431 réponses à ce sujet

[moater boat]

AlanC9 wrote...

moater boat wrote...
The
Decisions
Don't
MATTER!

What would count as "mattering" for you?

As I mentioned above, any of the allegedly major decisions from the previous games can be completly offset by playing a little multiplayer, and more likely even that won't be necessary, all the crappy ending options will still be available.

[AlanC9]

moater boat wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

moater boat wrote...
The
Decisions
Don't
MATTER!

What would count as "mattering" for you?

As I mentioned above, any of the allegedly major decisions from the previous games can be completly offset by playing a little multiplayer, and more likely even that won't be necessary, all the crappy ending options will still be available.

Regardless of that, the consequences of the earlier decisions are still whatever they ever were. The Feros colonists were either wiped out or they weren't, ME2 squadmates who died are still dead, the genophage is cured or not cured, the quarians are destroyed or not destroyed.

So again, what would count as mattering for you? Something where, say, you can't get a very good ending unless you got away with sabotaging the genophage cure and made peace at Rannoch?

[DrGunjah]

Davik Kang wrote...
Dude it's kind of obvious that I already know this from my post that you quoted.  At the end, which you even quoted yourself, I said: what are the alternatives?  How can you have all these decisions making drastic consequences without reducing the sequels to tiny sub-stories?  There can only be so much game on the discs.  They aren't going to make 300 hours of content for your game.  If every choice makes the game radically different, then every possible version becomes shorter and shorter.  Is this viable?  Is this what you want?

That would at least be a new gaming experience, that would indeed be art
Consequences don't always have to be drastic changes. I think it's also wrong to say choice doesn't matter, as there are some good approaches (wrex confronting you when sabotaging the cure, no peace possible without tali/legion, e.g.) but there are also bad ones (kaidan/ash...is there any difference other than the person? rachni queen, saving council...)
In the end though it all doesn't matter anymore. It's all reduced to numbers - Get the krogan forces or just scan the galaxy for missing alliance/asari/turian cruisers, it doesn't change anything in the end, as long as you get high enough EMS.
What we get instead are some fail consequences like your squad getting evacuated in the high EMS version (imho the worst scene in the whole game, even worse than holoboy) or synthesis not being available with low EMS, although holyboy says it's the best solution (no, I don't like synthesis). Oh and of course some powerpoint slides <_<

[robertthebard]

Mike1220 wrote...

@Bester76 if your just gonna be an ass don't even post I'm just stating my opinion what is so wrong with that? If you have nothing relevant to say than don't post it.

You disagreed with their consensus, you should expect flack.  Don't point it out though, apparently some mods agree with them, and one report, and bam, 24 hours off, ask me how I know.

[Davik Kang]

DrGunjah wrote...
...the same stuff...

Round and round in circles I see.

What.  Are.  The.  Alternatives.

Modifié par Davik Kang, 14 octobre 2012 - 01:02 .

[DrGunjah]

Davik Kang wrote...

DrGunjah wrote...
...the same stuff...

Round and round in circles I see.

What.  Are.  The.  Alternatives.

A revised Priority:Earth would be good to start.
For example, the crucible should never reach the citadel with very low EMS. Hacket says, we must gather an armada that guards the crucible, but in fact the crucible gets attached no matter how puny your armada is. You pissed off everyone and have no friends behind you? Well, then so be it, the cycle continues.
Then during the mission let the fights be incredibly hard but let the war assets help you. Using the example of the current final battle there could be just more enemies but the krogan infantry comes to help you so you can finally activate the missile launcher. Or alternatively, if you sided with the salarians it could be possible that you have to distract enemy forces until an STG infiltration team activates the missile launcher.
Maybe even have different paths; you can't go the frontal attack route because you lack krogan or rachni infantry, so you go the infiltration route the STG already scouted out while the quarians or geth (or both) start a distraction maneuver.
There are endless possibilities, and there would be even more if they get rid off that beam **** (or at least make it optional)
It already doesn't make that much sense that the reapers open a backdoor and additionally it restricts the dynamics of the outcome.
If that's still running circles for you then please tell me what you actually want me to tell you.

[ld1449]

robertthebard wrote...

Mike1220 wrote...

@Bester76 if your just gonna be an ass don't even post I'm just stating my opinion what is so wrong with that? If you have nothing relevant to say than don't post it.

You disagreed with their consensus, you should expect flack.  Don't point it out though, apparently some mods agree with them, and one report, and bam, 24 hours off, ask me how I know.

