292 réponses à ce sujet

[Ytook]

I don't think a gameplay confrontation is strictly necessary, but one of the many problems with the ending is a lack of any confrontation with the ultimate enemy. Instead you meet the ultimate leader of the enemy you've spent three games building up to defeat and have spent all of this game building a fleet to take on, and you accept his nonsence without question and pick one of his arbitrary choices. In the end they introduce a brand new, and barely relatable to the rest of the story, antagonist, and then it becomes the protaganist, and that is deeply unsatisfying.

At the end of 1 and 2 I wanted to stand and salute my Shepard and squad mates because they'd faced insurmountable odds and won, there is nothing like this in 3, they need to add a genuine sense of overcoming the enemy, and you could do this through cutscenes, seeing all of you collected war assests thrown at the reapers and harbinger in particular for example, though I don't see how that is possible with the current ending remaining intact.

To be honest I want the extended cut to fix the destruction of narrative cohesion, abandoning of genere and ideas of the story, and the ignoring of key themes more than this, but again, because this is only an 'extended cut' this also seems unlikely.

[Tylea002]

Gameplay and Story should both have a climactic point. For best effects, these should be intertwined. The easiest, and some would argue, laziest, way is with a final boss fight. It is far more rewarding to somehow combine gameplay and story to have a brilliant conclusion without a fight, yet have it still feel like a climax you PLAYED rather than watched.

I feel Mass Effect 3 did not achieve that, and didn't enjoy it, but I agree with it's intentions. A Boss Fight may have been more enjoyable than what I played, but it's the safe option. And in the end, no one wants safe.

[Iakus]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

For the record, I didn't mind some of the boss fights that did exist in ME3.  I did enjoy the climaxes of Rannoch and Tuchanka.  Tuchanka was tense avoiding the charging brutes while setting off the hammers was a tense moment.  The one one one with the Reaper on Rannoch was well done as I thought it felt cinematically.  They toyed with the notion of having to endure a chase scene and having Shepard stop and take care of it was a ballsy and badass move.  It wasn't challenging or anything like that, but was just cool watching the salvos come down and hit the Reaper.

Maybe part of me liked the sequence with TIM simply because it was a bit different?  I also got the Paragon ending which I think helps, because to me it seemed like the ending that ME1 should have had.  Shepard is so badass he can talk down a zealot TIM that has been indoctrinated.

On the other hand, I didn't care at all for the final showdown with Kai Leng.  The only interesting part of that one was the cutscene at the end.  "This is for Kirrahe you son of a ****"  I could have just been shown that cutscene and probably would have come away enjoying that sequence more.

Yup

"I tried, Shepard" was the one moment in the entire series I actually felt bad for TIM.  He gambled everything that he could beat the Reapers and save humanity his way, and lost.  Badly.  Shoulda taken me up onthe offer for an alliance.  And in his final moments, I think he realized that 

I can't imagine that scene being improved by having it preceded by a gunfight. 

I'm not particlarly against big cinematic battles, as long as they're not too, I dunno, mechanical?  Or whatever.  But there's a difference to me between a "final boss" and a "final confrontation"  Sure I would have liked a final conversation with Harbringer as he talked smack and tried to justify teh Reapers' existence.  I would not, however, like an omniblade dual-to-the-death.  Or even a throwdown using the Normandy. 

[dweller]

Having a boss fight would just feel so forced in the entire ending sequence IMO.

If it's optional (like in Witcher 2) and done well, then great. Otherwise, no. It just wouldn't fit in anywhere.

[OhoniX]

its hard to compare a hack and slash rpg which is clearly not story driven to an almost movie like rpg like mass effect!

never understood all the hype around diablo... i think its boring to do nothing else than click down some health bars of enemies. but thats just my opinion

True. I have a difficult time imagining a final boss battle of my Infiltrator Shep verses Harbinger, plinking away with my rifle at something a thousand times my size that can shrug off the best shipboard cannons in the galaxy. I have a much tougher time imagining my Vanguard biotic charging him to death. Any other solution would involve a "random mechanic" boss battle, in which you spend most of the game running and gunning and then suddenly they give you an entirely different toolkit to play with, like the Rannoch boss with the targeter, or some sort of space shooter level, and that would not be satisfying as a conclusion. Better to end the combat portion of the game the way they did, with a big burly brawl of standard run and gun enemies.

[Allan Schumacher]

Tekkez wrote...

Sounds like you'd rather watch a movie than RPGing and shooting stuff yourself.

The definition of what constitutes an RPG is so nebulous that I don't think it's something that can really be fairly covered here.  I have no problems shooting stuff myself.  I just like my RPGs to include alternative options to always shooting stuff. 

Also in ME1, Shepard could talk down Saren. (Saren shoots himself like TIM) But there is also a fight that follows which shows the Reaper corruption of an organic.

Yeah I know.  I was disappointed with that scene, as it seemed like a boss fight for the sake of having a boss fight.  It would have been interesting to have to fight him if you had insufficient Paragon/Renegade, but to use your character's development to have him shoot himself and let that be the end of it.  The Reaper corruption was silly and made me roll my eyes.

The reason why bosses exist is to give players a sense of
accomplishment. Do you feel like a hero after defeating waves of
enemies you've encountered in earlier missions of the game? I didn't.

For me the sense of accomplishment came with the actual destruction of the Reaper destroyer that was at the end of the hold out scene as you prep the missiles.  I did also feel a sense of accomplishment talking down TIM.

The accomplishment, for me, comes with the resolution of the narrative.  I don't find it different than the sense of accomplishment for beating an adventure game or something along those lines.

[the red boon]

I think Harbinger Boss fight would be epic if we got to go inside him and then EDI to take control of its corpse to fly you to the Citadel.

[Eudaemonium]

I'll be honest, the lack of final boss is probably the only thing I completely approved of regarding the ending. I got the satisfaction from talking down TIM and surviving the ridiculous enemy surge before the missiles came online. When I was asked to talk about the end of ME3 by friends, I always highlighted the lack of final boss as a positive element.

[daecath]

I just realized one of the complaints that I didn't even know I had with the ending. Anderson dies, right there in front of me. Heck, TIM makes me shoot him. And then, nothing. No one to unleash my righteous fury on. There's a strong parental relationship there, those SOB's made me kill him, and the only thing I get to do for revenge is pick which color explosion I get? **** that, I want payback! Anderson deserves better. He deserves an epic showdown with some powerful villain where you get frustrated and throw the controller at the tv a few times before finally utterly destroying the bad guy.

[daecath]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Tekkez wrote...
Also in ME1, Shepard could talk down Saren. (Saren shoots himself like TIM) But there is also a fight that follows which shows the Reaper corruption of an organic.

Yeah I know.  I was disappointed with that scene, as it seemed like a boss fight for the sake of having a boss fight.  It would have been interesting to have to fight him if you had insufficient Paragon/Renegade, but to use your character's development to have him shoot himself and let that be the end of it.  The Reaper corruption was silly and made me roll my eyes.

Actually I felt that that served a powerful purpose. I've even used it in my own head canon. The fact is that the combined forces of the Alliance and Citadel fleets weren't even making a scratch in Sovereign. He was shrugging off everything they threw at him. Then, he transfers his consciousness into Saren's body in order to complete what Saren couldn't. You take down Sovereign in Saren's body, and suddenly the fleet are able to destroy Sovereign. That's because you did the hard part of destroying his mind, or at least weakening him. After that, the fleets come in to finish the job on his body. To me, that made perfect sense and underscored the immense power of what we were fighting.

[Vox Draco]

A boss battle might not be necessary for many, but I think it would have helped this games quite a bit, because it severely lacks some kind of climatic and heroic battle in the end...

I mean, Saren was okay, I usually talked a bullet into his head...and then? Shepard just sits there and watches how Sovereign blows up all ships? Playing cards while waiting who wins? Instead we get a confrontation with the true villain of it all, and even get a more or lss convincing explanation why Sovy is suddenly vulnerable...

(Btw. this would have been nice to be the purpose of the crucible as a superweapon...like all the major reapers still have some kind of connection to their husks and abominations etc, but the crucible would be able to break that link, leaving the reapers suddenly vulnerable...both helping against their ground forces as well as the ship...?

But ME3? Where is the epicness of the "Retake Earth"-trailer? And after listening hours in Me2 to Harbingers taunting he shows up and...nothing? No satisfying payback? No nuking and blasting him for all his annoying garbage-talk? Instead we get...you know what...

But there is an overall problem with ME3: It lacks antagonists...REAPER ANTAGONISTS! They are finally here, and Shepard...like...speaks once to that one on Rannoch? I often had the impression that I fought more against TIM and Cerberus than the Reapers...they shifted the focus too far away from the real threat, and in the end they even annihilate the entire background of the Reapers...

If Harbinger, the current "face" and "voice" of the reapers, had been part of Shepard's dreams etc from the start, and confronted him throughout the game, for example by controlling some indoctrinated beings etc...that would have led to a nice, satisfying confrontation in the end, I think. Maybe not truly original, but better than what we got...

[NickelToe]

daecath wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Tekkez wrote...
Also in ME1, Shepard could talk down Saren. (Saren shoots himself like TIM) But there is also a fight that follows which shows the Reaper corruption of an organic.

Yeah I know.  I was disappointed with that scene, as it seemed like a boss fight for the sake of having a boss fight.  It would have been interesting to have to fight him if you had insufficient Paragon/Renegade, but to use your character's development to have him shoot himself and let that be the end of it.  The Reaper corruption was silly and made me roll my eyes.

Actually I felt that that served a powerful purpose. I've even used it in my own head canon. The fact is that the combined forces of the Alliance and Citadel fleets weren't even making a scratch in Sovereign. He was shrugging off everything they threw at him. Then, he transfers his consciousness into Saren's body in order to complete what Saren couldn't. You take down Sovereign in Saren's body, and suddenly the fleet are able to destroy Sovereign. That's because you did the hard part of destroying his mind, or at least weakening him. After that, the fleets come in to finish the job on his body. To me, that made perfect sense and underscored the immense power of what we were fighting.

I think that was the point of it myself.  Weakening Sovereign as the video shows he releases the citadel tower as you kill him in possess Saren mode.

I ask this to people who dont want a fight at the end...

What is the point of a game if you reduce gameplay more and more to the point it becomes just a movie?

For me I enjoy hand-eye coordination and it is a good part of a game to increase the enjoyability.  Without the game aspect Mass Effect would never have been heard of.  The game does not sport as much as its first version as far as game play and you want to take more "Play" out of the game?

Heck there is already and option to bypass playing the game.  If this is the direction of future games I am done with all games as they have ceased to be games.  I play games to face challenges of mostly hand-eye coardination, but love a good story and chose those games over ones without.  Skill required at some base level at least or what  is there to be interested in since you can find story for as low as $15 for a new Blue Ray Disc at Walmart.  You also dont have to worry as much about wasting your money.  Buy collector's edition of ME3 and boom $100 bucks out on a game that does not live up to the hype the producer put forth, the advertisements themselves and even the Catch Phrase, "Take back the Earth."  I don't even see that as an option in this game since everyone is dead or starving based on the current ending without a total rewrite of the endng and several key elements of the last 2 games.

Modifié par NickelToe, 14 avril 2012 - 08:55 .

[Allan Schumacher]

What is the point of a game if you reduce gameplay more and more to the point it becomes just a movie?

For me I enjoy hand-eye coordination and it is a good part of a game to increase the enjoyability. Without the game aspect Mass Effect would never have been heard of. The game does not sport as much as its first version as far as game play and you want to take more "Play" out of the game?

Not having a boss fight doesn't mean no confrontation, nor does it even mean no gameplay. The problem I have with traditional boss fights is they typically require some sort of mechanic to make the boss seem particularly powerful compared to other people, and often some sort of gimmick. In some cases it works fine, but in other cases it doesn't.

For people like me, we consider making decisions outside of combat to also be interesting. One more obvious aspect of this is the conversation system. Realizing that I have made decisions and discoveries earlier in a game like Fallout 1, and then using those discoveries when talking with the final boss to prove that his solution is flawed is relatively unique and more interesting than just trading turns shooting at each other.

Heck there is already and option to bypass playing the game. If this is the direction of future games I am done with all games as they have ceased to be games. I play games to face challenges of mostly hand-eye coardination, but love a good story and chose those games over ones without.

I am pretty decent at shooter games that require hand eye coordination, but I also like games that challenge me more mentally than physically. Some games I play the combat is completely automated by the game and my input is determining the strategies of what types of attacks to use, the positioning of my units, and things like that. It's just a different experience.

I wouldn't worry about games that require good hand-eye coordination going away any time soon though.

[LegendaryBlade]

No, that would be too videogamey.

We wouldn't want that

[Sad Dragon]

I thought I would pitch in here as well.

My least favorite moment in Mass Effect 3 actually isn't the ending but is connected to one of the boss fights. Now don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of the ending but this, I disliked this even more.

I am referring to the boss fight at the end of Thessia vs Kai Leng. Now the fight itself wasn't that bad I thought the problem came after I beat him. The plot needed me not to get the prothean AI until much later -- and all in all I can understand what they wanted to go with this, though I think it could have been done better. The problem arises when I have to fail my mission to advance the plot, but I have to win the boss fight to fail the mission. So I get to fight to win so I can fail. I should say that this point also makes sense to have a boss fight on, if you look at traditional gaming structures: End of level -> boss fight.

Now I personally feel that this could have been done much much better without a boss fight. Just skip the boss fight and go straight to the cutscene that way you still have the player fail the mission but you don't force them to fight a boss just so that they can fail. Kai Lang clearly beat you to temple on Thessia anyway so it would make sense. The fight also makes Kai Lang fall into the Stupid Evil category as he clearly could have called in the gunship from the start.

So thats an example where I feel the boss fight detracts more from the game than it adds. Could they have kept the boss fight and still made it work? Sure, it would require them to change a few things but sure. They can even work around the "win to fail" problem without changing much or indeed anything in over all plot. Either way, that boss fight -- together with its conclusion -- made my this-game-is-awesome-o-meter drop well into the negatives.

Could they add a boss fight to the end of the game, sure thought I cant think of how it would fit into the ending as it is now -- at least not a combat boss fight, I can think of other ways to add in Harbinger into the ending but it would not involve combat.

These are of course just my thoughts. If anyone would like me to go into specifics on how either thing could be changed/added to feel free to ask but I didn't want to do it in this post as it kind of felt a bit off topic for the post I wanted to write.

-The Sad Dragon

[Jassu1979]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Not having a boss fight doesn't mean no confrontation, nor does it even mean no gameplay. The problem I have with traditional boss fights is they typically require some sort of mechanic to make the boss seem particularly powerful compared to other people, and often some sort of gimmick. In some cases it works fine, but in other cases it doesn't.

For people like me, we consider making decisions outside of combat to also be interesting. One more obvious aspect of this is the conversation system. Realizing that I have made decisions and discoveries earlier in a game like Fallout 1, and then using those discoveries when talking with the final boss to prove that his solution is flawed is relatively unique and more interesting than just trading turns shooting at each other.

