My sentiments exactly.
I hated London. All of it. How they make it so very obvious you're going to take one for the team by saying your good-byes to flipping holographic projections of your friends. The way all the action seemed to be put on hold while you meandered around saying farewell to everyone (a bit of urgency might have been nice). And then most definitely the fact you never see anything you did during the game pay off. It irked me to no utter end that I never got to see the Rachni fighting alongside, or even some ships in orbit; that I never see these biotics Kaidan talks about, or the Turians and Krogans that I've finally allied with me... It was just... disappointing. It felt so hollow and empty... after all that work, all the alliances, all I've really got to show for it is some numbers dictating what sort of minute changes appear in the R/G/B endings.
But heck, I didn't even like the bit with the Illusive Man. Saren was a brilliant villain in my mind, one of my absolute favorites... then it's nearly complete dejavu..
I still haven't brought myself to do a second playthrough; I want too, so very much... But if I do I feel like I'd need to simply stop playing after finishing the Cerberus station.
QFFT! I'm another one of those folks who hasn't brought themselves to do a proper second playthrough. Or even to have a playthrough with the extended cut. I played it through once last March and found the ending left such a bitter taste in my mouth that I actually created this account to get involved with the ME3 threads here.
I have gone back a few times and played through the entire end sequence, starting with killing Mary Kai Sue and going right up to the beam - and each subsequent play through I've found myself saying "This would be so much better if there was a crapload of Turrians at this particular part rather than Humans." or "I'm fighting Banshee's - wouldn't it be awesome if there could be a squad of Asari Commando's to fight alongside me here?" and "I know it would be horrible, horrible plagiarism and they couldn't do it at all, but I really, really wish there was a spot in London - one of the bridges maybe? - where Kirrahe would point his gun at a Brute and scream "YOU! SHALL! NOT! PASS!", the Brute would attack, Kirrahe would have to use a melee weapon and then would tackle the Brute off of the bridge." or the one I found myself longing for the most - a squad of Krogan Paratroopers. (More than once Mrs. Makt thought Mr. Makt was going crazy as he was humming "It's raining Krogan!" as he was playing through London)
There was just so much more that could have been done in London, so many ways to tie the final scene into running around the galaxy gathering armies, and the lack of its inclusion in any meaningful way beyond the Good Bye scene has become far more of an issue for me than the Starchild.
By declaring himself as The Catalyst and the collective intelligence of all Reapers, and by including himself into the group of the Reapers by using "We" (plural) instead of "I" (singular), he is telling Shepard that he is in fact part of The Reapers he/she/it was trying to destroy:
"The Illusive Man couldnt have taken control, because WE already control him"
"I know you thought about destroying US"
"WE have tried.....a similar solution in the past"
TIM was indoctrinated by the Reapers. If The Catalyst had NOTHING to do with this and was just an outside entity that has no control over The Reapers but its still a part of them, then he wouldn't have said "WE" as in: "WE, The Reapers and I, control him. Therefore, he couldn't have taken my place as The Catalyst because i wouldn't let him" because he wouldnt be responsible for TIM indoctrination, he would be just an observer that has no power to do or dont.
That means he IS the Reapers without a doubt.....and he is trying to help you.... even when he was trying to kill you with the Reapers, blowing up the Crusible and using Indoctrinated TIM to kill you an Anderson.
What so hard to understand?
We were thinking this:
"Man, whatever. Lets just pick a color and in any case i can reload if i dont like it. Lets choose Control so i can show my new Reaper dick to my love interest"
If that's the way you were thinking, then that's your fault. If you deliberately choose to adopt a stupid, illogical view on the endings, then that is no failing of the writers. And I say writers, because pretending that only one person wrote the ending is just being ignorant and disrespectful, and makes it blatantly clear that you refuse to accept everything that leads up to the ending.
And why should the developers care if you've decided to think a certain way solely so you can complain about thinking that way?
So you are saying that every fan of Mass Effect was deliberately hating the game before reaching that point?? because so far, the evidence shows that everyone was happy with the game until that point. Something happened that made them loose the immersion and faith in the series that they were so invested in it to the point of loving it, rather than hate it. If not the fans then what was it what made the sudden shift from apreciating the game to stupid and illogical view of the story??
Casey Hudson was present in all games as the producer AND director, more time than Drew and Walters, and with a higher hierarchy to both (he decides where the money goes after all). That technically makes him more familiariced with the material than Walters. Therefore, he is the MAIN guy. He was also the person who convinced Walters of "keeping it high level" by leaving things unaswered and also mentions that Casey is the guy with "the bigger picture", thus demostrating who really is in charge of the writing and the vision of the series. Walters clearly lowers his head to the person who knows best because Casey was in the bussiness since Baldur's Gate and has more experience and creativity after years of writing games. Not to mention, it was Casey who demanded the Anderson scene at the end to be shorter and shorter acording to his whim.
