Mass Effect 2...seriously, wtf?

[GloatingSwine]

If all of the guns feel same-y, you shouldn't eliminate the variety of firearms

They didn't. Because there was no variety of firearms. The different makes/models made no practical difference at all, they didn't change the ways the guns operated in any way at all, the best shotgun in the game felt exactly the same to use as the worst, etc.

The system in ME2, where the different guns actually made a difference was far more interesting to actually play with. All they need to do now is add a weapon building/customising system like in Army of Two, and they're set.

 

[psychic psycho]

I think the lack of urgency is what kills that game in my opinion.

There is no real sense of danger or anything overwhelming to overcome, I never once thought I had to prepare for an epic battle.
Which was a problem and disappointing.

I sent my laptop away for repair once I'd gotten to the Omega 4 relay, when it returned I'd lost my save point and I couldn't be bothered to drag myself back through a pretty linear game.
I may revisit it in a few years, maybe.

I agree with this completely. In the game you're never actively trying to stop the threat. You're just told to build a team. There doesn't seem to be a plan after you've finished building your team. The missions involving the collectors just fell onto your lap whenever the writers felt like giving them to you.

Character depth was dropped in sub for a "loyalty" thing that just gave you a bit more insight to your characters, whereas Mass Effect 1 kept building your characters from the second you got them to the end (or where they died...I dropped K, because Ash had ass).

I also agree with this. Basically there are two chances to learn about a character; during the recruitment mission and in the loyalty mission. ME1 was better in that it spread it throughout the game.

One thing I don't think has been mentioned yet is in ME1 you're squadmates talked to each other more: in elevators, during certain mission checkpoints, during mission debriefings, etc. In ME2 there was the squabbles with Miranda/Jack and Tali/Legion. Other than that squadmates just talked to Shepard.

 

[Danzaivar]

Totally disagree with the OP, tho the Collectors as an enemy could have done with more characterization. That bit at the end where Harbinger releases control and the general looks sad kinda implies some kind of personality. Wish we'd seen more about that.

 

[Internet Kraken]

I just want to say Tali is the best charecter in that game, Garrus is 2nd, and Shepard is 3rd, im mad i had to sell this game ><

QFT

Tali is awesome.

Sometimes I think I'm the only person that actually dislikes her.

On-topic: I agree with several other people who were perplexed by your opinion on character development in Mass Effect 2. To me it seems like there was a lot more of it in the second game than the first. Even if you only did the loyalty missions I'd still think that's odd since the loyalty missions still have a lot of character development for some characters. Mordin's loyalty mission is what changed him from a good character to a great one, in my opinion.

 

[Meemaimoh]

I disagree with almost everything the OP said except that there was an unfortunate lack of a Saren-like character. What I didn't find, however, was that this detracted from any sense of urgency. I actually disliked the final battle in ME1; I enjoyed battling Saren, but what I didn't like was that I never got to have a hand in personally taking down Sovereign.

I thought the final part of ME2 was some of the most exciting gaming I've ever had the pleasure of engaging in. When my first character died (Tali), I was devastated, and realised that my leadership would mean life and death for the characters I had grown so attached to. Losing Samara therefore hit just as hard - I'd known that I could lose people, but I'd still failed. And losing Mordin right at the end was the worst of all, because wow, what an intriguing character.

I think looking at games with a critical eye as you play is going to result in you losing the sense of urgency that is created by the game. I found myself utterly enthralled by the suicide mission. I'm surprised at the amount of complaints about it that I'm seeing here.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

If all of the guns feel same-y, you shouldn't eliminate the variety of firearms

They didn't. Because there was no variety of firearms. The different makes/models made no practical difference at all, they didn't change the ways the guns operated in any way at all, the best shotgun in the game felt exactly the same to use as the worst, etc.

The system in ME2, where the different guns actually made a difference was far more interesting to actually play with. All they need to do now is add a weapon building/customising system like in Army of Two, and they're set.

That was the point of my post. If the guns didn't feel different enough despite the many models, they needed to branch out and develop from that point. I think scrapping all of them in favor of "the gun" for each specific type was kind of lazy. The building/customization bit you're suggesting is more of an expansion on the first game's setup, which is exactly what I'd like to see. Growth and development over time, for your gear and your character.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

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.

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.

Yeah, I was worried that might happen.

I meant RPG character development. As in, you get stronger and develop from a pure statistics/combat standpoint over the course of the game. It felt much more linear and even flat, from a power perspective, over the course of ME2. That's one of the RPG tropes they're possibly phasing out, but I felt like it kind of eliminated the feeling or progression. My ship got more interesting and effective upgrades than I ever did... kinda sad heh.

 

[Altorin]

Having less guns allowed each gun to be completely unique. In Mass Effect 1, there was only really 3 guns.. Whatever Gun had the best damage/Heat ratio, Spectre 7, and then Spectre 10.

Everything else was just chaff to be sold.

In Mass Effect 2, every gun is completely different to the other guns.

The Starting pistol for instance, is more like a standard 9mm gun in a shooter game.. lots of ammo, little damage per shot, but consistent. The Carnifex Hand Cannon on the other hand, is like a magnum. Fewer shots, massive damage per shot, meant for handsniping, rather then suppression.

The SMGs come in several flavors - There's the 3 shot model, the 5 shot model, both of which are entirely different beasts. The 5 shot model is better for suppression (firing a shit ton of bullets to force an enemy into cover), whereas the 3 shot is better for tactical hits.

The shotguns come in the 1 shot, 3 shot and 5 shot cartridge models, and all of them are also very different. The 5 shot is for the people who like to fire off a lot of rounds, and have access to a lot of ammo. The 3 shot version is the in between, and the 1 shot aka "biggest burst damage in the game" is only for people who are, to quote Denzel Washington "surgical with this ************".

For sniper rifles, where's the Viper, which is for noobie snipers, or snipers that want the chance to correct their aim after a shot. The Widow/Starting Sniper rifle are standard sniper rifles, 1 shot per zoom, deadly headshots, etc.

The complaint about the lack of guns is unfounded, because all of the guns in Mass Effect 1 were horrible. Every single one of them, apart from the Spectre series. The massive amount of choice was an illusion in ME1 because every gun sucked.

 

[HK_01]

In my opinion, the worst part about ME2 as a whole was the T-800 Reaper. Seriously, what the fuck? Complete immersion-breaker, and that right at the end of the game.

 

[ImprovizoR]

Yeah, I missed some of the things from ME1. They didn't include those things in favor of a more action based gameplay. I don't appreciate that. Mass Effect 1 is definitely better. Instead of visiting and exploring planets for resources we got a tedious planet scan. I also miss weapons, armor and mods. Sure gunplay in ME2 is better but that's about it. I liked most of the characters though. Not as much as I liked the first set from ME1 but they are OK.

 

[Millky95]

I thought the final part of ME2 was some of the most exciting gaming I've ever had the pleasure of engaging in. When my first character died (Tali), I was devastated, and realised that my leadership would mean life and death for the characters I had grown so attached to. Losing Samara therefore hit just as hard - I'd known that I could lose people, but I'd still failed. And losing Mordin right at the end was the worst of all, because wow, what an intriguing character.

I know the feeling. I got so close to about 4 of my characters. Legion, Garrus, Grunt and Thane. In my suicide mission Jack died first, I couldn't have cared less. When Legion died I was sad. When Garrus died, I swear I almost cried. I almost lost Thane too. I played it a 2nd time to make sure they all survived. Now I only have half of the Cerberus crew left but idc bout them.

OP: I liked both games, each having it's flaws. Just wait for ME3 and hopefully, it'll be the best of both games.

 

[Abedeus]

Three reasons I will probably finish ME2 for the 4th time and not touch ME1 for at least another year.

1. Mako. Dear God, Mako. At least in ME2 you can use save editors to add resources and ignore the boring radar thing.
2. Inventory and character screens. Overloaded with informations, and inventory/equipment screen was one of the worst I've encountered in all of my gaming career.
3. OVERHEAT BUG!! I think I had to reload at least half of my fights in ME1 because I overheated a weapon and it didn't go down, ever. And I had to quick-save and quick-load so often, I might as well could bind them to my mouse's side buttons.

 

[GloatingSwine]

That was the point of my post. If the guns didn't feel different enough despite the many models, they needed to branch out and develop from that point.

If you admit that all the many models did nothing, why are you so attached to keeping them? They're a useless non-feature that added nothing to the game except dull inventory management, so why do you want them, it's like arguing to keep the rusty spike in the middle of your comfy chair, so what if it sticks in your arse all day, it's part of the chair dammit!

I think scrapping all of them in favor of "the gun" for each specific type was kind of lazy.

And I think it was a good design choice, identifying a component of the game which did not work and which was of no practical value and getting rid of it, replacing it with something which did work instead.

Seriously, the first lesson of game design is to learn to murder your darlings. The weapon/armour system in the first game was an obvious darling, something which was intended from an early stage in the game but which didn't actually work with the game as it turned out being. It was something which needed to die, and by the time of the sequel it had.

 

[GloatingSwine]

3. OVERHEAT BUG!! I think I had to reload at least half of my fights in ME1 because I overheated a weapon and it didn't go down, ever. And I had to quick-save and quick-load so often, I might as well could bind them to my mouse's side buttons.

That's what happens when an enemy uses Sabotage on you. Switch to a different weapon, the first one will take a good 30 seconds to a minute to cooldown.

 

[FirstOne617]

There were things I liked about Mass Effect that didn't make it over into Mass Effect 2. I disliked the streamlined power options. I felt that they made changes too big, instead of being able to fine-tune powers. I missed (somewhat) the upgrade options from ME1. I didn't like how I was stuck with 5 damage enhancers for my chosen weapon and two special mods that I didn't really feel. When I modded my sniper rifle with high explosive rounds in ME1, then blew up three Geth Shock Troopers in one shot, I felt that upgrade. I didn't feel an enhanced scope or whatever. I realized that I was getting better performance out of my rifle, but still didn't really get a sense that I'd made any big changes to it. I do miss Saren, but I felt that as an enemy, the Collectors also worked well, and the final mission was still satisfying. I do worry about the final boss "being bach," but it was still a good, harrowing final fight. Gunplay is much improved in ME2, although I miss grenades. I can't begin to recount the number of times a grenade saved my life in ME1, and I missed having a crutch in case I started to get swarmed. Powers were also better in ME2, especially tech powers. In ME1, you got a different colored explosion. In ME2, powers definitely distinguished themselves from one another. Shepard being able to arc powers was also pretty cool. I liked the unique class skill each class got. Tactical cloak was a godsend, and it felt better than quiet behind-the-scenes upgrades. Characterization was just as good in ME2 as it was in ME. You had to go find it, but in the end, I made sure no one on my team died. Not just for the achievement, but because I cared about them, as people. Every one of them had distinct personalities. Miranda worked so hard to prove that she earned what she got on her own merits, instead of through other advantages. Jack was broken and fractured, and worked to become tough to block out the fear. Tali's frustrations at being stuck in an environmental suit were brought to light, and you felt that despite her new position in the Fleet, she was still that same girl you rescued on the Citadel.

TL;DR: Both games were good, ME2 wins on gameplay. Characterization is a non-issue between games.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

If you admit that all the many models did nothing, why are you so attached to keeping them? They're a useless non-feature that added nothing to the game except dull inventory management, so why do you want them, it's like arguing to keep the rusty spike in the middle of your comfy chair, so what if it sticks in your arse all day, it's part of the chair dammit!

I'd characterize the many different weapons and armor in ME1 as ineffective armrests. They weren't working all that well, but the best solution isn't ripping them off and forcing me to sit in a chair with no fuggin' armrests. In other words, if the RPG and character building elements of the first game were poorly implemented, I'd much rather they'd fixed the implementation than axe those features entirely. The sequel was certainly streamlined, but it also felt pretty shallow.

Seriously, the first lesson of game design is to learn to murder your darlings. The weapon/armour system in the first game was an obvious darling, something which was intended from an early stage in the game but which didn't actually work with the game as it turned out being. It was something which needed to die, and by the time of the sequel it had.

I rather like the idea of slowly upgrading my character over the course of the game through found items and equipment. Customizing my squad gives me a greater sense of ownership and participation. Should it be so fantastically unintuitive as it was in the first game? Obviously not. Should it be handled almost entirely by the game's rigid and linear progression? I don't think so.

ME2 is just a different genre of game, really. It's a highly linear, third-person, cover-based shooter with strong story and character elements and extremely limited RPG elements. Great game, too. I happen to miss the trappings of the first game, and I lament what the second could have been if they'd upgraded their design instead of hacking off bits and pieces.

 

[Yarpie]

Regarding the whole "lack of RPG elements/customization", I would point you to this editorial as it pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter: http://www.cynicalbrit.com/gaming-express/mass-effect-2-editorial/

As for the character development, I think enough people have pointed out already that it was fairly superior in the second, at least compared to the first.

Now, about the ending. While I will agree that it was not grand as the first game, you have to ask yourself if it should be. Mass Effect has been designed as a trilogy from the very start, and with that comes the burden of pacing. The first game set up the Reapers as the ultimate threat to the intergalactic civilization. You managed to beat one of them, barely. It was then predicted that they would return one day, resulting in some kind of ultimate showdown (supposedly the scenario in Mass Effect 3).

If you are going to make a trilogy, it is important that the finale feels truly epic, like it is the grandest final confrontation possible within the context of said trilogy. If not, it will probably feel a bit anticlimactic. Now imagine if they were to have just as grand a finale to the second game as they did with the first. Then you run the risk of A) compromising the impact of the series finale and B) give the series ending a sense of redundancy, because let's face it, the only way to make ME2s ending more grand (or as grand) as the first would be to throw in another reaper (or two) and have it attack The Citadel. Regarding A), if you were going to raise the stakes even further in the second compared to the first, you run the risk of the third one not feeling as threatening as it should be, since it might not be a large enough step up from the second and it might leave you feeling disappointed, and personally I would rather feel underwhelmed by the second installment rather than the third and final.

I will agree that ME2s ending wasn't as bombastic as MEs, however I think it served it purpose. It gave us more information on The Reapers, how they operate and how they "reproduce", as well as setting the scene for the final installment, with the final shot actually showing the Reaper fleet approaching. This is just my opinion, but I think that is just what the second part of a trilogy is supposed to do; give us some more exposition regarding the situation at hand as well as setting the scene the third part. It might not be as grand as the first or third part, however it doesn't need to be in order to serve it's purpose.

TL;DR version: Due to the pacing of a trilogy, having a super grand finale in the second chapter is probably a bad idea.

 

[GloatingSwine]

I'd characterize the many different weapons and armor in ME1 as ineffective armrests. They weren't working all that well, but the best solution isn't ripping them off and forcing me to sit in a chair with no fuggin' armrests. In other words, if the RPG and character building elements of the first game were poorly implemented, I'd much rather they'd fixed the implementation than axe those features entirely. The sequel was certainly streamlined, but it also felt pretty shallow.

The problem isn't just that they "weren't working that well" though, because of the plethora of useless crap the game used to dump on you and the general awfulness of the menu system, they were an active detriment to the game. It was useless cruft that, due to it's implementation, put annoying busywork into the game, grovelling through an annoying inventory system for a trivial statistical benefit and no gameplay variation.

I rather like the idea of slowly upgrading my character over the course of the game through found items and equipment. Customizing my squad gives me a greater sense of ownership and participation. Should it be so fantastically unintuitive as it was in the first game? Obviously not. Should it be handled almost entirely by the game's rigid and linear progression? I don't think so.

And you do that in the second game through the research system.

ME2 is just a different genre of game, really. It's a highly linear, third-person, cover-based shooter with strong story and character elements and extremely limited RPG elements.

The cutscene interrupt actions in Mass Effect 2 offer more scope for roleplaying Shepard than the entire first game.

 

[Lyri]

I agree with this completely. In the game you're never actively trying to stop the threat. You're just told to build a team. There doesn't seem to be a plan after you've finished building your team. The missions involving the collectors just fell onto your lap whenever the writers felt like giving them to you.

It works in favour of the game writers I suppose and it's pretty lazy to boot. The fact that the Collectors are an elusive bunch lends to the fact we don't meet them but that takes away any personal feelings too.
I for one whilst playing Mass Effect 1, did not like Saren I thought he was a cocky tool who deserved a pistol shunted down his throat.
I had feelings about him, something to engage me on a personal level with the game and it's story.

The collectors just show up, steal people and bounce.
That's their lot in life and they're a tool of a greater evil, now whilst I'm out getting black leather outfits for people I'm supposed to care about this threat?
Well I don't.
First of all you're getting mad at the monkey and not the organ grinder and secondly, they don't get in my grill at all.
Everything you did on ME1 was to thwart Saren, even he had vested interest in blasting you out of the sky.
See, mutual hatred right here.

Collectors are just going about their business because they were told too and just cross our path sometimes whilst we update our wardrobe before war.
It isn't really a great build up, lets be honest.

 

[procyonlotor]

The only real sense of danger present in ME2 was going to talk to the Illusive Man if you weren't ready for a mission. The game sure let you take your sweet, sweet time finishing it.