Hello everyone 
why do you find Mass Effect 3 is better than 2?, or 1 better than 3?, or 2 better than 1?, or... you got the idea.
Describe the aspects that made ME 1 or 2 or 3 very special/good to you without involving the story among the things that made it special or good to you. you can talk about anything but the story 
.
Thanks.
All good in their own ways, personally prefer ME:2 for it's character development
For story? ME1, then 3, then 2. I find ME2's main story painfully weak. The side stories are excellent, but the primary missions are not strong plotwise. ME1's main plot, on the other hand, had multiple impressive twists, building to an excellent climax.
For gameplay? They got better as time went on. As you'd expect. ME3's combat is brilliant, as is it's general mission structure. ME1... well, you didn't play that game for the gameplay, did you?
For character interactions? ME3, then 1, then 2. ME2's characters barely spoke to each other, only to Shepard. ME3 has characters kicking it back in the lounge chatting to each other over poker...
For endings? ME2's suicide mission was awesome (from an in-game choices perspective). ME1's race to stop Sovvy was wonderfully tense (plotline perspective). ME3... was kinda meh from London onwards. But we've been over that...
Overall? ME3 takes my top spot out for top notch gameplay and the second best plotline (I can forgive the ending, given that the other 90% was awesome). But all three are great games.
ME2 and 3 were better than 1 insofar that the characters no longer felt wooden aboard the Normandy, with the sole exception of Wrex, in my opinion, but in ME3, the companions actually felt like they were all part of the same team. The only time companions ever talked to each other in ME2, as far as I can remember, is during debriefing and during the loyalty challenge sequence (Jack/Miranda and Tali/Legion) and during the briefing session during the suicide mission, with huge gaps in between. Combat-wise, ME3 definitely edges out the both of them. In terms of story, ME1 definitely goes over the other two with the sense of discovery and getting a better idea of the horrible things that are about to happen, but I'd put ME3 in second place. For any complains about lack of focus in ME3, ME2 does this in a much bigger way. I will say, that ME1 suffers a bit from trying to provide a free-roaming experience while trying to push the urgency of the main plot.
ME1 is easily the biggest chore of the lot though. So much empty space. I find a lot of the game has you consuming time just getting from point to point in either the hubs or the exploration. Curse that game and how I can't fight that urge to investigate the little yellow circles that show up on the Mako's map.
For character interactions? ME3, then 1, then 2. ME2's characters barely spoke to each other, only to Shepard. ME3 has characters kicking it back in the lounge chatting to each other over poker...
I totally agree with you 
Video by YouTube user: No Quarters Required: A Video Game Blog
Boy, this will be a fun question to answer. Simply put, depending on how I look at it, each game could be the worst or the best. I'll only give a description to a few just to save space.
STORY:
ME1 > ME3 >> ME2.
ME1 is just great story wise. Not sure what else I can say.
Sure, ME3 has the ending fiasco, but outside of that, I really liked it for what it was. It was definitely the most emotional game of the three and (aside from Overlord's ending in ME2) the only game that I actually came close to shedding a tear. The Tuchanka and Rannoch arcs, Grunt's mission, Grissom Academy, etc were all awesome. Unfortunately, ME3 does have its story problems (and no, I do not count the deus ex Crucible as one, because the whole trilogy wrote the reapers to be too powerful to be beaten by conventional means meaning it was obvious from the beginning that there'd be a deus ex) that keep it from being the best, such as the ending.
Like mentioned before, ME2 has a extremely weak plot. In fact, it is next to useless to the trilogy and is nothing but a giant side quest. Because of ME2 not preparing the galaxy for the war like it should have, ME3's plot had to hold both games' weight. Even though it is by far the weakest plotwise, I won't say I hate what it story it does have because those daddy-issues side stories regarding the squad is really interesting to me.
GAMEPLAY:
ME3 > ME2 >>>> ME1
ME3 has by far the most enjoyable gameplay because it took the fun ableit highly restricted ME2 gameplay and made it a lot better. Still has the "one button does all" issue, but that is not a big deal to me. ME1 is just a chore with the overheating weapons and the weak cover system.
