Honestly, I'd much rather just waste 1.5 seconds reloading then having to sit there for a good 10 seconds before I can shoot again.Pyode said:
What exactly is Mass Effect 1's gameplay like?
- Thread starter lucky_sharm
- Start date
The first games gameplay is bad. Especially those vehicle sections. Also, the cover system is ass.
The second game's gameplay on the other hand is probably the second best third person shooter I have ever played. I also consider its story to be better by virtue of actually interesting characters, and a villain that isn't as generic as the reapers (Despite them still being the looming threat.)
The second game's gameplay on the other hand is probably the second best third person shooter I have ever played. I also consider its story to be better by virtue of actually interesting characters, and a villain that isn't as generic as the reapers (Despite them still being the looming threat.)
I know the RPGer friends of mine loved it, but coming in from an FPS background I got very annoyed very quickly with having to break from shooting things and being badass to swap out squaddies weapons as if they wouldn't have been taught to do that themselves when they got their training. One of my favourite strengths of 2 over 1 was the fact they simplified it so even a halo fan like myself could do it without exceeding the usual FPS attention span. Even this post is getting fairly... ooh that ebay ad is really shiney.RedEyesBlackGamer said:
I only recently played it and found it awkward and clunkly, I barely used grenades because of having to use the back button the vehicle sections take a bit of getting used to but by the time yyou reach the last one you'll be fine.
Overall, the gameplay is a bit poor if not manageable (had to change it down to easy for mine after the crap on feros turned out to be too hard.
Overall, the gameplay is a bit poor if not manageable (had to change it down to easy for mine after the crap on feros turned out to be too hard.
The first game had decent to good gameplay and a great story. The second improved on the gameplay while continuing the story.
You could start with the second, sure, but it would be akin to starting with Baldur's Gate 2 without playing the first game. Is the game better-made? Absolutely! Are you missing out on vital storyline, and irrevocably lessening the impact it will have on you? Unfortunately yes.
You could start with the second, sure, but it would be akin to starting with Baldur's Gate 2 without playing the first game. Is the game better-made? Absolutely! Are you missing out on vital storyline, and irrevocably lessening the impact it will have on you? Unfortunately yes.
Am I the only one who preferred the combat of ME1? I really had fun with the game, though that was probably because I played as a vanguard and a biotic. I heard the soldier and infiltrator classes were not that great at all
Mass Effect 2 is a much better game, but you should play the first one to import your saves and choices.
As for the combat, the shooting is pretty weak, so you're better off going as a biotic or engineer. Not really sure why people say the story is better - its fairly painting by numbers, its only real 1 ups on the second game are that it has a stronger central villain, and its the first story of a trilogy, whereas the second parts tend to suffer from having no real beginning or end, although I felt they got around that quite nicely. The second game's story is more to add depth to the whole situation then it is to push the overarching plot forward.
Instead, the second plays its combat like a TPS and its conversations like an RPG. No point in forcing certain RPG aspects where they don't belong just for the sake of fitting it under a genre-label more definitely; and having some aspects missing certainly doesn't make it a non-RPG anyway.
As for the combat, the shooting is pretty weak, so you're better off going as a biotic or engineer. Not really sure why people say the story is better - its fairly painting by numbers, its only real 1 ups on the second game are that it has a stronger central villain, and its the first story of a trilogy, whereas the second parts tend to suffer from having no real beginning or end, although I felt they got around that quite nicely. The second game's story is more to add depth to the whole situation then it is to push the overarching plot forward.
The stats in the first game are part of the reason it had such weak-feeling shooting, and by the end of the game I was having to stop several times (especially in the final mission, which is supposed to be dramatic and epic) to delete out the same 5 rifles and armour sets over and over again for 2 minutes at a time.mireko said:
Instead, the second plays its combat like a TPS and its conversations like an RPG. No point in forcing certain RPG aspects where they don't belong just for the sake of fitting it under a genre-label more definitely; and having some aspects missing certainly doesn't make it a non-RPG anyway.
That sounds good until you play an Infiltrator and realize you never get enough sniper ammo. Ever.maddawg IAJI said:
Definitely play ME1 first if only for the story and how it all ties into ME2 (and the coming ME3). The combat in ME1 is decent if not as good as ME2. The open world exploration on each planet is in some ways much better than the drop in/drop out style of ME2. Unfortunately the Mako vehicle you drive in ME1 and the worlds you visit seem explicitly designed to work together horribly. I played the two nearly back to back for the first time just after ME2 came out and if you do so to you'll really see how cohesive an experience they are, and how nicely the basic play really evolves from ME1 to ME2 even if it stumbles a few times in the transition.
Hmm.. I would say that the concept was a good one, but the execution was terrible and, in the end, it really just amounted to extremely linear item progression in both armour and weapons. While I wouldn't say it was better in ME2, I think the system in ME1 simply gets rose tinted hindsight praise simply because it was there, not because it was honestly any good.RedEyesBlackGamer said:
Which is why you use the Widow-maker sniper. One shot kill on most enemies and they drop 3 bullets. Then again, I played a soldier and Adrenaline Rush made it easy to pick them off.RedEyesBlackGamer said:
The differences (you say you've heard enough about the second game's gameplay, so I'm basing this on that knowledge):
-Dice roll: There's a chance to hit an enemy when you shoot them. Just because you have your reticule right on an enemy doesn't mean you get an automatic hit. You level up your skills with weapons and become more effective as you go.
-Less emphasis on the cover system. I still use cover a good bit in the first game, but there are times when it's less advantageous to use it. Sometimes it's better to just creep around behind objects. Some people claim to not use cover at all.
-cooldowns apply only to one power at a time. In Mass Effect 2, there is a cooldown period for every power once you use one of them. In the first game, there is only a cooldown period for the power you use. You can significantly decrease cooldown times in both games, but power usage is faster-paced in the first game.
-Weapon overheating: Mass Effect 2 has thermal clips, which basically act like standard ammunition. The first game has no ammo limit. If you fire a weapon constantly, it will gradually become "hotter" until it overheats. When this happens, you have to wait a few seconds for it to cool down again. It's more advantageous to fire in bursts. You can decrease and actually eliminate the overheating effect with certain weapon mods.
-Adepts are way more powerful. Between the universal cooldowns and the fact that armors, barriers, and shields will render most powers useless for an Adept (Warp can be used on armor and barriers, nothing else), the class loses a lot of its effectiveness and fun while playing Mass Effect 2 in Hardcore or Insanity modes. An Adept in the first game could quickly dispatch enemies (I enjoyed the last mission. Lifting enemy geth and then throwing them into space was fun) and could render a dozen of enemies useless for a period with Singularity (while also making them very vulnerable to your squad's attacks). Most other classes were improved from the first to the second game, but Adepts were nerfed.
-More open environments. Planetary exploration was notoriously dull in the first game, but it was definitely open. Aside from that, there were some "hub" locations (most notably The Citadel that were much more open and interesting to explore). It's a BioWare game, so exploration isn't a real selling point, but there's definitely more of it in the first game.
-Inventory: You obtain lots of stuff in the first game. You get them by looking into containers, by completing assignments, by making purchases, and just by killing enemies. I think there's a limit of 150 items, and you will probably reach that limit often (it will sneak up on you. It's pretty easy to handle, as it's straightforward which guns and armor are superior. You can keep multiple kinds of upgrades for ammo and armors to keep some situational variability, but sell the rest. Making money in Mass Effect is not hard at all.
-Healing: You automatically regenerate health in Mass Effect 2. This is something you can do in the first game as well, but you earn it. You play the game long enough and you can obtain armor upgrades that grant you a gradual health regeneration. If you don't have that upgrade, then your only option for healing is Medi-Gel (used in the second game only for the Unity ability that allows you to revive fallen squad members). It's handled like it's own power, so there is a cooldown time for it after use it to heal yourself and nearby allies. I very much prefer this system to the regenerating health in Mass Effect 2. It's more tactical.
