5087 réponses à ce sujet

[playoff52]

I gave up trying to explain the reasons why they went with dimestore wisdom and philosophy so close to the end of something that at it's core had nothing in common with it's final moments.

In the end, while somewhat moving in some ways it missed the mark of greatness by a complete turn in left field into the parking lot. Sure they knocked it out of the ball park, but only because it got lost in the outfield and wandered out lost and confused on it's on will.

I know I don't write new york times best sellers, but I know how to craft a better ending without leaving my readers or players in this instance, feeling sold out down the creek without paddles at the falls.

Some rules of story telling exist so you don't ****** off your customers. They learned this lesson the hardway. I just hope it sticks now.

Modifié par playoff52, 29 juin 2012 - 02:23 .

[flemm]

delta_vee wrote...
You're right in that it's a different type of complaint - but it's exactly the complaint elucidated repeatedly on this thread. My objections, for example, were never rooted in the brevity or the ambiguity, but in the very nature of the Ten Minutes and the Starbrat. The choice is legitimate inasmuch as it remains Bioware's perogative to do so, but I don't think its legitimacy in a narrative, thematic, or mechanical sense is particularly great.

The endings are never going to really *fit* or flow properly. In that sense I agree with you. And you are probably as close to being objectively right as one can be for this sort of thing.

Still, I think they've done what they can to elucidate them and integrate them into the flow of the game.

As fans, our choice is basically to accept the flaws of the endings, while appreciating the redeeming factors and the effort that was made (free of charge) to clarify them and make them more palatable. Or to endlessly complain and be bitter about it.

Might as well go with #1 in my view. What's the point of #2? I'm confident they have absorbed the idea that the endings do not really *fit* thematically, at least in the minds of some, by now.

Modifié par flemm, 29 juin 2012 - 03:04 .

[Seijin8]

playoff52 wrote...

Some rules of story telling exist so you don't ****** off your customers. They learned this lesson the hardway. I just hope it sticks now.

Great points overall, but the structure of the Extended Cut proves that they either *didn't* learn the lesson or decided not to pay it much heed.

I've said it before and will again:  I didn't need a happy ending.  I wanted to stand atop a mountain of dead husks, cannibals and brutes with a galaxy on fire behind me, squadmates dead all around and ram my omniblade elbow deep into Harbinger's heart, knowing it was the last Reaper and leaving the galaxy to sort itself out when the threat was dead and gone.

And every indication from ME1, 2, and 3 was that we were heading towards this (with enough variation to satisfy those of differing opinion).

What I never wanted was a discussion with Hitler about why holocaust was a good and necessary thing and how we could come to terms with a different way to erase the defects he perceived in his world.  His solutions are wrong because the problems they solve are wrong.  Period.

Only Refusal gives the chance to see my version of the end play out.

[For the sake of being honest, I actually found that the Paragon Control ending fit my Shep's personality.  If only he were crazy enough to have ever truly considered that possibility.]

[CulturalGeekGirl]

flemm wrote...

delta_vee wrote...
You're right in that it's a different type of complaint - but it's exactly the complaint elucidated repeatedly on this thread. My objections, for example, were never rooted in the brevity or the ambiguity, but in the very nature of the Ten Minutes and the Starbrat. The choice is legitimate inasmuch as it remains Bioware's perogative to do so, but I don't think its legitimacy in a narrative, thematic, or mechanical sense is particularly great.

They're never going to really *fit* or flow properly. In that sense I agree with you. And you are probably as close to being objectively right as one can be for this sort of thing.

Still, I think they've done what they can to elucidate them and integrate them into the flow of the game.

As fans, our choice is basically to accept the flaws of the endings, while appreciating the redeeming factors and the effort that was made (free of charge) to clarify them and make them more palatable. Or to endlessly complain and be bitter about it.

Might as well go with #1 in my view. What's the point of #2? I'm confident they have absorbed the idea that the endings do not really *fit* thematically, at least in the minds of some, by now.

Those aren't our only choices. If you have problems with the themes, you have a bunch of choices.

1. Accept the ending
2. Continue to elucidate why you don't like the ending, in the hopes that they won't make the same mistake in the future
3. Try to forget Mass Effect
4. Completely abandon Bioware

So the point of #2 is to keep yourself from slipping into 3 or 4. I do think that 3 may be better for my sanity, and I'll probably be going that way soon. We'll see what Dragon Age does in the future to see if I'll move all the way to 4 or not.

I wish to god that I was mentally capable of #1. I used to like the idea of synthesis, why can't I do that now? Why can't I say "It's OK, Shepard sacrificed herself so that everyone could live."  Or I could go the route that most of the destroy people go, and tell myself "It's Ok, we can repair EDI and the Geth and everything is fine and we all lived happily ever after." I've been trying with all my might to do that for the past two days... and it just doesn't work.

[flemm]

Well, in choices 3 and 4, you stop being a fan. As for your version of #2, don't you think this massive sh*tstorm has registered with them, as far as the main reasons people are unhappy?

Anyway, I'm not saying you shouldn't continue to talk about it, if that's what you want to do. I just think that, realistically, the point has been made. Time to enjoy what we have, or move on.

[Seijin8]

flemm wrote...

don't you think this massive sh*tstorm has registered with them, as far as the main reasons people are unhappy?

The Refusal dialogue is proof that they either didn't listen or didn't care.

[WhereEternityEnds]

Someone needs to staple what the professor said to Casey Hudson's forehead.

[edisnooM]

Inspired by drayfish and sH0tgUn jUliA's excellent summary of their Shepard's (and jbauck's suggestion a while back) I decided to try my hand at my own. Fair warning though this won't be very good, and it also ended up a lot longer than I intended.


John Shepard (default I know, but I couldn't think of a good name all those year's ago, and John sounded good. And now it has a nostalgic charm I can't bear to part with) was born in the desolate slums of earth, a hard miserable existence.

He grew up quick and he grew up mean, his fists got hard and his wits got keen, roamed from town to town to hide his shame.....Wait, that's a Boy Named Sue.

Anyway it was a hard life, and no one would blame him for coming out mean and bitter, but he wouldn't, he couldn't. He survived all the suffering life through at him and came out better for it, a survivor, a trait that would stick with him all his life.

There were few ways out of the slums, but John knew the one he'd take, and on his eighteenth birthday he walked out of there and into an Alliance recruitment office. His survivor's instincts served him well and he distinguished himself in his service, eventually being sent to Akuze. There he went through hell as his squad died around him. It was an experience that could have broken anyone, but John wouldn't let it. He pressed forward, determined to live on for every marine lost and do better in their memory.


Saved the Rachni, saved Zhu's hope, met and fell in love with an Asari archaeologist, talked down Wrex, was forced to leave Kaidan behind, saved the council.

Kicked Death in the shins, recruited a helluva team, helped them with their issues, walked into the Collector base and blew it to hell and gone without a life lost.

Cured the genophage, saved the Rachni (again), saved the council (again), ended a three hundred year long war, did everything he could to help all his friends with all their problems (again), and united a galaxy.

A hero to his allies, a terror to his enemies. He would go to hell and back for anyone he called friend. Willing to give anyone a chance regardless of their species, or if they were synthetic.

John Shepard, a paragon's paragon, an exemplar, an ideal.

Bloodied but never broken.

Last seen on the Citadel in the dimming lights.

[jbauck]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

<snip>

I wish to god that I was mentally capable of #1. I used to like the idea of synthesis, why can't I do that now? Why can't I say "It's OK, Shepard sacrificed herself so that everyone could live."  Or I could go the route that most of the destroy people go, and tell myself "It's Ok, we can repair EDI and the Geth and everything is fine and we all lived happily ever after." I've been trying with all my might to do that for the past two days... and it just doesn't work.

@CGG, if you, of all people, make peace with an ending you find morally repugnant (which is, at this point, all of them if I'm reading correctly), then the Reapers have truly won   You have been an unwavering beacon of righteousness, gently reminding everyone who picked Destroy that, yes, you have committed genocide when there were other options available.

Which is a damn good thing to do.  I picked destroy originally, and I felt terrible about it.  And I should.  It's a complete atrocity.

The new and expanded Synthesis ending says that synthetic life was not truly "life" prior to synthesis.  The new, expanded Synthesis ending totally justifies the Destroy ending.  I've seen you, time and again, bap people on the nose with a rolled up newspaper over the Destroy ending, because genocide Is Not Okay - and here's the new Synthesis ending saying ... yes, it is.  Because those synthetics who die in Destroy?  Not valid.  Not real.  Not life.

Only if you choose Synthesis are synthetics made into real people.  Destroy can be picked guilt-free, because the Synthesis ending dehumanizes EDI and the Geth for you.

Is that, perhaps, your problem with the expanded Synthesis ending?

[CulturalGeekGirl]

flemm wrote...

Well, in choices 3 and 4, you stop being a fan. As for your version of #2, don't you think this massive sh*tstorm has registered with them, as far as the main reasons people are unhappy?

Anyway, I'm not saying you shouldn't continue to talk about it, if that's what you want to do. I just think that, realistically, the point has been made. Time to enjoy what we have, or move on.

Well, my main experience is this thread, which is far from an [expletive]storm most of the time. It's been a well-reasoned, even joyful literary discussion. But it seems like Bioware didn't pay attention to the clever, reasoned posts here.

So yes, I think they missed the constructive literary analysis in the distracting storm.

For the last few months, their narrative has been that people simply "didn't get it." That they were too dumb to use their imaginations to figure out the implications of the endings-as-they-were. And honestly... it looks like they were correct for about 50% of the fanbase. Pretty much everything in the EC is just what I assumed happened after the original endings, the only exception being the relays not being destroyed ret-con, which is a pretty big plus, I have to admit.

A lot of people on these boards keep saying "this isn't that important, why do you care so much?" But it is important. Very important.

I want games to be a medium that gets recognized as art... and for that to happen, someone has to start producing "good art" in a medium. People started seeing comics as art after Maus, Watchmen, and Sandman. Were they art before? Sure, but until a genre produces a true masterpiece, the genre in which it sits isn't going to be recognized for its full potential.

I badly wanted Mass Effect to be that masterpiece. Now it isn't, and probably never will be. I need to make my peace with that, I will admit. All hope of Mass Effect ever being recognized as a medium-redeeming work of narrative mastery is completely gone now.

I think Mass Effect had the potential to explore some of the untouched potential of video games to evoke emotional responses to positive stimuli, instead of relying on the grimdark nihilism for which the medium has become rather infamous. The fact that they chose not to do so prevents them from achieving that "masterwork" classification, and makes it "just another game."

[MrFob]

jbauck wrote...


The new and expanded Synthesis ending says that synthetic life was not truly "life" prior to synthesis.  The new, expanded Synthesis ending totally justifies the Destroy ending.  I've seen you, time and again, bap people on the nose with a rolled up newspaper over the Destroy ending, because genocide Is Not Okay - and here's the new Synthesis ending saying ... yes, it is.  Because those synthetics who die in Destroy?  Not valid.  Not real.  Not life.

Only if you choose Synthesis are synthetics made into real people.  Destroy can be picked guilt-free, because the Synthesis ending dehumanizes EDI and the Geth for you.

See, I have a problem with this notion of the synthesis ending altogether because it goes contrary to everything that has been established in the ME universe before. In fact, just 20 minutes before the ending, when you have the last chat with EDI at the command post, she tells you outright that the Alliance and Cerberus may have given her sentience, Joker may have removed her shackles and allowed her to think for herself but it was only Shepard's actions and dialogue throughout the game, that made her truly come to life. In her mind before the end, this moment displayed in the synthesis endings has already happened. The same goes for the geth when they reach true individual intelligence when Legion uploads the code. We have seen this already and now they are telling us it was all faked? That the real deal is only the synthesis ending? I do not believe that and thus, there is no redemption for the destroy ending either.

[Jorji Costava]

@jbauck:

Those are excellent points you make about the synthesis ending. One of my pet peeves with a lot of SF is the confused treatment of concepts like 'life,' 'personhood,' 'sentience,' etc. Just what precisely does Bioware mean when they imply that synthetics aren't really alive? That they aren't biological? You don't say?! Being organic isn't in itself a special thing; the cells you kill when you brush your teeth are organic, but you're not committing genocide when you brush your teeth.

What else might be meant by being 'truly alive?' Perhaps it's something like consciousness, the ability to think and reason, to form plans about the future, to value certain things, etc. Well, the synthetics in the game seem to have all of these things. What more do you want? There seems no reason to think that a being that can do all of the above things but isn't made of meat doesn't really count as a person or as 'alive' in any morally interesting sense. So when the game suggests that synthetics weren't truly alive until synthesis happened, I confess I have no idea what they're talking about.

@MrFob:

On top of that, there's that recording on the Cerberus base where TIM's talking about installing EDI onto the Normanday. During that conversation, he says that she's "a cyberwarfare suite. Nothing more." Apparently, Bioware was trying to communicate their ideas in this scene. Not a particularly good idea to have the guy you're supposed to disagree with about everything be the one to tell you the truth about synthetic beings.

[MrFob]

osbornep wrote...
@MrFob:

On top of that, there's that recording on the Cerberus base where TIM's talking about installing EDI onto the Normanday. During that conversation, he says that she's "a cyberwarfare suite. Nothing more." Apparently, Bioware was trying to communicate their ideas in this scene. Not a particularly good idea to have the guy you're supposed to disagree with about everything be the one to tell you the truth about synthetic beings.

I can't see this instance as an attempt by BW to communicate their ideas about AIs to the audience. TIM can only say that because he is not in direct contact with EDI at the time. Had they been working on a human, I am sure he would also have said that this human is just a test subject, nothing more. The fact that the other guy in the vid, the one who actually works on/with EDI seems to have a differing opinion already invalidates TIM's remark as a definite message. On the other hand, you have countless hints and indications (like those in my post above) the show that this notion of the synthesis ending is yet another instance of BW, changing the dynamics and philosophies behind their own universe in the endings and particularly in the EC. It just does not fit with everything else that has been established in the series, thematically or factually.

[edisnooM]

I agree that with Synthesis BioWare completely ignores what we had already realized, that EDI and the Geth were alive before the magic green beam.

How they were able to write the scenes we saw and not have come to this conclusion is beyond me.

[flemm]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
 The fact that they chose not to do so prevents them from achieving that "masterwork" classification, and makes it "just another game."

Are you sure?

When was the last time a game ellicited this type of emotional response from its fans?

I say that even though I myself was not/am not happy with some aspects of the game, and with good reason, I think. And I think the original endings were, at best, a sort of outline or sketch of an idea that had no business making it into the finished product.

But... the only reason it matters to people this much is because they care so much about the characters and the story. So, they're doing something right overall, even if the details are not all what they probably should be.

[The Irish Man]

Did your professor even play Mass Effect 3 or play the endings with his Shepard?

[Unfallen_Satan]

Your professor's post is as good a critique as any on the original endings. He didn't say how he would have made it better, but he was at least qualified to give expert opinion on literary propriety. I am thankful for his post and yours; perhaps they contributed to BW's decision to add the 4th ending through the EC. I also want to criticize his banal and largely superfluous self-deprecation at the beginning of his post. If I or someone else didn't give him permission, would he desist from commenting on the subject? Prior to his post, did he come across many opinions made by people with better qualifications in literary criticism? This minor point does not devalue the rest of his excellent criticism, but it did make his post irritating when read from the beginning.

I'm sorry to dig into a 2-month old thread, but the fact that I saw it at the beginning of this forum compelled me to comment on it.

[SkaldFish]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
A lot of people on these boards keep saying "this isn't that important, why do you care so much?" But it is important. Very important.

I want games to be a medium that gets recognized as art... and for that to happen, someone has to start producing "good art" in a medium. People started seeing comics as art after Maus, Watchmen, and Sandman. Were they art before? Sure, but until a genre produces a true masterpiece, the genre in which it sits isn't going to be recognized for its full potential.

I badly wanted Mass Effect to be that masterpiece. Now it isn't, and probably never will be. I need to make my peace with that, I will admit. All hope of Mass Effect ever being recognized as a medium-redeeming work of narrative mastery is completely gone now.

I think Mass Effect had the potential to explore some of the untouched potential of video games to evoke emotional responses to positive stimuli, instead of relying on the grimdark nihilism for which the medium has become rather infamous. The fact that they chose not to do so prevents them from achieving that "masterwork" classification, and makes it "just another game."

Very well said, CGG. The responses to the EC on this thread have been amazing, as usual. So many insightful observations and achingly heartfelt reactions....

I finally made time to run through all the "options" last night. What a wrenching experience! We were promised clarity and closure, and we got both:

CLARITY: It's now crystal clear that Hudson's & Walters' "artistic vision" was exactly the miserable, amateurish, nonsensical, pseudointellectual, nihilistic kitsch that it had appeared to be before the clarification. Case closed. Thank the Goddess for small favors.

