WRONG ME2 barely had variety to the endings...all it was is who lives or who dies (and hardly goes into detail) and its teh same two colors at the end...blue and red. ME3 endgame wasn't supposed to be "epic"....you missed the entire tone here.That's certainly more player controlled variety in what happens in the endgames than ME3 had, which was nothing. Only because of 12 characters to account for as well as the crew, thats it. Even then not that varied.[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="wis3boi"]
I'm gonna agree, ME2 had a LOT of variety in the endings compared to the other two games, it had epic music, it had tension. Granted, I thought the space battle in ME3 was incredibly cool (needed music though, silence was less epic), and fighting in london was intense. But overall I think ME2 nailed the ending types a lot better
FIipMode
MASS EFFECT 3- Was the ending bad enough to ruin THE ENTIRE GAME?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="SciFiRPGfan"]
[QUOTE="001011000101101"]I don't what to answer. I still consider ME3 one of the best games I've played in years, and the ME trilogy as the best videogame trilogy of all time, but after the ending of ME3, I have ZERO desire to start over. I played both ME1 & 2 around 12-13 times, but I haven't even played ME3 twice. The game is amazing, and your choices really do have some awesome consequences, but I'm having a hard time caring when the ending is as depressing as it is. I like dark endings. I like depressing games. But ME3 went waaaay overboard. No matter what you do, the galaxy is screwed, and that is why I can't be bothered anymore.001011000101101
Eh, I have hard time believing the bolded part after reading your posts.
Don't get me wrong, you are completely free to like or dislike and also criticize whatever you want (albeit not everything that you will ciriticize will be objectivelly bad, some things aren't flaws per se, but deliberate design / story decisions), but you really shouldn't try to portray yourself as a person who likes dark endings / depressing games. Apparently that's not the case.
Either that, or your definition of dark / depressing must be very, very soft. Still, I prefer when people are more upfront and don't diminish their points by saying that they are actually O.K. with something, but "this time" it was too much.
A few spoilers below..
As I already said, a lot of things goes bad in ME3, no matter what you do. No matter how big an army you gather, these things still happens. You have no idea what happened to the other homeworlds, other than they were totally screwed the last time you saw them. Curing the Genophage is cool and all, but before you reach the end of the game, the whole planet might as well have been destroyed.If I did a really bad playthrough, an ending like this one would be great. Depressing in all the right ways. Your Shepard failed, the galaxy is screwed. But as it is now, you can be the biggest paragon, assemble the biggest fleet, save everyone in you come across and yet, you STILL get the same sad crap. THAT is why the ending is so depressing. It's depressing in the wrong way.
I don't care if this is a decision on Bioware's part. It seems comepletely out of place, and ****s all over the entire trilogy.
Sad endings can be great, when they make sense in the context of the game.
No, the ending DOES make sense in the context of the game...why? Because of theme of victory through sacrifice. The galaxy has to sacrifice their way of life to achieve victory, plain and simple. Nevermind even with a top strength fleet, they still get hit hard. Hell, half of Hammer in the best ending do not make their drops. A KOTOR Light Side style ending would NOT make sense in the context of the game. Seriously, take a look a Planescape Torments ending......its a bittersweet one even as a good guy because [spoiler] no matter what the hero is damned for what he has done in his past lives [/spoiler]
[QUOTE="001011000101101"]
A few spoilers below..
As I already said, a lot of things goes bad in ME3, no matter what you do. No matter how big an army you gather, these things still happens. You have no idea what happened to the other homeworlds, other than they were totally screwed the last time you saw them. Curing the Genophage is cool and all, but before you reach the end of the game, the whole planet might as well have been destroyed. If I did a really bad playthrough, an ending like this one would be great. Depressing in all the right ways. Your Shepard failed, the galaxy is screwed. But as it is now, you can be the biggest paragon, assemble the biggest fleet, save everyone in you come across and yet, you STILL get the same sad crap. THAT is why the ending is so depressing. It's depressing in the wrong way.
I don't care if this is a decision on Bioware's part. It seems comepletely out of place, and ****s all over the entire trilogy.SciFiRPGfan
Well, you said that you supposedly like dark / depressing endings or games, but then you proceed to criticize the game for not allowing you to avoid them. I don't know... but something does not add up.
Large part of appeal of dark / depressing works (movies, games, books, comics, etc.) or events is in the fact, that they are bringing in some shape or form negative emotions / consequences, which are unavoidable. If they were avoidable, the work would not be described as depressing, but... I don't know... only partially depressing or optionally depressing or not depressing at all. Where would be the depression, if the event, that is supposed to cause it, could be avoided completely? Or could only be activated at the will of the person, who is supposed to be affected by it?
