1>2>3

1>2>3

Attached: 578466.jpg (1534x1534, 314.64K)

2>1>3

3>2 desu
The main draw of the sequels over the original is the gameplay, and 3's gameplay is way better than 2's
If gameplay isn't important to you then the ranking of 1>3>2 or 1>2>3 barely matters because 1 is so much better than either sequel

in terms of story yeah
in terms of gameplay its 3>2>1

The character development of 2 was so much better than 1 and 3.

Yes.

I loved Mass Effect 2 when it came out but playing through it in LE knowing how it's all going to end the whole game felt pointless
it's hard to describe it, the ending of 3 really did retroactively ruin the whole series
at least with ME1 you can treat it as it's own thing disconnected from the rest if you want

2>1>3

If you disagree youre just a tasteless pleb that has no nack for kino space adventure

Attached: 218e15e9eaadbb60eb8dde19ad582de0.jpg (564x717, 54.98K)

>be a Spectre preparing for what's going to be a war with a risk of extinction
>can't use acid rounds because some higher ups thought they were unethical

fpbp

ME1 is also pointless, compared to what ME3 does to the franchise.

this, being a renegade Shepard in ME2 was such a blast

2 > 1 > 3

Attached: asari1.webm (1280x720, 2.89M)

agreed. holy shit 3 is so boring. I never understood the fuss with 2 either but playing 3 for the first time recently has made me appreciate 2 more.

I went from 1>2>3 when I first played them to 1>3>2 now.

ME2's gameplay is such rancid, fetid garbage that I could never put it anywhere but last place at this point. 3 is a shitshow but at least it's fun minute-to-minute, fuck ME2 and its obsession with cover humping. Fuck its arbitrary weapon limitations that leave half the classes with nothing but two flavors of pistol for a huge chunk of the game. Fuck its need to give every single enemy, from Merc captains to lowly husks, thick layers of armor that render them immune to CC until you strip it, at which point they die in two bullets anyway.

ME1's gameplay is simplistic and repetitive but at least it never pissed me off. ME3's gameplay is genuinely great and every class feels decently fleshed out and satisfying. ME2 is genuinely one of the worst cover shooters ever made unless you play on easy or normal where every ability at least gets some use and you don't spend the majority of your time fucking a wall while waiting for your shields to charge.

Story
1>2>3 Genophage Renegade >3 Genophage Paragon>>>Rest of 3

Gameplay sure 3>2>1 but still not worth it.

Spbp

but like I said you can play through ME1 as a standalone and ignore the sequels if you want
just a fun buddy cop story in space

>Your shield works in the cutscenes
>Nobody else's ever does

And you can't do that with ME2?

it relies too much on existing lore so no not really and ties too much into the story of 3 so it feels pointless in repeat playthroughs if you finished 3
ME1 just has a different atmosphere and feel to the first two and it's difficult to describe
I know other anons know what I mean.
It's almost like they had a different vision for the trilogy before 2 but took it off course

to the last two*

>ties too much into the story of 3
I'm really getting tired. People complain that ME2 is too inconsequential to ME3, this nigga is saying it ties too much. Meanwhile, everything that ME1 sets up, ties into ME3. But that can be played as a standalone. I'm out of this argument, bro. You're on your own.

>all those weapons they made for 3
>spend entire game using only pic rel, and some PM if I run out of ammo
pure sex,

Attached: ME3_N7_Crusader_Shotgun.png (512x256, 88.4K)

>everything that ME1 sets up, ties into ME3
it ties really loosely and badly yeah, they destroyed all sense of mystery