BosanskiSeljak
Augur
I agree with first point, but there's plenty of ways to do that and make it good.I think Reapers work best as a background threat, which means ME2 had to be about something else. Once the Reapers appear for real in ME3 the writers apparently had to trivialize them into ordinary military opponents (as opposed to invincible eldrich horrors) to make a shooter game of it, which is the real decline of the trilogy. I would have liked ME3 to be an apocalypse horror game (similar to SOMA), but of course then nobody would have bought it.
ME2 failed at that.
How it should've worked:
ME1 Discovering the Reapers --> ME2 Exploring/Researching How to Beat the Reapers --> ME3 Fight the Reapers
There is so much they could've done with this, keeping mystery. ME1 set up so many potential exploration, plot points, etc. (Shamus Young has a good video on that). Hell, you could still keep the soap opera, character focused vibe. They didn't have to kill off everything & start from scratch with something disjointed, terrible pacing and illogical.
What the series really boils down to is
ME1 We found out Reapers!!!!! --> ME2 ?????? ----> ME3 Oh fuck we still have to fight Reapers
They made writing easy for themselves by making every story disconnected from the other, so it's inexcusable when they write in lore destroying things into a daddy issues story (ex. Jacobs loyalty missions). That's amateur hour.I agree that the above ruins the pacing, if they had cut a few more characters and their associated loyalty missions the game might have been 5/5 (and of course much shorter). The game's obsession with daddy issues is indeed laughable, but I don't think that makes the quality inconsistent; the daddy issues are well written (for being a game), it's just that we're too old to be the game's target audience.