You may not like those events or the fact that they are unavoidable, but... then you probably should not try portray yourself as a person who actually likes stuff like that. That was my main point. Not to question your judgement about ME3's ending being too dark / depressing.
Also, you are making a lot of assumptions in your post about the things which actually could have gone either way (fate of Tuchanka, fate of fleets, fate of crew). The lack of clarity and closure is something that I consider to be the biggest flaw of the ending myself, but the lack of information does not mean that the things happened in the worst possible way. It's more of a sign of incomplete or deliberatly open ending than sign of deliberately dark / depressing one.
Sad endings can be great, when they make sense in the context of the game.
What kind of context do you mean? Story wise, a lot of losses and casualties are more than likely given how a single Reaper (Sovereign) was able to go toe to toe with the whole Fifth Fleet and destroy plenty of ships and genre wise, there's nothing that would restrict Bioware either (e.g. pretty much all endings in Fallout 1 are somewhat sad as well). :?
I do like depressing/sad endings. Red Dead Redemption is an excellent example of sad endings done right. It fit with the theme of the game, and even though it kinda came out of nowhere, it made sense. Deadly Premonition is another game that has an excellent ending, that leaves you in a sad mood afterwards. What differentiates these two games from ME3, is that both of these are linear experiences. You were never meant to have any impact on the story. The Mass Effect trilogy was all about choice and consequence, and yet no matter what you, you end up with a sad/depressing ending. A higher EMS doesn't mean anything other than a slight difference in one of the ending movies. Everything stays the same.
I don't care if Bioware is trying to make a statement about certain things being unavoidable, no matter what you do. Stuff like that doesn't fit in a game that's all about choice and consequences! Again, I'm not asking for a huge party after the defeat of the Reapers, but at least give the player just a little impact on how the ending plays out! As it is now, every ending is the sad ending, and that's what makes it so depressing.
[QUOTE="SciFiRPGfan"]
[QUOTE="001011000101101"]
Well, you said that you supposedly like dark / depressing endings or games, but then you proceed to criticize the game for not allowing you to avoid them. I don't know... but something does not add up.
Large part of appeal of dark / depressing works (movies, games, books, comics, etc.) or events is in the fact, that they are bringing in some shape or form negative emotions / consequences, which are unavoidable. If they were avoidable, the work would not be described as depressing, but... I don't know... only partially depressing or optionally depressing or not depressing at all. Where would be the depression, if the event, that is supposed to cause it, could be avoided completely? Or could only be activated at the will of the person, who is supposed to be affected by it?
You may not like those events or the fact that they are unavoidable, but... then you probably should not try portray yourself as a person who actually likes stuff like that. That was my main point. Not to question your judgement about ME3's ending being too dark / depressing.
Also, you are making a lot of assumptions in your post about the things which actually could have gone either way (fate of Tuchanka, fate of fleets, fate of crew). The lack of clarity and closure is something that I consider to be the biggest flaw of the ending myself, but the lack of information does not mean that the things happened in the worst possible way. It's more of a sign of incomplete or deliberatly open ending than sign of deliberately dark / depressing one.Sad endings can be great, when they make sense in the context of the game.001011000101101
What kind of context do you mean? Story wise, a lot of losses and casualties are more than likely given how a single Reaper (Sovereign) was able to go toe to toe with the whole Fifth Fleet and destroy plenty of ships and genre wise, there's nothing that would restrict Bioware either (e.g. pretty much all endings in Fallout 1 are somewhat sad as well). :?
I do like depressing/sad endings. Red Dead Redemption is an excellent example of sad endings done right. It fit with the theme of the game, and even though it kinda came out of nowhere, it made sense. Deadly Premonition is another game that has an excellent ending, that leaves you in a sad mood afterwards. What differentiates these two games from ME3, is that both of these are linear experiences. You were never meant to have any impact on the story. The Mass Effect trilogy was all about choice and consequence, and yet no matter what you, you end up with a sad/depressing ending. A higher EMS doesn't mean anything other than a slight difference in one of the ending movies. Everything stays the same.
I don't care if Bioware is trying to make a statement about certain things being unavoidable, no matter what you do. Stuff like that doesn't fit in a game that's all about choice and consequences! Again, I'm not asking for a huge party after the defeat of the Reapers, but at least give the player just a little impact on how the ending plays out! As it is now, every ending is the sad ending, and that's what makes it so depressing.
What significant changes could happen based on the players choices in ME3s ending mission that I'm missing out on mentioning?FIipMode
I am not sure that I uderstand. When did you mention any? Also, I don't know what do you consider significant so take that with grain of salt.
But, to say the least, player's choices / preparation for final mission can influence the availability of Virmire Survivor for final mission (can be killed, sent to Hacket), influence survival of squadmates during the final rush towards that beam thingy (if the war assets are too low, they will die similarly to Suicide Mission) and ifluence the survival of Shepard which is outlined in "destroy" ending in case of enough war assets.
And I am only going by the standards that you mentioned in your previous posts - i.e. Shepard / squadmates being available for mission or not and surviving or not, which is rather harsh standard, but... you've set the rules and I have to play along. :(
All in all, I admit that it is nowhere near as impressive as Mass Effect 2's variety, but it is still at least on par with Mass Effect 1, so whoever has problems with ME3's variety, must have had problems with Mass Effect 1 as well.
The Witcher 2 ring any bells. They had to fix their atrocious ending as well.texasgoldrush
No way that Witcher 2's ending has caused so much outcry as Mass Effect 3's and more importantly, no way that it has been perceived to be as bad as Mass Effect 3's ending by majority of people.
To point out some obvious differences:
1. It was perceived as much more coherent - there were no cutscenes that would require further explanation as to how they fell within the existing story and why they happened the way they happened (e.g. Normandy flying away and crashing).
2. The scenes / events were much less questionable in terms of what did they actually mean (e.g. explosion of Relays, colorful explosions)
3. The motives and explanations of characters / antagonists were considered to be much more understandable and logical (Letho explained his motives pretty nicely and his reasons could hardly be described as illogical or at least questionable, as opposed to Mass Effect 3 that has spawned the whole "Yo dawg i heard you don't wanna be killed by synthetics, so i made some synthetics to kill you every 50k years, so you won't be killed by synthetics." meme)
4. Player had the option to question the final antagonist very properly and the conversation could have been very long and detailed.
5. The Witcher 2 was not supposed to be the end of the whole series that should have wrapped it up and provide enough information for satisfactory conclusion.
And that's just from top of my head and I am not counting all the videos in which people went scene by scene and pointed out plenty of questionable things, because they could actually be answered little bit of imagination. But it's obvious that ME3 was very likely pushing most peoples' suspension of disbelief way more than TW2 did.
If you have a problem with TW2 or its ending, fine, feel free to criticize it, preferably in proper threads (the one actually dedicated to TW2) and judge it on its own merits. But you really shoul stop trying to pass its ending off as something as bad and as badly received as was Mass Effect 3's ending.
I do like depressing/sad endings. Red Dead Redemption is an excellent example of sad endings done right. It fit with the theme of the game, and even though it kinda came out of nowhere, it made sense. Deadly Premonition is another game that has an excellent ending, that leaves you in a sad mood afterwards. What differentiates these two games from ME3, is that both of these are linear experiences. You were never meant to have any impact on the story. The Mass Effect trilogy was all about choice and consequence, and yet no matter what you, you end up with a sad/depressing ending. A higher EMS doesn't mean anything other than a slight difference in one of the ending movies. Everything stays the same.
I don't care if Bioware is trying to make a statement about certain things being unavoidable, no matter what you do. Stuff like that doesn't fit in a game that's all about choice and consequences! Again, I'm not asking for a huge party after the defeat of the Reapers, but at least give the player just a little impact on how the ending plays out! As it is now, every ending is the sad ending, and that's what makes it so depressing.001011000101101
Well, as far as mere choices and consequences are concerned, they could have met the requirement for more and more refined choices and consequences without making them more uplifting. :P
For example, what would you have said, if there was much greater variety in terms of how the final mission could have played out (e.g. more options to have different allies, to attack different areas, to have different and more varied cutscenes, different order of objectives, etc.) but the overall mood stayed the same - i.e. those different allies could die in many different ways against different enemies, the conversations / cutscenes with dying squadmates would be more varied and detailed, but they would die anyway, etc.? Or if there were more choices like the one on Virmire (e.g. survival of Citadel vs survival of Volus race, Mass Relays vs Drells, etc.)?
Would that have helped? Or do you actually need the option to avoid all / majority of negative consequences?
"I am not sure that I uderstand. When did you mention any? Also, I don't know what do you consider significant so take that with grain of salt.
But, to say the least, player's choices / preparation for final mission can influence the availability of Virmire Survivor for final mission (can be killed, sent to Hacket), influence survival of squadmates during the final rush towards that beam thingy (if the war assets are too low, they will die similarly to Suicide Mission) and ifluence the survival of Shepard which is outlined in "destroy" ending in case of enough war assets.
And I am only going by the standards that you mentioned in your previous posts - i.e. Shepard / squadmates being available for mission or not and surviving or not, which is rather harsh standard, but... you've set the rules and I have to play along. 
All in all, I admit that it is nowhere near as impressive as Mass Effect 2's variety, but it is still at least on par with Mass Effect 1, so whoever has problems with ME3's variety, must have had problems with Mass Effect 1 as well."
That's pretty much my point to start off with, while ME3 in comparison had little if any variety in what you could change. I'm not sure why your bringing up ME1, as the series progresses and stakes get so much higher people expect more, especially after what they did with ME2 ending mission.
Who can die rushing to the beam?
That's pretty much my point to start off with, while ME3 in comparison had little if any variety in what you could change. I'm not sure why your bringing up ME1, as the series progresses and stakes get so much higher people expect more, especially after what they did with ME2 ending mission.FIipMode
Just be sure to not to forget that I did you a favor by going by your arbitrarily defined criteria. ;) If we went for example by the amount of ending choices or amount of different cutscenes, or amount of implied outcomes, all of which are dependant on player's actions throughout the whole game, Mass Effect 3 would most likely be better than the previous two.
As for bringing up ME 1, the things do not always grow in straightforward manner. Some ideas are followed and developed further and some are abandoned for whatever reasons. The best example would be the number of squadmates. While there most likely were many people, who were upset that there weren't as many squadmates as in ME 2, let alone more as would the idea of growing / improving everything indicate, the general consesuns seems to be that it was not such a big problem.
Now I haven't played other games from Bioware than Mass Effects, so I can't be completely sure, but to me, Suicide Mission felt more like an exception than general standard by which Bioware would want to design their final missions and it surely was an exception to everything I have ever played. To expect that after Mass Effect 2, there will always be final missions with that amount of choices, let alone more, that would be rather unrealistic. Especially since Bioware wanted to improve so many other things as well.
So, by bringing ME 1 into the question, I am trying to find out what was the actual minimum standard for Mass Effect series, what would be the average standard and whether and which of those has Mass Effect 3 met, if at all. I find it more fair than expecting that ME 3 would keep / improve upon everything.
Who can die rushing to the beam?
Whoever you pick for that mission.
Just be sure to not to forget that I did you a favor by going by your arbitrarily defined criteria. ;) If we went for example by the amount of ending choices or amount of different cutscenes, or amount of implied outcomes, all of which are dependant on player's actions throughout the whole game, Mass Effect 3 would most likely be better than the previous two.
SciFiRPGfan
I'm not interested in implied outcomes, I was interested in seeing the culmination of my choices throughout the series, not an expectation that came out of nowhere but based on Biowares promises and the marketing of the franchise.
"As for bringing up ME 1, the things do not always grow in straightforward manner. Some ideas are followed and developed further and some are abandoned for whatever reasons. The best example would be the number of squadmates. While there most likely were many people, who were upset that there weren't as many squadmates as in ME 2, let alone more as would the idea of growing / improving everything indicate, the general consesuns seems to be that it was not such a big problem."
Naturally people would expect a lot from the final entry in a trilogy that put an emphasis on the results of choices.
"Now I haven't played other games from Bioware than Mass Effects, so I can't be completely sure, but to me, Suicide Mission felt more like an exception than general standard by which Bioware would want to design their final missions and it surely was an exception to everything I have ever played. To expect that after Mass Effect 2, there will always be final missions with that amount of choices, let alone more, that would be rather unrealistic. Especially since Bioware wanted to improve so many other things as well."
To give you an example of the why someone would expect a suicide mission like scenario on a grander scale I'll post a quote from Bioware.
"
"There is a huge set of consequences that start stacking up as you approach the end-game. And even in terms of the ending itself, it continues to break down to some very large decisions. So it's not like a classic game
ending where everything is linear and you make a choice between a few things - it really does layer in many, many different choices, up to the final moments, where it's going to be different for everyone who plays it."
"Yeah, and I'd say much more so, because we have the ability to build
the endings out in a way that we don't have to worry about eventually
tying them back together somewhere. This story arc is coming to an end
with this game. That means the endings can be a lot more different. At
this point we're taking into account so many decisions that you?ve made
as a player and reflecting a lot of that stuff. It's not even in any way
like the traditional game endings, where you can say how many endings
there are or whether you got ending A, B, or C.....The endings have a
lot more sophistication and variety in them."
"So, by bringing ME 1 into the question, I am trying to find out what was the actual minimum standard for Mass Effect series, what would be the average standard and whether and which of those has Mass Effect 3 met, if at all. I find it more fair than expecting that ME 3 would keep / improve upon everything."
Don't expect it to prove upon everything, but the ending and consequences of choices compared to the last game? Absolutely, and that was expected by a lot of players
"Whoever you pick for that mission."
Can you link this?
WRONG ME2 barely had variety to the endings...all it was is who lives or who dies (and hardly goes into detail) and its teh same two colors at the end...blue and red. ME3 endgame wasn't supposed to be "epic"....you missed the entire tone here.[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="wis3boi"]
I'm gonna agree, ME2 had a LOT of variety in the endings compared to the other two games, it had epic music, it had tension. Granted, I thought the space battle in ME3 was incredibly cool (needed music though, silence was less epic), and fighting in london was intense. But overall I think ME2 nailed the ending types a lot better
Stringerboy
Your right. ME3's ending was supossed to make you depressed, confused and betrayed.
