288 réponses à ce sujet

[Blitzhawk65]

Hammer6767 wrote...

I see a lot of posts of people complaining that they are totally done with the game and the whole series. I am not trolling or anything, but if you ARE done, why would you continue to post on the forum for a game you dislike? I am assuming it is the enjoyment of the shared misery?

Just curious as each time I pop into the story sub forum (usually don't stray from MP), I see a lot of posting like this. I know it isn't all "new players" who are just getting around to the game, either. It is a lot of long time forumites who are continually going at it.

Is it theraputic, in a way?

I am here in much of the same capacity that other dissenters have posted.  I would like to offer my criticisms in the hopes that Bioware improves and goes back to making the type of games that I enjoy playing (Baldur's Gate, NWN, DA:O, ME1-2, etc.)

I play video games for various reasons.  Some are just fun to play, especially since I am a bit of a history-buff (Total War series, Civilization series), and some I like to play for the story as they play out like interactive books (Baldur's Gate, Xenogears, Chrono series, etc.).  For the latter category, I temper my expectations according to the rules that the game sets.  I know that magic doesn't exist in the real world, but I can still enjoy games that feature magic/fantasy elements as long as those elements are established in the setting.  Sometimes I can enjoy games/movies for what they are not, I will actually go and watch movies with friends that we know are going to be terrible just to find comedy in how terrible/terribly awesome they are (ex: the Expendables). 

Mass Effect 1 and 2 didn't have groundbreaking plots, but they had good stories.  I particularly enjoyed the level of detail that went into explaining the scientific phenomena that the series relied upon (FTL, unlimited ammo in ME1, universal translators, biotics, etc.).  It was a "smart" setting and set the rule that everything in the universe could be explained by science/logic.  I loved the series because I could follow the scientific references and I could follow the mature logic used by Saren, TIM, and other characters in the setting, I didn't have to dumb myself down in order to understand the universe.  Then ME3 came and violated everything that I liked about the setting.  TIM went from a complex, Machiavellian character to a villain that I would see in a children's cartoon.  Cerberus went from a small-scale, but well-funded activist organization to that one that seemed to be a full-blown "evil" empire.  I was forced to fight Cerberus when I could hardly figure out why they were even there (ex: tuchanka bomb, sur'kesh, citadel).  Udina betrayed us because apparantly he was braindead and thought the citadel fleet could liberate Earth (WTF?).  The reapers went from a lovecraft-villain to starkid's tools.  The existence of starkid on the citadel negated the reason that ME1 happened at all.  I was forced to listen to starkid tell me that the reaper invasion was about some ancient synthetic vs. organics conflict that didn't make sense, and then I watched the enemy leader generously and unreasonably give me 3 options of an ending.  The three options contained one to usurp it, one to destroy it, and one to merge synthetics and organics.  The last option made no sense in relation to what I had believed to be the themes of ME3, the EC narrative made no sense in relation to what would likely happen if synthetics and organics were merged, and the vehicle for how synthesis would be implemented (the crucible) made no functional nor scientific sense whatsoever.  In short, ME3's story had the complexity of one that is targeted at children, had elements that made no scientific/logical sense, and flew in the face of the rules of the setting that I had believed to have been established by ME1/ME2. 

Because of everything I just said, ME3 failed to deliver the element that I most enjoy when playing RPGs (story) and I cannot enjoy playing it.  Furthermore, I agree with the OP in that I can no longer play any of the previous ME titles because I know that the story gets ruined further down the line.  I am here because I want Bioware to go back to producing smart games like ME1 and ME2 instead of dumbing its plot down and delivering garbage like I believe ME3 to be.

Modifié par Blitzhawk65, 17 août 2012 - 07:51 .

[Ithurael]

Pitznik wrote...

Sure, you can't prove your point in any way, so you either agree with me or not, can't force you into anything, can I? Just didn't want to leave your false conclusions without answer.

At this point we would be arguing opinion vs opinion and that would lead to speculation vs speculation. I don't want to give walters or hudson the benefit of that. There are many out there that see what the catalyst did as a major shif in central conflict. There are many who don't - I respect that.

I agree destroy is slightly more fitting with the overall narrative of the series compared to the other endings (though control & destroy are both rather close where synthesis comes out of nowhere)

And as for proving points...we are in disagreement. Your opinion/interpretation contradicts mine. Your "proof" is speculation based on interpretation as is mine.
www.youtube.com/watch
at about 15 mins in - though I do love his use of star trek clips so I enjoy the whole vid

In the end we see this ending when we pick destroy:
- Red color
- Reapers die
- Edi dies/Geth die (more inferred though you do see EDI's name on the memorial)
- Shep breaths

That is it. Beyond that we have speculation to the future. I will agree that Destroy is in no way what the catalyst wants but it still compromises with you and destroys all synthetics to keep those particular synthetics from killing all organics.

BTW - I didn't want to come across as trolling or overly agressive. The "agree to disagree" comment was my poor attempt at humor. I apologize if it offended.

[Blitzhawk65]

ZerebusPrime wrote...

Wait...... wait.... wait. Someone didn't like the Tuchanka arc?

To tell you the truth, the only Tuchanka-arc missions that I liked were the final Shroud mission and the mission where you save Victus' son. 

The other missions (Cerberus bomb, cerberus N7, sur'kesh) didn't make any sense to me, mostly because of Cerberus and its derp-logic.  I am not giving those missions the benefit of the doubt because I believe they were garbage in relation to the superior shroud and rescue missions where Shepard is rightfully fighting against reaper forces.

[The Heretic of Time]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Indeed, I didn't like the Tuchanka arc? Why? For several reasons:

1. Wrex acted out of character. In ME2 he decided he didn't desire a cure for the genophage, because the current situation of the krogan allowed Wrex to unite all krogan together. Now in ME3 all of the sudden he desperately wants to cure the genophage and nothing else? I don't buy it.

2. Mordin did a complete 180 turn. In ME2 he supported the genophage. He didn't like it, but he understood the necessity of it. Now in ME3 all of the sudden he desperately? wants to cure the genophage and nothing else? I don't buy it.

3. There was only 1 reaper at Tuchanka and it got owned by a giant thresher maw? Not only that, but the reaper was too dumb to actually destroy the shroud to prevent a genopahage cure? I don't buy it.

4. Oh and lets not talk about Cerberus' depryness on Sur'Kesh. TIM actually supported the idea of a krogan cure in ME2, but now he doesn't want the krogan to be cured? Oh yeah, that's right, "indoctrination". Herrrderp. 

1. You know it's been almost a year since Shepard met Wrex on Tuchanka right? By then he would have made serious progress in uniting the clans. And yes he always wanted the genophage to be cured down the line. Nothing in the narrative contradicts this.

2. Did you play his loyalty mission? You get to talk to him about his genophage work and the ethics of it. You could even make him feel guilty for it. He never hated the Krogan. He just saw his work as "necessary" when looking at the big picture.

3. Giant ass Thresher maw. And Destroyers are relatively weak.

4. TIM doesn't want the Reapers destroyed. He wants to control them. The rest of the galaxy, including the Krogan, wants them to be destroyed. Therefore, curing the genophage goes against TIM's agenda.

1. Perhaps, but in ME2 it did seem Wrex had come to terms with the genophage.

2. I did play his loyalty mission and it is exactly as you say it: Mordin didn't hate krogans, but he saw the genophage as a necessity. Yet in ME3 he desperately wants to cure the genophage above all else. How can you not see that this is a complete character assisination?

3. Destroyers are weak you say? I don't know if you forgot, but it took at least a couple of orbital strikes to take a destroyer class reaper down on rannoch, yet on tuchanka a giant thresher maw is able to destroy a destroyer with ease? How? That doesn't make any sense. It also doesn't justify how completely dumb the destroyer on tuchanka was.

4. TIM specifically said in ME2 that krogan cure could be benefitial for both the relations between humanity and the krogan and the krogan would come in handy against the reapers. TIM specifically said that in ME2. No amount of ass-pulls can justify this complete 180 turn in character.

[Torrible]

Dude, stop playing the game. Problem solved. Apparently the Witcher 2 gives you 9000 times the satisfaction so go play that.

[Heather Cline]

OP many people feel that way. I haven't touched any of my ME games since ME3. I'm playing other games because I just can't touch them. I tried starting up DA:O and couldn't play it for long. DA2 just as bad...

I'm just ugh...

[RiouHotaru]

If you're looking at it in mechanical terms, then yes, it's utterly pointless.

I replay the Mass Effect series for the story, without worrying about War Assets and Readiness.

And by your logic, any conclusion to any trilogy feels the same way. Why replay at all when it's always going to end the same way.

[Seboist]

RiouHotaru wrote...

If you're looking at it in mechanical terms, then yes, it's utterly pointless.

I replay the Mass Effect series for the story, without worrying about War Assets and Readiness.

