Yet the weird thing was the Marketing Team and the adverts for 3 said it is the best place to start the series?

I must have missed those adverts, but even so they're trying to sell a game, they'll sell more if they can give the illusion that you don't have to play the previous games to be able to properly enjoy the current one they're selling.

The first one!

The other two REALLY messed up when it came to the main storyline (forcing your character to do and say stupid things and then punishing you or those things!, retconning stupid things, BIG choices turned out to be meaningless, etc) and they "streamlined" the gameplay to boot.

Now as a whole it's a very entertaining trilogy (and as basically the only scifi RPG I can't complain that much), and all 3 games have many great things and scenes. But overall the first one is the more tightly packed with a great storyline and good enough companions and villians. The second has probably the best companions and maybe even general feel, but the main storyline is so stupid I could rage on and on. The third one reduces the idiocy up to a certain point but you can't help noticing all those instances that could have been so much better had the trilogy been planned out better and if Bioware had retained some ambition (and let's just ignore the ending).

EDIT: also as the other guys' comments say, you import your character alongside a plethora of choices into each sequel, so if you started with ME3 you would lose a LOT of the "personalized" experience the game offers. In fact even if the game didn't import any choices, there are two big sidequests in particular - that I consider the best parts of ME3 - that wont carry any emotional impact if you just jump into ME3.

The series (on average) decreased in quality with every release (tho 2 is still a good game with all the DLC included.) 3 would have been a mediocre game as a stand alone but as the final installment of a trilogy that advertised itself as a contiguous world and story where your choices matter, well saying ME3 was underwhelming would be an exceptional understatement.

At least as someone who purchased more than one copy of each game and played through them with several characters making different choices, that's my perspective.

Always like the first one better. If you haven't played any of them at all I'd recommend starting there or going ahead with ME3. The devs were telling the truth when they said you could jump in at three. I feel the trilogy is allot like the 2001 series, where the sequels make more sense if you assume that each has their own separate continuity. Mass Effect one is pretty much self-contained, ME2 ends loose, & the third game felt pretty self-contained as well. If you do start on the first one I'd recommend you continue on with two & ignore the third game. I didn't like the third game at all, & not even because of the endings. You'll probably hear allot of complaints about three, & the endings are what almost everyone always focuses on. It is a decent game on its own though, & if you start there you'll probably like it.

What I loved in the first game: Story, characters, pacing, quests, combat, the Mako/exploration, enemy variety. The first game had Geth Hoppers, a enemy type abandoned in the sequels & later snatched away by 343 when they made Halo 4. Also guns effectively have unlimited ammo. The sniper rifle was glorious, that distance... something so satisfying about being able to spot yourself an entire mountain away & pick off hapless enemies. I don't like snipers in most shooters because it never feels like you have realistic distance. The combat is different from what most people seem used to, but I like it better than most. Third game has good combat too.

EDIT - Forgot to mention that ME3 does have multiplayer. I've never tried it myself, but I've heard it is surprisingly decent & even people I know who hated the game itself say the multiplayer is great.

This. All of them have a somewhat distinct feel to them, and I too like the first one the best. The combat in 2 works almost as well as in 3. The combat and gameplay in 1 is, let's say, a little underdeveloped, though still fun and playable.

One could argue that 1 is the most RPGish with its inventory system, weapon mods and many class skills. I'd say that although 2 and 3 are much more streamlined, they offer more distinct classes. I feel 3 achieved a very good balance here.

Well if anyone was stupid enough to believe that then they deserve a kick up the backside lol. Though considering how stupid gamers are these days, they tend to skip the latest game in a series just because it's newer.

I think it all depends on what you're interested in. The first one is an RPG, the third one is a shooter. The 2nd one is somewhere in between, leaning towards shooter IMO. Why they decided to change the gender of a series like that is anyone's guess, but that's what I consider the underlaying issue with this trilogy. I'd advise you to play the first only if you want to be introduced to an interesting world and dream about multiple branching paths with your decisions as core. Play 2-3 to shoot things and a somewhat cheesy save the universe story.

It's best to play them in order.

The first one is objectively the best.

The first one had a ton of shooting combat, it just sucked. There is nothing wrong with making those parts more fun. There is also nothing wrong with removing the horrible inventory system the original game had.

Did they go too far? Maybe, but in these hybrid games it's just as important they be fun shooters as it is fun RPGs.

The second one is objectively the best.

1 is by a long shot.

I have the first two, but because of my HUGE game backlog of games I haven't even tried the first. Evertime I watch a video or read an article I always here that the second game is the best.

THANK YOU. It's very rare to meet another person who prefers 2 to 1. Part of it may be because I never really thought of 1 as an RPG foremost, so I didn't really mind them streamlining the RPG elements in 2. and I preferred the character focus in 2, personally.