292 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

Mesina2 wrote...

If it advances the plot, then something being canon is fully understandable. Long enough it's not contrived.

Plenty of things that are canonical events remain disputed in their interpretation about the nature and implications of it. Just take the arguments about Anders in DA2.

Thane's and Legion's deaths don't advance the plot, not even Shepard's character. It's forgotten the moment scene is done.

Except when it isn't, and except how 'an emotional moment' is a valid rational in its own right. Most emotional moments throughout the series aren't required.

Making their deaths canonical is nothing but a cheap stunt for drama.

Counterargument: a lack of required deaths makes optional deaths nothing but a cheap stunt for drama, in addition to requiring the player to do 'badly' in order to do achieve it and making the character irrelevant for all story purposes after it.

You might not like required deaths, but the 'make every death optional' aspect of the Suicide Mission was a mess in the opposite direction.

[Siran]

Tully was referring to the ending. How you perceive it and especially the things that are not shown, are up to your imagination. Shepard's story was never up to your imagination, as it was clearly shown in the game. You could influence it in certain ways, but not all (see Thane, Legion etc.). What happens after the ending and even if the ending was real or not (IT) is up to the player. I don't see how that has anything to do with how the story progressed up to the end. Any story has to follow certain predetermined paths. You can't have everything open, that's just not doable with a story-driven game. The ME-series gave you a great variety of choices, but they are still limited. What happens in you head is not (e.g. what is not the game or maybe hinted at, like a possible LI reunion etc).

[jkflipflopDAO]

TullyAckland wrote...

The interpretation of a story is a personal thing, and it’s one of the most enjoyable aspects of an experience like this for many players. To tell you what we think would be to take away the validity of each player’s take on it.

And ultimately, our opinion on what is “really” happening is no more accurate than what a player believes when playing it. The interpretation of the story is a player choice, and like other choices in the game we don’t like to trample on it by definitively stating what is “canon”.

Honestly man, that's soul-crushing to hear you say that. =( The only reason I'm still here is the desperate hope that someday you will come on the boards and say "OK, this is what happened as we envisioned" and just break it all down in detail. I have no further interest in getting "emotionally engaged" in any more of your franchises if you're just going to leave me hanging in the wind like this. Why bother getting involved if you're just going to blue-ball me at the end of the ride? 

[Dean_the_Young]

TheShadowWolf911 wrote...

TullyAckland wrote...

The interpretation of a story is a personal thing, and it’s one of the most enjoyable aspects of an experience like this for many players. To tell you what we think would be to take away the validity of each player’s take on it.

And ultimately, our opinion on what is “really” happening is no more accurate than what a player believes when playing it. The interpretation of the story is a player choice, and like other choices in the game we don’t like to trample on it by definitively stating what is “canon”.

and yet we can't win after refusing the god child.

And? Certain choices leading to certain effects what canon refers to. Establishing a canon would be to claim 'Shepard chose X, with results of Y.'

'If Shepard chooses X, Y results' isn't establishing a canon because 'Shepard choosing X' isn't canonical.

[Dean_the_Young]

jkflipflopDAO wrote...

TullyAckland wrote...

The interpretation of a story is a personal thing, and it’s one of the most enjoyable aspects of an experience like this for many players. To tell you what we think would be to take away the validity of each player’s take on it.

And ultimately, our opinion on what is “really” happening is no more accurate than what a player believes when playing it. The interpretation of the story is a player choice, and like other choices in the game we don’t like to trample on it by definitively stating what is “canon”.

Honestly man, that's soul-crushing to hear you say that. =( The only reason I'm still here is the desperate hope that someday you will come on the boards and say "OK, this is what happened as we envisioned" and just break it all down in detail. I have no further interest in getting "emotionally engaged" in any more of your franchises if you're just going to leave me hanging in the wind like this. Why bother getting involved if you're just going to blue-ball me at the end of the ride? 

Because this is what Bioware has done for the last decade and a half, and there's nothing new about them leaving ambiguity for people to interpret as they wish?

[CroGamer002]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

And even then, how does making Thane and Legion live would make this already too lineral story less lineral?
It wouldn't.

So you're saying I shouldn't have set my expectations on what Bioware said?

Geez, thanks.
Didn't know false advertisement is OK, we costumers are one to be blamed for believing it.

...which would be a counterargument for why they should be allowed to live, but hey.

Because it's far better feeling to be able to save your friend/lover becuase of your past and current choices?

Except for the post-mission chatter, or a certain Kai Leng scene, or whispers in the dreams.

You mean that 1 line Tali says about Legion, while Shepard says nothing?
That 1 very short line Shepard says to Kai Leng?
And those lines that we can barely hear and we are more focused to chase that brat, while Shepard only vaguely speaks about it to anyone else?


Geez, that so makes it feel better.

And that's an unreasonable expectation, because that's a personal view you're projecting. Plenty of people already get up in arms about Shepard showing any emotion at the time, let alone the chances to after.

So saying few extra lines to acknowledge death of your friend/lover throughout the game is unreleasable?

Modifié par Mesina2, 12 juillet 2012 - 12:04 .

[CroGamer002]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Plenty of things that are canonical events remain disputed in their interpretation about the nature and implications of it. Just take the arguments about Anders in DA2.

Can be easily explained that he could have done it offscreen somehow.

Cheap, but advances the plot.

And you still can choose can he live or die

Except when it isn't, and except how 'an emotional moment' is a valid rational in its own right. Most emotional moments throughout the series aren't required.

Vague and indirect lines are not enough.

Counterargument: a lack of required deaths makes optional deaths nothing but a cheap stunt for drama, in addition to requiring the player to do 'badly' in order to do achieve it and making the character irrelevant for all story purposes after it.

You might not like required deaths, but the 'make every death optional' aspect of the Suicide Mission was a mess in the opposite direction.

So you're saying that you're against choices that matter?

[The Twilight God]

Xemnas07 wrote...

But IT is dead. BW was obviously not the geniuses we gave them credit for, and they couldnt pull of the biggest, most intelligent and awe inspiring mind warp in gaming history. So please, stop. EC puts it to rest. BW failed, and made a perfect 10 game that could compete with Skyrim into an average 8 game that is now only worth $30 4 months after release, while Skyrim is STILL $60. We were grasping at straws trying to save our favorite game and trilogy, but face it; it was just bad writing and the inconsistencies and plot holes are just that; inconsistencies and plot holes.

It can be whatever you want. Since they expect us to headcanon everything anyway.

As they refuse to correct their mistake everyone's interpretation is valid. A horrid outcome, but that's they way they left it.

Modifié par The Twilight God, 12 juillet 2012 - 12:13 .

[MetioricTest]

I'm indoctrinated.

That's why everytime I load up ME1 I jump into the lava over and over. DEATH TO SHEPARD!

[Dean_the_Young]

Mesina2 wrote...

So you're saying I shouldn't have set my expectations on what Bioware said?

Yup.

Geez, thanks.

You're welcome.

Didn't know false advertisement is OK, we costumers are one to be blamed for believing it.

False advertising is different from exagerated advertising. Expanding exagerations is something you are culpable for.

Because it's far better feeling to be able to save your friend/lover becuase of your past and current choices?

Sure. And it would also be a better feeling if the Reapers were beaten without a single on-screen casualty, and no one was the villain and everyone got along.

But drama really doesn't go on nice feelings alone. Contrasting the bitter is what gives more weight to the sweet, and players are notorious for not giving a damn about strangers.

You mean that 1 line Tali says about Legion, while Shepard says nothing?
That 1 very short line Shepard says to Kai Leng?
And those lines that we can barely hear and we are more focused to chase that brat, while Shepard only vaguely speaks about it to anyone else?

Congratulations: you are capable of backing down from an erronious absolute. There are a few more you could probably make, but now you're differing on 'not enough' rather than not at all.

So saying few extra lines to acknowledge death of your friend/lover throughout the game is unreleasable?

I'll pretend you meant unreasonable.

It's not unreasonable, but it's not necessary either: a lot of Shepard's personal feelings have always been left offscreen for the player to headcanon. It also carries risks of its own: if Shepard frequently remorsed on the lost (say every story mission, a chance to eulogize the dead came up), players could just as well complain that Shepard is being 'whiney.' That's what they already accuse other characters of, if they hold an issue over multiple conversations.

That goes on with trying to find or create non-awkward places to insert things on a reoccuring basis.

[jkflipflopDAO]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

jkflipflopDAO wrote...

TullyAckland wrote...

The interpretation of a story is a personal thing, and it’s one of the most enjoyable aspects of an experience like this for many players. To tell you what we think would be to take away the validity of each player’s take on it.

And ultimately, our opinion on what is “really” happening is no more accurate than what a player believes when playing it. The interpretation of the story is a player choice, and like other choices in the game we don’t like to trample on it by definitively stating what is “canon”.

Honestly man, that's soul-crushing to hear you say that. =( The only reason I'm still here is the desperate hope that someday you will come on the boards and say "OK, this is what happened as we envisioned" and just break it all down in detail. I have no further interest in getting "emotionally engaged" in any more of your franchises if you're just going to leave me hanging in the wind like this. Why bother getting involved if you're just going to blue-ball me at the end of the ride? 

Because this is what Bioware has done for the last decade and a half, and there's nothing new about them leaving ambiguity for people to interpret as they wish?

Uh, no.

MDK2 - ended
KOTOR - tied up all plot points and left the Revan character for later.
NWN - ended in climax, but you never really "end" in DnD.
DAO - ended
Mass Effect - concluded even though we all knew it was going to be a trilogy
ME2 - same
DA2 - Crappy, open-ended ending with no closure to the hero.
ME3 - despite being the actual end of the trilogy and the hero Shepard's story, it ends on ambiguous note. Same problem as DA2

[SimonTheFrog]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

SimonTheFrog wrote...

Being vague about the story plot itself is good for poetry.

It is not good for prose.

A lot of prose writers would disagree with you. Madame Bovary is not a universal literary ideal, even though it's very good about not being vague about surroundings.

Most players of ME want to know what just happened. I'm sorry, but that is what people expected and you KNOW they did considering all the stuff you guys promised before release.

Please just stop pretending that this ending is good. Please. It's just insulting for both parties.

Mass Effect players were quite happy with the two previous games that had plenty of vague settings and events.

Yes, it's all about context. In an environment of proper literature there are no rules, of course. But there are unwritten rules for mainstream media, such as AAA games. And ME 1 and ME 2 set up a contract with the audience that the trilogy obides by the unwritten rules of story telling. It est for example keeping logical gaps to a tolerable minimum, keep the motives of all important characters relatable, avoid unexplained spacemagic as good as possible (only exception if gameplay is directly involved) etc.

Me1 and 2 may have been vague in some areas but not so much in central parts as the conclusion of the storyline. We knew what Sovereign tried to do (in hindsight this is blurred now due to stuff in the ending of ME3 but back then it was understandable). We did not have trouble understanding the ending of ME2 either. We had questions about the why... but not so much about the what.

In me3 we have both: questions about why characters are acting the way they do and questions about WHAT they actually do.

This is substantially more vague then ME1 and ME2. Especially in central areas of the plot.

Modifié par SimonTheFrog, 12 juillet 2012 - 12:27 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Mesina2 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Plenty of things that are canonical events remain disputed in their interpretation about the nature and implications of it. Just take the arguments about Anders in DA2.

Can be easily explained that he could have done it offscreen somehow.

Cheap, but advances the plot.

And you still can choose can he live or die

All three of those lines are irrelevant to the fact that players still have differing interpretations of events we can all agree happened.

Vague and indirect lines are not enough.

For you, when it bugs you. I won't argue that because you aren't pointing to them other vague lines don't bother you, but there probably are plenty that you don't mind or care about.

So you're saying that you're against choices that matter?

Amazingly, I did not say that. Also amazingly, I dispute that 'character lives or dies' is the standard for making a choice 'matter.'

You can have meaningful choices in which a certain character lives regardless (like many Big Decisions in the trilogy do), but you can also have meaningful choices in which a character will still die regardless.

The manner in which someone dies  can be just as potent as whether they die at all. My argument would be Mordin in a game in which he can't live. While Mordin's survival can be opened, it can only be done in previous games: once you start ME3, that option can be locked out. How Mordin dies can still be meaningful: whether he dies in a self-sacrifice that saves the Krogan, or whether he dies from Shepard shooting him. Mordin still dies, but the emotional effects are distinct even without the genophage being factored in.

[Dean_the_Young]

jkflipflopDAO wrote...


Uh, no.

MDK2 - ended
KOTOR - tied up all plot points and left the Revan character for later.
NWN - ended in climax, but you never really "end" in DnD.
DAO - ended
Mass Effect - concluded even though we all knew it was going to be a trilogy
ME2 - same
DA2 - Crappy, open-ended ending with no closure to the hero.
ME3 - despite being the actual end of the trilogy and the hero Shepard's story, it ends on ambiguous note. Same problem as DA2

All those games had great deals of ambiguity within their games, and after their conclusions. Even DAO, with its famed epilogue slides, did them in a way that left a great deal up for personal interpretation.

[Jassu1979]

As far as Bioware's intended canonical story is concerned, IT is dead as a doornail.

That boy just standing on a roof and running through a closed door? Sloppy programming.
The disturbing dreams? Just ham-fisted foreshadowing of the "you're supposed to be a martyr, ******!"-ending.
The unlimited ammo gun? More sloppy programming.

With all that said and done, some variation of the IT *will* be my private canonical ending, as I refuse the inconsistent and revolting conclusion that the writers try to force down our throats. I'd rather read fan fiction than buy another Bioware game (or DLC) written by Mac Walters.

Our protests might have been in vain, but they WILL feel their purses lighten now. My wallet remains closed to them.

[Dean_the_Young]

SimonTheFrog wrote...

Yes, it's all about context. In an environment of proper literature there are no rules, of course. But there are unwritten rules for mainstream media, such as AAA games. And ME 1 and ME 2 set up a contract with the audience that the trilogy obides by the unwritten rules of story telling. It est for example keeping logical gaps to a tolerable minimum, keep the motives of all important characters relatable, avoid unexplained spacemagic as good as possible (only exception if gameplay is directly involved) etc.

Me1 and 2 may have been vague in some areas but so much in central parts as the conclusion of the storyline. We knew what Sovereign tried to do (in hindsight this is blurred now due to stuff in the ending of ME3 but back then it was understandable). We did not have trouble understanding the ending of ME2 either. We had questions about the why... but not so much about the what.

Mass Effect 1 and 2 are horrible examples of games that avoided vagueness, because ambiguity was a huge part of their plot devices and settings. You can't understand the Prothean beacon because there's nothing concrete about it: the difference was that people simply did not care about the ambiguities or the things that couldn't be realistically explained. Biotics, Asari, Collector Direct Control, Prothean Beacons, the Cypher, even most of the character back stories: the moment you start looking at details they fall apart from lack of substance. But that's okay, because people didn't mind.

Writing isn't about not having ambiguities. It's arranging things so you can get away with them.

In me3 we have both: questions about why characters are acting the way they do and questions about WHAT they actually do.

This is substantially more vague then ME1 and ME2. Especially in central areas of the plot.

Correction: you care more.

[2Shepards]

TullyAckland wrote...

The interpretation of a story is a personal thing, and it’s one of the most enjoyable aspects of an experience like this for many players. To tell you what we think would be to take away the validity of each player’s take on it.

And ultimately, our opinion on what is “really” happening is no more accurate than what a player believes when playing it. The interpretation of the story is a player choice, and like other choices in the game we don’t like to trample on it by definitively stating what is “canon”.

-slits my wrists-

oh come on

[CroGamer002]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

False advertising is different from exagerated advertising. Expanding exagerations is something you are culpable for.

What diffrence?!

I see none of it!

Bioware knew they were lying with this and they already admited some of their lies like with Co-Op.
Before Extended Cut, they said they "encouraged" people to play Co-Op to get the best ending in ME3, even though they claimed otherwise since Co-Op of announced AND after ME3 was out they still claimed it's possible to get the best ending without Co-Op, even though it's proven that's false.

Is that also exaggerated advertisement too?

Sure. And it would also be a better feeling if the Reapers were beaten without a single on-screen casualty, and no one was the villain and everyone got along.

No, because that would be stupid in a war story.

But, in this case there's presented a choice.
So if I want to save someone I care, then reward me with that choice if I did every right choice in past.

But drama really doesn't go on nice feelings alone. Contrasting the bitter is what gives more weight to the sweet, and players are notorious for not giving a damn about strangers.

That's a human thing, you know.
You can't possibly care for everyone.

Especially to some unkown fictional character.

I'll pretend you meant unreasonable.

F*CK AUTO-CORRECT SPELLCHECK!

It's not unreasonable, but it's not necessary either: a lot of Shepard's personal feelings have always been left offscreen for the player to headcanon. It also carries risks of its own: if Shepard frequently remorsed on the lost (say every story mission, a chance to eulogize the dead came up), players could just as well complain that Shepard is being 'whiney.' That's what they already accuse other characters of, if they hold an issue over multiple conversations.

That goes on with trying to find or create non-awkward places to insert things on a reoccuring basis.

I would like for you to talk with pro-Cerberus people on BSN.

Oh and check how Shepard is always friend with Liara and Garrus, no matter what.

Also auto-dialogue, no neutral responses...



Yeah, this excuse doesn't work.

If I'm not allowed to save them, acknowledge their deaths then.

[elitehunter34]

TullyAckland wrote...

The interpretation of a story is a personal thing, and it’s one of the most enjoyable aspects of an experience like this for many players. To tell you what we think would be to take away the validity of each player’s take on it.

And ultimately, our opinion on what is “really” happening is no more accurate than what a player believes when playing it. The interpretation of the story is a player choice, and like other choices in the game we don’t like to trample on it by definitively stating what is “canon”.

That is only true if another game/book/comic/novel/movie/something along those lines is never made that takes place after the events of Mass Effect 3.  Right now the endings in their current form are just way way too disparate to just ignore the differences in a future release.  The existance of the Reapers as allies or the nonexistance of Reapers is something that is just too huge to ignore.  Or the fact that in Synthesis people now have all of the advantages of Synthetics; something like that can't really be avoided.

I don't know why you guys decided to make such different endings.  Why essentially make it impossible to continue the Mass Effect universe?  It is a rich and incredibly deep universe and I want to know what happens next.  I don't want to speculate.  I want more of the series I love so much.  I know it's not your decision, but someone somewhere in Bioware has to realize that  for the series to continue in some form after the events of Mass Effect 3 a single ending will have to be made canon.  Or Bioware would have to somehow create a story that avoids the galaxy altering results of Control, Synthesis, and Destroy.  The story would have to go to absurd lengths to do that, and I don't think you guys would want to do that nor do I think you should do that.

[Dean_the_Young]

Mesina2 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

False advertising is different from exagerated advertising. Expanding exagerations is something you are culpable for.

What diffrence?!

I see none of it!

An exageration stretches credibility, but has a basis in fact. Falsehoods don't. Example, Mass Effect 3's story was affected by choices in previous games: the extent was exagerated.

Bioware knew they were lying with this and they already admited some of their lies like with Co-Op.
Before Extended Cut, they said they "encouraged" people to play Co-Op to get the best ending in ME3, even though they claimed otherwise since Co-Op of announced AND after ME3 was out they still claimed it's possible to get the best ending without Co-Op, even though it's proven that's false.

Is that also exaggerated advertisement too?

That's a matter of definition: what is the 'Best Ending'? If Bioware's belief was that it was having access to the Synthesis option (which can be done on SP alone), and that the 'Breath' scene was just an Easter Egg and not a separate ending, then that would be neither an exageration or a falsehood. That players would disagree is something different.

So, again, what is Bioware's definition of the Best Ending?

No, because that would be stupid in a war story.

But, in this case there's presented a choice.

So if I want to save someone I care, then reward me with that choice if I did every right choice in past.

And if you care about everyone, that would make for a stupid war story. And if we only kill people you don't care about, we don't get the emotional effect we're aiming for.

That's a human thing, you know.
You can't possibly care for everyone.

Especially to some unkown fictional character.

Indeed, which is why killing huge numbers of meaningless people isn't an effective substitute for killing one friend for the purpose of impressing a feeling of loss.

I would like for you to talk with pro-Cerberus people on BSN.

I happened to be one, if you don't recall. Or at least anti-anti-Cerberus. The Cerberus Lawyer, some people apparently called me.

Oh and check how Shepard is always friend with Liara and Garrus, no matter what.

And check how, while both characters are broadly popular, there is also an element of the base that doesn't like it... albeit, many for the fact that hostility was an option in ME1.

But ME2 and ME3 both began a change in which Shepard was gradually being a more guided character in many respects, which has both pros and cons.

Also auto-dialogue, no neutral responses...

This is getting to a separate issue, and doesn't have a point in this context.

If I'm not allowed to save them, acknowledge their deaths then.

They did acknowledge their deaths. You just feel they didn't acknowledge their deaths enough, which is a difference of degrees and not substance.

[SimonTheFrog]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

SimonTheFrog wrote...

Mass Effect 1 and 2 are horrible examples of games that avoided vagueness, because ambiguity was a huge part of their plot devices and settings. You can't understand the Prothean beacon because there's nothing concrete about it: the difference was that people simply did not care about the ambiguities or the things that couldn't be realistically explained. Biotics, Asari, Collector Direct Control, Prothean Beacons, the Cypher, even most of the character back stories: the moment you start looking at details they fall apart from lack of substance. But that's okay, because people didn't mind.

Writing isn't about not having ambiguities. It's arranging things so you can get away with them.

Correction: you care more.

I see it differently. Of course you can't sit the player down at the beginning of a story in a strange world and give a thourough explanation about everything right away. They had to struggle with a lot of unknowns in the beginning and i think they did very well with that pacing.

Prothean beacons were explained a lot later, biotics pretty early via codex, Asari via talking to Liara etc. All major points were explained in some way at some point.

Whether or not Shep is indoctrinated and what the nature of the green beam is is not explained because there is no game left to explain anything.

So, there's the difference between the beginning of a trilogy and the end.

Also i was very sceptical about many parts of the ME2 story. The central arc with the lazarus and cerberus in general and then the proto-reaper... i reject that wholeheartedly. But still i always felt that i was sure what BW was TRYING to tell me. Even if i didn't like it.

But at the end of ME3, me and other people are not so sure what's happening on screen anyway. That's a first.

[AsheraII]

TullyAckland wrote...

The interpretation of a story is a personal thing, and it’s one of the most enjoyable aspects of an experience like this for many players. To tell you what we think would be to take away the validity of each player’s take on it.

And ultimately, our opinion on what is “really” happening is no more accurate than what a player believes when playing it. The interpretation of the story is a player choice, and like other choices in the game we don’t like to trample on it by definitively stating what is “canon”.

Can we apply that statement to any potential games taking place in the Mass Effect universe after Mass Effect 3?

Even if I personally very much prefer Destroy over the other endings, I do not like the idea of making that a canon ending for future Mass Effect games, whether or not Shepard has a role in those. I'm basically convinced that a game in the Mass Effect series could be made which takes place after ME3, and not only allows ALL savegames to be viable for import, but, if done well, could even merge them into a single universal state at its conclusion without invalidating the players' decisions from prior games, meaning the IP would be more viable again for re-use after that.

[Siran]

elitehunter34 wrote...

I don't know why you guys decided to make such different endings. 

Really? ME was always about choices. Making a single ending would have meant none of your previous choices would matter at all. There was already enough outcry about the original 3 endings having practically no difference. Imagine the outcry if there was 1 ending for everyone...

[Dean_the_Young]

2Shepards wrote...

TullyAckland wrote...

The interpretation of a story is a personal thing, and it’s one of the most enjoyable aspects of an experience like this for many players. To tell you what we think would be to take away the validity of each player’s take on it.

And ultimately, our opinion on what is “really” happening is no more accurate than what a player believes when playing it. The interpretation of the story is a player choice, and like other choices in the game we don’t like to trample on it by definitively stating what is “canon”.

-slits my wrists-

oh come on

He's not saying that there aren't canon events. He's saying they avoid stating canon choices.

That's, like, what they've been doing for years.

[Dean_the_Young]

SimonTheFrog wrote...

Prothean beacons were explained a lot later, biotics pretty early via codex, Asari via talking to Liara etc. All major points were explained in some way at some point.

Except those aren't explanations, those are handwaves. The same sort of technobable-for-effect that applies to the Crucible.

Also i was very sceptical about many parts of the ME2 story. The central arc with the lazarus and cerberus in general and then the proto-reaper... i reject that wholeheartedly. But still i always felt that i was sure what BW was TRYING to tell me. Even if i didn't like it.

They weren't trying to tell you anything besides a handwave. 'Lazarus brought you back from the dead with Science.' They never went into, or cared, for the 'how.'

But at the end of ME3, me and other people are not so sure what's happening on screen anyway. That's a first.

Most people were quite aware: the Catalyst talks to you, explains your choices, and Shepard gets to choose an effect.

Many just wanted to dig deeper, which would have the same problems in the other games as well.