Originally Posted by DeepO
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).
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.
They boil down to atmospheric environments, combat and dialogues, aka good stuff .
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.
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.
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).