alhoon wrote:Can't say I see the fuss about the endings. OK, they're kinda lamish but nothing terrible. I frankly expected the ending to be far less enjoyable from what I've read.
Lamish is kinda problematic. It would be okay to pull off an ending like that to a single game. But to end an entire trilogy that took hundreds of hours to play. A series of games excellent to this point. The end of the first realarrative epic in gaming.
Lame is pretty close to terrible.
Re: Mass effect 3
Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:42 am
by alhoon
On the other hand, would the last 5 minutes out of, what, 150 hours playtime matter that much?
Yes they matter but they're not going to stop me from saying to everyone:
"The Mass effect trilogy was amazing"
VIEW CONTENT:
You don't end spacetravel, it will just take months/years for them to go back. But sure as hell they will have problems with fuel etc. The huge armada in my game propably took quite a beating though from the reapers. But even if they lost like 2/3rds of their soldiers (which would be a HUGE rating, battles rarely end with more than 30% casualties) they still are a freaking large armada.
The cured Krogan would be a REAL problem if they take like 3 years to reach back their place. They would have increased at least 10fold, including with survivors attacking and killing babies and women of the other clans to stop them from being large.
And once you rationalize infanticide of your own people, the galaxy is in trouble
Re: Mass effect 3
Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 11:39 am
by Zilfer
alhoon wrote:On the other hand, would the last 5 minutes out of, what, 150 hours playtime matter that much?
Yes they matter but they're not going to stop me from saying to everyone:
"The Mass effect trilogy was amazing"
VIEW CONTENT:
You don't end spacetravel, it will just take months/years for them to go back. But sure as hell they will have problems with fuel etc. The huge armada in my game propably took quite a beating though from the reapers. But even if they lost like 2/3rds of their soldiers (which would be a HUGE rating, battles rarely end with more than 30% casualties) they still are a freaking large armada.
The cured Krogan would be a REAL problem if they take like 3 years to reach back their place. They would have increased at least 10fold, including with survivors attacking and killing babies and women of the other clans to stop them from being large.
And once you rationalize infanticide of your own people, the galaxy is in trouble
Where do you get that it will take a few months for them to get back to their worlds? I know one of the endings it would sure take well more then a few months to get back. I thought
Spoilers
VIEW CONTENT:
blowing up the relays was a bit over dramatic for the ending. Cutting everyone off like that. Leaving most of the fleet suspended over earth's solar system too. And definately if you get the hardest one to get or at least the one you need at least around 4000 war assests for, which is destroy ending, and shepard lives! All technology was wiped out, which i think would be a major set back.
The closest thing I've seen that would make it maybe possible for them to get around is "faster than light travel acheived" when your going from solar system to solar system. Even IF that's enough speed to get them back home, i'm seriously doubting some could make the trip all the way across the galaxy. It's going to be hard enough to pick up supplies for a trip like that, and they'd probably come across large parts of the galaxy they aren't familiar with, i think it's going to take more then a few months/years for them to get back on their feet without the Mass Relays. As far as I know they never learned how the Relay's worked fully to build one themselves. (could be wrong i might have missed something)
Anyone read up on the indoctrination theory about Mass Effect 3's Ending? It's an interesting idea to say the least, however i don't think i believe it.
Re: Mass effect 3
Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:55 pm
by alhoon
Well...
VIEW CONTENT:
With the FTL drives that exist, as you said the ones you use to go from planet to planet it was said that it would take like a few years to cross the galaxy from one corner to the other. So, I guess for those close to earth, it would be a few months.
Also the endings were mostly similar from what I saw, with little variation. From what I got when I chose the destroy ending (with 3500 assets) just the synthetics like EDI's body and the Geth along with the Mass relays were destroyed.
Re: Mass effect 3
Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 2:18 pm
by HuManBing
alhoon wrote:On the other hand, would the last 5 minutes out of, what, 150 hours playtime matter that much?
In drama, music, and narratives, endings do matter - and disproportionately so. Audiences will willingly sit through faulty plots and performances as long as the ending is strong. Likewise, an indifferent ending can derail a solid performance.
The importance of the ending grows in proportion to the effort the audience has made to stay with the plot. If it's a single movie, it's probably less troublesome than a lengthy TV series.
In this case it's the final ending of 150 hours of playtime. Your mathematical model assumes that the ending is less important because of all the play hours logged before it. I think many gamers would disagree, and maintain that the ending of the trilogy is crucial because they've already invested so many hours to reveal it.
I offer no actual comment on the Mass Effect trilogy itself. I've only played the first game and I have no particular interest to play the sequels.
Re: Mass effect 3
Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 4:11 pm
by Zilfer
alhoon wrote:Well...
VIEW CONTENT:
With the FTL drives that exist, as you said the ones you use to go from planet to planet it was said that it would take like a few years to cross the galaxy from one corner to the other. So, I guess for those close to earth, it would be a few months.
Also the endings were mostly similar from what I saw, with little variation. From what I got when I chose the destroy ending (with 3500 assets) just the synthetics like EDI's body and the Geth along with the Mass relays were destroyed.
VIEW CONTENT:
Negative all technology is whiped out. It's like a giant galactic EMP. Pretty much why the normandy went down though I ask.... if Garrus and Tali were on earth how the hell did they get to the normandy so fast? XD I'm pretty sure during the cutscene you see not only the reapers' ships stopping but the a few alliance ships stop moving as well. I can't think of why something like an EMP blast would be able to be selective and 'only take out' AI.
With that option the 'key' said that it would take time but it was possible that in the future AI's could be rebuilt and this would happen all over again. (though really i'd like to know more about what the hell came up with this solution in the first place)
Re: Mass effect 3
Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2012 12:51 am
by alhoon
HuManBing wrote:
alhoon wrote:On the other hand, would the last 5 minutes out of, what, 150 hours playtime matter that much?
In drama, music, and narratives, endings do matter - and disproportionately so. Audiences will willingly sit through faulty plots and performances as long as the ending is strong. Likewise, an indifferent ending can derail a solid performance.
The importance of the ending grows in proportion to the effort the audience has made to stay with the plot. If it's a single movie, it's probably less troublesome than a lengthy TV series.
In this case it's the final ending of 150 hours of playtime. Your mathematical model assumes that the ending is less important because of all the play hours logged before it. I think many gamers would disagree, and maintain that the ending of the trilogy is crucial because they've already invested so many hours to reveal it.
Well, I don't say you're wrong. I just say that for me, the ME trilogy was amazing ... except the last 5 mins and I don't consider them so important. But yes, even I consider the last 5 mins of 150 hours games like 30% of the thing. In ME3 case, I would drop it from 4.5 to 4 just for the ending.
Re: Mass effect 3
Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2012 12:58 am
by alhoon
Zilfer wrote:
VIEW CONTENT:
Negative all technology is whiped out. It's like a giant galactic EMP. Pretty much why the normandy went down though I ask.... if Garrus and Tali were on earth how the hell did they get to the normandy so fast? XD I'm pretty sure during the cutscene you see not only the reapers' ships stopping but the a few alliance ships stop moving as well. I can't think of why something like an EMP blast would be able to be selective and 'only take out' AI.
With that option the 'key' said that it would take time but it was possible that in the future AI's could be rebuilt and this would happen all over again. (though really i'd like to know more about what the hell came up with this solution in the first place)
VIEW CONTENT:
I think Normandy went down because it had reaper tech. Also, I wouldn't think it's an EMP blast, I would say it's a weapon geared against AI; destroying the AI or over-riding and controling it or... create a fusion with organics.
Also, if alliance ships stop moving in the emptyness of space, they are actually operating. I.e. operating enough to "hit the breaks" so to speak. As you said, the kid said that "your children" will make new AI. i.e. we're not in dark age, since Shepard got Liara pregnant.
Re: Mass effect 3
Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2012 3:19 am
by Zilfer
Indeed though I find it probably meant more long term with... "children." I guess it's left open to interpretation.
Re: Mass effect 3
Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2012 3:17 pm
by alhoon
Yeah, doesn't matter now, does it? The series ended.
Although Blizzard said that after popular demand they will add things to the ending.
Re: Mass effect 3
Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:22 pm
by Jester of the FoS
alhoon wrote:Yeah, doesn't matter now, does it? The series ended.
Although Blizzard said that after popular demand they will add things to the ending.
I believe you mean BioWare.
And it might not be the end, as EA really likes it being a hit series and will probably push for spin-offs or other sequels.
Re: Mass effect 3
Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 12:13 pm
by Zilfer
^Story seems finished, but that doesn't mean anything does it? I'd like to see another game of it personally though we might have a new main character which.... eh. Want to be shepard again! XD
Re: Mass effect 3
Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 5:49 pm
by Jester of the FoS
Well, the Halo series seemed done after 3 but they've managed to get four new games from it.
We might see prequels or stuff seen after or play another Specter.
Re: Mass effect 3
Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 8:18 pm
by alhoon
I would want a prequel first, not sequel.
ANd I doupt they made that large a universe just for the games and they will just shelf it now.
Re: Mass effect 3
Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:44 pm
by Zilfer
Jester of the FoS wrote:Well, the Halo series seemed done after 3 but they've managed to get four new games from it.
We might see prequels or stuff seen after or play another Specter.
Halo 3 didn't seem at all far from done. It prety much ended on a cliff hanger and you knew their would be another one. Master cheif goes into stasis and we see his stasis chamber falling down to an unknown planet. Oh yeah there's going to be another one. Infact if you go onto youtube you can probably see the video for Halo 4, and they are currently estimating late this year it will be out if i remember right.
