Mass Effect 3 - Page 126

On March 22 2012 23:27 Firebolt145 wrote:
I find it funny how the very first post in this thread is 'omg multiplayer nooooooooooo.'

Now everyone's in love with the multiplayer while hating on the SP ending.

On March 22 2012 23:27 Firebolt145 wrote:
I find it funny how the very first post in this thread is 'omg multiplayer nooooooooooo.'

Now everyone's in love with the multiplayer while hating on the SP ending.

On March 22 2012 23:37 Thezzy wrote:


Multiplayer could do with a PvP version though.
Infiltrator Cloak would be so awesome.

On March 22 2012 23:37 Thezzy wrote:


Multiplayer could do with a PvP version though.
Infiltrator Cloak would be so awesome.

On March 22 2012 23:11 kheldorin wrote:
Just because they did not meet your expectations does not mean that they lied about it. The quarian/geth conflict and the Krogan genophage are all resolved differently based on the choices that you made. ME3 consists of a series of endings of plotlines set in the previous ME games. The final ending only resolves the reaper plotline. The endings of the other plotlines do branch out. The plotlines of your ME2 squadmates e.g. Miranda, Samara, Jacob, Grunt, Kasumi, Mordin are also resolved.

As for the plot holes and lore issues, all of those can be explained if you just think about it. But people already decided that they didn't like the ending and are trying to find flaws with the story to justify that feeling. Since the ending is open to interpretation, they just wanted to find the most negative possible outcome and consequences. If the ending was a happier one, no-one would even bother to do this. Yeah, yeah people say it's not about how happy the ending was but the proof is that all the proposed alternative endings are happy and they don't even fix the flaws that was pointed out.

On March 22 2012 22:19 Iyerbeth wrote:


This whole post is spoilers.

First, there are some asking for a happy ending, but were that the major complaint b the majority, the retake movement would not exist. Had you actually read what you claim you would have seen many of the following points made, repeatedly.

• All of the endings are almost identical, with only a different colour explosion and whether big ben dies.
  That is completly not true if youll try to understand what each ending meant... (can find a post of me that explains the huge difference between the endings few pages back, really simple explanations that dont even cover everything)
  
• More plot holes than the entire rest of the game combined.
  That is simply so not true, I have played the 3 games of Mass Effect in a row and their all filled with countless plot holes both minor and major, you can not complain only about the ending plot holes while ignoring everything fucked up in the story. There is a trend of lazy writing in video games (less in tv, hardly in books) that must,and slowly is, changing.
  
• Clear lies from the developers up to the point that they knew for certain what was being shipped.
  If you understand that the endings were actually different than there are no lies.
  
• Not one of the choices made in the entire series makes any difference on the ending.
  That is so not true, assuming the Mass Effect universe will continue in more games and DLCs dont you think it makes a huge difference weather the Geth race or the Quarian are all dead? Thats only one simple example... Its actually kinda epic that your choices shape the entire universe, cant wait to see how it will look in the future.
  
• Random God Child introduction 5 minutes before the end.
  Thats one of the only points that I can actually agree with you, its not that the God Child is a bad charachter but it would be way easier for everyone to deal with it if the game would give you at least clues about whats going to happen or whats controlling the Reapers.
  
• Random God Child makes claims that give you only three choices, which can't be challenged and are actually contrary to reality of the game's universe.
  Hey the Quarian-Geth conflict had 3 choices too (destroy geth/destroy quarians/peace), these 3 choices can't be challenged. Should they remove that too?
  And who are you (or any of us) to decide whats the "reality of the game`s universe?
  
• War Assets are never shown or involved in any way.
  You can get a third bonus option that would change the whole universe or get Shepard to actually survive one ending, thats huge.
  And yes I would also like to see my Geth fighters engage the Reaper forces, but thats just another awesome thing BW could do and didn't, I would also like to have more planets, more missions and more armor types... the reason that all of these things didn't happen is because it takes alot of time and money to do, actually endless amounts of time and money. You can always make the game better but man... you gotta release it somday you know?
  

There are other issues, but that's just a quick list off the top of my head. Now for some plot holes and lore issues!

• Party members are some how teleported to The Normandy.
  Obviously somthing happened with the normandy while shepard was inside the crucible, the fact that we didn't see it doesnt make it such a huge plot hole, not so hard to figure it out.
  
• The Normandy and your crew is running away, contrary to 5 years of character development and any explanation.
  See above
  
• TIM appearing in the Citadel.
  In the cerberus base mission your being told that the illusive man left to the citadel....
  
• Random second button that never existed in ME1 that opens the arms of the Citadel.
  The citadel was always full of mystery and from ME1 its clear that nobody actually knows everything about it.
  
• Whole game works on species can live together and get along, even Javik says that not enough diversity got his species killed...but the "best" (read: Green) ending violates that completely.
  If you would try to understand what the God Child was saying you would see that the whole events of Mass Effect 3 were uniqe and havent played out like that never in any cycle. That is why the God Child is so lost, his calculations turned out to be wrong and because of that he decides that the best course of action right now is to let an organic to decide how to use the power of the cruicible.
  
• God Child claims synthetics must wipe out organics every 50,000 years so synthetics don't wipe out organics (??) despite the fact that Quarians and the Geth and EDI prove that wrong.
  God Child also explains that his calculations were wrong and the fact that organics mannaged to finish the cruicible and activate it proves it. God Child logic was wrong, he admits it by letting YOU change the future.
  Also btw the Reapers only harvest ADVANCED organic civilizations, leaving the young ones alone. God Child says that if given enough time other synthetics will destroy not only the advanced life but ALL ORGANIC LIFE in the universe. We can't know what led him to this conclusion but we are being given gentle clues throughout the game about how life in the universe are repeating the same patterns. Maybe in future games we will learn more about this interesting awesome concept.
  
• Mass Effect Relay explosions, as per Arival, kill everything in the system (aka everyone is dead, or at best stranded).
  The Mass Relay explosions do effect the whole galaxy, the explosion's effect however is changed acording to the ending you pick. (for example the green wave appearently merges organic with synthetic qualities, at a different ending the wave kills everything, destroying big ben and the soldiers, wiping out everything in its path)
  
• If you manage to get the single breath ending, you're on Earth...for some reason...
  Yeah your on earth, you actually have one ending that makes Shepard survive...how is that not awesome?!
  Regarding the way he got there, we don't know how. That issue might or might not get clear in the next games (hopefully depending on the ending you got). My guess? the cruicible (God Child himself?) transfered Shepard with a beam probably similiar to the one that got him into the cruicible.
  
• Anderson somehow teleports ahead of you in the Citadel.
  When you are inside the Crucible Anderson describes whats ahead of you, as if he entered the beam before you (maybe just before you gained contious back on earth?)
  Im actually not sure about that, probably JUST ANOTHER PLOT HOLE, like MANY OTHERS all throughout the Mass Effect games.
  
• Statements made by Sovereign in Mass Effect 1 are directly contradicted in Mass Effect 3.
  Like what?
  

.”

On March 22 2012 13:47 Duka08 wrote:

What are you asking for? Should I compare it to others in the same genre then? As if it was the only game ever? I mean, at a fundamental level, ignoring the older games in the series, its a really fun shooter with (imo) good storytelling. The powers are extremely fun. And I was very emotionally involved and addicted to the game until I finished; both due to the gameplay as well as seeing what happened next..

On March 23 2012 00:02 turdburgler wrote:


things like lighting and sound, graphics and physics. aka the gameplay

and then things like story, and characterization. and then minor features like replayability, easter eggs, buggyness etc.

so looking at the game, apart from a few specific example the game doesnt feel different than a generic gears of war clone (which i hate)

the rpg system is shallow, the physics engine looks like it can do some good stuff, but its too few and far between, mostly standard shooter clone. replayability is a huge deal in a single player experience, but there is very little as there is only 3 endings and only a few choices affect other choices. plus the relationships dont matter. and the different size of your fleet in the end doesnt matter. there are many buggy quests, ive found about 4 big ones in just 1 play through.

the story (apart from the end) is very good, i was attached to some of the characters even though it was my first game. mordin and james specifically. the sound and lighting was horribly generic apart from about 3 occasions. the mini games were poor and boring.

the levels are 100% linear which destroys the sense of exploring a universe. how does being on the geth dreadnaught differ from being on a planet for example? planet side missions should be wide and expansive. space missions should be confined and tight. i could go on and on.

so like i said the rpg elements were dull which hurt the story side of the game for me, and the gameplay, while mostly solid was overwhelmingly bland this lead me to give it a score of 5-7/10 depending on how you weigh the different features. very middle of the road. so i am simply asking the people who say that they really think this was a great game, what makes them see things differently? what about the game stands out as exceptional?

On March 23 2012 00:11 Bleak wrote:
Can someone, without giving a spoiler, in brief and short terms, explain me why the ending sucks? I'm still playing the game and pretty much still in the beginnings, so I don't wanna get spoiled, but if someone could tell me in what ways it was disappointing, maybe it would make me less curious about it.

On March 23 2012 00:15 Latham wrote:


Pick A B C with varying color explosions and also plot holes. Your choices also didn't matter.

On March 22 2012 23:40 Latham wrote:
Go play Crisis 2 multiplayer if you want near perma-cloak PvP. That game was so shitty -.-;

On March 23 2012 00:11 Bleak wrote:
Can someone, without giving a spoiler, in brief and short terms, explain me why the ending sucks? I'm still playing the game and pretty much still in the beginnings, so I don't wanna get spoiled, but if someone could tell me in what ways it was disappointing, maybe it would make me less curious about it.

On March 23 2012 00:26 Rob28 wrote:


Apparantly, the game's subtle jab at the notion that no matter what choices you make in life, there will inevitably be parts beyond your control and actions that have disappointing consequences regardless of the process, was not taken too well. From what I gather, no matter how eventful or well off situations may seem, there is always the grim spectre of reality that watches from afar, taking action when opportunity presents itself in a way that sometimes contradicts the will of the masses. Even the simplest laws of the universe (those of time, mortality, and causality) will never be escapable, regardless of accomplishment.

I think that shit really made some people mad.

On March 22 2012 23:36 Hoban wrote:


Hah yea that is pretty silly. Multiplayer is very addicting though. Generally I practice Dota all night but if I play even a single game of mutiplayer, I just turn off my phone, log off steam, and biotic explode the shit out of some aliens/robots/cerberus for hours. I really wish I could tell them how much I love the game they gave me but I just feel like all these negative voices would drown me out. Ah well, I'm having fun. Here is to hoping Bioware doesn't get discouraged in the future.

Oh and Orcasgt24 you just made me fucking LOL so hard! Oh my god.

On March 23 2012 00:34 Bleak wrote:


Thanks for the explanation, now I'm assuming it's probably going to be shit like "This happens because Reapers are X".

On March 23 2012 00:02 turdburgler wrote:


things like lighting and sound, graphics and physics. aka the gameplay

and then things like story, and characterization. and then minor features like replayability, easter eggs, buggyness etc.

so looking at the game, apart from a few specific example the game doesnt feel different than a generic gears of war clone (which i hate)

the rpg system is shallow, the physics engine looks like it can do some good stuff, but its too few and far between, mostly standard shooter clone. replayability is a huge deal in a single player experience, but there is very little as there is only 3 endings and only a few choices affect other choices. plus the relationships dont matter. and the different size of your fleet in the end doesnt matter. there are many buggy quests, ive found about 4 big ones in just 1 play through.

the story (apart from the end) is very good, i was attached to some of the characters even though it was my first game. mordin and james specifically. the sound and lighting was horribly generic apart from about 3 occasions. the mini games were poor and boring.

the levels are 100% linear which destroys the sense of exploring a universe. how does being on the geth dreadnaught differ from being on a planet for example? planet side missions should be wide and expansive. space missions should be confined and tight. i could go on and on.

so like i said the rpg elements were dull which hurt the story side of the game for me, and the gameplay, while mostly solid was overwhelmingly bland this lead me to give it a score of 5-7/10 depending on how you weigh the different features. very middle of the road. so i am simply asking the people who say that they really think this was a great game, what makes them see things differently? what about the game stands out as exceptional?

On March 23 2012 00:34 HejaBVB wrote:
Just close this thread and forget the game. The game is just baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad!