Mass Effect 2 was more of a shooter, and while a very good shooter, it needed more RPGishness to hold a candle to the original. Although, I must say, I loved what they did with Garrus...
Mass Effect 2...seriously, wtf?
- Thread starter Ninemanec
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I had to sell it for a good reason, My girlfriend needed a B day giftNoriYuki Sato said:
, so its alright, shes happy, Im happy, and i can just buy a used copy later on 
The only thing I really missed was the RPG elements of the first game. I liked picking the best weapons and armor, and the satisfaction when you first get your hands on the spectre version of your favorite weapons is amazing. But I didn't get any of that from ME2 because there were only 2 versions of each gun, 3 of one type if you decided to do that. The armor sets were rare. And you didn't get any reward for each kill, so it made fighting feel a bit like a nuisance.
However, I still enjoyed Mass Effect 2, I just hope Bioware makes ME3 less of a shooter and more of an RPG.
However, I still enjoyed Mass Effect 2, I just hope Bioware makes ME3 less of a shooter and more of an RPG.
I like the different opinions here, I still stand by that I like finding SMALL stat changes and taking them, but some don't. I also loved the driving of the rover, and I know MANY did NOT like that part of the game, but in comparison to scanning planets, it wins hands down. I'd say the COMPLETELY POINTLESS SIDE MISSIONS that both games had were prettymuch the same...as in you found a random base while driving your rover, you found an anomaly...same kinda' stuff once you actually got to the base. As I said, ME2 is still amazing, and I can't wait for the epic-ness that will be ME3...But as for the sense of urgency...I felt none, I mean...if it were happening for real..I'd be OMFG...SAVE US ALL, but in this game it feels like it's not a big deal...Even though it is..while in ME1 everyone was screaming at you..DO IT SHEP...DO IT..And even when they said, DO whatever you need to do before we go in...in ME1 it was more like "IF YOU ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO" in ME2 it's like."Take your time, we're in no rush."
So,with that said, what do you expect from ME3...Even though I've clearly stated that ME2 was not as good as ME1 (IN MY OPINION) I think ME3 will be one of my favorite games of all time along with Kingdom Hearts 2, Assassins Creed 2, Fable: The Lost Chapters, etc...all great games..
So,with that said, what do you expect from ME3...Even though I've clearly stated that ME2 was not as good as ME1 (IN MY OPINION) I think ME3 will be one of my favorite games of all time along with Kingdom Hearts 2, Assassins Creed 2, Fable: The Lost Chapters, etc...all great games..
So the interrupt missions that must be done the moment you get them didn't give you a sense of urgency at all? Not even...Ninemanec said:
...when you play as joker and the ship gets attacked?
It gives you the urgency, but it also gives you the ablity to ignored it.
Okay, yes...they had the moments where they MADE you do stuff..but when they MADE you do it, it wasn't screaming demons that the world will die unless you do it right then. The attack part was urgent, mainly because you HAD to do it otherwise yeah...I loved that part, always felt like I was going to die, lol.
Dragon age was made by bioware and yes ME2 did fail compared to ME1 and i hope that if they do do a ME3 that they try to bring back in all the stuff from ME1 and add on to that, maybe bringing in a different type of enemy, possibly reptilian
I think that more weapon variety in ME2 and more plot-related side-quests wouldn't ahve gone amiss. And the Mako wasn't terrible unless you were scaling a cliff. I just hope ME3 has more replay value than ME1. I lost my save data and I'm slogging through to playME2 again. I want to play ME3 with an Ash and Liara romance to see the diffrences depending on if you had a relationship in 2... its just so monotonous nyoro~...-__-
I enjoyed Mass Effect 2 (obviously), but I kind of agree with the OP, I liked Mass Effect 1 better.
Everything about Mass Effect 2 was great, they kept what worked and they improved what didn't, but I just didn't like the story as much. I also felt that the game didn't have as many polarizing choices, there was nothing like ME's Virmire choice. I also think the game lacked the presence of a villain like Saren. I know you had Harbinger as a villain, but he just didn't have the same awesomness that Saren did. In every story mission you undertook you felt that rogue Turian's presence, everyone of the story missions had something to do with him. In Mass Effect 2, the collectors only really have a presence in 3 story missions, the recruitment missions and even the loyalty missions didn't really involve them. I know it might not seem like much, but to me it made a huge difference, you felt the threat of Saren at all times in ME1, in ME2 you only deal with the collectors after you pick up all your Squad mates.
It's hard to explain, I guess it can just be summarized as Mass Effect 1 was great because of a villain like Saren and ME2 lacked someone of that caliber.
Oh, other people feel the same way, cool.
Everything about Mass Effect 2 was great, they kept what worked and they improved what didn't, but I just didn't like the story as much. I also felt that the game didn't have as many polarizing choices, there was nothing like ME's Virmire choice. I also think the game lacked the presence of a villain like Saren. I know you had Harbinger as a villain, but he just didn't have the same awesomness that Saren did. In every story mission you undertook you felt that rogue Turian's presence, everyone of the story missions had something to do with him. In Mass Effect 2, the collectors only really have a presence in 3 story missions, the recruitment missions and even the loyalty missions didn't really involve them. I know it might not seem like much, but to me it made a huge difference, you felt the threat of Saren at all times in ME1, in ME2 you only deal with the collectors after you pick up all your Squad mates.
It's hard to explain, I guess it can just be summarized as Mass Effect 1 was great because of a villain like Saren and ME2 lacked someone of that caliber.
Oh, other people feel the same way, cool.
I have to disagree with you on this. ME2 I think had more depth to the characters then ME1. The recruitment and loyalty missions give you insight into their lives; also talking to them gives you even more detail. In ME1 you have quests that were more favors then loyalty missions and didn't matter at all in the end. In ME2 the loyalty missions are part of the end game, if you didn't do any of them most, if not all of your team mates will die and then Shepard as well. That gives that game a seance of urgency to the loyalty missions.
I think the story was better in ME2. We got to see the darker side of the galaxy and did things Shepard in ME1 wouldn't have done before. It showed the galaxy wasn't all like the Citadel and it shouldn't seem that way. ME2 was more realistic because it gave more gray area and the choice weren't just black and white ether in some cases.
The Suicide Mission I LOVE. It wasn't just go in and kill some mobs till you get to the last fight. It was pick the right people to go with you and the right person for the job that needed done then the Human Reaper. That brought the events during the game closer to home for me. The whole reason humans where being harvested was for that monster and for the Reapers to "reproduce" if you will. It was a hard fight because I couldn't have my normal team, they had to stay back and keep Collectors back.
Yes both game have their hiccups but what game doesn't?
I think the story was better in ME2. We got to see the darker side of the galaxy and did things Shepard in ME1 wouldn't have done before. It showed the galaxy wasn't all like the Citadel and it shouldn't seem that way. ME2 was more realistic because it gave more gray area and the choice weren't just black and white ether in some cases.
The Suicide Mission I LOVE. It wasn't just go in and kill some mobs till you get to the last fight. It was pick the right people to go with you and the right person for the job that needed done then the Human Reaper. That brought the events during the game closer to home for me. The whole reason humans where being harvested was for that monster and for the Reapers to "reproduce" if you will. It was a hard fight because I couldn't have my normal team, they had to stay back and keep Collectors back.
Yes both game have their hiccups but what game doesn't?
Thought better to copy part of the post i feel that me2 had a bit better story in my personal opinion me2 gave me sweaty pamels on the omega4 ship and when my team started dropping off i felt more tense playin the game where as me1 it was just kaiden who died. Yes i did pick williamsNinemanec said:
What about the epic line up for me3 lol. The only thing which confused me was why cerburs was so hated then i kinda thought "Oh wait these guys".
ME2 had a simple formula. Lower content, but make available content more obvious and encouraged=better playthrough. I think this streamlined version of mass effect was an enormous step forward, because ME2 technically classified as a shooter. I had (unfortunately) never talked to my teammates in ME1 the first time 'round, and didn't have any idea why it was getting such good reviews. ME2's loyalty missions forced players to interact and get to know their characters. It seemed forced, yes, but despite that it was shoving story down your throat, it was good story. I'm very glad they did this. I know a lot of people who had never played anything but dumb shooters, picked up ME2 and thought, wow. This game made me think. And for that, it is by far the best game I've played in years.
And by the way, if you were disappointed by the lack of RPG elements, (which it sounds like you are) Bioware has mentioned they're going to step it up in the last game. I just hope it doesn't get too convoluted and that they manage to find a balance.
And by the way, if you were disappointed by the lack of RPG elements, (which it sounds like you are) Bioware has mentioned they're going to step it up in the last game. I just hope it doesn't get too convoluted and that they manage to find a balance.
At first, I didn't like the gameplay, but now I'm used to it (I still say ME1's was better though).
The story was pretty good in my opinion and the ending shouldn't really be expected to be good because it isn't the end of the trilogy.
Overall, the only thing I didn't find reasonable was the paragon/renegade system which practically requires use of the glitch at the Lazarus Station that gives infinite paragon and renegade points to have a personalized game experience.
The story was pretty good in my opinion and the ending shouldn't really be expected to be good because it isn't the end of the trilogy.
Overall, the only thing I didn't find reasonable was the paragon/renegade system which practically requires use of the glitch at the Lazarus Station that gives infinite paragon and renegade points to have a personalized game experience.
With all due respect, OP, this simply is not true.
No character depth? Practically the entire game is spent on character depth, especially with more characters in your squad. Mass Effect 1 only had three loyalty missions: Finding Dr. Saleon for Garrus, finding Wrex's battle armour and helping Tali with her pilgrimage - note that the latter is a mere choice rather than a mission. I think it's great that Mass Effect 2 expands on this by giving all your squad members a loyalty mission.
While I enjoyed the customization of Mass Effect 1, particularly when I started getting end game armour and weapons such as Colossus X and Predator H/M/L X, it was messy and took quite a while to navigate. Overall, it was simply unnecessary. Think about what BioWare really did with Mass Effect 2. They simply removed what wasn't needed. To be honest, in the long run, I'm glad I don't have to mess around with armour and weapons and weapon upgrades. The new armour looks better (especially the collectors' armour if you're one of the cool kids like me who bought ME2 collectors' ed.) and different armour boosts different stats depending on your class choice and play style. Same goes for the weapons. There simply is no need to acquire 50 different weapons - 46 of them being total crap. At the end of the day, you only have 5 weapons in your arsenal at most anyway(including the addition of a heavy weapon).
The main character has fewer development paths? Remember those dialogue options highlighted in red or blue? I hear if you pick one of them it can lead your character down a different path. And remember when you could press RT or LT for a paragon/renegade action during a cutscene?! Yeah ME1 didn't have that. Contrary to what you believe, I actually think BioWare improved the dialogue. ME1 had incredible dialogue, and I mean really damn good. There certainly were some fine moments in that game. How BioWare managed to expand upon that in ME2 is beyond my understanding.
OK, perhaps the ending in ME2 wasn't as big as ME1, but ask yourself this, did it really need to be? I'm kind of sick of developers thinking along the simple path that their next game has to be bigger, bitter and more explosive than the first. Just look at the difference between CoD4 and MW2. That's what happens when developers start thinking along those lines. You get games which are blown out of proportion. The ending of Mass Effect 2 was good; while it might not have been as big as the fight with Saren and the reapers it was appropriately dangerous (hence Suicide Mission).
tl:dr? Re-evaluate your thoughts.
No character depth? Practically the entire game is spent on character depth, especially with more characters in your squad. Mass Effect 1 only had three loyalty missions: Finding Dr. Saleon for Garrus, finding Wrex's battle armour and helping Tali with her pilgrimage - note that the latter is a mere choice rather than a mission. I think it's great that Mass Effect 2 expands on this by giving all your squad members a loyalty mission.
While I enjoyed the customization of Mass Effect 1, particularly when I started getting end game armour and weapons such as Colossus X and Predator H/M/L X, it was messy and took quite a while to navigate. Overall, it was simply unnecessary. Think about what BioWare really did with Mass Effect 2. They simply removed what wasn't needed. To be honest, in the long run, I'm glad I don't have to mess around with armour and weapons and weapon upgrades. The new armour looks better (especially the collectors' armour if you're one of the cool kids like me who bought ME2 collectors' ed.) and different armour boosts different stats depending on your class choice and play style. Same goes for the weapons. There simply is no need to acquire 50 different weapons - 46 of them being total crap. At the end of the day, you only have 5 weapons in your arsenal at most anyway(including the addition of a heavy weapon).
The main character has fewer development paths? Remember those dialogue options highlighted in red or blue? I hear if you pick one of them it can lead your character down a different path. And remember when you could press RT or LT for a paragon/renegade action during a cutscene?! Yeah ME1 didn't have that. Contrary to what you believe, I actually think BioWare improved the dialogue. ME1 had incredible dialogue, and I mean really damn good. There certainly were some fine moments in that game. How BioWare managed to expand upon that in ME2 is beyond my understanding.
OK, perhaps the ending in ME2 wasn't as big as ME1, but ask yourself this, did it really need to be? I'm kind of sick of developers thinking along the simple path that their next game has to be bigger, bitter and more explosive than the first. Just look at the difference between CoD4 and MW2. That's what happens when developers start thinking along those lines. You get games which are blown out of proportion. The ending of Mass Effect 2 was good; while it might not have been as big as the fight with Saren and the reapers it was appropriately dangerous (hence Suicide Mission).
tl:dr? Re-evaluate your thoughts.
A lot of people will the inventory, item, and skill systems in ME1 were shoddy and tedious, and they'd be right. That doesn't mean it was a good idea to purge these systems entirely from the sequel. If all of the guns feel same-y, you shouldn't eliminate the variety of firearms. You should make finding and managing new weaponry more rewarding. If the inventory seems unwieldy, you shouldn't completely remove the system. You should streamline it. And the skills? I don't know why they turned it into Mass Effect for dumbies...
Anyways, they took the easy road and simplified almost every aspect of the game until you're left with basically a third person cover-based shooter with extremely modest character development and lots of dialogue/story. That's a decent recipe for success, to be sure, but it can absolutely leave many fans of the first game in the lurch.
Anyways, they took the easy road and simplified almost every aspect of the game until you're left with basically a third person cover-based shooter with extremely modest character development and lots of dialogue/story. That's a decent recipe for success, to be sure, but it can absolutely leave many fans of the first game in the lurch.
I highly, highly disagree with the bolded part. Extremely modest character development? Doing Tali's loyalty mission and finding out just how much frustration at her environmental suit she's holding in, doing Garrus's loyalty mission and finding out why he is such a vigilante...there is character development all over the place. You just have to be willing to look for it.FieryTrainwreck said:
*points to avatar* Loved her in the first game, became an official Tali fanboy after the second.danpascooch said: