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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Origin refunding Mass Effect 3 purchases

Tagged games:

Scoobes on 21 March 2012
SlumsofOhio said:
@lestatdark

I think your confusing the endings as a single choice. You had the rachni choice (means nothing in ME3), and you had the decision to save (or kill) the council at the end of one. Now if I finished ME3 (which I did) would I take the time to go back and change anything? Its sad when I can have the worst possible outcomes in both ME1 and ME2, and all It takes is an hour of multiplayer to get the best endings.

Bioware do have to bal.ance the old ME players with the new players that will enter the series in ME3. Having a method for new players to get the good/secret ending is a given




Get your Portable ID!

Around the Network
ishiki on 21 March 2012
zero129 said:
ishiki said:
SlumsofOhio said:
@lestatdark

I think your confusing the endings as a single choice. You had the rachni choice (means nothing in ME3), and you had the decision to save (or kill) the council at the end of one. Now if I finished ME3 (which I did) would I take the time to go back and change anything? Its sad when I can have the worst possible outcomes in both ME1 and ME2, and all It takes is an hour of multiplayer to get the best endings.


as I've stated above, mass effects continually done this through all 3 games. It does mean something because you can get the rachni queen to join your army. Which if you kill her it doesn't. And if I recall you don't get her quest.

Now is it silly you can negate it in multiplayer. yes. There are many slight variations as I posted above. What it is, is unbalanced, and most people just play multiplayer to get the best ending. And the best endings the same.

For instance galactic readiness, determines whether earth is destroyed or not. If you completely negate every quest. The readiness meter is done rather poor. But in theory this should have worked better than it did.  

No matter what ending you get earth is destroyed in the ME3 ending. As like i said already if you played the arrivel DLC for ME2 you would see that destorying a Mass Relay destorys that whole galaxy.

that's a plot hole though. I'm arguing end game mechanics. Bioware said you're decisions throughout the previous games do matter for the ending. And they in fact do, it's just woefully unbalanced. It was not a bold faced lie like many are claiming.



Scoobes on 21 March 2012
zero129 said:
ishiki said:
SlumsofOhio said:
@lestatdark

I think your confusing the endings as a single choice. You had the rachni choice (means nothing in ME3), and you had the decision to save (or kill) the council at the end of one. Now if I finished ME3 (which I did) would I take the time to go back and change anything? Its sad when I can have the worst possible outcomes in both ME1 and ME2, and all It takes is an hour of multiplayer to get the best endings.


as I've stated above, mass effects continually done this through all 3 games. It does mean something because you can get the rachni queen to join your army. Which if you kill her it doesn't. And if I recall you don't get her quest.

Now is it silly you can negate it in multiplayer. yes. There are many slight variations as I posted above. What it is, is unbalanced, and most people just play multiplayer to get the best ending. And the best endings the same.

For instance galactic readiness, determines whether earth is destroyed or not. If you completely negate every quest. The readiness meter is done rather poor. But in theory this should have worked better than it did.  

No matter what ending you get earth is destroyed in the ME3 ending. As like i said already if you played the arrivel DLC for ME2 you would see that destorying a Mass Relay destorys that whole galaxy.

I haven't played Arrival, but you sure you mean galaxy?

Sure you don't mean solar system or cluster?




Get your Portable ID!

lestatdark on 21 March 2012
SlumsofOhio said:
@lestatdark

I think your confusing the endings as a single choice. You had the rachni choice (means nothing in ME3), and you had the decision to save (or kill) the council at the end of one. Now if I finished ME3 (which I did) would I take the time to go back and change anything? Its sad when I can have the worst possible outcomes in both ME1 and ME2, and all It takes is an hour of multiplayer to get the best endings.

I agree with the MP portion of your comment, it was indeed a poor decision. The amount of War Assets i've already gained via the promotions I've made in the game have already guaranteed that I'll never see the worst ending because the War Assets go for every playthrough.

As for the Rachni choice, I believed they did the logical thing there. The Rachni are the easiest species for the Reapers to control, outside of the Geth, because of their hivemind structure and no-lag telephatic communication, which basically mimics the control structure of any Synthetic AI. If an entire race in the past succumbed to it, leading to the Rachni Wars, would you really expect that the sole queen be able to resist to it? It only took Sovereign to cause the Rachni Wars, so imagine the effect that the entire Reaper fleet had in the galaxy.

