Mass effect 2 > Mass effect 1
- Thread starter Jesse Willadson
- Start date
Recommended Videos
You have an opinion that I respectfully disagree with. I personally think the magic of the games was in the first one and the second was a great game, but an inferior addition.
I just hope ME3 manages to trump them both.
I just hope ME3 manages to trump them both.
Cool story bro, tell another.
I personally like them both. Everyone has their own opinion, we all know this, we all need to get over it, this thread is kind of pointless and redundant.
I personally like them both. Everyone has their own opinion, we all know this, we all need to get over it, this thread is kind of pointless and redundant.
Try getting out of the Mako in ME1 and sniping otherwise vehicle-based enemies (like Colossi and Geth Primes) from a mile away. Not only are you useful, but you get a huge XP bonus for killing the "vehicular" enemy on foot.3quency said:
Bonus points for killing a Thresher Maw this way (I have.)
(Yes, the process does tend to take a while.)
Agreed, I was still in love with BioWare when ME2 came out (DA:2 wasn't even a twinkle in a lazy executive's eye), and honestly it planted the seeds of my falling out with the company. Their next big release being another $60 side quest was the end.Canadish said:
Oddly enough, if you'd switched the plots of the games, don't even mention the Reapers while fighting the Harvesters and ME1 is just introducing the game universe, Shepard and the Normandy (the shocking twist being who the Harvesters are, not who they're working for)(oh and hey, dropping the working for a terrorist organization part), I'd still be in love with them.
mass effect 2 was a good game, but my god mass effect 1 was just on a whole different level. more rpg elements, better writing, SIDE QUESTS! planet exploration and a better structure to the game
i also wasnt rather insultingly lumped in with the "I cant pay attention for five seconds without boobs and/or explosions crowd" when playing the first game
i also wasnt rather insultingly lumped in with the "I cant pay attention for five seconds without boobs and/or explosions crowd" when playing the first game
this actually sums of my feelings on the second oneMcoffey said:
I have to go with Mass Effect 2. It is damn near impossible for me to go back and play the first game.
I couldn't agree with that - What about first finding Garrus on Omega? When Jack went bat f*** insane on her recruitment mission and tore two heavy mechs apart like paper? Thane dropping down behind that Asari ***** and killing both of her guards without her noticing? The destruction of the heretic station?Amaror said:
And ME3 has set up with one of the best ever, ladies and gentlemen, I give you Wrex!
Salarian: 'You are not authorised to land!'
Wrex: 'Let's see them stop a KROGAN AIRDROP'
Shortly followed by him literally using his biotics to Force punch two guards into a wall =D
ME1 had better:
-Story. ME2's, in the long run, was a relatively inconsequential story which was being enormously 'bigged up' by everybody you met. ME1: save the government. ME2: save, erm, a few human colonies? By going on a suicide mission with some of the most powerful warriors in the galaxy, who will be needed against the reapers? No thanks...
-Worlds. Seriously, although the Mako was awful, exploring was a lot of fun.
-Customisation. Although weapon variety was greater in 2, the mods and different armour types of 1 give it the edge.
ME2 had better:
-Story presentation. You are meant to be saving the universe here, the sections which 'forced' you to do a mission because it was happening right now gave it a great sense of urgency.
-Combat. Vanguard charge destroys any arguments otherwise.
-Characters. Although presented a bit worse (do mission, talk, do loyalty, romance/become friends was very formulatic), Mordin, Legion, Samara and so on were great characters who gave a lot of insight into the ME universe.
All in all, I prefer playing 2. 1 is still a damn good game, but has aged a LOT and the combat is annoyingly poor.
-Story. ME2's, in the long run, was a relatively inconsequential story which was being enormously 'bigged up' by everybody you met. ME1: save the government. ME2: save, erm, a few human colonies? By going on a suicide mission with some of the most powerful warriors in the galaxy, who will be needed against the reapers? No thanks...
-Worlds. Seriously, although the Mako was awful, exploring was a lot of fun.
-Customisation. Although weapon variety was greater in 2, the mods and different armour types of 1 give it the edge.
ME2 had better:
-Story presentation. You are meant to be saving the universe here, the sections which 'forced' you to do a mission because it was happening right now gave it a great sense of urgency.
-Combat. Vanguard charge destroys any arguments otherwise.
-Characters. Although presented a bit worse (do mission, talk, do loyalty, romance/become friends was very formulatic), Mordin, Legion, Samara and so on were great characters who gave a lot of insight into the ME universe.
All in all, I prefer playing 2. 1 is still a damn good game, but has aged a LOT and the combat is annoyingly poor.
Ah what the heck. I'll post my opinion too.
I liked the first one better.
Things I hated in the first one:
THE FUCKING MAKO.
Getting one-shotted by snipers...but the payoff later was worth it.
The Soldier class. Borrrrriing.
Things I hated in the second one:
Everything that got dumbed down. Less skills, less customization of armor and weapons, less of pretty much everything.
The Biotic nerf.
The thermal clip system.
The oversized terminator at the end. It was lame, boring, and unimaginative.
Most of the characters.
I liked the first one better.
Things I hated in the first one:
THE FUCKING MAKO.
Getting one-shotted by snipers...but the payoff later was worth it.
The Soldier class. Borrrrriing.
Things I hated in the second one:
Everything that got dumbed down. Less skills, less customization of armor and weapons, less of pretty much everything.
The Biotic nerf.
The thermal clip system.
The oversized terminator at the end. It was lame, boring, and unimaginative.
Most of the characters.
I agree. The first one just seemed so... plastic, if you get my point. The second one felt superior in most aspects. Yes, the RPG elements were cut down, but still. Now the first one just seems like an obstacle that I have to pass in order to play the second one again.
For me the most important aspect (even over story) is gameplay, so I do agree that Mass Effect 2 is the better game. Just a whole hell of a lot more exciting to play, period.
Pretty much this. But I'd say the character presentation in Mass Effect 2 was a bit better despite being formulaic. Characters had their own room instead of standing around in empty spaces (ok Jacob still sat around in an empty space), the cinematic camera was put to good use during some of the more emotional conversations, and characters like Miranda and Jacob would have been awfully boring to me without some good presentation.Bebus said:
Mass Effect 2's story was odd because it didn't move anything forward except at the end "oh look, giant Reaper fleet" but it's characters were what made it game of the year for me.
Mass Effect 2 had better combat, but the separation of the fighting and non-fighting areas was a a little jarring for me. I liked it in Mass Effect 1 because it gave the impression that any area could become a battlefield (then again it didn't really utilize it that well).
I actually liked the concept of "go on a suicide mission with some of the most powerful warriors in the galaxy" it was like being part of a heist film, but Bebus is still right, the motivation was rather silly.
Those were good scenes, i agree but i didn't really thought of them as epic.Steel_crab said:
What i thought epic was:
- Virmire - Mission, the middle - last part of the mission.
- Distpute with Wrex.
- Anderson punching Udina (Escape from the citadel)
- The last mission.
In the second one the last mission was epic too (Although i didn't liked the boss) but the rest didn't felt as good.
I don't know why people hated the Mako so much, it was vastly superior to the scanning. ME1 had vastly superior villains and i prefered the rpg elements, even though the overall combat is improved in ME2.
There just was much less of a thread behind the collectors than Sovereign. Reapers suddenly went from a superior race with a god complex to something that wanted revenge from Shepard and did a bad job at it.
There just was much less of a thread behind the collectors than Sovereign. Reapers suddenly went from a superior race with a god complex to something that wanted revenge from Shepard and did a bad job at it.
Ill right I stated that I would say why I prefer the second one so:
Story: I prefer the more character focused fast paced story compared to the first one. Yeah, it lacks the same focus as the first one and the ending battle can be stupid (I didn't think it was stupid but can see why) but I was always more interested in my squad-mates then the over all arch in the first place
Combat: I hated the combat from the first one. If often felt to floaty (is that a word?) and disconnected. The second one felt more like a shooter, and being a shooter fan to the core I prefer it
Leveling up: I fell that mass effect 1 had more options only in the sense that there was more skills, that is it. When I level something up all I get is a small percentage in damage/duration/accuracy, what ever sometimes by 5% other times by 2% whoop de do. In mass effect 2 I had less choices but when I felt the upgrade the min I level up something I feel it, and at the the end I pick between one of two options (though to be fare its almost always the same two options for all powers, hit one enemy really hard, or hit multiple enemies kinda hard) which lends to more tactical combat. In the first mass effect I could pretty much spam my powers and be fine (at least after level 30)
To be honest theres more, but I hate long forum responses, and I am writing this during physical anthropology. Ill right a paper at some point on all my feelings on the issue (though I don't expect any of you to read it)
Story: I prefer the more character focused fast paced story compared to the first one. Yeah, it lacks the same focus as the first one and the ending battle can be stupid (I didn't think it was stupid but can see why) but I was always more interested in my squad-mates then the over all arch in the first place
Combat: I hated the combat from the first one. If often felt to floaty (is that a word?) and disconnected. The second one felt more like a shooter, and being a shooter fan to the core I prefer it
Leveling up: I fell that mass effect 1 had more options only in the sense that there was more skills, that is it. When I level something up all I get is a small percentage in damage/duration/accuracy, what ever sometimes by 5% other times by 2% whoop de do. In mass effect 2 I had less choices but when I felt the upgrade the min I level up something I feel it, and at the the end I pick between one of two options (though to be fare its almost always the same two options for all powers, hit one enemy really hard, or hit multiple enemies kinda hard) which lends to more tactical combat. In the first mass effect I could pretty much spam my powers and be fine (at least after level 30)
To be honest theres more, but I hate long forum responses, and I am writing this during physical anthropology. Ill right a paper at some point on all my feelings on the issue (though I don't expect any of you to read it)