Mass Effect 3


Video Games

101 to 150 of 820 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

I'm seeing a lot of people around the net complaining about the game's endings, which confuses me a bit. It's like "I'm sorry you didn't get the perfect cliche happy ending you seem to have wanted, but the whole game was dark and grungy and full of oppressive themes, did you really think it was going to end well?"

IDK about you guys, but I chose the "third option."

Ending spoiler!:
I couldn't kill all the geth, even if it destroyed the Reapers, especially after brokering that hard-won peace between geth and the quarians. And I wasn't going to control them, I'd been fighting the Illusive Man the whole damn time over that! But I'd been selfless and sacrificing ever since the beginning, playing a Super-Paragon (who'd admittedly developed a mean streak after encountering so many galaxy sized bungholes over the course of 3 games), so I sacrificed myself to hit the synthesis button. It might not have been a perfect ending, but it felt right to me.

Liberty's Edge

UltraFennec wrote:

I'm seeing a lot of people around the net complaining about the game's endings, which confuses me a bit. It's like "I'm sorry you didn't get the perfect cliche happy ending you seem to have wanted, but the whole game was dark and grungy and full of oppressive themes, did you really think it was going to end well?"

IDK about you guys, but I chose the "third option."

I chose the third option as well, but it was part of why I didn't care for the ending. (not complete hate, just dissatisfaction).

Spoiler:
I knew going into the game that Shepherd was going to have to sacrifice himself...so I had no problem with that outcome. The problem I had was that the third option didn't come from Shepherd himself. The Catalyst was obviously stuck in its mental box thinking that there were only two possible outcomes - continue the cycle or utter destruction. Having it come up with the synthesis solution was completely out of left field and diminished (to me) the fact that Shepherd was being celebrated for being the one able to do the impossible. They really should have written it so that Shepherd could have proposed it or at least had him lead the Catalyst to that conclusion, rather than just having the Catalyst say "well, there is this crazy third option, but who knows if it'll work".

While I liked that it gave a victory lap before the final battle, where you could talk to all your companions one last time, I also wish that there was a lil bit more cut scene at the end to see how your allies fared after the destruction of the Citadel - at the very least, your romantic partner (I would have killed for a shot of Liara holding a daughter).


Spoilerz:
You know, I've actually been prepping to run a Mass Effect based PbP, and had considered setting it post-ME3...and then I found out all the endings destroyed the Mass Relays, even if Shepard survives. That was kinda like "uh..." So if I want to use the game setting's canon as much as possible (because I like it, so I will), I can't use that option.

OTOH, just because those endings worked for the game trilogy doesn't mean they're appropriate for a true RP setting. Hmmm.


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

I utterly hate the ending. That's why I was posting that I had lost all joy of playing the game a few days ago, because I already got spoiled before even beginning my run.

That being said, I enjoyed most of the game, due to the reunions with my past and current crewmates and some awesome storytelling throughout the game. Until the last thirty minutes, which were utterly abominable out-of-left-field trash hackery. On all levels.

Endings spoilers:

Spoiler:
And, please, nobody give me "Oh, you wanted a rainbow-farting unicorns ending!". I can get enough of that crap on BSN, although even there the defenders of the endings are vastly outnumbered by lots and lots and lots of angry fans.

The endings are bad on every level of storytelling, utterly trash the setting and, yes, completely destroy the joy which playing through the story of the three games gave me.

Not to mention that the whole reason for the Reapers is so incredibly contrived and stupid that it almost defies description. Well, it appears as if they changed said motivation during the transition between ME2 and ME3, but their replacement is just... stupid.

Oh, and I gave that PTSD asari a gun, since I knew, having been spoiled long ago about many things in the game, that

Spoiler:
that farmgirl was Jokers sister. >:(

Hell, since I already spent an hour today writing this about the endings and the Reaper motivations on a Tali fan group, I'll post it here, too.

Spoilers: Thoughts on parts of why the ending is stupid and about Reaper motivations

Spoiler:
I'll try to give a good summary what I feel is wrong with the endings and other stuff around the endgame. I'll post that here, because the main forums don't need another thread for Stanley Woo to shut down and it would be lost in the megathread. Also, less chance of some a**hats jumping rectum-first into my face, because I dare utter criticism.

First off, I really am flabbergasted that almost nobody is being angry about the Citadel magically being transported to Earth. Oh, and everybody you met there during the game is probably dead or husk-ified. That includes Aria, Doctor Michel, Bailey, Conrad Verner and so on and so on. All the sad refugees from the docking area.

Oh, and did I mention that Shepard commits genocide, no matter what ending is chosen? Because he wipes out the last of the Keepers.

Now, on the the main endings. I think I cannot add much more than people have said about the level of stupidity involved in writing them, but I want to point out that a bittersweet ending would be totally okay for this game. The writers made a point to show us players, the hard way, that this game is about sacrifice. The amount of horrifying war stories told in ME3 is staggering. The PTSD asari in the hospital, that female human soldier getting her daughter to "safety" on Thessia, everybody worrying about their loved ones... no punches were pulled in that regard.
So, I am okay with the game ending on a good, but slightly bitter note. However, that is not what we got here.
What we got is three Deux Ex Machina endings, which made a lot of the other choices in the game meaningless.

I still don't comprehend the thought processes behind the endings, changing them from the dark energy plot, not giving us closure on our own character and the companions, the Normandy teleporting to the mass relay . Which is physically impossible in the short time this whole thing happens, anyway, as is the whole "teammates teleporting to the Normandy" thing... and why was Joker near the mass relay anyway? Trying to save EDI? Why would he know that she was in any danger? The Normandy should have been participating in the battle above earth, not being on the outer edge of the solar system. And why can EDI be alive in the Destroy endings ( which reportedly has happened to people )? Just general lazyness on part of BioWare?

Aaaargh, the endings suck on so many levels!

I am really curious if the developers will address these controversies in detail, give just a general statement about them having noted how bad the endings were received or just clamming up and going into full "turtle defense" mode. I believe that eventually they will have to address this and I would really like to know what conversations are happening at BioWare in these days about the general fan reaction.

---

And for a second thing, about the whole "Reapers gonna reap every 50k years, to save us from the bad synthetics".

That has to be one of the most stupid explanations in science fiction history. "Plan 9 from Outer Space" bad. First off, how can the Reapers be sure that singularity won't happen sooner? Apparently "just because". Given how they have reaped for, what is it, 37.000.000 years, you'd think that the Protheans might not have been the only space faring race to do a "saving throw" and leave some important information behind for the next cycle.

And that means that the Reapers would just accelerate the probability of some race advancing to a higher level of technology much sooner, thus creating synthetic life sooner, thus leading to singularity before the Reapers return on their schedule. I guess if they leave a Sovereign behind every cycle, they might return sooner, though. Although they clearly didn't in this cycle, because the Geth already were around for 300 years.

Secondly, the whole "we reap you to save you" thing is also because, if a synthetic race would dominate, they'd eventually destroy everything, grow limitlessly and then go about dominating other galaxies. Uh. Okay. So, what about them other galaxies? So far as we know, they don't have no Reapers, so shouldn't that have happened to our galaxy ( being invaded by the perfect synthetic race ) somewhen in the last 37.000.000 years? I think the Reapers should have started wondering about that a few hundred cycles ago ( given that there would be somewhere around 740 cycles by now ).

Thirdly, who build the first Reaper? How did one Reaper reap the first cycle alone? Are we supposed to believe that every race back then was okay with that? Even if Harbinger was build because of a synthetic race being on its way to achieving singularity in the first cycle, how did he win against said race?
Even if we go by the unlikely scenario that the first cycle just barely won against their synthetics, then in a case of massive PTSD build the first Reapers and was wiped out willingly ( which is so utterly stupid that one wants to headdesk repeatedly ), how did the few built Reapers wipe out the second cycle?

The story doesn't make any sense. They should have gone with the Dark Energy thing, that would have been a better plot. Even then the last question remains, of how the first few cycles could be successful with only a few Reapers.


I think the story makes less sense than it could have, but more sense than you're making it out to possess. I won't lay down any actual criticism, because I think we're just going to disagree so vehemently it wouldn't matter in the least.

Suffice it to say I find it mind boggling that you hate the ending so much, or find the true explanation for the whole Reaper phenomenon so ridiculous. And that I disagree I suppose.


