About that Ending: Mass Effect 3

I know, I know: beating a dead horse right? Who hasn’t talked about the ending of Mass Effect 3? Few video game stories last year were as widely discussed. From the overwhelming negativity at the initial ending(s) to the lessened reaction to the Extended Cut to the few people out there who were satisfied all along, everyone who played the Mass Effect trilogy has something to say about that ending. But, like most well-thought out reactions out there on the internet, it was instantaneous. Everyone had something to say THEN. What about now? It’s been a year and the game has changed in that time. Bioware added four single-player DLC (downloadable content) packs, three of which were targeted at changing the experience of the ending: Extended Cut, Leviathan and Citadel (not to forget From Ashes, which was available day one). So playing the game today, with this content installed, yields a vastly different experience than we received back on March 6, 2012. Having recently replayed Mass Effect 3 with all of this content, I have formed a new opinion on the ending(s) and surprise, surprise: I like it.

Warning – Here Be Spoilers

For those of you who don’t know, Mass Effect 3 concludes the story of Commander (insert first name here) Shepard. In the game, Shepard unites the various species of the universe against the apocalyptic force of the Reapers, a race of mammoth sentient machines bent on exterminating all advanced civilizations. Pretty damn epic, in other words. The Reapers are a great threat, with their larger-than-life presence they seem almost invincible… almost. The game ends with the final battle, Shepard confronts the main antagonist of the story (the Reaper AI manifested in the form of a child) and either destroys the Reapers, controls them or merges all organic and technological life into a new infused state of “technorganic” being. People (myself included) had problems with this.

So let’s start with one of the largest factors in the ending: the main antagonist. Christened “godchild” by angry fans, this creation felt like a walking deus ex machina (plot device existing solely to nicely tie up the story). Really it was a valid criticism. At the time there had been no other mention of this being at any other point in the trilogy (aside from an absurdly minor mention in Mass Effect – like Codex level obscure). In addition, Mass Effect 2 and 3 had been, up until that point, establishing a Reaper known as Harbinger as the main antagonist (the Illusive Man, despite being Martin Sheen, doesn’t count). Harbinger appeared to be the largest Reaper, head of their fleet and, possessed a major grudge against Commander Shepard. In other words: pretty good villain material.

Despite a strong physical presence at the game's climax, Harbinger feels very absent from Mass Effect 3.
Despite a strong, physical presence at the game’s climax, Harbinger feels very absent from Mass Effect 3.

Instead we got this guy:

me3_catalyst

I’m not going to get more into the reaction, there are already plenty of articles on it. Needless to say, people don’t like it when you introduce a new villain in the final minutes of the game who appears to have power over everything and all the answers to all the questions in the universe. That was a bad move by Bioware (and EA). Good thing is, they fixed it. While Harbinger is still absent, the DLC pack, Leviathan, establishes the lore of the “godchild” fairly early on in the game. The Catalyst (godchild’s official name) was an AI created by the Leviathan, an ancient race of super evolved beings. The Catalyst was created in an act of hubris, from the Leviathans believing themselves above every other organic race in the universe. So they created an AI program to help “balance the equation” with all the other AI-organic life conflicts in the universe. As you can guess, it didn’t work out so well for them. The program went rogue and created its own radical solution. As for the fate of the Leviathan, well, take a look at the last surviving member:

They were recycled into the first Reapers... done against their will by their own creation.
They were recycled into the first Reapers… done against their will by their own creation.

This greatly enhances the thematic value of the ending. Throughout the trilogy, the struggle between AI and organic life has been a central issue. There are multiple cases: the geth vs. the quarians and the creation of the character, EDI, being the two prime examples. The Leviathan DLC transformed an abrupt appearance into the conclusion of a theme, with the player’s Shepard being able to pick the resolution. In addition to this sequence, new dialogue options were added with the Catalyst by both the Extended Cut and Leviathan dlcs to allow for a fuller, more believable conversation.

With the “godchild” problem at least addressed (you can still find Bioware’s antagonist decision to be a poor choice but at least now it makes sense), a large section of the ending is improved. Another major issue was the lack of variety in the ending. I can remember reading, before Mass Effect 3 came out, that there were 16 different endings in the game. I was very excited – until I saw the original ending. Basically there are three variants: Shepard causes a massive explosion in every ending, it can be red, blue or green. Everything else (with the exception of very small details) plays out exactly the same. Doesn’t sound like 16 different endings to me. Thankfully, all of that was addressed in the Extended Cut DLC. Are the endings still similar: yes. Are they now different enough to be enjoyed and have the player choices felt: yep. So that’s two problems down.

Let’s end by talking about the Citadel DLC. This might be my favorite part in the trilogy overall. A large complaint with the Mass Effect 3 ending was the lack of character closure. Shepard is separated from his/her crew for the final confrontation and many players (myself included) felt that they didn’t get a chance to say good-bye to the characters they had come to care about. Now there’s this:

One of the main goals of the Citadel DLC is to throw a fun party for your crew. I'm not kidding.
One of the main goals of the Citadel DLC is to throw a fun party for your crew. I’m not kidding.

Bioware showed incredible care and intelligence in the release of this  DLC. Of all the endings in Mass Effect 3 (the entire game is itself just one giant ending), this one feels the best. Players now have the ability to relax and have fun with their Normandy crew before it’s time to say good-bye at the end. The Citadel DLC is not driven by plot but by characters and that shows an essential of storytelling: the best stories don’t rely on their plots alone to be interesting.

Is the ending of Mass Effect 3 perfect: not by a long shot. Yet it is now satisfying enough that I didn’t feel cheated or let down in the final minutes. While Mass Effect 3 is overall the weakest game in the series, the blame for any storytelling shortcomings  should not fall solely upon its shoulders. Indeed, despite being the overall best game in the series: Mass Effect 2 is the entry where the story seriously miss-stepped (the fact that a player can skip Mass Effect 2 entirely without missing any significant plot development is not a good sign). So if you were a fan of the trilogy but didn’t like the ending fist time through, do yourself a favor – get the DLC and experience it again. Except for Omega, I’m not kidding, stay far away from that waste of downloadable content.

Thoughts? Comments? Am I full of shit or onto something? Let me know now in the feedback section of this article.

Nintendo and the Importance of Friends in Third-Party Places

With the new Microsoft console announcement tomorrow and E3 only weeks away, video games are about to enjoy their annual place at the forefront of media. No matter which gaming site you go to, you’ll find excitement for the PS4 and the “Xbox Infinity” (rumored name). You’ll also find a lot of news from studio of software developers disparaging the Nintendo Wii U. It’s not looking good for the big N right now. The only time the Wii U makes headlines is when someone talks trash about it. Not the notoriety you want with a platform. But over the past few weeks as I’ve read more and more reports of how bad of a system the Wii U is, I cannot help but feel there is something else going on right now. This can’t be about the Wii U, if it is then these developers really need to shut their mouths because their arguments don’t work and, indeed, incriminate them more than Nintendo. No, what we’re seeing now is the result of poor treatment and poor communication. What we’re seeing now is the result of all those years where Nintendo was a jerk to third-party publishers.

Let me go back to that first point. It sounds very fanboy: companies should shut up about the Wii U. They should but I will elaborate on this. Let’s start with the most recent comments from EA software engineer, Bob Summerwill. Here is a wonderful recent tweet from Bob, enjoy: “The Wii U is crap. Less powerful than an XBOX 360. Poor online/store. Weird tablet. Nintendo are the walking dead at this point.” Wow, strong words. He went on the say more (before everything was mysteriously retracted) but this is the gist. They are sentiments that have been echoed (less harshly) from other software developers. But let’s break down this tweet and see what is really means.

Regardless of what Nintendo is doing, I think we can all agree that EA should be the last publisher to comment on "quality".
Regardless of what Nintendo is doing, I think we can all agree that EA should be the last publisher to comment on “quality”.

I’m doing to disregard the first sentence for now and start with the second: “Less powerful than an XBOX 360”. Is this true: unknown. What is obvious is that the Wii U will not stack up against the new Xbox or the PS4. Nintendo hasn’t been coy about this, they’ve been very open that graphical horsepower is not an area where they feel they can directly compete (they are a much smaller company than Microsoft or Sony). So, just how powerful is the Wii U? Unknown (there’s too few games out to see for certain) but Nintendo has commented on its horsepower fairly recently, stating that they are aware that some companies do not believe the Wii U is powerful.

“It is a fact that some software development companies assume that Wii U is not powerful enough,” Iwata said. “On the contrary, some developers say in interviews that Wii U has a different architecture from other consoles and that, when utilized in the right way, it can perform well. At the moment, there is a great deal of contradictory information… Nintendo is required to make more efforts to dispel such a misconception,” he said. “In fact, some software companies are actively supporting Wii U and others are not. It is important to have supportive companies enjoy successful sales of a game and feel that their decision to develop something for Wii U was correct.” That comes from Satoru Iwata, one of the heads of Nintendo. Interesting to note that right now the Wii U is sounding like the PS3: another system that took heat for being poorly designed (even first-party developers had/still have a lot of trouble with it).

Okay so more talk (we still need to see games to be sure) but really, is this point even relevant? Since when did EA and other publishers care about graphical power? They were in full support of the Nintendo Wii back in the day. You can’t tell me that the Wii U will have as great a power differential as the Wii had with 360 and PS3. No but the Wii was a cultural juggernaut in the way that Wii U (so far) is not. But still, a Wii supporter criticizing graphical power? That doesn’t make sense.

You guys were really on board on this when it was being developed. What really happened to get you to abandon it so quickly? Don't say graphics.
You guys were really on board on this when it was being developed. What really happened to get you to abandon it so quickly? Don’t say graphics.

Now we come to the part that rings with the most truth (at least for EA). “Poor online/store.” Hmm, that is telling. While there is no evidence (at the moment) to support the following article, I would advise everyone to read it. Very interesting stuff that would explain why the “EA-Nintendo partnership” evaporated over night: http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/xnt5r/whatever_happened_to_the_groundbreaking/. Could that be a conspiracy theory: yes. Does it make sense without anything super crazy or illegal: yes.

I want to be fair to EA and other third-party publishers. Nintendo does have a bad online system. Their lack of profiles or the ability to register your games into an account is really poor. But the largest group wronged by these decisions is the consumers. We’re the ones with a lack of security. If anything, Nintendo’s system makes it more likely I would have to repay companies for games. I can see them supporting a flawed system like that.

If this is the reason why EA won't make Nintendo games anymore, all I can say is good for Nintendo for not allowing the Wii U to be a puppet for Origin.
If this is the reason why EA won’t make Nintendo games anymore, all I can say is good for Nintendo for not allowing the Wii U to be a puppet for Origin.

Okay, let’s move on to the main point for most companies: “weird tablet”. Look at that thing (pictured above). It is not the average controller. Moreover it creates a new problem for console developers who are used to making games for one screen (now they have two). It means that companies need to put more people (whole teams) on developing for the Wii U. That’s a lot of man power for an investment that is anything but financially secure (at the moment). Nintendo has a long history of third-party games being nowhere near as financially profitable as first-party titles. Yet if tablets are such a big deal, why am I not hearing more about problems with this:

Sony: succeeding without original ideas since 2007.
Sony: succeeding without original ideas since 2007.

