Probably 3 because of the multiplayer. 2 was the first one I played, definitely loved it. Never actually finished part 1, always get 5 or 6 hours in and just kinda peter out.
I think Mass Effect 2 is the most balanced. The first game grants you more opportunities to explore, but most of the environments are rehashed and many of the missions are boilerplate. Mass Effect 3 lies at the other extreme. You can't really explore outside the main storyline and most of the missions are lame fetch quests. Who thought it was a good idea to scan planets for mission items? Anyway, which one if your favorite?
I'd say two, but my wife just glared at me and called me a snob for not enjoying playing multiplayer with her in 3...so now I have to say 3.
Ragefire - Snatty / Vlett
Tunare - Sethlen / Ryoh
Vulak - Snatty / Terran
Stormrage - Vlett (RIP WoW)
Balmung - Vlett Byrn
Trakanon - Vlett
3 for me as well. The single player was as good as the others and the multiplayer was excellent - I probably would have paid for the two separately since I got a lot of play out of both
3, mainly because of the multiplayer which I must have dumped well over 100 hours into.
2. I prefer the more emphasis on action than the first while the story is a tie between 1 & 2. Didn't play ME3 multiplayer, but there's no way it makes up for the dogshit that was Kai Lung and the abortion of an ending
1 is my favorite. 2 is the best game.
Hard to say, 2 was incredible and in many ways I liked the gameplayer better than 3. Still, 3 had multiplayer. I still play that shit sometimes.
As silly as it sounds I separate the multiplayer from ME3 because it's so different from the game, was made by a different studio and is basically the culmination of building and refining a combat system from three separate games. I feel like crediting ME3 because of the MP almost does a disservice to the group that made it and gives undue credit to the couple of dicks who ruined ME3. I'd be excited for a standalone ME multiplayer game but honestly I'm so burnt out from that gameplay from putting in several hundred hours into it I probably wouldn't play it much.
I like 1 better than 2 because:
1. It was more sandbox oriented.
2. It was original and fresh.
3. I liked driving my mako around.
Objectively speaking 2 is the best, just because the mechanics were better, the squadmates were excellent and the storyline was incredible.
hands down Mass Effect 1
and yes the Mako was fuckin bad but still fun to explore lol
Last edited by Regime; 01-29-2014 at 04:57 PM.
i'd have to say 1, 2, then 3. 2 is probably the best story, but without all the stuff you found out in 1 i can't imagine it being as good, so 1 sets everything up and did an amazing job building a really, really cool universe that was just so immersive. I've also replayed 1 & 2 a few times, haven't touched 3 since that dogshit ending. 90% of 3 was great, but man I just feel the bile in me rising as I think about the ending, GODDAMN IT
I never had a problem with the mako. I spent a lot of time driving around exploring the planets.
ME2 was easily the best game & story.
ME3's multiplayer was great, but like Tuco said it really was practically a totally separate game. Plus, ME3 was just had too much garbage. The shitty ending, Kai Leng, them throwing out the entirety of your resource gathering and making it all pointless, etc. You did get to bang Tali though so there is that.
Every one of the games has multiple fatal flaws, and all of them are overlooked because Shepard.
I've played through ME1 twice and ME2 three times, and I think 2 is my favourite as the combat mechanics are more fluid and I prefer the story and characters. I'll echo what others have said and say while I loved the open sandbox of ME1, I hated the Mako. I never bought ME3 as I don't care for the multiplayer and I've heard little but horror stories about the single player.
ME1 - 6 playthroughs, once for each class.
ME2 - 2.5 playthroughs, #2 was Vanguard on Insanity and everything else seemed pointless after that.
ME3 - 1 playthrough that I still regret not uninstalling immediately upon seeing Kai Leng for the first time.
Overall, ME1 was by far the best in the series, and ME3 is still the worst game I've played in the last decade.
2-3-1. I can easily go back and play 2 and 3 anytime and have a blast. 1 though is a real struggle. The Mako parts suck ass. The inventory system is a fucking nightmare to manage. All that side-mission bollocks of going to generic planet D, finding generic building B...etc etc.
Not saying 1 is shit though. I loved it when it came out. But 2 made 1 a good, but very flawed game.
2 > 3 > 1 I think. Combat in 3 was great, but I preferred the plot development of 2.
I may have used the wrong words then. I liked Miranda and the Illusive Man. I liked working for him. It made the missions more interesting.
I liked Miranda too, but what does that have to do with plot?
Though the ending was poorly delivered, I did like 3 the best in terms of story and plot. I preferred the RPG mechanics and sense of mystery in 1 to what followed, but the characters were not as well fleshed out and sort of cookie cutter archtypes compared to their reworking in ME2. I like 3 the best as it had the most sense of scope to me, with the vast war and all of the side plots being tied off, but they really took the feeling of mystery out of the Reapers and Protheans by that point, which is what the first game did best. So....
As a story or for replay:
ME3 > ME1 > ME2
As a video game experience:
ME3 = ME2 > ME1
Also, as someone who does not do much multiplayer gaming, I was surprised at how much I enjoyed ME3 MP. I think there is a great void in the market for a good coop game of this nature.
668 The Neighbor of the Beast.
Originally Posted by Erronious
ME2 is the experience that defines the trilogy for me. It is the game I look back on with the fondest memories. ME3 Multiplayer really overshadowed the regular game for me, and it was the portion of the product that I got the most enjoyment out of. ME1 wasn't anything special in my mind. Basically KOTR in a non-Star Wars universe.
lol, get over it. You sound like some kid that found out Santa Clause wasn't real and decided he had the worst parents ever.Vorph- ...and ME3 is still the worst game I've played in the last decade.
No idea what that retarded analogy is supposed to mean. I'm about as likely to "get over" what Casey Hudson did to Mass Effect as I am to "get over" what George Lucas did to Star Wars.
Edit: Not saying that Mass Effect is actually comparable to Star Wars, just that the size of the shit that was taken on each franchise is.
Last edited by Vorph; 01-29-2014 at 06:13 PM.
I'm going to have to echo - 2>3>>>>1 Platinuming 1 was absolute torture after a while, it's just so wonky mechanically in so many places - and the story is really pretty damn shallow - it's good, but it's shallow. Most of the cool shit about ME1 is learning about the world but they're never expanded upon unlike in 2 and 3.
At no point in Platinuming 2/3 did they ever begin to feel like work. 1 absolutely did.
Ducks and sunlight and nitroglycerine or something.
But yeah I think it's goofy to call ME3 the worst game you've played in a decade, unless you hardly play any games a year and cherry pick the games you do play really hard or something.
Even with how terribly ME3 shit all over everything I hold sacred, the first half was still very good and the gameplay was still incredibly fun throughout
ME1. It's the only one I occasionally want to replay, which usually leads into replaying the other games. Without ME1 I'd probably never revisit the series.
It closed some of the glaring plot holes, but the bigest complaints were:
1. the fact that the ending came from left field while being against everything you had experienced in the trilogy. With Edi and Legion you were organics and AI working together even though you were initially worried they couldn't be trusted. So 2.5 games of "Despite our fears we can coexist peacefully" to suddenly "lol just joking no you can't"
2. You must get as many species/planets on your side if you plan to take on the reapers while you spend 2.5 games rallying the troops to: "lol it's just Shepard by himself"
3. All the countless choices you make throughout the game will impact the ending to "lol red, blue, or green" They also added meta option where if you reject those shit endings everyone dies and you fail.
And finally 4. Kai Leng. DLC replacing him with the Noid would have fit in better with the ME universe.
the DLC didn't do anything those which were the main issues. The plot holes they did fix were just salt in the wounds
ME3 dlc was ok, although I still think Shadow Broker is the best dlc pack I've ever played for any game.
Leviathan was awesome, although I might be biased because it confirmed my theory about the Reapers. Omega was kinda dumb, but Citadel was really fun/funny.
ME1 was the best out of the 2 that I played. I played one and two.
Like has been said above, I dumped probably 3 times the hours into that vs. the main game. Was a ton of fun.
It's really hard to play the main game after playing multiplayer. The character classes are just so boring compared to multiplayer.
Gameplay wise ME3 was far and away the best, no question
ME1 was the best for story and the open world aspect of it
ME2 was probably the best balanced and the most difficult when played on Insanity
My overall favorite? ME3, mostly because the actual shooting aspect of it is so much better than the other two and because of multiplayer.
ME2 was by and far my favorite game in the series. The story and game play were top notch, and I got to kick a guy down an elevator shaft.. so yea that was pretty fucking awesome. ME3 game play wise was great, it just shit the bed in the final hours which has still left a bitter after taste in my mouth. ME1 was good for it's time but I don't look back on it nearly as fondly as ME2 or even ME3.
Honestly, it is worth the price of the game, especially if you can pick it up cheap because it is 'old' now.
No one else had a problem with ME 3's side missions? They made the game feel soulless and empty.
According to Steam/Origin I've played ME2 for 352 hours. Played ME1 for 226 hours. Played ME3 for 125 hours. A decent chunk of that was probably multiplayer and reloading the Citadel DLC just to see what everyone's Tuxedo looked like.
Man do I love the shit out of some ME2. My ME3 playthroughs gradually became more cynical as time went on as I always found myself shooting Mordin in the back and blasting Wrex through a window. The Shadowbroker and the Citadel DLC were definitely the best out of the bunch. Omega/Leviathan/Arrival were all equally shitty imo.
The Mako sucks.
I feel like the separation between people who like ME2 over ME1 and the opposite is entirely based on people's opinions of the mako and exploration in the mako.
For me, the mako was an extremely mobile vehicle that I could do spinning trick shots and dodge all kinds of crazy shit with. I don't get how people can hate it so much.
I really enjoyed them all. One of the best series ever made IMO.
This is one of those series that I've never played, because as they were coming out, I was far far too addicted to MMO's to even care.
I recently bought on deal the trilogy pack, and reading peoples comments makes me want to play them even more. Especially ME3 multiplayer.
After using the hovercraft, even though it was only used a handful of times, I would much prefer to use the Hammerhead over the Mako if given the choice. I think it's just all those bad experiences trying to crest a mountain in the Mako, coming up short, and then tumbling all the way back down again. Elatania comes to mind where this happened everytime I wanted to put Sha'ira's crystal into that big metal ball. Fuck that planet.
I never would have guessed it, but the booster pack concept worked incredibly well for a multiplayer shooter.
Play the game, earn credits, buy boosters, with the chance of getting rare-new classes and guns to play with. Then, the fact that it was teamwork based against horde's and not PvP also played out better than could be imagined. They took some risks and brought something fresh and really fun to the table.
Then again, I'm on record (not that FoH exists anymore, but whatever) as saying every Bioware game is worse than the last one since at least KotOR.
ME1 has flaws - the shooting is terrible (since in truth all they did was bolt on some weak realtime projectiles to the KotOR engine), the inventory system was trash, and exploration in the Mako took way too much time.
But actually exploring in the Mako is superior to the (even when fixed) brain-dead survey probe, yes/no to one of the overly repeated subdungeons, repeat of ME2. There's quests that don't just connect to your party members, and some missions are actually solved without gunfire. There's at least the promise of divergent paths (even if later games just turned those choices into "some other voice actor will read almost the same line while standing in the same spot"). You can actually customize your playstyle with equipment.
And the biggest reason I prefer 1? It's NOT A FUCKING GODDAMN COVER SHOOTER like everything else since Gears.
It's a shame that the Hammerhead got relegated to a pair of DLC missions in ME2, cause it was a ton of fun to pilot compared to the Mako.
Yes, they could have "fixed" the Mako... simply by cutting the size of each world down by 50% (or more) and having areas that you had to look around for the right valleys to get into.
The problem was less the Mako's controls than the total time you had to spend in the thing to find everything.
In ME your lander is always in the middle of 3+ distant POI's. Because the Normandy cant be more exact than that.
I think part of the ratings is that 1 is a tough game for people to pick up if they've already played some of 2 or 3. The combat and some other aspects feel dated, especially with how much more streamlined the other games are. I would always tell my friends they had to start with 1 or they'd never get the full experience.
Each game had its good parts. I'd take
The music, gameplay, gun customization, and depth of squad characterization and humanization of 3.
The coherent story plots of 2 and 1.
The quality of story DLC of 2 and darkish story tones in general.
The real SIDEquests, the weapon/armor markets, and biotics of the first game.
Two. The writing was a bit more fleshed out and the final mission was tits.
Still love 1 the most; the whole feel of the game was just very Perfect Dark feeling, and I fucking loved that game. I think even the fucking death music is the same or nearly?
The Mako was a low point; thing operated like a god damn refrigerator on a skateboard, but meh.
1 for me was just sooo big and sooo uh, organic I guess? Which is funny, because they specifically made characters and things change in ME3 to create that feeling, but I got far more of it in ME1. Not sure why; maybe because there was a world that wasn't just loading between points? Not sure, but I loved walking around the Citadel, and visiting all the planets etc.
Next would be 2, and finally 3. That's ending aside btw. MP in 3 was fucking awesome, but there's something about a Rebel Shepard that sets my loins aflame.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)