Halo 5: Guardians Review – ‘A Colossal Misstep’

Halo 5 takes a few steps forward, but several leaps backwards in terms of quality. It simultaneously has some of the best gameplay and multiplayer in the series while having the worst campaign to date. There are areas where 343 Industries has been able to build on and improve the Halo formula, but these are greatly diminished in light of a terrible narrative which will greatly harm the series moving forward.

In order to present a balanced approach let’s start with what 343 has done well and improved upon from their previous entry. I am a big fan of the new advanced mobility options introduced in this game. We had a hint of this in Halo 4 with Sprint becoming a permanent addition to the move set, but Halo 5 takes this to a whole new level. Both characters (Master Chief and John Locke) are given a huge amount of ability to quickly move around the battlefield. Sprinting for long enough enables the player to perform an immensely satisfying Spartan charge, where they use this speed and momentum to jetpack-boost into a crunchy melee attack. This charge also allows you to quickly dash in any direction (much like a supercharged version of Evade from Halo: Reach) allowing you to quickly dodge incoming projectiles or escape when you become surrounded. Clamber/Vaulting is also a welcome addition in my mind. There have been several times throughout the series where I’ve jumped for a ledge only to miss it by a few inches and fall to my death, which was certainly a little immersion breaking when you’re playing as a near indestructible super solider. The only addition which feels a little unnecessary is aim down sights (ADS). I understand this is an attempt to further emulate more modern shooters like Call of Duty, but ADS is implemented in such a way that it doesn’t impact the gameplay in any substantial fashion - it doesn’t slow the player down, and there is no damage boost to using it, simply a little more accuracy. Now I don’t want Halo to be dependent on ADS as I feel it would completely change the gameplay dynamic, but one must ask why ADS is even in here at all when it has such a minimal impact on gameplay. Overall I really like these advanced mobility options. They feel like a real evolution of the Halo formula. Now I understand that many people dislike this aspect of Halo 5, instead preferring the slower pace of the previous games. However I think they are a positive addition; it may make the game feel less like classic Halo but it makes the combat so fun and satisfying that I’m willing to overlook that.

This refined gameplay benefits both the multiplayer and the campaign missions. I had a particularly fun time with the multiplayer of this game. The added movement options just make me feel so much more mobile and in control, whereas in previous Halo multiplayers I felt quite slow and sluggish, essentially slow-moving sniper fodder. But in Halo 5 I can sprint around the map at 100 miles an hour Spartan charging unsuspecting enemies, and ground-pounding them from above. Even long after I finished the campaign I still find myself going back to the multiplayer just because I find the gameplay so addictive. The same applies to the gameplay portions of the campaign to a certain extent. The missions themselves are fun to play – large, vertical arenas packed with enemies which you can approach in many different ways. You can go in straight ahead gun’s blazing, or you can clamber up a nearby structure and strike from above, or you can jump into a vehicle and simply drive right through the enemies. The larger arenas provide so much more choice to combat that they are genuinely pretty fun to replay. However this fun can be hampered by the unnecessary co-op, which attempts to add a new layer to combat, but ultimately fails in shaking up the formula. In fact the new co-op focused mechanics (e.g. not dying, but instead having to be revived by an AI teammate) detract from the campaign as they make you feel like the game is not intended to be played solo, which is especially problematic for a Halo game.

This is where I must start getting into the negatives. On a technical level Halo 5 is great. Its gameplay is fun, it’s visuals are gorgeous and it’s music is impactful (if a little generic). But the main reason I come to Halo is for the campaign, and in this entry the story is absurdly bad. So bad in fact that it actually makes all these other aspects feel pointless in a way. What’s the point in having good gameplay if there is no meaningful narrative or character work to pull you through the campaign. So what is so bad about the story? Well there’s a lot of things so forgive me for the following ramble.

