Soooo....Mass Effect 3

[Jester]

How about Nintendo's million selling series Nintendogs/cats? How about the newer Xbox Kinectimals? How about Viva Pinata and Viva Pinata 2? How about Kingdom of Keflings 1+2.

Fair enough. The animal training genre is pretty small, but that makes sense. I don't know enough about Viva Piñata to say, nor Kingdom for Keflings. But The Sims predates Black and White - it's not enough to have a "sandbox game where you babysit creatures that have intelligent-yet-stupid AI," because that'd been done before - not least by Peter Molyneux himself, in Populous.

A lot of that has to do with interface and technology advancement. Like I said though, B&W suffered from control issues. I also believe I stated the game suffered from shoehorning a genre and gameplay elements onto it that didn't fit. Claiming a genre is dead that in my initial argument I stated didn't even fit the game we were discussing isn't a very strong point. And it's less strong when I've offered a lot of examples above which have found some level of critical or commercial success which definitely recently fall in that genre.

Again, fair enough. But Black and White didn't begin that genre, although there's a pretty fair argument that Peter Molyneux did. It did experiment with a few ambitious ideas, that, after time and technology, were turned into something better. But something being "before its time" seems to imply that it was just not appreciated because it was so innovative, that the culture just hadn't come around to his vision. But here, the opposite was true - Molyneux's vision was lauded as revolutionary from day one in the gaming press. It just wasn't actually that good. A semi-failed prototype, rather than an underappreciated innovation.

-Jester

[Kevin]

How about Nintendo's million selling series Nintendogs/cats? How about the newer Xbox Kinectimals? How about Viva Pinata and Viva Pinata 2? How about Kingdom of Keflings 1+2.

Fair enough. The animal training genre is pretty small, but that makes sense. I don't know enough about Viva Piñata to say, nor Kingdom for Keflings. But The Sims predates Black and White - it's not enough to have a "sandbox game where you babysit creatures that have intelligent-yet-stupid AI," because that'd been done before - not least by Peter Molyneux himself, in Populous.

Yeah Populous is more likely to be considered the first real game like that but I think the games Chesspiece_face mentions are more closely tied to Creatures than the Molyneux line.

Though with Nintendogs/cats it could probably be argued that things like that Tamagotchi which was also a 1996 release was the real start of that, especially given that it was created by and for the Japanese culture initially.

[Quark]

Random note, since many reviewers got it wrong.

http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/...65384&lf=8

Your ending(s) are determined by your "Effective Military Strength" (let's call it EMS for now) bar. Focus on that bar - that is your indicator of how well you will do in the end-game.

You can maximize your EMS just by collecting War Assets in the single-player game. There is a certain threshhold of these you would need to exceed (I can't get too specific) but I can tell you there are MORE than the required amount that can be gathered in the single-player campaign.

"Galactic Readiness" is a modifier you can improve by playing multiplayer. That is to say, if you play a lot of multiplayer, you will need less War Assets from single-player to fill up your EMS bar (ie it will balance out the requirements to account for you playing in both modes). Single-player game play does not impact that bar.

EMS = success. EMS can be maximized via collecting war assets alone, even if your Galactic Readiness is 50%.

Emphasis mine.

[Taelas]

I completed the game.

The majority of the game is good. Really good. The storyline has some holes in it, but for the most part, it's decent. The gameplay's excellent, better than ME2's.

I am not quite so thrilled about the ending, though.

Also, Quark, I don't know what exactly they expect single-player-only players to do, but I did everything I could do in all but one of the story "arcs" of the game (I missed some of the side-quests in the first, as I didn't realize the Priority missions can make some of the side-quests unavailable and unable to complete), but I didn't have enough EMS to get the 'best' ending. It's entirely possible I could gather enough War Assets in the first arc to get the bit I was missing, but having to complete the single-player campaign to near perfect completion seems a little excessive. Still, that's just for the 'best' ending.

[Pantalaimon]

Taelas: I'm curious, are you paragon or renegade? And does it affect how much EMS you can obtain?

[Taelas]

Full Paragon. Whether or not it significantly affected the outcome... I honestly don't know. I'm not certain, but I think you could get the "best" result with either. I haven't tried Renegade (and I am unlikely to try, at least for a while; I never did Renegade in ME1 or ME2), so I can't say whether or not Paragon is better EMS-wise. I don't think so, though.

[Lissa]

Penny Arcade's take on Mass Effect 3. They seem to like it quite a bit. So fear not Bolty.

[Erigion]

Finished the game today and as with many people I found the ending(s) to be nothing too special, but it isn't something that I'll scream about. I'm not sure if Bioware could have done a much better job with it given the constraints of the gaming model and needed limitations on the gamer's choices. The other 95% of the game is pretty damn epic though. Choices have much more weight behind them that they easily fly by the ones from ME2 and even surpass the ones from the original game. The writing is a bit overwrought quite a few times, but I wasn't expecting (insert favorite writer here) quality from the game.

Combat is a more refined version of ME2 which is a good thing. The only complaint I had with it is the sometimes clunky melee combat. The multiplayer is surprisingly fun to play, especially if your squadmates are the least bit competent and know what they're doing.

I can't wait for Mass Effect 4 where the spirit of my Shepard is thrown into some cybernetic body and runs around saving the galaxy with the help of synthesized Reapers.

[NiteFox]

I'm not sure if this will influence anyone's decision to buy the game, but:

Blasto 6: Partners in Crime

[Bolty]

Blasto 6: Partners in Crime

This one has forgotten whether its heatsink is over capacity. It wonders whether the criminal scum considers itself fortunate?

Props to Blasto. I remember chuckling over those on Illium in ME2.

Any non-spoiler reviews from Lurkers who have completed the game yet? I hear it's sort of a solid combination of what's good in ME1 and what's good in ME2 all mashed together, but with fewer dialog choices.

[Lissa]

Blasto 6: Partners in Crime

This one has forgotten whether its heatsink is over capacity. It wonders whether the criminal scum considers itself fortunate?

Props to Blasto. I remember chuckling over those on Illium in ME2.

Any non-spoiler reviews from Lurkers who have completed the game yet? I hear it's sort of a solid combination of what's good in ME1 and what's good in ME2 all mashed together, but with fewer dialog choices.

While I haven't gotten very far, the multiplayer is actually pretty fun. The only problem I've seen with multiplayer is the Soldier gets the short end of the stick as your initial weapons are pretty pathetic damagewise.



Edit: Ok, halfway through now. I am definitely seeing ramifications from things I did in ME 1 and ME 2, things that seemed minor at the time do play some role in ME 3, some again minor, some actually major. Likewise, there will be things that will happen that will real invest you emotionally in the game with what happens.

Minor spoiler incoming, do not continue if you do not want to know about it.





























On the Normandy SR2, in the crew quarters (Deck 3), right in front of the elevator is a memorial to all those that have served on the Normandy SR1 and SR2 that have died. As you go through the game, names will be added.

[Pesmerga]

I'm enjoying the storyline a fair bit (my wife even wants to play it after I explained a bit to her, although she make me handle the fighting...), but Multiplayer has become my addiction.

(UCPesmerga on origin, if anyone feels like joining me).

[[wcip]Angel]

I've played the first real level after the tutorial-section.

Initial impressions (spoiler-free):

1. Movement has improved. Your avatar is more agile, which creates more interesting fights. Movement input seems very dumbed down though. In the tutorial you jump over holes in the ground simply by pressing the sprint and forward button. (meaning, you run using the same buttons as you traverse a hole with... meaning you don't actually do anything in order to traverse the hole, and thus the "obstacle" has no purpose in the game.)

2. Graphics seem bland. I don't know why I'm left with this impression. I'm sure the techniqual quality of the game is impressive. It just doesn't look very nice. I'll check the settings tomorrow to make sure I'm on max. The Witcher 2 this ain't.

3. Dialogue and story so far are very ham-fisted. This might be a case of Babylon 5ism, in that I might enjoy it as a saga after having completed the whole thing, but on close inspection, the individual conversations and story arcs don't hold up to scrutiny. I feel I shouldn't have spent my "the witcher 2 this ain't" on the previous bullet point, because dialogue, plot and character are what seperates the toys from the art in this industry. Mass Effect 3 is definitely a toy.

4. The game FEELS shallow, predictable and dumb. Play the tutorial and you'll see. If The Witcher 2 is HBO, Mass Effect 3 is Fox.

5. I'm sure I'll be able to forgive much of my initial gripe and really get into the game over the course of the weekend, but at this point I have a sneaking suspicion I'll be sorely disappointed by the end.

[Jabberwolky]

The Vanguard is by far my favorite class so far out of all that I have played in this series. You can spec so that you can Charge/Nova and pretty much spam that. I find with that set up i rarely fire a shot, and it gets you close enough to use the power melee (a cool bonus :}) I only carry an eviserator 2 shotgun and a light pistol (forget the name..the default). I have not tried this on Insane diff yet, only hardcore. If you like hearing sheppard yell constantly, would enjoy zipping across the battlefield attacking the baddies from every angle possible, beating things with your fists, and like rushing into 3 or 4 mobs at a time and putting them all on the ground in an instant....then try this build.

Another strong build that I have enjoyed is the Infiltrator with the Cryofreeze and the cloak that allows you to do more than one power before decloaking. This build with a mantis sniper rifle and a light pistol will let you head shot/one shot everything you go after. Make sure to take party members that can strip the shields off the baddies to make it effective.

[Crusader]

I'm playing the game and seem well on my way in the story but I must say the recurring theme of loss is laid on a bit too thickly and repeated too often.

[[wcip]Angel]

I've played all weekend and believe I might be about 3/5 or so through the game. The game is fun and entertaining, and some story arcs are genuinely interesting.

That being said, I'm starting to see the inconsistencies of the paragon/renegade-system. I think it's pretty ridiculous that the "good" and "evil" answers are always in the same place on the conversation wheel. Also, some of the choices feel forced. I was given a choice on a mission where the "Good" choice involved sacrificing a bunch of lives in order to save a person. This is what would normally have constituted a "evil" choice, but because the designers behind the game want us to go in that direction, they label it "good".

I'm a broken record, I know... but The Witcher 2 made this system of player choice a whole lot better. I'll explain why:

In TW2:
1. You can't foresee the consequences of your choices, especially what the long-term consequences will be.
2. You can't tell what the designers believe is the "correct"/"incorrect" or "good"/"evil" answer.
3. There is no good/evil-indicator saying you sway to the side of light or dark. Couple this with the first two arguments, and you get a system of player choice that feels like TRUE roleplaying: you make the choice you believe is right for each individual situation you're in. The way I'm playing ME3 at the moment, I'm "making a paragon character", meaning I always choose the upper right option on the conversation wheel, regardless of what I feel is correct for me and my character.
4. The choices you make in TW2 and their subsequent consequences seem like they belong in a narrative. ME3 *FEELS* like a video game, and the mechanics behind its system of choice are not disguised well.

I'm not sure I'm able to explain the difference between these two systems, but one is decidedly more enjoyable than the other.


That being said, ME3 has its charms. I am enjoying it as a game, if not for its narrative or characters.

[Pesmerga]

3. There is no good/evil-indicator saying you sway to the side of light or dark. Couple this with the first two arguments, and you get a system of player choice that feels like TRUE roleplaying: you make the choice you believe is right for each individual situation you're in. The way I'm playing ME3 at the moment, I'm "making a paragon character", meaning I always choose the upper right option on the conversation wheel, regardless of what I feel is correct for me and my character.

Why are you "making a paragon character"?

Why not play the game, even know which outcome is which, as your character would determine? There's nothing stopping you, past the fact that you know which answer will get which paragon/renegade response. I've racked up my fair share of renegade points because that's how I feel my character should be played. Hell, my character has carried a grudge against someone from the original Mass Effect, and I got to play out that confrontation in true renegade style (good lord, I loved being able to do that too), despite the fact I'm pretty much a Paragon.

Ultimately, keeping the positions consistent on the wheel allows people who don't like to stray into one extreme at all, while allowing those of us who want to roleplay a certain type the option to do so, so long as we allow ourselves to do so.

[Quark]

Except it's not just "good" vs "evil". It's "upholding your values at any cost" versus "making tough choices that need to be made".

In fact, there's quite a few carryovers from ME1/ME2 where your Paragon options made things worse for the entire galaxy in ME3 - and they are exactly as you say for TW2, having unintended consequences that you could not have foreseen. Actually, your statement

1. You can't foresee the consequences of your choices, especially what the long-term consequences will be.

Is almost a direct quote from a character in ME3 regarding a choice made in ME2.

That being said, ME3 has its charms. I am enjoying it as a game, if not for its narrative or characters.

Augh. The character interaction in this game is phenomenal. After every mission I force myself to seek out every crew member on both Normandy and The Citadel to ensure I hear everything. The best are when the crew members are interacting with each other.

[Taelas]

"True" roleplaying necessitates that you can separate yourself from your character, otherwise there's little roleplaying involved--you're just playing yourself. When I play Mass Effect, I choose Paragon because I want my Shepard to be an upstanding hero, not because my own personal outlook agrees with it (though it does, most of the time). I find myself disagreeing with Shepard regarding certain choices on occasion, but because I am a player and have the benefit of a metagame perspective, that's fine.

The Mass Effect series has consistently been praised for the dialogue wheel, and this is not without good reason. The fact that you know whether an option is Paragon or Renegade beforehand is important, because the brief sentence describing each choice is nowhere near enough to illustrate beforehand exactly the actions Shepard is going to take. In order to play a consistent character, it is important not to choose actions which are diametrically opposed to the character's beliefs; it rips you right out of the immersion whenever it happens. Even then, not all upper dialogue options are Paragon, and not all lower dialogue options are Renegade. Not all choices have an alignment.

The left-hand options involve questions about the current topic (or other topics, usually accessed through the middle left option), while the right-hand options involve moving on from it. This is of course not always true; Charm and Intimidate options are generally on the left-hand side even when they resolve the situation, and exploring more than 3 topics means the right-hand side can be questioning. But it only deviates from it in specific ways, which makes it very reliable.

All of this combines the dialogue wheel and enables cinematic dialogue, and it lets Shepard have a voice (and I don't mean just a voice actor). When Shepard gets angry, you can feel it. When you are curious, Shepard is curious. It is one of the main reasons--along with a solid, unique and interesting universe--that Mass Effect is so acclaimed. Dragon Age II did this as well, and it was by far the best part of the game. Star Wars: The Old Republic feels far more alive than other MMOs for the same reason.

You can still take the options you feel are right for the character even if they are not Paragon-aligned. You are not dirtied somehow for choosing a Renegade option that you believe makes sense for the character; neither alignments are mutually exclusive, and since there is a cap, you can have full Paragon and still take Renegade options when you feel they are appropriate. For example, whenever my Shepard could get an advantage from a Renegade interrupt (such as in ME2, killing the Batarian engineer working on the gunship in Archangel's recruitment mission), I jumped at it, despite my Shepard being 100% Paragon otherwise. I felt it was consistent with her character.

Paragon/Renegade isn't strict Good/Evil. Hero/Anti-Hero is probably far more appropriate. No Shepard is very evil, all in all (though an anthropocentric Renegade probably comes close). You are not roleplaying your own character: you are roleplaying your own Shepard. The savior of the galaxy, the first human Spectre, etc.

I don't see how Mass Effect does not incorporate all of those points you listed, aside from the third (which isn't very relevant, in my opinion). I find Mass Effect to have a wonderful narrative for the vast majority of the storyline. (I still find problems with it; I'm not saying it's perfect, but I find it very good.)

[Lissa]

I wouldn't even call Paragon/Renegade hero/anti-hero either. To me, it's more along the lines of selfless/moral vs selfish/amoral. The problem is, there are times where being selfless can be very evil while being selfish would be more good. Case in point, a suicide bomber is being selfless, typically, to show resolve towards their beliefs and the act of them doing what they do is selfless, but completely evil.

Also, I completely disagree about seperating yourself from the character is roleplay. Roleplay is putting yourself into the position of the character and thinking as the character would think and doing as the character would do, that is the heart of roleplay. To just blindly choose an option because it's "paragon" or "renegade" is not roleplay at all. Roleplay requires you to think how the character would act given the situation, not because you get points one way or another.

Likewise, Shepard isn't evil, they are doing what they think is necessary to preserve organic life from the Reapers. I don't know if you ever played through Arrival DLC for ME 2, but if you had, you would see that after Shepard destroys the Alpha Relay and wipes out a Batarian colony, it does weigh on them, the only solace Shepard gains is it bought time for the galaxy at the cost of several hundred thousand lives.