Mass Effect 3 Review

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT
 

Freechoice:

Susan Arendt:

FenixZero:

I think what Freechoice means is did you reload your save from before you made your final choice, and make a different one?

No, I only played through the ending of the game once.

I believe it would have been very wise to reload the game and choose a different ending to ascertain the impact of the endings. It should have been a pretty big indication of something going amiss if the game let you choose different endings (a la Human Revolution) without regarding anything but your input at that point. Yeah, the EMS thing and squadmate choices change the tone of the ending but...

There's rumors that there is a "best" ending, (but everyone is still screwed) but the dedicated people, the ones that did everything right (peace, scanning, paragon options) still couldn't get it.

It's more important that people hear about the straight up facts than personal experience. It's fine that you enjoyed it, but as a reviewer, you should have gone back to get an idea about the alternate endings if they were readily available. You're not obligated to play the game 50 times, but something as simple as a quickload falls more under professional obligation for two reasons:

A. Because it would have taken about 20 minutes and given you a lot of foresight as to why everybody's so pissed off.
2. Because you probably knew people would want to play through multiple times.

I challenge the review because it would have been obvious how serious it is that Bioware copy-pasted the cutscene with minimal inklings as to what actually happened (again, other than everyone is screwed.) People on the Bioware soc forums are clamoring for closure which they felt they didn't get. Hell, even /v/ is pissed off about that one thing in particular.

Also, it was probably worth discussing the multiplayer. Probably should have played the demo multiplayer (which was separate from the single player, I believe) because there's a metric fuckton of confusion on what EMS and GRR are and how Bioware either outright lied about not needing to play the multi or skirting the issue and making it nigh impossible (at least without an online guide or DLC, the former being immersion breaking and the latter being greed). Either way, it was a really bad design choice that should have been addressed.

With regard to the multiplayer, I didn't have access to the multiplayer that was part of the game, and couldn't in good conscience review the demo. I can't say to people "the multiplayer is a great part of the game" if I haven't actually played it, and I can't base my opinion of something in the retail copy of the game on something that isn't in the retail copy of the game.

Susan Arendt:

With regard to the multiplayer, I didn't have access to the multiplayer that was part of the game, and couldn't in good conscience review the demo. I can't say to people "the multiplayer is a great part of the game" if I haven't actually played it, and I can't base my opinion of something in the retail copy of the game on something that isn't in the retail copy of the game.

You can't say the multiplayer was good if you didn't play it. You could have said that the multiplayer was whatever you thought it was in the demo and then given that as a base of reference for how it would probably function in retail while simultaneously excusing yourself on the tentativeness of your claim. At that point, you have informed the audience and preserved your journalistic integrity.

My primary concern with professional reviews is that they aren't comprehensive enough to actually be usable as guides for buyers and are more critical marketing than anything else.

I'm proud of the Escapist for not having jumped on the retard bandwagon and given a flawed game a perfect score (like a quarter of the professional morons did), but I also have to acknowledge that a website like Giant Bomb better articulated their review.

As for the rest of my arguments? What Arendt you telling me?

Freechoice:

Susan Arendt:

With regard to the multiplayer, I didn't have access to the multiplayer that was part of the game, and couldn't in good conscience review the demo. I can't say to people "the multiplayer is a great part of the game" if I haven't actually played it, and I can't base my opinion of something in the retail copy of the game on something that isn't in the retail copy of the game.

You can't say the multiplayer was good if you didn't play it. You could have said that the multiplayer was whatever you thought it was in the demo and then given that as a base of reference for how it would probably function in retail while simultaneously excusing yourself on the tentativeness of your claim. At that point, you have informed the audience and preserved your journalistic integrity.

My primary concern with professional reviews is that they aren't comprehensive enough to actually be usable as guides for buyers and are more critical marketing than anything else.

I'm proud of the Escapist for not having jumped on the retard bandwagon and given a flawed game a perfect score (like a quarter of the professional morons did), but I also have to acknowledge that a website like Giant Bomb better articulated their review.

As for the rest of my arguments? What Arendt you telling me?

The punning on my name really isn't cute.

I'm not going to theorize in an official review about how something may or may not function based on a demo. That's irresponsible. I informed the audience that I didn't have the opportunity to try it, and therefore didn't have an opinion. That was the correct thing to do.

As for the replaying the endings, you're free to disagree, but I feel no responsibility to have played through them all before doing the review. I didn't explore a number of options that happen in the game - certain players are having an experience with Tali that I did not, for example.

I don't feel like the ending I got, even though I don't like it, negates the positive experience I had during the the 35 hours that led up to it. If other people feel like they wasted 35 hours of playtime because of how things wrapped up, I understand their point of view, but do not share it.

Oh wow. Lots of angry people in this thread!

I do think that the game was a bit rushed, it's buggier and has more oversights and cut corners than the last two, from what I've encountered so far (typos, glitchy graphics, people not appearing in dialogue, broken animations, etc.) but that only tells me that the developers were under a lot of stress and deadlines, so they focused on the important parts. And that shows - I can easily get over a volus speaking with his head glitched into his suit if it means that the actual game content is superb!

The same thing obviously applies to DA2 as well, given its absurdly short development cycle, though I thought its cut corners were a little more crippling. Nothing that you couldn't get over if you immersed yourself, but the flaws prevented a lot of people from doing so. Still, "art from adversity," and I think both titles, DA2 and ME3, take more narrative risks than their predecessors.

Could I ask Ms. Arendt what exactly prevented the game from a full-five-stars rating? I agree with it, since I felt (mind you, I'm only a few hours into it) that the combat is a bit poorly optimized in comparison to ME2 - cover became less important, with enemy grenades, melee attackers, advancing troops with shields, attacks from 2 or even 3 sides and weapon penetration. But the game doesn't seem to give the player more shields to compensate, and dispatching enemies now seems a bit... grindy. Also, the cover/roll/sprint/use controls often interfere with one another.

On the narrative front, I find it just... sublime. I had no idea BW would incorporate so many choices from previous games, and it doesn't stop to amaze me how long-forgotten ME1 sidequests that I did in 2008 come back to affect the War Effort in ME3. Plus, interactions with squadmates and love interests seem more organic than ever, which I really appreciate since ME2's felt like periodical dialogue-dispensers. The choices I had to make so far were both challenging and introspective, as well as having unforeseeable consequences, wholly independent of the paragon/renegade axis. By now I already have a lot of regrets in hindsight, which makes for a bittersweet experience, in line with the idea that "you won't save the galaxy without blood on your hands." I also really like the cracks appearing in Shepard; I get the feeling that he won't survive this war intact, if he even makes it.

Seneschal:

Could I ask Ms. Arendt what exactly prevented the game from a full-five-stars rating? I agree with it, since I felt (mind you, I'm only a few hours into it) that the combat is a bit poorly optimized in comparison to ME2 - cover became less important, with enemy grenades, melee attackers, advancing troops with shields, attacks from 2 or even 3 sides and weapon penetration. But the game doesn't seem to give the player more shields to compensate, and dispatching enemies now seems a bit... grindy. Also, the cover/roll/sprint/use controls often interfere with one another.

Iffy controls in combat (not terrible, but not silky, either), problematic AI during combat, and graphical glitches. I could live with the glitches, but the AI actually made the game harder in places and less fun to play.

Wasn't the harder AI and skills for enemies (grenades, shields, flanking, etc.) a big point of the revised combat?

I loved the demo (not playing the game until I finish with Reckoning) for its difficulty. Every time I died while playing on Insane, it was because I was too risky, or the enemies outflanked me. It felt WAY better then in ME1 & 2 where they just had more health/armor/shields.

Therumancer:

MetallicaRulez0:

Therumancer:

Personally I was most disappointed with how it seems you have to run from the Reapers pursueing instead of there being a space combat mechanic implemented.

They couldn't implement space combat with the reapers that chase you because you CAN'T FIGHT THE REAPERS ALONE. That's what the whole damn series is about, how to stop this insanely powerful race of sentient machines from killing everyone. The WHOLE GAME is about rallying the forces of the entire galaxy to fight them.

But yeah, let's just have the little ole' Normandy fight 4 of them at a time. No biggy.

OT: I LOVED this game right up until the ending. It wasn't terrible, but it certainly left me less than fully satisfied. That being said, I'd still give this game a 9.5/10 easy, not even counting the many hours I'll be putting into the multiplayer. It actually has that emotional investment that the Bioware Docs have been talking about for years. I was almost tearing up at several moments, and the lead up to the end was one of the most "oh my god how is this going to end?!?" sequences I've ever had in gaming. Truly spectacular.

I tend to disagree with your comments about not being able to fight the Reapers alone. It depends on the Reaper in question. The Normandy after the upgrades in ME2 is carrying state of the art technology, a lot of which was based on the Reapers own tech. While the warning was ignored and such tech was not implemented on a truely huge scale, it should be noted there WAS enough preparation that the military forces in ME are also doing a fairly good job of holding out under the circumstances... it's taking the Reapers a lot of effort to dig everyone out and it's an actual war of sorts despite the good guys clearly on the losing end to begin with. I very much doubt there aren't Reapers being destroyed, it's just that in the course of making the point for the story we aren't seeing that.

In the scope of the Normandy scanning, The Reapers are probably responding with their smaller ships... drones, small destroyers, etc... to be able to intercept something like The Normandy to begin with. I DO think the Normandy should be able to fight those. Indeed it already demonstrated it could during it's confrontation with the Reaper/Collector ship at the end of ME2, and if your fully upgraded you don't even lose any crew despite a hull breach allowing one of the drones on board (which is so mighty you kill it with hand weapons).

We might have to agree to disagree here, but to me it seems like sloppy game design. Having played the sequence to me it seems like some half arsed mini-game they glued on because they really had no idea what to do with the mining/planetary aspects of things.

What do you mean the Alliance is holding out okay? Every time you talk to someone they keep talking about how horrible everything is going. The Reapers are going straight for the most defended planets on each species and absolutely crushing them. Just look at what was happening on Palaven. The largest military in the galaxy was getting absolutely spanked on their own turf. The galaxy was not ready in the slightest for the Reapers.

As for the Normandy fighting the Reapers, um, NO. The Normandy is a tough ship, but even the big bad Destroyers of the Alliance fleet are getting destroyed instantly by the Reapers. The Reapers hit harder, take hits longer, and move faster than anything the Alliance can muster. The very idea of the Normandy taking on a Reaper is silly, unless something happens later to prove me wrong (I am not through with the game yet).

MiracleOfSound:

18.99PlusTip:

You sound angry from reading your post, which I certainly hope your not.

I am annoyed... not at your post in particular but by the stupid assumption by many people (not just on this site) that a game they don't like getting a good review means someone was bought off.

This seems especially stupid when you remember it's the final chapter of one of the most critically acclaimed series of all time. OF COURSE it was going to get good reviews. It's an incredible experience for most people who play it, despite its flaws.

18.99PlusTip:

I'm just trying to make sure people understand WHY people are skeptical and reinforce this isn't some "nasty reddit troll" personal attack.
It's a legitimate concern. There is a huge discrepancy between critics and a large chunk normal customers as of late.

I completely understand.

But the problem is people don't seem to be taking Susan's word for it when she explains her side, which annoys the shit out of me. If people want to throw snide insinuations around they should be prepared to give benefit of the doubt.

And any argument about advertising 'influencing' the staff and all that jazz is rendered utterly void in my mind by the fact that every week the site's most popular show takes the absolute piss out of the same developers and games advertised here, sometimes viciously so.

None of those advertisers happen to be EA however...

In any case I hope you give Dark Souls another crack, you were actually really good even with the handicap of not knowing the basic mechanics (like targeting) of the game, iuf you spent some time with it Id bet you be able to pull off some impressive shit.

Alright. I've had my cookie and juice box and gotten over my tantrum over all this. What it all boils down to is that internet rage breeds internet rage. Works in video games, works in movies (Lord of the Rings fans, I'm looking at you) and it especially works in politics. But he who is loudest is not necessarily right

There is no right answer. At the end of the day, the only opinion that matters is yours. Zeel, the so called Biodrones, even Susan Arendt don't matter in this equation. I am going to pick up ME3 at some point in the future. I may love it, I may hate it, I may think it's mediocre. But that's for me to decide. Point being, the hate, the love, the perfect scores, it's all valid and a matter of subjective taste.

OK. Beat it. Just about ten minutes ago.

Aaaaand... Yeah. Upon reflection...

So I'd have to say that I enjoyed the game moreso than any other Mass Effect game up until about half way through, then I started to miss some of the scenarios from ME2. BUT that may have just been fatigue. I was playing it non-stop. Still loved it, a LOT. It's a worthy finale, nitpickings aside.

Also... fuckin' love the mutliplayer.

EDIT: A few more last thoughts...

I see you neglected to mention the bullocks ending of this game. This is NOT the ending the series deserved. The Game was stellar, my GOTY easily - until the ending. the horrible, horrible ending, with it's binary choices, no ability to save before these choices... and all the choices were aweful.

Was a happy ending where I get to retire with Tali -so much to ask-?

A word of warning, i finished the game yesterday, the ending is so s**t you can't even imagine.

I'm not going to spoil anything, just put you in the right mindset not to be disappointed later: There is no closure for ANY of the characters. You don't get to see what impact you had on their lives and there is no indication of who survives the final struggle, so don't expect a nice clean ending a-la animal house with "so-and-so became such-and-such, then did this and that and died" for each character. If you're actually interested in that kind of stuff, like i was, prepare for a disappointment, it will hurt less later.

Also, right now to get the best ending the multiplayer is crucial, since there are not enough military assets to attain the 5000 points necessary without also having your galactic readiness up to 100%, since there is about 6000 points worth of assets and if you don't play the readiness multiplier is stuck at 50%, which means you can expect to have a grand total of about 2800 +- 100. So if, like me, you're not going to shell out for a gold subscription for your Live account, prepare to be fucked over.

None of the characters introduced in ME2 have any relevant role in ME3 (No one gets to join your party, they're just more military assets), they pop up for a couple of scenes and maybe one actual dialogue only scene, then you're done. On the upside, said scenes are generally very good.

This is all i can do to warn you of the bad choices made by the writers without going in serious spoiler territory. Be warned, there is much more to complain about the ending.

Play the game, it's a good game, just don't expect it to end well, as in "well written" not as in "Happily ever after".

I have this sneaking suspicion that when the reviewer wrote the phrase "the ending the series deserves" (s)he didn't actually see the ending.

Volkov:
I have this sneaking suspicion that when the reviewer wrote the phrase "the ending the series deserves" (s)he didn't actually see the ending.

Either that or she hates the mass effect universe. That being said, the ending to me hurt almost as bad as if it had the star wars universe exploded, or the lotr universe.........exploded? The journey was the most flippin fun of the series, but the last 20 minutes was extremely painful.

Mass Effect 3 is acutally nearly as good as Dragon Age 2. In comparison to its predecessor and to other so called RPGs.

If you like Call of Duty, you will like this one.

Else the clumsy controlls, lack of content (besides chest-highwalls), stupid squad AI, day-one-dlcs, dumbed-down dialogs, some awful background textures, a small sized citadel, bugged face import (WTFFFFF? Didnt they test that stuff?), some stuck-quest chains and many more will probably piss you off. :)

Cheers.

Susan Arendt:
Yes. Yes, you should get it. Yes, it lives up to the hype. Yes, it's the ending the series deserves.

Having just finished Mass Effect 3, I can safely say that this is an utter lie. The ending of ME3 absolutely ruined the entire series. The big reveal at the end about the reason for the Reapers is more than enough ruin all three games by itself, and that doesn't even begin to take into account the other glaring flaws.

The gameplay is very much improved over its predecessor, with a proper mix of RPG elements and action to satisfy both the action junkie and the crunch nerd. I was actually quite happy with that. The problem is the rather aggravating trend Bioware appears to have fallen into where the actual story and narrative are ignored until far too late and are thrown together at the last minute.

Long story short, ME3 was the final nail in the coffin. I, for one, am never again buying a Bioware game. They've proven repeatedly they've lost all ability to tell a decent story.

If the game ended about 30 minutes before it actually did, I would have given it a 3.5-4/5. With the ending though, it's definitely dropped down to a 2.

