• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Am I the only one that thinks there was much more wrong wid Me3 than just its ending?

Despite EA's evil face to the average gamer, I on the contrary do not hate them. It is thanks to them that I was able to enjoy the beautiful thing that is Me2 on my Ps3.

So 4 years ago I got to play Me2 and finally got to see what all the commotion was about in the Mass Effect series. So my expectations were super high for the third installment, but once I finally got to play it, I found that there was a lot I felt wrong with it than just the ending. I could still vibe with it but once the ending came around, I was just like, fuck it. This whole game just sucks.

I can tell the graphics are supposed to look better, but I don't really like the slightly new art direction, makes the character models look faker to me, I liked it better in Me2.

I also, did not like a lot of the new animations, and new sound effects for the powers, aside from the cryo ammo. But it's not like everything was bad. It's great that you had unlimited sprint but it made the controls sorta wonky since you're stuck on the bottom left. Now before making this whole post into an essay, I'll just make a bullet list of all the other things I didn't like about it.

-the illusive man/cerberus was the main villain instead of harbinger and the reapers. very little interaction with the reapers in general which is disappointing considering all the the interaction/disposition you had with harbinger in Me2. I don't remember how much you had with sovereign in Me1.

-the entire plot was centered around building a super weapon; something conventional instead of something surprising or revolutionary which I was honestly expecting, given how great Me2 was, I expected them to raise the bar with Me3.

-most of the missions were just fetch quests. the reaper war was happening in the background as something to set up the event(s) of the game but it hardly felt like the main focus since all you're doing is favors to get people on your side.

-which I understand but to me all these stories they developed about the galactic community i.e. krogan genophage, rannoch lost homeworld, just made for this fictional universe to be believable; i didn't expect for all these issues to be resolved in Me3, DURING the goddamn reaper war. maybe as something after it all in DLC, but not part of the fuckinging plot which should be EVERYONE putting EVERYTHING aside without question, to take out the reapers.

-I already mentioned this earlier, that i don't like a lot of the new animations/sound effects. aside from the cryo ammo effects where an enemy frozen smashes to pieces, I don't like the new mechanic for the sentinel shield, or how the shockwave works for the vanguard (doesn't look as cool and feels way less effective), and because shepard runs with unlimited stamina, he shouldn't be stuck to one side of the screen; you could be running for a long time and get stuck in a corner because of the camera placement.

-maybe this was just an issue with the Ds3 but yeah, I didn't like the gameplay that much.

-the leviathan dlc ruins what the lore had established about the reapers. not to mention, it was incredibly stupid how in the dlc, the reaper in the sky on the leviathan planet sent husks to attack you, when it could've just blasted the **** outta you with its own laser.

-the shepard vs reaper battle on rannoch. why in the hell would you ever take a reaper on by yourself..

--i could get into more of the nitty gritty of the campaign, but besides all this stuff and the ending which I shouldn't have to explain, I think I made my point(s).

Recently, there's been this thread about moments in games you refuse to acknowledge. Obviously besides the ending, the very opening of Me3 where it gave you 3 different options... action, story, rpg???? seriously? THAT really pissed me off. Those options never should've existed. It's like bioware knew that the game was becoming less rpg, more 3rd person shooter, and instead of reinforcing the rpg, they add onto the notion that's becoming something it shouldn't be!!

There's also been this thread that talks about not getting into franchises, and I wonder if that applies to me. I loved Me2, but that was my first entry to the series. If I played the game starting from the beginning things may've been different. I felt the same way about Uc2; loved it, but I'm just not getting into Uc3 even though it's a better game in almost every way.
 

dog$

Hates quality gaming
Yes, you are literally the only one out of the billions of people on this planet who has that opinion.

How does it feel to be alone.
 

Omega

Banned
No, a lot of us were saying this for the longest time. Lime even has a post that sums up about a third of the game's issues that I used to quote all the time.

but at the end of the day you just have to realize that people's standards are incredibly low so even the most nonsensical game gets eaten up because $75mil marketing budget makes those problems go away.
 
No, a lot of us were saying this for the longest time. Lime even has a post that sums up about a third of the game's issues that I used to quote all the time.

but at the end of the day you just have to realize that people's standards are incredibly low so even the most nonsensical game gets eaten up because $75mil marketing budget makes those problems go away.

or, people will be very forgiving for a game that has a lot to live up to (until comes the final straw for some, which in this case was the ending).
 
Ending aside, it was still a goddamn slog. The new characters were terrible, the returning ones poorly written, the mission design was easily the worst of the entire series (here's a multiplayer arena, just kill enemies while a voice talks I guess???), the urgency almost nonexistent which is somehow not a problem they had with either of the previous games, the world-state seemed totally displaced in time, and the fucking. stupid. melodrama with the kid.
 

Feichaw

Member
Definitely not, but I almost completely disagree with what you said.

Reading the title, somehow I thought this would be a drunk thread lol
 

Omega

Banned
or, people will be very forgiving for a game that has a lot to live up to (until comes the final straw for some, which in this case was the ending).

The game doesn't even have a properly functional journal. There's forgiving and there's low standards.

Like how do you fuck up on the most basic thing in video games? I think every video game in the past 15 years has been able to accomplish that, and they even had it in the two previous games.
 
I still don't like that i had to fix the genophage. The one decision i would not have taken in real life, ever.

ME3 is a very mixed bag, with lots of good things and lot of bad things, but overall i feel it dedicated itself enough to the franchise and its own tenets enough to justify the investment.
 
The ending wasn't amazing, but I thought the game had larger flaws than just the endings.

-Trying to humanize Shepard came off as hap-hazard and sloppy.
-The Earth scenario was presented in such an urgent fashion, yet Shep and Co. come off as they have all the time in the universe to gallivant.
-Very few of the missions were as memorable as ME2 missions, in my opinion. They were more action packed though.
-Kai Leng wasn't well executed, he felt out of place.
-Dialogue wheel felt limited. Felt like there was less conversation options.



For all the bad things about the single player, the actual gameplay, the third-person shooting, the branching powers, felt amazing. Gameplay-wise it just was a blast to play. I put 400 hours into the multiplayer just because the controls and powers felt so fun to use.
 
Ending aside, it was still a goddamn slog. The new characters were terrible, the returning ones poorly written, the mission design was easily the worst of the entire series (here's a multiplayer arena, just kill enemies while a voice talks I guess???), the urgency almost nonexistent which is somehow not a problem they had with either of the previous games, the world-state seemed totally displaced in time, and the fucking. stupid. melodrama with the kid.
I got to play Me1 only once so I can't speak for it, but in Me2's case, the setting of the game was not a galaxy at war. That was the setting of Me3, so the urgency was needed to be established more than ever and was failed to have been done so.
Definitely not, but I almost completely disagree with what you said.

Reading the title, somehow I thought this would be a drunk thread lol
I don't get drunk, but is it because I forgot to put a space between 'just and its' in the title? haha
The game doesn't even have a properly functional journal. There's forgiving and there's low standards.

Like how do you fuck up on the most basic thing in video games? I think every video game in the past 15 years has been able to accomplish that, and they even had it in the two previous games.

are you talking about the actual in game journal? i noticed it was weirder to like, read and understand, moreso than Me2's, or are you referring to something else?
 

Noobcraft

Member
2117727-diana.jpg
 
The largest problem from my perspective was the Crucible superweapon plot. It was a bad move in retrospect because:

  • It was never mentioned in past games and showed up out of nowhere in the first act of this one
  • It leads directly to Star Child ending stuff, which was handled poorly and is arguably a bad concept to begin with
  • It trivialises the other choices you make in the game, since everyone is just acting as a meat shield while you get your plan into operation
  • It trivialises the plot of the previous games, because now the Reapers could always just fly back whenever they wanted and nothing you did hurt them, it just delayed them a bit until you randomly happened to stumble upon the thing to kill them with.

Every time this comes up I have to present my alternate ME3 concept, which is that you are fighting for a conventional military victory over the Reapers. Since the Reapers were so potent in ME1 this requires explanation.

Throughout the series, we got a series of events that seemingly led to the Galaxy becoming more prepared for the Reapers.

  • In ME1, we discovered the Reaper threat and the council finally realised it was something that needed to be dealt with.
  • The body of Sovereign allowed the Turians to reverse engineer the Thanix Gun, which was a weapon that could be fitted to a Frigate which gave them the firepower of a Cruiser. If this weapon was scaled up to Dreadnought size, it is feasible that they could seriously damage a Reaper, bypassing their extremely potent barriers which shrugged off conventional firepower.
  • In ME2 cerberus network, we discovered that the Batarians were developing a massive orbital laser network. Lasers ignore barriers, which means they would be ideally suited to combatting Reapers.
  • In ME2 we find the massive mass driver cannon in orbit around a planet from a long lost battle which caused the "dead reaper" you find.
  • The Alliance developed the brand new torpedo weapon system which was substantially more powerful than anything previously developed.
  • Depending on your decisions at the end of ME2, Cerberus could have access to Collector technology including their particle beam weapon (which once again is ideal for bypassing barriers).
  • Depending on past decisions you could have the support of the Rachni, the Krogans, the Heretic Geth and so on.

The next piece of the puzzle is "Why didn't the Reapers just fly back 2000 years ago when the Rachni wars failed, instead of waiting and letting the galaxy tech up for ages?" The answer in ME3 is "I dunno lol". My answer is that the Reapers could get back, but only at an extremely severe cost. Since drive cores build up a massive charge using conventional FTL travel, and the Reapers are in dark-space, there is nowhere to discharge on the return trip. Thus, the only way to get back home would be to cannibalise the drive cores of some Reapers to give "spares" that could be changed for the long trip. In this scenario, only one third of the Reaper Armada can make it back to the Milky Way, and the remaining 2/3 are floating dead in the water near the Darkspace Citadel Relay. This means that the legacy of the Protheans and the actions of the first game are *extremely important* to the defeat of the Reapers in the final game, because it forces them to use only a small part of their potential strength in the showdown with the galaxy.

The final consideration is that the relay network is in-tact. This means that unlike in past cycles, the defenders can use the relay network for strategic movement and to coordinate actions over large distances. This was handled by Liara in comics or some shit, but at least it would be nice to properly acknowledge it in the game.

The structure of the game need not change greatly, you would still be going around rallying support against the Reapers, and the war would still be tough. But there would not need to be a magic plot device cannon; past continuity would actually be important to the resolution; your allies would NOT just be generic fodder while you deploy the magic weapon, you would have a reason to have cool space battles (something fans have been crying for since the start), and so on.
 

Jawmuncher

Member
I can even take this thread seriously with justits in the title.

Regardless I enjoyed ME3 more so than most even with the ending. The only fault I really felt was the dialog choices. There were all basically paragon or renegade. No choice in changing what type of attitude to give like in ME1 and ME2 which had a lot more.
 

mcz117chief

Member
The final consideration is that the relay network is in-tact. This means that unlike in past cycles, the defenders can use the relay network for strategic movement and to coordinate actions over large distances. This was handled by Liara in comics or some shit, but at least it would be nice to properly acknowledge it in the game.

Why is that ?

Why couldn't the reapers just storm the citadel and turn off the relay like they always did ?
 
Why is that ?

Why couldn't the reapers just storm the citadel and turn off the relay like they always did ?

There was some switch that controlled being able to turn them on / off or something. Apparently Liara fixed it so the Reapers couldn't give a remote command to disable them all. Unsure of the Citadel's role in this but in ME3 the Reapers not making a beeline for the Citadel is highly questionable considering they are apparently invincible in stand up fights. At least if Citadel fleets were a serious threat to the weakened Reapers there would be a reason why they would want to avoid the mainline defenses (largest concentration of force in the galaxy is around the Citadel).
 

mcz117chief

Member
There was some switch that controlled being able to turn them on / off or something. Apparently Liara fixed it so the Reapers couldn't give a remote command to disable them all. Unsure of the Citadel's role in this but in ME3 the Reapers not making a beeline for the Citadel is highly questionable considering they are apparently invincible in stand up fights. At least if Citadel fleets were a serious threat to the weakened Reapers there would be a reason why they would want to avoid the mainline defenses (largest concentration of force in the galaxy is around the Citadel).

But at the start of the game it is super evident that the races are just not ready. They would obliterate the citadel fleet without losses. They did it right before the end anyway so why not at the start ? Kill the council, kill the relays, win the war, gg easy.
 
I think a lot went wrong with Mass Effect starting with the second. My biggest issue being the complete turnaround for Cerberus and the idea that Shepherd would work with them at all.

From there it spiraled out of control. There were great parts for sure, the suicide mission was bad-ass, reconciling the Geth and Quarians was great too. But there was so many stupid choices. Why put an incredibly important part of the story, the origin of the Reapers, behind DLC? Also, lying about needing to play multiplayer to get the "best" ending.

Mass Effect was just a cacophony of bad decisions after bad decisions.

I love the universe they built, but the potential was squandered. Thankfully, and hopefully with Casey Hudson gone ME4 will be a good game. Then again, Mac Walters is still there.
 
But at the start of the game it is super evident that the races are just not ready. They would obliterate the citadel fleet without losses. They did it right before the end anyway so why not at the start ? Kill the council, kill the relays, win the war, gg easy.

Yes, I'm well aware this is a problem with the plot in ME3.
 

Anura

Member
Yes, you are literally the only one out of the billions of people on this planet who has that opinion.

How does it feel to be alone.

Yep, it's definitely just you.

Why do people have to do this? It just makes you look like a bunch of grumps. It's obviously a figure of speech and not meant to be taken literally. But you two know that, don't you?
 
I had also forgotten that ME3 began with Shepard on trial FOR NO REASON.

Like, it's because of the DLC, I get the context of it. But the trial had no purpose for the story. It was just a thing that happened and ME3 just starts you in there because that's where you start. It is resolved literally within minutes and then no one considers or talks about it ever again.

I don't need a moment of "Oh this is bigger than Shepard being on trial, we need to kill reapers!" THOSE MOMENTS WERE THE LAST TWO GAMES. That was the entire thing where Shepard convinced the Council to let him investigate the reapers!
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
Its kind of a mess because its trying to be a proper successor to two games that were basically divergent in tone, focus and theme. There's no value judgement of either of the entries when I say that
 
Really, the only good parts were Rannoch, Tuchanka and a few side missions, and even then they felt half baked a lot of the time.

They lost almost all their best and most important writers and project leads between 2 and 3, should never have promoted Mac Walters to anywhere near the level of influence he had, and given it at least another year of development, ideally 2 before releasing it.

I'm still angry about ME3. It's an utter abomination of a game for being such a thoroughly shit send off to my previously favourite game series of all time, and I wish it could be redone from scratch with better, smarter people in charge.

And I still can't get over how fucking dumb the ending was. Never mind how unsatisfying and lacking in content it was, it was the most monumental stupid piece of terribly written, amateurish drivel I've ever been forced to sit through in my decades of enjoying often shockingly bad Sci Fi. Fucking Sharknado made more sense and was less stupid than it for fucks sake!

Mac Walters is a fucking terrible writer, and from his awful grasp of basic science, narrative, dialogue and philosophy, I can only assume a sodding moron too.

...one day, I really hope I stop feeling so angry about Mass Effect 3, I really do...
 

EGM1966

Member
No its not just you.

But seriously, did people really expect them to have a way of wrapping up a plot featuring huge space faring machines with enormous fire-power vs 3 people running around with hand guns?

The whole concept was clearly nothing they could wrap up while retaining a small squad and on ground based combat.
 

Sayers

Member
The largest problem from my perspective was the Crucible superweapon plot. It was a bad move in retrospect because:

  • It was never mentioned in past games and showed up out of nowhere in the first act of this one
  • It leads directly to Star Child ending stuff, which was handled poorly and is arguably a bad concept to begin with
  • It trivialises the other choices you make in the game, since everyone is just acting as a meat shield while you get your plan into operation
  • It trivialises the plot of the previous games, because now the Reapers could always just fly back whenever they wanted and nothing you did hurt them, it just delayed them a bit until you randomly happened to stumble upon the thing to kill them with.

Every time this comes up I have to present my alternate ME3 concept, which is that you are fighting for a conventional military victory over the Reapers. Since the Reapers were so potent in ME1 this requires explanation.

Throughout the series, we got a series of events that seemingly led to the Galaxy becoming more prepared for the Reapers.

  • In ME1, we discovered the Reaper threat and the council finally realised it was something that needed to be dealt with.
  • The body of Sovereign allowed the Turians to reverse engineer the Thanix Gun, which was a weapon that could be fitted to a Frigate which gave them the firepower of a Cruiser. If this weapon was scaled up to Dreadnought size, it is feasible that they could seriously damage a Reaper, bypassing their extremely potent barriers which shrugged off conventional firepower.
  • In ME2 cerberus network, we discovered that the Batarians were developing a massive orbital laser network. Lasers ignore barriers, which means they would be ideally suited to combatting Reapers.
  • In ME2 we find the massive mass driver cannon in orbit around a planet from a long lost battle which caused the "dead reaper" you find.
  • The Alliance developed the brand new torpedo weapon system which was substantially more powerful than anything previously developed.
  • Depending on your decisions at the end of ME2, Cerberus could have access to Collector technology including their particle beam weapon (which once again is ideal for bypassing barriers).
  • Depending on past decisions you could have the support of the Rachni, the Krogans, the Heretic Geth and so on.

The next piece of the puzzle is "Why didn't the Reapers just fly back 2000 years ago when the Rachni wars failed, instead of waiting and letting the galaxy tech up for ages?" The answer in ME3 is "I dunno lol". My answer is that the Reapers could get back, but only at an extremely severe cost. Since drive cores build up a massive charge using conventional FTL travel, and the Reapers are in dark-space, there is nowhere to discharge on the return trip. Thus, the only way to get back home would be to cannibalise the drive cores of some Reapers to give "spares" that could be changed for the long trip. In this scenario, only one third of the Reaper Armada can make it back to the Milky Way, and the remaining 2/3 are floating dead in the water near the Darkspace Citadel Relay. This means that the legacy of the Protheans and the actions of the first game are *extremely important* to the defeat of the Reapers in the final game, because it forces them to use only a small part of their potential strength in the showdown with the galaxy.

The final consideration is that the relay network is in-tact. This means that unlike in past cycles, the defenders can use the relay network for strategic movement and to coordinate actions over large distances. This was handled by Liara in comics or some shit, but at least it would be nice to properly acknowledge it in the game.

The structure of the game need not change greatly, you would still be going around rallying support against the Reapers, and the war would still be tough. But there would not need to be a magic plot device cannon; past continuity would actually be important to the resolution; your allies would NOT just be generic fodder while you deploy the magic weapon, you would have a reason to have cool space battles (something fans have been crying for since the start), and so on.

Man, this is way better and makes way more sense than what we got.
 

bonercop

Member
My biggest issue with the game was that they clearly didn't know how to deal with all the potentially dead party members in ME2. It's a giant albatross around this game's neck. It was probably impossible for them to make a game that meaningfully incorporates all the different outcomes of the suicide mission. So instead of choosing a few decision points and saying "only these choices actually mattered", we got a game where all the different outcomes for every decision carried over from previous games in the series were equally half-assed. Cause they spent all their time accounting for the goddamn suicide mission.

From a logistical standpoint, what they did was still very impressive. Hours upon hours of voice acting for characters most players are never going to interact with -- all that effort just to make stuntdoubles for the characters you actually care about like Mordin. Unfortunately, that's pretty much all they did. Almost every(seemingly meaningful) choice you made in the past ME game has a stuntdouble lined up ready to guide the story back on exactly the same path.

And because of this, a small sequence in DA:O like the landsmeet feels like it is more reactive to the players' actions than the entirety of ME3.


oh my god i had blocked this out completely from my memory
 
Why do people have to do this? It just makes you look like a bunch of grumps. It's obviously a figure of speech and not meant to be taken literally. But you two know that, don't you?

Because it comes off as attention seeking or trying to make it sound like a 'revolutionary' concept they have thought up.

"Is it just me or..."
"Am I the only one who thinks..."
"I don't know if anyone else..."
 
The largest problem from my perspective was the Crucible superweapon plot. It was a bad move in retrospect because:

  • It was never mentioned in past games and showed up out of nowhere in the first act of this one
  • It leads directly to Star Child ending stuff, which was handled poorly and is arguably a bad concept to begin with
  • It trivialises the other choices you make in the game, since everyone is just acting as a meat shield while you get your plan into operation
  • It trivialises the plot of the previous games, because now the Reapers could always just fly back whenever they wanted and nothing you did hurt them, it just delayed them a bit until you randomly happened to stumble upon the thing to kill them with.

Every time this comes up I have to present my alternate ME3 concept, which is that you are fighting for a conventional military victory over the Reapers. Since the Reapers were so potent in ME1 this requires explanation.

Throughout the series, we got a series of events that seemingly led to the Galaxy becoming more prepared for the Reapers.

  • In ME1, we discovered the Reaper threat and the council finally realised it was something that needed to be dealt with.
  • The body of Sovereign allowed the Turians to reverse engineer the Thanix Gun, which was a weapon that could be fitted to a Frigate which gave them the firepower of a Cruiser. If this weapon was scaled up to Dreadnought size, it is feasible that they could seriously damage a Reaper, bypassing their extremely potent barriers which shrugged off conventional firepower.
  • In ME2 cerberus network, we discovered that the Batarians were developing a massive orbital laser network. Lasers ignore barriers, which means they would be ideally suited to combatting Reapers.
  • In ME2 we find the massive mass driver cannon in orbit around a planet from a long lost battle which caused the "dead reaper" you find.
  • The Alliance developed the brand new torpedo weapon system which was substantially more powerful than anything previously developed.
  • Depending on your decisions at the end of ME2, Cerberus could have access to Collector technology including their particle beam weapon (which once again is ideal for bypassing barriers).
  • Depending on past decisions you could have the support of the Rachni, the Krogans, the Heretic Geth and so on.

The next piece of the puzzle is "Why didn't the Reapers just fly back 2000 years ago when the Rachni wars failed, instead of waiting and letting the galaxy tech up for ages?" The answer in ME3 is "I dunno lol". My answer is that the Reapers could get back, but only at an extremely severe cost. Since drive cores build up a massive charge using conventional FTL travel, and the Reapers are in dark-space, there is nowhere to discharge on the return trip. Thus, the only way to get back home would be to cannibalise the drive cores of some Reapers to give "spares" that could be changed for the long trip. In this scenario, only one third of the Reaper Armada can make it back to the Milky Way, and the remaining 2/3 are floating dead in the water near the Darkspace Citadel Relay. This means that the legacy of the Protheans and the actions of the first game are *extremely important* to the defeat of the Reapers in the final game, because it forces them to use only a small part of their potential strength in the showdown with the galaxy.

The final consideration is that the relay network is in-tact. This means that unlike in past cycles, the defenders can use the relay network for strategic movement and to coordinate actions over large distances. This was handled by Liara in comics or some shit, but at least it would be nice to properly acknowledge it in the game.

The structure of the game need not change greatly, you would still be going around rallying support against the Reapers, and the war would still be tough. But there would not need to be a magic plot device cannon; past continuity would actually be important to the resolution; your allies would NOT just be generic fodder while you deploy the magic weapon, you would have a reason to have cool space battles (something fans have been crying for since the start), and so on.

very good post. although wouldn't this mean rewriting Me2 as well? that is where we saw how retarded the council was and didn't believe an ounce of the reaper threat shepard was warning them about.
 

Blinck

Member
Not alone OP.

It's the worst game in the series in many aspects.
Just to name a few:

Deus Ex Machina all over the plot.
The new crew members are absolutely uninteresting
The "side missions" that you "picked up" on the citadel were an insult.
The whole war point system or whatever it was called was awful.
The increased automatic dialogue sucked.
Shepard's running animation is one of the worst in recent memory, specially if you play as female.

In all honesty, I don't care much about the ending.

People talk about the ending a lot but the WHOLE game suffered from a very rushed development, not just the ending.

It was one of those games that could have been absolutely great and make a masterful conclusion to the trilogy... but alas...EA sucks.
 

Freeman

Banned
The game felt off to me since the demo. It has its moments but mostly out of what was already established by the other games.

No interesting character was introduced, to me it was by far the worst, even the FoV they got wrong. That is without getting into the ending, the most brutal IP assassination since the last season of lost.
 

Mononoke

Banned
No you aren't alone. The entire game is a mess. People want to focus just on the ending, but it has issues throughout. The whole crucible plot is really just bad. Anyways, I think most of the action set pieces are fun and the gameplay is smooth. But since the game takes away the exploration aspects, the side mission character/world building that was in ME2, the story is much more integral to the levels since it's more linear. And because the story is overall ass, it really kills the overall game for me (tried playing it again a couple times, and it's hard to get through it).

The whole plot overall was never going to be great since they were changing writers and concepts as each game was made. The original intent for the reapers changed, a lot of things changed. So there was never going to be a consistent through line where the plot overall felt cohesive. But ME3 just had a really really bad standalone plot. I wasn't expecting the story to come together and feel like a proper conclusion to the other two because of all the problems. But I expected more for a final story.

It also kind of blows my mind at how much build up there was to the final show down of the reapers. And how thrown together the final mission felt. It didn't feel epic at all. And they really didn't incorporate all of Shepards work getting support from all the planets and alliances. The one thing that was to separate this cycle from past cycles, was everyone working together. And your character did that. But that was largely missing by the end of things.

In a nut shell, there was poor pay off for themes/characters. And the overall plot was very poor. The games linearity can't stand on the plot. Game should have used another year in development.
 
In my opinion it began with Mass Effect 2. Mass Effect 1 had decent writing and plot structure. Mass Effect 2 threw it away and basically began again with a new mysterious force in the Galaxy (the collectors). The game was basically a big fetch quest for a party that did little to push the overall story forward and ended with a clusterfuck of retcons and inconsistencies.

They should have kept Drew Karpyshyn as the lead writer for the entire series instead of bringing in Mac "The Hack" Walters.
 
Well, I totally didn't like this game, at all. It was just too much of change in the player upgrade stat menu. You could only be a certain type, which I didn't like. The combat got a little better but, I was able to shoot my way through this one. Whereas, in ME1, during the Matriarch Benezia fight, I had to actually apply real strategy and actually use the my parties unique abilities in order to win. Also, there was Thane's 'trust' mission which I absolutely detest and I ended up letting him go in the final battle.

I hated Me2, but not as much as I hated Me3.
 
Soft-girl on the bridge and Edi getting a body were a little too big-bang-theory for me and most of all: No Film-Grain!!!

Ah.. and not a fan of illusive man turning from corporate bad-ass into complete tool. That rubbed me the wrong way but I was still cool with that.

Edit: I take my Edit back.
 
No. The way they throw enemies at you was also stupid. 1 big/stronger type with a dozen smaller ones, and they always come in waves.
 
I actually like the directors cut ending, no matter what choice you make there are casualties which is to be expected in a galaxy wide war, and of course if you chose the destroy ending where Shepherd lives just remember he survived a head on collision before with a reaper in the original ME, so it's just as believable.
 
Top Bottom