Mass Effect 3

[Jaesun]

That's actually hysterical. People need to get over the ending though. It's BioWare, what were you expecting? DEEP MEANINGFUL CHOICE AND CONSEQUENCES for the endings? r00fles!

[Volourn]

"DEEP MEANINGFUL CHOICE AND CONSEQUENCES for the endings? r00fles!"

 

You make it sound liek BIo is the worst company with those yet theyr'e one of the better ones./ Surte beats FO's eningds. Wow... Deep and menaingful. Not. L0LZ

[Rosbjerg]

I don't remember Bethesda ever claiming that the ending(s) would be deep and meaningful - and so gamers didn't really get their panties in a twist and those that did where mostly placated by Broken Steel.. The problem here is that people obviously felt BioWare had made a promise that they didn't keep, now we can argue that people shouldn't believe in hype and hyperbole (and I would agree), but I also hope that companies learn that when you say you are gonna do something and then do the opposite, then there's gonna be a reaction.

 

In a way this is really a compliment to BioWare, obviously they made a game that people loved and felt engaged in - to see so many rally behind donating money to charity and sending cakes and what not to me, signifies to me that most of the players are giving constructive feedback and criticism to a company who made a game series they love.

[Drowsy Emperor]

And I was wondering where all the most rabid trekkies went.

[Humanoid]

The only thing I'm stunned Skyrim didn't let you do was to become High King, or indeed, Emperor, while being a gigantic dragon, to go along with the leadership of the other couple hundred or so organisations you're affiliated with. That's the level of expectation of a Bethesda game ending.

Edited March 28, 2012 by Humanoid

[HoonDing]

That's a bit hyperbolic, but yeah, I'm still expecting to become a dragon in a future Skyrim DLC.

[Nepenthe]

I think we just found DA2's target audience.

Edited March 28, 2012 by Nepenthe

[Amentep]

So I've finally finished playing Mass Effect 3.

 

The beginning was a bit shaky because of the import from ME1 -> ME2 -> ME3 problem. Never got past the fact that my Shepard looked close, but not exactly, like the character I'd been playing and it was distracting to me during the cut scenes. But that's probably just my hangup. Still how do you miss that in testing - seems an obvious thing to check and make sure works.

 

I admit to being one of the few people who liked the Mako sections from ME2 but that's probably because I just liked driving around. ME3 does a good job building on the scan and fly in system of the previous game in that the scanning and stuff doesn't take an inordinate amount of time away from the gameplay narrative; however with no "sekret" places to find it did feel a bit less engaging (yeah you could find war resources but they're not gameplay involving and all the place you have to land are flagged through dialogue or eavesdropping.

 

Gameplay was fun for the most part; there seemed to be less options (but ME2 had streamlined a lot of options so not surprising). I would recommend that if Bioware does another game with dream sequences that they consider not forcing the player to run in slow motion through them.

 

Speaking of Dream Sequences I felt a bit of disconnect with my Shepard's background (Colonist and Sole Survivor - essentially lost all their family in an alien attack and lost all of their team to a thresher maw) and the emotional attachment to the boy they'd seen briefly before they'd gotten killed. I'd like to think that my Shepard had better coping skills after the previous losses suffered and this seemed to be in the game to add a somewhat funereal thread to the proceedings and nothing else.

 

I suppose that the child is part of a "war is hell" approach to the third game that a part of me feels is at odds with the rest of the serious. Its like watching Star Wars and suddenly finding yourself viewing the D-Day invasion from Saving Private Ryan; one is an adventure and one is a war movie. ME was an adventure but this feels more like its trying to be a serious war story. And I'm not sure it is a change for the better. But your mileage may vary.

 

So that brings me to the inevitable controversy: the end. To be honest I don't mind the three choice system in and of itself - the game has been predicated on the idea of paragon-neutral-renegade dialogue options (and actions); these are ultimately tied to order-neutral-chaos concepts and in that sense having the game have a final paragon/renegade choice makes sense. I'm more dismayed at the fact that the choices don't seem to matter at all as they all roughly end up at the same place - Shepard dead, the citadel and Mass relay system destroyed and the Reaper menace neutralized (and, nonsensically, the Normandy marooned on an alien planet after being knocked out of the Mass Relay system without explanation as to why they were IN the Mass Relay system or even why any of the Crew besides Joker is aboard as they were all on Earth for the final push in the endgame (it varies but Liara, Garrus and EDI were in the various ends I saw but they were all back on Earth for the final push with each actually being able to join Shepard in the run for the light)).

 

As it is structured the end doesn't tell us what the choice actually means or why it was important (or even necessary). We don't find out why the Reapers were created or why those creators believed in the inevitability of machine-organic conflict (bonus problems in not allowing Shepard to even debate this with the creator representative The Catalyst by using the in-game possible Geth-Quarian alliance as proof of the fallacy inherent in their beliefs) nor do we find out why they created what is tantamount to a way "out" of the cycle for organics (since the game pretty much implies that the Crucible is a creation of the Reaper's creators and not a Prothean device). Why does destroying the Reapers also necessitate the destruction of the Mass Relays and also seem to require Shepard's death? Why was the Collectors making a humanoid Reaper (the creator/catalyst says that the Reapers were preserving organic life, but all the other Reapers look exactly the same). Again the game doesn't motivate an answer to these (and many other) questions

 

In the end, I felt constrained and optionles; forced into a scenario where the end result of my choices in the game doesn't matter as they essentially go to the same conclusion. This is made worse by the coda where Stagazer seems to tantamount tell the Player that the story may not even have happened the way as shown!

 

I can't help but feel that the game developers were trying for a 2001 type "mindblowing" end but in doing so failed to pull tight the story arcs they'd created for the characters and the main narrative. While I feel that it could be possible to "put back" the Mass Effect Universe if they wanted to (to some degree, anyhow) the end kind of feels like a bit of a middle finger to the player whose spent the time to play the game (made worse if the player has spent even more time in the previous games only to have all their choices and actions made irrelevant).

 

Its hard not to wonder if Bioware bit off more than they could chew with the trilogy; I'd wondered once I played Mass Effect 2 whether the game developers had problems figuring out how to work with some of the choices (most notably the lack of support by the council if you saved them so that you can't shortcut parts of the game by having multi-racial support in your missions). To have done proper ends would have required a good deal of work just to create something to satisfy the player that their characters actions mattered.

 

[As a side note, some may argue that Shepard's actions matter by default since the Reapers were defeated; but that's the point of the game and an inevitable end (unless Bioware was going to force the player to lose, which they'd never do). By "matter" I mean the alliances brokered, the allies and enemies made, the worlds changed by Shepards interactions are ultimately irrelevant. Even assuming the destruction of the Mass Relay systems doesn't destroy the galaxies holding the Asari, Salarian, Human, Turian and Krogan homeworlds these worlds aren't left with any way to rebuild interstellar travel (unless they understand the Mass Relay systems better than shown in the game and can build their own - but if they can build their own why bother destroying the existing system in the game?) so whatever actions Shepard has taken to help or hinder these groups don't matter as the nature of the relationships in citadel space is changed permanently.]

 

Its also hard not to feel a bit frustrated that Mass Effect 3 picks up where one of the expansions left off; having been unable to play the expansions since I don't have a way to download them it felt weird having all the talk about Shepard being stripped of rank and grounded given that the end of ME2 had my Shepard saving the universe (and humanity in particular) from the collectors. But apparently according to ME3 that's enough for the alliance to remove Shepard from active duty (and we thought the Council gave Shepard a hard time - at least they kept Shepard's Spectre status active!).

 

I'm playing the game through a second time - while I doubt much will change I noticed a couple of dialogue points that I couldn't get to as they required extreme renegade/paragon status to do. And it was a fun game to play; its a pity the ends were unsatisfying.

 

That's my take on it, anyhow.

[Janmanden]

Hm.. The helmet is a pretty good idea, but I think I need a full-face with a bulletproof visor or lose an eye..

 

Without all the hype that BioWare used to blow ME3 deliberately out of proportions the endings and everything wouldn't have been as bad and disappointing as it was.. Well.. Actually it would, but erm.. Can't think of anything to defend this mess, except one thing.

 

 

The one thing that redeems the endings is the knowledge that the Crucible is not actually a weapon, but more like a failsafe device to the 'masters' (Catalysts) plan. Considering that the plans for this device is about as old as the Reapers I think it's fairly safe to assume that they are both part of the same idea. Just like the Citadel is a trap, the Crucible is a trap as well. By ensuring that races advanced enough to oppose the Reapers doesn't try to make their own super-weapon to destroy the Reapers they got sucked into building this useless device, which will deal with the Reapers, but also take away the fun by destroying the Mass Relays and Citadel. It's a really twisted plan, that leaves you with extremely poor choices and crappy endings, but that's what it is. Someone was laughing with maniacal glee when they made these designs. The real problem is that there is no alternative to the building of this piece of junk. All your hopes lie with the Crucible. Imagine if there had been an alternate solution to this coupled with the knowledge you gained by destroying the Reaper on the homeworld of the Quarians. Puzzles me why that information was never put to use in any way afterwards in the fight against the Reapers.

 

 

What truly baffles me however are all the positive reviews, because to me it's a really mixed experience. I get the feeling that moments of 'rock' was deliberately combined with moments of 'suck' to keep it away from perfection all the way to the end.. To keep a steady level of frustration all the way to the end so that we'll be in better shape to handle it.. Hmm.. Nice thought, thank you BioWare, but next time a litte spoilage would be nice. I think I can handle it.

 

Tried to play a bit of ME2 after ME3, which was even more of a pain in the arse.. Puha.

[Janmanden]

Think you made a typo. The Mako, which I happen to like as well, was part of ME1.

 

The only reason to support and make some kind of sense for the incarceration of Shepard is based on the result of the ME2 Arrival DLC..

 

Btw, anyone else finding it to be a little odd that a Spectre can be prosecuted to perform his duties as laid out by the Council? It's a pretty ****ed up conflict of duty, interests and responsibility.

[Humanoid]

ME3 was on sale locally for $36 from a brick and mortar store (almost unprecedented here where this type of store typically sells for $89) so I went ahead and bought it despite my earlier resolve to wait out the resolution of the ending drama. But eh, the saving is about the cost of a couple DLC so it was the rational choice.

 

 

Not sure what to do though - my super-slow ME2 completion hit a brick wall on reaching the reaper IFF mission - which sapped my will to play as I subsequently put it down for a week. So the question is - are the save game editors for ME2 endsaves full functional yet?

[Gorgon]

Don't know, but you can grab one from masseffectsaves. It's important to have specific ex crew members loyal, and you need a certain ammount of arsehole/angel points if you want the best diplomatic options.

[Humanoid]

If I can get it to work I'll probably edit my savegame to be worse than it actually is really. Most of it was played in 2010 and I regret some of the powergamingish decisions I made back then in hindsight. Nothing major but I feel like killing off a couple squadmates (Miranda and Samara), and keep Grunt in his pod. Also somewhat tempted to kill off Wrex - unpopular as that seems - because it fits better.

[Janmanden]

ME3 severely lacks support for past Renegade options. Picking a game based on Paragorn choices will give you the most complete experience.

[Raithe]

ME3 severely lacks support for past Renegade options. Picking a game based on Paragorn choices will give you the most complete experience.

 

I don't know, I mean, sure it plays quite differently depending on Renagade/Paragon. If you've been playing Renegade, then Wrex is dead, Wreav is alive, Maelon is dead and his research was destroyed.. and that pretty much shifts the entire feeling of the Tuchanka missions.

 

If Wrex is alive and you're getting along with Eve, it makes sense to ignore the Dalatress.. but if you've been Renegade and you're dealing with Wreav..then it's much more fitting to do the double-dealing.

 

Completely different experiences, but I wouldn't say one is more complete then the other. Although I would admit, that I think the path that leads to Mordin's self-sacrifice is told in a very good manner.

[Nepenthe]

Spoilers Raither, spoilers

 

I know we've been getting a bit loose with them, including myself, but Humanoid just reminded me that not all of us have played it yet.

So I've finally finished playing Mass Effect 3.

 

The beginning was a bit shaky because of the import from ME1 -> ME2 -> ME3 problem. Never got past the fact that my Shepard looked close, but not exactly, like the character I'd been playing and it was distracting to me during the cut scenes. But that's probably just my hangup. Still how do you miss that in testing - seems an obvious thing to check and make sure works.

I believe this has been confirmed as fixed in the first patch.

 

I also pretty much agree with you on what the crucial problem with the ending is.

[BobSmith101]

Dave Gaider had nothing to do with ME3 (as far as I know) but boy this one made me laugh.

 

This is true. We still put an ending into the game, for instance, despite how few players actually see it.

[Janmanden]

ME3 severely lacks support for past Renegade options. Picking a game based on Paragorn choices will give you the most complete experience.

 

I don't know, I mean, sure it plays quite differently depending on Renagade/Paragon. If you've been playing Renegade, then Wrex is dead, Wreav is alive, Maelon is dead and his research was destroyed.. and that pretty much shifts the entire feeling of the Tuchanka missions.

 

If Wrex is alive and you're getting along with Eve, it makes sense to ignore the Dalatress.. but if you've been Renegade and you're dealing with Wreav..then it's much more fitting to do the double-dealing.

 

Completely different experiences, but I wouldn't say one is more complete then the other. Although I would admit, that I think the path that leads to Mordin's self-sacrifice is told in a very good manner.

 

I think you probably chickened out at some points. The ones I actually noticed was..

 

 

 

Destroy Maelon's cure in ME2 and Eve dies in ME3..

Support the continuation of Project Overlord and you won't get the cameo of and bonus content from David..

Choose Morinth over Samara and you will meet neither one..

 

 

 

edit: removed double spoiler tag.

Edited March 28, 2012 by Janmanden

[Raithe]

Yes, that's part and parcel, I was just pointing out the example of Tuchanka for how it can play and feel totally differently due to the combination of Paragon/Renegade choices you'd made in both previous games rather then go through every single potential mixture throughout the game...

 

I wouldn't say one is more complete then the other, but I find the Paragon route more satisfying, especially for the Tuchanka area. If you have all the Renegade options adding up , it just feels like pretty much everyone you're dealing with is a really cruddy example of their species and you'd just be as happy as shooting them yourself.

[Janmanden]

That's the thing isn'it? Renegade could have been an equally satisfying experience with a bit of support, hence the wording 'lacks support', but in most cases it feels like shooting yourself in the foot. Just a dead end.

[BobSmith101]

Renegade play is for the most part about removing content.

[Amentep]

Think you made a typo. The Mako, which I happen to like as well, was part of ME1.

 

The only reason to support and make some kind of sense for the incarceration of Shepard is based on the result of the ME2 Arrival DLC..

 

Btw, anyone else finding it to be a little odd that a Spectre can be prosecuted to perform his duties as laid out by the Council? It's a pretty ****ed up conflict of duty, interests and responsibility.

 

Oh, yeah thought I'd caught all those ME3/2/1 problems in my post. Yes I meant ME1 (never played the hammerhead? stuff in ME2) and the Mako.

 

It does seem odd that a Spectre would be prosecutable by other Citadel races, I could see a non-Citadel race like the Batarians being able to do it, but it somewhat violates the original idea that the Spectres were a "law unto themselves" as an arm of the Council setup in the first game. In fact the first game pretty much implies that humanity can't prosecute Saren for crimes on Eden Prime unless the Council declares him a rogue Spectre (which they initially refuse to do due to lack of evidence).

Edited March 28, 2012 by Amentep

[Gorgon]

The whole Renegade/Paragon Dichotimy is just plain stupid.

[Amentep]

The whole Renegade/Paragon Dichotimy is just plain stupid.

 

I'm not sure I'd call it stupid, but its an oversimplification of reputation/alignment ideas in some ways. its a step up from Baldur's Gate's "oh no, I'm too good, I'll go whack a villager" reputation but it does make an assumption that all choices fall into an easy order/chaos structure (however this runs into the same problem IMO as even more complex systems like D&D's Law/Chaos Good/evil axises which is that some choices may be both depending on how you look at them and what the end result might be (and whether intentional and unintentional consequences of choice matter).

 

I'd say the big flaw is that the choices can't really change the game world significantly so that no matter how paragon or renegade you are you're still required to walk the same path and push the same buttons.

Edited March 28, 2012 by Amentep

[Gorgon]

The worst of it it is that options are grayed out unless you have a high enough score, meaning you are rewarded for always picking from a red or blue option regardless of what makes sense. I don't know what the rationale for that is. You aren't allowed to be extra evil because you are not experienced enough at it (or vice versa).

 

It was stupid in Star Wars, but at least there you would have access to more force powers by deliberatey being gray side. I'd say it's a step down from any previous reputation system, Including D&D alignment.