Mass Effect Legendary Edition
- Thread starter Reverend
- Start date
Oh god that other vehicle...... Yes it's fucking terrible and makes the Mako feel like a Porsche
I thought the Mako was fine. The Hammerhead, I liked rather less.
(In my case, on mouse and keyboard with the original - I haven't got the legendary release yet)
(In my case, on mouse and keyboard with the original - I haven't got the legendary release yet)
G
Gul Sengosts
Guest
Controversial opinion: I prefer ME1's gameplay over ME2's. Clearly ME2's combat is a leap in terms of mechanics and polish, but it's also horribly repetitive.
In ME1, at one time I'm on a planet with trees and rocks and organic ground with hills and stuff. Rocks can be taken cover behind, but they're irregular and some of them might provide bad cover... like in reality. There's some close combat, and shortly afterwards you approach an enemy base in the distance, and you can use the top of the hill you're on as cover, slowly approaching a line of sight with the enemy while crouching with your sniper rifle. Then you need to run around between enemy fire as you're trying to defuse 4 bombs, and then you get some more long-distance sniping on the train.
In some missions you have mostly mid-range combat, in others it's only extremely close quarters because you're fighting zombies in the cargo bay of a freighter, in others you have to snipe Geth from extreme distance, some places have cover in abundance, others none at all. Very different combat scenarios in very different environments encouraging/requiring very different approaches and strategies.
Compare ME2, which is essentially the same corridor over and over again with the same convenient (and infallible) chest-high cover everywhere. The vast majority of combat is mid-range. The ground is almost all flat, with just some uniform straight slopes here and there. Over-reliance of wave after wave after wave in essentially the same scenario over and over again gets really old for me. ME2 is much more polished, but also fee
Then there's Mako shooting. I can see why people might hate it, that's fair, but it also mixes up the gameplay. Oh, and remember how you can be ambushed in hub sections? In contrast to ME2-3, you're not actually safe there. Anytime something can happen.
And ME1 gives me a sense of space and place. Take one main mission as an example. You have to investigate something, so you fly to the planet. You're not just beamed to your destination, you take control over the player character while still on the ship, go through decon, travel through the docking bay, figure out some issues with security, then arrive in the first hub.
You need to get to your destination from there with the Mako, because well, you need to actually drive somewhere if you have to cover some distance. But you're grounded, so you need to figure something out involving local politics. Elevators, dreaded as they are, make the place physically interconnected. Like, there's an actual spatial relation between things. Once you figure it out, you need to travel some way with the Mako before arriving at the second hub. Which has different interconnected areas you can move around between, including the roof and power core and med bay and whatnot. It's all one big actual place. It feels real and immersive.
ME2: Load screen, boom you're there. Done. There's no actual connection between different places and you're just being loadscreened around between hubs and shooter corridors. I can see why someone might prefer it this way, but to me there's just so much lost here.
So yeah, even outside of the story, I find ME1 more fun to play, even with all the jank. It just feels varied and real and immersive, while ME2 feels much more gamey and samey.
In ME1, at one time I'm on a planet with trees and rocks and organic ground with hills and stuff. Rocks can be taken cover behind, but they're irregular and some of them might provide bad cover... like in reality. There's some close combat, and shortly afterwards you approach an enemy base in the distance, and you can use the top of the hill you're on as cover, slowly approaching a line of sight with the enemy while crouching with your sniper rifle. Then you need to run around between enemy fire as you're trying to defuse 4 bombs, and then you get some more long-distance sniping on the train.
In some missions you have mostly mid-range combat, in others it's only extremely close quarters because you're fighting zombies in the cargo bay of a freighter, in others you have to snipe Geth from extreme distance, some places have cover in abundance, others none at all. Very different combat scenarios in very different environments encouraging/requiring very different approaches and strategies.
Compare ME2, which is essentially the same corridor over and over again with the same convenient (and infallible) chest-high cover everywhere. The vast majority of combat is mid-range. The ground is almost all flat, with just some uniform straight slopes here and there. Over-reliance of wave after wave after wave in essentially the same scenario over and over again gets really old for me. ME2 is much more polished, but also fee
Then there's Mako shooting. I can see why people might hate it, that's fair, but it also mixes up the gameplay. Oh, and remember how you can be ambushed in hub sections? In contrast to ME2-3, you're not actually safe there. Anytime something can happen.
