Huh? I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. I just played straight through and made my selection from the three options available to me at the end point.Freechoice said:
Mass Effect 3 Review
- Thread starter Susan Arendt
- Start date
I believe it would have been very wise to reload the game and choose a different ending to ascertain the impact of the endings. It should have been a pretty big indication of something going amiss if the game let you choose different endings (a la Human Revolution) without regarding anything but your input at that point. Yeah, the EMS thing and squadmate choices change the tone of the ending but...Susan Arendt said:
Everyone is still fucked and the only tangible differences in the ending cutscenes are alterations in the relay colors.
There's rumors that there is a "best" ending, (but everyone is still screwed) but the dedicated people, the ones that did everything right (peace, scanning, paragon options) still couldn't get it.
It's more important that people hear about the straight up facts than personal experience. It's fine that you enjoyed it, but as a reviewer, you should have gone back to get an idea about the alternate endings if they were readily available. You're not obligated to play the game 50 times, but something as simple as a quickload falls more under professional obligation for two reasons:
A. Because it would have taken about 20 minutes and given you a lot of foresight as to why everybody's so pissed off.
2. Because you probably knew people would want to play through multiple times.
I challenge the review because it would have been obvious how serious it is that Bioware copy-pasted the cutscene with minimal inklings as to what actually happened (again, other than everyone is screwed.) People on the Bioware soc forums are clamoring for closure which they felt they didn't get. Hell, even /v/ is pissed off about that one thing in particular.
Also, it was probably worth discussing the multiplayer. Probably should have played the demo multiplayer (which was separate from the single player, I believe) because there's a metric fuckton of confusion on what EMS and GRR are and how Bioware either outright lied about not needing to play the multi or skirting the issue and making it nigh impossible (at least without an online guide or DLC, the former being immersion breaking and the latter being greed). Either way, it was a really bad design choice that should have been addressed.
With regard to the multiplayer, I didn't have access to the multiplayer that was part of the game, and couldn't in good conscience review the demo. I can't say to people "the multiplayer is a great part of the game" if I haven't actually played it, and I can't base my opinion of something in the retail copy of the game on something that isn't in the retail copy of the game.Freechoice said:
You can't say the multiplayer was good if you didn't play it. You could have said that the multiplayer was whatever you thought it was in the demo and then given that as a base of reference for how it would probably function in retail while simultaneously excusing yourself on the tentativeness of your claim. At that point, you have informed the audience and preserved your journalistic integrity.Susan Arendt said:
My primary concern with professional reviews is that they aren't comprehensive enough to actually be usable as guides for buyers and are more critical marketing than anything else.
I'm proud of the Escapist for not having jumped on the retard bandwagon and given a flawed game a perfect score (like a quarter of the professional morons did), but I also have to acknowledge that a website like Giant Bomb better articulated their review.
As for the rest of my arguments? What Arendt you telling me?
The punning on my name really isn't cute.Freechoice said:
I'm not going to theorize in an official review about how something may or may not function based on a demo. That's irresponsible. I informed the audience that I didn't have the opportunity to try it, and therefore didn't have an opinion. That was the correct thing to do.
As for the replaying the endings, you're free to disagree, but I feel no responsibility to have played through them all before doing the review. I didn't explore a number of options that happen in the game - certain players are having an experience with Tali that I did not, for example.
I don't feel like the ending I got, even though I don't like it, negates the positive experience I had during the the 35 hours that led up to it. If other people feel like they wasted 35 hours of playtime because of how things wrapped up, I understand their point of view, but do not share it.
Oh wow. Lots of angry people in this thread!
I do think that the game was a bit rushed, it's buggier and has more oversights and cut corners than the last two, from what I've encountered so far (typos, glitchy graphics, people not appearing in dialogue, broken animations, etc.) but that only tells me that the developers were under a lot of stress and deadlines, so they focused on the important parts. And that shows - I can easily get over a volus speaking with his head glitched into his suit if it means that the actual game content is superb!
The same thing obviously applies to DA2 as well, given its absurdly short development cycle, though I thought its cut corners were a little more crippling. Nothing that you couldn't get over if you immersed yourself, but the flaws prevented a lot of people from doing so. Still, "art from adversity," and I think both titles, DA2 and ME3, take more narrative risks than their predecessors.
Could I ask Ms. Arendt what exactly prevented the game from a full-five-stars rating? I agree with it, since I felt (mind you, I'm only a few hours into it) that the combat is a bit poorly optimized in comparison to ME2 - cover became less important, with enemy grenades, melee attackers, advancing troops with shields, attacks from 2 or even 3 sides and weapon penetration. But the game doesn't seem to give the player more shields to compensate, and dispatching enemies now seems a bit... grindy. Also, the cover/roll/sprint/use controls often interfere with one another.
On the narrative front, I find it just... sublime. I had no idea BW would incorporate so many choices from previous games, and it doesn't stop to amaze me how long-forgotten ME1 sidequests that I did in 2008 come back to affect the War Effort in ME3. Plus, interactions with squadmates and love interests seem more organic than ever, which I really appreciate since ME2's felt like periodical dialogue-dispensers. The choices I had to make so far were both challenging and introspective, as well as having unforeseeable consequences, wholly independent of the paragon/renegade axis. By now I already have a lot of regrets in hindsight, which makes for a bittersweet experience, in line with the idea that "you won't save the galaxy without blood on your hands." I also really like the cracks appearing in Shepard; I get the feeling that he won't survive this war intact, if he even makes it.
I do think that the game was a bit rushed, it's buggier and has more oversights and cut corners than the last two, from what I've encountered so far (typos, glitchy graphics, people not appearing in dialogue, broken animations, etc.) but that only tells me that the developers were under a lot of stress and deadlines, so they focused on the important parts. And that shows - I can easily get over a volus speaking with his head glitched into his suit if it means that the actual game content is superb!
The same thing obviously applies to DA2 as well, given its absurdly short development cycle, though I thought its cut corners were a little more crippling. Nothing that you couldn't get over if you immersed yourself, but the flaws prevented a lot of people from doing so. Still, "art from adversity," and I think both titles, DA2 and ME3, take more narrative risks than their predecessors.
Could I ask Ms. Arendt what exactly prevented the game from a full-five-stars rating? I agree with it, since I felt (mind you, I'm only a few hours into it) that the combat is a bit poorly optimized in comparison to ME2 - cover became less important, with enemy grenades, melee attackers, advancing troops with shields, attacks from 2 or even 3 sides and weapon penetration. But the game doesn't seem to give the player more shields to compensate, and dispatching enemies now seems a bit... grindy. Also, the cover/roll/sprint/use controls often interfere with one another.
On the narrative front, I find it just... sublime. I had no idea BW would incorporate so many choices from previous games, and it doesn't stop to amaze me how long-forgotten ME1 sidequests that I did in 2008 come back to affect the War Effort in ME3. Plus, interactions with squadmates and love interests seem more organic than ever, which I really appreciate since ME2's felt like periodical dialogue-dispensers. The choices I had to make so far were both challenging and introspective, as well as having unforeseeable consequences, wholly independent of the paragon/renegade axis. By now I already have a lot of regrets in hindsight, which makes for a bittersweet experience, in line with the idea that "you won't save the galaxy without blood on your hands." I also really like the cracks appearing in Shepard; I get the feeling that he won't survive this war intact, if he even makes it.
Iffy controls in combat (not terrible, but not silky, either), problematic AI during combat, and graphical glitches. I could live with the glitches, but the AI actually made the game harder in places and less fun to play.Seneschal said:
Wasn't the harder AI and skills for enemies (grenades, shields, flanking, etc.) a big point of the revised combat?
I loved the demo (not playing the game until I finish with Reckoning) for its difficulty. Every time I died while playing on Insane, it was because I was too risky, or the enemies outflanked me. It felt WAY better then in ME1 & 2 where they just had more health/armor/shields.
I loved the demo (not playing the game until I finish with Reckoning) for its difficulty. Every time I died while playing on Insane, it was because I was too risky, or the enemies outflanked me. It felt WAY better then in ME1 & 2 where they just had more health/armor/shields.
What do you mean the Alliance is holding out okay? Every time you talk to someone they keep talking about how horrible everything is going. The Reapers are going straight for the most defended planets on each species and absolutely crushing them. Just look at what was happening on Palaven. The largest military in the galaxy was getting absolutely spanked on their own turf. The galaxy was not ready in the slightest for the Reapers.Therumancer said:
As for the Normandy fighting the Reapers, um, NO. The Normandy is a tough ship, but even the big bad Destroyers of the Alliance fleet are getting destroyed instantly by the Reapers. The Reapers hit harder, take hits longer, and move faster than anything the Alliance can muster. The very idea of the Normandy taking on a Reaper is silly, unless something happens later to prove me wrong (I am not through with the game yet).
Alright. I've had my cookie and juice box and gotten over my tantrum over all this. What it all boils down to is that internet rage breeds internet rage. Works in video games, works in movies (Lord of the Rings fans, I'm looking at you) and it especially works in politics. But he who is loudest is not necessarily right
There is no right answer. At the end of the day, the only opinion that matters is yours. Zeel, the so called Biodrones, even Susan Arendt don't matter in this equation. I am going to pick up ME3 at some point in the future. I may love it, I may hate it, I may think it's mediocre. But that's for me to decide. Point being, the hate, the love, the perfect scores, it's all valid and a matter of subjective taste.
There is no right answer. At the end of the day, the only opinion that matters is yours. Zeel, the so called Biodrones, even Susan Arendt don't matter in this equation. I am going to pick up ME3 at some point in the future. I may love it, I may hate it, I may think it's mediocre. But that's for me to decide. Point being, the hate, the love, the perfect scores, it's all valid and a matter of subjective taste.
OK. Beat it. Just about ten minutes ago.
Aaaaand... Yeah. Upon reflection...
So I'd have to say that I enjoyed the game moreso than any other Mass Effect game up until about half way through, then I started to miss some of the scenarios from ME2. BUT that may have just been fatigue. I was playing it non-stop. Still loved it, a LOT. It's a worthy finale, nitpickings aside.
Also... fuckin' love the mutliplayer.
EDIT: A few more last thoughts...
Aaaaand... Yeah. Upon reflection...
First, the nitpicky stuff. Graphical bugs aside, the game looked overall great, BUT the new human faces? Whatever they did to them caused them to be even more stiff than before. Kinda pulled me out of it. Not to mentioned (good GOD this scared me) every now and then someone would go all exorcist on me when talking to me while I was behind them. Made me jump more than once.
I won't even touch the Tali picture fiasco. Everything that needs to be said about that has been said.
Now, some story issues. They shoehorned a lot of encounters. Most played off fantastically, but some just felt "hey let's stick this guy in here". And the fact that they made it look like you lost Grunt all dramatically and then he was back gave me high hopes for emotional impact of actual losses, but the only one that made me really feel something was when Thane died. Yeah, I was VERY sad when Mordin died. But the scene wasn't as well done as it could have been.
Also, only one peaceful place to walk around other than the Normandy. It was cool walking around and shopping on Omega and Illium as well as the Citadel, rather than just the citadel. That, and the Citadel felt very boring to me this time around. 'Cept for the Spectre office. That was awesome.
Worst was how there was so little interactive dialogue within the game. People loved that. Why it changed, I'll never know. I honestly can't think of a single situation where we had the full three choices we used to get from ME1 and 2 (the "middle ground" just didn't exist). In retrospect that legit pisses me off.
I won't even touch the Tali picture fiasco. Everything that needs to be said about that has been said.
Now, some story issues. They shoehorned a lot of encounters. Most played off fantastically, but some just felt "hey let's stick this guy in here". And the fact that they made it look like you lost Grunt all dramatically and then he was back gave me high hopes for emotional impact of actual losses, but the only one that made me really feel something was when Thane died. Yeah, I was VERY sad when Mordin died. But the scene wasn't as well done as it could have been.
Also, only one peaceful place to walk around other than the Normandy. It was cool walking around and shopping on Omega and Illium as well as the Citadel, rather than just the citadel. That, and the Citadel felt very boring to me this time around. 'Cept for the Spectre office. That was awesome.
Worst was how there was so little interactive dialogue within the game. People loved that. Why it changed, I'll never know. I honestly can't think of a single situation where we had the full three choices we used to get from ME1 and 2 (the "middle ground" just didn't exist). In retrospect that legit pisses me off.
Now the tough part... the ending.
It disregards the vast majority of stuff you did through ALL the games. Certain people you could recruit (Aria's army, Batarian fleets, etc.) aren't even mentioned in the final conflict. You see no Geth fighting. Or Krogan. Or Quarians. The Normandy doesn't get any last hurrah. You're extremely disconnected from your part members from the moment the grand finale starts (in fact, I thought the two I brought were dead, but they somehow got back to the Normandy?). Considering the finale of 2, this was far too disconnected from your crew.
As for the actual END(ings)... I still don't know what I think. The choice you had to make was cool. Very difficult (in fact, I was standing there thinking for so long that a message popped up saying the crucible was destroyed... which was lame, as nothing happened other than the message). But as for the outcome... no real epilogue. Seriously. That I didn't like. Other than some crash landing, we don't know what happened. That bothers me. A lot. But I still don't know if I liked it or not. I'm leaning towards "no". Looks like it might actually be changed, too...
It disregards the vast majority of stuff you did through ALL the games. Certain people you could recruit (Aria's army, Batarian fleets, etc.) aren't even mentioned in the final conflict. You see no Geth fighting. Or Krogan. Or Quarians. The Normandy doesn't get any last hurrah. You're extremely disconnected from your part members from the moment the grand finale starts (in fact, I thought the two I brought were dead, but they somehow got back to the Normandy?). Considering the finale of 2, this was far too disconnected from your crew.
As for the actual END(ings)... I still don't know what I think. The choice you had to make was cool. Very difficult (in fact, I was standing there thinking for so long that a message popped up saying the crucible was destroyed... which was lame, as nothing happened other than the message). But as for the outcome... no real epilogue. Seriously. That I didn't like. Other than some crash landing, we don't know what happened. That bothers me. A lot. But I still don't know if I liked it or not. I'm leaning towards "no". Looks like it might actually be changed, too...
So I'd have to say that I enjoyed the game moreso than any other Mass Effect game up until about half way through, then I started to miss some of the scenarios from ME2. BUT that may have just been fatigue. I was playing it non-stop. Still loved it, a LOT. It's a worthy finale, nitpickings aside.
Also... fuckin' love the mutliplayer.
EDIT: A few more last thoughts...
Just remembered another two problems I had. First and foremost, the lack of a climactic final boss. Having the final real battle be nothing more than a Brutefest is an insult compared to the first two games.
Lastly, the lack of a final talk with Harbinger was just wrong. After playing him up as the leader of the Reapers, only talking to that one reaper on Rannoch was just so disappointing. I wanted to see Shepard wave his dick at him! (Metaphorically, of course). A last battle of words between two sworn foes! I mean, come ON, to have the last encounter with a Reaper go like that? Fitting, I suppose, but I'd rather have a slightly-less-realistic encounter where they talked. Would have made things better.
Lastly, the lack of a final talk with Harbinger was just wrong. After playing him up as the leader of the Reapers, only talking to that one reaper on Rannoch was just so disappointing. I wanted to see Shepard wave his dick at him! (Metaphorically, of course). A last battle of words between two sworn foes! I mean, come ON, to have the last encounter with a Reaper go like that? Fitting, I suppose, but I'd rather have a slightly-less-realistic encounter where they talked. Would have made things better.
I see you neglected to mention the bullocks ending of this game. This is NOT the ending the series deserved. The Game was stellar, my GOTY easily - until the ending. the horrible, horrible ending, with it's binary choices, no ability to save before these choices... and all the choices were aweful.
Was a happy ending where I get to retire with Tali -so much to ask-?
Was a happy ending where I get to retire with Tali -so much to ask-?
A word of warning, i finished the game yesterday, the ending is so s**t you can't even imagine.
I'm not going to spoil anything, just put you in the right mindset not to be disappointed later: There is no closure for ANY of the characters. You don't get to see what impact you had on their lives and there is no indication of who survives the final struggle, so don't expect a nice clean ending a-la animal house with "so-and-so became such-and-such, then did this and that and died" for each character. If you're actually interested in that kind of stuff, like i was, prepare for a disappointment, it will hurt less later.
Also, right now to get the best ending the multiplayer is crucial, since there are not enough military assets to attain the 5000 points necessary without also having your galactic readiness up to 100%, since there is about 6000 points worth of assets and if you don't play the readiness multiplier is stuck at 50%, which means you can expect to have a grand total of about 2800 +- 100. So if, like me, you're not going to shell out for a gold subscription for your Live account, prepare to be fucked over.
None of the characters introduced in ME2 have any relevant role in ME3 (No one gets to join your party, they're just more military assets), they pop up for a couple of scenes and maybe one actual dialogue only scene, then you're done. On the upside, said scenes are generally very good.
This is all i can do to warn you of the bad choices made by the writers without going in serious spoiler territory. Be warned, there is much more to complain about the ending.
Play the game, it's a good game, just don't expect it to end well, as in "well written" not as in "Happily ever after".
I'm not going to spoil anything, just put you in the right mindset not to be disappointed later: There is no closure for ANY of the characters. You don't get to see what impact you had on their lives and there is no indication of who survives the final struggle, so don't expect a nice clean ending a-la animal house with "so-and-so became such-and-such, then did this and that and died" for each character. If you're actually interested in that kind of stuff, like i was, prepare for a disappointment, it will hurt less later.
Also, right now to get the best ending the multiplayer is crucial, since there are not enough military assets to attain the 5000 points necessary without also having your galactic readiness up to 100%, since there is about 6000 points worth of assets and if you don't play the readiness multiplier is stuck at 50%, which means you can expect to have a grand total of about 2800 +- 100. So if, like me, you're not going to shell out for a gold subscription for your Live account, prepare to be fucked over.
None of the characters introduced in ME2 have any relevant role in ME3 (No one gets to join your party, they're just more military assets), they pop up for a couple of scenes and maybe one actual dialogue only scene, then you're done. On the upside, said scenes are generally very good.
This is all i can do to warn you of the bad choices made by the writers without going in serious spoiler territory. Be warned, there is much more to complain about the ending.
Play the game, it's a good game, just don't expect it to end well, as in "well written" not as in "Happily ever after".
Either that or she hates the mass effect universe. That being said, the ending to me hurt almost as bad as if it had the star wars universe exploded, or the lotr universe.........exploded? The journey was the most flippin fun of the series, but the last 20 minutes was extremely painful.Volkov said:
Mass Effect 3 is acutally nearly as good as Dragon Age 2. In comparison to its predecessor and to other so called RPGs.
If you like Call of Duty, you will like this one.
Else the clumsy controlls, lack of content (besides chest-highwalls), stupid squad AI, day-one-dlcs, dumbed-down dialogs, some awful background textures, a small sized citadel, bugged face import (WTFFFFF? Didnt they test that stuff?), some stuck-quest chains and many more will probably piss you off.
Cheers.
If you like Call of Duty, you will like this one.
Else the clumsy controlls, lack of content (besides chest-highwalls), stupid squad AI, day-one-dlcs, dumbed-down dialogs, some awful background textures, a small sized citadel, bugged face import (WTFFFFF? Didnt they test that stuff?), some stuck-quest chains and many more will probably piss you off.
Cheers.
Having just finished Mass Effect 3, I can safely say that this is an utter lie. The ending of ME3 absolutely ruined the entire series. The big reveal at the end about the reason for the Reapers is more than enough ruin all three games by itself, and that doesn't even begin to take into account the other glaring flaws.Susan Arendt said:
The gameplay is very much improved over its predecessor, with a proper mix of RPG elements and action to satisfy both the action junkie and the crunch nerd. I was actually quite happy with that. The problem is the rather aggravating trend Bioware appears to have fallen into where the actual story and narrative are ignored until far too late and are thrown together at the last minute.
1) The Reapers were created and set to killing advanced organic life in order to solve a problem. What is that problem you ask? Fucking robots killing organic life. What the fuck would you have to be smoking to go "You know, in order to avoid people making robots that will kill them, I'm gonna make robots to kill them first."
2) Your choices in previous games are almost entirely irrelevant. There's a number of callbacks and returning characters, but it doesn't affect the actual storyline in any meaningful way. For example, no matter who you supported in ME1, Udina is the councilor, solely so that Cerberus could attack the Citadel.
3) The Crucible is probably the most egregious example of Deus ex Machina I've seen in years. Instead of creating an interesting plot where it actually feels like an apocalypse, you run around building an ancient doomsday device that was shoehorned in in a singularly painful fashion and hope it works.
4) All of the endings suck. They're all depressing, poorly implemented and extremely clunky. I could see Shepard having to sacrifice himself, but the fact that the only choices are "Return to the stone age", "Enslave the Reapers" and "Murder everything in the galaxy" is rather grating. The problem is mostly that the narrative leading there is atrociously implemented, but they could have at least had some kind of happy ending.
5) The whole thing with the Crucible where they bang on "We have absolutely no idea what this does, but it must be the solution to our problems!" is utterly ridiculous. There's no grounding in logic, science, or even rationality for such a thing. The fact that anyone was willing to go along with it within days of the Reaper invasion (meaning they're not particularly desperate yet) destroyed my suspension of disbelief so hard it gave me a migraine.
It was made even worse every time Hackett mentioned that he didn't know what it did, but he knew it was the solution. I'll lay it out pretty clearly: it's not physically possible to build something and not have some idea of what the end result is. They should have been able to figure out A) what the thing did, whether it was to act as a signal amplifier or whatever else and B) what the Catalyst was. They built the couplings that link the two together for fuck's sake. You can't do that without understanding how they couple in the first place, and from there it wouldn't be that hard to narrow down the possibilities.
2) Your choices in previous games are almost entirely irrelevant. There's a number of callbacks and returning characters, but it doesn't affect the actual storyline in any meaningful way. For example, no matter who you supported in ME1, Udina is the councilor, solely so that Cerberus could attack the Citadel.
3) The Crucible is probably the most egregious example of Deus ex Machina I've seen in years. Instead of creating an interesting plot where it actually feels like an apocalypse, you run around building an ancient doomsday device that was shoehorned in in a singularly painful fashion and hope it works.
4) All of the endings suck. They're all depressing, poorly implemented and extremely clunky. I could see Shepard having to sacrifice himself, but the fact that the only choices are "Return to the stone age", "Enslave the Reapers" and "Murder everything in the galaxy" is rather grating. The problem is mostly that the narrative leading there is atrociously implemented, but they could have at least had some kind of happy ending.
5) The whole thing with the Crucible where they bang on "We have absolutely no idea what this does, but it must be the solution to our problems!" is utterly ridiculous. There's no grounding in logic, science, or even rationality for such a thing. The fact that anyone was willing to go along with it within days of the Reaper invasion (meaning they're not particularly desperate yet) destroyed my suspension of disbelief so hard it gave me a migraine.
It was made even worse every time Hackett mentioned that he didn't know what it did, but he knew it was the solution. I'll lay it out pretty clearly: it's not physically possible to build something and not have some idea of what the end result is. They should have been able to figure out A) what the thing did, whether it was to act as a signal amplifier or whatever else and B) what the Catalyst was. They built the couplings that link the two together for fuck's sake. You can't do that without understanding how they couple in the first place, and from there it wouldn't be that hard to narrow down the possibilities.
Long story short, ME3 was the final nail in the coffin. I, for one, am never again buying a Bioware game. They've proven repeatedly they've lost all ability to tell a decent story.
If the game ended about 30 minutes before it actually did, I would have given it a 3.5-4/5. With the ending though, it's definitely dropped down to a 2.