-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Mass Effect 3
- Thread starter TsukasaSIGN
- Start date
Garrus is also the party member who's most involved with the stuff the player does by far -- he doesn't have a lot of individual accomplishments because he's in the party the entirety of all three games (he potentially joins up in the first 4 hours of each); he's done everything Shepard has done except Eden Prime and Arrival without talking so much. It's hard to make much a point off it because Shepard's psyche is kind of up to the player, but I view Garrus as someone who's pretty important to him keeping his edge -- he's the only party member Shepard can really trust for almost all of ME2 until Tali joins up, which wasn't played up as much in that game for some reason but is kind of vaguely referenced in 3. With his promotion in ME3 he's reasonably important to his own people now at least, anyway. Probably more importantly to both his and Shepard's development is that there's always been sort of a master/protege thing between them, so I think it makes sense they brought that all the way in 3 with Garrus having more command of his own and decisions to make individually after leaning on and learning from Shepard so much over the series. It's a little different game for Wrex and Tali since their governments are such a mess and they ended having to help reform them; Garrus instead has the perspective Shepard does with trying to get an organized government to work with him. He's very much the Turian version of Shepard, I think, though obviously he's Robin to Shepard's Batman.
Regardless, with my original line I'd meant more that it was their fight as much as Shepard's, which goes along with Garrus having been along the whole time. He's built up as much investment as anyone to the mission and the other party members, it wouldn't make sense for him to be absent from the events the way some of the other former party members were written into smaller roles.
Well I mean technically there's another one or two in every hundred of you.
I'm not sure what positive remarks you can make about an ending that deviates so strongly from the themes of the rest of the series, both in gameplay and writing, though. I can kind of buy the indoctrination theory, but otherwise it's awfully out of the blue... a chain of Deus Ex Machinas starting right at Shepard inexplicably surviving and crew members potentially teleporting to the Normandy from the active squad. It's awfully unfulfilling regardless... I don't think it's unreasonable to have expected some amount of tie-up with the 8231312123 subplots Shepard engaged in through the story, even with the potential excuse that he died so he doesn't know and we're playing as him.
ALSO I don't want to double post but man the ending is tearing at me more the next day than I expected it to.
It's like, ME3 did such an amazing job with some emotional scenes(Tuchanka, Rannoch, the farewell conversations in the base and really the support group that was the party of ME3 all game), and things had been at such a high toward the end... I don't know, that the cast deserved better, I guess. I know they're fictional characters and Bioware can do whatever they want with the story, and it's probably more realistic that things didn't turn out so well for the cast, but I just feel like it's ridiculous that there's no way to have an even remotely positive ending (Shepard indoctrinated and/or dead is really the only solution that makes sense for him, Normandy probably ends up dying, civilization probably ends up dying, just seems like a pretty ridiculous slap in the face for everything to have been for nothing and to get no closure on anything. I'd kind of assumed Shepard wouldn't make it out -- the romance scene with whomever and the conversation with Garrus, Miranda, and a few other people certainly imply it pretty strongly -- but it's just so lazy and backhanded the way things played out :/. ME3 is the first video game that actually got me to shed a few tears(Mordin) and close a few other times(Grunt when it looked like he was going to die because I ditched him for the Racchni Queen, Thane, Legion, the conversations at the base with all my old party members knowing as a player that I'd probably never get to talk to any of them ever again because I'm a huge sap and jesus christ I'm almost tearing up writing this and I don't know, I just expected some catharsis after the experience, I guess. This is the worst I've ever felt after completing a video game, at least Dragon Age 2 sucked so I didn't care about how shitty the ending was.
i will get into potential spoilers at some point so i'll just hide the whole post; i will avoid details, but read at your own risk
Brian Taylor has an interesting piece on the ending of ME3 and fan entitlement regarding the series - http://www.unwinnable.com/2012/03/13/mass-dejection/
Mark Serrels wrote about why the endings should never be changed - http://www.kotaku.com.au/2012/03/pr...ass-effect-3s-ending-should-never-be-changed/
edit: Synre editing while I build that wall of text, totally proving my point
I guess I understand why some people aren't happy with the ending. By "not happy", I mean, "actively not happy" as in "actually signing a petition to have it changed". The distinction is important because, I'm not "happy" about it- I'm in a weird state of mind right now, between melancholy and ecstasy, because the events that happened left me in this state. But I'm happy with the meta-aspect of it, ie. I'm happy that the ending left me unhappy. I guess.
There are multiple things that contribute to this feeling. The last couple of missions do seem to come out of nowhere, or at least they don't benefit from as much introductory context as the previous ones; it doesn't make much sense that what is happening is happening at that moment, and it doesn't seem to be coherent with the pace at which events have been unfolding since the start of the game in other places. The ending itself is criticisable in some ways: it might resemble that of another game, and it does leave you a choice that disregards your previous actions. It introduces new, arguably unnecessary concepts (and you can't give something as much importance in five minutes as if you'd been talking about it for the past fifty hours). It kinda twists the rules of the paragon/renegade system. It is delivered in a very straightforward way - push button, get ending.
More importantly, it suggests an unwanted fate for some characters, or, in some cases, fails to suggest anything at all, as if some storylines had just been forgotten.
The thing is- almost none of this matters. What matters is that I was stuck for half an hour, controller in hand, not able to make a decision. What matters is that, after I finally made it, my fists were clenched and my eyes were teary. I felt frustration, and even anger; and I felt joy as well. You can analyse the structure all you want, and I agree with most of the comments, but the moment was incredible. You can claim that the writing was bad, and you can even be sincere about it! But it's important to step back and reflect on what you lived.
Because, and that's something truly unique, I lived something. I was incredibly pissed off that some of those characters had to go, and incredibly relieved that others could stay with me (not Shepard- me). When I finally managed to make that final decision, I was fully immersed; the only thing that crossed my mind at that time was, "how do I make sure that those characters live on and have the best possible life, while staying true to the ideologies we share?"
You have to look at what the ending accomplishes: it gives you a last final choice that's tied to the characters' fates, and it draws a final line between "before" and "after". It succeeds in leaving you in that weird state of mind, and above all, it fulfills BioWare's - the "meta-author" - vision.
So, it's okay to feel frustrated, and powerless, and angry. Because that's how you're supposed to feel. The ending is perfect in its ability to induce those feelings. It's also okay to say, "I didn't like how this was written". It's a very cold and detached observation, but a valid one. It's not okay to claim that it is not a proper ending and that it destroys everything Mass Effect stands for, because that's simply not for you to decide. Even if it completely shatters your personal interpretation of Mass Effect, your Shepard, then that's how it's supposed to be. Even inconsistencies are part of a story, and influence your perception of it. Even the lack of closure is part of a story- heck, even lack of story contributes to what a story is! So, please take the time to think about what the ending does and mean rather than what it fails to do.
There are multiple things that contribute to this feeling. The last couple of missions do seem to come out of nowhere, or at least they don't benefit from as much introductory context as the previous ones; it doesn't make much sense that what is happening is happening at that moment, and it doesn't seem to be coherent with the pace at which events have been unfolding since the start of the game in other places. The ending itself is criticisable in some ways: it might resemble that of another game, and it does leave you a choice that disregards your previous actions. It introduces new, arguably unnecessary concepts (and you can't give something as much importance in five minutes as if you'd been talking about it for the past fifty hours). It kinda twists the rules of the paragon/renegade system. It is delivered in a very straightforward way - push button, get ending.
More importantly, it suggests an unwanted fate for some characters, or, in some cases, fails to suggest anything at all, as if some storylines had just been forgotten.
The thing is- almost none of this matters. What matters is that I was stuck for half an hour, controller in hand, not able to make a decision. What matters is that, after I finally made it, my fists were clenched and my eyes were teary. I felt frustration, and even anger; and I felt joy as well. You can analyse the structure all you want, and I agree with most of the comments, but the moment was incredible. You can claim that the writing was bad, and you can even be sincere about it! But it's important to step back and reflect on what you lived.
Because, and that's something truly unique, I lived something. I was incredibly pissed off that some of those characters had to go, and incredibly relieved that others could stay with me (not Shepard- me). When I finally managed to make that final decision, I was fully immersed; the only thing that crossed my mind at that time was, "how do I make sure that those characters live on and have the best possible life, while staying true to the ideologies we share?"
You have to look at what the ending accomplishes: it gives you a last final choice that's tied to the characters' fates, and it draws a final line between "before" and "after". It succeeds in leaving you in that weird state of mind, and above all, it fulfills BioWare's - the "meta-author" - vision.
So, it's okay to feel frustrated, and powerless, and angry. Because that's how you're supposed to feel. The ending is perfect in its ability to induce those feelings. It's also okay to say, "I didn't like how this was written". It's a very cold and detached observation, but a valid one. It's not okay to claim that it is not a proper ending and that it destroys everything Mass Effect stands for, because that's simply not for you to decide. Even if it completely shatters your personal interpretation of Mass Effect, your Shepard, then that's how it's supposed to be. Even inconsistencies are part of a story, and influence your perception of it. Even the lack of closure is part of a story- heck, even lack of story contributes to what a story is! So, please take the time to think about what the ending does and mean rather than what it fails to do.
Brian Taylor has an interesting piece on the ending of ME3 and fan entitlement regarding the series - http://www.unwinnable.com/2012/03/13/mass-dejection/
Mark Serrels wrote about why the endings should never be changed - http://www.kotaku.com.au/2012/03/pr...ass-effect-3s-ending-should-never-be-changed/
edit: Synre editing while I build that wall of text, totally proving my point
I understand some dislike over the ending, but the overall reaction is just repulsive.
Spoilers.
Spoilers.
This is NOT your story. Understand that first. No matter how much they made you believe this was your story, it was not. While your actions do effect outcomes, Mealon's Data and Eve, how Mordin dies, who lives/dies, curing the genophage or not, the overall story does not change. You will still go to Palaven, Tuchanka, Thessia, Fight the Geth War, head to Cerberus base, and finally to Earth. This is Bioware's story, and has always been that way. It's the reason the 3 endings are so similar, so ambiguous. They are NOT going to end the Mass Effect universe with this game.
Imagine of Mass Effect 1 & 2 had 3 hugely different endings? Mass Effect 2would have to branch out to meet 3 widely different endings, and the same for Mass Effect 3. There's no way, you have the same story regardless in Mass Effect 2 and in 3, so why expect anything different?
There's going to be DLC, (Both the ending prompt and the final cut scene of the boy and father/grandfather hint at it). Bioware can't make DLC if there's multiple different endings. You need a base, from which to continue, for all 3 endings that is at least the same.
TL:DR The 3 endings are the only logical and acceptable conclusions to Mass Effect 3. Bioware was always planning DLC and you can' t have that without similiar starting points from which to continue. (Look at ME1 to ME2/ ME2 to ME3). Bioware has always driven this story, not you.
Imagine of Mass Effect 1 & 2 had 3 hugely different endings? Mass Effect 2would have to branch out to meet 3 widely different endings, and the same for Mass Effect 3. There's no way, you have the same story regardless in Mass Effect 2 and in 3, so why expect anything different?
There's going to be DLC, (Both the ending prompt and the final cut scene of the boy and father/grandfather hint at it). Bioware can't make DLC if there's multiple different endings. You need a base, from which to continue, for all 3 endings that is at least the same.
TL:DR The 3 endings are the only logical and acceptable conclusions to Mass Effect 3. Bioware was always planning DLC and you can' t have that without similiar starting points from which to continue. (Look at ME1 to ME2/ ME2 to ME3). Bioware has always driven this story, not you.
How can you even say something like that? It's legitimately infuriating to read. You're pretty much fine with a downright terrible ending so that Bioware can milk more money out the consumer. Not to mention that from your point of view, we can easily get into a conversation about how Bioware essentially lied to us for the past 5 years, but I'd rather not get into that.
Fuck this guy.
This is the real interview: http://www.straight.com/article-612421/vancouver/bioware-aims-surprise
http://www.oxm.co.uk/37677/mass-eff...than-ever-endings-will-be-more-sophisticated/
Some people will defend any decision, no matter how bad.
While you seem to have taken the nice guy route here we all know I'm about as not a very nice guy as they come so I would love to bring up that sort of bullshit.
You're right, that's why they didn't promise 17(I believe that was the number, would need to get source) endings that differed wildly based on your choices in the first two games. Oh WAIT, they did promise that, I remember them telling that story. Those silly entitled fans expecting to get what they were promised before they bought the product.Final Days said:
Here's a newflash to both you and the other guy who posted the "Bioware's story" card: I have some professional background in both writing and business, so let me help you guys out because you seem to be confused. Writers at their level aren't hired to just do whatever the fuck they want. They aren't just sitting in the back thinking "what ending would I like to do." They get paid pretty significant salaries because they perform an important function of Bioware more so than any other American developer(you could argue for SE and Quantic Dream worldwide I guess): they are making games that are sold primarily on the strength of their stories and these guys are the ones that make or break the success of that. There's responsibility in that, especially once you've developed an IP to the point there's significant fan expectations -- particularly after you built those fan expectations in media interviews and youtube promotions between games yourselves while spouting misinformation and exaggerations that would make Peter Molyneux look like a straight shooter(which hasn't worked out very well for Lionhead long term -- Molyneux is no longer with the company and Fable 3 sales fell way below projections after the first couple of months). The writers are employed to make money for their companies and they do that by creating a great story that appeals to their target demographic, not by engaging in literary masturbation over whatever idea they have at the time. It's pretty obvious judging by polls and petitions they failed pretty overwhelmingly at that with this ending; that's an indefensible business move. It'll lose them future sales -- especially on ME3 DLC but Bioware itself is really hurting its brand between this fiasco, lying about the From Ashes DLC, Dragon Age 2, even SWTOR on some level-- if they don't attend to it. Like all businesses, their primary objectives include both selling products and increasing the strength of their brand, and they just sacrificed the latter to do the former, which is incredibly unsustainable. Your condescension is unfounded. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Speaking of which, have you even beaten the game? Have you not noticed that if you beat the game it spits you back out before you raid the Cerberus base? HINT: Any DLC they do is going to take place before that point of no return. There is absolutely zero chance of them making DLC that occurs after that point, unless they give in to fan pressure and re-do the endings(and even that would be the extent of it), since would force them to give a bunch of answers they don't seem to want to give. If they wanted you to know for certain what happened to Shepard or the Normandy or your squad in the ending originally they would have told you; they didn't, and obviously you can't have postgame DLC featuring Shepard and team without those things, and that's before you even look at the mass relays or the rest of the galaxy. This is especially certain because Shepard doesn't survive most of the endings... it would make very little sense for them to do content after that point because, assuming all options were picked equally, 2/3 of their customers wouldn't even have it available.Final Days said:
Except it induces them for the wrong reasons. I don't think I've met anyone else who even cared what they picked after they saw the endings because all that changes is the color of explosion that occurs. Your choice is basically guaranteed not to be canon -- they have to make a call on what races are still alive on any future game they make, obviously -- and isn't reflective of anything in the game up to that point. Randomly going off on a differently limb with no foreshadowing is simply bad writing. The fact you got to make a choice at the end where each option seemed viable in spite of not being built into reasonable(especially the synthesis solution: that idea literally isn't even mentioned until you have the chance to pick it at any point in the trilogy) doesn't make it a success. Having a bunch of plotholes is not a positive story element. I can basically guarantee you in a boardroom somewhere they're trying to figure out damage control for this right now because they've either realized they've made a mistake or the community is playing into their hands; there's a reason they aren't defending it the way the Dragon Age 2 staff was.Accent said:
Here is some fun questions to try to answer about this super appropriate and well-written ending before even looking at anyone outside of Shepard's immediate situation:
Who the hell is the starkid at the end? Why is he clearly the same kid as Shepard saw at the beginning of the game and has been dreaming about? Why is someone apparently capable of extracting this information from his mind to try to manipulate him? Where did Shepard's armor go? Why is it back if he survives? How did he get back to London if he survives? How the hell did Anderson get ahead of him on the way to the Citadel and why didn't the radio chatter notice either of them go in? How did TIM learn how to possess people in the last fifteen minutes of the game? How do my squadmates manage to teleport from getting killed by Harbinger's laser to inside the Normandy? why is the Normandy flying between relays when the ending starts? Why isn't it in the fight? How could it possibly have ended up on some random planet? Why is the kid at the end of the game's voice a combination of male shepards voice, female shepards voice, and the kid from the beginning of the game? How does Anderson manage to get inside the Citadel unscathed when he's clearly hit by the laser? If the Reapers are building another Human Reaper, why are there bodies all over the Citadel rotting instead of getting processed like in the Collector Base?
(the best answer is that Shepard is dreaming or indoctrinated, incidentally, which the internet is running with atm).
It was not a terrible ending, it was an acceptable and logical ending. Did you want a teen movie ending? Where we slowly get pictures and overviews of each species post-reapers? Or a small cutscene depicting the rebuilding of the galaxy?
What made it such a terrible ending? Please explain.
It was not a logical ending,
Anyone who was not immediately disconnected clearly does not have the capacity for thought.
Any argument about maintaining artistic integrity by demanding a new ending is moot because they lost all of their integrity when they lied, punked out, failed to write themselves out of a corner, etc. Demanding artistic integrity is part of what makes a medium recognizable as art.
As soon as god said that organics and synthetics could not coexist, a statement shown to be empirically wrong by the whole game.
Anyone who was not immediately disconnected clearly does not have the capacity for thought.
Any argument about maintaining artistic integrity by demanding a new ending is moot because they lost all of their integrity when they lied, punked out, failed to write themselves out of a corner, etc. Demanding artistic integrity is part of what makes a medium recognizable as art.
Using stock photos? Must have run out of money. Like that Evangelion show. #MassEffect3isEveryBadEnding
aamto
on whom the three Fates smile
not really. a story's quality is really subjective (as you see here, with some users defending the ending). i read most of the script and cringed at some of the horrible cliches and plot devices that cropped up. that, coupled with the melodramatic, overly emotional cutscenes (and not just the ones i've seen in the demo, but others i watched on the Tubes) is a no deal. then you have things like poor texture quality, re-used assets all over the place, et cetera. nothing dealbreaking on its own but when you mash up a meal that is made of little pieces of shit, what you get is one festering pile of shit.
the GAMEPLAY (cover shooting, skills, squad interactions) may be as good as the game has ever been and i am certainly not going to argue that (as...i can't). but the actual story and dialogue? i haven't actually played the game, but i've read enough and seen enough on the Tubes to say it's not worth $60. $30, maybe.
the truly sad part is that this was all known well before the game released and people were confident that BioWare wouldn't do some of the stuff you guys saw. that's how much faith gamers had in them (misplaced or not). and then they go and do it. this isn't a case of "i told you so, nyah nyah!" this is a case of a company abusing all of the trust and goodwill they built up over the years; all of this complaining and petitioning about the ending, as well as the possible loopholes and (probably unintentional) contradictions in the ending means that BioWare could fully release some DLC and further milk their fanbase for the ending "they want."
Response to Synre
Here is some fun questions to try to answer about this super appropriate and well-written ending before even looking at anyone outside of Shepard's immediate situation:
I looked in to this, and you are right in that respect. (I choose not to follow the hype of Mass Effect 3 for fear of the story being spoiled early). Bioware over exaggerated the ending in many ways, which in no team become wild expectations from fans. In this regard, it is Bioware's fault for bad PR. There ARE multiple endings for the game. They DO vary in some regard, but not "wildly" as stated by Bioware. The writers are in no way at fault for this (unless of course It's their quotes being spread, can't find original sources with so much bad press). Those quoted choose to hype the game's ending, and promised something that was not true, or at the very least exaggerated. Considering the story line was completed well before most of this quotes were put out (again can't find original sources for these quotes, so its an assumption) would the ending be any better without such exaggerated promises?
I have beaten the game, and the same was done for ME2, you start prior to entering the Omega 4 relay. It makes no sense to revert the game to any other time. Why would you get to be in the Normandy/Travel the galaxy post ending? Of course in ME3 its obvious, since there's no more Relays, but the said can be said of ME2. What are you expected to do post-game, if the ending spits you out in the galaxy? Finish exploring everything? No of course not, there's no point in that without DLC. With or without Shepard, Mass Effect will continue, Bioware isn't going to end this cashcow (well that might change).
Aside from synthesis, you're right it's the deus ex machina decision to make peace and "break the cycle". Everything else was at least mentioned or hinted at, ie Controlling the reapers/Destroying the reapers. Defeating the reapers was always the goal, and controlling them was the path showed by Cerberus. The Crucible, was an unknown power, it was stated many times prior. It's a blast of energy, which no ones know what it would do. The Catalyst was assumed to do somehow divert that power into Reapers. Synthetics had always been the issue, they were your enemy in the first game, you feared their evolution in the third game.
Here is some fun questions to try to answer about this super appropriate and well-written ending before even looking at anyone outside of Shepard's immediate situation:
- The kid, was always a representation of the people Shepard failed to save. The starkid was the metaphor for the species they failed to save. The inability of each to end the cycle. The kid dies in Earth in the beginning, Shepard clearly watches the evac ship he boards get blown up and continually dreams of him, and those who continually die. The final dream he has, includes quotes from each familiar character who has died in the game.
- Shepard has his armor on all throughout the final scenes, although it's torn and severely damaged (Dont really know what your getting at here, both scenes have the same armor).
- Although both Anderson and Shepard come at different times its not unreasonable to figure Anderson isn't as injured as Shepard. Upon entering the Citadel, they are transported at different places, and it's Shepard who continually pants and groans throughout their talk. It's not a stretch to assume therefor, Anderson can walk faster and therefor get ahead of him in the Citadel.
- In the final run to the beam, your teammates are never seen once you start running. The beam that incapacitates Shepard hits a soldier not your squad mates nor Anderson. It doesn't actually hit you, but close enough to you that it knocks back Shepard.
- TIM had already "found" the ability to control the reapers using indoctrination techniques, Sanctuary had already found the ability for cerberus to use indoctrination to take over reaper indoctrinated humans. The Prothean VI, furthered that ability to control, as to how we don't know.
- The imagery, in the corridor of the Citidel, where you initially is based on the original art of what was supposed to be the original final boss battle. It was originally supposed to be against a reaper-enhanced TIM, who had transformed to look like a Brute (sort of) and was to be taken place in the Cerberus Base. What was originally supposed to be Cerberus soldiers piled up, become humans. I'm guessing designers choose to keep the art similiar.
- The only real plot hole is the destruction of the Relays, which implies the destruction of many planets and people.
How was such reasoning empirically wrong? I'm guessing we played different games here.
The Fear of synthetics was universal throughout the series.
EDI - was an illegal AI system planted by Cerberus (the only organization willing to cross lines) Every other species, used highly controlled VI's. Anything higher was considered dangerous.
Geth vs Quarians War - The ultimate example for this. While there is a chance to unite them, you may end having to choose between Synthetics and Organics.
Javik further shows this, he explains his reasoning as to why he believes the Reapers are harvesting civilization. He also mentions a Synthetic species that threatened them during his cycle. (similiar to the geth)
EDI - was an illegal AI system planted by Cerberus (the only organization willing to cross lines) Every other species, used highly controlled VI's. Anything higher was considered dangerous.
Geth vs Quarians War - The ultimate example for this. While there is a chance to unite them, you may end having to choose between Synthetics and Organics.
Javik further shows this, he explains his reasoning as to why he believes the Reapers are harvesting civilization. He also mentions a Synthetic species that threatened them during his cycle. (similiar to the geth)
Just to clarify, I'm not saying the story is coherent or well-written. I'm saying that regardless of whether it is or not, it still induces specific feelings and reactions, on the moment when you first discover it, and that should not be changed because it is the authors' vision, no matter how crappy you consider it to be. It's just how it is; it might be successful to some and just plain revolting to others, but it's in any case exactly what it's supposed to be.
If my feeling and reaction is "this is bad writing" then no, it doesn't count. Calling it the author's vision is like excusing a drunk driver because everything may have been blurry and he may have committed manslaughter, but it was his vision.
Final Days, the Geth were NEVER the aggressors when they had a choice. Quarians were always the bad guys, and this is what led to the fear of AI in general. EDI proved that when not being attacked an AI would be entirely reasonable. God created the Reapers to "save" organic life. The premise of the ending is literally a logical fallacy; as far back as we know organics feared synthetics because of the reapers, but God created the reapers because he felt synthetics would wipe out organics. The entire plot hinges on God not being a colossal fucking idiot but that is what he is in Mass Effect 3. The ONLY example of synthetics that genuinely hate organic life were created by the guy who thinks that synthetics can't coexist.
A recurring theme throughout Mass Effect was the conflict between organics and synthetics. Mass Effect 2 showed that coexistence was possible. Mass Effect 3 made it a reality, then turned around and pretended that Mass Effect 2 and 3 didn't exist.
EDIT for another reasonable question
Final Days, the Geth were NEVER the aggressors when they had a choice. Quarians were always the bad guys, and this is what led to the fear of AI in general. EDI proved that when not being attacked an AI would be entirely reasonable. God created the Reapers to "save" organic life. The premise of the ending is literally a logical fallacy; as far back as we know organics feared synthetics because of the reapers, but God created the reapers because he felt synthetics would wipe out organics. The entire plot hinges on God not being a colossal fucking idiot but that is what he is in Mass Effect 3. The ONLY example of synthetics that genuinely hate organic life were created by the guy who thinks that synthetics can't coexist.
A recurring theme throughout Mass Effect was the conflict between organics and synthetics. Mass Effect 2 showed that coexistence was possible. Mass Effect 3 made it a reality, then turned around and pretended that Mass Effect 2 and 3 didn't exist.
EDIT for another reasonable question
So if the goal was to preserve organic life why did the reapers leave the Mass Relays lying around anyway? It seems to me that without Mass Relays any group of evil synthetics could at best take over A star system.
Last edited:
Just as a nitpick, while yes the Geth were attack first, they slaughtered billions of Quarians that were not part of the war effort. They aren't innocent in this either.
When? When they were controlled by the reapers? Or Sovereign?
Hell, there isn't even a THE Geth anymore now that they have individuality.
And what Quarians that weren't part of the war? The ones that didn't want to be but covered their ships with guns anwyway?
The codex and Tali have been proven wrong. That was two games ago.
"I didn’t want the game to be forgettable, and even right down to the sort of polarizing reaction that the ends have had with people–debating what the endings mean and what’s going to happen next, and what situation are the characters left in."
-Casey Hudson, Director of Mass Effect 3
I'm really getting fucking sick and tired of critics pandering to this bullshit too. Mass Effect 3 turns out is a pretty good litmus test for finding out who in gaming journalism is a shill (most of them).
EDIT:
I've been taking care of my grandmother for a few months now because she broke her hip. In that time I've spent a lot of time with her sharing TV shows, movies, and even video games with watchable stories. And she always points out to me that almost everything I love ends very tragically. So I'm tired of hearing shit about how it's fine that Mass Effect 3 was sad. It was not sad, it was stupid.
"I didn’t want the game to be forgettable, and even right down to the sort of polarizing reaction that the ends have had with people–debating what the endings mean and what’s going to happen next, and what situation are the characters left in."
-Casey Hudson, Director of Mass Effect 3
I'm really getting fucking sick and tired of critics pandering to this bullshit too. Mass Effect 3 turns out is a pretty good litmus test for finding out who in gaming journalism is a shill (most of them).
EDIT:
I've been taking care of my grandmother for a few months now because she broke her hip. In that time I've spent a lot of time with her sharing TV shows, movies, and even video games with watchable stories. And she always points out to me that almost everything I love ends very tragically. So I'm tired of hearing shit about how it's fine that Mass Effect 3 was sad. It was not sad, it was stupid.
Following up on Mass Effect 3 being every bad ending, I made a list of the worst video game endings and what Mass Effect 3 borrows from them.
11. Assassin's Creed
Ending poorly to set up a sequel. Really even the whole series, and countless other games. Now Mass Effect 3 is supposed to be the finale of the series, but I don't think anyone would be surprised if they did this on purpose just to sell players the "true ending". Sure feels like the New Coke of video games.
10. Super Mario Brothers 2
It was all just a dream. If the ending to Mass Effect 3 is an indoctrinated dream as some think, then it borrows from this cliche too.
9. Final Fantasy 8
Victory through total bullshit. Trying to make sense of the Mass Effect 3 ending is a lot like trying to make sense of time compression, but I know for a fact more people actually defend FF8 than Mass Effect 3.
8. Fallout 3
Needless character death. Character death can be a great end when the story demands it. But when the writer demands it, when any player can easily come up with other solutions then it just disconnects the player and pisses them off.
7. L.A. Noire
No resolution. Probably my most personal entry on this list but I felt a lot of the plot threads were left dangling by the end of the game. Likewise in Mass Effect 3 really nothing is resolved at the end. Probably because...
6. Kane and Lynch 2; Dog Days
It ends abruptly. I decided not to count the Sopranos style ending initially but really after seeing the Normandy get stranded and then cutting to Buzz Aldaran over a photoshopped stock picture it sure feels like this counts.
5. God of War 3
Cliche disguised as art. It is astounding how similar God of War 3 and Mass Effect 3 are. They both have the dream sequence where you chase a child. Then that child spews words that don't form a coherent concept, everything gets destroyed, and all because they wrote themselves into a corner. I mean because it is 'artistic'.
4. Deus Ex; Human Revolution
Press a button to choose an ending. You can literally just reload your save in order to see all three endings. Nothing you ever did mattered. This is lazy as endings ever get and they sold the game telling us they wouldn't do this.
3. The Sims Bustin Out GBA
Game designer is a total dick. At the end of The Sims Bustin Out you get into a rocket ship which immediately crashes and kills you, roll credits (this is complete with cartoon "whoops" sound effects). I used to think you could only get away with something like this in a handheld port of a spinoff. Guess Bioware proved me wrong.
2. Tomb Raider Underworld
Continuity? What is THAT? Just a few days ago I would have called Underworld the worst ending in video game history. The sequel to a game with actually a very good story and ending, Lara's quest to rescue her mother from Avalon is spun on its head when she finds out that Avalon is just a cave and her mother is a zombie (because caves do that). Giving Underworld the time it deserves to trash it would throw things off track, so just believe me when I say it's a lot like insisting that all Synthetics must die in a series that has gradually shown us that Synthetics can live in peace (and in fact are probably more peaceful than Organics).
1. Mass Effect 3
All of the above. Probably more. To make this list I read through a few other lists, including one with fifty games on it. Every single ending was bad because of PART of what makes Mass Effect 3 bad. Bioware should be ashamed of themselves, and when the director acts like he wanted to spark controversy it only makes me see Uwe Boll in my head.
Ending poorly to set up a sequel. Really even the whole series, and countless other games. Now Mass Effect 3 is supposed to be the finale of the series, but I don't think anyone would be surprised if they did this on purpose just to sell players the "true ending". Sure feels like the New Coke of video games.
10. Super Mario Brothers 2
It was all just a dream. If the ending to Mass Effect 3 is an indoctrinated dream as some think, then it borrows from this cliche too.
9. Final Fantasy 8
Victory through total bullshit. Trying to make sense of the Mass Effect 3 ending is a lot like trying to make sense of time compression, but I know for a fact more people actually defend FF8 than Mass Effect 3.
8. Fallout 3
Needless character death. Character death can be a great end when the story demands it. But when the writer demands it, when any player can easily come up with other solutions then it just disconnects the player and pisses them off.
7. L.A. Noire
No resolution. Probably my most personal entry on this list but I felt a lot of the plot threads were left dangling by the end of the game. Likewise in Mass Effect 3 really nothing is resolved at the end. Probably because...
6. Kane and Lynch 2; Dog Days
It ends abruptly. I decided not to count the Sopranos style ending initially but really after seeing the Normandy get stranded and then cutting to Buzz Aldaran over a photoshopped stock picture it sure feels like this counts.
5. God of War 3
Cliche disguised as art. It is astounding how similar God of War 3 and Mass Effect 3 are. They both have the dream sequence where you chase a child. Then that child spews words that don't form a coherent concept, everything gets destroyed, and all because they wrote themselves into a corner. I mean because it is 'artistic'.
4. Deus Ex; Human Revolution
Press a button to choose an ending. You can literally just reload your save in order to see all three endings. Nothing you ever did mattered. This is lazy as endings ever get and they sold the game telling us they wouldn't do this.
3. The Sims Bustin Out GBA
Game designer is a total dick. At the end of The Sims Bustin Out you get into a rocket ship which immediately crashes and kills you, roll credits (this is complete with cartoon "whoops" sound effects). I used to think you could only get away with something like this in a handheld port of a spinoff. Guess Bioware proved me wrong.
2. Tomb Raider Underworld
Continuity? What is THAT? Just a few days ago I would have called Underworld the worst ending in video game history. The sequel to a game with actually a very good story and ending, Lara's quest to rescue her mother from Avalon is spun on its head when she finds out that Avalon is just a cave and her mother is a zombie (because caves do that). Giving Underworld the time it deserves to trash it would throw things off track, so just believe me when I say it's a lot like insisting that all Synthetics must die in a series that has gradually shown us that Synthetics can live in peace (and in fact are probably more peaceful than Organics).
1. Mass Effect 3
All of the above. Probably more. To make this list I read through a few other lists, including one with fifty games on it. Every single ending was bad because of PART of what makes Mass Effect 3 bad. Bioware should be ashamed of themselves, and when the director acts like he wanted to spark controversy it only makes me see Uwe Boll in my head.
I think you should put these thoughts into a video review. As someone who had barely heard of the mass effect series before this week, I am actually taking a perverse delight in the fury this has sparked.
I mean like, when people are passionate about something, then, no matter how irrelevant that thing is to me it suddenly becomes interesting.
like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxKtZmQgxrI
Except without the gimmickiness.
I mean like, when people are passionate about something, then, no matter how irrelevant that thing is to me it suddenly becomes interesting.
like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxKtZmQgxrI
Except without the gimmickiness.
To comment on the thought here -- I know you've probably seen me talking up the ME series in #smogon before, but I think impassioned response so much of the ME community is giving(it's nothing here compared to most of the internet, that FB page I linked a few pages back demanding a new ending is over 26000 likes already and the game has only been out for a week as of today) is pretty good evidence of how good the series had been until that point. There's a few slipups over the series (the vehicle you drive in the first entry is pretty bad, scanning the planets in the second game, the ending of the third, the combat in the first isn't tuned very well and is too easy in general) but in general it's some of the best, most engaging writing I've ever seen -- probably the best ever in an RPG series(even though the backdrop is space and it has FPS elements so it's not quite what a normal RPG is to begin with). There a a pretty incredible amount of people who put the 100+ hours to getting through all three games in already, and I'd say even a majority of the people who have posted on about it on various sites have played through the first two games three or four times to get multiple files ready to see the branching events of ME3(which didn't end up actually happening for the most part). I'm not really in the mood to pump Bioware's tires right now, but the series is definitely worth playing, and the first two entries are cheap now.
EDIT: Also, oh look, another article on Forbes about ME3, which once again takes the only reasonable business perspective http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2012/03/13/why-fan-service-is-good-business/2/. It's so weird how the site dedicated to actual business understands what a good business decision is where amazing gaming media sites like Kotaku don't. Bizarre!
I just finished this last night.
All I can say is...
Spoiler-free tldr: ME3 is an excellent game when taken by itself, and an absolute failure when taken as the culmination of a trilogy that ostensibly places incredible emphasis on choice and consequence.
All I can say is...
I hope Bioware pays attention to and runs with this indoctrination thing in future DLC, because it's their only hope to salvage the absolutely atrocious ending sequence. When I thought about the possible endings for ME3 it never even remotely occurred to me that it would be a "pick-the-ending" sequence like in DX: HR. I had assumed that there were going to be several endings, and which one you got was based on a complicated set of criteria from all three games prior. I was fully expecting the option to destroy or preserve the Collector base to mean something...and it barely did. I was fully expecting the choice of council to mean something...and it barely did. And these are the major decisions! It turns out that losing characters in the suicide mission means nothing because they essentially have placeholder characters in their place. The ending exacerbated all of these issues. I went through, did every single N7 mission, united every single faction, preserved all the important assets, and went into the final battle with an absurd Readiness rating...and it all meant nothing. The only thing that changed was a few scenes in the ending, apparently. I mean, really?
That said, if I were to treat this as a stand-alone game...it was absolutely fantastic. The combat is much more fluid and reasonably strategic on Insanity instead of being a "sit and shoot at all the extra health" fest. I liked the new health system, the new weapon system, the upgrade system...mechanically, it was a pitch-perfect game. I am just so displeased with ending because it summarizes and concentrates everything bad about this game, and that in turn impugns the rest of the series.
That said, if I were to treat this as a stand-alone game...it was absolutely fantastic. The combat is much more fluid and reasonably strategic on Insanity instead of being a "sit and shoot at all the extra health" fest. I liked the new health system, the new weapon system, the upgrade system...mechanically, it was a pitch-perfect game. I am just so displeased with ending because it summarizes and concentrates everything bad about this game, and that in turn impugns the rest of the series.
Spoiler-free tldr: ME3 is an excellent game when taken by itself, and an absolute failure when taken as the culmination of a trilogy that ostensibly places incredible emphasis on choice and consequence.