I've thought more about the ending. I chose 'green' ending as frankly I thought it was the most high concept sci fi to go with the 2001 vibe. Then I watched the indoctrination video. Now part of me wishes I had done the red ending. I mean what if it didn't kill all synthetics?
Spoiler!
My view is that there's no chance that Bioware intended something like that, and I'm fairly certain they're not going to change the basic storyline. They'll try to clarify and give more personal closure, but they won't change the story or write in some kind of dream twist that only works very superficially (in my opinion). If there had been such a twist, the game would not have ended there. There's no direct evidence for the theory either. One has to keep in mind what actually counts as evidence and what doesn't. I love all kinds of speculation but it's not what Bioware intended.
My view is that there's no chance that Bioware intended something like that, and I'm fairly certain they're not going to change the basic storyline. They'll try to clarify and give more personal closure, but they won't change the story or write in some kind of dream twist that only works very superficially (in my opinion). If there had been such a twist, the game would not have ended there. There's no direct evidence for the theory either. One has to keep in mind what actually counts as evidence and what doesn't. I love all kinds of speculation but it's not what Bioware intended.
Spoiler!
The more I think about it, the more I'm content with 'my ending'. As long as you're right and Bioware isn't trolling me. Shepard's destiny wasn't to unity the galaxy to destroy the Reapers. It was to break the cycle. Which at first seemed like the same thing, but really it isn't. The concept of the galactic cycle followed stages of species evolution. Therefore to properly break the cycle, the synthesis ending makes the most sense, at least in terms of high concept sci fi and not pew pew pew lasers sci fi.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
Thats why Flames fans make ideal Star Trek fans. We've really been taught to embrace the self-loathing and extreme criticism.
The more I think about it, the more I'm content with 'my ending'. As long as you're right and Bioware isn't trolling me. Shepard's destiny wasn't to unity the galaxy to destroy the Reapers. It was to break the cycle. Which at first seemed like the same thing, but really it isn't. The concept of the galactic cycle followed stages of species evolution. Therefore to properly break the cycle, the synthesis ending makes the most sense, at least in terms of high concept sci fi and not pew pew pew lasers sci fi.
Spoiler!
Well that's my evaluation. I think the popularity of the indoctrination theory is an interesting phenomenon, but I don't understand how it's supposed to be an improvement or not lead to a whole new set of problems. It would essentially be trolling, like you say. It's clever in a way but in itself not a good ending at all. That would have really been showing the middle finger to the player. Like a bad joke. If something like that had happened, the game would have continued.
I assume they won't change the ending to that either.
At one point maybe a week ago there was a moment when the EA servers were down, I don't know for how long, and I actually couldn't start the game because the game couldn't "authenticate" the From Ashes DLC. It wouldn't load any save. That's bull####, even though it might have only been 15 minutes or whatever. Without the multiplayer, I'd feel tempted to torrent a cracked game that doesn't constantly check up on me.
By the way, did people here like the multiplayer? I think it's okay. Only 6 maps but the action gets pretty intense. It's a different game than the single player.
I'd love to hear what weapons and characters people have found most effective.
I dove into it right away, without a care in the world, which was kind of bad because I had no idea what I was supposed to do and how important it is to work as a team.
I do know what my major recurring error is: rushing to revive a team member in a situation that calls for more caution and then getting killed myself. That's when things go wrong for the team. When multiple players start falling at the same time, your team is often in serious trouble. The first priority is to stay alive.
There is absolutely no way Bioware wrote the ending along the lines that you are actually indoctrinated. Period. That would mean that they didn't provide us an ending at all. The only way that works is if they intended on providing an ending via DLC all along which would be absolute bs. I'll quote something I read in an article:
Quote:
Dear writers: If you create something, and your readers hope that what you just gave them was, in reality, an “it was a dream all along” ending, because that would be better than what you wrote, you seriously ****** up.
That's why the intdoctrination theory cannot work. If it does it means one of two things.
1) Bioware is trying to save face and it becomes the easiest way to re-write the ending.
2) Bioware planned it all along which enters us into a new and dangerous DLC model.
In regards to the metacritic ratings. I'll will one hundred percent agree that people have gone off the deep end. There is absolutely no way that Mass Effect 3 is a 20% game. I won't say it's a 10/10 but I'd definitely give it a 9 or 9.5/10. The story was so well executed during the first 95% of the game that I was able to overlook some things.
I think the combat took a huge step in the right direction. It improved upon Mass Effect 2 in that regard and I actually love playing an Adept again. There were some really epic moments in the game like the attack on the Citadel or fighting those Reapers on foot.
However, the thing I really take issue with, and where I rate this game weaker than 2, is the side missions. Is it just me or did anyone else notice just how terrible the majority of the side missions were in this game? The side missions in 2 were great and in some cases were way better than the main missions. In 3, most of them are just the multiplayer maps with the same objective. Even 1 had more thought out side quests.
The Following User Says Thank You to cDnStealth For This Useful Post:
I just had a thought, depending what Bioware does with the ending, Mass Effect 3 could be to video games, what Blade Runner is to film.
We've entered interesting territory here. I've never seen such backlash from a community before nor have I ever seen companies offering full refunds on open games because of an ending. I've also never heard of a company changing the ending of a game post release because of complaints. What will it mean if they change the ending completely? Add additional endings via DLC? This could potentially alter the way the industry develops games and we as consumers purchase them.
We've entered interesting territory here. I've never seen such backlash from a community before nor have I ever seen companies offering full refunds on open games because of an ending. I've also never heard of a company changing the ending of a game post release because of complaints. What will it mean if they change the ending completely? Add additional endings via DLC? This could potentially alter the way the industry develops games and we as consumers purchase them.
It will be called... the Mass Effect Effect.
I'd very surprised if they actually change the substance of the endings. To those that were completely disappointed, I'd say, don't hang on to false hope or you'll just be disappointed twice. Clarification and closure is what I expect, but no substantial changes to the story.
Kind of like how Oblivion's "Horse Armor" pushed boundaries and ushered us into a DLC heavy era I could very realistically see this also pushing the boundaries of DLC. I don't for a second expect them to remove the current endings. Maybe there will be more cutscenes added to help wrap it up. But I can absolutely see them creating additional endings and charging for them. Look at what people are willing to donate in an attempt to get Bioware to give them new endings. You don't think those same people would pay $10-$15 for additional content that provided another ending? I wouldn't be shocked if that's exactly what happens. I just read an article that mentioned Capcom is releasing the "true" ending to Asura's Wrath as DLC. The precedent is already set and now they can cash in on people's anger.
That makes no sense at all. Clearly you enjoyed the characters and the game, but it's all for nothing because Bioware didn't deliver every single thing you personally would have wanted in the next game. You got to meet the characters but you didn't get to play them. Miranda was in the game, her story continued. They aren't all tied to Shepard forever. The ME2 mission was done.
I think some people just enjoy their gloomy disappointment. This is why Bioware's clarifications won't help much, because once you've decided that the game is a terrible disappointment, you can come up with an endless list of reasons. One guy wanted this character, another guy wanted some other character, and it's a such a cop out that everyone didn't get to play every character they personally wanted.
IMO its kind of an insult to have you running around in ME2 building friendships and allies and getting to know peoples back stories only to have them pop up in ME3, tell you whats going on, and then leave.
Its just a big slap in the face to me, like why did i even bother doing those side missions, they didnt impact the game all that much... just stupid IMO.
I wish they had brought back most of the "main cast" and that you moved forward with relatively the same team you did in ME2, especially because ME2 just seemed like a bridge into ME3 and not really like its own game/plot.
IMO its kind of an insult to have you running around in ME2 building friendships and allies and getting to know peoples back stories only to have them pop up in ME3, tell you whats going on, and then leave.
Its just a big slap in the face to me, like why did i even bother doing those side missions, they didnt impact the game all that much... just stupid IMO.
I wish they had brought back most of the "main cast" and that you moved forward with relatively the same team you did in ME2, especially because ME2 just seemed like a bridge into ME3 and not really like its own game/plot.
You forget the main cast from ME1. People are even more attached to those characters. ME2 already had maybe too many. So obviously they had to make some choices. Ashley, Kaidan, Liara had to be there because they used them to blueball the players in ME2. Tali and Garrus had to be there too. That's the real "main cast" for most, not Miranda or Legion.
I wasn't interested in listening to their life stories again, to be honest, even though I did like them. I would have welcomed more new characters. I didn't feel any need to have any particular person with me since I could talk to everyone anyway.
On the side missions, I thought it worked really well. I never got the feeling that I needed more missions. The game was just the right length. The N7 missions were meant to provide some action when the player required it. At certain points I felt I needed to get away from all the talking and shoot something. Every other mission was very meaningful and more carefully crafted than what was in the previous games.
You forget the main cast from ME1. People are even more attached to those characters. ME2 already had maybe too many. So obviously they had to make some choices. Ashley, Kaidan, Liara had to be there because they used them to blueball the players in ME2. Tali and Garrus had to be there too. That's the real "main cast" for most, not Miranda or Legion.
I wasn't interested in listening to their life stories again, to be honest, even though I did like them. I would have welcomed more new characters. I didn't feel any need to have any particular person with me since I could talk to everyone anyway.
On the side missions, I thought it worked really well. I never got the feeling that I needed more missions. The game was just the right length. The N7 missions were meant to provide some action when the player required it. At certain points I felt I needed to get away from all the talking and shoot something. Every other mission was very meaningful and more carefully crafted than what was in the previous games.
I liked the fact that the main cast from the first game re-unites in this one. I loved having my squad as Garus and Ash again. The new characters are pretty terrible though. Except Javik. That guy is pretty darn cool and he has some interesting things to say. Perhaps better new characters is something they really should have looked at.
Also, I am not saying the game needed more side missions I am saying it needed better quality side missions. Landing in a tiny box and fighting waves of enemies is dull and lazy. We don't need loyalty missions again but something along those lines would be a nice break from the main story.
IMO its kind of an insult to have you running around in ME2 building friendships and allies and getting to know peoples back stories only to have them pop up in ME3, tell you whats going on, and then leave.
Its just a big slap in the face to me, like why did i even bother doing those side missions, they didnt impact the game all that much... just stupid IMO.
I wish they had brought back most of the "main cast" and that you moved forward with relatively the same team you did in ME2, especially because ME2 just seemed like a bridge into ME3 and not really like its own game/plot.
I disagree. If you want to play with ME2 characters as squad mates, then play ME2. Where as you see it as an insult one could make an equally compelling case that it would be lazy to reuse all the characters again.
I liked the fact that the main cast from the first game re-unites in this one. I loved having my squad as Garus and Ash again. The new characters are pretty terrible though. Except Javik. That guy is pretty darn cool and he has some interesting things to say. Perhaps better new characters is something they really should have looked at.
Also, I am not saying the game needed more side missions I am saying it needed better quality side missions. Landing in a tiny box and fighting waves of enemies is dull and lazy. We don't need loyalty missions again but something along those lines would be a nice break from the main story.
Spoiler!
Okay, but my counterargument is that there were enough "main missions" apart from the 6 N7 missions. I usually want good games to last as long as possible but I really didn't feel like I needed additional things to do when there was always the next meaningful mission to go on.
ME3 really does have more of "meaningful" mission content than either of the previous games. Not all of them are mandatory, I don't think, but they're all carefully directed, and there are like three times more of them than there are of the N7 missions. And if you think about it, many of them actually were missions centering around the ME2 characters and they actually had more content than the loyalty missions in ME2. And you got to talk to everyone.
I think they went as far as they could without just making it full-on fan service. One could argue that they even crossed that line and it became slightly comical to encounter every old friend. You get to talk with everyone on the missions, you get to talk to most of them on the Citadel.
One technical thing about the ME2 characters is that any combination of them could have died in that game, so bringing them all back as full crew members would have been impossible just game-design wise.
And the ME2 crew was built for that one mission. They weren't a family. They aren't tied to Shepard in the same way that the ME1 characters are. There's no narrative reason to suggest that they'd just wait for Shepard to get active again and rejoin her.
I thought Mordin's and Thane's stories were amazing in ME3. Really, all the missions involving the ME2 characters were great and I really felt that I got to meet them and catch up. ME3 had more moving personal moments than the previous games combined.
Okay, but my counterargument is that there were enough "main missions" apart from the 6 N7 missions. I usually want good games to last as long as possible but I really didn't feel like I needed additional things to do when there was always the next meaningful mission to go on.
ME3 really does have more of "meaningful" mission content than either of the previous games. Not all of them are mandatory, I don't think, but they're all carefully directed, and there are like three times more of them than there are of the N7 missions. And if you think about it, many of them actually were missions centering around the ME2 characters and they actually had more content than the loyalty missions in ME2. And you got to talk to everyone.
I think they went as far as they could without just making it full-on fan service. One could argue that they even crossed that line and it became slightly comical to encounter every old friend. You get to talk with everyone on the missions, you get to talk to most of them on the Citadel.
One technical thing about the ME2 characters is that any combination of them could have died in that game, so bringing them all back as full crew members would have been impossible just game-design wise.
And the ME2 crew was built for that one mission. They weren't a family. They aren't tied to Shepard in the same way that the ME1 characters are. There's no narrative reason to suggest that they'd just wait for Shepard to get active again and rejoin her.
I thought Mordin's and Thane's stories were amazing in ME3. Really, all the missions involving the ME2 characters were great and I really felt that I got to meet them and catch up. ME3 had more moving personal moments than the previous games combined.
I can agree with that. I supposed I wasn't sure if those could have been considered side missions or more main story missions. Regardless, they were good. I suppose the N7 missions just give me a bad taste in my mouth even though they make up a very small portion of the game. Also, I don't really have an issue with the lack of ME2 squad members on my team. I'd probably be a little happier if they chose 1 or 2 of them to replace the 2 aforementioned new characters. I also would have been happy with 2 new characters who didn't totally suck. At the end of the day, that's a pretty minior complaint from me. As I said, I am happy I have my original team back. It just seems right that it comes full circle with the first game and what we started together we get to finish.
I can agree with that. I supposed I wasn't sure if those could have been considered side missions or more main story missions. Regardless, they were good. I suppose the N7 missions just give me a bad taste in my mouth even though they make up a very small portion of the game. Also, I don't really have an issue with the lack of ME2 squad members on my team. I'd probably be a little happier if they chose 1 or 2 of them to replace the 2 aforementioned new characters. I also would have been happy with 2 new characters who didn't totally suck. At the end of the day, that's a pretty minior complaint from me. As I said, I am happy I have my original team back. It just seems right that it comes full circle with the first game and what we started together we get to finish.
Spoiler!
James wasn't a great character but I was surprised that Freddie Prinze Jr. actually gave a good performance. He wasn't interesting but he felt like a real character. EDI maybe wasn't hugely interesting either other than for some amusing cockpit chats but she was important in building the themes that culminate in the ending.
They do really build to that synthetic-organic thing. They need her and the Geth to make the destruction choice mean something, and whatever else happened, I got to feel that I at least saved EDI and Joker and that they were able to be properly together. Shepard didn't get to have little blue babies but someone she knows gets to be happy.
Someone said that Legion didn't get enough back story but I thought he got some, maybe as much as you can ask, because it's tough to chart the personal journey of a character that isn't really... personal. But they built on his ambiguity and gave him his individuality at the end. So for example the mystery of why he used Shepard's armor on his own (his reply in ME2 is "There was a hole.") isn't explicitly answered but there's new information or at least new perspectives that might make you conclude something for yourself. Namely, that Legion isn't necessarily simply a platform and might have made some choices that aren't purely practical and which he himself might not have fully understood. It's tough to speak of him as an individual even though at the end he is one, but (at least in a sense) it's "him" who picks up the sniper rifle against the Quarians in the memory vid inside the Geth mainframe.
I'm afraid that's a very confused paragraph. It's tough to think of someone that's between a collective and an individual.
Getting back to the topic, my Shepard wasn't really in the mood for getting into deep new relationships, so I felt James was fine. Cortez was pretty good. Javik gave lots of insight into the Protheans. I will say that it felt like a natural bunch especially considering their situation. Sometimes a Bioware game can have characters that are almost too colorful. Usually it's a full zoo of remarkable personalities, and I don't think Shepard is in that mental space anymore where she can get infinitely curious about every big personality she encounters. She's tired and something about the whole nightmare doesn't make sense to her.
However, that reporter, played by some non-actress named Chobot, that was a baffling choice by Bioware. Why is she there and why not use a real actress and a face that doesn't make you want to scream in horror? I took her on board to see what she was all about but on any other playthrough she stays on the Citadel. Here I'm certain I'm with the majority. And she even came on to me! Shudder. I'd rather #### the eels in my fish tank, that you very much.
Last edited by Henry Fool; 03-28-2012 at 01:41 PM.
James wasn't a great character but I was surprised that Freddie Prinze Jr. actually gave a good performance. He wasn't interesting but he felt like a real character. EDI maybe wasn't hugely interesting either other than for some amusing cockpit chats but she was important in building the themes that culminate in the ending.
They do really build to that synthetic-organic thing. They need her and the Geth to make the destruction choice mean something, and whatever else happened, I got to feel that I at least saved EDI and Joker and that they were able to be properly together. Shepard didn't get to have little blue babies but someone she knows gets to be happy.
Someone said that Legion didn't get enough back story but I thought he got some, maybe as much as you can ask, because it's tough to chart the personal journey of a character that isn't really... personal. But they built on his ambiguity and gave him his individuality at the end. So for example the mystery of why he used Shepard's armor on his own (his reply in ME2 is "There was a hole.") isn't explicitly answered but there's new information or at least new perspectives that might make you conclude something for yourself. Namely, that Legion isn't necessarily simply a platform and might have made some choices that aren't purely practical and which he himself might not have fully understood. It's tough to speak of him as an individual even though at the end he is one, but (at least in a sense) it's "him" who picks up the sniper rifle against the Quarians in the memory vid inside the Geth mainframe.
I'm afraid that's a very confused paragraph. It's tough to think of someone that's between a collective and an individual.
Getting back to the topic, my Shepard wasn't really in the mood for getting into deep new relationships, so I felt James was fine. Cortez was pretty good. Javik gave lots of insight into the Protheans. I will say that it felt like a natural bunch especially considering their situation. Sometimes a Bioware game can have characters that are almost too colorful. Usually it's a full zoo of remarkable personalities, and I don't think Shepard is in that mental space anymore where she can get infinitely curious about every big personality she encounters. She's tired and something about the whole nightmare doesn't make sense to her.
However, that reporter, played by some non-actress named Chobot, that was a baffling choice by Bioware. Why is she there and why not use a real actress and a face that doesn't make you want to scream in horror? I took her on board to see what she was all about but on any other playthrough she stays on the Citadel. Here I'm certain I'm with the majority. And she even came on to me! Shudder. I'd rather #### the eels in my fish tank, that you very much.
Spoiler!
I thought Legion's story arc was handled fine. He was both an individual and part of a collective. In the end, he stands as a glowing example that synthetics can have a "soul."
Totally forgot that was Junior doing James' voice. Man I hate that guy. I suppose it's just the way they made the character. The sight of him just makes me want to punch him in the face.
That reporter is super creepy. I wish you could choose to airlock her lol. Creepyness aside, I got a very Battle Star Galactica vibe from the whole situation.
On the possible DLC, I really hope they're not going to try to sell something that adds to the ending. I doubt they would do that but crazier things have happened. It's simply not true that Bioware doesn't have the resources to patch new content without charge. They can do it if they want to.
The Witcher team has been adding to Witcher 2 all the time free of charge. The game simply patches them in. They added a tutorial because the beginning of the game was too tough and didn't explain the mechanics well enough. They've added entirely new cutscenes and missions and game modes. That's the kind of thing that could easily be done if Bioware wants to avoid further backlash, and even though the critics will never be fully satisfied, it would be good for the work itself in the long run. If they just concentrate on making the game better on their own terms rather than try to satisfy particular tastes, the whole thing will turn into something positive; if they try to chase fickle fan opinion, they will be left with nothing, because the fans won't be fully satisfied anyway and they'll have compromised their own vision of the game.
Last edited by Henry Fool; 03-28-2012 at 02:57 PM.
On the wider issue, this is from an Oscar Wilde text that I've read many times over the years:
Quote:
If a man approaches a work of art with any desire to exercise authority over it and the artist, he approaches it in such a spirit that he cannot receive any artistic impression from it at all. The work of art is to dominate the spectator: the spectator is not to dominate the work of art. The spectator is to be receptive. He is to be the violin on which the master is to play. And the more completely he can suppress his own silly views, his own foolish prejudices, his own absurd ideas of what Art should be, or should not be, the more likely he is to understand and appreciate the work of art in question. This is, of course, quite obvious in the case of the vulgar theatre-going public of English men and women. But it is equally true of what are called educated people. For an educated person’s ideas of Art are drawn naturally from what Art has been, whereas the new work of art is beautiful by being what Art has never been; and to measure it by the standard of the past is to measure it by a standard on the rejection of which its real perfection depends. A temperament capable of receiving, through an imaginative medium, and under imaginative conditions, new and beautiful impressions, is the only temperament that can appreciate a work of art. And true as this is in the case of the appreciation of sculpture and painting, it is still more true of the appreciation of such arts as the drama. [...]
No spectator of art needs a more perfect mood of receptivity than the spectator of a play. The moment he seeks to exercise authority he becomes the avowed enemy of Art and of himself. Art does not mind. It is he who suffers.
