Mass Effect 4

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Aug 11, 2008
10,451
642
126
After ME3 I am done with the franchise. They aren't getting another minute of my time or a cent of my money. In fact, I basically am boycotting bioware but did break down and got DA:I.
 

local

Golden Member
Jun 28, 2011
1,845
495
136
After ME3 I am done with the franchise. They aren't getting another minute of my time or a cent of my money. In fact, I basically am boycotting bioware but did break down and got DA:I.
Number of new games Bioware has released since ME3 = 1
Number of new games Bioware has released since ME3 you bought = 1
Effectiveness of boycott = 0

You are pretty much doing the opposite of a boycott...
 

runzwithsizorz

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2002
3,500
14
76
I too will by unless it absolutely sucks! Problem for me is there are no space/sci fi games anymore that aren't multiplayer. Even Hanger 42 is just a tutorial for SC.
Long for a new Wing Commander style game or Jedi Knight type game...single player.

The Wife
 

SLU Aequitas

Golden Member
Jul 13, 2007
1,252
26
91
I too will by unless it absolutely sucks! Problem for me is there are no space/sci fi games anymore that aren't multiplayer. Even Hanger 42 is just a tutorial for SC.
Long for a new Wing Commander style game or Jedi Knight type game...single player.

The Wife
Squadron 42 will be a full-fledged single-player only experience. In addition, check the recent posts in that thread, there's a SP only Kickstarter up for another 6 hours (already past funding goal): https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/rockfishgames/everspace
 

Sabrewings

Golden Member
Jun 27, 2015
1,942
35
51
I too will by unless it absolutely sucks! Problem for me is there are no space/sci fi games anymore that aren't multiplayer. Even Hanger 42 is just a tutorial for SC.
Long for a new Wing Commander style game or Jedi Knight type game...single player.

The Wife
Squadron 42 will be a full-fledged single-player only experience. In addition, check the recent posts in that thread, there's a SP only Kickstarter up for another 6 hours (already past funding goal): https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/rockfishgames/everspace
Yep. SQ42 will be around 70 missions with 20 hours or so of gameplay (and that's only episode 1 of 3). It's included with backing a moderate level SC package, so it's more than worth it. Whether or not you go on to play round in the SC persistent universe is up to you.

https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/31pk2q/for_those_confused_about_squadron_42_and_what/

You also don't have to play SC multiplayer if you don't want to. Just turn down the slider that controls how many human characters you come across and hire an NPC crew.
 
Last edited:

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,568
3
0
I'm cautious. I got burned with ME3's endings, so unless it's a relatively self-contained story ala ME1 I'm probably going to wait until the whole new series is out.

Hopefully they learned a few lessons about storytelling, but the writers seemed so out of touch with their audience (i.e. "we didn't know players would develop such a sense of ownership over their character..." lol yeah, it's only been one of your key pieces of marketing and the basis of your popularity since the first game.) I'm doubtful.

Glad they're doing a reboot though. I'm happy to leave ME3's grade-school fanfiction endings where they belong.
 

mmntech

Lifer
Sep 20, 2007
17,504
12
0
There were a couple of problems with ME3 during development that lead to that terrible ending. Drew Karpyshyn, who was lead writer for ME 1&2, wasn't involved with the game. One of the other writers noted in an interview that the ending had lacked the same peer review process used with the rest of the game.

I suspect the development team was pushing close to the deadline and the ending was rushed.
 

Red Storm

Lifer
Oct 2, 2005
14,207
216
106
There were a couple of problems with ME3 during development that lead to that terrible ending. Drew Karpyshyn, who was lead writer for ME 1&2, wasn't involved with the game. One of the other writers noted in an interview that the ending had lacked the same peer review process used with the rest of the game.

I suspect the development team was pushing close to the deadline and the ending was rushed.
The sad thing is, it's not like those excuses are a one-off thing and will never happen again. This is EA we're talking about. A lack of quality and rushing out the product is par for the course.
 

Qbah

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2005
3,754
10
81
I'm cautious. I got burned with ME3's endings, so unless it's a relatively self-contained story ala ME1 I'm probably going to wait until the whole new series is out.

Hopefully they learned a few lessons about storytelling, but the writers seemed so out of touch with their audience (i.e. "we didn't know players would develop such a sense of ownership over their character..." lol yeah, it's only been one of your key pieces of marketing and the basis of your popularity since the first game.) I'm doubtful.

Glad they're doing a reboot though. I'm happy to leave ME3's grade-school fanfiction endings where they belong.
I still get angry when I think about ME3 endings. I swore to never buy another Bioware game again, that's how pissed I was. I only got DA:I because it got good reviews everywhere and it was money well spent in the end. So I'll wait to see how ME4 reviews look like. But ME3 endings will forever tarnish the Mass Effect name... And I don't think I'll allow myself to enjoy games as much as I did ME1-3 (minus that horrible spat in the face aka the ending) and will hope for self-contained stories within one game.
 

mmntech

Lifer
Sep 20, 2007
17,504
12
0
The sad thing is, it's not like those excuses are a one-off thing and will never happen again. This is EA we're talking about. A lack of quality and rushing out the product is par for the course.
It's an industry wide problem. EA was likely pressuring Bioware to focus more development resources into things like multiplayer, that Galaxy at War nonsense, and DLC. So things got rushed or left on the cutting room floor.

Not the first time Bioware has had this issue. They ran into the same thing with LucasArts when they were making KOTOR. They got fed up and passed off The Sith Lords to Obsidian. Another game with a notoriously incomplete and unsatisfying ending.
 

JTsyo

Lifer
Nov 18, 2007
11,347
531
126
I still get angry when I think about ME3 endings. I swore to never buy another Bioware game again, that's how pissed I was. I only got DA:I because it got good reviews everywhere and it was money well spent in the end. So I'll wait to see how ME4 reviews look like. But ME3 endings will forever tarnish the Mass Effect name... And I don't think I'll allow myself to enjoy games as much as I did ME1-3 (minus that horrible spat in the face aka the ending) and will hope for self-contained stories within one game.
In case you never read this fan theory, it makes a lot of sense. I could see the writers coming up with it and getting shot down and forced to go with something simpler.
 

Seba

Golden Member
Sep 17, 2000
1,407
44
91
The Indoctrination theory is the worst. It is a "it was all a dream" type of ending.
 

Red Storm

Lifer
Oct 2, 2005
14,207
216
106
The Indoctrination theory is the worst. It is a "it was all a dream" type of ending.
Yeah, it's really just a very long-winded denial of Bioware/EA's ineptitude over how the ending was handled.

For me it wasn't just the ending. The first game was by far the best, the 2nd was okay but the 2nd game is where we start seeing glimpses of "the bad guys are basically zombies", and the 3rd went all out with that and it was extremely disappointing. Just a bunch of mindless, mutated enemies, very dull and unimaginative. That's why for me it wasn't just the ending, it was the entire 3rd game that ruined it.
 

darkewaffle

Diamond Member
Oct 7, 2005
8,152
1
81
I don't have a problem with how ME3 ended, frankly I really liked it. I think the relationship of the Leviathans to the Catalyst and the role/premise/actions of the Catalyst (and what the Catalyst's existence retroactively means [potentially] about all prior Reaper encounters) are fascinating. That said for those that didn't like it I don't think "indoctrination theory" really leads to anything "better".

I do think the 'visions' of the child the Catalyst appears as gave people the wrong impression of just what the Catalyst is though - which is key. While the Catalyst arguably just chose the child's appearance as something non-threatening yet familiar to Shepherd (and possibly representative of hope/salvation) I don't think that connection was clear enough for most players which contributes to the whole 'magic child' critique.

I think ME1 actually has the shakiest climax (in retrospect - it's not really apparent at the time). I mean it's fun and dramatic but looking back at it objectively there's no reason Sovereign is/should be defeated really. The Reapers should have won right then and there when Sovereign activates (or rather would have activated) the Citadel relay and the fleet arrives.

Shepherd defeats Saren, Sovereign possesses Saren, Shepherd defeats Sovereign-proxy Saren and that's all 'realistic' enough. The problem is that doing so inexplicably completely incapacitates Sovereign and lowers its shields thus allowing Citadel forces to destroy Sovereign and save the day - lucky us lol. Which is all well and good in terms of having a series and a happy(ish) ending but also runs completely contradictory to pretty much everything you see or learn throughout the series about indoctrination/remote control (a prevalent theme/mechanism) and logically contradicts the reasons such methods would most likely be employed in the first place.
 

Anteaus

Platinum Member
Oct 28, 2010
2,448
4
81
I don't have a problem with how ME3 ended, frankly I really liked it. I think the relationship of the Leviathans to the Catalyst and the role/premise/actions of the Catalyst (and what the Catalyst's existence retroactively means [potentially] about all prior Reaper encounters) are fascinating. That said for those that didn't like it I don't think "indoctrination theory" really leads to anything "better".

I do think the 'visions' of the child the Catalyst appears as gave people the wrong impression of just what the Catalyst is though - which is key. While the Catalyst arguably just chose the child's appearance as something non-threatening yet familiar to Shepherd (and possibly representative of hope/salvation) I don't think that connection was clear enough for most players which contributes to the whole 'magic child' critique.

I think ME1 actually has the shakiest climax (in retrospect - it's not really apparent at the time). I mean it's fun and dramatic but looking back at it objectively there's no reason Sovereign is/should be defeated really. The Reapers should have won right then and there when Sovereign activates (or rather would have activated) the Citadel relay and the fleet arrives.

Shepherd defeats Saren, Sovereign possesses Saren, Shepherd defeats Sovereign-proxy Saren and that's all 'realistic' enough. The problem is that doing so inexplicably completely incapacitates Sovereign and lowers its shields thus allowing Citadel forces to destroy Sovereign and save the day - lucky us lol. Which is all well and good in terms of having a series and a happy(ish) ending but also runs completely contradictory to pretty much everything you see or learn throughout the series about indoctrination/remote control (a prevalent theme/mechanism) and logically contradicts the reasons such methods would most likely be employed in the first place.
I agree with many of your points. Honestly, after we meet what is left of the Protheans I thought we would eventually need to find help from some unknown alien species that was more advanced than those who are based at the Citadel. Instead, we spend the second game rehashing the fact that humans really can't be trusted with anything because of people like the Illusive Man. In order to keep humans in power, the writers filled the counsel with characters who have the mentality of Dana Scully, denying the danger in spite of being slapped in the face with it. Had they taken it seriously, they would have taken over the mission.

After discovering how the Protheans died and the initial attack repelled, What should have happened is that Shepard should I have been tasked with racing into the unknown to hunt down a more powerful alien race who knows how to deal with the Reapers. Perhaps a Prothean colony ship slipped away at the last second and formed a distance colony of which Shepard needed to find, only to come across new alien races along the way (think of a mix of Star Trek TNG, Star Flight, Space Quest, and Sentinel Worlds).

I loved the Illusive Man, but that entire plot would have worked better as a separate offshoot game series which deals with humanity growing as civilization.

I loved ME1 in spite of the plot weakness because it was a game about exploration and awe. I loved ME2 only because the Illusive Man plot was so well written. I didn't like ME3 because it was derivate and lacked the grandiose feel of ME1 and the good writing of ME2. That's my opinion.
 

escrow4

Diamond Member
Feb 4, 2013
3,339
122
106
I don't have a problem with how ME3 ended, frankly I really liked it. I think the relationship of the Leviathans to the Catalyst and the role/premise/actions of the Catalyst (and what the Catalyst's existence retroactively means [potentially] about all prior Reaper encounters) are fascinating. That said for those that didn't like it I don't think "indoctrination theory" really leads to anything "better".

I do think the 'visions' of the child the Catalyst appears as gave people the wrong impression of just what the Catalyst is though - which is key. While the Catalyst arguably just chose the child's appearance as something non-threatening yet familiar to Shepherd (and possibly representative of hope/salvation) I don't think that connection was clear enough for most players which contributes to the whole 'magic child' critique.

I think ME1 actually has the shakiest climax (in retrospect - it's not really apparent at the time). I mean it's fun and dramatic but looking back at it objectively there's no reason Sovereign is/should be defeated really. The Reapers should have won right then and there when Sovereign activates (or rather would have activated) the Citadel relay and the fleet arrives.

Shepherd defeats Saren, Sovereign possesses Saren, Shepherd defeats Sovereign-proxy Saren and that's all 'realistic' enough. The problem is that doing so inexplicably completely incapacitates Sovereign and lowers its shields thus allowing Citadel forces to destroy Sovereign and save the day - lucky us lol. Which is all well and good in terms of having a series and a happy(ish) ending but also runs completely contradictory to pretty much everything you see or learn throughout the series about indoctrination/remote control (a prevalent theme/mechanism) and logically contradicts the reasons such methods would most likely be employed in the first place.
The ending was rubbish. Some random AI decides that man vs machine will kill everything, so kill man before we reach that point. Then harvest everything as maybe there might be a solution in the future. The idiots who created the AI in the first place didn't think that same AI would murder it? Eh? And who says machines will rise up?

The ending should have been Shepard going commando with a rifle with the crew either dead or badly injured not some philosophical rambling.
 

StinkyPinky

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2002
6,725
718
126
I echo others about the terrible ending to ME3. I hated it.

But the series itself was great fun and it's a wonderful universe (well fleshed out and interesting) so I will very likely buy ME4.

I think a movie based on the ME universe would do well.
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,568
3
0
I don't have a problem with how ME3 ended, frankly I really liked it. I think the relationship of the Leviathans to the Catalyst and the role/premise/actions of the Catalyst (and what the Catalyst's existence retroactively means [potentially] about all prior Reaper encounters) are fascinating. That said for those that didn't like it I don't think "indoctrination theory" really leads to anything "better".

I do think the 'visions' of the child the Catalyst appears as gave people the wrong impression of just what the Catalyst is though - which is key. While the Catalyst arguably just chose the child's appearance as something non-threatening yet familiar to Shepherd (and possibly representative of hope/salvation) I don't think that connection was clear enough for most players which contributes to the whole 'magic child' critique.
Oh it was very clear, and was about as meaningful as the AI-baby-face from the 3rd Matrix movie, and equally as stupid. Frankly they never should have tried to explain the Reapers if that's the best they could come up with, Sovereign put it nicely in the first game "our motivations are beyond your comprehension". According to Bioware's endings their motivations were so simple a 3rd grader would understand. Literally, there are superhero cartoons made for kids with more complex character motivations.

However, above all that we were promised endings so diverse based on our decisions from all three games that players would hardly be able to get identical endings. As it turned out, well...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPelM2hwhJA

That promise was made after the game had gone gold BTW. A representative from the BBB even went on record saying it likely qualified as false advertising, although no one ever filed charges.

As a result myself and many others spent hundreds of hours on multiple playthroughs for the first two games, intentionally making radically different choices to see what produced what. Turns out that was all wasted effort. Decisions, even major decisions, had near zero effect on the plot beyond the game in which said decisions were made. When they did branch over into other games the differences were almost purely cosmetic.

If they had been forthright and presented Mass Effect as a linear RPG with limited decision-making, as opposed to a living universe where the player held a key role, then I might have been more accepting of the bad storytelling in the endings. Instead Bioware basically promised what the Witcher 2 did, on steroids, and woefully under-delivered.
 
Last edited:

MeldarthX

Golden Member
May 8, 2010
1,026
0
76
There were a couple of problems with ME3 during development that lead to that terrible ending. Drew Karpyshyn, who was lead writer for ME 1&2, wasn't involved with the game. One of the other writers noted in an interview that the ending had lacked the same peer review process used with the rest of the game.

I suspect the development team was pushing close to the deadline and the ending was rushed.

It wasn't that it lacked peer review; there was not review at all. It was all Casey Hudson; it literally was the most contrite deus ex machina that you could get. *BTW that is his favorite game*

First two games set up things nicely; yes the win against Sovereign; to some was a fluke; or didn't make sense; but it does if you listen. Sovereign has to keep most of his attention on Saren to keep him under his control. When Saren shot himself to free himself from Sovereign; Sovereign had to move his mind partly into Saren's body to keep it going. That is why when we destroy Saren's body with Sovereign in it; his shields drop and we're able to destroy him.

Second Sovereign couldn't activate the main mass effect gate because we had finished what the promethens had started.

ME3 reconned and ignored so many things from the first two games its not even funny. EA might of said they stand by that ending; but it killed Casey's career at EA; he was removed as project director and lead writer. If the ending was so good; that wouldn't of happened. It was a giant ego trip he pulled.

several DLCs were planned different originally had to be rewrote to fix the damn mess Casey created. There was literally no foreshading of the star child; there was no lore of it. It was utter mess.

the really sad part; fan did give them a way out Casey said no; that ego is what cost him his job.

*btw I love all 3 games; they did a decent job wrapping up Krogan; Geth etc; but my god that ending nearly destroyed ME*

PS I didn't even cover dark matter.....;)
 

darkewaffle

Diamond Member
Oct 7, 2005
8,152
1
81
The ending was rubbish. Some random AI decides that man vs machine will kill everything, so kill man before we reach that point. Then harvest everything as maybe there might be a solution in the future. The idiots who created the AI in the first place didn't think that same AI would murder it? Eh? And who says machines will rise up?
Well it's not just a "random AI" which is why I mentioned understanding the nature of the Catalyst is key - the Catalyst simply tries to find the most efficient method to accomplish it's directive from the Leviathans - preserve organic life.

The Leviathans observe that all the 'lesser' races follow basically the same path (which they presumably observe many times across the galaxy which they basically lord over) - organics advance to the point where machines gain intelligence/sentience, machines then start to question their existence/purpose/awareness, war ensues and the machines ('synthetics') exterminate the organics. Left unchecked they probably reason that one of these synthetic victors will either then exterminate all other organics to prevent competition/risk or simply multiply to the point where resources are so scarce that organics could never arise again.

To solve this the Leviathans create the Catalyst and task it with "preserve organic life" (essentially). Of course they consider themselves, the Leviathans, above the conflict. Such is the nature of complacency/arrogance - the Leviathan Sheperd encounters says something to the effect of "You cannot fathom being able to bend the galaxy to your very will."

So the Catalyst watches and learns for thousands (more?) of years. How to stop organics from creating a synthetic that will exterminate/outcompete organic life? It decides the most efficient method is to prevent the organics from creating such advanced synthetics in the first place. And from that the cycle is derived (which goes on for millions/billions of years - the whole scale of this process is important to recognize). The line of thinking sounds insane to organics (whom occupy but a single cycle and are concerned with little but themselves) but synthetics do not process information in that same way. To us it seems absurd to destroy organics to preserve them - to synthetics it's binary. The fact that X% of organic life remains and X > 0 makes it a success.

The Catalyst itself, as I recall, states something to the effect that the Reaper cycle was arrived at as the optimal process after many other iterations/attempts. Again, the time behind all this is important to remember. It's not as though the Catalyst was created and it immediately started building a Reaper to begin the cycles. Reapers are much 'younger' than the Catalyst.

As for machines v organics it's not necessarily a matter of machines 'rising up'. They likely could/did in some instances (you could probably consider the Catalyst targeting the Leviathans as an instance of it) but as seen in the Quarian/Geth conflict as soon as the geth started becoming aware of their own existence and asking questions to the Quarians about it it was the Quarians who began the conflict (or that's how it seems during the Geth sequence of ME3 at any rate). The premise here is not so much how but rather when - and in the scope of the ME3 universe it is basically given fact that organics will advance and will create synthetics and will eventually go to war with them - regardless of whether or not you actually agree with that premise.
 

Qbah

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2005
3,754
10
81
Well it's not just a "random AI" which is why I mentioned understanding the nature of the Catalyst is key - the Catalyst simply tries to find the most efficient method to accomplish it's directive from the Leviathans - preserve organic life.

The Leviathans observe that all the 'lesser' races follow basically the same path (which they presumably observe many times across the galaxy which they basically lord over) - organics advance to the point where machines gain intelligence/sentience, machines then start to question their existence/purpose/awareness, war ensues and the machines ('synthetics') exterminate the organics. Left unchecked they probably reason that one of these synthetic victors will either then exterminate all other organics to prevent competition/risk or simply multiply to the point where resources are so scarce that organics could never arise again.

To solve this the Leviathans create the Catalyst and task it with "preserve organic life" (essentially). Of course they consider themselves, the Leviathans, above the conflict. Such is the nature of complacency/arrogance - the Leviathan Sheperd encounters says something to the effect of "You cannot fathom being able to bend the galaxy to your very will."

So the Catalyst watches and learns for thousands (more?) of years. How to stop organics from creating a synthetic that will exterminate/outcompete organic life? It decides the most efficient method is to prevent the organics from creating such advanced synthetics in the first place. And from that the cycle is derived (which goes on for millions/billions of years - the whole scale of this process is important to recognize). The line of thinking sounds insane to organics (whom occupy but a single cycle and are concerned with little but themselves) but synthetics do not process information in that same way. To us it seems absurd to destroy organics to preserve them - to synthetics it's binary. The fact that X% of organic life remains and X > 0 makes it a success.

The Catalyst itself, as I recall, states something to the effect that the Reaper cycle was arrived at as the optimal process after many other iterations/attempts. Again, the time behind all this is important to remember. It's not as though the Catalyst was created and it immediately started building a Reaper to begin the cycles. Reapers are much 'younger' than the Catalyst.

As for machines v organics it's not necessarily a matter of machines 'rising up'. They likely could/did in some instances (you could probably consider the Catalyst targeting the Leviathans as an instance of it) but as seen in the Quarian/Geth conflict as soon as the geth started becoming aware of their own existence and asking questions to the Quarians about it it was the Quarians who began the conflict (or that's how it seems during the Geth sequence of ME3 at any rate). The premise here is not so much how but rather when - and in the scope of the ME3 universe it is basically given fact that organics will advance and will create synthetics and will eventually go to war with them - regardless of whether or not you actually agree with that premise.
Dude, there's zero of that in the vanilla ME3 game. Not even a slight hint. Nothing, nada. The catalyst kid came out of the left field and gave me three friggin' buttons to press!!! Game over! It's like an ending to a completely different game that I didn't play and by some strange error was put in ME3 at the very end.

You know what? I don't want to go back to this - fuck Bioware for their lies and huge slap in my face for the years I've spent in Mass Effect 1 and 2. And let's leave it at that, OK?
 
Last edited:

darkewaffle

Diamond Member
Oct 7, 2005
8,152
1
81
Oh it was very clear, and was about as meaningful as the AI-baby-face from the 3rd Matrix movie, and equally as stupid. Frankly they never should have tried to explain the Reapers if that's the best they could come up with, Sovereign put it nicely in the first game "our motivations are beyond your comprehension". According to Bioware's endings their motivations were so simple a 3rd grader would understand. Literally, there are superhero cartoons made for kids with more complex character motivations.
I think leaving the Reapers simply as enigmatic threats given nothing more than the cover of "You can't understand us" would be a much lazier copout lol.

That's the thing though, Reapers aren't characters (at least I don't imagine them that way - Sovereign is not a person/being. It's simply the name of the ship [unit] inhabited by a shard of the Catalyst AI which is what I think drives all Reapers). Reapers are... a system. They don't have a motivation, they simply have instructions. They don't have emotions, they don't hold grudges, they don't 'want' anything. Which in a way encapsulates exactly why their methods are in fact beyond the comprehension of organics - that completely alternate method of decision making.

I don't think I had a problem with the ending because ultimately the ending is "simply" the conclusion of the war/Harvest - it's how organics [do not] survive the Reapers. Many of the decisions you make are tremendously important - but in ways that are irrelevant/tertiary to the war. The Rachni, the Shroud, the Geth, Ashley/Kaiden, the Suicide Mission and more - these are all crucial events in their own way but realistically, short of "Oh thank god the Krogans are our friends they just unearthed an ancient reaper-hacking-supercomputer on Tuchanka" (which would be a terrible piece of storytelling) the net effect they have on the war would be, at best, more bodies to throw at the reapers. It's just not going to make a difference - all along we pretty much knew that success hinged on 'whatever' the Crucible did. Everything else was just to try to stave off defeat until it was able to be activated and hope for the best.

As for post-war, I never felt like it needed a bunch of explicit explanation really. In the near future the consequences of how you played the games should be pretty obvious/logically deduced (and considered at the time) but projecting further than that I think impinges on the player's ability to draw their own conclusions and use their imagination to see the universe in the way they would personally want.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY