Mass Effect 3


Video Games

451 to 500 of 820 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

Aberrant Templar wrote:


Definitely. By the time I made it to Thessia I realized that the only gameplay gripe I had was that you can't holster your weapon anymore. That's the worst I could come up with. Everything else was great.

Oh man, that. It always made me feel like the stress had finally gotten to Shepard and s/he just forgot every rule about gun safety ever whenever non-hostile NPCs were around.

But yeah, that that is the one complaint I can think of as well really speaks to how solid that gameplay turned out.

Charlie Bell wrote:
Lulz adepts. Weapons are for soldiers. Biotic detonation FTW.

I swear I think half the damage I dealt with my pistol was through melee attacks. I was too busy throwing pretty blue energy around most of the time.

Silver Crusade

Also, there was something strangely life-affirming about the

Spoiler:
Kalros/Reaper fight.

My Shep had the Colonist/Sole Survivor background, and while she was Paragon as hell and even managed to get over her prejudices towards Batarians, she was full-on Captain Ahab towards Thresher Maws. She would go out of her way every time to kill them in the Mako, no matter if it was a detour or not. And given how horrible a driver Shepard is, this really did endanger her squad every time she did it.

At that point though, I think that's where my Shep would have finally made her peace and let go of that grudge. Kinda wish she had actually said something about it relating to her background, but still it was a golden moment.


Mikaze wrote:


But yeah, that that is the one complaint I can think of as well really speaks to how solid that gameplay turned out.

My main gameplay gripe was the so-called 'improved' cover system. I thought it worked pretty great in ME2. It was simple and intuitive. In ME3 it tried to do 'too much', and the end result was that I kept dodging out of cover at the worst possible moments. In general, I found the gameplay a lot more unpolished than ME2.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Gameplay definitely was more kinetic than in ME2 ( and not even to talk about ME1... ). The little problem with dodging/finding cover being too close to each other is one of the only gripes I have with it... it is especially frustrating when you want to roll forward and end up hugging a doorway instead. ^^

Playing a Vanguard is like a human wrecking ball. I played through on normal and had maybe three fights in the entire game which were difficult. My Insanity playthrough was aborted very early due to still ongoing loss of motivation, due to the idiotic endings.

Liberty's Edge

Charlie Bell wrote:
Lulz adepts. Weapons are for soldiers. Biotic detonation FTW.

Playing a sentinel and infiltrator here. Powers on one and guns on the other.

So far, I have really enjoyed the game including multiplayer strangely enough. I am ignoring the ending, lol.

Silver Crusade

A thought from the Mass Defect Tumblr:

"Your boyfriend/girlfriend/alienfriend calls out your last name during sex. THINK ABOUT THAT."

The fix suggested there was to name your character Shepard Shepard.

I'm wondering if taking "Commander" as the first name might work better.

Or worse.

Silver Crusade

For James Vega fans.

I know I warmed up to him over the course of the game.

Also, alternate ending:

Part 1

Part 2

Also also, Hanging Out With Garrus

Also also also, Garrus kids.

Scarab Sages

Mikaze wrote:

A thought from the Mass Defect Tumblr:

"Your boyfriend/girlfriend/alienfriend calls out your last name during sex. THINK ABOUT THAT."

The fix suggested there was to name your character Shepard Shepard.

I'm wondering if taking "Commander" as the first name might work better.

Or worse.

Perhaps Shepard just can't stand his/her given name (aka the Fox Mulder syndrome)...


feytharn wrote:


Perhaps Shepard just can't stand his/her given name (aka the Fox Mulder syndrome)...

I vaguely recall a conversation with Dr. Chakwas where she was insisting I call her by her first name, while simultaneously refusing to use my first name because it would be disrespectful.

Not the game's finest writing. :)


I thought it was hilarious. =)

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

AAAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGHHHHHH !!!

I just finished the game.

Now I understand the previous comments. The Suck !

I won't even post my exact thoughts, but I'll say the while most of the game was good, the ending is on par with Duke Nukem Forever.

All it sums to, is : turn left or right. I don't even know what I actually chose, all I can say is the crew of Normandy ends up on a eden ^planet though not everyone. For instance, Ashley was with me on the final assault, and she should have died, yet she was there.

Or maybe, this is some religious mumbo-jumbo : the Normandy is destroyed, everyone is dead, and they are in heaven ?

