Hate Week

Why are you reading this?

Sonntag, 22. April 2012

A review of Mass Effect 3

I keep hearing that, apart from the ending, Mass Effect 3 was really, really good. Well, no, it wasn't. EA can brag on about over nine thousand perfect scores as much as they want, but with IGN verbally riding John Riccitiello's cock and all that bullshitting around the ending in other publications, to me, those are of highly questionable origin. So, yeah, here's my perspective, the perspective of a D&D-player, fan of grand stories, old BioWare and, especially, Mass Effect. That being said, it's time do bring down the hammer.

Part I: Graphics and Sound - so far, so good.

I decided to put those two together, so we can get those out of the way, and because there really is not too much to say about them. The graphics are good, but after five years since Mass Effect, that's just what we can expect, right? I will say this, though: I still prefer Mass Effect 2, because Mass Effect 3 looks... well, wrong. There's this weird filter or whatever that makes characters and object, for lack of a better word, shiny. That just looks strange. Apart from that, the faces are a little off, too. I barely recognized Dr. Chakwas, and Conrad Verner looked like Green Arrow. With his mask on. Also, which may sound weird, the character models are too detailed, but that's because it's a major difference to the more simple models of Mass Effect 2. What it ultimately boils down to is personal taste, I guess, technically, there's nothing wrong with the graphics.  They're a little dated for PC standards, but it's a console port, after all.
The sound is... good. I still miss the electronic-ish music of Mass Effect, and the voice acting has suffered after the departure of Ginny McSwain, but overall, it was good. No complaints there.

Part II: Gameplay - Hey, at least, it works.

Let's be honest, gameplay-wise, Mass Effect was never that good. The character system of the first game was convoluted, the combat was broken as fuck, the inventory was just abominable (Then again, the last time a BioWare game had a good inventory system was probably Baldur's Gate). In Mass Effect 2, they addressed those issues, but they didn't necessarily improve them. The combat moved a lot smoother, but felt less dynamic due to the cover system. The inventory was gone, and the character system was reduced to a minimum.

With Mass Effect 3, they finally fixed two of those three issues. The combat, while feeling a little more clumsy than in part 2 - I really can't put my finger on why, works. The character system does too. The new skilltree makes for interesting decisions at each level up, so, at least they got this right. The inventory is... still absent, though to a lesser extent, as we have a wider array of weapons and armor. I can live with that, and the update-system is pretty cool, too. So, yeah. It works.

However, the exploration aspect has been dumbed down even more. Scanning entire sectors instead of single planets makes things easier, yes. But it also makes things way less interesting. I actually liked the exploration in the first game the most. Yes, driving around the planets was tedious, and the Mako controls were just... bad. But you actually went down to planets. You discovered stuff. Wenn you scanned planets you couldn't land on, you found other stuff, a lot of which was very curious. There was this sense that the galaxy is a big, wonderful place full of mystery and adventure. In Mass Effect 2, this feeling was already gone. In Mass Effect 3, it's even more gone.

Part III: Dialogue - or lack thereof.

Let's go back to Mass Effect, again. There were like, what, three instances where you didn't get to pick your own answer? Also, you could talk to every important person on your ship, and everyone had something to say. Compare that to Mass Effect 3. For most of the time, the dialogue in Mass Effect 3 runs without the player doing anything. Yes, from time to time you can pick an option (I'm assuming that's either to keep you from falling asleep or to trick you into believing this is still a real RPG). And your crew? Well, I do have to admit that I really like the fact that we see the team interact with each other, as one of the best parts of Dragon Age was the party banter, though there is some stuff that doesn't work, in my honest opinion. For example, the romance between Garrus and Tali came right the fuck out of nowhere. Also, why does everyone need to have a romance all of the sudden? Is this a Space Opera or a Soap Opera?

Anyway, it's nice to see the crew interact with each other, but that doesn't make up for the fact that you can't really interact with them anymore. Yes, you can talk to them, like, three times, and that's it. Again, let's take a look back, this time at Mass Effect 2. You could talk to, for example, Mordin, for six or seven times, and every time, he had something new and interesting to say. I know that we're familiar with most of these characters since the first game, but still, there's a lot we don't know.
Ah, yes, characters.

