1309 réponses à ce sujet

[Erield]

piemanz wrote...

I'm a huge ME fan, probably have around 10 playthroughs in both ME1 and 2. I wouldn't describe myself as a **** either since the ME series are the only bioware games I own.

I enjoyed the endings because they ended how I envisioned the series ending. I think they end the story without trivialising the Reapers, by requiring the Galaxy as a whole to make huge sacrifces to get rid of them once and for all.

It's not that I don't see where a lot of the complaints are coming from either, I can see some plot holes, but i've chosen to explain them to myself rather than demand an explenation, which I think may have been the whole point in making them fairly vague in the first place.

Overall I felt like I got closure, I got to say goodbye to all my crew before embarking on what i fully expcted to be a suicide mission, all the loose ends were resolved throughout the game, and the Reapers were defeated.

I understand that people think their decisions should have had more of an impact, but I never went into the game with that expectation, so it's not really an issue. I always looked at Shep as just one man trying to get things done. Just because he made a decision to do something doesn't mean that decision has to have earthshattering consequences. I think it takes something away from the overall universe when everything revolves around the decisions of one person. For example, I actually quite like the fact I chose Anderson as counciler in ME1 but in ME3 Udina is the counceler, because it shows that Anderson has his own free will and not tied down to a decision Shep made for him.

I'm glad that you found happiness with the endings, and were satisfied with them.  You mention that you found there were some plot holes, but you explained them away yourself.  I have a few questions for you, if you don't mind answering.

1.  Do you think that if a game's ending has significant plot holes raised BY the ending that must be explained away by the player that it is fair to say that the ending is "poor" ?

2.  How do you explain the absolute subjugation of an entire species (or multiple, if you consider each Reaper to be a different race) to be a Paragon choice?

3.  What sort of logic/plot-hole filling device did you come up with to explain away the space magic of the Star Child?  Specifically for the Destroy option.  Control, well, TIM thought he was able to control Reapers as he was, but he wasn't--more power was needed, or something.  Synthesis, well, we'll just assume that the beam and explosions were actually highly-advanced nanites that invasively changed literally everything in minutes.  But destroy?  I..I still have nothing, especially considering that it is possible for Shepard to live through it.

[nevar00]

Lightice_av wrote...

Claym0re wrote...

Lightice_av wrote... Blew up? People are still mistaking the energy burst from the Crucible for an explosion?

You can call the destruction of mass relays a different type of explosion, but the fact remains Joker was fleeing from a HUGE shockwave which crippled the Normandy even at lightyears distance.

Normandy is in the middle of a Mass Relay jump just when the destruction begins. The tunnel of negative mass is collapsing, and Joker is trying to escape this effect but fails. It is not an explosion. If you have any sense of scale, you'll understand that largest of supernovas couldn't create a visible effect of that magnitude on galactic scale. If it was and explosion of that magnitude, the Normandy would have been instantly vaporized along with the Citadel and the entire Solar System. Stars would have exploded hundreds of lightyears in every direction. That is not what we see on the galactic map.

No, he wasn't in the middle of a Mass Relay jump.  He was using the FTL drive to flee.

[piemanz]

Dimensio wrote...

piemanz wrote...


I understand that people think their decisions should have had more of an impact, but I never went into the game with that expectation, so it's not really an issue

Evidently you did not read developer comments issued prior to release.  Expectations that previous decisions would impact the ending were based upon unambiguous claims from BioWare staff that previous decisions would impact the ending, just as expectations that multiplayer would not be required to attain the "perfect" ending were based upon unambigious claims from BioWare staff that multiplayer would not be required to attain the "perfect" ending.

You're right I didn't, I didn't want to spoil anything, so i made a decision to stay clear of anything regarding ME3. I'm glad i did aswell, because I went into the game with my own expectations rather than that of the marketing teams.

[Reiella]

Claym0re wrote...

Hey I already said I bought it. Well explained really.

Now all we have to handle are the thousands of ships stranded in the Sol system and solve the mystery behind Joker chickening out.

And that is a very good question.  Can speculate that there was time between Reaper offline and the retreat, but that still only provides the opportunity not the motivation.

Could use something as goofy stupid as Hackett sending the Normandy [stealth ship, fast] to see if the Reapers at other planets had been taken care of.  But it is a bit of a stretch.

[Dimensio]

piemanz wrote...

Dimensio wrote...

piemanz wrote...


I understand that people think their decisions should have had more of an impact, but I never went into the game with that expectation, so it's not really an issue

Evidently you did not read developer comments issued prior to release.  Expectations that previous decisions would impact the ending were based upon unambiguous claims from BioWare staff that previous decisions would impact the ending, just as expectations that multiplayer would not be required to attain the "perfect" ending were based upon unambigious claims from BioWare staff that multiplayer would not be required to attain the "perfect" ending.

You're right I didn't, I didn't want to spoil anything, so i made a decision to stay clear of anything regarding ME3. I'm glad i did aswell, because I went into the game with my own expectations rather than that of the marketing teams.

Casey Hudson is a director, and Mike Gamble is a producer.  Neither are marketers.  Both individuals issued those statements knowing the actual content of the game endings, and both issued those statements after final development work had finished.

[Dimensio]

nevar00 wrote...

Lightice_av wrote...

Claym0re wrote...

Lightice_av wrote... Blew up? People are still mistaking the energy burst from the Crucible for an explosion?

You can call the destruction of mass relays a different type of explosion, but the fact remains Joker was fleeing from a HUGE shockwave which crippled the Normandy even at lightyears distance.

Normandy is in the middle of a Mass Relay jump just when the destruction begins. The tunnel of negative mass is collapsing, and Joker is trying to escape this effect but fails. It is not an explosion. If you have any sense of scale, you'll understand that largest of supernovas couldn't create a visible effect of that magnitude on galactic scale. If it was and explosion of that magnitude, the Normandy would have been instantly vaporized along with the Citadel and the entire Solar System. Stars would have exploded hundreds of lightyears in every direction. That is not what we see on the galactic map.

No, he wasn't in the middle of a Mass Relay jump.  He was using the FTL drive to flee.

Perhaps, had the ending events not been so ambiguously presented, players would not be so confused.

[EnforcerWRX7]

nevar00 wrote...

Lightice_av wrote...

Claym0re wrote...

Lightice_av wrote... Blew up? People are still mistaking the energy burst from the Crucible for an explosion?

You can call the destruction of mass relays a different type of explosion, but the fact remains Joker was fleeing from a HUGE shockwave which crippled the Normandy even at lightyears distance.

Normandy is in the middle of a Mass Relay jump just when the destruction begins. The tunnel of negative mass is collapsing, and Joker is trying to escape this effect but fails. It is not an explosion. If you have any sense of scale, you'll understand that largest of supernovas couldn't create a visible effect of that magnitude on galactic scale. If it was and explosion of that magnitude, the Normandy would have been instantly vaporized along with the Citadel and the entire Solar System. Stars would have exploded hundreds of lightyears in every direction. That is not what we see on the galactic map.

No, he wasn't in the middle of a Mass Relay jump.  He was using the FTL drive to flee.

No.  Wrong.  NO one needs to run from the "special light".   He is running from one of the "bullets" between the mass relays.  

Earth was saved so why would Joker need to run?  The only place he can possibly be is inside a mass relay "tunnel".  That much is obvious.

The ending is horrible anyway.  It makes no sense and Bioware basically ripped us all off and laughed the whole way to the bank.

Modifié par EnforcerWRX7, 19 mars 2012 - 02:18 .

[GhostlyMaiden]

Dimensio wrote...

piemanz wrote...


I understand that people think their decisions should have had more of an impact, but I never went into the game with that expectation, so it's not really an issue

Evidently you did not read developer comments issued prior to release.  Expectations that previous decisions would impact the ending were based upon unambiguous claims from BioWare staff that previous decisions would impact the ending, just as expectations that multiplayer would not be required to attain the "perfect" ending were based upon unambigious claims from BioWare staff that multiplayer would not be required to attain the "perfect" ending.

I didn't. The minute the leaked beta script came out, I flew out of here. That probably helped. At best I was expecting two good endings, one you screwed up big time ending, and an epilogue slide.

[Bourne Endeavor]

Lightice_av wrote...

SealKudos wrote...

People here have said again and again though - a lack of a happy ending is not the problem.  The problem is that there are illogical scenes in the ending, the choice boils down to "pick a color, any color", and totally disregards any choice we've made up to that point.

I'm curious as to why these endings are "illogical". The only logical quandry I found was in the Destruction ending, where I must wonder how you define "synthetic life", and separate it from non-sapient computer systems. Beyond that, I see no logical issues about these endings.

Like I said, I agree that with some effort the endings could have been made more personalized by showing how all the people you've influenced react, but I have no problem with the core decisions themselves. The whole thing reflects the spirit of the games, and the different perspectives you've come across quite well.

Also, while the lack of standard happy ending may not be a problem for you, that's the most common complaint I've seen on all forums I've been to. And that frankly is just sad.

I will list them in bullet form...

• Why is Joker seen abandoning the fleet during the final confrontation?
• How did the crew get aboard the Normandy while then subsequently fleeing?
• We have established lore dictating the destruction of a Mass Relay would annihilate entire systems. Were they retconned... again?
• With the Relays destroyed, the entire Galactic armada is now stranded on the Sol system.
• Even if millennial aged species like the Asari and Krogan could endure travel for centuries. All other races have no such future. In addition, none have the supplies to survive a journey of that length. Therefore, everyone supporting Earth dies.
• Shepard throughout the series has defined the odds. Sovereign spoke of how insignificant organics were, yet Shepard "found a way." Harbinger claimed organic 'processing' was humanity's destiny, yet once again Shepard "found a way." Now the Godchild provides three choices that ultimately have near identical outcomes and Shepard just... gives in? Two prior antagonists, he/she did everything to stop them however when the biggest threat of all was before him/her, Shepard resigns to acceptance?
• Your crew is marooned on a planet with no hope for rescue. These people fought with you, in the trenches, and the conclusion is a slow demise either through starvation or inevitable lack of procreation?
• The Synthesis ending blatantly dictates we must become one with synthetics otherwise our hope is lost. In essence, we merge with the Reapers. This contradictions the entire series theme of unity and perseverance. Organics were destined to lose and must merge with machine for a future.
• Your choices spanning over three games amount to absolutely nothing. In fact, the War Assets you acquire accomplish little because you inevitably receive the same three choices with minimal variation.
• In the "Good" Destroy ending. We supposedly see Shepard take a gasping breath, despite earlier having witnessed him/her incinerated.

That is why these endings are illogical. Nothing is resolved and more questions are raised than answers.

Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 19 mars 2012 - 02:22 .

[piemanz]

Dimensio wrote...

piemanz wrote...

Dimensio wrote...

piemanz wrote...


I understand that people think their decisions should have had more of an impact, but I never went into the game with that expectation, so it's not really an issue

Evidently you did not read developer comments issued prior to release.  Expectations that previous decisions would impact the ending were based upon unambiguous claims from BioWare staff that previous decisions would impact the ending, just as expectations that multiplayer would not be required to attain the "perfect" ending were based upon unambigious claims from BioWare staff that multiplayer would not be required to attain the "perfect" ending.

You're right I didn't, I didn't want to spoil anything, so i made a decision to stay clear of anything regarding ME3. I'm glad i did aswell, because I went into the game with my own expectations rather than that of the marketing teams.

Casey Hudson is a director, and Mike Gamble is a producer.  Neither are marketers.  Both individuals issued those statements knowing the actual content of the game endings, and both issued those statements after final development work had finished.

That's fair enough, i'm not saying you should like the endings, I was just trying to explain why I do like them. For whatever reason we both obviously went into the game with different expectations, yours may have been down to Bioware being dissingenuous but it didn't effect me.

Modifié par piemanz, 19 mars 2012 - 02:20 .

[Reiella]

Erield wrote...

I'm glad that you found happiness with the endings, and were satisfied with them.  You mention that you found there were some plot holes, but you explained them away yourself.  I have a few questions for you, if you don't mind answering.

1.  Do you think that if a game's ending has significant plot holes raised BY the ending that must be explained away by the player that it is fair to say that the ending is "poor" ?

2.  How do you explain the absolute subjugation of an entire species (or multiple, if you consider each Reaper to be a different race) to be a Paragon choice?

3.  What sort of logic/plot-hole filling device did you come up with to explain away the space magic of the Star Child?  Specifically for the Destroy option.  Control, well, TIM thought he was able to control Reapers as he was, but he wasn't--more power was needed, or something.  Synthesis, well, we'll just assume that the beam and explosions were actually highly-advanced nanites that invasively changed literally everything in minutes.  But destroy?  I..I still have nothing, especially considering that it is possible for Shepard to live through it.

1.  Eh, depends on the extent and impact, I think folks are disappointed with the ending so they make more out of the plotholes than they would if they liked it.  Lando Calrissian's costume change was weird, but not a big deal since the movie was good.

2. A House Divided, and it was a hard choice there for me too.  That said, I don't consider any of the 3 final choices in ME3 explicitly paragon or renegade.

3.  I imagine it was just a kill-switch.  Course surviving re-entry again is pretty harsh, but Sci-Fantasy powers go.

[Ultra Prism]

Anyone who atleast played ME2, will realize that something is wrong with ME3 ending ... FORCED

[golyoscsapagy]

Dimensio wrote...

piemanz wrote...


I understand that people think their decisions should have had more of an impact, but I never went into the game with that expectation, so it's not really an issue

Evidently you did not read developer comments issued prior to release.  Expectations that previous decisions would impact the ending were based upon unambiguous claims from BioWare staff that previous decisions would impact the ending, just as expectations that multiplayer would not be required to attain the "perfect" ending were based upon unambigious claims from BioWare staff that multiplayer would not be required to attain the "perfect" ending.

The first part as a statement itself can easily be defended. They are saying previous decisions effect the ending which is true - previous decisions translate to war assets and endings are based on that to a certain point. So, if ME3, without any imported asset does not provide you with 5k war assets (and I think this is the case), previous decisions does have an impact. (Just playing devil's advocate here, I think the ending was totally mediocre at best, but I don't care too much about it, the rest of the game was good.)

The MP part I think is not true. I don't think you are able to get 10k war assets in SP. One main amount could be the salarian fleet, which I didn't ever want as it requires not curing the genophage and killing wrex, but I don't think that would be 2-3k alone.

[ToJKa1]

GhostlyMaiden wrote...

In Psych 101, based off the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator:

Judging vs. Perceiving

People of the judging type are more likely to hate the ending, because it's too open-ended and doesn't explain anything.

People of the percieving type are more likely to like the ending, because it's open-ended giving them the opportunity to speculate it's possibilities.

Interesting. I see myself as a "percieving" type, and that exactly my reaction to the endings. Stuff like that makes me wish i had studied psychology. There may be some logic to human behaviour after all

[Whiskey Jay]

I believe we are hearing about more people liking the endings for a couple reasons:  1.  ea marketed me3 a lot more aggressively and gt more casual gamers to buy the game.  2.  players that dont have the benefit of plaing through me, me2, and me3 don't have the same knowledge regarding the games lore or the emotional attachmets to the characters many of us do.  3.  perception,  3 people see 1 thing and there are 6 opinions on what mighta happened.  ps sorry bout the bad grammer my cell phone hates me

[savionen]

Reiella wrote...

Erield wrote...

I'm glad that you found happiness with the endings, and were satisfied with them.  You mention that you found there were some plot holes, but you explained them away yourself.  I have a few questions for you, if you don't mind answering.

1.  Do you think that if a game's ending has significant plot holes raised BY the ending that must be explained away by the player that it is fair to say that the ending is "poor" ?

2.  How do you explain the absolute subjugation of an entire species (or multiple, if you consider each Reaper to be a different race) to be a Paragon choice?

3.  What sort of logic/plot-hole filling device did you come up with to explain away the space magic of the Star Child?  Specifically for the Destroy option.  Control, well, TIM thought he was able to control Reapers as he was, but he wasn't--more power was needed, or something.  Synthesis, well, we'll just assume that the beam and explosions were actually highly-advanced nanites that invasively changed literally everything in minutes.  But destroy?  I..I still have nothing, especially considering that it is possible for Shepard to live through it.

1.  Eh, depends on the extent and impact, I think folks are disappointed with the ending so they make more out of the plotholes than they would if they liked it.  Lando Calrissian's costume change was weird, but not a big deal since the movie was good.

2. A House Divided, and it was a hard choice there for me too.  That said, I don't consider any of the 3 final choices in ME3 explicitly paragon or renegade.

3.  I imagine it was just a kill-switch.  Course surviving re-entry again is pretty harsh, but Sci-Fantasy powers go.

They clearly showed Shepard being burned to a half-skeleton in ME2 when he fell. Even by Mass Effect's sci-fi logic there's no way that Shepard could have landed back on Earth and still lived.

[Gruzmog]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

Lightice_av wrote...

SealKudos wrote...

People here have said again and again though - a lack of a happy ending is not the problem.  The problem is that there are illogical scenes in the ending, the choice boils down to "pick a color, any color", and totally disregards any choice we've made up to that point.

I'm curious as to why these endings are "illogical". The only logical quandry I found was in the Destruction ending, where I must wonder how you define "synthetic life", and separate it from non-sapient computer systems. Beyond that, I see no logical issues about these endings.

Like I said, I agree that with some effort the endings could have been made more personalized by showing how all the people you've influenced react, but I have no problem with the core decisions themselves. The whole thing reflects the spirit of the games, and the different perspectives you've come across quite well.

Also, while the lack of standard happy ending may not be a problem for you, that's the most common complaint I've seen on all forums I've been to. And that frankly is just sad.

I will list them in bullet form...

• Why is Joker seen abandoning the fleet during the final confrontation?
• How did the crew get aboard the Normandy while then subsequently fleeing?
• We have established lore dictating the destruction of a Mass Relay would annihilate entire systems. Were they retconned... again?
• With the Relays destroyed, the entire Galactic armada is now stranded on the Sol system.
• Even if millennial aged species like the Asari and Krogan could endure travel for centuries. All other races have no such future. In addition, none have the supplies to survive a journey of that length. Therefore, everyone supporting Earth dies.
• Shepard throughout the series has defined the odds. Sovereign spoke of how insignificant organics were, yet Shepard "found a way." Harbinger claimed organic 'processing' was humanity's destiny, yet once again Shepard "found a way." Now the Godchild provides three choices that ultimately have near identical outcomes and Shepard just... gives in? Two prior antagonists, he/she did everything to stop them however when the biggest threat of all was before him/her, Shepard resigns to acceptance?
• Your crew is marooned on a planet with no hope for rescue. These people fought with you, in the trenches, and the conclusion is a slow demise either through starvation or inevitable lack of procreation?
• The Synthesis ending blatantly dictates we must become one with synthetics otherwise our hope is lost. In essence, we merge with the Reapers. This contradictions the entire series theme of unity and perseverance. Organics were destined to lose and must merge with machine for a future.
• Your choices spanning over three games amount to absolutely nothing. In fact, the War Assets you acquire accomplish little because you inevitably receive the same three choices with minimal variation.
• In the "Good" Destroy ending. We supposedly see Shepard take a gasping breath, despite earlier having witnessed him/her incinerated.

That is why these endings are illogical. Nothing is resolved and more questions are raised than answers.

Agree on all but three. As only one mass relay has ever been destoyed to our knowledge, and in a very specific way at that. Its not contradicting lore if another way of destroying them by the being(s) that actually created them does not cause a solar system to explode.

the rest is valid, but 3 is saying all swans are black based on seeing one black swan and never anything else.

[Clayless]

I enjoyed the endings and played all 3.

Here's a question, why do the people that hate them whine so much and not accept other opinions than their own?

[chmarr]

the only people that are loving the endings are either

A)- new accounts that are just made within the last week
- are really bioware /EA staff doing damage control covertly but are making it blatintly obvious

[Dimensio]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

Lightice_av wrote...

SealKudos wrote...

People here have said again and again though - a lack of a happy ending is not the problem.  The problem is that there are illogical scenes in the ending, the choice boils down to "pick a color, any color", and totally disregards any choice we've made up to that point.

I'm curious as to why these endings are "illogical". The only logical quandry I found was in the Destruction ending, where I must wonder how you define "synthetic life", and separate it from non-sapient computer systems. Beyond that, I see no logical issues about these endings.

Like I said, I agree that with some effort the endings could have been made more personalized by showing how all the people you've influenced react, but I have no problem with the core decisions themselves. The whole thing reflects the spirit of the games, and the different perspectives you've come across quite well.

Also, while the lack of standard happy ending may not be a problem for you, that's the most common complaint I've seen on all forums I've been to. And that frankly is just sad.

I will list them in bullet form...

• Why is Joker seen abandoning the fleet during the final confrontation?
• How did the crew get aboard the Normandy while then subsequently fleeing?
• We have established lore dictating the destruction of a Mass Relay would annihilate entire systems. Were they retconned... again?
• With the Relays destroyed, the entire Galactic armada is now stranded on the Sol system.
• Even if millennial aged species like the Asari and Krogan could endure travel for centuries. All other races have no such future. In addition, none have the supplies to survive a journey of that length. Therefore, everyone supporting Earth dies.
• Shepard throughout the series has defined the odds. Sovereign spoke of how insignificant organics were, yet Shepard "found a way." Harbinger claimed organic 'processing' was humanity's destiny, yet once again Shepard "found a way." Now the Godchild provides three choices that ultimately have near identical outcomes and Shepard just... gives in? Two prior antagonists, he/she did everything to stop them however when the biggest threat of all was before him/her, Shepard resigns to acceptance?
• Your crew is marooned on a planet with no hope for rescue. These people fought with you, in the trenches, and the conclusion is a slow demise either through starvation or inevitable lack of procreation?
• The Synthesis ending blatantly dictates we must become one with synthetics otherwise our hope is lost. In essence, we merge with the Reapers. This contradictions the entire series theme of unity and perseverance. Organics were destined to lose and must merge with machine for a future.
• Your choices spanning over three games amount to absolutely nothing. In fact, the War Assets you acquire accomplish little because you inevitably receive the same three choices with minimal variation.
• In the "Good" Destroy ending. We supposedly see Shepard take a gasping breath, despite earlier having witnessed him/her incinerated.

That is why these endings are illogical. Nothing is resolved and more questions are raised than answers.

Events that imply a bleak future are not themselves illogical.  That the loss of the mass relays will effectively maroon numerous races within the Sol System is not illogical, regardless of the implications.  To suggest otherwise is to appeal to consequence, which is itself a logical fallacy.  Similarly, that Shepard's squadmates have crash-landed on an unknown planet with no immediately visible means of escape and with no means of sustaining both levo-amino acid and dextro-amino acid based life is not illogical, even if such a situation implies the eventual starvation of one or more members of Shepard's team.

That Shepard's team is on the Normandy is not explained, and this does introduce necessary questions suggesting a lack of thought by the writers regarding the ending but if they are on the Normandy, the consequences of their presence when the ship crashes on an known planet is not itself a plot hole.

[Ghozt66]

In my OPINION i think the endings were already planned from the very first Mass Effect game..we all should have seen this coming..

to support this.... in my OPINION at the end of Mass 1 Saren talked about the whole symbosis thing which we all know is a ending outcome choice

Ending of Mass 2 you either destroy the base or keep it for the whole "Control" outcome

So in the third game they added the "Destroy" outcome.

For me the only "right" option was to kill the reapers

But there are alot of "why's?" after the final choice is made

[Unit-Alpha]

Hardcore fans finish first and tend to be most affected.

Plus, a lot of the more casual fans don't play for the story, so they just recently finished and didn't give a damn about the plot holes.

[majormajormmajor]

chmarr wrote...

the only people that are loving the endings are either

A)- new accounts that are just made within the last week
- are really bioware /EA staff doing damage control covertly but are making it blatintly obvious

Don't forget:

C)- Leibstandarte SS Bioware Diehards with all the games

Modifié par majormajormmajor, 19 mars 2012 - 02:38 .

[Dimensio]

golyoscsapagy wrote...

Dimensio wrote...

piemanz wrote...


I understand that people think their decisions should have had more of an impact, but I never went into the game with that expectation, so it's not really an issue

Evidently you did not read developer comments issued prior to release.  Expectations that previous decisions would impact the ending were based upon unambiguous claims from BioWare staff that previous decisions would impact the ending, just as expectations that multiplayer would not be required to attain the "perfect" ending were based upon unambigious claims from BioWare staff that multiplayer would not be required to attain the "perfect" ending.

The first part as a statement itself can easily be defended. They are saying previous decisions effect the ending which is true - previous decisions translate to war assets and endings are based on that to a certain point. So, if ME3, without any imported asset does not provide you with 5k war assets (and I think this is the case), previous decisions does have an impact. (Just playing devil's advocate here, I think the ending was totally mediocre at best, but I don't care too much about it, the rest of the game was good.)

Inadequate decisions within the series can be offset through multiplayer inflation of the Galactic Readiness score, eliminating the actual impact of those decisions.  Additionally, what you suggest is that the number of decisions, rather than their actual nature, affect the scenes at the end.  Moreover, your interpretation is not compatible with the statement "This story arc is coming to an end with this game. That means the endings can be a lot more different. At this point we're taking into account so many decisions that you've made as a player and reflecting a lot of that stuff. It's not even in any way like the traditional game endings, where you can say how many endings there are or whether you got ending A, B, or C."

The MP part I think is not true. I don't think you are able to get 10k war assets in SP. One main amount could be the salarian fleet, which I didn't ever want as it requires not curing the genophage and killing wrex, but I don't think that would be 2-3k alone.

In fact, examination of the game data files reveals less than 8000 points worth of military assets available in-game, even taking into account mutually exclusive asset combinations.

[Kraykan82]

chmarr wrote...

the only people that are loving the endings are either

A)- new accounts that are just made within the last week
- are really bioware /EA staff doing damage control covertly but are making it blatintly obvious

Fail.

I signed up for this place when I bought ME2 collector's addition. Only reason I didn't do it for ME1 was because EA didn't own bioware at the time.

And I'm certainly not EA staff.