Category: Editorials

Online Communities VS Single Player

Z1GTeam Editorials

We’ve all seen recently that the more we’ve progressed in terms of technology being used within our consoles, we’ve also seen the increase in multiplayer.Going from split screen on the same TV, to linking consoles via a cable, to the rise of Xbox Live and Playstation Network but do people enjoy the communities that are being brought to our headsets and what’s our views on the experience of online gaming VS good old single player?

As I’ve mentioned before, the rise of technology being introduced to the upcoming consoles, we’ve seen the prices go up in price as well to the normal RRP for an Xbox 360 or Playstation 3 game is around £40. The question I constantly find that I ask myself is “is this really worth the money?” Me personally, I am more of a single player person. Why? Well part of the reason is that find that the online community by itself is never much fun for me. There are the odd days where I will sit and play online games but within a few hours, I’m back onto single player games. Unless I am sitting in a party chat with a couple of friends, I simply cannot enjoy the online experience when it comes to games as much as what I can.

Now this is down to several factors for me. Firstly, I’m a girl who games so automatically, I can be getting taunted for my sex as some gamers have still got  the images that girls simply cannot play games (mostly they can be little Joe whose got his mother to purchase the latest Call of Duty for him since he’s 6 years under the age limit, but that’s another topic in hand now isn’t it?) or are just being seen as sex symbols that are being used to chat up. We’ve all experienced this in online gaming lobbies in some form whether we’ve witnessed this or just been on the receiving end of it. With this in mind, gaming lobbies can become a place for bullying against people of different sexuality, race and beliefs. Some may raise the point that “Yes, but this can happen in everyday life if you walk down the street and put on display your beliefs for the rest of the world to see” but, when playing online, everyone is hidden behind an avatar that can act as a barrier in the fact that, unless we are friends outside of online gaming with the person – you don’t know who they are apart from their username and what games they play so this poses the question , are gaming lobbies acting as a enticer to bullying and only igniting the flame that we’re trying to dampen down on that is called bullying? Is this barrier of having an avatar and not really getting caught out on the bullying just the reason that we’re seeing so much bullying being allowed? Alright so most of you will be saying “So what, just mute them all before starting a match?” by this point, as would I if I was reading this but surely the point of a multiplayer online game would be the multiplayer portion of it and by muting all of these people, you’re essentially isolating yourselves from everyone else. Not much of a ‘team’ player then are we? Can we win with online communities then? Well let’s look at that next.

In saying all of these negatives about the online gaming community, online lobbies can be considered as a good place to meet new people who have similar gaming interests as you. As we’re seeing more and more of the CoD’s and Battlefield’s, the more clans that are forming where friends are getting together on a regular basis online and doing more team vs. team competitions on these games which are obviously displaying the act of more team work and enjoyment compared to someone joining a lobby by themselves with a group of random people. As well as this, I’ve also been a witnessed to people coming together through online forums to help other gamers out with achievements on certain games and working together to help each other out.

As I’ve already mentioned, I am more of a single player gal myself. Not only because of my view on the online gaming communities but because I find that it provides more of an enjoyable experience. No worries of getting abused by strangers, no waiting around to get matched up in a game and definitely no lag! (Unless you have a really old console where there would be some waiting around for the game to load up). I find single player campaigns more immersive on the better games and after recently getting into some RPG title’s such as Dragon Age, this has only strengthened my love and belief that there are still really good single player games being created but, I do feel they’re getting overrun by the multiplayer aspect. Again, as I’ve briefly touched upon earlier in this article, the price tags are rising for these games, so is there really the need to pay £40 for a game that’s single player you’ll play perhaps 10 hours on? Another question I find myself asking is, “why are they adding on multiplayer, it’s already an amazing game by itself?”. This has mainly been with the Assassins Creed series which I think anyone who knows me, I am a massive fan of but, my point still stands in that they’ve already got a very good base of a game with the single player aspect of it and I do feel that the multiplayer is just an unnecessary add on to the game.

One final mention of a game type that is a way of somewhat meeting the two parallels in the middle is co-op. Co-op offers about the best of both worlds within the single player and the multiplayer. Where this would have normally been carried out on the same TV, same console and two separate controllers in the early 90’s, not only can we still play with our friends but it can be done within the comfort of our own homes and also is providing us with another way on meeting new people that could potentially be less abusive. Still offers the same experience of single player with the intense action and emotion behind it however you can enjoy it with friends or create new friends from anywhere in the world.

In conclusion, I think that even due to the rise of online gaming and more and more money being invested into the multiplayer portion of upcoming games can sometimes be a disadvantage for those who either do not wish to partake in the multiplayer aspect of these games and could be seen as being somewhat punished by receiving a mediocre single player campaign compared to five or ten years ago although, online communities can provide a way of meeting new people and creating new connections with other gamers.

However, we at Zero1Gaming want to know your thoughts on the matter. Leave a comment below on your thoughts, views and opinion.

3D Killed the Videogame Star

Tim Bowers Editorials, TimB

Whatever happened to Sonic The Hedgehog?

For anyone who grew up during the 1990’s Sonic, along with everyone’s favourite plumber, stood as a visual representation of the gaming world. Where Mario was plodding along in the Mushroom Kingdom, Sonic was whizzing through Green Hill Zone. He was cool, hip, wise cracking and boy oh boy was he fast, it seemed like nothing could stop this speedy little guy, but something went wrong along the way.

Why has Mario gone from strength to strength while Sonic has fallen on hard times? Why have other characters overtaken the little blue blur? What went wrong with Sonic The Hedgehog?

Sonic’s first outing was in 1991 on the Sega Genesis (Megadrive for UK readers!). He was Sega’s third attempt at creating a brand mascot after Opa-Opa and Alex Kidd. Sonic was created to challenge the might of Mario and for nearly 10 years he did.

Sonic the Hedgehog & Sonic the Hedgehog 2 were massive successes. The thrill of blasting through levels at break neck speed was breathtaking; the games made Mario’s adventures look practically sedentary. I remember watching Gamesmaster when I was growing up and seeing competitions between people to see who could get through a level or finish the game quickest. Speed Running with Sonic 2 is still a considered a worthy challenge; the current completion record is 18 minutes and 12 seconds.

But, by the time Sonic the Hedgehog 3 rolled around in 1994 gamers were starting to notice a familiar pattern. Sega, in a rush to keep the momentum going, was turning out Sonic games on an annual basis so after the first two games people started noticing the same kind of level design. Sega didn’t seem to be putting in that much effort and in some cases appeared to be making things particularly difficult. I’m sure most Sonic gamers can name a few incidents where they have collided with an unavoidable set of spikes or baddie.

The increasingly frustrating level design seemed to become a staple of Sonic games and some would argue that it continues even today, in fact some would argue (myself included) that since Sonic jumped to 3D the levels have only gotten worse.

The gaming shift from 2D to 3D was a difficult time for a lot of developers and gamers. How do you keep that familiar gameplay whilst opening up a new world to explore? New players like Sony & Microsoft were able to design from the bottom up and embrace 3D as they didn’t have the same 2D legacy that Nintentdo & Sega had but while The Big N showed the world how it could be done with Super Mario 64, Sega floundered.

 

 

Sonic Adventure was a launch title for the Dreamcast and while it was hailed as the best 3D Sonic game at the time, it also had many flaws. Sonic games were designed for speed. In 2D environments this is an easy thing to process as the path you can take is laid out for you and never changes, in 3D however the need to create an open world means that you have multiple paths to choose from and not all of them will be the right ones. Controlling Sonic also became more of an issue. How do you make sure that he is going the right way and not veering to the side when you have a full 360 range of motion? Sega appeared to have acknowledged these issues when they announced a return to classic Sonic with Sonic the Hedgehog 4 Episode 1 & Episode 2.

