It was all a dream

The saga of Mass Effect 3 continues.

After making last week's post, I came across an article which theorises that the whole ending sequence for Mass Effect 3 is in actual fact due to indoctrination.

Now, I've already said that I'm quite happy with the ending, even if it was cliched, and I am still of the opinion that if that's the ending Bioware chose, that's up to them.

Then I actually listened to the indoctrination theory. the video's below if you've not already watched it, but it does pose some intriguing ideas. For example, the child at the beginning of the game. No one else seems to see him except Shepard. Even Anderson doesn't seem to notice that Shepard was talking to him. It would also explain why the 'Crucible' takes on the child's appearance. Then of course there's the recurring dream. It all adds up to a missed opportunity. Maybe bioware did consider it, and then abandoned it in favour of the ending the game now has. I don't know.

Would I like Bioware to redo the ending? I don't know. I liked the ending I chose. What I don't like is the way there's no difference except that you get a different coloured explosion. Could they have done more? Certainly. Should they do more? I don't know.

Mass Effect 3

Since finishing Mass Effect 3 last week, I've been pondering how I should write about it. I've not gone back to the game since - it was an exhausting, harrowing adventure, that left me feeling like the story had come to an end. Friends died, romances were rekindled, new romances blossomed, and the Reapers were vanquished. The galaxy promised to never be the same again.

I had closure with my Commander Shepard.

But since finishing it, I've been encountering the fan backlash. Some of it I agree with (such as the fact that the three major ending choices pretty much amount to the same thing), but some I don't. To be honest, I felt satisfied by the ending I chose, even if Bioware subscribed to the standard Hard SF trope of a Deus Ex Machina. However, I felt they'd written themselves into a corner where that was the only possibly way out. and to be fair, while the universe was brilliantly realised, the story was average, though I must admit to liking the idea that the Crucible had been built and designed over millions of years and countless cycles, each cycle adding to it. The logic behind the Reapers and said cycle, on the other hand? Not so much.

The problem with telling your audience why your big bad threat does what it does, is that it stops being scary. Perhaps some of the writers at Bioware should read the works of Neal Asher, Iain M. Banks and Peter F. Hamilton.

That the big bad is actually a computer program who takes the shape of a boy who Shepard failed to save ... That's a bit silly. Oh, and if you questioned why the catalyst takes on that shape? Because it probably read his mind, and assumed it would be something he'd be comfortable with, as the boy was prominent in his thoughts. He has been having nightmares about the kid, and we've already established the idea that things take on an appearance the character would be familiar with: the video logs of the Quarians on their homeworld. Why do you need it spelt out for you?

Yesterday, I read that Bioware are releasing a new ending. Do I agree with this? Yes and No. Yes, because the three endings (I know there are 16 possibles, but in actuality they amount to the same three choices) felt a little rushed and need to be more different. At the very least it needs to amount to more than a different coloured explosion. And no, because the story belongs to Bioware. If that's how they choose to end Mass Effect, then that's still their choice. Woudl you ask a writer to change the ending of their book if you didn't like it? No, because again, it's their story to tell.

Anyway, back to Mass Effect 3. I loved the adventure, and the underlying sense of urgency, that the Reapers are finally, truly here to wipe out all advanced civilisation. Gameplay was  excellent and gripping. It's interesting the way the series has moved away from its RPG roots, only to come back to them, yet still manage a rather good cover-based 3rd person shooter at the same time.

I fully intend to make another playthrough at some point. I've still got Liara to romance, afterall.

A Massive Effect

Commander Shepherd with Joker, the Normandy's pilot. Copyright Bioware.

Yesterday, I finally got to play Mass Effect 3 (it was a birthday present). So now I'm steadily working my way through the campaign, getting ready for that final assault on the Reapers.

... and I love it. The combat is excellent, graphics are amazing, and it's like meeting old friends when I bump into characters from previous games - which is how I'm feeling at the moment as I work on my short story, Wild Ride about some of the characters from my first book, Liberator's Ruin. It puts a smile on my face to meet up with Wrex and Mordin. Sadly however, I've already seen two die, and it feels like the universe of Mass Effect is somehow diminished for their loss. Kudos to Bioware for getting me to feel empathy for make-believe characters in a game.

I'm also impressed that they've managed to keep a background tension running, so I actually feel like the pressure's on to get the galaxy to work together to defeat the Reapers.

What I'm less enthused about is the way some characters have been sidelined (a problem with Mass Effect 2 and Liara, fixed with the Lair of the Shadow Broker DLC). Whilst Liara is back to being a full squad member, I'm missing Miranda Lawson, who my current character romanced in the last game. She's off doing her thing, though we have met up and reaffirmed our relationship, but I would've liked to have her around a bit more. Nevermind. Maybe there will be some DLC to bring in more characters, but I am feeling the loss of a decent selection of squad members. Especially since there's one I really don't like - new guy, James Vega. What. A. Dick.

