View Single Post

Default 

November 8th, 2012, 14:52
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
As I said above, the mechanics were not done well - but the solution is not to remove them entirely. I'd much rather have bad versions of interesting gameplay than I want them removed. But that's me.
As I see it, in the case of ME1 "bad versions of interesting gameplay" equals to uninteresting, dull gameplay, so..
Thatīs sorta the essence of why I like ME2 more than ME1 (more, as in, say, 8.5/10 vs. 8/10 though) - I think ME2 is a better story shooter with RPG elements than ME1 is RPG. When I want a quality RPG fix I go for Wizardry 8, Mask of the Betrayer or whatever, not ME1.
I like ME1 for its setting, story elements and cinematic flair, which are aspects that got mostly positively expanded upon in ME2 (the core plot definitely got worse, but combat got overall more exciting and I generally like the "minute-to-minute" writing in ME2 more).
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
Streamlining them was an act of design laziness and incompetence. It was an act of making the game into a hollow corridor/cover shooter
Sorry, I canīt hear you over the sound of vanguard charging.
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
What? High-level structuring? I'm talking about the overall gameplay structure. In Mass Effect - you have an entire galaxy at your disposal - with many, many planets to land on and explore. No, they weren't handled well - but again the solution is to remove the space exploration almost entirely? That's what you call better non-linearity?
Yes. In ME2 there are also many planets you can land on, except theyīve removed the "and explore" part, which is not exactly a big loss in my book since I consider the "and explore" part largely crap in ME1 . In this case, anything was better than status quo. What they did not remove though, was the sense of discovery.
And you also have "an entire galaxy at your disposal" in ME2.
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
True, ME2 has a higher amount of linear content. I agree with that. Unfortunately, they all boil down to linear corridor/cover shooter areas.
They boil down to atmospheric environments, combat and dialogues, aka good stuff .
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
ME1 has a huge and elaborate hub - ME2 has boring and featureless hubs after you visit them first.
Well, Citadel is bigger and somewhat more elaborate (Presidium rules), but it becomes a boring and featureless hub after you visit it for the second time . You canīt even get Shepard drunk there, pfft.
The point was, in ME2 there are 4 hubs you may want to revisit (loyalty missions, but also, eh, shopping!), ME1 has one.
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
I agree that the content was tighter and more interesting -
/thread
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
but it had all but lost the sense of mystery and freedom.
Not in my book. I do agree with the mystery part to some extent, but I also think it makes sense that the setting feels at its most mysterious in the first part of the trilogy.
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
Also, the cover-based combat was EXTREMELY predictable - and you knew exactly when enemies would appear before you engaged them. I almost fell asleep playing ME2 - it was so predictable.
ME1 was not a paragon of unpredictability either and its combat was so overwhelmingly limp I was routinely almost falling asleep in the middle of it (and still won, of course).
Last edited by DeepO; November 8th, 2012 at 16:02.
DeepO is offline

DeepO

DeepO's Avatar
deep outside

#28

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Prague
Posts: 2,327