1291 réponses à ce sujet

[Trikormadenadon]

xsdob wrote...

sometimes I wonder why I even come here anymore. OP's thread is sad, it ignores the goal of stopping the reapers and selfishly focuses on just shepard living and not on the future controlled by a genocidal machine race. The fact that so many other people agree is even worse, it tells of a group of fans who claim to be mature on one side but resort to tantrum throwing that everything didn't end well for us, but might end well for the future, which should be the focus of winning a war.

Things turning out well in the imediate is of little concern, how things turn out for the future is more important.

You know what, screw this, any thread I see the angry one in, I'm just gonna turn around and ignore that thread even exist anymore.

Ask any soldier who has fought in a real war what he/she is fighting for, and very few of them will say the future of his/her country. Most will say for a loved one of some kind be it wife/husband/lover, son/daughter or even a friend. As peple, we need to put a face to the concept of what we are fighting for. You think a soldier who fights and dies in a war wants to see their family die during that war just so the next generation will survive? No, they won't care at all about that. They will only care that they failed to save their loved ones.

EDIT: Speaking metaphorically on those last few sentences obviously. Don't respond to me saying that one who dies won't care about anything. I know this already.

Modifié par Trikormadenadon, 01 avril 2012 - 05:41 .

[AlexXIV]

The cycle ain't broken. Not in the long run. Whenever there is a possilbility that synthetics (AIs) can be created the events of history can repeat as they did. Obviously the synthesis ending wants to tell us that there cannot be AIs anymore because 'everyone is a cyborg' ... like forever ... or something. It gets more stupid the more you think about it.

[Sidney]

CmdrStJean wrote...

I mean let's assume for a moment that they're telling the truth, and this really is the direction they wanted to go in.  Let's suppose that the ending wasn't rushed, or changed at the last second, or conspiratorially edited as to imply indoctrination.  If so many people were invested in the present cycle, galactic civilization and the characters (as they are) why in the world would anyone craft a bookend narrative that throws all those things out in favor of a nebulous potential "future" in which galactic civilization may, possibly, be rebuilt, albeit along different lines?  What was it that made the ending that we HAVE, so compelling to the developers of Mass Effect?

They did something BIIIIIIIIIIIG and they didn't want to have an Ewoks dancing around the campfire type of ending.

The really sad thing is if the ending was "Crucible goes *boom* all Reapers die and life goes on just like before" from the sound of this thread they'd have dodged an awful lot of flak. I mean really, that is what we're reduced to. We need to have that to feel like we've achieved the magic word of closure? The whole series was about unpleasant and potenitally bad choices: Virmire, the Rachni, Maelon's data, the collector base, the Genophage cure...and so on. All those ambiguous choices that matter mostly in terms of how you see your character because there is not an inarguably a right or wrong answer. To come down to the end and suddenly have it all work out right would be a massive step away from the tone of the rest of the series.

[Karrie788]

HenchxNarf wrote...

Karrie788 wrote...

I see your point but I still disagree.

We have absolutely no idea what synthesis could do to people on the long term. We don't know if we saved them for good. First thing that popped in my mind when the Catalyst brought the option up is that I was going to change the entire galaxy into husks. And since the conclusion is so vague, I can imagine anything from there. Maybe people will go mad since their body changed so much and they can't cope with it. We just don't know. We can go anywhere from there.
I am not trusting a Reaper, I don't want Shepard to be the sole "savior" of the galaxy and I am not buying into the message that removing diversity is a good thing. It's nonsensical and it sends completely wrong messages in my opinion.

If you listened to the Reaper on Rannoch, they said that they are the salvation. That the harvesting MUST be done. We don't really know anything for sure, but, what if the reapers aren't really the bad guys? Well, really, there is no bad guy. It's the synthetics, the AI. They don't know what will happen with no more organics, so they're trying to preserve some sort of organic life knowing that humanity is TOO intelligent and will create more and more AI that can be fully functional and take over and kill everything.

Think Terminator, kind of. Except the Reapers can't survive without organic life.

Shepard kind of threw a wrench in the design. It's Harbinger that want's Shepard, not the Reapers as a whole. The Reapers are computers, as evidence by the kid saying "we the Reapers". The Crucible was never really meant to be a weapon, per se.

And maybe the reason Shepard is able to 'fire' the weapon is because Shep is part machine, thanks to TIM. Your brain was mush, they rebuilt you out of synthetics. 

IDK. There's a reason for everything.

Again, I see your point!

But I don't trust the Reapers. Personally. They can talk as much as they want and spout as much nonsense as they want, I still don't trust them. That's how I roleplayed Shep, and honestly that's how I feel too.

And that is why, personally, I am not taking that chance. I'd rather sacrifice even more lives - aka, pick the destroy ending - rather than taking a bet and trust the Reapers. Their main goal was to protect organic life from their synthetic creations. Well, thank you very much, but I like free will, and I don't accept them as the saviors of the galaxy.

(Plus, they were MUCH cooler as non-complex, intimidating and mysterious villains)

[Rolando93]

Quietness wrote...

Rolando93 wrote...

CmdrStJean wrote...

So, given all the raging and complaining that's been going on over the ending since the 6th, I'm starting to wonder just why exactly Bioware thought this nihilistic tragedy of theirs would land well with the fans?  What was it about the current set of endings that purportedly made Casey Hudson and Mac Walters feel they would be acceptable?  I do note that some people seem to be okay with how things have turned out but at least around here they don't seem to be in the majority. 

It only seems that way because most of the people who liked the ending don't feel the need to bring it up.

LOL "I can only prove that there are 700 people standing behind me by using facebook so instead i will claim everyone who has not voiced their opinion as obviously they agree with me.... cause well they do"

No no Im not saying that. Im saying if somebody is good with the ending how likely is it they will come on the forums to defend it. If you like the color green how often will we find you raving about it online?

[Rafe34]

Rolando93 wrote...

CaptainIngenuity wrote...

Rolando93 wrote...


Trapped on Rannoch? What will they do? Rebuild their home world? They lived on that planet before the mass relays. Also is Rannoch truly a desolate wasteland? No. Especially if there are liveships still on Rannoch which I'm sure there are since I doubt the quarians sent their children off to fight Reapers on Earth.

So im guessing you missed the part where they have absolutely no immune system and little to no knowledge of agriculture and were heavily reliant on the geth to even begin settling their new planet.   Those geth you just murderfied near earth.  

Destruction of the reapers was the entire goal of the series but im pretty sure the premise of it became cringe worthy when the Catalyst and Crucible are only explained as an explosive off button for technology.  

You dont help the future by stifling all of its technology and hoping everything will be better

Synthetics are the only things destroyed meaning it is possibly only synthetic codes like VIs and AIs that are destroyed. Also that only happens if you choose for it to. As well if you destroyed the geth that is only your game. And any geth destroyed in physical combat could upload to quarian suits which helps to bolster quarian immune systems. And what makes you think quarians know nothing about agriculture. Where do you think they get their food?

The Starbrat SPECIFICALLY says the Geth are destroyed. 

This is a bull**** explanation. You pick the red ending, you kill EDI and the Geth.

[firebreather19]

Rafe34 wrote...

firebreather19 wrote...

Rafe34 wrote...

Leozilla wrote...

I don't recall them saying that, all I remember was that it was an end of Shep's story

"We will not leave you with more questions than answers."
"We will not pull a LOST on the fanbase."
"It will not at all be like a traditional video game ending, where you just pick ending A, B, or C."
"The ending will be based on your choices throughout the series. Why would you be forced into the same bespoke ending that everyone gets?"

etc., etc. Go look up the developer quotes, there are plenty of threads dedicated to the pretty much outright lies that were given to us.

That's not how they worded it, and I'm actually a little disappointed no one considers the subtleties that went into crafting the ending. EMS, saving/destroying the base, etc. 

The biggest problem with ME3 is not really a problem but more that people got used to how the game works. In ME2 it was "Oh, lost a squadmate? Well just go back to the previous save and do this-and-this-and-this and there...better ending." 

You, sir, are incorrect. That's exactly how Mr. Hudson worded it:  "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." - Casey Hudson, jan 11, 2012 

As to your second point- so what? That's their prerogative. I lost Mordin and killed Wrex on my first playthrough of ME1 and ME2. I kept that Shepard. I still have her. She's in stasis since it's so sad after losing Thane, (she went with Liara and then Thane, now possibly back to Liara, we'll see), but it's called role-playing. 

I don't understand. I said they didn't word it the way you did, and I was right. You say someone picks from ending A B or C. They never said you wouldn't pick from ending A B or C, they said you wouldn't always get ending A B or C, and you don't. You might get the same C (synthesis) ending, but there are like 7-8 variants of the A and B endings depending on your actions in the final five minutes, whether you saved or destroyed the base, and your EMS throughout the game.

But I guess they should've just told you that. Everyone loves spoilers. 

[Rafe34]

Rolando93 wrote...

Quietness wrote...

Rolando93 wrote...

CmdrStJean wrote...

So, given all the raging and complaining that's been going on over the ending since the 6th, I'm starting to wonder just why exactly Bioware thought this nihilistic tragedy of theirs would land well with the fans?  What was it about the current set of endings that purportedly made Casey Hudson and Mac Walters feel they would be acceptable?  I do note that some people seem to be okay with how things have turned out but at least around here they don't seem to be in the majority. 

It only seems that way because most of the people who liked the ending don't feel the need to bring it up.

LOL "I can only prove that there are 700 people standing behind me by using facebook so instead i will claim everyone who has not voiced their opinion as obviously they agree with me.... cause well they do"

No no Im not saying that. Im saying if somebody is good with the ending how likely is it they will come on the forums to defend it. If you like the color green how often will we find you raving about it online?

Then I guess all reviews of all products on the 'net are completely worthless.

Oh wait. No they're not. You're just being dumb.

If 90% of the people you can reach say that a product has a horrible ending, then chances are, the majority of all people think its a horrible ending. Probably not 90%, but you should definitely do something about it.

[Quietness]

Rolando93 wrote...

Quietness wrote...

Rolando93 wrote...

CmdrStJean wrote...

So, given all the raging and complaining that's been going on over the ending since the 6th, I'm starting to wonder just why exactly Bioware thought this nihilistic tragedy of theirs would land well with the fans?  What was it about the current set of endings that purportedly made Casey Hudson and Mac Walters feel they would be acceptable?  I do note that some people seem to be okay with how things have turned out but at least around here they don't seem to be in the majority. 

It only seems that way because most of the people who liked the ending don't feel the need to bring it up.

LOL "I can only prove that there are 700 people standing behind me by using facebook so instead i will claim everyone who has not voiced their opinion as obviously they agree with me.... cause well they do"

No no Im not saying that. Im saying if somebody is good with the ending how likely is it they will come on the forums to defend it. If you like the color green how often will we find you raving about it online?

"Again im going to claim a random abitrary fact and have no way of backing up what i state with numbers. I understand that there have been many posts showing exactly how i am not apart of the majority, but we will ignore that as it inconviences my random logic"

[Rolando93]

The Angry One wrote...

Torrible wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Torrible wrote...


We don't know how devastated they were. We know millions were killed. We don't know if there were enough resources within the home systems for them to rebuild.

The Reapers destroy all major cities, throwing up tons of ash and debris into the air, we see large parts of these planets on fire. Reaper standard MO is to destroy all infrastructure in the system and surrounding cluster, that includes all space stations, colonies, fuel refineries, mines and farms. 

That's their MO. We don't know how successful or determined they were. If there was so little left to salvage, the mass relays wouldn't matter anyway.

Erm. Yes they would. You can go to other systems, find as yet untouched resources, get more help, especially from Salarian space.

Why salarian space?

[Sidney]

Turtlicious wrote...
Yes but when an EMP goes off you can't see it, and if it's too strong you catch cancer.

It is a visual medium, they can't show nothing happening. My god, people are really off the deep end nitpicking at something like that.

