514 réponses à ce sujet

[malakim2099]

fiendishchicken wrote...

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. 

He took Jadebaby's cereal. Fiend!

[eddieoctane]

ChurchOfZod wrote...

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.

He's not equating a flop of a game to allowing Sandusky catre blanche to commit his terrible crimes. He was saying that despite Paterno's charitable works, his efforts to put more focus on the "student" part of "student athlete", and his general decentness as a human being was overshadowed by his singular mistake that came to light at the end of the man's life. The focus on the final event is a psychological phenomenon that has been around since the dawn of time and isn't going anywhere. The behavior happens in both cases, and in that regard, the comparison is valid.

[silverexile17s]

[quote]Maxster_ wrote...

[quote]The Interloper wrote...

[quote]Maxster_ wrote...

[quote]RiptideX1090 wrote...

[quote]Maxster_ wrote...

[quote]Seboist wrote...

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

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.

[/quote]
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.
[/quote]

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?
[/quote]
Sure. Like C-Sec would allow Saren to operate citadel control. Or Citadel fleet would allow a suspicious alien ship to dock.
[quote]
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).
[/quote]
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.
[quote]
That the ME3 ending hung that all out to dry is another strike against ME3, not ME2.
[/quote]
No. Dark energy was completely dropped in ME2.
And ME2 is just meaningless sidemissions with a horrible written main story.
[quote]
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. 
[/quote]
ME2 main story makes absolutely no sense, lazarus included.
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
Sure, if you like nonsensical drama. I bet your favorite mission is a Priority:Earth
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
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.

[/quote]
1. You REALLY didn't play ME1, did you? An ARMY of geth poured through the Conduit, which, conviently, IS LESS THEN 20 OR SO METERS FROM THE ELEVATOR TO C-SEC HQ, AND RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE ELEVATOR TO THE CITADEL TOWER.
It's just not possible for you to have played ME1 if you get even THAT wrong. There WAS no reaction time, and the majority of C-Sec was dealing with the geth, and were unable to even get CLOSE to Saren.
AND THEY TRIED TO STOP SOVERGIEN. WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK THE SPACE BATTLE WAS FOR?!
You REALLY have no comprehension of even IN-GAME lore if you MISSED that.

2. EASILY? The Normandy was an advanced prototype - the most advanced ship in the galaxy that isn't Reaper-made. And IT gets hit several times, if you don't have the Thannix Cannon, whihc is a scaled down version of a Reaper Gun. So NO, it's NOT easy to kill for REAGULAR ships. Just ask the three turian frigates that got killed by the Collector Ship when you investigate it.
The moron, again, is the one that fails in lore comprehension.

3. YOU were the one that praised ME2 before. It's NOT horrible. Just tedious. I mean, really. There will NEVER be a perfect game. You can make critiques, but STOP calling them horrible when they're not, JUST because you only come to the forums to troll BioWare. At LEAST have reasonable basing, aside from your personal bias.

4. Again, your damn bias. ME2 isn't nonsensicle. The problem is that the story is stand-alone. Detached from the main one. NOT horrible. If it was horrible, it's rating would be lower then ME3. ME1 is widely considered the best of the three, yet is completed the least, according to BioWare's polls.
However, I will give you the Lazarus Project. THAT was rather unbelievable.

5. Again, NOT nonsensicle. Maybe to YOU, since YOU never analyze the story lore, but to everyone else, they still got through it, and most loved it, despite it being lackluster compaired to the others.
There is NOTHING that contidicts any of the lore, in the other games or otherwise. It's not executed well, but the main story concept is no better then ME1.

6. Again, wrong, wrong, wrong.
(a). Sovergien's death stalled the Reapers for three years (CONFIRMED: ME wiki, Timeline article) and ruined their instant win. Overreaching plot IS the Reapers arrival. So the Reapers arriving NILIFIES the plot of the Reapers arriving? Even though as stated above, and on the Wiki, it clearly doesn't?
"wow doesn't even cover that smutboy":devil:

( Crucible has been on the ME drawing board since ME1. It was part of the main plot well into ME2 development. And as stated many times, NOTHING about it violates the lore, since Vigil was programed after Ilos went dark, and has NO information about the thing or the war. And with it's original memory corrupted beyond repair, not knowing about the Crucible is a GIVEN. So NO, the Crucible DOESN'T void the lore with it's existance. It may be akwardly delivered, but it ISN'T Lore-breaking.

© Cerberus Empire is because they have Omega to recrut from en masse, and gained a ton of positive pobularity from both having Shepard with them, and for stopping the Collectors when no one else would. Add to that the fact that they can create new soldiers by kidnapping civilians, as easily as Reapers can make husks, and it all balances out. It's not QUITE the suspension of disbelief YOU streatch it to be.

Modifié par silverexile17s, 02 février 2013 - 06:24 .

[silverexile17s]

fiendishchicken wrote...

^ 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.

Incorrect. Most say that the ending alone is the fault. The game isn't horrible. It doesn't stack up to it's predessors, but it's still a great game.
Not as good as the others, but still.

Modifié par silverexile17s, 02 février 2013 - 07:01 .

[The Interloper]

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

Saren, one of the council's most trusted (and feared) agents, couldn't have pulled rank and bluffed his way into the control room of his own base? Also, you forget that the fleet that Sovy fought in ME1 had largely been assembled in response to the threat of Saren in the first place.

Maxster_ wrote...
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.

The implication is that the collectors did not intend to hit earth until the Reapers actually arrived and were around to help. They were just getting a head start on the HR by hitting small targets they could handle without backup. And the Dark Energy ending at least gave a reason as to why the collectors couldn't just wait a few years to start. I agree that Harbinger makes questionable strategetic decisions at points but that's a lesser issue.

Maxster_ wrote...
No. Dark energy was completely dropped in ME2.
And ME2 is just meaningless.

With all due respect, what the heck are you talking about? Dark energy clearly was set up, at least in part, in ME2, with the human reaper and Haestrom. Then it was dropped in ME3, which switched over to the synthetic nonsense. That rendered ME2 meaningless. Like I said, the fault lies with ME3.

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

I understand if you want to disagree, but your attempts at condescention and belittlement are only hurting yourself. I dislike Priority Earth very much and explained, in detail, why it is clearly distinct from all other instances of weak writing in the series, and why I forgive those but not Priority Earth. You have done almost nothing to address that other then vaguely stating "You're wrong" and your insinuation that I like Priority Earth strongly implies that you completely missed my point.

Also if a few vague or questionable details about the context of a situation render the whole thing absolutely, completely, 100 percent "nonsensical" and "idiotic" then you must not enjoy many stories (including ME1). ME3 fails because it doesn't properly display the effects of player choice, because it abandons it's emphasis on character at the most important moment, and because it completely changes the main conflict in the last five minutes. It does not fail because every little detail and logistic isn't entirely explained or made perfect strategetic sense. It would be nice if that were so, sure, but you have to know what battles you can win and the rigors of game development means that sometimes the story is going bend, and you just have to accept that. But there is a line somewhere,and it was at priority Earth that crossed that line, for me and for many others. Again, I already explained why.

Maxster_ wrote...
reapers arrival nullifies overarching series plot

How so?

Modifié par The Interloper, 02 février 2013 - 06:50 .

[zyntifox]

While the ending both pre and post EC is bad it's not ME3's biggest flaw (in my opinion). It's the usage of auto-dialogue that really kills it for me. It is a jarring experience to constantly lose control of the character you have spent two games shaping. Does the conversation "flow" better? Yes it does. But unlike ME1, and to a lesser degree ME2, you feel like a passenger in ME3.

[The Interloper]

silverexile17s wrote...
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)  

The very emphasis on Earth probably was too. If humans are important, then Earth is important; an unusual amount of reaper attention would likely be focused there. And indeed, in the final game everyone's always talking about "retaking Earth" as if it's special. Which, if the Human Reaper had been kept as an important plot point, it would have been. Also. the whole thing with the citadel being loaded with dead human bodies is clearly tied with the human reaper, but makes no sense with the synthetic ending.

[silverexile17s]

The Interloper wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...
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)  

The very emphasis on Earth probably was too. If humans are important, then Earth is important; an unusual amount of reaper attention would likely be focused there. And indeed, in the final game everyone's always talking about "retaking Earth" as if it's special. Which, if the Human Reaper had been kept as an important plot point, it would have been. Also. the whole thing with the citadel being loaded with dead human bodies is clearly tied with the human reaper, but makes no sense with the synthetic ending.

Indeed. I'd bet that human biotic potental may have been tied into that well, as well as how humans have more "Genetic Diversity" then all the other races do. Harbinger actually makes qoutes for every squadmate, commenting on their "Genetic Viabilaty" in ME2 when you fight him. He should say these qoutes if he personaly brings the coorosponding squad-mate down. Example: If he takes down Miranda, he makes the corrosponding qoute.
These qoutes are:

"Quarian;  considered due to cybernetic augmentation, weakened immune system too debilitating.” (Tali)

“Drell; useless, insufficient numbers.” (Thane)

“Human; viable possibility, aggression factor useful if controlled.” (Zaeed)

“Asari; reliance upon alien species for reproduction shows genetic weakness.” (Samara)

“Salarian; insufficient lifespan, fragile genetic structure.” (Mordin)

“Human; viable possibility, impressive genetic malleability.” (Miranda)

“Geth; an annoyance, limited utility.” (Legion)

“Human; viable possibility, impressive technical potential.” (Kasumi)

“Human; viable possibility, if emotional drives are subjugated.” (Jacob)

“Human; viable possibility, great biotic potential.” (Jack)

“Krogan; sterilised race, potential wasted.” (Grunt)

“Turian; you are considered...too primitive.” (Garrus)

Obviously, the emphesis here was on humans being special. Even the fact that Earth was seemingly the first major strike against the galaxy (excluding the batarians) hints at re-used plot material. It's obvious that much of the content regarding the attack on Earth and the Crucible itself was recycled from the original Dark Energy plot, instead of having new ideas formed.

Modifié par silverexile17s, 02 février 2013 - 07:15 .

[3DandBeyond]

wright1978 wrote...

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

This.  A person who goes on a trip might consider a bad journey to be worth it if the destination is great, but I've never seen evidence of the opposite.  A bad destination is often all that is remembered, even if the journey was great.  In the case of ME3, the problem is that a bad destination (one that is distinctly devoid of all emotion except perhaps horror and disgust that all that fun and even work and years of waiting came down to this) may often make you re-evaluate the whole damn trip.

ME1 and 2 hold up fairly well under scrutiny, but certain parts of ME3's journey start to falter under the microscope created by depressing and demented endings ripped from other games and sources.

If you don't like the endings, and you said so, people here have acted like you have no brain of your own and are just saying that to be nasty.  So, you explain what you didn't like and thus begins the trip down a rabbit hole.  In explaining how the endings are just so bad (I had that instant impression of them right away all on my own), you start to explore why you have that gut reaction.  Some reasons are obvious but then people here have demanded (and then ridiculed) your proof of what went wrong.  That only makes other parts of the ME3 journey become even more obvious. 

The beginning-when I played it for the first time I instinctively cringed a lot at what was being shown and said, but if the ending had been good, I could have accepted it enough.  The kid, real or glowy, I never liked him and his dialogue even as an opaque boy, was rather stupid.  The forced emotions Shepard showed for him really turned my stomach.  The fetch quests (reaper tag)-ok, hard to accept this is the galaxy on the brink of extermination when some version of an 80's arcade game is used to find warships in reaper-controlled territory. 

Auto-dialogue.  ME3 starts to feel like one big cutscene with occasional two pronged choices.

EMS-ok, really war assets that are a random set of numbers that are based on what exactly?  Well, my game seems to say they are based upon the ability to repel or even defeat the reapers, but ultimately no, somehow the choices in the citadel know exactly how many war assets matter in order for you to be offered 3.  And those choices apparently think that MP is just as valid as actually lining up war assets to fight the reapers that you never actually fight.

Then, there's these carried over decisions like the Collector base.  Amazingly enough whoever created the choices seemed to just figure that Shepard would get to the Collector base and if s/he destroyed it, Shepard would need to get a higher EMS to get to choose control.  If Shepard gave it to TIM, who was controlled into thinking he could control the reapers and who became a kind of target for them (Sanctuary), then whoever made the choices made control a little bit easier to get.  This is an amazing set of circumstances.  Whoever created the choices has them adjust to circumstances that occur in the future, in Shepard's time.  But, none of this really affects the game-they just affect the choices.  It would make sense if the war assets Shepard obtains are used just to make the crucible or protect it, but it's the fact that the choices take into account very specific assets.  Control specifically can hinge on whether or not you save or destroy a specific asset, the base.  That calls into question these choices (it's one thing among many).

The fact is what matters is the journey and the destination.  But, I believe that bad journeys can still be made up for with a great destination.  The opposite is not true.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 02 février 2013 - 07:32 .

[The Heretic of Time]

I don't judge ME3 because of the ending. I fully realize the ending is only a tiny part of the bullsh*t and nonsensical drivel that we got in ME3. It's not just the ending. The whole game stinks from start to finish.

[Mr.Antihero]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

I don't judge ME3 because of the ending. I fully realize the ending is only a tiny part of the bullsh*t and nonsensical drivel that we got in ME3. It's not just the ending. The whole game stinks from start to finish.

Then why are you here?

[Reorte]

Mr.Antihero wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

I don't judge ME3 because of the ending. I fully realize the ending is only a tiny part of the bullsh*t and nonsensical drivel that we got in ME3. It's not just the ending. The whole game stinks from start to finish.

Then why are you here?

I do hate it when people say that because it's always incredibly ignorant. People who hate ME3 like Mass Effect and hate what ME3 has done to it. The people who hate everything about Mass Effect from start to finish aren't here.

I'm shaking my head at even having to explain this (and personally I don't think that the whole game stinks from start to finish either).

[Omega Torsk]

Brhino wrote...

Apart from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

[3DandBeyond]

silverexile17s wrote...

fiendishchicken wrote...

^ 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.

Incorrect. Most say that the ending alone is the fault. The game isn't horrible. It doesn't stack up to it's predessors, but it's still a great game.
Not as good as the others, but still.

With the ending providing a lack of exposition finally for all the relevant plot points still left dangling and it raising more questions than were answered, thus all but requiring the EC and Leviathan be created to try and explain it (and then including a lot more that made it all in many ways worse, or at least did not fix things that were still not tied up), the rest of ME3 starts to fall apart as too little and in many ways, too silly. 

It would have been a great game, if:
It explained all that was open to question in ME1 and 2.  Their failures or lack of clarity and closure should have been addressed in ME3, but never were.  ME3 made it all worse.

The games seemed to go like this:
ME1-this is the enemy we are to face.  This is his reason for being here (you are not able to understand it) and this is his power.  You delay his friends from getting here.
ME2-humans (and one human in particular) have inconvenienced a huge race of killers.  They send a vanguard to help solve the problem, perhaps even isolate the humans (the plague), and an obsession with humans has begun.  Not everyone agrees a threat is coming, but Shepard sees it and is gathering together people from different races who see it too-these people are castoffs of society.  But they learn that there are bigger things than their own concerns and they find redemption.  It sets the stage for a galaxy still in denial.
ME3-The galaxy is made up of morons who still fight old wars even when huge monsters invade that are bent upon their extinction.  So, by all means use this as a time to have babies, reclaim your homeworld by annihilating lives you created, or be impressed to protect Earth.  And build this thing from unknown plans that will do some unknown thing.  At the end, use this unknown thing to do something that is only known to your enemy that is all based upon stuff you never wanted to do, and mostly be told you must commit suicide in doing it.  To explain why, buy the DLC.


ME3 does have some great parts.  But that only makes it somewhat even harder to take that they decided to end it this way.  A bad end makes the good parts harder to take and it reveals a lot of the bad parts that might have been overlooked.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 02 février 2013 - 08:05 .

[RedBeardJim]

silverexile17s wrote...

1. You REALLY didn't play ME1, did you? An ARMY of geth poured through the Conduit, which, conviently, IS LESS THEN 20 OR SO METERS FROM THE ELEVATOR TO C-SEC HQ, AND RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE ELEVATOR TO THE CITADEL TOWER.
It's just not possible for you to have played ME1 if you get even THAT wrong. There WAS no reaction time, and the majority of C-Sec was dealing with the geth, and were unable to even get CLOSE to Saren.
AND THEY TRIED TO STOP SOVERGIEN. WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK THE SPACE BATTLE WAS FOR?!
You REALLY have no comprehension of even IN-GAME lore if you MISSED that.

But why the Conduit? Why not just buy/steal/hijack/otherwise procure a freighter, stuff it to the brim with Geth, and dock it at whatever special, close-by docking facilities the most-trusted Spectre has access to? Boom, there's your huge ground force to distract C-Sec and get you access to the Council chamber, and you can still have Sovereign and the Geth armada come in through the relay, and more to the point you haven't warned anyone that anything is amiss before you kick things off.

2. EASILY? The Normandy was an advanced prototype - the most advanced ship in the galaxy that isn't Reaper-made. And IT gets hit several times, if you don't have the Thannix Cannon, whihc is a scaled down version of a Reaper Gun. So NO, it's NOT easy to kill for REAGULAR ships. Just ask the three turian frigates that got killed by the Collector Ship when you investigate it.
The moron, again, is the one that fails in lore comprehension.

You mean the Thanix cannons that the Codex says are becoming standard equipment in council fleets (Not that we ever see that in-game, of course)? And oh no, it beat three frigates! The Normandy's a frigate, recall. Let's see how it manages against a fleet of a few dozen cruisers and a dreadnought or three.

6. Again, wrong, wrong, wrong.
(a). Sovergien's death stalled the Reapers for three years (CONFIRMED: ME wiki, Timeline article) and ruined their instant win. Overreaching plot IS the Reapers arrival. So the Reapers arriving NILIFIES the plot of the Reapers arriving? Even though as stated above, and on the Wiki, it clearly doesn't?

So Sovereign's a chump. Three years? How long was he futzing around with his Saren/Geth plan? Why not just send out the "start hoofing it" signal, and the Reapers arrive and start the reaping before Shepard ever sets foot on the Normandy? Against a galaxy that has no idea they're coming?

Because clearly, as seen in ME3, they don't need to take the Citadel to overwhelm the galactic militaries, even when we *do* know they're coming. They don't need to take the Citadel at all. Until they do. Offscreen, while you're farting around on the Cerberus base.

(Random aside: I love how the Citadel Defense Force, despite being completely useless at actually defending the Citadel, is still on the War Assets list *after* the Citadel gets nabbed)

[silverexile17s]

3DandBeyond wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

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

This.  A person who goes on a trip might consider a bad journey to be worth it if the destination is great, but I've never seen evidence of the opposite.  A bad destination is often all that is remembered, even if the journey was great.  In the case of ME3, the problem is that a bad destination (one that is distinctly devoid of all emotion except perhaps horror and disgust that all that fun and even work and years of waiting came down to this) may often make you re-evaluate the whole damn trip.

ME1 and 2 hold up fairly well under scrutiny, but certain parts of ME3's journey start to falter under the microscope created by depressing and demented endings ripped from other games and sources.

If you don't like the endings, and you said so, people here have acted like you have no brain of your own and are just saying that to be nasty.  So, you explain what you didn't like and thus begins the trip down a rabbit hole.  In explaining how the endings are just so bad (I had that instant impression of them right away all on my own), you start to explore why you have that gut reaction.  Some reasons are obvious but then people here have demanded (and then ridiculed) your proof of what went wrong.  That only makes other parts of the ME3 journey become even more obvious. 

The beginning-when I played it for the first time I instinctively cringed a lot at what was being shown and said, but if the ending had been good, I could have accepted it enough.  The kid, real or glowy, I never liked him and his dialogue even as an opaque boy, was rather stupid.  The forced emotions Shepard showed for him really turned my stomach.  The fetch quests (reaper tag)-ok, hard to accept this is the galaxy on the brink of extermination when some version of an 80's arcade game is used to find warships in reaper-controlled territory. 

Auto-dialogue.  ME3 starts to feel like one big cutscene with occasional two pronged choices.

EMS-ok, really war assets that are a random set of numbers that are based on what exactly?  Well, my game seems to say they are based upon the ability to repel or even defeat the reapers, but ultimately no, somehow the choices in the citadel know exactly how many war assets matter in order for you to be offered 3.  And those choices apparently think that MP is just as valid as actually lining up war assets to fight the reapers that you never actually fight.

Then, there's these carried over decisions like the Collector base.  Amazingly enough whoever created the choices seemed to just figure that Shepard would get to the Collector base and if s/he destroyed it, Shepard would need to get a higher EMS to get to choose control.  If Shepard gave it to TIM, who was controlled into thinking he could control the reapers and who became a kind of target for them (Sanctuary), then whoever made the choices made control a little bit easier to get.  This is an amazing set of circumstances.  Whoever created the choices has them adjust to circumstances that occur in the future, in Shepard's time.  But, none of this really affects the game-they just affect the choices.  It would make sense if the war assets Shepard obtains are used just to make the crucible or protect it, but it's the fact that the choices take into account very specific assets.  Control specifically can hinge on whether or not you save or destroy a specific asset, the base.  That calls into question these choices (it's one thing among many).

The fact is what matters is the journey and the destination.  But, I believe that bad journeys can still be made up for with a great destination.  The opposite is not true.

Okay. Let me take this from the top.
We all know that in the original cut, the endings were Bull***t. They only made more sense when the EC was made. There was marked improvement. The endings are no longer horrible.
But the downside is that they are now... well, melonchony. Monotone. You no longer have an attachment to it, as you remember what the original was, as think "this is as good as it gets for the trilogy."
They aren't horrible anymore, but they aren't steller either. The best word for the endings post-EC is avarage. That's where the opinions seem to balacne out at.

The EMS system was a nessessity. There were many variables made in the last games (over 1,000. And likely more from ME3). There was NO OTHER way to keep track of that many variables in an efficant and effective way. Codeing any other way of keeping track would have been messy, improbable to do, and expensive to code, costing as much as some levels. There was no way around the numarical system. It was the only way to keep track of it all.

The beginning of the game isn't that bad, in regards to Prolouge:Earth. It sets the tone that everything is dying, and we already knew that Earth was going to be at the forefront of the Reapers attack, as we deduce in ME2 that the Collectors planed to hit Earth when you boarded their ship.
Mars isn't bad in terms of level. But the pacing is off. The Crucible should have been introduced in ME2, so that we have more attachment to it as a plot element, and some background info on it so that we know ahead of time it's importantce. It wouldn't have felt like such a Deus Ex Machina to so many had it been introduced into the series sooner. Cerberus' trechery wasn't that much of a shock for me. The Illusive Man was always going to follow his own personal agenda.

Palaven is a bit liniar, but showcases the desperate struggle to hold back the Reapers, and that even the strongest of us are feeling the heat. It really does a great job of iterperting a war zone with the command structure in chaos.

Sur'Kesh embodies the race against time, in it's mood and music, where you feel the heat to sprint to the finish. It also displays the desperation that fuels the legnths that some will go to, either to survive, or in the Case of Cerberus, come out on top.

Tuchanka was perfect, if you ask me. All the plot elements to it from all three games converged here, and played off each other, having several diferent outcomes based on the choices. If the endings had followed this template, there wouldn't have been a problem.

The Citadel Coup was where things being to taper off. It wasn't horrible, but it was unimaginative. It felt like a re-hash of the endgame from ME1, but with Cerberus instead of the geth. Chase down the bad guy before he gets to the destination first.
Udina's betrayal wasn't too surprising to me. His human-centric goals, previous disliking of the Council, and the pressure of the Council basically scapepoating Earth to buy their own worlds more time, all seemed to corrilate to him being dirty. So it wasn't too shocking a turn.
Kai Leng's rendition in ME3 was what surprised me. He was little to nothing like in the books. In the books, he was professional, detached, was highly-trained in multiple weapons. An Ex-N7 soldier, turned assassin. Here, he's just an overpowered Phantom. A cyber-ninja (NOTHING to do with his aisan heritige, I'm sure) whose armor is practally ripping off Adam Jenson from Deus Ex: Human Revolution. - Even the damn shades! Petty, trash-talking. This verson was like the "Power Rangers villian of the day" in how he was done. No justice to his character.

Rannoch is good, but not so much as Tuchanka. All the storylines involving it converged here, but unlike Tuchanka, where there was actual debate regarding th ecure depending on who was alive and what choices you make, Rannoch was almost devoted to portraying the quarians as arrogant, uncaring dicks and the geth as poor, abused, misunderstood cherubs that never wanted to cause harm to anyone ever. It was a one-sided narritive in regards to the moral debate of the plot. Aside from that, the rest of it was good.

I seem to be one of the few that actually liked how Thessia was done. It perfectly embodied the galaxy's struggle aganst the Reapers while everything they built - all their self-assumed superiority - crumbles around them. The asari in particular, as they held art and phlosophy and political standing in the higest regard, as said by Matriarch Atheyta. And now all those things they focused on don't mean a damn anymore because the galaxy is ending and they have no clue on how to fight a true war. All their superiority did was make them a prime target without any true way to back themselves up.
Also, I enjoyed the twist regarding the asari's evolution being almost exclusively a result of prothean interfearance. It was a real shock, and well hidden, almost in plain sight, as we see how the snine curves in their tech resemble prothean architecture an technology. (Compare the Desiple Shotgun with the Partical Rifle. They are similar, save for the more defined, sharper edges of the Particle Rifle. Asari Ships also have an asetithc look that makes one asooicate them to the ruins on Therum and Ilos in ME1.) So that was hidden, but never spotted till one knew what to look for. Cudos to that. It's better to have Javik come to, as he can offer in-depth elaboration on the relics.
It also showcases that Shepard isn't infalible. The Commander has limits, and can be gotten the better off. Although this would have been better if Kai Leng's character was done RIGHT.

Horizon was a perfect embodyment of the rot at the core of Cerberus, and how they'd beeng going too far in the quest to raise humanity above the others. It's also here that we finally get a true glimpse at Cerberus true goals regarding why they undermined the Alliance in the war and the methods they used. It was also a good way of showing the tragidies of war, in that so many civilians were lost, and is also sureal, as we hear of Sanctuary almost the moment we arrive on the Citadel, from adverts. It's a sureal moment to learn the last true safe haven is a lie. Although, it could have been improved and taken further.

Chronos Station is satysfing, as you finally take Cerberus apart. You also discover EDI's origins as the V.I on Luna Base from ME1 (nice twist), and that Cerberus was using you right from the get-go. Even people like Miranda were minipulated, as she thought that the Illusive Man would never screw Shepard over after all the work to bring the Commander back, and truly thought he would act in the best interests of all. When she found out that it was the complete opposate, it must have been gut-wrentching. (Always regretted not seeing Miranda having that crisis of concious and faith, where it sinks in for her that all her work for Cerberus to better humanity - everything she ever believed in - is being used against them all. TIM even gave Oriana to her father - All the precautions she had were Cerberus Provided, and they were the ones that moved the family for her. That would have been class A character development for someone with her self-assured personality to realize that all this time, everything she believed in and worked toward was a lie. Seeing that ME2 - ME3 where she comes to terms with this would have been a good idea)
It also has a bad side, in that if shows Shepard was revived from clinical brain death, but never details how this could possibly work. MAJOR missed oppertunity to clear up one of the most controverisal moments of the game. Saying the tech was replicated from husks (Not Reaper-Tech, but based off it's concept) would have added another layer to Shepard's character, as you wonder not just if your really Shepard, but if you can even be considered human anymore, even if you are the real Sheaprd.
The Human-Reaper made little sense, because it shouldn't have survived the Collector Base being detsroyed if that was your choice. If you save the base, you get the brain. If you destroy the base, you get the heart.
The final fight in TIM's office was the better part. It even made me forget Kai Leng was ridiculously out of character in the game. And nothing beat the Renagade finish on him.

Then there's Priority: Earth.
(Shakes head) *sigh* Where do I start?
The beginning is that you use massive fleets of shuttles to fly in the troops. These shuttles are UT-47A Kodiak shuttles, which are described as having stealth drives based off of the Normandy design. Normal frigates racing at mach 5 or whatever towards the Conduit would set off alarm bells to every Reaper within 1,000 Kilometers of the thing, and they would be torn apart by every Sovergien-class in London and the surrounding areas, so there is no choice but to use stealth shuttles, as they woudn't be classed a major threat if seen in space, and would not be detected en masse until breaking atmo. That part makes sense, but you are left to figure it out. If there was doilouge that spicifically stated the reasons the frigates can't be used lest they bring the Reapers down on them, it would have gone a long way.

Earth on the ground has consistantly been described as the worst of the levels in the game, and a horrible way to end the entire series. After all that's been done in the games, the last thing people expected from this Endgame level was a staright corridor level.
Okay, so you get the Conduit in London. It's surrounded on all sides by heavily occupied Reaper forces, so you have no choice but to pick a side and change in.
But you never see the different divisions, or any evidence that there is real fighting. It's escentally a balnk slate level. Like a demo placeholder of the actual level itself. Missing the meat. Bare Bones. It was assumed that you would be planning and assinging people (NPC or Squadmates) to lead different sections of Hammer. Instead, after you say goodbye to everyone you gathered, you juts run on in.
It's like if the Collector base was just one run with the pipes to get in and: Done! To short. None of the people you gathered make any difference. They assumed that you would be assinging people to lead each division like the Suicide Mission.
The ending was abrupt to say the least. Anderson shouldn't have died as well. There at LEAST should have been an option to save him. Hell, make it so that you can choose between Saving Anderson and Saving Shepard. One dies, the other goes back home. THAT would have added tension. And the ending options aren't nearly explained in enough depth, as to the reasoning behind each option, or any real negitives aside from Destroy's.
And the way the choice was designed. Could they at least not have stolen the layout of the Helios A.I. from Deus Ex to format the ending. Three choices, and three paths to take. Each with a different color. There HAD to be a way to make them more unique, so as to differentate them from the other games out there.

All in all, ME3 has a strong start with a hiccup at Mars, a good first few levels, a bland mid-level, good follow ups, a final battle with Cerberus, and a dissapointing Endgame level and monotone endings.

[silverexile17s]

3DandBeyond wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

fiendishchicken wrote...

^ 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.

Incorrect. Most say that the ending alone is the fault. The game isn't horrible. It doesn't stack up to it's predessors, but it's still a great game.
Not as good as the others, but still.

With the ending providing a lack of exposition finally for all the relevant plot points still left dangling and it raising more questions than were answered, thus all but requiring the EC and Leviathan be created to try and explain it (and then including a lot more that made it all in many ways worse, or at least did not fix things that were still not tied up), the rest of ME3 starts to fall apart as too little and in many ways, too silly. 

It would have been a great game, if:
It explained all that was open to question in ME1 and 2.  Their failures or lack of clarity and closure should have been addressed in ME3, but never were.  ME3 made it all worse.

The games seemed to go like this:
ME1-this is the enemy we are to face.  This is his reason for being here (you are not able to understand it) and this is his power.  You delay his friends from getting here.
ME2-humans (and one human in particular) have inconvenienced a huge race of killers.  They send a vanguard to help solve the problem, perhaps even isolate the humans (the plague), and an obsession with humans has begun.  Not everyone agrees a threat is coming, but Shepard sees it and is gathering together people from different races who see it too-these people are castoffs of society.  But they learn that there are bigger things than their own concerns and they find redemption.  It sets the stage for a galaxy still in denial.
ME3-The galaxy is made up of morons who still fight old wars even when huge monsters invade that are bent upon their extinction.  So, by all means use this as a time to have babies, reclaim your homeworld by annihilating lives you created, or be impressed to protect Earth.  And build this thing from unknown plans that will do some unknown thing.  At the end, use this unknown thing to do something that is only known to your enemy that is all based upon stuff you never wanted to do, and mostly be told you must commit suicide in doing it.  To explain why, buy the DLC.


ME3 does have some great parts.  But that only makes it somewhat even harder to take that they decided to end it this way.  A bad end makes the good parts harder to take and it reveals a lot of the bad parts that might have been overlooked.

Oh please. You expected everyone to just suddenly work together with each-other after hundreds, even thousands of years of confict with each-other? THAT'S moronic thinking right there.
WHY should the krogan help th turians when they ordered the Genophage?
WHY should the quarians forgive the geth for driving them off Rannoch and bringing them to the brink?
WHY should the batarians just suddenly forget that the Council screwed them over in regards to fairness with the humans.
WHY should the humans forgive the batarians for their slave attacks on Elisysum?
WHY should the salarians believe the krogan will stay peacefull?
WHY should anyone trust the rachni after their war?
WHY should anyone want help from the Levathans, who show no remorse for creating the Reapers?
WHY should the vorcha care about anything but surviving?

If you REALLY thought that all these problems would just be pused aside instantly, THAT'S moronic.

And the Crucible isn't really that different from the atom bomb in terms of using something that has an unknown feature. No one really knew the effects of the bomb, but it still was used. Desperate time call for desperate measures. "ME2: Arrival " showed us that.

[eddieoctane]

RedBeardJim wrote...

But why the Conduit? Why not just buy/steal/hijack/otherwise procure a freighter, stuff it to the brim with Geth, and dock it at whatever special, close-by docking facilities the most-trusted Spectre has access to? Boom, there's your huge ground force to distract C-Sec and get you access to the Council chamber, and you can still have Sovereign and the Geth armada come in through the relay, and more to the point you haven't warned anyone that anything is amiss before you kick things off.

We can explain the need for the conduit with one simple assumption: even a Spectre has to bring everything other than his own firearms through customs. Now, he can't access the Citadel's controls without a supportive force that he can't bring in the front door. Saren must find a back door into the Citadel. The conduit is the back door. And there is reason to believe a Spectre still has a security check at the Citadel. In ME2, Shep goes through a security scanner to get into the Citadel repeatedly, even after being reinstated by the Council. In ME3, there's another security checkpoint between the Normandy and the elevator to areas of the CItadel beyond the dockign bay. This still occurs after regaining Spectre status a second time.

Remember Mordin's remarks about Spectres buyign their own weapons? He was amused that Shep had to buy his own gear when the STG had government-issued toys, even though the Spectres had higher authority. Then why wouldn't they have to shell out for a private docking bay like the Alliance did for the SR-1 in ME1? I distinctly remember someone being amazed that the Normandy's dock was so close to the Presidium and private, and that it most have cost a small fortune.

Ocham's razor. One assumption, reinforced by the games, explains the chain of events in ME1 rather well.

[Shaleist]

AlanC9 wrote...

Shaleist wrote...

What is ME3 combining?  I don't feel any Star Trek vibe ... It's more like Starship Troopers + some crappy Dutch Art film.. That's a bad combo.

Wasn't Starship Toopers already a Dutch Art film? Paul Verhoeven directed, anyway.

I meant 'overly somber, pretentious film student worshipping nonsense' Dutch Art films.  Not Paul Verhoeven's *FINE* work in a lot of action movies.  

[BearlyHere]

RiptideX1090 wrote...

LaBaron2020 wrote...

The ending sucked but the game is still pretty good. I still like playing through the trilogy, there is a very bitter taste in my mouth after my initial experience with the ending, but I enjoy the universe so much that I was able to kinda get over it.

I've tried a half dozen times to replay the trilogy, but can't get past Eden Prime.

I just get a little ways in before the "what the hell is the point?" voice in the back of my head asks me why I am wasting my time.

It sucks.

I look at the games on the shelf, but every time I think I'll start another run, I think of the destination and say, "What's the point?"  Even with MEHEM, I just don't want to go where Bioware is sending me.

[silverexile17s]

RedBeardJim wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

1. You REALLY didn't play ME1, did you? An ARMY of geth poured through the Conduit, which, conviently, IS LESS THEN 20 OR SO METERS FROM THE ELEVATOR TO C-SEC HQ, AND RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE ELEVATOR TO THE CITADEL TOWER.
It's just not possible for you to have played ME1 if you get even THAT wrong. There WAS no reaction time, and the majority of C-Sec was dealing with the geth, and were unable to even get CLOSE to Saren.
AND THEY TRIED TO STOP SOVERGIEN. WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK THE SPACE BATTLE WAS FOR?!
You REALLY have no comprehension of even IN-GAME lore if you MISSED that.

But why the Conduit? Why not just buy/steal/hijack/otherwise procure a freighter, stuff it to the brim with Geth, and dock it at whatever special, close-by docking facilities the most-trusted Spectre has access to? Boom, there's your huge ground force to distract C-Sec and get you access to the Council chamber, and you can still have Sovereign and the Geth armada come in through the relay, and more to the point you haven't warned anyone that anything is amiss before you kick things off.

2. EASILY? The Normandy was an advanced prototype - the most advanced ship in the galaxy that isn't Reaper-made. And IT gets hit several times, if you don't have the Thannix Cannon, whihc is a scaled down version of a Reaper Gun. So NO, it's NOT easy to kill for REAGULAR ships. Just ask the three turian frigates that got killed by the Collector Ship when you investigate it.
The moron, again, is the one that fails in lore comprehension.

You mean the Thanix cannons that the Codex says are becoming standard equipment in council fleets (Not that we ever see that in-game, of course)? And oh no, it beat three frigates! The Normandy's a frigate, recall. Let's see how it manages against a fleet of a few dozen cruisers and a dreadnought or three.

6. Again, wrong, wrong, wrong.
(a). Sovergien's death stalled the Reapers for three years (CONFIRMED: ME wiki, Timeline article) and ruined their instant win. Overreaching plot IS the Reapers arrival. So the Reapers arriving NILIFIES the plot of the Reapers arriving? Even though as stated above, and on the Wiki, it clearly doesn't?

So Sovereign's a chump. Three years? How long was he futzing around with his Saren/Geth plan? Why not just send out the "start hoofing it" signal, and the Reapers arrive and start the reaping before Shepard ever sets foot on the Normandy? Against a galaxy that has no idea they're coming?

Because clearly, as seen in ME3, they don't need to take the Citadel to overwhelm the galactic militaries, even when we *do* know they're coming. They don't need to take the Citadel at all. Until they do. Offscreen, while you're farting around on the Cerberus base.

(Random aside: I love how the Citadel Defense Force, despite being completely useless at actually defending the Citadel, is still on the War Assets list *after* the Citadel gets nabbed)

1. If it was that simple, they would have done it already. The Council has docking bays, gate security, and above all, LIFE SIGN SCANNERS.
And Spectres don't HAVE private docks. Shepard has to constantly use the Alliance dock. Saren would have had to use the turian dock, which is high-security. Even Spectres neet to go through customs, as Shepard shows us with all the security scanners in ME2 & ME3. ALSO, this would be easier to thwart, as they would have to fight through the wards as well as the presidum to get to the tower. Use the Cinduit, and you come out RIGHT ON TOP OF the Tower entrance, and the entrance to C-Sec headquarters nearby. You can take the station in minutes as opposed to hours, and before any military forces arrive in system. And you CAN'T have used the armada. If you dock at a public area, you would NEVER get to Citadel Control before the station's arms sealed, locking Sovergien out. Unless you can nuterlize Citadel Control quickly, the assualt fails.
The Conduit was the only to take Citadel Control, and C-Sec headquarters down quickly, before they even knew what hit them.

2. The Normandy is faster and tougher then the avarage ship.  A prototype with Saliris Armor, Cyclonic Barriars, Argus Sensor Suite, Heilos Thruster Module, Thanix Cannon, and has an Reaper tech-using A.I working with the best pilot in the Alliance, and a Reaper IFF that EDI says has several Reaper stratigac algroithems on it.
I doubt every ship is like that, is it? So the Normandy taking that crusier ISN'T anything special. If anything if felt sorry for the Collectors.

3. It took THE REST OF THE REAPERS  three years to get to the galaxy AFTER SOVERGIEN WAS KILLED. And WHY bother with coming when the Citadel was right there, primed and ready? They could win instantly, compaired to slogging through everyone at once and taking unessessary and unexpected losses.

And again, wrong. Read the  "Reaper Vunerbilaties" and "The Miricale on Palaven" Codex entries. Dozens of Reapers were felled because they had to fight the hard way throu everyone at once. They couldn't pick one off at a time anymore, because they didn't have access to the Relay Network. They couldn't cut them off from each other, so if they focus on one, the others all gang up on them. So becauset they had to come the hard way, they had to take everyone at once, which caused unexpected losses.
And the only take the Citadel when the Illusive Man goes there himself. He likely became Saren 2.0 and sabotaged the station so the Reaper could attack it without the fear of being locked out before the could even get in. Cerbeurs's earlier attack likelu uprooted any indoctrinated the Reapers may have had on the station, so they couldn't attack before the station could lock them out. The Council forces would see them coming and seal the station. THAT'S why they never attacked the Citadel till the Illusive Man went ther himself to give a helping hand. A hard impregnable shell puts a dampner on a takeover plan.

Modifié par silverexile17s, 02 février 2013 - 09:39 .

[LiarasShield]

Mr.Antihero wrote...

 "People forget it's not the ending that matters, it's the journey that brought you to the end that counts. The Mass Effect trilogy is one of the best sagas of all time."

"The reason why Mass Effect was the best trilogy was because after playing Mass Effect 1 and 2 your heart was so attached to the game, but to have such an emotional ending with the best soundtracks every made the ending very dramatic. The series felt like it was ripped from your heart, to have nothing left to continue."

Sometimes the ending is just as important as the journey if the ending sucks or everything you ended up trying to do doesn't matter then what was the point of starting the journey in the first place?

[AresKeith]

AresKeith wrote...

I don't judge ME3 just because the ending

[3DandBeyond]

Nightdragon8 wrote...

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.

Ha, when I was a kid we went to Niagara Falls all the time (relatives live there).  In the 1960s they did "turn off" the American Falls, so we went to see them BECAUSE there was no water.

However, I agree.  If the destination is not a good one then even a great journey is pretty much ruined.

[Vlk3]

It's not only the ending. The journey wasn't very pleasent for some players, too. For me the journey was even a worse disaster than the ending, although I really enjoyed some parts of the game.