Rasmoss

@Korolev said:

I had no idea what was going on the entire time I played Halo 4. I thought I had a pretty good grasp on things that happened in Halo 3, when I finished it. It's sad that they created a story that only really made any sense to people who got into the expanded fiction, which I never did. They could have at least TRIED to properly explain the backstory a bit more, rather than just assume you're some sort of super fan who read all the books.

I think the backstory you need is explained in the Terminal videos that you unlock in Halo Waypoint by finding terminals in-game. They're all collected here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bznq4Zr2gTwBut I agree it's a really convoluted way of doing things.

@big_jon said:

@Hamz said:

I'm one of those oddballs that has never actually sat down and played every Halo game or even read the EU Books/Novels for the series but I am a dab hand at using Google and Wikipedia and have come the following conclusion...

Humanity once evolved to a state that rivalled the Forerunners and managed to make them sweat a little during the Human/Forerunner War. The Forerunners viewed Humanity as just another violent race looking to expand aggressively across the Universe and after taking a few beatings from us they finally went all Alpha Male and almost wiped us out. However they realised too late that we were fleeing from the Flood and that is when The Librarian kickstarted the Human race again on Earth, in secret, until the Didact found out but at that point the Flood were pretty much ripping the Forerunners a new one. Now my guestimation here is that the Didact would have rather enslaved what remained of Humanity to use as fodder against the Flood instead of using the Halo Arrays but the rest of the Forerunners disagreed and imprisoned him.

Basically it seems the entire theme for the game is to not be a heartless killing machine but to show some compassion. We literally see Chief disobeying orders, getting more than a little attached to Cortana and then (I assume) get a little teary eyed at the end as he stares out the window before the credits roll.

Another point is that when they isolated us to ancient earth the also devolved us with the Halo rings back to savages, Ironically the Didact exiled himself after this because it was against the Mantel, he was not for the construction, or use of the Halo rings. However what I assume is that the new Didact, which is the Didact in Halo 4, he is not the original, he has the essence and knowledge of the old Didact but still is not the same person, the original was killed by the Master Builder, this new Didact was the one who went all crazy and wanted to eradicate man kind, turning them into machines for bringing the flood to the Forerunners door step.

Yet another point is that apparently there is a creed that says that "whoever is the most evolved shall look over everyone else", or something to that effect. Meaning that the most evolved race shall carry The Mantle. Meaning that Humanity were to take on The Mantle if they defeat The Forerunners, like the Librarian is arguing to the Didact that they probably should. But the Didact, because he carries a big ol' grudge, won't allow that to happen and is trying to ensure that it is always The Forerunners that will carry The Mantle.

@GunstarRed

I've been playing through the game over the last three nights and while I really liked the game overall I had issues with how things happened in the final episode. I felt like Kenny jumping down into the hole was out of character and that the end with lee and Clementine could be seen a mile off. I didn't cry in fact I was left a little cold. Duck dying in episode 3 really got to me though.

I agree with this. There was some sloppy writing in 5. The fact that they used the thing you're climbing on falling down THREE TIMES as a plot point was lazy. The fact that Clem carries Lee to safety without explanation. The confrontation with the stranger fall a little flat if you haven't made selfish choices.

I've been playing through the game over the last three nights and while I really liked the game overall I had issues with how things happened in the final episode. I felt like Kenny jumping down into the hole was out of character and that the end with lee and Clementine could be seen a mile off. I didn't cry in fact I was left a little cold. Duck dying in episode 3 really got to me though.

Cate Archer. Man, those games were great.

@Brodehouse said:

@Rasmoss said:

@Brodehouse said:

I think they should've split The Reaper War across several (3) games, because they simply bit off more than they could chew. They should have slowed development down and did an entire 20-30 hour game about each of the main thrusts in 3, and _resolved_ plot threads well instead of having to rush through them because there isn't enough time in a 30 hour game to get deep into any one area. As it was, the conflict was just too grand and big to really do in a 30 hour game with two years development.

In my opinion, they should have never had a full Reaper invasion. The way they build up the Reapers in ME1 and 2, no resistance should have lasted against the Reapers as long as it does in 3. Also it makes all the fannying about the galaxy, one of the best parts of any ME game, seem completely silly, since you should be focusing your efforts on all the people dying. The last game should be stopping the Reapers entering the galaxy, like in the other games, but somehow make the solution more permanent.

I understand where you're coming from but there are two things;

1) Vigil even states himself that the destruction of an entire species is not a quick affair; it took centuries for the Reapers to wipe out the Protheans. This goes further into 2...

2) This is a force the Reapers have never remotely contended with. They have always started out affairs with a sneak attack at the Citadel, destroying the galaxy's main source of communication and travel. They were denied that this time. if you go by some of the hints offered regarding the rachni, and the Reapers broken hold over the keepers, this cycle should have began a thousand years before. That's a thousand years of technological advancement it should never have received (think of the QEC). Add to that the various advances discovered by looting Sovereign and the Collector's equipment, advances that no other cycle had been privy to. The asari themselves, genetically modified by the Protheans to be better biotic soldiers, are a plus. And even though it appears like no one prepared for the Reapers outside of STG and Shepard, it's a hell of a lot more than the Protheans or anyone else did.

But absolutely, there is a weird amount of dicking around that just doesn't seem like Shepard should be doing. They could have kept most of it if they just increased the sense that each mission is vitally important and Shepard is the only one they think can pull it off (a lot of it is rather important from a galactic stance, acquiring those Cerberus scientists, investigating the rachni signal, stopping the assault on Grissom Academy). Or just the sense that Shepard actually ran a hundred missions and these are just the ones we're showing you. I think what could have made them feel more important is if the galactic strength meter wasn't so piss easy to fill up. You never really feel like you need those scientists, or you need to make an ethically dubious choice in order to have enough strength to win. And yeah, take out all the stupid fetch questy stuff. That's about as bad as the Mako collect resources stuff, or the planet scanning from 2.

Maybe they shouldn't have made a meter at all, and let people wonder about what they needed.... then again, this is the age of the FAQ. People like Vinny would look it up 100% of the time.

You make good points, but the way Sovereign tears through the fleet in 1, and the way everyone is affected by indoctrination that comes near it, just make it hard to see how you would last for long against them. But for an advanced machine race, they sure have a very ineffectual method for mass genocide.

Anyway, it wasn't really my point. I think Bioware's strength as storytellers lie in building exciting worlds to explore and making great characters that you connect to emotionally, and they should have kept that as the focus.

Ryan: I think we are the last generation that grew up with the monoculture.

Vinny: You mean that kissing disease.

@Forum_User said:

@Napalm said:

@believer258 said:

I like Mass Effect 1 and 2 a whole lot, but 3 was just a let down. I really wanted to like it, and that "want" to enjoy what I was doing drove me to the end of the game, but that doesn't make it good. It's not just the ending that isn't good. It's the whole story. There are only a handful of interesting moments throughout the whole thing.

Meanwhile, the Indoctrination theory doesn't fix the idea that all of our past decisions were supposed to play into the ending and... they didn't. An entire series lauded for its choice systems and in the end none of them actually mattered at all. That's the "closure" that it's missing, it wasn't satisfying at all, even with the... uh... "Indoctrination theory."

I see where you're coming from, but I'm kind of over that part of my problem with it. I was more concerned and perturbed by the Star Child who took the story in a complete one-eighty. If they had a sacrificial ending without Star Child, without that hamfisted late story beat, I would've been fine with that. It's that character's entire existence that undermines everything about the story, both past and present, and technically future. The Reapers were supposed to be this sentient race that were above our understanding... but instead they were being controlled by... a ghostly child. Goddamn it, Bioware.

That's just it. It doesn't make sense, and that is because the "Star Child" is not real. Just like it doesn't make sense that Anderson and the Illusive Man are on the Citadel. It is an attempt to get Shepard to agree with what the Reapers want. They don't want synthetics (i.e. themselves) to be destroyed, which is why they want to convince Shepard that is the worst choice. It's all about bringing Shepard to their way of thinking. Then, the indoctrination is complete.

Also, as I said above (in an edit), if you choose the destruction option with a high enough readiness rating, Shepard is shown to still be alive, and on Earth, apparently.

Why offer him a chance to destroy them at all, if they don't want him to?

@Brodehouse said:

I think they should've split The Reaper War across several (3) games, because they simply bit off more than they could chew. They should have slowed development down and did an entire 20-30 hour game about each of the main thrusts in 3, and _resolved_ plot threads well instead of having to rush through them because there isn't enough time in a 30 hour game to get deep into any one area. As it was, the conflict was just too grand and big to really do in a 30 hour game with two years development.

In my opinion, they should have never had a full Reaper invasion. The way they build up the Reapers in ME1 and 2, no resistance should have lasted against the Reapers as long as it does in 3. Also it makes all the fannying about the galaxy, one of the best parts of any ME game, seem completely silly, since you should be focusing your efforts on all the people dying. The last game should be stopping the Reapers entering the galaxy, like in the other games, but somehow make the solution more permanent.

• Chopped the arm off
• Lost my temper with Kenny
• Surrendered the weapons
• Killed the stranger
• Didn't make Clem kill Lee.

Seeing that I'd always been kind of a good guy, the stranger's accusations fell a bit flat. He said that I could have stopped the group from taking the food, but the game wouldn't let me, so there.

The end worked well enough, but I thought the post-credits scene was strange. I had told Clem to meet the others by the train, and here she is somewhere else. If the next season doesn't pick up from that point, it's a really strange scene.