Mass Effect 3

Tyyr · Post by **Tyyr** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 4:58 pm

Out of interest, was the shit-storm about the ending justified. (and what was it about)

It's about BETRAYAL!

Ehm..., sorry.

Yes, the shit-storm was entirely justified and I'll try to cover it completely. There are spoilers here.

1) It's the Ending to the Wrong Game. The average Mass Effect play through from ME 1 to the ending of ME3 is about 100 hours. By the time you reach the very ending of the game you have invested the equivalent time of 50 feature length films into it not counting another 10 or so hours of multiplayer you may have played to secure a better readiness rating. However, in the last ten to fifteen minutes of this 100 to 120 hour marathon the writers decide to completely change the whole point of the game. You have spent the last 99 hours and 45 minutes trying to defeat the Reapers. Now a LITERAL god from the machine comes in to tell you that that's not the real point of it all. The real point is to resolve the metaphysical conflict between synthetic and organic life. "Defeating the Reapers? Oh, forget that, we've got bigger issues." Mind you this is NEVER hinted at in the least prior to this point in the series. There's not even a peep about it or the barest hint that this is coming. Just out of the blue, right at the moment you should be sending the Reapers straight to hell... they tell you to forget about that and lets do something else. The entire tossing out of the Reaper issue, the reset for this new issue, and it's conclusion is handled in 14 lines of dialogue. They threw out 99.75 hours of story to rewrite the entire trilogy at the very end of it.

2) It Doesn't Even Remember What Happened in This Game. One of my biggest issues with ME3 is that it tries very hard to forget that ME2 ever even happened. However at the end of the game the writers themselves forgot what the hell happened in ME3. You know, the game you're playing right now. I won't even get into the larger issues of the conflict between synthetic life and organic in the previous games. In this game you have the opportunity to solve the conflict between the quarians and the geth, an organic race and their synthetic creations, and have them reach the point where they are not only at peace, but working together for mutual benefit. The geth, synthetics, can be fighting side by side with organics to defeat the reapers. The AI in control of your ship can fall in love with her pilot. In ME3, never mind ME2 and ME1, we see synthetics and organics working together to fight the Reapers. Then the god in the machine, the catalyst, informs you that synthetics and organics will always fight and kill each other and you have to fix that. Oh you mean you already did? "Well fuck you, you're wrong." This is awful story telling. Organics vs. Synthetics has been a major secondary theme of the series and right up until the last 0.25% of the story it's been building to the resolution at Rannoch where we acknowledge that synthetics are every bit as much life as organics, deserve their shot to exist, and can be valuable allies against a common threat. And then the Catalyst tells you that you're wrong and now fix the problem his way. Which leads to...

3) You Don't Control the Ending, the Catalyst Let's You. After 100 hours in the driver's seat of this series when you reach the ending of it all you are reduced to the status of mute NPC as the Catalyst takes over the role of series protagonist outlining choices, consequences, telling you how things work, and then letting you pick a color since you're a super wonderful guy for making it this far. The Catalyst is in charge and his word is law never mind that...

4) The Catalyst is the Greatest Monster to Ever Exist. Some basic math will tell you that on the low end the Catalyst is responsible for the extermination of 3 quadrillion lives. That's on the low end. At it's direction the Reapers have been killing all advanced galactic life for at least a billion years. Under it's direction the Reapers are, even as you're talking to him, trying very hard to kill everyone you care about. You are this little monster's potential executioner and at no point does it ever bring this up, can you bring it up, or was it even apparently considered. You're just supposed to take this things word as law and unassailable truth and choose. Which is bad because...

5) The Catalyst's Logic is Idiotic. Right after the ending started to hit a meme popped up comparing the Catalyst's logic to Xzibit logic, namely, "Yo dawg, I heard u dont wanna die cause a synthetics so I made some synthetics to kill u before synthetics can kill u." I'd love to say this is a wild exaggeration and simplification... but it's not. This is actually the Catalyst's game plan that we're supposed to accept at wise. Organics always make synthetics, synthetics always turn on their masters, synthetics will always win and kill everyone. So the Catalyst's solution? Make a race of synthetics to exterminate all advanced organic life and "preserve them" as Reapers before they can make a race of synthetics themselves that will kill them. That's it. I'm not simplifying, I'm not exaggerating, that's the Catalyst's solution. It's not, "Use my race of uberpowerful space cthulu cuttlefish to stop people from making synthetics," not, "use my nigh unstoppable army to help organics put down synthetics," not, "Lemme warn people not to do that," no, the Catalyst uses it's Synthetic army to wipe out organic life before organic life can make a synthetic army that will wipe it out.

6) The Endings Don't Reflect the Game Series at All. During this game you make hundreds of choices. We were told that these choices would make a siginificant difference in the outcome of the game. What it all amounted to was a number (with no basis in any kind of logic) and the higher your number the more ending options you had. Not, that those choices were reflected in that ending. You could just pick Red, Blue, or Green, instead of being stuck with only red or blue.

7) What We do See Looks Apocalyptic. When you do get your ending in most of them of the Citadel, the seat of galactic power, explodes. There are millions of people on it, including many significant characters from the series. Since the Citadel explodes, they're all dead. Second, the beam the Citadel/Crucible fires makes the Mass Relays, the sole source of long distance rapid FTL travel in the galaxy, explode. We've seen a Mass Relays explode before in ME2, it wipes out all life in a system. There are Mass Relays in almost every major system in the galaxy. The ending beam makes every single one of them explode. The logical conclusion? Due to your actions you just managed to kill not just 99% of all advanced life, but 99% of the life in the galaxy period. There is no indication that this is not exactly what happens. So anyone you cared about that the Reapers didn't kill you just did. But wait...

8) The Normandy Survives, Sort of. Somehow the Normandy escapes and your squad teleported (there are no transporters in ME) to the ship in time for it to run away like a coward. In doing so a shockwave from... something, chases them and damages the ship. It crashlands on a seemingly habitable planet (won't even talk about the odds of that happening). The game ends on a scene of Joker, the pilot, emerging from the ship and admiring the sunrise on this new garden of eden (what it's alluded to be) and then, if you romanced a female, they come out and stand with Joker holding his hand intimating that they are the new Adam and Eve. Your love interest and Joker. And as a real treat if you picked destroy EDI, the AI he was in love with is slumped over in the co-pilot's seat dead. This all ignores the ugly implications that if life on this planet is the wrong chemistry Garrus will starve to death. If it's not so he can surive then everyone else does. Tali is dead no matter what once her ability to sterilize her food is gone. Even if most of the crew survives there's only about 30 of them so they'll all inbreed themselves to death meaning the only survivor of the Normandy will be Liara as she slowly goes insane in isolation surrounded by the graves of everyone she cared about and if you romanced her never actually knowing what happened to Shepard. GLORIOUS AND UPLIFTING.

9) They End the Series Shilling for DLC. Not even joking. The last thing before the credits roll is a message from Bioware encouraging us to buy DLC.

This is all the original ending that conjuored up the shit storm. The Extended Cut ending was more or less Bioware confirm that they neither understood what the problem was and giving us the middle finger for complaining about their "art."

Griffin · Post by **Griffin** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 5:41 pm

wow...

Thanks.

Tyyr · Post by **Tyyr** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 5:47 pm

No problem. Hell, click the link in my sig to listen to me bitch about the entire game. The ending though, the original ending justified the shit storm. ME could easily have been this generation's Star Wars and instead they burned the franchise down.

Atekimogus · Post by **Atekimogus** » Sat Jan 26, 2013 11:52 pm

Tyyr wrote:No problem. Hell, click the link in my sig to listen to me bitch about the entire game. The ending though, the original ending justified the shit storm. ME could easily have been this generation's Star Wars and instead they burned the franchise down.

- attention Spoilers -

Well I finally played it through, managed to avoid all spoilers regarding the three endings (of which I watched two so far) and I have to say I have mixed feelings about it. Now I did not play the original but the enhanced edition so I have no idea what was left out in the original to cause the major shitstorm but imho it is a bit undeserving.

Now I won't talk about gameplay and if it has to many, too little shooter/rpg elements, I don't really care if it was a FPS or pure RPG I play it for the universe, the characters and the story.

First the good, ME3 (not including the ending) is by FAR the smoothest, most organic and fun of the series by far. What I mean by that is that they made great strides in bringing the universe alive. They obviously reworked facial expressions, they are much more subtle and natural, where in ME2 they were often downright creepy. (Shepard smiling? Hide your children!). Finally the crewmembers interact with EACH OTHER and not only with the player. This doesn't happen except in cutscenes in the other series. They speak to each other, switch places in the ship, reminiscene about past adventures and even have shoreleave. All this brings the world much more alive than before imho, the humour is also great again imho.

Now to the ending(s). I can understand why many are so upset. From a writer-perspective/story telling perspective I can see what they were going for and noone can honestly tell me that they were surprised that Shepard didn't make it. As soon as he comes back to earth they do all but digging a grave for him to make it perfectly clear that he won't survive this one, so the REAL shocking moment would have been if he'd made it, happy ending and getting the girl and all that. That would have been a real nice surprise for me, but I knew this wouldn't happen because:

Having a happy ending just isn't hip enough anymore. God I can just see those writers in their horn-glasses talking about the ending dismissing a classical happy ending just because it is "too mainstream". No we must come up with "something original" or "shocking". Now again, I can understand that they wanted to come up with something memorable and shocking etc. and having the main character making the ultimate sacrifice certainly played our heartstrings but I call that undeserving, cheap and frankly astonishing since they did so much better in the very game. The clear high-points of the game for me were Mordin sacrificing himself for the genophage cure and Legion for his race. Those where not cheap-shoots at our emotions but real touching moments for characters we came to care about and they were incredibly well done imho.

Now I think the ending would have worked well......in a book, or a movie. Killing of the main character (which is generally a bad idea imho no matter the medium) in a game should be a no-go simply because the level of involvment is completely different. The player and the main character basically are one and killing it off always is a big FU to the very player imho. It doesn't invalidate everything the "character" has done in the story (uniting the galaxy, making the ultimate sacrifice etc.), it does however invalidate everything the "player" has done since no matter how good you play, no matter what choices you make...in the end you loose. And that the rest of the NPCs can now live in peace or the new utopia etc. is only a small confort when in the end....you didn't beat the game....the game beat you. But let's put this aside and let's view it from a business point of view. (And I would really like to know if there were some headrolling for this ending).

From a business point of view the ending(s) were shit. Whereas in ME2 you were highly motivated to keep playing after beating the suicide mission I just am not interested in anything that could come for ME3. The story is done, it is finished, Shepard is no more so why should I care about one or two additional missions "before" all goes to hell again? I admit ME2 was the only game ever where I bought the DLC missions simply because I was interested in the story and yes, imho they were worth it, altough I am normally strongly against the DLC ripp-off. ME3 ended the series completely and how is one supposed to care for anything that happens shortly before the ending when the ending itself is so complete?

From a business point of view the ending(s) were also shit regarding a possible ME4 imho. For two reasons. First, if Shepard would have survived (and all his crewmates, I made sure of that for whatever it's worth) ME4 would have been a game I would buy without reading any review. A must have no brainer for me. But with this ending(s) they wrote themselves in a corner only a staggering amount of bullshit will get them out of it. If they make a direct sequel they would have to make one of the endings canonical or so far in the future that it is the MASS EFFECT universe only in name. Of the three endings I can only see one ending they can go with which doesn't change the universe so dramatically that it becomes something compeletly differentl (Shepard becoming the cataclyst controlling the reapers, but the Citadal and Synthetics survive). Now even if they go with this ending (which is the closest to a happy ending I got, everyone survives UNCHANGED but Shepard) I am just not motivated really to play a ME4. Why? Because I don't want to come to care again for a character just for them to killing him/her off. I don't want to get involved in another game were I must constantly fear that they will kill of my own character. This is (altough it surley can make sense from a story-telling point of view) the cardinal sin of video game story telling. It would have been ok if they'd said, ok, that's it, the triology is at an end and there will never be anything ME related ever again, it stands on it's own. However they already announced a ME4....

In short....on one hand I can unterstand what the writers where going for, a most dramatic and epic ending with the hero making the ultimate sacrifice.....on the other hand all they really did was cutting their own flesh and pissing of the playerbase. It would have worked beautifully in a book or a movie, in a video game it just leaves a bad aftertaste in my mouth and dashing all hopes of a possible sequel. Yeah ME4 sure will be a fine game. But MY character is dead. Why should I care anymore? What, should I play another 3 games over the course of five years just so they kill of my NEXT character I came to root for? Nah, Bioware...fool me once.....and all that.

And the real shame is that all throughout the game I was constantly thinking "What is that all about? The game is brilliant, easily the best ME so far! How bad can the ending be?"........Damn. Killing off Shepard was one of my theories how they could ruin the ending (my other theories where the classical "it was all a dream" or "it never really happened" or anything else which completely annulls the players achievement), so I was prepared for it and didn't catch me offguard.....and still......makes me sad.
And maybe this is a bit simplistic from me but I guess in the end this is what it boils down to...the ending made me feel sad. But not a good kind of sad, like sad that I have to wait three years for a continuation, or sad because the character had sacrifice him/herself. Just sad that in the end all I did to make sure I got the best possible ending was in vain. Loosing your life means loosing the game and playing a game you can only loose is just no fun at all. The ME1 ending made me feel victorious and curious. I wanted to know what comes next. ME2 made me feel quite happy and content, I survived a suicide mission without loosing anyone. Reapers bring it on. I ended both games with a smile on my face. ME3 however....sad, just so very sad. Now I am not opposed to one end of the emotional spectrum, I sheed a small tear for Mordin and Legion and those where brilliant moments in the game. Ending the triology and all you have played through on a sad note however, is not how I would have liked to remember the ME-series.

stitch626 · Post by **stitch626** » Sun Jan 27, 2013 12:23 am

This is the reason people raged about the endings.

There is quote out there of the Bioware devs saying that "this would not be a game where you have choice A, B, or C for the ending". They said this as a promise to the players (it was in several gaming mags and on their website before the release).

We got: A, B, and C.

They flat out lied. 100%.

That is why the players raged (well that and the rumor that the real endings would be released in a pay DLC, not sure if that lead anywhere because I gave up on ME3 2 years ago).

Tholian_Avenger · Post by **Tholian_Avenger** » Sun Jan 27, 2013 12:41 am

The game hasn't been out for 2 years...

stitch626 · Post by **stitch626** » Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:16 am

Tholian_Avenger wrote:The game hasn't been out for 2 years...

Yeah, gave up on caring during development after realizing it was just going to be a 75% done game with the rest as pay for DLC. Turns out my low expectations were still too high.

Atekimogus · Post by **Atekimogus** » Sun Jan 27, 2013 9:51 am

stitch626 wrote:This is the reason people raged about the endings.

There is quote out there of the Bioware devs saying that "this would not be a game where you have choice A, B, or C for the ending". They said this as a promise to the players (it was in several gaming mags and on their website before the release).

We got: A, B, and C.

They flat out lied. 100%.

That is why the players raged (well that and the rumor that the real endings would be released in a pay DLC, not sure if that lead anywhere because I gave up on ME3 2 years ago).

Honestly, I wouldn't mind that there are three endings, if they were any different, like a Paragon, Renegade and catastrophique ending for those rushing through doing everything wrong. But more importantly you shouldn't have the choice at the end. You really shouldn't. You have played through tree games and all your choices, good and bad, should lead to an end which is not optional. I played full paragon for example and I should get the ending for it. If I want another ending go play full renegade and so on. By giving you the choice they basically invalidated in one fell swoop every choice you ever made and that sucks imho.

But the endings are basically all the same, Shepard bites the dust (with one possible exception) and no matter what you do there is a giant catch attached to everything. (Either disolve yourself in the citadel, go for synthesis and loose the citadel and yourself completely, or destroy the reapers and kill all synthetics, you know those you just help gain individual intelligence five minutes ago and guided one on the path to humanity.)

Btw. going only by colour-scheme and what the catalyst sees as the best option, I find it ironic that only the Renegade Ending (destroying the reapers) gives the main character a chance of survival. (That and that the geth are not mentioned anywhere anymore. EDI is missing but she seemed to be the only other casualty other than the reapers. So maybe this one did not commit mass-genocide on the geth who knows. On the other hand, having a gasping Shepard lying in the rubble of the citadel is probably just another cheap shoot at our emotions, letting us hope for a second encounter which will never come.)

Again it is a real shame since there were so many well done and beautifully made scenes in the game. Escape from Earth, the time-capsule scene with Liara, the whole Tutchanka sequence, ending the geth war, skeet shooting with garrus on the presidum, hell the Blasto 6 movie...hilarious, etc. etc. etc.

But in the end it is just Bioware trying being clever once again. It was basically the same in Dragon Age. The ending left me so dissatisfied that I had no real motivation to even try Dragon Age II. In the end imho they do themselves a disfavor by letting so many story-choices up to the player since at one point or another they reach a level where they just have to converge again anyhow or just start complete anew. Mass Effect makes the abanduntly clear that you just CANNOT leave the important story choices to the player because time and again they are forced to overrule it so they can move on with the story.

For example the big decision at the end of ME1 was about the council. Saving them or not. Consequently, the council in whatever form does not play any meaningful role for the rest of the series. In ME2 the big choices where first who survives the mission and if you hand over the reaper base. By giving us the choice of live and death over your teammates, most of the characters you come to care about are consequently doomed to only have short cameo appearances in ME3. (especially grating since my romance choice was Miranda. In hindsight, Liara or Tali would have been far better, at least they are a major presence in all three games.) And for the collector base, now I did not hand it over, yet cerberus still does pretty much what they want so I am not sure how this changed anything at all in ME3 and honestly......knowing in which three choices it will end I have no great interest in finding out.

It's understandable, most of the stunts they pull is to reduce complexity again but from what I have heard if you import your ME2 savegames you import more than 1000 variables. No wonder that some scenes fell a bit rushed or strange and lacking emotion. If you compare some scenes and how they differ it becomes quite clear what they had planned, and what was cobbled awkwardly together as an afterthough to accommodate the players choice. For example the dialogue with Miranda after she killed her father felt strangely gloomy and grim to me considering I have just saved my girlfriend and all is well for a second. Well no surprise here, the dialoge sans a few sentences is the very same as for when she dies and suddenly the scene is much more powerful and consistent with the emotional tone. Or Mordins death for example. Only under a certain set of circumstances do you get Mordin to admit that he made a mistake with the genophage and therefore he has to make it right. The same is implyied in other versions but the former is quite a bit more powerful than the later versions which is quite a shame. Such things should not be up to the player imho. I should not have to play through the games with a guide open just to get the most out of it.

It would have been far better if they just move the story on in the direction they want for the whole time, instead on forcing it on us anyhow in the end and leave the moral choices for side-missions/characters like the Conrad Verner act. Things to show the player how he/she might influence things but which have no great impact on the main story. It would have been in their own interest also, since if they ever plan on making a sequel set after the reaper attack, they now have either to make one ending canonical, or avoid the question to what happened altogether, both options suck. (Wasn't that what happened in Dragon Age 2. It had as good as nothing to do with the previous one except the name?)

stitch626 · Post by **stitch626** » Sun Jan 27, 2013 10:59 pm

The worst part IMO is that this game had some excellent moments that rival the best stories out there.

The ending just seemed like they stopped caring/tried to be cute and failed miserably.

Tyyr · Post by **Tyyr** » Mon Jan 28, 2013 4:36 pm

From a writer-perspective/story telling perspective I can see what they were going for and noone can honestly tell me that they were surprised that Shepard didn't make it.

No one is surprised that Shepard dying was a very real possibility. It's just how shitty and stupid the end is that's the problem.

Having a happy ending just isn't hip enough anymore. God I can just see those writers in their horn-glasses talking about the ending dismissing a classical happy ending just because it is "too mainstream". No we must come up with "something original" or "shocking". Now again, I can understand that they wanted to come up with something memorable and shocking etc. and having the main character making the ultimate sacrifice certainly played our heartstrings but I call that undeserving, cheap and frankly astonishing since they did so much better in the very game.

See, here's another reason why I think the writers forgot what the hell they were writing for. Mass Effect has never shied away from the traditional happy ending. Mass Effect 1 ends with the PURE action hero shot of Shepard emerging from the wreckage when she should have been squashed flat by all accounts. Mass Effect 2 ends with all the surviving members of Psychosis Incorporated acting like fast friends and ready to go help Shep fight the reapers. Both games spend most of the game talking about how completely screwed you are and that no matter what you do you're going to fail and die and in BOTH cases you end triumphantly. Mass Effect has been a reconstruction of the space opera since ME1. Well guess what, in the traditional space opera the hero lives and gets her blue skinned space babe.

The clear high-points of the game for me were Mordin sacrificing himself for the genophage cure and Legion for his race. Those where not cheap-shoots at our emotions but real touching moments for characters we came to care about and they were incredibly well done imho.

Mordin I agree with. Mordin's was magnificently done just like everything on Tuchanka. It fit perfectly in his character arc as him coming to terms with the genophage and then sacrificing himself to make it right. It worked storywise, it worked character wise, and it was a suitably heroic death. I'm not really so much into Legion because honestly there was no real WHY given as to why he needed to die. Mordin's it was clear why he needed to do it, Legion's not so much. Though I will admit that by the end of Rannoch I was so sick of the shitty writing with regards to that arc that I just wanted it to end.

I just am not interested in anything that could come for ME3. The story is done, it is finished, Shepard is no more so why should I care about one or two additional missions "before" all goes to hell again?

I've been advancing that arguement about the pointlessness of the Leviathan DLC for a while now and that Omega, while well put together, is also lacking emotional punch since we know how it all ends.

altough I am normally strongly against the DLC ripp-off.

That largely depends on how it's handled. Making "From Ashes" day 1 DLC was shit, a lot of games handle DLC poorly. ME2 was how DLC should be handled. It was perfect and aside from Arrival I never felt ripped off.

If they make a direct sequel they would have to make one of the endings canonical or so far in the future that it is the MASS EFFECT universe only in name.

Which is exactly what they'll do. This isn't the first time a game series has hit this point and it won't be the last and they'll handle this the same way they always do. They'll pick the least fucked ending and make it the canon one. Hey, anyone remember nominating Anderson for the council? How'd that work out?

Of the three endings I can only see one ending they can go with which doesn't change the universe so dramatically that it becomes something compeletly differentl (Shepard becoming the cataclyst controlling the reapers, but the Citadal and Synthetics survive).

The problem with that ending is that you now have a god-like AI with an entire armada of nigh-unkillable super dreadnaughts watching over everything. It's going to create problems making drama when "Robo-Shep and her Reapers come and stomp it," is the most likely outcome to anyone getting out of line. I think Destroy is the most likely since the Extended Cut removed the implications that destroy would kill the geth and EDI.

However they already announced a ME4....

EA was never going to let a money-making property end. My own personal feeling is that Bio-Ware was sick of Mass Effect and tried to burn the franchise down. EA chuckled and said, "Make another one or you're all fucking fired."

Btw. going only by colour-scheme and what the catalyst sees as the best option,

The catalyst was trying very hard to kill you not ten minutes before and had been trying to kill you for 2.5 games. As you're talking to him he's still trying to murder everyone you've ever met in the series. The Catalyst is the greatest monster in history and is responsible for the deaths of at a minimum 3 quadrillion (I've done the math) lives. Fuck the Catalyst's opinions on EVERYTHING.

I find it ironic that only the Renegade Ending (destroying the reapers) gives the main character a chance of survival. (That and that the geth are not mentioned anywhere anymore. EDI is missing but she seemed to be the only other casualty other than the reapers. So maybe this one did not commit mass-genocide on the geth who knows. On the other hand, having a gasping Shepard lying in the rubble of the citadel is probably just another cheap shoot at our emotions, letting us hope for a second encounter which will never come.)

Well the EC removes all mentions of killing off the geth. There is no hard and fast statement like in the original endings that destroy would kill them. Also, Shep can't be on the Citadel, it blew the fuck up.

Mass Effect makes the abanduntly clear that you just CANNOT leave the important story choices to the player because time and again they are forced to overrule it so they can move on with the story.

I think they did a pretty decent job over the games, and Tuchanka proves they could have finished strong with personal choice in ME3. The problem is that allowing the story to grow like that does have a limit and ME3 was it. ME4, if it reuses the cast, is just screwed, it simply can't be done without canonizing an ending or punting the whole setting so far forward that it wouldn't even feel like ME anymore.

(especially grating since my romance choice was Miranda. In hindsight, Liara or Tali would have been far better, at least they are a major presence in all three games.

No, you picked just fine. Bioware just decided to play favorites and essentially fucked over half the LI choices from ME2. Jack, Miranda, and Jacob all got boned. Thane sort of did but given his story if you picked him in ME2 you knew this was coming. They did decided to reward you staying faithful to the lizard by NOT having that count towards the paramour achievement though because fuck you for playing ME2.

It would have been far better if they just move the story on in the direction they want for the whole time, instead on forcing it on us anyhow in the end and leave the moral choices for side-missions/characters like the Conrad Verner act. Things to show the player how he/she might influence things but which have no great impact on the main story.

And now you just have a talky action game. I loved ME because it was an RPG. I'd rather have ME as an excellent RPG trilogy then them just keep grinding out new installments each holiday season as an action game. Tuchanka proves that the game could have been done right. They could have brought in most of your choices and made them matter. They chose not to, and it was to the game's tremendous detriment.

Atekimogus · Post by **Atekimogus** » Tue Jan 29, 2013 9:57 am

First I agree with almost anything you said Tyr. Also I read your review and I think you make some very good points, some points which are nitpicking and some which are down to personal taste but overrall a good read with valid points, even if I do not agree with all of them.

Tyyr wrote:Well guess what, in the traditional space opera the hero lives and gets her blue skinned space babe.

Jup...it should have been a real option. Altough imho not really hard to achieve (You really don't need to try hard, just play the game and sidemissions and you always will get the optimal ending with the least people dying. I find it mindboogling how people manage to kill of characters in this game when it is optional. You really have to skip most dialogues and sidemissions to achieve that but why play the game then?) a classical happy ending for those who tried for it would have been infinitely more satisfying.

Tyyr wrote:Though I will admit that by the end of Rannoch I was so sick of the shitty writing with regards to that arc that I just wanted it to end.

I admit that there are quite a few unanswered questions regarding that arc, but overall I quite enjoyed it. Altough I have next to no love for the idiotic quarians except for Tali I really liked the overall arc. The Tron-esque sequence was a nice alteration and fleeing the reaper, Legion saying that they could outrun it with Shepard just saying "No" and facing the reaper pretty much alone only with a targeting laser is one of his biggest bad-ass moments imho.

The biggest fault I can find with it is that it happens AFTER tuchanka. The tone of the whole arc is a bit more subdued and a bit less exciting and imho it would have been the perfect build up for when they went all out for tuchanka but obviously they did that first and seem then to have run out a bit of steam.

Tyyr wrote: EA was never going to let a money-making property end. My own personal feeling is that Bio-Ware was sick of Mass Effect and tried to burn the franchise down. EA chuckled and said, "Make another one or you're all fucking fired."

Yes that's understandable, however imho parts of them being sick of it probably stems from the fact that with all the choices they have to consider they pretty much wrote themselves into a corner and the bulk of writers is probably concerned to make the dialogues make sense considering which characters have survived and whatnot. No wonder they are tired of that and made pretty much a hard reset of the universe to free themselves again of player choicers which limits severly their freedom. (And costs a shitload of money, considering how many voiceactors either do useless work for killed off characters or doing double duty for step in characters).

Tyyr wrote:Well the EC removes all mentions of killing off the geth. There is no hard and fast statement like in the original endings that destroy would kill them. Also, Shep can't be on the Citadel, it blew the fuck up.

I only played the EC and there still is. The catalyst states it pretty clearly that all synthetics will be affected not only the reapers. It was the only thing preventing me from choosing that one in the first place, though I admit now that this probably the "best" ending we get, regardless of the geth biting the dust.

Tyyr wrote: ME4, if it reuses the cast, is just screwed, it simply can't be done without canonizing an ending or punting the whole setting so far forward that it wouldn't even feel like ME anymore.

You know if it isn't the most horrible ending I would be fine with that. That is what I meant with that they cannot let the player make the real important storyquestions without severly limiting themselves. So in the end they were still forced to canonize certain things. And they already did that to a large degree.
For example it is perfectly possible for Shepard to not survive the suicide mission and ME2 has a perfectly acceptable ending for it. If you play it that way you cannot continue with ME3, you can only import the savegame "if you survived". I am ok with that, it's a way of saying you just didn't play good enough, try again. You might say it limits the choice system but I do understand that they have to limit the complextity in SOME way. So imho it's perfectly fine for them to say that if you killed Shepard in ME2 the story come to an end for you there. For all those who didn't loose him, this is how we envisioned the continuation. And I would be fine if the same happens for ME4. So you where a lazy ass and general an incompetent player? Fine, the cycle continues and the story comes to an end with Liara's time capsules. For everyone a bit more competent, this is how it would continue..... I would prefer canonization over starting completely new with a completely new cast in a completely new universe to be honest which again they are forced to rest after a while just because the complexity grows to great to handle anymore.

Now I am not saying they should eliminate ALL choice from the game. Like a said there are quite a lot examples where your choices directly influence the world without colliding with the main story. Choices which ultimately lead to the same thing like who is councilor could also work but the biggest mistake (and I doubt we will EVER see anything like it again) is to make the death of squadmates an optional occurences. That should not have happend imho. The whole of ME2 was structured in a way that the optional deaths of your team was pretty much a requirement (the better you played the more survive) but it GREATLY lessened the dramatic impact of the suicide mission and limited every follow up for every castmember/step in character afterwards.( for whom you need two voice actors instead of one. Small wonder they only have cameos or small appeareances). In my first playthrough I had noone dying in the suicide mission. That was satisfying but also - I felt - a bit unrealistic considering the nature of the mission. I wouldn't have minded one or two canonical deaths for dramatic impact on that one to be honest. But with everything optional there really is only so much they can do and structure stories in a certain way so all makes sense in the end.

Now forget about the ending for a moment, assume we have a happy ending in the game and all is fine. They still would need to start with a clean slate for ME4 because at that point pretty much every castmember could have died at one point or another, predetermining them for cameo-roles at best. I honestly was surprised at how many lines Garrus and Tali got for ME3 considering that their being there is completely optional but than I understand they are fan-favourites and probably also a bit cheaper to pay than Martin Sheen for example, but you see the problem?

Tyyr wrote:And now you just have a talky action game. I loved ME because it was an RPG.

We have to disagree on that one. The differnce between RPG and action game for me is not the amount of dialoge or a multiple choice system but the game mechanic. ME2 already is a talky action game, there is no complexity in character skills whatsoever, ME1 leans more into an RPG mechanic while ME3 is a mix of 1 and 2. We are talking shades of grade here not black and white but for me this is a non-issue. I enjoyed the RPG elements in ME1, the more complex character sheets and customization options etc. I didn't miss them at all in ME2. I didn't mind some of them coming back for ME3. I - and I see I am in the minority here - liked driving around in my MAKO tank in ME1. But didn't really miss it in the follow ups.

Point is, none of the gameplay changes they made during the series is anywhere near a game-breaker for me. Maybe that's because I like action AND rpg games and I am therefore indifferent to the degree they mix those two elements.....

Tyyr · Post by **Tyyr** » Tue Jan 29, 2013 1:27 pm

First I agree with almost anything you said Tyr. Also I read your review and I think you make some very good points, some points which are nitpicking and some which are down to personal taste but overrall a good read with valid points, even if I do not agree with all of them.

Oh there's a lot of nitpicking going on, I fully acknowledge that. Most of the review was written as I played the game so I wrote down everything. I keep meaning to go back and write a tidier version that doesn't get so bogged down in many of the details.

Jup...it should have been a real option. Altough imho not really hard to achieve (You really don't need to try hard, just play the game and sidemissions and you always will get the optimal ending with the least people dying.

Hell, pick Destroy but don't have Shepard stupidly walk right up to the thing that explodes. Problem solved.

I find it mindboogling how people manage to kill of characters in this game when it is optional. You really have to skip most dialogues and sidemissions to achieve that but why play the game then?) a classical happy ending for those who tried for it would have been infinitely more satisfying.

That's the roleplaying aspect. I have some friends who vehmently disagree with me about the Krogan and who argue convincingly that you have to stop Mordin from curing them. So it's not always being stupid, some Shepards see things differently.

I admit that there are quite a few unanswered questions regarding that arc,

My main problem is that given how the geth and quarians shook out in my playthrough of ME2 (the one I used for my lone complete playthrough of 3) it never should have happened. I had fixed the heretic geth, Legion had sent his info back to his people, they knew about the Reapers and what they were. The Quarians had been steered from the path of war. But I played ME2 so the devs told me to get fucked, the Geth are stupid and the quarians want a war and if you don't like it then you shouldn't have played ME2.

The Tron-esque sequence was a nice alteration

I still argue that is one of the biggest mindfucks in the game. The only possible explanation for what we're shown is that Legion is intentionally trying to manipulate Shep by doctoring the footage. Well that or the writers and producers are incompetant tits who don't even remember the most basic facets of their own creation. Sadly I think the second is more likely.

and fleeing the reaper, Legion saying that they could outrun it with Shepard just saying "No" and facing the reaper pretty much alone only with a targeting laser is one of his biggest bad-ass moments imho.

Sorry, that was stupid. You don't face an enemy with a ground to orbit weapon with a yield of at least a kiloton on foot. There was no reason Shep couldn't have popped the hatch and done exactly the same thing and it been far less stupid.

The biggest fault I can find with it is that it happens AFTER tuchanka. The tone of the whole arc is a bit more subdued and a bit less exciting and imho it would have been the perfect build up for when they went all out for tuchanka but obviously they did that first and seem then to have run out a bit of steam.

I can see that. They may have blown their wads early with Tuchanka considering how pitch perfect it is. Then again they may have been hitting us early with it and saving the Talimancer fodder for the mid point of the game.

Yes that's understandable, however imho parts of them being sick of it probably stems from the fact that with all the choices they have to consider they pretty much wrote themselves into a corner and the bulk of writers is probably concerned to make the dialogues make sense considering which characters have survived and whatnot.

I vehmently disagree with that. Not that they may have been sick of it, that they wrote themselves into a corner. Tuchanka proves that they could take all your choices and decisions into account. Look at the sequence. Mordin may have survived ME2, he might now. Wrex may or may not have survived ME1. You may or may not have trashed Maelon's research in ME2. Eve might be alive, she might not. You could have Wreav in charge of the Krogan. And yet the entire sequence handles all those variables to provide satisfying conclusions regardless of how you chose it to play out over the last 3 games. It could be done, they did it. It's not easy to write, but if you don't want to be challenged when you write deciding to do it professionally was probably a fuck up.

No wonder they are tired of that and made pretty much a hard reset of the universe to free themselves again of player choicers which limits severly their freedom. (And costs a shitload of money, considering how many voiceactors either do useless work for killed off characters or doing double duty for step in characters).

Eh, I honestly feel that ending Shep's story in ME3 was probably the right call regardless. ME has taken three to four years of Shep's life, gotten her killed, romanced as many as four different people, maybe settled down with one, saved the Krogan, saved the geth, gotten the Quarians their home planet back, saved the Citadel, blown up the Citadel, defeated the collectors, personally killed several Reapers, and saved the whole fucking galaxy. I think she's earned an early retirement. Plus, let the entire cast go out on a high note and start a new character's story in ME4. As much as people might love Shep you're better off putting her out to pasture BEFORE she gets long in the tooth.

I only played the EC and there still is. The catalyst states it pretty clearly that all synthetics will be affected not only the reapers. It was the only thing preventing me from choosing that one in the first place, though I admit now that this probably the "best" ending we get, regardless of the geth biting the dust.

I'm gonna have to rewatch the EC because I swear when I played it distinctly remembered the original line clearly stating it would kill the geth and then the EC removing it.

I would prefer canonization over starting completely new with a completely new cast in a completely new universe to be honest which again they are forced to rest after a while just because the complexity grows to great to handle anymore.

Why not start with a new cast? Would Trek be as diverse and rich as it is if we were still watching Shatner and Nimoy in the NCC-1701 fighting monsters in rubber suits? Star Trek has lasted as long as it has because you bring in new casts, new perspectives, new dynamics all the time. Things change but it's still Trek. Hell, look at Halo, they couldn't let Master Chief go so they're awkwardly handwaving in a reason for him to still be kicking rather than letting the chapter close on the character and moving onto new ones. I'd rather see Shep kicked up to an Anderson like position and a new group come in.

but you see the problem?

I see what you're saying, but I don't consider it a problem, see above.

We have to disagree on that one. The differnce between RPG and action game for me is not the amount of dialoge or a multiple choice system but the game mechanic. ME2 already is a talky action game, there is no complexity in character skills whatsoever, ME1 leans more into an RPG mechanic while ME3 is a mix of 1 and 2.

See, here's the problem. You've got your definitions reversed. RPG stands for ROLE Playing Game. You play a Role. The role in ME is commander Shepard and the choices and decisions. That's Role playing. The stats and skills and all that, that's ROLL playing. DnD created roll-playing, not to eliminate role playing, but as a way to handle the phyiscal actions in the world and to introduce some randomness. The original DnD manuals even pointed out that all the stats and stuff were just window dressing on the role you were playing and called out the DM to reward good role-playing as much as getting lucky with dice. Stat and gear-whoring are not role playing. You can roleplay without ever rolling a single dice, setting up any stats or skills. Find the Founder is a perfect example of role-playing without any of the roll-playing bullshit.

Seriously, stats and skills do not an RPG make or else you're going to have to start calling things like Call of Duty RPG's since they include skill systems, stats, gear, and levels.

Point is, none of the gameplay changes they made during the series is anywhere near a game-breaker for me. Maybe that's because I like action AND rpg games and I am therefore indifferent to the degree they mix those two elements.....

I think that ME1 and ME2 both worked very well. They removed too much of the crunch, (stats, gear, etc.) from ME2 for my liking but since the choices and dialogue were all still there I was ok with it. They added the crunch back to ME3, but made it utterly pointless, but then yanked away my control of Shep which for me was a deal breaker.

Atekimogus · Post by **Atekimogus** » Tue Jan 29, 2013 6:43 pm

Tyyr wrote: My main problem is that given how the geth and quarians shook out in my playthrough of ME2 (the one I used for my lone complete playthrough of 3) it never should have happened. I had fixed the heretic geth, Legion had sent his info back to his people, they knew about the Reapers and what they were. The Quarians had been steered from the path of war.

Wasn't a problem for me to be honest. I made exactly the same choices but they never made a definite statement or commited their fleet to my cause, they always only took my words under consideration. I was a bit surprised too since I thaught I had persuvaded them, obviously that was not the case. It sucks but remains completely in the realm of possibilites, so it didn't really bother me that much.

Tyyr wrote: I still argue that is one of the biggest mindfucks in the game. The only possible explanation for what we're shown is that Legion is intentionally trying to manipulate Shep by doctoring the footage. Well that or the writers and producers are incompetant tits who don't even remember the most basic facets of their own creation. Sadly I think the second is more likely.

How so? The things Legion shows us portraying the geth in a positve and sympathetic way isn't anything we didn't already hear in ME2. It's pretty much consistent in that regard. ("Does this unit have a sould?" "WTF you just said? KILL, MAIM, DESTROY!) Now I am always very sympatethic to synthetic life (like Data or Legion etc.) so I had no real problem with that.

Tyyr wrote: Sorry, that was stupid. You don't face an enemy with a ground to orbit weapon with a yield of at least a kiloton on foot. There was no reason Shep couldn't have popped the hatch and done exactly the same thing and it been far less stupid.

Suspension of disbelief. Complete hinges on the fact where you draw the line. Bringing back a two year old dead corpse who possibly crash landed on a planet seems far more unlikely. Again, either you draw the line and call bullshit or you just go with it. Personally the sequenze had me on the edge of my seat similar to the tuchanka bossfight.

Tyyr wrote: I vehmently disagree with that. Not that they may have been sick of it, that they wrote themselves into a corner. Tuchanka proves that they could take all your choices and decisions into account. Look at the sequence. Mordin may have survived ME2, he might now. Wrex may or may not have survived ME1. You may or may not have trashed Maelon's research in ME2. Eve might be alive, she might not. You could have Wreav in charge of the Krogan. And yet the entire sequence handles all those variables to provide satisfying conclusions regardless of how you chose it to play out over the last 3 games. It could be done, they did it. It's not easy to write, but if you don't want to be challenged when you write deciding to do it professionally was probably a fuck up.

Yes they did it for one third of the game. And obviously ran out of steam there. Bringing the tuchanka arc to such a good closure cost them probably twice as much as the whole first ME. Of COURSE it can be done, but when EVERYONE in the cast is optional it soon becomes highly unpractical to make such a game, which has dialoge and content worth three games just to make every choice workable and equal in quality. That is the crux of the matter imho. Now I don't know how much voice actors charge per day but I imagine folks like Green or Sheen don't come cheap (which might be actually the reason why they have roles you can hardly influence at all).

Tyyr wrote: Eh, I honestly feel that ending Shep's story in ME3 was probably the right call regardless. ME has taken three to four years of Shep's life, gotten her killed, romanced as many as four different people, maybe settled down with one, saved the Krogan, saved the geth, gotten the Quarians their home planet back, saved the Citadel, blown up the Citadel, defeated the collectors, personally killed several Reapers, and saved the whole fucking galaxy. I think she's earned an early retirement. Plus, let the entire cast go out on a high note and start a new character's story in ME4. As much as people might love Shep you're better off putting her out to pasture BEFORE she gets long in the tooth.

Would have no problem with that, if we had gotten a satisfieng ending which gives us closure. Would love to start with a new cast, having Shepard maybe as new human councilor/ambassador and a few teammates making cameos for familiarity etc. . Would just be nice to know that it all worked out for him/her in the end, time to move on.

But we have not gotten that. In that regard it would have even been better if they killed him off without any doubt, unfortunatly, the Shepard arc is for most of us just is not over, and the fault lies firmly with Bioware and not with zealous Shepard fans. If you want him dead, don't include so many possibilities that he/she is actually alive. (Actually it was indeed confirmed by Bioware that the body in the detroy ending is indeed Shepard.) So most of my desire to continue playing with Shepard is just that I feel that the story-arc is still not done.

Tyyr wrote: I'm gonna have to rewatch the EC because I swear when I played it distinctly remembered the original line clearly stating it would kill the geth and then the EC removing it.

As I said, I only just now had the time to play it so it has to be in the game since I don't even know what the original destroy ending was. What WAS surprising though is that in the montage that follows Hacket never mentions the geth, so despite what the cataclyst says it was actually a pretty good ending without any obvious drawbacks. Would have thought loosing a race which fleets rival the turians would have been worth a mention....Now if it weren't not for that damn teaser and cheap photomontages.....

Tyyr wrote: Why not start with a new cast? Would Trek be as diverse and rich as it is if we were still watching Shatner and Nimoy in the NCC-1701 fighting monsters in rubber suits? Star Trek has lasted as long as it has because you bring in new casts, new perspectives, new dynamics all the time.

As I said - for me - it is mostly because I feel we didn't get closure on the Shepard story arc. There was no sendoff of the crew and to the third star to the left till morning or something. We only get a dreamy cataclyst sequenze (where strong arguments can be made for that it actually never happened. I am not sure if this "indoctrination theory" is just fans grasping at straws but they make a few good points) and a gasping Shepard lying in the rubble of London. Clearly there is a lot going on we don't know of yet, hence no closure.

Now afaik there is one additional DLC planned and maybe we will get some answers there.......but honestly, I highly doubt that and my expecations are rather low and I fear the gasping Shepard in one ending is not a last clever plot-twist leaving us all in shock and awe but the only purpose it serves is to tease us into buying new DLC. Sad but probably true.

Tyyr wrote: I see what you're saying, but I don't consider it a problem, see above.

As above, complexity per se isn't the problem, ressources are. Now I don't have the numbers and how much they made with ME3 but no matter how successful the game was in the end, as long as it is in development costs need to be as low as possible to reduce risk. There is a lot of EA bashing going on, repordedly pushing the date and being responsible for all the DLC fuckup but there are always two sides. I bet they started development, went all out for tuchanka and suddendly found themselves overbudged and overtime. You know that happens with creative folk, they got drawn into their work and don't care about such little things as deadlines and budgets (and they shouldn't, isn't their job). So yeah, maybe the degree of complexity was a bit overambitous on their side and needed to be cut down, and this is promptly what happened for large portions of the game.

That's why I would advise them to limit the complexity from the start that you don't even come to such a point, where you have to tone down complexity because it just isn't manageble anymore in a practical way.

Tyyr wrote: See, here's the problem. You've got your definitions reversed. RPG stands for ROLE Playing Game. You play a Role. The role in ME is commander Shepard and the choices and decisions. That's Role playing. The stats and skills and all that, that's ROLL playing. DnD created roll-playing, not to eliminate role playing, but as a way to handle the phyiscal actions in the world and to introduce some randomness. The original DnD manuals even pointed out that all the stats and stuff were just window dressing on the role you were playing and called out the DM to reward good role-playing as much as getting lucky with dice. Stat and gear-whoring are not role playing. You can roleplay without ever rolling a single dice, setting up any stats or skills. Find the Founder is a perfect example of role-playing without any of the roll-playing bullshit.

Seriously, stats and skills do not an RPG make or else you're going to have to start calling things like Call of Duty RPG's since they include skill systems, stats, gear, and levels.

Well I am not comfortable with such black and white definitions when clearly the lines are more blurry here. What about Diablo for example? There is hardly any dialogue and even though you may choose between 3 classes your role is always basically the same and still...it's considered an action RPG.

What about the original Deus EX? It's also considered an action RPG. Or at least an action game with RPG elements. My point is if we are talking about computer games we should stay in the realm of computer games and not widen the definition to other forms of games. Sure it is not "role" playing in the strict definition of "find the founder" for example, but then I don't say that ME is missing RPG elements because my girlfriend is not in it dressed as a french maid. That is also a form of role-playing, but it has nothing to do with computer games.

Tyyr wrote: I think that ME1 and ME2 both worked very well. They removed too much of the crunch, (stats, gear, etc.) from ME2 for my liking but since the choices and dialogue were all still there I was ok with it. They added the crunch back to ME3, but made it utterly pointless, but then yanked away my control of Shep which for me was a deal breaker.

That's what I meant, the one is for me a gameplay-mechanic problem, the latter a storyline probleme. If you search for a computer game that gives you the same freedom of choice with epic impact on the storyline like you might experience in a role-playing game with friends I think you will always be disappointed. (VAmpire Bloodlines for example is widely regarded as one of the best action-rpg, and yet you have much less freedom of choice than in ME).

Tyyr · Post by **Tyyr** » Tue Jan 29, 2013 7:50 pm

Wasn't a problem for me to be honest. I made exactly the same choices but they never made a definite statement or commited their fleet to my cause, they always only took my words under consideration. I was a bit surprised too since I thaught I had persuvaded them, obviously that was not the case. It sucks but remains completely in the realm of possibilites, so it didn't really bother me that much.

The quarians I can maybe see. Like you said no one firmly ever said, "No war!" but after the speech and the work you'd like to see some difference made besides none. Especially given that supporting a war was the stupid evil thing to do in ME2 since it would almost certainly see the quarians wiped out. The geth though, there's no excuse. They have all of Legion's information, they know of the heretics, the Reapers represent everything the geth don't want, and they still chose the Reapers.

How so? The things Legion shows us portraying the geth in a positve and sympathetic way isn't anything we didn't already hear in ME2. It's pretty much consistent in that regard. ("Does this unit have a sould?" "WTF you just said? KILL, MAIM, DESTROY!) Now I am always very sympatethic to synthetic life (like Data or Legion etc.) so I had no real problem with that.

Ok, first of all all the sympathetic quarians in the vids are female. Who's been the main quarian of the series? Tali, a female quarian. The quarians pushing against the geth are all male. Secondly, they're all in their environmental suits pre diaspora. You know, before their immune systems were weakened and they needed them. Then again Shep has only ever known suited quarians (unless you've romanced Tali) so Shep is most comfortable seeing them in their suits. Then you have the helpful quarians being gunned down with the geth, yet another sympathetic scene to build raport between the geth and the quarians. Then there's the simple farming unit that takes up a sniper rifle to defend his fellow units. Never mind that the rifle he uses wasn't invented for another two centuries and Legion's allusion to that unit being him is bullshit since Legion was only amalgamated a few years ago. Then there's the geth winning and the quarians fleeing. It's presented as the quarians leaving and the geth just calmly letting them go.

This is just wrong. Only about 17 million quarians survived the morning war. We'll be a bit conservative and say that the quarians had a planetary population of 5 billion. That means the geth killed 4,983 million quarians or 99.66% of the quarian population. This number could vary. If quarians kept their population in check and only had a billion people then the get only killed 98.3% of the population. If the quarians grew like we did and had 10 billion people then the geth killed 99.83% of the population. Regardless, the geth are killing more than 99% of the quarian population. The only way the geth could get those kind of numbers is if they were going through quarian nursing homes and bashing in grannies skull and marching through quarian nurseries with a flame thrower. You are presented with the morning war like some morally conflicted uprising where the geth just tried to defend themselves and held themselves back when the quarians finally gave up and fled. The reality is that the geth were mercilessly slaughtering every quarian they could get their claws on, every man, woman, and child. That kind of extermination is wildly at odds with what's presented in Legion's sanitized flashbacks.

Suspension of disbelief.

No, this was like the Indy surviving a nuke in a fridge. There's tickling my suspension of disbelief and there's prison raping it. The destroyer had a gun capable of threatening the SR-2 in ORBIT. First of all the accuracy needed to hit a target like that at 150+ kilometers while it's moving at orbital velocities eclipses the difficulty of hitting a man sized target at 1km doing combat rolls by SEVERAL orders of magnitude neglecting the fact that the destroyer doesn't have to actually hit Shep. A hit anywhere on that little plateau would have reduced Shep to incandescent plasma. You don't get to just shrug and say "suspension of disbelief" when you give your opponent a nuclear bomb gun and the accuracty to shoot the head off a pin attached to an F1 car two miles away.

And again, all they had to do was have Shep doing the lasing from the moving and dodging ground transport.

Personally the sequenze had me on the edge of my seat similar to the tuchanka bossfight.

I couldn't believe I was in a boss fight that hadn't been cutting edge since the early days of the NES.

Yes they did it for one third of the game. And obviously ran out of steam there.

Yeah, not buying it. They're professional writers. They have weeks, even months to craft a story that works. The managed to write all of ME1 and ME2 and keep it to a more or less consistantly high quality. Tuchanka is top notch. Garrus and Liara's little interludes are top notch. Hell, even the good-bye scenes on Earth are top notch. They had the talent and the ability so I'm not buying that they just ran out of gas on the rest of the story and even if they did that's not acceptable.

Bringing the tuchanka arc to such a good closure cost them probably twice as much as the whole first ME.

Ok, first of all prove it. I would bet you my next paycheck that it didn't. Secondly they had all the voice actors. Even though their parts weren't huge they still brought in all the voice actors so if you've paid to bring them in, USE THEM. Finally many people played multiple parts. I need to look through the credits again but I think most of the "replacements" weren't special actors brought in but did several other parts in the game. So they had the voice actors there. And you don't cut costs by just reducing the number of lines said. They charge per day so spending an hour recording five lines or 8 hours recording two hundred it's the same cost. You reduce them by not including speaking parts to being with, (re: Overlord and Arrival). The biggest costs of voice acting isn't the actor's time, it's their air fair, hotel, and studio time. Once you've paid for all that you may as well use them and get more lines out of them. It's not like Jack had hours of dialogue in ME2 anyways.

And as for saving cost, they brought in new characters for ME3, Jessica Chobot, Freddie Prinz Jr., along with Cortez and Coates voice actors so they weren't exactly trying to save money on voice acting.

What WAS surprising though is that in the montage that follows Hacket never mentions the geth, so despite what the cataclyst says it was actually a pretty good ending without any obvious drawbacks. Would have thought loosing a race which fleets rival the turians would have been worth a mention....Now if it weren't not for that damn teaser and cheap photomontages.....

Yeah, the sunshine and lolipopped it up. And they never mention the geth at all which adds to my feeling that they wanted to not explicitly show that so as not to piss off the geth fans. Funny thing, when the Fleet checks in prior to the assault on Earth there is no check in for the Geth never mind that they're supposed to have the largest individual fleet in the galaxy.

As I said - for me - it is mostly because I feel we didn't get closure on the Shepard story arc. There was no sendoff of the crew and to the third star to the left till morning or something. We only get a dreamy cataclyst sequenze (where strong arguments can be made for that it actually never happened. I am not sure if this "indoctrination theory" is just fans grasping at straws but they make a few good points) and a gasping Shepard lying in the rubble of London. Clearly there is a lot going on we don't know of yet, hence no closure.

I can understand the lack of closure. Hell, one of the reasons I'm writing an ME3 fic is for closure. However we're not going to get it from Bioware and we won't get Shepard on the next outing so on the whole, we got what we got. Then again the ending is such utter bullshit that I say just ignore it. Make up your own ending for ME3 in your head and let that be the real ending for you.

The Indoctrination Theory is actually a rather well put together fan explanation. You have to remember that much of it was born from the shear WTFery of the original ending. The confusion and horror of being confronted with that abortion and people trying to come up with some meaning for it. Personally I liked Indoctrination but I never really thought it was what was going on. The EC confirmed what I'd dreaded all along, Bioware really just did not understand what the problem was. Their heads were so far up their own asses they could see daylight.

So yeah, maybe the degree of complexity was a bit overambitous on their side and needed to be cut down, and this is promptly what happened for large portions of the game.

Maybe, but I'm not going to pull any punches over it. Never mind that my biggest issues are all writing issues which I have no sympathy for as when it comes to game development writing is a free action more or less. So writing this awful isn't a function of money, it's a function of just not giving a shit.

What about Diablo for example? There is hardly any dialogue and even though you may choose between 3 classes your role is always basically the same and still...it's considered an action RPG.

Two things. One, I've played Diablo and never in my life would I ever call it an RPG. I enjoyed it, but it's not an RPG. Two, the term RPG is being diluted by people who don't really understand what it means. They click through the dialogue and just worry about gear and stats, the kind of guys who at a DnD game would tune out whenever the game slowed down and not pay any attention until combat. Things like World of Warcraft haven't helped the perception when the major points of talk are all about loot and stats. It's losing sight of the term.

What about the original Deus EX? It's also considered an action RPG. Or at least an action game with RPG elements.

Deus Ex has a heck of a lot more going for it that Diablo when you talk RPG. You had distinct endings depending on how you percieved the game. There was also plenty of crunch with gear and stats and the game magnificently let you play it how you wanted. If anything that freedom to either be a sneaky covert spy or a machine gun toting terminator brings it closer to role playing by letting you pick your role and how you handle problems. Diablo has exactly one method of conflict resolution, kill it and loot the body. Deus Ex certainly isn't as indepth with its converstations and decisions as ME1 or 2 but it's worlds ahead of something like Diablo.

My point is if we are talking about computer games we should stay in the realm of computer games and not widen the definition to other forms of games.

Ok, want to limit the definition to computer games? How about Planescape Torment? Neverwinter Nights 2? Baldur's Gate? There are plenty of computer games that preserve much of the spirit of true Role-playing in computer game format. You can't go completely off the rails in them but within their limitations you have room to craft your role and character.

Stat-whoring is not roleplaying. Loot-whoring is not roleplaying. If you want to define and RPG by that definition then you have to accept that something like Call of Duty: Black Ops is a role playing game.

And here's the thing, Bioware did it in ME3. They took choices from across two and a half games and crafted a suitable and appropriate ending to a long running storyline in Tuchanka. They did it. They did it IN THIS GAME. So no, I will not accept when the rest of the game fails so spectacularly to do that. They had the talent, they had ability, and they just didn't do it. As for the money argument, I'm not buying it. ME3 was set to be a AAA title that would compete with the big name shooters. EA's projections were shooting for 10 million units sold. They weren't cutting corners on this game. Hell, they put off the game past the 2011 holiday season to add multi-player to it. This wasn't a rushed and budget crunched game.

Atekimogus · Post by **Atekimogus** » Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:28 am

Tyyr wrote: The quarians I can maybe see. Like you said no one firmly ever said, "No war!" but after the speech and the work you'd like to see some difference made besides none. Especially given that supporting a war was the stupid evil thing to do in ME2 since it would almost certainly see the quarians wiped out. The geth though, there's no excuse. They have all of Legion's information, they know of the heretics, the Reapers represent everything the geth don't want, and they still chose the Reapers.

"Is submission not preferable to extinction?" - Saren. No didn't bother me, it was presented as a choice for them between getting wiped out or being slaves to the reapers. Considering how their decission process works I can very well see them arrive at such an conclusion. However, and maybe I need a second playthrough, what didn't make sense to me is why then Legion was suddenly on our side and wanted to be freed. That I admit I didn't really get.

Tyyr wrote: Ok, first of all all the sympathetic quarians in the vids are female. Who's been the main quarian of the series? Tali, a female quarian. The quarians pushing against the geth are all male.

Really? I didn't notice that all. Well ok, might be subtle manipulation but imho you are a bit to critical there, could just have been coincidence. (Wasn't the one trying to hide one a male? Idk, need to look it up). Honestly the coolest quarian was never Tali, but Jayne Cobb...I mean John Casey....I mean....what was his name? Kal Regar or something?:)

Tyyr wrote:Secondly, they're all in their environmental suits pre diaspora. You know, before their immune systems were weakened and they needed them. Then again Shep has only ever known suited quarians (unless you've romanced Tali) so Shep is most comfortable seeing them in their suits. Then you have the helpful quarians being gunned down with the geth, yet another sympathetic scene to build raport between the geth and the quarians. Then there's the simple farming unit that takes up a sniper rifle to defend his fellow units. Never mind that the rifle he uses wasn't invented for another two centuries and Legion's allusion to that unit being him is bullshit since Legion was only amalgamated a few years ago. Then there's the geth winning and the quarians fleeing. It's presented as the quarians leaving and the geth just calmly letting them go.

Yeah.....what again did bother you there? As far as we know that is exactly what happened. I am just playing ME1 to compare notes and Tali pretty much confirms this. The geth got sentient. The quarians panicked and tried to shutting them down without realising that they are far more intelligent then they knew at that point. The geth fought back. War. Quarians left. As soon as they where out of the veil the geth stopped persuing them and then stayed beyond the veil ever since. (That's why everyone is so shocked seing a geth outside the veil in ME1). That is the sequenze of events told by Tali (to which Shepard even then is very critical with Tali's only defense that they "needed" to strike first or they would have been wiped out). The geth eg. Legion tell the same story so I tend to believe it.

Now of course it's supposed to be sympathetic towards the geth, since the game is structured in a way that five minutes from now you have to make a big moral choice between quarians and geth and considering how fond many are of Tali I guess this is needed to a degree to even make some people consider not exterminating the geth. Maybe it is a bit cheap but in the end I was glad I had engouh reputation to bug out of the situation by just making peace between the two.

Tyyr wrote:The reality is that the geth were mercilessly slaughtering every quarian they could get their claws on, every man, woman, and child. That kind of extermination is wildly at odds with what's presented in Legion's sanitized flashbacks.

Yes, war is always a very messy afair especially when both sides are hell-bent on not only besting but utterly terminating the other side. That is never in question imho. The questions are who started the whole mess? Was it really necessary or inevitable? What would the quarians have done if they were the victorious side? Would they have left the geth alone as soon as they left? As for the war itself, if the quarians needed to suffer a 99% population loss to realize it is time to pack your bags......... . Let's just say they are damn lucky that the geth arrived at the consensus that this small population leaving does not mean a threat to their existance anymore, which ironically was a miscalculation on their part.

The MOST important point however is that the geth did NOT wipe out the quarians or vice versa nor have really the inclanation of doing so anymore, that they have achieved a fragile peace, that this is as far as we know a first in this cycle AND that it was NEVER mentioned ONCE by Shepard to the cataclyst. I desperatly searched on the "wheel" the "Screw you star child. Our synthetics are peaceful and are even now working with their creators restoring their homeworld, so take your reapers and piss off. You are out of a job and we managed to came up with a far better solution to the "chaos" on our own. So long sucker!" option.

Alas....

Tyyr wrote: No, this was like the Indy surviving a nuke in a fridge. There's tickling my suspension of disbelief and there's prison raping it. The destroyer had a gun capable of threatening the SR-2 in ORBIT. First of all the accuracy needed to hit a target like that at 150+ kilometers while it's moving at orbital velocities eclipses the difficulty of hitting a man sized target at 1km doing combat rolls by SEVERAL orders of magnitude neglecting the fact that the destroyer doesn't have to actually hit Shep. A hit anywhere on that little plateau would have reduced Shep to incandescent plasma. You don't get to just shrug and say "suspension of disbelief" when you give your opponent a nuclear bomb gun and the accuracty to shoot the head off a pin attached to an F1 car two miles away.

Didn't bother me. At this point I survived being a corpse for two years, killed a thresher maw with a nuke gun, the same goes for a mini-reaper and later on I even manage to survive a blast from Harbinger (if we believe that the ending is really happening and not just a dream sequenze).

My point is, of course it is bullshit, but it is a bit late to start complaining NOW. Just go with it.....

Tyyr wrote:And again, all they had to do was have Shep doing the lasing from the moving and dodging ground transport.

Yes, would have been better I agree. The distances were to close to conformt considering orbital bombardment. Yes it crossed my mind, yes I thought it a bit.....yeah stupid. But again, at this point......

Tyyr wrote:
Yes they did it for one third of the game. And obviously ran out of steam there.
Yeah, not buying it. They're professional writers. They have weeks, even months to craft a story that works. The managed to write all of ME1 and ME2 and keep it to a more or less consistantly high quality. Tuchanka is top notch. Garrus and Liara's little interludes are top notch. Hell, even the good-bye scenes on Earth are top notch. They had the talent and the ability so I'm not buying that they just ran out of gas on the rest of the story and even if they did that's not acceptable.

Ah I see the misunderstanding. By running out of steam I didn't mean they had no ideas anymore or were unwilling. I mean they were out of time and out of budget. Considering how well done Tuchanka is, that really is the only explanation. Therefore, it is the fault of the project management who wanted to cram it more than what was feasable in the first place, considering time and money constraints. Or just plain mismanagement of the considerable ressources they must have had, like adding unneeded characters, adding multiplayer noone needs or really wants etc. you know instead of screwing all this and making a nice ending scene on par with the phenomenal take back earth trailer.

Tyyr wrote:And as for saving cost, they brought in new characters for ME3, Jessica Chobot, Freddie Prinz Jr., along with Cortez and Coates voice actors so they weren't exactly trying to save money on voice acting.

Yes, I am not sure what the game was here. Both James and Cortez were completely unnecessary characters imho. I understand Cortez is there for giving you a gay love interest choice but then I understand Kalenko also is suddenly gay for the commander.....so I am really not sure why the introduced those two in the first place. At least Cortez has a mini-story arc you can help bring to a conclusion but James? Why is he exactly here? Couldn't figure it out...didn't much care either.

Tyyr wrote: Yeah, the sunshine and lolipopped it up. And they never mention the geth at all which adds to my feeling that they wanted to not explicitly show that so as not to piss off the geth fans. Funny thing, when the Fleet checks in prior to the assault on Earth there is no check in for the Geth never mind that they're supposed to have the largest individual fleet in the galaxy.

Isn't there? I thought there were. Most replay it but I believe Joker makes a mention of them standing by. Honestly, I played that part only once so I might be mistaken.

Tyyr wrote: I can understand the lack of closure. Hell, one of the reasons I'm writing an ME3 fic is for closure. However we're not going to get it from Bioware and we won't get Shepard on the next outing so on the whole, we got what we got. Then again the ending is such utter bullshit that I say just ignore it. Make up your own ending for ME3 in your head and let that be the real ending for you.

Yeah and that is what I don't understand. While it works for me, pretending the geth didn't "really" die all a horrible death along the reapers, and that the commander and his crew are all alive and well etc. it does NOT make me want to buy ME4. So maybe they should have checked with EA prior to writing their ending if they are forced to make another one, but from a business point of view, this doesn't make much sense imho.

An ending with good closure or which doesn't drastically changes the universe would be enough for me to crave a ME4, new cast or not.

Tyyr wrote:The Indoctrination Theory is actually a rather well put together fan explanation. You have to remember that much of it was born from the shear WTFery of the original ending. The confusion and horror of being confronted with that abortion and people trying to come up with some meaning for it. Personally I liked Indoctrination but I never really thought it was what was going on. The EC confirmed what I'd dreaded all along, Bioware really just did not understand what the problem was. Their heads were so far up their own asses they could see daylight.

Well even with the EC the indoctrination theory makes quite a bit sense since there is no reason to believe that the cheap picture montage we get in the end is anymore true than the stuff that happens on the citadel. My main problem with it is that if it is true, they cut the game basically at the climax and left us hanging. That's like seeing Proton torpedoes flying towards a ventilation shaft on a certain space station and suddendly cut to the credits. Ending the series on a cliffhanger? When noone even knew if there ever will be a ME4? That's just lame.

Now there is still one DLC left afaik, but on the one hand they confirm that the body in the rubble is Shepard and the rubble is from London and on the other hand they say there will never be any post ending DLC changing what we got. To me that sounds just like toying and mindfucking with the fanbase. Again, not buying ME4 on principle, not because of the ending, simply because of the huge customer disrespect. A little tease is a good thing, building anticipation is also nice.....but this is carrot on a stick on the most basest level. Screw them....

Tyyr wrote: Maybe, but I'm not going to pull any punches over it. Never mind that my biggest issues are all writing issues which I have no sympathy for as when it comes to game development writing is a free action more or less. So writing this awful isn't a function of money, it's a function of just not giving a shit.

Incidently, have you heard of the "original" ending? One writer said that originally it was all about dark matter destroying the galaxy (like we see in the Tali-recruitment mission in ME2) and the reapers harvesting cultures to prevent this and come up with a solution. The reaction to this was so negative that they changed it.

Personally I am indifferent. If done well this could have worked brilliantly, if done poorly than not. The same as with what we have now. It still could have been great with a view small changes, unfortunatly it wasn't.

Tyyr wrote: Ok, want to limit the definition to computer games? How about Planescape Torment? Neverwinter Nights 2? Baldur's Gate? There are plenty of computer games that preserve much of the spirit of true Role-playing in computer game format. You can't go completely off the rails in them but within their limitations you have room to craft your role and character.

Stat-whoring is not roleplaying. Loot-whoring is not roleplaying. If you want to define and RPG by that definition then you have to accept that something like Call of Duty: Black Ops is a role playing game.

I see what you are getting at. You are right of course, the thing I wanted to get across in the first place was that I do not really care that much about it. I care mostly about a good story with solid believable characters in it. If you have a ton of choices it is great. If it is completely linear but with a great story it is also fine with me. But if having a ton of choices means that the story or dramatic impact suffers I would prefer a BIT less choice.

Even in the brilliant tuchanka scene are examples of that. For instance there is a pretty powerful line from Mordin imho standing in the elevater: "I MADE A MISTAKE. Always looking at the big picture. Big picture composed of smaller pictures. Won'T make that mistake again." (Not word for word but you get the gist). Powerful stuff imho and completely missing from the scene if you always are straight hero.

Another example, if you never romance anyone, you get a whole dialuge with Anderson on the citadel before he dies about family, what Shepard will do now, maybe have kids etc. (I am not sure why this was cut to be honest, since it would still fit even when you romanced one) before he says his "I am proud of you son" and dies. That scene was brilliant, where is my tissue box? Completely missing for 99% of the players who probably romanced someone at one point or another.

Or Miranda. There are at least 6 ways in the game to kill the character off. Obviously they want her out of the picture. The death scenes was incredibly well done. The scene where she survives.....boring and awkward. Just make it canonical then, obviously they have no intention of bringing her ever back, ME4 will have a new cast, now is the time to make a view hard choices for dramatic impact and hammer the point home that this is really a fucking horrible war.

Kelly Chambers. Hit me like a brick that she was just executed by Cerberus the poor thing and that I only learn about it via an offhand remark by a bystander. That shouldn't have been an optional occurance. It hammers the point home that this is NOT Mass Effect as usual, that was fucking brutal. Learning this just after Thanes death.... . But it is optional for whatever reason and if you managed to save her.....she never has anything to say or do afterwards anyhow. (And probably dies on the citadel anyhow. Why make it optional then? Just go for maximal impact.

Now I could bring a few more examples but I think I made my point saying that those are instances where I would have prefered that the dramatic impact of those scenes takes preference over player choice which ultimately will still lead to nothing or the same outcome.

Btw. thanks for the discussion Tyr, it's cathartic

Mass Effect 3

Re: Mass Effect 3

Re: Mass Effect 3

Re: Mass Effect 3

Re: Mass Effect 3

Re: Mass Effect 3

Re: Mass Effect 3

Re: Mass Effect 3

Re: Mass Effect 3

Re: Mass Effect 3

Re: Mass Effect 3

Re: Mass Effect 3

Re: Mass Effect 3

Re: Mass Effect 3

Re: Mass Effect 3

Re: Mass Effect 3