I managed to reconcile the Geth and the Quarians in the third game, I like them both.
Same here, but if you had to choose, I'd choose the Quarians.
Hot Take: While the gameplay mechanics showed some improvement, the games actually started to suck with the second one. While most of the characters were pretty good and I liked some of the missions, I hated the fact they took away so many of the RPG elements, and that the story went in the direction it did, which made no sense really, especially if your Shepard had survived a Cerberus experiment as their background for the first game. And it was also effectively a reboot. And I also feel that the game forgot its space opera roots.
I'm still very much a fan of the first game and feel that in spite of the sequels being more popular and better acclaimed, that the first game still represents the best of the franchise. There's a sense of wonder and exploration that I still get nostalgic over when thinking about the first game that I just don't get with the others. I also liked the RPG elements of the first game better, and feel that the story and characters were better in the first game. In the second game, I was rather disturbed at the changes to the Liara (mai waifu ) and Garrus characters in the second game compared to the first one. Actually I suppose that change is most noticeable with Liara no matter what kind of character you play in the first game, but if you played a paragon Shepard in the first game and talked Garrus out of getting revenge on Dr. Heart, it's rather disheartening in the second game that he seems to have gone completely back on that character arch. Of course, it could be argued that this is but one of many of the first hints we got of our choices not really mattering in the long run.
Honestly the only improvement I saw between the first and second games was in the combat aspect, especially with biotic powers (vanguard in particular thanks to the charge power). True, the combat could be rather clumsy in the first game, but the customization and ability to do any number of power combo attacks, as well as the other rpg elements still make the first game better in my opinion. And then there's the lame aspect of the heat sinks, which to me represented a loss of a more unique aspect of the gameplay and turned it into an experience much like any other shooter, where I have to run around and collect ammo after a battle set piece.
I'm not saying ME2 and 3 sucked or anything - they were still fun to play - it's just that I found the experience inferior to the first game, and feel that it lost sight of its space opera roots, probably owing to EA interference.
I align pretty well with Mother's Basement's video here:
I also agree with all that, but it fits what we were talking about - gameplay has improved throughout the series, while the aesthetic, story, atmosphere - didn't.I am going to have to say that exploration in ME1 was shit. It was hundreds of copypasted-colour palette switched square kilometer patches of mountaneous terrain with like two types of copy pasted enemy outposts and a few types of enemies.
It got boring really fast because of that. That's why when I play ME1, I bite the bullet and do all the side quests first saving the good stuff for later.
And thr inventory was poor as well. Guns only varied by stats which made having different guns useless. The only difference was damage and the time until cool down. Meanwhile in ME2 there was an actual difference between like a Widow sniper anf Viper sniper.
I also agree with all that, but it fits what we were talking about - gameplay has improved throughout the series, while the aesthetic, story, atmosphere - didn't.
I think that's half right, half wrong. ME2 had a great story and setting. Sure it had hiccups (many of which would go on to become exponentially worse in 3, such as how the game used and treated Aria), but ME1 wasn't perfect either and viewed on it's own, ME2 is a great game with (mostly) great characters and a great story.
The problem with ME2 is not that it's story is a step down from ME1, but that it's story is not picking up from where ME1 left off. ME1 left you with the galaxy aware of the reaper threat and Shepherd vowing to find a way to fight them, ME2 scrapped that whole plotline and had you run off to go fight the collectors, and that story was pretty good....but it wasn't a good sequel to ME1. It reminds me of that article UA posted somewhere about TLJ, which said it was a great sci fi movie and an awful SW movie (IIRC).
Also, obligatory link to Shamus Young's book sized retrospective of the series: Mass Effect Retrospective 1: The Ages of BioWare - Twenty Sided
And ME2 gave us one of the most orgasmic moments of all-time in gaming which is the suicide mission.I think that's half right, half wrong. ME2 had a great story and setting. Sure it had hiccups (many of which would go on to become exponentially worse in 3, such as how the game used and treated Aria), but ME1 wasn't perfect either and viewed on it's own, ME2 is a great game with (mostly) great characters and a great story.
The problem with ME2 is not that it's story is a step down from ME1, but that it's story is not picking up from where ME1 left off. ME1 left you with the galaxy aware of the reaper threat and Shepherd vowing to find a way to fight them, ME2 scrapped that whole plotline and had you run off to go fight the collectors, and that story was pretty good....but it wasn't a good sequel to ME1. It reminds me of that article UA posted somewhere about TLJ, which said it was a great sci fi movie and an awful SW movie (IIRC).
Also, obligatory link to Shamus Young's book sized retrospective of the series: Mass Effect Retrospective 1: The Ages of BioWare - Twenty Sided
Just wanted to say thank you for introducing the Shamus Young series on Mass Effect to me, I've been reading it for most of the day and I find his commentary brilliant and extremely satisfying, in a way that he basically made me realize why the sequels feel so off to me compared to the first game.I think that's half right, half wrong. ME2 had a great story and setting. Sure it had hiccups (many of which would go on to become exponentially worse in 3, such as how the game used and treated Aria), but ME1 wasn't perfect either and viewed on it's own, ME2 is a great game with (mostly) great characters and a great story.
The problem with ME2 is not that it's story is a step down from ME1, but that it's story is not picking up from where ME1 left off. ME1 left you with the galaxy aware of the reaper threat and Shepherd vowing to find a way to fight them, ME2 scrapped that whole plotline and had you run off to go fight the collectors, and that story was pretty good....but it wasn't a good sequel to ME1. It reminds me of that article UA posted somewhere about TLJ, which said it was a great sci fi movie and an awful SW movie (IIRC).
Also, obligatory link to Shamus Young's book sized retrospective of the series: Mass Effect Retrospective 1: The Ages of BioWare - Twenty Sided
Andromeda was great combat wise but the character models sucked and the story was the same just with a different coat of paint. I do hope they do something new with the franchise.