On February 21 2012 03:55 Auru wrote: The multiplayer has me hooked.. once you have a few weapon choices, some levels in all the classes and are hitting the silver/gold difficulty.. it's extremely fun and not easy at all
Really interested to hear how many maps there will be.. how many enemy types and the like, with what i've played so far.. Bioware have nailed it.
Gold actually is really hard. Had a team that managed silver fairly easily and then didnt even make wave one in gold. Awesome!
On February 20 2012 12:42 GGTeMpLaR wrote: ME1: A+ ME2: A-/B+ ME3: Looks like it will be a C+/C based off all I've seen but hopefully I am underestimating it.
I really don't understand how people can have this opinion. The only thing that got me through ME1 was the fact that I could play ME2 afterwards. I had to spend about 5 minutes in ME2 before I realized how much better than ME1 it was. ME1 is a mediocre shooter with mediocre RPG/squad elements, in a decently short game. ME2 is a great shooter with weak RPG/squad elements in a game where you actually feel like doing anything other than the main missions.
I don't disagree when people say ME2 was simplified, but seriously, there was no loss. The inventory system was definitely the worst part of ME1 since you just wanted to put on the best gear and everything else was junk, possibly switching weapon/armor enhancements for each fight (assuming you knew what you would be up against). The stats system was more or less the same, just forced to spend way more points, often with abilities you actively didn't care about.
Really, the opinion that ME1 is a better game than ME2 blows my mind.
ME2 combat system was much better than ME1, ME1 also had alot of down time during missions which did not exist to the same degree in ME2. That being said, the story and dialog was so much better in ME1, i felt the world in ME1 was much more open than in ME2 which i really missed
I disagree with this, still. I've not beaten ME2 yet so I don't know how it will unfold (working on loyalty/last dossiers), but from ME1 and up to where I am in ME2, I'd say the twists are more interesting in ME1 but the characters are more interesting in ME2. The collectors have me really interested, I want to know more about them, but it's not really the same as the whole deal with Sovereign etc in ME1 which made you really hyped for the next mission. I prefer the characters in ME2 though, I feel like there's more depth here and I love the loyalty missions because you get to know more about them. I really don't see the dialogues being worse in this and while ME1 might "feel" more open, there was more or less no substance since exploring planets was so ridiculously boring.
The "mission" nature of the game means you're slightly more restricted in that there's a lot of areas you can't return to once you're done, then again, when did you do this in ME1? You went to Noveria, dealt with the issue, then never docked there again.
All ME2 is, is the characters. If you didn't learn more about them, the entire game would consist of you stopping the collectors at like two planets, exploring a couple of old ships, and then going through the relay.
You don't learn anything about the collectors. No I'm serious. Nothing noteworthy at all. They're just an unknown race that remains unknown even after the game is beaten.
I would have liked ME2 more had it had a few less characters and a bit more plot. That's not to say I didn't enjoy it, I just felt a bit let down by the end of the game.
Lol wut? You didn't pay any attention, did you? The collectors were the Protheans that were indoctrinated by the Reapers, then forced to evolve into near mindless slaves of the Reapers over 50,000 years, and implanted with tech to replace necessary organs that they lose as a result. There's tons of info about them in the game, ranging from why they have no culture to how they have a base in the center of the galaxy, to how they came to be and why they exist and what their goals are. They literally aren't a race: they're a collection of mind slaves with no goals, no hopes, no dreams, and no plans other than what the Reapers tell them. They're essentially extensions of the Reapers themselves at this point.
On February 20 2012 12:42 GGTeMpLaR wrote: ME1: A+ ME2: A-/B+ ME3: Looks like it will be a C+/C based off all I've seen but hopefully I am underestimating it.
I really don't understand how people can have this opinion. The only thing that got me through ME1 was the fact that I could play ME2 afterwards. I had to spend about 5 minutes in ME2 before I realized how much better than ME1 it was. ME1 is a mediocre shooter with mediocre RPG/squad elements, in a decently short game. ME2 is a great shooter with weak RPG/squad elements in a game where you actually feel like doing anything other than the main missions.
I don't disagree when people say ME2 was simplified, but seriously, there was no loss. The inventory system was definitely the worst part of ME1 since you just wanted to put on the best gear and everything else was junk, possibly switching weapon/armor enhancements for each fight (assuming you knew what you would be up against). The stats system was more or less the same, just forced to spend way more points, often with abilities you actively didn't care about.
Really, the opinion that ME1 is a better game than ME2 blows my mind.
ME2 combat system was much better than ME1, ME1 also had alot of down time during missions which did not exist to the same degree in ME2. That being said, the story and dialog was so much better in ME1, i felt the world in ME1 was much more open than in ME2 which i really missed
I disagree with this, still. I've not beaten ME2 yet so I don't know how it will unfold (working on loyalty/last dossiers), but from ME1 and up to where I am in ME2, I'd say the twists are more interesting in ME1 but the characters are more interesting in ME2. The collectors have me really interested, I want to know more about them, but it's not really the same as the whole deal with Sovereign etc in ME1 which made you really hyped for the next mission. I prefer the characters in ME2 though, I feel like there's more depth here and I love the loyalty missions because you get to know more about them. I really don't see the dialogues being worse in this and while ME1 might "feel" more open, there was more or less no substance since exploring planets was so ridiculously boring.
The "mission" nature of the game means you're slightly more restricted in that there's a lot of areas you can't return to once you're done, then again, when did you do this in ME1? You went to Noveria, dealt with the issue, then never docked there again.
All ME2 is, is the characters. If you didn't learn more about them, the entire game would consist of you stopping the collectors at like two planets, exploring a couple of old ships, and then going through the relay.
You don't learn anything about the collectors. No I'm serious. Nothing noteworthy at all. They're just an unknown race that remains unknown even after the game is beaten.
I would have liked ME2 more had it had a few less characters and a bit more plot. That's not to say I didn't enjoy it, I just felt a bit let down by the end of the game.
Lol wut? You didn't pay any attention, did you? The collectors were the Protheans that were indoctrinated by the Reapers, then forced to evolve into near mindless slaves of the Reapers over 50,000 years, and implanted with tech to replace necessary organs that they lose as a result. There's tons of info about them in the game, ranging from why they have no culture to how they have a base in the center of the galaxy, to how they came to be and why they exist and what their goals are. They literally aren't a race: they're a collection of mind slaves with no goals, no hopes, no dreams, and no plans other than what the Reapers tell them. They're essentially extensions of the Reapers themselves at this point.
I'm with Whitewing, summed it up well. I mean they WERE pretty much a mystery, but they did explain it eventually. And while the end result isn't spectacularly fascinating (besides the fact that they are/were Protheans imo) it's all there. Only thing I never fully gleaned was the whole Harbinger controlling aspect; why do it that way (and unlock some secret power in the controlled one?) instead of just pure hivemind like the Overmind, where the Reapers ARE just controlling them. Similar to the "bad" Geth from ME1. The middle man thing was weird, from a lore perspective, though it was really cool and personally got me nervous every time he ASSUMED DIRECT CONTROL
On February 20 2012 12:42 GGTeMpLaR wrote: ME1: A+ ME2: A-/B+ ME3: Looks like it will be a C+/C based off all I've seen but hopefully I am underestimating it.
I really don't understand how people can have this opinion. The only thing that got me through ME1 was the fact that I could play ME2 afterwards. I had to spend about 5 minutes in ME2 before I realized how much better than ME1 it was. ME1 is a mediocre shooter with mediocre RPG/squad elements, in a decently short game. ME2 is a great shooter with weak RPG/squad elements in a game where you actually feel like doing anything other than the main missions.
I don't disagree when people say ME2 was simplified, but seriously, there was no loss. The inventory system was definitely the worst part of ME1 since you just wanted to put on the best gear and everything else was junk, possibly switching weapon/armor enhancements for each fight (assuming you knew what you would be up against). The stats system was more or less the same, just forced to spend way more points, often with abilities you actively didn't care about.
Really, the opinion that ME1 is a better game than ME2 blows my mind.
ME2 combat system was much better than ME1, ME1 also had alot of down time during missions which did not exist to the same degree in ME2. That being said, the story and dialog was so much better in ME1, i felt the world in ME1 was much more open than in ME2 which i really missed
I disagree with this, still. I've not beaten ME2 yet so I don't know how it will unfold (working on loyalty/last dossiers), but from ME1 and up to where I am in ME2, I'd say the twists are more interesting in ME1 but the characters are more interesting in ME2. The collectors have me really interested, I want to know more about them, but it's not really the same as the whole deal with Sovereign etc in ME1 which made you really hyped for the next mission. I prefer the characters in ME2 though, I feel like there's more depth here and I love the loyalty missions because you get to know more about them. I really don't see the dialogues being worse in this and while ME1 might "feel" more open, there was more or less no substance since exploring planets was so ridiculously boring.
The "mission" nature of the game means you're slightly more restricted in that there's a lot of areas you can't return to once you're done, then again, when did you do this in ME1? You went to Noveria, dealt with the issue, then never docked there again.
All ME2 is, is the characters. If you didn't learn more about them, the entire game would consist of you stopping the collectors at like two planets, exploring a couple of old ships, and then going through the relay.
You don't learn anything about the collectors. No I'm serious. Nothing noteworthy at all. They're just an unknown race that remains unknown even after the game is beaten.
I would have liked ME2 more had it had a few less characters and a bit more plot. That's not to say I didn't enjoy it, I just felt a bit let down by the end of the game.
Lol wut? You didn't pay any attention, did you? The collectors were the Protheans that were indoctrinated by the Reapers, then forced to evolve into near mindless slaves of the Reapers over 50,000 years, and implanted with tech to replace necessary organs that they lose as a result. There's tons of info about them in the game, ranging from why they have no culture to how they have a base in the center of the galaxy, to how they came to be and why they exist and what their goals are. They literally aren't a race: they're a collection of mind slaves with no goals, no hopes, no dreams, and no plans other than what the Reapers tell them. They're essentially extensions of the Reapers themselves at this point.
I'm with Whitewing, summed it up well. I mean they WERE pretty much a mystery, but they did explain it eventually. And while the end result isn't spectacularly fascinating (besides the fact that they are/were Protheans imo) it's all there. Only thing I never fully gleaned was the whole Harbinger controlling aspect; why do it that way (and unlock some secret power in the controlled one?) instead of just pure hivemind like the Overmind, where the Reapers ARE just controlling them. Similar to the "bad" Geth from ME1. The middle man thing was weird, from a lore perspective, though it was really cool and personally got me nervous every time he ASSUMED DIRECT CONTROL
Harbringer already controls the middle man(you see this in the end when harbringer stops controlling the middle man when you destroy the reaper larva and finish the game), im presuming he takes control of individuals to get directly involved in the battle(like sovereign did with saren, saran also increased in strength when being controlled only by sovereign) to try and kill sheppard.
On February 20 2012 12:42 GGTeMpLaR wrote: ME1: A+ ME2: A-/B+ ME3: Looks like it will be a C+/C based off all I've seen but hopefully I am underestimating it.
I really don't understand how people can have this opinion. The only thing that got me through ME1 was the fact that I could play ME2 afterwards. I had to spend about 5 minutes in ME2 before I realized how much better than ME1 it was. ME1 is a mediocre shooter with mediocre RPG/squad elements, in a decently short game. ME2 is a great shooter with weak RPG/squad elements in a game where you actually feel like doing anything other than the main missions.
I don't disagree when people say ME2 was simplified, but seriously, there was no loss. The inventory system was definitely the worst part of ME1 since you just wanted to put on the best gear and everything else was junk, possibly switching weapon/armor enhancements for each fight (assuming you knew what you would be up against). The stats system was more or less the same, just forced to spend way more points, often with abilities you actively didn't care about.
Really, the opinion that ME1 is a better game than ME2 blows my mind.
ME2 combat system was much better than ME1, ME1 also had alot of down time during missions which did not exist to the same degree in ME2. That being said, the story and dialog was so much better in ME1, i felt the world in ME1 was much more open than in ME2 which i really missed
I disagree with this, still. I've not beaten ME2 yet so I don't know how it will unfold (working on loyalty/last dossiers), but from ME1 and up to where I am in ME2, I'd say the twists are more interesting in ME1 but the characters are more interesting in ME2. The collectors have me really interested, I want to know more about them, but it's not really the same as the whole deal with Sovereign etc in ME1 which made you really hyped for the next mission. I prefer the characters in ME2 though, I feel like there's more depth here and I love the loyalty missions because you get to know more about them. I really don't see the dialogues being worse in this and while ME1 might "feel" more open, there was more or less no substance since exploring planets was so ridiculously boring.
The "mission" nature of the game means you're slightly more restricted in that there's a lot of areas you can't return to once you're done, then again, when did you do this in ME1? You went to Noveria, dealt with the issue, then never docked there again.
All ME2 is, is the characters. If you didn't learn more about them, the entire game would consist of you stopping the collectors at like two planets, exploring a couple of old ships, and then going through the relay.
You don't learn anything about the collectors. No I'm serious. Nothing noteworthy at all. They're just an unknown race that remains unknown even after the game is beaten.
I would have liked ME2 more had it had a few less characters and a bit more plot. That's not to say I didn't enjoy it, I just felt a bit let down by the end of the game.
Lol wut? You didn't pay any attention, did you? The collectors were the Protheans that were indoctrinated by the Reapers, then forced to evolve into near mindless slaves of the Reapers over 50,000 years, and implanted with tech to replace necessary organs that they lose as a result. There's tons of info about them in the game, ranging from why they have no culture to how they have a base in the center of the galaxy, to how they came to be and why they exist and what their goals are. They literally aren't a race: they're a collection of mind slaves with no goals, no hopes, no dreams, and no plans other than what the Reapers tell them. They're essentially extensions of the Reapers themselves at this point.
I'm with Whitewing, summed it up well. I mean they WERE pretty much a mystery, but they did explain it eventually. And while the end result isn't spectacularly fascinating (besides the fact that they are/were Protheans imo) it's all there. Only thing I never fully gleaned was the whole Harbinger controlling aspect; why do it that way (and unlock some secret power in the controlled one?) instead of just pure hivemind like the Overmind, where the Reapers ARE just controlling them. Similar to the "bad" Geth from ME1. The middle man thing was weird, from a lore perspective, though it was really cool and personally got me nervous every time he ASSUMED DIRECT CONTROL
Harbringer already controls the middle man(you see this in the end when harbringer stops controlling the middle man when you destroy the reaper larva and finish the game), im presuming he takes control of individuals to get directly involved in the battle(like sovereign did with saren, saran also increased in strength when being controlled only by sovereign) to try and kill sheppard.
But then is the Harbinger a reaper? Obviously not. Who controls the Harbinger? The Reapers yes? But then do the Reapers also control the entirety of the Collectors? Then what is the point of the Harbinger? Is his purpose solely to hunt Shepard, by joining the battle in a powerful form?
On February 20 2012 12:42 GGTeMpLaR wrote: ME1: A+ ME2: A-/B+ ME3: Looks like it will be a C+/C based off all I've seen but hopefully I am underestimating it.
I really don't understand how people can have this opinion. The only thing that got me through ME1 was the fact that I could play ME2 afterwards. I had to spend about 5 minutes in ME2 before I realized how much better than ME1 it was. ME1 is a mediocre shooter with mediocre RPG/squad elements, in a decently short game. ME2 is a great shooter with weak RPG/squad elements in a game where you actually feel like doing anything other than the main missions.
I don't disagree when people say ME2 was simplified, but seriously, there was no loss. The inventory system was definitely the worst part of ME1 since you just wanted to put on the best gear and everything else was junk, possibly switching weapon/armor enhancements for each fight (assuming you knew what you would be up against). The stats system was more or less the same, just forced to spend way more points, often with abilities you actively didn't care about.
Really, the opinion that ME1 is a better game than ME2 blows my mind.
ME2 combat system was much better than ME1, ME1 also had alot of down time during missions which did not exist to the same degree in ME2. That being said, the story and dialog was so much better in ME1, i felt the world in ME1 was much more open than in ME2 which i really missed
I disagree with this, still. I've not beaten ME2 yet so I don't know how it will unfold (working on loyalty/last dossiers), but from ME1 and up to where I am in ME2, I'd say the twists are more interesting in ME1 but the characters are more interesting in ME2. The collectors have me really interested, I want to know more about them, but it's not really the same as the whole deal with Sovereign etc in ME1 which made you really hyped for the next mission. I prefer the characters in ME2 though, I feel like there's more depth here and I love the loyalty missions because you get to know more about them. I really don't see the dialogues being worse in this and while ME1 might "feel" more open, there was more or less no substance since exploring planets was so ridiculously boring.
The "mission" nature of the game means you're slightly more restricted in that there's a lot of areas you can't return to once you're done, then again, when did you do this in ME1? You went to Noveria, dealt with the issue, then never docked there again.
All ME2 is, is the characters. If you didn't learn more about them, the entire game would consist of you stopping the collectors at like two planets, exploring a couple of old ships, and then going through the relay.
You don't learn anything about the collectors. No I'm serious. Nothing noteworthy at all. They're just an unknown race that remains unknown even after the game is beaten.
I would have liked ME2 more had it had a few less characters and a bit more plot. That's not to say I didn't enjoy it, I just felt a bit let down by the end of the game.
Lol wut? You didn't pay any attention, did you? The collectors were the Protheans that were indoctrinated by the Reapers, then forced to evolve into near mindless slaves of the Reapers over 50,000 years, and implanted with tech to replace necessary organs that they lose as a result. There's tons of info about them in the game, ranging from why they have no culture to how they have a base in the center of the galaxy, to how they came to be and why they exist and what their goals are. They literally aren't a race: they're a collection of mind slaves with no goals, no hopes, no dreams, and no plans other than what the Reapers tell them. They're essentially extensions of the Reapers themselves at this point.
I'm with Whitewing, summed it up well. I mean they WERE pretty much a mystery, but they did explain it eventually. And while the end result isn't spectacularly fascinating (besides the fact that they are/were Protheans imo) it's all there. Only thing I never fully gleaned was the whole Harbinger controlling aspect; why do it that way (and unlock some secret power in the controlled one?) instead of just pure hivemind like the Overmind, where the Reapers ARE just controlling them. Similar to the "bad" Geth from ME1. The middle man thing was weird, from a lore perspective, though it was really cool and personally got me nervous every time he ASSUMED DIRECT CONTROL
Harbringer already controls the middle man(you see this in the end when harbringer stops controlling the middle man when you destroy the reaper larva and finish the game), im presuming he takes control of individuals to get directly involved in the battle(like sovereign did with saren, saran also increased in strength when being controlled only by sovereign) to try and kill sheppard.
But then is the Harbinger a reaper? Obviously not. Who controls the Harbinger? The Reapers yes? But then do the Reapers also control the entirety of the Collectors? Then what is the point of the Harbinger? Is his purpose solely to hunt Shepard, by joining the battle in a powerful form?
The Harbinger controls the middle man (large, crab-like prothean), and then that crab-like prothean would fight by proxy though the footsoldier protheans. His purpose was to create a human reaper, by abducting humans and breaking down their genetic material as components for the human reaper (the final boss). He knows of Shepard, but his main purpose was to complete the reaper, not to hunt Shepard.
On February 20 2012 12:42 GGTeMpLaR wrote: ME1: A+ ME2: A-/B+ ME3: Looks like it will be a C+/C based off all I've seen but hopefully I am underestimating it.
I really don't understand how people can have this opinion. The only thing that got me through ME1 was the fact that I could play ME2 afterwards. I had to spend about 5 minutes in ME2 before I realized how much better than ME1 it was. ME1 is a mediocre shooter with mediocre RPG/squad elements, in a decently short game. ME2 is a great shooter with weak RPG/squad elements in a game where you actually feel like doing anything other than the main missions.
I don't disagree when people say ME2 was simplified, but seriously, there was no loss. The inventory system was definitely the worst part of ME1 since you just wanted to put on the best gear and everything else was junk, possibly switching weapon/armor enhancements for each fight (assuming you knew what you would be up against). The stats system was more or less the same, just forced to spend way more points, often with abilities you actively didn't care about.
Really, the opinion that ME1 is a better game than ME2 blows my mind.
ME2 combat system was much better than ME1, ME1 also had alot of down time during missions which did not exist to the same degree in ME2. That being said, the story and dialog was so much better in ME1, i felt the world in ME1 was much more open than in ME2 which i really missed
I disagree with this, still. I've not beaten ME2 yet so I don't know how it will unfold (working on loyalty/last dossiers), but from ME1 and up to where I am in ME2, I'd say the twists are more interesting in ME1 but the characters are more interesting in ME2. The collectors have me really interested, I want to know more about them, but it's not really the same as the whole deal with Sovereign etc in ME1 which made you really hyped for the next mission. I prefer the characters in ME2 though, I feel like there's more depth here and I love the loyalty missions because you get to know more about them. I really don't see the dialogues being worse in this and while ME1 might "feel" more open, there was more or less no substance since exploring planets was so ridiculously boring.
The "mission" nature of the game means you're slightly more restricted in that there's a lot of areas you can't return to once you're done, then again, when did you do this in ME1? You went to Noveria, dealt with the issue, then never docked there again.
All ME2 is, is the characters. If you didn't learn more about them, the entire game would consist of you stopping the collectors at like two planets, exploring a couple of old ships, and then going through the relay.
You don't learn anything about the collectors. No I'm serious. Nothing noteworthy at all. They're just an unknown race that remains unknown even after the game is beaten.
I would have liked ME2 more had it had a few less characters and a bit more plot. That's not to say I didn't enjoy it, I just felt a bit let down by the end of the game.
Lol wut? You didn't pay any attention, did you? The collectors were the Protheans that were indoctrinated by the Reapers, then forced to evolve into near mindless slaves of the Reapers over 50,000 years, and implanted with tech to replace necessary organs that they lose as a result. There's tons of info about them in the game, ranging from why they have no culture to how they have a base in the center of the galaxy, to how they came to be and why they exist and what their goals are. They literally aren't a race: they're a collection of mind slaves with no goals, no hopes, no dreams, and no plans other than what the Reapers tell them. They're essentially extensions of the Reapers themselves at this point.
I'm with Whitewing, summed it up well. I mean they WERE pretty much a mystery, but they did explain it eventually. And while the end result isn't spectacularly fascinating (besides the fact that they are/were Protheans imo) it's all there. Only thing I never fully gleaned was the whole Harbinger controlling aspect; why do it that way (and unlock some secret power in the controlled one?) instead of just pure hivemind like the Overmind, where the Reapers ARE just controlling them. Similar to the "bad" Geth from ME1. The middle man thing was weird, from a lore perspective, though it was really cool and personally got me nervous every time he ASSUMED DIRECT CONTROL
Harbringer already controls the middle man(you see this in the end when harbringer stops controlling the middle man when you destroy the reaper larva and finish the game), im presuming he takes control of individuals to get directly involved in the battle(like sovereign did with saren, saran also increased in strength when being controlled only by sovereign) to try and kill sheppard.
But then is the Harbinger a reaper? Obviously not. Who controls the Harbinger? The Reapers yes? But then do the Reapers also control the entirety of the Collectors? Then what is the point of the Harbinger? Is his purpose solely to hunt Shepard, by joining the battle in a powerful form?
Yes harbinger is a reaper. Harbinger is the reaper you see mainly though the course of ME2(The one with yellow eyes). He is the one who oversees the collector operation and the assembly of the human form reaper
had a lot of fun with the singleplayer demo. i'm such a sucker for cool sci-fi done well. the graphics looked good, controls feel fine, etc. hope the storyline is amazing and not wings of libertied
On February 20 2012 12:42 GGTeMpLaR wrote: ME1: A+ ME2: A-/B+ ME3: Looks like it will be a C+/C based off all I've seen but hopefully I am underestimating it.
I really don't understand how people can have this opinion. The only thing that got me through ME1 was the fact that I could play ME2 afterwards. I had to spend about 5 minutes in ME2 before I realized how much better than ME1 it was. ME1 is a mediocre shooter with mediocre RPG/squad elements, in a decently short game. ME2 is a great shooter with weak RPG/squad elements in a game where you actually feel like doing anything other than the main missions.
I don't disagree when people say ME2 was simplified, but seriously, there was no loss. The inventory system was definitely the worst part of ME1 since you just wanted to put on the best gear and everything else was junk, possibly switching weapon/armor enhancements for each fight (assuming you knew what you would be up against). The stats system was more or less the same, just forced to spend way more points, often with abilities you actively didn't care about.
Really, the opinion that ME1 is a better game than ME2 blows my mind.
ME2 combat system was much better than ME1, ME1 also had alot of down time during missions which did not exist to the same degree in ME2. That being said, the story and dialog was so much better in ME1, i felt the world in ME1 was much more open than in ME2 which i really missed
I disagree with this, still. I've not beaten ME2 yet so I don't know how it will unfold (working on loyalty/last dossiers), but from ME1 and up to where I am in ME2, I'd say the twists are more interesting in ME1 but the characters are more interesting in ME2. The collectors have me really interested, I want to know more about them, but it's not really the same as the whole deal with Sovereign etc in ME1 which made you really hyped for the next mission. I prefer the characters in ME2 though, I feel like there's more depth here and I love the loyalty missions because you get to know more about them. I really don't see the dialogues being worse in this and while ME1 might "feel" more open, there was more or less no substance since exploring planets was so ridiculously boring.
The "mission" nature of the game means you're slightly more restricted in that there's a lot of areas you can't return to once you're done, then again, when did you do this in ME1? You went to Noveria, dealt with the issue, then never docked there again.
All ME2 is, is the characters. If you didn't learn more about them, the entire game would consist of you stopping the collectors at like two planets, exploring a couple of old ships, and then going through the relay.
You don't learn anything about the collectors. No I'm serious. Nothing noteworthy at all. They're just an unknown race that remains unknown even after the game is beaten.
I would have liked ME2 more had it had a few less characters and a bit more plot. That's not to say I didn't enjoy it, I just felt a bit let down by the end of the game.
Lol wut? You didn't pay any attention, did you? The collectors were the Protheans that were indoctrinated by the Reapers, then forced to evolve into near mindless slaves of the Reapers over 50,000 years, and implanted with tech to replace necessary organs that they lose as a result. There's tons of info about them in the game, ranging from why they have no culture to how they have a base in the center of the galaxy, to how they came to be and why they exist and what their goals are. They literally aren't a race: they're a collection of mind slaves with no goals, no hopes, no dreams, and no plans other than what the Reapers tell them. They're essentially extensions of the Reapers themselves at this point.
I'm with Whitewing, summed it up well. I mean they WERE pretty much a mystery, but they did explain it eventually. And while the end result isn't spectacularly fascinating (besides the fact that they are/were Protheans imo) it's all there. Only thing I never fully gleaned was the whole Harbinger controlling aspect; why do it that way (and unlock some secret power in the controlled one?) instead of just pure hivemind like the Overmind, where the Reapers ARE just controlling them. Similar to the "bad" Geth from ME1. The middle man thing was weird, from a lore perspective, though it was really cool and personally got me nervous every time he ASSUMED DIRECT CONTROL
Harbringer already controls the middle man(you see this in the end when harbringer stops controlling the middle man when you destroy the reaper larva and finish the game), im presuming he takes control of individuals to get directly involved in the battle(like sovereign did with saren, saran also increased in strength when being controlled only by sovereign) to try and kill sheppard.
But then is the Harbinger a reaper? Obviously not. Who controls the Harbinger? The Reapers yes? But then do the Reapers also control the entirety of the Collectors? Then what is the point of the Harbinger? Is his purpose solely to hunt Shepard, by joining the battle in a powerful form?
The Harbinger controls the middle man (large, crab-like prothean), and then that crab-like prothean would fight by proxy though the footsoldier protheans. His purpose was to create a human reaper, by abducting humans and breaking down their genetic material as components for the human reaper (the final boss). He knows of Shepard, but his main purpose was to complete the reaper, not to hunt Shepard.
Holy shit my bad. I was 100% convinced all this time that "Harbinger" was the name of what is actually the Collector General ("the middle man" I started referring to). Not that reaper. Idk how I got that messed up in my head. I only played through the actual story once, must have been a bad day. Now I understand my complete mis-phrasing. Sorry lmao. Feel like an idiot.
Now after re-reading all this I feel like I need to finish another one of my files to sort out all the mistakes in my brain. Completely embarassing
Have you played the first game? While it probably had some flaws that I'm too fanboyish to see (like overheating bug, inventory), it was a great game for me and one of my absolutely favourite of all time.
The reason why I and probably many others dislike the second game is that it ditched most of the RPG elements and customizations of the game and made it into a sci-fi shooter with some thrown in RPG elements in an attempt to satisfy everyone. However, it was so clear that they had gone from an RPG focus in the first game, to an action focus in the sequel. This upset (and rightfully so) many of the Mass Effect 1 fans who loved the game as a sci-fi RPG. When the sequel instead became a sci-fi shooter instead, the hate was bound to happen.
Slightly off-topic on the developer's POV for making games: + Show Spoiler +
I can of course understand the developers for wanting to broaden their market. All developers do this today. To do this they had to make the game more action focused, since there are a lot more shooter fans than there are role-playing fans. Developers are constantly striving to do blockbuster games.
The combat system was absolutely excellent in ME2, I can't take that away from the game. But with so few options to customize the characters when they level'd up, the retarded feature of scanning planets for resources for strange upgrades, instead of for example exploring, made one miss the old system.
In ME2 they also simplified a lot of stuff. For example, they implemented the heat clips instead of just having to wait for the weapon to cool down. They basically took away customization of weapon and armor and the inventory. I can agree that the inventory part of ME1 was a bit tedious at times since you got so many items that quickly filled your inventory and to have to go and sell them all the time.
The mini-games in ME2 are easy and boring. That being said, they were relatively easy in ME1 too but at least they could be somewhat challenging on the hardest level and there was an actual possibility to fail them, unlike in ME2 where you have to have some sort of brain disease to not beat them.
The biggest flaw of ME2 in contrast to ME1 is that while ME1 really felt like a big open universe, ME2 does not in any way. It doesn't feel big, you can't land on planets and explore them which was my favourite feature - to explore the planets for minerals, bad guys and lost artifacts was something that while being optional really created the feel of a massive universe - and the Mako car was ridiculously fun to ride!
That's the first time I've ever heard someone praising the Mako. You must have a serious case of nostalgia if you're praising the Mako.
For me gameplay is #1 because.. I play video games to play them, so obviously gameplay is a big part of that, making ME2>ME1 for me. I was disappointed with the story of ME2, but the gameplay made up for it.
This. The comparison of game play just puts the first to shame. If story, characters, and dialogue are your number one concern, read a book. A competent book will beat a video game pretty much 99% of the time. In terms of game play, I cant tell if this will be an upgrade or downgrade from two. Nothing too redeeming, but I currently don't see any glaring errors. I'm loving the Multiplayer (to the point where I almost have 4 guys maxed), and that is enough for me right now. I play games for gameplay. Imo: 2 > (probably) 3 >1
EDIT: Even with almost 4 maxed characters, I still haven't unlocked a single other species/gender for my characters. t's killing me because I just want SOME variety.
On February 21 2012 07:53 intrigue wrote: had a lot of fun with the singleplayer demo. i'm such a sucker for cool sci-fi done well. the graphics looked good, controls feel fine, etc. hope the storyline is amazing and not wings of libertied
On February 21 2012 08:07 Aela wrote: The demo was even worse than Mass Effect 2. The franchise is dead for me. Mass Effect 1 was sooo much better than this shit.
Anyone who thinks ME2 was a steep dropoff from ME1 is deluding themselves with nostalgia. Yes, they traded some of the RPG elements for FPS/Action elements. The people looking for an RPG were bummed about that, the people looking for an RPG-style shooter were happy about that. Either way, it made for a worthy sequel. Maybe not as good, but worthy.
Haven't played the demo for ME3 though. Not going to spoil myself before it comes out, because it was going to be a must-purchase for me anyways.
Even with almost 4 maxed characters, I still haven't unlocked a single other species/gender for my characters. t's killing me because I just want SOME variety.
Haha lol! I got quarian engineer, salarian infiltrator. Both pretty good. But I think as far as Vanguards and Solders go, humans have the best set of skills and synergy so you're not missing out on much. Just keep buying those Veteran Packs for 20K and you'll get some new faces eventually. Keep farming silver/gold for mass $$$$ to support your spending. You can even get a good 60K in silver, compared to the 15-18K in bronze.
Haven't played the demo for ME3 though. Not going to spoil myself before it comes out, because it was going to be a must-purchase for me anyways.
Download and try out multiplayer. Really worth it IMO to get acquainted with it fast. And singleplayer demo is lol. Literally the intro and 1 random mission ripped out of context. No real spoilers.
On February 21 2012 08:07 Aela wrote: The demo was even worse than Mass Effect 2. The franchise is dead for me. Mass Effect 1 was sooo much better than this shit.
Anyone who thinks ME2 was a steep dropoff from ME1 is deluding themselves with nostalgia. Yes, they traded some of the RPG elements for FPS/Action elements. The people looking for an RPG were bummed about that, the people looking for an RPG-style shooter were happy about that. Either way, it made for a worthy sequel. Maybe not as good, but worthy.
Haven't played the demo for ME3 though. Not going to spoil myself before it comes out, because it was going to be a must-purchase for me anyways.
I played through Mass Effect 2 before the first one, and I love Mass Effect 1234234523462 times more than Mass Effect 2. It's just better in every way(except the duck behind cover mechanic, which is amazing in ME2, but rather clumsy in ME1). I hope ME3 will be more like ME2, but I doubt it.
Yes, they traded some of the RPG elements for FPS/Action elements.
Correct! I hate Shooters, I don't want to play a Shooter with MINOR RPG-elements. ME1 had also puzzles, Inventory and a more tactical combat-system. The have done the same thing to Dragon Age 2. Dragon Age: Origins is one of the best games ever and Part2 is sooooooooooo bad! They just take out the fun and put in more action/explosions for the casual-kids.
