Also shotguns seemed to suck outside of point blank range. Then again, I think I was still used to my super accurate Spectre shotgun from ME1. Inconsequential after I picked up assault rifles for my vanguard though.
I liked the combo powers they added in ME2. Pull+Unstable Warp never got old. Pull+Slam was fun too, seeing a guy get driven into the ground at high speed from 50 feet up.
are you talking about the SG in ME1? I was soldier class and I maxed out on shotgun stats, my SG was almost a cheat code, so powerfull it was. Once it was 3 or 4 blocks from maxed out I was amazed on how far Away I was able to kill a geth grunt in a single shot with it.
but again, I was always using the right ammo for the enemy and was a soldier class.
I never taught I"d say it but: I miss looting like hell. And yes, the music was so much better, story and dialogue is a step up on this one. Mostly due to the awesome cutscenes
The loot in Mass Effect 1 was nightmarish to me. Barrels of guns and armour separated by tiny margins on meaningless numbers, most of them less than what you already have. The upgrade and armour customisation system in ME2 is way more enjoyable for me.
As for customisation of characters, ME2 has fewer choices but they feel like they have greater significance. "+2% assault rifle damage" is not a particularly exciting skill up. Pull Field is.
I'll give you the music, but not necessarily the story. The story in ME1 focused on the universe, the story in ME2 focuses on the characters. Preference of one over the other really depends on what type of story someone likes. Personally, I hope ME1 and ME2 blend the storytelling between the two to create ME3 (a story driven, character driven finish to the epic trilogy). Now that the characters and universe are established, this should be easier to do.
Better as in they were actually present? BioWare has never been really good at loot and inventory management so perhaps BioWare removing or reducing the loot/inventory was actually a good thing in hindsight? BioWare seems to have realized their weakness in this regard, but maybe they can add upon what ME2 did in ME3.
The loot/inventory systems in ME1 was pretty bad regardless. No weapon/armor was really unique and they acted more like palette swaps in my experience.
There was only a few weapon/armor customizations that were a lot better than everything else and, since those select few were the only real decisions, was there that much customization present in ME1? At least in ME2 BioWare seems to have realized this and now lets the player design the features and color of his armor. The customization is definitely there, it's just that it now plays on BioWare's strengths rather than making it a train wreck for the player to navigate through.
The loot in Mass Effect 1 was nightmarish to me. Barrels of guns and armour separated by tiny margins on meaningless numbers, most of them less than what you already have. The upgrade and armour customisation system in ME2 is way more enjoyable for me.
As for customisation of characters, ME2 has fewer choices but they feel like they have greater significance. "+2% assault rifle damage" is not a particularly exciting skill up. Pull Field is.
Okay, you're comparing the weapons to the biotics. Two different system. I can't believe I'm honestly reading that people prefer ME2's weapon system to the first.
Too many choices >>>>> ZERO GODDAMN CHOICE AT ALL.
Seriously, of all the good stuff in ME2, having to keep the same weapons through half the game was really annoying. Also, the small amount of armors was sorry, though being able to change the looks of it was cool.
Maybe I've been rushing it but I already feel like Im at the point of no return and I've played around 16 hours.
Im going to get something from the "dead" reaver
I've only done 2 loyalty missions though so there is still those. The main story seems really short if I really am close to the end. I wonder will the last game of the trilogy have new crew members again though. Seems like the bulk of the game in this is just recruiting them.
Yeah a fully upgraded ME1 shotgun functioned more like a bolt action rifle with the range and damage it had.
ME2 shotgunning sucked as a vanguard. It was sensible to use with charge but I almost always felt I had higher damage outputs with AR/SMGs even at close range. I confess to really using the autoshotgun almost exclusively though.
Okay, you're comparing the weapons to the biotics. Two different system. I can't believe I'm honestly reading that people prefer ME2's weapon system to the first.
Too many choices >>>>> ZERO GODDAMN CHOICE AT ALL.
Seriously, of all the good stuff in ME2, having to keep the same weapons through half the game was really annoying. Also, the small amount of armors was sorry, though being able to change the looks of it was cool.
A vanguard should stay away from Barrier. Charge cancels it out.
Dark FaZe said:
Yeah a fully upgraded ME1 shotgun functioned more like a bolt action rifle with the range and damage it had.
ME2 shotgunning sucked as a vanguard. It was sensible to use with charge but I almost always felt I had higher damage outputs with AR/SMGs even at close range. I confess to really using the autoshotgun almost exclusively though.
Anyone who killed the council, and wants this mission, go renegade and send the bitches flying. What the hell was there problem?! The text is actually "you owe us bitches! " :lol Might be the only time you get looked at badly for not saving the council
It's one of those things where nothing about the ME2's system makes any sense. You have to mine metal to make weapons? You're in a galaxy with dozens of inhabited (though only a few with shuttle landing pads for some damn reason) and there is only three shopping places? All of the weapons in the entire galaxy went from nearly infinite ammo to "universal" clips that every race adopted (even the vorcha and Collectors) in the span of two years?
Also, apparently everybody lost the ability to use whatever ammo they wanted, and now can only use two kinds.
Okay, you're comparing the weapons to the biotics. Two different system. I can't believe I'm honestly reading that people prefer ME2's weapon system to the first.
Too many choices >>>>> ZERO GODDAMN CHOICE AT ALL.
There are at least ten good weapons in Mass Effect 2 to choose from, plus half a dozen or so viable Heavy Weapons. So around 15-16 choices.
There were four in Mass Effect 1.
Was there a consensus on what heavy weapon was best?
I mainly used the collector particle beam just for its large ammo capacity and easy aiming. The grenade launcher also was pretty strong at the beginning it seemed. Missile launcher seemed weak in comparison.
It's one of those things where nothing about the ME2's system makes any sense. You have to mine metal to make weapons? You're in a galaxy with dozens of inhabited (though only a few with shuttle landing pads for some damn reason) and there is only three shopping places? All of the weapons in the entire galaxy went from nearly infinite ammo to "universal" clips that every race adopted (even the vorcha and Collectors) in the span of two years?
Also, apparently everybody lost the ability to use whatever ammo they wanted, and now can only use two kinds.
Lets us not play this game. Necessary abstraction is necessary...
Coxswain said:
There are at least ten good weapons in Mass Effect 2 to choose from, plus half a dozen or so viable Heavy Weapons. So around 15-16 choices.
There were four in Mass Effect 1.
That is a bit disingenuous. The best weapons and armor in ME1 were near the end(level 36 and 1Mill creds) so you went to several incremental revisions, and mods also great changed the weapons.
I did not like the system, but there were more than 4 choices (though I understand what you mean).
There are at least ten good weapons in Mass Effect 2 to choose from, plus half a dozen or so viable Heavy Weapons. So around 15-16 choices.
There were four in Mass Effect 1.
A couple things could have solved that problem for me: If there had been a villain who weaved through most, if not all, those sidequests. That would have lent the game a much greater cohesion.
If only they could take the great job they've done fleshing out 90% of the races and worlds and shit in the game and also apply that to not being space-racist against the batarians and vorcha...
I very much agree with you (I love the music as well). Only thing is that ME1 villains may have been leagues better, they were still pretty 'meh.'
settled the argument amicably using my sweet Paragon score
and then
hit that with a vengeance
EmCeeGramr said:
That would have been such a difficult and heart-breaking choice if BioWare had suddenly disallowed you from using the Magical Blue/Red Text of Reality Hax and forced you to make a real choice.
In that particular example though I honestly didn't think the choice was very compelling so I was happy to skip it.
Since the charges are all basically trumped up by jerkoff admirals anyway I didn't really feel compelled to be particularly honest with them
If they'd wanted to put a real choice in that mission,
giving you evidence that would clear Tali's name but compel the quarians to go to war with the geth
would've been much more interesting.
WanderingWind said:
Okay, you're comparing the weapons to the biotics. Two different system. I can't believe I'm honestly reading that people prefer ME2's weapon system to the first.
I prefer the concept of the second system but dislike how streamlined it is.
In a sci-fi game where you're a powerful space commander with tons of resources, researching new weapons makes way more sense than finding random dude's guns on the ground and just starting to use them. And navigating build trees to decide what upgrades you apply is extremely fun and rewarding in a way that incremental stat upgrades in ME1 usually weren't.
My ideal system would be 66% ME2, 33% ME1: all new types of guns are researched, but you'd have 4-5 weapons of each type, branching tech upgrades (i.e. you'd have to choose whether your pistols get better damage or accuracy, say), and then lootable upgrades (like the ones in ME1) that you could equip on your own guns only (not your squadmates') to change how they behaved.
(Let's just agree to pretend that mineral mining never happened.)
There are at least ten good weapons in Mass Effect 2 to choose from, plus half a dozen or so viable Heavy Weapons. So around 15-16 choices.
There were four in Mass Effect 1.
You have heavy pistol, shotgun, sniper rifle, submachine gun and assault rifle in both. In ME1 you have a ton of upgrades or weapons that offer different cooling/power etc.
In ME2, your weapons only upgrade directly, and only a couple of times for each during the entire game. For instance, in ME1 there are 17 sniper rifles. ME2 w/o DLC has 3. With one added in DLC.
I don't mind the Charm/Intimidate options being better than the basic conversation choices. I view them as a Persuade skill...they SHOULD give you better results. Charm/Intimidate should be harder to raise up, though, and should require some sacrifice of points that you could put into combat skills instead. Bioware should've stuck with the ME1 system for this.
No, lets. Removing the loot aspect of an RPG is severely unnecessary and ruins a classic part of the genre. I wouldn't disagree that ME1 had TOO much, but that doesn't mean clear cutting was a better solution.
I don't mind the Charm/Intimidate options being better than the basic conversation choices. I view them as a Persuade skill...they SHOULD give you better results. Charm/Intimidate should be harder to raise up, though, and should require some sacrifice of point that you could put in combat skills instead. Bioware should've stuck with the ME1 system for this.
I really dislike persuade skills. Not for the idea, but for how badly it is usually done. They are ALWAYS a cure-all and rarely have consequences. Not to mention how easily NPCs usually fold.
Also, I think a better idea would be to offer a second set of systems. Here things like hacking ability, persuade (both charm and intimidate, they should have diff rewards and consequences), resource upgrades and other non-combat items should be included. In this way, you are forced to choose, but not have combat ability unnecessarily hampered.
I don't mind the Charm/Intimidate options being better than the basic conversation choices. I view them as a Persuade skill...they SHOULD give you better results. Charm/Intimidate should be harder to raise up, though, and should require some sacrifice of point that you could put in combat skills instead. Bioware should've stuck with the ME1 system for this.
Not really. Every weapon from the one that you start with to the Spectre X version handled and played exactly the same; they just did more and more damage as you got new ones. If that's enough to make them different weapons, then correct what I said to "Mass Effect 2 has eighty good weapons", because you've got the weapon with no upgrades, the weapon with +10%/20%/30%/40%/50% damage bonuses, and then you've got another version with each of the two weapon-specific upgrades.
There were four weapons in Mass Effect 1. There's fourteen in Mass Effect 2, not counting DLC or Heavy Weapons, and the majority of them are useful (at least, within their weapon type).
No, lets. Removing the loot aspect of an RPG is severely unnecessary and ruins a classic part of the genre. I wouldn't disagree that ME1 had TOO much, but that doesn't mean clear cutting was a better solution.
Just had an intense battle holed up in a building, shit was so fun. The game seems a lot more focused and character driven than ME1 and so far it's great.
I prefer the concept of the second system but dislike how streamlined it is.
In a sci-fi game where you're a powerful space commander with tons of resources, researching new weapons makes way more sense than finding random dude's guns on the ground and just starting to use them. And navigating build trees to decide what upgrades you apply is extremely fun and rewarding in a way that incremental stat upgrades in ME1 usually weren't.
My ideal system would be 66% ME2, 33% ME1: all new types of guns are researched, but you'd have 4-5 weapons of each type, branching tech upgrades (i.e. you'd have to choose whether your pistols get better damage or accuracy, say), and then lootable upgrades (like the ones in ME1) that you could equip on your own guns only (not your squadmates') to change how they behaved.
(Let's just agree to pretend that mineral mining never happened.)
You have heavy pistol, shotgun, sniper rifle, submachine gun and assault rifle in both. In ME1 you have a ton of upgrades or weapons that offer different cooling/power etc.
In ME2, your weapons only upgrade directly, and only a couple of times for each during the entire game. For instance, in ME1 there are 17 sniper rifles. ME2 w/o DLC has 3. With one added in DLC.
The four weapons of ME1 are the four Spectre weapons which were all you would use once you get them. Of the "tons of upgrades" I would only use one Combat Scanner, Frictionless Materials, and Scram Rails. Of the ammo types, I would only use Radioactive Rounds, which maxed out at level III. It was too cumbersome to swap Tungsten and Shredder rounds, which maxed out at level VII to make it worth the time to enter the menu even on Insanity.
