Mass Effect 3

[Raithe]

It's almost as if he's saying that every event within ME3 from the time you hit "new game" to the moment the credits roll should be treated as the culmination and ending. The matters of the genophage, or the settling of the quarrian/geth war, because you deal with them, those are "endings". That the actual last minutes of the game are just a small portion of the total finish.

 

Which to me seems a very warped way to view the third part in a trilogy.

 

I mean, yes, the whole process wraps up elements introduced in the previous two parts, but the culmination of the story is the ending. Not the entire third part of the trilogy. If the culmination has no sense of closure...

 

And I can agree with Tale, while there were a lot of elements of struggle against a potentially hopeless situation, you were overcoming and winning. The defeat of Sovereign, the destruction of the Collector's base, the fact that the Council finally freaking believed you. That you got everyone organised and following.. and gave them hope.

 

To go through the Shroud, and Mordin's sacrifice.. the way that led to that hope.. and then the ending of the game took away all meaning from that event.

[Gorgon]

I don't think the ending took away from all the quality content in the middle. It just kinda fizzled when you had been waiting for fireworks.

[Volourn]

there are things wrong with ME3 but the ending9s)a re not one of them. Your choIces DO matter. Your chocies dteermine who lvies and who dies, how the races get along, and a whole bunch of other stuff.

 

And, there are plenty of games with worst endings> Some of them are earlier BIO games even. 8shrug*

 

It is just cool to hate on BIO because of Big Bad Evil EA... yet the funny thing is that the ahters will liekly be the first to preorder the next BIO game.

 

A end of a game is mroe than than the last 5-10 minute cutscene to me so even if that 'sucks' the end game cna still be fantastic.

 

P.S. of course there are 'story holes'... every game I have ever played has them. *shrug'.

[Tale]

I don't think the ending took away from all the quality content in the middle. It just kinda fizzled when you had been waiting for fireworks.

For many of us, the ending actively negates all the outcomes of the middle. The phrase "galactic dark age" is tossed around a lot. And it's not an unreasonable interpretation of the ending.

 

When you spend a good part of the game unifying the galaxy only to tear it apart at the end, the progress is questioned.

[BobSmith101]

The larger than life comic book Shepard character does not mesh well with a bleak and "realistic" setting.

[Deraldin]

Also, one point for the whole series has been that when the Citadel shuts its "arms" it's pretty much untakeable, But.. There's a freaking big open hole at one end of the cyclinder... Exactly how hard is it for a few starships to fly into an opening that's roughly 7km in diameter?

 

Because there isn't a giant hole at the end when the arms close. I can't find an image that shows off the rear end of the citadel right now, but on the rear end of the arms there are large flaps that fold out and around to cover the giant hole.

[Pop]

I wrote thing

[Humanoid]

One random thing that bothers me is how some things have been left undefined not because of wanting to preserve a sense of mystery but because they couldn't be bothered expending the effort. Prime culprit here of course is the Turian female model for example. We're told in-game that there's no real separation in gender roles for Turians - they're about as prevalent as males, serve in their armed forces, etc - but we never see a single one in five years of the series. For Krogan and Salarian (which were finally shown, ironically) they had some sort of semi-plausible reasoning, but not in this case.

 

The concept somewhat ties into the reaction to the ME3 because even with "It's a mystary" type endings, it usually shows in the writing whether the author has it all together in the background and just doesn't reveal it to you, or whether there really is no logical sense behind it all and the obfuscation is really just playing a Get out of Jail Free card.

 

 

I remember Garriott talking about how for consistency it was better to define things only when the need arised - in the context of what The Guardian is in this instance I think - to avoid writing yourself into a corner. For the most part ME1 reasonably abides by this, but it began to feel cheap when the sequels continued dodging the issues even after they were presented to the player character.

[greylord]

The one thing I still want to ponder on.. Part of ME1 was the whole. Sovereign getting access to the Citadel, which would let him summon the rest of the Reapers directly to the Citadel, and also allow them to shut down all the other Mass Relays...

 

So, the ending reveals

 

that the God-Spirit-AI-Star_Child happens to be in residence at the Citadel (apparently lurking at the base of the presidium)... So how come he couldn't do all of that on his own?

 

 

And for the other minor plothole.. The Reapers "abduct" the Citadel and take it to Earth.. why the hell didn't they then use it to shut down the Mass Relays as they always do and was part of their original Plan A??

 

Also, one point for the whole series has been that when the Citadel shuts its "arms" it's pretty much untakeable, But.. There's a freaking big open hole at one end of the cyclinder... Exactly how hard is it for a few starships to fly into an opening that's roughly 7km in diameter?

 

 

 

 

Same reason you needed the crucible. Sovereign was the Crucible, but when he would have activated the Catalyst, it would have acted in accordance with what the Reaper programming was. The crucible had different programming. Hence, it changed what the Catalyst would or could do.

 

 

 

[Bos_hybrid]

Basically what Hudson is saying:

 

We wrapped up all the side stories nicely, but gave little attention to the main ending, because we want to sell more dlc/ME games.

[Calax]

I wrote thing

Reads the thing...

 

I think you're right in saying that the entire thing was a character piece, and the developers treated it like a Plot driven game from the start. And agree with many of your points, but will fight you to the ends of the earth on "invalidates all the work you did" (In that "YES, it invalidated everything.

[Volourn]

Pop: I don't agree with everything in your review, but nice read. Good stuff.

[Tale]

[GhostofAnakin]

One other thing that personally bothered me about the endings is there was no real "winning" option. If I sacrifice Shepard, it should be because I, the player, chose that option as it best fit my character. Or at the very least, because I failed to do certain things throughout the game (chose the wrong allies, didn't get enough war assets, etc.).

 

I might be alone in this, I don't know. But I think games should have at least one ending where the player actually can "win" the game and see the reward of winning. What was my reward? My crew inexplicably landing in Jurassic Park despite the fact that a couple of the ones who exit the Normandy were RIGHT BESIDE ME WHEN HARBINGER KNOCKED US OUT!? Not to mention no epilogue about what happens to the various races and planets I apparently just saved/doomed?

 

Ironically, ME1 ended on the most positive, and likely best, note of the series. If anything, they got the endings mixed up. The Shepard laying near death (or dead) in a pile of rubble should have ended ME1, so that at the beginning of ME2 Cerberus can bring him back to life, and then ME3 ends with the heroic emergencence of Shepard after defeating the big bad guy.

[Gorgon]

I tend to agree. If you actually chose to sacrifice yourself that would mean something. If it happens regardless it means nothing. Especially since they killed Shepard off for no real reason in Me2, unless you consider it terribly important that he wind up 'half machine'.

Edited March 17, 2012 by Gorgon

[Volourn]

Shepard should ahve never 'died' at the start of ME2. It was a meaningless 'death' that added nothing.

[Gorth]

Shepard should ahve never 'died' at the start of ME2. It was a meaningless 'death' that added nothing.

Isn't that always going to be a challenge in a series of games? How do you explain that Marvel Comic hero Shepard, saviour of the universe suddenly is as weak as a wet paper tissue at the beginning of the game? They could of course have him wake up in prison cell, suffering from insomnia...

 

Seriously, that kid and those dream sequence are cringe worthy. I thought I could get away with the tacky facepalm moment at the beginning, but it seems like a recurring thing. Give whoever came up with that idea a desk job somewhere else and put the guy who came up with the nervous wreck "can I have a gun now?" Asari the job of portraying the horrors of war instead.

 

Currently getting embroiled in the Quarian/Geth conflict.

[Nepenthe]

Yeah, the bits about

 

The illusive man boss fight had been scrapped... but there was still much debate. 'One night walters scribbled down some thought on various ways the game could end with the line "Lots of speculation for Everyone!" at the bottom of the page.'

 

Really hit the death nail on the "Indoctrination Theory" that so many people have been pinning hope on...

Not really. It gives them the opportunity to retcon, should they choose - precisely because it's so vague.

 

 

 

Has there been a video game ending that has caused this much anger within the fanbase of the game in question before? I'm honestly curious, because I can't recall this much bitterness toward a game's ending as ME3 is getting.

 

The closest recent comparison would be (ironically enough) BioWare's other recent title, Dragon Age 2. I followed the Dragon Age 2 fiasco, and while there certainly were a lot who disliked the direction the game went, I don't think the numbers of haters rivaled the sheer number for ME3's ending.

I think the original (later changed!) ending of Fallout 3 got a rather similar feedback. In fact, the similarities of stupidity and self-sacrifice by the hero are present in both endings. As for your second point, you might remember me as the guy who enjoyed actually Dragon Age 2. I've now joined the haters, when it comes to ME3's ending.

 

I'd say it's the contrast. 90% of the game is rather well crafted, and elements from the previous two games are woven in nicely. But to have that sudden reversal of quality on the final ten minutes.. It's jarring and it stands out.

This is definitely it. In a worse game, the endings might be something I could live with, but this is, until that point, IMO Bioware's best game.

 

 

 

The heroic epic argument is what I'm sold on at the moment. Games 1, 2, and most of 3 got people really invested. But when it came time for the catharsis, the game failed to deliver. So feelings and interests that have accumulated over those games end up dropping like a rock instead of being fulfilled.

Very much this, too.

 

 

 

Judging from everyones comments, it seems like the writers were simply too incompetent to write a good ending and the are oblivious of it as well.

It would appear so. I'm not sure if it's even starting to sink in now, or if they are still in damage control, but I think from Casey Hudson's post, it's become obvious to them that they have to do something. Maybe they need to go to 4chan trolls to do their high level plot planning for them, since the Truth guy is still giving them the best exit I can imagine.

 

Those who are following the ending upheaval, Hudson has a response.

http://social.biowar.../index/10089946

 

In my personal opinion. What he says they wanted people to feel about the ending and what I felt about the ending are the exact opposites. He describes the story as a hopeless struggle for basic survival. But for 95% of the game, my Shepard wasn't hopeless and he was doing more than surviving. He was excelling. He had, in many ways, accomplished feats unmatched in hundreds of years. Feats unmatched by the previous games. The final moments did not give hope and victory, but took it all away.

I think your analysis is right on the money, but it does give me hope, that, with time, they might understand what went wrong. In fact, this calls back to your and Raithe's earlier epic/tragic point. It looks like they view ME3 as a tragic struggle, when in fact it's epic.

[Volourn]

"Isn't that always going to be a challenge in a series of games? How do you explain that Marvel Comic hero Shepard, saviour of the universe suddenly is as weak as a wet paper tissue at the beginning of the game? "

 

Not a challenge at all. there was/is so many ways to deal with this issue. They took an easy way out. I'm glad they didn't take the easy way out with the ME3 ending. People who want Happy Happy Land Ending can go watch the smurfs. For those who complaining about plot holes.. well.. plot holes suck.. can't eally defend those but certainly nothing to get all indignant over. for those who wonder a clear cut ending where everything is spmamed at you verbatim... *yawn* so boring and so cliche been there done that. Lingering questions and mysteries is a good thing.

 

 

P.S. If anyone seriously thinks/thoguht ME3 was the end of the ME series, they were smoking dope.

Edited March 17, 2012 by Volourn

[Humanoid]

Yeah, there's really no reason whatsoever to have to justify a character mechanic reset with an in-story explanation - particularly when that very same explanation only just makes the issue worse - why do all the former companions also lose all they've learned while not being subjected to the same trauma?

 

 

The problem only arises if the game mechanics are always interpreted such that a level 1 character is a weak kitten who can barely take out a bunny rabbit unassisted - but why does a character system need to do such a thing? You can set up a baseline anywhere - level one could just as easily mean "tough alliance trooper" as much as "motor-skill challenged weakling," or indeed "demigod of destruction." It's not like random civilian NPCs and the like need to be set up with the same character system, especially since they are not interactable in combat in any way shape or form. Sure a D&D type world might set up every NPC in it with the same unified character system, but that's hardly applicable here.

[Volourn]

^{It also should be pointed out that Sheaprd wasn't even considered 'weak' story wise even at the start of ME1. He was a war veteran, and it did not take very long for him to get his own ship and be named a Spectre despite being 'low level' game mechanic wise.}

[Oner]

Gothic 2 tried to get away with a pretty good explanation (you've been lying under rubble halfdead for days with only the protective spells on your armor keeping you barely alive), people complained. In Gothic 3 they didn't even bother, you character started off with competent -if not extraordinary- stats (and got all his best stuff stolen when he was not using it in open combat for some reason), people complained. No right way to do it, might as well just ignore the issue.

[Bos_hybrid]

 

 

Not a challenge at all. there was/is so many ways to deal with this issue. They took an easy way out. I'm glad they didn't take the easy way out with the ME3 ending. People who want Happy Happy Land Ending can go watch the smurfs.

 

Easy way? They didn't even give it a proper ending. You keep harping on about a happy ending, but no one here has suggested that. What people want is a competently put together ending.

 

And yes Volo it is the end of the ME trilogy. Just won't be the last game in the universe.

[Oner]

[Bendu]

So who is playing the game on the Xbox and would like to play a little bit multiplayer? Feel free to add me to your list.