Wrong....see the synthesis ending...is that supposed to be depressing? Hell Joker and EDI are smiling and hugging...try again.
[QUOTE="Stringerboy"][QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] WRONG ME2 barely had variety to the endings...all it was is who lives or who dies (and hardly goes into detail) and its teh same two colors at the end...blue and red. ME3 endgame wasn't supposed to be "epic"....you missed the entire tone here.texasgoldrush
Your right. ME3's ending was supossed to make you depressed, confused and betrayed.
Wrong....see the synthesis ending...is that supposed to be depressing? Hell Joker and EDI are smiling and hugging...try again.wrong, synthesis ending is probably the worst ending of all, i could write a long post about it but im too lazy
Wrong....see the synthesis ending...is that supposed to be depressing? Hell Joker and EDI are smiling and hugging...try again.[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="Stringerboy"]
Your right. ME3's ending was supossed to make you depressed, confused and betrayed.
Krelian-co
wrong, synthesis ending is probably the worst ending of all, i could write a long post about it but im too lazy
not the way the game portrays it.If you think that the ending doesn't change because of your choices....you are factually wrong. Low EMS 1. The space battle is a disaster and your fleets get slaughtered, including a turian ship getting its bridge drilled by a Reaper Destroyer. 2. Only a very small fraction of Hammer makes their drops....game shows them being turkey shot by te Reapers instead of the Hammer forces taking charge after landing. 3. The tone in the FOB is even more dire. 4. Harbinger will kill the two party members you take with you to the Conduit Beam.....this is the ONLY time in the series where Liara can be killed. You see their corpses on the way up to the beam after being struck. 5. The Catalyst will limit your choices....if you destroyed the base in ME2, you are stuck with the worst ending of the game....Earth is destroyed because the Crucible is badly built and defended, assuming the great majority of the galaxy is as well, and the Normandy crew is killed, th ehatch opens, no one comes out.texasgoldrush
Keep fighting the good fight, lol.
But i would like a link to number 4.
[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"]If you think that the ending doesn't change because of your choices....you are factually wrong. Low EMS 1. The space battle is a disaster and your fleets get slaughtered, including a turian ship getting its bridge drilled by a Reaper Destroyer. 2. Only a very small fraction of Hammer makes their drops....game shows them being turkey shot by te Reapers instead of the Hammer forces taking charge after landing. 3. The tone in the FOB is even more dire. 4. Harbinger will kill the two party members you take with you to the Conduit Beam.....this is the ONLY time in the series where Liara can be killed. You see their corpses on the way up to the beam after being struck. 5. The Catalyst will limit your choices....if you destroyed the base in ME2, you are stuck with the worst ending of the game....Earth is destroyed because the Crucible is badly built and defended, assuming the great majority of the galaxy is as well, and the Normandy crew is killed, th ehatch opens, no one comes out.FIipMode
Keep fighting the good fight, lol.
But i would like a link to number 4.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3mG_kEpsro[QUOTE="FIipMode"][QUOTE="texasgoldrush"]If you think that the ending doesn't change because of your choices....you are factually wrong. Low EMS 1. The space battle is a disaster and your fleets get slaughtered, including a turian ship getting its bridge drilled by a Reaper Destroyer. 2. Only a very small fraction of Hammer makes their drops....game shows them being turkey shot by te Reapers instead of the Hammer forces taking charge after landing. 3. The tone in the FOB is even more dire. 4. Harbinger will kill the two party members you take with you to the Conduit Beam.....this is the ONLY time in the series where Liara can be killed. You see their corpses on the way up to the beam after being struck. 5. The Catalyst will limit your choices....if you destroyed the base in ME2, you are stuck with the worst ending of the game....Earth is destroyed because the Crucible is badly built and defended, assuming the great majority of the galaxy is as well, and the Normandy crew is killed, th ehatch opens, no one comes out.texasgoldrush
Keep fighting the good fight, lol.
But i would like a link to number 4.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3mG_kEpsro That doesn't seem right, having characters die with no indication of it, just character models on the floor.[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="FIipMode"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3mG_kEpsro That doesn't seem right, having characters die with no indication of it, just character models on the floor. A scene showing them die was cut....I think because they want the player to be shocked by Shepard waking up and finding them dead on th eway to the beam. The deleted scene shows Shepard standing still like an idiot as well, so the cut isn't a bad one. At higher EMS, dead alliance soliders are in their place.and really if you squadmates die here, you are doomed to the worst ending.Keep fighting the good fight, lol.
But i would like a link to number 4.
FIipMode
[QUOTE="FIipMode"][QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] A scene showing them die was cut....I think because they want the player to be shocked by Shepard waking up and finding them dead on th eway to the beam. The deleted scene shows Shepard standing still like an idiot as well, so the cut isn't a bad one. At higher EMS, dead alliance soliders are in their place.and really if you squadmates die here, you are doomed to the worst ending.texasgoldrushThe player wouldn't even be shocked because no one even saw that except for a few people, I had to dig through Google to find people talking about it and only saw a few replies. It's like they cut out the deleted scene and forgot to cut the models too. I mean why have characters you've been riding with for 90hrs, and 5 years have such an insignificant death? That's pretty bad. No its not insignicant...look how people died in ME2 as well. Its just another shocking casualty of war. Its supposed to evoke horror and the shock that the comrade you been with are gone in a flash. Also the reason why it may not be talked about so much is that people try to avoid low EMS endings.
Everyone knew when someone died in me2 because they showed it in a cutscene, in ME3 the flash that your comrade was gone in wasn't even acknowledged, there is no planet that out there that this makes sense on.
No its not insignicant...look how people died in ME2 as well. Its just another shocking casualty of war. Its supposed to evoke horror and the shock that the comrade you been with are gone in a flash. Also the reason why it may not be talked about so much is that people try to avoid low EMS endings.[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="FIipMode"] The player wouldn't even be shocked because no one even saw that except for a few people, I had to dig through Google to find people talking about it and only saw a few replies. It's like they cut out the deleted scene and forgot to cut the models too. I mean why have characters you've been riding with for 90hrs, and 5 years have such an insignificant death? That's pretty bad.FIipMode
Everyone knew when someone died in me2 because they showed it in a cutscene, in ME3 the flash that your comrade was gone in wasn't even acknowledged, there is no planet that out there that this makes sense on.
Why do they need a cutscene?....Shepard is supposed to get up and see the horror around him or her. Nevermind if you go straight, Shepard stumbles over Liara.[QUOTE="FIipMode"][QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] No its not insignicant...look how people died in ME2 as well. Its just another shocking casualty of war. Its supposed to evoke horror and the shock that the comrade you been with are gone in a flash. Also the reason why it may not be talked about so much is that people try to avoid low EMS endings.texasgoldrush
Everyone knew when someone died in me2 because they showed it in a cutscene, in ME3 the flash that your comrade was gone in wasn't even acknowledged, there is no planet that out there that this makes sense on.
Why do they need a cutscene?....Shepard is supposed to get up and see the horror around him or her. Nevermind if you go straight, Shepard stumbles over Liara.Agree to disagree, I think it makes sense to follow the tradition of every single medium out there and acknowledge the death of a major character, you don't (lol). I'm done here.[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="FIipMode"]Why do they need a cutscene?....Shepard is supposed to get up and see the horror around him or her. Nevermind if you go straight, Shepard stumbles over Liara.Agree to disagree, I think it makes sense to follow the tradition of every single medium out there and acknowledge the death of a major character, you don't (lol). I'm done here. gaming is not tv, books, or movies sometimes you do not need a cutscene for everything.....you are supposed to feel the shock of them being dead as Shepard stumbles wounded to the Conduit. Nevermind that Shep pretty much stumbles over them. It does this effectively. All Shepard can do is push on.Everyone knew when someone died in me2 because they showed it in a cutscene, in ME3 the flash that your comrade was gone in wasn't even acknowledged, there is no planet that out there that this makes sense on.
FIipMode
I've never seen such a massive biodrone defender of ME3 like this...or any game for that matter. It takes some serious dedication like texas here to actually type so much BS about a poorly designed game and actually believe it, so much so to go and call people's opinions as 'wrong.' What a waste of molecules. Claims ME2's end has no variety, and praises ME3 as being dynamic......I don't know whether to laugh or cry
[QUOTE="001011000101101"]
I do like depressing/sad endings. Red Dead Redemption is an excellent example of sad endings done right. It fit with the theme of the game, and even though it kinda came out of nowhere, it made sense. Deadly Premonition is another game that has an excellent ending, that leaves you in a sad mood afterwards. What differentiates these two games from ME3, is that both of these are linear experiences. You were never meant to have any impact on the story. The Mass Effect trilogy was all about choice and consequence, and yet no matter what you, you end up with a sad/depressing ending. A higher EMS doesn't mean anything other than a slight difference in one of the ending movies. Everything stays the same.
I don't care if Bioware is trying to make a statement about certain things being unavoidable, no matter what you do. Stuff like that doesn't fit in a game that's all about choice and consequences! Again, I'm not asking for a huge party after the defeat of the Reapers, but at least give the player just a little impact on how the ending plays out! As it is now, every ending is the sad ending, and that's what makes it so depressing.SciFiRPGfan
Well, as far as mere choices and consequences are concerned, they could have met the requirement for more and more refined choices and consequences without making them more uplifting. :P
For example, what would you have said, if there was much greater variety in terms of how the final mission could have played out (e.g. more options to have different allies, to attack different areas, to have different and more varied cutscenes, different order of objectives, etc.) but the overall mood stayed the same - i.e. those different allies could die in many different ways against different enemies, the conversations / cutscenes with dying squadmates would be more varied and detailed, but they would die anyway, etc.? Or if there were more choices like the one on Virmire (e.g. survival of Citadel vs survival of Volus race, Mass Relays vs Drells, etc.)?
Would that have helped? Or do you actually need the option to avoid all / majority of negative consequences? Yes, that would have made it much better. It's the lack of details and closure that makes it so depressing to me.
I've never seen such a massive biodrone defender of ME3 like this...or any game for that matter. It takes some serious dedication like texas here to actually type so much BS about a poorly designed game and actually believe it, so much so to go and call people's opinions as 'wrong.' What a waste of molecules. Claims ME2's end has no variety, and praises ME3 as being dynamic......I don't know whether to laugh or cry
wis3boi
Laugh of course.
Put it like this: even if you feel really bad about something, you could be even worse :P
I'm not interested in implied outcomes, I was interested in seeing the culmination of my choices throughout the series, not an expectation that came out of nowhere but based on Biowares promises and the marketing of the franchise.
Naturally people would expect a lot from the final entry in a trilogy that put an emphasis on the results of choices.To give you an example of the why someone would expect a suicide mission like scenario on a grander scale I'll post a quote from Bioware.
"
"There is a huge set of consequences that start stacking up as you approach the end-game. And even in terms of the ending itself, it continues to break down to some very large decisions. So it's not like a classic game
ending where everything is linear and you make a choice between a few things - it really does layer in many, many different choices, up to the final moments, where it's going to be different for everyone who plays it."
"Yeah, and I'd say much more so, because we have the ability to build
the endings out in a way that we don't have to worry about eventually
tying them back together somewhere. This story arc is coming to an end
with this game. That means the endings can be a lot more different. At
this point we're taking into account so many decisions that you?ve made
as a player and reflecting a lot of that stuff. It's not even in any way
like the traditional game endings, where you can say how many endings
there are or whether you got ending A, B, or C.....The endings have a
lot more sophistication and variety in them."
Don't expect it to prove upon everything, but the ending and consequences of choices compared to the last game? Absolutely, and that was expected by a lot of players.FIipMode
Well, we are getting quite far from your (or your predecessors') original point, which was the claim, that Mass Effect 3's ending kills any replayability. I went as far as to go by your criteria to show that even according to them, there would be at least some,albeit not as good as in ME 2 (which I've promtly admitted) and even ignored another important point, which is, that the replayability of the game is usually not determined solely by the ending (and interestingly enough, in terms of squadmates / former squadmates living or dying in the middle of the game, more of them can live or die than in any of previous Mass Effects), but enough is enough.The question was not whether Mass Effect 3 lived up to its hype / marketing - that's obvious that it didn't, but whether there is any replayabaility or not.
So, sure, you can link some big marketing speeches, but what game has ever lived up to them? Very, very few at best. And there were many big claims as well (Fallout 3's 200 endings, Witceher 2's 16 endings, adds for Project Milo, hype around Duke Nukem Forever,...).And look at the results of the polls in this thread. And that's with taking all of the flaws of Mass Effect 3's ending into account, not just the lack of choices and consequences.
"Whoever you pick for that mission. "Can you link this?
I take it that Texasgoldrush has already answered this one...
Yes, that would have made it much better. It's the lack of details and closure that makes it so depressing to me.001011000101101
Well, that was something I was hoping for as well. :( It's just that the absence of such things did not impact me very much. I dunno, maybe I was too pesimistic from the start to actually believe that they could give us something like that or maybe I was not invested in the series that much anymore to care so much... Or maybe I felt that game was still pretty good without it.
This influences the ENTIRE Genophage story arc.texasgoldrushAnd does it affect the ending?;hmmmm, no. I could make Shepard betray the Krogan and it wouldn't have any impact whatsoever in the ending. I could make Shepard ally with the Quarians or Geth and does it affect the ending?, no. If a game that is "all about choices" have the same ending, which by the way is depressing, then no point replaying the single player portion of the game.
One word. Nope. I didn't like the ending however, it didn't ruin the entire game for me.
[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"]This influences the ENTIRE Genophage story arc.Miroku32And does it affect the ending?;hmmmm, no. I could make Shepard betray the Krogan and it wouldn't have any impact whatsoever in the ending. I could make Shepard ally with the Quarians or Geth and does it affect the ending?, no. If a game that is "all about choices" have the same ending, which by the way is depressing, then no point replaying the single player portion of the game. It affects the endgame (not the ending) and hints at the future.....compare the final battle speech of Wrex, to the final battel speech of Wreav, or Kirrahe. And you would be glad if you sabatoged the cure if Wreav was leader.
