Mass Effect vs Mass Effect 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm not sure what you are getting at with your image comparison, but I enjoyed ME more. Better storyline, better soundtrack (where is my hub music ME2?), and while neither were awesome, I enjoyed the Mako more than planet scanning.
 
It depends on what day it is for me to pick my favorite. I prefer the combat in the second one better but the storyline was a little better in the first as was the music. The atmosphere was the same in both but it seemed you could interact a little more with the other characters in the 2nd one and of course you can bang different chicks in the 2nd one as well.

I know its the chicken shit answer but I think theyre both about equal.
 
I didn't really like how there was minimal plot advancement in ME2. Sure the backstories for all the different crew members was interesting but as far as the main plot very little happened. Apart from the beginning of "fixing shepard" and the end of "kill the big bad" the rest felt like filler. ME1 by comparison was moving the story along continuously.

The combat is definitely better in the second game though.
 
Mass Effect 1 was sooo much better than Mass Effect 2. Post DA:O Bioware has been disappointment after disappointment.
 
i played through mass effect 9 or 10 times.

i played through mass effect 2 2 or 3 times.

the 2nd game was to actiony, still fun, but not as interesting in the replay elements
 
I enjoyed both equally and for different reasons. Ideally, Mass Effect 3 would combine the strengths of both installments, but rationally ME3 will go further away from an RPG with shooter elements to a story/character-driven shooter.
 
Plague_Injected said:
I enjoyed both equally and for different reasons. Ideally, Mass Effect 3 would combine the strengths of both installments, but rationally ME3 will go further away from an RPG with shooter elements to a story/character-driven shooter.
Click to expand...

I don't think ME3 can move any further away from RPG then ME2 did. ME3 will still have weapons/armor changing (and actually more in-depth than ME2, with different individual weapon mods), dialogue choices and interrupts, and skills/powers customization.

For the record, I think ME2 is overall the better game because it has a tighter direction to it than ME1 did (the shooting gameplay, companion interaction, etc) but ME1 had the better overall story (a bit more epic and grand.) I'm 100% confident ME3 will be a great game also.
 
ME1 felt slightly clumsier re the combat system, but I liked it better as a game overall.
I'm glad ME2 exists though, but if it was more like ME1, but updated, better graphics/combat system, and a (more) solid plot, well...

such are the ways of sequels.


All that said, ME1/2 are probably some of the best games I've played in a good while. I can only hope 3 doesn't turn out to be just another shooter.
 
Colonel Sanders said:
I don't think ME3 can move any further away from RPG then ME2 did. ME3 will still have weapons/armor changing (and actually more in-depth than ME2, with different individual weapon mods), dialogue choices and interrupts, and skills/powers customization.

For the record, I think ME2 is overall the better game because it has a tighter direction to it than ME1 did (the shooting gameplay, companion interaction, etc) but ME1 had the better overall story (a bit more epic and grand.) I'm 100% confident ME3 will be a great game also.
Click to expand...

Oh there is plenty more RPG elements that can be stripped - eliminating exploration altogether (creating a 100% linear game progression), removing level-ups and being able to assign skills, removing the ability to pause the action and issue orders, removing any ability to control bot-teammates altogether, removing all classes except Soldier (since Shephard seems to be soldier-class in the "canon" - correct me if I am wrong here), removing all forms of character customisation, removing player choices that actually affect the progression and outcome of the story...you get the drift.

I should point out I am stating what can be removed, not what will be removed (or should be removed, since I'm 75% sure someone will comprehension-fail and assume I'm campaigning for the dumbing down of Mass Effect...).
 
The deciding factor for me is that Tali'Zorah nar Rayya had a wayyy better ass in ME1 than 2.
 
They're rather quite different games. Not apples and oranges different, but perhaps red and green apples different. I'd say from a polish and story perspective that Dragon Age 2 is very similar to Mass Effect 2. Likewise for Dragon Age: Origins and Mass Effect.

Now I haven't played Dragon Age 2 (except for the demo) so I could be wrong about this, but from what I understand the graphics, UI, and gameplay have all been finely polished compared to the first game. The same thing happened with Mass Effect 2. I'm not necessarily saying that polish makes the game better as at least in Mass Effect 2 the more tactical based gameplay was too limiting, IMO, compared to the first game. Still though, that polish does make for a very aesthetically pleasing experience.

