Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Mass Effect 3: The Ending(s) [** Spoilers **]

1…2729313233

Comments

  • #842
    Retr0gamer
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 50,764 CMod ✭✭✭✭Retr0gamer


    Maybe a few years ago the content was cut to be used as DLC and there has been cases of developers saying that. Now you can be pretty sure that companies have plans for day one DLC before the game is even greenlit. A shoddy practice for consumers but a fact of life these days.

    I don't buy the line that day one dlc is developed by members of the team that have a small workload as the game is going gold or in promotion stages. I've seen more than enough documentaries on game development and read about it. Come the game going gold everyone is working crazy hours. The exception is the art staff who are faffing about but art staff aren't going to make you a 2-4 hour piece of DLC and liason with the main developers to have it integrated into the code. After the game goes gold you have a 2-1.5 month period while the marketing staff do their thing. Everyone else takes a well deserved holiday. 2 months at most is not enough to get such high quality DLC done.

    It's developed in tandem with the main game. It would be nice if developers would admit that and I'd have no problem with it. However I can see why they don't, mostly because there'll be another over reaction ****storm like the ME3 ending one. So it's kind of in the developers and publishers interest to keep on the fans side because, well the mass effect ending thing shows the extremes of silliness that can result.
    Untitled Image




  • #843
    richymcdermott
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,447 ✭✭✭richymcdermott


    cliff bleszinski (the biggest ass kisser and troll ) came out recently and said this is unfortunatley the business thats around till games go digital then we can enjoy full games for 30 euros .


    AMM cliff mass effect 3 is 70 QUID on psn full game and still no additional content for free plus game is 20 euros dearer

    Developers talk out of their asses ,others follow their lies...


  • #844
    hooradiation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭hooradiation


    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    Maybe a few years ago the content was cut to be used as DLC and there has been cases of developers saying that. Now you can be pretty sure that companies have plans for day one DLC before the game is even greenlit. A shoddy practice for consumers but a fact of life these days.

    I don't buy the line that day one dlc is developed by members of the team that have a small workload as the game is going gold or in promotion stages. I've seen more than enough documentaries on game development and read about it. Come the game going gold everyone is working crazy hours. The exception is the art staff who are faffing about but art staff aren't going to make you a 2-4 hour piece of DLC and liason with the main developers to have it integrated into the code. After the game goes gold you have a 2-1.5 month period while the marketing staff do their thing. Everyone else takes a well deserved holiday. 2 months at most is not enough to get such high quality DLC done.

    It's developed in tandem with the main game. It would be nice if developers would admit that and I'd have no problem with it. However I can see why they don't, mostly because there'll be another over reaction ****storm like the ME3 ending one. So it's kind of in the developers and publishers interest to keep on the fans side because, well the mass effect ending thing shows the extremes of silliness that can result.

    Sooooo, what is it that has you convinced that the ME3 engine had such poor support for integrating optional characters into the game, given it's built on ME2 which had two such characters. And how do you explain your idea that the art team couldn't do anything for From Ashes while it was going gold when you also state the art team wasn't doing anything while ME3 was going gold?

    Because the central premise of your post appears to be that it's impossible for the From Ashes DLC to be completed in the three months from content complete to release, yet for this to be accurate ME3 would have to have lost the ability to add in DLC characters without serious work, which makes no sense. Also it seems to live in a world where reusing art assets and code isn't a thing that happens.


  • #845
    Retr0gamer
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 50,764 CMod ✭✭✭✭Retr0gamer


    Well for one, artists aren't coders. Also there's the nightmare of integrating DLC into a game that is currently undergoing final QA and last minute coding, all the coders are more than likely sleeping at their desks and not going home at this stage in development. Then there's the certification from Microsoft and sony that needs to be dealt with which is a long drawn out prospect and the bug testing they will do, I hear of tales that this can take up to 6 months. Then there's testing how well the code will slot into the game once it's finished and how it will work with MS and Sony's online infrastructure and content delivery systems, although that's alleviated somewhat by the DLC for Mass Effect 3 being on the disc.

    From my experience with Konami 2 months is the time it takes from a game going gold to getting released. Your coders have all gone on holidays or gone to new projects and that 2 month time frame really isn't enough to get a good quality DLC made and then also certified by the platform holders.

    There's a whole lot of work there. If I was a developer then the most cost effective and clever solution was to have it all implimented and ready to go in with the final gold game since there will be less coding and certification headaches. It's the easiest and cleverest way to do it and I can't begrudge them for doing it, I would to.
    Untitled Image




  • #846
    gizmo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    Eggy Baby! wrote: »
    Wouldn't people blame Bioware for the ending and not EA?

    Admittedly the Mass effect ending for some reason or another focused anger on EA. There are ME fans who believe EA is destroying the franchise. I disagree. ME2 was the best, IMO. And EA published that too.
    It's simple really, an extremely large proportion of gamers don't know how to differentiate between publisher and developer. Hell, people blame EA for Bioware ditching their traditional RPG titles yet the change had already started to happen before the acquisition with the likes of Jade Empire and Mass Effect 1.
    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    Maybe a few years ago the content was cut to be used as DLC and there has been cases of developers saying that. Now you can be pretty sure that companies have plans for day one DLC before the game is even greenlit. A shoddy practice for consumers but a fact of life these days.
    It's not really a shoddy business practice unless the final game is worse off due to the exclusion of said content though. As it is, it's a simple issue of allocation of resources, both time and money. In X amount of time they can implement Y features for the normal retail price. Nowadays, an additional set of Z features can be implemented when you factor in the ability to charge more money via DLC. While it's all well and good to say they should include everything, every game developed since the early days of gaming has had content cut because it couldn't be completed in a reasonable amount of time, the difference is now they have an alternative way of getting this content to people.
    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    I don't buy the line that day one dlc is developed by members of the team that have a small workload as the game is going gold or in promotion stages. I've seen more than enough documentaries on game development and read about it. Come the game going gold everyone is working crazy hours. The exception is the art staff who are faffing about but art staff aren't going to make you a 2-4 hour piece of DLC and liason with the main developers to have it integrated into the code. After the game goes gold you have a 2-1.5 month period while the marketing staff do their thing. Everyone else takes a well deserved holiday. 2 months at most is not enough to get such high quality DLC done.
    Depends on the company, the team, the game and the content. If we're dealing in absolutes then you're incorrect to assume it isn't or can't be done. You recognise the fact that the art staff would be somewhat idle in this period but what about the designers, specifically those who specialise in level design and scripting?

    If you want to focus on From Ashes then, using your logic, how can you explain the split in content between that which was on the disc and the 600-odd megs of content which had to be downloaded afterwards?
    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    There's a whole lot of work there. If I was a developer then the most cost effective and clever solution was to have it all implimented and ready to go in with the final gold game since there will be less coding and certification headaches. It's the easiest and cleverest way to do it and I can't begrudge them for doing it, I would to.
    So, bearing the above in mind, locked content on the disc? :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • #847
    degrassinoel
    Registered Users Posts: 10,731 ✭✭✭✭degrassinoel


    hooradiation wrote: »
    It was a renegade run!
    And I'm certain you think that was clever, so I'll let it slide.

    That's funny because I'm Certain you took it as an insult rather than a ribbing now :)


  • #848
    hooradiation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭hooradiation


    Ohhh dear.....
    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    Well for one, artists aren't coders. Also there's the nightmare of integrating DLC into a game that is currently undergoing final QA and last minute coding, all the coders are more than likely sleeping at their desks and not going home at this stage in development.

    What is it that makes you think artists can't create art assets without the aid of developers? What is it that makes you think the system for integrating the DLC would be "a nightmare" given that ME3 is built on the ME2 engine, which had support for this? And most importantly why are you confusing the time before content complete with the time after it's been submitted for certification?
    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    Then there's the certification from Microsoft and sony that needs to be dealt with which is a long drawn out prospect and the bug testing they will do, I hear of tales that this can take up to 6 months. Then there's testing how well the code will slot into the game once it's finished and how it will work with MS and Sony's online infrastructure and content delivery systems, although that's alleviated somewhat by the DLC for Mass Effect 3 being on the disc.

    Certification does not take six months unless you've really screwed the pooch. Also, the certification process is much shorter for DLC than a fully fledged game, owing to it's size. Large chunks of the certification checklist simply will not apply to DLC and certainly a company with several previous titles on the 360/PS3 that have DLC components are going to have experience to deal with the DLC certification process for both platform holders. This entire version of reality literally rests on the notion that at some point between ME2 and ME3 everyone at bioware forgot how to do their jobs.

    And From Ashes is not on the disc, perhaps you're confused by the existence of hooks for from ashes existing on the disk. Which is perfectly sane technical design.
    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    Your coders have all gone on holidays or gone to new projects and that 2 month time frame really isn't enough to get a good quality DLC made and then also certified by the platform holders. It's simple logistics.

    New projects, like "from ashes"? And it's not simple logistics - it's an assertion predicated on what appears to be very shoddy underlying knowledge.

    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    There's a whole lot of work there. If I was a developer then the most cost effective and clever solution was to have it all implimented and ready to go in with the final gold game since there will be less coding and certification headaches. It's the easiest and cleverest way to do it and I can't begrudge them for doing it, I would to.

    But your not, so I have no idea why you're trying to argue for a version of events based on understanding that is shoddy at best. You claim to have a science background - you wouldn't accept people with no real science background making arguments about scientific topics based on "what makes sense" to them, why in the hell are you so intent on trying to do that here?


  • #849
    hooradiation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭hooradiation


    degrassinoel wrote: »
    That's funny because I'm Certain you took it as an insult rather than a ribbing now :)

    I'm not concerned with your intent, to be quite honest. So quite how you want to claim you meant it is irrelevant.


  • #850
    degrassinoel
    Registered Users Posts: 10,731 ✭✭✭✭degrassinoel


    hooradiation wrote: »
    I'm not concerned with your intent, to be quite honest. So quite how you want to claim you meant it is irrelevant.

    Need a hug?


  • #851
    Retr0gamer
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 50,764 CMod ✭✭✭✭Retr0gamer


    gizmo wrote: »
    It's not really a shoddy business practice unless the final game is worse off due to the exclusion of said content though.

    It doesn't sit right with me but it's a fact of game development now and I can live with it if it doesn't make the final produt any worse, which is something I'm not arguing about at all.
    gizmo wrote: »
    Depends on the company, the team, the game and the content. If we're dealing in absolutes then you're incorrect to assume it isn't or can't be done. You recognise the fact that the art staff would be somewhat idle in this period but what about the designers, specifically those who specialise in level design and scripting?

    If you want to focus on From Ashes then, using your logic, how can you explain the split in content between that which was on the disc and the 600-odd megs of content which had to be downloaded afterwards?

    Designers who deal with scripting and level design would not be twiddling their thumbs during crunch time. I'd like to see one that decided to 'work to rule' at this time and still has a job. These guys will know code and will be heavily involved in QA and coding in the end process. I've not heard any accounts of anybody but the art guys not being up to their eyes during crunch time although I'm open to examples.

    As for the 600meg split in content, I guess with DLC and patches most developers aren't getting their holidays after the game goes gold anymore.
    hooradiation wrote: »
    What is it that makes you think artists can't create art assets without the aid of developers? What is it that makes you think the system for integrating the DLC would be "a nightmare" given that ME3 is built on the ME2 engine, which had support for this? And most importantly why are you confusing the time before content complete with the time after it's been submitted for certification??

    Making levels isn't a case of modelling stuff in maya and plonking it into the game engine and magically stuff like QA testing and game balance magically happen. It's a team endeavour and if your team is art guys it's not happening. Also plonking the DLC into an existing engine doesn't magically make it work and also work on the platform holders network without any security holes, which need to be tested for. There's a whole lot more that goes into it
    hooradiation wrote: »
    Certification does not take six months unless you've really screwed the pooch. Also, the certification process is much shorter for DLC than a fully fledged game, owing to it's size. Large chunks of the certification checklist simply will not apply to DLC and certainly a company with several previous titles on the 360/PS3 that have DLC components are going to have experience to deal with the DLC certification process for both platform holders. This entire version of reality literally rests on the notion that at some point between ME2 and ME3 everyone at bioware forgot how to do their jobs.

    Certification might not take that long then. Still it's not exactly an entirely painless process. I doubt it takes a few hours.
    hooradiation wrote: »
    New projects, like "from ashes"? And it's not simple logistics - it's an assertion predicated on what appears to be very shoddy underlying knowledge.

    I still don't believe 2 months is enough time to create such a significant piece of content and it's QA.
    hooradiation wrote: »
    But your not, so I have no idea why you're trying to argue for a version of events based on understanding that is shoddy at best. You claim to have a science background - you wouldn't accept people with no real science background making arguments about scientific topics based on "what makes sense" to them, why in the hell are you so intent on trying to do that here?

    I'm just going on the evidence that I have and waiting for a better explanation of events. I don't suppose you have much experience with the game development process? I'd just find it very odd and not good business practice if EA/Bioware didn't develop the DLC in tandem, saving time, money resources and headaches. It would be bad development and business practice if they didn't. I can't see how it would make sense the other way but I'm open to learning.
    Untitled Image




  • Advertisement
  • #852
    gizmo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    It doesn't sit right with me but it's a fact of game development now and I can live with it if it doesn't make the final produt any worse, which is something I'm not arguing about at all.
    In theory it makes complete logical sense though, I don't know why it wouldn't sit right with you. But yes, as I said, the difference between it being actually acceptable or not is whether the omission of said content harms the final game.
    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    Designers who deal with scripting and level design would not be twiddling their thumbs during crunch time. I'd like to see one that decided to 'work to rule' at this time and still has a job. These guys will know code and will be heavily involved in QA and coding in the end process. I've not heard any accounts of anybody but the art guys not being up to their eyes during crunch time although I'm open to examples.
    That level of design would be locked down at the content complete stage which comes a good bit before code complete.
    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    As for the 600meg split in content, I guess with DLC and patches most developers aren't getting their holidays after the game goes gold anymore.
    "Depends on the company, the team, the game and the content." :)


  • #853
    hooradiation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭hooradiation


    degrassinoel wrote: »
    Need a hug?

    Ok, but no straying south of the equator. Thems the rules.
    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    Making levels isn't a case of modelling stuff in maya and plonking it into the game engine and magically stuff like QA testing and game balance magically happen. It's a team endeavour and if your team is art guys it's not happening.

    This doesn't answer the question, why do you think that artists cannot create assets independent of the coding team?
    What makes you think there's no tool chain for viewing these assets within engine?
    Everything here is based on some crazy notion that artists cannot work without coders hovering nearby to do *something* and that content can't be produced unless an entire team is assembled.

    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    Also plonking the DLC into an existing engine doesn't magically make it work and also work on the platform holders network without any security holes, which need to be tested for. There's a whole lot more that goes into it

    Actually, if you've done anything approaching sane systems design in the slightest, it pretty much will.

    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    Certification might not take that long then. Still it's not exactly an entirely painless process. I doubt it takes a few hours.

    Nobody thinks it does, but certification for XBLA titles is usually in and around three weeks and DLC is many orders smaller again.

    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    I still don't believe 2 months is enough time to create such a significant piece of content and it's QA.

    Were it created from nothing, maybe. But with it being cut content then the team already have assets to work with. Add to that a decently designed system and the three months they had is more than enough

    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    I don't suppose you have much experience with the game development process?

    Well, there are two options here, either I have or I'm just another fat mess of an nerd, wasting time and energy debating things I don't really understand.
    Which one it is I'll leave as an exercise to the reader.
    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    I'd just find it very odd and not good business practice if EA/Bioware didn't develop the DLC in tandem, saving time, money resources and headaches. It would be bad development and business practice if they didn't. I can't see how it would make sense the other way but I'm open to learning.

    Lets leave aside every attempt at trying to explain software development and look at this - if you take people out of the core team to develop DLC during the development of the main game you're going to place more pressure on the core team to finish on time. So either the game gets delayed - which is bad or the game has to be cut in other ways to accommodate the launch. Also bad.
    You could draft in people from other teams, but they'll take time getting up to speed and you're also cutting into those teams and their projects - not as bad, but sub-optimal.
    You could hire more people, but the learning issue is there again and now you're spending even more money, probably the worst option.

    Or you could use the period between the start of certification and release to make the DLC from whatever assets had been made at the point it was cut, adding in whatever else you need and if you've thought about your systems design at all there ought to be a robust system for adding DLC content for you to work with.
    That way you have the full range of internal assets to work with, as opposed to having to fight with the main project for resources.

    Or this graph, if you'd prefer.


  • #854
    degrassinoel
    Registered Users Posts: 10,731 ✭✭✭✭degrassinoel


    hooradiation wrote: »
    Ok, but no straying south of the equator. Thems the rules.

    :Dhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzgpeLFf4z4


  • #855
    Retr0gamer
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 50,764 CMod ✭✭✭✭Retr0gamer


    hooradiation wrote: »
    Lets leave aside every attempt at trying to explain software development and look at this - if you take people out of the core team to develop DLC during the development of the main game you're going to place more pressure on the core team to finish on time. So either the game gets delayed - which is bad or the game has to be cut in other ways to accommodate the launch. Also bad.
    You could draft in people from other teams, but they'll take time getting up to speed and you're also cutting into those teams and their projects - not as bad, but sub-optimal.
    You could hire more people, but the learning issue is there again and now you're spending even more money, probably the worst option.

    Or you could use the period between the start of certification and release to make the DLC from whatever assets had been made at the point it was cut, adding in whatever else you need and if you've thought about your systems design at all there ought to be a robust system for adding DLC content for you to work with.
    That way you have the full range of internal assets to work with, as opposed to having to fight with the main project for resources.

    Or this graph, if you'd prefer.

    Thanks, that sums it up a lot better.
    Untitled Image




  • #856
    johnny_ultimate
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,073 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    Eggy Baby! wrote: »
    But of course, people who buy EA-published used games and have to fork out the cash for online passes might disagree with me.

    Frankly, the people who buy used games deserve any costs (and hardly hidden costs at that) they incur :) While I fully understand the arguments for a used game's market... actually that's a can of worms I don't want to open again. In short: online pass = AOK.
    And I was very satisfied with ME3. Hopefully they can turn this ending thing around because the game is perfect up to that point.

    Apart from the repetitive level design, hilariously awful sex scenes, redundant / pointless N7 missions, lack of variety in multiplayer, the story's odd lack of urgency in everything but the opening and closing stretches, a dialogue system distinctly lacking in subtlety or surprise, the face import glitch, the simplistic moral dichotomy... sure! :pac:
    My friend has Dead Space 2 and although he found the singleplayer great, he believes that the multiplayer felt tacked-on and is convinced EA had something to do with it. Although everyone decried the prospect of multi in Mass Effect 3, it is bloody great fun (although I disagree with some design decisions, like the randomized unlock packs).

    No need to convince your friend, because he's right! It should be noted that Dead Space 2 sold several million more copies at launch than its predecessor, so that kind of blurs the argument, and probably can't really begrudge EA on that one (heck, I never even played the MP as I fully expected it to be awful). And also that in almost every respect Dead Space 2 is a disappointing sequel lacking in invention: which I put down entirely to Visceral Games' failing to expand the scope and the quality rather than EA... After all, it's the gamers who have frequently proven themselves unwilling to invest in predominantly single-player games that have the cheek to be short, compact and efficient.

    In conclusion: everyone is to blame for everything, and we're all assholes.


  • #857
    Ian7
    Registered Users Posts: 321 ✭✭Ian7


    johnny_ultimate wrote: »
    In conclusion: everyone is to blame for everything, and we're all assholes.

    baaahhhhahahah. I leave for a few hours and come back to find we're 3 pages further and this is the conclusion?

    bahahahaha. oh you guys.:D:D


  • #858
    Ian7
    Registered Users Posts: 321 ✭✭Ian7


    now, on to more pressing issues...:p... anyone understand what Liara's mind meld vision was supposed to represent in the middle of the earth mission or was it supposed to just look.....nice?:o


  • #859
    degrassinoel
    Registered Users Posts: 10,731 ✭✭✭✭degrassinoel


    isnt that similar to how asari procreate?


  • #860
    J. Marston
    Registered Users Posts: 23,101 ✭✭✭✭J. Marston


    Finished it earlier and while the game is brilliant and far longer than I thought it would be, the ending is....I dunno, just doesn't satisfy me really.

    Do I need spoiler tags? I mean if you don't want to be spoiled, don't be in a thread about the ending.

    Anyway, is it really too much to ask for just a good, nice ending? It may be simple but just an ending where ya know, The Reapers get their arses kicked by The Crucible, Shepard gets busted up but survives and the galaxy starts rebuilding? No, fair enough.

    When I got to the stage where I had the 3 choices (Control, Synthesis, Destroy), I was genuinely flummoxed. I actually said to myself ''What do I do?'' Not that I didn't understand, I just didn't know how I wanted to approach it.

    I eventually started walking down the synthesis path, got half way down that and then thought ''No, I've been saying for the whole game that The Reapers must be destroyed and I'm not going to change now.'' So I turned around and then I got a game over screen, apparently I took too long and The Crucible was destroyed so it reloaded and went to the path to destroy.

    What followed then: flashes of Joker, Anderson and Liara, big red electric sphere kills The Reapers on Earth (yay!) Mass Relays get destroyed (The fleets of Krogans, Asari, Turians, Quarians etc. are trapped now, I assume?)
    Joker tries to outrun the big red sphere (felt bad during that :() The Normandy crashes lands on some jungle planet, out comes Joker and Ashley and then Garrus, they stare off into the distance and this where I get confused. For the final mission, I brought Garrus and Liara with me. Now, when we were running towards the beam and Harbinger lasered the crap out of everyone, I'm assuming Garrus and Liara would have died. But even if they didn't how the hell did Garrus get back on The Normandy?

    Also, once the credits rolled and the Stargazer speech was over, I'm back on the Normandy just before the ''Attack The Cerberus Base'' mission, is it worth playing through two more times to see the Control and Synthesis endings? Don't want to Youtube it, feels like cheating.

    Anyway, just wanted to vent/release a bit after completing it. Great game, ending a little meh.


  • #861
    muff03
    Registered Users Posts: 501 ✭✭✭muff03


    J. Marston wrote: »

    Also, once the credits rolled and the Stargazer speech was over, I'm back on the Normandy just before the ''Attack The Cerberus Base'' mission, is it worth playing through two more times to see the Control and Synthesis endings? Don't want to Youtube it, feels like cheating.

    Load game, there should be an auto save right at the choices.

    I enjoyed the whole thing to be honest, once the extended endings fill the gaps of how the team was back on the Normandy and why they were using a Relay I won't see any other reason to alter them. I always had a feeling Earth was screwed since the game takes place while Earth is getting hammered. I got the perfect ending so the whole taking a breath was fine, but even if Shep died in cannon it would be, in my view, a good end as I always felt the 'Ultimate Sacrifice' card was on the table from the off. I miss Mass Effect already.


  • Advertisement
  • #862
    Ian7
    Registered Users Posts: 321 ✭✭Ian7


    degrassinoel wrote: »
    isnt that similar to how asari procreate?

    uh oh. :eek: My Shepard is in a long term relationship with Miss Williams. Does this mean she violated Shepard or does it mean he is a dirty dog??


  • #863
    Potential-Monke
    Registered Users Posts: 13,794 ✭✭✭✭Potential-Monke


    I blame the Nazis... [/thread] :)


  • #864
    Eggy Baby!
    Registered Users Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Eggy Baby!


    Apart from the repetitive level design, hilariously awful sex scenes, redundant / pointless N7 missions, lack of variety in multiplayer, the story's odd lack of urgency in everything but the opening and closing stretches, a dialogue system distinctly lacking in subtlety or surprise, the face import glitch, the simplistic moral dichotomy... sure! pacman.gif
    The N7 missions did imo, seem like they were just designed for multiplayer first and then translated into the singleplayer.

    The levels actually were quite repetitive, coming to think about it. It was mainly the huge vistas which made them seem unique (for example, the Thessia and Earth levels are very similar. Shoot Reapers, jump over stuff, jump over some more stuff, open doors) but the level design was rather hackneyed. For example, turret sequences are some of my most hated gaming cliches. This game had several.

    The face import glitch also pissed me off. I had to jury-rig my Shepard and am only doing a playthrough with my actual Shepard now.
    Frankly, the people who buy used games deserve any costs (and hardly hidden costs at that) they incur :) While I fully understand the arguments for a used game's market... actually that's a can of worms I don't want to open again. In short: online pass = AOK.
    But don't people purchase used (and very likely inferior quality) games because they are cheaper? Fro example, I bought Homefront used to see how it was. I had no idea I'd have to fork out a tenner for an online pass. There were no new copies in the shop to buy. My game was subject to crashes, freezes et al but to play the whole thing I had to pay full price? A game which is focused on multiplayer, having an online pass is crazy. I know the companies want to retain revenue, because for every used game sold that's one less new game purchased, but I understand their logic, if I do disagree with it.
    Also, once the credits rolled and the Stargazer speech was over, I'm back on the Normandy just before the ''Attack The Cerberus Base'' mission, is it worth playing through two more times to see the Control and Synthesis endings? Don't want to Youtube it, feels like cheating.
    Sorry but no it's not. The endings are unfortunately the same in essence. However, if your favourite colours happen to be blue or green, then I would recommend playing through the last stretch to get control/synthesis. :)


  • #865
    johnny_ultimate
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,073 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    Eggy Baby! wrote: »
    But don't people purchase used (and very likely inferior quality) games because they are cheaper? Fro example, I bought Homefront used to see how it was. I had no idea I'd have to fork out a tenner for an online pass. There were no new copies in the shop to buy. My game was subject to crashes, freezes et al but to play the whole thing I had to pay full price? A game which is focused on multiplayer, having an online pass is crazy. I know the companies want to retain revenue, because for every used game sold that's one less new game purchased, but I understand their logic, if I do disagree with it.

    This is an argument that has been had before on this boards, with ever frustrating results, so don't want to drag it into this thread. But in essence: why are you entitled to a service from, say, EA - multiplayer in the case of ME3, which has constant server and maintenance costs attached, not to mention the development and production costs - when you haven't paid them a cent? Only the retailer has gotten your money from the purchase, so in this particular case EA / Bioware owes you absolutely nothing at all as you haven't even had the courtesy to pay them for their game. So yes, I am a wholehearted supporter of online passes: providing you with a luxury good or service in exchange for money. Capitalism huzzah!


  • #866
    Ian7
    Registered Users Posts: 321 ✭✭Ian7


    J. Marston wrote: »
    I eventually started walking down the synthesis path, got half way down that and then thought ''No, I've been saying for the whole game that The Reapers must be destroyed and I'm not going to change now.'' So I turned around and then I got a game over screen, apparently I took too long and The Crucible was destroyed

    You've unlocked the secret "forth" ending. The cut scene that follows is pretty short but it makes more sense. :pac: I think the extended cut DLC also elaborates more on this option, where you see the star child staring blankly at Shepard's body.
    Eggy Baby! wrote: »
    Sorry but no it's not. The endings are unfortunately the same in essence. However, if your favourite colours happen to be blue or green, then I would recommend playing through the last stretch to get control/synthesis. :)

    I wike wed


  • #867
    degrassinoel
    Registered Users Posts: 10,731 ✭✭✭✭degrassinoel


    Ian7 wrote: »
    uh oh. :eek: My Shepard is in a long term relationship with Miss Williams. Does this mean she violated Shepard or does it mean he is a dirty dog??

    Yeah my femshep was in a relationship with the Kelly Chambers replacement, who's name i forget..
    it just kinda happened lol, anyway, yeah i thought that was how the Asari reproduced. Asarishep DLC!


  • #868
    J. Marston
    Registered Users Posts: 23,101 ✭✭✭✭J. Marston


    Just figured out that the only way to raise my galactic readiness was to play multiplayer. Shít, I don't play online so it was stuck on 50% for the whole game giving me a military strength of something like 3200.


  • #869
    degrassinoel
    Registered Users Posts: 10,731 ✭✭✭✭degrassinoel


    you can get the "best/worst" endings without ever having played the co-op online J.

    Also, on Asari reproduction..
    During melding, an asari consciously attunes her nervous system to her partner's, sending and receiving electrical impulses directly through the skin. A common phrase used before melding is "embrace eternity," presumably to help focus the partner's mind. Effectively, the asari and her partner briefly become one unified nervous system. This unique means of reproduction is the reason asari are all talented biotics. Their evolved ability to consciously control nerve impulses is very similar to biotic training. The partner can be another asari, or an alien of any gender. However, since the asari began encountering other sentient species, non-asari mates have become preferred for the diversity they provide. This reproductive process can lead to some confusion among non-asari, who might expect offspring with "mixed" genes. However, the offspring is always 100% asari as no DNA is taken from the partner, but is rather used as a "map" to randomize the genes of the offspring.

    An asari's melding ability extends to a mental connection as well, which Liara describes as being the true union between an asari and her partner. It allows the asari to explore her partner's genetic heritage and pass desirable traits on to any offspring. During mating an asari and her partner share memories, thoughts, and feelings. It is also possible for an asari to meld with another for the sole purpose of transferring thoughts, without reproduction. This technique is used by both Liara and Shiala, with varying success; Liara finds the ordeal extremely intense and debilitating.

    Source: http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Asari


  • #870
    Kiith
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 23,050 Mod ✭✭✭✭Kiith


    degrassinoel wrote: »
    you can get the "best/worst" endings without ever having played the co-op online J.

    I thought the only way to get the 'Sheppard Lives' ending was to play multiplayer?


  • Advertisement
  • #871
    degrassinoel
    Registered Users Posts: 10,731 ✭✭✭✭degrassinoel


    Nope, it does involve doing a lot more side-quests for war assets, and arsing around with the system scanning. The coop certainly helps but it is not a requirement to get all three endings.

    My first playthrough, i did zero co-op, my galactic readiness was at 50% for the whole game and i had all three options, i still have the save here if you'd like it? could probably root it out and mail it to you.


Advertisement