I should first point out that I’m not necessarily upset by the ‘bait and switch’ that we end up playing as John Locke for 80% of the game (in 12 out of the 15 missions). This kind of subversion has worked in the past, notably in Metal Gear Solid 2 with the switch to Raiden and has even already occurred in the Halo series with us playing as the Arbiter for much of Halo 2’s run time. However the problem is Locke is just not an interesting enough character to take on the mantle from Master Chief. Throughout the entire game, whether in game or in cutscene, he remains a stoic, humourless Spartan. This worked for Chief because of his status as a legend within this universe, he is more of a force of nature than a man after all. But Locke is just another Spartan and he does nothing to endear us towards him, despite being the main character for a vast majority of the campaign. Of course his character was already set up in some expanded material like Nightfall, but that isn’t an excuse to have him be a wet blanket in this game. This same characterisation problem extends to both Locke’s squad and Chief’s. Why do Locke and Chief both need their own team of 3 other squad mates? Well its obviously so co-op can be forced in, but this wouldn’t be as problematic if the squad were endearing, interesting or did anything to justify their existence. 343 Industries can barely handle the characterisation of characters we already care about (like Chief and the Arbiter), let alone all these unnecessary, superfluous characters. Even Buck, one of the most charismatic characters from ODST, is reduced to the run of the mill Spartan comic relief. Out of the 8 squad members from either team the only one we truly care about is Master Chief and he is not given enough screen time or material for any meaningful character exploration.

Not only does this narrative fail in terms of characterisation and delivering a standalone story, but it fails as a follow-up to Halo 4. In fact it goes in such a different direction that you might think that 343 is deliberately trying to distance themselves from their previous work. Yes Halo 5 does still technically include the Prometheans and the Forerunners, but it does so in a completely different context. Halo 5 focuses far more on a sort of human v Artificial Intelligence (AI) storyline but attempts to use the narrative device of the Prometheans/Forerunners to elevate this AI threat to a far wider galactic scale. But the issue is that these two plot elements seem so diametrically opposed to each other, one about an ancient civilisation and the other about human-made AI. It was strange of 343 to try and force these 2 plot elements together into one storyline, and it resulted in a messy, convoluted plot which is not satisfying. Even if the AI element was taken out of the equation altogether, the Guardians themselves would still be a fairly uninteresting plot point. The idea of giant robots that can be used to police and control the galaxy is just nowhere near as interesting as the Halo rings which can eradicate all life in the Universe, and Bungie managed to come up with them all the way back in 2001. Much like the Didact from Halo 4, the Guardians and the Warden Eternal from this game just seem far too generic and cliché for this Halo universe. Perhaps they could have worked if given a better antagonist aiming to control them, and that brings us onto Halo 5’s biggest problem by far.

Let’s discuss the elephant in the room. Cortana being the main villain of Halo 5 is absolutely absurd. There is a place in fiction for protagonists taking the slow descent into becoming antagonists, but there has to be the necessary set up for this. Cortana did become noticeably erratic and angry towards the end of Halo 4 as her rampancy worsened and she continued to deteriorate, but she didn’t turn into an adversary for the Chief. In fact by the end of Halo 4 she sacrificed herself in order to save Master Chief from the Didact’s exploding ship. She isn’t succumbing to rampancy in that final scene where she bids a tearful farewell to Chief, she is content and has come to terms with her fate. It’s baffling to me that this character can go from this reasonable state, to suddenly becoming some galaxy-conquering megalomaniac when she gets the slightest shred of power through the Guardians. This is not the Cortana from Halo 1-3, or even from the ending of Halo 4. I kept expecting there to be some plot twist that this AI was in fact another one created by Halsey or that it was one of the shreds of Cortana’s personality she had broken herself down into near the end of Halo 4. These kinds of twists wouldn’t have saved the messy AI/Forerunner plot, but then at least 343 would be recognising that this character is nothing like Cortana, just using the resemblance to manipulate Chief or something along this lines. But No, there is no such twist, this character is Cortana from all the other games. She’s just decided to do her best evil AI ‘HAL 9000’ impression for no reason. This is the main problem with Halo 5’s narrative – despite what 343 wants us to believe this character is not Cortana. Her motivations come completely out-of-the-blue and there is no build-up towards this random and out-of-character face turn. This decision completely betrays her character and motivations from Halo 1-3. Now her story in those games wasn’t anything substantial, but she had a clear character that distinguished her from being just some bland AI. Her and the Chief bonded because of how different yet similar they were. She was an AI who seemed quite human in her personality, while he was a human who could’ve passed for a robot given the trauma and years of war he experienced. Bringing back Cortana in any way (even if it had been with more care) also takes away any impact from the ending of Halo 4, one of the best things about that game. Not only has 343 Industries potentially ruined Bungie’s character from the original trilogy, but they haven’t even remained consistent with their own previous entry in the series.

But above all the worst thing about having Cortana take on this role of central antagonist is that I think this game leaves the Halo universe in a far worse-off and less interesting place than it was before. This issue wouldn’t have been as aggravating if the Cortana villain plot could have been contained to this game alone. Perhaps if it had been a more quiet, personal conflict rather than a galaxy spanning one. Or even if she had simply been defeated at the conclusion of this game then at least 343 would still be free to go in a new, hopefully more successful direction for the series. Sadly this is not the case. ‘Cortana’ was not defeated in Halo 5, instead she has been partially successful in her plan and seems committed to starting an all-out war between AI and organic life. This silly Cortana villain plot line is now the main threat against the entire Halo universe, and it will be impossible to ignore in future entries. I think this was meant to be 343’s big ‘Empire Strikes Back’, ‘lowest point for the hero’ moment of their trilogy, but it is so mishandled and unsatisfying that it can only come across as laughable. With the obvious negative reception to this game and the Cortana plot in particular, I have no idea how 343 Industries is going to provide a satisfying ending to their trilogy, if you can even call it that given how unrelated Halo 4 and 5 are. Halo: Infinite is on the horizon and apparently it aims to go back to the series’ roots, so I guess only time will tell how 343 plans to get themselves out of this grave they have dug.

The multiplayer and gameplay of Halo 5 may have saved it a little bit when reviewing it as an overall package, but the terrible campaign and narrative is something I cannot simply ignore. It represents one of the most egregious drops in quality I think I’ve ever seen in the story of any ongoing series, games or otherwise. 343 showed so much promise with Halo 4 that I’m quite sad to see it all squandered with this entry. I hope 343 is able to recover somewhat and provide a satisfying Halo experience with Infinite, but honestly I don’t think they have it in them after this big a blunder.

Halo 4 is a strange beast. 343 Industries went so far in trying to capture the gameplay and feel of classic ‘Bungie era’ Halo that sometimes it is near indistinguishable, but at other points it can come across as nothing more than a pale imitation. The game feels fundamentally split down the middle, one half trying to recapture that Bungie era while the other half attempts to modernise the series and allow 343 to put their own spin on it. It succeeds and fails in both of these aspects, but overall it still delivers a fun experience and would have been great building block for 343 to improve upon in future instalments.

Although I’m not a big fan of the new Master Chief’s design, I have to admit that Halo 4 looks absolutely gorgeous, especially for a late Xbox 360 game. It’s hard to believe it’s actually running on the same hardware as Halo 3 or ODST. This level of polish is present throughout the whole campaign, whether in the in-game cutscenes or the beautiful, sci-fi vistas that you see throughout each level. It’s at these moments where 343 comes close to capturing that Bungie magic: with Chief looking out on an intricate Forerunner landscape, mesmerising in both scale and design, as Neil Davidge’s emotional score takes centre stage.

343 has also excelled in recapturing much of the gameplay of those original Halo games. Although the addition of Sprint might have frustrated some, it was a welcome one for me as I think it brings a speed and intensity to the gunfights not seen since Halo 2. All the weapons from the original trilogy return and feel as crunchy and satisfying to use as ever. 343 has done a great job replicating the Bungie style and weapons, in a way that remains faithful to the originals while still providing some updates and improvements. Where 343 doesn’t succeed as well is in adding weapons and enemies of their own. The 3 new Promethean enemies may be visually distinct and cool to fight at first, but they quickly become stale and don’t seem as balanced as returning enemies like the grunts, jackals or elites. The Knights look very cool visually, but their overdesigned armour makes it hard to tell when your landing meaningful hits, and they have a habit of teleporting away for seconds at a time right as your about to kill them which gets annoying fast. The Crawler enemies are similarly annoying: they are the main ‘Promethean fodder’ so you will fight large numbers of them throughout the game, but they are fast on their feet and can be difficult to hit reliably, especially when crawling on walls. These would be fine as just another addition to the battlefield, much like a Dog or Wolf enemy variant would be in most games, but making them the main enemy Chief regularly faces again seems strange. The Promethean weapons also don’t pack the same punch as returning series weapons. There are Promethean variants of most of the traditional weapons like the Lightrifle (battle rifle) and the Scattershot (shotgun). These look fantastic, literally assembling in Chief’s hands as you pick them up. But they never feel as satisfying to use as the more traditional weapons, especially against the Promethean enemies who don’t respond reactively to sustaining damage. A shotgun blast would blow an enemy into a ragdoll in previous games, whereas shooting the Prometheans (especially the Knights) feels like they are just bullet sponges, standing there and absorbing the ammo until they eventually burn away. 343 recaptured the original weapons and combat so well, but their own new additions were surprisingly disappointing. I feel I should also note the length of this game. Whereas most Halo campaigns usually clock in between 10-15 missions, this entry only has 8 missions overall. Although some of these are longer than the average mission, this also means the game isn’t able to explore as diverse an array of environments as previous entries, resulting in it feeling comparatively smaller in scope. This limited run time means the campaign flies by at a breakneck pace which only worsens the rushed introduction and quick resolution to the Didact conflict.

My main problem with Halo 4 is its story. Much like the game itself this story feels completely split down the middle, dealing with 2 unrelated conflicts (Cortana’s rampancy - and - the Didact) which both required far more development and perhaps even their own games to properly flesh out and deal with satisfactorily. Cortana’s physical degradation and fall into rampancy is easily the more compelling plot element, both from a narrative standpoint (it’s the most satisfying and complete narrative arc overall) and also from an emotional standpoint (most players, me included, already have years of love invested in this character). Without a doubt this Cortana element should have been the main focus of Halo 4’s plot, and from the outset that seems like the direction the story is going in. Through the Prologue and the first few missions 343 provides far more character to the usually quiet and stoic Master Chief, allowing him to have real conversations with Cortana and to actually show real empathy and affection towards her in her rapidly deteriorating state. This focus on the relationship between Chief and Cortana is the narrative high point of Halo 4 and it is only bolstered by the expert performances from Steve Downes and Jen Taylor. Cortana’s emotional farewell at the climax of this game is one of the most memorable scenes in the series and it does everything it can to try and salvage the rushed ending of this game. Cortana’s final scene is truly emotionally resonant, and I really think this story could have been exceptional if more focus was placed on her and Chief’s relationship overall.

But Cortana’s story quickly begins to feel like an afterthought after the introduction of the Didact, this game’s main antagonist. Of course Cortana’s rampancy is still present throughout the rest of the game (especially near the end) and Chief does become noticeably more distressed as she continues to deteriorate, but in comparison to the introduction of the Didact/Promethean conflict Cortana is forced to take a back seat, her rampancy feeling like little more than a subplot for large stretches of the game. Although I think the Cortana arc should have been the main story, I wouldn’t be so disappointed if the Didact threat had been a compelling enough alternative, but this is not the case. In fact the Didact and his army of Prometheans are actually the least compelling antagonists in the whole series. It’s clear 343 Industries wanted to try and top Halo 3 in terms of stakes and scale, but that’s no small feat, especially given the grandeur of Halo 3’s story – it was about saving the entire universe from destruction after all, both from the Flood and the Halo rings. However in trying to top Halo 3, 343 have actually made a villain who is far more stereotypical and one-note than anything in the series up to this point. The villains of Halo 2/3 may not be anything ground-breaking, but they were wildly inventive and ultimately fun. The Prophets of Truth, Mercy and Regret wouldn’t be able to match the Chief in a fight, but they use political power and religion to convince various different races to fight on their behalf. And I’d be remiss not to mention the Gravemind, a huge eldritch monstrosity which looks equal parts funny and scary, speaking in rhymes like a Dr Suess character. Halo was always its own inventive world, not just space marines and hulking alien warriors but something a little deeper. Sadly the Didact does fall into the predictable mould of an overpowered warrior that the Chief has to beat through sheer force alone.