Anyways, my opinion of Mass Effect compared to Mass Effect 2 is as follows.

Story

The stories and the disconnect between the originals and their sequels are also quite similar. In both Dragon Age: Origins and Mass Effect you are combating a great evil on a grand scale and your actions seem like they actually matter. Again, I haven't played it, but from my understanding Dragon Age 2 has less of an epic storyline, is smaller in scope, and has practically no relation to Origins.

The same is partly true for Mass Effect 2 compared to Mass Effect, though definitely not as bad. In ME2 you're basically a galactic therapist with guns. Seriously, a major part of the game involves getting the loyalty of your crew members which basically means you play their therapist. The themes of the missions aren't even that different. A lot of them have to deal with daddy issues and the majority deal with some form of other family issue. Which is fine as it adds depth to the characters, but I felt it detracted from what I thought was the point of the series, saving the galaxy from the Reapers.

I also didn't like how superficial my decisions from ME felt in ME2. I guess Bioware made it that way so people wouldn't have to have had played the first one to understand what's going on in ME2, but it would've been nice if my choices had a bit more impact then they did. It will be interesting to see what Bioware does with ME3. Will they continue the plot from ME2, making ME1 unnecessary, or vice versa? Hopefully the decisions from both games will have a significant meaning in the third, but Bioware will probably want to make ME3 accessible as well. Honestly, it almost feels as if the story of ME2 has no relation to ME1. Sure they have similar (same in some cases) characters and setting, but they just don't feel connected to me. I also felt the amount of impactful decisions in ME2 was lacking. The only meaningful decisions I can think of right now were what to do about the Heretics and the Collector station. Perhaps I'm being a bit petty, but I spent a lot of time creating a Shepard of each class and background with varying personalities in ME1 only to have practically none of that matter in ME2. It was probably naïveté on my part thinking my decisions would have significant meaning in the second and looking at it from a publisher's standpoint you don't want to alienate new customers. Still though I wish a better balance was struck as they went too far in making the game accessible, IMO. Mainly because of the story, I only have one character ready to be imported into Mass Effect 3. I have beaten ME2 twice, but once was with my sister on her Xbox. At this point I'm going to wait and see what happens in ME3 before taking any of my five remaining Shepards through ME2.

Writing this has made me realize that from a story perspective it might have been better to have some elements of the story swapped between the two. One thing I would've done is introduce the Drell, Asari Justicars, Collectors, and whatever else I'm forgetting in ME1. Where did those things come from?! That way when the Collectors are revealed to be Protheans it would have had more impact. Introducing the Collectors out of the blue and having the big reveal about them in the same game made that "twist" fall kind of flat I thought. I also think it would've been better to start off with the loyalty missions in the first game so that the scope of the mission would gradually get larger. As it is it's kind of awkward going from a grand storyline in the first game to a more localized feeling storyline in the second.

Gameplay

The gameplay in the second was drastically changed from the first. ME1 was more "actiony" while ME2 was more tactical. I enjoyed chaining skills and wreaking havoc in the first game which was not possible, due to the global cool down, in the second. Still though, deciding which is better really depends on what style of gameplay I'm in the mood for. If I had to pick I liked ME1 over ME2 on the PC and ME2 over ME1 on the 360, (ME2 was designed much better for the 360 then ME1 was) but since I prefer playing on PC I would have to say that overall I liked the gameplay of ME1 better. I will say that ME2 was much more refined though.

Miscellaneous

As for some of the lesser bits of the games. I'd rather have ME1's disorganized inventory than ME2's no inventory and loot system. I also prefer Mako driving over planet scanning and interactive loading screens with character banter over the more traditional loading screens we got in ME2, especially since they were just as long. Now I have read that the loading screens in ME2 are actually movies and they play to the end even if the level has already been loaded and it is possible to replace the movies with a shorter one. By the time I had learned of this I had already finished ME2. That might make the loading time from ME2 better than ME1, but I still like the banter from the first game.

TL;DR

Story - ME>ME2
Gameplay (in terms of personal enjoyment) - ME>ME2 on PC & ME2>ME on 360
Gameplay (from a technical perspective) - ME2>ME
Misc (loading, UI, etc.) - ME>ME2
Overall - ME>ME2

In the end, they're both good games.
 
Atmosphere, soundtrack and story are far better in ME1. Gameplay and general replay value are better on ME2, even though, nowadays, I find replaying ME2 sort of a chore due to the repetitive and small levels.

I enjoyed ME2 for the same reasons I enjoyed playing Dark Messiah, that is, fun gameplay and lots of gameplay styles to choose from. Story was kind of meh and didn't advance the Reaper's plot too much.

But now, let me post in here what I believe should have happened for a great ME3:

------------------------------------------------

For a good series finale, ME2 couldn't have happened the way it did. ME2 should have been solely about finding out the means to stop the Reaper threat as everything pointed out by the end of ME1. Shepard said there was still much to be done regarding the coming of the Reapers and in ME2 he should have continued on that path, regardless of working for Cerburus or not. Sure, stop the colonies abductions if you will but instead of spending 80% of the time "building up the team" and doing unimportant sidequests for them, have your spare time dedicated into uncovering more about the Protheans or even older races for clues. The VI on Ilos was inoperative? SO WHAT!? There is an entire fortress down there with lots of technology ready to be salvaged and studied. ME2 should have been about doing that, finding out clues about the Reapers. Have that as the main quest instead of stopping the Collectors. Collectors should have been a secondary quest that still carries consequences into the future (ME3), but not as important nor vital as preparing yourself for the greater threat.

Then in ME3 you unite the galaxy with what you have accomplished in ME3. Your previous actions now reflect on who you can get at your side and at what costs. The game should be about that - doesn't matter if your discoveries led to a big fucking cannon of doom that tears a new hole into Reaper ships in one shot. At least you would have something plausible to work with. The meat of ME3 then is the aftermath. You get varied endings based on your actions from ME1 and 2 and who you managed to save in ME3. Have you, the player, chose what planets/species to save in ME3. Also your odds of success are measured on what you accomplish in ME2 and your actions in ME3. Have the entire game be a full out galaxy wide war and all you do is play the galactic general, positioning battle fleets and picking where you will personally assault. You can't be everywhere so this leads to many different outcomes. Include failure as a possible result of your missions and then the Mass Effect franchise would be spoken highly by everyone that actually likes sci-fi.

That would be a mature, dark game in a good way. You are solely responsible for the fate of the galaxy and there are no easy choices to be made. You can also be selfish enough as to save Earth and fuck the rest (Pure Renegade), it's a valid approach.

But we all know that's not what gonna happen. ME3 will have something bizarre and incredibly retarded as a conclusion. You probably will find out the Reapers die to microwave ovens or wifi and that's it. Plot wise it will suck, I have no doubts about that. Gameplay can be interesting if they keep most of what they did in ME2 though and enhance it a little bit, not start from scratch.
 
Good post Smythe. *edit* And TheNuker too. You pretty much pointed exactly where ME2 failed at.

I would also add the atmosphere differences. ME1 was obviously influenced by hard Scifi, it took itself (and audience) quite seriously in that regard. ME2 on the other hand jumped faaar into the fantasy realm, favoring cinematic looks over seriousness. And details that make absolutely no sense. Firefights on high heels and tight latex? Gasmasks in space? Anyone?

This is one of the biggest things that dissapointed me in ME2 because the being a believable Scifi game is something ME1 gloriously succeeded at.

That said, I have more hours in ME2 than in ME1 simply because ME2 was just so much fun to play.
 
Last edited:
Plague_Injected said:
Oh there is plenty more RPG elements that can be stripped - eliminating exploration altogether (creating a 100% linear game progression), removing level-ups and being able to assign skills, removing the ability to pause the action and issue orders, removing any ability to control bot-teammates altogether, removing all classes except Soldier (since Shephard seems to be soldier-class in the "canon" - correct me if I am wrong here), removing all forms of character customisation, removing player choices that actually affect the progression and outcome of the story...you get the drift.

I should point out I am stating what can be removed, not what will be removed (or should be removed, since I'm 75% sure someone will comprehension-fail and assume I'm campaigning for the dumbing down of Mass Effect...).
Click to expand...


It seems like Bioware has been listening (thank god) some of the criticism and is trying to fix some them. Last time I checked there was a huge improvement in the amount of character skills and amount of weaponry. But exploration, that remains to be seen.
 
MaZa said:
I would also add the atmosphere differences. ME1 was obviously influenced by hard Scifi, it took itself (and audience) quite seriously in that regard. ME2 on the other hand jumped faaar into the fantasy realm, favoring cinematic looks over seriousness. And details that make absolutely no sense. Firefights on high heels and tight latex? Gasmasks in space? Anyone?
Click to expand...
That was a big disappointment for me with ME2. I loved the atmosphere in the first game.

The worst part in that regard was having to fight a giant terminator as the end boss. That was awful and completely immersion breaking for me. The boss fights in some of the DLC were much much better.
 
The biggest problems in ME1 were the inventory (what a mess...) and the random-ass Mako planet exploring. Instead of trying to really fix those problems, they ended up pretty much scrapping both and made the game a shooter with a plot. While I didn't hate the plot, one problem I had was the lack of immersion.
You go to all of these different planets and see all of this crazy stuff in the distance, but you only get to explore a tiny corner of a city. It really felt like a soap opera as a result. It's a video game - you shouldn't be limited to a sound stage, but that's essentially what they did.
 
ME1: better story, better characters, much better villain

ME2: better combat, better inventory

ME1 is the superior game. Bioware sucks.
 
RIPATI said:
ME1: better story, better characters, much better villain

ME2: better combat, better inventory

ME1 is the superior game. Bioware sucks.
Click to expand...


I wouldnt say Bioware suck but I really hope Bioware gets their act together in ME3. But I wont hold my breath, it has been clear that Bioware has been in steady decline, maybe its because of EA or maybe something else but signs are there.
 
ME is tedious. How did anyone manage to play it more than once, let alone throw money at ME2?
 
Good about ME1: Pretty much everything except the fucking Mako.
Good about ME2: There is no Mako.
 
I liked them both; they both had their high points and low points. I really disliked the DLC with respect to ME2 - I liked the new content, but I didn't like how it wasn't available unless you got a bloody Dr. Pepper code etc... I much rather would have paid for 2 mini-expansions for <$20 each; one with all the missions (Overlord, Shadow Broker, Arrival - all of which really were part of the core game itself, especially Shadow Broker) and one with everything else (all the equipment etc... instead of having it require a variety of Collector's Edition purchases and pre-orders, along with sundry additional expenditures etc.).

I wasn't a fan of ME1's Mako exploration or "You have to bring along this guy or you can't unlock boxes etc", along with its inventory, but I did like the depth/travel. ME2's story needed a little more fleshing out but I liked the crew interactions; admittedly, I did want a lot more clarification with respect to romances, especially Liara. I took the apparently "harder" path of romancing only Liara (apparently you had to romance her in ME1, then run shadow broker and decide to rekindle the relationship by making all the right decisions etc....) but I still could have fallen into a relationship with someone else on my crew and there was no indication which would have been considered prominent. Also, I wondered if I could have completed a romance arc with say, Tali before running Shadow Broker and then rekindle with Liara (or would the game stop me?) Would Tali "know" and want shepard to choose? I think Shadow Broker's DLC component made it kind of messy in this regard... I THINK I am going into ME3 with an "open, but not consummated " relationship path with Tali (ie I took it up to but didn't get the achievement), prior to meeting Liara who I completed the romance...so I assume ME3 will record it as being solely Liara?

I'm interested in ME3 but I am more than a bit worried about the quality and the cost; it seems to get all the game content you're going to need to buy the $100 collector's edition minimum, and I'm not okay with that...especially considering there won't be any Steam sales. I could see a little bonus or something for $60 etc...but not that much and certainly not at that price!
 
tomana said:
which game did you prefer?

ME 1
image1ux.jpg


or ME 2
60826.jpg


I think the ME 2 image here looks like a paper tube perspective, no character near as good as the ME 1 screenshot yet, some say it's better or "just different"
I hope ME 3 isn't going to be "just different"
Click to expand...

Well the lense flare in the first image covers up the bad terrain graphics. The second game was superior in all but one way. Story. The first one simply had a better story. Simple as that. The game play in the second game was vastly superior. It also wasn't gear dependent. Shepard was a special forces trained soldier and couldn't hit jack shit with anything but a shotgun in the beginning of the game. The combat in ME1 felt slow, clunky, and just plain bad most of the time. Either the gear or simply getting used to it made it more tolerable by the end of the game, but I still hated the fact that without clicking on powers, shooting combat was almost futile.

Game play videos already show that the third game will be more like an updated ME2 than ME1 with regards to combat. Though a streamlined weapons customization feature wil be added in. In ME1 you had too many mods, ammunitions and too many weapons to manage, but nothing you did ever changed the look or feel of the weapons. The third game should change that.
 
I'm adopting the wait-and-see approach with ME3 for lots of reason:

- ME3 is looking like it's not going to available on Steam
- but on the off chance that EA comes to their senses eventually (in a few years?), I don't want to have to rebuy the game just to have it on Steam
- I'm not too confident that they haven't found a way to screw up some fundamental aspect of the game (see: DA2)
- ME2 eventually came out with a "Digital Deluxe" edition, which included the various preorder bonuses I think?
- DLC hell with ME2 - what a mess...just come out with a GOTYe version already, with ALL the DLC natively included
 
KOTOR 2 was Mass Effect way before Mass Effect...unfortunately it was released literally unfinished, and fell apart 3/4 way through.

Better dialogue, better UI, better quests, better story...just the sad downfall at the end.
 
Xaeos said:
I liked them both; they both had their high points and low points. I really disliked the DLC with respect to ME2 - I liked the new content, but I didn't like how it wasn't available unless you got a bloody Dr. Pepper code etc... I much rather would have paid for 2 mini-expansions for <$20 each; one with all the missions (Overlord, Shadow Broker, Arrival - all of which really were part of the core game itself, especially Shadow Broker) and one with everything else (all the equipment etc... instead of having it require a variety of Collector's Edition purchases and pre-orders, along with sundry additional expenditures etc.).

I wasn't a fan of ME1's Mako exploration or "You have to bring along this guy or you can't unlock boxes etc", along with its inventory, but I did like the depth/travel. ME2's story needed a little more fleshing out but I liked the crew interactions; admittedly, I did want a lot more clarification with respect to romances, especially Liara. I took the apparently "harder" path of romancing only Liara (apparently you had to romance her in ME1, then run shadow broker and decide to rekindle the relationship by making all the right decisions etc....) but I still could have fallen into a relationship with someone else on my crew and there was no indication which would have been considered prominent. Also, I wondered if I could have completed a romance arc with say, Tali before running Shadow Broker and then rekindle with Liara (or would the game stop me?) Would Tali "know" and want shepard to choose? I think Shadow Broker's DLC component made it kind of messy in this regard... I THINK I am going into ME3 with an "open, but not consummated " relationship path with Tali (ie I took it up to but didn't get the achievement), prior to meeting Liara who I completed the romance...so I assume ME3 will record it as being solely Liara?

I'm interested in ME3 but I am more than a bit worried about the quality and the cost; it seems to get all the game content you're going to need to buy the $100 collector's edition minimum, and I'm not okay with that...especially considering there won't be any Steam sales. I could see a little bonus or something for $60 etc...but not that much and certainly not at that price!
Click to expand...

You simply didn't play the game enough. :) Yes, you had to romance Liara in the first game whcih was really easy unless you got her too late in the game which then made it harder because of the time needed. With Ashley, she's unfortunately too easily triggered into romance which can create problems later on and a confrontation with both women. What effect this has is unknown, but so far it doesn't seem to do anything but effect conversations with Shepard and Ashley. But it doesn't impact things with Liara.

In the second game, you can in fact get a romance lock in with any of your romance options in ME2 and then play the Shadow Broker DLC and try and rekindle the relationship with Liara. If you are in a relationship, she basically makes mention of your relationship and seems to consider you unavailable unless you tell her otherwise. If you do, she'll agree to rekindle the relationship. However, this doesn't automatically break off the relationship with any member of your crew, and you could in fact already be romancing two other crew members when this happens. Assuming you haven't gone through the Omega 4 relay. At some point if you are romancing two crew members, they will confront you much as Liara and Ashley would in ME1 and force you to choose one or the other. The one you do not choose will be forever locked out for the rest of the game as an option.

And of course, if you do choose Liara, you can still break up with whomever you romanced on your crew regardless of where you are in the game with that relationship and whether or not it is pre or post suicide mission.

As for the save data, the game actually records progress with all romance options. Even between males and females. In other words ME1 save data contains information on your romantic progress with Kaiden even if you have a male character and even if Kaiden was sacrificed instead of Ashley. ME2's data should contain information on how far you've gone with a given crew member. As far as I know, not consumating the relationship does absolutely nothing for you either way. It may mean that the game will consider you with Liara, but what degree of impact a non-consumated relationship will have on the third game is largely unknown. BioWare stated that there will be some kind of reward for those who romanced Liara, Ashley, or Kaiden and remained faithful to them. So far the game doesn't consider romances which do not grant the paramour achievement seem to have no impact on your other relationships, but we don't know if this will be true going into the third game. Mass Effect save data contains a lot of values which may have largely unknown impacts on the game.

Take for example Garrus. There is data in the ME1 save file which concerns him specifically and this data isn't present with other characters. Essentially you can have renegade and paragon influence with him which supposedly alters his personality going forward. This alteration is relatively minor in ME2 and can be seen in a new game by making largely renegade or paragon choices. Going into ME3, this data may be more important. BioWare said more than 1,000 variables in ME1 and ME2 save data will influence the third game. So we'll have to see what they mean when the time comes.

I've played Mass Effect 1 for 59 hours. I've played Mass Effect 2 for nearly 400 hours. I have multiple save files for ME3 which will cover various options from the second game. The first game I've only got a single save file from, though I've edited some ME2 files including ME1 data with different variables to see their impact in ME2. So I'm looking forward to seeing how each ME2 save (some with attached ME1 data and some without) will impact the third game.

As for the DLC model from ME2, I liked most of the DLC. I don't care for certain preorder bonuses being totally unavailable in the game at a later date, or having to have the Dr. Pepper bottle caps to get some things. That being said, I did it and only recently. They ran those promotions for a very long time. So that's not a big deal. I'd buy Dr. Pepper anyway so I'm fine with that. The other DLC's added many hours of game play to the game and I enjoyed the content quite a bit. While I wish I could have paid for everything at once to get everything, I'm not sorry I purchased any of it. I expect they'll do something similar with ME3 and I'll probably buy all of it. I hate to say that because I'm largely opposed to some DLCs, but if the content is good and I deem it worthwhile, I'll buy it.
 
I liked ME1 better. ME2 had better combat but suffered from the "there is a box to hide behind in every single room you enter" Gears of War bullshit. I liked that the choices in ME1 spliced over to ME2 pretty seamlessly, not that they made too much difference.

Neither of them are as RPG as I want them to be, but they are pretty good for what they are.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
I liked ME1 better. ME2 had better combat but suffered from the "there is a box to hide behind in every single room you enter" Gears of War bullshit. I liked that the choices in ME1 spliced over to ME2 pretty seamlessly, not that they made too much difference.

Neither of them are as RPG as I want them to be, but they are pretty good for what they are.
Click to expand...

I really like how they are both action games and RPG's. I'd match the character interactions and the RPG aspect of it against most if not any pure RPG game. I think Mass Effect is where all RPGs should be headed.
 
I don't know if I'm old-fashioned, but I miss the expansion pack style add-ons from the old days. Where you'd get one or maybe two all-inclusive, cohesive, meaty expansion packs for a game, ala Tales of the Sword Coast or Throne of Bhaal. Those expansions were massive and as long as many standalone games.

Not this whole newfangled pay $5 for a new weapon and $10 for a new quest/mission stapled on to your game :). I'm not entirely opposed to the concept of DLCs, and I actually bought a lot of them for various games during the Steam sale when they were anywhere from $0.25 to $1.00 each. I'm just not sure I like how some games have implemented them. Borderland's DLC3 (Secret Armory of General Knoxx) was probably one of the best ones I've seen so far -- it added an entirely new campaign, along with massive amounts of new loot possibility. I've probably gotten more playtime out of that one DLC than the stock game.

LeninGHOLA said:
I liked ME1 better. ME2 had better combat but suffered from the "there is a box to hide behind in every single room you enter" Gears of War bullshit. I liked that the choices in ME1 spliced over to ME2 pretty seamlessly, not that they made too much difference.
Click to expand...
That got to the point where, any time I saw a bunch of "cover boxes" on the floor ahead of me, I automatically knew there was going to be a scripted enemy spawn sequence upcoming. Too predicable and contrived.
 
Dan_D said:
I really like how they are both action games and RPG's. I'd match the character interactions and the RPG aspect of it against most if not any pure RPG game. I think Mass Effect is where all RPGs should be headed.
Click to expand...

I'd put character interaction in VTMB, New Vegas, Arcanum, TW1, TW2, Fallout 1&2, PST and even KotOR2 well above. ME1 and ME2 are written more for the action movie loving crowd, which isn't a bad thing. It's just that character interaction is binary in the ME franchise. There is rarely a morally grey area you need to ponder, usually you just pick "good choice" or "dick choice" in a split second based on QTE's. It's fun, and it fits the mood of an over the top space opera quite well, but it isn't ever going to challenge you to think critically.

The characters in both ME games are usually some amalgam of other sci fi characters in other movie/tv/game franchises. Especially Jack. OMG weren't you in the Riddick movies?

Compared to say talking your wookie companion in KotOR 2 to kill his lifelong friend, the only moment that came close was killing/talking Wrex down in the first game.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
Compared to say talking your wookie companion in KotOR 2 to kill his lifelong friend, the only moment that came close was killing/talking Wrex down in the first game.
Click to expand...

I really was disappointed that ME2 didn't have any "Virmire" moments. That really was one of the most interesting sections of ME1, and it's the only thing I can think of that had a lasting effect that carried on through to ME2 and beyond (Potential for the complete removal of 2 characters from the entire story arc).
 
TheOneKnownAsMe said:
I really was disappointed that ME2 didn't have any "Virmire" moments. That really was one of the most interesting sections of ME1, and it's the only thing I can think of that had a lasting effect that carried on through to ME2 and beyond (Potential for the complete removal of 2 characters from the entire story arc).
Click to expand...
Uh, you do remember the Suicide Mission, right?

Sure, if you were paying attention, you didn't lose anyone; but you had the chance at losing all of your squadmates, your crew, and assuming you did bad enough, yourself. The only characters that were protected from a bad end were Joker and EDI, everyone else was "up for grabs".

ME3 is basically ME2.5, or if you prefer, the rest of the game Post-Virmire.
 
Dan_D said:
The second game was superior in all but one way. Story. The first one simply had a better story. Simple as that.
Click to expand...

Completely agree, with one exception - the larger maps to explore, mainly the Citadel. Here is this massive base, and you can only expore 3 levels plus 1 room in the Presidio.
 
Out of curiosity, what happens if you try to enter the Omega 4 Relay at the very start of the game, as soon as you have control of the Normandy SR-2? Does the game let you commit suicide? Or does it warn you that it's not possible due to not having the Reaper IFF?
 
[UPS] Sorce;1038242324 said:
Uh, you do remember the Suicide Mission, right?

Sure, if you were paying attention, you didn't lose anyone; but you had the chance at losing all of your squadmates, your crew, and assuming you did bad enough, yourself. The only characters that were protected from a bad end were Joker and EDI, everyone else was "up for grabs".

ME3 is basically ME2.5, or if you prefer, the rest of the game Post-Virmire.
Click to expand...

Not the same in my book. Your crew could die due to events completely out of your control. Whereas on Virmire, you might as well have pulled the trigger. It was a concious decision made knowingly. You knew that you had to leave one of your crew behind, that one of them would die, and you were the one that had to make that decision.

The suicide mission felt like Russian roulette. Didn't get that ship armor upgrade? There goes.... Garrus. Didn't upgrade your ship weapons? There goes... Tali. Or whatever it was. It just felt completely random and out of my control. My first time through, I lost Mordin for no apparent reason. After the encounter with the Termina... Reaper, he was just lying there dead. No explanation whatsoever.
 
Both games were very disappointing in my opinion. There was a ton of potential with the series but they screwed it up by making it a mediocre console action game without depth and an average storyline.
 
Sovern said:
Both games were very disappointing in my opinion. There was a ton of potential with the series but they screwed it up by making it a mediocre console action game without depth and an average storyline.
Click to expand...

I couldn't possibly disagree more with you. The ME series of games is (so far) one of the best I've ever played, perhaps second only to System Shock 2 for me. They have their faults, but above all else, no other game(s) has pulled me in so intensely to each character and situation like ME.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top