Poll: Mass Effect vs. Mass Effect 2

[Xcelsior]

I voted ME2 because they cut bullshit out, that being said I felt number ME1's story was much more engaging than the ME2's.

 

[LarenzoAOG]

Mass Effect 2, the teammates were more3 dimensional and believable, at leas to me.

 

[Lordmarkus]

Mass Effect 2.

Sure, the story was better in the first, but counting in the sidequests, the unnecesary loot and the subpar combat, it weighs to ME2:s favor.

Good combat. amazing characters and once again believable worlds. But then we have the mining and the fact that when you're out of missions you can't make any more money. Why the fuck didn't BioWare include a system that allowed you to sell your minerals?!

 

[The Bucket]

Mass Effect 1, in my opinion it had:
A better plot
Better pacing
Wrex
An actual villain, this is probably the most important thing for me. Saren actually cast a physical presence, in everyone of the story missions, he had some sort of influence, even if you didn't meet him face to face, you could just get a sense of the real power he commanded, with all of his forces following his every word.

I guess, Saren is what makes Mass Effect for me, I mean everything else is awesome, but as Mass Effect 2 demonstrated, without a real face an enemy just seems more far off. Though he's no where near as powerful as a reaper, Saren was a villain who could get up in Shepard's face and actually trade blows with him/her. That, in my opinion makes for a more compelling villain, and if a villain is driving the plot, the plot becomes more compelling as well.

I could probably write a few more paragraphs on why I think Saren is great and why he makes Mass Effect 1 great, but I've already written a lot.

I couldn't agree with you more. Harbinger is laughable as the villain. He's spouting lines of bravado as you're pumping so much lead into him that he bursts into flames. And of course, his very presence on the field begs the question of why he even bothers with henchmen. Aren't they supposed to do the work? The villain sort of ceases to be threatening when you've shot him dead upwards of 100 times.

Indeed. Harbringer wasn't intimidating, he was just irritating after a while. And when you compare the final two fights-- (Spoilers)

Spoiler

Mass Effects 2 was very well done ill admit. The ability to lose your teamates added a bunch of tension. But since this was based arbitrarily on how you assigned your team, it didnt really feel as satisfying as it should. And because of the preciously mentioned lack of a proper villan, all they could use as a final bossfight was some ridiculous Reaper Terminator thing. Ive always felt that smaller boss fights work better, giving you more mobility.There was also very little in the way of big reveals.

Mass Effect 1 had one of my favourite climaxs in gaming. You learn about the Reapers true plans and everything feels so big and epic. Instead of the tight bland corrider level of the 2nd, you flit between the interior and exterior of the citadel granting everything this openess. The final fight with Saren had been built up and felt far more hectic since it wasnt simply a matter of crouching behind cover, wack a mole gameplay. And the whole thing ended with this sense of forboding

 

[ShadowsofHope]

Im going to say Mass Effect 1 (as someone who kinda enjoyed the Mako). Sure ME2 cut out the BS micromanagement and added a more varied cast, but I think the main storying line in 1 was far better (by virtue of having a proper antagonist) while very little of note happened in the second (the curse of the 2nd part of a trilogy I suppose)

Mass Effect 2 was the bridging sequel between Mass Effect and Mass Effect 3. It wasn't meant to be a full on storyline like Mass Effect had with chasing Saren across the galaxy, but rather the calm before the storm (Reaper Invasion).

OT: Mass Effect had a more fleshed out storyline that had a proper and fully fleshed out antagonist, but Mass Effect 2 still had a great bridging storyline, proper and fully fleshed out ally characters and various antagonists. They both had stellar music, scripting and dialogue, and the graphics were true to the modern generation. Though not perfect.

Overall, I would have to say Mass Effect though. I didn't mind the inventory and armor system it had, and I preferred overheating but consistent plasma ammo compared to the thermal clips in Mass Effect 2. Also, I actually fucking liked the Mako! Planet scanning is repetitive and just a ***** to want to deal with.

 

[beeejay]

I also played ME2 first then because I like it so much bought the first game immediately after finishes the second.
I thought that the enemies in the second seemed like more of a threat than a renegade Spectre. I also liked Cerberus in the second.
Overall I think that ME2 was a more user friendly and polished version of the great baseline that was ME 1.

Also Tali.... She was the only reason I went with a male Shepard.

 

[Nerf Ninja]

I love them both equally and like the lord of the rings I view them as a single entity. Once ME3 comes out I'd like them to redo the whole thing as one massive game, updating the graphics and gameply to the latest iteration. I would have loved to have done loyalty missions for the first squad characters and would have loved greater armor customisation for the second squad.

 

[Koroviev]

Im going to say Mass Effect 1 (as someone who kinda enjoyed the Mako). Sure ME2 cut out the BS micromanagement and added a more varied cast, but I think the main storying line in 1 was far better (by virtue of having a proper antagonist) while very little of note happened in the second (the curse of the 2nd part of a trilogy I suppose)

Mass Effect 2 was the bridging sequel between Mass Effect and Mass Effect 3. It wasn't meant to be a full on storyline like Mass Effect had with chasing Saren across the galaxy, but rather the calm before the storm (Reaper Invasion).

OT: Mass Effect had a more fleshed out storyline that had a proper and fully fleshed out antagonist, but Mass Effect 2 still had a great bridging storyline, proper and fully fleshed out ally characters and various antagonists. They both had stellar music, scripting and dialogue, and the graphics were true to the modern generation. Though not perfect.

Overall, I would have to say Mass Effect though. I didn't mind the inventory and armor system it had, and I preferred overheating but consistent plasma ammo compared to the thermal clips in Mass Effect 2. Also, I actually fucking liked the Mako! Planet scanning is repetitive and just a ***** to want to deal with.

I love boss fights in which skill actually matters. What's the point of all the level practice if the boss's difficultly is predicated on a combination of its size and your ability to tolerate redundancy? .__.

(I'm looking at you, Batman Arkham Asylum <__<)

 

[The Bucket]

Also Tali.... She was the only reason I went with a male Shepard.

Amen to that. In ME1, I didnt really like any of the romance options that much. Went with Ashley for Male Shep, and Liara for Fem Shep. Nothing wrong with them, but the aliens seemed so much more interesting.

 

[marcooos]

See I dunno if anyone else has complained about this but i preferred the the first mass effect just because of the stupid fucking story in Mass Effect 2. I don't how drunk they were when they decided to make you an agent for cerberus which if you did the side missions in ME1 you spent most of the game fighting. If they hadn't done that i would say that Mass Effect 2 surpasses it in every way apart from the lack of real villain

 

[Vet2501]

I prefered ME1. To me it felt more like an RPG, ME2 just feels like a console shooter (not that there's anything wrong with that, I just prefer RPGs). I didn't like how they simplified the stats and inventory systems. I also don't like the planet scanning (who does?) and I really enjoyed the Mako sections.

 

[ShadowsofHope]

Im going to say Mass Effect 1 (as someone who kinda enjoyed the Mako). Sure ME2 cut out the BS micromanagement and added a more varied cast, but I think the main storying line in 1 was far better (by virtue of having a proper antagonist) while very little of note happened in the second (the curse of the 2nd part of a trilogy I suppose)

Mass Effect 2 was the bridging sequel between Mass Effect and Mass Effect 3. It wasn't meant to be a full on storyline like Mass Effect had with chasing Saren across the galaxy, but rather the calm before the storm (Reaper Invasion).

OT: Mass Effect had a more fleshed out storyline that had a proper and fully fleshed out antagonist, but Mass Effect 2 still had a great bridging storyline, proper and fully fleshed out ally characters and various antagonists. They both had stellar music, scripting and dialogue, and the graphics were true to the modern generation. Though not perfect.

Overall, I would have to say Mass Effect though. I didn't mind the inventory and armor system it had, and I preferred overheating but consistent plasma ammo compared to the thermal clips in Mass Effect 2. Also, I actually fucking liked the Mako! Planet scanning is repetitive and just a ***** to want to deal with.

I love boss fights in which skill actually matters. What's the point of all the level practice if the boss's difficultly is predicated on a combination of its size and your ability to tolerate redundancy? .__.

I do agree this is a fault with Mass Effect 2. However, the end boss in Mass Effect 2 was meant more as a shocker of what the Reapers were using the Collectors in an attempt to create beyond the Omega 4 Relay, as well as an ominous presence. Saren was more a feel-good revenge battle for his betrayal at Eden Prime, and the geth havoc across the galaxy under his doing. Although, I personally intimidated him into shooting himself after realizing his indoctrination, and then beat the shit out of his pseudo Reaper husk afterwards for satisfaction on both him and Sovereign.

 

[badgersprite]

I prefer the second game. Playing them in order may have something to do with it, because it means I already knew the world, so I understood all the references and plot points. I imagine jumping into the second game without playing the first would be kind of weird. Anyway, I just preferred having a wider range of characters, more locations, more quests, and the development of points from the first game. But both games are absolute masterpieces, in my opinion.

 

[Romblen]

Mass Effect 2, to me they took out all the things I didn't like and they added to all the things I did.

 

[myogaman]

Allow me to start off by saying that I played Mass Effect 2 first. At the start of my initial run-through, I wasn't too impressed. However, as I kept playing, the game became more interesting and I ended up really enjoying it. Nevertheless, the conversations remained skippable and the enemy never felt so much threatening as it did annoying. I mean, bugs? Insects? Really?

Yesterday I finally started playing the first installment, having had it sitting on the shelf for more than a month. I approached it with low expectations, having heard that its successor more or less blew it out of the water. I mean, people still recommended it, but that recommendation was tentative. So anyway, I dove in.

The first thing that struck me about Mass Effect were the cut scenes. It was the first time in a long time that I actually cared, that the characters actually felt real and worthy of my attention. The next thing was the villain. First and foremost, he actually feels evil, and moreover, has a motive underlying his actions. In other words, he feels like a real villain, not some contrived excuse to be a space marine once again. Finally, the Geth really seem like plausible enemies, but then, that could just be my AI fetish shining alongside my disdain for bugs as enemies.

In short, Mass Effect has thus far defied my expectations, and may even surpass my liking for Mass Effect 2.

So...

Which game do you prefer, if either? And of course, why?

Completely ignoring the rest of this thread and answering you directly. Mass Effect 1 had, by far, the best storytelling. It had everything for an epic adventure and performed nearly flawlessly.

Mass Effect 2 felt more like a "go here, do this, figure out why later" kind of game. You didn't even know why you were doing shit until the end. You were going off an assumption the entire time and nothing was explained. So now you have a new enemy ("The Harbringer") and you learn a smidgen more about the reapers. Beyond that, it felt like a hastily thrown together game with an improved engine. Like I was being strung along. I couldn't wait for the game to be over.

BUT ME2 does expand the universe more and made me get a better hold on the type of universe Mass Effect is set in. I would say that it's setting is more well established than the first but the first set the foundation with a far better story.

I mean, is this how adventure RPGs are supposed to go now? Game1=Epic plot-driven story. Game2=adventuring with mostly hunches being the reason for doing stuff. Game3=All the stupid loose ends and vagueness explained with the power punch that the first game delivered?

 

[mikespoff]

Both awesome games. Both had great stories, great writing, great voice acting and GREAT characters. I appreciate most of the changes in ME2, but I do miss a couple of things from ME1.

 

[Koroviev]

Mass Effect 2, to me they took out all the things I didn't like and they added to all the things I did.

Even planet scanning, nyeh? ;D

 

[Koroviev]

Allow me to start off by saying that I played Mass Effect 2 first. At the start of my initial run-through, I wasn't too impressed. However, as I kept playing, the game became more interesting and I ended up really enjoying it. Nevertheless, the conversations remained skippable and the enemy never felt so much threatening as it did annoying. I mean, bugs? Insects? Really?

Yesterday I finally started playing the first installment, having had it sitting on the shelf for more than a month. I approached it with low expectations, having heard that its successor more or less blew it out of the water. I mean, people still recommended it, but that recommendation was tentative. So anyway, I dove in.

The first thing that struck me about Mass Effect were the cut scenes. It was the first time in a long time that I actually cared, that the characters actually felt real and worthy of my attention. The next thing was the villain. First and foremost, he actually feels evil, and moreover, has a motive underlying his actions. In other words, he feels like a real villain, not some contrived excuse to be a space marine once again. Finally, the Geth really seem like plausible enemies, but then, that could just be my AI fetish shining alongside my disdain for bugs as enemies.

In short, Mass Effect has thus far defied my expectations, and may even surpass my liking for Mass Effect 2.

So...

Which game do you prefer, if either? And of course, why?

Completely ignoring the rest of this thread and answering you directly. Mass Effect 1 had, by far, the best storytelling. It had everything for an epic adventure and performed nearly flawlessly.

Mass Effect 2 felt more like a "go here, do this, figure out why later" kind of game. You didn't even know why you were doing shit until the end. You were going off an assumption the entire time and nothing was explained. So now you have a new enemy ("The Harbringer") and you learn a smidgen more about the reapers. Beyond that, it felt like a hastily thrown together game with an improved engine. Like I was being strung along. I couldn't wait for the game to be over.

BUT ME2 does expand the universe more and made me get a better hold on the type of universe Mass Effect is set in. I would say that it's setting is more well established than the first but the first set the foundation with a far better story.

I mean, is this how adventure RPGs are supposed to go now? Game1=Epic plot-driven story. Game2=adventuring with mostly hunches being the reason for doing stuff. Game3=All the stupid loose ends and vagueness explained with the power punch that the first game delivered?

I'm not sure, to be honest. The highlights of Mass Effect 2 for me were the interesting characters and Ilium. Other than that, Mass Effect feels significantly more immersive.

 

[Irridium]

Mass Effect. Its story was far better, and the fact that it had a very strong, believable villain did wonders for me.

Mass Effect 2 was still fun, but I have some serious issues with quite a few parts. Mainly you working for Cerberus and the Council's unnecessary stupidity.

Plus apparently its bad that I agree that the genophage was a good idea. There are plenty of good reasons for supporting/opposing the genophage, both sides have their reasons, and neither side is really "wrong". So putting good/evil labels on it just seems silly.

 

[Koroviev]

Mass Effect. Its story was far better, and the fact that it had a very strong, believable villain did wonders for me.

Mass Effect 2 was still fun, but I have some serious issues with quite a few parts. Mainly you working for Cerberus and the Council's unnecessary stupidity.

Plus apparently its bad that I agree that the genophage was a good idea. There are plenty of good reasons for supporting/opposing the genophage, both sides have their reasons, and neither side is really "wrong". So putting good/evil labels on it just seems silly.

Yeah, that confused me. Mordin Solis, your bastion of logic, provides a plethora of reasons as to why the genophage is necessary, and the game yells at you for agreeing with him /:<