The Didact himself isn’t the biggest problem, but the sheer speed at which this conflict comes into existence with little to no previous set up is. The whole story of the Didact, the Librarian and the Forerunners has an air of self-importance and grandeur that it doesn’t really deserve. The Forerunners are key to the original Halo games and are explored greatly in expanded material like the books, but within the games these specific characters have not been mentioned at all. Their backstory (something which you’d think would be essential for a villain to have) can only be discovered by finding all the hidden Terminals throughout the game, something most players won’t do. This results in the whole Didact conflict coming out of nowhere with very little build up towards it. The Didact himself doesn’t show up until the end of Mission 3, almost halfway through the game. There isn’t enough time to set up a normal villain in this time frame, let alone one who is apparently so fundamental to the fate of the Halo universe. This rushed introduction culminates in the worst scene in the game – where Master Chief meets with the Librarian and we are assaulted by a barrage of exposition. This kind of scene shouldn’t have to exist in a well-structured narrative. Even if the information on the Terminals had been properly integrated into the main plot, this scene wouldn’t be necessary. It feels like an attempt to elevate the stakes beyond previous entries, by linking the Forerunners to the evolution of mankind and trying to show how big a threat the Didact actually is. But despite this large scale, this conflict feels nowhere near as impactful or important as previous entries because it isn’t given the necessary set up for us to care. And the icing on top is the way this sequence ends, where the Librarian literally evolves Master Chief into a being which can withstand the Didact and his MacGuffin super weapon. This steers far too close to the overused ‘chosen one’ narrative for me and it feels far too hokey and supernatural for the Halo universe which has stayed predominantly in the realm of science-fiction up to this point. This is certainly the weakest point of the story, but it shows us the main problem with Halo 4 overall. The Didact is just not an interesting villain. Despite the threat he poses to the galaxy and Earth at the climax this conflict just isn’t interesting enough to follow on from the heights of the original trilogy. The fact that this manufactured conflict took the centre stage in the game instead of Cortana’s rampancy is baffling to me. When the Didact was eventually defeated (in a QTE no less) I was very happy, not because he was a compelling villain I’d grown to hate but because I was relieved 343 wouldn’t be able to put his boring character into future instalments.

I didn’t get particularly invested in the multiplayer of this game. I understand that might bring it up a few notches for some, but for me I was here for the campaign. I still enjoyed Halo 4 on a purely gameplay front. It recaptures the feel and addictive gameplay loop of the original games, even if 343’s new additions through the Prometheans aren’t really up to the expected standard. For that reason I have to respect 343 and give them some credit for the level of quality they achieved gameplay wise, especially for a first outing as a studio. But I must admit that the problems with the story bring the whole experience down for me greatly. The Cortana/Master Chief relationship is the clear highlight of the narrative and when it is at the focus Halo 4 is at it’s best and most emotionally resonant. However this takes up a far smaller percentage of the run time than it should, instead leaving us to focus on the undercooked and unnecessary Didact conflict. Despite the disappointing story this outing still leaves me with hope that 343 can make a truly great Halo game. They might not be able to fully recapture that special something that Bungie put into all of their games, but Halo 4 was a good foundation (at least on a gameplay and stylistic front anyway) to build upon in future. It’s just a shame that the bizarre story decisions detract from the game’s more obvious strengths, namely it’s fantastic gameplay and character work.

Played on Legendary Edition. Taking the trilogy as a whole I would give it a clear 5 Stars.

Mass Effect 3 is certainly the entry in the trilogy which I feel most conflicted about. Playing it for the first time in 2021 I think it is a genuinely great game, even if it doesn’t exactly stick the landing as an ending to the trilogy. However that’s my experience including all the DLC and changes made as part of the Extended Cut, I can understand how the core version of ME3 without any of these additions or changes could have been incredibly disappointing back in 2012. That being said, I’m reviewing ME3 in the form it takes in the Legendary Edition, where all of this content is seamlessly blended in – in fact I couldn’t have told you most of it was released after the fact since it neatly meshes in with and supports the main game.

ME3 represents the series’ complete transformation from large, galaxy-exploring RPG to a more linear and action focused shooter. I didn’t feel this shift as much in ME2, as the more linear nature of its missions was still supported by fantastic characters and narrative. But in ME3 this shift feels far more noticeable and deliberate, an attempt to turn Mass Effect into something with more mass market appeal. I don’t actually mind this shift as much in the levels themselves, ME3 has the best combat in the series and it is genuinely great to play, up there with some of the better cover-based shooters. However it is in the narrative aspects where this linearity is more problematic. Many conversations now boil down to a choice between two options (usually Paragon, or Renegade), many of which result in similar dialogue. This is a far cry from ME2 and especially ME1 where the dialogue wheel could expand conversations in so many interesting ways, with us learning more not only about the people we’re speaking to but the lore of this world itself. In comparison some of ME3’s choices amount to Shepard saying the exact same thing in a slightly more or less aggressive tone. I would have rather BioWare put less time into the bombast and set-pieces of these linear missions and more focus on allowing conversations to branch off in a variety of interesting ways.

This focus on linearity has caused galaxy exploration to take a further step back from the spotlight. Now the Normandy can only scan a few different locations in each system, certainly a ways off from the nearly 40 explorable locations in ME1. Those ME1 locations may have been repetitive and underdeveloped, but they still gave the feeling that you were truly exploring a massive galaxy. Luckily ME3 has also done away with the focus on planet scanning from ME2 which is fortunate as that is my only major dislike from that game. Now you only need to scan a few locations per system and this is far less frustrating than the hours upon hours of compulsive scanning I forced myself through in ME2. ME3 also introduces the War Assets system which I think it a pretty great addition. These assets take the form of ships, personnel, and resources, and they show the player how prepared they are for the incoming Reaper invasion. The system is quite bare bones, simply assigning numbers to each asset you collect, but it really makes you feel like Shepard - amassing the largest fleet in the universe to fend off the Reapers. Each new individual or vehicle feels like a step forward in this seemingly unwinnable war, and it’s pretty nifty that BioWare managed to create such a feeling through a somewhat rudimentary system.

My biggest problem with ME3 isn’t to do with it’s linearity or the highly controversial ending, but actually about how it handles your decisions from ME2. BioWare left themselves in quite a difficult position with ME3 given the vast number of possibilities at the end of ME2. Everyone could die, no one could die or any combination of squad mates in between could die. This meant that the main story of ME3 couldn’t be as character-focused as that of ME2, as it was very possible that certain characters would already be dead. It wouldn’t have been smart to create a whole main story arc for Garrus when it’s possible he may not have survived the ‘suicide mission’ for many players. Therefore BioWare took the most efficient approach they could, creating several main story missions which can play out in 2 similar ways. Either the ME2 character in question will be a prominent character in this mission or an almost identical mission will play out with a similar character replacing them (Wrex replaced by another random Krogan) or no character at all. It is great to see all these characters again, however I feel they should have had a more impactful place in the main story. Although I understand that such a feat would not have been possible, especially with the very short development time EA allowed BioWare for ME3. It would have been hard enough planning out the story of ME3 to accommodate for the deaths of a single major character, while still keeping them central to the plot and giving them a developed story-arc. Doing it with all 12 squad mates from ME2 would have been truly impossible, especially given all these stories would have to fit with and compliment each other. That being said, although there was no ‘perfect’ way to condense all the possibilities from ME2 into a satisfying conclusion for each remaining character, I certainly think the team at BioWare could have come up with a more satisfying solution if they were given the proper time and resources necessary to accomplish this.

The small glimpses we see of these ME2 characters only makes me pine more for this ‘perfect’ ME3, because they are mainly fantastic. Jack finally appears to be at some sort of peace, turning from raging murderer to a teacher taking fellow biotics under her wing. Mordin finally gets to atone for his work on the genophage, finally setting history right. Thane has perhaps the most emotionally affecting conclusion of all. We know from the first time we meet Thane that he is terminally ill, already at peace with the fact he will soon be dead. However that doesn’t take away how impactful his death is in ME3. By the time we meet him on the Citadel he is already in the final stages of his illness and is too weak to become a permanent squad member again. This is one of the scenarios where I think a ME2 character taking a backseat is actually beneficial to the story as it has real narrative weight. Thane can’t just jump back on the Normandy to cruise around the galaxy with Shepard, his fate is already decided. Not all the ME2 characters are given as fantastic a send off as Thane or Mordin, and it’s a shame since BioWare clearly has these kind of stories in them.

I also think it’s relevant to point out how Cerberus is handled in ME3. In ME2 BioWare made the excellent decision of aligning Shepard with a very sinister, morally grey terrorist organisation. This gave Shepard far more agency as a character who would realistically make Renegade choices, rather than the Alliance boy/girl scout you were mainly made out to be in ME1. However ME3 takes this complicated organisation and tries to force it into the traditional bad guy faction. I understand this was likely an attempt to put more obstacles in Shepard’s way apart from the Reapers. It might not make sense to be fighting Reapers and their forces in every level because this would mean that the location in question is very quickly about to be decimated, for example it made more sense to fight Cerberus in the Citadel mission, since the Reapers being here would quickly put an end to the main narrative. However I feel like Cerberus and the Illusive Man were really done dirty in this game, turning into one-note villains whose only goal is ultimate power, despite the universe-ending battle on the horizon. Now it should be noted that the Illusive Man and many personnel are described as having already been indoctrinated by the Reapers, hence their decision to fight Shepard. However I don’t find this very narratively satisfying, given the immense odds against Shepard I don’t think it would have been unreasonable for there to be a scenario where even the Alliance and Cerberus were forced to work together to defeat the Reapers. Cerberus’ turn makes sense in the context of this narrative, but within the trilogy as a whole it seems forced and clumsy.

Although ME3 might not reach the same character-focused highs as ME2, it still delivers some of the series’ best narrative moments. It finally gives some closure to the Genophage plot line, a huge universe-altering event which has played a large role in all 3 games. To finally be given the choice to free the Krogan’s from their forced cycle of infertility felt like a huge pay-off. Shepard has had to deal with the repercussions of the genophage in every game and has heard both sides of the argument for and against this - for why this was necessary and also why it was a war crime. Putting this kind of universe altering event in the hands of the player is a fantastic call and one that could really only properly be achieved in a final instalment where such a choice wouldn’t have to be accounted for in following entries. ME3 similarly brings to a close the Geth v Quarian conflict which has been core to the series since ME1. Although the Geth seemed like only a malicious AI in ME1, we were given far more insight into them and how their ‘society’ operates through the introduction of Legion in ME2. This leaves Shepard in a difficult position in ME3. The player will have a deep connection to Tali and the Quarian’s plight to retake their home world, but at the same time will understand that Legion and the Geth are simply fighting to exist in a universe that refuses to recognise that they are alive. Fortunately for my Shepard, I managed to find a solution where both the Quarians and Geth would cooperate in peace, but the fact that ME3 allows the player (who is uniquely invested in both sides) to bring this conflict to an end in a way they desire is commendable. The conclusions to the Genophage arc and the Geth/Quarian conflict alone are fantastic enough to elevate ME3’s narrative up to the heights of its predecessors.

ME3’s DLC is essential to the experience as a whole and I really couldn’t imagine playing the game without it. Unlike ME2 where the Shadow Broker DLC was fun, but fairly inconsequential to that game’s overall narrative, some of the ME3 DLC feels completely vital, and the game would be severely injured by removing it. There are 2 fairly egregious examples of this. The day-one DLC, From Ashes introduces a living Prothean called Javik as a squad member. The Protheans are absolutely essential to the story of Mass Effect. Even in ME3 they play a core role in the plot through the introduction of the Conduit and the Catalyst as the sole means of defeating the Reapers. Although Javik is more of a warrior than a scientist and isn’t exactly as all-knowing as one would hope a Prothean would be, he still gives us essential insight into this race and their own war against the Reapers. It’s baffling to me that such an essential character would be separated off as DLC. This comes off as a purely EA monetary decision given this content was ready for release but was sold as DLC anyway. The other example is the Leviathan DLC which delves into the history of the Reapers and the organic race that created them 100,000s of years previously. This isn’t quite as egregious as removing Javik from the story, but in my experience this DLC gave me far more context and understanding of ME3’s ending and the conversation with the Catalyst, something that was obviously necessary at the game’s release for many players. The other 2 DLC aren’t quite as essential to ME3’s main narrative. Omega is probably the least interesting of the 4. It represents ME3 at it’s most action-focused and linear. Shepard teams up again with Aria T’Loak to retake the Omega space-station from Cerberus. It is an enjoyable romp which lets ME3’s combat really shine, however it is the least narratively satisfying DLC with very little player choice. In fact Omega represents a fantastic microcosm of ME3 overall, focusing on thrills and gunplay at the expense of narrative and character. Luckily I am far more fond of the final piece of DLC – Citadel. Citadel is a perfect end-cap to the Mass Effect series and these characters we have spent 100s of hours getting to know and love intimately. It is a genuinely fun and wacky adventure which skews far more towards the humour of a show like Firefly than the usual space politics more akin to Battlestar Galactica. In my game it was the final calm before the storm, one last chance to spend time with these characters. I played through the final Party numerous different times just to hear all the fantastic banter and comradery between my squad members. I knew it was going to be hard to let them and Shepard go after all the time spent with them, but Citadel really does soften the blow by delivering some of the most sweet and endearing character moments. It’s one of my favourite DLCs in recent memory and its inclusion makes ME3 a far more emotionally fulfilling conclusion.

What better way to end than talking about ME3’s ending. It was particularly controversial at the time of release, but I can only see it through my modern lens. It’s understandable that a series all about choice and consequence was going to struggle to stick the landing while paying off all the variables and possibilities that have occurred along the way. People were always going to be a little disappointed by this series funnelling them down into only 3 or 4 similar endings. But I honestly was very happy with my ending once it came. The whole idea of the Conduit does feel strange to suddenly appear in this final game, I think it would have gone over far better if it had first appeared or at least been alluded to in ME2. The reveal of the Catalyst essentially being a Reaper AI which was willing to cooperate with Shepard also felt a little out of the blue, but with the knowledge of the Leviathan DLC this was more properly set up beforehand. I also enjoyed that there wasn’t really a clear good or bad outcome (well apart from the Refusal ending where you just allow the extinction of everyone), something that the original version of ME3 drove home even more through it’s more bleak endings. Mass Effect is at its best when it’s dealing in these areas of moral grey. You have the option to Destroy the Reapers once and for all, however this isn’t the easiest decision given it will also destroy all synthetic life; including the Geth who we have spent much of ME3 developing and discovering are truly alive through Legion. This is the only ending where Shepard can in fact live, but that feels pretty bittersweet when you have to sacrifice so much life to do so. There is the option of Synthesis where Shepard can sacrifice herself to merge all Organic and Synthetic life together; finally ending this cycle which started with the Reapers/Leviathan, and even continues today with the Geth/Quarians. Although no species (including the Reapers) actually dies during this ending it felt like a big intrusion for Shepard to make this decision for all living life, forcing all Organics to become Synthetic and vice versa, regardless of their individual wants. The last ending is the Control ending, where Shepard merges with the Reapers and becomes essentially an immortal intelligence which can control the Reapers and can use them for good – repairing the Mass Relays, rebuilding the galaxy. I choose the Control ending as it seemed like the right thing to do for all living things in the universe. However even then this is a somewhat melancholy end for Shepard. The human version of her is gone, replaced by what seems to amount to little more than an AI. Within this state she’s doomed to live out for all eternity, not exactly the heroic fate you’d want the saviour of the universe to receive. But my Commander Shepard was a selfless individual, and so this sacrifice would have been worth it in her own mind, to save all life in the universe. Of course part of me would have wanted a world where Shepard and her crew could ride the star-ways forever, but I think that’s what makes ‘Mass Effect era’ BioWare so special, they don’t write the most obvious ending or the one that will be most crowd-pleasing, but instead the one they think will be the most impactful in this narrative and which makes the most sense in this universe.

Of course I couldn’t finish this series without mentioning Command Shepard herself. I choose the Female Shepard, mostly due to the fantastic performance from Jennifer Hale. She is honestly one of the best voice actors in the world, in games or any other media. She brings such a strength, but also a vulnerability to Shepard, and by the end I had truly grown to love her character. She is MY Commander Shepard, and even in future playthroughs I couldn’t imagine her any other way. Shepard wasn’t some blank slate character, but one that you could guide with your decisions and actually begin to understand throughout the series, far more akin to a Geralt of Rivia than some random create-a-character. Mass Effect created an amazing science fiction universe, in fact it is one of the best I have experienced in any medium. But at the same time it is in its cast of fantastic characters that Mass Effect really finds its heart.

In 2012 ME3 may have been a disappointing endcap to the franchise but looking back on it all these years later I can’t help but see it as a final victory lap for BioWare. ME1 will always have introduced this fantastic universe to explore, and ME2 will always be the most character-focused and emotionally resonant, yet ME3 still finds a suitable balance between the two and manages to finish the series in style, rather than with a whimper. All 3 games are available as part of the Legendary Edition, and nowadays it is harder to see them as anything other than one complete product, with each entry representing a different Act in this epic narrative. In that context ME3 is perhaps the best it has ever been, as a conclusion for the ideas, conflicts and characters which were so expertly developed in ME1 and ME2. It’s a game that I think will only get better in hindsight, and it cements the Mass Effect trilogy as one of the greatest of all time.