After playing through the game, I am happy to report that there are considerably less things in the main game itself that I would change, though there are still some things I'd say need fixing...1) Dialogue. A major problem with the game that I found was the dialogue. The vast majority of it went on without any player input, which was extremely disappointing based off the experiences offered in other Bioware titles. In addition to this, there are fewer options when you actually are granted a choice - generally only 2, occasionally 3 or 4. The 2 consist of your Paragon and Renegade responses, the 3 of a Paragon/Renegade unlocked special option and one option for those without a high enough Paragon/Renegade score to use the other two options, and the 4 of a Paragon/Renegade default answer for those without enough Paragon/Renegade score to use the other two options - special Paragon/Renegade options unlocked with a high enough P/R score. There are, thankfully, some more normal conversations, with 'Investigate' options and optional inputs after some of these, but they are not as prominent as in the previous games.
2) The Crucible. I really don't like it. It is a Deus Ex Machina added in seemingly only to allow the final choices, which are absolute balls. It had some potential to be OK, but what it ends up being and how it is used ends up ruining it for me. I would have preferred one of two changes to its base concept to find it acceptable:
a) It is not a Magical McGuffin deviceamagig. Instead, it is a battleship larger than a Reaper Capital Ship, with an Eezo Core larger than any seen before. This battleship of unprecedented power would lead the charge against the Reapers, whilst the Normandy deployed its squad onto the ground to fight back Reaper ground troops. It acts as a large, powerful war asset, much like the Fleets the other species grant you.
b) This I'd like implemented with 'a)' for best effect, but I wouldn't mind if it was implemented on its own. Buildng the Crucible is no simple process. There are numerous things that engineers don't understand, or that could likely be improved. Throughout the time that the Crucible is in construction, Hackett comes to Shepard numerous times asking for his advice on whether to implement certain 'fixes' that have been proposed by team members. Some of these 'fixes' are necessary for the device to work, and if not implemented the Crucible will lose power, or explode, when used. Some, however, are bad ideas that end up making the Crucible unstable, so that if they are implemented, the Crucible loses power or explodes when used. This would help to detract from the whole infallible Deus Ex Machina that the Crucible is, as now it has a chance of failing rather than being 100% assured to work.
3. Choices. The choices in ME3 are somewhat satisfactory. Contrary to my previous cautions, neither Paragons nor Renegades are screwed over, or given all their choices working without backfire. However, I would have preferred to see more of these choices backfire more often, and it actually be hard to save everyone throughout them. As is, it s=is quite easy to save pretty much everyone, except for in a few cases where it is impossible to please everyone.
4. Wasted opportunity with missions. At the end of ME2, you had to make choices for who would lead the other firing team, who would be your tech expert, who would be your biotic powerhouse. This provided some interesting opportunities for your teammates to die because you chose wrong, and I would have loved to have seen more things like this in ME3. Sadly, no such missions to be found.
Then there was LotSB, with the car chase. There is also a car chase at one point in ME3, however you are not in control at all of the car. It is a wasted opportunity where potential gameplay was turned into a cinematic. Flying around the Citadel chasing Kai Leng would be awesome, but alas, it is only a cutscene.
Finally, vehicle sections. In ME1, people had problems with how the Mako handled, so it was removed for 2, but the Hammerhead was added as a replacement through DLC. People had lots of problems with the Hammerhead being made out of tissue paper, and rightfully so. So it was taken out in ME3. Sadly, there is no replacement. It woul have been nice if Bioware had of fine tuned what made the Mako sections great, and what made the Hammerhead sections great, and put it together to make an amazing vehicle section add in.
I understand that some of these will have come down to time restraints, as I believe the endings did (There was apparently an ending based around Dark Energy instead, no idea what happened to it but judging by the seemingly rushed ending, a lack of time was likely to blame).
And that is probably it. Pretty much everything else felt right to me. People will likely complain about Allers, but she can be kicked off the ship without much consequence. People didn't like the Death of Emily Wong, though the way it was presented probably made it more powerful than if it had been presented in game, and her death was appropriate to the whole 'Reapers are unbeatable' feeling, and hit home for emotional impact. Some people found combat too hard, but everyone was warned of this, and there is an easy mode for a reason. The game itself I can find barely anything to complain about (Except technical issues like REALLY bad lip syncing, and a few texture issues), but the endings... Yeah...
Tuesday 13 March 2012
Wednesday 7 March 2012
Mass Effect 3 part 2:
Now time for part 2 of my Mass Effect 3 series where I detail what I felt was wrong with Bioware's endings.
Same thing as last time still applies: I haven't played the game, nor watched any playthroughs, and I don't know all spoilers. That said, I'm going off what I've heard prevalently amoung the community, and presenting my views on it.
First and foremost, as I hopefully mentioned last time, I am not upset that there is no true happy ending. That would have been fine by me. What I do not like is the aspulls Bioware have done, seemingly just to set up the world for a potential sequel somewhere down the line.
What am I talking about?
Well, first up, the Crucible. People were joking about there being a magic gun to one shot all the Reapers as a failed plot device months ago. Apparently, Bioware actually thought this was a good idea. BUT WAIT! THERE'S MORE! The gun also has the power to give you control of the Reapers or to merge all organic life with synthetic life. Well, no directly, and its also not a gun, but seriously? A Deus Ex Machina this big Bioware? I had hoped this was beyond you. I bought Sovereigns shields dropping when you killed Saren, I bought being able to take down a baby human reaper with my F***ing pistol. Know what I don't buy? A one hit kill weapon for all Reapers in existance designed by the Protheans who didn't use it. Seriously. No.
Second problem; The guardian is, for all intents and purposes, the Citadel. What is the Guardian? The AI that controls all the Reapers. Now, remind me why Sovereign had to dock with the Citadel again? Why did Sovereign even need to send the signal to the station? Hell, why has it not deactivated all the relays? There are way too many problems with this... thing.
Third Problem; The Reaper's reasons suck. 'We harvest you all to stop the Singularity of machines becoming as intelligent as man and killing them'. Well excuse me, but how the fuck does this make sense? Would it not be FAR more intelligent and FAR more becoming of those beings who really just want to protect you to simply wipe out synthetic lifeforms instead? This makes no sense to me whatsoever.
Fourth Problem; The Normandy. Why is it in Mass Relay Transit at the end there? And why does it get sent off to some random planet and such? You want to write a good ending for the crew, they fly down to Earth and pick Shepard up after the final fight. You want to write a semi-happy ending; They crash on Earth during the fight and we don't entirely find out if they survive and meet up with Shepard, or if they die in the crash. You want to write an unhappy ending, they get shot to shreds during the fight. No BS about them going through a magic wormhole and crashing on an unknown planet. That's just crap.
Fifth Problem; The options are crap. You can destroy the Reapers, but also EDI, anyone relying on synthetic stuff to live *COUGH*SHEPARD*COUGH* and the Geth. The Guardian comes up with the sudden bright and 100% unexpected idea of controlling the Reapers, or merging Organic life with Synthetic life. The problem with these is that there really is no good option. The Destroy results in you killing intelligence that may be your friends, or possibly even yourself. The other two are just dropped on you there and then with no leadup to it or anything. Seeing as these are so similar to the Deus Ex endings, I'll compare. Hell, I'll compare with DX:HR - still similar endings, but it recieved more flack for them, and they were handled better than this. In DX:HR, you constantly see the conflict between augmented people and non augmented. You see each take advantage of the other, and you see their reasons for doing so. You see both sides of the argument, and it is one of the central themes for every quest in the game. When it comes to the end, you are given the option of telling nobody anything and killing everyone on that station (Including yourself) to let the world make its own choice, of siding with the anti-augment people, siding with the pro-augment people, or siding with the Illuminati who are pro restricted augmentation. Each of these is an option that actually makes sense having gone through the story, and having experienced this conflict first hand all throughout it. In contrast, the merge or control options are just dropped there at the end as a 'We had to include a choice, so here's one!' sort of feeling thing. Hell, the theme they are based off - the technological singularity - is only tangentally touched upon in the Quarian lore within all the games. Dropping those options on people there and then just screamed 'Last minute unprepared rush endings'.
Sixth problem; Lack of information given. We know very little about the universe after the endings. The ending was meant to wrap things up and give us a conclusion, finality, explain everything to us. What it did was tell us nothing, leave us with more questions than even before, and make a whole lot of people asking 'WTF'. More info not only about the galaxy as a whole, but on the events surrounding the Normandy going through a Mass Relay, Teleporting squadmates, that planet - everything in the ending needs more info given.
Seventh and final problem; It wasn't what we were promised. We were promised that, as this was the end of the ME trilogy, we would get a lot of distinctly different ends dependent on how we played all three games. Unfortunately, we didn't get this. What we got was 4 minor variations of the main endings based of how you played, and 3 similar main endings based off a simple choice given at the end of the game. What happened to those vastly different outcomes we could be expecting? What happened to what we were promised? There was more variance in the conclusion of side missions than there was in the conclusion of the story as a whole, and even they were still mostly dependent on 3's decisions rather than 1 and 2s. For an example of the sort of ending scheme I would have expected from this statement, see my previous post.
Now, these are only the main problems I have with the endings. There are a number of other nitpicks and such, but I'll leave them out. One thing I've discovered whilst writing this, however, is that its not just the endings that need changing - but a fair portion of the game. The main problem that drives most of the others with the ending is the Deus Ex Machina that is pulled. It in itself is one of m main problems, but it also grants the sudden magic choice of control or merge, it almost forces things away from a wide array of endings, it brings up the Reaper's crap reasons, it provides the crap options, it provides the only logical reason for the Normandy to have left the system at all - as you can see, I could probably trace 90% of the ending's problems to the Deus Ex Machina that was pulled. I think I may add a 4th section: A mod designed by me. The changes I would make to everything in the game, sumarised in one post. To fix the endings, IMO, you have to remove the Crucible and its Deus Ex Machina, and have a full on true Space Opera battle with 'Protectors of the Earth' playing in the background, just like that trailer showed us. No Crucible, just one big battle. For EARTH!
Same thing as last time still applies: I haven't played the game, nor watched any playthroughs, and I don't know all spoilers. That said, I'm going off what I've heard prevalently amoung the community, and presenting my views on it.
First and foremost, as I hopefully mentioned last time, I am not upset that there is no true happy ending. That would have been fine by me. What I do not like is the aspulls Bioware have done, seemingly just to set up the world for a potential sequel somewhere down the line.
What am I talking about?
Well, first up, the Crucible. People were joking about there being a magic gun to one shot all the Reapers as a failed plot device months ago. Apparently, Bioware actually thought this was a good idea. BUT WAIT! THERE'S MORE! The gun also has the power to give you control of the Reapers or to merge all organic life with synthetic life. Well, no directly, and its also not a gun, but seriously? A Deus Ex Machina this big Bioware? I had hoped this was beyond you. I bought Sovereigns shields dropping when you killed Saren, I bought being able to take down a baby human reaper with my F***ing pistol. Know what I don't buy? A one hit kill weapon for all Reapers in existance designed by the Protheans who didn't use it. Seriously. No.
Second problem; The guardian is, for all intents and purposes, the Citadel. What is the Guardian? The AI that controls all the Reapers. Now, remind me why Sovereign had to dock with the Citadel again? Why did Sovereign even need to send the signal to the station? Hell, why has it not deactivated all the relays? There are way too many problems with this... thing.
Third Problem; The Reaper's reasons suck. 'We harvest you all to stop the Singularity of machines becoming as intelligent as man and killing them'. Well excuse me, but how the fuck does this make sense? Would it not be FAR more intelligent and FAR more becoming of those beings who really just want to protect you to simply wipe out synthetic lifeforms instead? This makes no sense to me whatsoever.
Fourth Problem; The Normandy. Why is it in Mass Relay Transit at the end there? And why does it get sent off to some random planet and such? You want to write a good ending for the crew, they fly down to Earth and pick Shepard up after the final fight. You want to write a semi-happy ending; They crash on Earth during the fight and we don't entirely find out if they survive and meet up with Shepard, or if they die in the crash. You want to write an unhappy ending, they get shot to shreds during the fight. No BS about them going through a magic wormhole and crashing on an unknown planet. That's just crap.
Fifth Problem; The options are crap. You can destroy the Reapers, but also EDI, anyone relying on synthetic stuff to live *COUGH*SHEPARD*COUGH* and the Geth. The Guardian comes up with the sudden bright and 100% unexpected idea of controlling the Reapers, or merging Organic life with Synthetic life. The problem with these is that there really is no good option. The Destroy results in you killing intelligence that may be your friends, or possibly even yourself. The other two are just dropped on you there and then with no leadup to it or anything. Seeing as these are so similar to the Deus Ex endings, I'll compare. Hell, I'll compare with DX:HR - still similar endings, but it recieved more flack for them, and they were handled better than this. In DX:HR, you constantly see the conflict between augmented people and non augmented. You see each take advantage of the other, and you see their reasons for doing so. You see both sides of the argument, and it is one of the central themes for every quest in the game. When it comes to the end, you are given the option of telling nobody anything and killing everyone on that station (Including yourself) to let the world make its own choice, of siding with the anti-augment people, siding with the pro-augment people, or siding with the Illuminati who are pro restricted augmentation. Each of these is an option that actually makes sense having gone through the story, and having experienced this conflict first hand all throughout it. In contrast, the merge or control options are just dropped there at the end as a 'We had to include a choice, so here's one!' sort of feeling thing. Hell, the theme they are based off - the technological singularity - is only tangentally touched upon in the Quarian lore within all the games. Dropping those options on people there and then just screamed 'Last minute unprepared rush endings'.
Sixth problem; Lack of information given. We know very little about the universe after the endings. The ending was meant to wrap things up and give us a conclusion, finality, explain everything to us. What it did was tell us nothing, leave us with more questions than even before, and make a whole lot of people asking 'WTF'. More info not only about the galaxy as a whole, but on the events surrounding the Normandy going through a Mass Relay, Teleporting squadmates, that planet - everything in the ending needs more info given.
Seventh and final problem; It wasn't what we were promised. We were promised that, as this was the end of the ME trilogy, we would get a lot of distinctly different ends dependent on how we played all three games. Unfortunately, we didn't get this. What we got was 4 minor variations of the main endings based of how you played, and 3 similar main endings based off a simple choice given at the end of the game. What happened to those vastly different outcomes we could be expecting? What happened to what we were promised? There was more variance in the conclusion of side missions than there was in the conclusion of the story as a whole, and even they were still mostly dependent on 3's decisions rather than 1 and 2s. For an example of the sort of ending scheme I would have expected from this statement, see my previous post.
Now, these are only the main problems I have with the endings. There are a number of other nitpicks and such, but I'll leave them out. One thing I've discovered whilst writing this, however, is that its not just the endings that need changing - but a fair portion of the game. The main problem that drives most of the others with the ending is the Deus Ex Machina that is pulled. It in itself is one of m main problems, but it also grants the sudden magic choice of control or merge, it almost forces things away from a wide array of endings, it brings up the Reaper's crap reasons, it provides the crap options, it provides the only logical reason for the Normandy to have left the system at all - as you can see, I could probably trace 90% of the ending's problems to the Deus Ex Machina that was pulled. I think I may add a 4th section: A mod designed by me. The changes I would make to everything in the game, sumarised in one post. To fix the endings, IMO, you have to remove the Crucible and its Deus Ex Machina, and have a full on true Space Opera battle with 'Protectors of the Earth' playing in the background, just like that trailer showed us. No Crucible, just one big battle. For EARTH!
Tuesday 6 March 2012
Mass Effect 3 - part 1
To start this off, let me say that what I am saying here is somewhat based off the spoilers I have read. I have not played the game myself yet, and I have not watched any playthrough. I also doubt I have found EVERY spoiler, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong - or wait until the game is released and I complete it.
Oh, and most of this is going to be about the endings.
My main problem isn't that there is no happy ending. I would love there to be a happy ending, but that isn't what worries me. What worries me is that, from what I have heard and seen so far, your choices from the previous games don't have that much to do with the ending. From what I understand your choices only end up amounting in easy it is to prepare everyone, and in the end that affects whether Shepard lives or dies, and whether Earth is F***ed or not for two of them.
No matter what, that Citadel and Guardian crap is real. No matter what, the Normandy is for some reason in a Mass Relay transit and its entire crew gets stranded on some unknown planet. No matter what, all this is some flawed 'solution' by some AI that makes little sense to me.
As said, I haven't read all the spoilers, nor have I watched any walkthroughs to date. I don't have time to search for and watch them all, but what I've seen so far doesn't make a ton of sense with the whole 'solution' thing. Seriously, save organics from synthetics by harvesting and repurposing organics? Why not just kill the synthetics if they rebel? It makes not sense to me.
In addition to that, it seems Renegades are given a harder time. I had fears and such about some Paragon actions backfiring, but it from what I've heard, it seems none really do, and being good helps you more in the end. To me this is very disappointing - there should be advantages to taking both paths and going pure one path may not be the best solution.
Once again, as said, I haven't watched playthroughs, I don't know all the spoilers. My problem, however, doesn't entirely lie with what I probably don't understand (Hopefully some of you could give me a quick fillin of where I'm wrong? I'm putting this all here as I don't think its worth starting another topic just to save some time in getting answers).
First, I'll outline the endings I"d had in mind right from the beginning;
Bad: You stuffed pretty much everything up. You're allies in the war? The Systems Alliance. You stand no chance and Earth is Obliterated. The Normandy is Destroyed, and Shepard and the whole crew with it. From there, the Reapers go on to purge the galaxy again.
Not so bad: You stuffed up quite a lot, but not everything. You have one or two allies beyond the Systems Alliance with you. Your fleet engages the Reapers, but it is not enough. Earth is lost, the fleets are lost, and the Normandy and her crew - including Shepard - are lost. A reasonable blow is dealt to the Reapers however, and the other races in the galaxy manage to hold them off, albeit with the vast majority dieing out in the war.
