Yeah, I realize this.
Still, it's the closest thing I can find to a comparison for a "disappointment" of this magnitude.

How about DA2?

e: except you know, not just the ending but the whole game

I don't.

Funny thing that...
While I'm a bit disappointed with it, it's more over the fact that you can tell it's rushed.

Other than that, DA2 was an improvement across the board.

But, hey. That's crazy talk from somebody who totally loved ME3, ending and all. So, if you want, feel free to ignore that.

Even the Zerg rush of enemies at all times?
Even though from what I understand it did not really have a central plot at all, just a collection of "Misadventures of some guy named Hawke"?

Dunno if anyone's mentioned it yet, but now shit is getting bananas, as Bioware and Mass Effect 3 have been reported to the Federal Trade Commission for false advertising claims.

I feel I should note that whether or not you believe the person is justified in this action, they are entirely within their rights to report the game for what they believe is a legit grievance, and the sheer amount of backlash against them is hilarious.

IMHO, there may be an entitlement problem in the gaming community, but if those comments are any indication then the people with an entitlement problem aren't the players.

... I did not experience a Zerg rush at any point in time. Not more than in Dragon Age: Origins anyway.
And the plot was there, if you gave it a chance. "Misadventures of some guy named Hawke" was very much part of it though.

But, yes. I think DA2 was an improvement "despite" all that. Especially gameplay-wise.

This is actually from being rushed, as well. They didn't have time to properly test combat balance with all the changes, so they just made respawning enemies to create something similar, instead of harder to balance single wave battles.

This becomes especially apparent when you play the DLC and they don't exist in them, instead having those well balanced single wave encounters. Also the DA2 DLC is some of the best DLC I've played for a game.


That's what Character Driven Story means, in general.

I mean there's a world changing plot, but it's not the focus because why does Hawke care about all this stuff until it impacts him/her? Hawke just wanted to get away from the blight and live outside of the gutters of refugee camps.

Oh I don't have a problem with this at all.

If you know the main character was actually a character. But like Shepard and other game protagonists, the main character is basically a blank slate, and it is up to you if he/she is nice/a jerk/or just bland(neutral).

The Old Republic has this problem. All of the class stories seem to be essentially just collections of adventures, thinking that your character can carry it, when your character will always be stock so you can appeal to him/her. (although Dark Side Imperial Agent is hilarious as it seems he does his best to out jerk every Sith around). It just never really worked for me.

Old Republic's narrative sort of falls apart when you have a party though.

As me and Ramary went through it up to level fifteen twice we played opposing sides of Dark and Light side choices. These choices were left up to a roll. So if Ramary was playing his Sith Agent and I my light side bounty hunter, we rolled based on what we wanted and if he won we chose the Dark Side option. I would still get light side points because I chose otherwise, but the circumstances of whatever mission we had next were based on that roll we got.
But then, based on the choice we get the options based on that choice. Without a mention that my character never really agreed to that choice in the first place. So while apparently my character didn't really want to let Ramary shoot that kid in the face, the next dialogue option might have let her laugh about it.