Hardflip wrote:
In Reply To #280
Did you get to play Leviathan, Omega and the Citadel DLC with it? I hear that improves the first experience a lot.
I loved ME3. The constant minor requests for people on the Citadel were weird. The ending was really, really bad without the extended ending and DLC. The way it contradicts some of the major themes of the game for the sake of deus ex machina was infuriating.
I played it through with Leviathan DLC and the new endings (which I enjoyed), and then went to look at what everyone had been crying about with the original endings.
[spoilers from here on out]I'm still not sure I really grasp the actual objection people had to the original ending(s); they're kinda what the game was pointing you towards all along - the Reapers actually are an (almost) unstoppable force, and trying to fight them head on
doesn't work.
I think the widespread player disappointment points to a bit of a disconnect between what
characters expect of Shepard and what the
Universe expects - with rather too many players believing Shepard's hype.
I appreciate that you spend most of the game (the trilogy, even) building an army to fight the Reapers, but it was always going to be a losing battle unless you find a way to stop the cycle. The game telegraphs it
constantly; with the Protheans, the Geth / Quarian conflict, EDI, etc.
(it's not exactly the world's most original plot, it's nabbed directly from Battlestar: Galactica, after all)
It might have been nice if the decision-making part of out-thinking the cycle was more organic than just dialogue and some button-pressing, but then this was a Mass Effect game, so it's not exactly a massive departure...
Obviously I read a lot of it second-hand, but I can't shake the idea that the root cause of most of the criticisms is that too many players wanted to 'win', without any trade-offs, in a Space Opera scenario that had been pretty clearly set-up as 'no-win' from the start.
That's sci-fi code for "you can win, but only if there's some martyrdom first"