Why do people completely ignore how great 98% of Mass Effect 3 was and just focus on the ending?
- Thread starter NewYork_Comedian
- Start date
Well, imagine if a serial killer donated a fourth of his income to charity.
You probably wouldn't think that he's a good person, would you?
Also, like it's been mentioned, not all people think the 98% are all that good. (I do.)
You probably wouldn't think that he's a good person, would you?
Also, like it's been mentioned, not all people think the 98% are all that good. (I do.)
You know what would have happened if they brought the Reapers in ME2?Casual Shinji said:
A cliffhanger like in God Of War 2 or Warrior Within.
There were problems with the narrative but considering the alternative, the right choice was made.
And wrong, In ME2 we learn that Reapers create more of themselves by using the liquified bodies of other species, therefore the Human Reaper which people think is so stupid.
Yes, and how is this knowledge applied to the plot of ME3?ChrisRedfield92 said:
If you disregard the teammates, ME2 might as well not even have happened. This includes your teaming up with Cerberus, since in ME3 they're the villains again whether you gave them the Collector base or not.
ME2 was all about the teammates, which was fun and interesting, but the overarching plot got shafted and ME3 suffered because of it.
You're not making sense, You need to act like the Collectors didn't exist, not disagreeing that plot took a back seat in ME2 but if you didn't stop the Collectors they would have kept kidnapping human colonies and then attacked Earth.Casual Shinji said:
And saying that ME3's plot suffered because of ME2 while saying that ME2's plot was unrelated to ME3 doesn't make sense.
ME2 didn't advance the overarching plot (find information on stopping the Reapers) at all. That is why ME3 suffered.ChrisRedfield92 said:
A) because the internet is full of whiny buggers
B) because science has proven that people remember the beginning and end of something way more than anything in the middle, and so dicking up the ending is pretty much the worst thing Bioware could have done for the game. Also because the rest of the series was *so good* that the ending was *that bad* by comparison. Or so it seems.
(I haven't finished 3 yet, and most of my friends liked the endings, so eh.)
B) because science has proven that people remember the beginning and end of something way more than anything in the middle, and so dicking up the ending is pretty much the worst thing Bioware could have done for the game. Also because the rest of the series was *so good* that the ending was *that bad* by comparison. Or so it seems.
(I haven't finished 3 yet, and most of my friends liked the endings, so eh.)
So you're saying that if they introduced the Crucible in ME2, ME3's plot wouldn't have suffered as much.Casual Shinji said:
I don't see how.
Also I don't see how you could get Information on how to stop an enemy that's not in the galaxy.
That would be like us going into deep space and getting information about an alien species that's about to attack us.
I actually didn't mind the ending as much as others did. I did think the other 98% was poorly structured, badly paced, badly scripted and horribly illogical in parts. The combat was fun enough to push through it. As an overall 100% product, I thought it was pretty meh.
Because a bad ending can ruin a great work.
(Not saying ME3 is any of those things since I haven't played it).
(Not saying ME3 is any of those things since I haven't played it).
ME1 and 2 already had a "Reaper-killer" weapon, in the form of the Klendagon weapon, which was hinted by several people in both games of possibly being a tool (a defunct one, but a tool nonetheless) to stop the invasion.ChrisRedfield92 said:
3 introduces the Crucible out of nowhere. It was never hinted at before, and was not referenced in any way, shape or form in the prior games. Depending on how you view it, it is either a Deus Ex Machina or a McGuffin. BW already had an established "superweapon" in the form of Klendagon, but decided to disregard it (or outright forgot about it) in favor of a device that comes from nowhere, is barely explained and has little to no relevance with the arc of the prior games. It's essentially an "I win" button, even if the characters have no idea how it works.
2 established this with the Cerberus probes that were sent through the Omega-4 Relay to investigate the Collectors. Some were destroyed, while others were simply damaged and recovered afterwards. That's how they discovered their initial intel on what was happening in the Terminus Systems. Had they connected that more to the overarching plot, 3's reliance on suddenly-introduced concepts might not have felt as out of place.
The plot of 2 should have been the investigation and discovery of the "Reaper superweapon", coupled with the Collectors, and 3 could have resolved this (with extra exposition for new players) via the successful or unsuccessful deployment of the weapon, with conventional victory being a backup option if you prepared enough.
I don't focus just on the ending, there's lots of stuff to be disappointed with Mass Effect 3 about:
-The cut story elements from the game, like the trial that was promised to happen at the beginning which would have set the story up.
-The decreased involvement of past party members, including some that were promised or strongly hinted at to be at least temporary; and some of them don't even have good excuses for not joining you.
-The overall story has a rushed pace to it. It seems like there's part of the game missing, like there should be something between the quarian campaign and the last part of the game; I want to say that it should involve the batarians especially since that entire race is relegated to an on-citadel sidequest that you might not even have in your particular playthrough.
-There are only a handful of decent sidequests, the N7 missions are basically singleplayer versions of the multiplayer maps, so they're not as fulfilling as the lengthier sidequests like Grissom Academy or the Ardat Yakshi temple.
And the rest of the missions are freaking fetch quests! Most of the side missions in the game are fetch quests and it's not fun or fulfilling; it's all busy work.
-The RPG elements were expanded from Mass Effect 2, but still not as deep as the ones present in the first one.
-The player's autonomy over Shepard has been greatly limited, the middle conversation tone has been removed and Shepard speaks a lot more on his/her own.
-They screwed up the journal. I don't understand how you can even do that, but they did.
-And to top it all off, the ending absolutely bombs.
So yeah, the ending is only one more disappointment out of the many that I have with the game. Don't get me wrong I still like it more than I hate it, but it never rises beyond the level of "good" for me which puts it well below the "great" of the first two.
-The cut story elements from the game, like the trial that was promised to happen at the beginning which would have set the story up.
-The decreased involvement of past party members, including some that were promised or strongly hinted at to be at least temporary; and some of them don't even have good excuses for not joining you.
-The overall story has a rushed pace to it. It seems like there's part of the game missing, like there should be something between the quarian campaign and the last part of the game; I want to say that it should involve the batarians especially since that entire race is relegated to an on-citadel sidequest that you might not even have in your particular playthrough.
-There are only a handful of decent sidequests, the N7 missions are basically singleplayer versions of the multiplayer maps, so they're not as fulfilling as the lengthier sidequests like Grissom Academy or the Ardat Yakshi temple.
And the rest of the missions are freaking fetch quests! Most of the side missions in the game are fetch quests and it's not fun or fulfilling; it's all busy work.
-The RPG elements were expanded from Mass Effect 2, but still not as deep as the ones present in the first one.
-The player's autonomy over Shepard has been greatly limited, the middle conversation tone has been removed and Shepard speaks a lot more on his/her own.
-They screwed up the journal. I don't understand how you can even do that, but they did.
-And to top it all off, the ending absolutely bombs.
So yeah, the ending is only one more disappointment out of the many that I have with the game. Don't get me wrong I still like it more than I hate it, but it never rises beyond the level of "good" for me which puts it well below the "great" of the first two.
The reason the Crucible is in ME3 at all is because at the end of ME2 Bioware suddenly realized, "Oh right, we still have hunderds of Reapers headed toward the Galaxy, and Shepard hasn't discovered any information at all that could help to defeat them. Deus ex Machina, away!"ChrisRedfield92 said:
Had Bioware included some type of discovery - information on where exactly the Reapers are hiding out, an unlikely ally or unkown race that can match the Reapers in strength, something about the Citadel and/or Keepers that might grant them an edge - then the whole Crucible nonsense wouldn't have even been necessary.
In ME1 you strike a blow to the Reapers by destroying Sovereign and stopping him from taking over the Citadel. In ME2 you destroy the Collectors and destroy/take over their base, but the Reapers don't even seem to be that phased by this. Harbinger's words to the Collectors are, "You have failed us. We will find another way.". As if nothing had been lost, and the Collectors were just a disposable work force to the Reapers.
ME2 should've had an interesting and exciting set-up for the final battle that was to be ME3, and it just lacked that.
ME3 was NOT great. It was a huge letdown. Don't belive me? Ok then, here's a list:
-Tons of autodialogue
-No sidequests (replaced by Shepard creeping up on people and listening to their private conversations about ANCIENT ARTIFACTS and then retrieving said artifacts by scanning planets. Geez that's SO MUCH FUN)
-Not using characters to their full potential (seriously, Traynor does a better job at gathering intel than THE FREAKING SHADOW BROKER)
-Very linear (earth-mars-citadel-menae-sur'kesh-tuchanka-citadel-rannoch-thessia-horizon-chronos station-earth-citadel)
-Decisions don't matter (see: Rachni queen)
............................................
-That Horrible ending
-Tons of autodialogue
-No sidequests (replaced by Shepard creeping up on people and listening to their private conversations about ANCIENT ARTIFACTS and then retrieving said artifacts by scanning planets. Geez that's SO MUCH FUN)
-Not using characters to their full potential (seriously, Traynor does a better job at gathering intel than THE FREAKING SHADOW BROKER)
-Very linear (earth-mars-citadel-menae-sur'kesh-tuchanka-citadel-rannoch-thessia-horizon-chronos station-earth-citadel)
-Decisions don't matter (see: Rachni queen)
............................................
-That Horrible ending
Finding out any kind of information about the Reapers while they were still in dark space and adding any of the things you just listed would have been Deus Ex Machina in and of themselves.Casual Shinji said:
While the Crucible was very much a Deus Ex Machina, it was handled about as well as it could have been given that construction required the collective effort and resources of numerous species. and activating it required the collective military force of almost every species in the galaxy.
"ME2 should've had an interesting and exciting set-up for the final battle that was to be ME3, and it just lacked that." This sentence screams cliffhanger to me.
Plus I don't see how the Crucible affects the story so much when I've seen other kind of stories that people that are known to be great that have this exact same development.
Return of the King anyone?