Mass Effect 3

[C Of K]

Originally Posted by devilsgrin

Overall the generally depressing tone was expected and not the problem for me with the game. A war-time setting against the "big bad" is not a sunshine lollipop party...
A FULL renegade shep playthrough is one of the most difficult things to do in this game. the Samara and Mordin bits especially. they make the game utterly utterly terrible (Renegade Shep in ME3 WAY different to Renegade Shep in ME1 and ME2)
There are however some utterly brilliant arcs in this game... Tuchanka (i cried when i renegaded Mordin, so i reloaded and paragaded tuchanka instead) and Rannoch (cried again, from melancholy happiness) are gaming magnificence. Thessia is desperately sad (i cried more) (kai leng excluded of course). Its once all these large set-pieces that actually are made different by your earlier decisions that make the ending EVEN WORSE. Thessia doesn't change much i'll admit, but Tuchanka and Rannoch are vastly different

Game had great moments. Kai Leng was a horrible character. More cardboard.

****************************SPOILER WARNING BELOW************************************

It's just sad that Bioware writers felt a need to explain everything, that had gone before the ending, which, in turn, opened up a whole slew of new questions, the answers to which all became irrelevant the moment they destroyed all the Mass Relays.

I didn't need an explanation for why the Reapers do what they do every 50k years. For two whole, very successful games, I had accepted that they were just big bad evil creatures, and that they were millions of years older than anything else. Why should something like that need an explanation? I think almost everyone accepted them without Bioware introducing the catalyst as the little kid at the end who tells Reapers when to knock over anthills.

Now I want to know why this kid, a machine, tries to stop all machines from destroying sentient life, by using machines to destroy all sentient life... ... Of course, the answer to my question hardly matters now that the kid no longer has the ability to do so

I wholeheartedly lament the failure of Marauder Shields, the true hero of ME3

[devilsgrin]

Marauder Shields was a truly great hero, he paid the ultimate price to help prevent THAT ending...

[Finnien]

There are a lot of problems centered around Mass Effect's ending.

First, you have the problem of player expectations. In the previous two games, you could achieve a relatively happy ending, provided you put in your time, gathered as much side-quest support as you could, and made the best choices available to you. In the third, not so much. Therefore, the expectations the first two had created led to unfulfilled expectations in the third.

Additionally, the game advertised increased player responsibility in comparison to the previous games, games which were already seen as revolutionary in the diversity of their endings. The advertisements cited the staggering number of decisions from previous games that would carry over to the third, and stated that players would be able to have substantially different endings based on their decisions and actions. Those expectations were not met.

The ending itself was also a source of criticism, not only because of lack of player choice or because of the events themselves, but because of its incomplete nature. Love interests, major characters you've been with for years, whole planets and races - totally left out of the ending. It left the player sorely lacking for closure.

Finally, there was debate around the debate - criticism of the fan community for its outrage at the ending. A portion of the external media not only criticized the fan base for its 'sense of entitlement' but went on to cite the fan outrage as a major factor in why video games were not taken seriously as art - no artistic integrity in storytelling if the game is changed on behalf of fan outrage, and no fan support if it isn't. I believe Forbes had an article with this point of view that was particularly critical of the video game community, although it never really addresses the differences between movies and video games in storytelling.

So overall, it's really a question of which debate you want to take part in. How much freedom should the player be allowed in determining the ending of a video game like this? Does the community have a right to complain when an ending lacks depth, and how far does that right extend? Does the nature of video games allow for interaction between player and author, and subsequent development of the story (fleshing out vs. radical alteration), or does any change invalidate the artistic credibility of the game itself? At what point are the objections merely reflections of a sense of fan entitlement, and at what point are they legitimate criticisms of false advertising and failed promises? Is Bioware's publisher Electronic Arts really full of nothing but money-grubbing sadists bent on destroying the video game industry for its own sick pleasure?

Plenty of material for debate, and it'll be interesting to see how it plays out once the 'expanded ending' content is released this summer.

[Kamosis]

Originally Posted by C Of K

****************************SPOILER WARNING BELOW************************************


I didn't need an explanation for why the Reapers do what they do every 50k years. For two whole, very successful games, I had accepted that they were just big bad evil creatures, and that they were millions of years older than anything else. Why should something like that need an explanation? I think almost everyone accepted them without Bioware introducing the catalyst as the little kid at the end who tells Reapers when to knock over anthills.

Really? For me this game was all about understanding the reapers, finally getting an answer for why they do that! I'm was hopping to see some kind of explanation, a valid reason, not only "They do it because they are evil".

