Mass Effect 1 and 2

Bleek

Bleek

Bleek

Soldato
Joined
7 May 2004
Posts
5,503
Location
Naked and afraid
A very quick question on the subject of Mass Effect.

I have the first game, I believe I was about ~50% through before I stopped playing, not sure why I did.

Anyway, is there any point picking up ME 2 and ignoring the first game or should I really finish the first game before I look at the second?
 
Agreed as you can carry your character over from the first. It changes a lot of aspects and add things depending on how you completed the first game.
 
There are some massive reveals in the first game that will be spoiled if you jump straight into the second. You don't have to play all the side missions - the main quest is actually fairly short if you just want to blast through it.
 
If the first game has such relevance and importance then I'll just crack on with it, still can't remember why I stopped playing it all that time ago?
 
First game is definately worth finishing, not so much to carry over your save file as just for the sake of playing through the end-game sequence which I thought was very good. If you really want to crack on with the 2nd one it'd be worth watching the last 10-20mins of the first game on youtube to see what happens.
 
Will working through the first game 'bore' me of the second game - if that makes sense?
 
Definitely finish the first one. I did, on the 360, and I'm getting extremely annoyed with the 2nd on the PC now, cos I keep coming across stuff that would be different if I'd been able to transfer my save game across.

And I reckon playing the 1st through will make the 2nd all the better.
 
Bleek said:
Will working through the first game 'bore' me of the second game - if that makes sense?
Click to expand...

No, the second game has it's own feel I found. Combat has been revamped and it's a bit more focussed on the action. I did get a bit bored with the formula some of the sections of the game seemed to force me to fall into - find cover, shoot enemies, move forward, rinse and repeat. But I finished the second game much quicker than the first, so it can't have annoyed me that much.
 
I actually preferred the first game over the second. The lack of mako in the second and the lack of inventory and very limited skills to put points in felt a lot to me like they had dumbed down the 2nd game. I expect PC games to be more complex than that, ended up feeling too console kiddy for my tastes. Luckily the story was still good and the graphics were excellent but I am hoping for more game depth from the 3rd, so I am somewhat unusual in that I rate the first game higher than the second.
 
Tombstone said:
I actually preferred the first game over the second. The lack of mako in the second and the lack of inventory and very limited skills to put points in felt a lot to me like they had dumbed down the 2nd game. I expect PC games to be more complex than that, ended up feeling too console kiddy for my tastes. Luckily the story was still good and the graphics were excellent but I am hoping for more game depth from the 3rd, so I am somewhat unusual in that I rate the first game higher than the second.
Click to expand...

That's not unusual, a lot of people prefer the first game (check the numerous disappointment threads on the official forums). I certainly enjoyed the story and overall experience more, but can't deny there were some broken gameplay mechanics (inventory for one).
 
I recently picked up and finished ME2.

Having played ME1 and not liked it, was a bit skeptical about 2.

Its a much better game. Tighter is the best word to describe it.

Better action sequences, better dialogue, amazing set piece story line cinematics etc etc etc...

The only thing that was dissapointing is the boss at the end....

But its a better experience than 1.
 
ran_out said:
No, the second game has it's own feel I found. Combat has been revamped and it's a bit more focussed on the action. I did get a bit bored with the formula some of the sections of the game seemed to force me to fall into - find cover, shoot enemies, move forward, rinse and repeat. But I finished the second game much quicker than the first, so it can't have annoyed me that much.
Click to expand...

If you think about it, with out recreuiting all your companions, the 2nd game is actually very very small!

As soon as you accept the omega 4 relay mission your only a few hours of game play from the end.

On a side note whats the point in upgrading the ships defenses and guns?

Does it change the cinematics once you enter the omega 4 relay and come up against the collector ship?
 
I recently picked up and finished ME2.

Having played ME1 and not liked it, was a bit skeptical about 2.

Its a much better game. Tighter is the best word to describe it.

Better action sequences, better dialogue, amazing set piece story line cinematics etc etc etc...

The only thing that was dissapointing is the boss at the end....

But its a better experience than 1.
Click to expand...


the story line in 2 is definitely not better, sorry but i have to disagree. While i love both games, 2 concentrates more on the other characters personal lives than it does the main story arc. its like 10 hours of main story and 20 hours of filler. The first game's story and dialogue is far better than the second.

they are two different games at the end of the day. the first has more RPG elements, the second has better combat. the first has utterly boring side missions which are all largely all set in the same three or four buildings with the same layouts with the same objectives, got to via driving the mako around on the surface of what are largely completely empty planets....the second has what most people would consider to be totally retarded planet scanning as a means of generating 'money' and what the hell were they thinking about with the Citedel? talk about underused!

the second game could be considered as more 'consolised'. Whether that's good or bad is up to you. This all sounds hugely negative, lol, its not - i love both the games. but the second is not a huge leap above the first in any areas.


Curunen said:
That's not unusual, a lot of people prefer the first game (check the numerous disappointment threads on the official forums). I certainly enjoyed the story and overall experience more, but can't deny there were some broken gameplay mechanics (inventory for one).
Click to expand...


completely agree with this. I hope, like most people, that the third game is a mixture of the first two - more RPG elements, less planet scanning, less time spent finding out about the other character's pasts. Afterall, there's a galaxy to save - I dont think learning how the next new character spent his youth in a nuclear facility or some such nonsense is really all that important.
 
Last edited:
I never do the side missions, its a roleplay game so I roleplay, given that the galaxy is in imminent danger it wouldn't really be within my role to go off and find someone's missing data disk or a missing soldier or whatever. The galaxy is in danger that's what I would be focusing on, not needless diversions which only delay my chances of saving the galaxy.
 
I was in the same situation as you a month ago bleek. Having played the original years ago, got a tenth of the way in and got bored, A friend of mine offered me a brand new copy of Mass Effect 2 for a fiver. I was still sceptical after having a negative view of the original, turns out it was the fiver I ever spent. Mass effect 2 is now one of my favourite games.

Do what I did. Play Mass effect 2, get utterly sucked into its brilliance. Then, if you still crave more (like I did) go and play the original. I found myself being able to forgive the originals flaws just so that i could find out more about the story.

You can always hold off on doing some of the extra (optional) missions so that you have some new experiences on your second play through. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom