One thing I hate about discussing the trilogy in general

"Mass Effect 1 is the only story that made sense." "The writers didn't even know what the Reapers were themselves." "Nothing from a writing standpoint was good in either ME2 or ME3" and similar forum-going cliches.

Incidentally all these are from the Community Thread in NeoGAF from yesterday. I know I can bitch and moan about how shit I think the writing is in ME3, but I loathe the generalizations of how because the plot pretty much fails at large in ME2 and ME3 at least as a continuation ppl take it to extremes and discredit anything ME2 or ME3 do well and say "ME1 is perfect". And then, in that same topic people get really defensive when some start pointing out how there are obvious patchwork and stitched-together plot elements in ME1 as well, as if it's blasphemy.

I bring it up because I remember this happening a lot back on the old BioWare forum as well and it really annoyed me how I could never point anything out about ME3 being sucky in my opinion without someone going "But ME2 was teh worst, so..." or "Every game is a reboot after ME1" and before we turn this into a competition to see who can complain the most, let me go back on topic and say I just think it's silly that people are so nostalgic about ME1 to the point that nothing in ME2 or ME3 can compare almost, when they did have really strong moments, world building, even continuity in important places and it's as if that doesn't matter because as a whole it didn't connect in the end.

I just think it's ironic because people don't realize how easy part 1 is to make in most stories. The writers can come up with anything and keep that idea spinning in a coherent fashion for that first story arc, but it's not until part 2 and 3 have to switch things up and focus on different sub-stories, themes or expand the scope a bit that it gets tough and they have to follow up on what was made up in part 1. And ME1 is a story I am sure contradicted its own logic numerous times as they developed it due to cuts but they ended up making it work. According to Dave Gaider any BioWare ever had massive cuts in its core story or content that made writers bang their heads against a wall, and ME1 was no different. The final cut was definitely more coherent than ME2 or ME3, but there are still visible patches in it or leaps in logic or plot pacing, most notably in how the Citadel search for evidence against saren goes or how barebones Therum is. It's really the final crescendo of Ilos and the finale that is ME1's saving grace in terms of its plot, and the notion that ME3 failed because "they hadn't thought up the story" or "they wrote as they went along" is an illegitemate criticsm in my view because if you replaced ME3's ending with a great one, you'd have a damn satisfying plot for the whole trilogy even with the Dark Energy mysteries of ME2 dropped.

The thing is, you can't say a writer has to pen out their stories for their entire stretch of their plan. Look at Breaking Bad (haven't watched it personally, but...) it's such a damn revered show and notably for how good its ending was as well, but guess what, the writers admitted they almost wrote themselves into corners that would break the story 2-3 times along the way because they hadn't planned anything out beyond the overall structure, just like Mass Effect. You can write an excellent 3-part story or a series story starting from part 1 without knowing exactly how part 2 or 3 turns out in advance as a writer. It's simply a matter of writing smart and knowing how to use the restrictions you've created for yourself to your advantage. The Reaper threat in the trilogy was so massive most fans saw it becoming an issue way before ME3, even some were skeptical as they were revealed to be the main villains in ME1 already. But it was all a matter of how the issue would've been handled. The scenario with the Crucible and the war we got in ME3 was just one way it could've been done. There could've been more, but smaller Crucibles. There could've been Conduit-like devices scattered throughout the Milky Way that would sabotage Mass Relay systems to damage Reapers nearby, or anything, really. Beating Reapers were a matter of doing something unconventional and not making it too contrived. You could've done it within those requirements in ME3 or used the plot of ME2 in different ways to satisfy the idea that there was meaning to having three parts in a story that started with ME1.

All in all, I just think the assumption that a story has to be written with an ending planned completely in advance is an illegitimate criticism. Moreover, I think saying that ME2 or ME3 sucks, while kinda fair since ME1 defined our perception of what the series should be, I don't think for a second the final product of ME1 was one that fulfilled the idea BioWare had in their minds when they were making ME1 - it was a game made with an ambitious vision and to some extent fell kinda short in various places, and naturally BioWare wanted to refine things with future games to better fulfill their initial idea. I'm not arguing ME3 is more in line with what ME1 tried to be at all, no, ME3 sucks, but aside from certain Gears of War shitty aspects ME2 certainly was more what they tried to make with ME1, and aesthetically I beileve ME3 was closer as well. I think people's rose-tinted glasses for ME1 are mainly due to the initial fanbase from 2007~ that replayed that game over and over and then felt alienated when ME2 shipped and veered so far off the direction they had gotten adjusted to, which was already a direction BioWare hadn't 100% consciously made to begin with.