For the good of video games, Anthem needs to fail hard

Ovinomancer · Feb 27, 2019

Zardnaar said:
And thats why Mass Effect 2 and 3 are regarded as better games mechanically, ME 3 story not so much. And also why ME2 is generally regarded as the best one as well.

I think for some franchises you do have to cater to the fans to some extent, they are your customers.

Think Knights of the Old Republic, generally regarded as the best Star Wars game of all time, one of the best RPGs of all time, great story etc. Doesn't hold up so well now graphics wise but its still fun to bust out on occasion, I rebought it on steam so I don't have to dig my old Xbox out in order to play it.

My wife she was into Dragon age, I loved ME 1,2, and 3.

EA can't make a good game anymore it seems, Bioware can't make a good RPG anymore. I mean why is Bioware making shooters when they are good at RPGs? Obviously they are chasing the money but that is not gonna help out if the game sucks and sod all buy it. Fallout 76 is another example its rubbish, so is ME: Andromeda and I basically got it for free (well via EA access).

Battlefield 1 is OK, along with the other Battlefields, single player Star Wars battlefront II was OK/entertaining if short, and I also played ME 1,2,3 recently. Thing is I got all of that on EA access and its roughly what I value EA now- $24 a year. Once upon a time I paid $90 (in 1994 IIRC) for Jungle Strike a single EA game. EA made a few more dollars off me with ME DLC, but overall I think I have paid them maybe $70 or so over the last 2-3 years. If they made decent stuff that number would be a lot more hell I spent $300 last year on D&D. I would not pay full price for a Battlefront game, all of them + Mass Effect+ the other games (Titanfall 2, Unravel) at $24 is good value even if the great games are the old ones.

Why would I get nickel and dimed on loot boxes when I can pay for quality games (alot of Paradox Interactive stuff), or I can subscribe to bulk games on Xbox live gold, Xbox gamepass, and EA access for around $120 a year for 200 odd games?

I do wish you'd stop using "generally regarded" as a stand in for "my opinion."

Zardnaar · Feb 27, 2019

Ovinomancer said:
I do wish you'd stop using "generally regarded" as a stand in for "my opinion."

I was using things like reviews, forums, youtube videos etc. Its like Empire Strikes back is generally regarded as the best SW movie, sure not everyone will agree hence the word generally.

Metacritic
ME 91%
ME 2 94%
ME 3 89%

Basically
ME2
ME
ME3
ME: Andromeda

Is how most people would likely rank the ME series. Some people really like ME 3 (and I think its good as well).

I also do not mind buying DLC either as long as its good, for example Fallout 4 was the pack in game for my Xbox One along with 2 Tomb Raiders and Fallout III, but I bought Far Harbor DLC and loved it, Nuka World was also kinda fun but story was weaker than Far Harbour.

Deset Gled · Feb 27, 2019

Zardnaar said:
I bought the old Bioware games multiple times before EA acquired them.

By your own list, that is patently false. Bioware was acquired by EA in 2007. Every copy of ME2 and ME3, as well as anything you have ever bought for Xbox One, is all after the EA acquisition.

And you're still paying them a $24/year subscription.

Zardnaar · Feb 27, 2019

Deset Gled said:
By your own list, that is patently false. Bioware was acquired by EA in 2007. Every copy of ME2 and ME3, as well as anything you have ever bought for Xbox One, is all after the EA acquisition.

And you're still paying them a $24/year subscription.

Didn't realise it was that long ago thought it was around 2010 or so.

$24 is a great price for the EA games, if I get multiple 7/10 or 8/10 titles for that price and can run my Mass Effect its a decent value deal for me. I would not buy a new AAA+ EA game at full price. And I would not care if EA went bankrupt, they are offering product at a price I don't mind paying and $24 is a lot cheaper than lot boxes and/or companies that spam DLC. $24 is basically a steak meal with a beer, I don't even notice it. Hell I spent more than that on curry night two days ago.

Generally if I am disleased with a company I won't boycott it as such but my spending on that company will drop drastically. WoTC after Pathfinder came out and they dropped the ball with 4E and SWSE going out of print, I no longer buy Activision games (used to be a CoD2/MW fan).

Bethesda dropped the ball with Fallout 76, I'm not buying it but I am not boycotting them either. I am in the market for more Fallout 4 DLC that is of good quality or Fallout 5. I'll go see episode IX, but if its not that good I'll see it once, episode VII I watched 4 times. Some things I am just not in the market for full stop (rap, super hero movies, romantic comedies).

MGibster · Feb 28, 2019

Jester David said:
And how would you have improved it?

I'd probably work on some endings that didn't ignore all that the player had accomplished in the first three games. Player options were to destroy all synthetic life, merge synthetic & organic life, or upload their personality into a Reaper and take control. I don't know about everyone's play through of the games but none of these were tenable choices for me.

I worked very hard to make peace between the Geth and the Quarians. There's no reason to destroy all synthetic life.

I respected the various species and it wasn't my place to force them to merge as if I was some sort of dictator.

Upload my personality to a Reaper? When it's been established that they're a corrupting influence on everything they touch? That sounds like a horrible idea. That's a hard no.

ME3 remains the only one in the series I haven't replayed. The ending left such a bad taste in my mouth that I abandoned the franchise and knew I wasn't interested in ME: Andromeda as soon as I hear it announced. I don't think of myself as a whiny entitled fan but that ending was truly, truly awful.

Jester David · Feb 28, 2019

MGibster said:
I'd probably work on some endings that didn't ignore all that the player had accomplished in the first three games.

It did have to stand alone, since something like 60% of people didn't copy a save.
And it's not like the ending could reflect every choice: there's a finite amount of cutscenes they could animate. Each full motion video would have taken weeks of work.

Plus, the game was defined by two paths. Two choices. Renegade and Paragon. It made sense that the final moment would do the same. Adding a third middle path was almost excessive.

MGibster said:
Player options were to destroy all synthetic life, merge synthetic & organic life, or upload their personality into a Reaper and take control. I don't know about everyone's play through of the games but none of these were tenable choices for me.

I worked very hard to make peace between the Geth and the Quarians. There's no reason to destroy all synthetic life.

I respected the various species and it wasn't my place to force them to merge as if I was some sort of dictator.

Upload my personality to a Reaper? When it's been established that they're a corrupting influence on everything they touch? That sounds like a horrible idea. That's a hard no.

I didn't mind that; I didn't want a mega-happy ending where there was no consequence or hard choice. Because if there was such an easy option, why would anyone take another option? If you could just send out a signal that turned off the Reapers, that'd feel anticlimactic.

There needed to be a sacrifice: sacrifice yourself, sacrifice the Geth, or sacrifice people's identities.

MGibster said:
ME3 remains the only one in the series I haven't replayed. The ending left such a bad taste in my mouth that I abandoned the franchise and knew I wasn't interested in ME: Andromeda as soon as I hear it announced. I don't think of myself as a whiny entitled fan but that ending was truly, truly awful.

I was a little disappointed at first, as there was no follow-up showing the result of my actions. But they fixed that with a patch, with the epilogue showing what happened after and the results of your choices during the game. I liked that, seeing the positive and negative consequences of what I did.
It was all I needed.

Zardnaar · Feb 28, 2019

Jester David said:
It did have to stand alone, since something like 60% of people didn't copy a save.
And it's not like the ending could reflect every choice: there's a finite amount of cutscenes they could animate. Each full motion video would have taken weeks of work.

Plus, the game was defined by two paths. Two choices. Renegade and Paragon. It made sense that the final moment would do the same. Adding a third middle path was almost excessive.

I didn't mind that; I didn't want a mega-happy ending where there was no consequence or hard choice. Because if there was such an easy option, why would anyone take another option? If you could just send out a signal that turned off the Reapers, that'd feel anticlimactic.

There needed to be a sacrifice: sacrifice yourself, sacrifice the Geth, or sacrifice people's identities.

I was a little disappointed at first, as there was no follow-up showing the result of my actions. But they fixed that with a patch, with the epilogue showing what happened after and the results of your choices during the game. I liked that, seeing the positive and negative consequences of what I did.
It was all I needed.

Destroying the reapers should have been an option. Didn't need to be the only end leaving them to purge everything also could have been included.

Other games have mutiple endings that are different. EA is one of the biggest game corporations I'm sure they can pay for some decent endings.

Jester David · Feb 28, 2019

Zardnaar said:
Destroying the reapers should have been an option. Didn't need to be the only end leaving them to purge everything also could have been included. Other games have mutiple endings that are different. EA is one of the biggest game corporations I'm sure they can pay for some decent endings.

Destroying the reapers WAS one of the endings. That was the renegade option, which is literally called the "destroy" ending. And there were three basic ending (destruction, control, synthesis), each of which also had several sub-endings (perfect, good, bad) depending on the player's readiness rating. Which is possible twice as many endings than pretty much any other video game I've played in the last few years. I'd have loved some alternate endings to, say Arkham Knight.

Zardnaar · Feb 28, 2019

Jester David said:
Destroying the reapers WAS one of the endings. That was the renegade option, which is literally called the "destroy" ending. And there were three basic ending (destruction, control, synthesis), each of which also had several sub-endings (perfect, good, bad) depending on the player's readiness rating. Which is possible twice as many endings than pretty much any other video game I've played in the last few years. I'd have loved some alternate endings to, say Arkham Knight.

Wasn't that one of the added endings? Even with the free dlc the ends were very similar. It was better would not call it great. Still overall good game, still looked good late 2017 when I played through them again although ME1 was rough.

ME2 still the best

Mustrum_Ridcully · Feb 28, 2019

Well, I think Mass Effect overall story always lost severely in quality in ME2. The whole "Harvesting to make a Reaper" thing was already not the best idea. Turning the "We harvest to preserve all the life we kill so we don't have to kill life" thing in ME3 is more or less just a consequence of a bad idea started in ME2. ME2 however did make great work with the characters and the squad.

ME3 ending probably actualy didn't need 3 (or 4) choices at the end. It just needed to respect the choices we made before and not fail to acknowledge them (Hey, Starbrat, you know I brokered a peace between the Quarian and Geth, so stop blabbering about how that is impossible. We don't need forced Synthesis for that, and we don't need to mind-control anyone or murder them either!)
it's not like ME1 had different endings where in one, Saren lives or Sovereign gets convinced that maybe murdering organics isn't such a great idea.

What happens to Anderson
- You're really awesome: he survives the conflict with the IM and joins you on the way to the Control Chamber and stays alive for the final decision.
- You manage: He dies in the control chamber before you have to make the final decision.
- You screw up: You have the choice. Sacrifice yourself for Anderson, or lose him.
- You royally screw up: IM reaches the Control Chamber.

What happens to the Illusive Man
- You're really awesome: You convince the IM to stop. You can get him to kill himself, or get him to overcome the indoctrination and join you for the Control Chamber.
- You manage: You and Anderson kill the IM before he can do more harm.
- You screw up: He activates the Crucible, sending a Control Signal to the Reapers. It doesn't work, because he's indoctrinated and the Crucible as not really designed for this purpose. But with his dying words, Shepard can get through the indoctrination, and the IM activates the Crucible again. But it wasn't really designed for a second activation, and it blows up, destroying Earth. The IM kills himself because he realizes his attempt of advanding humanity just ruined it.
- You royally screw up: The Illusive Man activates the Control Signal, but it doesn't work. He dies as the Reapers blow up the Crucible and win this cycle. 50,000 years later, Liara's Beacon acttivates and warns of the return of the Reapers.

Final Decision
Activating the Crucible will require a lot of excess energy be channeled somwhere, and the persons in the Control Chamber have the choice. The energy can simply be channeled into the Citadel, or down the Citadel Beam, or a combination. The Crucible itself is mostly protected from the fallout, but the Citadel isn't, and the radiation will also affect the fleets around you, potentially destroying it.
Whoever actually activates the Crucible however is screwed, he'll die. but he gets to make the final decision.
- Kill everyone aboard the Citadel and huge parts of the fleets as the energy is radiated into open space. The Citadel will likely be completely destroyed. => TIM's Choice, except for his case things turn worse.
- Kill everyone in a 2,000 Kilometer Radius around London and probably lead to a "nuclear winter" on Earth. The Citadel can be repaired afterwards. => Andersons Default Choice
- Kill everyone in the Control Chamber, everyone in a 500 Kilometer Radius around London, and everyone in the Citadel, as you split the energy up. There is a possiblity the Citadel can be repaired afterwards.

If anyone is with you, you can choose which of you actually go to the shelter and who sacrifices himself.

Final Results:
Depending only on your EMS
- You're really awesome: The losses on Earth/Citadel/Fleet are not as bad as feared.
- You manage: The losses are as expected, the Mass Relays are damaged but salvagable.
- You screw up: The losses are worse than expected, as some Reapers survive and wreak havoc for a while. But they are beaten in the end.
- You royally screw up: Reapers are gone, but so are the Mass Relays and the system they are in. 50,000 years later, Liara's Beacon activates and tell the story of how the Reapers were beaten at the cost of everyone.

Additionally. If the Citadel somehow can be salvaged, it will help the survivors of Earth. Losing the Fleets when Reapers survive will lead to more devastation. Losing the Citadel entirely could make reestablishing the Council Authority harder, as no one can agree where the new seat should be. Unless Earth is devestated, then people agree it should be there, in honor of humanity's sacrifice. The outlook for the future could vary depending on the other chices - Genophage Cured but no Wrex, noo Citadel leads to a weak Council Authority (or perhaps none), and to new Krogan rebellion, which a strong remaining fleet cna contain, a weak fleet won't. Genophage Cured with Wrex culd lead to Wrex offering Krogan help to restore Earth. Stuff like that.