324 réponses à ce sujet

[Cobretti ftw]

1 is the best, although it is the best it has some problems on the gameplay perspective.
2 is VERY cool, but the story isnt as great as in ME1
3 is an average game. i give it a 6/10. And most of the good aspects comes from tuchanka mission and rannoch. I also enhoyed the citadel DLC, although i hated how my favorite LI was handled at the DLC lol ( it was tali, but the specific thing that annoyed me was her singing. OMG wtf was that?). Even so, the DLC is very cool.. But the rest of the game was very unappealing for me. THe citadel DLC didnt have a very good story, but it handled well the characters that we've come to like. BUt at least for me, the story is what makes me REALLY like something like an RPG. And me3 story is mostly bad. THats why ME1 is my fav.

Modifié par Cobretti ftw, 09 mars 2013 - 07:48 .

[Oransel]

ME1:ME2>>>>>>>>>>>>ME3

Modifié par Oransel, 09 mars 2013 - 07:22 .

[dversion]

2 is easily the best.
3 was fun in context of combing back to a world and characters i've come to enjoy.
1. writing and gameplay is a snorlax.

[idunhavaname]

Gameplay:

ME3>ME2>ME1

Epicness: (SUICIDE MISSION)

ME2>ME3>ME1

Story

ME3>ME1>ME2

[Tommyspa]

Characters
ME2
ME3
ME1

Main/Secondary Plot
ME3
ME1
ME2

Gameplay
ME3
ME2
ME1

Best DLC
ME3
ME2
ME1

Survey Says! ME3 is the best.

[k.lalh]

Whenever I do a playthrough, I look forward to ME3. ME1 has a great plot but the sidequests are a pain...and ME2...just feels dragged out.

[shodiswe]

Personaly I don't want to pick because they all got something good in them.

I hope the next game will pick the gems out of each of the three games... Which would give use the best game in the mass effect universe. One can always have hope.

[Getorex]

JaegerBane wrote...

Getorex wrote...
ME2 was a side mission story expanded into a full game.  A diversion.  It was also an attempt to retcon Cerberus, rendering ALL the encounters with Cerberus from ME1 into a long list of "rogue" Cerberus operations.  Funny, a rogue terrorist organization filled with nothing BUT further rogue elements from itself. 

While I agree ME2 was basically a very large side mission, we found out so little about Cerberus in ME1 that it can't really be a retcon, as you need something in place to retcon first.

Besides, in all media released so far, Cerberus is repeatedly shown as an inherently unstable organisation populated by a high percentage of people who are, for various reasons, equally unstable. It's not surprising they have so many rogue elements.

If an organization cannot in any way, shape, or form, control its operations such that ALL of them you encounter are "rogue" then the organization itself if corrupt and equally rogue.  If EVERY operation that the CIA conducted ended up committing blatantly illegal acts, murdering people, torturing people, or got out of "control" then the CIA is itself out of control and equal to its actions.  Oh wait...that IS the case.  So it is with Cerberus in ME.  Every last single operation you encountered in ME1 (and ME2 with Jack) was in no way "ambiguous".  They couldn't ALL be rogue lest the entire organization be totally and uselessly out of control.  Even if it attracts "unstable" individuals, then THAT is what defines the organization in real life AND in fiction.  You ARE your people, you ARE your organization's actions.  Cerberus, in ME2, was clumsily twisted and forced into a mold that didn't fit:  a misunderstood "good" organization that simply couldn't do ANYTHING that didn't actually do wrong or go wrong.  That defines the organization and all its members.

ME1 clearly defined Cerberus and ME2 tried to undefine it.  Unsuccessfully and clumsily.  Obviously, if you wish to still think that Cerberus is not evil, nor is the Illusive Man, then you HAVE to accept that they are 100% incompetent and 100% incapable of controlling their people or their operations.  Such orgs must be shut down before they kill everyone (applies to the CIA too).

[wright1978]

ME2 by a long way

Then ME1

Last place goes to ME3

[MetalxHealth]

As good as ME3 is(with all dlc) I have to go with Mass Effect 2, really one of the best games I have ever played. ME1 is last, sorry lol.

[TomY90]

Mass Effect 2 by a big margin it had the better ending, more character development, not much auto-dialogue and your decisions actually felt like it had consequences in ME2 whereas ME3 only had consequences in certain parts. (also Mass Effect 2 had in general the better DLC content than ME1 and ME3)

Mass Effect 3 is 2nd place because its combat is the best out of all of the mass effects and its graphics are the best as well (but that is expected with its age) and its DLC content is better than ME1, but not as good as ME2's (with the exception of the Citadel DLC)

Mass Effect 1 is last only because of its age, which has caused not great graphics and bad gameplay but story wise its brilliant and character development is top notch (it would beat ME3 if it was not for the gameplay)

[JaegerBane]

Getorex wrote...
ME1 clearly defined Cerberus and ME2 tried to undefine it.  Unsuccessfully and clumsily.  Obviously, if you wish to still think that Cerberus is not evil, nor is the Illusive Man, then you HAVE to accept that they are 100% incompetent and 100% incapable of controlling their people or their operations.  Such orgs must be shut down before they kill everyone (applies to the CIA too).

I think you've read a little too much into how Cerberus was defined in ME1. Lets not forget that we're not really told anything concrete about them - we found they were reckless, they were orientated towards military action, and they were well funded. That's it. The only way ME2 could have contradicted what had been set down in ME1 was to try and describe them as a pacifist organisation or something equally polar opposite, as we simply didn't have enough detail to overwrite in the first place.

On top of that, you're also claiming ME2 tried to present Cerberus as a misunderstood-but-good organisation. I can't speak for anyone else but that bears no resemblance to how ME2 depicted the organisation to me. TIM was at his core, a paranoid racist who's only positive aspects were ones that could be twisted for terrible purposes - he was a brilliant businessman and had fantatical determination. His approach to taking risks was insane, and his iron grip over the organisation meant that this obsession with power at any cost filtered down to every aspect of the organisation, to the extent that multiple experiments became disasters and Cerberus's people were largely made up of people who's loyalties had been purchased - either by cash, philosophical promises or by hostage-taking - rather than earned, which had the effect of multiple defections at every level.

These two depictions are in no way mutually exclusive.

[Raging_Pulse]

ME1>ME2>>>>>>>ME3

[Mastone]

Stealing Domecomings format :
ME1>>>>>>>ME2>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ME3

[Barquiel]

ME1 > ME3 > ME2

[Astartes Marine]

They were all great, but overall I still like the second one more.  I liked the "Dirty Dozen" story myself, the character missions were really good and thought provoking, and the game did end alot better than ME3; one hell of a bang with me giving the Proto Reaper the business end of my CAIN, the badass music and basically flipping the Illusive Man off. 
I felt like I genuinely accomplished something there by myself; no fleets, no armies, just me and my crew kicking ass and taking names. 

Add to that how your decisions and accomplishments have actual repurcussions and NOBODY was safe from plot death.  There was no "immortal main characters" here and I LOVE that.

ME3 just kinda fizzled out at the end and ME1's last boss...well...it was kinda dull to be honest.

Modifié par Astartes Marine, 09 mars 2013 - 05:54 .

[IntelligentME3Fanboy]

 ME3

[TemplePhoenix]

JaegerBane wrote...

I think you've read a little too much into how Cerberus was defined in ME1. Lets not forget that we're not really told anything concrete about them - we found they were reckless, they were orientated towards military action, and they were well funded. That's it. The only way ME2 could have contradicted what had been set down in ME1 was to try and describe them as a pacifist organisation or something equally polar opposite, as we simply didn't have enough detail to overwrite in the first place.

On top of that, you're also claiming ME2 tried to present Cerberus as a misunderstood-but-good organisation. I can't speak for anyone else but that bears no resemblance to how ME2 depicted the organisation to me. TIM was at his core, a paranoid racist who's only positive aspects were ones that could be twisted for terrible purposes - he was a brilliant businessman and had fantatical determination. His approach to taking risks was insane, and his iron grip over the organisation meant that this obsession with power at any cost filtered down to every aspect of the organisation, to the extent that multiple experiments became disasters and Cerberus's people were largely made up of people who's loyalties had been purchased - either by cash, philosophical promises or by hostage-taking - rather than earned, which had the effect of multiple defections at every level.

These two depictions are in no way mutually exclusive.

This. All through ME2, you have... pretty much everyone who doesn't work for Cerberus chewing Shepard out for working with such monsters, including your LI. Throughout the game TIM screws around with Shepard; remember when he sent you to that 'disabled' Collector ship knowing damn well it was a trap? And you get to chew HIM out for that. You have stuff like Jack's loyalty mission where the depths they are willing to sink to in pursuit of power are explored. Hell, by the end of the game you can convince two of Cerberus's top operatives that the whole organisation is £%$& and they're better off with you.

Definitely did not get a 'misunderstood' feel for Cerberus in ME2. I thought one of the main tenets of the game was that they were terrible, terrible people, but you're forced to work with them because no one else is doing anything.

[Iucounou]

ME2 for me. It had a lot more depth to it and really made you get to like the (admittedly large) cast of characters. Plus the romances weren't PG-13 and it had a hell of an ending.

[Valo_Soren]

I prefer to look at all three games as one big 100 plus hour story so its hard to say which one is my favorite when each one is a continuation of the same story started in the first game.

[Bfler]

ME1>ME2>ME3

ME1 has the most content, a lot of areas to explore and gives you the feeling of a mysterious undiscovered galaxy.
ME3 on the other side is almost an interactive action movie, with some straight corridor levels, only a few noteworthy side quests and with no secrets to discover.

[3DandBeyond]

Loved ME2. Characters especially, DLC-Lair of the Shadow Broker or is it Liara of the Shadow Broker. The idea if not the plot of a lot of misfit characters no one loved being cared about and sort of brought back to life by one person. Then the short epilog that said much more than all of ME3's endings. And ME2 used merely about 10 seconds of characters catching Shepard's eye after the mission and a big sendoff to TIM. I loved that.

Citadel is pretty good DLC and ME3 has some great, but very few of them, moments.

[Aloren]

I love all three games equally. Though If I had to rank them, I'd probably rank 3 just above 1, and 1 just above 2.
ME3 >= ME1 >= ME2.
Story:ME1ME3ME2
Characters:ME2ME3ME1
Gameplay:ME3ME2ME1
RPG:ME1ME3ME2 

[Tank207]

Mass Effect 2 is still my favorite in the trilogy. I went into Mass Effect 2 completely blind as well, not knowing anything about what it was going to be like other than the fact that it was a sequel to my favorite game. And I absolutely loved every second of it. 

While the inclusion of thermal clips annoyed me, the improved combat and character interactions more than made up for it. It may not have much in the way of a story, but it was one most of the most satisfying gaming experiences I've ever had.

Modifié par Tank207, 09 mars 2013 - 07:29 .

[hot_heart]

It's a tough one.

Mainly, I am torn between ME1 and ME2.

I've been with the series right from the start, so ME1 was the introduction. In terms of story, setting and atmosphere, it does a lot of things right. For combat and inventory and such, it does a lot of things wrong.

Where ME2 excelled was with the characters and expanding the universe some more, along with a bit more mission variety involving unique locations and a welcome change of pace at times. Most importantly, it managed to maintain that same slower-paced atmosphere of discovery that the first game captured so well. Unfortunately, it did drop a few elements from ME1 rather than improving them; some were for the better, others had potential.

As for ME3, a full-on war drastically alters the overall atmosphere of the game; it may be appropriate but that doesn't make it more enjoyable (personally-speaking, obviously). It contains some really great moments that build on what has come before, making for some well-done pay-offs. On top of that, the combat is most excellent, and I've spent many hours in the multiplayer.

The Citadel DLC is probably my favourite piece of DLC ever, but I have a hard time reconciling it with the rest of ME3 because it feels so at odds with everything else. I couldn't say that it makes ME3 my favourite game because as soon as it ends and I'm dumped back on that Normandy...ugh.

tl;dr: each have their own strengths and weaknesses. ME2 pips it for me.

And saying 'best' rather than 'favourite' is an innocent but, ultimately, silly mistake.

Modifié par hot_heart, 09 mars 2013 - 06:42 .