131 réponses à ce sujet

[AchesOfDoom]

Thalamask wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Lots of good stuff

 or a stealth-based Spectre / STG game ala Splinter Cell? Those I'd totally buy.

THIS!
O my god...this would be an epic win for Bio.

[That kid 96]

Thalamask wrote...

I saw this and it was awesome: 
http://www.awesomeou...effects-future/ 

I really hope Bioware has read this... there are so many ways to continue the ME universe without flogging the dead horse EA-style. Granted, I'm not a huge fan of some of those genre's, but that's no reason not to make the game. Plenty of people are fans of stuff I don't like and vise versa.

Come on, folks... shout loud enough, and maybe they'll listen.

Two ideas in this really got my attention. Firstly, the 'create-your-own' space station idea is really good as it brings endless ideas of custmosation. You could create an Omega look alike or a smaller citadel. You could arm it the teeth or create a weapons free enviroment. Even close the station to certain species and create a human/turian/asari/salarian/etc only enviroment or creat a diverse area.

The other idea that got my attention was the 'uplift simulator'. Instead of uplifting a race, how about you are the race and you gradually evolve like the game 'spore'. You could even start after the end of the prothean cycle and change history by discovering the citadel first, conquering races suck as the asari or turains, prepare for the reapers from the beginning, uplift races of your choosing suck as the yahg or human and even conquer every race like the protheans did.

[Snypy]

IanPolaris wrote...

MerchantGOL wrote...

heres the thing it was aways a verry vocal minority your whining was loud so they appeased you, when the EC hit their face book and other sites were flooded with, "thank you" hope Restored"  and the like

the the minority was even further slashed in half

You are dead wrong.  A large majority of the people that played ME3 did not like the endings.  Yes EC got some of them back because they did fix a few things around the edges, but if you think that EA would allow Bioware to do the EC for a "vocal minority" then you are living in denial.

In short, you are dead wrong.

-Polaris

It's true, however, that a small but vocal minority of players may greately affect how a game sells. I'm not sure if it was the case with ME3, though. I think it's more likely that the whole Mass Effect franchise was in jeopardy because barely anyone liked the conclusion of the story. Well, except for the lead writer and a handful of critics.

[Thalamask]

That kid 96 wrote...
The other idea that got my attention was the 'uplift simulator'. Instead of uplifting a race, how about you are the race and you gradually evolve like the game 'spore'. You could even start after the end of the prothean cycle and change history by discovering the citadel first, conquering races suck as the asari or turains, prepare for the reapers from the beginning, uplift races of your choosing suck as the yahg or human and even conquer every race like the protheans did.

Almost any God-game formula could work with the uplift scenario. Something like Civilisation, only you're an advanced alien in an orbiting spaceship tweaking their development so that they cane the reapers when the next cycle rolls around. This could be fun. Nice idea!

[Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien]

IanPolaris wrote...

MerchantGOL wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

TheRealBugz wrote...

You guys really think this is the end to a money making machine? EA will milk this cow dry. Thas just my opinion.

The problem is they really have.  By wrecking the goodwill that had been built up,
-Polaris

people contiue to think BSN speaks for every one who bought the game.

ME4 will sell.

If it was just BSN, there is no way that EA would have authorized the extended cut.  No the damage to the ME franchise was both broad and deep and if you think it was just a 'vocal minority' then with all due respect you are in denial.

-Polaris

Extended Cut was never going to happen was it?

Got an official source whom has told you this is true because that is first I've heard of this allegation.

I'd bet any money you don't and this is just another stupid theory from a clueless forumite.

As for the topic, there are plenty of things that they could do with the future of Mass Effect, Does it have a future, of course it can if they still want to do stuff with it. 

[fishcurry]

Rubios wrote...

We need another game crash like in the 80s to put everyone in its place.

I'm just waiting for the CoD bubble burst with my fingers crossed.

Seconded. It typically takes a catastrophe for people to wake up and say "maybe we were doing it wrong?"

Human nature at its finest.

[IanPolaris]

Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

MerchantGOL wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

TheRealBugz wrote...

You guys really think this is the end to a money making machine? EA will milk this cow dry. Thas just my opinion.

The problem is they really have.  By wrecking the goodwill that had been built up,
-Polaris

people contiue to think BSN speaks for every one who bought the game.

ME4 will sell.

If it was just BSN, there is no way that EA would have authorized the extended cut.  No the damage to the ME franchise was both broad and deep and if you think it was just a 'vocal minority' then with all due respect you are in denial.

-Polaris

Extended Cut was never going to happen was it?

Got an official source whom has told you this is true because that is first I've heard of this allegation.

I'd bet any money you don't and this is just another stupid theory from a clueless forumite.

As for the topic, there are plenty of things that they could do with the future of Mass Effect, Does it have a future, of course it can if they still want to do stuff with it. 

Does Bioware itself count as official?  Bioware SAID when the EC was announced that they had to push back other SP DLCs because they felt it was imperative to make the EC.  In other words by Bioware's own admission, the EC wasn't planned and wasn't going to happen until the massive and overwhelming backlash from their fans demanded it.

You are simply wrong.  Period.  Done.

-Polaris

[fishcurry]

BTW, for those interested in what the game crash in the 80's was

http://en.wikipedia....e_crash_of_1983

"There were several reasons for the crash, but the main cause was supersaturation of the market with hundreds of mostly low-quality games which resulted in the loss of consumer confidence."

Starting to wonder as to the long-term viability of the strip-mining business model where you just try to release as many games as quickly as possible.

Modifié par bakamatsu222, 25 août 2012 - 10:15 .

[Terror_K]

Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...

As for the topic, there are plenty of things that they could do with the future of Mass Effect, Does it have a future, of course it can if they still want to do stuff with it. 

Sure. If they want to milk it for everything its worth and drag it into the ground even more. The fact they're apparently making a movie that's just going to be a redux of Shepard's story again pretty much proves that this is their attitude lately: it's clearly just another cheap Hollywood adaptation and reimagining that doesn't need to be to milk the franchise for EA, feeding off ME's name to get profit and an audience. If BioWare and EA really cared about its fans, it would have made a movie that adds to the existing continuity ala the novels and comics. Fans don't need to see a static, linear and shorter version of a story they've already experienced in a far more interactive and personal manner written by some Hollywood hack and directed by somebody who likely wants lots of explosions and a camera that won't keep still for any longer than 3 seconds.

[Mark of the Dragon]

Let me make this simple....NO! NO no no no no no no no no! Mass Effect is an rpg it doesnt need a genre change. It needs new characters and a new story but thats it. It would be a mistake to change the games genre.

[Terror_K]

Mark of the Dragon wrote...

Let me make this simple....NO! NO no no no no no no no no! Mass Effect is an rpg it doesnt need a genre change. It needs new characters and a new story but thats it. It was a mistake to change the games genre.

Fix'd

[Thalamask]

Mark of the Dragon wrote...

Let me make this simple....NO! NO no no no no no no no no! Mass Effect is an rpg it doesnt need a genre change. It needs new characters and a new story but thats it. It would be a mistake to change the games genre.

Terror_K wrote...

Mark of the Dragon wrote...

Let me make this simple....NO! NO no no no no no no no no! Mass Effect is an rpg it doesnt need a genre change. It needs new characters and a new story but thats it. It was a mistake to change the games genre.

Fix'd [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/whistling.png[/smilie]

 

Not sure I really agree with either of these. Having recently replayed the trilogy, I'm of the opinion that ME2 was far and away the best game. ME1's writing was better than 2's and way better than 3's, while I prefer ME3's gameplay to ME2 and far more than ME1. Overall, ME2 simply provides the best experience to me.

All that said... I don't believe a genre change is the only way forward. ME started as an RPG, and it should certainly stay that way at it's core, but that's no reason that the franchise can't be expanded into new areas. Refusing any changes, going "No! It's not exactly the same as the original  so it shouldn't happen ever!", will only ensure that the franchise never grows and pretty much dooms it to rot into extinction.

[Red Son Rising]

i would like to see the next Mass Effect game switch overall genres but keep light rpg elements like character/armor/class customization, exploration and flexible story lines. so long as the Mass Effect universe isnt diluted by multimedia content blitz [comics movies toys games anime etc etc] i hope to see more from Mass Effect and Bioware for a long time

[Fortlowe]

A new Mass Effect relay network linking an entirely different galactic civilization, that is completely unaware of the civilization we know from the previous 3 games. Space is big. Even with the relay network, conceivably, the inhabitants of Citadel only can account for a very small portion of the galaxy as being thoroughly explored.

This other network is also on a cycle. Except, on this network synthetic life dominates and is reaped by a biological catalyst. The conclusion of ME3 reveals this other network of relays to Shepards civilization.

In case anyone is wondering, no I'm not being sarcastic.

I think this lends balance to the storyline, makes the ending even more meaningful, and makes vehicular planetary exploration (something we all remember fondly from the first game) a priority again.

[Terror_K]

Thalamask wrote...

Not sure I really agree with either of these. Having recently replayed the trilogy, I'm of the opinion that ME2 was far and away the best game. ME1's writing was better than 2's and way better than 3's, while I prefer ME3's gameplay to ME2 and far more than ME1. Overall, ME2 simply provides the best experience to me.

All that said... I don't believe a genre change is the only way forward. ME started as an RPG, and it should certainly stay that way at it's core, but that's no reason that the franchise can't be expanded into new areas. Refusing any changes, going "No! It's not exactly the same as the original  so it shouldn't happen ever!", will only ensure that the franchise never grows and pretty much dooms it to rot into extinction.

While it's true that there's nothing necessarily wrong with expanding the Mass Effect IP into other game genres, the main series should remain the same genre and not bechanged up so drastically. Save any genre changes for spin-offs.

Personally though, I don't think BioWare are capable of making good RPGs any more. Not with their current attitudes, mindset and focus. They clearly don't even want to. They just want to make cinematic, story-driven action games now. All that matters to them these days is their precious cinematic flow and broadening appeal.

[Snypy]

Fortlowe wrote...

A new Mass Effect relay network linking an entirely different galactic civilization, that is completely unaware of the civilization we know from the previous 3 games. Space is big. Even with the relay network, conceivably, the inhabitants of Citadel only can account for a very small portion of the galaxy as being thoroughly explored.

This other network is also on a cycle. Except, on this network synthetic life dominates and is reaped by a biological catalyst. The conclusion of ME3 reveals this other network of relays to Shepards civilization.

In case anyone is wondering, no I'm not being sarcastic.

I think this lends balance to the storyline, makes the ending even more meaningful, and makes vehicular planetary exploration (something we all remember fondly from the first game) a priority again.

I have a similar idea about exploring another galaxy. But there's one major problem in your vision. And that's the conclusion of ME3. BioWare would have to choose one of the endings as a canon. We can all assume the writers would go for synthesis...

[Thalamask]

Terror_K wrote...

While it's true that there's nothing necessarily wrong with expanding the Mass Effect IP into other game genres, the main series should remain the same genre and not bechanged up so drastically. Save any genre changes for spin-offs.

Totally agreed. The core of ME should always be RPG based. That said... /flame-shield apart from some dismal writing, I actually think ME3 has more RPG elements in it than ME1.

Consider what goes into making an RPG. Some people seem to think that what an RPG needs is character sheets, character customisation, inventory management and/or gear grinding and conversations. I would contend that this opinion is... flawed. For me, having a history of tabletop games, RPG's are about characters and choice.

I could write a whole article about why ME3 has more choice in it than ME1, but I simply don't have the time. The people who really know about this stuff are the Extra Credits dudes. If you have any interest in understanding game design and philosophy, go watch their stuff. They're hosted on the Penny Arcade site and they're awesome. Don't get put off by the condescention. They've got this whole "we know what's best for the industry and games are all like art" thing going on. Get past that, though, and they've got excellent insight.

Terror_K wrote...
Personally though, I don't think BioWare are capable of making good RPGs any more. Not with their current attitudes, mindset and focus. They clearly don't even want to. They just want to make cinematic, story-driven action games now. All that matters to them these days is their precious cinematic flow and broadening appeal.

 

It does look like that to some extent... but I have to wonder how much of that is Bioware, and how much of that is EA decision making. I'm sure some of the Bioware culture remains but, having been part of corporate takeovers in the past, I'm well aware of the influence that "the new management" has on a corporate culture.

Personally, I don't really believe that Bioware exists anymore. Getting taken over by EA is, imho, much like contracting cancer. Having watched my godfather die of it, I think that the Bioware name may still exist, but the company itself is just a hollowed out shell of what it used to be.

[Fortlowe]

@ snypy. I've considered this, and I think it could still work, except for maybe with the refuse ending. Really there isn't any reason the other endings couldn't lead to something like this, no? In fact, I could be said the endings from ME3 could be made very useful in lending replayability to the next trilogy.

[Terror_K]

Thalamask wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

While it's true that there's nothing necessarily wrong with expanding the Mass Effect IP into other game genres, the main series should remain the same genre and not bechanged up so drastically. Save any genre changes for spin-offs.

Totally agreed. The core of ME should always be RPG based. That said... /flame-shield apart from some dismal writing, I actually think ME3 has more RPG elements in it than ME1.

Consider what goes into making an RPG. Some people seem to think that what an RPG needs is character sheets, character customisation, inventory management and/or gear grinding and conversations. I would contend that this opinion is... flawed. For me, having a history of tabletop games, RPG's are about characters and choice.

I could write a whole article about why ME3 has more choice in it than ME1, but I simply don't have the time. The people who really know about this stuff are the Extra Credits dudes. If you have any interest in understanding game design and philosophy, go watch their stuff. They're hosted on the Penny Arcade site and they're awesome. Don't get put off by the condescention. They've got this whole "we know what's best for the industry and games are all like art" thing going on. Get past that, though, and they've got excellent insight.

To me that doesn't make any sense. ME3 had by far the least amount of choice out of all three Mass Effect games, and not only that, but it was responsible for reducing the choices of those prior two games into absolutely meaningless consequences. There was less player agency with the complete lack of dialogue options and glut of autodialogue too, so how you can even claim that ME3 had "more choice in it than ME1" is completely beyond me. Especially considering it's these very factors that personally irk me more about ME3 than any other. If ME3 had the strongest characters and choice of the trilogy, then I would have loved it. I hate it for the fact that it outright doesn't more than I do for any other reason. The fact that everything is reduced to a stupid arbitrary number rather than having any proper consequences alone is a major issue.

I'll admit that ME3 has stronger and more better RPG elements than ME2 from a purely mechanical and statistical standpoint, but to claim that ME3 excels and has more in the department of characters and choices is, to me, outright false and couldn't be further from the truth.

[Snypy]

Fortlowe wrote...

@ snypy. I've considered this, and I think it could still work, except for maybe with the refuse ending. Really there isn't any reason the other endings couldn't lead to something like this, no? In fact, I could be said the endings from ME3 could be made very useful in lending replayability to the next trilogy.

You're correct. It would work very well for Destroy and Control. But Synthesis would cause problems. If the player chose Synthesis in ME3, all characters in ME4 would have to be specifically tailored to that. Their looks, viewpoints, perhaps even speech would have to be different. I'm not saying it can't be done. But we all know that EA likes to rush game development.

That's also why I think it would be better if just a single ship managed to get to another galaxy -- shortly before the ending of ME3. Therefore, the crew wouldn't be affected by the decision Shepard makes at the end of the trilogy. But they wouldn't know what really happened to the Reapers and the civilization here in general.

At any rate, I hope that BioWare won't come up with a prequel.

[Comm1Sheppard]

Hi all
Well i was thinking too that there is alot of story for mass effect universe to tell abaut. For example we all notice on the galaxy map that there are few galaxy and maybe they should discover another way to another galaxy with familiar story abaut the Reapers, cause i was thinking alot what if the reapers are moving from other galaxy to ours and that would take them 50.000 years to came here so maybe more reapers exist in the dark space beyond the citadel relay. Just thinking out loud here but is a cool idea.

[Fortlowe]

I think synthesis could work, too. I would see a new trilogy happening fifty or sixty years after the end of ME3. That whittle's down the available cast of the current trilogy down to only the exceptionally long lived and even then reduces them to very small roles. Enough time so that Shep might just be a statue and the name on a flagship and the weight of Shep's decision has settled in.

On the populace's outlook, speech, and appearance due to those decisions, I think a few subtle nods here and there along with appropriate set prices and coded entries could handle the differences in endings as far as our people.

The major contribution the different endings in the current trilogy would have to the next, assuming the previously stated scenario, would be in first contact with that second network's civilization. The machine dominated network. How would they view that decision, whichever it was? How would we react to a galaxy suddenly filled with dozens of different synthetic civilizations? And what kind of organic lifeform is powerful and ancient enough to wipe them out with as easily and reliably as the Reapers wiped out organics? Would the synthetics even believe it exists ("Reapers" We dismiss this claim fleshy one)?


I also am anti prequel. We have the books for that.

[Snypy]

Fortlowe wrote...

I think synthesis could work, too. I would see a new trilogy happening fifty or sixty years after the end of ME3. That whittle's down the available cast of the current trilogy down to only the exceptionally long lived and even then reduces them to very small roles. Enough time so that Shep might just be a statue and the name on a flagship and the weight of Shep's decision has settled in.

...

Fifty or sixty years isn't a very long time. Almost everyone from the current team would still be alive, including Shepard. (Remember, humans can live over 130 years.) Regardless, it's time for the crew to settle down and retire from the public life. They've done enough already. So, even though they would live, it wouldn't have any impact on the new story.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see what BioWare writers will come up with. I don't expect any official news in the next year or so, though.

Modifié par Snypy, 26 août 2012 - 10:42 .

[Thalamask]

Terror_K wrote...
To me that doesn't make any sense. ME3 had by far the least amount of choice out of all three Mass Effect games, and not only that, but it was responsible for reducing the choices of those prior two games into absolutely meaningless consequences. There was less player agency with the complete lack of dialogue options and glut of autodialogue too, so how you can even claim that ME3 had "more choice in it than ME1" is completely beyond me. Especially considering it's these very factors that personally irk me more about ME3 than any other. If ME3 had the strongest characters and choice of the trilogy, then I would have loved it. I hate it for the fact that it outright doesn't more than I do for any other reason. The fact that everything is reduced to a stupid arbitrary number rather than having any proper consequences alone is a major issue.

I'll admit that ME3 has stronger and more better RPG elements than ME2 from a purely mechanical and statistical standpoint, but to claim that ME3 excels and has more in the department of characters and choices is, to me, outright false and couldn't be further from the truth.

I'm not going to discuss ME2 in this. IMO it's the best game in the series. I'm just trying to demonstrate that ME3 as a game isn't nearly as bad as people are making out, and that a lot of people are simply whining. I dunno, from nostalgia or something.

There's no question that the ending of ME3 left a lot to be desired... but choice cannot be measured purely based on the impact it has on the ending. If you can accept that the ending was utter fail and move on, you'll see that.

A game is not like a book or a movie. I could maybe see how the current ME ending would work as a book or a movie. But a game is an interactive thing. If you're not involved in it, it's not a game... just a dressed up movie. Yes, the ending was arse, but you can't dismiss the entirety of the rest of the journey just because the destination was, I dunno, Essex.

1. class selection has much greater impact in ME3
In ME1 class selection means very little in comparison to ME3. You all get all the weapons and abilities can be used so seldom that their impact is marginalised so there is very little experiential difference between playing the different classes. In ME3, playing an Infiltrator is a radically different experience from playing a Vanguard or an Engineer.

2. Morality is meaningless in ME1
Due to how the system was designed in ME1, you made one decision:
a) Select all Paragon;
Select all Renegade; or
c) Try to do what "your" Shepard would do... and mostly get burned because you never had enough of Paragon OR Renegade, so you were mostly stuck with default options.
In ME3, both Paragon and Renegade stacked up in Reputation, allowing you much more decision freedom, more ability do select what "your" Shepard would do.

3. Romance
In ME1 you had two romance options. In ME3 you have 5+. You also get to explore the possibilities (admittedly at a pretty shallow level) that Shepard may just not be hetero after all.

4. Character advancement
In ME1, assuming you didn't just ignore all the side-quests, you'd have enough points to get all abilities to 2/3 (or there about). But since each additional point basically granted only a fractional stat improvement, there was very little difference between an 8/8/8/... character and a 12/4/12/4... character. In ME3, you needed to make decisions that would actually impact your gameplay. For example: Do I want Overload to be a single target, high-damage shield stripper, or do I want it to be an AOE crowd-control tool?

5. Inventory management
In ME1, inventory management basically came down to a straight up stat comparison. Gun A X > Gun B VII. Upgrade. Not much in the way of decisions or choice to make. In ME3, you need to make decisions that will impact your gameplay. For example: Do I want to give myself RSI with the semi-auto Mattock, or do I want to give my self motion sickness with the Revenant?

6. Squadmate choices
Not only does ME3 have more choices than ME1, they also mean more. The same problems that affect your character (limited abilities etc.) also affect your squadmates. Ignoring things like the elevator conversations (because ME3 had similar things, so you can't use that as a differentiator, ME1 squad choice often really came down to "which guns to I want to bring" or "who do I like the look/comments of". In ME3, you not only have more choices, but those choices will mean more. Fighting Geth, I want to bring Garrus for his guns and his Overload and Tali for ED and Sabotage. Fighting Reapers, I want Liara for Warp and James for Frags, Carnage and Incendiary ammo.

7. Measurable choices
ME1 had surprisingly few actual, meaningful choices. You know... ones that actually resulted in a meaningful difference. Saving or killing Wrex was one. Saving Ashley or Kaiden was another. Or not, depending on how much you liked one or the other!  Personally, I hated Kaiden as a character. The Rachni Queen is another good one. But at the end of the day, the vast majority of ME1 comes down to see quest, accept quest and most conversations could have been replaced by a wall of text with only one decision at the start of the conversation : act like wuss / act like douche.

ME3 has just as many excellent choice points. Tuchanka and the genophage cure. Legion, Tali and the Geth/Quarian war. Jack and her students. In addition, it has interrupts (lovely addition) and, to extend from the Morality comments above, you don't have to choose between role-playing and potentially limiting your character or meta-gaming based on an arbitrary design decision.

[IanPolaris]

Thalamask wrote...

1. class selection has much greater impact in ME3
In ME1 class selection means very little in comparison to ME3. You all get all the weapons and abilities can be used so seldom that their impact is marginalised so there is very little experiential difference between playing the different classes. In ME3, playing an Infiltrator is a radically different experience from playing a Vanguard or an Engineer.

I wouldn't say that.  ME3 used the ME2 system which highlighted class difference, but I've found a huge difference between playing a Soldier and an Adept and an Engineer in ME.  What you are forgetting is that the different classes have different skills that you can open (and at different places).  That makes the classes play much differently even in ME1.  At best you are exaggerating.

2. Morality is meaningless in ME1
Due to how the system was designed in ME1, you made one decision:
a) Select all Paragon;
Select all Renegade; or
c) Try to do what "your" Shepard would do... and mostly get burned because you never had enough of Paragon OR Renegade, so you were mostly stuck with default options.
In ME3, both Paragon and Renegade stacked up in Reputation, allowing you much more decision freedom, more ability do select what "your" Shepard would do.

This was actually more a problem in ME2 and not ME1.  In ME1 you could play a "grey" shepard just fine as long as you bumped the Paragon (Diplomacy) and Renegade (Indimidate) skills.  If you did a new game playthrough, you could even maximize both and get both Paragon and Renegade options.  So your criticism should be leveled far more at ME2 and not ME1.  Me1's morality system was far from perfect but is wasn't as bad as you are trying to imply....and you DID have very interesting coversations and chosing a playthrough where you don't get the blue or red options IS AN OPTION.

3. Romance
In ME1 you had two romance options. In ME3 you have 5+. You also get to explore the possibilities (admittedly at a pretty shallow level) that Shepard may just not be hetero after all.

In ME Shep was hetero.  That was a deliberate change by BW/EA in ME3 for what should be obvious reasons...and I'll leave it at that.  However, in ME1 you had three choices.  You could chose not to romance at all.  Frankly a good argument could be made with ME when compared with ME3 that less is more (especially since only the Liara and Garrus romances really seemed fleshed out).

4. Character advancement
In ME1, assuming you didn't just ignore all the side-quests, you'd have enough points to get all abilities to 2/3 (or there about). But since each additional point basically granted only a fractional stat improvement, there was very little difference between an 8/8/8/... character and a 12/4/12/4... character. In ME3, you needed to make decisions that would actually impact your gameplay. For example: Do I want Overload to be a single target, high-damage shield stripper, or do I want it to be an AOE crowd-control tool?

Except usually the skills in the ME2-3 system are not created equal creating "obvious" choices.  Really this is an improvement of ME2's that was simply carried over.  I'll agree that ME3's system is better, but I can't give ME3 the credit here.  That credit belongs to ME2.

5. Inventory management
In ME1, inventory management basically came down to a straight up stat comparison. Gun A X > Gun B VII. Upgrade. Not much in the way of decisions or choice to make. In ME3, you need to make decisions that will impact your gameplay. For example: Do I want to give myself RSI with the semi-auto Mattock, or do I want to give my self motion sickness with the Revenant?

Yes inventory mgt in ME1 was terrible but see above.  ME3 really just continued the improvement that ME2 already did.

6. Squadmate choices
Not only does ME3 have more choices than ME1, they also mean more. The same problems that affect your character (limited abilities etc.) also affect your squadmates. Ignoring things like the elevator conversations (because ME3 had similar things, so you can't use that as a differentiator, ME1 squad choice often really came down to "which guns to I want to bring" or "who do I like the look/comments of". In ME3, you not only have more choices, but those choices will mean more. Fighting Geth, I want to bring Garrus for his guns and his Overload and Tali for ED and Sabotage. Fighting Reapers, I want Liara for Warp and James for Frags, Carnage and Incendiary ammo.

Actually they don't.  There are only a few times where squade mate choice makes any difference in ME3.  In ME, chosing to take (or not take) Liara or even Wrex on Noveria had a rather large conversational impact for much of the life of the game.  In ME3 with very, very few exceptions, the only difference is which squaddie gets to say the same line.

7. Measurable choices
ME1 had surprisingly few actual, meaningful choices. You know... ones that actually resulted in a meaningful difference. Saving or killing Wrex was one. Saving Ashley or Kaiden was another. Or not, depending on how much you liked one or the other!  Personally, I hated Kaiden as a character. The Rachni Queen is another good one. But at the end of the day, the vast majority of ME1 comes down to see quest, accept quest and most conversations could have been replaced by a wall of text with only one decision at the start of the conversation : act like wuss / act like douche.

ME3 invaladited ALL choices not just in ME3 but 1 and 2 by reducing everything to a number (and that number didn't make a big difference either).  In ME1, you could preserve the status quo or you could pave the way for human dominance.  Also the WAY you did either made a big difference in how you were perceived at the very end.  This is a big PAYOFF choice that matters in ME1.  Tuchanka mattered very little really in the end.  Same goes for Rannoch.  Like the Rachni queen decision being taken away from you, ultimate it doesn't matter if you helped the Krogan or not (nor the Geth and/or Quarians or not) as long as you (somehow) got that magic EMS number.

ME3 has just as many excellent choice points. Tuchanka and the genophage cure. Legion, Tali and the Geth/Quarian war. Jack and her students. In addition, it has interrupts (lovely addition) and, to extend from the Morality comments above, you don't have to choose between role-playing and potentially limiting your character or meta-gaming based on an arbitrary design decision.

Which the game completely invalidated which means they weren't real choice points at all.

-Polaris