Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

LordofHats wrote:
Unless I'm forgetting something; Miranda to pull a Jesus for Shepard and Mordain to get around the little bug probes. I suppose you need some filler to complete the other Suicide Mission parameters but I think of that as more of a game play aspect than a story aspect.

By that standard the only character you "need" in ME1 is Liara, and she doesn't need to be a party member to accomplish her role.

If we push this to other, similar, games:

In KoToR you need Bastilla.

In KoToR 2 you need Kreia.

If all that matters is maximum expediency regarding the fulfillment of a central story arch, you only ever need a bare minimum of characters; but that's boring.

LordofHats wrote:
The presentation was vastly different, and in story presentation is what really matters.

I didn't see much difference. Or, rather, the difference that I saw was that in ME1 there was absolutely no choice, and in ME2 there was choice by way of failure as an end state.

You cannot have both a tightly written narrative, and a one in which choice plays a material role.

LordofHats wrote:
Like I said earlier I honestly don't know why Cerberus got elevated to the position it did. ME1 set up the Alliance government and the Council to be a problem, but then just dropped the Alliance.

When was the Alliance Government ever a problem? They, from the beginning, backed Shepard almost completely, to the point of deferring to his judgment regarding the risk of multiple fleets in an engagement predicated on saving alien lives.

dogma wrote:When was the Alliance Government ever a problem? They, from the beginning, backed Shepard almost completely, to the point of deferring to his judgment regarding the risk of multiple fleets in an engagement predicated on saving alien lives.

There were multiple allusions throughout ME1 to the Alliance's corruption, racism, and questionable ethics (blowing up a ship to create biotics, the consequences be damned!). In the game it was presented as they were behind Shepard as a means to advance their political position, not because they really liked him or anything. Most people thought that the Alliance would end up becoming a major obstacle in ME2, but then it turns out Cerberus is actually really powerful and important rather than a random terrorist cell no one likes (as they appeared to be in ME1).

EDIT: Then again, a lot of people thought the Shadow Broker was going to end up actually being important but as far as I can tell he never made it past side quest status.

By that standard the only character you "need" in ME1 is Liara, and she doesn't need to be a party member to accomplish her role.

I know. I said so earlier. One thing I've always wanted is for Bioware to more closely integrate their parties into the stories of their games. Parties in RPG's have always seemed so unnatural to me.

LordofHats wrote:
There were multiple allusions throughout ME1 to the Alliance's corruption, racism, and questionable ethics (blowing up a ship to create biotics, the consequences be damned!).

The ship was, as I recall, was Cerberus; though that may have only been brought up in ME2. I do know it was never fully attributed to the Alliance, though; at best it was "suspicious".

But, either way, all the Council races were shown to be corrupt, racist, and possessed of questionable ethics to some degree (Genophage). The only ones that got any kind of free pass were the Asari, and it was the sort of pass that stems from not wanting to get one's hands dirty.

LordofHats wrote:
In the game it was presented as they were behind Shepard as a means to advance their political position, not because they really liked him or anything.

Why else would they be behind him?

Can you imagine any realistic state (and ME went to some lengths to inject a semblance of realism), even granted suspension of disbelief, advancing a candidate for an elite multinational agency because he was just a really nice guy?

LordofHats wrote:
Most people thought that the Alliance would end up becoming a major obstacle in ME2, but then it turns out Cerberus is actually really powerful and important rather than a random terrorist cell no one likes (as they appeared to be in ME1).

I didn't get that vibe at all. The Alliance seemed like a normal government, just like the other governments that were presented in the game.

LordofHats wrote:
I know. I said so earlier. One thing I've always wanted is for Bioware to more closely integrate their parties into the stories of their games. Parties in RPG's have always seemed so unnatural to me.

I mean, they are unnatural, for the most part. No real person is going to traipse off with a random hero after knowing him for a few minutes. I actually think ME did a pretty good job of integrating the supporting characters. Garrus was already tracking Saren, Tali was running from him, Ashley got rescued in tutorial from him, Liara happened to be in his way (and her mom was following him), and Wrex is just a crazy old Krogan who likes to fight.

The most natural "party" I've ever seen in an RPG is Witcher II, and even there its not a traditional party, and it trades on a whole ton of independently written back story.

Here's the epilogue everyone wanted

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vG4EyfXOTJ4

I think the Mass Effect series does a much better job of explaining your party members and incorporating them than... oh I don't know, every JRPG ever created? (Mild exaggeration).

Well I take that back. Skies of Arcadia did alright.

Shepard is a badass, a Spectre, a Hero, and ... charismatic? Well, at least he's supposed to be. I think he says the right things at the right time at least.

People naturally follow him, it's part of the story I think. And for the most part I think it's pretty well written. A lot of the characters are eccentrics and driven in their own rights, so a little leeway can be given in those regards.

You know, when I think about it, it actually makes sense that destroying the Reapers would also destroy the Mass Relays. They build them after all.

Anung Un Rama wrote:Here's the epilogue everyone wanted

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vG4EyfXOTJ4

OMG that is awesome XD Love the ones for Jacob, Tali, and Wrex

Yeah, but the MagicalStarChild says that if I kill the Reapers I die too.

I didn't die.

Lies! So what else did that little snot lie about?

I'm all in for the Reaper Indoctrination theory. Not as a mechanism to mitigate any disappointment that I might have had with the ending, but because it holds up to narrative scrutiny far better than the literal interpretation of the ending does. It also doesn't completely ruin the setting, as occurs when you take the ending at face value, and we all know that EA has plans to take the Mass Effect franchise beyond the first three games.

All of the scenes with the Child, and Shepard's reaction to the Child felt...weird. Off. Almost like tonal lapses on the part of the writers. My character was the Butcher of Torfan, sacrificed close friends to the horrors of the Collector Base and incinerated 300,000 Batarians, but she can't get one random kid out of her mind? That would be uncharacteristically bone-headed writing on the part of BioWare if taken at face value. But as an indication of Shepard's Indoctrination (something that they've been teasing since Arrival at the latest)? It's a subtle and well-played take on how strong minded individuals like Saren or Beneziah could be brought into the fold by the Reapers.

If this firestorm of negative feedback has any effect, it will be to cause EA/BioWare to release the game's Epilogue DLC for free. I fully expect that we'll see two or three paid DLC packs before then, party members and missions that take place before the final assault on Earth. And then, they can close the book on the first Mass Effect trilogy with one final downloadable pack.

Here's a VERY thorough written analysis of the finale

http://www.destructoid.com/fans-compile-logical-breakdown-of-mass-effect-3-ending-224120.phtml

There's an awful lot of nitpicking in there for something that claims not to be nitpicky

Either way, people are getting refunds from Amazon because of the ending:

http://www.egmnow.com/articles/news/amazon-offers-some-customers-refunds-if-they-hated-mass-effect-3s-ending/

http://kotaku.com/5895215/bioware-is-working-on-a-modified-mass-effect-3-ending?utm_source=Kotaku+Newsletter&utm_campaign=a738b0b46e-UA-142218-8&utm_medium=email

Starting to look like the indoctrination theory is just an example of how much smarter Bioware's fans are than Bioware. The way I read the article, assuming it is accurate, it sounds like the ending was the actual intended ending.

Even if the indoctrination theory is a complete load of nonsense that Bioware nevr intended, they'd do themselves a big favour by making some DLC that changes the ending to fit that theory (or extends the ending, really, with an epilogue/final chapter).

No a game's ending should never be DLC, but I'd take that over the ending that was given.

Agreed. I think the indoctrination theory provides the simplest way for them to transition to a more suitable ending. Ideally, I'd hope they'd release it for free.

If they were actually planning a DLC (free) ending all along, it would seem like a poorly executed but fun idea. At least to me.

Now we'll probably never know though. There's so much speculation, argument, and hearsay that you can't tell between the smokescreens and the teasers.

It could be argued that holding the ending hostage via DLC, even if it's free DLC, would stop people from trading in the games... making them more likely to buy other DLC that's released before the 'ending' DLC.

But I'm starting to get more into the DLC discussion rather than the ending discussion.

If Bioware make a new ending, what do they do about people that either chose Synthesis or Control?

Renegade is established as Paragon because it's meant to be an illusion and fighting against it is the right thing to do.
If not the right thing to do, the only option that Shepard really has of winning.

It kind of throws the whole concept out of the window.

Destroy - You wake up in London, 'finish the fight'.
Synthesis - Indoctrinated?
Control - Indoctrinated but can resist somewhat? This is what Saren/TIM thought they could do.

Will the crucible actually work?

It's a bit of a clusterfeth.

I sorta like the uncertain future we're facing.

They've already admitted they're doing something about it... so I'm ready to bring my speculation-train to a halt and focus back on rocking the Multiplayer.

I also really really really wished Shepard started calling The Illusive Man TIM in the series. It's just so demeaning and I find it hilarious.

For those that haven't seen it yet, Ray Muzyka has released a statement re: the hate for the endings:

http://blog.bioware.com/2012/03/21/4108/

And here is Forbes' analysis:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/03/21/bioware-co-founder-apologizes-to-fans-for-the-mass-effect-3-ending-sort-of/?feed=rss_home

Chemical Cutthroat wrote:I also really really really wished Shepard started calling The Illusive Man TIM in the series.

To be honest I started doing that in ME2 Whenever someone said Illusive Man, I said "Huh? That's Tim, who the hell is Illusive Man?" XD

Nice to see Bioware finally doing some damage control on this. If the rest of the game really is as good as I keep hearing, it'd be a shame to leave the ending as it is.

If the rest of the game really is as good as I keep hearing, it'd be a shame to leave the ending as it is.

You've... played ME3 right?

Chemical Cutthroat wrote:You've... played ME3 right?

I through means I will not discuss played the last hour of the game (and I might through those same means be screwing around in multi-player). I've resolved to boycott purchase for a few months. I'll get it after Q1 when sales are less important to play through the whole thing.

LordofHats wrote:

Chemical Cutthroat wrote:You've... played ME3 right?

I through means I will not discuss played the last hour of the game (and I might through those same means be screwing around in multi-player). I've resolved to boycott purchase for a few months. I'll get it after Q1 when sales are less important to play through the whole thing.

Kharn! KHARN! KHARNNN!!!

You can't judge something without having seen or experienced the whole thing!

Totalwar1402 wrote:You can't judge something without having seen or experienced the whole thing!

How many historians have actually experienced the events they are describing? I doubt most sociologists have ever actually experienced true poverty. I've always laughed at the idea "You haven't played it so you can't comment on it." I doubt you know anything about the plot that I don't at this point.

I've also made no comment on the ME3 game as a whole. Just ending, which I played through to see the full thing (EDIT: If anything it would ideally leave me less biased as to its nature cause I'm not emotionally invested in the rest of the game, but I'm a biased douche so that doesn't really mean much ). Most youtube videos are just the ending cinematic and decision and I wanted to investigate the evidence for the indoctrination theory. But that's moot cause its become obvious Bioware didn't plan it now (I'm sure many people are sad).

On the happy side co-op gets the Triple Hat Rating of Approval for Awesomeness.

I would say this is less related to being a historian and more in line with being someone who yells at the TV during a football game.

Honestly I think the bigger question is why would I spend so much time reading up on a game I haven't played through

To which I answer, "Nothing better to do." XD

If wasting time were an Olympic Sport, I'd be have a wall of gold medals by now.

I'd say 'trolling', but you haven't been.

I'm not hating or anything, but I feel if you haven't played the game, then you lose the emotional attachment that certainly colors your opinions on the ending. Maybe that's a good thing though.

Nah. There'll be some emotional attachment when my roomie gets back and finds his N7 score 200 points higher than when he left it ;D

That's gonna be hilarious.

What is the N7 rating about in multiplayer by the way. I see the numbers, but I have no idea. It also occasionally flashes up with a full N7 screen after a battle.

It's basically how big your Mass Effect **** is. It has no standing other than a global leaderboard/friend list ranking.

It doesn't unlock anything or do anything fancy.

It increases by leveling up characters, and by promoting characters. Promoted characters go to the Single player campaign and are added to your Fleet Score or whatever it's called.

It's a good way to powerlevel your Single Player Odds if you happen to be a really crappy negotiator and end up at the final battle with like... three ships and a few road flares.