I answered with "I like them equally" but realized that was a lie as soon as I clicked it. I love both but Mass Effect resonated with me on a level that Dragon Age simply did not, despite being fantastic. Maybe it was because they're with you across all three games, but I cared far more for the characters in Mass Effect.
I don't know, I'm the opposite as well. Maybe I'm just not as into shooters, but I found Dragon Age to play better for me. Mass Effect was fun to play, but the standard game-play was pretty much 'cover, shoot, move forward, cover, shoot, move forward'. I also felt like my Shepard had to do everything. Maybe I wasn't using my squad very well, but no matter what class I had for Shepard, I felt like I contributed far more than anyone else (besides Miranda in 2, because she can do everything).Originally Posted by Skyblade
In Dragon Age, my tank is essential, and my mages help me survive. Everyone seems like an integral addition to the team. I never had a real complaint about the mechanics, besides the fact that tactics were dumbed down quite a lot in Inquisition, which irked me.
I'm not digging the gameplay in either much to be honest. Playing them for the story and characters, as I do with most games
Origins combat is pretty slow, I have to admit. It becomes really fast-paced in Dragon Age II, before finding a middle ground in Inquisition.
I've only really played Mass Effect because DA just never really interested me, and trying to find a good Sci-Fi RPG is a rare feat. I still need to get around to playing ME3 which I'll do eventually. I just hope they did more with the gameplay from ME2 as I found the game to be a downgrade from ME1.
I'm not sure if I'll ever get around to DA because it's not really my kind of thing.
True beauty exists in things that last only for a moment.
Current Mood: And it's been a long December and there's reason to believe. Maybe this year will be better than the last. I can't remember all the times I tried to tell myself. To hold on to these moments as they pass...
ME2 isn't even the best ME. It's actually the worst of the three, although the first and last half hours of 3 made a damn strong effort at the claim.ME2 was a much more enjoyable experience for me than DA:O. They're both great games but Origins is not better than ME2.
Origins is the best implementation of the old BG style isometric game since we moved out of isometric viewpoints. It's vast, detailed, the combat is enjoyable and requires tactical thought, and is filled with great characters who have coherent motivations.
Mass Effect 2 is a pretty mediocre cover shooter in a very good setting with characters that range from 'Greatest Ever' in Mordin Solus to 'You've got to be kidding me' Morinth to 'I actually forgot he existed until I was checking Mordin's spelling and saw Jacob mentioned'. But that's about it. Mass Effect 1 is the best of the three. 3 is a much better implementation of most of what 2 did. 2 is just... there.
Your opinion on this is so different to what pretty much everyone thinks that I feel like you should be studied in a lab. I have no response other than to say subjectivity is a hell of a thing.ME2 isn't even the best ME. It's actually the worst of the three, although the first and last half hours of 3 made a damn strong effort at the claim.ME2 was a much more enjoyable experience for me than DA:O. They're both great games but Origins is not better than ME2.
Origins is the best implementation of the old BG style isometric game since we moved out of isometric viewpoints. It's vast, detailed, the combat is enjoyable and requires tactical thought, and is filled with great characters who have coherent motivations.
Mass Effect 2 is a pretty mediocre cover shooter in a very good setting with characters that range from 'Greatest Ever' in Mordin Solus to 'You've got to be kidding me' Morinth to 'I actually forgot he existed until I was checking Mordin's spelling and saw Jacob mentioned'. But that's about it. Mass Effect 1 is the best of the three. 3 is a much better implementation of most of what 2 did. 2 is just... there.
I also agree with the notion that ME1 is more fun to play than ME2. The series movement to heavy cover-based shooter was my biggest disappointment.
Anyway I have only played DA:O, compared to all 3 MEs, so I wouldn't want to lay down my vote at this stage.
There's a dedicated group of about 20 people who really don't like ME2. They stand in opposition to the rest of the world which considers ME2 one of the greatest games of all time.Your opinion on this is so different to what pretty much everyone thinks that I feel like you should be studied in a lab. I have no response other than to say subjectivity is a hell of a thing.ME2 isn't even the best ME. It's actually the worst of the three, although the first and last half hours of 3 made a damn strong effort at the claim.ME2 was a much more enjoyable experience for me than DA:O. They're both great games but Origins is not better than ME2.
Origins is the best implementation of the old BG style isometric game since we moved out of isometric viewpoints. It's vast, detailed, the combat is enjoyable and requires tactical thought, and is filled with great characters who have coherent motivations.
Mass Effect 2 is a pretty mediocre cover shooter in a very good setting with characters that range from 'Greatest Ever' in Mordin Solus to 'You've got to be kidding me' Morinth to 'I actually forgot he existed until I was checking Mordin's spelling and saw Jacob mentioned'. But that's about it. Mass Effect 1 is the best of the three. 3 is a much better implementation of most of what 2 did. 2 is just... there.
Don't ask me why. I played the ME Trilogy for the first time end of 2014, back-to-back and ME2 was as amazing as everyone said. I remember originally thinking "I hear so much about 2 and 3, but no one ever talks about ME1 anymore." Yeah, there's a reason for that. It's not a very good game compared to its sequels.
ME2 is a very good game, but it isn't without flaws. You get some of your companions rather late, when you're already used to using Miranda, Garrus and Miranda. Seriously, Miranda is legendary in this game. You get Legion way too late to be of any real use, and even the squadmates you get in the second wave (Tali, Samara, Thane) fill more niche roles, as opposed to the versatile Miranda.
Having said that, I do like the squad you get in ME2, and they are fantastic people. I wished one of the ME2 squadmates replaced James Vega in ME3; he was so... vanilla.
ME3 is definitely better than ME2 in everything gameplay related since it is basically an upgrade of the same system. It is hard to compare it back to ME1 since you could tell they were still figuring out the controls and the inventory system is so horrible. I did like that ME1 was more RPG than shooter and got more shooter as the series went on, but I loved the powers in the latter two games.
The story in ME1 is the best, bar none. It has the best villain, throws you into this new awesome universe to explore, and deals with issues like racism in new ways. ME2's story is just kind of there, and it's clear that the focus is more on relationships with team members and their individual stories than on stopping the Collectors. ME3 has an excellent story too and closes several threads in a very satisfactory way. People downgrade it for the last 30 minutes of the 'ending' but fail to see that the whole game is the 'ending' to this trilogy. Yes those last few minutes were stupid but that doesn't change the fact that you were able to see and influence satisfactory conclusions to the other major issues facing this galaxy.
As for Dragon Age, the gameplay in Origins is clunky and slow but I see the appeal. I may have a different opinion if I played something other than a tank Warrior. DA2 is too fast, and to compensate they threw in continuous spawning enemies which I think is poor design. I think DAI got it just right in terms of pacing but it does feel pretty easy to master if you have half a brain to level classes correctly. However, I really enjoy using my skills to kill stuff in different ways so the lack of difficulty isn't bothering me.
The stories of the three DA games are pretty equal. The companions in Origins and Inquisition are much better than DA2, though. I appreciate what they tried to do with the smaller scale in DA2 but they reused areas and maps so much that it got really tedious. I love the multiple vast areas to explore in DAI. Checking out a new beautiful area is probably my favorite thing.
Proud to be the Unofficial Secret Illegal Enforcer of Eyes on Final Fantasy!
When I grow up, I want to go toBovineTrump University! - Ralph Wiggum
The thing is that whilst ME2 did make some gameplay changes to improve over 1 (which was by no means a perfect game), in many ways it just went too far. Like, yeah, the inventory interface in ME1 was abominable, no question about it. The solution was not to remove the inventory. Overheating instead of ammo was an interesting mechanic that had both lore backing and impact on gameplay, so they stripped it entirely and hey reloading like old times. etc. etc.
ME2 ended up, to me, feeling like a boring and fairly generic game that happened to be in a setting I like. ME1, for all its flaws, ended up being something I really remember, thoroughly enjoyed, and have replayed since more than once.
tumblr_m3o0c827ch1qmiqzl.jpg
While I can agree that ME1's inventory system is in a battle to the death with Xenoblade Chronicles version for the title of worst inventory system in a AAA title last gen and that the Mako sections could be better; the gameplay in ME2 was just so streamlined and dumbed down compared to what ME1 had to offer. I missed actually customizing my party with different gear and having to make actual hard choices for skill upgrades since there was not enough levels to max out everything like ME2 comes close to doing. More importantly, I appreciate that ME1 had a more organic structure to gameplay as opposed to the Hollywood style no-brainer set up in ME2.
In ME1 I could be walking through a hallway on the Citadel, a hallway I cross a dozen times and then suddenly get jumped by Saren's mercenaries which catch me off guard like an honest to goodness ambush would work. In ME2, I would walk into a room, notice that the room is large and filled with plenty of things to use as cover and know immediately that I was going to be attacked. It made combat pretty predictable and boring and it seriously took me out of the moment in the Collector's Ship scenario when the whole damn dungeon was set up this way.
Likewise, ME2's plot was pretty much, "Shepherd got resurrected by Cerberus to investigate and stop the Collectors. Build a rag tag group of people and stop them". There is no story beyond that, and while the actual character stories are pretty damn good, the cast is still hit or miss for me. I was especially bummed about losing my favorite character from ME1 in the form of Wrex and even more disappointed in his lousy replacement on the team. Likewise, getting rid of boring old Kaiden (unless you killed him like I did) to replace him with his black copy in the form of Jacob wasn't exactly a boon for the game. Of anything, Mordin and Tali pretty much had to carry the whole character story part of ME2 for me.
This is not to say ME2 was a bad game, but I feel it's hype is certainly misleading to the overall experience, especially when I was expecting more of what ME1 brought which was exploring an interesting Sci-Fi universe.
True beauty exists in things that last only for a moment.
Current Mood: And it's been a long December and there's reason to believe. Maybe this year will be better than the last. I can't remember all the times I tried to tell myself. To hold on to these moments as they pass...
Tali died on the Suicide Mission and I didn't even notice until way after I beat ME2. That's how importantshe was to me.
The Internet's obsession with here has always perplexed me.
Wrex was pretty much the only good character in ME1, thatI can agree with. Grunt isn't nearly as interesting but Grunt is one of 12 squadmates. His lackluster character means very little because Mordin, Jack, Miranda, Zaeed, Thane, Legion and Garrus were there.
The plot of ME2 is learning about the Reapers. They're no loger just a race of hostile aliens looking to kill everyone because...uh...... Now they actually have some real substance to them. Sovereign is incredibly overrated, Harbinger reveals more in hsi battle dialogue than Sov ever did. Also Shepard is inexplicably racist against Sovereign, denouncing him as just a machine. That really bugged me seeing as I am pro-geth.
Plus, the whole "what to do with Cerberus?" thing was a great element of the plot, too. Choosing whether to work with them willingly or not, learning more about the organization from TIM, EDI, Miranda and so-on. They really came a longway since that random sidequest group in ME1.
Last edited by Forsaken Lover; 03-11-2016 at 12:29 PM.
The Reapers were better as an unknown.
BioWare made the classic mistake of stating Cthulhu.
With Sovereign, the Reapers were awe-inspiring. They were great, vast, beyond us in scope and presence. They were something we could not even necessarily comprehend or combat.
As a machine on a quest to save life, they were boring, pathetic, and using incredibly faulty logic. The majesty and mystique was ripped away from them.
Our imaginations trying to grapple with the unknown and unknowable produces far more interesting results than a boring, known quantity.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