On February 20 2012 12:42 GGTeMpLaR wrote: ME1: A+ ME2: A-/B+ ME3: Looks like it will be a C+/C based off all I've seen but hopefully I am underestimating it.
I really don't understand how people can have this opinion. The only thing that got me through ME1 was the fact that I could play ME2 afterwards. I had to spend about 5 minutes in ME2 before I realized how much better than ME1 it was. ME1 is a mediocre shooter with mediocre RPG/squad elements, in a decently short game. ME2 is a great shooter with weak RPG/squad elements in a game where you actually feel like doing anything other than the main missions.
I don't disagree when people say ME2 was simplified, but seriously, there was no loss. The inventory system was definitely the worst part of ME1 since you just wanted to put on the best gear and everything else was junk, possibly switching weapon/armor enhancements for each fight (assuming you knew what you would be up against). The stats system was more or less the same, just forced to spend way more points, often with abilities you actively didn't care about.
Really, the opinion that ME1 is a better game than ME2 blows my mind.
ME2 combat system was much better than ME1, ME1 also had alot of down time during missions which did not exist to the same degree in ME2. That being said, the story and dialog was so much better in ME1, i felt the world in ME1 was much more open than in ME2 which i really missed
I disagree with this, still. I've not beaten ME2 yet so I don't know how it will unfold (working on loyalty/last dossiers), but from ME1 and up to where I am in ME2, I'd say the twists are more interesting in ME1 but the characters are more interesting in ME2. The collectors have me really interested, I want to know more about them, but it's not really the same as the whole deal with Sovereign etc in ME1 which made you really hyped for the next mission. I prefer the characters in ME2 though, I feel like there's more depth here and I love the loyalty missions because you get to know more about them. I really don't see the dialogues being worse in this and while ME1 might "feel" more open, there was more or less no substance since exploring planets was so ridiculously boring.
The "mission" nature of the game means you're slightly more restricted in that there's a lot of areas you can't return to once you're done, then again, when did you do this in ME1? You went to Noveria, dealt with the issue, then never docked there again.
All ME2 is, is the characters. If you didn't learn more about them, the entire game would consist of you stopping the collectors at like two planets, exploring a couple of old ships, and then going through the relay.
You don't learn anything about the collectors. No I'm serious. Nothing noteworthy at all. They're just an unknown race that remains unknown even after the game is beaten.
I would have liked ME2 more had it had a few less characters and a bit more plot. That's not to say I didn't enjoy it, I just felt a bit let down by the end of the game.
Lol wut? You didn't pay any attention, did you? The collectors were the Protheans that were indoctrinated by the Reapers, then forced to evolve into near mindless slaves of the Reapers over 50,000 years, and implanted with tech to replace necessary organs that they lose as a result. There's tons of info about them in the game, ranging from why they have no culture to how they have a base in the center of the galaxy, to how they came to be and why they exist and what their goals are. They literally aren't a race: they're a collection of mind slaves with no goals, no hopes, no dreams, and no plans other than what the Reapers tell them. They're essentially extensions of the Reapers themselves at this point.
I'm with Whitewing, summed it up well. I mean they WERE pretty much a mystery, but they did explain it eventually. And while the end result isn't spectacularly fascinating (besides the fact that they are/were Protheans imo) it's all there. Only thing I never fully gleaned was the whole Harbinger controlling aspect; why do it that way (and unlock some secret power in the controlled one?) instead of just pure hivemind like the Overmind, where the Reapers ARE just controlling them. Similar to the "bad" Geth from ME1. The middle man thing was weird, from a lore perspective, though it was really cool and personally got me nervous every time he ASSUMED DIRECT CONTROL
Harbringer already controls the middle man(you see this in the end when harbringer stops controlling the middle man when you destroy the reaper larva and finish the game), im presuming he takes control of individuals to get directly involved in the battle(like sovereign did with saren, saran also increased in strength when being controlled only by sovereign) to try and kill sheppard.
But then is the Harbinger a reaper? Obviously not. Who controls the Harbinger? The Reapers yes? But then do the Reapers also control the entirety of the Collectors? Then what is the point of the Harbinger? Is his purpose solely to hunt Shepard, by joining the battle in a powerful form?
Harbinger is a reaper yes, he's the reaper that was controlling the Collector General. Harbinger is the Reaper that's seen in the game controlling the collectors.
Yes, they traded some of the RPG elements for FPS/Action elements.
Correct! I hate Shooters, I don't want to play a Shooter with MINOR RPG-elements. ME1 had also puzzles, Inventory and a more tactical combat-system. The have done the same thing to Dragon Age 2. Dragon Age: Origins is one of the best games ever and Part2 is sooooooooooo bad! They just take out the fun and put in more action/explosions for the casual-kids.
They're just following where the money is. I can't blame them for trying to maximise sales, but I can hate them for selling out the core spirit of their games in order to do it. DA2 still haunts me to this day. I can't believe they turned a worthy successor to the Baldur's Gate series into a Dungeon Siege clone.... T_T
EPT
