Support NeoGAF

[Prologue]

How did you feel about the ME3 ending, EatChildren?

 

[TheUnsunghero26]

Like, they made the entire supporting cast of Mass Effect 2 killable while deliberately ignoring the ramifications it would have on constructing Mass Effect 3. Literally "oh we didn't think about the future, just did it cos it was awesome". And it was awesome. But goddamn. Goddamn. Plan your shit at least beyond this week's whim.

The way the council is handled is pretty bad, too.i can understand them not putting in all the options ME1 suggested (all human council if you were renegade for example), But they could have at least had an in game scene where Anderson steps down, instead of just putting it in the codex. I'm sure most people chose Anderaon over Udina too, making the decision even more questionable.

 

[Coffee Dog]

Looking back, the strangest thing about this series was their insistence that it was a trilogy from the very beginning despite the games showing just the opposite, with each game feeling wildly different.

Were they just bullshitting? Did they just put it off and not give a shit about the obviously dire consequences to the quality of the narrative?

 

[Redrick_Schuhart]

I certainly think it's a valid complaint to lodge against ME3 specifically. It is true that there are open in the sense that some N7 missions contain recycled MP maps and integrated them into a suitable mission structure, but in the end it's mostly the same sort of missions you get in that game, only with arena-style encounters.

Otherwise, I'd say the overwhelming majority of missions are very linearly charted corridor runs.

I made this image in the months after ME3 came out, but I still think it's valid today.

Great write-up, by the way.

Actually... ME3 level desing (and gameplay design) was the best one in the trilogy. ME1 was not very good during the TPS sections (OK, it was pretty lame indeed), which was partially fixed in ME2. But ME2 was also excessively simplified in some aspects, and Shepard still had a lack of agility in his/her movements. ME3 is the best one as a TPS, and far better than ME2 as an RPG. And guys.. yes, ME1 had the deepest RPG elements, but they weren't that good, with that lame inventory and weapon system, just created to make thinks look more complex than what they already were.

Anyway, my favourite one is ME2, because gameplay was already acceptable for a TPS, the cinematic direction was a lot better than what we saw in the first part, and this game had the most intelligent writing of the series. I'm not talking about the main plot obviously, but about the characters, something that I find quite more important to make a story look serious. Specially if it's yet another story about saving the world...

 

[Fox Mulder]

A shame the concept failed, as its just a sign of the where the industry is. So much potential and ambition wasted because everything has to be generic shooters for the masses.

at least we actually got the amazing codec released on iOS.

 

[Mutanthands]

Looking back, the strangest thing about this series was their insistence that it was a trilogy from the very beginning despite the games showing just the opposite, with each game feeling wildly different.

Were they just bullshitting? Did they just put it off and not give a shit about the obviously dire consequences to the quality of the narrative?

Circumstances changed. Being independent with Microsoft backing, to then being owned by EA, which went through their own changes this generation. It forced them to try to broaden the appeal of the game to bring in sales.

Being a platform specific prestige project is very different from being a multi-platform sku expected to pull its own weight or die.

 

[EatChildren]

How did you feel about the ME3 ending, EatChildren?

More or less my exact processing to a T.

Gigantic clusterfuck and the epitome of BioWare's failures with the series narrative. I don't care the Shepard kinda died. I didn't expect an overwhelming positive upbeat ending. But I did expect something consistent with the series themes, especially the growth and development of those themes, and closure to key themes that had kept the story's momentum even through the series' worst moments.

Like, it represents total, absolute, objective failure in all those areas. Take everything players have grown attached to and interested in, and ignore all of it. Note development of key themes, and deliberately go out of your way to conflict them. It's pure diarrhea and probably the most poignant point of the series that showed the team, or Walters and co, had totally lost control and understanding of what was supposed to be their own damn series.

It's the entire franchises biggest low, by a long shot, simply because everything was building up to that moment. Easier to forgive fuck-ups on the journey if the ending is still good. Unforgivable to fuck up the ending, as that's all you've got.

The way the council is handled is pretty bad, too.i can understand them not putting in all the options ME1 suggested (all human council if you were renegade for example), But they could have at least had an in game scene where Anderson steps down, instead of just putting it in the codex. I'm sure most people chose Anderaon over Udina too, making the decision even more questionable.

Yeah, this was a pretty big mistake too, just because it was illogical. Udina being councilor wasn't even necessary. His ME3 plot arc could have worked just fine with him still being humanity's ambassador, one of the highest ranking humans in politics and in a position to embezzle funds and send them to Cerberus. Especially while Anderson, councilor or not, was locked on earth.

Looking back, the strangest thing about this series was their insistence that it was a trilogy from the very beginning despite the games showing just the opposite, with each game feeling wildly different.

Were they just bullshitting? Did they just put it off and not give a shit about the obviously dire consequences to the quality of the narrative?

It was never properly planned. I believe they envisioned a trilogy in that they'd make a story across three games, but had no concrete or even thin idea of where it would go or what would happen. I think the full trilogy planning idea is a myth and shouldn't ever be expected (my favourite example being Tolkien not fully planning the LOTR trilogy), but key elements should be kept in mind. BioWare didn't really do any of that.

I do still believe that they blew their load pretty hard with Mass Effect 1 simply because they weren't sure if they'd be in a position to make more. This isn't like you're working on three films adapted from a three books, of which are immensely popular. For all BioWare and Microsoft knew Mass Effect could have tanked fucking hard. Then what? Who knows what publisher would pick it up, or if anyone would at all. Who is going to want to complete two more games, especially if they're planned, when the original game failed?

Mass Effect 1 is the most "complete" narrative arc in the series. The Reaper thread still exists but ME1 builds up their weakness and issues and resolves it by preventing their return. Shepard's last line "THE REAPERS ARE STLL OUT THERE" was goofy at the time, and was really just them baiting the future of the series. I remember when I finished the game thinking "Well, no, not really. You just fudged their Plan B return. What, they've got Plan C?". But I guess they had to go somewhere.

 

[NewGame]

Probably this one.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=241367

Thank you!

 

[Jharp]

Man, I would kill to see what BioWare could have done with side planet stuff if they hadn't scrapped it all together. I'll never forgive them for that shit.

I remember playing The Witcher 2 a month or so after ME3 when the 360 version came out and being floor at how much content gets locked behind player choices. I believe the entire second act of the game, while set in the same region, is played from a different base of operations with different characters and side quests, based on a choice made in the first act, and just feeling like I got so ripped off by BioWare's insistence that everyone be able to do everything, which is what multiple playthroughs are for.

 

[Jarmel]

I do still believe that they blew their load pretty hard with Mass Effect 1 simply because they weren't sure if they'd be in a position to make more. This isn't like you're working on three films adapted from a three books, of which are immensely popular. For all BioWare and Microsoft knew Mass Effect could have tanked fucking hard. Then what? Who knows what publisher would pick it up, or if anyone would at all. Who is going to want to complete two more games, especially if they're planned, when the original game failed?

Funny you mention that.

I'm sure the failure of Advent Rising was fresh on their minds. For people that don't know, AR was ME before ME came out. AR crashing and burning at the starting line was almost certainly mentioned many times in the planning meetings for Mass Effect.

 

[GSG Flash]

The series was definitely defined for the worse by Bioware trying to do way too much and having no idea how to do it all. I felt like 1 was an amazing starting point as it established the universe really well, had a nice story with an interesting villain which also ended with one of the best endings in recent history, and it had some decent but flawed exploration. The building blocks were all there for the sequels and yet they ruined everything except the combat. They flat out stripped away most of the RPG elements and exploration in favor of a more generic AAA action shooter. Hell in 3 they took away a lot of dialog options too.

I know real space exploration is damn near impossible in the AAA space due to budget and time issues but I really wanted to see ME1's attempt at exploration improved. Also would have been nice for them to not have as much focus on humans being the all important super race despite being the newest race in the galaxy.

This. All of this.

After playing ME2 and 3, I would have been happy if they kept the series to just the first game.

If someone told me, right after the first game was released, that Bioware should quit while they're ahead, I would have laughed at them, but it would be oh so true right now in hindsight :/

 

[Das Ace]

I certainly think it's a valid complaint to lodge against ME3 specifically. It is true that there are open in the sense that some N7 missions contain recycled MP maps and integrated them into a suitable mission structure, but in the end it's mostly the same sort of missions you get in that game, only with arena-style encounters.

Otherwise, I'd say the overwhelming majority of missions are very linearly charted corridor runs.

I made this image in the months after ME3 came out, but I still think it's valid today.

Great write-up, by the way.

Mass Effect 3's gunplay and fight-to-fight level design was the best in the series.

You could be equally reductive for Mass Effect 1 level design if you want to represent everything with boxes. And even if Me1 had great level design, it would have all been wasted to players pointing and clicking on enemies to kill them while you walked around as an immortal super soldier.

 

[BladeoftheImmortal]

the inhabitants of the ME universe are definitely dumber than Hyrulians.

 

[- J - D -]

Actually... ME3 level desing (and gameplay design) was the best one in the trilogy. ME1 was not very good during the TPS sections (OK, it was pretty lame indeed), which was partially fixed in ME2. But ME2 was also excessively simplified in some aspects, and Shepard still had a lack of agility in his/her movements. ME3 is the best one as a TPS, and far better than ME2 as an RPG. And guys.. yes, ME1 had the deepest RPG elements, but they weren't that good, with that lame inventory and weapon system, just created to make thinks look more complex than what they already were.

Anyway, my favourite one is ME2, because gameplay was already acceptable for a TPS, the cinematic direction was a lot better than what we saw in the first part, and this game had the most intelligent writing of the series. I'm not talking about the main plot obviously, but about the characters, something that I find quite more important to make a story look serious. Specially if it's yet another story about saving the world...

Mass Effect 3's gunplay and fight-to-fight level design was the best in the series.

You could be equally reductive for Mass Effect 1 level design if you want to represent everything with boxes. And even if Me1 had great level design, it would have all been wasted to players pointing and clicking on enemies to kill them while you walked around as an immortal super soldier.

I think you guys are letting the good shooting mechanics of ME3 lead you to believe the level design had much to do with any of that. Granted, good shooting mechanics and good level design go together like pb & jelly, but in desperate situations the former can compensate greatly for any deficiencies in the latter. You're giving the level design of ME3 too much damn credit. Was it adequate for combat? Yes, but how much stock should we put into mostly straight corridors and arena boxes?

Look at Lime's post, which is what Jarmel and I were originally talking about. It's not all about combat. It's about the experience as a whole, and how the level design reflects that.

A mission like Virmire had branching paths, optional objectives (Kirrahe's squad), not to mention the Mako sequences. There was a more adventurous sense of pacing developed into the design, which ME2 has as well to a lesser extent (compare ME2's Tuchanka to ME3's). ME1's level design was well-designed both for combat and for exploration and totally fit the rpg ideals of the game.

I want to play an ME1 mission with ME3's combat system and AI.

 

[AJ_Wings]

Really good write up Jarmel.

I still think the biggest misstep in the overall Mass Effect narrative was the increased importance of Cerberus in ME2. The Shadow Broker should have been what Cerberus was in ME2, an ally you're not even sure you can trust.

It also drives the point that this trilogy was never, ever properly planned when you look at Cerberus from ME1. Just a bunch of dumb "pro-human" terrorists who actually caused more harm to humans than good. Fast-forward to ME3, they're suddenly the goddamn Empire from Star Wars. It's just so dumb.

 

[firehawk12]

This is why Jacob never survives the Suicide Mission any more on my playthroughs. I can't stand what they did to him in ME3.

It's almost as bad as what happens to Thane, but at least there's still a touching moment there. But damn, Jacob just got fucked hard by the writers.

I think there's definitely more Bioware could have done, I recently played the Witcher and CDPR did a pretty decent job with divergent choices. It was never going to be what Bioware marketed the trilogy as nor what fans wanted it to be. That said, Bioware also has to commit to allowing significant divergences. They need to accept there were be exclusive content to certain playthroughs and that this will mean shorter playthroughs.

I do think though that nobody is going to be trying something like this,a continuing save state trilogy, because it's just too draining and it locks both the writers and game designers in. The only ones who I think might be able to pull it off would be Bethesda or Rockstar. Bethesda would almost certainly fuck it up and I don't think Rockstar would like being locked into a trilogy.

Yeah, unfortunately they didn't think through the implications of having a story that carried over a trilogy. Even something small like The Walking Dead really falls apart once you actually see all the possible choices and realize that you are being funneled to a specific ending and to specific character arcs. That's not to say that the middle parts aren't divergent, but when everyone sees the same cutscene - with a different colour light show - you can't help but feel disappointed by the failure of their story design.

BioWare is just really, really fucking shitty at knowing what narrative divergences and twists are going to conflict with this method of story telling. They take the Witcher 2 approach of inserting really dramatic, significant twists/events that can go one way or the other, yet said events are totally at odds with the company's policy of making everything playable.

Like, they made the entire supporting cast of Mass Effect 2 killable while deliberately ignoring the ramifications it would have on constructing Mass Effect 3. Literally "oh we didn't think about the future, just did it cos it was awesome". And it was awesome. But goddamn. Goddamn. Plan your shit at least beyond this week's whim.

Hell, in the case of DA:O to DA2, they just told fans to fuck off and made one specific ending canon because it served their purposes.

Not for nothing, but I don't trust BioWare to be able to deliver on this particular promise of "choice" mattering in their games.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Did anyone else feel like humanity having a council seat felt more like a formality rather than having any REAL semblance of being on there? Like every time you talk to the council it was ALWAYS just Tevos, Valern, and Sparatus. Udina and Anderson was pretty much their side bitch with no "real" power.

And furthermore...why were these fuckers back when you could let them die in the first game?! ME1 implied that without the Council humanity could slowly but surely take over the galaxy in the next game.

What happens in ME2? LOLNOPE, Council returns, lulz.

 

[Dr.Acula]

I'd say ME2's was sloppier, but that's mainly because ME2 barely had one. ME2 is a collection of short character stories that do nothing to advance the plot. It's effective and a very smart idea on their part because it plays to bioware's strengths, but as far as actual plot goes the game is severely lacking.

Mass effect 3, on the other hand, managed to wrap up the big subplots in a decent enough fashion while tying them into the overarcing narrative. So I'd say that mass effect 3 wins this particular cripple fight



I dont really like that list. Far too many of those complaints can be applied to ME1 and ME2.

The first ME had by far and away the best plot, I really wish they kept the writers on board. They anticipated the game was a trilogy, right? The next two games were like fanfic.

The thing about no holstering did have a pretty significant impact. In the first two Mass Effects you could never tell if a battle were to spontaneously break out, but as soon as I landed on an ostensibly peaceful place in ME3 with my gun out, I knew I'd be in for an ambush.

I really wish they didn't kill the planet exploration stuff, even if it was limited in the first game, it was something the could, and should have expanded on. As bad as it was, planet scanning was so much worse.

For the third game, the focus on Earth was so dumb. The whole series was about the galactic community, and somehow the crucial battle ground is the home world of the youngest council race? Come on. And we should have seen more home planets!

Don't fucking tell us about the amazing Encor battles and not have us play them lol

I really liked the gameplay and pace to the third one though. Most people were positive on it, that it would lead up to something.

What happened with the captured/destroyed ship, saved/destroyed council, human reaper, Rachni survival/annihilation? I would have liked different choice to show up as paths in the game, like how in The Witcher 2, there is like 10 hours of gameplay difference depending on which character you side with in a crucial moment. It would have been cool if you had different missions depending on what you did or didn't do in the first two games, but making 10 hours of gameplay a player might not even SEE is pretty radical for a mainstream dev.

Did anyone else feel like humanity having a council seat felt more like a formality rather than having any REAL semblance of being on there? Like every time you talk to the council it was ALWAYS just Tevos, Valern, and Sparatus. Udina and Anderson was pretty much their side bitch with no "real" power.

And furthermore...why were these fuckers back when you could let them die in the first game?! ME1 implied that without the Council humanity could slowly but surely take over the galaxy in the next game.

What happens in ME2? LOLNOPE, Council returns, lulz.

That was the worst retcon! I chose Anderson to be on the council at the end of ME1 (and the start of ME2, because the ME1 savefile actually doesn't have a flag for this bit, whoops), because I blew up the council and I figure that smells like a military coup, so let's coup it up!

Then in three, if Anderson is in the council, he steps down and Udina takes his spot! Like shit! They were so set on the "Udina the traitor" story line they had to shoehorn him on the council even if he wasn't there during the second game.

 

[LumpOfCole]

so true

I love the series. As much as I try to hate it because they're pretty mediocre games IMO, it's the other things like the characters that made me enjoy the series. I even read the books/comics. I think EatChildren is the only other person that's done that

I read the book no one else dare read

 

[EatChildren]

I want to play an ME1 mission with ME3's combat system and AI.

I also want this, but I do consider a lot of Mass Effect reflection to be rose tinted. Many of these missions, Virmire included, had their own more or less totally linear corridor grinding. The Mako section is basically this to a T.

What Mass Effect did better than the other two games is do a better job of hiding transition from one section to another and had you covering a wider spread of terrain. You'd go from driving the Mako to stopping, getting out to check something. Then back in the Mako off to some other location with a few NPCs, having a chat, then a shootout in a building, etc. It was still often very linear in structure, but had a lot less compartmentalising.

Mass Effect 3's combat encounters are often very good, combined with the more polished combat mechanics themselves. But of the three games it's by far the worst at hiding the compartmentalising to the point where it outright doesn't bother and makes entire levels linear shootbang. It's decent-to-great shootbang, but the lack of diversity in the level structures themselves and action pacing makes them feel more like something from Gears.

If anything, that's something BioWare needs to take away from Mass Effect 4. They need to go back to blending multiple scenarios and gameplay components into single levels and blur the lines between them. It benefits the pacing tremendously.

Hell, in the case of DA:O to DA2, they just told fans to fuck off and made one specific ending canon because it served their purposes.

Sometimes its the right thing to do, even if it upsets some people. It's what I'm hoping for the next game.

 

[Jarmel]

The first ME had by far and away the best plot, I really wish they kept the writers on board. They anticipated the game was a trilogy, right? The next two games were like fanfic.

The EA buyout probably had a significant impact on the development of the games. I'm not just talking about EA dictating to Bioware what they want but rather SWTOR. SWTOR had a big impact on ME just from taking away Karpyshyn. Bioware had to put most of their oomph behind SWTOR. Also if I remember correctly, the Doctors were banking on SWTOR taking off and they would ride TOR to EA's top levels. I'm sure Drew wasn't the only one that got redirected from ME.

The trilogy really had a lot of problems keeping the same writers on board. Chris l'Etoile who did Legion and EDI in ME2, didn't work on ME3 for example. Here's a couple of posts he did, describing his viewpoints on some ME stuff.

How I wrote Legion (and EDI) came from sitting down and thinking about how a "real" machine intelligence free of glandular distractions, subjective perceptions / mental blocks, and philosophical angst (fear of death, "why am I here?") would view the world. Star Trek was a minor inspiration, though in the negative -- I didn't want the geth to be either the Borg ("You are different, so we will absorb/destroy you") or Data ("I am different, so I want to be you").

My broad approach with the geth was that they observed and judged (Legion used that word a lot), but always accepted. "You hate and fear us? Very well. We will go over there so we don't bother you. If you want to talk, come over whenever you want."

I believe emotions in "life as we know it" are largely a product of chemical processes in the meat brain; hormones, phermones, adrenaline, etc.

So from my perspective, while organic life may evolve without responses akin to emotions, electronic life cannot evolve with responses akin to emotions.

Note I said "evolve." The geth are a "ground up" AI that evolved from non-sentient code. EDI and the other AIs in the IP are "top down" models designed and coded specifically to gain sapience. If they're programmed to have responses akin to emotions, they will. EDI has a sense of humor, for example, but she doesn't have the capability to get mad. You don't want your starship OS getting mad at you.

http://www.holdtheline.com/threads/...le-on-the-ai-characters-and-the-reapers.4229/

This really stands in contrast to EDI in ME3.

 

[Sycle]

Like, they made the entire supporting cast of Mass Effect 2 killable while deliberately ignoring the ramifications it would have on constructing Mass Effect 3. Literally "oh we didn't think about the future, just did it cos it was awesome". And it was awesome. But goddamn. Goddamn. Plan your shit at least beyond this week's whim.

Yeah this mentality drove me nuts. Sure, it was exciting to be asked to decide the path humanity was going to take at the end of ME1, and very ballsy to let everyone potentally die at the end of ME2, but only because you think "wow this is going to change everything!".

The EA buyout probably had a significant impact on the development of the games.

Funny story, I was working at one of the Pandemic studios (sister company to Bioware) during the EA acquisition.

My (completely unfounded) theory was Mass Effect 2 was an allegory. You wake up dazed and confused, apparently working for a previously dangerous enemy organisation. They explain that they are simply misunderstood and all those horrible things they done were done by some other team / rogue factions / previous management.

