Why do people completely ignore how great 98% of Mass Effect 3 was and just focus on the ending?

[ATRAYA]

If BioWare ever sees the light and breaks away from E.A., I will happily purchase another game from them.

EA now own Bioware, so they can't just see the light and break away.

The most you could see are people leaving to start their own studio.

I figured that would most likely be the case as well, which is why I'm not planning on animating for them when I finish college, like I was planning before they synergized. I don't know who I'm going to work for now... Obsidian Entertainment, maybe? I would love to meet Chris Avellone, he's one of my favorite and most inspiring writers.

 

[DioWallachia]

Here is my solid counter argument to the "only and ONLY the ending sucked":

 

[Maeta]

I absolutely loved the game: the gameplay was great, the journey through the story was brilliant, there were more good choices, and the drama was presented well. Hell, I wasn't too displeased at the ending: sure it wasn't great, but the journey more than made up for it. Yeah, there were also a few glitches, but overall it ran smoother on my laptop than 2 did.

People like to complain more than praise, and often I am that way, too, and not just about games and media, but about people, both those I know, and those who are in a public eye. It's a natural reflex. Also, the ending is the last impression, and it can colour your whole recollection of something: take NightWatch (Russian horror film). It was a good film, but when I saw the ending the first time I watched it, I immediately proclaimed it the best thing ever. Watching it again, I acknowledged it as a good film, and tried my hardest to isolate the ending so as not to over-egg it again and become obsessed, though the ending does make a good film great...

Captcha: Kick the can

 

[M920CAIN]

Don't know what you're talking about, most people I've seen recognize that the 98% is awesome, even under the long shadow cast by the 2%.

More like 97, or maybe 96, wait no, 95! Be serious now, the game isn't 98% anything and 2% rest. It's what it is. It has ups and downs in lots of areas of design. The people above stated wisely, autodialogue, crew interaction, linearity of missions, streamlining, all are concerns worth nothing. Yes, ME3 did a lot of things right, but it did a lot of things wrong. It ain't 98% perfect, it's a 50-50 draw between good & bad if you want to use numbers. For everything it did right, there's something it didn' do well at all.

 

[bioject]

Yeah I was let down, and even hated, the original ending to Mass Effect 3, but does that mean Bioware is now the worst triple A developer in the world and I will never buy any product they make ever again? HECK NO! Am I going to ignore the rest of the GOTY-potential game that had points that literally made me laugh out loud and cry tears of sadness for the characters? Hell no! Developers sometimes trip and make mistakes, and just because you didn't like the ending to the game doesn't mean that Bioware will never make any decent product again.


That is just how I feel about the whole cluster-f. Just my opinion on the matter and I hope at least 2% of the raging escapist community agrees with me.

Um the ending was not the only problem with the game. I saw a problem within the first five minutes of gameplay when I realized that every decision I made in prior games were being railroaded. In addition the game felt too much like Gears of War instead of an RPG/Shooter hybrid. It was also retarded how you coincidentally meet every important character from previous games on planets you needed to go. It was heavily contrived. Would have made more sense to create side missions where you get intel on locations of your past friends. The game was a lazy pile of crap. There is nothing good about it.

 

[mrblakemiller]

I can't decide if the worst thing about Mass Effect 3 was the ending or the fact that you get ONE new playable character in the entire game, and he pretty much sucks. Garrus, Tali, Liara, and (for me) Ashley all came back, and EDI was never interesting enough to be made a fighting companion, so Vega is pretty much the only new storyline I get to experience, and why would I want to? I know Bioware said they thought there were too many squadmates in the second game, but that only resonated with me insomuch as the cool concept of Legion was around for five minutes before you had to make the final push.

I would have made ME2 the same way, but basically said, "We know you guys, by and large, won't be nearly as interested in using your saved games where people die as you will in using the game where you saved everyone, so we're just going to make ME3 so that everyone survived. That way we can put Thane, Mordin, Grunt, and all the rest in more meaningful roles than we could if we left the option of them being dead on the table." Seriously, I don't even know if you get replacements in your squad for Garrus and Tali if you let them die. Why would I not restart and try again on that one?

 

[LetalisK]

Don't know what you're talking about, most people I've seen recognize that the 98% is awesome, even under the long shadow cast by the 2%.

More like 97, or maybe 96, wait no, 95! Be serious now, the game isn't 98% anything and 2% rest. It's what it is. It has ups and downs in lots of areas of design. The people above stated wisely, autodialogue, crew interaction, linearity of missions, streamlining, all are concerns worth nothing. Yes, ME3 did a lot of things right, but it did a lot of things wrong. It ain't 98% perfect, it's a 50-50 draw between good & bad if you want to use numbers. For everything it did right, there's something it didn' do well at all.

The numbers we've collectively pulled out of our ass are just as legit as the ones from yours.

 

[Deathmageddon]

Because Mass Effect 2 and 3 were 98% story with mediocre (at best) gameplay.

 

[Antonio Torrente]

I liked parts of the game (Tuchanka in particular) but most of it was not very good (mediocre to down right awful). There are many missteps in the story, Kai Leng wasn't very threatening (in my opinion) and came off more as an annoyance than an Anti-Shepard. Some of the players choices were pretty much retconned (Anderson) or just didn't matter (Rachni Queen/Destroying the Collector Base). It seemed like someone (I wont point fingers) wanted a story and took out alot of player choice to keep the story he/she/they wanted. The side missions were boring and repetitive and many game mechanics were just lack luster (Military readiness/ Weapon Customization). The story overall could have been significantly improved upon like getting rid of the Crucible and instead had Shepard just unite the galaxy. The ending is what had originally set me off but when I looked back I saw so many glaring flaws that I can't really enjoy the game.

Spoiler: For those who say = You try and write a better story.

The game starts with Shepard being led to his/her trial by Vega in a player controlled scene (this allows for a simple walking tutorial for new/returning players). Anderson meets you outside the trial and tells you that he is knows why Shepard did it and believes it was the right thing. He also tells Shepard that he can't go in because (He's too close to Shepard or he has Council Business to attend to). Shepard enters the trial and the cut scene starts with the Judges receiving word about the reapers and asks Shepard what to do. Shepard gets a dialog option and the reapers attack. Combat tutorial as Shepard makes his/her way to the Normandy. During this time Shepard rescues Anderson who tells you that he is taking charge of the Alliance forces and asks you to warn the council (differing dialog depending on if he was/wasn't on the council). Shepard then precedes to his base of either the Citadel (Destroyed Collector base) or the Collector base (saved it). After setting up base (the different bases give Shepard different benefits), Shepard proceeds to contact retrieve Liara to help gather information (since she is the shadow broker). After that Shepard can pick up his other teammates in almost any order. Tuchanka would remain mostly unchanged (just a few small tweaks to help the story), as well as, Garrus' and Tali's/Legion's mission. Kai Leng and Cerberus would be hunting Shepard and trying to stop certain events from happening but with a few more dialog moments between Shepard and the Illusive Man. Kia Leng would also have a few more fights with Shepard in the game. Depending upon Shepard's choices, Shepard could take control of Cerberus and use them in the final battle (also you could kill or save the Illusive Man; it your choice). Finally, Shepard goes to Earth with the massive fleet and attacks the Reapers (The Citadel wasn't moved to the Earth in my story). When Shepard lands, he/she chooses different groups to do different jobs (Krogans,Turians,or Rachni to assault the front lines/ Asari, Quarians, or Salarians to cover a group of people Ect.). At the End it is Shepard versus Harbinger. Depending on Shepard's choices depends on how the final battle goes down (Total Defeat - Reapers Win, Massive losses- Shepard and Characters die, Small losses - Shepard and character could die, Shepard lives but some characters die, All characters live but Shepard dies, and All Characters live including Shepard). Final video of what happens with all that Shepard had chosen to do; roll credits. There would be no Crucible, no god-kid, no Reaper reasoning (leave that a mystery; believe me it's better that way) and have endings that most people will actually like.

Mass Effect 3 was good at times and awful at others. Personally, I think alot of the bad design choices came down as an EA mandate or something, but in the end it all depends on taste and if you personally like it than that's fine with me.

Why is it that we the fans can write better stories than the writers themselves?

And you know what that makes a lot more sense and has the "every decision you made matters" narrative and even if you do fail on the ending, at least it's your doing that lead to that result.

As for Bioware, let's wait for Dragon Age 3 and we'll see.

 

[Acton Hank]

Here is my solid counter argument to the "only and ONLY the ending sucked":

Oh please, you could do what he's doing with every story in existance if you examine every single detail with a microscope and obsessive compulsive disorder.

 

[Num1d1um]

Let's be completely honest here, none of the Mass Effect games were particularly stellar. They were good fun and had a nice loreset and just enough polish to immerse, but the combat has always sucked ass, the choices have always been superficial and short-termed, the moral system is a fucking joke and the RPG aspects aren't up to par either. I don't quite understand why there's so much foaming mouthes over the franchise, but considering the kind of people whose posts I see on the BioWare forums, it shouldn't surprise me they don't understand that morality is not a point stat.

I've never played the supposed classic, great BioWare RPGs like Baldur's Gate, so I came into Mass Effect with a rather neutral disposition and ME2 managed to capture my attention and care long enough to warrant a playthrough. ME1 didn't, probably because its gameplay was a heap of shit. ME 3 did, if only it is to see the ending.

Oh and the writing and characters are pretty average too.

And let's not bring up ME2's huge cliffhanger ending, which has to rank up there with Borderlands on the podium of most disappointing game endings ever.

 

[-|-]

I liked ME3 and I didn't find the ending that bad. Sure, it wasn't great, but it's a fucking video game, not salman fucking rushdie.

 

[DioWallachia]

Oh please, you could do what he's doing with every story in existance if you examine every single detail with a microscope and obsessive compulsive disorder.

Interesting how the other videos are even SHORTER compared to the one with the last 10 minutes of the game (it took him 1 hour and 30+ minutes to go with every detail that its wrong) and lets not even begin how you can kill Spider Reapers with the Cain and never mentioned again during the playthough.

 

[crazyrabbits]

Oh please, you could do what he's doing with every story in existance if you examine every single detail with a microscope and obsessive compulsive disorder.

Way to go disregarding it all in one shot. The guy even notes in one of his other videos that you can do the same thing with any work, but if the suspension of disbelief is crafted well enough, the audience won't care.

Here, he specifically notes that the game starts with nonsensical story elements and gets worse from there.

Also, the last time I checked, literary/film/gaming criticism was not "obsessive compulsive". I'd rather see someone take a work about piece by piece and say how it could be done better than the testimony of a blind fanboy who will never admit fault with anything.

 

[Dendio]

Now that the endings are improved, im happy to say its a great game. Gonna try leviathan this weekend can't wait

 

[Calibanbutcher]

I have a theory:
If you just had a good meal, not a great one, but definitely an above average menu with a nice selection of drinks and you enjoy yourself, because you were promised a really really nice desert to go perfectly with your menu, when, finally, the chef comes tap dancing into the room, gets on your table and takes a huge dump on your plate.
But not only on your plate but on everyone's plate, only adding different coloured sprinkles for different choices of main courses.
Would you still consider this to be a nice evening?
Would you still be able to recommend this place to anyone?
Would you still hold this memory in high regards?
Even if shortly thereafter the chef profoundly apologized and wheeled out some mediocre vanilla ice cream for everyone?

 

[LetalisK]

snip

*sigh* This kinda goes for the thread as a whole...

The 98%-2% is an obvious exaggeration, one that was originally made to show how bad the ending was. I would also like to think that whenever someone uses said numbers, it's generally understood by that they're giving a ball-park assessment of how they experienced it.

 

[LetalisK]

snip

*sigh* This kinda goes for the thread as a whole...

The 98%-2% is an obvious exaggeration, one that was originally made to show how bad the ending was. I would also like to think that whenever someone uses said numbers, it's generally understood by that they're giving a ball-park assessment of how they experienced it.

Obviously, for me it's a fifty/fifty experience aka mixed bag, i'm just telling you not everyone think it's "90% plus fantastic with f... up 5 minutes".

And I never said everyone experienced it as such. I only related a common sentiment I had seen in my discussions about this. I don't discount people experience it differently.

Edit: Perhaps my use of the word "recognize" was ill-advised. I think that's the issue here. I didn't intend to apply an objective value to it.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

I wouldn't say 98% of it was great, but to adress the question, because the ending is the consummation of everything that has happened in the trilogy, and the last experience you have of it, not to mention elevated to heavenly status by all the advertising of choices with real impacts. People expected everything they did to pay off, in one way or another, and that was not an unreasonable expectation either. Instead, they got a clear disappointment. Maybe it would have been an interesting philosophical ending to a single game with no lead-in. It was a downright failure after 3 games of anticipation. It would be like building a tower out of Lego, but when you're about to place the last block, someone comes along and replaces your tower with a foldable chair. Then you come along and ask me "But hey, it was fun building it, right?"

 

[bojackx]

Woo I'm in the 2%, go me! Although, I didn't mind the ending, so whatever.

Although, as everyone else has said, the ending is not the only thing people are pissed about. I think people were pissed at things like Mordin's voice actor change and Kai Leng being a thing. I wasn't pissed about those things, so I'm all for it being GOTY.