Mass Effect 3 - Page 127

On March 23 2012 00:47 mastergriggy wrote:
Anyone know anything new about possible dlc? I know Omega is on it's way.

It's amazing until the last 5 minutes.

On March 23 2012 01:14 HejaBVB wrote:


Especially the Sidequests where all you do is fight your way through endless waves of enemies to terminals, defend them and fight more enemies... /yawn

On March 23 2012 01:41 SolaR- wrote:
I certainly thought it was a lot worse than the first two. In the first two I thought I was exploring many worlds on my own, especially in the first one. The third one lacked in dialogue and it lacked in environments. The environments were so linear and constricted. Moreover, the environments all looked the same.

On March 23 2012 01:16 HaXXspetten wrote:
...you can't honestly say that you thought the game was bad up until the very end, can you? I mean... really? How? -.-

On March 23 2012 01:48 The KY wrote:
Ok so if Shepard was indoctrinated like I think he was then here's what I think should have happened;

The choices represent Shepard's internal battle. The Child should have had a more convincing argument, and then you should be given the choice to control the reapers or destroy them, the Child convinces you that there are severe consequences to the latter option. If you choose to try and control them, you walk up to the blue bit and plunge your hands in, only to realise that it's a lie and you have doomed the galaxy to destruction and the continuation of the cycle. You spent all that time telling the Illusive Man he was indoctrinated and then the Child convinces you that he was right all along. I like this better because it all comes down to the player; it's real life indoctrination. You know all about how people are indoctrinated by the reapers but when it comes to it it's a difficult decision to know whether or not it's happening to your Shepard. It'd be the final, perfect test for the player, they've proven they can shoot their way through the reapers now to prove that they can make the right decision. If you choose to try and control them, Shepard realises his horrific mistake, you see all your crew and the races of the galaxy in the battle taking their last stand, and Shepard dies.
I'd also have prefered it if they could work all the decisions you make in the games into that. I don't know how.

Personally I always assumed Shepard would die and that seems right to me. But this is just how I would have had it, given the option. Sigh. The past two days since I've beat the game I keep thinking about firing up Me2, finishing the Femshep campaign I never had time to, then doing it through ME3 but knowing the ending is just heartbreaking.

On March 23 2012 01:48 FabledIntegral wrote:


I didn't really like it. There were almost no sidequests. I don't count the garbage walking next to someone on the citadel and overhearing them say something, then in the middle of a main mission encountering the item they need. In no way to do you need to go out of your way to find the item. You'll find them through the main story. The sidequests were some of the worst I've encountered... ever for an RPG, not just Mass Effect. To top it off, for a game that supposedly gives you a lot of choices, the game was retardedly linear. There wasn't anything else to do.

The problem with this is that there's no reason the reapers would let him get to that area in the first place and have the option to destroy them in the first place. The entire reasoning behind the argument hinges on that not actually being what happened, but all a hallucination. Why would the reapers have a "if we fail to indoctrinate you, here's a big ass 'kill us' switch"?

On March 23 2012 01:48 FabledIntegral wrote:


I didn't really like it. There were almost no sidequests. I don't count the garbage walking next to someone on the citadel and overhearing them say something, then in the middle of a main mission encountering the item they need. In no way to do you need to go out of your way to find the item. You'll find them through the main story. The sidequests were some of the worst I've encountered... ever for an RPG, not just Mass Effect. To top it off, for a game that supposedly gives you a lot of choices, the game was retardedly linear. There wasn't anything else to do.




The problem with this is that there's no reason the reapers would let him get to that area in the first place and have the option to destroy them in the first place. The entire reasoning behind the argument hinges on that not actually being what happened, but all a hallucination. Why would the reapers have a "if we fail to indoctrinate you, here's a big ass 'kill us' switch"?

On March 23 2012 01:16 HaXXspetten wrote:
...you can't honestly say that you thought the game was bad up until the very end, can you? I mean... really? How? -.-

On March 23 2012 01:52 Duka08 wrote:

So are you considering all of the missions which are
(a) not story missions ("Priority") but
(b) reintroduce old squadmates and build background (I think many of these were "N7", but there were others)
as side missions or main story missions?

Because if you consider those side missions then I highly disagree on repetitiveness, boringness, and uselessness... Yes there were fetch quests and "copy paste" bonus missions as well but the previous games had the same, or even worse/more copy paste so it doesn't even cross my mind.

Edit:

The theory itself states that that "switch" doesn't actually kill the reapers. At all. That hasn't happened, if you believe it. It's more of a "if you press this after all we've tried to do otherwise then fine you broke free of indoctrination grats". Then you wake up, Earth is still under siege and we have no idea what's happening, the Crucible hasn't fired, the Reapers are still there, you're just not indoctrinated or being indoctrinated any more. The point of giving you that option at all is every step of the way they convince you you're still under control, you still have the choices, but they steer you toward making the one that benefits them (succumbing, choosing Blue or Green). This is how the theory goes at least.

On March 23 2012 01:47 dcsoda wrote:


I played ME1 pretty recently and I have to disagree. There was no value to exploring the planets in the first one as there was nothing important to be gained not even some good items. And there was the same small bunker/base on every planet!

Which environments looked the same to you in ME3?

On March 23 2012 02:00 gullberg wrote:

rofl disregarding the ending it's still the weakest game of the trilogy.

On March 23 2012 02:19 HaXXspetten wrote:

I wasn't asking whether it was better than the other two, just the overall quality of the third one itself

On March 23 2012 02:05 SKC wrote:


I don't think that's what he means. In ME1, you had a lot of freedom to move around in the map, diferent paths to take and sidequests you could do just by taking a side path in the middle of a mission. Plus planets ussually had a city, a zone without combat to move around, talk to people, take sidequests and the usual stuff. ME2 made the missions a lot more linear, but kept the "cities" and ME3 I think made the missions even more linear and also completelly removed every other zone you can freely walk around besides the Citadel and the Normandy. You don't even talk to people to get sidequests, you hear them talking to someone else and it pops up in your Journal. You also always had some choice on where to go. Which teammate do you want to get first? Which planet are you going to search first? And after you did a few of those the main storyline continued. In ME3 the priority missions are very linear.

Also, the character development in ME2 was a lot better, but that was kind of expected. The loyalty sidequests were great and it put a lot more emphasys on your crew, while ME3 focus on the global aspects, Krogan vs Salarian or Geth vs Quarian for example. It does that quite well, but it's just less than the big amount of dialogue you could get in the previous game.

For me, the series always improved in some aspects while kept getting worse in others, so which game you liked the most is obviously dependant on how much you value said aspects. I felt ME2 definatelly had a better balance and character development, ME3 is just too linear, but it's hard to compare ME1 and ME2, both the improvements and the downfalls are too big.

On March 23 2012 03:13 MaV_gGSC wrote:
I finished it today. Did the ending suck for anyone else?