Maybe it's because I'm an old fart, but heavily scripted 3rd person action games like Uncharted, the upcoming Lara Croft, the upcoming Star Wars 1313, etc. just don't appeal much to me any more. They're all essentially the same game - Prince of Persia platforming + Gears of War cover/gun play. And linear. Suffocatingly linear.
The only reason why I still go after Rockstar's games are because they're usually pretty well written, and the open world aspect where I can at least cause some of my own mayhem. Getting chased by cops in, say, Vice City is a game in itself.
But, yeah, I was struck by how many games simply didn't speak to me while watching the E3 presentations. All the 'realistic' FPS games look the same. All the 3rd person action games look the same. Sports titles are the same every year anyway. It's just startling to see such little innovation among the AAA titles.
Like I asked yesterday/last night on my Twitter/Facebook, can anyone tell me the difference between the upcoming Call of Duty, Metal of Honor, and Battlefield games, aside from their titles?
---
That said, the two titles I'm most interested in are Dishonored and Watch Dogs. Likely because they offer several ways to tackle a particular situation.
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Thursday, May 24, 2012
E3 potpourri
Just some random, stream of consciousness thoughts on the coming E3:
Like someone else said on the Penny Arcade forums, isn't it funny/sad that the things most people are looking forward to from Square-Enix are its Eidos offerings?
Prediction: Microsoft's keynote will be barren. Kinect + media apps + already announced exclusives = yawn. I'm hoping that they're lying and will do something regarding the NextBox/Xbox 720, but I'm not counting on it.
I hope that Ubisoft unveils a new Splinter Cell. And, I hope it refocuses on stealth. Playing Sam Fisher as Jason Bourne is fun, but I wanted more stealth capability in Conviction. Not being able to move bodies was a grievous oversight.
Apparently there's a rumor that Sony will have a megaton announcement during their keynote, and that it has something to do with the cloud. Some people are wondering if it's tied with Valve/Steam. I'm wondering if it has something to do with rumors of Sony and Microsoft talking over the last few months. Maybe some Azure?
I can't help but wonder what Bioware will show. Likely the Mass Effect 3 apology DLC, but what else? Their new post-ME IP? Something Dragon Age related?
I'm curious on the JRPG front. I haven't played a JRPG I liked in ages. Will Final Fantasy XIII Versus finally materialize? Anything actually worth playing in the genre?
The Wii U both intrigues and frightens me. I can't help but wonder about the tablet controller's accessibility. The Wiimote is already a barrier. The tablet looks orders of magnitude ("Pop pop!") worse.
Like someone else said on the Penny Arcade forums, isn't it funny/sad that the things most people are looking forward to from Square-Enix are its Eidos offerings?
Prediction: Microsoft's keynote will be barren. Kinect + media apps + already announced exclusives = yawn. I'm hoping that they're lying and will do something regarding the NextBox/Xbox 720, but I'm not counting on it.
I hope that Ubisoft unveils a new Splinter Cell. And, I hope it refocuses on stealth. Playing Sam Fisher as Jason Bourne is fun, but I wanted more stealth capability in Conviction. Not being able to move bodies was a grievous oversight.
Apparently there's a rumor that Sony will have a megaton announcement during their keynote, and that it has something to do with the cloud. Some people are wondering if it's tied with Valve/Steam. I'm wondering if it has something to do with rumors of Sony and Microsoft talking over the last few months. Maybe some Azure?
I can't help but wonder what Bioware will show. Likely the Mass Effect 3 apology DLC, but what else? Their new post-ME IP? Something Dragon Age related?
I'm curious on the JRPG front. I haven't played a JRPG I liked in ages. Will Final Fantasy XIII Versus finally materialize? Anything actually worth playing in the genre?
The Wii U both intrigues and frightens me. I can't help but wonder about the tablet controller's accessibility. The Wiimote is already a barrier. The tablet looks orders of magnitude ("Pop pop!") worse.
I got 38 problems but a game ain't one
Holy crap, a blog post! First, the usual professional update:
Paying work has slowed, I've had issues receiving payment from one client, and I'm busy cleaning up code/finishing writing code on the first of my personal projects. Naturally, I want to change its look, because I suck at design, so, yeah, more delays there. Good times.
Now, to the meat of this post:
We're entering silly season for video games. There's a whole bunch of corporate things going on, and E3 is a week+ away. I figured that with everything going on, a couple posts would be apropos.
---
38 Studios. The company that's taken 6 years to make a mediocre adventure game and a still-in-development MMO, both of which look like they have Azeroth envy. Is it a shock that they're going under? That they wrote a bad check for the $1.1m loan payment they missed? That what employees are left haven't been payed since May 1, and that their health insurance ends tonight at midnight?
Nope, not really.
For a time, it seemed like every studio wanted to take the MMO crown from World of Warcraft. The problem is that they didn't take the time to see what made WoW special.
For one, pedigree. WoW was the continuation of a very popular brand. What's more is that the original developers were vets from Everquest and Dark Age of Camelot. They had working experience in the genre.
Second, a massive, public beta. WoW became a part of the gaming culture even before it was released. Popular entities like Penny Arcade were salivating over it at the time, which made it more than just another game.
Third, a good deal of luck and timing.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Trying to become the "Next X" is a fool's errand. How many game companies have tried making the next WoW? Remember Warhammer Online? Age of Conan? Anarchy Online? SWTOR is hemorrhaging subscribers as I write this, and that's a Star Wars game from Bioware! Even WoW itself lost a significant number of subscribers after its Wrath of the Lich King expansion.
What's worse in 38 Studios' case is that, like I said above, their world of Amalur looks very similar to Warcraft's Azeroth. The architecture, the environments, the people, the creatures - it all looks like WoW 2.0. Don't take my word for it. Check it out below:
Off the top of my head, I can see Orgrimmar, Teldrassil, Loch Modan, Gilneas, and Stormwind analogues. This could be a drinking game.
So, let's recap:
38 Studios decided to put almost all their eggs in the MMO basket. A genre which, over time, has proven over and over to be a bad investment. Despite seeing the multitude of failures from other companies - both with original and existing IPs - they refused to change course. Their one game to date, after 6 years of being in business, is Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning, an admitted side project which sold 400,000 copies, and is, by all accounts, decent but not memorable. In order to differentiate themselves from other IPs, they make theirs look like an updated WoW.
... who was in charge here, again?
I feel for the employees, but man, the people at the head of the company were idiots. I'm sure the Rhode Island taxpayers must be thrilled.
Paying work has slowed, I've had issues receiving payment from one client, and I'm busy cleaning up code/finishing writing code on the first of my personal projects. Naturally, I want to change its look, because I suck at design, so, yeah, more delays there. Good times.
Now, to the meat of this post:
We're entering silly season for video games. There's a whole bunch of corporate things going on, and E3 is a week+ away. I figured that with everything going on, a couple posts would be apropos.
---
38 Studios. The company that's taken 6 years to make a mediocre adventure game and a still-in-development MMO, both of which look like they have Azeroth envy. Is it a shock that they're going under? That they wrote a bad check for the $1.1m loan payment they missed? That what employees are left haven't been payed since May 1, and that their health insurance ends tonight at midnight?
Nope, not really.
For a time, it seemed like every studio wanted to take the MMO crown from World of Warcraft. The problem is that they didn't take the time to see what made WoW special.
For one, pedigree. WoW was the continuation of a very popular brand. What's more is that the original developers were vets from Everquest and Dark Age of Camelot. They had working experience in the genre.
Second, a massive, public beta. WoW became a part of the gaming culture even before it was released. Popular entities like Penny Arcade were salivating over it at the time, which made it more than just another game.
Third, a good deal of luck and timing.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Trying to become the "Next X" is a fool's errand. How many game companies have tried making the next WoW? Remember Warhammer Online? Age of Conan? Anarchy Online? SWTOR is hemorrhaging subscribers as I write this, and that's a Star Wars game from Bioware! Even WoW itself lost a significant number of subscribers after its Wrath of the Lich King expansion.
What's worse in 38 Studios' case is that, like I said above, their world of Amalur looks very similar to Warcraft's Azeroth. The architecture, the environments, the people, the creatures - it all looks like WoW 2.0. Don't take my word for it. Check it out below:
Off the top of my head, I can see Orgrimmar, Teldrassil, Loch Modan, Gilneas, and Stormwind analogues. This could be a drinking game.
So, let's recap:
38 Studios decided to put almost all their eggs in the MMO basket. A genre which, over time, has proven over and over to be a bad investment. Despite seeing the multitude of failures from other companies - both with original and existing IPs - they refused to change course. Their one game to date, after 6 years of being in business, is Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning, an admitted side project which sold 400,000 copies, and is, by all accounts, decent but not memorable. In order to differentiate themselves from other IPs, they make theirs look like an updated WoW.
... who was in charge here, again?
I feel for the employees, but man, the people at the head of the company were idiots. I'm sure the Rhode Island taxpayers must be thrilled.
Thursday, April 5, 2012
PSA
You're a young, plucky go-getter with an interest in tech and nothing but time on your hands. What to do? Why learn web development, of course! So, here are some random tips for those just starting out:
1. Learn HTML and CSS.
Seems kinda like a no-brainer, right? You'd be amazed at how many people feel uncomfortable with the basic building blocks of the web. Some developers learned HTML in the late 90's and never took the time to keep up-to-date on it. They get all Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer when confronted with the modern web ("Your world of Cascading Style Sheets confuses and frightens me"). Don't be that person.
Other would-be devs feel that HTML/CSS is somehow beneath them. That, somehow, they'll be forever isolated from the unwashed masses that have to write markup because they're a programmer, not a coder. Don't be that person, either.
Here's the thing: at some point, the stuff you'll program will be rendered in a browser. Even if you're a programmer, chances are you'll need to tweak templates in order to have the yummy, yummy data you massaged earlier in the process display on screen in the right place/format. Knowing how to debug these templates when things go wrong (and they will) is essential.
Besides, both are fairly easy to learn. HTML can be learned in a couple hours. CSS takes a bit more time, mostly due to CSS positioning and the Box Model, but is still doable. No one will expect you to be an awesome designer. They will expect you to be familiar with the basics.
2. Server side language choice
In the long run, this doesn't matter too much as you'll likely learn a variety of languages if you stick with it. But, short term, it's an important decision that must balance ease of use, availability of quality resources, and success/failure/positive reinforcement.
For me, there are only two viable choices: PHP and C#
PHP has some nice benefits - Ubiquity, easy syntax, it's dynamically typed, so you don't have to worry about type initially, and it rewards the developer with fast results.
PHP also has some drawbacks - A lot of horrible, out-of-date resources and tutorials floating around online, when done wrong PHP can teach some very bad habits, it's dynamically typed, so you may not even learn about type, and a lot of little technical things that a newbie likely wouldn't notice, but are there anyway.
C#'s benefits are - Statically typed, so one learns about type right off the bat, clean syntax, object oriented, more options in terms of more complex data structures.
C#'s drawbacks are - A much higher learning curve from the get-go, possible reliance on the .NET framework as a crutch, the MSDN (although it's getting easier to navigate).
For web development, I started with PHP. I feel it's the best at efficiently teaching a prospective developer how forms work, how a server side language interacts with a database, and how processes on the back end eventually become things an end user experiences. YMMV. That said, I prefer C# now.
3. It's a database, not a spreadsheet
One of the classic mistakes a newbie can make is treating a database like a spreadsheet. Most of the databases used with the web are relational databases. Database tables model the relation between different sets of data. To get the tables into the right form, developers 'normalize' them. Here's a good primer on normalization: http://mikehillyer.com/articles/an-introduction-to-database-normalization/
Simply put, if you use your database as a spreadsheet, you're doing it wrong.
4. It's 2012. Time to learn JavaScript
JavaScript is probably the most important language employed on the web today. It's a vital component of many sites (Google Apps, Facebook, Twitter, to name a few), and with the upcoming improvements in HTML5, it will only become more widely used.
Despite that, JavaScript still carries a stigma. Older end users remember a time of constant JavaScript errors, and older developers remember the browser wars. It doesn't help that the language itself is a bit odd, and has some hidden gotchas baked right in.
That said, the emergence of JavaScript frameworks (including the ubiquitous jQuery) has all but made the pain go away. There's no reason not to learn the basics. With the way things are progressing, saying, "Nah, I don't do JavaScript," will be akin to saying, "Nah, I don't do email." Get on board.
---
So, there you go. Random thoughts on a Thursday morning.
1. Learn HTML and CSS.
Seems kinda like a no-brainer, right? You'd be amazed at how many people feel uncomfortable with the basic building blocks of the web. Some developers learned HTML in the late 90's and never took the time to keep up-to-date on it. They get all Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer when confronted with the modern web ("Your world of Cascading Style Sheets confuses and frightens me"). Don't be that person.
Other would-be devs feel that HTML/CSS is somehow beneath them. That, somehow, they'll be forever isolated from the unwashed masses that have to write markup because they're a programmer, not a coder. Don't be that person, either.
Here's the thing: at some point, the stuff you'll program will be rendered in a browser. Even if you're a programmer, chances are you'll need to tweak templates in order to have the yummy, yummy data you massaged earlier in the process display on screen in the right place/format. Knowing how to debug these templates when things go wrong (and they will) is essential.
Besides, both are fairly easy to learn. HTML can be learned in a couple hours. CSS takes a bit more time, mostly due to CSS positioning and the Box Model, but is still doable. No one will expect you to be an awesome designer. They will expect you to be familiar with the basics.
2. Server side language choice
In the long run, this doesn't matter too much as you'll likely learn a variety of languages if you stick with it. But, short term, it's an important decision that must balance ease of use, availability of quality resources, and success/failure/positive reinforcement.
For me, there are only two viable choices: PHP and C#
PHP has some nice benefits - Ubiquity, easy syntax, it's dynamically typed, so you don't have to worry about type initially, and it rewards the developer with fast results.
PHP also has some drawbacks - A lot of horrible, out-of-date resources and tutorials floating around online, when done wrong PHP can teach some very bad habits, it's dynamically typed, so you may not even learn about type, and a lot of little technical things that a newbie likely wouldn't notice, but are there anyway.
C#'s benefits are - Statically typed, so one learns about type right off the bat, clean syntax, object oriented, more options in terms of more complex data structures.
C#'s drawbacks are - A much higher learning curve from the get-go, possible reliance on the .NET framework as a crutch, the MSDN (although it's getting easier to navigate).
For web development, I started with PHP. I feel it's the best at efficiently teaching a prospective developer how forms work, how a server side language interacts with a database, and how processes on the back end eventually become things an end user experiences. YMMV. That said, I prefer C# now.
3. It's a database, not a spreadsheet
One of the classic mistakes a newbie can make is treating a database like a spreadsheet. Most of the databases used with the web are relational databases. Database tables model the relation between different sets of data. To get the tables into the right form, developers 'normalize' them. Here's a good primer on normalization: http://mikehillyer.com/articles/an-introduction-to-database-normalization/
Simply put, if you use your database as a spreadsheet, you're doing it wrong.
4. It's 2012. Time to learn JavaScript
JavaScript is probably the most important language employed on the web today. It's a vital component of many sites (Google Apps, Facebook, Twitter, to name a few), and with the upcoming improvements in HTML5, it will only become more widely used.
Despite that, JavaScript still carries a stigma. Older end users remember a time of constant JavaScript errors, and older developers remember the browser wars. It doesn't help that the language itself is a bit odd, and has some hidden gotchas baked right in.
That said, the emergence of JavaScript frameworks (including the ubiquitous jQuery) has all but made the pain go away. There's no reason not to learn the basics. With the way things are progressing, saying, "Nah, I don't do JavaScript," will be akin to saying, "Nah, I don't do email." Get on board.
---
So, there you go. Random thoughts on a Thursday morning.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Spring cleaning
Just a small post to myself, really. Things I want to focus on this year (aside from actual paying projects):
Hone my design skills - I suck at design. I think I'm a decent critic of design, but creating my own has always been troublesome. I'm not an artist. Even my stick figures suck. That said, the flexible design book from A Book Apart really opened my eyes to some things, answered some questions I had never previously received clear answers to. So, with that, I'll redesign my home site, which was made in a rush in order to get free hosting a couple years ago (it definitely looks like it was made in 15 minutes), and my awesome secret personal projects.
Get more familiar with JavaScript, jQuery, and maybe even Node.js - I'm not a complete newbie with JS. I mean, I own and read Resig's book. I'm definitely not what I'd consider to be proficient, though. In today's development world, that's like saying, "I like computers, it's just that pesky keyboard and mouse I'm not comfortable with."
Ruby on Rails - I figure an additional tool in my toolbox couldn't hurt. It was either that or Python/Django, and I'm not a fan of the idea of whitespace actually conveying meaning.
Longer term things:
Learn a functional language - Thinking F# is the way to go. I mean, I already have it with VS. Might as well learn it.
Make a game - I'm probably the only programmer nerd on the planet that's never made a completely functional, simple game. I had the skeleton of a web-based, turn-based RPG written in ASP.NET web forms (yeah, getting to that point was as painful as it sounds), but it lies languishing on my HDD. Since I hate web forms, I doubt I'll touch it again. So, some kind of Tetris/Breakout clone, written either in C++ or XNA.
Hone my design skills - I suck at design. I think I'm a decent critic of design, but creating my own has always been troublesome. I'm not an artist. Even my stick figures suck. That said, the flexible design book from A Book Apart really opened my eyes to some things, answered some questions I had never previously received clear answers to. So, with that, I'll redesign my home site, which was made in a rush in order to get free hosting a couple years ago (it definitely looks like it was made in 15 minutes), and my awesome secret personal projects.
Get more familiar with JavaScript, jQuery, and maybe even Node.js - I'm not a complete newbie with JS. I mean, I own and read Resig's book. I'm definitely not what I'd consider to be proficient, though. In today's development world, that's like saying, "I like computers, it's just that pesky keyboard and mouse I'm not comfortable with."
Ruby on Rails - I figure an additional tool in my toolbox couldn't hurt. It was either that or Python/Django, and I'm not a fan of the idea of whitespace actually conveying meaning.
Longer term things:
Learn a functional language - Thinking F# is the way to go. I mean, I already have it with VS. Might as well learn it.
Make a game - I'm probably the only programmer nerd on the planet that's never made a completely functional, simple game. I had the skeleton of a web-based, turn-based RPG written in ASP.NET web forms (yeah, getting to that point was as painful as it sounds), but it lies languishing on my HDD. Since I hate web forms, I doubt I'll touch it again. So, some kind of Tetris/Breakout clone, written either in C++ or XNA.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
I'll have a plate of awesome, with a side order of shit
This post is about the Mass Effect 3 ending. Needless to say, SPOILERS ahead. Read at your own peril.
I beat Mass Effect 3 yesterday. After having slept on it, I think I'm ready to talk about the ending. First, a quick summary:
The end forces Shepard to return to earth. Turns out the Citadel is the Catalyst, and an indoctrinated Illusive Man informed the Reapers of this fact. The Reapers, wanting to protect themselves, take control of the Citadel, fly it to the safest area of Reaper controlled space, which is earth. Shepard meets up with Anderson in London, and must get to the new Conduit in order to open the Citadel arms to allow the Crucible to dock. It's a nice return to the end mission of ME1, albeit with higher stakes.
During the push to the Conduit, Harbinger lands and starts zapping people. Shepard and his squad get caught in the blast. Fade to white. You take control of a broken, burned, bloodied Shepard after he regains consciousness. He grabs a pistol, and it's up to the player to make him limp to the Conduit, shooting at Husks and other Reaper forces on the way.
When you teleport to the Citadel, Anderson is there somehow. He and Shepard make it to a control panel, when a Huskified Illusive Man takes control of both Shepard and Anderson. He forces Shepard to shoot Anderson (looks like it's a stomach wound... apparently this happens only if your effective fleet strength is 5000+), but later dies himself, either due to Shepard shooting him, or suicide a la Saren in ME1, depending on dialogue choices (which is another great nod to the original).
A dying duo of Shepard and Anderson sit next to each other and reminisce while watching earth and the fight. Anderson succumbs to his wound. Hackett calls, informing Shepard that while the Crucible is docked, nothing is happening. Shepard crawls toward the control panel, but loses consciousness right before it. The floor beneath Shepard turns white, and lifts him toward the heavens....
...into another part of the Citadel. A ghostlike entity resembling the child from the opening segment of the game/Shepard's nightmares appears, and forces him to wake up. The entity explains that he is a representation of the Catalyst, and that it/the Reapers were built to protect organic life. According to him, organics always create synthetic life, which, in turn, attempts to destroy its creators. The Reapers harvest the advanced civilizations, where they sort of live on in the form of another Reaper.
Since the Crucible was successfully built, and Shepard allowed it to dock, he essentially broke that cycle, and must now choose how to proceed. The Crucible will allow him to:
1. Control the Reapers at the expense of his life
2. Destroy ALL synthetic life, including the Geth and EDI
3. Synthesis - merge the building blocks of organic and synthetic life into the next evolutionary step
In all three, the Mass Relays are destroyed, as they spread the Crucible's signal/energy through the galaxy.
Regardless of the player's choice, the next scene has the Normandy trying to escape the energy wave, only to be caught by it. The ship crashes on an unknown planet, and Joker and a couple of crew members exit the ship to take a look at where they are.
Credits.
After the credits, on what looks to be the same planet (at night), two silhouettes - an adult and child - look to the moons. The adult (voiced by Buzz Aldrin) talks about the infinite wonders of the galaxy. The child wants to hear more about 'The Shepard'. The game then loads back up to the point before the assault on the Cerberus base.
---
Personally, I liked the ending until the Catalyst ghost entity infodumped the entire thing to me. The very last segment bothered me for a number of reasons:
1. In my game(s), I tend to play a predominantly Paragon Shepard. He's a peacemaker, a person looking to unite the galaxy against a real threat. As such, I got him to broker peace between the Quarians and Geth (yay, two fleets!). Doesn't that show that there can be peace between organics and synthetics? Why isn't there dialogue to reflect that option?
Also, the Geth didn't rise up for the hell of it. They acted in self-defense, then fled behind the Veil. Their later aggression was fueled by the Reapers themselves. Why is none of that addressed?
2. The same basic ending happens, regardless of what you do: Reapers pacified, mass relays destroyed, Normandy crashed. The whole idea of the series is to force the player to make choices that will have consequences later on. We never see the consequence of the last choice, which is incredibly unfulfilling. Since the same basic progression happens regardless of the choice you make, the choice itself seems pointless.
3. The Reapers supposedly save advanced organic races by harvesting them, turning the individual members of those societies into grey sludge, and combing them all into a techno-organic form. What happens to the synthetic races after that? Do the Reapers just destroy them? Again, not addressed.
EDIT: And, really, why do the Reapers harvest organics at all? Why not simply destroy synthetics when they inevitably revolt?
4. The Reaper reveal fell a bit flat as it came in the form of an infodump. It would have worked better, IMO, as a slow burn. Reveal some of it after obtaining the Mars data, and again on Thessia. Really question if using the Crucible is a wise move. Do more than:
"We don't know what it does."
"Well, we have no choice."
"Okay."
Using the Crucible itself should represent a choice, really.
5. There's a way to keep Shepard alive. Have an effective fleet strength of 5000+ and chose the destroy option. After everything is done, there's an extra scene of Shepard, buried beneath rubble in London(!), taking a big inhale. And, apparently, it's a save state flag....
There are a couple things odd with that:
A. The Catalyst explicitly tells you that the destroy option will destroy ALL synthetic life. Shepard is a cyborg.
B. What is he doing in London, seeing as how the Citadel blows up?
Rumors/theories are flying that the dreams Shepard was having is a sign of him being indoctrinated (he was rebuilt with Reaper tech...), and that after Harbinger's blast, he simply lost consciousness. And, there will be new DLC/a patch/new game to address it. I doubt it, but it is definitely odd.
---
So, there you have it. My early morning rambling thoughts on Mass Effect 3's ending. For the record, I loved 99% of the game. I haven't felt these kinds of emotions since Xenogears. It's just the ending I didn't like.
I beat Mass Effect 3 yesterday. After having slept on it, I think I'm ready to talk about the ending. First, a quick summary:
The end forces Shepard to return to earth. Turns out the Citadel is the Catalyst, and an indoctrinated Illusive Man informed the Reapers of this fact. The Reapers, wanting to protect themselves, take control of the Citadel, fly it to the safest area of Reaper controlled space, which is earth. Shepard meets up with Anderson in London, and must get to the new Conduit in order to open the Citadel arms to allow the Crucible to dock. It's a nice return to the end mission of ME1, albeit with higher stakes.
During the push to the Conduit, Harbinger lands and starts zapping people. Shepard and his squad get caught in the blast. Fade to white. You take control of a broken, burned, bloodied Shepard after he regains consciousness. He grabs a pistol, and it's up to the player to make him limp to the Conduit, shooting at Husks and other Reaper forces on the way.
When you teleport to the Citadel, Anderson is there somehow. He and Shepard make it to a control panel, when a Huskified Illusive Man takes control of both Shepard and Anderson. He forces Shepard to shoot Anderson (looks like it's a stomach wound... apparently this happens only if your effective fleet strength is 5000+), but later dies himself, either due to Shepard shooting him, or suicide a la Saren in ME1, depending on dialogue choices (which is another great nod to the original).
A dying duo of Shepard and Anderson sit next to each other and reminisce while watching earth and the fight. Anderson succumbs to his wound. Hackett calls, informing Shepard that while the Crucible is docked, nothing is happening. Shepard crawls toward the control panel, but loses consciousness right before it. The floor beneath Shepard turns white, and lifts him toward the heavens....
...into another part of the Citadel. A ghostlike entity resembling the child from the opening segment of the game/Shepard's nightmares appears, and forces him to wake up. The entity explains that he is a representation of the Catalyst, and that it/the Reapers were built to protect organic life. According to him, organics always create synthetic life, which, in turn, attempts to destroy its creators. The Reapers harvest the advanced civilizations, where they sort of live on in the form of another Reaper.
Since the Crucible was successfully built, and Shepard allowed it to dock, he essentially broke that cycle, and must now choose how to proceed. The Crucible will allow him to:
1. Control the Reapers at the expense of his life
2. Destroy ALL synthetic life, including the Geth and EDI
3. Synthesis - merge the building blocks of organic and synthetic life into the next evolutionary step
In all three, the Mass Relays are destroyed, as they spread the Crucible's signal/energy through the galaxy.
Regardless of the player's choice, the next scene has the Normandy trying to escape the energy wave, only to be caught by it. The ship crashes on an unknown planet, and Joker and a couple of crew members exit the ship to take a look at where they are.
Credits.
After the credits, on what looks to be the same planet (at night), two silhouettes - an adult and child - look to the moons. The adult (voiced by Buzz Aldrin) talks about the infinite wonders of the galaxy. The child wants to hear more about 'The Shepard'. The game then loads back up to the point before the assault on the Cerberus base.
---
Personally, I liked the ending until the Catalyst ghost entity infodumped the entire thing to me. The very last segment bothered me for a number of reasons:
1. In my game(s), I tend to play a predominantly Paragon Shepard. He's a peacemaker, a person looking to unite the galaxy against a real threat. As such, I got him to broker peace between the Quarians and Geth (yay, two fleets!). Doesn't that show that there can be peace between organics and synthetics? Why isn't there dialogue to reflect that option?
Also, the Geth didn't rise up for the hell of it. They acted in self-defense, then fled behind the Veil. Their later aggression was fueled by the Reapers themselves. Why is none of that addressed?
2. The same basic ending happens, regardless of what you do: Reapers pacified, mass relays destroyed, Normandy crashed. The whole idea of the series is to force the player to make choices that will have consequences later on. We never see the consequence of the last choice, which is incredibly unfulfilling. Since the same basic progression happens regardless of the choice you make, the choice itself seems pointless.
3. The Reapers supposedly save advanced organic races by harvesting them, turning the individual members of those societies into grey sludge, and combing them all into a techno-organic form. What happens to the synthetic races after that? Do the Reapers just destroy them? Again, not addressed.
EDIT: And, really, why do the Reapers harvest organics at all? Why not simply destroy synthetics when they inevitably revolt?
4. The Reaper reveal fell a bit flat as it came in the form of an infodump. It would have worked better, IMO, as a slow burn. Reveal some of it after obtaining the Mars data, and again on Thessia. Really question if using the Crucible is a wise move. Do more than:
"We don't know what it does."
"Well, we have no choice."
"Okay."
Using the Crucible itself should represent a choice, really.
5. There's a way to keep Shepard alive. Have an effective fleet strength of 5000+ and chose the destroy option. After everything is done, there's an extra scene of Shepard, buried beneath rubble in London(!), taking a big inhale. And, apparently, it's a save state flag....
There are a couple things odd with that:
A. The Catalyst explicitly tells you that the destroy option will destroy ALL synthetic life. Shepard is a cyborg.
B. What is he doing in London, seeing as how the Citadel blows up?
Rumors/theories are flying that the dreams Shepard was having is a sign of him being indoctrinated (he was rebuilt with Reaper tech...), and that after Harbinger's blast, he simply lost consciousness. And, there will be new DLC/a patch/new game to address it. I doubt it, but it is definitely odd.
---
So, there you have it. My early morning rambling thoughts on Mass Effect 3's ending. For the record, I loved 99% of the game. I haven't felt these kinds of emotions since Xenogears. It's just the ending I didn't like.
Monday, March 5, 2012
Nerd musings as I wait
Not much to talk about re: web development. I'm waiting for one client to get back to me about an e-commerce project, and waiting for another client to pay me. Mass Effect comes out tomorrow (hell yeah!), and, well, that's about it.
With that said, I figured I might as well blabber about one of my favorite games of all times: Xenogears.
Xenogears was released by Squaresoft (before it became Square-Enix) in 1998. This was pretty much the Golden Age of Square, with Final Fantasy VII and Final Fantasy Tactics being released in this era, as well as Square's marked Christianity criticism era, as Final Fantasy Tactics, Vagrant Story, and Xenogears were all pretty scathing in their own way towards the Church (apologies if that sentence made no sense... it's 8:30 AM).
Xenogears (XG from now on, as I'm lazy) is a sci-fi epic, and it's also a gigantic, loveable mess. It's incredibly ambitious. It was also so over-budget that the 2nd disc is primarily the two main characters sitting in a chair talking about what happened, as the actual dungeons/events could not be finished in time. It features robots and a giant pink...thing getting crucified. It's filled with warts and facepalm worthy moments (I'm looking at you, Soylent System), and yet, in its own bizarre way, it works.
SPOILERS from here on.
XG's main premise is simple enough. Sometime way in the future, the starship Eldridge was transporting a biological weapon - Deus - to some planet. En route, Deus gained sentience, woke up, took over the ship, and started killing everyone on board. The captain (who looked an awful lot like the captain of the SDF-1 in Robotech/Macross), left with no alternative, engaged the self-destruct. The debris fell to an unknown planet. See below (sorry for the crappy quality):
From there, the game skips forward several thousand years. Humanity is the dominant species. Old technology from the Eldridge - including mechs called Gears - are found, and are in somewhat common use. Most are utilitarian models, but the various nation militaries have combat models. What's more, technology has advanced to the point where new ones can be developed.
Gears are maintained by the Ethos, the world's dominant church (dun-dun-DUN). Of course, the Ethos is actually a covert arm of Solaris, a technologically advanced, secret nation in the sky that uses surface dwellers as a renewable resource. Yeah, the setting is batshit crazy.
So, there's the setup. Here's why the game is awesome:
The characters. There's a large cast, but almost all get their moment to shine. They all have clear personalities, and are almost all memorable. Even the NPCs are well done, and very few feel one-dimensional. The villains are all flavorful, and have various motivations.
The plot. There are many layers to the story, and XG is probably one of the best at balancing the incredibly epic with the deeply personal. At its core, XG is a love story, and a very well written one at that. JRPG fans tend to point to FF VIII or FF X as the best love stories in the genre. They can't hold a candle to XG. More spoilers:
The protagonist, Fei Fong Wong (whom I use as my Twitter avatar), and his love interest, Elhaym Van Houten (Elly), are trapped in an Eternal Return. Through the ages, they're born, meet, and fall in love. Every time, their relationship ends tragically, usually with one of them dying. What's worse is that, as time goes on, they start gaining the memories of their past lives. That tragedy, and the madness it causes, leads to the creation of one of the main villains. The cycle itself is explained in pseudo-scientific terms (the best kind!), and opens up questions about fate and free will. It's all well done, with small reveals here and there building to a crescendo.
Of course there's more to the game than that. It pokes at the ideas of God, faith, death, sacrifice, etc. It's a very dense story, but mostly orchestrated well.
The music. Yasunori Mitsuda is a video game music master. His holy trinity includes Chrono Trigger, Xenogears, and Chrono Cross. Some examples:
Again, objectively, the game has plenty of flaws. Despite them, I love it. It's the shame the second disc will likely never get fleshed out, as a lot of big things (read: thousands-millions die) happen, but it's all off-screen. That said, check it out if you have a PS3 and don't mind pixelated sprites. It's available on the PSN.
With that said, I figured I might as well blabber about one of my favorite games of all times: Xenogears.
Xenogears was released by Squaresoft (before it became Square-Enix) in 1998. This was pretty much the Golden Age of Square, with Final Fantasy VII and Final Fantasy Tactics being released in this era, as well as Square's marked Christianity criticism era, as Final Fantasy Tactics, Vagrant Story, and Xenogears were all pretty scathing in their own way towards the Church (apologies if that sentence made no sense... it's 8:30 AM).
Xenogears (XG from now on, as I'm lazy) is a sci-fi epic, and it's also a gigantic, loveable mess. It's incredibly ambitious. It was also so over-budget that the 2nd disc is primarily the two main characters sitting in a chair talking about what happened, as the actual dungeons/events could not be finished in time. It features robots and a giant pink...thing getting crucified. It's filled with warts and facepalm worthy moments (I'm looking at you, Soylent System), and yet, in its own bizarre way, it works.
SPOILERS from here on.
XG's main premise is simple enough. Sometime way in the future, the starship Eldridge was transporting a biological weapon - Deus - to some planet. En route, Deus gained sentience, woke up, took over the ship, and started killing everyone on board. The captain (who looked an awful lot like the captain of the SDF-1 in Robotech/Macross), left with no alternative, engaged the self-destruct. The debris fell to an unknown planet. See below (sorry for the crappy quality):
From there, the game skips forward several thousand years. Humanity is the dominant species. Old technology from the Eldridge - including mechs called Gears - are found, and are in somewhat common use. Most are utilitarian models, but the various nation militaries have combat models. What's more, technology has advanced to the point where new ones can be developed.
Gears are maintained by the Ethos, the world's dominant church (dun-dun-DUN). Of course, the Ethos is actually a covert arm of Solaris, a technologically advanced, secret nation in the sky that uses surface dwellers as a renewable resource. Yeah, the setting is batshit crazy.
So, there's the setup. Here's why the game is awesome:
The characters. There's a large cast, but almost all get their moment to shine. They all have clear personalities, and are almost all memorable. Even the NPCs are well done, and very few feel one-dimensional. The villains are all flavorful, and have various motivations.
The plot. There are many layers to the story, and XG is probably one of the best at balancing the incredibly epic with the deeply personal. At its core, XG is a love story, and a very well written one at that. JRPG fans tend to point to FF VIII or FF X as the best love stories in the genre. They can't hold a candle to XG. More spoilers:
The protagonist, Fei Fong Wong (whom I use as my Twitter avatar), and his love interest, Elhaym Van Houten (Elly), are trapped in an Eternal Return. Through the ages, they're born, meet, and fall in love. Every time, their relationship ends tragically, usually with one of them dying. What's worse is that, as time goes on, they start gaining the memories of their past lives. That tragedy, and the madness it causes, leads to the creation of one of the main villains. The cycle itself is explained in pseudo-scientific terms (the best kind!), and opens up questions about fate and free will. It's all well done, with small reveals here and there building to a crescendo.
Of course there's more to the game than that. It pokes at the ideas of God, faith, death, sacrifice, etc. It's a very dense story, but mostly orchestrated well.
The music. Yasunori Mitsuda is a video game music master. His holy trinity includes Chrono Trigger, Xenogears, and Chrono Cross. Some examples:
Again, objectively, the game has plenty of flaws. Despite them, I love it. It's the shame the second disc will likely never get fleshed out, as a lot of big things (read: thousands-millions die) happen, but it's all off-screen. That said, check it out if you have a PS3 and don't mind pixelated sprites. It's available on the PSN.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)