Why do so many people consider Mass Effect 2 to be the best in the trilogy?

  • 175 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for NeonNinja
#1 Posted by NeonNinja (17318 posts) -

It's handily the worst game in the series. Not terrible, but a major step down from the first Mass Effect. Thankfully Mass Effect 3 remedies all of the issues with Mass Effect 2 (and the first game), but why all the praise? I don't get it and if anyone has an explanation I'd like to see it. The issues I have:

Level-Design

It's terrible. Levels are not only short, but they are all tiny little hallways. You literally jet forward the ENTIRE time. Good luck trying to explore anything. Sure, ME1 has levels that are larger but not necessarily as well designed, but that game was more RPG and less action anyway. ME2 goes for more action, but the level design is a joke. It's thankfully much-improved in ME3 as there are major combat areas that you have to be fully aware of while fighitng.

Enemy AI

It's terrible. Enemies follow set scripted patterns that they repeat EACH TIME you play the game. They also respawn if you leave a room and return to it and again perform the EXACT same actions as before. They are literally cannon-fodder and present no challenge as you hunker behind cover and they pop up to shoot at you without really moving. It's sad. Thankfully, Mass Effect 3 has enemies that actually provide more of a challenge on normal than the previous two games did and they do so by utilizing their environment (going back to level design) and often flanking you if you aren't properly taking control of the battle.

Bosses are in the background

By this I mean they are not on your playing field. Also, it's terrible. In Mass Effect and Mass Effect 3 the boss is on the same ground as you. They move on the same plane as you and they pose more of a personal threat. In ME2, EVERY. SINGLE. BOSS. is a cutout in the game's background. Granted, this might be because the level design is so constricting and poor that if they added a boss character there'd be no way to properly manuever. But prepare to hunker down behind a rock and pop up and shoot the floating face of doom in the background. Don't worry, it's not going to jump over your cover and melee you in the face. It doesn't have that capability.

Narrative

Mass Effect 2's existence was made relevant to me when I saw that its characters provided much of the emotional punch in Mass Effect 3. But as a stand-alone experience, Mass Effect 2's narrative is extremely poor. I know many folks say it's essentially Seven Samurai in space, and how people shouldn't criticize this game for its story as Seven Samurai is considered one of the most exciting movies ever made.... BUT, Seven Samurai, The Magnificent Seven and 13 Assassins are all movies that get this "suicide mission" thing right and Mass Effect 2 doesn't. You spend the majority of the game, I would say 90% of it, though that number can be argued so who cares, I'll stick with majority, recruiting team members and gaining their loyalty. You then spend maybe an hour on a so-called "Suicide Mission."

Folks, Seven Samurai spent half the movie recruiting members and the other half in the conflict. The reason why it's so exciting is not because we watch 2 hours and 45 minutes of recruitment and 15 minutes of defending villagers against the bandits. ME2's conflict is almost non-existent much of the time. Aside from a few missions where the Illusive Man tells you "hey man, we saw some Collector's here!" you're literally playing house with your team.

Jacob- "Shepard, I know we have this suicide mission, but man, I can't give it my all, cuz, you see.... I'm looking for my dad."

Miranda- "Shepard, I know we have this suicide mission, but man, I can't give it my all, cuz, you see.... I'm looking for my sister."

Thane- "Shepard, I know we have this suicide mission, but man, I can't give it my all, cuz, you see.... I'm looking for my son."

Samara- "Shepard, I know we have this suicide mission, but man, I can't give it my all, cuz, you see.... I'm looking for my daughter."

Grunt- "Shepard, I know we have this suicide mission, but man, I can't give it my all, cuz, you see.... I'm hitting Krogan puberty or something, man."

Jack- "Shepard, I know we have this suicide mission, but man, I can't give it my all, cuz, you see.... I'm looking for my shirt. This strap is really cutting into my nipples, y'know? And I mean, I know we're all about taking this seriously, but WHO DAFUQ took my damn clothes and left me with nothing but a leather strap in space! It's freaking cold, man!"

In ME1 and ME3, the conflict is always around. It's front and center throughout the game. In ME2, the conflict is an afterthought, essentially making the game Short Stories in Space (sometimes with a silly twist).

The Suicide Mission

Talk about a disappointment. The Suicide Mission is longer than any other mission in the game. That doesn't mean squat. There's no emotional attachment to it. It's like a series of set pieces that lead up to one of the lamest final boss encounters in years. It's neither challenging nor exciting. Just a romp down a bunch of brown corridors. I do give it credit for utilizing the full squad, which is neat as usually Mass Effect sends out two people with you and everyone else twiddles their thumbs on the Normandy, rather than, you know, being badass like they should, but whatever.
---

Mass Effect 3 avoids all of these issues, and Mass Effect 2 essentially works as what can be the emotional core of ME3. But so much of it just so poorly done. I don't understand why so many people think it's so amazing. And I get that people don't like Mass Effect 3's ending, but that isn't reason enough for me when it's the far superior game (and I didn't mind the ending). And I get that people hate Mass Effect 1's Mako sections and barren planets (they are kinda dull). But again, that isn't reason enough for me on how a game that screws up the fundamentals is so highly praised by so many people.

EDIT- I forgot to mention planet-scanning and probes..... oh man I hated that.

Avatar image for RulerofGondor
#2 Posted by RulerofGondor (401 posts) -
Why do people consider Mass Effect to be a trilogy? It's one game split into three.
Avatar image for svetzenlether
#3 Posted by svetzenlether (3082 posts) -

Mass Effect 1's the best game in the series.

The last 5 minutes ruined Mass Effect 3, and came pretty close to ruining the entire series.

Avatar image for charizard1605
#4 Posted by charizard1605 (82661 posts) -
Mostly because it is. Dat Suicide Mission [spoiler] I'm going to bed now, so I didn't actually read your OP. I will read it tomorrow and address each point one by one then :P [/spoiler]
Avatar image for PannicAtack
#5 Posted by PannicAtack (21040 posts) -

The last 5 minutes ruined Mass Effect 3, and came pretty close to ruining the entire series.

svetzenlether
Admittedly I haven't played the game, but I find this very hard to swallow. It's like saying that Thief is a terrible game because of the "Escape!" level.
Avatar image for NeonNinja
#6 Posted by NeonNinja (17318 posts) -

Why do people consider Mass Effect to be a trilogy? It's one game split into three.RulerofGondor

That's like asking why people consider LotR a trilogy. :/

Avatar image for PannicAtack
#7 Posted by PannicAtack (21040 posts) -

[QUOTE="RulerofGondor"]Why do people consider Mass Effect to be a trilogy? It's one game split into three.NeonNinja

That's like asking why people consider LotR a trilogy. :/

Lord of the Rings is actually six books. Three volumes, two books to each volume.
Avatar image for NeonNinja
#8 Posted by NeonNinja (17318 posts) -

[QUOTE="svetzenlether"]

The last 5 minutes ruined Mass Effect 3, and came pretty close to ruining the entire series.

PannicAtack

Admittedly I haven't played the game, but I find this very hard to swallow. It's like saying that Thief is a terrible game because of the "Escape!" level.

It doesn't ruin the series. Throughout ME3 what happens in the ending is hinted at multiple times.

Avatar image for Zeviander
#9 Posted by Zeviander (9503 posts) -
They're idiots. Then again, all three games have significant flaws that prevent them from being "great" games.
Avatar image for IAmNot_fun
#10 Posted by IAmNot_fun (3336 posts) -
The same reason ppl consider AC2 best out of Ezio saga, not ACB.
Avatar image for NeonNinja
#11 Posted by NeonNinja (17318 posts) -

[QUOTE="NeonNinja"]

[QUOTE="RulerofGondor"]Why do people consider Mass Effect to be a trilogy? It's one game split into three.PannicAtack

That's like asking why people consider LotR a trilogy. :/

Lord of the Rings is actually six books. Three volumes, two books to each volume.

They're also three movies. Hence, the trilogy.

Avatar image for siLVURcross
#12 Posted by siLVURcross (26106 posts) -
Because it was the only game in the trilogy where I actually liked all the characters.
Avatar image for WTA2k5
#13 Posted by WTA2k5 (3999 posts) -

I actually think that, for the most part, ME3 is quite a step up from the other two. The big problem, of course, is that the last level in London is absolute garbage compared to the suicide mission.

Avatar image for NeonNinja
#14 Posted by NeonNinja (17318 posts) -

I actually think that, for the most part, ME3 is quite a step up from the other two. The big problem, of course, is that the last level in London is absolute garbage compared to the suicide mission.

WTA2k5

I preferred London over the Suicide Mission, but I would have liked full utilization of your team like the Suicide Mission.

The thing that bothered me most about London though was all the red telephone booths. I mean, this game is like 200 years in the future. How did those things stay relevant? :P

Avatar image for RyanShazam
#15 Posted by RyanShazam (6498 posts) -
Why do people consider Mass Effect to be a trilogy? It's one game split into three.RulerofGondor
This is the most retarded thing I have read in a long time.
Avatar image for Ballroompirate
#16 Posted by Ballroompirate (25896 posts) -

Garrus+Miranda in party = awesome. The only bad thing about ME2 was the lack of Liara for your party and we all know ME3 was awesome tell the last 20 min which almost destroyed the whole trilogy.

Avatar image for NeonNinja
#17 Posted by NeonNinja (17318 posts) -

[QUOTE="RulerofGondor"]Why do people consider Mass Effect to be a trilogy? It's one game split into three.RyanShazam
This is the most retarded thing I have read in a long time.

It was a good first reply though. I mean, really set the tone on what not to say. Ever.

Avatar image for NeonNinja
#18 Posted by NeonNinja (17318 posts) -

Garrus+Miranda in party = awesome. The only bad thing about ME2 was the lack of Liara for your party and we all know ME3 was awesome tell the last 20 min which almost destroyed the whole trilogy.

Ballroompirate

Garrus+Liara > Garrus+Miranda. Everyone knows Liara is Shep's girl, damn it!

Avatar image for RyanShazam
#19 Posted by RyanShazam (6498 posts) -
[QUOTE="NeonNinja"]

[QUOTE="RulerofGondor"]Why do people consider Mass Effect to be a trilogy? It's one game split into three.PannicAtack

That's like asking why people consider LotR a trilogy. :/

Lord of the Rings is actually six books. Three volumes, two books to each volume.

The Lord of the Rings was actually written as one book.
Avatar image for Cherokee_Jack
#20 Posted by Cherokee_Jack (32198 posts) -

I can't speak for Mass Effect 3, but the gameplay and level design in Mass Effect 1 was not any better than Mass Effect 2. Having more RPG elements and less linearity does not automatically make it better, when they didn't do very much of value with either of those things.

Avatar image for Ballroompirate
#21 Posted by Ballroompirate (25896 posts) -

[QUOTE="Ballroompirate"]

Garrus+Miranda in party = awesome. The only bad thing about ME2 was the lack of Liara for your party and we all know ME3 was awesome tell the last 20 min which almost destroyed the whole trilogy.

NeonNinja

Garrus+Liara > Garrus+Miranda. Everyone knows Liara is Shep's girl, damn it!

I agree, I was sad that Liara wasn't a party member in ME2 but Miranda had her....assets at the time :P.

Avatar image for RyanShazam
#22 Posted by RyanShazam (6498 posts) -

[QUOTE="RyanShazam"][QUOTE="RulerofGondor"]Why do people consider Mass Effect to be a trilogy? It's one game split into three.NeonNinja

This is the most retarded thing I have read in a long time.

It was a good first reply though. I mean, really set the tone on what not to say. Ever.

Haha that's very true!
Avatar image for scoots9
#24 Posted by scoots9 (3487 posts) -

It was less clunky than Mass Effect and it wasn't terrible in every way like Mass Effect 3.

Avatar image for NeonNinja
#25 Posted by NeonNinja (17318 posts) -

I can't speak for Mass Effect 3, but the gameplay and level design in Mass Effect 1 was not any better than Mass Effect 2. Having more RPG elements and less linearity does not automatically make it better. Cherokee_Jack

I don't necessarily disagree with you. ME1 and ME2 both are polar opposites. ME3 finds the happy middle ground and comes out as the best. But ME1 at least had focus for the larger conflict at hand. And it is still criticized for what it did wrong. But ME2 is still praised as the best in the series.

Avatar image for RyanShazam
#26 Posted by RyanShazam (6498 posts) -

[QUOTE="Cherokee_Jack"]I can't speak for Mass Effect 3, but the gameplay and level design in Mass Effect 1 was not any better than Mass Effect 2. Having more RPG elements and less linearity does not automatically make it better. NeonNinja

I don't necessarily disagree with you. ME1 and ME2 both are polar opposites. ME3 finds the happy middle ground and comes out as the best. But ME1 at least had focus for the larger conflict at hand. And it is still criticized for what it did wrong. But ME2 is still praised as the best in the series.

I agree. Mass Effect felt very RPGish. Mass Effect 2 felt like a TPS and Mass Effect 3 sat right in the middle.
Avatar image for krisroe_213
#27 Posted by krisroe_213 (898 posts) -

Mass Effect 1 wasn't the most polished out of the three but it had the most memorable moments in the trilogy - like the first time you talk to Soverign.

What makes it sad is the fact that it also had the best ending of the three. I'm sorry but I played through 1 and 2 four times each and after finishing the third one I can't bring myself to touch any of them again.

Avatar image for deactivated-58b6232955e4a
#28 Posted by deactivated-58b6232955e4a (15594 posts) -
The first was better than the sequels.
Avatar image for campzor
#29 Posted by campzor (34932 posts) -
havnt played me3.. but besides story (and some music) the gameplay of the 2nd sh!ts on the first game
Avatar image for NeonNinja
#30 Posted by NeonNinja (17318 posts) -

Mass Effect 1 wasn't the most polished out of the three but it had the most memorable moments in the trilogy - like the first time you talk to Soverign.

What makes it sad is the fact that it also had the best ending of the three. I'm sorry but I played through 1 and 2 four times each and after finishing the third one I can't bring myself to touch any of them again.

krisroe_213

Really? I beat the third one and I'm getting ready to play the trilogy over again.

That aside, yeah, the first game is the only one with a good ending. ME2 and 3 are OK, but they both leave a lot to be desired with how they end.

Avatar image for PannicAtack
#31 Posted by PannicAtack (21040 posts) -

[QUOTE="krisroe_213"]

Mass Effect 1 wasn't the most polished out of the three but it had the most memorable moments in the trilogy - like the first time you talk to Soverign.

What makes it sad is the fact that it also had the best ending of the three. I'm sorry but I played through 1 and 2 four times each and after finishing the third one I can't bring myself to touch any of them again.

NeonNinja

Really? I beat the third one and I'm getting ready to play the trilogy over again.

That aside, yeah, the first game is the only one with a good ending. ME2 and 3 are OK, but they both leave a lot to be desired with how they end.

This is the industry with games like Halo 2 and God of War 3. The hoopla around Mass Effect 3's ending is a bit of a puzzler for me, given how terrible a lot of the other stuff in the industry is. Hell, a lot of games in the industry don't even have proper endings because everyone wants to wring sequels out of stuff, which is very funny when the sequel never happens (hello Advent Rising and Bulletstorm).
Avatar image for Cherokee_Jack
#32 Posted by Cherokee_Jack (32198 posts) -

[QUOTE="Cherokee_Jack"]I can't speak for Mass Effect 3, but the gameplay and level design in Mass Effect 1 was not any better than Mass Effect 2. Having more RPG elements and less linearity does not automatically make it better. NeonNinja

I don't necessarily disagree with you. ME1 and ME2 both are polar opposites. ME3 finds the happy middle ground and comes out as the best. But ME1 at least had focus for the larger conflict at hand. And it is still criticized for what it did wrong. But ME2 is still praised as the best in the series.

Well, I never did find the larger conflict as interesting as the universe itself, so that might be why I preferred the short character studies in ME2. Maybe they didn't advance the plot very much, but neither did a lot of things between the beginning of ME1 and the end.

Also none of the characters in ME2 are quite as Godawful boring as Kaidan and Ashley (Jacob is close)

Avatar image for NeonNinja
#33 Posted by NeonNinja (17318 posts) -

[QUOTE="NeonNinja"]

[QUOTE="krisroe_213"]

Mass Effect 1 wasn't the most polished out of the three but it had the most memorable moments in the trilogy - like the first time you talk to Soverign.

What makes it sad is the fact that it also had the best ending of the three. I'm sorry but I played through 1 and 2 four times each and after finishing the third one I can't bring myself to touch any of them again.

PannicAtack

Really? I beat the third one and I'm getting ready to play the trilogy over again.

That aside, yeah, the first game is the only one with a good ending. ME2 and 3 are OK, but they both leave a lot to be desired with how they end.

This is the industry with games like Halo 2 and God of War 3. The hoopla around Mass Effect 3's ending is a bit of a puzzler for me, given how terrible a lot of the other stuff in the industry is. Hell, a lot of games in the industry don't even have proper endings because everyone wants to wring sequels out of stuff, which is very funny when the sequel never happens (hello Advent Rising and Bulletstorm).

It confused me too, and really the ending isn't that bad. The big issue is that ME3's ending tries to answer questions that didn't need to be answered and lost a lot of the personal touch the series had. But other than that, it's fine.

I mean, Halo 2, BioShock, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, they're all highly praised and came with some of the worst endings ever. So I'm also lost. I haven't seen the Extended Cut, I wanted to see what the fuss was about with the ending. It made sense. It wasn't great, but it at least made sense. It may feel like it comes out of nowhere, but it's built up to as well. Whatever man, I'm not going to act like an amazing game is suddenly less amazing just because the final five minutes aren't nearly as amazing as the rest of it.

Avatar image for GamingVengeance
#34 Posted by GamingVengeance (1874 posts) -
Why does RadioShack ask you for your phone number when you buy batteries? I dunno
Avatar image for NeonNinja
#35 Posted by NeonNinja (17318 posts) -

[QUOTE="NeonNinja"]

[QUOTE="Cherokee_Jack"]I can't speak for Mass Effect 3, but the gameplay and level design in Mass Effect 1 was not any better than Mass Effect 2. Having more RPG elements and less linearity does not automatically make it better. Cherokee_Jack

I don't necessarily disagree with you. ME1 and ME2 both are polar opposites. ME3 finds the happy middle ground and comes out as the best. But ME1 at least had focus for the larger conflict at hand. And it is still criticized for what it did wrong. But ME2 is still praised as the best in the series.

Well, I never did find the larger conflict as interesting as the universe itself, so that might be why I preferred the short character studies in ME2. Maybe they didn't advance the plot very much, but neither did a lot of things between the beginning of ME1 and the end.

The Universe itself is really the series' strongest point. ME1 did a great job of introducing you to the world and lore while ME2 introduced you to characters and than ME3 tied all of that together very well. Still, I found the hunt for Saren and the discovery of Sovereign to make for some seriously compelling space opera over ME2's shorter character studies. Again, a lot of characters were interesting. I don't hate them, and they help make ME3 the experience it is. But I like having that larger structure to tie it all in together.

Avatar image for SPYDER0416
#36 Posted by SPYDER0416 (16736 posts) -

Cool blog dude.

Avatar image for Sharpie125
#37 Posted by Sharpie125 (3904 posts) -

[QUOTE="Cherokee_Jack"]I can't speak for Mass Effect 3, but the gameplay and level design in Mass Effect 1 was not any better than Mass Effect 2. Having more RPG elements and less linearity does not automatically make it better. NeonNinja

I don't necessarily disagree with you. ME1 and ME2 both are polar opposites. ME3 finds the happy middle ground and comes out as the best. But ME1 at least had focus for the larger conflict at hand. And it is still criticized for what it did wrong. But ME2 is still praised as the best in the series.

It's all really relevant, I think. ME2 was slick and polished compared to Mass Effect 1. I personally enjoyed the combat, but there were definitely some issues. Although the structure of the story is kind of predictable, most of the stories were interesting--it's very reminiscent of Trek or Gate in the way they're episodic like that. The "larger conflict" in 2 was actually a detractor, because the rest of the game really opened up the universe where ME1 felt a little constricting or stilted.

I found the pacing of Mass Effect 3 too rushed or too laid back in the wrong places. The only person to make a worthy return from the first game was Liara, and I was unhappy that so many characters were sidelined. The side missions definitely weren't as interesting as ME2's. Mass Effect 1 told a better story (more memorable moments with Saren/Sovereign/Vigil) and Mass Effect 2 smoothed out a lot of the issues. Mass Effect 3 didn't do enough to make it stand out over 2, and didn't bring back the stuff that actually made 2 good.

3 is still an enjoyable game though. I didn't even mind the ending, because it's the journey and so on. But ME2 was great for what it was. 3 reached high and didn't quite meet its mark.

Avatar image for jg4xchamp
#38 Posted by jg4xchamp (61462 posts) -
ME3 plays better, so by default it's a better game. I'd also say the story stuff was also better, but that ending does tend to spoil the mood. It's like when Sopranos kicked you in the nuts after all its years of excellent service(except Mass Effect was never excellent). Yeah the show is still amazing, and yeah that season was great, but man did that ending feel d1ck.
Avatar image for NeonNinja
#39 Posted by NeonNinja (17318 posts) -

[QUOTE="NeonNinja"]

[QUOTE="Cherokee_Jack"]I can't speak for Mass Effect 3, but the gameplay and level design in Mass Effect 1 was not any better than Mass Effect 2. Having more RPG elements and less linearity does not automatically make it better. Sharpie125

I don't necessarily disagree with you. ME1 and ME2 both are polar opposites. ME3 finds the happy middle ground and comes out as the best. But ME1 at least had focus for the larger conflict at hand. And it is still criticized for what it did wrong. But ME2 is still praised as the best in the series.

It's all really relevant, I think. ME2 was slick and polished compared to Mass Effect 1. I personally enjoyed the combat, but there were definitely some issues. Although the structure of the story is kind of predictable, most of the stories were interesting--it's very reminiscent of Trek or Gate in the way they're episodic like that. The "larger conflict" in 2 was actually a detractor, because the rest of the game really opened up the universe where ME1 felt a little constricting or stilted.

I found the pacing of Mass Effect 3 too rushed or too laid back in the wrong places. The only person to make a worthy return from the first game was Liara, and I was unhappy that so many characters were sidelined. The side missions definitely weren't as interesting as ME2's. Mass Effect 1 told a better story (more memorable moments with Saren/Sovereign/Vigil) and Mass Effect 2 smoothed out a lot of the issues. Mass Effect 3 didn't do enough to make it stand out over 2, and didn't bring back the stuff that actually made 2 good.

3 is still an enjoyable game though. I didn't even mind the ending, because it's the journey and so on. But ME2 was great for what it was. 3 reached high and didn't quite meet its mark.

That I can respect. I thought the pacing was awesome for 3, but yeah, the side missions were a larger part of ME2 and better implemented. I can see how it more closely resembles Star Trek as a bunch of smaller stories. That's actually a good way of describing it as opposed to "Seven Samurai in space." When you view ME2 as a TV show it follows that format pretty well. I never thought of that. You just gave me a new perspective, I'll have to see if it makes a difference for me as I gear up for my replay of the trilogy.

I still dislike the level-design, enemy AI, boss fights and all that jazz. But you definitely gave me a new perspective on the narrative. Thanks!

Avatar image for texasgoldrush
#40 Posted by texasgoldrush (11994 posts) -
Mass Effect 3 is easily the best. ME1 has by far the worst gameplay, and it really doesn't develop its characters outside of Wrex. Its also easily the most contrived of the series and riddled with Deus Ex Machina, some well executed, some just out of blue because Drew K doesn't know how to move the plot well. ME1's biggest success was the universe and the lore, not the story. People simply overrate the game to bash ME3 and ME2. Also treating characters like talking codex entries, thats bad storytelling, and Bioware had a habit of doing it before ME2 and DA2. Tali was just a talking codex entry on quarians in ME1. I loved ME1 in it first came out but boy does its flaws show. ME2 has a somewhat weak main plot, but the characters stories make up for it and then some, they become the story. However, ME2's problem is that every character is left on an island, where they don't develop in the plot (except for maybe Miranda) but because Shepard does errands for them. They have no real relationships with eachother, because they are on an island, and the characters get put on a shelf. Also the set up with Shepards death is not as well done and is kind of a Deus Ex machina, and the impact of Shepard coming back could have been portrayed far better than it was. Also, the Human Reaper was an awful boss battle (not an awful lore concept, but an awful actual fight). ME3 is easily the best. Its the only game in the series where the characters not only interact with eachother and have relationships with eachother (outside a squabble or two in ME1 and ME2), but they GROW WITH THE PLOT and develop along the plot. It also is really the least contrived of the series, the strongest when it comes to its core themes, and the most emotionally driven, Also the gameplay is balanced between RPG and shooter. Also another thing, non squadmates like Joker, Traynor, and Cortez get as much development as squadmates, even be love interests. The ONLY problem with ME3 was the ORIGINAL ending, which was underdeveloped, but its now fixed...and hell, it was the SECOND game this year to fix its ending.
Avatar image for NeonNinja
#41 Posted by NeonNinja (17318 posts) -

ME3 plays better, so by default it's a better game. I'd also say the story stuff was also better, but that ending does tend to spoil the mood. It's like when Sopranos kicked you in the nuts after all its years of excellent service(except Mass Effect was never excellent). Yeah the show is still amazing, and yeah that season was great, but man did that ending feel d1ck. jg4xchamp

Exactly how I feel. The gameplay should take precedence over everything else. I do agree that the ending goes about things the wrong way, but I don't think it detracts from the fun times spent playing the rest of the game.

Avatar image for musalala
#42 Posted by musalala (3009 posts) -

For me personally ( save for a few misteps like reducing RPG elements and the lackluster final bossfight) everything came together and worked well as a whole.

and as someone said "dat suicide mission" Its the first game that I actually was deeply emotionally involved with the characters. Bioware really knoecked that game out of the park.

Avatar image for jg4xchamp
#43 Posted by jg4xchamp (61462 posts) -

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]ME3 plays better, so by default it's a better game. I'd also say the story stuff was also better, but that ending does tend to spoil the mood. It's like when Sopranos kicked you in the nuts after all its years of excellent service(except Mass Effect was never excellent). Yeah the show is still amazing, and yeah that season was great, but man did that ending feel d1ck. NeonNinja

Exactly how I feel. The gameplay should take precedence over everything else. I do agree that the ending goes about things the wrong way, but I don't think it detracts from the fun times spent playing the rest of the game.

No, but to borrow something liquid said. It's the fact that you arrived at a dump. The journey could be amazing, you could have gone through the most beautiful places ever. Gotten a 3way along the way. But at the end of the day you arrived at a dump, and are neck deep in it.
Avatar image for NeonNinja
#44 Posted by NeonNinja (17318 posts) -

Mass Effect 3 is easily the best. ME1 has by far the worst gameplay, and it really doesn't develop its characters outside of Wrex. Its also easily the most contrived of the series and riddled with Deus Ex Machina, some well executed, some just out of blue because Drew K doesn't know how to move the plot well. ME1's biggest success was the universe and the lore, not the story. People simply overrate the game to bash ME3 and ME2. Also treating characters like talking codex entries, thats bad storytelling, and Bioware had a habit of doing it before ME2 and DA2. Tali was just a talking codex entry on quarians in ME1. I loved ME1 in it first came out but boy does its flaws show. ME2 has a somewhat weak main plot, but the characters stories make up for it and then some, they become the story. However, ME2's problem is that every character is left on an island, where they don't develop in the plot (except for maybe Miranda) but because Shepard does errands for them. They have no real relationships with eachother, because they are on an island, and the characters get put on a shelf. Also the set up with Shepards death is not as well done and is kind of a Deus Ex machina, and the impact of Shepard coming back could have been portrayed far better than it was. Also, the Human Reaper was an awful boss battle (not an awful lore concept, but an awful actual fight). ME3 is easily the best. Its the only game in the series where the characters not only interact with eachother and have relationships with eachother (outside a squabble or two in ME1 and ME2), but they GROW WITH THE PLOT and develop along the plot. It also is really the least contrived of the series, the strongest when it comes to its core themes, and the most emotionally driven, Also the gameplay is balanced between RPG and shooter. Also another thing, non squadmates like Joker, Traynor, and Cortez get as much development as squadmates, even be love interests. The ONLY problem with ME3 was the ORIGINAL ending, which was underdeveloped, but its now fixed...and hell, it was the SECOND game this year to fix its ending.texasgoldrush

I'm in full agreement with you. Well said.

Avatar image for texasgoldrush
#45 Posted by texasgoldrush (11994 posts) -

[QUOTE="NeonNinja"]

[QUOTE="Cherokee_Jack"]I can't speak for Mass Effect 3, but the gameplay and level design in Mass Effect 1 was not any better than Mass Effect 2. Having more RPG elements and less linearity does not automatically make it better. Sharpie125

I don't necessarily disagree with you. ME1 and ME2 both are polar opposites. ME3 finds the happy middle ground and comes out as the best. But ME1 at least had focus for the larger conflict at hand. And it is still criticized for what it did wrong. But ME2 is still praised as the best in the series.

It's all really relevant, I think. ME2 was slick and polished compared to Mass Effect 1. I personally enjoyed the combat, but there were definitely some issues. Although the structure of the story is kind of predictable, most of the stories were interesting--it's very reminiscent of Trek or Gate in the way they're episodic like that. The "larger conflict" in 2 was actually a detractor, because the rest of the game really opened up the universe where ME1 felt a little constricting or stilted.

I found the pacing of Mass Effect 3 too rushed or too laid back in the wrong places. The only person to make a worthy return from the first game was Liara, and I was unhappy that so many characters were sidelined. The side missions definitely weren't as interesting as ME2's. Mass Effect 1 told a better story (more memorable moments with Saren/Sovereign/Vigil) and Mass Effect 2 smoothed out a lot of the issues. Mass Effect 3 didn't do enough to make it stand out over 2, and didn't bring back the stuff that actually made 2 good.

3 is still an enjoyable game though. I didn't even mind the ending, because it's the journey and so on. But ME2 was great for what it was. 3 reached high and didn't quite meet its mark.

Wrong Mass Effect 1 was contrivance after contrivance. I had to do a trilogy playthrough and lo and behold, ME1 is extremely contrived all the way through. Take off the rose colored glasses here. Actually the whole Saren finding the Conduit storyline is nonsense because he never really needed it. And no body got "sidelined" in ME3, they are not main story characters because they aren't relevant to the main plot. Samara, Jack, Thane (who did get a main plot role), Jacob, Kasumi, and Zaeed are simply not that important when it comes to the main plot. Thats why Mordin, Legion, and Miranda got much bigger roles. Other than Jacks romance being tad underdeveloped, Bioware did what needed to be done here. The game was not rushed, it had MORE time in development than ME2. And don't act like ME1 was not rushed out the door.
Avatar image for sts106mat
#46 Posted by sts106mat (24174 posts) -
yep its the worst one, combat became a chore basically. planet scanning sucks redeeming qualities, everywhere, with the exception of omega sucked (and there was nowhere near enough of omega) introduced some cool character. 1>3>2
Avatar image for musalala
#47 Posted by musalala (3009 posts) -

[QUOTE="Ballroompirate"]

Garrus+Miranda in party = awesome. The only bad thing about ME2 was the lack of Liara for your party and we all know ME3 was awesome tell the last 20 min which almost destroyed the whole trilogy.

NeonNinja

Garrus+Liara > Garrus+Miranda. Everyone knows Liara is Shep's girl, damn it!

Also this, death to all talimancers.

Avatar image for NeonNinja
#48 Posted by NeonNinja (17318 posts) -

[QUOTE="NeonNinja"]

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]ME3 plays better, so by default it's a better game. I'd also say the story stuff was also better, but that ending does tend to spoil the mood. It's like when Sopranos kicked you in the nuts after all its years of excellent service(except Mass Effect was never excellent). Yeah the show is still amazing, and yeah that season was great, but man did that ending feel d1ck. jg4xchamp

Exactly how I feel. The gameplay should take precedence over everything else. I do agree that the ending goes about things the wrong way, but I don't think it detracts from the fun times spent playing the rest of the game.

No, but to borrow something liquid said. It's the fact that you arrived at a dump. The journey could be amazing, you could have gone through the most beautiful places ever. Gotten a 3way along the way. But at the end of the day you arrived at a dump, and are neck deep in it.

True, and eloquently said.

Avatar image for NeonNinja
#49 Posted by NeonNinja (17318 posts) -

[QUOTE="NeonNinja"]

[QUOTE="Ballroompirate"]

Garrus+Miranda in party = awesome. The only bad thing about ME2 was the lack of Liara for your party and we all know ME3 was awesome tell the last 20 min which almost destroyed the whole trilogy.

musalala

Garrus+Liara > Garrus+Miranda. Everyone knows Liara is Shep's girl, damn it!

Also this, death to all talimancers.

Ugh. Disgusting. And her voice gets on my damn nerves.

Avatar image for texasgoldrush
#50 Posted by texasgoldrush (11994 posts) -

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]ME3 plays better, so by default it's a better game. I'd also say the story stuff was also better, but that ending does tend to spoil the mood. It's like when Sopranos kicked you in the nuts after all its years of excellent service(except Mass Effect was never excellent). Yeah the show is still amazing, and yeah that season was great, but man did that ending feel d1ck. NeonNinja

Exactly how I feel. The gameplay should take precedence over everything else. I do agree that the ending goes about things the wrong way, but I don't think it detracts from the fun times spent playing the rest of the game.

The ending, like The Witcher 2, was simply underdeveloped...thats its main flaw (other than that AWFUL line of dialogue "You can destroy all synthetics if you want" when explaining the destroy option, which has been utterly removed in the extended cut). It falls victim of telling, not showing. And its amazing how the ME3 ending wasn't even rushed, but it feels that way.