The Mass Effect Thread

[Lost Drifter]

More Aria = DREAM COME TRUE

Do you know if this will be the last DLC?

 

[edgecrusher]

More Aria = DREAM COME TRUE

Do you know if this will be the last DLC?

not sure, they havent said. theres a theory that when all the DLC comes out it will give us all the information we need and enough EMS to beat the reapers conventionally. i think thats conspiracy on the same level as the indoctrination theory, lol. not to mention that there are people that have imported so many multiplayer characters that they have over well 10k EMS. i hope its not the last DLC, but im not sure what else they could do since it all has to take place before the finale.

 

[edgecrusher]

so i played the omega DLC and i really liked it. its the same length/quality of the shadow broker DLC from ME2. its its own thing and it is good. it was good to see more of aria as well as the new character. id say its definitely worth it if you are a fan of the series in general.

 

[edgecrusher]

so they have more single player DLC coming. apparently its been confirmed that the voice actors for both joker and kaiden have been recording for it. this means that the voice actress for ashley would have to as well. the rumor is it has something to do with the citadel and the devs said it has "the potential for tears" for players. pretty much every story writer is working on it and one of the original music composers is invovled too. this makes me think it will have to do with the main story, but i doubt it will take place AFTER the ending. either way im very curious to see what they have planned and i cant wait to hear more about it.

 

[Swamp Yankee]

The shortest comments are often the best and most memorable ones. "Someone" out there on some blog posted re: the horrific conclusion to ME3...

"Why can't we just watch the Deathstar explode?"

That about sums it up imho -SY

 

[edgecrusher]

originally it was so vague that i think the majority of people thought that. but with the EC and leviathan DLC there is MUCH more to the story than that. it is nowhere near that simple. personally i am glad it is like that because thats how the whole series has been. its always been about making difficult choices. to throw that away in the end is ridiculous to me. they risked polarizing fans but in the end they have something that people will be talking about for a while. its just unfortunate that we had to get the full details of the story through DLC(most likely due to being rushed because of EA). i think people are still upset because the conclusions that most people came to with the original vague ending made the story into the typical "good vs evil" scenario. when the new info came out that clearly isnt the case. this is hardly the first "things arent what they seem" scenario in science fiction, or storytelling in general. whether it was intentional or not the writers set up what is basically a conventionally unbeatable enemy while simultaneously letting players go into the end of the trilogy with knowing VERY little about said "enemy." i think that in all actuality it is an extremely plausible scenario because this is all the result of dumb decisions being made by those in positions of great power when it comes to creating artificial intelligence and how to handle the conflicts that arise between them. but in the end, this falls on organics because they are the creators in the "man vs machine" scenario. this was something that was always in the back of my mind when thinking about the ending, because i figured the catalyst was a machine from the beginning. which means that organics had to create it. i hate that people STILL call it "godchild" and "starchild" because it is a machine. it is VERY grounded within this universe. you cant have evil machines that are evil "just because" because not only is having a villain evil just for the sake of it being the villain lazy writing, but in this case its even worse because its machines. machines get created with a purpose, by organics. that has to be addressed and when it is, it relies on what the organics created them for and how they treated them and/or reacted to their sentience. in the end i dont find it surprising that an organic life form is what gets to decide how to end this(or begin it depending on which ending the player picks). each ending is viable for several reasons and relies on the players personal beliefs about the way life is. i cant think of another game that gets people thinking like that.

 

[edgecrusher]

new DLC coming out that is supposedly co-op missions that somehow uses war asset data and choices made from single player. should be interesting. im hoping that its enough of a war asset battle that reflects my individual allies and allied forces in battle that takes place right before the end. because after the EC and leviathan DLC, this is my only major issue with the game. the lack of an epic battle with everyone/everything ive recruited. co-op is fine, but i would prefer it be single player. i guess ill take what i can get though.

 

[edgecrusher]

the citadel DLC comes out tuesday and all we know about the story is that its uncovering a conspiracy on the citadel that targets shepard. they have stated that we will also be able to reunite with all previous squad mates as well as be able to take wrex on the missions. not sure about anyone else though. it will give us a new hub on the citadel with games to play and a chance to "hang out" with the characters we have come to know and love. one of the achievements is to throw a party with your friends, should be interesting.

it takes place after the citadel coup so that means that thane wont be there and if mordin didnt survive tuchunka for the player he wont be there either. what i want to know is if you do it after the geth dreadnought mission but before resolving the quarian/geth conflict, is it possible for legion to be there? my first time playing it will be right before the finale so there is no chance of legion being there for me.

 

[Edward W]

Haven't played ME3 yet, sorry. Did enjoy ME1 and 2.

I know, I'm so behind, I bet I can pick it up for a few quid now, will see if I can find some pennies down the back of the sofa...

I take it ME3 is good?

 

[edgecrusher]

it being "good" is a crazy thing to ask at this point. the majority of the fan base did NOT like the ending. at all. the original ending i should say. if you liked the first 2 id say its definitely worth playing. if you do, download the extended cut DLC as it is free and adds a lot to the ending. it answers a lot of questions. if you dont mind paying for extra stuff id say get the leviathan DLC too as that adds quite a bit to the main story as well. its not necessary and i cant tell you why without ruining the story, but i think its definitely worth it.

i really liked it regardless of the ending, i just thought it was unnecessarily vague originally. with the extended cut i think its a lot better. even if you dont like the ending, the journey is amazing. especially considering some of the other things you resolve. just make sure you are importing a character thats played both the first 2 games.

 

[Misanthrope23]

Dead Space 3 is amazing!!! whoo!! with all the aliens!! Dead Space 2 was scarier though, but the frozen planet yowzah!! we need to save the moons!! mass effect are is mazzing.

 

[9006]

Yes

 

[Misanthrope23]

XDD!!!

 

[ardour]

Mass Effect 1 was the best in the series by a long way. Not that 2 or 3 were bad by any means, even with that awful ending, but ME1 was a true RPG.

 

[Mr Hermit]

i spent 100s of hours in the ME games...
the journey was amazing for a game...
the ending left a bad taste in my mouth that resonated through all my fond memory's of playing mass effect to the point were i would say that playing it seems almost pointless and nothing really mattered at all if we were just going to get the same rushed ending that looks like it was thought up in the last 5minutes...
the indoctrination has to be true... not only is the evidence for it huge but if it isn't true then that means that the ending really was the shitty one we got..

 

[Sigma]

i spent 100s of hours in the ME games...
the journey was amazing for a game...
the ending left a bad taste in my mouth that resonated through all my fond memory's of playing mass effect to the point were i would say that playing it seems almost pointless and nothing really mattered at all if we were just going to get the same rushed ending that looks like it was thought up in the last 5minutes...
the indoctrination has to be true... not only is the evidence for it huge but if it isn't true then that means that the ending really was the shitty one we got..

Every gamer ever - 2012

 

[edgecrusher]

i spent 100s of hours in the ME games...
the journey was amazing for a game...
the ending left a bad taste in my mouth that resonated through all my fond memory's of playing mass effect to the point were i would say that playing it seems almost pointless and nothing really mattered at all if we were just going to get the same rushed ending that looks like it was thought up in the last 5minutes...
the indoctrination has to be true... not only is the evidence for it huge but if it isn't true then that means that the ending really was the shitty one we got..

if you want a good article that explains it well.... http://galacticpillow.com/2012/04/0...a-different-take-on-the-mass-effect-3-ending/

that article is the most logical thing anyone has ever said about the ending... BY FAR. though the game could have explained it better if thats truly what it was going for. the extended cut and leviathan DLC basically explain things in a way that is exactly what the author of that article say.

have you played it with the extended cut and with the leviathan DLC? or atleast looked them up on youtube? they explain SO much. if not, the extended cut is free and only requires playing the finale. though nothing is different until right before going up the conduit. the original ending was SO vague that mostly everyone jumped to worst case scenario negative conclusions about certain things, the extended cut and leviathan show us that none of those negative assumptions are really true.

the thing i never understood is, why do so many people think indoctrination is better? if its true, then the story ended without us knowing anything. we dont know why the reapers are doing this or who made them and where they came from. we also have no idea if the reapers were defeated afterwards or not. that is the most depressing ending ever. it also means the writers released DLC in an effort to explain things that is basically a bunch of lies.

regardless of what anyone says, the enemy is advanced "beyond our comprehension" and controls the very evolution of all life in the galaxy. thats how its always been and it was explained in the first game. im not saying a battle shouldnt have taken place at the end that reflected who we recruited, but expecting "conventional victory" makes no sense considering what the enemy is and how they operate. it makes me question how many people actually played the first game. the first game established the enemy and what they were doing, the second game revealed nothing significantly new about the enemy, so it happened at the end of the third game. the enemy is responsible for our very existence. if people wanted typical "good vs evil" why are they playing mass effect? it has never been like that. its about making moral choices. why would they abandon something the series founded itself on at the very end of the story? it seems many people were stuck in "reapers bad, must destroy" mode so they put hardly any thought into what they are and why they are doing what they are doing.

my take on "the conflict" is, the fact that the enemy is and always has been machines means that someone built them, and with a purpose. that alone dictates a lot about what their motives are. in the first game sovereign says "we impose order on the chaos or organic evolution".... if that is not exactly what the catalyst explained to us then i dont what is. now im not saying the ending battle couldnt have been better and certain choices couldnt have been made to mean more, because they most certainly could have(rachni being the biggest one). but how is something(indoctrination theory) that equates to machines being evil "just because" better than the ending we got? when the active enemy is machines, their creation and/or creators have to come into play, or you have the laziest story about artifically intelligent life ever. organics create machines as tools, so if and when they "rebel" its only because they have been given a reason to. when it comes to creator/created relations, all that can happen is the created reacting to how they were created and how their creators react to their sentience. these machines gain sentience as tools, in a world they took no part in shaping, and among creators that are dictated by things they do not possess or understand(emotions). that is one of the most toxic situations for new life gaining sentience. the conflict explained to us by the catalyst falls MUCH more on the organic side of things than the synthetic side of things whether people want to admit it or not. as far as the actual story goes, its like most people put about 2 seconds of thought into it and then cried BS because they couldnt defeat the reapers even though their is in fact an option to destroy them. that was my take on it from the beginning under the assumption that the catalyst was a machine.

one thing i will say, the catalyst should have not looked like the kid. that is BEYOND misleading. the writers outright said that indoctrination was originally to play a part in the story but then they scrapped it. when they did the catalysts appearance should have been changed.

 

[Mr Hermit]

if you want a good article that explains it well.... http://galacticpillow.com/2012/04/0...a-different-take-on-the-mass-effect-3-ending/

that article is the most logical thing anyone has ever said about the ending... BY FAR. though the game could have explained it better if thats truly what it was going for. the extended cut and leviathan DLC basically explain things in a way that is exactly what the author of that article say.

thanks alot for sharing that, for me it explains alot..

the thing i never understood is, why do so many people think indoctrination is better? if its true, then the story ended without us knowing anything. we dont know why the reapers are doing this or who made them and where they came from. we also have no idea if the reapers were defeated afterwards or not. that is the most depressing ending ever. it also means the writers released DLC in an effort to explain things that is basically a bunch of lies.

personally i think its better because it still does explain a few things..
i wouldn't usually use things like this as evidence.. but the things that just SCREAM dream scene to me are these..

all the people to make it through it was just 3?
and those three had to be TIM, Shepard and Anderson?

one of the biggest things that bothered me more than the fact that we all got the same endings with even the cut scenes being the same is the fact that Shepard didn't even bother to question the catalyst further or give any kind of opinion at all like he has always done, and it just seemed extremely out of character to me

another thing that just screamed at me was the destroy ending were Shepard breaths at the end.. the citadel was destroyed you saw that, nobody could survive that.. and also whats note worthy is that the rubble was concrete, that was made pretty clear..

biowares writing and quality throughout the mass effect series has been the best i have seen in any game.. and they have been consistent throughout the entire series and only getting better... yet all of a sudden when it comes to the final moments they mess up big time?

regardless of what anyone says, the enemy is advanced "beyond our comprehension" and controls the very evolution of all life in the galaxy. thats how its always been and it was explained in the first game. im not saying a battle shouldn't have taken place at the end that reflected who we recruited, but expecting "conventional victory" makes no sense considering what the enemy is and how they operate. it makes me question how many people actually played the first game. the first game established the enemy and what they were doing, the second game revealed nothing significantly new about the enemy, so it happened at the end of the third game. the enemy is responsible for our very existence.

i agree with you completely.. but while i was writing this i thought up several possible endings to the game...

you wipe the catalyst from the citadel and replace it with EDI (with Geth help), she then calls the reapers back to earth before sending out an improvised self destruct signal to them (obviously there would be alot more to it than that im just summing them all up)

if Shepard decides to save the collector base he could give it to the elusive man or give to to the alliance by alerting them after TIM asks you to save it for him,
the alliance uses the tech and forms a plan to turn all the reapers against each other using the citadel and then the fleet barely manages to mop up the rest (only if your galactic readiness is high enough)

this basically the same as the first one only way before the final mission the salarians tell you of a secret weapon, a bomb large enough to destroy a planet (but only if you chose to destroy the krogan) that was going to be used to destroy tuchanka if the krogan get out of hand..
before the final mission takes place you go on a mission to get this bomb to centre of earth, lucky enough a research team drilled down there years ago for research. after that you go up to the citadel as normal and with geth help you upload EDI, she calls the reapers to earth and then Shepard is faced with a choice to destroy the reapers by blowing up earth (sacrificing our homeworld) or not blowing up earth and taking the chance that the fleet could defeat them conventionally (which they don't)
(with anderson and the entire earth fleet basically shouting at you not to could make it hard for the player to destroy earth with some of the other races telling you blow it up etc)

or some other ending showing the geth and the quarians getting along and changing the catalyst's mind and he calls off the reapers or gives them individuality (obviously a vague ending but im sure they can fit that in someway or something similar)

on the final battle at TIM's station you are faced with 3 choices
join him
join him [kill him later]
kill him
Cerberus beats the alliance to the transport beam if you join him then he takes control and kills all the other species
if you decide to kill him, after you both get to the citadel with TIM and a small group of Cerberus, you kill him and then take control of the reapers with the result being the same as the control

most of these endings would require at least 1-3 extra "levels" and a good chunk of cut scenes... but nothing that can't be done..
and before you start the game the player is made aware of the large amount of choices and told to think carefully about making decisions and that these opportunities will present themselves at different times (or something along those lines since this game is not your standard game and players aren't used to the concept)

or they could have done with they did with the current ending and gone with the indoctrination ending and then covered many more endings with a 4th game (like a large expansion pack only slightly cheaper than a full game) i'd definitely be more than willing to pay extra if it means all my choices would actually mean something and the endings were vastly different and imaginative
after all you can't expect them to put a huge amount of effort into a game like this and not be willing to pay more for it over time..
(the halo series cost more than the ME series after all)

if people wanted typical "good vs evil" why are they playing mass effect? it has never been like that. its about making moral choices. why would they abandon something the series founded itself on at the very end of the story?

as far as the actual story goes, its like most people put about 2 seconds of thought into it and then cried BS because they couldnt defeat the reapers even though their is in fact an option to destroy them

it made alot of sense after reading that explanation and cleared up the confusion i had with the story..
but it isn't the story that i had a problem with that caused me to call the ending shitty..
the story itself is brilliant in many ways, even if they did not explain it as well as they could have..

your right, it was based on choices, thats the main thing that mass effect stood for, yet no matter how you play in the end you'll always be faced with the same choices... even the cut scenes are identical, idk about you but im sure that most players would have chosen carefully in their decisions and trying to predict its effect on the final outcome of the war, instead we all get the same choices that may as well be
blue
green
red
nothing and die

if the ending was not like that and people got the choice effected endings they wanted, were looking forward too and was hyped up to..
then they would have cared to look into the story more.. but the fact that we were cheated and it was such a disappointment blinded pretty much everyone to the brilliance of the story..
(although having the catalyst appear in the last few minutes of the game sucked)

i got looking on youtube again..
although i don't agree with some of this guys points i gotta agree with most of them..
[video=youtube]

 

[edgecrusher]

i cant say i am defending the original ending because it was so unnecessarily vague that look at the conclusions that people jumped to. i wasnt as upset as most people because i like when things make me think but, i thought it was TOO vague. i was more confused than anything else. i think its fair to say the game was rushed, likely due to EA. couple that with the fact that bioware outright said that indoctrination was originally going to play a part in the story, but then they cut it. to me, its clear they left some traces in, probably again due to time constraints.

the thing i do not understand is, if the catalyst can control the galaxy with indoctrination... why not just do that? why the cycles, why preserve life in reaper form, why do this to hold the galaxy over for something else? why give the galaxy the mass relays and allow them to travel to each other when without them they could not have meaning that it could just control each individual species as they develop? that would be so much easier than giving them the technology to spread out and eventually create something(crucible) that could then defeat it. it just makes no sense. if it felt the solution it was as easy as controlling the species, why not just do that instead?

also, it has nothing to gain from this, so why would it do any of this? it is in no way a malevolent entity. its just a machine. thats it. machines being inherently evil makes no sense. if i found out that i was stopping evil machines for no reason i would have been as upset as it seems everyone else is with the explanation we got. evil machines without explanation is mind numbingly bad for obvious reasons. a machine isnt going to choose to be evil. all the created can do is react to their creators. and when it comes to machines, they are tools. thats why they are made. by definition thats what a machine is. so no matter how much it may seem like indoctrination is what the catalysts endgame is, it just makes no sense to assume it is. i have yet to see anyone give a reasonable explanation for that. if it is all indoctrination and the catalyst is some malevolent lying machine... why? whats its endgame? the only reason people seem to want this is so they can "win" the game in traditional fashion. not everything is as simple as shooting something to death. its just... ugh, thats why i say people put like 2 seconds of thought into this and then cried BS. it drives me crazy, lol. im just SO GLAD that this wasnt as simple as that because the rest of the game never was. its always been about moral choices and the themes presented in this are way more than some typical "good vs evil" story. the things discussed in that article i posted comes from minds like stephen hawking. this is more than a traditional video game. things like mass effect show us that video games can be as good as if not better at times as a story telling medium in comparison to other visual forms.

the overall story i had no real issues with, especially since we got logical explanations that are similar to what i was originally thinking. my main issue is that the final combat portion of the game is the same as many of the previous missions in the game, only longer. fighting reaper ground forces with two squad mates. thats it. that is incredibly anti climactic and underwhelming. why bother having so much emphasis on recruiting all these characters and allies if im not going to get to see them in action. i think that an epic final battle shouldnt have been to defeat the reapers, but to make it to the conduit. thats the one thing that keeps this game/story from being what i was expecting/hoping it would be. THAT is something i would pay for. an extended version of that final mission.

also, if you havent played the citadel DLC i highly recommend it. that gives us the character interaction i think we were all hoping for that the original game didnt give us. i loved it.

 

[Mr Hermit]

i cant say i am defending the original ending because it was so unnecessarily vague that look at the conclusions that people jumped to. i wasnt as upset as most people because i like when things make me think but, i thought it was TOO vague. i was more confused than anything else. i think its fair to say the game was rushed, likely due to EA. couple that with the fact that bioware outright said that indoctrination was originally going to play a part in the story, but then they cut it. to me, its clear they left some traces in, probably again due to time constraints.

conclusion: EA suck lol
:club:
i think you nailed it
i had no idea that they were originally going with the indoctrination, and that does explain it perfectly... i can't help but wonder what the game would have been like if they kept with their original plan, could have been one of the best games in history and set the bar for any future open-world/choice games
it looks like bioware were forced to choose between gameplay or the promised epic ending..
the gameplay to me seems perfect and the script was awesome and im so glad they added more humour into the game, just made for an excellent experience..
compared to pretty much every game out there im glad to say its the best one i have ever played, even with the ending..

i would love to see Bioware and Bethesda do a game together

the thing i do not understand is, if the catalyst can control the galaxy with indoctrination... why not just do that?

because eventually it would be a pretty crowded galaxy

why the cycles

order to chaos

why preserve life in reaper form

"because humanity is a race of great genetic diversity and was the race who defeated Sovereign, it was enough to gather the Reapers' attention."
"The captured humans were taken to the Collector Base and processed into organic matter to construct a new Reaper modeled on the human form. EDI speculated that this was the Reaper equivalent of reproduction." -MEwiki

"Organic life is nothing but a genetic mutation, an accident. Your lives are measured in years and decades. You wither and die. We are eternal, the pinnacle of evolution and existence. Before us, you are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of everything. " -sovereign

sovereign being one of these "pinnacle of evolution and existence" was defeated by humans or thanks to one in particular

i remember EDI saying something about improving on herself, she was striving to become more human
the reapers wouldn't be the pinnacle of evolution and existence if they were defeated by humans
true he wasn't directly defeated by a single human.. but either way we did kill him, i think they were "assimilating" us to improve upon themselves

why do this to hold the galaxy over for something else? why give the galaxy the mass relays and allow them to travel to each other when without them they could not have meaning that it could just control each individual species as they develop? that would be so much easier than giving them the technology to spread out and eventually create something(crucible) that could then defeat it. it just makes no sense. if it felt the solution it was as easy as controlling the species, why not just do that instead?

"By using it, your society develops along the paths we desire."
the catalyst does not want to take the chance that some species will develop technology that the reapers are unfamiliar with..
by giving organic life lesser reaper tech, the reapers know all its weaknesses and organic life would put up less resistance when they decide to blow honeysuckle up..

i still cannot work out though how the crucible was made or came about exactly since the tech seems to be more advanced or just as advanced as the reapers..
"It is unknown who initially began the development of the Crucible. Countless different species obtained and made contributions to the design over the course of millions of years" -MEwiki
they indoctrinate some of the most important groups and/or people during each cycle.. how did the reapers not know about this?

also, it has nothing to gain from this, so why would it do any of this?

i don't know.. but if it all made perfect sense then we wouldn't have the mass effect story would we

and when it comes to machines, they are tools. thats why they are made. by definition thats what a machine is. so no matter how much it may seem like indoctrination is what the catalysts endgame is, it just makes no sense to assume it is. i have yet to see anyone give a reasonable explanation for that. if it is all indoctrination and the catalyst is some malevolent lying machine... why? whats its endgame?

wel.. if everything after the beam hit you was just a dream then the catalyst ("god child" as its being called) probably doesn't exist and is just something the reapers made up to try to convince shepard to give up and "willingly" let the indoctrination process complete..
if you choose synthesis you need to embrace the reapers
if you choose control you need to upon up to the reapers
if you choose destroy you reject the reapers and is the only one where you survive and are shown breathing surrounded by concrete rubble.

the only reason people seem to want this is so they can "win" the game in traditional fashion. not everything is as simple as shooting something to death. its just... ugh

can you really blame people for thinking that it wasn't the real ending?
as you know they even planned for him to become indoctrinated, and this is something that has been planned since the first game

games having a single ending is pretty much every single game..
bioware did not want the mass effect series to be a set of traditional games and they have made that very clear by giving the player the ability to export and import saves from the previous to the next.. they promised many varied endings..
and im sure that some of those endings would not be what you would consider conventional, for all we know they planned already to put in synthesis and control as possible endings amongst some more traditional endings maybe even similar to the ones i thought up , but like you said EA probably rushed them out and things did not go as planned for them.

thats why i say people put like 2 seconds of thought into this and then cried BS. it drives me crazy, lol. im just SO GLAD that this wasnt as simple as that because the rest of the game never was. its always been about moral choices and the themes presented in this are way more than some typical "good vs evil" story.

the moral choices or dilemmas in the ending we got were not morally challenging at all..
synthesis=biological and technological life become one, you die, mass relays lost, everyone lives happily ever after
control=shepard takes control of the reapers, relays destroyed and then repaired, our galaxy and all life in it now have awesomely powerful protectors and technology, everyone lives happily ever after
destroy=reapers die, geth die, mass relays die, you live,

all of them= our beloved Normandy crashes (joker somehow has all his bones intact lol) the citadel a beautiful very old marvel of engineering blows up
the endings results were made black and white to you before you even chose..

its made pretty clear that synthesis and control are both very happy endings and choosing between one or the other is hardly morally challenging and depends on what one you like the sound of more.
destroy is clearly a bad one and i have no idea why anyone would choose it unless they think the indoctrination theory is correct or simply dislike computers lol

Stephen hawking played this game?? awesome!
can just imagine him "black hole gun, bitches"

the overall story i had no real issues with, especially since we got logical explanations that are similar to what i was originally thinking. my main issue is that the final combat portion of the game is the same as many of the previous missions in the game, only longer. fighting reaper ground forces with two squad mates. thats it. that is incredibly anti climactic and underwhelming. why bother having so much emphasis on recruiting all these characters and allies if im not going to get to see them in action.

that was mass effect 2.. the entire point of it being to gather squad mates.. the most skilled and able people you could find to fight the collectors since nobody would help you and sending in fleets simply would not have worked, the tasks called for precision and skill over brute force
mass effect 3 was not about that.. the point in the third one was to unite the galaxy against the reapers hence the galactic readiness. instead of crew you collected war ships, fleets and groups of interest

ME2's final battle has been done before.. in ME2
ME3's final battle should have been done differently, putting more focus on your giant fleet that you amassed, unfortunately it did not go down like that which is another reason people had an issue with the games finale.
instead they gave it a generic final mission

i think that an epic final battle shouldnt have been to defeat the reapers, but to make it to the conduit. thats the one thing that keeps this game/story from being what i was expecting/hoping it would be. THAT is something i would pay for. an extended version of that final mission.

the conduit made no sense at all..
the conduit is just as stupid as the death star having an open vent that you can conveniently fire torpedoes into that is conveniently placed at the end of a ravine resulting in an insta-kill
even if it was there to transport bodies on the citadel to be processed and then made into a human reaper it was still so stupid it hurts
the highly intelligent catalyst did not even consider switching it off before Shepard or anyone made a run for it?

also, if you havent played the citadel DLC i highly recommend it. that gives us the character interaction i think we were all hoping for that the original game didnt give us. i loved it.

it was fun to play through and im so glad i did get it
although after a while it felt almost like i was playing the sims lol