He has the final word on what stays on the product. He IS the man with the vision. A vision that didnt work.
Why should the author care?? well, because all artists care about what the audience sees. After all, storytelling and art is about leaving a message to the world, and if that message is not well told, then they have failed to communicate that message. Specially when a large mayority of the audience doesnt "get it"
And if he doesnt care as an artist, then he would care as a bussiness man (he is a producer). When great part of the writers leave the company even before the game was even released, you know that is not going to be good in your reputation:
He is still working for BW but went to work on the Dragon Age team and wont go back to write ME. You can find him in Twitter making remarks about the ending and his dislike a few times. I am honestly surpriced that EA hasnt forced him to erase his tweets, but they are available for all in his public Tweet @PatrickWeekes (he got 2 accounts). He also get updates from Koobismo, the man who made the Marauder Shield comics as an alternate ending to ME3 (but doesnt follow Koobismo himself), and also gets updated when there is something interesting to read, like this on the Bioware Social Forum:
of all the rumors i heard the one where our dlc protehean was supposed to be the catalyst, so it makes more sence if the magic space kid was tacked on because according to the rumor EA insisted that that character be tied to dlc.
truth is way the rumors flew about the whole ending of the game we will never know where that went wrong. we know about the midway through me2 the story started to just go off the whole initial reason for the invasion was shot full of holes using the codex of me1. which was the use of dark energy or something.
we know the ending of me3 was cobbled together and redone multiple times different plot points put in and cut out, there was enough bits and pieces left over where all the theories could find some traction.
and cyber ninja and his plot armor from hell was just dumb.
but nothing about the being on the citadel at the end felt real or made much sense to any kind of logic, you are nuked by sovereign magically instead of being killed you are on the ship all messed to hell and back and half dead. and just happen into the IM who just seems to have docked on the station like nothing was happening waiting in his best suit.
topped off with an ending coversation with the magic space baby, who is the catylist, who you were having visions of before you ran into him there, ok that one i can forgive assuming the child on earth was real but if that kid was real boy he could move to get that far away from shepherd to get blown up.
ignoring the fact that shepherd is responsible for genocide on a massive scale, and depending on your actions has brainwashed whole races or exterminated them, let a gate blow up killing millions of batarians, watched friends get killed horribly, watched your entire squad die on a alien world if you took the one history, this guy should have enough guilt to give him nightmares for decades unless he is a robot. but no none of that matters some kid you see for a few seconds haunts you. ok.
the worst slap however, was a not being able to say "fuck you" to the catylist and the illogical line of logic behind his whole space rampage or the illogical solutions with magic space synthesis, none of which passed even the barest scrutiny ESPECIALLY if you had worked your ass off to make peace between the geth and the quarians and then this argument is like HUH WTF?
and no matter what you choose you get basically the same ending oh and it was a color coded ending which bioware had said in interviews was so far not the the case that it was going to be epic. no a b c branching yadda yadda. red green and what was the other color? WTF?
thank god the game leading up to that was damn good even amazing at times. and i was entertained and wanted to find out how it ended so badly..............until i found out how it ended.
so i tend to buy the whole prothean catylist angle and EAs greed made bioware shoehorn this garbage in angle because as thin of some of this stuff is it makes more sense that way than they could just mess it up so badly at the culmination of a great game. and while the me series as a whole has had some better and worse writing the games had enough great writing where all this seems even more out of left field.
ok rant off i can breathe now, i just started playing me3 from scratch again a few weeks ago with the EC and other DLC and got distractd by some other games, but still not have played the end game again since the EC was put out i was so in shock and horror.
And finally no, I'm not saying the indoctrination theory is the final ending. What I am saying is that it must have been the main focus, but they cut it. They left all these pieces of the puzzle in, but decided to throw away the last two pieces into the trash. Apparently, there's a script leak floating around where the last scene (with the star child), is actually a garden. With trees. And grass. A hallucination or a dream sequence.
I still don't buy it for the same set of reasons. Unless ME3 went a remarkably different way than what we saw, all of the problem I talked about still exist and the problems of thematic consistency remain regardless.
Given what Mass Effect has stood for, having the PC become indoctrinated is just about the single worst move they could make.
Having the player be indoctrinated is just about the single most awesome twist they could add. Imagine if Frodo from the Lord of the Rings didn't suffer any corruption from the ring. That he just went back to the shire and lived happily ever after.
Because of my choices, the krogan have a bright future ahead of them, the quarians and the geth have ended their hostility, the rachni have survived, and countless other people have been saved from death.
But if all those choices don't have a specific impact on the war for and activation of an ancient alien superweapon at the end of the game, then obviously those choices never had any impact.
BioWare shouldn't feel bad for disappointing people like you. You've deliberately adopted a completely illogical mindset disconnected from reality simply so you can have an excuse to complain about the game. They really should not have bothered with people who try their hardest to come up with pathetic reasons to cry about the ending.
Been saying this about ME3 since I finished it. They never promised varied endings based on your decisions though out them game, only that the decisions you make will make an impact on how the story plays out, and that's certainly true.
Actually they DID promise many varied endings with all of your previous decisions affecting it. Hell, there are multiple quotes of Casey Hudson along with other developers saying this EXACT THING. They promised wildly different endings, pre-extended cut. Before anyone says anything, yes, the endings were wildly different in CONCEPT but in execution they looked practically the same. They didn't go beyond what the Catalyst said word for word. Synthesis: Green explosion, everyone is part synthetic, the end. Control: Blue explosion, the Reapers are being controlled, the end. Destroy: Red explosion, the Reapers are now destroyed ans possibly earth, the end. That was literally ALL the variation you saw so I wouldn't consider that wildly different.
"Experience the beginning, middle, and end of an emotional story unlike any
other, where the decisions you make completely shape your experience
and outcome."
Totally true, when I've talked to other people about their playing experience it's sound like some of us played completely different games based on the choices we made throughout the game.
sumanoskae said:
"[The presence of the Rachni] has huge consequences in Mass
Effect 3. Even just in the final battle with the Reapers."
While I don't remember the Rachni in the final battle itself, it's totally possible that in the EU or lore of Mass Effect they do.
sumanoskae said:
"There are many different endings. We wouldn't do it any other way. How
could you go through all three campaigns playing as your Shepard and
then be forced into a bespoke ending that everyone gets? But I can't
say any more than that?"
Also true, there are far more 'endings' as in on-going plots being resolved throughout the entire game.
sumanoskae said:
"There is a huge set of consequences that start stacking up as you approach the end-game. And
even in terms of the ending itself, it continues to break down to
some very large decisions. So it's not like a classic game ending
where everything is linear and you make a choice between a few things
- it really does layer in many, many different choices, up to the
final moments, where it's going to be different for everyone who
plays it."
Notice the use of "up to the final moments"...
"So it's not like a classic game ending
where everything is linear and you make a choice between a few things" No it's not, I consider the ending everything that happens in Sol and I certainly saw plenty of my previous choices and actions over all previous 3 games so up.
They aren't that hard to find.
Looking though the major collection of 'promises' I see plenty of vague hints but nothing concrete, nothing enough to justify going "SEE! SEE! THEY PROMISED THIS!".
1: I'm going to assume that you have to know that your statement "Completely different games" is an exaggeration, because there's simply no way you're being literal. But you cannot also say that the statement is "Totally true". Discounting imagination, which I think is reasonable, the endings of the game are literally split between A, B and C. Did you really predict when you heard of Bioware boasting of layered and complex conclusions, from either their literal word or their implied intent, that what we got is what they meant?
2: I didn't play the Mass Effect GAMES to hear about how my decisions had impact from a book. You can't expect people to be satisfied that the Rachni (Who were built up from the first game as a big fucking deal) being theoretically useful. This isn't an outright lie, but it sure as hell is misdirection.
3: Really? In a way there are lots of endings because "Endings" could refer to the conclusion of individual plot points instead of the actual ending? You know damn well that the question that sparked this was probably about the ending, the answer clearly refers to playing through all three campaigns and the idea of single bespoke ending (Which they claimed would not be the case). If the employee was referring to this new concept of "Endings" you speak of, there is a lot more they could say, like that that's what they were talking about. I'm sorry, but this idea strikes me as willfully ignorant
4: The choices you get at the ending of the game are determined by your EMS score, nothing else. There is no dynamic variation beyond which crew members walk off the ship in the outro cinematic. You get a choice between 1-3 endings depending on your EMS score, one of 3 things happens, and that is the sum total of your role in the ending. It ultimately doesn't matter weather you get race A or race B on your side, or if companion X or companion Y lived or died; as long as enough of them did, tings remain the same. You could run thought the game in two completely opposing playthroughs, making opposing choices and building different relationships, and the endings will be almost exactly the same regardless. There is no subtly to be had and there are no layers to be seen, the ending ignores most of your choices, and instead grades you based on how much of the game you finished. It is not "Different for everyone who plays it" you do in fact "Make a choice between a few things" (3 to be exact).
P.S: If you want to assume that the "Few final moments statement" was meant to communicate that the book ends of the game would remain the same regardless of what came before, than consider that this might not be such a big deal, if the final moments of the game didn't CHANGE THE NATURE OF EXISTENCE.
The reason the ending is such a bid deal is because it changes the story a great deal, yet gives you precious little information and takes only a fraction of your choices into account; it's an arbitrary ultimatum.
Even if you like the ending, you can't honestly tell me that everybody should have been able to ascertain it's nature based on Bioware's words.
I was thinking about the ending again the other day, and aside from all the usual star child, deus ex machina, no sign of allies in final battle, sickening Aryan-esque synthesis ending, and all the rest of it you've heard a hundred times before, I actually realized there was ANOTHER thing I didn't like.
Anyway, my issue with the ending was the fact it was on Earth. I mean, Earth? really? who cares about Earth? I've spent 98% of the rest of the series seeing aliens and visiting their planets, forging alliances, learning their cultures, taking up their fights for them, settling disputes for them and you know what? by the end of it, Earth can burn for all I care - I want to be saving the Turian, Asari, Krogan, Geth/Quarian, Volus, Elcor home-worlds. I couldn't care less about Earth.
Not strictly on-topic but your Earth point is interesting for me.
Why does my Shepard who was born and raised on Mindoir care so much about Earth throughout the game? Only mentioning her homeworld, in passing, in a optional DLC mission?
In only one background does Shepard come from Earth. Yes of course the death toll there is terrible but for that one world, which you're not even from, to be so important as to exclude mentions of your actual home seems a little odd.
Something I often wonder is if little personal touches such as that were removed in order to make room for the multi-player on the discs.
that aside I can accept the fact that the game has flaws aside from the endings (even if the ending was great it would have been put under scrutiny anyway)
Having the player be indoctrinated is just about the single most awesome twist they could add. Imagine if Frodo from the Lord of the Rings didn't suffer any corruption from the ring. That he just went back to the shire and lived happily ever after.
It isn't even remotely similar as the tale is not about the struggle. Mass Effect was about choice and personal responsibility altering the outcome of an event that, since time immemorial, was inevitable. The indoctrination theory supposes that, at some unknown point, you choices stopped being your choices and you became the unknowing agent of another.
Every choice you made, even all of those that only affected an outcome within a scene, every response you've given in a conversation, every renegade or paragon interrupt, every shot you fired, every crew member selection, every one of the thousands of tiny choices you made since Eden Prime become suspect.
There is only one context in which this is appropriate: that in spite of all of your choices, you don't have much latitude when it comes to determining the ultimate outcome. But that's a meta consideration and hardly worth the cost the more granular details, the plot specific thematic consistency.
When you meet with the council, Shepard can bring up Ilos, but they're told that the facility on Ilos deactivated and they weren't able to find anything.
Firstly, sorry it took a while to respond to this, as I had no idea you had responded to my question. I don't mean this as an insult, but why don't you include the quote reference when you quote people? It's quite useful to alert people that you've responded.
On topic, in that scence with the council they only talk about Vigil, not the facility as a whole, or the Conduit. "The hologram on Ilos is no longer functional and we have found nothing to suggest Sovreign was not a geth creation". Salarian councilor, at around 1::30 into this video.
There is no mention of the state of the Conduit, so this still leaves the question of why it couldn't be used in ME3 unanswered. While it is possible that there is a reason for why the Conduit can't be used, the games do not give one, hence the plot hole. It gives the impression that the writers just forgot about older plot elements and hoped nobody would notice.
Looking though the major collection of 'promises' I see plenty of vague hints but nothing concrete, nothing enough to justify going "SEE! SEE! THEY PROMISED THIS!".
Because of my choices, the krogan have a bright future ahead of them, the quarians and the geth have ended their hostility, the rachni have survived, and countless other people have been saved from death.
But if all those choices don't have a specific impact on the war for and activation of an ancient alien superweapon at the end of the game, then obviously those choices never had any impact.
BioWare shouldn't feel bad for disappointing people like you. You've deliberately adopted a completely illogical mindset disconnected from reality simply so you can have an excuse to complain about the game. They really should not have bothered with people who try their hardest to come up with pathetic reasons to cry about the ending.
Been saying this about ME3 since I finished it. They never promised varied endings based on your decisions though out them game, only that the decisions you make will make an impact on how the story plays out, and that's certainly true.
Actually they DID promise many varied endings with all of your previous decisions affecting it. Hell, there are multiple quotes of Casey Hudson along with other developers saying this EXACT THING. They promised wildly different endings, pre-extended cut. Before anyone says anything, yes, the endings were wildly different in CONCEPT but in execution they looked practically the same. They didn't go beyond what the Catalyst said word for word. Synthesis: Green explosion, everyone is part synthetic, the end. Control: Blue explosion, the Reapers are being controlled, the end. Destroy: Red explosion, the Reapers are now destroyed ans possibly earth, the end. That was literally ALL the variation you saw so I wouldn't consider that wildly different.
"Experience the beginning, middle, and end of an emotional story unlike any
other, where the decisions you make completely shape your experience
and outcome."
Totally true, when I've talked to other people about their playing experience it's sound like some of us played completely different games based on the choices we made throughout the game.
sumanoskae said:
"[The presence of the Rachni] has huge consequences in Mass
Effect 3. Even just in the final battle with the Reapers."
