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.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
To be entirely honest the bandwagon of hating MEA has become irritating.

I understand it is fashionable to hate MEA and Bioware and it generates clicks but all I see is people using footage of things patched months back and it is not eve theirs, as if the game has not changed dramatically from its (awful admitted) launch state.

Personally I still hope for DLCs for this game.

Unfortunately, I don't think we're going to get any. We probably would have heard of something by now.

Hopefully, the backlash against the game doesn't put off further development of the Andromeda galaxy in the setting.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
To be entirely honest the bandwagon of hating MEA has become irritating.

I understand it is fashionable to hate MEA and Bioware and it generates clicks but all I see is people using footage of things patched months back and it is not eve theirs, as if the game has not changed dramatically from its (awful admitted) launch state.

Personally I still hope for DLCs for this game.

To be fair, Andromeda does deserve some of the hate. It's boring. The supporting cast is mostly boring. The Ryders are atrocious and it's another reason why open world games either do well or fail because you play in an area with a whole lot of nothing.

They wanted to try something different but didn't fully commit to it. They rehashed essentially the same plot from the 1st and second Mass Effect game. They didn't focus on them being actual pathfinders and focus on exploration or even semi Indiana Jones-esque romps.

The supporting cast were caricatures of their equivalents in Mass Effect. Grizzled mercenary old Krogan? Check. Greay area Turian? Check. Making the black dude boring again (actually Jacob looks 1,000X better than Liam)? Got that as well.

We even have an even less interesting Miranda.

The writing overall was just bland.

True exploration was non existent.

The game was uninspired, focused more on virtue signaling (and they even screwed that up) and it is clear now it was a half hearted attempt to gather money as the real focus was on their Destiny rip off.

I can't speak for everyone and obviously what I'm stating isn't some sort of fact, but this is why I hated the game. Ya it had bugs, no big deal to me many games have them. It was the game was phoned in, lacked vision and the team lacked enthusiasm for the product (before, during and after development).

The companions really was a huge blow to me as despite Dragon Age: Inquisitions own short comings, the companions in that gave me hope we'd get the same standard of quality. DA:I also did the open world much better as outside of a few maps you actually ran into things other than random mobs and quest icons.

The best thing about the game I feel was the open class system. I wouldn't say it is a terrible game as it does have some quality and I could count on one hand the amount of great moments but it was and is an utterly garbage Mass Effect game. That could be that the original series set the bar high, or that ME:A was just that utterly mediocre.

In the end though I can say Bioware has lost at least one gamer from picking up any titles from them in the future...though I do wish those who enjoy the game the best and hope they do get some story DLC released.

I'll just note that I disagree with pretty much all of your negative criticisms.

I will admit that Liam was too bland, although he still did manage to have his moments. IIRC, the movie night started out as his idea, the insult scene was actually a good idea (even if it didn't matter to gameplay), and his loyalty mission was hilariously awesome.

I agree and disagree, for me MEA elevated original mass effect but made me look critical the entire series, and ME2 and 3 are not the same trainwerks, upon release, but still they are not as good as I thought, especially ME2 is a stellar game if it was alone in isolation and not connected to ME and ME3....

Personally I really liked MEA characters except Liam who is probably one of the worse companion characters ever written from anybody, yes, he had a great loyalty mission to play, but it was bad that it happened.

I enjoyed ME:A, enough so that I called in sick the day after I got it so I could stay home and play all day. The story was good enough for me and I did a whole lot of side quests too. But, like most games, once I got to the end of the main story, I put the game down and haven't looked back. I rarely do 2nd playthroughs or multiplayer, I just like to sit back and play through the story mode.. and it took me a few weeks to finish so I feel like I got my money's worth either way.

If they make another ME game I'm sure I'll check that out too, some day

Liam is definitely sub-part as Bioware characters go, but on the whole I think MEA still had a very solid core cast (behind Inquisition and ME2, about level with DA2). Cora was definitely a more interesting take on her archetype than Miranda/Ashley were, Drack is just great, PeeBee was just the right side of the amusing/irritating line (unlike DAI's Sera who is too far towards the latter) and Jaal is just awesome. Kallo, Suvi, Vetra, Lexi, I think they all bring something to the team, and I really enjoy Ryder as a character; mega-badass Shepard is cool, but they couldn't have just copied that this time. Ryder as an inexperienced, slightly awkward kid who'd be more at home in a lab or on guard duty than saving the world is a nice change of pace. There's a bit of a Firefly vibe going on with the whole crew that I really do enjoy.

And as mentioned, even Liam has a great mission, even if it is a bit of a slog to get to it!

In terms of actual gameplay MEA blows the predecessors out of the water; take out the story and set dressing and ME2 and 3 are basically pretty basic corridor shooters with some (admittedly very) pretty skyboxes attached. MEA adding the greater mobility and variety of weapons and powers really made the combat something enjoyable, rather than something between you and the next cutscene or character interaction.

I will admit I can't help but wonder how things would have been had Bioware's A team been working on Andromeda rather than Anthem (which I personally have no interest in, though it admittedly looks good technically speaking), I'm more than satisfied with the product as it is now, the only kicker is the lack of story DLC as even a single piece of good late/post-game DLC in the vein of Citadel or Trespasser would complete the package nicely.

 Paradigm wrote:
I will admit I can't help but wonder how things would have been had Bioware's A team been working on Andromeda rather than Anthem (which I personally have no interest in, though it admittedly looks good technically speaking), I'm more than satisfied with the product as it is now, the only kicker is the lack of story DLC as even a single piece of good late/post-game DLC in the vein of Citadel or Trespasser would complete the package nicely.

A DLC hook is already present with the end of game distress call. No idea if they'll ever act on it. Though it's also possible that was intended as a sequel hook. Even that might not happen, though. After the tons of (bandwagon, imo) complaints that Andromeda got, EA might decide the franchise is more trouble than it's worth now.

Sadly, that's what I fear. There's plenty of scope for followups (the distress signal, the rest of the Kett, the mysterious benefactor who founded the whole initiative)... it's all sequel/DLC-setup, but at this point I'm not optimistic that it'll go anywhere at time soon. At the very least, we'll see Anthem, Bioware's Star Wars project (hopefully in the vein of KotOR) and the next Dragon Age before we see any more Mass Effect. This wouldn't necessarily be a problem if MEA had had the standard set of story DLC packs that pretty much all the ME/DA games have had, but as it stands I can't help but feel it's incomplete; the writers and devs clearly had more in mind that there's every chance we'll never get to see now.

It's dead and it's a good thing it's dead. Best to Star Wars Christmas Special it and forget it ever happened.

Why? it was actually a pretty good game and I would like to see more of it, it is definitely not worst than what they did with ME 3 and at least MEA has still potential for good DLC and sequels something ME lost with 2 and destroyed with 3.

 Paradigm wrote:
Liam is definitely sub-part as Bioware characters go, but on the whole I think MEA still had a very solid core cast (behind Inquisition and ME2, about level with DA2). Cora was definitely a more interesting take on her archetype than Miranda/Ashley were, Drack is just great, PeeBee was just the right side of the amusing/irritating line (unlike DAI's Sera who is too far towards the latter) and Jaal is just awesome. Kallo, Suvi, Vetra, Lexi, I think they all bring something to the team, and I really enjoy Ryder as a character; mega-badass Shepard is cool, but they couldn't have just copied that this time. Ryder as an inexperienced, slightly awkward kid who'd be more at home in a lab or on guard duty than saving the world is a nice change of pace. There's a bit of a Firefly vibe going on with the whole crew that I really do enjoy.

And as mentioned, even Liam has a great mission, even if it is a bit of a slog to get to it!

In terms of actual gameplay MEA blows the predecessors out of the water; take out the story and set dressing and ME2 and 3 are basically pretty basic corridor shooters with some (admittedly very) pretty skyboxes attached. MEA adding the greater mobility and variety of weapons and powers really made the combat something enjoyable, rather than something between you and the next cutscene or character interaction.

I will admit I can't help but wonder how things would have been had Bioware's A team been working on Andromeda rather than Anthem (which I personally have no interest in, though it admittedly looks good technically speaking), I'm more than satisfied with the product as it is now, the only kicker is the lack of story DLC as even a single piece of good late/post-game DLC in the vein of Citadel or Trespasser would complete the package nicely.

Liam basically seems like a proxy of Koth from The Old Republic mmo. Gawd I hated him so much. I don't see what they thought was so great about him they brought him back in two different games. Some employee must have really wanted him to be a husbando or something. Koth and by associton Liam are easily some of the most hated Bioware characters of all time. I would take a team of Kaidens and Ashly's before a single Koth clone is allowed on my ship. Scorpio the edgelordess is my second most hated Bioware character in all of their long history of characters.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Why? it was actually a pretty good game and I would like to see more of it, it is definitely not worst than what they did with ME 3 and at least MEA has still potential for good DLC and sequels something ME lost with 2 and destroyed with 3.

So good it killed a studio.

ME3 was good up until the last 15 mins, MEA was gak to the core.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Why? it was actually a pretty good game and I would like to see more of it, it is definitely not worst than what they did with ME 3 and at least MEA has still potential for good DLC and sequels something ME lost with 2 and destroyed with 3.

So good it killed a studio.

ME3 was good up until the last 15 mins, MEA was gak to the core.

ME3 ending is awesome. But IMHO there's only a single possible ending, the red one. We need the patch and to ignore a couple of silly scenes after the ending that don't matter at all with the story (the forest and the grandfather-grandson dialogue) but other than those insignificant few seconds even the ending is great. To be honest, ME3 is my favorite videogame of all times, and I'm so scared about andromeda that I haven't find the courage to play it so far I'm not interested in an open world, I want unforgettable characters, plot and dialogues, I don't care at all about the graphics and the gameplay. I will probably give it a chance in the future though.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Why? it was actually a pretty good game and I would like to see more of it, it is definitely not worst than what they did with ME 3 and at least MEA has still potential for good DLC and sequels something ME lost with 2 and destroyed with 3.

So good it killed a studio.

ME3 was good up until the last 15 mins, MEA was gak to the core.

Largely undeserved negative hype killed the game.

Did it have problems? Sure. But it didn't have problems to the level that justified the constant stream of vitriol that vomited forth from the mouths of numberless reviewers all tripping over themselves in an effort to prove that thay were more pure in their dislike of MEA (and presumably, by association, EA) than their fellow reviewers. The reviewers were so desperate to trash the game that I barely recognized it in their reviews.

If it gets killed, that's what was responsible.

If it was a good game it would have been reviewed well. It wasn't a good game, so it wasn't. Outside of being paid to say it's good like IGN or certain political viewpoints trying to push it, no-one with an ounce of objectivity can claim it was a good game.

Apart from, you know, the significant majority of posters in this thread who have said that they by and large enjoyed the game...

It might not have been a masterpiece, no one is claiming it is, but that doesn't preclude it from being a good, entertaining, functional and enjoyable game which it seems most people have come to view it as.

The game when it was reviewed had many problems most of them on facial animation (and some path-finding) and that got most of the memes and criticism, not the plot, not the gameplay, not the story and because the ground was set everybody hopped on the hate bandwagon, because hey, saying what people want to hear fills up the patreon cashier.

Don't start with ME3 "it was good up to the last 15 minutes" well yes and no, it was bad, rushed and incomplete full of illogical things and a plot that tries to somehow tie in whatever happened to ME2 with ME.

A story that is sacrificed to reuse assets and the abysmal ending, even with the directors cut, that is a true character kill, honestly if the ending was not that bad, everybody would pick the holes ME3 has, but the ending focused everything there and spared the rest of the game.

But yes ME3 ending killed the entire series, I really do not know who green-lighted such a bad storytelling, it is not what it tells, it is how everything there makes no sense the characters behave in a completely alien way, the message of the entire trilogy falls apart and we get insulted by a logical inconsistency and dilemmas solved quite a while ago.

MEA is not the best story telling out there, agreed, the characters do not have 3 games of character building behind them, the plot tries to introduce a huge new setting and tells too much in one go, but it is consistent and sets up a great universe to follow they may kill it as they did with ME3, but
for now it has the same potential the original ME has and to be frank I would like to see it develop more.

Time will tell.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:


But yes ME3 ending killed the entire series, I really do not know who green-lighted such a bad storytelling,

IMHO it's perfect. And the fact that the ending was a true ending with no space for future sequels it's another positive factor. I can't stand those franchises that have infinite episodes, a trilogy is enough to tell everything about a certain universe, after that the developers should think about some new ideas. 3 episodes of the same saga are more than enough, just think about star wars: almost 9 movies so far when the saga could have ended 33 years ago and we wouldn't have missed anything. I love ME universe, ME 2 and (especially) 3 are by far my favorite games of all times but I never wanted a neverending saga and I'm satisfied with the end of that story which was perfect in its concept but badly portrayed with a few useless scenes.

 Paradigm wrote:
Liam is definitely sub-part as Bioware characters go, but on the whole I think MEA still had a very solid core cast (behind Inquisition and ME2, about level with DA2). Cora was definitely a more interesting take on her archetype than Miranda/Ashley were, Drack is just great, PeeBee was just the right side of the amusing/irritating line (unlike DAI's Sera who is too far towards the latter) and Jaal is just awesome. Kallo, Suvi, Vetra, Lexi, I think they all bring something to the team, and I really enjoy Ryder as a character; mega-badass Shepard is cool, but they couldn't have just copied that this time. Ryder as an inexperienced, slightly awkward kid who'd be more at home in a lab or on guard duty than saving the world is a nice change of pace. There's a bit of a Firefly vibe going on with the whole crew that I really do enjoy.

And as mentioned, even Liam has a great mission, even if it is a bit of a slog to get to it!

In terms of actual gameplay MEA blows the predecessors out of the water; take out the story and set dressing and ME2 and 3 are basically pretty basic corridor shooters with some (admittedly very) pretty skyboxes attached. MEA adding the greater mobility and variety of weapons and powers really made the combat something enjoyable, rather than something between you and the next cutscene or character interaction.

I was going to say all of this, but you said it better.

With regard to Liam, Bioware just seem to have problems in general with "male human character who starts in your party". Liam was the best of them for me, because even if I didn't like his personality, I could at least remember it.

Eumerin wrote:
Largely undeserved negative hype killed the game.

Did it have problems? Sure. But it didn't have problems to the level that justified the constant stream of vitriol that vomited forth from the mouths of numberless reviewers all tripping over themselves in an effort to prove that thay were more pure in their dislike of MEA (and presumably, by association, EA) than their fellow reviewers. The reviewers were so desperate to trash the game that I barely recognized it in their reviews.

If it gets killed, that's what was responsible.

Agreed as well. This encapsulated a lot of things I dislike about both video game reviewing and the social media age as a whole--the tendency towards feedback loops where you have to be more angry and extreme than the other commentators, and come up with spurious or exaggerated SHOCKING TRUTHS to get those sweet, sweet clicks.

I mean, seriously, the games worthy of this level of venom are something like Raven's Cry or Ride to Hell that are terrible across the board. MEA....had weak graphics in places, a limited character creation menu, and some mild controversy about "colonialism" from people who didn't know anything about the story. But in terms of story or gameplay, I loved it and even at worst, I don't see how it's "obviously" the worst of the franchise, since every complaint could be applied to at least one other ME game. But somehow it all escalated into ZOMG WORST GAME EVER and STICKIN' IT TO THE EA MAN. I mean, just look at the glee people are showing here at the possibility this might be the end of the series.

 Blackie wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:


But yes ME3 ending killed the entire series, I really do not know who green-lighted such a bad storytelling,

IMHO it's perfect. And the fact that the ending was a true ending with no space for future sequels it's another positive factor. I can't stand those franchises that have infinite episodes, a trilogy is enough to tell everything about a certain universe, after that the developers should think about some new ideas. 3 episodes of the same saga are more than enough, just think about star wars: almost 9 movies so far when the saga could have ended 33 years ago and we wouldn't have missed anything. I love ME universe, ME 2 and (especially) 3 are by far my favorite games of all times but I never wanted a neverending saga and I'm satisfied with the end of that story which was perfect in its concept but badly portrayed with a few useless scenes.

Well, aside from a grip of plotholes wide enough to fly the Citadel through and a relatively tenuous narrative connection to most of the story threads in the series, they literally copy-pasted the ending from the original DeusEx, same 3 concepts (destroy AI, control AI, merge with AI), same execution (pick a door, except ME was even more literal about it), even the same red/blue/green motif

As for MEA, I haven't played it myself, though I've watched others play it, but the my impression from most people that played it was that it was a fun game, but not up to the par people came to expect of games like ME1 & ME2, and lots of bugs. I think a lot of the negative press came after the more embarrassing aspects of ME3 (and some rather awkwardly and publicly embarrassing overly friendly press treatment of it that they tried to make up for with MEA) coupled with a seemingly unprofessional lack of polish with respect to things like character animations that may be a minor aspect of the game but really hit people's experience particularly hard as people's unconscious minds reacted negatively to the weird uncanny valley experience as a result. Had it not had the weird bugs or ME name, it may have been treated much better, though it likely wouldn't have the sales potential either without the name attached.

 Blackie wrote:

IMHO it's perfect. And the fact that the ending was a true ending with no space for future sequels it's another positive factor.

I understand the sentiment, I do not have an issue with it been a true ending, I have an issue with the ending been out of place and betraying what the entirety of the trilogy was about.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

IMHO it's perfect. And the fact that the ending was a true ending with no space for future sequels it's another positive factor.

I understand the sentiment, I do not have an issue with it been a true ending, I have an issue with the ending been out of place and betraying what the entirety of the trilogy was about.

The entirety of the trilogy is best summed up by that ending, if I'm going to be honest.

We have a choice. It might not be the right one, but it's ours to make.

we are given the illusion of choice and a Shepard that despite an entire trilogy behind it just accepts all the logical inconsistencies the catalyst utters.

Not calling once the Catalyst for his flawed logic, not pointing out Organics and Synthetics work together right now, not pushing the unification behind the reapers, just accept one of the three solutions the Catalyst proposes.

This is not Shepard and this s not the theme of Mass Effect were unity and overcoming each other differences is the key element in overcoming impossible odds.

If the same ending was Shepard having the agency and not blindingly following one of the three paths outlined to him by a flat character introduced at the very last moment the ending would have been received far better.

On top of that everything you did in the game does not matter, even Shepard's breath (and survival) for having max war assets in destruction is not acknowledged since his/her name goes to the dead wall.

There are fun mods of the ending that feel better not because they are better done or have better dialogue, just because they stick to what the characters are and stand for, better than the official ending and this is sad.

 Paradigm wrote:
Apart from, you know, the significant majority of posters in this thread who have said that they by and large enjoyed the game...

It might not have been a masterpiece, no one is claiming it is, but that doesn't preclude it from being a good, entertaining, functional and enjoyable game which it seems most people have come to view it as.

This.

This is not the first time that people posting here have noted a simple fact that suggests that the reviews are overly negative. Based on the reviews, one would be inclined to ignore the game as an awful, unfun mess. And yet the majority of people posting in this thread who have played the game found it to be a lot of fun.

As the old quip goes, who am I going to trust- the reviewers or my lying eyes?

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
we are given the illusion of choice and a Shepard that despite an entire trilogy behind it just accepts all the logical inconsistencies the catalyst utters.

Not calling once the Catalyst for his flawed logic, not pointing out Organics and Synthetics work together right now, not pushing the unification behind the reapers, just accept one of the three solutions the Catalyst proposes.

This is not Shepard and this s not the theme of Mass Effect were unity and overcoming each other differences is the key element in overcoming impossible odds.

If the same ending was Shepard having the agency and not blindingly following one of the three paths outlined to him by a flat character introduced at the very last moment the ending would have been received far better.

On top of that everything you did in the game does not matter, even Shepard's breath (and survival) for having max war assets in destruction is not acknowledged since his/her name goes to the dead wall.

There are fun mods of the ending that feel better not because they are better done or have better dialogue, just because they stick to what the characters are and stand for, better than the official ending and this is sad.

The issue with that is you are seriously metagaming in order to find those flaws.

1) Shepard had just been blown up and then forcibly controlled by the Illusive Man and then fallen unconscious before meeting the Catalyst, not really in a fit state to engage in a logical debate.

2) Just because Organics and Synthetics are working together now (and that depends entirely on if you saved the Geth or not), does not preclude them from fighting later. It is entirely possible, even likely, that the Reapers had observed organics working alongside synthetics previously, maybe even against them. After all, all synthetic/organic wars would initially start with the synthetics working with organics. There is zero evidence that the situation with the Geth is unique.

3) Why would Shepard not accept the Catalyst's solution when one of them is "Kill all the Reapers", the objective of the entire war? That was certainly my Shepard, especially with her initially starting weak as she blew that conduit but rose to stand proud as she put the final rounds into it

4) The races had already united to accomplish an impossible task. They had managed to get Shepard onto the Crucible against overwhelming odds.

5) Shepard's name is not added to the wall if you have enough war assets for her to survive. Also, in the original ending you're not shown your name being added to The Normandy's wall at all.

6) Everything you did in the game matters. Whether or not you cured the genophage mattered, whether or not you reunited the quarians and geth mattered, what peace and happiness you brought to your friends and crew mattered. Things do not need to have a mechanical impact on the resulting gameplay to matter. Each of those events were endings of their corresponding arcs. The final ending of the game was not trying to tie up all the choices made previously, those had already been done. It was just ending the overarching plot.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:


On top of that everything you did in the game does not matter, even Shepard's breath (and survival) for having max war assets in destruction is not acknowledged since his/her name goes to the dead wall.

If shepard's name goes to the memorial with the other fallen means that you haven't played ME3 properly Or maybe you chose the wrong final

You mean use the alternative extended ending mods? because even if they smile, they still hold the plate.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
we are given the illusion of choice and a Shepard that despite an entire trilogy behind it just accepts all the logical inconsistencies the catalyst utters.

Not calling once the Catalyst for his flawed logic, not pointing out Organics and Synthetics work together right now, not pushing the unification behind the reapers, just accept one of the three solutions the Catalyst proposes.

This is not Shepard and this s not the theme of Mass Effect were unity and overcoming each other differences is the key element in overcoming impossible odds.

If the same ending was Shepard having the agency and not blindingly following one of the three paths outlined to him by a flat character introduced at the very last moment the ending would have been received far better.

On top of that everything you did in the game does not matter, even Shepard's breath (and survival) for having max war assets in destruction is not acknowledged since his/her name goes to the dead wall.

There are fun mods of the ending that feel better not because they are better done or have better dialogue, just because they stick to what the characters are and stand for, better than the official ending and this is sad.

The issue with that is you are seriously metagaming in order to find those flaws.

1) Shepard had just been blown up and then forcibly controlled by the Illusive Man and then fallen unconscious before meeting the Catalyst, not really in a fit state to engage in a logical debate.

The larger narrative has always had that option and the sequence does offer the opportunity to debate points, it just doesn't give you an option for any...cohesive one.

2) Just because Organics and Synthetics are working together now (and that depends entirely on if you saved the Geth or not), does not preclude them from fighting later.

It doesn't stop organics from fighting and obliterating each other either. The whole synthetic vs organic life thing is one the narrative goes to great lengths in many different instances to show that it's a largely arbitrary one.

There is zero evidence that the situation with the Geth is unique.

All the more reason why the entire concept behind the reapers having to kill organics to save them from creating synthetics that will kill organics is...ridiculous.

3) Why would Shepard not accept the Catalyst's solution when one of them is "Kill all the Reapers", the objective of the entire war? That was certainly my Shepard, especially with her initially starting weak as she blew that conduit but rose to stand proud as she put the final rounds into it

Some iterations of Shepard might, many would not given the choices the game offers, but even that felt rather...anticlimactic, you'd spent a trilogy worth of games and expansions, hundreds of hours gathering allies and forces, potentially even resurrecting dead races in the process, marshalling forces from across the galaxy and arriving at the head of the largest fleet in history...and ultimately you end up pressing a button, on a lonely space platform completely disconnected and separated from all other ongoing events in every possible manner, to make all the enemies just blow themselves up

6) Everything you did in the game matters. Whether or not you cured the genophage mattered, whether or not you reunited the quarians and geth mattered, what peace and happiness you brought to your friends and crew mattered. Things do not need to have a mechanical impact on the resulting gameplay to matter. Each of those events were endings of their corresponding arcs. The final ending of the game was not trying to tie up all the choices made previously, those had already been done. It was just ending the overarching plot.

Except the overarching plot is made of up all of those threads, and left many if not most hanging, and certainly didn't tie them into any sort of cohesive ending. The narrative disconnect of the last 10 minutes of gameplay was very strong for very large numbers of paths, and that's what happens when another game's ending is copy-pasted and shoe-horned in at the last minute

And even then, it's not, "kill the reapers." It's "kill all synthetic life."

Commit genocide on the Geth, murder EDI, everyone...

Heck, I would have been happy if there WASN'T any choices at the end and it was just simply, "push button, explode Reapers."

"AI are evil and going to kill us" was *never* a major theme of the Mass Effect series, it was just shoehorned in because they lost the person that had been managing the earlier games writing. If anything, a stronger theme was: "People are jerks and declare war on AI for no goddamned reason." Which is kinda... The opposite of what the catalyst said.


My own "headcanon" ending of Mass Effect 3 is:

The confrontation with the Illusive Man goes as it does, including the final poignant moments with Anderson.

Shepard stands up, battered, bloodied, beaten, goes to the console that would have been the lift to the Catalyst. They collapse at the console, falling to their knees. Shepard looks up, sees a hologram of Harbinger. *Harbinger* has some choice final words to Shepard, taunting. - Shepard's too weak, too wounded, so on. Now you fail at the final step...

Shepard struggles to stand, fails. Until... Shepard is lifted up by the two crewmates who were on the final run.

"We do this... Together."

All 3 then press the button that destroys the Reapers.

No options. They're not needed. No guff about "all synthetic life destroyed." There doesn't *need* to be any false choices there.

Cue ending. - Without all the mess of the Normandy landing on random-planet, or whatever.


While there are Battlestar Galactica elements to Mass Effect, ultimately the original trilogy was more of a "Star Trek" story than Reimagined BSG. It was *not* a grim dark universe. The core theme of the series was of people working together, overcoming differences, distrust, banding together under a hero and their companions to work *together*. THAT's the theme. Not "AI kills almost everybody to stop AI from killing everybody."

The Grim Dark is Dragon Age's wheelhouse, not Mass Effects.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

2) Just because Organics and Synthetics are working together now (and that depends entirely on if you saved the Geth or not), does not preclude them from fighting later. It is entirely possible, even likely, that the Reapers had observed organics working alongside synthetics previously, maybe even against them. After all, all synthetic/organic wars would initially start with the synthetics working with organics. There is zero evidence that the situation with the Geth is unique.

Starchild: "You see, we realised that organic and synthetic enemies inevitably kill each other. To avoid this tragedy, we brutally murder trillions of organic beings in gratuitously cruel ways--or mind control them and force them to murder each other, or turn them into lobotomised shells of what they once were--before they even have a chance to start a war."

Shepard: "You wanna run that past me again?"

The logic is indefensible, because there simply is no logic without tremendous amounts of fanwank.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Except the overarching plot is made of up all of those threads, and left many if not most hanging, and certainly didn't tie them into any sort of cohesive ending. The narrative disconnect of the last 10 minutes of gameplay was very strong for very large numbers of paths, and that's what happens when another game's ending is copy-pasted and shoe-horned in at the last minute

The way I think of the ending is like this: I've been to see the original Star Wars movies in theatres as they come out. Now I'm watching Return of the Jedi. Luke walks into the Emperor's throne room, and then.....I get the ending to 2001: A Space Odyssey. It's not a bad ending to 2001, but it's an awful ending to the movies I've been watching.

Up till that point, Mass Effect was a story of individual characters, even when it was telling the HUGE stories. You see the Krogan struggle through Mordin, Wrex and Eve. You see the Quarian conflict through Legion, Tali and her father. The horror of the Reapers is conveyed through Saren, and the fact that you're saving your own crew from the Collector base. And then all of those characters suddenly become irrelevant, and a totally new character suddenly tells you that you have a massive galaxy-altering choice to make, the repurcussions of which are impossible to guess.

It was also a power fantasy (not meant as an insult). Shepard can resolve these centuries-old grudges, command loyalty from a bunch of misfits and freaks, and flip the middle finger to Space Cthulu because she's that damn awesome--the biggest hero or biggest badass in the galaxy. Even late into ME3, you're settling wars, saving or damning species, and delivering the greatest hope of the galaxy. And now it's time to dive into the final battle! Things look grim, this is the darkest hour, and it'll take a near miracle, and probably sacrifice, to pull off a victory. And at that point, people are expecting that victory and that heroic moment, because every bit of every game has told them that this is the sort of story they're in.

Not to say it couldn't have worked if the third game slowly made you realise that you were fighting against inevitable doom. It would have been damn depressing, but it could have been convincingly done if it had been built up to. ME3 doesn't build up to it. Again, a new character whose existence wasn't even hinted at before pops up and tells you that all your heroism is irrelevant, your one choice is to walk up and push a button. Suddenly making the moral of the story "some things are too big for you to change" after you've spent dozens of hours doing just that isn't a clever twist or "mature", it's just bad storytelling.