Mass Effect 3 Is a Good Game.

[Asita]

I don't think that analogy works for stories. Really, I've seen/heard only a small group of people that actually think the end is the most important part(which is a really screwed up way of thinking).

Actually, that's pretty much storywriting 101. To illustrate, let's examine basic narrative structure: exposition-development-climax-denouement. As implied by the terminology, the middle of a story consists of build-up, or more specifically building-up to the climax (hence the other commonly used term: "Rising Action"). You can have the best build up in the world, but it will fall apart if the climax falls flat. This is one of the more basic elements of literary criticism and hardly a new concept.

 

[DJ_DEnM]

Good game? Yes, It's great. I mean, the multiplayer is surprisingly fun and the story is immersive.


...Now about that ending-

 

[Jaeke]

OP, You are mistaken in thinking that people hate the game. People don't hate the game, they hate the ending.

The other 99% of ME3 is one of, if not the, most emotionally gripping and demanding game of its generation.

Too bad the last 15 minutes were like watching a baby seal get clubbed to death with a rubber device similar to a popular weapon in Saints Row The Third.

 

[ex275w]

I actually thought Mass Effect 3 was the worst of the bunch. (Certainly not the game I imagined after I finished the first one back when it came out)

Gameplay:
Reduced options in roleplay. -
Less paragon/renegade interrupts or red/blue dialog options in comparison to the other games. -
Shepard automatically says things that my character wouldn't have done. -
Level/Mission design improved. +
Classes and powers were balanced. +
Weapon selection improved. +
Weapon and armor customization improved. +
Heavy Weapons, where are you? -
No vehicles section. +
Weapon weight system works, though it is abusable. +
The game was harder. +
Most of my deaths were cheap. -
Using the spacebar/A button for 4 different things. -
The sidequest system was badly implemented. -

Story:
More story missions. +
Your partners speak more. +
You should've had 9 partners. (I mean have less than Mass Effect 2 and more than Mass Effect 1) -
The final part on Earth dragged worse than Dragon Ball. -
The Crucible was introduced too early and without foreshadowing. -
The helping other species part was great. +
Some of the species were simplified or changed extensively in their culture/thinking. (The quarians becoming angry warmongers) -
The reapers were too invulnerable. -
Cerberus was overused, reminded me of Umbrella Corporation. -

The ending was even worse than Human Revolution, which just shows how rushed the games were in some aspects. So in general the story and roleplay was simplified, the metagame and gameplay was improved, even if the difficulty was cheapened.

The game should've come out in 2013 at least.

 

[Balmong7]

I don't think that analogy works for stories. Really, I've seen/heard only a small group of people that actually think the end is the most important part(which is a really screwed up way of thinking).

Actually, that's pretty much storywriting 101. To illustrate, let's examine basic narrative structure: exposition-development-climax-denouement. As implied by the terminology, the middle of a story consists of build-up, or more specifically building-up to the climax (hence the other commonly used term: "Rising Action"). You can have the best build up in the world, but it will fall apart if the climax falls flat. This is one of the more basic elements of literary criticism and hardly a new concept.

I think that the idea behind that post was that the game fell flat on the "falling action" rather than the "Climax". i.e. It didn't exist.

 

[johnnnny guitar]

ehhhh it was an a 7 out of 10 for me I liked some parts of it but it was to dumbed down with core things from the previous games ripped out. With less dialog (and the dialog that is there 75% of the time is chosen for you), horrible side quests, shitty game mechanics that are implemented and the ending.

The story and gameplay are now taking place in separate rooms basically what the hell happened remember the first two games where when you went to a new world you would explore and talk to people to find out what to do thats completely left out in ME3 no doubt because of this new action mode. The story and gameplay should be together not ripped apart and sectioned off.

Also nit-picky things like the removal of holstering and film grain also the fucking laziness that was the whole tali reveal thing seriously you couldnt just take some fan made photo?s seriously that?s just lazy you have a whole art team just get one guy to draw it.
Bioware dumbed it down to much it's easily the worst in the series and I kinda new that it would be before it came out I just brought it to see how the trilogy would end and well that didn't go so well but at least I still have ME1 and I guess ME2.

 

[SycoMantis91]

It's obviously an amazing game. I haven't seen one person that's not trolling Amazon reviews who thinks the contrary. I don't think people saying "I don't know if I'll ever play a Mass Effect" is directed at hatred toward Bioware. The point of the games is to make you feel like everything you do matters. To make your choices change the story as a whole. Pretty much all of us here has a (or many) Mass Effect story that differs from everyone else's. The fact that no matter what we do, how we do it, how hard we work for war assets, keeping everyone alive in the 2nd game, building alliances, gaining crew trust, everything you do, in the very end, it all leads to the exact same conclusion. One in which out choices mean nothing, and the whole prologue to the end plays out without an ounce of input from you. You can't be like "no, you're stupid, look outside". It's the same no matter what. Nothing you do ultimately matters one bit. And that's why I felt after than ending like I may not play the games again. I've gotten over it, but it's easily understandable.

 

[Asita]

I don't think that analogy works for stories. Really, I've seen/heard only a small group of people that actually think the end is the most important part(which is a really screwed up way of thinking).

Actually, that's pretty much storywriting 101. To illustrate, let's examine basic narrative structure: exposition-development-climax-denouement. As implied by the terminology, the middle of a story consists of build-up, or more specifically building-up to the climax (hence the other commonly used term: "Rising Action"). You can have the best build up in the world, but it will fall apart if the climax falls flat. This is one of the more basic elements of literary criticism and hardly a new concept.

I think that the idea behind that post was that the game fell flat on the "falling action" rather than the "Climax". i.e. It didn't exist.

I invite you to read the post (#102 in this thread) if you think that was Sonic's gist. He goes on for some length about how "it's not the destination that matters it is the journey getting there".

 

[ralfy]

If ME3 is a space opera adventure with RPG elements, then the most important aspect of the game would be the story and how C&Cs throughout the game leads to the conclusion. Other elements, from the combat system to graphics, should contribute to that, but aren't as important.

 

[Balmong7]

I don't think that analogy works for stories. Really, I've seen/heard only a small group of people that actually think the end is the most important part(which is a really screwed up way of thinking).

Actually, that's pretty much storywriting 101. To illustrate, let's examine basic narrative structure: exposition-development-climax-denouement. As implied by the terminology, the middle of a story consists of build-up, or more specifically building-up to the climax (hence the other commonly used term: "Rising Action"). You can have the best build up in the world, but it will fall apart if the climax falls flat. This is one of the more basic elements of literary criticism and hardly a new concept.

I think that the idea behind that post was that the game fell flat on the "falling action" rather than the "Climax". i.e. It didn't exist.

I invite you to read the post (#102 in this thread) if you think that was Sonic's gist. He goes on for some length about how "it's not the destination that matters it is the journey getting there".

I had read the post before I commented. What I meant was that he does not consider the climax to be the end of a story. He considers the end to be falling action. Which does not have to be wonderful in order for it to be fun.

 

[Vault101]

Having just finished it I will say this

I thourght it was amazing..everything..from the big and small moments, it was everything I had hoped for

everything is fine right up to that part in the end (where you make your "choices")

 

[Tsun Tzu]

I have a few small gripes about the game:


Greatly diminished inter-character dialogue and dialogue options. (They went with a blend of the ME2 Zaeed/Kasumi and ME2 rest-of-squadmates route with all the characters this time around that doesn't feel at all right to me.)

Loss of exploration. No other hub worlds/locations aside from the citadel and the normandy...it kind of sucks.

No vehicles at all.

And the ending. Christ. The ending.

But, overall, I still think it's a good game. It's just a good game that got it's knees blown out from 300 yards by a well entrenched sniper just before crossing the threshold into greatness. It then curled into the fetal position and wept.

Sort of sad, really.

 

[Tono Makt]

I suppose my real question is... how? What exactly makes the games unplayable now? I've seen the ending, I hate it...but the first thing I did was go back to mass effect 1 and start a brand new playthrough... I guess I just don't understand the reasoning here...

