The ending is a poison that ruins the entire franchise because its a massive pile of shit at the end of an otherwise epic trip. I have trouble playing any of the games again without thinking of the bullshit that still lies ahead of me.
Why do people completely ignore how great 98% of Mass Effect 3 was and just focus on the ending?
- Thread starter NewYork_Comedian
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Lots of games, if you want a story based RPG that has choices and dialogue then the most recent would be Alpha Protocol, It gets an A for effort but there's barely an element in that game that works properly. FF13 makes Mass Effect look like San Andreas in terms of exploration.DioWallachia said:
I can think of other games or other genres but can you honestly tell me that out of everything that happened in ME3 there's absolutely NOTHING that you liked?
I watched his ME1 analysis and he misses some stuff, big stuff.
Is more like, the bigger they try, the harder it sucks when it fails. Specially if another game did its "parts" much better.ChrisRedfield92 said:
To put it into perspective, if ME went into a Gears of Warification to appeal to broadest demographic, it still makes GoW look good in comparation, because the effort is just mediocre all the way around.
If they took the time to make the game shorter but more polished, it would be a much intense experience because it no longer tries to do everything at the same time.
If i have to be more confusing, i think this would be my way of thinking. Compare the lenght and polish of hypotetical Game A to Game B:
A:
33% - 33% - 34%
Each set piece is taken care by the developers until there is absolute nothing left unpolish. Its the "It will be done when its done" approach (i am not quoting Duke Nukem Forever developement)
B:
10% - 10% - 10% - 10% - 10% - 10% - 10% - 10% - 10% - 10%
In this case, the effort put here is "just enough" to say that you did your job, intead of paying attention to every detail that could make those pieces stand out. Overall you get a experience that doesn't quite reach the intensity of Game A.
I see alot of people saying how "well to be fair the rest of the game was sh*t too" and no, it isn't. Not in comparison. There were some shaky parts but by and large I personally found the middle section to be some of the best fun I've had. I'd say ME3 is about 50% GOTY, 30% good, 15% cheap, and 5% crap. With that 5% being squarely in the keystone of the arch.
I even saw someone here still whining about how the ending to ME2 is so much worse then the ending to ME3. Just....no.
Yeah, and at the end, after like two hours of picking it apart, he arbitrarily declares "well none of this is major so every last bit is excusable." Or something amounting to that. Meanwhile he clings to ME2s issues, real and imagined, like an attack dog. Smudboy goes into those games more or less with his mind made up and then just cherrypicks or outright invents evidence to support his claims. In his ME2 review he once claimed that the theoretical existence of a scenario he just made up that is not implied in the plot but not explicitly denied either means this scenario must be true and thus a given character's actions illogical. Whut?DioWallachia said:
I even saw someone here still whining about how the ending to ME2 is so much worse then the ending to ME3. Just....no.
DAMN IT! You beat me to it!Animyr said:
He says the flaws are many but they never get in the way of suspension of disbelief.
Says who?
The flaws I noticed that he didn't mention despite his extensive analysis, got in my way.
Guess different people have different sensibilities.
You're going to have to explain yourself better.DioWallachia said:
33 plus 33 plus 34 is 100
10 times 10 is 100
they add up to the same number, what are you getting at?
Did ME1 have a cliffhanger? No. It dealt with the current danger while at the same time setting up a greater threat that loomed just beyond the horizon.ChrisRedfield92 said:
You know what they should've done with ME2? Made Legion way more important to the story. You know how in ME1 Liara was kinda the most important teammate due to being Benezia's daughter, an expert on the Protheans, and her ability to kinda make sense out of Shepard's visions? Legion should've filled that role in ME2, seeing as he's a geth that wants to join Shepard in his/her fight, how there are more geth who feel the same way he does, and how he has new information on the Reapers.
His introduction to the team would've provided a jumping off point for the story to expand while still staying true to the plot of finding a way to stop the Reapers. But Legion only joins your team near the very end of the game and ends up doing very little, despite being a freaking geth that wants to help you.
"Did ME1 have a cliffhanger? No. It dealt with the current danger while at the same time setting up a greater threat that loomed just beyond the horizon."Casual Shinji said:
Exactly!! The current danger in ME2 were the Collectors, and they were dealt; and then they set up the greater threat by showing reapers heading towards the milky way.
If the Reapers had already arrived in ME2 then you either resolve that threat by the end of the game, or any ending you do will feel like a cliffhanger.
It's exactly what was done in "The Two Towers" Saruman was out of action while Sauron was still in the game.
I agree that Legion should have had a bigger part in ME2 (although that depends on weather you leave it for last) I don't remember it stating specifically about having more information on the Reapers than you, other than knowing that the heretics were planning to brainwash the Geth.
In the very last second of the game, yes. That's not what I would call a good set up. The entire game is spent fighting the Collectors, gathering teammates, and gaining their loyalty. There isn't one moment in the game where anyone says, "Hey, you know those Reapers that are coming to kill all advanced organic life? Maybe we should try and get some intel on those guys."ChrisRedfield92 said:
Except that The Two Towers made the presence of Sauron very apparent throughout the film by showing Frodo getting influenced by the Ring, introducing Gollum; a former ring bearer who has been to Mordor, Saruman conversing with Sauron, and that scene where Galadriel speaks/communicates with Elrond about the current stakes. We also see troops headed toward Mordor and Gollum talking about how Sauron is preparing for a great war. And we see how Osgiliath is under constant attack from Mordor orks, which is in preparation for the battle of Minas Tirith.
All we get in ME2 is Harbinger occasionally assuming control of a Collector during shoot-outs (which we don't even realize it's him untill the end of the game), the knowledge that the Collectors are enslaved Protheans, and ofcourse the human Reaper. But since all of this gets resolved by the end of the game, this info and build-up doesn't carry over to the sequel. Hence, no set up.
The % is the amount of effort (or budget) in each set piece or plot relevant cutscene have. In B, there are 10 set pieces made with 10% of the effort/budget and in A, there is 3 set pieces with 33% of the budget distributed amount them.ChrisRedfield92 said:
Since A is more shorter, they can focus on polishing what they have up until they meet the artistic criteria that is needed rather than the "just enough to have the job done" approach of game B.
Hell, if B was even LARGER to the point of having 1% of the budget to cover 100 set pieces, the game may as well be made on paper drawings instead of 3D graphics, voice acting would be done by one person doing EVERYONE voices and the sound effects would consist of "PHEW PHEW" "BANG" sound effects. In short, they wouldn't have to rush the ending if they had made Mass Effect 2 to be relevant to the plot in he first place and didnt waste all the budget on retcon everything again.
How many times have you played Mass Effect 2 and/or 3? The ammo for any one weapon cannot be transferred to another weapon, despite the fact that they all use the same "universal" heat sinks. The whole reason they implemented the ammunition system was to stop players from being able to endlessly use one weapon. Firing a single weapon doesn't deplete all of the other weapons, and you can indeed run out of ammo on a weapon and be forced to use another.Buretsu said:
In fact, they SPECIFICALLY avoided making the ammunition truly universal, and transferable between guns, because then they would've entered the horrible situation that Edios ended up in with Deus Ex: Invisible War.
I'm still not getting through to you. In fact, I'm willing to bet if we sat down together and I showed you what I'm talking about somehow you would change the argument. I've dealt with your types before, and just know this: everyone else following this knows you're wrong.
How's that feel?
Of course, I suppose I look like the asshole for arguing with you, but whatever.
Because the ending is what everyone remembers so you could have a fantastic beginning and middle but if the ending is total shit then people will decide it's the worst game ever just for fucking up the characters that you've grown to love with a stupid cut to black or something.
Mass Effect 3 did something to me: it lifted the blinders.
The first two games were so good, I was willing to overlook plot holes and inconsistencies, and how Mass Effect 2's plot was kinda limp. 3 on the other hand, sucked so hard the plot holes came back with a vengeance to distract and befuddle. The ending made the entire series seem less good retroactively and made the whole ordeal a huge waste of time.
