Last year was a time full of excitement for gamers. Whether it was the end of trilogies, the release of some of the most anticipated games of this generation such as Mass Effect 3 and Assassin's Creed 3 or the announcement and in many cases, surprise announcements at E3 2012 which representing a few games such as Watch Dogs where gamers, reviewers and doughnut eaters from around the world were baffled this was truly the next gen of gaming to which we now know is the border line from the seventh generation of gaming to the eighth. From this gaming world we seem so familiar to, to the next world of games and innovation.
However like many other years, it has been a time of criticism from games from all kinds of genres, gamers reading articles of the latest games and giving their opinions to whether they agree or whether a game may have been too hyped up when many others went by many reviewing sites. Where am I going with this. Well Mass Effect 3 and Assassin's Creed 3 were one of the few games last year since I was focused a lot on writing up my blogs but it has come to my attention that one game is rated more than the other despite it's issues. In this case, Mass Effect 3 was more rewarded rather Assassin's Creed 3.
Today I'm here to give you an unbiased review of this topic and break down each of the games factors piece by piece so that we can see whether I will be able to utilize these point to prove my point. So the first factor I would like to talk about is...
Character
Mass Effect 3
First, I would like to talk about Mass Effect 3's character known as Commander Shepard. No longer is he/she gathering characters of all sorts of personalities, no matter how dangerous but rather beginning the development of bringing all the species together, galaxy wide and making a final assault to take back Earth to which Shepard seems to acknowledge as being the only one to stop the terrifying species known as the Reapers. So lets look Shepard's character and for starters, I'll start with the male Shepard's performance voiced by Mark Meer who didn't seem to have the best performance in terms of using his character to provide a better connection to the character where Jennifer Hale's female version of the character seemed to win overall in that aspect and many fans agree with this however over time, Mark Meer's performance has improved and up to Mass Effect 2, both voice actors seemed to be near enough on the same level to please it's audience.
It was only until Mass Effect 3 did things begin to change since the male Shepard was able to tone his voice to certain situations of the game to provide a more emotional touch. Whereas the female version seemed to deteriorate in that aspect. It was difficult to find the emotional connection between the gamer and the character since her voice was no longer toned as it was in the previous installments of the franchise. In many ways, it seemed like she was always moody and angry, no matter if you played as a paragon or renegade and many agree with this. Many gamers have said that players are playing the game wrong choosing to play the series with a male Shepard rather than a female Shepard but whether you prefer the gender version of over one of the other depends on your opinion. I don't believe it's wrong to play as a different character over another since male and females may be able to relate to a gender they're used to but making many more save files in order to play as another one of these characters couldn't hurt. I mean it's like playing as a new character let alone with a new gender let alone choices and classes. My save files were stacked full to the roof! However I do believe there is a reason why many players decided to play as a male Shepard and reason being was the performance of the voice acing. Playing as a female Shepard sometimes seemed like playing as a robot yet players praised both versions but we must look at to what reactions Assassin's Creed 3 faced before comparing the two.
Assassin's Creed 3
This is one of the features that was heavily criticized by reviewers and gamers worldwide towards the Assassin's Creed 3 game. Rather than having a character based on a noble and ladies man of the Italian Renaissance, transformed in to an assassin by pure vengeance, we have a Native American, once again formed by a vengeance story... with a few twists. Connor Kenway or by his Native American name, Ratonhnhaké:ton however brought in to the world of British travelers, intent on forming their own nations and taking advantage of the inhabitants but Connor has his doubts on the people he's fighting for therefore shaping a slight moody character but compared to the previous assassins, he's easily the most relatable and since through many sequences, he takes to the player with an overview of the story's events, almost as if he was writing in a diary.It's a journey, not only to hunt down Charles Lee but to find his destiny... apart from hunting Charles Lee. In some cases, this Lee thing has gone too far!
Overall comparison
However when comparing the 2, many critics tend to miss out on many things. For one, they may say that this new character is moody and trusts people of the patriot faction. In my response, Connor has no idea how things work in this world. I mean he's a Native American brought in to a new language so of course he's not gonna be familiar and be slightly moody at times. I know it's a big plot hole where he learnt the language. Maybe by using the POE or something or English is more common than we realized. At any rate, we need to loo at why Ezio was different. Ezio was full of people who loved him and helped him throughout his life but with Connor, his mother was killed in a fire at an early age possibly with everyone else he was close to aside from his best friend so he wears his darkened personality like a birthmark. He doesn't fully trust the patriot faction all the way. Why do you think he pushes people's hands away when they try to act friendly to him. Yes! It does go down the route of kill the British but this is to help access the Templar line of range for assassinating and believes in freedom for his people but at the end, he realizes, this is not the case. Now at least AC3 has a reason why Connor has a different personality. In Mass Effect 3, there is no excuse and many people who have criticized Connor, saying that for the Mass Effect 3 choices, you have to look closer to the game to find out why it isn't so bad. Well why can't they see Connor's truth. Unfortunately, this criticism has gone too far and now we are going to get a game with a character very close to Ezio so that we once have an Assassin's of the Caribbean game that doesn't explore any other personalities and has thus become less unique. Great job!
Many people may say that the reason for Connor's hate could even be because he's Native American, giving a hint of racism but I only see this as a part of the reason since it will depend on where the gamer's from and their psychology. The main reason is that Connor is a new character to the series that seems unfamiliar since Ezio was popular due to the fact that the internet and online gaming was improving, therefore, it was much easier to spread the hype of ACB and ACR. I know that it might be a little worrying playing as a new character but this has been a long time going. They were bound to add a new character at some point and if we just stayed with Ezio, the series won't be able to move on.
Considering Mass Effect 3, there is also the fact where like many other games, the story connects to the character and one goes wrong, then there's the possibility it can affect the other which is what we'll find out now...
Story
Mass Effect 3
Mass Effect as we all now is an RPG game which doesn't refer to exploding grenades by a role playing game. One as which has a choices system where the choices you make,the paths you choose, shape the consequences of the game. In Mass Effect 2, this went to a great level where every mission, every character, every resource you had for ship upgrades and who you assigned for the final mission could affect the lives and deaths of everybody and even the fall of Shepard himself. Now these just talking to people gave you plenty of options to choose from giving the player free range on what to pick and give more incentive to play the game plenty of times over to see how it would be affected which I surely did many times but in Mass Effect 3, it doesn't come down to this. In fact most of the time, it's just 2 choices you're given and even though they sound very different... they aren't.
The same exact thing will happen except with just a little hint of desperation from the developers to make the choice sound very different and it's not just that! Every thing that mattered from the previous game barely had an affect and the coolest squad mates were limited to just cameo roles which was certainly a big hit for those people who represented them as the top of their character list for the series. Even the biggest consequence will become limited. Like I said about the guy saying that you need to look closer that the choices add up to points. Well yes but that's not what Bioware promised with their long list of promises. All these choices were meant to have a visual impact. Instead, every mission is practically the same! A character dies that could depend on the fate of the species. Don't sweat! We have a replacement that will act exactly the same way and in the same role.
What is the point of choosing to kill off those characters? Well there's nothing spectacular. Just points that add up to whether you can save both the Quarians and the Geth can both co-exist even though we were promised that we could gain the loyalty of species just like squad members so there would much more consequences. Regardless of the fact that you could rewrite the Geth or destroy them in ME2 , there's no real visual change, just points that will help add up to more war assets where the war assets is a good idea... if it actually stood by the series' integrity. What do the war assets add up to? Just 2 different space battles. So through playing the whole series which was actually transferred to war assets in the end, it became none other that 2 very similar space battles, except in one a few ships will be destroyed. I am so surprised many people haven't noticed this! Shouldn't a Mass Effect fan know when they've just been played for false promises and ultimately deceit? For me this is an outrage but then again, this is just one factor of many.
There were some parts I did enjoy like the most emotional scenes and space battles but for a Mass Effect game, it didn't feel like a non-linear storyline and when replaying the game, you can't help but think you're playing the same thing over and over again despite how big the consequences in Mass Effect 2 were.
Assassin's Creed 3
Now for Assassin's Creed 3's story. Personally I enjoyed the Connor storyline and it took a different direction for the series with Haytham Kenway and even though the Templar plot twist was guessable at the start, it was great to see the journey of a new type of assassin, more focused on his goal more than anything and learning from his mistakes that would once again, lead to another assassination mission. There was one issue and that was the fact that Connor seemed to have a similar vengeance origin story to Ezio but there is a change which makes it feel different and that's the fact he's searching more for a destiny of protecting his people, not knowing of the world around him rather than Ezio who had no idea of where his journey was taking him. However the modern day sections were the parts of the game that weren't so enjoyable. It provided a more clear aspect of the characters such as Shaun, Rebecca, Desmond's father, William and many of the characters throughout the franchise but much of the series seemed to be adding up to a climatic ending and tie up the loose ends of Abstergo and characters such as Daniel Cross but with this, I thought it was disappointing that they all the enemies seemed to fall just like that and many of the twists in the story were easily predictable which didn't seem like an Assassin's Creed game.