Poorly designed game? Wow Nevermind its the most critical acclaimed game of the year so far.I've never seen such a massive biodrone defender of ME3 like this...or any game for that matter. It takes some serious dedication like texas here to actually type so much BS about a poorly designed game and actually believe it, so much so to go and call people's opinions as 'wrong.' What a waste of molecules. Claims ME2's end has no variety, and praises ME3 as being dynamic......I don't know whether to laugh or cry
wis3boi
[QUOTE="wis3boi"]Poorly designed game? Wow Nevermind its the most critical acclaimed game of the year so far. Gotta believe those reviews!I've never seen such a massive biodrone defender of ME3 like this...or any game for that matter. It takes some serious dedication like texas here to actually type so much BS about a poorly designed game and actually believe it, so much so to go and call people's opinions as 'wrong.' What a waste of molecules. Claims ME2's end has no variety, and praises ME3 as being dynamic......I don't know whether to laugh or cry
texasgoldrush
[QUOTE="wis3boi"]Poorly designed game? Wow Nevermind its the most critical acclaimed game of the year so far. Yeah reviews never lie. *points at Command and Conquer Tiberian Sun*I've never seen such a massive biodrone defender of ME3 like this...or any game for that matter. It takes some serious dedication like texas here to actually type so much BS about a poorly designed game and actually believe it, so much so to go and call people's opinions as 'wrong.' What a waste of molecules. Claims ME2's end has no variety, and praises ME3 as being dynamic......I don't know whether to laugh or cry
texasgoldrush
[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="wis3boi"]Poorly designed game? Wow Nevermind its the most critical acclaimed game of the year so far. Yeah reviews never lie. *points at Command and Conquer Tiberian Sun* No Tiberian Sun got mediocre reviews....it got the reviews it deserved.I've never seen such a massive biodrone defender of ME3 like this...or any game for that matter. It takes some serious dedication like texas here to actually type so much BS about a poorly designed game and actually believe it, so much so to go and call people's opinions as 'wrong.' What a waste of molecules. Claims ME2's end has no variety, and praises ME3 as being dynamic......I don't know whether to laugh or cry
m25105
[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="wis3boi"]Poorly designed game? Wow Nevermind its the most critical acclaimed game of the year so far. Gotta believe those reviews! Better than believing highly moronic Metacritic users.I've never seen such a massive biodrone defender of ME3 like this...or any game for that matter. It takes some serious dedication like texas here to actually type so much BS about a poorly designed game and actually believe it, so much so to go and call people's opinions as 'wrong.' What a waste of molecules. Claims ME2's end has no variety, and praises ME3 as being dynamic......I don't know whether to laugh or cry
Loegi
It didn't ruin it for me. I loved the game. The ending wasn't good, but it wasn't any dumber or more nonsensical than stuff like 2001 A Space Odyssey and it certainly wasn't the dumbest video game ending I've seen. Not by a long shot.
mass effect 3 ignores mostly all the big choises, it replaces the characters with another one and keep the same story with a few different lines
learn from witcher 2, you pick a side and a whole new town with whole new quests open with different choises and ending and view on war
Before The Enhanced Edition....TW2 choices didn't impact the ending as well. Your choices didn't matter in the end, until they fixed it. And Bioware specifically said they did NOT want to do what the TW2 did and split the game up so the players can experience all the missions in the game.mass effect 3 ignores mostly all the big choises, it replaces the characters with another one and keep the same story with a few different lines
learn from witcher 2, you pick a side and a whole new town with whole new quests open with different choises and ending and view on war
Krelian-co
[QUOTE="Krelian-co"]Before The Enhanced Edition....TW2 choices didn't impact the ending as well. Your choices didn't matter in the end, until they fixed it. And Bioware specifically said they did NOT want to do what the TW2 did and split the game up so the players can experience all the missions in the game.mass effect 3 ignores mostly all the big choises, it replaces the characters with another one and keep the same story with a few different lines
learn from witcher 2, you pick a side and a whole new town with whole new quests open with different choises and ending and view on war
texasgoldrush
yeah the ending don't really change but whole chapter changes based on your choises nad third one is quite different also. but in mass effect 3: you killed rachni queen, bam space magic, this one is a "clone". you killed the council. bam, space magic, new one who has almost the same lines and do the same. you gave the collector base to cerberus or not: bam space magic, cerberus still has the same reaper tech, now you only need 1000 ems more, wow what a change! the only one that mildly changes is wheater wrex lives or dies, and then again, its the line of the dialogue, not any actual event.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment