6432 réponses à ce sujet

[CaIIisto]

Well in terms of a 'different' ending, even after the EC, I can only really see the latest survey;

- Happy ending should have been an option (68% yes, 17% no)
- IT a better ending than the EC (53% yes, 23% no)

[AresKeith]

MegaSovereign wrote...

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.

thats true BSN basically is split about the ending, but the Facebook poll was misleading because I think it one of choices was "Did the EC meet your expectations" which can go both ways

[N7 Lisbeth]

MegaSovereign wrote...

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?

It's not a closed poll, as I pointed out elsewhere, it had 30k negative votes at the time of EC and now is more than double that. Heck, I just voted on it last month.

[MegaSovereign]

N7 Lisbeth wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

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?

It's not a closed poll, as I pointed out elsewhere, it had 30k negative votes at the time of EC and now is more than double that. Heck, I just voted on it last month.

=/.

It's still a misleading poll if you're using it to show how people feel about the EC. There are plenty of people who changed their minds after the EC came out, mine included. I voted negatively but I can't change my vote now.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

The post-EC poll... ah yes. most of those pre-EC poll traded their games in and moved on.

Actually, I'm going to break with the trend a bit here. Except for the added catalyst dialog, the cutscenes (the Normandy pickup, the scenes immediately after the firing of the crucible, the taking off of the Normandy from the planet), I felt the EC was quite patronizing. The slideshow was just well, like a bad propaganda film. It left a bad taste in my mouth. It was like being talked down to. It didn't change how I felt about the endings at all. I still felt like I did in that picture I posted a few pages back.

The question was asked about the endings "How do they feel?" Well that's how they felt to me. I don't like feeling that way.

The series felt like someone who was bipolar going into a manic stage, hitting the manic stage in ME2, peaking at LOTSB, then starting to taper off at the start of ME3, and having some mood swings during ME3, then around Thessia dropping down and down then around the Priority Earth crashing until we hit WTH in the ending.

Well I'm just answering the question from Final Hours and how they felt to me.

[N7 Lisbeth]

MegaSovereign wrote...

N7 Lisbeth wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

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?

It's not a closed poll, as I pointed out elsewhere, it had 30k negative votes at the time of EC and now is more than double that. Heck, I just voted on it last month.

=/.

It's still a misleading poll if you're using it to show how people feel about the EC. There are plenty of people who changed their minds after the EC came out, mine included. I voted negatively but I can't change my vote now.

True, you can't change your vote. But we're talking about another 150% voting and the results still swinging massively negative from pure EC-only ending-experiences. That's indicative.

By the way, I never played pre-EC.

Modifié par N7 Lisbeth, 30 septembre 2012 - 09:29 .

[3DandBeyond]

-Draikin- wrote...

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.

This is the issue here.  Other devs, writers, movie producers, and so on have changed endings to suit fans, because guess what, fans pay their salaries by buying their products.  Writers have to face a daunting group that presumes to know what will sell to fans or they are never published.  Focus groups, beta testers, and even corporate psychologists determine what we will buy.  Ever send in a rebate coupon to get money back on a product.  In the US, there's generally one main company that handles rebates in order to define trends. 

So, ain't it too bad that actual buyers now speak up and say, "you forgot about us".  Bioware knew damn well that a large portion of fans would not be happy with this and did it anyway.  If I could, I'd go back and find the wish lists that came out before ME3 was ever released.  I sincerely doubt any one of them said "gee, I'd like a lot of ambiguity and an ending choice".  In fact, one poster was described later as being psychic because what he hoped would not happen was exactly what did happen. 

Bioware determined to make this a trash the Shepard ending.  It's painfully obvious.  These are the same people that in light of all the disgust over the original endings, implied it was because people were having a hard time saying goodbye to Shepard-and apparently had no freaking idea that in order to do that you need someone standing up face to face to say goodbye to.  The amount of stuff they did to this is astounding.  The amount of things they flat out ignored points to either accidental or willful ignorance.  If you were creating a game or story where the hero always came out alive, even when thought dead, that is an internal promise of the story.  Writers know this and follow it.  If you create a game, you provide a way to win-that's what games do, make you lose a lot but have a way to win and feel that it is a win.

Sure, some people like it.  But more often the comments that are for it are from new to ME players, people that don't rave about it, or people that decided it's great they got an ending and they then sold the game and moved on.  There are some but very few who really loved it.  Now, I loved ME2's ending.  The actual ending.  It made me feel like something had been won when I went back and saved everyone.  I loved ME1's ending.  It made me smile a bit, even though I kind of figured it was coming, to see Shepard rise up and then tell the council off.  It's about a feeling and that's all trashed at the end of ME3. 

The comments for the ending have ranged from cool looking and sounding to all kinds of other rather superficial stuff or supposedly deep thought about needing balance and the cold calculus of war and it being about real life-as if.  It's a game and nothing in the endings is about any of that stuff at all.  It's about a way to use the other endings of other projects in order to fit with the EMS to make specific endings so they did not have to work in all those many decisions made throughout 3 games-since some people only ever played 1 game.  The original endings are proof of that. They are bare bones endings and the retconning and rewriting done for the EC shows that some things had no thought put in at all. 

We now have the 2 teammates that are with Shepard at the conduit being airlifted to safety.  But, how about the others at the FOB?  How did they get to the FOB ahead of Shepard and then how did they get back onto the Normandy?  The Normandy crash scene on the planet and destroyed relays in the original endings left the torso Shepard living rather meaningless-living to then do what since the galaxy was ruined?  And some teammates on the Normandy wouldn't be able to even eat the same type of food if they were able to find any.  The whole thing seemed so slapped together, so fixing it really meant they had to add in things that just didn't make sense for what was going on.  Harby should at least shoot at the people trying to get on the Normandy, even if for some reason he can't see the Normandy.  He's able to see Shepard later and shoot at him/her, so what was he waiting for?  And if the Normandy could do that, why not then shoot at Harby to get his attention and divert him from those running to the conduit?  No, just drop down and pick up some injured, but not all injured people and then fly off.  Nonsense. 

The problem is no person at Bioware thought one bit about any of this for the original endings and now for the EC.  They weren't and aren't daring.  They are pieces of other people's work, slapped together and don't make sense because they aren't a resounding fit for this series of games.  You have to do way too much speculating to make them seem to fit and really they are the opposite of what you have done in the game if you play as paragon.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 30 septembre 2012 - 09:45 .

[3DandBeyond]

I begin to be less interested in the idea of a game creating speculation than I am in one that meets or exceeds expectations.

The endings needed to at least meet expectations and that means they should have appealed to the broadest group of players possible.

All they needed to do was to meet expectations and not try to go for some "you must be super intellectual to understand this" bunch of stuff that was the exact opposite. It's the emperor's new clothes daring anyone to say it's not what they want you to believe it is.

I wanted and still want something with a heart and something that recognizes that we too are paying customers.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 30 septembre 2012 - 09:44 .

[CaIIisto]

3DandBeyond wrote...

The endings needed to at least meet expectations and that means they should have appealed to the broadest group of players possible.

Odd that the ending didn't do that, when a constant criticism of the game itself is that they made sacrifices to broaden the appeal of the game to new players ("Now's the perfect time to get into Mass Effect").....

[Paranoidal nemesis]

[quote]Davik Kang wrote...

[quote]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. 
[/quote]
It's not a proper ending - in your opinion.


When the "Optimal" ending involves killing yourself while the enemy you fought for over that past 100 hours gains self awarness and everyone is uplifted while all those who died become forgotten inferior life forms.  Like I mentioned in a past post, the intellectual distance between the synthesized and the deceased becomes too great.  In mere minutes/hours, they evolve thousands of years.  How/why would anyone like your love interest be capable of relating to you on an emotional or intellectual level?  It would be like a human trying to relate intellectually to one of the protohuman species.  That may sound nihlistic, but thats evolution.


Everything you know about the reapers is contradicted, it breaks the rules established by the writers over the past games.  Can you provide an example of any critically acclaimed ending that does that?

[GarvakD]

This ending related poll. Could you please supply a link?

And a lot of people that are saying EC is excellent, I think it is relative. It is excellent in comparison to the original ending delivered onto our doorstep in a doggy poop bag lit on fire.

Anyways, for now I am leaving my Shepard(s) afk.  One just finshed Priority: Thessia and I am currently waiting on Omega DLC, because that is where I am going to go from (it seems appropriate.  I deliver a crippling blow by taking back Omega, then shut down Sanctuary, then hit Cronos).  After that, I am not going through the ending anymore until a new one is released.  I am starting up another ME1 Shep today.  Ninth playthrough of ME1.  Maybe the tenth?  I've lost count.  

Modifié par GarvakD, 30 septembre 2012 - 10:06 .

[N7 Lisbeth]

Re: ambiguity, pre-EC and post-EC.

(Foreward: I realise these are cynical images. Humour often uses cynicism as a vehicle to present relevant truths.)

[CaIIisto]

 If it's the survey you're after;

www.mediafire.com/view/

[GarvakD]

Ah, I already have that survey. I was referencing the poll as someone said it was not closed and they voted on it a month ago. I wanted to throw in my vote. Every vote counts.

[Chardonney]

3DandBeyond wrote...

I begin to be less interested in the idea of a game creating speculation than I am in one that meets or exceeds expectations.

The endings needed to at least meet expectations and that means they should have appealed to the broadest group of players possible.

All they needed to do was to meet expectations and not try to go for some "you must be super intellectual to understand this" bunch of stuff that was the exact opposite. It's the emperor's new clothes daring anyone to say it's not what they want you to believe it is.

I wanted and still want something with a heart and something that recognizes that we too are paying customers.

Very well said.

[CaIIisto]

GarvakD wrote...

Ah, I already have that survey. I was referencing the poll as someone said it was not closed and they voted on it a month ago. I wanted to throw in my vote. Every vote counts.

social.bioware.com/633606/polls/28989/

[N7 Lisbeth]

Bester posted it.

I get an error from the direct link posted though (and don't on my bookmark). If that error prevents you from answering the poll, try this one. It's not as direct (Bester's is better that way), and you have to manually sift to the third/bottom-most poll. But I don't get an error with it so it may prove useful.

Modifié par N7 Lisbeth, 30 septembre 2012 - 10:19 .

[MegaSovereign]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Fall of the Citadel DLC idea:

You get to play as an N7-class character (that you get to customize just like the MP) with Bailey in your squad along with someone else (maybe Aria since the hidden files show that she's still going to be on the Citadel even if she gets Omega back).

While the Reapers are trying to take the Citadel, you discover that the defense systems were shut down/manipulated by an inside source. You and your squad try to find the source (along the way you get greeted by a bunch of Reaper forces) . You then stumble upon a hidden archive left by the Protheans who had starved on the Citadel while they found a way to sabotage the Keeper signal (see ME1). Going through the archives, you learn about the Catalyst/Reaper intelligence that resides on the Citadel and you find out that the Crucible plans originated from the Reapers. The Reapers created the plans so that one day a good-enough cycle could complete and successfully deploy it in order to ensure that the organics are "ready" for synthesis. The classical definition of the word "Crucible" is a "severe test or trial." The Protheans were working on a way to modify these plans to include the Destroy functionality (and it goes without saying, the indoctrinated factions added the Control functionality).

At the end of the DLC, you get intel that could upgrade the Crucible:

1) So that way it exclusively targets the Reapers in the Destroy ending.

2) Make it to where the relays don't get damaged in the Control/Synthesis ending. (I added this part to keep the endings balanced. You can't boost one without balancing the other two, right?)


This is just a rough draft ofcourse and some of the details would need to be worked out, but this is one way that Bioware could make a DLC that address all 3 audiences:


1) The audience that wants "new" DLC content (not exclusively ending related).

2) The audience that wants an ending that wouldn't push moral boundaries. ("Destroy+" ending).

3) The audience that wants more exposition on the Crucible's origins/functionality. (They could maybe even add a codex as to how Synthesis works for example.)


EDIT:

The ending dialogue with the Catalyst and Shepard would still be the same. Shepard obviously wouldn't know much about the team that found the Prothean archives on the Citadel, but the Catalyst would not be aware of the Prothean upgrades that were added to the Crucible design. As a result, the Catalyst would still assume that the Destroy ending targets all synthetics even when it doesn't.

I posted this yesterday.

How do you guys feel about this general idea? If I get enough positive feedback I'll make a separate thread expanding on it.

[CaIIisto]

N7 Lisbeth wrote...

Bester posted it.

I get an error from the direct link posted though (and don't on my bookmark). If that error prevents you from answering the poll, try this one. It's not as direct (Bester's is better that way), and you have to manually sift to the third/bottom-most poll. But I don't get an error with it so it may prove useful.

Yeah I'm getting that now as well. No idea why, it worked earlier, I voted myself.

[SpamBot2000]

MegaSovereign wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Fall of the Citadel DLC idea:

You get to play as an N7-class character (that you get to customize just like the MP) with Bailey in your squad along with someone else (maybe Aria since the hidden files show that she's still going to be on the Citadel even if she gets Omega back).

While the Reapers are trying to take the Citadel, you discover that the defense systems were shut down/manipulated by an inside source. You and your squad try to find the source (along the way you get greeted by a bunch of Reaper forces) . You then stumble upon a hidden archive left by the Protheans who had starved on the Citadel while they found a way to sabotage the Keeper signal (see ME1). Going through the archives, you learn about the Catalyst/Reaper intelligence that resides on the Citadel and you find out that the Crucible plans originated from the Reapers. The Reapers created the plans so that one day a good-enough cycle could complete and successfully deploy it in order to ensure that the organics are "ready" for synthesis. The classical definition of the word "Crucible" is a "severe test or trial." The Protheans were working on a way to modify these plans to include the Destroy functionality (and it goes without saying, the indoctrinated factions added the Control functionality).

At the end of the DLC, you get intel that could upgrade the Crucible:

1) So that way it exclusively targets the Reapers in the Destroy ending.

2) Make it to where the relays don't get damaged in the Control/Synthesis ending. (I added this part to keep the endings balanced. You can't boost one without balancing the other two, right?)


This is just a rough draft ofcourse and some of the details would need to be worked out, but this is one way that Bioware could make a DLC that address all 3 audiences:


1) The audience that wants "new" DLC content (not exclusively ending related).

2) The audience that wants an ending that wouldn't push moral boundaries. ("Destroy+" ending).

3) The audience that wants more exposition on the Crucible's origins/functionality. (They could maybe even add a codex as to how Synthesis works for example.)


EDIT:

The ending dialogue with the Catalyst and Shepard would still be the same. Shepard obviously wouldn't know much about the team that found the Prothean archives on the Citadel, but the Catalyst would not be aware of the Prothean upgrades that were added to the Crucible design. As a result, the Catalyst would still assume that the Destroy ending targets all synthetics even when it doesn't.

I posted this yesterday.

How do you guys feel about this general idea? If I get enough positive feedback I'll make a separate thread expanding on it.

Sorry, personally not too keen on playing someone other than Shepard in ME3. 

[N7 Lisbeth]

MegaSovereign wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Fall of the Citadel DLC idea:

You get to play as an N7-class character (that you get to customize just like the MP) with Bailey in your squad along with someone else (maybe Aria since the hidden files show that she's still going to be on the Citadel even if she gets Omega back).

While the Reapers are trying to take the Citadel, you discover that the defense systems were shut down/manipulated by an inside source. You and your squad try to find the source (along the way you get greeted by a bunch of Reaper forces) . You then stumble upon a hidden archive left by the Protheans who had starved on the Citadel while they found a way to sabotage the Keeper signal (see ME1). Going through the archives, you learn about the Catalyst/Reaper intelligence that resides on the Citadel and you find out that the Crucible plans originated from the Reapers. The Reapers created the plans so that one day a good-enough cycle could complete and successfully deploy it in order to ensure that the organics are "ready" for synthesis. The classical definition of the word "Crucible" is a "severe test or trial." The Protheans were working on a way to modify these plans to include the Destroy functionality (and it goes without saying, the indoctrinated factions added the Control functionality).

At the end of the DLC, you get intel that could upgrade the Crucible:

1) So that way it exclusively targets the Reapers in the Destroy ending.

2) Make it to where the relays don't get damaged in the Control/Synthesis ending. (I added this part to keep the endings balanced. You can't boost one without balancing the other two, right?)


This is just a rough draft ofcourse and some of the details would need to be worked out, but this is one way that Bioware could make a DLC that address all 3 audiences:


1) The audience that wants "new" DLC content (not exclusively ending related).

2) The audience that wants an ending that wouldn't push moral boundaries. ("Destroy+" ending).

3) The audience that wants more exposition on the Crucible's origins/functionality. (They could maybe even add a codex as to how Synthesis works for example.)


EDIT:

The ending dialogue with the Catalyst and Shepard would still be the same. Shepard obviously wouldn't know much about the team that found the Prothean archives on the Citadel, but the Catalyst would not be aware of the Prothean upgrades that were added to the Crucible design. As a result, the Catalyst would still assume that the Destroy ending targets all synthetics even when it doesn't.

I posted this yesterday.

How do you guys feel about this general idea? If I get enough positive feedback I'll make a separate thread expanding on it.

I love new ideas.

That said, I don't like it. In ME3, any DLC should be Shepard's story, it's not the vehicle to be other people. The dichotomy of POVs shifting would be a bad design decision.

I'm also note sure why there's a push for new squadmates; it's unnecessary and adds complications. You'll also divide the reactions even further because people will want to bring their existing squadmates and not these new ones. (I'm a huge fan of Bailey's, but I don't want him as a squadmate. Double goes for Aria. She can keep her One Rule to herself. )

Other than that, the idea of addressing the endings through DLC is a sound one. I'm not very picky this way -- I'd totally accept changed endings even if it was just EMS that influenced them and not gameplay. I'm certainly not against more gameplay if it affects the endings however.

[MegaSovereign]

Sorry, personally not too keen on playing someone other than Shepard in ME3.

The situation certainly wouldn't be unprecedented considering the fact that you got to do the same thing in ME2.

I love new ideas.

That said, I don't like it. In ME3, any
DLC should be Shepard's story, it's not the vehicle to be other people.
The dichotomy of POVs shifting would be a bad design decision.

I'm
also note sure why there's a push for new squadmates; it's unnecessary
and adds complications. You'll also divide the reactions even further
because people will want to bring their existing squadmates and not
these new ones. (I'm a huge fan of Bailey's, but I don't want him as a
squadmate. Double goes for Aria. She can keep her One Rule to herself.
)

Other than that, the idea of addressing the endings through
DLC is a sound one. I'm not very picky this way -- I'd totally accept
changed endings even if it was just EMS that influenced them and not
gameplay. I'm certainly not against more gameplay if it affects the
endings however.

A change in POV is the only scenario I could think of that could work without rewriting/adding on to other parts of the game.

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 30 septembre 2012 - 10:28 .

[N7 Lisbeth]

Bester76 wrote...

N7 Lisbeth wrote...

Bester posted it.

I get an error from the direct link posted though (and don't on my bookmark). If that error prevents you from answering the poll, try this one. It's not as direct (Bester's is better that way), and you have to manually sift to the third/bottom-most poll. But I don't get an error with it so it may prove useful.

Yeah I'm getting that now as well. No idea why, it worked earlier, I voted myself.

Probably because we've already voted. Direct linking polls probably has some sort of query inherit to it.

[CaIIisto]

Applaud the idea, but not for me. Largely for reasons expressed above.

[AresKeith]

MegaSovereign wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Fall of the Citadel DLC idea:

You get to play as an N7-class character (that you get to customize just like the MP) with Bailey in your squad along with someone else (maybe Aria since the hidden files show that she's still going to be on the Citadel even if she gets Omega back).

While the Reapers are trying to take the Citadel, you discover that the defense systems were shut down/manipulated by an inside source. You and your squad try to find the source (along the way you get greeted by a bunch of Reaper forces) . You then stumble upon a hidden archive left by the Protheans who had starved on the Citadel while they found a way to sabotage the Keeper signal (see ME1). Going through the archives, you learn about the Catalyst/Reaper intelligence that resides on the Citadel and you find out that the Crucible plans originated from the Reapers. The Reapers created the plans so that one day a good-enough cycle could complete and successfully deploy it in order to ensure that the organics are "ready" for synthesis. The classical definition of the word "Crucible" is a "severe test or trial." The Protheans were working on a way to modify these plans to include the Destroy functionality (and it goes without saying, the indoctrinated factions added the Control functionality).

At the end of the DLC, you get intel that could upgrade the Crucible:

1) So that way it exclusively targets the Reapers in the Destroy ending.

2) Make it to where the relays don't get damaged in the Control/Synthesis ending. (I added this part to keep the endings balanced. You can't boost one without balancing the other two, right?)


This is just a rough draft ofcourse and some of the details would need to be worked out, but this is one way that Bioware could make a DLC that address all 3 audiences:


1) The audience that wants "new" DLC content (not exclusively ending related).

2) The audience that wants an ending that wouldn't push moral boundaries. ("Destroy+" ending).

3) The audience that wants more exposition on the Crucible's origins/functionality. (They could maybe even add a codex as to how Synthesis works for example.)


EDIT:

The ending dialogue with the Catalyst and Shepard would still be the same. Shepard obviously wouldn't know much about the team that found the Prothean archives on the Citadel, but the Catalyst would not be aware of the Prothean upgrades that were added to the Crucible design. As a result, the Catalyst would still assume that the Destroy ending targets all synthetics even when it doesn't.

I posted this yesterday.

How do you guys feel about this general idea? If I get enough positive feedback I'll make a separate thread expanding on it.

its good, one of my suggestions was just like this, having a pre-ending DLC do this