Fanbase Phenomenon: The Latest ME is Always the Worst

It died along with EA's faith in ME:A because a bunch of twitter asshats made shitty memes.

To be fair, though, Casey, coupled with a recently retained Drew Karpyshyn, has tantalizing possibilities if, after "Anthem" is launched, they once again turn their attention back to the 'Mass Effect' franchise.  Say what you want about the gameplay of the first game but it had the best and most consistent story of any of the series' releases.    It wouldn't be too hard to imagine a new Mass Effect game that employs the best of ME:A while getting a more robust narrative direction.

This isn't objective quality.

On the old forums there was a guy who argued that he thought Mass Effect 1's combat system was better than in ME2 or ME3 because he was all about it being a RPG and in ME1 the gun's accuracy is tied to a character's skill rather than specifically to the weapon itself. He used the pause menu to aim so the act of missing or not was entirely up to the character's stats(as it ought to be in a RPG) and didn't like what ME2 did because you basically couldn't miss with that method regardless of which weapon you were using since accuracy was no longer a character stat.

It's important to note this because if there was such as thing as objective quality of a video game then you'd be able to debunk this person's argument that this system is better, but the best you can do is say "Well I think it sucks" which is an opinion(and thus not objective). Personally I hate when a shooter makes me manually aim and adds a character accuracy stat on top of that, but it's not objective fact that not doing that is better just because I personally like it.

From what I've seen of your argument against Mass Effect 1 in this thread it all boils down to "The mechanics are garbage" which is fine if that's your opinion, but when you go around acting like it's objective fact that ME:A is a better quality game that just makes you look arrogant. Especially when you're claiming that a large percentage of people who don't agree with you are just screaming idiots.

At no point have I claimed that a large number of people agreeing on something makes it objective. I said that's the best you can do because you'll never be able to make an actual objective statement about how good a game is.

and yes just because a lot of people say ME:A is a bad game also doesn't make it objective fact, but you're the one who attempted to claim that ME:A is objectively higher quality than ME1. I'm calling your argument arrogant on the grounds that you specifically claimed your opinion was 100% true indisputable fact when you said the quality of a game isn't subjective.

When talking about video games very little is objective. Take a look at this for example: www.destructoid.com/100-objective-review-final-fantasy-xiii-179178.phtml.

That's from Jim Sterling who was blasted after his review of Final Fantasy XIII because he hated on it and people were upset and claiming he wasn't objective about the quality of the game(Not entirely unlike what you've done here). As the title of the article would imply, it's a 100% objective review of the game, and you'll notice that it's all just general descriptions of what you'll see in the game but speaks nothing to the quality of it being good or bad(because that would be an opinion, and objective statements don't have those).

Unless you're here because defending the game is amusing to you, it will achieve little else to simply insult those who don't agree with you that ME:A is a good game since as I just pointed out it's pretty much 100% subjective(even if we sometimes find the reasons stupid).

I don't think the word objective means what you think it means(Nor was I telling you to back down from your opinion, but whatever).

Even with somebody like me your arguments have for the most part just been that "ME1 is terrible" which while not specifically insulting also isn't making any actual points. The one point you've actually made is that ME1 is broken by the end game in terms of balance while the others aren't(which is demonstrably false by the way, all the games are broken with the right builds even ME:A).

Which I guess is fine if that's what you want to do. Just don't expect to change any opinions.

I know very well what "objective" means, but in a completely subjective environment, one would take their own opinion as gospel and treat it as objective internally.

I have made points on why I think ME1 is terrible (controls, one dimensional characters, a cliche story) here and elsewhere and have politely discussed it ITT.

This thread was originally supposed to be about discussing the phenomenon among ME fans that I noticed, not a "muh game is better than your game" flingfest.

Lest be honest here though, internet debates never change minds nor do they end well. People who think ME1 is the best will never be swayed no matter how analytical one gets. Same goes for those who dislike ME:A.

Regardless, alanc9 and Cyonan , this discussion has veered the thread waaaay OT. PM me if you wish to continue this OT discussion, please.

Quoted for truth.

Agreed, but, out of curiosity, how is Tali a plothole?

@ Hybrid: the timing of Tali's arrival on the Citadel makes no sense. She has to leave for the Citadel later than the Normandy does, is aboard a slower ship, starts from the edge of Citadel territory, and still beats the Normandy to the Citadel by several hours at least. (We also have to swallow Saren's every utterance being broadcast to all his geth in real time to even get this to work; if the geth Tali disabled had to fly to her from Sovereign the timing gets even worse.)