naznatips said:
Fame_Mcswagg said:
--OkeyDokey-- said:
Fame_Mcswagg said:
--OkeyDokey-- said:
leatherhat said:
The first one was much better, more memorable characters and better battle system. |
BAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Are you being serious?
|
I agree with him so far granted I only put in about 5 hours, so far I prefer the first one
|
So tell me, how is the battle system better in the first one and how are the characters more memorable?
|
well for starters I play as an adept, in ME2 you can cast the powers far to fast, So far I just been running through blasting people with warp meeting no resistance it seems. it made the battle system far to easy. Maybe I will get used to the weapon system but it seems sorta lame to me right now, It just doesn't feel like an rpg meaning you don't see how much expirenece you earn after every enemy defeated, like the first one. As far as characters I dont really know how I feel about the ones in part 2 yet the story just feel weaker for some reason. There are other things but thats the main reason why I prefer the first one so far. That all could change when I put more time in though.
|
Adepts are pretty much useless on anything above normal, where all the enemies have shields/barriers/regenerating health. Infiltrator is about the only class that can beat the game on Insane.
|
I hear Sentinels are even better for Insane. Haven't tried the class yet, though.
What difficulty are you playing on Fame_Mcswagg? I haven't played an Adept yet, but based on my experience with other classes I'd bet Adepts are fairly weak. If you're steamrolling through the game, my bet is it's a function of your difficulty setting and not your class.
Also, don't try and pretend the original Mass Effect was more balanced. I just finished replaying it earlier this evening, and it isn't even remotely balanced. The mechanics were definitely more complex and ambitious than Mass Effect 2's; too bad many of those mechanics just didn't work very well.
