I'm posting this because I am sick and tired of people going on and on about how bad and overrated Mass Effect 2 and how much better Mass Effect is than its sequel. I'm tired of people complaining about how trivial gameplay aspects (inventory, looting enemies) apparently make or break an RPG. Mass Effect 2 is an excellent game, it may just be the best single player game ever made. It is easily the most fun I've had gaming in years. It combines the action of a TPS with the storytelling and character development of the best RPGs and tosses in some cool elements suck as the new Paragon and Renagade quicktime events. If you dislike the game because its a TPS and not a traditional TBC D&D clone that's fine. Not everyone enjoys every game, but knocking it and claiming that is less of a game because of that is asinine.

To those who disliked Mass Effect, I recomment that you play ME2. It removes a lot of the poor elements of the original, improves combat, and is ultimately a much more polished game. The weakest aspect of the game is the mining mini game, but you don't have to invest any time in that if you do not desire. The amount of time needed to spend mining is minimal and is by no means enough to ruin the game.

Note: This based on the PC version of both games.

Points of Contention
1) Mass Effect 2 is not an RPG
2) Mass Effect 2 has a weaker story
3) Mass Effect 2 has weaker characters
4) Mass Effect 2 has less customization
5) Mass Effect 2 is a smaller and shorter game
6) Mass Effect 2 has bad gameplay

But first, the obvious!

The Mako

The majority of Mass Effect players disliked the Mako. I disliked it for three reasons. The controls for it are poor, the planets you explore with the Mako are bland, cut and paste worlds, and the Mako takes away from the overall game experience. I did not purchase Mass Effect in order to drive a vehicle around in lifeless worlds. I don't think anyone else did either. If you want to include vehicles, make them secondary. The Mako shouldn't be required for Feros, Therum, Noveria, Ilos, Virmire, and many of the side missions. The Firewalker DLC was a big improvement. I hope that ME3 either avoids vehicles or makes them a secondary element

Graphics

Obviously, the improvement of graphics from Mass Effect to ME2 wasn't huge. There was a moderate improvement, but more importantly ME2 looks better AND runs better than Mass Effect. I call that a win.

And now the issues!

1) Mass Effect 2 is not an RPG

The first problem with this claim is that there is no accepted definition of what makes an RPG. Is an RPG simly a D&D clone? If you use this definition than neither Mass Effect or Mass Effect 2 is an RPG. If you think an RPG needs an inventory system, excessive and useless talents, lootable enemies, and XP from every kill, than Mass Effect 2 is not an RPG.
I'd like to think that the most important element of an RPG is the development of your character. The most important aspect of character development is not leveling up. The most important element is how your character impacts the story and the world around him/her. The key difference between RPGs and most non RPGs is that you have many more choices in an RPG. No one can make a logical argument that Mass Effect 2 lacks character development in that you are capable of making a myriad choices that effect the story, the world around you, your squadmates, and of course, your character.

2) Mass Effect 2 has a weaker story

This assumes that Mass Effect has a good story, which it does not. Mass Effect's story is not original. The issue is not that the story of an ancient evil reappearing is common, but that those plot elements have been done to death in Bioware games. Mass Effect's strength lies in it's presentation and universe.
Mass Effect 2 lacks an original main quest and contains an element that I extremely dislike. Now, I like the fact that the 'suicide mission' is something that Bioware hasn't done before. In fact, I can't even really think of a game with a similar premise, but I'm sure there are some. My biggest issue is not that the Reapers are revealed to be essentially giant cyborgs, but that anyone thought making that hideous Human-Reaper out human mush was a good idea. Seriously, why did it have it look like a giant terminator with human larvea for eyes?
Back on topic, yes, I agree that ME2's main story is less developed than ME. The key difference between the two is that ME2's focus is not on the journey into the Omega 4 Relay, but on the journey up to it, especially on the character development of your squadmates.

3) Mass Effect 2 has weaker characters

I don't even know where this comes from. The only stand out character from the first game is Wrex. I liked Liara (aside from the fact she wants to jump your bones) and Garrus, but the rest of the cast isn't anything to write home about. This changes significantly for ME2. Mordin Solus is the most interesting and easily the most well developed character to ever appear in a Bioware game. Garrus and Tali both seemed to mature during their time spent away from you. Grunt is a humurous look at the basic Krogan desires. He lacks the refinement of Wrex, but I found this to make him more appealing. Thane provides us with our first look into the Drell psyche and is a nice aversion of the typical cold blooded assassin. I didn't find Samara or Morinth particularly interesting as individuals. I don't think Morinth's 'succubus' nature is particularly good fit for a scifi setting. Jack was an annoying and whiny bitch, but her backstory was interesting and forcing her to face the truth of her origin was one the of the better parts of the game. Jacob was okay (except for the prize). I didn't like Miranda, but she's a good look at genetic engineering.

Ultimately, your squadmates in ME2 are at the very least as interesting and well developed as your ME squad. More importantly, Joker is actually funny in ME2.

4) Mass Effect 2 has less customization

Okay, where the heck is this supposed customization in Mass Effect? ME2 allows you to make a more visually unique set of armor. ME2 has less weapons, but the weapons have more unique properties and ME2 has more weapon types that you can use. Sure, Mass Effect has dozens of weapons per slot, but all those weapons are just slight performance improvements over one another. ME2 gives you multiple unique heavy weapons, sniper rifles that can fire more than round per reloading, shorguns for both short and long range, SMGs for short and long range, etc.
Another customization issue I see being brought up constantly is lack of abilites in ME2. This is true for your companions, but not for the player character. Mass Effect 2 PCs can have up to 7 abilites and their are a total of 39 unique powers avialable to the PC. Mass Effect only has 24 unique abilities available to the PC. Granted some of ME2's powers are ammo powers and some are simply stat increases. However, ME2 cuts away a lot of the unnecessary fat from Mass Effect.
You no longer have to invest points to improve your accuracy or damage with weapons, but lose the special damage abilities that come with those talents. You no longer have to invest points to improve your armor, but no longer gain the shield regen abilites from those talents. However, your shields now regen in cover, thus making those abilites pointless. Decryption and Electronics have been removed, allowing the player to always attempt hacking or overriding. First aid and Medicine are gone, but would have been pointless (and didn't work well in Mass Effect to begin with) because you regen health when in cover. Charm and Intimidate have been removed as talents and are now based on your respective Paragon and Renage scores, which I consider to be an improvement.
ME2 classes now have unique and distinct powers. Engineers get Combat Drones, Vanguards get the incredible Biotic Charge, Soldiers get Adrenaline Rush, Sentinels get Tech Armor, and Infiltrators get Tactical Cloak. All these abilites provide a distinct playstyle for their respective classes, an element sorely lacking in the original game.

5) Mass Effect 2 is a smaller and shorter game

What? In my experience, ME2 has more content. Everything I've found suggests that ME2 has upwards of 20 more hours of gameplay than ME. I'm still looking for more reports as to how long both games take.
The key is that ME2's side content is more fun. There are no lifeless planets to muck around on in ME2. Instead you get right into the action in the ME2 side missions. So even if ME2 is shorter, it's more enjoyable.

6) Mass Effect 2 has bad gameplay

This is of course very subjective. I've seen people complain that ME2 has poor level design, which is simply silly. Bioware put a lot of effort into improving the level design in ME2 and they succeeded splendidly. What I'd like to know is how Mass Effect had good gameplay. At early levels your shooting is horribly inaccurate. At higher skill levels you never even need to zoom in to hit your target. You never have to worry about running out of ammo, you can crutch on silly skills like Immunity instead of flanking your enemies and counter flanking. ME2 is an excellent TPS. Yes, I know you can't crouch. You do that you're supposed to be up against cover, right?

Amaya wrote:I'm tired of people complaining about how trivial gameplay aspects (inventory, looting enemies) apparently make or break an RPG.

Trivial to you. For a lot of people the loot and your ability to customize your gear is a big part of playing an RPG. In that realm Mass Effect takes the cake for the variety of weapons, armor, and upgrades to them it has and you can use. So if someone does place a lot of weight on that its not trivial to them and it is a place where ME beats ME2 hands down.

Mako

The majority of Mass Effect players disliked the Mako. I disliked it for three reasons. The controls for it are poor, the planets you explore with the Mako are bland, cut and paste worlds, and the Mako takes away from the overall game experience. I did not purchase Mass Effect in order to drive a vehicle around in lifeless worlds. I don't think anyone else did either. If you want to include vehicles, make them secondary. The Mako shouldn't be required for Feros, Therum, Noveria, Ilos, Virmire, and many of the side missions. The Firewalker DLC was a big improvement. I hope that ME3 either avoids vehicles or makes them a secondary element

I've said it before, there's nothing really wrong with the Mako. The entire problem with the Mako was the worlds they had for it to explore. Full of ridiculous 75 degree slopes and craters that have more in common with mineshafts. If they'd instead taken the Mako and made good solid maps for it that were varied, interesting, and most importantly not just lifeless plains, I think people would remember the Mako fondly.

Firewalker was bs. The took the Mako and removed it's armor, gave it an indirect fire weapon, and made it jump then stuck it in maps that have nothing to do with the core game and more in common with Super Mario brothers. It was free and I feel I paid too much for it.

1) Mass Effect 2 is not an RPG

The first problem with this claim is that there is no accepted definition of what makes an RPG. Is an RPG simly a D&D clone? If you use this definition than neither Mass Effect or Mass Effect 2 is an RPG. If you think an RPG needs an inventory system, excessive and useless talents, lootable enemies, and XP from every kill, than Mass Effect 2 is not an RPG.
I'd like to think that the most important element of an RPG is the development of your character. The most important aspect of character development is not leveling up. The most important element is how your character impacts the story and the world around him/her. The key difference between RPGs and most non RPGs is that you have many more choices in an RPG. No one can make a logical argument that Mass Effect 2 lacks character development in that you are capable of making a myriad choices that effect the story, the world around you, your squadmates, and of course, your character.

I agree with you that ME2 is an RPG but I think that there are a lot of expectations that come with something having the RPG moniker affixed to it. A lot of character customization, equipment customization, and general looting is one of the things a lot of people expect. I don't think it's enough to strip ME2 of the title RPG but you've got to understand that those things are not trivial to some people so for them (me included) half the stuff that makes an RPG a lot of fun is gone. The rest of the RPG experience is still there and awesome but at the same time we can't shake the feeling that it could have been better.

2) Mass Effect 2 has a weaker story

This assumes that Mass Effect has a good story, which it does not. Mass Effect's story is not original. The issue is not that the story of an ancient evil reappearing is common, but that those plot elements have been done to death in Bioware games. Mass Effect's strength lies in it's presentation and universe.
Mass Effect 2 lacks an original main quest and contains an element that I extremely dislike. Now, I like the fact that the 'suicide mission' is something that Bioware hasn't done before. In fact, I can't even really think of a game with a similar premise, but I'm sure there are some. My biggest issue is not that the Reapers are revealed to be essentially giant cyborgs, but that anyone thought making that hideous Human-Reaper out human mush was a good idea. Seriously, why did it have it look like a giant terminator with human larvea for eyes?
Back on topic, yes, I agree that ME2's main story is less developed than ME. The key difference between the two is that ME2's focus is not on the journey into the Omega 4 Relay, but on the journey up to it, especially on the character development of your squadmates.

Again, they're different beasts. ME was never meant to be original. It's a reconstruction of the classic space opera and it's fantastic. It's a retelling of an old story but it's done so well you don't care that you've seen and played it a dozen times before. ME2 lacked the core of ME, the drive. ME was a pine tree, sure there are branches and other things to do but at the end you've still got that central story pointing straight up. Me2 was more like a bush with thoughts and ideas meandering all over the place. It gets somewhere interesting in the end but the path isn't as linear. Again, I keep looking at these two games and in the case of both I feel that a synthesis of the two would have resulted in an even greater game. A strong central story but with lots of interesting branches.

I will say this, when it comes to your party members ME2 does them real justice as characters. ME can't hold a candle to it there.

3) Mass Effect 2 has weaker characters

Ultimately, your squadmates in ME2 are at the very least as interesting and well developed as your ME squad. More importantly, Joker is actually funny in ME2.

Yeah, anyone claiming that ME2's characters are weaker is an idiot. There's little development of ME's cast. ME2's DLC characters have more meat on their bones than half the ME cast put together. Someone putting this arguement up is just reaching for anything.

4) Mass Effect 2 has less customization

Okay, where the heck is this supposed customization in Mass Effect? ME2 allows you to make a more visually unique set of armor. ME2 has less weapons, but the weapons have more unique properties and ME2 has more weapon types that you can use. Sure, Mass Effect has dozens of weapons per slot, but all those weapons are just slight performance improvements over one another. ME2 gives you multiple unique heavy weapons, sniper rifles that can fire more than round per reloading, shorguns for both short and long range, SMGs for short and long range, etc.

You're right that you can alter the visual appearence of your armor and that's a big plus. The downside is that you can't change the general overall use of it. The pieces you can select add some nice customization but in ME you can wear light armor with lots of benefits to power uses or heavier armor if you were just a soldier. To me the armor is a wash. Another place that a synthesis of the two set ups would likely have been better. Alter the general armor for play style and then tweak the individual components for the more esoteric bonuses.

With the guns, you're just wrong. First of all for the majority of the weapons classes one weapon is just flat out better than the rest. The only real question is the heavy weapon you pick up in the collector's ship. Those actually give you a choice. Standard assault rifle with excellent accuracy or bullet hose with less? Rapid fire sniper rifle or the one shot one kill anti-tank gun? Quick firing more ammo carrying shotgun or three round boom stick? You can only pick up one though. So while I had some choice in assault rifles once I picked up the machine gun I was still left with just the standard weapons in the rest and there's no real choice in those just the default best in class which you get right out of the gate. For a loot hound getting your endgame weapon half way through the opening act of the game is just criminal.

In ME you not only had the base weapons but customization slots for added tweaks. While the base weapons were a fairly linear progression, though with minor tweaks between rate of fire, damage, and accuracy for weapons on similar levels, once you start slapping in different modules and ammo they can be radically different. Take the Spectre assault rifle for instance. I slap in a pair of frictionless materials mods and an ROF mod and suddenly I've got a zero heat bullet hose. No real need to aim, just point it in the general direction of the enemy and rock and roll. Throw in explosive ammo for just stupid fun. Or I can put in two rail extensions and a capacitor and while the ROF sucks I'm blowing holes right through the targets when I do take the shot. Or I can tweak it for extreme accuracy or whatever else I please. The ME2 top tier assault rifle (sort of a misnomer really given that there were exactly two assault rifles) is pretty much the same gun from when I get it to the game ends.

Another customization issue I see being brought up constantly is lack of abilites in ME2. This is true for your companions, but not for the player character. Mass Effect 2 PCs can have up to 7 abilites and their are a total of 39 unique powers avialable to the PC. Mass Effect only has 24 unique abilities available to the PC. Granted some of ME2's powers are ammo powers and some are simply stat increases. However, ME2 cuts away a lot of the unnecessary fat from Mass Effect.
You no longer have to invest points to improve your accuracy or damage with weapons, but lose the special damage abilities that come with those talents. You no longer have to invest points to improve your armor, but no longer gain the shield regen abilites from those talents. However, your shields now regen in cover, thus making those abilites pointless. Decryption and Electronics have been removed, allowing the player to always attempt hacking or overriding. First aid and Medicine are gone, but would have been pointless (and didn't work well in Mass Effect to begin with) because you regen health when in cover. Charm and Intimidate have been removed as talents and are now based on your respective Paragon and Renage scores, which I consider to be an improvement.
ME2 classes now have unique and distinct powers. Engineers get Combat Drones, Vanguards get the incredible Biotic Charge, Soldiers get Adrenaline Rush, Sentinels get Tech Armor, and Infiltrators get Tactical Cloak. All these abilites provide a distinct playstyle for their respective classes, an element sorely lacking in the original game.

This is another place where you have to accept that some people like different things. When it comes to weapons I don't give a damn about most of the weapons in the game. I like that I can use my talent points to really boost my abilities in the few weapon types I care about and then get the weapons abilities those provided. I like having options on where I can invest those talent points. in ME2 when its time to level up I have four places I can actually put them. Five once you get the special ability. There are people who love to really explore different "builds" of characters. You don't really have that in ME2 because you'll wind up with enough points to max most of the limited stable of talents you have. Just because you're a soldier in ME doesn't mean you'll be exactly like everyone elses soldier. In ME you can be a smooth talking soldier with a love of shotguns or you can be one using assault rifles who can't talk their way out of traffic ticket. In ME2 your base class defines you. One ME2 soldier will look pretty much exactly like every ME2 soldier with maybe only minor tweaks in how their shot bonuses are distributed. Frankly I'd like more choices past the base class and in ME2 once you pick your base class it's largely done with customizing your character.

5) Mass Effect 2 is a smaller and shorter game

Yeah, it's not. The only way I think someone could claim that is if you look at it from the standpoint of "what must I absolutely do to finish this game." If you focus purely on the main story and completely ignore every one of your crew's missions in ME2 then the game is shorter. It's also the least rewarding as everyone, including you, will die on the final mission. If you actually play out your crew's side missions than ME2 is as long as ME. And lets face it, if you purely focus on the main story missions in ME it can be over pretty quickly as well.

6) Mass Effect 2 has bad gameplay

This is of course very subjective. I've seen people complain that ME2 has poor level design, which is simply silly. Bioware put a lot of effort into improving the level design in ME2 and they succeeded splendidly. What I'd like to know is how Mass Effect had good gameplay. At early levels your shooting is horribly inaccurate. At higher skill levels you never even need to zoom in to hit your target. You never have to worry about running out of ammo, you can crutch on silly skills like Immunity instead of flanking your enemies and counter flanking. ME2 is an excellent TPS. Yes, I know you can't crouch. You do that you're supposed to be up against cover, right?

They have their strengths and weaknesses. I will agree that starting out ME is silly in that you have a spec ops trooper who has issues hitting targets only 50 meters in front of them. It didn't have bad game play though. If you play it on something besides easy you've got to use tactics and think about what you're doing or you'll get pasted. The ammo thing was a nice touch I thought as it got away from the usual FPS problem of always looking around for more ammo. Instead you just fought and instead had to worry about your heat. It was a very nice trade off.The most game breaking, distracting, immersion wrecking thing in ME2 is having to look for those damn heat sinks after a battle. I want to get on with the action and instead I'm still "looting" bodies only now its just for ammo for my gun instead of something worthwhile. Crutch on silly skills? Have you seen some of the ridiculous things you can do with ME2 biotics? ME2 is fully capable of crutching on things. My soldier having biotic shield was just plain silly at times. Flanking? feth that, I could just let my double shields eat up the damage while I kill a couple then duck back into cover, recharge, and do it all over again.

I will say this, ME2's cover system vastly improved on ME's. While ME's was well done I can't tell you how many bullrushes on my part petered out in the end because I ran too close to a wall and took cover without meaning too. After using ME2's system the way you take cover in ME has become my least favorite part of the game. Well next to the Mako's maps.

In the end the issue is that ME is a traditional RPG and ME2 isn't. A lot of the adherents of the old school who loved ME are not going to like ME2 stripping off half of what they liked. I'd probably call ME2 an ARPG, action roleplaying game. It's a great game, but most of the changes, dumping weapons customization, dumping inventory, dumping looting, dumping traditional character customization, all seem like Bioware over-reacted to things that just needed some tweaks.

TL;DR, I like both games for different reasons and its really an apples to oranges comparision between the two.

Best Role playing game ever?

You need to play some role playing games son.

I have been thinking of picking the game up solely because I support the whole "Keep your data between games" thing they have going on.

Slarg232 wrote:I have been thinking of picking the game up solely because I support the whole "Keep your data between games" thing they have going on.

They're very good games regardless. The maintaining your character aspect is just gravy.

I am getting to the point where I feel it is useless to defend Mass Effect. I realize it is not everyone's cup of tea and there are just some people who rip on this game just to piss people off. Both games are the only reason why I purchased two Xbox 360s.

There are very bad games out there and I don't see people complaining about them. It only seems like the games that some people enjoy and some people dislike are constantly brought up. The other...well nobody talks about them. I have paid $60.00 for a game that I played 2 or 3 hours and then took back and sold it for $45.00. I played Mass Effect 1 & 2 three times each. Obviously there is something about the game that I (and many other people) like. Why do people feel the need to try and rip apart a game that someone likes? The only time I bring up games that I hate is when I need ammunition against people ripping on my favorite games. When I see them complaining about a game that I like and then I see that they like a game that I hate, well I feel the need to bring that point up. Seriously are we that bored that we have to constantly try and convince people that some stuff is bad and some stuff is good?

I am not going to convince a fan of Demon's Souls, ODST, or Paranormal Activity that their choices of entertainment are bad.

I agree with a lot of your points Amaya. Some of those complaints seriously bring up a lot of WTFs.

Also I wouldn't say best RPG ever, but it is the best since Oblivion. The best RPG by far is Chrono Trigger.

I have never played ME1, but after going on the Wiki and reading all the books I could, I have realized how much of a rip-off ME1 was of all Sci-fi. Playing ME2, I was amazed. It was great to see a story driven game, with random events altering the game, hundreds of things altering the end game, and the ability to KILL THE MAIN CHARACTER. That was awesome, and sad.

When Shepard died in the beginning of the game, the only thought I had was "WHAT THE FETH???", as I had never played ME1, and had no attachment to the Commander. After playing ME2, and having Shepard die, I was sad. It wasn't frustrating watching your character that you had spent 40 hours building fall into deep space once again, it was sad.

After reviewing the fact, ME2 was Better than ME1.

chowderhead13 wrote:I have never played ME1, but after going on the Wiki and reading all the books I could, I have realized how much of a rip-off ME1 was of all Sci-fi.

Even all that stuff about the reapers was a ripoff? I had never seen something on that scale before. The Prometheans are something talked about in a few different sci-fi scenarios but in no way would I consider any of that a ripoff.

I loved how you could explore random planets in the first one. I was so mad that they took it out of Mass Effect 2 that I only just now bought the game. It's alright. But it has less freedom.

ME1 is a classic space opera, it just is. As a space opera its going to appear derivative of pretty much any other space opera you'd like to pick. It's meant to be that way. It's the classic space opera done right. The story isn't trying to be wildly new and exciting. It's taking the classic and putting it back together again after all the deconstruction.

Oh, and ME2 is not an rpg which is crap. I'd much rather play Bioshock 2.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And the Mako from ME1 was AWESOME. One of my favorite video game vehicles.

GalacticDefender wrote:Oh, and ME2 is not an rpg which is crap. I'd much rather play Bioshock 2.

i keep seeing people that say this but it never makes any sense. How is it not an RPG?

BTW Bioshock 2 sucked and was nowhere near as good as ME2.

What was stupid is completely ripping out the exploration aspect. They should have kept the planets to explore, but simply added some more stuff to do there, instead of just some random pirate base or something like in ME1.

Deadshane1 wrote:Best Role playing game ever?

You need to play some role playing games son.

Baldur's Gate, BG2, Planescape: Torment, KotOR, KotOR2, Morrowind, Oblivion, VTM: Bloodlines, Fallout 3, The Witcher, Dragon Age: Origins, Mass Effect, Jade Empire, NWN, NWN 2, Fable, Fable 2, aren't role playing games?

Slarg232 wrote:I have been thinking of picking the game up solely because I support the whole "Keep your data between games" thing they have going on.

It's a cool feature.

GalacticDefender wrote:I loved how you could explore random planets in the first one. I was so mad that they took it out of Mass Effect 2 that I only just now bought the game. It's alright. But it has less freedom.

There's nothing to do on those random planets you explore. The side missions in ME2 are much better.

Lord Scythican wrote:

chowderhead13 wrote:I have never played ME1, but after going on the Wiki and reading all the books I could, I have realized how much of a rip-off ME1 was of all Sci-fi.

Even all that stuff about the reapers was a ripoff? I had never seen something on that scale before. The Prometheans are something talked about in a few different sci-fi scenarios but in no way would I consider any of that a ripoff.

I can't recall a scifi story where they actually harvested organics, but the general idea of 'an ancient evil' returned to spread war is by no means uncommon. The Reapers really reminded me of the Shadows from Babylon 5, but they have signficant philosphical differences.

Something I forgot to mention in the OP is just how great ME2's loyalty missions are. The only one of them that is meh is Grunt's, but at least you get to headbutt a Krogan in it.

Tyyr wrote:ME1 is a classic space opera, it just is. As a space opera its going to appear derivative of pretty much any other space opera you'd like to pick. It's meant to be that way. It's the classic space opera done right. The story isn't trying to be wildly new and exciting. It's taking the classic and putting it back together again after all the deconstruction.

Yessss. Let me kiss you. ME1 is just that, a bleeding brilliant Space Opera. ME2 in comparison feels like the action sequel. Just compare the box art of the two.

The one thing that I really despised about ME1 was the equipment. Who designs all this stuff which is just ever so slightly better than what you have, and leaves it around everywhere?

Just let me upgrade my equipment a few ties during the game. Not after EVERY, SINGLE, FRIGGIN' BOX I EVER OPEN.

Mattlov wrote:The one thing that I really despised about ME1 was the equipment. Who designs all this stuff which is just ever so slightly better than what you have, and leaves it around everywhere?

Just let me upgrade my equipment a few ties during the game. Not after EVERY, SINGLE, FRIGGIN' BOX I EVER OPEN.

Make sure you don't play Borderlands then. It is worse...

Lord Scythican wrote:

Mattlov wrote:The one thing that I really despised about ME1 was the equipment. Who designs all this stuff which is just ever so slightly better than what you have, and leaves it around everywhere?

Just let me upgrade my equipment a few ties during the game. Not after EVERY, SINGLE, FRIGGIN' BOX I EVER OPEN.

Make sure you don't play Borderlands then. It is worse...

derp derp I want mah purplez

That game is only good when playing with friends.

Lord Scythican wrote:

Mattlov wrote:The one thing that I really despised about ME1 was the equipment. Who designs all this stuff which is just ever so slightly better than what you have, and leaves it around everywhere?

Just let me upgrade my equipment a few ties during the game. Not after EVERY, SINGLE, FRIGGIN' BOX I EVER OPEN.

Make sure you don't play Borderlands then. It is worse...

No, in Borderlands most of the stuff you find is worse. ME just had ungodly tiny increases in performance every time you found something. I swear you spent 1/3 of that game in your inventory swapping equipment.

Mattlov wrote:

Lord Scythican wrote:

Mattlov wrote:The one thing that I really despised about ME1 was the equipment. Who designs all this stuff which is just ever so slightly better than what you have, and leaves it around everywhere?

Just let me upgrade my equipment a few ties during the game. Not after EVERY, SINGLE, FRIGGIN' BOX I EVER OPEN.

Make sure you don't play Borderlands then. It is worse...

No, in Borderlands most of the stuff you find is worse. ME just had ungodly tiny increases in performance every time you found something. I swear you spent 1/3 of that game in your inventory swapping equipment.

So finding equipment constantly that is worse than the equipment you have is worse than finding equipment that is slightly better than what you have?

First of all, if Mass Effect 2 is not a RPG then it is one of the clunkiest, most awkward shooters of all time or one of the most boring action games of all time. ME2 is only a "good game" when compared to other RPGs (specifically, the bad ones). Stand it up against genre-standards like God of War or Call of Duty and it starts to look like a pretty gakky game.

Now regarding your (Amaya's) points about ME2 not having a weaker story: A story does not have to be original to be good. But it ought to at least be coherent. ME1 had an unoriginal but coherent storyline. ME2 had an unoriginal, incoherent, and incomplete storyline. In any case: when people talk about the ME stories, one of the two (and ONLY TWO) things they're actually referring to is the setting of ME. You are right to praise the visual design. That is the main draw of the ME games. Unfortunately, ME2 does not develop the world of ME in very many interesting or even significant ways. Despite coming out several years after ME1, ME2 did not even include compelling level design. What happened here?

Let me say that I bought the 360 SOLELY to play ME1. I thought the visual design was so good, I also bought the "Art of" book. BioWare really dropped the ball on this one with ME2. But, as a subsidiary of EA, I am not surprised that they now cut corners as a matter of course. Maybe we'll see something interesting or have some better idea of what the feth was going on in ME2 when ME2 2 -- er, I mean "ME3" comes out.

Moving on to the other thing people mean when they talk about ME2's story:

Amaya wrote:Ultimately, your squadmates in ME2 are at the very least as interesting and well developed as your ME squad. More importantly, Joker is actually funny in ME2.

ME1 established characters that were interesting enough to want to see developed in a sequel. I call that a major success. Did ME2 follow up? To some extent, yes. But I (me, not you -- don't get confused) felt let down by the companion quests. I didn't think that the characters were fleshed out to the extent that they already merited. Attention was pared off to awkward and annoying new characters, like the Drell, or completely useless ones like Jacob or Jack. ME2 did manage to set up some new characters that I do look forward to seeing developed: Miranda, the doctor, and the Geth are pretty cool. I did not become attached to them like I did to Wrex, Tali, and even Garrus. ME1 set a very high bar for characters and ME2, despite having some significant success, did not quite reach it.

