1291 réponses à ce sujet

[xsdob]

If the angry one is still watching this thread, I'd like to offer an apology for what I wrote here. I still feel sad about so many people having a negative view on the future of mass effect, I took away a feeling of hope and saw the destruction of the relays more as a symbol of rebirth and renewal for the galaxy.

However, I could have worded this a lot better and a lot more mature than painting everyone as childish or tantrum throwing, that was just rude on my part. Me and everyone who didn't hate the endings are the minority on these forums, we make up 10, maybe 15% of the fandom if you just clumped everyone who didn't outright hate and despise the endings together. No matter what I say, I'm still going to be seen as being in the wrong as long as I'm against hating the endings, and that is just the way fate came out.

But I should at least have a better attitude about it, and I certainty shouldn't grandstand about how upset I feel at the moment while putting others down. So, I ask for you to please accept my apology, even if I haven't been the rudest or nastiest person here, what I said was still out of line.

I sincerely apologize.

[Rolando93]

Nathan_41 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Sidney wrote...

Vhalkyrie wrote...

Please explain how destruction of a mass relay doesn't go supernova, as shown in Arrival, and described in the codex. 

Because you see it discharge the energy before the relay blows up. There is nothing to "go nova" left in the relay it expends the energy to propogate the wave. The discharge of the energy is what crushes relay rather than crushing the relay causing the explosion like in Arrival.

No, the energy backfire is what destroys the relay. You then see an expanding explosion which then cuts away.
I am not in the camp that says this is what happens for certain, but we certainly SEE the beginning of a nova.

This is true, else why was Joker so busy trying to stay ahead of the energy burst?

Do you not see the way he is acting? He's scared out of his mind. What would you do if you saw a wave of energy coming at you. You'd run the other way. Even if it was harmless because you don't know that..

[Sidney]

Vhalkyrie wrote...

Sidney wrote...

Vhalkyrie wrote...

Please explain how destruction of a mass relay doesn't go supernova, as shown in Arrival, and described in the codex. 

Because you see it discharge the energy before the relay blows up. There is nothing to "go nova" left in the relay it expends the energy to propogate the wave. The discharge of the energy is what crushes relay rather than crushing the relay causing the explosion like in Arrival.

A lightning bolt is a discharge of energy.  It isn't harmless.

A lightning bolt has nothing to do with this. a better analogy is a pressure cooker. A pressure cooker will go "nova" in your kitchen if it didn't vent the energy. Because it does when you open it up it doesn't blow up. The relay has a power source at the center but if that power is discharged the relay itself no longer has an explosive force left .

[Nathan_41]

HenchxNarf wrote...

I wasn't going to come back here, but I had to with this.

ME3 was meant to be the end of Shepard's story. Which means in the next game, even if the endings were something different, we most likely wouldn't have the same people in the game as has been in the last three.

Doesn't change the OP's concerns, or mine, or apparently those of many other fans who didn't like the endings. There was no closure for the characters we were invested in, and we care about those characters more than we did the nebulous goal that may not even be relevant in 50k years, if another culture hasn't established spaceflight by then.

HenchxNarf wrote...

ME4 is supposed to start a new story. Shep is done, finished.

So, with that in mind, the OP's post seems selfish and not entirely correct.

To you. To me its entirely justified, and you're simply trying to shove your own opinion down other people's throats. You're going to have the current endings available to you whatever Bioware decides to do in response to this issue, if you're satisfied with them, then so be it, but don't act as if others are being selfish because the game up and changed direction and style in the last ten minutes of play.

Modifié par Nathan_41, 01 avril 2012 - 04:57 .

[KustomDeluxe]

Omega-202 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

That's what happens here. As for your last sentence, I don't care about others. I did not fight for them, I did not spend 3 games so people I don't know will live in peace somehow somewhere. That's got nothing to do with what I've played.

But you're not the only person who played.  

I personally DID play to stop the Reapers.  I played so that countless lives could be saved.  Mass Effect 3 made it very clear that was one of the main drives.  Look at Anderson and Shepard's discussions before leaving Earth.  Yes, you can't save them all, but you fight to save the ones you can.  

Just because that wasn't your motivation doesn't mean it wasn't someone elses.  There had to be a choice made on how to end it.  BioWare had to choose what the sacrifice was to be for and they chose altruistic "greater good" over a personal happy ending.  That's their choice.  

