Which was the best mass effect game?

[ObserverStatus]

Mass Effect 2. Mass Effect 1 and 3 just took themselves far too seriously. Mass Effect 2 just seemed to be the closest to being aware of how ridiculous certain aspects of Mass Effects lore are, and let itself have fun with them.

 

[pookie101]

It's really hard for me to say, as the three games have completely different strengths and weaknesses.

ME1 has the best story/world building, and the best universe (you can explore so damn much), but its combat doesn't hold up much, and it's a pretty slow game.

ME2 has the best character development, and the best DLCs overall, but in the grand scheme of the series ME2 doesn't add or do a whole lot, and a lot of the side quests were rather short and didn't really seem to matter much.

ME3 has the best gameplay, best DLC, and some of the best moments in the series, but the game feels rushed and incomplete, the side quest tracker is shit, the way it handles some revelations is shit (you find out Kal's fate via email, and Emily Wong's via Twitter), the DLCs that aren't Citadel are a bit lacking, and that.

I agree with you, each has good and bad points. it annoyed me they gave you the fate of characters via twitter.

 

[Rastrelly]

First one, duh. And the longer I think of ME series, the more I think it was barely good.

 

[zerragonoss]

I agree with the general sentiment so far. 1 had the best world building, 2 the best story and 3 the best gameplay.
Though I feel like I should specify more that 3s multiplayer had the best gameplay of the whole lot simply due to its play verity after all the characters where out. The main game had two archetypes with slight variation on how they played out, you were a vanguard who used the charge attack and shotguns, or you attacked form a distance while hiding behind cover ( a lot of good variation within the hide behind cover archetype but it?s still a little limited.) The multiplayer had a vorcah with enough health regen to survive light to medium fire indefinitely and a sweet flamethrower to take advantage of scampering around near the front line. Krogans that could charge forward with a hammer, paladins that got a massive shield, an assassin that teleported behind enemies to back stab them and had a better better doge rolling to not get instantly killed on the front line; even the geth prime who could not even use cover. This is on top of a large verity of guns, mods for said guns, and builds options.

 

[sanquin]

As rpg: ME1 wins. The other two focused a lot more on third person shooting.

Story wise: ME2. ME1 had a great story too, but poor execution. ME3's story was...kind of a mess, but with some VERY good parts in it.

Gameplay wise: Definitely ME3. It was the most polished game of the three. The combat shines the most here.

Overall: Probably ME3 if you don't count the ending. The story is very good and powerful in some parts, even if overall it's a bit of a mess. The movement flowed nicely, and satisfying. And leveling up was a bit better than in ME2, though worse than ME1.

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

Depends on how you define 'best'. Each game has its merits.

Ditto'd. For me, ME2 has the merits I most love, though, particularly for the focus on character narrative, but also for the places you visit throughout the story - I just find it all more interesting than anything in 1 or 3.

ME3 would probably be the 'best' game, objectively; its gameplay - whilst never anything special - is improved over 2, its presentation is superb (it practically makes ME1 look archaic), and whilst The War kinda bores me the writing is pretty damn good from start to finish (and yes... I liked the end/s, as rushed as they originally were).

ME1 was the only one that held my interest for more than an hour. After that, it seemed like BioWare stopped caring.

Oh, c'mon, that's incredibly unfair. From the concept art to the voice acting and sound design (and even the packaging in 3 with its double sided bloke-Shep/FemShep sleeve), whatever can be leveled at the series, a lack of passion or love/care from the creators ain't one of them.

 

[Casual Shinji]

ME2, I guess.

It's the most satisfying from beginning to end out of the three.

ME1 is very good, and in some ways the best, but the action is pretty shit and the mission on that ice planet with the rachni is painfully boring.

ME3 has great parts, like the Genophage chapter and... others, but it's mired in shit and stupidity. The Reapers being dumb and completely ignoring the Citadel in their attack eventhough it's like the linchpin of their whole plan for universal dominance. The fucking giant deus ex microphone bullshit which Liara explains as "process of elimination mixed with a little desperation", ugh. Ceberus' forces taking over THE ENTIRE Citadel somehow. Shepard yucking it up with his/her teammates while the Earth is getting scorched. Kai Leng totally being a badass, no really, he's super cool cuz ninja shit, whoa. And so one and so forth. But at least Liara's face finally looked not weird.

 

[MASTACHIEFPWN]

If you don't say 2 I'll break your legs.

ME1 was very good, but its controls just make it difficult to go back to, it's still rather enjoyable despite this, but I just can't help but feel the scale isn't very big. Not that that's a huge issue, because it is still a very well crafted game, I just can't help feel 2 is superior in most every way.
ME3 had the smoothest and most fun combat system, but the story was absolute shit all things considered.
KAI LENG WOOOOO HE'S SO HARDCOOOOOORRRRREEEEEEEEEEEE, YOUR BULLETS CAN'T PENETRATE THIS PLOT ARMOR, SHEPARD
The entire Cerberus story line was knuckle-draggingly stupid.

 

[Something Amyss]

ME1 was the only one that held my interest for more than an hour. After that, it seemed like BioWare stopped caring.

Oh, c'mon, that's incredibly unfair. From the concept art to the voice acting and sound design (and even the packaging in 3 with its double sided bloke-Shep/FemShep sleeve), whatever can be leveled at the series, a lack of passion or love/care from the creators ain't one of them.

I'd say it's perfectly fair. The first game and couple of kowledge were clearly passionate about their source material. The second was like treading water to pad out a story for the third. Which appears to have been designed by committee.

 

[Ishigami]

Mass Effect 1.

Because I already did... 7 times.
It has the best characters, great world building, is a nicely contained story and got hell of a pacing with a really nice showdown. The gameplay is the worst of the lot but I got past that.
That?s about it really.

Gameplay wise ME3 is of course the most matured in the series and I think during most of its running time it was great in every aspect until the dreadful last half an hour or so that made me shake my head in denial.
I don?t even want to experience the ?improved ending? since even that is disappointing to such an all in all good series. (Watched them on you tube?)
ME2 is kind of the black sheep for me.
Entirely pointless game really. You can cut it from the series and nothing substantial to the plot is lost.

So yea I take the flawed but ambitious first one over polished but way less ambitious sequels.

 

[Halla Burrica]

ME2 ALL THE WAY. While the first one had the advantage of being the one to introduce this fantastic universe, and still being a really great game, it has SO MANY issues. The combat is a mix of third-person cover shooting and semi-turnbased combat, both of which are done poorly. The cover system is awkward and unreliable to get in and out of, shooting is okay, but the targets being hit barely react to being shot until they are dead, in which case they drop like a sack of potatoes (what is this, 2004), making it unsatisfying to play. And the tactical elements are wasted because the space you fight in is often too tight and cluttered for any good strategy to be used, plus all the abilties being used simultaneously in a lot of fights makes it all a bit of a clusterfuck. Its also poorly balanced, with encounters that are impossible to win at early levels, or just merely very frustrating (like going to Noveria early on, a mistake I have never made again). Also the Mako. If you have heard it mentioned in any discussion for the last seven years, you have probably heard how bad it is. And it is bad. Fuck that thing.
Its not even that great in terms of characters or overworld either. Garrus, Wrex and Liara are of course really great characters, while Ashley is just okay, Tali barely has a personality of her own and rather dodgy reasons to join up with Shepard, and Kaidan... I see no reason for him even existing other than to be sacrificed on Virmire, he is sooo boring.
The codex and NPCs talk alot about the fascinating locations in the galaxy, but you dont actually get to see much of it. You only visit colonies, a few research stations and a millitary base or two, as well as a dozen lifeless planets that barely have anything in them. It barely uses its own potential! What saves this game is the story and voice acting, which are top notch. The rest.. not so much.

I absolutely prefer the second game. I dont want to make too long of a post here, so I will be efficient and say that I do so because it vastly improves on nearly every aspect of the original. Storytelling, dialogue, combat, roleplaying, interface, characters, world, exploration, all this and more much better than before. Only big complaint I have is that the main plot could definetely have been handled better in certain aspects.

ME3 has stronger production values and larger consequences and all that, but it also had some real issues, not just with the ending, but also with combat and sidequests.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

Mass Effect 2 was great in so many ways that the others weren't. Mainly the plot/story overall.

That said, Mass Effect 3 has solid benefits in the multiplayer, and the Citadel DLC which really put it ahead, IMO. Citadel added a wonderful story, lots of addons, and was basically a love letter from Bioware to the players. Story wise, it was okay.

Mass Effect 1 had some great elevator scenes.I don't remember much of it, and haven't gone back to it much.

 

[Chaos Isaac]

It's either Mass Effect 1 or Mass Effect 3.

They both have stories, gameplay, adventure, and other cool shit that matters.

Mass Effect 1 has the best atmosphere. These weird, beyond the veil mechanical space cthulu are doin' shit, you have a major villain who taunts you and cutscene punches, and introduces you to a lot of the universe without too much narrative drag. Plus the exploration and side storylines can be neat, and I never minded exploring with the Mako, but yeah mountains suck. Not to mention the first game has the best and most important cast. (Excluding Mordin', who is the one addition to follow up who is great and integral to the series.)

Negatively, it has the worst combat and gameplay in general, but to be the most role playing to a point. The Renegade/Paragon interrupts kinda added to this. Not to mention it kinda tries to explore other things a bit, but doesn't do it to well in my opinion. Not to mention it oddly takes Liara from the party and can make characters who think she'll not be in the sequels no longer a romance option. (And don't even mention that terrible DLC.)

Mass Effect 2, on the other hand, is the worst hands down in character, story, and anything that fucking matters to the series as a whole. (Seriously, the only thing that happens in this game is that you pick up a new crew, Cerberus lies, you blow up a super terminator, and, finally, you realize this new crew doesn't fucking matter at all because they're at best cameo's in the next game.) And seriously, this game has the worst ending. Because what the fuck is up with the super terminator? They say it's supposed to be a Reaper, but fuck you because no Reapers look other species. They all have the same relative build. Not to mention it ultimately ends up as, 'filler, the game'.

But it changed the combat for the better, introduced the interrupt choices, but they kinda suck as you only have one option ever and sometimes the scene's scenery can totally override the interrupt choices. But they're neat and can add character. From ruthless to caring. (Press L to care.) And then there's Mordin. He's like the one thing that excuses this game, who is a awesome character, adds to the entire story, and totally fucking matters.

Mass Effect 3, the best of the series in showing consequences. Everything you do has consequence. And sure, most of them don't have a gameplay change, which is kinda sad, but it can leave pretty big narrative differences. Also the new character's you get don't pester you with a recruitment mission. They just join up and go, 'let's kick ass'. You know, like in the first one. Not to mention it kinda is the final installation so the combat is the most improved, and adds the silly melee and most amount of enemies, which does kind of mean something. Seeing what Asari and other species turn into means more then the Collecters, while cool, ultimately forgetable and a footnote to the series.

You know, it has it's share of bad. Like that Ninja dude who comes out of left field and is absolutely useless. (If only he had been established in 2, as a party member who butted heads with you and then betrayed you or something.) One shot enemy moves that, are fairly obnoxious. And that ending, that I can't even be mad about. Considering the bajillion choices that are made, I couldn't make a ending that would satisfy half of those people. But yeah all the Mass Effect drivers blowing up as stupid. And the weird crash landing on eden or whatever.

Ultimately, i'd go with Mass Effect 1. Because on it's own, it's the only truly satisfying one, as it has a beginning, middle and end to it's own story.

 

[Dimitriov]

In absolutely EVERY possible category, except combat, ME1 wins hands down. And since combat is easily one of the least important categories ME1 easily wins hands down.


Seriously I got to drive around planets in a low gravity jeep (have NEVER understood why this was a thing people actually complained about), great story and world building, actual rpg elements, and less retarded herding the player into stupid choices that they didn't want to make (I'm looking at you ME2!*).



* Because, seriously, what the fuck was up with making me work for Cerberus?! I spent a large portion of the last game fighting them, and I was well aware that they were assholes. But, nope, ME2 is just like "hey, brah, don't worry. Just roll with it. What's that? Role-playing? Nah, son, that's for losers. We wanna be Space Call of Duty now. Story doesn't matter."

 

[babinro]

Mass Effect 1 has a better story and feels more satisfying in terms of accomplishment. When I think of the franchise my mind goes to events of the first game with the exception of Mordin Solus's song in ME2.

Mass Effect 2 has vastly superior gameplay, pacing and more interesting party members.

Mass Effect 3 has a depressing tone that really hurt the tone of the series. It took things too seriously which made for effective emotional journey but not an enticing replayable one. In fact I still haven't revisited this title beyond my first playthrough to try another class and see the new ending or renegade options.

My vote goes to Mass Effect 2 because if I'm actually going to play through a game to enjoy it then pacing and gameplay trumps reliving a story I've gone through several times already. ME2 is a joy to play through.

That said I really need to find the time to revisit ME3 renegade path.

 

[Zontar]

ME1 was the only one that held my interest for more than an hour. After that, it seemed like BioWare stopped caring.

Oh, c'mon, that's incredibly unfair. From the concept art to the voice acting and sound design (and even the packaging in 3 with its double sided bloke-Shep/FemShep sleeve), whatever can be leveled at the series, a lack of passion or love/care from the creators ain't one of them.

I'd say it's perfectly fair. The first game and couple of kowledge were clearly passionate about their source material. The second was like treading water to pad out a story for the third. Which appears to have been designed by committee.

Like most things that's probably EA's fault. ME1 was a surprise success as a game aimed at a niche audience with a larger budget then any game for said audience had gotten before (or since for that matter) and worked pretty damn well and made some decent coin.

So of course EA just had to go and force BioWare to "Streamline" it to have more mass market appeal, have the sequel be so disconnected from the first one that there's no point in the first existing at all (because we need those PlayStation gamers to buy it between now and when we finally port the first one to the PS3) and mistakenly thought that the increase in total sales as a result was due to the game being better as it was and not the fact that a whole new console was involved instead of it being an exclusive.

OT: ME1 for one reason and one reason only: it's the only one of the three which isn't generic. ME1 actually had exploration and world building like we'd never seen at the time, something until then limited to low budget niche games (and appart from ME1, STILL limited to low budget niche games) while ME2 became another streamlined drama with no real exploration to speak of and additions to the world building ranging from uninspired to nonsensical even within the context of its own narrative, with ME3 doubling down on this to the point of having a literal Deus Ex Machina ending which came from so far out of left field with no build-up and no logic that I don't even dare compare it to fan-fiction because it would overstate its quality, which probably stems from the fact it was written by someone who had no involvement in the rest of the game or the two which came before it (though in all fairness from how the story comes off there's also no connection between ME1 and ME2's stories, but at least that can be justified by the fact they are different games and not the ending to one of said games).

Mass Effect succeeded and became popular because of ME1, it's what defined it and engraved its lore into pop-culture. The success of ME2 and 3 are despite the changes made to the original, not because of them.

 

[Redryhno]

Depends, ME1 had the best worldbuilding(as is expected of RPG's for the most part, so we'll forget that really.) ME2 had the best character interactions, and ME3 had the best...I honestly can't think of anything ME3 did better than the first two...that's not meant to be a drag against it, I just can't think of anything I didn't already enjoy first or more in the previous games...nothing obviously good comes to mind with ME3. But I've only played it once since it came out, just can't bring myself to play it, so I'll just say that that one is definitely out of the running.

Anyways, I like ME1 for the exploration you can do, I love/hate the Mako(love the ridiculous bouncy nature of it and how it challenged you to actually explore, hated how bouncy it was and how difficult so many of the planets were to explore if you didn't use the stupid hidden paths), but I loved that snipers were...well, snipers. Not just scoped bolt action assault rifles. And the overheat system, oh my god, I fucking loved that damn idea, because it really helped with some of the scarier fights, I mean you can either get out of the way of this charging Krogan, or you can get two shots off and overheat and maybe kill him before he hits you and you're defenseless for three seconds. I loved the fact that you had more options than "SAINT", "SNARK KING", "EXPOSITION ME SCOTTY", or "LITERALLY MECHA HITLER" in conversation and that the good choice wasn't always the best. Also who can forget Captain Kirahe and his speech? I really disliked the weapon skill system in alot of ways, you're supposed to have been a soldier and an earlier than normal graduate of the N7 program for at least a decade, but you somehow don't know how to keep your weapons steady under pressure?

ME2 I liked for the combat, the characters, and the environments being more varied. Not to mention it took place in the part of space you weren't really able to go in ME1. But I really hated the conversation options and how some of the better characters from ME1 were thrown to the wayside in favor of lessers(I liked Jacob and Miranda, but they're just not an Ash, Kaiden, or Wrex), and if you were pure biotic, until you got a few points into your abilities, it was simpler to just shoot everyone. And the only time it was actually more efficient was when you put the difficulty up and at that point, enemies were bullet sponges and getting through anything was less a matter of cover and skill and more a matter of whether or not RNGesus was looking your way for ammo drops.

If we're going by how many times I've played through them, then ME2 wins, but that's largely because of how slow ME1 is alot of the time, and THOSE FUCKING ELEVATORS. THEY DID NOT THINK THOSE THROUGH. GIVE ME A FUCKING LOADING SCREEN OR SOMETHING MORE THAN A TWO SECOND INTERACTION FOR A TWO MINUTE RIDE.

 

[DementedSheep]

Which would I play again if I could pick only one? 3 but as I've said in other threads that is because the gameplay of 1 is terrible.

1 had the better story although 3 wasn't that bad until the ending (although I despise Kai Leng and not in the love to hate way) and it had some moments (mordins death). That they did nearly nothing with indoctrination despite that being the scariest thing about the reapers was a missed opportunity. 3 is by far the best for gameplay.

2 gets a point for introducing Mordin and I wasn't that attached to Tali (she was a bit like and encyclopaedia on Quarians to me) or Garrus from the first game and the second made them more interesting. The suicide mission at the end which was fun. I wish they would do more mission where you incorporate you whole team into it even if you only have 2 fighting next to you. It also has some good DLC. However the plot was ass and it was too action flick for my tastes.

 

[infohippie]

It is hard to say, as many before me have already said. I preferred ME1's storyline, worldbuilding, and character development, as well as the way it was more open world and free roaming. Its inventory system was terrible, though still better than simply not having an inventory system at all like ME2. On the other hand ME2 did have much better combat mechanics, and the Lair of the Shadow Broker DLC was fantastic. ME2 suffered from having extremely linear missions however. I haven't played ME3 at all yet since I was still feeling the sting of having been suckered into buying the utterly terrible Dragon Age 2, I already felt with ME2 (and then that feeling was further confirmed with DA2) that Bioware were abandoning their RPG roots in favour of console-style action gameplay and an "Awesome Button", and then of course the internet had exploded over that ending.


Edit: Also, thanks so much to the poster just above me for that spoiler about a much loved character. Is a spoiler tag too much to ask?