To shamelessly quote myself:

Here's my 2 cents:

What bothers me about all the rage concerning Mass Effect 3's ending, is that people seem to ignore everything leading up to the ending because the ending is bad.

The Mass Effect series is like going on a series of dates with a pretty girl. The first date, things go well. She's cute, she's into some of the things you're into (but not all), she's smart and she doesn't want to go see a chick flick. It's a pretty fun night, and she says she'd like to see you again, and gives you a chaste kiss on the cheek.

The second date, you go to dinner. Fantastically, you find that the food she wants the most turns out to be the most inexpensive on the menu, so you can spring for wine. The conversation is great better than the first night. And while you find she's got some opinions that don't mesh with your own (and you've argued passionately against those sorts of opinions from people you don't like), the entire package tones that down. Then you go off to a concert and have a blast - more because she's having fun dancing than because you like the music. It's just a fun time, and the little annoying things aren't nearly as annoying as they normally would be. At the end of the night, she gives you a full on kiss... and doesn't move away when you accidentally brush up against her breasts.

Then the third date comes and it's full on awesome time. She's dressed in a slinky black dress, you're in a shirt and tie (a tie! a TIE!!) and you've made reservations for a 4 star restaurant. You've been saving up for this for a while, and you've got the entire evening planned out. The conversation is fantastic; you actually voice your disagreement with some of her opinions, and she answers you with intelligent reasons why she holds them. While this doesn't make you agree with her, at least you see where she's coming from and can respect it. The waiter is perfect, and partway through dinner he brings a beautiful red rose for her, hinting that it was actually your idea and it thrills her. The meal is beautifully done, and comes with a dessert that you didn't expect because you didn't read through the full menu as carefully as you should. (you make a mental note in the future to do so, but secretly you are ecstatic because it makes you look even better in her eyes) At the end of the meal, the bill comes and it's actually less than you expected, so you can give the waiter a larger tip than you normally would, showing how generous you are.

Instead of going out to a show, she asks you to take her back to your place, and you do. Back at your place (which isn't as neat and clean as you had hoped, since you didn't expect to bring her home tonight) the two of you start making out. And my god but she is hitting everything perfectly. Every fantasy you had about this moment is coming true as if she truly is what you think she is. While she's not perfect, she's putting herself out there to make you feel as good as she can. (sure, a few missteps. long nails, bit of pulling of body hair, awkward bumping of heads, too much teeth, little things that are easily forgotten a moment later) The least you can do is return the favour, and so you slowly pull down her panties and...


SSSSSSPPPRRRRROOOOOIIIIINNNNGGGGG!!!!

Penis.

 

[Ziggy]

And of course, no holster function. Which kills the immersion completely for me. I'm running around a secure area pointing my gun at everything. It's kind of a big deal if both previous games allowed you to holster your weapon. Sounds like a minor thing, but it isn't. So don't pretend it is.

Off topic
This made me think back to something i heard about Bungie, giving the option to lower your weapon in one of the Halo games, because it would help Rooster Teeth when they made Red vs Blue

 

[Sparklyfingers]

I don't understand how some people think this is a nigh on "flawless" game. While playing, I became very frustrated with a number of things:

- The cover mechanics (for me on PC anyway), didn't work overly well. I could press the button to go into cover up to three times before Shepard bothered to duck down and by then I might be half dead already.

- Lack of actualy participation in conversations really started getting to me. I vaguely recall this happening a lot in DA2 as well but I wasn't as invested with those random characters as I was/am with some of the characters in the ME universe. Not to mention that every so often there would be a cut-scene with Shepard talking to people where the conversation wheel migth pop up once. Twice if you're lucky.

Sure, less conversation wheel "interruptions" make the conversation flow smoother (though there's some pacing problems with the audio occasionally) but, as I said, it made me feel really flustered and not to mention pushed aside from the narrative by being unable to choose Shepard's input.

- The frickin' sidequests are terrible. More than once I was running through the Citadel and paused cause I caught a snippet of a conversation that I knew might get logged in my journal. Sometimes it did, but the journal system in ME3 is awful. The side quests don't update when you pick up the relevant item, for one. That is BAD design.

- To an extent I wish there were more squadmates. They overdid it a bit in ME2 with like 10 or so characters, but through ME3 I played with only 4. Ashley didn't like me enough to stay on my squad and Tali decided to off herself. (EDI almost makes up for it by being awesome.)

Add some lazy writing choices and the bad ending, there is no way in any level of hell that ME3 deserves a 'perfect' score, which EA keeps boasting they have like 75 of. Overall I did enjoy the storyline, I especially liked actually losing some of the battles (Thessia), it's a nice touch that Shepard is still human and can be outsmarted etc. And I still love the world of Mass Effect.

But the gameplay is plain bad.


Edit: Am I the only person who misses putting around in the Mako and shooting at stuff?

 

[Joccaren]

Story:

Spoiler

I felt a bit let down by it in 3. It was more linear than ever before.
In ME1 you chose what you wanted to do when, and then only after you had completed everything were you forced down a linear path to the end of the game.
In ME2, some of this was taken out, but you still had your choice of where to go first, who to pick up, which hub you wanted to buy stuff from. I could still pick my way through a lot of the game, with only a few interrupts forcing linearity.
Then ME3 - it was completely linear. Baring sidequests, every single story mission happened in a fixed sequence. Why is it impossible to help the Krogan first, then Asari, then Turian? I could easily write that in. Why not check on the Migrant fleet first, then use them to help the rest of the galaxy? It was all a completely set mission structure, and that rubbed me a bit the wrong way.
The missions themselves were sometimes the best in the series: I loved Tuchanka. The forced linearity of them felt wrong though.
As to the ending ruining the whole series? For me it did. The Reapers, evil, dark, malevolent creatures that instilled fear in my heart. Up until the end of ME3, I always saw a Reaper and thought "You exist because we allow it, and you will end because we demand it" and "I am the Vanguard of your destruction". Sovereign quotes that made them seem epic. Get to the ending, and now every time I see a Reaper I have to think of "The Reapers are my solution" and the crappy reasoning behind that. It ruined that for me.
In addition, the lack of closure and acknowledgement of my choices made them seem pointless - as did the seemingly inevitable demise of most of the galaxy's population. I'll bet they enact space magic more than once in this new DLC to explain thing, and I want you to know that I f***ing called it.
I wish I could see past the Catalyst, but having just replayed ME1 again and getting to Sovereign, he just feels a lot less menacing, and everything a lot more pointless. I'd recommend playing ME1 again to most - see how much detail can be put into a world, and how much freedom can be given to forge one's own character - another thing that was missing in a lot of places in ME3.

Gameplay:

Spoiler

As much as I didn't notice it [Hell, I only barely noticed the Mako problems. Its not that hard to drive it {PC}], I will admit the ME1 combat was not generic FPS combat found in a lot of games, and probably felt clunky because of that.
Sadly, I don't think ME2 improved on that. It made it less stat reliant and more based off the weapon than your character, but it made it so utterly boring for me I felt like sleeping through the combat. It was Hide behind wall; shoot the whole way through. The armour/shield/barrier system was good, but too few powers affected any of them, and the shared cooldown let only 1 power get used for the majority of the time. Vanguards had the best combat IMO, thanks to charge letting them get out of cover, but even they had to duck back quickly after a charge.
The Mako was replaced with the Hammerhead in ME2 - and the Hammerhead spat on everything vehicle combat was and can be. It was the same as ground based combat, but there was no cover and you had to run back ASAP if in danger. It was armoured with wet tissue paper, and felt more like a family car than a tank meant for combat. The controls on it were also retarded. Default from memory was shift to jump, space to sprint. WTF. Whose bright idea was that, when pretty much everything out there has the exact opposite? Its like having jump be a full forward on a joystick and sprint be X for a console controller. It makes no sense.
Dialogue was expanded on though, not only with Paragon/Renegade interrupts, but also with the conversation where you convince Morinth to take you to her apartment - where there was no Paragon/Renegade option to easily get you through it, and you had to know what you were talking about to her, or at least be able to talk convincing BS.
In ME3 some things were improved, others fell behind more. Ground based combat was improved: A variety of enemies for the first time in the series [Beyond AT, Flame and Smook]. More abilities had a greater affect when shields and such were still up, and you were able to be mobile throughout combat, rather than being stuck behind a wall. Whilst shared cooldown was kept, every class had at least 1 ability on an independent cooldown or no cooldown where they could use it directly after another ability. The weight mechanic added depth to weapon choice per class, rather than being purely stat based, or purely 'You only know where the trigger is on this type of gun'. The variety in guns was great, and you knew their stats unlike in ME2.
Vehicle combat and exploration however were butchered in ME3. In ME2 there was a lot less exploration than ME1, but it still had some non-linear hub areas, and some of the vehicle sections allowed some freedom in where you went [Overlord]. In ME3, there were no vehicles, which was disappointing, and only 1 hub: The Citadel, and even that was just a disjointed set of areas linked by elevator, rather than a coherent whole. There was almost nowhere where non-linear exploration was available, even slightly, and that made me a bit sad.
The Inventory was best in ME3, as were the weapon mods. However, I would still have liked some better RPG integration. ME1s inventory was horrific, even by RPG standards, and I would have liked to see a proper interface and such added. Maybe pick not only which weapons you take with you, but you can also take some additional mods to swap stuff over. I also maintain that ammo should be a mod, not an ability.
All round ME3 had better gameplay, but I still get more enjoyment out of playing ME1 - exploring, swapping things over when I need to, not having elevators as the only way to get anywhere, a vehicle that isn't tissue paper, a sense of discovery more than a sense of 'This is our nice set piece, enjoy'.
Dialogue, however, was butchered. The majority of dialogue in ME3 is auto dialogue, and that's not even just at the end. Included to that there were no middle or neutral options, and I never once saw a Paragon OR Renegade option that wasn't available to me - even though I had no Renegade [Ok, maybe like 2mm of Renegade, but that unlocks every Renegade option in the game?
In addition to that, a lot of the Paragon/Renegade interrupts were even harder to decipher than in ME2.
Add to that the sidequest problems I have: There are few, if any, sidequests other than 'Scan planet, go to Citadel' in ME3. As much as I didn't feel there were enough sidequests in ME2, they were well crafted and more than just scanning planets there. ME3 has your old companion sidequests, 4 story based sidequests, and a lot of scanning sidequests. Oh, and 6 Multiplayer based sidequests.

Characters and world:

Spoiler

I personally felt ME1 did the world best. The number of side missions in that, almost all of which related to some issue in the world - the small picture as you put it - were great. The exploration felt good, and you got a sense of how everything fit together. The world was established in detail, and if you did everything you could the world fit together amazingly - even on some completely unrelated side missions you might run into someone you've supposedly met before, like that guy killing Cerberus scientists from Akuze, who also survived the Thresher Maw attack. Everywhere you went there was something going on, and it all tied together to form a clear image of the world in Citadel space.
I don't think this was done as well in ME2, but it wasn't done badly either. Some of the small details felt missing, but you got a great image of life on the other side. The sidequests were largely independent, but that gave the impression of a lack of order, and that you did what you wanted to in the Terminus systems. So too, however, was the world linked to the one you visited in ME1. Reminders of your past kept popping up, and contributed even more to the overall image of the galaxy.
In ME3, it felt a lot emptier. They did some things to make it feel like a small world - like the PTSD Asari and Joker's sister - but many of your decisions just disappeared. Hell, many of them were just killed offscreen on Twitter - which felt cheap. There weren't any sidequests that painted the desperation of the war or anything, which was a massively missed opportunity. Landing on Dekuuna and fighting the Reaper forces there to recover an Elcor artefact would be a lot more meaningful than scanning Dekuuna, beaming up an artefact, then going to the Citadel.
There were still some details, but a lot of the world just felt empty, and vague. It didn't feel like it connected with the rest of the world, but instead was independent. There were fewer things that offered an insight to the details of the world than in 1 or 2, and I really felt it.

