402 réponses à ce sujet

[PadawanMage71]

 Well said. I too had to go, 'huh?' and wonder why I'd bothered (again) to get the highest EMS, etc.?

and yes, HoloBrat's 'SO BE IT!" had that personal edge, like it came from the writers.

[Zoedoll]

The "so be it" and this apparent lack of achievement if that's the ending you pick on Insanity do feel like insults, but excluding that I personally thought it was... okay, I guess? It was good to have the extra choice, the moral victory that came at the highest cost, even if I did only get it by accident because I couldn't resist the impulse to shoot Starchild in the face one last time... I don't think I would have liked to hear Liara recap every last brutal moment of how we lost.

But not getting the achievement? That is just rude and looks a bit bratty. Not cool.

[Decklun]

I chose the "James T. Kirk" option too, and it was almost as if the Angry Meme man showed up and said,

"Y u no like my endings?! I spend whole 15 minutes making and added old concept art this time! SO BE IT!"

Kirk -err... Shepard would've shot him in the face again then told Hackett to lure all the reapers towards the Citadel and blown the whole thing to Hell. Then we would have had an epilogue about how the war continued for a decade and it was long and bloody, but because of Shepard's sacrifice the galaxy was able to deplete the Reaper's numbers enough that they were slowly overcome by a united galaxy. A galaxy united by The Shepard who gave everything to save it.

Oh, he also would've given one of those taunting/defiant speeches he always gave in the old 60's original show about how "You need us!" and "We're not going to play your games... we're going to keep living!" Loved Kir -err... Shepard's speeches.

Modifié par Decklun, 28 juin 2012 - 12:55 .

[Belisarius09]

@OP

I didn't take it as an insult, i'm glad they included it.

[Spartas Husky]

I took it as a bigger slap in the face than before. We defy them... and the next cycle lives happily ever after. Wtf did all my hours meant about sticking a pole up reaper's butt at every turn meant then???!!!

[SpartenN7]

I lmao when I heard Starchilds voice just went through puberty and in a reaper voice alike Harbingers "SO BE IT"

[Allan Schumacher]

wryterra wrote...

Hey Allan, thanks for adding the BioWare tag on one of my threads, heh.

I've already answered this earlier in the thread but I'll answer again happily: Yes I would have preferred no refuse option at all compared to what was provided. 

My reason for saying that is because what was added, as I think I've made clear by now, I find insulting. Especially now I've learned that it doesn't actually count as a game completion for the purposes of achievement. That seems to be a deliberate comment that it is a way to end the game, not complete it. As it wasn't in the original ending that means this insult has been deliberately added. 

We actually did get an 'oh well you lose'. Liara's ideo, talking about our past experience, said nothing about our past experience. It reenforced the 'oh well you lose'. Correct me if I'm wrong but she covers the points: we built a crucible, it didn't work, we died. I'd have loved to hear how she described Shepard's history on the time capsule but all we got was 'Shepard failed'. Is that not dismissive? We know that 'archive' contains our entire history but the only bit BioWare chose to include in the ending was 'Shepard failed'.

It is indeed a shorter conclusion.  Would it have been more easily accepted if it was expanded upon, but ultimately the consequences still the same?  I'm referring to Liara speaking more positively (rather than just Shepard failed) and having it fleshed out more with a fight of the fleet going down in a heroic, principled blaze of glory - willing to die than compromise who they are?

The Stargazer isn't dismissive, I'll give you that but then the Stargazer scene is a couple of lines and I'm sure it was included to maintain the structure of the ending, not because the fans demanded a better Stargazer scene. That said I was interested that the Stargazer looked a little Asari like, as described in the original leaked ending.

Well, be careful when you say the words "and I'm sure."  If you already feel as though the decision was done as a slight to fans, it becomes easy to interpret reasoning for why things are done to support your perspective.


If people are curious why I might be taking this discussion a bit more personally, is that frankly - based on the feedback I had read from the fans - this is very much in line with what I would have done and if you find any of my posts on the matter from a few months ago you'll see that that was the case.

I absolutely agreed with many fans that it was lacking to be able to refuse the Catalyst's premise, especially as I found the Catalyst to be unreliable myself.  I told them straight up that if it was my say (and no, I had no influence haha) though, it'd still result in a fail case.

