133 réponses à ce sujet

[Vena_86]

ME1 is you playing an epic in a huge connected universe.
ME2 is you playing level after level.

Modifié par Vena_86, 18 février 2010 - 11:21 .

[Toxik King]

Lollermancer wrote...

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.

ME2s opening is waaay better. I didn't even play ME1 when I played ME2 and I thought the opening was really cool (explosions!) and emotional even though I had no idea who Shepard, Joker or any of them were. ME1 was just "DER WER ALIENS ON MARS! MASS EFFECT".

The "vastness" was annoying tbh. Go through pointless areas of the Citadel and 3 elevators to get back to your ship, go over 90 degree mountains to find pyramids (how original, the pyramids came from aliens.) and find priceless writings tossed in a few crates. I agree ME2 didn't have enough exploration, but that should be there in a better way in Hammerhead.

I couldn't really say here, since the story was spoiled for me when I played ME1, but ME2s end was pretty cool. ME2 was more about character development though, so I can see why there was no Vigil moment.

Tbh, I'd say most of the points on this thread comes down to nostalgia.

[Stompi]

Mass Effect 1 introduced an entire new universe, I think it's only natural that some places felt a little more epic. But Mass Effect 3 could top it, if the ending and the (possible) Earth part is done right.

[BellaStrega]

Toxik King wrote...
Tbh, I'd say most of the points on this thread comes down to nostalgia.

This was unnecessary and irrelevant.

I  think ME2 is a better game in so many ways, but I also think that ME1 handled some things better than ME2. One of those things was communicating the sense of being in the Mass Effect universe.

I  am glad that ME2 got away from multiple identical structures and driving the Mako all over the place. I  am glad ME2 got away from the exceptionally cluttered inventory system. I  am glad that ME2 made each class more distinctive while trimming away a significant amount of skill bloat. I  am glad that ME2 streamlined weapon upgrades so as to not partake of a clumsy inventory system. I  like that ME2 doesn't start you off with a certain degree of incompetence with your weapons (like sniper rifles in ME1). I  like a lot of ME2 more than ME1, but I  would like to see ME2 with perhaps a bit more scope.

Also, you didn't have to take lifts anywhere but to and from the dock in ME1 - you could use the rapid transit to get just about anywhere in the Citadel, and getting back to the ship was simply selecting C-Sec and riding up to the Normandy.

[UnAffectedFiddle]

God no. ME:2, for all its faults, is light years ahead of number one. Combat, cinematics, dialogue (generally). Story is about equal, though number two suffers from "middle of the trilogy" syndrome a bit. What did feel let down though for me was the big shock of the Collectors was no way as chilling and horrifying as finding out Sovereign isnt a friggin ship but a "thing" and his chilling superiority. I think though this is because its the middle of the story, a lot of unexplained things happening around you wont make sense until number three like the dark energy concerns.

[Sailears]

Frotality wrote...

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"

While I wouldn't say it in quite the same way, I can see and to an extent agree with those points you have made.

Lollermancer wrote...

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.

To quote Herbal Essences: "Yes! Yes! Yes!"
The whole Vigil scene was (for me) the most emotional, awe inspiring moment in the whole of ME1. That nostalgic feeling with the music and the heartbeat background on Ilos, the last brief respite before heading off to take down Sovereign.

piemanz wrote...

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.

Agreed. ME2 is excellent without a doubt, but it does feel lacking in the epicness department. It's difficult to put into words. With ME1 I think 'brilliant scifi', with ME2 I think 'game'. Of course there were those cheesy 'game' moments in ME1 - Sovereign bouncing around like some demented frog in the boss fight comes to mind.







Edit:

Vena_86 wrote...

ME1 is you playing an epic in a huge connected universe.
ME2 is you playing level after level.

Yes, it does feel like that.

Modifié par Curunen, 18 février 2010 - 12:40 .

[Coffee_without_sugar]

Funny, I feel the same way. Even tho I prefer ME2 over ME1 after a few playthroughs something is missing and I can´t put a finger on it
Something that definitely bothered me is:
ME1 felt like I actually played a "story", I got my team ready and went out to save the galaxy. I followed Saren here and there, and it felt like there was "progression"

In ME2 I spent 90% of the game building my team, and just when I finally had the feeling that the "story" would be kicking off the game was over ...

For me theres just far too much emphasis on building your team and not enough progress story wise (hard to explain, more of a feeling than anything I can point to)

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

[BanditGR]

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.

You just hit the nail, my friend. As a result :

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.

Modifié par BanditGR, 18 février 2010 - 12:44 .

