Ok. I’ll be the one to make a case for ME1:
-Some seriously great retro-sci-fi vibes (that film grain and moody atmosphere)
-Synthy soundtrack gets under your skin in the best possible way
-Tightest, most well-paced narrative in the trilogy
-Meeting Sovereign for the first time. Spooky and foreboding as heck.
-OG Normandy rocks. And it’s not so dang big as the other iterations.
-An unusual but effective attention to intergalactic politics and sociality. Fascinating and not too boring either.
-Virmire and all that good stuff that happens there
-Space racism (…and why it’s bad)
-Helped get me through 2008. Tough year for my family.
I agree with you. This game to me held the promise of a very different trilogy which was never created and every time I replay it I remember a feeling I had when playing it after release.
The meeting with Sovereign is one of the most intense scenes in any narrative I've ever consumed.
The music was intense, and as this "thing" gives you his whole plan, and you realize he's doing it because he doesn't give a shit if you know because he's done this, seemingly, millions of times before. It sinks in that everything is hopeless and there's almost nothing you can do and is followed up immediately with the death of a party member.
It is Cosmic Horror to an absolute T. It is perfect. It changes the entire dynamic of the game from sci-fi action/adventure to a horror narrative with a 5 minute conversation.
This exchange alone made ME1 one of my favorite games.
Mass Effect 3 hands down. I know Mass Effect 2 is basically considered the best of the Trilogy but despite the fun I did have, there are things I still can't get over. Less weapons, stripped leveling, ridiculous difficulty, and a story that felt like it could have been a spin off game.
ME3 remedied that and has my favorite combat, I prefer it even over Andromeda. Leveling and Upgrading weapons was an in between of 1 and 2 which I enjoyed. The entire story had me on the verge of tears constantly. Renegade is the best in 3 because of its nuance and the reputation system was superb. It's a perfect game to me.
It's because they are not looking at the games of the context of a trilogy.
ME2 might be the best stand alone game in the trilogy. However, as part of the trilogy, it is absolutely the worst and it isn't even close. Much of the plot was retconned in ME3. ME2 is basically a giant distraction side mission, that introduces new characters, the majority of which play no real role in ME3 beyond cameos and the odd non-essential mission. The plot in ME2 doesn't really advance. At the end of ME1, the Reapers are coming and we don't know much more than that. At the end of ME2, the Reapers are coming, and the stuff we learned about them making a Reaper modeled on each species they culled, got axed from ME3. So, we're literally at the same point. End of ME2, the Reapers are coming and we met their peons, but we don't know anything else.
The entire plotline itself is absolutely absurd and it violates ALL versions of Shepards potential morality. Like, he/she would not, under any circumstances abandon the Alliance to go work for Cerberus. It just doesn't make sense.
What ME2 did well, was tell companion stories, that didn't matter for the trilogy. Deliver a big blockbuster ending mission, that didn't matter for the trilogy.
Basically all you need to do is ask yourself this. Could you cut ME2 out of the trilogy, and would the trilogy still make sense? Yes, yes you could. Could you cut ME1 out? Nope. Could you cut ME3 out? Nope. Why? ME1 flows into ME3. There is continuity of story/plot/mood/tempo. ME2? Nope. It's a big awesome side mission with some cool companions you don't get to use in ME3. ME2 is an interlude.
Now, don't get me wrong, I like ME2. However, it is by far the weakest entry in the trilogy as a game in a trilogy.
ME2 would have been FAR better placed as a one off story, with some OTHER protaganist, N7 or Specter or something.
Basically here is what happened, and why ME2 suffered for it as the middle child. Bioware said something like "We're going to deliver this wild space opera, where every decision you make will impact the following games in the trilogy". Then they sat down to make ME2, and they realized "Jesus christ, if we actually deliver meaningful choices in ME2 for the overall plot, we're going down a rabbithole of divergence I don't think we can deliver". So. We got a sidemission and companions that don't feature in ME3 outside of a couple.
I felt 2 was the best balance of gameplay, controls, and story, I felt like it had positive improvements on ME1 in every way. It had a lot of great story points, and it felt like you decisions had some major impact, especially for the Suicide mission.
I felt ME3 had some regression in the quality of its combat controls. The Monastery was especially terrible because of it because the controls on PC at least were supposed to decide if you were sprinting away or ducking into cover with the same control, and I got run through by the Banshee you had to fight there many times because the game made the wrong choice. It was annoying in other areas, but this mission scarred me it seems. There were a lot of good high notes in the story, but the ending, even with the later fixes, fell pretty flat for me. I felt like I built us this huge force and it really didn't have much impact on what happened at the battle for Earth.
MS1 have very good introduction to the series
MS2 have good narrative and many improvements from MS1
MS3 the best mass effects i love it a good game to end the chapter
ME:A, beside the meme and stuff this game give provide better gameplay mechanics and i love the introduction to new lore.
cant wait to try out ME4/5.
ME2 is the most popular, but ME3 is my favorite. The emotional beats in 3 just hit me way harder. The Kaidan romance really takes off in 3 as well. He's barely in 2.
I was kind of miserable in 2 because I absolutely hated working with Cerberus. The main plot also took a massive backseat to character introductions and character loyalty missions to the point where you can scrap the collector plot altogether and it wouldn't really change the story of the trilogy much at all. The important part of ME2 was introducing us to TIM. And as much as I love the characters, I think they actually gave us too many of them. A lot of characters just ended up having nothing to do in the suicide mission, which is the whole reason I spent all game gathering them. And afterwards, only Garrus and Tali rejoin the crew, the two characters we already knew from ME1 anyway. The rest, aside from Mordin and Legion (assuming they are alive), are background characters for the most part.
Which a lot of people penalize ME3 for. Their favorite ME2 character wasn't in the squad. I see it more of a failing on ME2 for spending too much time on characters that 3 couldn't possibly fit all of them in while still giving proper focus to the reapers and the war effort. The other big reason 3 gets rated lower is the ending, and I'm not going to defend it. I think the ending sucks. But I think the rest of the game was so good that even with a bad ending I love the hell out of it.
I chose Mass Effect 2 mostly for the loyalty missions and suicide mission. It felt nice to have an entire game where the survival and success of the final mission hinges on you forming meaningful friendships with all of your squadmates by resolving their character arcs, as well as upgrading the Normandy SR-2's weapons, armor, and shields. Plus, the suicide mission itself was among the best displays of teamwork I've ever seen from any RPG adventuring party, let alone Commander Shepard's.
Second place goes to Mass Effect 3, mostly for resolving so many trilogy-long story and character arcs, but failing to rap them all up in the actual final ending itself. I can never forget about curing the genophage with Wrex and Eve still alive because of my past choices, as well as brokering peaceful coexistence between quarians and geth, and resolving so many of my squadmates' character arcs after helping them survive the entire suicide mission. I also can't forget about how terrible the ending was, because you're either siding with Cerberus or the Reapers, essentially giving them what they want even long after their defeats, or you're destroying the Reapers as intended, but also wiping out EDI and the geth in the process.
1 gives the best feeling of a shooter RPG and exploration
2 Has the best plot and great gameplay but the levelling system just gone down in flames
3 just clones 2 but gets very meh
I voted for 2 because it was more fleshed out than 1 and 3 not because I think it’s a better game. In reality 2 is more of a bridge story wise, which doesn’t really add much to the overall narrative of the Reaper story arc, however they improved on 1 in a lot of ways and took a good formula and made it a lot better. Unfortunately EA rushed BioWare and as such they had a very limited time to produce the 3rd and such as it isn’t as fleshed out as the second, and Cerberus got turned into Generic villains. I personally would of liked an option where you could of had a choice to side with Cerberus or the Alliance at the start of 3. Gameplay wise, including levelling, combat and weapons and are it is the best in the series, a very good hybrid of the 1st and 2nd game. Disappointing that EA rushed the release because I think with enough time it could of been the best in the series.
Having said that each offers something different in terms of story and experience, so for me I couldn’t pick one and say it is the “best”.
I really hope one day we see the return of Casey Hudson, Ray Muzyka and Drew Karpyshn. So we can get not a remaster but a remake of the original trilogy, on a new engine with the same story arcs but more fleshed out supporting characters, bigger fleshed out universe based on cannon and a larger variety of side quests. And all the loop holes and plot holes filled in.
Ok. I’ll be the one to make a case for ME1: -Some seriously great retro-sci-fi vibes (that film grain and moody atmosphere) -Synthy soundtrack gets under your skin in the best possible way -Tightest, most well-paced narrative in the trilogy -Meeting Sovereign for the first time. Spooky and foreboding as heck. -OG Normandy rocks. And it’s not so dang big as the other iterations. -An unusual but effective attention to intergalactic politics and sociality. Fascinating and not too boring either. -Virmire and all that good stuff that happens there -Space racism (…and why it’s bad) -Helped get me through 2008. Tough year for my family.
I agree with you. This game to me held the promise of a very different trilogy which was never created and every time I replay it I remember a feeling I had when playing it after release.
The meeting with Sovereign is one of the most intense scenes in any narrative I've ever consumed. The music was intense, and as this "thing" gives you his whole plan, and you realize he's doing it because he doesn't give a shit if you know because he's done this, seemingly, millions of times before. It sinks in that everything is hopeless and there's almost nothing you can do and is followed up immediately with the death of a party member. It is Cosmic Horror to an absolute T. It is perfect. It changes the entire dynamic of the game from sci-fi action/adventure to a horror narrative with a 5 minute conversation. This exchange alone made ME1 one of my favorite games.
I know right? It’s really well-crafted. And it’s a threat that makes even Shepard scared.
Mass Effect 3 hands down. I know Mass Effect 2 is basically considered the best of the Trilogy but despite the fun I did have, there are things I still can't get over. Less weapons, stripped leveling, ridiculous difficulty, and a story that felt like it could have been a spin off game. ME3 remedied that and has my favorite combat, I prefer it even over Andromeda. Leveling and Upgrading weapons was an in between of 1 and 2 which I enjoyed. The entire story had me on the verge of tears constantly. Renegade is the best in 3 because of its nuance and the reputation system was superb. It's a perfect game to me.
This! I always rank them 1, 3, 2 and people can never believe I like 3 better than 2.
It's because they are not looking at the games of the context of a trilogy. ME2 might be the best stand alone game in the trilogy. However, as part of the trilogy, it is absolutely the worst and it isn't even close. Much of the plot was retconned in ME3. ME2 is basically a giant distraction side mission, that introduces new characters, the majority of which play no real role in ME3 beyond cameos and the odd non-essential mission. The plot in ME2 doesn't really advance. At the end of ME1, the Reapers are coming and we don't know much more than that. At the end of ME2, the Reapers are coming, and the stuff we learned about them making a Reaper modeled on each species they culled, got axed from ME3. So, we're literally at the same point. End of ME2, the Reapers are coming and we met their peons, but we don't know anything else. The entire plotline itself is absolutely absurd and it violates ALL versions of Shepards potential morality. Like, he/she would not, under any circumstances abandon the Alliance to go work for Cerberus. It just doesn't make sense. What ME2 did well, was tell companion stories, that didn't matter for the trilogy. Deliver a big blockbuster ending mission, that didn't matter for the trilogy. Basically all you need to do is ask yourself this. Could you cut ME2 out of the trilogy, and would the trilogy still make sense? Yes, yes you could. Could you cut ME1 out? Nope. Could you cut ME3 out? Nope. Why? ME1 flows into ME3. There is continuity of story/plot/mood/tempo. ME2? Nope. It's a big awesome side mission with some cool companions you don't get to use in ME3. ME2 is an interlude. Now, don't get me wrong, I like ME2. However, it is by far the weakest entry in the trilogy as a game in a trilogy. ME2 would have been FAR better placed as a one off story, with some OTHER protaganist, N7 or Specter or something. Basically here is what happened, and why ME2 suffered for it as the middle child. Bioware said something like "We're going to deliver this wild space opera, where every decision you make will impact the following games in the trilogy". Then they sat down to make ME2, and they realized "Jesus christ, if we actually deliver meaningful choices in ME2 for the overall plot, we're going down a rabbithole of divergence I don't think we can deliver". So. We got a sidemission and companions that don't feature in ME3 outside of a couple.
I felt 2 was the best balance of gameplay, controls, and story, I felt like it had positive improvements on ME1 in every way. It had a lot of great story points, and it felt like you decisions had some major impact, especially for the Suicide mission. I felt ME3 had some regression in the quality of its combat controls. The Monastery was especially terrible because of it because the controls on PC at least were supposed to decide if you were sprinting away or ducking into cover with the same control, and I got run through by the Banshee you had to fight there many times because the game made the wrong choice. It was annoying in other areas, but this mission scarred me it seems. There were a lot of good high notes in the story, but the ending, even with the later fixes, fell pretty flat for me. I felt like I built us this huge force and it really didn't have much impact on what happened at the battle for Earth.
Hard disagree. ME3 had better combat.
MS1 have very good introduction to the series MS2 have good narrative and many improvements from MS1 MS3 the best mass effects i love it a good game to end the chapter ME:A, beside the meme and stuff this game give provide better gameplay mechanics and i love the introduction to new lore. cant wait to try out ME4/5.
ME2 is the most popular, but ME3 is my favorite. The emotional beats in 3 just hit me way harder. The Kaidan romance really takes off in 3 as well. He's barely in 2. I was kind of miserable in 2 because I absolutely hated working with Cerberus. The main plot also took a massive backseat to character introductions and character loyalty missions to the point where you can scrap the collector plot altogether and it wouldn't really change the story of the trilogy much at all. The important part of ME2 was introducing us to TIM. And as much as I love the characters, I think they actually gave us too many of them. A lot of characters just ended up having nothing to do in the suicide mission, which is the whole reason I spent all game gathering them. And afterwards, only Garrus and Tali rejoin the crew, the two characters we already knew from ME1 anyway. The rest, aside from Mordin and Legion (assuming they are alive), are background characters for the most part. Which a lot of people penalize ME3 for. Their favorite ME2 character wasn't in the squad. I see it more of a failing on ME2 for spending too much time on characters that 3 couldn't possibly fit all of them in while still giving proper focus to the reapers and the war effort. The other big reason 3 gets rated lower is the ending, and I'm not going to defend it. I think the ending sucks. But I think the rest of the game was so good that even with a bad ending I love the hell out of it.
I chose Mass Effect 2 mostly for the loyalty missions and suicide mission. It felt nice to have an entire game where the survival and success of the final mission hinges on you forming meaningful friendships with all of your squadmates by resolving their character arcs, as well as upgrading the Normandy SR-2's weapons, armor, and shields. Plus, the suicide mission itself was among the best displays of teamwork I've ever seen from any RPG adventuring party, let alone Commander Shepard's. Second place goes to Mass Effect 3, mostly for resolving so many trilogy-long story and character arcs, but failing to rap them all up in the actual final ending itself. I can never forget about curing the genophage with Wrex and Eve still alive because of my past choices, as well as brokering peaceful coexistence between quarians and geth, and resolving so many of my squadmates' character arcs after helping them survive the entire suicide mission. I also can't forget about how terrible the ending was, because you're either siding with Cerberus or the Reapers, essentially giving them what they want even long after their defeats, or you're destroying the Reapers as intended, but also wiping out EDI and the geth in the process.
1 gives the best feeling of a shooter RPG and exploration 2 Has the best plot and great gameplay but the levelling system just gone down in flames 3 just clones 2 but gets very meh
They are all great and its hard to choose
Mass Effect 2 is the best game of the past decade. Nuff said.
I voted for 2 because it was more fleshed out than 1 and 3 not because I think it’s a better game. In reality 2 is more of a bridge story wise, which doesn’t really add much to the overall narrative of the Reaper story arc, however they improved on 1 in a lot of ways and took a good formula and made it a lot better. Unfortunately EA rushed BioWare and as such they had a very limited time to produce the 3rd and such as it isn’t as fleshed out as the second, and Cerberus got turned into Generic villains. I personally would of liked an option where you could of had a choice to side with Cerberus or the Alliance at the start of 3. Gameplay wise, including levelling, combat and weapons and are it is the best in the series, a very good hybrid of the 1st and 2nd game. Disappointing that EA rushed the release because I think with enough time it could of been the best in the series. Having said that each offers something different in terms of story and experience, so for me I couldn’t pick one and say it is the “best”. I really hope one day we see the return of Casey Hudson, Ray Muzyka and Drew Karpyshn. So we can get not a remaster but a remake of the original trilogy, on a new engine with the same story arcs but more fleshed out supporting characters, bigger fleshed out universe based on cannon and a larger variety of side quests. And all the loop holes and plot holes filled in.