While I don't remember the Rachni in the final battle itself, it's totally possible that in the EU or lore of Mass Effect they do.
sumanoskae said:
"There are many different endings. We wouldn't do it any other way. How
could you go through all three campaigns playing as your Shepard and
then be forced into a bespoke ending that everyone gets? But I can't
say any more than that?"
Also true, there are far more 'endings' as in on-going plots being resolved throughout the entire game.
sumanoskae said:
"There is a huge set of consequences that start stacking up as you approach the end-game. And
even in terms of the ending itself, it continues to break down to
some very large decisions. So it's not like a classic game ending
where everything is linear and you make a choice between a few things
- it really does layer in many, many different choices, up to the
final moments, where it's going to be different for everyone who
plays it."
Notice the use of "up to the final moments"...
"So it's not like a classic game ending
where everything is linear and you make a choice between a few things" No it's not, I consider the ending everything that happens in Sol and I certainly saw plenty of my previous choices and actions over all previous 3 games so up.
They aren't that hard to find.
Looking though the major collection of 'promises' I see plenty of vague hints but nothing concrete, nothing enough to justify going "SEE! SEE! THEY PROMISED THIS!".
1: I'm going to assume that you have to know that your statement "Completely different games" is an exaggeration, because there's simply no way you're being literal. But you cannot also say that the statement is "Totally true". Discounting imagination, which I think is reasonable, the endings of the game are literally split between A, B and C. Did you really predict when you heard of Bioware boasting of layered and complex conclusions, from either their literal word or their implied intent, that what we got is what they meant?
2: I didn't play the Mass Effect GAMES to hear about how my decisions had impact from a book. You can't expect people to be satisfied that the Rachni (Who were built up from the first game as a big fucking deal) being theoretically useful. This isn't an outright lie, but it sure as hell is misdirection.
3: Really? In a way there are lots of endings because "Endings" could refer to the conclusion of individual plot points instead of the actual ending? You know damn well that the question that sparked this was probably about the ending, the answer clearly refers to playing through all three campaigns and the idea of single bespoke ending (Which they claimed would not be the case). If the employee was referring to this new concept of "Endings" you speak of, there is a lot more they could say, like that that's what they were talking about. I'm sorry, but this idea strikes me as willfully ignorant
4: The choices you get at the ending of the game are determined by your EMS score, nothing else. There is no dynamic variation beyond which crew members walk off the ship in the outro cinematic. You get a choice between 1-3 endings depending on your EMS score, one of 3 things happens, and that is the sum total of your role in the ending. It ultimately doesn't matter weather you get race A or race B on your side, or if companion X or companion Y lived or died; as long as enough of them did, tings remain the same. You could run thought the game in two completely opposing playthroughs, making opposing choices and building different relationships, and the endings will be almost exactly the same regardless. There is no subtly to be had and there are no layers to be seen, the ending ignores most of your choices, and instead grades you based on how much of the game you finished. It is not "Different for everyone who plays it" you do in fact "Make a choice between a few things" (3 to be exact).
P.S: If you want to assume that the "Few final moments statement" was meant to communicate that the book ends of the game would remain the same regardless of what came before, than consider that this might not be such a big deal, if the final moments of the game didn't CHANGE THE NATURE OF EXISTENCE.
The reason the ending is such a bid deal is because it changes the story a great deal, yet gives you precious little information and takes only a fraction of your choices into account; it's an arbitrary ultimatum.
Even if you like the ending, you can't honestly tell me that everybody should have been able to ascertain it's nature based on Bioware's words.
1. Did you follow the plot? No? You you didn't follow the "complex conclusions". BTW I don't exaggerate.
2. Meh, fair does.
3. There isn't a single 'ending', the entire plot of the ME series is not wrapped up in 5 mins, as much as constantly throughout the game. Those last few minutes wrap up the Reaper plot line, would you still be so angry if the Reapers and the Quiani/Geth plot swapped places in the games time frame?
Megalodon said:
El Danny said:
sumanoskae said:
sumanoskae said:
"Experience the beginning, middle, and end of an emotional story unlike any
other, where the decisions you make completely shape your experience
and outcome."
Totally true, when I've talked to other people about their playing experience it's sound like some of us played completely different games based on the choices we made throughout the game.
I'd agree with this about most of the "experience" of the game, say having Wrex and Mealon's data is pretty damn different to no data and Wreav. But the outcome isn't "completely shaped" by your decisions. Whatever you do throughout the game, the crucible is always built, you meant the catalyst and get to choose your colour of explosion. This was mitigated somewhat by the EC, as that did give each ending a different feel.
Of course the crucible is always going to be built, and other key plot points will always happen, otherwise it'd be impossible to construct any kind of narrative.
Megalodon said:
sumanoskae said:
"There are many different endings. We wouldn't do it any other way. How
could you go through all three campaigns playing as your Shepard and
then be forced into a bespoke ending that everyone gets? But I can't
say any more than that?"
This looks like semantic argueing over the nature of "ending". It is not unreasonable it expect that a quote talking about ending is referring to the ending of the entire game, not resolution of individul plot points. Would you say that KOTOR had 7 or so "endings"? Because events on Taris, Korriban, Manaan, Kashykk, Tatooine and the Leviathan all resolved before the big dark'light choice and showdown with Malak. Just like in ME3, where the Tuchanka, Rannoch, and Cerberus base segemnts conclude theor individual story components, but for the purpose of feeding into the final confrontation in the game's finale.
No on the basis that the over-arching plot line of KOTOR doesn't leave other major plotlines to be resolved throughout KOTOR2.
sumanoskae said:
"There is a huge set of consequences that start stacking up as you approach the end-game. And
even in terms of the ending itself, it continues to break down to
some very large decisions. So it's not like a classic game ending
where everything is linear and you make a choice between a few things
- it really does layer in many, many different choices, up to the
final moments, where it's going to be different for everyone who
plays it."
What about "be different for everyone who plays it". Obviously there's an element of hyperbole to this kind of statement, but I don't think it is particularly unreasonable to expect more difference in the endings than a colour filter swap (pre EC) after comments like this.
"So it's not like a classic game ending
where everything is linear and you make a choice between a few things" No it's not, I consider the ending everything that happens in Sol and I certainly saw plenty of my previous choices and actions over all previous 3 games so up.
They aren't that hard to find.
If that's how you define the ending then some of your choices can undeniably be considered to feature, what with Wrex/Wreav/Kirrahe's speech and the different allies you have appearing as the fleets report in (note the lack of rachni there). However, it appears that most people (myself included) consider the ending to be the events following Shepard being hit by Harbinger's beam, and after that all your choices aren't referenced, only the EMS score to determine the effect of the crucible.
Then that comes down to opinion [like everything else here].
I rushed though these partly because I'm in a rush this morning, and also because I understand how pointless it is trying to convince you that you're not so entitled as you think.
I did however want to say this.
I few years ago I was a massive Muse fan, followed what they were doing, read all the interviews, tracked down everything they'd ever recorded. For their new studio album, they promised (from the bassists words)"a 15-minute space-rock solo". Instead what we got was about 5 mins of okish classical music and an album that was rather mediocre with only 2-3 stand out tracks.
Did me and all the other Muse fans head down to our local HMV and start demanding our money back?
Nope.
We we're grumpy for about a week realised it was still worth the £10-£15 we paid for it.
Was ME3 worth the £45 I paid?
**** YES!
A lot of the complaints about the ending are completely valid, I'll admit that, but at the end of the day I played a game that nearly brought me to tears at three separate points, got a good few days out of it (a lot more then most A-rated games) and overall was a much better experience then most games that fall in the same price bracket.
I think something that many of the TBME3 crowd overlook is that much of these 'promises' were said while the game was still in development. A game changes so much though development and it tends to go without saying that a lot of the features that's planned for any game never end up in the finished product. Even if you play a demo or a beta of any game it will still have such a disclaimer on it, I think the main mistake Bioware made was not putting such a disclaimer on everything they said.
I cannot believe the zeal behind some of the hate, I often feel like I'm being told 'you can't enjoy this game, you have to hate it and feel disappointed and betrayed'. It's gotten to the point were people seem to be actively searching for the tiniest dents in the crust just to try and justify their hate.
Yes Bioware hinted and this, this and that, but unfortunately these things never made it to the finished product. Some of us got over it, and were still able to enjoy the game anyway. It's about time you got over the fact that some of us still found the game to be 'fun'.
Then that comes down to opinion [like everything else here].
I rushed though these partly because I'm in a rush this morning, and also because I understand how pointless it is trying to convince you that you're not so entitled as you think.
I did however want to say this.
I few years ago I was a massive Muse fan, followed what they were doing, read all the interviews, tracked down everything they'd ever recorded. For their new studio album, they promised (from the bassists words)"a 15-minute space-rock solo". Instead what we got was about 5 mins of okish classical music and an album that was rather mediocre with only 2-3 stand out tracks.
Did me and all the other Muse fans head down to our local HMV and start demanding our money back?
Nope.
We we're grumpy for about a week realised it was still worth the £10-£15 we paid for it.
Was ME3 worth the £45 I paid?
**** YES!
A lot of the complaints about the ending are completely valid, I'll admit that, but at the end of the day I played a game that nearly brought me to tears at three separate points, got a good few days out of it (a lot more then most A-rated games) and overall was a much better experience then most games that fall in the same price bracket.
