155 réponses à ce sujet

[Faust1979]

Don't get me wrong the story was great, but the game play was a bit to over the place and it felt like it tried to be to many things and there was no real strategy or anything interesting about the fire fights it was a chaotic mess with enemies just running around haphazardly.  I felt the stories in 2 and 3 as well as the game play were much better and everything was well structured. They figured out what worked better and refined it. 

[BabyPuncher]

In retrospect, yes. The first game ultimately lacked powerful moments and characters compared to the sequels. Aside from Virmire and the final mission, there's really not a whole lot of rich, powerful content or themes.

[Elhanan]

Liked the stories in them all; loathed the gameplay in ME2, and have only played it once.

[WittyUsername]

Characters, yes. It gave me Mordin.

Story, no. God no. They were okay. But none gave me a powerful moment like Sovereign's revelation.

Gameplay? I guess... I hate how it stripped so much of the rpg system. ESPECIALLY armor tier.

But overall I still prefer 1

[KaiserShep]

I consider 3 to be the best one. I think 2 makes better use of the relative freedom you have outside of main quests, but ME3 is tied together better than the first two, and the combat is the most fun.

[Iakus]

ME1 will always be the best for me.

[Aesa]

ME3 is my favorite, but I've played ME2 the most, followed by ME1.

 

I love them all for different reasons: ME1 for its world building and sense of mystery; ME2 for the companion-driven stories, Harbinger and suicide mission; ME3 for tying it all together, the DLC, combat, and stabbing Kai Leng in his dumb pseudo-ninja guts.

[PhroXenGold]

ME2 was the peak of the series IMO. BW's best game since BG2. The overall story isn't quite as good as the first one, but the characters and interactions are brilliant, a load of the utterly unneccesary crap from the first game was cleared out (the "inventory" for example) and the gameplay was at its best (ME3 did add some good stuff to combat, but made power based classes tedious by turing everything into combo spamming, instead of having to actually consider what you were fighting and using the appropriate ability, as well needing to bring appropriate companions to deal with the foes you're fighting)

[Ahriman]

In retrospect, yes. The first game ultimately lacked powerful moments 

Would take final mission, Feros and Noveria over T-900, daddy and sister issues any day.

[Mathias]

The gameplay of ME3 is it's only saving grace for me. Aside from some story moments, I hated it. ME2 is still a great game, but it has in retrospect gotten worse once you realized Bioware wrote themselves to a wall by doing NOTHING to advance the Reaper storyline. Finding a conventional way to fight the Reapers should've been a huge plot point in ME2, giving the writers more wiggle room with how to handle the Reaper War in ME3. It was so stupid that the council and the rest of the galaxy still didn't take the coming Reaper invasion seriously after Sovereign kicked down their front door. The "Geth are capable of incredible technology" was a such a lame excuse.

 

 

ME1? Still my favorite of the 3. Love the atmosphere, love the side questing, the story, all of it. It's gameplay is the weakest but I never agreed that the combat was "bad". It was serviceable to the story, I had fun with it.

[Belial]

I haven't played 3 yet but 2 was definitely better than 1, gameplay-wise at least.

 

It just had a lot of issues that wouldn't let me fully enjoy combat. Enemies had no strategy, they would either run right at you or glitch and stay somewhere in the back doing nothing. Getting into cover was a pain, sometimes Shepard wouldn't do it and sometimes get out of it for no reason. Not to mention the horrid squad AI or squadmates not using their powers even though they're right behind me. I didn't mind exploring with the Mako or looting but those features were terribly unpolished as well.

 

The only gameplay feature I really liked from ME1 was being able to use biotics on protected enemies.

[dreamgazer]

Weighing the positives and negatives puts ME1 and ME3 on about the same level. The conversation with Vigil gives the first game an edge.

 

The irrelevant, space-therapist narrative and hollowed-out RPG components of ME2, on the other hand ... 

[Ziggy XT]

I liked ME 1 the most but i thought 2 and 3 were better games.

[Aesa]

(ME3 did add some good stuff to combat, but made power based classes tedious by turing everything into combo spamming, instead of having to actually consider what you were fighting and using the appropriate ability, as well needing to bring appropriate companions to deal with the foes you're fighting)

 

I understand this criticism, but the sound of biotic explosions kind of turns me on so I don't mind being able to spam double pull+double throw over and over again. 

 

[Mcfly616]

ME2 stripped away many of the aspects I thought of when I heard the words "Mass Effect". Not to mention its atrocious plot and its overabundance of shallow characters with identical personal problems.

 

ME3 went even further into the corridor shooter realm that ME2 dragged us into, but also tied the narrative back to the central conflict (something ME2 neglected entirely), it had the best powers system, the best gunplay, the best DLC's, the best character writing. Overall from a gameplay standpoint, 3 is at the top

 

But the original is my favorite, hands down. It has a charm and sense of atmosphere that is sorely missed in the sequels. The synth music is the best and most appropriate for the setting. The revelations hit harder than any in the sequels (Sovereign, Vigil). Saren is the best villain in the trilogy. Best side missions, each one had its own little story (UNC missions). The characters felt grounded, unlike the "Space X-Men" vibe prevalent in ME2. And it had the Mako. 

[Vortex13]

Certain gameplay elements have seen improvement to be sure; and I will always applaud the addition of MP to ME 3; but everything said and done, I say that Mass Effect was the best game of the series. 

 

The universe felt so much more nuanced and 'alive' in the first game; sure the subsequent games may have expanded upon plot lines established in the primer adventure, but they also had a detestable side effect of humanizing and 'shrinking' the galaxy. The distinctly alien species touched upon in ME 1 are ignored, made fun of, or 'fixed' to be more human-like, and narrative had a bad habit of making Shepard bump into the same small group of acquaintances in a galaxy of trillions of beings. In the first game, humanity is just a part of a larger whole, over the course of the next two titles the setting becomes entirely about humanity and those almost-human aliens that we interact with. The alien or 'other' side of the narrative is shoved into the background only brought up as a last second oversight (Rachni decision, Reaper screen time vs Cerberus screen time etc.) or when the writers want a cheap laugh or meme to throw at the audience (Blasto). 

 

 

Even the nature of exploration and discovery was lessened as the series moved on. Okay, yes the Mako exploration of the Uncharted Worlds was in need of major polishing, but it was able to capture the vastness of space, and the inhospitable nature of the universe. The planet map was dull and monotonous, but at least the game actually showed planets that required a sealed atmosphere. Compare this to the surprising lack of planets with unbreathable atmospheres in ME 2 & 3, as well as the utter lack of protection needed by your companions; who in some cases could waltz around in a vacuum or ammonia filled environment with literally nothing but a breathing mask and their birthday suit.

[CronoDragoon]

Sure, a lot of people do.

 

Personally, I can't even get past Eden Prime in ME1 anymore.

[FKA_Servo]

ME2 stripped away many of the aspects I thought of when I heard the words "Mass Effect". Not to mention its atrocious plot and its overabundance of shallow characters with identical personal problems.

 

ME3 went even further into the corridor shooter realm that ME2 dragged us into, but also tied the narrative back to the central conflict (something ME2 neglected entirely), it had the best powers system, the best gunplay, the best DLC's, the best character writing. Overall from a gameplay standpoint, 3 is at the top

 

But the original is my favorite, hands down. It has a charm and sense of atmosphere that is sorely missed in the sequels. The synth music is the best and most appropriate for the setting. The revelations hit harder than any in the sequels (Sovereign, Vigil). Saren is the best villain in the trilogy. Best side missions, each one had its own little story (UNC missions). The characters felt grounded, unlike the "Space X-Men" vibe prevalent in ME2. And it had the Mako. 

 

This guy said it before I could.

[ArabianIGoggles]

2 is my favorite.  It was the game that introduced me to the series, so maybe I'm a bit nostalgic.  I loved the atmosphere in 1 but the gameplay and that god awful abomination mako ruined it for me.  2>3>1, for me.

[9TailsFox]

Gameplay improved each game.

Story become worse and worse each game, culminating one of worst endings ever.

Characters/companions are great in all 3 games.

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

I'm sure people did.

 

Which doesn't change the fact that the first one was the best!

 

 

MAKO ROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLZ

[AlanC9]

I can tolerate ME1 pretty well nowadays, but the upgrade when moving on to the sequels is palpable.

[JasonShepard]

Gamplay: ME3's gameplay is the best. Other than the complete removal of vehicles (I liked the Hammerhead. And LotSB's taxi...), I have zero complaints about how ME3 played. Meanwhile ME2 was a substantial step up from ME1's barebones sandbox approach.

 

Plot: Honestly, ME2's plot is the weakest (The Collectors are such an urgent threat! And the Reapers are still out there! And I've... apparently got time to handle everyone's daddy issues, rather than focusing on the real threats). It didn't move the story forwards much at all, besides introducing Cerberus as a major player.

 

ME1's plot is the strongest. The Virmire twist of what Sovereign is, the constant hunt for Saren, and everything that Vigil reveals, that plot had more twists than your average corkscrew - and they worked. ME3's plot comes in the middle for me - I liked the feel of the Reaper War, but the Crucible is just too convenient for me, and the ending was lacklustre.

 

Characters: ME1 is the weakest with characters (for me). I do love the the ME1 cast - and some characters were better portrayed in the original than their later incarnations (looking at you, Ash), but many of them only really developed as the series went on (Garrus, Tali, Wrex... And definitely Liara...) Best characters? Well, the inter-character interactions are better in ME3, whereas in ME2 they are each given more focus. So I'm rather torn on that front. ME2's conversations with Legion might seal the deal for me, however.

[Sharps McAllistar]

2 and 3 are definitely better than 1. Because they don't have the stupid Mako. Driving that darn thing is as if Shepard is drunk all the time.

[capn233]

The weakpoint of ME1 was the gameplay.  Which is usually a problem for a game, but the universe and most of the characters were interesting.

 

ME2 was my favorite overall, and as far as ME3 I would perhaps give it the nod over ME1 in gameplay.