235 réponses à ce sujet

[mvaning]

PSUHammer wrote...

mvaning wrote...

PSUHammer wrote...

mvaning wrote...

ME3 was such a great game that they had to reduce the box price to 20$ while some older games still retained their original retail value @60$

Supply and demand.  All depends on sales.  If a company thinks they hit critical mass for the sales of a product, they lower the price to drive up more demand.  Business economics, brother!

Of course, that's the point.  If ME3 was as well recieved as people in this thread claim, then Bioware would not have to drive down its price to 1/3 its original value.     Other games they have produced did not sink in price so quickly and rightfully so.   You would not lower the price on a product that sells well.  ME3 burned to the ground in alot of reviews and polls.  People are unlikely to buy a product at full price that has such a poor reputation when they can get a better game at a lower price.   

In a gaming market, the reputation of a game is a large factor in driving the market.   You don't have to look at the polls to see how well recieved a game is, just look at its original value and how fast it went down in value.

Last I checked...it had a Metacritic score over 90 and sold quite well...best of the series, from what I recall.  They did the same thing with DA2, as well.  And, it has been out a year.  These types of games never sell like FPS.  Since Battlefield and CoD sell tenfold over RPGs, they can sustain sales with the original price longer.  This isn't anything new.

So you can qoute me 1 site that gives it a good review?   I can give at least 10 that blasted it.    And the arguement that FPS games sell better than RPGs doesn't work because Skyrim is still selling at 60$.   Technically, ME3 is an FPS, even though it is also an RPG.

And also, the metacritic score for reviewers gave it a good score.   However, the user score (fanbase) blasted it giving it a generally unfavorable review at 4.6 based on

Positive:
636 out of 1894

Mixed:
180 out of 1894

Negative:
1,078 out of 1894

This being the case, metacritic isn't really a good source for your arguement.


EDIT:    I will give you this.   There are a lot  of people out there who passionately LOVE Mass Effect 3 and the ending.   There is no doubt that is true.    However, I personally, don't see that those who love the game's ending out number those who don't like it at all.

Modifié par mvaning, 04 mars 2013 - 05:23 .

[jkflipflopDAO]

I don't like it because it destroys the lore of the series. The first game in particular is completely ignored. The starchild's existence on the citadel changes everything.

How could a team of protheans hack the AI that created the reapers and contains all of their collective knowledge? Why doesn't the starchild just hit the "REAP!" button directly instead of having a keeper flip the switch? Why did they leave Sovereign behind to activate the citadel when the reaper king is the citadel? Why have the reaper fleets wait in darkspace for over 1500 years watching Sovereign run around the galaxy trying to activate the citadel when it only takes them 3 years to fly in "the long way"? Why didn't the reapers use their control of the relay network to isolate different systems like they did to the protheans?

Modifié par jkflipflopDAO, 04 mars 2013 - 05:29 .

[PSUHammer]

mvaning wrote...

PSUHammer wrote...

mvaning wrote...

PSUHammer wrote...

mvaning wrote...

ME3 was such a great game that they had to reduce the box price to 20$ while some older games still retained their original retail value @60$

Supply and demand.  All depends on sales.  If a company thinks they hit critical mass for the sales of a product, they lower the price to drive up more demand.  Business economics, brother!

Of course, that's the point.  If ME3 was as well recieved as people in this thread claim, then Bioware would not have to drive down its price to 1/3 its original value.     Other games they have produced did not sink in price so quickly and rightfully so.   You would not lower the price on a product that sells well.  ME3 burned to the ground in alot of reviews and polls.  People are unlikely to buy a product at full price that has such a poor reputation when they can get a better game at a lower price.   

In a gaming market, the reputation of a game is a large factor in driving the market.   You don't have to look at the polls to see how well recieved a game is, just look at its original value and how fast it went down in value.

Last I checked...it had a Metacritic score over 90 and sold quite well...best of the series, from what I recall.  They did the same thing with DA2, as well.  And, it has been out a year.  These types of games never sell like FPS.  Since Battlefield and CoD sell tenfold over RPGs, they can sustain sales with the original price longer.  This isn't anything new.

So you can qoute me 1 site that gives it a good review?   I can give at least 10 that blasted it.    And the arguement that FPS games sell better than RPGs doesn't work because Skyrim is still selling at 60$.   Technically, ME3 is an FPS, even though it is also an RPG.

And also, the metacritic score for reviewers gave it a good score.   However, the user score (fanbase) blasted it giving it a generally unfavorable review at 4.6 based on

Positive:
636 out of 1894

Mixed:
180 out of 1894

Negative:
1,078 out of 1894

This being the case, metacritic isn't really a good source for your arguement.


EDIT:    I will give you this.   There are a lot  of people out there who passionately LOVE Mass Effect 3 and the ending.   There is no doubt that is true.    However, I personally, don't see that those who love the game's ending out number those who don't like it at all.

Dude...the user scores on Metacritic are an effing joke.  Anyone who rates ME3 a 10 or a 0 is stupid.  Throw all those out as completely biased.  I am not a major conspiracy theorist so I take the conglomerate professional review score.  The XBOX version is at 93% positive and the PC version is at 89% positive...and that is before the EC release.

Not buying your logic.  Sorry.  A discounted game, one year after release, is not a basis for game popularity.  If EA did not think they had the install base, they would never green light DLC resources as it would be a waste of money in development.

Modifié par PSUHammer, 04 mars 2013 - 07:39 .

[mvaning]

PSUHammer wrote...

Dude...the user scores on Metacritic are an effing joke.  Anyone who rates ME3 a 10 or a 0 is stupid.  Throw all those out as completely biased.  I am not a major conspiracy theorist so I take the conglomerate professional review score.  The XBOX version is at 93% positive and the PC version is at 89% positive...and that is before the EC release.

Not buying your logic.  Sorry.  A discounted game, one year after release, is not a basis for game popularity.  If EA did not think they had the install base, they would never green light DLC resources as it would be a waste of money in development.

By your same logic then, the critic scores on metacritic are also a joke.  The same arguement applies to them.    Lowering the price on a product is a result of supply and demand.    I'm sorry that you don't believe me, but ME3 is not as popular as you think.   If it was popular, the game would be a higher price, like other EA titles.    It's not rocket science.  EA has alot of copies of ME3 to sell but not a high enough demand to justify a high price so they sell it at a lower price to push sales.    That's basic economic principles.  

It is also why you can go onto the Origin site and find other titles that are older selling for a higher price.    A popular game is going to sell well a year after release, there are many examples of this.   A popular game will not have to drop its price by 60% in less than a year. 

Now the game did make 200 million in retail sales on release.   This is in large part because it was a highly anticipated game with a fanbase that had been building up over 4 years.   It was going to sell well.    Diablo 3 sold very well as well.    200 million dollars is more than enough to green light a year of resources for DLC content even if the game is bad.   That doesn't change the fact that as of right now, the popularity of the game is low and the sales on it had to be dropped. 

And when you look at the EA quarterly earnings, you will see that none of the Mass Effect DLCs are even mentioned.   Why?   Because they aren't going to mention products that don't sell very well to their investors.    They are going to talk about the products that do sell, such as Battlefield 3 subscriptions, which have been going strong for a while.  

The same reasoning applies to why they will not adjust the ending of the game.   If the DLCs were popular, then maybe they would make another paid DLC that gave more options at the end of the game.  However, the sales on ME3 DLCs aren't that good because the reputation of the game has taken a hit.  I highly doubt EA would "green light" making another DLC after a year of poor DLC sales.   It's just not a good idea.  Better for EA-Bioware to cut their loses and move on.

[PSUHammer]

Too many assumptions on your part in there. They said no more ending DLC because they had the ending they wanted. Period. If you want to insinuate they are lying about that, fine. But it isn't a fact.

I didn't say ME3 was still popular...I just said that price drops happen all the time. I haven't bought an Assassin's creed game above $19. And they drop in price pretty quickly yet are immensely popular. The fact is you and I don't know why the price dropped. Anything we say here are assumptions or guesses.

And, DLC traditionally is only purchased by a fraction of the audience that own the game. So, I highly doubt they make a blip on earnings reports. I am sure DLC packages are looking to recoup cost.

You may also want to factor in the amount of money that MP has raked in. I heard they were making a killing on people purchasing equipment packs. That is why they keep releasing the MP DLC free.

Take it for what it is worth.

[mvaning]

PSUHammer wrote...

Too many assumptions on your part in there. They said no more ending DLC because they had the ending they wanted. Period. If you want to insinuate they are lying about that, fine. But it isn't a fact.

I didn't say ME3 was still popular...I just said that price drops happen all the time. I haven't bought an Assassin's creed game above $19. And they drop in price pretty quickly yet are immensely popular. The fact is you and I don't know why the price dropped. Anything we say here are assumptions or guesses.

And, DLC traditionally is only purchased by a fraction of the audience that own the game. So, I highly doubt they make a blip on earnings reports. I am sure DLC packages are looking to recoup cost.

You may also want to factor in the amount of money that MP has raked in. I heard they were making a killing on people purchasing equipment packs. That is why they keep releasing the MP DLC free.

Take it for what it is worth.

I'm not making any gross assumptions, please point out those that I have made.    I didn't say that the development team was unsatisfied with the ending.  I said it wouldn't be a good idea financially to do anything with the ending.  

DLC is not traditionally only purchased by a fraction of the audience.   If this was the case, DLC's would not be made.   DLCs are in fact bought by a large portion of the fanbase.    Just look at how many PS3 players were upset that Skyrim's DLC took so long to release.    If a game is well liked, the game's DLCs are going to be hot items on the market.    This isn't an assumption either, its a known fact.   Otherwise gaming companies would not invest so much into DLCs.

In fact, I don't need to prove that paid DLCs are bought by a large portion of the audience who pay for the game.   That's no assumption, that's a well known fact.     Please prove to me otherwise.  

What other assumptions did I made?   Oh yeah more popular games that are older than ME3 hold more value than ME3.    And your using Assassins Creed III as an example?   Did you wait for a massive sale on AC3?   Because, right now, on Steam, Assassins Creed 3 sells for 50$ and the Digital Delux sells for 80$   AC2 is selling for 20$, but that game was released in 2009 and 20$ is sort of normal for a game that old.        How about looking at Skyrim?   It sells for 60$ and it is older than AC3 and ME3.      20$ is not normal for a game less than a year old.   I don't know of any game that sells as cheap as ME3 that was very popular.

It may be an assumption, but it certainly not a gross assumption to see the bad reputation ME3 recieved has effected its sales since release.

Even Kingdoms of Amalur sells for 10$ more than ME3 and their development team went under so they can't use providing DLC content as a selling point.  

It's fair to say that ME3 did very well on release but its also very obvious that sales since then have been effect by the bad press it has recieved.  Fans like me?  We dont' want Bioware to do poorly.   We want them to keep making good products so that we can keep throwing money at them.    Bioware has built itself to a high standing within the industry.

However, ignoring facts is a massive mistake.   Sweeping the ending drama under the rug and acting like everyone loved the ending is ignorant.  That happened, it was huge.    The ending of ME3 will be a stain on Bioware's reputation for a long time.  There is no way that it could not have effected sales.  You as a player should recognize the criticism that the game has taken in hopes that Bioware can correct their mistakes.    Otherwise, what they built is not going to stay and fans like me point this stuff out because we don't want that to happen.

Modifié par mvaning, 05 mars 2013 - 12:20 .

[PSUHammer]

Whatever helps you sleep, brother. Devs on this very board said that DLC is purchased by a fraction of the people who buy the game. IN fact, only a certain percentage of people ever even complete games.  I would believe one of the devs of the game before believing your assessment (no offense!).  You will have to search for it as I don't care enough to find the links.

Do you get all your "facts" from game forums? You do realize we are a minority, as well, don't you? When I modded for Creative Assembly boards, we had 50k registered users of the forums and only about 3000 posted more than ten times. Do you know how many units they sold of Rome Total War, alone?

Don't base your opinions on internet gaming forums, my friend. Most people barely care that much to read forums, let alone post in them.  And the rage you feel is the vocal minority.  Most people just move along to the next thing.

Modifié par PSUHammer, 05 mars 2013 - 12:36 .

[Massa FX]

I'm glad some people enjoy the end of the trilogy.

I can't. I try hard to. But... my "heart" hurts. (Not my butt... BSN trolls. I know the difference, even if you don't). I wanted more for Shepard. I want an ending that makes me cry with Joyful tears at my victory over the Reapers and the Catalyst. Shepards triumph, survival, victory, over impossible odds. The current endings don't provide that option. Not even half-close.

... soooo <shrug> Oh well.

[PSUHammer]

www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2012/08/13/only-42-of-players-finished-mass-effect-3/


Just some interesting reading. 

[mvaning]

PSUHammer wrote...

Whatever helps you sleep, brother. Devs on this very board said that DLC is purchased by a fraction of the people who buy the game. IN fact, only a certain percentage of people ever even complete games.  I would believe one of the devs of the game before believing your assessment (no offense!).  You will have to search for it as I don't care enough to find the links.

Of course the ME3 DLCs have only been purchased by a fraction of the people who buy ME3.     That's the point.   Just because that happened in ME3 doesn't mean that all DLCs in popular games are only purchased by a fraction of the people who buy the game.

PSUHammer wrote...
Do you get all your "facts" from game forums? You do realize we are a minority, as well, don't you? When I modded for Creative Assembly boards, we had 50k registered users of the forums and only about 3000 posted more than ten times. Do you know how many units they sold of Rome Total War, alone?

Don't base your opinions on internet gaming forums, my friend. Most people barely care that much to read forums, let alone post in them.  And the rage you feel is the vocal minority.  Most people just move along to the next thing.

I don't get my "facts" from internet gaming forums, but since the only people you can quote at this moment are the Devs from these forums, I have to assume that what you are saying about me is true about yourself.    Atleast I have googled the EA quarterly reports.   Don't try to reverse engineer something about yourself onto me. 

Modifié par mvaning, 05 mars 2013 - 01:42 .

[mvaning]

PSUHammer wrote...

www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2012/08/13/only-42-of-players-finished-mass-effect-3/


Just some interesting reading. 

http://www.escapistm...se-Dramatically

www.gametrailers.com/side-mission/41336/consumers-are-buying-a-lot-of-dlc-from-brick-and-mortar-stores

www.cinemablend.com/games/DLC-Sales-Might-Top-1-Billion-Next-Year-36204.html

http://www.capcom.co...ess/market.html

Modifié par mvaning, 05 mars 2013 - 01:19 .

[Jassu1979]

Valkyre4 wrote...
I would also agree that ME3 was the most replayable one of all 3 games.

Well, that pretty much hinges on what exactly contributes to your sense of "replayability":
For me, that aspect mostly revolves around two factors: discovering new material that I've previously missed (exploration, side missions, actual conversations with the crew) and roleplaying a fundamentally different angle leading to a different conclusion.
Both of these factors were not that pronounced in ME3, with its "shooting galley" corridor levels, its massive autodialogue, and its pre-generated point-and-click "conversations". Clicking on a friend and then hearing the "tape" of the exchange between Shepard and them has never really immersed me into the game, even if some of those exchanges were quite well-written.
Sure, the gameplay was a lot smoother than in both previous installments, but honestly, to me the TPS-aspect was never that important, and I'm in it for  the RPG-aspects.

First of the missions in ME3 (the main ones) were absolutely and by far the best missions in any of the 3 games. [...] Look at the genophage missions, it was simply beautiful, or the geth/quarian conflict which was amazing.

I agree that the Tuchanka arc was everything ME could and should be: it truly allowed for a spectacular amount of differentiation, taking many different variables into account, and leading to very different conclusions based on previous decisions (some of which were as far back as ME1). THIS is what the ending should have been like - and why not? It's not as if they are planning to release a game that takes place after ME3, having to take all the different variations into account. (Which would be impossible even now.)
I liked the Legion arc as well, and enjoyed the consensus mission - even though I feel that the author of that part did not truly understand the geth as they were written in previous installments. The geth were not inferior or sub-sapient because they refered to themselves as "we" - they were just *different*, and not even aiming to become more human. Emotionally, the arc was handled very well, however.
It's all the more reprehensible, then, that its consequences are rendered irrelevant by the final ten minutes. I fought hard to broker a peace between the geth and the quarians, only to be rewarded with a conclusion that did not take that into account. At all.

This is why the final ten minutes matter so much to me: they invalidate (and contradict) vast portions of the plot, and they are always the same, regardless of my previous choices.

Mass Effect 3 had also the best side missions. Sure the Citadel fetch quests were kinda lore centric (and some of them very interesting) or just boring like the ones in ME1, but the proper side quests were amazing, like the nuke in Tuchanka, or the Grissom Academy, or the Monastery, the Legion stuff etc etc.

The "overhear-conversation-and-scan-random-planet-for-text"-missions were atrocious, to be honest. Sure, the MAKO-missions involved finding random minerals and insignia, but at least you could explore an unknown planet in the process. Again, scanning planets lacks a sense of immersion, and as interesting as the text can be, it is not really a roleplaying experience.

Loved the fan service with all the dialogues aboard the normandy some of which were between characters that would have been dead in other peoples saves.

I talked about these before a few lines above: many of them were well-written, but they did not feel like having an actual conversation with someone.
In ME2, I never discovered Zaeed's or Kasumi's full background because clicking on them and hearing a pre-fabricated conversation never felt like actually TALKING to them to me. It was more like pressing a button on a talking doll: it's interesting, but lifeless.

it was GOOD STUFF... emotional stuff... stuff that is actually ENDING MATERIAL ALL OF THESE.

I agree, for the most part. Which - again - makes it all the more reprehensible that the final ten minutes could not live up to the excellence provided by other parts of the game. Have you ever read a novel that excited you, only to find that the final chapter somehow ruins the whole book in retrospect? That's the problem here, and that's why it's always brought up. Sure, Legion's sacrifice was touching and heartfelt, but what difference does it make in light of the ending(s)?
Destroy spits on the peace you created by killing all the "upgraded" geth (and potentially quite a lot of quarians as well, if having their cybernetic implants fail is truly as disastrous as the Catalyst claims).
Synthesis renders Legion's sacrifice unneccessary in retrospect, as the green space magic would retroactively put the whole race in "I'm a real boy now"-mode even without his selfless act.
And Control? Perhaps this is the one ending that touches the least on this particular arc, pretty much leaving both geth and quarians alone.

The conflict with the illusive man was another highlight, which in my opinion was handled with care and with dignity and not some lame shootout (we had lame shootout with Leng...). Then the moments whith Anderson atop a creepy part of the citadel full of dead bodies with a Shepard completely drained emotionaly, psychologically and organically. As a player I felt the same, I felt Shepard's strugle, i was emotional when Anderson just draw his last breath with the earth on the background in flames and Reapers and the whole galaxy in war. I was emotional when Hackett called and told you that it doesnt work and you need to do something on your end.... and you had nothing left in you, both as a player and as Shepard.

Personally, I enjoyed this part as well (and even the most passionate ending-haters do not seem to mind it that much, judging by the content of MEHEM).

[Valkyre4]

Jassu1979 wrote..
.....

I dont quote the entire text so we dont scroll so much (sorry for that)

But here is my reply:

From most of what you say I see that we agree on most fronts.

I can relate why you cant find ME3 as replayable as the rest games. Yes the removal of 3 option dialogues, removes some aspect of replayability, I certainly understand that. But, and this is important, ME3 is the 3rd game of a quite varied selection of choices up to that part. What I mean is that, the whole experience is still, VASTLY different when you load up saves with different choices made. For example I have lots of playthroughs. For mildly different to completely different playthroughs. And the events that unfold in ME3 are quite different. Have you tried playing ME3 without Garrus? I mean just that, renders the game a completely different experience in lots of parts. A huge chunk of the game is gone forever. Have you tried to save Mordin? You can only do that if you make certain choices in the previous games. Have you tried a playthrough with ALL characters dead in suicide mission? Needless to say that the experience is quite disturbing, in a pleasant -realistic way-. My point is replay value is there even if the dialogue options are far less this time. Also, yes the gameplay is a reason why I want to replay a title. I loved ME1, but my friend its gameplay was still premature, it wasnt fun, it was extremely repetitve.

From what you say concerning the quality and variety of missions, I see we can -for the most part- agree that Mass Effect 3 offered the most diverse quality of missions in any ME game. (except the earth mission which we covered). But I will say again that the side missions are also a lot better. Not the fetch "scan this planet" quests but the more storyline based ones. Even the scan stuff didint bother me, I am the kind of guy that scans systems and reads all the information for every single planet out there (it is something like an OCD thing of mine). But I loved the Monastery, Grissom Academy, Turian Nuke etc etc which were also important in the main arc since your choices have an effect on what happens. The Mako stuff was boring after a point in ME1. To me that is. Also the control of the Mako was really bad. The planets were for the most part completely barren and the bunkers that were explorable were the same exact bunkers over and over and over again. To me that was extremely sloppy and poor design. I consider it extremely poor to have the same exact environment in so many planets.

And now I am going to address our main difference which is the "impact" your actions actually had in ME3's 10 last minutes, or the lack of it thereof.

Again I respectfully disagree. But I know where you are coming of. You say that your actions are not reflecting what happened, and you give the Geth/quarian conflict example, and that by choosing destroy you spit right in the face of it. I can relate to that, but you have to consider the situation presented in fron of Shepard in each time separetely. let me explain.

When he is trying to fix the conflict, his situation is "I NEED THEIR SUPPORT,  I HAVE TO GET IT" (putting it very simply here) , so that he can face the Reapers. So his goal is just that.

When he is atop the citadel he has already accomplished everything he could have done to face the Reapers as far as resources and support goes. He cant do anything more about that. So now he is presented with a new choice (3 actually). One of these choices is "destroy" (which is clearly a renegade type of option) and it involves killing all synthetics as well as reapers. So Shepard, if he is the kind of guy that wants to end the Reapers for sure and maybe survive (it is the only possible way) or the kind of guy that doesnt trust the control/synthesis options (the control because of the unknown outcome and the synthesis because of ideological reasons) has to -yet again- choose the many out of the few. (Trivia: this is actually a clear reflection of Shepard's dialogue with Garrus inside the Normandy in ME3 the first time you talk to him, when Garrus asked, what would he do if he had a choice like that)

So I do not find Bioware wrong in doing this. It is still the players choice, how your character thinks about the choice presented to him, based on the situation at hand. For example my original Shepard, in my first playthrough could never ever choose destroy. He COULD have if he didnt go into that Geth server. But that mission rendered the destroy ending out of the question. My "ending" choice was affected by a single quest. A SIDE QUEST!! Then I was thinking about the control option and synthesis and I was between he 2. I was warry of the control option due to the fact that the IM was all over it and the outcome was unknown really. But the synthesis option troubled me ideologically. My character was paragon. The catalyst was presenting this option as the ideal solution. But the catalyst is not an organic. his reasoning and logic is bound more into the mathematical spectre, rather than the "human" one. I cannot choose to restructure the entire form of life for all the Galaxy , it is not a choice that, that particular Shepard I have created would ever make. So I choose control and it was as I hoped it would be. It ws exactly how I envisioned it.

Now that was my Shepard, in other playthroughs my other characters would never allow the control option... they were more open minded and that was reflective by their choices up to that part. (for example the romance between Joker and EDI was a no no to my original Shepard, or it was indefferent and skeptical, hence they never hooked up. But my other Shepard was all up for it.) So I choose synthesis (and it was a great ending adn quite an "original" one , the most sci fi ending of all in that respect). And my other psycho Shepard was the destroy those ****ers and be done with it kind of guy!

Also the choices you made are reflective through the ending, at least in my opinion. If you cured the Krogans, you actually see that they have a future now, if you helped the geth you see them have a new understanding and a new place in the galaxy, while the Quarians have a home again, you see your crew members and what happened to them, that was all EC stuff and it was good that Bioware addressed even if that is not as important to me (and now with Citadel DLC I think there will be more chars stuff than ever). But most importantly... you dont have to SEE them...you KNOW IT already, you did all these in the course of the game.  It was all about Shepard for me, all about him.

My main problem with ME3 -like I said before- was the final mission.... it was really sub par... I was expecting a "Suicide Mission" kind of pace but in a much grander, epic scale. For example instead of assigning squad teams in positions, you could be assigning entire races in key points with all kinds of results (good or bad). That would make you feel the whole epic scale of the battle. That was indeed quite a disappointment, it would have been the epitome of epicness, but it still cant stop me for enjoying this amazing journey that left me quite amazed, and emotionally engaged throughout!

Modifié par Valkyre4, 05 mars 2013 - 09:29 .

[Armass81]

ME1 side missions were never as good as some boast them to be. Not to me at least. Sure you could land on planets but what was there to explore, aside from different colored mountains and wasteland and couple of crashed drones or an occasional prothean pyramid? Nothing really. There were no new alien civilizations, no cities or tradeposts, there werent even trees or water on any sidemission planets, even on those that the planetscanner said were "garden" lifebearing worlds. All we had was couple of buildings or bases maybe that were recycled over and over again. Worst are ME2 and ME3 missions, where you land, push a few buttons or collect some minerals and then leave(the battery requiring mech being one). In ME3 they dont even give you new surroundings as they just recycle the MP maps, that is really lazy.

This is not intresting exploring, see Starflight series of Star Control 2 where you actually explore and find something worthwhile, like say new alien species or never before seen ruins or technology! In ME series all you do is find mercs or minerals with an occasional mine filled with husks, cause everything intresting seems to have been explored by others already or is inside the main quests. It masks itself as intresting exploring, but where the results of that exploring are less than what they could have been.

Modifié par Armass81, 05 mars 2013 - 10:04 .

[Jassu1979]

I headcanoned my way around the repetitiveness of ME1s interior designs by arguing that they all use the same modular buildings and/or spaceships, as they obviously would not bother to create unique artistic designs for separate container modules or freighters.

It's a stretch, and we all know the REAL reason (laziness/saving resources in developing the game), but I found it easier to swallow than the cloned NATURAL CAVES in Dragon Age 2. But that's a different story.

So, on to the ending, which I omitted in my previous post due to the sheer length of it. Many problems with the ending are closely tied to the final mission on earth:
THIS was the one opportunity to truly show the player what they had campaigned for, and it would have merited more than just that one extended shooting-galley level.
Elcor tanks tearing into Brutes. Volus providing support. Geth and quarians fighting side by side. ME2 squad mates receiving at the very least a decent cut scene, showing them in action... The possibilities would have been manifold - some of them requiring more time and resources, others considerably less.
But for me, the excrement truly started to hit the fan when I reached the notorious beam run in the EC:

I know they included the evacuation scene in order to fix one of the most notorious plot holes of the original cut (how do the squad mates end up on the Normandy?), but the explanation offered here is intellectually insulting to anybody paying attention.

Calling in an evacuation for two *slightly* wounded troopers in the middle of a critical mission? Shepard is jeopardizing the entire mission (which is not looking too good to begin with at that point) for the sake of two individuals. And if the game wasn't going out of its way to be spectacularly implausible at this point, it'd spell certain death for everyone involved, as well as guarantee a critical mission failure.
They tried to justify this course of action with appeals to emotion ("I need somebody to survive this", or something along those lines), but it is just SO contrived, SO utterly nonsensical. Heck, it even happens if you take EDI along - who is safely aboard the Normandy, tele-operating EVA's body. Even if "she" was blasted to smithereens later on, it would not kill her, because every constituent part of her is aboard the Normandy. They did not even bother with their own lore THAT THEY HAD ESTABLISHED IN THE SAME GAME.
And then, of course, the Normandy appears within five seconds on the battlefield. If it was possible to get there like that - why did they send hundreds of soldiers to their deaths in clunky shuttles - Shepard & Co. included?
The same goes for Harbinger just taking a break and ignoring the military frigate with the deadly thanix cannon right in front of his sight - because apparently, Reapers are gallant and allow people to evacuate. Yeah, I know there's attempts at rationalizing this with the Reaper IFF and so forth. But in the end, that explanation is just grasping for straws, and not something pointed out or even suggested by the game itself.
If the Normandy was such an invincible, undetectable stealth ship that they could pass right in front of a Reaper's eyes without drawing fire, I'd suggest using it MUCH more effectively in the ongoing conflict. Heck, they could basically fly to the beam, open their hatch and have the people plummet through the beam without giving Harbinger a chance to hit.

Oh, and of course, calling the Normandy to that particular battlefield jeopardizes the life of EVERYONE ON BOARD. If Shepard is so worried about losing friends and loved ones, perhaps she should not have called them to the site where a giant capital ship is toasting everything in side!

In a lesser game, such glaring stupidity would not bother me. Few games go out of their way to be plausible. But this is MASS EFFECT. A series that has previously paid tremendous attention to detail, and went out of its way to tell a story that made sense, rather than just appealing to emotions.

And that was just the first scene of the beam run...

[Volkai7]

ConanTheLeader wrote...

 I quite enjoyed the ending that I was shown upon completing Mass Effect 3 last night. I did not expect it to be bad, before I had ever played the first Mass Effect I heard lots of fans crying out against the default ending. The result was the extended cut ending that was meant to address these genuine issues fans had raised but I find it odd after searching the forum for the past couple of hours that fans are still quite unhappy.

I loved it, but wonder why I feel as if I could be in the minority. I doubt it is length, the extended cut offers a long ending that is longer than what most RPGs provide such as Skyrim or Final Fantasy XIII. I got the "destroy" ending that showed live continuing without the Reapers and Shepherd surviving and I had over 7000 war assets and 100% galaxy readiness rating. Maybe most gamers feel the ending is not tailored enough to their specific playthrough details but it did a good job regardless in my opinion, really loved it, the whole trilogy and the ending.

I just wish Citadel were post game DLC, showing Shepherd returning to public and charting the restoration of Citadel. I felt it would be more appropriate for a "Final send off" DLC to let us play out the epilogue.

Glad to see a fellow ending-enjoyer!

However, Citadel as post-game would not work, because in my case Synthesis meant the end of Shepard as a distinct individual. Of course, now there's a little Shepard in everybody... but still, shouldn't force players to choose the 'Shepard Lives / Destroy' ending as the only avenue for playing a DLC.

Modifié par Volkai7, 05 mars 2013 - 12:33 .

[Valkyre4]

Jassu1979 wrote...

I headcanoned my way around the
repetitiveness of ME1s interior designs by arguing that they all use the
same modular buildings and/or spaceships, as they obviously would not
bother to create unique artistic designs for separate container modules
or freighters.

It's a stretch, and we all know the REAL reason
(laziness/saving resources in developing the game), but I found it
easier to swallow than the cloned NATURAL CAVES in Dragon Age 2. But
that's a different story.

So, on to the ending, which I omitted
in my previous post due to the sheer length of it. Many problems with
the ending are closely tied to the final mission on earth:
THIS was
the one opportunity to truly show the player what they had campaigned
for, and it would have merited more than just that one extended
shooting-galley level.
Elcor tanks tearing into Brutes. Volus
providing support. Geth and quarians fighting side by side. ME2 squad
mates receiving at the very least a decent cut scene, showing them in
action... The possibilities would have been manifold - some of them
requiring more time and resources, others considerably less.
But for me, the excrement truly started to hit the fan when I reached the notorious beam run in the EC:

I
know they included the evacuation scene in order to fix one of the most
notorious plot holes of the original cut (how do the squad mates end up
on the Normandy?), but the explanation offered here is intellectually
insulting to anybody paying attention.

Calling in an evacuation
for two *slightly* wounded troopers in the middle of a critical mission?
Shepard is jeopardizing the entire mission (which is not looking too
good to begin with at that point) for the sake of two individuals. And
if the game wasn't going out of its way to be spectacularly implausible
at this point, it'd spell certain death for everyone involved, as well
as guarantee a critical mission failure.
They tried to justify this
course of action with appeals to emotion ("I need somebody to survive
this", or something along those lines), but it is just SO contrived, SO
utterly nonsensical. Heck, it even happens if you take EDI along - who
is safely aboard the Normandy, tele-operating EVA's body. Even if "she"
was blasted to smithereens later on, it would not kill her, because
every constituent part of her is aboard the Normandy. They did not even
bother with their own lore THAT THEY HAD ESTABLISHED IN THE SAME GAME.
And
then, of course, the Normandy appears within five seconds on the
battlefield. If it was possible to get there like that - why did they
send hundreds of soldiers to their deaths in clunky shuttles - Shepard
& Co. included?
The same goes for Harbinger just taking a break
and ignoring the military frigate with the deadly thanix cannon right in
front of his sight - because apparently, Reapers are gallant and allow
people to evacuate. Yeah, I know there's attempts at rationalizing this
with the Reaper IFF and so forth. But in the end, that explanation is
just grasping for straws, and not something pointed out or even
suggested by the game itself.
If the Normandy was such an invincible,
undetectable stealth ship that they could pass right in front of a
Reaper's eyes without drawing fire, I'd suggest using it MUCH more
effectively in the ongoing conflict. Heck, they could basically fly to
the beam, open their hatch and have the people plummet through the beam
without giving Harbinger a chance to hit.

Oh, and of course,
calling the Normandy to that particular battlefield jeopardizes the life
of EVERYONE ON BOARD. If Shepard is so worried about losing friends and
loved ones, perhaps she should not have called them to the site where a
giant capital ship is toasting everything in side!

In a lesser
game, such glaring stupidity would not bother me. Few games go out of
their way to be plausible. But this is MASS EFFECT. A series that has
previously paid tremendous attention to detail, and went out of its way
to tell a story that made sense, rather than just appealing to emotions.

And that was just the first scene of the beam run...

^^ But now you are not talking about the ending and what we were debating in our previous posts but a 30 second scene, that sure looks like it is there just to address complaints like "where was my crew", "how did they get away", "what happend to my squad in the beam" etc

If you ask me I agree that that particular scene aint my favorite and I find that it was not properly executed. (even though they had everybody supposedly drawing Hardbinger's fire it still wasnt convincing)

But again... it is a 30 second clip.... it is overly exaggerating to focus on a 30 second clip and try and ruin your experience.

What movie is "perfect"? What book is "perfect". All of them have plot holes and technical inconsistencies if you dig enough.

Hell why is ME1 and ME2 free of plotholes and inconsistencies??

Need I remind that ME2 started with shepard being pretty much vaporised? And then he is being "reconstructed" by Cerberus. And what was the explanation for this? Lazarus Project.

ok ok Lazarus Project. What is it? We dont know. What did they do? We dont know. Why did it work? We dont know. How did Shepard was EXACTLY the same with all his memories intact after being a tube full of goo and mess?

We. Just. Dont. Know.

Isnt that overly.... "convenient"? I mean Shepard died and no1 bothered to ask... "how the hell is he back" or atleast question how the whole process is even remotely plausible.

Now we are talking about a poorly exectued extraction clip, I believe that its significance as far as plot material is related is way less than Shepard's resurrection.

ME1 also had inconsistencies and questionable plot holes and its even embedded in the lore's core material. Isnt it a bit "convenient" how Saren ends up with a Reaper huge ass ship, a full crew onboard with some pretty high profile persons (Benezia) and yet.... no one even knows anything about it?? I mean you would think that a Spectre and a Matriarch as well as a huge ass prototype ship wouldnt go unoticed in a galaxy with so advanced technology.

Also... Sarren looks nothing like a Turian (signs of indoctrination and reaper tech are ALL OVER HIM) and yet he speaks in front of the Council and no one even thinks to say: "Hey bro... what the **** happened to your face?"

My point is... every single story material out there is bound to have issues, inconsistencies and holes. And in the case of a multilayered interactive experience with a lot of outcomes as is Mass Effect, it is bound to be even more profound.

I honestly believe Mass Effect 3 is being scrutinized far more than it should be. The other installments had their fair share of issues as well, yet they are easily forgotten or bypassed.

keep in mind I only mentioned examples from both ME1 and ME2. There are more ofcourse. I just chose 2 examples that I think are far more important "mistakes" in comparison with the extraction scene you described above. (and I also agreed that it was poorly executed)

Modifié par Valkyre4, 05 mars 2013 - 12:43 .

[Jassu1979]

I do not mind that Harbinger's beam does not pulverize Shepard.
It's implausible, sure, especially after seeing how battletanks were taken out with a single hit, and foot soldiers were literally vaporized.
But it's the kind of suspension of disbelief that I'm willing to uphold when playing a heroic protagonist in a SciFi-opera.

However, the same does not apply to Harbinger just leaving the scene as you struggle to your feet, or Anderson somehow making it to the beam without anybody noticing. That's just lazy writing, nothing more.

I'll skip over the confrontation with the Illusive Man, as I tended to enjoy it. I could have lived with this finale right up to Shepard's collapsing at the console.
Everything that came after that point was just plain dysfunctional in terms of storytelling and lore.
The writers were obviously trying to pull a Kubrick on us, but their pseudo-intellectual, half-baked hogwash felt more like the lower points of M. Night Shyamalan's career:
First of all, the very *existence* of the Catalyst invalidates almost the entire first game in terms of lore and plot, specifically as it relates to the Citadel and the Reapers. If you want to pull a twist ending like that, you HAVE TO make sure that it retroactively fits into what you have previously established. In order for such a move to work, people must be able to go back to everything that came before and go: "Oh yeah, now I see it! It's actually been there all along!"

That's simply not the case here. In fact, even ME3 contradicts the Catalyst and what his existence means for the Reapers: Legion tells you about his experience of a Reaper's mind, and he describes it as overwhelming: being in the presence of a vast mind that was infinitely more complex than any other form of consciousness, meriting comparisons to gods even if they very clearly are not divine beings.
After the Catalyst? Nope. Brainless automatons blindly following a directive like a machine that's less autonomous than the geth.

Also, trying to redeem the Reapers through new information about their agenda is all nice and dandy - but not if you previously went out of your way to describe their sadistic methods, even including quite a few holocaust images. "Is fire at war" is the WORST line in the whole EC, hands down. The Reapers are not portrayed as indifferent machines who simply follow a protocol. They deliberately employ terror as a weapon, erect death camps where they encourage inmates to turn on each other, turn the dead into shock troops to demoralize their victims, etc.

Last but not least, there's the question of agency. The ending does not tell Shepard's story. It tells the Catalyst's story, and makes Shepard a mere accessory to that plot.

[Valkyre4]

Jassu1979 wrote...

I do not mind that Harbinger's beam does not pulverize Shepard.
It's implausible, sure, especially after seeing how battletanks were taken out with a single hit, and foot soldiers were literally vaporized.
But it's the kind of suspension of disbelief that I'm willing to uphold when playing a heroic protagonist in a SciFi-opera.

However, the same does not apply to Harbinger just leaving the scene as you struggle to your feet, or Anderson somehow making it to the beam without anybody noticing. That's just lazy writing, nothing more.

I'll skip over the confrontation with the Illusive Man, as I tended to enjoy it. I could have lived with this finale right up to Shepard's collapsing at the console.
Everything that came after that point was just plain dysfunctional in terms of storytelling and lore.
The writers were obviously trying to pull a Kubrick on us, but their pseudo-intellectual, half-baked hogwash felt more like the lower points of M. Night Shyamalan's career:
First of all, the very *existence* of the Catalyst invalidates almost the entire first game in terms of lore and plot, specifically as it relates to the Citadel and the Reapers. If you want to pull a twist ending like that, you HAVE TO make sure that it retroactively fits into what you have previously established. In order for such a move to work, people must be able to go back to everything that came before and go: "Oh yeah, now I see it! It's actually been there all along!"

That's simply not the case here. In fact, even ME3 contradicts the Catalyst and what his existence means for the Reapers: Legion tells you about his experience of a Reaper's mind, and he describes it as overwhelming: being in the presence of a vast mind that was infinitely more complex than any other form of consciousness, meriting comparisons to gods even if they very clearly are not divine beings.
After the Catalyst? Nope. Brainless automatons blindly following a directive like a machine that's less autonomous than the geth.

Also, trying to redeem the Reapers through new information about their agenda is all nice and dandy - but not if you previously went out of your way to describe their sadistic methods, even including quite a few holocaust images. "Is fire at war" is the WORST line in the whole EC, hands down. The Reapers are not portrayed as indifferent machines who simply follow a protocol. They deliberately employ terror as a weapon, erect death camps where they encourage inmates to turn on each other, turn the dead into shock troops to demoralize their victims, etc.

Last but not least, there's the question of agency. The ending does not tell Shepard's story. It tells the Catalyst's story, and makes Shepard a mere accessory to that plot.

Wait why is the catalyst invalidating the lore of the series since mass effect 1, because it relates to the Citadel?

It is established since Mass Effect 1 and throught all the games that the Citadel has a lot of stuff the galactic community cannot understand. It is mentioned everywhere, as well as established since Mass Effect 1 that we dont know what lies beneath and quite a big chunk of the citadel is still unexplored. Need I speak about the Keepers? Nobody knows where they come from! Nobody knows anything about them.

Also I do not understand why the catalyst in ME3 is considered a poorly written M. N. Shyamalan plot twist when almost the same happened in Mass Effect 1 already...

I mean there was a Mass relay inside the Citadel and under everyones nose... in fact almost the same thing happened in ME1.

Legion tells you what it felt as a MACHINE interracting with another MACHINE. A common missconception that finds me disagreeing with people's comments is that we tend to equalize synthetic logic with the organic one. Its totally different and it is evident throughout the game in almost every reaper conversation or Legion/EDI conversation. Synthetic logic has nothing to do with organics. The Reapers are not simply following a directive and even if they did it doesnt make them less intelligent or special. The reapers are doing what they are doing because they are convinced that there is no other solution and after aeons of the same pattern repeating itself they cannot even remotely bother to listen to what a puny little man (Shepard) may think he can do. That doesnt make them stupid, that makes them what they always were. A means to provide an end to the , always present, chaos.

Also at your last point, that the ending does not tell the story of Shepard, I respectfully disagree yet again. Maybe there is 2 sides of one coin and someone might lose focus or even think that it was all about the catalyst, but not for me. As I explained I felt it was all about Shepard all the way.

It was Shepard that united the galaxy, it was Shepard that made the difference out of millions of years were nothing changed, it was Shepard who docked the Citadel to the Crucible, it was Shepard that provided the Catalyst with factual evidence that his solution was not perfect. And in the end it was Shepard that changed history by doing 2 out of the 4 available choices. Either control or synthesis provide the galaxy with a fresh start, while destruction provides just enough time until the pattern repeats itself and refusal -being the worst of all- the ultimate fail of your quest.

I honestly understand your disappointment in several aspects of what we discuss, but I dont share it, I was quite satisfied with what was presented. Was it flawed? hell yes! But so where the other installments. Look at examples I mentioned about the other 2 games in my previous post. Arent they, questionable -to say the least- inconsistencies/holes?

Modifié par Valkyre4, 05 mars 2013 - 01:33 .

[Ieldra]

Jassu1979 wrote...
First of all, the very *existence* of the Catalyst invalidates almost the entire first game in terms of lore and plot, specifically as it relates to the Citadel and the Reapers. If you want to pull a twist ending like that, you HAVE TO make sure that it retroactively fits into what you have previously established. In order for such a move to work, people must be able to go back to everything that came before and go: "Oh yeah, now I see it! It's actually been there all along!"

That's simply not the case here. In fact, even ME3 contradicts the Catalyst and what his existence means for the Reapers: Legion tells you about his experience of a Reaper's mind, and he describes it as overwhelming: being in the presence of a vast mind that was infinitely more complex than any other form of consciousness, meriting comparisons to gods even if they very clearly are not divine beings.
After the Catalyst? Nope. Brainless automatons blindly following a directive like a machine that's less autonomous than the geth.

Also, trying to redeem the Reapers through new information about their agenda is all nice and dandy - but not if you previously went out of your way to describe their sadistic methods, even including quite a few holocaust images. "Is fire at war" is the WORST line in the whole EC, hands down. The Reapers are not portrayed as indifferent machines who simply follow a protocol. They deliberately employ terror as a weapon, erect death camps where they encourage inmates to turn on each other, turn the dead into shock troops to demoralize their victims, etc.

