Cloud Streaming Video Games

Not so long ago Google announced a new cloud streaming video game service called Stadia.  Instead of consumers purchasing a console (i.e. like a Xbox or Playstation) all games would be streamed from Google's cloud infrastructure.

Sony already has such a service called Playstation Now and Microsoft has announced a future one called Xcloud.

Lots of people are speculating about whether Google's gaming platform can be a console killer, but what I found so interesting is that no one seems to be talking about Google's #1 problem, and that's games.

Any first party exclusives produced by Sony, Microsoft, or Nintendo will have zero chance of going onto Google's platform.  This includes huge titles like Halo, Zelda, God of War, etc.

One presumes that any AAA third party titles (lets take as an example the Grand Theft Auto series) that will be on Stadia will presumably be on all the other platforms it currently has, such as PC, Playstation, and Xbox.

So what buy in does a consumer have to actually play games on Stadia?

1) Google has to create it's killer game.

It has started a gaming division to produce first party titles for their platform, but it's anyone's guess if they will be able to create that truly ground breaking title.  Microsoft hit the jackpot with the original Xbox and Halo, but who knows if Google will be able to do the same.

2) Pricing.

This is where I think Google can actually make a difference.  Google can compete on pricing and undercut their competitors in one of two ways:

A) Offer a cheaper subscription service.

In the beginning I think this is going to be an absolute requirement.  As of this writing, Playstation and Xbox's subscription services have around 700 & 100 games respectively.  These of course come from both company's vast library of titles.  A casual glance shows that Xbox includes titles like Minecraft and Playstation has games from the God of War series.  Google will likely not have a library anywhere near as good from the start, so they will have to undercut these other services.

B) Amortize the cost of a console over many games.

If consumers don't have to purchase a console to play games, this makes games net cheaper, as the savings from the lack of a console can make games net cheaper.  Google has yet to announce the price of their game controller, but we can safely assume it is much cheaper than a console.

For me personally, I never actually keep games.  I buy them and then sell them after I beat the game.  So I spiritually "rent" games.  So a subscription service from Google would be more than welcome way for me to "rent" the games I want to play.  But that latter part is the kicker, it has to be something I want to play.

Poor reviews for Fallout 76 & Anthem

I have not played either Fallout 76 or Anthem.  However, I've been following the comments and reviews online, and find their reception very interesting.

Both games come from storied RPG developers.  Fallout 76 coming from Bethesda, the makers of Fallout 3, Fallout 4, and the Elder Scrolls series.  Anthem comes from Bioware, the creators of the Dragon Age and Mass Effect series.

Both companies have storied history creating incredible worlds and stories, but they've all been single-player RPG experiences.

It's very interesting that both made a decision to create a multiplayer RPG at some point in the last 5 years, and both released it in about a 3 month window of each other.

And both games have not been received as well as their prior single player RPGs.

Lets start with Fallout 76, which was released in November 2018.  The game is averaging a review of about 50/100 on most of the review aggregator sites.  It puts the game squarely in the "poorly reviewed" category, it's not even close to "mixed reviews".

As far as the reviews go, it seems that the general commentary is that by taking a single player game that concentrated on story (including quests, NPCs, etc.) and turning it into a multi-player game where you interact with other humans, just made the game terrible.  Unlike MMORPGs, by trying to mix multi-player into a single-player like gameplay just didn't work.  Other human players were simply not as interesting as NPCs.

In addition, the single player Fallouts weren't considered good shooter games.  But one has to remember they don't have to be.  The primary focus of the game was on the solo-story aspect.  So the shooting mechanism was there as a necessary way to fight enemies.  But transform that into a multi-player shooter, and the reality is there are a many better shooters out there.

Add in a bunch of bugs, and you have a game getting an F grade overall.

The story of Anthem's reviews seems much the same, although not quite as bad.  The review averages seem to be converging in the low 60s range on aggregator sites, so it's just hanging onto the "mixed review" territory.

Bioware attempted to make a multi-player shooter, but have a solo-RPG story for the user.  Most of the reviews thus far have panned the mixture.

The reviews of the shooter aspects of the game are generally good, but the story and the purpose of the game have been heavily criticized.

Although I cannot find the review, the best comment was one that stated that if the game were only a shooter game, it probably would be ok.  Imagine you are playing the game with friends (b/c its multiplayer).  In most shooter games, you go shoot things, get loot / win / whatever, then try to shoot more things again.

But it completely fell apart in Anthem.  Instead, you go shoot things, get loot, have to go walk around a city by yourself, talk to people (by yourself), then go configure your fighter (by yourself), then eventually after many minutes, you can go shoot more things.  If this is a multi-player game, how are you supposed to enjoy playing with your friends when you have to run around by yourself so much?

There are other criticisms that aren't important to go into (weak story, poor missions, etc.).  Add in the fact that the shooter game doesn't even have PvP, then people begin to wonder what kind of game it is.  Now you have a game that is averaging around a D- grade.

I find it so interesting how both Bethesda & Bioware went the multi-player route with poor results.

Was there industry pressure to create multi-player games even though their experience was single player?  To have microtransactions in games?

Yet, to appease their fanbase, to try and add a similar single player RPG experience into the game?

Naturally, one then wonders how these companies will react given the bad reviews of these multiplayer games. Will they go back and try to create a new / great single-player RPG?  Or will they dig in their heels and continue with multiplayer going forward?

Night Trap - The Movie

So not too long ago a friend of mine picked up the video game Night Trap for the PS4.  For those who don't know the history, Night Trap was a terrible video game made in the early 1990s for the Sega CD console.  The game was made using full motion video and was controversial at the time, leading to it being brought up during congressional hearings.

Apparently when the game was re-made for the PS4, it also came with a way to view all of the scenes in the game so you could piece together the actual story.  I guess some people have been piecing those clips together to make a movie:



The "movie" is so bad, it's actually good.  Obviously some of it was b/c it was all filmed for a video game, (breaking the 4th wall, bad guys walking slow), but add in the cheesy B movie acting, a cheesy video game song, terrible sound effects (I think "dentist drill"), terrible special effects, a ridiculous plot, it's wonderful.

Some of the hilarious oddities I couldn't help but laugh about

12:02 - "Want to die Eddie?"
19:20 - two actresses remove their shirts, for no apparent reason
23:24 - racist accent, b/c apparently it was ok back then
26:30 - the infamous nightgown scene with a terribly hidden kidnapper
28:20 - character brushing his teeth for no reason
41:10 - uhhh .. dunno
42:45 - nonchalant lighting powers
48:28 - ... special effects?

Mass Effect: Andromeda - Criticisms

I just finished up Mass Effect: Andromeda.  The game has gotten notably bad press over some aspects of the game.  For a series that got stellar reviews on the prior generation of platforms (on gamerankings across all platforms, about 90% for Mass Effect, 94% for Mass Effect 2, and about 90% for Mass Effect 3) the reviews on newer platforms for Mass Effect: Andromeda have been quite bad (74% on Xbox, 69% on PS4).

Here are some things I think were bad about the game.  Some simple changes could have made the experience far better.  Needless to say ...

SPOILER WARNINGS
SPOILER WARNINGS
SPOILER WARNINGS  

1) Unable to skip cutscenes

Perhaps my biggest irritation was the inability to skip pre-generated cutscenes and the general horrible "flow" of completing quests.  For example, lets say you've just completed a mission and need to fly back to the Nexus to talk to someone to complete the quest.  You have to

A) somehow get to the Tempest (via extraction via Nomad or going to ship, whatever)
B) watch an unskippable pre-generated cutscene flying off planet
C) goto planetary controls
D) zoom out from your current planet
E) select the solar system the Nexus is on
F) watch an unskippable cutscene flying over to the solar system
G) select the planet the Nexus is near
H) watch an unskippable cutscene flying over to the planet
I) select that you want to dock at the Nexus
J) watch a pre-generated cutscene fying into the Nexus
K) do whatever you wanted to do on the Nexus
L) When you leave, watch another pre-generated cutscene leaving

The 5 unskippable cutscenes just makes the entire process tedious and horrible.

Why could you just fast travel to the Nexus or any number of planets with a single selection?  It would have helped the "flow" a lot better.  It would have easily made the game a lot better.

(Update: After a patch update you can skip the cutscene in 'H' ... but that's only 1 cutscene you can skip).

1-A) Bad "flow" in the game

Related to the above.  There were many "flow" parts of the game that were just annoying.  The tiniest things could have made it better.  Kadara is a great example of horrible flow.

Lets say you want to complete a mission that's somewhere on the Kadara wasteland.  Take all of the above (replacing Nexus with Kadara), but ...

K-2) select from the terminal you want to travel down to the slums
K-3) walk outside of the slums
K-4) fast travel wherever you need OR call in the Nomad

Why can't you just go to the outside immediately?  Why isn't the Nomad just there already?

These are all "flow" issues that make the game more irritating.  Some of it always exists, but there was just a little too much of it.

2) Too many "dumb" quests or "fillers"

Every RPG out there has what I typically call "dumb quests".  These are quests like fetch quests ("can you fetch me this item") or finding quests ("if you come across these items can you please bring it to me").  Some are typically fine, as it forces/gets the user to explore a bit more than they otherwise might.

However, Andromeda just seemed to be awash in these quests.  As an example is the "movie night" quests.  Throughout the game your crew wants to throw a movie night.  You have to get movies from the Nexus, a bootleg movie from Kadara (BTW, why two movies?), some snacks from somewhere, some booze from somewhere else.  Maybe more that I can't remember.  Just so everyone can have a movie night.  Ugh ...

In Aya, I remember atleast 3 tasks in which a Turian asks you "I can't get into the city, can you buy some stuff for me"?  This happens THREE times with the same Turian.  Ugh ... 

In addition is there was a ton of "dumb exploration".  As an example, out of the maybe 30 galaxies in Mass Effect Andromeda, I think only about 10 had missions on them.  The vast majority of them are just filler solar systems that you can't explore or do anything except scan for anomalies or minerals.  Near the end of the game they introduce about 6 new solar systems to explore.  You get a mission in exactly zero of them.

The game could have been much better by limiting this aspect.  There was no need to add so much "filler".  I'm wondering if DLC is planned down the line to add things todo in all this "filler".

As an example of how much filler there was, the website how long to beat lists the following times to complete everything in the game:

Mass Effect - 44 hours
Mass Effect 2 - 50 hours
Mass Effect 3 - 49 hours
Mass Effect: Andromeda - 93 hours

Yeah ...

3) Bugs

In any major RPG nowadays there will be bugs.  I recall a healthy chunk in Fallout 4.  However, the bugs in Mass Effect: Andromeda just seemed more annoying or just crossed a threshold of annoying.  I generally consider animation bugs tolerable (I recall onetime I walked into a room in the Tempest and simply died by falling into space b/c the floor hadn't been generated).

However, there seemed to be a nice chunk of quest bugs where waypoints weren't set correctly.  So I wandered aimlessly for awhile or eventually had to look online for tips.

I also had to restart/reload the game a number of occasions (I recall once the game hanging, I reloaded, and the Nomad had somehow ended up being inside a Vault).  A few times is tolerable, but it was more than the normal acceptable level.  At some point, you are doing quests and can't complete it, so you just accept "I guess it's just bugged".

4) Constant scanning

I enjoyed the scanning aspect of the game, but there was just too much "look around in this area for the thing you need to look for."  At some point you scan all around you hoping for things to go faster.

5) Disappointing end battle

I was disappointed in the end battle.  Instead of fighting the archon, you just end up fighting tons of remnant (like you have been doing the entire game) and an architect, which I had already fought 4 times in the game.  What about an epic battle with the Archon?  IIRC, at some point he says something like "I control all the remnant" ... so perhaps the end battle could have been remnant and him versus your team?

6) Suspension of disbelief

There was a tiny suspension of disbelief problem I had in some elements of the story.  I'm completely ignoring the fact that the Angaran learn English nearly instantaneously after initially speaking to you in their native tongue (you just accept it for the game to continue).

At some point while playing I thought to myself, "I'm killing a lot of people."  Given that the game was supposed to be about humans and the other Milky Way races escaping the Milky Way to try and make a new home for themselves, it seems odd that I would be killing so many people.  I can accept there were "exiles" that left the Nexus, and perhaps I might kill a few here and there.  But I'm just killing tons of outcasts, collective, scavengers, traitors, exiles, etc.

The settlement on Elaaden made no sense to me either.  If there is no water on the planet, why would anyone even settle there?  My bet is that the Mass Effect team thought "We have a planet that's initially too cold to settle, so we also need a planet that's initially too hot to settle."

In addition, why is everyone so violent and willing to steal, kill, and destroy each other?  Weren't certain criminal elements vetted properly before traveling to another galaxy?  One tiny quest in the game attempts to address this, but it was a bit hard to suspend disbelief.

Conclusion:

Online there are criticisms of the animations, lack of character depth, and story.  While maybe not as great a game as some of the earlier Mass Effect games (notably the wonderful Mass Effect 2), I would not pan the game on this alone.  Some story elements could have been better (such as the whole "SAM memory triggers" ... what a let down at the finish).  It could have been stronger, but it wasn't that big of a deal.

It's all of the little things above that just made the game not as good.  Some tiny subtleties in the game flow could have made it much more enjoyable.  Making the game a little "smaller" probably would have helped alot by getting rid of a lot of the filler and suspension of disbelief.  Add in a little bit better QA and a better boss battle at the end, and it could have easily been a game reviewed in the 80% range instead of 70% range.

What's wrong with Final Fantasy XV

SPOILERS WARNING
SPOILERS WARNING
SPOILERS WARNING
 
I just finished up Final Fantasy XV to the level I wish to complete it (gave up on Costlemark postgame dungeon, not even going to bother with Pitioss).  While I enjoyed the game a lot, there was something subtle about the game I disliked.

As many reviews have stated, the story and characters were on the weak side compared to many Final Fantasy games.  There were just too many story elements that were either cut, skipped, or not fleshed out.  Perhaps some of these will be fleshed out in DLC, some may have been covered in the movie "Kingsglavie", but it just made the game not feel quite that fulfilling.  Here's some examples.

1) Who are the main characters?

This is obvious, but the game threw your entire team together at the very beginning of the story without much backstory.  This isn't a bad idea by itself, but it felt like the background of the characters was never fleshed out.  You get a few conversations in hotels/campsites, but it's not much.

A good counter example is Dragon Quest VIII, one of my favorite RPGs of all time.  The characters are relatively nameless at the beginning of the game, but little side adventures give you more information about them as the story advances. I think of the Mass Effect games are another a good example.  You get character side missions to help you learn more about the backstories of the characters and why they are there.  Final Fantasy XV could have had similar stories, helping your characters deal with "personal issues" in the story.  Perhaps these "side stories" will be in DLC later.

2) Aranea and Ravus, no boss battle

In many games, you meet a tough boss early in the game but get out of the fight due to some story element.  Perhaps the boss was simply distracting you for some other purpose.  You suspect you'll battle the boss later on as the boss was clearly too tough for you earlier in the game.

This is what I suspected when I first fought Aranea and encountered Ravus.  Aranea sort of becomes an ally (kinda?).  Ravus only appears in a disappointing zombie form later on.  It felt unfulfilling.

3) Ravus switches sides

For no reason at all, Ravus appears to switch sides at some point, which seemed out of place, and with little explanation in the story.

4) Prompto being an MT

Late in the game it's revealed that Prompto was a MT.  This wasn't really discussed further.

5) What about all the enemy generals?

At several points in the game enemy generals appear.  There's Verstael, the main general, which you never really see outside of a cameo.  There's the general you capture for a bit in Chapter 6 when you get back the Regalia.  He "escapes" at some point.  It could have been a good side quest to track him down and get him back and interrogate him.  Perhaps leading to another side quest, lets say a secret base you get to take out.  Nope, none of that happens.  Basically all those enemy generals you see in the beginning disappear and are never seen again.

6) What about the bad emperor?

Similarly, after having a cameo early on, he doesn't appear again.  Only in daemon form (which I learned online after defeating the daemon).

7) Universe history

The game could have fleshed out some of the world's history a bit better, for example the history of "the six".  The main characters could have had a side quest to some random memorial/place to learn about history in the universe at any point in time to flesh out the universe (Ignis could have pushed the matter, as he's the intellectual one).  It's there they learn about some mysterious history and .... tada Ardyn is the person in the story.  If such a quest would have foreshadowed the ending too much, fine.  They could have had random quests to just learn general history of the world.

Final Fantasy 7 Remake: A less stereotyped change for Barret?

At E3 this year the long awaited high-definition remake for Final Fantasy 7 was announced.

I didn't think much about it, until I saw an article from Kotaku (here) that the game wouldn't be just an HD remake and it would have some changes.  Then another article (here) touching on how some scenes and components may be hard to pull off in HD without the "cartoony" look of the original.  The cross-dressing scene and slap-fight scene are two that come to mind that may be hard to do in HD.