DLC:
ME2 > ME3 > ME1
The whole trilogy has good luck with DLC I guess. Aside from Pinnacle Station, there isn't a DLC I hate. What puts ME2 on top is the shear number of them, the price of them, and just how much I enjoy them. There is no DLC above $10, there is no paid Day One DLC, and they all add to the experience [aside from Zaeed, but I forgive it because it was free] instead of feeling like cut content. Overlord, Arrival, LotSB, and Kasumi are all great.
ME3 is my second favorite because of Extended Cut, Leviathan, Omega, and Citadel. I hated the fact that I had to pay $10 for the day one From Ashes DLC, but Javik is a cool character. Extended Cut made me no longer dread the ending because it makes your decisions matter [contrary to popular belief] and retcons the "Mass Relays being destroyed" in the better EMS endings. Leviathan was really fun, allowed you to play it at your leisure, made the ending come less out of left field, and gave you new information on the Reapers' origin. Omega was fun with two cool new powers, namely Flare. And Citadel is just a masterpiece being a very fun mission with a lot of new content afterwards. Unfortunately, Javik was $10 instead of free, Extended Cut was simply repairs to a problem in the vanilla game, and Omega really felt like cut content (all it needed imo to not feel like that is an Omega hub, and some side missions).
ME1 just had Bring Down the Sky and Pinnacle Station. BDtS was fun and easily my favorite UNC assignment in ME1, but it was just really short. and Pinnacle Station is the epitome of meh.
CHARACTERS:
ME2 > ME1 = ME3
DIALOGUE/DECISION-MAKING:
ME2 > ME1 > ME3
CHARACTER INTERACTIONS:
ME3 > ME1 > ME2
ASSIGNMENTS/SIDE-MISSIONS [FROM A GAMEPLAY STANDPOINT]:
ME2 > ME3 > ME1
ME3 may have a lot of fetch-quests, but the true side missions it had were all really fun. ME2's were plentiful, very fun, and unique. ME1 was just "Drive your Mako through the same empty mountainous region to 1 of the three same buildings and shoot mooks"
ASSIGNMENTS/SIDE-MISSIONS [FROM A WRITING STANDPOINT]:
ME1 > ME3 > ME2
ME2's assignments literally were silent.
OVERALL FUN I HAD:
ME2 > ME3 = ME1
ME2 at the top better character interactions and build up to the final fight, you really feel you want to crush these guys and save your crew and that's because you feel a genuine connection to most of the characters. The characters seem to have more depth and better back stories the conflicts between them (Jacob/Thane Jack/Miranda Tali/Legion) add something to the game as a whole and the choices feel like they have an impact on the present and will definitely have an impact on the future. All of which I felt wasn't done nearly as well in 3 and better than 1.
ME1 next levelling up system seemed better, Saren and sovereign were excellent villains but it was a bit cheesy compared to 2 and the combat takes at least a couple hours to get used to before you stop shaking your head at it. The Saren boss battles are better than ME2 Human Reaper but it doesn't have the same feel to it. The game over all though has tons more character than ME 3 and leaves you with a smile on your face and the end of most missions. You genuinely feel like you've achieved something, which again wasn't done as well in 3.
ME3 had better combat/powers/graphics and more emotional cut scenes but outside of that you felt pushed towards certain ideals and characters and eventually pushed towards ending the game. It lacked a general feel to it imo too much up and down emotionally and restricted character interactions and dialogue. The story is not complete without DLC specifically from ashes and leviathan and is a bit too melancholy (Genophage 5-7 characters that can die and mostly through committing suicide including Shepard, kids being experimented on and 'integrated' by Cerberus, the rest of sanctuary and Thessia). The build up to the ending was good but as you reached the crescendo it went flat and left you feeling flat, pre EC actually had me saying "what is...ok..but..WHAT THE HELL AM I THINKING ABOUT THOSE TWO FOR!....Oh great! They're on some random planet somewhere....So it was just a story being told by an old man? Did I play the event or the story?" without the ending ME3 probably trumps ME1 but it is was it is.
I prefer ME3 conversations since Shepard sounds like a robot in ME1 and 2.
I prefer ME3 conversations since Shepard sounds like a robot in ME1 and 2.
XD, the voice of Garrus was improved too.
XD, the voice of Garrus was improved too.