Agayek:
If the game ended about 30 minutes before it actually did, I would have given it a 3.5-4/5.

My personal favourite is the fact you can rush to finale with scraps of assets. You will be annihilated, but it will have nothing to do with... lack of assets XD I guess Mass Effect 2 and the fact you could decimate your team or even get killed in final cutscene was still too complicated for new target audience of BW.

Agayek:
(spoilers)


And the list goes on... I am amazed how "final explanation" game offers can be ignored by any revievewer and justified with some "but it was fun before" phrase. Sorry, that excuse does not work for a game advertised as "great story". This is not Quake or Farmville kind of "journey", or at least - it shouldn't be.

I just finished ME3 yesterday and it's a very good game. Not perfect, but very good. I experienced very few glitches actually, and I liked that the combat is more tactical and a bit harder than 1 and 2. Finishing the previous games in the normal difficulty was dead easy (I replayed ME1 in Hardcore recently and it wasn't much harder). In ME3 your squad composition, weapons and battle tactics make a difference in many encounters.

The story manages to integrate a lot of elements and choices from the previous 2 games, even if some only in minor ways. Even so, what is done results in a very complicated game to make. I don't envy people working in Bioware having to finish ME3 in 2 years. About the ending, yeah, I can see why some people got pissed with it. I think the idea of the ending is good, though; maybe the execution could be better. Bioware went for something riskier that won't please people who expect a perfect action-movie-happy-ending where all the characters hug themselves after conquering the enemy.

But I think that people who like the series should very much play it and get to his/her own conclusions. I'm perfectly ok with people playing it and not liking it based on their own opinions, but I feel sorry for people who won't play it or are determined to hate it because they got into the Bioware-hating bandwagon. They are possibly missing a great gaming experience.

Freechoice:

Even the fucking biodrones are pissed off at this shit.

As a Biodrone I've got to say I completely agree. I am pissed off.

One of the conspiracy theories running amuck on the BSN is that this is a marketing ploy to prime all Biodrones to pay through the nose for any remedy to this gaping wound.

Agayek:

Susan Arendt:
Yes. Yes, you should get it. Yes, it lives up to the hype. Yes, it's the ending the series deserves.

Having just finished Mass Effect 3, I can safely say that this is an utter lie. The ending of ME3 absolutely ruined the entire series. The big reveal at the end about the reason for the Reapers is more than enough ruin all three games by itself, and that doesn't even begin to take into account the other glaring flaws.

I don't think that "everything is ruined forever" because of the ending. I don't think Star Wars was ruined by the prequels either, or that the final season of Lost ruined it all, so I can like something even if something bad happens along the way. Yes, the "explanation" seems iffy at first analysis, but the idea of the ending is not so bad, though different from what most people were expecting.

Agayek:

Agayek:

Agayek:

Agayek:

Agayek:

In the end, I think it's a good game and the story is enjoyable, although not without its flaws. They had to deal with a complex story and tie the loose ends from the previous 2 games, and went for something riskier than just "beat the reapers, then everyone is happy", but the execution failed in some key points. But it's a sci-fi game, not high literature; it's more Star Trek than Tennessee Williams, so I still think it's a very good experience, all things considered.

Aisaku:

As a Biodrone I've got to say I completely agree. I am pissed off.

2fish:

Susan Arendt:
Mass Effect 3 Review

The ending the series - and its fans - deserve.

Read Full Article

How do the levels feel for a sniper/infiltrator? From your video they look like close quarters combat. I know you have said they have some open places in the game. But in ME2 my sniper used her sniper rifle maybe 3 times. I also hope my crew of Liara/Jack, Garus and my sniper still work. I love Tali but you said we need a nice mix so two techs might be too much.

I may have to look into this game after Risen 2 comes out.

My Shepard is an Infiltrator and I'd found lots of opportunities for her to use her sniper rifle. Heck, in some instances, like when fighting Cerberus Guardians who have the riot shields, I'd say that marksmanship is being encouraged. Besides just basic sniping all of your class abilities are very useful, especially Incinerate and, at times, Sabotage.

tautologico:

Aisaku:

As a Biodrone I've got to say I completely agree. I am pissed off.

I agree on the major points of your argument, even if it's hard to swallow the 'needs of the many' logic. What would you have changed about its execution? Expand on the ramifications, rather than tack on the

iyaerP:
On one hand, I really want to play it, but on the other hand, FUCK ORIGIN.

Origin is nothing like the monster shit-storm rape-ass handing that is the ending to one of my favorite series of all time...

Here's a note of hope for the fans that feel betrayed by the ending:

Hope springs eternal... in headcanon.

Aisaku:

I agree on the major points of your argument, even if it's hard to swallow the 'needs of the many' logic. What would you have changed about its execution? Expand on the ramifications, rather than tack on the

And about the whole "needs of the many" thing, this was foreshadowed in conversations with Garrus during the game. Not easy to swallow, but still.

Aisaku:

Volkov:
I have this sneaking suspicion that when the reviewer wrote the phrase "the ending the series deserves" (s)he didn't actually see the ending.

Yes, I did. I was referring to the game as a whole, not the literal ending.

Susan Arendt:

Volkov:
I have this sneaking suspicion that when the reviewer wrote the phrase "the ending the series deserves" (s)he didn't actually see the ending.

Yes, I did. I was referring to the game as a whole, not the literal ending.

She summarized this review by stating "the ending the series deserves". What did she review? Mass effect 3 the game, or the ending of the game?
Therefore it doesn't make sense to even think that's what she was referring to.

Anyway, nice review Susan. Bought the game, I am completely blown away.
Yeah I read about the endings. Can't say I really like them, however I guess they fit with the theme in some way.
All these bio-hate tears are priceless, though. Delicious rage and tears.
I consider you all professionally trolled by the Bioware writing staff.

Susan Arendt:

Volkov:
I have this sneaking suspicion that when the reviewer wrote the phrase "the ending the series deserves" (s)he didn't actually see the ending.

Yes, I did. I was referring to the game as a whole, not the literal ending.

Yeah, I got that after watching the podcast (which was after reading the review and making my post). Not an ideal choice of words, honestly (probably an IMHO, but at least partially backed up by the fact that I am not alone in this interpretation), but not that significant.

Here is what I got out of the podcast:

Let w1, w2, ... wN be the weights assigned to each part of a game (be they either specific sequences in the storyline, or traditional review components like soundtrack, story, gameplay, etc.). Let the quality of each such "part" be q1, q2, ... qN.

I think for you the overall "quality" is a weighted arithmetic mean:

Q = w1*q1 + w2*q2 + ... wN*qN.

I think if one (a) - assigns a low weight (either due to length of time spent, or simply as not putting much significance into the story) to the ending term of this mean (say, qN) and (b) - follows this model, then one can say "it's a great game with a poor ending" and still be honest when saying it's a great game.

Problem is, I think for me, and many other people, a game quality is more like this (weighted geometric mean):

Q = (q1^w1)*(q2^w2)*...*(wN*qN).

In other words, a single fly can spoil a barrel of ointment. For a single-campaign story-significant game this is probably more true than for an MMO, for instance, where a single bad instance, or a bad map (for an RTS?) do not affect the quality of the game. Furthermore, here, no matter how low a weight one assigns to an individual element, if that element's q is very low, that will have a massive impact on the quality of the game. Which I think is what happened here.

Your choice of words, by the way, highlights a very important point. Mass Effect 3 IS "the ending" of the trilogy. Which is why the ending of Mass Effect 3 is a FAR more important part of the game than the ending of Mass Effect 1, or especially 2, were, for example.

(Please don't take anything I said personally, I really tried to be constructive).

tautologico:
I don't think that "everything is ruined forever" because of the ending. I don't think Star Wars was ruined by the prequels either, or that the final season of Lost ruined it all, so I can like something even if something bad happens along the way. Yes, the "explanation" seems iffy at first analysis, but the idea of the ending is not so bad, though different from what most people were expecting.

See, the thing is, you missed my point entirely. This story being bad does not ruin the other games. The revelation of the cause of the Reapers and whatnot at the end does. That information utterly destroys every single interesting thing about the Reapers. They were shown in ME1 to be some kind of eldritch abomination, unknowable and unstoppable. With ME3's reveal, they lose any sense of danger or threat. It's incredibly fucking stupid.

tautologico:

tautologico:

tautologico:

tautologico:

tautologico:

tautologico:
In the end, I think it's a good game and the story is enjoyable, although not without its flaws. They had to deal with a complex story and tie the loose ends from the previous 2 games, and went for something riskier than just "beat the reapers, then everyone is happy", but the execution failed in some key points. But it's a sci-fi game, not high literature; it's more Star Trek than Tennessee Williams, so I still think it's a very good experience, all things considered.

It's an excellent game. I thoroughly enjoyed it, to be perfectly honest. Up until the end, the story is basically a rip-off of Dragon Age:Origins, and I could live with that. It wasn't great by any means, but it was solid enough. Combine that with the gameplay improvements and I'd think it a fairly good game. Then they shit the bed so hard with the ending that it retroactively ruined the previous games in the series.

If the game was ~30 minutes shorter, I probably would be feeling fairly positively towards it. As it stands though, ME3 has one of, if not the, worst endings I've ever seen in a video game, and not calling Bioware out on their bullshit is not something I can do.

Aisaku:
Here's a note of hope for the fans that feel betrayed by the ending

I believe you can feel betrayed by the ending for many reasons - not just because it is "not happy enough" as some would like to suggest. "Has no sense", "pointless", "forced", or "arbitrary" in no particular order? As if someone at BW decided "We will challenge stereotypes one more time! It doesn't matter our writers can't exactly create something both original and coherent. Our target audience will eat it as long as they can call it original and feel superior for enjoying such thing".

Your spoiler-ed thoughts are all decent arguments, but the problem is, it feels like trying to find philosophy or onthological questions in a soap opera. I'm sure if we try hard enough, we will be able to invent something viable even with the worst of them. But it is still going to stay on soap opera level, despite "original, un-happy end".

Also, if we have to imagine the answers to pretty important questions, we are already at fanfic level even though BW should be the one provinding these. Instead of... I dunno... failed attempt at incorporating "cycle" idea into a story which is a variation of Hollywoodish "last stand war movie" most of the time? It reminds me some of ridiculous twists some anime series incorporate only to have over-the-top ending. Even Berserk, which wasn't exactly a horrible series to begin with, spent 99% time on small warfare stuff, journey, relationships only to have 99% of characters murdered/mutilated/raped/insane courtesy of impossible-to-kill-ancient-babbling-pseudodeep-nonsense daemons appearing in like... the last episode. Feels familiar, as if someone @ BW fell in love and decided to incorporate one of the silliest parts of otherwise great culture. Or just recently figured out Asimov's idea and felt it was "not original enough". So we have "cycles".

Since it is apparently too easy to believe "it is all about happy end!", the whole war assets scheme falls apart even before ending takes place. You can spend eternity on scanning planets, finale will be exactly the same in terms of military effectiveness, available choices, even difficulty level. It doesn't matter if it takes you 1 month or 1 year to get all assets. Reapers are still the same. Reapers are also still the same with 2k assets, 3k assets, 4k assets... The only two differences related to assets have nothing to do with them on any reasonable level. Mechanics of "dark energy wave from deus ex machina" and spoiler-worthy survival of certain character. Have fun explaining those connections.

So yeah, it is *totally* about the ending, therefore negligible. It's not like you are spending majority of your game on gathering allies & materials, have them translated into meaningless number and then realise it was all either pointless or has nonsensical justification.

frobisher:
snip

Susan Arendt:

BaronIveagh:

Andy Chalk:

Are you seriously comparing the World of Warplanes alpha gameplay trailer to the Mass Effect 3 launch trailer?

And how exactly is it that you've been playing Mass Effect 3 for so long, anyway? It only just came out today.

The joys of abusing VPNs.

And, actually, yes, because it tells you a lot more about how awesome the game is rather then how awesome the companies bank account is that they can afford that much prerendered CGI.

I'm curious - have you not considered that an enormous factor in the content we publish is audience interest? We cover games that our audience is excited about, thus, we post a news story about the Mass Effect trailer, and not the World of Warplanes trailer.

If we only posted things about the games we personally cared about, this site would look very different, I assure you. Andy would write about nothing but weird Russian PC games, Grey would only write about shooters, and Justin would write about Baldur's Gate every day. Ok, every other day, alternating with Frozen Synapse, maybe.

Coming from someone who hasn't spoken for awhile, (Yeah like I was missing ME3.) "Why O' Why Susuan, Do ya' say that like it's a BAD thing??"

Honest to god that would be a great new show "What we'd play if it could be anything and why!"

As for your review (the first I've read in months. No, not just yours. Any. I bought Blazblue Continuum Shift Extend sight unseen. So. Very. Happy.) Your review was perfect. Mass Effect 3 was the only game I was even thinking of kicking 60 meseta for and now I know I don't have to. At least not until they release "Happy Ending DLC" Volumes I - IV" at 15 rupees a pop. Your review and this thread have given me all the info I seriously needed.

I swear you guys really need to stop with this whole "defending our integrity" thing. All I was saying before was that sometimes the "Fan" factor is at about 18 an' we sorta' needja' at a 10. By "we" I mean other fans that don't want to waste their Gil or are outright hacked off at the steadily decreasing quality level of a product that we now pay more for.

I haven't been here for awhile because 1. (gotta be honest) It's an election year and I'm kinda' wonk(ish). 2. (seriously) I got into the same kind of "we needja' more at a 10." discussion and got the same treatment that others with less than glowing (and oddly logically rooted) opinions of this game are getting. and lastly because Extra Crdits left/was fired I'm not sure I just know they aren't here anymore.

So just for the record, yeah, it does cost you members even if we really like your stuff. Ultimately we come here to help us make buying decisions which is why we need our chosen media outlet to be up front with us about whether or not it was what most fans wanted which was not endings that are bit crap really and a wonky (yet not educational) control system in tight fights with a squad that has all the future potential of the field of nominees for the Republican nomination for Predident circa' last June.

So no hard feelings, I just think people are weary (and wary) of seeing and then buying lots of 9's and 10's and for some strange reason not actually GETTING lots of 9's and 10's. I hope that explains it because I'm all out of video game currency references.

fozzy360:

Susan Arendt:
We don't have the resources to cover everything, so naturally when choices must be made, we err in favor of covering games our audience will enjoy. If you think that's a bad way to do things, I encourage you to put us in your rearview and find a gaming site that better suits your standards.

Ok, I can understand if someone gets defensive when someone else calls them out on something they may or may not have done. I get that, but you can't just reduce your argument to "well if you don't like it, you could always leave". That's not the point, as least, from what I could gather from the various back-and-forths from this thread. It's a very dismissive and condescending attitude. On top of that, it does nothing to help your side of the argument if you're going to break off the discussion by suggesting the person leave and never come back.

Oro44:
This brings up a good point that I don't understand. Why do people insist on making their dissatisfaction known (ie. Nerd Rage)? If you don't like it, don't buy it. Your blood pressure will thank you.

Kind of sounds like you'd prefer that anyone with anything negative to say about anything shouldn't let their opinions known just for the sake of the fact that it's an opinion that you're not gonna like. Why shouldn't people let their dissatisfaction known? Of course, this is mainly intended for non-trolls, but if someone is really disappointed with something, why shouldn't they tell us? Plus, "don't like it, don't buy it" isn't good enough. Developers have to know why people are unhappy and why they are happy.

Zydrate:
Anyone else finding the staff's zealous defense a bit unprofessional?

It just seems like the entire staff is taking this extremely personal. It's a bit....worrying.

Welcome to the Escapist? My whole point was that I rely more on the other readers to tell me what's going on and don't expect "integrity" from this type of media. Duh. We all love this stuff inherently, but we still (some of us) don't want to be EA's little bitch or end up in an "I'm right and you're wrong so there Nyaaaaah!! *phhhhtbhbth!!*" slapfight with "industry professionals."

The first Mass Effect took 5 years to make and godidunno how much dough, this one took how long? How much was invested in even getting the Quality Assurance right? Some of us refuse to accept bugs in a so called finished product because we don't want that to become the industry standard and if you let them consistently get away with new low quality at the same old high price they will keep screwing us.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here