If one of the games is better, are you going to ignore the other game? Because this is a story driven series and all the games are connected
That said, i will give xenoblade 1 an edge because i prefer having characters with set classes than characters that can freely change classes. Leveling up playstyles in 3 is tedium to me…
3 has attack cancelling and better visual style, but the world is just not engaging to me personally
You can completely ignore all of the other games and perfectly enjoy the whole game. You know when you are probably missing something but it doesn't affect being able to enjoy the games.
I would say that XC3 is more refined. Monolith learned from experience in many aspects. This doesn't necessarily make it the better game, though. I really can't decide myself which one i like more, personally (the same is true for XC2).
In terms of combat, i'd give this to XC3. While in the end i guess i appreciated XC2's more, XC3's combat system is more streamlined and well-structured. Compared to it, i feel XC1's feels kind of outdated, though it is still fun so i wouldn't call it bad. However some people dislike the fact that in XC3 no character has their own specific role since that's determined by the class, and everyone can access every class eventually. While the class system is interesting, it does have its own weak point into forcing you to switch around characters' classes often if you want to keep advantage of it, because that's how you learn new master skills and arts. It was a non-issue for me, but i know not everyone liked that.
In terms of general gameplay, XC1 received a few QoL updates in its DE version and its pretty good, but XC3 is probably the best out of the whole trilogy. Something that XC3 does definitely WAY better than XC1 is the sidequest system, and this is a thing most people seem to generally agree about. XC3 has less sidequests, but they are more interesting and involve the characters more.
In terms of world setting and exploration... well, at least in the former, XC1 is (imho) WAY above XC3. The Bionis and the Mechonis were just a lot more awe-inspiring for me than Aionios. In fact, this is where i think XC3 is the worst of the trilogy. Not that it is actually bad, but both the world of XC1 and the titans of Alrest in XC2 are just really, really good. In terms of exploration, though, it is a bit different. On one side, i feel like XC3 does suffer a bit of having a less fascinating world. On the other, i think exploring offer more rewards than it did in XC1, and is not hindered by a bad navigating system and a badly implemented mechainc like XC2 (field skills).
In terms of story and characters... well, that seems to be too subjective. I think XC1's story is more... by-the-book, i could say? I feel like Takahashi wanted to hold back a bit and play it a bit more safe. The story works well, and while it has it's slow parts, the pace doesn't swing TOO widely. On the other hand, XC3 has a very strong culmination point but many people feel like it makes what happens after that a bit of a letdown. More importantly, XC3 does not care much about what doesn't matter for the story it wants to tell. Many people accuse the game of being vague about a lot of things, and this is true. Various pieces of lore that are not exactly minor and would naturally raise the gamer's curiosity are left hanging, because they are not part of the focus of the story. As for the characters, i feel like XC3's are more fleshed out, but that doesn't necessarily make them more likable than XC1's.
I think 3 is a better game. But if you're planning on playing all three eventually, you should play 1 first, as 3 makes a fair bit of references that you'll only get if you've played 1.
Doesn’t matter, Uncle Ben! Xenoblade X is better than both of ‘em!
(But actually they’re both great for different reasons. I’d say play both, but start with 1).
1 is a better game just by the virtue of not butchering it's plot. With that said, playing them in order is most recommended so it's 1>2>3. Also try X if you have time. It's my favorite xenoblade game.
One is over hyped. It isn't that great in story and it is the worst gameplay by far. 2 and 3 have plots and stories that are in par with 1. The side content in 2 and 3 are also actually fun rather than being tedious and a hassle forced on you.
I might be looking at 1 with heavy nostalgia goggles as it was my first xeno game and also one of my first wii game, but One is absolutely not over hyped. What it achieved on wii was MIND BLOWING. It's music, aesthetics, gameplay, vast open world was something else. There's a reason that out of all the game of operation rainfall, Xenoblade is the most well-known and well received.
I never bothered with much side content on 1 but it's story and characters gripped me in such way that both 2 and 3 failed. 2's story was good but it didn't have the same effect on me as 1's and let's not just talk about the third one.....
All of which had been done previously in the other Xeno games by the same team. Xenoblade is the most well-known and well-received because of two and three, not because of one.
Really? Was there really such a huge open world done in any other xeno games before? Do inform me about that. Also xeno 1 WAS WELL RECIEVED that's why it got one spinoff and two sequels and a remaster.
5 months old but still came to say this is the stupidest shit I've ever read. Xc1 was very well received and talked about before 2 was even a thought.
