Atanatari165's forum posts

  • 11 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by Atanatari165 (12 posts) -

@QuistisTrepe said:

I've just completed the game for the first time and I don't comprehend why the ending was in anyway controversial. It was perfectly fine.

Yep. I probably should have mentioned that I hadn't finished the game when I started this thread! Just finished it (I got 65 wonderful hours out of it, by the way), and I thought the ending was amazing. Definitely one of the best video game endings I have ever seen, vastly superior to the endings of ME2, ME1, any of the Uncharted, Halo, Gears of War or whatever other shooter you want to name. Better than the ending of The Walking Dead in fact. Can't really imagine what would have been better, and I can certainly imagine worse. Maybe people wanted a gameplay-packed ending? A big boss fight? That would have been cool but the game offered plenty of gameplay, boss fights rarely work, and endings should be about story and consequences.

I feel like I played a different game from the one talked about on the Bombcast. The game I played was easily game of the year, with the only real competition being The Walking Dead. Everything else released in 2012 was forgettable and/or lightweight, with the possible exception of Persona 4. Then again they spend a lot of time talking about games that I consider to be little more than novelties and/or addictive time-wasters (Hot Line Miami, Fez, Frog Fractions, etc).

(I played with From Ashes, Leviathan, and the extended cut ending.)

#2 Posted by Atanatari165 (12 posts) -

I suppose I feel very differently about story in 3rd person shooters vs. RPG/adventure games. I care much more about the story arc in an RPG than a shooter, and I take it more seriously, although I still don't feel that endings have much impact on my enjoyment. Maybe that's just because I don't finish that many games.

Mass Effect 3 is this weird hybrid that sometimes feels like an RPG but is really like a party-based shooter with RPG elements. So I don't care quite as much about the story as I would if it was pure RPG. I think the deal is that it feels more like an RPG in the beginning and middle and that is where I enjoy the story and characters. At the end of each game it is more like a linear shooter because in the end you are just railroaded down a corridor and watching cutscenes, I don't feel invested in that part.

The shooting in ME3 may not be quite as good as the best shooters, but it more than makes up for it with weapon/power variety and the party control. The missions, locations, storylines, lore, etc are all much richer and more interesting than your generic military shooter, and the combat does not feel like the pure whack-a-mole you get in many games (call of duty, uncharted, gears of war, etc). Granted it could be too easy if you really min-maxed it, but I lucked into a build that gave the right difficulty for me on hardcore. Its very easy to die, at least the way I'm equipped.

Anyway, I still stand by my argument that endings are not that important. Lord of the Rings is a great example, if you really got focused on the logical holes in the ending...that could ruin the whole story for you. When I get to endings like that I just kind of tune out. They happen a LOT. I didn't mean to say ALL video game endings are bad, I'm just saying there are a lot of great games with shit endings, and if you get hung up on that sort of thing you are kind of screwing yourself. I almost always find endings really boring and generally just stop reading/playing and pick up something else.

#3 Posted by Atanatari165 (12 posts) -

@LikeaSsur said:

I don't know if I agree with your "all games have bad endings" idea. In fact, I can think of a few games that have some pretty good endings.

Did you mean to include ME3 there? People also disagree about Spec Ops. Some of those you listed are all-time classics. Sure I can list probably 20 games with great endings. But I'm sure you and I have both played 100s if not 1000s of games so I don't know how meaningful that is. I can also list a bunch of games with bad endings, so what? Here is a list of 50. In the old days it wasn't so much "bad ending" as it was "bad ending boss fight".

What is more meaningful is that fact that a lot of recent AAA highly rated games have bad endings. Uncharted 2, Mass Effect 2 (imo), Dishonored, Every Bethesda game ever made, Witcher 2, Black Ops 2, etc.

Judgements about endings are highly subjective. One person's awesome ending is another person's idea of crap. Just look around the web at lists of best and worst endings. So I don't think they should be given much weight or taken that seriously.

#4 Posted by Atanatari165 (12 posts) -

Jeust, Yeah I do wish the choices had more impact, but when ME2 came out it was clear to me that they were NOT following a real branching-story approach at all. Its more about which party members you favor, and the short-term impact of your choices. I think expecting choices to have huge effects on the story line is unrealistic, Witcher 2 is the only big-budget title that has delivered on that recently, and as a result I felt it was way too short.

Speaking of Witcher 2, I don't know what you guys liked about the ending. It was so abrupt After an amazing prologue and two great dense chapters, chapter 3 was very short, and then in the end I walk up to Lethro, hear his story, and let him go. Chapter 3 + ending took me all of like 3 hours. It wasn't exactly "bad" it was just abrupt, unmemorable and anticlimactic. With how meaty the other chapters were I was expecting more content.