ME1 had more crap, but how much of it wasn't just crap? As far as actually useful items go, ME2 has either the same or more. I'm tired of these arguments. ME2 is in no way, shape, or form "dumbed down" for the masses because there was nothing "smarter" about having a bunch of useless crap. It has nothing to do with catering to the Halo/COD/Gears crowd and everything to do with better game design. You try to do everything with a game and you end up with a mess that takes forever to (not) finish.
Also, it can be argued that ME1 only had one weapon per class because of the way you had to specialize. I played the game to completion six times and four of them I used nothing but a pistol. I only bothered switching weapons with the Soldier and that was only for achievements, otherwise I'd only use the assault rifle.
I had chosen fortification and was just wondering if I should shift it. I have around 80k Eezo. so experimentation is easy.
Jumping back into normal difficulty from insane is a joke. You can do a lot of stupid stuff on normal (like grind out the brawler achievement.)
WanderingWind said:
Okay, you're comparing the weapons to the biotics. Two different system. I can't believe I'm honestly reading that people prefer ME2's weapon system to the first.
Too many choices >>>>> ZERO GODDAMN CHOICE AT ALL.
Seriously, of all the good stuff in ME2, having to keep the same weapons through half the game was really annoying. Also, the small amount of armors was sorry, though being able to change the looks of it was cool.
ME1 had more weapons, but I noticed more variety with my ME2 weapons. The only ME1 weapon that really fired differently was the Geth Rifle. In ME2 I can easily tell the difference between several sniper rifles, rifles and submachine guns. I frequently swapped ammo types in ME1 and it's just so much more pleasant to do in ME2. It's also great to be using so many different weapons instead of just the pistol.
I can understand the armor issue a little better. I was lucky enough to be able to choose between Inferno and Collectors' in addition to N7. If more armors were to be introduced I'd like to see them as customizable as the N7.
ME1 had more crap, but how much of it wasn't just crap? As far as actually useful items go, ME2 has either the same or more. I'm tired of these arguments. ME2 is in no way, shape, or form "dumbed down" for the masses because there was nothing "smarter" about having a bunch of useless crap. It has nothing to do with catering to the Halo/COD/Gears crowd and everything to do with better game design. You try to do everything with a game and you end up with a mess that takes forever to (not) finish.
The design of ME1, from the skill system to the equipment system, was basically just one of these:
There were a lot of buttons to push, and they all made different colours light up and maybe made a different noise, and sometimes you would need to "optimize" your table by fitting the obviously square peg into the obviously square hole, but they didn't actually do anything.
ME1 had more weapons, but I noticed more variety with my ME2 weapons. The only ME1 weapon that really fired differently was the Geth Rifle. In ME2 I can easily tell the difference between several sniper rifles, rifles and submachine guns. I frequently swapped ammo types in ME1 and it's just so much more pleasant to do in ME2. It's also great to be using so many different weapons instead of just the pistol.
I can understand the armor issue a little better. I was lucky enough to be able to choose between Inferno and Collectors' in addition to N7. If more armors were to be introduced I'd like to see them as customizable as the N7.
Exactly. The weapons in ME1 had slightly different accuracies and shots before overheat, but who decided on one weapon over another on anything but the damage stat? They all felt the same. ME2 weapons actually play differently enough that you might actually want to downgrade a weapon sometimes.
The four weapons of ME1 are the four Spectre weapons which were all you would use once you get them. Of the "tons of upgrades" I would only use one Combat Scanner, Frictionless Materials, and Scram Rails. Of the ammo types, I would only use Radioactive Rounds, which maxed out at level III. It was too cumbersome to swap Tungsten and Shredder rounds, which maxed out at level VII to make it worth the time to enter the menu even on Insanity.
ME1 had more crap, but how much of it wasn't just crap? As far as actually useful items go, ME2 has either the same or more. I'm tired of these arguments. ME2 is in no way, shape, or form "dumbed down" for the masses because there was nothing "smarter" about having a bunch of useless crap. It has nothing to do with catering to the Halo/COD/Gears crowd and everything to do with better game design. You try to do everything with a game and you end up with a mess that takes forever to (not) finish.
While the words are no good, some if what they imply is certainly on point.
