October 2010: This was the first time I had ever played a
game by Bioware. A friend of mine had forced me to borrow a copy of some game
called Mass Effect 2. Despite his ravings about great the game was, I wasn’t in
much of a hurry to start playing. I started my first playthrough just to get
him to stop bothering me about it. It didn’t take long for me to realize that I
had been denying a true masterpiece. Before I had finished my first
playthrough, I bought my own copy of the game. Shortly thereafter I got a copy
of the original Mass Effect and made several playthroughs. I’d grown so fond of
this franchise that not only did I pick up a copy at the midnight release (the
first game for which I had done this), but I also pre-ordered the N7
Collector’s edition for the friend who introduced me to the series as a way of
saying thanks.
I’m not sure how I feel about my decision now that I’ve
finished my first playthrough. I spent large sums of money for a game which
offered a great experience, but, well, read basically any other post in this
topic and you can correctly guess what really bothered both me and my friend.
I’ll be brief (well, brief-ish) with what I thought was
good, and what I thought was not so good, and then I’ll add my opinions on the
issue of the ending.
The good:
Combat was much better than with previous installments. The
enemy AI was more intelligent, I enjoyed being able to move around the
battlefield more, and seemed less repetitive than in Mass Effect 2.
The ability of the game to elicit such intense emotions from
the players is unparalleled by any other game I’ve played. The feeling of
satisfaction when I stabbed Kai Leng and said “That was for Thane, you son of a
*****,” was incredible. I couldn’t stop laughing when I learned that EDI had
flooded Cerberus servers with 7 zettabytes of porn (roughly 1400 times the
amount of total data on the internet currently), or when I found out that
Conrad Verner was actually incredibly intelligent and had a doctoral degree in
xenoscience. Seeing the heroic self-sacrifices of Mordin, Legion, and Thane
damn near brought a tear to my eye. I was utterly shocked when I learned that
EDI was at one point the rogue Hannibal-class VI from the mission on the moon
that gave me so much trouble (playing through that mission again will certainly
be a heck of a lot more awkward XD).
I enjoyed the multiplayer a lot. Despite a few glitches
(having to quit matches because I’m stuck suspended high above or far below the
stage is incredibly annoying), I thought it was a lot of fun. Very enjoyable
when you get a group of friends together and try to survive the gold level of
difficulty.
The bad:
It felt like some of the decisions implemented in the game
were rushed or not thought through very well.
A prime example can be seen in the issues raised concerning Tali’s photo.
Personally, I’ll take a quickly photoshopped stock photo over no photo every
time, but it felt like for something so significant to many of the fans, a bit
more time thought and/or effort should have been invested into the process.
The quest tracking system was a mess. The main problem was
in the timed quests though. Having to guess how much time I had to complete a
certain sidequest was obnoxious and made it more difficult to gain a sufficient
amount of effective military strength.
The “From Ashes” DLC was too short in my opinion. Absolutely
loved Javik and the dialogues, and the mission was fun to play, but I was
hoping for something a bit more… substantial.
And now my thoughts on the ending:
I’ve been trying to force myself to accept certain aspects
of the ending, an endeavor in which I’ve had moderate success. I don’t feel
it’s necessarily right that I should have to when so many others agree that the
ending was in need of correction, but I have a feeling it’ll be the only
solution to the problem of the ending since opinions on what the ending should
have featured are relatively diverse. But I think that we can almost all agree
that any of the other sought-after endings are better than this.
I don’t believe that the Catalyst’s premise that organics
create synthetics which then destroy their creators is impossible. While we
were able to resolve the issue with the Quarians and the Geth, and even
synthetic/organic romance is possible as seen in EDI and Joker, these are only
two data points. That’s a very small sample size. It is then somewhat of a
stretch to say that peace is always possible between organics and synthetics. And
given that the Catalyst has presumably witnessed countless iterations of this
cycle, his claim is certainly not out of the realm of possibility. I disagree
with it, since Shepard’s ability to reach and activate the Crucible proves that
flaws were present in the Catalyst’s conception of the cycle, and hence calls
into question other aspects of the cycle assumed by him as certainties. But the
point is to establish that it is not impossible. Now to play devil’s advocate
and explore the endings from the perspective that what the Catalyst says is
true.
If the Catalyst’s premise on organic/synthetic coexistence
is true, then the use of the Reapers as a means of preserving organics by transforming
them into new reapers is logical. The galaxy as an isolated system would always
produce an outcome that is the extinction of organics. So by using an external
force to influence the system, i.e. the Reapers, there now exists a solution in
which the organics are preserved. Now that the crucible is ready to go however,
the organics have a means to neutralize the external force, and if left to
their ways, they themselves will eventually create synthetics which will be
their downfall. So now the reaper solution is ineffective and must be replaced.
The Catalyst offers one option to Shepard which is to destroy the Reapers. But
under the assumption that the Catalyst’s original premise is true, this only
delays organic demise indefinitely. Another option is to control the Reapers,
but this also leaves the possibility for organics to eventually be destroyed by
synthetics of their own creation. The final option, synthesis, merges organics
and synthetics. This terminates the cycle, since no longer are there organics
and synthetics, but hybrids of the two. This option offers the only guarantee
that the cycle will no longer continue, and hence why I suppose it would be
considered the ‘best’ option.
The endings however seem to satisfy a premise that is
probably false (just examine the fact that it required the most thought to
prove that it was just possible). Our own experiences throughout the game and
the fact that we’ve just defied what should happen according to the cycle give
us more than sufficient reason to think that the Catalyst is incorrect. In this
case, we are ending the game by resolving a problem that doesn’t exist, and
that is a bad way to end the game. The idea of the final choice between the
three options is okay in my opinion if you can prove the Catalyst’s premise
concerning the impossibility of lasting peace between organics and synthetics,
but if anything, the evidence we’ve seen disproves it.
Or maybe I’m just an idiot who has been rambling
incoherently for the last few paragraphs. Maybe my argument is wrong, and the
choices the Catalyst presents all are possible solutions to a very real
problem. In this case, there’s one main problem I have: the destruction of the
mass relays.
The destruction of the relays was what bothered me the most.
I recognize that destroying the relays doesn’t mean all life is extinguished in
a giant supernova as with the Bahak system. I like to think that the energy
unleashed by the Crucible caused the depletion of the element zero cores of the
relays and thus the Citadels just broke into fragments. But what bothers me is
why it was absolutely necessary that the relays be destroyed at all.
I don’t see why it was decided that the energy released by
the Crucible mandated the destruction of the relays. I mean, I suppose I can
kind of see where it fits in with the whole idea of self-determination and
freeing ourselves from the Reapers and the cycle. Shepard can say to the
Catalyst something to the effect that being able to choose for ourselves is the
defining characteristic of organic life. So destroying the relays gives
organics a chance to develop their own technology rather than to base it upon
the relays, the path that the Reapers imposed on the galaxy for their own ease
of harvesting. But given their experiences, I think the galaxy would elect to
keep the relays. Above all however, the consequences of their destruction,
specifically the indefinite isolation of various areas within the galaxy, would
mean that the destruction of the relays ironically deprives organics or
organic/synthetic beings of the choice they would likely make for an extended
period of time. Further, if the relays were left intact, it doesn’t guarantee
that the galaxy will rely on them for all time. The survival of the relays does
not interfere with the ability of life in the galaxy to have a choice in their
technology.
But I want to come back to the point that bothers me most
about the destruction of the relays: isolation. Keeping the various regions of
the galaxy isolated is basically a death sentence on the galactic community as
we know and have come to care about it. We’ve beaten the Reapers, which would
have been the end of all life in the galaxy, but we are left with the belief
that the resulting fate is little better. Certain colonies dependent on other
sections of the galaxy will perish. Many of those stranded within the Local
Cluster will die because Earth’s environment is unsuitable to their
physiologies. I’m trying to justify this for my own sake and here’s what I got:
Perhaps we are to focus on the long term that it is possible to recreate the
network of relays. According to the codex, FTL comm buoys are basically
mini-clusters of primitive mass relays. Also the Protheans had figured out how
to create a mass relay of their own, as seen on Ilos. And maybe the synthesis
ending expands significantly or even indefinitely the lifespans of all life in
the galaxy. So it’s possible that those whom we have grown to care about will
live to see the full re-integration of galactic society by mass relays
(assuming this is accomplished peacefully and without any wars or struggles for
galactic dominance).
But these conjectures are flimsy at best. And frankly, the
fact that we have to conjecture about the ending of one of the greatest
trilogies of all time in order to come up with a resolution to an unresolved problem
both critical and unnecessary in the first place is disappointing.
On to the issue of the Normandy crew. I’m not looking for a
fairy tale ending or one that is devoid of any and all loss, but I feel it was
taken to an unnecessary extreme with the destruction of the relays and the
stranding of the Normandy crew. I won’t complain about the nonsensical escape
or the fact that both squadmates I took with me on the mad dash for the Citadel
were somehow on the Normandy. It’s been discussed plenty, and frankly I was
glad they survived the dash, even if it made zero sense. Stranding the crew from
the rest of the galaxy with what appears to be no hope of return after the
destruction of the relays was an unnecessary and undeserved ending to the
characters we presumably cared about the most.
In conclusion, what I believe to have been intended as a
bittersweet ending wound up mostly bitter, given that everything we had come to
care about, i.e. the present galactic community and the crew of the Normandy,
was put in a hopeless situation. I believe the options the Catalyst gave would
have been fine had we been given reason to accept rather than reject his claims
concerning the potential for peaceful coexistence between organics and
synthetics. Because we aren’t, the ending feels improper and invalid. The
destruction of the relays was an unnecessary decision that will plunge the
galaxy into chaos, the very problem the Catalyst attempted to resolve, for an indefinite
period of time. As a result, the endings gain a feeling of hopelessness rather
than the anticipated and more suitable feeling of hope. We just broke a cycle
that had been going on for countless ages, and now should be free to determine
our own destiny, after all. Damning the Normandy crew to live stranded on an
island completely isolated from anyone else was unnecessarily dark, even if the
world was very hospitable to life, and upsetting to many fans. I’m not looking
for a fairy tale ending or one that is devoid of any and all loss. To expect such an
ending is naive, and doesn't fit well with the idea that of a war for survival. But I feel
it was taken to an unnecessary extreme. In my own opinion, I feel a proper
ending should provide a choice which follows from the assumptions and beliefs
the players have gathered from their experiences, not from the assumptions and
beliefs of the Catalyst. The ending should find some way to preserve the
integrity of the present galactic community. Whether or not Shepard lives or
dies at the ending is irrelevant; the idea of Shepard living after sacrificing
so much has its own appeals, as does the idea of Shepard making the ultimate
sacrifice in order to secure peace for the galaxy.
The game as an experience earns a 9.8 out of 10, but rated
as a story it earns a 6.5 out of 10 because the ending as it currently stands
leaves many players, including me, with a bad taste.
I have great respect for Bioware as a company. They do a
great job of taking constructive criticism from their fans and actually
implementing changes accordingly, which is much more than can be said of many
other companies.
To Bioware: I thank you for what in my opinion was the greatest gaming experience of
all time. I know you guys put a lot of time and effort over all into making a product your
fans could enjoy. Even though many, including I, didn't really like the endings, I
recognize that a lot of thought and planning went into the process. I am grateful for that,
and I think others should stop acting so ungrateful. That having been said, I encourage
you to take action concerning the responses to the ending of the game. Any steps taken
to ease the concerns of the gamers who have supported you and found themselves
disappointed by the endings are greatly appreciated. If the concerns the fans raise
about the end of the game are valid and indicate the ending is worthy of change, I
encourage the release of DLC. If the problems are just in understanding the logic
behind the actions or why you made certain aspects of the ending necessary (as
opposed to disappointment that Shepard's story didn't have a happy ending), then I
encourage you to clarify on these issues to put to rest any of those concerns.
In the end, it is your product and what you do with it is up to you, but please don't
let our concerns go unanswered.
TL;DR: Game was incredibly good, but a few minor things.
Given enough time, I can force myself to believe the Catalyst and thus accept
the choices, but putting everything in the game we care about in a hopeless
situation and providing little to no closure was a terrible way to end the
game. Bioware, I appreciate your efforts, but please do something to address
the concerns about the game's ending.
Modifié par willwrdn, 12 mars 2012 - 04:32 .
Retour en haut
To put it as my drill instructor said once: Suck it up, you're either soldiers or babies, you can't be both.
