Can we all agree that mass effect 3 was not that great of a game?

#111jessica73Posted 12/3/2012 5:24:29 AM
oh jesus, mufflaggin is over here dcing too
lost cause, don't engage


the game is certainly ok if you are just muting it and enjoying the gameplay >_>
Tuchunka was like the only part of the story that didn't gargle balls
---
http://i.imgur.com/TqLlP.jpg
#112Foreman22Posted 12/3/2012 6:22:43 AM
Posts 5 and 6 nails it. As a game it's a 8.5. As the end of a fantastic series it's a 7. Simply under whelming. The ending kills replay value. The DLC pales to Mass Effect 2's LOTSB and Overlord. The original multi-player tie in to war assets was a horrible idea. Multi-player is not to bad but over all IMO Bioware dropped the ball with Mass Effect 3.
#113Rogue MuttPosted 12/3/2012 7:22:07 AM
I played through the story several times with different characters, and still have a blast in MP once or twice a week. I'd say I got my money's worth.
---
BSG
#114FaDRainPosted 12/3/2012 7:30:20 AM
CyhortI82 posted...
Degalon posted...


The downer ending just meant every time I look at the first two games, I just go "What for? Theres no point, none of it matters in the end."



I'm sorta like this, except that with the EC Shepard does live in one of the endings so I pretty much have to pick that one every time. If they didn't have that, I'd hate it. Downer endings should NEVER happen in games, but especially in RPG's.



I'd be fine with the downer endings if there was at least one golden ending. No matter how difficult it was to get, I would have been happy with that.

I see all the dlc and I want to play it in a "I want to know what happens myself" way, but I can't because I hate the endings.

I also hate the fact that for an AI, Star Child is a total idiot. I would expect an AI to understand there is no point in letting something live only to wipe it out at a certain point.
#115DestinPosted 12/3/2012 7:33:30 AM
FaDRain posted...
I would expect an AI to understand there is no point in letting something live only to wipe it out at a certain point.


so if a baby was detected to be born with a terminal illness, you would abort it before birth?

everything dies, that doesn't mean there's no point in letting them live, who taught you that logic?
---
Destin the Valiant
#116roo10158Posted 12/3/2012 7:49:45 AM
I am not a fan of the ending, but I'm not butthurt from it to claim that it made the rest of the game non-fun. In all honesty, I'm more angry with the the fact that they STILL haven't fixed the glitchy journal. I would have thought making it to where it starts at the top like the "R-Stick" icon shows it is supposed to would have been an easy fix. That and the fact that there are no submenus especially for the fetch missions.


Other than that, I have a blast with the game. I enjoyed the war, I enjoyed leviathan, I am looking forward to when i get the funds to download retake omega, etc.


Moral of the story: stargazer scene and the color coded endings may not be great or good (heck, the ending is better than even the extended cut once you get leviathan, despite the ending still being meh), but I can live with it because I enjoyed everything else so.
---
My systems: Genesis/32X, Saturn, Dreamcast, GG, SNES, N64, GCN, Wii, Wii U, Xbox360, PS1, PS2, PS3, GBC, DS Lite, DSi XL, 3DS, PS VITA
#117FaDRainPosted 12/3/2012 7:56:19 AM
Destin posted...
FaDRain posted...
I would expect an AI to understand there is no point in letting something live only to wipe it out at a certain point.


so if a baby was detected to be born with a terminal illness, you would abort it before birth?

everything dies, that doesn't mean there's no point in letting them live, who taught you that logic?



That's the thing, Star Child doesn't seem to possess anything resembling attachment or emotion.

Logic is a cold, cold thing and the Reapers seem to be personifications of cold, hard unflinching logic, inflexible in their self-appointed task.

Me, personally, if that child wasn't going to live long (meaning very little chance of a cure or treatment that can prolong life significantly, being developed) and the illness was an agonising thing...well...I wouldn't want to get attached to a kid that doesn't have long and I'm going to have to watch die, slowly and in agony, My kid.

Some people make the choice to raise that kid, I applaud them for their resilience.


Now for the logic, raising and caring for that kid will cost a fortune. Then there's the emotional distress (not only because their child will die, but because parents often feel like it is their fault). The logical decision is to not allow that suffering to occur.


One day, with advances in technology and medicine...people won't have to endure the consequences of either choice. Let's just all hope that that day comes sooner rather than later, yeah?

As for who taught me that logic, well....for the most part, everything I am, I am because of me.
#118DestinPosted 12/3/2012 8:39:22 AM
FaDRain posted...
Me, personally, if that child wasn't going to live long (meaning very little chance of a cure or treatment that can prolong life significantly, being developed) and the illness was an agonising thing...well...I wouldn't want to get attached to a kid that doesn't have long and I'm going to have to watch die, slowly and in agony, My kid.


but who defines "live long"? is 50,000 years too short? do you think the races are living in agony?
---
Destin the Valiant
#119FaDRainPosted 12/3/2012 9:42:43 AM(edited)
Destin posted...
FaDRain posted...
Me, personally, if that child wasn't going to live long (meaning very little chance of a cure or treatment that can prolong life significantly, being developed) and the illness was an agonising thing...well...I wouldn't want to get attached to a kid that doesn't have long and I'm going to have to watch die, slowly and in agony, My kid.


but who defines "live long"? is 50,000 years too short? do you think the races are living in agony?





Living doesn't denote suffering, some people are happy with being mortal, being susceptible to illness, disease and age. That may be due to their beliefs or personal preference.

The average lifespan for a human being with good healthcare and services is, compared to a lot of other species, a very long time...but for me, personally...it isn't anywhere near long enough. I often wish that I had been born in a time where the only things capable of killing us were violence, accidents and things in space.


If you live, you shouldn't have to die because an idiot decides that a periodic culling is the only solution. Even if the course of things always result in the creation of synthetics, and if it is true that those synthetics always wipe out organics...well, that is the natural progression of things. It's their turn, maybe they'll be wiped out by energy beings? It might not be a totally organic form of evolution, but if synthetics are capable of wiping out all organic life, then that makes them stronger than organics and if they can manage to pull it off...I have no problem with them being at the top of the pile until the bigger fish comes along.

The Reapers are forcing advancement to halt, in any universe where technology and intelligence are the dominant forces, beings like the Reapers are, in the long run, doing more damage....given enough time, the ME races will become extra-galactic, and even if they don't, the universe is massive, who's to say that other races aren't or that another race in another galaxy created AI, and those AI wiped out organics and became extra-galactic. The Reapers perceive a problem, but their solution is barely more than a plaster/band-aid.

Aren't we all standing on the shoulders of those who came before?
#120DestinPosted 12/3/2012 10:28:51 AM
FaDRain posted...
The Reapers perceive a problem, but their solution is barely more than a plaster/band-aid.


but aren't you saying they are stupid for putting on a band-aid, it's preferable to just let us bleed out and die since that's the natural order of things?
---
Destin the Valiant