Ah... that explains my confusion, thanks, Sceptic. I didn't have Javik's DLC indeed
Actually my question is misleading - yes you do have it. You probably just didn't activate it
Yes, the DLC is included in the game. All you need to activate is to
hex edit 6 bytes in the main executable have bought the preorder edition.
(so... does it count as piracy if you can activate content you didn't pay for without actually downloading ANYTHING at all?)
(oh and don't try this at home, not sure how Origin would respond to a modified exe)
I had about 1800 war assets and 50% readiness (no MP at all), so I see I was just over the line of failing utterly (which is 1750). Hilariously enough you're right that seeing Liara and Garrus dead was probably better than them magically appearing on Normandy afterwards
. I'm actually pretty happy with my ending, it's a fitting end for the adventure my Shep had, though I can see how by seeing all of them people felt bummed, and obviously plotholes are gonna plothole.
Thing is, if you have a high rating (like I did) you don't get automatically assigned one ending, you get to PICK between 3. All identical except for the color. So I really do understand people being pissed off. Especially when all the difference between whether you pick the "best" ending with a rating of 5000 or whether you get automatically assigned the worst ending with a rating of 1500 is whether the screen fades to black before or after the Normandy door opens...
Apparently, destroying or keeping the Collector base somehow influences the ending, but I can't tell how - I mean I see the break-down, and it just scrambles the endings about a bit or something, but what effect does that actually have, in the story?
Not sure. Supposedly at low rating the game auto-picks either
the destroy or the control ending the red or the green ending depending on that decision, but I don't have enough data to be sure. As for the Giant Space Terminator, what Jaedar said,
On a more positive note, I really enjoyed Thane's arc and his death, as well as Jack's (though I suppose if she hadn't been there not much would have changed? I liked what they did with her in terms of development however. Shooting shit with Garrus on top of the Presidium was also a nice touch. It's sad because it's clear that some aspects of the game, or should I say some dev decisions/writing wasn't so bad so there was definitely potential for three great games, instead I see it as one great (ME1 - sue me), one bad (ME2) and one mediocre (ME3 obviously).
Thane's arc was faaaaaaaaaaar too ponderous for me (painfully so at the end) so I rank it as one of the lows. Jack's was pretty good, but her absence just affects one completely inconsequential death and nothign more. Garrus's was great IMO. Him, Mordin and Legion had some pretty good arcs spanning 2 and 3, and the bromance on top of the Citadel was one of the game's best moments. I even like Tali's little scene when landing on Rannoch. Sure it's no Shakespeare, but compared to what the game's supposed to be (space opera) it's a nice little touch. When it comes to some NPCs in ME2 and ME3 Bioware did manage to write some good banter and characterization, it's a shame it's lost among the general derp of the main stories and some truly awful character arcs.
Regarding how good or bad the games are - I actually like ME1 as a brainless space opera action game with some RPG elements and quick-moving combat that doesn't overly rely on cover, and it's probably the most balanced of the trilogy; nothing great (some would argue or even good) but nothing absolutely terribly bad either (UI issues aside). ME2 was schizophrenic; combat was absolutely horrendous cover-shooter of the most popamole variety, coupled to Bioware's best writing to date sitting side by side with some of their most horrible writing to date. ME3 is... I don't know. I think its combat system is actually very good as an action-RPGlite, definitely the best in the series; ME2 sucked because of too much cover and too few abilities, ME3 has more abilities and more health/shields so less reliance on cover so the whole thing feels more dynamic. Some of the big fights are actually tons of fun on Insanity (though Insanity really is not as difficulty as it should be, but then I wouldn't play a higher difficulty even if it existed so I don't care). Even the upgrade/mods system is way better than ME1's inventory clusterfuck while not being as restrictively boring as ME2's. The big problem is that the entire structure of the SP game is way too linear, and on a related note there are way, WAY too many cinematics; and when you spend the bulk of the game watching things happen outside your control, if your story and set up suck then your "game" is a lost cause. Had they got their act together with the consequences in the final stages of the game all coming together, and if they'd just reduced the Cerberus/Catalyst derp, the game would've been damn fine even with the plot holes and generic setting and all that. Come to think of it it really wouldn't have taken THAT much work to turn it from "WTF is this shit" to "this is actually a pretty good shooter-RPG". Too bad they went full retard instead.
Looking at the rage on BSN I'm glad I was never invested in the series or in Bioware, or in that kind of SF in general, so I can just sit back and coldly analyze. If I'd truly
liked the series beforehand (as opposed to "hey this is ok") I would've been raging too.
Somebody should compile ALL the plot holes, ALL the in-game evidence proving that Bioware flat-out lied to their costumer's faces, along with appropriate screenshots both from the game and from interviews/tweets/press releases and do a massive Bioware-ripping-Oblivion-style-epic-RPGCodex-review.
God no, way too much work. That's WAY too many plot holes and lies.
