I unlocked the Sentinel with the victory pack. Didn't play him at all, but looking at his abilities? DAMN. You can give that omni shield something like 4k shield, and it boosts melee by at least 35%. Eventually you get to upgrade it with a fire or cryo effect.
They get incinerate, which is meh, and shield drain which provides ridiculously strong synergy with their already crazy powerful shield. Last ability is a flash freeze plus AOE which can apparently be used through walls (I'm guessing the AoE portion) to cause some great CC--you can even upgrade it to snare.
I'm excited to try him out. Will be interesting to try a melee-based Sentinel for once. I'll probably toss a Shotgun on him, maybe with a lightweight SMG, and see where it goes.
Only complaint looking at it is that they gave him incinerate instead of reave. I get it--they were going for the fire and ice duality, and this allows the Sentinel to set up and detonate fire explosions, but he has no counter to barriers now. But what really irks me is that there are no biotic powers, when the Sentinel class is supposed to be a biotic tech user. Whatever, not the end of the world.
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- General Video Game Discussion
- Mass Effect 3
Mass Effect 3Follow
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
I don't have one to play around with myself but the consensus I've heard is to go for the cold powers (better than fire if they live) and make Mr. Freeze puns all game long.
selebrin wrote:
I don't have one to play around with myself but the consensus I've heard is to go for the cold powers (better than fire if they live) and make Mr. Freeze puns all game long.
So the N7 Paladin = Kao?
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
Also, I'm really hoping all these cool new abilities and units don't stay solely in MP land. I'm fully expecting a DLC to retake Omega, and I'll be pissed if we don't get to include these badasses. Ideally, in my mind, Shepard will be commanding the army to take back the station, which will be made of everything from Blue Suns to Alliance forces.
So you'll have portions where it's Shepard and her squad, and portions where you have to dish out orders (like in ME2) to other units, and then you'll actually play as them. What will be available will vary, too. Like, you can get Geth units if you save the Geth, Quarian if you save Quarians, etc.
Really, I just want to be able to play with the abilities without worrying about bringing my team down. XD
[EDIT]
Okay, played a couple matches with the N7 Paladin.
First off, it's definitely VERY powerful. At least at lower difficulties.
Your melee is absurdly strong--your standard melee is essentially a small cone heavy melee attack. It flat-out kills cannibals on Bronze. Marauders without their shields too (didn't try it on any with shields). Took a ravager down in 2-3 hits. Maybe 5-6 for a Brute. Similar for a banshee, once the barrier is down. The AoE aspect makes getting rid of the swarmers quite easy.
Down side is that your "strong" melee attack is planting the shield in the ground. This might do a very small amount of damage to anything right near you, but that's it. Once you plant your shield, you become stationary (with the shield defending you in one direction). You are free to move in a circle, changing your defensive angle. You hit the melee attack again (or do something else) to cancel the effect.
Not actually a problem, but a big issue for me. I quite often end up heavy melee-ing when I want to just use my shield bash. Nothing worse than planting yourself in the middle of a group of enemies, when you had meant to take them all out with one blow. I'm going to see if I can bind the heavy melee attack to another key. Honestly, this has always been an issue for me, but I just solved it by not playing melee-intensive classes. But I really like the Paladin...
Another big weakness is that, despite being a melee-heavy class (well, having that option), you have no way to close the gap between yourself and the enemies--not even a speed buff. REALLY sucks if you're playing with a Vanguard, because everything will be dead before you can get to it. I essentially was useless for the first 5 waves one match. Once the swarms start coming thick and from all directions I was definitely super useful (finished last in points, but not by a ton, so I definitely made up for it).
I was playing with a Disciple and a Phaeston. You definitely want a pistol or a shotgun, for the melee buff, imo. But I'm not sure I cared for the Shotgun itself. I mean, my melee attack is WAY stronger than any shotgun blast. If they're in short range, I might as well just melee them down. Phaeston worked fairly well, though, primarily because of its accuracy across ranges. I'm thinking I'll try a Pistol/AR or Pistol/SMG setup next.
As for the abilities:
Energy Drain: I take back everything bad I've ever thought about this ability. It's absolutely amazing--strips shields or barriers and replenishes your shields. This should be one of your first skills maxed, easily. Right after your shield, imo.
Snap Freeze: I was not impressed. I'm sure it's far more useful on higher difficulties, but the problem is that it only works on unprotected enemies. Everything unprotected was a joke for the Paladin due to such a strong melee. It has a very limited range, and only seems valuable if you want to set up Cryo Explosions. Might be useful on gold if it's the difference between 2 hits or 3 for your shield to take something down, I guess. It'll shine once fully evolved though, since it'll weaken armor (combined with Cryo shield and the subsequent cryo explosion, you get 100% weakening for 5 seconds).
Incinerate: Honestly, I used this a lot. I only dropped 1 point into it, but it was hugely helpful. I suppose piercing ammo would work just as well, but I don't have any piercing mods. I'm not at all sure why other builds ignore it, unless they are loading up on weapons.
Shield Mastery: First to max. Getting it to rank 3 is 35% to melee, 25% to shields, and an omni-shield (planted) strength of 3300. Then you choose between 30% to your melee or 15% to health/shield/omni-shield (go melee). Then you can double your omni-shield resilience or decrease shield recharge by 15% (I vote shield recharge, unless you're playing the very high difficulties. I don't think you'll be using the omni-shield for that long at a time for this to ever even apply on Silver or Bronze--only good point is that you'll get an extra hit or two from a Brute/Banshee). Last upgrade is Cryo or Fire Shield. Lower difficulties, pick your poison. Higher, you'll want Cryo/Snap Freeze for complete armor weakening.
N7 Paladin: The class tree. Mainly power and weapon damage upgrades. I wouldn't go past 3, personally. Not while there are other things to nab.
Edited, Aug 1st 2012 10:26am by idiggory
So you'll have portions where it's Shepard and her squad, and portions where you have to dish out orders (like in ME2) to other units, and then you'll actually play as them. What will be available will vary, too. Like, you can get Geth units if you save the Geth, Quarian if you save Quarians, etc.
Really, I just want to be able to play with the abilities without worrying about bringing my team down. XD
[EDIT]
Okay, played a couple matches with the N7 Paladin.
First off, it's definitely VERY powerful. At least at lower difficulties.
Your melee is absurdly strong--your standard melee is essentially a small cone heavy melee attack. It flat-out kills cannibals on Bronze. Marauders without their shields too (didn't try it on any with shields). Took a ravager down in 2-3 hits. Maybe 5-6 for a Brute. Similar for a banshee, once the barrier is down. The AoE aspect makes getting rid of the swarmers quite easy.
Down side is that your "strong" melee attack is planting the shield in the ground. This might do a very small amount of damage to anything right near you, but that's it. Once you plant your shield, you become stationary (with the shield defending you in one direction). You are free to move in a circle, changing your defensive angle. You hit the melee attack again (or do something else) to cancel the effect.
Not actually a problem, but a big issue for me. I quite often end up heavy melee-ing when I want to just use my shield bash. Nothing worse than planting yourself in the middle of a group of enemies, when you had meant to take them all out with one blow. I'm going to see if I can bind the heavy melee attack to another key. Honestly, this has always been an issue for me, but I just solved it by not playing melee-intensive classes. But I really like the Paladin...
Another big weakness is that, despite being a melee-heavy class (well, having that option), you have no way to close the gap between yourself and the enemies--not even a speed buff. REALLY sucks if you're playing with a Vanguard, because everything will be dead before you can get to it. I essentially was useless for the first 5 waves one match. Once the swarms start coming thick and from all directions I was definitely super useful (finished last in points, but not by a ton, so I definitely made up for it).
I was playing with a Disciple and a Phaeston. You definitely want a pistol or a shotgun, for the melee buff, imo. But I'm not sure I cared for the Shotgun itself. I mean, my melee attack is WAY stronger than any shotgun blast. If they're in short range, I might as well just melee them down. Phaeston worked fairly well, though, primarily because of its accuracy across ranges. I'm thinking I'll try a Pistol/AR or Pistol/SMG setup next.
As for the abilities:
Energy Drain: I take back everything bad I've ever thought about this ability. It's absolutely amazing--strips shields or barriers and replenishes your shields. This should be one of your first skills maxed, easily. Right after your shield, imo.
Snap Freeze: I was not impressed. I'm sure it's far more useful on higher difficulties, but the problem is that it only works on unprotected enemies. Everything unprotected was a joke for the Paladin due to such a strong melee. It has a very limited range, and only seems valuable if you want to set up Cryo Explosions. Might be useful on gold if it's the difference between 2 hits or 3 for your shield to take something down, I guess. It'll shine once fully evolved though, since it'll weaken armor (combined with Cryo shield and the subsequent cryo explosion, you get 100% weakening for 5 seconds).
Incinerate: Honestly, I used this a lot. I only dropped 1 point into it, but it was hugely helpful. I suppose piercing ammo would work just as well, but I don't have any piercing mods. I'm not at all sure why other builds ignore it, unless they are loading up on weapons.
Shield Mastery: First to max. Getting it to rank 3 is 35% to melee, 25% to shields, and an omni-shield (planted) strength of 3300. Then you choose between 30% to your melee or 15% to health/shield/omni-shield (go melee). Then you can double your omni-shield resilience or decrease shield recharge by 15% (I vote shield recharge, unless you're playing the very high difficulties. I don't think you'll be using the omni-shield for that long at a time for this to ever even apply on Silver or Bronze--only good point is that you'll get an extra hit or two from a Brute/Banshee). Last upgrade is Cryo or Fire Shield. Lower difficulties, pick your poison. Higher, you'll want Cryo/Snap Freeze for complete armor weakening.
N7 Paladin: The class tree. Mainly power and weapon damage upgrades. I wouldn't go past 3, personally. Not while there are other things to nab.
Edited, Aug 1st 2012 10:26am by idiggory
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
Damnit. That all sounds really cool. It's impressive they have added that much more content to MP since release. I'm so going to have to give it a spin this weekend.
An old silent pond...
A frog jumps into the pond,
splash! Silence again.
~ Matsuo Basho
A frog jumps into the pond,
splash! Silence again.
~ Matsuo Basho
Now they just need to get around to adding some SP DLC. I'm not complaining, since they prioritized the extended cut, but I really want to take back Omega, dammit.
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
selebrin wrote:
I don't have one to play around with myself but the consensus I've heard is to go for the cold powers (better than fire if they live) and make Mr. Freeze puns all game long.
Allow me to break the ice. My name is Freeze. Learn it well. For it's the chilling sound of your doom.
Wrong Mr. Freeze?
(I liked Arnold's version, even if it was horribly goofy.)
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
idiggory wrote:
Now they just need to get around to adding some SP DLC. I'm not complaining, since they prioritized the extended cut, but I really want to take back Omega, dammit.
Not quite Omega, but still, DLC.
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I have a racist ****.
Steam: TuxedoFish
battle.net: Fishy #1649
GW2: Fishy.4129
Mazra wrote:
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
selebrin wrote:
I don't have one to play around with myself but the consensus I've heard is to go for the cold powers (better than fire if they live) and make Mr. Freeze puns all game long.
Allow me to break the ice. My name is Freeze. Learn it well. For it's the chilling sound of your doom.
Wrong Mr. Freeze?
(I liked Arnold's version, even if it was horribly goofy.)
Nope, that's the right Mr. Freeze.
Man, I'm getting massive lag today. My BatSol feels like a Vanguard just before the Rapture sets in.
After doing some more multiplayer to get my readiness up for the expanded ending DLC, I've been too busy with Skyrim DLC & The Secret World to try the Earth Multiplayer DLC.
I'm saving my frustration at not getting what I want from supply boxes for the period just before the new DLC comes out. I still have a couple of the initial classes & all of the Geths unplayable & I put in time during all but the most recent weejend event.
/phooey
I'm saving my frustration at not getting what I want from supply boxes for the period just before the new DLC comes out. I still have a couple of the initial classes & all of the Geths unplayable & I put in time during all but the most recent weejend event.
/phooey
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin
N7 Paladin just seems really bad to me. It has the same problem krogan soldier/sentinel has, in that it takes them ages to get to enemies to melee, only it's squishier, does less damage and, while its abiltiies aren't that great, still has to worry about weapon weight. Melee in general becomes much less effective at harder difficulties, because everything murders you, and is generally pretty risky due to all those melee executes floating around.
I played through all three games as soldier, but they're kinda lackluster in MP. Even in singe player, the weight system kind of ***** them over. Been playing around with a sniper infiltrator with the valiant instead, which is fun. sadly, anything that might cover the close range weaknesses of the build is just too heavy - even a light shotgun like the disciple weighs too much. One might assume that this is what the shogtun pistol is designed for, but that weighs a ton, too.
I played through all three games as soldier, but they're kinda lackluster in MP. Even in singe player, the weight system kind of ***** them over. Been playing around with a sniper infiltrator with the valiant instead, which is fun. sadly, anything that might cover the close range weaknesses of the build is just too heavy - even a light shotgun like the disciple weighs too much. One might assume that this is what the shogtun pistol is designed for, but that weighs a ton, too.
Kavekk wrote:
N7 Paladin just seems really bad to me. It has the same problem krogan soldier/sentinel has, in that it takes them ages to get to enemies to melee, only it's squishier, does less damage and, while its abiltiies aren't that great, still has to worry about weapon weight. Melee in general becomes much less effective at harder difficulties, because everything murders you, and is generally pretty risky due to all those melee executes floating around.
I played through all three games as soldier, but they're kinda lackluster in MP. Even in singe player, the weight system kind of @#%^s them over. Been playing around with a sniper infiltrator with the valiant instead, which is fun. sadly, anything that might cover the close range weaknesses of the build is just too heavy - even a light shotgun like the disciple weighs too much. One might assume that this is what the shogtun pistol is designed for, but that weighs a ton, too.
I played through all three games as soldier, but they're kinda lackluster in MP. Even in singe player, the weight system kind of @#%^s them over. Been playing around with a sniper infiltrator with the valiant instead, which is fun. sadly, anything that might cover the close range weaknesses of the build is just too heavy - even a light shotgun like the disciple weighs too much. One might assume that this is what the shogtun pistol is designed for, but that weighs a ton, too.
The play-style I'm seeing pushed for higher difficulties is a longer range one. You go with an AR, shield is only for emergencies, and you primarily use SD and then SF on anything that gets close. Perk of AR is that they can be good in all three ranges, so that's nice.
Right now, the shield isn't desirable at higher difficulties because it's not strong enough to block out a full volley of powerful attacks, such as from a ravager. You'll end up draining your health, so it's better to get to cover than otherwise. It's a good emergency tool for if you can't, of course, but nothing defining like it should have been. End result is that the Paladin just isn't that tanky. They really need to rebalance him.
Oh, and I found out why incinerate isn't great. It only gets a damage buff against frozen targets. You can't freeze armor/shields, so the evolution is useless on the higher difficulties.
He's ridiculously strong on the lower difficulties, but not tanky enough to play as a melee on the higher ones.
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
This weekend, we get Operation Olympus. We get to go to London and earn Bronze, Silver, and Gold.
Notes:
-- Apparently there will be a status update Saturday so we can tell if one particular difficulty needs attention.
-- "kit"="character"
-- God I hate London. The bottom's a deathtrap and the top's got no ammo. I'll be clearing this with my brother on Bronze and then playing fun maps.
http://blog.bioware.com/2012/08/08/operation-olympus/ wrote:
Operation OLYMPUS (August 10th-12th)
Increased Reaper activity has been reported around London. Operation OLYMPUS will focus large-scale strikes on the Reapers to buy the Resistance time to investigate.
Squad Goal: Full extraction from Firebase London using any Kit on any difficulty
Allied Goal: Using any Kit/ Map combination against any enemy, complete wave 10 on a combined community total of 200,000 Bronze missions, 175,000 Silver missions and 70,000 Gold missions.
Special Circumstance: None
Squad Goal Success: All squad members awarded a Commendation Pack
Allied Goal Success: All players awarded a Victory Pack
Requirement: Mass Effect: Earth must be installed
Increased Reaper activity has been reported around London. Operation OLYMPUS will focus large-scale strikes on the Reapers to buy the Resistance time to investigate.
Squad Goal: Full extraction from Firebase London using any Kit on any difficulty
Allied Goal: Using any Kit/ Map combination against any enemy, complete wave 10 on a combined community total of 200,000 Bronze missions, 175,000 Silver missions and 70,000 Gold missions.
Special Circumstance: None
Squad Goal Success: All squad members awarded a Commendation Pack
Allied Goal Success: All players awarded a Victory Pack
Requirement: Mass Effect: Earth must be installed
Notes:
-- Apparently there will be a status update Saturday so we can tell if one particular difficulty needs attention.
-- "kit"="character"
-- God I hate London. The bottom's a deathtrap and the top's got no ammo. I'll be clearing this with my brother on Bronze and then playing fun maps.
The word "kit" forced my brain to a complete stop, ha. Thanks. :P
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
So who else is excited about the MP changes? I am. Sure, some aspect of "challenges" are superficial content. But I get to play a volus so I don't give a crap. :P Plus, new enemies (not so thrilled about their anti-power nature given my love of biotics though...) and more dynamic maps.
Plus, stat tracking site looks decent. I'm in the top 22% apparently. I take that to mean that only 22% of players who ever played MP actually played it more than once. XD
[EDIT]
As for the endings, I thought they were fine.
I did finish the game post-patch, so what I did was alt-tab to YouTube when it was time to make my final decision--I chose destruction (immediately wished I chose synthesis, and I could have, but I decided to treat viewing the ending on YT as my final choice). I haven't watched all the endings, but I've learned a decent amount of the options.
There are definitely problems with the original endings, but I think the expansion really solves all of those. I can get why people would still be unhappy, what with there being no "happy" ending (but really, it's that there's no "perfect" ending).
Was the ending my favorite ever? Not by a long shot. But I think it was roughly equal in quality to the core story line--I was never a fan of the Crucible plot line. It was fine, but it was a little too far-fetched for a game that was otherwise fairly grounded in the realm of possible--if you could accept the idea of mass effect fields being possible, nothing else was too outlandish (even the ancient alien race of destroyer machines). But it wasn't a BAD plot line, just not quite my cup of tea.
But I think the details of the ending were appropriate. I can't comment on when you have <max readiness, because I was WELL beyond what was necessary thanks to MP and haven't done research into the differences, but here's my take on the particulars that come to mind:
Anderson. I get why he had to die. Anderson was always a link the past in the games--a face of old humanity. He was exceptional, yes, but you always see him in normal human situations, or acting on behalf of all humanity. His death symbolizes the death of the old order. Even more importantly, it had to happen, to give Shepard the chance to make a choice. His death gave him/her ultimate control over the galaxy's destiny--her mentor had died, and it was time for her to truly surpass him.
Illusive Man. Well, there's the obvious Saren reflection stuff--the ability to make a choice, even when your free will is being stripped from you, even when that choice is a terrible one. It's a Myth of Sisyphus type scenario. But he can also symbolize humanity's potential for delusion, even in the face of true fact--that we can be our own worst enemies, and that our best intentions can be truly awful. But even more than that, he combines with Anderson to be the face of Humanity. But where Anderson is all that is honorable, the Illusive Man is the lass palatable aspects of human nature. And, like with Anderson, his death means Shepard becomes the ultimate authority for humanity's behalf.
The three choices. Each choice Shepard can make is tied in some way to a few different philosophies, but most important is the philosophy with regards to technology and artificial life that have actually had significant endorsement throughout time. There's a group who believes that technology is progressing too fast--that we are losing a distinct aspect of humanity by coming to rely on it too intensely. Then there's a group that believes technological evolution is simply the next aspect of human development--that learning to control and use our environment is fully natural and good. Finally, there's the most widely held philosophy (generally because most people haven't thought too much about it and would fall into this group)--the group that sees technology as being merely a tool without any inherent good or bad to it, but simply in how we use it.
To use a good example, take guns. You can think guns are inherently good, in that they gave humans control over the wilds. You can think they are inherently bad, because they are tools of destruction (even if destruction can be positive). Or you can think that guns are neither good or bad, but may be used to bring about good or bad consequences (which isn't incompatible with the belief that something like gun control is good).
Destruction is the ending that would be the idea that technology is ruling us, not the other way around. It's the rejection of the reaper legacy of the Galaxy, a refusal to be a tool in a great cosmic game of evolution. The choice to destroy the reapers is the choice to give a huge F-YOU to your past. The Mass Relays and the Citadel are a part of that technological past--the very development of the galaxy was the result of relay positions planned out by the Reapers--everything developed as THEY intended. Destroying the reapers is putting the true destiny of the galaxy in the hands of the people, but it means that they truly have to pioneer the future--the destruction of the current galactic order. It means there will be many battles in the future, between synthetics and organics, and between various organic groups (just imagine the wars there will be when the different races finally start encroaching on each other in a relay/Citadel-less galaxy), and Shepard's survival is symbolic of that.
Control is the belief that technology is ultimately a tool to be used, neither good or bad. Shepard chooses to accept the galactic legacy, but to turn it to her (and organics') best interests. This is also the ultimate *****-you to artificial life, the denial of their right to exist. Destroy doesn't enslave them, it destroys the Geth but leaves open the potential for future life to exist (in Prothean ideology, you earn the right to rule through force). This is an acceptance of your legacy, but a choice to take control of it. The relays suffer slight damage, because no significant change in destiny is painless. But now the Repears and Geth are reduced to what they always should have been--tools. Shepard's tools, to be used for construction and policing. Shepard "survives" as a consciousness, living on in a sense to fight future battles. Or, more particularly, to put down threats to order.
Synthesis supports the last ideology--that technology is intricately tied to evolution in a meaningful way, and that anything "lost" to technology can't be considered bad, because we lost it through evolution--it was survival of the fittest. It also endorses the idea that all life has a right to exist, which also means a rejection of the current galactic order (which was actively anti-synthetic and sought to control certain technologies). Shepard truly ceases to exist, as it is the only path which will meaningfully reduce the needs for warriors. It reaffirms the rights for ALL life to live, and sets the stage for that to happen. The Reapers become allies with all organics, and the galaxy is unified like never before--under a collective understanding for the need for learning. Technological and social understanding explodes.
Total destruction is a decision not to be controlled or influenced, and it is a sign that a complete rejection of such. But the world is a place where you're ALWAYS being influenced--free will itself could easily be a lie. So that kind of choice is a choice for anarchy--entropy, the absence of order. It carries with it a steep price. But the universe toils on, and someone else can always have their chance to make a choice.
That's only the surface of the issues, really. Each ending represents a different philosophy on government, rights of people vs. rights of populations, rights to life, technology, artificial intelligence, the importance of choices, etc. I think it was fairly well done, considering there's no way they could possibly have encompassed all of them.
Am I disappointed in the overall plot? Yes. I wish my choices throughout the game radically changed the ending in a more meaningful way than its outcome. Like choosing to help the Krogan gave me superior Turian/Krogan support making my influence in that sector stronger, which opened up different tactical options to retake Earth. Or choosing to help the Salarians meant I could have used subterfuge to redirect Reaper animosity away from Earth so I could retake it, THEN have the final showdown on Thessia. Etc.
IDK, I feel like a big opportunity was wasted by making it so the final showdown always happened on Earth. Particularly when Earth didn't actually have much practical value in terms of a Reaper assault. It would have made far more sense to take Thessia from the start, then divide the fleets to take Earth and Palaven, IMO. /shrug Unless their plan was actually to knock out Shepard, but that seems unlikely--they never seemed to be targeting the Normandy any more than any other vessel.
All that said, I think the ending was about as good as we reasonably have any right to expect. ME3 overall was worth WELL more than its purchase cost--even with a less-than-amazing central plot line and ending, it ranks as one of the best gaming experiences I've ever had. And that's impressive. And I DO think the endings are interesting, I'm just not into the Crucible plot line. I think they could have more realistically fused it with a conventional war storyline for a more realistic plot. Like how the hell did the Reapers never find that thing? They didn't indoctrinate ANYONE who knew about it? Why didn't they take the Citadel right away? Etc.
At the same time, I can't necessarily begrudge them that plot arc. Because what made the Reapers such a great antagonist also made the convential plot arc super unbelievable. So...
/rambling
Edited, Oct 10th 2012 2:43pm by idiggory
Plus, stat tracking site looks decent. I'm in the top 22% apparently. I take that to mean that only 22% of players who ever played MP actually played it more than once. XD
[EDIT]
As for the endings, I thought they were fine.
I did finish the game post-patch, so what I did was alt-tab to YouTube when it was time to make my final decision--I chose destruction (immediately wished I chose synthesis, and I could have, but I decided to treat viewing the ending on YT as my final choice). I haven't watched all the endings, but I've learned a decent amount of the options.
There are definitely problems with the original endings, but I think the expansion really solves all of those. I can get why people would still be unhappy, what with there being no "happy" ending (but really, it's that there's no "perfect" ending).
Was the ending my favorite ever? Not by a long shot. But I think it was roughly equal in quality to the core story line--I was never a fan of the Crucible plot line. It was fine, but it was a little too far-fetched for a game that was otherwise fairly grounded in the realm of possible--if you could accept the idea of mass effect fields being possible, nothing else was too outlandish (even the ancient alien race of destroyer machines). But it wasn't a BAD plot line, just not quite my cup of tea.
But I think the details of the ending were appropriate. I can't comment on when you have <max readiness, because I was WELL beyond what was necessary thanks to MP and haven't done research into the differences, but here's my take on the particulars that come to mind:
Anderson. I get why he had to die. Anderson was always a link the past in the games--a face of old humanity. He was exceptional, yes, but you always see him in normal human situations, or acting on behalf of all humanity. His death symbolizes the death of the old order. Even more importantly, it had to happen, to give Shepard the chance to make a choice. His death gave him/her ultimate control over the galaxy's destiny--her mentor had died, and it was time for her to truly surpass him.
Illusive Man. Well, there's the obvious Saren reflection stuff--the ability to make a choice, even when your free will is being stripped from you, even when that choice is a terrible one. It's a Myth of Sisyphus type scenario. But he can also symbolize humanity's potential for delusion, even in the face of true fact--that we can be our own worst enemies, and that our best intentions can be truly awful. But even more than that, he combines with Anderson to be the face of Humanity. But where Anderson is all that is honorable, the Illusive Man is the lass palatable aspects of human nature. And, like with Anderson, his death means Shepard becomes the ultimate authority for humanity's behalf.
The three choices. Each choice Shepard can make is tied in some way to a few different philosophies, but most important is the philosophy with regards to technology and artificial life that have actually had significant endorsement throughout time. There's a group who believes that technology is progressing too fast--that we are losing a distinct aspect of humanity by coming to rely on it too intensely. Then there's a group that believes technological evolution is simply the next aspect of human development--that learning to control and use our environment is fully natural and good. Finally, there's the most widely held philosophy (generally because most people haven't thought too much about it and would fall into this group)--the group that sees technology as being merely a tool without any inherent good or bad to it, but simply in how we use it.
To use a good example, take guns. You can think guns are inherently good, in that they gave humans control over the wilds. You can think they are inherently bad, because they are tools of destruction (even if destruction can be positive). Or you can think that guns are neither good or bad, but may be used to bring about good or bad consequences (which isn't incompatible with the belief that something like gun control is good).
Destruction is the ending that would be the idea that technology is ruling us, not the other way around. It's the rejection of the reaper legacy of the Galaxy, a refusal to be a tool in a great cosmic game of evolution. The choice to destroy the reapers is the choice to give a huge F-YOU to your past. The Mass Relays and the Citadel are a part of that technological past--the very development of the galaxy was the result of relay positions planned out by the Reapers--everything developed as THEY intended. Destroying the reapers is putting the true destiny of the galaxy in the hands of the people, but it means that they truly have to pioneer the future--the destruction of the current galactic order. It means there will be many battles in the future, between synthetics and organics, and between various organic groups (just imagine the wars there will be when the different races finally start encroaching on each other in a relay/Citadel-less galaxy), and Shepard's survival is symbolic of that.
Control is the belief that technology is ultimately a tool to be used, neither good or bad. Shepard chooses to accept the galactic legacy, but to turn it to her (and organics') best interests. This is also the ultimate *****-you to artificial life, the denial of their right to exist. Destroy doesn't enslave them, it destroys the Geth but leaves open the potential for future life to exist (in Prothean ideology, you earn the right to rule through force). This is an acceptance of your legacy, but a choice to take control of it. The relays suffer slight damage, because no significant change in destiny is painless. But now the Repears and Geth are reduced to what they always should have been--tools. Shepard's tools, to be used for construction and policing. Shepard "survives" as a consciousness, living on in a sense to fight future battles. Or, more particularly, to put down threats to order.
Synthesis supports the last ideology--that technology is intricately tied to evolution in a meaningful way, and that anything "lost" to technology can't be considered bad, because we lost it through evolution--it was survival of the fittest. It also endorses the idea that all life has a right to exist, which also means a rejection of the current galactic order (which was actively anti-synthetic and sought to control certain technologies). Shepard truly ceases to exist, as it is the only path which will meaningfully reduce the needs for warriors. It reaffirms the rights for ALL life to live, and sets the stage for that to happen. The Reapers become allies with all organics, and the galaxy is unified like never before--under a collective understanding for the need for learning. Technological and social understanding explodes.
Total destruction is a decision not to be controlled or influenced, and it is a sign that a complete rejection of such. But the world is a place where you're ALWAYS being influenced--free will itself could easily be a lie. So that kind of choice is a choice for anarchy--entropy, the absence of order. It carries with it a steep price. But the universe toils on, and someone else can always have their chance to make a choice.
That's only the surface of the issues, really. Each ending represents a different philosophy on government, rights of people vs. rights of populations, rights to life, technology, artificial intelligence, the importance of choices, etc. I think it was fairly well done, considering there's no way they could possibly have encompassed all of them.
Am I disappointed in the overall plot? Yes. I wish my choices throughout the game radically changed the ending in a more meaningful way than its outcome. Like choosing to help the Krogan gave me superior Turian/Krogan support making my influence in that sector stronger, which opened up different tactical options to retake Earth. Or choosing to help the Salarians meant I could have used subterfuge to redirect Reaper animosity away from Earth so I could retake it, THEN have the final showdown on Thessia. Etc.
IDK, I feel like a big opportunity was wasted by making it so the final showdown always happened on Earth. Particularly when Earth didn't actually have much practical value in terms of a Reaper assault. It would have made far more sense to take Thessia from the start, then divide the fleets to take Earth and Palaven, IMO. /shrug Unless their plan was actually to knock out Shepard, but that seems unlikely--they never seemed to be targeting the Normandy any more than any other vessel.
All that said, I think the ending was about as good as we reasonably have any right to expect. ME3 overall was worth WELL more than its purchase cost--even with a less-than-amazing central plot line and ending, it ranks as one of the best gaming experiences I've ever had. And that's impressive. And I DO think the endings are interesting, I'm just not into the Crucible plot line. I think they could have more realistically fused it with a conventional war storyline for a more realistic plot. Like how the hell did the Reapers never find that thing? They didn't indoctrinate ANYONE who knew about it? Why didn't they take the Citadel right away? Etc.
At the same time, I can't necessarily begrudge them that plot arc. Because what made the Reapers such a great antagonist also made the convential plot arc super unbelievable. So...
/rambling
Edited, Oct 10th 2012 2:43pm by idiggory
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
Necro Warning: This post occurred more than thirty days after the prior, and may be a necropost.
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
IDK, I feel like a big opportunity was wasted by making it so the final showdown always happened on Earth. Particularly when Earth didn't actually have much practical value in terms of a Reaper assault. It would have made far more sense to take Thessia from the start, then divide the fleets to take Earth and Palaven, IMO. /shrug Unless their plan was actually to knock out Shepard, but that seems unlikely--they never seemed to be targeting the Normandy any more than any other vessel.
Oh, I get that part. What I don't see is why attacking them first was wise.
Think about it, at just the risk of attack all the other races pretty much abandoned Earth, and that's before they knew that the bulk of the fleet was there. And the galactic politics were already beginning to flounder. But Humans were more-or-less the token Citadel race--we didn't have the same levels of technology, resources, colonization, economy, etc. as the rest of the leading species.
Why not target Thessia first? That utterly destroys the galactic economy, removes the galaxy's best mediators from the equation, and severely limits the ability for the resistance by destroying a significant part of their infrastructure. Though, to be fair, perhaps it's because the Asari had colonized so many worlds, where humans had colonized few. But I doubt that would have been such a problem if the goal was to stop unification, not to outright destroy the Asari.
And Sur'kesh would have been an even easier target. Salarians were amazing when dealing with your typical mortal, but against a behemoth like a reaper just about everything they could do was rendered completely obsolete. Subterfuge means little against them. And because of their particular biological needs, Salarian colonization wasn't as extensive as Asari. And targetting them would be a major blow to the staging of supply lines throughout the galaxy.
Instead they sent the bulk of their fleet to Earth, with most of the rest to Palaven. Palaven could hold its own well enough, given the fact that nearly every Turian was combat trained, their population was huge, their fleets vast and powerful. Not to mention they were decently well colonized, at least in their sector. The fleet they sent to the planet didn't even put their species out of commission with regards to galactic politics and infrastructure--seems to me that same pressure could have done WAY more damage if directed at either of the other species.
And then there is humanity. Less advanced technologically, smaller/weaker fleets (the Normandy, afterall, was a technological marvel to all races, but far closer to Turian designs than Human), fewer dreadnoughts (iirc), much more limited colonization than the other races due to time constraints. While they wanted to harvest humans, they also posed the least risk in that cycle.
Why not take out the Salarians to severely weaken the three remaining species, then divide most of your troops between Asari and Turian sectors, always maintaining at least token forces in the Sol system? That way, the Alliance is still too busy protecting itself to actively seek help, and the rest of the Citadel forces are way too occupied fortifying their borders or saving themselves to even seriously consider helping? If the decimation of a minor race was a motivator to stay out of it, imagine what the decimation of a leading species would mean? They could still have started collection, just at a slower pace. But reaper presence still means indoctrination, and indoctrination means regimes will fall from within regardless of outside interference, given enough time. Send enough ships to move from city to city, so they are always defending or recuperating, and focus on Alliance hubs like Vancouver. That way, they can never really muster the ability to seek aid.
That's my take on it at least. But in my opinion, when you can so easily destroy infrastructure because major hubs are SO exposed like Thessia and Sur'kesh were, at least when compared to (say) Palaven, why wouldn't you? Earth was always the smallest risk. MAYBE more than Sur'kesh was, but with a fraction of the ability to organize the non-Council species.
And it's not like Earth could have really done anything to protect their colonies in any case--those are easy human targets right there...
Think about it, at just the risk of attack all the other races pretty much abandoned Earth, and that's before they knew that the bulk of the fleet was there. And the galactic politics were already beginning to flounder. But Humans were more-or-less the token Citadel race--we didn't have the same levels of technology, resources, colonization, economy, etc. as the rest of the leading species.
Why not target Thessia first? That utterly destroys the galactic economy, removes the galaxy's best mediators from the equation, and severely limits the ability for the resistance by destroying a significant part of their infrastructure. Though, to be fair, perhaps it's because the Asari had colonized so many worlds, where humans had colonized few. But I doubt that would have been such a problem if the goal was to stop unification, not to outright destroy the Asari.
And Sur'kesh would have been an even easier target. Salarians were amazing when dealing with your typical mortal, but against a behemoth like a reaper just about everything they could do was rendered completely obsolete. Subterfuge means little against them. And because of their particular biological needs, Salarian colonization wasn't as extensive as Asari. And targetting them would be a major blow to the staging of supply lines throughout the galaxy.
Instead they sent the bulk of their fleet to Earth, with most of the rest to Palaven. Palaven could hold its own well enough, given the fact that nearly every Turian was combat trained, their population was huge, their fleets vast and powerful. Not to mention they were decently well colonized, at least in their sector. The fleet they sent to the planet didn't even put their species out of commission with regards to galactic politics and infrastructure--seems to me that same pressure could have done WAY more damage if directed at either of the other species.
And then there is humanity. Less advanced technologically, smaller/weaker fleets (the Normandy, afterall, was a technological marvel to all races, but far closer to Turian designs than Human), fewer dreadnoughts (iirc), much more limited colonization than the other races due to time constraints. While they wanted to harvest humans, they also posed the least risk in that cycle.
Why not take out the Salarians to severely weaken the three remaining species, then divide most of your troops between Asari and Turian sectors, always maintaining at least token forces in the Sol system? That way, the Alliance is still too busy protecting itself to actively seek help, and the rest of the Citadel forces are way too occupied fortifying their borders or saving themselves to even seriously consider helping? If the decimation of a minor race was a motivator to stay out of it, imagine what the decimation of a leading species would mean? They could still have started collection, just at a slower pace. But reaper presence still means indoctrination, and indoctrination means regimes will fall from within regardless of outside interference, given enough time. Send enough ships to move from city to city, so they are always defending or recuperating, and focus on Alliance hubs like Vancouver. That way, they can never really muster the ability to seek aid.
That's my take on it at least. But in my opinion, when you can so easily destroy infrastructure because major hubs are SO exposed like Thessia and Sur'kesh were, at least when compared to (say) Palaven, why wouldn't you? Earth was always the smallest risk. MAYBE more than Sur'kesh was, but with a fraction of the ability to organize the non-Council species.
And it's not like Earth could have really done anything to protect their colonies in any case--those are easy human targets right there...
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
And then there is humanity. Less advanced technologically, smaller/weaker fleets (the Normandy, afterall, was a technological marvel to all races, but far closer to Turian designs than Human), fewer dreadnoughts (iirc), much more limited colonization than the other races due to time constraints. While they wanted to harvest humans, they also posed the least risk in that cycle.
Human military doctrine is also called out as being significantly different compared to how other races handle warfare. The least risk? No, I don't think that's the case. Perhaps less than the military might currently held by the Turians, but I strongly suspect that the Reapers rightly saw them as a greater overall threat than the Asari and Salarians in the kind of war the Reapers were waging.
And that's before you consider the fact that humanity was actually preparing for them, something I don't believe any other race was really doing. With humanity in a reasonably strong state, they would be the natural leaders to rally a resistance. No, I suspect that a strong hit on earth was, in fact, a good call. Perhaps they went overboard a bit, but nonetheless, I can't really fault the strategy.
Perhaps. At the end of the day, even if I were right, it wouldn't be a huge plot hole anyway.
The one thing I do seriously wonder, though, is why it took the Illusive Man so long to tell the Reapers about the Crucible project. He had been fully indoctrinated for decades before the Reapers even invaded. So what was it? Was he just subconsciously fighting it that whole time so the process took longer to work on his conscious mind? Or does it have something to do with the fundamental aspect of indoctrination? I mean, all the lore suggests that it doesn't take too long for indoctrinated people to end up mindless. Even if we give a a pretty wide meaning to the word "long" I feel like 2 decades is within that.
At least, IIRC Grayson's indoctrination was that long before ME1, right?
The one thing I do seriously wonder, though, is why it took the Illusive Man so long to tell the Reapers about the Crucible project. He had been fully indoctrinated for decades before the Reapers even invaded. So what was it? Was he just subconsciously fighting it that whole time so the process took longer to work on his conscious mind? Or does it have something to do with the fundamental aspect of indoctrination? I mean, all the lore suggests that it doesn't take too long for indoctrinated people to end up mindless. Even if we give a a pretty wide meaning to the word "long" I feel like 2 decades is within that.
At least, IIRC Grayson's indoctrination was that long before ME1, right?
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
Doesn't Anderson survive if you do enough stuff right?
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
Spoilers still?
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin
Mazra wrote:
Doesn't Anderson survive if you do enough stuff right?
Omega, I figure the fact that there are different endings warrants it. People may have seen one but not others.
For an additional 15 seconds or so.
Yeah, he tells Shepard he's proud of him/her, his greatest protege, and dies looking out at the Earth. It was actually fairly powerful, imo.
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
Mazra wrote:
Doesn't Anderson survive if you do enough stuff right?
Yeah, he tells Shepard he's proud of him/her, his greatest protege, and dies looking out at the Earth. It was actually fairly powerful, imo.
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
Let's face the facts, the reapers have fairly contrived strategies in order to make ground assaults, and thus a team of commandos, more relevant to the plot. If you look at the fluff, when exploring planets for example, you find the reapers mostly orbitally bombard their enemies to death. There's a decent justification in the case of humans, who they want to harvest to form a reaper (having the actual liquid remains be a part of the hull is kind of bizarre, but given their aims it'd make sense they'd want as many brains as possible, to scan and possible integrate as organic computational matter). But it's kind of dumb to land on Palaven just to take turians to make into marauders and brutes solely for the purposes of landing on earth when you could simply roast the turians from anywhere in their solar system.
Honestly, I would have preferred the main force of reapers to show up towards the end of ME3, rather than the beginning. I think it would've made them seem more dangerous, would've given them a better reason to be working through Cerberus and converted troops, and most importantly it might have made for a less unrelentingly gloomy game.
The ME series has always been about being a ridiculous space badass, and I felt the third game did that the worst. It's obviously a conscious choice, but I didn't really feel it fit in with the actual missions, where you're going around duelling reaper destroyers, crouching behind a brick wall to take cover from its giant space laser, banzai charging a dreadnought.... It's kind of weird to see the game take itself almost relentlessly seriously with all of this sh*t going around. I always thought the other two mass effect games did a great job of blending a sense of fun with serious elements. Not so much here. I didn't get to shove anyone screaming through a window or headbutt a single krogan. Basically, I felt the atmosphere was kind of a let down.
Also, I have to say, I was determined to like the endings. I was prepared for a full on Lovecraftian trip-out bizarro ending straight from the mind of some drugged up Gainax fan. But, in the end, I couldn't. When I heard all the sh*t talk about them I assumed everyone was just upset because it ended sadly or ambiguously, but they're just bad. Really, truly awful.
On a brighter note the combat roll is a great addition.
Edited, Oct 11th 2012 8:41pm by Kavekk
Honestly, I would have preferred the main force of reapers to show up towards the end of ME3, rather than the beginning. I think it would've made them seem more dangerous, would've given them a better reason to be working through Cerberus and converted troops, and most importantly it might have made for a less unrelentingly gloomy game.
The ME series has always been about being a ridiculous space badass, and I felt the third game did that the worst. It's obviously a conscious choice, but I didn't really feel it fit in with the actual missions, where you're going around duelling reaper destroyers, crouching behind a brick wall to take cover from its giant space laser, banzai charging a dreadnought.... It's kind of weird to see the game take itself almost relentlessly seriously with all of this sh*t going around. I always thought the other two mass effect games did a great job of blending a sense of fun with serious elements. Not so much here. I didn't get to shove anyone screaming through a window or headbutt a single krogan. Basically, I felt the atmosphere was kind of a let down.
Also, I have to say, I was determined to like the endings. I was prepared for a full on Lovecraftian trip-out bizarro ending straight from the mind of some drugged up Gainax fan. But, in the end, I couldn't. When I heard all the sh*t talk about them I assumed everyone was just upset because it ended sadly or ambiguously, but they're just bad. Really, truly awful.
On a brighter note the combat roll is a great addition.
Edited, Oct 11th 2012 8:41pm by Kavekk
Recent Visitors: 430
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (430)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- General Video Game Discussion
- Mass Effect 3
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC