By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - I don't get how Mass Effect 3 was a bad game (major spoilers)...

 

What ending did you choose?

FUCK THE REAPERS! #DESTROYFTW! 38 42.22%
 
My god... control is so e... 11 12.22%
 
Yo man... peace is import... 21 23.33%
 
FUCK YOU ALL! I HAD ENOUG... 20 22.22%
 
Total:90

Mass Effect 3 is an uneven experience. What annoys me the most about it is that people focus on the endings and gloss over the other flaws in the game. The gameplay is execllent. However the quest system and quest log is the worst in the entire series. The quest log doesn't update properly at each step of the quest like the previous two games. Worse the vast majority of the side consists of Commander Shepard easedropping on peoples conversations and then just showing up and saying "You know that thing you were talking, pick it up in Dock D24". 

The conversation system is the most limited in the series. This is a real shame because they finally got the Renegade/Paragon system right in ME3. With ME3's setup you can answer questions however you like because the reputation system prevents you from being locked out of conversation options if you didn't go pure Paragon or pure Renegade. The problem is you don't have the options you did previously. Unlike the first two game, ME1 especially, you don't have the conversation options you had before. You used to have a minimum of 3 and sometimes as many 6 opitions. In ME3 you usually only have two options. A paragon or renegade response. Ocassionally you'd have a neutral option. To make matters worse, ME3 has tons of auto dialogue. You'd pick one of the two options and Shepard would practically give a speech before you got another chance to pick a choice. Shepard was the players character in the first two games. Biowares character in the third.

This was part of the reason, I finished ME3 the least amount of times out of the trilogy. Only managed 3 complete playthroughs. That sounds like a lot but I finished ME1 on 360 15 times and 3 times on PC. I finished ME2 a dozen times. I basically had Shepard for every major option and gave them their own personality. When I got to ME3, my Shepards were the same. So I stopped playing. I too thought wasn't that bad of a game except for the endings until I go to my second playthrough and realized how limited the conversation options were. If your character was in a romance with an ME2 character you the got shaft. It's worst for players that played a female Shepard.  I'm member of another Bioware centric forum, unlike here we have several women members there. If a female Shepard romanced Kaidan but saved Ashley in ME1. She'd have no straight romance options in ME3 unless she picked Garrus in ME2. Otherwise Garrus hooks up with Tali, Thane dies, and Jacob runs off with Lady Hawke from Dragon Age 2. Of course they did get the option to date rape Vega during Citadel. I'm not kidding. Shepard can get him drunk and take advantage him.

With the exception of Legion and Mordin, the ME2 cast didn't matter. None of them became squad mates. Miranda's ME3 Story arc was a rehash of her loyalty mission in ME2 stretched throughout the whole game. They forgot Jacob was biotic. He and his team are fighting for their lives and doesn't use his biotics at all. It's especially bad when runs through live gunfire and doens't use his barrier. I realized that making every squad member available would have costly and daunting, but they could have wrote legitmate reasons for them to not help you. Samara, Jacob, Miranda, Zaeed, and Kasumi all have poor excuses why they won't join you. It's clear that new writers didn't read up on the works of the prior writers. I'm ranting here but I'll give one small example of what I'm talking about. Kasumi tells Shepard "I wont' let you rope me into another suicide mission". A)The Illusive Man hires her. B)She knows it's a suicide mission from the beginning.

The game was very uneven. Tuchanka and Rannoch were very well written. Most of the rest of the game was not. On the beam run Shepard enters before Anderson, but some how ends up behind him. The audio talks if there are multiple paths but there is only one. In ME1 the reason the Reapers go after the Citadel is because A)It allows them to bring their entire fleet to seat of the Galaxy at once and B)They can shut down the entire Mass Relay system from the Citadel. They gain control of the Citadel in ME3 but they don't shut down the relays. They make a point telling you how the Reapers shut down the relays and systematically hunt down advanced life system by system. In ME3 they forget this for some reason.  In ME2 they make a point of showing you how the destruction of a Mass Relay is the equivalent of a Supernova and wipes out the whole star system. In the original endings, when you activate The Crucible it blows up all the Mass Relays which means you'd would have wiped out most of the life in the Galaxy. 

Heck I could rant on this all night. ME3 is a great game from a purely gameplay standpoint. However the narrative is very poor, they forget their own lore at several points, forget about the abilities of characters, or flat out make them completely out of character. Ashley being the biggest example. They dressed her up like Miranda when she's tomboy and tells you in ME1 that she'd never dress that way. If you play purely for the game play or don't care much for the story. ME3 is great game. If you played series from start to finish, really enjoyed the story and characters, then ME3 is a deeply flawed game. The inconsistencies stick out like a sore thumb and you're left to wonder what could have been.



Around the Network

) If people really want to know. Bioware considers the "Synthesis" ending to be the canon ending. The reason for this is because it is the ONLY ending that ties up the theme that spanned all 3 games. The entire point of the series was about organics vs synthetics. To find peace in the galaxy. This is the ending they consider canon because it is the core essence of the game itself. 

 


No, not really.  Synthetic vs organic was only a really prominent theme in the first game.  From the second on, it is a secondary thing at best.  The more overriding theme of the games, is individualism for humanity vs cooperation.  The major choice you make at the end of the first game is whether or not to sacrifice human lives to save the council, and whether to put a anti alien or pro alien member on the council.  In the second game, the theme is hammered throughout the game, while synthetics vs organics is only important in the Tali missions, and in a more minor capacity with Edi.  In the third, it's again a fairly minor point.  No more important than the genophage, or the illusive man's plans... at least until the last few seconds.



JWeinCom said:
                                       

 


No, not really.  Synthetic vs organic was only a really prominent theme in the first game.  From the second on, it is a secondary thing at best.  The more overriding theme of the games, is individualism for humanity vs cooperation.  The major choice you make at the end of the first game is whether or not to sacrifice human lives to save the council, and whether to put a anti alien or pro alien member on the council.  In the second game, the theme is hammered throughout the game, while synthetics vs organics is only important in the Tali missions, and in a more minor capacity with Edi.  In the third, it's again a fairly minor point.  No more important than the genophage, or the illusive man's plans... at least until the last few seconds.


I'm going to need to agree to disagree because the main plot of the series was indeed the interaction of Organics and Synthetics. I would argue that the 3rd game implied it the most with both EDI, Legion, and the Reapers. Number two did the same thing. Heavily questioning if Synthetics have a soul. For they are self aware. Legion questions because they are aware, they have a consciousness, if they have a consciousness, then in a sense, they have a soul.

The main philosophy of the series is regarding both Organics and Synthetics in various forms and points of views. Verses does not necessarily mean fighting, but comparing the two and the aspects of them. Again, I directly asked someone who worked on the game on this matter. I can't name them but they did confirm this to me. Oh I CANNOT wait on the new game they are working on!




I haven't played it yet. The demo turned me off, too much of a cover based shooter. ME2 was already heading that way and ME3 didn't feel like an rpg at all anymore. The ending fiasco happened after that.
Mass effect, a universe full of warehouses with chest high walls. I did like the first one a lot.



If Bioware considers "Synthesis" the canon ending that speaks volumes. The canon ending is the one in which you violate every being in the galaxy. Yeah....I'll pass.



Around the Network

I didn't think that it was bad. The story just didn't pull me in as much, in ME 3, like it did for 1 & 2. I still enjoyed it though, just not as much as i did with the first 2.



I liked how they came to senses and made visual downgrade for PS3 version in favor of short loading times, they wer unbearable in ME2.



My Etsy store

My Ebay store

Deus Ex (2000) - a game that pushes the boundaries of what the video game medium is capable of to a degree unmatched to this very day.

Can't add much to the thread except what everyone already said. It's not a bad game. It's an enjoyable one. Some questionable gaming designs (like the limited conversation wheel) and the endings left a huge sour taste in everyone's mouth, which was its ultimate downfall at the gamer's feedback.



It's the worst Mass Effect game by a mile and it basically shows the corporate culture of EA and its subsidiaries can't release a decent game nowadays for shit. Of course soon it could, and probably will, be a masterpiece next to Andromeda, which so far screams "Dragon Age: Inquisition ON SPACE!".

-> A Gary Stu called Kai Leng
-> Dudebro James Vega (swear he's the same guy who tags along on Dead Space 3)
-> The game reporter lady
-> Shepard soloing a Reaper (you know, those unfathomable lovecraftian machines)
-> Max Payne slow motion sequences
-> Asinine quick time events
-> The magic star child
-> Galaxy readiness locked behind multiplayer (originally you couldn't get the best ending without it)
-> A short and contrived ending (before they expanded it)



 

 

 

 

 

Ony through the hyperbole of the internet would it be called a bad game.

But it was dissapointing, for me at least. Although the story was enjoyable, the first 2 thirds were consumed by mundane war activities. Lacking the sense of discovery the first game provided, but also going quite weak on the character development compared to number 2. The issue was the conclusion was that it was undercooked and DLC like the Labrynth was should have been scripted of part of the main game. resolving the question set out by the lore should have been the games main priority, but it seemed a bit of an after thought to providing an action packed campaign.