23455 réponses à ce sujet

[Moribundman]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Perhaps if you believe in indoctrination, there's another way it occurred.  I don't know if it's possible to miss this, but it probably is.

Sha'ira gives Shepard a trinket in ME1 that's supposed to be of Prothean origin.  I've never not gotten it, and contrary to things I've read I did go to Sha'ira before talking to Xelton.  We all know that most Prothean stuff was either based on or was Reaper tech.  So maybe this trinket was an indoctrination device as well as a key of sorts.  Since it's so small maybe indoctrination happens over time and in more subtle ways.

I know this is most likely stupid because IT seems to have some holes and you could miss the trinket, but I can't remember if there are any other instances of Shepard always being with something that could be of Reaper origin.  Oh, wait there is....the Normandy itself.  Cerberus was influential in the development of the first Normandy and of course the second one.  Cerberus could have installed Reaper made tech or maybe even things they just copied could cause indoctrination.

The Thanix cannons themselves are of Reaper design, but how much of all the tech that's used around the galaxy that is finally discovered to by of Reaper design is there due to reverse engineering-manufactured due to this, or incorporates reaper made stuff?  It's not known.  Shepard and crew use the relays a lot and they are very powerful, but not constant.  Shepard was "touched" in a way by what was called a Prothean beacon and that could have left some residual effects.

I'm again not saying I believe whole-heartedly in IT, but for those that don't all of the things you can look back on and point to where Shepard and the crew/teammates came into contact with Reaper tech could be a part of an original script for the game.  One ending they considered was related to indoctrination.

I had forgotten about the trinket, but it got me thinking about all of the other things out there.  Even the Citadel itself was not made by the Protheans and since (ugh) at the end it's the Catalyst and the kid is the Catalyst or the kid lives in the Catalyst, every time Shepard was on the Citadel, it could have been doing damage to him/her.

I'm just saying there have been a lot of times here where someone says IT would or could explain this ending and people refute it.  Sometimes it's said that can't be because that's not how indoctrination works or that the person must be in kind of constant contact with reaper tech and I think it's very likely Shepard was.  We won't know anything until EC comes out (hopefully we will know more about everything when it does ).

I'd love to believe this (and all the other) indoctrination theories, especially as Bioware have teased that Shep is actually alive in the rubble in London with the "secret" ending. They won't though and all these theories are essentially dead in the water because unlike with ME2 and *it's* DLC nothing here will carry this story forwards and the rotten ending will just fester.

The thing that makes me lose faith in this is all the crazy OTT dreamy ending as well as Biowares statements seem to disprove ANY post-ending DLC and therefore the "artists intention" was to keep people guessing as to whether Shep was indoctrinated by Harbinger at the end (which would have been a CLEVER twist Bioware).

Were Bioware planning to release a post-game DLC all along exploring a conclusion where Shep turned out to be being indoctrinated? Were they going to say it was being released "by popular demand" after they got everyone talking about the ending Blade Runner stlylee?

BW you seriously misjudged this one. Its not Blade Runner Directors Cut with a chin scratching thoughtful ending. THIS ending is the voiceover, drive into the sunset improbably Mass Effect ending.

[Voodoo-j]

Moribundman wrote...

darkway1 wrote...

What's more sad is that I can't see where the franchise goes from here?

I would just about understand what Bioware were doing if the hamogenized the endings so that everyone was in roughly the same place for them to continue the franchise with another separate title. Some people could complain it was a marketing opportunity and blame that for the failure of the endings, but at least it would make sense on some level.

What I can't understand is them making all the endings ostensibly the same, yet the repercussions totally diverse (although NOT in a way that acknowledges the hundreds of hours of gameplay, rather just based on one 3 way decision presented to you 2 minutes before the end of the game). Even if they set a sequel in the far off future like Fallout or Elder Scrolls sequels (as the misjudged Buzz Aldrin sequence suggests) you could have very very different histories branching out from the end of ME3.

Also how can they release another game in the "Mass Effect" series if all three ending options essentially nullify the whole mass effect mechanic... (I guess it worked for Halo, but they kept the Master Chief alive as their poster boy...)

What happened in Halo only destroyed the flood and damaged/destroyed the facility that made the Halo rings.  It didn't destroy how ships travel throughout the universe, unlike the ending of Mass Effect 3.

[darkway1]

Moribundman wrote...

darkway1 wrote...

What's more sad is that I can't see where the franchise goes from here?

I would just about understand what Bioware were doing if the hamogenized the endings so that everyone was in roughly the same place for them to continue the franchise with another separate title. Some people could complain it was a marketing opportunity and blame that for the failure of the endings, but at least it would make sense on some level.

What I can't understand is them making all the endings ostensibly the same, yet the repercussions totally diverse (although NOT in a way that acknowledges the hundreds of hours of gameplay, rather just based on one 3 way decision presented to you 2 minutes before the end of the game). Even if they set a sequel in the far off future like Fallout or Elder Scrolls sequels (as the misjudged Buzz Aldrin sequence suggests) you could have very very different histories branching out from the end of ME3.

Also how can they release another game in the "Mass Effect" series if all three ending options essentially nullify the whole mass effect mechanic... (I guess it worked for Halo, but they kept the Master Chief alive as their poster boy...)

I think it's a case of you pick the ending you want.....blue,green.....the real ending is red and I think shepard lives but he's messed up and I also think everyone on the Normandy is on some mission to save him.Mass relay's have not blown up........life in the mass universe can continue........DLC can continue......Mass4 concepts are already on the table......to be released on new consoles..........there we go,job done,lol.

[darkway1]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Perhaps if you believe in indoctrination, there's another way it occurred.  I don't know if it's possible to miss this, but it probably is.

Sha'ira gives Shepard a trinket in ME1 that's supposed to be of Prothean origin.  I've never not gotten it, and contrary to things I've read I did go to Sha'ira before talking to Xelton.  We all know that most Prothean stuff was either based on or was Reaper tech.  So maybe this trinket was an indoctrination device as well as a key of sorts.  Since it's so small maybe indoctrination happens over time and in more subtle ways.

I know this is most likely stupid because IT seems to have some holes and you could miss the trinket, but I can't remember if there are any other instances of Shepard always being with something that could be of Reaper origin.  Oh, wait there is....the Normandy itself.  Cerberus was influential in the development of the first Normandy and of course the second one.  Cerberus could have installed Reaper made tech or maybe even things they just copied could cause indoctrination.

The Thanix cannons themselves are of Reaper design, but how much of all the tech that's used around the galaxy that is finally discovered to by of Reaper design is there due to reverse engineering-manufactured due to this, or incorporates reaper made stuff?  It's not known.  Shepard and crew use the relays a lot and they are very powerful, but not constant.  Shepard was "touched" in a way by what was called a Prothean beacon and that could have left some residual effects.

I'm again not saying I believe whole-heartedly in IT, but for those that don't all of the things you can look back on and point to where Shepard and the crew/teammates came into contact with Reaper tech could be a part of an original script for the game.  One ending they considered was related to indoctrination.

I had forgotten about the trinket, but it got me thinking about all of the other things out there.  Even the Citadel itself was not made by the Protheans and since (ugh) at the end it's the Catalyst and the kid is the Catalyst or the kid lives in the Catalyst, every time Shepard was on the Citadel, it could have been doing damage to him/her.

I'm just saying there have been a lot of times here where someone says IT would or could explain this ending and people refute it.  Sometimes it's said that can't be because that's not how indoctrination works or that the person must be in kind of constant contact with reaper tech and I think it's very likely Shepard was.  We won't know anything until EC comes out (hopefully we will know more about everything when it does ).

I think "IT" is a brilliant idea,but it means re doing the whole ending again.......which means a lot of time and money has been spent to create a fake ending.........no way EA/Bioware would green light that idea.

[Voodoo-j]

darkway1 wrote...

Moribundman wrote...

darkway1 wrote...

What's more sad is that I can't see where the franchise goes from here?

I would just about understand what Bioware were doing if the hamogenized the endings so that everyone was in roughly the same place for them to continue the franchise with another separate title. Some people could complain it was a marketing opportunity and blame that for the failure of the endings, but at least it would make sense on some level.

What I can't understand is them making all the endings ostensibly the same, yet the repercussions totally diverse (although NOT in a way that acknowledges the hundreds of hours of gameplay, rather just based on one 3 way decision presented to you 2 minutes before the end of the game). Even if they set a sequel in the far off future like Fallout or Elder Scrolls sequels (as the misjudged Buzz Aldrin sequence suggests) you could have very very different histories branching out from the end of ME3.

Also how can they release another game in the "Mass Effect" series if all three ending options essentially nullify the whole mass effect mechanic... (I guess it worked for Halo, but they kept the Master Chief alive as their poster boy...)

I think it's a case of you pick the ending you want.....blue,green.....the real ending is red and I think shepard lives but he's messed up and I also think everyone on the Normandy is on some mission to save him.Mass relay's have not blown up........life in the mass universe can continue........DLC can continue......Mass4 concepts are already on the table......to be released on new consoles..........there we go,job done,lol.

The only issue I have with this.. is it supposedly destroyed EDI and the Geth as well,  and then the ending not as good explaining what happened.

The more I think of this, the more I want this to be true.. the reapers really wanted you to choose the other 2 options.. and the 3rd they don't.  So they say it will destroy all AI and not just the reapers to keep you from doing so.
If this ends up being the case, Citadel, Mass Relays, EDI, Geth survive, there was alot of infromation - epilogue that was missing.  It's the ending of 3 games not one, I was expecting so much more.  It's still not quite what I was expecting, but I could accept it.  Still really do not like the simple 3 choice ending :/

Modifié par Voodoo-j, 03 mai 2012 - 01:48 .

[sbricca]

the ending text says "shepard has become a legend"...i think it means no secret ending dlc..., it means "that's all my friends" . And The EC is only a favor for us....

[sbricca]

darkway1 wrote...


I think it's a case of you pick the ending you want.....blue,green.....the real ending is red and I think shepard lives but he's messed up and I also think everyone on the Normandy is on some mission to save him.Mass relay's have not blown up........life in the mass universe can continue........DLC can continue......Mass4 concepts are already on the table......to be released on new consoles..........there we go,job done,lol.

I'd like to know who will buy mass effect 4.........i will not buy it on principle

[3DandBeyond]

darkway1 wrote...

I think "IT" is a brilliant idea,but it means re doing the whole ending again.......which means a lot of time and money has been spent to create a fake ending.........no way EA/Bioware would green light that idea.

I do tend to agree with you and for that reason and others I don't see IT as being viable.  It's just that in thinking about it, I do see some holes in the things other people state to dismiss it.

My reasons are like yours.  You really want to make your fans angry?  Release a game that is supposed to be the ending, is announced as the ending, is constantly said to be the ending, of a trilogy and don't release the ending.

Ok, before ME3 that would have seemed to be obvious.  They'd risk angering a lot of fans that could not download the ending.  But, there are signs that this is a new trend in gaming.  The most obvious and probably not the worst of this is the new Walking Dead game or game series or what have you.  It's in chapters in a pay as you go kind of thing.  It may well be that each chapter is wrapped up so there is an ending for each and they stand alone.  But there are some examples of other games that only got an ending with DLC.  Don't ask me for names, I honestly can't remember now, but I have read up on them.  The reason we don't hear much about them is because they are not as well-known as ME.

At this point, I'm not sure what they'd consider acceptable to release.  Consider what we have.  In my mind, it would have been far better if that final "buy some DLC" screen had blatantly said, "the story is not over. This is not the end.  Stand by for a great conclusion to be played out in DLC," or something like that.  They hinted at it.  I would have hated to have to wait for it, but what are we all doing right now?

So, it's very possible they knowingly released a game without an ending.  This means they could still release an ending different from this "ending" and still would mean they didn't change it since it has not been released yet.

IT can only be worked out if the ending we have is not the ending.  I won't rule anything out until it happens.  But, it would have to be handled in a decent way for me to be happy with it.

Again, not saying I believe in IT.  I just think a lot of people have to step back and stop thinking people that do are making things up.  Considering how much you have to make up to believe the ending as it is (even if you think it's no dream, hallucination, or indoctrination), IT makes just as much sense as anything else.

[Archonsg]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Again, not saying I believe in IT.  I just think a lot of people have to step back and stop thinking people that do are making things up.  Considering how much you have to make up to believe the ending as it is (even if you think it's no dream, hallucination, or indoctrination), IT makes just as much sense as anything else.

And that is what I find the saddest of all.
That we fans would gladly, eagerly take into our hearts, a make believe "IT" ending (that I do not subscribe to) in hopes that we'll get a real ending.

If this doesn't indicate just how bad the current ending is, it's because they have blinders on and are refusing to see.
The announced EC DLC, I am hoping will fix things but unless they rewrite quite a bit, the core of what is causing problems and what is making their fans unhappy with the ending is still present. 

Kinda like you return a desert with a roach in it, they send it in, bring out another one, with more icing, more fruit, more of everything that you'd want in a desert, only that roach is still there.
Doesn't work.

Modifié par Archonsg, 03 mai 2012 - 05:02 .

[3DandBeyond]

One of the most glaring problems with IT isn't in that it can't all be explained or worked out with decent explanation. It's that we are still left with something so distasteful. It means the star kid is still there, because he would be a part of indoctrination or an attempt at it. He has come to be so abhorrent to me as I've said, that I cannot even stand to see the "real" kid in the rest of the game. I didn't like him to begin with and had seen the trailer for the game before buying it-where there's this little girl in a corn field and the reaper comes down into the scene. That created emotion in me, the scenes with the badly drawn little boy didn't ever.

[darkway1]

3DandBeyond wrote...

darkway1 wrote...

I think "IT" is a brilliant idea,but it means re doing the whole ending again.......which means a lot of time and money has been spent to create a fake ending.........no way EA/Bioware would green light that idea.

I do tend to agree with you and for that reason and others I don't see IT as being viable.  It's just that in thinking about it, I do see some holes in the things other people state to dismiss it.

My reasons are like yours.  You really want to make your fans angry?  Release a game that is supposed to be the ending, is announced as the ending, is constantly said to be the ending, of a trilogy and don't release the ending.

Ok, before ME3 that would have seemed to be obvious.  They'd risk angering a lot of fans that could not download the ending.  But, there are signs that this is a new trend in gaming.  The most obvious and probably not the worst of this is the new Walking Dead game or game series or what have you.  It's in chapters in a pay as you go kind of thing.  It may well be that each chapter is wrapped up so there is an ending for each and they stand alone.  But there are some examples of other games that only got an ending with DLC.  Don't ask me for names, I honestly can't remember now, but I have read up on them.  The reason we don't hear much about them is because they are not as well-known as ME.

At this point, I'm not sure what they'd consider acceptable to release.  Consider what we have.  In my mind, it would have been far better if that final "buy some DLC" screen had blatantly said, "the story is not over. This is not the end.  Stand by for a great conclusion to be played out in DLC," or something like that.  They hinted at it.  I would have hated to have to wait for it, but what are we all doing right now?

So, it's very possible they knowingly released a game without an ending.  This means they could still release an ending different from this "ending" and still would mean they didn't change it since it has not been released yet.

IT can only be worked out if the ending we have is not the ending.  I won't rule anything out until it happens.  But, it would have to be handled in a decent way for me to be happy with it.

Again, not saying I believe in IT.  I just think a lot of people have to step back and stop thinking people that do are making things up.  Considering how much you have to make up to believe the ending as it is (even if you think it's no dream, hallucination, or indoctrination), IT makes just as much sense as anything else.

I think "IT" is the ending most fans want because most aren't happy with what we currently have,the present ending does represent the end of the Mass universe afterall.........the ending as it stands for me can be simply sumed up as ..........you can't understand what the ending is really about because Bioware hasn't given enough information to make sense of it all..........or in other words,Mass3 should not have been released in it's current state.

Think about it,if the new DLC shows us that the Mass relay's didnt explode,then the universe is all systems go,we know the Asari have secret tech which is an open door to do just about anything.....who's to say we don't bump into Liara with child in Mass4 (even if your shepard died).......and we already know that Shepard in one ending isn't outright dead.......with a tweek here and a tweek there the story can continue................

[Thanatos144]

Archonsg wrote...

eoinnx03 wrote...

Keep on trollin OP.

This I believe, is referring to Mr. Priestly.

*laughs* *cough* Ahem, Freudian Slip, thus if it acts like a duck, quacks like a duck, thinks it's a duck, is it a duck even if it insist otherwise?

Or maybe I can tell a post directed at me...But hey you keep at the hate guy let it work for you.

[sdinc009]

Archonsg wrote...

MaxRage wrote...

I loved the entire game... until...
THAT STUPID ****ING REAPER LASER HIT SHEPARD, giving me no real rpg choice!

From that point on, the whole thing is just scripted, giving us a false illusion of a choice.

I am fine with the illusion of choice, as long as it's done well. Both ME1&2 end choices were illusionary because, going from 1 to 2 and onwards to 3, those end choices mattered little if at all. Example, saving the council, did nothing in the big picture other then cosmetic references to that fact.

But, because they maintained that illusion, we felt it mattered.
The same with the Anderson/Udina choice. Going into ME3, imagine my surprise that Udina is now the human representative instead of my choice, Anderson, back in ME1.

ME2, went a step further. Again, if we really stop to think about it, the end of ME2, and yes it was "an ending", singular, regardless of what we did, even if we got Shepard killed.

But again, they maintained the illusion, by making very distinctive variations, from death of Shepard and complete loss of all companions to utter and complete victory and the survival of all.

What Bioware did in ME2, was to make sure that the characters we have invested in, played pivotal roles and that the player was given choices, illusionary as they might be, to visibly effect what happens to those characters and play out those choices in the narrative of the story and ending.

ME3's ending took that illusion of control away. Worse, it did not allow the player to effect his or her choice as to how things will unfold for characters that our player, if they were veterans from ME1, have invested at least 60hrs (bare minimal) to well over 120hrs or more if multiple playthroughs are considered.

If the goal was to remove the mass relays, having a gamut ranging from relays exploding (worse case) to just shutting down and going dormant (best case) would have achieved this and maintained that illusion of choice with the player.

The same with removing Shepard from any role in future games. Ranging from death to being alive, in victory and riding off with love interest, there are any number of mechanisms one could use to affect Shepard's removal.

Instead, the player became a passive witness to Shepard's path to suicide.


The lack of an epilogue for the last "book" in a series' arc, is also just not done.


 
Ps: pls excuse the edits. Posting from the phone.

You make some great points here, but I believe your concept of what "illusion of choice" means is slightly off. The transitions through the series had your choice matter relevant to the story. Of course, the gravity of those choices seem to be relatively small as the series progresses, but they are still relavant events in each players story. An "illusion of choice" is where a "choice" is presented, yet no matter what you chose the result is the same. This means that there really is no choice, but only the "illusion" that there is one. Ex: ME1 you get to chose whether you save the council or not. Your choice (not matter how it deminishes as the series progresses) can be seen to effect the universe in various ways. Now, ME3 ending, Starkid presents 3 "choices" all which have virtually identical outcomes. This is an "illusion" because we cannot question the outcomes or get any further insight into the consequences. We must blindly pick 1 of 3 colors without knowing what the ramifications of that choice entails. Choice involves multiple possible causes having multiple possible effects with you will being imposed as the deciding factor. The "Illusion" is created when your will gets removed from the equation and those mutliple outcomes are decided for you but presented as if your will was still involved.

[Alienboy411676]

We all know BW's gonna have the last laugh when they release the Extended Cut and instead of new scenes for ME3 it's going to literally just be 5 seconds of all the writers epicly giving us the finger.

[Voodoo-j]

I do have faith they care about their creation, while one voice has stepped out of the production of the game. ( A very talented voice) I still think those that worked on ME3 care about it, and care about how its viewed. While I may not get the ending choices I want, I really want something logical, and something that gives a reason to play through for different endings. If they can do that then they have vindicated themselves.

[Archonsg]

Voodoo-j wrote...

I do have faith they care about their creation, while one voice has stepped out of the production of the game. ( A very talented voice) I still think those that worked on ME3 care about it, and care about how its viewed. While I may not get the ending choices I want, I really want something logical, and something that gives a reason to play through for different endings. If they can do that then they have vindicated themselves.

I think the key phrase here is "different endings". 

As far as I can tell, "different" endings when Bioware released the game was different colors, tied to Destroy, Synthesis and Control paths which regardless which you take, all ends with Shepard removed as protagonist (dead), relays destroyed, all crew members on the Normandy, Normandy removes itself from Earth space, and crashes on what seems to be a planet that should have been colonized long ago, well, unless everything's toxic on it. In which case, isn't that just great? 

16 different flavors as I recall. 

"Clarifying" just THIS one ending, is going to be a Herculean task though. I don't have faith to be honest, but, hey, Bioware can do its best to regain me as its "deluxe edition pre-order" customer, but until they come up with the goods, I'll just wait and see and hold off buying anything from them.

Modifié par Archonsg, 03 mai 2012 - 05:04 .

[Benchpress610]

Voodoo-j wrote...

I do have faith they care about their creation, while one voice has stepped out of the production of the game. ( A very talented voice) I still think those that worked on ME3 care about it, and care about how its viewed. While I may not get the ending choices I want, I really want something logical, and something that gives a reason to play through for different endings. If they can do that then they have vindicated themselves.

I agree they care about their creation, no doubt about that. Otherwise they wouldn’t have created the wonderful universe we all fell in love with. However, by the official statements, they are sticking with their “artistic vision”. Maybe is hubris, or imposition by higher corporate, or the Easter Bunny…who cares…the fact is we haven’t seen anything to indicate they are changing the ending in any way.  
 
I am an eternal optimistic. So I always keep a ray of hope. But I’m keeping my expectations low so I won’t be disappointed.

[Voodoo-j]

Yeah that sums up my outlook as well :/

[Voodoo-j]

I'm really hoping the "artistic vision" is what they could squeeze out on funneling time frame and budget. And they have a bit more.. time and budget to make it what it should have been. (complete their "artistic vision" if it makes it easier)

Modifié par Voodoo-j, 03 mai 2012 - 05:39 .

[babachewie]

I hope you are also listening to those who liked and understood the dual nature of what it represented. Adding to it is fine, but altering it would be travesty

Modifié par babachewie, 03 mai 2012 - 08:17 .

[LiarasShield]

How can you like the ending no matter what you did no matter all the sacrifices that you make it doesn't change anything all the relays are destroyed and all the races are trapt around a dieing earth since the mass relays and the fuel stations are gone they will most likely die and what was the point of bringing all these force together and to solve certain issues if they're all going to die in space anyway despite your loyal crew just abandoning shepard and thee alliance and becoming desserters nothing you do counts because in the end we still ultimately fail anyone

let alone the flawed circular logic about how synthetics will kill organics so that organics won't make synthetics that will kill them and the flawed logic about how the created will always rebel against their creator when this isn't so the reaper don't repel or destroy the catalyst and the geth once broken from reaper control want to help the quarians rebuild rannoch so that logic alone doesn't make any sense I just don't see why some of you love the ending when you ultimately fail no matter what unlike in mass effect 2 where you can truely succede

[LiarasShield]

though I do agree keep the core endings for those that liked them but gives us a decent victory ending please at least make our sacrifce if we die or if we live mean something

[babachewie]

LiarasShield wrote...

How can you like the ending no matter what you did no matter all the sacrifices that you make it doesn't change anything all the relays are destroyed and all the races are trapt around a dieing earth since the mass relays and the fuel stations are gone they will most likely die and what was the point of bringing all these force together and to solve certain issues if they're all going to die in space anyway despite your loyal crew just abandoning shepard and thee alliance and becoming desserters nothing you do counts because in the end we still ultimately fail anyone

let alone the flawed circular logic about how synthetics will kill organics so that organics won't make synthetics that will kill them and the flawed logic about how the created will always rebel against their creator when this isn't so the reaper don't repel or destroy the catalyst and the geth once broken from reaper control want to help the quarians rebuild rannoch so that logic alone doesn't make any sense I just don't see why some of you love the ending when you ultimately fail no matter what unlike in mass effect 2 where you can truely succede

Everything you said is just dreary fan fiction. My outlook is more positive.

[sdinc009]

Story structure;
Exposition-> Conflict-> Rising Action-> Climax-> Falling Action-> Resolution

Resolution is where the loose ends are tied up, the story draws to a close. This is not the time to intrroduce a brand new character that is going to be pivotal to the plot. This is not the time to change who the primary antagonist of the entire series is, this is not the time to change what the main driving goal of the entire series is, this is not the time to redefine the main protagonist and yet all of this was done at the end of ME3. This is why the ending does not work. This is why almost everyone who played through the game can see when the story begins to fall apart and ceases to make sense.

[Voodoo-j]

babachewie wrote...

I hope you are also listening to those who liked and understood the dual nature of what it represented. Adding to it is fine, but altering it would be travesty

I absolutly agree thats your right as someone that purchased it.. as such the DLC is optional to download.

I don't want an ending of death to be taken out, I just want the variety of endings that make replaying the game worthwhile.  I don't like to repeat the same exact dialogue with the same exact cut scenes with the same exact ending.

But as it's DLC it's always the choice of the player to change it if they feel they like what currently is.

I think that's were some players go .. what's wrong with the ending?  Well do you plan on replaying the game?
Do you want the enjoyment of replaying ME 1-3 to have varied outcomes?  

At this point.. if you don't see the point, I'm wasting my fingers.