I am pretty decent at shooter games that require hand eye coordination, but I also like games that challenge me more mentally than physically. Some games I play the combat is completely automated by the game and my input is determining the strategies of what types of attacks to use, the positioning of my units, and things like that. It's just a different experience.

I wouldn't worry about games that require good hand-eye coordination going away any time soon though.

I pretty much agree with you here.
Now, applying this to ME3's ending, I do feel that the confrontation with the Illusive Man worked pretty well in terms of the conversation system.
However, this component is pretty much missing when it *really* counts, in those final five minutes with the catalyst. Unless it really is a covert indoctrination attempt, it makes little to no chance for Shepard to simply ignore everything he KNOWS about synthetics interacting peacefully with organics, and simply swallowing everything she's told before shuffling to her doom.

So, to address the topic: do I really miss the boss fight? Well, I would not have missed it if the alternative had been really, REALLY good, allowing me to combat the Catalyst with my knowledge and persuasive skills. (Kinda like John Sheridan telling BOTH the Vorlons AND the Shadows to get the hell out of the galaxy and leave everybody else alone in Babylon 5.)
But in the light of what we've been given, battling Harbinger by more "traditional" means clearly seems like the preferable option, even if it's a somewhat clichéd conclusion.

[shodiswe]

I don't need an end boss to the game.. However I want an ending that makes sense and seems in character with Shepard.. If shepard chooses destroy and the reapers disslike it and they are trying to make shepard pick the other ones then it would have made sense to have them try and mentaly stop shepard and have shepard choose for the option that wasn't an intended but discuraged option... Then it would make more sense... Tough I guess the scenes that are in the game won't be changed? But the whole catalyst conversation and options really feels so wrong on just about every lvl, interpersonaly, and in character analysis.. Shepard would say those things? with such lack of entusiasm and drive? Shepard died and the implants are all that keeps the carcas moving?

[stormhit]

LegendaryBlade wrote...

No, that would be too videogamey.

We wouldn't want that

Turning a character into some kind of brute grotesque at the end of a game, merely for the sake of having a battle that can challenge a high level player is in fact quite video-gamey.

That said, my biggest problem with the ending was that the military strength mechaninc that seemed like the point of the whole game only ended up mattering in a arbitrary, non-transparent, number cruching kind of way. A "boss fight" with Harbinger seems like it would have been a good chance to put a lot of it to actual gameplay use.

[shodiswe]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

What is the point of a game if you reduce gameplay more and more to the point it becomes just a movie?

For me I enjoy hand-eye coordination and it is a good part of a game to increase the enjoyability. Without the game aspect Mass Effect would never have been heard of. The game does not sport as much as its first version as far as game play and you want to take more "Play" out of the game?

Not having a boss fight doesn't mean no confrontation, nor does it even mean no gameplay. The problem I have with traditional boss fights is they typically require some sort of mechanic to make the boss seem particularly powerful compared to other people, and often some sort of gimmick. In some cases it works fine, but in other cases it doesn't.

For people like me, we consider making decisions outside of combat to also be interesting. One more obvious aspect of this is the conversation system. Realizing that I have made decisions and discoveries earlier in a game like Fallout 1, and then using those discoveries when talking with the final boss to prove that his solution is flawed is relatively unique and more interesting than just trading turns shooting at each other.

Heck there is already and option to bypass playing the game. If this is the direction of future games I am done with all games as they have ceased to be games. I play games to face challenges of mostly hand-eye coardination, but love a good story and chose those games over ones without.

I am pretty decent at shooter games that require hand eye coordination, but I also like games that challenge me more mentally than physically. Some games I play the combat is completely automated by the game and my input is determining the strategies of what types of attacks to use, the positioning of my units, and things like that. It's just a different experience.

I wouldn't worry about games that require good hand-eye coordination going away any time soon though.

One of my biggest issues with the Catalyst/reaepr leader confrontation is the lack of a confrontation.. No heating conversations, no mind play, no distrust no questioning no powerplay.. Just plain, Catalyst: hello old friend we meet at long last.  Shepard: oh hello there are you the reaper leader? we arnt happy with the current solution.. you're killing people.. Catalyst: No we're preservign them, but I'll give you three options to change things, they are very honest, honest!! You can trust me implicitly.
Shepard: Thanks it's nice to meet such a civilised person for once.

Catalyst you got A: does something, you will like it, maybe. But B: is much better it will make everyone happy, oh yess sir very happy, the ultimate pick. And then we got C: that will kill your geth griends, probably the reapers and you, it's very dangerous.

Shepard: I don't know but I'll give it a go, thanks.


Seriously?   Thats an epic battle of the minds and words? I know it's not exactly how it played out but it's pretty much how I experienced it. Either give us an epic debate with paragon and renegade interrupts or give us a boss fight that determins the ending.. Im totaly pro an epic argument with the reaper leader. But I never got it... Even if in the end the Reaper has all the power I want that argument  I want to tell it it's wrong even if it turns out to be a religious fanatic that follow a strict religous code of doign what they have done for an eternity.

[JustifiablyDefenestrated]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Not having a boss fight doesn't mean no confrontation, nor does it even mean no gameplay. The problem I have with traditional boss fights is they typically require some sort of mechanic to make the boss seem particularly powerful compared to other people, and often some sort of gimmick. In some cases it works fine, but in other cases it doesn't.

For people like me, we consider making decisions outside of combat to also be interesting. One more obvious aspect of this is the conversation system. Realizing that I have made decisions and discoveries earlier in a game like Fallout 1, and then using those discoveries when talking with the final boss to prove that his solution is flawed is relatively unique and more interesting than just trading turns shooting at each other.

I agree with this 100%.  For me, the most interesting and captivating parts of games are the decisions; the combat is just the filler between plot points. Not to say that combat isn't fun, but it's not what holds my attention.

In this sense, I felt that a boss fight in the last part of ME3 would have actually been detrimental--it would have disrupted the pacing in what was arguably the most anticipated bit of the game.

In my opinion, the way for gaming to move forward as an artistic medium is to reject the mentality that games should revolve around combat and violence--that the only way to overcome a seemingly insurmountable enemy is by punching it in the face. Games, unlike other mediums, are interactive, and this means that they have the ability to connect with their audience on a different level; a much more personal level. They present us with opportunities to explore the connections between the individual and society, to explore the interplay of different philosophies, to explore new frontiers of imagination. Most importantly, however, games allow people to explore their own beliefs and convictions. This is not something that violence can always answer. At least, not in any meaningful way.

[Alibenbaba]

The catalyst is not a confrontation, I assume him to be 'the epilogue' after beating TIM. And it's somehow the epilogue of a different game. Maybe the ME-Inception ending was put in ME3 by accident.

[shodiswe]

JustifiablyDefenestrated wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Not having a boss fight doesn't mean no confrontation, nor does it even mean no gameplay. The problem I have with traditional boss fights is they typically require some sort of mechanic to make the boss seem particularly powerful compared to other people, and often some sort of gimmick. In some cases it works fine, but in other cases it doesn't.

For people like me, we consider making decisions outside of combat to also be interesting. One more obvious aspect of this is the conversation system. Realizing that I have made decisions and discoveries earlier in a game like Fallout 1, and then using those discoveries when talking with the final boss to prove that his solution is flawed is relatively unique and more interesting than just trading turns shooting at each other.

I agree with this 100%.  For me, the most interesting and captivating parts of games are the decisions; the combat is just the filler between plot points. Not to say that combat isn't fun, but it's not what holds my attention.

In this sense, I felt that a boss fight in the last part of ME3 would have actually been detrimental--it would have disrupted the pacing in what was arguably the most anticipated bit of the game.

In my opinion, the way for gaming to move forward as an artistic medium is to reject the mentality that games should revolve around combat and violence--that the only way to overcome a seemingly insurmountable enemy is by punching it in the face. Games, unlike other mediums, are interactive, and this means that they have the ability to connect with their audience on a different level; a much more personal level. They present us with opportunities to explore the connections between the individual and society, to explore the interplay of different philosophies, to explore new frontiers of imagination. Most importantly, however, games allow people to explore their own beliefs and convictions. This is not something that violence can always answer. At least, not in any meaningful way.

Unfortunately there was a lack of mental battles in the end... no epic debate, no epic interrupts.... Just options a, b, c. and a silent tired shepard that limps off to one of the platforms...

It was an epic fail to a story driven game

In the end it wasn't as much the issue of a removal of an epic endboss fight, it was the removal of an epic confrontation ending... The confrontation never hapend. Confrontign the illusive man ended the cerberus cquestline but I never had the Reaper confrontation that should have been the biggest confrontation, the puppet master of the galactic extinctions.

Modifié par shodiswe, 14 avril 2012 - 10:33 .

[digby69]

a proper space battle would have been good instead of a colour crayon exercise

[JustifiablyDefenestrated]

shodiswe wrote...

Unfortunately there was a lack of mental battles in the end... no epic debate, no epic interrupts.... Just options a, b, c. and a silent tired shepard that limps off to one of the platforms...

It was an epic fail to a story driven game

In the end it wasn't as much the issue of a removal of an epic endboss fight, it was the removal of an epic confrontation ending... The confrontation never hapend. Confrontign the illusive man ended the cerberus cquestline but I never had the Reaper confrontation that should have been the biggest confrontation, the puppet master of the galactic extinctions.

Well, I can see where you're coming from.  I always interpreted the Catalyst not as a representation of the final conflict between Shepard and the reapers, but rather the conflict that Shepard faces with him/herself. We can argue about what exactly the Catalyst was, but I think it's pretty clear that he is supposed to look like the kid that Shepard tried to save on earth. The kid, through all the dream sequences, becomes the embodiment of Shepard's internal guilt over the loss of squadmates; he represents, on some level, Shepard's conscience.  Thus, when Shepard is presented with the final choice (control, synthetic, destroy), Shepard isn't really confronting the reapers. He's confronting something much larger, and much, much more important; he's confronting his own morality. In a brilliant, obscure way, this confronts the players directly--it asks them to decide for themselves what kind of morality they can accept. And with this interpretation, it doesn't really matter that Catalyst/Godchild was slightly obtuse and unspecific--after all, he's just the embodiment of your own morality.

This is what the Mass Effect series was about.

[lashrouxed]

To me, Mass Effect is a videogame. It is a journey trough an awesome story, with awesome characters but at it's most basic level, it is a videogame.

Boss fights are used as roadblocks to a player knowledge of the game to a certain point.
Without any sort of challenge, a videogame becomes a theme park ride.

The final encounter of Mass Effect 3 while the hardest (that's debatable, I believe Grissom academy is the toughest one), it does not differ enough to be a thrilling challenge.
To me, I'm lacking that big OH GOD moment.

I really enjoyed the fight against Kai Leng, Challenging, forces you to use your squad effectively, forces you to position yourself correctly, be well equipped etc.

It took me a couple of tries but when I beat it, it was satisfying.

Even the turret section with the Reaper on Rannoch, I was like YEAH LET'S DO THIS. And then it just ends...Such a good opportunity wasted...

Instead, I'm going on foot and dodge some laser beams (Reapers have terrible aim by the way).

To me the lack of high quality boss fights is one of my biggest problem with the Mass Effect franchise. I am one that really liked the boss in ME2. When it went down I was screaming in my living room! It was awesome and it cuts to my favourite song of the trilogy with some awesome escape sequence, memorable.

*edit*
Playing on insanity by the way 

Modifié par lashrouxed, 14 avril 2012 - 11:28 .