Poll: Poll: Mass Effect 1 or 2? Which do you like better?

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

For those who have played both games, which did you prefer out of the two and why?

For me, it was kind of a toss up. I love both games, but each has something a little better than the other. For example, ME2's gameplay is better than ME1's through improved controls and squad commands. Meanwhile, ME1 had a slightly better story and antagonist.

So overall, which of the two games do you prefer? And how anticipated are you for ME3 which is currently in development?

If you didn't like the games, please explain why.

Mass Effect 2 only bloomed on the tougher difficulties, forming a perfect team with counters to every armor type was never really required on normal difficulty, which was still challenging if played less tactically.

As much as I love the entire series so far, Mass Effect 2 makes the original feel like a piece of crap. I always say people must play the original to get the most out of it, but part of me feels bad because I would hate to have to give up the gameplay of the second game.

Mass Effect 1, I liked all the extra powers. I thought playing as a biotic in I was better than II. I also enjoyed the Mako sections.

One Without a doubt, two was a gigantic disappointment. The story in two was terrible imo, not to mention the dumbest best fight ever...

My bad double post

I also enjoyed the Mako sections.

Me too. For some reason though everyone else seems to hate them. I don't know why. The only reason I can think of is that the shields take an incredibly long time to recharge. Which in itself isn't all that bad.

I'm torn on the individual aspects of the games. I actually kind of liked the Mako sequences in ME1 whereas I hated the probe-mining in ME2. I also actually preferred a cluttered inventory of goodies and actually getting exp from killing enemies. Also, I liked the old Citadel more. Essentially, gameplay-wise I prefer ME1.

However, story and writing is very important to me and the second game was much more fulfilling in that regard. The Reapers remained a rather vague threat in the first and you don't actually fight Harbinger yourself, so the whole thing felt like winning a small battle in anticipation of a huge war. ME2, on the other hand, felt like the actual beginning of that war.

I also preferred the variety in characters in ME2 compared to ME1. Garrus and Wrex were the only characters I liked in the first and I genuinely delighted at seeing them again, but the overall cast of 2 is more varied and interesting, plus it has Garrus again (yay! They better bring him back for ME3). Sure, there's overlap and Jack makes me think of that Penny Arcade comic about PoP:WW where the Prince says:"I am filled with generic rage! Grr!", but I felt more like I had a crew rather than a party of strangers.

I guess, in the end, ME2 wins out for me. Well, that's taken me several months to figure out. Thanks for hearing me out, doc. Same time next week?

EDIT: What does "TIM FTW" mean in the poll options? I mean, I know what FTW means, but who/what is TIM?

Mass Effect 2 was such a gigantic improvement over the first that I'm not sure I'll ever be able to play ME1 ever again. I agree that the overarching storyline in ME2 was kind of weak, but so was the big story in the first one; the quality of the story comes from the party members and their side quests, which were uniformly better in the later game. I loved the first Mass Effect, but the shooting and general gameplay in the sequel was substantially better.

ME 2's combat was outstanding whereas ME 1's was dismal. Still, I'm going to say I like ME 1 more because ME 2 severly fucked over the main plot which was what I liked most about ME 1. I am very angry about it and don't understand why more people aren't.

ME 2's combat was outstanding whereas ME 1's was dismal. Still, I'm going to say I like ME 1 more because ME 2 severly fucked over the main plot which was what I liked most about ME 1. I am very angry about it and don't understand why more people aren't.

I don't understand why there are people angry about ME2's main plot. Personally, I liked it.

Granted, it did leave some loose threads by the time the game was over, but isn't that what ME3 is for?

EDIT: Sorry didn't see the link. Currently reading through it.

I am tempted to make a thread about the two Mass Effects...anyway, I'll try and keep this straightforward...

Mass Effect one was the one I prefer. The Galaxy seemed much more alive. I am referring to the fact that while there may be millions of items and, clutter was something that was inevitable, every piece of equipment was a product by a larger manufacturer. It's a little thing that makes the tedium of clogged inventory somewhat worth it. Same with the armors, biotic enhancers and, omni-tools. Surveying planets took seconds from orbit and the planets that you could explore offered much to be found even if controlling the Mako was a bit difficult at times. The level cap is 60.

One of the bigger problems I'm having with Mass Effect 2 is how when you activate a weapon mod. I activate the ability which lets me use warp ammo and there seems to be no way to turn it off other than switching out guns completely...I assume...I haven't tried that yet. Weapon modding is a strange subject though because in 1, modifying weapons is more precise. In 2, Weapon modding is permanent and, once you mod one weapon type, it upgrades all weapons in that slot as opposed to one particular weapon.

Anyway: My favorite is still the original. I really hope they make the third more like the first but based on the reveal trailer, it looks like it's going to be even less like the first and more of an action game with a smaller RPG bit. It's bad enough that they took away our unlimited ammunition even though it was established in the first game and book that ammunition consumption is a non-issue. Yet here comes EA with their heat-sinks: a technology not mentioned in the first game or book. I haven't read any of the other books so maybe they were mentioned. The only time in the first game the heat sinks were mentioned was when referencing The Normandy's stealth system.

Anyway: I've already given my answer. I'll stop bitching now.

I prefer the original for one reason and one reason alone: the story is soooo much better. There's so much about the story in ME2 that just doesn't make any sense and is completely ignored by everyone. This wouldn't be that bad, but the whole reason I play RPGs is for the story.

Thus, ME1 is definitely the superior game.

That said, ME2's combat and overall gameplay was significantly improved over the original (especially the removal of the randomly generated bullshit Mako driving planets).

I think both are great in different areas. Mass Effect 1 had a better main story than Mass Effect 2, but Mass Effect 2 had better side missions and gameplay, in my opinion. The crews I think were pretty similar, just Mass Effect 2 had more companions to choose from. I really wish that they didn't take away the elevator loading scenes from ME1 for ME2, I felt that the loading screens took away from some of the immersion of ME2. Also some of the conversations were interesting. The mako sections of ME1 and the mineral scanning of ME2 were both 'meh', I could care less for either, neither was complete crap, but they were nowhere near the best parts of the game.

If Mass Effect 3 can take the good from ME1&2 and put them together, it will definitely be one of the best games I have ever played. The game is a year away and I am already anxious to play it.

I love them both, but I got a bit disapointed at ME2 since it took focus on being a shooter rather than a shooter RPG.

I just love both of them to bits and want to have their little human-reaper babies.

Mass Effect 1, definitely. I thought the combat had taken a nosedive in the second one, and I liked the story more.

Both for me, each one had elements it did better than the other one. When they confirmed it was a trilogy (before the recent "announcement") I couldn't wait to see where they would take it. So far I'm just generally a fan of the series and setting.

I enjoyed Mass Effect 1 better, but it still needed work.

Mass Effect 2 managed to do something amazing though. It managed to fix all of the problems of Mass Effect 1, but ruin all of the things that made Mass Effect 1 any good. Mass Effect 1 had a great story and strong RPG core with combat that was inconsistent and a little too fluid (infinite ammo=pshaw). Mass Effect 2 had great combat that felt like a true shooter, but scrapped all semblance of a solid RPG and had a POS story anyone could've thrown together in 5 minutes. The visual disparity between the two is also interesting. Mass Effect 1 had much better and more varied visuals than ME2, but ME2 had crisper graphics with a better camera sensitivity. ME2's environments were ugly as butt though.

Why, Bioware, why? So much potential.


I also enjoyed the Mako sections.

Me too. For some reason though everyone else seems to hate them. I don't know why. The only reason I can think of is that the shields take an incredibly long time to recharge. Which in itself isn't all that bad.

The only thing I didn't like about the Mako sections and the biggest complaints I've heard are that every planet is very similar (wide open spaces, no vegetation, inconsequential wild life) Most of the planets felt like pallet swaps of every other place you'd been. Personally I was very disappointed that they removed the Mako and took all the immersion of exploring planets that came with it.

OT: I liked that the feeling of being a lone ship in the vast universe that the first game captured, rather than going from set piece to set piece in the second.

I know that this is going to make me seem sallow...but I liked ME2 better just for the fact I could romance Tali...yeah, I know that makes me sound really sallow...but I don't care. Besides that the games where pretty much the same, that is to say pretty damn good.

Both games have their flaws but Mass Effect 2 is still superior. I love both games though.

When you look back at a memory of playing the game, and you have difficulty remembering which installment produced it, you've got two equally good games within a great franchise. Both a little different, but both good. IE: Gears of War (1 & 2), Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect, Fallout (1 & 2), etc.

For me it's Mass effect 1. ME2 had too much action and it wasn't even hard so it got a little boring at times. I absolutley hated the mining ME2, and I didn't like the fact that ME2 had less RPG elements. Both are great, but I prefer ME1

I didn't like ME2's gameplay as much as ME's. It felt like the classes were over simplified, and the combat system just felt boring. I don't mind cover based combat, but there should have been more variation to mix things up. For me, there were really only a few missions that stood out because of gameplay, the most memorable one being Garrus' recruitment, I also enjoyed the derelict Reaper though.

Both games however suffer terribly from the fact that one weapon was significantly dominate over all others. In the original pistols were godlike, in ME2 it was the sniper rifle. Which really cuts down on the games replay value.

The first one felt MORE like an RPG, while the second streamlined things to the point of ridiculousness. That being said, I preferred 2, though 1 had a better story, 2 had great gameplay, some interesting characters and a much deeper sense that your actions would actually affect points in the game.

Well, I've completed ME2 numerous times (I think about 15-30 times, with most of them being on the hardest difficulty) the only thing I didn't like was that my favourite class became less useful on difficulties past normal (Biotics, due to everything having armour that prevented them being affected by the powers)

I've yet to complete ME1, I got bored during the first mission because combat was so... "Ehhh..." I may get round to completing it for the story and the fact I need some ME1 + ME2 saves on this hard drive...

Being a soldier is probably more fun in mass effect 2 than it is in 1, but being a biotic or tech person is vastly less fun. The "killing everything with your assault rifle" gameplay got a lot better, but powers are extremely limited in number and not as useful.

who/what is TIM?

TiM == The Illusive Man

I'm glad ME2 wasn't JUST more of ME1. They weren't afraid to change a lot of things, which goes a long way to keeping sequels from becoming stagnant. That being said I love ME1 for what it is... I'm glad they both exist, but I do think ME2 moves forward in some fantastic ways

I liked the inventory system of the first,especially when you perfected your weapon strategy for every kind of enemy.Also,the second installement didn't allow me to make a shotgun that overheated in one shot,but shot a comically overpowered explosive round.

However,The second's polish and better crew interaction easily takes the cake in that category.
Basically,I would have prefered ME2 with ME1 inventory.Maybe a cleaner inventory,and faster to use(I'm looking at you,"turn to omnigel" button è.é ),but an inventory nonetheless.

Second one. For what it lacked in main story (compared to the first) it more than made up with parallel storylines. Each character in your crew feels real and (post)human (i.e. symapthizable). Combine that woth tighter combat, and you have a winner. Still, I'm a little sad at absence of the accuracy-leveling from the first game. I still remember Eden Prime, and how my assault rifle couldn't shoot straight and the sniper rifle could only be less stable if you were lying on a water bed that happened to be in the ocean. During a tsunami.

Samuel Bloom:
Still, I'm a little sad at absence of the accuracy-leveling from the first game. I still remember Eden Prime, and how my assault rifle couldn't shoot straight and the sniper rifle could only be less stable if you were lying on a water bed that happened to be in the ocean. During a tsunami.

But that made absolutely no sense. That's why they removed it. You're an elite N7 operative with the highest levels of training the Alliance military can provide. I'd THINK they could teach someone to hold their gun a little steadier than a guy having a siezure.

OT: I liked the second one better. ME1 definitely had points in its favor, such as a more interesting antagonist, as well as the main plot being more of a mystery then you knowing exactly what you're working towards from the beginning. But ME2 just had a lot more to offer for me. The streamlined points system, lack of gun/persuasion skills, and much more tactical combat gameplay wise. As well as getting rid of unavoidable instant kills. Tell me it wasn't frustrating having the Thresher Maw burst up under the Mako and oneshot you. Or rockets exploding you THROUGH cover.

Story wise, I felt the characters were much deeper in the second one in MOST cases. Your crew members had much more to say, with much more in-mission input as well as on-ship dialogue. The personal missions for each character went far beyond "grab my armor". Many of them were very emotional and thought-provoking experiences (I'm looking at you Tali and Mordin). In 1 your crewmates felt very dull and flat. Especially Garrus. I don't know why he had such a following, he barely had ANYTHING to say. When 2 rolled around though he became my favorite squadmate by FAR though.

In side missions, I felt the ones in 2 were miles ahead. Each mission had a unique introduction and feeling of importance. Conversely in 1, the side missions felt like "go to generic base A, kill everyone, maybe persuade/kill one important guy, done". They all felt very rushed and trivial, like it wouldn't really have any impact on anything. And in most cases, it didn't. The environments were very copy-paste in 1, I can think of maybe 3 different types of base on side missions, and only 1 type of ship. The landing on planets COULD have helped immersion greatly if the planets didn't feel so... lifeless. I mean obviously a volcanic planet is going to have no life on it, but it could feel more vibrant. More... volcanic. Lava flows and explosions and such. As it was, every planet just felt like a recolor.

The main-hub environments were also far better designed in 2 as well. The aesthetics of the Zakera Ward could have used some work, but the random conversations people would have as opposed to just standing around being little more than statues made them feel much more vibrant and believable. Almost every character you speak to has far better quality voice acting and dialogue, such that they feel like a real person with a real personality rather than just saying what's needed in dull tones to advance the conversation.

All in all, I believe 2 was much better polished and created. The main plot could have used a bit of work for sure, but in the face of all those advantages, I'd still rather play it 20 times over ME1.

Despite the two big reveals being completely F'ing retarded in my opinion, and the equally retarded switch to ammo, I think two is better. They managed to make Tali a LOT more human (you know what I mean) without it feeling awkward too, that was impressive.

Both. I feel that you can't really judge them separately. Well, I mean, you can, I guess, but the point is that they fit together in such a way that I feel like they form a whole even greater than the sum of their already amazing parts.

And, yes, I know; I couldn't be fangirling over this series harder if I tried.

They were both pretty awesome

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked