Review Guild's Mass Effect 3 Review

[Jaems]

Sorry if this is a bit fragmented, my attention's a bit split. MY ENTIRE POST IS SPOILERS BY THE WAY.

Spoiler

No, the complaint about the endings is that it doesn't make any sense. They introduce a god child, the creator of the Reapers within the last ten minutes of the game. While trying to present him as this omniscient motherfucker, they fail entirely because the little shit contradicts himself completely. "We created the Reapers to destroy you so that your creations won't destroy you. This way, we prevent synthetic/organic war." I'm sorry, but if the point of the reapers is to end synthetic/organic war, why are they constantly instigating it?

You, as Shepard, do not even have the option to question anything this kid says either. One of the major themes of the series has always been unity despite difference. Shepard was the paragon who demonstrated this, he/she united turians, krogan, salarians, the freaking rachni, every race in the galaxy for this final fight. This is even more frustrating because we just proved this by ending a multicentury conflict between Quarians (organics) and Geth (synthetic). This is where Shep acts completely out of character. Instead of telling the creator of the Reapers, "No, it is possible for synthetics and organics to coexist" he/she doesn't object. He/she just says "okay," and you are forced to pick A, B, or C. The synthesis choice is probably the most contradictory, transforming everyone into this uniform Aryan synthganic race, with the notion that it's the only hope for coexistence.

What they could have done that would be more consistent with Shepard's characterization was at least an option D, where you refuse A,B, and C and say "Fuck it, we're going to die trying" and direct all forces in a head-on attack even if it proves futile. We already know from the battle on Rannoch that it is not impossible to destroy the Reapers. In fact, why not actually UTILIZE the concept of War Assets? How about if you had sufficient War Assets and you choose option D, you can win, and if you don't, you lose? At least that'd make fucking sense.

Also, the Mass Effect series was from the very start going to be a trilogy. This was said numerous times by Casey Hudson (creative director). Yes, they never said this was the end of the series, but they did stress ME3 would end the main story of Shepard. It seems you are unaware, but one of the two head writers from the first two games of the series, Drew Karpyshyn left Bioware before the release of ME3, and had no part in the actual game's writing. You are making it out to sound like the entire plot of the series was predetermined and presented in the final product, when this is quite untrue. You ever notice the constant references to dark matter made throughout the series? Remember landing on Haestrom with Tali in ME2, and her making a big deal about the Sun being more powerful than it should? It was never explained, and yeah, that was important and related to the original ending that was detailed by Karpyshyn and Walters (you can find it online somewhere). While I don't think the dark matter ending was great, it is much more consistent and a hell of a lot better than what we got.

I am not comparing Mass Effect 3 to Dragon Age 2, simply stating that like with Dragon Age II, Bioware might've felt pressure from EA to get the game out.
I do not think Dragon Age 2 is a "bad" game either, I just feel it fails to live up to the original. On the contrary, it's good.

The problem is Mass Effect 3's "endings" are a bit too samey. In all endings, the mass relays are destroyed, the Reapers either blow up or fly away, and Joker crash lands on a planet. One notable difference is the fate of TIM, and I really enjoyed the conversation I had with him. It goes to shit when Shepard is lifted by an elevator to meet the god child. No matter if you saved the Rachni queen, or let her die, or ending the quarian/geth war, or stopped the genophage, your ending is going to be nearly identical to mine.

Something I have to point out because it's one of the things that has bothered me the most:
In the Arrival DLC for ME2, we learn that the destruction of mass relays would wipe out all surrounding solar systems. If that's the case, in every possible ending Shepard has just killed millions of innocents. Not only that, but the entire galaxy's military forces are now stranded in the Sol system. In the Quarians' case, their entire population is stuck there because they all live among the Flotilla. What does this mean? Quarians are going to go extinct. Everyone is going to die of starvation or lack of resources. Earth is already devastated and could barely contain its own population. Nice job, Shep.

I'd also like to point out that in my playthrough, both squadmates that were with me on the final ground battle actually came out of the ship with Joker on that unnamed Jungle Planet.
Besides the fact that Joker being able to escape through the mass relay before its destruction is IMPOSSIBLE, it's even more ridiculous that both my squadmates somehow magically teleported to the ship before Joker's escape. Why was he running anyway? He didn't know that the crucible would destroy the mass relays, and he and Shep agreed they would stick it out till the end.

Mind you, I am not suggesting I have an idea to end the series. I am perfectly okay with not getting my "happy ending" (although, I see nothing wrong with one), I just want one that is consistent with the rest of the series and makes sense.

 

[Gahars]

@[member='Jaems']

The forum has a spoiler tag to make things easier. [ spoiler ] [ /spoiler ] (minus the spaces inside the brackets). Just a heads up.

Spoiler

1) The Catalyst is never made out to be omniscient or all powerful, just the intelligence that resides in the Citadel. It's pretty clear that what we're seeing is just its avatar, a close approximation made for Shepard's (and the player's) sake.
2) Again, they make this pretty explicit. The Reapers don't "instigate" the organic/synthetic conflict. They arrive in the cycle before (as they believe) it will become out of control and harvest the organic species. They also made it clear that they consider constructing new Reapers from organics as the most surefire method of preserving them.
3) Shepard's kind of, you know, dying. It's heard to pontificate when you're bleeding to death where you stand. Plus, when you're given a fair chance to stop extermination of all species (as opposed to no chance at all), flipping it the bird just isn't a wise move.
4) I see you also read the Extra Credits post on the subject. The point about arguing back still applies from above. As for the synthesis option, that's one interpretation. However, seeing as the video shows all the species still existing as themselves (Joker and whatever alien squadmate steps out), I hardly think the Aryan comparison is fair. I'd argue that it shows the ultimate unity (the conflicts of the past set aside, which is symbolically represented with EDI and Joker as Eve and Adam figures). Is that the right thing to do? Is that wrong? There's no one answer; it sparks debate, and that's what Bioware was obviously aiming for.
5) I see you also read that revised ending from Deviantart. It's certainly an interesting suggestion, but I think it would undermine the Reapers as effective villains. We're not just dealing with "evil space aliens" here; this is a race of, essentially, mecha-eldritch abominations who warp reality and the minds of mortals through their mere presence alone. To have all of them taken down in a shooting match (with or without the aid of a scrambling device or anything) would be kind of embarrassing on their part. We're in the realm of the Lovecraftian here; you couldn't just shoot Cthulhu.
6) The War Assets are utilized; it has a pretty clear effect on the way the battle unfurls. I can understand wanting more of an actual impact on the ending itself, but this is where it comes down to opinion. I was so emotionally invested that it really was satisfying for me.
7) Yes, the plotline of the series was planned from the very start. You don't create a story driven trilogy (with millions upon millions of dollars in costs) to just make it up as you go along. Was that plan absolutely set in stone? Of course not; it was flexible enough to consider feedback and the influence of different writers. It's important to remember, however, that there's a huge difference between a flexible plan and no plan at all.
8) To just address Guild's point, to be fair, the entire Mass Effect series (at the very least. I think the first Dragon Age and KOTOR had this as well, but I can't say for sure) always had the same endgame for all players. No matter what choices you made, you're still generally getting the same experience. To crib from the old expression, it's all about the journey and getting to there.
9) You're forgetting the difference between the deliberate, controlled destruction of the relays from the ME3 and the wild, massive "Let's take a meteor, crash it into this relay, and hope for the best" explosion from Arrival. Even if millions would be killed, what's better? Millions dead or all species dead?
10) I find it highly unlikely that the Quarians would take all of their ships to the battle; they mention repeatedly that some of them are just civilian vessels. With their home planet available to them, that's a good chunk of Quarians not present. Kind of an offshoot from my last point, but I've seen argument brought up before and it just bugs me.
11) As for the species stranded in the Sol system and what may befall the potential stranded, see the end of point 9. Plus, the Sol system has many clusters around it; space is pretty big, after all. Living room won't be an issue.
12) Your squadmates don't, if I remember correctly, make the final run towards the Citadel with you.
13) How would it be impossible for Joker to take the mass relay before it's destroyed? I don't quite see your reasoning there.
14) Considering that the battle was going to hell fast, especially with Shepard dead, it seems logical that Hackett would have ordered the Normandy and her crew (remember, it's the Alliance's mobile command center) to retreat. Joker would hate every second of it, but we're talking about prolonging the survival of the human species here.
15) Are there other possibilities? Sure, that's just my reading of it on a story level; in other sense, it could mean many different things. Is it Shepard's dying dream? Some sort of afterlife? A part of Reaper indoctrination? All of the above? None of the above? That's up to the player to decide.

 

[Jaems]

@[member='Jaems']

The forum has a spoiler tag to make things easier. [ spoiler ] [ /spoiler ] (minus the spaces inside the brackets). Just a heads up.

Spoiler

1) The Catalyst is never made out to be omniscient or all powerful, just the intelligence that resides in the Citadel. It's pretty clear that what we're seeing is just its avatar, a close approximation made for Shepard's (and the player's) sake.
2) Again, they make this pretty explicit. The Reapers don't "instigate" the organic/synthetic conflict. They arrive in the cycle before (as they believe) it will become out of control and harvest the organic species. They also made it clear that they consider constructing new Reapers from organics as the most surefire method of preserving them.
3) Shepard's kind of, you know, dying. It's heard to pontificate when you're bleeding to death where you stand. Plus, when you're given a fair chance to stop extermination of all species (as opposed to no chance at all), flipping it the bird just isn't a wise move.
4) I see you also read the Extra Credits post on the subject. The point about arguing back still applies from above. As for the synthesis option, that's one interpretation. However, seeing as the video shows all the species still existing as themselves (Joker and whatever alien squadmate steps out), I hardly think the Aryan comparison is fair. I'd argue that it shows the ultimate unity (the conflicts of the past set aside, which is symbolically represented with EDI and Joker as Eve and Adam figures). Is that the right thing to do? Is that wrong? There's no one answer; it sparks debate, and that's what Bioware was obviously aiming for.
5) I see you also read that revised ending from Deviantart. It's certainly an interesting suggestion, but I think it would undermine the Reapers as effective villains. We're not just dealing with "evil space aliens" here; this is a race of, essentially, mecha-eldritch abominations who warp reality and the minds of mortals through their mere presence alone. To have all of them taken down in a shooting match (with or without the aid of a scrambling device or anything) would be kind of embarrassing on their part. We're in the realm of the Lovecraftian here; you couldn't just shoot Cthulhu.
6) The War Assets are utilized; it has a pretty clear effect on the way the battle unfurls. I can understand wanting more of an actual impact on the ending itself, but this is where it comes down to opinion. I was so emotionally invested that it really was satisfying for me.
7) Yes, the plotline of the series was planned from the very start. You don't create a story driven trilogy (with millions upon millions of dollars in costs) to just make it up as you go along. Was that plan absolutely set in stone? Of course not; it was flexible enough to consider feedback and the influence of different writers. It's important to remember, however, that there's a huge difference between a flexible plan and no plan at all.
8) To just address Guild's point, to be fair, the entire Mass Effect series (at the very least. I think the first Dragon Age and KOTOR had this as well, but I can't say for sure) always had the same endgame for all players. No matter what choices you made, you're still generally getting the same experience. To crib from the old expression, it's all about the journey and getting to there.
9) You're forgetting the difference between the deliberate, controlled destruction of the relays from the ME3 and the wild, massive "Let's take a meteor, crash it into this relay, and hope for the best" explosion from Arrival. Even if millions would be killed, what's better? Millions dead or all species dead?
10) I find it highly unlikely that the Quarians would take all of their ships to the battle; they mention repeatedly that some of them are just civilian vessels. With their home planet available to them, that's a good chunk of Quarians not present. Kind of an offshoot from my last point, but I've seen argument brought up before and it just bugs me.
11) As for the species stranded in the Sol system and what may befall the potential stranded, see the end of point 9. Plus, the Sol system has many clusters around it; space is pretty big, after all. Living room won't be an issue.
12) Your squadmates don't, if I remember correctly, make the final run towards the Citadel with you.
13) How would it be impossible for Joker to take the mass relay before it's destroyed? I don't quite see your reasoning there.
14) Considering that the battle was going to hell fast, especially with Shepard dead, it seems logical that Hackett would have ordered the Normandy and her crew (remember, it's the Alliance's mobile command center) to retreat. Joker would hate every second of it, but we're talking about prolonging the survival of the human species here.
15) Are there other possibilities? Sure, that's just my reading of it on a story level; in other sense, it could mean many different things. Is it Shepard's dying dream? Some sort of afterlife? A part of Reaper indoctrination? All of the above? None of the above? That's up to the player to decide.

Haha thanks, I knew there was a way to use it just forgot the BBcode.

Spoiler

1 & 2) This is exactly what doesn't make sense. The Reaper harvest organics to prevent themselves from creating synthetics that would eventually wipe out all organic life. But this only applies if you, like the Catalyst, believe organic/synthetic war is inevitable. The choices given to you assume that you accept that fact. You cannot refuse.

EDIT: Also, there is a total lack of communication between Shep and the Catalyst. During the conversation with him, we are not given enough information to make the final decision, and we are not even given the option to speak with him again or ask questions. What is defined as synthetic life? Can we get the detailed consequences of choosing the 'control' option? No. We're just left to make a load of assumptions and watch the same ending everyone else gets. The biggest problem with this all is that we are introduced to the godchild and faced with making these decisions that we don't really know the full consequences of all within the final minutes of the game.

3) This is a large assumption to make, but of course, it depends how you yourself believe your Shepard would act. While a lot of peoples' Shepards may very well take the chance, what about my renegade shep? I don't even think my Paragon Shepard would just be okay with this. This is where a lot of people are frustrated because they (like I) don't believe their Shepard would just be okay with this even if they're bleeding to death.

4) I can see where you are coming from with the synthesis decision, but I disagree. I think it conflicts with what many grew to believe what Mass Effect was about.

5) Yeah, I knew I had read that suggestion somewhere. Believe me when I say I don't think it's the best solution; but I would rather just HAVE the option to decline the choices laid out by the Catalyst, and would be happy with an ending where I die fighting for what I thought my Shepard believed in. Even then, I don't think destroying the Reapers is that much a stretch, not as much as the entire concept of this deus ex machina that is the Reaper Killer 9000 (The Crucible).

6) I'd have to disagree with this. We are presented with a few, very minor differences in FMV sequences, and there are many things that are barely hinted at or the player has to "assume." I had to collect as many war assets as I could and I did not play multiplayer. Where were the rachni? The geth I had managed to make peace with? When comparing my ending to someone who had barely collected any war assets AND chose a different option than I had, it was just plain frustrating.

7) I don't have any disagreements with this, unless you are implying that the current ending was planned from the very start? There are definitely elements that exist in the
dark matter plotline that are somewhat similar to the current ending (the twist surrounding the Reapers' reasons for harvesting species, for example).

8) I understand what you are saying, but it's nonsense to expect nearly identical endings considering what the directors and writers had said about Mass Effect 3 for years.
Even then, it's much different when comparing how the two prior games end to the third. This is supposed to be the end of the trilogy. Shepard could die, because this is where the plotline ends. With the first two games, there are definitely restrictions to how your endings could vary (especially in 2) because they had to be able to be imported into the next game. In the second game, if your Shepard dies on the suicide mission, you cannot import your save into the third game. Logical enough.The third and final title for surviving Sheps is (or was) supposed to be where we see all of our actions have an effect and create branching storylines.

However, if someone wants to define the entire game as a sort of ending, that's different. It's pretty lame, but I can understand where they're coming from. In my opinion, the narrative ending should be everything following the big climax, and I think that's quite a simple yet consistent definition.

9) Maybe? I find it hard to say anything to that but only because there is so much left up in the air because of this goddamn ending. Even then, everyone's still stranded on Earth.

10) Fair enough. It's still only a few millions that are on the Migrant Fleet military that are going to die.

11) I've already scanned out the Sol system, there aren't much resources there at all, not enough to supply a galactic fleet for more than a few days maybe. Also, traveling to the surrounding clusters would drain fuel supplies rather quickly. I guess it would work if, again, you make the huge assumption that they are able to travel and that there ARE enough resources within the few surrounding clusters to provide for the entire galactic fleet, but even this lack of clarity would prove how poorly Bioware wrapped this story up.

12, 13 & 14) While you do not see them running besides you, they are on ground with you along with Anderson and other troops. In my case, the two people on my squad were my LI (Tali) and Garrus. Yet in the ending sequence, both Tali and Garrus jump out of the ship with Joker when they land on Treasure Island.
To assume that they are not with you on your sprint to the citadel is difficult, and it was obvious that Bioware had intended your squadmates to run with you (and die, apparently, according to this deleted scene )


Yet why would they show them both when you land? Why are they still on your HUD while you run to the citadel?

Also, I find it EXTREMELY difficult to believe that my LI, Garrus, and Joker would escape even if Hackett ordered them to (which is another huge assumption). For Joker to be
able to fly down there, pick them up, then leave Earth and fly through Reaper ridden space and aim straight for the mass relay to escape? Seriously? Do we really have to come up with all these theories to explain what Bioware failed to explain and flesh out? "That's up to the player to decide" does not cut it. That is a LACK of closure, loose threads that are not tied up.

 

[Gahars]

Spoiler

1&2) It doesn't matter what your Shepard thinks about it; the Reapers believe it fully (remember that they are the race of horrific monstrosities who get to harvest all galactic life in cycles) and they're the (relatively gracious) ones who are offering the choice. Considering its choose as best as you can or, you know, let everyone you know die horrifically and everything you've fought for be for nothing... yeah, those choices would sound pretty good.

3) Again, Shepard's pretty obviously dying. Not "Hollywood disease" dying, but "Bleeding all over the floor, struggling to walk, and collapsing-dying." Shepard took that laser to the everything like a champ (being Shepard, it comes with the job), sure, but there are limits to what a person can do. It's easy to say "Shepard should have been able to say X", but thing about it: wouldn't it shatter disbelief if Shepard, a clearly battered human being on the verge of death, suddenly started pontificating as if this was Assassin's Creed?

4) Again, the synthesis option is open to interpretation. Differing views on what it means, and if it is the option that holds truest (or true at all) to the themes of the series, are naturally going to vary from player to player. It is not the only option at your disposal, mind you; if you don't see it as the "right" choice, you have the two alternatives to decide from.

5) I've repeatedly described what the Reapers are, but it's worth stressing that they are in many ways like the Gods of Lovecraftian lore; just having the combined species of the galaxy win because they tried really, really hard would simply be a laughable payoff. It would be like just punching out Pyramid Head at the end of Silent Hill 2: a serious undermining of the game's gravest threat. Plus, is it really so difficult to believe that the Citadel (built by Reapers) and the Mass Relays (built by Reapers), which we already know can be controlled by the Reapers (it was a big part of their strategy in the other cycles) can be operated in different ways by that very same force?

6) The build-up to the battle, and the events of the battle playing out are all affected by your war assets. Much of it comes in the way of the radio chatter you're hearing, and the conversations you have with others on the battlefield. It would have been nice to see everyone fighting together, but I imagine that would have been a killer to get working properly. Remember, Bioware was dealing with hundreds of variables; to work in all of the big ones alone would likely have been impossible given realistic budget, hardware, and time constraints.

7) I never implied that the exact specifics of game were set in stone from the very start. Like I said, it was open to change and alteration to take the fans' interests (which got Tali and Garrus promoted to love interests, for example), whether or not certain things would work, and new ideas into account. It appears that the dark matter story line was shelved for a combination of the last two options.

8) How is the way a proper trilogy functions lame? The whole idea of a trilogy is to take the three act structure of a narrative and magnify it (so the first game is the introduction that establishes the universe of the series, the second game is the rising action and shows the darkest hour for the heroes, and the final game is the ultimate resolution for the conflict.) The whole game, to lift from Tycho, is denouement. If you don't consider and understand the context in which it was written, your expectations are going to be inherently skewed.

9) It just takes a little logic to reason out and think through, it really isn't much of a leap.

10) Again, this is a choice between a few million dead and every species in galactic civilization. It's not nice or pleasant, but it sure beats the alternative.

11) The amount we're able to explore in the Sol system throughout the games is pretty limited; that strikes me as more of a gameplay limitation (we don't even get to explore it in the third game, and the second only lets us explore our solar system. I don't quite remember the first game's take, but wasn't it similarly limited?) than anything else. And is that exact closure even needed anyway? It would divert the focus of the ending pretty unnecessarily; some things are fine left to the audience's imagination (for instance, take any action movie where the villain is arrested with loads of evidence against him. Do we need to see the legal proceedings to put together that he'll be sent to prison?). Even if you are a pessimist and decide that they are all doomed to kill each other... well, like I mentioned earlier, that's still loads better than the alternative. The galaxy was screwed as soon as the Reapers arrived; even if they're somewhat screwed now, it's significantly less than before.

12, 13, & 14) Deleted scenes are not canon. Bioware obviously decided against killing off your squad, and so didn't kill your squad. Going by the HUD argument, if they were with you and had died, then the HUD would have reflected that.

And you know, Joker doesn't need to fly down there himself. There's the Normandy's shuttles (if Cortez didn't die) and loads of others on the ground that they easily could have taken. Joker showed that he was easily capable of outmaneuvering the Reapers during the battle, so why would now be any different? Is it really so hard to infer from the info the game gives us? Would it have been preferable for the pace of the ending to be shattered by a sequence where the game shows the two getting on the ship, flying away, leaving, and heading towards the relay when the player can easily put it together for his or her self?