If that's the case then though...Why didn't they say such things in their advertising? Instead of pushing the "build-your-own ending" narrative so hard?

If there were 16 endings, then you could of had yours and The Angry One could have had his/hers.

[Rhyth]

The Angry One wrote...

It's come up in a few discussions now and then from various people that, no matter what the consequences of the ending, the cycle is in fact broken, Reapers are no longer a threat and future races will be free of bad Reaper influence, being culled etc. etc.

There's one issue I have with this: I DON'T CARE.

I got into Mass Effect because I became invested into the galaxy, it's various races and the galaxy.
I don't care whether the Yahg are now free to expand across the galaxy and eat puppies or whatever it is they do.
I don't care that in 10, 20, 30,000 years there'll be some form of galactic society again and I certainly don't care what some senile old man has to say to his naive grandson 10,000 years in the future on some backwater world I don't know and don't give a damn about!

I care about this galaxy, as is. I care about Garrus, about Liara, about Kaidan, about Tali building her home on Rannoch, about Wrex raising his new children. I care about Jack and her students, about Conrad, about Bailey. I care about the Turians, the Asari, the Quarians, the Geth, the Krogans.
Heck I even care about Vega and his N7 promotion.

That's what I care about, the characters I've gotten to know for 3 games. Not some nebulous, unseen and uneeded future. For that, you might as well let the Reapers win, because it amounts to exactly the same thing in the end. This isn't just about Shepard's unhappy ending. I want a happy ending, but even if it had to be a sacrifice, then I want that sacrifice to mean something other than some alien I don't care about not fearing the robotic squids from hell.

Yep.

[Narayan23]

Leozilla wrote...

The Angry One wrote...




It's come up in a few discussions now and then from various people that, no matter what the consequences of the ending, the cycle is in fact broken, Reapers are no longer a threat and future races will be free of bad Reaper influence, being culled etc. etc.




There's one issue I have with this: I DON'T CARE.




I got into Mass Effect because I became invested into the galaxy, it's various races and the galaxy.


I don't care whether the Yahg are now free to expand across the galaxy and eat puppies or whatever it is they do.


I don't care that in 10, 20, 30,000 years there'll be some form of galactic society again and I certainly don't care what some senile old man has to say to his naive grandson 10,000 years in the future on some backwater world I don't know and don't give a damn about!




I care about this galaxy, as is. I care about Garrus, about Liara, about Kaidan, about Tali building her home on Rannoch, about Wrex raising his new children. I care about Jack and her students, about Conrad, about Bailey. I care about the Turians, the Asari, the Quarians, the Geth, the Krogans.


Heck I even care about Vega and his N7 promotion.




That's what I care about, the characters I've gotten to know for 3 games. Not some nebulous, unseen and uneeded future. For that, you might as well let the Reapers win, because it amounts to exactly the same thing in the end. This isn't just about Shepard's unhappy ending. I want a happy ending, but even if it had to be a sacrifice, then I want that sacrifice to mean something other than some alien I don't care about not fearing the robotic squids from hell.

Being one of the people you mentio I feel I should defend my position.




First off, Shep and crew were going against an unbeatable enemy, you could not go into this game expecting everyone to come out unscathed, and weather or not it leads to the extinction of every council race they still won. because the reapers are no more. granted you don't get your blue babies, or get to see tali's home, but so much more was at stake for the first time in millions if not billions of years the galaxy and it's inhabitants have the freedom to chose how they will develop.




second, just because the future is bleak for the spieces you like it does not make it a bad ending, Take for example Halo Reach.




the tagline of the game was "you know how it will end" I went in to that game expecting little to no one surviving, however I still grew attached to the characters, I mourned each of their deaths, and when I got to the end and my objective was to survive. I knew that no matter how good I was Noble Six was going to die. But becasue of his sacrifice (and the rest of Noble) Humanity was given the slight chance it needed for survival.




Shep did that on a larger scale, The council race's sacrifices, and all that came before, allowed life to be free weather or not they got to reap the benefits of that freedom.




To act childish and demand a new ending because you cannot appericate the one you have now,does a disservice to one of the best written series in videogames.




Shep may or may not have died, the Geth and Quarians, who you jumped through so many hoops to save may have both died out anyway, but with their sacrifice others will allow others to live without the shadow of the reapers over them.

you do realize reach is an terrible example right


noble in the end died bringing cortana to the pillar of autumm.




this is a worthy sacrifice with a beautifull pay off at the end of halo 3

[The Angry One]

firebreather19 wrote...

Funny, you don't care about any of that even though through ME1, 2, and 3, that was always Shepard's number one goal. Heck, you get two dialogue choice options in the very beginning of ME3--either "we fight or we die" or "we try our best to survive." It's fine you don't care, but why did you play through the first two games? Thought the third was going to do suddenly change course?

If anything, this game and its ending has been a stroke of brilliance. I mean really, it's completely shed light on current-day humans, at the very least gamers of the sci-fi RPG variety. Only worried about the right now, with no vision at all beyond maybe a week or so. I mean if you don't care about the future, then Bioware should've just given you the beginning game choice to go hide in stasis pods like Javik and wait it out. Then you and your LI can emerge from the pods to a dead universe and pretend to play Adam and Eve for a while. Fun stuff.

Kind of cool how not only the game's story but also fan reaction to the ending is pretty telling of the times. I think people will study this at a later date, the hypocrisy and such.

Shepard's goal was saving the galaxy from the Reapers.
THIS galaxy. THIS society. The one full of Shepard's friends. Not some nebulous future society. Ending the cycle for ending the cycle's sake alone is entirely a concept brought about in the last 10 minutes, it is NOT the theme of the trilogy and frankly I'm sick and tired of people outright lying by saying it is.

[Caz Tirin]

The Angry One wrote...

It's come up in a few discussions now and then from various people that, no matter what the consequences of the ending, the cycle is in fact broken, Reapers are no longer a threat and future races will be free of bad Reaper influence, being culled etc. etc.

There's one issue I have with this: I DON'T CARE.

I got into Mass Effect because I became invested into the galaxy, it's various races and the galaxy.
I don't care whether the Yahg are now free to expand across the galaxy and eat puppies or whatever it is they do.
I don't care that in 10, 20, 30,000 years there'll be some form of galactic society again and I certainly don't care what some senile old man has to say to his naive grandson 10,000 years in the future on some backwater world I don't know and don't give a damn about!

I care about this galaxy, as is. I care about Garrus, about Liara, about Kaidan, about Tali building her home on Rannoch, about Wrex raising his new children. I care about Jack and her students, about Conrad, about Bailey. I care about the Turians, the Asari, the Quarians, the Geth, the Krogans.
Heck I even care about Vega and his N7 promotion.

That's what I care about, the characters I've gotten to know for 3 games. Not some nebulous, unseen and uneeded future. For that, you might as well let the Reapers win, because it amounts to exactly the same thing in the end. This isn't just about Shepard's unhappy ending. I want a happy ending, but even if it had to be a sacrifice, then I want that sacrifice to mean something other than some alien I don't care about not fearing the robotic squids from hell.

I agree with most of what you've said.  I care about the Yahg because the Salarians are planning to "uplift" them, like they did with the Krogan (gee gaiz, dat turned owt swel! letz du it agan!).  And I'm glad I'm not the only one that remembers and wants to know about Vega's promotion.  I wanna know if Wrex really names his babies Shepard.  I want that Salarian you helped as a side quest to let you know that the first brood has Shepard's name like he was told the parent wanted to do.  I wanna hear about Blasto having a fatal head-on collision with anything that removes him from the universe (i have no idea why i don't like blasto, but i don't).

So yea, I wanna know about the galaxy I just saved.

[The Angry One]

xsdob wrote...

If the angry one is still watching this thread, I'd like to offer an apology for what I wrote here. I still feel sad about so many people having a negative view on the future of mass effect, I took away a feeling of hope and saw the destruction of the relays more as a symbol of rebirth and renewal for the galaxy.

However, I could have worded this a lot better and a lot more mature than painting everyone as childish or tantrum throwing, that was just rude on my part. Me and everyone who didn't hate the endings are the minority on these forums, we make up 10, maybe 15% of the fandom if you just clumped everyone who didn't outright hate and despise the endings together. No matter what I say, I'm still going to be seen as being in the wrong as long as I'm against hating the endings, and that is just the way fate came out.

But I should at least have a better attitude about it, and I certainty shouldn't grandstand about how upset I feel at the moment while putting others down. So, I ask for you to please accept my apology, even if I haven't been the rudest or nastiest person here, what I said was still out of line.

I sincerely apologize.

Accepted. I will say again I bear no ill will to anyone regardless of their opinion as long as you don't to me.

[Harbinger of your Destiny]

Omega-202 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

That's what happens here. As for your last sentence, I don't care about others. I did not fight for them, I did not spend 3 games so people I don't know will live in peace somehow somewhere. That's got nothing to do with what I've played.

But you're not the only person who played.  

I personally DID play to stop the Reapers.  I played so that countless lives could be saved.  Mass Effect 3 made it very clear that was one of the main drives.  Look at Anderson and Shepard's discussions before leaving Earth.  Yes, you can't save them all, but you fight to save the ones you can.  

Just because that wasn't your motivation doesn't mean it wasn't someone elses.  There had to be a choice made on how to end it.  BioWare had to choose what the sacrifice was to be for and they chose altruistic "greater good" over a personal happy ending.  That's their choice.  

But in stopping the reapers you have now givene everyone who survived a fate that is worse. They can't travel anywhere so Galactic trade is dead and therefore people starve and you can't get medicine so people are now dieing from disease. So everyone who survived is now fated to die a slow horrible death thanks to Shepard, so what would you rather have a horrible uncertain future of death and misery or a quick death from a reaper energy beam?

[HenchxNarf]

Karrie788 wrote...

Agreed on the fact that we shouldn't demand new endings. However, that won't stop me from saying the endings were rubbish and that I'd reaaaally like them changed.

And to take away from the player everything that was great about the game and that he loved, in the END, the CONCLUSION, doesn't seem like a good strategy to me.

It may not to you, but it does to other people. And I have no problems with people saying they hate the endings, that's fine. But they aren't anyone's to change. If Bioware decides to change them because they want to, then that's fine.

*shrugs*

I thought the ending was very conclusive and I found that it ended the way I figured it would. That's my opinion. Did my inner fangirl want a happy ending with Kaidan babies? Sure. But I knew that, logically, that it wasn't going to happen.

[Karrie788]

xsdob wrote...

If the angry one is still watching this thread, I'd like to offer an apology for what I wrote here. I still feel sad about so many people having a negative view on the future of mass effect, I took away a feeling of hope and saw the destruction of the relays more as a symbol of rebirth and renewal for the galaxy.

However, I could have worded this a lot better and a lot more mature than painting everyone as childish or tantrum throwing, that was just rude on my part. Me and everyone who didn't hate the endings are the minority on these forums, we make up 10, maybe 15% of the fandom if you just clumped everyone who didn't outright hate and despise the endings together. No matter what I say, I'm still going to be seen as being in the wrong as long as I'm against hating the endings, and that is just the way fate came out.

But I should at least have a better attitude about it, and I certainty shouldn't grandstand about how upset I feel at the moment while putting others down. So, I ask for you to please accept my apology, even if I haven't been the rudest or nastiest person here, what I said was still out of line.

I sincerely apologize.

Heh, it takes some balls to apologize, especially on a forum .
And you're not fundamentally wrong. We just happen to disagree.

[aliengmr1]

Sidney wrote...

Velocithon wrote...

The point Angry One is making in case people miss, is that the ending seems to show that in the distant future life goes on free of the Reapers.

The point is...who cares? We the players have spent three games bonding with the current characters. It's them we care about, not the future.

I care. I was all about saving life in the galaxy. I guess some people didn't get that from the series. I don't really want some DAO style screens telling me "Garrus now runs a cafe and bistro on Palavan called the Happy Sniper".

What I want is for the threat I saved the galaxy from to make some lick spit of sense. To have some grand design that isn't idiotic.

So why not have a victory? Truth is very few people like a grimdark ending. Mass Effect itself wasn't a dark story. This ending belongs to Warhammer 40k. I'm a fan of WH40k, read several of the books, and I can clearly see this ending fitting. But I can't see it fitting with ME.

I have no idea where people got this "It HAD to be this ONE ending" garbage.

[Vhalkyrie]

Sidney wrote..

A lightning bolt has nothing to do with this. a better analogy is a pressure cooker. A pressure cooker will go "nova" in your kitchen if it didn't vent the energy. Because it does when you open it up it doesn't blow up. The relay has a power source at the center but if that power is discharged the relay itself no longer has an explosive force left .

What is your source?  Arrival demonstrates the supernova effect.  The codex in ME3 restates it.  I have seen no evidence to support your statement.

[DJBare]

xsdob wrote...

If the angry one is still watching this thread, I'd like to offer an apology for what I wrote here. I still feel sad about so many people having a negative view on the future of mass effect, I took away a feeling of hope and saw the destruction of the relays more as a symbol of rebirth and renewal for the galaxy.

However, I could have worded this a lot better and a lot more mature than painting everyone as childish or tantrum throwing, that was just rude on my part. Me and everyone who didn't hate the endings are the minority on these forums, we make up 10, maybe 15% of the fandom if you just clumped everyone who didn't outright hate and despise the endings together. No matter what I say, I'm still going to be seen as being in the wrong as long as I'm against hating the endings, and that is just the way fate came out.

But I should at least have a better attitude about it, and I certainty shouldn't grandstand about how upset I feel at the moment while putting others down. So, I ask for you to please accept my apology, even if I haven't been the rudest or nastiest person here, what I said was still out of line.

I sincerely apologize.

I wish it was like this on both sides of the debate, I understand the frustration, but it gets us know where when folk keep fighting.

[firebreather19]

The Angry One wrote...

Omega-202 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

That's what happens here. As for your last sentence, I don't care about others. I did not fight for them, I did not spend 3 games so people I don't know will live in peace somehow somewhere. That's got nothing to do with what I've played.

But you're not the only person who played.  

I personally DID play to stop the Reapers.  I played so that countless lives could be saved.  Mass Effect 3 made it very clear that was one of the main drives.  Look at Anderson and Shepard's discussions before leaving Earth.  Yes, you can't save them all, but you fight to save the ones you can. 

Or, you know, save nobody.
You may be fine with it, but a lot of us play character driven games for the characters, and being told we can save none of them and leaving them to a bleak, vague fate is not acceptable.

Just because that wasn't your motivation doesn't mean it wasn't someone elses.  There had to be a choice made on how to end it.  BioWare had to choose what the sacrifice was to be for and they chose altruistic "greater good" over a personal happy ending.  That's their choice.  

In every other BioWare game, I can make the choice. Why is it suddenly their choice?

I will give you 73.99 if you promise to give me your ME3 CE and never pretend you're the know-it-all of video game stories ever again. Not even joking. 

[Rafe34]

Sidney wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Sidney wrote...

Vhalkyrie wrote...

Please explain how destruction of a mass relay doesn't go supernova, as shown in Arrival, and described in the codex. 

Because you see it discharge the energy before the relay blows up. There is nothing to "go nova" left in the relay it expends the energy to propogate the wave. The discharge of the energy is what crushes relay rather than crushing the relay causing the explosion like in Arrival.

No, the energy backfire is what destroys the relay. You then see an expanding explosion which then cuts away.
I am not in the camp that says this is what happens for certain, but we certainly SEE the beginning of a nova.

Just watched it again. You see the "charging ray" hit a relay, the core then turns your space magic color of choice and then the core starts to spin faster. The new color is fired off and as it is discharged the relay blows up. You see two different blasts. One is the "pulse" that wipes out the reapers which, dpending on your ending, has been showns to do diddly to organics, The second is a conventional kaput type boom for the Relay itself. In other words the relay doesn't blow up in ME3 like it does in Arrivalk.

It does, however, take down the Normandy. I don't think it's a stretch to say it also takes down the fleets. Now stranded in the Sol System, around Earth and Luna, with no dextro based food supplies, the Turians and the Quarians will starve.

And the Krogan will just eat everyone.

Can you not see why we want some sort of explanation? I'm afraid I just killed three races. Possibly four, if you chose the Destroy ending and IT isn't true.

[Omega-202]

Vhalkyrie wrote...

No.  What Shepard does is called Mutually Assured Destruction.  It is not considered a win by military strategists.  At all.

A) That's not mutually assured destruction.  The Reapers are wiped out but the civilian population of each species is left relatively intact.  Yes communication and transport is obliterated but billions of lives are saved.  

MAD is not considered a plausible course of action by military strategists; its not categorized as a win or loss.  Its a deterrent because once a MAD situation takes place, the concepts of win or lose are irrelevant.  But again its not pertinent to this discussion because the united species all survive and can rebuild.  

[The Angry One]

HenchxNarf wrote...

Karrie788 wrote...

Agreed on the fact that we shouldn't demand new endings. However, that won't stop me from saying the endings were rubbish and that I'd reaaaally like them changed.

And to take away from the player everything that was great about the game and that he loved, in the END, the CONCLUSION, doesn't seem like a good strategy to me.

It may not to you, but it does to other people. And I have no problems with people saying they hate the endings, that's fine. But they aren't anyone's to change. If Bioware decides to change them because they want to, then that's fine.

*shrugs*

I thought the ending was very conclusive and I found that it ended the way I figured it would. That's my opinion. Did my inner fangirl want a happy ending with Kaidan babies? Sure. But I knew that, logically, that it wasn't going to happen.

You have yet to explain why ME4 or the end of Shepard's story has any bearing on providing closure and a future for the trilogy's characters.

[Karrie788]

HenchxNarf wrote...

Karrie788 wrote...

Agreed on the fact that we shouldn't demand new endings. However, that won't stop me from saying the endings were rubbish and that I'd reaaaally like them changed.

And to take away from the player everything that was great about the game and that he loved, in the END, the CONCLUSION, doesn't seem like a good strategy to me.

It may not to you, but it does to other people. And I have no problems with people saying they hate the endings, that's fine. But they aren't anyone's to change. If Bioware decides to change them because they want to, then that's fine.

*shrugs*

I thought the ending was very conclusive and I found that it ended the way I figured it would. That's my opinion. Did my inner fangirl want a happy ending with Kaidan babies? Sure. But I knew that, logically, that it wasn't going to happen.

Good for you. Honestly. I wish I was in your position. The endings left me completely devastated. I would have been fine with Shep dying (although I would have bawled like a baby as I did in DA:O) if I had a little closure about her friends.
I disagree about the happy ending part. It should have been an option, for me. Not rainbows and puppies, obviously, but one option in which not everything basically goes to hell.

[Rolando93]

The Angry One wrote...

Rolando93 wrote...


Why does everyone assume that everyone will die just because there are no mass relays? The galactic fleet has the quarians. Not only are they masters at salvaging and repurposing old ships, they apparently know how to grow food on their ships. Salarians can multiply the output with some agricultural engineering. And I'm sure krogan are good for fertilizer.

Because Quarians are not magicians, and their food can only feed the Turians and themselves, and it's doubtful they have enough for both. They're also cut off from badly needed fuel and supplies.

Right, because teaching another species to grow food on a ship and giving them the tech to do so requires magic.

[Sidney]

The Angry One wrote...

Shepard's goal was saving the galaxy from the Reapers.
THIS galaxy. THIS society. The one full of Shepard's friends. Not some nebulous future society. Ending the cycle for ending the cycle's sake alone is entirely a concept brought about in the last 10 minutes, it is NOT the theme of the trilogy and frankly I'm sick and tired of people outright lying by saying it is.

The whole point as Shep says over and over and over is to stop the flippin' Reapers. That IS the point. I can't fathom how you can accuse people of lying about the game. If you had to sum up the entire set of three games in one sentence what would it be? "Shep tries to stop Reapers". There is no other way to look at it.

The game has always made it clear that stopping the Reapers > any individual characters. One does that by forcing the Virmire choice on you, 2 carries it on by killing off potnetially everyone on your crew and 3 holds out the option of killing even more of the people you know and potntailly even care for.

[Omega-202]

KustomDeluxe wrote...

Omega-202 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

That's what happens here. As for your last sentence, I don't care about others. I did not fight for them, I did not spend 3 games so people I don't know will live in peace somehow somewhere. That's got nothing to do with what I've played.

But you're not the only person who played.  

I personally DID play to stop the Reapers.  I played so that countless lives could be saved.  Mass Effect 3 made it very clear that was one of the main drives.  Look at Anderson and Shepard's discussions before leaving Earth.  Yes, you can't save them all, but you fight to save the ones you can.  

Just because that wasn't your motivation doesn't mean it wasn't someone elses.  There had to be a choice made on how to end it.  BioWare had to choose what the sacrifice was to be for and they chose altruistic "greater good" over a personal happy ending.  That's their choice.  

If that's the case then though...Why didn't they say such things in their advertising? Instead of pushing the "build-your-own ending" narrative so hard?

If there were 16 endings, then you could of had yours and The Angry One could have had his/hers.

Development time, disc space, the possibility of continuing the series down the line requiring a semi-unified ending.

Take your pick of a million different reasons.  

[The Angry One]

firebreather19 wrote...

I will give you 73.99 if you promise to give me your ME3 CE and never pretend you're the know-it-all of video game stories ever again. Not even joking. 

Too bad, I'm not going anywhere. And I'll say it again, vaguery at the end of a trilogy is not acceptable.
If you are happy with that, then good for you. I will not settle for less.