Poll: Mass Effect vs. Mass Effect 2? Seriously. I'm lost.

[Irridium]

-But the reapers aren't Human. They are something so old, so immense, so far beyond our very existence that you might as well try to teach a worm to understand us.

-Let's call it personal taste and leave it.

-Shepard not only encountered the beacon, Shepard survived it. A device designed to implant information directly into the brain of a species more advanced than use with a completely different brain and biochemistry. Shepard then goes on to fight the geth, the krogan and Saren thwarting him at every turn with just his/her bare hands. Shepard dealt with everything and came out on top, damn near alone. As the G-Man said the wrong person in the right place makes all the difference in the world.

-Shepard joins at 18 and turns career military getting to N7. Shepard's military to the core even outside the military you're still a ship's captain, have a crew and pursue a military objective. You don't just stop being a soldier by taking off the uniform.

-The crew did talk just at specific scripted moments. Basically the same as the elevators but you couldn't just experience those moments continually. If you take Tali and Garrus onto the Citadel he talks about how he misses the elevators.

-I know, which is why its good to have a villain to fight on our level. Its just much more interesting instead of fighting yet another great, evil, faceless force hellbent on destroying everything. We learn about the Reapers through enemies like Saren. We fight them through their thralls. Helps bring it down to our level so we can feel like its not completely hopeless.

-Fair enough.

-Shepard had great help with damn near all the things he did. He needed the Salarian STG on Virmire. He needed help from people on Novera to get where he needed to go. He needed help from the colonists on Feros to figure out what was going on. He needed Liara to help make sense of his visions(as well as that one Asari on Feros). He needed the Normandy and Joker's skills to get on Ilos. He needed the data from Vigil to thwart Saren. He needed the Alliance Fleet to destroy Saren. He needed his team to make up for the skills he lacked.

Yes he manages to accomplish much on his own, but he would never have saved anyone if he tried to do things himself.

-Ok. But I doubt most soldiers would gladly work for a terrorist organization without giving their superiors good reason. Could have had Anderson tell you to spy on them for him. There are plenty of better ways to make it feel like a better choice instead of "Shepard obeys because he's military to the core". Which re-enforces that this is Shepard, and you don't have any say in the matter.

-That moment with Garrus/Tali talking was the only time where your squad talked to each other out of their own volition and of something not related to whatever mission your on. Any other time you'd have to activate a certain spot in a hub world for them to speak their mind. They just never talked about stuff. Never discussed anything with each other. It ended up making them feel shallow.

 

[plugav]

I don't even like Mass Effect, gameplay-wise.

It just wasn't fun. If it was supposed to be an RPG, it was a shallow one, bogged down in boring inventory bullshit. If it was supposed to be a shooter, ME2 destroys it.

Yes, the story is ME1 was a little better, but the characters and setting of ME2 are superior.

Mass Effect 2 is the one I would actually replay is what I'm saying.

What this person said, basically.

Mass Effect is notable for its original setting, but not really for its gameplay, and cerainly not for it's "RPG-elements" (by which people seem to understand "roll-playing," not "roleplaying").

 

[Kingsnake661]

Please help me out here.

I keep seeing arguments flare up that the first Mass Effect was better than its predecessor and I'm still scratching my head at that.

They are very different games, yes, but I thought that the combat was much more satisfying in the sequel and that the procession of interesting stories and characters were more entertaining, varied, and deep.

Sure, the planet-mining sucked, but so did struggling to get the Mako over a series of mountains and encountering the same firefight on nearly every explorable planet.

The biggest point of difference that I see is RPG-shooter vs. shooter-RPG.

Which is better and why? Is there something that I'm not seeing?

It seems to me, honestly, that some people just get really bent out of shape over nothing. Yeah, ME2 did "simplify" things, but that didn't IMO make it worse at all. IMO, sometimes less is more. The draw of Mass Effect for me is story and charater and fun. That i enjoy the story, like the charaters, and have fun playing it. I don't worry about the smaller details, like a paired down skill tree or universal upgrades. I could still unleash biotic carnage.. and blow stuff up.. it was still fun, i could still do what i wanted to do, more even in alot of ways.

IMO, ME1 is great, ME2 is better, and ME3 had better blow my mind. ;-)

 

[Ryan Minns]

For me it was more I was wanting an RPG, I got a shooter instead, ME2 is in no way a bad game but it was more like Gears of War with a story... and better characters, also ME2 just seemed a little bit of a cop out to me

Just an example, some may disagree

In ME 1 when you first talk to sovereign you get this feeling that you are indeed nothing, how he speaks is basically "We're Reapers mother *****, trying to explain what we are is a waste of time, you are, all of you worthless creatures who's only purpose is to die when we bloody say so!"
Which worked great, some basic information was all that was needed and it gave you the sense these creatures were indeed a whole level above you. Then ME2 came along and... Reapers seem like machines, plain, ordinary machines programmed to wipe out and reproduce

The fact the council didn't believe in the Reapers despite it being a complete brain fart not to was also a kick in the balls, your actions in the first game were literally meaningless bar a slight difference in dialogue here and there, I didn't mind ME2 but the whole thing to me just felt separated from ME1

That's probably a bit hard to read sorry, decent sentence structure is not something lack of sleep helps very well!

 

[jediroshi]

Both are quite good in my opinion. Again the only real solid complient I had about the 1st one was it feeling shortish actually. The missions were quite long true, but there only seemed to be like 4 or 5 and the extra missons really were like go here and enter one base so not too big.

On the other hand the missions seemed short compared to Mass Effect 2 but you have a lot more of them and varity the complient I have for 2 is yeah... the minning sucked balls...so very tedious. So yeah there both good, hell near perfect games in my opinion.

 

[mjc0961]

They both have their good points and bad points, but overall are both great games. That's how I see it anyway.

Also, I liked the Mako bits. There were just one or two planets that caused a problem because they had one very specific path you needed to take up a very steep set of mountains.
I'd rather have the Mako than the Hammerhead. The Hammerhead seemed to be more about awkward platforming and races against the clock than being an actual combat vehicle, and it showed every time you got in a fight and had to run away after taking two hits because you were about to die. The Hammerhead's weapon was also rather pathetic as well. At least the Mako had good shields and a decent weapon loadout (a cannon and a machine gun, and you could zoom in quite nicely with either for long distance encounters). Yes, I actually rather enjoyed the Mako once I got used to it. But I can really do without the Hammerhead bits unless they want to get rid of combat in the Hammerhead completely.

 

[Markaleth]

Why is it necessary to have one better then the other? I'm sure everyone can agree that they're both great games, just like Dragon Age and Dragon Age 2. The truth is that when you really think about it, the question of "which is better" is really irrelevant. The first one did not have the advantage of receiving the feedback the second had. As a franchise moves forward each piece should have subsequently advanced thanks to the efforts, information and concepts the preceding one laid down.
The things each does differently serves only as identifiers that differentiate the games to each of us in turn.
The question you're posing can only be answered by you and your preference alone. It baffles me that we all look to the past for "the best thing ever" , or that comparisons like this need to be made, instead of having said game stand on it's own merits.
I personally can't wait for the third game and for the new methods they'll use to deliver the narrative and branch the story into whole new directions.

 

[hermes]

Truth is, Mass Effect 1 was a very good game, but it was flawed. When they made 2, they choose to remove a lot of features that had flaws instead of correcting them. People that liked some of those features felt like 2 has taken a lot of what made the series special... Me, on the other hand, didn't care a lot about the things they changed, they weren't the reason why I liked the first one. So, I liked 2 as much as 1 (maybe more).

One thing that I do agree, though, is that 2 felt less epic than 1. In the first game, the literal fate of the galaxy rested on your team shoulders; in 2 the threat is almost exclusive to the human race and you never got the impression that it affected more than just colonists (the reasons for other races to join your team are never addressed other than being mercenaries or loyal to your character).

However, the whole "lack of epicness" can be attributed to 2 being the middle chapter... Not worried here that 3 will be a fully fleshed space opera.

 

[ConnorCool]

I thought ME1 was better, but replaying through ME2 this week, ME2 is a lot better. ME1 still has a special place in my heart though.
The ME2 DLC is really good too, Overlord is really creepy.

 

[DaHero]

Both games were good.

Mining sucked, and the addition of ammo was kinda crazy to me, but nothing in ME2 prevented me from enjoying the story progression.

I'm playing ME2 and I quite enjoy the mining/probing. It's a change of pace, which all games need occasionally. *+3 Renegade*

 

[AlternatePFG]

Both of them are equally flawed in different areas. ME1's combat, interface and everything was clunky as hell. In exchange, it had a great atmosphere, that ME2 lacked and the universe actually felt big. ME2 removed almost all the bad parts about ME1, but made no effort to improve them instead of just ripping them out completely. The main plot in ME2 is stupid, and it railroads you into working with Cerberus, walking into obvious traps and other stupid things. But it had some great characters with some amazing loyalty missions.

I thought ME2 was still a great game, due to the previously mentioned characters and loyalty missions, but it was a bad RPG. Any RPG that punishes you for roleplaying is missing the point (you have to get enough paragon or renegade points to mediate arguements between your squad). As for ME1, it's just too clunky for me to enjoy playing. Good story (if cliched) and atmosphere but it's just a rather bad game.

 

[manythings]

-I know, which is why its good to have a villain to fight on our level. Its just much more interesting instead of fighting yet another great, evil, faceless force hellbent on destroying everything. We learn about the Reapers through enemies like Saren. We fight them through their thralls. Helps bring it down to our level so we can feel like its not completely hopeless.

-Fair enough.

-Shepard had great help with damn near all the things he did. He needed the Salarian STG on Virmire. He needed help from people on Novera to get where he needed to go. He needed help from the colonists on Feros to figure out what was going on. He needed Liara to help make sense of his visions(as well as that one Asari on Feros). He needed the Normandy and Joker's skills to get on Ilos. He needed the data from Vigil to thwart Saren. He needed the Alliance Fleet to destroy Saren. He needed his team to make up for the skills he lacked.

Yes he manages to accomplish much on his own, but he would never have saved anyone if he tried to do things himself.

-Ok. But I doubt most soldiers would gladly work for a terrorist organization without giving their superiors good reason. Could have had Anderson tell you to spy on them for him. There are plenty of better ways to make it feel like a better choice instead of "Shepard obeys because he's military to the core". Which re-enforces that this is Shepard, and you don't have any say in the matter.

-That moment with Garrus/Tali talking was the only time where your squad talked to each other out of their own volition and of something not related to whatever mission your on. Any other time you'd have to activate a certain spot in a hub world for them to speak their mind. They just never talked about stuff. Never discussed anything with each other. It ended up making them feel shallow.

-I don't consider any villains faceless. The husks are literally human beings who have been transformed into baying maniacs, the scions are even worse considering they are made from the combined biomass of many Biotics. The Collectors aren't just tools they are the grim truth of what was whating for those who chose to serve the Reapers and Saren was well on his way to becoming... whatever a turian would be called after being Collector'd. They are all hugely tragic revenants, horrors that tell of our (potential) fate if Shepard doesn't win. Wailing grist for that terrible mill.

-And Shepard is the catalyst for it all. If Shepard isn't there nothing else could happen. Kaiden/Ashley is killed by the beacon, Tali is killed by Fisk's henchmen, Saren is never exposed, etc.

-I still don't get why people have a hard time accepting Shepard working with Cerberus. If my options were "Work with terrorists or allow a Genocide so immense it would take generations to complete (not to mention a whole new word)" then I already know my pick. Don't forget Shepard comes into contact with the beacon, a device that should've killed a human, and you're running around telling people to worry about the Reapers. People would classify him/her as a tinfoil hat wearing psycho and the council has basically declared you deranged in the interim.

The Illusive man has the things you need to fight your enemy and the last thing Shepard says in ME1 is that he's going to stop the Reapers, no matter what.

 

[Biodeamon]

Hard to choose...they all have their ups and downs...Infinite ammo, but some glitches...Intresting Moral Decisions but ammo is a slight problem and if you choose a different charecter class you have to rebuild all your stats and levels all over again...

 

[Ladette]

Both are great games.

That said after playing ME2 the combat in ME1 is so painfully lack luster that I turn the difficulty to very easy so I don't need to bother with it. The combat in ME2 is actually fun.

I prefer the overarching story from ME1 while I was more intrested in the characters in ME2. Didn't really like the Collectors as villains, and I didn't like how you're forced to work with Cerberus, who were beyond evil in the first game. Also Sovereign > Harbinger. Sovy was actually pretty intimidating, I just wanted Harby to shut up. Also the last boss in ME2 was just plain silly.

Driving the Mako during the planet missions was boring, but it beats the god awful mineral scanning game easily. That may be the worst addition to a video game ever.

I loved that they ripped the retarded inventory system out. Spending 10 minutes breaking down 90% of your inventory into omni-gel because you're forced to pick up every useless upgrade was a horrible design decision. And none of the weapons/armor actually changed anything. They all functioned the exact same way.

 

[Phlakes]

If you're more of an RPG fan, ME1.

If you're more of an action fan, ME2.

Simple as that, aside from the obvious improvements that come with sequels.

 

[Vrach]

Dunno, I could never get myself to play the first. It's just a God awful console port. Either that or simply a shoddy piece of software altogether. Also kinda pissed me off that there wasn't a tool for porting Shepherd's appearance from the second into the first game, I could never get her to look exactly the same.

 

[fix-the-spade]

Which is better and why? Is there something that I'm not seeing?

Both very good, both stand on different merits, illogical to try placing in order.

Mass Effect 1 had the Mako, I fliping loved the Mako and the sense of exploration it generated. It also had better character advancement trees, weapons and powers, very few games allow actual bullet spam as a vald tactic, although it did make the later stages quite easy.

Mass Effect 2 had the better quests, largely becuse it contained very, very few cut and paste environments and much more scripted content. The upshot of that is that there was less exploration and the combat had been relegated to a very close approximation of the Killswitch/Gears model, which lacks charm. It did however include one thing that made me love it.

The one,
The only,
The great and respected,
Doctor Solus.

 

[WarpZone]

I'm just parroting Yahtzee by saying this, but I think Mass Effect 3 should involve harvesting resources directly from the smoldering corpses of hostile alien life-forms.

Of course, that would push it from being a shooter/rpg into being a mission shooter/sandbox shooter, but really, would that be so bad? As long as there's still dialogue trees and choices with long-term consequences, it's gotta be an improvement over both.

 

[Irridium]

-I don't consider any villains faceless. The husks are literally human beings who have been transformed into baying maniacs, the scions are even worse considering they are made from the combined biomass of many Biotics. The Collectors aren't just tools they are the grim truth of what was whating for those who chose to serve the Reapers and Saren was well on his way to becoming... whatever a turian would be called after being Collector'd. They are all hugely tragic revenants, horrors that tell of our (potential) fate if Shepard doesn't win. Wailing grist for that terrible mill.

-And Shepard is the catalyst for it all. If Shepard isn't there nothing else could happen. Kaiden/Ashley is killed by the beacon, Tali is killed by Fisk's henchmen, Saren is never exposed, etc.

-I still don't get why people have a hard time accepting Shepard working with Cerberus. If my options were "Work with terrorists or allow a Genocide so immense it would take generations to complete (not to mention a whole new word)" then I already know my pick. Don't forget Shepard comes into contact with the beacon, a device that should've killed a human, and you're running around telling people to worry about the Reapers. People would classify him/her as a tinfoil hat wearing psycho and the council has basically declared you deranged in the interim.

The Illusive man has the things you need to fight your enemy and the last thing Shepard says in ME1 is that he's going to stop the Reapers, no matter what.

-Yes, but fighting against just them gets boring after a while, and without a strong leader to lead them, they're just annoying cannon-fodder. For example, the Geth weren't really that interesting. They only got ineresting in ME2 when you figured out there were different sects of Geth. Only reason they seemed interesting(to me) in the first game was because of Saren. Yes the husks are a constant reminder of what could happen, but if your just fighting them and what used to be Protheans, without a strong leader to tie it all together, it just isn't that fun to fight against them.

-There's nothing to suggest that the beacon would kill someone. At worst it would drive them insane. Still, I see your point.

-Cerberus is a horrid terrorist organization with a horrible track record. Almost everything they do usually ends with a team dieing, or going rouge.

Akuse - Colony fed to Thresher Maw to see what would happen. Caused by rouge cell.

Killed Alliance Admiral, experimented with Rachni, Thorian Creepers, Husks and spread the Rachni around to see how they'd fare - done by quite a few rouge cells.

Rebuilding you - TIM let in a Shadow Broker agent for no apparent reason which resulted in everyone on the station(save for you, Miranda, and Jacob) dieing.

Pragia - Horrific experiments on children. Evidently went rouge, then everyone died.

Hammerhead - Everyone died.

Overlord - Everyone died.

The only successful missions they did was re-building the Normandy, and saving the Council from being killed by terrorists. But they have an awful track record, and depending on your background, are responsible for what could be the single most traumatic moment in Shepard's life. I'm not exactly against working for Cerberus(although I'll hate it no matter what), but Bioware could have handled it a lot better.

 

[Agayek]

-snip-

ME2 had by far the better combat and gameplay.

ME1 had by far the better story.

Deciding which one is "better" really comes down to which one you prefer in your games.

I personally prefer ME1, because I vastly prefer a well told story over deep gameplay. As long as the controls are functional and I can accomplish my objectives, I don't really care how the game plays. That combined with the fact that the central plot for ME2 made no fucking sense means I will always pick ME1 as the better game.

Why there's so much rage over it I can't say. Fact of the matter is, both games exist and both will have fans that prefer it over the other. Doesn't seem like something to get your knickers in a twist over.