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

[ImSkeletor]

Do you mean 30% passable, 60% Aweful, 10% putrid bile?

 

[Acton Hank]

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.

I know, so what? What's your point?

That the ending is just like the last drop of a glass of water that was being filled with every single plot hole found around the 98% of the game. People thought that at least, in the end, the series would have a satisfing resolution to compensate the horrors of a rushed and a buggy release.............and BOY they were wrong.

It may be nitpicking for you, but if the sum of all the parts of a work of medium makes something greater than its total, and therefore "art", then it isnt wrong to take apart every part of the game to see if each one contributes to the greater whole.

captcha: frankly my dear
I dont give a damn?

Well technically if the ending video was over an hour and a half long then then the first videos should be the drops and the last one be the big jug that tips everything over.

I don't see the "horrors of a rushed and buggy release" I counted the number of bugs I encountered, 3 that's it... 3.

Plus I didn't think bugs and glitches meant much to Mass Effect fans considering the first game had almost twice the development time for half the content and despite that it was still a bugfest:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YMMtBA6ii8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9NvLmnjPPw&feature=related

And it is nitpicking, it can be done with every work of fiction ever made:
I could point out how ME1's story completely fell apart at the end and how the conversation with Vigil creates gigantic plot holes.

I could point out a Deus ex Machina in Return Of The King that made most of what happened in the first 2 pointless

I could point out giant plot holes in Shawshank

I could say that all the drama is killed at the final battle against the Death Star because of the retarded design that leaves a very exposed single hole that if hit causes the whole station to explode.

I could list everything that's wrong with any work of fiction if I analyse every single scene with a microscope, but it will not change the way I feel about it and it won't change how others felt about it either.

 

[Danceofmasks]

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.

The next time you're having the best sex of your life, I hope your mom walks in just before the end.
Then maybe you'll get it.

 

[DioWallachia]

I could list everything that's wrong with any work of fiction if I analyse every single scene with a microscope, but it will not change the way I feel about it and it won't change how others felt about it either.

And is for that very reason that writers NEED to get better in their job. IF we dont call them out of it, it will be a snowball of problems waiting to hit them in the face at terminal velocity.

It may be the most emotional tale EVER, but if there is flaws on logic in that tale then saying that has "no problem" is ridiculous.

 

[White-Death]

I'd say 70% of it was good, 20%(Side missions existing) were cut to make way for multi-player,5% was cut for DLC,and the last 5% was a guide on how not to end a trilogy.
Fuck Casey Hudson.
This guy should never have any involvement in writing anything, let alone writing the whole ending.

 

[Cpu46]

I feel it was mostly because of the fact that you get the same ending no matter what you did prior to the end. It doesn't matter if you lost Grunt, Garrus, or any of the characters because you get the same ending sequence with the same choices and the same cutscenes.

Spoiler: Also Because It didn't end like this

 

[Proverbial Jon]

I have just wiped the "canon" ending from my mind. The indoctrination theory is still my favourite ending. My Shepard chose destroy and fought back the Reaper's control. In my mind she blew them all out the sky and everyone lived happily ever after.

But seriously, I understand everyone's reasoning for hating the whole game. Sure, I was enraged for MONTHS and although the DLC did soften the blow it still doesn't change the fact that the ending was a result of some shit writing. Somehow it doesn't ruin my enjoyment of the rest of the game. Maybe it's just because I'm used to imagining myself out of terrible situations.

 

[Acton Hank]

I could list everything that's wrong with any work of fiction if I analyse every single scene with a microscope, but it will not change the way I feel about it and it won't change how others felt about it either.

And is for that very reason that writers NEED to get better in their job. IF we dont call them out of it, it will be a snowball of problems waiting to hit them in the face at terminal velocity.

It may be the most emotional tale EVER, but if there is flaws on logic in that tale then saying that has "no problem" is ridiculous.

I never said it was perfect, it wasn't, and guess what, neither were the first 2 games.
To me ME3 is an 8.5.