It then occurred to me there was one component of the game that might get changed a lot.

Final Fantasy 7's Barret has been charged by some as racist (see wikipedia & article from kotaku).  It's been at least 15 years since I played the game, so I cannot remember everything about it.  I do recall Barret as the only character that cursed.  I also remember at times he used broken English/street slang while the other characters didn't.  Why?  I guess that's why they're called stereotypes.

Obviously, the game is now almost 20 years old and the world has changed a lot, and that includes in Final Fantasy games.  Final Fantasy XII's Fran (if she counts as Black, she is technically part of a half-rabbit race of people in the game) and Final Fantasy XIII's Sazh were quite normal.

So I'm wondering if a less "Mr. T" like character will be portrayed in the game.  We'll see.

Is it me or are video games getting longer?

I just beat Dragon Age: Inquisition.  Total time to beat it, 112 hours.

That's a lot of hours to put into a game.

At some point, it really felt like a chore to complete all of the quests.  I'm not sure if it was just the quests within the game or the size of the game or length of the game, but it really felt like a chore compared to prior Dragon Age games and other games I've played over the years.

I have this feeling I might just be getting older and these kinds of games aren't the games I can really invest that much time into anymore.  At the barest minimum, I can't stay up late playing games like I was when I was younger.

On the other hand, I didn't feel like games I played in the past were quite the same length.  So I went to howlongtobeat.com and looked up the following games I've played and the number of hours to accomplish everything.

Dragon Age: Origins - 85 hours
Dragon Age 2 - 57.5 hours
Dragon Age: Inquisition - 110.5 hours
Mass Effect - 42.5 hours
Mass Effect 2 - 48.5 hours
Mass Effect 3 - 48 hours
Final Fantasy X - 172.5 hours
Final Fantasy XII - 153.5 hours
Final Fantasy XIII - 109.5 hours
Final Fantasy XIII-2 - 71.5 hours
Dragon Quest VIII - 117.5 hours
Persona 3 - 134 hours
Persona 4 - 113 hours
Lightning Returns: Final Fantasy XIII - 61.5 hours
Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim - 206 hours
Fallout 3 - 123.5 hours
Fallout: New Vegas - 120 hours

Well, a number of these games were actually similar in length if not longer.  I remember putting in a lot of hours to try and complete everything in Final Fantasy X and Dragon Quest VIII.  I know the Skyrim definitely took around 200 hours to do everything.

I guess I'm just getting old :-|

Duck Tales on the NES

Recently I learned that the classic NES game Duck Tales was getting an HD remake for modern systems.  Here's the trailer:




It's considered one of the best games on the NES, placing at #10 on IGN's top 100 NES games of all time.  The game had incredible non-linear level design, secrets to discover all over the place, and (what many consider) some of the best music on the NES.

I was so fond of this game, I reached the point that I knew all of it's secrets.  I knew the game well enough I even got my high score printed in Nintendo Power!  (This is sometime in 1990, when I was 10-11).

However, it's funny looking back on the game as an adult.

(Spoiler Alert - telling game plots if you care)

The plot of the game is that you control Uncle Scrooge as he wanders the world looking for treasure to help him keep his hold as the world's richest Duck.

I think in today's post-financial crisis and post-occupy movements, having the protagonist of a children's game look like a greedy CEO is something that most video game/cartoon creators would likely pass over in today's social climate.

In addition, Uncle Scrooge isn't really going around the world looking for long lost treasure.  He goes around the world STEALING treasure.  There is one level in particular where he steals the great treasure from a ground of underground "mole" people.

I can't help but laugh thinking of a really modern review of the game, "Help Uncle Scrooge wander the world attacking indigenous people to steal their cultural treasures."

Apple TV vs Xbox/Playstation

I saw this article, The Fall TV Lineup May Include Apple Dominating Gaming,  and wanted to comment, because I couldn't help but disagree.

The author makes the argument that an Apple TV would completely crush Xbox, PS3, Wii, etc.

Here are some of the arguments in the article:

Apple is going to dominate where their rivals cannot simply because of the support of small, third-party app developers.

That the Apple TV is already nearly powerful enough to run [games like Call of Duty]. Perhaps not the highest of the high end, but give it a year or two. That’s the thing: Apple will likely push yearly hardware (and software) updates for anything they do. Microsoft has not updated the Xbox in over 7 years. Huge mistake.

the audience for non-hardcore games when Apple opens up an Apple TV SDK will be much larger than the audience for the hardcore games.

Apple will not win this space by playing the game that Microsoft, Sony, and to some extent, Nintendo, are playing. They will win by changing the rules of the game. And that game is all about developers, developers, developers, developers.

I disagree with these based on one major theory:

The TV is not a casual entertainment device, it is a serious one.

People spend a lot of money on better sound, better definition TVs, etc. because they want a much higher quality experience when they sit down.

They pay a premium on cable, on video streaming, and movie disks (i.e. blue ray vs. DVD) simply for the privilege of experiencing this higher quality content.

On phones, people can play Angry Birds or Words With Friends in 5 minute increments, but I don't believe people do that on a TV.

This isn't to say there isn't a casual market for this.  After all, the Wii sold 100 million units.  There is a market for the casual, but is it one that can destroy the Xbox or Playstation?  I'm skeptical.  This is not a world where a Zynga can thrive, it is one where an Activision can thrive, where investing $50 million in the development of a game results in huge sales and profit.

Now, this isn't to say there won't be people that develop the $50 million dollar game for the Apple TV, I'm sure they will.  But will they develop it only for Apple TV or also for Xbox & Playstation?  If you're willing to put $50 million into the development of a game, I can't imagine it being for only one platform.

How will the Wii U fare in the market?

E3 is this week and Nintendo is unveiling the new Wii U.  I have a feeling the Wii U is going to fare pretty poorly in the market.  Here's my reasoning with an analogy.

Some people wonder why first person shooter (FPS) games never sold well on the original Wii.  Despite having more systems out there than Xbox 360 or PS3 (~95M to 66M to 64M as of this writing), many of the best FPS games on the Wii just don't sell well.  As an example, the top two highly rated FPS games on the Wii are Metroid Prime 3 and GoldenEye 007 (90.16% and 83.77% on Gamerankings.com).  Vgchartz shows Metroid Prime 3 sold about 1.62 million units while GoldenEye sold about 1.65 million units.  Several of the Call of Duty games have sold over 1 million units on the Wii, with Call of Duty 3 topping out at 2.15 million units.  I couldn't find any other FPS games on the Wii that sold over 1 million units.

In comparison, the sales numbers for FPS games on the Xbox 360 and PS3 blow these numbers out of the water.  I count ten FPS titles that have sold more than 5 million units on the Xbox 360 and five FPS titles on PS3 that have surpassed 5 million units.  There are tons of FPS games on both that have surpassed 1 million units.

Why the huge difference in sales?  I think the answer is simple.  If you are a fan of FPS games, you probably already possess a system (Xbox 360, PS3, or PC) that already has a ton of FPS titles that you would enjoy.  With so many great FPS titles on those systems, you have little incentive to buy a Wii to play them.  The Wii owners aren't FPS gamers.

If by chance you own a FPS popular system and a Wii, why would you want to play an FPS title on the Wii?  The second highest rated FPS on the Wii is Golden Eye at 83.77%.  The Xbox 360 and PS3 both have dozens of FPS titles rated above that.  So the sales of FPS games on the Wii are for those few customers interested in FPS games but do not possess one of the other FPS gaming devices.

I believe the low sales of FPS games on the Wii will be an foreshadowing of how the Wii U will fare in the market.  From all reports, it appears that the Wii U's hardware is only comparable to the Xbox 360 and PS3.  It is not superior.  While the tablet controller is a nice feature, it doesn't appear to have the same appeal that the original Wii had.

If you are a consumer who enjoys non-Nintendo video games (i.e. not Mario, Zelda, etc.), enjoys HD video streaming (Netflix, Hulu, etc.), you probably already possess the Xbox 360 or PS3.  This is especially true given the fact those systems were released in 2005 and 2006 respectively.  I'm not sure what the incentive will be to own a Wii U for most consumers.  Add in the unknown price for the Wii U, a likely price drop for Xbox 360/PS3, a set of launch titles (Mass Effect 3, Assassins Creed 3, Ninja Gaiden, etc.) that will also be on Xbox 360/PS3 (or already are), I don't have confidence in the Wii U's wide adoption.

Mass Effect 3 Ending - Did Bioware drop the ball?

There's been a lot written about fan outrage on the ending of Mass Effect 3. While I had heard about the bad ending prior to playing the game, I didn't find the ending to be that much of an issue. Perhaps my expectations had been lowered, or the more likely case is that I was not as invested into the Mass Effect universe as others. I was curious as to what the fan outrage was over and if the outrage was warranted and started reading up on the topic. As far as I can tell from reading random articles online, there seem to be four main issues with the ending. SPOILERS BELOW.

1. The ending story.

When Shepard discovers the meaning behind the Reapers, the story conclusion is a tad disappointing, however I wouldn't consider it repulsive. I had heard that one review said the ending was very similar to "it was all just a dream". It's certainly not that bad. I recall the ending to one game (I think Grandia 3) where the end boss said his goal was to "destroy love". Now that's an awful ending.

Perhaps the ending could have been tweaked to be similar to the Matrix Reloaded. Shepard could have been told the true nature of the Reapers and chosen to let the Reapers continue their destruction, perhaps in exchange for saving his and his crew's life. That certainly would have made the ending story choice more interesting.

I'm not going to rag on Bioware too much for the story ending. With the end of the Mass Effect trilogy, no ending would please all of the fans. The ending to the story was average and acceptable in my eyes.

2. The ending battle.

I think fans have a legitimate gripe here. After playing the game for 20-30 hours, and taking on various side missions to gain "war assets" for the final battle, the end battle appears to be unchanged based on your decisions. During a final battle in which you are protecting some missiles, you could have had some help from Geth, Quarian, mercenaries, Salarian, etc. forces based on your decisions in the game. Perhaps Grunt, Samara, etc. could have come to help as well. However, none of that happened. It was all just on you.

As a comparison, lets look at another Bioware game, Dragon Age: Origins. In the game, you are similarly trying to ally races/people to battle the Darkspawn. Based on your decisions in the game, you can have extra/different allies help you in the final battle (elves, golems, mages, etc.). It makes your decision making in the game more meaningful.

Given Bioware's history of having the game's story affect the end battle, I would say Bioware did drop the ball here. It is certainly not what people expected of a Bioware game.

3. The ending cinematic.

This is where I think fans are the most irate. Regardless of your decision making at the end, the end cinematic is largely unchanged. There are minor differences, such as the Reapers leaving earth or being destroyed, but 80-90% of the cinematic is identical regardless of your choices.

I wouldn't say Bioware dropped the ball here. In previous games by Bioware (that I can recall), the ending cinematic hasn't been gloriously different either. Even other contemporary games, such as Fallout 3, have had only minor differences in the cinematic ending too. It's hard for me to say that it was something expected by fans.

This isn't to say Bioware couldn't/shouldn't have done better. For example, they could have added an extra 30-60 second cinematic at the very end to show how your decisions affected the world. If you didn't cured the Genophage, perhaps a look 100 years in the future show the Krogan have started a new war with the Salarians. Or perhaps if the Geth and Quarians didn't make peace, a new organic vs. synthetic war occurs.

4. Ending plot holes

Well, I think Bioware definitely messed up here. Especially with the ending crash of the Normandy on another planet. How does your crew end up back on the Normandy after your battle on Earth? Especially given some members of your crew were blasted in the final fight.

So overall, do I think Bioware blow the ending? I wouldn't say they did. Fan expectations were through the roof for this game. I imagine some amount of disappointment was bound to occur. However, Bioware could had a number of embarrassing goofs and definitely should have done better.

I would say the disappointment was similar to the disappointment for Dragon Age 2. A quote from RPG site [1] said, "the discussion about Dragon Age II doesn't need to be "is it good?" - It is - but needs to be "is this what fans wanted from a sequel to Dragon Age: Origins?"

The same can probably be said about Mass Effect 3. The game is really good, that's not in question. But is the ending what fans were expecting? The answer seems to be an emphatic no.

[1] - http://pc.rpgsite.net/reviews/267-dragon-age-ii-review, through Wikipedia

Update 4/11/12:

Ok, I've now learned about the "Indoctrination Theory" for the ending of Mass Effect 3. The theory is really interesting. If it's true, it's actually brilliant, but mean. After giving people a massive game of "choices" and "decisions", you end the game saying, "Aha, you actually did not control your decisions. This is a video game."