There's also the options of saving or killing Wrex, which will affect your game on ME2 and some outcomes of Priority: Tuchanka as well (destroying or saving the Genophage Cure alters it the most though) and the council, and that's pretty much it for the big decisions on ME1. 

Now on ME2, letting some characters live or die, does have a slight effect on ME3, in the form of new characters being introduced to replace them (like Padok Wiks if you let Mordin die in the Suicide mission) which essentialy leads to new conversations and new dialogues. Since I want to see all possible outcomes of that, I'm selectively letting some people die in the Suicide mission and letting others live as well. 



Current PC Build

CPU - i7 8700K 3.7 GHz (4.7 GHz turbo) 6 cores OC'd to 5.2 GHz with Watercooling (Hydro Series H110i) | MB - Gigabyte Z370 HD3P ATX | Gigabyte GTX 1080ti Gaming OC BLACK 11G (1657 MHz Boost Core / 11010 MHz Memory) | RAM - Corsair DIMM 32GB DDR4, 2400 MHz | PSU - Corsair CX650M (80+ Bronze) 650W | Audio - Asus Essence STX II 7.1 | Monitor - Samsung U28E590D 4K UHD, Freesync, 1 ms, 60 Hz, 28"

lestatdark on 21 March 2012
Scoobes said:
zero129 said:
ishiki said:
SlumsofOhio said:
@lestatdark

I think your confusing the endings as a single choice. You had the rachni choice (means nothing in ME3), and you had the decision to save (or kill) the council at the end of one. Now if I finished ME3 (which I did) would I take the time to go back and change anything? Its sad when I can have the worst possible outcomes in both ME1 and ME2, and all It takes is an hour of multiplayer to get the best endings.


as I've stated above, mass effects continually done this through all 3 games. It does mean something because you can get the rachni queen to join your army. Which if you kill her it doesn't. And if I recall you don't get her quest.

Now is it silly you can negate it in multiplayer. yes. There are many slight variations as I posted above. What it is, is unbalanced, and most people just play multiplayer to get the best ending. And the best endings the same.

For instance galactic readiness, determines whether earth is destroyed or not. If you completely negate every quest. The readiness meter is done rather poor. But in theory this should have worked better than it did.  

No matter what ending you get earth is destroyed in the ME3 ending. As like i said already if you played the arrivel DLC for ME2 you would see that destorying a Mass Relay destorys that whole galaxy.

I haven't played Arrival, but you sure you mean galaxy?

Sure you don't mean solar system or cluster?

Destroying a Relay basically releases the energy equivalent of a supernova. It could only destroy a solar system, and even then, if the Relay is positioned in the furthest reaches of the system, a few planets could probably be spared. There are a few projections that when/if our own Sun goes nova, Neptune, Uranus and Pluto will be spared as the nova's energy will contract before it can hit them. 

So no, destroying a relay doesn't destroy the whole galaxy . Even the total destruction of all the Relays would leave a lot of solar system's intact, as there's basically one Relay per cluster, and the only system affected will be the one which actually has the Relay in it.



Current PC Build

CPU - i7 8700K 3.7 GHz (4.7 GHz turbo) 6 cores OC'd to 5.2 GHz with Watercooling (Hydro Series H110i) | MB - Gigabyte Z370 HD3P ATX | Gigabyte GTX 1080ti Gaming OC BLACK 11G (1657 MHz Boost Core / 11010 MHz Memory) | RAM - Corsair DIMM 32GB DDR4, 2400 MHz | PSU - Corsair CX650M (80+ Bronze) 650W | Audio - Asus Essence STX II 7.1 | Monitor - Samsung U28E590D 4K UHD, Freesync, 1 ms, 60 Hz, 28"

Around the Network
d21lewis on 21 March 2012
DeadNotSleeping said:
VicViper said:
d21lewis said:
It's the journey, not the destination. These people would have killed themselves in the 8-bit era. In those days, you played for hours and all you got was an empty screen saying "The End". I'm not even 10% through Mass Effect 3 but, unless the Xbox 360 literally kicks me in the balls after I beat the game, I don't know how the ending can be as bad as people are making it out to be.

"The Journey... is the destination!"- Depark Chopra

 

Wise words, d21. Wise words.

"How you get there is the worthier part."  -- Shepard Book

"Maybe it's not the destination that matters, maybe it's the journey..."  --Harry Kim

"It's not about how fast I get there. It's not about what's waiting on the other side.  It's the climb." --Miley Cyrus  (can't make paragraphs on my phone)  "Getting there is half the fun.  Come share it with me."  --The Muppets



d21lewis on 21 March 2012

Spoiler taggs aren't working on my phone. I've seen the word Pluto, exploding Mass Relay, and something about Shepherd and some rubble. I'm leaving this thread before I see something else. Can't spoil this game. I've waited too long to see the end of the story first hand!!



yo_john117 on 22 March 2012
Scoobes said:
zero129 said:
ishiki said:
SlumsofOhio said:
@lestatdark

I think your confusing the endings as a single choice. You had the rachni choice (means nothing in ME3), and you had the decision to save (or kill) the council at the end of one. Now if I finished ME3 (which I did) would I take the time to go back and change anything? Its sad when I can have the worst possible outcomes in both ME1 and ME2, and all It takes is an hour of multiplayer to get the best endings.


as I've stated above, mass effects continually done this through all 3 games. It does mean something because you can get the rachni queen to join your army. Which if you kill her it doesn't. And if I recall you don't get her quest.

Now is it silly you can negate it in multiplayer. yes. There are many slight variations as I posted above. What it is, is unbalanced, and most people just play multiplayer to get the best ending. And the best endings the same.

For instance galactic readiness, determines whether earth is destroyed or not. If you completely negate every quest. The readiness meter is done rather poor. But in theory this should have worked better than it did.  

No matter what ending you get earth is destroyed in the ME3 ending. As like i said already if you played the arrivel DLC for ME2 you would see that destorying a Mass Relay destorys that whole galaxy.

I haven't played Arrival, but you sure you mean galaxy?

Sure you don't mean solar system or cluster?

Its definitely solar system. And we don't even know if the explosion from the Mass Relay in the Sol System (Earth) would actually destroy Earth since the Mass Relay is so very far away from Earth and not every Solar System is the same size so just because it destroyed the solar system in the Arrival DLC doesn't mean the Mass Relay will destroy Earth (this is also directed at Mr. Zero) 



yo_john117 on 22 March 2012
zero129 said:
yo_john117 said:
Scoobes said:

No matter what ending you get earth is destroyed in the ME3 ending. As like i said already if you played the arrivel DLC for ME2 you would see that destorying a Mass Relay destorys that whole galaxy.

I haven't played Arrival, but you sure you mean galaxy?

Sure you don't mean solar system or cluster?

Its definitely solar system. And we don't even know if the explosion from the Mass Relay in the Sol System (Earth) would actually destroy Earth since the Mass Relay is so very far away from Earth and not every Solar System is the same size so just because it destroyed the solar system in the Arrival DLC doesn't mean the Mass Relay will destroy Earth (this is also directed at Mr. Zero) 

Well i guess none of this really matters now :D, come april we will be getting the real ending, or so it seems :D.

I am rather excited to see what they have in store. Honestly I think it was Bioware's intention to have DLC that added on to the end of ME3 (much like Arrivals added to the ending of ME2) right from the beginning....they just didn't expect people to go bonkers over the current ending.



Rhonin the wizard on 22 March 2012
lestatdark said:

I agree with the MP portion of your comment, it was indeed a poor decision. The amount of War Assets i've already gained via the promotions I've made in the game have already guaranteed that I'll never see the worst ending because the War Assets go for every playthrough.

As for the Rachni choice, I believed they did the logical thing there. The Rachni are the easiest species for the Reapers to control, outside of the Geth, because of their hivemind structure and no-lag telephatic communication, which basically mimics the control structure of any Synthetic AI. If an entire race in the past succumbed to it, leading to the Rachni Wars, would you really expect that the sole queen be able to resist to it?

You spared the Queen in ME1

You get to fight Rachni husks, go their homeworld, choose whether to kill or spare her again.

You killed the Queen in ME1

You get to fight Rachni husks, go their homeworld, choose whether to kill or spare her replacement, which Repears built, and no explanation is given why they created only one, and not a hundred or why they did not create one even if you let her live.

And all she gives if you let her live again, is some Rachni workers, not those warriors from ME1, or the ships hinted at in ME2, just some workers, and you also get that asset if you spare her replacement, granted she does go nuts later and breaks stuff.