No wonder Casey Hudson left. This game is missing them sc-fi feels.

^this.

I know of  17 personal friends and family members that do not like ME 3 as much as the other  Mass Effect games. Interesting enough is that the younger members ( people younger than 30 ) focus on the ending as the problem while the older people felt the game lost it's way after the Tuchanka story arch and that the ending just made you more aware of the problems to where  you could not forgive the issues that one had with the game up until the ending. In an agreeable ending type of scenario people will forgive the weaker aspects of the game as long as they can walk away  feeling good about it. The biggest problem with the ending is that they tried to fit and justify to much stuff in a short span of time that just made it feel that not only was it not a Mass Effect type of game or it simply  was just not believable. In short they tried to make it Star Trek smart ,but it was beyond their means to do so.

So the only thing everybody has against Casey Hudson is the ME3 ending, which in my opinion I would hold out more against Mac Walters - because you know, he's the writer and ME3 writing was pretty bad and inconsistent with ME1 & 2 anyway, not just the ending was bad. But whatever. At least ME3 still had that sci-fi feels, and Andromeda doesn't even feel like I've played a sci-fi game. It's a really strange feeling. Like nobody on the current BioFail team even understands what it's like to love movies like Aliens and Blade Runner. Pity.

Seriously... what? Dude Casey was the lead designer. HE HAS THE FINAL SAY OUT SIDE OF EA.  It does not matter what Mac writes, it can only be in it if Casey says so. He should of seen that what ever Mac wrote was a bad idea  and not put it in. Yet he allowed it. Sorry, but it's Casey's fault not Mac's.

As if Casey had been still been great by the time they started working on ME:A, wasn't it him that had a hand in making the rubbish we know as Mass Effect 3? (Sure, it does have certain moments, but it doesn't fit the rest of the trilogy, the story is too linear (I myself would recruit all the "minor" races first and then go for the Asari, if given the choice, because with them "in the boat" the others will fall in line way easier!), the ending is (even with Extended Cut!) bullshit!)

Oh I am not saying he can't make good games, but he had already lost his mojo before ME:A (not that the other guys did any better - I mean I had fun in ME:A, but compared to ME1 and 2 it's mediocre (!)...except for the combat system! Funny how this kind of is also true for Dragon Age (except that inquisition had that button mashing for auto-attacks...damned, WHY? And the submarine thing (the pinging to highlight stuff you could interact with or pick up!))...Bioware really is losing its touch, they once were masters of their art, but ATM they are apprentices at best!)

greetings LAX

Still doesn't make him a writer. And unfortunately for Casey, the lead writer he had was shit. Case in point, Andromeda's horrible writing where Mac Walters was given even more powers to ruin things up. And ruin things up good he did.

Best case scenario:  It'll be looked back upon, people will laugh nervously, and change the subject.

No, Mac did wonderful work with Garrus in ME1/2 and probably more stuff in ME2 but the guy should never have replaced Drew as the new Lead Writer and appointing him to Creative Director after the massive idiocy of ME3's ending is such a backwards decision I've continually wondered if BioWare thought the initial wave of criticism was done by deliberate "Haters" or people out to "get them" and then they thought to give Mac a higher-ranking role out of spite for those people? I don't know, but with all the talk about BioWare running their company with rampant nepotism it doesn't surprise me at all. They just don't realize how much it's hurting their production pipeline to let mid-tier staff rise up to the point of ineptitude and crippling their projects from up top.

Mac could barely even point out how ME1 came to be as it did in the latest interview he gave. It just reaffirms my opinions of him that he was a tag-along senior writer on ME1 who opportunistically rose in rank when Drew wanted to leave because he underestimated how much baggage this franchise is. Just the fact that he says creating minutiae in lore is his weak-point as a writer tells me almost everything I need to know about him as the creative controller of this IP. Mass Effect, as far as I'm concerned, is specifically known because of its strong identity that is shaped thanks to the intricate lore. It's what every major retrospective I've watched seems to point out, that the lore rivals real history almost, and even if you don't understand all of it or don't care to you have this sense of awe over how vast and believable it is - there is so much to learn beyond what you've picked up on. That's all a testament to how much detail this franchise has/had. Mac allegedly cares but he didn't consider it as carefully when deciding ME3 had to be like a "summer end-of-the-world blockbuster" or shoehorning Cerberus in everywhere, and now he's sitting telling Gamespot or whichever it was that even he is impressed with how ME1 came to be.

The difference between Mac and Drew is that Mac has a lot of ideas and sometimes good intuition but Drew K knew what he was doing. He knows how to map out a story. Judging by the Foundation comics or the Evolution series that Mac respectively penned and drafted the stories for it feels like a scramble of whichever idea he had floating around in his head at the time. The Foundation comics in particular are just meandering or episodic but without purpose, which is how I believe he winds up writing almost every story he's done (except for Garrus). Think about the Kid in ME3. Traumatic dreams, then NOTHING. Udina stages a coup... and then NOTHING. In Andromeda 

The difference between Mac/Drew and Casey is that they're the writers and he's the director/vision-holder. He can tell what he wants to happen but ultimately they'll be writing it for him. The most deliberate example I can think of is the notion that L'Etoile had to write about Shepard's armor for Legion when it completely contradicted what he wanted Legion to be. That was most likely Casey's directive and ultimately that was also the directive of ME3: "Synthetics can develop emotions, they're like us." He was having a bigger picture in mind whereas L'Etoile, the writer, was concerned about the specific draft he was working on. Drew is probably a bit better than most there because he writes trilogies in his spare time, just finished a full new book trilogy in between his departure from BioWare between 2012 and 2016 in fact.

oh goodie, vonuber plays the false equivalence game again.

Just because you love MEA, doesn't invalidate how anybody feels about the OT. If you like MEA more than the OT, that invalidates you in my opinion.

See, it's all an opinion. I love the OT and I will never say anything about the ME3 ending other than it blew dog ass. Your argument is tired as fuck. My nostalgia is for the moments of each game.

Many of you seem to wrongly think that I and others compare the TRILOGY after all patching and DLC to MEA. That is a giant assumption, and a stupid one.

ME1 - liked it for what I liked it for
ME2 - liked it for what I liked it for
ME3 - liked it until the end, then played MP

I compare what I see from this game to each of those games individually, with as little prism as possible because FFS it is just a game.

...

Casey Hudson left because he was never going to get all that egg of his face working for Biower. If he wants to make a new start, I don't blame him. We all screw up.

Honestly, I don't even think it's worth talking with people who only see issues in the ending in all ME3's writing.

But whatever, this topic is about the sci-fi-ness of MEA, or the lack of.

Have you played the games?