CLOSURE: We also have closure -- buckets of it. We even have cheesy, children's storybook stills to help our infantile minds grasp the full closure-y-ness of all the closure. And, just to make sure the closure is especially pseudointellectually pseudosignificant, a refusal to accept what The Construct offers provides us with what must be the most bitterly cynical Game Over in history.

Pardon me if I respectfully decline to raise my bowl and say, "More please." No more Mass Effect for me -- can't stomach it.

Incredible potential wasted with childish hubris. What a tragedy.

[Rustedness]

MrFob wrote...

jbauck wrote...


The new and expanded Synthesis ending says that synthetic life was not truly "life" prior to synthesis.  The new, expanded Synthesis ending totally justifies the Destroy ending.  I've seen you, time and again, bap people on the nose with a rolled up newspaper over the Destroy ending, because genocide Is Not Okay - and here's the new Synthesis ending saying ... yes, it is.  Because those synthetics who die in Destroy?  Not valid.  Not real.  Not life.

Only if you choose Synthesis are synthetics made into real people.  Destroy can be picked guilt-free, because the Synthesis ending dehumanizes EDI and the Geth for you.

See, I have a problem with this notion of the synthesis ending altogether because it goes contrary to everything that has been established in the ME universe before. In fact, just 20 minutes before the ending, when you have the last chat with EDI at the command post, she tells you outright that the Alliance and Cerberus may have given her sentience, Joker may have removed her shackles and allowed her to think for herself but it was only Shepard's actions and dialogue throughout the game, that made her truly come to life. In her mind before the end, this moment displayed in the synthesis endings has already happened. The same goes for the geth when they reach true individual intelligence when Legion uploads the code. We have seen this already and now they are telling us it was all faked? That the real deal is only the synthesis ending? I do not believe that and thus, there is no redemption for the destroy ending either.

It's stuff like this that keeps me lurking right on back. Exactly my thoughts... only better worded.

*back into hidey-watchy-hole*

[CulturalGeekGirl]

flemm wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
 The fact that they chose not to do so prevents them from achieving that "masterwork" classification, and makes it "just another game."

Are you sure?

When was the last time a game ellicited this type of emotional response from its fans?

I say that even though I myself was not/am not happy with some aspects of the game, and with good reason, I think. And I think the original endings were, at best, a sort of outline or sketch of an idea that had no business making it into the finished product.

But... the only reason it matters to people this much is because they care so much about the characters and the story. So, they're doing something right overall, even if the details are not all what they probably should be.

The last time I felt this strongly about a game...

was when I saw the art for Xenosaga 2, and they'd taken away Shion's glasses, taken away her practical work uniform, and put her in a generic, midriff-barring, JRPG outfit.

In the first Xenosaga game, Shion was a brilliant if absent-minded scientist... nerdy, smart, not-necessarily-good-with-her-social life. I cosplayed her. I bought at giant wallscroll of her and her killer-god-robot. I was on board.

Then I saw the designs for Xenosaga 2. No glasses, and now Shion appears frequently on lists of the most hated video game characters of all time. The worst characters. I don't know why, because I never played any games after they took her glasses away. For me, the glasses were symbolic of something... a kind of perfection that manifests as imperfection, perhaps? I'm not sure.

I've loved video games before, and I've been let down tragically by video games before. This is nothing new. Saying that bioware has accomplished something by breaking my heart and filling me with despair.. I'm sorry, I was here just as much... or more... when I was in love with this game a year ago. A year ago, thinking of this game would fill me with the kind of hopeful joy I've never gotten from anything other than Pratchett and Adams, and maybe sometimes Whedon before he inevitably screws the metaphorical pooch. But now...

I honestly haven't been as depressed as I am now since I heard that Douglas Adams died. When I heard that, I coudln't do anything for days. I was paralyzed, dead. This is mourning. This is what mourning looks like.

I'm actually kinda drunk right now, so I apologize if any of this is incoherent.

I raise my glass to Adams, to Henson, to Shepard.

Here's to dead heroes. If only you could have lived forever.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 29 juin 2012 - 08:01 .

[Seijin8]

/raises a glass

[Winterfly]

This guy is awesome!

What I hate the most is how they screwed us over with the new refusal ending.

[MrFob]

And now for something completely different :
Nah, sorry to divert but I just realised something that has irked me for the last two days and I really do hope it has not been stated here before and I missed it (because then I'd feel really really stupid).
I was trying to figure out why I didn't like the refusal option in the extended cut. After all, that was exactly what I was asking for in the EC. One of my major concerns was not to be able to stand up to the star kid in any meaningful way. Well, now we can and still, I am not happy. Why? I have heard it said that the refusal option feels like an insult to those who choose it but I don't think it does, nor do I think for one moment that BW would put the option in the game to spite us. In fact, the refusal ending does exactly what I asked for a few weeks ago. I said I'd even be ok with leaving it to the next cycle and just help them through Liaras time capsules if it only meant that I could keep true to my beliefs and my morals. Well, that is exactly what they delivered and still, it leaves me in a state of emotional uproar. Why?
I do think the refusal ending as it is would have worked perfectly with the original cut. In this case, we had three endings that were heavily tainted by 1) the atrocities that came with them and 2) the fact that none of us knew whether or not we could actually trust the predictions of the star kid or if we just walked into another trap (no one knows how far into the future the stargazer scene takes place).
However, it does not work any more with the EC because the EC inverts the situation. Now we have three scenarios that can all be seen as best possible outcomes, no matter which one of the morally ambiguous choices you take. This was not clear in the original cut. Back then we did not know whether or not our choice would work. Maybe it would utterly ruin the galaxy. Control and synthesis definitely had the potential to do so and destroy, although it is probably the safest option had the strong stigma of genocide lying heavily on our conscience. To refuse and to leave it to the next cycle might have been the best option. In the face of three ultimately unknown but possibly devastating or simply unacceptable endings, there was hope in the 4th solution that was to defy and pass on the torch to the next cycle.
Now we know the outcome of all choices. Control and Synthesis are both shiny and bright futures and while destroy still entails genocide, this fact is now neatly swept under the carpet in the epilogue, in the light of a celebrating victorious galaxy.
This loss of retrospective ambiguity invalidates the refusal option because it is the only way to actually loose (in fact, the sequence should play now whenever Shep just dies during gameplay after Liara finished the time capsules). It makes us look foolish in light of what we could have accomplished.
BioWare did not stick to their original artistic vision with the EC. As we all know, for the original , "speculation for everyone" was intentionally a big part. Since this aspect of the endings was replaced by clarity, the refusal option looses its impact and further degrades the themes of hope, courage and willpower that were integral to Mass Effect for 2.9 games before the last 10 minutes.
Had they kept the original cut and just put in the refusal ending, it might have worked to some extent at least. With the new cut, it was rendered irrelevant.
It's a shame BW didn't see how the interaction between small changes can affect the whole.

EDIT: Oh, looks like Winterfly just rendered my whole introduction mute.

Modifié par MrFob, 29 juin 2012 - 09:21 .

[Funkdrspot]

Seijin8 wrote...

flemm wrote...

don't you think this massive sh*tstorm has registered with them, as far as the main reasons people are unhappy?

The Refusal dialogue is proof that they either didn't listen or didn't care.

The refusal dialogue is almost verbatim what the majority of the most vocal BSN 'ers have asked for. I mean i almost think they bit it off one of the convos I've seen The Angry One have.

[frypan]

I suspect many folks who said, "I'd rather just reject the catalyst and die fighting" were suggestng that endings were so bad even defeat seemed a more palatable offering. Bioware listened to the words, but not to the intent behind them. They missed the fact that "reject" is a symbol of folks' defiance in the face of defeat, and an expression of their faith in the human condition.

I hate to use a Lord of The Rings analogy, but at the end, I just wanted to feel like I did watching the battle of Pelennor Fields in the third movie. For me that was the finest moment in the three films, humanity spitting in the face of fear and charging into battle, not with the hope of victory, but with utter contempt for the enemy and their overwhelming forces.

If I had to go down against the Reapers, I wanted it to be screaming "Death" at the top of my lungs with a thousand berzerk Krogan, Asari and Turians at my side. As I died, I want to see the ships of the fleet ramming Reapers, willingly throwing their lives away just to say "we will not submit".

Oh, and if that defiance had led to a last minute maxed out EMS victory, Bioware would have owned me for life.

But we didnt. What we got was what they had to say about "reject" and that whole miserable no-win scenrio that was set up in the last few minutes. Bioware missed entirely the intent of their audience here, as they seem to have throughout the whole sorry episode. Another blunder in misreading the audience and stubbornly sicking with a premise that works for them, but not for so many of us.

Modifié par frypan, 29 juin 2012 - 09:49 .