| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't finished ME3 yet I am only just past act 1... so I can't comment on it's ending though I panicked at all the bad press and installed the extended cuts for my first play through. The ending of 1 and 2 were preordained. In the first you slay Sovereign, in the second you slay the collectors. No choice alters these. The fun part of the stories is the NPCs and the often dramatic effect you have on their lives. I have already seen this played through into ME3, and I am having fun with it. My only real issue is that weapon tech seems to be going backward with each new installment. ME1 had all those crazy leveling numbers on all their guns but you tended to find level appropriate guns so comparing wasn't all that hard. ME2 simplified the leveling numbers but added modding and um... ammo?! Yes they apparently forgot how to handle weapon heat and so all guns now need heat clip ammo. ME3 seems to have taken the worst of both previous systems and combined them while adding a new drawback that all the new guns you obtain seem to be low leveled guns that you have to level yourself in order to compare them... ~sigh~. Also in ME1 you had that bobble head style tank to run around in (and if your me) find new ways to get it stuck in places I just had to check out while still in the tank. In ME2 they downgrade this to a not very air worthy flying vehicle with paper thin armor and a weak gun. And so far in ME3 I have no vehicle at all (not sure if I get one later).
I guess I digressed... The game isn't fun for it's preordained endings it is fun for the stories you make with all the NPCs. And I guess the shooter style game play keeps you on your toes too.
As for people ignoring you being in Cerberus in ME2? I don't know about you but I had that tossed in my face constantly, I suspect if I wasn't a Spectre I would have simply been court martialed and locked away... which did sorta almost happen at the start of 3...
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Given that such ownership was an explicit selling point of the series,Of your story, not of the freaking intellectual property!
Which, since I'm still playing the game, isn't over yet.
I don't have to understand any such thing. I may not own the entire Mass Effect universe, but I do own my particular permutation of it.
Yes, but we're not talking about all the choices players made in previous titles. We're talking about one choice with three relevant options. I really don't see how that is an unbearable set of writing constraints.All three choices were written to be fundamentally universe-altering. Destroy removes the Reapers and all AI from the galaxy, removing all possibility of the cycle restarting and wiping out at least two intelligent races. Control puts what is essentially an all-powerful force in the hands of (arguably) the most noble mind in the galaxy, making any kind of widespread conflict fundamentally implausible. Synthesis dramatically alters the makeup of every creature in the galaxy, both in terms of how they work and their physical appearance, and makes the very concept of artificial intelligence redundant/meaningless.
The canon-pedant in me requires that I point out you've got the Destroy ending exactly backwards. It doesn't prevent the cycle from restarting, it guarantees it. And the changes are fundamentally galaxy-altering, not universe-altering, which is almost certainly why the story is taking us to a different galaxy.
These are enormous changes, any of which by themselves could define the flavor of an entire fictional universe. It isn't reasonable to try to write and produce the same video game story set in all three of these. It certainly isn't reasonable to act like it's owed to you.
I appreciate your assessment of my rationality, Scott, but to be perfectly blunt, hogwash. I could write around the differences in the endings in probably dozens of different ways, depending on what kind of story I wanted to tell. An example:
Our hero, Commander Vaquero, is exploring his/her ship during the game's intro sequence. He/she encounters the ship's engineer, Lt. Techie, in the engineering room.
Cmdr. Vaquero: Tell me about the Transit Drive, Techie.
Lt. Techie: Of course, Commander. In the aftermath of the Reaper War, engineers and scientists from across the galaxy began studying the Reaper's remains to gain new insights into their technology. This allowed us to unlock entirely new applications of the mass effect...
- or -
Lt. Techie: Of course, Commander. After the Reapers were transformed into the Shepherds at the end of the war, they began working with engineers and scientists from across the galaxy to reveal new insights into their technology. This allowed us to unlock entirely new applications of the mass effect...
- or -
Lt. Techie: Of course, Commander. In the aftermath of the Synthesis, engineers and scientists from across the galaxy began working with Reapers to gain new insights into their technology. This allowed us to unlock entirely new applications of the mass effect...
The synthesis physical changes require, at most, an extra set of skins be designed for the character models, and that only if they don't handwave it away with a line about how "the physical appearance changes were a temportary aftereffect of the Synthesis Wave" or something.
If this is a problem I can solve in 30 seconds, I'm pretty sure Bioware can manage it too.
Of course, none of this may end up mattering if the "Backup Plan" theory holds up. If the game is told from the standpoint of someone who left before the Crucible was turned on, and if Andromeda was immune to its effects, they could choose to simply ignore the endings entirely.
And frankly, that would be spiffy-keen with me. I'm not demanding that they include my choices; I want them to avoid invalidating them. That's seriously not that hard a task.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not saying that people should dump their consoles into trash IMMEDIATELY because TEH MASTA RACE. I'm saying that PC is superior. That's it. If someone wants to play on a console, kudos. have fun, I'm not gonna get inside your house and try to break your console.
Yeah, Shisumo, I don't want my humans to be glowy and green. Or any other race for that matter.
HEY
I hope we get to pick the character race this time. I'd love to play a Krogan.
|
|
In the trailer they had masks on so we got no idea whats under there. They didnt look krogan so maybe they are going with genophage fake out storyline?
A close examination of the most detailed female character art we've seen so far shows what looks like an asari under the helmet, for whatever that's worth.
Well, in the articles that have already been linked above (here's one of them for quick reference), it seems the player's character will once more be a human.
|
|
Well, in the articles that have already been linked above (here's one of them for quick reference), it seems the player's character will once more be a human.
Aw come on! Bioware! I want to play as Krogan damn it!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE KROGAN!!!
What was the multiplayer shooter that made it a selling point that they were mixing PC and console players on the same servers, and then found out that this meant the console players were horribly outclassed due to having inferior controls compared to the mouse/keyboard combination? Some years ago now. And one experiment with RTS games, abandoned while in beta, which was even more horribly biased in favour of the mouse/keyboard side.
Heck, one of the main reasons Valve has invested so much design time and energy in developing their Steam Controller is because they recognize that traditional controllers put a hard cap on skill in certain types of games (RTS being the most egregious example).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which, since I'm still playing the game, isn't over yet.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Are you saying you're still playing the original trilogy? Why does that matter? We aren't talking about it. Are you saying that you're still playing Mass Effect in general, as though the new game is part of the same story? That directly contradicts what the developers have said for almost a decade, now - that Mass Effect 1-3 is *a story*, and that the end of ME3 is the end of that story.
The canon-pedant in me requires that I point out you've got the Destroy ending exactly backwards. It doesn't prevent the cycle from restarting, it guarantees it.
Woah, hold on there. You're going to need to explain yourself. When I say "cycle", I'm referring to the cycle of sapient species development followed by the Reaper purge. Is the "cycle" you're talking about the pre-Reaper cycle of sapient species developing AIs that will annihilate all intelligent, organic life? Because, if so, there's no way you can claim that with any degree of certainty. It's explained to you that one of the reasons you are given the control over the Crucible that you are given is because to do so would require you to demonstrate a level of galactic cooperation that would allow civilization to avoid that pitfall. The Catalyst is the one responsible for the assertion that synthetics spell the doom of organic life, and Shepard showing up in the Crucible gives the Catalyst pause to consider that there may be other options for avoiding what it had previously seen as an "inevitability" (and then proceeds to lay out what it feels are the best options).
And the changes are fundamentally galaxy-altering, not universe-altering, which is almost certainly why the story is taking us to a different galaxy.
I stand corrected. Galaxy-altering is the better choice of words here. When I said "universe-altering" I was referring to the concept of a fictional universe, not the entire Mass Effect cosmos. The literary/fictional Mass Effect universe had never touched on other galaxies before, so prior to Andromeda's announcement, "galaxy-wide" and "fictional-universe-wide" were interchangeable. I think this particular discussion is more pedantic than necessary, though.
I appreciate your assessment of my rationality, Scott, but to be perfectly blunt, hogwash. I could write around the differences in the endings in probably dozens of different ways, depending on what kind of story I wanted to tell. An example:
It isn't a question of whether they *can* write around it. They absolutely can! Bioware has some of the best writers in interactive entertainment in their employ. There's no question that they could pull it off. But they would feel constrained by it, and they *shouldn't be forced to deal with that* just because you can't accept that interactive fictional universes need to be able to converge on a single canon. Your ability to write a single tiny dialogue isn't evidence that it is easy (or even anything other than incredibly difficult!) to write a sprawling story that allows for shared player experiences while accounting for what are essentially three fundamentally altered, parallel universes.
And frankly, that would be spiffy-keen with me. I'm not demanding that they include my choices; I want them to avoid invalidating them.
They only way they could do the latter without being forced to do the former is if they chose to completely ignore the events of the first three games.
You're essentially saying to them, "Don't you dare release any creative content set after ME3 in the Milky Way, or I'm not giving you a cent." *You aren't entitled to that.* And, yes, I'm using the word "entitled".
Christ Scott I will never understand why you find it so hard to believe people didn't like the ending of ME 3. It was depressingly one note with no real influence from everything you'd done to that point. We've seen better, even from bioware themselves.
Course I didn't care much because I spent the entire time in the main story of ME2 going "this is stupid, every character is acting against established character and motivation and even against reason itself." until I got to the laughably idiotic FINAL BOSS and realized the fame had abandoned what made it even half decentin the first place.
Oh man you totally have it figured out.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm very, very cautious about this. I loved Inquisition enough to give BioWare another shot, but Mass Effect 3 was a kick in the groin. Citadel helped - a lot - and if they hadn't had the actual ending cause such problems I'd suggest making the party in Citadel the real ending. It was for me.
BioWare screwed the pooch on the endings. Ignoring the fact they outright lied about so much stuff, such as there being a large number of multiple endings (no, Alliance Soldier killing husk/being killed by Husk does not make a whole new ending, sorry) that the choice with the Rachni would have a huge part to play or that we'd have our questions answered, the ending was cut up so badly it was non-sensical at points. How did your squad mates get back onto the Normandy? Why was the Normandy in the middle of a jump when the network went down? Etc, etc. The Extended Cut helped, but didn't make up for the fact they were talking about 20 something endings weeks before release. They knew there weren't that many endings in there, and it sucks.
It was...quite plain when Leviathan was released that they had been planning on using that mission to fill in a lot of information too, and didn't really consider the implications when it was cut to DLC. The amount of stuff that gets repeated in the final conversation with the Leviathan and the Extended Cut Star Child talk is shocking.
I dunno. I'm intrigued there's a Krogan in the teaser video, I have the warm fuzzy feelings for 95% of the first three games and I like Inquisition. I'm just not sure I trust them after they pulled the ending of 100+ odd hours of gameplay into the crapper for 'art'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, that pretty much sums it up, Jon.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I never played the extended cut dlc (or even replayed ME3), and my synthesis choice seemed a perfectly great solution to the problem. It fell right into the harmony / make everyone satisfied paragon that Space Hero of Ferelden was in my game. I never had a big "problem" with the three colors ending myself, I just felt letdown that after the Saren Husk boss fight in ME and the Human Reaper in ME2, the boss fight in ME3 was Marauder Shields. Wake up from your indoctrination, only to kill 1 guy then spend 20m crawling through access vents, then spend 20m listening to ghost-kid emote about reapers, then choice and 20m of cinematics. That is a letdown endgame compared to the previous two games. I wanted a boss fight, dadgummit!
I'm excited for Andromeda, and I hope they keep Shep and Co out of it. Commander Shepard had his spotlight to guide the Milky Way to its glorious machine integrated future. Now its time for generic hero and his allies to shine without dodging Shep's Shadow.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Refusal was the only real bad thing about the Extended Cut. A temper tantrum.
Not really, it's an option that should have been there in the first place. You realize that you can't defeat the Reapers without serious damage to the entire galaxy. So, leave it to the next 50,000 years to finish the crucible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Christ Scott I will never understand why you find it so hard to believe people didn't like the ending of ME 3. It was depressingly one note with no real influence from everything you'd done to that point. We've seen better, even from bioware themselves.
I'll take a page out of your own book and go:
"Christ Ryuko I will never understand why you find it so hard to believe people do like the ending of ME 3."
If Shepard had won this, I would never have bought another Bioware game in my life. As it was, I ended up sitting there with a gutwrenching feeling of loss and that was exactly how it should be, in my personal opinion.
I'd like to repeat that, just in case someone wants to rip my throat out over this.
This is my personal opinion and I am not trying to transplant that onto anyone else. However, this is why I enjoyed the ending, and why I felt it was as close to perfect as anything I've seen in a computer game to date.
If others want something else, then that's absolutely no skin off my nose. Why would it be? But to unilaterally declare this to be a travesty of a game and horrible, bad, terrible design with no redeeming qualities is JUST as foolish as saying that it's the greatest game ever and everyone who doesn't think so are wrong.
The sad fact is, we all want something different out of the games we play. I have been utterly disappointed in some games that were highly acclaimed, as well. Because what I look for in games likely isn't the same as what many others look for.
But to winge on about how terrible a game it was and how this means the next game is going to be flawed before any of us have even seen a minute of actual game content yet, let alone have any real clue as to what the story is going to be like, is as clear a case of entitlement as I've ever seen with regards to computer games.
Major software companies do not make products for the consumers. They make products for their shareholders. I've said this before and I'll doubtlessly say it again but having worked in that world, I can tell you that the ONLY interest major software companies have in consumers ends precisely once money has changed hands and you've purchased their product. After that, any interest on their part is purely for show. They'll sell their next product as well.
If you didn't like their last one, they won't even blink if you don't buy it, because frankly, they're not beholden to you, nor do they owe it to you.
They owe their shareholders annual profits, and nothing more.
And they'll make those profits even if you didn't like their last game.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I never played the extended cut dlc (or even replayed ME3), and my synthesis choice seemed a perfectly great solution to the problem. It fell right into the harmony / make everyone satisfied paragon that Space Hero of Ferelden was in my game. I never had a big "problem" with the three colors ending myself, I just felt letdown that after the Saren Husk boss fight in ME and the Human Reaper in ME2, the boss fight in ME3 was Marauder Shields. Wake up from your indoctrination, only to kill 1 guy then spend 20m crawling through access vents, then spend 20m listening to ghost-kid emote about reapers, then choice and 20m of cinematics. That is a letdown endgame compared to the previous two games. I wanted a boss fight, dadgummit!
I'm excited for Andromeda, and I hope they keep Shep and Co out of it. Commander Shepard had his spotlight to guide the Milky Way to its glorious machine integrated future. Now its time for generic hero and his allies to shine without dodging Shep's Shadow.
Changing to a different galaxy to allow a whole new set of races to visit and planets to explore is a good thing imho. While I really, really enjoyed the first series (except the ending), the new start with generic hero 1 interests me.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eh, to be fair, all Bioware games have similar writing problems when examined closely, so assuming next game has same writing problems isn't that big bet to make xP They don't seem to have learned yet from their mistakes, so why would you assume they have learned by now?
Why would you use a controller in a shooter, if you don't have to?I second this. I can't stand the impossibility of aiming with a controller. It is hard enough getting mail slot shots with my mouse it would be impossible with a controller.
I do it with a controller all the time. I despise keyboard and mouse with a passion born of mechwarrior joystick vs keyboard and mouse Era wars.
I do it with a controller all the time. I despise keyboard and mouse with a passion born of mechwarrior joystick vs keyboard and mouse Era wars.Why would you use a controller in a shooter, if you don't have to?I second this. I can't stand the impossibility of aiming with a controller. It is hard enough getting mail slot shots with my mouse it would be impossible with a controller.
Yes! I don't have any games on my computer because I hate with a passion using keyboard and mouse.
|
|
I do it with a controller all the time. I despise keyboard and mouse with a passion born of mechwarrior joystick vs keyboard and mouse Era wars.Why would you use a controller in a shooter, if you don't have to?I second this. I can't stand the impossibility of aiming with a controller. It is hard enough getting mail slot shots with my mouse it would be impossible with a controller.
....
That was 15 years ago. Or more.Plus you can plug any sort of controller into a PC.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I use an older wired X-Box 360 controller on my computer. That is what I am using for most of my games.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Controllers forever. Mouse and keyboard never!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Controllers forever. Mouse and keyboard never!
Now we disagree. Some games NEED to use a mouse and keyboard. The Civilization games come to mind.
|
Vendor - Fantasiapelit Tampere
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is gonna be big. New trailer popped up during the E3 this year. And I'm excited as hell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It was interesting, but I still remain somewhat skeptical.
On the one hand, I give them the positive that it looks like they are going to really move away from the previous stories but still retain the core elements. The fact that they also showed what looks like a Citadel-like structure was interesting to me because it implies that the Mass-Effect technology may extend beyond the implied control of the Reapers.
However, what they showed us was more of a developmental footage display. It was cool to see the tech, but makes me skeptical that the scheduled 2017 release will be on time without being screwed up in development due to being unfinished. Just a worry that comes to mind when we are talking about EA, sorry to say.
I cannot wait.
We made it.
I will have to prep for it by replaying 1 - 3 as it nears release.
I will have to prep for it by replaying 1 - 3 as it nears release.
Very likely as well.
|
|
I'm not sure if you really want to have ME 1-3 in your mind when playing Andromeda(and not just because I didn't like 3 much) .-.
Like, whole point of dropping number in title is in order it to be "new" thing without Shepard and ties to old trilogy. So reminding yourself of the old one is basically prepping yourself so you will compare Andromeda to 1-3 all the time.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure if you really want to have ME 1-3 in your mind when playing Andromeda(and not just because I didn't like 3 much) .-.
Like, whole point of dropping number in title is in order it to be "new" thing without Shepard and ties to old trilogy. So reminding yourself of the old one is basically prepping yourself so you will compare Andromeda to 1-3 all the time.
Nonsense.
None of us will be expecting a continuation of Shepard's story. We have all read the latest tidbits about the new title. And it IS going to get compared to the three previous titles whether we play them or not. And this isn't going to color any expectations beyond the expectations of the type of interactions we can expect with the story that all the games are famous for. Because game play changes from 1 to 2 and from 2 to 3 so that part sets no expectations. So we aren't doing ourselves any harm by playing the trilogy first. We are immersing ourselves in the lore of the franchise however and that WILL be good. I fully expect that lore won't change just because they are exploring a new place.
Can't say I agree either; but YMMV.
I prefer to think of it as a refresher of the game lore and the details that you might see similarities to in the new game. If you don't want any comparison, why bother putting Salarians, Krogans, etc. in the new game.
Much like multiple TV series set in the same universe/world, it's curious to see what parallels get compared, but that doesn't mean I expect Andromeda to be a repeat of what was done in the first trilogy. ST: Voyager and Deep Space Nine both start with classic Trek background, but each went it's own way to develop (for better or worse) it's characters and story - just to mention an example.