6 Ways Mass Effect 3 Can Still Fail

     I'm starting to worry myself. In between fits of whispering "Garrus" to the shadows or waking up to find myself playing Mass Effect 2 unconsciously, I'm beginning to think I'm a little tooexcited for Mass Effect 3.

     Then again...it's Mass Effect 3. This is a game I've been waiting for since 2007: it's the end for Commander Shepard, for the Council, for the Reapers. I've never seen a series so dedicated to its story (sorry, Metal Gear), and that's why I love it. I've made the choices, I've killed the giant evil bugs, and I've punched the reporters. Everything I've done is building up to this one, final fight against an enemy that kills off the entire galaxy when it feels like it.

      Still...there's something nagging at the back of my brain. BioWare, the creators of the game, probably wouldn't make any huge mistakes, but...what if they did? Mass Effect 3 isn't the most important game in the series just because it's the end, but because gamers finally get to reap what they've sewn. That's great, but at the same time, it can lead to huge problems, especially if...

 

 

     The cast of Mass Effect is, for the most part, completely badass. Garrus is the rookie cop, crashing flying police cars and beating up suspects. Jack is the crazy kid kept in the corner, pulling apart enemies with her brain. Wrex is Wrex (and that, by default, makes him badass). However, there have definitely been some misses. In Mass Effect, Tali was little more than a female Scotty, sitting quietly in the engine room for the entire duration of the game. Far worse, however, was Miranda, a Cerberus fangirl who won't stop questioning my orders throughout the entirety Mass Effect 2. Even Liara has seen better days, as she was pushed aside and became a DLC-only character.

     The only new character we know much about is James Vega, who starred in the Mass Effect 3 Reveal Trailer. Since then, he's apparently eaten another person, doubled in size, and...that's about it. Those who have seen the intro of the game know that he and Shepard seem to have some history, but that's it. He doesn't seem that interesting, and there's no indication of what his class will be (most speculate that he'll be another Soldier, something that's already been coveredmultiple times). Alongside characters I've grown attached to, he doesn't hold a candle. Hopefully something will happen in-game that gives me more confidence in the character, but at this point, I don't really care.

     Now, new characters are, at least, relatively contained. It'd be a much, much bigger problem if, say...

 

 

     The original Mass Effect was a great RPG, just not the best of shooters. Taking cover was clunky, and there were only four guns (they were only slightly different). Mass Effect 2 did a much better job overall, sacrificing the sheer number of different guns and mods for distinct weapon types. It also did a much better job with movement and featured a completely new cover system to boot. Despite all of these improvements, it was still far behind other shooters likeGears of War. BioWare has had ample time to improve the cover system and movement mechanics, and they've shown a lot of new improvements. Still, most of this still seems like playing catch-up to games like Gears of War 3 and Uncharted 3. Those two games perfected the cover system for their respective styles, and Mass Effect 3 need to do something in order to make an impact. Gears of War 3 (which is closest to Mass Effect's cover system) greatly increased the number of options the player had while in cover, and Mass Effect doesn't seem to have reached that level of playability.

     Still, gameplay is second to story in Mass Effect....unless you take away the story, add more players, and then announce that multiplayer affects the main storyline. You could do all of that, but then you risk alienating players because...

 

 

     No one thought Mass Effect multiplayer was necessary. Not a single person. If someone happened to think that Mass Effect needed multiplayer, it's because they forgot that Gears of War existed. Now, I'm not saying that Mass Effect multiplayer is going to be bad, it's just...unnecessary. I'm not even going to play it until I'm done with the main storyline. One of the reasons for that is simply because I don't like playing multiplayer before the single player campaign. That's just prefence, but the other reason is that multiplayer is actually going to affect single player progression.

     This is a problem, because Mass Effect is my story. It's my Shepard, they're my choices, they're my consequences. Now, the last thing I need is some 14-year-old brat on Xbox Live who decides to teamkill affecting the ending of my story. Mass Effect is so special to me because it's mine...and I know that something like the situation I described is going to happen, and someone's going to get a bad ending because of it. If the two modes were completely separate and distinct, I'd be excited...but we all know how teenagers are. If they can, they'll mess your stuff up just for the fun of it. Because they're evil, and probably had terrible parents.

     Evil teenagers or not, Mass Effect is mine because of my choices in the previous games. Unless...

 

 

     Mass Effect 3 is going to be quite the epic struggle: gamers are going to be playing for the fate of the galaxy, and that means our actions are going to dictate the outcome the war. The actions we take throughout the course of Mass Effect 3 will determine the ending of the entire Mass Effect storyline.

 

     So...what was the point of the other two games?

 

     No, I'm not saying that the choices from Mass Effect 1 and 2 won't have an impact on Mass Effect 3. What could happen is that those choices don't carry enough weight. If there's no consequence for me torching that giant evil bug queen in the first game, what was the point of having it there in the first place? Was there a point to the Thorian? Was there a point to killing Patriarch? If there aren't repercussions, gamers are going to feel like the older games didn't really mean anything aside from setting up the story. For a series that built its name on choice and consequence, that's somewhat inexcusable.

    Then again, maybe it's not that the older choices won't matter, but instead...

 

 

      On the flip-side, Mass Effect 3 may be too influenced from prior choices. Confused? Here's an example:

 

     One of the biggest choices in the original game was whether or not to kill the Rachni Queen. For me, that was easy, because bugs are disgusting and they all deserve to burn. So, I promptly torched the $@!% out of that bug and went on my merry way.

     Now, imagine I'm at the end of Mass Effect 3, and it turns out that my only way of success was through a timely intervention...by the Rachni Queen. She swoops in, saves the day, and Shepard goes on to punch a Reaper in the face...only she doesn't, because she's dead. Shepard fails, Reapers win, and I have to play through the entire series again just to save a stupid bug that totally deserved to die anyway.

 

      That situation right there is one of my biggest fears. Is Mass Effect 3 going to be ruined at the last minute by something I did (or didn't) do in one of the other games? I realize that some things may be locked out depending on my choices, but if something as important as the ending is affected in a drastic way because of something I did in 2007, I'm going to feel cheated out of my story.

     Then again, none of this - absolutely none of this - matters if...

 

 

     This is the big one. Everyone reading this has been hurt by a crappy ending. Halo 2, God of War 2, Modern Warfare 2, Resident Evil 5 (wow, that's a lot of sequels)...all of these games completely failed to deliver anything close to a meaningful conclusion. Most of them are cliffhangers, designed to wrangle in more players. In terms of endings, Mass Effect has been great about actually, you know, ending the game. The original Mass Effect ended with a feeling of hope by defeating a supposedly undefeatable enemy; Mass Effect 2 ended by getting back at the bastards that tore you and your ship apart. Not only does Mass Effect 3 have the task of saving the galaxy in an epic fashion, but it also needs to truly make the player feel like they are making a difference. All of the allies they've made, all of their slain enemies, and all of the choices that they've made need to impact a story that spans years of gaming. It isn't just the ending of one game, it's the ending of a series that started three games, several books, and multiple comics. Simply put, there's nothing else like Mass Effect in gaming today. It's a custom-built experience for millions of gamers. If BioWare finishes the series with a half-hearted conclusion, they'll soil the experience for all of those gamers who put the time in, and they'll never hear the end of it.

 

 

     Now, I realize that this article is entirely pessimistic and negative. Why am I going over everything that could go wrong so close to launch? Trust me, there's a reason.

     It's because I truly believe that BioWare is going to make Mass Effect 3 a game I can play for months on end, enjoy every second of it, and validate why I've been playing their games for the past five years. If they prove every single word of this article wrong, I'm going to be the most satisfied customer on the freakin' planet.

Also, I'm kind of a jerk.