With the story no longer holding my attention, the gameply came under full scrutiny: The controls suck, having every action (run, take cover, vault, roll, use, jump) be mapped to the A button was pure stupidity. The levels are linear to a level that would make FFXIII pink with envy, having very little in the way of breaking up the monotony. None of the battles are all that exciting, especially if you've played the multiplayer and blew through hundreds of foes in a single match with only two guns and three powers to work with. The incentive to replay is basically non existant, as there is very little roleplaying involved; you are not Commander Shepard, you are playing as a guy/gal named Shepard. There are huge swaths of the talking scenes that go by without player input, and Shepard has gotten progressively dumber as the series went one. And most damning of is the complete lack of a final boss to defeat-- I would have been way more lenient on this game if there was an actual final encounter with some giant Reaper abomination to give some semblance of finality, but no- just a battle that would have been laughed at in a Bronze MP match and a completely unsatisfying (and piss-easy) verbal duel with the Illusive Man.
So yeah, instead of a blockbuster that I fully expected to blow my shit down the street, I got the poorly executed direct to DVD sequel. Fuck. That.
The first two games were so good, I was willing to overlook plot holes and inconsistencies, and how Mass Effect 2's plot was kinda limp. 3 on the other hand, sucked so hard the plot holes came back with a vengeance to distract and befuddle. The ending made the entire series seem less good retroactively and made the whole ordeal a huge waste of time.
With the story no longer holding my attention, the gameply came under full scrutiny: The controls suck, having every action (run, take cover, vault, roll, use, jump) be mapped to the A button was pure stupidity. The levels are linear to a level that would make FFXIII pink with envy, having very little in the way of breaking up the monotony. None of the battles are all that exciting, especially if you've played the multiplayer and blew through hundreds of foes in a single match with only two guns and three powers to work with. The incentive to replay is basically non existant, as there is very little roleplaying involved; you are not Commander Shepard, you are playing as a guy/gal named Shepard. There are huge swaths of the talking scenes that go by without player input, and Shepard has gotten progressively dumber as the series went one. And most damning of is the complete lack of a final boss to defeat-- I would have been way more lenient on this game if there was an actual final encounter with some giant Reaper abomination to give some semblance of finality, but no- just a battle that would have been laughed at in a Bronze MP match and a completely unsatisfying (and piss-easy) verbal duel with the Illusive Man.
So yeah, instead of a blockbuster that I fully expected to blow my shit down the street, I got the poorly executed direct to DVD sequel. Fuck. That.
I can't for the life of me understand why people hate the mass effect ending. It made perfect sense to me and was a satisfactory conclusion to one of my favorite series. I will quickly address all of the "plot hole" I hear people continuously quote in order to justify it as a bad ending.
The mass relays. People keep on saying that if the emp let off by the crucible that destroyed the mass relays and didn't blow up the solar systems is a contradiction to what we learned from the arrival dlc for ME 2. Bollocks. In Mass Effect 2 they smashed a bloody asteroid into the relay, it wasn't an emp. The scope and execution is completely different.
The fact that there was still the color emp for the control option. My first thought is to ask why the hell you would pick the control option? That goes against the motivation of the character to that point. If you saved the geth like I did I can understand synthesis; but back to the point. The energy emitted from the crucible was still doing the same thing, sending a large amount of energy to the reapers. It needs to be sent somehow and the mass relays are probably the best delivery system. They got destroyed due to the large amounts of energy. They can be rebuilt like the ghost kid said. Speaking of the ghost kid...
The ghost kid. People keep on saying that the ghost kid was pulled out of someones ass at the last second. This isn't true. There was a codex of said kid in Mass effect 1.
How Shepard's crew was on the Normandy. There was an evac. scene.
How Anderson was ahead of Shepard in the citadel. This has two explanations. The first being Anderson was flung into the beam by the explosion and still had the momentum. Or two the dialogue between them. The walls were shifting infront of them. They could have arrived about ten feet from each other and been far enough apart due to the whole wall business.
Why Joker left. If you saw the blast emitting from the crucible and had the i.q. of a deck chair would you stay there and wait.
Hopefully this has calmed all yo people who couldn't think for about .5 seconds about these "plot holes" and found that there were no plot holes. Most of the time I have a feeling that everybody who said the ending was stupid comes from one of two camps. Either they never played it and just kept on spouting everything they heard on the internet or they were one of the people who thought that Inception was confusing or complicated, i.e. retards.
The mass relays. People keep on saying that if the emp let off by the crucible that destroyed the mass relays and didn't blow up the solar systems is a contradiction to what we learned from the arrival dlc for ME 2. Bollocks. In Mass Effect 2 they smashed a bloody asteroid into the relay, it wasn't an emp. The scope and execution is completely different.
The fact that there was still the color emp for the control option. My first thought is to ask why the hell you would pick the control option? That goes against the motivation of the character to that point. If you saved the geth like I did I can understand synthesis; but back to the point. The energy emitted from the crucible was still doing the same thing, sending a large amount of energy to the reapers. It needs to be sent somehow and the mass relays are probably the best delivery system. They got destroyed due to the large amounts of energy. They can be rebuilt like the ghost kid said. Speaking of the ghost kid...
The ghost kid. People keep on saying that the ghost kid was pulled out of someones ass at the last second. This isn't true. There was a codex of said kid in Mass effect 1.
How Shepard's crew was on the Normandy. There was an evac. scene.
How Anderson was ahead of Shepard in the citadel. This has two explanations. The first being Anderson was flung into the beam by the explosion and still had the momentum. Or two the dialogue between them. The walls were shifting infront of them. They could have arrived about ten feet from each other and been far enough apart due to the whole wall business.
Why Joker left. If you saw the blast emitting from the crucible and had the i.q. of a deck chair would you stay there and wait.
Hopefully this has calmed all yo people who couldn't think for about .5 seconds about these "plot holes" and found that there were no plot holes. Most of the time I have a feeling that everybody who said the ending was stupid comes from one of two camps. Either they never played it and just kept on spouting everything they heard on the internet or they were one of the people who thought that Inception was confusing or complicated, i.e. retards.
Continued:
Multiple endings. Thinking about it no game had "Multiple endings". Let's take mass effect 2 for example. The only differences was the amount of people that died.
And to be honest I feel that Mass effect three has too many options to end it on. I feel that a game should have a definite ending, a proper conclusion, not be open ended. Many people may say otherwise, but those people can shut up.
If you need validation for the lack of endings think of it like this: a singular opening, a singular (almost) ending. Unless they reveal that Shepard received brain damage they shouldn't let you do the control option.
Multiple endings. Thinking about it no game had "Multiple endings". Let's take mass effect 2 for example. The only differences was the amount of people that died.
And to be honest I feel that Mass effect three has too many options to end it on. I feel that a game should have a definite ending, a proper conclusion, not be open ended. Many people may say otherwise, but those people can shut up.
If you need validation for the lack of endings think of it like this: a singular opening, a singular (almost) ending. Unless they reveal that Shepard received brain damage they shouldn't let you do the control option.
That's weird, I went with the Control ending, andTexas Joker 52 said:
EDI didn't die. She went down with the Normandy along with everyone else, but she was still functioning.
You're eating a delicious meal.NewYork_Comedian said:
You go to take the final bite when you suddenly feel something wriggling in your mouth.
The back end of a cockroach with one of its legs still twitching had somehow gotten mixed up in your food.
You won't remember that meal after a day or two, but you'll always remember that horrible, disgusting final bite.
If you fail to deliver a proper ending, you have failed. Period. It'd be like watching Old Yeller but at the end instead of killing the dog suddenly St. Bernrd Jesus comes down from the sky and lifts him up to doggie-heaven to spare the boy's innocence.
Ah, but Control only affects Shepard and the Reapers. Synthesis affects everyone (Though not to the extent of death in EDI's case, or that of the Geth or even Reapers), while Destroy only affects the Reapers, other synthetics including EDI and the Geth, and possibly Shepard depending on Effective Military Strength.Jailbird408 said:
EDI would have been just fine with the Control ending. Personally though, I myself could never make my Sheps make that choice. But, to each their own.
If Coltrol only affected the Reapers and Shepard, why did the Normandy crash? I picked Control specifically to avoid that.Texas Joker 52 said:
Come to think of it, I don't know why I'm okay with the ME3 ending.
... Good point, forgot about the Normandy. In that case, all of the endings affect the Normandy, but it depends on EMS on how badly its damaged.Jailbird408 said:
And trust me, Extended Cut improves on what I thought were absolutely shittastic endings. I still think they're mediocre, if only for the fact that the writing team CLEARLY had the potential for greatness.