Aaand here comes another one. Shall we discuss what is or isn´t an argument now?Not every opinon that differs from yours is an "argument".
Dude … just stop .
Aaand here comes another one. Shall we discuss what is or isn´t an argument now?Not every opinon that differs from yours is an "argument".
There are less overlaps in ME2, and ME1 does not come with gameplay changing powers such as tactical cloak, tech armor or charge.
There are 4 distinct guns (+ one rare geth rifle, iirc) in ME1 and pistols outperform all.
ME2 comes with 5 basic weapon types, the guns within each category have different properties and have different gameplay feel, plus there´s a wild card of sorts in the form of heavy weapons.
The absence of mods is surely a minus overall, no argument here. There are 6 "mods" in the form of ammo powers though and some of these are more impactful than the mods in ME1, especially on higher difficulties.
For example, tungsten ammo in ME1 makes synthetics´ health bar go down faster and that´s it. In ME2, disruptor ammo causes more damage to shields, has a chance to disable enemy weapons for a while, deals more damage to synthetics and has a chance to stun them for a while.
Along with the command of the Normandy you obtain three main missions and your Shepard is already 100% convinced that the main antagonist is on the brink of bringing back dudes who wiped out a galactic civilization before, so it´s pretty much race against time right from there. The quest "Race Against Time" itself appears in your journal once you finish either Feros or Noveria, which can be pretty early, especially since Feros is presented as urgent (colony under attack).
ME2 has two missions which come at certain points and can´t be postponed (makes sense story-wise) and the galaxy opens up pretty much fully roughly 1/3 into the game (btw, the galaxy isn´t fully open in ME1 either - some systems only become available once a main mission is completed), so I don´t see much difference in the basic gameplay structure. Except in ME2 the meatier content is spread out between more episodes (whereas ME1 comes with few large chunks of linear content), resulting in overall a more "customizable" experience in my book.
Not planet scanning, the "!" encounters you could discover by it. I´m starting to think you somehow missed the existence of this type of side content. These scenarios were mostly short and simple, but were fairly varied in flavour, level/art design and (back)story.
I´m talking about quests like this. Compared to ME1, these quests came short in terms of dialogues, but didn´t generally feel as repetitive otherwise, to me.
Yes!
There are 5 difficulty levels in ME1, but only 3 are open for a first playthrough.
I say "I want more challenge!", ME1 says "finish me twice first."
Unlike in ME2, higher difficulties in ME1 suck, but that´s besides the point.
Class distinction. Vanguard in ME2 felt a lot different to other classes than vanguard in ME1. Same with sentinel and infiltrator, and it was due to those three powers.No, it comes with gameplay changing powers like assassination, adrenaline and unity. Your point?
I know. The point was that in ME1 all weapons within a type feel the same and I´ve never found minute differences in accuracy and overheating to mean squat.No, you're talking about weapon types.
Well, I can agree with that, I guess .Overall, I'd say it comes down to a similar amount of meaningful variety - but ME2 is cleaner and more streamlined.
More times, the better.How many times do I have to agree?
I prefer when games leave this kind of stuff on me. Of course I wasn´t really "insulted", it was just annoying not being able to raise the challenge when there was none.Ehm, what you call patronising - I call replayability. I think they want players to have something to look forward to - after completing the game on Veteran or lower.
My point was that I´ve only played ME2 on hardcore and insanity, which may be the reason why I haven´t found the minute-to-minute combat as predictable and it did not feel like I "did the same thing over and over". The "patronizing" part was just a side note.Your point is pretty weak - but ok.
Class distinction. Vanguard in ME2 felt a lot different to other classes than vanguard in ME1. Same with sentinel and infiltrator, and it was due to those three powers.
I know. The point was that in ME1 all weapons within a type feel the same and I´ve never found minute differences in accuracy and overheating to mean squat.
Most of those hundreds of weapons were pointless and only served as inventory clutter, in my experience.
More times, the better.
I prefer when games leave this kind of stuff on me. Of course I wasn´t really "insulted", it was just annoying not being able to raise the challenge when there was none.
My point was that I´ve only played ME2 on hardcore and insanity, which may be the reason why I haven´t found the minute-to-minute combat as predictable and it did not feel like I "did the same thing over and over".
Ok, I´ll take your word for it.Adept, Infiltrator and Soldier - and they ALL felt very different.
No, I mean to say that those "hundreds of weapons" were completely redundant.You mean to say that your first weapons felt no different from your final weapons with mods?
This discussion got me interested in how RPGWatch looked at ME2 at the time of release so I´ve checked the impressions thread and your post in there seems to disagree .I played it hardcore both times -
I pretty much have the same sentiments .It should be noted that I don't like shooters very much, and I much prefer a more tactical approach to combat. With Bioware, it has been steadily downhill since BG2. KotOR was dumbed down, ME was dumbed down even more - and ME2 takes the cake. At least Dragon Age was a step towards the good old days.
Ok, I´ll take your word for it.
Personally, I see not much reason playing adept when I can play vanguard, I see not much reason playing soldier or engineer when I can play infiltrator and I see not much reason playing sentinel when I can play vanguard or infiltrator.
No, I mean to say that those "hundreds of weapons" were completely redundant.
If they´d just let you upgrade each weapon type from I to X, it would be functionally almost the same, but without pointless clutter. That´s kinda how it works in ME2, except in ME2 each weapon type includes few distinct weapons, so there´s more variety.
Mods in ME1 do add variety as well, which is why I think removing them in ME2 was not a good decision (even though ammo powers made up for them to some extent).
This discussion got me interested in how RPGWatch looked at ME2 at the time of release so I´ve checked the impressions thread and your post in there seems to disagree .
Apparently you also found infiltrator in ME1 nearly useless!
I pretty much have the same sentiments .
Except I don´t mind ME2 "taking the cake", because throwing the pretense of being a complex RPG out of the window made it overall a better popcorn entertainment package than ME1 for me.
Which sorta returns me to the beginning of this discussion and seems like a good way to venture out of it, if you don´t mind.
Thanks for the exchange .