[ZiegenkonigIII]

AlexXIV wrote...

The cycle ain't broken. Not in the long run. Whenever there is a possilbility that synthetics (AIs) can be created the events of history can repeat as they did. Obviously the synthesis ending wants to tell us that there cannot be AIs anymore because 'everyone is a cyborg' ... like forever ... or something. It gets more stupid the more you think about it.

EXACTLY, who is to say history won't repeat itself?  No one else knew about the godchild except for shepard and he took that one to the grave.  The whole thing smells.

[Turtlicious]

Rafe34 wrote...

firebreather19 wrote...

Rafe34 wrote...

Leozilla wrote...

I don't recall them saying that, all I remember was that it was an end of Shep's story

"We will not leave you with more questions than answers."
"We will not pull a LOST on the fanbase."
"It will not at all be like a traditional video game ending, where you just pick ending A, B, or C."
"The ending will be based on your choices throughout the series. Why would you be forced into the same bespoke ending that everyone gets?"

etc., etc. Go look up the developer quotes, there are plenty of threads dedicated to the pretty much outright lies that were given to us.

That's not how they worded it, and I'm actually a little disappointed no one considers the subtleties that went into crafting the ending. EMS, saving/destroying the base, etc. 

The biggest problem with ME3 is not really a problem but more that people got used to how the game works. In ME2 it was "Oh, lost a squadmate? Well just go back to the previous save and do this-and-this-and-this and there...better ending." 

You, sir, are incorrect. That's exactly how Mr. Hudson worded it:  "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." - Casey Hudson, jan 11, 2012 

As to your second point- so what? That's their prerogative. I lost Mordin and killed Wrex on my first playthrough of ME1 and ME2. I kept that Shepard. I still have her. She's in stasis since it's so sad after losing Thane, (she went with Liara and then Thane, now possibly back to Liara, we'll see), but it's called role-playing. 

Dafuq, What's this logic ****? FireBreather and Leozilla just want to tell you you're too stupid to get the ending. How dare you respond to them with clarity and facts. You should be accepting their speculation as fact.

[The Angry One]

Rolando93 wrote...

Why salarian space?

A lot of it was relatively untouched during the Reaper war, hence there would still be infrastructure that could refuel and resupply ships.

Turians were also able to hold on to some of their more important infrastructure during the war.

[The_Crazy_Hand]

Grimez7 wrote...

Exactly. Screw the Yahg.

Hell no, they're fat, ugly, and violent..............

.............wait, you meant it metaphorically didn't you?

But seriously, Happy end needs to exist as an option.

Modifié par The_Crazy_Hand, 01 avril 2012 - 05:44 .

[Quietness]

firebreather19 wrote...

Rafe34 wrote...

firebreather19 wrote...

Rafe34 wrote...

Leozilla wrote...

I don't recall them saying that, all I remember was that it was an end of Shep's story

"We will not leave you with more questions than answers."
"We will not pull a LOST on the fanbase."
"It will not at all be like a traditional video game ending, where you just pick ending A, B, or C."
"The ending will be based on your choices throughout the series. Why would you be forced into the same bespoke ending that everyone gets?"

etc., etc. Go look up the developer quotes, there are plenty of threads dedicated to the pretty much outright lies that were given to us.

That's not how they worded it, and I'm actually a little disappointed no one considers the subtleties that went into crafting the ending. EMS, saving/destroying the base, etc. 

The biggest problem with ME3 is not really a problem but more that people got used to how the game works. In ME2 it was "Oh, lost a squadmate? Well just go back to the previous save and do this-and-this-and-this and there...better ending." 

You, sir, are incorrect. That's exactly how Mr. Hudson worded it:  "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." - Casey Hudson, jan 11, 2012 

As to your second point- so what? That's their prerogative. I lost Mordin and killed Wrex on my first playthrough of ME1 and ME2. I kept that Shepard. I still have her. She's in stasis since it's so sad after losing Thane, (she went with Liara and then Thane, now possibly back to Liara, we'll see), but it's called role-playing. 

I don't understand. I said they didn't word it the way you did, and I was right. You say someone picks from ending A B or C. They never said you wouldn't pick from ending A B or C, they said you wouldn't always get ending A B or C, and you don't. You might get the same C (synthesis) ending, but there are like 7-8 variants of the A and B endings depending on your actions in the final five minutes, whether you saved or destroyed the base, and your EMS throughout the game.

But I guess they should've just told you that. Everyone loves spoilers. 

A1 A2 A3 B1 B2 B3 C1  ive seen hard fact for, where is A4-7/8 B4-7/8

[firebreather19]

Trikormadenadon wrote...

xsdob wrote...

sometimes I wonder why I even come here anymore. OP's thread is sad, it ignores the goal of stopping the reapers and selfishly focuses on just shepard living and not on the future controlled by a genocidal machine race. The fact that so many other people agree is even worse, it tells of a group of fans who claim to be mature on one side but resort to tantrum throwing that everything didn't end well for us, but might end well for the future, which should be the focus of winning a war.

Things turning out well in the imediate is of little concern, how things turn out for the future is more important.

You know what, screw this, any thread I see the angry one in, I'm just gonna turn around and ignore that thread even exist anymore.

Ask any soldier who has fought in a real war what he/she is fighting for, and very few of them will say the future of his/her country. Most will say for a loved one of some kind be it wife/husband/lover, son/daughter or even a friend. As peple, we need to put a face to the concept of what we are fighting for. You think a soldier who fights and dies in a war wants to see their family die during that war just so the next generation will survive? No, they won't care at all about that. They will only care that they failed to save their loved ones.

EDIT: Speaking metaphorically on those last few sentences obviously. Don't respond to me saying that one who dies won't care about anything. I know this already.

Idk, I've got a couple wars based on freedom from opression that say otherwise. 

[CaptainIngenuity]

Rolando93 wrote...

CaptainIngenuity wrote...

Rolando93 wrote...


Trapped on Rannoch? What will they do? Rebuild their home world? They lived on that planet before the mass relays. Also is Rannoch truly a desolate wasteland? No. Especially if there are liveships still on Rannoch which I'm sure there are since I doubt the quarians sent their children off to fight Reapers on Earth.

So im guessing you missed the part where they have absolutely no immune system and little to no knowledge of agriculture and were heavily reliant on the geth to even begin settling their new planet.   Those geth you just murderfied near earth.  

Destruction of the reapers was the entire goal of the series but im pretty sure the premise of it became cringe worthy when the Catalyst and Crucible are only explained as an explosive off button for technology.  

You dont help the future by stifling all of its technology and hoping everything will be better

Synthetics are the only things destroyed meaning it is possibly only synthetic codes like VIs and AIs that are destroyed. Also that only happens if you choose for it to. As well if you destroyed the geth that is only your game. And any geth destroyed in physical combat could upload to quarian suits which helps to bolster quarian immune systems. And what makes you think quarians know nothing about agriculture. Where do you think they get their food?

Agriculture on a liveship is quite different from a planet they know nothing about and have only heard about in stories.  Well whatever liveships arent obliterated by the battle and explosions (excuse me EMP) nearby.

While I can see that being possible you have to assume that the three endings were exactly what could happen.  However, you already see shephard alive with the destroy choice at the end and he/she was highly reliant on implants and technology for survival since the Lazarus project.  So really the biggest problem is were trying to argue conjecture when the entire foundation for the argument is a freaking mud pit.  No house of logic will ever stand on that mess

[Turtlicious]

Sidney wrote...

Turtlicious wrote...
Yes but when an EMP goes off you can't see it, and if it's too strong you catch cancer.

It is a visual medium, they can't show nothing happening. My god, people are really off the deep end nitpicking at something like that.

I don't need a visual medium, no-one needed a visual medium. They have NEVER used a visual medium before, so why do they need to do so now?

[Aurica]

While I like ME's universe better than Starwar and will be curious to see what the future holds.  I'm not the least bit interested if I don't get some form of closure about the characters that I grow fond of.

[shepskisaac]

The Angry One wrote...

Rolando93 wrote...

Did every other race send ALL of their people to Earth as well?

The Quarians are their flotilla. They are virtually inseperable.
Moreover, leaving undefended Quarians on Rannoch would be suicide. The Reapers WILL come to investigate the loss of control of the Geth and they know this because they SAY SO.

OK, going with "Quarians sent every single Quarian to Earth" is just nonsense.

[Shaigunjoe]

Rafe34 wrote...

Rolando93 wrote...

CaptainIngenuity wrote...

Rolando93 wrote...


Trapped on Rannoch? What will they do? Rebuild their home world? They lived on that planet before the mass relays. Also is Rannoch truly a desolate wasteland? No. Especially if there are liveships still on Rannoch which I'm sure there are since I doubt the quarians sent their children off to fight Reapers on Earth.

So im guessing you missed the part where they have absolutely no immune system and little to no knowledge of agriculture and were heavily reliant on the geth to even begin settling their new planet.   Those geth you just murderfied near earth.  

Destruction of the reapers was the entire goal of the series but im pretty sure the premise of it became cringe worthy when the Catalyst and Crucible are only explained as an explosive off button for technology.  

You dont help the future by stifling all of its technology and hoping everything will be better

Synthetics are the only things destroyed meaning it is possibly only synthetic codes like VIs and AIs that are destroyed. Also that only happens if you choose for it to. As well if you destroyed the geth that is only your game. And any geth destroyed in physical combat could upload to quarian suits which helps to bolster quarian immune systems. And what makes you think quarians know nothing about agriculture. Where do you think they get their food?

The Starbrat SPECIFICALLY says the Geth are destroyed. 

This is a bull**** explanation. You pick the red ending, you kill EDI and the Geth.

I think the crucible was designed to kill all synthetic life.  So it makes sense that if you use it to kill the reapers, you would also kill EDI/Geth

Modifié par Shaigunjoe, 01 avril 2012 - 05:46 .

[firebreather19]

Turtlicious wrote...

Rafe34 wrote...

firebreather19 wrote...

Rafe34 wrote...

Leozilla wrote...

I don't recall them saying that, all I remember was that it was an end of Shep's story

"We will not leave you with more questions than answers."
"We will not pull a LOST on the fanbase."
"It will not at all be like a traditional video game ending, where you just pick ending A, B, or C."
"The ending will be based on your choices throughout the series. Why would you be forced into the same bespoke ending that everyone gets?"

etc., etc. Go look up the developer quotes, there are plenty of threads dedicated to the pretty much outright lies that were given to us.

That's not how they worded it, and I'm actually a little disappointed no one considers the subtleties that went into crafting the ending. EMS, saving/destroying the base, etc. 

The biggest problem with ME3 is not really a problem but more that people got used to how the game works. In ME2 it was "Oh, lost a squadmate? Well just go back to the previous save and do this-and-this-and-this and there...better ending." 

You, sir, are incorrect. That's exactly how Mr. Hudson worded it:  "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." - Casey Hudson, jan 11, 2012 

As to your second point- so what? That's their prerogative. I lost Mordin and killed Wrex on my first playthrough of ME1 and ME2. I kept that Shepard. I still have her. She's in stasis since it's so sad after losing Thane, (she went with Liara and then Thane, now possibly back to Liara, we'll see), but it's called role-playing. 

Dafuq, What's this logic ****? FireBreather and Leozilla just want to tell you you're too stupid to get the ending. How dare you respond to them with clarity and facts. You should be accepting their speculation as fact.

I don't believe anyone's too stupid to get the ending. I just believe folks are too selfish to accept it. Big difference.

[Trikormadenadon]

pistolols 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.

the way i see it, casey hudson made it very clear he was sorry he hurt your feelings and that he knows his most passionate fans needed more time to say goodbye to their video game characters...so not really sure what you're still crying about.  They made a statement about this.  They know how you feel.  So what is this thread possibly accomplishing other than beating a dead horse?

Sometimes people need to just vent. Let them. better that then they hold it in until they blow a gasket and go on a shooting spree....