Press Start to Discuss: Analyzing the Backlash: Comparing A:CM to ME3

Hi guys, I’m newdarkcloud and this week the Red Shirt Crew and I have decided to do a crossover this week. I’m posting something over here and MaristPlayBoy will be posting something over at my blog at Press Start to Discuss. Be sure to check over there if you like video games and talking about them. But enough about that, you are here for a blog post, so that is what you will get.

A couple of weeks back, there was a very well documented controversy surrounding Borderlands developer Gearbox and its recently released Aliens: Colonial Marines. As many of you are certainly aware, the game was released to absolutely horrible reviews, being almost universally lambasted by not only the gaming press, but also many fans of the Aliens franchise. However, quite a few people made note of an interesting little observation. That is, while Colonial Marines received (and quite frankly deserved) a ton of user backlash, it was not nearly as massive as was the one caused by the ending of the third Mass Effect game. Among those that noticed this, there were quite a few questions as to why this may be. This week, I attempt to find a rational explanation for this phenomenon and justify it. There are reasons for this difference. Though it may may seem like these two events are similar, subtle differences exist between them which I believe are the cause for these different reactions.

The first of these differences is the one of expectations between the two franchises. Simply put, people generally expected more out of the Mass Effect games than an Aliens game. It is not particularly hard to discern why this might be. If one were to just search for “Aliens” on Metacritic, they could see that, historically speaking, even before the release of Colonial Marines, games based on that franchise generally were not that good. By contrast, when one retrieves the same search results for “Mass Effect,” it would be clear that its track record is much stronger. These two histories result in two wildly different presumptions from their fans. When fans of the Aliens franchise saw that the latest game was actually incredibly bad and a horrible addition to the franchise, they were most likely used to this kind of disappointment. I have no doubt that they were upset when confronted with the cold slap of reality, but (and I am speculating here) it is likely that this anger was tinged with a feeling of “I should have known” given that there were only a few Aliens games did particularly well critically. This same thing cannot be said of Bioware’s beloved space-opera. Say what you will about the Mass Effect franchise (as I have repeatedly), but it cannot be denied that it is a very popular franchise that commands a fiercely loyal fanbase who expect the highest quality games. When people with expectations that high are disappointed, that passion they have tends to make them… react… violently. We saw that plain as day. As I can attest to from personal experience, the Mass Effect 3ending was just so disappointing for so many people because they expected so much from the franchise that anything less than good was going to cause massive outrage, let alone something that bad. To expect that same outcry from a franchise of such a lesser pedigree is almost naive in a sense.

A similar case can be made for the developers of the two games as well. Gearbox in particular took a very long time to even make a name for itself. Founded in 1999, Gearbox started as a group of 5 people who each had some experience in the industry coming together. The very first projects they worked on involved Half-Life, Valve’s legendary first-person shooter. It was Gearbox who ported the game to consoles and helped on the development of all of Half-Life’s expansion packs, even doing work on Counter-Strike. Later, in 2005, they created the Brothers in Arms franchise. While all of this at least sounds pretty impressive, it was not until the reveal of Borderlands that Gearbox was truly placed on the map. That game and its sequel were very well received, giving Gearbox a level of prestige and credibility it did not quite reach before. However, this was tempered with the release of Duke Nukem: Forever, which was purchased from 3D Realms and finished by them in order to acquire the license. For all of their years in the industry, Borderlands (and its sequel) and Duke Nukem: Forever are really the only games that people think of when they think of Gearbox. One of these franchises is more built for cooperative multiplayer and the other is pretty hated. All in all, not great. So when Aliens: Colonial Marines did poorly, it was not as big of a shock as it might have been from a larger, more well-known developer.

This is in stark contrast to Bioware, who is much more notable and significantly more appreciated, or at least was until recently. Bioware was founded a couple of years before Gearbox in 1995. Though they did make a game or two before, Bioware’s success began with the release of Baldur’s Gate in 1998, before Gearbox’s conception. 2 years later, the sequel received just as much acclaim as the original game, cementing Bioware’s reputation in the field. Following this, Bioware had a string of well-received games like Jade Empire, Neverwinter Knights, and Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. All of Bioware’s most-well known games were quite successful and the company itself was, at the time, in a very comfortable position. While the Mass Effect franchise has certainly caused some heads to turn since the second game, it was also equally well received. When the third game was released and people began to see the ending, the poor quality of it juxtaposed over all of these many years of great games was really jarring and caused significantly more backlash than a lesser company would have received, setting aside debates regarding the talent of modern Bioware. Different developer pedigrees lead to different responses in the fans, which contributed to the difference between these incidents.

The last contributing factor towards the variance in fan outcry was the scale at which the two mistakes made by these two different developers occurred. While Gearbox managed to screw up an entire game, Bioware most noticeable blunder was at the very end. While some people (like me) would refer to the claim that the ending was the only problem as a disingenuous assertion, most people cite that they enjoyed “99% of the game, but really hated the last 1%” which is a perfectly reasonable opinion to hold. Anyway, the point is having a small, concentrated burst at the very end to an otherwise good, or at the very least decent, game actually feels worse than an entire game that was all awful, all the time. Again, this is just another form of playing with expectations. If a game is generally bad all throughout, then players can just either dismiss it and quit that game or otherwise get used to it as the game goes on. However, if the game is otherwise good until a point right until the end, that sets up a high expectation that the ending is going to be a least equally as good as the content preceding it. If it misses that mark as much as Mass Effect 3 did, then the sheer fact that it went so far below expectations can be hard for people to cope with internally, which results in a massive outcry from the fan that are upset about it all over the internet.

Speaking objectively, the problems with Aliens: Colonial Marines are obviously, significantly worse than the problems Mass Effect 3had. There is no question regarding that. However, the problem was that people expected much more from Bioware and as a result, it was much more painful to see an otherwise good game disappoint at the very end than to have a predictably crappy game be predictably crappy. Perception is a very big part of how people react to stimuli and the contrast between these two incidents is direct proof of that.

newdarkcloud is the writer of the awesome gaming blog Press Start to Discuss that you should totally go check out. His current projects include Disclosure Alert, a Let’s Play series that’s more than worth the watch. You can also listen to his podcast appearance on the RSC here.

Mass Effect: Extended Cut DLC

Mass Effects 3’s ending resulted in a huge uproar from it fans.  So much so that Bioware created and released an ending DLC, called Extended Cut.  I am going to discuss the content of the new DLC:  what is in it, and what is not, what questions it answers, what questions it leaves hanging, what I like about it, and a few things that I don’t.  This post is going to contain spoilers, and if you are unfamiliar, or need to be reminded of the original ending look here.    Also please note that I ran through with a Male Paragon Shepard, and some of the details may differ for your play through.

First of, the DLC does not add a lot by way of game play.  Mostly, what it adds are additional and extended cuts cenes, and a few more dialogue options.  I know this doesn’t sound like much, but it addresses a number of the glaring plot holes.  Let me start with the simple things.

1) How do your squadmates get back on the Normandy?  You were rushing the beam with your team when Harbinger blasts you, so how do they end up back on the Normandy during the end sequence.

2) What is the Catalyst/spirit-child on the Citadel?

3) Where do the Reapers come from?

4) What exactly is the crucible? What does it do?

5) The Normandy was in a battle, why is it suddenly flying ahead of the shock wave from the crucible?

6) What about my choices?  Do they matter?

7) What’s different about the different endings?

So, 1) During the final charge to the beam, Harbinger blasts a Mako in front of you, and the explosion injures one of your squad mates.  When this happens, Shepard calls in an airlift for your squad before continuing on to the wonder battle we all know and love against Marauder Shields and his three husk minions. This is one of the added cutscenes.

Questions 2) 3) and 4) are answered by a few additional dialogue options while you are talking to the Catalyst. Before it gives you your options, you can ask a few questions.  It is revealed here that the Catalyst is actually an advanced AI developed by an ancient civilization to help aid in peaceful relations between the organic and synthetic races of the time.  These peaceful relations failed, and to fulfill its purpose the AI created the Reapers and the cycle of extinction. Which leads us to what are the Reapers?  Well, we already know that the Reapers are created from the melted down essence of organic species, but the first Reaper was created from the species that created the Catalyst. They objected to this course of action, but in the end there wasn’t much they could do about it.  Thirdly, what exactly does the Crucible do? According to the Catalyst the Crucible is “little more than a power source,” but apparently the energy in the Crucible changed the Catalyst somehow and allows you to choose either Destroy, Control, or Synthesis.  

5) As soon as you make your final choice, and the Crucible starts powering up to fire, Admiral Hackett orders all fleets to retreat back through the Mass Relays.  Joker doesn’t want to leave Shepard, and one of your squadmates has to talk him into leaving,  thus the reason why the Normandy is shown trying to outrun the blast wave.  

Those are most of the small changes they made with this DCL, but the developers added to completely new aspects to the game.  The first is an entirely new ending option. I call it the Giant’s Drink option.  You can reject the offered options, and refuse to make a choice in the dialogue.  If you don’t do it there, this ending is still open to you by shooting (or at least shooting at) the Catalyst. The results of this choice are often less than desirable, but many fans of the game would more quickly accept it than the other 3 outcomes. The Catalyst’s voice takes on that demonic quality all of the Reapers have, and says “So be it.” We are left to assume that Reapers destroy everyone. The Crucible shuts down and the screen changes to a beacon flashing on an unknown planet. Then you hear Liara’s voice talking playing from one of her time capsules, telling the next race that there is still hope. Then the stargazer talks about how the information in “The Archives” saved them. This was the shortest of the added ending cut scenes.  

Each of the three original endings also triggers a longer cutscene. As before, the Crucible fires its technicolor blast, the Reapers are either destroyed, or lift off the planets surface, and the Relays all trigger. Before I continue, this is where the serious spoilers begin. The Normandy crashes on the random verdant world, cue dramatic musical interlude and….

A series of scenes begins showing you the work to re-build after the War with the Reapers. If Control or Synthesis is chosen, the Reapers help with the rebuilding. You see still shots of your comrades who survived. Samara with her daughter, Grunt, Wrex, and Eve. They even have a baby Krogan if the genophage was cured. Geth and quarians (or which ever survived) are shown. Those companions who died are shown in black and white flashbacks: Mordin, Legion, Thane, and Shepard’s N7 helmet in my case. All of these scenes are based on and affected by dozens of decisions made throughout all three games.  The sequence ends with your surviving squadmates gathered at the memorial wall on the Normandy, where your love interest hangs a plaque with your “Commander Shepard” on it over top of Admiral Anderson’s name. Finally the Normandy lifts off the planet, and she scene shifts to the Stargazer. The interesting thing is what differs between the three major choices…

Overlaid on top of the cut scenes is a dialogue. Each is unique, and each has a different speaker.  Some of the cutscenes change a little bit with option as well.  

Control: The speaker is Shepard… but not Shepard. The voice is benevolent, but still distorted, mostly human, but still, a little bit like a Reaper voice. It is made clear that Shepard, the man (or woman) this being used to be, is no more. Shepard’s death was this being’s birth. It is guided, directed, and given purpose by the thoughts and memories of Shepard. It speaks of sacrifice for the sake of the many,  saying, “I will protect and sustain. I will act as guardian for the many.” The Reapers, now with blue colored eyes, are shown working to repair the Relays and the Citadel. The Reaper fleet, with Harbinger as its flagship, is shown acting as a guardian fleet for the Citadel, which is still in orbit around Earth. It ends with this new being commending Shepard as “the man who gave up his life to become the one who could save the many.”  

Destroy: This one is narrated by Admiral Hackett. In this one, there are no Reapers, likewise you do not see any geth, or EDI. Nowhere do we see any evidence that they have been destroyed, but at the same time, they are conspicuous in their absence. The damage from the war is much more obvious in this ending, but (if your EMS is high enough) there is a pervasive hope for the future. In this ending, the plaque with Shepard’s name on it is not actually put on the wall. You see your love interest holding it, but it’s never placed on the wall. And yes, you do still get the breath.  

Synthesis: This is the most unique of the endings. It opens with these synthetic looking green lights building a framework around something, which, as the camera zooms out, you realize is DNA, and as it zooms out further, you see that it is a human eye (although the iris is now an electronic green). You hear EDI talking about how both synthetics and organics have been changed. It opens with the line “I am alive.” The Reapers are helping rebuild and are apparently sharing the collective knowledge and culture of the civilizations from which they were created. The entire galaxy is rebuilding. She talks about a new and wonderful future, where there is peace, and the line between organic and synthetic disappears almost entirely. It ends at the memorial wall, where EDI hugs your love interest, and says, “Because of [Shepard] I am alive, and I am not alone.”  

Such are the endings of Mass Effect 3 Extended Cut DLC. I only have one major problem with the DLC: the philosophical implications of each ending. In many ways I feel that they run counter to everything the story built to.  I will discuss those in detail in a later post.

From the Bookshelf: Immortality

Hello everyone, I just finished reading this book, and I thought I’d tell you about it.

Immortality, by Kevin Bohacz

A brief synopsis: a mysterious plague arises that kills in synchronized patterns and in geometric shapes. While the CDC scrambles to find a cure, the nation and the world fall into chaos. There is a cold intelligence driving this epidemic. Humanity’s time is up.

Find out more, after the break.

So I picked this out looking for more apocalypse stories. As you may recall, I also wrote about World War Z, and Robopocalypse, so it was about time I found an apocalypse that’s centered around a plague.

I found the beginning of the story very compelling, trying to guess how the plague spread, and why it had been unleashed. But about halfway through, it started to slow down and I was able to predict the ending.

By the time I (finally) plodded through the finish line, I didn’t feel any satisfaction. The ending is very anticlimactic. And then it said: oh hey, there’s gonna be a sequel to finish all this up.

Fuck that.

A story should be able to stand on its own. Our culture has become so obsessed with segmenting things into trilogies or series that go on longer and longer, and it’s really just about money and cheap anticipation. When I buy a book, I want it to be whole, I want it to end with finality, and IF there is a sequel, then that should begin a new phase of the story, not end the first one.

Dare I say it, it’s like Mass Effect 3. You pay for the game, and then they ask you to pay for the DLC ending.

It’s a dark road.

There were several other things I found displeasing. There were typographical errors which brought me out of the story thinking: This editor needs to be fired for missing easy typos.


And the writing itself – when focused on the plague, it was pretty cool. But whenever he veered off subject, it would inevitably lead to an inner monologue rambling on about some political or environmental message.

Thanks but no thanks, I don’t need crude, poorly-concealed morals rammed down my throat.

The concepts behind the story are well-imagined and specific. But the book could’ve been much shorter, and it probably would’ve been better off. The origin of the plague, and everything that sets off was very cool to consider, worthy of good sci-fi. But the delivery was frustratingly butchered.

Overall, it was a disappointment. I would not recommend this book.

It’s always sad to post a downer, but it’s true. I’ll get an episode of And That’s Shakespeare up soon to make up for it. See you!

JV out.