Mass Effect 3

So here we are at the end. In Mass Effect 1 we learned of the existence of Reapers, ancient sentient machines that wipe all organic life from the galaxy. As Commander Shepard, we destroyed the advance scout named Sovereign. In Mass Effect 2 the Reapers remain a threat, but of more pressing importance are the mysterious Collectors, a race that has been subjugated by the Reapers and is abducting entire human colonies. After being killed by the Collectors at the very beginning of the game, Shepard is resurrected by the fringe human group Cerberus and sent to stop the Collectors, which he of course does with the help of a new squad. Now, in Mass Effect 3, time has run out. The Reapers have arrived, and Shepard is the only one who can stop them. He must use everything he's learned, face every choice he's made, and ultimately help decide the fate of the galaxy.

So, where to begin?...How about gameplay.

Mass Effect 1 to me is an RPG with third person shooter elements. 2, however, is an action-heavy third person shooter with light RPG elements. So where does 3 fall? As expected, somewhere in the middle. 3 retains most of the changes made in 2, though it reintroduced the variety of weapons and the ability to upgrade them from 1. They also introduced more branching elements to powers, giving you much more of a choice in what kind of playstyle you're going for. Not only that, but each class can now use each weapon. However, each weapon also carries a weight to it which slows down how fast your powers recharge. So while yes, your pure biotic adept can carry every weapon, it wouldn't be smart to. Also, weapons aren't really necessary when you're launching shockwaves every 2 seconds. But for those who are more weapon oriented, stats are back! What a concept, that you can actually tell which guns are better than others (*shakes fist at 2*). And each one is nicely varied in how they fire so that you can really personalize the way you want fights to go. On top of that, you can upgrade each one for a certain amount of credits, as well as choose 2 mods for each that can also be upgraded.

And don't worry if you look at that and say "But there was too much of that in 1!" because while the variety is back, it isn't overwhelming, and it's easy to swap things at the beginning of every mission or while you're on the Normandy. Also, have no fear if you see all that and worry they've reverted back to 1's combat. The action is even more fast and fluid than it was in 2, with smarter, more difficult enemies that you really have to strategize around. 3's combat is without a doubt the best in the series, and some of the best third-person shooting I've experienced.

So, if they solved the lack of RPG elements in 2, but still retained the amazing combat, then I suppose all that's really left to worry about is the story. And this is where I'm really, really torn. And don't worry, I'm not going to include major spoilers. If you're tied to knowing nothing about the game before playing it, obviously don't read any further, but I promise I won't give anything big away.

The problem I have with 3's story is that for every positive I feel like I come away with a negative as well. For the most part, the writing is just plain incredible. Despite the fact that they no longer have the carrot of "this decision could affect future games!", practically each decision you make feels like it has serious consequences. There were several times I had to get up, think about it, and then come back to it because I truly couldn't decide. Even the bare bones dialogue is the best it's ever been. And this is all not to mention the absurd amount of fan service written into this game.

On the flip side, the concept of "war assets" nearly ruins it all. In essence, your job throughout this game is to get the various races to rally to your side to help defend Earth and defeat the Reapers. Every time you find someone or something that could help, it gets added as a certain amount of "war asset" points. How many points you have before the final battle (as well as the "readiness rating" increased by playing multiplayer) determines in part how the end plays out. While playing I found issue with this because it's never indicated how these war assets will help you, and because it seemed to belie the greater issue...that the choices you're making only boil down to a statistic. It's especially devastating when you come across all these old crew members (especially from 2) and suddenly begin to realize none of them are joining your team, and are instead being turned into war assets. You still get several squadmates from 1, but it begins to feel like all that recruiting in 2 was for nothing. Or rather, for meaningless points.