Although most gamers were mostly arguing at the fact that the story was too long. I'm afraid that I am going to have to bring The Last of Us game in to this which did have a long story in itself and even longer loading times. AC3 was criticized for both of these things yet TLoU was rated a masterpiece? 0_o Even though IGN did say that these were issues? Well AC3, even though it was a long story, not many people complain about long stories such as The Lord of the Rings and with AC3, you had no idea where the story was going which made the player move on. We had no idea about Haytham until actually playing the game which could be the reason why it was criticized since many people just wanted to play as Connor and even people who wanted to stick with big bad wolf, Haytham. However with TLoU, it seemed like a random sequence of events and what did the IGN review say about AC3? Inconsistency? Well maybe they should look at the games they gave 10/10 and wonder whether they are going to keep contradicting themselves.
Long loading times? Another contradiction! AC3 loading times were actually, as I recall somewhat sorter when traveling to many areas in the previous games. It was only when you wanted to replay a mission, it could take a little longer but no more than 30 seconds and sometimes, just about 5 seconds but even if you had to wait long, the animus 3.0 is very cool. I mean when you're running, the whole virtual world melds around you whereas in TLoU, you had to wait over 5 minutes just to access the game. It's not an uncommon issue though with Naughty Dog games since Uncharted has many long loading times. Some just to get to the main menu. Many people will defend ND and say it uses lots of power and makes up for the effort for the graphics, then again, the latest ND games are linear whereas AC is a vast open world series to load up yet the graphics are still great so it's easy also to defend AC.
Overall comparison
Between the two games, there are both positives and negatives towards the games but ultimately, the choices system was a real letdown for Mass Effect 3 which is not just me but many people around the world agree that all the choices added to minor disappointing cameo roles and small alterations in was asset points which simply added to a change in a space battle... if any with no affect on the Normandy, the crew or anything like what we saw in Mass Effect 2. There were many points in the choices system I hated since it was just a small line of dialogue and once when talking to Joker, you don't get the option to joke around with him or just leave. All you have is, be angry or be even more angry... choose wisely! Much of the story was interesting with the lore of the Reapers and the fact that they've arrived gives a more darker sense and desperation theme but many of the things that were discovered seemed to have little to no connection with the parts experienced in Mass Effect 2 like the Human Reaper which I will talk about in the ending section. For Assassin's Creed 3, the Connor story seemed like playing a part of AC2 again with a vengeance story with a few tweeks that made it seem different but it was interesting to see more exploration in the universe with focusing on other characters and not it took a while to actually become an assassin in the first place.
Gameplay
Mass Effect 3
Like I said at the beginning of this blog, ME3 is an RPG game where you can pick one of 6 classes, each with their own unique abilities just adding more to the replayable value of the game including powers featuring biotic lunges with the vanguard class, invisibility with inifiltrator and more powerful weapons if you pick the soldier class. However there is evidence that this was able to make the game more mainstream and therefore, more gamers would by the game. How? Dumbing down the abilities of several classes since I have noticed through playing the game that many powers such as shockwaves aren't wide ranged and it seems like the game is more focused on the soldier class and shooting upgrades more than anything. Therefore making the game less unique. There were many weapons that suited all classes such as the Omniblade which could basically be a cloud of a biotic power if you chose a class like vanguard but few others which provide a more unique feel.
