Mass Effect 3 - 13: Bet you could really go for a bottle of cool, refreshing Tupari!

[Bit Fiend]

I'm not, and if I'm coming across that way I apologize. What I am bashing are beliefs like Refuse being able to "win" when it is clearly just a Shepard whose ego triumphs over sense, similar in my eyes to one who believes Morinth's lies about being special.

Nah, I was just kidding. (Still refuse to put such clarifications into the original post. Ruins all the fun for me.)

[ShinyRocks]

*sees people talking about something called Leviathan*

*looks it up on the ME Wiki*

Huh. That's completely passed me by. Like, I had literally no idea that it existed.

But then, I haven't played any of the DLC (except Ashes). Maybe I should get it. And Citadel. And Omega.

[Psyren]

*sees people talking about something called Leviathan*

*looks it up on the ME Wiki*

Huh. That's completely passed me by. Like, I had literally no idea that it existed.

But then, I haven't played any of the DLC (except Ashes). Maybe I should get it. And Citadel. And Omega.

Definitely, definitely, definitely get Citadel. Omega I can't vouch as much for unless you really like ME3's combat, Aria, or both. (Though having the series' only real FemTurian is another point in its favor.)

[Avilan the Grey]

Definitely, definitely, definitely get Citadel. Omega I can't vouch as much for unless you really like ME3's combat, Aria, or both. (Though having the series' only real FemTurian is another point in its favor.)

Bioware messed up the marketing for Leviathan and Omega. They made Leviathan seem like an "underwater action" DLC, and Omega as an "Story-driven" DLC when it really is the opposite. Leviathan is much more story driven and Omega is basically a military assault on Omega.

That said, I consider all the DLC's worth the money.

Oh and just so you know, CITADEL is the best damned DLC made for any game, ever!

[SiuiS]

(Nale is/was a primary antagonist, not a "side character," but anyway...)

The fact that it was the premise of the whole game is why they had so many characters reiterate it.

I'm not saying that SiuS and Jayngfet are unpleasable at all. (This is, in fact, the point behind the "haggling over price" segment of the earlier quote.) What I am saying, however, is that the additional lengths required to please may simply not have been economically feasible/justifiable. Worse, even trying may have just raised further objections without convincing anyone.

If I were able to go back in time and somehow get them to include more/longer cinematics, for me a much higher priority would be showcasing our war assets on Earth - Krogan riding Kakliosaurs through the streets, Rachni slaughtering Ravagers, Geth Primes bombarding a city block full of husks etc. The most important part of the space battle was shown - namely, all the various racial fleet captains checking in during Hackett's speech, showcasing the effect of your choices. The battle itself was much less important.

I don't believe that. I have always felt that, out of all the categories the game is ranked in – logic, narrative, gameplay, story, etc. – that if even one was just the tiniest bit better, then it would be fine. But since every category came in at 79%, and nothing hit 80%, the whole thing fell apart.

The only change I think they would need, is;

Skip Marauder Shields on earth.
Shepard gets to the beam.
The crucible docks, doesn't do anything except power up.
Shepard runs through a hall, maybe a few husks attack.
The Normandy scans the (now active) crucible.
EDI informs Shepard the crucible must be turned on manually.
Liara says her readings show the gestalt tech can have many effects; destroy, maybe even control.
Garrus says the reapers are attacking the crucible directly, better hurry.
Liara (or EDI or whoever) says wait, destroy will likely wipe all reaper based hardware – even the Geth.
Control might backfire though, says someone else. If it's even possible.

Then the illusive man, then the catalyst, only everything already said, star brat doesn't say. He's just the user interface.



I honestly believe that's all you need. Three minutes. Three minutes to wind down from the battle on earth, to have people you trust and rely on tell you what the options are, and then choose your path.

I think that may be the exact wrong thing to do. There had to be more cutscenes showing just how grim things are. Thessia tried but even I have to admit that failed. Maybe a Batarian survivor who actually has an important role in the narrative. (Not necessarily a full squadmate but more than the refugees we get to see.) Throw in some cutscenes of the Batarian military getting curbstomped, their fallen transformed into cannibals, their capital being picked apart, their homeworld in flames, the surviovor being able to escape because he's one of the very few who are really damn lucky. That would have been something.

Actually, I think if we didn't leave Thessia thinking only "damn that Kai leng" it would have worked. But since he's all most people remember from Thessia...

Seems like they tried to do too much at once. Thessia was a fantastic example of the desolation.

As I'm here for a moment, I shall just observe on the ending (aside from the fact I still hold it to the worst ending of any game/film/show/thing I've ever seen with POSSIBLY the only exception of Neon Genesis Evangelion) - it was never going to have been a good (in terms of qualityending, because Bioware wrote themselves into the corner. They overplayed the Reapers so much that there was no other option other than a literal deus ex machina to defeat them - and to some extent that is also a construct of the videogame/movie hero syndrome, in that you have to have a climax. And from there, it was a short step into the ridiculousness that we got - something as inherently silly as Doctor Who (so not something that is inherently bad in and of itself) but without any of the redeeming features of that show with it. You cannot combine magic win buttons with gritty universes¹ and expect to achieve an especially tonally coherent result EVEN IF you had an execution that wasn't so utterly and iredeemable dire as what we got.

I really ought to stop myself there, else I could go on and rant about the various shades of awful that ending was (as yes, I still loathe it as much two years later as I did at the time) all night, and that would serve no useful purpose.



