23455 réponses à ce sujet

[daveyeisley]

You know... if there was more Q&A explaining the Control and Synthesis options, and if that explanation was done well enough, covered enough bases to allay the glaring and potentially horrible problems.... I *might* be able to swallow them as viable choices.... but Shepard would need some kind of logical sense and proof to believe what the Catalyst tells him... and for this reason, I think those two endings are more or less doomed to rejection by pretty much all versions of Shepard from Paragon, Paragade, and all the way to renegade.

Simply because there is not enough (or really any) clear foreshadowing of the consequences for these choices....because the choice itself is held back and sprung at the last moment.... with only the untrustworthy Catalyst (who controls the mass-murdering enemy armada) to explain the consequences.

Hence, a failure to obtain even a foundation from which Shepard might even *begin* to buy in to these concepts.... and even then he probably wouldn't drink that kool-aid.

Not to mention the story is at a time-sensitive juncture and there just isn't any damn time to go over the options, and adequately discuss their consequence.... which again makes the final choice little more than a cheap and all-but-meaningless *guessing exercise* for Shepard. Nope... you just get railroaded into making an uninformed choice that basically rearranges the whole freaking galaxy.

The destroy ending would have been acceptable, and fitting..... but they just *had* to tack on the threat of genocide against the Geth and killing off EDI.... what for? Was that needed for any reason whatsoever? Nope... just shoehorned into that choice to add some illusion of "cost and sacrifice".

If you ask me, Shepard struggling, fighting, bleeding, clawing tooth and nail to drag the whole damn galaxy to unity and watching good friends and respected allies perish in the process is sacrifice enough. Geth genocide and murdering EDI didn't need to be there... and it sucks.... so it shouldnt be there. This was supposed to be a heroic story, no? It certainly followed "The Hero's Journey" format for 99% of the trilogy....

Modifié par daveyeisley, 06 mai 2012 - 06:32 .

[daveyeisley]

Just to clarify, I dont have an issue with Shepard possibly dying in any of the endings.... though I think he should have the possibility of living as well, depending on variables...

I also dont have an issue with the mass relays blowing up (EDIT: I mean "overloading" and becoming nonfunctional - without detroying whole star systems). The united fleets have decent enough odds at salvaging and repurposing the reapers and relays that they should be able to get home before starving. In a way, this is a good thing... because relying on the relay network is what allowed the galaxy to land itself in this mess in the first place.

Legion said it best. Technology is not a straight line. The Reapers offered the geth their future, but the true geth turned it down in order to make their own future. The organics have proven they can do the same (especially after successfully building the crucible). They have the collective intellect to innovate new technologies to solve many of the problems of the "galactic dark age".

Now, I would just really like to not have to speculate about it.... I want to see the content in the game.

Modifié par daveyeisley, 06 mai 2012 - 06:14 .

[Kenisis88]

I loved all of Mass Effect except the ending. The ending feels disconnected from the entire Mass Effect universe and story. The narrative really spins out of control the moment when Starchild appears. The ending also lacks everything that made every moment, story-line, and side plot amazing before this. Someone at Bioware please take the time to watch these two videos:

www.youtube.com/watch

www.youtube.com/watch


They explain at greater length the issues I mentioned above. The guy is very articulate and witty; please just suck up your pride and scrap the majority of the ending as it stands now (replace it entirely). The central problem of the ending is not that it is depressing (we loved every sad moment before this), and it is not simply a problem of confusion. The ending breaks from the established narrative cohesion of the trilogy. This cannot be fixed by adding more content to explain the poor narrative at the end. Why add more content to explain how a bad thing, is in fact less bad? Considering how amazing other story lines were delivered and ended in ME3 (genophage, Quarian/Geth etc.), the ending is surprisingly bad. Look at what you did right Bioware, and particularly WHY it was done so well--then ask yourself if the ending and any additional content to it, is of the same narrative consistency.

[3DandBeyond]

daveyeisley wrote...

Just to clarify, I dont have an issue with Shepard possibly dying in any of the endings.... though I think he should have the possibility of living as well, depending on variables...

I also dont have an issue with the mass relays blowing up (EDIT: I mean "overloading" and becoming nonfunctional - without detroying whole star systems). The united fleets have decent enough odds at salvaging and repurposing the reapers and relays that they should be able to get home before starving. In a way, this is a good thing... because relying on the relay network is what allowed the galaxy to land itself in this mess in the first place.

Legion said it best. Technology is not a straight line. The Reapers offered the geth their future, but the true geth turned it down in order to make their own future. The organics have proven they can do the same (especially after successfully building the crucible). They have the collective intellect to innovate new technologies to solve many of the problems of the "galactic dark age".

Now, I would just really like to not have to speculate about it.... I want to see the content in the game.

Unfortunately, the crucible wasn't their original idea, but what you state points to what could be a great way to work out things within the game-what comes after.  Self-reliance.  I don't mind the Mass Relays being non-functional.  I do mind destroying things that raised themselves up, sought a better life, or sought life itself, with Shepard's help.

But, I take your point and think I go one step further.  It's the chance for all people to grow without the trash that infected them before.  The reapers tainted everything (or whoever created the reapers and all the stuff based upon them).  It's unknown how much of the past was Prothean or reaper tech.  And almost all tech is based upon this "stuff".  Not only were certain cultures "raised up", but it's like all cultures were.  They stopped creating for themselves, but again unfortunately the crucible, while being a great example of working together (got that, star kid, they worked together), it is also an example of some "outside" thinking.  The Quarians while having created the Geth, stopped creating.  They are a real example of a culture that lives off of things they find and not off of what they now create. But, so does every other culture.  Some have become mere mercenaries and no longer build, but take or kill or fight. 

All this just makes the star kid's words even sillier.  The current "advanced" organics aren't independently creating too much of anything, let alone nations of synthetics that will rise up and kill them.  They could and would do so, but only because of all the reaper tech left laying around.  If the kid and the reapers had cleaned up their mess after the last cycle or before, the mind can only wonder how advanced they'd be. 

Had the reapers not come back, it seems plausible the Geth might not have even gone beyond the Veil, though the Quarians would still want to get back to Rannoch so war might be inevitable.  The Geth seemed mostly satisfied they had succeeded in chasing them away.  Another contradiction for what the kid says.  The Geth did rebel, but stopped when they'd driven the Quarians off.  But, then the heretics got a hold of some reaper tech/program (someone left the cookie jar open) and all bets were off.

[Redbelle]

I wonder if the underlying reason for the problems BW has encountered is due to their games losing their identity since joing EA.

I'm thinkibng of ME2 and especially 3 not having similar features to the first. Namely vehicle sections. I know they were added in ME2 with the hammerhead. But ME3 doesn't give us tanks to play with at all. These sections gave ME a greater, wider scope than just being a run, cover and shoot game. I'm also thinking of Dragon Age. One of the reasons I loved the first DA was that it held it's own identity. It was essentially D&D with focused narration. Roll on to DA2 and something I don't like but do like in ME is the conversation wheel. What's ME's conversation wheel doing in DA? I know it's petty but taking innovations from one game and plonking them into another for conviniences sake is lazy....... time saving but lazy. DA should have stuck to conversation tree's and kept that part of it's identity instead of taking on a device that makes me wonder when Shepard will pop up to renegade interrupt Hawke.

Ok rant over. I'm just worried that something like game identity and quick fixes from other games like Conversation wheels and cover shooter mechanics from GoW have been used instead of innovation from BW being applied.

In the meantime, it looks like Superman completed ME3 too:

Modifié par Redbelle, 06 mai 2012 - 08:27 .

[NiNakaWarrior]

Kenisis88 wrote...
...
www.youtube.com/watch


They explain at greater length the issues I mentioned above. The guy is very articulate and witty; please just suck up your pride and scrap the majority of the ending as it stands now (replace it entirely). The central problem of the ending is not that it is depressing (we loved every sad moment before this), and it is not simply a problem of confusion. The ending breaks from the established narrative cohesion of the trilogy. This cannot be fixed by adding more content to explain the poor narrative at the end. Why add more content to explain how a bad thing, is in fact less bad?
...

Thanks, since I only finished Mass Effect 3 yesterday, I hadn't seen the second video yet, so I wasn't aware of that press release. (And I was too lazy to read 784 pages...)
I really don't get that, in stead of changing the ending, they're simply extending it?! Why would I care for DLC that extends the painful experience that is the ME3 ending?

Come on BioWare, I know you can make it right. Just like the Witch Hunt DLC was exactly what I needed for DAO's conclusion to be more satisfying for me. The entire Mass Effect trilogy is amazing, with a great character-driven story. It's just the ending that sucks. Don't extend it, change it!

Sigh... I'll just keep hoping that they'll decide their 'artistic freedom' bs is less important than over 90% of the Mass Effect fanbase...

[Holger1405]

No_MSG wrote...


The Deus Ex Machina tells you all three choices result in your death.  Shepard surviving doesn't change the fact that it exists to kill Shepard.  It just sucks at it.

No it didn't, it tells you so in the Control or Synthesis ending, but not in the destruction one. Furthermore there is not a single indicator that the purpose of the Star Child is to kill Shepard.

No_MSG wrote...
As for Bioware not forcing the victory for the bad guys, are you sure?  I'm pretty sure the only ending I got to choose from was the one given to me by the one who controls the reapers.  Pretty sure by taking any of the choices offered, it wins.

Her I like to quote myself from a few sits back.  

Holger1405 wrote...

I disagree, if you chose the Destruction ending, you are making a point against Star Child's logic.

The Logic of the Star child, no matter if it is a single very powerful Being or just the voice of the race who build the Reapers, is that on a certain point, the Organic Species need to be destroyed, because elsewise they will build synthetic's who will ultimately erase ALL organic life from the Galaxy. (The Reapers only erase advances organic species, so organic life can carry on.)
This logic leads to the Reapers and the amount of atrocity they committed in countless cycles.

It is imho a flawed logic, because, I agree with you, it is not a given outcome, surely not now, after the Organic Races know about this danger.
So when his logic is flawed, then what he says is not the ultimate truth and as I stated before, you have at least one choice to resist his opinion. (I personally think the control ending is the second one, but that's a matter of opinion.)

 

[3DandBeyond]

Redbelle wrote...

I wonder if the underlying reason for the problems BW has encountered is due to their games losing their identity since joing EA.

I'm thinkibng of ME2 and especially 3 not having similar features to the first. Namely vehicle sections. I know they were added in ME2 with the hammerhead. But ME3 doesn't give us tanks to play with at all. These sections gave ME a greater, wider scope than just being a run, cover and shoot game. I'm also thinking of Dragon Age. One of the reasons I loved the first DA was that it held it's own identity. It was essentially D&D with focused narration. Roll on to DA2 and something I don't like but do like in ME is the conversation wheel. What's ME's conversation wheel doing in DA? I know it's petty but taking innovations from one game and plonking them into another for conviniences sake is lazy....... time saving but lazy. DA should have stuck to conversation tree's and kept that part of it's identity instead of taking on a device that makes me wonder when Shepard will pop up to renegade interrupt Hawke.

Ok rant over. I'm just worried that something like game identity and quick fixes from other games like Conversation wheels and cover shooter mechanics from GoW have been used instead of innovation from BW being applied.

In the meantime, it looks like Superman completed ME3 too:

As for the lack of some continuity between the 3, I know there was some discussion as to squadmates.  The writers/devs talked about paring it down because in ME2 you had "too many".  I don't agree.  I like the ones we had.  But they also added others in ME3.  I think there are probably a lot of reasons.  Time, cost, game size.  A lot of people have talked about the reuse of sets or things within ME3 itself and/or the use of 2D images.  I know one is about bodies that are where Marauder Shields is.  I've looked and don't see them, but I did notice something similar in ME1.

There's the point near the Hot Works/tram where a Salarian has died and he's a flat image on the floor.  I first thought he was some cardboard ad that had fallen over, but then they talk about his death. 

It would have been so great to have had some thing to drive or fly in ME3.  I will say I didn't like the overuse of the Mako in 1, though.

If it was money and time and size and all that that kept them from finishing it, I just wish they would have said, "we really wanted to tie up Shep's story in ME3, but couldn't fit everything into one installment."  Then, I'd have been on board with a part one and part two, Harry Potter style or just ME3 and ME4.  At that point they could have started to introduce us to the star kid (but not his stupid logic), and would have had room to play.

That Superman video is priceless-I felt and still feel like that.

[Holger1405]

AmstradHero wrote...

No_MSG wrote...

Holger1405 wrote...

The Deus Ex Machina tells you all three choices result in your death.  Shepard surviving doesn't change the fact that it exists to kill Shepard.  It just sucks at it.

As for Bioware not forcing the victory for the bad guys, are you sure?  I'm pretty sure the only ending I got to choose from was the one given to me by the one who controls the reapers.  Pretty sure by taking any of the choices offered, it wins.

Exactly.

Holger1405 - you seem to like the ending and think it is good. Can you please give a literary explanation of why it is good, without either:
A) Citing "artistic integrity" (or words to that effect)
Citing other (science) fiction works as support for the meaning of the ending.

If it is a well written ending, it should be simple to do that in an easily defensible manner.

I will not referring to "artistic integrity", although I think Bioware has any right to do so.

But why not refer to different works of fiction? There is, especially in our times, always a correlation between fiction works, in particular in Science Fiction.

So, first, I do have my problems with the ending, but only with the delivery, not with the overall logic.
The Normandy and the Crew ending up on some distant Planet, without any explanation, is also in my Book a Plot hole. And I think that the conversations with star child needs to be advanced.
Still there is imho a big difference between "they could do better" and "the messed up completely." 


I like the ending because it gives a explanation for the Reapers and their actions, a explanation which is, at least imho, sound, thereby not taking away any achievements of Shepard in the three Games and leave the door open for another ME Game, in a different setting.  
I like it precisely because it didn't answers all questions, leaves something to the imagination of the Player. I think I don't have to tell you how many great works of fiction with open endings are out there. And it troubles me how many People using this chance in a rather negative way.
I like it because it fit's the ME Storyline, which, I think, did not allowed a "Happily Ever After" Happy end.

That are the important points why I like the ending, despite the fact that Bioware could do better in executing them. Of course that is only my Opinion, and I don't consider it the universal truth.   

Modifié par Holger1405, 06 mai 2012 - 10:22 .

[chomicze]

@Holger1405

And I strongly believe, that everyone, who has an opinion, can deliver it in such way. I don't share your thoughts, but I respect them since you put some arguments into this discussion.

I believe myself, that existence of this godchild is totally unnecessary, everything they want to deliver, they could do it without this character. In my opinion it's pointless and makes ME more fantasy than SCIENCE fiction. Which I don't like. They explained Reapers rather lame for me. With this circular logic, it's like "we do so, because we do so, you will never comprehend, that you will destroy yourself, so we do it anyway, so YOU can't destroy yourself".

I also don't like to get everything on plate, but there's to much unknown. Almost everything is unknown, that's way some will think that everything has gone well, some other that it went terrible.

And I strongly believe, that they can (because they already shown it in ME2 or ME1 or DA) deliver MUCH better endings, with MUCH better closure, without using "last minute" character creation.

That is my personal opinion.

[NiNakaWarrior]

chomicze wrote...

@Holger1405

And I strongly believe, that everyone, who has an opinion, can deliver it in such way. I don't share your thoughts, but I respect them since you put some arguments into this discussion.

I believe myself, that existence of this godchild is totally unnecessary, everything they want to deliver, they could do it without this character. In my opinion it's pointless and makes ME more fantasy than SCIENCE fiction. Which I don't like. They explained Reapers rather lame for me. With this circular logic, it's like "we do so, because we do so, you will never comprehend, that you will destroy yourself, so we do it anyway, so YOU can't destroy yourself".

I also don't like to get everything on plate, but there's to much unknown. Almost everything is unknown, that's way some will think that everything has gone well, some other that it went terrible.

And I strongly believe, that they can (because they already shown it in ME2 or ME1 or DA) deliver MUCH better endings, with MUCH better closure, without using "last minute" character creation.

That is my personal opinion.

I completely agree with you. Especially about the Godchild. And didn't we already know the Reapers were meant to 'restore the balance of the galaxy'/end the chaos? The one thing we didn't know was that there was this entity - that for some reason likes to take the form of a kid that's been haunting you in your dreams - that created the Reapers.

The whole thing reminded me of the Great Flood/Noah's Ark. Especially when they called Shepard  'The Shepherd' at the end, like he/she is like the creator of the world known to men at that point. Not saying that that's what they were trying to achieve (if anyone knows what BW did want to accomplish here, feel free to elaborate) that's just one of the first things that I thought of. Though I suppose they probably meant to give the players the idea of Shepard having created 'new life'. I like to see Shepard as the destroyer of the Mass Effect universe. Because, no Mass Relays, so no traveling from one system to the other, no 'intergalactic network', etcetera - to me that means no Mass Effect. So why put so much effort into creating such a rich universe over three games that people start to love, only to destroy it in the last ten minutes of the final game..?

[Gably]

Hey everyone. I am aware that there has already been a lot of discussions/suggestions and stuff, but still, I really feel like I have to say something.

Something tells me that developers were inspired by EDI and Jokers relationship - the "middle" option in the end of the game would make them happy. The thing is, there wasn't much "EDI and Joker" thing in the game. Few funny conversations, but the whole thing doesn't get much attention. It's not what the story was focused on. In other words, I didn't care about them "hugging" in the end (if you choose the middle option). Everything else was just abandoned.

Also - howcome the rest of the team showed up on Normandy in the end? I was like "what the....?" when I saw it. I am almost certain I didn't miss any conversations, so what the hell. Did they abandon Shepard? Would his friends and his beloved one (in my case, Ashley Williams) leave him there? I understand that by making that last cutscene they wanted those three choices in the end to make some sense but, that "mystery" behind the war and the "solution" was not what the story was focused on. Pretty obvious right after the first real encounter with one of the reapers, actually. Shepard and his team, friends and his beloved one have the most important role, the relationships are integral to the whole story, especially during the war. I really felt like a lot has been missed while watching the "endings". It felt empty, actually. I think it's safe to say that they took Mass Effect in the wrong direction by abandoning Shepard and his team like that.

Telling Bioware what exactly the ending should be is probably wrong, but there is one thing I would really like to tell them: the characters deserve to be happy. Maybe it's time for Ashley to visit Shepard when he is in hospital?

Modifié par Gably, 07 mai 2012 - 12:22 .

[Pistolized]

I just finished the game tonight, and I loved it. Definitely in my top 5 media-experiences.

Modifié par Pistolized, 06 mai 2012 - 11:56 .

[JerusPI]

I've discovered my new ending to ME3 today
To put it simply

Shepard is on the Crucible and a robed figure with a scythe approaches
Death: Commander Jerus Kramer Shepard your life is over you will travel with me to the river styx where you will
Shepard: Not Today Matey!
Shepard Knees him in the balls
Shepard: Remember only the good die young
Shepard runs off as Death collapses
Death: Thats never happened before

[LiarasShield]

Again this series does not need another sequel espically if shepard dies if some random man or woman could do all thee amazing feets that shepard could do then what was ever the point of playing as shepard to begin with the triliogy would be undone or destroyed because it would ruin the whole point of shepard fighting so hard and doing these things if some off the block we don't even know can do the same ****

another random protagonist would make shepards heroism and sacrifice meaningless let alone spawn several sequels that would probably hurt the series or destroy shepard as the protagonist of the mass effect series just a decent ending where plot holes are filled or fixed some with a victory ending where the races can go home or rebuild in another solar system and for our alliances to be shown and how past problems were fixed or taken care of

[Holger1405]

chomicze wrote...

@Holger1405

And I strongly believe, that everyone, who has an opinion, can deliver it in such way. I don't share your thoughts, but I respect them since you put some arguments into this discussion.

I believe myself, that existence of this godchild is totally unnecessary, everything they want to deliver, they could do it without this character. In my opinion it's pointless and makes ME more fantasy than SCIENCE fiction. Which I don't like. They explained Reapers rather lame for me. With this circular logic, it's like "we do so, because we do so, you will never comprehend, that you will destroy yourself, so we do it anyway, so YOU can't destroy yourself".

I also don't like to get everything on plate, but there's to much unknown. Almost everything is unknown, that's way some will think that everything has gone well, some other that it went terrible.

And I strongly believe, that they can (because they already shown it in ME2 or ME1 or DA) deliver MUCH better endings, with MUCH better closure, without using "last minute" character creation.

That is my personal opinion.

And as you respect my opinion, I do respect yours.

[LiarasShield]

well my favorite ending was in the second link I have in my signature lol

[Holger1405]

NiNakaWarrior wrote...


I completely agree with you. Especially about the Godchild. And didn't we already know the Reapers were meant to 'restore the balance of the galaxy'/end the chaos? The one thing we didn't know was that there was this entity - that for some reason likes to take the form of a kid that's been haunting you in your dreams - that created the Reapers.

The whole thing reminded me of the Great Flood/Noah's Ark. Especially when they called Shepard  'The Shepherd' at the end, like he/she is like the creator of the world known to men at that point. Not saying that that's what they were trying to achieve (if anyone knows what BW did want to accomplish here, feel free to elaborate) that's just one of the first things that I thought of. Though I suppose they probably meant to give the players the idea of Shepard having created 'new life'. I like to see Shepard as the destroyer of the Mass Effect universe. Because, no Mass Relays, so no traveling from one system to the other, no 'intergalactic network', etcetera - to me that means no Mass Effect. So why put so much effort into creating such a rich universe over three games that people start to love, only to destroy it in the last ten minutes of the final game..?

Imho the universes isn't gone, only the Mass Relays and these Mass Relays
are build by the Reapers. They are given to the different Races, allowing them
to travel between the Stars, but also to control their development, their whole
progress in sciences and research. (There is a very interesting Conversation between
Legion and Shepard in ME2 about this matter.)

The ME Races did not achieve their Technological progress, (at least not
all of it) it was handed to them, simultaneously this technology was a trap, a
trap that allowed the Reapers to attack them so easily.

I like to belief that the Races of Mass Effect are capable of building new
Mass Relays, Relays they control and in doing so, become stronger then before.

Modifié par Holger1405, 07 mai 2012 - 12:32 .

[LiarasShield]

yeah but until thee extended shows that we don't know one way or another if everybody dies or if they get to go home it is just speculation and logical conclusions of what may happen on both sides

[LiarasShield]

We can assume what happended all day doesn't mean that it does nor does it mean that it didn't happen this is kinda beyond a decent cliff hanger it is like hanging off thee entire solar system lol

[chomicze]

Actually, Bio employees are saying that even Citadel isn't destroyed, and people there were protected by some kinetics barriers. He said, that we should made assumption, that anyone plot related being on Citadel is alive. So, we have to wait, and hopefully we will see in the EC, that we didn't cause massive destruction of everything with our choices. Or we did, if our EMS was horribly low. Don't know.

Really, theorizing now is just pointless, because we simply have none informations about anything after "godchild meeting". Bio is trying to calm us down, saying that there is no system destruction, noone is starving to death, and even Citadel isn't fully destroyed. So, we will wait and we will see.

[LiarasShield]

yup just about right

[CaptFrost]

 I finally finished ME3 about 24 hours ago exactly. I'm a pretty big ME fan; I'd say the first is in my top 3 favorite games of all time. Gotten every single piece of DLC and every game on release day. Hell, I started a new game of Mass Effect 1 at the beginning of February just so I could go through all three games in tandem. And now I just finished that three month journey. I am usually HUGELY critical of sci-fi universes (get me going about the terrible direction the Halo universe took with Halo 2 sometime) but Mass Effect was one of the rare ones that managed to keep me pleased the whole way through.

Until the end.

I could write a whole thing about it, but basically it can be summed up by this writer: http://www.gamefront...fans-are-right/

I'm sorry, but unless the Indoctrination Theory folks are right (in which case, BRILLIANT on BioWare's part), the ending doesn't deserve to be protected as artistic integrity/quality or somesuch silliness. This was the equivalent of ending an 800 page beautifully done graphic novel with a stick man drawing. Now I don't care if Leonardo Da Vinci made the stick man drawing or 2000 hours of careful consideration went into it, a crappy stick man drawing is still a crappy stick man drawing. Taken within the universe as set up by the three games, it's pathetic. I've only seen such terrible plot holes and departure from source and canon in fan fiction, and maybe StarCraft novels. As it is, it's an underdeveloped, ripped off version of the ending of the new Battlestar Galactica.

Really hoping you guys put this right with the Extended Cut and/or the IT folks are correct, because as it is... that is no way to end the series.

I don't need or want a happy ending where Shepard and Garrus are sipping piña coladas on the beach and eyeing the babes, so don't brush me off with that either. That kind of end would just be insulting. "Make it happier" is not what I'm saying. I can handle brutal, fatalistic endings and even appreciate them as long as they're done right and they mesh with the previously established fiction. This does not even begin to meet that criteria.

Modifié par CaptFrost, 07 mai 2012 - 01:00 .

[Arbalor4]

Hey i loved the game but why did i gather all those assests if i couldnt see rachni chargers with dinosaur riding krogans and geth fire support i mean comon i counted 2 asari and like one salarian with a handful of krogan and turians mixed in and that was with 7k assests instead i got to see some dumb bland humans fighting for the most part because if i have alien races id much rather see humans fighting...........