Part IV: Characters - You are doing it wrong.

I'm sorry, but this is where they really dropped the ball. Let's look at them individually, shall we?

Liara: Alright, I guess.

Garrus: Garrus was my bro right from the beginning, but he was my bro just because he's an awesome guy. In Mass Effect 3, they outright try to make him my bro, he was a little to open about... well, stuff. Some argue that he and Shepard have gone through a lot together, which is true, but I can't really imagine how he opened up in just 6 months after barely even talking throughout Mass Effect 2. A minor complaint, really, but I'm here to nitpick.

Ashley: Boy, was I looking forward to seeing Ash again, and, boy, was I disappointed. The strong, independent woman was gone and replaced by some long-haired, makeup-wearing bimbo with virtually no character. In Mass Effect, it really felt like Shep and her had something going there, in Mass Effect 3 it just felt like she was only there to be my waifu.

Tali: Still great. Emergency induction port for the win.

Kaidan: He's dead.

Beefcake McSteroids: No, wait, what was his name again? I'm talking about that shaved gorilla. Whatever, I left him on the ship most of the time anyways. This guy's just not interesting or likable. He had a moment from time to time, like when he was talking about joining the N7 program, but overall, that guy was just a bland, boring character.

Javik: He's probably the funniest character since Sovereign. But the problem I have with him is in concept. For the last two games, the Protheans have been built up to be this mysterious, extinct species. We were perfectly fine not knowing anything about them, and it should have stayed that way. This has nothing to do with how the Protheans were revealed to be, I actually liked the fact that they basically were this evil empire, but it destroyed all sense of mystery about the Protheans. And that's why I really regret buying the DLC.

That, and the Retcon about their looks was stupid.

EDI: Oh god. Now, I'm not against EDI having a body. Cameltoe aside. But I can't really see the purpose of her character. She didn't do anything vital for the mission, as far as I remember, all she did was being a love interest for Joker (the guy with the brittle bones dates a chick made of titanium, go figure) and contradict Starchild's reasoning. Also, what's with that thing that she was the rogue VI on Luna? That just felt like a forced tie-in to Mass Effect, which it probably was.
Now, that's only your team members. There are a lot of other characters that are off in one way or another, first and foremost, the Illusive Man, but we'll get to that.

One last thing, about Diana Allers: Yes, we were all disappointed that it wasn't Emily Wong or that Arab bitch I punched in the face. Yes, her face was hideously mutilated. Yes, the voice acting was bad. But, honestly, this wasn't the fault of Jessica Chobot. Now, bear in mind that I never heard of Jessica Chobot before Mass Effect 3, and I still barely know who she is, so, maybe she's an annoying, self-absorbed bitch, or maybe she is the hero Gotham deserves. I really have no fucking idea. But I think she's more or less the victim here. I mean, would you turn down an offer by BioWare to be in a game series which you love? I know I wouldn't. On the other hand, though, she seems to take a lot of the criticism personal. I don't know.

Part V: Story - Oh boy, here we go

Now, I don't mind the crucible. It was established that they couldn't beat the Reapers conventionally, so they had to come up with something. I'm on board with that. The entire plot of Mass Effect 3 was what it was, and it was what it needed to be. The execution was bad, though. Let's see, why.

1. Your Choices don't matter

No shit, Sherlock? I'm sorry, but did anyone honestly believe that every one of the choices you made in the previous games would be taken into account? Seriously, folks, a game of that magnitude would take a little more than two years. So, I think the effect our choices had were at least acceptable.
But, everyone's favorite has to be the Rachni queen. Yes. This is the one instance where our choice should really have mattered, and they fucked up royally, because it was built up that the Rachni would join the fight against the Reapers. But, nope, 100 EMS points. Also, you killed the queen back in ME1? Well, there's a new one... cloned... by the Reapers... can they even do that? And isn't that against the Starchilds logi- Ah, whatever.

But the best part is BioWares reasoning behind this. They said, they didn't want to exclude players from content due to their choices. So, they basically said "We want your choices to affect the game, but we don't want your choices to affect the game." No, BioWare. This. Is. Bullshit. You can't have your cake and eat it at the same time. Either you make choices matter and go through with it, or you don't. But if you don't, then don't claim they do.

Okay, rant over. Let's proceed.

2. The Illusive Man and Cerberus

Boy, talk about wasted potential. The Illusive Man really had the potential to be an Ozymandias-like, god-tier villain, with questionable methods but unquestionable motives. But, no, he's just indoctrinated. You have to fight Cerberus, no matter what. Just imagine what they could have done, based on how you acted in Mass Effect 2, you could have joined up with them again, screw the Alliance, y'know? But nope, indoctrination. Indoctrination everywhere.

3. The beginning

I was horribly confused. I had the feeling I was playing the game backwards or something. They were just throwing a ton of shit at me, nothing really sank in, the dialogue was weird, and I had a trillion questions - some of them were answered later, and some were never answered.  First and foremost: What happened to my team between ME2 and ME3? Yes, we meet them again, but what happened right after ME2? Did my team just disband? And what happened to me? Who is that shaved gorilla? Why does Shepard call him "James"? Did they know each other? What's wrong with Ash's hair? Hello?
 One of the basics of story-telling is "Show, don't tell." Why didn't they show Shepard turning himself in? Why didn't they show how the team disbanded? Two extra cutscenes, a million times less confusion.

4. Legion

I freakin' loved Legion in ME2, and it was certainly great to see him again, but, again, a ton of open questions that don't get answered. Why was he hooked up to that Reaper-MacGuffin? In fact, why did they need to hook up any Geth? Why isn't he affected by the Reaper Code? And why does he suddenly act like an individual when in ME2 it was very clear that he was part of the Geth consensus. Those are mistakes so glaring that they actually kept me from enjoying most of the Rannoch storyline, which had some pretty damn good parts.

5. The ending

I'll get to that.

Part VI: In conclusion

All of this may sound like I hate Mass Effect 3. And I do. But I don't hate it for what it is, I hate it for what it's not. It's not the epic conclusion to an epic series, and I wouldn't even call it a good game. It's an okay game. I had my fun playing it, but it's not a good game, and it's especially not a good RPG. It's fast food, designed to appeal to the widest possible audience, one of the reasons why the "artistic integrity"-bullshit is crap.

Part VII: What does this mean for BioWare?

Mass Effect 3 is one more nail into BioWare's coffin, the fourth bad game they released in a row. Face it, BioWare, the studio that brought us great RPGs like Baldur's Gate, Knights of the old Republic or Dragon Age, is dEAd. It's been dEAd since 2007 and, as much as I love (or loved) them, it's time for them to go away, because I am sick of the sight of EA bastardizing everything BioWare once stood for. Is it sad?

Yes.

tl;dr
BioWare is dead and Mass Effect 3 isn't that good a game. Let's say... 7,7/10. Which still feels a little too generous.

Donnerstag, 16. Februar 2012

Watchmen-Prequels (Und warum sie eine schlechte Idee sind)

           Stellt euch, um beim übergreifenden Thema meines Blogs zu bleiben, folgendes vor: George Orwell hat 1984 fertig gestellt. 25 Jahre später kommt der Verlag auf die Idee, ein Prequel zu verfassen, „um das 1984-Universum zu erweitern“: ‚Before 1984 – Rise of the Party‘. Orwell, angenommen, er hätte dann noch gelebt, hat damit nichts am Hut, die Rechte des Buches liegen beim Verlag, der sich nun dazu entschließt, die Marke auszuschlachten. Klingt absurd? Es passiert gerade. Nun ist George Orwell lange tot, und 1984 anzufassen würde wohl kein Verlag der Welt wagen, nicht mal, wenn er die Rechte dazu hatte, das da oben war selbstverständlich nur ein Beispiel. Bei dem gemeinten literarischen Werk, das momentan von einem Verlag zur Hure gemacht wird heißt Watchmen.

           Nun mag man sich darüber streiten können, ob Watchmen mit 1984 in einer Liga spieltNatürlich tut es das, Time Magazine ist mein Zeuge. Seit seiner Veröffentlichung im Jahre 1986 wurde der Comic von allen Seiten mit Lob überschüttet, und das völlig zu Recht. Noch großartig darüber zu reden wäre Zeitverschwendung, wenn ihr wirklich wissen wollt, warum er so großartig ist, lest einen der zahllosen Reviews, Artikel oder Analysen (oder einfach den verdammten Comic). 2009 erlebte die Geschichte durch Zack Snyders fast großartige Verfilmung (Oh Junge, dazu kommen wir vielleicht irgendwann), ein Revival und irgendjemand bei DC merkte wohl, das sich mit dem 25 Jahre alten Material doch noch Geld verdienen lässt. Zwar sagte der DC-Chef damals, dass man keine Absichten habe, sich am Werk von Autorenlegende Alan Moore zu vergreifen, aber Chefetagen können sich ändern, und so erklärten die beiden derzeitigen DC-Chefs Dan Didio und Jim Lee am ersten Februar in einer beispiellosen kreativen Bankrotterklärung, die Zeit sei gekommen, neue Geschichten mit den klassischen Charakteren zu erzählen - in Form von sieben neuen Miniserien, zusammengefasst unter dem Titel Before Watchmen. Ich sage, die beiden sollen um Gottes Willen ihre Finger von Watchmen lassen.

          Ich werde ja immer sehr ungehalten, wenn irgendein Rechteverwerter das Werk irgendeines kreativen Kopfes oder Teams bastardisiert, um damit Kohle zu scheffeln (jüngstens fiel der nun verschiedene Publisher JoWood damit auf die Schnauze, falls ihr euch erinnert - Stichwort Arcania). Die einzigen beiden Personen, die irgendwie das Recht hätten, diese Geschichten überhaupt zu erzählen, sind die Erschaffer des ursprünglichen Comics - Autor Alan Moore und Zeichner Dave Gibbons. Schade nur, dass Alan Moore schon seit Jahren nichts mehr mit DC zu tun haben will, und Dave Gibbons das Angebot der Mitarbeit abgelehnt hat.

           Nun könnte man natürlich argumentieren, dass Bob Kane und Bill Finger nun auch schon eine Weile tot sind und auch zu ihren Lebzeiten zahllose andere Zeichner und Autoren an Batman-Geschichten gearbeitet haben (unter anderem auch Alan Moore). Wo liegt also das Problem? Ich sehe da einen entscheidenden Unterschied: Bei Batman handelt es sich um ein Franchise, das über die Jahre quasi natürlich gewachsen ist und wohl auch von Anfang an darauf ausgelegt war. Watchmen hingegen ist eine in sich geschlossene Geschichte, zu der Prequels nichts beitragen können werden. Wir müssen nicht im Detail erfahren, was Rorschach, Nite Owl oder der Comedian vor den Ereignissen von Watchmen gemacht haben. Was wir wissen müssen wissen wir bereits, durch Watchmen. Die Prequels können also höchstens dazu taugen, das Universum zu erweitern, was allerdings aus demselben Grund völlig unnötig ist - was wir wissen müssen wissen wir bereits.

          Also, sind die Prequels Geschichten, die erzählt werden müssen? Nein, auf keinen Fall. Heißt das, dass sie schlechte Comics sein werden? Nicht zwangsläufig. Viele talentierte Leute arbeiten daran, es besteht also durchaus die Chance, dass die Comics für sich genommen etwas taugen werden. Wie aber oben schon ausgeführt liegt das Problem in Konzept und Grund, und es ist besonders der Grund - Geld, da können Didio und Lee sagen, was sie wollen. 

          Das letzte Wort in diesem Fall überlasse ich Alan Moore. Zu der ganzen Sache äußerte er sich gegenüber der New York Times folgendermaßen: "I tend to take this latest development as a kind of eager confirmation that they are still apparently dependent on ideas that I had 25 years ago [...] As far as I know, there weren't that many prequels or sequels to Moby Dick." Der Mann mag zwar aussehen wie ein grusliger Obdachloser, aber ich habe ihm selten mehr zugestimmt.