23455 réponses à ce sujet

[ajlueke]

Lostmynugget wrote...

ME3 really had some incredible moments. I loved the way it was written and appreciated being able to carry the same character through 3 wonderful games but yes the ending (on my first play through) made my stomach drop. I'm ok with Shepard's story coming to an end but the ending felt somewhat disconnected. I would have liked to have had a better ending with Shepard and the LI even if Shepard had died in his/her LI's arms would have been fine than the options given. And of course, I would like to have seen how the rest of the galaxy made out as a result of Shepard's long endeavor.

With that said,let's end on the positive with the better moments. I really loved many scenes in this game so these are just a few:

Ashley drunk
Thane, Koliat, and Shepard in the hospital
Mordin going out in a blaze of glory
Tali, "Emergency induction port."
Liara memorializing Shepard
EDI getting a body

Very refreshing.  I have complained about the story of the third game as much as anyone.  If you read my earlier posts, my primary problem was the massive plot holes mass effect 3 created concerning the motivations of the villains of the first two games.

That being said, I still think Mass Effect three is an excellent game.  Gameplay wise, the sequels are a vast improvement over the original.  The second game, introduced and developed some phenominal characters, while the third game expanded those interactions in almost a uniformly positive way.  The universe is great, and the characters within as well.  I just wish the main plot hadn't taken such a nonsensical turn. 

[StillOverrated]

jeweledleah wrote...

that was the questionable part   see, if you coudln't recruit him, sure.  you can die a hero, or run off into obscurity by getting someone else make that sacrifice for you.  its the part where your companion who's immune to the radiation, for some reasons refused to help that makes you go.. huh?  still.  they fixed that.

and even then, you got the usual Fallout epilogue slides, so there was no werid ambiguity or rapidly shifting story themes/moods

Hahahah, I guess he just doesn't like the Lone Wanderer enough. Though why doesn't Charon go, considering you have his contract and all and, in theory, can just order him to GTF inside the damn chamber and punch the code and he HAS to obey?
I don't remember much out of recruiting him because the second I found out Fawkes was a possible companion, I fired the heck out of Charon, but didn't you less like recruit him and more like buy him? And weren't ghouls also radiation-resistant?

...

Wait... So... did BioWare actually pull a Bethesda with the sudden complete OOC-ness near the ending and all? /rambling

Theronyll Itholien wrote...
What won't ever happen
again, though, is thinking of BioWare as the company that made Baldur's
Gate, Neverwinter Nights etc.

Man, am I gonna miss that... BioWare was the only company that could make me pick up games I absolutely suck at and enjoy them (why, yes, I do suck so bad at shooters it physically hurts). Guess that's over now. :c

Modifié par StillOverrated, 10 avril 2012 - 05:56 .

[Jassu1979]

Just as an aside:

Why are people trying to argue that the ending was "too artistic" or "too intellectual"? It was neither.

Some pages ago, somebody started to philosophize about Myer-Briggs-types, arguing that "feelers" like mood-driven open endings while "thinkers" want clear-cut answers.
Well, I hate to break it to you, but not everybody fits into such neat little pigeonholes.
I like open endings if they're well-written and -executed. I like clear-cut endings if they're well-written and - executed.

Far too many people still seem to believe that "darker" equals "more realistic/more profound", as if every dark ending is "deep" by default. Yet there's nothing particularly deep about ME3's conclusion. It's dark, alright, but not in a good way that grants it more artistic value.

Lastly, this is *really* not a question of taste. The ending exhibits numerous examples of blundering and faulty craftsmanship. Those errors are objectively there, and they're not a question of subjective emotional assessments. Oh, sure, some people seem to be eager to ignore them, but at the end of the day, it's *still* not a question of taste.

"This food is spoiled."
"That's just your opinion. I like it."
"No, there's mould. Look."
"Perhaps, but it's just your opinion anyway."

[AmstradHero]

Changer the Elder wrote...

@ Jassu: Yes, but none was brought back by pretending something never happened. Holmes was made to survive the fall, it wasn't pretended Moriarty and Reichenbach never happened. That's two different things. Maybe with more closure and getting the arguable plotholes explained, you'll find out too that you don't need the ending cut and completely remade.

And if I assume cold logical standpoint - Bioware would risk loosing fans that are content now over those that they could (but also, could equally not) make happy with such a retcon. So they presented a compromise. Simple as that. How about we find out in summer, instead of jumping to conclusions now?

Two words: Broken Steel.

Bethesda screwed the pooch with the original ending to Fallout 3. The player couldn't get two potential companions to take their place and cleanse the water supply without anyone losing their life... because of "destiny". After getting that ending, I took the CD out of my computer, put it back in its case, uninstalled the game, and never played it again. It was a slap in the face ending that was totally out of place and illogical. Had those two companions not existed, the ending would have been perfect, because a nihilistic "everyone must die" viewpoint was entirely thematically consistent with the rest of the game. The Mass Effect series doesn't have that theme, which is part of why the ending is totally out of place. The reason it can feel like a legitimate ending is because it relies on people's existing preconceptions of the science fiction genre and the overarching themes that have been explored in many other games of the genre... themes that were notably absent from the rest of the entire Mass Effect series.

Bethesda admitted that its ending was unsatisfactory and that their ending was poorly written and executed. They undid the part that was broken with a retcon. What's more is that they regained a great deal of goodwill from fans as a result of this action. As a result of this, I purchased Skyrim on release day, something that I would not have done if they had not done. I still hate that people had to pay for a "real" ending to Fallout 3, but they provided something that made sense.

The issue is that BioWare are staunchly refusing to admit they made a mistake. They are refusing to acknowledge that problems exist with the ending as it is written, but instead are hiding being the shield of "artistic vision", when the vision that was delivered is a flawed mess that has no integrity when compared with the rest of the series.

I'm a long term BioWare fan. I've bought every game on theirs on release day since Baldur's Gate. I was one of the people staunchly defending them all along the way. Heck, I like Dragon Age 2. It's certainly got more flaws than I would like, but it was still a good game. As it stands, as a result of Mass Effect 3, they will not be getting any more of my money. If I do, any purchase will be a result of much research on my part, and will probably not be until long after release and when it's heavily discounted.

They did not deliver the game they promised, and they refuse to admit that. That shows complete disrespect for your customers, and I for one will not stand for it.

[Changer the Elder]

Jassu1979 wrote...

Lastly, this is *really* not a question of taste. The ending exhibits numerous examples of blundering and faulty craftsmanship. Those errors are objectively there, and they're not a question of subjective emotional assessments. Oh, sure, some people seem to be eager to ignore them, but at the end of the day, it's *still* not a question of taste.

"This food is spoiled."
"That's just your opinion. I like it."
"No, there's mould. Look."
"Perhaps, but it's just your opinion anyway."

With all due respect, that is again, putting together two things that do not necessarilly coincide. Quality of food and quality of art/storytelling have different variables and different conditions under which it can be assessed. If used as a parallell to liking different types of cuisine, yes, it would've been appropriate. But like this, it's mixing two not really related things.

For myself, I'm definitely not ignoring the logic. In fact, I hate stories that lack logic or that even have writers even openly admit "Oh, I don't care how that could happen, I just WANT it happen, so it happens. Magic." But I can see the logic in the Catalyst. It rings right with me and is understandable for both philosophical, gameplay preference and other reasons. So YES, it IS a matter of taste.

[Jassu1979]

Changer the Elder wrote...

@ Jassu: Yes, but none was brought back by pretending something never happened. Holmes was made to survive the fall, it wasn't pretended Moriarty and Reichenbach never happened. That's two different things. Maybe with more closure and getting the arguable plotholes explained, you'll find out too that you don't need the ending cut and completely remade.

The difference is that nobody would be forced to relinquish the previous ending. I'd be perfectly happy if a retcon established that the star child and its hackneyed nonsense never happened, but even if such a radical solution had been embraced, no fan of the current ending would be forced to download the "fixed" ending.

And if I assume cold logical standpoint - Bioware would risk loosing fans that are content now over those that they could (but also, could equally not) make happy with such a retcon. So they presented a compromise. Simple as that. How about we find out in summer, instead of jumping to conclusions now?

It's not much of a compromise, really.
A genuine compromise would keep all the previous options in the game while adding *further* options for those who are genuinely unhappy with door A,B, or C, or want their Shepard to defy or argue with the star child. That way, the "old enders" could keep theirs and the "new enders" would be able to choose a different path.

Mass Effect 3 does not work like a book. It's an interactive game that's shaped by your choices - except for the ending, and that is deplorable.

[mnementh2001]

I just want to go on record and say that overall, I have a great deal of respect for this series. Even the third game, specifically, there were many things about it that I loved. Not just story elements, but technical things, like the decision to blend the older music themes with new compositions. (Something that I really worried about, when I heard that Jack Wall was not returning. I found many of the new characters fascinating, and I enjoyed a lot of the banter from the returning ones.

That being said, I have to cast my lot in with those who have serious issues with the game. And it's not just as simple as saying, "I hate the endings, you need to change them." One of the biggest disappointments I have is the fact that many plot elements seem to have been dropped. Particularly the focus on 'dark energy'. It was pushed SO heavily in the second game, and then...what? It became irrelevant? Then there's the endings. Ignoring, for the moment, the actual content for the endings, Bioware heavily implied that there would be a great deal of diversity in what could be expected. In point of fact, if you've played you game right, and gathered everyone and everything you can, all endings are virtually IDENTICAL. To me, this seems to indicate that the choices you've made have NO impact whatsoever. I understand that even with as advanced a storyboard as ME, there is a finite amount of data that can be drawn on, but still. This seems to relegate every choice you've made as meaningless.

As for the endings themselves, I am well aware that it's not possible for everything to be rainbows and kittens. This is a war. There have already been sacrifices and casualties. But the series has spent years building up a character who has the reputation for achieving the impossible, and (depending on the exact background and alignment you've chosen) keeping everyone possible alive. Surely someone could have found a way to write an ending that was not quite so...catastrophic? Maybe it wasn't the writers' intent, but I ended the game feeling as though no matter what you do, you've managed to lose just about everything, and keep absolutely nothing.

I'm looking forward to seeing what new information the new DLC can bring, but as it only builds on what's already in the game, I have a hard time seeing how much of an improvement it can bring.

[Changer the Elder]

@AmstradHero: Obviously, the person not thinking they made a mistake will not admit to making one. True, it would've been better if they stood up and explained things else than on a single panel in a month, but with so many people ready to throw stones when they're not told exactly and by the book what they want to hear, I cannot really blame them for giving up on that idea.

I'm sorry, but retcon is a cheap solution. The worst kind of disrespect a writer can get is when their story is officially pretended to never have happened. I've seen it used numerous times as the easy way out, the easy remedy button some companies push to quell the masses. It rarely is worth anything good.

[Changer the Elder]

[quote]Jassu1979 wrote...

A genuine compromise would keep all the previous options in the game while adding *further* options for those who are genuinely unhappy with door A,B, or C, or want their Shepard to defy or argue with the star child. That way, the "old enders" could keep theirs and the "new enders" would be able to choose a different path.[/quote]

That is correct. And who knows, they might even decide for that after all, despite their original claims about the DLC. Point is: who knows? Bioware deserves better than to get this kind of backlash based on speculations.

And another point is: I'm generally objecting to retconning the Catalyst. That is a standing point.

[/quote]

[Huitzil]

For myself, I'm definitely not ignoring the logic. In fact, I hate stories that lack logic or that even have writers even openly admit "Oh, I don't care how that could happen, I just WANT it happen, so it happens. Magic." But I can see the logic in the Catalyst. It rings right with me and is understandable for both philosophical, gameplay preference and other reasons. So YES, it IS a matter of taste.

"The fact the Catalyst exists" might make sense. You could even argue, maybe, on a good day, and I was really really drunk, that the "this is why the Reapers do what they do" bit makes sense.

There is no explanation whatsoever that makes the space magic of the Synthesis ending "every organic is partially synthetic and every synthetic is partially organic because that is definitely a thing that can happen in a setting that previously paid to much attention to physiology and body chemistry that it went to great pains to point out how many unexpected hassles opposing protein chiralities cause" make the slightest lick of sense.

Or the "this will destroy all synthetics even EDI and the geth because this is definitely a device that is capable of doing that and making that distinction without just blowing up, you know, everything electronic oh whoops did you use EDI a whole bunch now she's walking out of the Normandy anyway" bit. 

Or the bare fact that Shepard takes all of this as gospel and immediately accepts the Starchild as both truthful and accurate and accepts he/she must make one of the proscribed choices, even though I don't even know if it's POSSIBLE to play a Shepard that spineless, much less if anyone actually did.

[EugeneBi]

StillOverrated wrote...

jeweledleah wrote...

and Fallout 3 did kinda have.... questionable ending, before Broken Steel came out.

Hey! At least the Lone Wanderer's death meant something. He/she actually managed to give clean water to the Capital Wasteland without screwing it over. :I
Altough having Fawkes tell my Lone Wanderer that she should kill herself to save the CW because he couldn't be botheredit was her destiny (ominous music goes here) was kind of a pain in the rear.

Fallout 3 ending never made any sense. Scientists and Enclave were fighting for what? Yes, they were fighting for the honor to push that awesome button! Really, I repeat: the goal of Enclave was to get to the button and push it. The goal of the scientists was exactly the same. WTF? Who cares who pushes the button?

This was even worse that Deus Ex ABC choice...

[sefudargo]

FairfaxLessee wrote...

sefudargo wrote...

here is how to make the fans happy. Retcon the star child. give us a variety of endings that show how our choices mattered. and have closure about what happens after the ending. and make it free.

so far all I'm getting is that they released an incomplete title at full price and then want us to buy DLC ( i hate the message at the end)

I don't know if retcon is necessiary, I'd be happy with just shooting the star child.

ha in my own fan written enind I have Garrus shoot the emiters for the star child

[sefudargo]

the fact that fans are writing there own ending and have come up with a Theory that has a lot of evidence that the current ending is a dream ( yes Fans are happier with it being a dream) is clear indications that the ending is bad
and Bioware should feel bad for letting it happen

[StillOverrated]

EugeneBi wrote...

Fallout 3 ending never made any sense. Scientists and Enclave were fighting for what? Yes, they were fighting for the honor to push that awesome button! Really, I repeat: the goal of Enclave was to get to the button and push it. The goal of the scientists was exactly the same. WTF? Who cares who pushes the button?

This was even worse that Deus Ex ABC choice...

Actually, it mattered to them because the Enclave people saw themselves as the only people with rights to do and change anything in the land because they were the government and everyone else was a bunch of primitive communist SOBs who needed to be shot. The whole "who gets to push the button first" thing was figurative territorial pissing.
So, even if you don't care, or your character doesn't care, they care, even if only to maintain their status as the only people with real autority in the Capital Wasteland.

[Jassu1979]

Changer the Elder wrote...

With all due respect, that is again, putting together two things that do not necessarilly coincide. Quality of food and quality of art/storytelling have different variables and different conditions under which it can be assessed. If used as a parallell to liking different types of cuisine, yes, it would've been appropriate. But like this, it's mixing two not really related things.

Did you read what I wrote? I'm not talking about the tone of the ending (which could be equated to flavor), or the style/genre (which could be a different kind of cuisine). I'm talking about genuinely bad craftsmanship.
To use another comparison: It's not about whether I like the colour and shape of that car or not, it's about the fact that its engine is broken because of a production error.

For myself, I'm definitely not ignoring the logic. In fact, I hate stories that lack logic or that even have writers even openly admit "Oh, I don't care how that could happen, I just WANT it happen, so it happens. Magic." But I can see the logic in the Catalyst. It rings right with me and is understandable for both philosophical, gameplay preference and other reasons. So YES, it IS a matter of taste.

With all due respect... there is no logic in the Catalyst sequence. None whatsoever. To call it "philosophical" is a farce, and an insult to philosophy as well as the player's intelligence.
I'm glad that you liked it, anyway, but no: it's not a question of taste.

[sefudargo]

Huitzil wrote...

For myself, I'm definitely not ignoring the logic. In fact, I hate stories that lack logic or that even have writers even openly admit "Oh, I don't care how that could happen, I just WANT it happen, so it happens. Magic." But I can see the logic in the Catalyst. It rings right with me and is understandable for both philosophical, gameplay preference and other reasons. So YES, it IS a matter of taste.

"The fact the Catalyst exists" might make sense. You could even argue, maybe, on a good day, and I was really really drunk, that the "this is why the Reapers do what they do" bit makes sense.

There is no explanation whatsoever that makes the space magic of the Synthesis ending "every organic is partially synthetic and every synthetic is partially organic because that is definitely a thing that can happen in a setting that previously paid to much attention to physiology and body chemistry that it went to great pains to point out how many unexpected hassles opposing protein chiralities cause" make the slightest lick of sense.

Or the "this will destroy all synthetics even EDI and the geth because this is definitely a device that is capable of doing that and making that distinction without just blowing up, you know, everything electronic oh whoops did you use EDI a whole bunch now she's walking out of the Normandy anyway" bit. 

Or the bare fact that Shepard takes all of this as gospel and immediately accepts the Starchild as both truthful and accurate and accepts he/she must make one of the proscribed choices, even though I don't even know if it's POSSIBLE to play a Shepard that spineless, much less if anyone actually did.

Sheperd made his/her carrer with finding another way. asking questions and fighting preconseptions. Sheperd would not just blindly execpt the Catalyst choices with out questioning them and trying to find another way. hell my fan ending has the destroy and control options jerryrigged together to destroy the reapers and only the reapers.

[AmstradHero]

Changer the Elder wrote...

@AmstradHero: Obviously, the person not thinking they made a mistake will not admit to making one. True, it would've been better if they stood up and explained things else than on a single panel in a month, but with so many people ready to throw stones when they're not told exactly and by the book what they want to hear, I cannot really blame them for giving up on that idea.

I'm sorry, but retcon is a cheap solution. The worst kind of disrespect a writer can get is when their story is officially pretended to never have happened. I've seen it used numerous times as the easy way out, the easy remedy button some companies push to quell the masses. It rarely is worth anything good.

As someone who studies games and game design, and is a long term modder, I feel I know a thing or two. Broken Steel was a prime example of how a developer can admit they are wrong and regain respect. A retcon may be a cheap solution, but so is having a Deus Ex Machina inside a Deus Ex Machina, which is exactly what the catalyst in the crucible is.

I'm not asking to be told anything. In fact, the idea of a series of prescriptive prologues for all the characters and races isn't actually  something I'm sure I want. It's going to be very difficult for BioWare to do that well. After the farce of the original ending, I'm not certain I have faith in their ability to pull it off.

To be perfectly honest, one of the biggest mistakes the ending made was explaining too much. I'm an adamant believer that the purpose of the Reapers should never have been explained. To do so ruins their mystique and puts boundaries on their abilities and existence, when these were undefinable quantities according to the first two games. Giving them a purpose, and a damn trivial and simple one to boot, makes the Reapers look impotent and weak.

The greatest tragedy is that I thought Mass Effect 3 was a brilliant game. It only made a few minor missteps along the way to the end, but then it put a shotgun to its head and pulled the trigger at the last gasp.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 10 avril 2012 - 06:28 .

[dogdigus]

Bioware, if you're really listening i first have to say that I never post to message boards or feel strongly enough to even visit them. I am another who has played your games for years since kotor, and spent around 300 hours playing ME 1 and 2. I played ME 1 back to back 4 times in a row which i've never done with any other game. 

I just beat ME3 last week, so i was a little late to this party. I ignored all the hype about the ending, not wanting to spoil anything. I have to say, as I was playing through ME3 I thought to myself several times "all this hype about the ending has to be wrong. There's no way it can be that bad" because the story was so incredible. The tuchanka arc was beautiful. I had tears in my eyes when mordin was curing the genophage and singing as the room was exploding around him. I was cheering at the screen when the orbital strike took out that reaper on rannoch. Seeing thousands of ships flood sol's relay was incredibly epic. These were the moments i was waiting for for five years...

But now that i've had time to digest the ending, I have to agree with all the negativity. I didn't think it was possible for any ending to ruin all the previous positive momentum this series had going for it. I'm not trying to attack you or be insulting but the more i think about it the more it seems almost deliberate. I refuse to believe the writer of those endings didn't see the way they didn't fit the lore and facts you yourselves provided in the codex and previous games. I don't want to get into the specific disappointments and plot holes as they've all been said, but honestly i would have rather seen the reapers win and Liara's time capsule be my Shepard's legacy. That would have been better than the endings as they are. I'm still holding out hope that your dlc fixes this. Please, Bioware, please fix this if you're really listening. 

One more thing... I noticed something interesting when i downloaded the soundtrack (which was incredible). The beautiful song thats playing during the relay explosions is titled "An End Once and For All." Well it is an end, but it isn't once and it definitely isn't for all!  

[Changer the Elder]

Huitzil wrote...

There is no explanation whatsoever that makes the space magic of the Synthesis ending "every organic is partially synthetic and every synthetic is partially organic because that is definitely a thing that can happen in a setting that previously paid to much attention to physiology and body chemistry that it went to great pains to point out how many unexpected hassles opposing protein chiralities cause" make the slightest lick of sense.

It's science fiction. We were explained most of the stuff in game by the creators simply claiming "that's a mass effect field, it works that way". We are explained that adamantium in X-Men is unbreakable and indestructible because it simply is. We are explained that the Force in Star Wars simply is.
We are talking a universe that can turn human juice into a huge metal'n'circuits starship. That can in a matter of minutes transform a living creature to a husk/marauder/banshee, a creature of flesh and blood into a fleshy thing with full cirquitry and tech fluids just using a pointy stick and a few nannites. And you're honestly stopping just now to say that it's obviously a fiction?

Or the "this will destroy all synthetics even EDI and the geth because this is definitely a device that is capable of doing that and making that distinction without just blowing up, you know, everything electronic oh whoops did you use EDI a whole bunch now she's walking out of the Normandy anyway" bit.

Point was purging synthetic life, not technology as a whole. And considering both the geth and EDI operate with Reaper technology (by an extent, SR2 Normandy does, too.), it's not really that hard to believe, you're just about to fry the Reapers themselves, after all.
And for your second thesis - I can confirm that even if you have a high relationship score with EDI and choose the Destroy ending, she is not seen leaving the ship. If she is in your/your friend's/your friend's friend's distant cousin/ game, it's most probably a bug.

Or the bare fact that Shepard takes all of this as gospel and immediately accepts the Starchild as both truthful and accurate and accepts he/she must make one of the proscribed choices, even though I don't even know if it's POSSIBLE to play a Shepard that spineless, much less if anyone actually did.

I won't argue that dialogue could definitely use a bit editorial work and a few extra sentences.

[EugeneBi]

Changer the Elder wrote...

If I play along for a while...

"Sure, guys, let's do what Marvel does and retcon it. They're asking for it, after all. No matter that we pretty much discredit the entire story since that way we'll show no parts of the script matter enough not to be erased for convenience. And if we screw up, we can always do what Marvel does and retcon the retcon! We have the magical eraser! And screw those that are already happy with the way it is, let's play gamble and ditch them for those we may take to our side."

It's admittedly a philosophical standpoint rather than a gamer's one, but you don't destroy books. And you don't erase what's once been written unless it's the very last, desperate resort.

I'm glad Bioware decided to back up their writing. General consensus used to be that it's the execution that's faltered. Now they're trying to set it right because they have indeed been listening. And people are stoning them for not going all EA on us and ignoring the whole issue as "what's past is past" for something that hasn't been even released yet.

Ending opinions aside, that, in short, is why a lot of external people, including some game journalists, made a three-sixty-turn and fell dizzy on the floor, giving up on ME fans and branding us as whiny brats. Because we simply and obviously lack the capacity for hope and patience. I disctinctly remember people coming here (and everywhere else) claiming the game's going to be trash before it got released, that it's going to suck in the worst way possible. They were verbally beaten to silence with fans claiming it's stupid to jump to conclusions about something nobody but the developers had seen yet. Maybe we should try and remember that.

Can you elaborate this "general concensus" point that the idea was OK but "execution faltered", please?
Somehow I got impression that the general concensus was about the mere idea of introducing a new character in the last minute and reducing ending to the same ABC choice.

[Blue Liara]

dogdigus wrote...

Bioware, if you're really listening i first have to say that I never post to message boards or feel strongly enough to even visit them. I am another who has played your games for years since kotor, and spent around 300 hours playing ME 1 and 2. I played ME 1 back to back 4 times in a row which i've never done with any other game. 

I just beat ME3 last week, so i was a little late to this party. I ignored all the hype about the ending, not wanting to spoil anything. I have to say, as I was playing through ME3 I thought to myself several times "all this hype about the ending has to be wrong. There's no way it can be that bad" because the story was so incredible. The tuchanka arc was beautiful. I had tears in my eyes when mordin was curing the genophage and singing as the room was exploding around him. I was cheering at the screen when the orbital strike took out that reaper on rannoch. Seeing thousands of ships flood sol's relay was incredibly epic. These were the moments i was waiting for for five years...

But now that i've had time to digest the ending, I have to agree with all the negativity. I didn't think it was possible for any ending to ruin all the previous positive momentum this series had going for it. I'm not trying to attack you or be insulting but the more i think about it the more it seems almost deliberate. I refuse to believe the writer of those endings didn't see the way they didn't fit the lore and facts you yourselves provided in the codex and previous games. I don't want to get into the specific disappointments and plot holes as they've all been said, but honestly i would have rather seen the reapers win and Liara's time capsule be my Shepard's legacy. That would have been better than the endings as they are. I'm still holding out hope that your dlc fixes this. Please, Bioware, please fix this if you're really listening. 

One more thing... I noticed something interesting when i downloaded the soundtrack (which was incredible). The beautiful song thats playing during the relay explosions is titled "An End Once and For All." Well it is an end, but it isn't once and it definitely isn't for all!  

THIS!! I know how you feel. I thought the exact same thing when I was playing through the game. I had heard the ending was bad and as I was playing it my thought was it couldn't possibily be that bad. The rest of the game was so amazing. 

Just like you when I was watching the space battle over Earth. i found myself thinking this is amazing there is no way the ending is going to be bad. 

Then came the Star Child and his ridiculous nonsensical ciruclar logic and the complete eradication of choice, meaning, purpose. Basically retrospectively ruining the entire game and I realized, that the game had been ruined. 

Bioware PLEASE. Listen to what the fans are saying.

Swallow your pride and your artistic integrity, because their are more important valabule things at stake here. 

Admit you were wrong and CHANGE the ending. It is NEVER too late. 

I don't think Bioware realize how much this is going to truly destroy them as a company if they do not fix this. If the Brand becomes to damaged to save EA will just eradicate it and absorb it into one of its arms so they don't have to accept so much bad press anymore.

Your existence as a company is at stake if you mess this up Bioware. Let me tell you, in my hummble opinion. Keeping the ending and Clarifying it will bring about your cyle of destruction. Unstoppable and irrecable. Don't do it. 

You are a great company. Don't let things happen that mean people will say, WHEN Bioware existed they WERE a great company. 

HOLD THE LINE. 

[Changer the Elder]

@EugeneBi:
I can try. Before the DLC was announced, from what I've seen, most of the complaints were largely about ABC endings, which is an execution issue, not an idea-related one (alright, that sounds strange, but I'm finding it hard to find the right words in this language) and the fact that no matter what you choose, you still get pretty much the same cutscene, just with a very few variables. Again, that's an execution issue, with the game showing only the few common elements, completely omitting whom we did and didn't help or, not counting the 1-2 survivors shown at the end, the relationships Shepard built over the course of the three games. Extended cut is so far promising to remedy that.
I admit I'm not exactly a reliable source, but from my point of view, there weren't nearly as many complaints directed towards the simple existence of the Catalyst as there are now. Of course, I could've been just looking at the wrong places, I cannot rule that possibility out.

Modifié par Changer the Elder, 10 avril 2012 - 06:49 .

[B3ckett]

I am just curious.

Why have you decided to defend an ending in which the most advanced race of semisynthetic (taking into consideration the fact, that they need organics for developing Reapers) beings would create an all-known-races-friendly interface at the top of the Citadel, which whould enable them to kill them, slay them or reprogram them.

The ending is JUST LIKE a bad guy's talk, while the good guy has the time to think something out.
The ending is JUST LIKE the blond chick running upstairs and tripping in a horror movie.

And I beg of you - do not use "artistic integrity", because this is the main flaw of the ending. It lack it. And it lacks it a lot.

the ending should be different based on your choices/allies.
If you have Krogans - better foot soldiers to withstand Reaper troops.
If you managed to get the Volus fleet - they save a city with orbital bombing
If you have BOTH Quarians and Geth - together, they fight on par with every Reaper ship
This list could be much longer and it would take up to 15 minutes to think of some sensible ideas.

You should treat your ending defence as a business decision. You can pull a bankrupting company for just so long. At a moment you have to cut your losses and close it or do something radical.

The same goes for the ending. You can defend it just for a short time. Because with each day people come up with more of it's flaws and it doesn't make more sense with time, when we've had the chance to interpret it ourselves.

Get a grasp on everything that's happening and step foward. I'm sorry for the words, but BioWare - BE A MAN.

[SystemsAlliance]

This thread title is greatly misleading. No, Bioware is NOT LISTENING.
If they did, they will change the ending. Most of the gamers I found, even outside BSN, even in real life, hate the ME 3 ending.

Broken Steel, That's an example of how game companies adapt to their customer. Yes, we know Fallout 3 ending is bad. Though bad, the public force of changing Fallout 3 is not as strong as public voices demanding change to ME 3 ending. In the end, when Broken Steel is released, fans really applaud Bethesda, for over-delivering their games. I don't expect Bethesda to change the ending, but Bethesda DID change the ending.

Now Bioware, if you still want us as your loyal customers (or your loyal lapdogs) please do change the ending. We don't have problems if we want to pay. Just admit that the ending sucks, and then change the ending. Or, Bioware is too-proud to confess their mistakes? It can be. I have strong feelings that these ME 3 fiasco, with all Retakers movement, will be written down as study cases in universities where we will study about the failures of companies to respond to their customers.

[Jassu1979]

Changer the Elder wrote...

It's science fiction. We were explained most of the stuff in game by the creators simply claiming "that's a mass effect field, it works that way". We are explained that adamantium in X-Men is unbreakable and indestructible because it simply is. We are explained that the Force in Star Wars simply is.

Two words: internal consistency.

"It's science fiction/fantasy" is not an excuse for a lack of internal consistency.

Even the fantasy genre (which allows for a considerably greater degree of "magic" as an explanation) needs to stick to the rules it has previously established within that particular continuity, or else the fictional universe stops to make any sense.

If an X-Men comic showed adamantium being destroyed or broken, for example, that'd need to be a major plot point in need of a good explanation. Without an explanation, it'd simply be an error that does not line up with the "reality" of this fictional world.

"It's just a fiction" is not an excuse for bad writing and internal inconsistency.

The Mass Effect universe is not really "hard" science fiction, even if it's not as whimsical as the Star Wars universe with its lightsabers and "Force"-magic. But it nevertheless sticks to its own lore, its own fictional "laws of nature" - except for the ending.