http://www.craveonli...d-generic-gamesStory about what makes a game a hit, with ME3 as an example.
The thing that gets me about the article, is he claims what made Mass Effect 3 great is what I thought they neglected the most.
He talks about the "choose your own adventure" aspect, which is bogus. No matter what you do, the ending remains the same. It doesn't matter if you choose the Quarians or the Geth, or save them both. It doesn't matter if you cured the genophage or sabotaged it. You ended up in the same place regardless, the only difference being a number on a screen that really didn't affect anything in the end.
He says that they may have alienated players for their lack of run and gun shooter style, which to me it was more of run and gun than it used to be.
Then he talks about all the choices available with the Dialogue Wheel, which we had less choice in ME3 than in ME1 or ME2.
Now Witcher 2 did all of those things right.
Their choose your own adventure actually had consequences. In act 2 you had some serious decisions to make, and what you chose completely changed the rest of the game, all the way to the end. And then you could make more choices once you were on that path, which would completely change the end again.
Witcher 2 was more action-adventure than Witcher 1, but the combat still had more strategy and tactics involved than ME3,which consisted of what useless mods you put on your sniper rifle.
And the Witcher 2 had so many dialogue options you could go completely awesome, completely cold, neutral, hell, you could completely ignore the end boss and be like, frak it.
Pretty sure that Witcher 2 did everything this article is praising ME3 for better. I think next time Bioware is at PAX, they should stop by CD Projekt's booth and take some notes.