ME2 was made to appeal more to the FPS gamer. The FPS gamer is not 'stupid' or 'dumb' he/she just prefers less abstraction.
The RPG gamer loves numbers, so he/she wants to see as much of these as possible.
ME1 favored the RPG gamer, and ME2 favored the FPS gamer.
ME1 systems were bad, really bad and ME2 are very good (for the most part).
The question is that of style and preference. RPG gamers prefer the numbers game, so even if from a design standpoint ME2 is 'better,' ME1 appealed more to their taste (and since they invested in the first game more, they expected that the second would cater to them). So when people say 'dumbed down,' you have to look past their animosity and just accept that they mean that the style no longer appeals to them.
Similar to what happened with Deus Ex and Invisible war. The main difference is that the the quality is reversed. DE1 had well designed RPG systems, while the second one not only no longer appealed to the fanbase, but had 'meh' systems replacing the previous.
Just beat it. 29:13. 10 hours longer than my longest playthrough of the first game. Awesome game, although I thought the endgame was a bit silly.
Human reapers
- REALLY? And talk about the biggest end credit let down ever :lol :lol ME1 blasts you out to Faunts from start of credits to the end, while ME2 plays "Suicide Mission" (a fine track, dont get me wrong), and then rolls the last 2-3 minutes of credits in silence.
I must say, if you put a gun to my head, between the original and ME2, Im taking the original. ME2 has better, more fleshed out characters, better gameplay, better and more optimized graphics, and yet it feels like it came at the expense of the sense of exploration in the original. The missions in ME2 also feel very small in scope. There is nothing in the game that is half as epic as Virmire or the assault on the Citadel in ME1. And while this game focuses on the characters, it loses sight of the epic space opera vibe that the original had. Also, someone needs to tell Jack Wall that Vangelis wannabe = good, and generic action movie score = bad.
I realize that it sounds like Im tearing down ME2, but that isnt the case. Its a quantum leap forward in most areas. Its just a shame that in the areas most important to my tastes, it took some steps back.
I really cannot wait to see where they go for ME3. Im hoping that they bring back some of the scope of ME1 and retain the gameplay improvements of ME2.
Horizon and got Samara. I knew those 2 scions would give me hell, and there's actually a mini-expoit here. You can stop at the start of the room and see the hump of the one in front, I sniped it to death(it doesn't react) and you can basically just go in and fight a single scion and all the husks.
I've pretty much always used Miranda on this play, having both overload and warp helps a lot. I'm not really sure who to bring on the other collector missions though...
I brought Grunt and damn, he really cleans shop with the husks. I almost brought Jack instead because I know from my vanguard play that shockwave is basically playing bowling with them and they just helplessly die, but them all having armor now complicates that. Does shockwave still work if they have full armor?
MegaKungFuRadio said:
The four weapons of ME1 are the four Spectre weapons which were all you would use once you get them. Of the "tons of upgrades" I would only use one Combat Scanner, Frictionless Materials, and Scram Rails. Of the ammo types, I would only use Radioactive Rounds, which maxed out at level III. It was too cumbersome to swap Tungsten and Shredder rounds, which maxed out at level VII to make it worth the time to enter the menu even on Insanity.
ME1 had more crap, but how much of it wasn't just crap? As far as actually useful items go, ME2 has either the same or more. I'm tired of these arguments. ME2 is in no way, shape, or form "dumbed down" for the masses because there was nothing "smarter" about having a bunch of useless crap. It has nothing to do with catering to the Halo/COD/Gears crowd and everything to do with better game design. You try to do everything with a game and you end up with a mess that takes forever to (not) finish.
Also, it can be argued that ME1 only had one weapon per class because of the way you had to specialize. I played the game to completion six times and four of them I used nothing but a pistol. I only bothered switching weapons with the Soldier and that was only for achievements, otherwise I'd only use the assault rifle.
On top of this, even after you clearly have the best stuff you have to deal with constantly clearing the entire inventory because of the 150 limit. Got annoying as all hell.
The four weapons of ME1 are the four Spectre weapons which were all you would use once you get them. Of the "tons of upgrades" I would only use one Combat Scanner, Frictionless Materials, and Scram Rails. Of the ammo types, I would only use Radioactive Rounds, which maxed out at level III. It was too cumbersome to swap Tungsten and Shredder rounds, which maxed out at level VII to make it worth the time to enter the menu even on Insanity.
ME1 had more crap, but how much of it wasn't just crap? As far as actually useful items go, ME2 has either the same or more. I'm tired of these arguments. ME2 is in no way, shape, or form "dumbed down" for the masses because there was nothing "smarter" about having a bunch of useless crap. It has nothing to do with catering to the Halo/COD/Gears crowd and everything to do with better game design. You try to do everything with a game and you end up with a mess that takes forever to (not) finish.
Well, for starters, if you're going to quote a post, you may want to not go off on a rant about what you're "tired of" using quotation marks in the "wrong place." I never said anything about "dumbed down" or GoW. I really liked ME1 and ME2. I hope they fall somewhere intbetween the two for the third one.
Back on point.
Okay, well just using your example, I never used the Radioactive rounds. I used armor piercing. I never used the combat scanners, to me those were crap.
"How much of it wasn't just crap?" Well, different play styles dictate what you consider crap. Same goes with how much streamlining (sorry "better game design") you like in an RPG. I believe ME2 went overboard with trying to focus everything, and it hurt the experience in some fundamental ways.
Also, if people got so confused with having loot that they didn't finish ME1...
Okay, you're comparing the weapons to the biotics. Two different system. I can't believe I'm honestly reading that people prefer ME2's weapon system to the first.
Too many choices >>>>> ZERO GODDAMN CHOICE AT ALL.
Seriously, of all the good stuff in ME2, having to keep the same weapons through half the game was really annoying. Also, the small amount of armors was sorry, though being able to change the looks of it was cool.
I wouldn't mind the loot system returning if they fixed it.
In ME1:
Thousands of completely redundant or useless weapons, upgrades, and armors? Check.
The loot limit being exceeded at an unreasonably small number compounded by the fact that you get shitloads of useless loot every time you fight? Check.
Keeping different slots for the same items instead of stacking them? Check.
Incomprehensible item ranking that put some of the best weapons on the same rank, or even lower than, as useless crap? Check
The ME2 weapon system may not have as many options(or at least the illusion of many options), but it doesn't take 15 minutes after every planet I visit to manage my crap(and by manage I mean spam the Y button) and the weapons actually feel different.
Well, for starters, if you're going to quote a post, you may want to not go off on a rant about what you're "tired of" using quotation marks in the "wrong place." I never said anything about "dumbed down" or GoW. I really liked ME1 and ME2. I hope they fall somewhere intbetween the two for the third one.
Back on point.
Okay, well just using your example, I never used the Radioactive rounds. I used armor piercing. I never used the combat scanners, to me those were crap.
"How much of it wasn't just crap?" Well, different play styles dictate what you consider crap. Same goes with how much streamlining (sorry "better game design") you like in an RPG. I believe ME2 went overboard with trying to focus everything, and it hurt the experience in some fundamental ways.
Also, if people got so confused with having loot that they didn't finish ME1...
That rant wasn't meant for you. It just happened to be in the same post. Should I have made another?
For example, I'm not going to assume "confused with having loot" was meant for me since I said nothing about that and said in my post I played the game six times.
EDIT: Whoops, guess the six times thing was a different post. Guess I'm an idiot and you're right about everything.
I've pretty much always used Miranda on this play, having both overload and warp helps a lot. I'm not really sure who to bring on the other collector missions though...
I brought Grunt and damn, he really cleans shop with the husks. I almost brought Jack instead because I know from my vanguard play that shockwave is basically playing bowling with them and they just helplessly die, but them all having armor now complicates that. Does shockwave still work if they have full armor?
You are describing my plythroughs almost exactly :lol
My normal to insanity changes:
I had an infiltrator so Incinerate + Headshots were part of my standard attack against that enemy. I used Thane and Miranda the most. 2 Heavy Warps make everything so much easier.
No, just making it clear that I never called ME2 "dumbed down." It was certainly made to appease the FPS fan though. How many improbably placed boxes can one universe have, really?
Everything here is right brandon, except for the bolded, which are so, so wrong. The ME2 music could be ripped from 100 different blockbusters. There is no identity to it. ME1's distinct synth, Vangelis-lite style is fucking seared into my brain. As for the ending, ME2 is like "yay, I beat that weird thing, now lets fly away and segway into ME3!". ME1's final 3 hours or so are epic on a scale that very few games have ever achieved, and the ending is incredibly rousing, and it still feels self-contained. By the time Faunts hits, you feel like you've just saved the galaxy.
No, just making it clear that I never called ME2 "dumbed down." It was certainly made to appease the FPS fan though. How many improbably placed boxes can one universe have, really?
You certainly didn't, but it has been said. We have no quarrel, sir. You like what you like and I was defending what I felt needed defending from some people. Mass Effect was always meant to be a shooter. Now it's just a better shooter. I don't find that to be catering, just improvement on the original concept. Though the panels that flipped up for cover when you approach them on the prison ship were a bit much.
One thing though: Other than not quoting things you said, what the hell were wrong with my quotation marks? Between this and Cep saying my words were no good, I'm going to develop a complex here!
You are describing my plythroughs almost exactly :lol
My normal to insanity changes:
I had an infiltrator so Incinerate + Headshots were part of my standard attack against that enemy. I used Thane and Miranda the most. 2 Heavy Warps make everything so much easier.
I'm an infiltrator too. I started mainly just focused on maxing cloak and the basic class ability, so for now I cloak + headshot most of the time and just rely on the squad for powers. Two warps would be nice, I should go get him soon.
And really?
I never really thought about using that, and never did on my first play. It doesn't seem good to ever be close enough to use it, unless you mean you cloaked and used it up in their face, which I never actually thought about. I always rocked the collector's beam and planned to do the same here, it just seems the most versatile.
Everything here is right brandon, except for the bolded, which are so, so wrong. The ME2 music could be ripped from 100 different blockbusters. There is no identity to it. ME1's distinct synth, Vangelis-lite style is fucking seared into my brain. As for the ending, ME2 is like "yay, I beat
that weird human reaper thing,
now lets fly away and segway into ME3!
. ME1's final 3 hours or so are epic on a scale that very few games have ever achieved, and the ending is incredibly rousing, and it still feels self-contained. By the time Faunts hits, you feel like you've just saved the galaxy.
You certainly didn't, but it has been said. We have no quarrel, sir. You like what you like and I was defending what I felt needed defending from some people. Mass Effect was always meant to be a shooter. Now it's just a better shooter. I don't find that to be catering, just improvement on the original concept. Though the panels that flipped up for cover when you approach them on the prison ship were a bit much.
One thing though: Other than not quoting things you said, what the hell were wrong with my quotation marks? Between this and Cep saying my words were no good, I'm going to develop a complex here!
Eh, just a typical internet miscommunication. I understood you, but wanted to clarify that I hadn't said anything of the sort.
Also, don't get me wrong. Trying to shoot anything or take cover in ME1 was a chore most of the time. Those segment are infinitely improved.
It's just, I like my loot. It's part of a complete RPG breakfast. For me a great RPG has to consist of five things. Exploration, memorable characters, decent story, great music and plentiful loot.
ME1 had explorations, story, music and loot. Wrex, Liara and Tali were memorable for me. The combat was barely functional, at least on the 360. PC was greatly improved.
ME2 had a great cast (though too samey) okay story, decent music (though the first was miles better) and little to no loot. The combat system was miles better, but to me, that's not as important as the rest of the elements, unless it's complete shit.
ME1's final 3 hours or so are epic on a scale that very few games have ever achieved, and the ending is incredibly rousing, and it still feels self-contained. By the time Faunts hits, you feel like you've just saved the galaxy.
Everything here is right brandon, except for the bolded, which are so, so wrong. The ME2 music could be ripped from 100 different blockbusters. There is no identity to it. ME1's distinct synth, Vangelis-lite style is fucking seared into my brain. As for the ending, ME2 is like "yay, I beat that weird thing, now lets fly away and segway into ME3!
. ME1's final 3 hours or so are epic on a scale that very few games have ever achieved, and the ending is incredibly rousing, and it still feels self-contained. By the time Faunts hits, you feel like you've just saved the galaxy.
A lot of people seem to feel that way about the ending of ME1 and I can't say I felt the same way. It didn't feel that special to me at all. I think I got more out of Virimere than I did Ilos/Citadel. The final mission of ME2 on the other hand had me tense and probably raised my heartrate a bit (Wii Vitality Sensor, where are you?). It may have had something to do with the fact that it was 9 in the morning and I had pulled an all nighter, but I physically felt discomfort when making the decisions since I knew that they mattered.
)