The first one is more of an RPG than a shooter. The movement isn't much different, but the shooting and all that changed a lot in the sequel. They even added reloading in 2 when in the first guns just had to cool down if you shot too much, makes sense since they aren't firing bullets, but plasma or whatever. They blamed it on heat, saying the clip absorbed the heat and you could easily eject it and keep firing. Whatever, I still like not having to worry about ammo.
Comment has been collapsed.
My feelings too. I like to "spray and pray" but the ME2 ammo system asked me to conserve my ammo. I felt that, plus the cover based turn taking really slowed things down a lot more than the quick reloads could speed it up... particularly if you put on weapon mods that let you fire virtually forever without heat buildup.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes. These games are fantastic pieces of art. Great story-telling, wonderful artwork, and exciting gameplay.
Comment has been collapsed.
ME1: Health requires medkits to heal, shields are large but slow to recover, unlimited ammo but some cooldown time, no gun variety. Plot is story driven with fewer characters.
ME2: Cover based shooter so health/shields are very small but rapidly recover after a few seconds, finite ammo but quick reloads, better gun variety but a distinct lack of upgrades. Plot is character driven with fewer core story missions.
ME3: Origin exclusive. Still a cover based shooter. Much better gun variety. Plot feels more like ME1, but there's no real ending. Tacked on multiplayer required to get the "good" ending.
Personally, I much prefer old-school shooters where I can soak a few hits and rambo my way through a room instead of cover based combat where I have to take turns exchanging volleys and conserving my limited ammo. It made ME2 and ME3 feel slower for me. But they were undeniably better polished in just about every other way.
That said, yes they are worth getting if you don't mind a trilogy ending after 2.9 games. As third-person action games, I don't think motion sickness will be as great an issue as it would be with a first-person game.
Comment has been collapsed.
20 Comments - Last post 7 seconds ago by Soyalp104
164 Comments - Last post 16 minutes ago by DVDVD
2,243 Comments - Last post 21 minutes ago by eeev
15,655 Comments - Last post 30 minutes ago by Aradiel
16 Comments - Last post 32 minutes ago by satanclauss
828 Comments - Last post 48 minutes ago by MeguminShiro
241 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Foxhack
51 Comments - Last post 1 second ago by MoonQueen3
126 Comments - Last post 2 minutes ago by Swordoffury
24 Comments - Last post 8 minutes ago by RePlayBe
15,393 Comments - Last post 10 minutes ago by Adzik
2,388 Comments - Last post 25 minutes ago by Markox21
7,288 Comments - Last post 29 minutes ago by yamaraus
23 Comments - Last post 29 minutes ago by hsunkuei
Bought the Mass Effect Collection earlier today. Since then, I've had a chance to try the Mass Effect 2 demo (why is it games I want always come up at inconvenient times?). It looks great-though I think I stink at it.
My question is, does the first Mass Effect game play like the second one? Are the controls similar? Does movement "feel" similar?
I'm prone to motion sickness. The 2nd one looks ok, but the 1st doesn't have a demo for me to check. What's everyone think?
Comment has been collapsed.