426 réponses à ce sujet

[mauro2222]

Sovereign didn't know what the Protheans did to the Citadel, it needs to act in the shadows, otherwise it risks being discovered and destroyed, the only reason as to why Saren is on the Citadel is to close the Citadel arms and work as a co-activator with Sovy. He needs the conduit to send a geth army with him, otherwise C-Sec is gonna crush him. If nobody closes the Citadel, Sovereign is dead. Besides, you're really expecting him to go to the Council chamber, walk to them say hi, extend a catwalk, open a console... and so on, without being stopped?

Sovereign needs someone to bypass the control of the citadel from the keepers to it, reason it needs someone there.

Modifié par mauro2222, 03 juillet 2012 - 06:02 .

[RiouHotaru]

Yeah, ME1 had serious plot issues, and that's not even going into the absolutely ridiculously painful gameplay problems.

- Loot table systems means you drown in equipment and render credits meaningless halfway through, not to mention all the guns are palette/model swaps of each other and the stats are meaningless as well (What's the difference between 1 point of DPS and 2?)

- Armor was all the same as well, just with ridiculous color schemes. (Woooo Phoenix!)

- Characters outside of Wrex, Ashley and possibly Garrus were dull, when they weren't codex entries

- "Exploration" is driving a truck that handles like crap over palette and textured swapped planets with no actual differences besides a few being outrageous stupid to navigate.

- Game has a well-paced beginning and ending, and a middle that drags it's heels in the dirt and refuses to let you go forward at anything other than a torturous crawl.

- Sovereign was a terrible "antagonist" (if he can be considered that at all) who pops up without any build-up right in the end-game. His only strong point was his speech on Virmire and that doesn't save him.

- Vigil is literally a last-minute exposition dump whose time-length exceeds the Catalyst several times over (Seriously, I think Vigil's dialog literally takes almost 20 minutes, you can be done with the Catalyst in 5).

- The final decisions consists of three options, two of which do the same thing and who's only purpose is that it awards both Paragon and Renegade points in equal measure, otherwise it's functionally the same as going Renegade (Concentrate on Sovereign vs Let the Council Die)

I could go on. The point is that ME1 isn't the shining example of a good game in the franchise. There's a reason why the marketing line "ME3 is the best entry in the franchise" exists. If I wanted to recommend ONE game in the entire franchise, I'd recommend ME3 because it offers the best in terms of gameplay and story. It's the best representation.

Modifié par RiouHotaru, 03 juillet 2012 - 06:01 .

[Fixers0]

Indeed there was nothing special about Mass Effect 1's writing, but atleast it was proper story using classical story-telling elements while stilling feeling like genuine writing, Mass Effect 2 & were very cartoonish in that regard.

I Really suggest watching Smudboy's analysis of Mass Effect 1, 2 & 3, or even better: Every one of Smubody's videos regarding Mass Effect, especially his conclusion are very clear: Mass Effect 2 & 3 are totally brokem regarding writing while Mass Effect 1, despite it's flaws never breaks the suspension of disbelief. 

Modifié par Fixers0, 03 juillet 2012 - 06:17 .

[mauro2222]

RiouHotaru wrote...

- Armor was all the same as well, just with ridiculous color schemes. (Woooo Phoenix!)

I don't know what you mean with this. Even if some have different color shemes, others don't, they are divided in heavy-medium-light wich is restricted by your class, and they have different stats.

RiouHotaru wrote...

- "Exploration" is driving a truck that handles like crap over palette and textured swapped planets with no actual differences besides a few being outrageous stupid to navigate.

The planets are different, the stations and outposts not. Not so sure about the handling of the Mako, in PC is easy as cake.

RiouHotaru wrote...

- Game has a well-paced beginning and ending, and a middle that drags it's heels in the dirt and refuses to let you go forward at anything other than a torturous crawl.

Need further explanation.

RiouHotaru wrote...

