A year late, but I finally finished Mass Effect 3

[darkewaffle]

The simple fact that an arbitrary number decided what ending you get is beyond stupid in what's supposed to be a story driven game.

Or, ME3 just let you see it instead of keeping it in the code. It wasn't perfect (the net of Salarian civilization is only worth like 150 points? lol), but there was a lot of effort evident in them trying to make sure that "every cent counts" without having to make two hour endings showcasing every trivial NPC you've ever met and their contribution.

ME2 worked the same way, except you couldn't see that having a loyal crew member on the suicide mission was worth "200 points" and having a non loyal crew member was worth "100 points" and that each ship upgrade was worth "75 points" and collecting them all gave you a bonus "50 points", etc. But you can bet it was there, in some implementation.

 

[Fritzo]

Or, ME3 just let you see it instead of keeping it in the code. It wasn't perfect (the net of Salarian civilization is only worth like 150 points? lol), but there was a lot of effort evident in them trying to make sure that "every cent counts" without having to make two hour endings showcasing every trivial NPC you've ever met and their contribution.

ME2 worked the same way, except you couldn't see that having a loyal crew member on the suicide mission was worth "200 points" and having a non loyal crew member was worth "100 points" and that each ship upgrade was worth "75 points" and collecting them all gave you a bonus "50 points", etc. But you can bet it was there, in some implementation.

ME2 did it in a poetic way though. There's a difference between presenting something as "Sushi" and "Cold, Dead Fish".

 

[Red Storm]

Or, ME3 just let you see it instead of keeping it in the code. It wasn't perfect (the net of Salarian civilization is only worth like 150 points? lol), but there was a lot of effort evident in them trying to make sure that "every cent counts" without having to make two hour endings showcasing every trivial NPC you've ever met and their contribution.

ME2 worked the same way, except you couldn't see that having a loyal crew member on the suicide mission was worth "200 points" and having a non loyal crew member was worth "100 points" and that each ship upgrade was worth "75 points" and collecting them all gave you a bonus "50 points", etc. But you can bet it was there, in some implementation.

Of course it being a video game/computer program it does need something working in the background, but they failed by presenting it in the game as the same, rather than as a story.

"Shepard, are the Salarians going to help us?"

"Not yet, we need those 150 points or I'm dead!"

:|

 

[Topweasel]

The simple fact that an arbitrary number decided what ending you get is beyond stupid in what's supposed to be a story driven game.

More to the point that they pretty much tell you the amount. Arbitrary is fine. But how Shepard and the rest of the Galaxy knew, kind of takes the bite out of it.

 

[Red Hawk]

The simple fact that an arbitrary number decided what ending you get is beyond stupid in what's supposed to be a story driven game.

The number wasn't exactly arbitrary. Throughout the game, you are gathering one of two resources: Scientific resources to develop the Crucible, and military resources to protect the Crucible while it's being deployed. If you don't give the project enough scientific resources, it can't reach full functionality; if you can't protect it, it gets damaged (you do see damage on it in low EMS cutscenes) and loses functionality.

 

[Chaotic42]

I really don't understand why everyone hates the ending so much. These people went and made a good game (sans the combat) with an excellent story and now everyone is bitching about it. Be happy that we got a truly memorable title which will stand the test of time. They don't come along very often.

 

[Red Hawk]

In a sense, how good the rest of the game was (along with the other games) only amplifies how bad the ending was.

 

[felang]

The ending sucked but the rest of the game was so excellent I can look past it. Was the best game I played last year.

+1

 

[darkewaffle]

Of course it being a video game/computer program it does need something working in the background, but they failed by presenting it in the game as the same, rather than as a story.

"Shepard, are the Salarians going to help us?"

"Not yet, we need those 150 points or I'm dead!"

:|

You don't know that going in however. It's all in retrospect (or a result of external knowledge). Just like going into the suicide mission you didn't know exactly what the ship upgrades or loyalty or crew selections will really mean. Does it save everyone? Does it save half your crew? Similarly, going into the Battle for Earth the only idea of the impact the war assets make is from the analysis the console gives to you (the analogue for Jacob's dialogue in ME2). Is it enough to save Earth? Does your crew survive? Unknown.

The game alone only ever gives you a rough idea. However anyone who's read up on it can tell you the only way to save everyone in 2 is to have X/X loyalty and Y/Y ship upgrades, and that to get the "complete" endings in 3 requires 3k-4k assets. There are precise requirements/tiers to be met in both games. Neither game ever reveals them to you though.

Personally I didn't go around collecting War Assets/Loyalty because "Oh I need exactly X for the ending I want", I picked them up along the way because I tried to complete as much of each game as possible and they were simply a reward, not the objective. I didn't have a problem with the presentation in either case. I figured it was implied all along that "The more you do, the better the result" in both cases. (Tons of games abide that simple premise)

"Shepard, are we ready to assault the Collector ship?"

"Not yet, I'm still not BFFs with Tali or Doc Solus!"

Same song different tune.

 

[ArenCordial]

You don't know that going in however. It's all in retrospect (or a result of external knowledge). Just like going into the suicide mission you didn't know exactly what the ship upgrades or loyalty or crew selections will really mean. Does it save everyone? Does it save half your crew? Similarly, going into the Battle for Earth the only idea of the impact the war assets make is from the analysis the console gives to you (the analogue for Jacob's dialogue in ME2). Is it enough to save Earth? Does your crew survive? Unknown.

The game alone only ever gives you a rough idea. However anyone who's read up on it can tell you the only way to save everyone in 2 is to have X/X loyalty and Y/Y ship upgrades, and that to get the "complete" endings in 3 requires 3k-4k assets. There are precise requirements/tiers to be met in both games. Neither game ever reveals them to you though.

Personally I didn't go around collecting War Assets/Loyalty because "Oh I need exactly X for the ending I want", I picked them up along the way because I tried to complete as much of each game as possible and they were simply a reward, not the objective. I didn't have a problem with the presentation in either case. I figured it was implied all along that "The more you do, the better the result" in both cases. (Tons of games abide that simple premise)

"Shepard, are we ready to assault the Collector ship?"

"Not yet, I'm still not BFFs with Tali or Doc Solus!"

Same song different tune.

I have to say I agree with your analysis of this but I will point out one major difference in ME2's and ME3's endings. You actually got to use your crew that you spent all that time becoming BFFs with. You could walk into the Suicide Mission being everyone's idol and still get people killed by making wrong choices.

In Priority: Earth, AI Godchild asks you pick a color and you win. Thats it. No wrong choices, poor tactical decisions, and you didn't get to see the assets you spent the whole game building up let alone actively deploy them. You're going to win the war no matter what, even if you didn't spend all that time playing errand boy.

One of the things I appreciated most about ME2's suicide mission was the fact they included a failure ending. There was a spread running from failure to overwhelming success and plenty of variation in between. Sure once everyone figured out what exactly they needed to do they could do that on other playthroughs but going in I'd expect a lot of people lost someone. ME3 had none of that (don't say you shed a tear at big ben exploding....poor poor clocktower).

BioWare had a great template for an ending with ME2 that they could have applied to the major decisions you made in the 3 games and they didn't use it. Instead they went with a near incoherent ending that felt ripped straight from the orginal Deus Ex. Sure it made it a lot easier from a development standpoint but don't harp down my throat to carefully consider my choices and that there will be conseqeunces only to give me reskins and new VA's to the exact same thing to show the differences in my major choices.

BioWare dropped the ball and went with something that ran against the expectations they themselves set over years of ME interviews and previews. They got called out on it vehemently to say the least.

 

[JoetheLion]

The game wasn't good, not just because of the ending, but because of several other elements, some of which were already mentioned, but let me sum it up:

1. Decisions from previous game or even this game have no impact on the story or ending, if a character died in previous game he or she is replaced with a more generic, but very similar character or is not dead at all.

2. With each sequel the level design is getting worse, resulting in more generic and linear corridors. You visit the ancient homeworlds of many important races of the series, but guess what? They have the same generic sterile impersonal architecture, like they were all designed by a one person without any imagination, just very simple grey office complex buildings...

3. There is even more action than in the previous game and it becomes extremely repetitive, especially the fights again Cerberus troops. All of these troops are even introduced in the complex on Mars, except for "female ninjas" who are really out of place in ME universe. Combined with the poor level design, most of the sidequest and even some of the primary missions revolves around defending a spot in a very small area, while waves of enemies are attacking.

4. The problem of whole series: When you look at Asari, Turian or Salarian, the small changes in their skin colour or facial pattern is enough to create an illusion that they are different from each other, but when you look at human race, there are way too many NPCs that look exactly same, especially the females in their dress or commando suit, each of them having Chakwas haircut.

5. Even though the final game should be escalated by the reaper pressure, it plays the same way as the previous game, there is still time for romance, crippled dance in a bar, unimportant sidequest, random chitchat etc... There is no hurry. As always, and that steals a lot of atmosphere potential.

6. Plot holes, plot holes, absurd twists, just to make things "interesting", like the take-over of the citadel by Cerberus, Udina as a real bad guy (that is kind of shallow, we all know that he was pain in the ass, but making him a traitor is like sorting all characters into two categories: good and bad, making it extremely black & white.

7. As I already mentioned above, the game, no the whole series is extremely black/white in its decisions, there are like 2 or 3 moments in the whole series where you can have a dilemma, otherwise it's always the good and bad attitude, which is cheaply written, the good guy Shep acts like a naive and dumb "ok I'll do it for ya and I won't ask you why you want it, because there surely be a plot twist where you'll tell me that you just tricked me into doing something wrong" and the bad guy attitude is just "aargh, I am asking for your motives, I don't trust and that means that I am a very, very bad boy...". That was the greatest shame, that I really couldn't play as a sceptical, hardened by life character, which Shepard should be in the first place. If I saw and experienced what he did, I wouldn't act as a rookie boy scout. + to add some facepalms, the dialogues are even divided between good and bad visually, good option is above and bad is below, which is kind of dumb. Persuasion is another story, success based only by the number of points on your character screen took out any effort that I could have. Take Planescape: Torment, Arcanum, Fallout or Baldur's Gate series for example, every speech, charisma, persuasion skill was not only based on points, which was a passive part, but also had active part where you were supposed to intelligently choose the right dialogue option, in order to actually persuade someone or get some bonus information. ME is just like, ok some charisma points and click the blue dialogue option.

8. Endings, yeah. They were not bad in my opinion because Shepard died or because relays were destroyed (before the "enhancing patch"). They were because they used a cheaply inserted deus ex machina and no real argument or reason for the plot, it just felt cheap and I also felt cheated, because player was actually tricked into awaiting something different, something with more sense and instead we get this. Shepard's death would be a very good point, an ultimate sacrifice a closed circle, which makes sense, but not this way. This was ridiculous, with lot of plot holes and cheap cliches (all this morale boost talk, pathetic reassurances by the crewmembers and Shepard how they will all make it through and kick "reaper ass" etc... it's like from Roland Emmerich's movies, which are some of the worst movies ever, even Ed Wood is better).

9. Shepard's dreams - a very cheap way to attack our emotions and it just doesn't work. It's too artificial, too urging, pushing us somewhere, where we don't want to be unless we choose it willingly. This is poorly written and it's ironic. Shepard is a moralist, he talks about how bad is killing someone, then he kills a bunch of people without hesitation and five minutes later, he makes jokes. He preaches about not stealing, then he storms some apartments and steal all medi-gel and valuables for credits. He speaks of love and then he sleeps and flirts with whoever he wants to. That's why the "boohoo" dream with child doesn't work. You just can't believe in it.
There are way too many situations where he acts as a hypocrite, sometimes he tells a soldier, that you have to respect the chain of command, sometimes he tells him that he doesn't have to listen to what they say and that he can do things his own way. It's like not having a moral code or something, just doing and telling people what you think it's best for you in the moment.

10. Points - before the enhanced DLC and stuff, it was a bit harder to acquire enough points without playing MP, to have all the endings available and this is just another absurd thing, how can my readiness influence what my character is going to do in the end by himself?

11. Bad Guys - you know, many players and people watching movie cannot bear the fact that a movie or a game doesn't have a bad guy with a face and that is the reason why Illusive man is so prominent and why he is so affected and...dumb. It's very purpose-built and I don't like it. Especially the last conversation, where you can convince him that he is controlled and he kills himself. Why? Because if he is indoctrinated, it's very hard for him to not only realize that, but also to do something about and Shepard says nothing that would convince me that he is right, he is not making any point, he doesn't have any real argument, just cheap and desperate "you don't have to do this, look what you've become" stuff. I was disappointed, because Illusive man was everything, but clever and all of the Cerberus followed him blindly...

12. Fan Service and characters from the previous games:
BioWare said that the team in the third installation would be smaller, but all surviving party members from the previous game will be present in the game. Well, they didn't lie, but most of the characters were just forced in the game. Wrex and Mordin have they reason and their part of the game is probably the best, even Thane has his moment, but characters like Jacob, Samara, Kasumi and especially Miranda feel very artificial here, like they don't belong in the story, in the game, but Bioware HAD to do it, otherwise the fans would stone them... and their everlasting reason why they don't join the crew? Well, they are needed elsewhere... Really? In the Mars part of the game, James Vega said that he would like to be on Earth, to help the best he can, but than he realized that the best thing he could do is to stay on Normandy and help Shepard, because that would be the best chance of helping Earth, to help on the most important and relevant mission to save the galaxy and not to take care of refugees and stuff, everyone is able to do that. The Game is so full of such hypocritical contradictions made by BioWare, just so everything would fit into their shallow script with dumb and predictable plot twists. And the fan service? New visage of Ashley Williams, body of EDI? Oh come on, I am no puritan, but this is just not believable and it pushes the whole game more and more into an absurd shallowness.

 

[Dumac]

Here are some pertinent quotes by the devs and marketing

Official Mass Effect Website
http://masseffect.com/about/story/

“Experience the beginning, middle, and end of an emotional story unlike any
other, where the decisions you make completely shape your experience
and outcome.”

Interview with Mac Walters (Lead Writer)
http://popwatch.ew.com/2012/02/28/mass-effect-3-mac-walters/

“[The presence of the Rachni] has huge consequences in Mass
Effect 3. Even just in the final battle with the Reapers.”

Interview with Mac Walters (Lead Writer)
http://business.financialpost.com/2...on-how-the-game-tries-to-reach-all-audiences/

“I’m always leery of saying there are 'optimal' endings, because I think
one of the things we do try to do is make different endings that are
optimal for different people “

Interview with Mike Gamble (Associate Producer)
http://www.computerandvideogames.co...rought-back-a-lot-of-what-was-missing-in-me2/

“And, to be honest, you [the fans] are crafting your Mass Effect story as
much as we are anyway.”

Interview with Mike Gamble (Associate Producer)
http://www.360magazine.co.uk/interview/mass-effect-3-has-many-different-endings/

“There are many different endings. We wouldn’t do it any other way. How
could you go through all three campaigns playing as your Shepard and
then be forced into a bespoke ending that everyone gets? But I can’t
say any more than that…”

Interview with Mike Gamble (Associate Producer)
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...s-effect-3-ending-will-make-some-people-angry

“Every decision you've made will impact how things go. The player's also the
architect of what happens."

“You'll get answers to everything. That was one of the key things. Regardless
of how we did everything, we had to say, yes, we're going to provide
some answers to these people.”

“Because a lot of these plot threads are concluding and because it's being
brought to a finale, since you were a part of architecting how they
got to how they were, you will definitely sense how they close was
because of the decisions you made and because of the decisions you
didn't make”

Interview with Casey Hudson (Director)
http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2011/04/28/casey-hudson-interview-mass-effect-3.aspx

“For people who are invested in these characters and the back-story of the
universe and everything, all of these things come to a resolution in
Mass Effect 3. And they are resolved in a way that's very different
based on what you would do in those situations.”

Interview with Casey Hudson (Director)
http://venturebeat.com/2012/03/02/c...t-3-with-the-sometimes-cranky-fans-interview/

“Fans want to make sure that they see things resolved, they want to get
some closure, a great ending. I think they’re going to get that.”

“Mass Effect 3 is all about answering all the biggest questions in the
lore, learning about the mysteries and the Protheans and the Reapers,
being able to decide for yourself how all of these things come to an
end.”

Interviewer: “So are you guys the creators or the stewards of the franchise?”
Hudson: “Um… You know, at this point, I think we’re co-creators with
the fans. We use a lot of feedback.”

Interview with Casey Hudson (Director)
http://www.gameinformer.com/b/featu...fdsafdhudson-interviewae.aspx?PostPageIndex=2

Interviewer: [Regarding the numerous possible endings of Mass Effect 2] “Is that
same type of complexity built into the ending of Mass Effect 3?”
Hudson: “Yeah, and I’d say much more so, because we have the ability to
build the endings out in a way that we don’t have to worry about
eventually tying them back together somewhere. This story arc is
coming to an end with this game. That means the endings can be a lot
more different. At this point we’re taking into account so many
decisions that you’ve made as a player and reflecting a lot of that
stuff. It’s not even in any way like the traditional game endings,
where you can say how many endings there are or whether you got
ending A, B, or C.....The endings have a lot more sophistication and
variety in them.”

“We have a rule in our franchise that there is no canon. You as a player
decide what your story is.”


EDIT: Couple more interesting quotes I found, enjoy......or not.


Mike Gamble (Associate Producer)
http://www.nowgamer.com/news/1027650/mass_effect_3_reapers_can_win_bioware.html

Mass Effect 3 will shake up the player's moral choices more than ever
before, even going so far as allowing the Reapers to win the battle
for Earth, according to BioWare's community representative Mike
Gamble.

 

[darkewaffle]

With the exception of the Rachni having a "huge" impact, I think most of those ring true personally. But I never expected each miniscule character and decision to show up at the end either, maybe that's just me.

Ultimately I liked how the endings left so much of the 'consequence' of your decision on the Citadel up to your imagination. It gave you a framework from which you could decide what you think is best, and the rest is essentially up to you. We get so much blustering around here about the desire for "hardcore" and "oldschool" games and games with "real consequence" and being "open" and all, but as soon as ME3 asks the player to "think for yourself, there's no right or wrong answer, and draw your own conclusions" people go nuts lol.

 

[JoetheLion]

With the exception of the Rachni having a "huge" impact, I think most of those ring true personally. But I never expected each miniscule character and decision to show up at the end either, maybe that's just me.

Ultimately I liked how the endings left so much of the 'consequence' of your decision on the Citadel up to your imagination. It gave you a framework from which you could decide what you think is best, and the rest is essentially up to you. We get so much blustering around here about the desire for "hardcore" and "oldschool" games and games with "real consequence" and being "open" and all, but as soon as ME3 asks the player to "think for yourself, there's no right or wrong answer, and draw your own conclusions" people go nuts lol.

How can you think for yourself in this game, if it gives you black and white option and the outcome is usually still the same?

 

[Dumac]

With the exception of the Rachni having a "huge" impact, I think most of those ring true personally. But I never expected each miniscule character and decision to show up at the end either, maybe that's just me.

Ultimately I liked how the endings left so much of the 'consequence' of your decision on the Citadel up to your imagination. It gave you a framework from which you could decide what you think is best, and the rest is essentially up to you. We get so much blustering around here about the desire for "hardcore" and "oldschool" games and games with "real consequence" and being "open" and all, but as soon as ME3 asks the player to "think for yourself, there's no right or wrong answer, and draw your own conclusions" people go nuts lol.

Sorry, but "think for yourself, there's no right or wrong answer, and draw your own conclusions" describes the Witcher, not anything Bioware has put out.

Bioware makes things mostly binary. Regenade vs paragon, dark side vs light side, good vs evil, etc.

“There are many different endings. We wouldn’t do it any other way. How
could you go through all three campaigns playing as your Shepard and
then be forced into a bespoke ending that everyone gets? But I can’t
say any more than that…”

This isn't true on multiple levels.

“I’m always leery of saying there are 'optimal' endings, because I think
one of the things we do try to do is make different endings that are
optimal for different people “

There is an 'optimal' ending, tied in with the slapped on multiplayer aspect for good measure.

“Every decision you've made will impact how things go. The player's also the
architect of what happens."

I'm not talking about minuscule character decisions, but really any contingency on the past games at all. Everyone got pushed into the same ending.

“You'll get answers to everything. That was one of the key things. Regardless
of how we did everything, we had to say, yes, we're going to provide
some answers to these people.”

Answer were extremely limited, if present at all.

“We have a rule in our franchise that there is no canon. You as a player
decide what your story is.”

They should forward this to the Dragon Age team.

 

[darkewaffle]

How can you think for yourself in this game, if it gives you black and white option and the outcome is usually still the same?

How are the endings black and white? There's no good or bad ending, there's no right or wrong ending, there's only you trying to make a choice that lines up most closely to your personal beliefs. The only similarity between them is the footage used to display the action of the Crucible. Each choice has wildly different consequences (both positive and negative) for the future of the galaxy that go far beyond simply a "colored beam".

The "beams" are like comparing pictures of guns being fired. There's small differences in the color, flash, action of it all and essentially you're seeing similar immediate results, true. But that's because you have no context; a picture of a gun doesn't tell the story of who fired it, why, or who or what the target is. The ending is all about the context and drawing your own conclusions from that.

If you choose to synthesize organics and synthetics, will the organics ever be able to 'accept' the reapers? Can the civilizations lost to them be recreated? Would the galaxy want to risk that? Would all newly birthed organics and newly built synthetics inherit the "merger"? If you choose destruction, does the known galaxy possess the knowledge needed to repair the relays? If they're lost "forever" can the galaxy still progress collectively or does it break down into discrete star systems? Does it affect all technology or only certain 'levels' of it? If you choose control, is Shep still "alive" or is it a program intended to mirror who Shep was? How precisely can the the AI control the Reapers? Can the "inner" Citadel still be accessed so that the galaxy can learn more from the AI?

That's the sort of things I thought about as I made my choice (synthesis). I think the videos at the end are intentionally small in scope, they provide some amount of immediate closure regarding the Reaper War and Earth. But what happens after that is of equal if not far greater importance, I think limiting your definition of "ending" to those couple minutes of video is missing out on the much bigger picture.

 

[darkewaffle]

Sorry, but "think for yourself, there's no right or wrong answer, and draw your own conclusions" describes the Witcher, not anything Bioware has put out.

Bioware makes things mostly binary. Regenade vs paragon, dark side vs light side, good vs evil, etc.

But renegade vs paragon itself is an evolution of the binary system. Sometimes I felt paragon was doing the right thing, sometimes I felt renegade was doing the right thing. They both have "good" in them, and arguably "bad" if you feel that paragon's passiveness sometimes had negative results. I agree they do use these sort of systems a lot, but ME's implementation is at least more complex than "0" vs "1" in my opinion; I found myself actively taking both paths at different times.

I played Witcher for an unimpressive 20 hours, but never felt writing or story was remarkable personally.

This isn't true on multiple levels.

There is an 'optimal' ending, tied in with the slapped on multiplayer aspect for good measure.

There is no optimal choice. None of the options presented to you on the Citadel will appeal to everyone, they each have unique consequences. Which of them is most important will vary from person to person.

I'm not talking about minuscule character decisions, but really any contingency on the past games at all. Everyone got pushed into the same ending.

Everyone "fired the same gun". What comes after that is massively different depending on what you decide to do with the reapers.

Answer were extremely limited, if present at all.

I felt like most loose ends were tied up (actually the outstanding one that lingers most for me is probably the Kahoku/Cerberus connection in 1 that was never really explored in 2). At least as far as characters were concerned, there's always lore to be explored but I think plenty was 'learned' in ME3 to begin with. I do think in order to appease players we saw a lot of ME2 characters shoehorned into ME3 less elegantly than they could have been/deserved (Grunt, Jacob and unsurprisingly Kasumi/Zaeed) but it at least gave you something. The one character I really liked from 1/2 that I was hoping would make an appearance was Parasini, but at the same time I'm not surprised.