23455 réponses à ce sujet

[Seival]

jeweledleah wrote...

www.ted.com/talks/daniel_kahneman_the_riddle_of_experience_vs_memory.html

+1

[EnforcerWRX7]

They are clarifying the ending. They aren't fixing it. I don't know everyone thinks the co-founder was coming clean. He wasn't. They are simply selling us the idea of the start to the next series.

The endings were designed to sell more DLC and games.

[Bone3ater]

luci90 wrote...

Bone3ater wrote...

I know I'm whining...

No.

No you are not whining.
You are voicing your opinion on something you feel strongly about, in a grown up manner.

If anyone tells you different, punch them in the face.

Hold the line.

I'm kind of whining^^

But I guess it's still "good" u know, because BioWare is all about "emotional investment" so I guess that part they accomplished.

Still depressed though. Still no closure though.

...I feel bad

But I'll try to hold the line, Garrus would be so dissapointed if I failed.

Also I can't stop thinking about Anderson:

"I'm proud of you son." - "......Anderson?" - *no reaction*

Thank you sir.    ;_;7

[Needsnewending]

Dear Bioware. Give me my paragon alternate ending, an epic last cutscene battle where my war assets fight, and a neat epiloge, to see it all come together.

[Arbiter868]

Just my thought but I think the ending needed more Harbinger and explaining. I'm just fine with the ending it's just that it makes no sense like what's with the kid and so on. and again more Harbinger would be good because he was just left out of ME3 execpt for a small time were he lazers everything. He was great in ME2 (as an enemy) but was just left out of ME3 whats with that?

[k-stigus]

I noticed that your chit-chat with sovereign in ME1 never really hints at the catalyst, or says anything about saving organic life by killing. On the contrary, he pretty much says that organic life is an accident that needs to be corrected by its destruction. I can only speculate whether or not he was aware of the catalyst, or was just lying about reaper intentions. To me, it just feels like whatever he said is completely contradicted in the ME3 ending.

Thoughts anyone?

[CPTHughJardon]

Archangel6902 wrote...

Lochwood wrote...

Thalos wrote...

cjp31 wrote...
With regards to Indoctrination Theory I honestly think it's an interpretation that mildly resembles a paranoid schizophrenic. I mean that in the sense that any bit of evidence is seized upon that may (and may NOT) support the theory and subsequently used as definitive evidence. The theory also appears to be quite closed in the sense that no single fact contained in the gameplay could ever disprove it. In fact I would be willing to be that you could find signs that Shepard is indoctrinated in any of the Mass Effect games and be able to rationalize reasons why/how this could benefit the Reapers. It seems too convenient and too motivated out of hopeful thinking. I also do not see why everyone is so convinced that Shepard HAS to be in London at the end. No concrete on the citadel? Really? Look again as that's a pretty weak argument. (Again, this is ignoring the fact that Shepard is outside without a Helmet during the Crucible sequence). Could it be true? Yep. But I have to feel that without further DEFINITIVE evidence I have to go with Occam's Razor and just put it down to inconsistent writing.
Ultimately I hope to see some clarification and maybe some additions to the endings but I don't hope for a 'happy', shots-and-high-fives ending as I think that would be missing the entire point of the series.

I agree expecially concerning the indoctrination theory. Lets not forget that said theory was thought of by the players, not suggested in any way by the producers. To me the whole indoctrination theory, plausible and elaborated and well-constructed as it is, looks like a desperate attempt to explain and somehow justify this terrible thing that is mass effect 3 ending. It is almost like the players are trying to convince themselves that this was all intentional and that this was the plan ans that there's more to it, that bioware did not really let us all down.Yea maybe it's true but unfortunately I believe that none of this was intentional, that bioware did let us down, that the ending was rushed and illconsidered, that all of what the indoctrination theory explains could just as easily be explained by saying that bioware maybe ran out of time and had to rush to meet the deadline , or that they simply did not care enough. I'm sorry everyone if I sound so negative, I still sincerely hope that bioware will be able to fix the ending but this remains the biggest disappointment I have ever had in a game.

With respect, you're likely wrong. According to reports, up until November, indoctrination was going to figure prominently into the end sequence. The player was going to physically lose control of Shepard in some way, likely during a final boss battle.  (You'll notice that after you say goodbye to Garrus that there ARE no more fights for you to "give them hell -- that's because they dropped the final boss and the indoctrination gameplay due to "unsatisfying game mechanics.")

That said, I think Shep is definitely in London at the end -- it's clearly the London textures.  Also, the Citadel breaks up and explodes in the rendered cutscene -- so if he wakes up while still on the Citadel, it's going to be a short reunion. Also, it LOOKS like London because it's not a burning metallic space ship -- and that's what Occam's razor suggests.

No your wrong, there's no way shep is indoctronated. The black swirly stuff , that was TIM's power paralyzing Shepard and Anderson, let's just clarify that little tid bit. Also who's to say that the Starchild couldn't have encased Shepard in a force field which once the citadel exploded launched it back to earth. This is a rare occurance but so is getting the ending where you see him live at all. It's just one of the possibilities, also who's to say and it's VERY plausable moreso than my previous statement actually, that once again Shepard wasn't protected somehow through direct intervention or just dumb luck, and rode the Citadel Wreckage back to earth, having been pulled into Earth's gravitational pull.
People seem to miss the point, the number one point which is obvious as a kick to the face, as to WHY  Shepard couldn't have been Indoctronated and why that theory is just bunk.
TIM couldn't have controlled the Reapers because he was Indoctronated, Shepard Could control them because he...Obviously Wasn't! The Star Child wouldn't have even bothered to show up!! Or Talk to Shepard in the first place if he WAS indoctronated!! This is cold hard logic based on what we saw all conjecture aside.

no no you're wrong.nowhere in any of the games does it say the reapers can physically control people through mind power.they put thoughts in you're mind,suggestions,doubts ect but not physical control over someone who is not indoctrinated.if they could then why when saren expressed doubt in 1 did sovereign give him more implants?why on earth did TIM not just get shepard to blow his own brains out?why did TIM pull a gun on shepard and shoot him when he didn't need to?going on the indoc theory then the "star child" couldn't exactly tell shepard he's indoctrinated otherwise he'd give the game away.also if you pick control and pay close attention the kid actually smirks when you're holding the bars.you're response has zero logic at all .

[RiGoRmOrTiS_UK]

EnforcerWRX7 wrote...

They are clarifying the ending. They aren't fixing it. I don't know everyone thinks the co-founder was coming clean. He wasn't. They are simply selling us the idea of the start to the next series.

The endings were designed to sell more DLC and games.

how the hell are they going to clarify dead team (low EMS) re-appearing on the normandy at the end?

[wookieboy15]

Go the Indoc Theory!

[luci90]

RiGoRmOrTiS_UK wrote...

EnforcerWRX7 wrote...

They are clarifying the ending. They aren't fixing it. I don't know everyone thinks the co-founder was coming clean. He wasn't. They are simply selling us the idea of the start to the next series.

The endings were designed to sell more DLC and games.

how the hell are they going to clarify dead team (low EMS) re-appearing on the normandy at the end?

More space magic, I suppose.

[I_Jedi]

luci90 wrote...

RiGoRmOrTiS_UK wrote...

EnforcerWRX7 wrote...

They are clarifying the ending. They aren't fixing it. I don't know everyone thinks the co-founder was coming clean. He wasn't. They are simply selling us the idea of the start to the next series.

The endings were designed to sell more DLC and games.

how the hell are they going to clarify dead team (low EMS) re-appearing on the normandy at the end?

More space magic, I suppose.

Cerberus worked quickly.

[Rikudoko]

Insights in "artistic integrity"
 
The term “artistic integrity” and the statement that “art should not be changed” have been appearing a lot recently regarding the controversial end of ME3.
Well, I’ve been an art student for quite some years now, and I like to give my point of view on these subjects (btw I’m Spanish so pardon any grammatical or synthaxis errors).
 
A lot of people have their mouth full with the word “art”, but the truth is no one really knows what art is. It doesn’t exist in the natural world per se. For example, a tree does exist. Every tree is unique and different from the others, yet everyone will easily find consensus on what to call “a tree”. Such thing doesn’t happen with art, and that is, imho, because art doesn’t “exist”. What is to be considered art is based solely in oneself opinion. So, art is just a subjective word to refer to something that is considered beautiful, or pleasant, or whatever your conditions are.
 
¿Is Mass Effect art? To me, sure it is. One of the best form of art. ¿Does this mean it should be sacralised? No. Art is an opinion. Thus, art is mutable. Art is ALIVE. The piece of art that is ME3 was conceived to an audience, to the players. It’s not like they created this piece of art for themselves, because they felt like it would only appeal to them. Video games are to be enjoyed by the players.
 
We have a very old sense of what is “art”. The paintings that we consider art are 100 years old and more, and of course you cannot change them: the authors are dead and they are history pieces. But the masterpieces of Da Vinci and such artist had a target group, a client. In Renaissance, it was the church, and if they did not like what the artist painted, they had to address it (Da Vinci went as far as to paint 3 versions of the same painting to please his client). Then came SXX and painters rebelled against that, and started to paint things that went against the audience in some sense. But they painted for themselves. They did not charge you 70, 80 or 90 euros to see their work of art. Wich you have to pay to play ME3 (since you cannot rent it or buy it second hand due to DLC issues, online codes and that sort of thing). They did not force you to buy their work in order for you to enjoy it.
 
ME3 is art. Yet, that doesn’t mean its GOOD ART. Crappy art exists too. ME3 was a masterpiece till the end. The final brushstrokes looked lazy and rushed and unprofessional compared to the rest of the painting. Of course they don’t have to change it if they don’t want to. But then, to most of us their final piece of art will be a crappy one, and we will lose interest in Bioware as an artist.
 
To be an artist does not mean that everything you make is gold. Artists make mistakes. And they fix them. It has happened through all of art history and I hope it happens today with ME3.

[Quijiboh]

What really bothered me about the ending, among the many criticisms that have been said many times over, is that the choices you can make are based upon a supposition which you have no option to disagree with.

You have to accept the Crucible boy's argument that synthetic life will inevitably come into conflict with organic life, unless it is destroyed, controlled or modified. Which I do not accept. Your very own actions in an earlier part of the game can defy this principle, if you make peace between the Quarians and the Geth. The Reapers might be a lost cause for peace, but only because they were made for the Cycle.

None of this comes up in the conversation. It's immensely frustrating.

[Dawson14]

Mass Shift? Are you kidding me? That story board and Terminator DLC sounds like the biggest piece of garbage EVER. No way in hell I'm buying that. No wonder the endings were so awful. They forced the ending to make way for a new series. I can't believe they sacrificed the ending to one of the greatest stories/games of all time to make what sounds like god awful DLC and a new series. Absolutely ruined it for me. I REFUSE to buy any of that.

[EnforcerWRX7]

Rikudoko wrote...

Insights in "artistic integrity"
 
The term “artistic integrity” and the statement that “art should not be changed” have been appearing a lot recently regarding the controversial end of ME3.
Well, I’ve been an art student for quite some years now, and I like to give my point of view on these subjects (btw I’m Spanish so pardon any grammatical or synthaxis errors).
 
A lot of people have their mouth full with the word “art”, but the truth is no one really knows what art is. It doesn’t exist in the natural world per se. For example, a tree does exist. Every tree is unique and different from the others, yet everyone will easily find consensus on what to call “a tree”. Such thing doesn’t happen with art, and that is, imho, because art doesn’t “exist”. What is to be considered art is based solely in oneself opinion. So, art is just a subjective word to refer to something that is considered beautiful, or pleasant, or whatever your conditions are.
 
¿Is Mass Effect art? To me, sure it is. One of the best form of art. ¿Does this mean it should be sacralised? No. Art is an opinion. Thus, art is mutable. Art is ALIVE. The piece of art that is ME3 was conceived to an audience, to the players. It’s not like they created this piece of art for themselves, because they felt like it would only appeal to them. Video games are to be enjoyed by the players.
 
We have a very old sense of what is “art”. The paintings that we consider art are 100 years old and more, and of course you cannot change them: the authors are dead and they are history pieces. But the masterpieces of Da Vinci and such artist had a target group, a client. In Renaissance, it was the church, and if they did not like what the artist painted, they had to address it (Da Vinci went as far as to paint 3 versions of the same painting to please his client). Then came SXX and painters rebelled against that, and started to paint things that went against the audience in some sense. But they painted for themselves. They did not charge you 70, 80 or 90 euros to see their work of art. Wich you have to pay to play ME3 (since you cannot rent it or buy it second hand due to DLC issues, online codes and that sort of thing). They did not force you to buy their work in order for you to enjoy it.
 
ME3 is art. Yet, that doesn’t mean its GOOD ART. Crappy art exists too. ME3 was a masterpiece till the end. The final brushstrokes looked lazy and rushed and unprofessional compared to the rest of the painting. Of course they don’t have to change it if they don’t want to. But then, to most of us their final piece of art will be a crappy one, and we will lose interest in Bioware as an artist.
 
To be an artist does not mean that everything you make is gold. Artists make mistakes. And they fix them. It has happened through all of art history and I hope it happens today with ME3.

Art is bioware's weak excuse for garbage of an ending.

Bioware tries to make it sound like ART is not subject to criticism.  It better be!  Art is very subject to criticism.  Its exactly what makes art.  Its amazing to see their PR scandal take off like it has.  Its exactly as we saw from the PR guy on this board.  They know exactly what they are doing.

I'll say it again.  This is bioware's last minute re-write to create more DLC and games.  

[EnforcerWRX7]

Dawson14 wrote...

Mass Shift? Are you kidding me? That story board and Terminator DLC sounds like the biggest piece of garbage EVER. No way in hell I'm buying that. No wonder the endings were so awful. They forced the ending to make way for a new series. I can't believe they sacrificed the ending to one of the greatest stories/games of all time to make what sounds like god awful DLC and a new series. Absolutely ruined it for me. I REFUSE to buy any of that.

EXACTLY.  Someone else gets it.

All the endings are all essentially the same because they can write ANY new game or DLC on top of it no matter which ending you choose.

Choose blue, green or red.  IT DOESN'T MATTER.

It was done to make sure the next DLC and games can be written on top of this game.

[pipemaster9000]

I don't see why people are bashing the IT. It fills holes in the plot, It makes sense. Shepard IS human and he IS susceptible to Indoctrination.



This video is pretty in-depth and makes sense. It also sheds light on Bioware being geniuses and planning these endings all along. IT would explain why Shepard is in London after choosing the Renegade option. The "other" endings are explained as well, from information supplied via codex's throughout ME1 and ME2.

IT is the missing puzzle piece to the holes. I was too caught up in the moment of seeing the ending to notice subtle anomalies in the convos with TIM and Anderson.

Regardless of what you think about IT, watch it. It may open your eyes. Lets face it, Bioware knows what they are doing. To think that they would let an ending like that slide to finish off the trilogy would be ludicrous. If they release DLC without any mention of Shep battling indoctrination and that the endings aren't in his head then I will be disappointed. It makes too much sense in accordance with the current ending(s)

I didn't make the video or have any input in it, merely relaying the opinion.

Modifié par pipemaster9000, 25 mars 2012 - 06:05 .

[Leem_0001]

Bioware - in the hope that you read this, and in the spririt of constructive critisism, please watch this. It pretty much picks up point for point why the endings are overwhelmingly disliked.



And please listen to it and, maybe, ask yourselves - did we deliever what we promised? Or even just ask yourselves if you delivered an ending of quality. If you think you did, if the whole team thinks that is honestly the case then....I guess my tastes are just too far removed from Bioware's to buy any of your future games and / or DLC.

Modifié par Leem_0001, 25 mars 2012 - 06:05 .

[Bone3ater]

Rikudoko wrote...

Insights in "artistic integrity"
 
The term “artistic integrity” and the statement that “art should not be changed” have been appearing a lot recently regarding the controversial end of ME3.
Well, I’ve been an art student for quite some years now, and I like to give my point of view on these subjects (btw I’m Spanish so pardon any grammatical or synthaxis errors).
 
A lot of people have their mouth full with the word “art”, but the truth is no one really knows what art is. It doesn’t exist in the natural world per se. For example, a tree does exist. Every tree is unique and different from the others, yet everyone will easily find consensus on what to call “a tree”. Such thing doesn’t happen with art, and that is, imho, because art doesn’t “exist”. What is to be considered art is based solely in oneself opinion. So, art is just a subjective word to refer to something that is considered beautiful, or pleasant, or whatever your conditions are.
 
¿Is Mass Effect art? To me, sure it is. One of the best form of art. ¿Does this mean it should be sacralised? No. Art is an opinion. Thus, art is mutable. Art is ALIVE. The piece of art that is ME3 was conceived to an audience, to the players. It’s not like they created this piece of art for themselves, because they felt like it would only appeal to them. Video games are to be enjoyed by the players.
 
We have a very old sense of what is “art”. The paintings that we consider art are 100 years old and more, and of course you cannot change them: the authors are dead and they are history pieces. But the masterpieces of Da Vinci and such artist had a target group, a client. In Renaissance, it was the church, and if they did not like what the artist painted, they had to address it (Da Vinci went as far as to paint 3 versions of the same painting to please his client). Then came SXX and painters rebelled against that, and started to paint things that went against the audience in some sense. But they painted for themselves. They did not charge you 70, 80 or 90 euros to see their work of art. Wich you have to pay to play ME3 (since you cannot rent it or buy it second hand due to DLC issues, online codes and that sort of thing). They did not force you to buy their work in order for you to enjoy it.
 
ME3 is art. Yet, that doesn’t mean its GOOD ART. Crappy art exists too. ME3 was a masterpiece till the end. The final brushstrokes looked lazy and rushed and unprofessional compared to the rest of the painting. Of course they don’t have to change it if they don’t want to. But then, to most of us their final piece of art will be a crappy one, and we will lose interest in Bioware as an artist.
 
To be an artist does not mean that everything you make is gold. Artists make mistakes. And they fix them. It has happened through all of art history and I hope it happens today with ME3.

Bumping for epic truth.

Nice to see someone else who's working in an artistic field and doesn't just spew crap about it (GameSpot, Kevin VanOrd *cough, cough*).

I was considering to write something quite similar but you beat me to it

Nevertheless though, I agree 100%.

[Kreidian]

ME3 needs a whole new ending. Here is my feedback on the matter.

I love Mass Effect, I love the entire series, everything prior to the end of ME3 was beyond amazing. I love BioWare, there are so many skilled and talented people there. And you guys do an amazing job of really, truly, listening to your fans. You've more then earned my trust and respect.

But this is the end of the biggest saga in gaming history. It deserves better.

The ending needs to go. It's wrong, completely and utterly wrong, for the end of Mass Effect. At the very least it should be changed so it gives players a completely new option to blow off the star child. 

There is no good reason for keeping the endings, nothing which can trump the simple fact that this ending flat out does not belong in Mass Effect. Sure you can call it art, and I certainly agree with games being artistic, but games are also there to entertain, and if it's not making your fans happy it is not a game, period. This is like a five year old finger painting on the Mona Lisa. You can talk about artistic integrity all day long but it doesn't change the fact that it doesn't belong there. Changing the ending doesn't invalidate your integrity especially if it improves the game. And frankly the fans care way more about enjoying the ending then letting you keep any artistic integrity.

Because the ending is BS, to be blunt. To say that the ending is about sacrifice leading up to a bittersweet ending is BS. To say that anything else would betray the desicions Shepard has had to make is TOTAL BS.  The end was always going to be bittersweet. Shepard has already sacrificed everything to get to the endings. You've had to sacrifice friends who have died along the way to make that last stand possible. Billions and Billions of people have died, entire planets have been destroyed over the course of the war. Milions of humans die on Earth as part of the resistance just to give Shepard time to come back and fight them. No matter what the ending was already destined to be bittersweet and filled with sacrifice. There is no possibility of a "Happy Disney Ending" here.

In fact it is the current ending that completely betrays all of the desicions that Shepard has had to make. The current endings make all those sacrifices and all of your choices meaningless. The current endings fail spectacularly to give the player the one thing that's needed in all games, to reward the player for their efforts. For people who have been working hard from the very begining, who have been making difficult choices from the very begining of the first Mass Effect game, who have done every mission and every quest. Even if you go into battle with 100% readiness and 8000 EMS, you still end up with what is essentially the same horrible ending. You don't get the option to end the Reaper threat on your terms, you don't get the option to reunite with your LI. You don't get closure, you don't get any sort of reward. And for what? Some enigmatic artistic vision?

BS. We've earned it. 

We've earned a spot on the beach, with those who survived, celebrating our victories, mourning out losses and finally being rewarded for everything we've done up to now.

This is why I recommend to you, earnestly and respectfully, to come up with something completely different. Saying you're working on adding more clarification and closure to the current endings is just not good enough. I don't want some explanation as to why I should accept the current endings, the current endings suck. Explaning them doesn't change the fact that they are still utterly wrong and don't belong in Mass Effect. I can understand and respect that you feel differently, but trying to clarify them won't change my feelings that the ending is just plain wrong.

I reject the current ending and refuse to give it any validity. It may be harsh but it is important to express just how vital it is that this series get it's proper different endings.

Even after all that I understand that in the end the choice is up to BioWare to do as they see fit, and I will respect them for it either way. I simply urge you not to make the wrong choice again.

[Reeeen0690]

Found this elsewhere on the forums.

- the 'Reapers' are the solution to organics creating a powerful enough AI that would be capable of destroying the 'Reapers'.

this takes the destruction of organaics as preservation of the reapers

Why was that not what the catalyst said?????? that makes much more sense than, created robots to kill you so that robots cant kill you.

Orignal topic 
http://social.biowar...index/9948848/1 

Modifié par Reeeen0690, 25 mars 2012 - 06:09 .

[improperdancing]

Rikudoko wrote...

Insights in "artistic integrity"
 
The term “artistic integrity” and the statement that “art should not be changed” have been appearing a lot recently regarding the controversial end of ME3.
Well, I’ve been an art student for quite some years now, and I like to give my point of view on these subjects (btw I’m Spanish so pardon any grammatical or synthaxis errors).

Didn't quote the rest of your post to avoid taking up a ton of space.

Anyway...the way I see it, any company that deliberately removes a character from the game who is very obviously crucial to the overall plot of the game (see: Javik) in order to charge people money for the character via DLC waive any right to lecture us about art.

If artistic integrity is such a huge issue for BioWare, Javik would have been a part of the game from the beginning rather than a day one DLC character just so they could get an extra ten bucks out of consumers.

[Dawson14]

pipemaster9000 wrote...

I don't see why people are bashing the IT. It fills holes in the plot, It makes sense. Shepard IS human and he IS susceptible to Indoctrination.



This video is pretty in-depth and makes sense. It also sheds light on Bioware being geniuses and planning these endings all along. IT would explain why Shepard is in London after choosing the Renegade option. The "other" endings are explained as well, from information supplied via codex's throughout ME1 and ME2.

IT is the missing puzzle piece to the holes. I was too caught up in the moment of seeing the ending notice subtle anomalies in the convos with TIM and Anderson.

Regardless of what you think about IT, watch it. It may open your eyes. Lets face it, Bioware knows what they are doing. To think that they would let an ending like that slide to finish off the trilogy would be ludicrous. If they release DLC without any mention of Shep battling indoctrination and that the endings aren't in his head then I will be disappointed. It makes too much sense in accordance with the current ending(s)

I didn't make the video or have any input in it, merely relaying the opinion.

So your saying that BioWare intentionally did this indoctrination plot and intentionally did not finish the game which they said was ONLY going to be a trilogy, and then make us pay for the real ending via DLC? Not a chance, with this leak thats coming out(if its true), it makes 100% sense that they made some weak ending with the same outcomes so they could write the next series of games. Again, they sacrificed Mass Effect for future game sales of Mass Shift or whatever else they end up calling it. They sold us out. Most likely EA.

[JayChemist]

So, I finished the game last night and I have to agree with everyone who dislikes the ending. Not because its depressing or that Shepard dies but because it offers no real resolution and feels incredibly rushed.

The ending also undermines the previous games and creates so many plot holes its not even funny. I can't help but think the ending was made this way on purpose to sell future games and DLC or Bioware just ran out of time to make a satisfying conclusion.

Whatever the case may be I am left with no desire to continue playing mass effect and that is a real shame.

[EnforcerWRX7]

Dawson14 wrote...

pipemaster9000 wrote...

I don't see why people are bashing the IT. It fills holes in the plot, It makes sense. Shepard IS human and he IS susceptible to Indoctrination.



This video is pretty in-depth and makes sense. It also sheds light on Bioware being geniuses and planning these endings all along. IT would explain why Shepard is in London after choosing the Renegade option. The "other" endings are explained as well, from information supplied via codex's throughout ME1 and ME2.

IT is the missing puzzle piece to the holes. I was too caught up in the moment of seeing the ending notice subtle anomalies in the convos with TIM and Anderson.

Regardless of what you think about IT, watch it. It may open your eyes. Lets face it, Bioware knows what they are doing. To think that they would let an ending like that slide to finish off the trilogy would be ludicrous. If they release DLC without any mention of Shep battling indoctrination and that the endings aren't in his head then I will be disappointed. It makes too much sense in accordance with the current ending(s)

I didn't make the video or have any input in it, merely relaying the opinion.

So your saying that BioWare intentionally did this indoctrination plot and intentionally did not finish the game which they said was ONLY going to be a trilogy, and then make us pay for the real ending via DLC? Not a chance, with this leak thats coming out(if its true), it makes 100% sense that they made some weak ending with the same outcomes so they could write the next series of games. Again, they sacrificed Mass Effect for future game sales of Mass Shift or whatever else they end up calling it. They sold us out. Most likely EA.

I hope people see this.

We were sold a bill of goods only to find out they condensed everything to one ending at the last minute so they can write anything on top of it.  GAH.  I should just go start my own thread.

Modifié par EnforcerWRX7, 25 mars 2012 - 06:10 .