Character I felt were best done in 2. When you think of Garrus, you don't think of C-Sec stick-up-my-ass Garrus, you think of Space Batman Garrus. You don't think of Naive and young Liara - you think of Shadow Broker Liara. Tali isn't who she was in ME1, and you remember her independence in 2 more than her uncertainty in 1 - or at least I do - you don't think of 'Poor me' complaining and defensive Joker, you think of wisecracking Joker from ME2. The Characters in 2 felt a lot deeper, were more interesting, and were very well written.
ME1 the characters were... bland I'd put as the best word. Wrex was probably the best of them. Most just seemed Naive, young and innocent, whereas ME2 established them as something else. Ashley and Kaiden were best written in ME1 however. Their cameo's in 2 and 3 weren't as good.
ME3 was... hit or miss. Some people it got dead on - Wrex, Mordin, Joker, Thane. Some were... iffy - Garrus, Ashley/Kaiden, EDI, Legion. I'm all for character evolution, but there was a quick and sudden change in character for those I mentioned, or at least it felt like it. It wasn't wholey impossible, but it just didn't feel natural.
ME2 I'll remember for characters [ME3 for Wrex], ME1 for the world, and ME3 for trying to get them both right but not getting either quite right IMO

Personally, ME3 isn't inherently a bad game, I just think it fails overall at each of its goals.
It fails to be a standalone game - as you miss out on a ton of content if you don't import, and I can't speak for everyone but I find it quite noticeable.
It fails to continue the ME traditions, as it replaces a lot of choice with auto dialogue, and starts writing Shepard's character for you rather than letting you write it for yourself. It gets some things spot on, and they are amazing - Tuchanka as one example - but other times I feel it just misses, and doesn't work.
Its both the strongest and weakest game in the trilogy for me - it has some of the most memorable moments in it, but everything other than those moments just doesn't fit for me.

As to leaving Bioware because of this? Perfectly reasonable IMO. First ME2 for me, with its sudden shift towards boring cover based shooting. Then DA2, with its shift into wave style encounters and button mash combat. Now ME3, with its hit and miss everything, and horrid ending. Bioware is heading on a trend towards making game types that I can get elsewhere done better. If I want to play a shooter, I'll play BF3 rather than ME3 - I find its gameplay better. If I want choice mechanics, I'll play ME1 or 2, or the Witcher, not ME3 as it takes a lot of that away from me. If I want a linear story experience, I'll play Bioshock and fall in love with its twist again. If I want a sad ending, or a pyrrhic victory, I'll watch some movie with that - not play a game that I feel victory is coming the whole time.
Bioware is heading away from what I love about them, and if they do that I have no reason to stay with them. If what I played their games for is no longer there, and what they're focusing on is done better elsewhere, I'll play other games.
Likely if I do play another Bioware game, I'll just treat it like I do BF or CoD. A game, with nothing special about it. Feeling ME was special and that I counted for something in its story made the end that much more crushing, and I'm not putting up with that again.

 

[Joccaren]

Edit: Am I the only person who misses putting around in the Mako and shooting at stuff?

Not at all. I loved the Mako. I died a little when I saw what the Hammerhead was, how poorly it handled, it's crap aiming and its tissue paper hull. If its possible I actually think the Hammerhead handled worse than the Mako; it got caught up on nearly every tiny bump in the road - despite being a HOVER craft - it constantly stopped and banged into those things. Its aiming was WAY too inaccurate, and there was no sufficient zoom level to make it accurate at long range. It had terrible turning for me, especially when sprinting. It's jump was way over the top, and it just felt like a family car. It wasn't an awesome ground vehicle - it was a family car with a rocket turret strapped to the top, that you were driving around heavily fortified worlds and hoping not to die. I also miss being able to just get out of the Mako and walk if you wanted to. Would fit a whole lot better for some times with the Hammerhead; I could have killed the infantry around faster on foot than the blooming tank could.