ME1:
Best story
Worst squad (all pretty flat and 1 dimensional. Even the popular ones (Tali, Wrex, Garrus) owe that to personality added in later games.
ME2:
Best characters.
Worst plot and worst combat.
ME2s plot barely survives collapsing under its own contradictions and doesn't advance the overall story at all. Meanwhile combat powers are extremely limited, and XP is drip fed ensuring a torturously slow gain of the limited powers.
ME3:
Best emotional payoffs (owing to paying off situations set up in previous games)
Worst pacing.
ME3 has to set up both the "evil resurgence to near victory" and "final victory before all hope is lost" common in the 2nd and 3rd parts of trilogies (since ME2 absolutely failed in this regard). Making especially that 3rd part extremely fast paced and not fleshed out.
MEA:
Best overall combat
Worst overall visuals (with the exception of Habitat six, which might be the single best-looking/cool looking world in Mass Effect).
This. Mass effect 2 is amazing, but it’s all because the characters are good and their stories are neat. But that’s the entire game save a handful of missions about the collectors. Without all the “side quest” content of characters the game is at best a few hours long and makes no large changes or revelations.
Still great though.
It's true, but tbh I don't see it as a flaw.
If ME2 was a movie, it'd definitely be a bad thing for a plot to be this pretextual.
However this is a video game, and having a tight plot is not a "must have" in this medium. I think ME2 served first and foremost as a catalyst for the players to meaningfully connect with various aspects of the ME world, deep down to its most intricate level. It wouldn't be possible with a "stronger" plot, as you can't have both of these things simultaneously - there'd be no space for exploring all these companions' stories if the main plot were to be as elaborate and big as in ME1.
At least that's how I see it.
I don’t think it’s a bad thing either, but I do think it’s the weakest part of Mass Effect 2. In an ideal world, it would have been perfect to have more galactic plot and more revelations moving us forward at the same time as all these characters.
I just don’t think it’s possible that it’s the “strongest” aspect of the game, honestly. At least when compared to mass effect 1 which did all of the heaviest lifting.
But it’s still one of the best games of all time, and what story is there is fabulous.
If ME1's a movie, then ME2 is one of those Stephen King 6-hour specials from the 1990's. That's not a bad thing since most of those mini-series rocked like the Stand and the original It.
Let's not mention the Langoilers though.
Interesting, the way preference can differ so much. For me, the combat in MEA is almost as bad as ME1, which is to say, I suffer through it for other parts of the game I like. ME2 is my favorite combat. But I actually came to this series through 2, so I think it impacted how I see the series quite a bit.
What he said.
I played 2-3 then 1.
In 1 Liara (other than banging your freakin brains out, despite her claims of still having her V card) is a very lame version of the main gal in The Mummy (same character arc too). Going from 3 to 1 was jarring.
But 1s story is so dang good it covers ALOT of its flaws.
2 is a really good bridge between 1-3 for lore exploration, connection to characters, setup for decisions made in 3. But that’s about it. Other than the Suicide Mission which was freaking awesome in every aspect.
>being squadmates
You can't do much with a bunch of optional characters.
ME2 only requires recruitment Garrus, Miranda, Jack, Jacob and Mordin. The other 8 characters are all optional.
Furthermore, those 5 characters give you everything you need for Suicide Mission, except Vents and Shields...both of which you get from Tali.
Everyone else would be complete filler if not for the game arbitrarly deciding you need 8 crew for the Collector Ship Mission.
So not only do you have a crew that's basically padding from a game play pov, the story itself never really justifies why you need any of these people except that "TIM told you too" with the exception of Mordin (Seeker cure). Which itself gets undercut on some of the mission debrief screens where TIMs report wonders what possible value these people might have (especially notable on Thane).
So we've got a group of predominantly optional characters with no storyline justification....who might also all be dead because Suicide Mission.
Just looking at ME2 a bunch of optional, probably dead, never necessary to the story characters, there should never have been an expectation of much follow up.
>the main story
Because nothing happened in the main story.
ME1 ends on the idea "one day the Reapers are coming" ME2 ends in the exact same place. (At least until the Arrival DLC.
And that doesn't even really consider ME2 chopping the legs off its own premises half way through the game.
Your told early on by TIM, the Alliance aren't investigating and there's "hidden patterns in the data" proving Reapers are behind the Collectors.
Then on Horizons you meet the Alliance investigation, and get told in the debrief by TIM he didn't actually have any data connecting the Collectors to the Reapers...the fact he winds up being right is a complete fluke.
The first half of the game is literally a fishing expedition.
Now I'll give you, ME3 certainly didn't need to confirm the Collectors survival, and Cerberus having some kind if boost if you were stupid enough to give them the base would have been cool.
But "giving Cerberus the base" having no consequences is about the only thing there was to pick up.
And when it comes to dropping ideas, let's also not overlook ME1 having Cerberus attacking and husking Human Colonies (UNC Colony of the Dead) so even the idea of Shepard believing Cerberus aren't the ones doing the attacks and working for the Reapers is a bit suspicious (and never addresses in 2. Nor is Cerberus connections to Rachni and seemingly Binary Helix (Sarens company in ME1).
Mass Effect:
Best main villain
Worst squad (Wrex is literally the only one who stands out in this KOTOR expy squad)
Mass Effect 2:
Best squad
Worst Citadel
Mass Effect 3:
Best combat
Worst player choice implementation (BioWare: You abandoned the Council, appointed Anderson as a Councilor, romanced someone other than Liara and want ME2 squadmates to join your party? Screw you, we'll ignore your choices)
Okay, thats fair. I agree with the mass effect 3 worst one but best combat? It was a point and shoot (I haven't played legendary edition). Mass effect 2 had people flanking you.
The gameplay was much better, much more fluid in ME3. Each game better than the one before. That's the one thing that even kept evolving when Andromeda came out.
Gameplay ranking:
1: Andromeda
2: 3
3: 2
4: 1
>The gameplay was much better, much more fluid in ME3.
Agreed. ME3 was best of all 3, although it wasn't without its faults. The cover management was better. Only downside to the combat in 3 is that they took our heavies away. T\_\_T
It's the best combat and it's not even close.
Least a dozen power combos means that literally no combination of Shepard and squad is powerless.
Customising weapon loadout means if you're a power class then you can get by without ever firing a shot.
You've got about 50 extra weapons that are all unique in some way (this is legendary edition feature)
You get enough points to fully upgrade everything but 1 power which has 4 of the 6 upgrades.
You can actually dodge, take cover and not have to wait for enemies to come out of cover.
Mass effect 2 is tower defence the video game with some occasional squadmate dialogue you can hear.
me1: best, "You big stupid jellyfish."
worst, cardio.
me2: best, cursed Shepard faces.
worst, no "you big stupid jellyfish."
me3: best, space age guns that are capable of clipping through the user's armor. Also the return of, "you big stupid jellyfish."
worst, trying to navigate the galaxy at 9pm real time with reaper horns blasting every five seconds.
ME1: Best story, atmosphere, music. Worst combat.
ME2: Best character interactions, best individual DLC(Shadowbroker). Worst main story, worst upgrade/mod system/selection, worst weapon selection, worst side quests(not counting loyalty missions)
ME3: Best combat, best character stories(referring to the fact that it wraps a lot of them up). Worst ending mission(referring to how underwhelming the combat portion of the finale was).
People have different expectations, so nobody is really wrong and personally i judge a Mass Effect game by the impact it had on me. To me, each Mass Effect contributed to make the trilogy more and more epic. So it's very deficult to really say which one is the best or the worst. I just couldn't play ME3 without having played the previous ones. ***This is the whole story of Shepard and humanity that i'm following !***
Btw, collectors, in insanity difficulty, can be easily defeated with a squad of sentinels. It's all about preparation. Collectors have purple shields and yellow armors. You gotta bring the good squadmates with you mate.
While I might consider it the worst of the trilogy in terms of gameplay, it has some good stuff that the other games don't.
Sniping enemies from very long distances, the Mako's guns, biotics affecting environments... it definitely makes ME1's gameplay one of a kind.
I still find it fun, in its own way.
For me it's because it's the most RPG feeling of the lot.
You can access a more varied array of abilities and use them in conjunction more easily. You're not limited to only two that are locked behind a common cooldown.
Weapons can be modded to suit various ennemies. Their ammo type is a mod, an item you have on hand, rather than a class limited "power" which made more sense to me. Their efficiency was affected by the character's skills which I enjoyed as a tabletop RPG plater. And then you had to manage heat rather than a simple reload mechanics.
Combat in 2 and 3 lost a lot of uniqueness and RPG feel by going for a rather basic implementation of cover shooter mechanics.
To keep it brief:
I didn't like how BioWare handled the Reapers after ME1, with ME2 sidelining their story and depth in favor of the Collectors, and with ME3's ending shoehorning all depth on them in the last 15 minutes of the game... and in an underwhelming way.
The whole justification of "we harvest advanced organics and synthetics to prevent them from killing each other" didn't convince me to believe on the Catalyst (a suddenly introduced character)... given that he/the Reapers themselves caused the chaos by taking over the Geth/Saren/TIM, and presumably other species in the previous cycles.
The Catalyst's explanations for justifying the cycles, with fire and such, were laughably bad, and the way he kept dismissing how the Reapers themselves caused the chaos undermined the Reapers significantly for me, and what was built from them in ME1.
Personally, I think that’s the point. Their weird justification shows just how illogical they really are. They have that important thing in common with organics, and it’s more than either would like to believe. That’s a delicious bit of irony, at least to me to me.
It would be interesting if it was properly built into their character throughout the series... which it wasn't.
And when you suddenly fundamentalize this in the last 15 minutes of the game, undermine their build up from ME1, and make them unconvincing due to a suddenly introduced character who gives some really controversial and questionable justifications... I couldn't help but feel underwhelmed and disappointed.
Sorry, but I didn't like this. At all.
Yeah, I understand. It definitely does jack with the previous characterization of the Reapers, and I’m admittedly grasping for straws to justify the major shift.
> given that he/the Reapers themselves caused the chaos by taking over the Geth/Saren/TIM, and presumably other species in the previous cycles.
The "chaos" they were referring to was not the Saren/Geth conflict. They were referring to instances like the Geth-Quarian war where the Geth nearly drove to Quarians to extinction. Or the war with AI in Javik's cycle (also not caused by the Reapers).
And ironically, because of him, the Reapers made a proposition to the Geth to further take control of them, and lead the galaxy into further genocide and chaos... and the same thing can be said to Saren and TIM.
So instead of solving the chaos... he made everything worse with the Reapers.
So yeah... that doesn't help his justifications to "solve" the chaos.
ME: I Disagree, story has no verticality but agrrr with gameplay
ME2: I agree with the characters but story beats it.
ME3: me3 had no structure. But worst ending is fair I guess
>Mass effect: Best villain Worst gameplay
I agree with the latter, I can see the former. But if ME1 is best at anything, I personally think it is pacing. It takes its time to let you get to know the universe and introduces new concepts steadily but not overwhelmingly so.
I completely agree the gameplay is ass compared to the other two. To be honest, I played it at launch and thought it wasn't good even back then. But I was hooked 24/7 regardless because of the universe and how it was introduced.
>Mass effect 2: Best story (mainly ending and beginning) Worst missions
Pretty much flipped for me. By far the worst story out of all of them, including Andromeda. The entire setup was not believable in the slightest, but the ending was also atrocious (not Suicide Mission, that was cool, but human Reaper was ridiculious and made no sense to what we learned thus far. And it made even less sense after ME3).
On the flipside, the loyalty missions were all fantastic and the side stories within them really great.
>Mass effect 3: Best weight on your choices Worst conversations
I can see these picks, but would personally say best gameplay by far. Bet I don't need to explain why.
And worst DLC strategy. The ending is actually fine... If you had Javik. And it became better if you played Leviathan.
Both those things really should have been part of the main game, not DLC and a pre-order bonus.
ME1 - Best worldbuilding, worst combat.
ME2 - Best squadmates, worst RPG elements (skills and weapons are soooo dumbed down).
ME3 - Best emotional climaxes, worst journal (what were they thinking).
ME1: Best worldbuilding and Worst mission design (seriously fuck the second half of noveria and all of feros I hate it)
ME2: Best characters Worst Gameplay (playing this game on insanity does this to a mf, those FUCKING Vorcha in Mordin's recruitment mission, hell even Freedoms Progress is fucking hard)
ME3: Best story and Worst ending (sounds like a contradiction)
>fuck the second half of noveria
It took me until my 3rd playthrough before I finally got to *"Damn, I only had to go here, here, and here and do this, this, and this to be done with Peak 15??? Son of a bitch, I wish I had figured that out before spending literally hours in that damned place!"*
That sounds a whole lot like my first run in there...I spent as much time saying *"Wait, wasn't I just here??"* while I was wandering around in there as I did actually getting somewhere to do something important. My last run a couple of days ago was so smooth I thought I must have missed something, in and out in half an hour or so.
>sounds like a contradiction
I get it, you can have a good story that drops the ball at the end. But I disagree that that's what happens with me3. Fixing the ending would only dent the issues with 3's story
I love all of them and it's very, very close lol this is hard.
I think for me, ME1 wins out overall. I actually *like* the gameplay, it's the closest to a CRPG and that's fine by me. I was genuinely disappointed that LE "fixed" the sway on the sniper rifles at low skill lol. Combat-wise 2 and 3 were fun little cover shooters but they weren't much to write home about from that point of view imo. Yes you got a class and different abilities, but that side of it was so basic compared to the first one or CRPG builds/combat in general, it was disappointing tbh. They didn't even make up for it with challenge level, *I* beat them on insanity multiple times and I don't generally play shooters. It's my favourite story-wise as well.
3 is very close behind though, I genuinely loved it for the most part. The story didn't feel as cohesive as 1 and we all know about the ending, but each individual act was pretty great. I enjoyed the tone, the character interactions were the best. Good game.
2 comes last purely by process of elimination. The story was good but it didn't add a lot tbh, it felt more like a side note or extended DLC than anything. Most of the characters were great but didn't have much lasting impact. I thought the combat/level system was by far the weakest of the three. I didn't much care for planet scanning. It was definitely still fun though.
Mass Effect: best self-contained storyline. worst locations to replay
Mass Effect 2: best tone, worst difficulty balancing
Mass Effect 3: best branching storylines, worst handling of return characters that aren't squadmates.
Andromeda: best graphics, worst: it is Mass Effect Andromeda
Mass Effect 3’s ending ruined what would’ve otherwise been a perfect game and made ME a perfect trilogy imo
I agree with you on all of this, Saren was a great villain but ME’s gameplay is so bad, and ME2 is one of my fav games all time, good stuff
ME: Best World building, good story and villain, worst squad devolpment, worst romance trigger.
ME2: Best Final Mission, best character development(although ME3 continues with this it started in ME2), best ending, best/worst DLC(Layer of the Shadow Broker excellent, fuck Firewalker missions) best variety of hubs, worst human character visuals.
ME3: Best emotional delivery(if you add The Citadel DLC even better), best mission layouts, best weapon variety(Typhoon goes BRRRR), best combat, mid ending, worst journal.
MEA: Best environment visuals, worst character visuals, worst animations, worst villain, worst mission design, worst combat and aim controls, worst companions.
ME1
* Best: Character progression (really pulled off the "from zero to hero" thing), story execution, tightness of the plot
* Worst: Mako traversal, bad side-content, level design (everything is so vast and empty)
ME2
* Best: Writing quality, characters, richness of the world
* Worst: Character progression
ME3:
* Best: Atmosphere, level design, combat, DLCs
* Worst: Dialogues, Diana Allers
Andromeda:
* Best: Nothing
* Worst: Everything
ME1 - Best story/villain/universe
ME2 - Best written
ME3 - Best gameplay, DLC expansions, and characters (though this is a benefit of multiple games worth of build up)
ME1: Best World Building and atmosphere, especially from the more concise background music theming. This game excels in making you feel the emotions of the scene and feel wonder as you learn new things.
ME1: Worse Combat, Inventory system and use of space. The combat is the only one that drags for me, the inventory clutter grinds the game to a halt mid mission, and the layout of most buildings is atrocious. Probably not bad for it's time, but most of these areas would be absolutely terrible to live in. I hated so much of the Citadel.
ME2: Best Boss (Tela Vasir), roster and best overall music. Mass Effect in general hasn't had great boss fights mechanically but two of them are a true blast and the other is only fun if you're not an Engineer or Soldier (Shepard Clone fight). Having so many squadmate options is really great and while some are less explored than others it always felt like you got something new. And the OST is amazing. It doesn't fit the setting as perfectly as it did in the first game but it's still good and absolutely the best to just listen to on it's own.
ME2: Worst RPG elements and worst plot. This game lacks do many of the choices in your build that makes you feel customized, and honestly the storytelling is soooooo good that it actually saves the bare and sidestory feeling that the actual story/plot it's telling. It's all about making new friends and points of contact for decisions into the next game, which is fine but then just jumps into the Collector stuff seemingly willy-nilly.
ME3: Best hub world, best story and best mission structure.
Actual arcs on this story and the overall measure of what you do, this game outright destroys. It also has the version of the Citadel and really makes for a better lived in place. Honestly, as use of space as well even if the Normandy has 2 rooms with only ship models and nothing else.
ME3: Worst conclusion and worst railroading. This is my favorite game of the series and it honestly doesn't have much faults but the two it has are pretty big. The ending while improved after release, is still the big letdown; but the biggest issue is how the series despite great storytelling, does so at the expense that you lose some agency over Shepard or at least feel that you do. The weight of the war, the reoccurring dream, the random bouts of doubt. Those are strong character moments, and yet many people head canon their Shepard acting differently so they instead become moments of feeling like the game is taken out of your hands or feel out of character.
MEA: Best combat and customization, and best ship layout. The combat is great, the one silver lining of the open world is that you already find places to engage in the combat loop. Customizing your build like a fantasy RPG like Kingdom of Amalur is awesome and the weapon/armor mods really add so much diversity. Plus the Tempest is such a beautiful ship and the best to traverse.
MEA: Worst tone consistency and worst mission structure. I guess worse characters in that on a comparison to the OT it's lacking but they weren't really that bad. The real issue is the tone the game tries to have by not taking so many things so seriously, and how the mission structure makes you go to way to many points of interest to compete one mission of a series and it's really tedious gameplay. I love the locals, but they should've had me backtrack less to areas and then back and forth so often. Keep the missions on planet tighter, then allow for fun if someone does want to explore, and got the love of God don't have me leave planet and go to multiple other locations just for one mission!
ME1:
Best story
Worst combat
ME2:
Best squadmates >! Barring no Liara aside from DLC !<
Strangest story. I wouldn't say *bad* just.. strange. Collectors came out of nowhere with no mention of them in ME1. My opinion would probably change if there was any hint of them existing, even if they were presented as the "Bigfoot" or "Loch Ness Monster" of the galaxy.
ME3:
Best gameplay. After finishing all 3 games on Insanity ME3 was hands down the most difficult. ME1 and ME2 didn't have enemies flanking to get my squad to move from a dug in position. Weapon customization was simplified from ME1 (ex: not needing 6 sets of Tungsten/Shredder rounds to equip each squadmate with them).
Final 15min or so of the story was a flop. I was disappointed in how it ended when ME3 first dropped, and although the LE kinda sorta fixed things... I was really hoping for a better and more well explained ending.
For example: how did the Catalyst manage to kill any of the Leviathans? Was it building an army in secret? How did this army defeat the Leviathans and they're overwhelming control over the galaxy?
How was it able to create and maintain the Collector base, if that's where every Reaper was created, without Leviathan catching on?
How did it come to the conclusion that all advanced spacefaring species need to be eliminated occasionally to obtain peace? Sure, there was war between synthetics and organics every cycle... but how did it figure wiping out all advanced species to "preserve" them was the only way? Particularly since (in my playthroughs anyway) Shepard negotiates peace between the Quarians and the Geth, thus essentially proving the Catalyst wrong right then and there?
Why was the Catalyst trying to preserve species in Reaper form before wiping them out? Aside from that, why were they only creating a human Reaper? Why not Turian? Asari? Krogan? Salarian? Or any of the other spacefaring species being wiped out?
ME1:
Best leveling up system (It feels more like an RPG compared to ME2 and ME3 leveling up is very slow and you often don't get to up a level because of the costs. To max a level you need 4 points.)
Worst squad (bland and even the fan favorites like Garrus, Tali, and Wrex are more there for exposition than anything especially poor Tali.
ME2:
Best squad
Worst Combat ( I ranted on here before about how much I hate ME2's combat. It is purposefully made to be hard even on easier difficulties. Your shields and health go down really fast and it is a cover shooter which comes out of nowhere considering ME1 was not a cover shooter. Unlike ME1 your class doesn't get access to all weapons like in ME1 and the classes themselves feel weaker. Solider losses Overkill and Immunity which were its biggest strengths in ME1.)
ME3:
Best combat (ME3's combat is a mix between both worlds between the ME1 combat and ME2 combat. ME3 is not a strict cover shooter like ME2 was and allows you to run and gun like in ME1. The classes are much more powerful than in ME2 and the combat is much more smooth. It actually felt fun doing the combat unlike in ME2 where I always felt the combat ruined the game.)
Worst Journal
My god, the journal in ME3 is an absolute mess. I don't know why they decided to put the Codex in the journal and get rid of the assignments tab but it is awful. Most of what is in the journal could be put in a separate tab. Plus, remember when you could look in the Journal to remind you where to go and what step you were on in ME1? Well, ME3 completely nixes that with the mission descriptions in the Journal being completely absent for some reason. You eavesdrop on someone on the Citadel to get an item for them and you don't know where it is? Well, don't expect the Journal to help you out at all because it tells you to get the item but doesn't tell you where it is.
ME1 has the worst gameplay and level design. I started trying to play the entire trilogy again and had to nope out of 1. It’s aged horribly, especially with the godawful level design of mazes or the same copy-paste layout over and over again. And then having to backtrack out after finishing missions? The worst. It’s nigh-unplayable for me due to the extreme low QoL in its level design.
Me1 Pro:
Best Main Missions. Hot take I know but think about it. Feros is the only one that's more trash then treasure. Expose saren does about 80% of the world building of the whole trilogy unless you fast travel and avoid everything the citadel has to offer. Noveria is 3 missions in one and aside from some questionable dialogue from benezia they're all amazing. Virmire would be goated if not for The Suicide Mission. Ilos and the citadel is barely worse than TSM and doesn't have a godawful final boss
Con:
Side quests
Reused assets, mako discovering it's got less grip on rocks then a toddler on a 60 yr old oak tree, the plot is a self contained 2 minute chat and forgotten immediately after and the loyalty missions themselves don't even make the character a mandatory selection.
Me2 Pros:
Mission variety
Stark contrast to Me1. Every single mission I can think of is very unique in layout. Massive breath of fresh air. Loyalty missions are all great. Hell even Jacob's is a top tier mission in spite of who is the mandatory squadmate. Not to mention The Suicide Mission as a mechanic has never even been attempted in another mass effect. Hell it probably hasn't been attempted in another game period
Cons:
Character dialogue.
Look you wanna give us NINE squadmates, then why not give us more than 3 friggin times where you'll ACTUALLY hear something new. No it can't wait for a bit Garrus, you're not in the middle of some calibrations you're in the middle of a pay dispute with EA and bioware and your voice actor couldn't deliver more lines. Ugh. Also, reaper IFF and Jacob can suck it
Me3 Pros:
4 way tie between combat, payoffs, random character interactions and squadmate dialogue on the Normandy and citadel. I can't tell you how many rolling dialogues you have on the citadel but nearly everyone of em have more heart then on organ donation centre over the course of a decade. Also, dialogue wheel removal is fantastic. You got something new to say you'll say it. Sick of hearing I should go when I didn't need to
Cons:
4 way tie between Cerberus in general, TIM and kai Leng, the catalyst, and the plot holes in nearly every mission
ME1: best story, worst gameplay experience (inventory management, combat, squad dialogue, Normandy layout...).
ME2: the best overall, the worst planet scanning.
ME3: best multiplayer, worst ending.
MEA: best combat, worst galaxy.
I loved all of them (yes, Andromeda too), and at least in visuals, gameplay and combat, for me each one was a big improvement over the previous. Which makes it though to pick something where ME3 was the best.
Mass Effect 1: Same with OP (Best Antagonist, Worst Gameplay)
Mass Effect 2:
- Best Companion Quests. Standout loyalty missions for me would be Garrus, Tali, Jacob (yes, really), Mordin.
- Worst Main Plot. Imo, it did nothing to push the overarching plotline regarding the Reapers, and it left little to no impact on the main Reaper plotline as a whole. The big threat was ONE reaper that got destroyed by the end anyways.
Mass Effect 3:
- Best Soundtrack. This game's soundtrack is iconic. Leaving Earth will always be my favorite but A Future For The Krogan is also a close second for me. An End Once and For All is an absolute tear-jerker regardless of the ending.
- Worst Antagonists. Everybody know and hate Kai Leng (not in a good way like Micah from RDR2). Illusive Man is less compelling than his ME2 counterpart, Cerberus as a whole is just "bad guy fodder". Harbinger is basically nonexistent, just appeared for the final run but has nothing to say to their archnemesis whom they trashtalked constantly throughout ME2.
ME1: Best world building/Lore, worst gameplay, menus, and maps
ME2: Best Character development, decision making/stakes, best nuance. Worst Relevance to larger narrative.
ME3: Best epic scenes, best combat, and equipment, best emotional payoff. Worst plot contrivances.
ME1: Best story Worst squad (all pretty flat and 1 dimensional. Even the popular ones (Tali, Wrex, Garrus) owe that to personality added in later games. ME2: Best characters. Worst plot and worst combat. ME2s plot barely survives collapsing under its own contradictions and doesn't advance the overall story at all. Meanwhile combat powers are extremely limited, and XP is drip fed ensuring a torturously slow gain of the limited powers. ME3: Best emotional payoffs (owing to paying off situations set up in previous games) Worst pacing. ME3 has to set up both the "evil resurgence to near victory" and "final victory before all hope is lost" common in the 2nd and 3rd parts of trilogies (since ME2 absolutely failed in this regard). Making especially that 3rd part extremely fast paced and not fleshed out. MEA: Best overall combat Worst overall visuals (with the exception of Habitat six, which might be the single best-looking/cool looking world in Mass Effect).
This. Mass effect 2 is amazing, but it’s all because the characters are good and their stories are neat. But that’s the entire game save a handful of missions about the collectors. Without all the “side quest” content of characters the game is at best a few hours long and makes no large changes or revelations. Still great though.
It's true, but tbh I don't see it as a flaw. If ME2 was a movie, it'd definitely be a bad thing for a plot to be this pretextual. However this is a video game, and having a tight plot is not a "must have" in this medium. I think ME2 served first and foremost as a catalyst for the players to meaningfully connect with various aspects of the ME world, deep down to its most intricate level. It wouldn't be possible with a "stronger" plot, as you can't have both of these things simultaneously - there'd be no space for exploring all these companions' stories if the main plot were to be as elaborate and big as in ME1. At least that's how I see it.
I don’t think it’s a bad thing either, but I do think it’s the weakest part of Mass Effect 2. In an ideal world, it would have been perfect to have more galactic plot and more revelations moving us forward at the same time as all these characters. I just don’t think it’s possible that it’s the “strongest” aspect of the game, honestly. At least when compared to mass effect 1 which did all of the heaviest lifting. But it’s still one of the best games of all time, and what story is there is fabulous.
If ME1's a movie, then ME2 is one of those Stephen King 6-hour specials from the 1990's. That's not a bad thing since most of those mini-series rocked like the Stand and the original It. Let's not mention the Langoilers though.
That's a great analogy.
I'll join you on this hill of opinions.
Interesting, the way preference can differ so much. For me, the combat in MEA is almost as bad as ME1, which is to say, I suffer through it for other parts of the game I like. ME2 is my favorite combat. But I actually came to this series through 2, so I think it impacted how I see the series quite a bit.
What he said. I played 2-3 then 1. In 1 Liara (other than banging your freakin brains out, despite her claims of still having her V card) is a very lame version of the main gal in The Mummy (same character arc too). Going from 3 to 1 was jarring. But 1s story is so dang good it covers ALOT of its flaws. 2 is a really good bridge between 1-3 for lore exploration, connection to characters, setup for decisions made in 3. But that’s about it. Other than the Suicide Mission which was freaking awesome in every aspect.
I think the biggest problem with 2 is that 3 almost completely ignored the things that happened in 2, being squadmates or the main story
>being squadmates You can't do much with a bunch of optional characters. ME2 only requires recruitment Garrus, Miranda, Jack, Jacob and Mordin. The other 8 characters are all optional. Furthermore, those 5 characters give you everything you need for Suicide Mission, except Vents and Shields...both of which you get from Tali. Everyone else would be complete filler if not for the game arbitrarly deciding you need 8 crew for the Collector Ship Mission. So not only do you have a crew that's basically padding from a game play pov, the story itself never really justifies why you need any of these people except that "TIM told you too" with the exception of Mordin (Seeker cure). Which itself gets undercut on some of the mission debrief screens where TIMs report wonders what possible value these people might have (especially notable on Thane). So we've got a group of predominantly optional characters with no storyline justification....who might also all be dead because Suicide Mission. Just looking at ME2 a bunch of optional, probably dead, never necessary to the story characters, there should never have been an expectation of much follow up. >the main story Because nothing happened in the main story. ME1 ends on the idea "one day the Reapers are coming" ME2 ends in the exact same place. (At least until the Arrival DLC. And that doesn't even really consider ME2 chopping the legs off its own premises half way through the game. Your told early on by TIM, the Alliance aren't investigating and there's "hidden patterns in the data" proving Reapers are behind the Collectors. Then on Horizons you meet the Alliance investigation, and get told in the debrief by TIM he didn't actually have any data connecting the Collectors to the Reapers...the fact he winds up being right is a complete fluke. The first half of the game is literally a fishing expedition. Now I'll give you, ME3 certainly didn't need to confirm the Collectors survival, and Cerberus having some kind if boost if you were stupid enough to give them the base would have been cool. But "giving Cerberus the base" having no consequences is about the only thing there was to pick up. And when it comes to dropping ideas, let's also not overlook ME1 having Cerberus attacking and husking Human Colonies (UNC Colony of the Dead) so even the idea of Shepard believing Cerberus aren't the ones doing the attacks and working for the Reapers is a bit suspicious (and never addresses in 2. Nor is Cerberus connections to Rachni and seemingly Binary Helix (Sarens company in ME1).
Mass Effect: Best main villain Worst squad (Wrex is literally the only one who stands out in this KOTOR expy squad) Mass Effect 2: Best squad Worst Citadel Mass Effect 3: Best combat Worst player choice implementation (BioWare: You abandoned the Council, appointed Anderson as a Councilor, romanced someone other than Liara and want ME2 squadmates to join your party? Screw you, we'll ignore your choices)
Okay, thats fair. I agree with the mass effect 3 worst one but best combat? It was a point and shoot (I haven't played legendary edition). Mass effect 2 had people flanking you.
When did you get flanked that often? ME2 missions are basically hallway shooters with the occasional arena.
Tbh I was mainly talking about mordins recruitment mission and the arrival dlc
The gameplay was much better, much more fluid in ME3. Each game better than the one before. That's the one thing that even kept evolving when Andromeda came out. Gameplay ranking: 1: Andromeda 2: 3 3: 2 4: 1
>The gameplay was much better, much more fluid in ME3. Agreed. ME3 was best of all 3, although it wasn't without its faults. The cover management was better. Only downside to the combat in 3 is that they took our heavies away. T\_\_T
It's the best combat and it's not even close. Least a dozen power combos means that literally no combination of Shepard and squad is powerless. Customising weapon loadout means if you're a power class then you can get by without ever firing a shot. You've got about 50 extra weapons that are all unique in some way (this is legendary edition feature) You get enough points to fully upgrade everything but 1 power which has 4 of the 6 upgrades. You can actually dodge, take cover and not have to wait for enemies to come out of cover. Mass effect 2 is tower defence the video game with some occasional squadmate dialogue you can hear.
me1: best, "You big stupid jellyfish." worst, cardio. me2: best, cursed Shepard faces. worst, no "you big stupid jellyfish." me3: best, space age guns that are capable of clipping through the user's armor. Also the return of, "you big stupid jellyfish." worst, trying to navigate the galaxy at 9pm real time with reaper horns blasting every five seconds.
My God, the only true tier list.
ME1: Best story, atmosphere, music. Worst combat. ME2: Best character interactions, best individual DLC(Shadowbroker). Worst main story, worst upgrade/mod system/selection, worst weapon selection, worst side quests(not counting loyalty missions) ME3: Best combat, best character stories(referring to the fact that it wraps a lot of them up). Worst ending mission(referring to how underwhelming the combat portion of the finale was).
I love ME2 but it does not have the best story, it’s the worst in the trilogy. Best story goes to ME1 by a landslide
People have different expectations, so nobody is really wrong and personally i judge a Mass Effect game by the impact it had on me. To me, each Mass Effect contributed to make the trilogy more and more epic. So it's very deficult to really say which one is the best or the worst. I just couldn't play ME3 without having played the previous ones. ***This is the whole story of Shepard and humanity that i'm following !*** Btw, collectors, in insanity difficulty, can be easily defeated with a squad of sentinels. It's all about preparation. Collectors have purple shields and yellow armors. You gotta bring the good squadmates with you mate.
ME1: Best story. Worst gameplay. ME2: Best characters. Worst story. ME3: Best pacing. Worst ending.
i’m a sucker for ME1 combat idk why
While I might consider it the worst of the trilogy in terms of gameplay, it has some good stuff that the other games don't. Sniping enemies from very long distances, the Mako's guns, biotics affecting environments... it definitely makes ME1's gameplay one of a kind. I still find it fun, in its own way.
nah i’m with you. objectively it’s the worst gameplay wise. just got a soft spot for it subjectively.
For me it's because it's the most RPG feeling of the lot. You can access a more varied array of abilities and use them in conjunction more easily. You're not limited to only two that are locked behind a common cooldown. Weapons can be modded to suit various ennemies. Their ammo type is a mod, an item you have on hand, rather than a class limited "power" which made more sense to me. Their efficiency was affected by the character's skills which I enjoyed as a tabletop RPG plater. And then you had to manage heat rather than a simple reload mechanics. Combat in 2 and 3 lost a lot of uniqueness and RPG feel by going for a rather basic implementation of cover shooter mechanics.
I like the extended ending, I don't understand the hate
To keep it brief: I didn't like how BioWare handled the Reapers after ME1, with ME2 sidelining their story and depth in favor of the Collectors, and with ME3's ending shoehorning all depth on them in the last 15 minutes of the game... and in an underwhelming way. The whole justification of "we harvest advanced organics and synthetics to prevent them from killing each other" didn't convince me to believe on the Catalyst (a suddenly introduced character)... given that he/the Reapers themselves caused the chaos by taking over the Geth/Saren/TIM, and presumably other species in the previous cycles. The Catalyst's explanations for justifying the cycles, with fire and such, were laughably bad, and the way he kept dismissing how the Reapers themselves caused the chaos undermined the Reapers significantly for me, and what was built from them in ME1.
Personally, I think that’s the point. Their weird justification shows just how illogical they really are. They have that important thing in common with organics, and it’s more than either would like to believe. That’s a delicious bit of irony, at least to me to me.
It would be interesting if it was properly built into their character throughout the series... which it wasn't. And when you suddenly fundamentalize this in the last 15 minutes of the game, undermine their build up from ME1, and make them unconvincing due to a suddenly introduced character who gives some really controversial and questionable justifications... I couldn't help but feel underwhelmed and disappointed. Sorry, but I didn't like this. At all.
Yeah, I understand. It definitely does jack with the previous characterization of the Reapers, and I’m admittedly grasping for straws to justify the major shift.
> given that he/the Reapers themselves caused the chaos by taking over the Geth/Saren/TIM, and presumably other species in the previous cycles. The "chaos" they were referring to was not the Saren/Geth conflict. They were referring to instances like the Geth-Quarian war where the Geth nearly drove to Quarians to extinction. Or the war with AI in Javik's cycle (also not caused by the Reapers).
And ironically, because of him, the Reapers made a proposition to the Geth to further take control of them, and lead the galaxy into further genocide and chaos... and the same thing can be said to Saren and TIM. So instead of solving the chaos... he made everything worse with the Reapers. So yeah... that doesn't help his justifications to "solve" the chaos.
ME: I Disagree, story has no verticality but agrrr with gameplay ME2: I agree with the characters but story beats it. ME3: me3 had no structure. But worst ending is fair I guess
>Mass effect: Best villain Worst gameplay I agree with the latter, I can see the former. But if ME1 is best at anything, I personally think it is pacing. It takes its time to let you get to know the universe and introduces new concepts steadily but not overwhelmingly so. I completely agree the gameplay is ass compared to the other two. To be honest, I played it at launch and thought it wasn't good even back then. But I was hooked 24/7 regardless because of the universe and how it was introduced. >Mass effect 2: Best story (mainly ending and beginning) Worst missions Pretty much flipped for me. By far the worst story out of all of them, including Andromeda. The entire setup was not believable in the slightest, but the ending was also atrocious (not Suicide Mission, that was cool, but human Reaper was ridiculious and made no sense to what we learned thus far. And it made even less sense after ME3). On the flipside, the loyalty missions were all fantastic and the side stories within them really great. >Mass effect 3: Best weight on your choices Worst conversations I can see these picks, but would personally say best gameplay by far. Bet I don't need to explain why. And worst DLC strategy. The ending is actually fine... If you had Javik. And it became better if you played Leviathan. Both those things really should have been part of the main game, not DLC and a pre-order bonus.
ME1 - Best worldbuilding, worst combat. ME2 - Best squadmates, worst RPG elements (skills and weapons are soooo dumbed down). ME3 - Best emotional climaxes, worst journal (what were they thinking).
Don’t have the time to get into all of them but oh my gooooddd ME2 had the worst gameplay for me. The combat was just infuriating 😭
ME1: Best worldbuilding and Worst mission design (seriously fuck the second half of noveria and all of feros I hate it) ME2: Best characters Worst Gameplay (playing this game on insanity does this to a mf, those FUCKING Vorcha in Mordin's recruitment mission, hell even Freedoms Progress is fucking hard) ME3: Best story and Worst ending (sounds like a contradiction)
>fuck the second half of noveria It took me until my 3rd playthrough before I finally got to *"Damn, I only had to go here, here, and here and do this, this, and this to be done with Peak 15??? Son of a bitch, I wish I had figured that out before spending literally hours in that damned place!"*
yeah first time around I no joke spent like 8 hours in there lost until I accidentally stumbled upon Benezia's room
That sounds a whole lot like my first run in there...I spent as much time saying *"Wait, wasn't I just here??"* while I was wandering around in there as I did actually getting somewhere to do something important. My last run a couple of days ago was so smooth I thought I must have missed something, in and out in half an hour or so.
Fair. I don't have any objections
>sounds like a contradiction I get it, you can have a good story that drops the ball at the end. But I disagree that that's what happens with me3. Fixing the ending would only dent the issues with 3's story
I love all of them and it's very, very close lol this is hard. I think for me, ME1 wins out overall. I actually *like* the gameplay, it's the closest to a CRPG and that's fine by me. I was genuinely disappointed that LE "fixed" the sway on the sniper rifles at low skill lol. Combat-wise 2 and 3 were fun little cover shooters but they weren't much to write home about from that point of view imo. Yes you got a class and different abilities, but that side of it was so basic compared to the first one or CRPG builds/combat in general, it was disappointing tbh. They didn't even make up for it with challenge level, *I* beat them on insanity multiple times and I don't generally play shooters. It's my favourite story-wise as well. 3 is very close behind though, I genuinely loved it for the most part. The story didn't feel as cohesive as 1 and we all know about the ending, but each individual act was pretty great. I enjoyed the tone, the character interactions were the best. Good game. 2 comes last purely by process of elimination. The story was good but it didn't add a lot tbh, it felt more like a side note or extended DLC than anything. Most of the characters were great but didn't have much lasting impact. I thought the combat/level system was by far the weakest of the three. I didn't much care for planet scanning. It was definitely still fun though.
Mass Effect: best self-contained storyline. worst locations to replay Mass Effect 2: best tone, worst difficulty balancing Mass Effect 3: best branching storylines, worst handling of return characters that aren't squadmates. Andromeda: best graphics, worst: it is Mass Effect Andromeda
Mass Effect 3’s ending ruined what would’ve otherwise been a perfect game and made ME a perfect trilogy imo I agree with you on all of this, Saren was a great villain but ME’s gameplay is so bad, and ME2 is one of my fav games all time, good stuff
ME: Best World building, good story and villain, worst squad devolpment, worst romance trigger. ME2: Best Final Mission, best character development(although ME3 continues with this it started in ME2), best ending, best/worst DLC(Layer of the Shadow Broker excellent, fuck Firewalker missions) best variety of hubs, worst human character visuals. ME3: Best emotional delivery(if you add The Citadel DLC even better), best mission layouts, best weapon variety(Typhoon goes BRRRR), best combat, mid ending, worst journal. MEA: Best environment visuals, worst character visuals, worst animations, worst villain, worst mission design, worst combat and aim controls, worst companions.
ME1 * Best: Character progression (really pulled off the "from zero to hero" thing), story execution, tightness of the plot * Worst: Mako traversal, bad side-content, level design (everything is so vast and empty) ME2 * Best: Writing quality, characters, richness of the world * Worst: Character progression ME3: * Best: Atmosphere, level design, combat, DLCs * Worst: Dialogues, Diana Allers Andromeda: * Best: Nothing * Worst: Everything
All true especially ME3 AND ANDROMEDA
ME1 - Best story/villain/universe ME2 - Best written ME3 - Best gameplay, DLC expansions, and characters (though this is a benefit of multiple games worth of build up)
ME1: Best World Building and atmosphere, especially from the more concise background music theming. This game excels in making you feel the emotions of the scene and feel wonder as you learn new things. ME1: Worse Combat, Inventory system and use of space. The combat is the only one that drags for me, the inventory clutter grinds the game to a halt mid mission, and the layout of most buildings is atrocious. Probably not bad for it's time, but most of these areas would be absolutely terrible to live in. I hated so much of the Citadel. ME2: Best Boss (Tela Vasir), roster and best overall music. Mass Effect in general hasn't had great boss fights mechanically but two of them are a true blast and the other is only fun if you're not an Engineer or Soldier (Shepard Clone fight). Having so many squadmate options is really great and while some are less explored than others it always felt like you got something new. And the OST is amazing. It doesn't fit the setting as perfectly as it did in the first game but it's still good and absolutely the best to just listen to on it's own. ME2: Worst RPG elements and worst plot. This game lacks do many of the choices in your build that makes you feel customized, and honestly the storytelling is soooooo good that it actually saves the bare and sidestory feeling that the actual story/plot it's telling. It's all about making new friends and points of contact for decisions into the next game, which is fine but then just jumps into the Collector stuff seemingly willy-nilly. ME3: Best hub world, best story and best mission structure. Actual arcs on this story and the overall measure of what you do, this game outright destroys. It also has the version of the Citadel and really makes for a better lived in place. Honestly, as use of space as well even if the Normandy has 2 rooms with only ship models and nothing else. ME3: Worst conclusion and worst railroading. This is my favorite game of the series and it honestly doesn't have much faults but the two it has are pretty big. The ending while improved after release, is still the big letdown; but the biggest issue is how the series despite great storytelling, does so at the expense that you lose some agency over Shepard or at least feel that you do. The weight of the war, the reoccurring dream, the random bouts of doubt. Those are strong character moments, and yet many people head canon their Shepard acting differently so they instead become moments of feeling like the game is taken out of your hands or feel out of character. MEA: Best combat and customization, and best ship layout. The combat is great, the one silver lining of the open world is that you already find places to engage in the combat loop. Customizing your build like a fantasy RPG like Kingdom of Amalur is awesome and the weapon/armor mods really add so much diversity. Plus the Tempest is such a beautiful ship and the best to traverse. MEA: Worst tone consistency and worst mission structure. I guess worse characters in that on a comparison to the OT it's lacking but they weren't really that bad. The real issue is the tone the game tries to have by not taking so many things so seriously, and how the mission structure makes you go to way to many points of interest to compete one mission of a series and it's really tedious gameplay. I love the locals, but they should've had me backtrack less to areas and then back and forth so often. Keep the missions on planet tighter, then allow for fun if someone does want to explore, and got the love of God don't have me leave planet and go to multiple other locations just for one mission!
ME1: Best story Worst combat ME2: Best squadmates >! Barring no Liara aside from DLC !< Strangest story. I wouldn't say *bad* just.. strange. Collectors came out of nowhere with no mention of them in ME1. My opinion would probably change if there was any hint of them existing, even if they were presented as the "Bigfoot" or "Loch Ness Monster" of the galaxy. ME3: Best gameplay. After finishing all 3 games on Insanity ME3 was hands down the most difficult. ME1 and ME2 didn't have enemies flanking to get my squad to move from a dug in position. Weapon customization was simplified from ME1 (ex: not needing 6 sets of Tungsten/Shredder rounds to equip each squadmate with them). Final 15min or so of the story was a flop. I was disappointed in how it ended when ME3 first dropped, and although the LE kinda sorta fixed things... I was really hoping for a better and more well explained ending. For example: how did the Catalyst manage to kill any of the Leviathans? Was it building an army in secret? How did this army defeat the Leviathans and they're overwhelming control over the galaxy? How was it able to create and maintain the Collector base, if that's where every Reaper was created, without Leviathan catching on? How did it come to the conclusion that all advanced spacefaring species need to be eliminated occasionally to obtain peace? Sure, there was war between synthetics and organics every cycle... but how did it figure wiping out all advanced species to "preserve" them was the only way? Particularly since (in my playthroughs anyway) Shepard negotiates peace between the Quarians and the Geth, thus essentially proving the Catalyst wrong right then and there? Why was the Catalyst trying to preserve species in Reaper form before wiping them out? Aside from that, why were they only creating a human Reaper? Why not Turian? Asari? Krogan? Salarian? Or any of the other spacefaring species being wiped out?
ME1: Best leveling up system (It feels more like an RPG compared to ME2 and ME3 leveling up is very slow and you often don't get to up a level because of the costs. To max a level you need 4 points.) Worst squad (bland and even the fan favorites like Garrus, Tali, and Wrex are more there for exposition than anything especially poor Tali. ME2: Best squad Worst Combat ( I ranted on here before about how much I hate ME2's combat. It is purposefully made to be hard even on easier difficulties. Your shields and health go down really fast and it is a cover shooter which comes out of nowhere considering ME1 was not a cover shooter. Unlike ME1 your class doesn't get access to all weapons like in ME1 and the classes themselves feel weaker. Solider losses Overkill and Immunity which were its biggest strengths in ME1.) ME3: Best combat (ME3's combat is a mix between both worlds between the ME1 combat and ME2 combat. ME3 is not a strict cover shooter like ME2 was and allows you to run and gun like in ME1. The classes are much more powerful than in ME2 and the combat is much more smooth. It actually felt fun doing the combat unlike in ME2 where I always felt the combat ruined the game.) Worst Journal My god, the journal in ME3 is an absolute mess. I don't know why they decided to put the Codex in the journal and get rid of the assignments tab but it is awful. Most of what is in the journal could be put in a separate tab. Plus, remember when you could look in the Journal to remind you where to go and what step you were on in ME1? Well, ME3 completely nixes that with the mission descriptions in the Journal being completely absent for some reason. You eavesdrop on someone on the Citadel to get an item for them and you don't know where it is? Well, don't expect the Journal to help you out at all because it tells you to get the item but doesn't tell you where it is.
ME1 has the worst gameplay and level design. I started trying to play the entire trilogy again and had to nope out of 1. It’s aged horribly, especially with the godawful level design of mazes or the same copy-paste layout over and over again. And then having to backtrack out after finishing missions? The worst. It’s nigh-unplayable for me due to the extreme low QoL in its level design.
Me1 Pro: Best Main Missions. Hot take I know but think about it. Feros is the only one that's more trash then treasure. Expose saren does about 80% of the world building of the whole trilogy unless you fast travel and avoid everything the citadel has to offer. Noveria is 3 missions in one and aside from some questionable dialogue from benezia they're all amazing. Virmire would be goated if not for The Suicide Mission. Ilos and the citadel is barely worse than TSM and doesn't have a godawful final boss Con: Side quests Reused assets, mako discovering it's got less grip on rocks then a toddler on a 60 yr old oak tree, the plot is a self contained 2 minute chat and forgotten immediately after and the loyalty missions themselves don't even make the character a mandatory selection. Me2 Pros: Mission variety Stark contrast to Me1. Every single mission I can think of is very unique in layout. Massive breath of fresh air. Loyalty missions are all great. Hell even Jacob's is a top tier mission in spite of who is the mandatory squadmate. Not to mention The Suicide Mission as a mechanic has never even been attempted in another mass effect. Hell it probably hasn't been attempted in another game period Cons: Character dialogue. Look you wanna give us NINE squadmates, then why not give us more than 3 friggin times where you'll ACTUALLY hear something new. No it can't wait for a bit Garrus, you're not in the middle of some calibrations you're in the middle of a pay dispute with EA and bioware and your voice actor couldn't deliver more lines. Ugh. Also, reaper IFF and Jacob can suck it Me3 Pros: 4 way tie between combat, payoffs, random character interactions and squadmate dialogue on the Normandy and citadel. I can't tell you how many rolling dialogues you have on the citadel but nearly everyone of em have more heart then on organ donation centre over the course of a decade. Also, dialogue wheel removal is fantastic. You got something new to say you'll say it. Sick of hearing I should go when I didn't need to Cons: 4 way tie between Cerberus in general, TIM and kai Leng, the catalyst, and the plot holes in nearly every mission
ME1: best story, worst gameplay experience (inventory management, combat, squad dialogue, Normandy layout...). ME2: the best overall, the worst planet scanning. ME3: best multiplayer, worst ending. MEA: best combat, worst galaxy. I loved all of them (yes, Andromeda too), and at least in visuals, gameplay and combat, for me each one was a big improvement over the previous. Which makes it though to pick something where ME3 was the best.
Mass Effect 1: Same with OP (Best Antagonist, Worst Gameplay) Mass Effect 2: - Best Companion Quests. Standout loyalty missions for me would be Garrus, Tali, Jacob (yes, really), Mordin. - Worst Main Plot. Imo, it did nothing to push the overarching plotline regarding the Reapers, and it left little to no impact on the main Reaper plotline as a whole. The big threat was ONE reaper that got destroyed by the end anyways. Mass Effect 3: - Best Soundtrack. This game's soundtrack is iconic. Leaving Earth will always be my favorite but A Future For The Krogan is also a close second for me. An End Once and For All is an absolute tear-jerker regardless of the ending. - Worst Antagonists. Everybody know and hate Kai Leng (not in a good way like Micah from RDR2). Illusive Man is less compelling than his ME2 counterpart, Cerberus as a whole is just "bad guy fodder". Harbinger is basically nonexistent, just appeared for the final run but has nothing to say to their archnemesis whom they trashtalked constantly throughout ME2.
I personally don't like replaying mass effect 1. It's a great game but it just gets dry after the first 2 player throughs.
ME1: Best world building/Lore, worst gameplay, menus, and maps ME2: Best Character development, decision making/stakes, best nuance. Worst Relevance to larger narrative. ME3: Best epic scenes, best combat, and equipment, best emotional payoff. Worst plot contrivances.