6432 réponses à ce sujet

[Paranoidal nemesis]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Davik Kang wrote...

iakus wrote...
they claimed they never expected people to believe that all the relays exploded in Arrival-style detonations.  Or that the quarian and turian fleets would starve in the Sol system

But then there are the rumors that the stargazer scene was supposed to be set after a ten thousand year dark age...

Ah ok, I agree with Bioware and the rumours.

On your second post, personally I find hope more uplifting than certainty, but I'm not disagreeing with you, I can see why some people would prefer a certain ending.

Those aren't rumors but fact.  The 10k timeframe was pulled from a text dump and goes along with the final hours saying the crucible was to create a galactic dark ages.  Mac Walters said that post ME3 the galaxy would be a wasteland.  It all got retconned on twitter.  It's like someone really wanted to trash the whole thing so they had a reason to start a whole new series and maybe make it darker and more supposedly intense.  The endings on the one hand are dark, but then they are made laughable by the gratuitous insertion of happy slides to make it look to players like they did a good thing in making a choice.  Look at happy green eyes, reapers fixing relays, and listen to Hackett's happy narration.  All that was put in there to mollify players and to say, "look stupid players, we never meant for the galaxy to be destroyed.  Where'd you get that idea?  This is what we meant all along."  When the game said the galaxy would be destroyed, and the devs said so themselves.  But, yes we're stupid.  We believed they actually knew their own story.

Things they said or wrote outside the game said the galaxy would be destroyed.
2 things in the games pointed to the galaxy being destroyed.  1 has been retconned.  1 never has been and conflicts with the sappy slide shows.  Read the Desperate Measures codex and then look at the relay in the destroy epilog.

Then listen to the EC announcement interview where Hudson and Walters said they didn't know why fans thought the galaxy would be destroyed, when they clearly never meant that.  That's what they think about fans, apparently.  Or they just can't remember everything in the games or even what they themselves have said.

If they are to fix any of this, they may want to really look back at all of this and how disingenuous they have been and vow to do better.  Or they are doomed as a company.  Maybe they want to be.  Who knows.

I remember reading about that interview and thinking, "Are they really THAT out of touch with universe they created?"  I honestly feel helpless whenever they talk about the ending and how they won't change it.  They are ultimatley the gods of a universe they don't seem to understand, and they continue to patronize us with their reluctance to even try to understand us.

[hiraeth]

iakus wrote...

Indeed.  Compare the EC scenes of all the smiley faces, Hackett's narration, the ending slides, the Normandy lifting off.  Then cut to the scene of Shepard breathing, which is the same scene as the original ending:  a trashed Citadel, empty and dead.  A body lying in debris drawing a single breath.    That was supposed to be a "happy" ending?  Maybe it worked better inthe original endings.  But with EC only emphasises the melancholy of the scene for me.

Yeah, me too. I kept hoping that the EC would play out that breath scene a bit more and then when it ended I realized that I felt slightly worse (perhaps because I was let down...again).

[Verit]

Davik Kang wrote...
Your next point I guess would be that a lot of the plot mistakes are really bad.

Good guess.

Davik Kang wrote...
Well I think how bad does depend on your interpretation of the game.  I agree that the Normandy evac addition created a whole bunch of new problems, but that does also warn us that it might be better not to continue to tamper with ME3 in case it makes it demonstrably worse.

I disagree. There's plenty of ways to fix things without making it worse. Not trying to stick with a broken ending would be a good start. For example: if you can't explain why people are onboard the Normandy when it crashes, why leave the crash scene there in the first place? Why not have the Normandy crash on Earth or not at all? It's not like there's any meaning to the crash in the EC. It serves no purpose. But no, let's be stubborn and have the Normandy pickup the teammembers in the final run, logic be damned! And this is repeated throughout the whole ending. Things happen "just because". The Normandy crashes "just because". They call it artistic vision, but I see no vision. All I see is a incredible mess, a mess that they tried to stitch together with the EC and Leviathan but it still falls apart the moment somebody starts to question the actual meaning behind it all.

Davik Kang wrote...
Again, I'm not trying to say ME3 is perfect, just that not all of us thought these issues were mistakes, that a lot of them were good things, and that 'doing the right thing' is to leave the game be.

To me leaving the game be is equivalent to writing it off as a lost cause. The endings are they are really ruin the entire story for me. I can't watch them and take them seriously. Or accept them as a fitting ending. Obviously the ending people actually want varies. Personally, some of my favorite movies/RPG's have bittersweet or even tragic endings, so it's not like I'm just saying all this because I want that a happy end. I want an ending that is consistent with the story its meant to conclude. And when I see so many people say the exact same things, ask the exact same questions, then it proves to me that something really is wrong with the endings as they are. They simply don't fit. And the way these opinions have been repeadetly discredited by the gaming media is all the more reason for me to support them.

Modifié par -Draikin-, 30 septembre 2012 - 05:50 .

[Davik Kang]

-Draikin- wrote...

I disagree. There's plenty of ways to fix things without making it worse. Not trying to stick with a broken ending would be a good start. For example: if you can't explain why people are onboard the Normandy when it crashes, why leave the crash scene there in the first place? Why not have the Normandy crash on Earth or not at all? It's not like there's any meaning to the crash in the EC. It serves no purpose. But no, let's be stubborn and have the Normandy pickup the teammembers in the final run, logic be damned! And this is repeated throughout the whole ending. Things happen "just because". The Normandy crashes "just because". They call it artistic vision, but I see no vision. All I see is a incredible mess, a mess that they tried to stitch together with the EC and Leviathan but it still falls apart the moment somebody starts to question the actual meaning behind it all.

Ok but I don't see a mess.  I see a lot of scenes which value drama over derivative realism.  Sometimes it's ok to have scenes that are a little unrealistic in order to make them exciting.  This is supposed to be a sci-fistory, not a scientific prediction of the future.

I can see how this point could be misconstrued... I don't mean that the ending scenes are perfect, far from it.  But I don't think they go so far as to ruin the ending overall.  What I'm trying to say is that, because a lot of people don't like the ending, they point to everything they can possibly find that is arguably bad about it, and then expect defenders to explain away every single thing.  But the overall ending is really amazingly good in some people's eyes, even though there are some issues with parts of it.

-Draikin- wrote...
To me leaving the game be is equivalent to writing it off as a lost cause. The endings are they are really ruin the entire story for me. I can't watch them and take them seriously. Or accept them as a fitting ending. Obviously the ending people actually want varies. Personally, some of my favorite movies/RPG's have bittersweet or even tragic endings, so it's not like I'm just saying all this because I want that a happy end. I want an ending that is consistent with the story its meant to conclude. And when I see so many people say the exact same things, ask the exact same questions, then it proves to me that something really is wrong with the endings as they are. They simply don't fit. And the way these opinions have been repeadetly discredited by the gaming media is all the more reason for me to support them.

You're right, the fact that so many people bring up similar issues does show that the endings did let a lot of people down.  But they didn't let everybody down.  They are controversial, but they are how the creators wanted to finish the story.  They don't need to change it because some people didn't like it, even if it's a lot of people.


The reason I'm defending the endings so much isn't just because I liked them.  It's because I respect them for making a daring choice to end the trilogy this way, and most importantly, because if they do change the endings to appease certain pockets of fans, it will set a precedent for future game makers to submit to fan pressure and re-write their stories just to suit more vociferous fans.

[darthoptimus003]

agree with this
3 things can fix this whole thing
reunion after destroy ending with freinds and li pulling shep from rubble
destroy ending targets reapers only (be it high tms)and dosent force you to commit mass genocide
refusal acually win with high tms(be it with heavy losses) but we accually get to see all our assets in action
these three things people will pay for and its not taking anything away from the other endings its just expanding on them. this would been concidered closure by alot of fans who still feel screwed over by this and
there have been alot of people who has said "id pay $20 for this just to give the MEU a proper send off" this is all we want and we are willing to pay for it, just so we can get back that feeling we had when we first started to play this series.
if this were to happen we get our closure, and BW gets a payday, and the ones that are a happy stay happy cause they dont have to get it.(hints payed dlc) everyone gets happy (well there still might be a few that are gonna hate)
and to those that dont understand what this thread is about read the ops very first page

[Paranoidal nemesis]

Davik Kang wrote...

-Draikin- wrote...

I disagree. There's plenty of ways to fix things without making it worse. Not trying to stick with a broken ending would be a good start. For example: if you can't explain why people are onboard the Normandy when it crashes, why leave the crash scene there in the first place? Why not have the Normandy crash on Earth or not at all? It's not like there's any meaning to the crash in the EC. It serves no purpose. But no, let's be stubborn and have the Normandy pickup the teammembers in the final run, logic be damned! And this is repeated throughout the whole ending. Things happen "just because". The Normandy crashes "just because". They call it artistic vision, but I see no vision. All I see is a incredible mess, a mess that they tried to stitch together with the EC and Leviathan but it still falls apart the moment somebody starts to question the actual meaning behind it all.

Ok but I don't see a mess.  I see a lot of scenes which value drama over derivative realism.  Sometimes it's ok to have scenes that are a little unrealistic in order to make them exciting.  This is supposed to be a sci-fistory, not a scientific prediction of the future.

I can see how this point could be misconstrued... I don't mean that the ending scenes are perfect, far from it.  But I don't think they go so far as to ruin the ending overall.  What I'm trying to say is that, because a lot of people don't like the ending, they point to everything they can possibly find that is arguably bad about it, and then expect defenders to explain away every single thing.  But the overall ending is really amazingly good in some people's eyes, even though there are some issues with parts of it.

-Draikin- wrote...
To me leaving the game be is equivalent to writing it off as a lost cause. The endings are they are really ruin the entire story for me. I can't watch them and take them seriously. Or accept them as a fitting ending. Obviously the ending people actually want varies. Personally, some of my favorite movies/RPG's have bittersweet or even tragic endings, so it's not like I'm just saying all this because I want that a happy end. I want an ending that is consistent with the story its meant to conclude. And when I see so many people say the exact same things, ask the exact same questions, then it proves to me that something really is wrong with the endings as they are. They simply don't fit. And the way these opinions have been repeadetly discredited by the gaming media is all the more reason for me to support them.

You're right, the fact that so many people bring up similar issues does show that the endings did let a lot of people down.  But they didn't let everybody down.  They are controversial, but they are how the creators wanted to finish the story.  They don't need to change it because some people didn't like it, even if it's a lot of people.


The reason I'm defending the endings so much isn't just because I liked them.  It's because I respect them for making a daring choice to end the trilogy this way, and most importantly, because if they do change the endings to appease certain pockets of fans, it will set a precedent for future game makers to submit to fan pressure and re-write their stories just to suit more vociferous fans.

 You don't commend a kid for his bravery after you warning him not to stick a fork in an electrical outlet.  They did take a risk, but that risk was too gratuitous to be a proper ending.  Its a strawman argument to think that the people that want ending dlc mean that they want bioware to make new endings.  On the previous page I list the reasons I don't like the endings, however the prospect of interacting in a world after the crucible is deployed fascinates me.  Does that really threaten their artistic vision that much?  If anything, it not only preserves it, but gives people proper closure. 

[N7 Lisbeth]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Davik Kang wrote...

iakus wrote...
they claimed they never expected people to believe that all the relays exploded in Arrival-style detonations.  Or that the quarian and turian fleets would starve in the Sol system

But then there are the rumors that the stargazer scene was supposed to be set after a ten thousand year dark age...

Ah ok, I agree with Bioware and the rumours.

On your second post, personally I find hope more uplifting than certainty, but I'm not disagreeing with you, I can see why some people would prefer a certain ending.

Those aren't rumors but fact.  The 10k timeframe was pulled from a text dump and goes along with the final hours saying the crucible was to create a galactic dark ages.  Mac Walters said that post ME3 the galaxy would be a wasteland.  It all got retconned on twitter.  It's like someone really wanted to trash the whole thing so they had a reason to start a whole new series and maybe make it darker and more supposedly intense.  The endings on the one hand are dark, but then they are made laughable by the gratuitous insertion of happy slides to make it look to players like they did a good thing in making a choice.  Look at happy green eyes, reapers fixing relays, and listen to Hackett's happy narration.  All that was put in there to mollify players and to say, "look stupid players, we never meant for the galaxy to be destroyed.  Where'd you get that idea?  This is what we meant all along."  When the game said the galaxy would be destroyed, and the devs said so themselves.  But, yes we're stupid.  We believed they actually knew their own story.

Things they said or wrote outside the game said the galaxy would be destroyed.
2 things in the games pointed to the galaxy being destroyed.  1 has been retconned.  1 never has been and conflicts with the sappy slide shows.  Read the Desperate Measures codex and then look at the relay in the destroy epilog.

Then listen to the EC announcement interview where Hudson and Walters said they didn't know why fans thought the galaxy would be destroyed, when they clearly never meant that.  That's what they think about fans, apparently.  Or they just can't remember everything in the games or even what they themselves have said.

If they are to fix any of this, they may want to really look back at all of this and how disingenuous they have been and vow to do better.  Or they are doomed as a company.  Maybe they want to be.  Who knows.

That was a pretty good post.

Hrmm. I like elements of the 10,000 dark age idea (anything is better than terrible space magic) and I would have looked forward to a story set to place place after such events. But in order for that to come about through ME3, it implies we have absolutely no effect in the game millieu while we're playing it, which is self-defeating. That means the dark age/sacrifice story should have been told through a different medium and should have taken place after the events of ME3 (the game). Changing mediums this way lets them have full control without affecting player choice, because although it is still part of the miillieu, we're not responsible for what happens after. Only for our story. That would proverbially be "Doing it right."

By trying to ram that down our throats, they violate the verbal contract they established: that we would have choice and it would affect the story and events we were playing. So it's the illusion of choice that I find offensive in this case. You can't dictate endings this way in a game that's based on choice and consequences of said choice.

Modifié par N7 Lisbeth, 30 septembre 2012 - 06:49 .

[BearlyHere]

Davik Kang wrote...

The reason I'm defending the endings so much isn't just because I liked them.  It's because I respect them for making a daring choice to end the trilogy this way, and most importantly, because if they do change the endings to appease certain pockets of fans, it will set a precedent for future game makers to submit to fan pressure and re-write their stories just to suit more vociferous fans.

Umm what kind of precedent are they setting then? One in which it's perfectly ok to ignore all the lore which has been created over a three game series? That players, not even fans, don't matter? That we should just throw our money at them and be happy that we've got a game, even if it fails at telling a logical, cohesive story? That's it's perfectly ok to borrow heavily from other games, books, and even cartoons and sell that as your own artistic vision? That the only ones who do count, which is what all you pro-enders think, are the ones who say, "Thank you sirs, may I have another steaming pile of crap to finish off a three course gourmet dinner?"

The more I hear pro-enders say we're the selfish ones, the more I know they're just looking in a mirror. You're happy, so to hells with the rest of us. No, you defend them because you like them, and you don't want anything to change the endings you liked, even if it's optional. We are not a minority, and there are enough of us that don't like the ending and won't buy from Bioware again that the company might not be able to fund that next game. Reason enough to make an optional closure ending?

[Davik Kang]

Paranoidal nemesis wrote...
 You don't commend a kid for his bravery after you warning him not to stick a fork in an electrical outlet.  They did take a risk, but that risk was too gratuitous to be a proper ending.  Its a strawman argument to think that the people that want ending dlc mean that they want bioware to make new endings.  On the previous page I list the reasons I don't like the endings, however the prospect of interacting in a world after the crucible is deployed fascinates me.  Does that really threaten their artistic vision that much?  If anything, it not only preserves it, but gives people proper closure. 