Very good points. I like the outcome of the endings. I don't even mind, in principle, the existence of some "master of the pattern" like the Catalyst. But the actions of the Reapers are not sufficiently "clinical" to contribute to the credibility of an impersonal agenda of saving organic civilizations. This was actually easy to see ever since the end of ME2, where the Reapers' nature was revealed through Legion's dialogue, and the main reason why I objected to the "abomination aesthetic" employed in ME2. The thing is, ME3 could have gone back on that, but not only didn't it, it even added significantly to the "unnecessarily evil" aspect of the Reapers as well as the abomination aesthetic.

I think I would've had more problems with the ending were it not my habit to tune these things out - the presentation suggests the kind of "For The Evulz" I don't believe in and I'm not willing to suspend my disbelief for. For me, the Reapers have always been advanced but "mundane" enemies. 

As for the Reapers coming across as pawns, I have an explanation why they aren't and can still be subservient to the Catalyst: their will is subverted and they're perpetuating the cycle because they've been convinced it's the right thing to do. I admit, though, that this *still* reduces the Reapers significantly from what they were explained as in other parts of the trilogy. 

In the end, I choose my ending for the outcome, but we can't escape the fact that the story does not naturally progress into the ending scenario. As you say, that sense of "Ah....now it all makes sense" that's the hallmark of a good resolution of a mystery is completely absent. Maybe that's the worst failing of the ending.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 05 mars 2013 - 02:03 .

[Jassu1979]

Here's a little story a friend of mine told me not too long ago:

They were planning to bring a pig to the local slaughterhouse. The pig, sensing danger, managed to escape. They caught it. It escaped a second time, jumping out of the driving truck and running for its life. Again, they caught it. Two hours later, it was a bunch of sausages, hams, chops and so forth.

What does any of this have to do with Mass Effect? I think this pretty much describes how the Reapers were characterized in the first game: the were not "evil for evil's sake", they simply conceived of species like us the way we conceive of cattle.
Sure, pigs are not sapient - but compared to a vast gestalt intelligence like a Reaper, we are quite primitive, too. Why should they care about our individual suffering any more than most of us care about the suffering of a pig? We've raised it with the explicit purpose of turning it into food - just as the Reapers prepped the galaxy for the eventual harvest by leaving some critical technology behind.

I think that's a far more convincing story behind the cycle than what we ended up with. The Catalyst's premise just does not fit the cycle that was introduced earlier on.

[Ieldra]

Jassu1979 wrote...
Sure, pigs are not sapient - but compared to a vast gestalt intelligence like a Reaper, we are quite primitive, too. Why should they care about our individual suffering any more than most of us care about the suffering of a pig? We've raised it with the explicit purpose of turning it into food - just as the Reapers prepped the galaxy for the eventual harvest by leaving some critical technology behind.

I think that's a far more convincing story behind the cycle than what we ended up with. The Catalyst's premise just does not fit the cycle that was introduced earlier on.

And a far more boring one. Man, would I've been disappointed had there been nothing more to the story than that. I actually like the organic/synthetic theme and I think the Catalyst's scenario is not all that implausible. The problem is, yet again, that significant aspects of the story doesn't fit the scenario.

I think that basically I'm a pro-ender because I love what the story would've been had it naturally progressed towards the endings we have. It's easier for me to rationalize the things away that don't fit the ending than to tune the things out that don't fit certain parts of the Reaper presentation. And since I have to go to some effort to reconcile things anyway (see my Synthesis thread), I might as well do it in a way that the result is a story I like.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 05 mars 2013 - 03:11 .

[Maxster_]

[quote]Valkyre4 wrote...

[quote]Maxster_ wrote...

[quote]Valkyre4 wrote...

Oh please... now we are retarded? Come on seriously how far does your hate come ffs? Why is it that I did not understand the oh so complicated ending while your higher intelligence does. PLease cut the BS

Direct quotes from the "starchild"

"Catalyst : you have hope, more than you think. the fact that you are standing HERE, the FIRST organic EVER PROVES it. But it also proves my solution WONT WORK ANYMORE."
Shepard : Why you telling me this? Why help me
Catalyst : You have ALTERED the variables.

if you really cant think out of the box what the catalyst means by this dialogue, dont call out on people that they "didnt get the ending". The catalyst realises that his solution is not as perfect as he thought it was. And the reason for that is Shepard actions throughout the trilogy PLUS the docking with the citadel yes. But mostly it was Shepards actions, the fact that he united the galaxy like no1 ever did before. I think its pretty much self explanatory...





[/quote]
Sure.
And instead of just leaving(with reapers), or killing himself and reapers at nearest star - he forces Shepard to accept his insanity, threating Shepard with genocide of everyone.
Seem legit.

And especially great was the message. Peace is only possible by 1) killing the opposing side 2) subjugating both sides 3) forced homogenization and brainwashing.


[/quote]

Docking with the crucible has changed the way the "starchild" interracts with the reapers... that was the whole point of it and that is what the starchild actually tells you. Not per se, but it is a no brainer from the whole discussion. Also the Levaithan DLC pretty much suggests that the Reapers are not incommon in doing things as they see fit, hence why they killed their creators. The starchild had no control over the reapers once the crucible was docked.
[/quote]
Nonsense, of course.

1. Crucible can not exist. It can not be designed and can not be built.
Someone designed an unknown device with unknown function, which should interface with another unknown device, with unknown interface, unknown function, unknown location, unconfirmed existence, and even need of it?
Please
No one could ever design that device, because first thing they lose after reapers attack, is the Citadel and mass relay network; and before reapers attack - no one ever knew about Citadel being master control unit of the relay network, and relay into dark space.

2. Supposed "creators"(it can not be created) of Crucible have no idea about Catalyst's existence. Sure, magical device, that changes something it's designers have no idea it even exists?
Riiight.
Logic? Never heard of it.

3. And of course, Catalyst is an unshackled AI. Not some program with no self-awareness, - otherwise, you are saying, that Leviathans programmed it to destroy themselves and their minions(displaying themselves as an utter idiots for a third time).
And as sentient being, it could change it's task, which it did, when started cycles.
Thus - he can end that war, given enough persuation(by force or by arguments). But, he is obviously insane.
He won the war, and can't be argued against by design. So he forces Shepard to an unconditional surrender to his insanity.


[quote]
[quote]Tron Mega wrote...

because
of what was promised. because of the BSN saying "dont worry, ME2 is
only the middle. ME3 will fill in the holes! bioware knows what they
are doing!" because ME1 was SO GOD DAMNED GOOD!!!!! how can ME3 possibly
be anything less then an average game???? how is that possible. its not like bioware released a game that wouldnt have an A, B, C ending, when in fact they did. oopsie daisies, i guess.

bioware just proved me right with ME3. they simply dont make games i like.

i bought the game for the wrong reasons. ive learned my lesson with bioware.

