• 79 results
  • 1
  • 2
#51 Posted by FFFFFFF (75 posts) -

I finished ME2 about 6 times.
I quit ME3 after leaving the citadel the first time.
I quit ME1 after recruiting Liara.

This is my expert opinion.

#52 Posted by Pr1mus (3952 posts) -

Everything that relates to gameplay in Mass Effect is hot garbage. Everything that relates to the story, characters, atmosphere is better than in Mass Effect 2. Which is not to see that i think these elements in 2 are bad.

Mass Effect 2 is overall a better game. For as interesting as the universe and characters in 1 are, playing that game is a chore and one time was more than enough.

#53 Posted by TheHT (11829 posts) -

Mass Effect 2 had a bunch of great moments but never really came together as a whole. Looking back on it I can say 'this moment was great' or 'that moment was really fucking cool' but when I think about what actually happened relating to the story from ME1, it wasn't much. You found out what happened to the Protomototheuseans and wipe out their base effectively singling Shepard out as a target for the Reapers. It's a whole lot of set up and most of the game (recruiting bad-asses) veers away from that.

But coming away from ME3 with a lot of people wanting that C-Sec detective game, ME2 felt closer to that with you going around and playing through these interesting vignettes, while ME1 was you on the heels of Saren and ME3 was you solving all the galaxies problems.

The combat is great in ME2, but the start of things getting a lot less tactical. Half-way through I was mostly untouchable as a vanguard. Zipping over to enemies and taking them out in slow-motion is good fun, but I really enjoyed rushing from cover to cover in ME1, getting to the frontlines while setting up traps with grenades and moving my squad around to get through the fight. In ME2 and 3 it's mostly just me killing everything and occasionally getting a squadmates to attack stronger targets with me.

The inclusion of things like fuel and the planet scanning baffle me though. I can deal with getting rid of a lot of the RPG stuff from the first game, but that shit's just annoying. Also no MAKO is a bummer. Driving off mountains like a madman or blowing the shit out of geth and thresher maws was fun.

#54 Posted by FourWude (2245 posts) -

Casuals love Mass Effect 2.

#55 Edited by Beforet (2934 posts) -

I feel ME1 had the best...sense of discovery? Like, it felt like you were really exploring a new world, and that included the revelation on the Reapers, who I still think were best in ME1. I also feel that sort of impression is hard if not impossible to replicate in a sequel, because you've already discovered that world. I think ME2 did a great job of taking the universe we were introduced to in ME1 and setting stories in it, little vignettes like someone else said. And while that did make the overall plot feel disjointed, I really liked that style of storytelling. As for RPG elements, I agree that a lot were stripped out. However, I also think that going back to play ME1 is a god damned pain in the ass. The basic gameplay is not terrifically fun to play. That said, I also don't agree with the philosophy of "let's just ditch everything that sucked in the first game" that seemed to pervade the second. Like a lot of the RPG elements, or the inventory, or the omnigel. On the other hand, maybe cutting off that fat is what made ME2 the polished experience it was.

That said, the Mako was fucking robbed of its glory! That scanning bullshit can never replace that beautiful son of a bitch!

#56 Edited by madpierrot (72 posts) -

@bourbon_warrior said:

ME2 does the drama alot better, the camera angles are better

You know really small thing to pick out, but I just noticed this and have to say that I completely agree 100% and feel this is even a big game changer. The way the game became more cinematic in a sense in ME2 was really awesome to see. All of the cut scenes where Shepard is talking to a character just look and are presented so much better. It really helps to pull you into the game world in a way the first game didn't.

#57 Posted by QuistisTrepe (628 posts) -

Without question ME2 is an improvement over the first game. I could never go back and play the first game. Just because the first game gives you the illusion of freedom, doesn't mean it actually counted for anything. The Mako roving was so utterly pointless as you go from place to place in buildings and structures with same environments over and over again.

The gameplay of ME2 was far better than the first game. In the first ME, where's the challenge in just being able to hang back and fire away with a sniper rifle with no need to reload ammo? Every ME game has some legit gripe.

I'm not sure I really get where the OP is coming from, but to each their own.

#58 Posted by Rebel_Scum (781 posts) -

ME1 > ME2 > ME3

ME1 was better for these reasons:

  • Better atmosphere (Always felt darker than its sequels)
  • Better music (that really set the atmosphere)
  • Better exploration (I liked planet crusin' in my Mako)
  • Best Mission/story cohesion
  • Best secondary characters in general (especially on the Citadel)

and because of this

My personal pet peeves were the lack of Mako/planetary exploration. It just bugged me that instead of tightening up the controls on the Mako that they abandoned it entirely. There was a real feeling of discovery when you touched down on an uncharted world for the first time. It was great to just bomb around the landscape looking for crashed probes or Prothean ruins while listening to the wind howl outside. Nothing in ME2 comes close to that sense of discovery, and I think ME2 is poorer for it.

#59 Edited by Cold_Wolven (2295 posts) -

For me Mass Effect 2 had a strong balance where it's game play was easy to understand and execute and there was a lot of personal side stories with the loyalty missions being some of my most favorites. The game still looks pretty damn good too and it was one of the few games this generation that had me deliberately buying story DLC.

#60 Posted by sabby_po (12 posts) -

Hell yeah it is.

Sure, ME1 is more of an RPG than 2, but in this case more does not mean better. A lot of the RPG mechanics in ME1 felt half baked and shoehorned in to extend the length of the game. I didn't miss any of that stuff in 2.

#61 Posted by Irishdoom (333 posts) -

Good to see so many opinions on this. I think perhaps they would have better been served NOT calling it Mass Effect 2 but renaming it in a reboot fashion. It's really not the same game at all, other than the overall world and a few of the characters.

I'm further in now, I have 2 more spots in my squad to fill. Tali and one more that is still grayed out next to Zaeed. I did the one loyalty mission for Miranda, and it was pretty good. Everything about the game is really good, as long as I don't think too much about ME1. I know it's still being called an RPG, but it's set up more like there are "levels." Hell, you don't even level up out in the wild (I haven't so far anyway) and only level up at the "end mission" wrap up. How very FPS of them.

Hell, even equipment in this one is really just a loadout. No hunting for Colossus X for a Turian here.

#62 Posted by Azteck (7449 posts) -

Mass Effect 1 > Mass Effect 2. The second game felt like they lost direction and purpose. It felt.. boring.

#63 Posted by Thanatos3 (82 posts) -

Gameplay was better in 2 but i missed the overheating mechanic from 1. It made the combat feel special compared to every other game where you shoot things. The story in ME1 was far better in the whole series but the game itself is deeply flawed but still fun if you can look past those shortcommings. The story in ME2 is very bad, full of plot holes, retcons, and lazy writng and character stupidity. But the characters and the interactions with them are very good and the missions relating to them are done well from a character development point of view, just dont think of how it is supposed to help taking down collectors. (If illusive man was smart enough to get an army with his apparant unlimited money the game would be a few minutes long). And they never explain how anyone but Mordin can directly help take down the reapers. Besides him all you need is some powerful biotics which could be anyone. Hopefully not a distubed psychopath or dangerous justicar. But if you are in it for the gameplay ME2 is a far superior sequel.

#64 Posted by TyCobb (1975 posts) -

Mass Effect 1 is far better.

I still laugh that their solution to inventory problem in 1 was to completely remove the inventory system in 2.

#65 Posted by Aaron_G (1617 posts) -

There are certain aspects, mostly story, that makes Mass Effect 2 a far superior game. Also, Mass Effect 2 fixes many of the problems in Mass Effect.

#66 Posted by Irishdoom (333 posts) -

@tycobb said:

Mass Effect 1 is far better.

I still laugh that their solution to inventory problem in 1 was to completely remove the inventory system in 2.

Hah, it is sort of a tale of two extremes, eh? Complex, full, messy inventory in ME1 to a totally stripped down, loadout style system in ME2 that isn't even an inventory.

#67 Edited by MetalGearSunny (7003 posts) -

I think Mass Effect 2 is a lot better than Mass Effect 1. It just hit the sweet spot of having a great story with great characters and having the gameplay be satisfying at the same time.

#68 Posted by MeganeAgain (123 posts) -

I prefer Mass Effect 2. Mass Effect 2's plot was less engaging than the original Mass Effect's, but I felt it was made up for with stronger character development through the addition of loyalty missions, and much improved gun-play. And those are the two main reasons why I logged tens of hours more on Mass Effect 2 than I have on Mass Effect 1.

#69 Posted by GERALTITUDE (3509 posts) -

I much, much prefer Mass Effect 1.

You can't disagree that ME2 is a better playing third-person shooter, but that's the least interesting facet of the series.

#70 Edited by Irishdoom (333 posts) -

You can't disagree that ME2 is a better playing third-person shooter, but that's the least interesting facet of the series.

I strongly agree with this. I think part of the problem with ME1 is it wasn't clear if it was really a shooter or not. How much was skill and how much depended on hidden dice rolls? With ME2 you have a way better third person shooter, but I'm not sure I like the much grittier tone and the overall way it flows like a collection of bits rather than a single story.

#71 Posted by TheNihilisticIdealist (44 posts) -

@fourwude: That's some edgy shit. Almost reminds me of /v/.