This also plays into side missions. Gone are the worthy loyalty missions of 2, and even the random planet scanning missions (don't worry, I'm getting to that next). Instead you occasionally get reports of something happening somewhere and you should go investigate. More often than not it turns out someone important is involved, and how you deal with things determines how many war assets you get. Mind you, they are still well written and can be quite intense, but the fact that they inevitably only end with random points leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

So, the planet scanning. As we have learned from 1 and 2, there's always at least one feature that will bug the shit out of you. In 1 it was the cumbersome Mako missions. In 2 it was the mind-obliteratingly boring planet scanning. And you thought it couldn't get worse, didn't you? Well, you were wrong. Here's what a conversation between me and the game would look like once you get to roam the galaxy map once again:

Game: Guess what? Technology has been improved so you no longer have to do planet scanning!
Me: Huzzah!
Game: Yep, now you can scan entire systems!
Me: Wait, what?
Game: That's right! You can scan systems for war assets, credits, and fuel for your ship! If you detect something on a planet though you still have to scan for it.
Me: So planet scanning isn't gone? Do I at least get to keep that "make planet scanning faster" upgrade I purchased in 2?
Game: Nope!
Me: Well is there any other point to exploring? Like finding random missions in 2?
Game: Nope!
Me: ...Well that's just plain stupid.
Game: And that's not all!
Me: God damn it.
Game: Most of the systems you're scanning are under Reaper influence, and the Normandy can escape their detection just flying around, but every time you scan you increase their awareness of you. If you fill up that bar, they'll come chase you!
Me: They'll...chase me?
Game: Until you jump out of that system. And the bar only resets after you've done a mission.
Me: What happens if they catch me?
Game: You die.
Me: SHIT, WHAT?
Game: Oh, but it's okay, because every time you enter a system it autosaves.
Me: So you're telling me I can enter a system, spam the scan button until I find everything, let the Reapers catch me, and then when I reload 5 seconds later I can just go back to the spots I found, scan few enough times that the Reapers don't come, and be on my merry way?
Game: Yep!
Me: So what is the point of this seemingly pointless endeavor?
Game: War assets! And credits! And...
Me: And fuel, yeah, I get it.
Game: Oh, and just often enough that you can't really ignore it you'll find upgrades that you can use to permanently increase your health or shields or power damage or things like that.
Me: FFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

Everything becomes so focused on obtaining these war assets, so when the final battle comes you'd expect them to make a big difference right? But do they? Not as far as I can tell. Then again, I also made sure to collect as much as I could because, really, why wouldn't you? Still from everything I've seen it actually makes very little difference. Maybe I'm wrong, and I'd like to be proven otherwise, but it's especially hard to tell when your only indication of what you've done is having your big decisions show up for battle in a cutscene. It just felt like I had been on this relentlessly epic journey throughout the entire game, and then in the final chapter everything they'd been building up to and telling me was important wasn't actually.

Which brings me to the endings, which I promise I won't spoil, but just in case **I BE TALKING ABOUT THE ENDINGS HERE AND IF YOU WANT A COMPLETE SURPRISE STOP READING.** Good enough? Okay then. Bioware promised 16 different endings leading up to the release of 3. What do we get? 3. 3 endings. And those three endings are really 90% the same with minor tweaks. Not only that, but even though they capture the emotional resonance I was seeking, when you stop to actually think about them we come across a few issues:
1) When you consider their implications, they make NO sense.
2) Each is technically a cliffhanger that leaves you with no satisfying conclusion.
3) Each makes all the decisions you have made up to that point completely worthless.
When the most logical theory out there for why the endings are the way they are is "It was all a dream", there's a problem.
**END OF TALKING ABOUT THE END**

Basically my view on Mass Effect 3 comes down to this. Up until the final chapter it is pretty solidly, despite my gripes, the best of the series. It balances what I missed from the first game well with what I loved from the second game and tops it all off with amazing writing and adrenaline-pumping combat. Then the final chapter hits and it's like it takes all your dreams and stomps them out. By building up such importance over the war assets, such importance over the decisions you make, and such importance of all the people you meet, the payoff you get at the end needs to reflect just how important all those things actually were. Instead they're pushed to the side for a streamlined road to the end where the only important decision is the last one. And yet, I still cannot call it a bad game. I still cannot say it is any worse than its predecessors. In fact it's better in so many ways. But when the ending leaves me so sour that when I look back not only on this game but on the others in the series that it makes me want to play them less instead of more to see all the variations, I cannot in good conscience give it the 10/10 it deserves before it hits the end. However, I also cannot in good conscience give it a low score just to spite it for the ending. In the end, I just have to go with my gut. I gave both 1 and 2 a 9.5, but...

