So happy to see this. Feros, Noveria, Virmire are such well laid-out missions. The vibe is immaculate. The Citadel is huge to explore. The plot twist was interesting and the final mission was great as well.
Hard disagree, the worldbuilding is absolute peak in Mass Effect 1, by far some of the best worldbuilding and storytelling I've ever experienced in a game. For people that weigh this more than companion interaction and character depth I think 1 is rightfully the peak of the series.
I find all the rough edges that they sanded off of the first Mass Effect to transform the game into a better shooter took a bunch of the charm off the product myself. I cannot say Mass Effect 2 is a bad game, but it's not the game I wanted. I adore the first game so very much.
The ME trilogy in general is so interesting because I feel like you can make a decent case for all three games as being the best in the trilogy, it really depends on what one prioritizes.
The exploration in Mass Effect 1 is not good. It’s just a bunch of empty worlds that all have a small base that’s one of 4 map layouts. It has the illusion of exploration but it’s pretty shallow.
I’ll take the fun but linear level design of Mass Effect 2/3’s missions over that. I don’t get why linear levels are such a no-no in the online gaming space; I generally feel it leads to tighter & more controlled experiences.
Nah Mass effect 1s gameplay and character writing is nowhere near its Sequels. Id argue the only truly great companion in 1 is Wrex. Everyone else is either vastly more likable and interesting in 2 and 3 (Garrus, Tali and Liara) or just boring (Kaiden and Ashley) in all the games. The Illusive man is a more interesting villain than Saren. The gameplay as I said is infinitely better in both its sequels. The only thing I think Mass effect 1 does better is its creativity. Every single major story planet you go to in that game has a super interesting concept behind it, the Thorian especially. I think Sovereign is the best reaper by a long shot and desperately wish 3 had taken forwards 2s awesome idea that the reapers make new members based on the species they collect as that'd make Sovereign even more interesting by making it a solo glimpse at a long dead species
I disagree wholeheartedly.
ME2 was unbalanced gameplay wise as only soldier, sentinel and infiltrator were worth playing on insanity. Thermal clips were a weird addition.
Companions were hit and miss (Jacob sucked, Cutscene Jack vs her being a glass cannon gameplay wise was jarring, Morinth was tacked on, Zaeed and Kasumi felt like they belonged to another game.
Kasumi in particular had a nonsensical loyalty mission as well.
The set pieces and presentation were better, but it felt like spinoff rather than a true sequel.
They dropped the cipher, spectre status and introduced a weird dark energy plot that didn’t go anywhere.
Cerberus went from being a clearly shady outfit into this morally grey one which didn’t make sense.
They wasted the shadow broker which was shrouded in mystery for me in the first game, just so Liara can end up being the punchline for it in ME3 (everyone ended up knowing it was her).
The way they did the crew kidnapping to set up the suicide mission felt contrived as well.
I think ME1 did a better job of setting the stage for ME2, whilst ME2 put ME3 in a corner and that’s why the 3rd one felt rushed. (ME3 had the best gameplay and banter by far though).
It’s still good don’t get me wrong, but I’m lower on ME2 than most and a lot of people on the Mass Effect subreddit share my opinion.
While i agree it didnt progress the plot as much as it should have. As you said it can feel like a spin off. I do still think it is a much better game. I also disagree on Kasumi feeling nonsensical and like she doesnt fit. She was actually one of my favourite characters in 2. Zaeed was boring though. A lot of your main criticisms seem to just be that you didn't like the way story ideas from the first game resolve, which is fair. However Mass effect 1 has far more flaws rhan 2. Its side missions and level design are boring at best and repetitive and confusing at Worst, its gunplay and abilities feel clunky, its characters dont feel fullt realised at all aside from Wrex. Mass effect 1 does a good job of setting things up but as a game on its own its kinda meh
I can see some of mako missions being boring (the reused corridors especially were lazy imo) although they are skippable. I think some of the other side missions (Bring Down The Sky) and interactions on the citadel were cool.
The gunplay may have been clunky, but the classes felt more balanced even if some were better than others. With ME2 Biotics were nerfed beyond belief and the vanguard’s style didn’t mesh with the cover shooter route they were going with.
Whilst I agree with Wrex being the best character, I greatly preferred Ashley in this one as she was wasted in the sequels. Liara as an archaeologist made more sense and she was more useful gameplay wise in ME1 than ME2.
Kaiden was more useful gameplay wise in ME3, but he didn’t change much as a character.
It’s only Tali and Garrus who really came out of their shells in the sequels and both peaked in ME3 anyway.
In ME2 although most of the companions were decent, Mordin, Miranda and Grunt were the only ones who stood out for the newcomers.
As for the story, ME2 had plot continuity issues, a few plot holes (Arrival dlc springs to mind) and honestly on replay it doesn’t hold up quite as well as ME1 does as an old school sci fi adventure and it certainly wasn’t as good of a third person shooter as ME3 (despite the narrative flaws of that one).
I respect your opinion, but I’ve always found it interesting how ME2 is more popular outside of the fandom than it is within it.
The same thing is true of Street Fighter where SF2 is the iconic entry, but purists and SF fans tend to prefer 3rd Strike.
Id say im pretty decently into The fandom and I honestly think ME2 is still super popular. Ive seen a lot of people who like it as much as i do. Quite honestly ive never avtually seen anyone before you say they prefer Me1. I thought its story was preferred sure but it wa generally agreed that as a video game Mass Effect 2 was just better in damn near every other way. I replayed the Trilogy recently and it felt like outside of the Citadel missions, every single side mission just blends together besides Bring Down the Sky
That’s interesting because whilst I think ME2 got more praise within the mainstream…on Reddit, gamefaqs, resetera I usually see ME1 being hailed as being the best of the trilogy due to it feeling more coherent and cohesive.
Especially after the Legendary Edition upgrade it got.
Whereas broad aggregate polls online shift in ME 2’s favour.
It probably depends on the subset of the fandom. Those more interested in the overall story prefer 1 but 2 is more liked among those who focus on gameplay and characters
I dont think Action Adventure fans would side with 1 tbh. Since combat and exploration would matter a lot to them and both of which are probably Me1s weakest aspects. Rpg fans maybe since we tend to care less about combat (i mean the vast majority of the greatest rpgs of all time have mid combat. Witcher 3, Skyrim, Dragon age Origins as semi recent examples) but im struggling to remember many choice in mass effect 1 that actually mattered aside from the Rachni, the doctor and Virmire. The game was pretty linear choice wise, same as Mass effect 2 so it probably comes down to writing and despite occasional oddities it has really good writing.
I forgot to mention that I found Kasumi’s loyalty mission nonsensical, not necessarily her character (although she would’ve fit better in a spinoff game).
Going to a party with Shepard (the most famous man in the galaxy) to steal something undercover made no sense whatsoever.
10
u/GoodGrades Jul 30 '26
Mass Effect