Mass Effect 3 - General Discussion

Just see a terrible, awful film? Warn us! Want to promote something quality in the mainstream? Here is the place to discuss music, movies, TV, comics, books - the good, the bad, the abominable. Review away!

Re: Mass Effect 3 - General Discussion

Postby Lord of the Forest on Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:10 pm

Why have I been accosted by THREE different people on my ship to have sex with them? :(
User avatar
Lord of the Forest
 
Posts: 1529
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 8:39 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: Mass Effect 3 - General Discussion

Postby Twilight on Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:46 am

I still find that hilarious, btw XD
User avatar
Twilight
 
Posts: 2334
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 8:26 pm
Location: Burbank, CA

Re: Mass Effect 3 - General Discussion

Postby Avolendi on Thu Mar 15, 2012 4:18 pm

O.o ...

Maybe someone on the executive side of things read too much about the 'sex sells' concept?

Hell, I've hardly played it (ME1 partially) and when I did the intro of the demo I immediately wondered what had happened with Ashley. So yeah, glad that making characters superficially sexy is a good substitute for ... romance, sidequest, plot, anything? At least I presume there's a connection there.
User avatar
Avolendi
 
Posts: 850
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2011 3:06 pm
Location: Netherlands

Re: Mass Effect 3 - General Discussion

Postby Chemical Cutthroat on Mon Mar 19, 2012 9:54 am

So I'm back after my self-imposed Internet Hiatus to avoid ME3 spoilers till I was done. Now I'm done.

Twi, your rant is hilarious, but completely biased and inaccurate. I don't know if you're being intentionally over-the-top for effect, or just weren't paying attention, but things like blowing up the Batarian homeworld... didn't happen. You blow up a Batarian Colony, yes... with... I think it was 300,000 Batarians on it. Nothing to sneeze at, but yeah...

I'm not gonna pick apart the rant though, most of it I agree with to some degree.

I just want to poke a bit at this incredibly hated ending.

Spoiler Alert! – Why have you gotten to the second page of this thread and still need to read this?!

That it all didn't happen. Or rather, I'm going to bring up that dreaded trope that most of us absolutely hate.

It was all in Shepard's head.

There's a pretty big argument for this, and I hate it, but it seems viable. That the last hour of the game is Shepard fighting off Indoctrination. Everything after that last blast from Harbinger is the reapers messing with your head. And that annoying kid? Yeah… let’s look at that.

All those dreams? Always thinking about that kid, and the people that died? And those black smoky wisps? That’s all Shepard fighting off being Indoctrinated.

When you go up that beam of light to the Citadel, and you find that pistol, (and Anderson happened to make it to?!), the pistol never runs out of ammo. Now, so what? Obviously you need ammo for the final encounter, so why should it run out? Simple, if Bioware doesn’t want you to shoot things, they take away the ability to shoot. They do this often in all of their games. So why change the rules now and give you unlimited ammo?

Hmm…

And then you have that kid that keeps coming back to haunt you. And then the Catalyst uses that image to talk to you! Huhwhat? It’s trying to tug at your heartstrings, trying to get you to do what it wants you to do… but now it gives you a choice.

So you can either choose to blow them all up (Defeat Indoctrination?) or control the Reapers (Succumb to Indoctrination)… or that third thing which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever (and probably still get indoctrinated).

I don’t know… I’m rather sad about the whole thing. Sure I’d love to have a happy ending and all that, and go off to settle down with my Quarian girlfriend, sure Shepard deserves THAT out of anyone else in the universe.

But the ending is so mind numbing that it hurts. 5 years for… this? I hate on Metal Gear Solid 4 for being a giant never-ending cutscene, but at least they had the decency to leave no stone unturned in wrapping it up.

Sort of.

I guess we’ll have to wait for the real ending to come out via DLC. And listen to all the harping about that.

I’m going to go back to being a sad panda… and play the multiplayer some more.
User avatar
Chemical Cutthroat
 
Posts: 1123
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:51 pm
Location: Plotting Your Demise

Re: Mass Effect 3 - General Discussion

Postby Twilight on Mon Mar 19, 2012 2:22 pm

Wait that was just a colony?..... that just makes the whole thing even more stupid, 'cuz the stakes weren't as high as they needed to really be.

I wasn't trying to be biased (though the over the topness was definitely for the lols effect), I was mostly just uninformed. Remember I was talking about the demo at the time.

And yeah, I know I'm missing some information there, and probably have a few things that are down right inaccurate. I was running off pieces of info that people who were even more obsessed with ME3 than I was gave me. Even after all I've seen of the game, now that it's out, it's still in it's entirety, awful from start to finish. Littered with characters breaking character, stupid events taking place that should not have occurred, you finding out that a lot of the previous choices you've made were terrible ideas by default and have to pretty much repeat your work around them (which... is just padding really. An excuse to make the game longer by giving you problems you'd already dealt with). I personally also find it unfair that a lot of people fixated on just the ending, when the whole game is just loaded with bad writing. Like Shepard being haunted by that freaking kid nobody gave a crap about. Argue the symbolism all you want, but EA/BW's execution of it was garbage.

And then when all is said and done, none of it matters anyway, because in the end all you get is another choice that ends the game. The ending is not a reflection of all your actions, but another, extremely crappy choice that dooms all galactic civilization anyway. Except instead of being killed quickly, they'll either starve to death or die of resource deprivation or over population. Such is the case with Earth. Since all the relays are gone. You have the ENTIRE victory fleet, composed of all the Quarians, Turians, Krogan, and anyone else who came to earth to help you completely stranded there because they cannot go back to their own worlds.

On that note, that whole "hallucination" thing is a fan theory that EA Bioware has dismissed, and is really just a form of denial to try to feel better about the game. Personally, I offer it no forgiveness beyond acknowledging the few things it did right.
User avatar
Twilight
 
Posts: 2334
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 8:26 pm
Location: Burbank, CA

Re: Mass Effect 3 - General Discussion

Postby Chemical Cutthroat on Mon Mar 19, 2012 2:43 pm

I felt that it being a mental battle against Indoctrination to be the only thing that made sense. Looking at it from a literal point of view just makes me vomit a little.

And yeah, some of the other subplots were kinda weak, but I didn't feel the writing was godawful.

I liked walking by people as they had their little conversations. Some of them were touching, others were funny. It was a nice way to see how the people were affected by the war raging around them.

But then I remember almost all of those conversations happened on the Citadel, and now everyone on it is a corpse. Cheery thought. Everyone ran to it for safety, and it was their doom.

I found the Quarian/Geth storyline to be incredible. It was the stand-out storyline in the whole game for me. I'm naturally biased, because I love Tali, and when she's a romantic interest the back and forth between her and Shepard is actually endearing and heartwarming. I got choked up a couple of times, and laughed others.

Garrus was awesome. The soldier-buddy bromance wasn't nearly as heavy-handed as I expected it to be, and Garrus has really come into his own after being a melancholy *** from ME2. To quote Joker, "I'm glad Garrus has finally worked that stick out of his ***... only now he's trying to beat everyone with it."

The interactions with Liara and Javik are… interesting. The Prothean is a d*ck and he bugs me, but he gets a little better towards the end. He’s my Miranda of ME3… only without the perfect ***. I could at least look at Miranda.

I felt some of the missions to get everyone working together needed some work… I would have liked to be more involved with the Salarians or the Asari, but the Salarians said Eff You and the Asari got steamrolled in my game… so screw those frog people.

I hate Kai Lang and I’m glad I pulled the Renegade trigger.

“That was for Thane you son of a *****!”

*cough*

All in all, I liked the game save for the end. It was another fun romp in the sci-fi world of Mass Effect… and it definitely feels like my last, and this makes me incredibly sad. I’m still holding on to my Shepard Dream Sequence, even if it is BS, it’s the only thing that makes sense to me, and I’ll have to deal with it till someone disproves it.

I’m certainly less thrilled with ‘Virtual Eden’ in my cutscene. Next playthrough I’m going Postal on that Catalyst.
User avatar
Chemical Cutthroat
 
Posts: 1123
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:51 pm
Location: Plotting Your Demise

Re: Mass Effect 3 - General Discussion

Postby Sorrel on Mon Mar 19, 2012 2:52 pm

Oh boy, someone brought up the Indoctrination Theory.

You know, usually I'm pretty quick to dismiss fan-theories as silly and unnecessary, or to read them and nod my head at their coolness and promptly forget about them. But in this case... well, I can't. The actual ending is just too poorly written, and I'd like to think the fans really are on to something here.

But another problem comes up if they turn out to be right: it would mean that Bioware actually made a hamfisted attempt at pulling the wool over your eyes while you were playing. And that they planned on a bizarre, confusing, and ultimately incomplete ending, with the intent of releasing this "The Truth" DLC that people keep hoping for. Now I dearly hope this isn't the case, because it would mean Bioware intentionally shipped an incomplete product, charged you a boatload of money for it, and is now charging you even more money to actually get the rest of it sorted out.

I would not be saying this if the ending, although "in Shepard's head," were actually a complete and acceptable ending in and of itself -- as in, it meets the basic storytelling requirements of an ending. In this case, it would have to provide closure for the other major characters and the fate of the races (Seriously, you can't make us fight through three games to save them all and then not show us if we actually saved them), have the outcome of each of the three "choices" told through the end cutscene instead of just a chunk of exposition, and most importantly, give us the option to ask questions about these things everyone is perceiving as plot holes. If thousands of players are thinking your conclusion is riddled with logic issues, then it doesn't matter if you actually thought it out and it all makes sense; there's something very wrong with your presentation. The message isn't getting across.

If the Indoctrination Theory is true, Bioware should have actually made it explicitly clear that it was happening, instead of leaving it up to fans to piece it together while grasping at straws. Ambiguity of this magnitude does not belong in any ending. It also makes me question their respect for their fans if they release a paid Ending DLC so people can know what "really" happened. I feel that's just dishonest.

Of course, if this was all just a scrabbled-together setup by Bioware to dodge EA's dictatorial deadlines, and they release the DLC for free... I might actually call it a clever idea. Poorly executed, but at least clever and commendable.

Anyway, I could go on forever about the storytelling and business nuances of the ending situation, but that would be boring. So I'll do an incredibly-smooth-segway into the next topic.

On the subject of Twi's rant and the game's overall quality:

Although he was talking about the demo instead of the full game and making assumptions because of it, and although he turned up the theatrics for this thread, I do have to give him a point in places. I keep seeing a lot of things that characters do for reasons I can't fathom, or for reasons that seem obvious and sound until you go back and look closely at that character. Like Wrex, for example. He spends the game all gung-ho and "Save the Krogans or I won't help any of you!" which makes perfect sense -- for an average krogan. But Wrex has never been about that.

Yes, he got all up in your face on Virmire because you were about to destroy a cure for the genophage, but it was also possible to talk him down. He wasn't dead-set on advancing his own people in the midst of a galactic crisis like this. Now, in ME3, when the Reaper threat is more potent and destructive than ever before, why should this change? Would Krogan reproduction really be that much of a key factor in the war against the Apocalypse? Can't you worry about that later? ...You know, when you're sure the Krogans won't die screaming alongside everyone else? Yes, his motives seem sound at first, but if I think about what's made his character so beloved for the past two games, it doesn't quite click to me. It's like Bioware forgot that stoic leadership and reasoning were what made him Wrex.

I'm seeing this happening with a lot of characters, and even entire races. (Example: Quarians, I know you've been pissed at the Geth for 300 years, but can your hissy-fit wait a little longer? We've got more important things to do here.) It's not always blatant and in-your-face, but it made a lot of things feel really "off" while playing, and the reason for that only surfaces when you sit down and pick it apart. If I compare this to ME2 -- which makes no friggin' sense if you think about it, but that's unrelated -- then I find that while ME2's flaws didn't trigger any alarms until I picked it apart, ME3's off-color undertones caused me to pick it apart. So either I was actually watching for it after playing ME2, or they were just less well-disguised in ME3, hard to tell.

My point is, I feel like the game's overall narrative could have been better executed. Their ideas are intriguing; brokering peace between warring races, uniting the entire galaxy under your banner, all that. But the way they go about it feels rushed and unpolished to me, like the script didn't go through a critique phase.

Just my two cents. I can see why a lot of these things wouldn't prevent someone from enjoying the game, and that actually makes me happy for them -- they're getting their money's worth of enjoyment out of it. That's awesome. It's just a bit harder for me to join the party because of what I see in it.
User avatar
Sorrel
 
Posts: 769
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 4:25 pm
Location: Behind you.

Re: Mass Effect 3 - General Discussion

Postby SuperVaderMan on Mon Mar 19, 2012 3:11 pm

Off topic, the Arrival DLC for ME2 was a contrived pile of horse doody used to hamfist ME3's stupid opening into existence.
User avatar
SuperVaderMan
 
Posts: 373
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 5:22 pm
Location: In the mailbox

Re: Mass Effect 3 - General Discussion

Postby Sorrel on Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:08 pm

I maintain that the Arrival DLC should have blown up the Salarian homeworld, Sur'Kesh, and that the final call should not have fallen to Shepard. Shepard should have given his/her "advice" to the Dalatrass, who then issues orders based on what the player chose.

* If you choose to evacuate the planet before pulling the trigger, she does so. The civilians have enough time to escape, but a small Reaper jumps through the Relay in the meantime, and you now have to deal with it.

* If you choose to pull the trigger while you still can, the civilians are vaporized and Shepard is bound to be court-martialed for attempted xenocide, but you prevent the forerunners of the Reaper troops from getting in.

That would have been a DLC that didn't suck and shoe-horn players into getting jailed and demoted off-screen. It would also have involved a species people actually care about, instead of the Batarians, whom most people dislike on principle because they're just enemy units.

I do have a point to this.

The problem with Arrival is that it essentially acts as a "Previously, on Mass Effect" segment that explains how Shepard went from sailing through space, victorious after defeating the Collectors, to thrown in military prison and awaiting a tribunal. Most players -- myself included -- were like "Wait, what? When did this happen?" And then you find out Shepard committed xenocide while you weren't looking. Thanks, Shep, for going Renegade the moment I turn my back.

That's actually another problem I have with ME3, and to be fair this started in ME2: If you want to get the "full" experience of the story, you can't just play the games. You have to read the novels and the comics as well, and preferably buy all the DLCs. In ME2, the novels explain why suddenly the Quarian people have this huge grudge against Cerberus -- which is forgivable, because if you didn't know about the novels, you could just assume that they don't like anti-alien terrorist groups, and Tali herself gives you a Reader's Digest version of what happened to fill you in. But with ME3, you just assume Shepard's in trouble for working with terrorists -- but the Council itself unofficially sanctioned this by reinstating him/her as a Spectre, so it's not like the Alliance has the authority to just drag Shepard in for a trial. You have to have played Arrival to understand that Shepard blew up a ****ing planet full of people, and that the Council definitely was NOT okay with that, and thus allowed the Alliance to have its way with their Spectre.

If you didn't play the DLC, I could buy that the Council didn't step in for fear of spreading the word that they were "technically" okay with their agents working with terrorists. But for God's sake, writers, you have to show us this, or at the very least have it be explained somewhere. And I have a feeling the non-game Expanded Universe stuff also explains why Anderson, who's always a Councilor in my playthroughs, is suddenly on Earth instead of back in the Citadel doing his job.

I'm sure there are ways to logic oneself through these seeming plot-holes, and that they do in fact have good explanations if you dig in and investigate. But the fact is that you shouldn't have to do that. It should be very clear what's happening and why. That's just one of the first rules of storytelling in any medium.

Anyway, I've already spoken my thoughts on this game's storytelling, so I won't beat the dead horse, but I really hope Bioware at least comes out with a FREE DLC to patch up that last hiccup of an ending. It's one of the easiest fixes I have on my list, dude. It just takes a patch.
User avatar
Sorrel
 
Posts: 769
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 4:25 pm
Location: Behind you.

Re: Mass Effect 3 - General Discussion

Postby Chemical Cutthroat on Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:28 pm

I'll back the Quarian mentality a bit. They assaulted the Geth before they knew the Reapers were back, and by then they had already committed.

They're also a representation of another culture which I'm not going to delve into... but comeon. Pick an ostracized society.

Sure, they were the ones that caused their own problems, and now have convinced themselves they were the good guys the whole time... so yeah, you spend your life thinking you were driven brutally from your homeworld by your own creations, you think of the Geth still as tools rather than offspring.

It's weird, but I liked how it all worked out.


I have to say, during that last rush against the Beam, I really thought that Marauder Shields got me. That was pretty crazy.

I'm making that official, his name is Marauder Shields.
User avatar
Chemical Cutthroat
 
Posts: 1123
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:51 pm
Location: Plotting Your Demise
---------

PreviousNext

Return to Culture clash

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron