Controversial Endings: Mass Effect 3

A couple of weeks ago I wrote a piece based on how much I enjoyed Mass Effect 3 despite not actually having finished the game. As was also alluded to in that article, there was a concentrated effort on my part to finish the game so that I could have an opinion on what has caused much anguish among many fans of the series; that time has come and now you'll have another opinion.

Before really talking about what happens at the end (yes, there will be spoilers), it should be observed that any game that has to have an 'extended cut', primarily adding to the ending suggests that perhaps something wasn't quite right with the original, basic version. Indeed, if the original ending had been up to standards on release in the view of the developers, why did they need to add a chunk of extras in to improve it? Simply, people didn't like it, and for a series that has been so popular generally, but has in particular been critically acclaimed for its plot, that wasn't acceptable. Moreover, the promise was not to have just 3 endings, seriously- they said that would not happen, yet, that's what was given. Something had to be done.

That aside, this article is going to assess the above mentioned 'extended cut' and where it leaves the Mass Effect series with a new game teased and sure to be elaborate on at E3 later this year.

Source: gameinformer

Perhaps the first point that should now be looked at is the concept of past decisions affecting the finale. The notion suggested by some that the decisions made throughout the game have no affect on the ending is not unfounded but is heavily exaggerated. Furthermore, the series ends, somewhat appropriately, with a key decision that leads to any of four outcomes. These outcomes are not simply as some may say, a different coloured flash of light, though that is included, but a back drop to what must surely be the next game in a new series of Mass Effect games.

Let's speculate a little. It has been widely rumoured that the new game will not contain Commander Shepherd. Quite right too if you have played through many possibilities and seen Shepherd die making that final decision. For those who have delved slightly deeper, you will have seen that given the right circumstances there is a scenario where the Commander in fact survives after choosing the Destroy option. Now in previous games BioWare has allowed the player to move their character through from the previous game, but what if that wasn't a feature of the next game and we had to deal with the idealistic paragon that Shepherd would have been? Well of course it would have had a perfect Effective Galaxy Rating so we can assume he would survive, but, as the Catalyst pointed out, more problems are sure to arise at a later date. Does that not sound convenient to anyone else?

The ending then has clearly been improved, but now it has a direction, somewhere to take a new spin off or continuation, and most people will praise it for that more than anything else.    

Ultimate Timewasters: Civilization 5

Strategy games have always tended to take a long time to complete. Good strategy games take a long time without making you realise it, and none does this so well as the Civilization series.

Before the fifth instalment I had never experienced the series which had already been hugely successful, with some even arguing that the fourth game is in fact better than its successor. However, that aside there are a lot of things to like about the game; perhaps it is odd, but the first thing I find myself enjoying is that there is so much to learn. Though there is no denying that the game is very complicated, it is no way unaccessible. From personal experience, I can say after several single and multiplayer games I am much more comfortable than I was to begin with, although am still asking for help regularly.

Source: Eurogamer

Somehow the game gives you the feeling both of genius and helplessness. There is a tendency for the game to switch on its head very quickly: at one moment everything might be going very well, but a few turns later cities maybe under siege and your resources could be being drained. What is most significant though is the time it takes to get to those pressure swinging situations, though I can guarantee you wont realise how many times. The time it takes to move from, say, the classical to renaissance period should in theory take a lot of your effort and time. Well actually, it does take a lot of time and effort, but you wont realise.

You could spend weeks playing this game. Literally, thousands of hours. Then, Civilization V is in anyone's book a very good game, but after all of the things that are impressive about this game, I challenge anyone who plays this game to stop themselves saying at one stage or another: 'Just one more turn.'

Is it wrong to 'love' a game that was never finished?

Recently I've been putting a few hours into Mass Effect 3 in an attempt to finally get it finished. As a game that's been on the go for at least the past year I'd be lying if I said I haven't come to love the game in the same way I'd enjoyed the previous games in the series.

Some might say that this is completely irrational. How can I claim to 'love' a game if I don't know the ending? Okay, so you come back at me and say that it is widely documented that the ending of Mass Effect 3 is exceptional in as much as it is about as poor as any decent game's ending could be. To me that's irrelevant; you could put any game in this scenario and still have this argument.

There are though a couple of factors that I'm taking for granted that should first be made apparent: firstly, I'm assuming that you haven't stopped playing the game, also I'm imagining you've played the game long enough to at least get an idea of some of the key plot concepts. 

With all of that aside, what is there to actually say here. Well, in terms of my recent Mass Effect experience, one might well argue that I'm still reliving the nostalgia of the previous game and the latest instalment isn't the game I'm really enjoying; by the time I finish the game I will have seen all of its shortcomings and forgotten what I thought I'd liked so much about it. 

Source:gamingbolt

Surely though the point isn't about how I feel after I've turned off the console with the main storyline completed and I'm ready to move onto the next game. If, as I am currently, you are enjoying a game that you're yet to finish, I'd say that this is the best time to 'love' it. The whole idea of playing games can't purely be to say to your friends 'I've finished a game'. Each game poses it's own challenges, pushing players to improve whether that be in replays of the campaign or other single player modes or in online and multiplayer environments. In many cases it is not even the case that there are ways to get better after the first time, sometimes games push you to get better before getting to the end the first time round (Dark Souls is probably the most notorious example here).

Though finishing a game is surely the main objective, most developers (I would imagine) would say that the creating the best journey is more important than anything other individual element. Therefore, I'm going to suggest that the best thing for a gamer is playing a good game, and if you don't finish it, as disappointing as that definitely is, it doesn't mean you can't or don't love the game.

Sequels I'd like to see: Star Wars Battlefront

It has been talked about for years. And years. It seems like now at least we can safely say at some stage the third instalment of the iconic third shooter Star Wars Battlefront series will appear, although the dates are a bit sketchy, with the best estimates being sometime next year.

Ironically, despite not having had a release date for a Battlefront game since 2005, the franchise was one of the most popular to be first released on the previous, previous generation (is there even a real term for that generation other than PS2 domination period), as well as arguably the most popular Star Wars gaming series ever.

It didn't really matter if you had a preference to one of the two games (I always thought the second game seemed a bit sleeker but the Jedi/Sith/Hero thing was just a bit unnecessary), you knew that you shared some common ground with the majority of the rest of your controller bashing friends, and if you didn't it was generally accepted that there was something wrong with your friend.

source: sparkrising

So why hasn't there been a new game up to this point? Well, I suppose I might hazard a guess at the lack of new material that has been produced following the end of Obi-Wan's time as Ewan McGregor before his transformation into Alec Guinness. With a new trilogy of films due for release starting at the end of next year, a new game with intel on some of the plot and content of these new films would be fantastic for game and film fans alike. 

I could then stop here. Fantastic, the series hasn't been inappropriately milked but we're still being given (hopefully) good new content when the time is right. Yet, for some reason I find myself questioning the lack of game for what will have been ten years: surely if there is so much demand for a product, someone out there, whether the original rights holders or not, creates makes the product. It just makes most sense, particularly if we're talking about a potential decline in console based video games. Using the most popular games more frequently must sell more consoles generally.

All that said, how would I be approaching this now if our beloved Battlefront had been churned out once a year, every year, like many of the first person shooters we love to hate?