197 réponses à ce sujet

[Blue Gloves]

iakus wrote...


I'd take that a step further and say Citadel works mainly because people needed a ray of sunlight after the endings, where no matter how many War Assets you gather "the darkness cannot be breached"  It's only in retrospect, and a backlash that continues to this day, that a Citadel DLC really makes sense.  Fans needed to smile at Grunt's antics again.  Laugh at Javik's observations at "primitives" or just listen to Mordin sing one more time.  For those who find the endings depressingly bad, this is one last chance to smile.  It's more than "thanks fro all the memories" it's a chance to dull painful memories.

Heck there are already questions about how to arrange events to imagine the party as postgame, or even to mod things so make it a postgame dlc.

^Totally agree.  I've been in some pretty desperate need of ME anesthetic (I must've played ME1 & 2 a dozen times a piece over the years, but I haven't even been able to bring myself to finish a second playthrough of 3 after a whole year!), and this DLC was the proverbial shot in the arm.  Was it very contextually accurate or probable? No, definitely not, it was fan service-y and slightly fan fiction-y, and as the Forbes article, and other posters have already said, if it had come out with the vanilla game, or even as any DLC that wasn't the end, completely and totoally, of Shep's story, I likely would've hated it.  It would've felt awkward and out of place, but since it is the end, it felt fitting, if a little silly at times, and reminded me of why I fell in love with the series in the first place.

******************spoilers follow- DO NOT READ IF YOU DON'T WANT CITADEL SPOILERS*****************


My only real worry?  My husband pointed out, after I tossed the b!@#$ off my ship, that I never actually saw Clone Shep die.  When I was like "Nah, Bioware would never go for the cheesy 'the clone of the last hero is now the new hero!' bit," he, the hubby reminded me of the opening gambit of ME2.  The "amnesia/ I was in a coma" opener isn't particularly fresh when it comes to series entertainment, although it worked well in two, and might indicate that Bioware is willing to go for some more in the box thinking.   Please Bioware, please, please don't make the next game be about cloneshep.  Chris Priestly talked in another post about "imagination" for the next game, however far down the road that is, but I really can't imagine anything good coming from a cloneshep universe.

[Calibrations52]

The Citadel DLC lacking context is the POINT. It's supposed to give us a break from the overly dour and somber tone of the game. It's supposed to give us fun interactions with our favorite characters from the trilogy. It's supposed to be "shore duty." I think it's also clear that it's supposed to be not taken too seriously in contrast to the rest of the game. It was purely fan service, and THAT'S the context that really matters imo.

[DarkSpiral]

fainmaca wrote...

Hell yes. I'd say that, aside from the endings, the whole auto-dialogue thing has been the biggest complaint. Shepard speaking by himself, Zaeed-style conversations. Its not about whether you'd make the decisions, its about being given the option to make said decisions.

Ah, you are reffering to the game as a whole.  I thought you meant just Citadel, which I felt was in largely the same vein as the rest of the game.  I conceed your point here.

A DLC making it impossible to go back to the core game and kills the core product's replayability is not a mistake? Okay....

Ah well, if that was your reaction, then so be it.  I actually consider the game's replayability to have been enhanced by the DLC packs, including Citadel.  I am not alone in this, though as I said before, I wouldn't have had that reaction if this was anything but the final piece of DLC.

[CaIIisto]

3DandBeyond wrote...

The big problem for me is considering any of the "good" content in a context with the rest of ME3.  The parts I found bittersweet or just sweet or cheesy or any combination of not just plain depressing, all end up being so if capped off by the endings from hell.  I think the Normandy Evac scene is silly but the dialogue with some LIs is some of the best in the game.  Get to the end and then damn-I think the endings are made worse by any good content.  So, it's kind of like the last part of ME3 I want to see is that reunion stuff in Citadel.  I think that effect is what BW was after-instead of the crap taste of the endings, they figured many would hang onto the sweetness of Citadel instead.  Just never play to the end again.

As soon as BW stated that they wouldn't be changing the endings with any of the DLC I'd already made my mind up to move on from ME after the DLC schedule had run its course. That being the case, the main thing I wanted from the Citadel DLC was the chance to say goodbye to the characters on a better note than the ending. At this point the endings are what they are, love them or loathe them, they're a fixed point. As I said originally, narratively, the Citadel DLC may try for bittersweet but overshoots the mark into depressing - largely because no matter what happens you know what's still to come on the other side of the DLC. The bittersweetness, what there is to be had, comes in the meta sense that I know that this is the end for me. Despite loathing the end of ME3, I've loved the series up until that point. Still do. Saying goodbye to it, even given the strength of feeling towards the end of the game, is hard. If it weren't for the new DLC then my parting memories of the series would be of the Starbrat, the rainbow choice, and space magic. Instead, I'll be remembering the best part of ME - the characters. 

[ScriptBabe]

TJBartlemus wrote...

 What bothers me most, though, is that Citadel represents all the worst possible lessons from the ending debacle. If Citadel achieves the goal of bringing fans back into the fold, it doesn’t bode well for future game stories from the studio, in my mind. Imagine it: You’re working on the hard-hitting ending for Dragon Age 4 that includes every character dying. It’s sad, but that’s the story the game needs to tell, and furthermore, it fits the tone and characters you’ve created in the game up to that point. But then a suit wanders up and tells you the ending has to be happy, because the suit learned from the success of Citadel that people like happy endings.

 Citadel isn’t about good storytelling, it’s about feel-good storytelling. And it’s not that there’s no place for that in either games or in Mass Effect — indeed, break Citadel up into 20 or so pieces and it would have worked great sprinkled throughout Mass Effect 3. But the DLC represents a departure from what Mass Effect is, and it sets a precedent in which pandering to fans supersedes telling great stories well. And that’s no better than the situation we were left with at the end of Mass Effect 3 a year ago.

Interesting analysis.  I would disagree on a couple of points.  First, I am one of those people who was deeply annoyed by the ending of the game.  Not just because it seemed to violate the basic themes of the game, but because it violated so many essential rules of good story telling.  I've enumerated them at length in a blog post here, and on my blog www.melindasnodgrass.com, so we'll put them aside for now.  But one of my objections was, in fact, the lack of a "happy" ending.  I think happy endings are often knocked unfairly, and that people have been too quick to say -- "Oh, I'm not asking for a happy ending."  Why not?  There is nothing intrinsically wrong with a happy ending.  I think Dragon Age: Origins struck exactly the right balance offering fans a choice for their individual warden that worked for them.

Which brings me to the issue of story telling.  You talk about how "It’s sad, but that’s the story the game needs to tell".  But gaming is a new form of media and entertainment, and it doesn't _tell_ stories in the same way a novel or a movie presents a story.  A reader brings imagination to a novel, and as a writer I hope I have evoked a sense of place, emotions, excitement, etc., but I as the writer set every move and every agenda.  The reader cannot affect the outcome, and knows going in they cannot affect the outcome.  Same in a movie.

However, In a game that is so much an RPG there is enormous player investment.  Particularly when you can customize your character and aren't locked into a particular gender, etc.  I think the players/fans have a right to feel "entitled", god knows they are invested in terms of money and time (which is functionally the same thing).  Given these facts I see nothing wrong with offering alternative choices for a player, and in fact I think the genre and format demands it.  I don't think you can offer input and choice, and then suddenly put the game "on rails" and demand a certain outcome for all players in all situations.

Yes, it's more work, but they did it in Dragon Age: Origins, and I think it could have been done here as well.

[ScriptBabe]

P.S. I have not yet played Citadel. This is one ME3 DLC I am planning to purchase and play though I do worry it will have tonal dissonance with the game as a whole. But I can't and won't make any judgments until I have had the opportunity to play the game.

[Allan Schumacher]

fainmaca wrote...

Then this is probably one of the roots of the problem between BW and people like me. When I play the game, Shepard is meant to be me, my avatar in the game's world. The game shouldn't have to break the 4th wall to interact with me, as when I'm in the mindset to play Shepard, I'm already in there, alongside my allies and enemies.

I was speaking as a game player.  I have spent 0 minutes of my life working on Mass Effect.

I stated why it worked for me.  Unfortunately it doesn't work for you.

Also, I replay the games. I was replaying ME1+ME2 right up until ME3
came out (and a little after). I like to explore the setting in various
ways. The DLCs are most definitely not the last piece of content I
experience, therefore they need to still work with what must come after.

As do I.  I suppose I should have been clearer:  It's the last piece of new content most players will experience in the Mass Effect Trilogy.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 20 mars 2013 - 03:20 .

[V-rcingetorix]

ScriptBabe wrote...