I just find it more than a little hypocritical when ME2 and 3 are subjected to fan ire for flaws that are completely given a free pass in ME1; flaws that are there in equal or greater extent.

Also the kind of wrath they endure is unfair to me considering that even at their worst those games are light years ahead of some of the truly awful games that are merely tolerated and ignored.

 

[DioWallachia]

I never said it was perfect, it wasn't, and guess what, neither were the first 2 games.
To me ME3 is an 8.5.

I just find it more than a little hypocritical when ME2 and 3 are subjected to fan ire for flaws that are completely given a free pass in ME1; flaws that are there in equal or greater extent.

Also the kind of wrath they endure is unfair to me considering that even at their worst those games are light years ahead of some of the truly awful games that are merely tolerated and ignored.

Well, smudboy DID analyze ME1 so there is that if you feel the need to look deeper into the flaws of that game.

I suppose that people are either: A) being pissed of at Mass Effect for being called "an RPG" compared to games like Planetscape Torment or Sacrifice, in short, games that already did what Mass Effect did a looooooooooong time ago and hasn't brought anything new to the formula.

B)They gave ME1 a free pass just for being the first of a series and were dissapointed on how the developers fixed the problems brought up by it. It later snowballed into something that was bound to get bigger and bigger by the minute.

Just for curiosity, what other worst games are out there that make Mass Effect look better in comparation?

 

[bossfight1]

The ending is a poison that ruins the entire franchise because its a massive pile of shit at the end of an otherwise epic trip. I have trouble playing any of the games again without thinking of the bullshit that still lies ahead of me.

 

[Acton Hank]

I never said it was perfect, it wasn't, and guess what, neither were the first 2 games.
To me ME3 is an 8.5.

I just find it more than a little hypocritical when ME2 and 3 are subjected to fan ire for flaws that are completely given a free pass in ME1; flaws that are there in equal or greater extent.

Also the kind of wrath they endure is unfair to me considering that even at their worst those games are light years ahead of some of the truly awful games that are merely tolerated and ignored.

Well, smudboy DID analyze ME1 so there is that if you feel the need to look deeper into the flaws of that game.

I suppose that people are either: A) being pissed of at Mass Effect for being called "an RPG" compared to games like Planetscape Torment or Sacrifice, in short, games that already did what Mass Effect did a looooooooooong time ago and hasn't brought anything new to the formula.

B)They gave ME1 a free pass just for being the first of a series and were disappointed on how the developers fixed the problems brought up by it. It later snowballed into something that was bound to get bigger and bigger by the minute.

Just for curiosity, what other worst games are out there that make Mass Effect look better in comparison?

Lots of games, if you want a story based RPG that has choices and dialogue then the most recent would be Alpha Protocol, It gets an A for effort but there's barely an element in that game that works properly. FF13 makes Mass Effect look like San Andreas in terms of exploration.

I can think of other games or other genres but can you honestly tell me that out of everything that happened in ME3 there's absolutely NOTHING that you liked?

I watched his ME1 analysis and he misses some stuff, big stuff.

 

[DioWallachia]

I never said it was perfect, it wasn't, and guess what, neither were the first 2 games.
To me ME3 is an 8.5.

I just find it more than a little hypocritical when ME2 and 3 are subjected to fan ire for flaws that are completely given a free pass in ME1; flaws that are there in equal or greater extent.

Also the kind of wrath they endure is unfair to me considering that even at their worst those games are light years ahead of some of the truly awful games that are merely tolerated and ignored.

Well, smudboy DID analyze ME1 so there is that if you feel the need to look deeper into the flaws of that game.

I suppose that people are either: A) being pissed of at Mass Effect for being called "an RPG" compared to games like Planetscape Torment or Sacrifice, in short, games that already did what Mass Effect did a looooooooooong time ago and hasn't brought anything new to the formula.

B)They gave ME1 a free pass just for being the first of a series and were disappointed on how the developers fixed the problems brought up by it. It later snowballed into something that was bound to get bigger and bigger by the minute.

