It is strange that EA never looked at Mass Effect as their own Far Cry or Call of Duty that could support annual or biannual releases.
I imagine EA or Bioware didn't perceive RPGs as having long-term series potential, like Battlefield or FIFA.
Mass Effect wasn't a blockbuster hit. It was moderately successful. ME2 was engineered from the start, to be a blockbuster hit.
In other words, the original ME was ditched and ME2 was a soft reboot of the series and it was a massive success.
What I imagine EA/Bioware execs learned from this, was that ME1 was not a winning formula, while ME2 was the golden ticket.
It's ironically similar to what happened to Dead Space and DS2 (and then DS3), which is also and EA franchise from a similar time period.
This lesson is mostly wrong, IMO - in reality, games tend to sell on the reputation of the last game in the series. This may seem counter-intuitive, but it probably has to do with how word-of-mouth works, piracy and deep discounts for older titles.
ME2/ME3 make the galaxy feel way too small, like it's a neighborhood or something.
Precisely, and it also reminds me of the new Star Wars movies. Perhaps this is some kind of a mental trap that some writers/producers fall into when trying to be risk-averse.
It's just a terrible waste of resources and potential, but probably the most "safe" and cynical option.
The missed opportunities and wasted potential of ME2 is excruciating.
It's like seeing an entire crop of grapes, from your favorite vineyard, being crushed to make grape-soda.
What a waste.