Mass Effect 3

[juv3nal]

I wouldn't go that far. This guy actually has an effect (of a massive scale) on story missions. I was pretty surprised with how well he is integrated into the storyline (compared to ME2 DLC characters).

Because so many characters could be dead by the time you get to ME3, they are at this point probably very good at making the absence of a character seamless while at the same time making that character seem important/well integrated if they are available. If you feel you're not missing anything playing without the DLC, that's by design and a good thing, but that doesn't mean there isn't anything there to miss.

[Nappi]

Just finished the game. Great fun.

I thought the ending was okay. Because of all the bashing it had already received, I was fully prepared for Assassin's Creed II or Fahrenheit/Indigo Prophecy level of idiocy and was almost positively surprised by how average the ending actually was.

[Bork Laser]

Just finished the game. Great fun.

I thought the ending was okay. Because of all the bashing it had already received, I was fully prepared for Assassin's Creed II or Fahrenheit/Indigo Prophecy level of idiocy and was almost positively surprised by how average the ending actually was.

Blocky sex scenes set to Theory of a Deadman don't do it for you?

[Lu]

For anyone who has missed it: This, calling it the extended cut, is their answer to all the outrage to their not-so-great ending.

I'm curious, but at this point I feel rather ambivalent about it. I guess we'll find out.

Why are you releasing the Extended Cut DLC?

Though we remain committed and are proud of the artistic choices we made in the main game, we are aware that there are some fans who would like more closure to Mass Effect 3. [snip snip]

[elmuerte]

Only an hour in, or so, and ... omfg ... they still haven't fixed the obvious "there will be a fight here" segments in the levels.

[Denial]

So I finished Mass Effect 3 today. I was disappointed but not enraged by the ending. There's probably a lot to talk about regarding the ending, but most of it has been done more thoroughly by others already. Also, I just don't think it actually hit me as hard as many. So I'll just touch on a couple of points.

Warning: Ending spoilers follow.

The obvious but possibly less important point is WTF is the deal with the Normandy? I've yet to hear anyone explain that in a way that is sensible. Why were they leaving? Where were they going? How did squad members who were on Earth just moments before (let alone the ones who were literally by your side) end up on the ship? That whole thing was just... bizarre.

I found myself trying to justify the

Normandy

section of the ending, and came up with basically this:

1) (Not shown) The battle in space with the Reapers is ongoing; Sword has secured a corridor to Earth; however, Hackett does not have enough resource to make a substantial difference on the ground, and the Unified Fleets are losing ground. Hackett starts to position the fleet to shield a strategic withdrawal from the Sol system, and to cover the evacuation of as many personnel from Earth as possible.

2) (Shown) Shepard makes his/her choice at the Citadel.

3) (Not shown) Hackett sees that _something_ is happening with the Crucible, but nobody is sure exactly what. He orders the fleet to start breaking off. At some point during this period, the Normandy uses the secured corridor to Earth to evacuate any team members seen on the ground in the endgame and on the Normandy in the final scene.

4) (Not shown) As the Crucible starts to build up power, Hackett, seeing what at least looks like a gigantic explosion in the making, orders the evacuation of the system. The Normandy, because it is the fastest and most manoeuvrable ship of its size in the fleet, makes it to the relay.

5) (Shown) The Crucible does its immediate thing. The initial radiation (possibly accompanied by a giant shockwave) affects the Reapers (and other lifeforms depending on colour) in the Sol system, and is then propagated through the relays, having whatever effect it is set to have on synthetic life/the Reapers/all life. As the relays retransmit this radiation, they either quietly self-destruct, having vented their energy to the next relay in the chain, or blow up and take the system with them, depending on your interpretation. As they do so, the relay “tunnels” become unstable.

6) (Not shown) Joker switchbacks through an undefined number of relays, attempting to outrun the shutdown of the “tunnels” and/or the energy wave. Since this is happening very quickly, he (and the rest of the fleet) are unaware that the relays are ceasing to exist, do not know what the radiation actually does, and are not able to communicate with each other.

7) (Shown) As the tunnel collapse/radiation catches up to the Normandy, the relativistic effect on parts of the Normandy suddenly dropping from relay FTL to regular FTL makes them appear to be disintegrating – in fact they are being left a long way behind the still-superfast Normandy’s body.

8) (Not shown) The damaged Normandy either reaches a relay or is ejected in mid-wave by the tunnel collapse. In a prodigious piece of piloting, Joker pilots the dying Normandy into a crash-landing on the nearest habitable planet.

9) (Shown) Joker and the survivors of the crash emerge from the ruin of the Normandy.

10) (shown) Many generations later, the Stargazer and child are on the same planet – either direct descendants of the Normandy’s surviving crew or a sign that, eventually, they were rescued and a colony established.

That’s a lot of fansplanation, and there are some issues with the physics: the status of the different-coloured blasts/waves/beams, obviously – is each a shockwave or a carrier wave for a signal? And, although a signal could theoretically trigger a self-destruct in the Reapers, or transmit new operating codes containing Shepard’s mental image, how could it simultaneously techno-organicise all life in the galaxy? And, if the Normandy drops suddenly out of a relay tunnel, it would, presumably, accumulate an incredible amount of energy and mass very quickly, which would probably end very badly even if it was still structurally intact. Also, the relay jumps are generally pictured as instantaneous or near-instantaneous, so there's some dramatic license there, also... possibly perceptual time on board is different, due to relativistic effects...

And so on… a lot depends on how far suspension of belief is allowed to stretch. If you have experienced Mass Effect as a hard sci-fi universe, there is a lot to digest here. The faster-than-light space freeways giveth, and the faster-than-light space freeways taketh away, in a sense…

[elmuerte]

I'm a few hours in, and to be honest, I'm not liking it much. It's all politics and management. Where's the (space) exploration and mystery?

[Twig]

For anyone who has missed it: This, calling it the extended cut, is their answer to all the outrage to their not-so-great ending.

I'm curious, but at this point I feel rather ambivalent about it. I guess we'll find out.

Even if the ending is absolute shit, I kind of don't like the idea that developers would just go back and release some free content to add on to the ending just because people complained about it. Maybe if they had planned it from the beginning, but obviously that's not how it worked out.

[lobotomy42]

Even if the ending is absolute shit, I kind of don't like the idea that developers would just go back and release some free content to add on to the ending just because people complained about it. Maybe if they had planned it from the beginning, but obviously that's not how it worked out.

So this is the argument I just don't understand. Obviously it's Bioware's game and they can do or not do whatever they want with it. It's one thing to say "No, this ending is what we meant, it's actually really good, and we stand by it." But if you take as your premise that "the ending is absolute shit," what is the harm in changing it? Is the idea here that people complaining on the internet are inherently wrong because they complained on the internet?

[Twig]

So this is the argument I just don't understand. Obviously it's Bioware's game and they can do or not do whatever they want with it. It's one thing to say "No, this ending is what we meant, it's actually really good, and we stand by it." But if you take as your premise that "the ending is absolute shit," what is the harm in changing it? Is the idea here that people complaining on the internet are inherently wrong because they complained on the internet?

It's a different matter entirely if Bioware admits the ending is shit. But if they think it's what they want, even if everyone else thinks it's shit? As it is, it just seems like they're giving in.

[Orv]

It's a different matter entirely if Bioware admits the ending is shit. But if they think it's what they want, even if everyone else thinks it's shit? As it is, it just seems like they're giving in.

This. EA was voted "Worst Company in the World" in some poll or another recently, and I can 100% guarantee you that that poll was borked by enraged fans. BioWare has been saying that they're "really proud of their artistic ending" and yet here they are giving in to the tidal wave of whinging.

Not to mention it's hilarious that people enraged with the base ending are willing to spend money to "fix" it.

[Twig]

EA was voted "Worst Company in the World" in some poll or another recently

And what bullshit that is. EA is a business, and people don't like that they act like a business. Sure, they've had some shit with forcing employees to work overtime, or whatever, but that's nothing compared to some of the stuff other companies in the running have done.

Sometimes I hate the internet.

Oh, I mean Tali is hot, or something.

[berniesbc]

BioWare has been saying that they're "really proud of their artistic ending" and yet here they are giving in to the tidal wave of whinging.

I really don't think that Bioware employees would be at liberty to say that they think the ending sucked. Just a few weeks after the game came out.

[Lu]

Yes, I was going to say. A lot of developers, especially the larger ones, refrain from saying, or rather they can't say, ANY negative things about their game. The only time they'll vaguely admit to mistakes is when a sequel is being made.

That they're adding stuff to their ending is probably the most direct way they're going to say "We agree, we fucked up."

This. EA was voted "Worst Company in the World" in some poll or another recently

Haha, yes, gotta love EA's response to that one:

We're sure that British Petroleum, AIG, Philip Morris, and Halliburton are all relieved they weren't nominated this year. We're going to continue making award-winning games and services played by more than 300 million people worldwide.

Oh snap! Not sure that's the response they should've went with though...

[Twig]

That they're adding stuff to their ending is probably the most direct way they're going to say "We agree, we fucked up."

If this was pre-EA Bioware, I'd be more inclined to believe that maybe they actually regret the ending for artistic reasons. Given that it's not, though, I'm more inclined to believe that the people in charge happen to like making money and will do everything in their power to ensure they keep making that money. The Mass Effect franchise will not end here, even if the trilogy does. They'll want to keep as much good will as possible.

I mean, I guess if in the end it makes the game better, then sweet. But I dread the day a game DOES have a good ending, the majority/vocal minority complains about it anyway, and the developer goes "well okay we'll change it".

[Lu]

"We agree, we fucked up" is probably wrong anyway. I meant more that they simply ran out of time/money; forces at work (i.e. management) that are beyond the control of the actual creators. I refuse to believe that the development team found this ending satisfactory. Though it's not likely we'll ever hear a candid response from Bioware beyond the dubious "employee who chose to remain anonymous."

[brkl]

I just finished the game, so I can start reading this thread and find out about everyone's take on the game. Personally, I thought the game had far more problems towards the beginning than the end. The end was fine and at the moment I don't really understand why it would have caused such a ruckus.

EDIT: I agree with John Walker of RPS: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/03/19/whats-right-with-mass-effect-3s-ending/

What could have been improved about the ending is a matter of budget and time. They could have made the cutscenes more diverse, made 'War Readiness' more apparent towards the end and been a bit more careful about foreshadowing some of the stuff in the final moments.

DX:HR was universally praised, and its ending was not any better. At least in ME3's case I took the time to play through each one -- I started doing that in DX:HR, but stopped after a moment into the second one I watched. I just didn't care.

Edited April 9, 2012 by brkl

[brkl]

I could have sworn ME3 looks practically the same as ME2, but when firing up ME2, it really doesn't! I remember ME2 conversations and such looking really fluid, but it looks like Bioware was able to improve even though they were so short on time.

[Brad Rapstars]

I could have sworn ME3 looks practically the same as ME2, but when firing up ME2, it really doesn't! I remember ME2 conversations and such looking really fluid, but it looks like Bioware was able to improve even though they were so short on time.

Yeah, after finishing ME3 I went and started a new ME2 game, and they've really done a bunch to make the conversations in 3 look more cinematic. Or at least more visually interesting.

[brkl]

Did you scoff at ME3's ending?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17769529

Also, (ME2 spoiler)

I replayed ME2 as fast as I could in order to see what ME3 would look like if everybody died, but I managed to kill Shephard as well! I wonder what's the minimum I need to do...

[circadianwolf]

Also, (ME2 spoiler)

I replayed ME2 as fast as I could in order to see what ME3 would look like if everybody died, but I managed to kill Shephard as well! I wonder what's the minimum I need to do...

At least one squad member has to survive in order for Shepard to live.

It would be interesting to see how empty the game is without Wrex, Kaidan/Ashley, Tali, Garrus, and pretty much everyone from ME2 (including Chakwas, Chambers, the Irish twins, etc.)

[mikemariano]

Also, (ME2 spoiler)

I replayed ME2 as fast as I could in order to see what ME3 would look like if everybody died, but I managed to kill Shephard as well! I wonder what's the minimum I need to do...

I believe

Shepard dies no matter what if the rest of your team dies. Maybe you have to have at least one surviving crew member?

Also, Wrex is by default dead if you start Mass Effect 2 with a clean slate. Is that the case for Mass Effect 3—?

—augh, forget it; I told myself I'd stop caring about this game. Stop caring about tough lady space pilot Jane Shepard. Stop caring about whether Kaidan and Shepard can make it in this crazy universe. Stop caring about...

...Wrex...

[Lu]

Wrex.

Shepard.

[brkl]

My new Shephard is called Lillypond Shephard, cause she's a bloody goody two-shoes Paragon.

[miffy495]

My Shepards are, creatively, called "Lady" and "Dude". At least it's a step above "John/Jane".