Mikeyfell said:
shrekfan246 said:
Well, thanks, that helped.
A lot of the stuff you liked was stuff I was indifferent about (Except the controls, but if you got 'em to work more power to you)
All the things I complain about are usually met with "That didn't matter" but that gets harder and harder to take when I complain about
everything
I played the first two game so much because I loved them, I have 8 Shepard profiles for fuck's sake, and for the thrilling conclusion I wanted to see how my choices mattered. To my mind a playthrough where I killed the council, picked Udina for the council seat, and gave Cerberus the Collector base should have absolutely nothing in common with a playthrough where I saved the Council, gave Anderson the seat and blue up the Collector base, but they were exactly the same (Except for what happened on Tuchanka but that's the only part of the game that calls back to a decision you made for more than 1 or 2 lines of dialog)
I feel like Bioware robbed me of a satisfying conclusion to a series that I spent near on 1000 hours shaping, and that's why I hate them so much. (The ending had nothing to do with it, I thought it was fitting because it had nothing to do with the rest of the game in the same way ME 3 had nothing to do with the series as a whole. It was poetic in a way, a bad way)
I can understand where you're coming from, but for them to take account for everything that happened in the previous two games,
Mass Effect 3 would've essentially needed to have five completely different storylines entirely. Or maybe three that occasionally intersected depending on actions taken... regardless, it's not entirely feasible to believe Bioware would be able to do something like that,
especially given the strict deadlines EA implements on them and how utterly ridiculous Casey Hudson got during the development process.
I don't understand it as an argument for why you hate Bioware, though. Is it because it was the end of the trilogy? Because the story of
Mass Effect 2 didn't really change much dependent on your actions in the first game, either. In fact, the Rachni Queen being saved or killed wasn't brought up even once, that I remember, and Kaidan/Ashley had the exact same lines.
So I don't think Bioware deserves to be forgiven, If that's how they treat their branching story lines, by pulling a last minute Ret-con on every choice they gave the player say in (Ahem Leliana being alive at the end of Dragon age 2. Ahem) Then the stuff we enjoyed so much had no meaning. And it's sort of pointless to get invested in something that doesn't mean anything
Now see, I don't really think it had much meaning to begin with. To me, it was just a way to be entertained. Sure, I got invested in the stories and characters, but when I finished
Mass Effect 3, I was just done with it. I moved on.
And I don't think it's really supposed to be a branching story. To me, at least, a branching story is something like
Shadow The Hedgehog or
Final Fantasy XIII-2, where the actual story, levels you visit, people you encounter, ending you get, will change completely based on things you do.
Mass Effect always felt more like... imagine a straight line that occasionally has other lines turning off of it, but all of those lines end up in a dead stop eventually, so you have to go back to the original line you turned off of. I never felt
Mass Effect was intended to have a branching storyline, because the overarching plot for the first two games always ended up the same no matter what choices you made.
Mass Effect: Go to Noveria, Feros, Virmire, and Ilos, kill Saren.
Mass Effect 2: Recruit your team, chase the Collectors around, attack their base.
All of the extra stuff along the way was just... extra stuff. So I guess we just feel differently about the impact of the events that happened in the first two
Mass Effect games.
I feel like a robot now...