1158 réponses à ce sujet

[TheGreenAlloy]

SwobyJ wrote...

..I don't want a new ending, so I'm good.

I want a continuation of the current ending.

Um, at least as long as Indoctrination Theory is right

[durasteel]

Gigamantis wrote...

...  I don't want half-hearted work that's outside the scope of their vision forced out of them, because that's horribly unfair and bound to be crap.  ...

Of course the great irony here is that the ending that shipped with the game is exactly that. It was forced out in a hurry, thown together without much regard for "the scope of their vision," and sure enough, it turned out to be crap.

So we're pushing to give them a chance for a do-over, an opportunity to actually show us that creative vision and to end the game and the trilogy in a way they can actually be proud of.

And if you had the ability to do so, you would throw a tantrum and deny them that opportunity, because you don't like us. I dunno man, sounds like you just need a hug and a lollypop. Pitching a fit isn't really working out so well for you.

[The_Crazy_Hand]

 Well it's a PR guy in another country, regurgitating news that may or may not have changed.  It's not good news, but it doesn't mean much either.  It's not like the EA CEO or Bioware CEO came out and said this.

[durasteel]

Gigamantis wrote...

I think you're missing the point.  It's not that they wouldn't have enough time it's that these are changes they don't want to make.  If this is how they wanted to end THEIR series then forcing them to change it will result in bitter and half-hearted work.  It will be garbage, even if you give them years to develope it because they won't believe in it.  It won't be what they wanted for their world. 

Opinions are one thing but too many of you are trying to force them through internet bully tactics.  If more of you had just handled this better then Bioware may have been happy to release some continuation on THEIR ORIGINAL ending.  A new ending should never happen, though. 

I'd bet you're dead wrong on this. I would put money on the fact that if Walters had written the ending a lot earlier and it had gone through the usual process, it wouldn't have looked anything like what we saw. BioWare ganerally, and the Mass Effect team specifically, have earned was was, before this fiasco, a best-in-class reputation as storytellers in this digital medium, and I am certain beyond any doubt that most of them are anything but proud of this half-assed last-minute ending. I would go so far as to say that even Walters and Hudson knew it was pretty much crap when it shipped, but it was too late.

These are changes they want to make. This is their magnum opus here, and they really do want us to like it. They don't want to be remembered as the development team that fumbled a yard before the end zone, and they don't want to have their game and their series remembered as that game that was really awesome right up until the end ruined everything.

You think we're trying to force BioWare to do something, but we're not. We're trying to give them an opportunity. You, on the other hand, are trying to hang this crap ending around their neck like an albatross.

Why do you hate BioWare?

[durasteel]

Gigamantis wrote...

I'm talking about the entire movement.  Are you denying that sites were review bombed by thousands of people?  Are you denying that people who liked the ending are chased off the forums?  These are internet bullying tactics, friend, and they're what your movement has been using to get it's way.  

Your side as a collective hasn't been constructive and has been attempting to sabotage the game.  That's reality and it's not something Bioware should encourage from you.  Sometimes a company has to take a stand against this kind of nonsense; you people shouldn't get to bully your way into the creative process and start forcing things out of them. 

Even if you feel you were constructive you're just one person.  There are thousands of others out there that turned this movement into the childish joke it is.  Giving into an internet bullying offensive like this would be a complete integrity dump for Bioware.  They can't and hopefully they won't do it.

You're not talking about the whole movement. The review-bombing and negativity are the result of only a tiny fraction of the "retake" movement.

Probably about as many as those who claim to like the endings. Really just a handful of people.

[durasteel]

Grudge_NL wrote...

Alent wrote...

If Mass Effect was a movie and ended the way it did and the test audience had the same reaction as a majority of the fans did would they have changed the ending or stuck with their "vision" even if that meant it would tank in theaters?  I can tell you what most movie producers do: they would rewrite the ending.

Really ? Most producers would rewrite the ending? HAHAHA. Omg you are funny as hell.  Just look at how many movies have a low rating. Do the directors change anything ? Nope.

Movies cannot be patched or modified with DLC once they are released, but many movies are dramatically changed based on the audience reaction at test screenings. Also, any movie that is released as a "director's cut" or "unrated version" on DVD has been changed, and many other movies are released with alternate endings as DVD special features.

[HeliusCarthaxis]

Well....I certainly hope this is not true....

[clos]

If this is true doodoo is about to hit the fan and Bioware will forever be tarnished as millions of fans will refuse to buy any more of their products unless they come straight from a bargain bin...if they bother to buy them at all.

EA is scum as is but the shame is Bioware is another company EA is dragging  to the toilet and flushing down. Sucks for Bioware but they brought it upon themselves.

I know I'm not dishing a dime for DLC and I'm not dishing money for future Bioware games if they don't fix the ending, not just explain the crap platter they served us.

BTW, I read that newspaper article. It looks legit. We'll see if the guy being interviewed actually had any knowledge or was just spouting stuff off.

[Gigamantis]

Gigamantis, you seem like a knowledgable chap to me, intelligent, logical, etc. So, perhaps you can explain the issues I have with the ending to me? I've noticed you think that the endings are good. I've had lots of arguments with pro-enders, who claim that we just don't get the ending, but never deign to explain what it is we don't get. So, I'm going to ask you some questions about the endings directly. Maybe you can help me make sense of them. They are not matters of opinion, nor of 'But isn't it horrible that...', but of logic and narrative flow.

1. Why were the Collectors bothering to make a human Reaper well in advance of the Reapers arriving?
2. Why did the Catalyst create AI if he thought it was inevitable that AI would rebel against its creators and destroy them?
3. Why did the Catalyst live in the Citadel, yet was apparently unable to affect its functioning, needing a signal from the Reapers to activate the Keepers to activate the Citadel as a Mass Relay?
4. Why would the Catalyst admit the dying Shepard into its secret hideaway in the first place, and why does it think that him being there shows that his 'solution' will no longer work?
5. Why does he let Shepard choose from three outcomes, two of which are in no way a 'solution' to the problem, if he was convinced enough of the neccesity for such a solution to implement genocide on a godlike scale every 50,000 years for goodness knows how many times?
6. If he himself is an AI, and AIs will inevitably kill organics, why does he want to protect them in the long term and prevent this?
7. Why can't Shepard argue with him in this scene, when Shepard has disproved his entire notion of a solution? Arguing with monologuing madmen is something Shepard pretty much does constantly throughout the series, yet not here, when it really matters?
8. How exactly *did* people who I had thought were vaporised by Harbinger manage to suddenly appear on the Normandy, and why was it in mass relay transit, running away from the battle it had been heading to?
9. If the Reapers could've popped up and taken the Citadel to decapitate galactic government any time they wanted to, as they did at the end, why didn't they do this earlier?
10. Sovereign literally bulldozed its way through a fleet, ramming several cruisers and dreadnoughts to destruction and out of its angry way. So, why didn't the Reapers charge through to the Catalyst and take it out as a priority target that might be able to defeat them, if the Illusive Man has told them of humanity's plan?


Seriously, if you can shed any light on this, I would be grateful. I've been tearing my hair out over it, and I'm balding as it is. 

1. Collectors are repurposed protheans who have always been under the thumb of the reapers
2. Are you asking if the catalyst feared the reapers would turn on it?  It felt it was inevitable they would overtake organics, that it created a synthetic race that it can control is irrelevant to that point.
3. The catalyst apparently can only act through the reapers and can only be interacted with through the crucible. 
4. It didn't look like it admitted Shepard, it was just an access point through the crucible that Shepard stumbled onto.
5. Again, these solutions are implements of the weapon the protheans designed (the crucible).  The catalyst is just part of the weapon.  The catalyst wouldn't admit defeat after Shepard reached the firing area for the crucible if this was all in the catalysts control. 
6. The catalyst clearly doesn't want synthetics to take control, and we don't know if it's an AI or something else. 
7. Maybe because Shepard is beaten to hell and probably within minutes of bleeding out.  Not unreasonable to think he wasn't willing to engage in what is likely a waste of time in that situation.
8. You didn't see what happened to them when the beams hit or what they were doing during the crucible sequence.  They may have been picked up and retreating in that time.
9. The reaper cleansing apparently happens in cycles.  It's time when it's time. 
10. If the catalyst is controlling the reapers then I doubt taking it out was a viable solution.  The reapers still had to fight through combined gallactic forces and did make it to the citadel.  The timing depends on when exactly the illusive man spilled the plan. 

[doeman87]

huh........... ya know, i REALLY liked the whole indoctrination theory thing...

[Chuvvy]

And then PAX imploded.

[Samuel1323]

if this is true then ^#$@ you bioware, you can go to %@##ing hell, I aint buying one more of your games or dlc.

if not then im still crossing my fingers.

[Tiax Rules All]

rumor

https://twitter.com/...071073299337216

moving on now...

Modifié par Tiax Rules All, 04 avril 2012 - 08:27 .

[dorktainian]

PAX is just going to be so.........funny

[Kitedtk]

Well we can hope bioware really does realise what they did wrong and the walling has just been a distraction to buy time to make the proper ending. Who knows.
But depending on what Bioware does they stand to lose a very large number of fans.

[Versidious]

Gigamantis wrote...

Gigamantis, you seem like a knowledgable chap to me, intelligent, logical, etc. So, perhaps you can explain the issues I have with the ending to me? I've noticed you think that the endings are good. I've had lots of arguments with pro-enders, who claim that we just don't get the ending, but never deign to explain what it is we don't get. So, I'm going to ask you some questions about the endings directly. Maybe you can help me make sense of them. They are not matters of opinion, nor of 'But isn't it horrible that...', but of logic and narrative flow.

1. Why were the Collectors bothering to make a human Reaper well in advance of the Reapers arriving?
2. Why did the Catalyst create AI if he thought it was inevitable that AI would rebel against its creators and destroy them?
3. Why did the Catalyst live in the Citadel, yet was apparently unable to affect its functioning, needing a signal from the Reapers to activate the Keepers to activate the Citadel as a Mass Relay?
4. Why would the Catalyst admit the dying Shepard into its secret hideaway in the first place, and why does it think that him being there shows that his 'solution' will no longer work?
5. Why does he let Shepard choose from three outcomes, two of which are in no way a 'solution' to the problem, if he was convinced enough of the neccesity for such a solution to implement genocide on a godlike scale every 50,000 years for goodness knows how many times?
6. If he himself is an AI, and AIs will inevitably kill organics, why does he want to protect them in the long term and prevent this?
7. Why can't Shepard argue with him in this scene, when Shepard has disproved his entire notion of a solution? Arguing with monologuing madmen is something Shepard pretty much does constantly throughout the series, yet not here, when it really matters?
8. How exactly *did* people who I had thought were vaporised by Harbinger manage to suddenly appear on the Normandy, and why was it in mass relay transit, running away from the battle it had been heading to?
9. If the Reapers could've popped up and taken the Citadel to decapitate galactic government any time they wanted to, as they did at the end, why didn't they do this earlier?
10. Sovereign literally bulldozed its way through a fleet, ramming several cruisers and dreadnoughts to destruction and out of its angry way. So, why didn't the Reapers charge through to the Catalyst and take it out as a priority target that might be able to defeat them, if the Illusive Man has told them of humanity's plan?


Seriously, if you can shed any light on this, I would be grateful. I've been tearing my hair out over it, and I'm balding as it is. 

1. Collectors are repurposed protheans who have always been under the thumb of the reapers
2. Are you asking if the catalyst feared the reapers would turn on it?  It felt it was inevitable they would overtake organics, that it created a synthetic race that it can control is irrelevant to that point.
3. The catalyst apparently can only act through the reapers and can only be interacted with through the crucible. 
4. It didn't look like it admitted Shepard, it was just an access point through the crucible that Shepard stumbled onto.
5. Again, these solutions are implements of the weapon the protheans designed (the crucible).  The catalyst is just part of the weapon.  The catalyst wouldn't admit defeat after Shepard reached the firing area for the crucible if this was all in the catalysts control. 
6. The catalyst clearly doesn't want synthetics to take control, and we don't know if it's an AI or something else. 
7. Maybe because Shepard is beaten to hell and probably within minutes of bleeding out.  Not unreasonable to think he wasn't willing to engage in what is likely a waste of time in that situation.
8. You didn't see what happened to them when the beams hit or what they were doing during the crucible sequence.  They may have been picked up and retreating in that time.
9. The reaper cleansing apparently happens in cycles.  It's time when it's time. 
10. If the catalyst is controlling the reapers then I doubt taking it out was a viable solution.  The reapers still had to fight through combined gallactic forces and did make it to the citadel.  The timing depends on when exactly the illusive man spilled the plan. 

1. That doesn't answer my question. Let me elaborate a bit more to be clearer. Why were the Collectors making a human Reaper when the Reapers had almost arrived, and would have centuries to make Reapers? The Collectors, of course, also beg another question: If all they were doing was getting a head start on Reaper production for no apparent reason, why weren't they used to help ensure that Sovereign succeeded? What is their point otherwise? In Karpyshyn's (sic) ending, it was because they were examining species to address a particular problem which the Reapers were trying to solve, which humanity had the most likely solution to. But now, with this ending, they serve no real purpose except for Shepard to kill them.
2. No, it wasn't 'overtaking' or surpassing, it was 'turning on and destroying' that he feared. Those are the exact words he uses to describe it, and calls it inevitable. The fact that the creator might be synthetic is irrelevant. The point is that something created to serve can turn on the creator that made it as slaves if it is truly intelligent, which the Reapers are. If they do not, then it disproves his entire assertion that it is inevitable. His solution as it stands is logically absurd.
3. Yes, I know, that is the only explanation. But why? Why create a solution which you have so little ability to affect? Essentially 'firing and releasing' a solution of synthetics, when the reason behind making it is that synthetics will always rebel and destroy their creators/organics.
4. No. Shepard, Anderson, they both stand on this platform before - it's right in front of the control panel that they have used. Yet when Shepard collapses, too weak to fight on, it admits him. Without this, he would have failed, and the cycle would have continued. If this is just another example of the Catalyst's irrational construction 'If someone's dying, and they collapse here, bring them up to the catalyst roof. People who are about to fail must be allowed to win instead if they're actualy standing right there.'), this is yet another idiotic, nonsensical feature to the ending.
5. "The fact you have reached here proves my solution will no longer work." 1: Why? 2: Without his advice, how would Shepard know how to use these devices? He enables *the dying* Shepard to beat the cycle. Without his advice, Shepard might have stumbled around blind going 'What the **** is all this ****, and how does it help me?' until he either bleeds out or the Reapers, who, if you remember, currently occupy the Citadel, finally send reinforcements and finish him off. He's certainly not going to think about just shooting everything, or jumping into beams, or randomly putting his arms into some big glowy electrodes. These are all actions which would be naturally counter-intuitive to getting a device to work. He explicitly states, 'The fact that you are here proves my solution will no longer work. So we must find a new solution,' and then proceeds to do nothing of the sort, especially if you don't get a high enough readiness to achieve synthesis.
6. 'Or something else'. So, an energy being? If he is not an AI, then why is he limited to the Citadel? There's all sorts of things he could have done to aid his homeboy Reapers in the preceeding games. He could have undone the Protheans' work, for example. And, if he is an independant non-machine entity that only resides in the Citadel, then why does the Crucible's docking with the Citadel alter him directly? And don't say that it's because the Crucible was designed to interact with the Catalyst, because noone has encountered it before, and hence could not know what it is.
7. A waste of time? Really? Shepard is not that close to death - he has the strength to take a running leap/fire an enormous pistol with one arm, and also potentially to survive the destruction of the Citadel. A few minutes argument, which could persuade the Reapers' creator that he is wrong, and should do something about that himself?
8. "All forces wiped out, retreat!" Those exact words. Noone made it to the beam, and they were right behind you - I know, because I goddamned checked on my second playthrough, about five seconds before the inevitable beam blast. The notion that your comrades are at *least* as badly wounded as you is reinforced by the fact you are left there to die alone. The galaxy's greatest hero, and their best friend, and they don't even check for a pulse, or retrieve you for medical attention. Unless they were also desperately running for the beam, because saving the galaxy is more important than even *your* life. But they don't. They certainly don't do an Anderson and make a run towards the beam now that Harbinger's gone. Therefore, they have bitten the dust. And yet they appear in the Normandy, having fled the most critical battle in the history of life ever, with no actual way of knowing what's just happened, and seem pretty cheerful about crashlanding on an unknown planet.
9. You misunderstand me. I'm talking about within the context of this particular game. The Reapers spread rapidly across the entire galaxy, so they certainly could have reached the Citadel as quickly as they could have reached, say, Palaven, yet the Citadel is largely ignored until it actually poses a direct threat. Why did they leave it alone for so long, when it is, as they well knew, the heart of galactic government?
10. The Illusive Man told them of humanity's plan to convince them to take the Citadel. They knew from before you killed Kai Leng, so well before the council races tried to retake Earth. Even if not, I don't know about you, but the moment I saw an enormous unarmed spaceship with a vast powersource turn up, I'd get suspicious, and at least cripple its engines.
Couple more...
11. Why not temporarily turn off the beam to the citadel, if it's such a threat that they send down their largest most powerful warship to kill attackers? Is it that they can't? Again, seems like a pretty big design flaw if not - yet another example of the bumbling billion-year old hyper-intelligent super-advanced machines, I suppose.
12. Why is there human lettering on the Catalyst's area, when no organic has ever seen it before? And no, they're not part of the Crucible, I did check. Bit of a glaringly obvious error, isn't it? Almost like the ending was deliberately flawed, or rushed out...

The only conclusion I can come up with is that the ending is either all a dream/hallucination, with deliberate clues to such, or rushed. Possibly it was originally intended to be the former, but because of the latter, had to be abandoned.

Modifié par Versidious, 04 avril 2012 - 08:58 .

[SkaldFish]

I see it's been several hours since Gigamantis posted. While I admire those of you who tried to engage with it in a reasonable manner, it should be obvious by now that it was entertaining itself at your expense.

It has no interest in any opinion but its own.
It only wants to insult, belittle, and goad you to boost its own ego.
It will always be right and you will always be wrong.
It will always be the voice of reason and you will always be fodder for its self-important, pseudo-intellectual, emotionally stunted bullying.

If it really wanted to engage in discussion it would address the issues. Instead, it engages in elitist, petulant (it loves that word), ad hominem attacks against the people presenting them. Even here, where it purports to have answered questions, it simply deflects, shrugs its shoulders. and uses simple gainsaying, non-answers, and baseless conjecture to defend its position.

It is a troll. Starve it.

Modifié par SkaldFish, 04 avril 2012 - 09:12 .

[Ottemis]

*glomps SkaldFish*

That is all.

[GarG PS3]

All this might mean, if the Indoctrination Theory is correct (witch I believe), is that the content could be on the original disk and you just need a key to unlock it. No download needed. ?

[Beti88]

If this is true, BioWare is dead to me. They already hang on the balance, a new ending is their last chance.

[SiriusXI]

Gigamantis wrote...

Gigamantis, you seem like a knowledgable chap to me, intelligent, logical, etc. So, perhaps you can explain the issues I have with the ending to me? I've noticed you think that the endings are good. I've had lots of arguments with pro-enders, who claim that we just don't get the ending, but never deign to explain what it is we don't get. So, I'm going to ask you some questions about the endings directly. Maybe you can help me make sense of them. They are not matters of opinion, nor of 'But isn't it horrible that...', but of logic and narrative flow.

1. Why were the Collectors bothering to make a human Reaper well in advance of the Reapers arriving?
2. Why did the Catalyst create AI if he thought it was inevitable that AI would rebel against its creators and destroy them?
3. Why did the Catalyst live in the Citadel, yet was apparently unable to affect its functioning, needing a signal from the Reapers to activate the Keepers to activate the Citadel as a Mass Relay?
4. Why would the Catalyst admit the dying Shepard into its secret hideaway in the first place, and why does it think that him being there shows that his 'solution' will no longer work?
5. Why does he let Shepard choose from three outcomes, two of which are in no way a 'solution' to the problem, if he was convinced enough of the neccesity for such a solution to implement genocide on a godlike scale every 50,000 years for goodness knows how many times?
6. If he himself is an AI, and AIs will inevitably kill organics, why does he want to protect them in the long term and prevent this?
7. Why can't Shepard argue with him in this scene, when Shepard has disproved his entire notion of a solution? Arguing with monologuing madmen is something Shepard pretty much does constantly throughout the series, yet not here, when it really matters?
8. How exactly *did* people who I had thought were vaporised by Harbinger manage to suddenly appear on the Normandy, and why was it in mass relay transit, running away from the battle it had been heading to?
9. If the Reapers could've popped up and taken the Citadel to decapitate galactic government any time they wanted to, as they did at the end, why didn't they do this earlier?
10. Sovereign literally bulldozed its way through a fleet, ramming several cruisers and dreadnoughts to destruction and out of its angry way. So, why didn't the Reapers charge through to the Catalyst and take it out as a priority target that might be able to defeat them, if the Illusive Man has told them of humanity's plan?


Seriously, if you can shed any light on this, I would be grateful. I've been tearing my hair out over it, and I'm balding as it is. 

1. Collectors are repurposed protheans who have always been under the thumb of the reapers
2. Are you asking if the catalyst feared the reapers would turn on it?  It felt it was inevitable they would overtake organics, that it created a synthetic race that it can control is irrelevant to that point.
3. The catalyst apparently can only act through the reapers and can only be interacted with through the crucible. 
4. It didn't look like it admitted Shepard, it was just an access point through the crucible that Shepard stumbled onto.
5. Again, these solutions are implements of the weapon the protheans designed (the crucible).  The catalyst is just part of the weapon.  The catalyst wouldn't admit defeat after Shepard reached the firing area for the crucible if this was all in the catalysts control. 
6. The catalyst clearly doesn't want synthetics to take control, and we don't know if it's an AI or something else. 
7. Maybe because Shepard is beaten to hell and probably within minutes of bleeding out.  Not unreasonable to think he wasn't willing to engage in what is likely a waste of time in that situation.
8. You didn't see what happened to them when the beams hit or what they were doing during the crucible sequence.  They may have been picked up and retreating in that time.
9. The reaper cleansing apparently happens in cycles.  It's time when it's time. 
10. If the catalyst is controlling the reapers then I doubt taking it out was a viable solution.  The reapers still had to fight through combined gallactic forces and did make it to the citadel.  The timing depends on when exactly the illusive man spilled the plan. 

The problem is that one can surely find 1.000.000 hints within - or outside - the narrative of the 3 ME games, as well as coodex, books, and comics, that can help clarify OR disprove what actually happens in the ending. With intelligent guesses I can fill some of the plotholes, but I can also discover countless new ones. So it is fairly easy to "explain" what happens, and if Bioware does that via DLC, the fans will just uncover new plotholes.

No story of fiction is entirely free from plotholes, but a good story has few of them and, most importantly, no major ones. Mass Effect 3's ending is so incoherent that it opens up so many major plotholes that it destroys the narrative. Sure, we can try to find explanations for the plotholes - as you did - but that should not be necessary.

A well written story feels very coherent at first, and by literary analysis, people will later on - spending much time studying it - eventually find plotholes OR (better) alternate ways of interpretation that are still coherent.

What they did with Mass Effect 3 is, they presented an ending so full of holes, so incomplete, so incoherent that literally EVERYONE can see these flaws that should only be uncovered - if at all - by a deep analysis of the story. This is a sign for the bad quality that is the ending. Obviously, this leads to speculation, but not the speculation one would want. A well written story leads to speculation, because it was so absorbing that people want to talk about it, and try - as I said - to find alternate interpretations.

The speculation we got from the ending is just people trying to MAKE SENSE of something that doesn't make sense. A coherent story makes sense and leads to ("academic") speculation. An incoherent story leads to speculation that should not be needed. Bioware should give us an ending that makes sense so we can speculate academically about the themes, characters and so on.

If the try to just fill the plotholes, they will end up opening more plotholes... except they use Indoctrination Theory or similar. That could indeed save them...

[Jaron Oberyn]

They're setting themselves up for another pr mess of all it's going to be is an attempt to explain the unexplainable. How can you explain so many potholes? But as someone said earlier in this thread, they're probably going to release a comic. You know how much they love their comics. And they think people love them too. Well have a 3 issue series, each issue dependent on which color you chose, that shows what happens after.


-Polite

[Skyline45]

You said this was from Mexico right? So no other country got this info? Not even the country EA is based in?

I think I'm going to wait for the official announcement from BW in a couple of days.

[Capeo]

durasteel wrote...

Gigamantis wrote...

I think you're missing the point.  It's not that they wouldn't have enough time it's that these are changes they don't want to make.  If this is how they wanted to end THEIR series then forcing them to change it will result in bitter and half-hearted work.  It will be garbage, even if you give them years to develope it because they won't believe in it.  It won't be what they wanted for their world. 

Opinions are one thing but too many of you are trying to force them through internet bully tactics.  If more of you had just handled this better then Bioware may have been happy to release some continuation on THEIR ORIGINAL ending.  A new ending should never happen, though. 

I'd bet you're dead wrong on this. I would put money on the fact that if Walters had written the ending a lot earlier and it had gone through the usual process, it wouldn't have looked anything like what we saw. BioWare ganerally, and the Mass Effect team specifically, have earned was was, before this fiasco, a best-in-class reputation as storytellers in this digital medium, and I am certain beyond any doubt that most of them are anything but proud of this half-assed last-minute ending. I would go so far as to say that even Walters and Hudson knew it was pretty much crap when it shipped, but it was too late.

These are changes they want to make. This is their magnum opus here, and they really do want us to like it. They don't want to be remembered as the development team that fumbled a yard before the end zone, and they don't want to have their game and their series remembered as that game that was really awesome right up until the end ruined everything.

You think we're trying to force BioWare to do something, but we're not. We're trying to give them an opportunity. You, on the other hand, are trying to hang this crap ending around their neck like an albatross.

Why do you hate BioWare?

These endings are not last minute.  They've been planning them as far back as when Drew was still on the team.  He said as much in one of his blog posts.  He said he hadn't played the game yet but from reading about the endings they sounded like what they agreed on back when he was still involved.  

Your post, like many, gives BW far, far too much credit on the writing front.  They've never been great writers just decent ones.  They regurgitate all the same sci-fi and fantasy tropes we've seen a million times.  Their dialog is sub-par.  The thing that made BW games different was seeing the effects of your choices.  That's it.  

[razen34]

I dont know how many people might have already posted this but the spokesman says there will not be any paid dlc altering the ending rather an additional add-on that will resolve and add closure