They repeatedly lavish massive amounts of money and resources on you while telling you there's no pressure and you should just, do the things you normally do! The new boss introduces himself and has the same slightly sinister vibe to John Riccitiello (and the same chair posture) and answers all your pointed questions with strong sensible answers. Confused and disorientated, and without any other option, you start working for them. You meet your old industry contacts and they treat you suspiciously, like you must be brainwashed, but they don't understand, the organisation is not what you thought they were at all! Every now and then you're asked to do something ethically compromising but there's generally a good reason.

Later and without warning, Cerberus turns evil / loses all their stock value and you find yourself unemployed.

tl;dr version - did anyone find it weird how ME2 made Cerberus "good guys", then ME3 turned them back offscreen? I thought it was weird.

 

[Metroidvania]

ME1 had the awesome feel of an open world exploration and the RPG level up/inventory experience, but at the cost of bad shooting/power usage/frustration and a feeling of emptiness even on world that were supposed to be populated.

ME2 fixed the shooting (while kinda breaking the power usage), but cut out a ton of the RPG stats and loot management, and the narrative suffered for being so focused on the suicide squad recruitment that outside of each loyalty mission, each of the party suffered from a lack of individuality (save for Mordin, who could stand on his own, and Garrus/Tali, who had ME1 for fans to fall back on). Exploration was also hugely cut, the N7 exploration 'missions' range from meh to terrible.

ME2 also didn't keep (or retconned) several of the fairly big decisions from ME1, but made some indication as to keeping others

ME3 further improved the combat, as well as fixed power usage, but didn't carry over almost any main decision outside of cameos (and some loss of war points, which was made negligible by being able to do multiplayer to raise percentages), killed NPCs from ME1/2 offscreen or didn't bring them back (Emily Wong getting replaced by Diana Allers is probably the most egregious example), introduced a new 'central conflict theme' which didn't properly carry itself out throughout the mess of the 'gather the fleet' story.

It also had Javik (who was key to understanding some of the organics vs synthetics) locked behind DLC, and less of an attempt to hide the linearity, as well as an ending so terrible that an Extended Cut DLC (that replaced the "Shep has defeated the reapers, continue the story by buying DLC" message) and the Citadel were necessary to mollify people.

It's only other real plus, other than the fixed combat (and the multiplayer, which was pretty good), is the culmination and throwbacks to your ME1 party (nevermind that the ME2 crew got totally shafted and/or throw out weak excuses for not coming along, despite them clearly being alive in some playthroughs)

I know the whole trilogy wasn't ironed out, but as others have said, more care should have been taken to keep things consistent.

 

[- J - D -]

I also want this, but I do consider a lot of Mass Effect reflection to be rose tinted. Many of these missions, Virmire included, had their own more or less totally linear corridor grinding. The Mako section is basically this to a T.

What Mass Effect did better than the other two games is do a better job of hiding transition from one section to another and had you covering a wider spread of terrain. You'd go from driving the Mako to stopping, getting out to check something. Then back in the Mako off to some other location with a few NPCs, having a chat, then a shootout in a building, etc. It was still often very linear in structure, but had a lot less compartmentalising.

Mass Effect 3's combat encounters are often very good, combined with the more polished combat mechanics themselves. But of the three games it's by far the worst at hiding the compartmentalising to the point where it outright doesn't bother and makes entire levels linear shootbang. It's decent-to-great shootbang, but the lack of diversity in the level structures themselves and action pacing makes them feel more like something from Gears.

If anything, that's something BioWare needs to take away from Mass Effect 4. They need to go back to blending multiple scenarios and gameplay components into single levels and blur the lines between them. It benefits the pacing tremendously.

Absolutely. The original ME was not lacking in humdrum linearity. Many of its missions were comprised of a fairly rigid and narrow formula, despite the variance in the terrain. However, as you said, it was better at hiding the seams between combat scenarios and everything else (the talking, the interacting, the exploring -- the "downtime"). It struck a better balance and the level design was a big factor in that. The closest ME3 got to that was the Leviathan DLC mission, and even then it's not an all too similar case.

ME4 would be much better served if they managed to make it some sort of middle ground between ME1 and ME2/ME3. And more space exploration. Yes.

 

[TheChaos]

What I hate is how BioWare is trying to rewrite history in regards to Shepard's sexual orientation. In ME1, s/he was straightstraightstraight. They held this line on ME2 as well. Then suddenly, they are the champions of Queer rights in videogames and ME3 is all about "choice" and player freedom. It's just a bit absurd..

Um, no. Despite what Bioware claims, FemShep/Liara is obviously a lesbian relationship. The codex flat-out calls them an all-female race. There's also FemShep and Kelly Chambers in ME2. They only allowed male/male when the media (rightfully) called them out on their double standard.

 

[EatChildren]

Ironic that DLC for all three games tend to show big potential in mission structure an ideas. Bring Down The Sky was Mass Effect's open terrain side missions done right, with one of the more legitimately morally frustrating dilemmas at the end. Lair of the Shadow Broker showed how engaging a linear, cinematic, and mondern structure Mass Effect mission can be when you're got a lot of location hopping and a rapidly unraveling narrative. Overlord managed to inject some Bring Down The Sky-style hub exploration with mildly non-linear missions structure across an assortment of locations and a decent story. Leviathan brought back some of the downtime->combat->downtime->combat structure that was totally absent in Mass Effect 3. Omega, despite people hating on it, is honestly one of the better traditional shooter structured quest arcs in the game. Unlike almost all of Mass Effect 3 and its DLC, Omega breaks away from the empty corridor->arena shootout formula by littering halls with minor encounters and drip feeding little encounters across the game, while also having you moving forward much faster, developing a great sense of traversal and distance.

It's like when they don't have to pander to a greater game narrative, or manage the development of major quests and side quests alongside their locked budget and semi-flexible dev time, and instead can just focus on one individual arc free of consequence or integration into anything else, they produce their best work.

 

[Minion101]

Lol, I was fine with all the games. I only ever wanted the PC versions to have gamepad support!

 

[Musolf815]

More or less my exact processing to a T.

Me too. I seriously felt like I was okay when I turned the game off and went to bed. But I couldn't sleep. I just kept tossing and turning, then I sat up and it finally hit me how bad the ending was.

 

[geordiemp]

Still playing mass effect 3 multiplayer today.

Really hope they expand on it but keep the core gameplay mechanics - some more factions and for Ps4 / One more enemies on map at any time would be cool.

 

[Victrix]

The trilogy really had a lot of problems keeping the same writers on board. Chris l'Etoile who did Legion and EDI in ME2, didn't work on ME3 for example. Here's a couple of posts he did, describing his viewpoints on some ME stuff.



http://www.holdtheline.com/threads/...le-on-the-ai-characters-and-the-reapers.4229/

This really stands in contrast to EDI in ME3.

This goes a long way towards explaining why Legion was one of my favorite characters but I hated ME3 edi.

Man the geth were cool.

Such a great universe, I really hope ME4 doesn't shit all over it.

 

[Freeza Under The Shower]

Funny you mention that.

I'm sure the failure of Advent Rising was fresh on their minds. For people that don't know, AR was ME before ME came out. AR crashing and burning at the starting line was almost certainly mentioned many times in the planning meetings for Mass Effect.

If AR is ME3 maybe. It's a very different genre and shares more with Elite Force or Giants than it does with ME.
The fact that certain choices matter was a very neat effect on its part, but it's also very limited and is something many more games could do, without needing to be epic RPG's.

It's actually much more like Dark Void in terms of how things worked out, expect Dark Void is not broken like ME3 or AR. It ran out of time, but is mechanically sound. AR on the other hand.... at least Unreal 2 was playable and all.
The spaceship breaking apart on reentry (freefall) was a cool idea though. Enslaved is the only major game that I can think of that has a similar level.

 

[Toxi]

What I hate is how BioWare is trying to rewrite history in regards to Shepard's sexual orientation. In ME1, s/he was straightstraightstraight. They held this line on ME2 as well. Then suddenly, they are the champions of Queer rights in videogames and ME3 is all about "choice" and player freedom. It's just a bit absurd.

Damn, that was some straightstraightstraight naked action Femshep and Liara had going on in Mass Effect 1.

 

[Minion101]

Damn, that was some straightstraightstraight naked action Femshep and Liara had going on in Mass Effect 1.

Are you implying that having breasts, a vagina and menstrual system makes her female?

 

[MrTroubleMaker]

I agree with a lot of your post, good job too

Immersion as a whole-
ME1 was key. Despite all the bitching about how slow the elevators were(and they were slow), they really added to the immersion of the world in that it seemingly never took you out of the game. The small banter with your crew as you go slowly down was nice and it also helped add to the vistas and initial wow factor.

Yeah, I missed this (and Mako exploration) and also being able to "interact" with your squadmates in any area and they have multiple lines to say about it.

I still prefer ME 1 over the other two.

 

[EGM1966]

Good write up. My short view would be:

ME - the best one for story, setup the world and characters well and had a great sense of exploration. The worst for gameplay sadly with janky mechanics and stuttery visuals - in short Bioware were clearly not Unreal engine Ninjas when they coded this baby,

ME2 - the most balanced one. Solid story if underwhelming after ME and too much of an odd side tangent. Much better gameplay and engine optimization though. The one everyone thought was a great game but anyone with narrative understanding started to worry a bit where we were going.

ME3 - the crappy one. Best gameplay but they pushed the engine too far for the consoles and the story went to pot as yet again a videogame developer proved unable to deliver a classic three arc (across three instalments) narrative and wrap it up well. Also features the most laugh out loud bad mini-game of any ME

Overall I liked ME a fair bit but was disappointed in the end that despite delivering some great characters, some good story beats and some good gameplay the trilogy faltered badly overall. Next time guys work out the entire narrative first across all entries and avoid a hideous Dues Ex Machina - also ditch the awful mini-games entirely please.

 

[Lakitu]

Good work, OP.

The first two are among my favourite games ever but for different reasons. The first because of it's ambition and scale. Yes, it failed in some aspects, such as loot, inventory management, copy and paste level design in exploration worlds, Mako (although it's pretty divided, I loved it) and some annoying technical issues. But rather than focusing on improving some of these, they just got it rid of them in the sequel.

Despite all the issues, I still loved it. I loved the joy of discovering and exploring an uncharted world (unless it was very hard to navigate), the story, the larger focus on dialogue exchange and banter with squad members, the combat, the hub world design and how it integrates into the main storyline. For such an ambitious game, Bioware certainly hit many good notes and for that reason, it's amazing. The story is definitely the best of the three, as is the dialogue and it's been mentioned so many times but from Virmire-onwards its perhaps the best endgame I've played in sometime. Nothing they've ever done has come close to the conversation with Vigil on Ilos.

Mass Effect 2 decided to scrap much of the RPG elements and instead to decided to focus more on the action elements. Improved combat that relied much more on player skill and cover rather than the RPG system of the original. Though I have to say, while fun, I do like both types of combat. I still prefer the originals global power cooldown though.

But as I said, I love Mass Effect 2 for very different reasons. The N7 missions and much of the main storyline (with the exception of the suicide mission) all seemed half-baked, under developed and pretty crap to me. Mass Effect 2 was defined by it's characters and the stories around them. Loved the inclusion of loyalty missions and recruitment missions, which were consistently great. Also enjoyed visiting the likes of Illium and Omega, towards the later half of the game you'd have some great missions there, even though they were mostly linear. With the inclusion of DLC such as Overlord (wish there were more missions like this), Lair of the Shadow Broker (amazing story-based mission) and Arrival (vastly better than the pre-Suicide Mission story stuff), it brings the game from good to great.

The good outweighs the bad, although planet scanning (and it's ME 3 version) is the worst feature they've put in the series by far.

Mass Effect 3, unfortunately, isn't as highly regarded to me (and this is without the ending). Dialogue and story that's considerably worse, despite enjoying the Genophage and Geth-Quarian war arcs. Other story elements were just so bad, such as Cerberus, Kai Leng.

Other things like auto-dialogue and lack of dialogue, more scanning, much less hub worlds (we'd go to a planet for 10-20 minues, like Sur'Kesh/Thessia, which I wanted to see for a very long time), no exploration among other things means I didn't enjoy it as much as the first two.

Saying that though, it had good things, it's combat feels more refined and some of the emotional moments certainly pack a punch. Characters were a mixed mag, but I'm mostly happy with Javik and the interactions we had with the characters on the Citadel, I thought that was a good idea.

But even though it left a sour taste in my mouth, I'm glad I stuck with it and I got to enjoy the Citadel DLC, even though it's pure fanservice it's pretty fantastic and I love the inclusion of the Silversun Strip.

 

[SmartBase]

You could really tell how ambitious the developers were when you first played Mass Effect but that same feeling is gone with its sequels.

 

[SargerusBR]

I wonder if people are ever going to get over ME3 ending.

 

[firehawk12]

Um, no. Despite what Bioware claims, FemShep/Liara is obviously a lesbian relationship. The codex flat-out calls them an all-female race. There's also FemShep and Kelly Chambers in ME2. They only allowed male/male when the media (rightfully) called them out on their double standard.

Damn, that was some straightstraightstraight naked action Femshep and Liara had going on in Mass Effect 1.

It's not my fault that they insisted that Liara is genderless. In fact, you guys are being pretty heterocentric by imposing your gender binaries onto her!

But really, they insisted in interviews that it was not a lesbian relationship. And the Kelly Chambers thing was pretty laughable and probably something they forgot to take out until it was too late.

Sometimes its the right thing to do, even if it upsets some people. It's what I'm hoping for the next game.

That's fine, just don't promise choice at all at that point. I'm fine with a guided experience - and in fact, I almost prefer it - but don't sell the whole idea of your decisions mattering if they, in fact, don't matter.

 

[Basileus777]

That's fine, just don't promise choice at all at that point. I'm fine with a guided experience - and in fact, I almost prefer it - but don't sell the whole idea of your decisions mattering if they, in fact, don't matter.

They just need to distance themselves from promising choices that will matter across multiple games. You can do meaningful and interesting things with choice and consequences within one game without needing it to span across some trilogy, which is CDPR does. And to be fair, with Dragon Age Bioware didn't make the same sort of commitment they did with Mass Effect, the break from the first game with DA2 was completely fine.

 

[firehawk12]

They just need to distance themselves from promising choices that will matter across multiple games. You can do meaningful and interesting things with choice and consequences within one game without needing it to span across some trilogy, which is CDPR does. And to be fair, with Dragon Age Bioware didn't make the same sort of commitment they did with Mass Effect, the break from the first game with DA2 was completely fine.

They're already talking about importing choices into DA3, even though they're switching to new gen and all that. And even though I couldn't bare to finish DA2, my understanding is that it had a fairly divergent choice in terms of who you could side with, DA3 is either going to have to have two separate storylines or just tell everyone to fuck off and merge the events of DA2 into one canon story.

 

[fabricated backlash]

Mass Effect will forever be the ultimate example of unfulfilled potential in gaming for me.
The first game left me in awe with what could become of this trilogy, imagining experiencing a massive continuous adventure, building a multi year bond with characters, themes and lore...

...

then ME2 happened...

... then ME3 happened...

The trilogy turned from one of the most promising original IPs of the last console generation into a focus tested to death, bland pile of shite that was desperately trying to chase industry trends, and in the process lost all of it's own strong personality established in the original game.

 

[Griss]

That's a super OP, and I agree with almost all of it. ME was one of my favourite franchises of the last gen, largely because that 80s sci-fi vibe is burned into my head from my childhood and it's uncommon.

The first ME was a masterpiece all right. Yep, even the mako sections. ME2 was where it started to go wrong. An increased emphasis on combat, an increased emphasis on side missions and characters to the detriment of a coherent and brisk plot, the introduction of the terrible and human-centric Cerberus plot line... ME2 messed up bad. Each character's side missions were great, but it lost all momentum as a storyline.

One of the reasons I almost never watch TV is the knowledge of how it's written. The idea that people write a bunch of 'hooks' that can be picked up or discarded by other writers down the line - that's bullshit to me. Good writing starts with the ending, establishes core themes, comes up with a plot that explores those themes, and then hooks you with a great beginning. Mass Effect 1 did that. The trilogy was TV-standard inconsistent shit, culminating in that ending.

As for the ending, the outrage stunned me at the time. Not that it was good, I was just surprised that people hadn't already realised that the writing had gone to shit, and that the story was definitely heading in one direction with no options. The idea that at the very end of this A to B narrative based trilogy suddenly there would be branching paths everywhere was absurd to me. Bioware were clearly not going to be able to do that, and I wasn't aware that they had promised that.

Despite it all, I loved the series, and each game was, to me, worth playing. Next time, though... figure out where you're going with the story from the start.

 

[gollumsluvslave]

Whilst it has it's own flaws, Mass Effect 1 is still, easily my favourite game of the 3, and the OP covered a lot of the reasons why:-

1. ME1 had a really unique feel, it was it's own game, whereas 2 and 3, whilst still enjoyable obviously tried to be more 'me too' taking cuse form Gears of War etc.

2. ME1 had a GREAT villain in Saren / Sovereign which both 2 and 3 missed massively.

3. Space exploration was great in ME1 - I loved the Mako, warts and all - and as the OP said - those skyboxes!!!

4. End set-piece. Nothing, and I repeat NOTHING came close to the epic feel of the Soveriegn attack in the whole trilogy, Bioware really shot their load in the 1st game and couldn't get close to it again (though for feels I give them props for Mordin)


For me, everything felt bigger, grander and more unique in ME1.

 

[MadScientist]

I had zero problem with Bioware simplifying the RPG elements, because many of them were redundant in terms of the general class gameplay and weren't appropriate for the characters. It didn't hurt that most of the RPG stuff that was cut was abstract number stuff that he average player couldn't even perceive.

QFT

My (completely unfounded) theory was Mass Effect 2 was an allegory.

LMAO That's great.

There is a lot of valid criticism in this thread, but yet the ME series is my favorite franchise of the last gemeration. There are few games that are worth dissecting in this detail. It is probably a necessity in AAA game development, that compromises have to be made during the process. Consequently the arcs between the missions and games are what draw the most criticism. Yet there is no other game with a universe or characters that appeal more to me.

 

[APZonerunner]

ME1 = Best story, best world execution, most gameplay options, janky moment-to-moment combat, poor balance (several classes flat-out broken etc)
ME3 = Poorest story and world execution, but by far and away the best 'game' of the three, even with options streamlined from 1 but bolstered from 2. Combat is tight and solid.

2 is in the middle. The series graph is literally two diagonal lines; the things ME1 was good at 3 was worse at, the things 3 excels at is where 1 went wrong. 2 just has the balance in the middle.

I'd say in the case of ME1's RPG elements, more certainly does not equal better, as most of the choices there are basically irrelevant. ME2 goes too far in streamlining, but I feel 3 really does get it right.

 

[TC McQueen]

Funny you mention that.

I'm sure the failure of Advent Rising was fresh on their minds. For people that don't know, AR was ME before ME came out. AR crashing and burning at the starting line was almost certainly mentioned many times in the planning meetings for Mass Effect.

That really shouldn't have stopped them from firmly establishing all the important details about the Reapers, like their motivation and how to stop them. Even if ME1 had been a flop, it wouldn't have been a waste of tons of time or anything. Shit, I've done vague outlines for stories in like half an hour - even if they got all the writers in on a "figure out the Reapers" story session, it shouldn't take a day or more to figure this stuff out.

 

[Jarmel]

That really shouldn't have stopped them from firmly establishing all the important details about the Reapers, like their motivation and how to stop them. Even if ME1 had been a flop, it wouldn't have been a waste of tons of time or anything. Shit, I've done vague outlines for stories in like half an hour - even if they got all the writers in on a "figure out the Reapers" story session, it shouldn't take a day or more to figure this stuff out.

Well I agree and disagree to an extent. Obviously large swaths of the story should have been written out in advance. There is no excuse to what happened later in the trilogy, from a narrative standpoint. That said, it's also a trilogy and so not everything needs to be explained in the opening game. The problem is that the later two games dropped the ball that they should have been running with. ME2 does try to briefly discuss the creation of the Reapers but it doesn't go far enough and it should have spent less time on the Collectors by themselves and more time intertwining the Reapers into the Collectors.

 

[Idempotent Button]

janky moment-to-moment combat

I honestly don't remember getting that impression. It was certainly a lot more fluid and engaging than some other games that fall into the RPG classification.

ME3 = Poorest story and world execution, but by far and away the best 'game' of the three, even with options streamlined from 1 but bolstered from 2. Combat is tight and solid.

You must realize how controversial the above statement is. What exactly do you mean by best 'game' of the three?

I'd say in the case of ME1's RPG elements, more certainly does not equal better.

Some would also say the same of 2 and 3's amped-up emphasis on action elements. To each his own though.

 

[heliosRAzi]

I don't see how Bioware could make an ending that disregards the themes presented throughout the series. IT didn't line up with anything.