Well... the dream scenes serve no narrative purpose? Are you sure? You didn't see why they were done in several parts? You didn't see how it turned? And you didn't see what Mass Effect 3 was about?
No, they serve no narrative purpose.
Mass Effect 3 was about "the feelz" apparently.
No closure?
You literally spend an hour say goodbye to people on earth. If that didn't tell you you were going to die, I dunno what would've.
When I think of closure I think of closing character arcs. At the end of the game it's kind of hit or miss for what squadmates actually have that and which ones don't.
Then tell me why I just got to the end of the party on The Citadel DLC. I haven't done Cronos, and of course haven't done Battle for Earth. Yet I have no desire to return to the Normandy and finish the game. The character arcs are finished. All that is left is for Shepard to die. There is nothing fun left to do. So why bother? End it on the party.
I started playing Dishonored, a game I downloaded free from XBox Gold last month. It's a pretty good game so far.
That breath scene is THE reason why I never had any problem with ME3's ending, take that away I might as well become an extreme, angry, bitter, lousy hater who bashes everything about ME3 instead of defending it. Take that away I would hate ME trilogy instead of loving it, take that away I would NEVER replay the game again, having the possibility of Shepard surviving makes all the difference in the world to me, you may not agree but that's just how it is for me.
The dream sequence on the other hand I can agree, in fact the dreams are the only thing that really bothers me about ME3, the only bit I truly hate. In time I can even view Kai Leng kind of positively by treating him as a comic relief. But the dreams make me cringe and want to slap a child in the face, that's just unhealthy...
I think Bioware lost sight on what a game is: a form of play or sport, especially a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck.
A game is something that is elective. One does not have to play it. It should be enjoyable and fun. Golf, for example is a game that requires a lot of skill to play well, but one can have a lot of fun playing it. I joked on March 23, 2012 that even NBA 2K11 had a better ending than ME3 - in Season Mode, you could win the NBA Championship. ME3 at the time left you with no such feeling of winning. Halo 4 you win at the end by completing the game. Gears of War 3 you win by winning the end battle. So the story line in Gears was meh, it was fun and you could play it cooperatively with your friends which was fun, and chainsaw them in private matches which was fun, too.
There was talk about video games and art. Can a video game be artistic? Yes. I thought the artwork in Halo 4 was very well done. The artwork in Dishonored so far is very well done. The story line is typical for a RPG. The same was true for Skyrim. The story line in Black Ops 2 was very good, and the graphics were well done. So it was a shooter. Big deal.
I think the vast majority don't want moral dilemmas at the end of games. We deal with them enough in day to day life.
The idea of the game was for it to be grim and dark. It's a war for survival, with very low odds for every organic race out there. It could not carry a happy tone (which none of the games did IMO). I can understand people saying that they play the games to get away from real life, not to face the hard and dark decisions in them. But I'd argue, that this moral ambiguity, those dark and grim choices are what immerses us in the game. And you can have fun with that immersion, because no one will, say, die because of your choices. You're dealing with fictional characters in a fictional universe and the only way to make both believable is to make it close to real life.
I have played ME3 the most of all three games, because the gameplay is the best of the series. You can create new builds, experiment with classes, powers, weapons and it all (with addition of a believable setting) makes the game fun to play.
I think you're missing the point. The story ending with something other than a forced sacrifice and feeling of emptiness isn't farting rainbows. I think everyone missed the f***ing point that a good portion of the advanced galactic civiliization was killed. But the reaction in the last two posts indicates to me that the writers failed miserably in conveying this. Why? Because we only saw civilization getting destroyed briefly on Thessia, and very briefly on Earth. The rest of the time we were on a moon of Palaven, or fighting Cerberus or the reapers on some backwater mission. Even the refugee area on the Citadel was clean and neat like an airport terminal during normal business hours. We never saw Palaven. We saw Earth... at night.
Getting the Pillars of Strength should have been a mission to Khar'Shan. We should have had missions to Dekunna, and recovering the Banner of the First Regiment for the Turians should have been another mission. Maybe people would have understood why Shepard was getting worn down instead of thinking it was just Thessia - because all those other missions were a click of the mouse or squeeze of the trigger.
I can't tell you how much of a feeling of exhilaration that was when the Butcher of Torfan handed the Batarian priest the Pillars of Strength. It was the most moving moment of the game, and all it took was the click of the mouse. 
Back in March 2012, you had to make peace between the Geth and the Quarians and cure the genophage just to unlock Synthesis and you had to play multi-player to get the breath scene. So if you didn't want the sunshine and bunnies ending with the Jesus pose falling into the beam, and you wanted to destroy the reapers you got to kill one of your allies to do that. Now you don't need peace to unlock the breath scene or synthesis. You can simply not allow the Geth to have the Reaper code and avoid the moral dilemma at the end.
At least the multiplayer was fun.
I must be different then, I love the moral 'darkness' of the ending.
Finally something that doesn't end with unicorns farting rainbows into a sky filled with sunshine.
The epilogues, at least the high EMS ones, don't really have much in the way of moral darkness in their tone, with maybe for the exception of Renegade Control. Even the choice that effectively wipes out an entire race is glossed over with oodles of optimism about the future of the galaxy. If they wanted to show the moral darkness, they should have shown the geth allies dropping dead on the field, to the confusion of the organic soldiers, and maybe a scene where we can see EDI slipping away as the Normandy is swept over by the wave or something. I mean, this is high EMS Destroy's only real downside, and the most we ever really get out of it is EDI's name on the memorial wall.
What bothers me is the stargazer scene. Never a fan of the thought that the trilogy was just a second hand story.
What bothers me is the stargazer scene. Never a fan of the thought that the trilogy was just a second hand story.
Just think, stuff like biotics were just something stargeezer made up so the story would be more interesting for NPC Jr.
The idea of the game was for it to be grim and dark. It's a war for survival, with very low odds for every organic race out there. It could not carry a happy tone (which none of the games did IMO). I can understand people saying that they play the games to get away from real life, not to face the hard and dark decisions in them. But I'd argue, that this moral ambiguity, those dark and grim choices are what immerses us in the game. And you can have fun with that immersion, because no one will, say, die because of your choices. You're dealing with fictional characters in a fictional universe and the only way to make both believable is to make it close to real life.
I have played ME3 the most of all three games, because the gameplay is the best of the series. You can create new builds, experiment with classes, powers, weapons and it all (with addition of a believable setting) makes the game fun to play.
THe first two games may not ahve been "happy" But they were neither grim nor dark.
And to me, gameplay is a distinctly secondary concern. I'd still be playing ME1 today if ME3 hadn't rendered the entire trilogy pointless to me.
At least the multiplayer was fun.
I found the MP a boring chore that was forced on me. I can't even give ME3 that much.
The epilogues, at least the high EMS ones, don't really have much in the way of moral darkness in their tone, with maybe for the exception of Renegade Control. Even the choice that effectively wipes out an entire race is glossed over with oodles of optimism about the future of the galaxy. If they wanted to show the moral darkness, they should have shown the geth allies dropping dead on the field, to the confusion of the organic soldiers, and maybe a scene where we can see EDI slipping away as the Normandy is swept over by the wave or something. I mean, this is high EMS Destroy's only real downside, and the most we ever really get out of it is EDI's name on the memorial wall.
The high EMS endings are much happier than I expected the endings to be, especially Synthesis.
The high EMS endings are much happier than I expected the endings to be, especially Synthesis.
Pfft, of course they'll portray Synthesis as sunshine and rainbows!(green ones anyway)
It's the "right" choice, after all
Sure, killing Shepard off at the end could have been a good way to do it.
If killing Shepard off didn't involve making Shepard charge toward the tube thingy while shooting it, or somehow make it so that galactic EMP causes the Citadel to suddenly be made out of explodium and blow up for some reason.
I think the breath scene exists because they saddled Destroy with EDI and the Geth dying as collateral damage. Synthesis was pushed as the 'ideal' ending far too much from the lead writers as it is. It would have been even more heavy-handed if Shepard died in all versions of Destroy.
Sure, killing Shepard off at the end could have been a good way to do it.
If killing Shepard off didn't involve making Shepard charge toward the tube thingy while shooting it, or somehow make it so that galactic EMP causes the Citadel to suddenly be made out of explodium and blow up for some reason.
If that's an EMP.. why are we in this war with the Reapers?
The galaxy would just laugh when the Reapers come, shoot an EMP and get it over with. The war would last a few days and all Reapers would be dead.
(and don't you dare say 'it's a suuuuuuuuper strong EMP'. A strong enough EMP will kill organics)
I think the breath scene exists because they saddled Destroy with EDI and the Geth dying as collateral damage. Synthesis was pushed as the 'ideal' ending far too much from the lead writers as it is. It would have been even more heavy-handed if Shepard died in all versions of Destroy.
Also, interesting that control got a paragon/renegade version. What if synthesis did too? Like a renegade shep's essence fuses synthetic and organic, and there's never peace in the future. I kinda picture all the different species becoming a little bit xenophobic. I could see border conflicts cropping up around mass relays. Greed, and self-interest rule the day, a big, "F*** you, I'll do what I want" attitude develops. I could see the synthetic half of the DNA causing a hive-mind mentality among each species, where they feel a greater connection to their own, to the point where it's preferable over other species.
Uhh, sorry. Anyway, good point about the breath scene. I dunno, whatever the reason for doing it, I didn't mind that it was done.
The sacrifices in the end are all contrived. Why does Shephard have to turn into a hive mind to control the Reapers, why can't he just issue them commands from an external interface via the Crucible? In synthesis, why does his whole body have to be dissolved to provide the DNA, ever hear of scraping off some skin samples? And if they do need a whole body, why does it have to be his, wouldn't any body suffice? Toss Anderson in there for the cause, he's already dead lol. Why do you have to blow yourself up with destroy? Why wouldn't there just be a switch that causes the release of the destructo beam? Why can't there be a timer, doesn't this ultra-advanced alien technology have the capacity for a simple countdown device?
If that's an EMP.. why are we in this war with the Reapers?
The galaxy would just laugh when the Reapers come, shoot an EMP and get it over with. The war would last a few days and all Reapers would be dead.
(and don't you dare say 'it's a suuuuuuuuper strong EMP'. A strong enough EMP will kill organics)
I know it's not an EMP, but there is no other explanation for what it is.
It's ****** nonsensical. Why not just make it a ****** space laser?
I know it's not an EMP, but there is no other explanation for what it is.
It's ****** nonsensical. Why not just make it a ****** space laser?
This is a device that can change the DNA of every living and robotic creature in the galaxy.
Don't question it.
Eh. I really think Shepard needed to die.
Starbrat and Kai Lang are inexcusably bad characters though.
Retour en haut