And ME1 gives me a sense of space and place. Take one main mission as an example. You have to investigate something, so you fly to the planet. You're not just beamed to your destination, you take control over the player character while still on the ship, go through decon, travel through the docking bay, figure out some issues with security, then arrive in the first hub.
You need to get to your destination from there with the Mako, because well, you need to actually drive somewhere if you have to cover some distance. But you're grounded, so you need to figure something out involving local politics. Elevators, dreaded as they are, make the place physically interconnected. Like, there's an actual spatial relation between things. Once you figure it out, you need to travel some way with the Mako before arriving at the second hub. Which has different interconnected areas you can move around between, including the roof and power core and med bay and whatnot. It's all one big actual place. It feels real and immersive.
ME2: Load screen, boom you're there. Done. There's no actual connection between different places and you're just being loadscreened around between hubs and shooter corridors. I can see why someone might prefer it this way, but to me there's just so much lost here.
So yeah, even outside of the story, I find ME1 more fun to play, even with all the jank. It just feels varied and real and immersive, while ME2 feels much more gamey and samey.
I too enjoyed ME1 more than 2. I'm just going through my first ME2 play through in years (LE) and I'm not as engaged with this as I was with 1. I felt the same all those years ago when playing both games when they were released. The passage of time hasn't changed my feelings on either game. ME2 is still enjoyable but I was utterly immersed in the plot of the first game. ME2 is more fun in terms of combat and I really don't miss the Mako missions at all but amassing a team for one suicide mission isn't as exciting as uncovering the mysteries of the Reapers in the first game.
Yeah, I actually agree with you. I know I may be in a minority, but I actually really liked the Mako too, as I liked the exploration aspect to it. Only thing they could have improved about it was in giving the Mako more to do by making Mako-specific quests that you could only access via the Mako. But with ME2, it's like they course-corrected from the complaints too much, streamlining the game a little too much. That planet scanning mini-game was frustratingly repetitive and practically served no purpose other than busywork, playing with the UI rather than the game.
Hated the scanning minigame
That's one thing I think Andromeda got right, it felt like ME1's exploring again. I really need to play through this again.
In terms of concept I think ME1 and ME2 were just completely different. In ME1 the plot and exploration took priority along with worldbuilding and it was in service of telling a great story with fun and meaningful characters along the way.
ME2's main plot was exactly what it said on the tin and frankly quite simple, albeit with a couple twists. The heart and soul of the game instead was the characters and their own stories and forging then into a team. The "side quests" focusing on the characters were the story.
I don't think any single moment made me go "Wow" as much as that conversation with Sovereign, but on the other hand I just found myself a lot more connected and invested in the characters of ME2.
ME2's main plot was exactly what it said on the tin and frankly quite simple, albeit with a couple twists. The heart and soul of the game instead was the characters and their own stories and forging then into a team. The "side quests" focusing on the characters were the story.
I don't think any single moment made me go "Wow" as much as that conversation with Sovereign, but on the other hand I just found myself a lot more connected and invested in the characters of ME2.
Yup. Mass Effect 1 felt like the British or US sci-fi of the 70s. A little bit more exploration, not quite as good a budget as it needed to pull it off, but fun.
Mass Effect 2 was the big budget action flick/series restart of the franchise with a lot of heart in the characters. It lost something but went in different directions that worked.
Mass Effect 3 was that mini-series that got put together to finish off the series with a big budget but was a few years after the main series had been canned by the network and the writers weren't either all there or were looking to move on and end it no matter what.
And I love em all.
Mass Effect 2 was the big budget action flick/series restart of the franchise with a lot of heart in the characters. It lost something but went in different directions that worked.
Mass Effect 3 was that mini-series that got put together to finish off the series with a big budget but was a few years after the main series had been canned by the network and the writers weren't either all there or were looking to move on and end it no matter what.
And I love em all.
G
Gul Sengosts
Guest
Oh yeah, they're very different. For the record, even when I'm being critical I still don't mean to say ME1 is better than ME2, just that it gives me what I like most.
Most of all that means the main story; yes, the characters are ME2's main story, and I do love them (well, some of them). The thing is just that the main overarching story with the Reapers was my favourite thing about ME1, the prime reason why it stood out, so I was disappointed just how sidelined it was in ME2. I can see that the characters more than made up for it for many players, it just didn't for me.
One thing I find very interesting is how there's a shift in style and tone. ME1 has a more sci-fi novel feel, while in comparison ME2 and ME3 have a more comic book feel (again, not saying one is better than the other). There's a much greater focus on big world-building and exposition and exchange of information and all that, whereas 2-3 are more drama-driven with greater emphasis on badass characters and stylish scenes.
One example I like is how you see Aria's silhouette in front of the lights of the Afterlife club, saying "...I am Omega!". I can literally see the comic book panel with the speech balloon in my head. Another good example is the Vorcha, which are taken straight out of a Marvel comic book, in great contrast to the species introduced in ME1.
And ME1 does suffer from static dialogue scenes that betray its old school RPG roots, where people are typically just standing in front of each other exchanging text, as if you're reading a script that's not bothered with style. Compare ME2, where there's so much movement and camera angles and action happening during a lot of the dialogue. It's completely transformed, again much more like what you'd expect in a comic book.
Most of all that means the main story; yes, the characters are ME2's main story, and I do love them (well, some of them). The thing is just that the main overarching story with the Reapers was my favourite thing about ME1, the prime reason why it stood out, so I was disappointed just how sidelined it was in ME2. I can see that the characters more than made up for it for many players, it just didn't for me.
One thing I find very interesting is how there's a shift in style and tone. ME1 has a more sci-fi novel feel, while in comparison ME2 and ME3 have a more comic book feel (again, not saying one is better than the other). There's a much greater focus on big world-building and exposition and exchange of information and all that, whereas 2-3 are more drama-driven with greater emphasis on badass characters and stylish scenes.
One example I like is how you see Aria's silhouette in front of the lights of the Afterlife club, saying "...I am Omega!". I can literally see the comic book panel with the speech balloon in my head. Another good example is the Vorcha, which are taken straight out of a Marvel comic book, in great contrast to the species introduced in ME1.
And ME1 does suffer from static dialogue scenes that betray its old school RPG roots, where people are typically just standing in front of each other exchanging text, as if you're reading a script that's not bothered with style. Compare ME2, where there's so much movement and camera angles and action happening during a lot of the dialogue. It's completely transformed, again much more like what you'd expect in a comic book.
Part of that is a changeover in BioWare between ME1 and ME2 and 3. A lot of the lead team from ME1 had left, plus EA was putting the thumb on them to get the games out faster which is not how you deal with an RPG.
I think it's also just a stylistic evolution to a more cinematic look and feel, taking advantage of what can be done - well, and probably increased budgets. If you compare KOTOR, Dragon Age: Origins, ME1, and ME3 you can really see that change from the older-school look and feel to something more stylish and cinematic.
The biggest difference to me is in its gameplay style. While there was shooting in the first game, it was more of a mix of elements and the shooting was just one of those. But with ME2, they streamlined the game too much, making the shooting a core focus of the gameplay. It felt more like a cover-shooter and less like an RPG.
Last edited:
G
Gul Sengosts
Guest
I think ME1 tried to be one giant genre mix, blending RPG, shooter, driving, exploration, cinema and more together. If I recall correctly, planet exploration was originally planned to be far more extensive (with procedurally generated planets) and it was even supposed to be an MMO. I think the ambition is laudable, it feels like they wanted to redefine what a game could be.
To some extent it succeeded, but of course it fell short in parts. Some parts were scrapped altogether, planet exploration turned out rudimentary to put it mildly, the action is pretty clunky, the AI abysmal. It crumbles under the weight of its ambition, they would have needed years more to come close to their lofty goals.
I guess that is part of the reason (the other being EA) for the drastic changes in ME2, they took a step back from that kind of ambition and so could create something far more focussed.
To some extent it succeeded, but of course it fell short in parts. Some parts were scrapped altogether, planet exploration turned out rudimentary to put it mildly, the action is pretty clunky, the AI abysmal. It crumbles under the weight of its ambition, they would have needed years more to come close to their lofty goals.
I guess that is part of the reason (the other being EA) for the drastic changes in ME2, they took a step back from that kind of ambition and so could create something far more focussed.
Didn't seem worth starting a new thread for just this, so I'll leave it here instead.
Best not to read too much into this beyond "this is what the hero armor looks like at the moment", since they pretty much did the same thing with that early 'ME:Andromeda' teaser.
Still, if this is the direction they're going in, it seems like they're moving away from a soldier character and more towards an operative/assassin. Unless each class with have a totally distinct armor design or something, and this is just the default for the new Infiltrator or some such. Or this could be the main villain. Who knows?
It should also be noted that while this is being promoted, former employees are protesting outside BW because the suits are being stingy with severance packages. Wisely timed to alter the narrative of the game's coverage IMO.
ETA: Weird thing about the teaser is that the windows this figure is walking past seems to be looking out of a clear, blue skied city scape (complete with flying cars buzzing by), but out the very blurry door, it seems the weather is decidedly more dusty & windy. Could just be an oversight, but these things usually have hidden clues.
Oh, and then there's this, and this.
'Mass Effect: Epsilon'? Well, a lot of fans are going to start sounded very self involved out of context if they start using "MEE" as a shorthand . . .
Some interesting details in the poster jumped out at me: -
So obviously between the mention of "Ark 6" in the original teaser, "ANDROMEDA DISTRESS SIGNAL DETECTED" in the site tease, and this image, it's safe to say that MEA isn't being forgotten.
Also, with the Geth surviving I'm feeling mildly vindicated for picking the Destroy option!
Supposedly some other little drops happened in the build up to the "full" teaser. Nothing earth-shaking, just mentions of what's seaming the same incident the Liara audio snippet mentioned (last year? the year before? I loose track.) Specifically the words "OCULON-2819-DEFIANCE" which appeared with a segment titled "nebula" (incidentally Oculon was one of several proposed names for the original ME.) 2819 happens to be the year the bulk of MEA occurred in, so I'm going to go out on a limb based on what's been hinted at and suggest that right after that game ended, some "defiant" humans back in the Milky-way (possibly in a place called the Oculon Nebula?) built that mass relay either in an attempt to reach Andromeda, or just because they could. If I'm anywhere near the mark, this won't be in the game itself, but a but of background lore, or inciting incident for the existing crisis (because there's always a crisis) that sets up the new story.
I do kind of like the notion that the Alliance itself is the antagonist in this one and this 'N7' character is the main villain . . . but it could also just somehow be Shepard back from the dead again.
Best not to read too much into this beyond "this is what the hero armor looks like at the moment", since they pretty much did the same thing with that early 'ME:Andromeda' teaser.
Still, if this is the direction they're going in, it seems like they're moving away from a soldier character and more towards an operative/assassin. Unless each class with have a totally distinct armor design or something, and this is just the default for the new Infiltrator or some such. Or this could be the main villain. Who knows?
It should also be noted that while this is being promoted, former employees are protesting outside BW because the suits are being stingy with severance packages. Wisely timed to alter the narrative of the game's coverage IMO.
ETA: Weird thing about the teaser is that the windows this figure is walking past seems to be looking out of a clear, blue skied city scape (complete with flying cars buzzing by), but out the very blurry door, it seems the weather is decidedly more dusty & windy. Could just be an oversight, but these things usually have hidden clues.
Oh, and then there's this, and this.
'Mass Effect: Epsilon'? Well, a lot of fans are going to start sounded very self involved out of context if they start using "MEE" as a shorthand . . .
Some interesting details in the poster jumped out at me: -
So obviously between the mention of "Ark 6" in the original teaser, "ANDROMEDA DISTRESS SIGNAL DETECTED" in the site tease, and this image, it's safe to say that MEA isn't being forgotten.
Also, with the Geth surviving I'm feeling mildly vindicated for picking the Destroy option!
Supposedly some other little drops happened in the build up to the "full" teaser. Nothing earth-shaking, just mentions of what's seaming the same incident the Liara audio snippet mentioned (last year? the year before? I loose track.) Specifically the words "OCULON-2819-DEFIANCE" which appeared with a segment titled "nebula" (incidentally Oculon was one of several proposed names for the original ME.) 2819 happens to be the year the bulk of MEA occurred in, so I'm going to go out on a limb based on what's been hinted at and suggest that right after that game ended, some "defiant" humans back in the Milky-way (possibly in a place called the Oculon Nebula?) built that mass relay either in an attempt to reach Andromeda, or just because they could. If I'm anywhere near the mark, this won't be in the game itself, but a but of background lore, or inciting incident for the existing crisis (because there's always a crisis) that sets up the new story.
I do kind of like the notion that the Alliance itself is the antagonist in this one and this 'N7' character is the main villain . . . but it could also just somehow be Shepard back from the dead again.
Last edited:
