|
Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:ill be real with you guys It's good OP. I liked it
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 14:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 01:32 |
|
|
Uh, actually. It sucked. ME3 should be played through to the ending, the worst that's going to happen is that you're going to be let-down. It's not going to hurt you and it's pretty interesting to see it all unfold and such. On a side-note, I've played a bunch of Black Flag recently and that would be an interesting title for Bioware to look at for ME4. Except for the part where the main character unironically, morosely says, "I just want to live my life; I feel like I'm just running errands." Shirkelton fucked around with this message at 14:42 on Dec 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 14:38
|
|
|
For ME4 the EDI-bot substitute party member needs to be voiced by the GLaDOS voice actress. Or just you know, be GLaDOS entirely. People would instantly forget all the poo poo from ME3 and love them again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 15:34
|
|
|
DancingShade posted:For ME4 the EDI-bot substitute party member needs to be voiced by the GLaDOS voice actress. How about one EDI-bot with a GLaDOS voice, and another with a Marvin voice?
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 15:50
|
|
|
Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:ill be real with you guys You should play it because it's like a masterclass in What Not To Do. Classes should be taught on it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 17:04
|
|
|
Milky Moor posted:I mean, not that this discussion really matters. Mass Effect 3 is going to be remembered as the game with the horrible, nonsensical ending regardless.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 17:09
|
|
|
I played through me2 twice, me3 thrice, and me1 ~250-300 times. I'm pretty sure me1 is the superior game and the only one worth playing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 17:11
|
|
|
ME1 is very bad, IMO.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 17:17
|
|
|
Fag Boy Jim posted:ME1 is very bad, IMO. It's more bearable if you put it on easy and treat it as more of a story based RPG.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 17:24
|
|
|
I don't think ME1 is terrible, but I also don't bother playing it on high difficulties except on replay characters with good poo poo. Edit: I never got the whole "the Mako sucks" thing. It was when you had to get out of the Mako that it sucked, on the random worlds. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 17:24
|
|
Bobby Deluxe posted:It's not aged well. When it came out it was amazing, but now the mako sequences are just painful. I honestly do think that, from a gameplay perspective, changing the focus away from the inventory management bullshit in ME1 was one of the best decisions Bioware made for the sequels. Even when 3 brought gun customization back, it felt like a much better experience (though it would've been helpful if they'd outright said that the ammo capacity/magazine rounds ones only work for Shepard).
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 17:38
|
|
|
I actually weirdly liked the Mako shooting bits. Using jump jets to boost over slow-rear end projectiles that do like no damage anyway was weirdly soothing. The rest of the combat was trash from a trash bin, imo. Cycling shutdown powers non-stop while using some of the least satisfying guns ever made in a third person shooter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 17:41
|
|
|
I get the same feeling from ME1 as Bethesda games, really. My favourite bits are tooling around exploring a big wilderness, putting up with combat that's at least inoffensive enough that I don't start swearing when enemies show up. I didn't much like the move to straight cover-shooter gameplay because, much as it's objectively better, I wasn't really playing ME1 for the combat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 18:26
|
|
|
I got really excited when I saw there was a trilogy edition, because I was hoping they might update 1 into the 2/3 engine. I love the way gun customisation works in 3 but the problem is that going back to 1/2 (especially 1) just feels like aassive step back. Goes to show how much they refined the formula I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 18:27
|
|
|
Bobby Deluxe posted:I got really excited when I saw there was a trilogy edition, because I was hoping they might update 1 into the 2/3 engine. That was what ME4 was originally speculated to be, a remake of ME1 in the ME3 engine as an excuse to continue the multiplayer, but apparently it's actually a new game. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 18:59
|
|
|
Utritum posted:For the record, I agree with the previous posts about the story being about intergenerational conflicts. The problem is that the story suddenly drops that so it can throw around some high-faluting ambiguity about the singularity. The only solution to intergenerational conflict is the singularity. I mean, you could just have humanity blow up the Reapers, no tech loss, but then the subtext is about the inevitability of children murdering their parents, Titanomachy all over again, and the cycle essentially doesn't actually change. That's not a bad thing, but it is quite dark if you look beyond superficialities. Also in the old ME2 thread quite a few people had difficulty with the idea of ME2 being about daddy isues, so it's not much of a stretch that people might not 'get' ME3. Which, yeah, is pretty shameful. Yeah I went there
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 18:59
|
|
|
I'd say the fundamental problem with the Synthesis ending for me - beyond not making any sense - is philosophical. Instead of all the races agreeing to merge man and machine, Shep imposes this change on everyone. And while you can do poo poo like this all the time over the trilogy, they at least had someone call them out on it. Not so with Synthesis, who is the Golden Ending in universe. ... Though I still think a God Emperor of Mass Effect would be cool. Bonus points for Garrus as Duncan Idaho, but I'm not that picky. E: vv Holy poo poo yeah, the "Sentient Husk trying to find his place in the world" story could be amazing The Unnamed One fucked around with this message at 19:20 on Dec 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 19:10
|
|
|
That, and the Ending DLC still doesn't really tell us what it's like to be a Husk and the like suddenly regaining their sentience. Especially the Turian/Krogan one that's explicitly stated to be working off of different nervous systems.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 19:16
|
|
|
Regalingualius posted:That, and the Ending DLC still doesn't really tell us what it's like to be a Husk and the like suddenly regaining their sentience. Especially the Turian/Krogan one that's explicitly stated to be working off of different nervous systems. I imagine it's about the same as spending
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 21:05
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:The only solution to intergenerational conflict is the singularity. I mean, you could just have humanity blow up the Reapers, no tech loss, but then the subtext is about the inevitability of children murdering their parents, Titanomachy all over again, and the cycle essentially doesn't actually change. That's not a bad thing, but it is quite dark if you look beyond superficialities. Yeah, but this concept was handled infinitely better with the possibility of getting the Geth and Quarians to come to a consensus over their past crimes and conflicts and reach an agreement to work together as creator and creation. The original ending of waving your hand and making everyone green was really stupid and nonsensical. The Extended Ending stuff makes it slightly less nonsensical, but it remains a stupid and highly cheap out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 21:22
|
|
|
cafel posted:Yeah, but this concept was handled infinitely better with the possibility of getting the Geth and Quarians to come to a consensus over their past crimes and conflicts and reach an agreement to work together as creator and creation. Why? What was so good about it? What is the solution to the inevitable conflict - having enough global variables to make the problem go away? How does it apply to the other examples of the same problem in the series? quote:The original ending of waving your hand and making everyone green was really stupid and nonsensical. The Extended Ending stuff makes it slightly less nonsensical, but it remains a stupid and highly cheap out. What makes it nonsensical? Is it that the science doesn't make sense? Because Mass Effect has never made sense. Sentient husks? Part of the cop-out that was the Extended Cut. It's literally rewriting the rules of the story, altering the premise both "in universe" and narratively. Shepard comes to create a new covenant with God and change the nature of sin forever. He did a Jesus pose and everything! You don't just do a Jesus pose for no reason.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 21:48
|
|
|
Regalingualius posted:That, and the Ending DLC still doesn't really tell us what it's like to be a Husk and the like suddenly regaining their sentience. Especially the Turian/Krogan one that's explicitly stated to be working off of different nervous systems. You think that's bad, imagine being the mangled human corpse that makes up the cannibal's arm cannon thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 22:41
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:Why? What was so good about it? What is the solution to the inevitable conflict - having enough global variables to make the problem go away? How does it apply to the other examples of the same problem in the series? It was better because it had to be worked at, in more than one way. The first is simply a result of investment in a narrative, solving an ongoing conflict you've been trying to deal with over the course of three games is inherently going to be more satisfying than being handed a magic solution to an undiscussed wider problem in the last ten minutes of a single game. The second is that the solution came in part out of other characters and wasn't entirely the result of Shepard. The solution to inevitable conflict is to make an effort to see things from the perspective of the other side as demonstrated by the Geth/Quarian situation and the events surrounding Mordin's decision to cure the genophage. And yes, this is part of the theme of the synthesis ending, but the way that it's implemented undercuts any meaning it might have. quote:What makes it nonsensical? Is it that the science doesn't make sense? Because Mass Effect has never made sense. Sentient husks? Part of the cop-out that was the Extended Cut. The bit that's nonsensical in the original ending is how an amalgamation of synthetic and organic life is going to lead to a more peaceful future. The extended ending expands on this by suggesting everyone now shares a more unified consciousness, which makes a bit more sense as a way to stop conflict. It's an awful Jesus metaphor, seeing as how the point of Jesus's death on the cross isn't that he fixed everything at that moment. Instead he gave people the means to live a better life by providing guidance and inspiration. Shepard's sacrifice straight up forces everyone to get along, synthesis is really no different in spirit than the control ending. Legion and Mordin are both much better examples of Christ like sacrifice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 22:44
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:Why? What was so good about it? What is the solution to the inevitable conflict - having enough global variables to make the problem go away? How does it apply to the other examples of the same problem in the series? Yeah, that's precisely why it's good, because it rewards the player's agency in the game. Mass Effect is a video game, not a novel. If the player's agency means nothing then the game might as well play itself (or you might as well employ a different medium in the story). The Quarian/Geth conflict being resolved by choices made through Mass Effect 3 and Mass Effect 2 is one of the good things about it, even if Rannoch as a whole is a bit of a mess. Was there another example of that organic/synthetic conflict at all in the series? I know people like to keep saying that it is the central theme of the series but here I am wracking my brain and all I can think about is that there was the gambling AI on the Citadel and proto-EDI on Luna, I guess. And EDI comes to serve as a loyal and valued equal in Shepard's squad without killing anyone, so... Oh, wait. Javik talks about it. And instead of that being Yet Another Failure of the Prothean culture (remember, the guys who enslaved everyone into a homogeneous culture that caused other species to think of themselves as Protheans and they were, really, just generally highly xenophobic space assholes who espouse the ethos of Babylon 5's Shadows?) it's actually the shining point of truth and literal dictat from an infallible source. Javik isn't a historian, he is the Avatar of Vengeance. Oh, and Javik also mentions that alien AI species, the Xha'til, who rebelled against their organic masters... specifically because the Reapers instigated it (much like the Geth in Mass Effect 1).  edit: So, really, we could simply state that, as far as organic/synthetic conflicts go, it's an even split. The Reapers directly instigate two that we know of, but there are two others that seem to arise for different reasons (and one of those, the Geth/Quarian conflict, is hardly an apocalypse when the Geth keep to themselves, deliberately chose not to chase their creators down, and it is the Quarians who can't find a peaceful solution). The Krogan Uprising was a far more deadly and dangerous war for the people of the galaxy! Milkfred E. Moore fucked around with this message at 23:04 on Dec 25, 2013 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 22:56
|
|
|
cafel posted:The first is simply a result of investment in a narrative, solving an ongoing conflict you've been trying to deal with over the course of three games is inherently going to be more satisfying than being handed a magic solution to an undiscussed wider problem in the last ten minutes of a single game. I was talking thematically. If you want to go down this road, you have bigger problems (Mass Effect is a linear corridor-shooter with minimal player input). quote:The solution to inevitable conflict is to make an effort to see things from the perspective of the other side as demonstrated by the Geth/Quarian situation and the events surrounding Mordin's decision to cure the genophage. The "inevitable conflict" is a zero-sum game, so 'seeing things from the perspective of the other side' isn't a solution. Mordin's decision is emphatically a decision to side with the younger generation (the krogan) over the older (the salarians). The Rannoch compromise is essentially a dodge, an attempt to say that there is no problem at all, and never was. Asimov's solution to the (in)evitable conflict, in the short story of the same name, was for the younger and more worthy generation to covertly seize control in order to gently shepherd the older generation into a new era. Bioware's Synthesis solution was to eliminate the concept of generations altogether. Bioware's writing is weak, don't get me wrong, but the problem is in Rannoch and other things, not Synthesis/the Catalyst. quote:It's an awful Jesus metaphor, seeing as how the point of Jesus's death on the cross isn't that he fixed everything at that moment. Instead he gave people the means to live a better life by providing guidance and inspiration. Shepard's sacrifice straight up forces everyone to get along, synthesis is really no different in spirit than the control ending. Legion and Mordin are both much better examples of Christ like sacrifice. Not sacrifice, but transformation. Shepherd's death changes the nature of the whole universe - that's the point of Synthesis. If it's a bad Jesus metaphor, so is King Kong. quote:Was there another example of that organic/synthetic conflict at all in the series? Like I said, the organic/synthetic conflict has always been a stand-in for parent/child or older/younger conflict. So this includes:
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 00:24
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I don't think ME1 is terrible, but I also don't bother playing it on high difficulties except on replay characters with good poo poo. It REALLY needs a sprint key that actually sprints instead of doing the dumb roadie run from GOW. Bioware really likes padding out games by making your character as slow as loving possible, for some godawful reason. Yeah, the Mako itself was a lot better than the Hammerhead, and was pretty agile AND could snipe geth with a machine gun. Then again, I was filthy and played it on the PC.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 00:34
|
|
|
No one can or should dispute that a big theme of Mass Effect is, basically, the story of parents and children. But again, note how the Catalyst and the Reapers are only concerned with synthetic/organic conflict. Like, it's directly quoted as their raison d'etre. Like I said, instead of rehashing the Shivan methodology - which would be far more suited to Mass Effect as a whole - we got the synthetic/organic conflict as the sole purpose for the Reapers with the implication being that organic/organic conflict just isn't a problem worth solving despite the fact that the two most bloody wars in the setting (Rachni Wars, Krogan Rebellions) are organic on organic violence. And then you've got the First Contact War... Like, you just pointed out eight intergenerational conflicts and only one of them really involves the tension between synthetic and organic life. So, why is this conflict the 'central theme' of the trilogy? Why is it what the final climax of the game revolves around? Why is it that, instead of emphasising a shared understanding of everyone's perspectives, synthesis concerns itself with amalgamating organic and synthetic life into 'a new DNA'? It's not strong writing. Michael Bay's Transformers movies exhibit stronger writing. edit: And the Geth/Quarian conflict was the first 'AI rebellion' in recent history and the point is driven home, again and again, that it wasn't inevitable. The only person who claims it was is Tali, who is certainly not an unbiased source, and she's even changed her tune by the time of the third game. I can't imagine trying to analyse something if the general wisdom is that no character is lying, character development is seemingly irrelevant and every character speaks for the author simultaneously. Milkfred E. Moore fucked around with this message at 00:54 on Dec 26, 2013 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 00:43
|
|
|
I thought with Me2 they were setting up a plot about the mass effect space magic somehow shorting out stars which would be bad for the universe. So i figured the Reapers were around to make sure nobody used too much space magic up and were harvesting civilizations continuously to try and figure out the problem. Or...something. It seemed like that little sub plot was gonna be important anyways but they dropped it in Me3.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 00:53
|
|
|
Vigilance posted:I thought with Me2 they were setting up a plot about the mass effect space magic somehow shorting out stars which would be bad for the universe. So i figured the Reapers were around to make sure nobody used too much space magic up and were harvesting civilizations continuously to try and figure out the problem. Or...something. That was the original idea, but it was scrapped and the synthetic/organic conflict was tossed in at the last second to make up for it. Which is part of the reason I find some of the attempts to rationalize it as the sole conflict so unconvincing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 00:54
|
|
|
Geostomp posted:That was the original idea, but it was scrapped and the synthetic/organic conflict was tossed in at the last second to make up for it. Why was this scrapped, anyway? I thought the idea of element zero, biotics, etc. was rather interesting, even if it does just drill down to Space Magic. And hell, the game's called Mass Effect and all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 00:57
|
|
|
i always hoped the systems alliance would take in clan urdnot like the hanar took in the drell and we'd become best bros
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 00:59
|
|
Vigilance posted:I thought with Me2 they were setting up a plot about the mass effect space magic somehow shorting out stars which would be bad for the universe. So i figured the Reapers were around to make sure nobody used too much space magic up and were harvesting civilizations continuously to try and figure out the problem. Or...something. That's pretty much it, yeah. It's not a great ending but it's still better because it a. works off setting elements that were established in the first game (biotics, mass relays, element zero, dark energy), b. fits with the idea of it being incomprehensible to most species (imagine explaining that you are trying to stop people from accelerating the death of the galaxy), and c. was actually foreshadowed beyond nebulous ties to often contradictory elements (veetor and parasini in ME2). The big issue with it is why the Reapers would seemingly be responsible for the problem by constructing the Mass Relays in the first place. And the game is literally called 'Mass Effect'. Ciaphas posted:Why was this scrapped, anyway
Milkfred E. Moore fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Dec 26, 2013 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 01:00
|
|
|
Ciaphas posted:Why was this scrapped, anyway? I thought the idea of element zero, biotics, etc. was rather interesting, even if it does just drill down to Space Magic. And hell, the game's called Mass Effect and all. It's hard to say exactly but the guy who (supposedly) originally came up with the idea (and the main writer of ME1 and a good deal of ME2), Drew Karpyshyn, left the Mass Effect team half-way through ME2's development and Mac Walters took over, who was apparently more into the stuff we ended up getting. Despite all the "it was just as lovely, if not more, than what we got" goons like to throw around regarding that leaked script or whatever I also like the basic premise behind it. I always assumed the conclusion to the trilogy would involve the Mass Relays, the Reapers and the mass effect itself in some more fundamental way. I think they could have made that pretty interesting, much more so than the stuff we got anyway. Burning Mustache fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Dec 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 01:01
|
|
|
Ciaphas posted:Why was this scrapped, anyway? I thought the idea of element zero, biotics, etc. was rather interesting, even if it does just drill down to Space Magic. And hell, the game's called Mass Effect and all. The idea that there is space global warming and the solution is having the Reapers turn entire civilizations into goo who can help compute the answer isn't much better than what we got. In some ways it is worse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 01:01
|
|
|
No one knows, but Chris L'Etoile (dude who wrote Ash, Legion and EDI in ME2, among other things) disliked the initial idea because humanity was to be made even more special (as in, the Human Reaper would possibly be the salvation of the galaxy), and it would legitimase the genocidal actions of the Reapers even more than the ending we got. The final decision, I believe, would be to sacrifice humanity to create the Reaper and - again; possibly - save the galaxy, or destroy the Reapers and hope to unite the rest of the space-faring races to stop the dark energy destruction. From what I read, they wouldn't reveal if either (or both) choices would work - though I could be wrong with the last one. The Unnamed One fucked around with this message at 01:05 on Dec 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 01:01
|
|
|
Ciaphas posted:Why was this scrapped, anyway? I thought the idea of element zero, biotics, etc. was rather interesting, even if it does just drill down to Space Magic. And hell, the game's called Mass Effect and all. Because the lead writer left before ME3 was finished and the ridiculous deadline had the writers so scrambled that they got to the last three months of development without even having an ending, which lead to Walters and Hudson penning the infamous sequence we all know and loathe just to get something out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 01:02
|
|
|
Gonna be honest, even though it's spoiled for me in general terms I still haven't seen the ending. Was about to take my Sentinel to Tuchanka (which is about as far as I've been), but then FFXIV got its oily claws into me again
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 01:04
|
|
|
Milky Moor posted:Like, you just pointed out eight intergenerational conflicts and only one of them really involves the tension between synthetic and organic life. So, why is this conflict the 'central theme' of the trilogy? Why is it what the final climax of the game revolves around? Why is it that, instead of emphasising a shared understanding of everyone's perspectives, synthesis concerns itself with amalgamating organic and synthetic life into 'a new DNA'? It's all the same. There is no difference. The organic/synthetic conflict is all the other conflicts. Salarians are quarians are Reapers are Tali's dad are TIM are Cerberus are the Council are Thane. Krogan are geth are the current races are Tali are Shepard are Jack are the Alliance are Kolyat. Text exists to serve its meaning. The Catalyst and the Reapers focus on organic/synthetic conflict to further Bioware's discussion of intergenerational conflict, not because organic/synthetic conflict is a thing in itself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 01:04
|
|
|
Ciaphas posted:Why was this scrapped, anyway? I thought the idea of element zero, biotics, etc. was rather interesting, even if it does just drill down to Space Magic. And hell, the game's called Mass Effect and all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 01:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 01:32 |
|
|
Geostomp posted:Because the lead writer left before ME3 was finished and the ridiculous deadline had the writers so scrambled that they got to the last three months of development without even having an ending, which lead to Walters and Hudson penning the infamous sequence we all know and loathe just to get something out. Correction; the previous lead writer left before ME3 was even started :I
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 01:06
|
|