378 réponses à ce sujet

[Wikkr]

WeAreLegionWTF wrote...

This sums it up nicely. Since the release off mass effect 3 we where promised an epic ending to the saga that took into account all the choices we had made throughout. what we where given was 6 near identical cutscenes featureing 3 different colored energy beams based on one of 3 options non of which is effected in any way by the choices you made previously.

i diddnt pay 60 quid for some cliche artistic ending. i paid 60 quid for the epic ending based on the decisions id made on multiple different playthroughs from the previous games. What i got was a game that simply ended. no closure, no choice. This was now what bioware have been promising all along.

[Drenick18]

I saw "art" and "blockbuster" and I just gave up. All the endings are ridden with plot-holes and nonsense. Everything about the endings ONLY make sense if you look at it from the Indoctrination point of view.

[Bronze65]

The ending IS poetic and beautiful and artistic..

.. if you're high on crack.

[ChampDude]

Eh, I wish I could see the ending like you did. I wish I could accept that this was the culmination of all the effort and emotion I went through for this trilogy. I wish I could have gotten some satisfaction but...

These are all just wishes. I didn't see any art in the last five minutes, just a slap in the face, kick in the nuts, whatever use of aggression you want to call it. There is too much in terms of inconsistencies, plot holes, lazy writing and just overall a sense that it was rushed and not thought out to give me a sense that what happened was worthy of merit

[Fiannawolf]

The ending is incomplete. As is there is no resolution. Reapers are trolling everyone atm. This is more frustrating then Matrix revolutions. At least we knew what happened to Neo's crew with that one...here??? Shep's in Limbo at best even with that 23 sec shot I got by siding with Anderson Shade/Subconcious.

[hawat333]

Run, run for your life PeterG1!
Believe me, we are not safe here.
Nah, I'm just mocking.

I think it was a very good ending, with some minor (but important) mistakes, but on a large scale, the concept was really, really good.

[Innocent Erendira]

I knew what they were going for in the ending but then they should have really looked at a game like Final Fantasy X, that ending managed to be bittersweet and conclusive (FF X-2 doesn't exist in my mind).

But the more I think about it, and the more rumors I hear, I become convinced that it actually isn't the true ending and they will release a free ending dlc. Bioware is usually pretty solid in their storytelling and the Mass Effect franchise has been their favorite pet for years, so I doubt they'd let it finish with some colored explosions and incomprehensible plot holes.

Stand and be awed by my optimism.

[Myrmedus]

saracen16 wrote...

No. If BioWare gave me a crap ending (there, I said it, I didn't imply but rather I insinuated that the current ending is AMAZING), then I wouldn't give a damn either, because the journey was amazing either way, and I've seen enough lore and closure to be satisfied. Why? Because I know that as a consumer, I am separated from the artist by the process of creation. It's the artist's job to create, and it's my job to critique it, but it's not my place to force him or her to change what he or she has.

Then so what? This part of your post completely wreaks of: "I would do this so everyone else should do this too." You wouldn't bother to complain if you disliked the ending but you feel the need to complain about those complaining when you did like the ending? Eh....

If you're simply happy with what you got you wouldn't be bothered to make this thread,

Eh, I didn't make this thread. PeterG1 did. And he made an excellent argument and thesis that many of you are purposely overlooking. He posted his reaction, his epiphany, and he wanted to share it with everyone else. And I share his joy as well. You don't have to.

I don't have to, but I also don't have to listen to you belittle those who disliked it by calling them "self-entitled". And, ok, you didn't make the thread itself, but you've still continued to fight on multiple fronts against multiple posters as though this were a battle.

much less insult other fans who are unhappy.

He didn't do that either.

No, you did.

No, I believe the proper phrase is The Golden Rule, "Treat others the way you want to be treated".[/b] If you were a developer or writer and believed that your work of art is something subjective that should be analyzed, and an angry mob shows at your door and forces you to change the ending or they'll rape your girlfriend, emotionally blackmail you in front of the whole world, and demean you to no end... would you like that? Would you, a self-respecting artist, give in to their demands? I sure as hell wouldn't like people to tell me what to write or what to think, because that violates my freedom of expression. Besides, you'd want to be remembered for something unique, not for cowering to the demands of consumers and create something run-of-the-mill.

Something you may find ironic is that I AM an artist. And, as an artist, I realise that criticism is an integral part of artistic work, development and learning. An artist (be they a painter, writer, developer etc.) who ignores criticism and believes what they did was right no matter what level or quality of criticism they receive is either arrogant, in denial or blind.

In addition, I've already discussed in multiple threads how the ending didn't need to be run-of-the-mill due to the inclusion of multiple endings: one could've been arbitrary and "out there" like this ending, for those who wanted an end like that, and one could've been mildly comprehensible and conclusive for those who wanted that; there was no reason to shove one formless ending down all our throats.

Besides, talk to any concept artist and ask how far they would've gotten in their profession if they didn't take criticism or suggestions of modification at face value in their designs.

You are entitled to your own work. Mass Effect is not YOUR work, nor is it mine. It's OUR experience of SOMEONE ELSE's work. And in my opinion, and PeterG1's, it's BEAUTIFUL and INCOMPREHENSIBLE.

Incomprehensible: there's the problem right there. A good piece of artwork is always comprehensible because it is enlightening.

And in addition to that, people also have the right to voice their opinions on pieces of work. The vast majority find this piece of work like a masterpiece painting that was then smothered with grass-green oil paint all over it in the final moments of its production. The criticism is a part of the production of artistic work, as is modification of artistic work as per criticism.

However, I am indeed done discussing this. You haven't got a foot to stand on in my opinion because even if you did like the ending, that's absolutely fine, but there was no need for it to be the ONLY ending in the game just so a minority enjoyed it while a majority feel suckered. It was done in DA:O, there was no reason it couldn't have been done in ME3.

Modifié par Myrmedus, 15 mars 2012 - 02:27 .

[AlcyoneNoth]

Mr. Big Pimpin wrote...

It's not artful; it's a bunch of plot-hole ridden nonsense trying to seem deep and failing.

This.

[saracen16]

[quote]Myrmedus wrote...

[quote]saracen16 wrote...

No, the plans were created over millions of years and each cycle added to that plan. The current cycle got their butts off the couch and built the damn thing.[/quote]

You just said the exact same thing I said in different phrasing.

I said: The Crucible was DEVELOPED over millions of years by organics. DEVELOPED =/= BUILT.[/quote]

Don't backtrack. You said something else.

[quote]
[quote]Because they were programmed by the Catalyst to reap the advanced civilizations of the galaxy and allow organic life to continue. Vendetta and the Catalyst said it themselves: the Reapers are merely servants of the pattern, but not their master.[/quote]

Except the Catalyst is sentient and in control of the Reapers, therefore the Catalyst could've had the tech built itself if it was a superior solution to the cycle. The main reason for this not happening before is supposed to be the existence of the Crucible, as the Catalyst says it gave him "additional options", however this still doesn't explain away the fact the Catalyst could've had such a device built itself.[/quote]

Could have, but it didn't. This implies that the Catalyst is not perfect. It is not a god. It made a mistake. No one EVER stated in the game that the Catalyst was perfect. Not even the Catalyst itself told you what it was. Nor do we know what it was. The fact that the Crucible's docking with the Citadel gave the Catalyst new ideas suggests that either the Catalyst didn't consider it before (hence it's not perfect), or the Crucible reprogrammed it to "think" differently.

[quote][quote]What's really stupid is that you didn't even consider the rest of the game. The writers masterfully wove the main plot throughout the length of the entire game, and it led up to this moment.
[/quote]

I don't know whether to laugh, cry or smash at this statement.[/quote]

Do whatever you want.

[quote[If any game in series hinted at this plot it was ME1, not ME2 and certainly not ME3. In fact, ME2 and ME3 offer contrary themes to the outcome of the story: they show increasing examples of organic/synthetic co-operation.[/quote]

No one ever said that there was an established theme to the story. Hell, if there was, it would make it even more boring.  YOU are left to interpret the experience. That's the beauty of it. You realize that there's more to the galaxy than you ever imagined.

[quote]How exactly does the brokered peace between the Quarians and Geth fit in with the Catalyst telling you "All synthetics will kill all organics".[/quote]

Um... because the Catalyst was not on Rannoch to see the cooperation? Because YOUR Shepard played with fate. If your Shepard did nothing, the Geth would have pounded the Quarian fleet to rubble. Read above: the Catalyst is not a god, and it made a faulty assumption: that synthetics will kill all organics.

[quote]How does your character's relationship with Legion fit in with that?[/quote]

Again, read above. Your Shepard is a legend.

[quote]How does Joker's relationship with EDI fit in with that?[/quote]

It challenges it, showing you that there is more to the universe than just a lame, overriding theme. The relationship between synthetics and organics is not black and white like it is in I, Robot and other literary works. It forces you to question. You're reacting to the game's world. It's not just a story. It's a universe.

[quote]How does Legion's development as a character, the Geth's development as a race fit in with that?[/quote]

It shows you that the Geth are not just like ANY other synthetic race. Each race is unique, even those that are synthetic. Yes, there will be a conflict because organics fear synthetics. It got to a point in the Quarian/Geth conflict where the Geth rebelled against the martial law because these Quarians feared then hated their own creations for expressing their own opinions: "does this unit have a soul?"

[quote]How does the revelation that the Geth let the Quarians flee fit in with that? [/quote]

"Organics fear us. We wish to understand, not incite". And you know the story about the heretic geth.

[quote]If that was the line BW was going for then the Geth should have remained an antagonist.[/quote]

No, they shouldn't because BioWare wasn't going for one specific theme. You learn that there's more to the universe, and that these themes, synthetics vs. organics, are not invalidated, but QUESTIONED within the game. It challenges you to think otherwise.

[quote]As the series went on it actually went in the OPPOSITE direction, showing increasing signs of organics and synthetics living together peacefully. [/quote]

It depends on your choices with the Geth-Quarian conflict. Either way, the Catalyst's assumption, that synthetics will kill all organics, becomes either validated or invalidated because of YOUR action.

[quote]The ending statements from the Catalyst were a complete U-Turn that would've been appropriate in ME1 but by ME3 were completely inappropriate.[/quote]

No, they were not. The Catalyst did not foresee the cooperation between the geth and the Quarians. It's not a god. It's imperfect. Its own assumption was either confirmed or proven wrong, but in the end, it becomes invalid because the organics have finally realized that the Reapers are problematic and that their will to live is strong, and that there is hope. That's why the Catalyst realizes that a new solution needs to be placed.

[saracen16]

[quote]Myrmedus wrote...

[quote]saracen16 wrote...

No. If BioWare gave me a crap ending (there, I said it, I didn't imply but rather I insinuated that the current ending is AMAZING), then I wouldn't give a damn either, because the journey was amazing either way, and I've seen enough lore and closure to be satisfied. Why? Because I know that as a consumer, I am separated from the artist by the process of creation. It's the artist's job to create, and it's my job to critique it, but it's not my place to force him or her to change what he or she has.[/quote]

Then so what? This part of your post completely wreaks of: "I would do this so everyone else should do this too." You wouldn't bother to complain if you disliked the ending but you feel the need to complain about those complaining when you did like the ending? Eh....[/quote]

No, I'm just proving you wrong about me. I am satisfied with the product, and even if I wasn't, I wouldn't arm myself with a pitchfork and force BioWare to change the ending.

[quote]I don't have to, but I also don't have to listen to you belittle those who disliked it by calling them "self-entitled". And, ok, you didn't make the thread itself, but you've still continued to fight on multiple fronts against multiple posters as though this were a battle.[/quote]

I'm not belittling them. I'm calling it what it is. Even a lot of them admit that they are self-entitled.

[quote]No, you did.[/quote]

But not him.

[quote]Something you may find ironic is that I AM an artist.[/quote]

Ah, so your point here is that because you are an artist, you're exempt from the Golden Rule in this case. I'm a writer myself, and I think ME3 is brilliant.

[quote]And, as an artist, I realise that criticism is an integral part of artistic work, development and learning. An artist (be they a painter, writer, developer etc.) who ignores criticism and believes what they did was right no matter what level or quality of criticism they receive is either arrogant, in denial or blind. [/quote]

You're wrong. Art is subjective, and is an acquired taste for many. Many people thought Picasso's paintings were terrible, but he did them anyway in the same style without giving a damn.

[quote]In addition, I've already discussed in multiple threads how the ending didn't need to be run-of-the-mill due to the inclusion of multiple endings: one could've been arbitrary and "out there" like this ending, for those who wanted an end like that, and one could've been mildly comprehensible and conclusive for those who wanted that; there was no reason to shove one formless ending down all our throats.[/quote]

Even if that was BioWare's intention, they had EVERY RIGHT to do that because it's THEIR game. But they didn't. Mass Effect 3, as a work of art, should be taken AS A WHOLE, including the ending which is just 10 minutes of a 30 hour experience. The Mona Lisa is not complete without the background and the body and the clothes. The smile stands out because it is laid in the context of the entire painting. The same with Mass Effect 3. If you think for one minute that the ending of Mass Effect 3 was interwoven throughout the entire plot of the game as I have stated before...

[quote]Besides, talk to any concept artist and ask how far they would've gotten in their profession if they didn't take criticism or suggestions of modification at face value in their designs.[/quote]

Concept art is different, and I'm sure BioWare hired a lot of self-respecting artists and writers: we know that because they gave us ME1 and ME2, both great games and great works of art.

[quote]Incomprehensible: there's the problem right there. A good piece of artwork is always comprehensible because it is enlightening.[/quote]

You misunderstood me: the sheer amount of implications your choices have made the future of YOUR galaxy something that you can only comprehend based on the choices you made. As a whole, you realize that if you did something else in the previous two games, the final game would play differently. That makes it mind-boggling if not incomprehensible.

[quote]And in addition to that, people also have the right to voice their opinions on pieces of work.[/quote]

Hence critique, like I said above.

T[quote]he vast majority find this piece of work like a masterpiece painting that was then smothered with grass-green oil paint all over it in the final moments of its production.[/quote]

YOU saw the grass-green oil paint all over. I saw something else. That's how video game as an art form works. A good artist knows that.

[quote]The criticism is a part of the production of artistic work, as is modification of artistic work as per criticism.[/quote]

That's done during the development of the game. BioWare's artists and writers are not stupid: they wouldn't release something unfinished. They have their staff of editors and seniors to revise the product more than once. They don't need outside input to do that because they are the ones who own the piece of art and therefore the right to make the game any way they choose.

[quote]However, I am indeed done discussing this. You haven't got a foot to stand on in my opinion because even if you did like the ending, that's absolutely fine, but there was no need for it to be the ONLY ending in the game just so a minority enjoyed it while a majority feel suckered. [/quote]

I'm not belittling your opinion for you to belittle mine. Golden Rule, remember?

And I think your argument is fallacious: art is not meant to be enjoyed by a majority or a minority. It's just the expression of one or a group of people. Whether people like it or hate it is secondary.

[quote]It was done in DA:O, there was no reason it couldn't have been done in ME3.[/quote]

Who the hell are you to make that judgement, or anyone else for that matter?

[Jarys]

 See my sig.

[Arppis]

Jarys wrote...

 See my sig.

See your sig.

Modifié par Arppis, 15 mars 2012 - 02:46 .

[HaesoME3]

The only thing artful here is the level of trolling in the OP.

[Epique Phael767]

 The only "art" I noticed was the three differernt colored explosions.

[saracen16]

Jarys wrote...

 See my sig.

See your sig. Is that the best you can do?

[saracen16]

HaesoME3 wrote...

The only thing artful here is the level of trolling in the OP.

See Jarys's sig.

[saracen16]

Let me tell you something: who are you to think that YOU are superior to BioWare and demand an ending change?

[Chromie]

saracen16 wrote...

Let me tell you something: who are you to think that YOU are superior to BioWare and demand an ending change?

The customer.

[Myrmedus]

[quote]saracen16 wrote...

[quote]Myrmedus wrote...

[quote]saracen16 wrote...

No, the plans were created over millions of years and each cycle added to that plan. The current cycle got their butts off the couch and built the damn thing.[/quote]

You just said the exact same thing I said in different phrasing.

I said: The Crucible was DEVELOPED over millions of years by organics. DEVELOPED =/= BUILT.[/quote]

Don't backtrack. You said something else.[/quote]

Dude, are you serious? This is your response? How vague and arbitrary, you didn't even quote what I said to backup your statement. Let me quote what I said:

[quote]Myrmedus wrote...

[quote]Valah79 wrote...

Magic nonsensical Space Magic melding synthetics and organics, which somehow, brings peace and joy and happiness to the universe isn't art. Just like changing color schemes, isn't art. Discussing the pro's and cons of the Genophage with Mordin in ME 2, that was deep, that was enlightening, that was art.

This was deadlines, and budget cuts, there's nothing philosophic or intelligent about the ending. [/quote]

Another plothole: Why couldn't the Reapers have done the Synthesis themselves?

The Crucible was developed over millions of years by organics. The Reapers have existed for millions of years and shown superior intellect to every organic species of each cycle. Why couldn't the Reapers have produced the tech for the Synthesis themselves and just synthesized all life in the galaxy in the exact same way?

Stupid.[/quote]

OOPS, maybe that's why you didn't quote it.

[quote]




[quote]saracen16 wrote...

Because they were programmed by the Catalyst to reap the advanced civilizations of the galaxy and allow organic life to continue. Vendetta and the Catalyst said it themselves: the Reapers are merely servants of the pattern, but not their master.[/quote]Myrmedus wrote...

Except the Catalyst is sentient and in control of the Reapers, therefore the Catalyst could've had the tech built itself if it was a superior solution to the cycle. The main reason for this not happening before is supposed to be the existence of the Crucible, as the Catalyst says it gave him "additional options", however this still doesn't explain away the fact the Catalyst could've had such a device built itself.




[quote]saracen16 wrote...

Could have, but it didn't. ...Snip[/quote][/quote]

I don't need to include the rest of the quote because this bit is enough. Could have, but it didn't - that's exactly why the twist is stupid. If it didn't make the decision earlier I fail to understand why it would think to make it now since it was always an obviously better solution than killing trillions. The story is meant to argue that the reason it didn't do it earlier was because the power wasn't available to it: this is why it says it has new options available.

But the power was always available. Always. It built itself and the Reapers to be so powerful, why did it stop there? Arbitrary. TOO arbitrary.




[quote]Myrmedus wrote...

If any game in series hinted at this plot it was ME1, not ME2 and certainly not ME3. In fact, ME2 and ME3 offer contrary themes to the outcome of the story: they show increasing examples of organic/synthetic co-operation.[/quote]

[quote]saracen16 wrote...

No one ever said that there was an established theme to the story. Hell, if there was, it would make it even more boring.  YOU are left to interpret the experience. That's the beauty of it. You realize that there's more to the galaxy than you ever imagined.[/quote]

....

See below:

[quote]saracen16 wrote...

What's really stupid is that you didn't even consider the rest of the game. The writers masterfully wove the main plot throughout the length of the entire game, and it led up to this moment[/quote]

The emboldened text would suggest a theme. If that not what you meant then I'd love you to define what you meant with this statement.





[quote]Myrmedus wrote...

How exactly does the brokered peace between the Quarians and Geth fit in with the Catalyst telling you "All synthetics will kill all organics".[/quote]


[quote]saracen16 wrote...

Um... because the Catalyst was not on Rannoch to see the cooperation? Because YOUR Shepard played with fate. If your Shepard did nothing, the Geth would have pounded the Quarian fleet to rubble. Read above: the Catalyst is not a god, and it made a faulty assumption: that synthetics will kill all organics.[/quote]Then I would've expected my Shepard to have the option to argue with the Catalyst's assertion rather than simply agree unwittingly. He argued with the Rannoch Reaper with far less evidence.




[quote]saracen16 wrote...

It challenges it, showing you that there is more to the universe than just a lame, overriding theme. The relationship between synthetics and organics is not black and white like it is in I, Robot and other literary works. It forces you to question. You're reacting to the game's world. It's not just a story. It's a universe.[/quote]

But that challenge is meaningless because it's doused completely by the ending like water to a flame. It became a completely meaningless, pointless plot development by end-game because it doesn't factor in to it at all.





[quote]Myrmedus wrote...

How does Legion's development as a character, the Geth's development as a race fit in with that?[/quote]


[quote]saracen16 wrote...

It shows you that the Geth are not just like ANY other synthetic race. Each race is unique, even those that are synthetic. Yes, there will be a conflict because organics fear synthetics. It got to a point in the Quarian/Geth conflict where the Geth rebelled against the martial law because these Quarians feared then hated their own creations for expressing their own opinions: "does this unit have a soul?"[/quote]

Again, why couldn't I use this evidence to dispute the Catalyst's claim? Bad writing...and that's not something I have ever accused BW of before, I'm serious.

And is there any such thing as "ANY other synthetic race"? Each AI we've seen has been unique in its own way, one more piece of evidence to dispute the Catalyst's one-size-fits-all logic.





[quote]Myrmedus wrote...

How does the revelation that the Geth let the Quarians flee fit in with that? [/quote]



[quote]saracen16 wrote...

Organics fear us. We wish to understand, not incite". And you know the story about the heretic geth.[/quote]

You don't get my point: my point was that clearly the Catalyst's assertion was bull****. In addition, you could also argue the heretic geth is an ironic piece of evidence since their hostilies were incited BY the Reapers.





[quote]Myrmedus wrote...

If that was the line BW was going for then the Geth should have remained an antagonist.[/quote]




[quote]saracen16 wrote...

No, they shouldn't because BioWare wasn't going for one specific theme. You learn that there's more to the universe, and that these themes, synthetics vs. organics, are not invalidated, but QUESTIONED within the game. It challenges you to think otherwise.[/quote]

There was no theme! It wasn't just that there wasn't one theme...there was NO theme leading up to the Catalyst's assertion, at least in my playthrough, because the one previous theme strand that would've coalesced to the Catalyst's statements had been ditched as early as first speaking to Legion. In my game, there were no most hostilities between organics and synthetics, so why is necessary for me to conform to the notion that they oppose one another? I would have no qualms if someone who had the Geth and Quarians war be limited in their choices, be unable to argue with the Catalyst (since Shepard tries to argue with the Reaper on Rannoch and he disproves it with the battle) but why should -I- be pigeon-holed?





[quote]Myrmedus wrote...

As the series went on it actually went in the OPPOSITE direction, showing increasing signs of organics and synthetics living together peacefully. [/quote]




[quote]saracen16 wrote...

It depends on your choices with the Geth-Quarian conflict. Either way, the Catalyst's assumption, that synthetics will kill all organics, becomes either validated or invalidated because of YOUR action. [/quote]

YES, EXACTLY! You hit the NAIL ON THE HEAD. It depends on MY choices with the Geth-Quarian conflict, something the series is all about, yet it played absolutely NO part in the ending or the exchange with the Catalyst. THAT is the presiding issue that the fans take issue with: that a game series so based upon choice fails so grandly when it matters most!





[quote]Myrmedus wrote...

The ending statements from the Catalyst were a complete U-Turn that would've been appropriate in ME1 but by ME3 were completely inappropriate.[/quote]




[quote]saracen16 wrote...

No, they were not. The Catalyst did not foresee the cooperation between the geth and the Quarians. It's not a god. It's imperfect. Its own assumption was either confirmed or proven wrong, but in the end, it becomes invalid because the organics have finally realized that the Reapers are problematic and that their will to live is strong, and that there is hope. That's why the Catalyst realizes that a new solution needs to be placed.[/quote]

it's imperfect. I agree. So why could I not argue with it and disagree? Shepard argued with the Reaper on Rannoch: he said organics and synthetics didn't need to war, and he didn't even have such staple evidence such as the peace between Geth and Quarians at that point. So why - why did he not argue with the Catalyst at a time when he had such compelling evidence to back up his argument?

Even if it had been in vain, even if it had not taken any of my arguments at face value, I would've expected my Shepard to at least TRY. But I was given no opportunity. Not even a dead-end conversation fork was offered.

I will have to end it here because I need to go to work, but I will end it by saying it's fine if you're happy. Maybe it feels like the end fit with what happened throughout your story, but there are millions of people here who each have a slightly different story, whose choices were slightly different and whose ending didn't fit with their story because of the abhorrent lack of choice involved in it. Because the ending didn't accomadate or shift for big decisions in the plot.

It's a one-size fits all ending to a game whose story is anything but - I'm sure you can see the issue with that.

Modifié par Myrmedus, 15 mars 2012 - 03:00 .

[Epique Phael767]

saracen16 wrote...

Let me tell you something: who are you to think that YOU are superior to BioWare and demand an ending change?

Capitalism = consumer > producer


/thread

[saracen16]

Skelter192 wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

Let me tell you something: who are you to think that YOU are superior to BioWare and demand an ending change?

The customer.

You only own a copy of each Mass Effect game. Do you own the franchise?

I'll answer for you: NO.

[Myrmedus]

The core issue (as I described in my big post above) is that the Catalyst is fallible yet the dialogue options - and consequent ending options available - have no wiggle room suggesting an infallible character.

Anyways, off to work!

[Gibb_Shepard]

The only kind of person who could think the ending is art is a Frenchman with a baguette up his ass smoking crack while laying on the tip of the Eiffel Tower in a promiscuous position.

What, that doesn't make sense? **** it, it's art and it's not to be ****ed with.

[Epique Phael767]

saracen16 wrote...

Skelter192 wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

Let me tell you something: who are you to think that YOU are superior to BioWare and demand an ending change?

The customer.

You only own a copy of each Mass Effect game. Do you own the franchise?

I'll answer for you: NO.

He does if he has shares in EA. You obviously fail to comprehend the free market.