-Enemy classes: Mass Effect 2 has more variety in this area. Basically, there's an enemy type the equivalent of every class that Shepard can be. In addition to this, there are some boss and sub-boss type enemies that have additional abilities and attack patterns. The first game also has enemies of differing classes (as well as some heavy hitters), but they don't behave as differently. They mostly just shoot at you in more or less the same way, and use one power occasionally (some stun you, some sabotage your weapons, but they don't do it often). There are a few exceptions, but I can't think of many enemies that require a special kind of strategy (aside from those insta-kill Rocket Drones on Hardcore and Insanity. Kill those things fast).
-Dice roll: There's a chance to hit an enemy when you shoot them. Just because you have your reticule right on an enemy doesn't mean you get an automatic hit. You level up your skills with weapons and become more effective as you go.
-Less emphasis on the cover system. I still use cover a good bit in the first game, but there are times when it's less advantageous to use it. Sometimes it's better to just creep around behind objects. Some people claim to not use cover at all.
-cooldowns apply only to one power at a time. In Mass Effect 2, there is a cooldown period for every power once you use one of them. In the first game, there is only a cooldown period for the power you use. You can significantly decrease cooldown times in both games, but power usage is faster-paced in the first game.
-Weapon overheating: Mass Effect 2 has thermal clips, which basically act like standard ammunition. The first game has no ammo limit. If you fire a weapon constantly, it will gradually become "hotter" until it overheats. When this happens, you have to wait a few seconds for it to cool down again. It's more advantageous to fire in bursts. You can decrease and actually eliminate the overheating effect with certain weapon mods.
-Adepts are way more powerful. Between the universal cooldowns and the fact that armors, barriers, and shields will render most powers useless for an Adept (Warp can be used on armor and barriers, nothing else), the class loses a lot of its effectiveness and fun while playing Mass Effect 2 in Hardcore or Insanity modes. An Adept in the first game could quickly dispatch enemies (I enjoyed the last mission. Lifting enemy geth and then throwing them into space was fun) and could render a dozen of enemies useless for a period with Singularity (while also making them very vulnerable to your squad's attacks). Most other classes were improved from the first to the second game, but Adepts were nerfed.
-More open environments. Planetary exploration was notoriously dull in the first game, but it was definitely open. Aside from that, there were some "hub" locations (most notably The Citadel that were much more open and interesting to explore). It's a BioWare game, so exploration isn't a real selling point, but there's definitely more of it in the first game.
-Inventory: You obtain lots of stuff in the first game. You get them by looking into containers, by completing assignments, by making purchases, and just by killing enemies. I think there's a limit of 150 items, and you will probably reach that limit often (it will sneak up on you. It's pretty easy to handle, as it's straightforward which guns and armor are superior. You can keep multiple kinds of upgrades for ammo and armors to keep some situational variability, but sell the rest. Making money in Mass Effect is not hard at all.
-Healing: You automatically regenerate health in Mass Effect 2. This is something you can do in the first game as well, but you earn it. You play the game long enough and you can obtain armor upgrades that grant you a gradual health regeneration. If you don't have that upgrade, then your only option for healing is Medi-Gel (used in the second game only for the Unity ability that allows you to revive fallen squad members). It's handled like it's own power, so there is a cooldown time for it after use it to heal yourself and nearby allies. I very much prefer this system to the regenerating health in Mass Effect 2. It's more tactical.
-Enemy classes: Mass Effect 2 has more variety in this area. Basically, there's an enemy type the equivalent of every class that Shepard can be. In addition to this, there are some boss and sub-boss type enemies that have additional abilities and attack patterns. The first game also has enemies of differing classes (as well as some heavy hitters), but they don't behave as differently. They mostly just shoot at you in more or less the same way, and use one power occasionally (some stun you, some sabotage your weapons, but they don't do it often). There are a few exceptions, but I can't think of many enemies that require a special kind of strategy (aside from those insta-kill Rocket Drones on Hardcore and Insanity. Kill those things fast).
Mass Effect 1 is my favorite game of all time, and it amazes me how people pretend that ME 2's combat is so much better when they're basically the same thing. The only differences are: Infinite ammo/pick up ammo, grenades/no grenades, and biotics only cool down themselves/biotics cool down everything. Other than that, the controls are basically the same. But I like ME 1 better for the story and the characters. Much better than ME 2's story, which is basically just a scavenger hunt for squadmates.
I've played 4 classes. Mained the Assault Rifle, Sniper, Shotgun, and Sub-machinegun. I've noticed that a picked up ammo clip is very generous for the Assault Rifle and the shotgun and machinegun get their fair share, but the sniper rifle gets 1 round from a clip, two if you are lucky. I was always running out. (And I wasn't missing either.)Woodsey said:
Well, if you've ever played Baldur's Gate, you'd know.
Mass Effect more or less equals BGI in many ways. It reuses maps (O.O looking at you as well DA2...) and tends to have many many many many fucking *****-ass little side-quests that completionists like myself just can't ignore but that don't have any effect whatsoever.
MA2, on the other hand is more polished but at the cost of the massive open world feeling. Not much lost imo, but some people like to 'feel' like the world is massive rather that simply being told it is. However, ME just doesn't feel...fun to me. Others have said the combat is clunky and that really is a downer if you already know what is going to happen. Kinda wish I'd played the game before ME2, but whatever. Either way, I'd suggest playing it to the end if only for the importing options.
Mass Effect more or less equals BGI in many ways. It reuses maps (O.O looking at you as well DA2...) and tends to have many many many many fucking *****-ass little side-quests that completionists like myself just can't ignore but that don't have any effect whatsoever.
MA2, on the other hand is more polished but at the cost of the massive open world feeling. Not much lost imo, but some people like to 'feel' like the world is massive rather that simply being told it is. However, ME just doesn't feel...fun to me. Others have said the combat is clunky and that really is a downer if you already know what is going to happen. Kinda wish I'd played the game before ME2, but whatever. Either way, I'd suggest playing it to the end if only for the importing options.
Pretty much what everyone else is saying, Adepts get disgustingly over powered because their abilities do NOT share a cooldown so you can spam every single one basically infinitely without any gap by the end of the game. Granted though, the first half of your game quicksave and gameover get to know each other very very well because you will die in one hit regardless of your barrier rank, shields, and health being full.
Didn't play the other classes so I can't speak on the game balance there, the quests have some fodder qualities but the core story is great and is in my opinion a mandatory step up to Mass Effect 2. You can appreciate ME2's superior system much better if you already know the scope of the world as well as the stories and character to that point. ME2 makes some nice callbacks to the first that I couldn't help but get all excited about.
Long nonsensical point shortened: I think ME1 was great and well worth playing, it has flaws like any other game that just need to be dealt with as they come so you get the most out of some great games.
Also a slight disclaimer: This has been the perspective of a heavy Role-Player not an FPS gamer.
Edit: Have to agree with an earlier post, one reason ME1's system is better is you 'feel' way more powerful as you grow, one reason that's a disadvantage to though that the game gets really easy by the end, at least it did for me.
Didn't play the other classes so I can't speak on the game balance there, the quests have some fodder qualities but the core story is great and is in my opinion a mandatory step up to Mass Effect 2. You can appreciate ME2's superior system much better if you already know the scope of the world as well as the stories and character to that point. ME2 makes some nice callbacks to the first that I couldn't help but get all excited about.
Long nonsensical point shortened: I think ME1 was great and well worth playing, it has flaws like any other game that just need to be dealt with as they come so you get the most out of some great games.
Also a slight disclaimer: This has been the perspective of a heavy Role-Player not an FPS gamer.
Edit: Have to agree with an earlier post, one reason ME1's system is better is you 'feel' way more powerful as you grow, one reason that's a disadvantage to though that the game gets really easy by the end, at least it did for me.