429 réponses à ce sujet

[DarknessKonsumz]

Delta426 wrote...

ME2 for gameplay, ME1 for story

This

[Faust1979]

I'm divided because I like the way the main story plays out in the first game but the second game that game plays better. The story in 2 is alright I just wish the main quest was a little longer.

[Keymonk]

Schneidend wrote...

I find ME2 to be superior in every conceivable way.

This, pretty much. Not entirely, perhaps, but I really did like ME2 somewhat more than the first. That's not to say the first was bad; it was excellent. ME2 is just... better.

Modifié par Keymonk, 12 février 2010 - 07:17 .

[Sphaerus]

For its time, I loved the Hell out of ME1, it was incredibly innovative and was fantastic execution of new ideas. I liked the story of ME1 more (because, frankly, it was the first part of a trilogy, it has to be better than the middle part), but in ME2, I prefer...

-Squadmates

-Gameplay

-Design philosophy

-Game mechanic revisions

-Scanning vs. Mako (in most cases)

-Feeling of "completion"*

-Scale of "epic"**



*- ME2's end fight, for as much as people gripe about it, actually felt way more epic than the whole Saren "thing" going on. Burning down Saren was just annoying. That thing in ME2 actually felt epic.

**- ME1 was very straightforward in its scope which always felt very "doable" in the context of the game. ME2 is excellent about making sure you know "this is going to suck for everyone involved, good luck".

[The Mythical Magician]

ME1.

ME2 disappointed me with the story and how incredibly short it was but still it ain't really a bad game but it didn't top ME1's greatness IMO.

[soren145]

ME2 was simply better in every way, hasn't there been enough of these threads?

[J HG T]

Love them both. But ME2 is just better in many ways. Gameplay, Audiovisuals etc. All have gotten noticeable upgrade from ME1. Also, I don't get people who says ME2s story is weaker than ME1. In its context (2nd act of trilogy) the story of ME2 works wonders and I liked it a lot.



Ah, sorry. Too much talk.

[puggini]

ME1

ME1 just felt more polished. The gameplay was a lot less intriguing, but you didn't get random renegade and paragon points, the XP system worked a lot better than the new mission system, and I preferred the armor/weapon customization as it was.

Oh, and there was no planet scanning...I much, MUCH prefer the Mako to planet scanning.

I did prefer the endgame mission in ME2 to the fight against Saren, though. I thought assigning squadmates to different positions was a pretty cool experience. I also like (most of) the new squadmates a lot. Legion I think is about the most badass thing to come out of the Mass Effect universe.

It's close, but I think ME1 was just a lot cleaner of a presentation. I think in BioWare's attempt to appease complaints as well as streamline the game to a wider variety of players, they stripped the game of a lot of the things people liked about. People complained about the elevators and Mako handling, but that didn't mean we wanted it removed from the game, just improved.

Modifié par puggini, 12 février 2010 - 07:52 .

[Darth_Trethon]

ME1's story was mediocre at best and gameplay was meh OK at best. ME2's story is great and the gameplay outstanding.

[GodWood]

stofsk wrote...

Schneidend wrote...

I find ME2 to be superior in every conceivable way.

^ What he said.

QFT

[Console Cowboy]

Not Sure



both did different things better.



ME1 had a stronger main story that climaxed like an asari orgy. ME2 had brilliant sidequests. most of the loyalty missions could have stood on their own as novellas or short films.



ME1 had better combat conceptually, but ME2 refined the combat and did what it was "supposed" to more effectively. (some presumption on my part there, but i think i do have a decent handle on the intentions of the devs in that department).



ME1 had the Mako which was a decent diversion from the main gameplay, but tortured the player by being shoehorned into every main mission. ME2 has planet scanning, which simply tortures the player.



ME1 had fewer love interests with more dialogue for each and a more involved resolution sequence. ME2 had more and (imo) more interesting love interests, seemingly at the expense of getting as much interaction with them.

[Tombsoldier]

1 by far.

Couldn't put into the right words until now. I like games that I can get into mentally, that are more "simulation" as in like a real world and less... less arbitrary "video game" stuff. In all aspects of this 1 was far and away superior. I understand the desire to "broaden" the appeal, but two made a concerted effort to not make me engaged in the world they presented. It seemed to concentrate far more on being a traditional challenge of your hand/eye coordination and far less on transporting you to some other plausible feeling world.

Not at all what I was looking for <_<

[xSHAD0WENx]

again i say ME1.



the story was way better then ME2.(thats what mostly seems to happen the 2nd story sucks)



i found it stupid that it was shorter then ME1 and yet it had 2 dics??? really!?



now they inproved alot on the game play and i love the camra work when playing ME2.

hated that you couldn't dress up your party memebers though(and their helmets really what the hell. their in space!!! COLD ASS SPACE!)



here is hopping that ME3 will be a mix of:



ME1: epic story telling, giving team mates armor(and helps that worked!) and a lot of side quests. loot to buy/sale(who doesn't love money?), good RPG feel.



ME2: good camra work, better graphics, better combat system.



ME3 with these two mixed = win.

[skan5]

I enjoyed ME2 a lot, but I prefer ME1 better.



2's combat was more streamlined and easier to access, but I found 1's far more unique. I'm an avid shooter and 2's Soldier play felt too much like the others, nothing really stood out much. Though I thoroughly enjoy melee'ing Krogan and Vanguards ("don't let them come near you" my arse. I'll teach them some real cqc =D) more than I did in 1.



I played at least two soldiers in 1 before 2 came out (and I forgot how many when I first got it) and both felt completely different. It's more unique. I specced out one to be more of a real shock trooper, focusing only on Assault Rifle, Armor, Fitness, Assault Training, etc. and the other actually more Commando, speccing all weapons, assault training and Spectre and made extensive use of each weapon as the situation called for. They actually played differently, I couldn't play the same way with both.



Running them both through ME2, they feel the same, they can both do the same things equally well. I guess the only real difference is that my Shock Trooper likes to burn things since I gave him Inferno Ammo, Grenade and the Flamer, but in the end really doesn't feel that much different to me.



Just my 2 cents.

[TuringPoint]

That's just the soldier class. All the other classes are considerably more unique than Mass Effect 1 classes were.



Which is one reason I go with ME 2. Also, subsequent playthroughs on ME 1 - as much time as I've spent on that game - have always been a little painful. Not so much with ME 2. I find the story a lot more effective. Deeper, more intimate, and emotional themes, Shepard has a little more character. Very cool stuff.

[Gemini1986]

Mass Effect 2. I have no problem with the gameplay, it keeps me engaged and unlike the first game the environments are constantly interesting and work for the game play rather then you have to work to make the environments work. As long as the game is fun, I don't care if it's an RPG, shooter, Strategy, or Adventure game, a good game is a good game period. I haven't went back and played ME 1 yet but I have a feeling that the experience isn't going to be nearly as good this time around after playing the second.

[Lopake]

Cant have one without the other...or shouldnt have one without the other

[AtreiyaN7]

ME2 for the characters and the relationships/loyalty missions, plus the graphical polish and combat. Still love ME1 though.

[Cakebatyr]

ME2, it has more character development and better combat.

[Halfheart]

ME1 is superior in almost every aspect in my mind.

I can't take ME2 serious as a top end shooter when enemies can shoot me through crates and other types of cover (when I'm completely hidden) if I'm not actively using the cover system. That and having every level being so artificially set up in terms of cover/cover placement sucked too.

[VasQuipQuip]

Mass Effect 2 is just better. A lot better. Not that Mass Effect one is bad, Mass Effect 2 just surpasses it.

[Madriker]

ME was nothing more than a hassle for me. It just seemed to drag on an' the only reason I completed it was to see the story backing the sequel (an' to have the import data ready, of course).

[Kalfear]

ShadowXOR wrote...

 It doesn't appear as if I can make a Poll here so:

1. ME1

2. ME2

3. Both equal.

4. Not sure.

I'm sure this thread may have been done before (can't find a search feature) if so please link me to it, I'm very curious to get the communities thoughts...

Mass Effect 1

At not so off chance I get attacked and flamed by the "everything is perfect " crowd, here is why.

1) Mass Effect 1 had a urgency to it, from opening sceen you were always 1 step behind Saren and looking over your shoulderwhile chasing him. On the opening planet, Noveria, Feros, Liaras planet (2:11 am so forgetting planet names at moment) I had to literally force myself to slow down and take my time so I didnt miss anything.
As I said, there was a sence of Urgency to the game and you felt it from start to finish that if you didnt hurry up something bad was going to happen.

The ONLY time I felt that same urgency was on collectors ship with Thane in the duct work. And thats because you were on the clock and bad things were going to happen if you didnt hurry up! ME2 failed completely with the immersion of the story. For the most part you didnt rush because you knew the game wasnt going to let you make a mistake that would have repercussions.
Heck, even when Collectors took your crew and you should feel urgency, along comes Miranda and TIM to kill any chance of that feeling telling you to slow down and make sure everything in place.

2) Choices mattered in Mass Effect 1 so it was almost a new game every time you played it.
Do you kill Wrex?
Who do you sacrafice?
Do you kill the Rachni?
Do you give information to Shadow Broker?
Do you kill the settlers on Feros?
on and on and on.
Everytime you tyrned around you were making a game effecting choice in ME1 and it made the game replayable on a grand scale.

In ME2 you have 1 choice at end of game. Everything else is laid out for you in a nice linear path for you to follow and events going to happen regardless of what you say (covered more in #3).
ME2 has no real replayability other then harder difficulty setting. Even classes so watered down there not a huge difference between them all in ME2 (covered more on #4)

3) As stated above, choices mattered in ME1 but beyond that, you had to raise your paragon/renegade levels as you leveled which in effect opened new chat/communication options. Not high enough and a important communication might not happen between characters.
For the record, ME1 "influence system" was not perfect. But it was better then ME2.

ME2, there are no influences to raise really. In fact I can think of only ONE situation where I wasnt offered the paragon and renegade chat options. Otherwise the choices were always there for you to pick when needed in a nice linear fashion. Which also greatly effected replayability as every communication was exactly the same in ME2 where as in ME1 you chould change it up by going paragon or renegade or neither if you so choose.

Note: ME1 and ME2 both faulter in comparrison to DA:O influence system which is the system that should have been used in ME2. No excuses for it not to be. This game would have been 100 times better if you had to work for some stuff mentally and not just solve every problem with a pull of the trigger.
For example, the Loyalty quests which in ME2 you get 100% of the time should have only been available after you EARNED INFLUENCE with the different characters through conversations and actions during travels. This would have greatly effected the final mission and you wouldnt be reading easy to follow templates for everyone to survive the final mission.

4) Replayability. As mentioned above, in ME1 things changed and you effected things to such a extent that one play through could be drastically different then the next play through, keeping ME1 fresh and exciting!
I replayed Mass Effect 1 8-10 times and can honestly say I didnt start to feel bored till the final play through

ME2 is to linear, everything is going to happen in the exact same way at the exact same time because nothing you do (minus final choice of final mission) matters.
As stated above, the final mission is suppose to be this grand suicide mission where all your crew might not survive but because of the linear fashion of game, there is easy to follow walk throughs already that GUARENTEE 100% survival.
Hell, you shouldnt even be able to guarentee 100% loyalty, forget 100% survival.
The end mission is not this grand suicide mission and as I read many times on this very forum, I dont know how anyone doesnt survive the mission? Its that linear.
I tried to reload a new character and replay game after finishing it once but ended up putting it aside and loading up DA:O for my 7th play through instead.

5) Emotional connection. I had grand emotional connection to my squad mates in ME1. I could NEVER bring myself to kill Wrex, even on my renegade play throughs as that character was so well fleshed out and a strong emotional connection was created between him and Sheppard.
I hated Kaiden that I always suicided him yet I can honestly say I know more about Kaidens backstory and what made him tick then any ME2 squadmate with the exception of Thane.
Its no surprise to me that the 2 favorite and most loved Love Interests in ME2 are ME1 carry over characters.
Oh the people can post till their blue in the face about how this connection was made in ME2, fact of matter is, if old forums were up you could see those same people begging for Tali and Garrus love stories since ME1 released.
ME1 had the above discribed influence system that made you learn and feel closer to squad mates but also had elevator rides where squadmates talked to each other so you learned more about them. In ME1 if you did something that was objectable (or agreeable) to a squadmate, they told you so building greater connections and relationships.

ME2 had none of this other then the odd click on point on Illium and Citidel. Far from a fair compromise IMO.

I could go on and on about inverntory (or lack of), different armor looks and stats creating greater individualism for you and squadmates, terrible ammo system in ME2, and yada yada yada but its all been said before by a over welming majority of people in these and other forums spread out accross the internet.

In the end, ME1 was a sci fi adventure that challenged you mentally and combat wise and you felt apart of the story as it unfolded around you!

ME2 was a shooter with a grand story but you were not apart of it, you didnt influence it, you simply played the role set out for you long before you ever layed eyes on the game.
Brilliant graphics. strong combat (minus the ammo system).

I summed it up elsewhere with this.

In ME1 I was apart of the story and felt the adreniline rush as my actions caused reactions and consequenses the universe wide and no two game plays were the same

In ME2 im simply sitting in a theater watching events unfold at the developers own pace. ME2 would have made a GREAT novel or movie where you sit and watch or read about the happenings of others. As a RPG (of any kind, be it 100% or 50/50 hybred as it was advertised as) it simply fails and doesnt live up to Bioware standards.

Modifié par Kalfear, 14 février 2010 - 07:58 .

[AnathamaDye]

I liked them both, though I prefer ME2 for the combat.  I can't decide, the stories are equal for me.  I do miss Liara though but I like all the new recruits, Jack ♥, and I was glad Garrus and Tali joined with me.