[Gamer's Review] Mass Effect 3

Spoiler Alert! 

The following discusses Mass Effect 3 in detail, including the ending. You’ve been warned. If you’re looking for more general information on Mass Effect 3, check out the Mass Effect 3 wikia.

ME3 Cover | technabob.com

Alright… There’s an elephant in the room, so let’s get it out. The ending of Mass Effect 3 wasn’t the best. In fact, it wasn’t even very good… Okay, let’s face it; each potential outcome was the same exact thing, with different colors and slightly different textures to accompany those colors. Oh, and the flashbacks? Not necessarily of your romantic lover or your favorite squad member... just, ya know, arbitrarily picked friends. Don’t know what I’m talking about? Check the YouTube video to the right.

  

You know what else sucked about Mass Effect 3? The DLC released the same day as the game for an extra $10. Granted, the DLC doesn’t suck, but the fact that you pay extra on top of your $60 does. Aside from this, and the highly ridiculous and unfulfilling ending to a great series, the game was nearly perfect. Because it was nearly perfect, we have to examine the few glimmering oversights and errors of the game. I’ll say upfront, however, despite any and all criticisms for the game, I fully recommend and suggest readers purchase it, because it really is fantastic. In fact, looking at it objectively, the game’s story, itself, really isn’t the flawed part – moreover, it’s the politics involved outside the game’s world, where corporations and the entertainment industry reside… But, I digress. Anyway, before we dive in completely, you should take a look at my prior adventures in the Mass Effect universe here.

Just as a reminder: I played the Vanguard class through all three games and had a Paragon reputation through the first two.

The game opened up and refreshed my memory as to how everything worked. Once I got back into the swing of things, it was time to leave Earth, the human home world being decimated by the Reapers. This short introduction also set a nice tone for the adventure that was about to unfold. My Shepard was quickly thrown for a loop when Ashley, his old flame, made an appearance and accompanied him on the mission to Mars. This was an exciting moment. An old friend and lover now distrusting the main character and reluctantly helping him is a level of depth not often explored in the video game realm. It was during that time that I started debating if I would go back to Ashley, knowing she never stopped caring. Imagine the dismay Shepard felt when Dr. Eva attacked her and left her nearly dead at the end of the Mars mission. Imagine my surprise when EDI, my ship’s AI, took the body of the mechanical Cerberus operative that harmed Ashley.  It pushed my Shepard and Ashley closer together than ever before. Imagine my surprise when Miranda enters the picture again. I couldn’t help but tell Miranda that I still cared for her. And the repercussions of that were… kind of unsatisfying, to say the least.

masseffect.wikia.com

The main issue I had with telling Miranda this was not that it would continue a romantic relationship with her, but that it completely ended things with Ashley and that was the end of it. Call me a jerk (or rather, my Shepard), but when Ashley asked if I was committed to honestly putting in effort with her to make our relationship work, I said, “Yes.” Keep in mind; this is prior to meeting up with Miranda. Once I met up with Miranda and she asked if I still had feelings for her, I agreed that I did. After I confirmed my affections for Miranda, Ashley didn’t say another romantic word to me. Not only that, but she didn’t say a word to me about lying to her only moments earlier. The girl who was insanely jealous that I had a fling during the events of Mass Effect 2 all of the sudden doesn’t care that I lied? It just seemed unrealistic. Granted, the galaxy is at a point where petty arguments cannot be had because there is a lot more at stake then that, but it doesn’t make sense. This may seem like a shallow complaint, but look at the bigger picture. I’m not saying that I wish I could’ve had them both as romantic interests or condoning the fact that you can say one thing to one person but do another action. I’m simply stating that, in a real, believable world, which is what the Mass Effect universe is striving to be, a jealous woman would continue to be jealous. Oh, and she probably wouldn’t fight alongside you or support you when you kill the human’s Council representative. She would probably figure you’re not trustworthy, as she can’t even trust you with her feelings. While this is not integral to the plotline story of Mass Effect 3, these romantic relationships are integral to my Commander Shepard’s story in Mass Effect 3.  This really is a minor complaint, though; given the scale of things and the sheer amount of things you can do in the game. It’s just a note for any developers or players that had the same experience I did.

Ashley, Miranda, and EDI weren’t the only familiar faces (well, EDI’s technically wasn’t a familiar face, but you get the idea) that I came across early in my adventures. It seemed anyone and everyone I had ever came into contact with over the previous two games made an appearance in one form or another.

masseffect.wikia.com

Some of these people were simply “there” during a mission, like Jacob Taylor when Shepard and crew go to help some scientists evacuate their laboratories during a Cerberus infiltration. While I can’t expect every character I have ever spoken with or fought with to join my cause (because it would be unrealistic), it is still good to catch up with them and see what path their lives have taken. I may also feel this way because I didn’t really care for Jacob in the previous game, either. Other people from Shepard's past played more significant roles. One of those people, that I was elated to see, was Mordin, the Salarian Scientist and most hilarious squad member ever, in my opinion. During a mission n Sur’Kesh, the Salarian home world, Shepard finds Mordin working on a cure for the Krogan genophage. During my story, Mordin nobly sacrificed himself on Tuchanka, the Krogan home world, while uploading the genophage cure to a beacon that would disperse the cure into the planet’s atmosphere spreading it across the planet to all of the Krogan.

While the game had far too many missions (which is a good thing) to detail every single exciting adventure, some of the highlights included tackling the Ardat-Yakshi monastery on Lesuss, rescuing Jack and her biotic students from Jon Grissom Academy, the missions on and around Rannoch, and the all of the events on Thessia.  Oh, and the part with Legion in the Geth collective mind was weird… but very creative and a cool visual representation of a linked consciousness.

Combat-wise, the game played very similarly to Mass Effect 2. My memory may be faded, but it also seemed that Mass Effect 3’s cover system was a lot more responsive, but they were probably similar. I enjoyed the variety of enemies and landscapes. Favorites such as the Husks (mowing them suckers down is FUN!) and the standard Geth troopers make appearances, as do new enemies. These new foes include troops from Cerberus like Centurions, squad leaders with the ability to conceal themselves in smoke, and Phantoms, operatives the utilize close-range combat and come complete with katana-looking swords, as well as Reaper-based enemies like Marauders, Turian-mutations that can give allies armor plating, the Brute, an all-Armor Turian-Krogan hybrid behemoth, the Banshee, a Reaper-mutated Asari with crazy biotic powers, and - the big daddy of ‘em all – the Harvester, the dragon equivalent for this Sci-Fi world.

masseffect.wikia.com

While the variety of enemies was fine, the frequency of each variety left something to be desired. I was slightly disappointed with the ridiculously high amount of enemies that used Shields as opposed to any other protective covering, like Barriers or Armor. Granted, some of the enemies were purely Armor, such as the Brutes, and others incorporated Barriers and Armor, like the Banshee, I still felt the majority of enemies utilized Shields, at least in the first half of the game.

masseffect.wikia.com

Due to this, I found myself using EDI nearly every mission due to her access to Overload. If it wasn’t EDI, then Garrus was there to take her place. The few times I tried to branch out and try different combinations, I found myself wasting ammo just to break down Shields that EDI or Garrus could’ve easily decimated. Granted, once Tali came back into the picture, I was glad to use her Energy Drain ability, but by that point I had already figured out tactics for my EDI-based party configuration. Javik, the last living Prothean, is also a welcomed addition to my team. His biotic heavy arsenal and access to assault rifles makes him a great soldier, especially when in thick firefights. On a personal level, he seems to be complex and very detailed. His insight into the Reapers and the cyclical nature of their destruction is very important in understanding the story and helps us, as players, to draw conclusions and similarities based on his stories and memories. It’s odd, though, to think that he is not a streamlined part of the story – rather, he is only for those who spent the extra money on the DLC. He’s not really “story” important (read: he's not mandatory in any part of the game), but he makes understanding the antagonists easier and makes relating to the universe much more interesting. If I wasn’t such a biotic heavy player-class, I would’ve definitely liked to use Javik more.

I guess this is a minor complaint, as I still ultimately have a choice in which squad members I use, but it is still something I wish was more balanced. On the whole, however, combat was much more precise and felt a lot smoother. The variety of guns also made the game more fun, once I became more willing to explore options outside of my trust Assault Rifle. The Scorpion, a handgun that fires detonating charges, became one of my favorite (and most useful) weapons by the end of the game.

All things considered, I would highly recommend buying Mass Effect 3 so you can finish your Commander Shepard’s adventure. I realize the ending, and the few complaints I’ve outlined here may make you question whether or not it’s worth it, but the polished and engaging moments in the game far outweigh the negative aspects.

What did you think about Mass Effect 3? How did your story turn out? Leave your comments and thoughts below!

Read more »

Violence and Brand Identity: Legal Issues in Gaming

Happy St. Patrick’s Day readers! A few weeks ago, I discussed the legal side of video games and how it affects us as game loving consumers. Today, I’d like to revisit the legal issues with the gaming industry and entertainment in general. A series of podcasts from a series called Entertainment Law Update by Gordon P. Firemark, Esq. will provide the topics of discussion today.

Obscene v. Violent

The first podcast, titled “Episode 22: Violent Games, (anti) Slapps and other painless fun”, featured issues regarding a variety of topics including the Mike Tyson tattoo controversy that spawned from the Hangover II and everyone’s favorite song dedicated to a day of the week!

www.bittenandbound.com

While these issues don’t directly relate to gaming, there are still lessons to be learned from the cases. The Hangover II case, for example, reminds us to be extra diligent when using any type of graphic or visual representation that is associated with a particular person or company. Keep in mind, for you aspiring video game programmers out there, that you should probably gain clearance if you are to depict anything in a video game that is a reference to a real person or company, as right of likeness cases pop up all over the place, even when they may not be intentionally infringing. (Note: This is just my opinion. I’m not a lawyer, so please consult someone who gets paid to give that kind of advice!)

The real topic of interest is the video game law that got turned down in California. Basically, the State of California proposed a law that would make it illegal to sell video games with certain themes (such as violence) to minors. Retailers that did sell these restricted games to minors would suffer a fine of $1000. The Supreme Court ultimately turned down the law, stating that it was too broad and conflicted with the First Amendment. Firemark and his associate, Tamara Bennett, offer their opinions. Bennett agreed with the Supreme Court’s decision, stating that the restrictions the Supreme Court currently has in place deals with obscenity in media, not violence. She suggests that the State of California’s new video game law is trying to apply the restrictions that deal with obscenity to violence, which is a big leap to make. Furthermore, the State of California is asking that the law only apply to video games. My opinion on this matter can be found in a prior post.

This is an important decision for those of us in the video game industry, as a law such as the one proposed could greatly decrease our customer base as well as create higher barriers when selling products. Moreover, from an artistic point of view, it could cause game developers to censor their work, making the stories that they want to tell less realistic. Realism in games is part of what makes playing them so appealing. The question, however, is how far can we take realism before it becomes harmful in the real world?

Realism v. Brand Damage

The second podcast, titled “Episode 28: Political campaigns, combat helicopters and Batmobiles,” covers a variety of topics, the most interesting of which is EA’s use of the First Amendment in it’s game Battlefield 3.

www.wikipedia.org

Basically, Textron, a helicopter manufacturer, threatened legal action against EA if the company included Textron’s trademarked helicopters, the AH-1Z, UH-1Y, and V-22. In a preemptive response, EA filed suit against Textron, citing the First Amendment and the freedom of artistic expression. Part of EA’s defense rests in the fact that it provides a disclaimer stating it does not endorse any particular brand of vehicle or weapon in the game, and, likewise, EA is not featuring any brand of vehicle or weapon more prominently than another. The case was resolved in EA’s favor, stating that the freedom of artistic expression trumps trademark protection. You can read more details of the case here.

Battlefield 3 helicopter | joystiq.com

This outcome is a double-edged sword for us in the gaming industry. On the plus side, EA is allowed to create a realistic video game that features real-world brands and puts them in front of the player, which can be good for the company as well. The problems, however, quickly accumulate. What if, in Battlefield 3, there is a segment where a helicopter malfunctions and causes the squad to crash in enemy territory? What if that helicopter was a V-22 Bell, one of Textron’s trademarked models? Does this say that this model is unreliable? While many are likely to view the crash as a result of war, it is nonetheless a possible question to consider.

How can we resolve this conflict? We want the games to be realistic, which means using real world brands. Likewise, realism dictates that sometimes real-world products malfunction, break, or otherwise cease to be useful. Companies argue, however, that they don’t want to be associated negatively and scenarios like the one above could be damaging to their brand. As a business owner, I’d had to see my brand being exploited and portrayed in a negative light, especially without my consent, but I can definitely see the argument of creative expression and realism from the game developers side.

How do we strike the balance, then? One of the legal system’s favorite video games to target, the Grand Theft Auto series, has one solution: mock existing brands.

Notice Sprunk, a clear imitation of Sprite | www.newpcgamesite.com

What do you think? How can we strike a balance between realism and fantasy in our video games so that we, as consumers, can distinguish between the two?

Read more »