Jump to content

Mass effect Trilogy


Recommended Posts

The defenders on the Bio boards are trying so hard to justify the price of the Omega DLC by comparing it to things like eating out or going to the movies, instead of just using the logical comparison: other DLC.

 

:rolleyes:

 

It's a nice enough DLC. Not being too concerned about the price. I suspect, the sheer amount of work going into creating it is part of what sets the price tag, not just the expected demand for it. The story is not overwhelming and too much combat for me to get all giddy with excitement, but Aria was well done and some of the levels were jaw droppingly gorgeous (but then, Omega was commander Shepards favourite location in ME2), the mines in particular. The thing oozes high production values (real or not). Nyreen felt a bit like a wasted opportunity though. Not sure what could have been made different, but being a female Turian just wasn't enough to make an "interesting" character. All in all it was nice re-visit. I found Aria's couch, but I missed out on the inverter. I wish unsolvable quests would just disappear from my journal (like that one from Eden Prime that is now unsolvable if you leave the planet without finding all intel for the resistance).

“He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.” - Albert Einstein

Link to post
Share on other sites

Watched it on youtube. Far to much auto dialogue, like the last DLC (and the main game). Nothing added to the ending(s). Like the time I had to change a fuel pump on my car youtube saved me money.

Cowboys.com is now a gay dating site…GreenBayPackers.com is something we shall never discuss again…EVER.

Shakespeare said: Play to those who get it. Don’t dumb it down “to split the ears of the groundlings.”

Groundlings: The lowest common denominator.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was curious to skimmed through the playthroughs of the single player DLCs skipping the combat and stuff.

I can't help but think that ME3's main plotline could have been Shepard being contacted or searching for the Leviathans, and the Leviathans trying to fix a problem they started millions of years ago. Harnessing some Leviathan long lost Leviathan tech that was originally meant to control/shut down the Reapers to finally kill them off instead of what we got.

Not original or awesome or anything but I think it would have been better than the Crucible plot device.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I might come a little too late, but here's my problem with ME3:

<spoiler>

 

Inconsistencies:

I don't mind minor inconsistencies, but if they're so jarring, well...

 

1. Reapers, from manipulative Lovecraftian horror in ME1 to dumb henchman in ME3.

I mean, if they are so invulnerable, why do they left the Citadel alone until the endgame? No reason why!

Look at the established facts:

- They can overpower Turian military, the strongest in the galaxy alone. Also, Shepard can't win against them without the Crucible even after uniting the galaxy.

- Citadel is a big "I WIN" button, capturing the Citadel will prevent Shepard from uniting the galaxy. Divide and conquer.

- They attack the Citadel first in ALL previous cycles. Why they leave this one alone in this cycle is a mystery. Remember, Shepard only close their shortcut in ME1. No reason why Citadel is no longer their first priority target.

 

2. Starkid

Starkid is the Citadel itself. His purpose is to continue the cycle. He is the leader of the Reapers.

So why didn't he activate Reaper's shortcut himself in ME1? Why did he need Harbinger's help? He IS the Citadel, why wouldn't he have full control of Citadel? Why can't he undo the changes Shepard make in ME1 and summon the Reapers in ME2?

 

No good reason why not!

 

Choices

All of your choices boils down to point differences. I understand that making unique scenarios for every choices are unrealistic, but at least make different scenarios for important ones? Like you know when you have to choose whether to destroy or preserve the Collector's base?

Yeah, it change almost nothing in ME3, other than small point differences, a bit altered dialogue, and slight ending prerequisites reduction.

 

Why not:

Destroy collector's base: Shepard stumbles upon the Leviathans who told him/her about the Crucible, Cerbs has no access to the reaper tech and TIM is not indoctrinated so not a bad guy, bla bla bla~

Preserve collector's base: Shepard found Crucible blueprint when attacking Cerbs HQ, Cerbs has access to reaper tech and TIM is indoctrinated, bla bla bla.

 

Gameplay

Space button simply does too many things!

Cover, dodge, sprint, examine, exit from cover.

That means when I try to dodge a grenade, I accidentally stick myself to the wall.

When I'm tense and push Space one too many, Shepard jumped from his hiding place. *facepalm*

The amount of invisible walls does not help either, so far I hit sofas, tables, boxes, and other items that I don't think should have invisible walls.

 

Fetch quests are okay, but this game have too many of them.

Edited by exodiark
Link to post
Share on other sites

"Yeah, it change almost nothing in ME3, other than small point differences, a bit altered dialogue, and slight ending prerequisites reduction."

 

L0L Another internet funnies tonight! ;D

DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Yeah, it change almost nothing in ME3, other than small point differences, a bit altered dialogue, and slight ending prerequisites reduction."

 

L0L Another internet funnies tonight! ;D

 

I'm bored, so I'll bite.

ME2 overhyped the Collector's Base choice, so one might think this choice will be REALLY significant in ME3.

Instead what we have is:

 

- The color of the star behind TIM in ME3.

- Minor EMS point differences (50 and 100), and by that time you wouldn't care about EMS anyway.

- Some minor commentaries from NPCs, but the outcome is still the same.

- Altered ending requirements (+200 if Collector Base is intact). But after EC, it's not that significant.

 

That's it, so minor it's almost nothing, unless you can tell me otherwise. Heck, even Wrex's death has more significant consequences than that collector's base.

Edited by exodiark
Link to post
Share on other sites
2. Starkid

Starkid is the Citadel itself. His purpose is to continue the cycle. He is the leader of the Reapers.

So why didn't he activate Reaper's shortcut himself in ME1? Why did he need Harbinger's help? He IS the Citadel, why wouldn't he have full control of Citadel? Why can't he undo the changes Shepard make in ME1 and summon the Reapers in ME2?

 

Because the head writer of ME1 bailed after the game was finished and a minor subquest writer took the helm and just ran with what he'd been doing, a minor subquest about a rogue human black-ops group conducting nefarious experiments in identical rooms on different planets while saying "I WILL DESTROY YOU! I WILL DESTROY YOU!" The most significant thing about Cerberus prior to ME2's announcement was that they were responsible for the "Sole Survivor" background for Shepard.

 

Not that any of that matters in Mass Effect 3. All of ME2 and 3 was emergency-ass-pull plot maneuvering because they didn't have a full three act story planned out from the start.

 

In the end, the narrative and atmospheric high point of the entire series was Ilos in ME1.

Edited by AGX-17
Link to post
Share on other sites

So another SP DLC incoming...

 

http://www.computera...or-next-add-on/

 

Wonder if this one will finally get me to bite. The others just haven't grabbed me enough to want to boot up ME3 again.

Last chance to un**** the game, I'd say.

You're a cheery wee bugger, Nep. Have I ever said that?

ahyes.gifReapercussionsahyes.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
2. Starkid

Starkid is the Citadel itself. His purpose is to continue the cycle. He is the leader of the Reapers.

So why didn't he activate Reaper's shortcut himself in ME1? Why did he need Harbinger's help? He IS the Citadel, why wouldn't he have full control of Citadel? Why can't he undo the changes Shepard make in ME1 and summon the Reapers in ME2?

 

Because the head writer of ME1 bailed after the game was finished and a minor subquest writer took the helm and just ran with what he'd been doing, a minor subquest about a rogue human black-ops group conducting nefarious experiments in identical rooms on different planets while saying "I WILL DESTROY YOU! I WILL DESTROY YOU!" The most significant thing about Cerberus prior to ME2's announcement was that they were responsible for the "Sole Survivor" background for Shepard.

 

Not that any of that matters in Mass Effect 3. All of ME2 and 3 was emergency-ass-pull plot maneuvering because they didn't have a full three act story planned out from the start.

 

In the end, the narrative and atmospheric high point of the entire series was Ilos in ME1.

 

Sad but true.

 

Not that it matters anymore now that EA has taken the helm, anybody expecting anything actually worthwhile from BioWare anymore is just kidding themselves for old times' sake if you ask me. I've been there, but after DA2 and ME3...let's just say that I won't be buying anything from BioWare anymore until I've read reviews from a reliable source (iow, not any of the major gaming news sites funded by the companies they are supposed to review).

 

ME3 was enjoyable, once. There is just exactly zero motivation for me atm to play through it again (even though I am slightly curious about the "new" "ending"). Seeing as I've played through ME1 4 times or so and about the same for ME2 they must have done something seriously wrong with 3 as I ended up even uninstalling the previous 2 in the series after I was done with 3 (was nearly done with ME1 playthrough 5 too...). The multiplayer thing was just a waste of time imo and it shows that they spent way too much time on that and too little time on the rest of the game. ME3 was a rushjob, they had a storyline to wrap up without any idea how, they had consoles to cater to and PC gamers can go to hell (or am I the only one that was really bothered by not being able to holster my weapon anymore?)

 

I didn't once really feel the urge to really play the game, more like a "meh, let's finish it then". The only part I'd even dare call good about ME3 was Tuchanka the rest was mediocre at best.

Edited by marelooke
Link to post
Share on other sites

So another SP DLC incoming...

 

http://www.computera...or-next-add-on/

 

Wonder if this one will finally get me to bite. The others just haven't grabbed me enough to want to boot up ME3 again.

Last chance to un**** the game, I'd say.

 

Don't expect the endings to change.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So another SP DLC incoming...

 

http://www.computera...or-next-add-on/

 

Wonder if this one will finally get me to bite. The others just haven't grabbed me enough to want to boot up ME3 again.

Last chance to un**** the game, I'd say.

 

Don't expect the endings to change.

Chance dropped then, I guess.

You're a cheery wee bugger, Nep. Have I ever said that?

ahyes.gifReapercussionsahyes.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe we'll see the effect of us getting the CDF ready for the war. Or maybe them all getting spaced in a cinematic.

Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mind if they don't change the ending. I just want a better, longer, more engaging ending sequence that takes into account your war assets, and your companions from ME2 and ME3. My ideal DLC would be

 

DLC 1: Team up with Jack and her students on Earth and carve a path through Reapers to reach an objective. War Assets and your decision will dictate how many casualties the students take the psychological impact on Jack.

 

DLC2: Team up with Miranda and Jacob on earth and take out a Cerberus cell that will unveil reaper tech the Illusive man was working on that will severely scramble Reaper ground troop communications.

 

DLC3: Team up with Grunt and Wrex on earth and actually take out a Reaper using many many weapons of mass destruction. You liberate a Cain manufacturing facility and the Krogans go to town.

 

I know some teammates can live or die based on previous games. If certain teammates are dead, just replace with appropriate teammates from current party. All successful DLC completions lead ultimately to a better ending where you can achieve a victory on Earth conventionally, take control of the Citadel and thus leave Reaper forces scattered across the galaxy without means to jump and regroup. Basically use their own strategy against them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I predict more auto dialogue. I also predict 95% action 5% story, just like the last one.

Cowboys.com is now a gay dating site…GreenBayPackers.com is something we shall never discuss again…EVER.

Shakespeare said: Play to those who get it. Don’t dumb it down “to split the ears of the groundlings.”

Groundlings: The lowest common denominator.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mind if they don't change the ending. I just want a better, longer, more engaging ending sequence that takes into account your war assets, and your companions from ME2 and ME3. My ideal DLC would be

 

DLC 1: Team up with Jack and her students on Earth and carve a path through Reapers to reach an objective. War Assets and your decision will dictate how many casualties the students take the psychological impact on Jack.

 

DLC2: Team up with Miranda and Jacob on earth and take out a Cerberus cell that will unveil reaper tech the Illusive man was working on that will severely scramble Reaper ground troop communications.

 

DLC3: Team up with Grunt and Wrex on earth and actually take out a Reaper using many many weapons of mass destruction. You liberate a Cain manufacturing facility and the Krogans go to town.

 

I know some teammates can live or die based on previous games. If certain teammates are dead, just replace with appropriate teammates from current party. All successful DLC completions lead ultimately to a better ending where you can achieve a victory on Earth conventionally, take control of the Citadel and thus leave Reaper forces scattered across the galaxy without means to jump and regroup. Basically use their own strategy against them.

I don't think any amount of stuff that leads to the three (four) bad/worse star child choices is really gonna save it.

 

I was, and still to a degree am, a massive ME1-2 fanboy. I've played ME2 more times than any other game (exceeding past record holders BG2 and Deus Ex). I lapped up a disturbing amount of ME merch. And now... I just don't really care. It's kind of sad that I liked a game franchise so much I had to psychologically alienate myself from it after the way the endings (both new and old) were done. :p

 

And yes, the fact that my favourite characters (ok, it's mostly miranda, and I could've taken 10x more wrex) were cut into bit parts (and that's putting it charitably) while I got knucklehead mcbeefcake etc. didn't exactly help. :p

Edited by Nepenthe
  • Like 2

You're a cheery wee bugger, Nep. Have I ever said that?

ahyes.gifReapercussionsahyes.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
Chance dropped then, I guess.

 

Meh. If I had creative control I likely wouldn't change them either. And I say this as a gamer.

 

People already get into irrational frenzies regarding DLC being "essential." For all the people on the BSN and beyond that stated they would be perfectly fine paying for a DLC that significantly changed the ending into something they wanted, I think it'd be stepping into a minefield. Imagine if you needed all 3 of the DLC to get some significantly better ending. People already crap on us for Javik (an NPC I do not consider essential, though he is an interesting one). Imagine if the DLC actually was required for something better/more thorough for the endings. IMO the challenges that the game is incomplete without the DLC would actually be accurate, and I think it'd be much, much worse for gaming if big publishers went "Hmmmmm, this popular franchise would probably be better if we gave them an emotionally frustrating ending, but we then strung them along to pick up our DLCs in order to get the real ending."

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it'd be much, much worse for gaming if big publishers went "Hmmmmm, this popular franchise would probably be better if we gave them an emotionally frustrating ending, but we then strung them along to pick up our DLCs in order to get the real ending."
Using DLC to shore up weaknesses in a title is a valued function for them to serve. And people who see it as that are accepting of that. DLC that sacrifices the main game to justify its existence will always be publicly rejected.

 

The distinction is in perception. And making it a common thing would be a short track from being perceived as the former for the latter.

 

I guess another way to put it is that if publishers thought they could get away with it, Mass Effect 3 wouldn't need to get the ball rolling. They would already be doing it. Mass Effect 3 could have been a special exception, because people trusted that Bioware didn't do it on purpose.

  • Like 1
"Show me a man who "plays fair" and I'll show you a very talented cheater."
Link to post
Share on other sites
Chance dropped then, I guess.

 

Meh. If I had creative control I likely wouldn't change them either. And I say this as a gamer.

 

People already get into irrational frenzies regarding DLC being "essential." For all the people on the BSN and beyond that stated they would be perfectly fine paying for a DLC that significantly changed the ending into something they wanted, I think it'd be stepping into a minefield. Imagine if you needed all 3 of the DLC to get some significantly better ending. People already crap on us for Javik (an NPC I do not consider essential, though he is an interesting one). Imagine if the DLC actually was required for something better/more thorough for the endings. IMO the challenges that the game is incomplete without the DLC would actually be accurate, and I think it'd be much, much worse for gaming if big publishers went "Hmmmmm, this popular franchise would probably be better if we gave them an emotionally frustrating ending, but we then strung them along to pick up our DLCs in order to get the real ending."

Tale answered you better than I ever could.

 

I CBA to retread the old arguments about everything (and that's why the irrational internet whiners will always win, they have nothing else to do), I'm just saying that when people like me, long-term fans with a fairly significant amount of cash to spend on your product and an actual real life stop caring about what you deliver because of your inability to deliver an ending to your story that doesn't make me feel royally ****ed, you should actually be worried; as opposed to listening to the guys who froth at mouth about more games than I've heard of, yet never buy anything outside a steam sale. :p

 

Sorry for using Bioware = you here, but really, in view of your quote, nothing else I can do.

  • Like 1

You're a cheery wee bugger, Nep. Have I ever said that?

ahyes.gifReapercussionsahyes.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

BioWare already stepped into the minefield and lost a foot. Best they can do is crawl out of the

while hoping and praying that they don’t hit another mine. The EC had a big FU to the fans
, that still sting’s. I don’t believe fan service here could be a bad thing…especially since BioWare is still in El Alamein without a Polish mine detector.

Cowboys.com is now a gay dating site…GreenBayPackers.com is something we shall never discuss again…EVER.

Shakespeare said: Play to those who get it. Don’t dumb it down “to split the ears of the groundlings.”

Groundlings: The lowest common denominator.

Link to post
Share on other sites

BioWare already stepped into the minefield and lost a foot. Best they can do is crawl out of the

while hoping and praying that they don’t hit another mine. The EC had a big FU to the fans
, that still sting’s. I don’t believe fan service here could be a bad thing…especially since BioWare is still in El Alamein without a Polish mine detector.

I thought the biggest FU was making sure that EDI dies in destroy, which she didn't in the original :p

You're a cheery wee bugger, Nep. Have I ever said that?

ahyes.gifReapercussionsahyes.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

I flipped a coin, heads EDI dies in destroy or tails shooting star ghost brat in the face gets us blah…both are equally valid. Happily I no longer have any more worries about BioWare since the type of game I want is being made by Obsidian with Project Eternity.

Cowboys.com is now a gay dating site…GreenBayPackers.com is something we shall never discuss again…EVER.

Shakespeare said: Play to those who get it. Don’t dumb it down “to split the ears of the groundlings.”

Groundlings: The lowest common denominator.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...