Gaming Mass Effect 3

[Evil_Onyx]

I finished Mass Effect 3 today, overall i think it is an excellent game.

The ending i think can be misinterpreted, or just not understood by most people.

 

[mojoey]

ME3 is ok, but I would have expected more from a series that basically formed the modern RPGame. Overall 7/10

 

[Codz]

ME3 is ok, but I would have expected more from a series that basically formed the modern RPGame. Overall 7/10

Calling it the series that formed the modern RPG is giving it too much credit.

 

[mojoey]

Calling it the series that formed the modern RPG is giving it too much credit.

ok, how about it 'played a major role in doing so'

 

[Eli13]

ok, how about it 'played a major role in doing so'

Look back to [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myst"]Myst[/ame]. this probably formed the modern RPG more than any Mass Effect did. They were better games, sure, but really didn't form anything other than an universe and a fanbase.

 

[jedidia]

If you're looking for the game that shaped the modern RPG genre (basicaly invented it), I'd point you (unfortunately) to Diablo.

 

[Cras]

I finished Mass Effect 3 today, overall i think it is an excellent game.

The ending i think can be misinterpreted, or just not understood by most people.

Which part is not understood? The plot holes? or the retcon? or the DEM?

Also the ending is not the only issue with this game. You can just tell how rushed the game was, it was released unfinished, and it is such a departure from what Mass Effect 1 was, that is really is a sad way to end the story of "the Shepard".

And the Myst series was awesome btw. Cannot call it a roll-playing game, as there really is no main character. You are just a guy wandering around. But still....awesome.

Mass Effect 1 really was on to something in terms of the modern RPG. It had the right elements of RPG mixed in with the right elements of a FPS. I am not really a big fan of FPS, and I am not really a fan of pure RPGs. Dragon Age Origins for example is one of the worst games I have ever played for example. Too much RPG stuff in it. Elder Scrolls does a better job hiding a lot of the dice rolls and I enjoy that more, but Mass Effect had moments of player skill (not to mention it was also a quality RPG that took place in space.)

 

[Codz]

FPS? You mean TPS?

 

[Izack]

Dragon Age Origins for example is one of the worst games I have ever played for example.

Ouch. I love Dragon Age.:blackeye:

 

[Ark]

I thought DA:O was a pretty good game, with a great story and interesting characters. My one problem with it was how incredibly tedious some parts were. Dungeon crawling is dead for a reason, I don't need to spend an hour grinding through room after room full of enemies.

 

[jedidia]

I thought DA:O was a pretty good game, with a great story and interesting characters.

yeah, pity the gameplay sucked... :facepalm:

 

[mojoey]

yeah, pity the gameplay sucked... :facepalm:

:dry: I for one liked it...

 

[Ark]

yeah, pity the gameplay sucked... :facepalm:

It boils down to your tolerance for the semi-turn-based system they had. I prefer realtime combat with full control, not queuing up moves and watching a glorified repetitive cutscene. But if I wanted a pure shooter with no story or characters, I'd play CoD.

 

[mojoey]

It boils down to your tolerance for the semi-turn-based system they had. I prefer realtime combat with full control, not queuing up moves and watching a glorified repetitive cutscene. But if I wanted a pure shooter with no story or characters, I'd play CoD.

Well...I kinda cried when Zakhaev killed Gaz, and when Shepherd killed Ghost and Roach...

 

[werdna]

They Myst series? The Journeyman Project trilogy is where it's at!

The Legacy of Time was top notch when it comes to 90s adventure games with pre-rendered graphics. Even the walking was visualized! The Story was interesting! Science Fantasy at it's best! (Mass Effect is also science fantasy, because "mass effect fields" are a fantasy technology) And I liked Aurthur. He was funny. They also did a good job with visualizing Atlantis, El Dorado, and Shangri-La. They were realistic portrayals without things over exaggerated or supernatural.

Mass Effect 3's ending was all wrong. This is what I think should have happened:

The race that built the reapers built the Catalyst as a fail safe. It's a lost artifact that contains a signal which destroys the reapers (who don't know about the catalyst). Unfortunately, that race never got to use it, and it has been lost in time. Other races long ago only had a little information on the catalyst's location and how to build the crucible around it.

Over many cycles of reaper destruction, this information would grow and be passed down, and a design for the crucible would develop with the hope that the Reapers would some day be destroyed.

The Protheans finally finish the design of the Crucible. They almost have the location of the catalyst, but they run out of time. They never get to start construction on the Crucible, and never get to finish looking for the Catalyst artifact.

Now, in ME3, we discover the plans for the Crucible. Eventually, we find the the Prothean VI, which would give Shepard the information that they had on what the Catalyst is and where it might be. It's up to Shepard to finish the search all these races started.

The goal would be to find the catalyst, and bring it to the crucible, which would be a device that amplifies the catalyst's reaper-destroying signal, and connects a mass relay, distributing the signal all over the galaxy and killing the Reapers once and for all.

As for the Mass Relays- they were built by a race older than the race which created the reapers. They are unrelated to the Reapers. The race who built the Reapers (and the Catalyst) took advantage of the Mass Relays. Nobody would want to destroy them since there would be no way to go anywhere.

The final battle should have been a matter of defending the Crucible on a journey from it's construction site to the nearest mass relay. The Reapers figure out where the Crucible is right around the time you find the Catalyst (coincidentally), and are on a course towards the fleets guarding the crucible. The Normandy races them to get there with the Catalyst in its cargo bay. Whether or not you can get the catalyst plugged into the crucible in time is what determines whether Shepard defeats the reapers or not.

In a successful scenario, Shepard attaches the catalyst to the Crucible in the nick of time, and almost instantly, the reapers overload themselves with energy and explode. The end! No more cycles, everyone else becomes friends, and that's all, folks!

The second possible ending should have been Shepard failing to deliver the catalyst in time, and then the reapers destroying everyone. The end. You failed.

How much military strength and support you can gather will determine how easy it is to get back to the crucible, and how well the crucible will be defended from the Reapers. The catalyst should be located on the other side of the galaxy from the construction site of the crucible, adding to the challenge of getting back there. Some of the relays would be under Reaper control, and you have to figure out the path you're going to take to reach the crucible safely.

Where would Cerberus fit in? Well, they would be an annoyance, and would have some stupid plan to try to control the reapers using other methods (which won't work). Kind of like what actually happened in the game.

All of that would have been great! Instead, we got crap about order and chaos. A stupid, confused, and most of all, depressing ending which half the fans think isn't even real in the first place (the indoctrination theory). We had to deal with stupid theories about how organic and synthetic life will never be able to work together, even after you befriend the Geth and they help you attack the Reapers. So much for that theory. It seemed like in the end, everyone was best pals with the Geth, united under a common enemy. Besides, If the indoctrination theory was right, and the last parts were in Shepard's mind, then we would never even get to use the crucible anyway! Why bother? The whole ending is disappointing no matter how you look at it.

Thanks a lot, Bioware! (sarcasm) You tried to be too original and it backfired, created a terrible ending.

Who likes my idea for the ending, BTW?

 

[Codz]

Thats an....impressive wall of text...

 

[werdna]

Thats an....impressive wall of text...

No, really, what did you think? Better than Bioware's ending?

 

[jedidia]

No, really, what did you think? Better than Bioware's ending?

Not in my opinion. Way too standard fare.

I haven't had the opportunity to play the game yet, but of course I was unable to escape all the fallout n the net and learn about the ending.

I like the Idea a real whole lot. The thought that even shepard has to bow to the laws of entropy in the end is compelling, and properly executed this is one cool premise to end the triology. But, as I've heard, the execution of the idea pretty much falls flat in every aspect.

Bioware has now announced that they'll give in to the pressure and work on the endings, which I don't know wheather to like or not. If they keep the concept and just give it the execution it deserves, bring it on. If they're going to put a standard happy end in its place, meh...

I prefer realtime combat with full control, not queuing up moves and watching a glorified repetitive cutscene.

I prefer all out turn based. The irony is, if properly executed, it is one hell of a lot faster than "realtime-with-pause". To make real-time with pause work, you'd have to a) turn down on the hit poits so kills are made faster and b) indeed turn it into a glorified cutscene. Emphasis on glorified. Tons of animations, rag-doll physics, gore, and algorithms that take note of interesting events in this turn and compute the scene with different camera angles, close ups, slow-mo, with the appropriate interactive soundtrack. I could see that work.

 

[werdna]

Not in my opinion. Way too standard fare.

I haven't had the opportunity to play the game yet, but of course I was unable to escape all the fallout n the net and learn about the ending.

I like the Idea a real whole lot. The thought that even shepard has to bow to the laws of entropy in the end is compelling, and properly executed this is one cool premise to end the triology. But, as I've heard, the execution of the idea pretty much falls flat in every aspect.

Bioware has now announced that they'll give in to the pressure and work on the endings, which I don't know wheather to like or not. If they keep the concept and just give it the execution it deserves, bring it on. If they're going to put a standard happy end in its place, meh...



I prefer all out turn based. The irony is, if properly executed, it is one hell of a lot faster than "realtime-with-pause". To make real-time with pause work, you'd have to a) turn down on the hit poits so kills are made faster and b) indeed turn it into a glorified cutscene. Emphasis on glorified. Tons of animations, rag-doll physics, gore, and algorithms that take note of interesting events in this turn and compute the scene with different camera angles, close ups, slow-mo, with the appropriate interactive soundtrack. I could see that work.

That's the thing- it's not necessarily a happy ending. It's either way.

By the end of the game, all I wanted to do was to blow those reapers to the center of a black hole. And then came the ending. It was the most disappointing thing ever.

A happy ending would have worked here- especially since it's not the only ending. It wouldn't be unreasonable for things to work out in the end. It's a game- if you do a good job completing it, the reward should be proportional to this. If you do a horrible job, then Shepard should fail.

None of the reasons the Reapers have for their extinction cycles make sense, except for any gains in technology. If this is what they want, why don't they build a gigantic computer system to think of these ideas? Why go through the trouble of all this killing! The reapers, by killing off all advanced life, are invoking chaos themselves. Oh, by the way reapers, this latest cycle had organics and synthetics working together to try and stop your stupid cycles.

Besides, what difference does it make if there's chaos? What difference does it make whether new life can form?

The Reapers are antagonists. Their reasoning is cliched. They are there because the story requires it. Any reason anyone could give me for their actions will be questionable, especially when you consider the meaninglessness of the universe itself. (No, it's more than an opinion...)

Happy endings are not bad things when used appropriately. People tend to forget this sometimes. A happy ending would work well here, especially after the countless thousands of years that the reapers were wreaking havoc.

 

[jedidia]

A bit random, but it just ocured to me that the ending of mass effect bears a striking resemblance to Vernor Vindge's "a fire upon the deep"... main character dead, galactic civilisation set back to sub-light, yet all in all still saved the day.

It's a game- if you do a good job completing it, the reward should be proportional to this.

It's a story most of all. It's primarily in the hands of who writes it, not in the hands of who plays it. If the game wasn't rewarding enough in and of itself, the ending can't really make up for that. If the game was fun, the ending can't destroy it (although it can lessen the overall impression somewhat in hindsight).

What difference does it make whether new life can form?

humanity wouldn't be around without them? It's an iteration on the theme "fortuna imperatrix mundi", really.