[/quote]

How in the name of Fack, was ME1 SO GOD DAMNED GOOD??? Seriously some people are simply doing exactly what I am talking about here... They just about try and find 23082038202 reasons to hate ME3, while ME1 was just about perfect ignoring everything ugly there was....

and there was UGLY **** in ME1... oh yes there was... an awesome game, but a very very flawed game...

where to begin really?

a) The leveling system.... oh my god now the so called "rpg elements".... look you can lvl up 0,3% your ability... sounds awesome no? Glad Bioware cut that crap and now with each lvl you actually FEEL like you lvl up and see a difference in your character abilities and powers.
[/quote]
Sure, an RPG being an RPG is ... bad. Because reasons.
[quote]
The shooting... it was needless to say sub par... both in terms of the actual calibration of the shooting element, the feel of the weapons, the poor covering system etc.
[/quote]
Doesn't matters. RPG is not about combat, it is not driving mechanics. Dialogue is.
[quote]
c) The inventory... probably the worst inventory in any RPG  I have ever played. And I have played a lot.
[/quote]
Even good games have their flaws.
[quote]
d) Oh look at all those rifles that look exactly the same and have different colors (remind you of something?)
[/quote]
Don't see any problem with that.
[quote]
e) ME1 is HUGE.... look at all those amazing barren planets with the EXACT SAME bunkers you have to do over and over and over and over and over AND OVER again.... amazing variety NO?
[/quote]
Of course, it could be better. But different skies - that was awesome. Sense of exploration, which completely removed, for no reason.
[quote]
f) Male Shepard sounds like a transistor in ME1
[/quote]
??
[quote]
g) Ehhh.... Mako..... ehh... yeah.... :/
[/quote]
Mako was one of the best things in ME series. It needed only some fixing, not removal.
[quote]
And lots more if I continue nitpicking ike crazy....
[/quote]
Pathetic.
[quote]
Seriously you need to actually try and be a little bit more objective and fair for a change... I am not saying that you should like the ending of ME3, I am just saying you have nitpicked the fack out of this game to the point that it really doesnt make sense anymore...
[/quote]
ME3 is garbage, horribly written, and badly designed. And bugs... lot of bugs.

Modifié par Maxster_, 05 mars 2013 - 09:04 .

[KLGChaos]

Basically because Mass Effect 3 was the Matrix Revolutions of the series. All this philosophical crap poured on while the story and narrative was thrown to the wayside.

[Valkyre4]

[quote]Maxster_ wrote...

[quote]Valkyre4 wrote...

[quote]Maxster_ wrote...

[quote]Valkyre4 wrote...

Oh please... now we are retarded? Come on seriously how far does your hate come ffs? Why is it that I did not understand the oh so complicated ending while your higher intelligence does. PLease cut the BS

Direct quotes from the "starchild"

"Catalyst : you have hope, more than you think. the fact that you are standing HERE, the FIRST organic EVER PROVES it. But it also proves my solution WONT WORK ANYMORE."
Shepard : Why you telling me this? Why help me
Catalyst : You have ALTERED the variables.

if you really cant think out of the box what the catalyst means by this dialogue, dont call out on people that they "didnt get the ending". The catalyst realises that his solution is not as perfect as he thought it was. And the reason for that is Shepard actions throughout the trilogy PLUS the docking with the citadel yes. But mostly it was Shepards actions, the fact that he united the galaxy like no1 ever did before. I think its pretty much self explanatory...





[/quote]
Sure.
And instead of just leaving(with reapers), or killing himself and reapers at nearest star - he forces Shepard to accept his insanity, threating Shepard with genocide of everyone.
Seem legit.

And especially great was the message. Peace is only possible by 1) killing the opposing side 2) subjugating both sides 3) forced homogenization and brainwashing.


[/quote]

Docking with the crucible has changed the way the "starchild" interracts with the reapers... that was the whole point of it and that is what the starchild actually tells you. Not per se, but it is a no brainer from the whole discussion. Also the Levaithan DLC pretty much suggests that the Reapers are not incommon in doing things as they see fit, hence why they killed their creators. The starchild had no control over the reapers once the crucible was docked.
[/quote]
Nonsense, of course.

1. Crucible can not exist. It can not be designed and can not be built.
Someone designed an unknown device with unknown function, which should interface with another unknown device, with unknown interface, unknown function, unknown location, unconfirmed existence, and even need of it?
Please
No one could ever design that device, because first thing they lose after reapers attack, is the Citadel and mass relay network; and before reapers attack - no one ever knew about Citadel being master control unit of the relay network, and relay into dark space.

2. Supposed "creators"(it can not be created) of Crucible have no idea about Catalyst's existence. Sure, magical device, that changes something it's designers have no idea it even exists?
Riiight.
Logic? Never heard of it.

3. And of course, Catalyst is an unshackled AI. Not some program with no self-awareness, - otherwise, you are saying, that Leviathans programmed it to destroy themselves and their minions(displaying themselves as an utter idiots for a third time).
And as sentient being, it could change it's task, which it did, when started cycles.
Thus - he can end that war, given enough persuation(by force or by arguments). But, he is obviously insane.
He won the war, and can't be argued against by design. So he forces Shepard to an unconditional surrender to his insanity.


[quote]
[quote]Tron Mega wrote...

because
of what was promised. because of the BSN saying "dont worry, ME2 is
only the middle. ME3 will fill in the holes! bioware knows what they
are doing!" because ME1 was SO GOD DAMNED GOOD!!!!! how can ME3 possibly
be anything less then an average game???? how is that possible. its not like bioware released a game that wouldnt have an A, B, C ending, when in fact they did. oopsie daisies, i guess.

bioware just proved me right with ME3. they simply dont make games i like.

i bought the game for the wrong reasons. ive learned my lesson with bioware.

[/quote]

How in the name of Fack, was ME1 SO GOD DAMNED GOOD??? Seriously some people are simply doing exactly what I am talking about here... They just about try and find 23082038202 reasons to hate ME3, while ME1 was just about perfect ignoring everything ugly there was....

and there was UGLY **** in ME1... oh yes there was... an awesome game, but a very very flawed game...

where to begin really?

a) The leveling system.... oh my god now the so called "rpg elements".... look you can lvl up 0,3% your ability... sounds awesome no? Glad Bioware cut that crap and now with each lvl you actually FEEL like you lvl up and see a difference in your character abilities and powers.
[/quote]
Sure, an RPG being an RPG is ... bad. Because reasons.
[quote]
The shooting... it was needless to say sub par... both in terms of the actual calibration of the shooting element, the feel of the weapons, the poor covering system etc.
[/quote]
Doesn't matters. RPG is not about combat, it is not driving mechanics. Dialogue is.
[quote]
c) The inventory... probably the worst inventory in any RPG  I have ever played. And I have played a lot.
[/quote]
Even good games have their flaws.
[quote]
d) Oh look at all those rifles that look exactly the same and have different colors (remind you of something?)
[/quote]
Don't see any problem with that.
[quote]
e) ME1 is HUGE.... look at all those amazing barren planets with the EXACT SAME bunkers you have to do over and over and over and over and over AND OVER again.... amazing variety NO?
[/quote]
Of course, it could be better. But different skies - that was awesome. Sense of exploration, which completely removed, for no reason.
[quote]
f) Male Shepard sounds like a transistor in ME1
[/quote]
??
[quote]
g) Ehhh.... Mako..... ehh... yeah.... :/
[/quote]
Mako was one of the best things in ME series. It needed only some fixing, not removal.
[quote]
And lots more if I continue nitpicking ike crazy....
[/quote]
Pathetic.
[quote]
Seriously you need to actually try and be a little bit more objective and fair for a change... I am not saying that you should like the ending of ME3, I am just saying you have nitpicked the fack out of this game to the point that it really doesnt make sense anymore...
[/quote]
ME3 is garbage, horribly written, and badly designed. And bugs... lot of bugs.

[/quote]

good job proving just how pathetic this community has become. Good job trying to justify just about any shortcomings or plotholes the other games in the series have (Lazarus Project, Sarren having a dreadnaught type of ship with high profile persons on board and yet no1 knows anything, or suspects anything about it, or When Sarren full on facial reaper tech talks to the council and yet no1 even wonders what has happened to his face) and just about hate everything ME3 related.

Also good job proving that you are the kind of individual that cannot express his opinion or his disagreement with someone else without resorting to irony, insults and the like.

Modifié par Valkyre4, 06 mars 2013 - 03:08 .