[PC/PS3/360/WiiU] Mass Effect 3

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by james0246

Realistically, you can still have many of those types of DLCs. The lack of mass relays does not prevent individual world stories from being told, only intergalatic stories (there are still undoubtedly Geth and Quarians on Rannoch, so any story about there continued existence together could be quite good; the same goes for the Krogan trying to live in a world where they cannot breed without limits; or even a new world where a variety of refugees must come together to inhabit their new home despite xeno differences). Truthfully, any story in the post relay world could be extraordinarily interesting and even provocative.

That being said, I strongly hope for a DLC similar to Dragon Age's "Darkspawn Chronicles" where the final battle is fought without a Shepard character and everyone is eventually killed. That would be fun .

The issue here is that yes, you CAN tell new stories in this world without mass relays. The problem is it throws out so many existing settings that it would become foreign. Much like how the Genophage radically altered the Krogans, the loss of the Relays can make the planets unrecognisable.

We barely know ANYTHING about the Mass Effect world even after three games. I think it is a dreadful waste to smash it all up before we actually know any of it.

In short...
Why even give us a new world? We want to see the old world first. The war setting in ME3 made it impossible to stop and smell the roses.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

In short...
Why even give us a new world? We want to see the old world first. The war setting in ME3 made it impossible to stop and smell the roses.

I am not sure about this "we", since I never had a problem with the experience on the "old world", but I do understand your point. Honestly, I am content with Shepard's story being over. I may not like the conclusion (though, I have none of the vitriol that many others have displayed), but unless Bioware is willing to provide some new ending (which I doubt) or extended ending (which may be possible), then I can only hope they can make some compelling DLC without Shepard (which they easily can...if they so desire).

Truthfully, I'm kind of hoping that Bioware will give us something like the ending to Silicon Knights' Eternal Darkness where we are forced to replay the story 3 times (to completion, each with the "different" ending), only for a 4th hidden ending to be revealed after each option has been chosen. Or something to that effect. I'm already going to replay the game multiple times (if only because I have different save files with different actions that I want to see played out), so having an extra easter egg at the end would be grand, and relatively easy to put in.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by james0246

I am not sure about this "we", since I never had a problem with the experience on the "old world", but I do understand your point. Honestly, I am content with Shepard's story being over. I may not like the conclusion (though, I have none of the vitriol that many others have displayed), but unless Bioware is willing to provide some new ending (which I doubt) or extended ending (which may be possible), then I can only hope they can make some compelling DLC without Shepard (which they easily can...if they so desire).

Truthfully, I'm kind of hoping that Bioware will give us something like the ending to Silicon Knights' Eternal Darkness where we are forced to replay the story 3 times (to completion, each with the "different" ending), only for a 4th hidden ending to be revealed after each option has been chosen. Or something to that effect. I'm already going to replay the game multiple times (if only because I have different save files with different actions that I want to see played out), so having an extra easter egg at the end would be grand, and relatively easy to put in.

Most people who have played ME 1 and 2 would have planned to have multiple saves, each with different Shepards, with the explicit idea of seeing different endings for the ME3 conclusion.

Of course, that desire is currently not possible. It would remain to be seen if Bioware actually WANT people to play the game more than once, because currently there is no reason to. Unless you LIKE the Synthesis ending (which I don't), or if you are fine with genociding the Geth (which I am not), It is literally pointless in trying to raise the readiness rating. Right now the universe is better off to let the Reapers win, and just let the next cycle's civilization finish the job.

[james0246]

I guess I do not stress over the ending simply because I`ve always felt the journey mattered more than the conclusion, and, honestly, the ending wasn`t too surprising. To each there own, though.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by james0246

I guess I do not stress over the ending simply because I`ve always felt the journey mattered more than the conclusion, and, honestly, the ending wasn`t too surprising. To each there own, though.

Actually, the issue here is that the conclusion affected the journey.

Making peace deals, curing the Genophage, and any other major choices you made through out the games, were all literally wiped out by the conclusion. The Synthesis option is actually the worst one.

Spoiler for ending:

Why made the sacrifices to cure the Genophage, if the Synthesis option removes the disease? Why bringing peace between Geth and Quarians? Or failing that, why losing Legion at all? One would assume that the Geth gains true intelligence in Synthesis ending, so Legion died for nothing. And what would Quarians feel about being forced to become cyborgs? Anyone asked their opinion?

The giant reset button cannot be viewed in isolation. Your "Journey" is meant to mean something, but if in the end all the sacrifices were pointless, then what does it mean anymore?

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Actually, the issue here is that the conclusion affected the journey.

Making peace deals, curing the Genophage, and any other major choices you made through out the games, were all literally wiped out by the conclusion. The Synthesis option is actually the worst one.

Spoiler for ending:

Why made the sacrifices to cure the Genophage, if the Synthesis option removes the disease? Why bringing peace between Geth and Quarians? Or failing that, why losing Legion at all? One would assume that the Geth gains true intelligence in Synthesis ending, so Legion died for nothing. And what would Quarians feel about being forced to become cyborgs? Anyone asked their opinion?

The giant reset button cannot be viewed in isolation. Your "Journey" is meant to mean something, but if in the end all the sacrifices were pointless, then what does it mean anymore?

Not really. You are only offered "options" based on the good you do in the universe (okay, not the "good" you do, but your military readiness which is directly impacted by the choices you make concerning many species, in which case the Paragon options generally increase you readiness more than the Rengade options). So, the more you do to "help" the universe, the more choices you are given at the end of the game (even if you only get 3 choices...which I guess is true of most instances in the game (in fact, often you only get 2 choices, and many times they are forced on you).

Do I wish there were more choices (or at least better choices)? Yes, of course. But, it is plainly obvious that the final 3 choices (if you can even get all 3), no matter how potentially contrary, are directly influenced by your "journey". Consequently, the ending(s) are based on your sacrifices, even if not to the extent many wish.

That being said, I guess your partially right, my focus on the "journey" can't be totally made in a vacuum. But, I guess I am more at peace with the ending(s) than I thought .

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by james0246

That being said, I guess your partially right, my focus on the "journey" can't be totally made in a vacuum. But, I guess I am more at peace with the ending(s) than I thought .

I guess it is only possible for you because you don't think of the endings as pure evil.

Because I do. The universe was better off if Shepard was never born. It is one thing to have a sad ending. But it is entirely another that the universe was worse off because of Shepard's actions.

This is no different from James Bond reaching Ernst Stavro Blofeld, only to be told that he gets to choose which of the three American cities he would nuke.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

I guess it is only possible for you because you don't think of the endings as pure evil.

a

LOL.

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

This is no different from James Bond reaching Ernst Stavro Blofeld, only to be told that he gets to choose which of the three American cities he would nuke.

This reminded me of Henry Fonda in Fail-Safe.

That being said, I certainly respect the criticism that the endings were weak, but I disagree with the notion that Shepard hasn't made similar decisions in the past. The only difference is the size and scope of the outcome. Killing the Rachni or not. Killing Wrek or not. Choosing Kaiden or Ashley. Mornith or Samara. Geth or Quarian (one of the few dilemmas that allowed for a third choice). All of these and more were decisions that either affected the team but they could affect the entire galaxy. The endings are simply an extension of these type of choices, and while not my preffered endings, there ramifications are no different than anything else Shepard had arbitrated in the past, the size is simply different (to use your analogy, Shepard has already had the choice to kill off several cities during his campaign before he even got to the finale, this is especially true if you play a more renegade lifestyle).

p.s. I find it funny that you have Blofeld targeting American cities when a British city would matter more to James Bond . Additionally, since the game ends in London, that seems to be the natural chose for your analogy...

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by james0246

a

LOL.



This reminded me of Henry Fonda in Fail-Safe.

That being said, I certainly respect the criticism that the endings were weak, but I disagree with the notion that Shepard hasn't made similar decisions in the past. The only difference is the size and scope of the outcome. Killing the Rachni or not. Killing Wrek or not. Choosing Kaiden or Ashley. Mornith or Samara. Geth or Quarian (one of the few dilemmas that allowed for a third choice). All of these and more were decisions that either affected the team but they could affect the entire galaxy. The endings are simply an extension of these type of choices, and while not my preffered endings, there ramifications are no different than anything else Shepard had arbitrated in the past, the size is simply different (to use your analogy, Shepard has already had the choice to kill off several cities during his campaign before he even got to the finale, this is especially true if you play a more renegade lifestyle).

p.s. I find it funny that you have Blofeld targeting American cities when a British city would matter more to James Bond . Additionally, since the game ends in London, that seems to be the natural chose for your analogy...

See, you are missing my point; that Shepard's existence in the galaxy did not generate a net gain for the universe.

The three choices are simply the three different ways the Reapers would win. That's why the choices were given; Shepard gets NOTHING out of it.

Let me repeat, Shepard could blow his own brains out with his pistol right there, and the universe would be better off than the three choices he was force to make. The Crucible should never have been activated, which means the entire goal of ME3, the activation of the Crucible, was a waste of time.

Which means the entire ME3 game was a waste of time.

The Choices:

Spoiler for ending spoilers...:

Destroy: Genocide of the Synthetics, just what the Reapers wanted.
Synthesis: Annihilation of all species. Everyone become Reapers. Reapers are happy.
Control: Shepard become Reaper AI. Exactly what Reapers wanted in Mass Effect 2.

[killer3000ad]

Ray Muzyka, co-founder of Bioware has released this statement on his blog.
http://blog.bioware.com/2012/03/21/4108/

[james0246]

Spoiler for ending spoilers...:

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

The Choices:
Destroy: Genocide of the Synthetics, just what the Reapers wanted.

Except, the Catalyst, if it is speaking the truth, says point blank that new Synthetics will arise in the future to kill all organics. Whether this is true or not is debatable (i.e. the whole argument of created vs. creator), but within the story this is stated as a fact. Consequently, this does not help the Reapers or the Catalyst.

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Synthesis: Annihilation of all species. Everyone become Reapers. Reapers are happy.

If we can believe the final animation sequences, this is not everyone becoming Reapers. Rather, Synthesis is shown to be the possible evolution of all life (described as ascension), not simply the forcible compliance of all organics transformed into Reapers (i.e. Reapers had no will, and arguably no soul; this is not the case for the new form of life found in the galaxy post-Synthesis). Consequently, I would opine that this option seems to be favoured by the Catalyst (and the game, considering that you need to create greater peace and tranquility before this option even becomes available), but I wouldn't say that the Reapers are "happy" (though, you could say that the Reapers can only gain actual happiness with this option ).

That being said, I assume your use of the word annihilation is meant to imply that all life has been altered on a fundamental level, not that everything in the galaxy is dead. (One of the main reasons why I do not dislike this idea (not that I necessarily like it either) is simply because so many lifeforms in the galaxy had been uplifted previously. Consequently, this new uplifting, while broader in scope, is not unique (or at least the idea is not unique, rather the design is).)

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Control: Shepard become Reaper AI. Exactly what Reapers wanted in Mass Effect 2.

I actually agree with you on this one. I am unclear why Control is an option unless it is supposed to be seen as a "bad" choice.

That being said, to play Devil's Advocate, it could be that Shepard in control of the Reapers offers the best future since he would have a greater ability to argue for peace between the Synthetic and the Organics in the future. Specifically, since he would be immortal, Shepard could easily become a merciful Dictator or at least a police officer for the entire galaxy. Additionally, Reaper ships are the fastest in the known universe, so he could use them to help all the life left behind on Earth, etc. (I'm just spitballing here, though.)

Originally Posted by killer3000ad

Ray Muzyka, co-founder of Bioware has released this statement on his blog.
http://blog.bioware.com/2012/03/21/4108/

Very nicely stated. I don't know if anything will really come from this mini-debacle, but I do hope this will reafirm Bioware's intial business and prduction models.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by killer3000ad

Ray Muzyka, co-founder of Bioware has released this statement on his blog.
http://blog.bioware.com/2012/03/21/4108/

Finally. A response from Bioware that isn't PR stalling.

To be honest, part of the rage generated thus far is caused by the news media. What with people who never played the game trying to tell players to grow up, telling players that they never had any right to choose endings to begin with, that gaming is not important enough to make a fuss about, that they are children.

Bioware had not be going so far as to insult the gamers. But every news outlet HAS. And by being so silent, it makes Bioware seem supportive of all those insulting game commentators.

Look, Bioware messed up. Most likely because of deadlines. It happens to every company making anything of worth. But they really should have seen the writing on the wall. No one is being fooled, anyone can tell that the ending sequence was many times inferior to the rest of the game. I am prepared to believe things outside their controlled had occurred. But none the less, they handled the aftermath badly.

It seriously sounded like they thought they could get away with an inferior ending. After all, it is only ten minutes. They just don't realise how bad it would feel for players.

This reminded me of the Making of Video of tLotR Trilogy. In it, they actually rushed the filming of the coronation and kiss in the conclusion of The Return of the King. None of the actors or production crew liked it, but they had ran out of time to do it right. It SUCKED.
Guess what? Peter Jackson got the crew beck together three years later, and re-shoot the Return of the King ending. And the fixed scene was what you saw in the final film.

Being rush for time happens. The question is if you are prepared to fix it. Peter Jackson and his crew ended up with a basket of Oscars, because they are willing to fix what was done wrong.

The only thing worse than fixing a mistake, is to not fix it.

EDIT:
As for whether the new ending(s) would be free or not...

They should copy an idea from Nintendo. Nintendo has a 3DS game recently where they offer DLC that is free on release. As in, Nintendo rewards players who buy the game right now. And will only start to charge for the DLC months or a year down the track when the game isn't new any more. Clever, as this improves sales of the game when it s full price and not discounted. And by the time it isn't free any more the gamers can't complain for waiting too long.

[mrShady]

Originally Posted by killer3000ad

Ray Muzyka, co-founder of Bioware has released this statement on his blog.
http://blog.bioware.com/2012/03/21/4108/

Right.... so bioware didn't had a clue what their diehard fans expected from the finale.... So either they never used fanbase feedback/input when creating the mass effect 3 finale or the person at bioware that's responsible for community feedback/player input and whatnot failed on a astronomical scale when reporting in.

I can understand that what fans expect and what will actually happen is going to be different, but how on earth can you do the exact opposite as to what your fanbase wants and not notice during development. Also why is the rest of the game a great continuation of what came before (mass effect 1 and 2) and the ending does not reflect any of this. Artistic license my ass there's has to be more to this then what we are being told.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by mrShady

Also why is the rest of the game a great continuation of what came before (mass effect 1 and 2) and the ending does not reflect any of this. Artistic license my ass there's has to be more to this then what we are being told.

The untold truth is that they ran out of time. Unlike Blizzard or Valve, Bioware doesn't have the means to just push the deadline back when necessary. Signs of a rushed ending production is jarring because it is so different from the rest of the game.

But Bioware will never admit that. They are too big a game company to be allowed to be 100% honest.

[Drake]

I don't really buy in to the whole indoctrination theory it just looks like people are grasping at straws in an attempt to find closure or make sense of the endings.

Spoiler for Spoilers:

To me the flashbacks of the boy where because you where unable to save this innocent child who dies in front of you and thus you are haunted be his death, I keep reading that people point to him not being seen by anyone somehow means he never really existed and is a manifestation of the indoctrination when its more than likely that out of the 2 occasions he appeared people just didn't see him because of events unfolding around them.

Firstly when you first meet him hes in a vent and Anderson has already moved into the next room at this point only coming back to see whats holding you up so he obviously isn't going to have seen the boy who was in a vent at the time.

Then in the second sequence hes seen hopping onto a shuttle just as a gigantic reaper lands next to the shuttle pad so its obvious that soldiers are a little otherwise preoccupied.

Also a lot of people reference the arrival DLC as the point at which you are indoctrinated but that doesn't really seem plausible since for one you are unconscious throughout and second you are hardly in close proximity to it besides that one point where you have the invasion vision.

To add the destroy ending can hardly be considered good one since you destroy not only the reapers but all synthetic life including the Geth (who we've established are good) as well as EDI.

[killer3000ad]

Slightly off-topic but FF13-2 getting Mass Effect armor DLC

[SoldierOfDarkness]

Originally Posted by mrShady

Right.... so bioware didn't had a clue what their diehard fans expected from the finale.... So either they never used fanbase feedback/input when creating the mass effect 3 finale or the person at bioware that's responsible for community feedback/player input and whatnot failed on a astronomical scale when reporting in.

I can understand that what fans expect and what will actually happen is going to be different, but how on earth can you do the exact opposite as to what your fanbase wants and not notice during development. Also why is the rest of the game a great continuation of what came before (mass effect 1 and 2) and the ending does not reflect any of this. Artistic license my ass there's has to be more to this then what we are being told.

I'm pretty sure they'll just release a press detailing the endings and explaining it rather than having to add on new endings and hope for the best.

I mean they've been so adamant in defending the ending and such I'm having a hard time believing they'll budge at all.

Short term? Sure. But long term? People will remember this and they'll end up alienating a lot of people.

At the same time he notes about working on DLC's so I'm not sure why when they've pretty much destroyed the universe (or isolated it). I mean with the stargazer scene it's obvious that space travel has more or less been dampened and it'll take time to rebuild.

[SagaraSouske]

Indoctrination theory exists because there are too many inconsistency in story telling. Both in ME3 with the dream sequence, ending and through the entire series on the origin of Reaper.

I think the biggest problem with the ending is that a ton of people feel emotionally attached to Shepard as he/she is essentially the avatar of the player and they feel like they are actually immersed in the Mass Effect universe and seeing everything and making decision through Shepard. Some people that do not feel as strongly about the ending is probably less attached to the characters and ME universe. The players that do have a strong emotional attachment, however, felt betrayed by the ending. It is as if all their efforts they put in since ME1 have just became pointless. These players 'do' want a 'Shepard wins' ending. They want to see all their efforts through Shepard bears fruit to a satisfying conclusion - that Shepard is able to save the galaxy due to these efforts and not some random decisions forced upon him as the ending have it. EMS should matter, the allies and friends made should matter, and especially everything Shepard have sacrificed should matter. but it wasn't with the ending as it is.

Another major factor, for those more engaged with all the squad members, is that they want to see what happened to them, whether they died fighting a good fight that helped the victory or they were able to survive and have a new life in the aftermath. The ending didn't provide full closure on characters that were brought to life especially in ME2 and 3 and that was the other major disappointment players have with the ending.

If they address these two points by making Shepard's decisions through the 3 games matter in a way to effect the outcome against the reapers and add additional cut scenes to address each major character, it would have been a successful ending but I guess they didn't have enough time.

[mrShady]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

The untold truth is that they ran out of time. Unlike Blizzard or Valve, Bioware doesn't have the means to just push the deadline back when necessary. Signs of a rushed ending production is jarring because it is so different from the rest of the game.

But Bioware will never admit that. They are too big a game company to be allowed to be 100% honest.

I doubt EA would risk that with one of their most populair franchises, but it is possible, we'll never know though.

I just can't understand their total lack of logical thinking when they created this ending. The main selling point for this series has always been that you could continue your story from game 1 to game 3. And by the time the last installment is released have your own unique ending. Obviously they overstated that a bit and there's no way there would be infinite possibilities, however the ending we are left with now is the complete opposite...
Such a shame.

Originally Posted by SoldierOfDarkness

I'm pretty sure they'll just release a press detailing the endings and explaining it rather than having to add on new endings and hope for the best.

I mean they've been so adamant in defending the ending and such I'm having a hard time believing they'll budge at all.

Short term? Sure. But long term? People will remember this and they'll end up alienating a lot of people.

At the same time he notes about working on DLC's so I'm not sure why when they've pretty much destroyed the universe (or isolated it). I mean with the stargazer scene it's obvious that space travel has more or less been dampened and it'll take time to rebuild.

Whatever they do now will never undo what has already been released. And with the recent comments from main bioware folks I now highly doubt the indoctrination theory has any merit left.
The only way bioware can fix this if it was all a hoax and they always planned new ending DLC. But adding dlc because they are pressured to will only detract from what's left of the story.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by mrShady

I doubt EA would risk that with one of their most populair franchises, but it is possible, we'll never know though.

Mass Effect is NOT EA's main franchise. It is just their Bioware branch's franchise, all EA care abut is making sales targets. And the only way to do that is to release games on time.

You heard the term "It's done when it's done"? That's Blizzard. You heard the term "Valve Time"? That's Valve. This is not normal. Most game companies can't afford to delay game releases at all.

Bioware had to make it right on the release date. This is what happens when you don't work for yourself.

ME3 was released, and it reached sales targets. EA is happy. So what if the ending sucked? The players would have paid for the game already by then. It isn't EA's problem anymore.