No, that isn't a compliment.

#72 Posted by Roger778 (960 posts) -

Out of all the Mass Effect games, ME2 is my favorite. The best way to describe it is that it's like the second film in the Star Wars trilogy, The Empire Strikes back. The story is dark, and more intense than ME1.

The voice acting is excellent, and the combat is more refined, over the first game.

Also, the main reason I love the game is the characters. Garrus, Liara, Tali, Mordin, Miranda, Jacob, and Samara are all great and complex characters. Also, the personal missions they ask you to help with, are fun to play, and you also get to know more of their backgrounds, too.

So, yeah, I think it's better than the first game. But that's just my personal opinion.

#73 Posted by Sin4profit (3003 posts) -

I didn't like Mass Effect 1, I enjoyed Mass Effect 2, I didn't play Mass Effect 3.

#74 Posted by FourWude (2245 posts) -

@fourwude: That's some edgy shit. Almost reminds me of /v/.

No, that isn't a compliment.

Dirty casual detected.

Casts anti-casual area of effect magic.

Casual is gone.

#75 Posted by TheNihilisticIdealist (44 posts) -

@fourwude said:

@thenihilisticidealist said:

@fourwude: That's some edgy shit. Almost reminds me of /v/.

No, that isn't a compliment.

Dirty casual detected.

Casts anti-casual area of effect magic.

Casual is gone.

I don't consider myself to be either a "casual" or a "hardcore" gamer. The whole "casual" vs. "hardcore" debate in general is retarded. Just because I love a "hardcore" game such as Demon's Souls, doesn't mean I can't enjoy a "casual" game such as Plants vs. Zombies.

#76 Edited by FreakAche (2955 posts) -

I like them both, but I have one big problem with the jump from Mass Effect 1 to Mass Effect 2. ME1 had a bunch of game mechanics that weren't fully realized or were clumsily implemented in some way. Going into Mass Effect 2, instead of fixing these mechanics, the development team decided to strip them entirely. It wasn't a huge deal, since the dialogue, which was the main draw of Mass Effect, remained intact, but that's still just lazy game design.

#77 Posted by Draxyle (1899 posts) -

My main problem was that, instead of improving some of the weaker elements of ME1, they just outright ditched them. The worst UI imaginable for weapons and upgrades? Instead of improving it, they just ditched the weapon stuff entirely. Bad physics on the Mako? Completely ditched the Mako instead of making it more fun to drive. Etc. etc. It really diminished the exploratory elements and atmosphere of the franchise to just cut out the good ideas that didn't work the first time around.

As far as the Mako, they did make an awesome replacement in the Firewalker. But that was segregated DLC in very videogame-y missions only. That kind of sums up a lot of ME2 though, it felt way too.. structured in that videogame-y sort of way. Exactly one disconnected quest for each recruit. Exactly one disconnected quest for each loyalty mission. Exactly two major outcomes for most every mission. Etc. Everything and everyone in ME2 felt disconnected from each other in comparison to the well-weaved narrative that ME1 mostly was. I was okay with it at the time for the promise that ME3 would bring it all back together.. but I didn't even buy that one out of principle for a lot of the ways that game was sold.

ME2 was a fun game to play mechanically, and the writing was still quite excellent for the most part, but as a complete package, ME1 was definitely the better experience overall.

#78 Edited by HerbieBug (4208 posts) -

It is better programmed and overall more cohesive package. I liked ME1 a lot. A lot more than ME2, even. But even I will admit that I liked the game ME1 was trying to be, and mostly succeeded, more than I like ME2. That is a factor in my preference for sure.

@draxyle

: Yes, I agree with all of that. People complained about the inventory because it was a badly designed interface. People weren't complaining about the very concept of having an inventory. That is my primary gripe with ME2. ME1 had such cool loot; basing weapon stats and effectiveness on manufacturer was great. They did it before Borderlands, too. Same deal with the Mako. The Mako sucked because the controls were shit and the game sometimes asked for a level of precision that the Mako was hard pressed to deliver unless you practiced a great deal with its funky controls and physical behaviour. There was a quote from someone at Bioware around the time DA 2 was set to release. I don't recall the name or the exact quote, but it was something along the lines of saying "people don't want to play big complex RPG's anymore". And then Skyrim came out and murdered the sales charts. Oops!

#79 Posted by RonGalaxy (3271 posts) -

Anyone who thinks ME1 is better are a bunch of RPG snobs. Hate to break it to you guys but the "depth" that was cut out from ME1 was cut out for a reason. Seriously, that inventory system was atrocious

The story/characters/gameplay are infinitely better in 2. The loyalty missions were fucking amazing. Some of the most fun I've had with a game this gen