155 réponses à ce sujet

[Fixers0]

Nope.

[AlleyD]

For me, ME1 stands out as being the weakest game (by far) in the trilogy. The gameplay design was problematic in many key areas. Simply not a fun game, imo. I find it unplayable and boring, now

 

I much preferred the switch in gameplay design in ME2, and the addition of M/P was the saving grace for ME3 that makes it stand out as the most fun.

[themikefest]

ME2>ME3>ME1

[Panda]

Yes, both ME2 and ME3 are better than ME1 in many aspect. Better gameplay, better characters, better romances.. Though I think ME1 had quite strong story as well. Overall ME3 is my fav, only negative thing is the ending.

[PsychicHammer]

TLDR: I absolutely find 2 and 3 better than the first, seeing as the most prominent aspect of gameplay (combat) is boring in ME1.

 

Each game shines in some aspect. 

 

ME1 was a great set-up of a universe, had a kind of space-opera romanticism to it. Mako was completely wacky and I hated it most of the time, but then there was a moment where a geth colossus took my tank to the face and suddenly I was like "MAKO FOREVURR!!" The game was better when I wasn't fighting. There was a ton of skills to choose from and heaps of gear, but somehow the combat still managed to be amazingly boring. Thank God for masseffectsaves.com.

 

ME2 was a huge improvement where improvements were most needed and combat was actually fun this time. A much bigger cast of characters and more focus on each one was good. Side missions, those little things like the one where you had to reactivate a colony's magnetic shield, or recovered some data from a Cerberus outpost, or followed a trail of bad software from a cargo ship to a wrecked space station to a planetside mech factory - all of that served to make you feel like a space captain. You actually went around doing stuff, like you were a part of that environment. Loyalty missions provided insight into your crew.

 

Unfortunately, while all of those elements played well together, the larger theme of Repaers suffered. The scale wasn't necessarily down from the first game (hundreds of thousands of colonists disappearing, enigmatic Collectors, unpassable Omega 4 Relay and Harbinger lurking behind it all), but it was a weird mix of feeling smaller while the sense of epicness was bigger. In the end, you still end up stopping Reapers' arrival in Arrival, but the way it was executed wasn't the best. I alternately loved and hated Arrival while playing it. Let's be honest, Arrival was a throwaway bridging DLC to ME3. The best piece of DLC was essentially Liara's loyalty mission. 

 

If the ME2 protag was an Alliance frigate commander tasked with helping out here and there, the whole thing would make much more sense. ME2 tried to have a tight plot while expanding on other aspects. The result was the expansions (character focus, side missions, etc) being well-executed, but making little sense within the narrative. The one saving grace here is that when stuff was actually happening, you had to go now, but it was a poor way to bottleneck the player into furthering the plot. I don't like it when I'm forced into a tunnel in a game that's supposed to make me feel free to explore. Those two just don't compute. 

 

To be fair, ME1 also suffered from this - you start with three clear leads on Saren and if ME1 were a novel, Shepard wouldn't dick around with side missions or scanning keepers, he'd just go to each planet and then Virmire and then Ilos and then back to the Citadel. There no place for side missions in a narrative that's supposed to convey a sense of urgency. So, ultimately, both ME1 and ME2 kind of screwed up the storytelling in that aspect, but in ME2 it stood out more and therefore the slight was larger against that game then the first one. 

 

ME3 took the combat of ME2 and made it more dynamic, more responsive and still put us in tunnels that adhered to the from-point-A-to-point-B model, so kind of a mixed bag. Personally, I enjoyed the hell out of the combat system, so I put it down as an improvement. The game finally embraces its identity as an action-RPG instead of pretending to be a "true" RPG and ending up boring (ME1) - and that's not a bad thing. (DAO did the RPG thing much better anyway)

 

Here, the sense of urgency was the greatest of all three games (Reapers are blowing us up) and side missions like Geth Squadrons or the Turian bomb on Tuchanka played well into that. They were side missions, but they also made sense within the narrative, the urgency was still there, it didn't take me completely out of the main plot. The awareness of the Reapers was always in the back of my mind during those missions. Well done there.

 

Then we have the fetch quests. One of the worst things BioWare has ever put in any game - it made no sense, it was stupid, it made no sense, it would have been better if they had scrapped those entirely and it MADE NO SENSE. What is this? The galaxy is burning, but Shep has time to frolick around looking for a book or a statue so he can walk up to some batarian like a total creep and say that he overheard him when he was on the Citadel two cycles ago, so here you go dude, your obelisk. Thanks for the xp. I facepalmed so hard that I deviated my nasal septum. 

 

Really, BioWare wrote itself into a corner with their space opera, because if you have Techno-Eldritch Monsters turning everything with a pulse into crimes against nature, there's no time to explore the galaxy, do side missions and stuff. You have to fight the friggin war. For the most part, the game does this well enough, but just those stupid fetch quests were such a staggeringly idiotic thing to do that it inevitably diminished my enjoyment of the game. I can suspend disbelief alright, but come on. 

 

On the other hand, exactly because the game needed to feel more like it was pushing me into certain missions to facilitate the urgency of the plot, it made me feel more constrained. That's less a mark against ME3 though and more against the previous two games spoiling us and then BioWare trying to do something like this with ME3 instead of sticking to its guns and making the main plot as epic as they could. They tried to have two and ended up with half of each, instead of dedicating themselves to making one thing and making it truly great. 

 

That's not to say that ME3 didn't have some properly epic moments (the Shroud assault on Tuchanka for exmaple), but it sort of cheated by simply having to put us in familiar settings with familiar characters and most of that work had been done by the previous two games. So my grievance against ME3 story-wise is that it had all the epic building blocks it needed to construct something that would truly have been more than the sum of its parts, but it failed and delivered something that just worked, more or less. ME3's story is like a towel rack - it's solid enough, it works and did what BioWare needed it to do, but there is nothing exciting about it. I know that this conflicts with my earlier point about epic moments in ME3. My point is - ME3 was a prime example of potential not exactly wasted, but potential that had juice left to squeeze still and the writers dropped the ball on that one. 

[ExoGeniVI]

Wrong forum, this topic would go in the Mass Effect franchise section.

[Chardonney]

ME1 and ME2 were way better than ME3. ME3 had it moments but it went totally haywire in so many places that it's not even funny. So no, ME3 is definitely not better than ME1.

[ArabianIGoggles]

Wrong forum, this topic would go in the Mass Effect franchise section.

Where is the bla bla bla in Andromeda.  Thoughts?  Section?

[Zekka]

I would hope that the sequels to a game can improve on the gameplay of the first, too bad ME2 & 3 took some step backs while doing so.

[Helios969]

Absolutely yes. To be fair I played ME1 after 2&3, so my nostalgia begins with ME2.

[Fixers0]

Personally, based on my overal enjoyment of each game my final ranking would be ME1>ME2>ME3.

[ToothPasteEater]

I am highly visual and there is a lot that has been said about characters/story/gameplay and it is surprising no one mentioned the way ME visuals evolved. I only completed trilogy so I may change my opinion after second playthrough. 

 

ME1 is the best game for me in terms of enemy design and environments. I like the darker, grim, more serious look it has. Just because of that seriousness game felt much more like hard sci-fi. I can just load up Ilos save and walk around looking at the ruins, it is by far the most memorable environment I've seen in games.

 

ME2 visuals hit me hard and I never recovered, the shapes seem to be a bit out of proportion so I feel like I am watching some cartoon that wants to look like movie, Brighter more saturated colors applied to enemies, not a single dent in armor, shiny polished surfaces make it all look much more like pulp fiction in space. So I end up fighting "power ranger" styled mercs for majority of the game in cartoonish(at least the corridors I fight in are not bright red/blue/yellow) environments. Although Project station from Arrival just looks amazing, the view out of the glass corridors is worth reloading the save. I like how collectors look and their environment looks interesting, the organic look conceals the cartoonish feel I get in places where more regular and angular shapes are abundant.

 

ME3 reapers just killed me inside and made my cry with blood, BioWare, thank you very much for making them look like some space demons, now I can't stop making parallels between generic fantasy and Mass Effect universe. I just feel kinda insulted because of the way reaper troops look, as if I am stupid and devs need to show my that reapers=evil so they made all new reaper models disfigured and ugly, good thing they didn't retcon the way human husks look by adding some demony spikes or outgrowths to them. Apart from that, ME3 seems to get darker and edgier(in a kinda funny way, ME3 is all like "reapers are here, it's all about survival now so I am really serious" even though some thing still look goofy and silly to me), shapes and proportions seem to get a bit better. And I don't like the new dialogue wheel on top of that.

[YouKnowMyName]

To be honest, no.

 

This is just my opinion, of course.

 

I loved ME1. The atmosphere, the exploration, the characters, the story, the lore, everything. The gameplay was admittedly a bit clunky, but I didn't mind it all that much.

 

The revelations and twists were surprising and well done. Sure, the story wasn't perfect, but it was better than in ME2 and ME3.

