Mass Effect 3 (Spoilers)

[Stofsk]

RE: 'This has always been the theme'. To be fair, the 'organics vs synthetics' thing actually has been a recurring theme throughout all three games. It's more prevalent in the first game than in the second, but it's also there in the second game when you factor in Legion's loyalty mission, Tali's recruitment and loyalty missions, Overlord, and a few other sidequests dealing with the geth.

Even the Collectors are basically retooled protheans thanks to the reapers; which is another way of saying that synthetics will use and abuse organics and do horrifying things to them even if they don't kill them outright. And the reapers basically represent this as well, what with their stated desire to committing mass genocide every time they wake up and harvesting races etc.

It's just introducing the starchild in the final few minutes of the game was just a spectacularly bad decision to make.

[PeZook]

It's just introducing the starchild in the final few minutes of the game was just a spectacularly bad decision to make.

You know, when I first spoilerified the ending for myself, I was convinced it would cut off at Shep and Anderson sitting there, all spent,watching the battle unfold from the "Best seat on the gallery", and go to some sort of epilogue about the people and places you met throughout the games.

The kid just came out of left field

[Vendetta]

It wasn't the worst offender of this type, however, as anyone who remembers the ending to Red Dead Redemption and wondered where their ability to slaughter entire armies suddenly went to.

It didn't go anywhere, the final shootout of RDR uses pretty much the standard game mechanics, it's just designed to be completely overwhelming force in an area where you have nothing to hide behind and nowhere to run away to (which was generally where your army slaughtering powers came from).

'This has always been the theme'. To be fair, the 'organics vs synthetics' thing actually has been a recurring theme throughout all three games. It's more prevalent in the first game than in the second, but it's also there in the second game when you factor in Legion's loyalty mission, Tali's recruitment and loyalty missions, Overlord, and a few other sidequests dealing with the geth.

Those were things which happened, but the story they tell (ie. what the theme is) is different depending on how you resolved them. If you made peace wherever possible and came to the conclusion that synthetic life is actually life (which is explicitly stated in discussion with Legion), that's very different from what you get if you're a hardcore squishy-supremacist who exterminates every AI they can before they can destroy all organic life. (Hilariously, since every single conflict with AI we see is initated by the squishy side (Geth, Overlord, even the rogue AI on the citadel only goes hostile because it knows it will be killed), it would make more sense for the Reapers to exist to splat advanced organic life for the protection of synthetic life from fractious warring squishies)

That's why the need to retroactively impose meaning is wrongheaded, because the story can be vastly different for different people based even on the same events in the plot with minor differences.

(Remember: Plot is the series of things which happen, Story is what it all means)

[Lagmonster]

Now that I think about it more, what I didn't like about this ending (despite the fact that I basically enjoyed the game otherwise) is the fact that it makes you feel like a total chump for all the effort you expended helping minor characters with their problems. If you play through again, it makes the experience far more mercenary, since you know flat out which people it is futile to give a shit about (Kelly Chambers, for example) and which ones offer worthwhile rewards.

That said, what I find most amusing about his ending 'controversy' is the fact that for the first time in history, you can actually watch several thousand people simultaneously learning that, despite what you learned in kindergarten, the destination is actually more important than the journey.

[FaxModem1]

I rather liked the ending to Red Dead Redemption, as it was a good way to end a western, and we got to see the consequences of the protagonist's death and if we wished, could continue the cycle of revenge one more time.

With ME3, the game just stops, leaving us consequence free, aside from seeing Joker being brave Sir Robin and running away and Grandpa Buzz Aldrin telling his kid a story. Maybe if the first game, or the third game had bookended with that, I would have been fine with it, but it's really a WTF ending that came out of nowhere. Heck, if Shepard died, that would have been fine, if we saw the crew of the Normandy doing more than looking out at a jungle. Maybe they got over their Commander/friend's/lover's death rather quickly, or they'll make a memorial on the planet they're stranded on, it just seems like an odd stopping point, and a weird way to end it.