Tennmuerti, good points but it is still irrational and and unfair. Bad endings are more common than good endings, and endings are only a small part of a game. It isn't like a movie where the ending is 1/4th of the game. The ending is only like 1/20th of an RPG. Also ME3 should be compared to the competition, not what everyone wished ME3 to be. Do you really care how good the ending is in Black Ops 2, Max Payne 3, Assassin's creed 3, Resident Evil 6? I don't because those games are all so mediocre I'm never going to bother finishing them! Mass Effect 3 meanwhile is gripping and fun from start to finish.

Its just strange because I'm not the biggest Mass Effect fan, I don't think the story compares to classic RPGs like Baldur's Gate, Planescape, the best Final Fantasies, Chrono Trigger etc. ME is more about cinematic presentation and character relationships than story. And as a result I could really care less about the fiction of the ending. I'm more interested in how well its presented, and the gameplay and challenge of the ending.

Plus the ending comes at the END, after you've already played it! You've already enjoyed the game! I dunno, I guess I'm just one of those people who usually gets bored about 90% of the way through so I often don't even see the endings.

#5 Posted by Atanatari165 (12 posts) -

I'm just bringing it up because I'm only now getting through the GOTY podcasts. I care because like I said, I think ME3 got treated to a huge double standard, and I think ME3 is a way better game and has a better story than ME2. ME2 is nothing more than recruiting party members which I did not find that compelling. Anyway remember Dragon Age 2? THAT is what a massive disappointment looks like!

Sure endings matter, and if Mass Effect 3 had ended really well it would have been all the more incredible, but a bad ending does not make a game bad. I think the story is just so engrossing, people seem to forget about the rest of the game. Basically I think its a case of love causing hate and I think that's stupid, seems like Bioware got punished for making such a great game.

#6 Posted by Atanatari165 (12 posts) -

Video game endings are always bad, why expect ME to be any different? The ending of Uncharted 2 was much worse, yet when Uncharted 2 was up for GOTY it barely got a mention. I didn't much care for the ending in ME2 for that matter. The Witcher 2 had a hugely disappointing ending. The same can be said for virtually all video games, and usually the quality of the ending is not given much weight. Hell many players never even reach the ending anyway. Why has all the discussion of ME3 focused so overwhelmingly on the ending and all the outrage? Listening to the GOTY discussion of "Biggest Dissapointment", I think ME3 is being treated to the biggest double standard I've ever seen. People are so passionate about this franchise that they get incensed over every little problem. This is a 60+ hour game, the ending has zero impact on 95% of your experience. What about the actual gameplay, which I thought was much improved from the past two? Encounters are much more tactically challenging, the level design is much better, the weapons are more fun, the story is about more than just recruitment, etc.

#7 Posted by Atanatari165 (12 posts) -

@Jack268 said:

@Jace said:

@Jack268 said:

I don't find it strange because you usually can't properly judge an MMO until you're over 100 hours in.

Weeeeeeeeelllll, lets analyze that word "usually" for a moment. Watch me as I put together a list of recent mmo's that are completely forgettable by around lvl 20:

DC U, LOTRO, AoC, Star Trek, Aion, Coh/Cov, WH:O, etc.

"Usually".....rightttttttt. Jeff played TOR because he was bored, and because he had a mmo itch. Jeff would tell you straight up that tor is a GOOD mmo. But it's also an mmo-ass wow-ass mmo. He probably won't pick it up again, and he definitely wouldn't recommend it to a casual gamer. Especially anyone who isn't interested in SW to begin with.

What I'm saying is, a game reviewer should experience the full game before judging it, and not disregard it because it gets boring early on. An MMO is about the endgame content, and you're not going to experience that 10 hours in like you will in a normal game.

MMOs are about a million different peices, not just endgame. SWTOR is certainly not about endgame and it doesn't need to be. As far as I'm concerned its a co-op, Star Wars version of Dragon Age Origins that also happens to have crafting, PvP, and a space combat mini-game that is a lot like Rez/Child of Eden. Oh and its 10 times longer and has vastly larger areas.

Thing that is annoying me most about their SWTOR discussions is all the WoW comparisons, "its WoW with a star wars skin". That is so inaccurate. Sure it borrows a lot of WoW lingo and conventions, but that is just WoW advancing the genre. Most of what people think of as "WoW mechanics" are actually just RPG mechanics that go back to the beginning of the genre. Comparing it to other MMOs the actual experience of playing the game is much more like Guild Wars than WoW, as Jeff even admits. It is built to give the player a strong sense of linear progression, which I think is way better than WoW's "run back and forth from town to objective a dozen times" approach.

#8 Posted by Atanatari165 (12 posts) -

@Jace:

"Weeeeeeeeelllll, lets analyze that word "usually" for a moment. Watch me as I put together a list of recent mmo's that are completely forgettable by around lvl 20:

DC U, LOTRO, AoC, Star Trek, Aion, Coh/Cov, WH:O, etc."

The difference is that in Conan there was ONE good story for everyone from levels 1-20. SWTOR has EIGHT! And frankly they are all better than the one in Conan. LotRO's opening was utter crap...

This is what has me pissed off about the SWTOR criticism. Who cares if it isn't the perfect MMO? it just needs to be $60 well spent and it certainly is that. It's so much better than other recent WoW alternatives it isn't even funny (did Jeff play Star Trek for 100 hours?). So it may not have an end game...umm if your definition of endgame is "mechanics that keep me engaged well past the 100, 200, 300 hour mark" well guess what 99% of games released don't have an endgame so how is that even a criticism? How's the endgame in fucking CHILD OF EDEN which I forked over $50 for earlier this year (and played a total of maybe 6 hours). Why do MMOs get held to a higher standard? For that first month they cost no more than any other game, and often less (EA is offering a $20 credit right now so SWTOR costs only $40).

#9 Edited by Atanatari165 (12 posts) -

Couldn't agree more OP. I like Bombcast because the guys are funny, and sometimes they go into a lot of depth, but the problem with the show is their overall cynical attitude about gaming. Do they like games? Sometimes it can be hard to tell. They seem to shit on every game that comes along, no matter how much time they actually spend playing it. Some of them seem to prefer an extended joke in the form of a game (Saints Row) to a serious game (Skyrim). And then they have an orgasm over some archaic arcade game...

When it comes to food, drinks, TV shows, movies, gambling, boardgames, old video games, etc. I don't spend a fucking extra MINUTE consuming something I don't like, and games are no different. I have serious doubts about anyone who has put 300 hours into WoW and thinks its "shit". Actions speak louder than words. I think they simply soured on the game over time, or they are unwilling or unable to perceive what actually draws them into the game and away from the million other things they could be doing with that time.

MMOs have a lot of parts to them, and I think when talking about them its easy to get down on certain things you don't like and forget all the good stuff. SWTOR has a lot of incredibly strong points:

1. Graphics. I haven't heard hardly anyone mention the graphics in SWTOR, yet they are fucking amazing. Alderaan almost looks better than Skyrim, it has a kind of Japanese look to it that is pretty amazing to see from Bioware.

2. PvP. The PvP in SWTOR is very good (although laggy), yet none of the major reviewers spend much time talking about it. It isn't such a ridiculously fast paced clusterfuck like in WoW, it is slower and more tactical, with more AoEs and no overpowered healing.

3. Co-op. SWTOR is the absolute perfect "couples" MMO. Playing it with my wife is a better experience than just about anything else we've ever tried.

4. Combat. THE COMBAT SYSTEM IS THE SAME AS DRAGON AGE. Its not an action game its a fucking RPG, it has RPG combat. I thought the shooting in Mass Effect was shit when compared to a real shooter (Crysis, Battlefield). That kind of combat also gets tiresome during long play sessions, you need a bit of MMO-style detachment from the combat when you are playing 8 hours at a time. The combat in SWTOR is actually much more enjoyable long-term, believe it or not. That is why you end up playing it far longer than a rental shooter. You have vastly more abilities at your disposal, and time to think about them tactically. If you find the game mindless, you simply aren't challenging yourself. You can do a lot of kiting, for example. Most shooters on "casual" or even "normal" are just as mindless, so don't give me that bullshit. You can run the whole way through CoD Blops without shooting anyone, try doing that in SWTOR.

5. Setting. On top of all that, despite the travesty that is the prequels, Star Wars is still the coolest universe every invented. Far superior to Mass Effect, Dragon Age, or even Skyrim. The planets are also actual planets, not like the small sets in Mass Effect. I cant stand the tiny corridors in Bioware's regular games.

To me, even if you ignore all the MMO stuff and just look at the single player experience this game is superior to Mass Effect 1 and 2 in every possible way, so the criticisms on the Bombcast just kind of make me laugh. Lately they seem to be judging every game to the same standard idea of what a game should be, which lately appears to be Saint's Row 3. They don't seem to the get the fact that not every game is going for that experience (Yeah I know they must know this, but you wouldn't know from hearing them talk). I felt like something similar happened with Skyrim.

Maybe these guys just don't get RPGs. There seem to be entire regions of RPG space they have ZERO appreciation of. Your know, little things like crafting, exploration/navigation, inventory management, character building. And then there is this issue of what they call "filler" content-which I guess refers to traveling, grinding random encounters, completing generic quests, basically content that assumes you actually enjoy playing your character and existing in the world and aren't just waiting for the next novel plot twist or scripted theme park ride. Do they not realize that great games like EVE consist of nothing but this stuff? What about all those old JRPGS that are on every classic games list. Do they expect me to believe that a masterpeice like Chrono Trigger is 50% "filler"? That is crazy-talk.

#10 Posted by Atanatari165 (12 posts) -

You are totally right, just hurts me to listen to it...and it is misleading people...and we do need noobs to farm in pvp...

  • 11 results
  • 1
  • 2