TJBartlemus wrote...

 What bothers me most, though, is that Citadel represents all the worst possible lessons from the ending debacle. If Citadel achieves the goal of bringing fans back into the fold, it doesn’t bode well for future game stories from the studio, in my mind. Imagine it: You’re working on the hard-hitting ending for Dragon Age 4 that includes every character dying. It’s sad, but that’s the story the game needs to tell, and furthermore, it fits the tone and characters you’ve created in the game up to that point. But then a suit wanders up and tells you the ending has to be happy, because the suit learned from the success of Citadel that people like happy endings.

 Citadel isn’t about good storytelling, it’s about feel-good storytelling. And it’s not that there’s no place for that in either games or in Mass Effect — indeed, break Citadel up into 20 or so pieces and it would have worked great sprinkled throughout Mass Effect 3. But the DLC represents a departure from what Mass Effect is, and it sets a precedent in which pandering to fans supersedes telling great stories well. And that’s no better than the situation we were left with at the end of Mass Effect 3 a year ago.

Interesting analysis.  I would disagree on a couple of points.  First, I am one of those people who was deeply annoyed by the ending of the game.  Not just because it seemed to violate the basic themes of the game, but because it violated so many essential rules of good story telling.  I've enumerated them at length in a blog post here, and on my blog www.melindasnodgrass.com, so we'll put them aside for now.  But one of my objections was, in fact, the lack of a "happy" ending.  I think happy endings are often knocked unfairly, and that people have been too quick to say -- "Oh, I'm not asking for a happy ending."  Why not?  There is nothing intrinsically wrong with a happy ending.  I think Dragon Age: Origins struck exactly the right balance offering fans a choice for their individual warden that worked for them.

Which brings me to the issue of story telling.  You talk about how "It’s sad, but that’s the story the game needs to tell".  But gaming is a new form of media and entertainment, and it doesn't _tell_ stories in the same way a novel or a movie presents a story.  A reader brings imagination to a novel, and as a writer I hope I have evoked a sense of place, emotions, excitement, etc., but I as the writer set every move and every agenda.  The reader cannot affect the outcome, and knows going in they cannot affect the outcome.  Same in a movie.

However, In a game that is so much an RPG there is enormous player investment.  Particularly when you can customize your character and aren't locked into a particular gender, etc.  I think the players/fans have a right to feel "entitled", god knows they are invested in terms of money and time (which is functionally the same thing).  Given these facts I see nothing wrong with offering alternative choices for a player, and in fact I think the genre and format demands it.  I don't think you can offer input and choice, and then suddenly put the game "on rails" and demand a certain outcome for all players in all situations.

Yes, it's more work, but they did it in Dragon Age: Origins, and I think it could have been done here as well.

Well said, both of you.

I hate the ending to ME3. For me, the ending broke far too many rules, both for storytelling and for the in-game lore. I think it's great that some players really liked it, but the majority did not.

This new DLC seems to add to the experience, and the one part that adds to the game (to me) is where the LI states (paraphrased): "If you're alive, I will come for you. No matter what."

That makes the game playable again. Multi was nice, but I got into gaming because of the SP.

[Seifer006]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
It's the last piece of new content most players will experience in the Mass Effect Trilogy.

we need more Krogans in the next trilogy (whatever that'll be). I was happy with the DLC since The Illustrious Leader brought the BOOM!

But Krogans rule. Need more Wrex and Grunt types. More Jorgal Thurkak Krogans also for bad****ness and if we can bring back Jim Cummings from ME2, be great

anyway, the Citadel DLC can have their LI's and all that crap...
just give me K.R.O.G.A.N.S. and i'll buy it ...(unless it's on Origin) then forget it about it.
Never again, will this customer buy a game just to play through EA bull**** servers...

[Allan Schumacher]

I'm asking this in an honest way in regards to deciding the consensus of fans' complaints:

What about the near universal hatred for the Catalyst? Sure THAT, if anything would have been above and beyond THE complaint about the ending. Even many who liked EC or the originals weren't too fond of the hologram. That'd have gone pretty far in patching the story up.

I actually felt there was a lot of "I don't even care about the Catalyst, what upset me was <something else>" types of responses as well. Though I wasn't really scientific about it.

[ScriptBabe]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I wouldn't read too much into it as being "you just wanted a happy ending" (note, I have only read the OP)

In my opinion there wasn't really a "consensus" on what specifically made people upset with the ending (IIRC there were about 3 different themes that came up a lot, and I felt many people fit on it on a continuum in some way, like a place on a triangle with each point being the particular destination). One thing that I did feel was pretty consistent, however, is that in large part players had a strong emotional investment into the game, most specifically the characters (there were other aspects as well, but I don't remember them being as common).

Cheers.

Allan

I spend my professional life figuring out how to make a story "work".  I think it was hard for people to analyze why they felt so frustrated and disoriented by the ending.  There were a number of basic writing rules that were ignored or were implemented poorly, but I think the core problem goes all the way back to game one.  Whatever is going to be the solution has got to be laid in at the beginning or it will always feel like it came out of nowhere.  And there were two giant instances where this occurred.  We have no hint of the Crucible/Catalyst in the first game, and we are suddenly confronted with a new antagonist in the final 10 minutes of the final game.  I was certain that Chorban and the Keepers were going to play a vital role together with the dark matter plot from ME2, but sadly no.  And the logical and final confrontation needed to be with Harbinger.  The genius of the first game was a personified villain in the person of Saren as stand in for the Reapers.  Things got a bit wobbly in the second game, but Harbinger was a presence, and I fully expected him to be the antagonist of game 3.  The ultimate Reaper, the stand in for all his kind.  You have to get through Harbinger to find the ultimate victory.

[sr2josh]

NeonFlux117 wrote...

rating the best content of ME3 low cause- "it is out of place". What a whiner.

[Jadebaby]

fainmaca wrote...

Then this is probably one of the roots of the problem between BW and people like me. When I play the game, Shepard is meant to be me, my avatar in the game's world. The game shouldn't have to break the 4th wall to interact with me, as when I'm in the mindset to play Shepard, I'm already in there, alongside my allies and enemies.

Exactly, Citadel dlc and Omega dlc prove just how seriously they took the Mass Effect trilogy's narrative. Which is not very. A real shame considering it started out as a mature and immersive adult sci-fi.

[Allan Schumacher]

rating the best content of ME3 low cause- "it is out of place". What a whiner.

Lets not get adversarial because someone likes different things than other people!

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 20 mars 2013 - 03:59 .

[Wayning_Star]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

rating the best content of ME3 low cause- "it is out of place". What a whiner.

Lets not get adversarial because someone likes different things than other people!

that's what I told the catalyst..but..

edit: but I just wanted more stuff to role play with...and save the MEU from the dreaded reaperships.

Modifié par Wayning_Star, 20 mars 2013 - 04:04 .

[Sovereign330]

Respectfully disagreeing. I have no problem placing it at a certain point in the story.

[Jadebaby]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I'm asking this in an honest way in regards to deciding the consensus of fans' complaints:

What about the near universal hatred for the Catalyst? Sure THAT, if anything would have been above and beyond THE complaint about the ending. Even many who liked EC or the originals weren't too fond of the hologram. That'd have gone pretty far in patching the story up.

I actually felt there was a lot of "I don't even care about the Catalyst, what upset me was <something else>" types of responses as well. Though I wasn't really scientific about it.

Although I can't go through the annals of BSN posters to give you direct evidence, I can assure you this wasn't the case. Surely one of your points on your traingle is reserved for those that believe not only is the kid a bad character but that it is severely damaging to ME3 and it's pre-established themes. The Catalyst is the vanguard of ME's destruction. It, in and of itself, is what was wrong with the endings. Even those complaining that the endings weren't happy enough, simply a direct result of it's presense in the narrative.

Which in turn, I believe is a direct result of EA's deadlines. Mac said it best "I believe we did a great job considering our time frame."

[Wayning_Star]

Jadebaby wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I'm asking this in an honest way in regards to deciding the consensus of fans' complaints:

What about the near universal hatred for the Catalyst? Sure THAT, if anything would have been above and beyond THE complaint about the ending. Even many who liked EC or the originals weren't too fond of the hologram. That'd have gone pretty far in patching the story up.

I actually felt there was a lot of "I don't even care about the Catalyst, what upset me was <something else>" types of responses as well. Though I wasn't really scientific about it.

Although I can't go through the annals of BSN posters to give you direct evidence, I can assure you this wasn't the case. Surely one of your points on your traingle is reserved for those that believe not only is the kid a bad character but that it is severely damaging to ME3 and it's pre-established themes. The Catalyst is the vanguard of ME's destruction. It, in and of itself, is what was wrong with the endings. Even those complaining that the endings weren't happy enough, simply a direct result of it's presense in the narrative.

Which in turn, I believe is a direct result of EA's deadlines. Mac said it best "I believe we did a great job considering our time frame."

nah jade, that's just putting labels to misunderstandings, not an equation to the riddles of the MEU. The cat wouldn't save stuff it wished to destroy, the reaperships have their job, the catalyst it's own, they don't 'ultimately' coincide. The problem is that no fans can agree on an canon, just because!!!

i.e., Chaos, the cat warned of..lol

[sr2josh]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I wouldn't read too much into it as being "you just wanted a happy ending" (note, I have only read the OP)

In my opinion there wasn't really a "consensus" on what specifically made people upset with the ending (IIRC there were about 3 different themes that came up a lot, and I felt many people fit on it on a continuum in some way, like a place on a triangle with each point being the particular destination). One thing that I did feel was pretty consistent, however, is that in large part players had a strong emotional investment into the game, most specifically the characters (there were other aspects as well, but I don't remember them being as common).

Contextually within the story, Citadel's story doesn't really make much sense. But I found, while playing it myself, that there's a sort of meta aspect to it. Most (I dare say the vast majority) of the players that play it will have already experienced the ending.  So as players when they play this, even though narratively it's "before" the ending, for the player it's still "after they've experienced all the other content in the game."  It's literally the last piece of content they will experience within the ME trilogy.

I found Citadel wasn't so much design to go on an adventure with Shepard. It was more to go on an adventure with the person playing the game. I think that's why it goes with breaking the 4th wall as much as it does. It invites the player along on a trip where they poke fun at the various memes that exist in the franchise, and delves more into spending time with the characters within the game as much as a player, rather than exclusively Shepard.


So rather than "lets go on an adventure with Shepard" it more said to me "Lets go on an adventure together with Allan."


I think that that's why it works so well. Had it been released with the game, it wouldn't have made a lick of sense. As the Forbes writer said, it only works as post-release content. As such, it came across as the game sort of saying "Thanks for all the memories." Which may sound sappy, but I really enjoyed the Citadel DLC and this I feel is why.


Cheers.

Allan

Allan,

I have to disagree with you on saying it doesn't have any context within the story.  Admiral Anderson, the guy leading the resistance on Earth, tells Shepard basically, "hey I have this place on the Citadel and I'm obviously not using it right now so it's yours".  The Normandy obviously needed repairs just as a real warship does in real wars so it made sense for Shep and company to stay at Anderson's empty apartment while that was going on.  Shep's clone and Brooks were probably waiting for the Normandy crew to take their eventual shore leave on the Citadel from constantly fighting in stressful and bloody combat and launched their plot to kill him.  Citadel DLC doesn't directly involve the war against the Reapers but in my opinion it does have some context.  It couldn't have any less context within the story than Omega DLC.

Modifié par Makai81, 20 mars 2013 - 04:12 .

[christrek1982]

Bill Casey wrote...

The DLC captured the core themes of Mass Effect...
A bunch of different and diverse alien cultures coming together of their own volition to solve problems...

When the clone asked what makes shepard so different, and quickly realizes just how alone he's made himself is brilliant stuff...

And the Mass Effect 3 main game is genuinely funny as hell...
Outside of the prologue and end game, it's filled with touching moments and light hearted banter...

I just got done playing the Tuchanka arc again, and all I have to say is...

- Iron in truck excellent supplement for maw's diet
- Be glad it was just your elbow
- He switches to the stick up his ass as a back up weapon
- There goes the next shadow broker
- Don't touch that
- But you were dead
- Prothy The Prothean
- So much padding
- Salarian liver
- Callibrations
- I wish I wasn't
- How do Krogan mate?

yes out side of the mind blowingly bad ending ME3 is a very good game with some funny moments I agree.

[Jadebaby]

Wayning_Star wrote...

Jadebaby wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I'm asking this in an honest way in regards to deciding the consensus of fans' complaints:

What about the near universal hatred for the Catalyst? Sure THAT, if anything would have been above and beyond THE complaint about the ending. Even many who liked EC or the originals weren't too fond of the hologram. That'd have gone pretty far in patching the story up.

I actually felt there was a lot of "I don't even care about the Catalyst, what upset me was <something else>" types of responses as well. Though I wasn't really scientific about it.

Although I can't go through the annals of BSN posters to give you direct evidence, I can assure you this wasn't the case. Surely one of your points on your traingle is reserved for those that believe not only is the kid a bad character but that it is severely damaging to ME3 and it's pre-established themes. The Catalyst is the vanguard of ME's destruction. It, in and of itself, is what was wrong with the endings. Even those complaining that the endings weren't happy enough, simply a direct result of it's presense in the narrative.

Which in turn, I believe is a direct result of EA's deadlines. Mac said it best "I believe we did a great job considering our time frame."

nah jade, that's just putting labels to misunderstandings, not an equation to the riddles of the MEU. The cat wouldn't save stuff it wished to destroy, the reaperships have their job, the catalyst it's own, they don't 'ultimately' coincide. The problem is that no fans can agree on an canon, just because!!!

i.e., Chaos, the cat warned of..lol

Sorry, but your post made no sense to me. Are you speaking in Catalystian by any chance?

[Allan Schumacher]

Allan,

I have to disagree with you on saying it doesn't have any context within the story. Admiral Anderson, the guy leading the resistance on Earth, tells Shepard basically, "hey I have this place on the Citadel and I'm obviously not using it right now so it's yours". The Normandy obviously needed repairs just as a real warship does in real wars so it made sense for Shep and company to stay at Anderson's empty apartment while that was going on. Shep's clone and Brooks were probably waiting for the Normandy crew to take their eventual shore leave on the Citadel from constantly fighting in stressful and bloody combat and launched their plot to kill him. Citadel DLC doesn't directly involve the war against the Reapers but in my opinion it does have some context. It couldn't have any less context within the story than Omega DLC.

Well then, it seems as though our opinions in this regard aren't the same hehe

If you can make it work for you that's great. For myself, what I appreciated the most of it was more outside of the narrative context that it exists.

Cheers!

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 20 mars 2013 - 04:25 .

[TJBartlemus]

Makai81 wrote...

Allan,

I have to disagree with you on saying it doesn't have any context within the story.  Admiral Anderson, the guy leading the resistance on Earth, tells Shepard basically, "hey I have this place on the Citadel and I'm obviously not using it right now so it's yours".  The Normandy obviously needed repairs just as a real warship does in real wars so it made sense for Shep and company to stay at Anderson's empty apartment while that was going on.  Shep's clone and Brooks were probably waiting for the Normandy crew to take their eventual shore leave on the Citadel from constantly fighting in stressful and bloody combat and launched their plot to kill him.  Citadel DLC doesn't directly involve the war against the Reapers but in my opinion it does have some context.  It couldn't have any less context within the story than Omega DLC.

 Uh...I have to disagree. A lot. All of the DLC for ME3 up until Citadel had solid context within the main story of ME3. From Ashes was about Asset Denial for the War Effort. Leviathan was about getting a powerful Asset for the War Effort. Omega was about getting an army of Pirates / FOB for ... the War Effort. 

 Citadel totally goes off this trend. Citadel is about Personal Reasons / Partying. 

[Jadebaby]

^Which, in the end, was just as useless as the war assets from the other dlc's. lol

[sr2josh]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Allan,

I have to disagree with you on saying it doesn't have any context within the story. Admiral Anderson, the guy leading the resistance on Earth, tells Shepard basically, "hey I have this place on the Citadel and I'm obviously not using it right now so it's yours". The Normandy obviously needed repairs just as a real warship does in real wars so it made sense for Shep and company to stay at Anderson's empty apartment while that was going on. Shep's clone and Brooks were probably waiting for the Normandy crew to take their eventual shore leave on the Citadel from constantly fighting in stressful and bloody combat and launched their plot to kill him. Citadel DLC doesn't directly involve the war against the Reapers but in my opinion it does have some context. It couldn't have any less context within the story than Omega DLC.

Well then, it seems as though our opinions in this regard aren't the same hehe

If you can make it work for you that's great. For myself, what I appreciated the most of it was more outside of the narrative context that it exists.

Cheers!

It's not so much as making it work for myself in terms of context but rather that it CAN work in the greater ME3 story narrative.  Which technically can be true of many missions and the other DLCs.  Myself included though, I enjoyed the simple fun and extra content with ME3 and old squadmates/LI's.

Cheers