Mass Effect 3 Review

[The.Bard]

Dude, it may just be the delirium setting in, but I think I've figured it out. ME3 is the greatest 4th-wall-breaking thing EVER released.

The husks... goddangit, the whole process of indoctrination.... don't you SEE!??!


I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO PUT DOWN ME3 IN 155 YEARS!
Can you believe Bioware released Day 2347 DLC?!? THE NERVE!


LOOK! LOOK AT HIM! He's not dead. He's a guy who played MASS EFFECT 3 and was driven to hook himself up to a machine so he could play it 24/7!

The scientists... Saren... everyone who was EVER indoctrinated. They hear voices in their heads because they are suffering from lack of sleep!

NO! YOU shut up! I'm right! This is the greatest discovery in ever. They are totally playing ME3 all night. Of course I can prove it. That crazy guy in ME1, Manuel:


I'm playing Mass Effect 3 RIGHT NOW! ON THE FLOOR!

He mentioned Reapers. Don't you find it to be SLIGHTLY convenient that he mentioned "Reapers," when Reapers weren't even ANNOUNCED until the script leak this coming June??!??!

"Reaper" artifacts! Bull! "ME3 ARTIFACTS" is more like it!

Also, you can't spell "MEap3r" without ME3, can you?! Wait, can you? Crud, I thought you couldn't. Or was it you can spell ME3 with Reaper? Hmmm.

 

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

The logic is perfectly clear: They genuinely enjoy Gavin's work and think it's a cool way to promote their game. They had his song "Normandy" playing on a loop over their booth at PAX, they've had him on BioWare TV before. They're fans. He, likewise, is a huge fan of Mass Effect, which comes through in his songs. He also has quite a following, which gives them some bonus advertising, word of mouth, and PR opportunities with hardcore gamers. It's a mutually beneficial relationship. I fail to see the mystery here.

The problem word is relationship. It's hard to review games objectively when you have a relationship with the company, even via association.

While I understand that the staff at The Escapist is excited to play a new Bioware game, much of the site's reporting on Bioware in general is colored by this. Andy's review of one of the last trailers positively gushed with enthusiasm. I don't begrudge him that, but the problem is that it came through in his article.

One comment I've often gotten in writing P&P gaming reviews for Dark Reign is how surprised the book authors and editors are to get fairly positive reviews, because they know that I'm not easily won over, and can get rather harsh when presented with a sub standard work. Personal opinion, but I feel that the games media needs to consider being harsher with games. They hand out 8's 9's and 10's like candy, even to games that it's pretty obvious don't deserve them. And, again, before anyone freaks, this is not just an issue here or even to this specific game.

Well, that's my point, and I'm sure that people are lining up to call me all sorts of filthy names, but there you have it.

The phrase surrounding this whole issue is, and always shall be: "guilt by association".

Were it so easy to just say "This is my review, from my perspective, without any outside influence", then nothing would be so...conflictionary. The sad thing is is that this industry, and all aspects associated with it, is tainted by the actions of those wishing to precure a certain facade, or outcome. Like it or not, this is how it gets viewed by some. So long as an entity/individual associates itself with another that has ill repute, said entity/individual will be bound to the same stigma as the ones it associates with.

Let me put it this way: Susan Arendt>Escapist>Bioware>EA. Your review might be of your own, and might very well be your honest thoughts and critiques...but because of the associations, all I will ever take it as is just one perspective. Will I trust it fully? Absolutely not, nor will I ever fully trust anything coming from any line of association like that. The same goes for the other video game sites I frequent such as Kotaku, G4, 1up, Penny Arcade, etc. But I come looking at these reviews, regardless, for the different perspectives. The more one delves, the more one is likely to discover and learn. Though, I keep the above mentioned phrase ever at the forefront when delving in this manner.

At this point I think all that needs to be said on this topic has been said. If you or anyone else has reservations about our integrity, you know where the door is. Please - please - don't let it hit you in the ass on the way out.

Mr. Chalk, after what happened with Extra Credits, questioning shall always be on my mind regarding this site. Especially when taken into context with what other Escapist contributors (MovieBob is the foremost in my mind) had to say about the unfortunate event involving them. Make no mistake, I enjoy what the Escapist has to offer - even James, Allison and Daniel still reference (and speak highly of!) the contributors and programs here - but as I said, I am ever-mindfull of what actions are taken and what the reasonings might be for them.

Now, I agree that since this thread is about ME3, some part of my post should reflect said game...

My brother just bought his copy and is currently playing it. I stopped at ME1, but he now has all three. I will reserve any initial judgments until he brings it to my place and shows me what he has gone through and gives me his view. Then, I might judge it...after playing a bit of it.

 

[Samurai Silhouette]

I almost called the game a no-go because of origins, but then bought it anyway. Installed origins and I really couldn't care less about it being on my computer. :I

 

[Susan Arendt]

The logic is perfectly clear: They genuinely enjoy Gavin's work and think it's a cool way to promote their game. They had his song "Normandy" playing on a loop over their booth at PAX, they've had him on BioWare TV before. They're fans. He, likewise, is a huge fan of Mass Effect, which comes through in his songs. He also has quite a following, which gives them some bonus advertising, word of mouth, and PR opportunities with hardcore gamers. It's a mutually beneficial relationship. I fail to see the mystery here.

The problem word is relationship. It's hard to review games objectively when you have a relationship with the company, even via association.

While I understand that the staff at The Escapist is excited to play a new Bioware game, much of the site's reporting on Bioware in general is colored by this. Andy's review of one of the last trailers positively gushed with enthusiasm. I don't begrudge him that, but the problem is that it came through in his article.

One comment I've often gotten in writing P&P gaming reviews for Dark Reign is how surprised the book authors and editors are to get fairly positive reviews, because they know that I'm not easily won over, and can get rather harsh when presented with a sub standard work. Personal opinion, but I feel that the games media needs to consider being harsher with games. They hand out 8's 9's and 10's like candy, even to games that it's pretty obvious don't deserve them. And, again, before anyone freaks, this is not just an issue here or even to this specific game.

Well, that's my point, and I'm sure that people are lining up to call me all sorts of filthy names, but there you have it.

The phrase surrounding this whole issue is, and always shall be: "guilt by association".

Were it so easy to just say "This is my review, from my perspective, without any outside influence", then nothing would be so...conflictionary. The sad thing is is that this industry, and all aspects associated with it, is tainted by the actions of those wishing to precure a certain facade, or outcome. Like it or not, this is how it gets viewed by some. So long as an entity/individual associates itself with another that has ill repute, said entity/individual will be bound to the same stigma as the ones it associates with.

Let me put it this way: Susan Arendt>Escapist>Bioware>EA. Your review might be of your own, and might very well be your honest thoughts and critiques...but because of the associations, all I will ever take it as is just one perspective. Will I trust it fully? Absolutely not, nor will I ever fully trust anything coming from any line of association like that. The same goes for the other video game sites I frequent such as Kotaku, G4, 1up, Penny Arcade, etc. But I come looking at these reviews, regardless, for the different perspectives. The more one delves, the more one is likely to discover and learn. Though, I keep the above mentioned phrase ever at the forefront when delving in this manner.

I have absolutely no problem with you not taking my sole word as gospel. Reading several reviews is a very smart approach to any game, and of course, the only opinion that ultimately matters is your own. (This is why I encourage people to play demos whenever possible.) My issue is simply that if you don't agree with my take on a particular game, don't accuse me of being corrupt. That's it, that's all I'm really asking. There are many reasons why two people might end up having different gaming experiences, and to immediately assume that the reason I love what you don't (or hate what you love) simply must be nefarious is unfair and insulting.

 

[Raesvelg]

Let me put it this way: Susan Arendt>Escapist>Bioware>EA. Your review might be of your own, and might very well be your honest thoughts and critiques...but because of the associations, all I will ever take it as is just one perspective. Will I trust it fully? Absolutely not, nor will I ever fully trust anything coming from any line of association like that. The same goes for the other video game sites I frequent such as Kotaku, G4, 1up, Penny Arcade, etc. But I come looking at these reviews, regardless, for the different perspectives. The more one delves, the more one is likely to discover and learn. Though, I keep the above mentioned phrase ever at the forefront when delving in this manner.

Problematically, there is exactly one review in the world that can trust fully:

Your own.

Everyone else has different opinions than you, different axes to grind, and different agendas. I wouldn't trust an "independent" review any further than I'd trust one from a prominent gaming site; in either case, bias alone can skew a reviewer's opinion.

And yes, taking a variety of sources can be a reasonable way to getting a broader picture of a given product, but at no point does it anything less than disrespectful to say "yeah, but I'm not trusting your opinion because I think you've been bought."

 

[chainguns]

Then how are you financed, Susan? Do you get no advertising revenue from EA, entities affiliated with EA or acting on behalf of EA? If you do, then you have a potential conflict of interest. Giving out near perfect scores to EA games raises concerns that a 'potential' conflict of interest might in fact be 'actual'. For example, to this day I struggle to think of a non-"nefarious" reason as to why your site gave Dragon Age 2 a perfect 5/5.

 

[BaronIveagh]

Then how are you financed, Susan? Do you get no advertising revenue from EA, entities affiliated with EA or acting on behalf of EA? If you do, then you have a potential conflict of interest. Giving out near perfect scores to EA games raises concerns that a 'potential' conflict of interest might in fact be 'actual'.

Hmm, now even I think that's unfair to Susan, as that's heading down the rabbit hole of advertiser subcontracting. I think it safe to say that nearly any game site, and quite a few non-game sites have received EA money indirectly, as google advertising could be acting on behalf of EA as you define it and they would never know it due to the way it works.

 

[Erttheking]

Wow, people actually accusing the website of being bribed by EA. People if that was the case, Yahtzee would have either been shut down or left long ago.

Seriously if you don't like the game, that's cool but you shouldn't get so worked up over people who DO like it.

 

[Korten12]

There is a mission for the Rachni, yes, but your choices are not there. Let the Rachni queen go? Oh, too bad, she's been indoctrinated by the Reapers.

What?

Oh fuck you, Bioware. Just fuck you.

This is poor reason to say fuck you to Bioware. What letting her go suddenly makes here completely immune to the repearers? No it didn't.

 

[BaronIveagh]

We'll never know for sure, but I don't think the fires were going to die down no matter what Bioware said. The raging Bioware lynch mobs were patrolling the internet in droves long before the first leak. But for what it's worth, I think they took the script leak, at least, like absolute champs. They could have tried to throw dirt over it, but they invited anyone reading to send in their thoughts and they would see if there were any improvements to be made. How much more fan-friendly can you get? I can't speak intelligently on the leaks beyond that, as I avoided reading anything about them, and in so doing, most of Bioware's responses. I'm guessing many others who were really into both ME1 & ME2 would have done a similar 'fingers-in-the-ears-whistling' approach.

Hmm... eh, I think I had a pretty good finger on the pulse of the angry mob pre forum lockdown over at Bioware.

And, the problem was that it's not clear that they did anything with that feedback. And, really, part of the problem was there was little to no response at all. They had one PR rep post on redit about the day one DLC issue and beyond that gave the silent treatment, other then to occasionally verify details.

Wow, people actually accusing the website of being bribed by EA. People if that was the case, Yahtzee would have either been shut down or left long ago.

Yahtzee drives more views to the site then any other feature, if you get down to it. Disposing of him would damage their bottom line far more then telling EA to bugger off.

 

[Chris Mosher]

Interesting discussion.
I can certainly appreciate how it would not be the most pleasent for the people who run or work for the site. I do think it is a good one to have though and is one that I would love to see more mainstream media outlets would have.
I can understand why a person may read more into the relationship with Bioware and the site then there may actually be given the optics of the appearent cross promotion with Miracle of sound and the positive reviews given to DA2 and ME3. Now I am not saying that anything happened, but if you are honest with yourself, you have to admit to the optics of this. Afterall, ME3 gets a good review and Miracle of Sound and Escapist get the exposure of being on Bioware Pulse. I am not saying that this situation happened but given the state of the media today it is not implausible.
What I really appreciate from the crew here is that you took the time to address the concerns in respectful manner with out over reacting . I think that the media overall would be improved if other sources of news took the time to do the same. It may not convince everyone but it is a good thing to see you addressing peoples converns

 

[Sentox6]

Fans are just by definition not objective. From that perspective it would be better for someone who is not a fan to do a review.

I genuinely, literally facepalmed. You're suggesting a fan of a series (by definition, simply someone who has enjoyed the preceding games) shouldn't review a new entry because they're not objective?

Newsflash: no one is "objective". Game reviewing is inherently, by definition, a subjective enterprise. That's the entire damn point of it.

It doesn't follow that fans are necessarily biased [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-oeOqgRi7E] in favour of a new game in a series, too. Their investment, if you want to call it that, could equally predispose them to judging the game more harshly.

Either way, it doesn't matter. The purpose of a game review is for someone to provide their subjective opinion on the game, and then you can do whatever you damn well please with that. Furthermore, an awful lot of people looking for a review to evaluate ME3 are going to be fans of the series. Perhaps they might want the perspective of someone who is also a fan. WHOA.

 

[Nimcha]

- Your choices don't matter, or they've been retconned.
- All endings are the same, no matter what you've done in any ME game so far.

Considering the amount of choices in all three games, I'm curious as to how you know these two things for a fact.

Other than that: Preordered via Origin, bought From Ashes, downloaded, waiting for EU release to clock in.

Because between my flatmate, myself and the number of our friends who ALL bought the game and have no played it and compared results, we've narrowed it down to that simple fact. This has been confirmed by tons of people on the Bioware forums as well, including Devs who've essentially told gamers "tough luck, it's our game, nyahnyahnyah".

Biggest gripe is that almost everything in part 2 that was trumpeted as being important (The Rachni, the Geth, AI etc etc) have all been either retconned or are mentioned in brief passing. Hell, the game doesn't even recognize the fact that you've played through the Lair of the Shadow Broker mission! They simply ignore it!

Lazy development, lazy storytelling and a huge, huge disappointment.

You must have been totally not paying attention during playing. Everything you have done comes back in the game. I'm not even halfway and I can already assure that.

Spoiler

Especially what you did with the Geth is very important.

You might also want to spoiler parts of your other post.

 

[Zom-B]

I just think it's a kick-ass game.

Sorry, just reading through all the comments, but this put a question in my mind: How does the actual retail game release compare to the demo? Obviously, they are hard to compare, but I found the gameplay in the demo to be pretty stiff. I like to think I'm pretty unbiased, as I've not played the games, but that's because I didn't have an Xbox when ME or ME2 came out and I didn't want to jump into the series on PS3.

Anyway, as a game, ME3's demo felt... stale? Clunky? too me. The graphics are sharp and crisp, but that seems to make things a bit hinky. Also, I must admit that I'm not a fan of cover based shooters (though I thought Vanquish was rad).

Anyway, I can't see myself really being super into the ME series, though I wouldn't be upset to be pleasantly surprised. Anyway, based off the demo, I would never buy ME3, at least not at full price.

How much of the positiveness about ME3 comes from the fact that you're a fan and did you find you had trouble being objective about your review? Do you think that if you weren't a fan of the series or hadn't played the other gams you would have rated it as highly?

ps- just for the record, I think that most game journalists are honest and not bought, but unfortunately the feeling that good reviews are bought or at least influenced is rampant and hard to escape. I've seen too many games get undeservedly good reviews. I'm not saying bad games get great scores, I'm saying mediocre or average games seem to have scores that don't really reflect how good the game actually is. They may reflect an opinion but don't necessarily reflect an objective review. That being said, I don't think reviews should be taken as gospel, just one more piece of information to factor in when making a decision to purchase a game.

 

[satsugaikaze]

Wowsers. I leave this thread for a day or two and it explodes like... like a very unstable thing that explodes in a really big fireball. I don't know. I just woke up.

I think a lot of people seem to mistake natural bias for some sort of fiscal corruption, simply because people now know the latter to exist. It seems to be easier for people to assume the worst in anything because they believe the trend to be the norm. It's not necessarily wrong to do so, but I think in this case it's necessary for people to formulate their own experiences on the subject matter.

From what I hear in this thread, there seem to be legitimate concerns about the way the game handled its writing. I keep hearing about a deus ex machina thrown into the ending, and "retcons" involving decisions made from the previous Mass Effect games. But at the same time, some of the complaints about "retcons" don't seem to hold much weight.

In my opinion, a lot of players who complain about these things the loudest are simply offended by having any degree of control taken away from them, but at the same time such changes to the game are simply shifting the role-playing down what I consider to be a spectrum of RPGs. It's a payoff between, "I want the player to reach this goal in the narrative" and "I should let the player choose the way the end-goal appears". In Mass Effect 2, it was a balance between "I want the player to stop the Collectors" and "I should let the player choose how he/she stops the Collectors."

The issue of the non-choice, the Catch 22, is an interesting one - I have friends (avid RPG gamers) who get fairly angry at the idea that sometimes in their game, there isn't an inherent choice that creates branching possibilities of cause and effect. In the Mass Effect 3 demo, there's an early choice where you can either tell The Kid in the ventilation shaft to run away or escape with you. He disappears, whichever option you choose. Later on, he is killed just before the title screen. That's arguably a non-choice, and while I do appreciate the fact that people don't like having a lack of control over that, it wasn't made that way for the intent of "lazy writing" or whatever. The express purpose isn't for "shock value", although it would be reasonable to say there is that certain factor of that involved.
I feel it's trying to bring the point across about Mass Effect 3 - Shepard is the stalwart hero of the galaxy. But at the same time, he/she's just one person. As much as the RPG player might want to control everything that happens to the Mass Effect universe in their immediate vicinity, it's neither realistic or feasible to assume it can be done, that absolutely every important deed will diverge into either a positive or negative outcome. "Your choices don't matter" should be true to some extent, because a role-playing game in which a hero can drastically shape every single outcome is either a tad unimmersive or has a damn good excuse for it.

I believe people just needed to be more open-minded as to what makes an RPG. A case in point: I was initially sorely disappointed by the way Mass Effect 2 was handled. The first game was a great experiment with an RPG-shooter hybrid; the developers decided that the key to improving the quality of the sequel was to remove the troublesome elements entirely, rather than to improve on them in some way. But at the same time, the choice was there, the characters and writing were still top notch, and the gameplay was still enjoyable in a different context - even though it was drastically different from the original game. It's sad to see that Mass Effect 3 didn't quite return the series to the RPG-shooter hybrid it was at first, but at the moment I'm at, it seems to capitalize on everything positive Mass Effect 2 had.

 

[Susan Arendt]

I just think it's a kick-ass game.

Sorry, just reading through all the comments, but this put a question in my mind: How does the actual retail game release compare to the demo? Obviously, they are hard to compare, but I found the gameplay in the demo to be pretty stiff. I like to think I'm pretty unbiased, as I've not played the games, but that's because I didn't have an Xbox when ME or ME2 came out and I didn't want to jump into the series on PS3.

Anyway, as a game, ME3's demo felt... stale? Clunky? too me. The graphics are sharp and crisp, but that seems to make things a bit hinky. Also, I must admit that I'm not a fan of cover based shooters (though I thought Vanquish was rad).

Anyway, I can't see myself really being super into the ME series, though I wouldn't be upset to be pleasantly surprised. Anyway, based off the demo, I would never buy ME3, at least not at full price.

How much of the positiveness about ME3 comes from the fact that you're a fan and did you find you had trouble being objective about your review? Do you think that if you weren't a fan of the series or hadn't played the other gams you would have rated it as highly?

ps- just for the record, I think that most game journalists are honest and not bought, but unfortunately the feeling that good reviews are bought or at least influenced is rampant and hard to escape. I've seen too many games get undeservedly good reviews. I'm not saying bad games get great scores, I'm saying mediocre or average games seem to have scores that don't really reflect how good the game actually is. They may reflect an opinion but don't necessarily reflect an objective review. That being said, I don't think reviews should be taken as gospel, just one more piece of information to factor in when making a decision to purchase a game.

I didn't try the demo, so I can't answer that. When I found that due to sheer dumb luck, I was close to release and had yet to see the game in any fashion, I made an effort to avoid any mention of it. You don't get to do that very often in this business, so I jumped at the chance.

I've given good reviews to games that I don't personally like before, and given mediocre reviews to games I personally adore. Part of being a good and consistent reviewer is separating you, the player, from you, the reviewer. Now, obviously, I'm not a robot, and any review I do is ultimately just an opinion, but I've gotten pretty good at knowing when my personal feelings might get in the way of a proper review. I recused myself from reviewing BioShock 2 because I knew there was no way I could judge it fairly, based on my feelings about BioShock. (Now, so long after the fact, I could do it, but at the time of release? Doubtful.)

Also, you're right, no one review is Ultimate Truth. They're guideposts, nothing more.

 

[sir.rutthed]

Wow. Just wow. Not the review, but some of the comments. On behalf of the Escapists who aren't combative know-it-all assholes, I'd like to apologize to the Escapist staff. You guys are awesome, and I have seen no reason to doubt your integrity. Sure you like games the community here seems bound and determined to hate, but to me that gives great credit to your honesty and dedication to journalism. You guys are awesome,, I'm sorry you guys get this same bullshit when your review a big EA game, and don't let the bottom feeders bring you down.

OT: Can't wait. My birthday can't come fast enough. So I'll probably end up blowing part of my quarterly bonus on it.

 

[Zom-B]

I didn't try the demo, so I can't answer that. When I found that due to sheer dumb luck, I was close to release and had yet to see the game in any fashion, I made an effort to avoid any mention of it. You don't get to do that very often in this business, so I jumped at the chance.

I've given good reviews to games that I don't personally like before, and given mediocre reviews to games I personally adore. Part of being a good and consistent reviewer is separating you, the player, from you, the reviewer. Now, obviously, I'm not a robot, and any review I do is ultimately just an opinion, but I've gotten pretty good at knowing when my personal feelings might get in the way of a proper review. I recused myself from reviewing BioShock 2 because I knew there was no way I could judge it fairly, based on my feelings about BioShock. (Now, so long after the fact, I could do it, but at the time of release? Doubtful.)

Also, you're right, no one review is Ultimate Truth. They're guideposts, nothing more.

Hmm. Okay, well from playing the demo, the character animations were ludicrous. I was laughing on the couch watching my female Shepard and Anderson (? is that his name?) sprinting through the first level. Anderson was so rigidly upright, his arms pumping up and down like toy arms on an action figure. Also, no matter what I tried I couldn't get the sour expression off my character's face. She had this permanent frog mouth thing that was really disconcerting.

By my standards the demo only served to turn me off the game, whereas playing the demo for ME2 had me wanting to play the game, but not for $60. I'll probably pick up the first two on Xbox soonish, but personally I haven't been blown away by what I've seen or experienced from the ME series. I feel like a bad demo is better than no demo at all.

 

[krellen]

This is poor reason to say fuck you to Bioware. What letting her go suddenly makes here completely immune to the repearers? No it didn't.

While I can say "FU" to Bioware for whatever reason I please, the real reason behind this is that it does not make sense, other then in a purely dramatic "it's dark and your choices are wrong" sense. The Rachni should be immune to indoctrination, at least to an extent - the Rachni Queen is evidence already that they are.

Firstly, the Rachni are completely unlike any other life in the galaxy; they are advanced and star-faring, and yet their technology has nothing whatsoever to do with the Mass Relays and other technology seeded by the Reapers; they are an actual independent evolution (among the evidence of this is the fact that the Rachni uniquely can persist in vacuum and hostile environments without technological assistance and the fact that the Rachni apparently knew nothing of Mass Relays until the Council went to them.)

Secondly, the Rachni Queen's story of her children's history already suggests a strong resistance to Reaper/Mass Relay technology. She describes a "Sour Yellow Note" that drove the Rachni insane, sending them on their slaughter. While it's not directly said this is indoctrination, it at the very least implies some sort of incompatibility between the Rachni and the Reaper technology - perhaps it was the opening of the first Relay in their territory that created the note that drove them mad. Either way, the reaction of the Rachni to this influence suggests they are not susceptible to indoctrination in the same way as the other species in the galaxy.

Thirdly, this really only serves to render the choice meaningless anyway. Whether you save her or not, the Rachni exist as adversaries rather than allies, crafting a single path out of what should have been two (or creating instead a false path - existent Rachni - where there should have been none.)

Finally, by throwing your charity back in your face, the game only enforces a tone of despair, where no good can come of anything. By making the Rachni you saved become your enemies, Mass Effect 3 is spitting in the face of the optimism the ending of the original game spoke (an optimism that was, in fact, present whether you chose a Renegade or Paragon ending) for a more "contemporary" - and, by now, trite - "dark", "gritty", and overall pessimistic view on the universe.

As I stated earlier, the optimism of the first game was a very large part of what drew me to it, and every instance I see of Mass Effect becoming a pessimistic universe is yet another "fuck you" moment for Bioware.

So fuck you, Bioware.

 

[Nimcha]

As I stated earlier, the optimism of the first game was a very large part of what drew me to it, and every instance I see of Mass Effect becoming a pessimistic universe is yet another "fuck you" moment for Bioware.

So fuck you, Bioware.

Optimism? Please. Halfway through you already have to sacrifice someone. You destroyed ONE Reaper, knowing thousands more are on their way. It even says at the end of the first game the fight has only just begun. Part 2 was even more pessimistic, it included a suicide mission for god's sake. It actually shows the thousands of nearly invincible Reapers arrive.

How anyone can derive optimism from all this is a great big mistery to me.