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

Yeah, well, them's the breaks. At least I know that I am in the clear majority with my hate of the endings. Current poll on the BioWare Social Network forums has 16.000 votes... 87% hate the endings and want better ones, 3% find them okay.


What I would like to know personally is when the heck all the military readiness etc actually becomes a factor. Have been playing about 17 hours now, and have it such that at just 62% readiness I have over 5000 military power, reduced to 3000 because of readiness. However, I am still slowly crunching through the side missions because I am out of priority missions for the moment.

Liberty's Edge

Talon Moonwalker wrote:

What I would like to know personally is when the heck all the military readiness etc actually becomes a factor. Have been playing about 17 hours now, and have it such that at just 62% readiness I have over 5000 military power, reduced to 3000 because of readiness. However, I am still slowly crunching through the side missions because I am out of priority missions for the moment.

Galactic readiness is mostly there for if you only want to play thru the priority missions without doing the side quests, but still get the optimal ending. If you do all of the side quests, you'll be able to get the optimal ending even if you never touch the multiplayer side of the game.


What Robert said. Galactic Readiness rises with successful MP matches, and basically lets you replace system scanning and side missions with multiplayer if you so desire.

Bioware poll:
And while I have a certain respect for the Bioware community site, 16,000 is still a vocal minority of a playerbase in the millions. But to each his own. I think the endings fit the story and the character, others don't and want something more...well, I'm not sure what the correct term is. "Perfect" gets thrown around a lot, but it doesn't sit right in my head.

Perhaps "complete" is a better word. I too would have enjoyed some more closure on the aftermath of any of the endings, rather than the short glimpses we get. Regardless, though I did want an ending where everything was fine and dandy and OK again, I also don't find the ones that are there out-of-place given where the story was trending.


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

Let's not get into that argument about how much of a representation 16k costumers in a poll are. We all should know that the vast majority of people don't post of forums, only the "superfans" do. And while BSN had some people who were perenially unhappy with BioWare before ME3 and just posted to vent that anger, the majority of people there actually like BioWare and their games. The endings have changed that, now a very small minority is not desperately angry at what BioWare has done here.

And you can argue all you want that the poll is not truly representative, because it lacks a random sample size, but only 3% who like the endings is still speaking a very, very clear message. You can take that times ten, and it would still be a very clear minority.


Meh, I cancelled my TOR account 2 weeks ago. I think im boycotting BioWare with my wallet. Day one DLC put it over the top for me.


magnuskn said wrote:
And while BSN had some people who were perenially unhappy with BioWare before ME3 and just posted to vent that anger, the majority of people there actually like BioWare and their games. The endings have changed that, now a very small minority is not desperately angry at what BioWare has done here.

Without that representative sample you speak of in the next sentence, you simply don't know if this is actually true or not. You don't. One poll on Bioware's own site is not enough, nor can we take it times ten for example purposes. With over 3.5 million copies shipped, and no clear actual sales numbers (individual purchases) floating around yet, there's simply no way to tell if that poll is indicative of a true trend.

As it stands, it's definitionally a vocal minority of superfans. On the upshot, BSN may be full of superfans, but they're not all b%#~#ing about it per se. Some of them are rational, which is an internet victory in itself.

I get it, really. People want a happy, feel-good ending to the trilogy that cements the badassness of Shepard and delivers complete closure to their decisions.

What we got are the endings the series needed, the ones that I do, at least, feel were the correct direction for the story.

Whether anyone agrees with me or disagrees doesn't matter that much, because we got the creative expression the writers and developers at Bioware gave us, and an internet petition for the "perfect" ending the superfans want isn't going to magically change that unless Bioware already has plans to change it, in which case said petitioners will likely crow victory even though they likely would have nothing to do with it.

tl;dr: I admire the vehement love of the series that inspired the demand for a "better" ending, but a good author doesn't bow to public pressure when his or her work is found to be dissatisfying due to plot elements.


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

Well, if you like bad endings ( and I mean, "badly written endings" ), then these ones here are perfect for you.
Honestly, there are *so many* aspects which are sloppily written in the endings. They just don't make sense. Just bad writing.

