Mass Effect 3 story controversy

Surely it's all about making the right ending for your audience type - ME is a made up story (B-movie grade at that), and not a documentary, after all. ME has never taken itself seriously and is not trying to convey some deep message. The plot and detail is borderline laughable and Shepard is as as two dimensional as 1960s Batman. So why suddenly the desire to go all deep, angsty, depressing and tragic?

There are also degrees of "lollipop and rainbows". Earth can be destroyed but Shep gets his girl, and is banished. Or Earth is saved, the girl dies and Shep becomes an Admiral. Why does a game *like ME* have to crush the player with everything possible going wrong?

Finally - choices and consequences. Why have them if the end result is just one of 7 shades of depressing? Why structure the game as an RPG? With these endings it stops being an RPG and becomes just a movie with interactive shooting. Suddenly the desire to replay, this time (eg) doing something differently becomes pointless. Bad business move for BioWare if they plan on selling lots of DLC for a game where you all die no matter what.
 
Joined
Feb 28, 2011
Messages
360
Why does a game *like ME* have to crush the player with everything possible going wrong?

This remark reminds me of the possible endings in Dragon Age 1.

I get the feeling as if there was some kind of copying of the basically same story to and fro a fantasy setting and a SciFi setting, with the necessary adaptations.
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
21,952
Location
Old Europe
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
36,348
Location
Spudlandia
@ Gaxkang

Surely it's all about making the right ending for your audience type - ME is a made up story (B-movie grade at that), and not a documentary, after all.

Yes, but Bioware's writers obviously wrote themselves into a corner. How can someone end the Reapers arc in a way that doesn't involve millions of casualties, entire worlds destroyed, entire fleets anihilated, and the galaxy thrown into chaos as the balance of power goes the way of the dodo even if the good guys win? Either the Reapers are scary and defeating them requires great sacrifices (thus negating the idea of a happy and cheerful ending) or the fans are stolen of the very point of the previous games, the Reapers being truly scary space Cthulhus and only the super duper action heroine who throws black holes with her mind standing up to them.

If the good guys steamroll the Reapers the fans will be angry. If the game ends with a pyrrhic victory the fans will be angry. If the game is so heavy handed and unsubtle with the "tragedy of war" shtick as that clip of the kid getting a face full of Reaper canon suggest but the ending is lighthearted and cheerful the fans will be angry.

Gee.

Why does a game *like ME* have to crush the player with everything possible going wrong?

As I have understood the problem is that there will be no happy endings, no that all the endings will be the cross of iron's.

Finally - choices and consequences. Why have them if the end result is just one of 7 shades of depressing?

Why, choose your own reason to be depressed of course!

Why structure the game as an RPG? With these endings it stops being an RPG and becomes just a movie with interactive shooting.

Wasn't Mass Effect an interactive movie with awful shooting mechanics to begin with? And wasn't Mass Effect 2 an interactive movie with better shooting mechanics, then? You, like, run around the worst kind of space opera and shoot space people, and watch high budget cinematics about starships going pew pew and kaboom, and choose what kind of movie you want to watch by turning your Shepard into either a leather jacketed nineties anti-hero or Captain Picard.



@ Alrik

My personal problem with "war stories" in the "gaming industry" is that there is nothing but.

Cool. That's right.

Please ive me just ONE recent example of a non-war related non-indie recent single player mode offline role-playing game for the PC!

Don't get so angry about the topic. :hug:

Like, I just said Mass Effect 3 was touted as a war story and it clearly is. That doesn't include a judgement about whether or not all the games we are getting are war stories, nor about how desireable it is to have thousand of war stories, nor about how smart or dumb the target market is.

But I personally don't think role playing games are a good medium for stories not including pew pew and kaboom, to be honest.
 
Joined
Jan 8, 2012
Messages
153
Location
Tartarus. Grinding the bleep out off Arqa 17-24.
I agree insofar that the ME series is indeed a "war" series.

As is Star Wars by the way as well - but it isn't so much obvious thre, because the story centers around a few people embedded within that war.

Clone Wars is imho far more war-centric, that's my personal opinion.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
21,952
Location
Old Europe
I agree with Alrik here. I'm not turned off by violence in games, but why does every damn RPG these days involve some OMG end of the world conflict/war scenario? I played D&D for years as a kid and we killed all kinds of stuff, but there was never a "war"

I think it's a simple crutch that storytellers fall back on. It's a cliché, and it's too bad.
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
1,561
Location
Downtown Chicago, IL
I agree with Alrik here. I'm not turned off by violence in games, but why does every damn RPG these days involve some OMG end of the world conflict/war scenario? I played D&D for years as a kid and we killed all kinds of stuff, but there was never a "war"

I think it's a simple crutch that storytellers fall back on. It's a cliché, and it's too bad.
Same here. I still try to get out of that stupid tent at the start of Witcher 2. I don't like war stories. But stuff like Drakensang 2 seems only to interest few people, which is a pity.

Regarding endings to ME3, I'm actually fine with most of the galaxy being destroyed (I have no idea about how the real endings are, as I didn't read any spoilers). It's also a possibility. Just imagine a new RPG arc in a galaxy that is mysterious again, with lots of isolated pockets of power that wait to be discovered.


Oh, but somehow not interested at all in ME3. I don't quite know what it is, but it seems to be too much of a straight shooter.
 
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
804
Location
Austria
@ Gaxkang
Wasn't Mass Effect an interactive movie with awful shooting mechanics to begin with? And wasn't Mass Effect 2 an interactive movie with better shooting mechanics, then? You, like, run around the worst kind of space opera and shoot space people, and watch high budget cinematics about starships going pew pew and kaboom, and choose what kind of movie you want to watch by turning your Shepard into either a leather jacketed nineties anti-hero or Captain Picard.

….

But I personally don't think role playing games are a good medium for stories not including pew pew and kaboom, to be honest.

I've been saying for years that the ME series is shooter first, RPG elements second.

Lord Knows why it's been billed as a RPG - probably b/c Bioware always been known for RPG's. ME series - especially ME2 - is more shooter w/ some RPG elements [character stat, skill, and ability upgrading; and some decision-making elements] - just like the Deus Ex series.

I love the ME series and Deus Ex series, BTW. I've always loved RPG games and shooters. Most games I buy are either RPG's, shooters, or cross-breeds of both.
 
Joined
Mar 19, 2011
Messages
103
I don't have much stake in this argument. I played Mass Effect 1 for about 25 hours and lost interest in it. It became too tedious for me to search every planet to make sure I didn't miss any side quests. Blah. But I admit, it was a cool game. Very cool. But like many games before it, it just didn't hold my attention.

I do like that Bioware had some balls to write "bad" endings for ME 3 though. That's cool. It adds some heft to the story. You're really playing a mission that is impossible to complete. That's heavy for a game. I'm sure it made a lot of people angry. Not many games go that route with the story telling so I have to applaud Bioware for having the guts to do that.
 
I don't have much stake in this argument. I played Mass Effect 1 for about 25 hours and lost interest in it. It became too tedious for me to search every planet to make sure I didn't miss any side quests. Blah. But I admit, it was a cool game. Very cool. But like many games before it, it just didn't hold my attention.

I do like that Bioware had some balls to write "bad" endings for ME 3 though. That's cool. It adds some heft to the story. You're really playing a mission that is impossible to complete. That's heavy for a game. I'm sure it made a lot of people angry. Not many games go that route with the story telling so I have to applaud Bioware for having the guts to do that.
If by bad endings you mean full of plot holes and that don't make any of your C&C matter then yes Bioware had some balls, but I just think they are incompetent. Really bad writing, plot holes, and crappy RPGs is what Bioware are known for as of late.
 
Joined
Jun 1, 2011
Messages
172
This comment, perfectly sums up what I feel about mass effect "multiple" endings :

"I don't so much want a happier ending as i want multiple endings, bio ware said they wouldn't pigeon-hole us into one generic ending that everyone gets. but they did exactly that there is one ending that has a few very slight alternatives(...)"
 
Joined
Aug 22, 2008
Messages
83
If by bad endings you mean full of plot holes and that don't make any of your C&C matter then yes Bioware had some balls, but I just think they are incompetent. Really bad writing, plot holes, and crappy RPGs is what Bioware are known for as of late.

Agreed, but to be fair the entire ME franchise is a plothole upon plothole upon a gigantic crater of plotholes that fanboys fill in with random bullshit. At the 'Dex we've come up with a concise analysis if inconsistencies throughout ME3. Here's a short version:

-Why did the reapers forget about the citadel until TIM told them it was important for something? In ME1, it's explained that the first thing the reapers do is take over the citadel, which is always the center of galactic politics. This throws the galaxy in to disarray and minimizes resistance. They also shut off the mass relays for everyone except them. In ME3 they don't bother disabling the mass relays and only take the citadel after TIM tells them it's a good idea.

-Everything having to do with the kid: who is he? Why is he there? Why does he take the form of that kid? What was up with the dream sequences? Who built/programmed him? Who built/programmed the reapers? Why? How is building a race of super-AI robots that kill all advanced organic life a good solution to stopping organic and synthetic life from fighting? How does killing advanced organic life and turning them into robot prawn preserve their essence for all eternity? Why does Shepard getting to the kid mean his solution won't work anymore? Why does he gladly explain to Shepard how to kill the reapers and undo everything he's apparently been working to preserve for millions of years?

-Cerberus. In ME1 they're a rogue military faction that kill wantonly kill people to keep their existance secret. They experiment with husks and rachni. In ME2 they're a covert organization striving to keep humanity safe. They have a few small operations overseen by TIM and while they have considerable resources, building the Normandy SR2 and reviving Shepard is said to nearly bankrupt them. In ME3 they're a powerful military force capable of, among other things, taking over multiple Alliance bases without effort, invading a top-secret research base on the Salarian homeworld, taking over the citadel, and fielding a fleet of ships against the combined Alliance forces. How and why do they change so much between games?

-Why is the Normandy fleeing a beam of energy at the end of the game? The Normandy was supposed to be fighting in the battle, right? Did Joker just pussy out and leave after Shepard got on the citadel? And I had EDI and Liara with in the final mission. Did they just catch a shuttle back to the Normandy while I was dealing with TIM and the kid? It took hundreds of soldiers to take the battlefield, so I doubt getting out would be very easy. Especially with two full-sized reapers there at the end. Who was aboard the Normandy as it was fleeing the magic plot device light? How did Joker not break any bones in the crash? So many questions.

-In ME2, blowing up a mass relay destroys an entire star system. In ME3, every mass relay is blown up. Am I to assume every star system housing a mass relay was destroyed, or did this magical colored plot device light not have that effect? We don't know, because there's no epilogue at all.

-For that matter, what happened to everyone aboard the citadel when the reapers took it? Did they evacuate, or were they just all killed? What was with the bodies on the citadel at the end, and why did it suddenly look so different?

-What happened to the fleets orbiting Earth? Did those aliens die when the Crusible fired, or are they just left orbiting Earth unable to get home because the mass relays were blown up? Or maybe they all died because the solar system was blown up by an exploding mass relay.

-What happened to indoctrination? In ME1, that's said to be one of the main ways the reapers counteract resistance. I kept expecting one of the major NPCs, maybe admiral Hackett, to secretly have been indoctrinated or something. Instead only Cerberus is said to be indoctrinated, and there are a few other references to it elsewhere. You'd think some indoctrinated personel working inside Shepard's combined fleets would have given the reapers an advantage. For that matter, indoctrinating anyone other than Cerberus, who everyone knows is evil at this point, would have been an advantage. In ME2, exposure to any reaper tech eventually results in indoctrination. In ME3, you pass out reaper tech to anyone who asks for it. I mean, one indoctrinated scientist with a bomb could have set the crucible project back months or even years, probably resulting in defeat for Shepard. It's not like it would have been hard for the reapers to figure out what Shepard and co were up to. For that matter...

-Why are the reapers so bad at their job? They're supposed to be crushing resistance and harvesting organic life. But for whatever reason, they either don't find out about the crucible (even though everyone seems to know about it, and random scientists discuss plans for it in public), or they don't care. Again, one reaper could indoctrinate some scientists, find out where it was being built, and blow up the crucible and all the people working on it. Game over. Instead, the reapers appear content to attack planets one at a time and do nothing to disrupt resistance, giving Shepard plenty of time to gather support for the final push. With how sloppy their invasion is, it's amazing that they managed to win in any past cycles.

-In ME1 it's explained that the citadel is the center of the reaper invasion, and one of its purposes is as a giant mass relay to bring the reapers in from the dark space beyond the galaxy. That suggests they need a mass relay to get into the galaxy, otherwise why bother building the citadel that way? So why is it then so easy for the reapers to invade without using the citadel as a relay? They made it to the galaxy in under three years. So why bother with the citadel relay in the first place? Sovergn could have just sent them a message to come without doing anything it did in ME1, and nobody would have known about the reapers. What was the point of ME1, again?

-Why does the human reaper look nothing like the other reapers? We see the core of a reaper in ME2, and it's not some kind of giant skeleton. It's also never addressed how pulped human can even turn into a reaper. I mean, there's iron in the human body, but not very much.

-All the foreshadowing about humans being somehow special or neccisary for the reaper's plans is completely absent from ME3. There's no reference to genetic diversity, and the actions of the collectors are only references as "good times" between squadmates. There's no explanation for why the collectors were trying to build a human reaper when the entire reaper fleet was only a few months away from the galaxy anyway. In fact, there's practically no conversing with reapers even though the game is full of them.

-Since nobody seemed to believe Shepard about the reapers, why didn't Shepard just use the reaper corpse TIM found in ME2 to prove that, at the very least, they predate the Geth by millenia? I mean, sure, you're in a hurry, but just letting some scientists poke around the outside of the dead reaper for a week couldn't hurt.

-Why did the Protheans bury an artifact on Mars that contained plans for the crucible but apparently no information on the reapers? Or if it did contain information about the reapers, why didn't anyone find that information? Was the artifact just sitting around in a storage closet until Liara decided to look at it?

-Why is Admiral Hackett's plan to get an army and attack Earth? An attack is doomed to fail without the crucible anyway, and the crucible will supposedly destroy the reapers, so why not just build it and use it in place? Sure, it turns out that they need the citadel and the reapers move the citadel to Earth, but Hackett certainly doesn't know that's going to happen when he tells Shepard to put together a fleet for liberating Earth. Lucky thing the reapers decided to move the citadel there instead of hiding it somewhere. It is a mass relay, after all, so they could have just towed it to the middle of nowhere so the resistance forces couldn't find it.
 
Joined
Dec 13, 2010
Messages
88
As others have said the reaction is pretty foolish.


Second, the good guys are fighting an all out war against genocidial space Cthulhus who not only have turned far more galactic civilizations into small notches in their tentacles than wars both big and small the good guys have fought if put together but also have controlled the technological, and maybe genetic, development of their victims. It's less of a "Why not happily ever after?" case, and more of a "How can it end well at all?" one.

At every cycle, the good guys are the reapers, the bad guys are the most advanced civilizations.
 
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
6,265
Agreed, but to be fair the entire ME franchise is a plothole upon plothole upon a gigantic crater of plotholes that fanboys fill in with random bullshit. At the 'Dex we've come up with a concise analysis if inconsistencies throughout ME3. Here's a short version:

It is only a good list of questions and plot holes for people who want to do.

Trouble is that the gamers communauty want to play exceptional heroes but do not want to bear the consequences of it.

Why consider everything stated in ME1 as marbled in stone as it should be well known at this stage that the feeling of exceptionality will go through discovering what is going on really.

Cerberus does not evolve through the series, the knowledge of it does. Cerberus as it is in ME3 is what it is in ME1 but you do not know it in ME1, only in ME3.

Reapers change of plan? First point but very secondary actually, we only know about a few cycles, so claiming a reapers plan is quite a stretch.

But primarily, you play an exceptional hero whose actions might force a change in plan. You are going to be the one who destroyed a solution that has worked for countless cycles. And there should be no change in plan? What you think that the gamer communauty complains that their actions as exceptional heroes have not enough impact...

Good solution? Good by what standard? The idea is to preserve organic life.

As the most advanced civilizations always end with creating life themselves and get overcome by it (read the context, AIs are banned, Geths won the morning war), it is clear that the less advanced civilizations wont be able to stop the synthetics. Ending with no more organics accross the galaxy.

A solution.

Etc... Most if not all are not plotholes but simply epidermic reactions from gamers who can not endure the consequences of their own tastes. Just simple flavour rebuttals. Cerberus is perceived as evolving from one to three? What about the Geth?
They dont? Ah, the geth are cool so...
 
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
6,265
Back
Top Bottom