The PlayStation 4 also has a tablet controller. I’m not a betting man but I wouldn’t be surprised if the “Xbox Infinity” also has one as well. Touch screens are very viable control options that allow for a tremendous increase in ability to control certain aspects. Also these companies were quick to jump on board with the Wiimote, Kinect and Playstation Move (see previous comment about lack of creativity). This proves that new methods of control are not a crippling blow to development. So “weird tablet”, sorry but if that’s valid criticism against Nintendo, it applies to Sony as well.

So what’s the deal? Why all this hatred? The Wii U is barely half a year old and yet it seems that many game developers aren’t willing to give it a chance. Remember the PlayStation 3? It did not sell nearly as many units as the Wii U did at launch and while I remember concerns being voiced, it was nowhere near this level. Also let’s remember that the Xbox 360 console launched with  a failure rate of 23.7% (that’s in 2009 so they had already had a couple years to try and improve it). So when nearly 1 in every 4 Xbox 360s broke, I still have heard less people calling that a crappy system.

Because Sony and Microsoft make nice with the giant third-party developers. No secret that Nintendo has a track record of changing games and keeping companies in the dark when it comes to third-party. These companies had quiet anger during the Wii’s success. Now that time is over and the Wii U has become the new whipping boy because it is different and people aren’t taking to it like they took to the Wii.

This is sad because, in my opinion, the Wii U is the best chance (console-wise) to inject innovation back into the AAA market. Games play differently on it, it’s not just about graphics. Funny story, after playing Rage this past weekend, I think the debate “do graphics make a game” can finally be put to rest (seriously it was one of the prettiest and most BORING games I have ever played. You know what game looks worse but is infinitely better? Fallout 3).

Has Nintendo made mistakes: yes. Are they a stupid company: in their own way, of course. Do they care more about getting your money than making a good game: that one is actually debatable. It is because of that last answer that I want Nintendo to succeed. They are driven by the dollar, they need it to exist. However they are also the last video game company making a console (both Sony and Microsoft are media corporations). I want the Wii U to have its fair chance.

So call me a fanboy but I’m not ready to denounce a system as “crap” six months out of the gate. I will and have already condemned the handling of the launch but as for the system itself: the Nintendo Wii U is anything but second-rate. I only hope that Nintendo can convince enough people of that as time is running out.

Sad to see EA stop supporting Wii U as it had the perfect controller for Sports games.
Sad to see EA stop supporting Wii U as it had the perfect controller for Sports games.

On a side-note: you know what would have helped? A killer E3 press conference showing off games like the new Super Smash Bros., Mario Kart, Mario and Zelda titles. Apparently all those games will be there yet Nintendo didn’t feel like the major media spotlight of a press conference was the way to go. Better use those Nintendo-Directs that so many less people are aware of. Seriously, what are they smoking over there and how do I get some?

Thoughts? Comments? Am I full of shit or onto something? Let me know now in the feedback section of this article.

Also, get informed on the discussion with help of these informative links:

http://www.gamespot.com/news/crytek-explains-why-crysis-3-wii-u-had-to-die-6404763

http://www.nowgamer.com/news/1806615/dev_wii_u_has_potential_to_be_more_popular_than_wii.html

http://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/team-ninja-head-fires-back-at-metro-developers-in-defense-of-wii-u/

http://kotaku.com/ea-has-no-games-in-development-for-nintendos-wii-u-507588994

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-11-22-thq-clarifies-wii-u-horrible-slow-cpu-claim-but-developer-concern-remains

Injustice on the Wii U? Nah, There's a Better Word for It

Like many fans of both fighting games and the DC Comics universe, I was very happy this week to welcome the release of Injustice: Gods Among Us for the Xbox 360, PlayStation 3 and Nintendo Wii U. Developer NetherRealm Studios is the best in the business when it comes to fighters, at least as far as I’m concerned (granted I place a lot of importance on a strong single player campaign). It is refreshing to see a developer consistently increase in quality as their games develop (Mortal Kombat was considerably better than Mortal Kombat vs DC Universe) and judging by the reviews we have (I’ll get back to this in a moment) it looks like Injustice: Gods Among Us is another hit. So my question as a gamer becomes – which system do I get it for?

I purchased Mortal Kombat for the Xbox 360 and enjoyed it, but I would be lying if I said that the controls were the best for that system. See when it comes to fighting games: the D-pad is important. For those of you who don’t know, the D-pad is a collection of arrow keys (up, down, left, right) that is usually located near the joystick (if you don’t know what a joystick is, please look it up). While joysticks have generally replaced the D-pad in most games (it is far easier to move around a 3D environment using a joystick), the D-pad remains supreme when it comes to fighting games. Plain fact is that it is easier to move and execute special moves. Also, sad fact is: the D-pad on the standard North American Xbox 360 controller kinda sucks. Now I don’t own a PlayStation 3 or this would be the easy choice so I must ask myself: how is Injustice: Gods Among Us for the Wii U? I’m still asking this question.

This is embarrassing and a problem that has been with Nintendo since the Wii days. No one is reviewing their product. Go on Metacritic or Gamerankings , there is absolutely nothing. Both services are stuffed full of independent reviews for the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 versions (although how many of those are copy-and-paste is another question) but still, nothing for the Wii U. I’m still undecided on whether or not this is better than how most critics handled the Wii. For those of you who don’t know what I mean by this, the Wii enjoyed many unique versions of games that arrived on its console (Thor: God of Thunder, Ghostbusters: the Game, Prince of Persia: the Forgotten Sands). These games all bared little-to-no resemblance to their 360 and PS3 counterparts. Problem was that, in most cases, when the review came in for the 360 or PS3 version, it was simply cut and pasted onto the Wii, despite the fact that they were different games. There’s a word for this behavior: laziness. It describes what is happening now.

MIA: reviews for this game.
MIA: reviews for this game.

This isn’t on Nintendo. True they deserve a lot of blame for the marketing of the Wii U (which I have already outlined here: http://redringsofredemption.wordpress.com/2013/03/27/a-rose-by-any-other-name-can-be-confusing-the-wii-u/) but Nintendo is not responsible for reviewing the games. Obviously not, how could we trust critics if they dropped all illusions that they weren’t being directly paid by the video game companies? No, there are many professional sites out there with one job: to review video games. IGN, Giant Bomb, Gametrailers? You guys had one job.

Really, it is the fanboys’ job to be prejudiced, not the critics. By not reviewing the Wii U version of Injustice: Gods Among Us, it sends the message that this version of the game isn’t as important as the other two. That’s crap and disrespectful to both Nintendo and NetherRealm Studios, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of people out there who own a Wii U. They made it and critics are paid to play it, PAID. Seriously if someone wants to send me a copy of this game for the Wii U, I will give it a full review. I’m not a professional so I don’t have sixty dollars to throw around on a version. I only plan on purchasing one copy of Injustice: Gods Among Us, I would simply like to make an informed decision.

Sad to say but reviews aren’t the only thing lacking for this Wii U version. Right now word on whether or not Nintendo will receive the DLC characters who have been promised to the 360 and PS3 is limited. There are conflicting reports. We know that is not receiving the season pass (the whole logic of the season pass will have to be discussed at another time) but apparently the Wii U box does advertise the downloaded content on the back.

So is Nintendo getting them or what?
So is Nintendo getting them or what?

If this is to be the start of a trend for third party games on the Wii U, then it is very sad. Regardless of how you feel about Nintendo’s newest product – they have created a unique experience. While Nintendo struggles to remain relevant in the video game world, it seems like no one is willing to offer them a hand. It is a system, it does exist and critics should be ashamed for their lack of response. One job guys, you had one job.

Also where is this? Is this coming for the Wii U? Note: the Wii U d-pad is actually pretty good and should do fine on its own.
Also where is this? Is this coming for the Wii U? Note: the Wii U D-pad is actually pretty good and should do fine on its own.

Thoughts? Comments? Am I full of shit or onto something? Let me know now in the feedback section of this article.