So i just finally started to play Mass Effect 1 for the first time. I am enjoying it so far even if it's a bit janky. I wanted to know if 2 or 3 are even better in terms of character, story and combat? I also know to stay away from andromeda at all costs.
So i just finally started to play Mass Effect 1 for the first time. I am enjoying it so far even if it's a bit janky...
Brody Reyes
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
strawpoll.com
twitter.com
Jace Rodriguez
2 and 3 have better shooting, but they feel more like third person shooters rather than proper RPGs
Both are worth playing though for story purposes, even if they're a bit watered down
Luke Adams
I heard 2 was the best in the series. What makes the first one stand out?
Adam Martin
Better RPG elements, better story, it's clear that it was made before EA's involvement
Robert Ortiz
2 fucked up for a lot of reasons mainly that they removed so many features from 1 instead of just fixing them.
3 is a complete shitshow
Brandon Butler
>I heard 2 was the best in the series
You heard that from the faggot contrarian on this board. It's by far the worst.
Nolan Thomas
imo
combat and gameplay:1
Caleb Nelson
Don't listen to the cynical fuckers here, just go into them blind and make up your own mind.
Except andromeda, listen to the cynical fuckers on andromeda
Zachary King
I guess i will form my own opinion since it seems divided here as it should be i guess. I was just thinking there was a general consensus here of how the trilogy is viewed.
Jason Ward
3 has excellent combat and good characters but clearly more of a dumbed down action movie type story with a totally different tone than the first game.
2 is the worst of the three in my opinion with a story that doesn't even attempt to make sense, thoroughly mediocre and clunky gameplay, limited enemy and weapon variety, and a cast mostly consisting of cringey over-the-top cliches, but it's generally the most popular one.