Or; here's a thought. Maybe its not that they agree with us but that in half your posts you're a dick.

Just incase, yes, I did just insult you, yes, I do act in the same manner that I'm accusing you of half the time, no, I don't care, no, I still don't care if its reported, truthfulness is important to our society.

[Davik Kang]

DrGunjah wrote...
A revised Priority:Earth would be good to start. 
For example, the crucible should never reach the citadel with very low EMS. Hacket says, we must gather an armada that guards the crucible, but in fact the crucible gets attached no matter how puny your armada is. You pissed off everyone and have no friends behind you? Well, then so be it, the cycle continues.
Then during the mission let the fights be incredibly hard but let the war assets help you. Using the example of the current final battle there could be just more enemies but the krogan infantry comes to help you so you can finally activate the missile launcher. Or alternatively, if you sided with the salarians it could be possible that you have to distract enemy forces until an STG infiltration team activates the missile launcher.
Maybe even have different paths; you can't go the frontal attack route because you lack krogan or rachni infantry, so you go the infiltration route the STG already scouted out while the quarians or geth (or both) start a distraction maneuver.
There are endless possibilities, and there would be even more if they get rid off that beam **** (or at least make it optional)
It already doesn't make that much sense that the reapers open a backdoor and additionally it restricts the dynamics of the outcome.
If that's still running circles for you then please tell me what you actually want me to tell you.

Ok thanks for actually coming up with some stuff this time.  I was a bit harsh with my last post, I just find it frustrating sometimes when people argue with me but don't seem to have actually read anything I said.

Still, I don't see how this is really any better than what we got.  Having Low EMS for some players is having less time to complete the story.  Maybe they didn't have ME1 or 2 either.  You can give them an early loss if you like but that's almost like Bioware snubbing players that don't have the time or money to invest in the game.  I'm not sure that cutting off the ending completely is a good way to treat such players.  [To trolls: "in fact this would have been the best ending LOLOLOLOLOLOL" yes very good now find somewhere else to play]

In your second point you end every example with activating the missile launcher.  So you want your galactic decisions to affect the race of the trooper who presses the same button?  Is this really a satisfying alternative to what we get?  I'm pretty sure that if these kinds of things were supposed to be the consequences, they'd be subject to just as much ridicule as what we have.

Different paths: fine, but you then come to the problem is was talking about in the Alternatives thread.  You'd need to contruct a satisfying, cool-looking and emotioanally exciting final scene for each of these possibilities.  And after all that, the player would still find that the only consequence of making galactic choices was which door you open on the Citadel.  I don't think I need to explain why these things just don't improve the ending at all.  In fact I'd argue they make it worse - really terrible hammy attempts at making player choice matter.

You say endless possibilities, but again, see the Alternatives thread.  The more possibilities Bioware realise in game, the smaller the game is for each player playing it.  Applying 'endless' minor changes to the same overall story wouldn't make it better at all.  You'd still get the same story, only much shorter, and the only difference between your playthorugh and another's would be what race activated the missile, what door you opened on the Citadel, and other trivial things.  These are not improvements to the game at all.

Modifié par Davik Kang, 14 octobre 2012 - 04:25 .

[DrGunjah]

Davik Kang wrote...
Ok thanks for actually coming up with some stuff this time.  I was a bit harsh with my last post, I just find it frustrating sometimes when people argue with me but don't seem to have actually read anything I said.

no worries, I'm here for discussion, not for flaming

Still, I don't see how this is really any better than what we got.  Having Low EMS for some players is having less time to complete the story.  Maybe they didn't have ME1 or 2 either.  You can give them an early loss if you like but that's almost like Bioware snubbing players that don't have the time or money to invest in the game.  I'm not sure that cutting off the ending completely is a good way to treat such players.  [To trolls: "in fact this would have been the best ending LOLOLOLOLOLOL" yes very good now find somewhere else to play]

Well, imho either you play the game or you don't play the game. If you like rushing through the game without doing any assignments and don't read the dialog options before clicking, it's your own fault. I'm pretty much tired of casual players whining about games being to hard and/or unfair to them (ever read amazon rating comments on dark/demons souls? big fun...)
Despite that, the current outcome for a non-importer with low EMS is what? Having all (or most) people on earth fried, all portals destroyed and whatnot.. Is this really much better?

In your second point you end every example with activating the missile launcher.  So you want your galactic decisions to affect the race of the trooper who presses the same button?  Is this really a satisfying alternative to what we get?  I'm pretty sure that if these kinds of things were supposed to be the consequences, they'd be subject to just as much ridicule as what we have.

Like I said earlier, consequences don't always have to be huge. And it was just an example considering the boundaries of what we already have. But yes, it would make a difference for me when the gameplay changes and I would actually see my war assets fighting. Holding the line for the weak salarians or using krogans as meat shields is at least a difference, maybe I would even use another squad for one or the other. But again, it's an example within the current boundaries. Change one "fact" and you get new possibilities - for example, what if the beam wasn't the only way into the citadel?

Different paths: fine, but you then come to the problem is was talking about in the Alternatives thread.  You'd need to contruct a satisfying, cool-looking and emotioanally exciting final scene for each of these possibilities.  And after all that, the player would still find that the only consequence of making galactic choices was which door you open on the Citadel.  I don't think I need to explain why these things just don't improve the ending at all.  In fact I'd argue they make it worse - really terrible hammy attempts at making player choice matter.

Got a link to that thread?
Anyways, since we're not playing the Sims and our target is pretty clear and simple (stop the reapers) there are limitations for possible dynamic content. Since conventional victory seems not to be an alternative, we will have to use the crucible and we have to attach it to the citadel, unless you want to change the whole plot. The way to achieve this and if we are even capable of achieving it might be dynamic. I doubt this would reduce the game to a 5 minute quickie because of all those different outcomes.

You say endless possibilities, but again, see the Alternatives thread.  The more possibilities Bioware realise in game, the smaller the game is for each player playing it.

so be it ! (I love that one, that's why I choose refuse )
Please don't take everything so literally. Having endless possiblities doesn't mean you have to use them all.
Of course, whether punching conrad or shooting him in his foot shouldn't have a huge impact later on. It's about major choices.

[Blueprotoss]

hukbum wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

Everyone can have an opinion but whether you choose to agree or disagree is that ME3 didn't remove choice just like what ME1 and ME2.  Its pathetic that you're only focusing on the MP here even when thats anothe choice and you don't need to play the MP to begin with if you don't want to like in most games.  Its also ironic when you say "nothing matters" when you're here, which means that it does "matter".

So, MP did change the ending? Because, yes I choose to play to see if it changes something. It didn't. It just underlines the feeling that nothing matters. Again, it FEELs like nothing matters. It didn't change anything. Red, green, blue, refuse.

You're like the guy running around here screaming "but it's about sacrafice! CAN'T YOU SEE IT?".
Nope, I can't. Because I'm stuck in lala-land with the blueboy, trying to figure out what the hell he's talking about.

You're just screaming "BUT CHOICE DID MATTER! CAN'T YOU SEE IT?"
Nope, I can't. Because they're never designed to change anything in the end. During the game, yes. In the end, no. And this is supposed to be Sheps last journey, so the end is/was important for me somehow. The end didn't work, 'cause I'm stuck lala-land. This leaves an empty feeling about "choice" and "matter".

So tell me, did choice matter or change something for me in the end?
Or are you just not capable to see where a diffrent opinion might come from? Because you're calling me pathetic, and saying it is "ironic" that I'm here.

MP in ME3 realy didn't change anthing in the SP just like in Half-Life, Halo, Red Dead Redemption, Resident Evil, Starcraft, Dynasty Warriors, and so on.

[Davik Kang]

DrGunjah wrote...
snip

Ok ok, at least we're meeting each other halfway now.  For me the changes you're suggesting wouldn't add anything, but for you they would, so it's cool.  

The thread I mentioned I had actually linked before in one of my replies here, which is why I didn't link it that time.  Anyway:

Alternatives thread

About possibilities, no a few different ending sequences wouldn't reduce the game to 5 mins, but that's taking it too far.  It would reduce content elsewhere, and the more possibilities you want, the more you'd lose elsewhere.  On top of that, the ending needs to be written a certain way.  It needs to be fast pasced and exciting.  To write multiple versions of this would take a great deal of work, impact the rest of the story negatively, and be somewhat wasted in that each player would only experience one of these scenes per playthrough.

And the thing about other choices, it's not just a simple equation of : one choice equals one more option for ME3.  Every new choice doubles the number of alternate events they need to create for the future game, and that's only if they are two-way choices.  A three way choice would triple it, etc.  I went into this into a bit more detail into the other thread, and I can explain the maths behind it fully if you want, but even a handful of choices would create a massive amount of work for each possible eventuality in the sequel, if you want those choices to affect the plot and missions of the new game in a significant way.

[Blueprotoss]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

Its sad to see that more and more people are disliking the ignorance of some people puttting fingers in their ears to avoid the truth that choices do matter and were far from useless.  Btw choice was always in the player's hands even when all of them were written by Bioware.

Ignorance is one thing, but blatant denial is a completely different matter, literally everything you pointed out ended up changing like one or two lines of dialogue and literally every example you gave was simply replaced by a carbon copy that filled the exact same role, killed the rachni queen? Here have a new one. Killed Wrex? Here a Wreav. Killed the counsil? Here have a carbon copy with nearly the exact same lines. Someone died in the suicide mission? Well, they didn't matter anyway lets pretend they didn't exist. Tali died? Shes got a replacement. Legion died? He has a replacement. Grunt died? Replacement.

It isn't a consequence if whatever you thought you changed happens anyway in nearly the exact same way.

Ironically the ignorance and denial is coming from you.  Th Rachni part in ME3 varies based on how the fate of the queen in ME1 and varies more based on the fate of the queen in ME3.  If you saved the queen in ME1 then she doesn't have aytomtaic hatred for you in ME3 but if you save her again then you lose Arklay Company as an asset and gain the Rachni as an asset.  If you killed her in ME1 then she'll automatically have hatred for you in ME3 but if you save her this time around she'll later leave the Crucible fleet.  Everyone that can die in ME1 and ME2 have a replacement in ME3 like Wreave with Wrex, Kirrahae with Thane, Legion with a Geth VI,  Mordin with another Salarian, Grunt with another Krogan, and so on.

I guess some people will always complain even when ME3 had over 65,000 plotlines from imported saves witout the DLC.

[Blueprotoss]

Atherus wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

Hindsight is 20/20 and I would to hear you say its easy to create the last arc of a trilogy with over 65,000 without DLC being involved.  You should look at the facts rather then using a strawman even when you created a glass house that was easily demolished.

Sorry, but because of my bad english, I don´t really know what you wanted to tell me.
65,000 what?
What strawman? That they worked on the ending very late they said themself in one of their interviews, don´t know what one it was, but it was one of those you could see, when you had their iphone app. Seen it on youtube later on.

And well, every game of them that I played at least worked like that in some way. So it really shocked me when after the scene I thought was the endingsequence and I would see how my decisions in the series would give me one of their 16 advertised endings, this thing popped up right into my face talked about red green blue and should choose.

And the only thing I said is in short  "they could have done that better, because they did so often in the past".

And what glass house? And who demolished it?

would be very kind of you to enlighten me, and that´s in no way ironic or sarcastic or whatever, I just really want to understand what you wanted to tell me 

Sorry I forgot to say that there's over 65,000 plotlines.  The strawman is hindsight isn't accurate especially when the ending of ME3 could hae been created at the beginning stages of ME3's developement and production.

ME3 did have 16 endings but they weren't drastically different other then the large amount of small varaibles based on choices and EMS ratings.

Ironically Bioware improved on the past with ME3 because the endings in ME1 and ME2 weren't that great in a fair comparison.

Your points are fragile like glass hence why it was easy to break them.

No problem.

[Blueprotoss]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...

halo was never advertised to show consequences. that analogy is completely weak. but its not like im expecting most of your opinions to be very strong in fact.

Its ironic to here this since Halo does focus on the consequences on the linear story of the Master Chief just like in a lot of video games focus on the main character.  Its also ironic that you're still deflecting facts with opinion.

The Spamming Troll wrote...

im suprised you didnt use "ad homanim" in this response.

I see you aren't a fan of logic like how your name implies that.

are you telling me i should be uploading my halo save file into halo4?

......i bet alot of your posts look exactly like this. i mean, what im saying couldnt be any simpler to understand, and easily agreed with. but your all like "your not using logic" and "opinons =/= fact." for real, what the heck are you talking about?!

im just gonna bash my head into my desk instead.

I see you're desperate on talking about save files.

Actually they don't but I see you don't want to stay on topic based on how wrong you are on this topic.

If thats the case then BSN might be peaceful soon based on how one "rageful" person finally moved on.

[SiriusXI]

Pathetic statemnt... the ending is an insult to our Intelligence. t is so full of plotholes, makes no sense and the worst part is that you as a player can fel that the ending "thinks" it is sooo deep and that the "twist" is sooo mazing, but it is not. The ending has as much depth as an empty piece of paper.

Us not liking the ending has NOTHING to do with wanting a "happy" ending (even if I personally would prefer it). We want an ending that makes sense!

[Blueprotoss]

SiriusXI wrote...

Pathetic statemnt... the ending is an insult to our Intelligence. t is so full of plotholes, makes no sense and the worst part is that you as a player can fel that the ending "thinks" it is sooo deep and that the "twist" is sooo mazing, but it is not. The ending has as much depth as an empty piece of paper.

Us not liking the ending has NOTHING to do with wanting a "happy" ending (even if I personally would prefer it). We want an ending that makes sense!

To be fair if you want to be constant when talking about plotholes then you would have to be talking about ME as a whole since ME3 doesn't contradict what was established in neither ME1 nor ME2.

Some people hated the ending because there was no true happy ending just like how some people were going to hate anything as the ending, which it sounds like you're in that group.

[ld1449]

Blueprotoss wrote...

SiriusXI wrote...

Pathetic statemnt... the ending is an insult to our Intelligence. t is so full of plotholes, makes no sense and the worst part is that you as a player can fel that the ending "thinks" it is sooo deep and that the "twist" is sooo mazing, but it is not. The ending has as much depth as an empty piece of paper.

Us not liking the ending has NOTHING to do with wanting a "happy" ending (even if I personally would prefer it). We want an ending that makes sense!

To be fair if you want to be constant when talking about plotholes then you would have to be talking about ME as a whole since ME3 doesn't contradict what was established in neither ME1 nor ME2.

Some people hated the ending because there was no true happy ending just like how some people were going to hate anything as the ending, which it sounds like you're in that group.

This coming from the guy who believes the conduit was not the mini mass relay at the end of the Ilos stage.

Yeah. You can hardly be held up as ME's lorekeeper.

[SiriusXI]

Blueprotoss wrote...

SiriusXI wrote...

Pathetic statemnt... the ending is an insult to our Intelligence. t is so full of plotholes, makes no sense and the worst part is that you as a player can fel that the ending "thinks" it is sooo deep and that the "twist" is sooo mazing, but it is not. The ending has as much depth as an empty piece of paper.

Us not liking the ending has NOTHING to do with wanting a "happy" ending (even if I personally would prefer it). We want an ending that makes sense!

To be fair if you want to be constant when talking about plotholes then you would have to be talking about ME as a whole since ME3 doesn't contradict what was established in neither ME1 nor ME2.

Some people hated the ending because there was no true happy ending just like how some people were going to hate anything as the ending, which it sounds like you're in that group.

 

Sovereign said pretty clearly that they want to "destroy" not PRESERVE organic life in ME1. That clearly contradicts what was established in ME1

[CronoDragoon]

SiriusXI wrote...

Sovereign said pretty clearly that they want to "destroy" not PRESERVE organic life in ME1. That clearly contradicts what was established in ME1

If that is your interpretation of Sovereign's speech, then it was contradicted in both ME2 and ME3. ME3 didn't suddenly change this plotline.

[DrGunjah]

Davik Kang wrote...

DrGunjah wrote...
snip

Ok ok, at least we're meeting each other halfway now.  For me the changes you're suggesting wouldn't add anything, but for you they would, so it's cool.  

The thread I mentioned I had actually linked before in one of my replies here, which is why I didn't link it that time.  Anyway:

Alternatives thread

About possibilities, no a few different ending sequences wouldn't reduce the game to 5 mins, but that's taking it too far.  It would reduce content elsewhere, and the more possibilities you want, the more you'd lose elsewhere.  On top of that, the ending needs to be written a certain way.  It needs to be fast pasced and exciting.  To write multiple versions of this would take a great deal of work, impact the rest of the story negatively, and be somewhat wasted in that each player would only experience one of these scenes per playthrough.

And the thing about other choices, it's not just a simple equation of : one choice equals one more option for ME3.  Every new choice doubles the number of alternate events they need to create for the future game, and that's only if they are two-way choices.  A three way choice would triple it, etc.  I went into this into a bit more detail into the other thread, and I can explain the maths behind it fully if you want, but even a handful of choices would create a massive amount of work for each possible eventuality in the sequel, if you want those choices to affect the plot and missions of the new game in a significant way.

Ok, I've read the other thread now. Though I think there's one big fallacy:

In ME3, you'd have four branches
Rachni dead+Terminator saved
Rachni dead+Terminator destroyed
Rachni live+Termiator saved
Rachni live+Terminator destroyed

That sounds to me like you're assuming that all choices are nested which is imho not true.
Not all choices are linked to each other. The fact that you saved the rachni queen will not have any impact on your decision to destroy or save the terminator. And both these choices won't have an impact on your decision if you kill ash during citadel II or not.
So throwing in a third choice in the example above like uhm let's say "shiala alive/dead" would not double the outcomes but just add two variations.

[SiriusXI]

CronoDragoon wrote...

SiriusXI wrote...

Sovereign said pretty clearly that they want to "destroy" not PRESERVE organic life in ME1. That clearly contradicts what was established in ME1

If that is your interpretation of Sovereign's speech, then it was contradicted in both ME2 and ME3. ME3 didn't suddenly change this plotline.

It is not my interpretation. It is fact. Sovereign says:
- "we are the end of everything"
-"reaper is the term protheans used to give voice to their destruction"


ME2 did not expicitely contradict this. ME2 introduced us to the fact that reapers do not just kill organics, they harvest them in order to procreate. But this seemed too simple, so I hoped ME3 would introduce us to somethig more elaborate. But noe the reapers' goals have chnged with ME3. Not destroying or harvesting but PRESERVING organics is the real goal.

That makes no sense...

[JPR1964]

No.

[CronoDragoon]

SiriusXI wrote...

It is not my interpretation. It is fact. Sovereign says:
- "we are the end of everything"
-"reaper is the term protheans used to give voice to their destruction"


ME2 did not expicitely contradict this. ME2 introduced us to the fact that reapers do not just kill organics, they harvest them in order to procreate. But this seemed too simple, so I hoped ME3 would introduce us to somethig more elaborate. But noe the reapers' goals have chnged with ME3. Not destroying or harvesting but PRESERVING organics is the real goal.

That makes no sense...

They either destroy them or they don't. Gotta pick one. ME2 and ME3 are absolutely compatible in their motivation for making Reapers.

[Knoll Argonar]

DrGunjah wrote...

Davik Kang wrote...

DrGunjah wrote...
...the same stuff...

Round and round in circles I see.

What.  Are.  The.  Alternatives.

A revised Priority:Earth would be good to start.
For example, the crucible should never reach the citadel with very low EMS. Hacket says, we must gather an armada that guards the crucible, but in fact the crucible gets attached no matter how puny your armada is. You pissed off everyone and have no friends behind you? Well, then so be it, the cycle continues.
Then during the mission let the fights be incredibly hard but let the war assets help you. Using the example of the current final battle there could be just more enemies but the krogan infantry comes to help you so you can finally activate the missile launcher. Or alternatively, if you sided with the salarians it could be possible that you have to distract enemy forces until an STG infiltration team activates the missile launcher.
Maybe even have different paths; you can't go the frontal attack route because you lack krogan or rachni infantry, so you go the infiltration route the STG already scouted out while the quarians or geth (or both) start a distraction maneuver.
There are endless possibilities, and there would be even more if they get rid off that beam **** (or at least make it optional)
It already doesn't make that much sense that the reapers open a backdoor and additionally it restricts the dynamics of the outcome.
If that's still running circles for you then please tell me what you actually want me to tell you.

In fact, that sounds pretty cool.

I loved ME3 (ending included) but certainly I was expecting London to be something more like the SM, with choices during the mission and consequences based on what you did during the rest of the game.

If I ever wanted to change something, It woud have been London. The rest was perfect for me.

[Blueprotoss]

ld1449 wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

SiriusXI wrote...

Pathetic statemnt... the ending is an insult to our Intelligence. t is so full of plotholes, makes no sense and the worst part is that you as a player can fel that the ending "thinks" it is sooo deep and that the "twist" is sooo mazing, but it is not. The ending has as much depth as an empty piece of paper.

Us not liking the ending has NOTHING to do with wanting a "happy" ending (even if I personally would prefer it). We want an ending that makes sense!

To be fair if you want to be constant when talking about plotholes then you would have to be talking about ME as a whole since ME3 doesn't contradict what was established in neither ME1 nor ME2.

Some people hated the ending because there was no true happy ending just like how some people were going to hate anything as the ending, which it sounds like you're in that group.

This coming from the guy who believes the conduit was not the mini mass relay at the end of the Ilos stage.

Yeah. You can hardly be held up as ME's lorekeeper.

Haters gonna hate is all that you're proving even when you're still focusing on ad hominems.