172 réponses à ce sujet

[Tenacious-D]

In my opinion, the reason why ME1 is the best in the series is because it had the longest development time and the best devs/writers working on it.

ME3 was not finished, anyone who read the leaked script knows that. Omega / Illium sections aren't there, none of the vehicular sections are there, there's tons of auto dialogue, no investigative/neutral option, intro is poorly done. I could go on, but seriously, the game needed a good year to year and a half more of development time.

[Acidrain92]

Spaghetti_Ninja wrote...

Acidrain92 wrote...

Euno17 wrote...

How many 'exciting' or 'thrilling' moments did you have in ME-3? I had a 'few' but it was far between. Perhaps Tali's mission. Hmm, The Battle for Earth wasn't even that great, I admit for a few moments during the inital 'victory-fleet' scene I felt awesome but other then that . . .

Im sorry, what? Fighting on Palaven's moon and going up against the Brutes for the first time as Reapers thunder in the background and a bleeding Palaven overlooks everything? Finding the ruins in Tuchanka, the giant thresher maw taking down the reaper as it tries to crush you? The mission at the monestary and fighting the banshees for the first time, which is seriously intense and creepy. Finally bringing peace between the Geth and the Quarians/CURING THE GENOPHAGE. BRINGING TALI BACK TO HER HOME PLANET???

I agree with this 100%. People probably like ME1 because it of sentimentality, but objectively, the two sequels have it beat in every department, including story and ending.

In ME1, you stand around motionless listening to Tali droning on about the fleet and what Quarians are.

In ME2, you actually visit her people and have an adventure.

In ME3, you attempt to take back their planet and decide the fate of their entire species AND that of the Geth.

agreed. Im sure there would be more people on ME3's side story wise if the ending wasnt such crap. It really carried all of the drama from ME1 and 2 and brought it to an epic culmination. Remember talking to Wrex in ME1 about how devistated he was about the Genophage? And now he is leading the Krogan people to actually cure it! When the Genophage was finally cured...I felt amazed. that was such an amazing moment for me. Same with Rannoch. I was so excited to take Tali with me on that first mission. Best feelings I have ever had while playing a videogame.

[Edje Edgar]

Acidrain92 wrote...

Spaghetti_Ninja wrote...

Acidrain92 wrote...

Euno17 wrote...

How many 'exciting' or 'thrilling' moments did you have in ME-3? I had a 'few' but it was far between. Perhaps Tali's mission. Hmm, The Battle for Earth wasn't even that great, I admit for a few moments during the inital 'victory-fleet' scene I felt awesome but other then that . . .

Im sorry, what? Fighting on Palaven's moon and going up against the Brutes for the first time as Reapers thunder in the background and a bleeding Palaven overlooks everything? Finding the ruins in Tuchanka, the giant thresher maw taking down the reaper as it tries to crush you? The mission at the monestary and fighting the banshees for the first time, which is seriously intense and creepy. Finally bringing peace between the Geth and the Quarians/CURING THE GENOPHAGE. BRINGING TALI BACK TO HER HOME PLANET???

I agree with this 100%. People probably like ME1 because it of sentimentality, but objectively, the two sequels have it beat in every department, including story and ending.

In ME1, you stand around motionless listening to Tali droning on about the fleet and what Quarians are.

In ME2, you actually visit her people and have an adventure.

In ME3, you attempt to take back their planet and decide the fate of their entire species AND that of the Geth.

agreed. Im sure there would be more people on ME3's side story wise if the ending wasnt such crap. It really carried all of the drama from ME1 and 2 and brought it to an epic culmination. Remember talking to Wrex in ME1 about how devistated he was about the Genophage? And now he is leading the Krogan people to actually cure it! When the Genophage was finally cured...I felt amazed. that was such an amazing moment for me. Same with Rannoch. I was so excited to take Tali with me on that first mission. Best feelings I have ever had while playing a videogame.

Ye but we cared about that stuff BECAUSE of mass effect 1 or 2. ME3 didn't really add anything, just ended existing plots. So ye, great they ended 2 of the plots (I figured there'd be more, rachni and human/batarian conflict). But they ignored some others and messed up the overarching one, BAD.

[fchopin]

I love ME1, the ending is one of my favourites and the only ending i don’t skip by pressing Esc.

Good story that makes sense.

Modifié par fchopin, 30 mars 2012 - 09:30 .

[Authweight]

Mass Effect 1 just had something about it that the other games missed. If I had to guess what it was, it would be pacing. The characters in 2 were more interesting, but it just felt so weird running around doing random favors for your space buddies while people were dying out there. Mass Effect 1 had weird sidequests too, but it was much easier to simply skip them and play the real story. The scenes where your squad gathers together to talk about the last mission were a really nice way to move the story along and create some better character development.

[ZLurps]

secretagentbw wrote...

Does anyone feel that the graphics (with the characters especially) in ME1 & ME2 were better than they are in ME3? I remember playing ME1 and even my sisters who don't play video games were were impressed with the graphics. ME2 was pretty good as well, but for some reason the characters in ME3 seem especially fake to me. Particularly that reporter Diana Allers, but even the returning characters don't seem as realistic as they did in the original... Or maybe it was just because that was the first game?

I think it might overall design might have been more consistent in ME1. In ME3 there are scenes where squad mate iconic looks make them stand out like comic book characters fom otherwise plausible looking world, for example.

[ZLurps]

Authweight wrote...

Mass Effect 1 just had something about it that the other games missed. If I had to guess what it was, it would be pacing. The characters in 2 were more interesting, but it just felt so weird running around doing random favors for your space buddies while people were dying out there. Mass Effect 1 had weird sidequests too, but it was much easier to simply skip them and play the real story. The scenes where your squad gathers together to talk about the last mission were a really nice way to move the story along and create some better character development.

Sense of wonder for one and I think it actually didn't took as much influece from old sci-fi b-films and tv, but sci-fi literature. I also felt it was overall very idealistic, with some quite dark plots thrown in, like Garrus side mission. It made world feel very living.

I think a lot of it's feeling of exploration (not meaning Mako missions) came from that galaxy weren't human centric, but there was so much unknown things... Remember seeing The Citadel for the first time and party banter inside Normandy cockpit? Or watching Destiny Ascension passing from the wards? Council...

[Facialmatters]

To decide which is the best in storyline, don't look at the games in a vacuum. Imagine ME2's storyline with ME1 gameplay. That would be an absolute yawn. Like actually.

I like the overarching plot in ME1 - good pacing, twists (e.g. what is the conduit?), awesome ending, as everyone has said.

ME2 nailed it in the character detail/development department. Yet, you always had the feeling that it had silly and unfulfilled plot pacing. Is doing errands for your squadmates really a priority while colonies are abducted?

ME3... not sure what to think. TBH, dialogue have kinda dropped off in quality, especially at the beginning sequence, and there really wasn't any emotional attachment with meeting up with your old friends again (Chakwas' dialogue in particular), meeting the council... or the actual Reaper invasion which was extremely meh. Javik has some good lines, and thats about where ive gotten up to in the game. Hopefully it picks up. TBH, imagining this game in ME1 graphics/gameplay... nah.

[Daforth]

Lord Phoebus wrote...

My problem with ME1's story was that it followed the BioWare formula to the letter, linear start, visit several hubs, then have a linear slog through to the end, coupled with a plot twist around the start of the slog that was predictable from the start. I found ME1 really derivative of Bio's earlier stuff to the point of being lazy. I don't know if it's because after playing NWN (where that formula was used for the first three acts), KotOR and JE by the time ME came around I was tired of it. It just struck me as KotOR reset in a new IP. The bad gameplay didn't help either.

If you weren't familiar with BioWare's earlier stuff I could see how people would like it.

Khm, I am quite familiar with BW's earlier stuff as I played them except Jade Empire. And still I loved the ME1 story.
BTW, this logic makes ME3 story more dumber as what happeing there? Same as DA:O, there is Archdemon(Harbinger) with the army of Darkspawn(Reaper) about to destroy Ferelden(Galaxy), so what to do? Unite Ferelden(Galaxy), build an army - somehow resolve conflicts meanwhile (mage-templar/krogan-turian, werewolf-danish/geth-quarian). So I could say it  is basically the same. Does it matter? No. What matters, whether the game good or not. And ME1 was a frakking good game.

[ile_1979]

ZLurps wrote...

secretagentbw wrote...

Does anyone feel that the graphics (with the characters especially) in ME1 & ME2 were better than they are in ME3? I remember playing ME1 and even my sisters who don't play video games were were impressed with the graphics. ME2 was pretty good as well, but for some reason the characters in ME3 seem especially fake to me. Particularly that reporter Diana Allers, but even the returning characters don't seem as realistic as they did in the original... Or maybe it was just because that was the first game?

I think it might overall design might have been more consistent in ME1. In ME3 there are scenes where squad mate iconic looks make them stand out like comic book characters fom otherwise plausible looking world, for example.

I partially agree. Lower resolution models and textures in ME1 yes, but somehow matching. Overall pretty much everything from Shepard to environement seamed more alive even if less photo realistic. The overall art concept was also vastly superior but this can be a matter of personal prefferance. ME3 though, kinda pushes it. High resolution textures on low poly models is just a terrible match. And the NPC's and Shepard's faces often seam oddly jointed even swollen on occasions. The game does not benefit from higher resolution screens. ME2 was somewhere in the middle, still vasty superior then ME3 though. 

[Rogue1982]

BrownBrown wrote...

In my opinion, the reason why ME1 is the best in the series is because it had the longest development time and the best devs/writers working on it.

ME3 was not finished, anyone who read the leaked script knows that. Omega / Illium sections aren't there, none of the vehicular sections are there, there's tons of auto dialogue, no investigative/neutral option, intro is poorly done. I could go on, but seriously, the game needed a good year to year and a half more of development time.

very true

And to think the efforts were put to things like Multiplayer. I'm not saying it's bad or anything. I'm just saying Mass Effect was never primarily an MP series. 

Modifié par Rogue1982, 30 mars 2012 - 10:03 .

[DigitalAvatar]

Mass Effect 1 still holds the titles for best story arc, best RPG elements, best side-quests, best exploration (by far) and best skills system.
As for ending... Hard call. The final mission of Mass Effect 2 was exceptional. The ability to assign your squadmates to specific tasks was brilliant. The human reaper was corny though. Saren was far more awesome as a final boss.
I certainly find the end scene from Mass Effect 1 far more memorable, but perhaps that's because I only played ME2 a couple of time, whereas I must have played through ME1 a dozen times over.

[DigitalAvatar]

BrownBrown wrote...

In my opinion, the reason why ME1 is the best in the series is because it had the longest development time and the best devs/writers working on it.

ME3 was not finished, anyone who read the leaked script knows that. Omega / Illium sections aren't there, none of the vehicular sections are there, there's tons of auto dialogue, no investigative/neutral option, intro is poorly done. I could go on, but seriously, the game needed a good year to year and a half more of development time.

I concur. Mass Effect 3 was most definitely an unfinished product. So much potential. We would have waited until it was finished! Bloody rEApers.

[Petrikles]

Yeah, I remember the times of ME1 were many people were complaining about the obvious, obligatory plot twist. We didn´t have one in ME2, just some revelations (Collectors=Protheans, otoh the whole setting, working for Cerberus, was one giant plot twist from the very beginning), and I cannot shake the feeling that they tried to re-introduce the plot-twist in ME3 by bringing in the starchild-thing. Well... experiencing that, I now prefer again the plot-twist of the good old days...

Modifié par Kailord, 30 mars 2012 - 11:11 .

[saracen16]

tehturian wrote...

I actually grew to like the Mass Effect combat, I preferred the more tactical element of it rather than the go in rambo style of Mass Effect 2 and 3.

I thought that ME3's combat picked up on ME2's and ME1's together: the tactics are still there with the different powers and weapons that are effective versus different types of defenses. ME3's combat is definitely the most tactical in the series.

[Il Divo]

Euno17 wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

I think Mass Effect 3 had a stronger story than Mass Effect 1. That is, until the last 5 minutes of the game. From then on it just all sort of all went downhill. I think that is also part of the reason why the fallout over the endings has been so loud and protracted. For a lot of gamers it was sort of like climbing to the summit of Mt Everest, only to tumble off the side before getting to enjoy the view.

Overall I'd give Mass Effect 1 the edge, since the writers managed the hold the whole thing together from start to finish, but I can't help but feel disappointed that ME3 was almost the best game in the series. It had the best gameplay, but what had been an amazing story unravelled in the last few minutes.

WHAT??? That is blasphemous!  ME-3 had a STRONGER story then ME-1??? WHAT!!!!!

Please, please tell me why you think somehow in DETAILED FORM (save for the last five minutes of ME-3) you thought ME-3 had a stronger story.

Good-luck with that. Seriously - I WANT to see you attempt.

Lmao - ME-1 had the best story hands down. HAND's DOWN. (How is ME-3 even in the conversation here?) IF you say ME-3 had the best story - feel free to replay ME-1 because you clearly forgot the pacing and just how good ME-1's story was. The fact you had so much more control over the conversations is what made the story for me.

How many times did you feel like something awesome was happening in ME-1? fifty million times? The first mission when you find your training spectre officer dead and Saren trying to escape maybe?  Or when you found the first prothean beacon?  or when you become the first human spectre? There are so many awesome moments in ME-1!

Sovereign is by far the best Reaper (with the best lines). Everything about ME-1's story is great. Saren being a renegade Spectre and you hunting him down.

Saren was by far the best mini-boss/encounters you face in the trilogy (Don't get me started on the Assasin arc of the ME-3 story - that was so forced it was pathetic. I was pissed off at how many times he 'magically' wins. What a poorly done mini-boss/character.).

You also fight a Matriarch in ME-1 (and also save or kill a Rachni Queen) a thorian . . . you have prothean beacons to uncover (which worked so much better then those stupid dreams in ME-3). Saren also tries to 'control' the Krogan and build his own army . . .

Lets not forget the ending to ME-1. You oepning up the relay to let the 5th fleet in - man what a feeling.

Everything about ME-1's story was all leading down a single path - to bring down Saren (or stop him - either one) and it worked so damn well. Saren was a great enemy opposite of Shepard.

How many 'exciting' or 'thrilling' moments did you have in ME-3? I had a 'few' but it was far between. Perhaps Tali's mission. Hmm, The Battle for Earth wasn't even that great, I admit for a few moments during the inital 'victory-fleet' scene I felt awesome but other then that . . .

I really can't tell if you're being serious or joking, given that you think your opinions must apply to everyone else.

[Acidrain92]

Edje Edgar wrote...

Ye but we cared about that stuff BECAUSE of mass effect 1 or 2. ME3 didn't really add anything, just ended existing plots. So ye, great they ended 2 of the plots (I figured there'd be more, rachni and human/batarian conflict). But they ignored some others and messed up the overarching one, BAD.

Its a conclusion. You dont add unnecessary conflict in the conclusion. You tie the series off with a bang. Also there would be more Human/batarian conflict if all of the batarians didnt get practically destroyed at the very beginning of the war lol

the whole reason starchild is so stupid is because it was an unecessary plot device created in the last 5 minutes. There is no need to add stuff like that.

I still think ME3 has the best overall plot (sigh....must I say it? ASIDE FROM THE END.) and it definitely has the best dialogue, voice acting, etc etc etc.

the only thing that I think ME1 has over 3 is it had an awesome ending, Wrex as a squad made, and it had a lot more exploration,  but really I dont need any more exploration after exploring tons of boring planets in the first one.

2 was a great game, but I think ME3 improves over everything aside from the fact that the whole appeal of 2 was in meeting new characters and developing relationships with those characters. In ME3 most characters you had already met though, so all you did was further develop THOSE existing relationships.

[reekboy]

decided to make a new character starting from ME1, hoping to alter the end to ME3(I can dream can't I?) loved the RPG that was in ME1 though combat was a bit clunky, same wit the invetory. Personaly I think ME2 had the best ending, the team running for thier Lives and escaping an explosion, deffently more epic then the fake out death. though the nose dive missles the normandy pulled off on souvy was nice.

[Getorex]

Rorschachinstein wrote...

ME2 was the best in the series. Good combat and intense story.

Yeah, but the story in 2 was so tiny.  It was insular - just Shep and his crew all in secret.  A game that is actually a side mission.

I actually think, looking back, that ME2's plot should have been the plot of ME1.  ME1's plot should have been the plot of ME2.  ME3 then grows naturally from the buildup (before collapsing with an aneurism at the very end).

Start small and insular and work up more and more to the big...aneurism.

[Vaktathi]

Personally, over and above anything else, ME1 had a certain...feel about it that I think the others didn't quite capture.

ME1 had this very sort of retro thing going on about it, evoking a lot of the feel of late 80's/early 90's video games and fiction with the music and visuals, along with very expansive environments and revisitable worlds that I missed from the later games.

[NightKay]

Vaktathi wrote...

Personally, over and above anything else, ME1 had a certain...feel about it that I think the others didn't quite capture.

ME1 had this very sort of retro thing going on about it, evoking a lot of the feel of late 80's/early 90's video games and fiction with the music and visuals, along with very expansive environments and revisitable worlds that I missed from the later games.

True, I loved all the exploration you could do in Mass Effect 1, the rewards for achievments are also something I really miss... I didn't like the mako levels but with a some control tweaking and some better level designs mako levels could be much better.

[Cainne Chapel]

DigitalAvatar wrote...

Mass Effect 1 still holds the titles for best story arc, best RPG elements, best side-quests, best exploration (by far) and best skills system.
As for ending... Hard call. The final mission of Mass Effect 2 was exceptional. The ability to assign your squadmates to specific tasks was brilliant. The human reaper was corny though. Saren was far more awesome as a final boss.
I certainly find the end scene from Mass Effect 1 far more memorable, but perhaps that's because I only played ME2 a couple of time, whereas I must have played through ME1 a dozen times over.

if you dont mind me asking, other than random armor drops, what RPG elements are awesome in ME1 that are missing from 2 and 3?

Just curious.

Also to me, exploration needs more than a random 1km box to explore with random quests and geometry.  I mean when you think about it, the ONLY planets you could land on, had missions on them and were very poorly laid out , probably why I prefer just getting to the mission point in 2 and 3 instead of the useless driving around and time sink mechanic of 1.

The side quests in 1 were good, but I prefer the Character side quests in 3 and some of the ones in 2 over ME1 which generally consisted of "Destroy base" more often than not.  Some where welld one though, like the "Negotiation talks" with Lord Darius and of course Bring down the Sky, etc.

[Cainne Chapel]

Vaktathi wrote...

Personally, over and above anything else, ME1 had a certain...feel about it that I think the others didn't quite capture.

ME1 had this very sort of retro thing going on about it, evoking a lot of the feel of late 80's/early 90's video games and fiction with the music and visuals, along with very expansive environments and revisitable worlds that I missed from the later games.

only world I can recall you can revisit is the Citadel, unless you mean the sidequest/missions worlds, where there's really no Point going back after you complete them... unless of course you missed something.

I also didn't think the worlds in ME1 were that Expansive, most of the bases/bunkers were copy pasted (something we deride games over now adays) and the enemies weren't all that different from each other and the AI was terrible in a lot of instances.

But yes the story Did really hold the game together and the pacing for the main missions was good.  I just feel, even as much as I love ME1 (beat in dozens of times, same with 2 and soon 3) I think we get this rose colored nostalgia feeling over older games and dont really point out the faults as much as we do the positives and just gloss over the bad parts of it.  Because ME1 did have some bad parts, but overall it was a great game, much like I felt 2 and 3 are.

are any one of em perfect? by no means, but their all 3 awesome games.

and i DARE you to say i'm wrong! (about all 3 being awesome games I mean, the rest is just my opinion).

[jess05]

Why I think ME1 was the better RPG.

Where you put your points mattered more, and allowed for a bit more unique character builds. Beyond the class Choice.

classes were restricted to certain armor types. Heavy, Medium, Light. Some classes could train to the next highest tier.
classes were restricted to certain weapons, unless they trained to use something else.

Not only could you armor Shepard, but squadmates. Quarian, Krogan, Turian specific armors.
You could also swap Biotic amps, tech amps etc...

Now, any class can use any weapon and theres armor. Plain and simple. Choose a color.


Placing skill points was much better in 1 IMO, becasue you had to decide what was important to your build, and also made squad choice a bit more important.

For example, If Shepard had no Decrypt skill in ME1, try opening doors without Tali there to hack it for you.
Now, Shep can hack anything.  It made characters individual strenghts mean something.

More Skills overall, not just 4.

Modifié par jess05, 30 mars 2012 - 03:58 .