348 réponses à ce sujet

[Gigamantis]

Aesieru wrote...

Gigamantis wrote...

A list ...

1.) Despite what you all want to claim you weren't "lied to."  They promised varied endings based on your choices and you got 3 of them.  If they weren't varied enough for you that's fine, you have every right to be disappointed.  Pretending you were lied to, however, is silly. 

2.) Some of you are proponents of the "happy ending" and it's the reason you're upset.  That's not your call to make and if any changes are made in that capacity to the ending it will be an outrage.  If you "fans" end up tainting the DLC like that I couldn't stomach buying it; I want the real ending.  

3.) There are many questions that still need answering and plot points that need settling.  That's pretty much what DLC is and with no loose ends there would be no conceivable reason to release more content.  You all knew there would be DLC.  


By everyone's admission the rest of the game was fantastic.  No matter what reasons you subscribe to you're overreacting and not being constructive.  Trying to sabotage the game on fan and review sites is silly.  Calling the game garbage and making empty threats on the forums is silly.  If you're disappointed voice it, but the community has been rather embarrassing on this issue.  Get your heads straight. 

Assets were replaced by generic fleets and armies that did not do anything except die miserably and forwent any technological application of the universe as we know it.

Continuity was thrown out the window.

Our choices all resulted in the same stream-lined result, no matter what we did to get there.

Our relations, interactions, and alliances really meant nothing.

Things such as the Rachni and other variable assets that were promised to have significant impact... had literally none.

So many things were lied to, and the list is huge.

Assets and decisions all effected how the game ends.  If they didn't effect it enough for you I understand why you're disappointed, but that doesn't mean you were lied to. 

The loose ends you mention will likely end up being DLC content.  I don't really understand how a lot of you expected everything to be 100% concluded yet still expected DLC.  You can't really have both in any logical way.  

[malakim2099]

AgentEpsilona wrote...

Games should not be made to have plot holes, and then expensive DLC released so that there are no plot holes. If I buy a game, I expect it to be complete; DLC should optional add-ons, they shouldn't fix a broken game.

Exactly this. I shouldn't have to buy DLC for a "real" ending. A trilogy ending needs to wrap everything up. This doesn't even come close.

[Aesieru]

Gigamantis wrote...

Aesieru wrote...

Gigamantis wrote...

A list ...

1.) Despite what you all want to claim you weren't "lied to."  They promised varied endings based on your choices and you got 3 of them.  If they weren't varied enough for you that's fine, you have every right to be disappointed.  Pretending you were lied to, however, is silly. 

2.) Some of you are proponents of the "happy ending" and it's the reason you're upset.  That's not your call to make and if any changes are made in that capacity to the ending it will be an outrage.  If you "fans" end up tainting the DLC like that I couldn't stomach buying it; I want the real ending.  

3.) There are many questions that still need answering and plot points that need settling.  That's pretty much what DLC is and with no loose ends there would be no conceivable reason to release more content.  You all knew there would be DLC.  


By everyone's admission the rest of the game was fantastic.  No matter what reasons you subscribe to you're overreacting and not being constructive.  Trying to sabotage the game on fan and review sites is silly.  Calling the game garbage and making empty threats on the forums is silly.  If you're disappointed voice it, but the community has been rather embarrassing on this issue.  Get your heads straight. 

Assets were replaced by generic fleets and armies that did not do anything except die miserably and forwent any technological application of the universe as we know it.

Continuity was thrown out the window.

Our choices all resulted in the same stream-lined result, no matter what we did to get there.

Our relations, interactions, and alliances really meant nothing.

Things such as the Rachni and other variable assets that were promised to have significant impact... had literally none.

So many things were lied to, and the list is huge.

Assets and decisions all effected how the game ends.  If they didn't effect it enough for you I understand why you're disappointed, but that doesn't mean you were lied to. 

The loose ends you mention will likely end up being DLC content.  I don't really understand how a lot of you expected everything to be 100% concluded yet still expected DLC.  You can't really have both in any logical way.  

Okay let's look at this.

So we got the PIRATE FLEET okay? 200 points of value.

I'm curious HOW THE PIRATE FLEET has ANY IMPACT on the COLOR OR VARIANCE OF AN ENERGY PULSE / BEAM / PARTICLE BLAST THAT BLOWS UP EVERY RELAY

You see, the 800 points that go to the Crucible asset I can understand that.

But the fleets?

The Fleets HAVE NOTHING to do with it.

ACCORDING TO ASSET LOGIC

I could AVOID EVERY PLANET WITH CRUCIBLE ASSETS but GET THE FLEET ASSETS INSTEAD AND HAVE A MULTIPLIER RATING FROM MULTIPLAYER AND...

I would BE ACHIEVING THE SAME AMOUNT OF COLORS AND VARIANCE OF AN ENERGY PULSE / BEAM / PARTICLE BLAST THAT BLOWS UP EVERY RELAY.

I indicate this in such dismissive and demeaning format so as to iterate the issue.

I can do the same logically with irrefutible evidence for the other points, do not test me, I know BioWare from the beginning and I know this series like the back of my hand, and I ALSO KNOW what is broken and not. Your issue really has no content to it.

---

But here's the real issue of the assets / fleet / armies.

When you get to the cinematic it plays the same way minus or plus the possibility of two scenes that may show minor damage to fighters / the destruction of a cruiser / the avoidance of a beam / the destruction of some Oculus reaper interceptors.

You get a fleet of cruisers and human fighters. That's it... you see no thanix's, no dreadnought black-hole guns, no dreadnoughts, just cruisers, cruisers, more cruisers, bombardments, the lack of any firing variables, the fact every shot is a barrage tactic and so the Earth is thus bombarded as we learned in ME 2 on the Citadel with the guy yelling about FIRING SOLUTIONS, and then of course they miserably all die.

The armies and fleets were replaced by Generic Fleet and Army A. That is NOT what I spent 25+ hours building up.

Modifié par Aesieru, 25 mars 2012 - 05:51 .

[WhiteThunder]

Am I wrong in remembering being promised over 10 possible endings based on our choices?

Also, the ME3 ending managed to accomplish the tricky feat of simultaneously giving no closure while closing off any future endeavors in the universe. Not to mention that the entire galactic leadership will starve to death in orbit around a ravaged earth, and that the Krogan are condemned to eventual extinction on their ruined planet with no way of accessing the rest of the galaxy for resources.

Oh, and Garrus and Tali will starve to death on that planet because they can only eat Dextro-Amino based foods.

I didn't care if Shepard died to save the galaxy. I didn't need a passel of blue babies with Liara. The ending was simply of an extremely low quality not keeping with the rest of the series.

[bigbade]

Gigamantis wrote...

bigbade wrote...

1.)- "Will there be an ending where the reapers win?"
-" Yes."

Find me the reapers win ending, I'll wait.

2.) Then don't buy it.

3.) Remind me how ME1 or 2 left loose threads in their ending. Overlord dlc didn't answer any questions about the reapers, Shadow Broker and Arrival were dlcs that led up to ME3 by ADDING more plot instead of wrapping anything up, which is what DLC should be. At the end of ME2 reapers are slowly floating in from dark space, without arrival we could have easily assumed that they'll arrive in a while, hell arrival wasn't even necessary, it was just made to add a sense of urgency to it all. 

Regardless of the fact that the previous 2 didn't leave any questions unanswered, they actually could have because we knew there was something coming after. Leaving loose threads and plot holes in the conclusion isn't at all "a satisfying end" to any series.

1.) Source?  It would be funny if they were spoiling potential endings in interviews, but this is marginal.  Things change in developlment.  

2.) I won't, and I don't see why anyone would.  The only thing worse than an artist compromising his vision is him selling out 100% to the point where nothing of his vision is left.  

3.) ME 1 and 2 didn't need loose ends for content because the series still existed.  The conflict was still in full effect after each game but this was the definitive end.  All that's left content wise is to go into more detail on what happened on how everything plays out in the end.

Mike Gamble (Associate Producer)
http://www.nowgamer....in_bioware.html

Mass Effect 3 will shake up the player's moral choices more than ever
before, even going so far as allowing the Reapers to win the battle
for Earth, according to BioWare's community representative Mike
Gamble.


In an inteview with NowGamer at Gamescom, we asked if BioWare was taking risks with Mass Effect 3's
plot,
including a negative ending in which the Reapers win. Gamble simply
said, "Yes". We asked him again to confirm what he had just said and he
said, "Yes".


Mike Gamble (Associate Producer)
http://www.nowgamer....ry_details.html


"Of course you don’t have to play multiplayer, you can choose to play
all the side-quests in single-player and do all that stuff you’ll
still get all the same endings and same information, it’s just a
totally different way of playing"

Things change in development? That's your excuse? You said we weren't lied to, we were. That's a lie.



2) The artist compromised his vision when he detracted from the whole series continuity in the last 5 minutes, that's not holding up his artistic integrity, it's just garbage. 

n the same way that the upper right hand corner of a painting is not “the painting” and the bridge in the middle of a song is not “the song”. The ending of ME3 is a small, albeit important portion of the greater overall story. If someone decided to go baroque for 95% of a painting and then pick out a random portion of the picture to do in abstract line drawing it would be out of place and hurt the piece as a whole. The criticism would be “Wtf were you thinking? Why did you suddenly change styles at the very end? There's no coherence or meaning in your choice.” (Unless of course the subject matter of the piece directly addresses the reasoning behind such a stark shift, which I do not believe ME3's ending does or was intended to do.) Changing the ending (adding, explaining or completely rewriting it) to bring it back in line with the rest of the established philosophies of the Mass Effect universe is not an affront to artistic integrity, quite the opposite. It's the integration of critique which makes the piece more powerful as a whole.

And if you don't see why anyone would buy an ending-changing DLC then you must not read very well. 

3) Exactly? You're just backing up the fact that we have to buy an ending now...

Modifié par bigbade, 25 mars 2012 - 05:57 .

[DeinonSlayer]

Gigamantis wrote...

1.) Despite what you all want to claim you weren't "lied to."  They promised varied endings based on your choices and you got 3 of them.  If they weren't varied enough for you that's fine, you have every right to be disappointed.  Pretending you were lied to, however, is silly.

You know, when I was younger, I heard about a company that was selling commemorative copper engravings of Abraham Lincoln for twenty bucks each. If you mailed in your order, they sent you a penny in return.

Technically, they weren't lying either. I still bet it would make you feel ripped off.

[Gigamantis]

It is a fact we were lied to. They claimed all of our choices from ME1 through the end of ME3 will matter in the end of ME3; instead we got three endings that are not affected by anything beyond themselves.
Hudson specifically stated we weren't being given an "A, B, or C" ending; that is what they gave us.
They said it wouldn't be like an episode of lost and will give proper closure; it was and it did not.

http://social.biowar.../index/10204263
It is a fact we were lied to and they relied more on false advertising than anything else.

I don't think many of you know what a lie is. Your decisions in prior games all effected how the proceeding game played out which ultimately ended with this game and it's decision effecting the finite ending. You seem to have some grandiose expectations on how much everything would effect the ending and those expectations weren't met. That doesn't mean you were lied to.

If they manage to make this ending truly fit with the trilogy's story itself, I would be content with it. However, it is still pathetic how they're claiming this is their artistic vision when they compromised it during production with the ending to a different story.

You're exaggerating and being emotional. The ending had many unsettled points and questions left to answer; those kinds of things are necessary for more content.

Bombing the reviews is not silly. When the ending manages to turn the first third of the story into a massive plothole, makes every single thing in ME1 through ME3 not matter in the slightest, is completely seperate from the story of the very game it is ending, and turns the antagonist into Lawful Stupid when everyone knows the planned ending at the start was going to have them with a legitimate and understandable motive? Yeah, all of that makes giving the game around a 6/10. 0/10 is inaccurate since the game is not broken.

Agreed.

A 6/10 with a well reasoned explanation is fair. Review bombing is silly because the intent isn't to give a fair review, and if you look at the review bombings you'll see that the reviews aren't fair. I'm not trying to claim everyone has been unreasonable but the community as a whole has been really bad.

[Akka le Vil]

If anything, a good indication that the endings aren't fine, is the incredible level of stupidity from people who defend them.
They aren't really doing a good job at making them look deep and intelligent...

[Gigamantis]

bigbade wrote...

Gigamantis wrote...

bigbade wrote...

1.)- "Will there be an ending where the reapers win?"
-" Yes."

Find me the reapers win ending, I'll wait.

2.) Then don't buy it.

3.) Remind me how ME1 or 2 left loose threads in their ending. Overlord dlc didn't answer any questions about the reapers, Shadow Broker and Arrival were dlcs that led up to ME3 by ADDING more plot instead of wrapping anything up, which is what DLC should be. At the end of ME2 reapers are slowly floating in from dark space, without arrival we could have easily assumed that they'll arrive in a while, hell arrival wasn't even necessary, it was just made to add a sense of urgency to it all. 

Regardless of the fact that the previous 2 didn't leave any questions unanswered, they actually could have because we knew there was something coming after. Leaving loose threads and plot holes in the conclusion isn't at all "a satisfying end" to any series.

1.) Source?  It would be funny if they were spoiling potential endings in interviews, but this is marginal.  Things change in developlment.  

2.) I won't, and I don't see why anyone would.  The only thing worse than an artist compromising his vision is him selling out 100% to the point where nothing of his vision is left.  

3.) ME 1 and 2 didn't need loose ends for content because the series still existed.  The conflict was still in full effect after each game but this was the definitive end.  All that's left content wise is to go into more detail on what happened on how everything plays out in the end.

Mike Gamble (Associate Producer)
http://www.nowgamer....in_bioware.html

Mass Effect 3 will shake up the player's moral choices more than ever
before, even going so far as allowing the Reapers to win the battle
for Earth, according to BioWare's community representative Mike
Gamble.


In an inteview with NowGamer at Gamescom, we asked if BioWare was taking risks with Mass Effect 3's
plot,
including a negative ending in which the Reapers win. Gamble simply
said, "Yes". We asked him again to confirm what he had just said and he
said, "Yes".


Mike Gamble (Associate Producer)
http://www.nowgamer....ry_details.html


"Of course you don’t have to play multiplayer, you can choose to play
all the side-quests in single-player and do all that stuff you’ll
still get all the same endings and same information, it’s just a
totally different way of playing"

Things change in development? That's your excuse? You said we weren't lied to, we were. That's a lie.



2) The artist compromised his vision when he detracted from the whole series continuity in the last 5 minutes, that's not holding up his artistic integrity, it's just garbage. 

n the same way that the upper right hand corner of a painting is not “the painting” and the bridge in the middle of a song is not “the song”. The ending of ME3 is a small, albeit important portion of the greater overall story. If someone decided to go baroque for 95% of a painting and then pick out a random portion of the picture to do in abstract line drawing it would be out of place and hurt the piece as a whole. The criticism would be “Wtf were you thinking? Why did you suddenly change styles at the very end? There's no coherence or meaning in your choice.” (Unless of course the subject matter of the piece directly addresses the reasoning behind such a stark shift, which I do not believe ME3's ending does or was intended to do.) Changing the ending (adding, explaining or completely rewriting it) to bring it back in line with the rest of the established philosophies of the Mass Effect universe is not an affront to artistic integrity, quite the opposite. It's the integration of critique which makes the piece more powerful as a whole.

3) Exactly? You're just backing up the fact that we have to buy an ending now...

1.)  Take Diablo3 as an example; they've changed a lot while the game is in beta.  Games in development are subject to change, period.  You should be happy that changed, because as it stood it was a massive spoiler.

2.) Like I said, unsettled plot points are just a means to leave room for new content.  There's nothing artistically flawed about that approach; in fact it's necessary for any finite work with a DLC model.  As long as it adhere's to their vision they can distribute their content in any way they see fit.

3.) You got an ending, just one that leaves questions and a reason to purchase more content.  That's the gaming industry; maybe all DLC should've just been in the game originally in every game.  

Modifié par Gigamantis, 25 mars 2012 - 06:03 .

[Gigamantis]

Akka le Vil wrote...

If anything, a good indication that the endings aren't fine, is the incredible level of stupidity from people who defend them.
They aren't really doing a good job at making them look deep and intelligent...

You sound emotional and there's nothing resembling a salient point in your post.  Are you quite sure you're the intelligent one in all of this?  

[Han Shot First]

Here is why the ending is not fine:


1. Jake Lloyd in a cameo of a horrible spoilery character who had not a single mention or foreshadowing in the entire series. He just appears out of thin air in the last 5 minutes of the game.

2. Said spoilery character's logic in why the Reapers are necessary. It doesn't make any sense.

3. Spoilery character having supernatural origins and being completely out of place with the rest of the series.

4. Spoilery character introducing massive plotholes. Why was Saren and the Conduit needed again?

5. The entire game spent rallying the galaxy together against a common foe, only to have it not matter at the end.

6. The only ending where the Reapers are destroyed requires Shepard to choose organics over synthetics, despite the series spending a great deal of time developing the idea that in the end, synthetic beings are not all that different than organics. What was the point again of having EDI develop into a person, rather than a thing, that was willing to sacrifice her own life for organics? Or of the Geth only wanting peace, and being the victims of the Morning War? The idea that synthetics and organics cannot coexist clashes is introduced in the last 5 minutes of the series, and clashes with the rest of that series. It is an example of schizophrenic writing. It is a complete reversal thematically from what the writers had explored for three games.

7. All three endings result in galactic civilization being destroyed, and entering a dark age.

8. Some of the factions Shepard rallied are doomed to die, as they are trapped in the Sol sytem and cannot survive on food from Earth. (Turians and Quarians)

9. The player not given much closure on the fate of his squad.

10. The Green Ending being completely nonsensical, and a betrayal of your organic squadmates and everything Shepard fought for.

11. The Reapers, who up until the last 5 minutes had been one of the most intimidating antagonists in gaming history, reduced to mere tools of an extremely lame and unneccesary character, who seems out of place in Mass Effect to begin with.

12. The ending reduced to an 'A, B, C' choice, despite being promised by the devs that the series wouldn't end with an 'A, B, C' choice.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 25 mars 2012 - 06:08 .

[bigbade]

1) Gameplay changes maybe, that's what a beta test is for. I highly doubt they're rewriting their story due to beta feedback with a may release date. It wasn't a massive spoiler, it was a way of presenting how far our choice's consequences could go. Assuming a "failure" ending when faced with galactic annihilation isn't far-fetched.
2) Who's talking about plot points? They could very easily keep pumping out DLC with an ending that keeps up with the series logic from the past 2.95 games. How does 2/3 endings where Shepard, the protagonist, dies make this viable for dlc that expands on the ending?

3) I got an incomplete ending and far from a conclusion. If you're happy with paying for an unfinished game and saying 'ah well, to be continued in dlc!' then that's your problem and is in fact why the gaming industry is why it is the way it is, because you let them get away with that.

[Gigamantis]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Gigamantis wrote...

1.) Despite what you all want to claim you weren't "lied to."  They promised varied endings based on your choices and you got 3 of them.  If they weren't varied enough for you that's fine, you have every right to be disappointed.  Pretending you were lied to, however, is silly.

You know, when I was younger, I heard about a company that was selling commemorative copper engravings of Abraham Lincoln for twenty bucks each. If you mailed in your order, they sent you a penny in return.

Technically, they weren't lying either. I still bet it would make you feel ripped off.

Advertising always walks a fine line with people's expectations, and I'm not saying you don't have the right to feel disappointed if your expectations weren't met.  I'm just saying you weren't lied to, and that's as true now as it was every other time your expectations overshot a product in some way. 

Since it's just the ending that didn't quite hit expectations for most people it makes the game in entirety seem pretty high quality. 

[Thetri]

Alexraptor1 wrote...

People, its pretty obvious were being trolled here.

[Gigamantis]

bigbade wrote...

1) Gameplay changes maybe, that's what a beta test is for. I highly doubt they're rewriting their story due to beta feedback with a may release date. It wasn't a massive spoiler, it was a way of presenting how far our choice's consequences could go. Assuming a "failure" ending when faced with galactic annihilation isn't far-fetched.
2) Who's talking about plot points? They could very easily keep pumping out DLC with an ending that keeps up with the series logic from the past 2.95 games. How does 2/3 endings where Shepard, the protagonist, dies make this viable for dlc that expands on the ending?

3) I got an incomplete ending and far from a conclusion. If you're happy with paying for an unfinished game and saying 'ah well, to be continued in dlc!' then that's your problem and is in fact why the gaming industry is why it is the way it is, because you let them get away with that.

1.) ME3 didn't have a beta to test gameplay, but it's not just gameplay that's subject to change.  They're not done with the gameplay or the story until the game goes gold.  Until that time everything is subject to change.  That's the way it has to be and the way it'll always be.

2.) The ending of this game is the definitive end; DLC is just going to tie up loose ends.  That's all they can really do for new content when a series is completely over.

3.) You got a complete ending, there's just more content to be had to answer any lingering questions.  Again, that's how DLC works.  I understand you hate the entire concept of DLC because it should've just been in the game originally, but that's not how it works.  

[kalle90]

FlashedMyDrive wrote...

Alexraptor1 wrote...

We were also promised the endings would not be A, B and C... which is EXACTLY what they were.

Um no... They were R, G, B.... duh!

Spoilers!

Yeah it was fine as in Bioware has the right to make a bad ending just like every other developer. But if they want to sell any DLC - no good. If they want people to buy games after DA2 and this... Lets just say that if they sell I'm going to facepalm.

[nevar00]

1.) Despite what you all want to claim you weren't "lied to." They promised varied endings based on your choices and you got 3 of them. If they weren't varied enough for you that's fine, you have every right to be disappointed. Pretending you were lied to, however, is silly.

Someone hasn't read that list of quotes from Hudson...

3 of them? I thought there were supposed to be a lot more. Also some that weren't A, B, C. They lied, it's that simple.

[P47 ace]

anorling wrote...

Ok! I'll be damned but I admit. I really wanted the game to end like this:


Goddamnit! That doesn't make me a bad person.
What have the world come to when we can't even be allowed to find a little happiness in the fiction we flee to to get away from all the evil, tragedy and despair that surrounds us in the real world?!
Give me my happy ending. I deserve it and so does the story itself!

Really WHY THE HELL can we not get something like this, WHY man???? WHY???
i mean just as one option, JUST ONE, make it hard as hell to get, just give me the F*%#ing option to get it

[bling581]

Gigamantis wrote...

3.) There are many questions that still need answering and plot points that need settling.  That's pretty much what DLC is and with no loose ends there would be no conceivable reason to release more content.  You all knew there would be DLC.  

After all the money and time I invested in 3 games, not 1 game, 3 games, I should not have to pay for additional DLC content to find out what the "ending" was all about. After DA2, a mediocre SWTOR and now this BioWare has lost some serious rep with me.

I hope this isn't the case, but they're going to lose customers if they start making this a standard practice. By "this" I mean trying to milk more money out of customers by not giving them closure to the end of a game. After I saw the ending to ME3 it almost felt like a prelude to ME4 and that shouldn't happen. Aren't you guys making enough off of DLC and the new microtransactions that are going to appear in a lot of games? The things companies do to make a buck....

[Kalas82]

Gigamantis wrote...

A list ...

1.) Despite what you all want to claim you weren't "lied to."  They promised varied endings based on your choices and you got 3 of them.  If they weren't varied enough for you that's fine, you have every right to be disappointed.  Pretending you were lied to, however, is silly. 

2.) Some of you are proponents of the "happy ending" and it's the reason you're upset.  That's not your call to make and if any changes are made in that capacity to the ending it will be an outrage.  If you "fans" end up tainting the DLC like that I couldn't stomach buying it; I want the real ending.  

3.) There are many questions that still need answering and plot points that need settling.  That's pretty much what DLC is and with no loose ends there would be no conceivable reason to release more content.  You all knew there would be DLC.  


By everyone's admission the rest of the game was fantastic.  No matter what reasons you subscribe to you're overreacting and not being constructive.  Trying to sabotage the game on fan and review sites is silly.  Calling the game garbage and making empty threats on the forums is silly.  If you're disappointed voice it, but the community has been rather embarrassing on this issue.  Get your heads straight. 

1) no...it was exactly mentioned we wouldn`t get a a)b)c) literaly in this words.
2)Some might be, the rest got swept away by the amount of "stupidity" this ending provides.
Jesus Shepard and Space-God, plotholes over and over (like teleporting Anderson, beamin Squadmates, etc.), unlogical plot-progression (Shepard condems the whole universe more effectivly to damnation than the Reapers ever could), weak as plot-devices, and so on.
You just didn`t think more than 2 minutes about the ending, fine by me, but don`t judge people who actual listened and watched it.
3)DLC is fine, ending the game in a somewhat logical or sense-making way would`ve even given reason for bying this DLC..this 3) is totaly meaningless.

Was the rest of ME3 good? I loved it.
Is calling people who thought about the ending in a diffrent way than you "silly" ok? Perhaps in ur world..in mine there`s something like freedom of speech..sometimes anyhow.
You liked the ending? Good for you..a majority of players doesn`t ...this fact is easy to gather if you like anywhere where gamers meet, no matter if it`s the Bioware-Forum or anyother platform.

[FedericoV]

Gigamantis wrote...

3.) There are many questions that still need answering and plot points that need settling.  That's pretty much what DLC is and with no loose ends there would be no conceivable reason to release more content.  You all knew there would be DLC.  

I think that the ending sucks on a writing and gaming level: they really do. I could explain why in detail but there are countless threads and vids on the web doing it. I just want to say that I cannot believe what you are saying here. If they are going to charge us for the "true" endings, I'm done with Bioware. No way I will pay money to get something they should have given us in the first place.

[furryrage59]

anorling wrote...

Ok! I'll be damned but I admit. I really wanted the game to end like this:


Goddamnit! That doesn't make me a bad person.
What have the world come to when we can't even be allowed to find a little happiness in the fiction we flee to to get away from all the evil, tragedy and despair that surrounds us in the real world?!
Give me my happy ending. I deserve it and so does the story itself!

A feel good ending would have been a wonderful way to leave our mass effect friends and finish their story.

It's a hipster conspiracy that everything has to be dark and moody to be cool. What utter nonsense.