65 réponses à ce sujet

[cap and gown]

These are just some random thoughts that struck me as somewhat related. So don't expect a coherent post.

I have seen people requesting that ME:Next be an "open world" game. I would argue that it already is an open world game, but the "world" is unlike that which you find in Skyrim. The "world" of ME is the galaxy and each planet where you find a mission is the equivalent of a dungeon. Instead of traveling between dungeons by foot or on horse, you travel by the Normandy. Sure, its not as scenic, but just how scenic were you expecting an empty vacuum to be? And the second you start using the fast travel system in Skyrim, getting around your "open world" offers nothing that ME doesn't.

Beyond that though, to the extent that a game is "open world" its story starts to lose focus. We are all probably grateful for the amount of content these games offer, but the more side-content you get, the more unfocused the story becomes. You are supposed to be saving the world/galaxy from Dragons/Reapers/Mehrunes Dagon/etc., yet here you are fetching some guy's family armor from some random dungeon/planet. Why? Because it is extra content, even if it as nothing to do with the story.

ME1 had a lot of extra content (though some of it was of the "collect so many of this" variety, which is pointless and boring) but seemed to keep its focus better than the later games. For the entire game we are chasing down Saren and there are enough missions focusing on this goal to keep it in our minds. In ME2, however, the focus on stopping the Collectors got lost between the side missions and the loyalty missions. I would say that ME2 would have done better if there were two more missions where we fought the Collectors before the final mission at the expense of some of the side missions where we fight random mercs. (Having two more "forced" missions like the Collector ship would have also helped in keeping the story front and center.) In ME3, the focus on fighting the Reapers gets lost as we continuously fight Cerberus (which in itself is absurd, considering its seemingly unlimited resources). Less Cereberus and more Reapers would have benefited the story in ME3.

So for ME:Next, I would say, even though we as players do want lots of content, if some of the side content needs to be cut to make resources available for main mission content, then the side content should go.

Modifié par cap and gown, 16 février 2014 - 09:54 .

[Darks1d3]

You can have a good story and good side content at the same time though. You just have to make sure the side content relates with the main story in some way. At the very least, the side content needs to relate with one of the main themes of the game. But the side content does have to remain as side content. It can't override the main story.

Kind of like having a steak dinner. I want my steak to be bigger than the side dishes. I don't want my baked potato or my side of broccoli to be bigger than the steak. Not the best analogy, but it's the best I can think of right now. Sue me.

[cap and gown]

Darks1d3 wrote...
Kind of like having a steak dinner. I want my steak to be bigger than the side dishes. I don't want my baked potato or my side of broccoli to be bigger than the steak. Not the best analogy, but it's the best I can think of right now. Sue me.

You have been served.

[javeart]

I agree. I can do with no side missions at all, and, in fact, it's how I like to play ME... And when you're doing staff for your LI, or your favourite squadmate it's tolerable, but running errands for everyone you meet....it's not only that I find most of them awfully boring, but also that it's so inappropriate for a story like this and a character like Shepard... I mean, it's ok, I just skip them, but I can't help thinking about other uses they could give to the resources used for that...

[katamuro]

javeart wrote...

I agree. I can do with no side missions at all, and, in fact, it's how I like to play ME... And when you're doing staff for your LI, or your favourite squadmate it's tolerable, but running errands for everyone you meet....it's not only that I find most of them awfully boring, but also that it's so inappropriate for a story like this and a character like Shepard... I mean, it's ok, I just skip them, but I can't help thinking about other uses they could give to the resources used for that...

Its "filler" content its used to prolong the game, to make the game seem bigger, with more stuff to do, might even give you snippets into the universe, also gives you extra xp and money. They are basically a part of gameplay rather than story as such. 

[MrFob]

I'd agree on the opne world note but not on the side quest issue.
As Darks1d3 said,side quests can work well if they are connected to the main story. Just look at the side quests for ME3: Grissom Academy, the Turian bomb, the Rachni, the Consensus...
They all were excellent side quests because they relate to the main plot. I think even the fetch quests could have worked if they would have integrated them as N7 missions instead of just scanning planets.
I also think that exploration can still be in the game without issue, it just has to be a little bit more focused as it was in ME1. Best example here is "Bring Down the Sky". In principle, it was a typical MAKO map but it was designed with a purpose in mind. You could just go down the main road and extinguish the plasma torches but in the end, the engineer would ask you to search for his team and could go out to more remote places on the map and find them. With content like this and maybe a few random encounters (which should be unique and not just mineral deposits), you could do great exploration during side quests and still maintain a connection to the main plot.

katamuro wrote...

Its "filler" content its used to prolong the game, to make the game seem bigger, with more stuff to do, might
even give you snippets into the universe, also gives you extra xp and money. They are basically a part of gameplay rather than story as such.

I think this can be true but doesn't have to be. It depends on the kind of main plot you have. If you have a sense of urgency like all the ME games had, I think you really do want to connect your side quests to the main plot, so it doesn't seem like you are just wandering of from an important mission.
However, if your main plot includes a time, when the protagonist has to search for something and they don't know where to find it, that is the perfect time to include side quest content that is not related that much to the main story and might expand the universe.
This was one aspect that BW never had in the ME trilogy (or in any of their games really). Shepard always knew wheres/he needed to go next right from the start, which made the side quests feel rather "in the way". For such external side quests to work properly, it would have been good to a setting similar to e.g. Leviathan (without the hints from Brayson's office), where you actually have to go out and search a couple of systems for clues. Then, you might stumble upon things that are not related but still worth investigating.

So it's all a question of good game- and plot-design.

Modifié par MrFob, 16 février 2014 - 11:52 .

[Darks1d3]

cap and gown wrote...

Darks1d3 wrote...
Kind of like having a steak dinner. I want my steak to be bigger than the side dishes. I don't want my baked potato or my side of broccoli to be bigger than the steak. Not the best analogy, but it's the best I can think of right now. Sue me.

You have been served.

I like this human.

[von uber]

If you remove the planet scanning from ME2 or the war asset collection from ME3 how much shorter would the game be?

[AlanC9]

Maybe an hour or so? A bit more if you're going for the million minerals in ME2.

Modifié par AlanC9, 17 février 2014 - 07:10 .

[katamuro]

AlanC9 wrote...

Maybe an hour or so? A bit more if you're going for the million minerals in ME2.

But its not just plannet scanning. All those side-missions where you just have to walk in between locatios pressing space. For example, there is a mission where you smuggle data for a salarian. Takes about 10 minutes. The batarian guy who tried to poison you.Then the krogan fish thing, krogan reciting poetry. Sure it all is interesting and even funny but they are not part of the main storyline at all. ME2 generally apart from planet scanning is a good example of interesting and well written filler content.
ME1 is the worst offender considering that all the exploration side-missions are basically half of the games length. 
ME3 scanning missions are generally no more than hour, hour and a half tops but it adds the combat side-missions too. 

Filler content is not bad as such, it can be well made and enriching, extending the game, giving precious resources and simply poking fun at certain things, however in a lot of examples in games generally the filler content is only used to extend playtime, missions like get 100 of something or find 10 things come from MMO game structure where its basically the basis for all quests and applied crudely to singleplayer games to pad it out.

ME1 while is suffering from a lot of side-missions that do turn boring after doing the same thing for the fourth time in an hour also did use the planetary exploration missions to set the mood. ME2 with the planet scanning did try to streamline the proccess but made it dreadfully boring at the same time. ME3 devoted most of its time to actual missions and with just a bit of the scanning left. Better than ME2 scanning but still a gimmick.

[cap and gown]

MrFob wrote...

katamuro wrote...

Its "filler" content its used to prolong the game, to make the game seem bigger, with more stuff to do, might
even give you snippets into the universe, also gives you extra xp and money. They are basically a part of gameplay rather than story as such.

I think this can be true but doesn't have to be. It depends on the kind of main plot you have. If you have a sense of urgency like all the ME games had, I think you really do want to connect your side quests to the main plot, so it doesn't seem like you are just wandering of from an important mission.
However, if your main plot includes a time, when the protagonist has to search for something and they don't know where to find it, that is the perfect time to include side quest content that is not related that much to the main story and might expand the universe.
This was one aspect that BW never had in the ME trilogy (or in any of their games really). Shepard always knew wheres/he needed to go next right from the start, which made the side quests feel rather "in the way". For such external side quests to work properly, it would have been good to a setting similar to e.g. Leviathan (without the hints from Brayson's office), where you actually have to go out and search a couple of systems for clues. Then, you might stumble upon things that are not related but still worth investigating.

I think ME2 had more potential of doing this IF there had been a few more Collector missions. For instance, between Horizon and the Collector ship Shepard has to wait for the Collectors to show up again before she can do anything about them, so it is a perfect time to take care of the needs of the crew. Now if there were 2 more interludes like that, where Shepard has wait for the Collectors to show up before she could act, then you would be justified in going off and doing other things for a while, while still keeping in mind that our main task is dealing with the Collectors. ME2 had the perfect set up to allow seemingly unconnected side quests to fit in.

[Ranger1337]

The answer is pretty simple. It is because one of the biggest themes in Mass Effect is exploration. In that sense, the game is arousing the player's curiosity to venture outside the box, detract from the main story for a bit and explore what else is out there in this big universe that BioWare has created. Essentially most of the side missions we perceive as filler, is actually serving their purpose for the game's exploration theme. You get to experience the underworld of the Terminus Systems, the extent of corruption within a seemingly paradise of a galaxy that was presented to us in the first game. Whenever we scan planets, and you hear EDI saying that there is an anomaly detected, you become curious. What could be down there? You start hearing the broadcast messages as you hover the crosshair over the anomaly's location and you hear the geth maybe? Or a cryptic distress call and you are tempted to land and see what the fuss is about. Sure it detracts our focus from the main story, but the thing about Mass Effect is we were never meant to keep our eyes glued to the main plot. The galaxy map is there for a reason. If we focus way too much on the main story, then this game would lose its unique place within the gaming industry, following a more linear plot that games like CoD and Halo does.

[AlexMBrennan]

How can you possibly argue that ME3, where you are given a completely linear mission order is "open world"? In Me3 you have no choice whatsoever - do a main mission, then do an inane side quest to unlock the next main quest and repeat; me1 was more open world than that and ME2 could have been much more open world if they consoles hadn't dictated fixed mission order (now we just have to recruit everyone to unlock the relevant main mission, so there's no choice)

You are supposed to be saving the world/galaxy from Dragons/Reapers/Mehrunes Dagon/etc., yet here you are fetching some guy's family armor from some random dungeon/planet. Why? Because it is extra content, even if it as nothing to do with the story.

True, and I'm glad Me3 avoided that; now go risk Shepard's live and thus the lives of everyone in the galaxy to save THREE quarians who are of no importance to anyone before you take out the reaper controlling the geth.

ME1 had a lot of extra content (though some of it was of the "collect so many of this" variety, which is pointless and boring) but seemed to keep its focus better than the later games. For the entire game we are chasing down Saren and there are enough missions focusing on this goal to keep it in our minds. In ME2, however, the focus on stopping the Collectors got lost between the side missions and the loyalty missions. I would say that ME2 would have done better if there were two more missions where we fought the Collectors before the final mission at the expense of some of the side missions where we fight random mercs. (Having two more "forced" missions like the Collector ship would have also helped in keeping the story front and center.) In ME3, the focus on fighting the Reapers gets lost as we continuously fight Cerberus (which in itself is absurd, considering its seemingly unlimited resources). Less Cereberus and more Reapers would have benefited the story in ME3.

I think you have this wrong - ME2 is a game trying to tell a bunch of side stories, and the side missions do fit the game (Shepard is waiting for the elusive collectors to make a move so we might just as well deal with Jacob's daddy issues while we wait).

Me3 increases the urgency by having the Reapers invade everywhere and start killing everyone, and it now makes no more sense for Shepard to go play stupid fighting games whilst the Reapers are everywhere killing everyone.

There is nothing inherently wrong with the side quests - the issue is whether they fit your game.

[MrFob]

cap and gown wrote...

I think ME2 had more potential of doing this IF there had been a few more Collector missions. For instance, between Horizon and the Collector ship Shepard has to wait for the Collectors to show up again before she can do anything about them, so it is a perfect time to take care of the needs of the crew. Now if there were 2 more interludes like that, where Shepard has wait for the Collectors to show up before she could act, then you would be justified in going off and doing other things for a while, while still keeping in mind that our main task is dealing with the Collectors. ME2 had the perfect set up to allow seemingly unconnected side quests to fit in.

Yes, I was actually thinking about mentioning ME2 in my previous post but even in ME2, BW decided to hurry the player along through their design of the main missions. Freedom's Progress show how dangerous the Collectors are and Horizon (plus the constant mentioning of Ferris Fields by the crew) reinforces that they will just keep hitting colony after colony, so you'd better get going. The mere fact tat the IFF mission is available with a plot marker right away points the player to the next goal already and after that, you are literally on a timer. So yes, ME2 could have been designed for unrelated side quests but it wasn't and I think that was a deliberate decision by the devs.
Now, I am not saying that this game design is necessarily bad, in fact, I think in most cases it's probably the way to go for most players. Only in the ontext of side missions, one period in the game where the player doesn't get a preset goal and is encouraged to search the world by himself is a good idea.

[Invisible Man]

i have to say in games such as mass effect, dragon age, tes, etc. i find myself trying to create reasons to avoid doing the main quests right away, so i can go off and explore, gain xp, look for items... yada, yada, yada. most games i play i tend to roleplay, even if they have nothing to do with rpgs. (though, most of those games do have Rocket Propelled Grenades)

[AlanC9]

katamuro wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Maybe an hour or so? A bit more if you're going for the million minerals in ME2.

But its not just plannet scanning. All those side-missions where you just have to walk in between locatios pressing space. For example, there is a mission where you smuggle data for a salarian. Takes about 10 minutes. The batarian guy who tried to poison you.Then the krogan fish thing, krogan reciting poetry. Sure it all is interesting and even funny but they are not part of the main storyline at all. ME2 generally apart from planet scanning is a good example of interesting and well written filler content.

That wasn't the question I was answering, though. von uber only asked about planet scanning and WA collection.

I agree on the substantive point. ME1's a pretty short game compared to the sequels, but the planet exploration and inventory fiddling masks that a bit. One of the interesting things about recent Bio releases is that they don't seem to be very interested in maintaining gamers' illusions.

[AlanC9]

AlexMBrennan wrote...
I think you have this wrong - ME2 is a game trying to tell a bunch of side stories, and the side missions do fit the game (Shepard is waiting for the elusive collectors to make a move so we might just as well deal with Jacob's daddy issues while we wait).

Me3 increases the urgency by having the Reapers invade everywhere and start killing everyone, and it now makes no more sense for Shepard to go play stupid fighting games whilst the Reapers are everywhere killing everyone.  

I think we've talked about this before, but I don't see how the ME3 plot is substantively different from the ME2 plot in this regard. In ME2 Shepard waits for the Collectors, in ME3 Shepard waits for the Crucible to be completed. (How long is that, anyway? )

[javeart]

katamuro wrote...

javeart wrote...

I agree. I can do with no side missions at all, and, in fact, it's how I like to play ME... And when you're doing staff for your LI, or your favourite squadmate it's tolerable, but running errands for everyone you meet....it's not only that I find most of them awfully boring, but also that it's so inappropriate for a story like this and a character like Shepard... I mean, it's ok, I just skip them, but I can't help thinking about other uses they could give to the resources used for that...

Its "filler" content its used to prolong the game, to make the game seem bigger, with more stuff to do, might even give you snippets into the universe, also gives you extra xp and money. They are basically a part of gameplay rather than story as such. 

But, whether they're intended or not to add to the story, they interfer with it: you're in a "race against time" to save the galaxy, don't they have anyone else to send mining?
I don't understand either the appeal in doign something just for the xp or the money... Yes, I've completed every side mission (even the mining) at least once or twice, the first time out of curiosity, the second time for a completionist playthrough, and then, when I used to play on insanity, I always did some to make sure I could get all the upgrades and such (well, I could play NG+, I know, but I don't like it)... And not having to do that was the main reason I stopped playing on insanity... not lookin for artifacts or minerals, not hacking pdas, not being the errand boy for cerberus or hacket or aria or anyone else... My trilogy playtroughs are certainly quite short but to me it's totally worth it

[Gervaise]

Having quests to side track you from the main one is nothing new. If you avoid doing them, inevitably you arrive at the end weaker than if you do and so find the final confrontation much more difficult. Back in the days of Baldurs Gate I thought stopping Saravok from starting a war was kind of important, so focussed on the main story, consequently missing a lot of areas and side quests and so the encounters towards the end, not just the final one, were really challenging. Likewise in Baldurs Gate 2, where the focus is meant to be rescuing your friend but even when in a position to do so, you can quite happily carry on doing all the major side quests and it makes no difference to the end result.

I liked the fact that in ME2 eventually they did make it important to complete omega relay run within a timescale or risk losing part or all of your crew. Doing the loyalty quests did make sense since you were building a team to undertake a nearly impossible undertaking and having their trust might well be imperative to success. In fact it did impact on whether everyone made it through to the end, as did upgrading the ship, which relied on scanning planets for resources. So what appeared to be a lack of focus was actually an important part of the mission. Of course if you weren't the sort of person who thinks making it through to the end with your entire team is part of the definition of success, then you could in fact concentrate entirely on the main plot. This could well result in the Collectors being stopped but everyone bar Joker being dead. So primary aim achieved, although if it had been me I would not have felt the euphoria I did on getting through to the end with my whole team.

That is what I feel made ME2 such a great game. What you chose to do or not do, even planet scanning, did impact on the final result and like I say above, boy did I feel good as the Normandy flew away from the exploding Collector base (great uplifting music as well).

Problem with ME3 is that I was expecting something similar. I dutifully went round the galaxy dodging Reapers in order to scan for resources under the mistaken impression that EMS would amount to more than just how many endings you get offered. I thought that when I hit 50/50 chances of success this meant we were now going to engage the enemy in a proper battle and that the various allies I have gathered would be deployed as directed by me. This would be a combination of the sort of system you have in the Battle of Denerim in DAO and the person best suited to lead a task as in ME2. Instead we got Priority Earth where, apart from a few generic cut scenes, the resources we gathered had no direct impact or reference in what took place. Apparently with low EMS the crucible is damaged on the way to the Citadel, hence the reduction in choices available but that is only something you find out from the forums, not explained in game.

There was no euphoria on ending the game, only confusion, particularly as this was pre-EC. When I realised just what Synthesis resulted in (those glowing eyes always give me the creeps), I felt I had been hoodwinked by the writers into a Reaper victory or to put it another way, I had allowed myself to be indoctrinated. However, subsequent activity on the forums suggest this was not a valid interpretation.

Anyway, since then I have had no option by to opt for Destroy. Consequently back in ME2 I don't bother saving the renegade Geth and on Rannoch in ME3 I stop the download of the Reaper code (which my instinct had always said was the right thing to do but first time had allowed because the alternative was the destruction of the Geth). So knowing the endings has now restricted my play rather than encouraged me to want to try for a different outcome. Contract this with DAO where I played through every origin and every permutation of the outcome of the Landsmeet and Morrigan's offer.

So I don't believe that focus is the problem here but story telling and the ability to engage emotions. At the end of ME1 it was extremely satisfying to take down Sovereign as I had been longing to do ever since our confrontation on Virmire. At the end of ME2 it was pure euphoria to fulfil my mission and with my entire team and crew still with me. In ME3 the most emotionally engaging moments are on Tuchunka and Rannoch. At the end I was left not angry (as some fans are) but puzzled and flat. I have played all the DLC, apart from Omega, and it only leaves me more puzzled rather than less. The only reason I keep returning to these boards is in the hope that one day the writers will actually come on here and explain what it all meant.

I'm just hoping that DAI will be in the mould of DAO, ME1 and ME2 and not DA2 or ME3, so far as the ending is concerned.

[katamuro]

Well I am rather doubtful they would ever come here and explain. No one likes to be proved wrong and no one likes to see that their work was so badly received. It should not have been a surprise but I guess that is the best we can get from a game that was developed only for 2/3 of the time it was supposed to take. Pure and simple ME3 is an unfinished product rushed out by the marketing department in order to catch the money wave. That and several decisions also stemming from the departments of EA rather than developers lead to stupid things like total replaceability of all characters. Multi-player requirement~(multiplayer itself was really good) Deaths of many supporting characters offscreen and the war assets that never get used. Also the retcon of battle for the Citadel from ME1. All in all the game was not finished, shoehorned into the budget and timelimit and that is what we get.

[AlanC9]

[quote]Gervaise wrote...

Having quests to side track you from the main one is nothing new. If you avoid doing them, inevitably you arrive at the end weaker than if you do and so find the final confrontation much more difficult.[/quote]

Assuming that there's no level scaling in the final battle, that is. If the enemies do scale, it doesn't matter much if you do sidequests or not. 

I'm less of a fan of the ME2 design than you are, largely because there's no real tradeoffs. You can do everything except Legion's LM before the Reaper IFF. and not doing so is just a mistake (unless you're actively trying to get people killed, of course.)

[quote]
Anyway, since then I have had no option by to opt for Destroy. Consequently back in ME2 I don't bother saving the renegade Geth and on Rannoch in ME3 I stop the download of the Reaper code (which my instinct had always said was the right thing to do but first time had allowed because the alternative was the destruction of the Geth). So knowing the endings has now restricted my play rather than encouraged me to want to try for a different outcome. Contract this with DAO where I played through every origin and every permutation of the outcome of the Landsmeet and Morrigan's offer. [/quote]
[/quote]

Why are you willing to play alternate paths in DAO but not ME3?

[AlanC9]

katamuro wrote...
That and several decisions also stemming from the departments of EA rather than developers lead to stupid things like total replaceability of all characters. Multi-player requirement~(multiplayer itself was really good) Deaths of many supporting characters offscreen and the war assets that never get used. Also the retcon of battle for the Citadel from ME1.

Huh? EA forced Bio to make characters replaceable? I thought  ME2 did that.  And what was retconned about the Citadel battle?

I'm also not sure MP was EA's idea -- the Bio guys have said that they always wanted to do it.. Anyway, iMP doesn't matter. No MP revenue in ME3, no MP funding for ME3. For SP it's a wash.

[katamuro]

AlanC9 wrote...

katamuro wrote...
That and several decisions also stemming from the departments of EA rather than developers lead to stupid things like total replaceability of all characters. Multi-player requirement~(multiplayer itself was really good) Deaths of many supporting characters offscreen and the war assets that never get used. Also the retcon of battle for the Citadel from ME1.

Huh? EA forced Bio to make characters replaceable? I thought  ME2 did that.  And what was retconned about the Citadel battle?

I'm also not sure MP was EA's idea -- the Bio guys have said that they always wanted to do it.. Anyway, iMP doesn't matter. No MP revenue in ME3, no MP funding for ME3. For SP it's a wash.

I rather doubt that they came up with "ME3 is the perfect place to jump in". And all of their assurances that players only playing ME3 wont miss out on content. That was done to get new people to play it even if they have never heard of ME before. That was more than likely the department that wanted to sell to all. Same goes with addition of "narrative" mode where you dont make any choices. As for MP, if you havent noticed all the games lately "need" MP, Uncharted, Tomb Raider. Anything where it can be stuck in its getting stuck in. 

What was retconned about the Citadel battle? Well how about that in ME2 Shepard clearly states that 8 cruisers were lost from the 5th Fleet. But in ME3 suddenly ALL fleets have lost ships and the reason for it is stated as the Citadel battle. And yes ME2 did that too but I thought there would be more for the players who did not start at the end. 

[Invisible Man]

katamuro wrote...

What was retconned about the Citadel battle? Well how about that in ME2 Shepard clearly states that 8 cruisers were lost from the 5th Fleet. But in ME3 suddenly ALL fleets have lost ships and the reason for it is stated as the Citadel battle. And yes ME2 did that too but I thought there would be more for the players who did not start at the end. 

I don't recall shepard siting the 5th fleet's losses specifically. if I recall he only stated the alliance lost 8 cruisers... etc. though I guess he only mentioned the 5th fleet in that speech. not the 3rd,4th, & 5th or whatever. (I can never seem to keep that part straight) was it the 2nd & 4th fleets that the reapers destroyed in the opening stages of the reaper attack? or the 1st & 2nd. I almost can't believe I've played this game like what is it now... 14 times I guess.

---edit
I'm talking me3 opening here, not the battle for the citadel.

Modifié par Invisible Man, 18 février 2014 - 11:52 .

[Gervaise]

I can replay DAO because I can justify my individual wardens making a particular decision without that necessarily making them any better than another warden. I don't do evil and generally prefer playing the diplomat so do not follow certain paths but actually Bioware's "grey areas" approach is quite helpful in allowing you to justify making certain decisions which might on the face of it appear "wrong" - sparing Loghain for instance. However, that often comes down to knowing in advance what will happen.

So based on first run through reaction, DAO put me through the emotional wringer. That first warden turned down Morrigan and from then on I was convinced he was going to die. I was effectively fighting my way to my death. Then right at the end I was convinced to let the other guy take the fall. So it wasn't a "happy" ending since someone I liked very much didn't make it through but it made sense and I thought it was a great game. I was definitely immersed in the role.

I was also convinced Shepard was going to die long before we got to the Citadel. So I wasn't expecting a "happy" ending. I just cannot justify doing anything other than Destroy. I am pretty cynical about Rannoch since you are only allowed to talk down the Quarians if you allow the upload to the Geth and I'm pretty certain the explanation for why something that is designed only to target Reapers destroys them is because they have the Reaper code upload. I couldn't understand why when I had just removed a Reaper virus from the concensus, I would want to allow another Reaper code upload. So it was deliberately done like that so there is no way you can save the Geth and Destroy the Reapers. So what's the point?

I don't do Control because we'd just be substituting one AI overlord for another. Okay it would keep the peace but at what price? What happens when somebody does something the Shepard Overlord doesn't approve of, send in the Reapers? And having to live in a galaxy with Reapers, husks, etc, roaming the streets as the Overlord's police force? That's not what I fought for.

As for synthesis, that seems as close as you can get to a Reaper victory without doing Refuse and handing it them on a plate. Isn't that what the Catalyst claims they were doing up to now, ascending races into Reaper form? So all you're doing is turning everyone into mini Reapers - you have effectively wiped out all organic life. Having a few electrode implants or synthetic limbs is not the same thing as having skin that looks like that of a husk and glowing eyes. That's how the Collectors looked when Harbinger had control of them - they lost the glow when it abandoned them. And once again people are going to be co-existed with Reapers, husks, etc, and the only reason they can possibly be comfortable with that is if they have been "re-progammed" not to mind. There is at least one slide where Jacob is comforting someone who definitely does not seem happy with the outcome. As for EDI, she was "alive" before synthesis, she was not alone and she was happy to sacrifice herself to get rid of the "vile" Reapers. Her words.

So you see, in terms of outcome at the end, there really is no point in replaying it, at least beyond taking out Cerberus since Priority Earth is always going to end the same way.