I think something that many of the TBME3 crowd overlook is that much of these 'promises' were said while the game was still in development. A game changes so much though development and it tends to go without saying that a lot of the features that's planned for any game never end up in the finished product. Even if you play a demo or a beta of any game it will still have such a disclaimer on it, I think the main mistake Bioware made was not putting such a disclaimer on everything they said.
I cannot believe the zeal behind some of the hate, I often feel like I'm being told 'you can't enjoy this game, you have to hate it and feel disappointed and betrayed'. It's gotten to the point were people seem to be actively searching for the tiniest dents in the crust just to try and justify their hate.
Yes Bioware hinted and this, this and that, but unfortunately these things never made it to the finished product. Some of us got over it, and were still able to enjoy the game anyway. It's about time you got over the fact that some of us still found the game to be 'fun'.
Of course this comes down to opinion, this has always been about people's impressions of the product, and the opinions they form. Even a gaping plot hole can be a deal-breaker to some, to others, it didn't even register.
Why am I entitled, and to what? I gave an alternate view on some PR quotes that you commented on, the most obviously false being the one about the rachni. The rest coming down to intrepretation of what an ending is, and hyperbole running away with itself.
Am I entitled because I thought the original ending to the game was terrible? I also paid £45 for the game, and when I finished it in the shipped format, I did not consider it worth the money. I had wanted and expected a somewhat satisfying conclusion to a series by a developer that had always managed to more or less deliver in the past. Instead I got the worst sequence I can remember playing in a video game. Then I went online and discovered that enough other people shared my opinion and were trying to convince Bioware to alter the ending, this was an idea that I approved of, so I supported it.
We were not "entitled" to the EC, Bioware were perfectly within their rights to tell everyone disatisfied with ME3 to suck it up. But they clearly came to the conclusion that the majority of their fanbase was displeased with the product they had delivered, and that attempting to molify them was a better long term strategy than whethering the shitstorm and accepting the alienation of so many fans. From my perspective, they were reasonably successful with this, the EC resulted in an ending I could stomach, and so the game was redeemed sufficently for me to play it again.
Then that comes down to opinion [like everything else here].
I rushed though these partly because I'm in a rush this morning, and also because I understand how pointless it is trying to convince you that you're not so entitled as you think.
I did however want to say this.
I few years ago I was a massive Muse fan, followed what they were doing, read all the interviews, tracked down everything they'd ever recorded. For their new studio album, they promised (from the bassists words)"a 15-minute space-rock solo". Instead what we got was about 5 mins of okish classical music and an album that was rather mediocre with only 2-3 stand out tracks.
Did me and all the other Muse fans head down to our local HMV and start demanding our money back?
Nope.
We we're grumpy for about a week realised it was still worth the £10-£15 we paid for it.
Was ME3 worth the £45 I paid?
**** YES!
A lot of the complaints about the ending are completely valid, I'll admit that, but at the end of the day I played a game that nearly brought me to tears at three separate points, got a good few days out of it (a lot more then most A-rated games) and overall was a much better experience then most games that fall in the same price bracket.
I think something that many of the TBME3 crowd overlook is that much of these 'promises' were said while the game was still in development. A game changes so much though development and it tends to go without saying that a lot of the features that's planned for any game never end up in the finished product. Even if you play a demo or a beta of any game it will still have such a disclaimer on it, I think the main mistake Bioware made was not putting such a disclaimer on everything they said.
I cannot believe the zeal behind some of the hate, I often feel like I'm being told 'you can't enjoy this game, you have to hate it and feel disappointed and betrayed'. It's gotten to the point were people seem to be actively searching for the tiniest dents in the crust just to try and justify their hate.
Yes Bioware hinted and this, this and that, but unfortunately these things never made it to the finished product. Some of us got over it, and were still able to enjoy the game anyway. It's about time you got over the fact that some of us still found the game to be 'fun'.
I'd just like to take a moment to personally thank you for giving the most erudite and levelheaded response to this frankly very overblown topic.
I wholeheartedly agree and wish more people could reserve their judgement for this game and at least give the developers their due credit for the good work they did rather than focusing all their attention on a single aspect they dislike.
It's disappointing that most people seem far to eager to offer criticism than they are recognition and support... almost as though the best you can hope for by doing something right is just to be spared the wrath of angry fans.
Granted, you've got more first-hand knowledge than anyone else in this thread. I'd disagree about it being "obvious" that the human Reaper was intended to go inside a full size Reaper, and it's possible I also missed the bit where Protheans were never turned into a Reaper (if the argument is "they were turned into Collectors instead" I think you're taking a leap too far. I don't see the existence of Collectors as precluding the existence of a Prothean-based Reaper, in the same way that the existence of Husks obviously doesn't preclude the existence of a human-based Reaper). Aside from that I don't see any factual problem with any of your points.
But since you're familiar with Drew Karpyshyn's proposed ending for the series I've got to ask - while everything you've pointed out may be all well and good, isn't it all largely pointless after the* Karpyshyn ending was thrown out and replaced with the Mac Walters / Casey Hudson one? Doesn't all the foreshadowing about dark energy and human DNA turn into plot dead ends?
In ME2 the Reapers obviously believe humanity is special enough that they should have the Collectors target humans and only humans. But in the end, the Reapers in ME3 don't treat humans any differently to any of the other races that are due for harvesting. Something changed between the two games - I'm suggesting it was Mac Walters' mind after Drew Karpyshyn left the project.
* granted it's probably not accurate to say "the" ending since all the writers probably had various ending options open to them at that stage. But "the" ending referred to in <a href=http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-08-20-the-writer-who-left-bioware-eurogamer-interviews-drew-karpyshyn>this interview is the one that all the Collectors / human Reapers / etc stuff was leading up to.
Granted, you've got more first-hand knowledge than anyone else in this thread. I'd disagree about it being "obvious" that the human Reaper was intended to go inside a full size Reaper, and it's possible I also missed the bit where Protheans were never turned into a Reaper (if the argument is "they were turned into Collectors instead" I think you're taking a leap too far. I don't see the existence of Collectors as precluding the existence of a Prothean-based Reaper, in the same way that the existence of Husks obviously doesn't preclude the existence of a human-based Reaper). Aside from that I don't see any factual problem with any of your points.
But since you're familiar with Drew Karpyshyn's proposed ending for the series I've got to ask - while everything you've pointed out may be all well and good, isn't it all largely pointless after the* Karpyshyn ending was thrown out and replaced with the Mac Walters / Casey Hudson one? Doesn't all the foreshadowing about dark energy and human DNA turn into plot dead ends?
In ME2 the Reapers obviously believe humanity is special enough that they should have the Collectors target humans and only humans. But in the end, the Reapers in ME3 don't treat humans any differently to any of the other races that are due for harvesting. Something changed between the two games - I'm suggesting it was Mac Walters' mind after Drew Karpyshyn left the project.
* granted it's probably not accurate to say "the" ending since all the writers probably had various ending options open to them at that stage. But "the" ending referred to in <a href=http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-08-20-the-writer-who-left-bioware-eurogamer-interviews-drew-karpyshyn>this interview is the one that all the Collectors / human Reapers / etc stuff was leading up to.
That doesnt solve the problem of how exactly are the dead corpses on, say, The Citadel corridor before meeting TIM, are going to be procesed. They can make it into liquid to preserve the body (barely) but not the mind or knowledge because the brain is already gone because of descomposition, to make a worthy candidate for Capital Ship Reaper.
Catalyst explicity says at (19:16) that "WE harvest your body, your knowledge, your creations. We preserve it. To be reborn into a new reaper". He also mentions at (17:05) that "Reapers harvest ALL life, Organic and Synthetic, before their are forever lost to this conflict".
If the Catalyst want us to trust it, he has to sell us into the idea of what it means to be a Reaper and how is being liquified counts as being "preserved" to them. How is being more diverse genetically (as Harbingers puts it) makes you worth preserving as a Capital Ship, when they are supposed to preserve all life in general? What is the difference?? <--i assume this is what you refer too, as what makes humans so special, to the point that ever Harbinger is leading the assult on Earth.
They, however, only pay attention to civilizations that have Space Faring technology (that is why they leave the Yagh alone) but what happens if the species dies naturally or are wiped out by forces beyond their control? like a nova, inter-stellar dust, black holes, etc. Why take 50.000 years and risk that a potential candidate gets wiped out before they even get the chance to "preserve" it?
Lily Venus said:
what is so different or better about the shooty parts of ME3 to the ones of Gears of War?
So i take you are the kind of person that buys Fifa every year after a minimal change in the menu's color, while the gameplay remains the same. Yes? Because that totally makes it worth 60$.
You know? back in the old NES days, when having more than 2 playable character in Double Dragon 3 was innovation, at least it was fair for its day. But today, people just go out of their way to preorder a game that they dont know anything about (like Aliens: Colonial Marines) and risk wasting money on a product that may not be a good purchase, only because the preorder gives you a gun that doesnt appear in the game if bought normally.
Just for THAT little thing that would not make a difference, they are willing to buy before the reviews and the word of mouth gives them evidence of the game quality.
Yeaaaah.... Are you people THAT desperate for entertaiment that even something as just shooting fireballs is enough to sell you into a game?? Keep in mind that the argument was: if the story is removed, what will be so special about ME3, if mechanically there is no improvement over GoW gunplay other than light RPG elements, that you dont get to choose on your own if you use Action Mode?
Also, congrats on missing the point of my previous point by using Ad Hominems again rather than arguing the fact that, you know, stories are supposed to elavorate their ideas before reaching a resolution in the end. And the protagonist shold have reacted like a human being an exchange ideas with The Catalyst or at least its squadmates, rather than being a brick.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