Another thing Sega wanted to make sure everyone was aware of with Sonic 4 was that the game featured Sonic and only Sonic. Over the first 3 games and Sonic & Knuckles, Sonic was joined by his best friend Miles ‘Tails” Prower in Sonic 2 and Knuckles the Echidna in Sonic & Knuckles.  The reaction to these added cast members was quite warm so Sega thought they would add more, and more and more.

Apart from Sonic, Tails & Knuckles, Sega have added a further 17 ‘friends’ over the years. On my recent play through of Sonic Generations after I rescued Tails & Knuckles I increasingly became more and more bewildered at who the hell these characters were, Cream the Rabbit?? Mighty the Armadillo, Who?? Blaze the Cat, Huh??? And Rouge the Bat, WTF!!??. Christmas must be an expensive time of year! Thankfully I’m not alone, over the years players have tired of games tending to focus more on this seemingly never ending roster of friends than on Sonic, especially when some of them are lumbering brutes and can barely speed up to a swift jog let alone blaze a trail through Emerald Hill!

When you look at the cast members of a Mario game you see that Nintendo have stuck with the same 5 main characters. Mario, Luigi, Toad, Princess & Bowser. Occasionally they will add different characters such as the Koopa Kids or Baby Mario/Luigi but for the most part the core characters in the main games are the same. This has allowed Nintendo to evolve them and allow you to ‘bond’ with them, the same cannot be said for Sonic & Co – in fact I would personally say that my dislike for Sonic started when they gave him a voice!

 

So, what was the reason for Sonic’s fall from grace? Was it the predictable and frustrating level design? The inability to transition from 2D to 3D? The endless hangers on that Sega felt we needed to be made aware of? Or was it something else?  Many would argue that Sonic is a representation of Sega and when things went bad for Sega they went bad for Sonic. Others say that the character has become so watered down that he is just a name now rather than an idea and the only reason he is still around is due to a misplaced sense of nostalgia.

Sega’s most recent attempt at reviving the Sonic brand was with it’s “Greatest Hits” game, Sonic Generations, but for me, all it did was highlight how good Sonic was compared to where he is now. The thrill I had blasting through the remade 2D Chemical Plant zone and then battling a HD Death Egg Robot with the same music playing was immense!

My suggestion to Sega? Remake Sonic 2, keep it 2D and for the love of god, shut the Hedgehog up!

 

 

The Future of Kinect?

Z1GTeam Editorials

This first few weeks of this month have produced some spectacular announcements from the R&D teams using Microsofts Kinect accessory, and most of these have been reported in depth on the Verge’s website. Sadly none of these involve gaming directly, but a couple may have features that could enhance the gaming experience for Xbox 360 owners, and future Kinect for Windows owners too.

First off there came a story of 3D holographic teleconferencing using a cylinder topped with six Kinects which you stand in front of to get “mapped” in 3D, and then beamed to another cylinder elsewhere in the world, creating a full 3D rendering of the caller that can be walked around and viewed from a full 360 degrees. This would undoubtedly prove useful in the workplace, but I don’t foresee this expensive set-up proving all that useful in the gaming world.

Secondly, the use of augmented reality in the topography sandbox (a literal box of sand, not the gaming term) means that young visitors to museums can interact with the sand, creating hills and dips that are mapped by the Kinect and represented by projectors as a topographical view, to which virtual water can be added to view how the physical shape of the ground will affect water flow. Again, this is a very neat idea, but not much practical use for the gamers amongst us.

Thirdly, a slightly more useful addition of Premium Agency’s LiveAR software promising interaction between Apple iPad’s and Microsoft’s Kinect. Initially, the video shows only what appears to be visual effects on the TV screen following screen taps on the iPad and some hand gestures aimed towards the Kinect. A little underwhelming at the moment, I think this could be an incredible opportunity to introduce tablet games onto home consoles. Am I the only one imagining a head-to-head with Fruit Ninja on both the iPad and the Kinect versions? It may even be the step Microsoft need to take to compete with the similar tablet/movement combination promised by Nintendo’s WiiU console. (Full video is viewable here.)

Finally, and infinitely more interesting to this gamer, is the MirageTable concept creating an astounding interactive 3D workspaces, which can provide useful video conferencing tools, but could also impact the gaming market with interactive gaming, of the board or casino game variety.

Take a look at the videos, and see if you can foresee the gaming potential of these projects.

Digital Distribution VS Physical Media

Z1GTeam Editorials

After reading some recent stories regarding games developers (such as PlayDead, the creators of Limbo), and the fact that they would only really consider distributing digitally in the future, and the hardware developers Sony (especially) and Microsoft denying that the physical media of discs is obsolete, it seems the game companies are at a stalemate situation with the platform owners.

I can understand Sony’s reluctance to invest in the digital-only market. It had a disastrous launch with the PSP-GO (which I bought due to liking the look of it), which featured download-only access to games. But as XBOX360, PS3 and Wii are all making substantial profits on DLC for existing games, why is the leap to digital only creating such a storm?

I believe the answer lies in cost. As consumers, we expect a physical product for the money we pay out. We also expect a moderate return on that investment; we certainly do not expect a total loss. For example, when you buy a car, it depreciates in value as soon as you hand the cash over, and will continue to do so until it plateaus several years later. You should still get some form of monetary value (cash or trade-in) for the car/pile of metal you have left when the time comes to get a new one.

With digital games, there is no ‘trade-in’ value. With physical games it is getting that way too, with Resident Evil on the 3DS only allowing one game save and the newest Batman game (Arkham City) limiting the Catwoman missions to those who buy the game new, or at an £8 price tag for those trying to save money by buying the game second-hand (although this content has been included on the disc in the “game of the year” edition).

Neither should result in a 100% loss however, but digital games only allow for use of the game by the owner that downloaded it. You cannot sell that download on for any financial gain, and as the cost of current full games on XBOX360, PS3 and PSP are all roughly the same as the copies that shops and online retailers sell the physical discs for, what would be the benefit of downloading the game, aside from the ability to play it instantly?

Another cost that may be unaccounted for is that of storage. With games easily filling DVD’s and soon Bluray’s, that calls for a lot of HDD space for someone with a large game collection (i.e. the average 30-something gamer/spoilt child). With options of 4GB Xboxes and 160GB PS3’s seems woefully insufficient if we were to take up the digital-only media route. Perhaps then cloud-based storage or game streaming (akin to the OnLive system or Steam) is more realistic?

I would miss buying games from shops, or having them delivered to my door. I would miss the smell, the joy of opening the sealed packaging, and the annoyance at getting the first scratch on the disc or the first bit of food on the manual. Conversely, I do understand the need for digital media; it makes sense in this environmentally aware world of ours to reduce packaging and delivery emissions wherever possible. If they could only make the downloadable games cheaper to compensate for the lack of packaging, I think that the uptake may be even greater.

Sony’s latest handheld, the PSVita, is bucking the trend and offering digital versions of the physical games for around 20% cheaper than the physical version. This is the first move I have seen in the right direction for any games company, and it is a trend that needs to continue.

Personally, I am for anything that stops the current stagnation of the gaming market. In the current economic situation, I can understand companies becoming less willing to branch out into anything new or untested. However, to save the planet, to save the companies, and to save the wallets of the consumers, people need to take a look at the tablet and smartphone market. Cheap apps, readily available, are making far more money for far less outlay than the average 70% rated game (by average I meant the mean, not that 70% was ‘average’).

So, what would my advice be to games companies and console manufacturers? Push the digital, but don’t fleece the consumers, or we may all have to find a cheaper hobby.

Gowns to Guns – A Look At Female Video Game Characters.

Z1GTeam Editorials

Gaming has been always something of a male dominant hobby, there’s no denying it. With many males being the main characters of games and even more males playing the games conversely, we’re seeing more females enter the ranks in both players and characters and are starting to form a league of their own. In this article, I will be discussing the rise of female video game characters and consider both the male and female gaming communities’ thoughts of the way these female characters are portrayed.

Before we do that, let’s start when female characters were introduced into games. Females within a video game started off as the ‘damsel in distress’ type. Look at Princess Peach through out of the Mario games for instance, always getting kidnapped and poor Mario having to chase after her going through multiple castles. In saying that, without these females always getting kidnapped; we wouldn’t have a backbone to some of our games, but was this deemed as portraying females as being inadequate to look after themselves?

Fast forward a few years and female characters are becoming more and more independent and less vulnerable, in other words, totally kicking ass. A few of the first woman that were seen as this type were Samus from the Metroid series and Lara Croft from the Tomb Raider games. Now where Samus remained a respectable female within the gaming world without flaunting too much of the goodies, shall we put it, Lara Croft was the opposite, excelling in showcasing her femininity. In all fairness, Samus was being shown to us in 2D where Croft was in 3D, so was this the turning point on how female characters were going to be shown to us?

Wearing a tank top that was fitting to say the least, a pair of shorts and the ability to handle duel-wielding pistols, there is no denying that Lara Croft was appealing to the eye, but when did this start? Yes, she showed up some of the male characters as she took on the various climates, animals and puzzles; which displayed her as an independent woman who could take care of herself. Then again, was she being seen as more of an eye candy than this independent woman? With suggestive cut-scenes showcasing Lara’s physique and with the third person view (Guys, do not lie that you didn’t have the sneaky peek at her rear-end while she ran!), was this really the way to introduce females into the gaming world – as sex symbols almost and very little innocence to be seen coming from their personalities?

Since then, we’ve only really seen more and more of females being showcased as ‘eye candy’ in the video game world. Games like Bayonetta and the continuation of the Tomb Raider series has kept this image of females being created with minimal clothing and ‘boosted’ features in our minds. So what do we think about this?

Speaking as part of the female gamers community and on my own behalf, I can see this image going down one of two ways with females. On the one hand, some may be offended by the fact that females are only being portrayed as these sex symbols and nothing more, but on the other hand, those of us who don’t think highly of ourselves in appearance and don’t have much confidence in ourselves could perhaps enjoy playing as these characters as a way of fulfilling some emptiness that we cannot seem to gain in our own personal lives. After all, isn’t that what video games are meant to be about – being able to be whatever you want to be in a fantasy world?

With that in mind, do the males like these characters or just want them off their TV screens? My first thoughts would be that all males would love these attractive women being able to handle guns and take on missions that you would normally be seeing male protagonists doing, but is that honestly the case? I decided to ask a couple of males on their thoughts on the matter and I was taken aback with their responses. The response from them was that they didn’t like the way that females were being showcased as sex symbols and would prefer to see someone more realistic, to a certain extent, being used.
With the recent release of Mass Effect 3 concentrating more on the female Shepard side of the story, instead of male Shepard, regarding advertising of the game before release, are we beginning to see the start of a more respectable female video game protagonist? One that doesn’t require to wear minimal clothing and have accented features (*cough* boobs *cough), but one that can still maintain
that level of ass-kicking that previous females have accomplished in the eyes of gamers and remain noticed as a female. As for Fem Shep starting this somewhat new image of female video game characters, we’ve still to see what the new Tomb Raider game is like. With the reveal of the new game being announced at last year’s E3, the game looked nothing but spectacular along with a more ‘grungier’ Lara however still the same person we’ve grown to love over the years underneath the more covered up body. This image is not just being recognized throughout main characters as well, Bioshock Infinite’s Elizabeth helping you with her offering you guidance and help when needed. Is this something that games of the future are starting to pick up on and recognize that the gaming community is after when they’re playing games?

What are your thoughts on the topic? Do you like the females that are show off more skin or prefer them to be covered up and more respectable? Leave a comment below.

Opinion: Mass Effect 3 – The WTF Ending.

Tim Bowers Editorials, TimB

Before I go any further I want to make it clear that during this article I will be openly discussing the Ending(s) to Mass Effect 3.

This is a warning!!! If you are still playing or want to play through with no prior knowledge then click off this page NOW……..

……..Right! Now that’s out of the way, Hello!

It can’t have escaped your attention that the ending to one of the greatest gaming experiences ever has been less than favourably received. The ending to the Mass Effect Trilogy was always going to divide gamers because as the old adage say, “You can’t please everybody”, however I have yet to find or talk to anyone who is pleased with the way Bioware has waved Goodbye to Commander Shepard.

There seems to be two distinct “Unhappy Camps” forming – those who are angry with Bioware for ruining the series and those who are disappointed with such a weak ending to the strongest game of the series. I personally am disappointed.

People who have read my previous articles will know that I am not the biggest fan of the Xbox, I accept it has it’s fans but I am not one of them, so I didn’t get to experience the Mass Effect universe until Mass Effect 2 was released on Playstation 3. The absence of the first game has not stopped me falling madly in love with the series, I won’t even change Shepard’s face because I don’t want to mess with Bioware’s perfection. The universe was bright, colourful, exciting and full of life. In a world before Skyrim it was the first RPG that appealed to me and I played it through multiple times.

I got Mass Effect 3 on 9 March 2012 and over the course of a week I enjoyed every aspect of the game, I relished the skirmishes with Cerberus, I was enthralled by the Battle for Palaven, I was moved by the curing of the genophage, and I gasped when one of the choices I made ended with the destruction of the Quarians.

Unfortunately because the game was released in the UK three days after the release in the US the reports of of fans unhappy with the ending had already begun to appear on UK gaming and news sites. I made sure not to read the articles but it was hard to avoid the headlines, needless to say I was aware that there was a “Controversy” about the ending that I was quickly approaching. During the game I had begun to formulate what I thought the ending would be, if you are interested I’ll write out my idea for the ending at the bottom of this article, and I thought that it was going to be a small minority of gamers that just wanted to moan because the series didn’t end with Sunshine & Rainbows but after playing through the game I can now see why people are up in arms.

I fought through the streets of London till I arrived at the base with Anderson, I then spent time working my way around the base talking to Soldiers and having conversations with my allies and team mates. I’m not ashamed to say this but I did get quite emotional during this time. In my eyes this was Goodbye, Shepard wasn’t coming back and I’d never see any of them again, picking my final team was a hard choice but in the end I went with the two most important people – Garrus & Liara.

Off we went to destroy the Reaper and make our way to the beam and onto the Citadel. The fight was long, hard and frantic but in the end we made it and then just as we were all running to the beam the unthinkable happened. BAM! Zapped by a Reaper Beam, screen fades outs, silence. Part of me thought that was going to be the end, part of me wishes it had been. Once the game returns and Shepard makes his/her way onto the Citadel the game takes a massive nosedive.

I don’t think I will be alone in saying that for me, the Citadel/Catalyst scenes feel rushed, badly thought out, tacked on at the end and are generally a massive disappointment from scenes we experience not 20 minutes beforehand. How did Anderson get on board? If he was right behind Sheppard then why didn’t he stop him? Where are my team mates? How did the Illusive man get there and when was he indoctrinated? Who was indoctrinating Shepard while he was in the control chamber? How did he, Anderson or the Illusive Man know how to use technology that no one had seen for at least 50,000 years?!! Oh and what happened to Harbinger?? Remember him the biggest and baddest of all the Reapers…..

Once those scenes were over and more choices are made, you are then moved onto to the last choice. You meet the Catalyst, who I assume takes the form of the boy Sheppard saw get killed back on Earth at the start of the game, although how it knows who this boy is or why it takes that particular form is never made clear. The Catalyst will then give you up to three choices, the choices depend on your Morality level but they are:

1 – Control: Despite the fact that you have spent the entire game telling the Illusive Man that Reapers cannot be controlled, it turns out they can – but it will cost you your life.

2 – Destruction: You can chose to destroy the Reapers but in doing so you will destroy ALL TECHNOLOGY! That includes the Geth so if you haven’t already killed them you get the option to again.

3 – Synthesis: The middle ground where you can choice to merge all organic life with all synthetic life. Not sure why you would want to really as isn’t that what the Reapers want anyway…

In all possible endings there is one constant – whatever ending you choose and whatever morality you are the Mass Effect relays will be destroyed. For those who played through the “Arrival” DLC on Mass Effect 2 you will remember that you were told that an exploding Mass Effect relay would destroy an entire Solar System but again this is not mentioned during the final minutes of your play through. Either way it would appear that the Universe is screwed no matter what you do.

I went for the Paragon/Blue Ending and sacrificed myself to control the Reapers. I got teary as my Shepard disintegrated in front of my eyes, I felt that pang of bittersweet victory as the Reapers ceased firing and retreated from Earth and I watched on in horror as I started a chain reaction of exploding relays. It was over………but it wasn’t.

Can anyone, ANYONE, explain what the Hell the Normandy is doing mid jump when the relays start exploding??? The Normandy is last seen in the Battle for Earth, why does she now appear to be running away from the battle. The shockwave from the explosions eventually catches up with her and we are suddenly treated to the sound of birds tweeting and some leaves. the Normandy has crashed, Joker, who you are reminded earlier on in the game has a terrible brittle bone disease, steps out unscathed from this crash into the Sunlight on this strange and unusual planet, and oh look right behind him, it’s, it’s GARRUS & LIARA?? But wait aren’t they dead? Didn’t they get zapped by the same Reaper beam that I got zapped with on earth? How did they get back on the Normandy? WHERE THE HELL WAS EVERYONE GOING!!!!

*Roll Credits*

I was literally stunned by what I had just witnessed, but it wasn’t over yet. Now there is that rather bewildering scene of a boy and a man holding hands in a snowy landscape looking up at what maybe the Earth talking about the Sheppard Stories……HUH??

The END…

AAAAARRRRGGGHHH!!!! WHAT THE HELL JUST HAPPENED!!!!! Was my first reaction, in fairness it’s still my reaction. I just don’t get it. I will put my hand on my heart and say I do not understand the ending.

I like to think I’m quite clever, I can pick up on the subtext and read between the lines but the last 30 minutes of Mass Effect 3 are some of the most bewildering I’ve ever come across. I’m not saying I want it spelt out for me but I would at least like to have all the correct letters.

The only thing I can adequately compare it to is the ending of Lost. (If you haven’t seen that either then stop reading!) The last series of Lost was really good, some amazing moments and the excitement to find out what the whole thing was about was tangible – nothing could have been more disappointing than not really getting any answers, Evil Locke being killed, a shiny cave and purgatory. Yep it was all about purgatory, the same thing the producers swore it wasn’t about when the Series first started! Not only did the rush job ending ruin the last episodes, it’s unsatisfying conclusion then cast a shadow over the entire series. I fear the same has happened to Mass Effect.

Yes there are petitions and statements about Bioware accepting comments and working to find a happy medium that respects artist integrity yet giving fans the ending they want. Yes there are those who are adamant that Bioware should stand their ground and not give in whilst at the same time thanking their lucky stars they didn’t mess things up. But in my eyes the damage has been done now – You cannot unsee what has been seen. You cannot undo what has been done.

In the way that The Elder Scross V: Skyrim will always associated with frame rate issues and lag on the PS3, Mass Effect 3 will always be remembered for the ending that failed to provide what it’s fans wanted most.

My Ending:

This is what I thought might be the ending. It is quite dark.

The Catalyst turned out to be nothing more than a storage device. Shepard made his way to the heart of the device to find the catalyst was a series of recordings. Each cycle that had passed before had a champion who had made it this far only to find out that there is no way to stop the Reapers. All of this has happened before and all of this shall happen again. All the Catalyst/Citadel does is record a message from the champion about his/her story and how they got there. Shepard records his adventure as the Reapers continue their destruction. The End.