Perhaps if the whole game had been released -- instead of tying off the last half of it to sell later as ME3 -- OP would have some stronger points here. Sadly, ME2 does not measure up to its predecessor. Mako, inventories, and endless items don't enter into it as far as I'm concerned -- and neither do arguments about what constitutes an RPG, for that matter.

In my experience, ME2 was simply not as enjoyable as ME1.

Manchu wrote:ME2 is only a "good game" when compared to other RPGs (specifically, the bad ones).

We get it. You hate Mass Effect 2. Thanks for the input.

Amaya wrote:We get it. You hate Mass Effect 2. Thanks for the input.

We get it. You love ME2. Thanks for the input.

Manchu wrote:I switched one word so it's clever now.

I've seen your posts.

You hate Mass Effect 2 so much that you can not possibly give a good opinion on it. Saying something like "Mass Effect 2 is only good when compared to bad games" reinforces the fact that you have nothing constructive to ever say about it.

It's one thing to say it's not as good as Mass Effect, but you're at the point where you're just bashing it because it wasn't the game you wanted and because it's popular.

"I don't like it and other people praise it" is not justification for slamming what is at the very least, a good game.

Amaya wrote:I've seen your posts.

Cool. Now try reading them. For example:

Manchu wrote:ME1 was a pretty great game. It wasn't great because the graphics or gameplay were good -- those were both recycled from previous iterations of BioWare titles. ME1 was great because of its visual design, narrative setting, and plot. ME2 did not improve on any of these qualities and often didn't even meet the (admittedly high) bar set by its predecessor. Nearly every "level" was visually boring. The main plot lacked both imagination and coherence. Most disappointingly, I felt short-changed by the companion quests. It's not to say that ME2 was crap. We can set the internet hyperbole aside. It's still head's and shoulders above most of what's out there. But it's no ME1 and it's certainly nowhere near as good as a Bethesda game, IMO.

From here.

Or, hey, you could read the post that you are supposedly referring to:

Manchu wrote: ME2 did manage to set up some new characters that I do look forward to seeing developed: Miranda, the doctor, and the Geth are pretty cool.

So, when you claim . . .

Amaya wrote:You hate Mass Effect 2 so much that you can not possibly give a good opinion on it.

It let's me know that you're not interested in having a dialog, which is what a message board is for. I think you'd do better with a blog, where you can disable comments of people who disagree with you.

Furthermore . . .

Amaya wrote:Saying something like "Mass Effect 2 is only good when compared to bad games" reinforces the fact that you have nothing constructive to ever say about it.

If by constructive, you mean complimentary, well, I have already shown you that this is false. But if by constructive, you mean that I am interested in actually analyzing the game rather than mindlessly praising or criticizing it then you're simply wrong. Saying that ME2 is good compared to a fairly bad big name RPG -- like Dragon Age, for example -- and that it is not so good compared to a very good big name RPG like Fallout 3 is constructive. It gives frames of reference for my standards from which a discussion can develop. Again, this is supposed to be a dialog. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean that my views are not constructive. And -- if you take the time to read the post above, you'll see that I agree with you on some points. Maybe those points are at least constructive? If so, then it can't be the case that I "have nothing constructive to say about it."

And finally:

Amaya wrote:It's one thing to say it's not as good as Mass Effect, but you're at the point where you're just bashing it because it wasn't the game you wanted and because it's popular.

ME2 may not have been the game I wanted (by that, I guess you mean that it wasn't more like ME1?) and it may have been popular, but neither of those points have anything to do with the detailed critique of several points about ME2 that I actually posted above and in other threads. Again, please read other people's posts rather than having a fit because they obviously disagree with yours.

You just said Mass Effect 2 is less of a game than both Oblivion and Fallout 3.

It's hard to put much value in someone's opinion when they would actually argue that.

Maybe so, for people who don't like Bethesda games. I think one thing is very clear from your posts in this thread: you don't like analysis of ME2 as a RPG. But the fact remains that it cannot really compete with games outside of the RPG genre. It isn't nearly as good as the best shooters and action games. So if it shouldn't be compared with other RPGs and it can't stand up against other non-RPG games, what does that tell you?

Manchu wrote:Maybe so, for people who don't like Bethesda games. I think one thing is very clear from your posts in this thread: you don't like analysis of ME2 as a RPG. But the fact remains that it cannot really compete with games outside of the RPG genre. It isn't nearly as good as the best shooters and action games. So if it shouldn't be compared with other RPGs and it can't stand up against other non-RPG games, what does that tell you?

You're very condescending.

I like Bethesda games. Morrowind remains one of my favorite games. Oblivion is a buggy game in a generic setting with a terrible storyline. The game is unbalanced, has a terrible npc leveling system, poor animations, poor character models, bad AI, poor voice acting, and in general not a lot going for it. Moreso than Morrowind, Oblivion is significantly improved by mods and the excellent Shivering Isles expansion. The only things Oblivion has going for it are its open ended gameplay, improved gameplay over Morrowind (especially spellcasting), and an excellent fanbase capability of putting out quality mods.

Fallout 3 is fun, but only because it's fun to go around shooting super mutants and raiders. The story, setting, and NPCs of Fallout 3 leave a lot to be desired.

Morrowind had a lot of problems, but it is by far the most impressive world setting I've ever seen in a video game and the main quest was executed to perfection. It is a beautiful game.

Amaya wrote:You're very condescending.

Well, I definitely apologize on that score as it wasn't my intention.

I'm going to set aside your comments about Oblivion because I feel the game was very good in a lot of ways but the idea of making the game world "bigger" with the Oblivion portals has left me very sour about it. It has obvious flaws otherwise, as you have pointed out. I agree wholeheartedly that it's storyline was not nearly as good as Morrowind's.

Amaya wrote:The story, setting, and NPCs of Fallout 3 leave a lot to be desired.

I very strongly disagree with you here and my opinion about FO3 is really what drives my reaction to ME2. I was very involved in the setting and story of FO3, which I think was the real successor to Morrowind (as opposed to Oblivion) in terms of game development. In my view, FO3 found that balance I was talking about in the other thread: putting the player in just the right place between having an immersive, interactive presentation and still requiring the use of the player's imagination. By contrast, ME1 stimulated but did not require me to use my imagination. ME2 did not even stimulate my imagination, except as regarding the Geth and, to some extent, the interior emotional life of the companions.

To give us some more common ground, I'll go a little more specific. I was a huge Tali fan and her "unavailability" in ME1 was charming. Getting the chance to learn more about her culture and even romance her in ME2 was a really exciting prospect. But her companion quest left A LOT to be desired. To be honest, I can't remember much about the details. I remember being bored while I played it and I especially remember being extremely disappointed by the visual design of the Quarian Migrant Fleet interiors. The Quarians, through Tali, represented such a fresh and exciting prospect to me before playing ME2. I was similarly disappointed by Garrus's quest, although I did like that he had become more grim and needed to deal with that.

By contrast, there were moments in FO3 that I know I will always remember. I won't go into them here (spoilers and OT) but there are no similar "wow" moments stored in my memory from ME2. That's primarily what I look for from a RPG and ME2 felt like a let-down from that perspective. Again, it's certainly not a crap game by any stretch.

I prefer ME of ME2. Much of the critical major plot areas of gameplay felt as if they went on much too long. I honestly prefer the Mako after having playing the Firewalker DLC last week. I found FW interesting, and the vehicle was neat, but the task involved in it was seriously less intense than the Mako on Ilos. I liked the inventory customization of ME, but it got tedious and felt like to detracted from the overall gameplay as, for me, it would be a bit of an interruption when finding a new weapon or upgrade and wanting to get it set up asap during a battle.

As far as character development, I think they could have worked much much more on this aspect in ME2. Many of the team's side missions for loyalty felt thrown together and/or too short. I felt that way about Shadow Broker, which was good, but think they could have included a bit more with it.

The ME series to me is more of a hybridization of gametypes that uses the space opera as the mechanism to drive the game. ME2 definately did feel much shorter than ME, but maybe that was because of all the inventory fiddling.

I agree with some of the points Manchu states, but really find the premise of this post fanboy-ish.

Amaya, did you play these games on console or PC?

Amaya wrote:

Manchu wrote:ME2 is only a "good game" when compared to other RPGs (specifically, the bad ones).

We get it. You hate Mass Effect 2. Thanks for the input.

Are you by any chance an EA plant put here to generate a rabid love for ME3?

@Manchu: I really didn't get to read that post of yours (the one after mine). You are such a negative nancy that it is hard to read most of the stuff you write. If the game was as bad as you make it out to be, then it would not have gotten the ratings or sales that it did. I enjoyed the game quite a bit and your opinions are wasted on me. Maybe if you threw in a few positives then I could read your opinions. I almost feel like you have a grudge against the game like you caught your girlfriend sleeping with it or something.

VermGho5t wrote:I prefer ME of ME2. Much of the critical major plot areas of gameplay felt as if they went on much too long. I honestly prefer the Mako after having playing the Firewalker DLC last week. I found FW interesting, and the vehicle was neat, but the task involved in it was seriously less intense than the Mako on Ilos. I liked the inventory customization of ME, but it got tedious and felt like to detracted from the overall gameplay as, for me, it would be a bit of an interruption when finding a new weapon or upgrade and wanting to get it set up asap during a battle.

As far as character development, I think they could have worked much much more on this aspect in ME2. Many of the team's side missions for loyalty felt thrown together and/or too short. I felt that way about Shadow Broker, which was good, but think they could have included a bit more with it.

The ME series to me is more of a hybridization of gametypes that uses the space opera as the mechanism to drive the game. ME2 definately did feel much shorter than ME, but maybe that was because of all the inventory fiddling.

I agree with some of the points Manchu states, but really find the premise of this post fanboy-ish.

Amaya, did you play these games on console or PC?

I played it on PC.

Lord Scythican wrote:@Manchu: I really didn't get to read that post of yours (the one after mine). You are such a negative nancy that it is hard to read most of the stuff you write. If the game was as bad as you make it out to be, then it would not have gotten the ratings or sales that it did. I enjoyed the game quite a bit and your opinions are wasted on me. Maybe if you threw in a few positives then I could read your opinions. I almost feel like you have a grudge against the game like you caught your girlfriend sleeping with it or something.

What you have just posted is pretty funny. How can you respond to something you haven't even read? This is why the internet has such a bad reputation for invincible ignorance. Well, try again and you'll find that I have quite a few positive things to say about the ME series and ME2 specifically.

It was supposed to be funny. I am glad you noticed. I went back and reread your post. Seems slightly more positive. Did you edit it or something?

BrookM wrote:

Tyyr wrote:ME1 is a classic space opera, it just is. As a space opera its going to appear derivative of pretty much any other space opera you'd like to pick. It's meant to be that way. It's the classic space opera done right. The story isn't trying to be wildly new and exciting. It's taking the classic and putting it back together again after all the deconstruction.

Yessss. Let me kiss you. ME1 is just that, a bleeding brilliant Space Opera. ME2 in comparison feels like the action sequel. Just compare the box art of the two.

Yep, the box art helps.

Just look at the box art for all of the CoD games. Black Ops is the worst of the series because its boring, I mean the guy on the cover is just sitting ther after all.

halonachos wrote:

BrookM wrote:

Tyyr wrote:ME1 is a classic space opera, it just is. As a space opera its going to appear derivative of pretty much any other space opera you'd like to pick. It's meant to be that way. It's the classic space opera done right. The story isn't trying to be wildly new and exciting. It's taking the classic and putting it back together again after all the deconstruction.

Yessss. Let me kiss you. ME1 is just that, a bleeding brilliant Space Opera. ME2 in comparison feels like the action sequel. Just compare the box art of the two.

Yep, the box art helps.

Just look at the box art for all of the CoD games. Black Ops is the worst of the series because its boring, I mean the guy on the cover is just sitting ther after all.

I'm not usually one to judge content by its cover, but ME2 has boring art. Black Ops does as well, though I personally believe it to be better than MW2, which isn't saying a lot of course, seeing as that guy was also just standing there, clueless to the gak going on around him. The ME1 art reminds me of the old Star Wars poster art, that airbrushed and beautifully painted stuff by Drew Struzan. ME2 is the photoshop crap of the other trilogy.

I've discussed my OP on a couple of other sites and the general consensus is that ME2 is better game. I see a lot of people saying ME1 was a better experience, which I can understand, even though I certainly don't agree with that. It looks like I'm one of the few people who really liked the paragon/renegade quicktime events.

I like the distinction between game and experience there. I could go with ME2 being an over all better game -- in terms of the game's mechanics. I think it's better suited to the kind of stories that BioWare wants to tell in the ME universe.

I like both for different reasons but they are both, along with Red Dead Redemption, probably my favorite games of all time. So I like them both equally. I think Mass Effect 1 is clunkier and more frustrating from a controls standpoint (makos *shudders*) but it's a better RPG and the story was more interesting from a Science fiction standpoint for me. Mass Effect 2 however had better controls, better overall gameplay, and maybe a slightly more epic last mission but the RPG aspect went down a bit imo and the stroy wasn't as good. Still though can't go wrong with either and you can't get the full experience without playing the 1st so in many ways Mass Effect 1&2, and soon to be 3, are one game so I think they are both equal once again imo.

For me personally, I think ME2 is better than ME1, and the best console game I've played in a while...I liked it a lot better than Modern Warfare 2, and a bit better than FO3.

Now, I must qualify that by saying that I don't have the time to play a lot of games; the ME series are the only Bioware games I've ever played, and I've never played some fo the other games mentioned such as Red Dead Redemption. However, I'm finding it hard to see how ME2 doesn't stack up against other major titles out there.

The Kilted Samurai wrote:I like both for different reasons but they are both, along with Red Dead Redemption, probably my favorite games of all time. So I like them both equally. I think Mass Effect 1 is clunkier and more frustrating from a controls standpoint (makos *shudders*) but it's a better RPG and the story was more interesting from a Science fiction standpoint for me. Mass Effect 2 however had better controls, better overall gameplay, and maybe a slightly more epic last mission but the RPG aspect went down a bit imo and the stroy wasn't as good. Still though can't go wrong with either and you can't get the full experience without playing the 1st so in many ways Mass Effect 1&2, and soon to be 3, are one game so I think they are both equal once again imo.

Why was the Mako so fething hard to drive? Is it just something the internet likes to make fun of or what? I had no problems whatsoever with that vehicle, and to this day it remains one of my all time favorite vehicle in any game. The only problem with it is that the planets you landed on didn't have much to do on them. I almost didn't buy Mass Effect 2 because of the lack of Mako, and I only just now bought it, since it is now less than $20. Makos FTW!!! I really hope they bring something like it back in ME 3.

GalacticDefender wrote:

The Kilted Samurai wrote:I like both for different reasons but they are both, along with Red Dead Redemption, probably my favorite games of all time. So I like them both equally. I think Mass Effect 1 is clunkier and more frustrating from a controls standpoint (makos *shudders*) but it's a better RPG and the story was more interesting from a Science fiction standpoint for me. Mass Effect 2 however had better controls, better overall gameplay, and maybe a slightly more epic last mission but the RPG aspect went down a bit imo and the stroy wasn't as good. Still though can't go wrong with either and you can't get the full experience without playing the 1st so in many ways Mass Effect 1&2, and soon to be 3, are one game so I think they are both equal once again imo.

Why was the Mako so fething hard to drive? Is it just something the internet likes to make fun of or what? I had no problems whatsoever with that vehicle, and to this day it remains one of my all time favorite vehicle in any game. The only problem with it is that the planets you landed on didn't have much to do on them. I almost didn't buy Mass Effect 2 because of the lack of Mako, and I only just now bought it, since it is now less than $20. Makos FTW!!! I really hope they bring something like it back in ME 3.

You've never had the Mako randomly go from a 10 degree turn to a 90 degree turn?

And then there's the fact that it sucks on Insanity.

Having a vehicle is fine, forcing people to use it for the mainquest is silly.

No, I've never had it randomly go from a 10 degree turn to a 90 degree turn. And some other games require vehicles for certain missions, why shouldn't Mass Effect?

GalacticDefender wrote:No, I've never had it randomly go from a 10 degree turn to a 90 degree turn. And some other games require vehicles for certain missions, why shouldn't Mass Effect?

And some other games feature extensive panty shots and a cast of effeminate male characters.

Amaya wrote:

GalacticDefender wrote:No, I've never had it randomly go from a 10 degree turn to a 90 degree turn. And some other games require vehicles for certain missions, why shouldn't Mass Effect?

And some other games feature extensive panty shots and a cast of effeminate male characters.

Anime sucks. That is my only response. Oh, and I meant't there are GOOD games that make you drive a vehicle for a bit.

GalacticDefender wrote:

Amaya wrote:

GalacticDefender wrote:No, I've never had it randomly go from a 10 degree turn to a 90 degree turn. And some other games require vehicles for certain missions, why shouldn't Mass Effect?

And some other games feature extensive panty shots and a cast of effeminate male characters.

Anime sucks. That is my only response. Oh, and I meant't there are GOOD games that make you drive a vehicle for a bit.

And the vehicles in those games have better controls, are balanced better, and the game doesn't consist of you driving the vehicle around on barren world.

I thing a good example would be the swoops in Jedi Academy.

Finished Mass Effect last night at long last, great ending as far as I was concerned, got tactician as well for my first play through which I was chuffed with.

Then loaded up Mass Effect 2 just to install the game on my 360, nearly three hours later I managed to drag myself off to bed.
Played it for five hours today as well as the boys where at school and its my day off, and already I love it. Although I miss a couple of things, nearly everything has been improved.

Hacking the different things is so much more interesting than the quick fire round button press from mass effect one.
The mining is not as annoying as some folks have said it is on various sites and the interactions between characters are a step up again, even though they where lots of fun in the first anyway.

I love the fact I can pick my Normandy wear, colour my armour.. yay, Pink ftw and I'm a huge fan of the shift to a more fps feeling in the battle segments.

Basically after getting Archangel, the Professor and the Captive (was it captive.. Jack anyways) in my team I think I will prefer ME2 over the first.

Mass Effect 3 is looking like a shoe in for release day purchase now, if not collectors edition if I get a fancy in game item.

I wonder why they went with giving DA a taboletop RPG over ME? I would be all over an official ME tabletop RPG, even if it was just a sourcebook for Traveller or Savage Worlds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, MDS -- you and Amaya have convinced me to go through ME2 again. This time on PS3 with the new engine!

Same here Manchu.

If they could get the Paragon/Renegade system set up nicely I could see it easily being one of my fave Sci-fi tabletop rpgs.

Hm, this may call for house rules. Quick, to the Large Scale sub-forum! ::Bat-music::

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Finished Mass Effect last night at long last, great ending as far as I was concerned, got tactician as well for my first play through which I was chuffed with.

Then loaded up Mass Effect 2 just to install the game on my 360, nearly three hours later I managed to drag myself off to bed.
Played it for five hours today as well as the boys where at school and its my day off, and already I love it. Although I miss a couple of things, nearly everything has been improved.

Hacking the different things is so much more interesting than the quick fire round button press from mass effect one.
The mining is not as annoying as some folks have said it is on various sites and the interactions between characters are a step up again, even though they where lots of fun in the first anyway.

I love the fact I can pick my Normandy wear, colour my armour.. yay, Pink ftw and I'm a huge fan of the shift to a more fps feeling in the battle segments.

Basically after getting Archangel, the Professor and the Captive (was it captive.. Jack anyways) in my team I think I will prefer ME2 over the first.

Mass Effect 3 is looking like a shoe in for release day purchase now, if not collectors edition if I get a fancy in game item.

The only things you need to research to avoid issues in the final mission are ship upgrades.

Don't read this spoiler until you're tasked to find the IFF. You'll know what I mean when you get there.

Manchu wrote:I wonder why they went with giving DA a taboletop RPG over ME? I would be all over an official ME tabletop RPG, even if it was just a sourcebook for Traveller or Savage Worlds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, MDS -- you and Amaya have convinced me to go through ME2 again. This time on PS3 with the new engine!

If they can make a tabletop RPG for Firefly they can make one for ME.

Have you played ME2 on Hardcore or Insanity yet?

No, only veteran. I was considering bumping it up for the next playthrough but haven't decided yet. I played ME1 on hardcore on my last (of three) playthroughs and ended up fighting Deanna Troi (whatever her ME character's name was called . . .) about thirty times. Ugh.

Tyyr said everything I would have said.

ME and ME2 are diffrent enough that one could like the first and dislike the second and have very solid reasons for doing so.

I disliked the second one, the biggest reason was the lack of equipment and the gears of war like reliance on cover.

Manchu wrote:Also, MDS -- you and Amaya have convinced me to go through ME2 again. This time on PS3 with the new engine!

Please let me know if you like it this time and your thoughts on the PS3 version. I am seriously tempted to buy it again.

Aside from the thoughtful comments here, two factors made me go ahead. First, the PS3 release will be running on the ME3 engine rather than the ME one that the 360 release uses. Second, the PS3 release includes a lot of the DLC that I cannot access as someone who refuses to pay for Live.

As I said on that other ME thread I like them equally. I think the Pros and Cons even out.

@Manchu
You mentioned you didn't like the combat in ME2. For my first playthrough I had a "It's pretty good" reaction. However I turned up the difficulty next time around and it was way more fun. I strongly recommend playing on Hard (or harder). Suddenly I was playing a very intense game where I had to think very quickly (and make the right decision) about what powers I and my squad had to use. It became one of my favorite shooters with that slight alteration.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh,a nd you get more cooler stuff when you play on harder difficulties too!

Amaya wrote:

GalacticDefender wrote:

Amaya wrote:

GalacticDefender wrote:No, I've never had it randomly go from a 10 degree turn to a 90 degree turn. And some other games require vehicles for certain missions, why shouldn't Mass Effect?

And some other games feature extensive panty shots and a cast of effeminate male characters.

Anime sucks. That is my only response. Oh, and I meant't there are GOOD games that make you drive a vehicle for a bit.

And the vehicles in those games have better controls, are balanced better, and the game doesn't consist of you driving the vehicle around on barren world.

I thing a good example would be the swoops in Jedi Academy.

And I said that there should have been more to do on the planets. But I did not think they had bad controls at all, except when I first started driving it, but after around 5 minutes I figured it out. And it wasn't all that badly balanced, although they should have made it a bit weaker.

Poastin' in a highly trivial thread and answerin' you're quandries.

1) Mass Effect 2 is not an RPG

Wrong.

2) Mass Effect 2 has a weaker story

Correct.

3) Mass Effect 2 has weaker characters

Wrong.

4) Mass Effect 2 has less customization

Wrong.

5) Mass Effect 2 is a smaller and shorter game

Only insofar as much of its content was pioneered and pasted from the first game. Gameplay times are roughly equivalent and there are just as many environments.

6) Mass Effect 2 has bad gameplay

Matter of opinion and it's universally lauded as having superior gameplay to the first.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

GalacticDefender wrote:No, I've never had it randomly go from a 10 degree turn to a 90 degree turn. And some other games require vehicles for certain missions, why shouldn't Mass Effect?

Everyone else has, the driving physics of ME1 were well known to be fundamentally flawed while the environments were very poorly designed for vehicle movement (most of the vehicle explorable planets were generated by randomized algorithms and later had areas "customized" for story elements). That said, I thoroughly enjoyed the mako segments of the game and was sad to see them go. The Mako was "balanced" just fine in terms of gameplay power. In the vehicle segments you drive the vehicle. If you want to get out of your tank in a segment where you need the tank you can, and you'll die because you got out of your tank in a segment where you needed a tank. It's realistic that way.

ShumaGorath wrote:Poastin' in a highly trivial thread

What was the point of this? Please review Rule Number One via the link in my signature, Shuma.

Oh man, you guys too much for me to read at this time.

I liked mass effect 1 better for a couple reasons. I liked that it had a more standardized and customizable inventory than ME2, that is a big part of RPGs. That is not to say ME1 had a good inventory and customization system, it wasnt very good, but it was better than nothing.

Some people had good points about the mako, it was a fun idea, but the maps were baaaaaad. If they had put some more work into it, it could have been really fun. I had imagined driving it to be like the warthog in halo, and it could have been that fun, if the maps didnt suck.

Honestly, they were both good, but ME2 didnt add anything new and interesting the way ME1 did. The sequels of original games just arent ever going to be as good as the original.

Slightly OT, but the thing that I've found funny about the release on PS3, is that all of the reviews given by IGN have said that it is a much better game on PS3, but it go 9.5, as opposed to 9.6 for the Xbox version

Looking back on both games, I prefer ME2 to ME, however, at the time, I really, really enjoyed ME.

All things being equal I enjoyed the experience of playing ME more than I did the experience of ME2, even though ME2 was a lot more polished and had many improved features over ME.

KingKodo wrote:Oh man, you guys too much for me to read at this time.

I liked mass effect 1 better for a couple reasons. I liked that it had a more standardized and customizable inventory than ME2, that is a big part of RPGs. That is not to say ME1 had a good inventory and customization system, it wasnt very good, but it was better than nothing.

Some people had good points about the mako, it was a fun idea, but the maps were baaaaaad. If they had put some more work into it, it could have been really fun. I had imagined driving it to be like the warthog in halo, and it could have been that fun, if the maps didnt suck.

Honestly, they were both good, but ME2 didnt add anything new and interesting the way ME1 did. The sequels of original games just arent ever going to be as good as the original.

Well, that's a little biased.

imo, Age of Empires 2 > Age of Empires, Jedi Outcast > Dark Forces 2, KotOR 2 > KotOR1, Warcraft 3 > Warcraft 2, Morrowind > Daggerfall, BF2 > BF, and so forth.

Goliath wrote:Slightly OT, but the thing that I've found funny about the release on PS3, is that all of the reviews given by IGN have said that it is a much better game on PS3, but it go 9.5, as opposed to 9.6 for the Xbox version

That's because IGN has changed from a 100 point scale to a 20 point scale.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:

KingKodo wrote:Oh man, you guys too much for me to read at this time.

I liked mass effect 1 better for a couple reasons. I liked that it had a more standardized and customizable inventory than ME2, that is a big part of RPGs. That is not to say ME1 had a good inventory and customization system, it wasnt very good, but it was better than nothing.

Some people had good points about the mako, it was a fun idea, but the maps were baaaaaad. If they had put some more work into it, it could have been really fun. I had imagined driving it to be like the warthog in halo, and it could have been that fun, if the maps didnt suck.

Honestly, they were both good, but ME2 didnt add anything new and interesting the way ME1 did. The sequels of original games just arent ever going to be as good as the original.

Well, that's a little biased.

imo, Age of Empires 2 > Age of Empires, Jedi Outcast > Dark Forces 2, KotOR 2 > KotOR1, Warcraft 3 > Warcraft 2, Morrowind > Daggerfall, BF2 > BF, and so forth.

Sequels to video games are usually better. (However KOTOR 2 is not an example of that).

As for the story not being as good: It's the middle part of a trilogy. It's very difficult to write the second act, give them some leeway. Although I didn't like it as much as ME1 I did still like it. The character developement is very strong regardless.

KotOR 2 is the most underrated RPG ever made because everyone likes to trip on about KotOR's uninspired twist that is cool for about 5 minutes.

Amaya wrote:KotOR 2 is the most underrated RPG ever made because everyone likes to trip on about KotOR's uninspired twist that is cool for about 5 minutes.

No, KOTOR2 has no ending. Production was just abruptly stopped because its not even a Bioware game. I liked KOTOR a lot but I do not like KOTOR 2 at all.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Amaya wrote:KotOR 2 is the most underrated RPG ever made because everyone likes to trip on about KotOR's uninspired twist that is cool for about 5 minutes.

No, KOTOR2 has no ending. Production was just abruptly stopped because its not even a Bioware game. I liked KOTOR a lot but I do not like KOTOR 2 at all.

KotOR 2 has an ending. It leaves out some details, but those have been added in fan made patches.

KotOR is a pretty simple story. The people who dislike KotOR2 don't get it or like to go on about the bugs and cut content (not as bad as people claim) and how the story is too depressing.

The fact Fans had to make their own endings kinda proves my point.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:The fact Fans had to make their own endings kinda proves my point.

/sigh

They didn't make their own endings.

1) There is an ending in the game. It is rushed.
2) The fan made content is them adding CUT CONTENT (ie stuff made by Obdsidian, not fans) to the game.
3) The journey is more important than the ending. I'd rather explore a meaningful world than do a vision quest to stop the ultimate evil for the 500th time.

What I said is not bias, just my opinion, and the opinion of many of my friends. Oblivion is widely considered inferior to Morrowind, DOD and CS are generally considered to be better than the source versions (although I dont like any of them).

Lets shift the genre to movies and look at the matrix. I have heard many MANY people say that the first matrix was the best, and the rest sucked. I do not totally agree that they sucked, but I do prefer the first more.

It is not true for all games, but it is more apparent in games that are "revolutionary" such as Mass Effect, or WoW or many many others.

I think alot of people tend to compare games and forget that they came out years apart. Try going back to when you first played Age of Empires 1 and compare that experience with the one you had when you played Age of Empires 2 or 3. It is obviously very difficult, but if you can, you may have a very different view on things.

Most games that get sequels are pretty impressive themselves. And most sequels worth arguing about bring something new to the franchise. You can't just say the sequel is better just because the developers learned from mistakes made in the first go around or polished things up as technology improved. Nor can you say that the sequel is worse just because it isn't as fresh and innovative as the first game. Using the Elder Scrolls example, I haven't seen many people arguing that Daggerfall was better than Morrowind even if they do think that Morrowind was better than Oblivion.

Debating it over the last few days has made me realize that judging between the ME games is very difficult. ME1 really wowed me because I liked the setting so much. My main memory of playing ME2 was that I felt let down. But I can see that a few factors heavily influenced that feeling. For one thing, I had just been severely disappointed by DA:O and wasn't happy with BioWare generally. For another, I was pushing through gameplay too quickly because I wanted to see what had been done with the characters I loved from ME1. To some extent, I can see KingKondo's point: great games are capable of creating unreasonable expectations for their sequels. But whether a game can live up to unreasonable expectations is surely not a good way to measure whether it's good or not -- nor is it really an appropriate measuring stick when deciding whether you like a game or its sequel better.

Ironically everthing Bioware changed for ME2 was at the fans request. I've never seen a company take criticisms so seriously. Now they are taking criticism for making those changes. I hope they've learned you can't please all the people all the time, to coin a phrase.

Amaya wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Amaya wrote:KotOR 2 is the most underrated RPG ever made because everyone likes to trip on about KotOR's uninspired twist that is cool for about 5 minutes.

No, KOTOR2 has no ending. Production was just abruptly stopped because its not even a Bioware game. I liked KOTOR a lot but I do not like KOTOR 2 at all.

KotOR 2 has an ending. It leaves out some details, but those have been added in fan made patches.

KotOR is a pretty simple story. The people who dislike KotOR2 don't get it or like to go on about the bugs and cut content (not as bad as people claim) and how the story is too depressing.

Oh please, the ending of KotOR 2 was basically "Oh hey, your on this planet thing. No real way you got here, you were here, and now suddenly your there with NO explenation of how...."

Now, as for 1 and 2, what I liked about one was:

You started as a basic dude and became a jedi.

What I liked about 2 was:

Everyone became a jedi, didn't have to make the same team over and over.
Plot was better (except the ending)
Sleeps-With-Vibroblades is pretty bad ass, except for the ending where he basically just suicides...

I did like ME 1 btw, will probably run through it again, for achievements at the very least. Only got the Quarrian team member one for example.

However I'm totaly lost to ME 2 now, the story parts to the game seem even more intense and I am loving the new characters.

Trying to earn the loyalty of each member is a sub game in its self, and I'm spending much more time checking in of them to see if new conversation pathways open up.

On a side note, did the fact I had max Charm in the first game carry over, or is it just connected to Paragon now? I ask as I am still getting Charisma conversation options even there appears to be no stat for it.

Charm and Intimidate are just connected to Paragon and Renegade values. There's only 3 parts of the game that I can think of that having a low Paragon/Renegade score would keep you from doing anything.

That's good and bad. There doesn't seem to be any benefit in not going all the way on one end or another of that spectrum. Or did I miss a "actually, I'm totally neutral" option?

I don't want to get to technical but one of the worse things about ME2 is how the Morality math works behind the scenes. It doesn't accumulate by addition.
For example: 2 paragon + 2 paragon = 4 paragon. therefore I may do a conversation option that requires 4 paragon points. Which is what most people assume.

It works on a decaying percentage which I mean in lay terms. So you start the game at 100% paragon. If you pick 1 paragon action you will have then 100% Paragon and 0% Renegade. So then the hardest moments of convinving in the game will usually require 75% paragon or 75% Renegade.
Unfortunately the worst thing you can do is pick the neutral option. Never do that! You will lose both Paragon and Renegade points. It's a dumb system that does not encourage nuance and roleplaying but just trying to max out your Paragon or renegade.

Now, many of you ME1 players will indeed carry over your Paragon points (anybody really play renegade?) and if you import your save will actually be starting at like 600% Paragon or something like that. So that's a nice buffer.
If you wish to kep the loyalty of all your crewmate which is required to not have them die I strongly recomend doing Zaheed's loyalty mission first. Jack and Miranda have a falling out and you need high something to do that so that is also a high priority. Tali's mission is also a recommended if you want a happy ending.

You can save every crew member even the extras but there's a bit of a science to it.

Amaya wrote:But first, the obvious!

The Mako

First, last and the only one you have to write about. How to make a 30h hour game last twice that? Ride a booooooriiiiing (in Homer Simpson voice), pain in the ass vehicle. Everything around you looks like graphics from 1999 low budget game. Finding quests was not fun, and didn't take ANY focus from you. Just riding at least 5 minutes from one end af a map to another.
Fighting in mako? Really cool if you want to hold your mouse pressed for another 10 minutes and once every 5 seconds tap forward or backward key to successfully dodge all missiles.

I really liked ME2 better. Gameplay was super fun, fast, and not boring at all. Plot, characters, and some other stuff was a bit worse? Who cares, I had FUN playing it. Very similar in style to the first one, but with enhanced battle experience. And the fighting should be fast paced, and interesting in a shooter. There are many other reasons but this is the main

I just need to tell you that the drell is in my opinion one. of. THE. worse. characters. ever. After hearing him for 30 seconds there was not a single conversation I didn't skip. He was just a huge ball of turd assassin clishe. I really really really screwed up my game and let him live. Normally I'd be the first to put a bullet in his flashback, """""""""""cool""""""""""" (there is no enough quotation marks in the world to represent how awful he iw), dying ass. Even with 100% paragon.

Plot, characters, and some other stuff was a bit worse? Who cares

People who like plot and characters?

(I agree about the Drell, however.)

What the heck is KotOR? What does that stand for? (I have been wondering that forever, but just now got around to asking )

GalacticDefender wrote:What the heck is KotOR? What does that stand for? (I have been wondering that forever, but just now got around to asking )

knights of the old republic: A Star Wars D&D Video game. The coming together of 3 geeks worlds.

Manchu wrote:

Plot, characters, and some other stuff was a bit worse? Who cares

People who like plot and characters?

(I agree about the Drell, however.)

Thane was the hottest male LI in the game. No homo.

my gf think's he's romantic

Jacob was cool until he shows up and does his creepy "The prize!" speech.



Assuming The Prize

Random question: How can Shepard die in ME2? Does he not always make the jump to the Normandy or what?

Amaya wrote:

Spoiler:

Do no loyalty missions and get no upgrades.

I believe thats the method if you want everyone to die (more or less). To get Shepard to die, don't you just have too:

Total results for this poll and http://www.thenexusforums.com/index.php?/topic/291666-mass-effect-2-is-better-than-mass-effect/ so far:

Mass Effect 14
Mass Effect 2 37
I liked both equally 17
I have not played both 11

This is an extremely small sample size, but I am very surprised at the results so far.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Goliath wrote:Slightly OT, but the thing that I've found funny about the release on PS3, is that all of the reviews given by IGN have said that it is a much better game on PS3, but it go 9.5, as opposed to 9.6 for the Xbox version

That's because IGN has changed from a 100 point scale to a 20 point scale.

That doesn't make any sense. Why does them changing the point scale explain why the game got reviewed better on the ps3 but got given a lower score than the xbox version?

whatwhat wrote:
That doesn't make any sense. Why does them changing the point scale explain why the game got reviewed better on the ps3 but got given a lower score than the xbox version?

Grading scales that are less detailed not only obscure negative qualities, but positive ones as well.

For example, a school that grants only grade of A, B, C, D, and F will not differentiate between someone with a very high B, and someone with a very low B; whereas a school that uses + and - modifiers will be able to differentiate between the two.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:
/sigh

They didn't make their own endings.

1) There is an ending in the game. It is rushed.
2) The fan made content is them adding CUT CONTENT (ie stuff made by Obdsidian, not fans) to the game.
3) The journey is more important than the ending. I'd rather explore a meaningful world than do a vision quest to stop the ultimate evil for the 500th time.

KoToR 2 had a massive amount of potential. The story was complex, and nuanced, but ultimately undone by that fact as it very likely made it difficult for a proper ending to be implemented prior to given deadlines.

If nothing else, Kreia was a great character.

dogma wrote:

whatwhat wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Goliath wrote:Slightly OT, but the thing that I've found funny about the release on PS3, is that all of the reviews given by IGN have said that it is a much better game on PS3, but it go 9.5, as opposed to 9.6 for the Xbox version

That's because IGN has changed from a 100 point scale to a 20 point scale.

That doesn't make any sense. Why does them changing the point scale explain why the game got reviewed better on the ps3 but got given a lower score than the xbox version?

Grading scales that are less detailed not only obscure negative qualities, but positive ones as well.

For example, a school that grants only grade of A, B, C, D, and F will not differentiate between someone with a very high B, and someone with a very low B; whereas a school that uses + and - modifiers will be able to differentiate between the two.

What? One game got 9.6 and the other got 9.5. The first got reviewed as worse than the later. Your comments do nothing to explain why a recent change in points scale says anything.

I'd be more inclined to think that the guys who reviewed the game at IGN weren't the people who scored it.

No, it does make sense, it probably means that were IGN still on the 100 point scale that ME2 would have gotten 9.7

Say for example you saw two scores for a game, one was 93%, and one was 4.5 stars out of five, if you multiply the star score up it only gives 90%, but it could have been giving exactly the same score, it just has less options with which to score.

Goliath wrote:No, it does make sense, it probably means that were IGN still on the 100 point scale that ME2 would have gotten 9.7

Say for example you saw two scores for a game, one was 93%, and one was 4.5 stars out of five, if you multiply the star score up it only gives 90%, but it could have been giving exactly the same score, it just has less options with which to score.

Oh so you converted the scores to a 10 point scale or something? What were the actual scores? I assumed by the way you had it as 9.5 and 9.6 they were scored on the same scale and KamikazeCanuck was talking about a previous system.

edit: Ah I see. I didn't know the two games were released long after the other on the separate consoles. Was on a completely different page. Sorry.

Comment not needed.

Finished it this last night. Without doubt now my fave series on the 360, and in general just an awesome RPG.

Not sure I'll be able to look at another seriously ever again, if my character isn't talking and interacting with the other characters.

Brilliant stuff, downloaded all extras as well, and left a save there on the 360 for ME3 and also to mess about with the character on the lasy few assignments I haven't done.




Going to take a week off and look at sorting my doubles army out, but I expect to be making a new ME1 character to do the renegade side of things soon.

I'm about 18 hours in and loving it. Zaeed in particular is a critical addition to the cast. Both Overlord and Lair of the Shadow Broker were very fun. Lair of the Shadow Broker was especially satisfying. The visual design was epic -- one wonders why other locations were so uninspired? (I'm thinking of the Quarian Flotilla and Jack's "school" on Praggia.) Also, it brought a sorely needed layer of emotional depth to Liara and ultimately to Shepherd. The game feels so much more finished with the DLC. I will write up something more detailed when I finish this playthrough.

@MDS: DEFINITELY a good buy, mate! Many thanks to you and Amaya for your enthusiasm.

Manchu wrote:I'm about 18 hours in and loving it. Zaeed in particular is a critical addition to the cast. Both Overlord and Lair of the Shadow Broker were very fun. Lair of the Shadow Broker was especially satisfying. The visual design was epic -- one wonders why other locations were so uninspired? (I'm thinking of the Quarian Flotilla and Jack's "school" on Praggia.) Also, it brought a sorely needed layer of emotional depth to Liara and ultimately to Shepherd. The game feels so much more finished with the DLC. I will write up something more detailed when I finish this playthrough.

@MDS: DEFINITELY a good buy, mate! Many thanks to you and Amaya for your enthusiasm.

I keep telling people the second one is better. That damn citadel stage from the first Mass Effect ruined it for a lot of people. I liked that part myself but a lot of people will not give the sequel a chance.

I have the opposite problem . . . Fable 2 . . . Fable 3. I know I will break down and buy DA:O 2, if only to hold me over until Skyrim.

Manchu wrote:I'm about 18 hours in and loving it. Zaeed in particular is a critical addition to the cast. Both Overlord and Lair of the Shadow Broker were very fun. Lair of the Shadow Broker was especially satisfying. The visual design was epic -- one wonders why other locations were so uninspired? (I'm thinking of the Quarian Flotilla and Jack's "school" on Praggia.) Also, it brought a sorely needed layer of emotional depth to Liara and ultimately to Shepherd. The game feels so much more finished with the DLC. I will write up something more detailed when I finish this playthrough.

@MDS: DEFINITELY a good buy, mate! Many thanks to you and Amaya for your enthusiasm.

Glad you got back into it, its certainly now one of my all time faves.

The urge to play it all over again is crazy, will try and hold off a bit, but it will happen. Different romance options, ren/pargon etc, lots of fun.

Goliath wrote:No, it does make sense, it probably means that were IGN still on the 100 point scale that ME2 would have gotten 9.7

Say for example you saw two scores for a game, one was 93%, and one was 4.5 stars out of five, if you multiply the star score up it only gives 90%, but it could have been giving exactly the same score, it just has less options with which to score.

Yes, exactly. ME2 on PS would probably gotten a 9.7 on the old scale but they don't have .7s anymore just .5s. Look I'm an xbox guy with 23,131 Acheivement points but obviously the PS3 version is going to be better. It's using the ME3 engine and has all the DLC included. You can't beat that. It just sucks that xboxers had to bascially pay for EA to make this for playstation. What we do have is the fact we already played the crap outta this a year ago and most importantly of all ME1. Mass Effect is a trilogy the likes of which has never been seen: one were you can use the same character over 3 games and every decision has an effect! I'm excited to take my ME1 charater all the way to the end!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:I'm about 18 hours in and loving it. Zaeed in particular is a critical addition to the cast. Both Overlord and Lair of the Shadow Broker were very fun. Lair of the Shadow Broker was especially satisfying. The visual design was epic -- one wonders why other locations were so uninspired? (I'm thinking of the Quarian Flotilla and Jack's "school" on Praggia.) Also, it brought a sorely needed layer of emotional depth to Liara and ultimately to Shepherd. The game feels so much more finished with the DLC. I will write up something more detailed when I finish this playthrough.

@MDS: DEFINITELY a good buy, mate! Many thanks to you and Amaya for your enthusiasm.

Glad we got you back on the Mass Effect band wagon. I agree completely about Liar of the shadow broker. The Idea of a planet were the light side boils and the dark side freezes and in between there's a perpetual lighting storm was so cool and visually spectacular.
See what your missing by not having Xbox hooked up to internet? Zaheed and Firewalker were free downloads!

Manchu wrote:I'm about 18 hours in and loving it. Zaeed in particular is a critical addition to the cast. Both Overlord and Lair of the Shadow Broker were very fun. Lair of the Shadow Broker was especially satisfying. The visual design was epic -- one wonders why other locations were so uninspired? (I'm thinking of the Quarian Flotilla and Jack's "school" on Praggia.) Also, it brought a sorely needed layer of emotional depth to Liara and ultimately to Shepherd. The game feels so much more finished with the DLC. I will write up something more detailed when I finish this playthrough.

@MDS: DEFINITELY a good buy, mate! Many thanks to you and Amaya for your enthusiasm.

I'm glad you gave it a chance. Have fun in the game. The Mass Effect wikia is a very helpful resource.

especially if you want to keep everyone alive.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:especially if you want to keep everyone alive.

Spoiler:

Only do Legion's Loyalty Mission after the "Joker mission"!

Does anyone know how Scale Itch got on the ship?

Amaya wrote:

Spoiler:

First time through Kelly slurpee made me rage

Aye me too, actually stunned me. So yeah, even though I enjoyed the run of achievements, saving all squad, compleating game etc, I felt the need to run the last four hours again and save all the crew.

Amaya wrote:
Does anyone know how Scale Itch got on the ship?

I'd guess Kelly.

whatwhat wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Goliath wrote:Slightly OT, but the thing that I've found funny about the release on PS3, is that all of the reviews given by IGN have said that it is a much better game on PS3, but it go 9.5, as opposed to 9.6 for the Xbox version

That's because IGN has changed from a 100 point scale to a 20 point scale.

That doesn't make any sense. Why does them changing the point scale explain why the game got reviewed better on the ps3 but got given a lower score than the xbox version?

There is no scale between 95 and 100, they rarely give out 100's and rounding it's closer down, so given their current scaling the only option was 95. Thus it's lower. The real reason it's not a 100 though is simply because it's old now, it's not longer a new release. It's a weird scale, but platform revisions, even when better, rarely score higher if they're more then a year out.

:edit: there was a page after this one that I didn't realize existed, it's already been answered. My bad.

ShumaGorath wrote::edit: there was a page after this one that I didn't realize existed, it's already been answered. My bad.

Probably going to happen quite a lot when your browsing the forums differntly to everyone else.

whatwhat wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote::edit: there was a page after this one that I didn't realize existed, it's already been answered. My bad.

Probably going to happen quite a lot when your browsing the forums differntly to everyone else.

Are you implying I'm left handed?

That's right. Google Analytics told me so.

IGN's love for ME2 is apparently greater than my own. It got the following awards in the PC category:

Best Story
Most Innovative Gameplay (Not sure if I agree with this)
Best Character - The Illusive Man (Eh, again, not sure about that)
Best Visuals (obvious choice)
Best Soundtrack
Best Sci-Fi Game

Game of the Year for PC went to Starcraft 2, which I really don't understand. From what I've heard SC2 is just Starcraft with better graphics. I think a lot of other games, including ME2, would have been more deserving of GoTY for PC. Reader's Choice was Mass Effect 2 for PC.

For the XBox it got:

Best Story
Best Character - Thane (What the heck, are they on crack?) Reader's Choice was Mordin Solus. I don't hate Thane like a lot of people do, but TIM, Miranda, Garrus, Mordin, and Talia were all better IMO.
Best Sci-Fi Game
Best Blockbust Game
Game of the Year for XBox 360

Amaya wrote:Best Character - The Illusive Man (Eh, again, not sure about that)

Er, maybe best voiceacting.

Got to be Mordin, he has so many good lines, in the team while on missions, and while chatting to him in the Science lab.

However nice to see so many awards.


Talking about love for the series Amaya, have you done one of those draw your Shepard Memes by chance?

I Just noted a Amaya Shepard Meme on Deviant, although that name might be a really popular character somewhere. I have no idea if I'm honest.

Curiousity killed tha cat, an all that?

No, I've never used deviantart.

Yeah, Mordin was pretty cool. I think he might be my favorite crew member. Besides being funny his guilt over the genophage and how he delt with it was interesting. Also, he's a good singer
Who's everyone's favorite?

Tali after some thought, I started a poll for those interested.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/344247.page