You managed to finish AP?GiantRaven said:
With all the bugs and broken game mechanics I am surprised anyone could get to the end.
Dragon Age Origins Lead Designer speaks out against ME3 Ending
- Thread starter endtherapture
- Start date
Recommended Videos
With all the bugs and broken game mechanics I am surprised anyone could get to the end.
Of course, by now, Shepard dying is cliche. Shepard dies (or can die) at the end of every Mass Effect game. They die immediately after the events of the first for no fucking reason. They might die at the end of the second game, and they die at the end of the third game for no fucking reason. So, while, yes, this is why we cannot have nice things, it's because at this point being edgy and killing Shepard is the goddamn cliche.Hyper-space said:
Oh. You're using all capital letters. You must be more right than anyone else.Hyper-space said:
Again, it wasn't the bleakness of the ending or that it broke the formula. It simply made no sense at all. It's called a deus ex machina. It's where someone pulls something completely out of thin air right at the end to usher in a resolution. In this case: *POOF* God shows up to offer Shep ending A, B, or C completely inside a vacuum and irrespective of any events which happened before.
In other words, the ending sucked because it was poorly written and executed and offered no closure.
Bugs? Never encountered any. Broken mechanics? The story, characters and dialogue more than made up for that.SajuukKhar said:
I'm merely suggesting that an ending is where the choices over the course of three games alters what happens is a much more impressive undertaking than ignoring those choices completely. Disregarding all the choices is the lazier option, I don't like that when so much more could have been done.Abandon4093 said:
Frankly I got bored with the game 3-4 hours in because the story and characters seemed terribly bland and unoriginal.Abandon4093 said:
Can't say I agree with this guy at all, though i've been unable to comment until 10 minutes ago when I actually finished ME3
Point 1. The entire game demonstrated my unique impact on the universe, the game was FULL of repercussions from what I'd done. To a Real-life-accurate or Wildly different degree? No. But lets not get ahead of ourselves here, for a *truly* reactive game, with today's technology and game development, each game would have been on increasing numbers of discs, each game would have take much, much longer to develop than its predecessor (I'm thinking 10+ Years for ME3 from ME2) and the game would have cost an order of magnitude more to develop. The Modern game industry, in every respect, is not ready or able to make a truly reactive RPG trilogy...Not yet.
Point 2. I don't know what game he played (oh wait, that's right, he hasn't played it) but my ending was hopeful, it was a victory, it was a positive note. In my ending my two favourite characters, to whom I was the closest, survived (Liara, my love interest, and Garrus, my best friend), the reapers were defeated AND my Shepard drew breath after the fact. My Shepard accomplished the impossible.
Sure it wasn't an "Everyone lives, we can finally go get that drink you owe me, one moment though I just need to fuck my girlfriend" ending but, as i've said elsewhere, what kind of pathetic, child-like, spoon fed, shallow people NEED that lovey dovey ending for it to count as "Good"? It was bittersweet, and I respect Bioware for not treating me like a child.
Would I rather get the lovey dovey ending? Sure, of course. But I don't need it to feel satisfied. Do I wish there was more? Without question, I could play this game for the rest of my life.
All in all, I am happy with the ending and not only that but Mass effect 3 is the best game I've ever experienced and I say that from a position of someone who has been gaming for 20 years (yes, During Bioware's supposed "Golden age" too), who is a writer and someone who would have not hesitated to demand bioware's head if they'd ruined the final game of my favourite sci-fi trilogy.
But they didn't and I can't wait to see what's next.
Point 1. The entire game demonstrated my unique impact on the universe, the game was FULL of repercussions from what I'd done. To a Real-life-accurate or Wildly different degree? No. But lets not get ahead of ourselves here, for a *truly* reactive game, with today's technology and game development, each game would have been on increasing numbers of discs, each game would have take much, much longer to develop than its predecessor (I'm thinking 10+ Years for ME3 from ME2) and the game would have cost an order of magnitude more to develop. The Modern game industry, in every respect, is not ready or able to make a truly reactive RPG trilogy...Not yet.
Point 2. I don't know what game he played (oh wait, that's right, he hasn't played it) but my ending was hopeful, it was a victory, it was a positive note. In my ending my two favourite characters, to whom I was the closest, survived (Liara, my love interest, and Garrus, my best friend), the reapers were defeated AND my Shepard drew breath after the fact. My Shepard accomplished the impossible.
Sure it wasn't an "Everyone lives, we can finally go get that drink you owe me, one moment though I just need to fuck my girlfriend" ending but, as i've said elsewhere, what kind of pathetic, child-like, spoon fed, shallow people NEED that lovey dovey ending for it to count as "Good"? It was bittersweet, and I respect Bioware for not treating me like a child.
Would I rather get the lovey dovey ending? Sure, of course. But I don't need it to feel satisfied. Do I wish there was more? Without question, I could play this game for the rest of my life.
All in all, I am happy with the ending and not only that but Mass effect 3 is the best game I've ever experienced and I say that from a position of someone who has been gaming for 20 years (yes, During Bioware's supposed "Golden age" too), who is a writer and someone who would have not hesitated to demand bioware's head if they'd ruined the final game of my favourite sci-fi trilogy.
But they didn't and I can't wait to see what's next.
Or, you know, the time and budget that was given to Mass Effect 3 without the Kinnect bullshit, or pulling people off to go help rearrange deck chairs on TOR. You know, what people who actually had a grasp of the situation have been saying.RagTagBand said:
By which you mean, he/she/it was not successfully bamboozled by an unconvincing starchild and never railroaded into one of three prerendered cutscenes that had absolutely nothing to do with any decisions you'd made in any game in the franchise up to that point? Because, that sir, is truly the impossible. And by getting an actual ending you have achieved the impossible.RagTagBand said:
Just for spoon feeding their contradictory exposition to you like one, right...RagTagBand said:
Then, as a fellow professional, I can only say to you, best of luck on that, as your lit-rev skills need some serious work, and probably a dash of impartiality.RagTagBand said:
The word you're looking for is "cannibalism".RagTagBand said:
This would definitely be the best of both worlds. I agree that a downer ending is definitely more impactful, especially in the Mass Effect series, but a game shouldn't have to disregard it's core mechanics in order to facilitate that.Abandon4093 said:
Quite different. In the 8 or so times I've completed the game, I still haven't managed to see every possible outcome.Abandon4093 said:
I'm not going to debate story here, I'm going to debate game design. Bear with me.
Gameplay, Story, and Audiovisual Design must all be balanced in order to present a good game. If a game is lacking on any of these aspects, it ultimately does not succeed as a game, or at least not to the extent to which it otherwise could.
The gameplay and audiovisual design of the mass effect series have always pushed a fast-paced action adventure game with a solid RPG mechanical foundation. The move to cover-based combat was to appeal to a larger demographic and to keep the same pace of the game while simultaneously reducing the size of areas. As the series has progressed, the music has gotten darker and more depressing, moving away from the optimistic ambient sounds you would hear while exploring the citadel, while still keeping the same tone for combat.
This leads to the assumption on the player's part that the final game will be dark, that defeating the reapers will be incredibly difficult, but that Shepard will ultimately win. After all, she makes a habit of surviving impossible situations, and to date had only every been placed in life-threatening situations during cutscenes - never during actual gameplay, and even then there were fake-outs.
Player expectation was that Shepard would survive - or at least have a chance of survival, as was presented in ME2. This was further reinforced by the War Assets mechanic, which mirrors the Loyalty mechanic from the second game. Loyalty ensured that the character in question would survive the suicide mission, provided the player made intelligent decisions. Likewise, there is an assumption that the accumulation of War Assets will have a meaningful impact on Shepard's chances in the final battle to retake Earth.
The fact that this is not the case defies player expectation, but more so, it invalidates player effort. After the player has invested both with their time and effort, as well as emotionally, in the preparation of the allied fleet, the fact that this results in no major change in the story betrays the trust the players had in the game mechanics. It is as if the player's weapons exploded without reason, or refused to fire, or if their powers suddenly stopped working, except on a massive scale. This does not generate tension as it was perhaps intended, this creates extreme annoyance and frustration with the game.
Bioware did something they have never done before with one of their games - create a series of endings with unavoidable character failure. Sure, Shepard may technically have succeeded, but to my knowledge never before have they ended a game in a situation where the player did not achieve a total victory. In addition, it is the only Bioware ending I know of that has the player's victory come from any source other than their character's own abilities.
Is that a valid choice to make for an ending? Yes. Does it remain within the framework of past practices? No, it does not, neither does it fit the established tone of the previous games in the series, or previous Bioware games. It does not reflect the mechanics established in itself, either, making the primary ruler of success (war assets) pointless, and the overarching markers of success (choices regarding entire species, civilizations, and the individual survival of squadmates) entirely useless.
It's up to you whether you think Bioware should rewrite the ending to Mass Effect 3, but with regards to widely accepted video game design, the game does not end in a manner befitting its gameplay, story, or audiovisual design, and does not follow the expectations that Bioware itself ingrained in fans through these means in previous games.
Gameplay, Story, and Audiovisual Design must all be balanced in order to present a good game. If a game is lacking on any of these aspects, it ultimately does not succeed as a game, or at least not to the extent to which it otherwise could.
The gameplay and audiovisual design of the mass effect series have always pushed a fast-paced action adventure game with a solid RPG mechanical foundation. The move to cover-based combat was to appeal to a larger demographic and to keep the same pace of the game while simultaneously reducing the size of areas. As the series has progressed, the music has gotten darker and more depressing, moving away from the optimistic ambient sounds you would hear while exploring the citadel, while still keeping the same tone for combat.
This leads to the assumption on the player's part that the final game will be dark, that defeating the reapers will be incredibly difficult, but that Shepard will ultimately win. After all, she makes a habit of surviving impossible situations, and to date had only every been placed in life-threatening situations during cutscenes - never during actual gameplay, and even then there were fake-outs.
Player expectation was that Shepard would survive - or at least have a chance of survival, as was presented in ME2. This was further reinforced by the War Assets mechanic, which mirrors the Loyalty mechanic from the second game. Loyalty ensured that the character in question would survive the suicide mission, provided the player made intelligent decisions. Likewise, there is an assumption that the accumulation of War Assets will have a meaningful impact on Shepard's chances in the final battle to retake Earth.
The fact that this is not the case defies player expectation, but more so, it invalidates player effort. After the player has invested both with their time and effort, as well as emotionally, in the preparation of the allied fleet, the fact that this results in no major change in the story betrays the trust the players had in the game mechanics. It is as if the player's weapons exploded without reason, or refused to fire, or if their powers suddenly stopped working, except on a massive scale. This does not generate tension as it was perhaps intended, this creates extreme annoyance and frustration with the game.
Bioware did something they have never done before with one of their games - create a series of endings with unavoidable character failure. Sure, Shepard may technically have succeeded, but to my knowledge never before have they ended a game in a situation where the player did not achieve a total victory. In addition, it is the only Bioware ending I know of that has the player's victory come from any source other than their character's own abilities.
Is that a valid choice to make for an ending? Yes. Does it remain within the framework of past practices? No, it does not, neither does it fit the established tone of the previous games in the series, or previous Bioware games. It does not reflect the mechanics established in itself, either, making the primary ruler of success (war assets) pointless, and the overarching markers of success (choices regarding entire species, civilizations, and the individual survival of squadmates) entirely useless.
It's up to you whether you think Bioware should rewrite the ending to Mass Effect 3, but with regards to widely accepted video game design, the game does not end in a manner befitting its gameplay, story, or audiovisual design, and does not follow the expectations that Bioware itself ingrained in fans through these means in previous games.
Honestly, at that point you've probably seen all of them. For the most part the ME3 endings are the product of individual binary states. Going into the actual endings are based on one, the Collector base saved/destroyed cross referenced by your effective military score. Strictly speaking the same EMS states are available, they just trigger at different thresholds.GiantRaven said:
The TIM conversation changes a bit, but with the exception of the Collector Base choice, it only keys off behavior in ME3, not 1 or 2. Even then, the primary feature it looks for is if the player made a successful persuade option on him for every opportunity to do so during the course of the game, and (I think) which ones. The TIM conversation doesn't really affect the endings, but it does tailor itself pretty well, and if we axed the starchild crap, and went straight from the TIM conversation to activating the device, with an explosion, and cut the gate crash and Normandy epilogue, it would be a pretty satisfying conclusion... anyway, getting back...
The lead up through London changes based on one variable (Shepard's interactions with the shuttle pilot), but the cut-scenes and firebase do alter based on binary states, IE Wrex Alive/Dead, Turrian Allies Yes/No, and so on. While this creates the illusion of actual adaptivity, it's honestly simply small single point changes that have no impact on gameplay, no real effect on the story, and no effect of any kind in the post-London content.
The London cutscenes also change based on player choices, but, again, these have no story impact whatsoever.
They didn't "break a mold", guy. Dues Ex did. They copy pasted that ending. As well, many movies, games, books, etc. break this "mold". A happy ending isn't a mold either. Stories have ended in tragedy since Romeo and Juliet in the 1500s and before. You are giving Bioware WAY too much credit and you sound ridiculous.Hyper-space said:
Compared to ME3 it was. ME3's ending contadicts the entire driving force behind the game, most of it makes no damn sense. As well, it tells you nothing. Just because a game ends, doesn't mean you got an ending - even if it ends with a cutscene. Mass Effect 3 ended, it did NOT have an ending. Nobody knows what the fuck the end of the game is, hence the "dream theory" and "indoctrination theory". That is why people are desperately grasping trying to make some sense out of it. But the sad truth is, the ending just sucked. Maybe they broke the mold in the sense of "Contradict the themes of the trilogy and give no closure." But I doubt that is a technique that will catch on. Because it's dumb and shows poor writing.
Did you read my post. I like games that aren't about power-fantasy, I like a little hopelessness, even in an ending. But not in a trilogy that promised a power-fantasy from minute one, literally. If you are playing mass effect, you don't want the feeling that nothing you do will ever matter. You don't want a feeling of hopelessness. Really, how is this so hard to get?Hyper-space said:
I don't care what the devs said - playing through all three of the games, paying attention to the tone, at no point does it look like things are going to get THAT dark - it is jarringly incongruous with the rest of the game. Yeah, you suffer losses and close calls through the series, but you also have victories that you care about along the way. The ending was pretty much all loss and no victory, or bittersweet at most - and Mass Effect was never bittersweet before that point. Defeating the Reapers is a means to an end, getting the galaxy back on its feet, which as it so happens, you care about because you've helped to shape it. The options at the end don't really do that - they kill the Reapers and screw over the galaxy at the same time, with barely any personal or character-related victories to mitigate that whatsoever.SajuukKhar said:
I don't agree on everything, for example that the ending should be happy but I'd say that one of the endings should be more or less happy.
But really what it needs, are multiple endings which depending on your choices and actions. An ending which makes sense and doesn't have so many plot holes. Closure is one of the most important things in my opinion, a trilogy like Mass Effect shouldn't end in such an open way. Maybe they tried a 2001: A Space Odyssey ending but they couldn't pull it off well and like I said, I don't think that Mass Effect is suitable for something like that. I think it should end in a similar way to LoTR.
But really what it needs, are multiple endings which depending on your choices and actions. An ending which makes sense and doesn't have so many plot holes. Closure is one of the most important things in my opinion, a trilogy like Mass Effect shouldn't end in such an open way. Maybe they tried a 2001: A Space Odyssey ending but they couldn't pull it off well and like I said, I don't think that Mass Effect is suitable for something like that. I think it should end in a similar way to LoTR.
AHAHAHA No. A few extra months and the, what, few tens of thousands of dollars that would have been required to add kinect? That's what you think would have been the difference between what we have and, essentially, a game that's 1000 times more complex? You're either trolling or I'm amazed you managed to bang your head on your keyboard to write out that response and still remain conscious enough to hit post.Starke said:
To make every possible decision culminate into completely noticeably different endings and experiences over the course of a 90 hour trilogy would have taken an absurdly large amount of additional resources and time. Not a little, but a lot, A LOT. I don't suppose you would understand what I mean by "Exponential" or "Butterfly effect" so I guess this would all go over your head anyway.
Why do you insist on forgetting the first 30 hours of the game and judging it by its final minute? MY effect on the game was seen throughout, Right up until the final 5 minutes I was constantly seeing how I had affected the story and its characters. My teeny tiny decisions of "Did I sign Conrad Verners Autograph?" may have slipped by in the ending scene, And lo I will weep tonight not knowing if he did hang it on his wall, but the BIG decision didn't slip by.Starke said:
And honestly, what could have been shown? Most worlds are burned and destroyed, Billions upon Billions of people are dead, the entire galaxy, effectively, has been changed by the end of the War. Nearly every decision you made would have been trumped by the fact that everywhere you've been having been destroyed and (probably) everyone you've ever met being dead.
I would have liked more time spent on what happened to my crew but as I said the people I gave a shit survived and that's what I really cared about. I wanted Liara to Survive and I wanted Garrus to survive, everything else is a bonus to me.
Ha, how quaint, I'm being lectured by a nobody on writing because I don't agree with his spoilt-brat opinions on a game ending, and being lectured on impartiality by someone who doesn't seem to understand what impartial means. Nobody here is impartial; Impartial people wouldn't give a fuck about the ending of this game enough to come froth at the mouth on an internet forum about it.Starke said:
2/10, it's the best I can give you.