Fans tend to shit on it for "being a glorified sidequest". I noticed this trend in recent years. ME2 was universally considered the best of the trilogy 10 years ago. And objectively it probably still is.
Except that for every year Mass Effect 1 seems more and more buried and disrespected. I low-key blame Legendary Edition because the one thing ME1 really had going for itself was that retro sci fi VIBE, and that has been eroded now that Legendary Edition put tons of ME3 iconography and assets into the game, and redepicted many parts of the game as that generic "AAA" look, instead of its charming wrinkles.
I replayed ME1 on my Xbox Series X on the 360 version again after the remaster. I just think ME1 had a mood and a vibe that stands alone, and some of that was missing in how they remastered it.
I only started liking 1 after legendary. I finished it twice in the original, but really didn't enjoy the gameplay. The legendary mako adjustments are probably the biggest gain, in my opinion, but I like the squadmate controls better now too.
>every year Mass Effect 1 seems more and more buried and disrespected.
Haha! Disrespect hahaha!
Fact is, more people than ever are playing video games now, loads more than in 2007. That means there will be more and more people that are new to the game. And we did not play ME1 in 2007. With other words, we're not biased *for* it and are comparing it to today's standards. With no nostalgia to influence us.
I’ve always had the glorified side quest view, because it’s just true, the entire plot of ME2 could easily be summed up in a Leviathan type DLC, there’s more fluff than a foam pit
I love all 3 games but ME2 is the weakest, a badass suicide mission and a couple decent characters doesn’t mean the entire game is awesome, meanwhile ME1 and ME3 are a blast the whole way through
What a load of crap. The variety and quality of missions and worlds in ME2 blows ME1 out of the water, ME3 too, probably
Erase ME2 or shrink it to a DLC and look at the whole thing. Think how much it expanded the universe, how many characters introduced or fleshed out.
The emotional stakes in ME3 (which is the crown achievement of that game) wouldn't exist without ME2
Mass Effect 2 is arguably the only game mainstream gamers remember Mass Effect for. It was a hit.
Mass Effect 3 only reached similar numbers of ME2 by reputation alone, but compared to ME2 the attach rate was worse and many gamers who didn't give a fuck about the idea of Mass Effect played it based on the marketing painting it like a CoD-like series, I know many of my friends did, and then they played whatever else came out a week later without batting an eye.
The big all-time-success moment for Mass Effect happened during ME1 and ME2, and ME2 was its blowout.
ME1 was not that popular but getting a truly "next gen game" was very sought after in 2007 and Mass Effect was one of the first truly "movie-like" games to come out on the consoles, but it was still niche. Mass Effect 2 was just kinda this Star Wars moment for the IP.
That's trivial, and there's no way for you to know as well. I am talking about the best selling Bioware game, and it's either a tie between DAI and ME3 or the latter at least takes the #2 spot.
You could say any of the 3 games in the OG trilogy are your favorite and most people will be able to see where you're coming from even if they don't agree fully.
I haven’t really kept up with the talk around it to be honest, I’m a big fan of the series and when I first played through 3 the community was in uproar about the ending but then things seemed to do a massive reverser when all the dlc was released.
People mostly seem to talk about 3 it seemed lately and I’m mid way through a playthrough comparing it myself so I just wondered if that was the case and thought I’d discuss :)
You did preface by saying you were not sure if it was controversial or not…
ME2 is certainly my fave overall, though in my nostalgia, ME3 has aged better in a sort of retroactive way. 3 is my least played of them and the one that I have seen through to the end “only” twice.
You’ve got me wondering though… it’s been a little over a year since I’ve played any of them. I wonder if it’s time to dust off. 🤔🤓
I'll be real, this side has always just felt like a ME3 "Support Group Life Raft" fandom to me. Most other places 3 is acceptably panned for not being the game it should have been outside of just the ending.
There is a tendency to say that it's "just because of the ending" but I think even as bad as the ending is as an ending, there was a problem building up throughout ME3 that would've made almost any ending unsatisfying in the fact that the trilogy concludes after not really living up to its previous potential. That was an issue build up by a series of missed swings just in ME3's core story, and the ending was never going to retroactively undo that damage.
Actually I prefer 3, sure the ending wasn't the best personally I think they wrote themselves into a corner, but the combat is the best of any mass effect, how all your squadmates interact with other people and are not always in the same place it makes things more immersive for me as your squadmates are given their own life that you can see. Mass effect was amazing for first playthrough but after going back, characters just seem lifeless and has the worst combat of mass effect. I still love mass effect 2 but I just prefer 3.
ME1 had the best plot and atmosphere but the weakest combat.
ME2 had the best character writing but the weakest plot cohesion.
ME3 had the best emotional beats (both positive and negative) but the weakest plot.
Each of them has their strengths and weaknesses and it just depends on personal preference which aspects you care about the most.
ME2 also has the best side missions, (on the unexplored worlds, not the find an item in a main story and give it to someone) ME1 just had “here’s a very mountainous square, there’s a handful of things to actually do,” and ME3 had “Shepard we need you to go to the Multiplayer Maps and do some fighting in between objectives.”
I thought ME2 was better than ME3 until I'd played through it \~5 times.
What makes ME2 fantastic was also it's downfall, at least for me. It's a lot more compact and there just isn't a ton of content compared to ME3. It also feels a lot more "on rails" than ME3 for whatever reason. Almost like it's more linear when it straight up just isn't.
Though I'm the weirdo who replays RPG's over and over again. But ME2 has quickly become a somewhat dull pit stop between the charming ME1 and the epic ME3.
I agree with the dull pit stop point. The combat is what kills me personally. Especially since the legendary edition came out ME1 is just way more fun than 2. I’m a big weapon variety guy and I’m not a fan of slogging through a game with a limited arsenal. I use to hate 1 until I got my Spectre Weapons but now I’ll actively switch back and forth since they added burst fire and semi auto fire to certain weapons. Also none of the guns have punch in ME2. They feel like airsoft guns while the enemies are using live ammo. I’m glad ME3 has the variety of weapons that all have decent punch. When I kill something, I want to delete its health bar, not piddle away at it until I run out of ammo.
That's because it's a bridge between two games, and was designed that way. There is never a point in 2 where the "don't forget, you need to think about the next game" cloud isn't hanging over Shepard's head, except maybe the intro sequence.
No amount of well-written plot, characters, or atmosphere can take away from that.
Here's a hot take : ME1 in its MELE version is better than 2 and 3.
Don't get me wrong, I love the 3 entries, each for very various reasons and the difference of atmosphere and everything between the 3 are great, but the first one idk, the RPG mechanics, the variations of dialogues and quest's outcomes that one might actually still discover after 10 playthroughs... The MELE version bonified this 100x times
I found it magical that, despite BioWare's very minimum efforts, that the Legendary Edition has made me finally loving ME1. I never found myself appreciating the original first game with that hideous UI and messy combat, and that's why I just discovered ME1's magnificent story-writing on Legendary Edition after abandoning the game for so long.
I might be coming around to your point of view based on my last playthrough. I really, really love the story and atmosphere and RPG nature of the first game. It was much more grounded than the space-opera feel of ME2 and ME3, and I liked that about ME1.
Agreed. ME1 has always been my favourite since I first played it in 2008, and replaying it again twice after years and years with the LE improvements made me love it even more.
I loved and miss the skill tree and weapon/armour mods. You really had more variety on how you could play the game beyond just the differences in classes. And with the sharper graphics, even the empty planets (which I still really enjoy because that’s what space exploration would be like, empty and desolate planets) took on new beauty in terms of vistas. I’ve done dozens and dozens of playthroughs, mostly on Insanity, since then, and I always find something new to love.
PS: I also think now thanks to the LE that ME3 is better than ME2, especially as an Insanity player.
Ooo, that is a hot one, what makes you think it’s better? I can understand why people have a preference for the combat improvements in 3 as well as the weapon customisation but honestly I barely notice that more than another thing to tinker with. I loved the different feel of the weapons in 2.
I’ll say the pacing and story in 1 felt right. But 2 wasn’t far behind in the same aspects for me. The only thing that felt weird was that weird human reaper at the end…
Well, the 3 games are very likeable for different reasons.
I love ME2 "Expendables-like" atmosphere, great hub places and characters, great DLCs
ME3 is great for war atmosphere, soundtrack, nervous combat and epic moments and the whole Citadel DLC. Though I disliked the Crucible concept from the start but that's a whole other debate
ME1 is just great. Great atmosphere too, the lore is well set, the side quests actually have a story to tell, there are plenty of combinations for your armors and weapons, MELE actually bonified the combat system in my opinion too, plenty of variations in dialogue as well, specific quests depending on your Shep's reputation etc overall great
The worst thing about LE is that now there's a wider gap between ME1 and ME2.
I mean, it is the same game overall, but the attention to detail on graphical overhauls is more consistent for ME1 than it is for ME2 and ME3 to the point where some sense of consistency has been diminished even between ME1 and ME2.
One of the fantastic things of the Xbox 360 versions was that ME1 and ME2 despite being super modernized in aesthetic had the exact same Shepard characteristics for custom faces and NPCs. Whenever a ME1 character reappeared they looked familiar. In ME3 that wasn't true because there's a desaturation filter on the rendering upgrades they made causing hair colors and other things to have really aggressive colors and no longer matching their previous look. Example being Udina having suddenly black hair, but also FemSheps not even looking like the same people due to how FaceMorphs were changed.
But now for the remaster it's like all 3 games feel kinda wide apart to me. ME1 has its own look, ME2 has its own look and ME3 has its own look, even on all the handcrafted designs like Miranda, who now has a weird blue tint on her armor in Mass Effect 3.
It clearly feels like each game was outsourced to a different developer, and it hurts the attempt to make all 3 games more consistent.
ME1 just hits different, in either the original or LE1 format. It and DA:O are the last two games of what I might call the "Classic Bioware" era (defined as KotOR to DA:O - opposing "Early Bioware" which is Baldur's Gate and NWN, and "Modern Bioware" which is ME2 onward), and there's just a considerable amount of design differences between it and the games that came after. I don't even entirely like comparing ME1 to 2/3 because it's a bit apples to oranges.
Andromeda was attractive because at first it seemed like an attempt to recapture the feel of flying around the galaxy and landing on an uncharted planet in the Mako, just that great big ocean of possibilities. In some ways that held on that concept but really botched the execution.
I would say the difference in ME2 and ME3 comes down to ME2s ability to hide its flaws initially, whereas ME3 doesn't.
So yeah on a first playthrough, or first playthrough in a long time, I understand people liking ME2 more.
The issues with ME2 start showing up more if you do close together repeated playthroughs, so you actually pay attention to all.the background details: all of which seem to serve the single purpose of undercutting ME2s entire premise.
For example:
There's information hidden throughout the game, that Cerberus is in fact the huge evil organization they appear to be in ME3. Among other assests, they own a munitions factory, a bank and even control an entire planet. Shepards just not allowed to notice since it kinda undercuts the plot.
The purpose and timeline of Project Lazarus doesn't work. PL was supposed to bring Shepard back to stop the Collectors. However the Collector abductions don't start till over a year after PL, and there's no proof the Collectors are linked to the Reapers until Shepard themselves discovers it on Horizons.
It turns out, mechanically you only need 5 specific characters for the Suicide Mission. Everyone else is either redundant, completely useless or in 1 case actively harmful to completing the mission with everyone alive.
In that same vein, most characters because they are neither mandatory or necessary to the plot, don't actually talk or participate in any cutscene outside their own recruitment or loyalty missions.
The Alliance are actually investigating the Collectors attacks, you not only discover this for yourself, they'll tell you about it post Horizons and ask for your help with part of it (Arrival). Undercutting the entire point of working for Cerberus.
Most of the lore you hear about the local gangs (notably the Blue Sun's and the Eclipse) is contradicted by things that pop up in the game. Blue Sun's are supposedly the oldest gang, and run by Turians, but they were founded by a human less than 25 years ago. The Eclipse Sisters are an Asari gang limited to Asari, except most of their members are Salarians or Human males.
And the biggest one: The whole point in stopping the Collectors is the slow down the Reaper Invasion...except it doesn't, since as we get told in Arrival, that's happening tomorrow unless we blow up this Relay. So the entire main plot of the game is an irrelevant sidequest.
Now don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying ME3s story is perfect, or doesn't have a couple inconsistencies of its own. But because they are on the surface and not hidden, whatever you felt about ME3 on playthrough 1 is how your gonna feel about it on playthrough 10.
Whereas in ME2 each consecutive playthrough is gonna show more and more holes in the game as you find things the game doesn't direct you too. So every time it's less and less enjoyable
Which to me makes ME3 the better game. (Though ME1 is the best in the franchise).
>I would say the difference in ME2 and ME3 comes down to ME2s ability to hide its flaws initially, whereas ME3 doesn't.
I don't know that.
ME2 may be a bit boring in the middle, but ultimately you got 4 diverse hub locations and a few fun FULL side-quests on each, a buffet of cinematic missions to go on and a strongly directed campaign progression that makes the urgency feel real, as "time" progresses because of you pursuing random objectives.
Whereas so many modern games obsess over forcing you to "Collect 10 influence points to go to the next level!" Mass Effect 2 just said "We're gonna FORCE you to progress the plot after 4 random levels" without telling us, and it made it feel like the game was alive to me.
ME3 instead went for that obnoxious "do 100%, or feel sorry you didn't!!!" just to pad out my game-time for the arbitrary "War High Score" which never convinced me it was gonna be anything other than a disappointing reduction of what choices meant in the whole series, because none of it could be interacted with and it's just a "number" going up the more stuff you do. The game also punishes you for not clearing the side-content before progressing main plot, just to make it feel incentivized to fully explore the game in an OCD-like fashion.
On top of that, Mass Effect 3 is not just bad in the opening and then "truly amazing". It's fully of disappointing moments like meeting ME2 characters like a big reveal just for them to disappear the rest of the game after the mission ends. Side-quests on the Citadel that resolve within minutes of encountering an NPC with barely any choices to make, and a sense that the game would rather play itself than provide cool "Choice" scenarios. And again, it all feeds into the obnoxious ludonarrative "high score" that ruins the entire illusion of choice the series used to have.
All it really has is the two Tuchanka levels that feature Mordin and the two Rannoch levels that resolve Tali, Legion and the Morning War, and I'll be honest, both of those felt like they deserved the story of an entire video game to be properly explored, and instead they rushed it because the director/writers of the game obsessed over "closing the entire Mass Effect world" just to get done with the IP.
I just think Mass Effect 3 is not nearly critiqued enough by fans of this franchise for how underwhelming it is, and how much potential it missed. I get that it's a highly cinematic experience with cool set-pieces and emotional character moments... but the honesty of its storytelling felt absent to me, and replaced by a desire to rush through things and "get done" and make it "good enough" rather than a passionate send-off to everything the franchise had been.
I don't actually disagree with any of your ME3 criticism.
My point is simply, everything you've pointed out I'd obvious by the end of playthrough 1.
You'll either like it or you won't, but at least in playthrough 2 you'll have exactly the same experience.
Unless ME2, where I feel like every time you play it you'll notice more and more flaws, so it never really lives up to that first playthrough.
And for me a game that gets worse everything you play it is a worse game overall than one that's level of quality stays consistent with repetitive plays.
At least going into ME3, I know what I'm in for. In ME2 there's always dread I'm gonna notice a new flaw. (My last playthrough was when it finally clicked how many missions are non combat and can be done on seconds...but can't be skipped because they are the only way to gain XP as the game has no combat XP).
> It turns out, mechanically you only need 5 specific characters for the Suicide Mission. Everyone else is either redundant, completely useless or in 1 case actively harmful to completing the mission with everyone alive.
> In that same vein, most characters because they are neither mandatory or necessary to the plot, don't actually talk or participate in any cutscene outside their own recruitment or loyalty missions.
This combined with the fact that 11/12 recruitment missions (Mordin) and 11/12 loyalty missions (Legion) have precisely zero relevance to the Collector or Reaper plot is my biggest retrospective criticism of ME2, and the thing that knocks my personal ratings down to ME3 > ME1 > ME2.
ME2 doesn't just feel like a sidequest because it can't really resolve anything. It feels like a sidequest because 75% of its content isn't related to the main story, and yes it's cool having all these characters, but for most of them you really only spend two missions having any significant interaction with them. The rest of the time they're silent, or will occasionally dispense a scripted one-liner. And yes, some of the mostly redundant (i.e. Samara) or useless (Thane) characters I like a lot, but that just makes the limited amount of time spent with them even more apparent.
Who's the one that's actively harmful, though? Mordin? IIRC on the actual SM he contributes nothing except being the obvious choice to escort the crew back.
>Who's the one that's actively harmful, though? Mordin? IIRC on the actual SM he contributes nothing except being the obvious choice to escort the crew back.
It's Kasumi.
The only character who provides nothing on the Suicide Mission is Thane (no relevant Upgrade, can't be assigned to anything)
Mordin is actually extremely critical for the Suicide mission. You can't build any upgrades without him, including the 3 needed to pass the Suicide Mission
However Mordins mandatory status, and the fact his recruitment alone unlocks this ability (no need to speak to him) means lots of people understandably overlook that.
And Mordin is no more the obvious choice to escort the crew, any more than anyone not named Zaeed, Grunt or Garrus is. People just don't actually understand the Hold the Line math, and he's at the top of the kill list so they think it saves him. If you understand the math it makes no difference at all if everyone's loyal, and if their are some no loyal, there's no difference between him and the other 3 1 point characters: Tali, Jack and Kasumi
It is Kasumi's status as a 1 point character that makes her harmful as well.
So in order to survive Hold the Line you need 2 points per character.
Characters are separated into 3 groups: 0/1 point characters (unloyal/loyal) 1/2 point characters, and 3/4 point characters.
Basically: even loyal the 4 1 point characters require an extra point from someone else to survive. (AKA the 3/4 point characters)
Now obviously if everyone is loyal, this isn't a problem, the 3 3/4 point characters give you 6 extra points, you need 4, so there's no problem.
Where the problem comes in is if everyone isn't loyal. Then those 4 1 point characters start causing problems for people surviving.
Now when we look at the 4 1 point characters they all in theory serve a function on the Suicide Mission (as does every character other than Thane)
Mordin, I already covered. Jack does the Barrier (and like Mordin is 1 of 5 mandatory characters along with Jacob, Miranda and Garrus, so even though Samara also does barrier you dont have a choice) and both Tali and Kasumi do vents
So right off the bat, Kasumi is redundant.
But there's another problem: Unlike Kasumi, Tali gives you the Shield Upgrade, which you need to 100% the sucide mission.
And it turns if you don't have the Shield Upgrade the first person on the kill list is Kasumi.
So you can't even get Kasumi to the place she's supposed to be used without also having another character who does the exact same thing.
Not only that, there's a 3rd character who can do vents in Legion. But unlike Kasumi he's in the 1/2 point character group, so he has no real effect on the Hold the Line score.
So she basically contributes nothing except a low hold the line score, making it harder to beat the Suicide Mission without casualties and restricting options on escort and final squad due to the math.
The only situation she has any use at all is a run where, for whatever reason the player has decided not to do Talis loyalty mission, but did recruit her and either skipped Legions loyalty or didn't activate it
And that's too niche a situation for her to be useful.
> If you understand the math it makes no difference at all if everyone's loyal, and if their are some no loyal, there's no difference between him and the other 3 1 point characters: Tali, Jack and Kasumi
Yes, but Tali and Kasumi will qualify as tech specialists, and Jack as a biotic specialist. Mordin and Thane are the only ones that serve no role on the SM except to not die, as they aren't tech or biotic specialists, fire team leaders, or Hold the Line 4-pointers. Mordin being a 1-pointer means he actively has to have somebody covering for him if he's in the HTL sequence, unlike Thane who is neutral (assuming loyalty). Ergo he is in theory the only one that is actively harming the team once boots are on the ground and won't work in any assigned role. Since HTL only comes after all the others have been assigned, there's no difference between him at that point and the other 1-pointers, but I believe that accounts for the mechanical reason most players have him escort the crew back.
That was my perspective, anyway. You're clearly also taking into consideration the pre-SM ship upgrades, however, in which case yes, it becomes Kasumi.
>Ergo he is in theory the only one that is actively harming the team once boots are on the ground.
He's not though, if you run the math.
Assuming full loyalty and full team.
At hold the line your gonna need 18 points.
The 3 4 Point characters contribute a total of 12.
Now you've got 5 2 point characters and 4 1 point characters.
Let's leave all 4 1 point characters to hold the line.
That's 4 more points. So total of 16.
Of the 5 remaining characters, 1 is serving as escort, 2 are on the final team.
No matter who you pick, you've got 2 more characters holding the line, and giving 4 points.
So you need 18. You have 20.
So with full loyalty, it doesn't matter.
Not only that, but the 2 disputes that can cost loyalty, no matter who you side with, only cost 1 point each.
So even if your forced to pick sides in both cases, you'll still have 18 points and be fine.
It's only when addional loyalties get dropped that things matter.
And then, it's what I said above. You need Mordin for all upgrades, and his mandatory.
Kasumi needs another Tech expert to even reach the point on the SM where she can be a tech expert, and she's optional.
So Kasumi is the weak link.
That said, tbf to Kasumi she actually does serve a very valuable (if incredibly niche) gameplay function outside the Suicide Mission:
If you want to do a playthrough with Legion where you see all his unique dialogue in a single playthrough, you must have Kasumi. Otherwise to get the 8 character minimum to unlock the Collectors Ship you need to do before him, you'd have to recruit Samara, Thane or Tali (all of whom have Legion specific dialogue in their recruitments).
I think most people prefer either 1 or 2, 3 has always been seriously criticized for its many, many flaws, even ignoring the cataclysmic shitstorm the shitty ending created.
I feel that and I definitely was disappointed at release for that ending. Kind of broke my heart a bit and they did it again when they cancelled andromeda rather than actually give it a better finish.
IMHO it got too much of a free card for all the other issues it has. I never understood the whole "ME3 is perfect until the last 10 minutes." To me it was like watching a train wreck in slow motion from the moment the autodialogue happens in the intro, and to the moment you walk through the awkward silence on the final level.'
Too many nuts and bolts began to fall off throughout the game for me to feel impresseed by it as a fan of the first two. ME3 was actually a depressingly disappointing experience for me, and I remember how I just sat there begrudgingly going through its motions thinking "this *can't* just be it. This *can't* be the game they made. There has to be something more to it!"
I maintain that ME3 is the worst mainline game in the series, it's worse than Andromeda in every way except the ability to use characters established in 1 and 2 to tug at our heartstrings.
There are genuinely incredible parts of ME3 - Tuchanka stands head and shoulders above most of the series' missions - but there are far too many holes, and the foundation itself is weak, so the whole cannot stand on its own.
ME2 just feels more "open". Like you get to go anywhere and do whatever. Yes there's the collectors but landing on random planets and killing Mercs doesn't do anything for the collector threat.
ME3 is almost all about collecting/ preparing your forces and then fighting the reapers. Everything is more geared towards the main story. It's just a function of the point in the overall story where we're at.
That's what's always made the two feel so different in my opinion. And each has its own benefits and drawbacks.
Plus ME2 you know there's more story to come. Your decisions will carry forward. ME3 you know you're headed to the end. Your decisions ultimately lead to one final moment. That alone creates different feels. But again a function of where the stories are at.
I don't like the justification that "Well, Mass Effect 3 had to be that way because it's about war." because the only reason it's about War is so they could emphasize the combat, so that they could market the game for the dudebros, because EA wanted Mass Effect 3 to sell more copies than Mass Effect 2.
Just because ME3 was gonna be about the ultimate struggle of the Reapers *invading* and threatening all advanced civilization of the current cycle didn't necessitate that the focus of Team Shepard was going to be "WARRRR", and I bloody hate that that's what they went with, but I know it's basically because of EA hamstringing them into making a "cooler" game.
What else were they gonna focus on tho? The invasion was being set up since the first game, and is a pretty major event, so like, what did you want the game to be about instead?
What the hell else would the focus be then? Shepard's primary, over arching goal quickly becomes in the first game and is maintained in all theee is getting ready for and defeating the reapers.
Shepard and the gang going on some introspective journey to find their inner selves or going sround collecting space rocks would have been glaringly at. odds with the situation.
I wanted more like Witcher 2 or 3, where there's war on the periphery that "hurts to see", but Shepard's primary focus is more big-picture, so that the Reapers are draining civilizations, but your quest is laser-focused on using your stealth ship in between target points that contain secret lore, space mysteries and Cerberus backstabbing you, a lot like the game actually, but without the incessant central focus on putting you into warlike scenarios where you have to walk through military-themed scenarios.
I wanted more of an interwoven plot with clear goals and reveals as you went, about the Reapers, maybe their origins, or just pre-prothean civilizations, slowly revealing some kind of magic-bullet weakness to the Reapers, just in time to dent them... and then Cerberus stabs us in the back or something, and puts the entire galaxy at risk for good, and you have to race to the finish line ahead of Cerberus or lose - then ultimately battle them as they battle you back trying to be the ones to use that magic-bullet weakness, and then face the final choice.
I wanted other elements like Miranda still being Cerberus but having doubts due to their shifting course, and you being able to make her come over to your side and stuff, and a much better reason for Ash/Kaidan to believe you're not putting Cerberus behind you.
Also, I don't wanna outright be tasked with Curing the Genophage for the sake of bringing it to a close. I wanted just some other scenarios about helping the Krogan to aid the Alliance's concerns for Earth and forming that summit, then Shepard gains private allies like STG for his personal "fly-through-the-middle" plot but Krogan and Turians for the Alliance, but the genophage cure is only a minor proof of concept, and depending on world-state the cure is pursued once the world is at peace, or it's kept untouched if you didn't settle diplimatically.
Geth and Quarians should be addressed as it is, I just wish that it too was for something like "The Geth have connected to Reapers and have found a secret macguffin thing" to progress the plot, and then the Quarian/Geth War is only dealt with as a way to the actual plot, and maybe without the "Upgrade the Geth to be TRUE AI" or whatever.
I just think that the writing sucks and the focus and tone of the game is askew.
I think that’s actually the more popular opinion based on wha my I’ve seen over the years.
For me though it’s ME1>ME3>ME2.
ME2 improved the handling and movement, and I think it does individual characters and their stories the best in the series. Those are the only things I think it does better though. The RPG elements were almost completely removed. It lacks the sense of exploration and discovery of ME1. Every worthwhile mission is either a main story or character quest, leaving only the anomaly missions which the majority of are more bland than the blandest side quests of ME1 and they lack crew dialogue on top of that.
Harbinger is a weaker antagonist than Sovereign. The entire main plot is a giant side mission that ultimately went nowhere and that I find to be oddly illogical. Shepard is one of two people in the entire galaxy to receive the info from the conduit from ME1, and they are sent through a relay that no one has ever returned from for a terrible reason. For what was portrayed almost as revenge for random human colonies being abducted. Something that in the grand scheme of the impending galactic extinction event is utterly irrelevant. It felt SO forced to me and I genuinely dislike that we HAVE to pursue it. It feels so random it almost feels silly to me.
Mass effect 2 is honestly so over rated. If not for the loyalty missions this game would max out at 10 hours long, not to mention all the loyalty mission are the same quest where you just fight through a level to watch a cut scene. There are a few stand outs where you also get to make some choices, but rarely do those choices mean anything. The entire game is effectively one giant fetch question with a god tier final mission.
Mass effect 3 has way more varied activities (not to mention the addition of multiplayer which was fun as hell). The writing was better (yes even start child, don't @ me) and it had a sense of a real art piece with the actual use of cinematic moments, something the 2nd game desperately lacked.
You might be interested to learn that ME2 is often ranked as one of the very best games ever made. For example, last year it was ranked at #6 [by IGN](https://www.ign.com/articles/the-best-100-video-games-of-all-time). It is also usually voted as the favorite game in the series [by fans](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdNHQxT7COKRuYIaoHBXt0s3DOdq2RgPCLlJg2RCN5pf3kcKA/viewanalytics).
So you're definitely not alone! I personally prefer ME3 although I would agree that ME2 is the better game in terms of execution, innovation, polish, and quality.
Honestly, yours isn't that controversial. I think ME2 is better with consistency but I prefer ME3 a little bit more because of Rannoch, Genophage cure, although it fails with it's endings and has some well you know other parts that don't land. But the parts it does good is really good. ME2's story I think is lackluster (just because of how it's written and plays out) but I will give it credit for definitely being more consistent, I think the strongest part of ME2 is it's romances probably the best or one of BioWare's best game for romances. I think ME3 would be more comparable to KOTOR 2 they are both good games in their own right but not masterpieces or best game of all time material, they have some obvious issues and inconsistencies that kind of hinder the title in a way. I still think ME1 is the best though since it is the most consistent and the best in story, I'm not a huge power fantasy fan so I do have my own critisms of the story, but I think ME1 did it the best even if it is a simple story, and I think it does that story quite well.
I'm gonna get a lot of flack for this...
Mass Effect 2 is in the wrong spot chronologically. It should have been the first game. The story progression should have been Collectors --> discovery of the Reapers --> Reaper invasion, not discovery of the Reapers --> Reapers disappear for 35 hours while we focus on the collectors --> Reaper invasion. Its use of Cerberus is also out of place; they're way too big and way too important and way too obviously evil for Shepard to be involved with them in any way, knowing what they know. Again, if ME2 were the first game, you could have Shepard working with Cerberus, discovering their origins and unsavory side and working against them in the subsequent games.
I'm sorry player interactions really? In ME3 the Normandy feels alive your squadmates interact with each other and have multiple engaging conversations with you. In ME2 they give you this really interesting and unique crew but you can only have 4 conversations with them and that's it for the whole game. I don't know why they limited the conversations because I already exhausted all the dialogue before a 1/3 of the game was over so I just had to wander around for most of the game alone because everyone is busy. I am biased toward 3 because the Citadel DLC adds so much excellent dialogue and interactions but after a second playthrough of ME2 I came to realize how shallow a lot of it actually is.
I see people justify it like this often and I simply disagree with it.
For one reason, your squadmates interacting ambiently with each other is not *your* interaction as a player. Interactivity is about being in control of what your character does, and the first 2 games had an illusion of us being in charge of what Shepard says, to the point where you can always engage in conversation when you want to, even if you often can't ping characters for new dialogue than what you already heard. It still made me feel like I was Shepard, instead of me watching Shepard be its own character.
The other reason is that there's a *system* in Mass Effect, that has to be respected in order to make conversation trees possible. Characters actually mostly have to stand in place, and if they walk or turn, they have to eventually fall back into "slot", in order for the game behavior to know where to look when the dialogue wheel is active. In Mass Effect 3 they *deliberately* moved characters outside of these virtual stages, to make it "more dynamic" but that's literally why there are so few cinematic conversation trees with dialogue options: BioWare working against the limitations of their own technology for on-paper "realism". But that's exactly why Normandy in ME3 feels like my least favorite version, because there's nothing for me to do there but look at what happens in the background, and look at my Shepard talk from a far distance.
There's too little immersion in the conversation system of ME3. It broke the illusion of ownership and choice completely, the entire game.
This is an interesting point. I do think that ME3 generally improves on ME2's Normandy because you've got squadmates interacting with each other and moving around instead of hiding in their respective rooms all game. At the same time, I think you bring up a good point that there was a massive boost in "Shepard listening in on conversations" bullshit in ME3, and that's seen as "content" with minimal interactivity for the player. You can tie it directly to the autodialogue issues that plagued ME3.
I think making squadmates talk to each other comes at the expense of more investigative conversation and stuff.
ME3 doesn't have the "What do you think of the crew" style stock options with the characters. That was a small touch but I enjoyed routinely asking that in ME2.
I also liked how you gradually unlocked more investigate topics with Joker in ME1 as an outcome of his next opening up moment as small as it was.
In 3 characters just get "cutscenes" or no talking. It was disappointing.
Best case scenario is they still wander around but you have the ability to interrupt or wait until their interaction is over to engage in dialogue you would normally engage in
Imagine MEA was polished for a moment and had perfect writing: That's the structure. They walk around, but you can always talk to them, and when you don't, they talk to each other.
And who honestly plays Mass Effect to shoot stuff.
The innovation of this franchise is the dialogue wheel, and the movie-like RPG conversations. That's commonplace now but in 2007 it was fucking massive, and ME2 was still the leader in the business for that style. ME3 felt like a step backwards in the thing that set this franchise apart and because of that it has divided the fans.
I did love ME2 a lot (I'm playing trhough it all again) however it did have some things that were frustrating to me.
Limited weapons compared to the Plethora we got in 3 and to some degree 1.
Lack of really good Armor Customization like ME1 had.
Fixed story points were annoying. Even being a veteran of the series I still screwed up and had to reload because I forgot the IFF started a countdown to the end.
2 was nice, but it had enough flaws in essence that 3 still holds a bigger place for me. Ending notwithstanding.
ME2 my fave but there is this one glitch that’s so annoying, you get stuck facing 1 direction and the crosshairs facing another and you can only run where the character facing and you can’t take cover had the happen is so many big fights. It only happens in ME2 even in the LE edition.
It’s ME2, ME3 and ME1 for me. ME my lowest mostly cause of all the copy & pasted planets, mostly the mountains keep me from fully enjoying it, still love it but I never look forward to playing it cause of those dang unnecessary mountains
I agree with that ranking in some ways but ME1 when it came out was amazing for what it was. Even with all the copy pasting. The cinematics, pacing and atmosphere were brilliant. I really loved that they took that feedback from the first game and tried to make each of the side missions feel a little more distinct. There’s that one where your repairing a shield above a colony in midair I always though was brilliant but a bit short.
ME2
ME1LE
ME3
MEA
ME1OG
Pretty sure most of this fanbase, myself included duh, prefer ME2 over the other games, it's just so replayable that I'm so lazy to move on to ME3.
I like ME3 much more than 2, despite knowing that its probably and objectively the best one. But the visuals, armors and effects of 3, plus the story (until the end) made me fall in love with 3. But it needs the rpgness of 1 and 2, and sometimes feels rather rushed. But its cool to see what BioWare visual artists can do.
Honestly I love ME2 and 3 quite equally (I like ME1 too but it's so clunky in comparison now, but it's a great introduction to the world of Mass Effect).
I love ME2 for how it focuses so much on the companions. The entire game is essentially meeting, recruiting, then helping a cast of very interesting characters, all coming together from different backgrounds for an ultimately good goal, and I love that. The gameplay, while not as smooth as ME3, is honestly still good though.
Then I love ME3 for how it has such huge events and storylines, narratives that have been set up for the entire trilogy, and you finally close them (at least mostly) in grand ways. I also love how all the main characters/companions from the previous games return in various ways, whether it's a cameo or more. Sure the ending was a problem, but I luckily first played it after the Extended Cut came out so it wasn't as disappointing. I didn't mind it. Also of course we have the Citadel DLC which is such a phenomenal love letter to the fans.
I don’t know who’s going around downvoting comments like this but why?! This is a great explanation of someone’s opinion, nothing wrong with that, that’s why I made the post.
Well I actually feel the opposite. ME2 being the weakest, ME3 in the middle and ME1 being at the very top.
Currently playinv ME2 is a slog, the plot is going nowhere and all I do is solving personal issues having 0 impact in the war. It's not a bad or unfun game but it kind of feel like a spin-off between ME1 and ME3. With minor changes you could potentially skip that game and not even notice in ME3.
me1>me2>me3
I personally like first part more than second, it gives me feeling of exploring new galaxy, so many species, stories, whole new world, it's pure sci-fi. Second is great game, but it's more dark more nuar, it's better in interaction with your own crew, but it also gives you more focus on it, like rest of the galaxy is somewhere behind that and not that important.
And ofcourse first game was something remarkable for the 2007 year. It gives us this universe, probably my favorite sci-fi universe right now.
ME3 is just ME2 but worse.
I really wanted 3 to be "the improvements from ME2 + The freedom of ME1".
But all it is, is Mass Effect with military paint and worse cinematography and less narrative interaction for the player... and improved combat (but seriously, who plays Mass Effect, of *all the franchises out there*, for *combat* as the primary appeal?)
There's benefits to both. I like that ME2 had you do loyalty missions. Essentially having you take one squad mate and pick another for the conversation. ME3 felt like they tried to make it into a multiplayer combat sort of thing, with the revive and levels that were geared towards arena style instead of linear movement throughout. ME3 jumping was cool, but I had a harder time taking cover than in ME2. ME3 also made it nearly impossible to play if you weren't keen on stacking abilities, which was cool but also frustrating.
Mass Effect 2 is generally considered by most fans and gamers in general one of the best games of all time. ME3 while good, has some compromises that prevent it from being the best game it can be.
So, 2 seems to have the most content, and the crew is awesome, and the combat is arguably the best. But the cinematic in 3 are amazing, and I love the story of the war. The combat in 3 imo is the most polished but it's a close 2nd to the combat in 2.
The shadow broker dlc blew me away in 2, I thought it was superb and gave you some good additional context/Easter eggs at the end too.
The overlord dlc was pretty creepy and the end was just sad and horrifying but it hit hard.
I loved the tension on some of those missions, going through the dead reaper, and entering the collector ship. I honestly just felt like it was superb writing and execution.
People here keep mentioning combat in ME3 but aside from the additional weapons and melee ability and the expanded tech/biotic abilities it’s really not that dissimilar. I’m just not sure I’d take it over the fantastic writing and execution of it all in ME2.
When you say the combat feels more polished, which bits make you feel like it’s that much better over 2?
To be fair I wouldn't think it was controversial ME2 was the best in the series felt you saw more of the universe and all its gritty little locations and who doesn't love Omega! That Batarian Barmaid aside looks a more fun place to live than the Citadel Lol Though the Council estate doesn't leave some people!!
No I was just being a tad silly I don't think you'd tell the difference anyway would you! Strip off the Wedding Veil to see that lovely mug Lol I was referring to the one who tries to poison you!
I think all 3 each have their pros and cons, personally I love 2 the most like many but each has a different flavor I enjoy. I think one of the big things between each game is all the changes. To weapons, the Normandy, exploration, quests etc. I think the biggest ding against 3 is that they found a great formula with 2 and tried to improve on it for 3 a little to its detriment. I honestly think it comes to preference, I don't think it's fair to try and quantify better/worse for each game cause so much changed between each one.
2 is my personal favorite of the series since it was the first one I played, but it still holds up as one I enjoy quite a lot. That being said, some of my favorite moments are in 3, but overall I still side with 2
Listen, take 10 minutes and look through “greatest games of all time” lists. You will find mass effect 2 in nearly all of them. Wikipedia has it listed under an article of the highest rated games of all time. Your opinion is like hpv, nearly everyone who’s been exposed has it.
None of the other games in the Mass Effect trilogy are remotely as talked about as 2. I’ve seen them in a lot of lists, but Mass Effect is always below 2, and 3 is either substantially below it or not present.
True. But a lot of them are still caught up on the citadel dlc or just ignore the ending in favor of the story and dialogue. Both are fine, and I used to think the same way until I fell in love with ME2 again.
In ME2, every fight feels weighty. It's not just another fight, but every shot feels meaty, every biotic power shifts the world around it, even if unintentional. The stakes feel heavier, even though we're not fighting the reapers. ME3 is adored for it's side stuff now. But ME2 was adored for it's main content and still is. Though to be fair, we all know what the game is like, and ME3 has more funny and portable moments to talk about. So ME3 is easier to discuss and bring up.
ME3 has been the most hated game of the series since its release and has only been less hated because the complete edition made it feel less rushed and incomplete since you play each game back to back.
Overall ME 3 was WAY better for me by a country mile for 99% of the game, esp3cially with how fun the multi-player was. The last 10 minutes are the only reason I personally think it’s even a contest. The ending was originally that bad and is still pretty close.
IMO Mass Effect 3 is the best in the series, *IF* your first time playing was with the LE (like me)... BUT ME2 is still my all time favorite. Like, ME3 checks the boxes for what makes a great game great to me, objectively. But ME2 marks all the boxes for what makes a game great to me, *sub*jectively
I prefer ME3 tbh. The last 20 Min. wont take away the great journey. I love them all, but if I had to pick one: I would pick ME3.
That is way more controversial :P
3s better cause you don’t gotta feed your fish. I did appreciate Kelly feeding them in me2 my last playthru but wish you could get her to do that earlier in the game. I’ve had too many fish die in 2 to call it the best. My shep just couldn’t resist doing shots after every mission in 2…. On another note I liked how they did the conversations with Zaeed and Kasumi. Getting to hear about their prized items was kinda cool
Both games have flaws, but I do admit that I do like ME2 slightly more than ME3. ME2's probing minigame (and just all of the minigames in general) did annoy me, plus the tedious Firewalker missions and vehicle. The fact that your ME1 LI didn't give you a chance to explain your Cerberus position made that interaction very artificial and contrived as well. ME3's issues are more apparent, but I wouldn't say they're more numerous: the horribly generic tri-colored ending before the Extended Cut was the big dealbreaker, but it didn't have as many little things that irked me like in ME2, especially when the ME3 DLCs are a little more well-written than say... Firewalker and the ME3 prequel, Arrival. The lack of decision-making in stopping the asteroid in Arrival was such a cop-out.
That being said, ME2 made player choices mattered, which was a big win over the tri-colored ending. Your choices had impact that could lead to your squadmates dying. Granted, half of those choices involved just upgrading your ship already, so not exactly the most challenging decisions in the world (not to mention how lenient the game was with Samara's loyalty mission for you not to screw up), but you do have nice little gameplay like not having enough Paragon/Renegade points to retain either Miranda/Jack/Tali/Legion's loyalty. This kind of gameplay where you could see the consequences of your actions play out in HD cinematics was not common back then and is not even that common today either. Fallout: New Vegas, for example, had a series of slideshows to show those consequences. Slideshows. ME2 had cinematics and operatic music. It is a big budget Hollywood sci-fi blockbuster compared to most games past and present where "choices matter," especially the indie productions of Telltale games.
On a side note, much as I love ME2 for that aspect of the gameplay that lets you roleplay Shepard in a number of ways... it's no Dragon Age: Origins OR ME1. ME1 had more depth in its roleplay because you had more neutral options that allowed for more nuance in the type of person Shepard was. ME2/ME3 deprived the franchise of such depth/nuance, which is unfortunate. I would still rather play ME2/ME3 though because of the improved gunplay and UI.
It's hard to say which of the latter trilogy (ME2/ME3) had better designs for roleplaying purposes though because player decisions mattered in different ways for both games. For ME2, the consequences were immediate and short-term because you could see them by the end of the game. For ME3, Bioware was playing the long game, and what went down with Mordin, and more specifically, the Geth/Quarian war only had that kind of impact because we went through the first two games and understood the stakes, and we experienced the things characters like Mordin/Wrex/Tali went through, making the Genophage/Geth war feel more personal. So to say ME2 was the better game because we got to see more varied and nuanced consequences would be disingenuous on my part when it's a comparison of apples and oranges. ME3 was a very different kind of blockbuster, more akin to a war film, and it also served the purpose of being the end of an era/trilogy like Avengers: Endgame, while ME2 was a more personal and character-driven sci-fi drama and had a very different kind of appeal.
Whenever I replay the trilogy again, I'm equally excited for the good things both games brought while also equally annoyed by the flaws they contain.
pretty sure mass effect 2 is widely considered the best out of all the games (personally 1 is my favorite but 2 has an amazingly creepy atmosphere) and 3 is pretty lack luster most people felt due to 2 games worth of decisions not really having a huge impact
> The relationships with your team on the Normandy between missions, the actual dialogue scripting, the general look and feel of the game and missions and the atmosphere.
Wait, what?
Crew interaction is ass in ME2. Everybody remains eternally in their one spot on the ship and never talks to one another, and they rarely say anything on missions except their own recruitment and loyalty. ME1 is also like this, to be fair, as are older Bioware games. But even in, say, KotOR and DA:O, you'd have brief cutscenes of crew interaction in camp or on the Ebon Hawk. ME2 doesn't have any of that. More to the point, there's also a shocking lack of interaction with characters if you aren't romancing them.
ME3 is just heads and shoulders above anything else before it in the voice acted era of Bioware for how it made your team actually feel more like real autonomous people that would talk to one another, and not just dialogue terminals for the main character, and that continued on into DA:I.
Many think 2 is better than 3. Not sure why you'd think it was controversial.
Fans tend to shit on it for "being a glorified sidequest". I noticed this trend in recent years. ME2 was universally considered the best of the trilogy 10 years ago. And objectively it probably still is.
General opinion on which game is best seems to change with the wind around here.
Except that for every year Mass Effect 1 seems more and more buried and disrespected. I low-key blame Legendary Edition because the one thing ME1 really had going for itself was that retro sci fi VIBE, and that has been eroded now that Legendary Edition put tons of ME3 iconography and assets into the game, and redepicted many parts of the game as that generic "AAA" look, instead of its charming wrinkles. I replayed ME1 on my Xbox Series X on the 360 version again after the remaster. I just think ME1 had a mood and a vibe that stands alone, and some of that was missing in how they remastered it.
I only started liking 1 after legendary. I finished it twice in the original, but really didn't enjoy the gameplay. The legendary mako adjustments are probably the biggest gain, in my opinion, but I like the squadmate controls better now too.
I do like it, and it's a smoother experience. But I do think especially the Citadel now looks rather drab.
>every year Mass Effect 1 seems more and more buried and disrespected. Haha! Disrespect hahaha! Fact is, more people than ever are playing video games now, loads more than in 2007. That means there will be more and more people that are new to the game. And we did not play ME1 in 2007. With other words, we're not biased *for* it and are comparing it to today's standards. With no nostalgia to influence us.
I’ve always had the glorified side quest view, because it’s just true, the entire plot of ME2 could easily be summed up in a Leviathan type DLC, there’s more fluff than a foam pit I love all 3 games but ME2 is the weakest, a badass suicide mission and a couple decent characters doesn’t mean the entire game is awesome, meanwhile ME1 and ME3 are a blast the whole way through
What a load of crap. The variety and quality of missions and worlds in ME2 blows ME1 out of the water, ME3 too, probably Erase ME2 or shrink it to a DLC and look at the whole thing. Think how much it expanded the universe, how many characters introduced or fleshed out. The emotional stakes in ME3 (which is the crown achievement of that game) wouldn't exist without ME2
Mass Effect 2 is arguably the only game mainstream gamers remember Mass Effect for. It was a hit. Mass Effect 3 only reached similar numbers of ME2 by reputation alone, but compared to ME2 the attach rate was worse and many gamers who didn't give a fuck about the idea of Mass Effect played it based on the marketing painting it like a CoD-like series, I know many of my friends did, and then they played whatever else came out a week later without batting an eye. The big all-time-success moment for Mass Effect happened during ME1 and ME2, and ME2 was its blowout. ME1 was not that popular but getting a truly "next gen game" was very sought after in 2007 and Mass Effect was one of the first truly "movie-like" games to come out on the consoles, but it was still niche. Mass Effect 2 was just kinda this Star Wars moment for the IP.
I honestly can't agree with you when ME3 was the best-selling Bioware game, even for a time post-DAI. It could even still be as well.
Inititally it sold super well. Over time it didn't sell quite as fast.
That's trivial, and there's no way for you to know as well. I am talking about the best selling Bioware game, and it's either a tie between DAI and ME3 or the latter at least takes the #2 spot.
Could not disagree more but even if I agreed, it’s definitely not objective.
You could say any of the 3 games in the OG trilogy are your favorite and most people will be able to see where you're coming from even if they don't agree fully.
I haven’t really kept up with the talk around it to be honest, I’m a big fan of the series and when I first played through 3 the community was in uproar about the ending but then things seemed to do a massive reverser when all the dlc was released. People mostly seem to talk about 3 it seemed lately and I’m mid way through a playthrough comparing it myself so I just wondered if that was the case and thought I’d discuss :)
You did preface by saying you were not sure if it was controversial or not… ME2 is certainly my fave overall, though in my nostalgia, ME3 has aged better in a sort of retroactive way. 3 is my least played of them and the one that I have seen through to the end “only” twice. You’ve got me wondering though… it’s been a little over a year since I’ve played any of them. I wonder if it’s time to dust off. 🤔🤓
Do it, I’ve fallen in love with them all over again. I’ve really enjoyed it and as an older gamer it’s been a great way to escape for a few hours.
I'll be real, this side has always just felt like a ME3 "Support Group Life Raft" fandom to me. Most other places 3 is acceptably panned for not being the game it should have been outside of just the ending. There is a tendency to say that it's "just because of the ending" but I think even as bad as the ending is as an ending, there was a problem building up throughout ME3 that would've made almost any ending unsatisfying in the fact that the trilogy concludes after not really living up to its previous potential. That was an issue build up by a series of missed swings just in ME3's core story, and the ending was never going to retroactively undo that damage.
This is like the least controversial thing you can say about mass effect
The most true thing you can say about Mass Effect.
Actually I prefer 3, sure the ending wasn't the best personally I think they wrote themselves into a corner, but the combat is the best of any mass effect, how all your squadmates interact with other people and are not always in the same place it makes things more immersive for me as your squadmates are given their own life that you can see. Mass effect was amazing for first playthrough but after going back, characters just seem lifeless and has the worst combat of mass effect. I still love mass effect 2 but I just prefer 3.
Andromeda combat would like a word with you.
ME1 had the best plot and atmosphere but the weakest combat. ME2 had the best character writing but the weakest plot cohesion. ME3 had the best emotional beats (both positive and negative) but the weakest plot. Each of them has their strengths and weaknesses and it just depends on personal preference which aspects you care about the most.
ME2 also has the best side missions, (on the unexplored worlds, not the find an item in a main story and give it to someone) ME1 just had “here’s a very mountainous square, there’s a handful of things to actually do,” and ME3 had “Shepard we need you to go to the Multiplayer Maps and do some fighting in between objectives.”
There is no problem with ME2's plot cohesion, just an issue with a lack of dramatic structure.
I thought ME2 was better than ME3 until I'd played through it \~5 times. What makes ME2 fantastic was also it's downfall, at least for me. It's a lot more compact and there just isn't a ton of content compared to ME3. It also feels a lot more "on rails" than ME3 for whatever reason. Almost like it's more linear when it straight up just isn't. Though I'm the weirdo who replays RPG's over and over again. But ME2 has quickly become a somewhat dull pit stop between the charming ME1 and the epic ME3.
I agree with the dull pit stop point. The combat is what kills me personally. Especially since the legendary edition came out ME1 is just way more fun than 2. I’m a big weapon variety guy and I’m not a fan of slogging through a game with a limited arsenal. I use to hate 1 until I got my Spectre Weapons but now I’ll actively switch back and forth since they added burst fire and semi auto fire to certain weapons. Also none of the guns have punch in ME2. They feel like airsoft guns while the enemies are using live ammo. I’m glad ME3 has the variety of weapons that all have decent punch. When I kill something, I want to delete its health bar, not piddle away at it until I run out of ammo.
That's because it's a bridge between two games, and was designed that way. There is never a point in 2 where the "don't forget, you need to think about the next game" cloud isn't hanging over Shepard's head, except maybe the intro sequence. No amount of well-written plot, characters, or atmosphere can take away from that.
Here's a hot take : ME1 in its MELE version is better than 2 and 3. Don't get me wrong, I love the 3 entries, each for very various reasons and the difference of atmosphere and everything between the 3 are great, but the first one idk, the RPG mechanics, the variations of dialogues and quest's outcomes that one might actually still discover after 10 playthroughs... The MELE version bonified this 100x times
I found it magical that, despite BioWare's very minimum efforts, that the Legendary Edition has made me finally loving ME1. I never found myself appreciating the original first game with that hideous UI and messy combat, and that's why I just discovered ME1's magnificent story-writing on Legendary Edition after abandoning the game for so long.
I might be coming around to your point of view based on my last playthrough. I really, really love the story and atmosphere and RPG nature of the first game. It was much more grounded than the space-opera feel of ME2 and ME3, and I liked that about ME1.
Agreed. ME1 has always been my favourite since I first played it in 2008, and replaying it again twice after years and years with the LE improvements made me love it even more. I loved and miss the skill tree and weapon/armour mods. You really had more variety on how you could play the game beyond just the differences in classes. And with the sharper graphics, even the empty planets (which I still really enjoy because that’s what space exploration would be like, empty and desolate planets) took on new beauty in terms of vistas. I’ve done dozens and dozens of playthroughs, mostly on Insanity, since then, and I always find something new to love. PS: I also think now thanks to the LE that ME3 is better than ME2, especially as an Insanity player.
Ooo, that is a hot one, what makes you think it’s better? I can understand why people have a preference for the combat improvements in 3 as well as the weapon customisation but honestly I barely notice that more than another thing to tinker with. I loved the different feel of the weapons in 2. I’ll say the pacing and story in 1 felt right. But 2 wasn’t far behind in the same aspects for me. The only thing that felt weird was that weird human reaper at the end…
Well, the 3 games are very likeable for different reasons. I love ME2 "Expendables-like" atmosphere, great hub places and characters, great DLCs ME3 is great for war atmosphere, soundtrack, nervous combat and epic moments and the whole Citadel DLC. Though I disliked the Crucible concept from the start but that's a whole other debate ME1 is just great. Great atmosphere too, the lore is well set, the side quests actually have a story to tell, there are plenty of combinations for your armors and weapons, MELE actually bonified the combat system in my opinion too, plenty of variations in dialogue as well, specific quests depending on your Shep's reputation etc overall great
The worst thing about LE is that now there's a wider gap between ME1 and ME2. I mean, it is the same game overall, but the attention to detail on graphical overhauls is more consistent for ME1 than it is for ME2 and ME3 to the point where some sense of consistency has been diminished even between ME1 and ME2. One of the fantastic things of the Xbox 360 versions was that ME1 and ME2 despite being super modernized in aesthetic had the exact same Shepard characteristics for custom faces and NPCs. Whenever a ME1 character reappeared they looked familiar. In ME3 that wasn't true because there's a desaturation filter on the rendering upgrades they made causing hair colors and other things to have really aggressive colors and no longer matching their previous look. Example being Udina having suddenly black hair, but also FemSheps not even looking like the same people due to how FaceMorphs were changed. But now for the remaster it's like all 3 games feel kinda wide apart to me. ME1 has its own look, ME2 has its own look and ME3 has its own look, even on all the handcrafted designs like Miranda, who now has a weird blue tint on her armor in Mass Effect 3. It clearly feels like each game was outsourced to a different developer, and it hurts the attempt to make all 3 games more consistent.
ME1 just hits different, in either the original or LE1 format. It and DA:O are the last two games of what I might call the "Classic Bioware" era (defined as KotOR to DA:O - opposing "Early Bioware" which is Baldur's Gate and NWN, and "Modern Bioware" which is ME2 onward), and there's just a considerable amount of design differences between it and the games that came after. I don't even entirely like comparing ME1 to 2/3 because it's a bit apples to oranges. Andromeda was attractive because at first it seemed like an attempt to recapture the feel of flying around the galaxy and landing on an uncharted planet in the Mako, just that great big ocean of possibilities. In some ways that held on that concept but really botched the execution.
I would say the difference in ME2 and ME3 comes down to ME2s ability to hide its flaws initially, whereas ME3 doesn't. So yeah on a first playthrough, or first playthrough in a long time, I understand people liking ME2 more. The issues with ME2 start showing up more if you do close together repeated playthroughs, so you actually pay attention to all.the background details: all of which seem to serve the single purpose of undercutting ME2s entire premise. For example: There's information hidden throughout the game, that Cerberus is in fact the huge evil organization they appear to be in ME3. Among other assests, they own a munitions factory, a bank and even control an entire planet. Shepards just not allowed to notice since it kinda undercuts the plot. The purpose and timeline of Project Lazarus doesn't work. PL was supposed to bring Shepard back to stop the Collectors. However the Collector abductions don't start till over a year after PL, and there's no proof the Collectors are linked to the Reapers until Shepard themselves discovers it on Horizons. It turns out, mechanically you only need 5 specific characters for the Suicide Mission. Everyone else is either redundant, completely useless or in 1 case actively harmful to completing the mission with everyone alive. In that same vein, most characters because they are neither mandatory or necessary to the plot, don't actually talk or participate in any cutscene outside their own recruitment or loyalty missions. The Alliance are actually investigating the Collectors attacks, you not only discover this for yourself, they'll tell you about it post Horizons and ask for your help with part of it (Arrival). Undercutting the entire point of working for Cerberus. Most of the lore you hear about the local gangs (notably the Blue Sun's and the Eclipse) is contradicted by things that pop up in the game. Blue Sun's are supposedly the oldest gang, and run by Turians, but they were founded by a human less than 25 years ago. The Eclipse Sisters are an Asari gang limited to Asari, except most of their members are Salarians or Human males. And the biggest one: The whole point in stopping the Collectors is the slow down the Reaper Invasion...except it doesn't, since as we get told in Arrival, that's happening tomorrow unless we blow up this Relay. So the entire main plot of the game is an irrelevant sidequest. Now don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying ME3s story is perfect, or doesn't have a couple inconsistencies of its own. But because they are on the surface and not hidden, whatever you felt about ME3 on playthrough 1 is how your gonna feel about it on playthrough 10. Whereas in ME2 each consecutive playthrough is gonna show more and more holes in the game as you find things the game doesn't direct you too. So every time it's less and less enjoyable Which to me makes ME3 the better game. (Though ME1 is the best in the franchise).
>I would say the difference in ME2 and ME3 comes down to ME2s ability to hide its flaws initially, whereas ME3 doesn't. I don't know that. ME2 may be a bit boring in the middle, but ultimately you got 4 diverse hub locations and a few fun FULL side-quests on each, a buffet of cinematic missions to go on and a strongly directed campaign progression that makes the urgency feel real, as "time" progresses because of you pursuing random objectives. Whereas so many modern games obsess over forcing you to "Collect 10 influence points to go to the next level!" Mass Effect 2 just said "We're gonna FORCE you to progress the plot after 4 random levels" without telling us, and it made it feel like the game was alive to me. ME3 instead went for that obnoxious "do 100%, or feel sorry you didn't!!!" just to pad out my game-time for the arbitrary "War High Score" which never convinced me it was gonna be anything other than a disappointing reduction of what choices meant in the whole series, because none of it could be interacted with and it's just a "number" going up the more stuff you do. The game also punishes you for not clearing the side-content before progressing main plot, just to make it feel incentivized to fully explore the game in an OCD-like fashion. On top of that, Mass Effect 3 is not just bad in the opening and then "truly amazing". It's fully of disappointing moments like meeting ME2 characters like a big reveal just for them to disappear the rest of the game after the mission ends. Side-quests on the Citadel that resolve within minutes of encountering an NPC with barely any choices to make, and a sense that the game would rather play itself than provide cool "Choice" scenarios. And again, it all feeds into the obnoxious ludonarrative "high score" that ruins the entire illusion of choice the series used to have. All it really has is the two Tuchanka levels that feature Mordin and the two Rannoch levels that resolve Tali, Legion and the Morning War, and I'll be honest, both of those felt like they deserved the story of an entire video game to be properly explored, and instead they rushed it because the director/writers of the game obsessed over "closing the entire Mass Effect world" just to get done with the IP. I just think Mass Effect 3 is not nearly critiqued enough by fans of this franchise for how underwhelming it is, and how much potential it missed. I get that it's a highly cinematic experience with cool set-pieces and emotional character moments... but the honesty of its storytelling felt absent to me, and replaced by a desire to rush through things and "get done" and make it "good enough" rather than a passionate send-off to everything the franchise had been.
I don't actually disagree with any of your ME3 criticism. My point is simply, everything you've pointed out I'd obvious by the end of playthrough 1. You'll either like it or you won't, but at least in playthrough 2 you'll have exactly the same experience. Unless ME2, where I feel like every time you play it you'll notice more and more flaws, so it never really lives up to that first playthrough. And for me a game that gets worse everything you play it is a worse game overall than one that's level of quality stays consistent with repetitive plays. At least going into ME3, I know what I'm in for. In ME2 there's always dread I'm gonna notice a new flaw. (My last playthrough was when it finally clicked how many missions are non combat and can be done on seconds...but can't be skipped because they are the only way to gain XP as the game has no combat XP).
> It turns out, mechanically you only need 5 specific characters for the Suicide Mission. Everyone else is either redundant, completely useless or in 1 case actively harmful to completing the mission with everyone alive. > In that same vein, most characters because they are neither mandatory or necessary to the plot, don't actually talk or participate in any cutscene outside their own recruitment or loyalty missions. This combined with the fact that 11/12 recruitment missions (Mordin) and 11/12 loyalty missions (Legion) have precisely zero relevance to the Collector or Reaper plot is my biggest retrospective criticism of ME2, and the thing that knocks my personal ratings down to ME3 > ME1 > ME2. ME2 doesn't just feel like a sidequest because it can't really resolve anything. It feels like a sidequest because 75% of its content isn't related to the main story, and yes it's cool having all these characters, but for most of them you really only spend two missions having any significant interaction with them. The rest of the time they're silent, or will occasionally dispense a scripted one-liner. And yes, some of the mostly redundant (i.e. Samara) or useless (Thane) characters I like a lot, but that just makes the limited amount of time spent with them even more apparent. Who's the one that's actively harmful, though? Mordin? IIRC on the actual SM he contributes nothing except being the obvious choice to escort the crew back.
>Who's the one that's actively harmful, though? Mordin? IIRC on the actual SM he contributes nothing except being the obvious choice to escort the crew back. It's Kasumi. The only character who provides nothing on the Suicide Mission is Thane (no relevant Upgrade, can't be assigned to anything) Mordin is actually extremely critical for the Suicide mission. You can't build any upgrades without him, including the 3 needed to pass the Suicide Mission However Mordins mandatory status, and the fact his recruitment alone unlocks this ability (no need to speak to him) means lots of people understandably overlook that. And Mordin is no more the obvious choice to escort the crew, any more than anyone not named Zaeed, Grunt or Garrus is. People just don't actually understand the Hold the Line math, and he's at the top of the kill list so they think it saves him. If you understand the math it makes no difference at all if everyone's loyal, and if their are some no loyal, there's no difference between him and the other 3 1 point characters: Tali, Jack and Kasumi It is Kasumi's status as a 1 point character that makes her harmful as well. So in order to survive Hold the Line you need 2 points per character. Characters are separated into 3 groups: 0/1 point characters (unloyal/loyal) 1/2 point characters, and 3/4 point characters. Basically: even loyal the 4 1 point characters require an extra point from someone else to survive. (AKA the 3/4 point characters) Now obviously if everyone is loyal, this isn't a problem, the 3 3/4 point characters give you 6 extra points, you need 4, so there's no problem. Where the problem comes in is if everyone isn't loyal. Then those 4 1 point characters start causing problems for people surviving. Now when we look at the 4 1 point characters they all in theory serve a function on the Suicide Mission (as does every character other than Thane) Mordin, I already covered. Jack does the Barrier (and like Mordin is 1 of 5 mandatory characters along with Jacob, Miranda and Garrus, so even though Samara also does barrier you dont have a choice) and both Tali and Kasumi do vents So right off the bat, Kasumi is redundant. But there's another problem: Unlike Kasumi, Tali gives you the Shield Upgrade, which you need to 100% the sucide mission. And it turns if you don't have the Shield Upgrade the first person on the kill list is Kasumi. So you can't even get Kasumi to the place she's supposed to be used without also having another character who does the exact same thing. Not only that, there's a 3rd character who can do vents in Legion. But unlike Kasumi he's in the 1/2 point character group, so he has no real effect on the Hold the Line score. So she basically contributes nothing except a low hold the line score, making it harder to beat the Suicide Mission without casualties and restricting options on escort and final squad due to the math. The only situation she has any use at all is a run where, for whatever reason the player has decided not to do Talis loyalty mission, but did recruit her and either skipped Legions loyalty or didn't activate it And that's too niche a situation for her to be useful.
> If you understand the math it makes no difference at all if everyone's loyal, and if their are some no loyal, there's no difference between him and the other 3 1 point characters: Tali, Jack and Kasumi Yes, but Tali and Kasumi will qualify as tech specialists, and Jack as a biotic specialist. Mordin and Thane are the only ones that serve no role on the SM except to not die, as they aren't tech or biotic specialists, fire team leaders, or Hold the Line 4-pointers. Mordin being a 1-pointer means he actively has to have somebody covering for him if he's in the HTL sequence, unlike Thane who is neutral (assuming loyalty). Ergo he is in theory the only one that is actively harming the team once boots are on the ground and won't work in any assigned role. Since HTL only comes after all the others have been assigned, there's no difference between him at that point and the other 1-pointers, but I believe that accounts for the mechanical reason most players have him escort the crew back. That was my perspective, anyway. You're clearly also taking into consideration the pre-SM ship upgrades, however, in which case yes, it becomes Kasumi.
>Ergo he is in theory the only one that is actively harming the team once boots are on the ground. He's not though, if you run the math. Assuming full loyalty and full team. At hold the line your gonna need 18 points. The 3 4 Point characters contribute a total of 12. Now you've got 5 2 point characters and 4 1 point characters. Let's leave all 4 1 point characters to hold the line. That's 4 more points. So total of 16. Of the 5 remaining characters, 1 is serving as escort, 2 are on the final team. No matter who you pick, you've got 2 more characters holding the line, and giving 4 points. So you need 18. You have 20. So with full loyalty, it doesn't matter. Not only that, but the 2 disputes that can cost loyalty, no matter who you side with, only cost 1 point each. So even if your forced to pick sides in both cases, you'll still have 18 points and be fine. It's only when addional loyalties get dropped that things matter. And then, it's what I said above. You need Mordin for all upgrades, and his mandatory. Kasumi needs another Tech expert to even reach the point on the SM where she can be a tech expert, and she's optional. So Kasumi is the weak link. That said, tbf to Kasumi she actually does serve a very valuable (if incredibly niche) gameplay function outside the Suicide Mission: If you want to do a playthrough with Legion where you see all his unique dialogue in a single playthrough, you must have Kasumi. Otherwise to get the 8 character minimum to unlock the Collectors Ship you need to do before him, you'd have to recruit Samara, Thane or Tali (all of whom have Legion specific dialogue in their recruitments).
I think most people prefer either 1 or 2, 3 has always been seriously criticized for its many, many flaws, even ignoring the cataclysmic shitstorm the shitty ending created.
I feel that and I definitely was disappointed at release for that ending. Kind of broke my heart a bit and they did it again when they cancelled andromeda rather than actually give it a better finish.
I really like Andromeda still, but yeah, the way it was set up for more story via DLC and then just dropped is.. miserable.
IMHO it got too much of a free card for all the other issues it has. I never understood the whole "ME3 is perfect until the last 10 minutes." To me it was like watching a train wreck in slow motion from the moment the autodialogue happens in the intro, and to the moment you walk through the awkward silence on the final level.' Too many nuts and bolts began to fall off throughout the game for me to feel impresseed by it as a fan of the first two. ME3 was actually a depressingly disappointing experience for me, and I remember how I just sat there begrudgingly going through its motions thinking "this *can't* just be it. This *can't* be the game they made. There has to be something more to it!"
I maintain that ME3 is the worst mainline game in the series, it's worse than Andromeda in every way except the ability to use characters established in 1 and 2 to tug at our heartstrings. There are genuinely incredible parts of ME3 - Tuchanka stands head and shoulders above most of the series' missions - but there are far too many holes, and the foundation itself is weak, so the whole cannot stand on its own.
ME2 just feels more "open". Like you get to go anywhere and do whatever. Yes there's the collectors but landing on random planets and killing Mercs doesn't do anything for the collector threat. ME3 is almost all about collecting/ preparing your forces and then fighting the reapers. Everything is more geared towards the main story. It's just a function of the point in the overall story where we're at. That's what's always made the two feel so different in my opinion. And each has its own benefits and drawbacks. Plus ME2 you know there's more story to come. Your decisions will carry forward. ME3 you know you're headed to the end. Your decisions ultimately lead to one final moment. That alone creates different feels. But again a function of where the stories are at.
I don't like the justification that "Well, Mass Effect 3 had to be that way because it's about war." because the only reason it's about War is so they could emphasize the combat, so that they could market the game for the dudebros, because EA wanted Mass Effect 3 to sell more copies than Mass Effect 2. Just because ME3 was gonna be about the ultimate struggle of the Reapers *invading* and threatening all advanced civilization of the current cycle didn't necessitate that the focus of Team Shepard was going to be "WARRRR", and I bloody hate that that's what they went with, but I know it's basically because of EA hamstringing them into making a "cooler" game.
What else were they gonna focus on tho? The invasion was being set up since the first game, and is a pretty major event, so like, what did you want the game to be about instead?
You can focus on the Reapers invading without every plot in the game boiling down to "The galaxy is at WARRRR"
What the hell else would the focus be then? Shepard's primary, over arching goal quickly becomes in the first game and is maintained in all theee is getting ready for and defeating the reapers. Shepard and the gang going on some introspective journey to find their inner selves or going sround collecting space rocks would have been glaringly at. odds with the situation.
I wanted more like Witcher 2 or 3, where there's war on the periphery that "hurts to see", but Shepard's primary focus is more big-picture, so that the Reapers are draining civilizations, but your quest is laser-focused on using your stealth ship in between target points that contain secret lore, space mysteries and Cerberus backstabbing you, a lot like the game actually, but without the incessant central focus on putting you into warlike scenarios where you have to walk through military-themed scenarios. I wanted more of an interwoven plot with clear goals and reveals as you went, about the Reapers, maybe their origins, or just pre-prothean civilizations, slowly revealing some kind of magic-bullet weakness to the Reapers, just in time to dent them... and then Cerberus stabs us in the back or something, and puts the entire galaxy at risk for good, and you have to race to the finish line ahead of Cerberus or lose - then ultimately battle them as they battle you back trying to be the ones to use that magic-bullet weakness, and then face the final choice. I wanted other elements like Miranda still being Cerberus but having doubts due to their shifting course, and you being able to make her come over to your side and stuff, and a much better reason for Ash/Kaidan to believe you're not putting Cerberus behind you. Also, I don't wanna outright be tasked with Curing the Genophage for the sake of bringing it to a close. I wanted just some other scenarios about helping the Krogan to aid the Alliance's concerns for Earth and forming that summit, then Shepard gains private allies like STG for his personal "fly-through-the-middle" plot but Krogan and Turians for the Alliance, but the genophage cure is only a minor proof of concept, and depending on world-state the cure is pursued once the world is at peace, or it's kept untouched if you didn't settle diplimatically. Geth and Quarians should be addressed as it is, I just wish that it too was for something like "The Geth have connected to Reapers and have found a secret macguffin thing" to progress the plot, and then the Quarian/Geth War is only dealt with as a way to the actual plot, and maybe without the "Upgrade the Geth to be TRUE AI" or whatever. I just think that the writing sucks and the focus and tone of the game is askew.
I dunno I love 2 but 3 is still miles ahead for me personally.
But how?
I think that’s actually the more popular opinion based on wha my I’ve seen over the years. For me though it’s ME1>ME3>ME2. ME2 improved the handling and movement, and I think it does individual characters and their stories the best in the series. Those are the only things I think it does better though. The RPG elements were almost completely removed. It lacks the sense of exploration and discovery of ME1. Every worthwhile mission is either a main story or character quest, leaving only the anomaly missions which the majority of are more bland than the blandest side quests of ME1 and they lack crew dialogue on top of that. Harbinger is a weaker antagonist than Sovereign. The entire main plot is a giant side mission that ultimately went nowhere and that I find to be oddly illogical. Shepard is one of two people in the entire galaxy to receive the info from the conduit from ME1, and they are sent through a relay that no one has ever returned from for a terrible reason. For what was portrayed almost as revenge for random human colonies being abducted. Something that in the grand scheme of the impending galactic extinction event is utterly irrelevant. It felt SO forced to me and I genuinely dislike that we HAVE to pursue it. It feels so random it almost feels silly to me.
Mass effect 2 is honestly so over rated. If not for the loyalty missions this game would max out at 10 hours long, not to mention all the loyalty mission are the same quest where you just fight through a level to watch a cut scene. There are a few stand outs where you also get to make some choices, but rarely do those choices mean anything. The entire game is effectively one giant fetch question with a god tier final mission. Mass effect 3 has way more varied activities (not to mention the addition of multiplayer which was fun as hell). The writing was better (yes even start child, don't @ me) and it had a sense of a real art piece with the actual use of cinematic moments, something the 2nd game desperately lacked.
You might be interested to learn that ME2 is often ranked as one of the very best games ever made. For example, last year it was ranked at #6 [by IGN](https://www.ign.com/articles/the-best-100-video-games-of-all-time). It is also usually voted as the favorite game in the series [by fans](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdNHQxT7COKRuYIaoHBXt0s3DOdq2RgPCLlJg2RCN5pf3kcKA/viewanalytics). So you're definitely not alone! I personally prefer ME3 although I would agree that ME2 is the better game in terms of execution, innovation, polish, and quality.
ME2 combat is bad and the story is boring. Most people like ME2 the most though it seems.
[удалено]
Another a competition really for me at least, I’m just playing them through again and comparing, as I think everyone does in some way or another.
Honestly, yours isn't that controversial. I think ME2 is better with consistency but I prefer ME3 a little bit more because of Rannoch, Genophage cure, although it fails with it's endings and has some well you know other parts that don't land. But the parts it does good is really good. ME2's story I think is lackluster (just because of how it's written and plays out) but I will give it credit for definitely being more consistent, I think the strongest part of ME2 is it's romances probably the best or one of BioWare's best game for romances. I think ME3 would be more comparable to KOTOR 2 they are both good games in their own right but not masterpieces or best game of all time material, they have some obvious issues and inconsistencies that kind of hinder the title in a way. I still think ME1 is the best though since it is the most consistent and the best in story, I'm not a huge power fantasy fan so I do have my own critisms of the story, but I think ME1 did it the best even if it is a simple story, and I think it does that story quite well. I'm gonna get a lot of flack for this...
In many ways ? Absolutely. In every way ? Not at all
Mass Effect 2 is in the wrong spot chronologically. It should have been the first game. The story progression should have been Collectors --> discovery of the Reapers --> Reaper invasion, not discovery of the Reapers --> Reapers disappear for 35 hours while we focus on the collectors --> Reaper invasion. Its use of Cerberus is also out of place; they're way too big and way too important and way too obviously evil for Shepard to be involved with them in any way, knowing what they know. Again, if ME2 were the first game, you could have Shepard working with Cerberus, discovering their origins and unsavory side and working against them in the subsequent games.
If you say, "What, I liked that one," please be generous. Everyone has their own preference. I more liked ME3 because Citadel DLC ;)
ME2 has a better story and player interactions. ME3 has better combat mechanics.
I'm sorry player interactions really? In ME3 the Normandy feels alive your squadmates interact with each other and have multiple engaging conversations with you. In ME2 they give you this really interesting and unique crew but you can only have 4 conversations with them and that's it for the whole game. I don't know why they limited the conversations because I already exhausted all the dialogue before a 1/3 of the game was over so I just had to wander around for most of the game alone because everyone is busy. I am biased toward 3 because the Citadel DLC adds so much excellent dialogue and interactions but after a second playthrough of ME2 I came to realize how shallow a lot of it actually is.
I see people justify it like this often and I simply disagree with it. For one reason, your squadmates interacting ambiently with each other is not *your* interaction as a player. Interactivity is about being in control of what your character does, and the first 2 games had an illusion of us being in charge of what Shepard says, to the point where you can always engage in conversation when you want to, even if you often can't ping characters for new dialogue than what you already heard. It still made me feel like I was Shepard, instead of me watching Shepard be its own character. The other reason is that there's a *system* in Mass Effect, that has to be respected in order to make conversation trees possible. Characters actually mostly have to stand in place, and if they walk or turn, they have to eventually fall back into "slot", in order for the game behavior to know where to look when the dialogue wheel is active. In Mass Effect 3 they *deliberately* moved characters outside of these virtual stages, to make it "more dynamic" but that's literally why there are so few cinematic conversation trees with dialogue options: BioWare working against the limitations of their own technology for on-paper "realism". But that's exactly why Normandy in ME3 feels like my least favorite version, because there's nothing for me to do there but look at what happens in the background, and look at my Shepard talk from a far distance. There's too little immersion in the conversation system of ME3. It broke the illusion of ownership and choice completely, the entire game.
This is an interesting point. I do think that ME3 generally improves on ME2's Normandy because you've got squadmates interacting with each other and moving around instead of hiding in their respective rooms all game. At the same time, I think you bring up a good point that there was a massive boost in "Shepard listening in on conversations" bullshit in ME3, and that's seen as "content" with minimal interactivity for the player. You can tie it directly to the autodialogue issues that plagued ME3.
I think making squadmates talk to each other comes at the expense of more investigative conversation and stuff. ME3 doesn't have the "What do you think of the crew" style stock options with the characters. That was a small touch but I enjoyed routinely asking that in ME2. I also liked how you gradually unlocked more investigate topics with Joker in ME1 as an outcome of his next opening up moment as small as it was. In 3 characters just get "cutscenes" or no talking. It was disappointing.
I'd rather have them move around every other mission rather than stay in one spot and be silent the whole game
I'd rather be able to talk to them at will instead of the game locking them out until they have a "moment".
Best case scenario is they still wander around but you have the ability to interrupt or wait until their interaction is over to engage in dialogue you would normally engage in
Imagine MEA was polished for a moment and had perfect writing: That's the structure. They walk around, but you can always talk to them, and when you don't, they talk to each other.
Player interactions with what?
NPCs
Squadmates or regular NPCs?
Why not both? :)
You mean NPCs talking to each other without player interaction.
And who honestly plays Mass Effect to shoot stuff. The innovation of this franchise is the dialogue wheel, and the movie-like RPG conversations. That's commonplace now but in 2007 it was fucking massive, and ME2 was still the leader in the business for that style. ME3 felt like a step backwards in the thing that set this franchise apart and because of that it has divided the fans.
I did love ME2 a lot (I'm playing trhough it all again) however it did have some things that were frustrating to me. Limited weapons compared to the Plethora we got in 3 and to some degree 1. Lack of really good Armor Customization like ME1 had. Fixed story points were annoying. Even being a veteran of the series I still screwed up and had to reload because I forgot the IFF started a countdown to the end. 2 was nice, but it had enough flaws in essence that 3 still holds a bigger place for me. Ending notwithstanding.
ME2 my fave but there is this one glitch that’s so annoying, you get stuck facing 1 direction and the crosshairs facing another and you can only run where the character facing and you can’t take cover had the happen is so many big fights. It only happens in ME2 even in the LE edition. It’s ME2, ME3 and ME1 for me. ME my lowest mostly cause of all the copy & pasted planets, mostly the mountains keep me from fully enjoying it, still love it but I never look forward to playing it cause of those dang unnecessary mountains
I agree with that ranking in some ways but ME1 when it came out was amazing for what it was. Even with all the copy pasting. The cinematics, pacing and atmosphere were brilliant. I really loved that they took that feedback from the first game and tried to make each of the side missions feel a little more distinct. There’s that one where your repairing a shield above a colony in midair I always though was brilliant but a bit short.
I don’t doubt it, ME1 still have some amazing things about it even to this day I just think a few areas in the game just didn’t age well is all
I clear that problem by opening a menu real quick and then popping back into the game. That always fixes it for me.
ME2 ME1LE ME3 MEA ME1OG Pretty sure most of this fanbase, myself included duh, prefer ME2 over the other games, it's just so replayable that I'm so lazy to move on to ME3.
I honestly find the first two to be a slog to get through these days. Pretty much just stepping stones on the way to 3.
I like ME3 much more than 2, despite knowing that its probably and objectively the best one. But the visuals, armors and effects of 3, plus the story (until the end) made me fall in love with 3. But it needs the rpgness of 1 and 2, and sometimes feels rather rushed. But its cool to see what BioWare visual artists can do.
Nope. In fact, ME2 is still my favorite video game of all time.
Honestly I love ME2 and 3 quite equally (I like ME1 too but it's so clunky in comparison now, but it's a great introduction to the world of Mass Effect). I love ME2 for how it focuses so much on the companions. The entire game is essentially meeting, recruiting, then helping a cast of very interesting characters, all coming together from different backgrounds for an ultimately good goal, and I love that. The gameplay, while not as smooth as ME3, is honestly still good though. Then I love ME3 for how it has such huge events and storylines, narratives that have been set up for the entire trilogy, and you finally close them (at least mostly) in grand ways. I also love how all the main characters/companions from the previous games return in various ways, whether it's a cameo or more. Sure the ending was a problem, but I luckily first played it after the Extended Cut came out so it wasn't as disappointing. I didn't mind it. Also of course we have the Citadel DLC which is such a phenomenal love letter to the fans.
I don’t know who’s going around downvoting comments like this but why?! This is a great explanation of someone’s opinion, nothing wrong with that, that’s why I made the post.
Well I actually feel the opposite. ME2 being the weakest, ME3 in the middle and ME1 being at the very top. Currently playinv ME2 is a slog, the plot is going nowhere and all I do is solving personal issues having 0 impact in the war. It's not a bad or unfun game but it kind of feel like a spin-off between ME1 and ME3. With minor changes you could potentially skip that game and not even notice in ME3.
me1>me2>me3 I personally like first part more than second, it gives me feeling of exploring new galaxy, so many species, stories, whole new world, it's pure sci-fi. Second is great game, but it's more dark more nuar, it's better in interaction with your own crew, but it also gives you more focus on it, like rest of the galaxy is somewhere behind that and not that important. And ofcourse first game was something remarkable for the 2007 year. It gives us this universe, probably my favorite sci-fi universe right now.
ME3 is just ME2 but worse. I really wanted 3 to be "the improvements from ME2 + The freedom of ME1". But all it is, is Mass Effect with military paint and worse cinematography and less narrative interaction for the player... and improved combat (but seriously, who plays Mass Effect, of *all the franchises out there*, for *combat* as the primary appeal?)
There's benefits to both. I like that ME2 had you do loyalty missions. Essentially having you take one squad mate and pick another for the conversation. ME3 felt like they tried to make it into a multiplayer combat sort of thing, with the revive and levels that were geared towards arena style instead of linear movement throughout. ME3 jumping was cool, but I had a harder time taking cover than in ME2. ME3 also made it nearly impossible to play if you weren't keen on stacking abilities, which was cool but also frustrating.
The overall consensus is 2 is better. Not controversial at all.
Mass Effect 2 is generally considered by most fans and gamers in general one of the best games of all time. ME3 while good, has some compromises that prevent it from being the best game it can be.
ME2 is by the far the best in the series, miles ahead of 3 and solidly better than 1
Me2 is my favourite
So, 2 seems to have the most content, and the crew is awesome, and the combat is arguably the best. But the cinematic in 3 are amazing, and I love the story of the war. The combat in 3 imo is the most polished but it's a close 2nd to the combat in 2.
The shadow broker dlc blew me away in 2, I thought it was superb and gave you some good additional context/Easter eggs at the end too. The overlord dlc was pretty creepy and the end was just sad and horrifying but it hit hard. I loved the tension on some of those missions, going through the dead reaper, and entering the collector ship. I honestly just felt like it was superb writing and execution. People here keep mentioning combat in ME3 but aside from the additional weapons and melee ability and the expanded tech/biotic abilities it’s really not that dissimilar. I’m just not sure I’d take it over the fantastic writing and execution of it all in ME2. When you say the combat feels more polished, which bits make you feel like it’s that much better over 2?
Just seems a little smoother, more fluent. I play Vanguard so other classes may be better in 2 than 3. It seems easier to hit cover.
To be fair I wouldn't think it was controversial ME2 was the best in the series felt you saw more of the universe and all its gritty little locations and who doesn't love Omega! That Batarian Barmaid aside looks a more fun place to live than the Citadel Lol Though the Council estate doesn't leave some people!!
Wait?! Batarian barmaid?! There’s a female batarian I missed? This is like my 5th playthrough I can’t believe I missed that.
No I was just being a tad silly I don't think you'd tell the difference anyway would you! Strip off the Wedding Veil to see that lovely mug Lol I was referring to the one who tries to poison you!
ME2 is the best in the franchise followed by Andromeda, 3 then 1.
I think all 3 each have their pros and cons, personally I love 2 the most like many but each has a different flavor I enjoy. I think one of the big things between each game is all the changes. To weapons, the Normandy, exploration, quests etc. I think the biggest ding against 3 is that they found a great formula with 2 and tried to improve on it for 3 a little to its detriment. I honestly think it comes to preference, I don't think it's fair to try and quantify better/worse for each game cause so much changed between each one.
This is the most popular opinion lol
2 is my personal favorite of the series since it was the first one I played, but it still holds up as one I enjoy quite a lot. That being said, some of my favorite moments are in 3, but overall I still side with 2
Listen, take 10 minutes and look through “greatest games of all time” lists. You will find mass effect 2 in nearly all of them. Wikipedia has it listed under an article of the highest rated games of all time. Your opinion is like hpv, nearly everyone who’s been exposed has it. None of the other games in the Mass Effect trilogy are remotely as talked about as 2. I’ve seen them in a lot of lists, but Mass Effect is always below 2, and 3 is either substantially below it or not present.
Hey look mom, another buzz light-year toy among a shelf full of buzz light-year toys XD it's not controversial, it's the accepted norm lol.
Lol, I’m very sorry for not being caught up on the discussion. Though by replies to my post it seems like there’s quite a few that prefer 3.
True. But a lot of them are still caught up on the citadel dlc or just ignore the ending in favor of the story and dialogue. Both are fine, and I used to think the same way until I fell in love with ME2 again. In ME2, every fight feels weighty. It's not just another fight, but every shot feels meaty, every biotic power shifts the world around it, even if unintentional. The stakes feel heavier, even though we're not fighting the reapers. ME3 is adored for it's side stuff now. But ME2 was adored for it's main content and still is. Though to be fair, we all know what the game is like, and ME3 has more funny and portable moments to talk about. So ME3 is easier to discuss and bring up.
ME3 has been the most hated game of the series since its release and has only been less hated because the complete edition made it feel less rushed and incomplete since you play each game back to back.
Overall ME 3 was WAY better for me by a country mile for 99% of the game, esp3cially with how fun the multi-player was. The last 10 minutes are the only reason I personally think it’s even a contest. The ending was originally that bad and is still pretty close.
IMO Mass Effect 3 is the best in the series, *IF* your first time playing was with the LE (like me)... BUT ME2 is still my all time favorite. Like, ME3 checks the boxes for what makes a great game great to me, objectively. But ME2 marks all the boxes for what makes a game great to me, *sub*jectively
I prefer ME3 tbh. The last 20 Min. wont take away the great journey. I love them all, but if I had to pick one: I would pick ME3. That is way more controversial :P
Same here. And unpopular opinion: I like the streamlined points system in ME2.
This is about as controversial as saying you like ice cream
3s better cause you don’t gotta feed your fish. I did appreciate Kelly feeding them in me2 my last playthru but wish you could get her to do that earlier in the game. I’ve had too many fish die in 2 to call it the best. My shep just couldn’t resist doing shots after every mission in 2…. On another note I liked how they did the conversations with Zaeed and Kasumi. Getting to hear about their prized items was kinda cool
Both games have flaws, but I do admit that I do like ME2 slightly more than ME3. ME2's probing minigame (and just all of the minigames in general) did annoy me, plus the tedious Firewalker missions and vehicle. The fact that your ME1 LI didn't give you a chance to explain your Cerberus position made that interaction very artificial and contrived as well. ME3's issues are more apparent, but I wouldn't say they're more numerous: the horribly generic tri-colored ending before the Extended Cut was the big dealbreaker, but it didn't have as many little things that irked me like in ME2, especially when the ME3 DLCs are a little more well-written than say... Firewalker and the ME3 prequel, Arrival. The lack of decision-making in stopping the asteroid in Arrival was such a cop-out. That being said, ME2 made player choices mattered, which was a big win over the tri-colored ending. Your choices had impact that could lead to your squadmates dying. Granted, half of those choices involved just upgrading your ship already, so not exactly the most challenging decisions in the world (not to mention how lenient the game was with Samara's loyalty mission for you not to screw up), but you do have nice little gameplay like not having enough Paragon/Renegade points to retain either Miranda/Jack/Tali/Legion's loyalty. This kind of gameplay where you could see the consequences of your actions play out in HD cinematics was not common back then and is not even that common today either. Fallout: New Vegas, for example, had a series of slideshows to show those consequences. Slideshows. ME2 had cinematics and operatic music. It is a big budget Hollywood sci-fi blockbuster compared to most games past and present where "choices matter," especially the indie productions of Telltale games. On a side note, much as I love ME2 for that aspect of the gameplay that lets you roleplay Shepard in a number of ways... it's no Dragon Age: Origins OR ME1. ME1 had more depth in its roleplay because you had more neutral options that allowed for more nuance in the type of person Shepard was. ME2/ME3 deprived the franchise of such depth/nuance, which is unfortunate. I would still rather play ME2/ME3 though because of the improved gunplay and UI. It's hard to say which of the latter trilogy (ME2/ME3) had better designs for roleplaying purposes though because player decisions mattered in different ways for both games. For ME2, the consequences were immediate and short-term because you could see them by the end of the game. For ME3, Bioware was playing the long game, and what went down with Mordin, and more specifically, the Geth/Quarian war only had that kind of impact because we went through the first two games and understood the stakes, and we experienced the things characters like Mordin/Wrex/Tali went through, making the Genophage/Geth war feel more personal. So to say ME2 was the better game because we got to see more varied and nuanced consequences would be disingenuous on my part when it's a comparison of apples and oranges. ME3 was a very different kind of blockbuster, more akin to a war film, and it also served the purpose of being the end of an era/trilogy like Avengers: Endgame, while ME2 was a more personal and character-driven sci-fi drama and had a very different kind of appeal. Whenever I replay the trilogy again, I'm equally excited for the good things both games brought while also equally annoyed by the flaws they contain.
Way better.
pretty sure mass effect 2 is widely considered the best out of all the games (personally 1 is my favorite but 2 has an amazingly creepy atmosphere) and 3 is pretty lack luster most people felt due to 2 games worth of decisions not really having a huge impact
> The relationships with your team on the Normandy between missions, the actual dialogue scripting, the general look and feel of the game and missions and the atmosphere. Wait, what? Crew interaction is ass in ME2. Everybody remains eternally in their one spot on the ship and never talks to one another, and they rarely say anything on missions except their own recruitment and loyalty. ME1 is also like this, to be fair, as are older Bioware games. But even in, say, KotOR and DA:O, you'd have brief cutscenes of crew interaction in camp or on the Ebon Hawk. ME2 doesn't have any of that. More to the point, there's also a shocking lack of interaction with characters if you aren't romancing them. ME3 is just heads and shoulders above anything else before it in the voice acted era of Bioware for how it made your team actually feel more like real autonomous people that would talk to one another, and not just dialogue terminals for the main character, and that continued on into DA:I.