825 réponses à ce sujet

[Balek-Vriege]

I love how ME2 is now a masterpiece. I always thought it was better than ME1, but most on these boards suggested it was the worst RPG ever until DAII...

Anyways if ME1-ME3 never happened and you released all three games as different versions of Mass Effect 1 all at the same time tomorrow, ME3 would come out on top. It's the best in the series but suffers form being the last installment. The Mass Effect universe by the time of ME3's release was just not as fresh as it was years ago. Everyone had their own assumptions and notions about how things would turn out.

The cinematics, the missions, the game mechanics, the art direction, the action, and the pace are all better in ME3. What ME1 and ME2 have over ME3 is a more epic feeling to the last mission. The Citadel and the Suicide Missions were pretty epic and involving. ME3's Earth mission felt less so as if you were just another soldier. If ME3 came out originally with the EC content, in addition to Suicide Mission-like mechanics and an end boss of some sort, I don't tink these threads would have popped up as much.

Modifié par Balek-Vriege, 14 juillet 2012 - 09:11 .

[Ageless Face]

Oransel wrote...
1. Those people were the really small minority. The wrong minority. Devs took their way to cut the game and release it ASAP.
2. And? You want to say that main storyline is the most important thing in ME series? Sorry, but main storylines are not that good even in first games and even not that enjoyable. ME is about characters, choices and lore. If you skip most of the missions to complete the game fast - you are not that interested in game. Is that the kind of player we want to be the core of playerbase? I say - No. Those people should go shooty in CoD.
3. It's ok to introduce new things in the middle of the series as long as they do not contradict the lore. It is bad to change the lore in the final part of the trilogy. Crucible is violating the lore. It is tolerable, but not appreciated at all.
4. I do not accept anything, but high quality. If I sell you heavily scorched car and you will complain, you want me to say: "Yeah, but hey, windows are not broken, not everything is bad"? That's exactly what you say.
5. *sigh* How old are you? Please google the term (not the game) "Deus Ex Machina" and return.
7. Joker chair. Liara and Shep being posessed. Introduction bugs. Doors being unable to open (locks dissapear). Youtube it if you want.
8. Agree here.
10. ME is about choices. When previously choice-based game suddenly becomes streamlined... Well, that's wrong. Never understood people who would begin any book, film or game series from the middle or from the end, honestly.
11. Alright. You are not that bright. What? Don't like it? Well, it's your problem being offended, not mine.

1. A small minority? No. A small minority will not have enough inflenece to leave the whole thing out. It wasn't even on ME2, only in the DLC (which, BTW, people also disliked the Hammerhead).

2. That is not the point. The game can be completed very fast. What the game is all about is irrelevent on this point. People who play the game play on how they like it. Some people don't play with side quests. Even if they do, like I said, it doesn't build the main story. You can complete ME1 really fast. ME3- not really.

3. How did the Crucible change the lore? It was never said in either ME1 or ME2 there are NO super weapons to stop the reapers.

4. And like I said, it's a valid complaint to say you only accept a high quality. I even agree.

5. Sorry, Latin phrases are not my thing. Anyway, that is not true. The catalyst wasn't blurted out of nowhere. Several times during ME3 there were hints on him and his logic. On top of my head, I remember the Reaper on Rannoch, and the Prothean VI.

7. Okay, I never encountered the two latters, the second one only once. But I will take your word for it.

10. Yet they weren't. The choices we had, most of them, were acknowlaged, on small part as they did. Wrex, Mordin, Meolan's data, Legion, Tali, The council, Kaidan/Ashley, Verner... The choices from previous games were there. Maybe the choices you did didn't have the effect you wanted them to have. But there was past acknwolagement of your choices. Otherwise, the game would have been a stand alone game. It's not.

11. You don't understand what I'm trying to say. The fact is, that BioWare never insulted anyone. Artistic integrity is not an insult to the fanbase, it is a a line of defense on their work. They never called us names, they never said we were too stupid to understand their work. If you felt in any way they said that, even if they didn't, then it is you. BioWare can't be blamed for that. If I drew a painting, and you say you don't like it. I will now say "I like my painting". Should you be offended because I liked what I drew? If you do, that is not my fault. If I will say to you, however, "You don't like it cause you are too stupid to understand it", then yes. That is an insult.

[Raging_Pulse]

Mass Effect 3 gameplay, combat and level designers, as well as cinematic artists and audio team did an AMAZING job, but the writers and marketing guys dropped the ball.

[tonnactus]

CronoDragoon wrote...


You can challenge TIM though and basically give him the ol "I DONT TAKE ORDERS" stuff, to which he gives a reasonable response that any Shepard would see as sensible. And Shepard has to do it right then because it's a Collector attack on a colony. The Collectors won't wait for you to go blow Grunt's load on a Thresher Maw.

The writers could always write a story in a way that give some kind of freedom. Horizon could be a big colony,so shepard still arive in time despite doing other missions. It would just affect the number of people rescued like with the captured crew.

[voteDC]

Honestly for me Mass Effect 3 is very mediocre and that is me being generous because it is Mass Effect.

Sorry if I go over previously raised points but some of the things that annoyed me included the poor skin textures (my Shepard was as life-like a mannequin), comedy animations, conversations where the characters would refuse to look at each other.

There may have been more dialogue than in previous games but I rarely felt that I had any control over what Shepard was saying and what was with all the passive "Zaeed and Kasumi in ME2" style conversations with the crew and other NPCs.

Combat annoyed the same as in ME2 with Shepard thinking it would be a great idea to stick to that exposed wall instead of running from enemy fire.

The only parts of the story that impressed for me were Tuchanka, Rannoch and Grissom Academy. Everything else felt like dull and uninspired shooting galleries.

Of course the eaves-dropping side-quests must get a mention for their mind numbing tedium and the useless journal makes things far more of a chore than they should be.

[tonnactus]

nedpepper wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

I can't speak for the Witcher 2's console controls, but I found it very underwhelming on PC. Then again, I rarely enjoy K&M gameplay...

See, I was thinking maybe it was porting to a console issue, but apparently not.  

And for the previous poster, you target the wrong enemy a lot.  But that's not my only issue.  The game looks pretty, I'll give you that.  But again, the dialogue is bad in some areas, the VA is subpar, and I don't feel a great connection to Geralt. (I bought the Last Wish on my Kindle, and the book didn't really grab me either.  Writing was subpar.  Again, I don't know if it's a "lost in translation" thing or not.)  When combat becomes a pain in the ass, I  don't want to play.  Deus Ex is challenging, but fun.  The Witcher 2 just gives me a headache.  I'll go back and try it.  I'm not going to buy a game and not play it.  I'm stubborn that way. 

You should be because it is worth it. Some tips on the gameplay(because the tutorial is awfull):

Modifié par tonnactus, 14 juillet 2012 - 10:45 .

[Brovikk Rasputin]

I can't believe this thread has reached 15 pages, when the answer to the OP can be summed up with one word: "No."

[sAxMoNkI]

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

I can't believe this thread has reached 15 pages, when the answer to the OP can be summed up with one word: "No."

...or yes. You know because people are allowed opinions and discussions about those opinons.

[MassStorm]

OP i would not say it is a bad game but an average kinda ok-ish one......it is still fun to play but not to a level of ME2 and ME1.

[tonnactus]

Balek-Vriege wrote...

I love how ME2 is now a masterpiece. I always thought it was better than ME1, but most on these boards suggested it was the worst RPG ever until DAII...

Most people who suggested that not even come to the boards anymore.

[t_i_e_]

ME3 is and was a bad game!!! And must be flogged and paraded around to the gaming industry to show that releasing unfinished games and using false advertisement is not acceptable!!! In fact I'm waiting and praying for a lawsuit against Bioware / EA over this bull****. None of us gamers should allow this cancer to corrupt and destroy our gaming hobby.
So I say we give Bioware / EA no more of our money. Borrow, rent or buy pre-used games to stop giving EA money. If not for this game because you already bought it. Then the next few. Or do what I do and forsake all business with EA.

Seriously Bioware three crap titles in a row. Go hurry up and become bankrupt. Also enjoy that 'Worst company in America' title. You won it over a bank that helped crash the economy.

[Chewin]

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

I can't believe this thread has reached 15 pages, when the answer to the OP can be summed up with one word: "No."

Feel free to elaborate your statement and prove that the OP is wrong.

[nwntask]

Raizo wrote...

It's not exactly a bad game. It's a great TPS and it easily competes on the same level as the Gears of War Games. It is however a mediocre RPG and even more importantly a disappointing follow up to ME1 and ME2. If you are a true ME fan then it would be physically impossible to play ME3 without mourning over the loss of what it could/would/should have been, there are far to many lost opportunities, cut corners and dumb ass decisions.

Couldn't agree more

[robertthebard]

Oransel wrote...

That's right. It's a bad, mediocre game. 

Redeeming features:

Garrus
Tuchanka arc
Rannoch arc
Weapon mods
Smooth combat system

What makes it bad? (bolded the parts that are intolerable)

Auto-dialogue. Canon Shep. Core of the game is abandoned.
Almost no side missions, but tons of fetch quests. Fact.
No Galaxy exploration. No vehicles. No little missions on the faraway planets.
No ME2 characters as a squadmates or even proper LI's. Fact.
Game is very short, compared to previous games. 
Crucible. Asspull.
Choices did not matter. Rachni, geth, Collectors base have little to no consequence. 
Introduction/beginning. Bad writing from a C-class movie about wars.
Catalyst's existence. Very badly written Deux Ex Machina.
Overall plot is very weak - Kai Leng power armor, Cerberus and so on. Bad writing.
Bugs. Tons of them. 
Journal. How hard was to implement it?
Endings. just bad even with EC they deserve 4/10
Artistic integrity.
that stupid kid, and Shepard's nightmares about him.
the rest of the games are irrelevant.
Insults from Bioware.

Bad game is bad.

Alistair called, he wants his Kleenex back.

[Brovikk Rasputin]

Chewin3 wrote...

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

I can't believe this thread has reached 15 pages, when the answer to the OP can be summed up with one word: "No."

Feel free to elaborate your statement and prove that the OP is wrong.

Auto-dialogue. Canon Shep. Core of the game is abandoned.
- The auto dialogue is not a problem, and nowhere near as bad as you make it out to be.

Almost no side missions, but tons of fetch quests. Fact.
- I guess that's true. Still, the Citadel had some pretty good 'normal' side quests.

No Galaxy exploration. No vehicles. No little missions on the faraway planets.
- Grunt's mission. Samara's mission. Jacob's mission.

No ME2 characters as a squadmates or even proper LI's. Fact.
- Not true. They may not be squadmates, but they did have romance storylines,

Game is very short, compared to previous games. 
- ME1 is shorter. Stop making things up.

Crucible. Asspull.
- Opinion. 

Choices did not matter. Rachni, geth, Collectors base have little to no consequence. 
- They give you war assets. That's a consequence.

Introduction/beginning. Bad writing from a C-class movie about wars.
- Opinion. 

Catalyst's existence. Very badly written Deux Ex Machina.
- Opinion.

Overall plot is very weak - Kai Leng power armor, Cerberus and so on. Bad writing.
- Still better than ME2.

Bugs. Tons of them. 
- I've experienced two.

Journal. How hard was to implement it?
- Agreed.

Endings. just bad even with EC they deserve 4/10
- Opinion. I think the endings are great.

Artistic integrity.
- Stop using those words as some kind of insult. It makes you sound like a pissed off child.

that stupid kid, and Shepard's nightmares about him.
- Meh. Not a big deal.

the rest of the games are irrelevant.
- No they're not. Again, stop making stuff up.

Insults from Bioware. 
- Where?!

When he's not stating invalid opinions, he's being wrong. Bad OP is bad.

[Oransel]

HagarIshay wrote...

1. A small minority? No. A small minority will not have enough inflenece to leave the whole thing out. It wasn't even on ME2, only in the DLC (which, BTW, people also disliked the Hammerhead).

2. That is not the point. The game can be completed very fast. What the game is all about is irrelevent on this point. People who play the game play on how they like it. Some people don't play with side quests. Even if they do, like I said, it doesn't build the main story. You can complete ME1 really fast. ME3- not really.

3. How did the Crucible change the lore? It was never said in either ME1 or ME2 there are NO super weapons to stop the reapers.

4. And like I said, it's a valid complaint to say you only accept a high quality. I even agree.

5. Sorry, Latin phrases are not my thing. Anyway, that is not true. The catalyst wasn't blurted out of nowhere. Several times during ME3 there were hints on him and his logic. On top of my head, I remember the Reaper on Rannoch, and the Prothean VI.

7. Okay, I never encountered the two latters, the second one only once. But I will take your word for it.

10. Yet they weren't. The choices we had, most of them, were acknowlaged, on small part as they did. Wrex, Mordin, Meolan's data, Legion, Tali, The council, Kaidan/Ashley, Verner... The choices from previous games were there. Maybe the choices you did didn't have the effect you wanted them to have. But there was past acknwolagement of your choices. Otherwise, the game would have been a stand alone game. It's not.

11. You don't understand what I'm trying to say. The fact is, that BioWare never insulted anyone. Artistic integrity is not an insult to the fanbase, it is a a line of defense on their work. They never called us names, they never said we were too stupid to understand their work. If you felt in any way they said that, even if they didn't, then it is you. BioWare can't be blamed for that. If I drew a painting, and you say you don't like it. I will now say "I like my painting". Should you be offended because I liked what I drew? If you do, that is not my fault. If I will say to you, however, "You don't like it cause you are too stupid to understand it", then yes. That is an insult.

1. As I said, in this case, minority views were the same with developers views.

2. I have not talked about main story in the opening post. 

3. The whole idea of super weapon is dumb. Stopping the Reapers could have been achieved by other ways, through scientific research, Reaper tech, strong fleets, strategy and so on. That's what previous games were about. And let's not forget how it was introduced - in the classic asspull fashion. Same thing with citadel being moved to Earth.

5. Catalyst: a) minor subplot of organics/synthetics becomes central theme; his logic is circular; c) the main character is introduced in the last 5 minutes = Deus ex Machina; d) impacts the whole Universe = Deus Ex Machina; e) contradicts the lore of the game (creates the plotholes). Result: Catalyst is very badly written (points a, b and e) Deus Ex Machina (points c and d).

10. Yes, here I can agree. The choices did not that matter.

11. They did it by proxy, using controlled media like IGN. Responsibility is still there. Also, let's don't forget how Casey completely perverted what fans said.

[Oransel]

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

1. Auto-dialogue. Canon Shep. Core of the game is abandoned.
- The auto dialogue is not a problem, and nowhere near as bad as you make it out to be.

2. Almost no side missions, but tons of fetch quests. Fact.
- I guess that's true. Still, the Citadel had some pretty good 'normal' side quests.

3. No Galaxy exploration. No vehicles. No little missions on the faraway planets.
- Grunt's mission. Samara's mission. Jacob's mission.

4. No ME2 characters as a squadmates or even proper LI's. Fact.
- Not true. They may not be squadmates, but they did have romance storylines,

5. Game is very short, compared to previous games. 
- ME1 is shorter. Stop making things up.

6. Crucible. Asspull.
- Opinion. 

7. Choices did not matter. Rachni, geth, Collectors base have little to no consequence. 
- They give you war assets. That's a consequence.

8. Introduction/beginning. Bad writing from a C-class movie about wars.
- Opinion. 

9. Catalyst's existence. Very badly written Deux Ex Machina.
- Opinion.

10. Overall plot is very weak - Kai Leng power armor, Cerberus and so on. Bad writing.
- Still better than ME2.

11. Bugs. Tons of them. 
- I've experienced two.

12. Journal. How hard was to implement it?
- Agreed.

13. Endings. just bad even with EC they deserve 4/10
- Opinion. I think the endings are great.

14. Artistic integrity.
- Stop using those words as some kind of insult. It makes you sound like a pissed off child.

15. that stupid kid, and Shepard's nightmares about him.
- Meh. Not a big deal.

16. the rest of the games are irrelevant.
- No they're not. Again, stop making stuff up.

17. Insults from Bioware. 
- Where?!

When he's not stating invalid opinions, he's being wrong. Bad OP is bad.

1. It is problem for me. If you enjoy second grade product, good for you.

2. Yes, that's true. ME2 has x4 time more of a sidemissions.

3. That were those rare sidemissions ME3 had, but that's not Galaxy exploration. At all.

4. I have not said there were no romances at all. I said there were no proper romances - meaning they were badly done.

5. I was not speaking about main plot exclusively.

6. It was an asspull, that's fact. However my reaction to it as negative is, indeed, my opinion.

7. Choices did not matter that much. My mistake in wording. Will fix.

8. Yes, my opinion.

9. Deus Ex Machina is a fact. badly written - my opinion.

10. Your opinion.

11. Good for you.

12. Ok

13. Yes, my opinion.

14. Your opinion.

15. Your opinion.

16. Endings made those games irrelevant.

17. There.

[Ageless Face]

Oransel wrote...
1. As I said, in this case, minority views were the same with developers views.

2. I have not talked about main story in the opening post. 

3. The whole idea of super weapon is dumb. Stopping the Reapers could have been achieved by other ways, through scientific research, Reaper tech, strong fleets, strategy and so on. That's what previous games were about. And let's not forget how it was introduced - in the classic asspull fashion. Same thing with citadel being moved to Earth.

5. Catalyst: a) minor subplot of organics/synthetics becomes central theme; his logic is circular; c) the main character is introduced in the last 5 minutes = Deus ex Machina; d) impacts the whole Universe = Deus Ex Machina; e) contradicts the lore of the game (creates the plotholes). Result: Catalyst is very badly written (points a, b and e) Deus Ex Machina (points c and d).

10. Yes, here I can agree. The choices did not that matter.

11. They did it by proxy, using controlled media like IGN. Responsibility is still there. Also, let's don't forget how Casey completely perverted what fans said.

1. You are ignoring the fact those were not minorities.

2. Then your point is irrelevant. If a game can be completed fast, then the game is fast.

3. Right, there are many ways to beat the reapers. BioWare chose this one, a super weapon. A certain object that will move the plot. No different than the reaper IFF, or Tali's evidence against Saren, even the Mass relays or the prothean ruins on Mars. I don't see the reason the crucible should be bad, sorry. Plot devices are constantly used.

5. First, on the catalyst himself- it's pretty obvious we shouldn't agree with him, or think twice before that. Otherwise, the option of destroy would not exist. As for him intrudeced in the last five minutes- first, he was forshadowed throughout Mass Effect 3 few times. Second- human reaper in ME2 was intrudeced pretty late in the game, and even had less of a forshadow than the catalyst. Yet he was the whole reason why the plot of ME2 was going on. Why does he better than the catalyst?

10. And we also agree that the other two games are relevant to play? Good.

11. And what exaclty are you talking about? What does IGN have to do with anything? And when did Hudson perverted anything of what the fans said? BioWare gave us the EC, no? A fan's request. And the endings were explained and expanded.

[wildannie]

I agree with OP

Many have said that as a stand alone game it is good, but imo ME3 should not be reviewed as a stand alone game, it is the conclusion of a TRILOGY. As a conclusion of a trilogy it is ****ing awful.

BW have completely cheapened/butchered their own IP, and why? was it because of the resources being drained to bolster George Lucas' IP? Artistic integrity anyone?

[robertthebard]

Oransel wrote...

1. It is problem for me. If you enjoy second grade product, good for you.

2. Yes, that's true. ME2 has x4 time more of a sidemissions.

3. That were those rare sidemissions ME3 had, but that's not Galaxy exploration. At all.

4. I have not said there were no romances at all. I said there were no proper romances - meaning they were badly done.

5. I was not speaking about main plot exclusively.

6. It was an asspull, that's fact. However my reaction to it as negative is, indeed, my opinion.

7. Choices did not matter that much. My mistake in wording. Will fix.

8. Yes, my opinion.

9. Deus Ex Machina is a fact. badly written - my opinion.

10. Your opinion.

11. Good for you.

12. Ok

13. Yes, my opinion.

14. Your opinion.

15. Your opinion.

16. Endings made those games irrelevant.

17. There.

1.  This is a very subjective point.  Just because you don't care for it doesn't mean that it's either second grade material, or a bad game, it just means that you don't like it.

2.  Yeah, 4x more side missions on cut/paste/retexture worlds, we're better off w/out them.  If you have any doubts, go read the DA 2 forums.

3.  See 2.

4.  Again, subjective opinion.  In all the other complaints that I have read, this is the first time I recall seeing "I didn't get laid enough" as a problem with the game.

5.  Actually, you are, since you're claiming that a few points make the whole game bad.  You see, that's the problem with presentation, if you present something a certain way, people pick up on, and comment on it accordingly.  Since your topic title is Mass Effect 3 is a bad game, we are left with the conclusion that you didn't like it at all.

6.  So we spend the entire game garnering resources for something that wasn't in the game until the last 5 minutes, got it.  Glad we could clear that up.  However, by this logic, ME 2 was a bad game, because we never heard of the Collectors until ME 2.

7.  I don't know what choices you made, so I don't know what kind of affect they had.  However, run ME 2 again, and don't upgrade the Normandy or do loyalty missions, and see if you still feel the same way.

8.  All of this is pure opinion.  Despite the amount of negative on the forums, there are positive posts as well.  Of course, they are rapidly swarmed by "nuh uh" posts trying to quell the people that enjoyed the game.

9.  I have no opinion on this.

17.  Please provide some links to support your claim, or withdraw it.  Note that "Because I said so" is not proof of anything.  This is the internet, find some links to provide evidence of your claim.  I'm not going to bother disproving it, since I have not been insulted by BioWare for purchasing any of their products over the last 20 or so years.  If you can't provide them, then withdraw it.

[Oransel]

HagarIshay wrote...

1. You are ignoring the fact those were not minorities.

2. Then your point is irrelevant. If a game can be completed fast, then the game is fast.

3. Right, there are many ways to beat the reapers. BioWare chose this one, a super weapon. A certain object that will move the plot. No different than the reaper IFF, or Tali's evidence against Saren, even the Mass relays or the prothean ruins on Mars. I don't see the reason the crucible should be bad, sorry. Plot devices are constantly used.

5. First, on the catalyst himself- it's pretty obvious we shouldn't agree with him, or think twice before that. Otherwise, the option of destroy would not exist. As for him intrudeced in the last five minutes- first, he was forshadowed throughout Mass Effect 3 few times. Second- human reaper in ME2 was intrudeced pretty late in the game, and even had less of a forshadow than the catalyst. Yet he was the whole reason why the plot of ME2 was going on. Why does he better than the catalyst?

10. And we also agree that the other two games are relevant to play? Good.

11. And what exaclty are you talking about? What does IGN have to do with anything? And when did Hudson perverted anything of what the fans said? BioWare gave us the EC, no? A fan's request. And the endings were explained and expanded.

1. Any proofs that they were not minorities?

2. My point was: the game as a whole (including all sidemissions and quests) is shorter than previous ones.

3. Bad choice lore-wise and poor implementaion narrative-wise make it asspull.

5. Standards for ME3 are much higher as this is the last part of the trilogy, you can't just introduce things like Human-Reaper on this stage. And Catalyst not only fails to meet those standards, he is failing much harder than any other single thing in all 3 games as he is contradicting theme, logic and lore. Catalyst is foreshadowed? When? Ah, yeah, when one VI briefly mentions that Reapers may be programmed to exterminate all organic life. Wow, that was really cool forshadowing!

11. IGN told us entitled whiny minority - insult. Hudson said that fans just wanted closure - perversion of our wishes.

[ChrisDV]

Oransel wrote...
 
11. IGN told us entitled whiny minority - insult. Hudson said that fans just wanted closure - perversion of our wishes.

Wrong. That was all on Colin Moriarty (Who reviewed ME3 in the first place) from IGN. He even tried doing a video further insulting the fans, by having another IGN staff member side with him & claim they didn't have any staff members willing to defend the fans, only numerous other members of the IGN staff to turn around & comment that they were never asked to appear in the video & they did agree with the fans.

And Hudson saying the fans wanted closure isn't a "perversion of our wishes" as the ambiguity of the ending was cited as a major problem of the ending.

[SpamBot2000]

Come on now, it's not like there's no 7 zettabytes of commentary on glowboy being the single most awful destructive idiotic thing about the end. For them to sit there and claim that most people simply wanted more "closure" because they loved this masterwork so much is blatantly insulting. Of course their excuse has the redeeming feature of being partly true, since they did leave out the endings on the version they actually released.

[The Spamming Troll]

Balek-Vriege wrote...

I love how ME2 is now a masterpiece. I always thought it was better than ME1, but most on these boards suggested it was the worst RPG ever until DAII...

Anyways if ME1-ME3 never happened and you released all three games as different versions of Mass Effect 1 all at the same time tomorrow, ME3 would come out on top. It's the best in the series but suffers form being the last installment. The Mass Effect universe by the time of ME3's release was just not as fresh as it was years ago. Everyone had their own assumptions and notions about how things would turn out.

The cinematics, the missions, the game mechanics, the art direction, the action, and the pace are all better in ME3. What ME1 and ME2 have over ME3 is a more epic feeling to the last mission. The Citadel and the Suicide Missions were pretty epic and involving. ME3's Earth mission felt less so as if you were just another soldier. If ME3 came out originally with the EC content, in addition to Suicide Mission-like mechanics and an end boss of some sort, I don't tink these threads would have popped up as much.

i dont think anyof your opinions here are valid. i know its all subjective, but i just read this, and thought non of it is true. the EC didnt fix ME3. not even close. it made a mess of an ending, sligtly less messy, but eaually as out of place of before its release.

the bolded part: this was the reason why ME2 wasnt very good. because its was "the middle of the story." seems like a weak argument to make as to why something isnt very good.