133 réponses à ce sujet

[OasisForever1991]

ME2 doesn't have the same feel as ME1 did and it's not the story or characters well maybe it is i'll get to that. But the hole Mass Effect universe doesn't feel the same or to put it in another way the game Mass Effect doesn't feel the same. It's weird but I miss the unknowing Mass Effect feel it gave me when I would be running around Feros or Noveria or aboard the old or IMO better Normandy.

I'm not complaing or anything and I have made posts about this that are way longer and in more detail but no one really ever replys when I bring this up.

ME2 just feels so much of a "product" if you know what I mean than an actual universe. The chacters and the missions and the vibe of the story that Mac Walters did an "alright" job on but Drew K's books and Mass Effect 1 was just completely in the name (Mass Effect) of the game.

Shepard doesn't quite feel so different than in ME1 and the Chacters have to much of a personalitly to them and just everything really even the Citadel doesn't feel the same anymore.

I'm kinda just throwing around things and left alot out but what are your thoughts on this? I'm sorry if alot of it seems like complaing and I didn't go into detail cause like I siad I've posted this alot and no one really replys to this "feeling" more than just the qurks and RPG elements and things about ME2 vs. ME1. I'm just talking about the "feeling" it gives you deep inside. And how Mass Effect felt like more of a Sci Fi novel instead or ME2 feeling like a movie. Which IMO seems a bit more lazy than an actualy narrative feel of a novel.

Thoughts? Tell me I'm crazy please.

[RoninOmega]

mass effect 2 is a darker story, zakera ward is the only place you can visit in the citadel so it would feel weird, also that your staring at the ward you were before, but when you were in the presidium, it felt just like old times except that I couldn't get to the actual place(wish I can)



and the normandy doesn't feel like the old for obvious reasons, but I can tell you how it feels completly alien, the normandy song playing over and over on the old one isn't in this one, I wish though they would add it back for some reason, lol, just because now I feel it belongs on sr2

[GodWood]

I found ME2 to be ridiculously more immersive then ME1.

Places were actually crowded with primarily alien species instead of ME's occasional static NPC who was usually human.



And the Normandy in ME2 again was much better then it was in ME1, you can overhear crew conversations, you have bathrooms, a cook and a kitchen, 2 engineers and a much bigger ship, plus you could actually get to see Dr Chakwas let her hair down.



ME2 > ME1.

[Taurmaim]

I really like ME2 - it's better then ME1 by far on many levels - but I actually do agree that it lacks the "unknowing" feeling ME1 had. ME1 left me wanting so much more, always savoring the levels, feeling like their was something I missed. ME2 doesn't do that. But it's still a good game.

[Frotality]

i know what you mean OP, i can probably tell you a few reasons why.

1.mission structure. ME1 was sorely lacking it...and that was awesome; the world felt connected, everything you did everywhere you did it felt like it was all affecting the same universe. ME2 on the other hand goes out of its way to define every combat moment as a linear typical shooter level; hubs have thier own unique structure style (like being the only places with maps), and every single mission you do is quite literally completely seperate from everywhere else; you can never visit the area again after beating them, they all contain exactly 1 raliroaded path to follow, and to top it all off, an obnoxious 'mission complete' screen comes up every time you finish just to remind you that this is a linear level. the result is that everything important that happens in the game takes place in an enviroment disconnected from the universe in more ways than one, majorly weakening their impact.

2. planet exploration. however horrible the mako was, exploration added a whole level of vastness to the universe.

3. sidelined main story. an indirect symptom of the character building plot focus is that you never feel like everything your doing pales in scope to your actions of the first game. you made a galaxy changing discovery in the 1st, but your in the exact same position at the end of ME2 as you were in ME1 story-wise.


im pretty sure this is what your feeling OP. dark second act means the story is supposed to be dark and depressing, not "the world is supposed to feel meaningless and disconnected from itself"

[piemanz]

ME1 felt like i was participating in an event



ME2 felt like i was playing a game.A very good game but it just lacked something that made the first game truly epic imo.

[Yorick of the Damned]

Mass Effect 2 is a completely different game then the first. They wanted the game not to be more of the same.



It reminds me of complaints about GTA4 not being as expansive as San Andreas, albeit it had a better story and was more detailed. It's a sequel, it's not meant to be like the first in any way. It can remind you of it, but the sequel is meant to be different.

[Kajan451]

@Yorick



You are aware ME was always planed to be a triology? Even before the release of ME1 they said there will be ME2 and ME3?



Its not a completely different game... its not even a sequel. Its a continuination of the first game.

[Vb Dude]

It's good that it is like a movie, I felt that it was like that in the first one. I disagree that there are "narrative" differences between the two because they both were like a movie in a way.

The second one just feels different because it is a darker story, thats all. The atmosphere is not as "light" as the first.

[Chromie]

I found Grand Theft Auto 4 to be a shi**y game. I liked Vice City and after that it losts its appeal to me.



ME1 I admit the first I played it I was shocked. I had never played a game so much or beaten it so many times. I loved the characters the squad the areas.



ME2 though I was expecting to be a dissapointment because of all the people who whine. I found myself again shocked at how amazing ME2 is. ME2 doesn't have a mako, why do people keep bringing this up? Has noone heard abou the Hammerhead DLC? Mako reguardless made me not want to do sidequests.

[Yorick of the Damned]

Kajan451 wrote...

@Yorick

You are aware ME was always planed to be a triology? Even before the release of ME1 they said there will be ME2 and ME3?

Its not a completely different game... its not even a sequel. Its a continuination of the first game.

That's an excuse to make the sequel exactly like the first? If that was the case they could just make expansion packs rather then full fledged sequels.

Mass Effect was designed as a trilogy, storyline wise. I am talking about both the gameplay and tone of both. The tone of Mass Effect 2 was far more mature and realistic rather then the casual sci-fi feel of the first. The gameplay was also simple third person in the first game while in the second it was slightly more refined, albiet changed

Ringo12 wrote...

ME2 though I was expecting to be a
dissapointment because of all the people who whine. I found myself
again shocked at how amazing ME2 is. ME2 doesn't have a mako, why do
people keep bringing this up? Has noone heard abou the Hammerhead DLC?
Mako reguardless made me not want to do sidequests.

People don't know what they have until it's gone. In this case they forget the **** controls the Mako had, and think it was god compared to the second game's mineral finding

Modifié par Yorick of the Damned, 18 février 2010 - 08:38 .

[VivX5]

I know exactly how you feel OP, like no joke. I love ME2, I'm still playing it and I can't get enough it, its just that...something seems off about it. I try to explain it, such as the immersion and emphasis on character development, but I can't seem to ever get a clear answer, even for myself. If I had to take a guess I would go for the immersion factor, ME2 feels too mission orientated while in ME1 I actually felt like I was affecting the universe. I don't know if its possible, but it they could fix this problem in ME3 it would be a true 10/10 game for me.



Ultimately ME1 felt like a movie while ME2 felt like a really good game...which is ironic since ME2 had much better action scenes, camera angles, and more dialogue. Whats worse is that the release trailer for ME2 made it seem like the ultimate MOVIE and not the ultimate game...maybe ME3 will get both traits right.

[VasQuipQuip]

I thought 2 was WAY better. ME1 was boring and repetitive.

[Marta Rio]

I feel the same way as the OP, and agree with Frotality's assessment as to why ME2 had a different feel than ME1. I thought ME2 was a great game, I just missed the more free-roaming and open feel of ME1. In ME2, I was very conscious of the fact that I was playing a game, rather than exploring a universe.



That's not to say that the open environment style is always the best (driving the Mako around could get tiresome, ditto backtracking through an entire map to get back where you started), but I think there's a happy medium that could be reached between styles of the first two games for ME3.



Personally, for the third game, I'd like to see one or two "hub worlds" that are large and open (maybe not as large as the wards/Presidium from ME1, but larger than Ilium/Omega/Zakera wards from ME2). As far as the plot-based missions go, I'd like them to keep those in the more directed form of ME2.

[Frotality]

Yorick of the Damned wrote...

Kajan451 wrote...

@Yorick

You are aware ME was always planed to be a triology? Even before the release of ME1 they said there will be ME2 and ME3?

Its not a completely different game... its not even a sequel. Its a continuination of the first game.

That's an excuse to make the sequel exactly like the first? If that was the case they could just make expansion packs rather then full fledged sequels.

Mass Effect was designed as a trilogy, storyline wise. I am talking about both the gameplay and tone of both. The tone of Mass Effect 2 was far more mature and realistic rather then the casual sci-fi feel of the first. The gameplay was also simple third person in the first game while in the second it was slightly more refined, albiet changed

Ringo12 wrote...

ME2 though I was expecting to be a
dissapointment because of all the people who whine. I found myself
again shocked at how amazing ME2 is. ME2 doesn't have a mako, why do
people keep bringing this up? Has noone heard abou the Hammerhead DLC?
Mako reguardless made me not want to do sidequests.

People don't know what they have until it's gone. In this case they forget the **** controls the Mako had, and think it was god compared to the second game's mineral finding

its not even funny how obliviously one-sided this post is. i dont wanna turn this into a flame war, but i have to address this:

a sequel (video game-wise) IS supposed to be like the first, its supposed to expand upon and improve it, not be something completely different in the same universe, that is a spin-off, and that is unsurprisingly what ME2 feels like. the tone of ME2 is disconnected and character driven. having mature character plots doesnt excuse the fact that everything else pales in comparison.its more mature in that it has depth of characters as the focus instead of a main end-of-the-universe plot, but that isnt exactly the change you want to make in the sequel of an end-of-the-universe plot game, regardless of how 'mature' it is.


your second point contradicts itself. yeah, we dont know what we have until its gone...so apparently you still want it gone? stop encouraging this absolutism of critique; you really think bioware should respond to complaints with "dont like it? fine, youll never have anything like it again a**holes!"? this is overreaction (or laziness) on bioware's part; they responded to complaints like we hated the whole concept of exploration and not just the horrible vehicle they gave us to experience it (or they were too lazy to fix it and instead scrapped it, either of these reasons can apply to most of the game's changes). id take an hour of sh**ty mako controls to 5 mins of planet scanning, at least in the mako searching for minerals was far less important and there was far less to find.

ringo- obviously we have very different definitions of what ME2 shouldve been, because i was hoping for bioware to properly address 'whining' but was very disappointed to find that they just lazily scrapped pretty much everything that was complained about. i find you opinion very very odd in that you apparently hated the "whining" about the first game, so obviously you didnt care for much to be changed....yet you love the highly overreactionary changes of ME2? how is that?

[Tasker]

 One of the biggest problems with ME2 is the lack of proper transitions.

Hate them if you must, but the elevators and airlock of ME1 added a ridiculous amount of immersion to the game.

ME1 had a sense of flow as you could leave the Normandy and walk pretty much anywhere and actually feel like you did the traveling, ME2 is disjointed and has you teleporting from location to location.

[jamoau]

Yes, good point. ME2 felt like a game, while ME1 felt like a cohesive universe. ME2 got the real shooter feeling, ME1 an epic tale spanning an immersive universe. So, no your not alone.

[Sirsmirkalot]

I agree with the OP. Even after I played through the last part of ME1 for the 10th time, I still got goosebumps. While the end of ME2 didn't do nearly as much to me.

I've seen a few posts saying that "this is because ME2's story is a lot darker", but what's so much darker about it? I'll agree that the beginning is a lot more dark, but the rest was less omnious than ME1. I felt like I was more involved into dealing with my crewmember than getting after the collectors. There might have been a few more dark undertones conversation wise, but that's it. ME1 kept tossing you omnious revelation after revelation, while ME2 gives you 1 or 2 in the entire game that are so little in scope compaired to ME1's.That is unless "darker story" is a synonym for a shallower main story.

And then there are the "mission end" screens. How the hell can someone claim that ME2 is more immerse than ME1 with those pieces of  #@|^ in it

Modifié par Sirsmirkalot, 18 février 2010 - 10:18 .

[Burdokva]

I mentioned ths in my review a while back, but there's a very good reason (story and gameplay aside) they feel different - new visual and audio design. The original Mass Effect had a slightly different overall look to it, and I don't mean texture quality and such. The color palette, the lighting and mood of the levels were a mix of the "bright new future" and the "lost, ancient world". It had a more metallic and shiny visuals (take the blue-hued menus for example) that supported thematically the Geth and Saren as adversaries. Also, I think the backgrounds on the uncharted worlds, whether you hate the Mako or not, gave the game a very interesting feel as a space adventure into the unknown. Even the soundtrack was livelier and with a pronounced mechanical/techno cues that made an unique overall sound.



Mass Effect 2 feels different because it has a different visual direction - darker, deeper contrast, different color palette that thematically fits the organic Collectors. New soundtrack that's more "natural" sounding and with a different, slower pace. The Normandy is different, the side-mission. I also like Illium's sunset lighting and background, feels quite different than the brightly lit Citadel or the morning/mid-day Feros from ME. The change in the art direction was deliberate and I for one like it, it adds variety. I know it's been brought up many times before, but it's similar to the way the Star Wars trilogies evolved between each movie.



Personally, I think ME3 wil look both familiar and different than the previous two in overall tone and atmosphere.

[AlbertoAquilani]

I think the sequel is more immersive. The Citadel, Feros, Noveria are very nice from the original but the immersion really pulls you in, in ME2. Both are great epic games, and I love both equally.

[BellaStrega]

Orkboy wrote...

 One of the biggest problems with ME2 is the lack of proper transitions.

Hate them if you must, but the elevators and airlock of ME1 added a ridiculous amount of immersion to the game.

ME1 had a sense of flow as you could leave the Normandy and walk pretty much anywhere and actually feel like you did the traveling, ME2 is disjointed and has you teleporting from location to location.

I  was going to post something like this. ME1's use of transitions established a greater sense of being in the world.

I  wouldn't go as far as you do, but I  do dislike how some missions end with a prompt to leave (press F to leave)  and others just whisk you away before you can finish clearing out all the loot (and you didn't realize clicking that one thing would actually force you to leave).

I  am happy that the game doesn't make you backtrack to leave missions, but I'd like something that flows a bit more than what ME2 has now.

[Barker673]

I must admit, for all the improvement ME2 has made it does lack the atmosphere and feeling that the original had. I put it to being the middle child of a trilogy, even if they are amazing - they are never as good as the beginning or the end pieces.

[AlbertoAquilani]

Illium and Omega to me are easily more atmospheric than anything in the original.

[DarthCaine]

ME1 felt repetitive, I'm glad ME2 doesn't feel that way

[Lollermancer]

Let me start by saying that I feel that ME1 had a deeper more vast and epic feel.



Firstly the opening scenes for both games are fantastic ME1 being superior, the music, the timing of the ME logo showing was perfect. It seems in ME2 they were trying to recapture that feeling, and they did a fine job. It just did not have the same, kick or feeling, the whole ambiance was not the same.



Secondly, the vastness of the two games is actaully quite different, ME1 uses larger areas of land that genrally have expansive high ceilings, while generally throughout ME2 this is not the case. For example the planet exploration from ME1 felt real, it felt like I was scowering this large piece of land looking for ancient artifacts and anonamlies. In ME2 there many many different locations, though most of those locations are small comaparedly to ME1 locations, or they feel that way. When you land on a mission in ME2 its quick, bang bang and done. ME1 side missions did suck, but the exploration made it feel large.



And lastly, the most, and I mean the most important thing missing from ME2, that left you with a semi empty feeling was a sheer lack of a Vigil moment. Vigil in ME1 tied the story together in a way that is possibly the best gaming experiance one can...experiance. The sheer magnitude of going into a prothean vault, driving through the water, again with those huge ceilings, rows upon rows of containment cells, wondering what is going to happen. And then you find that VI, the voice, the music, the area, it was a perfect way to tie it together. There is a lack of it in ME2. Maybe the first time on the Collector ship, and entering that huge opening into the core of the ship.



Both games are fantastic i know that ME1 felt more coheasive and more like one galaxy, and ME2 more like personal story for you and your crew, more close to the heart if you take the time to flesh out your crew members but i think lack of a sort of Vigil moment made it seem, just less.



I love both games.