Or because Mass Effect was an actual trilogy.....

Then you put in place some sort of traffic light system or something on the online shop if it's that much of a problem. Green for above recommended, yellow for above minimum and red for bellow minimum. When there's a "bunch of reds" you want to play you get a new system [b]and you get improved performance across the board and proper backwards compatibility[b]. This is clearly a better experience than console gaming........ minus the exclusives

Also the current steam has stats on what types of hardware are the most common. So developers would know how many end users will be able to play their game.

Assassin's Creed is a series. Not a trilogy since there are more than three games in it, but Assassin's Creed 3 is a direct continuation of the plot of the previous Assassin's Creed games.
No different from the Mass Effect games in any way, shape or form.

Well except for the fact that Mass Effect 1 doesn't suck.

Assassin's Creed's gameplay sucked about as much as Mass Effect 1's loose controls, stat-based hit system, and driving sections, IMO...

Anyways, the bigger issue is that, well, Mass Effect has is more like one long, continuous game, so if they only release one game in the trilogy, it's like only getting 1/3rd the game.

Once again. The Assassin's Creed series is one long, continuous game. Assassin's Creed 3 started off IMMEDIATELY after Revelations finished. No one threw a tantrum about not getting Revelations.

At least Mass Effect 3 had the interactive comic book to fill people in on the larger plot.

stat-based hit system

You mean how Mass Effect, an RPG, acted like an RPG and not a second-rate cover shooter?

The worst thing that happened to Mass Effect was that by the third game it was yet another cookie-cutter game that didn't even try and do something different.

Sorry if this has been said before, I haven't read through all three pages yet, but I think third party games are being skipped because publishers are playing "wait and see" with the Wii U. If the initial batch of third party games sell well, they will make more. Unfortunately, the initial batch were underperforming ports compared to the other HD systems.

...No, you see, people are supposed to be fully invested in Mass Effect, carrying over every little decision that the player makes. The very reason why so many people threw a tantrum over Mass Effect 3's ending in the first place was because the story made to get the players that invested in it. Very few games can do that, let alone Assassin's Creed, and you can't get that when jump straight to the last game.

As for the gameplay, no, no, switching to a full-on shooter was the best thing that happened to the series. Before it was having an identity crisis - it sorta-kinda played like a shooter, but it sorta-kinda played like an RPG. Let me tell ya mac, sorta kinda ain't good enough. Before we had Skill-based combat that relied heavily on things things that have nothing to do with with skill. Before you could run up to a guy and fire a submachine gun at point blank rang and miss every single shot just because you're not proficiant enough in Sub machine guns. We have a technical term for that. It's called bullsh*t. If it wanted to rely on stats, why does it require I manually aim at enemies huh? What's the point? No, before it was half-baked RPG that wanted to be a shooter, now it's the shooter it wanted to be, and it's damn good at it, too. This really is the best thing to happen to the series. Period.

to be fair, I think you do as much of the hacking minigames in ME2 than you do the actual recurring future plot in any Assassin's Creed game.

as for ME's combat, even sell-out mediocre combat is better than ME1's combat which will always be terrible no matter how many "truefans" tell me of the supposed deep strategy that I tried that never made a difference.

Honestly us Nintendo fans are a big reason why 3rd party games don't come to out platform. It's almost unprecedented for a multi platfrom game to sell best on a Nintendo console. While some will lament that Call of Duty is crap, just look at the sales of the game on Wii U compared to the PS3/360. The attachment rate is meant to be less than 5% on Wii U while it's closer to 20% on the other consoles.

However at the end of the day, Nintendo really have to be more aggressive in chasing the big games that matter on other consoles and get them available on Wii U too. Publishers also need to take more chances and give us good ports too!

However saying all of the above, the Wii U has had a solid start as far as 3rd party support at launch. Now it just needs to continue!

As for the gameplay, no, no, switching to a full-on shooter was the best thing that happened to the series. Before it was having an identity crisis - it sorta-kinda played like a shooter, but it sorta-kinda played like an RPG. Let me tell ya mac, sorta kinda ain't good enough. Before we had Skill-based combat that relied heavily on things things that have nothing to do with with skill. Before you could run up to a guy and fire a submachine gun at point blank rang and miss every single shot just because you're not proficiant enough in Sub machine guns. We have a technical term for that. It's called bullsh*t. If it wanted to rely on stats, why does it require I manually aim at enemies huh? What's the point? No, before it was half-baked RPG that wanted to be a shooter, now it's the shooter it wanted to be, and it's damn good at it, too. This really is the best thing to happen to the series. Period.

They went the wrong way. Bioware never had a hope in hell in competing with the real shooter developers out there. So Mass Effect is simply a substandard game with a great universe and plot as a result.

If Bioware had have stuck to what it does best and got rid of the shooter elements entirely, Mass Effect 3 could have been the best game ever.

to be fair, I think you do as much of the hacking minigames in ME2 than you do the actual recurring future plot in any Assassin's Creed game

Arbitrary reason to throw a hypocritical tantrum is arbitrary.

Darksiders 2 is also a direct continuation of the first game's plot. In fact, the game's story couldn't even exist without the first game having happened. No tantrum over not getting a port of Darksiders, either.

Yeah, Nintendo consoles are mostly known for Nintendo's games, though there are notable exceptions

Except that the Mass Effect story is integral to the entire experience of the 3 games. That's why there was such an uproar over ME3's ending. People are truly invested in the characters and plot. Save files and decisions carry over from one game to the next. It's essentially one game divided into 3 sections. This is arguably the most important aspect of the series.

Assassin's Creed very well may have a continuing story, but that isn't really a main selling point of the games. No one is interested in the lore or plot of AC. Each game is a standalone experience. If you happen to have played the previous game, great. The Resident Evil series has far more history and canon than AC does. Yet you can jump into any of the games in the RE series and it doesn't matter in the slightest. This is true for tons of franchises.

Saying that there is no difference between the two trilogies is ridiculous.

True story. I played Mass Effect 3 first. It was on the PS3, too, which meant I didn't get the benefit of the interactive comic the Wii U version has.

I still got along with the game fine. So no, it is not one game split into three parts. It's a trilogy. One that is better connected than most, sure, but still a trilogy.

well yeah, "to be fair" just means "I'm gonna try to give the other side some props even though they are wrong and should feel bad and all that"

I'm sure it's perfectly possible to play ME3 without any trouble at all.
But you did express amazement as to why people were complaining about ME3 on the WiiU and not AC3.
I just gave you the reason. Though I suspect you already knew the reason right from the beginning and were just faking amazement.

I love how whitekniht is saying he didn't miss anything when he probably didn't see the changes if you did play the first two games and the missions that are only in the game of you followed up on side plot points from the first two game.

You also lose the bigger connection with the cast.

Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using Tapatalk 2

You do realise that this gimmick has existed for 15 or so years? You used to be able to transfer characters and what not in the old RPGs on DOS, and later Baldur's Gate.

I've since gone back and played the three games in order, and everything that happens is subtle enough that you don't lose any of the experience jumping in at the third game. It's like saying the WiiMote gimmick makes shooters more engaging because you're really, truly pointing the gun.

I'm sure it's perfectly possible to play ME3 without any trouble at all.
But you did express amazement as to why people were complaining about ME3 on the WiiU and not AC3.
I just gave you the reason. Though I suspect you already knew the reason right from the beginning and were just faking amazement.

I was kind of hoping for a reason that a well-adjusted human being could come up with.

I don't think it matters if it's a gimmick or not if it's executed well. And the Mass Effect trilogy does it better than anyone else.

I'm in agreement that Mass Effect 3 is more like one story, told over 3 games, so to get the most out of it, you have to play all 3. Assassin's Creed, however, is written in such a way that you can jump in and out of it at any point in the series and enjoy each of those games individually.

Its kind unfair to compare the sales of a multiplatform game on a system with an install base of less than 2 million to two others with an install base of 70 plus million each.