Mass Effect 3 gets an 8.5/10.

Pygmalion

Every year Seattle Shakespeare Company produces one to two non-Shakespearean works, and usually to great effect. Last year was a mixed success, with the wonderfully philosophical Wittenberg running in rep with Hamlet, followed by the rather disastrous Threepenny Opera. So this year they wisely decided to eschew the musical and instead opt for Pygmalion, otherwise known as the origin for My Fair Lady. And after seeing this production, it pains me that the original is so much less well known because frankly, the musical doesn't do it justice.

For those unfamiliar, Pygmalion is a story based on the myth of the same name where a sculptor created a statue of the perfect woman and fell in love with it. After making an offering to Aphrodite the statue came alive and was called Galitea. The play itself revolves around the brash and socially awkward Professor Henry Higgins who studies phonetics, and a lowly flower girl named Eliza Doolittle. After overhearing him say to a fellow phonetics scholar named Colonel Pickering that he could take this lowly flower girl, teach her to speak proper English and make her a lady's maid, she offers to become his pupil. Pickering says he'll take the bet and cover all costs if Higgins can convince everyone at an important ball in 6 months that this girl is a proper lady. As the 6 months fly by, we see Eliza progress from flower girl, to a girl who can pronounce the words but still makes rather odd "small talk", to a lady. But of course, things don't end there. After the men almost completely ignore her after her success at the ball, Eliza disappears, only to show up at Higgins' mother's house the next day after the men have been searching high and low for her. In a final confrontation, Eliza finally stands up for herself and breaks Higgins down, but instead of being sad or depressed he actually becomes ecstatic, saying he prefers her as this "pillar of strength". As if their conversation hasn't happened he gives her a list of errands, which she refuses to do, instead telling Higgins to do them himself as she leaves. With a giant grin Higgins stands and exclaims, "Galatea!", and the play ends.

As with nearly every production Seattle Shakes added their own twist to the story, with an actor playing George Bernard Shaw. His lines consisted mainly of stage directions, yet somehow he added a kind of magic to every scene. It also helped that the actor, A. Bryan Humphrey, doubled as Eliza's "undeserving poor" father, making the presence of the author felt throughout the play. That, and the fact that Humphrey was just plain brilliant and ruled that stage whenever he was on it.

Though really, that could be said of every actor in this play. Mark Anders as a fidgety, crotchety, stubborn and often childish Mr. Higgins worked perfectly. Jennifer Lee Taylor as Eliza reminded me so much of Shana Bestock it was scary, but her performance stood on its own as a masterpiece of both comedic and dramatic timing. R. Hamilton Wright as Pickering was the prime personification of a proper English gentleman. Even the smaller roles like Trick Danneker's effortlessly adorable Freddy Eynsford-Hill were played well. And I don't have the program with me so I can't credit the person directly, but whoever did the dialect coaching for this production should be given a freaking medal. Each and every dialect was distinct for each character, and that is no small feat in any play, let alone one where the accents are being pointed out.

On the technical side, it's rare for me to not actually pay attention to it. The costumes, set, music...everything was overshadowed by the acting. That isn't to say they were bad, it was just that they weren't anything special. And besides, having the stage directions explained aloud somehow made it all seem more than it was anyhow. I suppose that means they simply did their job, staying out of focus, providing non-intrusive background for the action on stage.

The point I'm trying to make here is that the play was good. Like, really good. It hit all the right notes and timing for the humor, and was just as perfect with the more serious parts. The scene after the ball where Pickering and Higgins ignored Eliza nearly ripped my heart to shreds, and a great deal of it was silent. This production managed to obtain that so hard to find je ne sais quoi, that quality that made it shine. It had a heart to it. In essence, much like the myth it's based on, they took a well beloved and well crafted show and gave it life.

Pygmalion gets a 10/10.