4 Reasons Why The Mass Effect 3 Debate Refuses to Die

Notshauna

New member
May 12, 2014
56
0
0
trunkage said:
Notshauna said:
I really wish people will stop saying some found the ending amazing, it's a cop out and is full of the usual mass media "fair and balanced" bullshit where they always find someone "on the otherside" no matter how wrong it is. The ending is terrible it's indisputable, it's not surprising that people like the ending, I like the Super Mario Bros. movie but it's still terrible. Mass Effects ending is still an illogical convoluted mess that tried to staple reasoning on to mad gods, offer a "big" decision when one wasn't needed and ended up with a hook to the next game that is more poorly written than some of the stuff I wrote in diapers.

It's plain and simple what it should of been, no fancy crucible rewriting the directive of reapers, it's a weapon plain and simple, you don't know what you do until the AI informs you. No more magical star child informing you of everything about the reapers and they're stupid directive, just a simple AI saying hey what you built will do this. And this weapon is a super nova bomb, there is a simple binary choice set it off at full power destroying all of the reapers and everyone in the Sol system as well, or set it off at lower power, potentially escaping, and causing the people in Sol to survive but failing destroy all of the reapers (but, they'd retreat to recuperate their numbers). And after that there'd be a Dragon Age Origins style reveal of the victory celebration revealing if Shepard survived (if you have to include galactic readiness make that be the factor that decides it).
Wait... so are you saying that you wish to impose your dislike of the ending on everyone else. I hate bands like Nickelback, that hasn't stopped them from earning a crust (and a golden crust at that.) My hatred of them doesn't make people like them less. You saying it was a terrible ending doesn't make 'them' think they same as you. They are allowed to think its awesome all they want. And people are allowed to report on that.
I'm not saying that they can't like the ending, I'm saying they have to acknowledge that it's a bad ending. And just because someone believes something doesn't mean it should be held in equal regard as the rest of possibilities, the entire basis of reward season is that there is a degree of objectivity when you say that Citizen Kane is a better movie than, say, the Super Mario Bros movie. And by the same token I can objectively say that the opinion the the ending is bad, despite others saying otherwise.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
4173 said:
[

Sure, that works quite well in ME1 and (mostly) works in ME2.

In ME3 though, after the prologue everything* is all about liberating Earth. All the missions Shepard undertakes for the Turians, Krogan and Geth/Quarians are sold as necessary to get the support to push the Reapers off Earth. Earth isn't presented as containing an abundance of resources/trapped military forces and only gains tactical importance (for a stupid reason, but that's a separate discussion) late in the plot. Interesting race politics had their place in the first two games, where the threat(s) were at least somewhat mysterious and removed from the center of galactic politics and Saren and the Cerebus connection biased information.

In the face of the fully manifested Reaper assault, Shepard/Hackett's fixation on "rescuing" Earth looks incredibly petty, short-sighted and, IMO frankly stupid. The idea that the other races would be willingly to, or should (from a tactical sense) commit resources towards Earth leads me to believe their generals have the sense of toddlers. In meme form:

Step 1: Liberate Earth
Step 2: ???
Step 3: The Reapers are no longer a problem

The closest the game ever gets to justifying the behavior of supposedly seasoned military beings is a) Shepard feels incredibly guilty about the death of a random child, b) the galaxy is willing to commit suicide** because Shepard was a bro. It's ludicrous and insulting and the game hopes no one will notice because the player is too busy thinking "Oh shit, I live on Earth too."


*Yes, there is the Crucible sub-plot, but it is so nebulous, mcguffiny and mysterious (in a bad way) that it barely provides any drama during the first playthrough of the game. In the cold, hard light of time and distance it's fluff only in the game as a mechanic to deliver the final cutscene and give the player a handy guide to how far through the game they've played.

**If the game had truly committed to telling a story in which the protagonist(s) had no hope that would be different, but it doesn't. The Crucible plot gasps along on life support, alternate military options are never proposed/discussed/rejected, Noah's Ark scenarios are never a part of the game and the game vacillates wildly on how effective Alliance and Council military is against the Reapers. I felt way more dread during the suicide mission in ME2 than I ever did during ME3 (which could have used for a nice morbid twist at the end, but the writers decided against that option. Instead they opted for out of the blue Word of [Authorial] God: Your cause is now officially doomed because we want you to pick your colour-coded ending).

But also do not forget that Earth is a homeworld, and most of the other races would do the same for theirs. It's also the center of the Human alliance and where it's central command structure and government is located. If Earth falls, humanity is pretty much reduced to it's outlying colonies and becomes at most a fringe race, as Earth is still apparently the most heavily populated planet. It could be argued that the destruction of earth might also result in
the slow destruction of humanity.

The thing to understand is that at the time Shepard is recruiting, most of the other home worlds are not under attack, the other races are mostly holding back "just in case". Furthermore the Turians, Asari, and Salarians (the "elder races" in this universe who have been holding things together) are still involved in their continued circle jerk, and are supporting each other, and effectively taking a general "fuck everyone else" attitude.

Besides, let's not forget that due to the events of the previous games, Humans are the only reason these other races are still around. Like it or not, it's a valid plot point. One of the reasons why Humanity needs help to begin with is that Humans were the only ones to respond in force to Sovreign because The Council ignored the warnings like idiots, a good portion of it's fleet was lost in that battle, this was also why it had trouble with The Keepers in defending it's colonies where it lost even more because the Council pretty much says "deal with your own crap, we don't like you so we're not going to back you up" in very diplomatic terms of course, and dealing with that threat which they ignored even when there was evidence shown that this was a very big deal to everyone, saved the galaxy yet again.

Now granted, this is arguably high-adventure, humanist fantasy where humans are proving themselves the saviors of an ungrateful galaxy, but that's the tone of the series, these things happened.

Let me put it to you this way, you save the galaxy multiple times, put yourself in jeopardy by using your military to protect those who are paranoid about it, and then the species you saved go "well thank you, but we didn't like you being a major species anyway, so we're not going to defend your homeworld, the destruction of the center of your civilization means you'll no longer be a factor in galactic affairs, and maybe even die off entirely, which is kind of what we wanted anyway because your very existence has been shaking up our thousands-year long social order, and letting the Reapers do it helps absolve us of the moral dilemma of doing it ourselves". That's kind of what the council is saying.

It should be noted as well that when it comes to these races saying "we don't have the resources" they are kind of lying about it, which is why when Shepard shows up and helps out on some of the Turian colonies where battles are being fought to prevent them from getting to the homeworld and so on, all of a sudden the guys he's saved realize "oh yeah, I guess we can spare some forces after all". In some cases like with the minor species that have a military, the Hanar for example, all he has to do is save an Ambassador or whatever and then it's "Oh well, I guess we aren't under such pressure that we can't help your homeworld, we'll send what military we have".

To be honest I think some people missed the subtext in this game, and haven't realized that both "personalities" for Shep are alarmingly stupid. The Paragon version is Naïve, and the Renegade version takes paranoia to an extreme (but is actually somewhat justified, although he tends to be a jerk about it). Several NPCs are quite blunt in saying they can read the writing on the wall, and when you think about it, it's fairly obvious.

Now, if things were handled realistically, I do not think they would play out quite like this. Humanity probably wouldn't be so important right off the bat, and of course I don't think various enlightened species would be murderous xenophobic jerks (even if very diplomatic) after an accidental war which blew over. At the end of the day it might be high fantasy, but everyone is kind of a butt head.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
8,684
2,879
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Therumancer said:
Briantb said:
I'm one of those people who played ME for hundreds of hours even picked them up when the came to PlayStation and replayed them to have my choices in ME3 so yeah I'm a little annoyed that all those choices didn't mean a damn thing and all I got was three different colored endings. Even with the extra ending dlc content its still a poor excuse of an ending. Adding the multiply to increase your war assets for the final battle was just annoying. I don't mind there being a multiplier just don't force me to play it to get a better bad ending. In the end your right there's quite a few arguments as to why this topic will not die anytime soon. (Or at least in till everyone who's played it has died)

In the end I truly enjoyed the story and gameplay of ME3, which makes the ending so much more annoying for me.
Actually I think the issue would die if they actually did create a proper ending for the game. No ending will of course make everyone happy, but they can achieve creating an ending that everyone does not hate, and which fits in with the rest of the series and it's tone. The effort would also mean something, and would probably not go unnoticed. The "clarification" DLC was kind of an insult because it really didn't change anything.

At it's core though I think a big part of the problem is that EA/Bioware (probably mostly the former) doesn't want to change things because in doing so, and acknowledging the fans being right, they will be giving the consumers power, and that's one thing the game industry does not want to see happen. EA would doubtlessly rather let Bioware and all of it's IPs like Mass Effect die, than concede to fans over something like this and change something.

Right now the best case scenario would be to change the ending somewhat with the intro to the new Mass Effect game, that way they can sort of concede the point without surrender, and consider it under "inconsistincies" common to sequels. Of course I'm not holding my breath for that either.
I think you need to read through a lot of these posts. The ending is offensive in many different ways to different people. Maybe adding an epilogue would help. But I want an ending similar with more of a Corianna 6 (B5) twist (even as an extra option to the original colour options), a nuclear option (either you blow up the galaxy or let the Reapers win, or even tricking Starchild into thinking that you'll blow up the whole galaxy if the Reapers don't leave), a willpower option where you finally convince the Illusive man to help (perhaps with kamikaze Cerberus pilots taking down Reapers before indoctrination takes over again) or some negotiation, a working together solution like what happened on Rannoch. A big fight between Shepherd and the Reapers (as many purport they want) would have gone totally against the theme of the series. The nuclear option sounds pretty silly too, as Shepherd tends to bring people together, not break them apart.

