One Last look at Mass Effect 3.

[Machine Man 1992]

It is not broken, that is simply dishonest terminology. A plot hole, a deus ex machina, and a shitty ending are not things that would make the legal definition of a defective product.

Day 1 DLC is not the same as being sold an incomplete product, between the time a game goes gold and release there is a window where nothing is happening. Lately major developers realized they can have their employees working, developing new content, instead of sitting around collecting a paycheck between projects. The existence of some or part of that code on the disc isn't evidence of, well, anything.

I didn't say people can't return a product if they're unsatisfied with it, I said they can't return a product and expect a full refund at any time for any reason. There is a gulf between what I said and what you claim I said. On this subject though, you didn't actually prove anything. Your first link explicitly states Amazon did not promise a full refund and the latter is conjecture from a random forum poster.

What does the fact that they're multinational corporations have to do with anything? The point wasn't that I was worried they'd lose money, it's that they worry they lose money. Hence, I do not see under what mythical system you people believe that retailers have always offered full refunds for any reason.

You fucked yourself over, consumer protection laws cannot stop you from making a hasty purchase you then have to live with. That was his point, you ignored that point to interject gobs more self-righteous indignation. You keep convincing yourself that you're some sort of freedom fighter for consumer rights, it's kind of cute.


That doesn't matter; The Two Towers was also important to the plot of the Lord of the Rings trilogy but you aren't entitled to a free copy of the book because you bought The Fellowship of the Ring. Legally, EA could've given you half of Mass Effect 3 and made you buy episodic DLC expansions for the rest of it. Otherwise known as ex-fucking-actly what Valve did with Half-Life 2.

No, those clauses were there to begin, nice try.

I've mentioned that some retailers have specified "grace periods" where you can return a product for a full refund, Gamestop for instance. That doesn't answer my question though, which nation(s) require that by law?

If you tell people that they can return a product at anytime for a full refund then SHOCK! HORROR! they will.

In order:

- The story is a major part of the game and it's broken beyond belief. That's not getting into the various bugs and glitches and the couple times the game crashed. The game is defective.

- It is in this case. You're dismissing evidence out of hand for no decernable reason other than it contradicts this little argument you're trying to make. From Ashes is way too complex, and blends way too seamlessly with the game to be anything but a piece of the game that's being sold back to us. To get the complete experience, we have to pay an extra ten bucks. Compare this to the Zaeed DLC (which was free!). It's one thing if Day 1 DLC is weapons, or skins, or some non-plot integral area to explore, it's another thing if it's a entirely new dimension to the story that should have been in the game in the first fucking place. (And it's a frickin' prothean!)

- Costco does it. I would know because I work there.

- Where are you getting this?

- Nice victim blame there. If a company can fuck over a customer for extra profits and get away with it, they will. How was I supposed to know the game was a complete lie? This was back when Bioware was still respectable; A preorder from a company I respect, of a game series I love(d) is not hasty. If I don't make a scene and act like this is a violation (which it is) then companies will continue to get away with it.

- Oh, piss off! The Two Towers is a SEQUEL! It's got enough meat on it's bones to be an entirely entity. Half-Life 2 episodes 1 and 2 are stand alone games and, oh yeah, I can get ALL of them, together, on one disc for the price of one of them. And at least Valve gives a shit about it's customers.

- No they weren't.

- Can't answer that, never left America.

- Bullshit. Just...BULLSHIT. That's the biggest load of fuck-nuttery I've ever heard, and I watched Bush's State of the Union address. What breed of humanity are you basing this on? BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST! If I buy something it's because I want to KEEP IT. Even if a full refund was offered, if I like my whatsit, I'll still want to keep it. You're arguing for argument's sake now.

All in all, I'm seeing a lot of corporate apology and not a whole lot of a substantive argument on why I shouldn't be able to return Mass Effect 3. Okay granted, there should be a "within reason" clause (like the whole 90 days thing, incidentally more than enough time to finish this piece of crap), but I still see no reason why it shouldn't be done.

 

[GrumpyPirate]

For me it was simple, never before and i very much doubt after, will i be so completely and totaly pissed of at a game and a company. It killed a part of the gamer in me cause, dramatic as it may sound, i havent quite been able to work up that true excited feeling for any game since then. I will never ever again pay a single cent for anything even slightly, Bioware, or more impportantly EA related. Never ever and ill do my damndest to keep anyone i know from doing it either. I may just be one person and my impact is ridicoulos overall but if enough people who has this sentiment sticks to it they will seriously feel it. Hopefully Bioware will stay in decline and the good people who works/worked there can find a new non-EA related studio.

 

[DioWallachia]

But that DLC was SUPPOSED to be important to the plot

That doesn't matter; The Two Towers was also important to the plot of the Lord of the Rings trilogy but you aren't entitled to a free copy of the book because you bought The Fellowship of the Ring. Legally, EA could've given you half of Mass Effect 3 and made you buy episodic DLC expansions for the rest of it. Otherwise known as ex-fucking-actly what Valve did with Half-Life 2.

Yes, but it was ALREADY on the DVD/game. In fact, i think i saw a video of someone just changing ONE number in a variable on the files and WHOILA! From Ashes was unlocked. So again, how i am not entitled to what i already pay and its already in my possetion?

Did Valve anounce to everyone on the first day that it will be a episodic thing? or people reached the ending of HL2 and THEN they anounce: "mmnn..?? OH YEAH, forgot to tell you that the game was divided and shit"

 

[DioWallachia]

The lack of player agency is a flaw that seems neglected by everyone.

Ah yes, "player agency". We already dismissed that claim.

 

[DioWallachia]

The story is a major part of the game and it's broken beyond belief. That's not getting into the various bugs and glitches and the couple times the game crashed. The game is defective.

The story is a major part of any piece of entertainment you buy, but no one believes that a bad story makes a product defective. To argue that Mass Effect should be given preferential treatment based upon its story is special pleading.

Most stores have a set grace period in which you can return a game for full-price, afterwards a matter of a few bugs and occasionally crashing to desktop isn't enough to motivate anyone to give you a refund, especially if the problem is fixed via patching. You would have to demonstrate that it's impossible for you to progress in the story and that the issue hasn't been fixed.

Curiously enough after all that DLC and multiplayer add ons.....they didnt fix the bugs (or even the quest log). But still not gamebreaking (except maybe the ocasional "phase throught the floor and fall eternally into the nothingness")

Still, ME3 is a box full of surprices, so all we have to do is wait for someone else to confirm a worse experience with bugs.

 

[gaiusimperator]

Honestly, I find that most of the complaints come from gamers that do not remember the whole "Ultima 9" debacle. To say that Mass Effect 3 was a massive betrayal of a fanbase unlike anything ever seen is to forget Ultima 9.

I was but a kid when I started that game, but when I had finally quit, crying, after loving the rest of the the 8 Ultima games, I was truly a man.

 

[Gergar12_v1legacy]

I wish they did more mission involving your former mates. I would have love to fight aside grunt, and his company or be in the front of the battle while jack and her students repair our barriers, but nope. Instead we get a magical wand that just wishes away the reapers instead of fighting a real war. Forget the ending the plot was already screwed up. Or maybe I would have even done some shadow broker missions too. Nope magic wand, and multiplayer. Fine keep the multiplayer, but what about space combat. You think they be like assassin creed 3, and put those thanix cannons to good use. Nope don't even get a cutscene. Over all I expect world war 1, and I got world war 2 1945 skipped ahead to almost before the a bomb is deployed.

 

[Uszi]

The game was amazing, I loved it and played it non stop until I was finished, I even liked the multiplayer.

But the ending made no goddamn sense and I haven't played it since. I think that shows me how much I hated the ending as I love Mass Effect (I;m even subscribed to the comic). I haven't even been able to summon enough enthusiasm to play the DLC's.

The only thing that could reawaken any interest for me would be a post reaper attack game. Because I just don't see how anything could have continued after the Mass Relays were destroyed.

I'm in the same boat on your first two points. I beat the game in three marathon, 12 hour sessions. This is when I was working 8-5, so I was going to work on 3 hours of sleep just because I couldn't put it down. I had, going into the ending, at least five or six other save files loaded up and ready to go, and it was my intention to keep playing like this to see how all of my different decisions in each of those subtle endings would affect my final outcome...

And I haven't been back to the game since then. Its dead to me. The ending was bad, but it was also a betrayal of what Mass Effect had been up to that point.

I think I'd prefer a pre-ME1 extended universe type game, as opposed to a post reaper invasion game. I'd like to play as just a pirate, or a mercenary, or some citizen on Omega who rises up, something like that. I think Post Reaper attack causes even more issues, because it means Bioware needs to pick one shit ending as the "Cannon" ending, which is going to ruin player agency even more. There's no way you can just leave it open what happened, because the ending where all AI dies, where there are giant robot guardians controlled by Shepard flying around like benevolent overlords, and where all organic and synthetic life is combined (what does that even mean?) are totally incommensurable. It has to be one of them.

For me it was simple, never before and i very much doubt after, will i be so completely and totaly pissed of at a game and a company. It killed a part of the gamer in me cause, dramatic as it may sound, i havent quite been able to work up that true excited feeling for any game since then.

No, I am totally on board with this. My relationship with games as a medium is different after the ending to Mass Effect 3.

 

[Machine Man 1992]

Honestly, I find that most of the complaints come from gamers that do not remember the whole "Ultima 9" debacle. To say that Mass Effect 3 was a massive betrayal of a fanbase unlike anything ever seen is to forget Ultima 9.

I was but a kid when I started that game, but when I had finally quit, crying, after loving the rest of the the 8 Ultima games, I was truly a man.

I didn't even know Ultima even existed until Yahtzee made an off hand comment about it, and Spoony did an entire series of reviews on it.

So yeah, if you're wondering where EA got off on butt-fucking franchises, it's because they've been practicing.

 

[Machine Man 1992]

To Politeia,

What is your goal at this point? It seems you're just arguing for the sake of it. Are you trying to get the last word in on this false notion that I can't return an unsatisfactory product for full or partial price?

Because I can argue until the cows come home and it wouldn't make a lick of difference. You can't convince anyone that your condescending anti-consumer bullshit is a good idea.

 

[Uszi]

...Remember that games don't belong to you, they belong to those creating them. All you can really do is hold on tight and hope whatever you're expecting lives up to the standards you're wishing for. Mass Effect 3's ending fix was a once in a lifetime thing, and it shouldn't open the flood gates to demanding changes to published games. Only because of how great the game was, did we allow ourselves to take 'action'.

Merry Christmas

Hey False, I've been reading your points in this thread, and I agree with 90% of them. And I saw you were critical of MovieBob, which is good, because as much as I still appreciate some of Bob's input, he was an ultra douchenozzle in how he handle the Retake Mass Effect thing.

What I find interesting is that you ultimately choose to adopt one of the arguments used by Bob and Kotaku and others.

"Remember that games don't belong to you, they belong to those creating them."

I mean, this essentially boils down to the "artistic integrity" thing.

There are two problems with this argument that I can identify:


1. Just because something is art, this does not mean it is immune to criticism.
Objectively speaking, as a narrative, the ending is broken and bad. You can find anywhere on the net serious treatments of the ending by film critics, literary critics, game critics. And it's all bad. Even IGN and Kotaku, who were on the payroll of game publishers, who gave the game perfect scores, admit that the ending is not good. The only people who seem to defend the ending are people who like to be different on the internet. No one who I've seen defending the ending as "good" or as a successful narrative has made a good argument, and I've looked for it. I'm still looking for it.

So we can all certainly sit around and moan about how bad the ending was. Exactly the same way we can sit around and moan about the Star Wars prequels.

2. Games, especially triple A titles made by big publishers, are commercial art and not "art" like a Picasso, an independent film, or an independent game.

There are a few reasons why this artistic integrity argument is invalid.

First of all, Bioware even admitted that there artistic integrity isn't worth anything, because they immediately gave up on their endings and patched them free of charge. They did this because they are making a corporate product, and not art. Consumers of their product were dissatisfied, so they changed it. Picasso didn't change his art style when he was criticized, and Charlie Chaplain kept trying to make silent films after movies started being made with sound. Bob Dylan didn't back down when he changed his style up and lost all his old fans. Artists don't cave to popular opinion to simply make money or recuperate loses.

Second of all, because the game is published to make money for a publisher and not to make an artistic statement, it is more akin to commercial art. Mass Effect 3 has more in common with the Logo of your favorite sports team, or a brand logo. The controversy of the endings, and the subsequent changes made to them, reminds me more of what happened to Tropicana [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/23/business/media/23adcol.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0] when they tried to change their logo then anything that has ever happened in literature, art or film.

Third of all, the demand for a change to the endings made by Retake Mass Effect was reasonable because the corporate producers of the product Mass Effect intended to release multiple changes and additions to the game for profit post release, i.e. DLC. So, changing the game isn't "ruining artistic integrity" regardless of how much integrity they had in the first place, because they were already planning on changing the game anyway. Many Retake Mass Effect people even stated they would pay for a new ending. Mass Effect is not like the Mona Lisa, or a film, or a song, because no artist has patched the Mona Lisa, Bob Dylan never patched a song, and most film makers don't patch their films (with the exception of George Lucas, who everyone now identifies as being more of a corporate shill than an artist because of it).

These are the reasons why I reject the argument that it was totally unreasonable to even have a discussion of changing the endings because of "artistic integrity" or because the game somehow belongs to Bioware.

 

[Uszi]

A separate thought from my one above, not directed at anyone in particular:

It is an objective fact that the end of Mass Effect 3 is bad. This can be established with facts and arguments based on an analysis of the ending. The ending is bad. Even the extended cut is bad, it's just not as bad as the vanilla endings.

Now, it is perfectly okay to still like the ending. I can say, "I liked the ending," because this my opinion. It is not correct, however, to say that the endings were "Good." Because I can't establish that they were good, because there is no factual basis for arguing that the endings were good.

So one thing is an opinion (I liked the endings) and one is a statement concerning factual reality (The endings were good). That's the difference. I can like bad things. Lots of people liked Transformers, for instance. There's a lot of internet snobbery against people who like objectively bad things, but I don't judge anyone for that. Like what you like, and don't worry about other people's opinions. But don't misrepresent something as being objectively good when all we mean is we like it despite its flaws.

 

[Jeremy Skitz]

*SPOILERS*

I'm playing mass effect 3 for the second time now, I love playing the game and getting to know the characters. However, I get annoyed at certain parts of the game because I can think of so many ideas that should have been obvious and were not added. For example, in Mass effect 2 when you start the suicide mission, you get to send your squad to do things on the base, like going through the ventilation to open a door. It would have made sense if in mass effect 3, they decided to develop this mechanic to apply to the massive army you have spent the game gathering. Perhaps you could have different squad members lead some armies and squads to alleviate pressure for the main squad led by Shepard, then they can make choices depending on what they have to do. Perhaps before the main battle Shepard and Anderson could discuss where best to put the armies and find where they would be most effective. Doing it that way could give more ending variations and make the effect of the army seem less superficial. It would have taken longer to make, but at least we would know bioware have enough love for their project to work out all of the cracks.

The story wasn't bad, though bits of it made little sense like the when Shepard was sent to the council to get help for earth, though obviously the rest of the galaxy has the same problem so asking for forces for earths aid was asking a little too much. Obviously the council refuse so the game has you search for a Turian primarch to give you forces for earth... while palavan is under reaper attack just like earth so they are in no state to help. You still find the primarch, who surprisingly agrees to come with you and will lend earth aid from the remaining turian fleet if you can get palavan aid from the krogan who are not currently under attack and despise the Turians... I found that retarded, why didn't Shepard skip over the Turians after seeing palavan and go straight for the Krogan who- as I said before- are not under attack and depending on your choices in the first game may have Shepard's old friend leading most of the krogan.

They tried too hard in finding an explanation for the reapers, it seems unnecessary to try. Sovereign said in mass effect 1 that their reasons for destroying all organic life is incomprehensible. Why not leave it at that?

In truth I could write an essay on the faults of mass effect 3, I could come up with theories on why so many mistakes were made and I could come up with lots of ideas they could have had to improve it... hell, I could probably re-write the whole story. All in all, I thoroughly enjoyed mass effect 3, especially after playing 1 and 2 all the way through. The backlash against it was extremely childish, it is just game after all. I cannot lose faith in bioware because of one game which was quite clearly very difficult to end perfectly. Pressure from EA was never going to help the situation either. I look forward to the next game and to see what they learned from the experience they have had, and I will buy the shit out the next mass effect.

 

[Souplex]

There's a huge disconnect between what you're presented, and the codex.
If you read the codex entries, the war actually seems quite winnable.
A cruiser (Cruisers are the mid-weight ships. It goes Fighter, Frigate, Cruiser, Dreadnaught/Carrier. The Normandy is a very high-end cruiser) is about on-par with a Destroyer-Class (The kind that you see walking on the ground, and that you manage to kill) reaper.
Due to their size, Sovereign-Class (The big ones) Reapers cannot turn very fast, have their primary weapon mounted on the front, and are therefore vulnerable to flanking tactics. 2-3 Dreadnaughts (The biggest ships with the biggest guns) can take down a boss-Reaper.
The Reapers have immensely powerful shields. This protects them from kinetic weapons. (Weapons that shoot bullets) After the battle of the Citadel, Sovereign's main weapon was reverse engineered, and now many fighters and Dreadnaughts have Thanix weapons, which use heat and force, and therefore get some damage through kinetic barriers.

If you don't read the codex, you're presented with an unwinnable fight that needs a magic space plot-device.
If you read the codex, you're presented with a very difficult war that could be won if the galaxy worked together.

 

[Maze1125]

A separate thought from my one above, not directed at anyone in particular:

It is an objective fact that the end of Mass Effect 3 is bad. This can be established with facts and arguments based on an analysis of the ending. The ending is bad. Even the extended cut is bad, it's just not as bad as the vanilla endings.

Now, it is perfectly okay to still like the ending. I can say, "I liked the ending," because this my opinion. It is not correct, however, to say that the endings were "Good." Because I can't establish that they were good, because there is no factual basis for arguing that the endings were good.

So one thing is an opinion (I liked the endings) and one is a statement concerning factual reality (The endings were good). That's the difference. I can like bad things. Lots of people liked Transformers, for instance. There's a lot of internet snobbery against people who like objectively bad things, but I don't judge anyone for that. Like what you like, and don't worry about other people's opinions. But don't misrepresent something as being objectively good when all we mean is we like it despite its flaws.

"Bad" is an inherently subjective word.
Something can never be "objectively bad" because that is a contradiction in terms.

All those arguments you talk about are nothing more than issues that are generally agreed to make a work less enjoyable. That is not the same as being "objectively bad".

A Deus Ex Machina is not factually bad. A plot hole is not factually bad. They are just things the people tend to agree are unenjoyable. They could very well be a culture of aliens whose literature is full of plot holes because the aliens enjoy making up their own story to fill the hole, and in that culture a story without such holes is considered awful and pointless.

Those aliens wouldn't be enjoying "objective bad" stories, they'd just have a different perspective on story telling.

 

[BreakfastMan]

Oh my god, this thread is HILARIOUS. I cannot stop laughing over here while reading this thing. Oh man, keep it up everyone, keep it up. It really makes my day. XD *munches popcorn*

 

[spartandude]

There's a huge disconnect between what you're presented, and the codex.
If you read the codex entries, the war actually seems quite winnable.

not really
from the Mass Effect codex "Citadel Space"
"Citadel Space is an unofficial term referring to any region of space controlled by a species that acknowledge the authority of the Citadel Council. At first glance, it appears this territory encompasses most of the galaxy. In reality, however, less then 1% of the stars have been explored."

less than one percent of the stars have been explored meaning there could be entire empires controlling over 50% of the galaxy that we just havnt met yet, however everone in Mass Effect 3 keeps going on about how shepard has united the "entire galaxy"

and the reapers are a galactic invasion fleet meaning they should completely dwarf the citadel forces, which i remind you just one reaper managed to dwindle a fair bit

ok im actually going to stop here before i point out EVERY plot hole and inconsistency there is in ME3

 

[DioWallachia]

"Bad" is an inherently subjective word.
Something can never be "objectively bad" because that is a contradiction in terms.

All those arguments you talk about are nothing more than issues that are generally agreed to make a work less enjoyable. That is not the same as being "objectively bad".

A Deus Ex Machina is not factually bad. A plot hole is not factually bad. They are just things the people tend to agree are unenjoyable. They could very well be a culture of aliens whose literature is full of plot holes because the aliens enjoy making up their own story to fill the hole, and in that culture a story without such holes is considered awful and pointless.

Those aliens wouldn't be enjoying "objective bad" stories, they'd just have a different perspective on story telling.

But take a guess, we are humans and we have different standards. Thousands of years worth of writtings have taught us well on that it makes a good story (not a SUCCESSFUL story that sells, mind you)

Also, if everything is subjective because there is no "objective way to know if somethingis good or bad" then Transformer 2, Mein Kampf, Birth of a Nation, Superman 64, Daikatana, Freddy Got Fingerred and Twilight are as good as Citizen Kane, Gone With The Wind and Melancholia.

Can you really say with a straight face that those are good movies?

 

[DioWallachia]

snip

What are your thoughts on The Agreement by Armando Troisi?? how much is "the player story" and how much is also part of the artist?

It seems that up to ME2, the artist and the player had an agreement to cooperate but after ME3......yeah.

 

[BreakfastMan]

Also, if everything is subjective because there is no "objective way to know if somethingis good or bad" then Transformer 2, Mein Kampf, Birth of a Nation, Superman 64, Daikatana, Freddy Got Fingerred and Twilight are as good as Citizen Kane, Gone With The Wind and Melancholia.

Can you really say with a straight face that those are good movies?

I can say with a straight face that Birth of a Nation is an immensely important film. Whether that makes it good or not is up to you. (EDIT: Oh yes, forgot to mention it has a 100% on Rotten Tomatoes, was put into the library of congress for being culturally significant, and was on the AFI's 100 Years... 100 movies list at no. 44)

And there have been many people who have argued that Freddy Got Fingered is a dadaist masterpiece. Additionally there many are people who have argued that Michael Bay is a great film auteur.