Next time : I'll vote with my wallet and remember this.

Sovereign Court

Stereofm wrote:

AAAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGHHHHHH !!!

I just finished the game.

Now I understand the previous comments. The Suck !

I won't even post my exact thoughts, but I'll say the while most of the game was good, the ending is on par with Duke Nukem Forever.

All it sums to, is : turn left or right. I don't even know what I actually chose, all I can say is the crew of Normandy ends up on a eden ^planet though not everyone. For instance, Ashley was with me on the final assault, and she should have died, yet she was there.

Or maybe, this is some religious mumbo-jumbo : the Normandy is destroyed, everyone is dead, and they are in heaven ?

Next time : I'll vote with my wallet and remember this.

This is one of those times the "Hi, welcome" meme makes a lot of sense.


Pan wrote:
Stereofm wrote:

AAAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGHHHHHH !!!

I just finished the game.

Now I understand the previous comments. The Suck !

I won't even post my exact thoughts, but I'll say the while most of the game was good, the ending is on par with Duke Nukem Forever.

All it sums to, is : turn left or right. I don't even know what I actually chose, all I can say is the crew of Normandy ends up on a eden ^planet though not everyone. For instance, Ashley was with me on the final assault, and she should have died, yet she was there.

Or maybe, this is some religious mumbo-jumbo : the Normandy is destroyed, everyone is dead, and they are in heaven ?

Next time : I'll vote with my wallet and remember this.

This is one of those times the "Hi, welcome" meme makes a lot of sense.

Or the "I told you about it bro, it keeps happening" meme.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I didn't get all the hate for the ending. Loved the game all the way through to the bittersweet conclusion.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

Gonna ramble a bit here.

Having finished the game; done some online reading; and then going back and watching/playing both of the previous Mass Effect games (I kept a lot of saves from both previous ones), I have to say that the 'Indoctrination" theory holds a lot more sway than I think its being given credit.

There are plenty of hints and details that link the story accross three games than if you just look at ME3 by itself. I know that's a stretch and maybe unfair, but maybe Bioware wants to give some nods to those who have stuck it through the whole trilogy. I have a general opinion of why the theory makes sense as part of the Mass Effect's overall theme, but that's a longer ramble that gets off point right now.

If BW did in fact plan it out this way, then you have to give them kudos for trying to develop an ending that is different than some of the typical sci-fi trope endings. Especially with the nature of information in the internet age, it may be the only way to have a true "gotcha" moment in the story.

And, the indoctrintaion theory aside, if this is truly the ending, the bittersweet nature of it isn't what bothers me. Rather, there are simply too many odd things and plot holes that don't add up to me. And while BW has made some mistakes in the past, rarely have they left errors of this nature in their stories (unless their new owners, EA, had more of hand in production).

The reality is that we won't know for sure what is "truth" until the "complete" ending DLC they have promised us is released - which may be alot more of a revelation than we think.

And that, I think, is where BW (or maybe EA again) went off the rails and screwed this up. I don't know if they ran out of time in the production budget and had to rush an ending; or if the whole thing was corporate screw-over to milk players for more money and extend the profitablity of the franchsie.

But the reality is, aside everything else that happens in the end - the tacked on "...will return in downloadable content," smacks of one of those two things. And that is where I get disappointed in them - becuase it feels like they are holding us hostage for a "real" ending.

In the past, any DLC material (with the possible exception of "Arrival")has never felt needed to enjoy the complete Mass Effect games/stories. Interesting details - sure; great for character development - absolutely; additional features - cool; but never "required." Why do that now?

The only good reason that comes to mind is that BW felt it would be more "impactful" that way. But that seems an optimistc excuse. Otherwise, it just seems like manipulation for either financial reasons or production issues with a looming deadline. Given how well Bioware is doing and the fact that the game was delayed at least once for release from December to March, I am leaning towards the latter for now.

Apologies if anything was a spoiler; I tried to remain vague on details . Although given how much grief on this topic is out there, I doubt I am mentioning anything hasn't already been blurted out.

Sovereign Court

Good points alex.

The indoctrination attempt seems pretty plausible, but it still does not excuse the fact that you don't even know which ending you choose when you turn left or right in the end.

Or that the ending does not make much sense ...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

From a Forbes article:

Forbes wrote:

If true, the indoctrination reveal could have easily taken place in-game, and would have made for a mind-blowing moment; perhaps one of the most excellent twists in video game history. But what happened instead is that fans took the ending at face value (I doubt anyone would have guessed it was imaginary the first time they played through it), and were outraged as it was deemed lacking and not up to the series’ standards. Even if the brilliant plot twist is present, Bioware has committed an even greater sin than we previously thought.

If $15 ending DLC hits shelves in a month or two that reveals this theory as correct, it will be one of the lowest points in video game history. Had a complete ending been fashioned alongside this plot twist, Mass Effect could have been the greatest story ever told through the medium and fans would have bowed at Bioware’s feet, praising them for the best finale they’ve ever seen. But instead, if the “true” ending really was cut to be sold later as DLC, it’s proof that maybe video games aren’t art after all. They’re just a product to be bought and sold in pieces regardless of the effect such decisions may have on the experience or the story. And if said DLC is free, the way I’ve previously suggested it should be as an apology to fans? Then it really just should have been in the game in the first place.

At this point, I don’t know what I wish to be true. That Bioware just screwed up the finale the old fashioned way, or that they had a brilliant ending, cut it and made what they did show cryptic in order to sell DLC down the line. In my eyes, either situation is equally tragic.

Nothing more needs, or even can, be said.


To be fair, that article ignores a real possibility - that the ending was, in effect, deliberately sabotaged to serve the needs of the writers (either in whole or in part) rather than the needs of the narrative. In fact, the overwhelming evidence in the real world suggests that that's the truth of what happened.

I believe it was hashed-out up-thread, but I'll sum up anyway. Supposedly, the ending of Mass Effect 3 was deliberately hashed out behind closed doors and with no editorial oversight or peer review by Casey Hudson and Mac Walthers. Why they chose to do this is anyone's guess, but given the fact that they resorted to the "artistic integrity" argument pretty fast it's not a bad guess that they simply thought they were above such petty things. They also withheld their shared masterpiece until after there was no choice but to go ahead and make the ending they had written - deliberately causing a rushed ending where none had to be.

Why do I give this rumor such credence? Well, put simply, it appeared on a forum account known to be owned by a Bioware employee who has a history of using it to share sensitive information with a large number of friends, then deleting the posts to hide them from the general public. Why he doesn't use email or a private message function is something I'm not prepared to get into. But since he has a history of doing this, and this is just the first time he went the wrong way in a PR s&~#storm, I choose to simply say "It's the most likely theory" and move on.

The Indoctrination ending is...interesting, but since this isn't a movie I'm not as inclined to buy it as many people who look into it are. It more seems like shoddy re-use of game resources than anything, which we know they had to do if we accept that the ending was rushed.

I also don't believe that any of this was intentional on Bioware's part. Their subsequent reactions really do look like a company caught totally off-guard: "The Truth" has been either cancelled or delayed indefinitely, while an Aria DLC has been shown to have clearly been planned. Further, the "Extended Cut" wouldn't need five months (and confirmed new gameplay sequences) of development time if that had been the intention all along. It will be interesting, once the new ending comes out, to see if Martin Sheen confirms that he wasn't contacted until after the game's release about working on it (and I don't see this being doable without at least a few lines from him.)

My only real concern is that the writing team was sent out to beat the drums for the studio...except for Hudson and Walthers, who were left, alone, to work on the Extended Cut. Since they were almost certainly the two chiefly responsible for this to begin with...


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I was a council spectre. Then I took an ending to the soul.


I just finished this last night. I loved sooooo much about this game and appreciated the fact that, in the end, the only choices I had left were bad ones. I appreciated it because, sometimes in life, there isn't another way out where it's a clean victory. Sometimes, your options all just plain suck.

Choice 1:
I can be tricked into going over to the left and sacrificing myself to control the Reapers, trusting that this mysterious blue ghost-child is being completely forthright and honest with me. In doing so, I'd be falling in step with the Illusive Man.
NO!

Choice 2:
I can go over to the right and destroy the Reapers entirely. However, all synthetic life, including myself, will be destroyed as well. So, after uplifting the Geth, championing Legion and getting the Quarians to back down - after the Geth have interfaced with some Quarians' suits to help acclimatize them to Rannoch again, after helping EDI understand the differences between life and simple survival... after ALLLLL that, I kill them all with the flip of a switch.
Ugh, I want the Reapers dead, but it's Garrus' Ruthless Calculus! No!

