Mass Effect - Series Retrospective @Twenty Sided

Shamus Young posted a massive retrospective on the Mass Effect series on his blog Twenty Sided. There are currently 3 articles (one, two, three), and maybe more to come.

No matter where you draw the line, it's very clear that Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 3 are radically different games, and within the series we can see the change from "Classic BioWare" to "Nu BioWare". At the start we have lavishly detailed worldbuilding, very trope-ish arch characters, stiff animations, and gameplay with generally lousy game feel. At the end the focus is on characters instead of worldbuilding, and the old RPG mechanics have been replaced by mainstream action shooter sensibilities.

This creates an unfortunate rift in the fanbase. Love it or hate it, those new shooter mechanics are a lot more popular than the RPG-focused combat of Mass Effect 1. A big chunk of the player base hasn't even played the first game, and shooter fans who fell in love with Mass Effect 2 went back to see what they missed in the first game and found it completely unplayable. [...]

Click to expand...

More information.

No matter where you draw the line, it's very clear that Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 3 are radically different games, and within the series we can see the change from "Classic BioWare" to "Nu BioWare".

Click to expand...

Actually it's Independent Bioware to EA Bioware change.

Am I missing something here? The combat is nothing to write home about in either ME1 or 2, but it's practically identical between the games. I must not be part of the sensitive shooter elite.

To someone who watches it on youtube instead of actually playing ME1 and ME2 it could look identical, but it's not really.
ME2 is more shooter than ME1 was, in ME2 the combat on foot is easier, ammo is not infinite, melee combat is designed better, biotic "shooting" powers follow elipsoid trajectory instead of a linear one, tech overload needs no aim and is overpowered, Mako combat doesn't exist at all, Hammerhead combat sux.
Also tactical screen is not on the same key, shift got replaced with space.

A very interesting read so far :0)

Combat in Mass Effect 2 was much different than the first game. The second game put a lot more of an emphasis on being a tactical shooter, like Gears of War, and put you in a lot of corridors. I also felt the game went in a vastly different direction story-wise, which was odd. Mass Effect 3 sort of bridged the gap between the two in both regards. I know I am definitely in the minority, but my favorite was the original, followed by Mass Effect 3, then 2.

rossrjensen said:

I know I am definitely in the minority, but my favorite was the original, followed by Mass Effect 3, then 2.

Click to expand...

You kidding? On this site?
You're the majority.

The original was the best for me as well.

Maybe I was just burned-out from playing all 3 games back to back, but I didn't enjoy ME 2&3 nearly as much.

It's pretty clear that those on this site would, on the whole, like the first game with its greater RPG elements. It's also not surprising that the mainstream would prefer the 2nd/3rd games too. I'm glad others, even if they are smaller studios, are making newer RPG focused games, even if some are former Bioware staff.

JDR13 said:

The original was the best for me as well.

Maybe I was just burned-out from playing all 3 games back to back, but I didn't enjoy ME 2&3 nearly as much.

Click to expand...

I think it is more the structure and focus of the three games - the first one appeals more to the RPG fan ... and for me anyway, there are better games to scratch the action-game itch than ME 2 or 3.

Caidh said:

It's pretty clear that those on this site would, on the whole, like the first game with its greater RPG elements. It's also not surprising that the mainstream would prefer the 2nd/3rd games too. I'm glad others, even if they are smaller studios, are making newer RPG focused games, even if some are former Bioware staff.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

First game was definitely the strongest for me. I remember storming through it in like 10 days and was totally blown away by the amazing story and strong emotional moments I got while experiencing this game.Combat on this one was definitely more in my wheel house. Probably the only one or the trilogy I will replay someday. I still got goosebumps just listening to the game soundtrack and remembering...

I’ve been following Shamus’ (and his collaborators’) comments on Mass Effect for quite some time, usually very interesting stuff. Like Shamus, I’m a space opera & general SF fan with a special fondness for the ‘harder’, more believable SF.

I’m more critical in this regard than Shamus, though. I never ‘bought’ into Mass Effect as a ‘hard’ SF space opera and never saw it as more than a very generic, ‘Star Trek meets Star Wars’ (plus a variety of other influences) setting that basically filled the gap left by the Star Wars franchise. In essence, it was the SF equivalent of Dragon Age, in the sense that it was rather generic and thus instantly recognisable and understandable, while giving Bio full creative freedom and, above all, saving on licensing money.

Still, derivative or not, I give Bio full credit for actually creating a new IP and I also think that the setting itself was competently done (that is, until they screwed it up in the second and third games).
However, I never got into the games themselves because I disliked the combat (in all three games), wasn’t too fond of the characters and wasn’t exactly happy with the very repetitive, linear and corridorlike structure of the environments.
Pity they scrapped the Mako (even though I hated the thing) and the larger outdoor environments in II and III.

Anyway, I’m looking forward to Shamus’ future instalments in this series of articles.

Action shooter? The downfall to nonsense has no end.

Another exhibition showing how much so called RPGers cling to the form without bothering one minute about the spirit.

Old RPG mechanics? Old rpg mechanics meant because they existed to deal with issues. They had spirit.

When a player is introduced to a new game universe, the issue of matching the knowledge of the player on the universe and the avatar's knowledge appears.
It goes that the avatar, as living in the universe, knows much more than the player newly introduced.

One original solution was to lead the player to play a marginal avatar like a farm boy. The avatar does not know much about the surroundings, that fits the requirement forced by the player's lack of knowledge.

ME1:
Background: humanity is one advanced version of the real world's humanity so it is easy to digest. Beside, the topic unfold in the narrative is not humanity on itself, but the rise of humanity under the lead of the player as the dominant species in the universe.
Contact with alien sentients was made recently, so nobody knows much about them and they will get to know much more when guided by the player.

Bioware followed the old pattern for that part, matching the player's and the avatar's knowledge.

Bioware broke the pattern for the proficiency side, though. While players were called to play as inept characters, the avatar in ME1 starts as an elite soldier, the finest in humanity. The avatar is surrounded by elite soldiers.

Yet the character progression system represents them beginning as inept people, unable to shoot etc
It was not dictated by old RPG mechanics, old RPG mechanics represent beginners as beginners, intermediates as intermediates, elite as elite.

All this was dictated by so called RPGers like their rise to power, Bioware sticked to a form that could not be justified otherwise.

ME2 corrected that flaw, the progression system corresponded with what could be expected when starting as an elite.

The change has nothing to do with giving up on RPG mechanics, it has to do with matching what with what.