[Finnien]

I agree with C of K. I was more interested in the way the story was being told, the effects individual decisions had on the ongoing story. I think Mass Effect 2 was the highlight of the series for two reasons: First, your actions had considerable influence on the outcome of events. Second, the decisions you made had an outcome you could not predict. With the third game unreleased, each decision you made in #2 had to be made within the context of the storyline, not based on an outcome you could look up online. The decision to save or destroy the Collector base was one of the few hard decisions a video game ever presented me with, because I couldn't look up the ramifications it would have in the future.

Where Mass Effect 3 failed, in my eyes, was a lack of significant decisions. The series went from being absolutely revolutionary to ... bland and disappointing.

[C Of K]

Originally Posted by Finnien

Finally, there was debate around the debate - criticism of the fan community for its outrage at the ending. A portion of the external media not only criticized the fan base for its 'sense of entitlement' but went on to cite the fan outrage as a major factor in why video games were not taken seriously as art - no artistic integrity in storytelling if the game is changed on behalf of fan outrage, and no fan support if it isn't. I believe Forbes had an article with this point of view that was particularly critical of the video game community, although it never really addresses the differences between movies and video games in storytelling.

So overall, it's really a question of which debate you want to take part in. How much freedom should the player be allowed in determining the ending of a video game like this? Does the community have a right to complain when an ending lacks depth, and how far does that right extend? Does the nature of video games allow for interaction between player and author, and subsequent development of the story (fleshing out vs. radical alteration), or does any change invalidate the artistic credibility of the game itself? At what point are the objections merely reflections of a sense of fan entitlement, and at what point are they legitimate criticisms of false advertising and failed promises? Is Bioware's publisher Electronic Arts really full of nothing but money-grubbing sadists bent on destroying the video game industry for its own sick pleasure?

Plenty of material for debate, and it'll be interesting to see how it plays out once the 'expanded ending' content is released this summer.

Great points, Finnien. Despite how they try to disguise it, there wasn't three endings. There was one ending. But fine, all I need is one ending, just don't tell me that my choices matter. What I can't forgive, is the whole Reaper/Catalyst-thingy they came up with. It doesn't make sense. Nothing they say can make it make sense. Rather than folding under a barrage of philosophical spiel, I expected the ending to make sense, and remain true to everything that made Mass Effect what it was.

From my standpoint, there's no need for a debate over any issues. It all comes down to one question. "What am I going to do with my money in the future?" Bioware, and EA execs can blame gamers, and sing that little tune about "Creative Vision" all they want. But in the end, everyone knows that the people who can decide whether or not to spend the money to actually fix the problems with the ending, don't care about creative vision. They care about profit. Forbes can print whatever they want to, but people are going to hold story-based video games to the same standards that they hold any story-based medium, so debating that would be a waste of time, and effort. I read somewhere that the movie John Carter lost somewhere around $200 million. It was someone's creative vision, so according to Forbes, movie-goers should mindlessly fork over their cash to see it anyway, despite the overwhelming probability that it was bad. The 1970s are gone. No one wants to see Zardoz anymore. In any story, if the ending is bad, the creators will get flack for that, and lose consumer trust. Just because they create something, doesn't mean people have to like it, especially not when they are expected to fork over money in order to experience it.

Bioware has expressed an interest in continuing the Mass Effect franchise. I was a huge fan of the series, but right now, it's going to take more than a 2 minute trailer overflowing with high-action cut-scenes to convince me to buy another one of these things.

[C Of K]

Originally Posted by Kamosis

Really? For me this game was all about understanding the reapers, finally getting an answer for why they do that! I'm was hopping to see some kind of explanation, a valid reason, not only "They do it because they are evil".

I would agree with you, if the story was actually all about understanding the Reapers. But the game was less philosophical than that. I think it would be more accurate to say that the ending was all about understanding the Reapers. Why else would the ending be a practically 15 minute cut-scene? In the last 15 minutes of the game, they found a way to pretty much incapacitate Shepard so that all he can do for the duration is hobble around and listen to a few blowhards talk about their philosophies. From that point on all the answers are laid out on the table. The problem is, these solution come out of nowhere. If you take the 3 games as a whole, Mass Effect was hardly about understanding the Reapers at all. If it was, the writers would have been prepared to deliver a better ending, that actually makes sense, because they would have been building on it from beginning to end.

The Terminator series was about understanding why a computer could turn against its creators. You didn't have other antagonists, like Cerberus, Blue Suns, Eclipse, Geth, or Blood Pack getting in the way of that story. Terminator occasionally threw the authorities into the mix out of necessity, but the Connors were mainly fighting terminators, and learning about terminators the whole way through. There's no philosophical spiel, at the very end of the 3rd movie, designed to confuse the audience in explanation of why Skynet declares war on mankind.

The Mass Effect writing team was unprepared to finish their story. They were unprepared to give an in-depth answer as to why the Reapers destroy all sentient life every 50k years because they had not been building up to answering that question from the beginning, or even the middle of the series. They waited to the very end to even make an issue of the "why" Any writer can tell you that tactics like that are almost never a good point to end a continuous trilogy on.

[Finnien]

I think all the articles criticizing the fan reaction to Mass Effect 3, most of which likened the storytelling to cinema and made arguments of artistic integrity, failed to account for the unique aspects of video game audiences to the game developers. Games can have choices and multiple endings. DLC continues to modify a game after its release. Feedback from players can be easily incorporated into games. None of the criticism I saw of the audience for ME3 took this into account - the general tone was 'Movie audiences don't expect directors to change their movies, why should video game developers?" That's an easy argument to make when movie directors can't change it - at least, not in any meaningful fashion relevant to the initial experience of the movie. Something like Ridley Scott's multiple versions of Blade Runner isn't really relevant to this kind of situation. The fact is, game developers can release a game, have an audience tell them 'this doesn't ring true to us' or 'this aspect of the experience is lacking', and have the developer make relevant changes or additions within the scope of their own artistic vision. That is something which video games should be proud of, and should capitalize on, not something they should be criticized for and therefore be afraid to experiment with.

[C Of K]

Over the last couple days, I've spent some time studying, and actually embracing the Indoctrination Theory. I have heard, second hand, that Bioware discounted this theory, insisting that it is false. However I think Bioware is content to veil the contents of their up and coming DLC behind half truths, cryptic terminology, and outright lies for the time being.

It seems strange that they would do this, and decide to weather the storm of unsatisfied customer opinion, when all they would need to do is tell the truth, which is that they didn't get to finish the game before the release date, and that the up and coming DLC will reflect the TRUE ending, the way it was meant to be.

Unfortunately, the ending, as we currently know it, was leaked a week or two before the game was released, which no doubt angered many of the people who were behind the making of ME3. I think this has had something to do with Bioware guarding the content of the DLC so closely.

During this video at Pax East 2012, Bioware representatives admit that before the game's release, they did not believe that fans would find the ending so unacceptable. I believe this to be one of their bald-faced lies. I only played the ending once, because it was so bad, but I recall that once I entered the citadel, the game continued to automatically save my progress. This is significant because the save files don't seem to be accessible from the load menu. I can't return to the citadel near the the end of the game, and make different choices. I think those files were always meant to save progress that would connect directly with the up and coming DLC.

This video establishes what the Indoctrination Theory is, and why it is the only possible way that the ME3 ending can ever make sense. But, despite the Indoctrination Theory, it is still very clear that Bioware didn't finish their game on time, and intended to finish the ending with a DLC release ever since they failed to make the deadline.

[Red 13]

I finished it last night, i made what is considered the right decision and was left somewhat confused. After having seen the indoctrination theory i must admit it makes alot of sense. Its very clever if it turns out to be true.

[dragomort]

I had some serious issues with this game all around. I posted pages upon pages of things they really dropped the ball on in various ways throughout the entire thing on another forum as I was going through it all.*

I will say that the other 2 had quite a few problems as well, but there was a certain heart or energy that overwhelmed any substantial negative issues in those and I found lacking in this one. Perhaps it's me that changed and nostalgia fixes those problems in the previous ones, perhaps it was the face code error that I got hit with at the start and then for their fix they just removed any error message and pretend it went away for their wondrous customer service that started it out on such a bitter note that it was too much an uphill battle for any game to conquer,** but either way it was a disappointment to me.

*I can re-post if necessary or try to summarize if anyone really wants an overly long breakdown.

**I tend to think it was just a litany of relatively poor design choices that stand out boldly compared to the previous games and an inconsistent thematic message that fails to resonate via poor plot design that was undoubtedly sloppily changed last minute in committee to produce a horrid finale, but that's just me. Either way the failure is in no way isolated to just the ending, it's simply a symptom, imo

All this said, it in no way deserves a 0/10, perhaps more an 8/10-9/10 as current scoring systems go (make of that what you will), but it is the worst of the series and continues an unfortunate downward trend that's been the case with all of Bioware's work the past few years.

~and while the Indoctrination Theory makes sense and I thought they might be building towards given some of the scenes, it's definitely not true of their original intent if you've seen any breakdowns of behind the scenes footage or info that's out there, i.e. the $3 behind the scenes app that people have transcribed all the wtf content out of, etc

[C Of K]

Hmm. I never even thought about giving this game a number rating. I think yours is the first number rating for ME3 that I have ever seen. The game left me with such a bad taste in my mouth that I didn't even bother. Think I've finally gotten Mass Effect 3 out of my system, for the most part. I think it's a shame that at the end, the game stopped making any sense whatsoever, and I still hope that it can be fixed with the upcoming DLC, but Mass Effect is more of a bad memory to me now, instead of the open wound it had been.

[dragomort]

Originally Posted by C Of K

Hmm. I never even thought about giving this game a number rating. I think yours is the first number rating for ME3 that I have ever seen. The game left me with such a bad taste in my mouth that I didn't even bother. Think I've finally gotten Mass Effect 3 out of my system, for the most part. I think it's a shame that at the end, the game stopped making any sense whatsoever, and I still hope that it can be fixed with the upcoming DLC, but Mass Effect is more of a bad memory to me now, instead of the open wound it had been.

I was commenting with a number just because it was mentioned a bit earlier in regards to review bombs on sites etc. I don't give such scores any weight really, as I tried to indicate when mentioning it

I do find it sad that I was fully intending on playing through the entire series a bunch of times (played through the first 3 times and the 2nd twice before this one hit) to see how broad and imaginative their scope would become and how they would execute such a bold maneuver.... and then once I started playing this one those plans all flew out the window.

It's really not just the ending that did it for me though, as that could at least potentially be fixed with the DLC. I'll still see what they do with it and it might even make up for a lot (a la the theatrical cut of the Bladerunner movie vs the actual cuts that we were lucky enough to get on DVD), but it's not going to fix the myriad of problems leading up to it from overall plot issues to game design to characterization failure. Some of it is understandable in a scope this large, but there was rarely a session of play that didn't have some horribly nagging problem eating away at it - whether the lighting of fixed scenes, the 'security scanner' of pointlessness on the ship at the world's stupidest location for no purpose other than to make you stop for a few seconds and piss you off, the new characters you have to deal with of which maybe a couple resonate in any way/shape/form, the sloppy fan-fiction EDI deal, the fact that your commander that just finished in the last DLC being forced to exterminate an entire solar system to delay the Reaper invasion then spent the rest of the time sitting around doing nothing to prepare for it except 'getting fat' [/Anderson] yet is all emo because a single stupid kid out of nowhere died ...... ok, I'll stop before I really get started, but that's in the first couple hours alone. I recognize that each of the games had some issues, but these just seemed more egregious (i.e. they have shown they know how to do better in the past, as ME1-2 were first runs at the style and engine and scope they get more leeway than when 3 copies off of 2 and makes basic mistakes they showed they knew how to not make in the previous entry/ies for no apparent reason or gain) and never stopped getting in the way of the enjoyment due to it.

[Boaz]

Spoiler Alert! If you have already finished ME3 or if you just don't care, then please... read on.

Originally Posted by Freelancer

I finished ME3 yesterday and with the exception of one segment in the finale, I had no problem with the ending at all. It's using a philosophy what many can't understand, namely the "Regardless what decision you make, you have a fix destiny". The only problem in the ending is the "Normandy" scene, however I also have an explanation for that. The problem is that the ending is requiring some meditation and that's why many don't like it and / or worse, don't understand it.

Agreed. If people have never thought of the Kobayashi Maru scenario as real... if people have not seen Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon... or better yet, if people have not seen The Killer, with Chow Yun Fat... or better still if people have ever witnessed tragedy (or even mild disappointment) of any kind, they'd know that there is not always a happy ending. "Life is not a song, sweetling. You may learn that one day to your sorrow." Or "Life is pain, highness. Anyone telling you different is selling something." Spoiler Alert regarding Shepard's ultimate fate... (There is some hidden text following this sentence, highlight it if you dare.) My Shepard died. He killed the Reapers, but he died. And that's okay. It's sad, but it happened in my story. I dunno any other endings.

Originally Posted by Kaladan

As for "gay Shepard", the only problem I had with it was that I didn't want to select the wrong options in conversation with the pilot and end up in the sack with him, lol. Some of those options can be misleading, particularly when what Shepard says is absolutely nothing like the text suggested.