Choice 3:
Screw all those things and become the ultimate peacemaker by sacrificing myself to somehow forcefully evolve everything in existence into bio-synthetic hybrids. The Geth will survive, EDI will live, but so too will the Reapers.
Dangit! I just have to trust this creepy little ghost-boy that the Reapers won't want to blow everything up after they and everything else go through this mysterious and vague synthesis process? No!

It's also super sucky that, no matter what you do,

Spoiler:
all the Mass Effect relays will be destroyed, effectively stranding THE ENTIRE FREAKING GALAXY in earth's orbit.

Still, if for no other reason, the game was masterfully done just for how HARD

Spoiler:
Thane's death
hit me. Seriously, I cried - not just a few tears but genuine heaving sobs. It still gets me down when I think about it. And it gets me even more down when I think about how I'll get to relive it with every subsequent playthrough.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

While I may not totally agree, I think that's a great way to assess the endings.

And concerning

Spoiler:

Thane's death

I think that is a great example of how the majority of the game does a great job with the character stories. That's why the ending comes off as such a rip - your investment in the characters seems pointless.


Alex Martin wrote:


And concerning
** spoiler omitted **
I think that is a great example of how the majority of the game does a great job with the character stories. That's why the ending comes off as such a rip - your investment in the characters seems pointless.

Exactly. Imagine if the endings, good or bad, were able to provoke the same kind of emotional response as

Spoiler:

Thane's death.

I guess "wait, what?" is an emotional response, but I don't think it's the one they were going for. Judging from the rest of the series.


It has been bounced around various forums like Something Awful and I agree on a certain point that trying to make the Reapers/Catalyst akind of 'Hard people making hard choices' was mishandled to say the least. Shepard can go all Jack Baur but it utterly pales next to the screaming horror that the Reapers unleash on the galaxy and have been unleashing for who knows how many cycles. Trillons+ of families, adults, children have been turned into goo while wide awake, The Protheons -turned Collecters were given weapons that leak radiation and cause them pain. People are husked and turned against their own kind. Etc/Etc. It goes into 'For the Evilulz' territory. I chose Destroy for all those who have died before this cycle. Shepard will no doubt never be forgiven for that, but Shepard finished the mission and then bled out next to Anderson as it should have ended.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Destroy is the only real choice given to us. It sucks. It sucks hard. But the other ones are worse.

Honestly, I've never felt as betrayed by a company as I felt by BioWare with this ending. And that's saying something, given how the Star Wars post-ROTJ EU, Ultimate Spiderman, the Forgotten Realms and BattleTech deliberately were ripped apart over the last decade or so.


magnuskn wrote:
Destroy is the only real choice given to us. It sucks. It sucks hard. But the other ones are worse.

I'm not so sure about this. My favorite Shepard is the super paragon guy Shepard. Throughout all three games, all his decisions lead to the preservation of life. He saved the Rachni, he saved the Council, he saved the Geth heretics, he saved Maelon's data hoping Mordin could use it to save the Krogan from the genophage... everything he did was about preservation.

Along comes the end of third game, and his choices are universal in scope now.

Spoiler:
It's not like he can blow up some of the Geth along with the Reapers - no, he'll be destroying them ALL. If super-paragron-dedicated-to-the-preservation-of-life Sherpard picks Destroy, he commits multiple acts of genocide at once. AIs like EDI, all the Geth, and the Reapers. Poof. Gone.

That choice was just simply unacceptable for my paragon Shepard. Equally unpalatable would be Control. Even if it worked exactly the way the Illusive Man wanted it to work, it'd be a cosmic level of slavery. And since a main thrust of Shepard's rallying cry in the face of the Reapers across all three games was having the freedom to choose, this option would betray his character as well.

So we are left with Synthesis. Life of all kinds is preserved. Life of all kinds remains free (ostensibly) to choose how to develop and grow from here. Shepard martyrs himself to affect it. It's the best option for my paragon Shepard to take, which is why he did.

My renegade femShep, on the other hand, annihilated the Rachni, and while she likes Wrex she's not trusting of the Krogan or of Wrex's control over them, and despite Legion's uniqueness she has no love of the Geth either and is entirely open to their complete destruction.

She'll choose Destruction without hesitation.

All that to say, the only real non-option I see is the Control choice.

HOWEVER, each of the endings lacks something viscerally satisfying and emotional - I'd mentioned earlier upthread my reaction to

Spoiler:
Thane's death
and none of the ends come CLOSE to that level of impact or awesome.

Still, I'm ok with John Shepard picking Synthesis and Alison Shepard picking Destroy.


magnuskn wrote:
Destroy is the only real choice given to us. It sucks. It sucks hard. But the other ones are worse.

I swear, there are companies that have literally caused cancer whose victims feel less betrayed than some members of the gaming community feel by the end of a video game.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Dal Selpher wrote:


I'm not so sure about this. My favorite Shepard is the super paragon guy Shepard. Along comes the end of third game, and his choices are universal in scope now. ** spoiler omitted **

HOWEVER, each of the endings lacks something viscerally satisfying and emotional - I'd...

And that is why I am hoping (probably too much) that the upcoming DLC has a better explanation or details. Something with a little more...closure, I guess.

I agree that for Paragon Shepard, the Destroy option may be too extreme. But given what we see at the end:

Spoiler:

I hope that the choices imply the indoctrination theory is in effect.

Case in point - even with the Destroy option, we still see EDI with Joker crash landing on the paradise planet. If the Destroy option eliminates all synthetic life, how is she there?

Assuming for a minute that synthetic life doesn't include free-willed AI's programming housed in the Normandy - which it does apparently - wouldn't at least the gynoid body she uses be subject to an effect similar how it collpases the Reapers' forms?

On top of that, if you make the above assumption, then the Geth should also still exist - since they are basically the same thing - free-willed programs with temporary bodies. Again - not possible according to what we are told.

How can one type of synthetic exists but not another - that leads me to three possible options:

1) EDI is somehow not a real synthetic - something that makes no sense given how much time they spend explaining that she is.

2) Does Shepard somehow exclude her from the effect? Since we are told it's an all or nothing kind of result - that seems doubtful.

3) All or part of what happens in the end is a dream or vision; not reality. It is the one notion I think can explain the logical fallacies.

Its why I keep thinking the Destroy option may be the best option - even for a Paragon Shepard.

Of course, it all comes back to it could just be rushed, crappy writing to finish a game by a specific deadline.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:


I swear, there are companies that have literally caused cancer whose victims feel less betrayed than some members of the gaming community feel by the end of a video game.

Not sure what you're implying here, sir.

Are just being sarcastic or do you have a point beyond the trope of "its just a game, people - move on?"


The only difference that I noticed in the game between EDI and any other AI was

Spoiler:
that she started out as a VI.

I certainly don't think that's a good enough excuse to explain the exception seen in the ending that you mention, but it may indicate a key difference between AI types.

Regarding the synthesis vs destruction endings:

Even if Destroy ONLY blew up all the Reapers and left everything else untouched, I would have still had a VERY hard time picking between Destory and Synthesis with my paragon Shepard.

As he sees it, the Reapers are just like the Geth - slaves to their programming. If he had no other option, yeah he'd blow up the Reapers, but if their was a way to save everyone AND save the Reapers too - he'd take it. That's essentially what he saw in the Synthesis option - a way to save everyone, even his enemies. He'd have tried to save the Illusive Man too if the old coot would have let him.

Now, granted, all my decision making at the end hinged upon the belief that the

Spoiler:
creepy-ghost-Catalyst-boy
was being straight forward and honest. As the game didn't give me an opporunity to determine if that was the case or not, I operated on the assumption that honesty is what Shepard got. If that is not the case, then I would agree that Destroy becomes the best option.


I think the Destroy/EDI thing comes down more to a bug in programming.


Andrea1 wrote:
I think the Destroy/EDI thing comes down more to a bug in programming.

I admit, I think this is the most likely explanation for this particular event, especially since each of the endings was

Spoiler:
identical except for a different color filter (or in the case of Synthesis an additional glowy-green-dermal-circuitry filter)

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

@Dal Selpher: Good points there and a good suggestion on why it might work for EDI. As for

Spoiler:

creepy-ghost-Catalyst-boy - that's a good point as well.

But that's where I tend to take the old Star Trek idea of: "Just cause you're more powerful doesn't make you more trustworthy or superior." Especailly if you are telling me you also created the Reapers!


My Paragon Shepard as always tried to do the right thing by all races, but I've been playing him as defiant from the start of the series about the Reapers/Collectors declarations of being "superior."
As you point out, it didn't give an opportunity to explore the dialog tree more closely. So, I tended to fall back to that approach to remain consistent in this scenario with
Spoiler:

creepy-ghost-Catalyst-boy. He's more polite, but still comes off as a little too "knows what's best."

@Andrea1: That is also a good point given what happens. Which I think is part of what leads back to getting people ticked off about the endings. It's one of the errors that could imply that it was a case of rushed, poor work on an otherwise well-developed game.

Contributor

Removed a post. Don't use the term "rape" like that, thank you.


Alex Martin wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:


I swear, there are companies that have literally caused cancer whose victims feel less betrayed than some members of the gaming community feel by the end of a video game.

Not sure what you're implying here, sir.

Are just being sarcastic or do you have a point beyond the trope of "its just a game, people - move on?"

No sarcasm, and yep, that was pretty much my whole point. I mean, I daresay a company could have actually caused cancer in a significant number of victims, and still wouldn't have beaten Bioware in the Worst Company in America poll. Literally killing people would probably cause less outrage than an undesirable ending to a video game.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Liz Courts wrote:
Removed a post. Don't use the term "rape" like that, thank you.

Liz, I didn't use the term lightly or because I wanted to use slang. The Synthesis ending from Mass Effect 3 consists of the protagonist ( Shepard ) using advanced alien technology to change the nature of everything organic and synthetic in the whole galaxy, changing every creature, every plant from an organic or synthetic being into a organic-synthetic hybrid. Without their consent.

I know that the term is a hurtful word. But it is also the most apt term ( together with its synonyms ) to describe what choice is presented to a player in Mass Effect 3 with the Synthesis ending. It's one of three morally repugnant choices the player is presented with. I used the term to describe what the repugnance of this ending represents.

Considering that I found it more repugnant than genociding a race of friendly synthetic independently-intelligent beings ( The Geth ) for the greater good, I hope I can make it clear that I used the term to describe my disgust with the consequences of the Synthesis ending. Not because I wanted to use it in an inappropiate way.


magnuskn wrote:

I used the term to describe what the repugnance of this ending represents.

My problem isn't that the choices are bad. My problem is that they are completely nonsensical. None of these endings actually address the problem that the "Starchild" claim is inevitable. Assuming he isn't just full of it. Which is really the easiest option to accept... sadly, that's not an option. So, we have:

Destroy: You kill all the reapers. You kill all the Geth. You kill all the Quarrians (buh-bye life-support). You kill everyone who's currently aboard a starship. You kill everyone who isn't currently on a self-sufficient planet. And the ensuring famine among the surviving planets is bound to trim the survivors even further. And considering no world can support it's population anymore, we need synthetics even more than ever. So, give it a couple of decades, a generation tops, and we're back at building an army of organic-hating HK-47s. And this time there's no Reapers to clean up the mess (and even if there were, we'd be 49,900 years ahead of schedule).

Synthesis: So we still have technology. And it's somehow, magically, merged with organics (don't ask how that works. Don't think about why your toaster is making that noise when you put toast in it). Aaand... we somehow magically lost the ability or interest in building new things? Or is it just a matter of time before we're right back at building that army of killbots? I'd give it a couple of years, at best. Assuming no mind control is involved. I mean, if we're okay with forcibly mass-converting everyone into part-time machines, surely forcing everyone to not want to do what you don't want them to do isn't much of a stretch. The Sith Empire called, they want in on that action.

Control: This is, arguably, the only actual "solution", though it's fairly short-term in scope. This assumes that Shepard is omnipresent, and instead of the reapers just killing everyone, we can guess that Shepard now zooms around, whacking anyone who looks at a screwdriver wrong. Hopefully he catches them all. Because otherwise we might have an army of machines roaming around the galaxy trying to kill us. Uh. You know, another army of machines.

In closing, my conclusion is that Destroy is the only good solution, if you disregard the untold billions of casualties (pff, statistics). The Starchild is obviously wrong. The only reason "synthetics killing organics" is inevitable, is because he build an army of synthetics to kill organics, instead of, you know, building an army of synthetics to destroy the synthetics that will inevitably rise up to kill their masters (that'd be totally illogical!). Destroy puts an end to both the crazy "Starchild" and the inevitability of synthetics killing everyone that matters. Sure, synthetics might still kill everyone one day. But hey, despite what a dysfunctional AI might tell you, nothing is actually set in stone.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Grantedly, saying that all the Quarians and people on starships are dead with Destroy is an even darker interpretation than I heard from most. It's probable that Destroy only kills all the Geth and EDI. Yay. :-(


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Slaunyeh wrote:


My problem is that they are completely nonsensical. None of these endings actually address the problem that the "Starchild" claim is inevitable. Assuming he isn't just full of it. Which is really the easiest option to accept... sadly, that's not an option.

Nicely put summary. That fourth is certainly one I would embrace if it existed.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:


No sarcasm, and yep, that was pretty much my whole point. I mean, I daresay a company could have actually caused cancer in a significant number of victims...Literally killing people would probably cause less outrage than an undesirable ending to a video game.

OK...I'll ask:

Did you actually play the series or is this just drive-by snarking of a thread?
Is the point to get people to stop talking about the SUBJECT of the thread? Last I checked, this is a thread about Mass Effect 3 and all that entails - good and bad.

I don't even mind the "move-on" answer, if that is your take on it for everyone's consumption. But comparing it to getting cancer or killing people does what exactly? Is the intent to shock folks for griping about something they have spent their time and money on?

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

Scott Betts wrote:
No sarcasm, and yep, that was pretty much my whole point. I mean, I daresay a company could have actually caused cancer in a significant number of victims, and still wouldn't have beaten Bioware in the Worst Company in America poll. Literally killing people would probably cause less outrage than an undesirable ending to a video game.

That's pretty over the top. I haven't heard anything about gamers trying to get Bioware to pay out millions of dollars in fines, including supporting an ad campaign designed specifically to stop people from using their products. I also don't see people trying to throw Bioware employees in jail as many have suggested with tobacco or firearms companies.


I just started my 2nd run through with my difficult-to-play-because-I-have-a-really-hard-time-picking-Renegade-choice s Renegade Femshep. I just got off Earth and finished the Mars mission - next distination is Palaven.

I had to stop then, because I'm moving too quickly and don't want to face

Spoiler:
Thane's death!
again. I'm interested to see what elements are missing from this playthrough since I don't think I did the Overlord or Arrival DLCs with this Shepard.


I can relate--playing renegade in all its brutality is tough for me too, but inquiring minds want to know what the paragon missed.

And I also am using a femshep, 'cause she doesn't sound quite as nasty as the male renegade...


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Dal Selpher wrote:

I just started my 2nd run through with my difficult-to-play-because-I-have-a-really-hard-time-picking-Renegade-choice s Renegade Femshep.

Interesting. I have also started my next run-through, this time with heavy Biotic, neutral Shep. There's probably nothing new as with the other two, but I am curious to see if being more apathetic and see-sawing between the two options creates any new alternatives I have missed. Also, trying the Miranda romance, but I have to say I don't expect that much to come out of it. I tried the Tali romance before, and the drama of retaking Rannoch was well done.

I have never really given the Liara relationship much thought, but she's really grown on me as a character in ME3. I am tempted to start from ME through ME3 with her as a central romance, but I don't think I could commit time to doing the whole trilogy from scratch.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

Alex Martin wrote:
I have never really given the Liara relationship much thought, but she's really grown on me as a character in ME3. I am tempted to start from ME through ME3 with her as a central romance, but I don't think I could commit time to doing the whole trilogy from scratch.

Totally worth it.


Charlie Bell wrote:
Totally worth it.

I'll find out if this is the case pretty shortly I think! My ME1 game apparently registered Romance w/ Liara instead of Kaiden. So I'm kind of forced it now, but I'm more ok with it after the Shadowbroker DLC.

I am also toying around with the idea of starting up ME1 and playing through with a dude Shepard, but saving Kaiden on Virmire. I'm wondering if he is best-friend-ala-Garrus-or-Thane material.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Charlie Bell wrote:
Totally worth it.

Food for thought, then. That fact that she looks like Jillian Murray certainly motivates as well.


I think destroy just smokes synthetic life and doesn't blow up starships. How? SPACE MAGIC!

451 to 500 of 820 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Entertainment / Video Games / Mass Effect 3 All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.