And by your logic, any conclusion to any trilogy feels the same way. Why replay at all when it's always going to end the same way.

I used to play ME for story as well but once you stop caring about that, all you're left with is two mediocre shooters with half-baked RPG elements in the case of the first two. The third at least manages to be a servicable Gears clone with spell casting.

[Pitznik]

Ithurael wrote...

At this point we would be arguing opinion vs opinion and that would lead to speculation vs speculation. I don't want to give walters or hudson the benefit of that. There are many out there that see what the catalyst did as a major shif in central conflict. There are many who don't - I respect that.

What is better solution for the Catalyst, Reapers or destroy, isn't a matter of opinion, but of logic. Shift in central conflict is optional - Catalyst shares with you his problems, you can agree with him, but you can also disregard his logic and stick to your problem - the Reapers. Shepard doesn't acknowledges him, or anything, he just listens to what he says, and that's it. You have to listen, you don't have to give a f*ck.

Ithurael wrote...

I agree destroy is slightly more fitting with the overall narrative of the series compared to the other endings (though control & destroy are both rather close where synthesis comes out of nowhere)

Absolutely.

Ithurael wrote...
BTW - I didn't want to come across as trolling or overly agressive. The "agree to disagree" comment was my poor attempt at humor. I apologize if it offended.

If someone was aggressive, it wasn't you. Still, I can't really agree to disagree, since like I said above, I don't see it as a matter of opinion, but as a a logical problem. Let's assume Catalyst is right, but we picked destroy. Synthetic life can still be built, and it is no green eyed, peace loving synthetic life, but just normal synthetic life. In case of conflict, we have no Reapers, no Catalyst, nothing - we just have our soft words and our big sticks, so everything is absolutely no different than before the Reapers. We just ignored the Catalyst, without either denying him or confirming that he is right. I simply can't see in any way how destroy can be seen as accepting Catalyst's logic, since nothing changed, except for the dead Geth. Control is very similar - but we at least have Reapers, just in case, so it may be seen as slight concession or compromise - without acknowledging the problem we keep the tools to deal with it (though we may as well keep them for completely different reasons).

You simply shouldn't feel obliged to acknowledge Catalyst's logic - only way to dismiss it in words ends really badly, but you can do it through action, you'll miss out on telling how stupid he is, but your world will be Reaperless and Catalystless (and somewhat ruined, but hey, it's a war).

That's all I wanted to say, and I apologize for being douchy.

Modifié par Pitznik, 17 août 2012 - 08:25 .

[SpamBot2000]

AlanC9 wrote...

 All I can honestly say is that it never occurred to me that Bio was actually attempting a level of continuing consequences that nobody else had ever done in an RPG series.

Huh? But that's like the "if you only know one thing about Mass Effect..." thing about Mass Effect. Like I know in Pokemon you "gotta catch 'em all!"

[3DandBeyond]

Ithurael wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

It is destroyed, because you can't destroy the Reapers otherwise. But overall, new synthetic life WILL be created, and there will be no "solution" to destroy it. How does that fit Catalyst's goal again?

Why people keep repeating that, there is enough plotholes already, no need to create your own.

LOL!

A computer will do whatever it takes to acheive its goal. It believes that all organic life will be destroyed by synthetic life. It knows that synthetic life exists currently. So, the only way to protect organic life from being destroyed by synthetics is to destroy all synthetics that are currently active. That ensures organic life will live a bit longer before the synthetics come back.

It is almost like at M.A.D. scenario. It sees synthetic life as its enemy, so, if it is going to die - so will its enemy.

This is exactly right.  It's almost like his one really bad solution, the reapers, was split into 3 parts.  He wants to create synthesis but does so very badly and not completely. He is in control but he is terrible at it because he could use the reapers to keep synthetics from killing organics.  He does destroy but he destroys organics to keep them from making synthetics that will destroy them. 

The reapers are not a permanent solution, either.  Or they wouldn't keep returning.  But they aren't a permanent solution partly because the kid keeps having them seed the galaxy with tech.  If the reapers are not a permanent solution then why should the new ones be permanent?  Control and Synthesis leave the reapers alive and they don't assure that no conflict will ever exist again.  Destroy does destroy current synthetics that the kid thinks will become evil killers.

[3DandBeyond]

RussianZombeh wrote...

snipped

Maybe if you snapped out of it, got over the endings, and stopped reading threads on the forums about how bad they ending was - you'd still like the game.

If I told you to stop liking the endings, could you?

You can't force people to like them if they don't like them.  It has nothing to do with reading about them being bad.  They don't fit with the story for many people (even if you look at the ending in a purely objective literary way, the endings don't fit), and they are futile.  People can't just automatically change their feelings about that.

[xsdob]

D1ck1e wrote...

Take heart, CD Projekt is working on Cyberpunk.

Take heart, it has multiplayer as well.

[CronoDragoon]

It's difficult to speculate on what the Catalyst's goal is when all we have is the general direction in which it was pointed, which is different from the exact commands that were programmed into its system. "Being the Catalyst for peace between synthetics and organics" is not its exact programming because it doesn't tell it how to act. For example, how should it achieve this peace? Minimum loss of life? Prevention of species extinction? The most efficient way? All of these could lead to different conclusions by the Catalyst on how to proceed.

Therefore, we'd have to work backwards. Assuming all three choices DO fulfill his goal, what could be the exact wording of his goal? Such discussion will bring us closer to understanding his creation.

[CronoDragoon]

3DandBeyond wrote...

RussianZombeh wrote...

snipped

Maybe if you snapped out of it, got over the endings, and stopped reading threads on the forums about how bad they ending was - you'd still like the game.

If I told you to stop liking the endings, could you?

You can't force people to like them if they don't like them.  It has nothing to do with reading about them being bad.  They don't fit with the story for many people (even if you look at the ending in a purely objective literary way, the endings don't fit), and they are futile.  People can't just automatically change their feelings about that.

His point is that reading threads on the forum, which are going to in most games be mostly negative, is going to dilute your enjoyment of the game whether you initially liked it or hated it.

[blueumi]

i never got this angry or insulted and upset by a game before

I don't play it much i put it on and then turn it right back off again and in all the years I have been a gamer I never felt like that

dragon age 2 had it's problems but I liked parts of it and I can still play it but this game is not fun anymore I miss loveing and being able to play any of the mass effect games but I can't and I use to play them to death

[Pitznik]

3DandBeyond wrote...


This is exactly right.  It's almost like his one really bad solution, the reapers, was split into 3 parts.  He wants to create synthesis but does so very badly and not completely. He is in control but he is terrible at it because he could use the reapers to keep synthetics from killing organics.  He does destroy but he destroys organics to keep them from making synthetics that will destroy them. 

The reapers are not a permanent solution, either.  Or they wouldn't keep returning.  But they aren't a permanent solution partly because the kid keeps having them seed the galaxy with tech.  If the reapers are not a permanent solution then why should the new ones be permanent?  Control and Synthesis leave the reapers alive and they don't assure that no conflict will ever exist again.  Destroy does destroy current synthetics that the kid thinks will become evil killers.

Reapers = repeatable
Destroy = somewhat repeatable, but no easier

Reapers = 50,000 years of success
Destroy = 1 day+ for synthetic life, who knows how much for "synthetic apocalypse!" - less than 50,000 years for sure

Reapers = Catalyst in full control of current and future solutions (most likely, since we can't be 100% he is destroyed)
Destroy = noone in control, people of the galaxy will have to deal on their own - so no guarantee

Also, if he really wanted synthetics destroyed, he could just do that, using the Reapers.

3D, I would like to present you an example. You're building a house. You have a hammer, plenty of nails, and you nail them nails one by one. I come and I offer my help - I will nail three nails for you, but you will have to give me your hammer forever, and ask my permission to buy new hammer.

Does it make any sense for you to seal that deal?

Modifié par Pitznik, 17 août 2012 - 08:50 .

[Tazzmission]

op sorry to hear that and all but dont you think thats a bit extreme?

[ZerebusPrime]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

ZerebusPrime wrote...

Wait...... wait.... wait. Someone didn't like the Tuchanka arc?

Damn straight I didn't like the Tuchanka arc!

Why? For several reasons:


1. Wrex acted out of character. In ME2 he decided he didn't desire a cure for the genophage, because the current situation of the krogan allowed Wrex to unite all krogan together. Now in ME3 all of the sudden he desperately wants to cure the genophage and nothing else? I don't buy it.

2. Mordin did a complete 180 turn. In ME2 he supported the genophage. He didn't like it, but he understood the necessity of it. Now in ME3 all of the sudden he desperately? wants to cure the genophage and nothing else? I don't buy it.

3. There was only 1 reaper at Tuchanka and it got owned by a giant thresher maw? Not only that, but the reaper was too dumb to actually destroy the shroud to prevent a genopahage cure? I don't buy it.

4. Oh and lets not talk about Cerberus' depryness on Sur'Kesh. TIM actually supported the idea of a krogan cure in ME2, but now he doesn't want the krogan to be cured? Oh yeah, that's right, "indoctrination". Herrrderp. 

On point 1, to me it seemed like Wrex knew that he had suddenly been given more bargaining power than the Krogan had had in many centuries and he exploited that to its fullest.  Curing the genophage wasn't a realistic possibility before now, politically or clandestinely.  He couldn't have just used Maellon's/Mordin's cure or the shroud without first forcing the political concession, either, lest the STG just uncure the cure.

On point 2, this is true if you followed a Renegade path through ME2.  If you engaged Mordin as a paragon in his loyalty mission, though, he wavers.  To me it seemed like a natural progression from the paragon path.  The renegade path got the short stick unless you killed Wrex AND destroyed Maellon's data so you can knock sense back into Mordin at the end.

On point 3, conceded.  I want to know what the bleep that Reaper was doing other than standing around and possibly directing husks.  If it was going to use the shroud for its own purposes, it had had plenty of time to have both done so and taken its plan past the point of no return.  Otherwsie, there's no reason to leave it standing.  There needed to have been exposition where Mordin has to deal with both STG sabotage AND Reaper modifications.

On point 4.............  ok yeah I see what you mean now.

[The Heretic of Time]

Tazzmission wrote...

op sorry to hear that and all but dont you think thats a bit extreme?

Extreme? I don't know. It's not as if I choose to feel this way you know. I mean I honestly tried to play ME1 and ME2 and actually enjoy it, but I just couldn't.

[3DandBeyond]

Pitznik wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...


This is exactly right.  It's almost like his one really bad solution, the reapers, was split into 3 parts.  He wants to create synthesis but does so very badly and not completely. He is in control but he is terrible at it because he could use the reapers to keep synthetics from killing organics.  He does destroy but he destroys organics to keep them from making synthetics that will destroy them. 

The reapers are not a permanent solution, either.  Or they wouldn't keep returning.  But they aren't a permanent solution partly because the kid keeps having them seed the galaxy with tech.  If the reapers are not a permanent solution then why should the new ones be permanent?  Control and Synthesis leave the reapers alive and they don't assure that no conflict will ever exist again.  Destroy does destroy current synthetics that the kid thinks will become evil killers.

Reapers = repeatable
Destroy = somewhat repeatable, but no easier

Reapers = 50,000 years of success
Destroy = 1 day+ for synthetic life, who knows how much for "synthetic apocalypse!" - less than 50,000 years for sure

Reapers = Catalyst in full control of current and future solutions (most likely, since we can't be 100% he is destroyed)
Destroy = noone in control, people of the galaxy will have to deal on their own - so no guarantee

Also, if he really wanted synthetics destroyed, he could just do that, using the Reapers.

3D, I would like to present you an example. You're building a house. You have a hammer, plenty of nails, and you nail them nails one by one. I come and I offer my help - I will nail three nails for you, but you will have to give me your hammer forever, and ask my permission to buy new hammer.

Does it make any sense for you to seal that deal?

The problem is the goal of 3 games was never to solve this problem-synthetics vs. organics.  It was the kid's goal.  None of the new solutions last forever, so there's no guarantee there either and the reapers aren't permanent and with the reapers' help it still took people 50k years to get to a point to create synthetics.  Left alone, it could take longer.  You assume it would take less time, but all that reaper tech gives them a bump and they now have to learn how to repair all of the stuff destroy damaged and they have no synthetics to help-presumably it destroys the kid too.  So, it could take 100,000 years for them to learn to create synthetics.  It could take 10.  But, destroy still gets rid of current synthetics.

He's a warped AI.  I can't say with any certainty what he might determine is a solution-no one here or in game can.  His creators programmed him and didn't know he'd come up with the solutions he did.  So, how can we all now know more than his creators?  They trusted and believed he would do what they wanted and he went haywire.  So, now all of a sudden we're way smarter and we know what he is thinking.  I don't think so and I really don't want to.  If he ever starts making sense to me, I'm in trouble, unless he has some big change.

And I'm sorry but I really don't quite get your hammer thing at all.  I assume you want me to figure you are as crazy as the kid, because that's the only way I could compare things.  And I know you aren't like him, just sayin' you would have to be.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 17 août 2012 - 09:42 .

[Eterna]

So much drama.