@phish09 said:

@mac_n_nina: You're insane. The only thing it has in common with Gears or Uncharted is that the combat is actually really visceral and interesting in this game...other than that it is just an evolution of Mass Effect.

Err, no ...he's right: the shooting and cover mechanics were ripped straight out of Gears. That's how the whole game felt to me. ME1 didn't. ME1 also didn't have that extremely obvious placement of cover blocks that gave away imminent enemy encounters from a mile away. The level design in ME2 was just as formulaic and boring as the main plot of the game.

@phish09 said:

@mac_n_nina: but that's only because it doesn't have all those janky Mako sequences, which is definitely a plus imho.

The Mako was janky but fun (and the planet exploration gave the game a sense of openess which ME2 was sorely lacking, it felt way more confined). The Mako stuff was definitely better than the planet probing which was completely devoid of fun.

The environments in ME2 were better. The side stuff was better unless you liked going to the same planet over and over again(yes they just reskinned every planet but they all had the same terrain in ME1). The dialog was great in ME2. I thought they showed the story better in ME2 as opposed to getting things you just would read in ME1. The choices felt meatier in ME2 as well. The only choice in ME1 that really had any consequences was the Wrex thing. ME2 was littered with them.

I remember trying to go back and play the first mass effect after beating the second and found the combat really uncomfortable. I like the changes they made to the game. Granted this was almost a year ago, maybe I will go back and try again since I am also burnt out on Skyrim.

On the whole, I missed how open ME1 seemed, whereas ME2 was just chest-high walls and then you never re-visited locations. I also missed having an inventory, and I missed having more than four skills. On a pure gameplay level, ME2 was leaps and bounds better, but it was too streamlined.

Nope. I loved ME2 and was bored with ME1. I'm glad they made the changes.

@Brodehouse said:

@CptBedlam Mass Effect had a minimap that showed you where all the enemies are. That's better than cover being in a cover based shooter? Also, remember the cover in Mass Effect? It was completely awkward and useless. When you actually wanted to avoid fire you ran and hid around walls like a shooter from 1998.

Yep, the way ME1 handled it was better because it didn't seem as contrived as the cover placement. The level design in ME2 was really poor ... not visually, but structurally. It was way too predictable.

Not really. ME2 was still all about story and dialog trees to me. They just streamlined the character progression stuff, and cleaned up the combat (some people may not remember this, but Mass Effect 1 also featured shooting from the third person perspective).

Did they streamline it too much? Probably. But really, is it fun to have to level a bunch and put a ton of points into weapon skills just to be able to use them effectively?

The only thing that disappointed me in ME2 was that there was no loot or inventory system.... granted the first ME1 inventory system was pretty terrible, i figured they would make it functional and efficient in the second game, but they ended up just ripping out the entire system in favor of just a loadout system before you launch each mission.  Everything else about ME2 was great though.

ME1 was better but ME2 was actually fun to play. What?

They streamlined the RPG mechanics because they didn't want players to have to choose between better shooting and more dialog options.

It was kinda always the point, I just don't think they were particularly great at making third person shooters when they made ME, a first attempt. It was never supposed to be some hardcore RPG though, the shooting elements were always the focus, that's what made it so innovative in the first place, combine dialogue choices and light stats elements, that is to say light RPG tropes and put them in the framework of a shooter.

Not a single particle of RPG in ME2 but it is a damn good story-focused third person shooter.
 
Alpha Protocol meanwhile, is a really bad third person shooter, but a freaking amazing RPG that puts 3D Bioware productions to shame.
 
I wish the two could combine and make Awesome Protocol Effect. Scifi with more than "kiss the baby / eat the baby and kill its parents" for roleplaying and great shooting.

ME1 Pros: Better, deeper, RPG elements, more level ups, more armor, more equipment and variation thereof, more abilities, debatably better side missions dispatched to Sheperd by an in game character directly, more replayability.

ME1 Cons: Combat was sub par... Yeah, that's about it.

ME2 Pros: Better combat, more interesting environments, no Mako, longer storyline, more developed characters.

ME2 Cons: RPG elements were drastically downsized, armor contained only a few variations, as did weapons, most side missions were just dispatched via e-mails and thus, to me, felt less impactful than Admiral Hackett or an equivalent telling you about them, leveling up was more a mission reward than an in-game feature, the mining game.

For me personally, I preferred ME1. While ME2 was a better shooter by leaps and bounds, it took away a lot of what I came to Mass Effect for. I replayed ME1 a great deal, though I can't put a number on it. I almost never replay games. That more than anything else is a sign of quality as far as I'm concerned.

@xyzygy said:

Yep. Very disappointed. It's why ME1 will most likely remain the best in the franchise. From what I see of ME3 they are going even further down the "Gears of War" route. So stupid and unnecessary. ME1 was unique. ME2, not so much.

@mac_n_nina said:

@xyzygy: That's typical EA. I knew that it would be bad news for Bioware fans the second that EA bought them. Just look at what they did to Dragon Age.

While I don't disagree that Mass Effect 2 simplified things to a degree that was almost offensive to their RPG-loving fanbase, the change brought about a far more enjoyable and tactile feeling combat system that removed most of the unbearable jank from Mass Effect 1. Now, if previews of Mass Effect 3 are any indication, Bioware has gone back and refined the combat experience to be even more jank-free, while layering in many of the complex RPG systems removed in the transition from Mass Effect 1 to Mass Effect 2. The levelling system is back in, completely. Further, the weapon customization has been elaborated to be even more complex than the system in Mass Effect 1.

So, what I'm saying is that you're both wrong and right. Is the game even more like Gears of War? Yes. But the RPG mechanics layered underneath that combat system seem to be a fair bit more complex than Mass Effect 1. And don't even try to claim than Mass Effect 1 wasn't filled with some awful Bioware jank. That game needed some proper trimming and refinement, and I say this as an enormous Bioware/Mass Effect fan (the only game that I adore more than Mass Effect 1 is the original KOTOR).

Also, FYI, the single biggest issue with Mass Effect 2 is the lack of compelling villain, not the combat system's simplicity. :P

I agree that overall ME2 is a better game and it did a lot more with interacting with your squad-mates and character growth which i guess was more important to me than the rpg elements. In saying that i was a little bummed which is why i'm hoping that now the game-play and everything else is down they work on the rpg elelments for Mass effect 3.

@CptBedlam said:

@phish09 said:

@mac_n_nina: You're insane. The only thing it has in common with Gears or Uncharted is that the combat is actually really visceral and interesting in this game...other than that it is just an evolution of Mass Effect.

Err, no ...he's right: the shooting and cover mechanics were ripped straight out of Gears. That's how the whole game felt to me. ME1 didn't. ME1 also didn't have that extremely obvious placement of cover blocks that gave away imminent enemy encounters from a mile away. The level design in ME2 was just as formulaic and boring as the main plot of the game.

Sorry man, but you are totally wrong. I played the first Mass Effect 7 times. It is most definitely a cover based shooter in the same way ME2 is. There are chest-high walls strategically placed all over every environment that isn't designed for the Mako. I guess that makes the first one a Gears rip off too, but I just don't remember spending hours upon hours in dialogue sequences in the Gears of War games, but maybe I just don't remember those games all that clearly...All I'm sure of is that you are not remembering Mass Effect correctly.

Wait wait wait. Are people really defending Mass Effect 1's kind of terribad dice-roll shooting? Because say what you will about it having a better tone (it does.) or a better main story (once again, it does), the actual playing parts of Mass Effect are the opposite of fun. The RPG mechanics in that game are a mediocre blend of increasing percentages (pretty much the bane of the RPG genre) and abilities that aren't worth putting points into. Did Mass Effect 2 take away too much in the transition? Probably. But it's still a more entertaining game to play, for all its shortcomings.

It was always a TPS.

Imagine if Skyrim and ME1 had a baby, I would play that videogame.

Mass Effect, in regards to combat, was hardly an RPG in the first place (I wouldn't consider any game with real-time combat an RPG), so the streamlining didn't bother me. My disappointment with ME2 relates more to the plot, which was laughably bad.

I was disappointed with Mass Effect 2 for most of the usual reasons. The story is weak and repetitive, they over simplified the RPG systems  and they really screwed up the PC version's UI and controls to the point where they were distracting. For example, the space button is not pause as you would expect in a Bioware game, but instead covers four completely different functions! On a keyboard with a minimum of 80 keys!  You could call it a lazy console port (which it is, especially compared to the ME port), but even on a console controller I'd feel weird about my sprint button, my jump button, my "talk to people" button and my "duck behind cover" button being the same button.

After thinking about it, I came to the realization that my biggest issue is the structure of the game.Traditionally in Bioware games, while exploring a town you get the feeling that a fight can break out any minute and there is a pretty clear spatial relationship to the town and it's associated "dungeon" zones. Mass Effect 2 just feels like two different games, a scaled down Bioware town game and the Gears of War clone, smashed together with some menus. The shooter sequences have a very clear start and a 90's score page inspired mission summary at the end.

While I miss mainly the armor and weapon options from ME1 in 2, I do not miss that inventory system from 1.

I liked the streamlined approach and changes to the combat system it felt and played great and that is all I wanted.

But I did enjoy both games because I love me some Shepard.

If course I'm disappointed. It's a Bioware game. Shitting on your expectations happens to be their forte.
 
ME1 was infinitely better, except for the gunplay. ME2 only had gunplay on its side. If just I wanted to just point at a dudes head and click, I'd play a fun shooter like Battlefield instead.

I was going to make a post about the differences but then I remembered that ME2 have this. So I guess all other discussions are moot.

I don't think many of the complaints are valid. The skill system in ME1 wasn't particular useful or dynamic, so it was scaled back in the second. Less skills, but each one had more uses.

The inventory system was an absolute mess in the original too, and served no purpose except to break down items into medigel. It was utterly pointless and did not feel anything like an RPG by having it. Replacing it with the upgrade system made a lot more sense.

I don't think there was any more shooting in ME2 than there was in the original either, it just happened to have much better shooting mechanics. I also thought the conversations, missions and general story were much better in the second too. But I do wish they could have expanded upon some of the systems and made them into more useful systems, rather than just streamlining everything. Hopefully after Dragon Age 2 they've become more aware that generic action games are not what people want from their games and are putting that knowledge to good use for ME3.

mass effect 2 on ps3 was my first mass effect game and I enjoyed it. I didn't care about using powers except for maybe the ammo. I think it would have bugged me if I had to spec out my guy to be effective with the combat system it has. I don't want a real time shooter to have deep stats that just makes it way to aggrivating when you're losing not because you aimed wrong but because you spec'd wrong.

Mass Effect 2 is one of my favorite games ever. So no I'm not disappointed. In fact i went back to ME a few months ago and man.... It's kinda rough now

I was dissapointed with Mass Effect 2 but it wasn't because of the combat.

Sure, the first Mass Effect had a memorable story, but trying playing Mass Effect 2 then revisiting the first game. It's like night and day, in the worst way possible.

Those who can't see the clear gameplay improvements made in Mass Effect 2 are crazy people. It's fine if you like the first one better but the second is objectively, far and away, the better game.

Absolutely not. I only played two hours of the first Mass Effect. I know a lot of people like the RPG elements, story, atmosphere, etc. better, but none of that can save a game that I simply didn't have fun playing. Mass Effect 2, on the other hand, was a blast and I will have beaten twice by the time the third one comes out which is very rare for me.

Kind of? It's hard for me to say, because I have never really played a BioWare game for the part where I am playing it. Mass Effect drew me in because of the means that the developer utilized to convey the story; they had never have voice-over tied to the protagonist before, and I found the selections, which still amount to only a vague idea of what the character will actually say, compelling and cinematic. I didn't enjoy either of the available titles for their moral decisions though; too black-and-white. I will turn to Dragon Age: Origins (and not the awful sequel) again and again whenever I feel the need to really throw off my moral compass.

I don't think I was really upset about Mass Effect 2 transforming the series into a third-person shooter for the simple reason that the changes weren't effecting what I love about the games. In fact, what it did was beneficial in my case; they streamlined the experience and eliminated all of the clunky management stuff that kind of ruined the pace. Mass Effect 2 was very fluid in the way it shuffled the player from combat encounter to story encounter. That, I think, is how it got away with essentially changing the way the series handled.

Sure, the first Mass Effect had a memorable story, but trying playing Mass Effect 2 then revisiting the first game. It's like night and day, in the worst way possible.

In my opinion, ME2 had good combat with some excellent side missions. The main story like the first game's story however, was garbage. It is very easy to shit on ME2's downscaled RPG elements but Bioware made it in every way more fun to play.

I myself am done with the ME series. It had some unique ideas but I did not like where it was and definitely not where it is going to be headed.

I hope they release ME3 with the story that got leaked. I will get a good laugh out of that.

I definitely prefer the actual combat in ME2 over ME1 just because they improved the shooting to a point where it's competent as a third person shooter. I do agree that the simplified inventory system in ME2 is a little disappointing (i.e. armor, weapons, ammo types, etc.) but I think I ultimately enjoyed ME2 more than ME1.

Very, I wish ME3 was more like the first ME. :(

i agree that me2 has less rpg elements, but it is still a damn good game, just as good as me1 for me

to be frank, are there much else third person shooters out there that have rpg elements. gears of war is a pure shooter without anything, so me2 is a nice change of pace

@Milkman said:

Those who can't see the clear gameplay improvements made in Mass Effect 2 are crazy people. It's fine if you like the first one better but the second is objectively, far and away, the better game.

As someone who flaunts Mass Effect 1 around as my favourite in the series, I completely agree to your post. Mass Effect 2 is a much better game. It just needed a better villain, and perhaps a more meaningful large-scale objective. Saren is easily my favourite Bioware villain.

I just didn't like how all the fun parts of RPGs (at least to me) were either really stripped down or completely taken out. The looting, the armor customizability (yes, it's in there, but it's not nearly as deep as it was in ME1), the consolidation of abilities, the lack of exploration (a serious problem with the second game to me) and even the lower level cap. It just resulted in a game that I felt was trying way too hard to be a strict TPS instead of a TPS/RPG hybrid.

I also liked how in the first one you didn't necessarily need the cover, you could survive without it. In 2, it was completely necessary. Oh, and the story was pretty lackluster.

Mass Effect 2 was the better third person shooter.

Mass Effect 1 was the better RPG.

@Vorbis said:

Mass Effect 2 was the better third person shooter.

Mass Effect 1 was the better RPG.

Yeah. Neither game sucks in my opinion.

@Skald:

I played the PC version of both. I've played ME1 3-4 times, and couldn't even finish my second playthrough of ME2. It's the same thing. Every fight is the same thing. Get behind wall. Shoot submachine gun. Use biotic. Minimal effect. The nerfing of biotics was just awful. They don't do shit. What the hell is the point of biotics if they can only be used when the enemy is basically at 30% health? Why even bother playing Adept when you spend more time throwing Warp and firing a submachine gun than actually USING BIOTICS?

Plot was pointless. Had nothing to do with the first game, the villain was so stupid and cheesy that he's a meme among the ME fanbase, killing Shepard was incredibly heavy-handed.

RPG elements gone. This leveling system has the depth of River City Ransom's. Customizing anything is pretty much limited to Choice A or Choice B.

The morality system is a joke. Top right for Paragon, bottom right for Renegade. Every time. It's not like ME1's was so new and shocking, but I remember you got Paragon for turning down certain sidequests. What does ME2 do? It gives you Renegade if you ask Joker for a...status report? What?

Mass Effect was a competent third-person shooter, with heavy loot acquiring and management and heavy on the role-playing elements that helped you define an individual character. 
 
Mass Effect 2 is a better realized, competent third-person shooter with no loot, no management and simplified role-playing elements. 
 
Hopefully Mass Effect 3 can strike a good balance between the two previous installments.

It never really bothered me, besides I mostly used biotics.

I used to be in the camp that ME1 was the better game. I still think it has a better set of characters (Miranda can go die in a fire, she's the worst kind of female video game tropes), and considering combat was what I hated the most about ME1, for it to feel more of a focus in ME2, improved or not, felt like a major setback. Also stripping out most of the skills I actually used in ME1 felt stupid as well.

But now I question why I liked ME1 in the first place. Probably just for Wrex. I've tried branching out and trying other Bioware games (KOTOR and Dragon Age Origins) and I find them completely uninteresting. I think I just dislike Bioware as a developer, I don't understand the hype or supposed pedigree they have.

Now I know how people who hate Valve feel.

I loved it. Mass Effect 1 was good, but when you try and replay it, you realize how utterly annoying any level with Mako is. Like utterly fucking annoying. The gunplay was horrendous too. The gameplay and story in Mass Effect 2 are much better, and that is the main reason I have replayed this game 3 times already. I have never played a single player game 3 times.....EVER. I do miss the armors and weapon/ammo customization. I loved buying new weapons and comparing stats etc, but i'll give all of that up to not have to go through those horrendous Mako sections from ME1.

Well they have to wrap up the trilogy somehow. Here is to hoping that somebody out there will Produce a better scifi RPG that is more RPG Than TPS. Otherwise I'll just stick to PnP Traveller RPG.

Mass Effect 2 was the better third person shooter.

Mass Effect 1 was the better RPG.