There is also the issue of squad members. Throughout the series, we have been introduced to many very different characters of varied personalities and abilities. Mass Effect 2 saw the high number of up to 12 members as opposed to the original game with only 6 and all of these characters could be killed off and all will have a different opinion about Shepard whether he's paragon, renegade, in a relationship or ended their relationship together. As one of Bioware's promises, Mass Effect 3 was to have less squad members but it would allow a closer connection to the characters. This doesn't actually happen as much. In ME2, you could talk to them with up to 6 times and maybe more about completely different things and I never got bored at all! ME3 on the other hand reduced the number of members which was ok but like all of their promises, it didn't add up to what we we were hoping. Many times, you can only talk to them on the Normandy about 3 times and you no longer had the option to add up the dialogue section. Just the press of a button, then they'd say the same thing over and over again. To be honest, ME2, won in that aspect because not only did it have all these cool characters but you could feel connected to them much more than you could in ME3. I know I would be asking a lot but it would have been cool if you could pick any of the squad members who survived. Obviously not over a certain number but it would have given the player more freedom throughout their playthrough. It may have been too long for development so maybe Bioware could have mixed up the ME2 characters at least. I mean we connected with those characters so why should we have to be excluded to cameo roles and a ME1 only squad with 2 new characters? One of which is an overpriced DLC character...who's already on the disk! Maybe include some new characters instead like some familiar ones like Aria and some completely new ones... like a Husk!
Another problem was the relationships since Casey Hudson explained that there would be no new characters to sleep with so that it provides more connection to the character. This would have worked if they stayed true to their word. Not only did they add more characters with romance options but also the system was pathetic. Many players complained that in previous games, the romance options were sloppy with just a few flirts then you're hoping in to bed together. Well with ME3, it's pretty straight forward since you only have 2 options to pick basically rather than in previous games when it about 6 so all these new characters meant there was less focus on improving anything and a big step back. Another promise by Bioware was that if we had previous relationships and started another, it would have dire consequences yet all that happens is... you guessed it! A few dialogue differences and no arguments. It just puts you in one relationship in some curly wurly random cycle.
All of this was just to include same sex options which is fine that they're trying to be open but I think many people miss out on what the true intention is. It's not that they care about gays or lesbians fully, otherwise they would have said they would include it in their promises. It was only to get gays to buy the game to get more money which was also around the same time of the MP announcement. I wonder why (coughs) EA (coughs) and the gay options are also the easiest yet new options hindered the system entirely. There was also the introduction of Diana Allers and of course, a character voiced and portrayed from a woman they know will obviously get gamers screaming wild in to buying the game.
A new feature was the fact that you no longer had to probe planets for resources which means that there was a wide around of cheering from gamers and replaced by a survival theme by the Reapers detecting the scanning of planets. There was a problem with this and although it was fun, it got boring easily just like the probing assignments but not only that but this also meant that many side missions like N7 never existed. In fact, all the N7 missions in ME2 especially didn't have as much of an impact even on war assets.
Assassin's Creed 3
AC3 introduced the long line of soon to be next gen engines for future consoles and the one used for the game is known as Anvil Next. A step up from the series which made things more action packed and yet, more fluid as an assassin who's become more of guerrilla warrior, using many devices from hidden blades to rope darts.
However this came with a flaw with the fact in many ways, sometimes Connor doesn't feel so stealthy. Ubisoft told players that they would be given the choice of being stealthy and can use combat techniques anytime which was true for many parts but sometimes, it felt like we were limited to just one. The economic system became more focused on hunting which allowed the game to incorporate the bows and arrows and even the ability to climb and run across trees but this like the bombs in ACR, there weren't many missions focused on this concept and therefore, many people decided not to focus on this which is true for many side missions too since many of the assassin recruitment missions were masked by delivering letters and throwing blankets over fires which became pretty medicore for those who didn't decide to reach the recruitment missions and that's where they lost out. It no longer has missions like Brotherhood which had a whole bunch of assassin tombs and hunting all sorts of enemies even found in the multiplayer. AC3 does try to deliver as many missions as possible with the naval missions and Captain Kidd missions but Brotherhood definitely had many missions to last a whole year to play!
Many people believe that this game is way too easy. Well the AC series could do with a difficulty setting but then again, has it ever been about difficulty. In my opinion, the AC series is about making players feel as badass as possible and some enemies did require you to use many different tactics through kill chains to defeat them through combinations of moves. Many people even wished to why wasn't there a building of another brotherhood. Well Connor is possibly one of the last assassins left. He still needs to build up himself and learn about the ways of the order but also, the homestead missions allow him to go in to a different direction. Rather than rebuilding the order, he's building up his own family. Even though many may see this as boring, it did allow a more personal touch with Connor and the characters around him. In a way, it made up for the lack of side missions compared to ACB.
Overall comparison
Neither games were able to make the perfect game we were hoping for. ME3 went more in the direction of shooting mechanics and weapon upgrades that didn't really seem very appealing to many players and the fact that the next Mass Effect game will contain the Frostbite engine will only mean more shooting. Not to say that there won't be biotic powers but it's likely that it won't have much focus considering the Frostbite engine was meant to be used for ME3. AC3 did feel more combat based but then again, it was successful in being able to portray the future of gaming since I could never get enough (and still can't) of the fluid gameplay such as impaling a guard then shooting another enemy right through him. It gave us some more stunts after a few kill chains which just added to the idea that Connor is a wolf however there is less interest in the hidden blade which has become a symbol for the series and it doesn't seem like that's going to improve anytime soon with AC4 being full of guns and all. In spite of the side missions for both games, AC3 felt like it added more with the naval combat system and Captain Kidd missions.
Multiplayer and DLC
Mass Effect 3
Multiplayer in the Mass Effect universe would feel pretty strange for now but it has been done... and not to a great extent. The MP for starters was possibly the reason why ME3 was delayed to March 2012 hence why many of us missed out on getting a free gift at Christmas. However this was limited to one coop mode only with just a few maps. What Bioware did not tell us was that they were lying and we had to play through the MP to get the perfect ending. Well they may have meant synthesis as the best ending which depends upon your opinion but this erupted an outrage from gamers who now believe that EA is responsible and it is clear because of the overpriced DLC costing about £15 for one character... for a mission lasting 20 minutes and the big controversy is that Casey Hudson also said there would be no point putting DLC on the disk... it was put on the disk of course but it also seemed like they were making DLCs like Leviathan and Omega just because they knew players would buy them yet tried to make up for the ending with a DLC and a whole bunch of further free MP DLCs to which you would need to play the game for weeks just to get an upgrade or skin. It was a fun concept but seemed to get old pretty quickly.
Assassin's Creed 3
AC3's multiplayer took many of the modes away such as corrupted and alliance that many people did enjoy but used this to focus on their attempts of deathmatches. Therefore becoming mainstream to attract players who usually play mainstream games. It does contain plenty of modes to enjoy including the newest edition, Wolfpack for more gameplay but I remember when playing in many matches, there would be many glitches like people shooting through walls, lag times and when I was pressing a button repeatedly, it didn't do anything and my controller is fine. Once I was top of the leaderboard for the first 7 minutes. Then after, I'm third place because the game won't respond due to hackers and the next match the whole match lagged everywhere so it's not just me. The DLC however was underrated. Sure 3 parts costed about £6 or so but it was fun seeing the aspect of an alternate reality with a new direction with new powers rather than having an affiliation to the assassin order.
Overall comparison
Both games either didn't offer as much or had an MP that was essentially broken more than the previous games with even worse graphics for both. Clearly not the best feature for either of the games.
Glitches and advertising
Not many people believe that ME3 had many glitches but with all the new shooting mechanics, it made things out of place, even objects 2D at many times. I'm not sure if I have a faulty game but I can't get passed the Mars mission without the scene completely freezing up and I have to restart the PS3. It almost even wrecked my TV because of an audio glitch that seemed like max volume of an explosion that didn't even exist so I had to turn the volume down to 1 and even then it was eerily loud. Games shouldn't make you have to put up with these sorts of issues and it was difficult to get through the game with the character feeling like there's less freedom with so much lag. We couldn't even port our character' apperances for a whole month or so Some moves were cool however I believe that people criticize AC3 too much in terms of glitches. I haven't actually experienced many glitches. Just a laggy camera in crowded spaces which is true for almost every game and I only fell through the floor because of the latest patch somehow put that glitch on but I haven't had this since. I do have a theory though that many people complain about a few glitches because of the fact that it's next-gen hardware so it's easy to blame a system so that it improves on the slightest of things when the developers get to work analyzing it. However I don't see why because ME3 had tons of glitches yet nothing's added. ACB had many glitches with Ezio falling through the floor and have an arrow sticking of his head. I was even able to climb at 4 times the speed than normal.
Both of these games have gone through false advertising such as with Bioware TV giving out promises which ultimately lead to false information. If they never told us any of these things that ended up never coming true, then I might have been ok with Mass Effect 3 but the fact is, if we have been mis-sold a product, then in this case, we should be able to give it back!
Assassin's Creed 3 on the other hand varied it's advertising compared on different regions like the American version provided a "Kill the British" sorta motive with a patriotic sense of saving the country...
...whilst for the UK, we got some cool music.
However, the ME3 advertising is what hurt many gamers because of deception and therefore why they'll never go back to Mass Effect ever again whereas AC3 on the other hand just amped up a theme so that Americans would buy it.
Ending (Spoilers start here)
The Mass Effect 3 ending is what confused everyone and an ultimate outrage toward Bioware began but considering the choices of the game, I could see a bad ending from a mile away and wasn't expecting anything awesome. In fact, many people like me who saw the issues of the game, couldn't even get to the end since they were so disappointed which is a true shame to end the series for them. Lets look at the purpose of the Reapers first. The purpose we got in the final game was that they were harvesting life in order to save themselves from creating synthetic life which would just destroy them. When created robots or beings rebel against their masters, it's known as a technological singularity and it made no sense since the Geth and the Quarian race were able to work together and obtain true peace. I mean the Geth are making them more powerful so it would have made sense to tell the Strachild that and ultimately shut down the Reapers. However other than that, this seemed out of nowhere and the reason for the Morning Wars was because of the Reapers own doing anyway. Although the Reapers did arrive at the right time in the original Mass Effect, there wasn't much evidence to suggest any of this would happen.
The original ending was that the Reapers would be harvesting life, both organic and synthetic to find a solution to prevent Dark energy from destroying the universe. As bizarre as this sounds, it is hinted throughout the series on Tali's recruitment mission on planet Haestrom where the star was ageing was fluctuating due to dark energy from biotics and that the Human Reaper was actually a project since Humans were the best chance at solving the puzzle due to their variation in nature. It may have got another yo dawg meme with the Mass Relays but then again, the energy of Dark energy could have been giving off too much emissions anyway and the Reapers are just using this for their own will.
This would have included 2 endings where one, you could kill the Reapers and solve it with the best mind in the galaxy or let the Reapers win and harvest the Human race. I think this would have worked with the war assets and I think it would have worked like this:
High EMS - Destroy - Come up with a solution to solve the problem.
Low EMS - Destroy - Unable to come up with a solution. The universe is doomed!
High EMS - Reapers win - Reapers harvest Humans but save the Universe.
Low EMS - Reapers win- Unable to find a solution, the Reapers create a new cycle of extinction.
This could have also applied to closure for the endings since different characters would have survived but most of the ME2 storywriters including Drew Karpyshyn went to work on... Star Wars: The Old Republic... which is MMORPG which made both games look bad and replaced ME2 storywriters with ones who didn't know the story. There is also the matter the fact that the Dark energy ending was leaked but then again not many people would knew about it and if they were never forced to move on to another project, I have no doubt they would have worked something out that would have made sense and stuck by the series' integrity.
On the other hand, AC3 also seemed to have a slight controversial ending and I was little disappointed that there wasn't much closure but I don't see it as a bad ending. Sure Desmond dies and now Juno is gonna rule the world. That doesn't mean the assassins won't forget his sacrifice! He'll live on in a legacy giving the assassins and templars a fighting chance. The reason why I also like this ending is that is stands by the series. Mass Effect usually has endings that mean all your choices mattered whereas with AC, we get a crazy ending leaving it on to yet another cliffhanger and the next game. AC3 was able to stand by this whereas ME3, turned down the gamers.
(Spoilers end here)
So overall, both series have it's triumphs and flaws but in the end, AC3 has been criticized way too much for things that we should be blaming other games for too. I mean, at least AC3 stood by it's fans even though both franchises are on the hints of becoming mainstream whereas ME3 let me and several other players down. I played Mass Effect for the interstellar setting but fell in love with the lore, the universe and the choices but since the story, gameplay and most importantly, the choices, it has headed too far. Many people who praise Mass Effect are actually starting to realize that Bioware did make these promises and therefore can understand and respect gamers that went off the series. It is also possible that Mass Effect was hyped up and well received because of the fact that it's like a space opera for this generation like Star Wars.
Ultimately if I never played the previous Mass Effect 3 games before and headed right towards ME3 without listening to any of the news and updates, I believe I would have enjoyed the game but this is where we have Mass Effect red handed! There are issues with the game that hold it back and consequently people are quick to judge it on a sloppy ending and rate it about a 9 whereas they may judge AC3 too fast.
Your opinion will depend on which of the games you have played, whether it has affected your gaming ways, etc. Therefore I fully respect your opinions and I can tell that I'm probably in need of the Citadel ending.
So I've just made a new record on my longest written blog so I'll stop there. Remember, if you have something to say, please don't hesitate to write in the comments.
Thanks for reading! Hope you enjoyed. 