Poll: Your thoughts about the ME 3 ending extension.

[dessertmonkeyjk]

My thoughts? Mine would be: How are they going to fix it with a roll of ducktape? It's durable but it doesn't fix everything.

 

[Nimcha]

I'm most likely going to enjoy the whole game over again. And since I liked the ending I'll see how they work with it.

 

[Vrex360]

Have you ever considered that you might be taking the whole Ashley romance thing a bit far?

You bring it up with disquieting regularity and, well... gettin' a tad creepy there mate.

Yeah I suppose I could be, then again I still think compared to others on the BSN, I'm pretty mild at least I can still acknowledge that it's not real, you'd be surprised how some of the others behave.

 

[Mikeyfell]

The problems with ME 3 are so deeply rooted in the core of mechanics and storytelling that fixing any one part doesn't change anything.

So fix the ending, fix all the little nit picky things that people complain about. Fix Tali's face, fix Diana Allers, fix the quest tracking, fix the controls, fix the Galactic Readiness bullshit, it still won't make the game any good. Because it wasn't Mass Effect 3, it was Corporate Meddling 3: How to Screw a Fanbase.

Is it wrong that it brings me just a little bit of joy to see how annoyed you are?

No, it's not wrong. In fact there was a time (Right around the time they announced there would be multyplayer) that I was afraid I wouldn't have any opinion on ME 3 and it would just fade away into the dust and I would go back to Skyrim. So I actually get some entertainment value my self out of getting annoyed at Mass Effect 3.

It really, really wouldn't have, if you'd simply offered your constructive criticism and let it stand or fall on its own merits, because there's nothing wrong with analyzing something even if it's as beloved as Mass Effect 3 is loved outside of its ending. But no, you had to make this a Big Issue. Mass Effect 3 couldn't have been unsatisfying simply because it was poorly designed, because the guys making the game didn't understand what made it so good for someone like you in the first place, no, it has to be because of corporate meddling, it has to be EA, it has to be Bioware deliberately going out of their way to ruin your gaming experience, because nothing makes them so happy as to see their fanbase reduced to a pool of tears.

Oh, this is going to be one of those comments, I see. It's okay I knew what I was getting into when I clicked on a Mass Effect 3 thread.
Ahem.

Perhaps "Corporate Meddling" wasn't ME 3's downfall, but between the multyplayer and all the stuff that was cut in the "Final Hours" thing it's hard to come up with another theory.
Call it petty but it does make me feel better to blame the multyplayer for the script being about a third of the previous games.

In truth the more likely reason is that Bioware is spread thin over ME 3 DA 2 and SWTOR. and they only have enough talented people to make one game at a time, so while their A team is working on (Their monetary black hole that is inevitably going to get chewed up and spat out by WoW like they all do) the rest of Bioware is just going to throw us table scraps in the meantime.

Sound ridiculous? Yeah. Most exaggerations do, yours included. You had some decent (but not inarguable) points, but presenting them with such predictable elitism really doesn't help your credibility. I hope it at least made you feel better.

and what exactly makes your "predictable elitism" better than my "predictable elitism"
I mean, asides from the obvious fact that you really are a better person than me and I should feel privileged to be reading your text.

On to your points:

The problem with Mass Effect 3 is that it's not a role playing game any more. apart from two decisions (How you handle the Genophage, and how you handle the Quarian/Geth war) Nothing you do or ever did has any effect on the game.

You say "How you handle the Genophage" as if it's a single decision, when in fact "how you handle the Genophage" is made up of three (and a half) separate decisions within Mass Effect 3, and is heavily influenced by whether you saved or killed Wrex, whether you saved or killed Mordin, whether you got Mordin's loyalty or not, and whether you kept Maelon's Genophage cure going or not. Never mind the Quarian/Geth war, which takes so many of your decisions into account that people are still figuring it out.

Even if I were to grant that ME3 presents less choices than previous games in the series did - and I don't - your experience with the game will still depend completely upon your experience with Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 2.

Let's count the decisions that have a reasonably big influence over the course of Mass Effect 3
1) Did Wrex survive Vimire?
2) Did you save Mealon's Genophage data?
2.5) Did you do the mission at all?
3) Did you blow up the Geth Heretics?
4) Did Legion survive the suicide mission?
4.5) Did you give Legion to Cerberus?
5) Did Tali survive the suicide mission?
6) Did Mordin survive the suicide mission?
7) Did Thane survive the suicide mission?
8) Did Garrus survive the suicide mission?

8 and 2 halve choices. (Feel free to speak up if I missed one) Those are the only choices that influence the main quest line of the game.

Let's count a few decisions that don't matter at all.
1) Did you save the Rachnai queen?
2) Did Kaiden or Ashley survive Virmire?
3) Did you save the council?
4) Did you give the council seat to Anderson or Udina?
5) Did you turn down Spectre status at the start of ME 2?
6) Did you let Miranda talk to her sister during her loyalty mission?
7) Did you get Tali Exiled?
7.5) Did you bring Legion on the Flotilla?
7.75) Did you support the war?
7.875) Did you do Tali's loyalty mission at all?
8) Did Thane's son get arrested
8.5)Did you do Thane's loyalty mission?
9) Did you delete Kasumi's Gray box?
10) Did you save Morinth?
11) Did anything that happened in Project Overlord matter?
12) Did you cheat on your ME 1 romance?
13) Did you save your Cerberus Crew?
14) Did you save the Collector base?
14.5) Were you nice to the Illusive Man all the way through ME 2?

Those things seem pretty important, and in ME 3 they were either completely ignored, ret-conned or hand-waved away. And that's just a few. I find it bothersome that whether or not you bought the Hamster in ME 2 matters more than who you gave the council seat to.

There are choices that had some influence on ME 3
like anyone but the "big 5" surviving the suicide mission, or Conrad Vernor and Jena, if kirrahe survived Vermire.

And I have heard the "Those same choices didn't matter in ME 2 either" argument, but at least there it felt like they were building towards some sort of pay off in the finale, but it turns out they weren't. This is what people are talking about when they say ME 3 ruined the whole series.

Sur'Kesh, which doesn't involve any "choice" in and of itself outside of choosing your squadmates, can be either "just another mission" that includes Wreav, some Salarian we've never seen or heard of before, Vega, and Javik... or it can be an epic reunion between Wrex and his ME1 buddies Garrus and Liara, with Mordin showing up out of the blue to save the day.

Not only will the experience of playing that mission vary wildly amongst players, but even those who manage to reach the same result will still feel like they reached it because they worked to reach it. Not because it was the only one available.

And again, this is a mission where you get to choose nothing but your squadmates.

Maybe you didn't do multiple playthroughs, so it might not have hit you very hard. But I did 7. Each Shepard had a unique personality that I played them according to. And the way it worked out my complete and utter ***** pure Renegade Shepard, and my through and through soldier, 70/30 paragon/renegade Shepard had exactly the same Mass Effect 3 experience.

You can call that my fault if you want, but there simply isn't seven playthroughs wroth of content in ME 3.

Shepard's personality is hardly even up to you anymore. 90% of your dialog choices come down to whether you want to continue the conversation in a happy or angry way. Renegade Shepard isn't even an Asshole any more because Shep treats anyone who survived the suicide mission like his/her BFF (Except Miranda, but honestly did anyone actually let that ***** survive ME 2)

A lot of people let "that *****" survive ME 2. In fact, she was the second most popular male romance option in the game, out of four. This really makes me question how in touch with the fanbase's wishes you really are.

Personally I think Miranda's ass was the second most popular romance option for Male Shepard.
A pretty sizable portion of the male gender would choose looks over personality, that statistic isn't surprising to me. I'd also hazard a guess that most people who romanced her would agree that she's a schizophrenic, condescending, narcissistic *****.

As for renegade Shepard being less of an asshole... what of it? It was inevitable. The ME franchise is not made of sandbox games where you do whatever the hell you want to do. Shepard is a hero. You can choose to interpret his actions differently, ie. maybe he secretly hates women and aliens and gets them all killed on the suicide mission, but you're reading into what isn't there. Shepard doesn't hate women, and he doesn't hate aliens. He's a hero.

That's just more the reason that "Mass Effect 3 ruined the whole series"
Shepard was not pretending to be racist in the first two games. Shepard wasn't pretending to be mean to Thane. Shep wasn't just faking being an asshole through out the first two games.
If (s)he was, the implications are that the first two games were even more meaningless than ME 3 already makes them.

He can be an optimistic hero or a cynical hero, but that's about all the input you have on his attitude, and it's always been that way. Does /friending Garrus seem like the type of thing that would be influenced by Shepard being an optimist or a cynic? Nope! So Shepard friends Garrus is canon. Nothing unexpected there. If you don't want them to be friends, get Garrus killed in the Suicide Mission, problem solved! And if you don't like Bioware having some image of what Shepard is like other than "completely blank slate," then ME3 is the wrong time to bring it up. ME2 was built around this idea, with Shepard working with TIM every step of the plot. Off the top of my head, another example would be Shepard not being able to explain himself on Horizon to Kaidan/Ashley. Point being, regardless of how poorly received those individual elements were, that didn't stop the game from being loved by the majority of the fans and receiving numerous GOTY awards. Why you would think that ME3 is evil incarnate for doing the same thing ME2 did is beyond me.

The auto-dialogue was a genuine problem in a few specific scenes, ie. Shepard breaking down while talking to Hackett comes to mind. But it really wasn't as world-shattering a deal as you make it out to seem.

In ME 3 conversations will often stat with Shepard dialog that the player had no say over.
It's an extreme problem for Renegade Shep (Who was wildly inconsistent in ME 2 as well) but it's also pretty damming to the replay value.

I'd say in a good half of the conversations Shepard doesn't get any dialog wheels at all. Which is sad because all those characters on the Citadel just get lost in the shuffle. I still have fond memories about that Krogan who wanted to know about Presidium fish, and the Asaris on the no fly list. All the ME 3 citadel dwellers are just nameless faceless prick number 37 who wants some do-dad from some place.

ME 1 and 2 were about talking to people and making hard decisions.
ME 3 is about running errands, and since all the decisions can be weighed numerically they have right and wrong answers, instead of ethical or emotional answers.

So... yeah. You raised some good discussion points, but nothing that really stands up to criticism.

Declaring your victory before you hear the rebuttal is a very classy move.
How about the plot holes, do you want to talk about then next?


[quote
And you did it all while being an ass. Congrats.[/quote]

I love you too.

 

[chadachada123]

The people that dislike the ending can be split into two groups:

Those that dislike it because they didn't get closure

And those that dislike it because it has plotholes the size of Reapers.

The former group will be satisfied, while the latter group (justifiably) will not be satisfied, since the ending will still be full of ridiculous fucking plotholes.

 

[rigabear]

To answer your question, the detail about Protheans that wanted to control the Reapers comes out when you're talking to the Prothean VI on Thesia. You ask "Why didn't you guys use the Crucible?" to which he responds "A splinter faction thought we could control the Reapers instead of destroying them." to which you reply "Just like Cerberus." which leads into the bit about all time being cyclical and that the same conflicts repeat themselves - in one variation or another - in every cycle.

Ah I see. Assuming there is no evidence of indoctrination (which is how it sounds), please ignore that point then.

As for the precedent you speak of, I'm afraid you're mistaken. Sovereign was only stunned because he was actively inhabiting Zombie Saren via the Reaper implants that Sovereign put into him. Shepard has no Reaper implants. Cybernetic impants, yes, but not specifically Reaper implants. This is why Shepard doesn't obey Cerberus commands unquestioningly the way all the Cerberus soldiers do. Indoctrination is a signal, not a Reaper. It's something that just happens naturally just purely by being near Reapers (i.e. the Cerberus scientists on the dead Reaper in ME 2 getting Indoctrinated). And even if what you're suggesting were the case, the entire Reaper fleet wouldn't be in Shepard's head, only Harbinger would be. You might knock him out with a stun after breaking free, but the rest of the Reapers are still on the rampage.

But there must be more to that Saren business right? After all, couldn't Soverign just have put a small part of himself into controlling Zombie Saren? He was basically just a husk at the point, but I guess I'll have to concede the precedent isn't as strong as I reckoned. I won't say non-existent because it is a still a case of a way in which the indoctrination process damaged a Reaper's ability to fight. And if you throw in the Prothean stuff in Shepard's head (perhaps it uploads a virus or some nonsense like that)... It's enough to persuade me the link is still possible, although admittedly less adamantly than before.
Also, surely Indoctrination must be at least partly an active ability. The effects are too varied; most are turned to zombies, but the few powerful people are "chosen" and become like Saren, people who become central to the Reapers plans; people who they clearly communicate with and invest in. But anyhow, perhaps I am making connections that aren't there - obviously no one except the Bioware writers knows exactly how indoctrination work; least of all myself.

Sorry to break it to you Bear, but the IT just doesn't fit nearly as perfectly as people would like to believe it does. It ties up countless loose ends, I admit and appreciate that. But it all crumbles away once you get to that beam of light hitting Shepard and the elevator taking him/her up to meet with Space Timmy.

It breaks down because of thequestion you raised; how can Shepard's victory over the indoctrination affect the fleet battle? At this point I'm going to choose to believe that the connection is possible somehow, because the alternative (that the very deliberate hints at indoctrination were just god-awfull writing and a boatload of continuity errors; to say nothing of the tragedies that occur after that scene) is too depressing for me to contemplate. I'll admit that all I have is that most groundless of justifications; faith. I still love you Bioware; tell me you are trolling!

Anyhow...

 

[RJ 17]

Big Snip

I'm not trying to disillusion you about the ending, we all have to cope with it in our own way, come up with our own thoughts to make it work. All I'm saying is that there's no theory out there that's perfect. To me, the only way to see the ending in a way that makes sense is with a literal interpretation of the events...despite the fact that taking a literal interpretation means the ending is full of plot holes and continuity errors. I just chalk it up to bad writing and more importantly: bad editing.

The IT is a wonderful theory. Yes, I've seen the videos and they're exceedingly well made and informative, making tons of questions. It's just when you look at the logical conclusion that the IT leads to - that the game, series, and Shepard's story all end before the war with the Reapers is over - you see that the only way the war is won is if Shepard actually does make it to the Citadel, plugs in the Crucible, and fires it off. To say everything after getting blasted is all in Shepard's mind as the Reapers try to indoctrinate him/her is to say that Shepard never made it to the Citadel and yadda yadda yadda.

Another thing to keep in mind is that even if Shepard breaking free of Indoctrination did stun the Reapers the way Saren's death did, it would only stun Harbinger. The Reapers are all independant of each other, each one a nation unto itself. So if Harbinger got stunned, that doesn't mean the rest of the fleet would get stunned, and Harbinger is down on earth when it happens, away from the fighting in space and all the ground forces had already been decimated, it's doubtfull the remaining troops would be able to destroy Harbinger even if it did get stunned.

But really all I've been doing is playing devil's advocate here. A lot of people seem to believe that the IT has all the answers and clearly it must be what Bioware was tryin to pull off, when in truth there's just as many questions that can be raised by it as can be raised by a literal interpretation. I believe Bioware has said that Indoctrination was supposed to play a role in the ending, but it was just another thing that got butchered out by Casey Hudson. I'd imagine with the release of the Extended Cut, the scenes that involved it will be put back in.

And yay! With the last sentence of that paragraph, we managed to make it back on topic!

 

[RJ 17]

Mass Snippage 3 ruined the series.

I won't butt in too much, but I will comment on your notion that Renegade Shepard wasn't an asshole.

Spoiler: Considering what he/she did on Tuchanka...

...by just blatantly backstabbing Wrex, Mordin, and the entire Krogan race when he chooses to take the Salarian Delitross (spelling) - who herself is a noted asshole - I find it hard to say he's not an asshole. For god's sake, he straight up shoots Mordin in the back, how is that NOT an asshole move?

Oh, and lets not forget another classic...

Spoiler: Like what happens if you resolve the Quarian/Geth conflict by siding with the Quarians only.

You tell Legion that he most specifically is NOT alive, synthetic life is most specifically NOT as important as organic life, and then you have to put him down like Ol' Space Yeller. Just to emphasize the point, you have to pull the renegade trigger not once, not twice, but thrice. You just shoot the shit out of him and doom yet another race to annihilation just like you did with the Krogan. Seems like a major dick move if you ask me.

To be fair, maybe you're right, maybe Renegade Shepard isn't an asshole anymore in ME 3...only because he's upgraded to being just a downright horrible person.

 

[Erttheking]

(Except Miranda, but honestly did anyone actually let that ***** survive ME 2)

...I saved all of my squademates, even Zaeed. I have no idea why someone would go out of their way to make it so that a person that is supposed to be your ally is killed.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

I'm talking about people saying that everything that happens in the first game is utterly irrelevant because of the ending to the 3rd game. That's the question that I'm wanting answered.

Because of the ending of the third game, all preceding events have to be reinterpreted to somehow relate to the space kid to have any impact on the story. The resolution of the series arguably makes almost everything that Shepard, as the main character, contributes to the story totally pointless. In the first game, for example, you unravel a mystery, unite the galaxy against a common foe, foil Sovereign's plans and defeat him (it?). And it was pretty awesome. Unfortunately, it turns out none of that mattered because it has nothing to do with the space kid.

Sure, we can quibble about exactly what developments led to hologram boy's intervention, but we're already getting into territory where even the best answer is massively unsatisfying. At worst, everything you did leading up to the space kid was totally pointless. At best, your actions indirectly and unintentionally caused the space kid to abruptly end the story by doing god-knows-what. You could argue for the second possibility, but why bother? It totally sucks ass. And it would be an uphill battle because it's pretty obviously a total ass-pull. It almost requires you to read supplementary fan-fiction just to understand what the story is in the broadest sense. So I'm prepared to claim that everything you do in the first game is irrelevant to the resolution of the overarching story.

But yeah, I think the ending of ME 3 had caught Dragon Age 2 syndrome: just as they tried a gutsy innovation with DA2 and people rebelled, they tried the same with the ending to ME 3 and it backfired even worse than the entire game of DA2. Meant to put this in my last post but figured I'd just wait to put it in my next one.

I don't agree about the ending of Mass Effect. I don't believe it was simply a creative risk that was bungled or fell flat. It was a calculated, slimy, cynical marketing ploy to sell DLC and pave the way for more sequels. I'm not saying they wanted people to be upset, but this was a marketing decision, not a creative one.

 

[Mikeyfell]

(Except Miranda, but honestly did anyone actually let that ***** survive ME 2)

...I saved all of my squademates, even Zaeed. I have no idea why someone would go out of their way to make it so that a person that is supposed to be your ally is killed.

Asides from trying to force something in ME 3 to be different Miranda was a ***** and I never wanted to hear her voice again.

Turns out it was a good call because in ME 3 she asks you for war resources, I'm like "*****, fuck your clone. I'm trying to save the galaxy over here."

 

[Erttheking]

(Except Miranda, but honestly did anyone actually let that ***** survive ME 2)

...I saved all of my squademates, even Zaeed. I have no idea why someone would go out of their way to make it so that a person that is supposed to be your ally is killed.

Asides from trying to force something in ME 3 to be different Miranda was a ***** and I never wanted to hear her voice again.

Turns out it was a good call because in ME 3 she asks you for war resources, I'm like "*****, fuck your clone. I'm trying to save the galaxy over here."

"shrugs" so you have the time to run off for everyone's else's issues but not Miranda's sister? Or did you not do anyone's loyalty mission because you were "saving the galaxy". Also by extension I assume that you didn't do ANY side quests if "saving the galaxy" was so important, otherwise you would be a hypocrite who pulled that excuse simply because you don't like the character. Whatever, I just never got how people should form such a hatred towards fictonal characters is all. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

 

[Mikeyfell]

Mass Snippage 3 ruined the series.

I won't butt in too much, but I will comment on your notion that Renegade Shepard wasn't an asshole.

Spoiler: Considering what he/she did on Tuchanka...

...by just blatantly backstabbing Wrex, Mordin, and the entire Krogan race when he chooses to take the Salarian Delitross (spelling) - who herself is a noted asshole - I find it hard to say he's not an asshole. For god's sake, he straight up shoots Mordin in the back, how is that NOT an asshole move?

Oh, and lets not forget another classic...

Spoiler: Like what happens if you resolve the Quarian/Geth conflict by siding with the Quarians only.

You tell Legion that he most specifically is NOT alive, synthetic life is most specifically NOT as important as organic life, and then you have to put him down like Ol' Space Yeller. Just to emphasize the point, you have to pull the renegade trigger not once, not twice, but thrice. You just shoot the shit out of him and doom yet another race to annihilation just like you did with the Krogan. Seems like a major dick move if you ask me.

To be fair, maybe you're right, maybe Renegade Shepard isn't an asshole anymore in ME 3...only because he's upgraded to being just a downright horrible person.

Somewhere in that tower of text I think I said something about the Tuchanka and Rannoch parts being the decisions that still mattered.
There were some asshole moments in ME 3

Spoiler

Shooting Mordin in the back is the most asshole thing you can do in all 3 games if you ask me

But on the flip side if you have Reave and you save Mordin that seems like more of a paragon option than renegade.

(So far I've always had the option for Geth/Quarian peace because I always blew up the Heretics, so I never had to choose. I haven't had to gun down Legion yet, but I believe you)

I'm more talking about the beginnings of conversations, before Shep even gets a dialog wheel to choose options from. Shepard's nice with out even letting you choose the line. A lot of the renegade options aren't even all that bad. In ME 2 Shepard could be an unhinged *****. And in ME 3 the renegade options make Shep feel like a normal person who's priority is keeping the majority safe at the cost of what the individual might think.

But then there's stuff like the "Admiral Korris" mission that throws that out the window.

 

[bossfight1]

If the ending dlc doesn't do shit, I don't know what'll happen next; Will Bioware just say "DEAL WITH IT" and leave us with the shitty ending, or will they sigh and spend more months making a better ending but leave us looking like entitled little shits?

 

[Mikeyfell]

(Except Miranda, but honestly did anyone actually let that ***** survive ME 2)

...I saved all of my squademates, even Zaeed. I have no idea why someone would go out of their way to make it so that a person that is supposed to be your ally is killed.

Asides from trying to force something in ME 3 to be different Miranda was a ***** and I never wanted to hear her voice again.

Turns out it was a good call because in ME 3 she asks you for war resources, I'm like "*****, fuck your clone. I'm trying to save the galaxy over here."

"shrugs" so you have the time to run off for everyone's else's issues but not Miranda's sister? Or did you not do anyone's loyalty mission because you were "saving the galaxy". Also by extension I assume that you didn't do ANY side quests if "saving the galaxy" was so important, otherwise you would be a hypocrite who pulled that excuse simply because you don't like the character. Whatever, I just never got how people should form such a hatred towards fictonal characters is all. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

The difference there is that all the random fetch quest people weren't bitchy. (I mean they were giving me resources, not trying to take them away)

And honestly trying the "Hating a fictional character doesn't make sense" argument is just, just... the kind of thing that leaves me conveniently speechless on the Escapist forums. Anyway I have 2 counterpoints.


If you're not allowed to hate a fictional character, then your equally not allowed to like a fictional character either. In fact you're not allowed to have any emotional attachment to anything that didn't actually happen in real life. Did you cure the Genophage. I don't care Krogans aren't real. All forms of escapism lose their meaning if you're not allowed to apply emotions to them. and if that is the case with you, you really don't have any business playing vidoegames, reading, or watching fiction.


My second counter point is anecdotal.
Imagine that World War 2 never happened and it was only a fictional book. You would be fine with Hitler? You wouldn't hate him because he isn't a real person?

Or what if you met a real live person who was exactly like Miranda in every way? Would you be able to have any emotion about that person?


The character herself is fiction, but the personality traits and quirks and idiosyncrasies all really exist and can be found in actual people and a person is just a personality in a fleshy sack. Applying value to the meat part and not the personality part doesn't make sense to me.

 

[RJ 17]

Snip

Really now that I think about it, I don't think Shepard ever has the opportunity to start out a conversation pissed off and Renegade. I could be wrong, but I think every conversation in all 3 games starts with a bit of dialogue before you get to make your first conversation choice. That said, I won't deny that ME 3 had a significantly fewer amount of conversation choices than the other two.

But this kinda touches on a...I don't wanna call it "theory" but that seems to be the best choice of words. Anyways my "theory" on the mood of each game is that each one has a natural inclination towards either Paragon or Renegade.

ME 1: Paragon. You're the first human Specter, reminded by numerous people that all eyes are on you to see how you do. It's a big step up for Humanity, and you're pressured to be a shining example of the best that Humanity has to offer. That said, you can still make the choice to be a hardcore militaristic "job done at any cost" Renegade, just saying the game seems to want you to be Paragon.

ME 2: Renegade. Believed to be dead, the rest of the galaxy moves on for two years while you're being rebuilt. When you return, you're working for Cerberus, a known terrorist/extremist faction that is enemies with pretty much all known Citadel races. Your superiors don't trust you (except Anderson gives you peripheral support, saying he believes your intentions are still trustworthy), the Council wants nothing to do with you, and as such you've more or less officially and completely "gone rogue", doing whatever it takes to stop the Collectors. TIM sure as hell doesn't care WHAT you do so long as your actions fulfill his desires, and as such there's nothing holding Shepard back or giving him incentive to "obey the rules". Sure you can play through while maintaining your Paragon "honor", but the dark mood of the 2nd game - and the fact that you're working for Cerberus - makes the game feel like it wants you to be Renegade.

ME 3: Paragon. I say this game leans more Paragon because you're main mission is to gather allies to help fight the Reapers. The best way to do this (obviously) is by being a Peace Maker and uniting forces that many believed could never be united. Again, you can take the other route of "Ruthless Calculus" and start weighing your options (such as a massive boost from Krogan Soldiers vs gaining the Salarian scientists and fleet), but that doesn't create a truly united front. As the only way you can create such unity is with Paragon outcomes, it seems like ME 3 wants you to be Paragon again.

Edit: Oh, and blowing up the Heretics isn't the only factor between being able to make piece between the Quarians and Geth. I'm on Playthrough 7 of ME 3 (my Insanity run) and I've been able to unite them on every playthrough (despite having a general mix of decisions regarding the Quarians and Geth). The only reason I know about the Legion death scene is because on one playthrough I made it my "odd ball" run, never picking any of the Red/Blue conversation options, and always picking an option that I normally wouldn't just so I could see what happens.

 

[Lunar Templar]

snip

o.o??
'Diablo 3 wasn't worth it'

um, what? this confuses me, as its got nothing to do with ME3

OT though:

long as this extended cut doesn't fail to the point where i have to put up with another month of people bitching about something i don't care about, then i don't care what they do

just don't expect me to be nice if another shit storm pops up

 

[RJ 17]

snip

o.o??
'Diablo 3 wasn't worth it'

um, what? this confuses me, as its got nothing to do with ME3

It's called a "joke option"...surely this isn't the first joke poll option you've seen on this site, I'd say there's more polls on this site that have one such silly option than there's polls that don't.

 

[Lunar Templar]

snip

o.o??
'Diablo 3 wasn't worth it'

um, what? this confuses me, as its got nothing to do with ME3

It's called a "joke option"...surely this isn't the first joke poll option you've seen on this site, I'd say there's more polls on this site that have one such silly option than there's polls that don't.

ah ... should been able to spot that. I'll go with, 'i've only been up an for an hour' as my excuse.

and don't call me Surely

 

[Erttheking]

(Except Miranda, but honestly did anyone actually let that ***** survive ME 2)

...I saved all of my squademates, even Zaeed. I have no idea why someone would go out of their way to make it so that a person that is supposed to be your ally is killed.

Asides from trying to force something in ME 3 to be different Miranda was a ***** and I never wanted to hear her voice again.

Turns out it was a good call because in ME 3 she asks you for war resources, I'm like "*****, fuck your clone. I'm trying to save the galaxy over here."

"shrugs" so you have the time to run off for everyone's else's issues but not Miranda's sister? Or did you not do anyone's loyalty mission because you were "saving the galaxy". Also by extension I assume that you didn't do ANY side quests if "saving the galaxy" was so important, otherwise you would be a hypocrite who pulled that excuse simply because you don't like the character. Whatever, I just never got how people should form such a hatred towards fictonal characters is all. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

The difference there is that all the random fetch quest people weren't bitchy. (I mean they were giving me resources, not trying to take them away)

And honestly trying the "Hating a fictional character doesn't make sense" argument is just, just... the kind of thing that leaves me conveniently speechless on the Escapist forums. Anyway I have 2 counterpoints.


If you're not allowed to hate a fictional character, then your equally not allowed to like a fictional character either. In fact you're not allowed to have any emotional attachment to anything that didn't actually happen in real life. Did you cure the Genophage. I don't care Krogans aren't real. All forms of escapism lose their meaning if you're not allowed to apply emotions to them. and if that is the case with you, you really don't have any business playing vidoegames, reading, or watching fiction.


My second counter point is anecdotal.
Imagine that World War 2 never happened and it was only a fictional book. You would be fine with Hitler? You wouldn't hate him because he isn't a real person?

Or what if you met a real live person who was exactly like Miranda in every way? Would you be able to have any emotion about that person?


The character herself is fiction, but the personality traits and quirks and idiosyncrasies all really exist and can be found in actual people and a person is just a personality in a fleshy sack. Applying value to the meat part and not the personality part doesn't make sense to me.

You misunderstand what I was trying to say, I can't understand the DEGREE to which some people hate some characters, to the point where you try to off them in game despite their deaths being easily avoidable. They're supposed to be on your side and you intentionally kill them because you don't like them, despite all of them going through fair amounts of character development (minus Zaeed) Maybe I'm a wuss when it comes to playing video games, but I can never bring myself to intentionally harm my allies. It's something I would expect from a bad fan fic.