I ran into that problem with Jack in ME2. I avoided romance with her at all costs. But later I chose one harmless comment and Jack became a permanent witch. Also, I found myself being careful in dialogues with Jacob. I don't always save before conversations. I had not saved in over two hours before my accident with Jack and hate having to reload and replay hours of game over a misinterpreted Shepard paraphrase.

Originally Posted by devilsgrin

i utterly LOATHED the ending. From the Cerberus base onwards (except for the final goodbyes prior to launching the "Hammer" assualt)

Final good-byes... Shepard made his final rounds on the Normandy before the final mission and he stumbled upon a romance of which he was not a part. That was excellent! Well written, well timed, and I never saw it coming. It felt like Shepard and Williams throwing themselves together in the first game. Also, being able to see Wrex one last time was good, but [Major Spoiler Alert! Highlight it if you need to see it] since my Shepard betrayed the Krogan, I was ashamed to encourage them to fight for a freedom they'd never know. Also, I was glad to talk to Miranda one last time... I'd hoped she'd show up at the end. I declined to call Jacob and Steve.

Originally Posted by C Of K

Mass Effect 3 was perhaps the most depressing game I've ever played. In the middle of the whole thing, I had to take an entire week off so that it wouldn't completely pull me down into an emotional slump. Having said all that, I understand the need for the game to be this way. I personally just don't need that much negativity from a gaming experience.

I think you and I must have chosen similarly over the Genophage situation. Mordin is my favorite of all the characters in the games. Hands down, he's the best written and the best voiced (although Tricia Helfer as EDI and Yvonne Strahovski as Miranda are sooo sexy). He's excellent in combat and his reputation as a galactic leading scientist makes his presence, in missions in a Sci-Fi game, a necessity. His past experiences as a scientist, with the Genophage project, and with the STG make him twice as interesting as any other NPC. His plot revolves around the major ethical situation in the entire story. I think I took him on every single mission. That being said, because of the nature of the Genophage story, Wrex was the next best NPC.

And so, C Of K, I'll tell you why the game depressed me... Highlight the hidden text if you dare, but I'm telling you it's the best plot twist I've seen in a video game. When I came to the end of the two and a half game story arc of the Genophage (I played Shepard as a Paragon all through the story...and Shepard had backed the use of the Genophage and it's evolution from the beginning), Shepard was faced with a major decision... He could either 1) stop Mordin from nullifying the Genophage thus curing the Krogan, but gain support from the STG and lose Krogan support during the Reaper War, or 2) allow Mordin to cure the Krogan by ending the Genophage and thus gain Krogan support while losing the assistance of the STG.... but Shepard chose wisely for the war effort, but poorly ethically... 3) Shepard shot Mordin (his best friend) in the back, decieved Wrex (his next best friend) into thinking the Genophage was cured, gained the Krogan as allies, gained the STG as allies, and then told everyone that poor Mordin was killed in action against the Reapers.

I was depressed for days.

In playing games, especially RPGs, I try to let the story unfold. I don't like to go back and redo the story (except when my character dies). So it was hard to take. I expected even more great plot twists and critical decisions towards the end.

Originally Posted by C Of K

While the in-action experience was definitely high adrenaline, I felt absolutely no attachment to the new cast of characters. the ME2 cast had personality. The ME3 cast was cardboard. A resounding vote of "no confidence" in Bioware's ability to successfully conclude an epic trilogy of video games

Agreed. Mordin, Wrex, and Samarra were intriguing characters. Even if you hate Ashley's bigotry, she's still an interesting character with her "blacklisted family", her religion, and her poetry. I loved how annoying Miranda was. Thane was weird, but interesting. Jack was a major pain. And Liara was so sad at times, I almost overlooked the fact that she is an asexual, mind controlling alien!

But Vega was so irratating that I'd say to the TV, "How 'bout I loco your ass out of the Corps. I'm a friggin' Spectre, you moron!"

And what about the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy. Well, I did not ask, but Cortez told me anyway.

Ashley finally returned. With a new softer look to try and entice Shepard, but he was having none of it. She was a tough soldier for whom Shepard developed real feelings while under great stress. She was an outlet, but one that he held dear. When she rejected him, just when he needed her at his side, he was done with her. Even her new hair and makeup could not undo her betrayal. They could be allies, but not lovers.

The best part of the ending was the addition of a romance of which Shepard was not a part. That was brilliant! That was what I was waiting for. Dragon Age had hundreds of conversations between the squadmates and ME only had a few. So when Shepard made his final rounds of the Normandy before the final mission, he was overjoyed when he stumbled upon... well, I won't spoil it for you.

EDI. I loved the animation. Loved it. And I love Tricia Helfer's voice. Super Sexy. SUPER. SEXY. But she was forced upon Shepard in ME2. She should have been shut down from the beginning. Isn't the whole story about the inherent danger of unshackled AIs? Whiskey? And then she got a body in ME3. Tango? And she started dating?!?! Foxtrot!!!

Yeah....

I wanted to shut her down, but Shepard kept saying things like, "You're a member of this crew, EDI" and "That's what humanity is all about, you're getting there."

As for ending a trilogy... Bioware never finished KOTOR. I don't know the economics involved, the engine licensing, dealing with Lucas, or whatever... I don't blame Bioware for that.

Bioware started so strong with Dragon Age, but what was up with Hawke? The Warden got to save the world. Hawke just built up a nice political/economic power base. You cannot even compare the motivations of Warden and Hawke. Which is the better story... the more noble story... the more satisfying story? Save the world or become Donald Trump?

And the ending of ME3... well, I've come to the conclusion that almost no one on earth knows how to end a story anymore. Sure, everyone can begin a story... compelling characters, ethical dilemmas, delicious villains, believable fantasy.... LOST, Neil Gaiman, Heroes, Battlestar Galactica, all comic book writers, and on and on... I just hope George R.R. Martin will not be added to this list. When was the last time you put down a book and thought, "Ahhhhh. That was satisfying."

And so the end of ME3 happened last night... I was faced with three decisions... Highlight the hidden text only if you've finished the game... The first choice was to take control of the Reapers. Shepard would make all AI slaves and protectors of humanity. This ending is just what the Illusive Man wanted and since Shepard played the entire last game for the express purpose of defeating the Illusive Man and had just killed said villain moments before the choice, thus this ending was ridiculous. "Ooops, sorry I killed you. I've now decided that you were right even though I hate you and have destroyed all your plans and works."
The second choice was to allow all organics and AIs to be synthesized into a new race... a biotechnic or technorganic crossbreed. This is clearly a defeatist choice. It is the choice that the arch-villain Saren wanted. Did Shepard spend the last three games, three to four years of his life, killing Saren, and coming back from the dead to give up at the moment of victory? "Ha! I've won! But you're so little and cute and persuasive... Okay, I'll let you kill me now."
The third choice is presented in the game as the evil choice. It is the destruction of all AIs in the galaxy. It is also the destruction of most machines as well. It will destroy all the Mass Relays and intragalactic travel. Human survivors will have to share Earth with whatever alien soldiers survived as well. "I can destroy the Reapers? Where's the button? Push it immediately, if not sooner!"

Whoever wrote the first two choices and presented the final choice as evil needs to unplug themselves from The Matrix.

Originally Posted by Finnien

Where Mass Effect 3 failed, in my eyes, was a lack of significant decisions. The series went from being absolutely revolutionary to ... bland and disappointing.

Isn't that crazy how Bioware started so strong and fell victim to their own success and expectations? Did you ever play City of Heroes? Nine years and their character appearance customization is still light years ahead of everyone else... but players still want more. COH opened our eyes to what was possible, but people still complain for more. After Baldur's Gate, KOTOR, DA, and ME, Bioware has proven they can start a series and keep it going. They've shown me that their stories are big and fun. I'll just keep hoping for a satisfying ending.

Was Shepard indoctrinated when he made his final decision? Maybe. Was Shepard indoctrinated from Eden Prime? That'd be stupid... it was a tale by a grandfather of a dream within a dream. I'd rather watch the two hour movie than play the hundred and thirty hour game... what a waste if that is the answer.

So the Alliance, the Rachni, the Salarians, the Asari, the Volus, and the Turians... did I miss anyone?... used Prothean blueprints of previous blueprints of previous blueprints to create the Crucible, but no one ever thought to team up and prevent indoctrination? Why didn't Shepard have an anti-Reaper helmet? Zero ammo capacity, zero accuracy, zero damage, and zero fire rate, but full immunity to Reaper baby BS. Hmmmm.

I'd suggest to anyone who wants to play ME, to go ahead and play ME, ME2, and ME3 up until you call Miranda from Earth. Then just imagine the ending you'd like.

[C Of K]

Originally Posted by Boaz

Agreed. If people have never thought of the Kobayashi Maru scenario as real... if people have not seen Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon... or better yet, if people have not seen The Killer, with Chow Yun Fat... or better still if people have ever witnessed tragedy (or even mild disappointment) of any kind, they'd know that there is not always a happy ending. "Life is not a song, sweetling. You may learn that one day to your sorrow." Or "Life is pain, highness. Anyone telling you different is selling something." Spoiler Alert regarding Shepard's ultimate fate... (There is some hidden text following this sentence, highlight it if you dare.) My Shepard died. He killed the Reapers, but he died. And that's okay. It's sad, but it happened in my story. I dunno any other endings.

Loved Crouching Tiger. The Kobayashi Maru. Mmmm. Reminds me of Lt. Saavik. I love how she changes her hair, but onto more important matters. Unhappy endings are often high on my list of "must-see tv". I think Crouching Tiger was a great film, but in the end, I was not nearly as invested in those characters as I am the Mass Effect cast, so I'll use a more apt example tailored to my own experience.

I was a huge fan of Heroes the first season. And yet, if you ignore the following seasons, then Nathan Petrelli (the hero of heroes) would be considered dead, Mat Parkman and D.L. may as well be dead. It was a sad ending to me, but a well done ending. (I have since come to view Linderman as the true hero. Much as Marauder Shields stood in Shaphard's way at the end of ME3, Linderman's plan to let Peter Petrelli destroy New York may have saved us from poorly plotted sequel seasons)

Where fiction is concerned, I've always believed that what the creators do to advance a plot is important, but not nearly as important as how they go about doing it. I was fully prepared for Shephard to die at the end of ME3 long before I bought the game. I was ok with that. But it was everything about the ending, which didn't fit into this series I had come to love, that totally turns me off. (I do hope that this summer's DLC will put Humpty Dumpty back together again.)

Unlike the first seasons of Heroes, I think the end of ME3 suffers, not from being too sad, but from poor plot development, much like all the sequel seasons of Heroes did. I think most fans can deal with the game being sad. But the fan reaction to ME3 is very comparable to the fan reaction to Heroes before it ended it's fourth and final season. When so many people feel so unfulfilled after experiencing a work of fiction, it's hard not to recognize the glaring inconsistencies that are almost sure to be there. the Star Wars prequels were received in much the same way, and for good reason. I love Star Wars, but I can't excuse the prequels, anymore than I can excuse ME3 or Heroes.

Final good-byes... Shepard made his final rounds on the Normandy before the final mission and he stumbled upon a romance of which he was not a part. That was excellent! Well written, well timed, and I never saw it coming.

Now that part WAS well done, and hilarious! To anyone who failed to make those final rounds, you missed a gem.

I think you and I must have chosen similarly over the Genophage situation. Mordin is my favorite of all the characters in the games. Hands down, he's the best written and the best voiced (although Tricia Helfer as EDI and Yvonne Strahovski as Miranda are sooo sexy). He's excellent in combat and his reputation as a galactic leading scientist makes his presence, in missions in a Sci-Fi game, a necessity. His past experiences as a scientist, with the Genophage project, and with the STG make him twice as interesting as any other NPC. His plot revolves around the major ethical situation in the entire story. I think I took him on every single mission. That being said, because of the nature of the Genophage story, Wrex was the next best NPC.

Actually, what I did with Mordin was totally different. I mainly got depressed from visiting the Citadel too much. Walking around (by myself all the time, I might add. Having party members follow you around in the other games may have seemed annoying at times, but not having them made the game extremely solitary. Of course, they purposely did that to achieve that very affect, but when you're treading alone through the rubble and smoke of the Citadel, and bodies are all over the place, and people, who you can't quite seem to identify, are crying in the background {My sound system is over 200 watts, so I hear everything really well} and there are children who will never see their parents again, and parents who will never see their children again...) and then then there was that disaster that happened with the Geth SPOILER ALERT===> I let them destroy those infuriating Quarians. I love Taly, and most other Quarians were cool, but I can't stand their leaders. <===SPOILER ALERT I got too emotionally involved in that situation, and let my feelings get in the way of what I was supposed to be doing. This was all too much depression to take at one time.

And so, C Of K, I'll tell you why the game depressed me... Highlight the hidden text if you dare, but I'm telling you it's the best plot twist I've seen in a video game.

I was depressed for days.

That's the saddest thing I've ever read. I couldn't do it.

Agreed. Mordin, Wrex, and Samarra were intriguing characters. Even if you hate Ashley's bigotry, she's still an interesting character with her "blacklisted family", her religion, and her poetry. I loved how annoying Miranda was. Thane was weird, but interesting. Jack was a major pain. And Liara was so sad at times, I almost overlooked the fact that she is an asexual, mind controlling alien!

I also have to hand it to Garrus. The Archangel mission will always be my favorite. I can play it over and over. Even Zaeed Massani could be refreshingly amusing at times. Kasumi was a little over the top with her cuteness, but it was somehow refreshing to have a woman in the crew who was immune to Shepard's charms but was totally into Jacob. It made for a more realistic feel.

But Vega was so irratating that I'd say to the TV, "How 'bout I loco your ass out of the Corps. I'm a friggin' Spectre, you moron!"

And what about the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy. Well, I did not ask, but Cortez told me anyway.

I would have killed to get my old crew back. Mainly, I would have killed the new crew. I would have jettisoned Vega the moment we left Earth. There came a point, early on, when I just stopped talking to Cortez. It quickly became clear where they were going with him, just from the gleam the developers put in Shepard's eyes whenever Cortez started talking about his husband. But I hated ignoring him, because I didn't know what important parts of the story I was missing out on.

Ashley finally returned. With a new softer look to try and entice Shepard, but he was having none of it. She was a tough soldier for whom Shepard developed real feelings while under great stress. She was an outlet, but one that he held dear. When she rejected him, just when he needed her at his side, he was done with her. Even her new hair and makeup could not undo her betrayal. They could be allies, but not lovers.

OK. I won't lie. Ashley had me from the moment she showed up on screen. For some reason, I knew she would be part of the crew for this game, and I was relatively sure that Miranda wouldn't be. I like to fight beside my love interest, just so I can make sure she's safe, and that she doesn't do something stupid, half a galaxy away, that will force me to stop the important job I'm doing in order to try and save her. There's also a straightforward innocence about Ashley. Even if she doesn't trust me, I can trust her to let me know that she really doesn't trust me. (Which means that she really wants to trust me, but life is just never that easy.) With Miranda, I could never really trust her not to keep secrets from me. I always thought her dad was going to be a groundbreaking character who would have a huge influence on the series, the way she kept his identity a secret for so long. Illusive Man's evil twin brother, or something. I was disappointed.

As for ending a trilogy... Bioware never finished KOTOR. I don't know the economics involved, the engine licensing, dealing with Lucas, or whatever... I don't blame Bioware for that.

The KOTOR series ended in the novel REVAN, in which we learn what happened to Revan, Bastila, Exile, and Canderous. there wasn't much for Bioware to do with those characters. They've been given the right to produce the MMO, TOR, which is loosely related, even if you ignore the fact that they are both Star Wars games. I have heard that the story is really good, but little else that is positive, so I probably wouldn't buy it even if I liked ME3.

Bioware started so strong with Dragon Age, but what was up with Hawke? The Warden got to save the world. Hawke just built up a nice political/economic power base. You cannot even compare the motivations of Warden and Hawke. Which is the better story... the more noble story... the more satisfying story? Save the world or become Donald Trump?

Never played these games, though I have heard a lot about them.

And the ending of ME3... well, I've come to the conclusion that almost no one on earth knows how to end a story anymore. Sure, everyone can begin a story... compelling characters, ethical dilemmas, delicious villains, believable fantasy.... LOST, Neil Gaiman, Heroes, Battlestar Galactica, all comic book writers, and on and on... I just hope George R.R. Martin will not be added to this list. When was the last time you put down a book and thought, "Ahhhhh. That was satisfying."

This is the reason I seldom buy games, or go to the theater anymore. I do still enjoy most of the books I read however. But yes, I get what you're saying. And yet, Mass Effect had always broken the mold. The creators seemed to know what worked and what didn't. They seemed to know how to push the limits without breaking them. It was like they were creating the first real successor to Star Wars. The potential was all right there throughout the first two games. The whole problem with Heroes is that it was about blowing up New York, which was good. They kept it going after that, because it was insanely popular, but once the New York story ended, they had no more story to tell, and the show became a blight. I actually never watched LOST, but I've heard it had a terrible ending. Now I'm glad I didn't watch. I never saw a single episode of the "new" Battlestar Galactica, either. It ended badly, too? Superhero comics, by their very nature, for the most part, are doomed to fail in so many ways. The most popular comics are released monthly, without fail. It's like pro wrestling entertainment. There is no off season, and usually no consideration for good storytelling because they just don't have the time for it. For the last 10 years DC Comics has been a joke, and I'm not even sure what's going on with Marvel, but it says a lot that those two companies haven't created a really great character in the last 30 years.

I think the problem generally comes from a lack of passion. I hope GRRM's passion isn't waning. That would be almost criminal.