429 réponses à ce sujet

[Few87]

I think the story of Mass Effect 1 had a lot more tension and epicness about it. Though ME2 had far better gameplay and conversations. They are both as good as each other

[Balerion84]

Overall I like ME2 more. It's more fun to play, improved cinematic feeling and the combat is great. Though I miss some things from ME1 (more equipment and stats).

Side-quests in ME2 are way better than in ME1.
Scanning for resources is boring and tedious and driving the Mako in ME1 was a pain in the ass. It's hard to control, it's jumping all over the place, planets were boring and some of those hills you had to drive over were ridiculous.
I hope they can come up with something better for ME3. Side-quests in ME2 are a good start. Enviroments and tasks were nicely varied, not the same thing over and over like in ME1. Wish there was more of them. Now they just had to figure out what to do about scanning.
I really want vehicle exploration either in DLC for ME2 or for ME3, but they have to figure out something better than ME1 Mako.

Modifié par Balerion84, 18 février 2010 - 12:38 .

[Flash_in_the_flesh]

Schneidend wrote...

I find ME2 to be superior in every conceivable way.

This.

[Your Synthetic Superior]

I liked ME2 better overall, though both are great. I play them as one big game, only playing 2 after playing through 1.

ME2 pros:
The shipboard and mission dialog was better.
The gameplay was WAY better. In ME1 you had too much shield and health and could pretty much run into a crowd of enemies and own them singlehandly. By the end of the game just pointing my crosshairs at an enemy equaled instant death for them. I liked that the difficulty stayed the same throughout staying at somewhat challenging, instead of going from easy to "I can't possibly lose". I recall on the prison ship there was a bug where the squad stopped advancing and shooting and I'd quickly get owned by superior numbers and they started to flank me. That's how it should be.

ME1 pros: Squadmates didn't seem like dead weight in mission conversations like ME2. Unless the mission involved a particular character they just stood around like mutes. I liked how you got different dialog and responses depending on who you brought and they had a set of remarks for each location and not just at a one time thing at a particular predetermined spot.

ME1, did have a better ending. It was far more emotional and I'd compare it to the ending of Return of the Jedi which was more epic. Where ME2 was more like the ending of Terminator Salvation: won the battle, but not the war. Although, I think that was intentional. And like someone else said, you start ME1 knowing nothing. There are no huge surprises because you already know what the threat is (i.e. no startling revelations) in ME2.

I can't really say the storyline is better in ME1. They are constructed differently. In ME1 there is one encompassing storyline. In ME2 there are several personal stories with the main story kinda in the backgorund the whole time. But I did like those personal stories and why I believe the squad you have will continue on into ME3. I assume it will return to its roots with a heavy story driven game. A search for answer that will give more startling revelations and some interspecies liltary diplomacy.

Modifié par Your Synthetic Superior, 18 février 2010 - 01:05 .

[Max Brodie]

Flash_in_the_flesh wrote...

Schneidend wrote...

I find ME2 to be superior in every conceivable way.

This.

NOT this.

I find ME1 to be better in every conceivable way.  Story, gameplay, mechanics, performance & stability, the lot. 

I'm a P.C. player by the way, don't know how either game performed on the 360.

For me ME1 is a 10, ME2 is an 8.5.

[OneBadAssMother]

I have tons of playthroughs for ME1, but so far only one for ME2, but I like ME2 more as a game.



I am hoping to find the time to create a brand new character and relive the entire experience once again!

[Nokterne]

Both game are incredible but ME2 is just so damn polished and fun, I have to give it the nod.

[Obadiah]

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. :/
...

I really enjoyed the Mako partions of the hub quests in the ME1. Bioware should have kept those for ME2. Those made the areas seem HUGE, and the quests there a bit more epic.

Modifié par Obadiah, 18 février 2010 - 02:15 .

[Andorfiend]

lumen11 wrote...

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.

Gotta disagree with you on this. Equipment customization is not only reduced in the number of power levels. In ME 1 the armour customization system allowed me tune the specific aspects of the armour I wanted (I.E. Damage resistance vs Shields vs Biotic/Toxic damage) as well as add entirely new abilities to the armour like health regen or improved melee damage. I could also customize my squads apperance from the coolness of everybody in black and red Colossus to the visual horror of Wrex in Phoenix armour.  ALL of this is missing from ME 2, instead we get to boost shields from going down in 2.1 hits to going down in 2.3 hits. Whoop-de-freaking-do. Oh, and we get a palette swap for 'new armour' which in Garrus's case is somehow still just as shot-up as his old armour.

Likewise with the guns whole gameplay subsystems were stripped out (the radar jamming vs scanning mods), some of the aspects of mods were shifted into the powers system (no matter how little sense that may make), the number of models was sharply reduced, the customizability of the mod system was thrown out the window and worst of all we now get no information whatsoever in game with which to compare the different guns. I find that last most inexcusable, it verges on insulting.

You may, for whatever reason, prefer the ME 2 system, but please don't try to tell me it's not a stripped down shadow of the ME 1 system.

[islandfishguy]

The mako and planet exploration in ME1 wasn't perfect.



But compared to planet scanning in ME2 it was the stone cold nuts.



Planet scanning should be stripped from the ME franchise and exiled to a long forgotten corner of the universe (Unless it's like ME1 where you just click on the planet and accumulate resources).



NO MORE TEDIOUS PLANET SCANNING! PLEASE!



Other than that I prefer ME2 - quality game, absolutely gripping (Though I wouldn't complain if the more detailed RPG stuff came back for ME3)..

[OneBadAssMother]

Hahaha, agreed, planet scanning puts me to sleep...

[captain venus]

ME1 is far far superior. Sequels nearly always fail because designers feel they have to update everything and make everything BETTER than it was; and in doing so ruin everything that was good about it.



True, that the MAKO was irritating to drive on some planets; but a better solution would be to simply have a vehicle that can fly like a dropship; rather than scrap the whole idea and make that idiotic scanner nonsense.



True, that the inventory system got really silly by the end of the game in Me1; having to endlessly scroll through hundreds of weapons, upgrades, ammo, armour etc. Again a better idea would be to approach the inventory system in a better way rather than to do away with the whole idea completley.



The GUI in ME2 is really Irritating, I spend my whole time fighting with the controls...getting stuck on cover, sprinting into objects and moving around the battlefield in really cumbersome and awkward way; Me1's crouch and movement system feels far better and more natural.



The storyline in Me2 is far less engaging, the characters have actually DEVOLVED, and the player choices have been railroaded into corners with no real effects resulting from what descions are made.



Me2 overall has none of that special Bioware *magic feeling* that I usually get when playing Bioware games; Me2 feels cynical, awkward and tedious.



I'd rate ME1 with a good 9/10 and ME2 with a poor 3/10

[Balerion84]

captain venus wrote...

I spend my whole time fighting with the controls...getting stuck on cover,

Really? I thought the cover in ME2 was a lot better. I never got glued to a wall by the game when I didn't want to. That was quite irritating in ME1 when I wanted to go around something and the game decided that I don't want to go around that wall, but actually hug it.
Interesting.

[Space Shot]

ME2 in all respects.

Better story. Better gameplay. Better features. Better customization suite (we actually have it in a true sense now.)  Better characterization. Better graphics.  Better loading.  Better acting.  Better distributed checkpoints.  Better balanced.  Better mechanics.  Better developed.  *breath*...Better everything.

Modifié par Space Shot, 18 février 2010 - 03:09 .

[lumen11]

Andorfiend wrote...

lumen11 wrote...

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.

Gotta disagree with you on this. Equipment customization is not only reduced in the number of power levels. In ME 1 the armour customization system allowed me tune the specific aspects of the armour I wanted (I.E. Damage resistance vs Shields vs Biotic/Toxic damage) as well as add entirely new abilities to the armour like health regen or improved melee damage. I could also customize my squads apperance from the coolness of everybody in black and red Colossus to the visual horror of Wrex in Phoenix armour.  ALL of this is missing from ME 2, instead we get to boost shields from going down in 2.1 hits to going down in 2.3 hits. Whoop-de-freaking-do. Oh, and we get a palette swap for 'new armour' which in Garrus's case is somehow still just as shot-up as his old armour.

Likewise with the guns whole gameplay subsystems were stripped out (the radar jamming vs scanning mods), some of the aspects of mods were shifted into the powers system (no matter how little sense that may make), the number of models was sharply reduced, the customizability of the mod system was thrown out the window and worst of all we now get no information whatsoever in game with which to compare the different guns. I find that last most inexcusable, it verges on insulting.

You may, for whatever reason, prefer the ME 2 system, but please don't try to tell me it's not a stripped down shadow of the ME 1 system.

I'm sorry but I am going to tell you just that. But before I do that I should exlain that when something is cut to be replaced by another mechanism I don't consider it to be a reduction even when you don't get to twiddle as many dials as before.

You still get to customise things like health regeneration, melee damage, additional power damage for your armor. I'll grant you there is less finetuning, but what difference does that make really?

Armor resistances are indeed gone, but that's because armour and shielding works differently now. I'm not sure I really like the system of stripping enemies of defences but that's another issue. Still, in the new system you have to choose which abilities and weapons to use to strip an enemy of its defences most effectively and that brings its own kind of customisation

As for customising your squadmates' appearence. That would be nice, but only if they can guarantee the same amount of detail as they have now. I'm not sure that is possible. Now your squadmates look unique, which has its own advantages

In short. If you mean to say that the number of actual customisation choises has been reduced, then you are right. But in my oppinion customisation has been streamlined and made more meaningful, and as such (although far from perfect) works better in the context of these games. So yes, much more than a shadow.

I suspect many people are looking for the illusion of customisation. I called it meaningless before, but I don't mean to suggest it's stupid. Much of the game experience relies on various forms of illusion. And I can certainly understand the charm of fiddling around with minute stat changing item bonuses, but to my mind that doesn't create complexity in a game. I just don't see how the customisation options you had in ME1 and didn't in ME2 made the game any more demanding or interesting.

Modifié par lumen11, 18 février 2010 - 03:20 .

[spm1138]

I've been trying to replay ME the first and for the most part ME2 is a far superior game.
Of the stuff that has gone I find myself missing very little and quite glad to see the back of several things from ME1.
I felt like the story structure to ME2 was way better. Doling out the central plotline at regular intervals was a clever move.
Linear nonlinearity or something.

In terms of the actual content of the plot both games had their moments but neither were amazing.

Modifié par spm1138, 18 février 2010 - 03:34 .

[HeavyTankZA]

i like both, ME 1 and 2 both have something i like. 2 while better lacks the Mako



yes i actually liked it

[yoomazir]

spm1138 wrote...

I've been trying to replay ME the first and for the most part ME2 is a far superior game.
Of the stuff that has gone I find myself missing very little and quite glad to see the back of several things from ME1.

 so... actually you've never played ME right? feel free to tell us why.

Modifié par yoomazir, 18 février 2010 - 03:26 .

[catabuca]

Like so many others, I preferred 1 for story and the 'feel' of the game, and 2 for the improvements in combat (apart from a couple of niggles re: biotics and squad talents). Both have plusses and minuses, but I'd say I probably prefer 1 overall.

I'd like to copy in something I just posted on another thread:



Gestalt: the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Bioware has put a lot of time and effort (and money) into improving the distinct parts for ME2. For some they are for the better, for some the worse. But that is by-the-by (since everyone always has preferences over gameplay mechanics, in the strictest possible sense). What is important is that the whole feels lacking. It's not simply because they changed the cover system, the inventory or the lighting on the normandy. It's not because they got rid of the MAKO or elevator banter. It's far more complex than that.

Precisely because Bioware did such a good job of making ME1 emotionally engaging is why many people feel disconnected in ME2. The way people are being asked to engage has fundementally altered (again, through a complex combination of mechanics and storytelling).

This 'trilogy' issue is an interesting one. The game was intended to both act as a continuation of the Mass Effect story, and work as a stand-alone game. Clearly ME2 works very well as a stand-alone game, and that's a worthwhile and financially important goal to have achieved. However, I believe the success of ME2 as the 'middle chapter' or 'second act' of a trilogy is being left to rely on what happens in ME3. This, ultimately, makes the gameplay experience of ME2, for those who are deeply, emotionally invested in the Mass Effect universe from ME1, a disappointment. The intention was to make a game that fulfilled both of these roles, and I think much of our disaffection comes from one of these things being done well, and the other not so well.

[WelshKris]

I think the problem Bioware has encountered when creating this sequel is that they had a good solid game with a few problems (elevators mako inventory management ect). However instead of building and improving on the original game and making improvements they decided to scrap large amounts of their game. Which is fine but essentially they had to start again so have created a new solid game with a few problems (scanning ammo linear gameplay ect). I enjoyed both games but expected more from ME2

[catabuca]

WelshKris wrote...

I think the problem Bioware has encountered when creating this sequel is that they had a good solid game with a few problems (elevators mako inventory management ect). However instead of building and improving on the original game and making improvements they decided to scrap large amounts of their game. Which is fine but essentially they had to start again so have created a new solid game with a few problems (scanning ammo linear gameplay ect). I enjoyed both games but expected more from ME2

I think this is part of the reason ME2 works as a stand-alone game (with niggles) but not as the second installment of a trilogy.

[SkullTang]

The epic story of mass 1 was awesome but all around mass 2 has a better game mechanic and party interaction.

Mass Effect 1,2 should be looked at as one big game since it is going to be trilogy with mass 3 coming out eventually.

[Daveastation]

I enjoyed both games equally. I hope ME3 follows suit and delivers yet another amazing gaming experience.

[spm1138]

yoomazir wrote...

spm1138 wrote...

I've been trying to replay ME the first and for the most part ME2 is a far superior game.
Of the stuff that has gone I find myself missing very little and quite glad to see the back of several things from ME1.

 so... actually you've never played ME right? feel free to tell us why.

L2Read. I said replay.

If you want two examples-
The combat in ME is incredibly so so. The AI is dodgy. The weapons are much less satisfying. Starting a new game from scratch is irritating because despite looking like a shooter you're suffering from being a low level RPG character. There's a lot of very samey prefabs and a lot of levels which just swarm you with very uninteresting enemies. The mission where you get your specialisation for example is terrrrrrible looked at purely as a shooter level (dodgy pathing, dull combat, boring enemies, repetition of the same identical prefab not once but three times) and as I say, it's where you get your specialisation so it's obviously meant to be some sort of moment in the game.
ME2 is a much more enjoyable shooter with much better realised gameplay, levels and mechanics.

ME1's inventory system is terrible. By the end of the game when you've got a full set of SPECTRE master gear and top tier armour it's tolerable but early on you find yourself picking up and slagging a metric f-tonne of near identical weapons and totally rubbish armour/upgrades. It's not even like having all the different items really gives you much sense of variety as despite different stats they really perform very similarly.
The decision to give you different types of gear and have it upgrade with your characters was a very wise one.

There are more.

Modifié par spm1138, 18 février 2010 - 03:51 .

[Andorfiend]

lumen11 wrote...
I'm sorry but I am going to tell you just that. But before I do that I should exlain that when something is cut to be replaced by another mechanism I don't consider it to be a reduction even when you don't get to twiddle as many dials as before.

You still get to customise things like health regeneration, melee damage, additional power damage for your armor. I'll grant you there is less finetuning, but what difference does that make really?

I suspect many people are looking for the illusion of customisation. I called it meaningless before, but I don't mean to suggest it's stupid. Much of the game experience relies on various forms of illusion. And I can certainly understand the charm of fiddling around with minute stat changing item bonuses, but to my mind that doesn't create complexity in a game. I just don't see how the customisation options you had in ME1 and didn't in ME2 made the game any more demanding or interesting.

Well, I will cordially disagree with you about what should be considered a reduction. If someone steals my milspec Humvee with a roof mounted .50 cal and replaces it with a Vespa, I do consider that a reduction in capability.

On to your questions. What difference does it make? A fair amount. In ME 1 I could adjust the whole gameplay by mod choice. Suppose I was getting swarmed by Creepers or Husks, I could opt to load up my guns with toxic or incindiary damage to allow me to spray the room with DOT effects thus bringing down the swarms without needing to whittle them down one at a time. Or I could load up a Sniper rifle or Shotgun with HE rounds and shoot near the mobs feet blasting them about the room and keeping them from reaching me  while my squadmate do the actual killing.

In ME 2 this has been moved into the Powers section, so only the soldier could make those choices. Anyone else would have to choose differetn squadmate to access things like incidiary ammo or concussive shot. My choices have been reduced.

You don't really get to customize things in ME 2. You can improve already existing functions by research or store purchases, but you never get to alter how anything actually works. You can never twiddle withthe game play elements of a gun by chooseing accuracy vs ROF for example.

Does this make the game more demanding or interesting? Demanding? No. Interesting? Yes. Some of us like being able to 'twiddle dials' and see what happens.