Okay, I started reading on page 408 (and I'm in complete agreement with Dawson14's big post at the top), but I'm at work, and the posts are coming in faster than I can read them.
So, while I'm sure there are more of you I can agree with or bounce off of, I'm just going to go ahead with what I came here to say.
BioWare has long been one of my favorite developers. As a writer, and an avid fan, of fantasy and sci-fi stories, I think that when it comes to these genres in video games, BioWare just can't be bested. And while I've been citing BioShock (the original) as the best example of gaming's capacity for story-telling, BioWare, and especially the Mass Effect franchise, is the example that always immediately follows Ken Levine's masterpiece. And despite my reverence for the BioShock franchise, Mass Effect has always been my personal favorite. Maybe it doesn't encompass literary themes in the same way, but it takes another, more innovative path, and allows the player to determine how the story unfolds. It's everything I ever wanted from the RPG genre, expanded to epic proportions in a brilliantly-vast and well-defined universe. I've nothing but praise for the fanchise as a whole.
The problem with the ending of ME3, though, is multi-lateral. It's anticlimactic; it raises tons of new questions while simultaneously destroying any real chance at answering them (destruction of Relays); the introduction of the Catalyst as a character is off-putting, and his rationale makes no sense; it feels like, at the end of the game, only the selection of which path to take is the only decision which matters over the course of all three entries - this, alone, feels like it betrays what the franchise set out to do.
And, really, I think that the majority of the fans who are crying foul would have been fine with the ending if it weren't for that last factor. I mean, I picked up ME1 in 2008, used, because I'd heard fantastic things. When the credits rolled, I was in tears, because the game was powerful. And at the end of several playthroughs, all of my Shepards were somehow different. And the results for the end of ME2 were even more pronounced. But at the end of ME3, no matter where any Shepard stands coming in, there are only three ways it can end, and Shepard is dead at the end of two of them.
So maybe it would be best to clarify what my expectations were, using my knowledge of the game's events as a lens. Please forgive any small digressions along the way...
See, when I first heard about the military rating, I thought it was a cool concept which allowed you to see where you stood at any given point during the game. I didn't learn about the EFFECTIVE until I actually got my hands on the game, and had to look up what the Readiness Rating was, and learn that it could only be improved through multiplayer.
[Tangent] I do think that the idea to be able to use multiplayer to better your single-player campaign was brilliant, if poorly executed. Especially with the way that the numbers work. As a gamer who has had to deal with the inability to access online content and multiplayer, I hate it when developers design a game with online access (or even just validation - i.e. my inability to access ME2 DLC when my internet was down... *glare*) being a necessity. It's not facebook - it's an epic single-player saga. And it's shameful that games that are MEANT for co-op sometimes are better about this than games meant for single-player (i.e. Borderlands, Left 4 Dead), because they aren't negatively affected without internet access or split-screen.[/Tangent]
So I began trying to think about how these scores would impact the final battle at Earth - then I read about the SIXTEEN different endings, and even found a site with videos showing them, and got even more excited. I found a site with two videos showing the two sets of eight. And if I could find it again to actually watch them (I hadn't completed the game at that time), I would. Because I have seen no actual proof of the existence of the things that COULD and SHOULD have been done.
Obviously, the lower scores would have fewer ships coming through the Sol Relay in the first place. The best would have instances of Quarian ships being swarmed with fighters finding relief from squads of Turian and Geth fighters; A brave Elcor frigate flying in close to a Reaper to hit its vulerable spot as it fires on another ship, destroying the Reaper, and cheers erupting from the masses as they watch, and an Elcor announces, "Happily: That's one down!". And in some of the worst instances, the Normandy is shot out of the sky while Shepard is on the ground.
When it comes to activating the Catalyst, I half-expected the best rail-shooting sequence of all time, as Shepard takes down Reapers one-by-one, often having to prioritize targets and make snap decisions to aid one Race or Fleet over another.
I expected, in the ground sequence, to take EDI and Kaidan along (because their tech abilities help my Soldier to take baddies out), and still see, perhaps from an overlook on my part of the front, Liara and Garrus helping a squad of Eclipse mercs cover their Atlas mechs. I thought I'd hear reports from Tali and Javik as things on their section of the front started to go badly. I expected another Virmire decision - whose a** do I pull from the fire?
Instead, its "Kaiden, EDI, you're with me. The rest of you, just chill here. James, show Javik what we mean when we say "twiddle your thumbs". Or try and teach him chess. That might be more useful."
Seriously, it's the fight to save EVERYTHING, and all of these bada**es are left sitting on the Normandy, doing nothing to help the mission. It's no wonder all the trucks got overrun. In ME2, the whole squad took part in the assault, and all had their duties. And while the squad is a few members smaller here, why should that change? This is just one of the small details that adds to the feeling that, no matter what you do, it's absolutely hopeless here - it's too scripted to have any chance at a happy ending.
And while I can appreciate the consequences for the destruction of the relays, and what that means for Galactic Civilization, I don't buy it. It just comes out of left field. And after Arrival, which illustrates what the destruction of a Relay does to its system, I think the situation then becomes far too dire. Yeah, the Reapers have been defeated, but have they really lost? Ultimately, sure, because the infrastructure is gone, and the Civilizations which will inevitably manage to recreate the Relays (or find another solution to the problem of FTL travel) will be free of them, but so what? What happens to humanity? The Turians, Asari, Salarians? The fact that nobody knew what the Crucible would do is no excuse. For a series founded on the principle of giving the reins to the player, the player is oddly left out here.
So, BioWare, that is what I want to see - what I think everybody wants to see. Give the game back to the players. This game blew my brains out, relentlessly, until the last five minutes, when the Catalyst walks up and begins explaining everything. I dub this the "Cop-Out Point". And while the Reaper on Rannoch hints at it, I do not buy a bit of it.
I don't care how long it takes, BioWare. Even if you decide to take a whole year and give it to us as a Christmas gift...I'm already in line.
And to the people who are chanting "support BioWare": as a writer, myself, I have often found the best support to come from those who knock me down a peg. If they care enough to give me a good critique without insulting my creativity/intelligence/etc, then I consider it a success. Revise and resubmit. I do have to wonder if BioWare, being so story-oriented with most of their games, has any workshop program? If so, I would love to take part somehow, some way. Even the best writers need to be kicked in the knees and corrected once in a while.
Thanks for all of your hard work, BioWare. Don't let the fuss upset you too much. Remember, it just means we expect the absolute, very-f***ing-best when it comes to BioWare titles. A 9.5 doesn't cut it. You're more than capable of perfect 10s.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
