7052 réponses à ce sujet

[Carpetfresh]

It's not a god child......Do you guys even read the codex? Also do any of you know and psychology? Check the links I presented and learn somethings.

[X_30002000]

The minimum would require cut-scenes change. It would be probable to assume that god-child twisting truth and lies to force Sheppard to choose not to kill Reapers. His statement that synthetic life is ultimately hostile to organic and inevitably wins contradicts all ME games, ME3 including. They may start hostile but that's it. EDI was based on rough AI and turned to be devoted ally of organics. Geth were fighting Quarians but again we find it was only self defense and it is possible to make peace between them and geth can join fight with Reapers. The only ultimately hostile geth were the ones controlled by the Reapers. Since we know that the only way new Reaper can be created is by processing (killing) organic civilizations, this lie makes sense – to hide real Reapers goal, to trick Sheppard to choose other options than killing Reapers.

Based on this these are the possible cut scene scenarios:

If Sheppard choose to control Reapers, he should become indoctrinated and all is lost. Nobody can control them – we know from previous games how such attempts end-up, Illusive man is the latest example.

If Sheppard choose synergy, his DNA can be used to produce next generation of collectors (similar to what Reapers did to Protheans) and again all is lost.

If Sheppard choose to destroy Reapers, then only Reapers gets destroyed (geth and EDI are OK since reapers lied) and Normandy gets to citadel to try save Sheppard. If military readiness is high then Sheppard survives being rescued by Normandy crew including love interest member. If readiness is low then they recover Sheppard's body.

It still would have some logical issues (for example how in ME1 citadel signal was disabled if god-child is citadel, etc) but at least it will follow genre ending rule (do I need to remind you Star wars ending?) and ME itself. Sheppard was always able to win against all odds, Normandy crew always got chance to pull rescue stunts at the last moment.

In current version when Sheppard survives, seeing Normandy crew including his love interest escaping leaving Sheppard behind feels so wrong, so artificial, so against ME characters, against what they said to Sheppard during ME3,2 and 1, It just impossible to believe and / or accept.
If current ending stays, I can not force myself to play ME3 (so depressing) and definitely there is no sence for me to buy any DLCs.

Another turning off factor for me (not as bad as the ending) was forced MP if I want to get high effective military readiness, especially when you constantly have to play it to keep it from dropping (this part is annoying). ME was always a game when player could choose to play it as RPG with FPS as a background thing or as a FPS and ignore much of RPG side of the game. MP is hard core FPS, so I did not like it at all. Even on Bronze challenge success was about 30%, so I only care to bring effective military readiness . This is failure of game when players do not care if they win or loose. Probably people who likes FPS do not mind it but I like RPG and do not care for FPS. This is another example when ME3 betrays itself leaving player no choice.

[Carpetfresh]

Ownedbacon wrote...

The Mass Effect series has been one my favorite franchises. I enjoy playing Mass Effect 1, 2, & 3. While playing Mass Effect 3 I was thinking this was one of the strongest games in the series with storytelling, emotion, and all the humor. It felt like all three games were coming full circle to bring closure to a great trilogy. You truly felt that you were one person against impossible odds. It was all great… until the ending.

I was a little uneasy about the plot reveals with Rannoch Reaper “saving us” and the hint of something controlling the Reapers, these were minor and I didn’t think much of it at the time. When Shepard collapses at the base of the control panel and the platform elevates, this is where the game loses everything.

The Catalyst controlling organic-synthetic (Reapers) to kill organics before they can create synthetics that will  rebel and destroy them is just silly. Shepard disproves this with the peace between the Quarians and the Geth. Why Shepard makes no mention of this I have no idea. If this is their logic why didn’t the Reapers come out of hibernation to destroy organic life when the Geth were created? The cycle starts three centuries later
and Sovereign used them as assets to his cause. Why would the Catalyst give organics the technology that would lead to the development of Artificial Intelligence if that development was the reason their extermination was
necessary. This whole plotline is illogical and doesn’t fit in line of what we learn about the Reapers in the first two games. The Catalyst just seemed like some attempt to copy the Architect from the Matrix Reloaded in order to make the Reapers more complex and somewhat sympathetic. It ultimately waters down the Reapers as antagonists in Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2.


Aside from all that, the final choices the Catalyst gives you don’t fit with Shepard’s goals. Shepard all this time has been fighting with every fiber of his/her being to stop the Reapers. Never giving up everyone telling him/her what he/she means to the galaxy. Even after dying and being brought back to life still fights just to ensure the Reapers don’t win. In the final moments of the game he/she just gives in to the leader of the Reapers saying “Okay we’ll do it your way.”

 
Control and Synthesis both seen as paragon/neutral options require Shepard to sacrifice his/her life. Yet the Reapers maintain their survival and in a way win. With synthesis we’re supposed to believe that the galaxy will become a perfect utopia because everyone is made up of the same DNA. If this is true why does the most hostility in Mass Effect take place between organics? The only war between synthetics and organics we have seen is the Quarian/Geth war which resulted in peace. The only other war there is with synthetics are the Reapers and they turned out to be synthetic-organics. So through synthesis everyone becomes synthetic-organics like the Reapers, and we know how peaceful the Reapers are. On the other hand destroying the Reapers is seen as renegade and it is only option where the Reapers lose. Shepard, who can survive this option, still loses since he/she fought  throughout this game to preserve all races including synthetics like EDI and the Geth (through Legion). They have proven their worth and no longer function just for self preservation but for something more. They are living beings with free will and you forced to wipe them out along with the Reapers.

 
Using the Crucible then destroys all mass relays leaving all the races you rallied to Earth to be stranded without
resources. What a grim fate. Not to mention that each mass relay according to Mass Effect 2 when destroyed is like a supernova wiping out all life that is in its radius. Wouldn’t the colonies and planets that are near all those mass relays be destroyed including Earth? If anything it should have just been a Reaper EMP equivalent that just disabled the machines.
 
Why is the Normandy crew who were on Earth with you suddenly on board the Normandy fleeing battle and traveling through a mass relay only to be stranded on some other planet? This just makes everyone look
like cowards.

Here is a link to a great article about many valid points to why the ending doesn’t work.

http://www.gamefront...fans-are-right/

 
I think the Catalyst and its plot as stated above really don’t coincide with the Reapers as they are depicted in the
previous games. Down below I have quotes from Sovereign and Harbinger supporting alternative solutions to the Reapers’ goals.
 

The Origins of the Reaper

There is a realm of existence so far beyond your own you cannot even imagine it. I am beyond your comprehension. I am Sovereign.

Reaper? A label created by the Protheans to give voice to their destruction. In the end, what they chose to call us is irrelevant. We simply... are. (Sovereign)

“Rudimentary creatures of blood and flesh, you touch my mind, fumbling in ignorance,
incapable of understanding.” (Sovereign)

“My kind transcends your very understanding. We are each a nation - independent, free of all weakness. You cannot grasp the nature of our existence.” (Sovereign)

“We have no beginning. We have no end. We are infinite. Millions of years after your civilization has been eradicated and forgotten, we will endure.” (Sovereign)

 
Their origins and their purpose needn’t be explained.
 
But if an explanation is necessary they could have just been a synthetic-organic race that was developed by an ancient empire to control their subordinate organic races. This race could have been similar to the Prothean Empire. The Reapers would have been a fleet used to extinguish any organic life that opposed this empire. Much like the Geth they could have advanced this species with new technology through the mass relays and as the Reapers became more aware of its purpose perhaps saw all organics as inferior and a possible threat to their own preservation thus extinguishing the empire that created them.

In a conversation with EDI she states that the Reapers are selfish and repulsive only dedicated to self preservation. This should be their goal.

Salvation through Destruction

“Organic life is nothing but a genetic mutation, an accident. Your lives are measured in years and decades. You wither and die. We are eternal, the pinnacle of evolution and existence. Before us, you are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of everything.” (Sovereign)

“That which you know as Reapers are your salvation through destruction.” (Harbinger)
 
Since the Reapers view organic evolution as chaotic, an accident and a genetic mutation, why would they “save” us? With this viewpoint organics are seen as lesser unworthy beings only being allowed to live as the Reapers see fit.

So why would the Reapers have to keep organic species around?

It is revealed in Mass Effect 2 that Reapers are made up of synthetic
material and the organic material of the species they harvest. In order for
Reapers to “reproduce” they would need to harvest organics. Harvesting these
more advanced races they leave the younger species to ensure they have this
resource for later.
 
Since the Reapers view themselves as the “pinnacle of evolution and existence” couldn’t the Reapers see themselves as “saving” the organics from their chaotic existence by making them into Reapers?

The cycle would be a way for the Reapers to keep organics under control. Without harvesting the advanced organic races they have the potential to become a threat to the survival of the Reapers.


The Cycle

The pattern has repeated itself more times than you can fathom. Organic civilizations rise, evolve, advance, and at the apex of their glory they are extinguished. The Protheans were not the first. They did not create the Citadel. They did not forge the mass relays. They merely found them - the legacy of my kind. (Sovereign)

Your civilization is based on the technology of the mass relays. Our technology. By using it, your civilization develops along the paths we desire. We impose order on the chaos of organic life. You exist because we allow it, and you will end because we demand it. (Sovereign)
 
After civilizations are at the apex of their glory and are considered a threat they are extinguished and their organic
material used to create more Reapers.
 
Why would the Reapers give organics such great technology?

Allowing organics to find the mass relays and develop their technology around it this makes them more susceptible to the Reaper harvest. Since the Reapers guide the organics to develop along the paths they desire, they monitor their development keeping them under control.

The cycle would allow the Reapers to let the species grow and develop so they are ready for the next harvest.

Funny, check my post and I actually prove the endings work.  Best of all, I use science and facts, not nerdrage!

[hchadw]

Great Vid... thats how you review a game....you dont put a stupid ditzy gamer girl from IGN in the game to nag you all the time.

This vid says it all...!!!

[Amratis]

GB-Kakuzu wrote...

*snip*

Hopefully Bioware and EA are aware of all the most common arguments against the endings. Arguments such as Joker running from battle, everyone is stranded and the armada at Earth is now doomed to die over a struggle for resources, exploding mass relays destroy solar systems (please don't try to say that explosions don't blow things up), no true difference in the "three" endings, no closure, choices don't matter, key themes and philosophies are ignored, broken promises to the fans, etc, etc. I'll assume that I don't need to point these things out. I could write and defend essays on each individual subject.

I'll skip that part since it should already be quite apparent to Bioware and EA. Let me tell you why the endings don't work on a different level. After completing the game, I get an insulting message on my screen soliciting me to build upon the legend of Commander Shepard by buying DLC.  What legend?  Who is left?  For a legend to grow, people need to be able to tell it.  People, the players, need to care. 

Knowing the end of Mass Effect 3, I couldn't care less about any amount of DLC that is released.  The end truly counts.  In real life, people don't tend to willingly do things that are futile, make them sad or frustrated, or harmful to them.  This will carry over into games as well.  Players will not go for DLC when the ultimate ending remains the same.  What could be so compelling about new missions,  characters, and weapons for ME3 when everyone is still massively screwed in the end?  When an ending to something is, to say the very least, dissatisfying, one does not tend to revisit it when the outcome is unchanging.

It may sound like I am only concerned that there was not a “happy” ending.  This is not the case.  I understand that one cannot always get a happy ending.  However, people have been using that excuse for years, and now happy endings are the rarity.  Lets put aside the fact, yes fact, that we really only have one ending to this game despite being promised a variety of different endings.  Lets pretend we have 10 different endings.  If it can't be said that at least one of these endings is a happy ending, then there is a serious lack of vision occurring somewhere.

*snip*

As it stands now, I will not replay ME3 or even play the multiplayer.  I will not buy any DLC unless it is a correction to the current ending.  Furthermore, I will not buy any future Bioware releases, and will be extremely critical of any other EA titles before even considering a purchase.

I lack the eloquence to have put it like this, but I couldn't agree more.

Bioware, please take note.

Modifié par Amratis, 19 mars 2012 - 11:50 .

[Carpetfresh]

Amratis wrote...

GB-Kakuzu wrote...

*snip*

Hopefully Bioware and EA are aware of all the most common arguments against the endings. Arguments such as Joker running from battle, everyone is stranded and the armada at Earth is now doomed to die over a struggle for resources, exploding mass relays destroy solar systems (please don't try to say that explosions don't blow things up), no true difference in the "three" endings, no closure, choices don't matter, key themes and philosophies are ignored, broken promises to the fans, etc, etc. I'll assume that I don't need to point these things out. I could write and defend essays on each individual subject.

I'll skip that part since it should already be quite apparent to Bioware and EA. Let me tell you why the endings don't work on a different level. After completing the game, I get an insulting message on my screen soliciting me to build upon the legend of Commander Shepard by buying DLC.  What legend?  Who is left?  For a legend to grow, people need to be able to tell it.  People, the players, need to care. 

Knowing the end of Mass Effect 3, I couldn't care less about any amount of DLC that is released.  The end truly counts.  In real life, people don't tend to willingly do things that are futile, make them sad or frustrated, or harmful to them.  This will carry over into games as well.  Players will not go for DLC when the ultimate ending remains the same.  What could be so compelling about new missions,  characters, and weapons for ME3 when everyone is still massively screwed in the end?  When an ending to something is, to say the very least, dissatisfying, one does not tend to revisit it when the outcome is unchanging.

It may sound like I am only concerned that there was not a “happy” ending.  This is not the case.  I understand that one cannot always get a happy ending.  However, people have been using that excuse for years, and now happy endings are the rarity.  Lets put aside the fact, yes fact, that we really only have one ending to this game despite being promised a variety of different endings.  Lets pretend we have 10 different endings.  If it can't be said that at least one of these endings is a happy ending, then there is a serious lack of vision occurring somewhere.

*snip*

As it stands now, I will not replay ME3 or even play the multiplayer.  I will not buy any DLC unless it is a correction to the current ending.  Furthermore, I will not buy any future Bioware releases, and will be extremely critical of any other EA titles before even considering a purchase.

I lack the eloquence to have put it like this, but I couldn't agree more.

Bioware, please take note.

Not in the military I see......

[cmj428]

Bioware please watch this and take notes:



AngryJoeShow 10 reasons why we hate Mass Effect 3's ending.
This completely sums up how I feel about the ending of the game.

[Shadow2G]

I’d just like to quickly reiterate that ME3 was an epic and truly gripping science fiction experience up until about the last ten minutes. That said, the current ending unfortunately negates my sense of emotional investment in the characters and the Mass Effect universe. 

Ideas for fixing this:

• A spectrum of endings that range from a bleak Reaper victory to a happy ending that shows the character with his or her LI and offspring when possible.  In other words something that feels like it lives up to the development teams’ public promises of “widely divergent endings” and not having a single “bespoke ending.” 

• An epilog that gives the players an idea of what happens in the immediate future to their surviving teammates as well as the state of the galactic civilization that Shepard has fought so hard to preserve. 

• A final boss battle or showdown would be nice since this is a video game.   

• An explanation of the Reapers’ history and origins would be good, if there is time for one.

• Please replace the photo-shopped stock photo used for Tali’s face with a piece of original art created for the ME franchise. The use of a stock photo of a human felt like a cheap and shoddy letdown to one of the biggest teasers of the game — what do the Quarians look like? 

• Cut scene clips showing some of the war assets gathered along the way in action during the final battle for Earth. Right now there is no tangible emotional payoff for having gone through the work of collecting these assets. 

• I agree with others in this thread who have posted that the ending framework suggested by forum member Arcian would help to resolve most of these issues while making previous game choices as captured by the EMS system weigh heavily in the game’s final outcome.

If it’s necessary to pay for a DLC to address these issues, then I’ll happily get in line with my wallet in my hand. 

Thank you for your time!

(edited for formating issues) 

Modifié par Shadow2G, 20 mars 2012 - 12:14 .

[Trojan_33]

This is not the complaint thread. The mega thread that has 45k+ replies is the thread where your complaints will be right at home. This is a thread for SUGGESTED CHANGES. It seems like only half of the people posting here are putting forth ideas or reacting to other's ideas. As much as I've been trying, it's hard to read people's ideas with the walls of text that are complaints. Please keep posts here to suggested changes just in case BW actually looks through the thread.

Thanks.

[Xero293]

Please whatever you do do not use the indoctirantion theory. It's a major kick in the head.

[zammo911]

I've been thinking a lot about the end of ME3, and if and how I wanted to enter into the discussion thereof. I've written a couple different responses and ended up scrapping them, because just about everything I am thinking and feeling has been really articulately stated by others in many other places, on the this forum and off.

So I want to keep this (relatively) simple. I have been and remain an incredibly loyal fan and customer. There were things about ME3 that I disagreed with besides the ending, but overall I thought it was absolutely incredible, and likely even surpassed the heights of ME2. But I have been truly bothered by ending. I have been upset and distracted by it, even lost some sleep. The ME series gave me faith in the videogame medium as a mature art form in its own right, and the ending has made me question that faith.

I personally like the indoctrination theory, but am not specifically attached to it as long as the concerns I share with a great portion of the community are addressed in some way. The ending made player choice irrelevant, both by not incorporating it, and by destroying the mass relays, effectively ending the galactic civilization that we have spent three games shaping. The choice that was given (as well as making no sense) provided no good options: two involve allowing the Reapers to live whilst committing suicide, one changing the very fabric of every living thing in the galaxy, and assuming that to be desirable, the other validating the Illusive Man, and thus all the atrocities he has committed. The third choice, and only one which fulfills the primary imperative of all three games, to destroy the Reapers, may also kill Shepard, but more troublingly demands the murder of our friend EDI and genocide of the Geth, specifically disregarding the choice given to us previously to spare them. I'm all for having to choose amongst imperfect options, but to me, these were all full-on BAD options.

This brings up the fact that we must accept the choice offered by the "star child" at all, and can't even argue against him or denounce him. We are effectively forced to accept the premise that genocide is or was a good "final solution" to the problem of conflicts between groups. We must also accept that "synthetics" will also always, inevitably, destroy their creators; that a group must behave in a certain way because of their inherent natures. Both of these are underlying-ly racist systems of belief, and completely unacceptable, especially in a series of games so committed to diversity and socio-political conscientiousness. But this also returns to the issue of denied choice-- the decision to destroy or spare the Geth was a huge part of the last two games, and a specific decision point in this one, specifically undercut by this ending which had already generally undercut all other decisions.
Of course, there are also the plot holes: why is the Normandy bugging out, how did your squad get on board, how is Shepard breathing in space, why is the Normandy crew seemingly happy about having crash landed on an unknown world, how exactly is it that either the synthesis or control endings make any sense in terms of how they practically work. Also, the "star child" itself and "stargazer" scene are just stupid. I know that's not particularly constructive, but it's how I feel. Indoctrination theory could answer of these concerns, but if you decide to go another way they would also have to be addressed.

Here's one possible answer, just off the top of my head. This is not fully thought or fleshed out, nor do I have any attachment to you using "my" idea; I mean it simply as a proof-of-concept for another possible fix. Replace the "star-child" with a Keeper. Replace the racist prediction-of-behavior-for-entire-groups-of-individuals as an explanation for why life was doomed unless intervened upon with something not out of left-field, but actually introduced to the series already, like the dark energy build-up in stars from Haestrom: maybe life of any kind produces dark energy in some way, or use of biotics or element zero produce the dark energy as a byproduct, and this causes stars to die more rapidly, thus making the galaxy uninhabitable. So whoever created the Reapers saw doom not out of racist predictions but rather pseudo-scientific ones. That still leaves the fact that they chose genocide as their answer. Allow Shepard to denounce the "star-child" (/keeper/whatever), acknowledging the looming problem, but determined to find another way to address it. Then let us kill the Reapers, but preserve galactic civilization as we have shaped it, including the geth (or not, if we had previously decided to destroy them). The galaxy would be safe, for now, but with a new problem that needs to be solved, opening up a future for the series, and avoiding the "completely happy" ending that you seem to have decided would be a bad thing. Maybe also include a failure option, where the Reapers win if you fail to muster enough galactic strength, making our work rallying the galaxy functionally meaningful. If not though, at least give us the payoff of seeing the forces we've rallied make an impact. The Normandy can crash on Earth if you really want it to crash, but the bug-out makes no sense. Preserve the relays so that the galaxy that we love persists, and the choices we made influencing it persist.

These are just some of my thoughts on the issues with the ending, heed them or don't, but check one more person in the "feeling disappointed and betrayed, but hopeful" category.

And for what it's worth, I would personally be more than willing to pay a premium for the hard work you put into addressing these issues.

Thank you for your consideration.

Modifié par zammo911, 20 mars 2012 - 12:05 .

[cmj428]

I also completely agree with the previous posters that if the ending remains the same I will have no interest in purchasing Mass Effect 3 DLC. And this is coming from someone who has purchased nearly every DLC from ME1, ME2, DAO and DA2.
How the game ends can break the spirit of even your most loyal fans.

[SGO B1]

I'm sure most of what I have to say about the ending has already been said but I'd still like to throw in my two cents.

1. Grander in scale.
               I don't know about everyone else, but I was really looking forward to a combo of 1 and 2's ending sequences. In other words I was really hoping to see more scenes of this massive fleet I've gathered in action. Just like the fleet battle in ME1 where we'd play some regular game play and then see a small cut scene of the battle taking place around the citadel. I was also expecting a more race against time running and gunning battle to the conduit. Just like in 1 where it was a race to the citadel control room and in 2 where it felt like a race to get to the center of the Collector base.
                In 3 I felt much slower even though everyone around us was fighting to the bitter end with no sign of winning. This seemed to be in stark contrast to the idea that we needed to get to the conduit asap before too many people were lost. I loved the goodbyes to the crew and everyone who has been there to help you throughout all 3 games, but felt it could have been placed better. Perhaps at the beginning of the mission after Hacket brings the fleets together. Perhaps have everyone there on the Normandy around the war room, having the normal communication room used to connect to Jack, Miranda, Grunt and the rest who aren't with you. Just seems like it would be much better placed than in the middle of a warzone.

2. More Harbinger
                Harbinger was such an interegral part of the second game and seemed like he was going to be the main baddy in 3 and yet we don't hear about him much except that he may be on Earth leading the reaper occupation. Even when we begin the battle for Earth he isn't shown or brought into the fight until the very end and it's just to blast you away. I would have loved to have another conversation with Harbinger and see him in the fleet battle scenes. It would have made the reapers easier to relate to as the baddie if Harbinger had been given a stronger role in 3 then just a small cameo.

3. The God Kid AI
                   I know this is a common complaint but it's a valid one, the AI that comes to you at the end of the game is so jarring for me as a writer as it's such an obvious Deus Ex Machina. It was as if the devs decided "we don't know how to end the game while keeping all the players' choices important so let's just introduce this God like AI who can solve all the problems at once. It was also pretty bad that when the kid AI states he created the reapers we're still left with more questions then answers in how the Reapers began and why. We were supposed to get answers to all of our questions and then we get this. This could have been fine if there were better options in the end.
                 If the AI could have been done better where Sheppard wouldn't just take the statements about the crucible and the Reapers at face values. This is esspecially true after the resolution to the Quarian and Geth war. If those two groups can learn to work together and the crew of the Normandy as well as other Alliance members can accept EDI then the AI's assumption that all syenthetic life will always attack and wipe out organic life is not true for this cycle. Sheppard has to know this so it makes no sense why he wouldn't fight for coexistence (or fight for the fact that organics can crush syenthetics if your renegade)

4. Normandy running
                   This is one of the biggest WTF moments in gaming history. Why was the Normandy running in the most critical moment of the battle? It makes no sense that Joker and the rest of the Normandy's crew would simply run after years of standing by your side in tougher situations then this one. It also doesn't fit into the timeline as other's have said that Joker would have had to hit the relay long before the final explosion and thus means they simply abandoned you in the more critical moment. Unless you add in something about Hacket ordering the fleet to retreat or something along those line. Otherwise this is pretty out of place.

5. Relays being Destroyed
                   I don't understand why the relays have to be destroyed to end the trilogy. There are countless things wroung with this idea. First off the trillions of lives you've brought to Earth to help take it bake would then be stranded on Earth. With the very limited resources of the Sol system it's a death sentence for trillions of beings. Same on other planets such as Palivan and Thesia, these worlds are in no shape to support their remaining populations and would need to rely heavily on faming colonies Without the relays Sheppard would have killed far more sentient life than the Reapers ever have even on their best cycle.
                  Not to mention this ruins the Mass Effect series if you intend to continue it on in other forms. No matter what this series wil have lost the most essential piece of tech and would never be the same. It's like taking Star Trek without warp drive, Star Wars without hyperdrive. It's just not right and looses most everything that made Mass Effect special and unique. It also means that no matter what any future game in the Mass Effect series will be drastically different then everything to date. It that was the intention why not just let Mass Effect stay the way it is with the relays and make a new game in a new universe with mentions of Mass Effect inspired events throughout like most other games from the same company already includes.

6. No Happy endings
                   I know there has been a lot of talk about wanting a happy ending where sheppard and his love interest have kids and everything is picture perfect, I don't want that. I want to be able to lost people left and right throughout the last section of the game. I don't even mind if Sheppard dies in the end. I loved the bitter sweet moment before Sheppard sacrificed himself. I loved watching the small scene of flash backs and wish there were more. I wanted flashes to what the team mates were doing at that time (such as Wrex taking on a brute, Grunt taking on Ravangers left and right,  Miranda taking pot shots at reaper troops, ect) I would have loved to see something to make the ending feel better.

7. Longer
                      Last thing I wanted to see is a longer ending. I hated that once we get to Earth which is supposed to be the ultimate battle and the whole reason we've brought these troops and fleets to help liberate and it's only about 20 minutes long. I was expecting around 50+ hours of gameplay as Casey Hudson and others stated that the game would be somewhere between the length of 1 and 2, 1 took me around 75 hours and 2 took me 50 so to beat 3 in nearly 35 hours was shocking. I hated to see it end so soon and hated that Earth was so short.
                     Earth should take at least a couple hours, and not be something we can just breeze through in around 20 minutes or half an hour at most. It's ridiculous that that's how short Earth is when it's the entire point of the game. Perhaps this is when to through in various fleet battle scenes,maybe have Sheppard pick a team mate to help take down a reaper destroyer while the rest continue on, similar to ME2.

These are just y thoughts on what was wrong with the final hour or so of the game. Take it for what it's worth as most have probably already stated these ideas. I simply wanted my voice to be heard.

[kalasaurus]

cmj428 wrote...

I also completely agree with the previous posters that if the ending remains the same I will have no interest in purchasing Mass Effect 3 DLC. And this is coming from someone who has purchased nearly every DLC from ME1, ME2, DAO and DA2.
How the game ends can break the spirit of even your most loyal fans.

I feel the same way.  The ending as it stands really ruined the game for me, sadly.  And Mass Effect was my favorite video game franchise too.

I hope that BW looks into these suggestions, a lot of them are really constructive and could fix a near perfect game.

[Ownedbacon]

Carpetfresh wrote...

Ownedbacon wrote...

The Mass Effect series has been one my favorite franchises. I enjoy playing Mass Effect 1, 2, & 3. While playing Mass Effect 3 I was thinking this was one of the strongest games in the series with storytelling, emotion, and all the humor. It felt like all three games were coming full circle to bring closure to a great trilogy. You truly felt that you were one person against impossible odds. It was all great… until the ending.

I was a little uneasy about the plot reveals with Rannoch Reaper “saving us” and the hint of something controlling the Reapers, these were minor and I didn’t think much of it at the time. When Shepard collapses at the base of the control panel and the platform elevates, this is where the game loses everything.

The Catalyst controlling organic-synthetic (Reapers) to kill organics before they can create synthetics that will  rebel and destroy them is just silly. Shepard disproves this with the peace between the Quarians and the Geth. Why Shepard makes no mention of this I have no idea. If this is their logic why didn’t the Reapers come out of hibernation to destroy organic life when the Geth were created? The cycle starts three centuries later
and Sovereign used them as assets to his cause. Why would the Catalyst give organics the technology that would lead to the development of Artificial Intelligence if that development was the reason their extermination was
necessary. This whole plotline is illogical and doesn’t fit in line of what we learn about the Reapers in the first two games. The Catalyst just seemed like some attempt to copy the Architect from the Matrix Reloaded in order to make the Reapers more complex and somewhat sympathetic. It ultimately waters down the Reapers as antagonists in Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2.


Aside from all that, the final choices the Catalyst gives you don’t fit with Shepard’s goals. Shepard all this time has been fighting with every fiber of his/her being to stop the Reapers. Never giving up everyone telling him/her what he/she means to the galaxy. Even after dying and being brought back to life still fights just to ensure the Reapers don’t win. In the final moments of the game he/she just gives in to the leader of the Reapers saying “Okay we’ll do it your way.”

 
Control and Synthesis both seen as paragon/neutral options require Shepard to sacrifice his/her life. Yet the Reapers maintain their survival and in a way win. With synthesis we’re supposed to believe that the galaxy will become a perfect utopia because everyone is made up of the same DNA. If this is true why does the most hostility in Mass Effect take place between organics? The only war between synthetics and organics we have seen is the Quarian/Geth war which resulted in peace. The only other war there is with synthetics are the Reapers and they turned out to be synthetic-organics. So through synthesis everyone becomes synthetic-organics like the Reapers, and we know how peaceful the Reapers are. On the other hand destroying the Reapers is seen as renegade and it is only option where the Reapers lose. Shepard, who can survive this option, still loses since he/she fought  throughout this game to preserve all races including synthetics like EDI and the Geth (through Legion). They have proven their worth and no longer function just for self preservation but for something more. They are living beings with free will and you forced to wipe them out along with the Reapers.

 
Using the Crucible then destroys all mass relays leaving all the races you rallied to Earth to be stranded without
resources. What a grim fate. Not to mention that each mass relay according to Mass Effect 2 when destroyed is like a supernova wiping out all life that is in its radius. Wouldn’t the colonies and planets that are near all those mass relays be destroyed including Earth? If anything it should have just been a Reaper EMP equivalent that just disabled the machines.
 
Why is the Normandy crew who were on Earth with you suddenly on board the Normandy fleeing battle and traveling through a mass relay only to be stranded on some other planet? This just makes everyone look
like cowards.

Here is a link to a great article about many valid points to why the ending doesn’t work.

http://www.gamefront...fans-are-right/

 
I think the Catalyst and its plot as stated above really don’t coincide with the Reapers as they are depicted in the
previous games. Down below I have quotes from Sovereign and Harbinger supporting alternative solutions to the Reapers’ goals.
 

The Origins of the Reaper

There is a realm of existence so far beyond your own you cannot even imagine it. I am beyond your comprehension. I am Sovereign.

Reaper? A label created by the Protheans to give voice to their destruction. In the end, what they chose to call us is irrelevant. We simply... are. (Sovereign)

“Rudimentary creatures of blood and flesh, you touch my mind, fumbling in ignorance,
incapable of understanding.” (Sovereign)

“My kind transcends your very understanding. We are each a nation - independent, free of all weakness. You cannot grasp the nature of our existence.” (Sovereign)

“We have no beginning. We have no end. We are infinite. Millions of years after your civilization has been eradicated and forgotten, we will endure.” (Sovereign)

 
Their origins and their purpose needn’t be explained.
 
But if an explanation is necessary they could have just been a synthetic-organic race that was developed by an ancient empire to control their subordinate organic races. This race could have been similar to the Prothean Empire. The Reapers would have been a fleet used to extinguish any organic life that opposed this empire. Much like the Geth they could have advanced this species with new technology through the mass relays and as the Reapers became more aware of its purpose perhaps saw all organics as inferior and a possible threat to their own preservation thus extinguishing the empire that created them.

In a conversation with EDI she states that the Reapers are selfish and repulsive only dedicated to self preservation. This should be their goal.

Salvation through Destruction

“Organic life is nothing but a genetic mutation, an accident. Your lives are measured in years and decades. You wither and die. We are eternal, the pinnacle of evolution and existence. Before us, you are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of everything.” (Sovereign)

“That which you know as Reapers are your salvation through destruction.” (Harbinger)
 
Since the Reapers view organic evolution as chaotic, an accident and a genetic mutation, why would they “save” us? With this viewpoint organics are seen as lesser unworthy beings only being allowed to live as the Reapers see fit.

So why would the Reapers have to keep organic species around?

It is revealed in Mass Effect 2 that Reapers are made up of synthetic
material and the organic material of the species they harvest. In order for
Reapers to “reproduce” they would need to harvest organics. Harvesting these
more advanced races they leave the younger species to ensure they have this
resource for later.
 
Since the Reapers view themselves as the “pinnacle of evolution and existence” couldn’t the Reapers see themselves as “saving” the organics from their chaotic existence by making them into Reapers?

The cycle would be a way for the Reapers to keep organics under control. Without harvesting the advanced organic races they have the potential to become a threat to the survival of the Reapers.


The Cycle

The pattern has repeated itself more times than you can fathom. Organic civilizations rise, evolve, advance, and at the apex of their glory they are extinguished. The Protheans were not the first. They did not create the Citadel. They did not forge the mass relays. They merely found them - the legacy of my kind. (Sovereign)

Your civilization is based on the technology of the mass relays. Our technology. By using it, your civilization develops along the paths we desire. We impose order on the chaos of organic life. You exist because we allow it, and you will end because we demand it. (Sovereign)
 
After civilizations are at the apex of their glory and are considered a threat they are extinguished and their organic
material used to create more Reapers.
 
Why would the Reapers give organics such great technology?

Allowing organics to find the mass relays and develop their technology around it this makes them more susceptible to the Reaper harvest. Since the Reapers guide the organics to develop along the paths they desire, they monitor their development keeping them under control.

The cycle would allow the Reapers to let the species grow and develop so they are ready for the next harvest.

Funny, check my post and I actually prove the endings work.  Best of all, I use science and facts, not nerdrage!

Where is your post proving the endings work? All I found was your post about disproving the Indoctrination theory which I talked nothing about.

[SkaldFish]

Carpetfresh wrote...


It's not a god child......Do you guys even read the codex? Also do any of you know and psychology? Check the links I presented and learn somethings.

Civility would be appreciated. People who obviously spent as much time as you did in formulating their ideas and suggestions, and are every bit as serious about them, deserve the same respect you do. Let's be kind to each other.

[e2m2]

Carpetfresh wrote...


Funny, check my post and I actually prove the endings work.  Best of all, I use science and facts, not nerdrage!

Not trying to disregard your theories or anything, but a moderator has specifically asked that this thread not be used to debate with each other, just to post our individual thoughts and ideas.

[Redinferno124]

Reign Tsumiraki wrote...

 Ah, perfect! I already wrote up what I think would solve the problem...

*copypasta*

1.  Only change the ending starting from the last scene with Anderson/Shepard/TIM. Everything about the ending before that stays the same, with a few changes. 

2. Completely ignore the God-child-spirit. It conflicts and contradicts the "Protheans fooled the citadel" basis in ME1. This was important. Cut it out entirely.

3. Make several choices based off of war readiness, and how many assets went into the Crucible. Such as:

Very low: Launch a giant EMP burst that destroys all Reapers, AI, Citadel, Relays, most technology, ect, as well as sacrificing earth. Shepard dies. Normandy crashes, and everyone aboard dies.

Low: Same, but without damage to earth. Shepard dies. Normandy Crashes. Crew dies.




Medium-low: Burst that only destroys all AI. Shepard dies. Normandy Crashes, Crew dies.

Medium: Burst that destroys all AI in the Sol system, and the Reapers. This allows the Geth to live, but EDI dies. Saves the Relays, but not the citadel. Shepard dies. Normandy crashes, crew survives.

High-Medium: Releases a burst that disables the Reaper Shields across the galaxy, allowing the fleet to easily kill the rest(Reapers are weak without their shields, as ME1 shows. A single torpedo from the Normandy killed Sovereign without it's shields) Shepard lives. Normandy damaged, but does not crash, and the player is treated to a small cutscene of the Normandy and the fleet blowing up a few reapers. 

High: Sends out a burst attuned to the Reaper core (The Geth provide the information. They studied reapers, remember. If they are not available, the Quarians provide it, having researched the Reaper corpse on their planet) causing the Reapers' reactors to overload and die. However, the Reaper core just happens to be identical to the Core of the Citadel as well. The Citadel overloads and blows up. Shepard lives. Relays stay intact. Player is treated to a cutscene of the Reapers blowing up, troops on the ground rejoicing, as well as the Normandy picking him and Anderson's body up before Citadel explodes.


Very-high: Sends out a pulse that kills only Reapers. All tech stays intact. Shepard lives. Relays intact. Citadel intact. Player is treated to the cutscene above, minus the citadel explosion. 

In addition, the endings shown in the "original" game would be available. These would be available on the left side of the dialogue wheel, while the ones I have proposed would be on the right. Synthesis would be unlocked at the Very-High level, and Control would be unlocked at the High-Medium level. Destroy would be available no matter what.

To complete the Synthesis, Destroy, or Control ending, the player takes the elevator up to where the Original ending takes place. This way, they do not have to design an entirely new environment. The animations and flashbacks for these endings would stay the same. The only difference in the cutscene after this would be no Normandy crash.

The options of the three highest unlocked options would show up on the right of the wheel on the right side. For instance, someone who had Medium assets would get the option of killing all AI everywhere, all AI in the Sol system, or all technology everywhere without damage to earth.

The dialogue wheel would look like this, if someone had 100% of all assets.
                                Synthesis              Take down Sheilds
                                                __________/ 
                                               (                       )
                 Destroy    --------(                          ) ---Kill reapers, Destroy Citadel
                                               (                       )
                                                -----------------
                                               /                      
                                      Control                Kill all Reapers
4. Include a small, text and scene ending. Small clips of certain occations from the various decisions made will show. This will vary by ending.

EXAMPLE: Geth and Quarians rebuilding, all species rebuilding the invaded home planets, ect.

5. A small scene with Anderson and Shepard before Anderson dies, about what Shepard will do if the Crucible works. Shepard can then respond in a variety of ways depending on what options he is presented with because of the war assets claimed. Anderson then says the whole "I'm proud of you" spiel, wishes you luck, then dies.

EXAMPLE: 

Retiring and living in peace, finally, with LI(or alone, if that is the case).

Saying “This device will probably destroy the citadel and kill us, so it does not matter.”

Continue to pursue peace and justice as a Spectre.

Become a diplomat/politician and guide humanity

Ect.

6. Any teammates that were with you at the time you got shot by the reaper will run towards the teleport-beam and make it to the Citadel ahead of you, thinking that you died, and that they need to finish what you started. Upon arriving there, you meet up with them and get to the console. They also get manipulated by TIM, but only you are able to "break free" by shooting or talking down TIM. 



Anyway, that's my whole view on it. 


THIS WAY:  
Players can get the endings they want, the player can still sacrifice themselves to get the endings they want, the Devs can have the endings they want, and originally intended. The only thing this really cuts is the stupid spectral Ghost-child-God thing, which was ridiculous in the first place. 

How does this sound? I tried to address every concern and viewpoint, and combine them into one good ending that I think would please everyone. 

I agree with this 100%. I honestly have no issues with the ending other
than it ends way to abruptly, which in my opinion, destroyed any chance
the ending had to be bittersweet, and instead made things just way too confusing.

[Blind2Society]

Fully rendered Tali on Rannoch please. Thank you.

[adamdehass]

Two weeks since the game came out, and almost two weeks since i beat the game for the first time, and i am still having difficulty wrapping my head around the fact that the same company that got me to fall in love with the mass effect universe and really claim the role of Shepard, stepped back and called the endings that we are left with in 3, good enough. I just cant see someone who played the same games that i did, and experienced what i did, calling those endings a good send -off for commander Shepard. It just boggles my mind.

[Doppelgaenger]

Dear Bioware team, [suggested changes are at the bottom in the video, I fully agree with that guy, but this is important]


I am frustrated. I really am frustrated. I spend 75€ on a game and over 100 hours playing all three parts and at the end of the experience all I can feel is an emotional disconnect? You dropped the ball. Big time. However, let me explain why I think this is.

First of I have a short list of minor complaints that I was willing to overlook as a loyal customer (My first Bioware game was Baldur's Gate 2). However, in light of the ending of the game there is more that needs changing than the end, specifically the attitude of your company.

1) The Quest log is not working. I do not enjoy it to waste time running around for nothing in a game.

(I bought a collector's edition for a significantly higher price. I found that product to be lacking in a number of ways. Don't think that I would not have spent more on it! However even what I got for 75 € was lacking.)

2) The promised comic is a preview for a comic not a finished product
3) The artbook is a preview for an artbook not a finished product
4) I really had hoped the soundtrack to be a CD
5) The "dog" is useless
6) Why has the patch velcro hooks? Thoose make it almost useless. Was it not intended to be sewn onto something?

7) Tali's face, Jacob and Thane's romance (this I cover from hearesay so excuse me If I am not correct in the Details), and the Strachild/Wintersun metal song affair show lazyness in crafting the product.

(DLC)

8) The day one DLC partially on disc controversy (granted I got that with the CE but regardless), show extremely bad manners toward your fans
9) The Omega DLC can instantly be seen as "missing" content. Sure it might not have been ready (or you might not even have started working on it) but it already sticks out that you will have to buy it. It should have been there in the first place.
10) The first thing after the credits is a message to buy DLC? Is this a bad joke? I will have to think very hard about this in particular.

In short: This behaviour will not fly Bioware. About this alone I am pretty disappointed in you. I think this is exploitation of your customers. You promise but you don't deliver and when you do, you hold parts back on purpose. You would be well advised to change this or it will cost you many customers in the long run. I truly love your products but tell me how should I tell someone that I get basically ripped of by you? I would have loved to show someone the artbook but that preview you got me would make me ashamed if I had to justify to anyone getting the CE for this.

After writing this part down I really thought about just saving my money in the future and to walk away from your company. However, there is still something that I will see through (till): The End

I finished the Dialogue with the "god child" and immediately felt confusion. I felt nothing more. Afther that I completed the ending and went straight to the forums to find out what was wrong. A lot was wrong and still is.

I will now share something with you concerning interactive storytelling. I have a good amount of experience in roleplaying games (pen and paper/larp) as storyteller and as player. This I think is very much akin to interactive storytelling like you do it in your game. I once had a stunning experience that is pretty much akin to what I experienced with the ME 3 ending. A certain adventure (this was written by an author and we had bought it) of the game "The Dark Eye" ended in flat out "tragic" failure. I as a player was upset as hell, not only because the adventure had been annoying and bad in so many ways, but because I had put effort into this only to see how nothing came out of it. I was like "**** this, I could have stayed out of the Orcland (with my character) and nothing would have been different!" There was simply no payoff. This is a lesson to be learned from true roleplaying: When you are the character you want them to succeed. The player becomes in part the figure he is playing. This goes way deeper than the attachement to a character in a movie or a book. You emphazise stronger.

This goes so far that the Vampire the Masquarade Core Rulebook give advice like this: "Acommodate Player expectations: It's their game too, remember. You have to have some kind of idea what type of game the players want to play.", "Don't forget the payoff: If the players work hard and make smart decisions, their characters' success must be in proportion of the challenges they have faced, or they will feel cheated.", and "Don't abuse your power: You are the final arbiter of events. Your word is law, but you can not use this authority to beat the characters into what you want them to do."

The same thing goes for Mass Effect 3.It is an interactive storytelling experience. The player is Commander Shepard. When you force Shepard into the "god Child" choices you betray everything outlined above. You force them (!) into your (!) conclusion and deny them any payoff (!). This does not mean that you are not crafting the story but this is interactive! Shepards fate can simply not be predetermined (obviously the real of the plausible has to set borders here) because that would mean our choices don't matter. (remember what you advertised by the way?). Forcing one ending - and yes 17 or 16 variations of three differently colored explosions leading to almost the entirely same conclusion count as ONE ending – denies the players the story they want to play. You forgot the payoff to. [at this point i wanted to write something mean about the popup at the end but I cut that out because I try to reason here] You just walk over the players work. You have to show them for what they did all this and why it mattered to make choices in the first place.

This is how I describe what is wrong here: You as storytellers have a responsibility to us as players as much as I have the responsibility towards my players. The deep emotional investment needs to be handled carefully. When you start to mistreat your customers and players this will come back to hurt you. This is over all a business relationship. We pay you to be treated right. However, the ending caused me and others much emotional distress. This is not to be taken lightly! Because when you mistreat someone in a roleplaying game (even if not on purpose!) you need to realize that they themselves are partially invested. Let that sink in.

Your customers actual lives an psyche are invested in your products. (If you don't believe me go to your forums and look or ask! I personally felt almost sick for two days and still focus on this one week after the end. God knows I have better thinks to do... maybe not, preventing one other person from going through this is worth more than my stupid science paper) You have a responsibility in an interactive story. In this game series in particular, because interactivity is the central feature. This is true roleplaying. You might not want the responsibilities coming with this but you have them and you need to address them.

So as a customer in this relation I urge you strongly to put out an alternative ending that addresses the grievances of the people in the Forums. I want to like your games I truly do, I want you to continue making games, and I want to buy them and the merchandise for them. I wan't to get invested in your games because you truly did an awesome job with them and provided not only an enjoyable but a meaningful experience. The ending of ME 3 stand in complete contradiction to everything that has come before. Please allow me to still be part of this.
Do not forget: In this relationship profit is strongly connected to brand loyalty and you can not afford to lose this loyalty by abusing it in form of exploitation (10 points above) or bad (interactive) storytelling.

This is my take on this. I apologize for the many errors, especially in punctuation, but this is not my native language.


You should make sure everyone of your employees responsible reads the following articles:


Musings of a Screenwriter: The Ending Thread

http://social.biowar...ndex/10022779/1

This is a screenwriter and from the standpoint of his profession he explains in detail, why Shepard is not a tragic hero and what else is wrong with the endings. This is rather conventional but still an important read!

Why you enjoy art and the one problem with Mass Effect 3

http://www.themetaga...oblem-with.html

This is about why your players felt emotional disconnect and distress. The source is frustration and he explains how your ending fails to deliver emotionally.

This video will also go a long way of helping you to accomplish a better ending (this is not me):

Mass Effect 3 Ending: My Thoughts, What Could Have Been, What Should Have Been



I urge you strongly to take his war asset approach for your ending. Ignore the indoctrination theory, because mental battles are not the ones a player fights. This is about a real battle let us fight it.

Sincerely N.G. W

By the ending I wish to see some day: Keelah se'lai

Modifié par Doppelgaenger, 20 mars 2012 - 12:40 .

[cmj428]

BioWare if you are truly holding something back with the endings I really hope you don't wait 3 weeks to reveal it when far too many people have returned the game and given up on it.
I myself will be patient but from what I've heard many people are already trading in the game.

[plethomacademia]

These are my biggest problems with the current ending.

- I want to be able to argue with the catalyst. Accepting its answers without question is not what Shepard is about. I suspect it was lying to me. I want to be able to express that through Shepard. Right now I can only express that with a gun, which is fine, but goes against the cutscene (yes, cutscene, I was watching a movie, not interacting) dialogue that had just came before.

- The Normandy should have never left. It doesn't make sense for the characters or even in terms of how long it would take to get from Earth to Charon. Especially since my love interest somehow teleported onto the Normandy when he was behind me in the race to the conduit. (Which also goes against the characters as you've established them.)

- Speculation is for cliffhangers. This is the end of a trilogy, there should be no cliffhangers. There shouldn't be lingering questions as to what happened to Shepard. Either she's dead or she's not. Having her wake up in the rubble with no explanation only broke my heart more.

- We should be able to win. It should be hard, but it should be possible. There is no ending currently where Shepard can win. You guys know how to do this: Dragon Age Origins was a great example of how to do this without being cheesy or copping out of hard choices. To get the hero's ending in that game, you have to compromise your morals and do things that many of our characters likely ended up regretting. Shepard should have that opportunity as well. Some people will still sacrifice their Shepard to get the ending where no one is hurt, etc. But it should be a choice. I have Sheps who would do that in an instant, but it hurt to have that ending forced on those who wouldn't take it.

- I want to be able to fail and have the Reapers take over. Not because it's a desirable ending, but Shepard should be able to fail. Just like she should be able to win. I set up different characters who, through their actions and their personalities, were more or less what the galaxy needed in order to pull through this crisis. Allow me to see that just like you did in ME2. 

Modifié par plethomacademia, 20 mars 2012 - 12:43 .

[Redinferno124]

Hey I don't know if this has been said else where yet, but what if you expand the ending by allowing Shepard to fight Harbinger in a huge boss battle and once Harbinger is defeated, simply have him foreshadow that "hey, you may have destroyed us for good, but don't think your actions haven't gone unnoticed". Shepard learns that it's highly possible that whoever created the reapers may come to the galaxy in the very distant future initiating a new threat to the peace, but this time at least the galaxy can prepare themselves if the day every comes.

That's may idea. Please feel free to add your own ideas to it to see how it could work or if you hate it, tell me why it sucks and how it could be better.

[OldPapaRich]

I don't know if you can "fix" the endng.  I'm just surprised that anyone really thought the idea of "lots of specualtion" was good, especially lots of the specualtion that is "wait, that doesn't make sense."  I'd like to know the answers to some questions:

1. When and why did Joker leaver the battle above Earth?

2. How did all of my squadmates (especially the ones that were with me) get on the ship with him?

3. How did Anderson get ahead of Shepard?  There only seemed to be one path.

4. How did Shepard's body get into that pile of rubble (prusumably) in London?

5. Is he really alive? (Because that seems like a pretty big stretch)

I won't bring up all the questions about the changes in the story themes, or the seemingly huge violations of the canon presented in the previous games.  Those questions alone have me baffled.

Modifié par OldPapaRich, 20 mars 2012 - 12:47 .