View Single Post

Default 

November 12th, 2012, 10:05
Originally Posted by DeepO View Post
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.
That's certainly where we differ. Though I ultimately felt let down compared to KotOR - I think the mechanics were enough to represent interesting gameplay.

While the inventory UI was abysmal, I did enjoy modifying weapons and grenades. I liked how encounters didn't feel predictable based on terrain and I really loved the Mako - even if it became dull towards the end.

The character development system, while clumsy and somewhat dreary - at least presented the illusion of choice and made me consider things more carefully. ME2 was just too streamlined and straightforward. I don't remember ever feeling like there was a meaningful choice involved.

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).
ME had the mystery - and that's because you knew nothing about the setting. I love beginnings - it must be said. That's because I'm an explorer at heart - and I love the discovery of a new world.

ME2 felt boiled down and streamlined - and I didn't care for the main villain or most of the characters. That's down to personal preference, of course - but I really think the game smacked of trying to be edgy and "modern" - not unlike what they did in DA2.

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.
Certainly, they removed the sense of discovery for my part. I didn't feel like I was discovering or exploring. I felt like I was going from linear corridor to linear corridor. Limited mystery and almost pure focus on combat over exploration.

And you also have "an entire galaxy at your disposal" in ME2.
It just didn't feel like it. It felt like you were on a timer to get your team together.

They boil down to atmospheric environments, combat and dialogues, aka good stuff .
Actually, I prefer exploration above all - and in ME2 - I felt it was 75% cover-based shooter combat and 25% dialogue. Since I was never a big fan of Bioware dialogue or characters - you see my problem.

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.
I think it was interesting throughout my entire first playthrough. Then again, I thought they'd really nailed an interesting atmosphere. Also, the music in ME1 was just superior in every way.

The point was, in ME2 there are 4 hubs you may want to revisit (loyalty missions, but also, eh, shopping!), ME1 has one.
Problem was that I didn't feel like revisiting any of them. Shopping? Please

/thread
Cute, but I was talking about the sidequest content vs the sidequest content. I agree that the sidequests in ME2 were handled better - except for the vital exploration aspect. They boil down to linear shooter paths with limited exploration - but at least they were unique and had unique visuals. That made the actual content more interesting - but the exploration was all but gone. I prefer ME1 - though I'd obviously want an improved version of it.

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.
Indeed.

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).
Not much in this world is a paragon of anything. That's hardly relevant here. It was a LOT more unpredictable for me, personally. If you couldn' tpredict enemy placement and combat in ME2 - then I have to say I'm surprised, given your experience with games. I was really quite shocked at how obvious they'd made almost every single combat setup. Just sad.

Also, while the combat mechanics were clumsy and awkward in ME1 - I felt combat in ME2 much, much more predictable. You did the same thing over and over. It was so streamlined and with such a small amount of powers.

ME1, at least - didn't telegraph where you should be taking cover - and you didn't approach all fights in exactly the same way.
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#32

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 14,192