Mass Effect 3: A Shooter RPG Or An RPG Shooter

Having finally finished Mass Effect 2 for the first time the other day, I got to thinking about the differences between the first and second games, and what they might mean for Mass Effect 3. Bioware, and by extension EA of course, want to sell as many copies of ME3 as possible, and in order to do so would need to create a product with as wide an appeal as possible. The question is how will they, or can they make a game with broad appeal that is in fact the third part of a trilogy? I mean, a lot has happened since Mass Effect 1, can Bioware make an ever bigger block-buster game while still satisfying the fans who were there from the beginning?

If I had heard nothing about Mass Effect 3 and you asked me where I thought the franchise was going, having just finished ME2, I would have said 'downhill'. Now don't get me wrong, ME2 will probably remain one of my favorite games ever, but it was such a smoothed over affair compared to the first game. Mass Effect 1 is a fairly standard RPG 'in space', there are loads of armor levels and customization slots, weapon attachments, and ammo types. You can really zero in and play the way you want to play. You feel invested in your character even outside of the (totally amazing) dialogue options and plot variants. In Mass Effect 2, Bioware went over all of the quirks in ME1 with an ironing bulldozer and made a silky game, but was it too smooth?

For example, I praise them for the presence of mind to fix the god-awful inventory system from the first game, but their solution left a bit to be desired. They removed the inventory completely from ME2, all you can really pick up is ammo, money, and research-schematics. That fun feeling I would get from opening a locker and finding a better gun, or better ammo, or higher level armor is gone. The same approach extends to the class customization. Bioware took the number of powers you had in the first game and cut that in half, in fact, it might be less because they fit 'ammo type' in as a power (as opposed to equipment). Their changes weren’t all bad, the combat in the second game feels much more fluid and the enemy AI is craftier. Bioware also didn't fiddle with every one's favorite part of the franchise, the conversations. The depth of  the dialogue in Mass Effect 2 is probably deeper than  that of ME1. That being said, I still love the end of the first game a lot more than I like the end of the second. I mean come on, a massive naval space battle raging over a huge space station as you crash through corridors shooting Geth in the face? That is definitely hard to top. Even the way the music at the end of the first game rises and turns into a ‘Bourne Identity-esque’ movie jam as it fades to credits is awesome. While the end of the second game is definitely exciting and the permutations of ways to save your crew lead to plenty of drama, I didn't feel that fist-pump/"hell-yeah" moment. As Mass Effect 2 is the second game in a series you might assume this was because the game ends with a cliff hanger, however, it does not. Things wrap up 'okay', but the scope of the last fifteen or twenty percent of that game just isn't the same as the first one.

So where does this leave us? Mass Effect 3 is imminent and I hope Bioware can split the difference. I want a game with the customization and personalization of Mass Effect 1, and the combat flow of Mass Effect 2. Thankfully, it seems like that might be the case, but who am I kidding, as long as my Shepard can kick a hole in the speaker, pull the plug, and shove someone out an air-lock, I guess I'll be satisfied. Here's to you, Bioware.