By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - IGN editors share their take on Mass Effect 2.

ME2 deserves every amount of praise its getting just because its such a well balanced game, One of my all time favorite ever!!!

And I agree with one of the editors about "jack"

When I started to see the previews of this particular character I completely hated her and thought to kill the character off an way I could

But then when I played her loyalty mission, I got to know a little more about her life, which made me actually like her

Its such a remarkable thing ....when a story is able to accomplish that!!



Around the Network
--OkeyDokey-- 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.

Well, if you're only 5 hours in you probably haven't even got Jack and Grunt yet. And everyone else seems to be complaining that Adepts are weak compared to ME1.

no not really its the exact opposite. They are way strong in ME2. What difference would it make if I got those characters. I didn't comment on the characters being better in ME1. I said the story seemed weaker and I prefered the old battle system.....



I'm not martin luther king. I don't have a dream. I have a plan

Sell a man a fish you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish you just ruined a perfect business opportunity.

We didn't emerge out of the stone age because we ran out of stones. Its time to be proactive not reactive.

selnor 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.

Try Insane. But prepare to cry for difficulty. LOL.

Also Cahracters are much more embelishing in ME2. They feel more real. Less Robotic. Just wait till you meet certain characters. Awesomes the word. Also I love the fact that the stats are hidden. Why should we see countless stats when the 360 can work it out behind the scenes. Stats only ever existed because thats how Table top RPG's had to show attack and defense ( long before computers were around ). That wasnt even why people played tabletop RPG's. It was the actual Role Playing and decisions that Tabletop RPG's were played for. Not countless stats of needless items.

yea I hear insanity is really hard. the stat thing just isn't my cup of tea. Im not saying its a bad game by any means just that I prefered the first one.



I'm not martin luther king. I don't have a dream. I have a plan

Sell a man a fish you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish you just ruined a perfect business opportunity.

We didn't emerge out of the stone age because we ran out of stones. Its time to be proactive not reactive.

naznatips said:
selnor said:
leatherhat said:
The first one was much better, more memorable characters and better battle system. And am I the only one who finds the plot just decent? Everyone praises it but I don't feel like its any better than other story driven games, good, but not mind blowing.


The plots amazing. IT's not just the underlying main plot. But the entire univers plot itself that is so well percieved. I cant think of any game close to it.

What? How is it amazing? And what the hell does "well percieved" mean? That doesn't make sense. The plot was serviceable, but it was just a stall to the 3rd game, and an excuse to make some more universe changing decisions on the planets you visited. *spoilers* At the end of the game nothing at all has changed from the end of Mass Effect. Mass Effect 2 is absolutely incredible game in almost every respect.... plot is not one of them. Not at all.

Mass Effect 2 is one my favorite games of all time, but I agree that the main underlying plot was better in the first one. The storytelling in Mass Effect 2 is still top-notch, but if you take a step back and look at what really happens in the game it just doesn't feel as satisfying.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it was just a stall, however. The game answers some questions which were left unanswered at the end of the first game - such as the fate of the enslaved Protheans - and explores the motivations behind the Reapers' actions. There's also no way of knowing how important the plot will be to the overall trilogy. It's possible that there were critical plot elements introduced, but you won't realize it until you play the third game. It's also possible that after playing the third game, Mass Effect 2 will feel like a glorified side story.

That's just what happens when you're the middle of a trilogy. The first is the hook, the second is the setup, and the third is the payoff. It's generally difficult to judge the quality of the setup until you know the payoff.



Lyrikalstylez said:

ME2 deserves every amount of praise its getting just because its such a well balanced game, One of my all time favorite ever!!!

And I agree with one of the editors about "jack"

When I started to see the previews of this particular character I completely hated her and thought to kill the character off an way I could

But then when I played her loyalty mission, I got to know a little more about her life, which made me actually like her

Its such a remarkable thing ....when a story is able to accomplish that!!

I still disliked her....

First game the only two characters I liked were Wrex and Tali. They never left my party, regardless of what class I played. This game I added Thane, Mordin, Grunt, and *spoiler 10th character* Legion to that list, more than doubling the amount of characters I liked from the first game, so a pretty nice progression. Overall though even the bad characters were better than the majority of ME's cast.  That said, Garrus is still a pussy who does whatever you tell him like a whipped dog.



Around the Network
Ping_ii said:
Ijesus kung fu magic said:
Ping_ii said:
Apparently GTA4 is better than both since they gave it a 10......

What does that have to do with anything?

Isnt this scores what started this ruccus? ME2 9.6 U2 9.5 and fanboys started rampaging because of the .1 difference then comes IGN adding more fuel to the fire saying ME2 is better than U2 "deal with it fanboys" with the .1 difference.

Still has nothing to do with anything in this thread......



N64 is the ONLY console of the fifth generation!!!

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.



naznatips said:
Lyrikalstylez said:

ME2 deserves every amount of praise its getting just because its such a well balanced game, One of my all time favorite ever!!!

And I agree with one of the editors about "jack"

When I started to see the previews of this particular character I completely hated her and thought to kill the character off an way I could

But then when I played her loyalty mission, I got to know a little more about her life, which made me actually like her

Its such a remarkable thing ....when a story is able to accomplish that!!

I still disliked her....

First game the only two characters I liked were Wrex and Tali. They never left my party, regardless of what class I played. This game I added Thane, Mordin, Grunt, and *spoiler 10th character* Legion to that list, more than doubling the amount of characters I liked from the first game, so a pretty nice progression. Overall though even the bad characters were better than the majority of ME's cast.  That said, Garrus is still a pussy who does whatever you tell him like a whipped dog.

You don't like any of the Asari's? :(



If we're talking about dislikes, i didn't like working for cerberus. I really hated them in the first one, and the story in ME1 also played as if they were just up to no good and basicly made you think they were some sort of neo nazis trying to make human the surperior race.

And then, bam, second one its all about them and their lame ass illusive man. Wtf, are we seriously taking orders from some sort of 80's comic book villain.

But the story overall was great. And the new characters were alot better than the first one since there were more, better background stories and "bagage".



Im glad they atleast attemted to justify their score but the comments from the previous article were a bit unnecessary. But ME2 is that awesome! Like i said before EVERYONE needs to play this game!



Long Live SHIO!