6432 réponses à ce sujet

[CaIIisto]

While we're on the themes of "Do the right thing" and particularly "sacrifice" - isn't it time that we honoured this guy?

Modifié par Bester76, 03 octobre 2012 - 12:43 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Greylycantrope wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

The kid has you think destroy has "idiot" written all over it, but your other choices are: death, death. So I mean, what is the difference?

Give the genocidal bastard what he wants? Or send him and his minions to hell. He only is hinting you'll die.

Dying alone in a cave while the kingdom rejoices is not something I find strangely pretty.

You seemed to have missed the memo. Sacrifice is deep and the only way a journey can be meaningful.

Sarcasm runs deep in this one.

[GreyLycanTrope]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

The kid has you think destroy has "idiot" written all over it, but your other choices are: death, death. So I mean, what is the difference?

Give the genocidal bastard what he wants? Or send him and his minions to hell. He only is hinting you'll die.

Dying alone in a cave while the kingdom rejoices is not something I find strangely pretty.

You seemed to have missed the memo. Sacrifice is deep and the only way a journey can be meaningful.

Sarcasm runs deep in this one.

At least someone understands

[Lunch Box1912]

[3DandBeyond]

CmnDwnWrkn wrote...

Oh please. People are all of a sudden concerned about "genocide" when it comes to the Geth, but had no problem with wiping out the Batarians. Hypocrites.

Do you know what DLC I hate in ME2-the Arrival.  You know why?  Because it features an unavoidable act that was written by the same person that wanted the relays to destroy the galaxy.

I don't like wiping out Batarians at all.  The only thing I can say about that is at least Shepard can try to contact the Batarians to warn them (but that's not enough).  But unlike in ME3 at least there is that.

What makes it even worse is that between that happening and the events of ME3, no one does much of anything-to add insult to injury.

[AresKeith]

3DandBeyond wrote...

CmnDwnWrkn wrote...

Oh please. People are all of a sudden concerned about "genocide" when it comes to the Geth, but had no problem with wiping out the Batarians. Hypocrites.

Do you know what DLC I hate in ME2-the Arrival.  You know why?  Because it features an unavoidable act that was written by the same person that wanted the relays to destroy the galaxy.

I don't like wiping out Batarians at all.  The only thing I can say about that is at least Shepard can try to contact the Batarians to warn them (but that's not enough).  But unlike in ME3 at least there is that.

What makes it even worse is that between that happening and the events of ME3, no one does much of anything-to add insult to injury.

When I first saw that I was like "Wow, thanks for railroading me for trying to do the right thing"

[3DandBeyond]

Bester76 wrote...

I can't get my hopes up re the patch - just have to see what the dataminers come up with, but I suspect it'll be much about nothing.

Re the issue of sacrifice - once again, I have no problem with the issue, and I have no problem with that being at least one of the endings, but they didn't do it in a way that I found particularly interesting. Lay out the choices, not all of which should include having to kill yourself, outline the pros and cons, and then leave it up to the player. Empower the player to make that sacrifice, don't force it on them. I would have found it far more powerful had I chosen to die, knowing that I could have lived, to save someone else. As it is, I didn't feel that at all.

Well, this is the thing there is no sacrifice.  Sacrifice has meaning.  You need to feel that the character has achieved the goal that they were after all along.  For instance, take Harry Potter (ok not my favorite but it's to make a point).  JK Rowlings could have (and considered doing so) killed him off.  There's a point in the movie where I think it's Neville, destroys a bridge to stop the evil wizards from crossing.  It looks like Neville died as well and it's an emotional moment-if you got into the movie.  Now, had Harry Potter grabbed onto Valdemort and pulled him with him into a pool of fire or off a cliff and died doing so, it would have been a sacrifice and people would have cried and then later yelled a lot at JK and the film makers. 

Sacrifice is knowing you could live but choosing to die to do a truly known good thing and in stories it's done to achieve the goal.  I'd think the story would have ended well had they provided a variety of endings-loss to win with a sacrifice as possible and even with Shepard knowing friends died, but also with a survival ending that's difficult to achieve.

[Zan51]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Well, this is the thing there is no sacrifice.  Sacrifice has meaning.  You need to feel that the character has achieved the goal that they were after all along.  For instance, take Harry Potter (ok not my favorite but it's to make a point).  JK Rowlings could have (and considered doing so) killed him off.  There's a point in the movie where I think it's Neville, destroys a bridge to stop the evil wizards from crossing.  It looks like Neville died as well and it's an emotional moment-if you got into the movie.  Now, had Harry Potter grabbed onto Valdemort and pulled him with him into a pool of fire or off a cliff and died doing so, it would have been a sacrifice and people would have cried and then later yelled a lot at JK and the film makers. 

Sacrifice is knowing you could live but choosing to die to do a truly known good thing and in stories it's done to achieve the goal.  I'd think the story would have ended well had they provided a variety of endings-loss to win with a sacrifice as possible and even with Shepard knowing friends died, but also with a survival ending that's difficult to achieve.

Exactly. It is doing something that does not benefit you but does benfit others, like taking a bullet for someone.

Thinking about it all again I felt like I was in a movie that had odd moments of allowing me to interact with it then like a Disney ride, was back on the tracks set by its design. It was going to Terminus Beam with RGB sparkly lights, no matter what I did.

You had us sitting there, begging for more, we still are. Your core players and supporters, money in the bank, and you go looking for the casual gamer who jumps in at the 3rd in a trilogy, nd pitch it at them. Was it because you were relying on the fact that many casual gamers don't finish a game and therefore wouldn't get to the endings?

I buy games on word of mouth. It was my son who told me about ME2. I got it and liked it so much in the first half an hour I got ME1 and playerd it first. Word of mouth sells games. What kind of legacy has ME3 given Bioware when it could, even now, be so different.

Modifié par Zan51, 03 octobre 2012 - 06:33 .

[Jacksor1]

Zan51 wrote...

A good point. 

But I'm not sure Bioware (EA) cares one bit about word of mouth from loyal fans. I feel like we're far outnumbered by certain other demographics.


Since after the first Mass Effect the writers had been suspect. Even so, I never for a second expected a less than fantastic ending. I figured that the proffesionals at Bioware could hack out something... safe, at least. Yeah, I just didn't see this coming. I was enthralled from begining to rushing that beam. Then I feel like my Shep was obliterated by that reaper laser, died and went straight to some horrible circle of hell where the only outcomes are various types of death and something that may as well be.

After what they did with my beloved KOTOR and now this... I'm really not sure how to proceed.

[N7 Lisbeth]

In a weird way, we're doing exactly what they want. Talking about it, "speculating." (Albeit not in the way they hoped.) While Chris does say nothing is off the table in the future, I think more and more that's just PR placation. He has no intention of acting on it unless sales on DLC bomb and they have no choice.

Supporting Mass Effect in any way will work against our goals here.

Modifié par N7 Lisbeth, 03 octobre 2012 - 07:18 .

[TreguardD]

No. EA doesn't care. When Bioware has lost its good will, they'll shut it down, fold it into other studios, and look for new companies to buy.

[CaIIisto]

3DandBeyond wrote...
I'd think the story would have ended well had they provided a variety of endings-loss to win with a sacrifice as possible and even with Shepard knowing friends died, but also with a survival ending that's difficult to achieve.

Indeed. All bases covered, instead of imposing their 'vision' on us.

[CaIIisto]

N7 Lisbeth wrote...
While Chris does say nothing is off the table in the future, I think more and more that's just PR placation. He has no intention of acting on it unless sales on DLC bomb and they have no choice.

Well I'll be here until the end of the ME3 DLC schedule, and the details of ME4 are released. If they do ignore the issue then fine, I'll be on my way. I have zero interest in moving on to another story until this one's finished properly.

[.PHANTOM]

AresKeith wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

CmnDwnWrkn wrote...

Oh please. People are all of a sudden concerned about "genocide" when it comes to the Geth, but had no problem with wiping out the Batarians. Hypocrites.

Do you know what DLC I hate in ME2-the Arrival.  You know why?  Because it features an unavoidable act that was written by the same person that wanted the relays to destroy the galaxy.

I don't like wiping out Batarians at all.  The only thing I can say about that is at least Shepard can try to contact the Batarians to warn them (but that's not enough).  But unlike in ME3 at least there is that.

What makes it even worse is that between that happening and the events of ME3, no one does much of anything-to add insult to injury.

When I first saw that I was like "Wow, thanks for railroading me for trying to do the right thing"

My opinion is that while both are tough calls they are hardly comparable, i understand that genocide is commited in both, sure we all agree on that, besides it being written in for Arrival, we did not wipe out every Batarian in the known Galaxy, sure it was a portion, about 300k, but was every Batarian in that System, was it the end once and for all--No, we destroyed a colony and not a very big one at that, if the Alliance still feared the possibility of a war with them after that whole colony was destroyed you can expect that their are still enough to make them a force to be reckoned with, though this is pre-ME3, in ME3 they are nearly done-thnx to the Reapers.

In destroy we are wipping out every synthetic Race in the galaxy, not a portion or majority synthetic life, but all of it, compare destroying a whole race to destroying about what 3% of a race, really not what i call comparable just because of the magnitude of difference in each, you commit Genocide in both, but one is a few thousand and the other is Genocide at it's peak.  Maybe if some way Organic life more then Synthetic, the batarians would be at a  bigger loss, or if you commited genocide at Rannoch, it would be less dramatic then and not really an issue, Just my 2 cents on the whole comparison.

[N7 Lisbeth]

.PHANTOM wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

CmnDwnWrkn wrote...

Oh please. People are all of a sudden concerned about "genocide" when it comes to the Geth, but had no problem with wiping out the Batarians. Hypocrites.

Do you know what DLC I hate in ME2-the Arrival.  You know why?  Because it features an unavoidable act that was written by the same person that wanted the relays to destroy the galaxy.

I don't like wiping out Batarians at all.  The only thing I can say about that is at least Shepard can try to contact the Batarians to warn them (but that's not enough).  But unlike in ME3 at least there is that.

What makes it even worse is that between that happening and the events of ME3, no one does much of anything-to add insult to injury.

When I first saw that I was like "Wow, thanks for railroading me for trying to do the right thing"

My opinion is that while both are tough calls they are hardly comparable, i understand that genocide is commited in both, sure we all agree on that, besides it being written in for Arrival, we did not wipe out every Batarian in the known Galaxy, sure it was a portion, about 300k, but was every Batarian in that System, was it the end once and for all--No, we destroyed a colony and not a very big one at that, if the Alliance still feared the possibility of a war with them after that whole colony was destroyed you can expect that their are still enough to make them a force to be reckoned with, though this is pre-ME3, in ME3 they are nearly done-thnx to the Reapers.

In destroy we are wipping out every synthetic Race in the galaxy, not a portion or majority synthetic life, but all of it, compare destroying a whole race to destroying about what 3% of a race, really not what i call comparable just because of the magnitude of difference in each, you commit Genocide in both, but one is a few thousand and the other is Genocide at it's peak.  Maybe if some way Organic life more then Synthetic, the batarians would be at a  bigger loss, or if you commited genocide at Rannoch, it would be less dramatic then and not really an issue, Just my 2 cents on the whole comparison.

Not only is the magnitude jarringly different, but the actions of Shepard are different. You were given the choice to try and save them. Let me stress that again: you can try and save them in Arrival. You cannot try to save them in ME3's endings. (Other endings aren't an option -- remember, we're talking about a Paragon Shepard -- the alternatives are even more reprehensible.)

The difference is the illusion of choice was taken away from the player in ME3 vs Arrival. Consequently, I like Arrival. Yes, we risked war with the Batarians, but I know I did everything I could to avoid that from coming to pass and can live with the consequences -- and that included Shepard being served up by the Alliance to the Batarians (extradition and Batarian justice to avoid war), re: self-sacrifice.

Modifié par N7 Lisbeth, 03 octobre 2012 - 08:52 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

.PHANTOM wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

CmnDwnWrkn wrote...

Oh please. People are all of a sudden concerned about "genocide" when it comes to the Geth, but had no problem with wiping out the Batarians. Hypocrites.

Do you know what DLC I hate in ME2-the Arrival.  You know why?  Because it features an unavoidable act that was written by the same person that wanted the relays to destroy the galaxy.

I don't like wiping out Batarians at all.  The only thing I can say about that is at least Shepard can try to contact the Batarians to warn them (but that's not enough).  But unlike in ME3 at least there is that.

What makes it even worse is that between that happening and the events of ME3, no one does much of anything-to add insult to injury.

When I first saw that I was like "Wow, thanks for railroading me for trying to do the right thing"

My opinion is that while both are tough calls they are hardly comparable, i understand that genocide is commited in both, sure we all agree on that, besides it being written in for Arrival, we did not wipe out every Batarian in the known Galaxy, sure it was a portion, about 300k, but was every Batarian in that System, was it the end once and for all--No, we destroyed a colony and not a very big one at that, if the Alliance still feared the possibility of a war with them after that whole colony was destroyed you can expect that their are still enough to make them a force to be reckoned with, though this is pre-ME3, in ME3 they are nearly done-thnx to the Reapers.

In destroy we are wipping out every synthetic Race in the galaxy, not a portion or majority synthetic life, but all of it, compare destroying a whole race to destroying about what 3% of a race, really not what i call comparable just because of the magnitude of difference in each, you commit Genocide in both, but one is a few thousand and the other is Genocide at it's peak.  Maybe if some way Organic life more then Synthetic, the batarians would be at a  bigger loss, or if you commited genocide at Rannoch, it would be less dramatic then and not really an issue, Just my 2 cents on the whole comparison.

And that's why after I did Arrival once, in the subsequent playthrough of Arrival which happened to be with my canon Shepard (my first one) I told Hackett to take a flying leap when he asked me to free Kenson. I chose the renegade option three times.

* "I'm really busy right now Admiral."
* "I'll do it if I have time."
* "I said I'm really busy right now. I'll do it IF I have time."

And never did it, and thus Hackett sent the 103rd Marines in and I didn't get that War Asset in ME3. Shepard didn't kill the 300,000 Batarians. So why was Shepard in lock up? She was doing what she was doing with the full blessing of the Council and Councilor Anderson outside of Council space, and that was a "request" not an order from Hackett, hence Shepard was a civilian. Bioware, that was a big "oops" on your part. More like on vacation.

The thing is we don't know how many Batarians there are in the galaxy after the war. There were 15 billion on Khar'shan. The reapers didn't turn all of them into Cannibals. They did a portion, and the rest get put into camps awaiting harvesting for destroyers and transports. They need to move the Citadel (aka reaper ship yard) around for that, unless they do that by space magic as well. Then there are other worlds in the Batarian systems.

The thing about this whole thing is we're arguing about numbers. I'll quote Josef Stalin because the quote is apropos: "The death of one person is a tragedy. The deaths of 10,000 is a statistic."

The meaning behind that statement is that people can relate to their next door neighbor, or a person who has a name, dying. They cannot comprehend a number like 10,000 people or larger. I'm seeing it on this board.

Take the destruction of the Geth and EDI. EDI you can relate to. The Geth you can no longer relate to. You never saw them again once Legion left. Legion gave you personal interaction with them. Once that interaction was gone they became just a name of Geth. That was sanitized.

And you didn't commit genocide on Rannoch if the Quarians wiped out the Geth. At that time there weren't enough Geth to form a high enough intelligence, and they had allied themselves with the reapers. They were as dumb as varren. But if Legion uploaded the code they would surpass the Quarians. If you allowed that and did not make peace you then were an accomplice in committing genocide on the Quarians.

Once the code was uploaded to the Geth, destroying them becomes genocide. Legion already had the code.

And why all the Batarian hate? "It's only a small colony." Because we've only seen slavers, mercenaries, and terrorists, and a mad prophet as representatives of the Batarian people. People have no problems doing Arrival. Warning the colony? They have about an hour to evacuate 300,000 people? That isn't going to happen. Nothing will happen except panic.They won't even make it to the relay. In reality it is best not to warn them. A supernova? there is no escape.

If it was a Turian colony would you think of blowing up the relay? No. How about a Krogan colony? No. Asari? No. Human? No. It had to be Batarian otherwise no one would have done it.

Having the Geth attached to the Destroy ending did not make choosing it more difficult. It just made it a bitter pill, and an unnecessary pill. It was totally unnecessary to have the destruction of synthetics attached to it. They could have made it just the destruction of the reapers.

You still would have had 5% choose control and 5% choose synthesis anyway. The percentage choosing Destroy would have increased by 12% to 90%. The bottom line is that it wasn't a tough choice in the end. It was just a disgusting choice.

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 03 octobre 2012 - 10:12 .

[luaggy]

It's been a few months since i touched ME3 or looked at these forums after my disappointment of the infamous endings, my original anger at me3's conculsion was really more a sense of feeling that i hadn't truly won. The starkid, the destruction of the relays etc i was okay with or at least i could accept. Personnally when i watch an epic movie or play a game of ME calibur i hope for an outcome that has both emotional content (which ME3 did well) and a final scene where the hero/heroine is rewarded in some form. the end of the original star wars for quick example with the medal ceromony. A simple scene after the destroy ending when shepard takes the breath an arm reaches down and takes shepards camera moves to show the LI, a few words like "you didn't think you were really alone shepard" For me something along those lines would of been enough and at small expense on biowares part to leave me with a sense of reward. Although a reuion dlc or a extra endings cut i would see as very doutful

[Pain87]

N7 Lisbeth wrote...



In a weird way, we're doing exactly what they want. Talking about it, "speculating." (Albeit not in the way they hoped.) While Chris does say nothing is off the table in the future, I think more and more that's just PR placation. He has no intention of acting on it unless sales on DLC bomb and they have no choice.

Supporting Mass Effect in any way will work against our goals here.

That´s right...as long as we´re doing "lots of speculation" we hold Mass Effect on top and the Interesst on it., so they can work on new DLC´s.

[3DandBeyond]

Jacksor1 wrote...

Zan51 wrote...

A good point. 

But I'm not sure Bioware (EA) cares one bit about word of mouth from loyal fans. I feel like we're far outnumbered by certain other demographics.


Since after the first Mass Effect the writers had been suspect. Even so, I never for a second expected a less than fantastic ending. I figured that the proffesionals at Bioware could hack out something... safe, at least. Yeah, I just didn't see this coming. I was enthralled from begining to rushing that beam. Then I feel like my Shep was obliterated by that reaper laser, died and went straight to some horrible circle of hell where the only outcomes are various types of death and something that may as well be.

After what they did with my beloved KOTOR and now this... I'm really not sure how to proceed.

Actually video game playing demographics are changing to groups that are way more likely to appreciate more of an ME1 approach to game/storytelling than to CoD-type games.  BW and even EA are tending to ignore that.  The previous demographic was more the teenage boy.  However, in the latest studies of game demographics the fastest growing segment is that of over 20 year old males as well as females in general.  Now, that doesn't mean that they don't play action games, but these are also groups that tend to buy the most books (females, especially).  And, the other rapid growth segment is mobile gaming.  And as yet it's fairly cumbersome to play action heavy and combat rich games on touchscreens.  I've played Dead Space and ME-Inflitrator on an iPad and forget about it.  So, puzzlers, adventure games, things like Angry Birds, these are all a lot more popular so far for mobile devices.

Games that try to go the CoD route are not very successful.  And if you look at the success of the Wii and now Kinect you can see that console manufacturers are actually somewhat ahead of game devs in understanding the changing demographics.  There's a move on to try and make gaming more of a family pursuit.  The family also has a shrinking or shrunk budget as far as luxury items go and there's a need to make the purchase of computers, game consoles, and all of that more appealing to everyone in the family. 

What I think a lot of the data shows is that the audience for video gaming is trending now to be more divided across gender lines and more mature, age-wise.  The likelihood that these people will want to come home and just shoot stuff and other people constantly is really waning.  These are people that want entertainment and not just mindless action.  They are people that like sporting games where they can build their teams and follow stats and have an active hand in creating what they can play in games with.  They're people who want to race cars from their past and be able to customize them, but also have real goals to achieve in racing.  And they want to have reasons (stories) for shooting stuff, not just because they can get a better and cooler looking gun.  They want substance because games are not cheap.  Consider also that in order for people to shell out the money for more expensive pre-order collector's editions, people really are going to want to get something for that.  But for those goodies to mean anything, the game has to be good.

[Chardonney]

Bester76 wrote...

N7 Lisbeth wrote...
While Chris does say nothing is off the table in the future, I think more and more that's just PR placation. He has no intention of acting on it unless sales on DLC bomb and they have no choice.

Well I'll be here until the end of the ME3 DLC schedule, and the details of ME4 are released. If they do ignore the issue then fine, I'll be on my way. I have zero interest in moving on to another story until this one's finished properly.

I won't be going anywhere, either. I, too, don't feel particularly excited about buying a new game, when this one still feels - and is - unfinished. I wont be fooled twice. 

[Xellith]

Chardonney wrote...

Bester76 wrote...

N7 Lisbeth wrote...
While Chris does say nothing is off the table in the future, I think more and more that's just PR placation. He has no intention of acting on it unless sales on DLC bomb and they have no choice.

Well I'll be here until the end of the ME3 DLC schedule, and the details of ME4 are released. If they do ignore the issue then fine, I'll be on my way. I have zero interest in moving on to another story until this one's finished properly.

I won't be going anywhere, either. I, too, don't feel particularly excited about buying a new game, when this one still feels - and is - unfinished. I wont be fooled twice. 

To quote geroge bush

There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in
Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — [pauses] — shame on you.
Fool me — [pauses] — You can't get fooled again.

Words that ring true to my heart.

[3DandBeyond]

Chardonney wrote...

Bester76 wrote...

N7 Lisbeth wrote...
While Chris does say nothing is off the table in the future, I think more and more that's just PR placation. He has no intention of acting on it unless sales on DLC bomb and they have no choice.

Well I'll be here until the end of the ME3 DLC schedule, and the details of ME4 are released. If they do ignore the issue then fine, I'll be on my way. I have zero interest in moving on to another story until this one's finished properly.

I won't be going anywhere, either. I, too, don't feel particularly excited about buying a new game, when this one still feels - and is - unfinished. I wont be fooled twice. 

I agree here with this.  Unfortunately it will mean waiting to see what folks say about the ending as well as the whole game.  But then here's the catch.  First off, I feel this story needs a proper ending.  Beyond that any new game has to have a great story and a great ending.  However, I thought ME1 and 2 had great endings.  If they make a trilogy again, and if they don't specify that it will be one, any next game is going to be hard to judge.  Hype, of course will be something I'll believe the exact opposite of.  And I'm still stuck on that bit of controversy created over Leviathan. IGN writing that Leviathan changed the endings and then having to change that and say it didn't-I can't get over the fact that I don't believe they would have written that it did if they were not told it did.  And then their review on it afterward said that since it didn't change the endings, it was pointless.  Good enough to play, visually great, kind of repetitive (fighting the same enemies in wave after wave), but good and yet, kind of pointless.  

I am waiting to see if anything substantial happens and then if nothing does, I think that will be the end of all this.  Unless there's an ME4 that takes up Shepard's story.  If you think about it, Chris Priestley also said that they can change their minds on things.  Who knows, maybe that's something they are considering or had already decided.  Maybe only certain people wanted to end Shepard's story and some didn't.  I'm not holding out any expectation of this, just wondering about the possibility.  If you do view the torso as a cliffhanger, it would make sense, especially if taken along with the male stargazer scene.  That may never have been about DLC.

[CaIIisto]

Xellith wrote...

To quote geroge bush

There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in
Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — [pauses] — shame on you.
Fool me — [pauses] — You can't get fooled again.

Words that ring true to my heart.

With eloquence of thought like that, have we completely ruled out GWB from actually having a hand in the ending(s)......?

[wantedman dan]

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.

And you're happy with that? Seriously?

With that answer, you can't seriously wonder why people are still so bitter at you people.

[Mikk016]

wantedman dan wrote...

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.

And you're happy with that? Seriously?

With that answer, you can't seriously wonder why people are still so bitter at you people.

I think he's talking about the "artistic integrity" most of us don't seem to understand.