- Sovereign was a terrible "antagonist" (if he can be considered that at all) who pops up without any build-up right in the end-game. His only strong point was his speech on Virmire and that doesn't save him.

The game needs to be continued, and Sovereign is a good enemy because he's there, he's not bad because...bad is stylish but because he has a purpose wich can't be explained, that is the fear of any human, fear to the unknown, he's an enemy that imposes fear with brutal honesty, a machine of billions years old with reasons that go far beyond your comprehension. The main antagonist is Saren, the Reapers are yet to be exposed and presented.

RiouHotaru wrote...

- Vigil is literally a last-minute exposition dump whose time-length exceeds the Catalyst several times over (Seriously, I think Vigil's dialog literally takes almost 20 minutes, you can be done with the Catalyst in 5).

Vigil is just a prothean VI, not the leader of the enemy you were fighting for 3 games. It explains to you what the protheans did to gave this cycle an opportunity, it doesn't explain to you the reasons of the Reapers nor that it controls them wich is the main problem of the Catalyst and the reason it butchers previous statements.

RiouHotaru wrote...

- The final decisions consists of three options, two of which do the same thing and who's only purpose is that it awards both Paragon and Renegade points in equal measure, otherwise it's functionally the same as going Renegade (Concentrate on Sovereign vs Let the Council Die)

That's the point of being neutral. It's an option that is available for everyone but comes with a cost.
Neutral Shep has a tactical approach and it's pretty straight with what he says.

Modifié par mauro2222, 03 juillet 2012 - 06:26 .

[LinksOcarina]

Fixers0 wrote...

Indeed there was nothing special about Mass Effect 1's writing, but atleast it was proper story using classical story-telling elements while stilling feeling like genuine writing, Mass Effect 2 & were very cartoonish in that regard.

Uh....no.

The "proper" storytelling techniques used in Mass Effect 1 were the set-up techniques to establish a world and to explain everything out for people. The storyline is standard yeah, but the storytelling is pure game mechanics.

In other words, its telling, not showing.

Mass Effect 2 and 3 did more showing. I talked about this earlier in the thread on their use of cinematography as a tool now to show emotion and to emphasize the lines of characters. An example:

 

Note the changes in camera angles, panning cameras and closeups of characters as they speak. Also notice the movement in the background and the body language of the Batarian, and notice the profile view angle on the batarian whenever he speaks, those lines have more emphasis becuase of the angle, and give off more important exposition. 

Now compare this to Mass Effect 1 for a moment:

 

The blocking and camera angles are more static and the nodding of the heads is sometimes distracting. We lose a lot of the punch the language and dialouge give us because of this too, it is basically efficiency shooting, like a soap opera style, with back and forth cut shots and simple camera angles. We don't know what words are important becuase the cinematography doesn't emphasize anything here.

Another example from 3:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc3SRlBsLqc 

Again, a lot of movement this time, a more dynamic scene, and a punctuation based on the dialogue and what they are talking about. Its a filler scene yeah, but its a scene that shows off the writing and the cinema direction, and elevates it to a more serious level. 

You need to have a balance in both of these aspects. Good writing can only get you so far, just as much as good cinematics can. When people say the storyline in Mass Effect 3 is bad, they are technically wrong, because the presentation of the storyline is superior to Mass Effect 1 and arguably Mass Effect 2. Writing is subjective though, but the delivery of both the dialouge and through presentation can elevate mediocre writing to a new plateau, which is something BioWare did do here. So keep this in mind, because the lack of a visual treatment that the writing normally gets is a major oversight people tend to forget. 

[Han Shot First]

mauro2222 wrote...

Sovereign didn't know what the Protheans did to the Citadel, it needs to act in the shadows, otherwise it risks being discovered and destroyed, the only reason as to why Saren is on the Citadel is to close the Citadel arms and work as a co-activator with Sovy. He needs the conduit to send a geth army with him, otherwise C-Sec is gonna crush him. If nobody closes the Citadel, Sovereign is dead. Besides, you're really expecting him to go to the Council chamber, walk to them say hi, extend a catwalk, open a console... and so on, without being stopped?

Sovereign needs someone to bypass the control of the citadel from the keepers to it, reason it needs someone there.

Saren didn't need the Conduit. He was a Spectre, and he had Sovereign.

In fact if Saren needs 'troops' to aid him in seizing control of C-Sec, that is much better accomplished through Reaper indoctrination via Sovereign than in teleporting Geth to the Citadel. With no one having any suspicions about either Reapers or indoctrination at that point, Saren could lured a nearly endless supply of people onto Sovereign and indoctrinated them. He already had a unit of indoctrinated Asari commandos, who could have also simply walked into C-Sec with him.

No matter which angle you examine the Conduit plotline from, it is a fairly large plot hole.

In retrospect I wonder if in early drafts Saren wasn't a Spectre. That would explain why he needed the Conduit. Later the Spectre bit gets tacked on without anyone realizing that Spectre status should mean he doesn't need to the Conduit.

[mauro2222]

Han Shot First wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

Sovereign didn't know what the Protheans did to the Citadel, it needs to act in the shadows, otherwise it risks being discovered and destroyed, the only reason as to why Saren is on the Citadel is to close the Citadel arms and work as a co-activator with Sovy. He needs the conduit to send a geth army with him, otherwise C-Sec is gonna crush him. If nobody closes the Citadel, Sovereign is dead. Besides, you're really expecting him to go to the Council chamber, walk to them say hi, extend a catwalk, open a console... and so on, without being stopped?

Sovereign needs someone to bypass the control of the citadel from the keepers to it, reason it needs someone there.

Saren didn't need the Conduit. He was a Spectre, and he had Sovereign.

In fact if Saren needs 'troops' to aid him in seizing control of C-Sec, that is much better accomplished through Reaper indoctrination via Sovereign than in teleporting Geth to the Citadel. With no one having any suspicions about either Reapers or indoctrination at that point, Saren could lured a nearly endless supply of people onto Sovereign and indoctrinated them. He already had a unit of indoctrinated Asari commandos, who could have also simply walked into C-Sec with him.

No matter which angle you examine the Conduit plotline from, it is a fairly large plot hole.

In retrospect I wonder if in early drafts Saren wasn't a Spectre. That would explain why he needed the Conduit. Later the Spectre bit gets tacked on without anyone realizing that Spectre status should mean he doesn't need to the Conduit.

Spectre is not full authority as it seems to be, people can't dissapear for months with nobody noticing it, and you don't come closer to the Council unless they request it.
Saren also wants to delay the indoctrination, he realized that to keep his mind free of Sovereign's control, he had to make himself an invaluable resource. He believed that Sovereign  would allow him a reprieve from indoctrination, because the Reaper  needed Saren's mind intact to find the Conduit.
The Asari commandos follow Benezia, who follows Saren because she believed she could make him change his mind. He didn't simply lured the best soldiers of the galaxy to a giant squid.
The Council chamber is probably guarded by hundreds of guards, and C-Sec headquarters are in the Presidium the citadel counts with 200,000 officers. He needs an army not a commando group.

He still needs to close the Citadel and then proceed to the Council chamber to give control of the Citadel to Sovereign.

Modifié par mauro2222, 03 juillet 2012 - 06:58 .

[voteDC]

BrookerT wrote...

Just a small question, are you bothered by the harbinger not shooting at the normandy thing.

Yes I am a little bit but I can understand where people are coming from with mentioning the Reaper IFF, as it would interfere with Harbinger being able to get a targeting solution.

Harbinger could have eye-balled it but in the end I suppose it comes down to how willing you are to fill in the gaps.

Modifié par voteDC, 03 juillet 2012 - 07:23 .

[Linksys17]

Im not gonna argue with the fact that the writing wasnt that great but what the game did do is
Give us a more open world experience, alot more dialog options and freedom, and a reaper threat
That wasnt neutered by the whole save organic nonsense

[Han Shot First]

mauro2222 wrote...


Spectre is not full authority as it seems to be, people can't dissapear for months with nobody noticing it, and you don't come closer to the Council unless they request it.

He doesn't have to do disappear off the grid for months.

He could simply continue on doing what he had been doing prior to Mass Effect 1. Consider that Saren's Virmire base had to predate the events of Mass Effect 1 by years. It is too extensive a complex to have been construcuted in a couple weeks. That base had been around for awhile, and no one knew about it.

There is no reason why Saren couldn't have been indoctrinating people while still seemingly carrying out his duties as a Spectre. And this is assuming that he needs a large infiltration team, which may not necessarily be the case. But more on that in a bit.

Saren also wants to delay the indoctrination, he realized that to keep his mind free of Sovereign's control, he had to make himself an invaluable resource. He believed that Sovereign  would allow him a reprieve from indoctrination, because the Reaper  needed Saren's mind intact to find the Conduit.

His self-control in the end was nothing more than an illusion. He was always under Sovereign's control, Sovereign was just keeping the reigns lose until the Virmire confrontation causes Saren to have doubts about his free will.

If Sovereign wanted him to walk into C-Sec and betray the Citadel, he would have. The only 'out' for Saren was to take his own life.

The Asari commandos follow Benezia, who follows Saren because she believed she could make him change his mind. He didn't simply lured the best soldiers of the galaxy to a giant squid

The Council chamber is probably guarded by hundreds of guards, and C-Sec headquarters are in the Presidium the citadel counts with 200,000 officers. He needs an army not a commando group.

He still needs to close the Citadel and then proceed to the Council chamber to give control of the Citadel to Sovereign.

Saren jumps through the conduit with only a small force of Geth. He didn't go through with an Army. The others were disembarked onto the Citadel by Sovereign and Geth ships, *after* Saren had gained control of the Citadel.

He could have presumably 'opened the gates' for the Geth with a team of Asari commandos as well. And unlike Geth, Asari commandos wouldn't have aroused suspicions.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 03 juillet 2012 - 07:34 .

[Fireblader70]

I always thought the Mass Effect series was excellent because of its appealing characters, intriguing lore and a great sense of adventure. The plot, while entertaining, has always been secondary to me. What makes it shine are the points I have said above, and that counts with every Bioware game I've played. Their writing has not been masterful for consistency, but for creating a universe that stands out above the rest.

The same could be said for the original Star Wars trilogy, amongst many other popular stories. I'm sure you could pick apart many, many plot holes in any story if you dissected it as much as fans have done with Mass Effect 3. Does it really matter if there are some inconsistencies? It's a story, not a documentary. The main focus of tales like this are the drama and emotion.

Everything is becoming so regimented these days. Just loosen up a bit.

[mauro2222]

His self-control wasn't an illusion at all, that's how indoctrination works, the more control Sovereign has over a person, the less capable they become. Otherwise he would be acting like the Salarians on Virmire. That's why he can be reasoned with.

Sovereign acts with patience, and it needs to investigate why the keepers didn't activated the Citadel with the signal. All that investigation linked the problem with the protheans, that's where Saren appears. Using the beacons he was able to track planets which where occupied by the protheans, looking for any info about the "Conduit" (this is a key part, nobody knew what the Conduit was, for everyone it was a weapon, Sovereign is not going to risk everything so deliberatly). All that search led to the Cipher (key to understand the beacons who were coded to only be understood by organics) and to the Rachni, who knew where the Mu relay ended, from there they found Ilos, they discovered what the Conduit is and with the threath gone Sovereign rushed to the Citadel, seeing that the Conduit could be used as a backdoor, Saren activated it.

The virmire facility could be constructed in months, everything is pre-fabricated and the Geth work nonstop. And we actually don't know the origins of the base, was constructed by Saren? maybe it was an investigation outpost for some corporation and he took over.

The conduit could be a weapon that deactivated the Citadel, or a weapon that could destroy it. It acts with precaution.
Saren isn't searching for the Conduit to travel to the Citadel, like Shepard, he's finding out what it does, or what it is.

Modifié par mauro2222, 03 juillet 2012 - 08:24 .

[tonnactus]

LinksOcarina wrote...

the reason Mass Effect 2 is the best game in the series is the writing was focused on the best part of the series; the characters. Their interpersonal conflicts and the resolutions thereof were downright fascinating to watch and be a part of.
 

Most characters were pure clichees, cringeworthy.

[MrDavid]

Thank you, finally someone who can look past nostalgia. You deserve a cookie.

[tonnactus]

savionen wrote...

ME2 and ME3 do the same thing. Although in ME2 you actually were taking your time before going through the Omega Relay. What's ME3's excuse?

Actually,the geth incursion mission was tied to the main plot. Neither Mass Effect 2 nor 3 had such missions.

[tonnactus]

LinksOcarina wrote...
Mass Effect 2 is a Dirty Dozen movie, a team of specialists with conflict who need to work together to survive.

Yet there was no teambuilding at all...

They there isolated from eachother, like mercs would work for money.

[LinksOcarina]

tonnactus wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...
Mass Effect 2 is a Dirty Dozen movie, a team of specialists with conflict who need to work together to survive.

Yet there was no teambuilding at all...

They there isolated from eachother, like mercs would work for money.

So loyalty missions, quelching infighting between characters, dealing with interpersonal relationships, and random banter and comments made in the hub worlds and in-game missions makes them bad characters?

If you are referring to the team being isolated in terms of loyalty missions and so forth, as someone else said "they were in a bubble" ok. But then by this logic Mass Effect 3 had the most realistic characters because of their peripheral interactions. And Mass Effect 1 was much worse in that regard with the crew barely interacting as well outside of team briefings.

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 03 juillet 2012 - 09:11 .

[tonnactus]

LinksOcarina wrote...


So loyalty missions, quelching infighting between characters, dealing with interpersonal relationships, and random banter and comments made in the hub worlds and in-game missions makes them bad characters?

Loaylity missions: No teambuilding at all, third squadmember remain silent for most of the time.
The quelching infighting,i guess you mean things like the highschool like b.i.t.c.h.fight between jack and miranda where miranda acted like a complete retard instead of a competent leader?

And please, 1-2 sentences at most when in hubs i dont consider as banter. Mass Effect had at least this:



One example.

 But then by this logic Mass Effect 3 had the most realistic characters because of their peripheral interactions.

By this logic? Mass Effect has the best squad interaction of all three games and that is the only saving grace this game has.

And Mass Effect 1 was much worse in that regard with the crew barely interacting as well outside of team briefings.

Outside is good. Compare this with everything that happened in Mass Effect 2. There the briefings aside from the end only consists of miranda and jacob,and one time mordin.

Wasnt it important that the other teammembers get informed and participate in those meeting,or what???
To be rembered about the goal they all had and why they should work together. To make sugestions.

Fact is,this didnt happened at all.

Most of the Mass Effect 2 squadmembers were treated like some kind of glorified mercs.

Modifié par tonnactus, 03 juillet 2012 - 09:32 .

[tonnactus]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...
Star Trek is too science focused to where it's boring.

Oh please...

Human/ vulcan hybrids are,i hate to wrote it, nearly as dumb as synthesis.

[LinksOcarina]

tonnactus wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...


So loyalty missions, quelching infighting between characters, dealing with interpersonal relationships, and random banter and comments made in the hub worlds and in-game missions makes them bad characters?

Loaylity missions: No teambuilding at all, third squadmember remain silent for most of the time.
The quelching infighting,i guess you mean things like the highschool like b.i.t.c.h.fight between jack and miranda where miranda acted like a complete retard instead of a competent leader?

And please, 1-2 sentences at most when in hubs i dont consider as banter. Mass Effect had at least this:



One example.

 But then by this logic Mass Effect 3 had the most realistic characters because of their peripheral interactions.

By this logic? Mass Effect has the best squad interaction of all three games and that is the only saving grace this game has.

And Mass Effect 1 was much worse in that regard with the crew barely interacting as well outside of team briefings.

Outside is good. Compare this with everything that happened in Mass Effect 2. There the briefings aside from the end only consists of miranda and jacob,and one time mordin.

Wasnt it important that the other teammembers get informed and participate in those meeting,or what???
To be rembered about the goal they all had and why they should work together. To make sugestions.

Fact is,this didnt happened at all.

Most of the Mass Effect 2 squadmembers were treated like some kind of glorified mercs.

The saving grace for Mass Effect was the promise of a new world and the interactions with characters. Mass Effect 2 topped it because the interactions became bigger.

I won't deny that one moment you show is good, but its the only moment the game has, and it is one of the few moments where they really hit that cinematic look of what Mass Effect could be, as we see in 2 and 3. 

You need to remember squad interaction is not just you talking to them, but how they talk to each other. Bring Mordin to find Okeer, or bring Zaeed to hunt for Archangel. Bring Jack during Miranda's loyalty mission, or Samara during Thanes. We see interactions and that extra bit of dialouge that gives us a more rounded out character, and the banter between squadmates is more fleshed out. And you are right, it is lacking in Mass Effect 2.

And yes, Mass Effect 1 has it too, during th elevator scenes, and they were good moments that people hated because of load times or w/e. Point though, is that the interactions were there, and that how they were treated gives the charatcers depth. And once again, Mass Effect 3 did it the best, because we see true interatction without Shepard involved. He hears it, but is not a part of it. That takes him out of the equation and ggives the characters more life than before. 

As for the briefings your right, I won't deny that. My point though is still the same, the interactions of the characters is enhanced due to the way dialouge and cinematography changes. 

EDIT: Changed up something because I wanted to make this more clear.

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 03 juillet 2012 - 09:45 .

[Bocks]

ME1 is a flawed diamond.
ME2 is a polished rock.
ME3 is a flawed turd.

[tonnactus]

LinksOcarina wrote...


The saving grace for Mass Effect was the promise of a new world and the interactions with characters. Mass Effect 2 topped it because the interactions became bigger.

Bigger??? No,seriously. If i understand the word interaction the same way you did.

You need to remember squad interaction is not just you talking to them, but how they talk to each other. Bring Mordin to find Okeer, or bring Zaeed to hunt for Archangel. Bring Jack during Miranda's loyalty mission, or Samara during Thanes. We see interactions and that extra bit of dialouge that gives us a more rounded out character, and the banter between squadmates is more fleshed out.

So these little titbits count as bigger interactions?

Should i remind of things like the discussion on Ferros where one squadmember see the geth praying and wrex mentions that isnt interested in their beliefs? Or in the dialogue with Lorik Quinn with example Ashley and Kaidan,how human males see asari? The comments they made even sometimes in side missions?

[LinksOcarina]

tonnactus wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...


The saving grace for Mass Effect was the promise of a new world and the interactions with characters. Mass Effect 2 topped it because the interactions became bigger.

Bigger??? No,seriously. If i understand the word interaction the same way you did.

You need to remember squad interaction is not just you talking to them, but how they talk to each other. Bring Mordin to find Okeer, or bring Zaeed to hunt for Archangel. Bring Jack during Miranda's loyalty mission, or Samara during Thanes. We see interactions and that extra bit of dialouge that gives us a more rounded out character, and the banter between squadmates is more fleshed out.

So these little titbits count as bigger interactions?

Should i remind of things like the discussion on Ferros where one squadmember see the geth praying and wrex mentions that isnt interested in their beliefs? Or in the dialogue with Lorik Quinn with example Ashley and Kaidan,how human males see asari? The comments they made even sometimes in side missions?

Thats the quivalent to what I just said above then. So i'm failing to see what your trying to say at this point, becuase we can argue which one was bigger or not but looking at the scenes side by side might make things different. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 03 juillet 2012 - 09:55 .

[thisisme8]

Don't listen to Tonnactus, he's just arguing for no reason.  The point is, ME1 had a decent beginning and a pretty good end, but a middle that was disjointed, not clearly defined, and full of side quests that completely pulled you out of the "save the galaxy/race against time" theme of the game by having you take the time to explore random worlds and do bull**** sidequests for everyone on the Citadel.  Here's me summing up any conversation in ME1:

"Hi Shepard, I know you're a SPECTRE and are on a critical mission to save the galaxy on a limited schedule, but could you go to the far reaches of space (or the local brothel) to check out an unexplored planet (head escort) and resolve some random dirty business I got myself into?"

                          -  OK
                       /
Investigate-O  -  I'll see
                       \\
                          -  Screw you


EDIT:  I still love ME1 - don't take this as me not liking it.  Hell, I loved it, but because it was filled with wonder, a new galaxy, cool new sci-fi concept, etc, etc.  Also, the aliens were great...  never cared for Ashley or Kaiden, but face it, they weren't nearly as fleshed out as the ME2 characters - and ME2 had 12 of them.

Final EDIT:  Regardless of the end, ME3 had the tightest story of them all.  Great pace, epic conclusion to two major arcs (Genophage and Geth), and if you played the MP, you didn't have to do any sidequests to get a good enough EMS rating.  As a matter of fact, ME3 shows how story and gameplay can go hand in hand.  Something ME1 had a hard time doing, but not really because of bad writing, more because of technical limitations.

Modifié par thisisme8, 03 juillet 2012 - 10:12 .

[fr33stylez]

Han Shot First wrote...

Prosarian wrote...

Zero132132 wrote...

fr33stylez wrote...

If you think ME1's writing "wasn't that great", then you must believe ME2 and ME3's writing is "laughably bad".

 The main story arc doesn't even really make sense, since the conduit leads to an area on the Presidium that Saren could have walked to, and the bulk of the Geth forces were actually coming from the main relay. There was no real reason for him to take EVERY SINGLE ACTION IN THE GAME when he could have just walked there for nearly identical results. The main difference is that what he did created a lot of risk, exposed him to the possibility of discovery, which is the only reason Shepard got involved and saved the **** out of the galaxy.

People keep bringing this up as a major plot hole, but it's simply not. At the end of ME1, Saren went to the citadel controls to hand over control of the station to Sovereign, they had attached themselves to the top of the tower. You'd think someone would notice this if Saren had attempted it at the start of the game.

Sovereign and the Geth fleet could have attacked the Citadel at the start of Mass Effect 1, with Saren already in place in C-Sec and no one suspecting he is a traitor, and with no advance warning of any enemy attack. The plan would have succeeded without a hitch and another extinction cycle would have been carried out without any problems.

The Saren/Conduit storyline is the biggest plothole in the entire series.

Most of us are just able to overlook it because Mass Effect 1 was a fun ride despite it.

That's not the meaning of "plothole". You're simply providing a suggestion on how you would alternatively told the story. We know Saren was battling indoctrination the entire game, and even was implanted to reinforce it. It's likely Saren would'nt have just responded to Soverign saying "open the relay" and he needed more exposition.

Also, this is the first time in galactic history the keepers did not respond to Soverign's signal. It's in Soverign's interest to investigate why this happened for future cycles. And it did by investigating the Prothean beacons.

And sorry, this example pales in comparison to the lore breaking events that occur in the subsequent games (especially ME3).