Mass Effect 3 SPOILER THREAD! - Page 2

Both, obviously.

Yep. And unfortunately, there's no way to remove the microtransaction infection from the gameplay. Even if you spend no MSP, it still had a huge influence on the game you're playing, and it is absolutely a lesser game for it.

I just can't get behind that in any way.

Exactly.

Also, another nice thing about multiplayer - you can play a different race. Right now I'm loving my Turian soldier and I never thought I would be. Playing a Krogan was one of the most rewarding experiences for me, though I still haven't unlocked it in the ufll game .

You also get the chance to experiment with lots of different powers and synergies. I keep finding new powers and combos to use. Right now I'm spamming the crap out of concussive shot and it's amazingly effective. Never thought it would be. As a player I am so much better at the solo game because of multiplayer. Seeing how other people play and adapting/learning is just great.

How is this an influence on the game? You didn't spend any money, so what - because it's there?

Honestly if it wasn't co-operative and instead was competitive, then your argument would hold some massive weight. I'd also probably be pissed off about it - it's part of the reason I stopped playing MtG - whoever spends the most money *usually* wins. But if it's co-operative, then EVERYONE wins.

Because it would be a different game without it. You might be able to customize your character as you see fit. You'd be able to choose your disposables freely (or not even have disposables at all).

The game is the way it is solely to extract money from the few willing to pay. I can't support that, and it totally cheapens whatever value was there.

...if that's your thing. Multiplayer (let's just start calling it Co-Op since that's really what it is ) in ME gives me absolutely nothing to work toward. Wheee, an ever-so-slightly better gun than I had before. Yaaay, my umpteenth health pack. Joy of joys! It's a new character to use against obliterate the same spastically moronic AI drones that keep doing the same spastically moronic tactics over and over and over again. Yawn.

True MP games like BF, L4D, etc, have actual humans that are capable of learning and evolving, thus at least being a slight threat at maybe presenting a challenge. (CoD doesn't count, since little kids simply set up camp and never adapt. )

In a FPS campaign, I'm working toward knowing and playing out the story. Now, some of the stories aren't that great (CoD, BF3, Homefront, Crysis, etc.) but others are actually fun (BadCo. 1 and 2, L4D 1 and 2, Bioshock 2, etc.) and they play out well. It's FAR more fun for me to have a long series of events lead up to a well-earned whole batch of cookies than to get a puny, insignificant crumb every 10 minutes.

It's all a matter of personal choice. It's why some revel in the glory that is found in the open-worldness of the; Oblivions, Skyrims, Fallouts, Red Deads, and countless others while some prefer to drop in something they can walk away from moments later. To each their own.

I've played FPS for far too long, some competitive some for fun, and find that other humans can be more predictable than the AI in Mass Effect 3. Of course playing against AI you can't make anyone rage, though.

I'm sorry, but I still don't follow. I can customize my character as I see fit without spending any money...

Except your bound to use a silly system involving disposables and randomized items. I have very, very limited options from the start.

ok so you're upset about not having a lot to start out with. That's understandable. You do get a "new recruit" pack for free to start off with. It gives you some stuff, but not much.

From there, if you just join a random group of people (or even better play with us), you can easily earn some credits. Purchase a few recruit packs, and you're on your way to getting stuff. Trust me, it goes pretty quick. While you could go the "easy" route and spend MSP on veteran or spectre packs, the "meat and potatoes" comes easily in the recruit packs. The base guns are upgraded, you get the basic mods, and you get medigel/rockets. Once you've leveled up your primary basic gun to level X, start going veteran pack. By that point, you'll know if you enjoy MP enough to keep playing it or not.

You aren't going to be awesome right out of the gate. But I like that. It gives you the chance to earn your way to greatness. Seriously though try playing MP with people you know before you write it off as a waste.

Well I have finished the SP and the only part that bummed me out was that Tali'Zorah committed suicide on me.

James

It's interesting to me that you mentioned L4D. I consider the multiplayer very similar. Banshees chasing you, geth hunters, two centurions charging after you. I think the AI was done really well in the multiplayer co-op. Have you completed a mission on silver yet?

I have a saying about stuff like this.

All you really learn from fiction is how cruel the author can be.

Now we know more about Bioware...

ME3's "multiplayer" (CO-OP!) is nothing ike L4D's true multiplayer, aka Versus Mode. It's more like playing the L4D campaign with other people...in other words, painfully boring and sadly predictable. In L4D's Versus, you never knew what you were going to get...noobs, decent players, or squads that spent hours every day perfecting their skills and teamwork. (The latter are the only matches I relished.) I played hundreds upon hundreds of hours of Verus in both regular matches and via GameBattles. Co-op? Maybe a handful of times, but only to try out new Mutations or to help someone grab the Expert cheevo.

Yes, I completed ME3's Silver missions with randoms with no mics. Had they talked, it might have been more "fun," but in the end, it's still AI doing the exact same AI things. You know your enemy and it never, ever, ever changes. That's not fun for me, but again, that's just me. Glad others found joy in it, but I still can't fathom why.

Anyone interested in seeing some of the devs thought process behind the ending should check out "the final hours of mass effect 3" iPad app.

Anyone that is curious if most of the squadmates from ME2 died in the Suicide Mission make difference if imported into ME3, I have to say you will be very disappointed. I'm currently replaying with only Kasumi, Zaeed and Miranda survived in ME2. I killed rachni queen, destroyed genophage research, never opened Grunt capsule, gave Legion to Cerberus and left Collector base to Cerberus.

First any former squadmate that has a role in any quest in ME3 simply get replaced by some generic character with same abilities. Only difference is replacement character doesn't see Shepard as a known friend. Problem is character like Mordin supposed to be more intelligent about coming out with the genophage cure since he was involved. But with Mordin dead back in ME2, some generic salarian character takes over and have the same abilities while on Normandy to come out with the genophage cure without any research data. I have played through almost every mission that has former squadmate involvement and the only reason to keep the any of the squadmate alive in ME2 is if they can be kept alive in ME3 as War Asset that increases the EMS points. As for rachni queen kept alive or dead, another queen takes over with same outcome for Shepard to decide. Does keeping or destroying the Collector base makes any difference? Zero other than it was brought up during the conversation at Mars.

Since Kasumi, Zaeed and Miranda can't join Shepard in ME3, I have much smaller squadmates team to go on missions. Their former quarters on Normandy just feel empty since they are all unoccupied. Normandy in ME3 is jammed packed with cables sticking out everywhere. Why leave those former squadmates quarters mostly empty?

As for building EMS for the repear war, not having the former squadmates or extra alien allies don't matter that much since individual character only add very small amount of EMS points. All that mean is I have play more MP or do extra side quests that add War Assets.

Now I know killing off the former squadmates really don't matter in ME3, it just proved my suspection before ME3 came out. I spoke to friends and even sales that are fans of ME. All of them insisted Bioware will take the extra mile to create alternate paths in the story if I have a lousy decisions in ME2 save game. Personally I don't blame Bioware since it's very expensive to develop extra alternate story paths. At least Bioware has some alternate lines recorded presume by same voice actors with different voice style because each character (except Shepard) only has one voice actor credit.

No one that was in me2 that wasn't in me1 actually gets on your ship. At least not in my play through, where everyone survived. So there was still a lot of empty space there.

What about tali and garrus? They're proper squadmates in 3, so I guess you just have less to choose from? I can't imagine that they get replaced with random turian and quarian fighting at your side.

I'm currently playing through a second time with a Shepard that made literally opposite decisions than the first. This time it's all paragon...and as far as mission structure, nothing has really changed either.

Yeah my playthrough had Mordin dead. It was hilarious watching people refer to him as .... that Salarian .... instead of by name. Joker even called him "not-Mordin"

It's disappointing that so many of the decisions came out meaning nothing. Wipe out the Council from ME1, and the Council is replaced with three other people - who basically act the same way. At the same time, it's the only way to write a continuous story with similar threads. Ravagers, for example, wouldn't exist without the Rachni.

Co-founder of Bioware responds to complaints about ME3 ending:

http://blog.bioware.com/2012/03/21/4108/

The important part:


Dunno how I feel about it. I'm outright against them *changing* anything. But I'm not categorically against an extended cut, given how much they admit to leaving on the cutting room floor. My only concern is that they don't cater to the "make it happier" crowd. There's plenty of valid criticism, but that isnt part of it. Making it any less bittersweet does a disservice to the story.

Anyone ever talk about Udina? Never liked the guy, but I thought he was going to be framed by the Salarian Council member and do something heroic to make us like him in the end. Too bad he followed the route we all thought he would.

I found nothing bittersweet about the ending. Maybe if they add some emotion there will be some bittersweet. It will likely still be illogical and everyone will still have the same basic ending no matter what you do as that is apparently their "artistic" vision.

I was referring the campaign co-op from L4D. Once you know your enemy it does make the game a lot easier but its not the same each time. If it were I'd have close to 100% completion rate on silver and I'm no where near that. Honestly it feels like a nice diversion after BF3, I get that its not enough of a challenge for you but for me and others it is a challenge.

I was really surprised about Udina. He's all about power, but at the same time, he really seemed to start being a respectable human being. Then suddenly he's working for TIM?! Threw me for a loop.

I really liked the way Ashley became Udina's pawn and was forced to finally decide if Shepard was friend or foe.

Agreed. Initially I was surprised that he recommended Ashley as a spectre since I thought she was awful and it lessened my views as being a spectre in general if she could be one (it still does a bit since the entire Council votes for spectre initiation, so I'm not sure what they saw in her...but I suppose they wanted to keep Earth happy as an ally during the Reaper invasion). But it made sense in the end since he wanted to use her...especially since she has always had leanings toward the human race.

Looks like Bioware has taken all the criticism about the endings to heart and changes could be coming as soon as next month:

http://kotaku.com/5895215/bioware-is...ffect-3-ending


Personally I thought the ending was weak because:

(1) it used that always lazy writing device of introducing a previously unknown deus ex machina plot device (in this case the alien that took the form of the little boy) to explain everything. If the story needs to grind to a halt and a character you've never met just appears out of nowhere to give you all the answers, you've done something wrong.

(2) After working for hundreds of hours across all three Mass Effect games to build all these relationships and address so many conflicts (like the Geth and Quarians) to build the biggest armada ever, it all gets pushed to the side and hardly any of it factors into your final choices.

(3) The final cinema with the Normandy makes no sense at all; when last seen it was in Earth orbit but now it is mysteriously trying to outrun an exploding Mass Relay. Even more puzzling was seeing the two characters that were with me during the final push exist the wreckage. How did they get there.

It looked for all the world to me like a different writing team handled the ending and didn't even bother to play close attention to the rest of the game's narrative. What we got was a lazy, poorly thought out conclusion that was neither satisfying nor particularly coherent in several key points.

Since Garrus is already dead in my import, after Shepard faught the battle at Palaven, there wasn't anyone there that already knows him.

Maybe having Mordin dead from ME2 shows there are more smart Salarian scientists than believed that can solve the genophage. Maybe the genophage cure is easier to solve than Mordin makes it out to be. If Mordin is alive, he kept bragging that he only trusts himself to ensure the cure gets delivered by Shroud Facility. If Mordin is dead without any research data, any smart Salarian scientist can figure out once he has the reason to help the Krogan.

I haven't got to geth and turian mission yet. I think it will be interesting without Legion or Tali.

Shepard's team can never be below 2 squadmates because Liara and James never leave Shepard. Even Ashley or Kaiden dies after the Citadel attack, there will always be 3 squadmates including EDI assuming you don't have the DLC.

I was hoping if Shepard killed off most of the squadmates in ME2, it will be lot harder or impossible to win the repear war in ME3. Yes, I can try to suck as hard as possible in ME3 by missing out as many War Asset and keep readiness at 50% to ensure Shepard has minimum EMS in the end of start the repear attack.

I guess Udina proved anyone hungry for power can be bought. That's is what Illusive Man is good at. Plus Udina is tired with the Council haven't no power with his words. He told that to Shepard after the Council meeting. If Udina joins the Cerberus, he has the power to force the Council to do what he wants. Udina will bring humans to control the Council/Galaxy and Illusive Man will control/use the repears tech to improve the humans. That would be an interesting alternate ending. All aliens become the slave to the humans. Shepard gets tricked into become the tool for the evil. (I know it sounds too Star Wars but can still be an interesting alternate ending for ME.)

Oh yay. Bioware has now promised to fix their ending to appeal to the vocally stupid that weren't paying attention throughout the game. This is a great day for artistic integrity.

This is a fascinating thread on one of my all time favorite games. I haven't bought it yet...because I always wait awhile (even on Halo) to get some hard core early adopter feedback on the best ones. Admittedly without playing ME3 yet...I can see a few things that Bioware obviously did...based on your feedback. They seem to have intentionally left an open ended hole in everyone's emotions. Perhaps that was so they can release an endless stream of DLC and new ME stories in the future, based off the "Shepard" narrative and his/her many relationships. Maybe that explains the chaotic state of the ending. For example...I can't help thinking that the young girl seen with the doll in the preview, may be the girl everyone mentions at the end. Genetically mutated? Perhaps? A Miranda nightmare in her DLC storyline? Maybe. Same with the boy...and Illusive Man or Shepard clone. For all we know, the Illusive Man may actually be a resurrected Shepard clone or a Shepard/Reaper/Hybrid? One who is rebooting memory from a long ago encounter with creation building. Remember the ending scenes and choices from ME2 and the Collector Station? They could play out in such a narrative in a future ME saga.

I know all of this is just wild eyed guessing. But is it possible that ME didn't have a definitive ending because there are too many potential outcomes based on all of the intense relationships. Each of which can be explored in much richer depth in future stories or DLC. Maybe the entire ME trilogy was just about establishing those relationships. And full new stories will emerge from the chaos created in ME3. Shepard & Liara? Maybe the whole thing is being told by a 50,000 year old descendant of the offspring of their liason. What a new story arc that would be! Remember...it was Shepard who suggested to Liara that they should quit the mission...tie the knot and make "little Blue Babies". Maybe the boy is the emerging consciousness of the Human/Reaper Hybrid that was introduced at the end of ME2? So on and so forth. There seems to be a ton Bioware can do with this story in the future.

You guys have really inspired me to bite the bullet and buy this game right now. All of my crew members from ME2 survived. And the only 2 I lost in ME1 were Wrex and Ashley. So I am interested whether this will matter. I had 4 alternate endings in ME2. One was pro-Liara...and the other climaxed with the doinking of Miranda. 2 saves for each scenario...with or without the Collector station blowup. Don't know whether either will matter except for the Liara outcome. Miranda was a genetic creation anyway. Just like the resurrected Shepard in ME2. You have not spoiled it for me. Instead you have piqued my interest. A big THANKS to all.