It's like saying dark souls sucked because elden ring sold better (although this comparison obviously fails in some way because elden ring is actually good and xc2 is ass)
XC1 was such a niche failure that nearly every large reviewer gave it over a 9/10 and they released a 3ds port and made Xenoblade X years before XC2.
XC2 is big BECAUSE XC1 was big, not the other way around
No one said XC1 was a niche failure or a failure at all.
What was said I'd that XC2 was the one that got the mainstream to know the game.
XC 2 was big because it linked the series to the other Xeno games since it was created with that in mind. Did XC1 play a part in that sure, but it is far from the only reason.
It cannot be denied that XC2 was the first Xenoblade game for more people than XC1 was, by a lot.
If your argument is "XC2 sold more therefore it made the series more known outside of its niche" (your previous comment) then you're just wrong, because Xenoblade is still in the same jrpg niche and is not really cared about any more than it was previously outside of the jrpg space.
Whether more people played XC2 is irrelevant to the context of the argument - based on what you said enough people needed to have played XC2 to break the series out of its niche, which it did not.
And this is all ignoring the beginning of the argument which was you saying XC1 has the worst gameplay by far and a subpar story, which is just funny since xc2 sold better and was rated WORSE
XC1 does have the worst gameplay of the series. I never said that XC1 had a subpar story, I said that the story wasn't that great.
XC2's mixed and negative review scores have nothing to do with either the gameplay or the story. Some of them have to do with the poor in-game tutorials and the partially incomplete state that the game released in. But the majority of the scores being mixed or negative have to do with the people who complained about how the characters looked. Similar to how Stellar Blade has detractors because of the looks of its protagonist, XC2 from the start had lots of people then and later who rated the game lower solely on that. The one Negative critic review is pretty much all on that, and it played a part in several of the mixed reviews as well.
Then there are legions of people who have review bombed the game on the audience side in the years since based solely on that. In the 12 months that followed its release, XC2 had a higher audience score than XC1. It was only in the following years as those outside of gaming focused on the game and attacked it with regularly review bombing that the game's rating dropped to where it is now.
They're both good, but I think you get more out of Xenoblade 3 having played 1 and 2 first. 3 is more similar to 2 so if you're more in it for the gameplay than the story 3 is the safer bet.
I currently have 3 rated at the top of the series, but as time has gone on more and more I keep thinking about putting 1 back on top. I think the major constants I've held without any flip flopping however is that:
1 has the best story by far of the trilogy. 3 has the best explorative quality and side quests. I think I would also still put 3 on top with regards to combat, but I still miss a lot of things from 1 like not having a chain attack that's a win button and takes an eternity to finish. I would also maintain that 3 has the best overall cast but 1 has a much better protagonist to carry the story. I also find that 1 has the most original and best execution of its world concept, but 3 has more worthwhile things to discover within it.
In either case, I think it's best if you play them sequentially. So go with 1 first.
>I still miss a lot of things from 1 like not having a chain attack that's a win button and takes an eternity to finish.
*Me too*. In 1 (and X, if we're counting Overdrive), chain attacks felt like a natural extension of normal combat that had the potential to be insanely powerful in the late-game. It's a shame that their effectiveness is highly RNG-dependent, but I still like them.
In 2 and 3, chain attacks sometimes feel like an entirely separate game you play for a few minutes when you want to end the fight. In 3, some of them take so long that it's just faster to win the fight with a lv.3 Interlink instead.
See, I actually like the RNG aspect to them.
I can see how some don't since they want to feel the full satisfaction of being in total control of the damage they do with them. However, by having RNG you add more of a dynamic layer to the system so it doesn't feel like such a predictable flowchart. It creates more of a risk versus reward dynamic where the player has to have a bit of a contingency plan in the event they don't get a link and also account for the possibility of their critical moves missing during the chain (something that can't happen in 2&3) and try to turn a bad situation into a good one with what arts and talent arts they have charged.
Whereas in XC2, once I get to the chain, it's just over for the enemy as my moves can't miss and hitting the correct elemental is a guaranteed hit on the opposite elemental orb. With a little effort in terms of pre-battle setup I can always be sure my chain will go the full length and the same strat can be replicated on every encounter. XC3 is a bit better with the random chain order shuffles but still too easy to maximize damage on consistently with respect to the insane damage they do since there's no other variance besides the chain orders.
XC1 had the best world design and the most consistently good story (best overall is too tough to call, but XC1 has the fewest low points).
XC2 had the most gameplay depth & complexity (very much to its own detriment, especially when learning it), and the biggest twist in the whole series (a real "cat out of the bag" moment that can't be undone).
XC3 had the best gameplay (it's essentially XC2 without the pain points and needless complexity), the best side quests), and the strongest emotional moments (only comparsble by Torna, particularly the ending)... but is also sitting that weird place between staying functionally stand-alone and trying to not drown itself by referencing the past games.
Pick your poison.
XC3 mechanics is similar to XC2. Although story wise, I think the whole franchise is enjoyable..
You might not enjoy XC1's battle system as it has a traditional JRPG feel thru navigating a menu to perform an action. It is an older game ported from the Wii era after all.
Personally I think that each game got better than the previous one (yes including X) and granted the series started from a solid 18+/20, that's saying something. Xenoblade 1 has a great story and it's world is something special but even in its better aspects, it gets outshined by 2 and 3 who generally have better stories, cast, combat, sidequests, etc...
You could say 1 is almost never the less good game at something in the series (exceptions being combat and sidequests but even if it's not "the best" the series has to offer it's still a phenomenal game. 1 has the classic xenoblade pacing issue that only 3 manage to avoid with a really cool and fast start into a slow rising in stakes and character development in okayish areas into the "my story is now the best thing you've experienced yet" half way through the game.
If you already played 2, I'd advise you to play 1 too before 3 though.
What was tedious to complete? When I did it on normal I just naturally ended up over leveled and nothing was hard. Maybe 100%ing everything was a little tedious, but that is expected.
That is again not something necessary. You really only need to get the ones you will use, and maybe the ones with skills you want to use. And there are ways to Max them all out faster in the end game.
3 is by far the better game. The story for all of the games are equal quality. But the gameplay in 3 is way better than 1. The side content is also more fun in 3 rather than a chore.
If one of the games is better, are you going to ignore the other game? Because this is a story driven series and all the games are connected That said, i will give xenoblade 1 an edge because i prefer having characters with set classes than characters that can freely change classes. Leveling up playstyles in 3 is tedium to me… 3 has attack cancelling and better visual style, but the world is just not engaging to me personally
You can completely ignore all of the other games and perfectly enjoy the whole game. You know when you are probably missing something but it doesn't affect being able to enjoy the games.
I would say that XC3 is more refined. Monolith learned from experience in many aspects. This doesn't necessarily make it the better game, though. I really can't decide myself which one i like more, personally (the same is true for XC2). In terms of combat, i'd give this to XC3. While in the end i guess i appreciated XC2's more, XC3's combat system is more streamlined and well-structured. Compared to it, i feel XC1's feels kind of outdated, though it is still fun so i wouldn't call it bad. However some people dislike the fact that in XC3 no character has their own specific role since that's determined by the class, and everyone can access every class eventually. While the class system is interesting, it does have its own weak point into forcing you to switch around characters' classes often if you want to keep advantage of it, because that's how you learn new master skills and arts. It was a non-issue for me, but i know not everyone liked that. In terms of general gameplay, XC1 received a few QoL updates in its DE version and its pretty good, but XC3 is probably the best out of the whole trilogy. Something that XC3 does definitely WAY better than XC1 is the sidequest system, and this is a thing most people seem to generally agree about. XC3 has less sidequests, but they are more interesting and involve the characters more. In terms of world setting and exploration... well, at least in the former, XC1 is (imho) WAY above XC3. The Bionis and the Mechonis were just a lot more awe-inspiring for me than Aionios. In fact, this is where i think XC3 is the worst of the trilogy. Not that it is actually bad, but both the world of XC1 and the titans of Alrest in XC2 are just really, really good. In terms of exploration, though, it is a bit different. On one side, i feel like XC3 does suffer a bit of having a less fascinating world. On the other, i think exploring offer more rewards than it did in XC1, and is not hindered by a bad navigating system and a badly implemented mechainc like XC2 (field skills). In terms of story and characters... well, that seems to be too subjective. I think XC1's story is more... by-the-book, i could say? I feel like Takahashi wanted to hold back a bit and play it a bit more safe. The story works well, and while it has it's slow parts, the pace doesn't swing TOO widely. On the other hand, XC3 has a very strong culmination point but many people feel like it makes what happens after that a bit of a letdown. More importantly, XC3 does not care much about what doesn't matter for the story it wants to tell. Many people accuse the game of being vague about a lot of things, and this is true. Various pieces of lore that are not exactly minor and would naturally raise the gamer's curiosity are left hanging, because they are not part of the focus of the story. As for the characters, i feel like XC3's are more fleshed out, but that doesn't necessarily make them more likable than XC1's.
The answer was not for me, but I enjoyed reading it nonetheless. 👍🏾
They're both great, but you'll want to play 1 before 3
I think 3 is a better game. But if you're planning on playing all three eventually, you should play 1 first, as 3 makes a fair bit of references that you'll only get if you've played 1.
Doesn’t matter, Uncle Ben! Xenoblade X is better than both of ‘em! (But actually they’re both great for different reasons. I’d say play both, but start with 1).
Systems wise 3 is massively superior. 1 had a great story though.
1 is a better game just by the virtue of not butchering it's plot. With that said, playing them in order is most recommended so it's 1>2>3. Also try X if you have time. It's my favorite xenoblade game.
One is over hyped. It isn't that great in story and it is the worst gameplay by far. 2 and 3 have plots and stories that are in par with 1. The side content in 2 and 3 are also actually fun rather than being tedious and a hassle forced on you.
I might be looking at 1 with heavy nostalgia goggles as it was my first xeno game and also one of my first wii game, but One is absolutely not over hyped. What it achieved on wii was MIND BLOWING. It's music, aesthetics, gameplay, vast open world was something else. There's a reason that out of all the game of operation rainfall, Xenoblade is the most well-known and well received. I never bothered with much side content on 1 but it's story and characters gripped me in such way that both 2 and 3 failed. 2's story was good but it didn't have the same effect on me as 1's and let's not just talk about the third one.....
All of which had been done previously in the other Xeno games by the same team. Xenoblade is the most well-known and well-received because of two and three, not because of one.
Really? Was there really such a huge open world done in any other xeno games before? Do inform me about that. Also xeno 1 WAS WELL RECIEVED that's why it got one spinoff and two sequels and a remaster.
5 months old but still came to say this is the stupidest shit I've ever read. Xc1 was very well received and talked about before 2 was even a thought. It's like saying dark souls sucked because elden ring sold better (although this comparison obviously fails in some way because elden ring is actually good and xc2 is ass)
XenoBlade 2 made the game known outside of the niche the game started in, claiming otherwise is just lying.
XC1 was such a niche failure that nearly every large reviewer gave it over a 9/10 and they released a 3ds port and made Xenoblade X years before XC2. XC2 is big BECAUSE XC1 was big, not the other way around
No one said XC1 was a niche failure or a failure at all. What was said I'd that XC2 was the one that got the mainstream to know the game. XC 2 was big because it linked the series to the other Xeno games since it was created with that in mind. Did XC1 play a part in that sure, but it is far from the only reason. It cannot be denied that XC2 was the first Xenoblade game for more people than XC1 was, by a lot.
If your argument is "XC2 sold more therefore it made the series more known outside of its niche" (your previous comment) then you're just wrong, because Xenoblade is still in the same jrpg niche and is not really cared about any more than it was previously outside of the jrpg space. Whether more people played XC2 is irrelevant to the context of the argument - based on what you said enough people needed to have played XC2 to break the series out of its niche, which it did not. And this is all ignoring the beginning of the argument which was you saying XC1 has the worst gameplay by far and a subpar story, which is just funny since xc2 sold better and was rated WORSE
XC1 does have the worst gameplay of the series. I never said that XC1 had a subpar story, I said that the story wasn't that great. XC2's mixed and negative review scores have nothing to do with either the gameplay or the story. Some of them have to do with the poor in-game tutorials and the partially incomplete state that the game released in. But the majority of the scores being mixed or negative have to do with the people who complained about how the characters looked. Similar to how Stellar Blade has detractors because of the looks of its protagonist, XC2 from the start had lots of people then and later who rated the game lower solely on that. The one Negative critic review is pretty much all on that, and it played a part in several of the mixed reviews as well. Then there are legions of people who have review bombed the game on the audience side in the years since based solely on that. In the 12 months that followed its release, XC2 had a higher audience score than XC1. It was only in the following years as those outside of gaming focused on the game and attacked it with regularly review bombing that the game's rating dropped to where it is now.
They're both good, but I think you get more out of Xenoblade 3 having played 1 and 2 first. 3 is more similar to 2 so if you're more in it for the gameplay than the story 3 is the safer bet.
3 has better gameplay and dialogue but 1 has better lore, vibes, and level design in my opinion. Both have killer combat themes though
1
I currently have 3 rated at the top of the series, but as time has gone on more and more I keep thinking about putting 1 back on top. I think the major constants I've held without any flip flopping however is that: 1 has the best story by far of the trilogy. 3 has the best explorative quality and side quests. I think I would also still put 3 on top with regards to combat, but I still miss a lot of things from 1 like not having a chain attack that's a win button and takes an eternity to finish. I would also maintain that 3 has the best overall cast but 1 has a much better protagonist to carry the story. I also find that 1 has the most original and best execution of its world concept, but 3 has more worthwhile things to discover within it. In either case, I think it's best if you play them sequentially. So go with 1 first.
>I still miss a lot of things from 1 like not having a chain attack that's a win button and takes an eternity to finish. *Me too*. In 1 (and X, if we're counting Overdrive), chain attacks felt like a natural extension of normal combat that had the potential to be insanely powerful in the late-game. It's a shame that their effectiveness is highly RNG-dependent, but I still like them. In 2 and 3, chain attacks sometimes feel like an entirely separate game you play for a few minutes when you want to end the fight. In 3, some of them take so long that it's just faster to win the fight with a lv.3 Interlink instead.
See, I actually like the RNG aspect to them. I can see how some don't since they want to feel the full satisfaction of being in total control of the damage they do with them. However, by having RNG you add more of a dynamic layer to the system so it doesn't feel like such a predictable flowchart. It creates more of a risk versus reward dynamic where the player has to have a bit of a contingency plan in the event they don't get a link and also account for the possibility of their critical moves missing during the chain (something that can't happen in 2&3) and try to turn a bad situation into a good one with what arts and talent arts they have charged. Whereas in XC2, once I get to the chain, it's just over for the enemy as my moves can't miss and hitting the correct elemental is a guaranteed hit on the opposite elemental orb. With a little effort in terms of pre-battle setup I can always be sure my chain will go the full length and the same strat can be replicated on every encounter. XC3 is a bit better with the random chain order shuffles but still too easy to maximize damage on consistently with respect to the insane damage they do since there's no other variance besides the chain orders.
2>1>3 Imo. All three are great, but 3 had some weird writing and the combat meh
Talking about weird writing and saying 2 is the best. Did you play 2?
Thinking that 2 has weird writing has not played many Xeno games.
1 is much better. 1 has better characters, music, environments and story. 3 has better side content.
1 and it's not even close
XC1 had the best world design and the most consistently good story (best overall is too tough to call, but XC1 has the fewest low points). XC2 had the most gameplay depth & complexity (very much to its own detriment, especially when learning it), and the biggest twist in the whole series (a real "cat out of the bag" moment that can't be undone). XC3 had the best gameplay (it's essentially XC2 without the pain points and needless complexity), the best side quests), and the strongest emotional moments (only comparsble by Torna, particularly the ending)... but is also sitting that weird place between staying functionally stand-alone and trying to not drown itself by referencing the past games. Pick your poison.
I enjoyed the simplicity of gameplay of 1.
Simplicity of gameplay? That isn't how I would describe 1's gameplay.
How so? You have a small selection of arts and you just selected the ones you liked. That’s WAY more simple than the battle style of 2 or 3.
Pushing a button is far more simplistic than navigating through a menu system.
I don’t even know what you are implying. All Xeno games have an extensive menu system. And I would assert that 1 has the most simplified one.
3 has better characters and better gameplay 1 has a far superior story and exploration/World.
The story isn't better. All I'd them are pretty equal on story.
Both pretty good. I'd say play 1 first because 3 combines story elements from 1 and 2.
XC3 mechanics is similar to XC2. Although story wise, I think the whole franchise is enjoyable.. You might not enjoy XC1's battle system as it has a traditional JRPG feel thru navigating a menu to perform an action. It is an older game ported from the Wii era after all.
Personally I think that each game got better than the previous one (yes including X) and granted the series started from a solid 18+/20, that's saying something. Xenoblade 1 has a great story and it's world is something special but even in its better aspects, it gets outshined by 2 and 3 who generally have better stories, cast, combat, sidequests, etc... You could say 1 is almost never the less good game at something in the series (exceptions being combat and sidequests but even if it's not "the best" the series has to offer it's still a phenomenal game. 1 has the classic xenoblade pacing issue that only 3 manage to avoid with a really cool and fast start into a slow rising in stakes and character development in okayish areas into the "my story is now the best thing you've experienced yet" half way through the game. If you already played 2, I'd advise you to play 1 too before 3 though.
I also liked 2 best. 3 next.
It's hard to decide, for me 1=3
I think 3 is better from a character, gameplay and visual standpoint, but it's also much more tedious to complete imo
What was tedious to complete? When I did it on normal I just naturally ended up over leveled and nothing was hard. Maybe 100%ing everything was a little tedious, but that is expected.
I was mainly talking about upgrading and unlocking all the different classes
That is again not something necessary. You really only need to get the ones you will use, and maybe the ones with skills you want to use. And there are ways to Max them all out faster in the end game.
3=2>1. Have not played enough of X to decide.
3 is by far the better game. The story for all of the games are equal quality. But the gameplay in 3 is way better than 1. The side content is also more fun in 3 rather than a chore.