On the plus side, we now have a sexy robot on the team! I won't spoil how it happens, but at some point,


EDI. The ship's AI, now with a body.
Copyright Bioware

 EDI, the Normandy's AI, get's herself a body. And develops feelings for Joker. Now, that could be a bit creepy, or weird, but I think it's sweet, so I've been egging them on. Besides, what's a sci fi game without a beautiful synthetic? But let's not get into the question of whether she's fully capable, okay?

I'm also finding the banter between crew members to be quite amusing. In particular, I came across Joker and Garrus making racist jokes about their respective species (human and Turian), which was very funny.

There's been a lot of talk about the ending online so far, but I'm avoiding it. I want to find out what all the fuss is about on my own. As I've got tomorrow and Friday off work, I will be spending my time playing more Mass Effect 3, so hopefully I'll find out then.

An Angry World

That's one angry, ugly fellow.
(image courtesy of Gameinformer)

Rage is the latest game by ID Software, a company famous for their first person shooters - a genre they made famous with games like Wolfenstein and Doom.

As with the rest of their games, Rage as a first person shooter. As that’s my favourite genre, and the game was on offer, I decided to pick it up. But it’s all a bit meh. The world is your typical, Mad Max style post apocalyptic future, akin to games like Fallout and Borderlands, and, to be honest, better in both.

Your character wakes up in an Ark to this ruined world, and in minutes you’re rescued from a band of mutants, and press-ganged into helping a local settlement. Why? Because you’re new, and they don’t want to get their hands dirty (read, lazy buggers). And so begins a series of fetch quests. You go there, kill enemies, return with the goods.

So far, so generic. Even the combat, which could have enlivened the game no end, is also a bit dull. Enemies often take a lot of bullets before succumbing, rendering many of your early weapons useless a few hours in, leaving you with a few fallback pieces to get you through. Plus the mutants seem to have springs attached to their shoes, because they certainly bounce around. A lot.

The driving however, is much more stimulating. Early on, you get access to a buggy, with which you can tear around the vaguely open world, and even take part in races, winning tickets to spend on vehicle upgrades. The vehicles are decently responsive, though bounce around like they’re on the moon.

Graphically, the game is very pretty, providing a lovely portrayal of a post-apocalyptic world (if a little dusty), however the audio is a little lacklustre, with the guns feeling a little weak.

As I’m sure you’ve gathered by now, I’m a little disappointed in Rage. To be fair, I’m only a few hours into the game, so perhaps it’ll pick up, but I’m not that sure it will.

I think I might play some Jak and Daxter instead.

Weekday musing - Playstation Life

Playstation Vita, courtesy of Official Playstation website

Playstation Vita. Latin for 'Life'. Clever, if you think about it, as it allows Sony to run their adverts to the theme of 'Playstation Life'. Plus Vita sounds kinda cool. If you're a geek like me.

I was rather dubious of the whole PS Vita (back then, it was still called the NGP) when I first heard of it. It has a plethora of controls, including a touchscreen and a rear touchpad. Surely that would get really confusing?

so I forgot about it, and bought a 3DS. Boy, was I disappointed. I had to wait five months before a halfway decent game was released, and even that was a remake of a game I've played a lot (Zelda). Then there was  the fact I found the 3D to be great for about five minutes before it started to give me eyestrain, a battery that died very quickly even when the console was left on hibernate, and a form factor that hurt my palms if I held it for any length of time. So after six months of ownership, I finally decided to trade it in.

Suffice to say, I was disappointed. I barely touched my 3DS in all the time I owned one, making a mockery of the money I spent on it. Indeed, I actually played DS games on it more. I don't miss it. What I do miss is having a portable games machine for when we go to Heather's parents or mine for the weekend, or when Heather is playing on the Xbox or watching something I don't care for. I'm not a fan of smartphone gaming, simply because they lack physical controls, and the same goes for a tablet.

Now, I'm not dissing the 3DS (though I do think the 3D is a bit of a gimmick). I just don't think it's for me. I've been a console gamer since the Megadrive, and Sony's marketing of the Vita as console gaming on the move appeals to me.

In the run up to the Vita's release, I wasn't taking any notice of it. Then something happened. Just by chance, I watched a video of Uncharted Golden Abyss. I was blown away. This is on a handheld?

So I popped into my local Game store and had a play. The handheld was comfortable to hold and Uncharted looked as amazing in the flesh, so to speak, as it did in video.

The big question then, is am I going to get one?

They are very expensive; the cheapest price for a wifi Vita is around £200, but that doesn't factor the cost of a game or a memory card (damn you Sony!). However, there are twenty games coming out over the next ten months that I'm interested in, so the answer is yes.

When I have the money.

One of many

It occurred to me last night that I should start a blog about gaming. Apart from writing, it is my major hobby, and something for which I have a great amount of love.

So here I am, hours later, writing my first post. An introduction, if you will.

As I get new games (no funding, so it'll be a little ad hoc), I'll post my thoughts on them, and come out with a review. There won't be a score at the end, just whether I enjoyed it or not. they are games after all, so shouldn't they be for enjoyment first?