 

Driving around on the empty barren planets gave me a strange sense of vastness, and exploring a truly dangerous galaxy. It's a feeling the sequels never recaptured. The exploration could have been better executed, but I had hoped ME2 would improve on that.

 

When I played ME2 for the first time, I remember feeling so disappointed. The series had gone off in a completely different direction, and while it turned out to be a popular direction, it was not the direction I had hoped for. With time, I came to accept this, and I did find positive things about ME2, although there was no doubt to me that ME1 was the better game.

 

Then ME3 came, and it wasn't as good as the first, and in some ways, it was worse than ME2, but in other ways, it was better. Initially, ME3 was my least favourite game, mostly because of the ending, but as time passed, and I started to get over the third game's flaws, I realized that in many ways, I found it to be a better experience than ME2.

 

Even though the story wasn't as strong, and the atmosphere at times a bit bland, I still appreciate ME3's attempt at recapturing the feeling of the first game, and adding back elements which had been cut in ME2.

 

ME3 tried to create the illusion of more open environments, had a more focused story, as well as relevant and interesting side quests (Grissom, Monastery etc.). It also had more twists and revelations (not all of them good, admittedly), and brought a little of the ME1 atmosphere back again. And best of all, actual character and squadmate interaction. The character's acknowledged the existence of other characters.

 

Despite my feelings about ME2, that game still had the most colorful cast, and the most colorful universe. The atmosphere was more enjoyable than in ME3, and there are few more horrifying antagonists than the Collectors.

 

Overall, to me, i'd say that my ranking of the three games would go:

 

ME1 

 

ME2/ME3 (With DLC)

 

ME2 (Standard game)

 

ME3 (Standard game)

 

That said, both ME2 and ME3 improved drastically with the DLCs, and are as a result of those, much more enjoyable games than they were the first time I played.

 

All three games have their enjoyable elements, but for me, the first will always be my favourite.

[Larry-3]

Mass Effect 1 and 2 are my favorite. I do not play 3 as much.

[AlanC9]

ME2 visuals hit me hard and I never recovered, the shapes seem to be a bit out of proportion so I feel like I am watching some cartoon that wants to look like movie, Brighter more saturated colors applied to enemies, not a single dent in armor.

I don't check you on that. Plenty of characters have dented armor, notably Shepard herself.

ME3 reapers just killed me inside and made my cry with blood, BioWare, thank you very much for making them look like some space demons, now I can't stop making parallels between generic fantasy and Mass Effect universe. I just feel kinda insulted because of the way reaper troops look, as if I am stupid and devs need to show my that reapers=evil so they made all new reaper models disfigured and ugly, good thing they didn't retcon the way human husks look by adding some demony spikes or outgrowths to them.

I don't see how the ME3 models differ from ME2 scions. Or husks, for that matter. Are you sure you're not just reacting to ME3 having more Reaper types than the previous games?

[Ahglock]

Me 1. Best story and RP.
ME 2 best gaming ride.
ME3 happy medium.

[Zekka]

but ME3 was a bad game though

[FKA_Servo]

but ME3 was a bad game though

 

I actually thought it was excellent until it rendered first two games meaningless (more meaningless, in the case of ME2, which arguably renders itself meaningless).

 

It was a very fun game with a lot of terrific moments, though.

[Ahglock]

There were bad things in it. But it was a good game IMO.

Ending sucked for me.
Combo explosions everywhere was crap game design.
Over dodging enemies sucked.

But it was fun, the story was okay, and it added a bit more mechanical role playing bits.

[ArabianIGoggles]

but ME3 was a bad game though

You're insane.

[fchopin]

No, the first is the best, that is why they are going back to the Mako and exploration.

[AllianceGrunt]

NO three is by far the worst in the series, light years behind the other two in terms of quality. The first is the best one by a slim margin for me, the second has the better characters and story but only made possible because of the first one. The second lacked truly epic moments for me such as when you save/abandon the council and talking the Sovereign and Vigil on Ilos. 

[AlanC9]

No, the first is the best, that is why they are going back to the Mako and exploration.

This is exactly why I'm a bit nervous about ME:A.

[ArabianIGoggles]

NO three is by far the worst in the series, light years behind the other two in terms of quality. The first is the best one by a slim margin for me, the second has the better characters and story but only made possible because of the first one. The second lacked truly epic moments for me such as when you save/abandon the council and talking the Sovereign and Vigil on Ilos. 

3 was rushed, and still managed to be light years ahead of 1.  The combat was complete garbage, and Meer's VA was on the same level of dumpster fire. 

[fchopin]

This is exactly why I'm a bit nervous about ME:A.

 

You don't like exploration?