Well, as usual, the game leaked a few days back, about a week before shipping.
I have seen this game. There is a rant already posted on Dark Reign. It is filled with spoilers. On this forum, I will say: I cancelled my CE preorder for a reason, that reason is the super bad plot and endings.
BaronIveagh wrote:
Well, as usual, the game leaked a few days back, about a week before shipping.
I have seen this game. There is a rant already posted on Dark Reign. It is filled with spoilers. On this forum, I will say: I cancelled my CE preorder for a reason, that reason is the super bad plot and endings.
So you stayed through the ancient technological super race (called the Reapers, no less), but...
Spoiler:
...the weird technological singularity god pushes it beyond the pale?
dogma wrote:
So you stayed through the ancient technological super race (called the Reapers, no less), but...
Spoiler:
...the weird technological singularity god pushes it beyond the pale?
Not so much that as what he tells you
Spoiler:
gives you a fourth option, if you think about how the reapers control system works in ME3, which means that only allowing three choices leaves a big damn plot hole
. Particularly when he's saying it to my Shep who is wearing a nuke...
So you'e basically complaining about the constraints of dialogue choices (I can't choose "Pet the fluffy bunny." in this hostile confrontation! This game is crap!), and the absence of total freedom, while further assuming that your nuke is relevant at all.
And what would your nuke do, even if successful? Leave a group of, now uncontrolled, sentient machines with a ridiculous technological advantage roaming the galaxy?
"You (word that means you were conceived out of wedlock)!"
What shep says (with little to no venom);
"You won't get away with this."
I didn’t really care for the second game, and the trailers for this one fail to impress me. Its a shame since i thought the first game had a lot of potential.
Why look for this stuff? I am busy playing Dragon Age II at the moment, before that Nehrim. In either case the last thing I would want is the entire metaplot and endings spoilered before play; and this game isn't even out yet.
I may go to wiki sites during play, I avoid badly structured ones that give away too much on one page and avoid certain types of data.
Frankly if a game interests me unless I get an 'anonymous' warning not to play, that is anonymous reason not source I will still play.
I play the games for the journey not the destination.
Orlanth wrote:
I play the games for the journey not the destination.
Wouldn't that mean that the ending doesn't matter to you?
It is important but matters less than the gameplay.
I have played excellent games with disappointing endings before. The ending may effect replayability, but not necessarily soil a good playthrough.
There are several types of 'bad' ending. Some aren't that bad or better tailor into sequels.
1. Heroic sacrifice.
Not a lot of people accept this one nowadays, which is a pity. The heroes dies saving the day is in my mind a good ending. Can be unpopular though.
Depending on the type of death this can be reversed easily enough without a retcon. Caught in a collapsing temple or succumbing to poison gas do not necessarily mean death and both have been used in decent titles with sequels using the same character.
2. Deus Ex Machina.
Another annoying one, as it makes progression futile, but this depends on how the power is invoked.
If one accepts that there are bigger forces than the hero at work its doable. especially if the intervention is directly enabled by the hero. I.e the godlike force is unleashed/summoned rather than awaited or worse a surprise visit.
Deus Ex Machine ending do have an enormous plus side though, they make sequels easier depending on how the overforce is described as it users in.
If the utter extermination of an adversary is involved as most outros make the mistake of doing then you have a continuity problem. If the overforce instead banishes an enemy then the effect might last only as long as the overforce remains. This makers for good sequel material if the overforce is removed or wanders off.
Wotan and Zeus have a habit of walking offstage as often as they have a habit of walking on. This may be used for the next installment of a series and makes for better continuation than when the hero itself defeats the enemy as it avoids having to nerf the hero to make the sequel make sense.
3. What next?
Some endings just leave you hanging.
Orlanth wrote:
2. Deus Ex Machina.
Another annoying one, as it makes progression futile, but this depends on how the power is invoked.
If one accepts that there are bigger forces than the hero at work its doable. especially if the intervention is directly enabled by the hero. I.e the godlike force is unleashed/summoned rather than awaited or worse a surprise visit.
Deus Ex Machine ending do have an enormous plus side though, they make sequels easier depending on how the overforce is described as it users in.
If the utter extermination of an adversary is involved as most outros make the mistake of doing then you have a continuity problem. If the overforce instead banishes an enemy then the effect might last only as long as the overforce remains. This makers for good sequel material if the overforce is removed or wanders off.
Wotan and Zeus have a habit of walking offstage as often as they have a habit of walking on. This may be used for the next installment of a series and makes for better continuation than when the hero itself defeats the enemy as it avoids having to nerf the hero to make the sequel make sense.
Sadly, all the endings are basically 'A Wild and Unforeseen Deus Ex Machina appears! Shep makes one of three choices you are allowed! It's Super Effective
Spoiler:
at killing one side or the other, or magically turning all life in the galaxy into cyborgs somehow.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
And what would your nuke do, even if successful? Leave a group of, now uncontrolled, sentient machines with a ridiculous technological advantage roaming the galaxy?
Well, mostly it's the fact that
Spoiler:
he straight up tells you 'Hi, I'm the Reaper Hivemind and I control all the reapers who would be mindless without me' when they already make a point to let you know that they stole how tyranids work for how Reapers work now in ME3. I mean, seriously, I'm in his brain when he tells me this. With a nuke. Even if it did nothing outside, I'm willing to bet that baby would do something when I wire it directly to his forebrain.
Meh! Still gonna buy it anyway and not leave my sofa for the next 2 weeks. I have a small nerdgasm every time I see that live action commercial on TV.
Interweb folks will tear apart everything they can get their hands on, because the people making fanboy stuff will never make it exactly 100% the way they want it, and even if they did, they'd still complain because that's what the interweb is for.
Right now I just can't decide if Tuesday will be an Arby's, Sonic or Papa John's night. I'm thinking the later, so I can start playing while I wait for the delivery guy.. but it might piss me off if he comes when I don't feel like pausing.
Necros wrote:Meh! Still gonna buy it anyway and not leave my sofa for the next 2 weeks. I have a small nerdgasm every time I see that live action commercial on TV.
Interweb folks will tear apart everything they can get their hands on, because the people making fanboy stuff will never make it exactly 100% the way they want it, and even if they did, they'd still complain because that's what the interweb is for.
Right now I just can't decide if Tuesday will be an Arby's, Sonic or Papa John's night. I'm thinking the later, so I can start playing while I wait for the delivery guy.. but it might piss me off if he comes when I don't feel like pausing.
Necros, I eagerly await hearing about you reaching the endings then. You do have spare controllers, right?
Not reading em cuz I don't want spoilers I'm sure they screwed up the ending, I just meant the if the journey is fun then I'll be happy enough with it.
Actually no. This has been discussed since the 1st game.
The geth have a collective hive mind as well. As collective consciousness and that they all are connected to the 'hive mind' a collective consciousness. The Reapers work the same way. WE HAVE KNOWN THAT!
Stop complaining about bad plot design.
Its actually quite smart they are following the same thing as they did before.
This has been hinted a large collective like the geth hubs which held many collective peoples.
dogma wrote:
And what would your nuke do, even if successful? Leave a group of, now uncontrolled, sentient machines with a ridiculous technological advantage roaming the galaxy?
Well, mostly it's the fact that
Spoiler:
he straight up tells you 'Hi, I'm the Reaper Hivemind and I control all the reapers who would be mindless without me' when they already make a point to let you know that they stole how tyranids work for how Reapers work now in ME3. I mean, seriously, I'm in his brain when he tells me this. With a nuke. Even if it did nothing outside, I'm willing to bet that baby would do something when I wire it directly to his forebrain.
Mindless doesn't mean not dangerous, or not powerful.
Spoiler:
And, from what I understand, the Reapers work essentially in the same way that the Collectors work. Limited autonomy.
Its sort of like killing a dictator. Sure, the tyrant is dead, but all those people with all those guns that had a vested interest in the tyrant are still alive, and they still have guns. Your immediate situation isn't any better, in fact it may be much, much worse.
Just pre-ordered this today and am looking forward to it.
To be honest, I enjoyed the first Mass Effect the most. The Mako was challenging to learn to control, but fun after that. The story, to me, was much better than the second one, as there was honestly quite a bit of mystery as to who or what the antagonist actually was. In the Mass Effect 2, I more or less already knew this, but the development of the collectors being goons for the Reapers wasn't a mind blower. I am guessing the 3 installment's story is going to really be much of the same from ME2, just with the whole, actual part of annihilation thrown in there.
And, from what I understand, the Reapers work essentially in the same way that the Collectors work. Limited autonomy.
Spoiler:
Changed from previous game. Now, like nids, kill the big ones and it lobotomizes the rest or kills them outright. It's actually part of a few of the missions. and Guardian spells it out at the end in case you missed it: Reapers do not have any sort of free will.
Manchu wrote:TBH I play ME for the party members. Who's in this one?
A lot of them, and I suppose at the very least considering the trend past couple Bioware releases, the party members will probably be really well done.
EDIT: Maybe there'll be some cat fights between the love interests. Shepard could record them and make a handy retirement fund for himself
And, from what I understand, the Reapers work essentially in the same way that the Collectors work. Limited autonomy.
Spoiler:
Changed from previous game. Now, like nids, kill the big ones and it lobotomizes the rest or kills them outright. It's actually part of a few of the missions. and Guardian spells it out at the end in case you missed it: Reapers do not have any sort of free will.
I would appreciate a link, because what you seem to have read is not what I read.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote:
EDIT: Maybe there'll be some cat fights between the love interests. Shepard could record them and make a handy retirement fund for himself
So seeing as no one has posted ANY videos or gone into any detail about what actually happens outside of talking about this like an inside joke, I had to go and come up with this video of the (Renegade) ending posted on Youtube.
I hate ME2. I won't be buying ME3 simply because I thought ME2's story was crap and I don't expect anything to improve. Frankly though...
Spoiler:
The only problem I can find with any of the endings is that they're hitting on themes and ideas that have never been at the fore of the ME storyline (That and its mechanisms seems to have come completely from left field). SUddenly, the side plot with the Quarians and the Geth seems like it should have been focused more and given more attention because it's been a really sidey side plot all game and now the themes of the side plot have become central to the story. That and the ending is another one of those condoluted mater plans and I just tend not to like those.
I honestly don't see why everyone is all up in arms about it. Depending on the rest of the game it might not be that bad...
LordofHats wrote:I hate ME2. I won't be buying ME3 simply because I thought ME2's story was crap and I don't expect anything to improve. Frankly though...
I honestly don't see why everyone is all up in arms about it. Depending on the rest of the game it might not be that bad...
Ditto...
I won't be buying ME3 because I wasn't all that impressed by ME2, particularly by ME2's reorientation of the franchise towards shooter elements. I frankly find the dialogue wheel a pretty big step back for RPG game design.
I also don't understand the uproar about ME3's leaked ending. It was pretty funny carousing through all the grouse threads on the Bioware forums....god are they a pissy bunch. I don't think that Bioware realized that when you run your forums like a police state people tend to get pretty easily inflamed.
TedNugent wrote:So seeing as no one has posted ANY videos or gone into any detail about what actually happens outside of talking about this like an inside joke, I had to go and come up with this video of the (Renegade) ending posted on Youtube.
Spoiler:
Wait, those songs... they arn't really in the game are they?
I have heard many a horror story about the Bioware forums.
I won't be buying ME3 because I wasn't all that impressed by ME2, particularly by ME2's reorientation of the franchise towards shooter elements. I frankly find the dialogue wheel a pretty big step back for RPG game design.
Honestly my only problem with the wheel design is that it coincides with the MC being fully voice acted and the start of dialogue options on the wheel not always matching what is actually said.
So I'm playing ToR, and I'm a trooper trying to track down some bad guys and I'm trying to get some info from this gangster I found. I'm playing a neutral character (and hurting myself doing it) and I pick the option that says "I need this information." It seems like a reasonable start to the conversation so I pick it. What does my character say? "You will tell me what I need to know or I will make you suffer!" Which frankly seems like it should have been marked as a dark side option
The merge ending is far too similar to the fate of the Lich King.
It's shaping up to be a bad year for Bioware. Estimates are that SW:ToR last lost as many as 60% of its initial subscribers and the ME3 fan rage is the greatest I've witnessed in any fashion since the legendary backlash over Blizzard's plan to add realid to the forums.
It's pretty sad that with Dragon Age 2, Skyrim, SWToR, I still prefer WoW. Gameplay > story.
You know I am fine with these endings?
Because lets face it. They are finishing the story. No one will be happy with the endings because it is designed to be sad. That is the point!
They have spent alot of time on it.
Plus i've heard some people that have finished it LOVED the ending.
Plus this is like reading the end of a book, without reading the last 30 chapters! How can comment on the ending? If you haven't even played the entire game yet?
Gamers need to stop their criticism! Until the game is released. Thats why i don't listen to game critics. I don't insult a game until it comes out!
Then i rent it then I start playing. I like many from my school will see how I like it.
LordofHats wrote:I'm playing a neutral character (and hurting myself doing it) and I pick the option that says "I need this information." It seems like a reasonable start to the conversation so I pick it. What does my character say? "You will tell me what I need to know or I will make you suffer!" Which frankly seems like it should have been marked as a dark side option
Getting mine tomorrow (obviously) and will play it through. I expect nothing but an improvement on ME2, which was one of the best games ever made all around.
It's shaping up to be a bad year for Bioware. Estimates are that SW:ToR last lost as many as 60% of its initial subscribers
Slightly off-topic, but...
This isn't unusual, at all, for an MMO following its launch. There's a huge surge at the launch, then a massive decline shortly thereafter. A population will tend to level out with a gradual increase and then when expansions come the cycle repeats.
and the ME3 fan rage is the greatest I've witnessed in any fashion since the legendary backlash over Blizzard's plan to add realid to the forums.
Yes, fanbases tend to get ridiculous over leaked ending material.
It's pretty sad that with Dragon Age 2, Skyrim, SWToR, I still prefer WoW. Gameplay > story.
I'm confused. Why are you lumping all of these things in to talk about "you still prefer WoW"? Is WoW suddenly a single player, open-world game like Skyrim(which isn't even a BioWare product, no clue why you've got it in your post there)? An NPC party adventure like Dragon Age 2?
The only reasonable comparison you made was SWTOR, which is a bit silly as in the time since its launch TOR has put out quite a bit of material(a new raid and a new instance), and has a bit more coming very soon(another new raid, another new instance and a whole slew of new quest lines on Corellia).
I'm still trying to figure out in what universe WoW has good gameplay.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:
The only reasonable comparison you made was SWTOR, which is a bit silly as in the time since its launch TOR has put out quite a bit of material(a new raid and a new instance), and has a bit more coming very soon(another new raid, another new instance and a whole slew of new quest lines on Corellia).
Wow, you render your entire argument invalid when you compare Skyrim (which is made by Bethesda...), Dragon Age 2, and SWTOR (a game that came out in late December...) to a game that does the same thing every expansion and has has 8 years to refine itself.
Like, how does your brain calculate those to make a point?
Would someone mind giving me a summation of all the important plot details? I'm having a hard time figuring out what exactly happens in ME3. I'm mostly getting vague forum threads and youtube videos with no sound on my internets sleuthing.
and the ME3 fan rage is the greatest I've witnessed in any fashion since the legendary backlash over Blizzard's plan to add realid to the forums.
Yes, fanbases tend to get ridiculous over leaked ending material.
Yeah, kind of like Batman: Arkim City. That's kind of a big deal....
ME2, which was one of the best games ever made all around.
Sidequest; the game was actually very bland, and mostly a GoW rip off with "Choices".
Seriously, the only thing that truely brings Mass Effect out of the "Generic Sci Fi setting" crowd is the fact that your saves carry over from game to game. Other than that, there really isn't anything that makes it special....
dogma wrote:
I would appreciate a link, because what you seem to have read is not what I read.
I would but it looks like EA has been busy on youtube today.
dogma wrote:
Jack/Miranda/Ashley ship?
Maybe some Tali for flavor?
Liara andTali are recruitable for your team, as well as Garrus and Ashley/Kaiden. Not all LIs made the cut. Everyone else is pretty much cameos or a quest giver. If you stayed true, they made a few second long cameo as Shep has a flashback.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karon wrote:>I haven't played the game
>Game is gak
Thanks for your irrelevant opinion.
Getting mine tomorrow (obviously) and will play it through. I expect nothing but an improvement on ME2, which was one of the best games ever made all around.
Game leaked last Thursday. Have fun with your game, and be sure to buy extra controllers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:
Yes, fanbases tend to get ridiculous over leaked ending material.
Frighteningly, you and I agree for once. Particularly in this case as the ending was very much different then what the fans had hoped for.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
asimo77 wrote:Would someone mind giving me a summation of all the important plot details? I'm having a hard time figuring out what exactly happens in ME3. I'm mostly getting vague forum threads and youtube videos with no sound on my internets sleuthing.
Unfortunately EA has been busy today. Bioware's ME3 forum is pretty much locked and a lot of it you have to wade through 500+ pages. There was a walk through vid series on youtube, with audio, but I believe EA has removed it.
I missed out of ME1 because of a certain MMO that sucked my life away for too many years...
I jumped into ME2 and just loved it. So much that after two playthroughs I went back and bought ME1 so that I could do it "right" for me.
Yeah, you might guess by my signature, I've been waiting for ME3 for a while. It's a shame about spoiler ending, but just like some movie previews I've been avoiding these.
Bring on ME3 already! I'll get to the ending(s) soon enough...
asimo77 wrote:Would someone mind giving me a summation of all the important plot details? I'm having a hard time figuring out what exactly happens in ME3. I'm mostly getting vague forum threads and youtube videos with no sound on my internets sleuthing.
Posting this again for you and anyone else who might not have seen it. It is the Renegade ending for Mass Effect 3. Sorry, by the way, this was the only video clip that was anything close to actually being footage from the rest of the game, and this I had to prune from pages and pages of self-referential inside chatter and game demo videos. And it goes without saying HUGE SPOILER ALERT OMIGODDD
I appreciate the effort but unfortunatley the video has been removed. I suppose I can wait a few days until the game's out and everything is more accessible. I think I have a basic understanding of the endings but I'm most curious about the Reapers. What is their motivation, origins, leader, etc.
asimo77 wrote:I appreciate the effort but unfortunatley the video has been removed. I suppose I can wait a few days until the game's out and everything is more accessible. I think I have a basic understanding of the endings but I'm most curious about the Reapers. What is their motivation, origins, leader, etc.
Already? Oh, for God's sake, that stupid DMCA. They take anything off just based on a copyright claim. I don't know what court case has established that you can copyright a videogame being played, but they pull it anyway just to be on the safe side. I hate American law. Anyway, based on my shoddy memory and my short attention span, here's a description of the ending:
HUGE SPOILERS INCOMING:
Spoiler:
The video was a dialogue between Shepard and a holographic kid about the final Doomsday choice. You get to choose whether to destroy all the Reapers or something else. The purpose of the Reapers is to wipe out organic life at set intervals so that synthetics do not go all Skynet and permanently destroy any possibility of organic life in the galaxy. Think of the Quarians and the Geth. The idea being wiping out the Quarians so they cannot advance synthetics to the point where they dominate the galaxy.
The holographic kid was, as far as I can gather, the brains behind the Reapers.
In the Renegade ending, Shepard destroys a machine which causes planet earth to be incinerated, and the Reapers are permanently destroyed, the rationale being that now the Reapers are destroyed, organic life can determine its own fate.
I'd also like to point out that wiping out organics with synthetic life to prevent organics from wiping themselves out with synthetic life is horribly oxymoronic.
Is the kid/leader supposed to be a VI/AI hologram of the Reaper's creator species? I can only imagine what kind of silly device could simultaneously destroy Earth and kill the Reapers, and more importantly why would the Reaper leader even offer it to you? Hell why would he give Shepard any options other than "EXTERMINATE EXTERMINATE". Also as Lordofhats noted their reason for genocide is pretty stupid
Is the kid/leader supposed to be a VI/AI hologram of the Reaper's creator species? I can only imagine what kind of silly device could simultaneously destroy Earth and kill the Reapers, and more importantly why would the Reaper leader even offer it to you? Hell why would he give Shepard any options other than "EXTERMINATE EXTERMINATE". Also as Lordofhats noted their reason for genocide is pretty stupid
as I've said, it makes little sense. Sheppard never uses the grey matter in his head in the last ten min of the game, and the reapers are just as wildly contrived at this point.
Spoiler:
And then there's the synthesis ending where Sheppard uses space magic to turn all organic life into cyborgs all over the galaxy. I'm not gaking you.
I'm assuming the cyborg ending is made possible with Reaper tech/magic. Still doesn't explain why anyone would choose that. If everyone is synthetic then the Reapers would just leave us alone? Why would the Reapers even have the ability to make that transformation in the first place? Or is Shepard basically turning everyone into Husks with that ending? Seems Sarenish, if you can't beat them join them or something like that.
I'm assuming the cyborg ending is made possible with Reaper tech/magic. Still doesn't explain why anyone would choose that. If everyone is synthetic then the Reapers would just leave us alone? Why would the Reapers even have the ability to make that transformation in the first place? Or is Shepard basically turning everyone into Husks with that ending? Seems Sarenish, if you can't beat them join them or something like that.
Spoiler:
Yeah, it's not exactly explained how it's possible, it just makes all the Mass Relays explode, just like every other ending but in green instead of red or blue. And, yeah, everyone has been calling it the 'Saren was right' ending. The sad part is it's the most difficult to get, and therefor likely ment to be the 'best' ending. So, yeah, being borged is the 'best' ending...
Kanluwen wrote:I wouldn't go that far, but it most certainly does have quite a bit in common with WoW.
Annoyingly enough though, people want it to be more like WoW.
I mean, its a hotkey MMO, it can't be all that different. I would say that it at least doesn't have any pure healers, but neither does WoW anymore. The only reason I played it at all was because of the emphasis on story.
As far as gameplay MMOs go, I'm looking at GW2 and Planetside 2.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
asimo77 wrote:Thanks for the summary.
Spoiler:
Is the kid/leader supposed to be a VI/AI hologram of the Reaper's creator species? I can only imagine what kind of silly device could simultaneously destroy Earth and kill the Reapers, and more importantly why would the Reaper leader even offer it to you? Hell why would he give Shepard any options other than "EXTERMINATE EXTERMINATE". Also as Lordofhats noted their reason for genocide is pretty stupid
It would probably help to have access to the rest of the story.
The end of Moby Dick doesn't make much sense without the rest of the book either.
The reviews I've gotten from friends is that ME3 is ass-kickage.
Maybe their standards are lower than yours, but honestly, from what I read, it looks pretty cool. A bit dark, but 'tis said the coldest hour is the one just before the dawn...
Melissia wrote:The reviews I've gotten from friends is that ME3 is ass-kickage.
Maybe their standards are lower than yours, but honestly, from what I read, it looks pretty cool. A bit dark, but 'tis said the coldest hour is the one just before the dawn...
Yeah, the common refrain is 'the ending is not for everyone'.
Got some pills, getting better now I could have gone to work today, but saving the universe seems a lot more important than building websites right now.
I think the real problem that people are getting upset about is the BLATANT deus ex machina more than anything else
Spoiler:
I wouldn't say that. There's also the fact that what you're left with after the deus ex machina is pretty unsatisfying after you've spent so long playing the role of Shepard.
I think my personal fanon will be sticking with ME1: Femshep and Liara save the galaxy, have a couple of blue kids and live happily ever after. The end.
dogma wrote:
The end of Moby Dick doesn't make much sense without the rest of the book either.
Spoiler:
The VI/Sentient Citadel kid is never explained in any meaningful fashion, and the reasoning behind the choices the force you into make no sense in the context of the rest of the story. "Created will always rebel against creators, synthetic life will eventually always destroy organic life, we're here to kill organic life before it can make synthetic life, rinse repeat" despite the fact at that point in the game you've resolved the Geth/Quarian issue and the Geth are making a point of helping the Quarians. Never mind that it was the Quarians who started all that gak in the first place and if they didn't have as itchy a trigger finger the Geth would have been more than happy to remain Helperbots.
It also feels grossly out of the tone for game that in each allowed you to play a character to sticks to his/her ideals and comes out on top, winning in the end without having to compromise their integrity. But the choices boil down to "Kill all Robots", "Destroy all life as we know it", "Become the Lich King (the bad guy was right)". Really the only ending that makes ANY sense in any context is the "Kill all Synthetics" ending, and only if you were playing hardcore renegade Shepard.
dogma wrote:
The end of Moby Dick doesn't make much sense without the rest of the book either.
Spoiler:
The VI/Sentient Citadel kid is never explained in any meaningful fashion, and the reasoning behind the choices the force you into make no sense in the context of the rest of the story. "Created will always rebel against creators, synthetic life will eventually always destroy organic life, we're here to kill organic life before it can make synthetic life, rinse repeat" despite the fact at that point in the game you've resolved the Geth/Quarian issue and the Geth are making a point of helping the Quarians. Never mind that it was the Quarians who started all that gak in the first place and if they didn't have as itchy a trigger finger the Geth would have been more than happy to remain Helperbots.
It also feels grossly out of the tone for game that in each allowed you to play a character to sticks to his/her ideals and comes out on top, winning in the end without having to compromise their integrity. But the choices boil down to "Kill all Robots", "Destroy all life as we know it", "Become the Lich King (the bad guy was right)". Really the only ending that makes ANY sense in any context is the "Kill all Synthetics" ending, and only if you were playing hardcore renegade Shepard.
That last statement is wrong about the hardcore renegade Shepard.
Spoiler:
The time when you destroy the entire universe. That is Hardcore Renegade Shepard there are 7 endings to mass effect 3, so far only five of them have been accomplished. The last one the happiest ending is still extremely difficult to do. And has an alternate ending for the universe. The super bad ending is destroying all life in gaxaly. Not really a lich king ending as he only becomes the controller of the reapers for 50,000 years then they regain their sensability and come back and annihilate the universe.
Ok if the goal of the Reapers is to stop organic life before they create synthetic life that would destroy all organic life (god this really can't be their motivation it's so stupid) haven't they failed? I mean Reapers obviously exterminate organics and in ME2 they were creating a new Reaper out of organics. So we have organics being used to create a synthetic life form which destroys all organic life. So the Reapers failed their goal by becoming what they wanted to stop....ugh.
Also since we're spoiling things left and right, anyone want to tell me who created the Reapers? Or if they have an origin at all.
Ok if the goal of the Reapers is to stop organic life before they create synthetic life that would destroy all organic life (god this really can't be their motivation it's so stupid) haven't they failed? I mean Reapers obviously exterminate organics and in ME2 they were creating a new Reaper out of organics. So we have organics being used to create a synthetic life form which destroys all organic life. So the Reapers failed their goal by becoming what they wanted to stop....ugh.
Also since we're spoiling things left and right, anyone want to tell me who created the Reapers? Or if they have an origin at all.
Spoiler:
#1 Not only did the Reapers fail by any reasonable standard (deliberately culling organics over and over again isn't a morally superior option to just taking your chances that they might be killed off for good), Shepard succeeded. He proved this fatalistic bs was wrong - he got the Geth and Quarians to cooperate again, and he's got EDI working happily with the organics.
#2 The deus ex Citadel from the end of the game created them.
Ok if the goal of the Reapers is to stop organic life before they create synthetic life that would destroy all organic life (god this really can't be their motivation it's so stupid) haven't they failed? I mean Reapers obviously exterminate organics and in ME2 they were creating a new Reaper out of organics. So we have organics being used to create a synthetic life form which destroys all organic life. So the Reapers failed their goal by becoming what they wanted to stop....ugh.
Also since we're spoiling things left and right, anyone want to tell me who created the Reapers? Or if they have an origin at all.
Welcome to the world where Bioware has become so atrociously bad at something they were once praised for. Its called story and Bioware doesn't care anymore
So if this is supposed to be the end of live, the universe and everything, does this mean there will be no Mass Effect 4? Or any other Mass Effect anything?
I was kinda hoping the franchise in general would stick around long enough for someone to make a mass effect miniatures game
LordofHats wrote:EA is known to have wanted to create a full franchise out of Mass Effect years ago but idk if those plans are still going.
It would have been nice. Before ME3 I would have been totally on board for ME spinoffs there was some great fodder there for RTS, Space Combat & MMO games at minimum. I'll see how I feel after the initial nerd rage wears off, but I really don't think I could touch any more Mass Effect stuff after this. Heck, I've been running a GMing a Mass Effect RPG and I'd cancel the whole thing right now if my players weren't so much fun to play with.
They seriously managed to flush the entire series with ~10 minutes of sheer ass.
I'd also like to point out that wiping out organics with synthetic life to prevent organics from wiping themselves out with synthetic life is horribly oxymoronic.
I know
Spoiler:
I mean I absolutely loved every part of Mass Effect 3 until the ending/epilogue. They had already established in the previous two games that the reapers believed amalgamating organic civilizations into single enitites was a good thing (where if you take how legion describes them are kind of like a composite hive mind in one body although the people are most certainly dead). That wasn't an issue. The thing is, I was under the impression the Reapers or the thing that came up with this plan was insane! But they ascribe this MONSTROUS concept to a supposedly benign AI/integrated organic. Whose only reason for changing his plans and whole-heartedly letting you chose to destroy what it has done for millennia because its a little impressed with you!
What got me most first time round though was this. This is meant to be Shepards story, of his cause, of this universe we've came to enjoy and that of his companions. Yet when they end: they hijack shepards story to talk about a cliche sci-fi thing, does not make an epilogue explaining how his companions respond to his death/survival or how the galaxy is affected by his choices. Yes, they were (abused) themes very important to the Mass Effect universe and the Reapers but they should not have hijacked the ending and robbed us of closure. I could have lived with a morbidly grim ending, I could even live with bemusing sci-fi lore that makes no sense; but I do not appreciate Bioware putting in some abstract Garden of Eden thing. I wanted to know what happened to my shep, the galaxy and my companions. That is what Mass Effect was about; I'am just bewildered that Bioware consciously chose not to do that. As it stands, IMO they soured what was otherwise an outstanding game in more ways than I can count and a great service to this follower of the series. Its still great but its ending is not its strong point.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlexHolker wrote:
asimo77 wrote:
Spoiler:
Ok if the goal of the Reapers is to stop organic life before they create synthetic life that would destroy all organic life (god this really can't be their motivation it's so stupid) haven't they failed? I mean Reapers obviously exterminate organics and in ME2 they were creating a new Reaper out of organics. So we have organics being used to create a synthetic life form which destroys all organic life. So the Reapers failed their goal by becoming what they wanted to stop....ugh.
Also since we're spoiling things left and right, anyone want to tell me who created the Reapers? Or if they have an origin at all.
Spoiler:
#1 Not only did the Reapers fail by any reasonable standard (deliberately culling organics over and over again isn't a morally superior option to just taking your chances that they might be killed off for good), Shepard succeeded. He proved this fatalistic bs was wrong - he got the Geth and Quarians to cooperate again, and he's got EDI working happily with the organics.
#2 The deus ex Citadel from the end of the game created them.
Spoiler:
Well, a reaper isn't actually a synthetic, its a union of organic and synthetic material. Almost a giant cyborg. Effectively it contains the genetic material of the machine and its implied (very vaguely) that in some way a reaper is composed of many millions of seperate entities that are united into a vast intelligence but still unique ac 2 Legion. Effectively that means, despite having killed them and destroyed what they were in terms of identity, it has absorbed them; most likely given the fact that most of the bodies are rotting and are just goup mixed together that this is just an arbitrary means of dividing consciousness in an almost administrative manner. Put simply, its an abomination and anyone who thought up of this is insane/murderously immoral. Think the new necrons but they were pooled into one machine hull and retained some organic components. It has the obvious advantage over organic life since, all 'people' exist in an egalitarian society, they are fed by the ships ME core so have no wants or desires, so have no need for conflict and are effectively immortal. By all rights, a perfect utopia. With one minor flaw, you have to kill everybody to get them to do it and you strip them of all humanity/ senses etc etc. Synthetics come into it because a machine race has no need for organic bioshperes at all. They don't need food, they don't need animals, they don't even need air. If you look at how humans treat animals they don't need that would likely mean that they would destroy all life bearing worlds in time through industrialization, over-mining etc, heedless of the damage because its not essential to their existence. Eventually, this would cause the galaxy to be as dead as a world eaten by the nids. Once thats done, advanced organic life can no longer develop. Which, yes, is a pretty horriifc thing and if you were one of those 'moral', logical and insane AI with a lot of firepower might decide to do this in order to 'preserve' advanced organic species in reapers but not interupt the development of organic life.
Oh you mentioned the Quarians Geth and the AI reckoning that conflict is inevitable. Simple ansawr, hes wrong, you're right. In fact, if hes willing to let you destroy the Reapers why doesn't it just give you the option of saying 'But you're wrong. Organics and Synthetics can live in peace. War and violence are conditions of organic as well as syntheitc.' and then tell them to go back to dark space?
Wow. You guys missed the dark romanticism and Modernism references throughout the entire ending. I like that from Bioware. That is one hell of a bold step.
The ending makes you all feel something? Correct? You know that is what BIoware was trying to achieve make you feel something. Make you think OH THATS NOT FAIR!
Well to be honest. That is life. And that is realist right there. The Deus Ex Machina? really? No. After many hundreds of cycles maybe the Reapers lost their original purpose and went against their creator. It has always been in the game of some being in the Citadel.
Also everyone that keeps saying the ending was bad. Hi Fear 3, Crackdown 2, and many other games that sucked in my opinion would want to fight over the worst video game endings in history.
This Game does not have the worst ending of all time.
This has a meh ending.
There is a chance
Spoiler:
That shepherd can live if you collected the entire universe into one massive fleet. And then you defeat the Reapers. Also the best ending is wiping out all the reapers. And only the reapers. And that is only if you beat the game for a second time *Wink*
Asherian Command wrote:Wow. You guys missed the dark romanticism and Modernism references throughout the entire ending. I like that from Bioware. That is one hell of a bold step.
The ending makes you all feel something? Correct? You know that is what BIoware was trying to achieve make you feel something. Make you think OH THATS NOT FAIR!
Well to be honest. That is life. And that is realist right there. The Deus Ex Machina? really? No. After many hundreds of cycles maybe the Reapers lost their original purpose and went against their creator. It has always been in the game of some being in the Citadel.
Also everyone that keeps saying the ending was bad. Hi Fear 3, Crackdown 2, and many other games that sucked in my opinion would want to fight over the worst video game endings in history.
This Game does not have the worst ending of all time.
This has a meh ending.
the
I vaguely understand the themes since they've been used for a long. But, and its a big but.
Spoiler:
This was a Bioware game, it was about a long term development enacted through your choices on the galaxy and upon your companions; with relationships going through three games. It was not about some pretentious and silly B-movie plot about 'Well this is where progress takes us. Will we become machines or will our creators overcome us?' or 'How do we solve conflict and create a true utopia. Is that immoral.'. No. I utterly disagree with that point. That was neither the appeal nor was it the most dynamic element of Mass Effect. It was your choices, it was your com,panions and it was the universe. To end it like some B-movie with an assinine, abstract moral tone. There should have been an epilogue. They should have shown what your characters reaction was. They should have shown what happened to the galaxy. They did not. They kicked me in the balls when I was on a high. Near everything up to that moment had been good. Yes, they did make it clear how your characters felt about you, intimated what would happen and they all individually said goodbye to you. But thats not quite the same thing and only made such a dramatic shift in emphasis at the end all the more bewildering. So I must ask you. What is Bioware trying to achieve by insulting me by not only forcing me to kill my shep, in a dumb scenario, but that they then refuse to show an epilogue explaining the main pillars of their game; story and character for some stupid abstract sci-fi. No, I do not care if I'am rude. It is not a 'bold step' to your fans like this. It is not okay to build up character and story for three games reach an apex in the third game only to you with some washed up dejected filth that would make Matt Ward himself recoil in horrer. Bringing in these concepts is neither welcome, nor well done, nor is it dynamic, any idiot whose watched the first Star trek can make abstract bull like that. It is not why I enjoyed Mass Effect. It is not relevent. They had no right, and no cause to do what they did.
This isn't about ranking the worst vid game ending. Its about people who invested and liked the franchise being annoyed at not getting a satisfactory ending.
Asherian Command wrote:The ending makes you all feel something? Correct? You know that is what BIoware was trying to achieve make you feel something. Make you think OH THATS NOT FAIR!
I'll say the same thing I said after finishing Mass Effect (WRT the fake "Sovereign fell on Shepard" ending): It did not make me feel concern for Shepard, it made me feel anger towards Bioware for (seemingly) going for a bs Obsidian ending. It broke my suspension of disbelief.
Asherian Command wrote:Wow. You guys missed the dark romanticism and Modernism references throughout the entire ending. I like that from Bioware. That is one hell of a bold step.
The ending makes you all feel something? Correct? You know that is what BIoware was trying to achieve make you feel something. Make you think OH THATS NOT FAIR!
Well to be honest. That is life. And that is realist right there. The Deus Ex Machina? really? No. After many hundreds of cycles maybe the Reapers lost their original purpose and went against their creator. It has always been in the game of some being in the Citadel.
Also everyone that keeps saying the ending was bad. Hi Fear 3, Crackdown 2, and many other games that sucked in my opinion would want to fight over the worst video game endings in history.
This Game does not have the worst ending of all time.
This has a meh ending.
the
I vaguely understand the themes since they've been used for a long. But, and its a big but.
Spoiler:
This was a Bioware game, it was about a long term development enacted through your choices on the galaxy and upon your companions; with relationships going through three games. It was not about some pretentious and silly B-movie plot about 'Well this is where progress takes us. Will we become machines or will our creators overcome us?' or 'How do we solve conflict and create a true utopia. Is that immoral.'. No. I utterly disagree with that point. That was neither the appeal nor was it the most dynamic element of Mass Effect. It was your choices, it was your com,panions and it was the universe. To end it like some B-movie with an assinine, abstract moral tone. There should have been an epilogue. They should have shown what your characters reaction was. They should have shown what happened to the galaxy. They did not. They kicked me in the balls when I was on a high. Near everything up to that moment had been good. Yes, they did make it clear how your characters felt about you, intimated what would happen and they all individually said goodbye to you. But thats not quite the same thing and only made such a dramatic shift in emphasis at the end all the more bewildering. So I must ask you. What is Bioware trying to achieve by insulting me by not only forcing me to kill my shep, in a dumb scenario, but that they then refuse to show an epilogue explaining the main pillars of their game; story and character for some stupid abstract sci-fi. No, I do not care if I'am rude. It is not a 'bold step' to your fans like this. It is not okay to build up character and story for three games reach an apex in the third game only to you with some washed up dejected filth that would make Matt Ward himself recoil in horrer. Bringing in these concepts is neither welcome, nor well done, nor is it dynamic, any idiot whose watched the first Star trek can make abstract bull like that. It is not why I enjoyed Mass Effect. It is not relevent. They had no right, and no cause to do what they did.
This isn't about ranking the worst vid game ending. Its about people who invested and liked the franchise being annoyed at not getting a satisfactory ending.
The fact is the point of the game was to save humanity at any cost. This wasn't going to end well. The epilogue did happen.
Spoiler:
At the very end of the game. Shepherd becomes a freaking legend. Wait after the credits.
Watch what they are looking at. You know where that is? That is Eden Prime. It started there. And it ended there. A fitting end for the series.
They hinted what happened. Eden prime was now the center of humanity. Earth was a memorial site and still the cradle world. Use your imagination it is up to you to figure out what had happened. I mean you may revolt against bioware but they crafted. They did a really good job. It flows from start to finish. But it is still one of the most gripping stories of all time.
The little boy saying "Did that all really happen?"
"Yes son it did."
Yes that is closure the reason why you see the rest of the team on the garden of eden is that they found peaceful world where they can all live in peace.
That is closure. I love that type of ending. Its bittersweet. This betrayal of yours really didn't happen.
The ending is a metaphor for the fact that even though shepherd died he left humanity a symbol. Himself and those who had sacrificed themselves to defeat the reapers. You saw all those marines celebrating? They see that the war is over. The War is done. They can now return to a peaceful life. The Mass relays would be rebuilt because alot of the council races were planning on building a few. They know how to. Hell they have the plans for it. With all that wreckage and many of the outlying planets still functioning in no time the universe will be cured.
They left it open for one reason. Using your imagination. They couldn't end it any way that would appease everyone. Get off the high chair kid. Everyone is frustrated about it. But it is incredibely easy to see if you open your eyes and say "Why did the leave it open ended?"
They want you to see that the Races had united for something great. That made a legend out of it.
That is your ending for you. That time you so called 'wasted' was put to good use as you saw the races fight together. Now that is something amazing.
The reason also you do not see the ending for all the others is because you are dead. Shepherd died.
His story ended with one hell of a bang. He went out like heroes would sacrificing himself for the entire universe.
You can tear me apart. But I probably won't care. This after all my opinion and my interpertation. I take everything with a grain of salt. I know what is bad and what is good. Mass Effect 3 is amazing. It is great.
People just like jumping on a bandwagon.
I like staying off it. Thats why I am getting it for my birthday tomorrow. Mostly because I am turning 18. But I have watched the walkthroughs and I want to see the end of shepherds story. Because I know this the end of the Mass Effect universe as I know it. I love Mass Effect but I need to move on. Bioware is making way for something else. And it is not another MMO. They already got one.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlexHolker wrote:
Asherian Command wrote:The ending makes you all feel something? Correct? You know that is what BIoware was trying to achieve make you feel something. Make you think OH THATS NOT FAIR!
I'll say the same thing I said after finishing Mass Effect (WRT the fake "Sovereign fell on Shepard" ending): It did not make me feel concern for Shepard, it made me feel anger towards Bioware for (seemingly) going for a bs Obsidian ending. It broke my suspension of disbelief.
Asherian Command wrote:The ending makes you all feel something? Correct? You know that is what BIoware was trying to achieve make you feel something. Make you think OH THATS NOT FAIR!
I'll say the same thing I said after finishing Mass Effect (WRT the fake "Sovereign fell on Shepard" ending): It did not make me feel concern for Shepard, it made me feel anger towards Bioware for (seemingly) going for a bs Obsidian ending. It broke my suspension of disbelief.
Obsidan? What?
Obsidian Entertainment. It was a reference to the "rocks fall, everyone dies" ending of one of their games.
Asherian Command wrote:Wow. You guys missed the dark romanticism and Modernism references throughout the entire ending. I like that from Bioware. That is one hell of a bold step.
The ending makes you all feel something? Correct? You know that is what BIoware was trying to achieve make you feel something. Make you think OH THATS NOT FAIR!
There's a difference between invoking an emotional response from the audience and pissing the audience off because your ending sucked.
One is the result of well crafted story telling. The other is a result of sucking at story telling.
The VI/Sentient Citadel kid is never explained in any meaningful fashion, and the reasoning behind the choices the force you into make no sense in the context of the rest of the story. "Created will always rebel against creators, synthetic life will eventually always destroy organic life, we're here to kill organic life before it can make synthetic life, rinse repeat" despite the fact at that point in the game you've resolved the Geth/Quarian issue and the Geth are making a point of helping the Quarians. Never mind that it was the Quarians who started all that gak in the first place and if they didn't have as itchy a trigger finger the Geth would have been more than happy to remain Helperbots.
It also feels grossly out of the tone for game that in each allowed you to play a character to sticks to his/her ideals and comes out on top, winning in the end without having to compromise their integrity. But the choices boil down to "Kill all Robots", "Destroy all life as we know it", "Become the Lich King (the bad guy was right)". Really the only ending that makes ANY sense in any context is the "Kill all Synthetics" ending, and only if you were playing hardcore renegade Shepard.
Egregious text so this isn't just a spoiler tag.
Spoiler:
It did? As I recall, if you stuck to your ideals (whatever they were) in ME2, you could suffer significant casualties. But then, personally, I like a game that forces you to compromise, especially given the seeming descent from the pristine, nearly black and white, moral choices of the first game.
As to explaining the kid: He's essentially God, explanation isn't necessary, or even necessarily desirable.
As to explaining the kid: He's essentially God, explanation isn't necessary, or even necessarily desirable.
Spoiler:
Thats not the point. In the world, whether we believe in god or not, we know he could possible maybe exist. Therefore, if god walks into the house and asks wazz up at the end of the day, we might be pretty damn shocked but its not like were going to stare at him wonder who the crap god is. Nothing in Mass Effect's three game long storyline suggested that this plot point existed, so when it shows it its just WTF? There's a machine god and he is apparently powerful enough to do this gak, how the crappers has this not come up earlier?.
Honestly the biggest (and only structural) problem with the ending is that it comes from way left field because there was absolutely nothing in the story to suggest things might turn out that way or that this plot point ever existed. It just appears and the game ends. There could have at least been a hint or two that something like this existed to make it more natural and believable as an ending.
Asherian Command wrote:Wow. You guys missed the dark romanticism and Modernism references throughout the entire ending. I like that from Bioware. That is one hell of a bold step.
The ending makes you all feel something? Correct? You know that is what BIoware was trying to achieve make you feel something. Make you think OH THATS NOT FAIR!
Well to be honest. That is life. And that is realist right there. The Deus Ex Machina? really? No. After many hundreds of cycles maybe the Reapers lost their original purpose and went against their creator. It has always been in the game of some being in the Citadel.
Also everyone that keeps saying the ending was bad. Hi Fear 3, Crackdown 2, and many other games that sucked in my opinion would want to fight over the worst video game endings in history.
This Game does not have the worst ending of all time.
This has a meh ending.
the
I vaguely understand the themes since they've been used for a long. But, and its a big but.
Spoiler:
This was a Bioware game, it was about a long term development enacted through your choices on the galaxy and upon your companions; with relationships going through three games. It was not about some pretentious and silly B-movie plot about 'Well this is where progress takes us. Will we become machines or will our creators overcome us?' or 'How do we solve conflict and create a true utopia. Is that immoral.'. No. I utterly disagree with that point. That was neither the appeal nor was it the most dynamic element of Mass Effect. It was your choices, it was your com,panions and it was the universe. To end it like some B-movie with an assinine, abstract moral tone. There should have been an epilogue. They should have shown what your characters reaction was. They should have shown what happened to the galaxy. They did not. They kicked me in the balls when I was on a high. Near everything up to that moment had been good. Yes, they did make it clear how your characters felt about you, intimated what would happen and they all individually said goodbye to you. But thats not quite the same thing and only made such a dramatic shift in emphasis at the end all the more bewildering. So I must ask you. What is Bioware trying to achieve by insulting me by not only forcing me to kill my shep, in a dumb scenario, but that they then refuse to show an epilogue explaining the main pillars of their game; story and character for some stupid abstract sci-fi. No, I do not care if I'am rude. It is not a 'bold step' to your fans like this. It is not okay to build up character and story for three games reach an apex in the third game only to you with some washed up dejected filth that would make Matt Ward himself recoil in horrer. Bringing in these concepts is neither welcome, nor well done, nor is it dynamic, any idiot whose watched the first Star trek can make abstract bull like that. It is not why I enjoyed Mass Effect. It is not relevent. They had no right, and no cause to do what they did.
This isn't about ranking the worst vid game ending. Its about people who invested and liked the franchise being annoyed at not getting a satisfactory ending.
The fact is the point of the game was to save humanity at any cost. This wasn't going to end well. The epilogue did happen.
Spoiler:
At the very end of the game. Shepherd becomes a freaking legend. Wait after the credits.
Watch what they are looking at. You know where that is? That is Eden Prime. It started there. And it ended there. A fitting end for the series.
They hinted what happened. Eden prime was now the center of humanity. Earth was a memorial site and still the cradle world. Use your imagination it is up to you to figure out what had happened. I mean you may revolt against bioware but they crafted. They did a really good job. It flows from start to finish. But it is still one of the most gripping stories of all time.
The little boy saying "Did that all really happen?"
"Yes son it did."
Yes that is closure the reason why you see the rest of the team on the garden of eden is that they found peaceful world where they can all live in peace.
That is closure. I love that type of ending. Its bittersweet. This betrayal of yours really didn't happen.
The ending is a metaphor for the fact that even though shepherd died he left humanity a symbol. Himself and those who had sacrificed themselves to defeat the reapers. You saw all those marines celebrating? They see that the war is over. The War is done. They can now return to a peaceful life. The Mass relays would be rebuilt because alot of the council races were planning on building a few. They know how to. Hell they have the plans for it. With all that wreckage and many of the outlying planets still functioning in no time the universe will be cured.
They left it open for one reason. Using your imagination. They couldn't end it any way that would appease everyone. Get off the high chair kid. Everyone is frustrated about it. But it is incredibely easy to see if you open your eyes and say "Why did the leave it open ended?"
They want you to see that the Races had united for something great. That made a legend out of it.
That is your ending for you. That time you so called 'wasted' was put to good use as you saw the races fight together. Now that is something amazing.
The reason also you do not see the ending for all the others is because you are dead. Shepherd died.
His story ended with one hell of a bang. He went out like heroes would sacrificing himself for the entire universe.
You can tear me apart. But I probably won't care. This after all my opinion and my interpertation. I take everything with a grain of salt. I know what is bad and what is good. Mass Effect 3 is amazing. It is great.
People just like jumping on a bandwagon.
I like staying off it. Thats why I am getting it for my birthday tomorrow. Mostly because I am turning 18. But I have watched the walkthroughs and I want to see the end of shepherds story. Because I know this the end of the Mass Effect universe as I know it. I love Mass Effect but I need to move on. Bioware is making way for something else. And it is not another MMO. They already got one.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlexHolker wrote:
Asherian Command wrote:The ending makes you all feel something? Correct? You know that is what BIoware was trying to achieve make you feel something. Make you think OH THATS NOT FAIR!
I'll say the same thing I said after finishing Mass Effect (WRT the fake "Sovereign fell on Shepard" ending): It did not make me feel concern for Shepard, it made me feel anger towards Bioware for (seemingly) going for a bs Obsidian ending. It broke my suspension of disbelief.
Obsidan? What?
[/spoiler]
Spoiler:
No, this ain't bandbagoning, I don't remotely care what you think and I love the game but I feel they made an odd choice for the ending. I could already 'use my imagination' before I bought the game and I said that I don't mind Shephard dying per sae. Yes you can try to guess what might happen but thats not anywhere near the same as getting the full closure or having stuff explained to you. I would have loved to have seen your companions react to your death. Which seemed to be what they had been building up to during most of the game. All we get told instead is that Shpehard is valued as a hero (which he already was) X number of years in the future. That does not address what happens and the only reason they have for doing that is probably because they haven't decided where to take the franchise yet so were deliberately vague as to what happens to the galaxy after ME3. Again, I cannot stress this enough, ME3 is a great game; but, it has a completely out of touch ending that doesn't do anything for anyone.
Thats not the point. In the world, whether we believe in god or not, we know he could possible maybe exist. Therefore, if god walks into the house and asks wazz up at the end of the day, we might be pretty damn shocked but its not like were going to stare at him wonder who the crap god is.
Spoiler:
Really? The nature, the "person" of God is a topic of much debate. We can't even agree, as a species, if God is appropriate, or if god is.
LordofHats wrote:
Spoiler:
Nothing in Mass Effect's three game long storyline suggested that this plot point existed, so when it shows it its just WTF? There's a machine god and he is apparently powerful enough to do this gak, how the crappers has this not come up earlier?.
Spoiler:
Because its, essentially, a god. I honestly don't understand how the terrible machine race that people call "Reapers" didn't instantly conjure up god-like images in anyone that paid attention. From the beginning it was either going to be deus ex machina, or "A God am I".
Give me another reason for a hyper advanced machine race to cyclically kill organics, that doesn't depend on a pastiche of AM (which this is).
LordofHats wrote:
There could have at least been a hint or two that something like this existed to make it more natural and believable as an ending.
I find it more believable because there were no hints.
Now, I've only played Mass Effect 1, and I did not enjoy the experience much at all, found it to be mediocre at best, but from what I read about the ending, although complaints about invalidating the entire point of choices throughout the games (something that I saw coming since early on in ME1, and something everyone else should have caught on with just as early), deus ex machina, and being rushed can be considered to be valid (in fact, the ending to ME1 had very similar issues...), the whole problem people have with the ending being "too sad" is completely groundless.
Some stories have sad endings. That's just the way they're written. In many ways, the fact that not everything ends happily helps to bring out the value of the actions and trials of the characters within the story. Although there may be problems with the game's ending, wanting the ending to be changed just because it's too sad is foolish.
And here I thought I'd never have a reason to defend Mass Effect...
Thats not the point. In the world, whether we believe in god or not, we know he could possible maybe exist. Therefore, if god walks into the house and asks wazz up at the end of the day, we might be pretty damn shocked but its not like were going to stare at him wonder who the crap god is.
Spoiler:
Really? The nature, the "person" of God is a topic of much debate. We can't even agree, as a species, if God is appropriate, or if god is.
LordofHats wrote:
Spoiler:
Nothing in Mass Effect's three game long storyline suggested that this plot point existed, so when it shows it its just WTF? There's a machine god and he is apparently powerful enough to do this gak, how the crappers has this not come up earlier?.
Spoiler:
Because its, essentially, a god. I honestly don't understand how the terrible machine race that people call "Reapers" didn't instantly conjure up god-like images in anyone that paid attention. From the beginning it was either going to be deus ex machina, or "A God am I".
Give me another reason for a hyper advanced machine race to cyclically kill organics, that doesn't depend on a pastiche of AM (which this is).
LordofHats wrote:
There could have at least been a hint or two that something like this existed to make it more natural and believable as an ending.
I find it more believable because there were no hints.
Ants don't get hints when they're stepped on.
Spoiler:
Well, yeah, Reapers were powerful and repeatedly described as god like in intent and power. Indeed, I'am told that they actually resemble the outer gods from the Cthulu mythos. But as Legion describes they are not gods. To use a 40k analogue, a C'Tan was of immense power and could easily be percieved as god-like by mortals but it is not a god in the true sense of the term. Chaos gods on the other hand are real gods (not withstanding description as immensely powerful extra-dimensional beings) in that they require worship, reward their followers use super-natural powers and simply the magical nature of everything they do. So we knew that reapers were possesed of a god-dellusion, as when you talk to Soveriegn but thats a marker of how evil they are. To turn around and introduce a real god capable of altering the genetic material of everything and having a genuinely benign relation to the galaxy was out of the blue. We were expecting a super powerful skynet with a god delusion not to find the Lord in the machine. Two very different things that would have ellictied very different reactions from the audience. IMO the other option would have made far more sense since theres nothing rational about what the reapers are; they are abomination and the story made that clear.
It did? As I recall, if you stuck to your ideals (whatever they were) in ME2, you could suffer significant casualties. But then, personally, I like a game that forces you to compromise, especially given the seeming descent from the pristine, nearly black and white, moral choices of the first game.
As to explaining the kid: He's essentially God, explanation isn't necessary, or even necessarily desirable
It did? As I recall, if you stuck to your ideals (whatever they were) in ME2, you could suffer significant casualties. But then, personally, I like a game that forces you to compromise, especially given the seeming descent from the pristine, nearly black and white, moral choices of the first game.
Yeah, you could. I played both ME1/2 not only pretty much making 100% "Paragon" choices (except for where they felt really odd an unfair) pretty much always dealt with people with an even hand, always tried to talk down situations first, helped folks when they asked, gave enemies the benefit of the doubt, etc.. .All in all pretty much played the boy scout. I was able to complete every mission successfully, won the Suicide Mission with every squad member intact, the capture crew rescued, and destroyed the reaper base at the end.
It'd perfectly OK if in ME1 and ME2 you couldn't do this. If you had to play dirty or accept horrible truths to advance forward, but that isn't the case. It isn't the case in ME3 either, up until the last seconds of the game. It makes for a huge tonal shift that is just plain uncomfortable. It's not that the other tone is bad it's fine, even interesting... just not when it only appears in the last 10 minutes of a 3 game series that's been doing pretty much the exact opposite the whole time.
The only thing I felt like I lost out on the whole series due to me being goody-goody was when the Salarians refused to join when I insisted on being level with Wrex and the Krogans in undoing the Genophage. Ultimately, I didn't even need them because I could get to more than full resources bar (Over 5,000) without them easily.
Really? The nature, the "person" of God is a topic of much debate. We can't even agree, as a species, if God is appropriate, or if god is.
Spoiler:
That's not what I mean. I'm not talking about the specifics of his person, just who he supposedly is. If I say god, we all think (I assume) of the Judeo-Christian creator of heaven and earth etc etc. We know who god is supposed to be in a general sense. This machine god whoever just seemingly springs from no where. Which is something a god could do, but as a point in a storyline it is a structural problem for the audience that this thing just pops up at the end having never been mentioned before only so that it can end the storyline.
. Which is something a god could do, but as a point in a storyline it is a structural problem for the audience that this thing just pops up at the end having never been mentioned before only so that it can end the storyline.
I would agree if there weren't heavy doses of "What the hell is going on?" throughout this game, and the larger series.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chongara wrote:
Yeah, you could. I played both ME1/2 not only pretty much making 100% "Paragon" choices (except for where they felt really odd an unfair) pretty much always dealt with people with an even hand, always tried to talk down situations first, helped folks when they asked, gave enemies the benefit of the doubt, etc.. .All in all pretty much played the boy scout.
I don't see how that makes a better game.
Always being nice, and winning, is not a reflection of how the world works. Its just game logic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Totalwar1402 wrote:
Spoiler:
To turn around and introduce a real god capable of altering the genetic material of everything and having a genuinely benign relation to the galaxy was out of the blue. We were expecting a super powerful skynet with a god delusion not to find the Lord in the machine.
Spoiler:
Why would you expect malice? You already know the process of "reaping" is cyclic, so its clearly not about winning a war of any sort. Its either malice (I Have no Mouth but I Must Scream), or detached consideration. Hell, even without knowing the endings, the Prothean alone (shouldn't have been DLC) would have given me that vibe..
Always being nice, and winning, is not a reflection of how the world works. Its just game logic.
It's a fine tone. There isn't anything wrong with an idealistic story with a sort of golden hero. Is it terribly realistic? No, but it can be very nice especially in this day an age of "Darker is Better".
I've enjoyed plenty of far more down to earth, grittier stories. Mass Effect even gives you that option if you want things to play out that way. That's been one of the nice things about it. Want a story about an idealistic hero that gets things down without compromise? We can give you that. Want a story about a hero who does needs to be done, because so much is at stake? You can have that too. Want to play between the two a bit? You've got that too! They treat all those things with respect, and let each approach feel like it has a consistent tone with itself.
It's jarring shift in tone in the last 10 minutes of a 3-game series. To say "Ok. This way we let you do things for the past five years? Yeah you can't do that here." That sucks. That they throw it out in favor of a random, lazy, literal Deus Ex Machina is just plain unacceptable for me.
Always being nice, and winning, is not a reflection of how the world works. Its just game logic.
It's a fine tone. There isn't anything wrong with an idealistic story with a sort of golden hero. Is it terribly realistic? No, but it can be very nice especially in this day an age of "Darker is Better".
I've enjoyed plenty of far more down to earth, grittier stories. Mass Effect even gives you that option if you want things to play out that way. That's been one of the nice things about it. Want a story about an idealistic hero that gets things down without compromise? We can give you that. Want a story about a hero who does needs to be done, because so much is at stake? You can have that too. Want to play between the two a bit? You've got that too! They treat all those things with respect, and let each approach feel like it has a consistent tone with itself.
It's jarring shift in tone in the last 10 minutes of a 3-game series. To say "Ok. This way we let you do things for the past five years? Yeah you can't do that here." That sucks. That they throw it out in favor of a random, lazy, literal Deus Ex Machina is just plain unacceptable for me.
Why is it a Deus Ex Machina? They found the Crucible early on in the beginning of ME3. And plus there was a huge amount of sarcrafice. There was no intervention. They all knew the crucible was a weapon designed to defeat the reapers.
Always being nice, and winning, is not a reflection of how the world works. Its just game logic.
It's a fine tone. There isn't anything wrong with an idealistic story with a sort of golden hero. Is it terribly realistic? No, but it can be very nice especially in this day an age of "Darker is Better".
I've enjoyed plenty of far more down to earth, grittier stories. Mass Effect even gives you that option if you want things to play out that way. That's been one of the nice things about it. Want a story about an idealistic hero that gets things down without compromise? We can give you that. Want a story about a hero who does needs to be done, because so much is at stake? You can have that too. Want to play between the two a bit? You've got that too! They treat all those things with respect, and let each approach feel like it has a consistent tone with itself.
It's jarring shift in tone in the last 10 minutes of a 3-game series. To say "Ok. This way we let you do things for the past five years? Yeah you can't do that here." That sucks. That they throw it out in favor of a random, lazy, literal Deus Ex Machina is just plain unacceptable for me.
Why is it a Deus Ex Machina? They found the Crucible early on in the beginning of ME3. And plus there was a huge amount of sarcrafice. There was no intervention. They all knew the crucible was a weapon designed to defeat the reapers.
Because an all powerful glowing little boy pops out of the citadel and solves the reaper issue with magic powers in a fashion that was never even hinted at in any part of the story up till that point? Heck, the crucible wasn't even mentioned or used in that entire sequence with him, so it was just kind of a non-thing.
Always being nice, and winning, is not a reflection of how the world works. Its just game logic.
It's a fine tone. There isn't anything wrong with an idealistic story with a sort of golden hero. Is it terribly realistic? No, but it can be very nice especially in this day an age of "Darker is Better".
I've enjoyed plenty of far more down to earth, grittier stories. Mass Effect even gives you that option if you want things to play out that way. That's been one of the nice things about it. Want a story about an idealistic hero that gets things down without compromise? We can give you that. Want a story about a hero who does needs to be done, because so much is at stake? You can have that too. Want to play between the two a bit? You've got that too! They treat all those things with respect, and let each approach feel like it has a consistent tone with itself.
It's jarring shift in tone in the last 10 minutes of a 3-game series. To say "Ok. This way we let you do things for the past five years? Yeah you can't do that here." That sucks. That they throw it out in favor of a random, lazy, literal Deus Ex Machina is just plain unacceptable for me.
Why is it a Deus Ex Machina? They found the Crucible early on in the beginning of ME3. And plus there was a huge amount of sarcrafice. There was no intervention. They all knew the crucible was a weapon designed to defeat the reapers.
Because an all powerful glowing little boy pops out of the citadel and solves the reaper issue with magic powers in a fashion that was never even hinted at in any part of the story up till that point? Heck, the crucible wasn't even mentioned or used in that entire sequence with him, so it was just kind of a non-thing.
That really didn't happen. He didn't do that. Shepherd did. The Citidael is just shown to be an intelligence makes sense as it apparently came before the reapers. So it is a Reaper in a sense. That makes perfect sense to me.
Not really a Deus Ex Machina as there was no happy ending. And the characters were all saved by a single thing. It really only solved the issue at a cost. Which you have ignored. The Crucible was mentioned at the beginning of the game. And they all said we don't know how it works.
is a plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly solved with the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new event, character, ability, or object.
While the reaper threat isn't something I'd consider "unsolvable" the way the ending solves it is pretty damn DEM. Whether or not the ending is happy is irrelevant to the mechanism (EDIT: And frankly, DEM gets a bad rap, but its not always bad. War of the Worlds had a very well done DEM ending and frankly it worked.)
LordofHats wrote: War of the Worlds had a very well done DEM ending and frankly it worked.)
That's most likely because it made sense; whenever you go into a new area, you have to worry about germs and deseases you don't have an immunity for, and it makes sense that something not used to Small Pox and stuff would suddenly keel over after exposure.
It does make the aliens sound lazy, in not doing their proper research......
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asherian Command wrote: at least it is not Force Unleashed or FEAR 3
How was FEAR 3's ending a DEM?
Spoiler:
They constantly told you this thing was out to get her, check. They told you she was afraid of her father. Check. You find out her father is the thing out to get her. You go into lab where you were raised, and proceed to kill him.
The only thing DEM about it was how you got there and how you were suddenly at Alma's side during the birthing.
LordofHats wrote: War of the Worlds had a very well done DEM ending and frankly it worked.)
That's most likely because it made sense; whenever you go into a new area, you have to worry about germs and deseases you don't have an immunity for, and it makes sense that something not used to Small Pox and stuff would suddenly keel over after exposure.
It does make the aliens sound lazy, in not doing their proper research......
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asherian Command wrote: at least it is not Force Unleashed or FEAR 3
How was FEAR 3's ending a DEM?
Spoiler:
They constantly told you this thing was out to get her, check. They told you she was afraid of her father. Check. You find out her father is the thing out to get her. You go into lab where you were raised, and proceed to kill him.
The only thing DEM about it was how you got there and how you were suddenly at Alma's side during the birthing.
FEAR 3 was a horrible example of a FEAR game. The game ended disappointing especially when they killed Beckett. That instantly caused me to hate the game. As beckett had little more than a cameo. And all the massive plot holes. Deus Ex Machina is when they kill paxton fettel. I had a huge problem with the two characters. Paxton was a wuss. And Pointman was a horriblely weak character. Alma was no more than a nusiance. No scaryness. No epic plot twists. No Michael beckett. Since when was slow mo a pyschic ability? He was made that way after experimentation. Same with Beckett. Beckett was killed in 3 seconds. He fought off alma. I highly doubt Paxton was able to accomplish that. I would have rather played Beckett than Fail man.
I have a long list of disappointing games. one who will be named. Duke Nukeum.
Comparing Me3 to Duke Nukeum....
ME3 has better story, better characters, is an rpg (Which instantly makes it better.)
Duke Nukeum, horrible story, sexist, FPS (Which makes it worse), horrid graphics, took 11 years to come out, ending sucked, character sucked, yeah everything in this game was bad.
Duke Nukem's story wassn't INTENDED to be a deep story. If you attempted to find a deeper meaning in DNF, you're really looking too hard. As for "sexist", yeah it was sort of, but at least the Duke had some personality, which is more than one can say about the overwhelming majority of FPS and RPG characters who are blandy mcboring idiots who nobody really cares about.
Has everyone seen every ending? or are these sucky endings for folks that mostly just powered through the game real fast? Reading through my hint book and stuff, there's tons of different endings where (almost) everyone is saved and shepard lives and all that stuff. I'm 2 missions away from the end now, but I get the idea you really gotta get tons of war assets (bar all green) plus go through the multiplayer and get your galactic readiness map cranked up pretty high to get the happy endings. So I'm taking a break now and going through the multiplayer, cuz I want the happy care bear tree hugger ending.
Aye, Thats something I'd be interested in seeing as well. How many endings are there. I doubt Bioware is talking, and online gamers rushing through are not going to have seen every ending surely.
Multiplayer readiness alone will take a while. Surprised how much fun it is by the way.
If any 360 Dakkanauts are out there and want to do some multiplayer goodness at some point, my LIVE is - fuzzy spiral.
LordofHats wrote: War of the Worlds had a very well done DEM ending and frankly it worked.)
That's most likely because it made sense; whenever you go into a new area, you have to worry about germs and deseases you don't have an immunity for, and it makes sense that something not used to Small Pox and stuff would suddenly keel over after exposure.
It does make the aliens sound lazy, in not doing their proper research......
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asherian Command wrote: at least it is not Force Unleashed or FEAR 3
How was FEAR 3's ending a DEM?
Spoiler:
They constantly told you this thing was out to get her, check. They told you she was afraid of her father. Check. You find out her father is the thing out to get her. You go into lab where you were raised, and proceed to kill him.
The only thing DEM about it was how you got there and how you were suddenly at Alma's side during the birthing.
FEAR 3 was a horrible example of a FEAR game. The game ended disappointing especially when they killed Beckett. That instantly caused me to hate the game. As beckett had little more than a cameo. And all the massive plot holes. Deus Ex Machina is when they kill paxton fettel. I had a huge problem with the two characters. Paxton was a wuss. And Pointman was a horriblely weak character. Alma was no more than a nusiance. No scaryness. No epic plot twists. No Michael beckett. Since when was slow mo a pyschic ability? He was made that way after experimentation. Same with Beckett. Beckett was killed in 3 seconds. He fought off alma. I highly doubt Paxton was able to accomplish that. I would have rather played Beckett than Fail man.
I have a long list of disappointing games. one who will be named. Duke Nukeum.
Comparing Me3 to Duke Nukeum....
ME3 has better story, better characters, is an rpg (Which instantly makes it better.)
Duke Nukeum, horrible story, sexist, FPS (Which makes it worse), horrid graphics, took 11 years to come out, ending sucked, character sucked, yeah everything in this game was bad.
Yeah, they killed Paxton in Point Man's story ending; you have to play again to see Fettel's Ending, which is arguably the stronger playthrough; Fettel is damned good fun. Anyway, they killed him because PM has NEVER loved his brother, hence shooting him in the head in the first game.....
Alma was never scary.
Slow Mo was always a psychic ability, to my understanding, as that was what Point Man had over his brother.
"Buckett" NEVER fought off Alma; she never came after him, because she was infatuated. Alma was never trying to kill Beckett, Paxton was.
How was Paxton a wuss?
Point Man was always supposed to be You, that's why he never even had a name.....
FEAR has always had atmosphere and incredibly tight gameplay, it has never been a scary game.
Melissia wrote:Duke Nukem's story wassn't INTENDED to be a deep story. If you attempted to find a deeper meaning in DNF, you're really looking too hard. As for "sexist", yeah it was sort of, but at least the Duke had some personality, which is more than one can say about the overwhelming majority of FPS and RPG characters who are blandy mcboring idiots who nobody really cares about.
As for FPS being worse than RPG, hell no.
Indeed, Splatterhouse and Duke Nukem have NEVER been games for the posh "Games are an art form, anyone saying anything else is just plain wrong" crowd. Duke was always supposed to be Sexist. That's why he's DUKE MOTHER FETHING NUKEM. Hell, one of the missions in game has you track down popcorn, a vibrator, and something else; does this really say "supposed to be thought provoking"?
And quite frankly, most RPG's are starting to be worse than FPS'.....
Necros wrote:Has everyone seen every ending? or are these sucky endings for folks that mostly just powered through the game real fast? Reading through my hint book and stuff, there's tons of different endings where (almost) everyone is saved and shepard lives and all that stuff. I'm 2 missions away from the end now, but I get the idea you really gotta get tons of war assets (bar all green) plus go through the multiplayer and get your galactic readiness map cranked up pretty high to get the happy endings. So I'm taking a break now and going through the multiplayer, cuz I want the happy care bear tree hugger ending.
Spoiler:
Which ones are those? I got it where all my party lived. But I always died. From what I gather, Shephard can only live if you pick the 'renegade' ending by destroying the geth and reapers if you have 5000+ EMS and are on your second playthrough. The two other endings specifically involve you dissolving your body in energy and killing yourself; in which case theres no chance of survival so far as I'am aware. I'am not sure how there can be any more multiple 'endings' I imagine the final battle with Illusive man could go down different but thats not an ending in of itself. You only have those three options and since we lack an epilogue we don't get to learn the relevence or repurcussions of our actions during the game; like, for example in Dragon Age. Thus there are not dozens of multiple endings like their was in that game, theres just what you did.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:Duke Nukem's story wassn't INTENDED to be a deep story. If you attempted to find a deeper meaning in DNF, you're really looking too hard. As for "sexist", yeah it was sort of, but at least the Duke had some personality, which is more than one can say about the overwhelming majority of FPS and RPG characters who are blandy mcboring idiots who nobody really cares about.
As for FPS being worse than RPG, hell no.
FPS is IMO more hamstrung by the notion of filling your character with your own personality and using the players imagination to fill in the blanks against a back-drop of explosions. Halo is the most guilty of doing this. I mean when the AI in your head has more character and personality than the main character then you know somethings up. In fact Cortana probably is the main character in bloody Halo!
Its not depth or even origionality but I get the impression that most video games offer only lip service to even the concept of developing characters or having them interact with eachother. I mean look at Reach, in that game, despite stressing that you're in a team of Spartans they consciously avoided any meaningful efforts at saying who these people were or even what they thought. The only partial exception is the George likes Reach and sacrifices himself. Its almost as though they're so afraid of being percieved as cliche that they honestly believe its better to avoid it all together and rely on being abstract or letting the players 'imagine' who these people are, or guess what they're thinking at.
Totalwar1402 wrote:FPS is IMO more hamstrung by the notion of filling your character with your own personality and using the players imagination to fill in the blanks against a back-drop of explosions
So basically just like most RPGs but with magic instead of explosives.
Totalwar1402 wrote:FPS is IMO more hamstrung by the notion of filling your character with your own personality and using the players imagination to fill in the blanks against a back-drop of explosions
So basically just like most RPGs but with magic instead of explosives.
No... Shephard actually opens his mouth. The chief does not. He also speaks far more often and you have the ability to craft a character of your chosing. Not the same thing.
Gears of War is a good way of doing an FPSIMO and I'll agree with you theres no reason they can't be bad at character. Its just that shooters are more likely to over-look it since among RPG's it is a recognised convention and expectation. Skyrim is definetly the worst culprit of the put your imagination onto characters; in fact the game revels in it. But it gets away with that by the game being shockingly beautiful and awe-inspringly massive in scale.
ps. Coz i changed my pic from Sabbat to Tali isn't it?
Tell you what you armoured Amazonian! If they ever bring out a SOB codex I'll change it back in a heart-beat.
In the first Halo, the Cheif was you. John was not the cheif, you were. That's why he talks so little, is they took a blank slate, made it a character.... but left it as a blank slate. And Marcus is just as bad unless you've read the books.
Slarg232 wrote:In the first Halo, the Cheif was you. John was not the cheif, you were. That's why he talks so little, is they took a blank slate, made it a character.... but left it as a blank slate. And Marcus is just as bad unless you've read the books.
I know we're getting off-topic here but. I agree for the first two games that Marcus is rather jokingly a vacuous character being a strong but silent type. But, the third game changed that since he really did crack after
Spoiler:
Doms death and his fathers death
and I actually liked the thing with him and Anya. I felt the way the characters interacted was one of the most lovable qualities of Gears of War 3 which is a huge contrast to Halo Reach.
Well yes, but other than that, there really isn't much of a sense of who he is.
Where as in the books, it shows you that
1) His father neglected him, causing him to find a family in the Santiago household with Dom's Older Brother, Carlos.
2) Carlos dies, and Marcus becomes a war hero because he went apeshit insane when it happened.
3) Marcus loves Anya, but won't do anything about it because of how volatile their lives are, until Dom gets ahold of him and says "Look man, I ain't going to bud into your business again, but DO SOMETHING about her!"
Edit: I agree, you actually felt like they were a squad in that game, it was rather cool.
Just finished and that was, without exception, the least satisfying ending to any story I've ever had the misfortune to experience.
Spoiler:
So, every choice I've made in the past two games AND the third one matter for nothing. Every relationship I've fostered and every promise I've made to long time friends to meet up after the war is over, will never come to pass. There's no Shepard without Vakarian apparently, but we know that's not true anymore. I guess Jacob will have to find that bar in Rio on his own. Dr. Chakwas can just drink herself to death alone on whatever random planet she lands on. What about Liara? So much for that future my Shepard had with her. There are so many storylines that needed resolution I don't know where to begin.
Thanks Bioware.
I mean, the ending we're given would be perfectly fine if it weren't the only one. Meeting some random out of the blue Reaper God who can miraculously solve your problems whilst allowing BW to have Shepard make the "ultimate sacrifice" would be alright with a few changes, but as the only choice? I have half a mind to post on the official forums! I'll do it, I swear!
What should have happened? I'll drop the old cliche "well I'm no professional writer" line, but any moron can figure out a couple of satisfying endings.
It all comes down to a couple of factors -
The ones under your direct control at the end, all based on controlling or destroying the Reapers -
- Shepard lives or dies - The Citadel is saved or destroyed - The Mass Relay network is damaged/intact/destroyed
A couple more dependent on your other decisions -
- The Normandy is destroyed/saved/stranded - The fleets are saved/destroyed/decimated - Earth is saved or destroyed - depends on the time it takes for you to reach Earth
Any combo of these, ranging from the absolute ideal and very time consuming to obtain, to the absolute rock bottom disaster which occurs when you fly through the games nonchalantly.
In the back of the hint book, it lists what you need to do/have for shepard to live and earth to be saved and all. It's something like at least a 4000 readiness rating (not war assets), but 5000+ is best. So you're gonna have to play through multiplayer to get your galactic map thingy to be higher than 50%. I spent most of the day yesterday playing multiplayer, was lotsa fun and I got my map to 100% pretty easily. Also it did say it's easier to have Shepard live if you're on a 2nd play through. So I'm gonna see if I can finish the game tonight and see what I get. I'll try and save right before the final battle or whatever so I can go back and pick different choices to see if there's any difference. I played as like 99% paragon in ME2 and 3. But my girl shepard is the opposite.
I'm gonna wrap spoiler tags around this whole post because I have a decent amount to say about the ending and it's impossible to talk about without spoilers:
Spoiler:
So there are a few things about the ending to ME3 that I have mixed feelings about. First of all, the game as a whole is so profoundly well written, and the emotional scenes involving the heroic sacrifices of major characters (Mordin, Thane and Anderson, to name a few) leave you with a sense of urgency to make all of their deaths worth it in the end. I went into this game expecting that Shepard would not survive, so I have no problem with an ending that resolves with his death for the good of the galaxy.
Where I have trouble is the lack of resolution in the actual endings. When Shepard dies, it should be a profound event, and everyone should know about what he did and that he perished so the galaxy could survive as a whole. But instead, it's not even clear that surviving characters even know what went down on the Crucible. They are seen aboard the Normandy fleeing a massive wave of energy that either A) Destroys all synthetic life including the Reapers and the Geth, B) Controls the Reapers, or C) Merges all organic and synthetic life.....somehow.....into something......After that, we see them crash land on a planet and that's the end of it.
I think I would have been happier with the ending if these characters that I spent so many hours developing relationships with knew what had happened to Shepard on the Crucible, or knew any of what the Catalyst said to him. It does not disturb me that they lost their friend and leader. It disturbs me that they don't know how or why he is dead. There is no closure on their part, at least not anything we see visually in the ending. The section after the credits with the Stargazer leads me to believe that Shepards story escapes somehow, but I would have liked more confirmation than an ambiguous scene with nameless characters. Perhaps something during the ending sequence to show that when Shepards body dissolves to form the wave of energy that merges organics and synthetics, part of his consciousness was transferred to every organism in the galaxy?
Furthermore, in order to get the "Perfect" ending that results in a living Shepard with a galaxy freed from the Reaper threat, you have to take the Renegade option of destroying all synthetic life after playing through the game twice and busting your balls in order to bring every possible asset into the war. This of course leads to the destruction of the Geth, who you just helped achieve peace with the Quarians, and who were helping the Quarians adapt to their newly liberated home-world much more swiftly than they could have managed on their own. That's a pretty big slap in the face of a race that was breaking the mold perfectly well on their own, and doing their best to fight off the Reapers besides. And if you don't choose this ending, Shepard dies and you have all of the lack of closure for his party members.
I think a solution to this would have been a longer final cut scene that showed surviving crew members fondly remembering Shepard and speaking about what he died to protect, or at least some means of showing us that they know he is gone, what he died for (IE like what I mentioned above about his consciousness), and that they are at peace with that or are at least dealing with it in their own way. In other words, I just sacrificed my life to save the galaxy dammit! I want my friends to know how it went down!
Well, I just finished it tonight .. I really loved the ending and all. I dunno what all the fuss is about.
For me .. I had my map at 100%, war assets and readiness were both over 6000
Spoiler:
I chose to kill the reapers, so I nuked em for orbit since it's the only way to be sure. All the reapers attacking earth collapsed and there was much rejoicing. All the mass relays blew up, the normandy almost got caught in the blast, but crash landed on some happy planet full of trees. Joker, Liara and Garrus climbed out of the wreckage. Then, I dunno what it was, but I think it was supposed to be some other kinda wreckage, I guess the Citadel, that Shepard was stuck in, and then suddenly gasped for breath like he was waking up, then credits rolled, and then Buzz Aldrin told a story to some little kid
Overall, I'd rate the game a 10.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also for that 2nd video above, my ending was a lot longer.. maybe they edited it out? but I had a big cut scene of Joker flying the ship trying to get away from the explosions, then you see it crash landed on the planet, and the other guys coming out.
Or maybe they have the ending all based on different relationships and decisions so more things get shown depending on what you do? I dunno .. but I liked it anyway. I have a save from earlier in the final battle so I might go back and try all 3 options just to see how it goes.
Then Bioware isn't paying attention to their own lore, cause the ending specifically includes the Geth as being destroyed.
Spoiler:
I'm pretty sure it was the Reapers that were partially organic, while the Geth are entirely "mechanical". Though, to be fair, "synthetic" doesn't mean "not organic".
As to the ending, having seen several of them at this point, it screams "second trilogy".
LordofHats wrote:Wouldn't shock me. EA isn't exactly know for NOT trying to make money
I'm somewhat torn.
On one hand, I would like this to be a self-contained trilogy. I would love more games set in the same universe, but I don't think they should relate to Shepard; except in tangent. Of course, no one knows if he's alive or dead, or if that will matter for future titles.
On the other hand, I like the combat (for the most part), and sci-fi RPGs, or pseudo RPGs, are few and far between.
More on the ending:
Spoiler:
Sad, but it made sense. Shepard has effectively been defined by his role in fighting the Reapers. That's his "purpose" so to speak. We only hear about his family if his mother is Alliance military, and even then its only in passing. This isn't a guy that has a life outside what he's doing in the games.
That's the destruction ending, all synthetics are destroyed.
That's the Reapers, the Geth and EDI. The Geth aren't "half organic", it's explicitly stated by the dumbchildreaperwtfgodthing that they will die if you choose this option.
I'm sure they designed the game with 3 or 4 DLCs already planned. hell they're probably done already and just waiting for the marketing people to check their spreadsheets and sales projections for the best time to release each one. I'm predicting at least 1 multiplayer map pack, 1 extra missions pack and 1 wft really happened at the end pack
.......I don't think I could ever choose the Renegade option, even in a Renegade playthrough, specifically because it will also destroy EDI and the Geth. EDI is one of my favorite characters in the series. I loved her in ME2, and her maturation in ME3 proves that not all AI's will turn on their creators. Also, I worked very hard to re-unite the Geth with the Quarians, and so much good came from that union that I couldn't destroy them simply because it would also destroy the Reapers and allow Shepard to survive.
What I feel most cheated about with this ending is that you never have the option to provide proof to the little kid that synthetics and organics CAN work together in harmony (Geth/Quarians and EDI/Normandy Crew). Without that 4th option, allowing you a Paragon or Renegade choice to persuade the Catalyst that we can, in fact, work together and the Reapers are unnecessary, I don't think I will ever be satisfied with the ending as-is.
I understand that this is effectively the same thing as the Paragon option, controlling the Reapers so everyone survives and Shepard dies, but it's an important distinction that I think needs to be made.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So I just had a conversation with a good friend who found this:
It makes so much sense! Basically, everything we see in the "ending" of the game is NOT the real ending of the game. It's all a hallucination implanted in Shepards head by the Reapers as an attempt to Indoctrinate him.
Here are the facts:
-The Paragon choice is to control the Reapers. Everything leading up to the final sequence involved The Illusive Man attempting to control them, and Shepard was fighting that the entire time. The Reapers WANT you to try to control them, because it's impossible and it ends with them controlling you instead.
-The Neutral option is a compromise. You give up your conviction to destroy the Reapers, and because your resolve is not strong enough, you become indoctrinated and the Reapers win.
-The Renegade option is to destroy the Reapers and all synthetic life. This is the ONLY choice that takes galactic readiness into account (if it's high enough, you see that Shepard survives in the end), and it's the only one that sticks to Shepards convictions of destroying the Reapers. They do not want you to select this choice because it means you deny them and throw off Indoctrination, so they plant the hook that if you destroy them, the Geth and EDI are also destroyed after you worked so well with them.
If you select the Renegade option, it takes your Galactic Readiness into account, because if it's high enough, the forces on Earth hold off the Reapers long enough for Shepard to fight off Indoctrination and wake up back on Earth. This also explains the whole story line with the kid.
If you pay attention, the first time you see him is right after you are nearly hit by a Reaper beam on Earth. Nobody acknowledges him but you, even after you see him jump onto a shuttle in front of a ton of people. The dream sequences through the game are basically the Reapers planting the seeds of Indoctrination in your mind. You cannot save everyone, so you shouldn't even try. Come over to their side like The Illusive Man and let them win. And the "Catalyst" appears to you as the kid in glowing/ghostly form, explaining that the Reapers are this solution to a great problem and asks you to choose one of three really bad options that are, at best, a partial win for Shepard.
It explains why the Normandy crew are back aboard the ship with Joker, particularly the ones that were with you when you were hit (you see them, specifically in the final cut scene). They were never there, and it was just the tail end of a dream in Shepards head.
Finally, it explains why the colors of the Paragon and Renegade options are reversed at the end (the color of the energy wave, that is). The Paragon choice is control, which is colored red, and the Renegade choice is destruction, which is colored blue.
All of this tells me that the ending is going to be DLC, and that this "ending" is NOT the actual end of the game. I could be wrong, but it seems to fit SO perfectly that I don't think I am.
For more information, read this. It covers what I have said here in more detail.
.......I don't think I could ever choose the Renegade option, even in a Renegade playthrough, specifically because it will also destroy EDI and the Geth. EDI is one of my favorite characters in the series. I loved her in ME2, and her maturation in ME3 proves that not all AI's will turn on their creators. Also, I worked very hard to re-unite the Geth with the Quarians, and so much good came from that union that I couldn't destroy them simply because it would also destroy the Reapers and allow Shepard to survive.
What I feel most cheated about with this ending is that you never have the option to provide proof to the little kid that synthetics and organics CAN work together in harmony (Geth/Quarians and EDI/Normandy Crew). Without that 4th option, allowing you a Paragon or Renegade choice to persuade the Catalyst that we can, in fact, work together and the Reapers are unnecessary, I don't think I will ever be satisfied with the ending as-is.
I understand that this is effectively the same thing as the Paragon option, controlling the Reapers so everyone survives and Shepard dies, but it's an important distinction that I think needs to be made.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So I just had a conversation with a good friend who found this:
It makes so much sense! Basically, everything we see in the "ending" of the game is NOT the real ending of the game. It's all a hallucination implanted in Shepards head by the Reapers as an attempt to Indoctrinate him.
Here are the facts:
-The Paragon choice is to control the Reapers. Everything leading up to the final sequence involved The Illusive Man attempting to control them, and Shepard was fighting that the entire time. The Reapers WANT you to try to control them, because it's impossible and it ends with them controlling you instead.
-The Neutral option is a compromise. You give up your conviction to destroy the Reapers, and because your resolve is not strong enough, you become indoctrinated and the Reapers win.
-The Renegade option is to destroy the Reapers and all synthetic life. This is the ONLY choice that takes galactic readiness into account (if it's high enough, you see that Shepard survives in the end), and it's the only one that sticks to Shepards convictions of destroying the Reapers. They do not want you to select this choice because it means you deny them and throw off Indoctrination, so they plant the hook that if you destroy them, the Geth and EDI are also destroyed after you worked so well with them.
If you select the Renegade option, it takes your Galactic Readiness into account, because if it's high enough, the forces on Earth hold off the Reapers long enough for Shepard to fight off Indoctrination and wake up back on Earth. This also explains the whole story line with the kid.
If you pay attention, the first time you see him is right after you are nearly hit by a Reaper beam on Earth. Nobody acknowledges him but you, even after you see him jump onto a shuttle in front of a ton of people. The dream sequences through the game are basically the Reapers planting the seeds of Indoctrination in your mind. You cannot save everyone, so you shouldn't even try. Come over to their side like The Illusive Man and let them win. And the "Catalyst" appears to you as the kid in glowing/ghostly form, explaining that the Reapers are this solution to a great problem and asks you to choose one of three really bad options that are, at best, a partial win for Shepard.
It explains why the Normandy crew are back aboard the ship with Joker, particularly the ones that were with you when you were hit (you see them, specifically in the final cut scene). They were never there, and it was just the tail end of a dream in Shepards head.
Finally, it explains why the colors of the Paragon and Renegade options are reversed at the end (the color of the energy wave, that is). The Paragon choice is control, which is colored red, and the Renegade choice is destruction, which is colored blue.
All of this tells me that the ending is going to be DLC, and that this "ending" is NOT the actual end of the game. I could be wrong, but it seems to fit SO perfectly that I don't think I am.
For more information, read this. It covers what I have said here in more detail.
Whoa whoa whoa,
Spoiler:
But doesn't the catalyst agree with you that the reapers are uneccesary considering he tells and offers you the various options of how to change the reapers? He even specifically tells you how to kill all reapers and himself by shooting that conduit pipe. I completely agree with you that such a situation SHOULD have happened since the catalyst would believe its own plan to be flawless and would certainly not want you to screw with it like he does in the game. Like say, you cite EDI and the Geth as examples of a possible future. If you have murdered countless trillions of people for millions of years you do not behave with such indifference to a threat you have spent your whole time trying to stop. His only reason is that the catalyst provided extra options, but, if those options are better than the 'reaper solution' then it begs the question why on Earth he couldn't have built the catalyst himself. He is after all the most powerful and technologically advanced being in the galaxy.
Edit, WAIT.
WOW.
That actually makes sense. That would be absolutely awesome if they brought out DLC for a proper ending because
Spoiler:
the reapers (almost?) indoctrinated you finally
the whole trick with reversed colours is also interesting. Indeed
Spoiler:
the Reapers might have deliberately lied about destroying the Geth and Edi to force you to not do it. Think about it, the machine is only linked to them
. I sincerely hope that what you just said is the case and it would explain the sureal nature of the final part.
In fact initially that was my first thought during the game of being duped so i picked renegade.
Spoiler:
Wait, so you're saying that when Shep wakes up in those ruins hes really waking up at the point where harbinger shot him with the death cannon but is lying injured? Or are you saying the dream occurs because of the Illusive Man seeping into the cracks the reapers were doing. Given how injured shep is, do you think a DLC might have you play as his/her romance option or party to try and rescue shephard?
Having read through a bunch of material on the matter, I actually feel pretty confident that this is the case. At first I thought it was likely to be wishful thinking, but it literally answers ALL of the questions I had. Every single one.
Spoiler:
Why are there no options to just get rid of the Reapers and explain about the Geth/Quarians and EDI? Because the Reapers do not want you to choose that option. It means you resist Indoctrination, so they seed it with a negative outcome and make it the "Renegade" choice.
Why does Anderson beat you to the Catalyst when he supposedly "followed you up"? Because he is a figment of your imagination. That's also why you are messed up and he is unharmed despite being in the same final rush to the beam as you were.
Why is there no closure for Shepards companions with his supposed "death"? Because the game isn't over yet, and the scene where they crashland on another planet is all part of the hallucination as you are either dying, or coming back to consciousness.
Why does the "Catalyst" look like the kid? Because he is a symbolic representation of the hopelessness of the fight, and thus a tool the Reapers are using to Indoctrinate Shepard.
Why is Shepard on Earth when he wakes up instead of on the Citadel? Because he was never on the Citadel and the ending sequence was an in-game mechanic allowing the player to fight off Indoctrination, or succumb to it and die.
Why is there a Galactic Readiness bar if none of it matters in the end anyway - none of the options except the "renegade" option to destroy the Reapers uses it? Because that option is the only one that ends with you alive and un-indoctrinated. You survive if your Galactic Readiness is high enough to allow the fleets to hold out against the Reapers while you fight off Indoctrination.
Why does the Stargazer have "one more story" about The Shepard if he just finished the one about his death? Because there will be DLC that provides a real ending to the game.
The ending sequence being a hallucination while Harbinger tries to Indoctrinate Shepard literally fits with everything that happened so perfectly that I have a hard time believing that is NOT the case at this point. It's actually pretty brilliant, now that I see it for what it is. I'm just baffled as to why I didn't pick up on it sooner.
Aldarionn wrote:Having read through a bunch of material on the matter, I actually feel pretty confident that this is the case. At first I thought it was likely to be wishful thinking, but it literally answers ALL of the questions I had. Every single one.
Spoiler:
Why are there no options to just get rid of the Reapers and explain about the Geth/Quarians and EDI? Because the Reapers do not want you to choose that option. It means you resist Indoctrination, so they seed it with a negative outcome and make it the "Renegade" choice.
Why does Anderson beat you to the Catalyst when he supposedly "followed you up"? Because he is a figment of your imagination. That's also why you are messed up and he is unharmed despite being in the same final rush to the beam as you were.
Why is there no closure for Shepards companions with his supposed "death"? Because the game isn't over yet, and the scene where they crashland on another planet is all part of the hallucination as you are either dying, or coming back to consciousness.
Why does the "Catalyst" look like the kid? Because he is a symbolic representation of the hopelessness of the fight, and thus a tool the Reapers are using to Indoctrinate Shepard.
Why is Shepard on Earth when he wakes up instead of on the Citadel? Because he was never on the Citadel and the ending sequence was an in-game mechanic allowing the player to fight off Indoctrination, or succumb to it and die.
Why is there a Galactic Readiness bar if none of it matters in the end anyway - none of the options except the "renegade" option to destroy the Reapers uses it? Because that option is the only one that ends with you alive and un-indoctrinated. You survive if your Galactic Readiness is high enough to allow the fleets to hold out against the Reapers while you fight off Indoctrination.
Why does the Stargazer have "one more story" about The Shepard if he just finished the one about his death? Because there will be DLC that provides a real ending to the game.
The ending sequence being a hallucination while Harbinger tries to Indoctrinate Shepard literally fits with everything that happened so perfectly that I have a hard time believing that is NOT the case at this point. It's actually pretty brilliant, now that I see it for what it is. I'm just baffled as to why I didn't pick up on it sooner.
Spoiler:
Not to mention that deactivating all technology would kill every soldier on your relief fleet instantly. I've heard other people also note the sureal nature of how Shephard reacts. Also, did you notice how Shephard is barely able to move by right of bleeding from the gut; yet when he comes up to the renegade one he seems to straighten out with new vitality and a look of complete rage on his face; uncharacteristic with his casual conversation with the kid (Harbinger).
When I get my hands on that (because I'am a giant now ) cuttlefish I'am going to headbutt its eight beady yellow eyes till they shatter.
I think the DLC will HEAVILY montage the first game. Harbinger takes over Illusive man, Harbinger tries to stop Alliance from activating the citadel by engaging Hacketts fleet, Shephard, heavily wounded but with help kills the Illusive man and doing so knocks out Harbingers shields. The great bastard cuttlefish is then blasted by Hackett as Shephard activates the catalyst. ps the catalyst might simpyl do what happened to Soveriegn but to every reaper ship. ie disorientate them and disable their shields.
My problem with it is that Shep does not point out the gaping flaw in the starchild's logic, or even particularly that the geth and quarians instead of destroying each other are attacking the reapers together.
I'm sure they screwed up the ending, I just meant the if the journey is fun then I'll be happy enough with it.
insane! But they ascribe this MONSTROUS concept to a supposedly benign AI/integrated organic. Whose only reason for changing his plans and whole-heartedly letting you chose to destroy what it has done for millennia because its a little impressed with you!
I got it where all my party lived. But I always died. From what I gather, Shephard can only live if you pick the 'renegade' ending by destroying the geth and reapers if you have 5000+ EMS and are on your second playthrough. The two other endings specifically involve you dissolving your body in energy and killing yourself; in which case theres no chance of survival so far as I'am aware. I'am not sure how there can be any more multiple 'endings' I imagine the final battle with Illusive man could go down different but thats not an ending in of itself. You only have those three options and since we lack an epilogue we don't get to learn the relevence or repurcussions of our actions during the game; like, for example in Dragon Age. Thus there are not dozens of multiple endings like their was in that game, theres just what you did.
) cuttlefish I'am going to headbutt its eight beady yellow eyes till they shatter.