plot, which is finding a way to defend against - and possibly destroy - the Reapers.

In short, I enjoyed the story surrounding ME1 a whole lot more, if much of the gameplay (including driving that bloody useless Mako around) was mediocre. On the other hand, I was pleasantly surprised with the mission design and overall gameplay of ME2, but severely disappointed with the lack of an underlying plot and its failure to bring the main character closer to a resolution regarding the Reapers.

1. A game that, albeit well-written and seamless, piled on meaningless time sinks in and out of bland, often empty environments, and allowed for such limited variability and influence from the player that it ended up being little more than an interactive movie.

2. An action-packed game with great mechanics and environments, backed by a large supporting cast of characters who, however colorful and well designed, serve as mere cannon fodder in what boils down to nothing more than a rescue mission, and wrapped in transparent story that lacks any substance whatsoever.

You tell me which is worse.

/end rant


Objective conclusion: Which one is the *better* game? Neither. They both sucked hard enough in a major way that I wouldn't pick one over the other as superior.

Subjective conclusion: Which one did I find more memorable and intriguing enough that I would play it again before ME3 arrives? ME2, of course, and not just because it was more recent. Its replay factor is simply higher.

Modifié par Forest03, 18 février 2010 - 07:48 .

[SithLordExarKun]

Terror_K wrote...



I wouldn't say the UNC missions felt tacked on so much as cut-and-paste really.

Really? What about the cut and paste planet/textures, landing sequence and pirate bases? The only thing that actually were varied were the situations and dialogue.

Seems pretty much cut and paste to me.

Terror_K wrote...
Put it this way, the UNC missions felt like BioWare came up with a bunch of interesting situations that were well set-up but integrated in the same rinse-and-repeat manner (find a planet, find a base, kill some guys, have exchange or find object, finish).

Yes, the set up was done rather well with the dialogue and situation but its all played through the same way with one another with those cut and paste sequences and bases which makes it incredibly predictable and boring.

Lets say admiral hackett told me to investigate planet X because of situation A, it would be played out exactly  the same way as planet Z with situation B despite different dialogues and set ups.

Terror_K wrote...
N7 missions felt like BioWare came up with a bunch of interesting places, gimmicks and setpieces for varied sidequests, but that they weren't properly set-up and given a proper narrative or integrated properly.

Yes but unlike the first games UNC's, the worlds look distinctively different from one another but it does suffer the flaws you mentioned.

Terror_K wrote...
I see it like this: UNC missions are a box of chocolates that despite claiming to be varied are all just filled with the same type of fudge. N7 missions are like a box of chocolates containing many different centres, but BioWare forgot to give them the proper chocolate coating.



Pretty much, yeah. Give us more missions that are varied and original like the N7 ones, but integrate them better, make them feel more important and give us more dialogue and choices like in the UNC ones.

Yes, this they need to work on.

I am not arguing that N7 missions are vastly superior to ME1's UNC missions, i am just simply stating that N7's are a breath of fresh air seeing its not the same lifeless planet with a new texture. I was afterall not so happy with most of the N7 missions.

bjdbwea wrote...

ME 1 all the way. More polished,
story miles ahead of ME 2, better missions, larger levels,
planet exploring, RPG elements, an inventory, way less dumbed down...
ME 1 all the way.

You must be joking.

Modifié par SithLordExarKun, 18 février 2010 - 08:08 .

[OperationOwnage]

3. About equal.

ME2 is more polished but they're both epic so if one scores 99,8 the other might be 99,7. No relevant difference.

[LittleDoggie]

ME2 in every way .... tho I really liked ME1. ME2 just blew me away with how good it was and how involved it made me feel.

[lumen11]

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...

lumen11 wrote...

Why is it heartening?
And I have a hard time believing you exhausted everything in one playthrough. I'm in my third playthrough now and finding plenty of new stuff.

Because ME1 still did many things better than ME2, and if ME3 is going to be the grand finale and undisputed best of the trilogy, it will need both what ME1 AND ME2 excelled at in equal measure. ME2 side stepped in many areas, instead of taking steps forward. Not everything in ME3 should be about what to take from ME2. Seeing folks stating their prefence for ME1 will remind the devs of that.

Fair enough.

Although I don't think they did much sidestepping. Putting the inventory on the Normandy is a calculated choice. So is removing planet exploration in favour of including limited but infinitely more diverse and atmospheric locations on planets. Equipment customisation is ONLY reduced in the number of power levels for each item.  (Colossus IX armour didn't do the game any favours.) Instead they decided to focus on creating meaningful customisation with weapons that actually work differently and armour that can be modified to suit different styles of gameplay.

I get that you might not agree with all these decisions but like I said, it isn't sidestepping.

Having said that, I would also like to see them increase some of the rpg elements, but I really hope they won't focus on relatively trivial stuff such as equipment.

For example, I would like them to include roleplaying options that are tailored to the individual classes, something I missed when playing ME1 as well. Playing an engineer shouldn't just feel different in combat situations.

I would also like them to create missions that can be played in radically different ways. For example, by allowing you to complete a combat mission without actually shooting anyone, which I know is a cliché but there must be many more ways to offer such differentiation. For the record, I abolutely loved how ME2 offered different types of missions (time pressure levels such as the crates mission, siege-type levels like the Garrus recruitment, roleplaying levels such as the Samara loyalty mission).

I would find it heartening if these things would receive more attention instead of the endless complaining about inventories and makos. I supposed it's subjective, but I feel these things are superficial and destract from the real issues.

Modifié par lumen11, 18 février 2010 - 11:58 .

[indyracing]

Delta426 wrote...

ME2 for gameplay, ME1 for story

This pretty much sums it up, though the story in ME 2 isn't at all what I would call a bad story, just that the ME 1 story is better.

And if this makes any sense, I think they did a better job of actually telling the story of ME 2 better than telling the story of ME 1, but the story in ME 1 is just superior.  I mean things like cutscenes and voice acting are done better in 2 than 1, but what information they convey isn't better in 2 than 1.

[AngryFrozenWater]

ME1