663 réponses à ce sujet

[Faded-Myth]

Definately no.

London was short and it didn't give me the feeling that all the races were at their most prepared (as much as they can be given the circumstance). It's implied, sure, and you see the occasional asari or turian or krogan running amok, but nothing like what you are explicitly shown in the full CGI trailer (or what was implied through marketing).

Knowing it's there isn't enough in a video game, for me. I need to see something tangible, and when you're the protagonist in the middle of a war, the point of a game is to place you right smack in the center of it all. And I really just felt like I ran around with a couple of dudes in a few London streets. Even just a few cut scenes showing, just for a few seconds, various races helping each other in various countries and some more space battle shots would have alleviated that. I'd prefer it to be part of the game-play, sure, but it would have been something.

And I really don't need to expand further on how I feel about the Catalyst and what the outcome from there was. Aside from gut-wrenching.

[Naugi]

ahandsomeshark wrote...

I don't think he's not getting anything, I think he's asking for explicit clarification rather than assuming. which is probably a really good thing. Assuming people will "get" things is how we end up with...starchild.

I dont think he's asking for clarification, he genuinely seems to think scenes showing our forces taking back earth wouldnt have helped us feel like we took back earth. Hell, writing it that way makes it sound crazy.

I think you're being kind, and that's nice n all, but theres something very wrong with saying: I'm not sure it would have contributed much to the question of "Do you feel like you took back Earth?"

Modifié par Naugi, 18 avril 2012 - 02:52 .

[Mystiq6]

As for myself, I didn't really feel like I took back Earth, but I think that has more to do with my mind set. For me, and extension for my paragon spacer war hero Shepard, ME3 was never about taking Earth back. To be perfectly honest, I always felt that was tacked on to the game to boost sales, to get people who didn't know the franchise to pick it up.

This here is key, I think. The third game was built around "Take Earth Back" and for all the game does, it places a huge amount of its time trying to drive that point home, what with all the talk about Earth on the Citadel and in dialogue with characters. And then the whole thing just falls on its face, like it was just shoehorned in. You don't realize how lacking the London mission is until you beat the game and realize that nothing of what you had been building all game is out there on the battlefield with you.

There was not enough time to care for Earth. The London mission is too short. There is no confrontation, one way or another, with Harbinger, the reaper with the most screen-time in all the games. I seriously wanted to ASSUME DIRECT CONTROL and make him punch his own face in throughout ME2 and I was denied that expectation in ME3. The fight going on around you is big but you're viewing it through the tiniest of microscopes. Where's the scale we saw in the cinematic as you approach Earth before landing?

[We Tigers]

I loved the combat of the Priority: Earth mission; very intense, good fights all around. Yet the trappings surrounding it were sorely lacking. No war assets, and no real progress updates on the greater fight happening around you; we have a huge space battle going on, supposedly a pile of your fleets getting down and fighting in the trenches too, and we don't see a thing. The sense of urgency was kinda undermined by not panning out to get the true global picture. As others have said, the lack of any "using your assets" dynamic was also a bit of a stunner. In its final moments, Mass Effect turned from a grand space opera full of choices to a (tremendously designed and exciting) corridor shooter. Pretty underwhelming.

I didn't take back earth. I got two of my friends and about a dozen humans close to a big beam in one city.

To Allan's question about the ending putting some extra negativity in how we see Priority: Earth--I think that's partly the case. Had the ending been stellar and everything I was hoping for--like, I'm talking a 30-minute Final Fantasy 3 every-character-in-the-spotlight ending--I probably wouldn't have cared as much about not really "taking back Earth." With how deflated I felt after the game ended, my buzz faded and the shiny veneer over Priority: Earth kinda got peeled off.

[ahandsomeshark]

Naugi wrote...

ahandsomeshark wrote...

I don't think he's not getting anything, I think he's asking for explicit clarification rather than assuming. which is probably a really good thing. Assuming people will "get" things is how we end up with...starchild.

I dont think he's asking for clarification, he genuinely seems to think scenes showing our forces taking back earth wouldnt have helped us feel like we took back earth. Hell, writing it that way makes it sound crazy.

I think you're being kind, and that's nice n all, but theres something very wrong with saying: I'm not sure it would have contributed much to the question of "Do you feel like you took back Earth?"

but that's not what he asked, he asked if seeing our (acquired) forces taking back earth vs seeing more content in general on earth would have helped us feel like we took back earth. Which is a legitimate question when we're specifically talking about taking back earth not about the game cohesivness as a whole.

[xefiroEA]

ArchedAlbatross wrote...

I guess what I am trying to say is that I don't think you are wrong, but I don't think that I am either. I think that is the beauty of the game. It all meant something different to everyone and in the end, no one was able to have a fufilled sense of accomplishment because of how poorly the ending brought everything together. 

I agree with you completely. As I said, it was my perspective, and I don't think two characters can be more different than a Renegade, Earthborn, Ruthless Shepard and a Paragon, Spacer, War Hero Shepard. And yes, it's one of the greatest merits of the series that both characters can coexist in the same universe and both have meaningful stories that feel appropiate to each.

I was just disappointed that the premise for the final chapter seemed to forget this. It's even worse that even those who agreed with the premise weren't satisfied by the conclusion.

[Sil]

It wasn't just the starchild scene that was poor though. I was utterly deflated by the shortness of the finale, it felt like we only played 30% of the final level

[Mystiq6]

Naugi wrote...

ahandsomeshark wrote...

I don't think he's not getting anything, I think he's asking for explicit clarification rather than assuming. which is probably a really good thing. Assuming people will "get" things is how we end up with...starchild.

I dont think he's asking for clarification, he genuinely seems to think scenes showing our forces taking back earth wouldnt have helped us feel like we took back earth. Hell, writing it that way makes it sound crazy.

I think you're being kind, and that's nice n all, but theres something very wrong with saying: I'm not sure it would have contributed much to the question of "Do you feel like you took back Earth?"

Allan is asking for clarification. Picture this. Throughout the London mission, your war assets are beating down on reaper forces and you get to see that, but the game's ending remains exactly the same. Do you think you'd feel like you have taken Earth back then? I honestly don't think I would. It would feel like I was slowly losing and then handed a tissue by the Catalyst. In fact, I want to add to my statements. I also don't feel like I took Earth back because there was no final confrontation bearing down on the game's only other named reaper. In one way or another, I did not get to directly confront Harbinger.

This is a ridiculously difficult question to answer because everyone has a different opinion but the general consensus seems to be that the actual doing felt like being handed an "I Win" button rather than fighting for it, despite the hard fighting in the rest of the game leading up to this point. This stems from the ridiculous and literal deus ex machina that is the Catalyst and the stark player perception of the ending compared to how BioWare seems to think we should be interpreting the ending. Arrival said different and we had/have no reason to believe otherwise.

Modifié par Mystiq6, 18 avril 2012 - 03:00 .

[amp1236]

Yeaahhhhhhh....

Based on The Arrival, i "took Earth back" to SPACE DUST when the nearest relay exploded.

Somehow this didn't feel as heroic as the 'Take Earth Back' trailer alluded to.

[ArchedAlbatross]

I don't think that "seeing" my war assets do things would have made me feel more like I took Earth back but instead had to deal with the consequences of my "choices" about my war assets. Like if I sent a salarian STG group after a bunch of Brutes and they get mowed over, whereas if I sent a bunch of Krogan they stomp the brutes faces in. I still would have liked to "see" that but I want to make choices and see consequences like the suicide mission. Maybe if I send the STG group and they are supported by Jack and her biotic students then they succeed, I don't know but they did a great job of making your choices matter in ME2 and even for most of ME3, but on the last mission I felt like none of it mattered.

[Naugi]

Mystiq6 wrote...

Naugi wrote...

ahandsomeshark wrote...

I don't think he's not getting anything, I think he's asking for explicit clarification rather than assuming. which is probably a really good thing. Assuming people will "get" things is how we end up with...starchild.

I dont think he's asking for clarification, he genuinely seems to think scenes showing our forces taking back earth wouldnt have helped us feel like we took back earth. Hell, writing it that way makes it sound crazy.

I think you're being kind, and that's nice n all, but theres something very wrong with saying: I'm not sure it would have contributed much to the question of "Do you feel like you took back Earth?"

Allan is asking for clarification. Picture this. Throughout the London mission, your war assets are beating down on reaper forces and you get to see that, but the game's ending remains exactly the same. Do you think you'd feel like you have taken Earth back then? I honestly don't think I would. It would feel like I was slowly losing and then handed a tissue by the Catalyst. In fact, I want to add to my statements. I also don't feel like I took Earth back because there was no final confrontation bearing down on the game's only other named reaper. In one way or another, I did not get to directly confront Harbinger.

Putting it like that, then no, it wouldnt help much. The scenes would only give a sense of taking back earth in conjuction with aftermath scenes that confirmed that we have actually taken back earth.

[indyracing]

Naugi wrote...

FatalX7.0 wrote...

Yes, it would have. It shows everything we put together, all the people we gathered and the team we've come to know over the last 5 years. It shows that what we did actually mattered.

Seeing our War Assets in action, seeing our team fighting together, kicking ass, is the kind of emotional impact that people really want.

Just imagining the Rachni fighting, or the Turians and Krogans fighting together, protecting each other, all the races working together. It gives me goosebumps and makes me feel damn proud.

Well said.

What worries me is that the Bioware employee doesnt get this. Ok, no offence Allan and I know you're not involved with ME directly, but seriously ... how can you not get this??

I'm kind of concerned by this as well.

Not Allan specifically, but since finishing the game (and being massively disappointed at the mere existence of the God Child and the lack of, well, any closure or feeling that our war assets mattered at all, etc), I've been reading and listening to opinions of many people about the ending.

Nearly to a person, those involved in gaming as developers or professional (paid by gaming websites or earning their income through reviewing games) don't ever even touch on the actual plot elements (or lack thereof) of the end.  It's like their opinion of the game totally omits the scene with the Illusive Man and the God Child entirely, and all they actually saw (based on what they comment on) was everything until Shepard gets knocked out, and then they magically know the various endings, and comment that fans upset with the ending shouldn't be because it was always pretty obvious Shepard would be dead, and that now the universe is ripe for a fresh restart (with the mass relays destroyed, etc).

This opinion (or lack of any opinion or mentioning of the God Child's mere existence - which makes zero sense in the context of the story up to that point) seems nearly exclusive to game developer types and paid reviewers.  I don't understand that.  I know seven people in "real life" that have finished Mass Effect 3, besides myself.  Not one of the eight of us like the God Child (we have varying levels of hate for him).  The universal opinion of the 8 of us is that nothing we did across all 3 games really mattered, and the truth is, because of the God Child, it doesn't.

I suspect that developers and reviewers think completely differently than your average gamer.  They think in terms of sequels and sales, and maybe have played too many games to really care about plot inconsistancies or truly loving a story.  I hope that isn't actually true, but based on comments I've read around the web, and heard on gaming podcasts (that talk about ME 3 with spoilers), I have yet to hear one person paid by the gaming industry be critical of Mass Effect 3's ending plot sequence, beyond saying that the forced walk to talk to each and every companion in sequence feels forced (it does), and that "sure there are plot holes" without even mentioning what they are - but jumping then straight to the results of the final choice.

Yet the overwhelming evidence of the fans (at least those who comment on the game) is that the major cause of the disappointment with the end of the story is the God Child scene, and how much it goes against all of Mass Effect prior to that moment.

I don't know if that's something Allan could or would comment on, but it seems that most dev/reviewer types see "a few plot holes", yet fans like myself see anything from "one of the worst endings in gaming history" to "ruining a franchise".

Back to the thread topic itself - ultimately the God Child makes whether I felt like I took back Earth irrelevant, because I was forced to destroy the Mass Relays, and in Arrival it's established that destroying a Mass Relay in a system destroys all life in that system.  So from my point of view, this question is irrelevant, because if even I had felt like I was "taking back Earth" up until the Conduit, what happens after the Conduit makes everything else 99.9% irrelevant.

[Naugi]

ArchedAlbatross wrote...

I don't think that "seeing" my war assets do things would have made me feel more like I took Earth back but instead had to deal with the consequences of my "choices" about my war assets. Like if I sent a salarian STG group after a bunch of Brutes and they get mowed over, whereas if I sent a bunch of Krogan they stomp the brutes faces in. I still would have liked to "see" that but I want to make choices and see consequences like the suicide mission. Maybe if I send the STG group and they are supported by Jack and her biotic students then they succeed, I don't know but they did a great job of making your choices matter in ME2 and even for most of ME3, but on the last mission I felt like none of it mattered.

This is what I had in mind. A bit more like the suicide mission in ME2 where you could lose people even before you landed if you hadnt upgraded the Normandys hull, cannon etc.

I was partly following the IGN wiki as I played the ending but stopped when it said I had some tough choices ahead (little did I know I had ONE choice ahead). I had in mind stuff like: if you hired Arias mercs then they save [insert character here] that you send to do [insert part of final mission here] and if you didnt recruit them that character dies. It was going to be epic, the Geth were going to save Tali, a Salarian STG team was going to save Wrex ... it was all so beautiful ... then I finished the game and reality smacked me in the face.

Modifié par Naugi, 18 avril 2012 - 03:08 .

[ZiegenkonigIII]

Nope.

It's not because I disliked the Earth section either, because while I thought they could have done better there, at the end of the day I enjoyed it. No, it was because of the choices presented to me by star-child, and what those choices entailed. In no ending did I feel I "saved" earth, or any planet for that matter.

[Mshake82]

I was about to take back Earth only to be defeated by an infant who gave me 3 choices that all led to the same ending... which sucked.

[Mystiq6]

indyracing wrote...
I'm kind of concerned by this as well.

It doesn't concern me because I think that's exactly what Allan is trying to get at. Read my post above. If the ending didn't change and all your war assets were fighting for you and slowly dying away, you'd just think the Catalyst took pity on you. I wouldn't feel like I won that way either. The ending needs more than your war assets fighting.

Modifié par Mystiq6, 18 avril 2012 - 03:13 .

[ArchedAlbatross]

I was just disappointed that the premise for the final chapter seemed to forget this. It's even worse that even those who agreed with the premise weren't satisfied by the conclusion.

Like I said, I saw taking Earth back as a starting point. Picture this: you plug the crucible into the citadel and you get reaper blaster of epic proportions. Harbinger knows he is in trouble so he is all like, "all Reapers drop what you are doing and focus on the citadel". Switch to Shepard sitting on the ground next to a dead Anderson and a hologram of Harbinger pops up at the control panel "Human, your feeble existence is coming to an end. We have seen that you are more capable than imagined, for this we see great potential, join us and set your race free." You then have a conversation with Harbinger that explains where the reapers came from and why they do what they do. Heck the explanation can still be that organics will undoubtedly creat synthetics which will wipe them out, but you Shepard can tell Harbinger to shove it as you press the control button that puts a big laser beam right between his multiple eyes. Harbinger explodes in grand fashion. Another beam blasts out from the citadel and blows up a few more. Seeing that they are out gunned the Reapers retreat. Now, based upon your EMS your Shepard either dies from massive blood loss and Hackett takes the wheel going from system to system wiping out reapers, or your Shepard lives and is then given the choice to dismantle the crucible, or give control of it to the galactic council.

Not saying this is the best thing ever but it would then provide the chance for a prolonged cutscene showing the consequences of your actions. People rebuilding Earth, the council squabbling over where to take the citadel. Who knows, the point is I saw the whole battle at Earth as the starting point for the undoing of the Reapers, because if the combined forces of the galaxy could beat them at Earth, we could do it everywhere in the Galaxy. 

[Serp86]

No the whole Earth Mission was incredibly underwhelming . The goodbyes are great , the TIM encounter is decent , the rest of Priority:Earth is one big bucket of suck.

Just me and my 2 squadmates killing a few Reapers forces is not taking back Earth.... Why did i collect all those armies if i'm the one who does EVERYTHING. I don't even see any action of what i collected or what the rest of my squad does.

[Naugi]

indyracing wrote...

I suspect that developers and reviewers think completely differently than your average gamer. 

I suspect this too. I'm not sure why this is the case.

To be fair to Bioware they got ME1 and 2 and 99% of 3 bang on target imho, but then when something like the ME3 emding is so blatantly wrong to the rest of the known universe the developers / reviewers cant seem to see it, or at least are very reluctant to publicly acknowledge it.

Modifié par Naugi, 18 avril 2012 - 03:20 .

[Mystiq6]

I just want to give props to Albatross for starting this thread. I think it's probably the most important thread on these forums because it says what our expectations will be in the Extended Cut DLC and BioWare should be following this thread very closely.

[ArchedAlbatross]

Mystiq6 wrote...

I just want to give props to Albatross for starting this thread. I think it's probably the most important thread on these forums because it says what our expectations will be in the Extended Cut DLC and BioWare should be following this thread very closely.

Well thank you. I will arbitrarily award myself +5 internets.

[Viper371]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I know there are some that found Priority: Earth to just kind of fall flat anyways. Trying your best, do people feel that they didn't take Earth back because of the bleakness of the ending and the sequence with the Catalyst, or because you were underwhelmed by the mission.

No doubt some feel both combined into the lack of any "Take Back Earth" feeling. I guess I'm also curious if people felt the ending made people reflect on the Priority: Earth mission more negatively (people are less forgiving when in an upset mood)

I was underwhelmed by the end mission, because it felt it was me and my squad alone.  I would have liked to see an ending battle similar to Dragon Age, where I deploy my assets to assist me.  But I guess it can't be done, since I'm not Hackett or Anderson, I'm just a Commander, not the leader of the army of the light.

Still, it felt weird, compared to the promo video.  But I knew that.  Dragon Age didn't look anything like that promo video either.

[indyracing]

Mystiq6 wrote...

It doesn't concern me because I think that's exactly what Allan is trying to get at. Read my post above. If the ending didn't change and all your war assets were fighting for you and slowly dying away, you'd just think the Catalyst took pity on you. I wouldn't feel like I won that way either. The ending needs more than your war assets fighting.

I guess what I'm getting at is that even if the battle scenes were everything anyone could want - every representative we recruited showed multiple times fighting together heroically against the reapers, some of one race sacrificing themselves for those of another, and it felt incredible to watch, the mere existence of the God Child and his forced choice destroys everything anyway.

I'm coming from the assumption from the Arrival DLC that establishes that destroying a mass relay in a system destroys life in that system.

So even if, outside, my war assets actually destroy every single reaper at Earth, the moment that I, inside, make my choice, I destroy all of them.

Now I would hope that the intent wasn't that when every mass relay was destroyed around the galaxy that every form of life in those systems was also simultaneously destroyed, but that's what the lore of the game to that point says happens, and we weren't told otherwise.  We were shown the Normandy crashing on an unidentified planet, and I saw 3 people get out (Joker, Liara and Javik), but that's it. 

As far as I know, according to all of the game I have played, everyone in the Sol System is now dead.  The God Child's forced choice and the game's lore says that's what happened, so whether the combined army in the Sol System had just destroyed every single reaper and were wildly celebrating, or the last living soul had just succumbed to Harbinger's laser beam doesn't actually ultimately matter the moment Shepard makes the choice - the result of either scenario is the same.

[Exeider]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Exeider wrote...

@ Allan Schumacher,

i hope you would read this and reply, I will answer your question in as little smarmy an answer as possible.

When Priority: Earth came up, and I was starting the end I felt or was rather expecting that certain game mechanics were going to come up, because they had been I felt foreshadowed earlier in the game.

1) (Single-weapon mode); There were two times in the game where for the sake of gameplay your weapons were removed and replaced with a single weapon, the geth "logic" blaster int he consensus, and the Target Painter.

I felt that in the first instances, I was getting "practice" with a new mechanic that was going to show up again at the end of the game.

specifically, right when we hear over the radio that "harbinger" was coming down from orbit to handle shepard personally.

I thought this was going to be the final battle, or A final battle, using the target painter and the orbiting fleet, which the strength of that 'weapon' would depend on your EMS.

Interesting.  I never thought of those sequences as "practice" types (I didn't really connect the two, possibly because they were a bit different in their purpose in game), but I don't think it's an invalid expectation.  I think the idea of utilizing the target painter and letting your EMS determine the damage to Harbinger would have been an interesting one too.

2) Minibosses and Final Boss;

without starting a round of maruader shields jokes, I have to ask? Where the heck was my final big bad boss Allan?

I'm probably the worst person to ask for this as my need for a specific boss encounter is not as high as most other people, and in fact dislike the boss fights from the first two games as they felt forced.

When I played the mission, and going through the seemingly endless left 4 dead style "Horde" mode play of waves of waves of enemies, I really thought that was filler for BETWEEN MINIBOSSES.

When no minibosses showed up I was like, WTF? I felt that we were going to fight Boss versions of the enemies, a "hero" version of a brute, or a banshee, then move on, fighting hordes between each, Miniboss Area, culminating in the Final Boss of Harbinger. Or at least a seemingly final Boss of harbinger, using the afore mentioned Target painter.

I did enjoy the confrontation against the Reaper destroyer though.  I found it intense and quite challenging, and loved setting up sequences for the Reaper's laser to scorch a banshee or two with a single blast while popping medigels.  Finally triggering those missiles watching the Reaper just fail to protect himself against it was pretty awesome for myself.

I felt that it was practice because the mechanic was so new, and that to use it only once and toss it away is wasteful, so I naturally assumed it was foreshadowing.

As far as miniboss fights, I felt that you should have a clear feeling of progression, like you almost fighting up a champion ladder, since you supposedly leading the charge, by killing the miniboss, those behind you have a easier time and move the front lines closer to the end point. Plus like i said, the whole horde mode felt like filler to me, so I figured if you gonna have filler, let it be challenging filler.

I liked the missle sequence as well, that is why I wouldn't change it, the ONE thing about the last mission I wouldn't change. Endings notwithstanding. But I felt that If i was gonna shoot missiles into someone's eye, I felt that we were only getting Sentinal out of the way to make way for Harbinger.

-AE

Modifié par Exeider, 18 avril 2012 - 03:26 .

[formshifter]

No. I do not feel like I took back Earth. I did not fight with my allies, or see them fight (beyond one cut scene where they showed up for maybe 20 seconds or less. . . and a lot of them didn't even show up).

Where was Normandy doing her awesome bombing runs while flanked by fighter squadrons?!
Where were the thousands of Alliance Marines, Turian Soldiers, Krogan Warriors, Asari Commandos, Salarian STG, Geth Combat Units?! What happened to the Hammerheads and Makos heading out to wreck the Reapers? Where were the battles against hundreds of husks, Cannibals, Brutes, Banshees, and Ravagers?! Where were the fights against Reapers?! Where was that huge fleet fighting against Reapers with every ounce of energy to hold the line?

The Earth missions feel lackluster. Well, that's not right. The first one I feel was pretty decent. Lots of enemies (honestly, I could have used respawning enemies to give that feeling of never ending waves and hopelessness), a clear objective, a big kaboom. It would have made a great start.

Then for some reason half my soldiers disappeared. Then we never saw any of the allies. The next mission consisted of me clearing 2 streets and a building. Then we held a truck with 2 Reaper killing missiles. . . while a Reaper ignored them and tried to shoot the small soldier holding off his ground forces. All of which technically should have been moot, since even the Normandy needed laser targetting to get through Reaper interference (which we didn't have).
Then came the senseless run with a platoon at Sovereign and the ends. . . .

I do not feel that I saved the galaxy and retook Earth. Not at all.