Mass Effect 3 Review

[frobisher]

If the game ended about 30 minutes before it actually did, I would have given it a 3.5-4/5.

My personal favourite is the fact you can rush to finale with scraps of assets. You will be annihilated, but it will have nothing to do with... lack of assets XD I guess Mass Effect 2 and the fact you could decimate your team or even get killed in final cutscene was still too complicated for new target audience of BW.

(spoilers)

Spoiler

All creation eventually rebels against creators. So I have created reapers to solve that problem.

Oh, wait...

I have created reapers because synthetics were going to completely wipe out organic life and that is solid rule for everything else.

Oh, except that I have never seen it happen. But my reapers were pretty close. What do you mean it doesn't count?

So, synthetics are the biggest threat to organic life there is. I mean, geth, totally aggresive and invading one system after another. Oh, and reapers, see how dangerous they are? And hey, I am the Citadel, so that makes me... synthetic. Totally too dangerous to left unchecked.

Riiight, so my point was... self-destruction? Nah...


We are preserving life instead of destroying it. In a form of goo and random additions to synthetic units. Meanwhile, we are totally fine with new species eradicating others. But they suddenly become worth saving-in-a-goo after 50k years.

Wait, what are we saving that goo for? Future reincarnation as husks?

And the list goes on... I am amazed how "final explanation" game offers can be ignored by any revievewer and justified with some "but it was fun before" phrase. Sorry, that excuse does not work for a game advertised as "great story". This is not Quake or Farmville kind of "journey", or at least - it shouldn't be.

 

[tautologico]

I just finished ME3 yesterday and it's a very good game. Not perfect, but very good. I experienced very few glitches actually, and I liked that the combat is more tactical and a bit harder than 1 and 2. Finishing the previous games in the normal difficulty was dead easy (I replayed ME1 in Hardcore recently and it wasn't much harder). In ME3 your squad composition, weapons and battle tactics make a difference in many encounters.

The story manages to integrate a lot of elements and choices from the previous 2 games, even if some only in minor ways. Even so, what is done results in a very complicated game to make. I don't envy people working in Bioware having to finish ME3 in 2 years. About the ending, yeah, I can see why some people got pissed with it. I think the idea of the ending is good, though; maybe the execution could be better. Bioware went for something riskier that won't please people who expect a perfect action-movie-happy-ending where all the characters hug themselves after conquering the enemy.

But I think that people who like the series should very much play it and get to his/her own conclusions. I'm perfectly ok with people playing it and not liking it based on their own opinions, but I feel sorry for people who won't play it or are determined to hate it because they got into the Bioware-hating bandwagon. They are possibly missing a great gaming experience.

 

[Aisaku]

Even the fucking biodrones are pissed off at this shit.

As a Biodrone I've got to say I completely agree. I am pissed off.

Spoiler

Again for those who didn't get it the first time: The problem with the endings is that no matter which ending you pick, it always destroys the setting as it was, and gives no specifics on the ramifications of your actions: The mass relays cease functioning, and the Normandy crew crashes into an unknown planet only to skip generations ahead and say 'countless generations later, they became a fairy tale'.That's it.

Even what you can infer from the ending is bleak: Shepard, even if he/she lives, won't see his/her crewmates again, homeworlds have been razed, and without the relay network distant colonies like feros will perish on their own. As unlikely as it is that the Normandy crew could foster a civilization, there are a number of characters that would live short, painful deaths out of this. For instance, the dextro chyrality crewmembers Tali and Garrus would starve to death. Joker would not have access to medical treatment of his chronic disease.


TLDR;
They took away player's freedom to choose, that's why in the end, no matter how hard you fought, how much you cared for every living being in this fictional universe, it was all for naught.

One of the conspiracy theories running amuck on the BSN is that this is a marketing ploy to prime all Biodrones to pay through the nose for any remedy to this gaping wound.

 

[tautologico]

Yes. Yes, you should get it. Yes, it lives up to the hype. Yes, it's the ending the series deserves.

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.

I don't think that "everything is ruined forever" because of the ending. I don't think Star Wars was ruined by the prequels either, or that the final season of Lost ruined it all, so I can like something even if something bad happens along the way. Yes, the "explanation" seems iffy at first analysis, but the idea of the ending is not so bad, though different from what most people were expecting.

Spoiler: I'll just list off the biggest problems here

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."

Spoiler: 1

I think the point is that the "younger", less advanced organic races keep on, so organic life is not completely wiped out. It makes a tiny little bit more of sense, but not enough to make it a "good explanation". I'm still thinking about this part of the story, though.

Spoiler

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.

Spoiler: 2

The problem is that resources are finite and making a game that would be completely different for every possible story choice in 1 and 2 would be infeasible. Even so, the choices aren't irrelevant. Most make almost no difference, sure, but some critical ones change the paths in the middle of the game significantly. What's there is already complex enough.

Spoiler

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.

Spoiler: 3

I was thinking about this yesterday. It seems a huge Deus Ex Machina when you see it, but when you consider the end, it makes sense. The Prothean VI from Thessia says that the plans for the crucible were passed from cycle to cycle and no one knows where it came from. The catalyst/citadel/thing in the end recognizes that Shepard was the first to get so far and presents him with choices to end the cycle and stuff, so it's quite possible that the catalyst planted the idea for the crucible in the first place, predicting someone could pull it off, like a test or something. I agree that the way it was presented in the beginning of the game was bad, though.

Spoiler

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.

Spoiler: 4

As I said, I think the idea for the endings is good. I feel that the cycle is something that's just too big to shrug off and end with an ID4-type happy ending with everyone hugging. The need for a dramatic change in the galaxy to end the cycle makes sense. And if you get the "good" ending, Shepard ends the cycle once and for all, solving not only the immediate problems but ensuring it will never happen again. I think this is a great victory, even if people stay isolated because the relays were destroyed. But I agree the presentation could be better there.

Spoiler

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.

Spoiler: 5

Well, they had some idea what the end result would be. Something with a great release of "dark energy". And it was. To know that it coupled with the Citadel was not easy in the hurry they were building it. As for the desperation, the war would last for decades or more than a century, but the game couldn't wait all this time for the desperation to sink in But yes, it could have been done better.

In the end, I think it's a good game and the story is enjoyable, although not without its flaws. They had to deal with a complex story and tie the loose ends from the previous 2 games, and went for something riskier than just "beat the reapers, then everyone is happy", but the execution failed in some key points. But it's a sci-fi game, not high literature; it's more Star Trek than Tennessee Williams, so I still think it's a very good experience, all things considered.

 

[tautologico]

As a Biodrone I've got to say I completely agree. I am pissed off.

Spoiler

Again for those who didn't get it the first time: The problem with the endings is that no matter which ending you pick, it always destroys the setting as it was, and gives no specifics on the ramifications of your actions: The mass relays cease functioning, and the Normandy crew crashes into an unknown planet only to skip generations ahead and say 'countless generations later, they became a fairy tale'.That's it.

Even what you can infer from the ending is bleak: Shepard, even if he/she lives, won't see his/her crewmates again, homeworlds have been razed, and without the relay network distant colonies like feros will perish on their own. As unlikely as it is that the Normandy crew could foster a civilization, there are a number of characters that would live short, painful deaths out of this. For instance, the dextro chyrality crewmembers Tali and Garrus would starve to death. Joker would not have access to medical treatment of his chronic disease.


TLDR;
They took away player's freedom to choose, that's why in the end, no matter how hard you fought, how much you cared for every living being in this fictional universe, it was all for naught.

Spoiler

Yes, it destroys the setting as we know it. But it was not for naught. The extinction cycle has ended, and now life in the galaxy can proceed without the lumbering threat of annihilation by the reapers. That's something. I understand that people get pissed because it effectively destroys the setting, but it makes sense that a dramatic change was necessary to end a cycle that has lasted for millions of years and was woven into the nature of galaxy itself in the setting. The explanation for how the cycle worked and why it was there is not very good, but the idea of the ending makes sense to me. I think they had balls, actually, to try something as risky as this, and it was not perfectly executed, but still makes sense to me.

 

[Blind0bserver]

Mass Effect 3 Review

The ending the series - and its fans - deserve.

Read Full Article

How do the levels feel for a sniper/infiltrator? From your video they look like close quarters combat. I know you have said they have some open places in the game. But in ME2 my sniper used her sniper rifle maybe 3 times. I also hope my crew of Liara/Jack, Garus and my sniper still work. I love Tali but you said we need a nice mix so two techs might be too much.

I may have to look into this game after Risen 2 comes out.