The coles notes of it is along the lines of "providing a choice that is so clearly the best choice invalidates the choice at all."  I've actually stated that one thing I dislike about the ME2 ending, as interesting as it is from a reactivity standpoint, is that it doesn't actually reflect player choice but more whether or not the player played the game well.  Surviving the suicide mission is more akin to getting a higher score.  Choice for me is interesting when there becomes no obvious correct choice.  It also comes down to whether or not "choice" in games means "driving the narrative in the way that I want" or "providing alternative routes that each have their own consequences."

I stated then that I find it a more interesting choice if it doesn't result in success.

So when people say that they find this to be a gigantic middle finger to them, they're actually kind of saying that they feel that my idea is a middle finger to them, when I know for a fact that that is not at all the case.  I found it to be an interesting idea that provided an alternative choice that makes the player reflect on themselves and/or Shepard.  Even knowing the consequences, are you willing to die for what you believe in?

So yeah, reading up that fans feel that the direction I felt the game should go in is just insulting to them is a bit frustrating to read.  If you feel that I'm on this boards to troll the fanbase and mock and laugh at them, then I'm not sure where you're coming from.


It sucks that you feel this is an insult.  At this point there's not much I can do about it but try to talk with you.  I'm just trying to place some perspective on it because it's along the lines of what I would have done and I have zero interest in insulting fans with additional content.  Maybe if I was ultra decision maker master sergeant supreme I would have done some things differently, and at the same time there's still reconciling costs and time issues, but the general theme would still be "You're free to stick to your principles, but ultimately the Reapers are too much for us."  Why?  Because I feel it's more interesting.  It's perfectly valid for you to tell me you disagree with that premise.  Maybe it's not more interesting for you.  It is interesting for some though.

If it was me, I'd rather work a few less crunch days then work late making content that was designed to simply flip the fans the bird.  It'd be cheaper and faster.  Just keep the left over money and give the team some time off.


Anyways, no issue with your response specifically.  It's does help me understand your perspective.

Cheers.

[wh00ley 06]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

wryterra wrote...

Hey Allan, thanks for adding the BioWare tag on one of my threads, heh.

I've already answered this earlier in the thread but I'll answer again happily: Yes I would have preferred no refuse option at all compared to what was provided. 

My reason for saying that is because what was added, as I think I've made clear by now, I find insulting. Especially now I've learned that it doesn't actually count as a game completion for the purposes of achievement. That seems to be a deliberate comment that it is a way to end the game, not complete it. As it wasn't in the original ending that means this insult has been deliberately added. 

We actually did get an 'oh well you lose'. Liara's ideo, talking about our past experience, said nothing about our past experience. It reenforced the 'oh well you lose'. Correct me if I'm wrong but she covers the points: we built a crucible, it didn't work, we died. I'd have loved to hear how she described Shepard's history on the time capsule but all we got was 'Shepard failed'. Is that not dismissive? We know that 'archive' contains our entire history but the only bit BioWare chose to include in the ending was 'Shepard failed'.

It is indeed a shorter conclusion.  Would it have been more easily accepted if it was expanded upon, but ultimately the consequences still the same?  I'm referring to Liara speaking more positively (rather than just Shepard failed) and having it fleshed out more with a fight of the fleet going down in a heroic, principled blaze of glory - willing to die than compromise who they are?

The Stargazer isn't dismissive, I'll give you that but then the Stargazer scene is a couple of lines and I'm sure it was included to maintain the structure of the ending, not because the fans demanded a better Stargazer scene. That said I was interested that the Stargazer looked a little Asari like, as described in the original leaked ending.

Well, be careful when you say the words "and I'm sure."  If you already feel as though the decision was done as a slight to fans, it becomes easy to interpret reasoning for why things are done to support your perspective.


If people are curious why I might be taking this discussion a bit more personally, is that frankly - based on the feedback I had read from the fans - this is very much in line with what I would have done and if you find any of my posts on the matter from a few months ago you'll see that that was the case.

I absolutely agreed with many fans that it was lacking to be able to refuse the Catalyst's premise, especially as I found the Catalyst to be unreliable myself.  I told them straight up that if it was my say (and no, I had no influence haha) though, it'd still result in a fail case.

The coles notes of it is along the lines of "providing a choice that is so clearly the best choice invalidates the choice at all."  I've actually stated that one thing I dislike about the ME2 ending, as interesting as it is from a reactivity standpoint, is that it doesn't actually reflect player choice but more whether or not the player played the game well.  Surviving the suicide mission is more akin to getting a higher score.  Choice for me is interesting when there becomes no obvious correct choice.  It also comes down to whether or not "choice" in games means "driving the narrative in the way that I want" or "providing alternative routes that each have their own consequences."

I stated then that I find it a more interesting choice if it doesn't result in success.

So when people say that they find this to be a gigantic middle finger to them, they're actually kind of saying that they feel that my idea is a middle finger to them, when I know for a fact that that is not at all the case.  I found it to be an interesting idea that provided an alternative choice that makes the player reflect on themselves and/or Shepard.  Even knowing the consequences, are you willing to die for what you believe in?

So yeah, reading up that fans feel that the direction I felt the game should go in is just insulting to them is a bit frustrating to read.  If you feel that I'm on this boards to troll the fanbase and mock and laugh at them, then I'm not sure where you're coming from.


It sucks that you feel this is an insult.  At this point there's not much I can do about it but try to talk with you.  I'm just trying to place some perspective on it because it's along the lines of what I would have done and I have zero interest in insulting fans with additional content.  Maybe if I was ultra decision maker master sergeant supreme I would have done some things differently, and at the same time there's still reconciling costs and time issues, but the general theme would still be "You're free to stick to your principles, but ultimately the Reapers are too much for us."  Why?  Because I feel it's more interesting.  It's perfectly valid for you to tell me you disagree with that premise.  Maybe it's not more interesting for you.  It is interesting for some though.

If it was me, I'd rather work a few less crunch days then work late making content that was designed to simply flip the fans the bird.  It'd be cheaper and faster.  Just keep the left over money and give the team some time off.


Anyways, no issue with your response specifically.  It's does help me understand your perspective.

Cheers.

If it was made clear that the next cycle didn't use the Crucible I wouldn't mind, but instead of the next cycle defeating the Reaper horde that was weakened by Shepard's last stand, they stepped over his corpse to choose the same set of futures given to them by the Catalyst.

[Heeden]

Spartas Husky wrote...

I took it as a bigger slap in the face than before. We defy them... and the next cycle lives happily ever after. Wtf did all my hours meant about sticking a pole up reaper's butt at every turn meant then???!!!

It meant you had built the Crucible and assembled a battle-force capable of delivering, then decided not to bother turning it on.

[Simocrates]

I find threads like these an insult to humanity. No wonder our cycle perished.

[D24O]

wh00ley 06 wrote...

If it was made clear that the next cycle didn't use the Crucible I wouldn't mind, but instead of the next cycle defeating the Reaper horde that was weakened by Shepard's last stand, they stepped over his corpse to choose the same set of futures given to them by the Catalyst.

Sums my feelings up. By itself, it was actually satisfying, we sacraficed everything to give the futrue a chance to make its own way. Hearing that they used the Crucible, over twitter of all places (although this does feel unreliable to me) takes a lot away from the meaning of that sacrafice, and almost makes it seem like we were just stupid and stubborn for wanting to win on the galaxy's terms instead of the Reaper's.

[richard_rider]

Excellent idea, poor execution, I'll say it before and I said it again.

[WarBaby2]

Personally, I think refuse should have been the "true" ending where win or loose is actually depending on your EMS, resulting in to possible outcomes:

Loose: Liaras time capsule (initself a well done scene)

Win: Pretty much same as destoy... maybe alittle more indepth, but actually narrated by Shepard...

I guess most of the complains people stil have would be gone then... and you know what? BW still could do that, after more war assets have been included by DLCs...

[Essla]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

The coles notes of it is along the lines of "providing a choice that is so clearly the best choice invalidates the choice at all."  I've actually stated that one thing I dislike about the ME2 ending, as interesting as it is from a reactivity standpoint, is that it doesn't actually reflect player choice but more whether or not the player played the game well.  Surviving the suicide mission is more akin to getting a higher score.  Choice for me is interesting when there becomes no obvious correct choice.  It also comes down to whether or not "choice" in games means "driving the narrative in the way that I want" or "providing alternative routes that each have their own consequences."

I think you're pointing out the problem with this set of choices without even realizing it. It's inconsistent with the types of choices we've been offered up until that point in the series. Let's assume that the intention was, in fact, to make all of the choices equally morally reprehensible. Okay, but it's still frustratingly out of place in the Mass Effect series. We've always been able to win on our own terms. Even when we had to leave one of our party members behind in Mass Effect 1, it didn't feel like we had to compromise our principles to make that choice. We didn't have to accept someone's circular logic in order to save the other party member.

And let's not forget that Mass Effect is a game. The "work" you've put into it should matter in the final outcome. Otherwise, what was it all for? Most of us found the ME2 ending to be extremely satisfying because we saw the result of all the careful dialogue choices and sidequests. In ME3, nothing we've done up until that point matters whatsoever in the final outcome. We might as well skip to the final scene and choose door 1, 2, or 3, and accept our consolation prize. That doesn't make the choices feel more meaningful, it makes them feel arbitrary and tacked on.

[Ryzaki]

D24O wrote...

wh00ley 06 wrote...

If it was made clear that the next cycle didn't use the Crucible I wouldn't mind, but instead of the next cycle defeating the Reaper horde that was weakened by Shepard's last stand, they stepped over his corpse to choose the same set of futures given to them by the Catalyst.

Sums my feelings up. By itself, it was actually satisfying, we sacraficed everything to give the futrue a chance to make its own way. Hearing that they used the Crucible, over twitter of all places (although this does feel unreliable to me) takes a lot away from the meaning of that sacrafice, and almost makes it seem like we were just stupid and stubborn for wanting to win on the galaxy's terms instead of the Reaper's.

Sums up my feelings as well.

If they hadn't use the Catalyst and Crucible? Perfectly bittersweet ending. As it is? Slap in the face.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 28 juin 2012 - 01:43 .

[Steel Dancer]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

[It is indeed a shorter conclusion.  Would it have been more easily accepted if it was expanded upon, but ultimately the consequences still the same?  I'm referring to Liara speaking more positively (rather than just Shepard failed) and having it fleshed out more with a fight of the fleet going down in a heroic, principled blaze of glory - willing to die than compromise who they are?

Speaking personally, It would have felt better if it had been given the same treatment as the other endings in terms of minor cutscenes/slides of forces fighting (going down in flames or not). I'd have been ok with the idea that they couldn't be beaten conventionally on a galactic scale, even if they can be on a smaller 'stage'.

Getting eaten for shooting a hologram was a bit strong though.

[Dusen]

I don't want to believe that anyone on the Bioware team would want to mock their fanbase (and more importantly consumer base), but to be completely honest I felt very insulted when I first recieved the "rejection ending" (it was my first playthrough after downloading the EC, so the sting was even worse).

All I (and I'm sure many others as well) was looking for in the ending to this game was for an epic moment in the same thematic vein as the past two games where Shepard stands strong in the face of all odds, and in the end ultimately defeats the "unstoppable" evil, doing the impossible so to speak. I became very excited when I found out I was allowed to do this in-game, to carry on the same narrative theme that had resonated so strongly throughout the series, when all of a sudden, the game ends abrubtly. I felt as though I was being punished for sticking with the same ideals that had carried me through the first two games and most of this one.

Do I believe that the other endings should stay for those who like them? By all means, but why was the only ending that truly followed the series core themes and values cast aside the first time, and then only added on with the EC in a half-arsed way? Why was there no slideshow revealing the heroic last stands of Shepard, his friends and their respective races? Why does Shepard stand there unheroically doing nothing, even after the riveting speech he gave the catalyst? Why does Liara sound so mocking when she describes how "we" (the last cycle) failed?

In short, while I do not want to believe that Bioware was being spitefull, it truly came across that way on my first playthrough.

[Jadebaby]

It's a slap in the face because the next cycle builds the crucible and makes 1 of the same 3 dumb choices that you were forced to make. All Rejection ending is doing is saying "you know what? Kill us, your choices are dumb" .. Accepting defeat and leaving the 3 deux ex choices up to the next poor idiot that stumbles upon it.

[Jadebaby]

Ryzaki wrote...

D24O wrote...

wh00ley 06 wrote...

If it was made clear that the next cycle didn't use the Crucible I wouldn't mind, but instead of the next cycle defeating the Reaper horde that was weakened by Shepard's last stand, they stepped over his corpse to choose the same set of futures given to them by the Catalyst.

Sums my feelings up. By itself, it was actually satisfying, we sacraficed everything to give the futrue a chance to make its own way. Hearing that they used the Crucible, over twitter of all places (although this does feel unreliable to me) takes a lot away from the meaning of that sacrafice, and almost makes it seem like we were just stupid and stubborn for wanting to win on the galaxy's terms instead of the Reaper's.

Sums up my feelings as well.

If they hadn't use the Catalyst and Crucible? Perfectly bittersweet ending. As it is? Slap in the face.

oh it's reliable.. Remember how they killed Emily Wong?

And I agree with this. +1

[IanPolaris]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

wryterra wrote...

Hey Allan, thanks for adding the BioWare tag on one of my threads, heh.

I've already answered this earlier in the thread but I'll answer again happily: Yes I would have preferred no refuse option at all compared to what was provided. 

My reason for saying that is because what was added, as I think I've made clear by now, I find insulting. Especially now I've learned that it doesn't actually count as a game completion for the purposes of achievement. That seems to be a deliberate comment that it is a way to end the game, not complete it. As it wasn't in the original ending that means this insult has been deliberately added. 

We actually did get an 'oh well you lose'. Liara's ideo, talking about our past experience, said nothing about our past experience. It reenforced the 'oh well you lose'. Correct me if I'm wrong but she covers the points: we built a crucible, it didn't work, we died. I'd have loved to hear how she described Shepard's history on the time capsule but all we got was 'Shepard failed'. Is that not dismissive? We know that 'archive' contains our entire history but the only bit BioWare chose to include in the ending was 'Shepard failed'.

It is indeed a shorter conclusion.  Would it have been more easily accepted if it was expanded upon, but ultimately the consequences still the same?  I'm referring to Liara speaking more positively (rather than just Shepard failed) and having it fleshed out more with a fight of the fleet going down in a heroic, principled blaze of glory - willing to die than compromise who they are?

The Stargazer isn't dismissive, I'll give you that but then the Stargazer scene is a couple of lines and I'm sure it was included to maintain the structure of the ending, not because the fans demanded a better Stargazer scene. That said I was interested that the Stargazer looked a little Asari like, as described in the original leaked ending.

Well, be careful when you say the words "and I'm sure."  If you already feel as though the decision was done as a slight to fans, it becomes easy to interpret reasoning for why things are done to support your perspective.


If people are curious why I might be taking this discussion a bit more personally, is that frankly - based on the feedback I had read from the fans - this is very much in line with what I would have done and if you find any of my posts on the matter from a few months ago you'll see that that was the case.

I absolutely agreed with many fans that it was lacking to be able to refuse the Catalyst's premise, especially as I found the Catalyst to be unreliable myself.  I told them straight up that if it was my say (and no, I had no influence haha) though, it'd still result in a fail case.

The coles notes of it is along the lines of "providing a choice that is so clearly the best choice invalidates the choice at all."  I've actually stated that one thing I dislike about the ME2 ending, as interesting as it is from a reactivity standpoint, is that it doesn't actually reflect player choice but more whether or not the player played the game well.  Surviving the suicide mission is more akin to getting a higher score.  Choice for me is interesting when there becomes no obvious correct choice.  It also comes down to whether or not "choice" in games means "driving the narrative in the way that I want" or "providing alternative routes that each have their own consequences."

I stated then that I find it a more interesting choice if it doesn't result in success.

So when people say that they find this to be a gigantic middle finger to them, they're actually kind of saying that they feel that my idea is a middle finger to them, when I know for a fact that that is not at all the case.  I found it to be an interesting idea that provided an alternative choice that makes the player reflect on themselves and/or Shepard.  Even knowing the consequences, are you willing to die for what you believe in?

So yeah, reading up that fans feel that the direction I felt the game should go in is just insulting to them is a bit frustrating to read.  If you feel that I'm on this boards to troll the fanbase and mock and laugh at them, then I'm not sure where you're coming from.


It sucks that you feel this is an insult.  At this point there's not much I can do about it but try to talk with you.  I'm just trying to place some perspective on it because it's along the lines of what I would have done and I have zero interest in insulting fans with additional content.  Maybe if I was ultra decision maker master sergeant supreme I would have done some things differently, and at the same time there's still reconciling costs and time issues, but the general theme would still be "You're free to stick to your principles, but ultimately the Reapers are too much for us."  Why?  Because I feel it's more interesting.  It's perfectly valid for you to tell me you disagree with that premise.  Maybe it's not more interesting for you.  It is interesting for some though.

If it was me, I'd rather work a few less crunch days then work late making content that was designed to simply flip the fans the bird.  It'd be cheaper and faster.  Just keep the left over money and give the team some time off.


Anyways, no issue with your response specifically.  It's does help me understand your perspective.

Cheers.

I am going to reiterate what I've said elsewhere and what a lot of others have said here because I think it's that important to truly understand where the anger is coming from.  Had the next cycle been able to take Liara's warning and had Shepard's failed war with the reapers really made a clear difference for the next cycle, then it wouldn't be so bad.  In fact it would be a decent alternative 'bittersweet' ending.

But no.  Instead we are told:

1.  The next cycle uses the Crucible anyway.  This completely negates Shepard's moral stance and makes this cycle's sacrifice completely meaningless.  This more than anything else is what is being regarded as the 'big middle finger'.  Now maybe that would be an appropriate result if Shepard had a really low EMS.  You lost.  Your fault.  Deal.  But if Shepard actually did unite the galaxy and had a very high EMS, then the next cycle should have been able to win with Liara's warning WITHOUT using the crucible.  Then the refusal would have meaning and the feelings of being spited would be much reduced.

2.  The refusal ending isn't counted as a "real" ending of the game (i.e. it doesn't count for achievements).  That being so, how are we supposed to take it as anything other than an apparent act of spite?

-Polaris

[the slynx]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

It is indeed a shorter conclusion.  Would it have been more easily accepted if it was expanded upon, but ultimately the consequences still the same?

Yes, that would have been more acceptable, to a point.

Many of the people who suggested a rejection option did so not because they thought it was a good ending, so much as because they thought it was a better ending that didn't invalidate the finale the developers had already written and still gave players a chance to assert that their Shepard wasn't so passive as to accept the enemy at the last moment. The rejection ending that made it into the game both fails and shows Shepard doing nothing more than making a pretty speech and then standing, inert, watching things end. That's totally contrary to what many people endorsed about refusal.

The coles notes of it is along the lines of "providing a choice that is so clearly the best choice invalidates the choice at all."  I've actually stated that one thing I dislike about the ME2 ending, as interesting as it is from a reactivity standpoint, is that it doesn't actually reflect player choice but more whether or not the player played the game well.  Surviving the suicide mission is more akin to getting a higher score.  Choice for me is interesting when there becomes no obvious correct choice.

I tend to agree: there should be no perfect choice. And most of the people who created and endorsed refusal responses worked to balance it out by making the consequences grim, but still making a form of victory obtainable. I don't think any one would have been satisfied with Shepard refusing, followed by complete and unadulterated succes in taking down the Reapers. There has to be a balance. I actually tend to think the 'choice' endings are too optimistic at this moment.

More on all of this here.

EDIT: With Mike Gamble confirming via Twitter that the next cycle still uses the Crucible, the reject ending is rendered even more ineffectual and pointless. Couldn't the writers at least have left the vaguest of possibilities that some solution other than the ones presented by Star Kid might have been possible, even thousands of years in the future?

Modifié par torudoom, 28 juin 2012 - 06:10 .

[Feixeno]

My beef with the idea that "You can't win conventionally" is saying something is impossible in Mass Effect seems a bit hollow. The whole game you're telling the Illusive Man you can't control the Reapers, and yet at the final hour it is an actual possibility. I feel like the Refusal ending should follow a similar path.

I think that with 7000+ war assets, it should be possible to "win" in the refusal ending. Winning insomuch that it's a pyrrhic victory. The galaxy would be in pretty much the same horrible state that it was at the end of the original endings, if not more.

It should not be a heroic ending,  more along the lines of "We won, we're free, but the price we paid is too high." 

Modifié par Feixeno, 28 juin 2012 - 03:02 .

[Zine2]

Honestly, to make it a not-insult all Bioware really has to do is to tell Gamble to shut up about the ambiguous details on how the next cycle won.

I'm one of the most vocal critics of the ending, but I thought that without the implied attempts at spite (HAHA smarter people built the Crucible and went RGB!) it's actually the deepest and most thought-provoking of all the endings. It still is, despite the attempts at spite.

[Tazzmission]

no idont think its an insult. i think its great to know that the reapers can indeed finish the cycle

think about it we have 3 endings where they themselves die and 2 of them end up making them are slaves

do you just expect to shoot casper and not expect reprocutions?

[CoolioThane]

The Reapers should be able to be beaten conventionally. This is Mass Effect, A high enough EMS perhaps mixed with info from DLC should be able to help up beat them conventionally. We survive, of course with losses, but without genocide, and we can meet up in Rio for a drink with Jacob and Garrus.

Destroy - Genocide
Control - Slavery seems kinda wrong, wouldn't wish that on my enemies
Synthesis - Rape
Reject - HERP YOU ALL DIE

Reject should allow us to win. This is Shepard.