514 réponses à ce sujet

[The Interloper]

 

silverexile17s wrote...
Mars was a suspension of disbelief regarding the reason to go there. We JUST know learn that the plans are there, right as the Reapers hit Earth, where we happen to be? We should have learned this in ME2. 

There are some small but obvious things they could have done to make the story flow better. Have at least a reference to TIM in ME1, so his involvement in the later games feels more natural. Make Okeer have some collector seekers in his lab, so the ones Mordin gets before the horizon mission don't seem like they just came out of nowhere. But most of all, they should have had Shepard gain the Crucible plans or something akin to them at the end of ME2, possibly in the collector base or a related area (and then have Liara either studying them or searching for the rest of the plans on Mars). Critics of ME2's plot have often noted that the second part of a trilogy should be (in the interests of pacing) about discovering how to defeat the enemy; while personally I think ME2's plot worked okay (especially in reference to the DE ending)  adding the crucible in ME2 would have made ME3 flow alot better.

It's quite clear (as the ending attests) that the writers were effectively making it up as they went a long, at least to an appreciable extent. Though honestly I didn't really mind this up until the last few hours, all in all this sort of improvisation is arguably the greatest  weakness of the  storytelling in the franchise as a whole, and the source of it's greatest issues.

silverexile17s wrote...
Chronos Station was fun, and satisfying, as you took apart Cerberus, as well as learned that you were played right from the beginning. Although, it still feels.... off, somehow. Lacking in something. Not totally sure what though.

I think Cerberus's involvement in general in ME3 was lacking something. Personally I found them appreciably menacing, even if they did ultimatly lose at everything, but it all fell apart at the end because we never get a clear picture as to what Cerberus wants, much less how it intends to get it. It's eventually revealed that TIM is just stark raving mad, and correct about the control option more or less by coincidence. I think that Cerberus involvement would have worked better if, ultimately, it was only through TIM's actions that the crucible is able to control the reapers at all. I kept expecting him to say (and really wish he had) during the final confrontation with him that he knows perfectly well that he's indoctrinated but that the joke's on the Reapers, because it actually is possible to control them (were the indoctrination would have succeeded was in convincing TIM that he could be the one to do the controlling). Also, you should have been allowed to possibly control the reapers to only serve the will of humanity.

silverexile17s wrote...

Earth ...felt like that was the starting point, but was left uncoded in terms of content. The endings had good ideas, but weren't developed in unique branching ways like they should have been. They could have been alot better - amazing even, if done right.

"Like" a starting point? That is exactly what it is. ME3 has clear cuts likely brought about by time and budget constrains, and nowhere is this more obvious then the ending hour.

People often complained how linear this ostensibly "branching" story line was. I was okay with it, because it was obvious that they didn't have the time or the money to do branching throughout the entire trilogy. I wish the main plot of ME3 had more choice in it (even if it was just being able to do Rannock before Tuchanka) but I was fine with that. Maybe they couldn't make the story branch too much then either, I thought. So I waited for the ending. All they had to do was create a two to three hour section that varied widly from playthrough to playthrough, and exploit the fact that they were no longer constrained by cannon, and I would have forgiven the linear structure the story that adopted up until then in a heartbeat. But if anything, the ending was actually more linear.

From what we've seen, what I think the devs wanted to do (and what I would have done) is divide war assets into three groups; Hammer, Sword, and Shield. This division is made in the story but in terms of gameplay the destinction is meaningless. Segmenting them and their affects (ie having a character die if your hammer score isn't high enough, regardless of your total war assets) would have gone a long way towards giving the endings variability. 

Modifié par The Interloper, 02 février 2013 - 08:08 .

[Asch Lavigne]

Barquiel wrote...

Belisarius25 wrote...

Asch Lavigne wrote...

It wasn't just the ending that made ME3 a poor ending to the trilogy. It was also what they did with decisions, auto-dialogue, making ME2 completely pointless, etc.... I could go on and on.

I don't disagree with your other points, but ME2 itself created a large problem by taking the story off on (essentially) a tangent, creating way too many squadmates (thus forcing the writers to find a way to stuff them all into ME3), and introducing more than a few wacky elements (the whole dying and resurrected thing still annoys me).

ME3 definitely has issues (although I still enjoy playing most of it), but I think at least some of the issues were - if not unavoidable - brought on from ME1 and (especially) 2, and there wasn't necessarily a 'good' way to get around them.

I agree. Shepard being resurrected serves no narrative purpose, except for some "funny" one-liners here and there. Project Lazarus is also the biggest space magic ever

But despite its myriad flaws, I enjoyed the journey....

Hmm... never really thought much about the "space magic" of Prjoect Lazarus. I know they did it as the best idea (to them)  to put Shep in Cerberus' hands and move the story ahead 2 years. But the point I was referring to in saying it made ME2 pointless was the whole thing about the Collectors. If the whole point of the Reapers was to make us into them, then what was the point of the Collectors? There is none. The truth of the cycle made that game's plot and darn near everything else in that game completely pointless.And the whole "TIM has the base" and uses its tech the exact same way regardless of what you did" didn't make it any better.

Also, side quests from ME2 had no affect on ME3. Example: I can get the Javelin Missile Launchers war asset without having even touched that quest in ME2. I could name other examples, everything from Ish (though I didn't play Omega) to helping the Quarian on the Citadel with the Volus, all no affect. ME1 sidequests came back up. Conrad Verner did, and that included other ME1 quests. The annoying couple arguing over the baby. Refund guy. ME2 was just pointless.

Modifié par Asch Lavigne, 02 février 2013 - 08:30 .

[silverexile17s]

The Interloper wrote...

 

silverexile17s wrote...
Mars was a suspension of disbelief regarding the reason to go there. We JUST know learn that the plans are there, right as the Reapers hit Earth, where we happen to be? We should have learned this in ME2. 

There are some small but obvious things they could have done to make the story flow better. Have at least a reference to TIM in ME1, so his involvement in the later games feels more natural. Make Okeer have some collector seekers in his lab, so the ones Mordin gets before the horizon mission don't seem like they just came out of nowhere. But most of all, they should have had Shepard gain the Crucible plans or something akin to them at the end of ME2, possibly in the collector base or a related area (and then have Liara either studying them or searching for the rest of the plans on Mars). Critics of ME2's plot have often noted that the second part of a trilogy should be (in the interests of pacing) about discovering how to defeat the enemy; while personally I think ME2's plot worked okay (especially in reference to the DE ending)  adding the crucible in ME2 would have made ME3 flow alot better.

It's quite clear (as the ending attests) that the writers were effectively making it up as they went a long, at least to an appreciable extent. Though honestly I didn't really mind this up until the last few hours, all in all this sort of improvisation is arguably the greatest  weakness of the  storytelling in the franchise as a whole, and the source of it's greatest issues.

silverexile17s wrote...
Chronos Station was fun, and satisfying, as you took apart Cerberus, as well as learned that you were played right from the beginning. Although, it still feels.... off, somehow. Lacking in something. Not totally sure what though.

I think Cerberus's involvement in general in ME3 was lacking something. Personally I found them appreciably menacing, even if they did ultimatly lose at everything, but it all fell apart at the end because we never get a clear picture as to what Cerberus wants, much less how it intends to get it. It's eventually revealed that TIM is just stark raving mad, and correct about the control option more or less by coincidence. I think that Cerberus involvement would have worked better if, ultimately, it was only through TIM's actions that the crucible is able to control the reapers at all. I kept expecting him to say (and really wish he had) during the final confrontation with him that he knows perfectly well that he's indoctrinated but that the joke's on the Reapers, because it actually is possible to control them (were the indoctrination would have succeeded was in convincing TIM that he could be the one to do the controlling). Also, you should have been allowed to possibly control the reapers to only serve the will of humanity.

silverexile17s wrote...

Earth ...felt like that was the starting point, but was left uncoded in terms of content. The endings had good ideas, but weren't developed in unique branching ways like they should have been. They could have been alot better - amazing even, if done right.

"Like" a starting point? That is exactly what it is. ME3 has clear cuts likely brought about by time and budget constrains, and nowhere is this more obvious then the ending hour.

People often complained how linear this ostensibly "branching" story line was. I was okay with it, because it was obvious that they didn't have the time or the money to do branching throughout the entire trilogy. I wish the main plot of ME3 had more choice in it (even if it was just being able to do Rannock before Tuchanka) but I was fine with that. Maybe they couldn't make the story branch too much then either, I thought. So I waited for the ending. All they had to do was create a two to three hour section that varied widly from playthrough to playthrough, and exploit the fact that they were no longer constrained by cannon, and I would have forgiven the linear structure the story that adopted up until then in a heartbeat. But if anything, the ending was actually more linear.

From what we've seen, what I think the devs wanted to do (and what I would have done) is divide war assets into three groups; Hammer, Sword, and Shield. This division is made in the story but in terms of gameplay the destinction is meaningless. Segmenting them and their affects (ie having a character die if your hammer score isn't high enough, regardless of your total war assets) would have gone a long way towards giving the endings variability. 

I agree. It would have made complete sense to find the Crucible plans in the Collector Base, as they would likely have had prothean data left-over, as well as saying that they were sent to Mars to study the data alongside the ruins to try and decode the plans, or use them to gain knowladge about the archive, or so-on. ME2 should have been about building the foundations of the war. Instead, it felt like one giant side-quest. It did zilch to prep for the Reapers.
The worst part is that it seems the Crucible was likely apart of the original Dark Energy plot. (It's refered to by Shepard as a Dark Energy superweapon when talking to Conrad Verner in ME3)  But was completely rewritten after Drew left the team - and it shows. I think that major points like genophage and Rannoch and the Crucible were thought up ahead, but implimantation, and getting from point A to point B and so on, and all the filler in between seemed to have been half done on the fly.

And the Illusive Man having Cerberus make "additions" to the Crucible that enables Control would have been a good plot-twist. As well as those extra variations.

I never understood why ME3 was so pressed for time. They pushed back the orignal release from December 2011 to March 2012.  You'd think that with all the fans the series had, they would have gotten as much time as they needed to get it all right. If anything, the last hours should have been where the work was focused on.
I think that had the endgame been well done, it wouldn't have gotten torn into so badly. And I'm sure that everyone expected the ground forces to be divided by Shepard in a planning session for "who leads what division" that was reminisant of the Suicide Mission.
Instead, the last mission is a straight corridor, which is almost insulting to the series to end off on.

[Necrotron]

wright1978 wrote...

Both Journey and destination matter. Sadly ME3's destination was a trainwreck.

The destination helps define the journey.  When the destination is a completely frustrating, lore breaking mess, it tends to color everything that was 'established' before it.  If Batman ended his movie with siding with the Joker to kill 1/3 of the people to save the rest of Gotham, you bet that would color the entire movie.  People would rage about how 'out of character' that was, and how that didn't fit the established Batman tropes.  And that's merely a movie, not an interactive story where you are the character.  (of course, the ending isn't interpreted that way by everyone, there are those who see it differently.)

Modifié par Bathaius, 02 février 2013 - 10:31 .

[Nightdragon8]

Arcian wrote...

People go on a journey to get somewhere. That is literally the ENTIRE point.

yea would be like going to the Grand Canyon and finding out it turned into a massive parking lot. Or going to Niagara Falls and not seeing any water... that sort of thing.

[elitecom]

No, believe it or not, but everyone doesn't judge ME3 because of its ending. I found it to be bad from start to finish. Mass Effect 3 was the only Mass Effect game that I really didn't have a desire to finish, but I just did it to find out how things would end.....  For you convenience I compiled a nonexhaustive list of the faults of Mass Effect 3:

The TPS gameplay(am I playing Mass Effect or Gears of War?), no exploration, fetchquests, auto-dialogue, Protheans were retconned, the treatment of the Reapers, the Crucible plot, lack of non-linear story progression, forced emotions + auto-dialogue causing Shepard to be out of character(the weird dreams about that kid), complete disregard for ME1 & ME2, ridiculous changes in some character models, the removal of the neutral option and other dialogue options in the dialogue wheel, departure from the focus on scientific plausiblity and accuracy, Bioware did not add more "rpg-feautures", Mass Effect 3 is more like a TPS rather than a RPG, and last but not least the ending of course.

All of those things mentioned above is what makes Mass Effect 3 a bad game, not just the ending but as you have seen a lot of other things.     

Modifié par elitecom, 02 février 2013 - 12:37 .

[M Hedonist]

Shepard just sits on his hands for six months and then the Reapers, gigantic death machines, sneakily arrive on Earth without anyone noticing - this is like a storyline you'd find in an awful 50s sci-fi flick. It's schlock through and through, comparable to great Schlockbusters like M Night Shyamalan's The Happening or Plan 9 from Outer Space.

[archangel1996]

Titanic.

[EnvyTB075]

Nope.

[ZLurps]

Very good posts in this thread.

What I think is that even ME3 have moments where it really shines, there are are also many moments that are terrible. It's not a bad game, but overall it feels disjointed. However, I think people were been more forgiving if Priority:Earth delivered, which it doesn't.

Narrative of course require climax but ME3 that ME3 keeps throwing players between engaging and forced experiences through the game and that adds it's own layer of expectations to players (I beat this irritating element one more time and then this game get's better). This isn't supposed to happen at this scale to begin with.

So disjointed nature of game builds huge expectations towards the ending, mainly Priority: Earth which fails to deliver. As result players continue to expect that they get their "reward" on Citadel, which is actually just sort of interactive epilogue. No wonder it's hated.

IMO ME3 isn't a bad game, though not that great either if I think of it as standalone title. As last title of trilogy however it just doesn't live up to expectations.

[Maxster_]

The Interloper wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

RiptideX1090 wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

Seboist wrote...

Even Tuchanka is loaded with continuity issues and a derpy premise(lol @ground troops to fight space mecha cthulhu dreadnoughts).

And Derperus for absolutely no reason.
But compared to all other crap, of which ME3 consists - it is very good part. Compared to ME1 - it is moderate of course, due to flaws you mentioned.

The first two games were also filled with many, MANY derpy moments. And people have pointed them out, but the thing is, no one really cares about those game's flaws (of which there are many) because in the end, it was still good story telling. You don't care about plotholes or inconsistencies or whatever when after it's all said and done, you had an amazing experience.

The reason people pick out and harp on ME3's flaws so much, I think, is because they were so devastated by the end sequence they can't let the small stuff slide anymore. Which is a shame.

There is a thing, called suspension of disbelief.
If there is too much crap, story makes absolutely no sense - it is broken.
Anyway, ME1 was one and only game of ME series, that was written good(not great, but good). ME2 main story was nonsense, and ME3 destroyed all that was good in ME1 and ME2, and nullified overarching plot of the series.
Your excuse for a garbage writing won't work.
Garbage writing started right in intro, followed by mars contrived nonsense.

ME1? You mean, the game where the bad guy's plan was to find a back door that he wouldn't have needed if he hadn't been looking for a backdoor in the first place?

Sure. Like C-Sec would allow Saren to operate citadel control. Or Citadel fleet would allow a suspicious alien ship to dock.

And I know that ME2's main plot gets a bad rap sometimes, but I think it's worth noting that it was clearly written with the Dark Energy ending in mind, and while DE had it's own issues, it did explain many of the weak points of ME2 (why the human reaper mattered, why the collectors were in such a hurry to build it, what the deal with Haestrom was, why the collector base decision was significant, and so on).

Please.
Entire premise of ME2 makes absolutely no sense. They wanted to create a reaper from humans, and humans only, and majority of human population is on Earth, protected by almost entire Systems Alliance fleet.
And you saying, that a lone transport, who run away from one defence turret, and easily destroyed by a frigate, is a threat to an entire Systems Alliance fleet?
This excuse of a plot not only completely idiotic, it also displays Harbringer as a moron.

That the ME3 ending hung that all out to dry is another strike against ME3, not ME2.

No. Dark energy was completely dropped in ME2.
And ME2 is just meaningless sidemissions with a horrible written main story.

The difference between the other games and ME3 is that for the most part the direction in whch the plot moves was fine, even if the way in which it moves was sometimes wonky. For instance the resurrection raised a whole boatload of questions, but most of those could have been averted by just changing a few details (ie making Shepard comatose, not dead). The actual plot direction the resurrection facilitates--ie Shepard joining Cerberus and the story skipping two years ahead--is fine. 

ME2 main story makes absolutely no sense, lazarus included.

And as for the Tuchanka mission, it brought together all of the relevant plotlines, characters, a choices throughout the series to a logical conclusion with multiple endings and appreciable ramnifications for the characters, the overall plot, and the universe at large. So did Rannoch, albiet to a less graceful extent. In short, it got everything it needed to right, and if the last act of ME3 had followed suit the game would have elevated the series to an exalted status, and deservedly so I think. Details like Cerberus's exact motives for being present, or the possible tactical advantage of an air assault, are, in this context and for this game, absoutely insignificant.

Sure, if you like nonsensical drama. I bet your favorite mission is a Priority:Earth

For the ending, not only are the specific details wrong, but so is the entire direction it retroactivly tries to send the plot, as well as its handling of player choice, as well as the pacing, as well as the use of character, as well as the core gameplay, and it was all in most important sequence of the series to boot! It was the dev's last (and, to their credit, best) opportunity to tell a cohesive and emotionally relevant sequence that factored in player choice. The demands of the ending are higher then on, say, the opening of ME2 or Tuchanka, and it fell short. It is that context that  sets the ending head and shoulders above all of the other flaws, and I think it's fair to judge the series on that scene; and by extension, I don't think it's entirely appropriate to condemn the series for far lesser crimes.

ME3 have 3 main unsolvable problems - reapers arrival(nullifies overarching series plot), Crucible(turn ME3 plot into nonsense and dumbs down characters) and Cerberus Empire(plain impossible, also helps to turn ME3 into nonsense).
Ending is just a finisher.

[Maxster_]

elitecom wrote...

No, believe it or not, but everyone doesn't judge ME3 because of its ending. I found it to be bad from start to finish. Mass Effect 3 was the only Mass Effect game that I really didn't have a desire to finish, but I just did it to find out how things would end.....  For you convenience I compiled a nonexhaustive list of the faults of Mass Effect 3:

The TPS gameplay(am I playing Mass Effect or Gears of War?), no exploration, fetchquests, auto-dialogue, Protheans were retconned, the treatment of the Reapers, the Crucible plot, lack of non-linear story progression, forced emotions + auto-dialogue causing Shepard to be out of character(the weird dreams about that kid), complete disregard for ME1 & ME2, ridiculous changes in some character models, the removal of the neutral option and other dialogue options in the dialogue wheel, departure from the focus on scientific plausiblity and accuracy, Bioware did not add more "rpg-feautures", Mass Effect 3 is more like a TPS rather than a RPG, and last but not least the ending of course.

All of those things mentioned above is what makes Mass Effect 3 a bad game, not just the ending but as you have seen a lot of other things.     

This also.

[Seboist]

The DE plot was just as moronic as what we ended up getting. Turning humans into liquid goo to form a three eyed space terminator to save the universe from DE on the count of "genetic diversity"? Seriously?

[Helios969]

Joe Paterno...fifty years of doing good wiped out by a really bad decision at the end. We humans tend to focus on the last thing we see.

[D1ck1e]

elitecom wrote...

No, believe it or not, but everyone doesn't judge ME3 because of its ending. I found it to be bad from start to finish. Mass Effect 3 was the only Mass Effect game that I really didn't have a desire to finish, but I just did it to find out how things would end.....  For you convenience I compiled a nonexhaustive list of the faults of Mass Effect 3:

The TPS gameplay(am I playing Mass Effect or Gears of War?), no exploration, fetchquests, auto-dialogue, Protheans were retconned, the treatment of the Reapers, the Crucible plot, lack of non-linear story progression, forced emotions + auto-dialogue causing Shepard to be out of character(the weird dreams about that kid), complete disregard for ME1 & ME2, ridiculous changes in some character models, the removal of the neutral option and other dialogue options in the dialogue wheel, departure from the focus on scientific plausiblity and accuracy, Bioware did not add more "rpg-feautures", Mass Effect 3 is more like a TPS rather than a RPG, and last but not least the ending of course.

All of those things mentioned above is what makes Mass Effect 3 a bad game, not just the ending but as you have seen a lot of other things.     

This sums it up pretty good.

Also, when you're left with a bad taste in your mouth, you star to look at the ingredient, and the chef.

Modifié par D1ck1e, 02 février 2013 - 03:05 .

[The Night Mammoth]

Seboist wrote...

The DE plot was just as moronic as what we ended up getting. Turning humans into liquid goo to form a three eyed space terminator to save the universe from DE on the count of "genetic diversity"? Seriously?

I can't comment honestly on the Dark Energy plot because it was obviously never brought to fruition because Mac Walters, but from the little we've heard about it, yeah, thank the maker that it wasn't used. 

[MageTarot]

Abraham_uk wrote...

Joking aside. I don't think the Lincoln assassination, Titantic disaster and Hindenberg disasters are good analogies.

Hmmmm....how about, "Other than that, Carrie, how did you enjoy the prom?"


<slinks off>

[ChurchOfZod]

Helios969 wrote...

Joe Paterno...fifty years of doing good wiped out by a really bad decision at the end. We humans tend to focus on the last thing we see.

This is probably the most specious statement ever typed on BSN. You should be ashamed of yourself for equating a man who allowed child rape to continue to the ending of a video game. Get some goddamn perspective.

[Caihn]

For me the journey was even worst than the ending.

[fiendishchicken]

^ Same.

The ending was the diarrhea death to a **** sandwich of a game for me.

Even so, the Final Battle of ME3 is the climax of the entire trilogy. It woefully fails to deliver.

The destination is where you want to see the payout or the consequences of the decisions and choices along the journey. 

We don't get that.

So yeah, the journey was great. But what was the point of it? I certainly didn't see one at the end of ME3.

Modifié par fiendishchicken, 02 février 2013 - 04:34 .

[Vargeisa]

The ending reminded me of the ending to Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
Only Monty Python can get away with such nonsense.

[graciegrace]

When the ending thematically contradicts the journey, then you have a super huge problem

[Jadebaby]

Why are you quoting yourself? Oh and that's just a blatant lie, look at Kai Leng...

[fiendishchicken]

Jadebaby wrote...

Why are you quoting yourself? Oh and that's just a blatant lie, look at Kai Leng...

You're really on a Kai Leng hate streak today aren't you.