My Shepard is an Infiltrator and I'd found lots of opportunities for her to use her sniper rifle. Heck, in some instances, like when fighting Cerberus Guardians who have the riot shields, I'd say that marksmanship is being encouraged. Besides just basic sniping all of your class abilities are very useful, especially Incinerate and, at times, Sabotage.

 

[Aisaku]

As a Biodrone I've got to say I completely agree. I am pissed off.

Spoiler

Again for those who didn't get it the first time: The problem with the endings is that no matter which ending you pick, it always destroys the setting as it was, and gives no specifics on the ramifications of your actions: The mass relays cease functioning, and the Normandy crew crashes into an unknown planet only to skip generations ahead and say 'countless generations later, they became a fairy tale'.That's it.

Even what you can infer from the ending is bleak: Shepard, even if he/she lives, won't see his/her crewmates again, homeworlds have been razed, and without the relay network distant colonies like feros will perish on their own. As unlikely as it is that the Normandy crew could foster a civilization, there are a number of characters that would live short, painful deaths out of this. For instance, the dextro chyrality crewmembers Tali and Garrus would starve to death. Joker would not have access to medical treatment of his chronic disease.


TLDR;
They took away player's freedom to choose, that's why in the end, no matter how hard you fought, how much you cared for every living being in this fictional universe, it was all for naught.

Spoiler

Yes, it destroys the setting as we know it. But it was not for naught. The extinction cycle has ended, and now life in the galaxy can proceed without the lumbering threat of annihilation by the reapers. That's something. I understand that people get pissed because it effectively destroys the setting, but it makes sense that a dramatic change was necessary to end a cycle that has lasted for millions of years and was woven into the nature of galaxy itself in the setting. The explanation for how the cycle worked and why it was there is not very good, but the idea of the ending makes sense to me. I think they had balls, actually, to try something as risky as this, and it was not perfectly executed, but still makes sense to me.

I agree on the major points of your argument, even if it's hard to swallow the 'needs of the many' logic. What would you have changed about its execution? Expand on the ramifications, rather than tack on the

Spoiler

distant future sequence?

 

[Jaeke]

On one hand, I really want to play it, but on the other hand, FUCK ORIGIN.

Origin is nothing like the monster shit-storm rape-ass handing that is the ending to one of my favorite series of all time...

 

[Aisaku]

Here's a note of hope for the fans that feel betrayed by the ending:

Spoiler

Since there is a way for Shepard to survive destroying the Reapers you can still hope for a happy ending offscreen if you consider the following points.

1. Civilization just survived the proverbial apocalypse. Scientists know more about Reaper technology than they ever knew. In all likelyhood, they could rebuild-reactivate the relay network within a lifetime.

2. Every race, every living being in the galaxy is now indebted to Shepard, for Shepard has saved them from anhilation.

3. If Shepard lives, Shepard won't give up until the Normandy crew is rescued.

4. The Normandy crew is resourceful, they have lived through worse things than a shipwreck, no doubt they can survive until they are found.

All in all, I can still picture my Shepard, years/decades ahead... finally reuniting with Liara for good.

Hope springs eternal... in headcanon.

 

[tautologico]

I agree on the major points of your argument, even if it's hard to swallow the 'needs of the many' logic. What would you have changed about its execution? Expand on the ramifications, rather than tack on the

Spoiler

distant future sequence?

Spoiler

First I'd like a better explanation for why the cycle exists and how it works. I'm still processing this, because I don't read spoilers and just finished the game yesterday, but the whole Reaper thing to exterminate organics before they create synthetics that will exterminate organics is a bit loopy. The thinking seems to be that they exterminate the more advanced races before they create the synthetics, and let the less advanced races live so not all organic life is wiped out. But this is kinda flimsy as an explanation, unless there's some angle I'm not seeing.

And yes, I think a lot of people would like to see some closure for the characters. We got to know and care for them for a long time (for those of us playing since the first), and not seeing they get this closure is a bit grating. They are shown to live, after all, so their fate could be different from what it was.

And about the whole "needs of the many" thing, this was foreshadowed in conversations with Garrus during the game. Not easy to swallow, but still.

 

[tautologico]

Spoiler

2. Every race, every living being in the galaxy is now indebted to Shepard, for Shepard has saved them from anhilation.

Spoiler

And not just the existing races and beings in the galaxy at the point where the game ends, but everyone and every race that will exist in the future, because the uplifted-by-relays-then-exterminated-by-reapers cycle is no more. Saving the whole galaxy now and forever, that's no small feat for a single mortal human

 

[Susan Arendt]

I have this sneaking suspicion that when the reviewer wrote the phrase "the ending the series deserves" (s)he didn't actually see the ending.

Yes, I did. I was referring to the game as a whole, not the literal ending.

 

[TheBelgianGuy]

I have this sneaking suspicion that when the reviewer wrote the phrase "the ending the series deserves" (s)he didn't actually see the ending.

Yes, I did. I was referring to the game as a whole, not the literal ending.

She summarized this review by stating "the ending the series deserves". What did she review? Mass effect 3 the game, or the ending of the game?
Therefore it doesn't make sense to even think that's what she was referring to.

Anyway, nice review Susan. Bought the game, I am completely blown away.
Yeah I read about the endings. Can't say I really like them, however I guess they fit with the theme in some way.
All these bio-hate tears are priceless, though. Delicious rage and tears.
I consider you all professionally trolled by the Bioware writing staff.

 

[Volkov]

I have this sneaking suspicion that when the reviewer wrote the phrase "the ending the series deserves" (s)he didn't actually see the ending.

Yes, I did. I was referring to the game as a whole, not the literal ending.

Yeah, I got that after watching the podcast (which was after reading the review and making my post). Not an ideal choice of words, honestly (probably an IMHO, but at least partially backed up by the fact that I am not alone in this interpretation), but not that significant.

Here is what I got out of the podcast:

Let w1, w2, ... wN be the weights assigned to each part of a game (be they either specific sequences in the storyline, or traditional review components like soundtrack, story, gameplay, etc.). Let the quality of each such "part" be q1, q2, ... qN.

I think for you the overall "quality" is a weighted arithmetic mean:

Q = w1*q1 + w2*q2 + ... wN*qN.

I think if one (a) - assigns a low weight (either due to length of time spent, or simply as not putting much significance into the story) to the ending term of this mean (say, qN) and (b) - follows this model, then one can say "it's a great game with a poor ending" and still be honest when saying it's a great game.

Problem is, I think for me, and many other people, a game quality is more like this (weighted geometric mean):

Q = (q1^w1)*(q2^w2)*...*(wN*qN).

In other words, a single fly can spoil a barrel of ointment. For a single-campaign story-significant game this is probably more true than for an MMO, for instance, where a single bad instance, or a bad map (for an RTS?) do not affect the quality of the game. Furthermore, here, no matter how low a weight one assigns to an individual element, if that element's q is very low, that will have a massive impact on the quality of the game. Which I think is what happened here.

Your choice of words, by the way, highlights a very important point. Mass Effect 3 IS "the ending" of the trilogy. Which is why the ending of Mass Effect 3 is a FAR more important part of the game than the ending of Mass Effect 1, or especially 2, were, for example.

(Please don't take anything I said personally, I really tried to be constructive).

 

[Agayek]

I don't think that "everything is ruined forever" because of the ending. I don't think Star Wars was ruined by the prequels either, or that the final season of Lost ruined it all, so I can like something even if something bad happens along the way. Yes, the "explanation" seems iffy at first analysis, but the idea of the ending is not so bad, though different from what most people were expecting.

See, the thing is, you missed my point entirely. This story being bad does not ruin the other games. The revelation of the cause of the Reapers and whatnot at the end does. That information utterly destroys every single interesting thing about the Reapers. They were shown in ME1 to be some kind of eldritch abomination, unknowable and unstoppable. With ME3's reveal, they lose any sense of danger or threat. It's incredibly fucking stupid.

Spoiler: 1

I think the point is that the "younger", less advanced organic races keep on, so organic life is not completely wiped out. It makes a tiny little bit more of sense, but not enough to make it a "good explanation". I'm still thinking about this part of the story, though.

Spoiler

I get what was said about it. The problem is that it's completely illogical. If you can't see the problem with "I'm going to stop synthetic life from killing everything by making synthetic life to kill everything", I weep for your children. It's like trying to stop someone from stealing your car by blowing it up. It's utterly stupid on every level and, as mentioned, ruins everything about the Reapers.

Spoiler: 2

The problem is that resources are finite and making a game that would be completely different for every possible story choice in 1 and 2 would be infeasible. Even so, the choices aren't irrelevant. Most make almost no difference, sure, but some critical ones change the paths in the middle of the game significantly. What's there is already complex enough.

Spoiler

You're right, resources are finite. I don't blame them for not making a completely organic storyline that takes into account all possible variables. What I blame them for is that there is one storyline that all Shepards will play through. There's absolutely no variation whatsoever, no matter what you do. Blew up the Collector base? That's ok, Cerberus still found the proto-Reaper. Chose Anderson as Councillor? That's ok, Udina's got the job now.

I wouldn't expect them to provide options for every choice, just the big ones. Ideally, the freed Rachni being able to evade the Reapers and/or support you, avoiding the Cerberus attack on the Citadel (or at least play it out differently), the fate of the Collector base having an impact on Cerberus and the genophage research would all affect the storyline in some way.

For example:
If you killed the Rachni queen, then the Reapers wouldn't have Rachni.
If you picked Anderson as the councillor, then the Cerberus attack on the Citadel takes a very different turn.
If you destroyed the Collector Base, then Cerberus soldiers are much weaker and aren't half husks
If you destroyed the Genophage research, you couldn't create the cure and thus can't recruit the Krogan

If they left it to just that scope, I'd be more than happy with it. It wouldn't even dramatically alter the storyline, it would just give it the illusion that your choices matter. They did a decent job of tying in your choices with the Quarians and Geth, they just need to not make that the only one.

Spoiler: 3

I was thinking about this yesterday. It seems a huge Deus Ex Machina when you see it, but when you consider the end, it makes sense. The Prothean VI from Thessia says that the plans for the crucible were passed from cycle to cycle and no one knows where it came from. The catalyst/citadel/thing in the end recognizes that Shepard was the first to get so far and presents him with choices to end the cycle and stuff, so it's quite possible that the catalyst planted the idea for the crucible in the first place, predicting someone could pull it off, like a test or something. I agree that the way it was presented in the beginning of the game was bad, though.

Spoiler

It doesn't matter what they use to handwave it away. The fact remains that it's a deus ex machina. Instead of challenging the races of the galaxy to come together and fight off the Reapers, they build a magic maguffin that will solve all their problems. It's bad storytelling at its worst. If it didn't work in the countless previous cycles, it shouldn't work in this one. It's an idiotic move and I'd expected better from Bioware.

Spoiler: 4

As I said, I think the idea for the endings is good. I feel that the cycle is something that's just too big to shrug off and end with an ID4-type happy ending with everyone hugging. The need for a dramatic change in the galaxy to end the cycle makes sense. And if you get the "good" ending, Shepard ends the cycle once and for all, solving not only the immediate problems but ensuring it will never happen again. I think this is a great victory, even if people stay isolated because the relays were destroyed. But I agree the presentation could be better there.

Spoiler

The problem with the endings as is are three-fold.

1) It doesn't actually conclude anything. They introduce all sorts of new questions, then the game ends quickly enough to give me whiplash. There's question marks all over the place and no resolution about the characters you presumably care about. It's not satisfying in any way, shape or form.

2) All of the endings are the same, at least as they are presented. If they actually put together a half-decent epilogue, that issue would be resolved, but there's minimal differences between them at the moment.

3) The ending utterly jives with the tone of the previous games and most of the third. Believe it or not, Mass Effect has always been a highly optimistic game series, especially the first one. It's been getting progressively less so as the series progressed, but it was still fairly optimistic, even towards the tail end of ME3.

Then the endings come along and are all utterly bleak and depressing, on top of being terrible. The tonal dissonance is so fucking stupid I can't properly express it in words.

There was a lot of potential here, but it failed miserably to meet those expectations. A much better way to end the game would be to remove the Catalyst entirely. Hook the Crucible to the Citadel to use it as an amplifier, then present the player with a few options:

1) If gathered forces are sufficiently high (ie, you've got all of them), destroy the Reapers, and only the Reapers, entirely
2) If not #1, destroy the Reapers in the Sol system
3) Assume control of the Reapers
4) Sacrifice the Citadel (and Shepard) to kill every synthetic in the galaxy to wipe out the Reapers

Clearly, #1 is the "good" ending, but it would hard as hell to get to. The standard ending would be #2-#4. It's somewhat similar to what's already there, but it avoids introducing a staggering amount of new questions in the last 20 seconds of the series. Just removing the Catalyst and everything it says from the game would be enough to make the endings bearable, if not particularly good.

Spoiler: 5

Well, they had some idea what the end result would be. Something with a great release of "dark energy". And it was. To know that it coupled with the Citadel was not easy in the hurry they were building it. As for the desperation, the war would last for decades or more than a century, but the game couldn't wait all this time for the desperation to sink in But yes, it could have been done better.

Spoiler

The fact that they were building something but could state with certainty "We have no idea what this does", while bad, is not the main problem here. The problem is that they state that, then immediately go "But it will solve all our problems!". Let me make it easy for you: If you don't know what something does, you don't know it will solve your problems. They could certainly push for it and hope it works out, but no one with half a brain would bet their entire future on something that for all they know doesn't do anything at all, especially when other avenues of fighting the Reapers are available.

The fact that everyone instantly agreed that the Crucible was the only way is incredibly jarring. At absolute minimum, they needed someone (Wrex would probably be ideal for this) to call it stupid and refuse to work on it, in favor of actually fighting the Reapers. It broke my SOD so hard that nobody even thought to question it.

Beyond that, as I mentioned before, you can't build something and have no idea of how it works. It's not actually possible for anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together. You know what the parts do, thus you will know what the end result does.

Beyond that, you'd have to test it. Once they fired it up for the first time, they'd be able to see what it did. They may not be able to explain the effect it'd have on the Reapers, but they should at least be able to say what the Crucible itself does

In the end, I think it's a good game and the story is enjoyable, although not without its flaws. They had to deal with a complex story and tie the loose ends from the previous 2 games, and went for something riskier than just "beat the reapers, then everyone is happy", but the execution failed in some key points. But it's a sci-fi game, not high literature; it's more Star Trek than Tennessee Williams, so I still think it's a very good experience, all things considered.

It's an excellent game. I thoroughly enjoyed it, to be perfectly honest. Up until the end, the story is basically a rip-off of Dragon Age:Origins, and I could live with that. It wasn't great by any means, but it was solid enough. Combine that with the gameplay improvements and I'd think it a fairly good game. Then they shit the bed so hard with the ending that it retroactively ruined the previous games in the series.

If the game was ~30 minutes shorter, I probably would be feeling fairly positively towards it. As it stands though, ME3 has one of, if not the, worst endings I've ever seen in a video game, and not calling Bioware out on their bullshit is not something I can do.

 

[frobisher]

Here's a note of hope for the fans that feel betrayed by the ending

I believe you can feel betrayed by the ending for many reasons - not just because it is "not happy enough" as some would like to suggest. "Has no sense", "pointless", "forced", or "arbitrary" in no particular order? As if someone at BW decided "We will challenge stereotypes one more time! It doesn't matter our writers can't exactly create something both original and coherent. Our target audience will eat it as long as they can call it original and feel superior for enjoying such thing".

Your spoiler-ed thoughts are all decent arguments, but the problem is, it feels like trying to find philosophy or onthological questions in a soap opera. I'm sure if we try hard enough, we will be able to invent something viable even with the worst of them. But it is still going to stay on soap opera level, despite "original, un-happy end".

Also, if we have to imagine the answers to pretty important questions, we are already at fanfic level even though BW should be the one provinding these. Instead of... I dunno... failed attempt at incorporating "cycle" idea into a story which is a variation of Hollywoodish "last stand war movie" most of the time? It reminds me some of ridiculous twists some anime series incorporate only to have over-the-top ending. Even Berserk, which wasn't exactly a horrible series to begin with, spent 99% time on small warfare stuff, journey, relationships only to have 99% of characters murdered/mutilated/raped/insane courtesy of impossible-to-kill-ancient-babbling-pseudodeep-nonsense daemons appearing in like... the last episode. Feels familiar, as if someone @ BW fell in love and decided to incorporate one of the silliest parts of otherwise great culture. Or just recently figured out Asimov's idea and felt it was "not original enough". So we have "cycles".



Since it is apparently too easy to believe "it is all about happy end!", the whole war assets scheme falls apart even before ending takes place. You can spend eternity on scanning planets, finale will be exactly the same in terms of military effectiveness, available choices, even difficulty level. It doesn't matter if it takes you 1 month or 1 year to get all assets. Reapers are still the same. Reapers are also still the same with 2k assets, 3k assets, 4k assets... The only two differences related to assets have nothing to do with them on any reasonable level. Mechanics of "dark energy wave from deus ex machina" and spoiler-worthy survival of certain character. Have fun explaining those connections.

So yeah, it is *totally* about the ending, therefore negligible. It's not like you are spending majority of your game on gathering allies & materials, have them translated into meaningless number and then realise it was all either pointless or has nonsensical justification.

Spoiler

Even the parts that feel real give mixed feelings.

Genophage arc was decent, mostly because of certain npc, probably the only one with believable redemption issues, even with facepalm-worthy way of forcing him into the finale. Geth arc is not bad either, but both beginning and ending (peaceful one) are just ridiculous. The attack - initiated at the worst possible moment in galactic history, the resolution - it was enough to throw few silly lines and convince few people to stop? Is the entire race completely retarded so they need to decide about such issue *on the field of battle*?

We didn't get recycled areas this time, although I wouldn't mind something different than "sterile base", "dark cave", "rocky landscape", "dark/neglected base" in most of the content. But how about recycled opponents? I know, I know, makes sense even with so silly storyline, but is there more than one arc where we face something ELSE than Cerberus/Reaper infantry mixed with occasional heavy ordnance?

 

[Aisaku]

snip

Spoiler

The problem with the 'arbitrary number' is sort of the same problem people have with the ending, your decisions either have no impact on the final outcome or you don't get to see their impact, along with their ramifications. A differnent hue in the ending sequence is not enough.

Just so more people get to see it: http://www.facebook.com/DemandABetterEndingToMassEffect3

 

[mikev7.0]

And World Of Warplanes has an awesome trailer, but I have not yet seen you devote a whole article to how awesome it is.

Are you seriously comparing the World of Warplanes alpha gameplay trailer to the Mass Effect 3 launch trailer?

And how exactly is it that you've been playing Mass Effect 3 for so long, anyway? It only just came out today.

The joys of abusing VPNs.


And, actually, yes, because it tells you a lot more about how awesome the game is rather then how awesome the companies bank account is that they can afford that much prerendered CGI.

I'm curious - have you not considered that an enormous factor in the content we publish is audience interest? We cover games that our audience is excited about, thus, we post a news story about the Mass Effect trailer, and not the World of Warplanes trailer.

If we only posted things about the games we personally cared about, this site would look very different, I assure you. Andy would write about nothing but weird Russian PC games, Grey would only write about shooters, and Justin would write about Baldur's Gate every day. Ok, every other day, alternating with Frozen Synapse, maybe.

Coming from someone who hasn't spoken for awhile, (Yeah like I was missing ME3.) "Why O' Why Susuan, Do ya' say that like it's a BAD thing??"

Honest to god that would be a great new show "What we'd play if it could be anything and why!"

As for your review (the first I've read in months. No, not just yours. Any. I bought Blazblue Continuum Shift Extend sight unseen. So. Very. Happy.) Your review was perfect. Mass Effect 3 was the only game I was even thinking of kicking 60 meseta for and now I know I don't have to. At least not until they release "Happy Ending DLC" Volumes I - IV" at 15 rupees a pop. Your review and this thread have given me all the info I seriously needed.

I swear you guys really need to stop with this whole "defending our integrity" thing. All I was saying before was that sometimes the "Fan" factor is at about 18 an' we sorta' needja' at a 10. By "we" I mean other fans that don't want to waste their Gil or are outright hacked off at the steadily decreasing quality level of a product that we now pay more for.

I haven't been here for awhile because 1. (gotta be honest) It's an election year and I'm kinda' wonk(ish). 2. (seriously) I got into the same kind of "we needja' more at a 10." discussion and got the same treatment that others with less than glowing (and oddly logically rooted) opinions of this game are getting. and lastly because Extra Crdits left/was fired I'm not sure I just know they aren't here anymore.

So just for the record, yeah, it does cost you members even if we really like your stuff. Ultimately we come here to help us make buying decisions which is why we need our chosen media outlet to be up front with us about whether or not it was what most fans wanted which was not endings that are bit crap really and a wonky (yet not educational) control system in tight fights with a squad that has all the future potential of the field of nominees for the Republican nomination for Predident circa' last June.

So no hard feelings, I just think people are weary (and wary) of seeing and then buying lots of 9's and 10's and for some strange reason not actually GETTING lots of 9's and 10's. I hope that explains it because I'm all out of video game currency references.

 

[mikev7.0]

We don't have the resources to cover everything, so naturally when choices must be made, we err in favor of covering games our audience will enjoy. If you think that's a bad way to do things, I encourage you to put us in your rearview and find a gaming site that better suits your standards.

Ok, I can understand if someone gets defensive when someone else calls them out on something they may or may not have done. I get that, but you can't just reduce your argument to "well if you don't like it, you could always leave". That's not the point, as least, from what I could gather from the various back-and-forths from this thread. It's a very dismissive and condescending attitude. On top of that, it does nothing to help your side of the argument if you're going to break off the discussion by suggesting the person leave and never come back.

This brings up a good point that I don't understand. Why do people insist on making their dissatisfaction known (ie. Nerd Rage)? If you don't like it, don't buy it. Your blood pressure will thank you.

Kind of sounds like you'd prefer that anyone with anything negative to say about anything shouldn't let their opinions known just for the sake of the fact that it's an opinion that you're not gonna like. Why shouldn't people let their dissatisfaction known? Of course, this is mainly intended for non-trolls, but if someone is really disappointed with something, why shouldn't they tell us? Plus, "don't like it, don't buy it" isn't good enough. Developers have to know why people are unhappy and why they are happy.

Anyone else finding the staff's zealous defense a bit unprofessional?

It just seems like the entire staff is taking this extremely personal. It's a bit....worrying.

Welcome to the Escapist? My whole point was that I rely more on the other readers to tell me what's going on and don't expect "integrity" from this type of media. Duh. We all love this stuff inherently, but we still (some of us) don't want to be EA's little ***** or end up in an "I'm right and you're wrong so there Nyaaaaah!! *phhhhtbhbth!!*" slapfight with "industry professionals."

The first Mass Effect took 5 years to make and godidunno how much dough, this one took how long? How much was invested in even getting the Quality Assurance right? Some of us refuse to accept bugs in a so called finished product because we don't want that to become the industry standard and if you let them consistently get away with new low quality at the same old high price they will keep screwing us.

 

[drednoahl]

You sound angry from reading your post, which I certainly hope your not.

I am annoyed... not at your post in particular but by the stupid assumption by many people (not just on this site) that a game they don't like getting a good review means someone was bought off.

This seems especially stupid when you remember it's the final chapter of one of the most critically acclaimed series of all time. OF COURSE it was going to get good reviews. It's an incredible experience for most people who play it, despite its flaws.

I'm just trying to make sure people understand WHY people are skeptical and reinforce this isn't some "nasty reddit troll" personal attack.
It's a legitimate concern. There is a huge discrepancy between critics and a large chunk normal customers as of late.

I completely understand.

But the problem is people don't seem to be taking Susan's word for it when she explains her side, which annoys the shit out of me. If people want to throw snide insinuations around they should be prepared to give benefit of the doubt.

And any argument about advertising 'influencing' the staff and all that jazz is rendered utterly void in my mind by the fact that every week the site's most popular show takes the absolute piss out of the same developers and games advertised here, sometimes viciously so.

"OF COURSE it was going to get good reviews." In my book, good games get good reviews and rubbish games get rubbish reviews.

I've been alive over 40 years, been a gamer since 1979. Now I accepted Susan's answer to my own question, and I accept her opinion of the game and reasons for giving it a high score. I read the review - it reads like a hate out of ten review imo not the score it got, but a good review nontheless. In all my years gaming I've never accepted "OF COURSE it was going to get good reviews" for any game though, I doubt I ever will.

As far as I'm concerned, we've had a lot of lacklustre games over the last couple of years just because of the "OF COURSE it was going to get good reviews" attitude a lot of gaming media have. Yes, we've had some good games but they haven't been as good as they could have been, and most haven't lived up to the promise the hype would have us believe. The likes of Jim and Yahtzee have made careers commenting on how stagnant the AAA games have become, and I can't imagine either ever saying "OF COURSE it was going to get good reviews" without a certain amount of cynicism. Meanwhile, publishers will keep pushing out the same old crap while "OF COURSE it was going to get good reviews" actually gives them decent reviews that fool enough gamers into buying the product.

I played ME3 for a bit today and my opinion was that it's nothing special - very average. If I had Kinect I'd have liked a voice command for "don't roll there" too. Mind, I don't like intense games, and I was finding ME3 much more intense than I expected and therefore not much fun.