Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[-Firestar-]

Gotta love how a thread about a game quickly turns into a political debate about everything that is not the game.

Haven't gotten to the ending yet (I hear they're terrible) but for me, it's not about the ending. It's about all the stupid little interactions. Garrus teaching Joker turian humor, EDI trying to cheer up Shepard. Tali's "emergency induction port". All priceless moments and all make up the game moreso than any ending.

[hermes]

OK, I am totally anti-EA and if voodoo dolls worked I'd have one made to represent their corporate entity and play with it all day for what they did to Dragon Age and Mass Effect.

With that out the way, what I want to know is, for someone who loved the original concept of Mass Effect (like, 5 years ago), and loved the first game, but hates to see the quality of anything artistic drop, would you guys recommend I played 2 and 3?

I was a huge fan of Bioware until the EA buyout, but they have lost all that love with infantile marketing, development practices and customer care.  All the key writers have left both teams now Drew's gone, EA are just milking the cow (to try and stay alive) that a decade of solid RPG development built.  It makes me sick, and I will never buy an EA game again - BUT I would consider buying ME 2 and 3 (second hand, of course!) if it offers a solid conclusion to my favourite space RPG of all time.  Without spoilers, do you folks think the trilogy ended as well as it started?

[umiman]

I still think 2 was pretty good.

[Ehndras]

All I've heard is 1 was clunky as fuck and absolutely blew. I just played and beat 2 and the pre-order collector's edition 3 with bonus missions and absolutely LOVED them.

[Trapezohedron]

2's pretty good. A wee bit runny-gunny-hide-under-cover for some peoples' tastes, but gameplay's good (improved overall than 1), plot's firm and all that.

I've yet to play ME3; download's taking too long to finish, so I can't give my opinions for it.

[Darkmere]

Plot gripes from both 2 and 3 aside, I've thoroughly enjoyed both. Just understand that they aren't 1, and you'll be fine. If you insist that everything be like 1, you'll be disappointed. I honestly find the combat more engaging than the clunky, awkward stuck-and-cover from 1, and the universe gets fleshed out nicely, for the most part.

[Vel]

2 is quite good, provided you aren't hung up entirely on the RPG aspects, which are rather thin.

3 is the same way, but it falls apart at the end.

To the point where you would literally have a more satisfying gaming experience by playing the (very fun and enjoyable) game right up until the ending sequence, alt+F4ing, and then imagining your own ending.


I really do wish I was kidding.

[Kilroy the Grand]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

So I'm hearing news from the SomethingAwful forums that the journalist who is playing the advance copy of ME3 is letting loose some gossip heard at Bioware: that the reason for the Reapers' cycle was something that was dramatically changed after Drew Karpyshyn was transferred to the Star Wars team.

The original motivation for the Reapers was as follows.

"The Reapers' goal was to find a way to stop the spread of Dark Energy which would eventually consume everything. That's why there was so much foreshadowing about Dark Energy in ME2.

The Reapers as a whole were 'nations' of people who had fused together in the most horrific way possible to help find a way to stop the spread of the Dark Energy. The real reason for the Human Reaper was supposed to be the Reapers saving throw because they had run out of time. Humanity in Mass Effect is supposedly unique because of it's genetic diversity and represented the universe's best chance at stopping Dark Energy's spread.

The original final choice was going to be "Kill the Reapers and put your faith in the races of the galaxy in finding another way to stop the spread with what little time is left" or "Sacrifice humanity, allowing them to be horrifically processed in hopes that the end result will justify the means."

(The SomethingAwful guy then goes on to say that all the foreshadowing about dark energy in ME2 (including Haestrom) is never brought up again in ME3.)


The Reapers new motivation is as follows.

(Most of this paraphrased from what a guy on BSN said)

The Reapers new goal is that they are working to prevent a technological singularity. The quick definition of a "technological singularity" is basically a point when the machines of a civilization become more advanced than their creators and they are able to outdo their creators in pretty much every way imaginable.

The game attempts to justify the Singularity Motivation because all it takes is ONE incident with A.I. to bring about an apocalyptic war that would destroy all organics. Project Overlord was a very, very clear example of this: Cerberus nearly destroyed the entire galaxy. Organics lucked out big time that the Geth were so understanding and that A.I. like EDI are tame (and even then, EDI did something in the past before ME2 that may make you view her in a very different light: Mass Effect 3 reveals this).

The Reapers aren't hypocrites (in concept) in the Singularity Motivation because they don't perceive themselves as machines wiping out organics. They see themselves as immortal vessels that preserve a civilization forever that just happens to be synthetic. They see themselves as the saviors of organics for letting them grow and prosper and then harvesting them before they evolve to the point of singularity. "Imposing order on the chaos of organic evolution" as Sovereign said.

People say over and over that the Mass Effect trilogy was planned out in meticulous detail when it launched. While they may still be following the outline they had at one point, it is clear that the change up of the writing team during Mass Effect 2 left the story flailing in the wind significantly.

At this point, there are only 2 writers from Mass Effect 1 still with the series: Mac Walters and Patrick Weekes. Please look at what happened to all the writers from the ME series:

ME1
Drew Karpyshyn (lead writer) - went to Bioware Austin sometime during ME2's development; he quit Bioware on Feb. 15, 2012, and left the video game industry
Chris L'Etoile - quit Bioware in 2008 to go to ZeniMax Online (the parent company of Bethesda)
Luke Kristjanson - moved to Dragon Age team
Patrick Weekes - still writes for Mass Effect games
Mac Walters - still writes for Mass Effect series, currently lead writer as of ME2

ME2 (In addition to those listed above, ME2 has these writers on the credits):
Malcolm Azania - left Bioware for Maxis
Chris Hepler- Unknown
Brian Kindregan - left Bioware for Blizzard
Jay Turner - Unknown

Therefore of all the original ME1 writers, only 2 remain (Patrick Weekes and Mac Walters). And Patrick Weekes didn't even do much for ME1.

In any case, what we can say for certain is that Bioware did not have such a significant change in the story planned out from day one.

http://www.ign.com/boards/threads/somethingawful-the-plot-of-me3-changed-dramatically-big-big-spoilers.250066288/

[Microcline]

OK, I am totally anti-EA and if voodoo dolls worked I'd have one made to represent their corporate entity and play with it all day for what they did to Dragon Age and Mass Effect.

With that out the way, what I want to know is, for someone who loved the original concept of Mass Effect (like, 5 years ago), and loved the first game, but hates to see the quality of anything artistic drop, would you guys recommend I played 2 and 3?

I was a huge fan of Bioware until the EA buyout, but they have lost all that love with infantile marketing, development practices and customer care.  All the key writers have left both teams now Drew's gone, EA are just milking the cow (to try and stay alive) that a decade of solid RPG development built.  It makes me sick, and I will never buy an EA game again - BUT I would consider buying ME 2 and 3 (second hand, of course!) if it offers a solid conclusion to my favourite space RPG of all time.  Without spoilers, do you folks think the trilogy ended as well as it started?

It depends on what you played the games for.  The character writing is roughly the same with a couple good characters (Mordin, Garrus, Grunt, Zaeed), a couple bad characters (the obligatory humans, brought in because Bioware remembered how much everyone loved Carth and the space Nazi in the first game), and some filler.  The gameplay is also roughly the same, being a generic popamole shooter unless you choose vanguard.

The plot is utterly retarded though (the original head writer left after the first game, leaving the incompetent Mac Walters in charge), and if that bothers you I'd avoid the game at all costs.  In the first fifteen minutes Shepard dies pointlessly and is then brought back to life using technology that's never mentioned again.  The crazy plot holes and retcons that occur in this fifteen minute period are pretty well-documented here (there aren't any spoilers as it only covers the first fifteen or so minutes of the game).  All of Shepard's dialog options tend to boil down to "I bet it was the reapers!", making him seem like a raving lunatic when he should be trying to win allies.  The reveal of the Collector's plan is so outright ridiculous that you will be unable to take the reapers seriously as villains again.  Also, it went from "an unlikely hero from a backwater planet saves the galaxy" to "humans are special for no particular reason".

It's worth 10 dollars if you just want to biotic charge people and listen to some interesting characters.  I'd never give them money for ME3 though.  Their massive arrogance in attempting to silence all criticism shows that they are unworthy of customer support.  When they criticized the large number of players who complained about the quality of the product they bought as "entitled gamers" it felt more like the punchline to a Yakov Smirnoff joke than something an actual company would say to it's consumers.  That said, everything I hear about the game sounds like a complete ass-pull, from the reaper's motivations to their method of defeat.

[NobodyPro]

If my brain remembers correctly, Mass Effect 1 was very flawed. If it weren't for the story I wouldn't have finished the game (FUCKING GOLDEN TOWER PUZZLE!). The planet exploration was the pits in terms of gameplay and visual appeal but it expanded the backstory well.
The series is yet to top the Thorian Creepers however. We need more enemies that have nothing to do with any large faction/appear everywhere. Sure the Creepers appeared throughout the exploration missions but we've already covered that.

Also: Please tell me that saving the Rachni doesn't just get you a conversation and a bonus to Galactic Readiness or whatever. I don't care about spoilers.

[umiman]

You'll meet her again later, NobodyPro.

[squeakyReaper]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

If they sold me a little more on the singularity thing, I would have bought it. During the interaction between EDI and the Illusive Man on his base (something to the tune of "it was necessary" to take over) was really sharp and to the point about it. If they pressed on that, rather than just vaguely making the Reapers seem like massive dicks, I would have bought it. As is, the kid at the end just really doesn't make the point very well. "Gotta kill you guys before the synthetics do." Well gee, thanks.

Just finished the game though. Bloomin'... ending. Such a beautiful game, though I must admit I saw how they really boxed themselves into a corner here. Taking down one Reaper in ME1 was believable and massive, you spend all of ME2 foiling a single Reaper's efforts... but ME3 just throws Reapers at you. I was really hoping to talk to Harbinger, but all I got was seeing everyone get melted. Including, possibly... my squad mates that were with me. That... magically appeared on the ship during the ending.

[Gotdamnmiracle]

Am I the only dude who liked the barren planet landscape? I thought it was eerie and realistic. I would have preferred a quicker tank maybe,  but  I liked not knowing what was out there. Even when you have gone over the planet two or three times you keep finding new things. The things were only mineral deposits but I felt they could have really expanded on that. I guess it was to much hoping for an RPG with guns to have actual exploration. I also loved the massive amount of voice acting and quests there were, even if some of the more off the beaten path quests and quotes were a tad stale. I liked mass effect 1.

[Darkmere]

Complete rachni outcome (that I know of):

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Saving the queen in 1 results in the reapers capturing her and enslaving her brood. Wrex gives you a mission to go meet up with Grunt's elite krogan batallion to investigate rumors of resurfacing rachni. You kill a bunch of husks and infested rachni, find the queen. You can buy time for her to escape by sacrificing the krogan squad, or not take the chance of another infestation, save the krogan elite, and leave her to die.

If you didn't save the queen, reapers have cloned a new queen. Same options. Should you save the new queen, you still lose the krogan squad, and indoctrinated rachni workers slaughter many scientists working on the crucible.

In short:
Grunt's squad saved: +75 pts
Loyal Rachni queen saved: +100 pts (25 pt gain, must sacrifice grunt's squad)
Indoctrinated clone queen saved : -?? pts, as you lose the krogan squad, scientists, and get no benefit from indoctrinated rachni.

Grunt is worth 25 pts and survives regardless, if he was loyal and survived ME2. Otherwise, he dies covering Shepard's escape.

In short, it's a damn paltry gain for making Grunt sacrifice the first multi-clan krogan elite. I probably won't choose to save her again.

ME1 was okay as a starter for the franchise, but whoever designed the landscape obviously never bothered to check how the Mako handled. At all. I like the *idea* of planetary exploration, but having 95% of everything you can find be locked crates or empty fetch quests was squandered potential. All non-plot locations were the same 2 or 3 buildings with the crates moved around. It was short on time and budget, and that showed. I don't look forward to playing it again (I saved Adept for the last class I'll play, through all 3 games, full completion. Gonna be tough to get started), but I've certainly played much worse.

[SeriousConcentrate]

Spoiler: Wait, what? (click to show/hide)

Even if you kill the Queen, she still shows up in ME3? I admit I've only played as my Paragon F!Sheps so I've saved the Queen both times... but really, another case of the game ignoring previous choices you've made? I'm all right with there being altered Rachni whether or not you saved the Queen - just use the excuse that the Reapers have them on hand, like the Collectors, which apparently the creators have no problem using - but them being all 'oh, man, can you really kill off a whole species' in the first game and making it seem like the Noveria decision is a big deal, when in fact this mission was going to be exactly the same no matter what, is pretty lame.

I feel that if you killed the Queen, you should've had to fight a boss Queen Ravager, because that would be awesome (if a little difficult).

And yeah, agree about ME1. There are a lot of good things about it, but level design isn't really one of them. ^^^; God I hate the Mako. >.>