Dislike mass effect 2? Like I notice a lot of people tend to consider the first game far superior. If so what's the major difference? Being a ps3 owner I most Likely wont get the chance to play it. I have seen a bit of the walkthrough on YouTube but cant say I noticed too much of a difference.

Whats your opinion. Needless to say I adore mass effect 2, I guess that means I would love the original even more....

__________________
"You did good child, you did good. I'm proud of...."

I don't think majority of them dislike ME2, just a very loud minority does. As for differences, there are quite a few I guess. The game in general plays more like an RPG than an action game. The missions feel more drawn out compared to ME2, and of course there is the free roaming with the Mako on uncharted planets.

Personally, I find almost everything about ME2 superior, but all it's done is improve on what I thought was perfection at the time. ME1 is still incredible, ME2 is just more so.

__________________

It would help if I had played the first one but not to worry, in any case it seems like they're bringing more of an RPG element to ME3 so that's good. But from what I've heard ME3 should be better than ME2 in almost everyday, of course that's just my opinion on what makes a good Mass effect. You know someone said at as players the fate of certain crew members may be out of our hands, to me that's actually really interesting. I hope to have more tough choices to make.

__________________
"You did good child, you did good. I'm proud of...."

I like ME2. They cleaned up the graphics and mechanics a bit, but it was lacking the same story feel as the first one. Its hard to explain.

__________________
Ke nu jurkad sha Mando'ade, burc'ya!
"Don't mess with Mandos, mate!"

Aliit ori'shya tal'din
"Family is more than blood."
Back From The Dead A$$H@LES!!!


I used to fight Robo-Zombies...Then I took a Massage to the Shoulder...

ME1 had pretty bad gameplay and occasionally crappy pacing but the story was more cohesive and as a first installment - everything was new and epic.

ME2 had a superior gameplay (different classes actually played differently, among other things) pacing was better, but the story was very disjointed. it felt like a collection of short stories, rather then one big overreaching plot.

plus it sufferst form the curse of being the middle of the trilogy.

In ME1 I had a bit of trouble with the guns. I like a general cross-hair rather than a dice-roll with each shot to determine if I hit or miss - directly related to the "accuracy" rating it was given. I mean - I got over it quickly. I also had a huge problem with the cover system in ME1. Sometimes the game would glitch and decide from where you were, you couldn't lean around the cover and shoot. Meanwhile there's a Geth Destroyer or angry Krogan running at you. -Critical Mission Failure-
I also noticed that ME1 is a generally harder game on 'Normal' mode, than ME2 - probably a large reason why some people loved ME2 more.
Oh - and the ally AI. Without holding their hand in ME1, they basically stand out in the middle of the room and fire wildly. Gets a bit annoying.

Honestly, I loved both games. I enjoy the combat system slightly more in ME2 - but both games had me pause for their 'sad moments' - like Virmire in ME1 and I won't say anything from ME2 since you haven't played it.

This is exactly why I prefer the first game. Don't get me wrong - I love both games very, very much! But for my particular gamer style, I tend to enjoy the stories behind games more than the gameplay itself, and ME1 had by far the more cohesive story. I was totally invested in the struggles in ME1; not so much in ME2. Fortunately, the gameplay in ME2 more than made up for the story shortcomings. I see a melding of two coming in ME3, so I'm quite excited for it.

ME1 was better for story. The gameplay wasn't great but it was passable and I never felt overly annoyed by it or anything. The story just seemed to flow better.

ME2 was better for gameplay. To be honest, the first time I beat it, I was kind of surprised that it had ended so quickly after I had just gotten done getting my crew members. I was sort of surprised that the whole game was about recruiting your team and immediately after I finally got all of them I had to rush off to the final mission. Granted, with the DLC that has gone away a bit but it still threw me off that the story was about recruiting all these people for one mission while in the first I got them all at at the very beginning and could pick and choose to my leisure.

I like both games of course; they're just different.

ME1 had a more interesting story and more traditional RPG elements. ME2 had vastly superior combat and improved graphics. ME3 appears to be taking the best of both and adding in a bunch of cool new stuff. I can't wait.

Can't believe I missed this question, Mass. I think I may have said before how cool I think it is that you embraced the saga even though you missed the first game.


Now, I love Mass Effect but I don't think I love it more than ME2. I think for me, the first Mass Effect game was truly new and epic. Of course, I was a huge KOTOR and Jade Empire fan so had an idea what we were in for but never expected how deep the storyturned out to be.

With ME 2 I thought the quality of gameplay on every level was considerably raised but at the slight expense of story and plot. I'm not saying the story was bad - far from it - just that it didn't continue in a seamless way.


I remember feeling a slight sense of disconnect because when we left ME, we had the imminent invasion of the mysterious, super-menacing and utterly alien Reapers to contend with. It's like the final moments of Mass Effect could easily flow straight into ME3, leaving ME2's story largely superfluous.


Indeed, it sort of felt that Mass Effect 2's plot involving the Collectors sort of took away from the menace of the Reapers. I mean, all we knew from the first game is that the Reapers completely wiped out the Protheans and all technological life. By showing the process of conversion from life to biological servants it kinda made the Reapers a little more understandable.


However, the inclusion of Cerberus (or more directly The Illusive Man) in ME2 was a master stroke. The way those scenes were filmed, the mystery surrounding TIM and the very atmosphere was awesome.


But even that didn't mesh with our experience from the first game. Cerberus was a rogue Alliance black-ops unit that as a player I grew to despise over the course of the game. They were never part of the main plot but were involved in a number of side quests that progressed them from sinister agents to out and out villains.


It was jarring when in ME2 I found out Cerberus ressurected me (come on, ressurection?!) the best response referencing my previous experience with Cerberus was "Cerberus? I seem to rememer destroying a few of their bases back when I was a Spectre." Follwed by "I'll never work for terrorists!"


It'd have been better to have said:


"Cerberus? You killed Admiral Kahoku after making him run for his life for investigating the Thresher Maw trap you set for his alliance unit. The same Tactic you used on Akuze to carry out sick experiments on Corporal Toombs and the rest of my squad. You're responcible for releasing alien geth technology on remote outposts to study the affect it would have on the colonists, who were all turned into husks. I will not work for an organisation who condones the use of rachni or Thorian Creepers as a weapon of war."


Also, I elected Admiral Anderson to stand as the human rep on the Council because he had my back the entirerty of the game. I reccomended him for the position because I knew he'd never back down from his beliefs, that he'd be willing to do whatever it took to prepare for the coming of the Reapers. The man put his career and life on the line on a hunch that Shepard's visions were correct, for cryiing out loud!


Fast forward two years and it turns out I was wrong about his character. He can't handle the position, has gone along with the Council is different from the man I once knew. The only thing that makes his character believable is the stunning acting.


In fact, that's what holds a lot of things together in ME2. Because if you look at the two games and see where storylines split and weave, it feels like everything established in ME was knocked down and reimagined slightly in the sequel. it's only convincing because you're convinced that the characters are convinced. If you follow.


Eg: Forget what you thought you knew about Geth as they are much more interesting than you thought.
Forget what you thought you knew about Cerberus, they aren't that bad because they've got this chick with big tits who I want to smash who says they aren't. Or maybe she's misguided?
Forget what you thought you knew about asari, they are way more sinister if you read between the lines, which really adds depth to the saga.
Forget what you didn't know about the reapers, they are way more understandable than we were led to believe - seemingly driven by the urge to reproduce which unfortunately requires the deaths of billions.
Forget the importance of your reccomendation for the FIRST human Councilor - it's largely irrelevent. A sad point but needed for the story.


A lot of those thing work really well and are not much of an issue, add more discussion and depth to the saga. Mass Effect 2 gives us a lot of character developement and awesome conversation sequences compared to the first game and is overall a much improved experience.

__________________
Had to be me. Someone else might have gotten it wrong.