Ending spoilers

Spoiler:
I don't need a super-happy ending. Destroy, with a little variation to it, would have been okay. You decide that destroying the Reapers is important enough to wipe out all synthetic life. That includes the Geth ( if they survived ) and EDI. What I would have wanted added is for the Normandy to not crash-land on Earth, instead of some forsaken planet, with no obvious way to get back to Earth. So that there would have been at least a possible reunion with Shepard.

Liberty's Edge

magnuskn wrote:

Well, if you like bad endings ( and I mean, "badly written endings" ), then these ones here are perfect for you.

Honestly, there are *so many* aspects which are sloppily written in the endings. They just don't make sense. Just bad writing.

Ending spoilers
** spoiler omitted **

Would it be fair to say that you would be satisfied with the current endings if they cleaned up the logic holes in them? That the overall arc of the ending is fine, you just don't like the details?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Robert Little wrote:
magnuskn wrote:

Well, if you like bad endings ( and I mean, "badly written endings" ), then these ones here are perfect for you.

Honestly, there are *so many* aspects which are sloppily written in the endings. They just don't make sense. Just bad writing.

Ending spoilers
** spoiler omitted **

Would it be fair to say that you would be satisfied with the current endings if they cleaned up the logic holes in them? That the overall arc of the ending is fine, you just don't like the details?

There would still be some fundamental problems with them ( taking agency away from the player, pulling a sudden deux ex machina choice out of nowhere, the motivations of the Reapers ), but mostly, yes.

spoilers for squad members

Spoiler:
I'd at least still want the squad members to not be stranded on some random planet, but rather be on Earth... where the Normandy should be, instead of inexplicably at the Charon relay ( which is at the outer edge of the solar system )


Inexplicable:
Yeah, that part is definitely illogical. I'll grant you that point.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
UltraFennec wrote:
I get it, really. People want a happy, feel-good ending to the trilogy that cements the badassness of Shepard and delivers complete closure to their decisions.

I keep hearing this sentiment, and I have no idea where it comes from. Most people are not complaining because the ending is dark. They are complaining that it relies entirely on a deus ex machina and varies very little based on how you play. I mean, the endings are literally color swaps, with slight editing differences based on war assets. Toss in a variety of plot holes, Casey Hudson's prior comments on the endings, and the idea of ending a FPS/RPG with an extended segment of slow walking, and I think customers have a right to complain.

Will it do anything? Probably not, but you can always have hope. Elemental:War of Magic was heavily revised and they are giving away the sequel because of complaints. Fallout 3 got Broken Steel to fix the ending. Even the original ending of Mass Effect 3 was supposedly changed because of response to the script leak.

Personally, I hope EA will see people are upset and figure out that they could make a good chunk of change on an ending DLC. I'd gladly pay $10 for another couple missions and the possibility of a different ending.


Apparently there is a growing mound - now a veritable mountain - of evidence that BioWare has done something bonkers with the ending that will be cleared up in a future DLC or expansion. But basically nothing is as it seems in the finale:

Spoiler:
Apparently there are strong indications that everything that happens after Shepard is hit by the Reaper beam in London is an attempt at Reaper Indoctrination, and by choosing Synthesis or Control you are simply fulfilling the Reapers' plan. By choosing Destroy, Shepard breaks free of the Indoctrination. If you have achieved enough throughout the game, Shepard lives to continue the fight (the 'perfect' ending) which will be addressed in DLC. If you have not achieved enough, Shepard dies and either everyone else is wiped out or they win without Shepard (potentially addressed in DLC, but probably not, as ME is Shepard's story and ends with his/her death, just as Shepard's death at the end of ME2 is non-canon).

The overwhelming evidence in favour of this (ignoring all the minor stuff) is: 1) The child only existed in Shepard's memory, there's no real reason for the Reaper-Alien thing to take that form unless it was the child all along or unless it was taking info from Shepard's mind, in which case the ability to implant info is also present (there's some odd things about the kid disappearing and being ignored by the guards as he gets on the shuttle in the ME3 opening sequence, though that could just be cheesy writing). 2) The dreamlike and surreal feel of things on the Citadel. Most notably, there are wisps on the floor similar to the growing wisps in the dream sequences earlier where Shepard guilts out about the kid. 3) Anderson and the Illusive Man having opposite choices to what they should do (Anderson's choice is presented as Renegade and the IM's as Paragon, the exact opposite of what they should be). 4) The real kicker, that in the 'perfect' ending, Shepard wakes up in London rather than on the Citadel (you're surrounded by shattered bricks and stones rather than the scenery from the Citadel), which is totally nonsensical if the ending is as it appears.

Multiple BioWare personnel have also said through Tweets that aspects of the ending will be clarified, which only seems possible through revisiting the ending in further DLC.

Spoiler:
Regardless of whether you buy the Indoctrination Theory or not, BioWare have confirmed that there will be so much stuff coming along that people will 'want to hold onto their copies of ME3 forever', though that may just be a reference to a more expanded multiplayer mode or something. However, they also said that the fates of the two squadmates you took with you to Earth will also be revealed.

Grand Lodge

Not surprised that it's being talked about here as well. I strongly recommend you like the following page and help out.

Demand a Better Ending to Mass Effect 3 Facebook page


I lost my old ME2 save, where was

Spoiler:
Jack
?

Ending

Spoiler:
It's ok, realistic. After the credits you have an old guy telling a story about the Shepard, so probably Shepard wasn't indoctrinated. Normandy landing somewhere else was weird tough.


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

So, huh. The poll is now at 40.000 votes. That "vocal minority" is getting less of a minority every day. And not any less vocal.


denizen of big bang wrote:

I lost my old ME2 save, where was ** spoiler omitted **?

Ending
** spoiler omitted **

You mean, where are they in MASS EFFECT 3?

Spoiler:
Jack's at the Grissom Academy. You only have a brief window to do the mission in before it vanishes, so I'd jump on it as soon as it appears.


I played Mass Effect 1 on console (which I no longer have) and Mass Effect 2 on my brother's PC (which has gone away). Is it worth it to get Mass Effect 3 without having a previous save available?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Umbral Reaver wrote:
I played Mass Effect 1 on console (which I no longer have) and Mass Effect 2 on my brother's PC (which has gone away). Is it worth it to get Mass Effect 3 without having a previous save available?

Totally. The story is still fine without all the little bonuses from importing. You don't miss out on any missions or anything, though obviously some play out a bit differently if characters are dead or never knew you. The shooter gameplay is, for me as a non-shooter-player, the best in the series. Other than the ending and a handful of nitpicks, I'd strongly recommend the game.

And, if you are later interested in seeing what other options exist, you can try grabbing a save from here.


Is there any difference if you destroyed or kept the collector base in ME2?


I'll let you know after my next play though Knoq Nixy. I don't think there will be much. The play though I just concluded kept it....

Spoiler:
But I think the only big difference will be that I'd you gave the base to Cerburus you'll get the human Reaper head as a War Asset near the very end.

The reason why more and more people are getting on the Hate Train over the ending is more and more people are just now finishing it. Keep in mind it was released on the 6th and in many parts of the USA schools (middle, high, college) were dealing with second semester midterms. As students finish those and take their spring breaks an finish ME3 you'll see more and more disgruntlement.

I held my piece as I hadn't finished it, but having done so I'm not pleased. It was... (seriouslly don't read if you don't want a spoil)

Spoiler:
totally awsome up until the last few minutes. The final ingame "choice" section was so god awful I was wincing the whole time. Then the last cinematic after the credits.... I.... there are no words save perhaps *in small child voice* "what are Midi-chlorians, The Shepard?" As cute as it is to use "a child" as a symbolic metaphor it 100% destroys any kind of serious exposition. They could have at least use the Harbanger character. While I get where the end choices derive, and I can see how they were building up to it really heavily in the rest of the game, it was such an off tune jump.

I'm not sure I'd buy a better ending or any DLC after that ending. I'm likely going to take a pass on future BioWare titles even thought I've said I'd like to see an examined multi-player game based in the Mass Effect universe.

I think BioWare owes the fan base a freebie on this. Just like the book (Deception) they recently screwed up. A public mea culpa and out right fix, for free, is about the only way I'd take them seriously at this point. Between the lore important day 1 DLC, Deception, and the last few minutes of ME3 it feels like they stumbled bad at the end of a very long and hard run. I'll give them the complexity of Mass Effect, it's not easy as most of us who GM RPGs can relate, but that was just a sloppy way to end it.

Like running and winning a marathon well ahead of anyone and then ralphing as you cross the finish line. You may be the winnier but everyone's going to remember those last few moments with disgust.


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

As someone who only plays paragon,I can tell you that importing an "ultimate paragon" import will bite you in the a** on only two occasions. Everything else is a net plus in ME3 and gives you more options for better outcomes.

Spoiler:
The two instances of a paragon choice being a.) rewriting the Geth heretics, instead of destroying them and b.) letting Rana Thanoptis live.


Quote:
You don't miss out on any missions or anything

I believe having an important character who's done both ME1 and ME2 (or, for PS3, ME2 and the interactive comic) will be more likely to get a positive ending. You will also have access to more War Assets based on relationships you built in the first two games.

Spoiler:
The Salarian general from Virmire just showed up and agreed to help me out in the assault on Earth, giving me a small boost to my readiness score. If you let him get killed in ME1, you lose that bonus. I believe your relationships with the Geth and Quarians (in ME2) and the Rachni (in ME1) play into the score.

Sovereign Court

Bioware is going to make a killing on alternate ending DLC.


I just started and it's weird, Udina is still councilor (I picked Anderson), also Liara talks about the Shadow Broker like I wasn't there.


Udina is the councilor no matter what, as Anderson decided to go back to the military in between ME2 and 3 apparently.


The game's attitude towards the Shadow Broker stuff is a bit odd (it calms down once you get on the Normandy). I think BioWare were trying to ensure it made sense for people who did the Shadow Broker DLC and also people who didn't (but did play the rest of ME2) and couldn't quite strike the right note.

All the weirder since ME3 default assumes that everyone played the Arrival DLC, despite the fact it was a bit rubbish compared to Shadow Broker (though far more plot-important).


Just requires more dialog trees. Simply put they didn't recored/write/track enough dialogue to cover the massive scope that stretches all three games. The only way to do that would be go back and bundle all the story focused content (not including armor packs) into one game and take the time to really map it out from beginning to end as fully cohesive endeavor. Something they are unlikely to do.

Also in the news Forbes picks up on the fan backlash. It's amazing what happens when you involved kids... in a positive way.


Disappointing.

And the ending(s) were garbage and they were lazy. BioWare should be a bit embarrassed.


I guess I will wait a bit to pick this up. ~shrugs~ Not that I have a problem with waiting. I have yet to finish ME 1. Too many things to do and not enought time to do them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just finished MASS EFFECT 3.

On the ending: Yeaaaaaaaah. This is why you don't leave game designers with 5 minutes to design the end of the game whilst there's alcohol around and someone's brought up the idea of trying to out-lame the ending to BATTLESTAR GALACTICA. Recipe for disaster if there was ever one.

However, the rest of the game (the 29 hours and 50 minutes before it goes down the toilet) is excellent, bordering on the awesome. What really surprised me is that the combat sequences are hugely outclassed by the quieter moments of character interaction. Just shooting the breeze with Garrus whilst standing on top of the Presidium was a cool scene, as well as the simple amusment of trying to get Joker on the dancefloor on the Citadel. BioWare were on the cusp of really doing something interesting with character interaction and making the player care about these NPCs in a way few other RPGs had done before, but then the monumentally ludicrous ending comes along and overshadows the good stuff they were doing.

I mean, if the rest of ME3 sucked then no-one would care if the ending was bad. To continue the BSG analogy, the ending was lame, but the final two seasons of the show were all over the place, so it wasn't such a surprise, whilst ME3 was easily the best game in the series up until it fell off the cliff in the end sequence.

Sovereign Court

Werthead wrote:
...... whilst ME3 was easily the best game in the series up until it fell off the cliff in the end sequence.

I am going to have to disagree here. I was pretty disappointed in the opening of ME3. It was like the opening of ME2 all over again. In fact it took me awhile to really get into ME3. I did eventually come around and enjoyed the really great character interaction. I would say game mechanics were easily the best of the 3 games. However, Looking back on it I can honestly say the Paragon/Renegade convo/cut scene options just didn't have the edge that ME1 and 2 had. I wanted to see more results of my decisions from previous games and I just didn't see it happening. That was OK because ME3 did hook me finally and I was really enjoying it. I even stayed up way too late on a work night to finish the final battle. I got to say the ending was really deflating. The final battle just didn't have the epic feel of ME1 or 2. I couldn't wait to start a new Shep and run through the game again with Me1 and 2. Now it feels like a chore to run my other Sheps through the game. No I just don't think ME3 was better than Me1 or 2 in any way but game mechanics.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Pan wrote:
I am going to have to disagree here. I was pretty disappointed in the opening of ME3. It was like the opening of ME2 all over again. In fact it took me awhile to really get into ME3. I did eventually come around and enjoyed the really great character interaction. I would say game mechanics were easily the best of the 3 games. However, Looking back on it I can honestly say the Paragon/Renegade convo/cut scene options just didn't have the edge that ME1 and 2 had. I wanted to see more results of my decisions from previous games and I just didn't see it happening. That was OK because ME3 did hook me finally and I was really enjoying it. I even stayed up way too late on a work night to finish the final battle. I got to say the ending was really deflating. The final battle just didn't have the epic feel of ME1 or 2. I couldn't wait to start a new Shep and run through the game again with Me1 and 2. Now it feels like a chore to run my other Sheps through the game. No I just don't think ME3 was better than Me1 or 2 in any way but game mechanics.

Aside from the terrible, terrible ending, I got to disagree. On the mechanical side, we got weapon upgrades back and we got branching power upgrades for our abilities.

On the character side, the game managed to make the connections between Shepard and his companions feel very more intense. They even managed to establish well how the companions relate to each other, something which was mostly missing in ME2.

I thought many of the character moments were written fantastically and the game managed to grip me emotionally on a level which I have seldomly felt in other media.

Until the ending came around and all that feeling of awe turned to incandescent rage.

Sovereign Court

magnuskn wrote:


Until the ending came around and all that feeling of awe turned to incandescent rage.

Well at least on that we can agree!

Grand Lodge

Bioware is no longer on my buy list SW TOR was wow with lightsabers,DA 2 utter crap,and now i get this with them defending it like microsoft defended vista.SERiously BIOWARE if your fans hate the ending then maybe just maybe you should i dont know listen to them.Ask hasbro what happens when you ignore your fans wishes.


So assuming I did my math right, with the N7 challenge going on, there needs to be a total of 50,000 players committing 4 hours each day (for the 3 days) to make the total.

It may be more, maybe less.

Here are my assumptions:

• 10 brutes are kill in a round on Silver
• Players play a minimum of 8 rounds (30 minutes per round)

Take the total number of players and divide by 4 because of the squads. That leaves 12,500 squads playing 8 rounds each day.

12,500 * 8 rounds * 10 brutes per round = 1,000,000 brutes killed over 3 days.

Hopefully Bioware is combining kill counts between Xbox and PC (PS3 players aren't in on this :( ). Doable but close. They may have actually over reached a bit. What a way to stall people from completing ME3 to the end and having a conniption fit.

Grand Lodge

Dorje Sylas wrote:

So assuming I did my math right, with the N7 challenge going on, there needs to be a total of 50,000 players committing 4 hours each day (for the 3 days) to make the total.

It may be more, maybe less.

Here are my assumptions:

• 10 brutes are kill in a round on Silver
• Players play a minimum of 8 rounds (30 minutes per round)

Take the total number of players and divide by 4 because of the squads. That leaves 12,500 squads playing 8 rounds each day.

12,500 * 8 rounds * 10 brutes per round = 1,000,000 brutes killed over 3 days.

Hopefully Bioware is combining kill counts between Xbox and PC (PS3 players aren't in on this :( ). Doable but close. They may have actually over reached a bit. What a way to stall people from completing ME3 to the end and having a conniption fit.

I believe the words you're looking for are "spin control," and "give them free DLC and they will come."


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

You seriously believe that they will not announce at the end that the one million kills were reached? There is no public tally. It's a nice way to make people play and make them feel good.

I just hope I don't get the stupid SMG in my reward package(s). SMG's sadly suck in MP.

Lantern Lodge

magnuskn wrote:
I just hope I don't get the stupid SMG in my reward package(s). SMG's sadly suck in MP.

I have a few buddies that use an SMG with decent results. As for me, I'd have to agree with you. Give me my M-37 Falcon Assault Rifle and M-23 Katana Shotgun any day over a SMG (with some Cryo Ammo and a Cobra or two for good measure).


I guess I'm at the last battle, damn, too many marauders, brutes, and banshees in that small area.


End:

Spoiler:
Do you think the machine lied about the first choice?

(destroying the reapers will destroy the geth, I don't want to destroy the geth ...)


You have to use the right gun for the right situation. SMGs (like the Tempest) are good at stripping shields/barriers and then keeping them down with constant fire, not so good at flesh and armor. I tend to use them with Ultralight materials on characters that need a shield stripping gun for little extra weight.

They also make great sidearms for TEAM VANGUARD! As after anything left alive will be low HP but need to be dispatched quickly.

If they don't say a Million was reached I think that's more rage. Current unit sales show close to 2 million ME3 units shipped, A little over a million on Xbox alone. If all ME3 Xbox players play 1 game against Reapers on Silver (more then 4 brutes spawn) the community hits 1 mill and way more. I'd actually be shocked if the grand total doesn't hit closer to 3 million.

.... Still not going to make people forget about the crap ending. May actually make more Xbox players aware as they like their headset chatter.

@Knoq

Spoiler:
Personally I'm just ignoring everying past the point where Shepard collapse on the floor, which turns out to be an elevator. From that point onward sharks were not only jumped, the jumpie was catapulted into low orbit like one of those glitch spots in Halo Reach or a hammer Giant from Skyrim. So it doesn't matter if they were lying about taking out the "all synthetic" life or not. The immersion train got derailed and smashed clear through the 4th wall.

What difficulty? Cause if it wasn't Insanity you didn't have a "final" fight. ;) The rocket launcher they put in the smashed out store did little to help.


@Knoq:

Spoiler:
A few players have reported choosing Destroy and then having EDI emerge from the Normandy, which presumably means the Starchild lied (since according to him EDI would have been destroyed along with the Reapers and geth).

However, this seems to be very rare and could be a bug rather than some kind of clue.

From a fanon POV, I'm firmly on board with the Indoctrination Theory and I think that everything that happened at least after Shepard was hit with the beam (if not earlier) is an attempt by Harbinger to bring Shepard fully on its side. The Destroy choice actually breaks Shepard free of the Reapers' control and, with the Best ending, he wakes up in the rubble on London, ready to resume the fight. With Control or Synthesis, the Reapers win and Shepard is fully indoctrinated as their minion.


Spoiler:

Dorje, playing on insanity difficulty with soldier, regretted not picking energy drain bonus power, and not taking Liara. That rocket launcher needs at 3 charges.

The choices at the end were imo interesting, possibly brilliant, just needed more explanation. Kinda expected something bittersweet (did you read Revelation Space?).

At first I imagined that the Catalyst is really Asmodeus of ME universe, that he lied about the geth.

Indoctrination is possible. My bug was that Garrus managed to be in two places at the same time, died in front of the beam, and later emerged with Javik, and Joker on another planet. Must be quantum mechanics. How can Javik, Joker, and Garrus repopulate that planet, I don't know.

In the end having 7500 ms had no effect :(


Insanity Soldiers for the... flailing screaming cussing drag it out of mud win. :D

Spoiler:
No, I'm not going to buy the indoctrination vague cop out. BioWare blew it.

I may be been a bit to raged but here is what I heared at the end
• Control: Colored Blue which has been 3 games the Paragon Color with, control the reapers and end the war.
• Destory: Color Red which is renegade, take out the reapers (and supposedly all synthetic life)
• Merge: Color Purple. "Happy end" where synthetics and organics become one and all is flowers for ever. Down side is the relays blow up to make it happen, effectively stranding everyone.

My first run was Destroy, relays blew up, shockwave messed up the Normandy. Clearly not consistent with the choices as explained. B.S. makes no sense. IF it was to be Harbinger screwing with Shepard's head then again this is a case of the 4th wall being trampled in an unacceptable fashion to handwave an incomplete ending. That explanation is so Meta it hurts.

Yes, one of the people (Liara) exiting the ship at the end was with me in the final fight. I assumed she was not in the final rush toward the teleporter or was retrieved by the Normandy in the unspecified amount of time Shepard was on the Citadel. However given the rather horrid way the last bit was directed I would not be shocked if the people were randomized.

101 to 150 of 820 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Entertainment / Video Games / Mass Effect 3 All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.