One Last look at Mass Effect 3.

[Kipiru]

Snip

I've played the game. Does that mean it's okay for me to tell you why you're wrong? (Even though it's more or less what he's already told you)Or is there a hidden rule where anyone disagrees with you is trolling?

My attack was on that troll alone, because I do not feel he has the right to pass judgement on a game he hasn't played. If you took the time and looked back through this thread you will see that I actually acknowledged defeat from a guy who did a splendid job on explaining the fail of Bioware. Why do you feel offended is a mystery to me, since the posts of DioWallachia are a joke with everyone that has played the game and has formed an opinion(good or bad)

You! Haven't! Played! The game! You can watch all the videos in the world on the subject and you still wouldn't have any idea what you're talking about. I can never explain to you anything, since you wouldn't know what I'm talking about, because you haven't played the game.

Given how most games these days are little more than glorified linear corridor shooters, it's not a bad thing to watch a game before playing it. You can certainly discuss the story or plot, but you don't have to discuss the gameplay.

Expecting someone to drop $60 on a product, and justify the bad word-of-mouth by saying, "Oh, you can't criticize it unless you've played it" is a classic fallacy. I don't need to be an editor to criticize the bad story beats of a film, I don't need to be an audio technician to appreciate good or bad music, and if I want to watch the plot of a game before I buy it, I can reasonably criticize the good/bad points of it.

Sorry, but you are wrong here. Games are unique in the fact of them being an interactive medium. The story is key, but is only one aspect of a complex puzzle that comes down to so much more than the sum of its parts. I'm not against people having a look before they buy and saying "that's not my thing" and moving along. But this guy comes here with no actual experience with the game and states that his comments hold as much merit as mine or yours. That is simply not so! You should be angered by this fact as well.

 

[w@rew0lf]

I enjoyed the game and was disappointed with the ending. Sure everyone was. I love the series and every single one of the games. Very much so.

But for the life of me I can't understand the people who take the disappointment so seriously that they write novellas on everything they thought was wrong. It just seems a tad...melodramatic to me. I mean, it may just be me but whenever I find myself disappointed with a game I just put it on the shelf or sell it off to a store that offers a reasonable price y'know? It just boggles my mind when I see people making half-hour videos and arguments equivalent in length to short stories about how much a game disappointed them. The reponses I receive when I question these actions is usually along the lines of (down with this sort of thing/to make sure this never happens again)...okay, but why is this backlash a movement why is so damn important to people? Can I not understand because I genuinely have no problem with Mass Effect 3, besides the ending and Nova being far too overpowered for my tastes, that I don't understand the sheer emotion behind the sweeping disappointment?

Before I go about making myself seem like I believe that I'm some superior apathetic creature above all you mere mortals, I would like to acknowledge that I've had my moments were I've put to much of myself into being angry/disappointed/sad/etc at something about a game. What gamer hasn't? I just don't understand. I just think that enough is enough. Maybe it's time to...I don't know, move on?

 

[Kipiru]

My attack was on that troll alone, because I do not feel he has the right to pass judgement on a game he hasn't played.

I've said this a million times, but I'll say it again; saying things you don't like is not trolling. I haven't played Mass Effect 3 either, though I've played the demo, I have watched a let's play, read the synopsis as well as several analyses and arguments from both supporters and detractors. I do not find the arguments of supporters to be convincing and I'm happy with my initial feeling from the demo that the mechanics of Mass Effect 3 are boring, lazy and unenjoyable.

I'm not calling him a troll because of his negative opinion, but because he is actually giving this opinion on a game he has had no contact with. I would have reacted the same way if his opinion was good. You're not like him- you've played the game even if just a demo. You have first hand experience with it, you are not building your opinion entirely on someone else's playthrough.

 

[Terminal Blue]

I'm kind of sick of talking about the ending, to be honest. It was an objectionable mess on release because it offered nothing. With the extended cut, it at least offers some form of denouement and context and explanation for what happened throughout the game. If you don't think it's good enough, fair enough, but I think at this point it's your high expectations because really.. I've seen countless good games with worse endings.

I disagree on the story. I liked ME2's story structure with the episodic gameplay, but ME3 had higher stakes and more emotional weight. Sure, if you can't get more weight into a story where the entire galaxy is being destroyed than one in which a bunch of Terminus system dirt-farmers are being kidnapped it's probably time to give up and go home, but there was some real payoff. People wouldn't have been so upset about the disappointing ending unless there was something to like in the rest of the story, and there is.

I suppose one thing which you either love or hate is the fact that Commander Shepherd kind of stops pretending to be a blank slate. We see him or her react emotionally to things in a way we really didn't in the previous games. I personally loved that, it was one of my major gripes about the previous games.. not really knowing who this character was or what their investment was.

The gameplay is the one area where I agree, and even there I blame the fans in large part. ME2's combat balance was really strong, but apparently fans felt that biotics were too weak so we've ended up with combos being a standard method of dealing damage rather than just one option, and it's too much. I'm really pleased to see they have tweaked the balance since release, because it was insane, but even so setting off a explosion every 2.5 seconds means they have no weight. There's nothing to match the joy of throwing someone into the skybox in ME2 or even ME1 because it felt like powers had weight. Moreover, removes more of the already flimsy gameplay differences between biotics and tech experts, which can only hurt replayability.

Fortunately, I think I've found a solution which is to play the base soldier class without using a combo-generating bonus power like carnage. It's actually difficult at times and you have to vary your tactics according to the enemies you face rather than simply spamming boom (you can still set off tech explosions, but you're at least reliant on context or cooperation to a degree), and of course the more general combat improvements start to shine through. I like the faster pace, I like weapon customization. I actually like how different enemies have clearly defined roles which work well together rather than just running around randomly shouting "enemies everywhere!"

But hey, that's just me.

 

[edgecult]

That's my two cents on what you said anyway.

I once made a whole post out of what could possibly happen afterwards if you are indoctrinated or not.

It went something like this:

Spoiler: Copy pasta FTW

Going to write this before the light shuts down as fast as i can:

You know, I'm a little insulted that you think I didn't bother to read the full description of a Pyrrhic victory. I already thought I knew what the term meant but I read the whole thing just to make sure. I'm quite aware what it is and I stand by what I said. A pyrrhic victory is STILL a victory is the most direct sense. Whether or not the main character or the world is ultimately better off isn't the point. The lead character still accomplished whatever their intended goal was. For better or for worse.

A victory that makes things worse for even the person who won, to the point that the word "victory" is empty of all meaning. Its like getting revenge on a good king who is the best king ever (who makes decitions "for the greater good" or "the needs of the many" intead of being selfish) except in the eyes of the protagonist who felt insulted when the king told him to shower (because the smell is getting people sick) and now has to KILL the king for his insolence. The Protagonist does so but now the kingdom is in ruins because The Totally Trustworthy Evil Advicer took over, and fucked everything up. Starvation and tyranism ensues where not even the hero's dog is safe.

Soooooo..... hurray for victory?

But here is the thing you keep assuming here, you think that if Shep is indoctrinated then the story is over IF (and only IF) the IT is true, thus the series would end on a Pyrrhic Victory, its not.

Lets recap, the reason that the IT exist is because the fans thought that this is a fake ending that its a placeholder for the REAL ONE, meaning that IT only cover what we see in the game but not what is AFTER that because that was Bioware job.

They though that maaaaaaaaybe the REAL ending will have ALL your choices reflected and pay off at last, INCLUDING if Shep is or ISNT indoctrinated. In fact, here is how I would have done it (in the most crude way possible):

*/Oh wait, before doing that, lets just solve the plot hole of the EMS being somehow connected to the Crusible "options" by making those be available regardless of the EMS (who will be used for something more coherent) Besides, why would be a dream/allucionation be influenced by how many ships,weapons and whatever else the EMS represents? Or even be affected by the Multiplayer? /*

-If you escaped indoctrination by choosing Destroy: Shep wakes up, still bleeding, tries to use the Crusible but ends up being a dud. All the fleet gets paralized in fear that everything is lost now but Shep manages to send a message to all the fleet to fight with everything they got, all or nothing. Then Shepard dies at last and this is the perfect oportunity for the player to put aside the controller to see the repercusions of your actions, depending of your EMS score and your choices from past games:

Low= The fleet sucumbs to the fear and their low numbers and before they could snap out of it, the Reapers kill them all and you get too see it in full detail with cutscenes from every single race you helped, even the Rachni. That WAS promised to be on the ending after all, remember?

Medium= They get inspired and fight but their numbers is still too low to do anything permanent. Your surviving squadmates either froze themselves like Javik did to help the next cycle along Liara's Sigil with instructions on how to find them.

High= The fleet wins but Shepard is still quite dead. I believe that we could add ANOTHER converzation with the Illusive man where instead of commiting suicide, you could convince him to resist long enough to find a cure for Indoctrination now that ALL the species can work together. He is the one who, once again, preserved Shep body and is using his talents to make another resurrection machine and as a "thank" to Shep who snap him out of it and because he is the only person alive who knows the details needed to make one (that doesnt excuse the killings he has do though).

Here is where sparing the Rachni Queen becomes useful, she and TIM decide to become test subjects for experimentations and test to get rid of indoctrination and to atone for past crimes (you MUST have both of them in order to find the cure.) If you spared the Geth over the Quarians, there SHOULD be a way to exploit the Geth Virtual Machine that was used before to delete Reaper code that still remains on TIM (he is technically a cybord so plugging him to a machine should be feasible)

In the meantime, TIM gathered ALL Shep squadmembers and people close to him to reach a concensus to see if bringing back to life is what he/she would have wanted (kinda ironic if you think about it, after all in the original endings you get to choose ALONE for ALL the galaxy if they get merged in synthesis and shit, and now people get to do the same without your input ) Not sure what would be the variables that dictate if the squadmates want you alive or dead. Leaving it to the PR system seems kinda "meh".

-If you end up fully indoctrinated for choosing anything else: Shep wakes up and is "helped" by the Reaper tropes who want him to be alive for future use, we even see Harbinger order some "specific" upgrades to him. Shep reach the crusible to give the impresion that he is still fighting for the good side and still shows everyone that the Crusible does jack shit so they get desmoralized (he also shut downs the Relays so NOBODY can escape the massacre).

Low EMS= They get destroyed and Shepard shares his knowledge with the Reapers about the Sigil of Liara to warn the next cycle and the Prothean beacons. Those get destroyed but not before developing a counter measure to the Anti-indoctrination measures so the agents wont be detected and also the Crusible gets taken appart to trick the next cycle into completing it again. They send Shep to be frozen and pretend to help the next cycle. In short, its a spectacular failure.

Medium EMS= The fleet notices that Shep is indoctrinated (probably because they managed to copy the same algorith that Vendetta and the other Prothean VI use to know if someone is indoctrinated) and become enraged over the loss of their icon of hope and go full force on The Reapers. They also order your squadmates to reach the Crusible instead of fapping around in the Normandy where they cant contribute on a space battle, to see if the thing is efectively broken or was a ruse by Shep (Maybe you could even play as one of your squadmates or even you love interest, hmmm?) You find him and you can try to talk him down but its meaningless, he wants to fight. When you defeat him, he gets to be himself and laments to his squadmates that it had come to this and tells them that even if the Crusible doesnt work, there is still some ancient weaponary that belongs to the Citadel itself and that he now has knowledge off thanks to being wired to the Reaper consensus. He avids farewell to his old allies and prepares to rest in peace........

DIRECT INTERVENCION MAY BE NESSESARY. ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL!!

Harbinger gave Shep, who is technically a Prothean as well, the same upgrades that he did for the Collectors and now he can control him/her. We fight him again, and tries to avoid the same fate as Sovereing by leaving the body before it dies. However, it cant leave Shep's body because Shep him/herself doesnt let him by sheer force of will!! Shep is giving you enough time to finish the job by killing him and by extension, Harbinger, the most powerful Reaper.

Fail and Harby escapes the body without repercusion and The Reapers wins while your squadmates watch in horror the annihilation. Harby even goes himself to the Crusible and blows everyone personaly as a gesture of afection

Win and Harby and Shep die. The squadmates uses the algorithms given by Shep about the Citadel defenses powered by The Crusible to fire on the Reapers and win.

High EMS: Same as Medium except that instead of shooting Shep when the moment arrives, we sent the signal to finish off Harby directly with the ENTIRE FLEET SHOOTING AT HIM. Since this time the fleet is bigger, Harby bites the dust and Shep can be saved from death.

Did YOU read the tropes page of what a Pyrrhic victory is? It isn't when the protagonist simply fails do accomplish his goal, it's when the DO accomplish it but at a grave cost. Like when Hamlet kills Claudius but at the cost of many lives including his own. He still KILLED Claudius though. What happened to Shepherd is more like if Hamlet died before killing Claudius and never successfully avenged his father at all.

That wouldn't be a pyrrhic victory, that would just be plain fucking failure. And it would have made for a shitty end to the play too.

Yes it will suck if Shep died acomplishing nothing but again, this is a series about choices, so at least THAT ending has to be the default one that everyone gets if they dont get the EMS AND the correct choices of the previous titles. I mean why not? this is EA we are talking about, they sure as HELL that they will allow for this narrative direction to be greenlighted if it manages to suck more money of the gamers that didnt play the previous 2 titles. They market ME3 to the CoD noobs so they play the game and get bitchslaped with a shit ending for not playing the other games. Its like saying:

EA:"You the bad ending? well of course you did, if you didnt buy or Collector edicion of the previous titles then OF COURSE you going to fail! What are you waiting for? you dont want to be the only person of your group of friends that DIDNT play the whole trilogy, is it? you will make a fool of yourself and thank GOD that we exist to facilitate your life in this moment of your life. Buy the collector edicion or your friends will think that you are a meany!"

With this in the background:



That is all for the moment. BRB innundation coming.

Ah, Yours sounds a lot like mine to some degree, with the idea of each ending being a playable epilogue/final level type thing. I split mine as along the same lines as Red = resist and fight on (wounded shep gets up and continues to lead the fight. EMS dictates how hard battles are ect), Blue = Fallen and fight on as Harbinger possessed super Shep against your friends and assets.(turning a High EMS run into a much harder game sense you gotta fight back through All of your gained combat assets.) Green = death/final stand (IE Shep can't completely resist and to keep the blue story from happening takes himself out of the game meaning it's up to the rest of the cause to fight or die. which would involve character hopping to all the major people on the field for a small mission where death/loss = char death and affects the turn out of the battle, if they die without shep to lead or fight on without him to victory. (or if they wanted just wrap it using the suicide mission idea. Not having the right assets/upgrade/friends = char deaths. To many char death = bad end. In this case, some would be EDI protecting a wounded joker after the normandy took a rough hit and crashed, Liara would have to try and get her time capsule somewhere it'll be found. Anderson and the V survivor trying to hold for reinforcements, Wrex and Eve pulling a final stand against a horde. where certian assets may drop in to aid them. Geth primes sudden air drop in to aid the V-survivor, Liara getting a last minute save by Aria and her merc army,Grunt and his squad and/or Rachni sudden start popping up to help Wrex and Eve.) Donno that's the short version of mine. It sounded fun to play in my head at least -shrug-

 

[JamesStone]

snip

I have little patience for a lengthy discussion on this one so I'll simply point out several things. First, there does not exist any demonstrated mechanism by which Shepard could have been indoctrinated. Second, the fact that Reapers rely largely on thier formidable armies and ways in which they can rapidly build said armies means that this mechanism simply doesn't exist. Third, if Shepard was indoctrinated, it would have to have happened before the events at the end given the only opportunities came earlier which calls into question any choice player made in the third game thus robbing those choices of any personal meaning.

Sheppard was close to every single instrument which provides indocrination. He was inside a Reaper. He was with the Thorian and in great contact with Sovereign's puppet, Saren. And most of all, he was bombarded with energy coming from Harbinger's mind through Object Rho. There's almost no way of Shepard not being indocrinated.
Think about indocrination. It's victims feel special, unique, able to resist the Reaper's mind strengh. Isn't that the excuse we used to why Sheppard is able to resist? Because he's special? Because he's the savior? The entire game points to this scenario. And that's what indocrination is in the theory. A scenario, as real as the Reaper War. You aren't deprived of choice, your choices influence what happens and how you resist.
IT isn't real. But it's possible. Denying it is denying the entire message the series wants to convein (besides working together and shit): No one is imune to corruption. The way we deal with it, and what we do to redeem ourselves is what matters.

 

[Mekado]

So, basically you're just rekindling the fire ?

Yeah, this'll turn out good, much better than it did a few months back...because why ?

I like the gameplay, i actually liked having one button to sprint/cover/vault/etc...

 

[DioWallachia]

I'm not calling him a troll because of his negative opinion, but because he is actually giving this opinion on a game he has had no contact with. I would have reacted the same way if his opinion was good. You're not like him- you've played the game even if just a demo. You have first hand experience with it, you are not building your opinion entirely on someone else's playthrough.

Learning Time!!

When one person like me saids LETS PLAYS and not LETS PLAY, the "S" implies plural, which means that i saw more than 1 (one) of those. Given the nature of multiple choices in Mass Effect, it was bound to happen that i had to see more than one playthought that had everything (all gameplay and story in a single video rather than skipping parts)

Since the ending of the series sparked conflict, the solution is to find lore and story during gameplay or cutscenes. The gamplay in Mass Effect that has connection to the lore and plot consist of the Dialog Wheel,the 3rd Person Cover Based Shooting Galleries where your companions can talk about recent events all while you are being assaulted with bullets, and the an ocasional audio log like the ones found on Cerberus Base.

I dont NEED to play it to know that, and guess what? if i miss something you should have said so already (assuming that you ACTUALLY spend time debunking the argument instead of trying to pass me as a Troll, that its more easy than just doing your homework as someone who DID play) The argument wouldnt stop there because after verifing the information at available to me is wrong, all i have to do is research once again, test your tesis, gain evidence, come back and post the results. Repeat Ad Nauseum until a solid answer is meet out of the mess that its the plot of ME3.

To say that i cant have an opinion without experience it is silly. That would be like you having your hair on fire and when i notice that i tell you:
Dio:"DUDE YOUR HAIR IS ON FIRE!!"
You:"You have never experienced a burn in your life, so you cant say that my hair being on fire is a bad thing"
Dio:"I dont NEED to be burned to know what it does, all i have to do is observe what happens when shit get burned off to know what would happen to me if get caught on fire. That would be like saying that one cant comment on what murder is until you murder someone and obtain experience enough to comment on how murder is bad"

Hell, If Empiric Observation is too alien to you, then you may probably believe that Scientist test the deadly viruses they find on THEMSELVES. Because, as you said, if they dont experience it then their opinion is invalid. Fuck using rats to see how they hold up, SCIENCE DEMANDS HUMAN SACRIFICE!!

They will have to do like Prefontaine of System Shock 2:

The difference being that he had NO other choice because, if he did anything else, he would have been killed. Then again, given how few scientist exist now, i would say that they suscribed to your idead too. RIP.

Sadly, since your are NOT providing answers to the questions, i find your presence unnessesary. Thankfully the other people here may provide sufficient data that will be tested, debunked, re-tested, and so on. If i were a troll then i would jsut do like Roger Ebert, who comments on the games without playing AND without doing the research, sidetraks the converzation, and expect everyone to just work out the fact that games are not art with just a few sentences. (Fortunately, i got the DVD commentary of Citizen Kane with Roger, so i MIGHT find a way to understand this guy ramblings by comparing the art of CK "The Most Trimphant Example of Visual Storytelling as Art" to games. Its Roger Ebert Vs Roger Ebert time)

 

[DioWallachia]

Sheppard was close to every single instrument which provides indocrination. He was inside a Reaper. He was with the Thorian and in great contact with Sovereign's puppet, Saren. And most of all, he was bombarded with energy coming from Harbinger's mind through Object Rho. There's almost no way of Shepard not being indocrinated.
Think about indocrination. It's victims feel special, unique, able to resist the Reaper's mind strengh. Isn't that the excuse we used to why Sheppard is able to resist? Because he's special? Because he's the savior? The entire game points to this scenario. And that's what indocrination is in the theory. A scenario, as real as the Reaper War. You aren't deprived of choice, your choices influence what happens and how you resist.
IT isn't real. But it's possible. Denying it is denying the entire message the series wants to convein (besides working together and shit): No one is imune to corruption. The way we deal with it, and what we do to redeem ourselves is what matters.

Remember Vendetta on ME3? he said that he can detect if people are indoctrinated and as soon someone like that was in range, he flyed the fuck off. If Shep was indoctrinated then he would not be talking to her/him.

 

[DioWallachia]

Ah, Yours sounds a lot like mine to some degree, with the idea of each ending being a playable epilogue/final level type thing. I split mine as along the same lines as Red = resist and fight on (wounded shep gets up and continues to lead the fight. EMS dictates how hard battles are ect), Blue = Fallen and fight on as Harbinger possessed super Shep against your friends and assets.(turning a High EMS run into a much harder game sense you gotta fight back through All of your gained combat assets.) Green = death/final stand (IE Shep can't completely resist and to keep the blue story from happening takes himself out of the game meaning it's up to the rest of the cause to fight or die. which would involve character hopping to all the major people on the field for a small mission where death/loss = char death and affects the turn out of the battle, if they die without shep to lead or fight on without him to victory. (or if they wanted just wrap it using the suicide mission idea. Not having the right assets/upgrade/friends = char deaths. To many char death = bad end. In this case, some would be EDI protecting a wounded joker after the normandy took a rough hit and crashed, Liara would have to try and get her time capsule somewhere it'll be found. Anderson and the V survivor trying to hold for reinforcements, Wrex and Eve pulling a final stand against a horde. where certian assets may drop in to aid them. Geth primes sudden air drop in to aid the V-survivor, Liara getting a last minute save by Aria and her merc army,Grunt and his squad and/or Rachni sudden start popping up to help Wrex and Eve.) Donno that's the short version of mine. It sounded fun to play in my head at least -shrug-

I believe i have done an impresive job for someone who never played the series. I did that to provide a possible scenerio to prove that the game can STILL go on after being indoctrinated, even if i dont really suscribe to the Indoctrination Theory for its many flaws. I think that the gameplay where you play as your LI or any squadmate that its still alive to confront "Shepardinger" who use the same powers that you had during your gameplay with him/her, would have made up for the fact that the game was split up in 2 and their Shep became an agent of the Reapers (Again, this was assuming that IT was real and BW intented the deceit. But that would never happen)

 

[Blachman201_v1legacy]

-snip-

Yes I am sure that his logic was sound. I've looked at it from both ways and did plenty of research on it at the time. It's logic is based off the assumption that sooner or later (without interference) organics would create synthetics that would destroy them. Based off that assumption his logic makes perfect sense. He was likely coded with that base assumption as it was exactly this that he was designed to do. Programs are logical, if it is programmed to have that assumption there isn't a problem. Even beyond that, standard procedure for proving/disproving something is to test it again and again and see what happens and the catalyst has been observing the exact same cycle of untold millenia. It's conclusion *is* logical.This doesn't mean it is the only logical train of thought on the matter but it is still valid.

http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/13006636

Read that and try to keep an open mind if you like. But at this point I doubt that anyone who thinks its logic is invalid is likely to change their minds and vice versa.

It's not that you need to have read/played other sci-fi to understand it, the logic is still correct without it in that AI's, being machines, will still be entirely logical regardless. That isn't a sci-fi concept, a program does Exactly what it is told. Having seen/read other sci-fi does help it make more sense but it isn't neccesary. However, the ending was horribly unclear about it meaning that it WAS hard to understand and I have never denied that this was a serious flaw in the ending.

Again, the Catalyst whole thesis is based on an appeal to probability; passing a possibility off as an absolute is inherently fallacious, no matter how you twist it. And again, he never put forward any evidence for his claims, he just tells us to take his word for it. And it comes from the leader of our enemy for 3 games. The creature who leads an army of genocidal robots that uses twisted mockeries of the dead as foot-soldiers and turns the living into slurry. And he is, pre-Extended Cut, portrayed as if he is some kind of genius who is completely right in his assertion.

Imagine a World War II game ending with you standing face to face with Hitler himself, and he tells you: "The Jews must be eradicated, because they will always work to subvert the Master Race, and enslave all of mankind forever!", and the player character just puts down his weapon and said "Well, I guess that makes sense..." You would think that the developers were raving mad, because no one ever agrees with Hitler because he is goddamn Hitler.

Bioware's attempts to retroactively justify the Catalyst with, "Oh, well he is a robot who misinterpreted his directives, but that is the fault of the Leviathans", is a lame and transparent excuse, and it really changes nothing as you still have to agree with him.

The only difference is that now you know for certain that he is insane.

Once again as I said before. Shared ownership. The game devs owe the fans yes, but it goes both ways. You are trying to tell me that essentially anytime fans didn't like something in a game they should be able to get it changed. This would firstly make games companies go out of business as the only way they could keep people happy would be to spend at least half their time trying to change everything for their fans. This would also drive a lot of people out of the industry. You could merrily wave goodbye to any innovative games.

This is such a ridiculous argument. Of course you have to keep your fans happy, it is how the free marked works. You can't sell something unless it appeals to someone. And innovative games will never cease to exist, because there will always be a marked for them, because humans are have an inherent drive to occasionally try out new things.

If you blatantly fail to fulfil the promises in your own advertisement, then you have no moral high ground if the costumers say "Either you fix your fuck up, or else someone else gets my patronage!" This is how has worked since the Renaissance.

 

[Agayek]

That said, the reaction to the end still gets me. Unprecedented levels of disgust, argument, wailing and gnashing of teeth following an end to a story that objectively isn't actually that bad. Where was that response to things like Halo 3? Or Gears of War? Or Assassin's Creed 3? Or any of dozens of other games that have stories that are at least as big a cop out ad what you see in Mass Effect? These were all mega-popular titles with enormous fan bases. There was something special about Mass Effect.

You really want to know the big secret here? Mass Effect was a story-driven game. It was built, and sold, almost exclusively around the story; the gameplay was simply a side note. The rest of the games you list are far more focused on quality of gameplay to carry the experience, thus when the writing gets bad, people don't notice as readily, or if they do, it's not viewed as terribly important, just Halo being Halo or whatever.

Combine that with the personal investment you mention, and people just exploded when they got ME3.

Finally, you have the fact that while the ending is objectively not bad (by that I mean it is narratively consistent and at least somewhat thematically consistent - in other words, it is functional and does not explicitly violate either narrative or character traits of NPCs), there is plenty to dislike.

I have to say that while you're mostly correct about the ending, you're dead wrong about it being a functional ending. It is quasi-consistent thematically, but that's really the best one can say about it. It was one of the most poorly handled examples of Deus ex Machina I've ever seen, and at least one half of the pair in the scene was acting rather inconsistent with their previously established character. I get the impression Shepard acting strangely was intended, but I can't say for sure.

OT: Meh. I can't work up the energy to be bothered by ME3 anymore. It was like a punch to the gut when I first played it, but after a couple of days, I just couldn't work up the energy to be upset about it anymore. It did prove to be the final nail in the coffin for me though; I now refuse to buy Bioware games. The series of complete clusterfucks that were DA2, TOR and ME3 simply proved that who/whatever made Bioware great in the past has left, and they won't make anything I'd want to play again.

 

[DioWallachia]

Once again as I said before. Shared ownership. The game devs owe the fans yes, but it goes both ways. You are trying to tell me that essentially anytime fans didn't like something in a game they should be able to get it changed. This would firstly make games companies go out of business as the only way they could keep people happy would be to spend at least half their time trying to change everything for their fans. This would also drive a lot of people out of the industry. You could merrily wave goodbye to any innovative games.

This is such a ridiculous argument. Of course you have to keep your fans happy, it is how the free marked works. You can't sell something unless it appeals to someone. And innovative games will never cease to exist, because there will always be a marked for them, because humans are have an inherent drive to occasionally try out new things.

If you blatantly fail to fulfil the promises in your own advertisement, then you have no moral high ground if the costumers say "Either you fix your fuck up, or else someone else gets my patronage!" This is how has worked since the Renaissance.

Its Capitalism. People DEMAND something and companies have to SUPLY IT. If people demand quality in the writting then they will have to suply it, and the same if they want art and have their worldviews by challenged.

Skip to 10:56

However people may argue that this will scare the artist of giving its message to the world. Keep in mind that i already said before that the "art" that the guy wants to convey is already fucked up by the executives that want the product (not art) to be of their OWN specifications. The Artist should be pissed off at THEM not us, we the audience will be pisses at the frankestein monstruosity we end up having but we can understand that its not the artist fault. And if the aritst really wants to do art, then best he could do is find the money and total control first because otherwise he will ALWAYS find someone in production that will fuck up his vision.

 

[Sonntam]

I suppose one thing which you either love or hate is the fact that Commander Shepherd kind of stops pretending to be a blank slate. We see him or her react emotionally to things in a way we really didn't in the previous games. I personally loved that, it was one of my major gripes about the previous games.. not really knowing who this character was or what their investment was.

For me this was exactly the problem with ME3.

I had a very clear idea who my Shepard was, why she joined the Alliance and what she fights for. Being told out of the blue that right now she is STRESSED MORE THAN EVER and now Liara is her BEST BUDDIE EVER made me feel... nothing? It made no sense, I tried to wrap my head around it, but it simply contradicted everything I set up in my head in previous games. I felt like I was playing a completely different character and couldn't bring myself to care.

 

[MiriaJiyuu]

-snip-

Yeah I bought it 60% off a few months ago and played it, came to about the same conclusions.

Honestly, the gameplay wasn't all that bad, the cover-snapping was a little twitchy but other than that it wasn't particularly bad or good.

I did like some pieces of the story, and the endings were a let-down, mind you I never raged about them but still, not the greatest.

Point is I'm going to sit here with the firm belief that ME3 would not have come under attack so badly if the players in question had not been so attached to the story, if anything it proves how good Bioware was at letting you make your own story, but they screwed up in the end.

Also to anyone who says "All that changes is the color of the explosion and everyone always dies"... that was never actually true.

...I feel like I just asked to be flamed

 

[DioWallachia]

...I feel like I just asked to be flamed

BURN BABY BURN!!!!


Damn, i havent see Diavolo dance that hard before....

Anyway, the reason people focused on the story is.....well, its Bioware, that was always their selling point. Without its just another GoW clone with Light RPG elements (a bad one). And people were already on their toes when DA2 and ME2 end up being less than stellar (EA already took over by that point)

And yes, everyone died. That is what happened in the pre-EC with the Mass Relays destroyed (because when relays are destroyed, they destroy the solar system they are in, as seen in The Arrival DLC) but at least you get a pretty color, right?

http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=15395
http://doycetesterman.com/index.php/2012/03/mass-effect-tolkein-and-your-bullshit-artistic-process/
http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/15168836/1
http://awtr.wikidot.com/long:this-is-not-a-pipe

 

[DioWallachia]

Sorry, but you are wrong here. Games are unique in the fact of them being an interactive medium. The story is key, but is only one aspect of a complex puzzle that comes down to so much more than the sum of its parts. I'm not against people having a look before they buy and saying "that's not my thing" and moving along. But this guy comes here with no actual experience with the game and states that his comments hold as much merit as mine or yours. That is simply not so! You should be angered by this fact as well.

Games are not unique with their interactivity. Here is a fragment of an article that talks about Spec Ops: The Line "interactivity" (sarcastic quotes)

"Theatre, stand-up comedy, performance art, and art installations are also capable of demonstrating a high-level of interactivity, and all are quite capable of surpassing Spec Ops on that metric. An example of successful shock art installation, similar in intent to Spec Ops in that it aims to incriminate the viewer, is the Helena exhibit by Danish artist, Marco Evaristti. For Helena, Evaristti placed ten live goldfish in ten blenders, all quite visibly plugged into a power board and ready to go. There was no other incitement to press the button or not; everything was up to the viewer. The viewer had space to consider the work and the implications of the exhibit. What I found most interesting was that when someone finally pressed a button, (as far as I can tell, a button has only been pressed twice in the history of the exhibit) the people charged with animal cruelty were the artist and the gallery, not the person who pressed it. One wonders how Yager Studios can seek to lay blame on a player, considering the man-hours invested in the creation of Spec Ops compared to the average time it takes to complete the videogame."

Also, like i said before, i watched several Lets Plays, that means videos with gameplay AND cutscenes bunched together just as the game shows it to us. If there is anything in the gameplay that its worth noticing that would help to understand how the endings came to be, i would have know or i can just ask if there is very very very specific playthouth that i missed.

I am not Movie Bob who watched the endings ALONE without ANY context and went on rambling about how we are entitled monsters that hurt the feelings of a bunch of artist that arent even capable of showing their faces to the Comic Cons to answer the questions about their "vision".

 

[Kipiru]

When one person like me saids LETS PLAYS and not LETS PLAY, the "S" implies plural, which means that i saw more than 1 (one) of those. Given the nature of multiple choices in Mass Effect, it was bound to happen that i had to see more than one playthought that had everything (all gameplay and story in a single video rather than skipping parts)

And you keep missing the point over and over again! I won't argue anything on the game with you, because, everyone join in: YOU HAVEN'T PLAYED THE GAME! I don't care about what your opinion of it is, you don't know what you're talking about, dude! I tell you that it wouldn't matter if you've seen all videos on the subject and you reply by saying you've seen more than one! The examples and metaphores you give are idiotic at best and have nothing to do with the problem. You keep banging on about me not giving you any arguments- on what? What have I agrued with you about up untill now? The fact that you are not entitled to an opinion of this game as definitive as the ones you give, beacuse you've had no first hand experience with the game. What argument do you want on that- that games are an interactive medium, meant to be experienced and percieved through playing them. If I need to argue that point with you then there is something really wrong with you!

 

[keosegg]

I share the same opinion as Film Critic Hulk:

http://badassdigest.com/2012/08/06/film-crit-hulk-smash-a-few-words-on-the-ending-of-mass-effect-3/


And his follow up:

http://badassdigest.com/2012/08/17/film-crit-hulk-smash-a-few-more-words-on-the-column-about-the-ending-of-mas/

To be brief: I liked the original ending and I thought releasing the extended cut was the wrong thing to do.

Now I'm off to my nuclear fallout shelter, you know, just in case.

 

[Space commando 75]

It was rubbish when it came out and it still rubbish today. It the most linear, had the least RPG elements, no way to track your side quest, Four of the most worthless characters in video game history and that worthless taped on multiplier. Then the was the piece of **** that they called the ending.

The only good thing i can think of is this. IT was going to be realised three months earlier. It could have been worse that what we got.