¹Things simply Do Not Work That Way - one of the things Star Wars got right was killing the Emporer left them still fighting the war fifteen years later.

That's about the size of it, aye.

I agree it sounds counterproductive at first - how can portraying the strength and unity of our forces do anything to convince people that the war is unwinnable? But remember that my stance has always been that sinking more resources into trying to prove that point is a waste of time and money. Rather, I think that human nature is that we're more apt to pick at dangling threads in a work we're generally disappointed with than one that we're not.

Look at the latest X-Men movie. It's packed with plotholes from start to finish, but currently it's sitting on a lofty 95% audience satisfaction according to RT. People are willing to overlook a lot of issues for something they enjoy overall.

I would confidently wager that, had the Extended Cut endings been part of the original release, half of the problems we're hashing out over the game to this day would not even have been brought up. No one would be poring over cutscenes, analyzing Oculi flight patterns, or hotly debating the fine differences between Destroy Reapers and Hades Cannons. Therefore, I think those + more war assets on Earth would have quieted a lot of dissent before it even began.

I think the extended cut would have helped. But I also think that how abrupt some changes were is the problem. The end fight was unsatisfying. The end dialogue was unsatisfying. The last fight is just avoiding some banshees, hit a button. The last dialogue is either a weirdo alien hologram or TIM, only with Shepard having crap dialogue.

If either of those was well-executed, I think it would have done better. Sent a clearer signal that we are ending things.

Unfortunately it kind of doesn't jell right. Now this is just me thinking through the mechanics, I didn't really have a problem with them in the game. But how does getting an additional asari warship for instance effect the outcome of the Crucible? It really shouldn't. Now I can see getting Rachni to help build the thing having an effect, or getting Mordin Solus to work on it, but all the military assets are only really only going to have an effect on outcomes if things boil down to a fight.

Now I will be the first to admit, the assets themselves don't really make sense and are really just rough points given for plot purposes. But in terms of mechanics reflecting gameplay, if they really wanted to emphasize that the Crucible was all that mattered then war assets should really have been just called Crucible completeness rating or something and only really focused on assets that would effect the readiness of the Crucible.

Or they could have put 2 different categories, Crucible completeness and Army readiness, and if the army readiness isn't high enough at the end you get a non-standard game over. Ending with Shepard leading survivors away from a destroyed Crucible to fight a long protracted war ending with Liara's message.

Of course, this is pretty much all nitpicking.

Well, we don't know how long it is between missions. Using a mass relay takes hours or days. The war lasts long enough after touchdown on earth that we develop new technologies and repurpose old ones, begin training waves of recruits and even develop a new branch of biotic applications (the so called "esoterics", the branch that deals with things like short range teleport and the fury's power).

If that goes on long enough, having a fully fictional, staffed and active patrol fleet means; better quality resources. Better sleep for workers. Clearer minds, higher morale, improved technical focus. Spare parts. Ancillary manpower. Security against indoctrinated agents and nay-Sayers. Better supply lines and communications networks.

This way, every extra bullet directly increases the quality of work that goes into the crucibles construction.

Twenty weeks.

Twenty weeks later we are STILL arguing about this.

Well, this is the internet, what else should I have expected?

Has it only been twenty weeks?

Yup. It's pretty much this.

Jayngfet bashing BioWare.
Psyren bashing Jayngfet.
SiuiS bashing whoever she deems bashworthy at the moment.
And me bashing aimlessly to no effect.

Hey, I bash opinions, not people! ;P

[Jayngfet]

I never finished Baldur's Gate 2 - Jade Empire was their Thriller album to me. Great plot, great gameplay, truly visible impacts of your decision making (it was breathtaking to follow an Open Palm playthrough and literally watch the world around you coming back to life, like the dam in Tien's Landing) and truly neat innovations for the console era like being able to save anywhere. Before ME and DA, JE was my first Bioware game to result in what I calll "Bioware Syndrome," i.e. replaying their titles over and over until I got the perfect playthrough. If I were more of a Star Wars fan KOTOR would have been up there with it too I imagine.

My one fault with JE was how badly some of the Closed Fist options were written. While there were a few that truly embodied the philosophy, most were simply thuggish and Stupid Evil.

Amen brother.

Though redoing Jade Empire isn't nearly as tedious as the other games. You have the ability to run at super speeds out of combat so navigating maps was never a huge issue, and you didn't have to worry about constantly swapping equipment sets or having your new breastplate look awful. I legit consider ME1 and DAO to be steps backwards from this and a number of reasons.

[Psyren]

I don't believe that. I have always felt that, out of all the categories the game is ranked in – logic, narrative, gameplay, story, etc. – that if even one was just the tiniest bit better, then it would be fine. But since every category came in at 79%, and nothing hit 80%, the whole thing fell apart.

The only change I think they would need, is;

Skip Marauder Shields on earth.
Shepard gets to the beam.
The crucible docks, doesn't do anything except power up.
Shepard runs through a hall, maybe a few husks attack.
The Normandy scans the (now active) crucible.
EDI informs Shepard the crucible must be turned on manually.
Liara says her readings show the gestalt tech can have many effects; destroy, maybe even control.
Garrus says the reapers are attacking the crucible directly, better hurry.
Liara (or EDI or whoever) says wait, destroy will likely wipe all reaper based hardware – even the Geth.
Control might backfire though, says someone else. If it's even possible.

Then the illusive man, then the catalyst, only everything already said, star brat doesn't say. He's just the user interface.

I have to disagree because this significantly alters the narrative. Having your squad even know there are options, much less what those options are, is a very, very different situation than Shepard being isolated and forced to make the choice alone.

As for the Catalyst being trustworthy, I don't see that as big of an issue due to the circumstances (i.e. he could have left you downstairs if he was trying to kill you/win the war) but I do agree the kid caused more problems than he solved. I would fix that simply by using the Virmire Casualty as its chosen form instead of some random kid. Since they are clearly scanning Shepard's mind, I would even throw in additional dialogue for:

1) Whether you and the Virmire Casualty were in a romance prior to their death in ME1.
2) If (1) was yes, whether you moved on and romanced someone else (Shepard's guilt can get cranked up to 11 here.)
3) If (1) was no, a brief line relating to your current romance (or simply you, if no romance.)
4) Whether the Virmire Survivor was killed during the Cerberus coup (more guilt opportunities for Shep here.)

Bioware messed up the marketing for Leviathan and Omega. They made Leviathan seem like an "underwater action" DLC, and Omega as an "Story-driven" DLC when it really is the opposite. Leviathan is much more story driven and Omega is basically a military assault on Omega.

Indeed. In fact Leviathan had some really cool aspects to it that I hope we see in future installments, such as being Paragon actually making the game harder, and the investigation mechanic.

I could imagine them combining Leviathan's investigation with planet exploration for high-tier unlocks and lots of lore.

Amen brother.

Though redoing Jade Empire isn't nearly as tedious as the other games. You have the ability to run at super speeds out of combat so navigating maps was never a huge issue, and you didn't have to worry about constantly swapping equipment sets or having your new breastplate look awful. I legit consider ME1 and DAO to be steps backwards from this and a number of reasons.

Agreed, and even if you didn't run - mastering Harmonic Combos meant that even on Hard, fights could take seconds. Once I had Paralyzing Palm the game was pretty much over.

[Bit Fiend]

I don't believe that. I have always felt that, out of all the categories the game is ranked in – logic, narrative, gameplay, story, etc. – that if even one was just the tiniest bit better, then it would be fine. But since every category came in at 79%, and nothing hit 80%, the whole thing fell apart.

The only change I think they would need, is;

Skip Marauder Shields on earth.
Shepard gets to the beam.
The crucible docks, doesn't do anything except power up.
Shepard runs through a hall, maybe a few husks attack.
The Normandy scans the (now active) crucible.
EDI informs Shepard the crucible must be turned on manually.
Liara says her readings show the gestalt tech can have many effects; destroy, maybe even control.
Garrus says the reapers are attacking the crucible directly, better hurry.
Liara (or EDI or whoever) says wait, destroy will likely wipe all reaper based hardware – even the Geth.
Control might backfire though, says someone else. If it's even possible.

Then the illusive man, then the catalyst, only everything already said, star brat doesn't say. He's just the user interface.



I honestly believe that's all you need. Three minutes. Three minutes to wind down from the battle on earth, to have people you trust and rely on tell you what the options are, and then choose your path.

You're leaving any mention of Synthesis out on purpose, aren't you?

[Aotrs Commander]

I have always viewed it like this. Bioware truly shot themselves in the foot with the shoddy first release. I mean even from a technical standpoint the original ending is a mess. The cutscenes doesn't line up, you have no explanation for vital parts, leading to initial speculations of Endor Holocausts, and worse. It is just badly done. Again, I am not even talking about the writing, I am ONLY talking about the skill they glued it together with.

On top of the people who would never have liked this ending, no matter the writing (becaue "I want to kill Harbringer personally, dammit! Oh and Little Blue Babies or Bioware shall BURRRRRN!") all the ones that normally would have accepted this got so ticked off by the shoddy handiwork and the arrogance (the whole "We deliberately took away the closure for you, since we want you to speculate about what happened! *Trollface* thing) they automatically fell into the same camp as the unpleasable ones. The fact that they then tried to defend actual bad (or lazy?) handiwork with the "artistic integrity" deflection only ticked off more people.

This is probably a reasonable assumption. I would have still disliked the ending, but it would not have been so terrible as to invite the analysis from me it did - I might have been more inclined to write if off as "Bioware and Obsidian tend to suck at endings" - though given that I thought ME 1's ending was very satisfactory, I would likely have levelled more complaints than I did at, say, NWN 2.

As it was, being the FATAL of endings, in that every layer peeled away was something new to dislike, it actually encouraged me to analyse all the numerous flaws at every single level instead of just shrugging and going "that was crap" and moving on.

(The ending so annoyed me, even with the EC, that in concert with the period where the multiplayer kept kicking people out, I haven't touched ME 3 since; I haven't picked up the DLC still. Maybe at some point, when I get as far as ME 3 with my Evil Idiot Shepard. I shall eventually, I suspect - among other things, people have occasionally suggested that the ending to Citidel is sufficiently good that one could pretend it was the after-Reapers-win party.)



Endings are something of an art, though, and very few computer games do them well as a general rule. C&C through to RA2 did well (C&C 3 not so much), Torment's worked; I remember Ultimate Alliance did well (having the omake of the characters recording their voice acting was a stroke of genius, because you went away from the game laughing and thus in a good mood)... Final Fantasy generally does well in that regard... JE/BG2/DA:O/ME 1 were pretty sastifactory (with BG 2's being the weakest), ME 2's... well, really that segued striaght into ME 3 (and Shadowbroker fitted in post-suicide mission too), so the end to the base game sort of coutns for less.

Can't think of any other off the top my head that were really good endings and I can think of lots that were basically "you win!" and cut to main menu (SotS/SotS 2, looking at you...)

...of course I am a grumpy old man who also consider Baldur's Gate 2 to be Bioware's "Thriller Album", their early peak and everything they have done since is quality wise on a slow decline. But again, I am old.

I think Black Isle (i.e Bioware/Obsidian and now arguably inXile) peaked even earlier at Torment, personally (I'm just hoping that either Pillars of Eternity or Torment: Tides of Numenara come even close to the spitting distance of that lofty height) but I'm a canterankerous old Lich myself...

[Jayngfet]

Agreed, and even if you didn't run - mastering Harmonic Combos meant that even on Hard, fights could take seconds. Once I had Paralyzing Palm the game was pretty much over.

Paralyzing palm makes the game easy, but Jade Golem is so broken it isn't even funny. It can literally wipe out the end boss before you realize your hits are even connecting.

[Calemyr]

As it was, being the FATAL of endings, in that every layer peeled away was something new to dislike, it actually encouraged me to analyse all the numerous flaws at every single level instead of just shrugging and going "that was crap" and moving on.

(The ending so annoyed me, even with the EC, that in concert with the period where the multiplayer kept kicking people out, I haven't touched ME 3 since; I haven't picked up the DLC still. Maybe at some point, when I get as far as ME 3 with my Evil Idiot Shepard. I shall eventually, I suspect - among other things, people have occasionally suggested that the ending to Citidel is sufficiently good that one could pretend it was the after-Reapers-win party.)

Speaking as someone whose unbridled rage at the ending was enough to make my brother politely ask people not to talk about it in my presence (I'm normally a quiet, even keeled fellow, but I take my storytelling seriously), I have to say that Leviathan and Citadel go to great, great lengths to soften my problems with the game.

Leviathan, besides being one absolutely gorgeous set piece after another, fills in a lot of the details that made the ending so stupidly incoherent and pointless. Much of it is not a real surprise after the extended cut explains much more than the original ending, but it really helps to hear the details from another perspective than just Starkid. It should have been part of the main game, but I don't think we would have gotten that quality of levels if we had...

Citadel, on the other hand, offers what Mass Effect 3 really, really, desperately needed: closure, humor, and a moment for the whole crew to shine. The DLC mission is glorious in the way it presents everything, including Wrex as a temporary ally. To top it off, however, there's also a number of one-on-one "hangout" scenes where you get to just chill with your friends, be it watching Zaeed declare war on one of those claw arcade games or following Grunt's lengthy tale of how he came to be arrested in front of a burning ramen shop. Add on to that an arena game where you can use virtually all of your surviving allies (including Shep, Grunt AND Wrex on the same team) and the infamous house party.

Honestly, those two DLC redeemed ME3 for me, to the point that I can enjoy playing it again. And, yes, I make a habit of leaving the party until post game. Word of God can kiss my eezo.

Paralyzing palm makes the game easy, but Jade Golem is so broken it isn't even funny. It can literally wipe out the end boss before you realize your hits are even connecting.

Red Minister is pretty broken, too. Chi-syphoning means that it pretty much feeds itself in large fights and a lot of enemies simply can't touch it.

I would also mention that that's one of the games that's actually better on the second play-through. There are so many throwaway glances and comments that take a completely different connotation after winning the game once.

[Math_Mage]

I think one reason why I'm more forgiving of the ending is that I didn't experience the whole controversy about it. I mean, I knew the controversy was "a thing", but having not played any of the Mass Effect games at the time I paid it no attention. It was only a year later that a co-worker who convinced me that my bad experience with the first game (which I still haven't played to completion, and don't particularly intend to - I've watched most of the significant cutscenes independently of the gameplay retro-actively) shouldn't turn me off the series as a whole. By the time I played the third game, all the DLC was out and I played it with EC already in place.

I looked at the ending, went "Where's the controversy??", went and watched the non-EC videos and said "Oh, I guess I can see that."

And that's the full extent of it. I never saw Bioware's defense of the original ending, never argued on the forums over it - I never built up that rage.

Yeah, that.

Since I've only played the Mass Effect series and DAO, ME2 was my favorite Bioware game narratively, while ME3 was my favorite combat-wise. (Of course, not having purchased the DLC for either game, my judgment there is still rather limited.)

Oh and just so you know, CITADEL is the best damned DLC made for any game, ever!

*ahem*
"I'm Commander Shepard, and this is my favorite DLC on the Citadel."

[Psyren]

Red Minister is pretty broken, too. Chi-syphoning means that it pretty much feeds itself in large fights and a lot of enemies simply can't touch it.

Yeah, Red Minister was my favorite trans style. I didn't use those much though.

I would also mention that that's one of the games that's actually better on the second play-through. There are so many throwaway glances and comments that take a completely different connotation after winning the game once.

Oh yeah it's great. I especially loved all the folks who could almost swear there were flaws in your style... I loved the pissy Closed Fist response to their allegations.

[SiuiS]

Definitely, definitely, definitely get Citadel. Omega I can't vouch as much for unless you really like ME3's combat, Aria, or both. (Though having the series' only real FemTurian is another point in its favor.)

Yes. The downloadable content for this game is amazing. If you start with it? Then it becomes the exemplary game it should have been; I don't have leviathan, and even without it the game is amazing enough that it would silence all complaints.

Amen brother.

Though redoing Jade Empire isn't nearly as tedious as the other games. You have the ability to run at super speeds out of combat so navigating maps was never a huge issue, and you didn't have to worry about constantly swapping equipment sets or having your new breastplate look awful. I legit consider ME1 and DAO to be steps backwards from this and a number of reasons.

I never got to play jade empire. It's the one Xbox game that doesn't play on the 360

I have to disagree because this significantly alters the narrative. Having your squad even know there are options, much less what those options are, is a very, very different situation than Shepard being isolated and forced to make the choice alone.

Well see, that's not an actual issue. I say this because part of the problem right now is that Shepard doesn't make this decision isolated and alone. You make your decision with someone else in dialogue. You just get a new character out of the blue who you are supposed to trust, and it's done in a way that's hamfisted and vaguely insulting.

The intention may have been to get Shepard to make a decision isolated and alone, but that doesn't mean it should be that way, and it doesn't mean that having trusted voices give you the same information couldn't have still preserved that sense of isolation. It's all in the writing.

As for the Catalyst being trustworthy, I don't see that as big of an issue due to the circumstances (i.e. he could have left you downstairs if he was trying to kill you/win the war) but I do agree the kid caused more problems than he solved. I would fix that simply by using the Virmire Casualty as its chosen form instead of some random kid.

Possibly. Hell, if they made the hologram the prothean hologram from ME 1 that was, I dunno, salvaged and used as part of the crucible. However...

I do not believe that "the guy could have been worse, so stop saying he's bad" as a valid point. No, he couldn't have left you to die. Because we are working with narrative conventions. He must have brought you up. The story where Shepard is left to die is not a blockbuster game. That we are left with such a shallow justification is just further sign that the rushed game wasn't properly forged and tempered, and cracked under strain.

Believe me, I've tried and it doesn't work. At no point does being Hunsen Aberdeer ever work. Not really.

You're leaving any mention of Synthesis out on purpose, aren't you?

Only because having a dozen bullet points works directly counter to my "simple, low maintenance changes" concept. Synthesis could be the thing Shepard discovers when setting up the final sequence, when Shepard recognizes that the processes will destroy all reaper tech, maybe.

As it was, being the FATAL of endings, in that every layer peeled away was something new to dislike, it actually encouraged me to analyse all the numerous flaws at every single level instead of just shrugging and going "that was crap" and moving on.

Yes, thank you, Monsieur. That's exactly it; if one thing was slightly better, then you could say "well, that sucked but it was still cool overall". That's what I mean.

[Psyren]

I never got to play jade empire. It's the one Xbox game that doesn't play on the 360

Are you sure? Mine worked, and it says "Yes" (with a few caveats) on the list. It's also available on GoG for $15.

Well see, that's not an actual issue. I say this because part of the problem right now is that Shepard doesn't make this decision isolated and alone. You make your decision with someone else in dialogue. You just get a new character out of the blue who you are supposed to trust, and it's done in a way that's hamfisted and vaguely insulting.

By "isolated" I don't mean "totally solitary." Rather I mean "not influenced by squadmate opinions." For example, choosing Destroy would lose all its moral ambiguity if EDI and the Geth, knowing that you had other options available, still said "choose red." As it stands, yes both are willing to sacrifice themselves if necessary, but the moral gray area comes from the "if necessary," i.e. thinking that Destroy was probably all the Crucible was capable of. That, moreso than the destruction itself, is what lends Destroy a morally dark tinge. Or if your love interest was able to try and talk you out of Control/Synthesis, both of which are guaranteed to kill you while Destroy is only a maybe. The kid's presence does not have a meaningful impact on any of these, save to make you potentially question the truth of what you're hearing (in which case, you may as well Refuse, and realize how badly you screwed up when the light winks out.)

I do not believe that "the guy could have been worse, so stop saying he's bad" as a valid point. No, he couldn't have left you to die. Because we are working with narrative conventions. He must have brought you up. The story where Shepard is left to die is not a blockbuster game. That we are left with such a shallow justification is just further sign that the rushed game wasn't properly forged and tempered, and cracked under strain.

This is pretty contradictory. You claim "narrative conventions" are the reason why he didn't leave you on the floor, when it is those same narrative conventions that give you reason to believe everything you're hearing. The Reapers have never lied to you; even Sovereign, who had nothing to lose and everything to gain by continuing to let you believe he was just Saren's cool ride, lays out his dastardly plan in detail. Object Rho convinces you how important it is to start the Arrival project by actually showing you how close the Reapers are instead of making you doubt the timer. Harbinger confirms the connection between the Reapers and the Collectoes instead of doing everything he can to make you doubt it. Why were they all honest those times but not now? It makes no sense at all.

[Derthric]

Are you sure? Mine worked, and it says "Yes" (with a few caveats) on the list. It's also available on GoG for $15.

And on Steam as well and I think even the Xbox Games Marketplace or whatever it is called.

I recently dusted off my ME2 to get the one achievement I lacked. Survive 5 waves in the battle for Object Rho. Holy hell not being able to combat roll stinks! And the overcover grab insta-kills would have been very helpful there too. But I did it.

Debating if I want to buy the DLC for ME3 and go for that achievement completion too. I have Citadel, picked it up on sale a while ago. But this will be the first money I will have spent on Bioware at full price since ME3, not sure if I want to give it to them.

[Bit Fiend]

By "isolated" I don't mean "totally solitary." Rather I mean "not influenced by squadmate opinions." For example, choosing Destroy would lose all its moral ambiguity if EDI and the Geth, knowing that you had other options available, still said "choose red." As it stands, yes both are willing to sacrifice themselves if necessary, but the moral gray area comes from the "if necessary," i.e. thinking that Destroy was probably all the Crucible was capable of. That, moreso than the destruction itself, is what lends Destroy a morally dark tinge. Or if your love interest was able to try and talk you out of Control/Synthesis, both of which are guaranteed to kill you while Destroy is only a maybe. The kid's presence does not have a meaningful impact on any of these, save to make you potentially question the truth of what you're hearing (in which case, you may as well Refuse, and realize how badly you screwed up when the light winks out.)

Yes, thank you. This is exactly what I liked about it. You have to make this decision completely on your own, with no one knowing anything about it, nor anyone who you can ask for input or permission. This puts you under a lot of moral pressure. If you pick Destroy EDI and the Geth will be gone and won't even know what hit them. You could totally get away with genocide and shooting an unquestionably loyal squadmate in the back, no one except you will ever know there were other options. Likewise you have to ask yourself if they would agree with your reasoning, but you will never know, since they will be gone. This is one big inner conflict, created by the simple means of cutting you off from everyone whose opinion you may value.

[Psyren]

And on Steam as well and I think even the Xbox Games Marketplace or whatever it is called.

I recently dusted off my ME2 to get the one achievement I lacked. Survive 5 waves in the battle for Object Rho. Holy hell not being able to combat roll stinks! And the overcover grab insta-kills would have been very helpful there too. But I did it.

Those disadvantages are offset because ME2 has heavy weapons, and medigel restores both your health and shields instantly. I got the achievement by whipping out the Arc Projector and making mincemeat out of Kenson's forces that way.

Yes, thank you. This is exactly what I liked about it. You have to make this decision completely on your own, with no one knowing anything about it, nor anyone who you can ask for input or permission. This puts you under a lot of moral pressure. If you pick Destroy EDI and the Geth will be gone and won't even know what hit them. You could totally get away with genocide and shooting an unquestionably loyal squadmate in the back, no one except you will ever know there were other options. Likewise you have to ask yourself if they would agree with your reasoning, but you will never know, since they will be gone. This is one big inner conflict, created by the simple means of cutting you off from everyone whose opinion you may value.

Precisely. It's night and day difference.

[SiuiS]

Are you sure? Mine worked, and it says "Yes" (with a few caveats) on the list. It's also available on GoG for $15.

Would be just my luck the disk didn't work, then.

By "isolated" I don't mean "totally solitary." Rather I mean "not influenced by squadmate opinions." For example, choosing Destroy would lose all its moral ambiguity if EDI and the Geth, knowing that you had other options available, still said "choose red." As it stands, yes both are willing to sacrifice themselves if necessary, but the moral gray area comes from the "if necessary," i.e. thinking that Destroy was probably all the Crucible was capable of. That, moreso than the destruction itself, is what lends Destroy a morally dark tinge. Or if your love interest was able to try and talk you out of Control/Synthesis, both of which are guaranteed to kill you while Destroy is only a maybe. The kid's presence does not have a meaningful impact on any of these, save to make you potentially question the truth of what you're hearing (in which case, you may as well Refuse, and realize how badly you screwed up when the light winks out.)

You could still have trusted sources give you information and not influence your choice. That's where good writing comes in; it can be done. I didn't do it with a quick bullet list to get a point across, but then bioware didn't do it with their deus ex machin ex machina giving a quick bullet list rundown either.

This is pretty contradictory. You claim "narrative conventions" are the reason why he didn't leave you on the floor, when it is those same narrative conventions that give you reason to believe everything you're hearing.

It's not about belief. If it was, I wouldn't say "have someone you trust say the same stuff".
Stories re not data. There is a rhythm, flow and form to them. Sequence, order, time, stress. Having it done in a way that is emotionally satisfying rather than technically acceptable is better for a medium which relies on emotional satisfaction for marketing and product sales. End of story.

I have never, not once, from anyone, heard that Starkid was an emotionally satisfying end to the series. I have not heard that about anything connected to him.

The Reapers have never lied to you; even Sovereign, who had nothing to lose and everything to gain by continuing to let you believe he was just Saren's cool ride, lays out his dastardly plan in detail.

This truth is subjective. Sovereign lays out that he is your salvation and future as well, with equal certainty. For him it was the truth. One doesn't have to lie to be wrong. Not that starkid is wrong; just to discredit the idea that someone who doesn't lie to you will have your best interests at heart because they're not liars.

[Psyren]

You could still have trusted sources give you information and not influence your choice. That's where good writing comes in; it can be done. I didn't do it with a quick bullet list to get a point across, but then bioware didn't do it with their deus ex machin ex machina giving a quick bullet list rundown either.

Having them give you the information means them having the information. Which, as Bit Fiend and I showed you, changes the framework of your choices entirely to a story Bioware had no interest in telling.

I have never, not once, from anyone, heard that Starkid was an emotionally satisfying end to the series. I have not heard that about anything connected to him.

Even I don't find him satisfying (*points yet again to the notion of using the VC in his stead*) but that has nothing to do with him being trustworthy. You believe him because Reapers don't lie; it's that simple.

This truth is subjective. Sovereign lays out that he is your salvation and future as well, with equal certainty. For him it was the truth. One doesn't have to lie to be wrong. Not that starkid is wrong; just to discredit the idea that someone who doesn't lie to you will have your best interests at heart because they're not liars.

Ah, but if he's simply wrong about what the choices do then it's all a crapshoot. Shooting the pipe could just sabotage the device and spell this cycle's doom for all you know. Which is again a violation of the "narrative conventions" you mention. They would not present you with a bunch of random (or worse, purely detrimental) consequences at the end of the game any more than they would leave you to bleed out on an elevator.

In other words, a choice where you don't even have the faintest idea of what the consequences will be - such as one where the only guy qualified to understand them is wrong - is no choice at all.

[Bit Fiend]

It's not about belief. If it was, I wouldn't say "have someone you trust say the same stuff".
Stories re not data. There is a rhythm, flow and form to them. Sequence, order, time, stress. Having it done in a way that is emotionally satisfying rather than technically acceptable is better for a medium which relies on emotional satisfaction for marketing and product sales. End of story.

I have never, not once, from anyone, heard that Starkid was an emotionally satisfying end to the series. I have not heard that about anything connected to him.

I think the thing about unsatisfying endings is: some are supposed to be just that. It may be unsatisfying but to me it's not so in the wrong way. If they had just faded to black and sid "what's up next is up to your imagination" (or left it at the original version) that would have been the wrong kind of unsatisfying. I'm fine with it in a game like Metroid, but in a story driven game like Mass Effect I want an actual ending. We got that, and if the outcome sucks, well, tough luck.

You're basically told, at the last possible moment, that everything you thought you knew about the Catalyst and the Crucible is wrong, and are presented their real purpose and your real options. Is it a logical possibility? Yes, the thing is one giant millions of years old Black Box that's never been tested, you're lucky it even remotely does what you thought it does. Does it break up your expectations? Yes, it does. Does it break up the narrative. Totally. Do you feel cheated? If you do, that's actually perfectly fine, as that is a perfectly appropriate in-character reaction. See, if this was a movie or a TV series, I'd be upset, because there I only get to watch the scenario, and watching such a scenario is no fun. But in a game I think they can actually pull that off, because you're part of the scenario. It's interesting to explore from an in-character perspective what it feels like when your whole picture is shattered the last moment. Had they gone off the rails of plausibility, I'd be mad, but they didn't. And it's not a Shaggy Dog Story either, they don't completely rob you of you victory, 12 Monkeys style, just of the one you were hoping to get, and I'm fine with that.

[Derthric]

Those disadvantages are offset because ME2 has heavy weapons, and medigel restores both your health and shields instantly. I got the achievement by whipping out the Arc Projector and making mincemeat out of Kenson's forces that way.

That's what I get for bringing the Cain to an Arc Projector fight.

I bought the Omega DLC figured I would run through that first see if I get hooked back into a Mass Effect mood before spending more money. Now the question is, which one of my Shep's to bring.

[Calemyr]

That's what I get for bringing the Cain to an Arc Projector fight.

I bought the Omega DLC figured I would run through that first see if I get hooked back into a Mass Effect mood before spending more money. Now the question is, which one of my Shep's to bring.

It's a huge firefight against Cerberus, disposable robot fighters, and a new type of Reaper monster: the adjutant. You'll be on your own (just you and Aria), so a good Cerberus killer would be a favorite - armor piercing ammo and good mass combat weapons/talents.

[Psyren]

That's what I get for bringing the Cain to an Arc Projector fight.

The Cain works well too, if you save it for the YMIR. The hard part is surviving without a heavy weapon until the mech shows up.

I bought the Omega DLC figured I would run through that first see if I get hooked back into a Mass Effect mood before spending more money. Now the question is, which one of my Shep's to bring.

If you have a Paragon Engineer I would use that. Otherwise, bring one that is good at dealing with armor, those mechs be scary.

[Jayngfet]

Yes, thank you. This is exactly what I liked about it. You have to make this decision completely on your own, with no one knowing anything about it, nor anyone who you can ask for input or permission. This puts you under a lot of moral pressure. If you pick Destroy EDI and the Geth will be gone and won't even know what hit them. You could totally get away with genocide and shooting an unquestionably loyal squadmate in the back, no one except you will ever know there were other options. Likewise you have to ask yourself if they would agree with your reasoning, but you will never know, since they will be gone. This is one big inner conflict, created by the simple means of cutting you off from everyone whose opinion you may value.

Personally I think the geth would probably agree with the reasoning. Legion's quest in ME2 carried over and proved that attempting to control them didn't really work and they just reverted, so they'd understand the need to destroy, even if they'd find it a hard pill to swallow. After all, being told you can switch out reaper programming with no ill effects is one thing, but actually sustaining it is another.

[Psyren]

Perhaps they would oppose Control, but would they oppose Synthesis? Especially given what they're currently doing with the Quarians.

(And considering half of them favored rewrite, opposing Control isn't a given either.)

[Zevox]

Perhaps they would oppose Control, but would they oppose Synthesis? Especially given what they're currently doing with the Quarians.

(And considering half of them favored rewrite, opposing Control isn't a given either.)

Even for the half who favored destroying the Heretics, opposing control isn't necessarily a given. I'm an example of someone who completely favors destroy with the Heretics, but would easily pick control over destroy in the ending. Because destroying the Heretics just destroys the things you actually want destroyed, while destroying the Reapers has a ton of extra casualties that can be readily avoided with one of the two alternatives. Also, the Reapers already being under the Catalyst's control rather than fully free-willed makes it marginally more palatable for me than in the Heretic situation.

[Avilan the Grey]

Yes, thank you, Monsieur. That's exactly it; if one thing was slightly better, then you could say "well, that sucked but it was still cool overall". That's what I mean.

Exactly. Or even "Well that was... meh". With the EC and Leviathan installed it is my honest opinion that the endings are pretty exactly Average.

If you have a Paragon Engineer I would use that. Otherwise, bring one that is good at dealing with armor, those mechs be scary.

Not sure what's up with the difficulty between ME2 and ME3 btw.
Bioware boasted that "Normal" in ME3 is the same as "Veteran" in ME2 (and that the higher difficulties were even tougher, making Insanity "Insanity++") but I am for the first time playing ME2 on Hardcore (Insanity is just not fun, for me, it is just tedious) and it is much harder than Insanity in ME3 IMHO! I guess a large part of it is because in ME3 the difficulty comes from increased HP, better tactics and higher weapon damage, while in ME2 they just slap armor / barriers / shields on everything that moves. The reaper IFF final fight, for example, had me cry and scream and run like a little girl trying not to get swarmed by husks on Hardcore.

Edit:
This is my "Let's try some different things" character (thought still mostly Paragon).
Thank's to Bit Fiend who shared Joan Shepard, Sentinel with me she killed the Rachni (never done that), let the council die (never done that) and didn't bother with Conrad (admittedly by mistake, but never done that either!).
My plans for ME2 is really only one: Get Mordin killed so that I can use Padok Wilks in ME3 (he is supposedly a great character!). In ME3 I will pick Dr Michel instead of Chakwas just because.

[SiuiS]

Having them give you the information means them having the information. Which, as Bit Fiend and I showed you, changes the framework of your choices entirely to a story Bioware had no interest in telling.

No. You can have information without the others putting that information together and making conclusions based on it.

Even I don't find him satisfying (*points yet again to the notion of using the VC in his stead*) but that has nothing to do with him being trustworthy. You believe him because Reapers don't lie; it's that simple.

It's not about belief.

It's like you're not getting the main points, sometimes. How do you read "belief doesn't matter" and still think "you can believe him" is a valid argument?

I think the thing about unsatisfying endings is: some are supposed to be just that. It may be unsatisfying but to me it's not so in the wrong way. If they had just faded to black and sid "what's up next is up to your imagination" (or left it at the original version) that would have been the wrong kind of unsatisfying. I'm fine with it in a game like Metroid, but in a story driven game like Mass Effect I want an actual ending. We got that, and if the outcome sucks, well, tough luck.

You're basically told, at the last possible moment, that everything you thought you knew about the Catalyst and the Crucible is wrong, and are presented their real purpose and your real options. Is it a logical possibility? Yes, the thing is one giant millions of years old Black Box that's never been tested, you're lucky it even remotely does what you thought it does. Does it break up your expectations? Yes, it does. Does it break up the narrative. Totally. Do you feel cheated? If you do, that's actually perfectly fine, as that is a perfectly appropriate in-character reaction. See, if this was a movie or a TV series, I'd be upset, because there I only get to watch the scenario, and watching such a scenario is no fun. But in a game I think they can actually pull that off, because you're part of the scenario. It's interesting to explore from an in-character perspective what it feels like when your whole picture is shattered the last moment. Had they gone off the rails of plausibility, I'd be mad, but they didn't. And it's not a Shaggy Dog Story either, they don't completely rob you of you victory, 12 Monkeys style, just of the one you were hoping to get, and I'm fine with that.

What? Goddess, no. "This story failed at a meta level, but that's okay because it is realistic" is... No.
If a fire fails to burn, it's not a realistic fire because some fires do that. It's a failed fire; not a fire. If a meal fails to nourish it's not a realistic meal because some meals do that. A story that gets wrapped up quickly in a bad way because the person telling it gets told they need to wrap up and go do something else? It is a bad story. Judging it for being bad is perfectly fine.

[Psyren]

No. You can have information without the others putting that information together and making conclusions based on it.

How do you propose they provide you information on the Crucible's functions without... knowing the Crucible's functions? For example, the minute EDI knows that Destroy will Destroy EDI, and that there are other options - even if she knows nothing else beyond that you're in a vastly different scenario than the one being presented.

It's like you're not getting the main points, sometimes. How do you read "belief doesn't matter" and still think "you can believe him" is a valid argument?

How can I when you're throwing around very nebulous/vague terms like "rhythm and flow?"

What? Goddess, no. "This story failed at a meta level, but that's okay because it is realistic" is... No.

The story itself did not fail, only the (initial) presentation did. The nuts and bolts of it work fine, and are as follows:

-we thought the device was only capable of Destroy;
-we get up there and find out that Destroy has unintended collateral damage;
-there are two other ways of using the device with their own benefits and drawbacks;
-all three options stop the Reaping of this cycle;
-we have a limited time to choose and no way of consulting anyone else before doing so.

That's all there is to it. Everything else - the origins of the Catalyst, the form it takes to communicate with you, and even Shepard's own survival - is just window dressing.