I've honestly enjoyed the Mass Effect experience from 1 and 2. However, the storyline to Mass Effect 3 causes me confusion as to where everything within it actually fits in with the other games. I have a few things which I would like to point out with the games story and BioWares incorporation with the previous games. However, before I begin please note that these points reflect "my" opinion only and in no way reflect that of the entire ME community.
1. The Games Progression. First, the whole idea of a galactic war involving human and alien working together to defeat a seemingly unstoppable force (Reapers) is a given. We were introduced to this at ME1. The war itself for the most part from what I can tell is the majority of what BioWare actually focused on. It is my opinion that the war took preference over the rest. When I started the game I find that logically the beginning mission would be to act as a politician and get the other races to work with one another. Next, I find that while I play "politician" I am to be raising an army to combat this immeasurable force and build a super weapon which was recently discovered. Up until this point the story makes logical, and tactical, sense with its progression. Finally, at the end battle, or Main Event, the battle with the reapers is surprisingly short. The fight encompasses many very short cutscenes of the space battle, fighting the reapers in the trenches and a scene which is uncharacteristic of the games previous interactions and resembles more of a clip from some anime movie. The mission features little fighting and does not exactly fit what I would say a "hold your ground" kind of environment. It was kind of like fighting a very small army. Fight a little bit and move on to the next goal.
2. The StarChild. At first I believed that the role of this child was to make the character, Shepard, more relatable to the gamer and emphasize on the situation at hand. However, the child's appearance within dreams, while not completely over the top, causes me to question that belief do to their lacking of an explaination as to how he has anything to do with the ending. From what I have observed the "starchild" plays a secondary, if not third-party, role to the story. He only appears at the beginning as flesh and blood, within Shepard's dreams, and in the end where he all of a sudden plays a major role to the stories plot. Not only is the character, Starchild, presented as a background character but his importance is turned to that of the main enemy makes too big of a step to be logical. Also, the role of "main bad guy" was focused on in Mass Effect 2 as Harbinger. To change the antagonist which was lead to at the end of the previous game to that of someone, or thing, that has never been mentioned before said point throws the entire story out of whack and leads to confusion overall.
3. The Illusive Man. The Illusive Man I believe played his role very well, almost perfectly. He was portrayed as his classic previous representation: ambitious, cunning, and ruthless. However, the thing at the end where he suddenly gains the ability to control people does not fit well. Though it is understandable that he is all about wanting control, his theoretically actually getting it does not fit with his character.
4. Relationships. One more, if not the most unique, characteristic of the ME franchise has been the immersion of the player into its many and diverse characters. Within Mass Effect 3 the dialogue seemed "rushed". The choices and sides which could be taken were not as immersive as that of the previous games. It was presented literally as choose his side or her side and very vaguely explained each characters argument. Aside from the choice section the characters travel companions were basically that of pressing a button and listening. You couldn't steer the conversation, what little there was, with your companions. I'm not going to get into the romances save to say that there could possibly have been a little more added to the romance partner dialogue.
5. Choices matter. One of the major themes during the course of ME3's development was that "the choices made by the gamer within the previous installments WOULD matter to the course and conclusion of the game. I played through the campaign and found very few references to anything which I had accomplished within ME2 and no, if any were actually put in, references to ME1. Also, I noticed that most of the major choices, aside from choosing Ashley or Kaiden, I had made did not factor into ME3's campaign. This leaves the player forced to follow a story chain that is set in a particular direction regardless of what previous decisions were made. It's like they never happened.
6. The ending challenge to overcome all challenges. To be blunt the ending simply does not fit the criteria that were setup by the series' previous installments. The ending which was promised, and "promoted", was one that would answer any questions left open from the previous games. As stated above the ending would as well reflect the choices made by the player over the course of each of the games. In the end the game offers players one of only three possible endings and all of them are extremely similar, if not completely the same. There is no clarification to the previous questions, only more. The choices do not matter because every road leads to the same conclusion. The character dies in some completely illogical manner and the relays blow up. By all accounts the information, such as what happens if the relays blow up or each alien's biological makeup, offered within ME3's ending contradicts that of both the previous installments. For example in the DLC Arrival it states that if a relay blows up then so does that star system. The ending makes no logical sense and really just appears as if it was just inserted to make the game look pretty. Not only due to the hypocritical nature of the said information given in the other games, but it makes a hypocrite of the character, Shepard, who is making all these promises of returning when the cold reality is that he won't be leaving the field of battle alive, or at all.
In summary I believe that ME3 had and still has the potential of being a great game. The gameplay was superb and artistic representation of the different worlds found in the Mass Effect universe to be very well crafted. However, the game is lacking in fields which severely hurt it in terms of its story. The games premise for a player choice lead story is at best nowhere to be found. This premise was the base for BioWares campaign for promoting ME3 and has been stated through numerous videos. First, the games progression should at least be more drawn out at the end and feature more feeling of desperation to the fighting, instead of just having a few fight scenes that look poorly put together. It should actually feel like a war instead of a few fights here and there. Second, the starchild should either be completely removed or reduced to the said belief of adding a sense of relatability between the character and player. The entire idea of the star child becoming a major character does not make sense to the criteria of the previous games. Third, the relational aspect of the game was great the way it was in ME2. It offered more intimacy with understanding the characters as a whole whereas ME3 was not. Fourth, the story MUST be player choice driven to keep the game within confines of the previous Mass Effects. Finally, there needs to be diversity between endings else what was the point of having choices to begin with. The ending need to be spread out to where they do not reflect each other but reflect upon the choices which were made by the player. Making three shots of the same scene and tweaking each of them to be a little bit different, i.e. a blue one, green one, and red one, does not make them good endings. The problems which have been mentioned at length are what I believe to be what needs to change for ME3 to be successful. However, though I realize that BioWare is fully in control as to how to correct the issues at hand, and respect whatever decisions they come too and hope they are in everyone's best interest, I strongly disagree with their notion of simply releasing a DLC which just adds more cutscenes to explain questions caused by an already considered to be faulty conclusion. Instead, I would recommend content which expands upon the players choices and adds more "different" endings.
Modifié par MedivalJ, 17 mai 2012 - 05:38 .
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
) and just how severe it was. You could say I was like "How the frack are they going to bring him back?!" 