Garrus was improved in 2 and that carried along to 3. Liara became better in 2 and so on and so forth. Wrex pretty much remained the same, but he talks and jokes more. Tali is no longer the invisible engineer girl. I always forget she exists unless I go down to the drive core. Kaidan and Ashley... well, Ashley remains largely the same, and so does Kaidan, but they're not yelling your face most of the time in ME3.
I don't think any of the games had areas that were vast improvements over the other titles (except for maybe gameplay and antagonists, the later two installments really lacked good primary antagonists). However, all the smaller complaints that I have for the series finally trumped the positives when I get to ME3 that I find the game unenjoyable to play after the Genophage arc.
I tend to change my mind on this from time to time, but for me it's probably ME1>ME2>ME3. Part of my rankings are undoubtedly a product of nostalgia goggles, but I also think there's a bit more to it than that. For me, ME1 just had the best overall atmosphere: I prefer the much larger size of hubs like the Citadel in comparison to their much smaller equivalents in later games, and while this is just a personal preference, I also like that the aesthetic of ME1 is much less comic book-ish than in subsequent installments. Sure, it's a little light on squadmate content and the combat and inventory systems just aren't very good at all, but all things considered it's still my favorite by just a little bit.
To use a music analogy, I'd say that ME1 is a better overall album than ME2, but ME2 has a few songs that are better than anything on ME1. To be a bit more specific, I think that everything related to the characters of Mordin and Legion in this game represent the high points of the whole series (it's no coincidence that theirs are the loyalty missions that offer no easy answers to the dilemmas they raise). Still, there were some major missteps here that can't be ignored. Of all the ways you could force Shepard to auto-align with Cerberus, Lazarus was probably the dumbest one imaginable. The Collector plot just fell flat on almost every level ("Not just any Reaper, a human Reaper!!"). The suicide mission is fun while you're playing it, but the whole idea of making every squadmate killable just created way too many headaches, all in service of a mechanic (disloyal=dead) that makes little sense even taken on its own terms.
ME3 is for me, the weakest of the bunch. The squadmate selection is pretty slim pickings IMO, although in fairness, a big part of that is due to the aforementioned suicide mission. Most importantly, it just has the weakest set of main plot missions of any of the games: Earth isn't a particularly good introduction ("This isn't about strategy or tactics!"), Palaven and Priority: Earth are among the most visually dull missions of the series, the Citadel coup is a mess, and Sanctuary is anti-climactic. As for Thessia, well, I don't think I need to say much more about that mission's failures. Even Rannoch has all sorts of conceptual problems (which have been discussed to death on these boards). There's Tuchanka and not much else, in terms of the main campaign. Still, ME3 has easily the best combat system of any of the games, and I found myself enjoying multiplayer far more than I ever expected to.
I've always liked ME2 best, ME1 has its moments with the hubs, varying ways levels can turn out, and the best twist in the game, but it just isn't as engrossing as the later games, perhaps because of the relatively wooden companions, graphical issues, gameplay, or any number of reasons.
ME2 always felt like a nice fun romp through the galaxy with a mcuh more entertaining cast and a much more personal story than the either two, something I feel is better suited than the Reaper plot line. I even like its gameplay more than 3, simply because 3 was too easy and basically turned Shepard into a COG/Spartan instead of a marine, a damn good one, but not a super-human capable of superhuman feats of endurance and strength.
I've always found the plot in all three games to be a massive pile of horse dung, so my vote goes to ME2 for sheer fun factor. I also enjoyed its characters and their respective arcs the most in that game. And while this may be considered blasphemy on these boards, I found its combat more interesting than ME3's, which quickly devolved into how fast I could detonate a biotic/tech explosion.
On a less shallow level, I find ME2 to be the least moralistic of the three games. It never gets as preachy as the other two about what's right and wrong, and (ignoring the idiotic morality system) at least allows you to make up your own mind on certain controversial issues (the Genophage, the Morning War and Geth schism, Cerberus, etc).
ME2 in my opinion is the best and fullest experience of the Mass Effect galaxy in it's more or less ordinary state. In Me1 it's not complete yet - a little bleak and empty, ME3 is War of the Worlds; it's not about the galaxy, it's about it being smashed to pieces.
ME2's loyalty missions also provided the best way to bond with the side characters IMO.
ME2 is the best. Then comes ME3 and finally ME1.
Boy, this will be a fun question to answer. Simply put, depending on how I look at it, each game could be the worst or the best. I'll only give a description to a few just to save space.
<snip>
I like how you broke it down into different aspects. I think I will do the same.
Story:
Story is a culmination of factors, including plot, characters, and atmosphere. You could put 'dialogue' in there as well, but I think that is handled under 'characters'.
Plot:
1. ME1
2. (Tie) ME2 and ME3.
All three games had straightforward plots (Stop Saren, Stop the Collectors, Stop the Reapers) but I thought ME1s plot twists were better and more surprising. ME2 and ME3 were about the same in my opinion.
Characters:
1. ME3
2. ME2
3. ME1
ME3 had the best characters and character development in my opinion. Squadmates appeared to have wandered about the ship between missions and talked with other squadmates or NPCs. And for all the hate against 'auto-dialogue', I think it allowed for greater dialogue and conversations between Shepard and NPCs, and allowed for greater character development and emotional investment. Put it this way: I never liked Garrus in ME1 or ME2 until the dialogue fleshed him out in ME3. (Note that I do not think it was perfect; there were flaws in the system but overall it was a good design. And Ashley got shafted).
ME1 was the first game and so was good at the time with some interesting characters and character development, but ME2 was able to expand on on what ME1 introduced. Characters felt more flushed out, with the loyalty missions providing a greater spotlight on each squadmate.
Atmosphere:
1. ME2
2. ME1
3. ME3
Mass Effect 1 had some great atmosphere as it introduced some alien races and planets that made it feel like a big galaxy. Unfortunately, the planets tended to be human-centric or completely empty. ME2 took the large galaxy and gave us a closer look at the galaxy. We got a closer look at the Krogan on Tuchanka, the Asair on Illium, and the Quarians on the flotilla; we got a closer look at some of the places we only heard about in ME1.
Mass Effect 3 was also diverse, but it never seemed as fleshed out as it could have been.
Overall story:
1. ME1
2. ME2 and ME3 (tie)
I think ME1 barely beats out ME2 and ME3 for the overall story, mostly because of the plot and a galaxy that felt large.
Gameplay:
I wanted to break this down into different categories, but I do feel that it matters since it always ends up:
1. ME2
2. ME3
3. ME1
ME1 felt really fresh to me at the time as it gave me a different shooting experience than what I was used to in other games. But coming back to it after ME2 and ME3 is really really hard. It is clunky, weapons and powers are terrible early, and mods are practically pointless early. And on the highest difficulty, the game switches from 'pretty hard' to 'ridiculously easy' once you level up enough and start getting good gear. It does not hold up well.
Classes in ME1 were diverse, but with bonuses powers obtained from other classes, the hybrids tended to outshine the pure classes; for example, the Vanguard with Singularity was a better Adept, and Infiltrator with AI Hacking was a better Engineer.
Biotic powers were fun (and overpowered), combat powers were good, tech powers seemed weak and very situational.
ME1 equipment (Amps/Tools/armors/weapons) only came in three flavors: crap, soon to be crap, best.
ME1 combat was a cover shooter with space powers, but the cover controls were poor and by mid game you never needed them which made all the combat areas feel rather cluttered. ME2 refined the cover mechanics and made them a core gameplay component this time.
The powers in ME2 were more diverse this time with tech powers gaining more usefulness. Each power felt like it served a useful purpose.
ME2 classes felt unique with the introduction of class-unique powers. The levelling system and new bonus powers allowed for greater variety of builds and playstyles. Insanity was tough but fair. Each weapon type served a purpose and each weapon felt unique.
The new levelling system in ME2 also felt better, with each rank giving the power a significant stat boost (as opposed to ME1 where you had only incremental changes until Advanced and Master). The evolution system was interesting as it theoretically allowed for different builds as well, although most of the time one evolution was clearly better than the other. With shorter cooldowns in ME2 coupled with the new global cooldown made for a faster-paced combat with the requirement that you used the right power at the right time. Combat felt more dynamic this way.
ME3 sought to improve on ME2, but I felt some of the changes were half-baked or unrealized, or just plain broke the balance. The new combat roll was fun and useful. The class-specific heavy melee was a nice touch to make the classes feel more unique but ultimately did not really come into play all that much.
Of the two new class-specific powers, only Nova (Vanguard) and Sentry Turret (Engineer) felt unique; everything else was some type of grenade. And the Turret sucked. And Nova combined with Charge was over-freaking-powered.
The new power combo system felt like it may have had potential, but ultimately I thought it was terrible. Powers no longer held a unique roll (such as shield-stripper or crow-control), but instead turned every power into combo primer or combo detonator. This in turn made each class feel less unique. The Adept in particular is particularly not that different from the Sentinel, and Engineer feels very similar to the Infiltrator.
The weapon weight system in ME3 had potential, but it was tied to the global cooldown, making powers cool down way too fast.
ME3 weapons were very diverse, but most sucked. they also (mostly) got rid of the defense modifiers so weak weapons remained weak.
ME3 actually did have some great level design, but the combat mechanics made the gameplay a joke most of the time.
I actually really enjoyed the level design of ME1's plot missions, but the rest of the maps all felt the same.
Anyway, I am rambling at this point.
Overall:
1. ME2. Good story combined with great gameplay.
2. ME3. Multiplayer was awesome.
3. ME1. The overall story is still good, but the gameplay is a chore.
ASSIGNMENTS/SIDE-MISSIONS [FROM A GAMEPLAY STANDPOINT]:
ME2 > ME3 > ME1
OVERALL FUN I HAD:
ME2 > ME3 = ME1
This is difficult as they all had good aspects; however it is interesting whether you look at them as a series of individual games or as part of a trilogy.
ME1 exploration and reveal of the galaxy is brilliant in terms of it's expansion of scope and atmosphere, I don't even mind the combat that much. It suffers from its age in some aspects of its design but things like the plot and the encounters within remain iconic through the series (the little chat with Sovereign for example).
ME2 does a very good job in expanding on this with its exploration of different cultrues etc (the missions centred around Illium and Omega are some of my favourite parts of the entire trilogy). However I found the upgrade and equipment aspect poor, and the main plot is just complete bollocks to be frank. It does a woeful job as part of a trilogy, each of the recruitment and loyalty missions could just be standalone DLCs (and the number of characters in themsleves is a weakness). The planet scanning was also a big step backwards compared to ME1.
ME3 whilst improving the combat model and movement coupled that with a really big step backwards in locations in terms of scope and size. Part of this is probably due to the plot of a war, but even the side missions are like this - thinly disguised reuses of the MP maps. Plotwise (ignoring all the holes and stuipdity, part of which stes from ME2) it's probably the strongest of the 3 (ME1 is a lot more straightforward with less arcs) and the character interaction (as it is) is also improved. I also feel the reputation system was the best of the 3, but they did a poorer job of disguising the autodialogue compared to the other two.
So it's a complex picture, they all have their faults and plus points. I can't say one is better than the others. ME2's great locations etc is let down by a shoddy inventory and bollocks of a main plot; ME1 by its fairly linear narrative and repetative environments, and ME3 by its autodialogue, limited locations and recycling of MP maps.
Still probably the best trilogy I have played though.
And you all know femshep is best shep.
Overall: ME2 > ME1 > ME3.
Characters: ME2 > ME3 > ME1
Gameplay: ME2 > ME3 > ME1
Side-mission diversity: ME2 > ME1 > ME3
Side-mission story: ME1 > ME3 > ME2
Customization of Shepard: ME2 > ME1 > ME3
Plot: ME1 > ME2 > ME3
IN THE BEGINNING:
ME1-5
ME2-9
ME3-4
...now after playing it many times:
ME1-8
ME2-10
ME3-9
What game analysts say can have a huge swing when it comes to $$$$. Bioware did an EXCELLENT job to make sure each was entirely different than the other. They can't say "ME2 is another same old ME1" or "after ME2 there's nothing new about ME3".
As mentioned in another post "Why ME2 has a metascore of 94", I pointed out that [most of us] humans are social creatures and a look into ourselves sometimes reveal WHY we like things. I had some help writing that. Upper-left brained folks probably don't give much for ME2 and gripe that it has no REAL OBJECTIVE at the reaper problem. In contrast, lower-right brain folks crash & burn over ME3's ending. The ULB's are confused, saying "what's the big damn deal?"
In 1987 I had my brain dominance plotted (Ned Herrmann) which was THE MOST fantastic course I've ever taken in my life. Then, I was predominately UL. He showed how to become balanced (whole brained) -- and I've been working on it ever since.
Suffice to say -- ME2 is my favorite now with a good balance of interesting assignments, drama in places, and character development -- even if there were some fruits & nuts.
Hello everyone
why do you find Mass Effect 3 is better than 2?, or 1 better than 3?, or 2 better than 1?, or... you got the idea.
Describe the aspects that made ME 1 or 2 or 3 very special/good to you without involving the story among the things that made it special or good to you. you can talk about anything but the story
Thanks.
Uh, okay. Let's see... ME2 was better than ME1 because it improved the combat and did away with the retarded inventory in ME1, introducing an aesthetically better armor system and an overall better weapon roster where different weapons actually look and perform uniquely as opposed to being statistical up or downgrades of otherwise aesthetically and performance-identical weapons.
ME3 obviously improved combat further. And the new and improved weapon mod system was great too, I suppose. Shame nothing like it came up for the armor system.
ME1's visitable planets had potential, but were fairly bland in terms of geography and design. ME2's visitable planets were better designed and more immersive, but at the cost of the open design. Railroading overall became quite the problem in ME2 and ME3.
ME2 and ME3 moved away from the already sparse RPG mechanics in ME1 to play more like Gears of War. While I enjoyed Gears of War, I deliberately bought Mass Effect because it was marketed as a space-themed RPG by the then respectable RPG-masters of BioWare.
ME3 had the unique default FemShep, which I love, so that's definitely a plus.
ME2 had great side missions but an incredibly weak main mission path that did a poor job in connecting ME1 and ME3. The Suicide Mission was well-done, however, aside from the last boss which I found tacky and boring (encounter-wise, not story-wise).
Voice acting was overall very good. Voice casting I would argue was excellent.
I felt that the game world in ME2 and ME3 overall felt a lot smaller than the game world in Mass Effect 1. I think this is because they did away with the seamless elevator loading screens, replacing them with actual, more boring loading screens taking just as long if not longer.
While the graphical fidelity improved with each sequel, I feel as if the animation got progressively worse... or worse is the wrong word. RUSHED is more like it. Hopefully they will utilize more advanced MOCAP for ME4 and future games to really breathe some life into both the humans and the aliens.
The blatant use of sprites in ME3 was not appreciated.
Multiplayer was a surprisingly good addition to the series, but I felt replayability was low because of limited maps and game types, and the enjoyment factor dropped sharply due to the RNG-reliant card system and the fact that said card packs could be bought with real life money, making short-term character progression pay-to-win.
Sound design and music were stellar throughout the franchise and got even better with each sequel. Kudos to the sound guys, I have nothing but glowing respect for them and their work.
Didn't like the DLC model used in ME2 and ME3. Especially not when main-story relevant/reliant content is sold as DLC, such as LotSB, Arrival and Leviathan.
That's all I can think of at the moment.
Sound design and music were stellar throughout the franchise and got even better with each sequel. Kudos to the sound guys, I have nothing but glowing respect for them and their work.
The sound effects in this series don't get praised enough. I love that Carnifex/Paladin firing sound.
Dare I say it's the best part of this series or at least the least contested.
I never thought I'd say this but ME3 is amazing on re-play. The first time I played it I was so angry at certain things (God child nonsense, Kai Lang nonsense, ME1 face catastrophe) that I didn't appreciate some of its better moments as much as I should have.
If there was some kind of mod that just cut Kai Lang and God Child out of the game, it would be very hard for me to choose between ME3 and ME1.
ME1 I am 100% blinded by nostalgia but I don't care. It's an incredible game. Some things definitely needed to be worked on but I just love that game.
ME2 was amazing, but I felt like the plot barely moved at all. Tons of amazing plotlines, but literally nothing mattered when it came to the main plot, other than the introduction of Cerberus.
ME3 had some incredibly epic moments, and I am a sucker for stuff like that. I seriously think this game is amazing, but I have to say that certain things about it did bug me:
God Child. Enough said.
Kai Lang and all missions relating to him seem like something you'd find in ****** Saints Row 3. NOT Mass Effect 3 lmao. By far the most pointless character in the Mass Effect series.
So In the end, I have to say 1 > 3 > 2, but I'm heavily nostalgia biased
Retour en haut