Comments on: Nominally about Mass Effect 3

By: VulpesRex

VulpesRex — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 19:30:57 +0000

In reply to mpc. Which, in fact, would also have destroyed Sol. Considering the destruction ending with Shephard presumably surviving on Earth, there are certainly some illogical bits to the ME3 storytelling. A DLC pack that explains the last 20 minutes as an indoctrination attempt to see what choice Shephard would make in regards to destroying the reapers would give Bioware a chance to write a more satisfying ending.

By: VulpesRex

VulpesRex — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 19:25:39 +0000

In reply to Theo. The Catalyst never explains WHY he/she/it chose the form of the young boy. We assume that it is a contact-esque reason behind the form, but it is never explained. And that, I believe, is jorm's point.

By: Sage

Sage — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 19:00:55 +0000

Decided I didn’t like Mass Effect 2 enough to care about spoilers (never played 1). Now I realize that I definitely don’t care enough about the story to worry much about this particular ending.

What left me most unsatisfied with with ME2 was how limited and artificial the elements of player control in gameplay felt. Here’s your map of locations. Here’s your cheesy navigation screen where you “fly” from quest location to quest location. I’m still waiting for a game that feels like, rather than a multitude of discrete story choices, that satisfying stories feel like they emerge synthetically from gameplay choices.

I want Darklands reimagined as space opera.

By: mpc

mpc — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 02:52:04 +0000

The destruction of the the mass relays does far worse than stranding aliens. Both the ME2 Arrival DLC and the ME3 Codex state that the destruction of a mass relay also destroys the planets within its system.

By: Logan

Logan — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 00:40:25 +0000

I agree with everything here.

Although I like the theories about the last 20 minutes or so being a dream like attempt at Reaper indoctrination. If they release a free update in a bit that fleshes out a “true” ending that would be some “interesting” story telling.

By: Theo

Theo — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 21:31:08 +0000

A couple of points-
1) Shephard doesn’t necessarily die. There is one part of the good ending above a certain war asset level, that alludes to him surviving and waking up in London. See the youtube links on the link I used.
2) The god-like being actually does use the exact same contact cliche, of choosing a familiar form for Shephard.
3) Relays getting destroyed was a major oversight by the dev. team but I think they can find a way around it somehow, if they choose to continue.
4) Here’s the thing about rebelling synthetics. It is the exact same idea used in the Matrix. Where the architect’s job was to balance the equation, and oracle’s to unbalance it. Shephard broke the equation, but it does make some sense. Instead of Chaos prevailing, synthetics and AI constantly fighting; it starts new every 50k years. Think of the quarians and the geth, it wasn’t a one-sided fight. The underlying theme wasn’t as much as the synthetics vs. organic, as creator vs. creation. Creation would rebel against its creator, what can a higher power do, but start anew. Not the most ideal or logical solution, but kinda fits.