Extensive Analysis by Noah Gervais

Especially Majoras Mask

I would say no.

But Zelda as a series has a mythology all to it's own. Link as a character is the personified mythic hero for a reason because of that. 

Breath of the Wild is the first game since Ocarina of Time to really tap into that mythology and give the world weight though id argue. For that, I think folks are much more forgiving when it comes to mediocre voice acting. 

I kind of alluded to it.

Partially the ability to be the hero in Link and to experience the journey around you. Did a whole article on that one already (big shock I know)

Partially to play a good adventure game that can encompass that feeling of being the hero. The history, mythology and context of each Zelda game is different but builds on the whole: Link is a 21st century Mythological character, and the Legend of Zelda is a mythological story in the same vein as the labors of Heracles. 

That is very appeal from a context standpoint, from a gameplay standpoint it has always been a solid experience as well.

I would agree that implementation is a big issue. To me MEA is utterly tone deaf. The premise is serious, yet the characters don't seem to take things seriously. I find that extremely jarring. Of course it's more complicated than that. Mixing serious drama and banter is very much possible and good TV shows pull it off perfectly (Farscape, for example). It needs a balance. Even the new Guardians of The Galaxy takes the sad moments VERY seriously, so much so that the ending is incredibly corny. But it works for the most part. The trilogy had a good mix of truly horrifying stuff and fun banter to give players a break from the gloom and doom once in a while.

I fully concede that it might just be that MEA's humor is not my thing. I find it cringe-worthy and often juvenile. I would have LOVED a Firefly sort of spin-off. Not averse to a more light-hearted tone at all. After overcoming the shock and sadness of leaving the Milky Way I was looking forward to something very different. I just think MEA failed (spectacularly) to deliver.

One thing I disagree with is that ME1 was about exploration. I thought it was a tacked on technical mess (Mako) and not interesting in the least. I NEVER wanted more roaming empty ugly moon landscapes. To me Mas Effect was about humanity's future in a galactic society of fascinating alien races and their cultures. The latter is present in MEA too. So again, it's largely implementation (and scope of alien society) and failing to add something new, or even just to tell a really cool story. It's too rehashed. I would have actually preferred a totally new game/franchise to give us this sense of wonder and amazement that ME1 provided.

It *is* hard to replicate something upon revisiting it, maybe even impossible. Mass Effect was supposed to end with Shepard and maybe it should have.

I agree that the fanbase is fractured more than ever. Many older fans seem to have moved on. At least the Baldur's Gate crowd seems gone from the forum. I remember back when ME2 was released there was still constant whining that Bioware betrayed their roots and should go back. Lots of new fans here who enjoy different things now, including those who are mostly interested in the MP.

In my opinion Bioware is in a very difficult position. Creatively nothing good ever comes out of trying to please as many people as possible. But games have become so expensive to make that I understand wanting to play it safe.
The difference to popular (shooter) franchises that pop out a new game once a year is - to me - that the fanbase is less diverse. Or at least their expectations are. There are products that sell so well exactly because they remain the same. People expect to play the same game with updated graphics. Human beings are creatures of habit. And we don't usually like things to be TOO different than what we know. Yet when it's too similar it can be a problem too. Franchises like Pokemon sell mostly on childhood nostalgia these days. Too different might actually be one contributing factor to MEA's mixed reception. This was also something criticized about DAI, too Disney in style. MEA is different visually and more so tonally.

So I would actually say going for something less grim in tone was actually risky. Playing it safe was the story and the characters. Both sort of backfired.

I can totally understand that Bioware employees were fed up with all the death threats. That's not helping anybody make better games. I don't think shutting down the old forum was a good idea because the discussions and death threats just continue elsewhere, but I understand Bioware did not want to spend money maintaining a forum so hostile towards their products.

Bioware cannot win the favor of everyone, so I would personally advise them to just make the games THEY want. From a creative point of view. Maybe that's naive of me, but wouldn't a  well-made game with a strong narrative have better chances at being successful than a game made worrying about who might take offense? ME1 kicked off an extremely popular franchise even though combat was just passable even then. Sure, Bioware probably went for shooter mechanics because they got popular. It's not inherently bad to incorporate what's popular. But they ended up blending different things into their own thing. More action focused RPGs, hybrids really. Of course this might be why the fanbase is so fractured. Different camps came together, demanding Bioware to lean more into one direction than the other. Bioware's combat systems have never been great. Then ME3's combat was actually really fun and MP celebrated. So now people not only expect Bioware to deliver a great narrative and great characters but also good combat. These days Bioware's less than stellar track record with animations stick out more. As gamers, we're greedy and want the best in every respect and then everything there is in one game, and Bioware Montreal made the rookie mistake of trying to actually deliver a bit of everything. But that leaves none of it to be remarkable. I believe this was also the problem with No Man's Sky. They wanted to do too much.

So again, my advice is to try and tune this all out and think what NEW stuff they can bring to the table, what aspects to focus and build on. In the past it always felt like Bioware tried to put the best of film narrative into interactive game format and I loved that. And lots of other developers started emulating the cinematic experience, boasting their own dialogue wheels and choices.
Whether Bioware wants to continue that or focus more on gameplay and exploration is up to them. But they need to decide which way to go. They CAN'T do right by the hardcore roleplayers AND those who want a highly emotional film-like narrative. It does not go together. Open world CAN work for them, but not the way they've been going about it.

That's a rough rundown of my current thoughts on this complex topic.

I don't see how this part is conceptually distinct from "story."

Your initial thesis that MEA should not be analyzed in such a manner may be a personal opinion, but since the implication is that such a view is good as a general guideline, I will treat it as such. Now, as a general guideline, such a policy just isn't particularly good. Now, MEA does lend itself the least to such analysis out of the other entries in the series and even the Dragon Age games, but that doesn't really excuse it from being broken down in the same fashion. Now, when being gone over with such a fine-toothed comb, the other games held up better, which I feel is somewhat indicative of how underwhelming MEA was overall.

On BotW, the Zelda franchise (and many other Nintendo series) have always been more centered around their mechanics and design rather than their story content. Kind of like how no one giving a credible review of an epic strategy game will be upset about slow pacing in the same way that they might be playing a military shooter or an action platformer.

I'm not sure we should be talking about TFA in this context. It's difficult to come up with a metric where TFA didn't succeed. Wouldn't Batman vs. Superman be more on-point? That seems to have earned out, but may have damaged the franchise in the process. 

But then "story" is a major selling point, isn't it? It's just that we get the same story over and over, with new lore bolted on.

You sir are a gentleman and a scholar.

I mean people's reviews of story is mostly subjective anyways. IMO ME3's story was terrible. Every mission was there to quickly tie up a subplot and the convienent plot of the crucible felt poorly tacked on. Nothing really worked for me in that game. The mechanics as well. Oh hey, now we have this awesome new mechanic....Ladders! Yay! I love ladders in narrow corridors or small
Maps with zero exploration in a space game!

MEA is not as good as ME2 (but it was more fun)in terms of overall quality for its time but it is a huge improvement from ME3 in everything except facial animations and poor polish.

Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines

actualy, it was the gameplay
there was nothing like this before
and since the original Legend of Zelda? No idea, never looked back after getting a PC and since Zelda is nintendo excklusive...