Many people talk about the colours being the problem. How would you end it? Maybe add a mix of possible ending like I listed above? That's the same issue just without colour. If you play a video game, you have been trained to expect one or a couple of endings. That's how it work. For example, Spec Ope: The Line has three endings. Yes they don't involve colour, but it has a destruction, death or give up endings. Your previous choices don't affect it. New Vegas has two: destroy faction or force some or all to accept terms. Far Cry 3 has two: which person(s) you wish to kill. Skyrim has one. They are all the same. The actual ending is boring in most game (I actually would have thought ending Far Cry 3 with Vass would have made it better). I'm playing Skyrim again and am postponing the end game.

I think Casey Hudson comments beforehand was totally misleading (I don't he understands what people were looking for before and after the explosion on the internet). He made it worse. The Epilogue (including what the Normandy does) is lacking to say the least. Which is like putting salt on the wound. And OMG the worst offence for me was Kai Leng.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
8,684
2,879
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Notshauna said:
I'm not saying that they can't like the ending, I'm saying they have to acknowledge that it's a bad ending. And just because someone believes something doesn't mean it should be held in equal regard as the rest of possibilities, the entire basis of reward season is that there is a degree of objectivity when you say that Citizen Kane is a better movie than, say, the Super Mario Bros movie. And by the same token I can objectively say that the opinion the the ending is bad, despite others saying otherwise.
Did you know that some people actually liked the ending. I.e. it is not bad for them. I.e. they have to acknowledge NOTHING. It may not smart or even a "good" choice. But saying "you have to acknowledge its bad" will actually help them think it good. To see this in action talk to someone who is a creationist (or evolution), Keynesian (or Friedman), racist, capitalist etc. with the opposing view, and than add that phrase. See what happens. You don't win arguments by degrading someone else's beliefs. See Greg Tito and DA2 for further references
 

ecoho

New member
Jun 16, 2010
2,093
0
0
ajr209 said:
ecoho said:
2. people thinking they wasted money on the game. This is most likely the big one and is by far the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Every time this point comes up I always ask how long did they play before it went sour for them and 99% of the time they say till the last 15 mins. Ok assuming your not rushing through that's at least twenty hours of game play so roughly 10 movies worth of time. movies cost $8 a seat at my theater so roughly $80 for the same amount of fun, assuming you can find 10 movies worth watching that is. (and yes I know Netflix is cheaper but talking froma point of a new release)
With going to a movie theater I can walk out and demand my money back from the manager if it's bad. Ever try returning a game that wasn't defective or bought used? Your argument falls apart because if I don't like a movie I can do something about it and if I liked the bulk of the movie but felt the ending just ruined it I'm only out ten bucks ($8? I don't think I could even get into a matinee for that) and two hours. If' I buy a game and don't like it and it wasn't used I'm stuck with it, sure I can just stop playing or sell it but no matter what I do I'll never recoup that money and If I liked the bulk of it but thought the ending just ruined it I'm out sixty bucks and an entire days worth of time.

And you're also not taking into account those who had carried over characters from the previous games. For them after at least 60 hrs and $180 having the whole time believing that their choices mattered and that it would have an impact on the end of their journey because that's what bioware was telling them from day one... only to find out far too late that it didn't. None of it mattered. They could have picked up the 3rd game and and never bothered with 1 or 2 and they would have wound up with the same results. That's a hell of a lot of time and money to spend just to have the rug pulled out from under you at the last moment.

so you had fun for over 60 hours with the exception of the last 15 mins and because of that you feel you wasted your money? please go out and have 60 hours worth of fun for less then $180 ill wait. honestly outside of books youll find that hard to do. now you are entitled to your opinion I just find it rather different from my own.
 

zinho73

New member
Feb 3, 2011
554
0
0
Jim_Callahan said:
zinho73 said:
Other bad endings on other titles (like Fallout 3, Half-life 2 and others) are just poor ideas.
What's the issue with Fallout 3 and HL2? Both endings made perfect dramatic and narrative sense:

F3's core storyline was basically a series of parables about the necessity of sacrifice (of yourself or others, depending on your alignment) for the greater good, and how the selfishness of a few in the scramble for survival had screwed things up for everyone and was likely to make it worse. What happens to your character was the narratively necessary closing of either a variant of the hero's journey or a redemption arc... the bit where you usually have a party-member that's ostensibly immune to radiation there is less a plot hole than a mechanical bug that they didn't realize didn't quite fit.

HL2's was a simpler loop-arc, and again made perfect sense. In HL1 you start by opening pandora's box, then you blow something up and close the box. In the second game YOU come out of the box, a god-being releases you with the intent of doing what you're good at, and, despite your struggles... you do, and something blows up, driving out the outsiders again... then you go back in the box. Where Fallout was about choice, Half-Life was about inevitability, plus a bit of meta-commentary on shooters that's a bit dated since it references mostly a genre that died out 5 years into a 15-year development cycle.

Sure, the dialogue wasn't brilliant in either case, but it's clear that they actually had a writer and she actually knew her stuff. So I wouldn't call either 'bad'.

... this sort of loops around to the central discussion of exactly why ME3's ending was OBJECTIVELY bad rather than just people not liking it: it was literally bad writing, a deus ex machina. God appears, he exposits some stuff that's mostly unrelated to the plot to this point, then he offers you a set of choices that are mostly de facto equivalent.

The Deus ex machina ending has worked in exactly one video game, and conveniently it was called Deus Ex (yes, I'm aware that they repeated it in the sequels, but there it didn't work, generally). However, it only worked for two reasons: (1) It was a shaggy dog joke consistent with the game's references to Illuminatus!, a brick joke regarding the title, and a pun, acknowledging the fundamental silliness of game and setting that had to that point gone unacknowledged. (2) The choices you were given were informed, not by exposition, but by the rest of the plot and (3) largely you had the choice because you'd put a lot of work into SEIZING the choice, it wasn't just handed to you by fate. Casting the player as the god that created the deus ex machina actually sort of makes it not one, in a way.

ME3 had none of those redeeming qualities. Stage just rotates, Zeus says well done, Heracles, and offers you a seat on the throne or to keep adventuring. Wasn't even a respected dramatic device in the time period the practice originated, it was the equivalent of writing a romance novel about a shirtless werewolf and a sparkling vampire falling for a boring mary sue.
In order to be brief I wasn't clear. I agree with you: those "alleged" bad endings are just poor implementations of something that made sense (and they can be discussed using logic).

ME3 is objectively bad. Deus ex machina plots were frowned upon since the ancient Greece.
 

ajr209

New member
May 6, 2013
58
0
0
ecoho said:
ajr209 said:
ecoho said:
2. people thinking they wasted money on the game. This is most likely the big one and is by far the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Every time this point comes up I always ask how long did they play before it went sour for them and 99% of the time they say till the last 15 mins. Ok assuming your not rushing through that's at least twenty hours of game play so roughly 10 movies worth of time. movies cost $8 a seat at my theater so roughly $80 for the same amount of fun, assuming you can find 10 movies worth watching that is. (and yes I know Netflix is cheaper but talking froma point of a new release)
With going to a movie theater I can walk out and demand my money back from the manager if it's bad. Ever try returning a game that wasn't defective or bought used? Your argument falls apart because if I don't like a movie I can do something about it and if I liked the bulk of the movie but felt the ending just ruined it I'm only out ten bucks ($8? I don't think I could even get into a matinee for that) and two hours. If' I buy a game and don't like it and it wasn't used I'm stuck with it, sure I can just stop playing or sell it but no matter what I do I'll never recoup that money and If I liked the bulk of it but thought the ending just ruined it I'm out sixty bucks and an entire days worth of time.

And you're also not taking into account those who had carried over characters from the previous games. For them after at least 60 hrs and $180 having the whole time believing that their choices mattered and that it would have an impact on the end of their journey because that's what bioware was telling them from day one... only to find out far too late that it didn't. None of it mattered. They could have picked up the 3rd game and and never bothered with 1 or 2 and they would have wound up with the same results. That's a hell of a lot of time and money to spend just to have the rug pulled out from under you at the last moment.

so you had fun for over 60 hours with the exception of the last 15 mins and because of that you feel you wasted your money? please go out and have 60 hours worth of fun for less then $180 ill wait. honestly outside of books youll find that hard to do. now you are entitled to your opinion I just find it rather different from my own.
First of all way to completely miss the point. If a large part of why a player is buying a series is because decissions made in the game affect what happens later in the game and in future games only to find that they didn't affect really anything other than which cameos you got in the last game and that the whole damn time the player could have rolled some dice to pick their choices and it wouldn't have changed the outcome one bit then a main reason they bought the damn thing in the first place was made void. A main reason for buying something not actually being there makes by most reasonable standards buying that something a waste of time and money. Secondly there are plenty of places I can get a comparable amount of entertainment time for the same price if not less, for example with entire seasons of TV shows costing usually between 20 and 40 dollars on DVD or Blu-ray I can get an entire series for that price. Thirdly stop trying to feed people this the journey is the destination nonsense.
The most wonder filled tour in the world doesn't count for that much when the destination is a sewage treatment plant and was only a sewage treatment plant because the guy you booked the tour from wanted to see if he could wring more money out of you to have the tour end somewhere else.
Do you get that that last bit was large part of why people were pissed? If it was just bad most people would have just gone well that sucks and moved on. It wasn't simply bad it was purposely bad. The purpose being wring more money from the player, the third ending wasn't originally slated to be free. If you go back and read the rest of the thread for many, if not most, people it wasn't just that it could have been better.
 

ecoho

New member
Jun 16, 2010
2,093
0
0
ajr209 said:
ecoho said:
ajr209 said:
ecoho said:
2. people thinking they wasted money on the game. This is most likely the big one and is by far the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Every time this point comes up I always ask how long did they play before it went sour for them and 99% of the time they say till the last 15 mins. Ok assuming your not rushing through that's at least twenty hours of game play so roughly 10 movies worth of time. movies cost $8 a seat at my theater so roughly $80 for the same amount of fun, assuming you can find 10 movies worth watching that is. (and yes I know Netflix is cheaper but talking froma point of a new release)
With going to a movie theater I can walk out and demand my money back from the manager if it's bad. Ever try returning a game that wasn't defective or bought used? Your argument falls apart because if I don't like a movie I can do something about it and if I liked the bulk of the movie but felt the ending just ruined it I'm only out ten bucks ($8? I don't think I could even get into a matinee for that) and two hours. If' I buy a game and don't like it and it wasn't used I'm stuck with it, sure I can just stop playing or sell it but no matter what I do I'll never recoup that money and If I liked the bulk of it but thought the ending just ruined it I'm out sixty bucks and an entire days worth of time.