Just for curiosity, what other worst games are out there that make Mass Effect look better in comparison?

Lots of games, if you want a story based RPG that has choices and dialogue then the most recent would be Alpha Protocol, It gets an A for effort but there's barely an element in that game that works properly. FF13 makes Mass Effect look like San Andreas in terms of exploration.

I can think of other games or other genres but can you honestly tell me that out of everything that happened in ME3 there's absolutely NOTHING that you liked?

Is more like, the bigger they try, the harder it sucks when it fails. Specially if another game did its "parts" much better.

To put it into perspective, if ME went into a Gears of Warification to appeal to broadest demographic, it still makes GoW look good in comparation, because the effort is just mediocre all the way around.

If they took the time to make the game shorter but more polished, it would be a much intense experience because it no longer tries to do everything at the same time.

If i have to be more confusing, i think this would be my way of thinking. Compare the lenght and polish of hypotetical Game A to Game B:
A:
33% - 33% - 34%
Each set piece is taken care by the developers until there is absolute nothing left unpolish. Its the "It will be done when its done" approach (i am not quoting Duke Nukem Forever developement)

B:
10% - 10% - 10% - 10% - 10% - 10% - 10% - 10% - 10% - 10%
In this case, the effort put here is "just enough" to say that you did your job, intead of paying attention to every detail that could make those pieces stand out. Overall you get a experience that doesn't quite reach the intensity of Game A.

 

[Animyr]

I see alot of people saying how "well to be fair the rest of the game was sh*t too" and no, it isn't. Not in comparison. There were some shaky parts but by and large I personally found the middle section to be some of the best fun I've had. I'd say ME3 is about 50% GOTY, 30% good, 15% cheap, and 5% crap. With that 5% being squarely in the keystone of the arch.

Well, smudboy DID analyze ME1 so there is that if you feel the need to look deeper into the flaws of that game.

Yeah, and at the end, after like two hours of picking it apart, he arbitrarily declares "well none of this is major so every last bit is excusable." Or something amounting to that. Meanwhile he clings to ME2s issues, real and imagined, like an attack dog. Smudboy goes into those games more or less with his mind made up and then just cherrypicks or outright invents evidence to support his claims. In his ME2 review he once claimed that the theoretical existence of a scenario he just made up that is not implied in the plot but not explicitly denied either means this scenario must be true and thus a given character's actions illogical. Whut?

I even saw someone here still whining about how the ending to ME2 is so much worse then the ending to ME3. Just....no.

 

[Acton Hank]

I see alot of people saying how "well to be fair the rest of the game was sh*t too" and no, it isn't. Not in comparison. There were some shaky parts but by and large I personally found the middle section to be some of the best fun I've had. I'd say ME3 is about 50% GOTY, 30% good, 15% cheap, and 5% crap. With that 5% being squarely in the keystone of the arch.

Well, smudboy DID analyze ME1 so there is that if you feel the need to look deeper into the flaws of that game.

Yeah, and at the end, after like two hours of picking it apart, he arbitrarily declares "well none of this is major so every last bit is excusable." Or something amounting to that. Meanwhile he clings to ME2s issues, real and imagined, like an attack dog. Smudboy goes into those games more or less with his mind made up and then just cherrypicks or outright invents evidence to support his claims. In his ME2 review he once claimed that the theoretical existence of a scenario he just made up that is not implied in the plot but not explicitly denied either means this scenario must be true and thus a given character's actions illogical. Whut?

I even saw someone here still whining about how the ending to ME2 is so much worse then the ending to ME3. Just....no.

DAMN IT! You beat me to it!
He says the flaws are many but they never get in the way of suspension of disbelief.
Says who?
The flaws I noticed that he didn't mention despite his extensive analysis, got in my way.
Guess different people have different sensibilities.

 

[Acton Hank]

I never said it was perfect, it wasn't, and guess what, neither were the first 2 games.
To me ME3 is an 8.5.

I just find it more than a little hypocritical when ME2 and 3 are subjected to fan ire for flaws that are completely given a free pass in ME1; flaws that are there in equal or greater extent.

Also the kind of wrath they endure is unfair to me considering that even at their worst those games are light years ahead of some of the truly awful games that are merely tolerated and ignored.

Well, smudboy DID analyze ME1 so there is that if you feel the need to look deeper into the flaws of that game.

I suppose that people are either: A) being pissed of at Mass Effect for being called "an RPG" compared to games like Planetscape Torment or Sacrifice, in short, games that already did what Mass Effect did a looooooooooong time ago and hasn't brought anything new to the formula.

B)They gave ME1 a free pass just for being the first of a series and were disappointed on how the developers fixed the problems brought up by it. It later snowballed into something that was bound to get bigger and bigger by the minute.

Just for curiosity, what other worst games are out there that make Mass Effect look better in comparison?

Lots of games, if you want a story based RPG that has choices and dialogue then the most recent would be Alpha Protocol, It gets an A for effort but there's barely an element in that game that works properly. FF13 makes Mass Effect look like San Andreas in terms of exploration.

I can think of other games or other genres but can you honestly tell me that out of everything that happened in ME3 there's absolutely NOTHING that you liked?

Is more like, the bigger they try, the harder it sucks when it fails. Specially if another game did its "parts" much better.

To put it into perspective, if ME went into a Gears of Warification to appeal to broadest demographic, it still makes GoW look good in comparation, because the effort is just mediocre all the way around.

If they took the time to make the game shorter but more polished, it would be a much intense experience because it no longer tries to do everything at the same time.

If i have to be more confusing, i think this would be my way of thinking. Compare the lenght and polish of hypotetical Game A to Game B:
A:
33% - 33% - 34%
Each set piece is taken care by the developers until there is absolute nothing left unpolish. Its the "It will be done when its done" approach (i am not quoting Duke Nukem Forever developement)

B:
10% - 10% - 10% - 10% - 10% - 10% - 10% - 10% - 10% - 10%
In this case, the effort put here is "just enough" to say that you did your job, intead of paying attention to every detail that could make those pieces stand out. Overall you get a experience that doesn't quite reach the intensity of Game A.

You're going to have to explain yourself better.
33 plus 33 plus 34 is 100
10 times 10 is 100
they add up to the same number, what are you getting at?

 

[Casual Shinji]

"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.

Did ME1 have a cliffhanger? No. It dealt with the current danger while at the same time setting up a greater threat that loomed just beyond the horizon.

You know what they should've done with ME2? Made Legion way more important to the story. You know how in ME1 Liara was kinda the most important teammate due to being Benezia's daughter, an expert on the Protheans, and her ability to kinda make sense out of Shepard's visions? Legion should've filled that role in ME2, seeing as he's a geth that wants to join Shepard in his/her fight, how there are more geth who feel the same way he does, and how he has new information on the Reapers.

His introduction to the team would've provided a jumping off point for the story to expand while still staying true to the plot of finding a way to stop the Reapers. But Legion only joins your team near the very end of the game and ends up doing very little, despite being a freaking geth that wants to help you.

 

[Acton Hank]

"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.

Did ME1 have a cliffhanger? No. It dealt with the current danger while at the same time setting up a greater threat that loomed just beyond the horizon.

You know what they should've done with ME2? Made Legion way more important to the story. You know how in ME1 Liara was kinda the most important teammate due to being Benezia's daughter, an expert on the Protheans, and her ability to kinda make sense out of Shepard's visions? Legion should've filled that role in ME2, seeing as he's a geth that wants to join Shepard in his/her fight, how there are more geth who feel the same way he does, and how he has new information on the Reapers.

His introduction to the team would've provided a jumping off point for the story to expand while still staying true to the plot of finding a way to stop the Reapers. But Legion only joins your team near the very end of the game and ends up doing very little, despite being a freaking geth that wants to help you.

"Did ME1 have a cliffhanger? No. It dealt with the current danger while at the same time setting up a greater threat that loomed just beyond the horizon."

Exactly!! The current danger in ME2 were the Collectors, and they were dealt; and then they set up the greater threat by showing reapers heading towards the milky way.

If the Reapers had already arrived in ME2 then you either resolve that threat by the end of the game, or any ending you do will feel like a cliffhanger.

It's exactly what was done in "The Two Towers" Saruman was out of action while Sauron was still in the game.

I agree that Legion should have had a bigger part in ME2 (although that depends on weather you leave it for last) I don't remember it stating specifically about having more information on the Reapers than you, other than knowing that the heretics were planning to brainwash the Geth.

 

[Casual Shinji]

"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.

Did ME1 have a cliffhanger? No. It dealt with the current danger while at the same time setting up a greater threat that loomed just beyond the horizon.

You know what they should've done with ME2? Made Legion way more important to the story. You know how in ME1 Liara was kinda the most important teammate due to being Benezia's daughter, an expert on the Protheans, and her ability to kinda make sense out of Shepard's visions? Legion should've filled that role in ME2, seeing as he's a geth that wants to join Shepard in his/her fight, how there are more geth who feel the same way he does, and how he has new information on the Reapers.

His introduction to the team would've provided a jumping off point for the story to expand while still staying true to the plot of finding a way to stop the Reapers. But Legion only joins your team near the very end of the game and ends up doing very little, despite being a freaking geth that wants to help you.

"Did ME1 have a cliffhanger? No. It dealt with the current danger while at the same time setting up a greater threat that loomed just beyond the horizon."

Exactly!! The current danger in ME2 were the Collectors, and they were dealt; and then they set up the greater threat by showing reapers heading towards the milky way.

In the very last second of the game, yes. That's not what I would call a good set up. The entire game is spent fighting the Collectors, gathering teammates, and gaining their loyalty. There isn't one moment in the game where anyone says, "Hey, you know those Reapers that are coming to kill all advanced organic life? Maybe we should try and get some intel on those guys."

If the Reapers had already arrived in ME2 then you either resolve that threat by the end of the game, or any ending you do will feel like a cliffhanger.

It's exactly what was done in "The Two Towers" Saruman was out of action while Sauron was still in the game.

Except that The Two Towers made the presence of Sauron very apparent throughout the film by showing Frodo getting influenced by the Ring, introducing Gollum; a former ring bearer who has been to Mordor, Saruman conversing with Sauron, and that scene where Galadriel speaks/communicates with Elrond about the current stakes. We also see troops headed toward Mordor and Gollum talking about how Sauron is preparing for a great war. And we see how Osgiliath is under constant attack from Mordor orks, which is in preparation for the battle of Minas Tirith.

All we get in ME2 is Harbinger occasionally assuming control of a Collector during shoot-outs (which we don't even realize it's him untill the end of the game), the knowledge that the Collectors are enslaved Protheans, and ofcourse the human Reaper. But since all of this gets resolved by the end of the game, this info and build-up doesn't carry over to the sequel. Hence, no set up.

 

[DioWallachia]

If i have to be more confusing, i think this would be my way of thinking. Compare the lenght and polish of hypotetical Game A to Game B:
A:
33% - 33% - 34%
Each set piece is taken care by the developers until there is absolute nothing left unpolish. Its the "It will be done when its done" approach (i am not quoting Duke Nukem Forever developement)

B:
10% - 10% - 10% - 10% - 10% - 10% - 10% - 10% - 10% - 10%
In this case, the effort put here is "just enough" to say that you did your job, intead of paying attention to every detail that could make those pieces stand out. Overall you get a experience that doesn't quite reach the intensity of Game A.

You're going to have to explain yourself better.
33 plus 33 plus 34 is 100
10 times 10 is 100
they add up to the same number, what are you getting at?

The % is the amount of effort (or budget) in each set piece or plot relevant cutscene have. In B, there are 10 set pieces made with 10% of the effort/budget and in A, there is 3 set pieces with 33% of the budget distributed amount them.

Since A is more shorter, they can focus on polishing what they have up until they meet the artistic criteria that is needed rather than the "just enough to have the job done" approach of game B.

Hell, if B was even LARGER to the point of having 1% of the budget to cover 100 set pieces, the game may as well be made on paper drawings instead of 3D graphics, voice acting would be done by one person doing EVERYONE voices and the sound effects would consist of "PHEW PHEW" "BANG" sound effects. In short, they wouldn't have to rush the ending if they had made Mass Effect 2 to be relevant to the plot in he first place and didnt waste all the budget on retcon everything again.

 

[sunsetspawn]

Also, and this is just a random thought I had, but if I bring one gun to a firefight and I pick up a "thermal clip," I get twelve rounds for that gun. If I bring five guns and I pick up that same clip, I get twelve rounds FOR EACH GUN. say what?

You're not picking up ammo; the guns create their own ammo. You're picking up the thermal clips, which cool off the heat that is generated in the process, and are universal to all guns.

I'll let you get back to me and apologize when you finally understand what I said.

Ready now, read caredfully. A SINGLE thermal clip provides ammo for every gun you're firing. ONE CLIP! Are you paying attention? Good, now let's keep going. That SINGLE clip would only enable a single weapon X rounds, however, if you are carrying five weapons, that SINGLE clip is somehow installed on all five weapons. Got it? This isn't about ammunition types as the codex clearly explains that the weapons use nanotech to shave wedges off of a metal block, this is about the fact that the more weapons you carry causes the thermal clips to actually be multiples of themselves.

I realized this when I tried completing a mission with a single handgun, and every clip gave me twelve rounds thus forcing me to spam incinerate on the mech at the end (snooze), but when I played the mission the first time I brought five weapons, so a SINGLE CLIP gave me twelve rounds for the handgun, sixty for the assuault rifle, five for the shotgun, three for the sniper rifle, and twenty four for the SMG. So that single clip multiplied into five clips just because I was carrying five guns, thus causing those people carrying around one gun vastly under-supplied because reasons...

er, broken gameplay mechanics.

If one clip really represents five heat sinks, than that single handgun should be getting sixty shots when I pick up the clip, because if I had five handguns it would supply twelve to each.


Am I getting through to you with any of this?



ME2 had the same stupid issue, but you always had a few guns so the issue never became glaringly obvious.

Apology accepted in advance.

I think you don't understand the concept of "Universal". You pick up 1 Thermal Clip. It's not a Handgun Clip, it's not a Sniper Rifle Clip, it's a Thermal Clip. That one clip will work with any gun. That's why it's universal, because you can use the Clip on any gun you want.

So let's say you have a Pistol that can fire 12 times without overheating, and a Shotgun that can fire 4 times without overheating, and you have 4 Thermal Clips. The Pistol will show 12/48 and the Shotgun will show 4/16.

Now you fire the pistol 12 times. It overheats, and you use a thermal clip to cool it back down. Now your pistol has 12/36. And now, because you only have 3 clips left, your Shotgun will now show 4/12.

How many times have you played Mass Effect 2 and/or 3? The ammo for any one weapon cannot be transferred to another weapon, despite the fact that they all use the same "universal" heat sinks. The whole reason they implemented the ammunition system was to stop players from being able to endlessly use one weapon. Firing a single weapon doesn't deplete all of the other weapons, and you can indeed run out of ammo on a weapon and be forced to use another.

In fact, they SPECIFICALLY avoided making the ammunition truly universal, and transferable between guns, because then they would've entered the horrible situation that Edios ended up in with Deus Ex: Invisible War.

I'm still not getting through to you. In fact, I'm willing to bet if we sat down together and I showed you what I'm talking about somehow you would change the argument. I've dealt with your types before, and just know this: everyone else following this knows you're wrong.

How's that feel?


Of course, I suppose I look like the asshole for arguing with you, but whatever.