280 réponses à ce sujet

[billida]

ME1, definitely.
The Citadel
The discovery of the ME universe
The squadmates
The exploration, the feeling of being lost in space.
and so on.

[FROST4584]

When it is all said and done, Mass Effect 1 is still by far the best in the series, to me. This includes gameplay. ME2 and ME3 are just too linear to be true sequels to Mass Effect 1. Also consider, the fact the amount of characters you get to meet in Mass Effect 1 compared to both Mass Effect 2 and 3.

[Foolsfolly]

FROST4584 wrote...

When it is all said and done, Mass Effect 1 is still by far the best in the series, to me. This includes gameplay. ME2 and ME3 are just too linear to be true sequels to Mass Effect 1. Also consider, the fact the amount of characters you get to meet in Mass Effect 1 compared to both Mass Effect 2 and 3.

What?

Barren square maps, reused indoor enviroments, and linear plot level design is better gameplay than ME2 and ME3's just linear level designs?

[kyban]

Mr. Big Pimpin wrote...

Sure are a lot of nostalgia glasses in this thread.

Anyway, no. Better main story, sure, but tedious Mako side-quests that make up a extremely high fraction of the game (dem mountains), squadmates that are far less interesting and developed than in later games (hello miss quarian codex, swooning asari maiden and stereotypical rebel cop), and weak inventory system and combat.

Except not... ME1 is where you learn about Asari culture, government, and how they create offspring. It's also where you learn about the Genophage and how Krogan react to it. And where you learn about Quarian suits, their culture and government as well. All of this is assumed that you know it in ME2 and 3. (althought Tali's quest shows your more directly)
All those characters set the story and background as the platform for the second two games, and that's why i like it more.


I agree that the combat is clunky and needed an upgrade. I think ME2 went in the right direction.
I don't like however that they made you use thermal clips. When the codex in ME1 said that you would never have to reload because your ammo comes from a metal block that is sheared off. I actually liked the overheat mechanic, and how enemies could overload you as well.
I also preferred ME1's inventory system more because it feels more like an RPG. Enemies drop weapons and armor, each weapon piece and armor could be modded with things you also find from chests and enemy drops.
If you played older RPG's, you do get lots of clutter in your inventory (see Neverwinter Nights) but people don't seem to mind that in Skyrim/Fallout, and I think that's because those games are more obviously RPG's. That's what Mass Effect is, and should have stayed that way IMO.

I agree that Mako Missions get old real quick, but hey I liked it. Here's why. RPG's are about adventure. Exploration comes with that. I want to explore brave new worlds, and see new things. I don't want a 90% linear level of an indoor area. Even outdoor maps are pretty straight forward in ME2-3. This is how ME has shifted from RPG to shooter.
And what was Mass Effect established for? RPG. It pulled in a Role Playing audience, and that's what made it popular. It became more of a shooter in draw in a bigger crowd.

So when you go to a Bioware site (a company known for RPG's) and you ask "which is your favorite?" Should you be surprised that people like the one that's the most RPGish?
I think some of it is Nostalgia, of course, but it's also game preference too.


TL;DR

• ME1 established the setting, it is the foundation. Even the characters and their culture.
• ME1 is more talky sci-fi, people can connect with the characters
• ME1 is an RPG first before a shooter. ME2 changed it to be more action/shooter to pull in a bigger audience
• Nostalgia? Sure. But overall it's because of game genre preference

Modifié par kyban, 10 avril 2012 - 07:18 .

[Alexius]

Story-wise, yeah. ME1 has the only ending I enjoyed.
But all in all? It's ME2 all the way for me.

[sp0ck 06]

FROST4584 wrote...

When it is all said and done, Mass Effect 1 is still by far the best in the series, to me. This includes gameplay. ME2 and ME3 are just too linear to be true sequels to Mass Effect 1. Also consider, the fact the amount of characters you get to meet in Mass Effect 1 compared to both Mass Effect 2 and 3.

ME1 was just as linear as the other 2.  It just had the big citadel, but other than that it was: 

Do the 4 main story missions in any order you want.
Do Ilos and the end.

In between you could do a lot of identical side quests and explore identical uncharted worlds.

I think ME2 was the least linear of the 3.  Each recruitment and loyalty mission was distinct and they could pretty much be done in any order you wanted.  On one playthrough I was able to bring Legion on Talis recuitment mission (recommended for some cool dialogue)

ME3 is certainly the most linear but it works with the storyline and I think it has the best pacing of any of the games due to that

[Srau]

*Raise hand*
Story wise (not even talking of the ending) and gameplay wise for me, as a RPG lover, it beats hands down the two other Gears of War wannabe look-alike.

Modifié par Srau, 10 avril 2012 - 07:25 .

[twystedspyder]

Absolutely. Yes. ME1 was easily the best Role Playing Game of the 3. Neither sequel has even come close to achieving the level of immersion the original accomplished.

ME2 was a lot of fun and had some great individual missions, but overall couldn't nail the immersion factor. Too many sacrifices in order to bring in more mainstream shooter fans.
It deserves every bit of praise that it got, though and there was at least an obvious effort to try and maintain that RPG feel.

ME3, though? Some gorgeous levels and very short atmospheric moments but doesn't really try to be more than a lengthy, story based third person shooter. I guess the secret to getting a 10/10 is to just make something as unambitious as possible. Perhaps I am just bitter.

[Daniel_N7]

ME1 was the most satisfying game for me. Entering the Citadel was fantastic. And the storyline kept evolving into a greater scope, which is the real sign of an epic. What I liked greatly about ME1 was the "open world" feel. It was obviously a manipulation of perception - it wasn't exactly open world - but the fact that the game offered continuous gameplay - through elevators, or entering the Normandy in "real time" - felt more expansive.

I didn't like some of the changes with ME2, at first. The "level based" architecture of the gameplay. But I consider ME2 the "best" game of the series, because it's the most balanced game, with a really good writing and character development. It's definitely rare to see a fictional piece with so many different characters being presented to you, and still each and every one feels charismatic, memorable and interesting.

It's hard for me to analyze ME3 at this point. It has great strengths - good gameplay, good customization, some really good emotional moments - but the minor issues - for example, the disregard in importance of some ME2 characters - and the major issues - the ending - ruin my perception of it.

Which makes me feel tremendously sad, I should say.

[Foolsfolly]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

FROST4584 wrote...

When it is all said and done, Mass Effect 1 is still by far the best in the series, to me. This includes gameplay. ME2 and ME3 are just too linear to be true sequels to Mass Effect 1. Also consider, the fact the amount of characters you get to meet in Mass Effect 1 compared to both Mass Effect 2 and 3.

ME1 was just as linear as the other 2.  It just had the big citadel, but other than that it was: 

Do the 4 main story missions in any order you want.
Do Ilos and the end.

In between you could do a lot of identical side quests and explore identical uncharted worlds.

I think ME2 was the least linear of the 3.  Each recruitment and loyalty mission was distinct and they could pretty much be done in any order you wanted.  On one playthrough I was able to bring Legion on Talis recuitment mission (recommended for some cool dialogue)

ME3 is certainly the most linear but it works with the storyline and I think it has the best pacing of any of the games due to that

I think the Reapers forced BioWare to make ME3 the most linear of the bunch. To keep the Reapers as a huge galactic threat they needed to have a firm grip on the story and keep the stakes rising. Mostly they succeeded, I think. I loved how until Tuhunka everytime a Reaper landed the battle was over. The only thing I'd have done slightly different is have one big curb stomp fight (maybe on the Palaven moon?) where a Reaper lands and like Harbinger on Earth just takes out a force like it's nothing and moves on. Really underline the fact that a single Reaper is serious business.

But I think the linear story works in the Reapers' benefit. I certainly thought they were more threatening than Saren and his geth or Harbinger and his Collectors.

[Lookout1390]

1. ME1 set the tone and atmosphere of the entire trilogy.
2. ME2 changed a few things I didn't like, but I didn't let them ruin my overall experience, but ME2 was the game of the trilogy that had the best-ending to me, and the suicide mission was done amazingly well.

3. ME3 just leaves a horrible taste in my mouth.

[Y3Y00]

Gameplay-wise it's ought to be Mass Effect 3; visuals, I'd go with ME2 and story and characters' interactions, I'd go with Mass Effect 3. So frankly, I favor ME3 above all, although I preferred ME1 Liara.

[FROST4584]

Foolsfolly wrote...

FROST4584 wrote...

When it is all said and done, Mass Effect 1 is still by far the best in the series, to me. This includes gameplay. ME2 and ME3 are just too linear to be true sequels to Mass Effect 1. Also consider, the fact the amount of characters you get to meet in Mass Effect 1 compared to both Mass Effect 2 and 3.

What?

Barren square maps, reused indoor enviroments, and linear plot level design is better gameplay than ME2 and ME3's just linear level designs?

      I'll take something that is different compared to ME2 and ME3, over typical Gears Of War "action" and linear stage design. ME3 and more so ME2 is far far linear than ME1. ME1 did have annoying parts such as driving 100 miles to get to one place. I didn’t like the copy and paste missions either, but at least missions had a pay off within the game. Mass Effect 1 is the only game to me that had life to it.


      ME2 and ME3 was just as annoying at moving the small Normandy across that huge galaxy, where as it was simple point and click to move planet to planet, and sub-system to sub-system in Mass Effect 1. I rather drive around in the Mako getting to a place, other than going back and forth in ME2 and ME3 Normandy scanning planets and making sure I have enough fuel to leave the system that has a fuel station, and like a said above, driving that small Normandy across HUGE systems. For me it was very annoying I had to drive the Normandy to planets, sub-systems, and fuel stations.


      Mass Effect 2 was boring to me overall. Other than the crew, who or what  is memorable in the game, other than parts of the collectors? For me it was only Aria and Cap Bailey. Short list compared to ME1. I could point out dozens of interesting of events and characters that made Mass Effect 1 stand out(Emily Wong’s missions, doctor Michal’s missions, and countless other quests that had their own storyline) and missions that had their own sub-plot that you had to investigate and figure out what is going on and you could become sympathetic  too( Tombs). In ME2, I can only name a hand full of memorable quests that had somewhat of a sub-story. There was no mystery in ME2’s galaxy, other than the Collectors.


       Mass Effect 2 had boring lifeless, empty planets. If anything, all you did was kill everything and move on. The missions had nothing to them, just like a mindless shooter, that had NO payoff. You really never got to discover anyone interesting in ME2. ME3 isn’t as bad as ME2. (Kasumi had a good mission, the mission where you rescue that woman from Cerberus from the communication relay aka multiplayer station, cop that leads to Balak, and a few more) Unlike ME2, ME3 has more interesting characters with sub-plots that pay off.
 
Overall the Mass Effect Trilogy is a letdown. There was NO big payoff for playing Mass Effect 1 and 2. NONE of your choices mattered. You can get the same endings if you never played ME1 or ME2. We only needed to play ME3. Overall to me:
 
 
1.     ME1: Most original/ best plot/best missions/best characters/best galaxy to explore/different tps gameplay****)
 
 
 
 
2.  ME3: Captured little of ME1’s magic
 
 
 
 
 
 
3. ME2: Boring third person shooter, with interesting crew members.

Note: I am not bashing Bioware. I am just saying that ME1 had something special. ME2 and ME3 too the series into a new direction, in my opinion. To me , the ME series wasn't really the same after ME1. It was more action and less exploring.

Modifié par FROST4584, 10 avril 2012 - 08:20 .

[Diegofsv]

ME1 is the best game for me. It has a lot more RPG elements, it got the best story and damn, that Sovereign encounter is the best one in the whole series. ME2 is great, but the best quest in it is the Shadow Broker DLC (amazing quest). ME3 has better gameplay elements than ME2 but it has a lot of shortcomings (side quest, journal, few squadmates with some of them too boring). I dont need to talk about the ridiculous ending right?

[kyban]

FROST4584 wrote...




      I'll take something that is different compared to ME2 and ME3, over typical Gears Of War "action" and linear stage design. ME3 and more so ME2 is far far linear than ME1. ME1 did have annoying parts such as driving 100 miles to get to one place. I didn’t like the copy and paste missions either, but at least missions had a pay off within the game. Mass Effect 1 is the only game to me that had life to it.

Ding Ding Ding! I honestly felt like ME1 was the only game of the series that came to life. I immersed into the atmosphere, I believed the characters could be real. Even though the game is shorter, the levels were big, the music was perfect, and it felt alive.

I can make a huge list about why ME2 & 3 didn't come off this way, but I wont. The world in ME1 just felt real.

[Foolsfolly]

FROST4584 we're just going to disagree. There's nothing in that post I agree with. Knowing we're just going to have to disagree I can just shrug and say I really like the series. It's likely my favorite game series out there.

[MassiveEffects]

In terms of combat, no, it was by far the weakest. In terms of narrative and exploration, absolutely.

Modifié par MassiveEffects, 10 avril 2012 - 08:12 .

[Apathy1989]

ME1 - Best story, despite terrible gameplay.
ME2 - Good characters and gameplay, despite terrible story.
ME3 - Great gameplay. Ok story, ok characters.

[Jazharah]

 I disagree.

ME1 wasn't the best 'game', but it for sure was the best, coherent and consistent experience due to the tight story and excellent pacing.

[EricHVela]

ME3 is awesome until the Hammer massacre when all player efforts suddenly stop having any effect on the game until the final choice with very few clues as to what's up with the final choice and no clues as to what's up with the star child.

ME1 ended with "I saved the Galaxy and everyone loves me - I'm a hero". That's wonderful. The game before that was good but not great in comparison to the other two.

ME2 ended with "I saved Humanity and nobody else cares". No so wonderful. The game before that was better than ME1 but not quite the fun-factor of ME3 gameplay.

[Bloodhound66]

I honestly thought the second one was the best. I don't know how people hate on it, it's the one that got me sucke into the series. When I first played ME1 I was living with roommates and we shared the xbox, so I never really had time to get into it and didnt

[GunMoth]

 I felt the actual mechanics themselves were pretty bad - same with some of the AI. There were pretty weird difficulty spikes as well. 

Story wise its definitely my favorite, though I loved having more party members in 2 even if they weren't integral to the plot (though it was nice when they were).

I think my perfect mass effect game would be 2's art direction (with all the neon lights/colors etc) 1's story and inventory(though Im the only person who liked the bulky inventory I think?) the hammerhead instead of the mako and 3's gameplay mechanics - though a bit more difficult on insanity. OH! And I'd love more armors like the ones in 1. I loved the smooth matte textures on some of them.

[TheCinC]

Yeah, the story of ME1 was just right, but the graphics are pretty dated. Seeing my Femshep in ME2 for the first time made my jaw drop, she just was -that- pretty..

Also, the sidequests in ME1 were sometimes horrible, with the same structures and rooms even on the friggin' moon!

That aside, the recruitment and loyalty missions in ME2 were both compelling and boring. They were emotionally interesting but a huge diversion from the main plot. The planet scanning? What a drag. The Hammerhead?  What a piece of crap. I didn't like the Mako, but after the Hammerhead she kinda grew on me. The Human Reaper? Meh.

ME3 got most of it right, except for the fetch quests and the ending. Oh, the ending.. *shivers, rolls up into a ball and cries for a while*

Modifié par TheCinC, 10 avril 2012 - 08:32 .

[Shahadem]

I love ME 1's gameplay more than ME 2 or 3. All powers had their own seperate cool down and biotic powers were able to affect all targets which is how it should be. We need CCs for the tough mobs not trash but 2 and 3 only really let you CC the trash. All ME 1 classes had a large array of well thought out powers which gave every class some type of defensive, offensive and CC abilities except for soldiers who had no need for CCs anyways.

ME 1 also introduced an innovative new ammoless combat system which I absolutely loved not having to scavenge for ammo. With the right mods and the Spectre weapons you could create a gun capable of shooting nonstop for hours at a time. The people who were complaining probably either never bought the Spectre weapons or tried loading in mods that increased heat consumption.

While there was a lot of repeated indoor areas and the maps were not made with the Mako in mind, the idea was great and the exploration really helped to make the game feel like a fully fleshed out galaxy. Plus there were some incredibly gorgeous views on the planets (I want to live on Amaranth!) that you simply cannot get in 2 and 3.

In that regards the planet exploration is way better than planet scanning. The only thing Bioware needed to do was make the terrain more Mako friendly or give it better thrusters and allow us to see all the POI without having to drive over the entire map.

The story itself was extremely good though it lacked some of the character development found in the later games.

Modifié par Shahadem, 10 avril 2012 - 08:37 .

[M0keys]

i'm always feeling torn about this.

ME1 has all the great space exploration (Mako issues aside) and feelings of wonder, and the best representation of the Reaper threat, and the galaxy was really vibrant and lots of things just felt right. Its gameplay had flaws but they were things that should've been tweaked, not outright removed.

ME2 is more streamlined, with more focus on character stories. I think that focus on characters is a step up in certain aspects, and it is just the middle of a trilogy so you're not going to be changing the universe right away. But some of the things they streamlined or removed didn't need to be changed quite so drastically. The Mako could've been made fun, and the inventory system could've been better designed so as not to feel like a labyrinthine pile of items floating inside a user interface. Combat was a lot better, and this is the biggest improvement.

On any day, I might pick one or the other.