It's not a proper ending - in your opinion.

BearlyHere wrote...

Umm what kind of precedent are they setting then? One in which it's perfectly ok to ignore all the lore which has been created over a three game series? That players, not even fans, don't matter? That we should just throw our money at them and be happy that we've got a game, even if it fails at telling a logical, cohesive story? That's it's perfectly ok to borrow heavily from other games, books, and even cartoons and sell that as your own artistic vision? That the only ones who do count, which is what all you pro-enders think, are the ones who say, "Thank you sirs, may I have another steaming pile of crap to finish off a three course gourmet dinner?"

The more I hear pro-enders say we're the selfish ones, the more I know they're just looking in a mirror. You're happy, so to hells with the rest of us. No, you defend them because you like them, and you don't want anything to change the endings you liked, even if it's optional. We are not a minority, and there are enough of us that don't like the ending and won't buy from Bioware again that the company might not be able to fund that next game. Reason enough to make an optional closure ending?

I'm not trying to change your minds! I'm just trying to say, not everyone thought it was bad.  That's all.

Can you at leasdt acknowledge that some people thought it was a good game.  It's ok to ask for a remake, or different ending, or whatever.  But at least acknowledge the possibility that this could upset more people than it appeases.

I'm just trying to be reasonable.  But what's the point when what I get thrown back at me is...

"That players, not even fans, don't matter? "
"That we should just throw our money at them and be happy"
"which is what all you pro-enders think"
"may I have another steaming pile of crap"
"You're happy, so to hells with the rest of us."

These aren't even points, they're just emotional hyperbole.  No-where in anything I've said did I suggest anything that matches these quotes, yet this is what you're throwing at me.

 Why bother make contructive points, when you can just argue with disguised insults.  Good luck to you.  I'm sure Bioware are keen to make you happy.

[Iakus]

Davik Kang wrote...

The reason I'm defending the endings so much isn't just because I liked them.  It's because I respect them for making a daring choice to end the trilogy this way, and most importantly, because if they do change the endings to appease certain pockets of fans, it will set a precedent for future game makers to submit to fan pressure and re-write their stories just to suit more vociferous fans.

There's nothing daring about forcing a character down a tragic ending regardless of choice.  That's railroading

There's nothing daring about tacking on a "ray of hope"  to an ending that's otherwise identical to a "Shepard dies" ending rather than making an ending where Shepard does, in fact, live.  That's a cheap afterthought

[Verit]

Davik Kang wrote...
What I'm trying to say is that, because a lot of people don't like the ending, they point to everything they can possibly find that is arguably bad about it, and then expect defenders to explain away every single thing.  But the overall ending is really amazingly good in some people's eyes, even though there are some issues with parts of it.

The thing to understand is that the OP and the other "ending haters" aren't asking to invalidate or take meaning away from the endings from those who did find meaning in it. They're simply asking for an ending they can find meaning in. I regret the way the ending divided the fanbase, but I'm convinced either side can get "their" ending.

Davik Kang wrote...
The reason I'm defending the endings so much isn't just because I liked them.  It's because I respect them for making a daring choice to end the trilogy this way, and most importantly, because if they do change the endings to appease certain pockets of fans, it will set a precedent for future game makers to submit to fan pressure and re-write their stories just to suit more vociferous fans.

As I explained earlier they already changed the endings, so the precedent has already been set. And it's not like Bioware has been the first nor will they be the last to change a storyline. Also, can you even argue that they're changing the ending if there's no canon ending to begin with? Wasn't it always about choice? Can more choices really be a bad thing? This isn't a book, it's a game. A game from a franchise that wanted to let players write their own story, their own Shepard. No one Shepard or their story are meant to be the same. Yet at the moment, a lot of people are left with basically no story. For example all these threads about what ending you picked? I picked Alt + F4. That's not the way I had imagined the end of Mass Effect for my Shepard.

[Davik Kang]

-Draikin- wrote...
snip

Yeah ok.  No arguments here.  My only defense for Bioware, in relation to your message, is that they didn't give us an open book to write.  They gave us a fictional world, where almost everything was pre-scripted, but where we could forge our own story within those boundaries.  

Because ME1 and ME2 had, overall, optimal happy endings, they gave a lot of players hope that this would be possible in ME3.  The only thing I can say to that is, that in ME1 and ME2, the Reapers were still coming.

[Chardonney]

Davik Kang wrote...

Can you at leasdt acknowledge that some people thought it was a good game.  It's ok to ask for a remake, or different ending, or whatever.  But at least acknowledge the possibility that this could upset more people than it appeases.

We're well aware that some players liked it. There's no reason for us to acknowledge that out loud.

Why bother make contructive points, when you can just argue with disguised insults.

I haven't noticed any insults, disguised or not. What I have seen is you in every single thread, where we're trying to talk about possible fixes that could be done and which would make the ending at least somewhat bearable. In these threads you keep trying to force your point of view on us, argue with almost everyone who posts a comment that happens to be against your believes of BioWare and the game, how we should just keep our mouths shut and leave them be. When these threads clearly stand against your believes, why not leave them alone and let the rest of us talk in peace. We respect you opinions, so why not respect ours in return, instead of coming back to cause friction over and over again.  

I have absolutely nothing against you but I'm just tired of arguing and having to defend myself and my belives. 

Modifié par Chardonney, 30 septembre 2012 - 07:43 .

[Davik Kang]

Chardonney wrote...
We're well aware that some players liked it. There's no reason for us to acknowledge that out loud. 

I just mean that, when you're asking for better endings, acknowledge that for some people, they would be worse endings.  Don't claim that everybody wants these endings because they are objectively bad.  The thread is called "Do the Right Thing", which is kind of an arrogant title, so really I was taking objection to that line of thinking.

Anyway, ok, I won't discuss this stuff with you any more, I don't want to disrupt your discussion of how the ending could be better, I just thought that I could offer my opinion on some things, but it's just degenerating into bad feeling, so ok, I'll stay out of here.

[Verit]

Davik Kang wrote...
I just mean that, when you're asking for better endings, acknowledge that for some people, they would be worse endings.  Don't claim that everybody wants these endings because they are objectively bad.  The thread is called "Do the Right Thing", which is kind of an arrogant title, so really I was taking objection to that line of thinking.

I don't disagree with your point on the thread title, but as for the endings being worse for other people: where's the problem if the current ending options stay as they are? For example, the optimal ending in Mass Effect 2 didn't invalidate the other endings, so why would it be a problem here? Just trying to make a point, I'm personally not even asking for a happy or optimal ending.

Davik Kang wrote...
Anyway, ok, I won't discuss this stuff with you any more, I don't want to disrupt your discussion of how the ending could be better, I just thought that I could offer my opinion on some things, but it's just degenerating into bad feeling, so ok, I'll stay out of here.

I didn't have that impression personally, I like hearing thoughts from pro-ending people that are willing to have an actual debate without just dismissing the other side's opinion from the start (something that happens too often here).

[N7 Lisbeth]

Davik Kang wrote...

I'm not trying to change your minds! I'm just trying to say, not everyone thought it was bad.  That's all.

Likewise, it's a fairly established fact that not everyone thought it was good. You're refusing to see the opposite and proclaiming you do, when you clearly don't. Otherwise, you wouldn't be arguing the point.

Can you at leasdt acknowledge that some people thought it was a good game.

Absolutely. It's fairly well known they are a minority too.



That doesn't mean I disregard their opinions though. They are fellow gamers.

Kang, if you want to help and brainstorm ideas for how to change the endings, by all means. All ideas about how to make the endings better are welcome. Just post the arguments elsewhere. After 230+ pages, I think we're past that point or we'd like to be.

Modifié par N7 Lisbeth, 30 septembre 2012 - 08:19 .

[Davik Kang]

-Draikin- wrote...
I didn't have that impression personally, I like hearing thoughts from pro-ending people that are willing to have an actual debate without just dismissing the other side's opinion from the start (something that happens too often here).

Thanks.

N7 Lisbeth wrote...

Davik Kang wrote...

I'm not trying to change your minds! I'm just trying to say, not everyone thought it was bad.  That's all.

Likewise, it's a fairly established fact that not everyone thought it was good. You're refusing to see the opposite and proclaiming you do, when you clearly don't. Otherwise, you wouldn't be arguing the point.

Ok.  "Not everyone thought it was bad" implies "Everyone thought it was good".  GGs

N7 Lisbeth wrote...
Just post the arguments elsewhere. 

Got it.  I'm gone.

[Chardonney]

N7 Lisbeth wrote...

Davik Kang wrote...

I'm not trying to change your minds! I'm just trying to say, not everyone thought it was bad.  That's all.

Likewise, it's a fairly established fact that not everyone thought it was good. You're refusing to see the opposite and proclaiming you do, when you clearly don't. Otherwise, you wouldn't be arguing the point.

Yes, this is what I meant and what is tiresome. I didn't say I was feeling bad. I welcome the depate, as long as the other side acknowledges the point made above and is open to opposite opinions. If they can do that, then talk away.


Oh, and the chart was a nice thing to see. I hadn't noticed that.

[MegaSovereign]

N7 Lisbeth wrote...

Davik Kang wrote...

I'm not trying to change your minds! I'm just trying to say, not everyone thought it was bad.  That's all.

Likewise, it's a fairly established fact that not everyone thought it was good. You're refusing to see the opposite and proclaiming you do, when you clearly don't. Otherwise, you wouldn't be arguing the point.

Can you at leasdt acknowledge that some people thought it was a good game.

Absolutely. It's fairly well known they are a minority too.



That doesn't mean I disregard their opinions though. They are fellow gamers.

Kang, if you want to help and brainstorm ideas for how to change the endings, by all means. All ideas about how to make the endings better are welcome. Just post the arguments elsewhere. After 230+ pages, I think we're past that point or we'd like to be.

That was a pre-EC poll.

Isn't that a little misleading?

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 30 septembre 2012 - 08:28 .

[CaIIisto]

 Post EC;



Gee, where did all those other thousands of people go?! 

[MegaSovereign]

Bester76 wrote...

 Post EC;



Gee, where did all those other thousands of people go?! 

Created in April, closed on the day the EC came out.

Sorry, that's not a post-EC poll.

[CaIIisto]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Created in April, closed on the day the EC came out.

Sorry, that's not a post-EC poll.

Apologies, I completely missed that. I stand corrected.

Couldn't find any other poll, although surely one exists.

[AresKeith]

Bester76 wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Created in April, closed on the day the EC came out.

Sorry, that's not a post-EC poll.

Apologies, I completely missed that. I stand corrected.

Couldn't find any other poll, although surely one exists.

I think there was a facebook poll about, but the choices were kind of misleading

[MegaSovereign]

AresKeith wrote...

Bester76 wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Created in April, closed on the day the EC came out.

Sorry, that's not a post-EC poll.

Apologies, I completely missed that. I stand corrected.

Couldn't find any other poll, although surely one exists.

I think there was a facebook poll about, but the choices were kind of misleading

I don't have poll numbers but from general observations it seems like BSN is split on the post-EC endings.

Outside of BSN it's unknown what the majority of Mass Effect players feel about the EC.

[Fattness132]

Chris Priestly wrote...

futurepixels wrote...
How can you say that leaving the fate of your hero "up to the individual" is not open-ended and ambigious?

If he lives, he is alive and if he dies he is not. There are 2 interpretations of that breath. Either it is Shepard's first breath after recovering, or it is Shepard's last breath before dying.