And you're also not taking into account those who had carried over characters from the previous games. For them after at least 60 hrs and $180 having the whole time believing that their choices mattered and that it would have an impact on the end of their journey because that's what bioware was telling them from day one... only to find out far too late that it didn't. None of it mattered. They could have picked up the 3rd game and and never bothered with 1 or 2 and they would have wound up with the same results. That's a hell of a lot of time and money to spend just to have the rug pulled out from under you at the last moment.

so you had fun for over 60 hours with the exception of the last 15 mins and because of that you feel you wasted your money? please go out and have 60 hours worth of fun for less then $180 ill wait. honestly outside of books youll find that hard to do. now you are entitled to your opinion I just find it rather different from my own.
First of all way to completely miss the point. If a large part of why a player is buying a series is because decissions made in the game affect what happens later in the game and in future games only to find that they didn't affect really anything other than which cameos you got in the last game and that the whole damn time the player could have rolled some dice to pick their choices and it wouldn't have changed the outcome one bit then a main reason they bought the damn thing in the first place was made void. A main reason for buying something not actually being there makes by most reasonable standards buying that something a waste of time and money. Secondly there are plenty of places I can get a comparable amount of entertainment time for the same price if not less, for example with entire seasons of TV shows costing usually between 20 and 40 dollars on DVD or Blu-ray I can get an entire series for that price. Thirdly stop trying to feed people this the journey is the destination nonsense.
The most wonder filled tour in the world doesn't count for that much when the destination is a sewage treatment plant and was only a sewage treatment plant because the guy you booked the tour from wanted to see if he could wring more money out of you to have the tour end somewhere else.
Do you get that that last bit was large part of why people were pissed? If it was just bad most people would have just gone well that sucks and moved on. It wasn't simply bad it was purposely bad. The purpose being wring more money from the player, the third ending wasn't originally slated to be free. If you go back and read the rest of the thread for many, if not most, people it wasn't just that it could have been better.
and if everything proceeding the sewage treatment plant was great(and in some places simply groundbreaking) you will find very few people who would care as they got their moneys worth. Also yeah I believe the journey is more important then the destination, but just going by shear logic if you loved 60+ hours of something and hate 15 mins of that same something one can deduce you had an enjoyable experience.

As to "the ending wasn't going to be free" BS that keeps getting spout those are rumors that have no proof and as such are invalid.

Now I suggest that we end this debate here before we dissolve in to just insults as nether of us is going to convince the other of who is right as we both believe we are. Agree to disagree seems like the best course of action now.
 

ajr209

New member
May 6, 2013
58
0
0
ecoho said:
ajr209 said:
ecoho said:
ajr209 said:
ecoho said:
2. people thinking they wasted money on the game. This is most likely the big one and is by far the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Every time this point comes up I always ask how long did they play before it went sour for them and 99% of the time they say till the last 15 mins. Ok assuming your not rushing through that's at least twenty hours of game play so roughly 10 movies worth of time. movies cost $8 a seat at my theater so roughly $80 for the same amount of fun, assuming you can find 10 movies worth watching that is. (and yes I know Netflix is cheaper but talking froma point of a new release)
With going to a movie theater I can walk out and demand my money back from the manager if it's bad. Ever try returning a game that wasn't defective or bought used? Your argument falls apart because if I don't like a movie I can do something about it and if I liked the bulk of the movie but felt the ending just ruined it I'm only out ten bucks ($8? I don't think I could even get into a matinee for that) and two hours. If' I buy a game and don't like it and it wasn't used I'm stuck with it, sure I can just stop playing or sell it but no matter what I do I'll never recoup that money and If I liked the bulk of it but thought the ending just ruined it I'm out sixty bucks and an entire days worth of time.

And you're also not taking into account those who had carried over characters from the previous games. For them after at least 60 hrs and $180 having the whole time believing that their choices mattered and that it would have an impact on the end of their journey because that's what bioware was telling them from day one... only to find out far too late that it didn't. None of it mattered. They could have picked up the 3rd game and and never bothered with 1 or 2 and they would have wound up with the same results. That's a hell of a lot of time and money to spend just to have the rug pulled out from under you at the last moment.

so you had fun for over 60 hours with the exception of the last 15 mins and because of that you feel you wasted your money? please go out and have 60 hours worth of fun for less then $180 ill wait. honestly outside of books youll find that hard to do. now you are entitled to your opinion I just find it rather different from my own.
First of all way to completely miss the point. If a large part of why a player is buying a series is because decissions made in the game affect what happens later in the game and in future games only to find that they didn't affect really anything other than which cameos you got in the last game and that the whole damn time the player could have rolled some dice to pick their choices and it wouldn't have changed the outcome one bit then a main reason they bought the damn thing in the first place was made void. A main reason for buying something not actually being there makes by most reasonable standards buying that something a waste of time and money. Secondly there are plenty of places I can get a comparable amount of entertainment time for the same price if not less, for example with entire seasons of TV shows costing usually between 20 and 40 dollars on DVD or Blu-ray I can get an entire series for that price. Thirdly stop trying to feed people this the journey is the destination nonsense.
The most wonder filled tour in the world doesn't count for that much when the destination is a sewage treatment plant and was only a sewage treatment plant because the guy you booked the tour from wanted to see if he could wring more money out of you to have the tour end somewhere else.
Do you get that that last bit was large part of why people were pissed? If it was just bad most people would have just gone well that sucks and moved on. It wasn't simply bad it was purposely bad. The purpose being wring more money from the player, the third ending wasn't originally slated to be free. If you go back and read the rest of the thread for many, if not most, people it wasn't just that it could have been better.
and if everything proceeding the sewage treatment plant was great(and in some places simply groundbreaking) you will find very few people who would care as they got their moneys worth. Also yeah I believe the journey is more important then the destination, but just going by shear logic if you loved 60+ hours of something and hate 15 mins of that same something one can deduce you had an enjoyable experience.

As to "the ending wasn't going to be free" BS that keeps getting spout those are rumors that have no proof and as such are invalid.

Now I suggest that we end this debate here before we dissolve in to just insults as nether of us is going to convince the other of who is right as we both believe we are. Agree to disagree seems like the best course of action now.
Well if you are going to completely ignore every point I make to stick to the same fucking nonsense that I already broke down several times then not talking to each other anymore would probably be the best solution. And no I do NOT agree to disagree,only to not waste anymore of my time arguing with you after this post. You have every right to like whatever you damn well please, that's your business and I never tried to get you to stop liking only to get you to understand why people feel cheated, but you have absolutely no business trying to dictate to others what they should or should not feel about what they spent their hard earned money on. You are wrong for that I'm not inclined to pretend otherwise.
 

Tien Shen

New member
Mar 25, 2010
127
0
0
I don't need to go over the massive plotholes of ME3's ending (extended included). Fans are still passionate because there's still no closure, Bioware refused to own up to their colossal mistake, and they are teasing a new future Mass Effect title when ME3 hardly wraps it. I am not happy if the new one is a prequel cause it all basically boils down to,"What's the point of playing this prequel when I know how bad it's going to end?"

And if the new title is a sequel, then the question everyone asks,"How will the deal with the ME3 ending?"
 

Darkness665

New member
Dec 21, 2010
193
0
0
Good article Shamus. Well stated even.

And yet another fan reaction. Loved ME1, ME2 - meh. Fun-ish but once I saw the heat clip (aka ammo) I knew some putz developer hadn't play the first game. Or the marketing droid claimed that the shooter had to have ammo dam it (and got the river blocked instead of a curse). Either way Bioware blew the deal. Never gonna trust them again and EA lost my trust with project $10 and the president that should have been strangled but they kept paying him for way too long.

Result, I don't buy Bioware after ME2 (as in no ME3). While I enjoyed ME2 it was not a great game and wasn't worth playing more than once. Indeed, it punished you to do a NG+ with it as you lost all the bennies from rolling your ME1 character over. Stupid, just totally killed a second play through. I played ME1 five times, one was because of a screw up but it didn't really upset me; Rats, have to play it again. Okay, cool. Hell, I might even play it on Steam just for fun (what a concept). Of course if ME3 was available on Steam I might rethink that, but it isn't so tough.

I had hoped they would get that bringing some of the ME1 view back would improve the final product but the trailer showed some twit sniper in the tower of London or such - ejecting a stupid heat clip. I just get tired of having to run around and pick up every stinking bit of ammo because I have a stinking star ship but cannot get enough ammo to fire my weapons. When the first game the issue was having the right ammo at the right time for the right crew. Such that going from a mediocre run and gun to kick their butt and want to do it again. ME3's trailer gave me just enough information to hold off on the game. Then the fan reaction was so much fun to read (Red! Blue! Green!) it let me really enjoy spending the money on anything that wasn't sold by EA or built by Bioware.
 

4173

New member
Oct 30, 2010
1,020
0
0
Therumancer said:
But also do not forget that Earth is a homeworld, and most of the other races would do the same for theirs. It's also the center of the Human alliance and where it's central command structure and government is located. If Earth falls, humanity is pretty much reduced to it's outlying colonies and becomes at most a fringe race, as Earth is still apparently the most heavily populated planet. It could be argued that the destruction of earth might also result in
the slow destruction of humanity.

The thing to understand is that at the time Shepard is recruiting, most of the other home worlds are not under attack, the other races are mostly holding back "just in case". Furthermore the Turians, Asari, and Salarians (the "elder races" in this universe who have been holding things together) are still involved in their continued circle jerk, and are supporting each other, and effectively taking a general "fuck everyone else" attitude.

Besides, let's not forget that due to the events of the previous games, Humans are the only reason these other races are still around. Like it or not, it's a valid plot point. One of the reasons why Humanity needs help to begin with is that Humans were the only ones to respond in force to Sovreign because The Council ignored the warnings like idiots, a good portion of it's fleet was lost in that battle, this was also why it had trouble with The Keepers in defending it's colonies where it lost even more because the Council pretty much says "deal with your own crap, we don't like you so we're not going to back you up" in very diplomatic terms of course, and dealing with that threat which they ignored even when there was evidence shown that this was a very big deal to everyone, saved the galaxy yet again.

Now granted, this is arguably high-adventure, humanist fantasy where humans are proving themselves the saviors of an ungrateful galaxy, but that's the tone of the series, these things happened.

Let me put it to you this way, you save the galaxy multiple times, put yourself in jeopardy by using your military to protect those who are paranoid about it, and then the species you saved go "well thank you, but we didn't like you being a major species anyway, so we're not going to defend your homeworld, the destruction of the center of your civilization means you'll no longer be a factor in galactic affairs, and maybe even die off entirely, which is kind of what we wanted anyway because your very existence has been shaking up our thousands-year long social order, and letting the Reapers do it helps absolve us of the moral dilemma of doing it ourselves". That's kind of what the council is saying.

It should be noted as well that when it comes to these races saying "we don't have the resources" they are kind of lying about it, which is why when Shepard shows up and helps out on some of the Turian colonies where battles are being fought to prevent them from getting to the homeworld and so on, all of a sudden the guys he's saved realize "oh yeah, I guess we can spare some forces after all". In some cases like with the minor species that have a military, the Hanar for example, all he has to do is save an Ambassador or whatever and then it's "Oh well, I guess we aren't under such pressure that we can't help your homeworld, we'll send what military we have".

To be honest I think some people missed the subtext in this game, and haven't realized that both "personalities" for Shep are alarmingly stupid. The Paragon version is Naïve, and the Renegade version takes paranoia to an extreme (but is actually somewhat justified, although he tends to be a jerk about it). Several NPCs are quite blunt in saying they can read the writing on the wall, and when you think about it, it's fairly obvious.

Now, if things were handled realistically, I do not think they would play out quite like this. Humanity probably wouldn't be so important right off the bat, and of course I don't think various enlightened species would be murderous xenophobic jerks (even if very diplomatic) after an accidental war which blew over. At the end of the day it might be high fantasy, but everyone is kind of a butt head.
That's a fascinating perspective. In two replies to me you've written a better outline for ME3 than Bioware managed.

That said, I'm not sure I agree some of your claims are supported by the story, but it has been too long since I've played the game for me to be sure I'm right, or even to argue either way. I can say that if your theory that the other races are lying about their resources is true, that makes the Crucible/Star-Child parts of the story even weaker links unless Shepard getting to choose the fate of the galaxy a giant revenge joke on the other races for not fighting the Reapers hard enough.

In a happy coincidence, this angle lets me preserve the Galactus + C'thulu vibe of the Reapers from ME1 (which Bioware more or less abandoned in ME2 and 3). Sovereign can be honest about the Reapers self-image and history, he (and the rest of the Reapers) just were not prepared for, and probably could not conceive of, the current military strength of the galaxy (this, of course, undermines a bunch of other stuff in ME3, but that's no big loss as far as I'm concerned).
 

Bruce

New member
Jun 15, 2013
276
0
0
The major problem with the ending is this:

The central idea directly contradicts the entire trilogy.

In the first Mass Effect you are introduced to a galaxy where there is always some degree of war going on. Sure, the council keeps a cap on it, but violent situations arise. That is why there are Spectres.

In that game you have the conflict between the synthetic and biological intelligences - but you still have hints that it is more or less the same as between two biological species.

In the second - it goes further. Suddenly the Geth are sympathetic, and you get the idea of peaceful coexistence being highly possible.

This is reinforced in III - when you actually get them and their creators willingly coexisting.

Then right at the end - nope, nerp biologicals and synthetics always have to fight always.

Not only that, lets say you played a less peacemaking run, lets say you sided with the Quarians and wiped out the Geth - well now you have just shown that biologicals can beat synthetics fine. Just like oh, I don't know, the Protheans did in the lore.

Still can't contradict the Starchild.

Sided with the Geth? Well now you have shown that the rest of the galaxy can get on with the Synthetics just fine.

There is no way to play through that particular storyline and have the ending fit - it just doesn't. If synthetics were consistently the enemy maybe - but as it stands? It doesn't make sense.

The extended cut is better - its stupid and crap but it least it isn't insulting the same way, but seriously it ruined the entire trilogy.
 

Soviet Heavy

New member
Jan 22, 2010
12,218
0
0
I'm glad to see someone else noticed the genre shift with the sequels from the original. It turned from a Space Opera celebration into Firefly, and then the game turned into fucking Cameo town. Hey look, we've got actors from Star Trek, the Matrix, Babylon 5, Firefly, Farscape, you name it, we got a voice actor!

I know that Marina Sirtis was in the first game, and she really wasn't as big a player as was first intended, but that's a minor quibble. It started getting really fucking annoying when the second game based its entire cast around well known Sci Fi celebrities. It didn't feel like its own universe anymore, just more like a social club where actors get to reference works they used to be in. Adam Baldwin is still a gun toting big guy, Michael Dorn is playing a Klingon dinosaur, Michael Hogan is a gruff officer.
 

spartandude

New member
Nov 24, 2009
2,721
0
0
Bruce said:
The major problem with the ending is this:

The central idea directly contradicts the entire trilogy.

In the first Mass Effect you are introduced to a galaxy where there is always some degree of war going on. Sure, the council keeps a cap on it, but violent situations arise. That is why there are Spectres.

In that game you have the conflict between the synthetic and biological intelligences - but you still have hints that it is more or less the same as between two biological species.

In the second - it goes further. Suddenly the Geth are sympathetic, and you get the idea of peaceful coexistence being highly possible.

This is reinforced in III - when you actually get them and their creators willingly coexisting.

Then right at the end - nope, nerp biologicals and synthetics always have to fight always.

Not only that, lets say you played a less peacemaking run, lets say you sided with the Quarians and wiped out the Geth - well now you have just shown that biologicals can beat synthetics fine. Just like oh, I don't know, the Protheans did in the lore.

Still can't contradict the Starchild.

Sided with the Geth? Well now you have shown that the rest of the galaxy can get on with the Synthetics just fine.

There is no way to play through that particular storyline and have the ending fit - it just doesn't. If synthetics were consistently the enemy maybe - but as it stands? It doesn't make sense.

The extended cut is better - its stupid and crap but it least it isn't insulting the same way, but seriously it ruined the entire trilogy.
You're forgetting another big thing. The only time the Geth ever became hostile was when they were either being killed off by the Quarians, or when Sovereign (a Reaper)directed them to leave the veil and attack organics.... Yh....
The thing they are supposedly trying to prevent they instigate.

Soviet Heavy said:
I know that Marina Sirtis was in the first game, and she really wasn't as big a player as was first intended, but that's a minor quibble. It started getting really fucking annoying when the second game based its entire cast around well known Sci Fi celebrities. It didn't feel like its own universe anymore, just more like a social club where actors get to reference works they used to be in. Adam Baldwin is still a gun toting big guy, Michael Dorn is playing a Klingon dinosaur, Michael Hogan is a gruff officer.
Tricia Helfer is an AI, Yvonne Strahovski is a super sexy super spy, Kaith David is awesome.
 

Ravinoff

Elite Member
Legacy
May 31, 2012
316
35
33
Country
Canada
4173 said:
I agree with some of Shamus' points, but the thing that really bugs me is the game telling me that rather than fighting the Reapers because they are threatening the galaxy and everything living in it, what I should really care about is EARTH because I'm (the player) a HUMAN...
To take that a step further, it's even more annoying because of the absolutely awesome shit going on in the background. Eg. Turian resistance members going full Independence Day and blowing up Reapers from the inside, or wherever Wrex got off to after he started pummelling his way through about a dozen Ravagers on Tuchanka.

Now, that said, I did love ME3 right up until the last five minutes or so. Mordin curing the Genophage ("Had to be me. Someone else might've gotten it wrong." God damn that was a good line), the great total bromance between M!Shep and Garrus, and the scene just before the final assault, at the firebase in London. Or my personal favourite, the entire Rannoch mission series if you romanced Tali (and refrained from being a cheating dickbag). Especially the bit where Shep jumps out of the APC to solo a Reaper, and she confesses that she loves him.
 

Karadalis

New member
Apr 26, 2011
1,065
0
0
Jim_Callahan said:
What's the issue with Fallout 3
Because it was not necesary to sacrifice yourselfe... you had a companion that was IMMUNE to radiation... but instead he wanted to let you die... "for reasons"

Thats the problem right there... if you had that supermutant with you he would gladly let you die because it was "your destiny" or some such crap...

I mean can you believe the guy? It wouldnt hurt him one bit to go in there and hit a button and come out again but nooooo... he wants you dead.

What a douchebag.

Or send in a god damn robot to push the button so to speak.

The enclave was defeated... the brotherhood had won... there was no one left to take the damn thing away from you that would have kept you from getting a robot to do the trick.

Imn short the ending was a giant plothole, and i disagree... the game had little to no message about self sacrifice especialy since you could just go around and fuck around with the world instead of following the main plot line for weeks.

This story might have functioned in a stricter more linear setting but for a sanbox game? It was bad.
 

Atmos Duality

New member
Mar 3, 2010
8,473
0
0
Oh the reason for the shift in focus was rather obvious: Electronic Arts and their notorious meddling.

There is no coincidence between the radical shift in focus between ME1 and the other two games, as ME1 was the last thing Bioware did before the buyout.

EA thinks they can run every major production on an annual or two year schedule (tops), no matter what.

As for the ending and the subject...That horse has been flogged beyond comprehension.