Mediocre: You did a lot right, and have gathered a lot of allies. You had to make some choices - Geth v Quarian, Krogan v Salarian, ect. - and you lost some potential allies, but the fleet is strong. You charge into Earth and defeat the vast majority of the Reaper fleet. You don't win, and Earth is ultimately lost, but the Reapers suffer heavy losses. The Normandy escapes - albeit with a fair bit of damage - and manages to convince any forces that remain - as well as civilians - to pitch in and fight the Reapers. The crew of the Normandy lose many of their number - both in the escape from Earth and in the ensuing campaign against the Reapers - though Shepard survives, as do some of the squadmates. The Reapers are stopped shortly after, with only a couple more races falling to their influence.
Good: You manage to rally every race in the Galaxy. You sort out everyone's problems. Geth and Quarian, Krogan and Salarian, Human and Batarian - Every able bodied man and woman is in a fleet leading the assault to reclaim Earth. Due to complications caused by some of your actions in the first couple of games, this took longer than Expected. The fleet makes it to Earth and engages the Reapers, and wins a decisive victory - stopping the invasion there and then. Sadly, Earth had already fallen. In the time spent rallying the fleets, the Reapers wiped out the vast majority of life on Earth. A few pockets of human civilization remain, but the home of Humanity is ruined. The Normandy picks up a few bruises from the fight, and some crew members may die - both Squadmates and 'minor' crew members like the two engineers, or sadly even Joker - but the invasion is stopped, Shepard and the majority of the squad and crew live, and the rest of the galaxy is safe from the Reapers.
Perfect: You made every right decision possible through all playthroughs. Everything you did turned out perfectly. Your decisions from ME1 and ME2 grease the wheels and your squad travels the galaxy like a well oiled machine, gathering every race out there. Every species joins your fight. Every ship is dedicated to your cause. No Squadmembers fall, and thanks to your actions in ME1 and ME2, Shepard pulls the galaxy together very quickly. Some problems need to be solved, but having started dealing with these in ME1 and 2, they are quickly solved and the galaxy rapidly unites to retake Earth. The fleet arrives, and Earth still holds. Whilst the fleets engage the Reapers from space, planetary weapons and small shuttlecraft that were being used to defend the surface are used to assault the Reapers from the surface. The two way attack keeps the Reaper force spread, and throughout the fight the Normandy suffers no damage. The fleets destroy all the Reapers around Earth, and Earth herself is also saved. The Reaper invasion is ended there and then by the Heroic actions of Shepard. In addition to this, all of the races in the Galaxy are now united, and for a while the conflicts between them stop. Shepard is given a decision with their LI to settle down on Earth, or to settle down on their LI's homeworld - or to keep roaming. Non romantic Shepards are able to roam or settle down on Earth. In short, everyone lives happily ever after.
Masterpieces? Hell no.
Easily predictable and somewhat cliched? Yeah.
Brings up any Philosophical questions? No.
No doubt better endings could have been included. Hell, in all reality, I'd have the choices available now appear earlier in the ending. Instead of having the crucible and some massive Deus Ex Machina, have Shepard presented with a choice as he nears the final battle through communication with Harbinger [Holo panel on a planet Shepard is leaving that Harbinger uses in a similar manner to Sovereign in ME1 and himself in Arrival, Harbinger contacts the Normandy directly in a similar manner to his direct contact with the leader of the Collectors on their base, have an option for Shepard to attempt to use a combuoy to contact Earth, and Harbinger intercepts it - just no Deus Ex Machina here too]. For one, the Reapers reveal their plans to Shepard. Not some BS 'We are saving Organics' sort of crap, but an actual reason that makes sense. I don't care if its because the galaxy depends on this cycle to throw down the older races, and leave room for the newer ones to rise, to stop eventual overpopulation - and they strike them before they become too strong whilst giving them a chance to experience life, because that IS how they reproduce and it is necessary for their race. Then, the choice:
Choice One: Destroy. You do as above, continue to unite the galaxy, and in the end attack the Reapers. Success and failure is dictated as above.
Choice Two: Control. Shepard manages to convince them that the cycle is not necessary, and convinces them to head to uncharted space and exist peacefully there instead. Offers an option to end without bloodshed, and without any awesome final battle, but instead Shepard proves things are able to be accomplished by Diplomacy. Shepard could also have success chances in this. Based off how much he managed to reuinite the galaxy, he may be more or less able to convince the Reapers organics can work together, and may be kind to the younger races/won't have problems with overpopulation thanks to conflicts between them/that they will stop the Reapers in direct conflict, and that it'd be better for the Reapers for them to leave without enterring the conflict. Hell, even have all of them as problems the Reapers have with letting Organics live, and your choices dictate how well you can convince the Reapers. Anything less than perfect, and one of the other choices must take precedent, but it offers a way to end the war without any casualties if on a perfect run.
Choice Three: Synthesis. Shepard accepts the Reaper's reasoning, and ends up believing that it may be salvation for Organics to become Reapers. He decides not to stop the Reapers, and dependent on how loyal the crew members of the Normandy are to Shepard, Shepard can either be killed by his crew for the decision, who then go on to complete option 1 on their own, Shepard can have a mutinee with some on his side, resulting in the loss off some good friends, whilst others accept Shepard's decision, or have everyone agree with Shepard and aid the Reapers in their conquest of Organics [The mid option would be more varied dependent on the actual loyalties individually earned for the Normandy crewmen and such]. Things basically play out like in Scenario one, but with Good and Bad reversed, and Shepard on the Reaper's team (Perfect ending being with all the races in turmoil and not supporting the defence of Earth, leading to the Reapers massacring them, then everyone ascending into Reaperhood, whilst the very bad ending is where everyone is united, and the Reapers alongside Shepard are stopped with ease by the combined fleets, and humanity is prevented from becoming ascended).
This offers multiple ways for players to finish the game, and offers the same choice present in the game ATM, without the Deus Ex machina.
Personally, I think something like this, if properly written, would have worked far better as an ending set for ME3 than what we are offered ATM. I, of course, am biased as this is my own work. If anyone ever ends up reading this, let me know what you think of them compared to Bioware's endings. Sure, nowhere near as Artsy, nor raising any philosophical questions, and quite predictable. What I feel the have to them is their simplicity (To an extent) and the removal of the Deus Ex Machina, whilst maintaining an array of endings ranging from horrible to perfect, as well as offering victory from different viewpoints that a Shepard may have. As said, biased, I'm going to shut up not.
Anyway, that's probably going to be part 1 done. I'm thinking I'll make this three part:
1. Intro and my suggested endings
2. What I find wrong with Bioware's endings
3. Once I've played the game, what I find wrong with how Bioware handled the choices from the previous games outside of the end mission.
See you later.
Oh, and most of this is going to be about the endings.
My main problem isn't that there is no happy ending. I would love there to be a happy ending, but that isn't what worries me. What worries me is that, from what I have heard and seen so far, your choices from the previous games don't have that much to do with the ending. From what I understand your choices only end up amounting in easy it is to prepare everyone, and in the end that affects whether Shepard lives or dies, and whether Earth is F***ed or not for two of them.
No matter what, that Citadel and Guardian crap is real. No matter what, the Normandy is for some reason in a Mass Relay transit and its entire crew gets stranded on some unknown planet. No matter what, all this is some flawed 'solution' by some AI that makes little sense to me.
As said, I haven't read all the spoilers, nor have I watched any walkthroughs to date. I don't have time to search for and watch them all, but what I've seen so far doesn't make a ton of sense with the whole 'solution' thing. Seriously, save organics from synthetics by harvesting and repurposing organics? Why not just kill the synthetics if they rebel? It makes not sense to me.
In addition to that, it seems Renegades are given a harder time. I had fears and such about some Paragon actions backfiring, but it from what I've heard, it seems none really do, and being good helps you more in the end. To me this is very disappointing - there should be advantages to taking both paths and going pure one path may not be the best solution.
Once again, as said, I haven't watched playthroughs, I don't know all the spoilers. My problem, however, doesn't entirely lie with what I probably don't understand (Hopefully some of you could give me a quick fillin of where I'm wrong? I'm putting this all here as I don't think its worth starting another topic just to save some time in getting answers).
First, I'll outline the endings I"d had in mind right from the beginning;
Bad: You stuffed pretty much everything up. You're allies in the war? The Systems Alliance. You stand no chance and Earth is Obliterated. The Normandy is Destroyed, and Shepard and the whole crew with it. From there, the Reapers go on to purge the galaxy again.
Not so bad: You stuffed up quite a lot, but not everything. You have one or two allies beyond the Systems Alliance with you. Your fleet engages the Reapers, but it is not enough. Earth is lost, the fleets are lost, and the Normandy and her crew - including Shepard - are lost. A reasonable blow is dealt to the Reapers however, and the other races in the galaxy manage to hold them off, albeit with the vast majority dieing out in the war.
Mediocre: You did a lot right, and have gathered a lot of allies. You had to make some choices - Geth v Quarian, Krogan v Salarian, ect. - and you lost some potential allies, but the fleet is strong. You charge into Earth and defeat the vast majority of the Reaper fleet. You don't win, and Earth is ultimately lost, but the Reapers suffer heavy losses. The Normandy escapes - albeit with a fair bit of damage - and manages to convince any forces that remain - as well as civilians - to pitch in and fight the Reapers. The crew of the Normandy lose many of their number - both in the escape from Earth and in the ensuing campaign against the Reapers - though Shepard survives, as do some of the squadmates. The Reapers are stopped shortly after, with only a couple more races falling to their influence.
Good: You manage to rally every race in the Galaxy. You sort out everyone's problems. Geth and Quarian, Krogan and Salarian, Human and Batarian - Every able bodied man and woman is in a fleet leading the assault to reclaim Earth. Due to complications caused by some of your actions in the first couple of games, this took longer than Expected. The fleet makes it to Earth and engages the Reapers, and wins a decisive victory - stopping the invasion there and then. Sadly, Earth had already fallen. In the time spent rallying the fleets, the Reapers wiped out the vast majority of life on Earth. A few pockets of human civilization remain, but the home of Humanity is ruined. The Normandy picks up a few bruises from the fight, and some crew members may die - both Squadmates and 'minor' crew members like the two engineers, or sadly even Joker - but the invasion is stopped, Shepard and the majority of the squad and crew live, and the rest of the galaxy is safe from the Reapers.
Perfect: You made every right decision possible through all playthroughs. Everything you did turned out perfectly. Your decisions from ME1 and ME2 grease the wheels and your squad travels the galaxy like a well oiled machine, gathering every race out there. Every species joins your fight. Every ship is dedicated to your cause. No Squadmembers fall, and thanks to your actions in ME1 and ME2, Shepard pulls the galaxy together very quickly. Some problems need to be solved, but having started dealing with these in ME1 and 2, they are quickly solved and the galaxy rapidly unites to retake Earth. The fleet arrives, and Earth still holds. Whilst the fleets engage the Reapers from space, planetary weapons and small shuttlecraft that were being used to defend the surface are used to assault the Reapers from the surface. The two way attack keeps the Reaper force spread, and throughout the fight the Normandy suffers no damage. The fleets destroy all the Reapers around Earth, and Earth herself is also saved. The Reaper invasion is ended there and then by the Heroic actions of Shepard. In addition to this, all of the races in the Galaxy are now united, and for a while the conflicts between them stop. Shepard is given a decision with their LI to settle down on Earth, or to settle down on their LI's homeworld - or to keep roaming. Non romantic Shepards are able to roam or settle down on Earth. In short, everyone lives happily ever after.
Masterpieces? Hell no.
Easily predictable and somewhat cliched? Yeah.
Brings up any Philosophical questions? No.
No doubt better endings could have been included. Hell, in all reality, I'd have the choices available now appear earlier in the ending. Instead of having the crucible and some massive Deus Ex Machina, have Shepard presented with a choice as he nears the final battle through communication with Harbinger [Holo panel on a planet Shepard is leaving that Harbinger uses in a similar manner to Sovereign in ME1 and himself in Arrival, Harbinger contacts the Normandy directly in a similar manner to his direct contact with the leader of the Collectors on their base, have an option for Shepard to attempt to use a combuoy to contact Earth, and Harbinger intercepts it - just no Deus Ex Machina here too]. For one, the Reapers reveal their plans to Shepard. Not some BS 'We are saving Organics' sort of crap, but an actual reason that makes sense. I don't care if its because the galaxy depends on this cycle to throw down the older races, and leave room for the newer ones to rise, to stop eventual overpopulation - and they strike them before they become too strong whilst giving them a chance to experience life, because that IS how they reproduce and it is necessary for their race. Then, the choice:
Choice One: Destroy. You do as above, continue to unite the galaxy, and in the end attack the Reapers. Success and failure is dictated as above.
Choice Two: Control. Shepard manages to convince them that the cycle is not necessary, and convinces them to head to uncharted space and exist peacefully there instead. Offers an option to end without bloodshed, and without any awesome final battle, but instead Shepard proves things are able to be accomplished by Diplomacy. Shepard could also have success chances in this. Based off how much he managed to reuinite the galaxy, he may be more or less able to convince the Reapers organics can work together, and may be kind to the younger races/won't have problems with overpopulation thanks to conflicts between them/that they will stop the Reapers in direct conflict, and that it'd be better for the Reapers for them to leave without enterring the conflict. Hell, even have all of them as problems the Reapers have with letting Organics live, and your choices dictate how well you can convince the Reapers. Anything less than perfect, and one of the other choices must take precedent, but it offers a way to end the war without any casualties if on a perfect run.
Choice Three: Synthesis. Shepard accepts the Reaper's reasoning, and ends up believing that it may be salvation for Organics to become Reapers. He decides not to stop the Reapers, and dependent on how loyal the crew members of the Normandy are to Shepard, Shepard can either be killed by his crew for the decision, who then go on to complete option 1 on their own, Shepard can have a mutinee with some on his side, resulting in the loss off some good friends, whilst others accept Shepard's decision, or have everyone agree with Shepard and aid the Reapers in their conquest of Organics [The mid option would be more varied dependent on the actual loyalties individually earned for the Normandy crewmen and such]. Things basically play out like in Scenario one, but with Good and Bad reversed, and Shepard on the Reaper's team (Perfect ending being with all the races in turmoil and not supporting the defence of Earth, leading to the Reapers massacring them, then everyone ascending into Reaperhood, whilst the very bad ending is where everyone is united, and the Reapers alongside Shepard are stopped with ease by the combined fleets, and humanity is prevented from becoming ascended).
This offers multiple ways for players to finish the game, and offers the same choice present in the game ATM, without the Deus Ex machina.
Personally, I think something like this, if properly written, would have worked far better as an ending set for ME3 than what we are offered ATM. I, of course, am biased as this is my own work. If anyone ever ends up reading this, let me know what you think of them compared to Bioware's endings. Sure, nowhere near as Artsy, nor raising any philosophical questions, and quite predictable. What I feel the have to them is their simplicity (To an extent) and the removal of the Deus Ex Machina, whilst maintaining an array of endings ranging from horrible to perfect, as well as offering victory from different viewpoints that a Shepard may have. As said, biased, I'm going to shut up not.
Anyway, that's probably going to be part 1 done. I'm thinking I'll make this three part:
1. Intro and my suggested endings
2. What I find wrong with Bioware's endings
3. Once I've played the game, what I find wrong with how Bioware handled the choices from the previous games outside of the end mission.
See you later.
Tuesday 15 November 2011
PC vs Console
Well, I'm going to start things off with a bang. PC vs Console, that old nutshell that has fanboys from both ends staring down at each other, and which no-one is able to agree on an answer to. My personal opinion is that PCs are better for anyone into gaming, but for casual gamers only wanting to play one or two games, the console is a viable option.
The main reasons I think the PC is better:
- It runs things far better than a console, when the developers actually properly optimise it for the PC (*couch*unlike Skyrim*cough*). Higher frames per second, better graphical quality, better sound, faster disk read/write speeds, higher resolutions ect. Some of this will differ from rig to rig, but in general, the PC will have better graphics and a higher framerate than a console game, even when running on lowest settings. The exceptions to this are those PCs people are keeping from back at the turn of the century.
-Better controls. Whilst this is somewhat up to personal taste, and does differ for a couple of game genres (Racing and Button Mash Fighting Games), PC controls are far better than consoles. The mouse is easily far more accurate than thumbsticks, as was proven by that test (Microsoft?) did a while back that linked Xbox and PC together for an online match. The result was good Xbox users getting devastated by alright PC users. In addition, the keyboard is far better than having a good 14 or so buttons on a controller. There is a rediculously high limit to what you can have in the way of hotkeys. In RPGs especially this comes to the forefront. Console players are usually left with a radial menu of sorts that they open up and scroll through windows of their inventory to find an item, or through windows of their skill tree to pick a skill, or through a limited favourites wheel. Either way, openning even the favourites menu and scrolling through it is far less efficient than the PC approach. On the PC, players will have their favourite skills and items hotkeyed to the keys between 1 and 0 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0 on a keyboard, hence why between 1 and 0). A single press of a button will do what pressing and holding, scrolling and releasing will do on a console. In addition, whilst console players often have to open up the pause menu to open their inventory, level up screen, quest log, ect. it is all hotkeyed on a keyboard, usually with 'I', 'L' or 'U' usually and 'L' or 'J' usually respectively.
-Customizability. Consoles are stuck to basically the same hardware for however long it takes the console maker to update (This cycle has been 6 years so far, and will likely last longer), and when the new console comes out they have to buy the entire thing instead of just the parts that were upgraded that were significant. With a PC, you can upgrade any time you want, and any individual part you want. You don't have to buy a whole new PC when the latest GPU comes out. CPUs are sometimes different, and you may have to buy a new Motherboard to go with it, but not a new Chasis, RAM, GPU, CPU, CD/DVD-ROM Drive, PSU, Sound Card, and anything else that may come with it (Like Liquid cooling, which is optional) all in one go, unless you really want to. Many mistake the constant hardware updates on PC to mean you HAVE TO update your PC every time something new comes out, and you HAVE TO get the best parts, but this is very wrong. You almost never have to update your PC these days, unless it is very old or you bought some really bad parts, as games are designed mostly for consoles, then ported to PCs, meaning that a console has to be able to run it, and any reasonable PC would therefore be able to run it too, albeit bad PCs have to run it on lowest settings (Which are better than console's only settings for various reasons also). There are a few exceptions to this: BF3 and PC exclusive games like RTS and 4X games, however they too have the foresight to develope the lowest settings for low end machines, and the highest for mid-range. A lot of people also go along the lines that they would have to have the best settings on a PC, or think that such things do not exist, and to that I say that 1: Settings do exist and make a profound difference on performance for low end machines, and 2: If you want to play on the best you can, play on a PC even if low end as its lowest settings are better than a console's default.
-PCs don't only play games. Consoles are largely limitted to playing games. Recent consoles have had a few extra featues - such as the PS3 being a blu-ray player. On my PC I can play games, browse the internet, watch movies, write documents, render and edit movies and any number of other things. An interesting thing that I will note when this is bought up however, is that half the people will argue that they prefer the simplicity, and half argue that consoles are starting to get the same extras as PCs. I find them somewhat mutually exclusive, as as the consoles get more features, those who prefer the simplicity are being left behind, whilst if the consoles don't advance because they agree with the simplicity side, the people who argue that consoles are improving their extra capabilities get it imposed that they will never reach PC potential. Both are reasonable arguments, but mutually exclusive. And if anyone thinks they aren't, then PCs aren't less simple than consoles. Reasoning: If the console is simpler because it doesn't have the same capabilities as the PC, then adding those capabilities to the console, will result in the PC and Console having equal 'simplicity levels'. If you don't feel that its just the capabilities that make it more simple, don't use the 'argument' in response to the topic of this point. Some people will see it from both perspective; some believing Consoles are simpler due to their lack of capabilities, some believing their not, but the PC does have more capabilities.
-Long term cost efficiency. If you know what you are doing, a PC might cost $200 more than a console and run all games (Bar BF3, though if your really good including BF3) on max settings. This may seem like a significant extra investment, but dependant on how many games you are going to buy, its not. Note, I will be using new games as used games are somewhat more complex in their pricing. New games for consoles, at least in stores around here and in stores online, are $10 more expensive than PC games. As such, if over the life of your console you buy 20 games, you have equalled the cost it would take to build a good PC. If you buy more, the console is actually more expensive. To get the best price efficiency, you do have to know what you are doing when buying PC parts, and how to put one together, however both are very easy to learn. The first being just as difficult as learning how to buy a cost efficient car, and the second akin to putting together Lego, but with a couple of extra guidelines. (Note Lego; Not Legos. Legos is a brand of Pasta sauce around here, and Lego is the plastic play building blocks. That is one thing I get somewhat annoyed at).
-All the peripherals. With PC, you get great gaming mouses, gaming keyboards, Surround sound systems, headphones, Monitors, TVs, Joysticks, console controllers, USB missile turrets and a lot of other things. Whilst consoles do get some of these, there is not the same variety as on a PC for most of them, and they don't get everything PCs get either.
There are of course, some counter arguments that are bought up, but I believe I have covered most of them in my various points. The main reason I see to get a console is that all of your friends for some reason have and play on them, to which I'd advise upgrading your PC instead of buying the next console. If there are any that people think of, feel free to post them and I will do my best to argue against them.
As with many things however, this is largely a personal preference thing. People will prefer consoles over PCs and some will prefer PCs over consoles. However, everything taken into account, PCs ARE better than consoles on a raw comparisson, just not better for some individuals than a console.
And now I'm off to find something big to follow this up...
The main reasons I think the PC is better:
- It runs things far better than a console, when the developers actually properly optimise it for the PC (*couch*unlike Skyrim*cough*). Higher frames per second, better graphical quality, better sound, faster disk read/write speeds, higher resolutions ect. Some of this will differ from rig to rig, but in general, the PC will have better graphics and a higher framerate than a console game, even when running on lowest settings. The exceptions to this are those PCs people are keeping from back at the turn of the century.
-Better controls. Whilst this is somewhat up to personal taste, and does differ for a couple of game genres (Racing and Button Mash Fighting Games), PC controls are far better than consoles. The mouse is easily far more accurate than thumbsticks, as was proven by that test (Microsoft?) did a while back that linked Xbox and PC together for an online match. The result was good Xbox users getting devastated by alright PC users. In addition, the keyboard is far better than having a good 14 or so buttons on a controller. There is a rediculously high limit to what you can have in the way of hotkeys. In RPGs especially this comes to the forefront. Console players are usually left with a radial menu of sorts that they open up and scroll through windows of their inventory to find an item, or through windows of their skill tree to pick a skill, or through a limited favourites wheel. Either way, openning even the favourites menu and scrolling through it is far less efficient than the PC approach. On the PC, players will have their favourite skills and items hotkeyed to the keys between 1 and 0 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0 on a keyboard, hence why between 1 and 0). A single press of a button will do what pressing and holding, scrolling and releasing will do on a console. In addition, whilst console players often have to open up the pause menu to open their inventory, level up screen, quest log, ect. it is all hotkeyed on a keyboard, usually with 'I', 'L' or 'U' usually and 'L' or 'J' usually respectively.
-Customizability. Consoles are stuck to basically the same hardware for however long it takes the console maker to update (This cycle has been 6 years so far, and will likely last longer), and when the new console comes out they have to buy the entire thing instead of just the parts that were upgraded that were significant. With a PC, you can upgrade any time you want, and any individual part you want. You don't have to buy a whole new PC when the latest GPU comes out. CPUs are sometimes different, and you may have to buy a new Motherboard to go with it, but not a new Chasis, RAM, GPU, CPU, CD/DVD-ROM Drive, PSU, Sound Card, and anything else that may come with it (Like Liquid cooling, which is optional) all in one go, unless you really want to. Many mistake the constant hardware updates on PC to mean you HAVE TO update your PC every time something new comes out, and you HAVE TO get the best parts, but this is very wrong. You almost never have to update your PC these days, unless it is very old or you bought some really bad parts, as games are designed mostly for consoles, then ported to PCs, meaning that a console has to be able to run it, and any reasonable PC would therefore be able to run it too, albeit bad PCs have to run it on lowest settings (Which are better than console's only settings for various reasons also). There are a few exceptions to this: BF3 and PC exclusive games like RTS and 4X games, however they too have the foresight to develope the lowest settings for low end machines, and the highest for mid-range. A lot of people also go along the lines that they would have to have the best settings on a PC, or think that such things do not exist, and to that I say that 1: Settings do exist and make a profound difference on performance for low end machines, and 2: If you want to play on the best you can, play on a PC even if low end as its lowest settings are better than a console's default.
-PCs don't only play games. Consoles are largely limitted to playing games. Recent consoles have had a few extra featues - such as the PS3 being a blu-ray player. On my PC I can play games, browse the internet, watch movies, write documents, render and edit movies and any number of other things. An interesting thing that I will note when this is bought up however, is that half the people will argue that they prefer the simplicity, and half argue that consoles are starting to get the same extras as PCs. I find them somewhat mutually exclusive, as as the consoles get more features, those who prefer the simplicity are being left behind, whilst if the consoles don't advance because they agree with the simplicity side, the people who argue that consoles are improving their extra capabilities get it imposed that they will never reach PC potential. Both are reasonable arguments, but mutually exclusive. And if anyone thinks they aren't, then PCs aren't less simple than consoles. Reasoning: If the console is simpler because it doesn't have the same capabilities as the PC, then adding those capabilities to the console, will result in the PC and Console having equal 'simplicity levels'. If you don't feel that its just the capabilities that make it more simple, don't use the 'argument' in response to the topic of this point. Some people will see it from both perspective; some believing Consoles are simpler due to their lack of capabilities, some believing their not, but the PC does have more capabilities.
-Long term cost efficiency. If you know what you are doing, a PC might cost $200 more than a console and run all games (Bar BF3, though if your really good including BF3) on max settings. This may seem like a significant extra investment, but dependant on how many games you are going to buy, its not. Note, I will be using new games as used games are somewhat more complex in their pricing. New games for consoles, at least in stores around here and in stores online, are $10 more expensive than PC games. As such, if over the life of your console you buy 20 games, you have equalled the cost it would take to build a good PC. If you buy more, the console is actually more expensive. To get the best price efficiency, you do have to know what you are doing when buying PC parts, and how to put one together, however both are very easy to learn. The first being just as difficult as learning how to buy a cost efficient car, and the second akin to putting together Lego, but with a couple of extra guidelines. (Note Lego; Not Legos. Legos is a brand of Pasta sauce around here, and Lego is the plastic play building blocks. That is one thing I get somewhat annoyed at).
-All the peripherals. With PC, you get great gaming mouses, gaming keyboards, Surround sound systems, headphones, Monitors, TVs, Joysticks, console controllers, USB missile turrets and a lot of other things. Whilst consoles do get some of these, there is not the same variety as on a PC for most of them, and they don't get everything PCs get either.
There are of course, some counter arguments that are bought up, but I believe I have covered most of them in my various points. The main reason I see to get a console is that all of your friends for some reason have and play on them, to which I'd advise upgrading your PC instead of buying the next console. If there are any that people think of, feel free to post them and I will do my best to argue against them.
As with many things however, this is largely a personal preference thing. People will prefer consoles over PCs and some will prefer PCs over consoles. However, everything taken into account, PCs ARE better than consoles on a raw comparisson, just not better for some individuals than a console.
And now I'm off to find something big to follow this up...
Tuesday 8 November 2011
Introductions and Explanations
Welcome to my Blog, anyone who has made it here. It is not to tell you about me, though if you can read between the lines you will likely learn a few things as you read. It is for me to put out my rants and ramblings online for anyon interested to see, and to put my thoughts down for a later use if need be. So, because of this, I am going to get all the formalities and such out of the way in my first post.
I am Joccaren, or at least my online alias is. I am a 16 year old male living in Australia. I'm average and not average at the same time. I am straight, I have a crush on a girl I know, I hang out with my friends, and I hate homework. I surf, sail, game, swim, work and game. Yes, I said game twice. It is what I do with most of my spare time.
I have problems talking to women, especially attractive ones, and I do more thinking bout things than I do acting on them. My imagination is my fortress, and nothing can get past it. It is what has saved me from my many bouts of depression, and allowed me to cope with the loss of people I know.
I am Agnostic, but I do not begrudge others their beliefs. Note; this does not mean I will not counter their arguments if the bring it up. The same goes for everything that people disagree with me on when I decide to be neutral about it.
I am also quite particular about the 'In My Opinion' thing. Don't use it, and state your opinion like it is fact, and I will not hesitate to correct you. If something is objectively true, I don't mind, but saying 'X is better than Y' is almost always subjective, and thus should be 'In my opinion X is better than Y'
Anyway, that should be enough to introduce you to me for the moment. I will be putting some rants on later, but for now, this is all.
I am Joccaren, or at least my online alias is. I am a 16 year old male living in Australia. I'm average and not average at the same time. I am straight, I have a crush on a girl I know, I hang out with my friends, and I hate homework. I surf, sail, game, swim, work and game. Yes, I said game twice. It is what I do with most of my spare time.
I have problems talking to women, especially attractive ones, and I do more thinking bout things than I do acting on them. My imagination is my fortress, and nothing can get past it. It is what has saved me from my many bouts of depression, and allowed me to cope with the loss of people I know.
I am Agnostic, but I do not begrudge others their beliefs. Note; this does not mean I will not counter their arguments if the bring it up. The same goes for everything that people disagree with me on when I decide to be neutral about it.
I am also quite particular about the 'In My Opinion' thing. Don't use it, and state your opinion like it is fact, and I will not hesitate to correct you. If something is objectively true, I don't mind, but saying 'X is better than Y' is almost always subjective, and thus should be 'In my opinion X is better than Y'
Anyway, that should be enough to introduce you to me for the moment. I will be putting some rants on later, but for now, this is all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)