The Mass Effect trilogy stands as the premiere RPG series for the Xbox 360. The final installment is not due to hit shelves until early 2012, but there is much hope and anticipation surrounding Mass Effect 3. The first two games are critically acclaimed successes, but some of us here at PlanetXbox360 have different opinions about which game is better. Many improvements were made transitioning from Mass Effect 1 to Mass Effect 2, but there was also some cool stuff that was left behind. To settle which game is better, writers Zach Pint (defending Mass Effect 1 and the Mako) and Kimberley Wallace (defending Mass Effect 2 and mining planets) have decided to throw down and argue which Mass Effect title is the best so far.
Opening Arguments
Zach: Mass Effect 1 establishes a well-developed galaxy and an epic, larger-than-life tone that puts one man against all odds. The sequel switches gears and focuses on Shepard’s team, but in doing so, loses sight of the Commander. The missions are also longer in Mass Effect 1, allowing players to immerse themselves in different regions of the galaxy and get a better sense of the scope and scale of the Mass Effect story. Mass Effect 1 also had an equal dose of RPG and shooter, an aspect of the series that was lost in Mass Effect 2.
Kimberley: Mass Effect 2 features a larger, more diverse cast of characters with more depth, a combat system that's less focused on numbers and more focused on the skill of the player while still keeping its RPG progression, more involved side missions, a much wider variety of DLC that plugs directly into the game, and, most importantly, lacks the Mako.
Story
Zach: The Mass Effect franchise is as much about story as it is about action. In terms of storytelling, Mass Effect 1 did an amazing job handling the scale and history of the setting, delivering a mammoth conflict that played out on multiple levels, and introducing characters that you liked and truly cared about. Developing a captivating protagonist is essential, and Shepard’s past is continuously brought up and explored in the first game. Mass Effect 2 shifted focus to the supporting cast, and while it was great to learn about them and their origins, this came at the expense of Commander Shepard’s story. It would have been great to see some side-missions built around Shepard’s past as well, but there weren’t, and I feel Shepard’s story was ignored in Mass Effect 2. I believe gamers play games to experience what it is like to be the hero, and I think gamers are better able to understand what it is like to be Shepard in Mass Effect 1.
The consequences of our actions from Mass Effect 1 to Mass Effect 2 were painfully disappointing. In Mass Effect 1, there was so much tension and excitement about making decisions, such as saving the Rachni Queen. But then in Mass Effect 2, all you got was a “Thank You” message from the Rachni Queen’s courier. Thematically, this was a second-rate consequence, and there are plenty of examples like this one. Cause and effect is vital in storytelling, so I really hope Mass Effect 3 can get it right where Mass Effect 2 faltered.
Kimberley: Mass Effect established who Shepard was and what (s)he was out to accomplish and set the stage for the universe that players would find themselves immersed in. With that said, the original Mass Effect's biggest downfall is that it takes so long to get the ball rolling, as there's plenty of exposition to make sure that the table is set for the Reapers. Mass Effect 2, however, begins in stride, plunging you headfirst into content before you even get the chance to customize your character. An additional flaw the first title experienced was an overall focus on the world, rather than the characters; ask me if I cared about the characters in the first game as much as I did the second and the answer would be a simple "no." Even in my romance options, I never felt like there was a genuine, real connection in Mass Effect. Mass Effect 2 lends greater focus to some of the characters present in the first game, such as Garrus and Tali, who lacked screen time despite being more unique than xenophobic Ashley and pylon-like Kaidan. As each multidimensional character also featured a loyalty mission, players became more involved with these characters, beyond anything the first game did.
Because the second title was less focused on Shepard, and for that matter, humanity, BioWare was able to explore alien cultures and planets, places like the lawless Omega that can't be matched by generic environments. That's a crux about what's better in Mass Effect 2: it was enthralling; everything about the game was simply so much more unique than the first title. Choices mattered, your teammates relied on you to not only help them solve their myriad problems, but also to pull their butts out of the fire when they needed it most. For that, they would give you their lives. Not listlessly and because ordered to do so like Kaidan and Ashley would, but because they had things churning under the surface and Shepard - your Shepard - made the right choice for them. We weren't looking at generic science fiction characters and places; we were looking at a living, breathing universe.
In the end, Mass Effect 2 did what it was supposed to, it set you up for the third game, and made you hope for the return of its beloved characters. Not every mission was grandiose, but going after the Collectors was just as important to the narrative as was Shepard's growth through his/her crew.
This feature continues on the next page, please click Page 2 below to read about the gameplay differences within the Mass Effect franchise.