[English Cooper]

I loved both games, but the OP has a point, some have said Vigil was the moment for the first game and I can see their point.



For me the first time in ME1 that placed me in awe was, riding into the citadel for the first time, everything was new ect ect. This ultimately leads to things in the first part of any trilogy being looked upon fondly, everything is new and wonderful to explore and discover.



I am going to ignore game play issues because for me personally they come second to a good story, I will play a game with awful gameplay if it has a great story, but will not play a game with awesome gameplay if the story is mind numbingly boring.



ME2 is a continuation of the first in terms of story and universe, so in that sense the awe and shock is lost.. nothing is brand new only expanded upon.. we already know the Citidel is big ect ect. In the sense of being the middle of a trilogy Mass Effect 2 did a wonderful job, keep the story going without fixing all the problems before the last part ME3.. they could only move the story so far as it the weakness of any middle of a trilogy be it book, movie or game

[smudgedhorizon]

Vena_86 wrote...

ME1 is you playing an epic in a huge connected universe.
ME2 is you playing level after level.

This sums up how I felt. All of ME2 felt disconnected, the pieces on their own were all great, but when they were all put together they just felt lacking somehow. For me at least, the magic has gone.

[catabuca]

Mass Effect 2 improved on a great deal of things: combat mechanics (for the most part - there is some weirdness re biotic handling and the lack of powers/talents for squad mates); greater variation in mission scenery and structure (although they lost something in the process); the bigger normandy is better (although I prefer the subdued blue-tone lighting of ME1 than the harsh, silver lighting in ME2).



The introduction to ME2 is epic - brilliantly handled. I got the goosebumps when 'Mass Effect 2' came up (but I do when 'Mass Effect' does in 1 too).



The quality of graphics and technical design is clearly better in 2 than 1. This is to be expected due to the nature of the production environment (ME1 was started before Bioware really knew what to expect of the 360's capabilities; they could take advantage of the tech moreso in ME2).



I totally and completely agree with the OP and others about the 'feel' of the games.



The first time I saw Shepard granted spectre status was awesome - actually incredibly emotional. The whole game was littered with those moments. It was also littered with choice. From side-mission choices to bigger rachni queen-style choices, there were plenty of pause-and-think moments. The fact that these choices and the emotional scenes were scattered all throughout the game helped keep me 'emotionally engaged'. I've got to say, the insistance that ME2 is 'emotionally engaging' seems like an exercise in 'if you say it often enough people will believe it'. I felt far more 'emotionally engaged' with ME1 than ME2.



That being said, ME2 had its moments. On my third playthrough I felt quite involved at certain points during Miranda's quest. I'll admit I couldn't give a damn about Jacob's. The final big choices right at the end of ME2 were engaging, to be sure. But it was too little too late, imo.



Yes, missions are disjointed. I'm not in the Mass Effect universe, I'm in a Mass Effect game. The mission structure exposes the game mechanics, and whenever game mechanics is exposed that feeling of immersion is sacrificed.



There are two things I am honestly interested to know: what specifically is it about ME2 that is supposed to be 'dark'?; and what specifically is it about ME2 that is supposed to be 'emotionally engaging'? I'm not saying there isn't any emotion or darkness in the game, but it in no way, for me, manages to capture those two concepts in a unifying way.

[Lonely_Fat_Guy]

too each there own,



saying that the games should be the same cause its a 3 part story doesnt fly.



i liked ME2 more then ME1, the xploration was getting so tiresome with ME1 all the planets looked the same, the recource scanning at ME2 sucks even worse, why cant EDI search for it damn it!



but for an overall feeling, ME2 gave me more goosebumbs moments then 1, its darker and grittier thats what i like (what ever floats your boat) the missing/lacking thing in ME2 was no prohumaness!

but the movies, the dialoge was much better.



ME1 gave you a more connection too a new universe.

ME2 gave you an importantmission in that universe wich was epic.



i like both, i just like ME2 a bit more.

[Lonely_Fat_Guy]

catabuca wrote...
There are two things I am honestly interested to know: what specifically is it about ME2 that is supposed to be 'dark'?; and what specifically is it about ME2 that is supposed to be 'emotionally engaging'? I'm not saying there isn't any emotion or darkness in the game, but it in no way, for me, manages to capture those two concepts in a unifying way.

dark as in, you can loose more crew/squad, dark is also abit more mature, the language use, the light setting is more replaced for a darker/grittier filter.

as for emotionaly engaging, its difrent for each other person. ME1 was very engaging, ME2 was very engaging, both gotten more and more engaing at the end for me.
as for the mission statements, i like those, you get a small debriefing by cerebrus and there vieuw on the matter, wich is nice.

whatever floats your boat!

[Nick Fox]

Vb Dude wrote...

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.

I have to say that personally I diagree on this. I dont get that "dark" feeling from ME 2 myself. In fact i feel ME 1 is both "darker" and "lighter" tbh.
Why? In the first you are threatend and feel that very threat from the start, you're involved on a different level, a sense of urgency is there. The fact that you also have 2 arch enemies adds to my involvment as a player. After visiting Citadel and get to see how all organic life is at stake makes it richer in its feeling all over my gameplay (emotianally).

ME 2 its "just" some human colonys (not the same urgency) and these collectors isnt all that frightening to me. Sure its a threat and needs to be taken care of, but its not threatening the whole universe in the same way (the battle for citadel feeling just isnt there with millions life at stake on one encounter).
The consequences just isnt there for me, more...meh. I take care of them sort of feeling.
Whats the difference between Collecters and geth really ? Minions to the reapers and a tool for the real invasion (but that isnt really all that exploited in ME 2 imo). the story is more focused on building your team rather than dealing with an imidiate threat (thats my feeling anyway). And truly, whats so dark about that ?
Some attitude from characters can of course add to a darker feeling, but to me its just attitude and nothing else.
And when its all done where do I stand that differs from the end of ME? Nothing, this is more of a sidetrack to me rather than a continuing on the ME 1 ending. The game stretches the timeline (wich could open up some plots and close others) but it doesnt carry over in the right way (storywise) from the first game in any  important/meaningfull way. I get the feeling of a prolouge instead of a "real" new chapter of that story.

So yeah, i know what you mean OP. Something isnt "right" about this game.

[Nick Fox]

Lonely_Fat_Guy wrote...

catabuca wrote...
There are two things I am honestly interested to know: what specifically is it about ME2 that is supposed to be 'dark'?; and what specifically is it about ME2 that is supposed to be 'emotionally engaging'? I'm not saying there isn't any emotion or darkness in the game, but it in no way, for me, manages to capture those two concepts in a unifying way.

dark as in, you can loose more crew/squad, dark is also abit more mature, the language use, the light setting is more replaced for a darker/grittier filter.

as for emotionaly engaging, its difrent for each other person. ME1 was very engaging, ME2 was very engaging, both gotten more and more engaing at the end for me.
as for the mission statements, i like those, you get a small debriefing by cerebrus and there vieuw on the matter, wich is nice.

whatever floats your boat!

If the dark thing is about attitude and loosing teammates, is that what you mean ? in the first one you can and will loose at least 1 member even if you dont want too. Now you can go through the game and not loosing somebody. But I think I know what you mean, it adds consuquences (death). So maybe its dark but not what i mean with dark and certainly not darker for me then ME. But thats my opinion of course.
We all interpurate "dark" in our own way.

[Nozybidaj]

OasisForever1991 wrote...

Thoughts? Tell me I'm crazy please.

You're not crazy.  I feel much the same way, ME2 feels more "commercialized" more like any generic sci-fi shooter or action game where as ME1 felt more like a custom lovingly crafted space opera.

It comes down to the story and the characters.  The story fit together and flowed better in the first game, from start to finish there was just a natural flow to the game.  It feels more mature and they take the subject matter more seriously.

ME2 is a more watered down version of that universe for the masses.  Despite being "dark" the overall tone of the game is lighter, less serious, more open to a wider audience.  Instead of a sprawling story that weaves itself together over the course of the game everything is given to you in small easily digested chunks.

ME1 and ME2 are just very different types of games and stories.

[catabuca]

Nozybidaj wrote...

You're not crazy.  I feel much the same way, ME2 feels more "commercialized" more like any generic sci-fi shooter or action game where as ME1 felt more like a custom lovingly crafted space opera.

It comes down to the story and the characters.  The story fit together and flowed better in the first game, from start to finish there was just a natural flow to the game.  It feels more mature and they take the subject matter more seriously.

ME2 is a more watered down version of that universe for the masses.  Despite being "dark" the overall tone of the game is lighter, less serious, more open to a wider audience.  Instead of a sprawling story that weaves itself together over the course of the game everything is given to you in small easily digested chunks.

ME1 and ME2 are just very different types of games and stories.

Bingo.

There are some marvellous bits of storytelling in ME2, but they are disjointed. The arc that ties it all together and that creates the 'immersed in a universe' feeling many of us miss gets lost when the game is broken up into these bite-size pieces. You can add to this the impact the change of writing team must have had.

I think what makes it so jarring is that the above is compounded by the fact that Bioware wanted to take the story in a different direction. That the change in story direction came hand-in-hand with a massively changed game mechanic was just too much all at once. Of course the story was going to be different - middle chapter etc. To couple it with such a complete overhaul of how we interact with the game is what broke it.

[kraze07]

Basically ME2 was made to cater to all the casual/shooter fans who thought ME1 was broken and full of problems. ME1 was more immersive and it felt like it really brought gamers into the ME universe.

[Nick Fox]

catabuca wrote...

Nozybidaj wrote...

You're not crazy.  I feel much the same way, ME2 feels more "commercialized" more like any generic sci-fi shooter or action game where as ME1 felt more like a custom lovingly crafted space opera.

It comes down to the story and the characters.  The story fit together and flowed better in the first game, from start to finish there was just a natural flow to the game.  It feels more mature and they take the subject matter more seriously.

ME2 is a more watered down version of that universe for the masses.  Despite being "dark" the overall tone of the game is lighter, less serious, more open to a wider audience.  Instead of a sprawling story that weaves itself together over the course of the game everything is given to you in small easily digested chunks.

ME1 and ME2 are just very different types of games and stories.

Bingo.

There are some marvellous bits of storytelling in ME2, but they are disjointed. The arc that ties it all together and that creates the 'immersed in a universe' feeling many of us miss gets lost when the game is broken up into these bite-size pieces. You can add to this the impact the change of writing team must have had.

I think what makes it so jarring is that the above is compounded by the fact that Bioware wanted to take the story in a different direction. That the change in story direction came hand-in-hand with a massively changed game mechanic was just too much all at once. Of course the story was going to be different - middle chapter etc. To couple it with such a complete overhaul of how we interact with the game is what broke it.

Agreed! And I dont think BW had actually written the whole trilogy and/or Know/knew what they wanted to do with this franchise.  Now its a "shooter" trilogy all of the sudden. Very strange feeling to me.

[nicodeemus327]

ME1 was new. That's why you feel that way.

[st6212]

I just finished my first playthrough with ME2 and it is a great game, but yeah I agree that ME1 had a better 'feel' of the ME universe. It's not the "because it's a darker story" reason, probably more game design that attributes to it.

Some of the things I think that is:

- ME2 had so many load screens, that it just felt like I was just loading into one level after another, like an arcade game. ME1's load screens didn't have those 3D-wire animations to blatantly shout at you "loading next level", instead they had that elevator ride (long, yes) that took you from one ward to another or when you landed on a planet with the Mako, it was a cutscene to hide it. ME1 loading just felt more seamless, even with something as small as the Normandy's elevator in ME1 as opposed to the load screen in ME2. I think Bioware's attempt to streamline everything just felt a little overboard.

- There was absolutely no ME2 teammate banter while exploring, ME1 at least had it during the Elevator rides and maybe in some other areas. Now if they follow DA:O in that department for ME3, it would be awesome.

- Characters from ME1 appearing in ME2 felt 'empty', I mean Shepard returns from the dead after 2 years and Anderson, Udina, the council, Tali, Liara, Garrus etc., their reaction when they see him is "meh....business as usual...carry on". And the fact that Liara, Ashley and Grunt know about the Reaper threat that's coming, but instead they just move onto doing their own thing, and just become placeholder NPC's.  They may as well not have to be there.

- Probing for resources was a chore, felt more mundane than roving around in the mako to get to resources, where you at least get to explore the planet. ME2 resource probing was just boring, it's what took me longer to complete the game because I would keep dozing off when trying to gather resources for upgrades and stuff. It just made me disinterested a number of times while playing, and I'd have to quit the game for a bit then get back into it.

- The abrupt disconnection to the ME universe I felt when I meet with the council and find out the council and the Alliance want nothing to do with me, and that's it for the rest of the game. A short scene in the game that added no weight to the story. You would think with all the abductions going on, the Alliance would at least have some involvement in some way. I just felt with how Shepard got the Alliance and the Council to become aware of the threat and supposedly earned their trust, that it was all gone in a minute of dialogue. I hope there's going to be a big "I told you so" moment with the Council and Alliance in ME3.

ME2 to me felt less of a continuation of ME1's events and instead a separate game making ME1 irrelevant. I guess that's what happens when you also need to design the game for new players who haven't played ME1. I hope it all ties together in ME3.

But ME2 is an awesome game (even better if they fix some of the bugs in the PC version)

Modifié par st6212, 18 février 2010 - 02:19 .

[BanditGR]

nicodeemus327 wrote...

ME1 was new. That's why you feel that way.

No ? Multiple reasons and explanation has been provided throughout the thread. If people still think this is nostalgia, then seriously, they are hopeless.