[Vendetta]

The ending to RDR was the only one that it could logically have had, not only given what its inspriations were (a journey through the phases of the western genre from heroic westerns in the first third, to convoluted spaghetti westerns in Mexico, to the modern "death of the wild west" in the finale), but also because the whole story is essentially John Marston chasing something he can't have (redemption) in the form of the family he is working to free.

(Which actually makes me reconsider my biggest original criticism, that we don't see the family until the end. That actually makes them a more ephemeral thing, underlining that the happy family life Marston wanted was always a fiction for him, given who he was and how his past haunts his present.)

[NeoGoomba]

Only by subscribing to the Indoctrination theory (that the entire ending sequence after Shepard is hit by Harbinger is an Indoctrination attempt and therefore little more than a mindfuck by Harbinger) can I rectify how bizarre and terrible the ending is. And it makes sense for Shepard to awaken in the rubble in London again in the "good" endings, as he/she resisted the attempt and is ready to fight again (in more DLC of course).

[Zinegata]

The issue isn't the Synthetics vs Organics theme.

The issue is that the Star Child presents it as an everlasting problem. He thinks its special and that Synthetics and Organics are always hardwired to kill one another. And because of these prejudiced assumptions, he thought it was justifiable to commit multiple acts of genocide.

Any Synthetic vs Organic conflict can be resolved just like any other conflict. Like how you ally the Turians and the Krogans, or ally the Geth and the Quarians. But Bioware seriously lets the Star Child preach to us that "Prejudice is hardwired into your component parts!" without allowing us to question it. Moreover, it forces you to solve a non-existent problem (the supposed hard-wired nature of the Synthetic vs Organic "Problem") for it.

This is why "Fuck Little Hitler" is the most popular alternative ending. We reject its premise of prejudice.

[PREDATOR490]

Hey... still havent completed this game yet but been drawn into the MP deal. The whole setup is yet another disgusting attempt to wallet raid people and the MP is woefully repetative.

As for the ending: Watched it all on youtube hence the disdain for wanting to complete a game that has no proper ending. ESPECIALLY when Bioware fuckwits say Shepards story will continue...
Really ? - So your telling me the ending where we die is essentially be fucking worthless ANYWAY ?

Or what they really mean is you will get more filler shit missions like taking back Omega or Arrival in ME2 which amount to fuck all in the grand scheme of things because... SHEPARD is already going to die and any additional assets wont mean jack shit ANYWAY except make it easier to get the OTHER shit endings. WOOO !

Then again, they have killed Shepard before and brought him back from the dead... although doing it again after committing mass genocide is going to be rather hilarious to watch. I can easily see Bioware digging themselves outta the shit hole by going with the indoctrination theory and claiming that was always the intent once they realise noone is really that interested in DLC crap when it achieves nothing towards the actual story.

[Stark]

Killing Sheppy in the intro to ME2 through abject stupidity only for Osama Bin Laden to resurrect him as Jesus was so laughably weak anyone being surprised by ME3 must have blinkers on.

[Zinegata]

I thought the ME2 ressurection was actually well done - it had nice cinematics and justified how your Shep can look differently (and be of a different profession) from ME1 to ME2.

[Aaron MkII]

Killing Sheppy in the intro to ME2 through abject stupidity only for Osama Bin Laden to resurrect him as Jesus was so laughably weak anyone being surprised by ME3 must have blinkers on.

Come on man, not even you and I thought it would be as bad as this.

[Stark]

Killing the player with no input and forcing them to work for Al Qaieda = game is about choice? :v

It could have been saved if it turned out Shep survived and the replacement Shep had to face him down... But it was not to be. Lots of quests setting endstate flags though so we'll all forget how fundamentally linear the game is and be surprised when ME3 is essentially linear.

Aaron, it's the bizarre idea that ME rewards/reflects choice or has some high level of dynamic business I'm referring to. Going by ME1 and the start of ME2 this is just an expectation people made up.

[Zinegata]

Virtually all games have some level of predetermined paths. Baldur's Gate for instance will ALWAYS end with the death Melissandre and the God of Murder's power getting divided somehow. It's part of the structure of video games and their finite code / development time.

Whining about how ME has predetermined paths in some areas does not prove the assertion that it discards player choice at all points. And the ME3 ending is being criticized precisely because it discards all previous choices in favor of Little Hitler preaching Mein Kampf. You at least get a specific squad in the ME2 ending depending on your recruitment efforts throughout the game. You can literally remove the rest of the game for the ending of ME3 and it wouldn't be affected.

In short, Stark's being an idiot. If ME2 killed you to force you to work for Cerebrus, "That's linear storytelling!". If ME2 didn't kill you and you're still working as a Spectre in ME2... "That's linear storytelling!". Dude, of course it is. You're playing a game, not a life simulator.

[Stark]

So you're REALLY saying simply that it's a step backward from ME2's level of endstate granularity ... While hyperventilating. Maybe you should just say that instead of things like 'Mass Effect has always been about choice' and just forgetting to mention how minor most of those choices were.

PS other RPGs are much more successful at selling choice and consequences, so maybe ME just isn't as special as you want it to be. Hilariously it sound like fucking METRO has a similar level of endgame choice as ME3 and it doesn't even have a dialog system. :v

[Zinegata]

First of all, I'm not hyperventilating. I'm calling you an idiot. You can play word games all you want, but you are still an idiot.

And yes, I did say it had fewer player choices that mattered. That was half of the point of the post. That you're apparently mocking me for "fanboysim" because I am stating facts only goes to show how pointless your trolling is. You're seriously implying that someone who made a factual criticism of ME3 a fanboy... because apparently you only "participate" in this thread to go "Nyanyanya I am so much smarter for hating ME!". Geez, get a life and stop criticizing games you never actually fucking play (we know by your own admission that you never played beyond ME1).

Also... The other half of the post is to point out you're a fucking moron for attributing all of ME's problems to railroading.

Cite an example of an RPG, and I will cite you a section of it that was railroaded. It's an inherent part of every game that is even remotely trying to tell a story, so whining about every little nitpick you have with the ME story (You are forced to work with Cerberus!) as an example of "railroading" makes you a goddamn idiot. D'uh, every game has railroading.

If you think being forced to work with Cerberus was a dumb shift in tone or a dumb plot twist, that's a valid criticism.

If you're complaining that it's railroading (which you DID. Your exact opening was "Killing the player with no input and forcing them to work for Al Qaieda = game is about choice? :v"), then you're a goddamn moron, because all games have this limitation. Sometimes you're not allowed to go off the plot rails - it's as simple as that.

[Stark]

Did I attribute all the games's failures to railroading? I thought I just laughed at the idea that ME is built on 'choice'.

In short, you are now arguing that limited choice is a reality. So, again, ME3 isn't really unusual for games or arguably for ME games. Hate the writing all you like, but just internalize that you may hve built your expectations on nothing, a single game, or marketing.

Don't like the railroad ME3 finale?

Sometimes you're not allowed to go off the rails - it's as simple as that.

[Zinegata]

*ahem*

"Killing the player with no input and forcing them to work for Al Qaieda = game is about choice? :v"

Perhaps not, but you certainly gave a shitty example, and as I pointed out it's nothing special - all games have this kind of railroading.

Now, if you actually have anything productive to say - like actual examples of games with more player choice - then maybe that would be more interesting to hear than you just uselessly going "Nyanyanya". But given that you keep speaking in generalizations and your track record of praising or hating games that you never actually play, I seriously doubt that. Maybe you can prove me wrong :p.

-------

Also...

If you hadn't noticed, I'm not actually one of the "Player choice matters!" kind of players. You made that incorrect assumption, because you're trolling and therefore rely on stupid assumptions and generalizations.

My main criticism of the ending has always been that it condones genocide. It's hateful and offensive. I'm not complaining about the inability to go off the rails (although I do point out the most popular alternate is to pick the 4th option, because the reduction of choices does irk a little). I'm saying that the writing is the equivalent of Little Hitler reading fucking Mein Kampf to you - and being forced to nod along is very much a secondary concern.

This is why I even suggested that a smarter ending would be to have a Prothean VI dictate the exact same choices to you. Same ultimate result, but it's not Little HItler telling you to start another Final Solution.

But nah, your infantile brain boils down to "HYPERVENTILATING! HYPERVENTILATING! Wooohoo I'm so smart for criticizing Mass Effect!"

[Stark]

Are you saying killing the player in the intro is a 'shitty example' of linear plotting? That's a laugh. They didn't even make it good; just 'retards get shot and die because Bioware want to redecorate the Normandy'. I'm glad you now understand that ME isn't really about choice, though. Stick to criticising content and you'll do a llot better.

I think what Vendetta said about the difference between events and plot is important here. The stuff they shit on about in the ending is indeed in the other games; that's just not how it was sold (certainly not to everyone). The series could TOTALLY have been about those consistent themes and highlighted them in a powerful way without changing much, and I think people would consider it much less left-field. But people have criticized Bioware's horrible writing, editing, continuity, integrity, and content already in this thread.

[Grumman]

If you're complaining that it's railroading (which you DID. Your exact opening was "Killing the player with no input and forcing them to work for Al Qaieda = game is about choice? :v"), then you're a goddamn moron, because all games have this limitation. Sometimes you're not allowed to go off the plot rails - it's as simple as that.

The problem with the Cerberus parts of ME2 is not that you have to follow the plot, it's that the railroading is probably the only reason you're following the plot. The rails are bad not because they're there, but because they only lead in a direction the player/Shepard doesn't want to go.

Cerberus is a terrorist organisation whose immoral or foolish experiments have been a thorn in Shepard's side through the first game (including murdering the rest of her squad if you're a Sole Survivor), and is lead by a man who by the end of the game has betrayed Shepard at least twice. If not for the railroading, the first thing Shepard would do is probably say "You brought me back from the dead. I appreciate that. That's why I'm only going to shoot you if you get between me and the next shuttle off this station." Or at the very least, dump Cerberus the second or third time her former allies started giving her shit for working with terrorists.

The Cerberus angle could have worked, but not the way EA/Bioware envisioned it. If the Lazarus Project, SR-2 and other Cerberus aid was just TIMs' way of getting humanity's first Spectre back on her feet, and the rest of the game had let you draw on Cerberus and Citadel assets without the backstabbing, the accusations of betrayal or the idiocy of ignoring the Reaper threat, I would have liked those parts of the game a lot more.

[Zinegata]

Did you miss the part that I never really cared much about choice? Oh yes, you did because you're just trolling again in your first paragraph. Thanks for confirming it once more.

And meh, still not a single actual alternative game with "choice" from you. Another backpedal.

But given your track record of just criticizing games that you never actually played, no surprise. Apparently you have no hidden gems to share because you haven't actually played any.

[Zinegata]

Cerberus is a terrorist organisation whose immoral or foolish experiments have been a thorn in Shepard's side through the first game (including murdering the rest of her squad if you're a Sole Survivor), and is lead by a man who by the end of the game has betrayed Shepard at least twice. If not for the railroading, the first thing Shepard would do is probably say "You brought me back from the dead. I appreciate that. That's why I'm only going to shoot you if you get between me and the next shuttle off this station." Or at the very least, dump Cerberus the second or third time her former allies started giving her shit for working with terrorists.

The Cerberus angle could have worked, but not the way EA/Bioware envisioned it. If the Lazarus Project, SR-2 and other Cerberus aid was just TIMs' way of getting humanity's first Spectre back on her feet, and the rest of the game had let you draw on Cerberus and Citadel assets without the backstabbing, the accusations of betrayal or the idiocy of ignoring the Reaper threat, I would have liked those parts of the game a lot more.

Actually, I did say this before that:

If you think being forced to work with Cerberus was a dumb shift in tone or a dumb plot twist, that's a valid criticism.

Because I certainly felt it was a little "off" that you're working with terrorists. But as a few missions go by it's pretty clear that the Normandy Team is really Shepard's team (and by extension YOUR team) so I was eventually able to overlook it.

Writing-wise, I think it would be better if you had been tied to an entirely new organization - and that there are only subtle hints that it's actually the same Cerberus from the first game - as opposed to the constant "Cerberus is actually working for the good of mankind!". (I cringe every time they say that)

In short, I think it's a problem with the tone. Shep going "rogue" with a new and more dynamic organization willing to support him/her to fight the Collectors after getting killed is not the issue. The issue is that it's Cereberus and they have actual terrorist baggage. Heck, the only other plot point for it being Cerberus was to get Kaidan / Ashley pissed at you (Hackett & Anderson don't care) and to get an angry e-mail from that Cerberus squaddie you saved in ME1.

[PeZook]

Making Shep work for Cerberus was bad mostly because how horribly they had to contort things for it to work.

"Oh I will work with Cerberus because the (rabidly expansionist and xenophobic) Alliance doesn't care about entire colonies being abducted!"

"Oh yeah Shep we would've implanted a control chip into you but I'm really a big softie!"

Etc etc etc.

Best thing was how the supposedly uncaring Alliance was later found installing huge fuckoff laser cannons to defend the colonies it was said to have been abandoning, and nobody batted an eye at the fact, despite it meaning everybody from Jacob to the Illusive Man were lying through their teeth the entire time

So yeah, it would be better if you slowly got to learn who you're REALLY working for, rather than being slapped in the face with Cerberus and told to take it all like a good bitch. Or at least have them actually implant the damn control chip

---

And for God's sake, Zinegata, do you really have to fly off the handle every time Stark calls something dumb or convoluted or whatever? All Stark said was that killing Shepard without player input is terrible, and that he's thusly not surprised Bioware messed up the ending to ME3.

Then he made fun of people who think ME is "about choice" which it obviously isn't, whatever Bioware might say. It's a movie in video game form.

[Zinegata]

Actually, in ME3, didn't Vega mention he was actually gathering intel on how to defeat the Collectors during the events of Mass Effect 2? And that he had to sacrifice an entire colony to grab that intel - only for it to become irrelevant because Shep killed the Collectors?

It certainly shows that the Alliance wasn't simply sitting around doing nothing while human colonies disappeared - albeit issues with Alliance doctrine may have certainly made their response look delayed.

-----

All Stark said was that killing Shepard without player input is terrible, and that he's thusly not surprised Bioware messed up the ending to ME3.

It was a pretty dumb example and he chose to respond with more nonsense (i.e. accusing me of complaining about Player Choice) and accusations of hyperventilating. What, I'm not allowed to mock someone for being an idiot just because they have a 32K post count?

Killing Shep without player input wasn't a big deal - because he literally comes right back to life like 5 minutes after you see him die - and it's actually a neat way to justify changing Shep's looks or class. It was a dumb criticism.

The real issue was the Cerberus dissonance - why are you working with a terrorist group again? That's an issue with tone and writing, not player choice.

[PeZook]

Actually, in ME3, didn't Vega mention he was actually gathering intel on how to defeat the Collectors during the events of Mass Effect 2? And that he had to sacrifice an entire colony to grab that intel - only for it to become irrelevant because Shep killed the Collectors?

It certainly shows that the Alliance wasn't simply sitting around doing nothing while human colonies disappeared - albeit issues with Alliance doctrine may have certainly made their response look delayed.

Yes, but none of that showed up in ME2 - or, more precisely, it did show up, but the writers didn't seem to realize what the implications should have been, and so Shep just shrugged and went along with it. Which, come to think of it, is nearly as bad as ME3's ending.

You see,in ME2 you were constantly told how the Alliance does nothing and Cerberus is the only thing that can protect human colonists from being abducted etc. Jacob even said outright that he was sick of the Alliance doing nothing.

Then it turned out the Alliance WAS doing something. Entire batteries of somethings, in fact. So...it's all a giant lie. Shep doesn't care.