All About NBAmaster33
I'm sorry for not posting on here in quite some time. I finished Mass Effect 3 a couple of months ago and am actively in support of the fanbase's dissatisfaction with the ending. Here are some of my thoughts on the matter.
I think the "meaning" behind each choice is only figurative. The player never sees the results of the choices, and all three yield the exact same end to the game. There's essentially only one ending, and the different color is the only substantial variant with each choice. I suppose you can consider this to be in the "lack of closure" category of complaints, but I see this as a separate issue. They should've at least tried to have the cutscenes be marginally different instead of identical save for the color. In other words, there's only one ending to the game despite the appearance of three different outcomes. It's like the same chocolate bar with a different colored-rapping.
I think destroy is the only legitimate option because that has been the goal throughout the entire series. Making the goal change in the last scene of the game goes against everything the previous titles and Mass Effect 3 stood for. That is a major fault in my opinion. Here's my take on each ending:
Control: This doesn't make practical sense since Shepard convinced the Illusive Man to shoot himself or shot him regardless because of his ideas being wrong. Pursuing his ideas after killing him is not in Shepard's nature. I find choosing this option to be siding with the antagonist's idea, which Shepard should not do under any circumstances as a story component. As for the results of this choice, the Reapers are still intact, presumably under Shepard's control somehow. I suppose in theory he could use them to help rebuild Earth and fly to other star systems to retrieve supplies for people as the relays have been destroyed. However, no one knows that he is controlling the Reapers, so that wouldn't work. I don't really see any positive outcome from this choice, and taking into account how his home planet was decimated, as well as Garrus and Liara's home planets, I don't believe Shepard should choose that option because he is betraying what they fought for.
Synthesis: This is implied to be the best option because it is unlocked last in terms of EMS. Like I said before, how the hell does that EMP change all organisms' genetic codes and DNA? Everyone now is half metallic? How does that create peace? How will that stop people from creating new synthetics? It won't. Plus, the Reapers are neither dead nor are they under Shepard's control. Do they retreat into Dark Space? What makes everyone so sure they won't keep purging the galaxy anyway? I also don't like how the Catalyst seems to sway the player into choosing this option. Doesn't that mar the idea of player choice when the game indirectly recommends an option for you?
Destroy: The best option because it is consistent with the goal of the entire series. That goal cannot be altered in the final scene of the trilogy, and that alone makes it the best option. However, why is it painted as the worst option with the highest level of negative consequence (in theory) with the deaths of all synthetics? Like I previously stated, the game doesn't specify what synthetic means. Yes, the Geth are synthetic, but what about the Quarians and people with biotic implants? Do they count? Also, why the hell does Shepard continue to walk into the explosion rather than shoot at it from a safe distance? That's one of the worst instances of lack of narrative coherence I've ever seen. Shepard should not be dead as a result of the option, even though he/she supposedly is.
Now for that special scene after the destroy option. Why would the game imply that synthesis is the best ending when only the destroy ending contains the scene? I think the developers should've committed either to the fact that Shepard ludicrously died or that he/she comes out walking so the audience knows Shepard made it through. This scene felt cheap, and it doesn't even let the audience know whether he is alive from that. All it contains his Shepard taking the breath. At least show him breathing for a couple of seconds or him clenching his fist to represent that he is alive. It's stupid to include a scene that just adds more ambiguity in an ending already filled with too much.The surrounding looks like street rubble unfortunately as opposed to the metallic tubing of the destroy option, which is evidence of the Indoctrination Theory. There's really no good reason why that is: Either the Indoctrination Theory is true, which would be awful, or Bioware just got lazy, which isn't exactly a great thought either.
Another main problem I have is with the Mass Effect Relays being destroyed. Aside from going against the idea of Mass Effect 3 in terms of uniting the galaxy, I think this severely downgrades any of the choices because it presents a much more dire and immediate problem for the story. All of my questions pertaining to the endings must be put on hold because the galaxy is in such a terrible state that they don't really matter. The relays are out, which means the ships cannot go and get resources from other systems. Earth is in ruins, and everyone will presumably starve to death.
I know there's been a plot hole involving how Earth is still intact when the relay exploded, because in the Arrival DLC when that happened the entire system was wiped out. This time it was presumably different because it was blown up internally from the EMP blast somehow. It sounds skeptical, but I'm willing to buy that. It doesn't concern me. What does concern me is the fact that the EMP blast, which isn't apparently supposed to affect inanimate objects, sent the Normandy out of control and caused the ship to maroon on the planet. The same thing must've happened to the other thousands/millions of ships stranded in that system. So apparently their ships all spiraled out of control, possibly crashing into Earth or the Moon or another planet, or a just in a limp state in space. Either way they have no control over their ships. Whether this is a temporary setback is unknown, but if that is true then millions of people in those ships will die of either starvation or from crashing.
Do you see where I'm getting at here? The choices don't really matter because everyone is screwed anyway. That's what it really comes down to here. Hell, it might've even been better to have the Earth incinerated by choosing the Destroy option with low EMS. At least the people wouldn't suffer for weeks on end without food. It seems to me that any other choice aside from low destroy option merely postpones the inevitable deaths of millions for a few months at best.
I could go on longer, but I think I've already crammed in too much information into one response. I'm sure I represent many fans who are displeased with the ending in saying that these are all legitimate issues and more than enough to justify the hate towards the ending. It's saddening that there is really no "fix" for this whole thing. Even if they created a new ending that everyone loves, it wouldn't have the same level of impact compared to it being in the game the first time. It's called a first impression, or initial feeling, after viewing the ending of any piece of entertainment medium, and that's something we can't erase from our memories. I still think changing the ending for a better one and the fans overlooking the current one for the changed one is the best option, but unfortunately it won't be nearly as fulfilling as we'd hope for.
Hey guys, I've now finally had a chance to come back on this site and possibly do more reviews. My problem is that it takes a long time to properly construct a good five or six paragraph review. Now, I'll talk about a few games I've played over the past several months.
First off is Halo:Reach. I never felt this game was really necessary to make because it's a prequel, so I automatically assumed the plot would be predictable and uninteresting. My predictions were pretty much spot on. You're introduced to Noble Team, which consists of several other spartans who ultimately end up dying. You play as Noble Six the newest member to Noble Team and you try to fight off the Covenant on Reach before they destroy the planet. None of the characters' deaths were all that sad or well-thought out. Also, I felt the art design was lacking, as the locales you visit throughout the game just weren't as interesting as Halo 3's. The campaign itself isn't all that fun to play unless you play in four player co-op. The multiplayer is ruined by unbalanced armor abilities such as armor lock and jetpack, and most of the maps are either too large or consist of too many camping spots. Also, was it really necessary to add bloom to your rifle? Custom games are pretty fun to play, but there is no public searching option for this mode so if none of your friends are playing then you won't be able to do them. Theater mode is mildly amusing for replaying awesome moments from any mode in the game and also for improving your strategies for the next match. Finally forge mode is definitely a cool feature, but unless you have a lot of time on your hands and have a great imagination for building things, then I think most players won't get as much out of this feature as they should.
Overall, I'd give Reach an 8.3/10. It was a pretty solid game but the campaign and mulitplayer felt a bit lacking.
Second is Black Ops. The campaign in the game is probably the best aspect of the entire game. You start off in an interrogation room and have to play all the missions through memory in order to answer what the interrogator wants. The only problem I have with have nearly all the missions in the past is it creates a minimal amount of danger for your character because you know he ends up surviving through it, unlike the Modern Warfare series. The campaign will last around five or six hours and overall there are a lot more levels that you'll want to replay again. The multiplayer has already been done before, but this time they added money into it to buy your guns and attachments. I like this idea for the attachments because I don't have to do those stupid challenges, but I don't think they should've used it for primary guns. There's a theatre mode but I don't think it's nearly as good or useful in this game than in Halo. Finally, the zombies mode is back and featured two default maps and more add-on maps. I personally was never a fan of this mode because I never felt like I achieved anything from surviving a long time. But if you liked it in World at War, you'll like it here.
Overall, I'd give it about an 8.5/10 The campaign was awesome, didn't like the zombies mode, and multiplayer is as solid as ever.
Now on to Fallout New Vegas. After how much I enjoyed Fallout 3, I really had high hopes for New Vegas. In the game you play as a courier who gets shot and left four dead before ending up healed by a doctor in a small town. This is an interesting way to start the game off, but the story never really picks up from that point and turns into a simple power struggle between four different factions. It just felt shallow and uninspired to me, and was probably the most disappointing part of the game. There are lots of interesting characters to interact with and complete side missions for as well. The gameplay is pretty solid at this point in the series, with a wide variety of weapons to use against your enemies. The atmosphere is also a very strong aspect in this game, ranging from the bright lights of the strip all the way to the darkest caves where giant insects such as the ant queen reside. Surprisingly, the strip is pretty small and barren, with hardly anyone on it but I suppose this is due to the hefty amount of money you need to pay in order to enter it. Jumping is still a problem in this game, especially when you're trying to climb on or around mountains or rocky areas, where it looks like you should be able to climb but the game doesn't let you.
Overall, I you liked Fallout 3, you'll like this, most of this game is great but the story is shallow and the gameplay has some problems. 8.5/10
Finally, L.A. Noire. When I first heard about this game I thought it was going to be another Mafia shoot-em up type game. However, the game puts you in the opposite point of view. You play for nearly the whole game Cole Phelps, an LAPD officer who tries to uphold the law as best as he can. Throughout the game you tackle different types of crimes such as arson and homicide. The problem I have with this game is that it takes the nonlinear form of real-life detective work into a linear format in this game. Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of linear games, but here it simply makes the content extremely repetitive. Almost every crime follows the exact same pattern. The head of your police department tells you about a crime and you're tasked with visiting the crime scene. A good thing is that you can have your partner drive you around, as the cars don't handle very well in the game. Upon arriving, you inspect the dead body and look around to gather evidence before leaving. Some of these can be easy to find, while others are simply annoying. This all relies on luck and guesswork rather than actual skill, as the game allows you to pick up the stupidest objects such as a carrot or another piece of food. If it doesn't help your case, then why even give us the option to pick the object up in the first place? For me, this was probably the most frustrating aspect of the game. It's already hard enough to find the evidence you need in the first place, so why give us other objects to pick up that are entirely useless? It basically boils down to just pressing the A button around every square inch of the place and hope you pick up the right thing. One of the pieces of evidence usually has an address on it, so you go there (usually it's a bar) and talk to the bartender or other person there about the victim. They tell you where the person lives, you go to their house, gather up more evidence, find the husband at his house, and ultimately convict him. Repeat this for about 15 hours or so with some gunplay mixed in sporadically and you've got LA. Noire. The facial expressions are superb, and the game tries to be RPG-like by giving you the option to either trust the person, doubt them, or accuse them of lying. The problem is that the case can only really be solved one way, and there's only one right answer during the dialogue options instead of having different endings for each case. So sometimes when you generally use the wrong options in a case, the case will still end but you'll have no idea how. Finally, the accusation of lying option isn't well-executed. Despite having multiple pieces of evidence to accuse the person of, there's only one right piece even though more than two might essentially mean the same thing. Finally, there's a plot twist between the vice and arson desk that feels unnecessary and out of place with the rest of the story.
I'd give this game a 7.5/10. It has a lot of cool ideas, but a lot of them weren't executed as well as they could've.
Hey, guy, sorry I haven't posted on here in quiet some time, but with the amount of work with school, I'm no longer able to post frequent game reviews, as they do take a long time to write good ones. I'll try writing some for Halo: Reach and Black Ops, but for now I want to see what your favorite movie action scene is. My favorite of recent memory (aside from Lord of the Rings, King Kong, and the Expendables) is probably the finale of "The Protector," as martial arts film starring Tony Jaa and Nathan Jones. The first part, Tony goes on a bone-breaking spree, and in the second half he goes one on one with Nathan Jones in a brutal brawl before cutting tendons out with elephant bones. I'd like to see what you think of this, and also what some of your favorite movie action scene is. I've posted the links below, enjoy.
My Recent Reviews
NBAmaster33 does not have any recent activity. What a slacker! Maybe you should send NBAmaster33 a private message and ask, "Where are you hiding?"