Mass Affection (Mass Effect Series)

[ZombiePlatypus]

Legion.

[Sir Legendhead]

Ah okay, I just assumed since you quoted a segment of a post I had on the subject earlier. I just think it would be dreadfully dull to play ME just for the gameplay. I was also referring mostly to your comment that the endings ruined everything about Mass Effect, which just struck me as very dramatic.

I don't know the specifics, but when I saw the "everyone dies" ME2 end, Shepard makes a valiant leap for the Normandy and misses because no one is there to grab his hand (Joker is still blasting away on the assault rifle), Joker than gets killed by a Scion shorty afterwards.

Yeah, that part I quoted, I responded to without even addressing the ending. Go back and read that if you want. Everything I said there was about the first game. As far as this supposed comment where "the endings ruined everything", I think you may have oversimplified that a bit.

The best thing about these games was looking forward to the eventual payoff. How they'd wrap it all up, how the choices would fit together and all that. Now that they've botched it, all we really have left is a futuristic squad shooter. Oh well. It's still fun though.

Went ahead and bolded the important bit this time.

Also, now that I think about it, I did get an ending once where Shep died and Joker lived. He wound up being the one to report back to the Illusive Man, and it ended with him looking out towards space while it showed the inevitable Reaper invasion.

[State Lemming]

Huh, maybe there is more than one way to get everyone killed, I wonder what the trigger is to keep Joker alive or dead.

[Sir Legendhead]

That's the first I've heard of Joker getting killed, actually. Didn't think that was possible.

[State Lemming]

Well I can't find an example, which leads me to believe I am being indoctrinated by the plot reapers.

[Sir Legendhead]

The only way I know to get Joker killed is during the part where the ship gets invaded by Collectors. However, that's not a permanent, storyline changing death. It's just a game over screen and then you try again.

[State Lemming]

I wonder if that is what I am thinking of, ah well, memories, untrustworthy two timing bastards.

[Sir Legendhead]

Yeah, that part you describe with Joker being killed by a Scion happens when you're playing as him.

Totally understandable how you'd get confused though. The thread probably threw you off more than the game itself did, lol. It gets hard to track everyone's side of the discussion after a while.

[Mighty Hatman]

You're calling me stupid when you couldn't properly comprehend a post consisting of 59 words?

I'm asking you to not be stupid.

That rant is great and all, but let me know when you find the word "intentional" or "adult" in any of those 59 words -- I'll wait. You're crusading against points that were never made. They are vague. There is room for interpretation. Whether that is due to design or incompetence is irrelevant (nor was it my point) -- there is still room left due to a lack of definition.

You're praising the vagueness and that is one of the reasons you said you prefer the original ending. Also, a "downer ending" is going to have adult themes. You can argue semantics if you'd want to but I wouldn't care for it.

I did not enjoy the new endings because they filled that room with only varying shades of success and no possibility for failure (unless you question or resist the choices at hand, which is what Shepard spent the last three games doing -- questioning and resisting the odds and possibilities whenever somebody told him that whatever he was doing was impossible). Why you find that so personally contemptible--that some person didn't like something--is beyond me.

So you're saying that the new endings are worse because they only added one possibility of failing? How does that compare to the original endings where there was no possibility of failing.

Tell me more about using made-up objective criteria for subjective thoughts. I mean you really can't be calling somebody stupid and then accuse them of having a wrong opinion. There is no way somebody can be that ironic. I refuse to believe it's possible.

I didn't say your opinion is wrong. I said you had it. Whether I disagree with it or not is irrelevant when it comes down to what I personally think of each ending based on preference. You have your opinion and I have mine. You're wrong when you say objective criteria of story is made up.

Telling a story in a book, movie or game is not entirely subjective. They may be considered an art form by some but there's still conventions, there's still rules to success. One of the main considerations I'd like to think they do is making sure there are no plot holes. Sometimes they are unavoidable in the time you are given and the story you have to tell but Bioware made big mistakes and as evidenced by the new endings they are capable of not making them. A game with a big budget such as Mass Effect has used the mechanics of writing to carefully construct a story that is compelling. They follow famous theories of story and have made their own conventions in the past. It's even more apparent in games as there are much more considerations to make. With books you have to keep it in good form, well written and doesn't make grammar, semantic or spelling errors unless it's part of the story. With Film you have that and also the mise en scéne which is everything you see through that magic camera. Games are even more complicated since they inherently interactive and with Mass Effect you have many possibilities through the game. I know it's not a consideration by players but each time a game is in production they don't just wing it. Especially with a publisher like EA there are rules to follow.

That said I do think both endings are terrible in terms of mechanics to story and also gaming. The extended cut at least considers the time you have invested into for the entire series though. The original gives you fuck all to help you understand the grand scheme of things, gives you different colours for an ending and some plot holes to go along with it. If you can ignore plot holes, vagueness (intentionally or not) and lack of consideration for portraying a story then fine because that's your opinion. There is a possibility for objective criticisms to be made though.

If you haven't got it yet I'm indifferent to what your opinion is. There are reasons why you formed your opinion though and I think they are misjudged.

I finished the first Mass Effect again this morning, and did it in just over seven hours. Goes much quicker once you realize that none of the story elements really matter.

Feros - Didn't bother helping them, let Shiala live just to see if she'd still show up in 2

Therum - took like ten minutes. Exaggerating of course, but it can go fast if you know what you're doing.

Noveria - Rolled through security like a baller, didn't bother with all that proper access shit because they're all working for the bad guy anyway. Skippped Hot Labs because LOL WTF is the point of that part anyway.

Completed the game with only Kaiden, Liara, and Tali left. Shot Wrex, let Ash die, and never picked up Garrus in the first place. So yeah, I'm kind of interested in seeing how that last part carries over to 2. I'm sure he still shows up as Archangel, but I will cringe so fucking hard if "GARRUS! HEY OLD BUDDY" is still a dialogue option. No Shep, he is not your friend. We retconned that. He has never been onboard the Normandy.

It's the problem of how ambitious it was really. After Mass Effect 1 I thought Bioware were capable to deliver on all the promises they made. I wouldn't say they failed in the second game but they did avoid big things (like the large impact of having a human council) and gave more time for them to be properly addressed in the third game.

If given enough time Bioware could have made the game they wanted to make. I know that what they made wasn't their original concept. Whatever they thought up for the second and third game was crazy, impossibly deep and would have been so costly to make they would have went bankrupt. The developer hardly has the chance to make the game exactly how they want because sensible people tell them they just don't have the time/money. It's a business so compromises have to made to stay afloat. Unless you're Blizzard. They get a free pass.

Still, disappointing that some of the big decisions made in Mass Effect were only given the chance to change a few lines of dialogue or in some cases were more or less completely ignored. I like it when some of the small things you do are considered though. The little things.


Also, this is a much more coherent and thought out observation of each ending. It's only ten minutes long and you'll be a better person after watching it whether you agree with it or not.


/wall of text.

[Revuhlooshun]

I'm asking you to not be stupid.

Oh, I see the difference.

You're praising the vagueness and that is one of the reasons you said you prefer the original ending. Also, a "downer ending" is going to have adult themes. You can argue semantics if you'd want to but I wouldn't care for it.

That doesn't mean I said it was a deliberate choice. If somebody spills candy on my ice cream out of incompetence, it's not going to bother me. It was an aspect I enjoyed, intentional or not. My disapproval of one does not mean I view the other as perfect either.

And my favoring "downer" endings was tongue-in-cheek/not out of a desire for "adult" themes -- you entirely assumed that. I like the concept of there being a wrong answer. I also like for there to be a right answer. It has nothing to do with "being an adult" or C.S. Lewis. What is classified as an "adult" theme anyways? What does that even mean? Themes are themes. My dislike for the extended endings isn't because I find them "childish." This was a whole dimension that wasn't in any way involved in the words I wrote. You completely interjected the thought and then railed against a strawman.

I felt the original ending challenged people to think for themselves. It challenged people to really think about what was being said and to call the Catalyst on his bullshit (especially since the only way to see Shepard live was to do exactly what the Catalyst said not to do). Whether that was the intended outcome or an accident through ineptitude doesn't really matter -- that was my own personal experience with it, and I enjoyed it.

I did not get that same feeling with the extended ending, thus why I favor the original more.

All the stuff about stories.

We're not talking about the plot holes. Everybody knows there are plot holes. There are still large plot holes in the extended cuts. Not only that, they erased elements I and others found enjoyable, and then introduced even more ludicrous leaps of logic by having Shepard stand there and go, "Hurr durr, tell me more about the Protheans" while the galaxy is being slaughtered literally in front of his eyes.

http://social.bioware.com/forums/for...dex/13087759/1

By the criteria you laid out, the extended cuts are barely better in terms of writing. In fact, I'd argue it's worse when taking other aspects into account as well. But that's just, like, my opinion man. Because I have my own standards and own things I'm looking for in a story -- I weigh certain criteria more than others to my own tastes, just like every person on the Earth. Doesn't make me right. It doesn't make me wrong either.

[TurboKill]

Also cocks?

Also in my playthrough of ME3, Tali did her dying thing, then later on in the game she shows up and Shepard commences banging her. In other words, Shepard does zombies.

[State Lemming]

Yeah, that part you describe with Joker being killed by a Scion happens when you're playing as him.

Totally understandable how you'd get confused though. The thread probably threw you off more than the game itself did, lol. It gets hard to track everyone's side of the discussion after a while.

Yeah addressing multiple points in one post never ends well, at least for me.

NEW ENDING: The Catalyst is a Scion and it kills the Normandy...I mean Joker, but only if you don't have enough war assets.

[Sir Legendhead]

It's the problem of how ambitious it was really. After Mass Effect 1 I thought Bioware were capable to deliver on all the promises they made. I wouldn't say they failed in the second game but they did avoid big things (like the large impact of having a human council) and gave more time for them to be properly addressed in the third game.

If given enough time Bioware could have made the game they wanted to make. I know that what they made wasn't their original concept. Whatever they thought up for the second and third game was crazy, impossibly deep and would have been so costly to make they would have went bankrupt. The developer hardly has the chance to make the game exactly how they want because sensible people tell them they just don't have the time/money. It's a business so compromises have to made to stay afloat. Unless you're Blizzard. They get a free pass.

It is a little disappointing to go from the Renegade pro-human ending of 1 to still having an alien council in 2. Shep makes it sound like he deliberately took out the original leadership so he could install his own species behind the wheel. Then again it still fits. He fights Geth for another six months under Alliance orders, then gets spaced and revived by Cerberus. So there's no real logical inconsistency there, and you get plenty more chances to play Shep as a xenophobic ass if that's something you want.

Haven't read the parts to Rev or watched the video yet, might get to that later. If blog, would fap.

Also, everybody should play Alpha Protocol. It's way easier to do this stuff within one game than it is with several. Your choices change literally everything in that. Mission structure, allies, enemies, you name it.

[Mighty Hatman]

I have one person who keeps on saying Alpha Protocol is amazing. This person likes Dragon Age II though.

[Sir Legendhead]

Alpha Protocol is bar none, the best game I've played as far as how your choices influence the story.

The action side of it sucks but you almost don't need action in a game as cerebral as AP is. It's the only one I've seen where reading background dossiers can influence how you play. You can do stuff like poison someone's cocaine before entering his mansion, which prevents him from powering up during the boss fight.

It has I don't know how many different endings. I owned it, completed it several times, and still didn't see them all. One of them ended with the last boss shooting at me from a balcony. I beat him once with the typical videogamey tactic of shooting him and his men from behind cover. The second time, I realized I could stealth my way up the stairs and come up behind him, at which point I beat him without firing a shot. Just walked right up, unlocked the door, and kicked his ass. That's two ways to beat one of the potential bosses, mind you...

Your allies and enemies change based on how you play it. Imagine having The Illusive Man and Kai Leng as your squadmates while you move to take down the Alliance. Alpha Protocol actually does shit like this.

I really should buy another copy. It was like, ten bucks last I checked. Once a game goes that low, you might as well buy it while you can. After that, no one wants to bother with it because it's nearly worthless, in terms of trade-in value. But then again I'm probably the only Dtoider who still goes to the local stores, so lol.

[Stevil]

I keep seeing AP for £5 in the pre-owned sections. I'm tempted, but I know I'll be disappointed...and I'm the guy who keeps saying, "Give Obsidian a chance! They just have the worst luck, okay?!"

[GlowBear]

I keep thinking I should give it another chance, I was so excited for that game and the first damn mission. Oh lord. The glitches made it unplayable.

[Stevil]

I'm sure the PC modding crowd have fixed that game. It's probably still broken on the 360/PS3, though.

[Tarvu]

It's meant to be playable on PC.

[Sir Legendhead]

Well would you look at that. The best spy game ever made doesn't work when you run around and shoot people.

Gee I wonder how that happened.