Anyone who thinks ME1 is better are a bunch of RPG snobs. Hate to break it to you guys but the "depth" that was cut out from ME1 was cut out for a reason. Seriously, that inventory system was atrocious

The story/characters/gameplay are infinitely better in 2. The loyalty missions were fucking amazing. Some of the most fun I've had with a game this gen

It is better programmed and overall more cohesive package. I liked ME1 a lot. A lot more than ME2, even. But even I will admit that I liked the game ME1 was trying to be, and mostly succeeded, more than I like ME2. That is a factor in my preference for sure.

@draxyle

: Yes, I agree with all of that. People complained about the inventory because it was a badly designed interface. People weren't complaining about the very concept of having an inventory. That is my primary gripe with ME2. ME1 had such cool loot; basing weapon stats and effectiveness on manufacturer was great. They did it before Borderlands, too. Same deal with the Mako. The Mako sucked because the controls were shit and the game sometimes asked for a level of precision that the Mako was hard pressed to deliver unless you practiced a great deal with its funky controls and physical behaviour. There was a quote from someone at Bioware around the time DA 2 was set to release. I don't recall the name or the exact quote, but it was something along the lines of saying "people don't want to play big complex RPG's anymore". And then Skyrim came out and murdered the sales charts. Oops!

My main problem was that, instead of improving some of the weaker elements of ME1, they just outright ditched them. The worst UI imaginable for weapons and upgrades? Instead of improving it, they just ditched the weapon stuff entirely. Bad physics on the Mako? Completely ditched the Mako instead of making it more fun to drive. Etc. etc. It really diminished the exploratory elements and atmosphere of the franchise to just cut out the good ideas that didn't work the first time around.

As far as the Mako, they did make an awesome replacement in the Firewalker. But that was segregated DLC in very videogame-y missions only. That kind of sums up a lot of ME2 though, it felt way too.. structured in that videogame-y sort of way. Exactly one disconnected quest for each recruit. Exactly one disconnected quest for each loyalty mission. Exactly two major outcomes for most every mission. Etc. Everything and everyone in ME2 felt disconnected from each other in comparison to the well-weaved narrative that ME1 mostly was. I was okay with it at the time for the promise that ME3 would bring it all back together.. but I didn't even buy that one out of principle for a lot of the ways that game was sold.

ME2 was a fun game to play mechanically, and the writing was still quite excellent for the most part, but as a complete package, ME1 was definitely the better experience overall.

I like them both, but I have one big problem with the jump from Mass Effect 1 to Mass Effect 2. ME1 had a bunch of game mechanics that weren't fully realized or were clumsily implemented in some way. Going into Mass Effect 2, instead of fixing these mechanics, the development team decided to strip them entirely. It wasn't a huge deal, since the dialogue, which was the main draw of Mass Effect, remained intact, but that's still just lazy game design.

I don't consider myself to be either a "casual" or a "hardcore" gamer. The whole "casual" vs. "hardcore" debate in general is retarded. Just because I love a "hardcore" game such as Demon's Souls, doesn't mean I can't enjoy a "casual" game such as Plants vs. Zombies.

Dirty casual detected.

Casts anti-casual area of effect magic.

Casual is gone.

I didn't like Mass Effect 1, I enjoyed Mass Effect 2, I didn't play Mass Effect 3.

Out of all the Mass Effect games, ME2 is my favorite. The best way to describe it is that it's like the second film in the Star Wars trilogy, The Empire Strikes back. The story is dark, and more intense than ME1.

The voice acting is excellent, and the combat is more refined, over the first game.

Also, the main reason I love the game is the characters. Garrus, Liara, Tali, Mordin, Miranda, Jacob, and Samara are all great and complex characters. Also, the personal missions they ask you to help with, are fun to play, and you also get to know more of their backgrounds, too.

So, yeah, I think it's better than the first game. But that's just my personal opinion.

@fourwude: That's some edgy shit. Almost reminds me of /v/.

No, that isn't a compliment.

I strongly agree with this. I think part of the problem with ME1 is it wasn't clear if it was really a shooter or not. How much was skill and how much depended on hidden dice rolls? With ME2 you have a way better third person shooter, but I'm not sure I like the much grittier tone and the overall way it flows like a collection of bits rather than a single story.

I much, much prefer Mass Effect 1.

You can't disagree that ME2 is a better playing third-person shooter, but that's the least interesting facet of the series.

I prefer Mass Effect 2. Mass Effect 2's plot was less engaging than the original Mass Effect's, but I felt it was made up for with stronger character development through the addition of loyalty missions, and much improved gun-play. And those are the two main reasons why I logged tens of hours more on Mass Effect 2 than I have on Mass Effect 1.

I think Mass Effect 2 is a lot better than Mass Effect 1. It just hit the sweet spot of having a great story with great characters and having the gameplay be satisfying at the same time.

Hah, it is sort of a tale of two extremes, eh? Complex, full, messy inventory in ME1 to a totally stripped down, loadout style system in ME2 that isn't even an inventory.

There are certain aspects, mostly story, that makes Mass Effect 2 a far superior game. Also, Mass Effect 2 fixes many of the problems in Mass Effect.

Mass Effect 1 is far better.

I still laugh that their solution to inventory problem in 1 was to completely remove the inventory system in 2.

Gameplay was better in 2 but i missed the overheating mechanic from 1. It made the combat feel special compared to every other game where you shoot things. The story in ME1 was far better in the whole series but the game itself is deeply flawed but still fun if you can look past those shortcommings. The story in ME2 is very bad, full of plot holes, retcons, and lazy writng and character stupidity. But the characters and the interactions with them are very good and the missions relating to them are done well from a character development point of view, just dont think of how it is supposed to help taking down collectors. (If illusive man was smart enough to get an army with his apparant unlimited money the game would be a few minutes long). And they never explain how anyone but Mordin can directly help take down the reapers. Besides him all you need is some powerful biotics which could be anyone. Hopefully not a distubed psychopath or dangerous justicar. But if you are in it for the gameplay ME2 is a far superior sequel.

Mass Effect 1 > Mass Effect 2. The second game felt like they lost direction and purpose. It felt.. boring.

Good to see so many opinions on this. I think perhaps they would have better been served NOT calling it Mass Effect 2 but renaming it in a reboot fashion. It's really not the same game at all, other than the overall world and a few of the characters.

I'm further in now, I have 2 more spots in my squad to fill. Tali and one more that is still grayed out next to Zaeed. I did the one loyalty mission for Miranda, and it was pretty good. Everything about the game is really good, as long as I don't think too much about ME1. I know it's still being called an RPG, but it's set up more like there are "levels." Hell, you don't even level up out in the wild (I haven't so far anyway) and only level up at the "end mission" wrap up. How very FPS of them.

Hell, even equipment in this one is really just a loadout. No hunting for Colossus X for a Turian here.

Hell yeah it is.

Sure, ME1 is more of an RPG than 2, but in this case more does not mean better. A lot of the RPG mechanics in ME1 felt half baked and shoehorned in to extend the length of the game. I didn't miss any of that stuff in 2.

For me Mass Effect 2 had a strong balance where it's game play was easy to understand and execute and there was a lot of personal side stories with the loyalty missions being some of my most favorites. The game still looks pretty damn good too and it was one of the few games this generation that had me deliberately buying story DLC.

ME1 > ME2 > ME3

ME1 was better for these reasons:

• Better atmosphere (Always felt darker than its sequels)
• Better music (that really set the atmosphere)
• Better exploration (I liked planet crusin' in my Mako)
• Best Mission/story cohesion
• Best secondary characters in general (especially on the Citadel)

and because of this

Without question ME2 is an improvement over the first game. I could never go back and play the first game. Just because the first game gives you the illusion of freedom, doesn't mean it actually counted for anything. The Mako roving was so utterly pointless as you go from place to place in buildings and structures with same environments over and over again.

The gameplay of ME2 was far better than the first game. In the first ME, where's the challenge in just being able to hang back and fire away with a sniper rifle with no need to reload ammo? Every ME game has some legit gripe.

I'm not sure I really get where the OP is coming from, but to each their own.

@bourbon_warrior said:

You know really small thing to pick out, but I just noticed this and have to say that I completely agree 100% and feel this is even a big game changer. The way the game became more cinematic in a sense in ME2 was really awesome to see. All of the cut scenes where Shepard is talking to a character just look and are presented so much better. It really helps to pull you into the game world in a way the first game didn't.

I feel ME1 had the best...sense of discovery? Like, it felt like you were really exploring a new world, and that included the revelation on the Reapers, who I still think were best in ME1. I also feel that sort of impression is hard if not impossible to replicate in a sequel, because you've already discovered that world. I think ME2 did a great job of taking the universe we were introduced to in ME1 and setting stories in it, little vignettes like someone else said. And while that did make the overall plot feel disjointed, I really liked that style of storytelling. As for RPG elements, I agree that a lot were stripped out. However, I also think that going back to play ME1 is a god damned pain in the ass. The basic gameplay is not terrifically fun to play. That said, I also don't agree with the philosophy of "let's just ditch everything that sucked in the first game" that seemed to pervade the second. Like a lot of the RPG elements, or the inventory, or the omnigel. On the other hand, maybe cutting off that fat is what made ME2 the polished experience it was.

That said, the Mako was fucking robbed of its glory! That scanning bullshit can never replace that beautiful son of a bitch!

Casuals love Mass Effect 2.

Mass Effect 2 had a bunch of great moments but never really came together as a whole. Looking back on it I can say 'this moment was great' or 'that moment was really fucking cool' but when I think about what actually happened relating to the story from ME1, it wasn't much. You found out what happened to the Protomototheuseans and wipe out their base effectively singling Shepard out as a target for the Reapers. It's a whole lot of set up and most of the game (recruiting bad-asses) veers away from that.

But coming away from ME3 with a lot of people wanting that C-Sec detective game, ME2 felt closer to that with you going around and playing through these interesting vignettes, while ME1 was you on the heels of Saren and ME3 was you solving all the galaxies problems.

The combat is great in ME2, but the start of things getting a lot less tactical. Half-way through I was mostly untouchable as a vanguard. Zipping over to enemies and taking them out in slow-motion is good fun, but I really enjoyed rushing from cover to cover in ME1, getting to the frontlines while setting up traps with grenades and moving my squad around to get through the fight. In ME2 and 3 it's mostly just me killing everything and occasionally getting a squadmates to attack stronger targets with me.

The inclusion of things like fuel and the planet scanning baffle me though. I can deal with getting rid of a lot of the RPG stuff from the first game, but that shit's just annoying. Also no MAKO is a bummer. Driving off mountains like a madman or blowing the shit out of geth and thresher maws was fun.

Everything that relates to gameplay in Mass Effect is hot garbage. Everything that relates to the story, characters, atmosphere is better than in Mass Effect 2. Which is not to see that i think these elements in 2 are bad.

Mass Effect 2 is overall a better game. For as interesting as the universe and characters in 1 are, playing that game is a chore and one time was more than enough.

I finished ME2 about 6 times.
I quit ME3 after leaving the citadel the first time.
I quit ME1 after recruiting Liara.

This is my expert opinion.

Really well said. There was maybe more potential in the series that was pitched with the first game but I feel the more focused choices of two lead to a much superior game.

i really love the ME series as a whole. my least favorite would be the 3rd one (not cus of the ending though).

the first one felt more like i was in control, that i had a galaxy to explore. i could land on barren worlds and drive around. sure it was mostly pointless but whatever it was still cool. ME2 felt very personal and cinematic. the stakes also felt much smaller in ME2. the character stuff in ME2 was better as well.

i dont really care to rank them. but ive played through ME1 and ME2 like 3-5 times each? crazy i know. but only played through ME3 once. hmmm. though i do kinda wanna play through them all in a row, maybe this summer.

I agreed with all of your points, and ME1 is my preferred game for those reasons. I adored the space opera vibe and how humans were very much the underdogs. The citadel felt huge, it felt like a living place. ME2 might have had far more polished combat, but I think it lost some character from the first one.

Mass Effect 1 is a far less compromising game, and there's definitely a sense that the original intentions for the trilogy were altered or discarded somewhere during the development of ME2, and something to that effect has been implied by former employees.

That being said, I've never particularly thought of Mass Effect as a good game. Disregarding the multitude of technical issues fixed in the PC version, even when it was new I thought it was a bad RPG masquerading as a clunky shooter, not being especially good at either element. I shouldn't discount that it does a great job of world-building and has a main plot that isn't just an excuse to string together vignettes like the second game, but if given a choice I will pick Mass Effect 2 every time.

I hated the loyalty missions in that game.

What does it take for anyone on your team to trust you? Do 1 quest for them.

Great idea at its core but a horrible execution - how much better would it be if some teammates' loyalty could be gained by conversations and in-game decisions, while certain memebers of the squad required more from you than others.

Mass Effect has elements that are certainly better than 2. The core story is stronger, the Role-playing elements are more fleshed out and if you mid/max, you can truly create an overpowered killing machine, which is great fun. The citadel being fully open was something that I loved and was heart broken by Mass Effect 2 when I saw I could only look at it from a balcony and the story was, as you said, Mass Effect was more of an interesting space opera.

Mass Effect 2, on the other hand, is an better overall game. The smoother, less clunky gameplay, the better side missions, getting rid of those god-awful, boring Mako missions, and the characters you encounter are some of the best in gaming. As an overall package, I will say that Mass Effect 2 is the better game, but I will not hesitate to say that the original definitely did some things a lot better.

I don't see how ME2 is less of an RPG than 1. You still have one of nine origin story combinations. You still have six classes to choose from. Yes the actual skill list is shorter than ME1 but a lot of fluff was removed (Intimidate/Charm, Spectre Training/Class Training, Weapon Training). The reduction in powers is compensated by the addition of MORE team members and their combinations also add to the layer of customizability.

It just seems like the automatic thing to say, "... yeah ME2 has less RPG and more action ...". I just don't get it. Sure, ME3 has fewer and less interesting squad mates so that one can be said to be just an action shooter. But not ME2, no sir-eee.

The way I see it, some people will forgive anything, as long as there's an upgrade tree. 2's combat is superior in every way, except there are less upgrade options and it has more of a shooter feel.

Technically, yes. Otherwise, no. Although I still think I prefer ME2 over ME1 when it comes to gameplay.

While the Mako handling was terrible, and in many ways the planets you explored in ME1 were repetitive as hell, at least it was some exploration. You actually felt like you were on a planet in a far corner of the galaxy. That's completely absent in ME2.

I'm still enjoying it right now, I'm just now getting these "loyalty" missions. I have one from Miranda and one from Jacob right now. I'm on Ilium, I picked up the Assassin, now I'll get the Justicar then do Miranda's side mission. I'm also really glad I went with Infiltrator right now, sniping is WAY better in this one.

One last thing for now, the bonuses you get are nearly unnoticeable. I had all the achievements from the first that give you extra resources and money. I barely noticed it. Oh well. :)

from what i played of 1, i beat 2. i would say that 1 had much better RPG elements than what 2 had. 2 just kind of felt like action game with a lot of dialog, some RPG elements thrown into the game.

I went straight from completing my 3rd playthrough of ME1 straight into ME2 on release day, ME2 does the drama alot better, the camera angles are better, the dialogue, character models, character story all superior. Plus I really loved the setup for the story in 2, so simple just put together a team but the loyalty missions for each character and how that affected the end mission was just pure genius. Such many oh fuck moments in the final mission of that game, was really on the edge of my seat.

I loved both games, but for me ME2 was the better game. I guess it was a lot of little things that added up for me. The better UI was great, the improved graphics I loved, I enjoyed the characters and your interactions with them more, getting rid of the Mako, fixing some of the technical issues, heck even the voice acting stepped it up.

There are two big things though for me that put it over the edge and one of them is something that's just kind of unfair to compare because there is nothing the original Mass Effect can do about it. One of the big things is just the combat. I was one who literally just thought that it was improved in about every way. I still have fun with the combat in the 1st, but the 2nd's is just awesome. Lastly the other big thing, and the one that's unfair, is the fact that it's the sequel But it's the sequel to the game where the big thing was all about your character and your save file. So actually getting to see your Shepard move on and seeing choices you made in the 2nd was just something so awesome and well, there's nothing the 1st can really do about that.

There are two things in the 1st that I liked more though. One is the soundtrack. The soundtrack to the original ME is probably my favorite video game soundtrack ever. It's just freaking awesome. The second is the overall story. I liked the more personal, intimate story in ME2, but as you said just the epic, sci-fi, space opera of the first is honestly something special to me. The newness of the universe, the massive scale of everything that's going on. Love that so much.

If you care more about the overall plot arc with the reapers, then I can totally see why you would think that ME1 was a superior game. In terms of the overall plot arc, ME2 really didn't contribute much to the story in comparison to ME1 or ME3.

IMHO though, the characters and their relationship with player are why I love this series so much, and on that front - ME2 fucking killed it. The loyalty mission mechanic was just so well executed in terms of character development, and that helped ME2 (and it's overall franchise) earn it's rightful place as one of the best games this generation.

Not even close.

Fuck the haters, I still like the Mako!

I'm having a little bit of the same problem you're having right now, except that I've played Mass Effect 1 several times before to completion. Now, I think Mass Effect was the most awe-inspiring of the games, creating a great operatic setting that felt like the answer to all of the near-miss sci-fi games that came before it. You could explore the universe, land on planets and drive around; hell, you could explore what seemed like a lot more of the Citadel, and I felt the lack of exploration in the later games was a gross error.

At least when I initiated my Mass Effect experience, I felt like I was the famous space captain exploring the outreaches of the galaxies, making contact with aliens and beating down pesky commandos, all the while being successful with the ladies. In Mass Effect 2, the game became a lot more linear, and though you were still saving humanity, it didn't have that operatic effect you mentioned. Mass Effect 3 returned to that kind of game a bit, as you traveled the universe scouring for help, but it never had that same sense of exploration as Mass Effect 1 did.

I'm trying to go through the trilogy once again, one after the other, but Mass Effect 1 is a little dated, and it's quite difficult to get back into it. Still though, I think the series was one of the best of the sci-fi genre, not least all time. I highly recommend you complete the game, at least to gain an appreciation for the series as a whole (and to have a persistent character, which really keeps you connected to his/her exploits throughout the series).

Also, the first Mass Effect has the best music of the entire series.

The correct answer is yes.

I don't know where I stand on this one. The original is a great RPG and the sequel is a great action game.

I don't know. I had stopped playing ME1, started it again a year later, then took another 6 month break before I finished it, right when ME2 came out. I then played ME2 straight through in a week or something. I also never finished ME3, so there's that as well. ME1 has the better story, but game wise is clunky, yet still playable. I was going to say I plan to go back and play though them all again, but I guess I have to finish ME3 first.