You know, its hard to believe that its been nearly 3 or 4 years since i first played mass effect 1. I was introduced to a new galaxy which to me was a blank slate, yeah sure it's still the milky-way; but the galaxy had been more or less torn open in a way that has redefined science fiction games, new systems and star clusters to explore. Fresh, new and exotic planets to land on and walk around for an hour or two with your latest Normandy love conquest.
But the end of mass effect 3 (spoilers) really made me think in what i believe is a very philosophical way, what if the story the old man was telling the child after the credits really was just a simple bed time story? or if the old man is in fact Shepard but he's telling a story of how his life would have been like/ wanted to be like. Sure it's stated that Shepards actions have made him a legend, but the ending thrown so many equations and questions that i even doubt the character i was playing as was really called Shepard. Like i said, the old man could be telling a story of how the narrative was the life he wanted, so in turn taking out the real hero's name and replacing it with his own for the sake child.
I mean seriously, my own Grandfather has some impressive stories, and it sure made an impression on me when i was 6 years old and he was telling me about his exploits during his younger years. But to listen to a story being told as grand as the story of mass effect i think would lead to a lot of brilliant dreams for such a young mind.
Sure, i admit i may be thinking a little too much in to it. But this is the mass effect franchise i'm talking about here, its got more plot twists and turns then most sophisticated and complicated books. But thinking this way throws in a lot of "what if" in to the mix, which is exactly what Bioware was hoping to do i reckon. This is the way i interpreted the ending in my own way of thinking, always looking for possible answers is something i strive for. What are your thought and maybe your own interpretation of the very end?
It took me quite sometime to recover after what little of the campaign i played, i got up to the end of the thunder run mission and thought "that'll do me for today" before cooling my head in a sink of ice cubes after taking in the games mind melting beauty. To say that this game is nothing short of a work of art would be an understatement, not only does it look good, it sounds good. i mean seriously.... it's like the fucking news reels or something.
from what i got thus far from the campaign i was already looking forward to playing on multiplayer with baited breath, mind you i will say that the campaign needed a few levels that made you the pilot of a jet and a helicopter, but meh. i'm ok with what they did. But yeah, where was i? AH! mmmmmmmultiplayer. more or less the jammy center to an all ready great game, the first few games i played on multiplayer seemed a bit odd to me. i'm a little bit annoyed about the fact that we have a call of duty style scope wobble for the sniper rifle's (way to go dice for trying to be different), we didn't have a scope wobble in bad company 2..... right?.... i mean it, i'm staring at my television screen which my xbox is running bad company 2 on at the moment, i'm a sniper and i have my finger on the zoom button and there is not even a spasm going on with the scope. it's dead still. i liked that for bad company 2, means your playing as a sniper who isn't suffering from a bad case of..... what's the name of that disease Micheal J Fox has at the moment????....AH! Parkinson's disease like the sniper class from the call of duty game. having a dead still scope means your playing as a pro, someone who has nerves of steel. now it just feel like it's another god damn call of duty sniper class.
anyways, rant over.
to say in the least, i enjoyed myself more on the higher multiplayer settings of hardcore, well.... thats because i was actually getting one hit kills with a sniper rifle. i love the character progression, really does make you smile at the end of a game and seeing all those goodies you have unlocked scroll on the screen accompanied by a "SSSSCCCOOOONUUUUZZZZZZPACH" noise.
but yeah, from what i've played so far we have a heavy hitter to knock the hat off of call of duties flees bitten scalp. battlefield 3 feels like a game that was made with a lot of love and soul, you can clearly see the artistic attention to detail on.... EVERYTHING!!!
it's top quality action accompanied by some really intense vehicle action. i mean jets..... seriously...... mother fucking jets....... HOW CAN CALL OF DUTY EVEN CONTEND WITH THAT!?
but i'll more then likely play a lot more of this game and make it melt my brain even further, good thing i keep a bucket full of ice cubes by me.
anyways, keep on playing people and enjoy yourselves on this masterpiece of a game.
9/10..... hay, it may be awesome, but like i said. the campaign needed a "how the fuck do you fly jets and choppers?" mission.
now i know i have posted this a good 4 or 5 month's before it's shipping date, but i just want to take the time to talk about my thoughts of the trailer. now i'm sure that the developers will beat the alluring moth attracting flame of this game at E3 next month, but the fact is this. the engine they have been using since call of duty 2 is really starting to tire. and i'm sure this game will do the usual Quid Pro Quo by killing off the character(s) your playing as, which leave's you thinking that following that specific characters story is pointless. why build up all of this connection with a guy your playing as and then kill him off. i got frustrated when general Shepherd killed roach from modern warfare 2, and i nearly thought the game was gonna douche me again near the end when soap got pwned.
of course we only got small snippets of gameplay in the trailer, but was it enough to make me salivate with anticipation?
no, it failed to grasp my attention from some points, and we are still in that state of flux of thinking that the worlds enemy is Russia, are we still in some paradox where the Russians like to eat babies or something? i mean, why not have a different enemy like the korea...... the germ...... the itallia...... fuck it..... Russia it is then. i mean the Italians didn't mind giving up in the second world war, what chance do they have in the third?.... not my place to say though.
the only thing that looks interesting is having to fight in countries such as France, Germany and England. i'm willing to guess that the French campaign will have a lot of help from the English, or will have a lot of some form of running away. we also have a large skirmish of new york, which left me thinking. the last time we played as Ramirez in modern warfar 2, you just beaten the Russians out of Washington and there was talk of invading Moscow. so what happened? do the Russians control both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans? cause if the Russians are still kicking ass in america then their counter attack must have went belly up.
we also may have seen what looks like the shadowy figure of ghost (i'm willing to guess there are ghost fanboys already tweeting or facebooking or just damn right ravenously and furiously masturbating about this.) which is fair enough, but ghost was a blank slate of which i had no care for when he got.... ¬_¬..... killed...... heck, they brought back price, why not bring back gaz, you know, the dude which Zakhieve shot in the face.
now i know ranting isn't going to cover the fact that this game is gonna sell like hot cakes and be plotted with the "MOST ANTICIPATED GAME OF THE DECADE" for the third time in a row, but like i said, the developers need to follow the lead of dice, make a new engine for christ sake and shake up the story line a bit more then just killing off a players character, i don't know, launch a nuke at the moon or something. but the fighting in my home country of England will be kind of cool.
i'm telling you, if i see one Russian land in my garden, he's a fucking dead man!