1258 réponses à ce sujet

[Sundance31us]

KiwiQuiche wrote...

The fact Shepard is bleeding, hobbles slowly and couldn't even stand up to touch the control panel after Anderson dies is a pretty good indication they are fairly extreme injuries.

o Ventus wrote...

Shepard was nearly directly hit by a cannon that fires molten metal (people need to stop saying it's a laser), had his armor melted by said cannon (while stil wearing the armor), and was shot by Marauder Shields.

We have:

-Possible fragmentation
-3rd degree burns from the melted armor and Harbinger's gun
-A gunshot wound in the shoulder
-Walking into an explosion (assuming the Destroy ending is chosen; disregard if not applicable)

Realistically speaking, he would be more dead than he was at the beginning of ME2.

I didn't say he wasn’t injured or that his injuries weren't extreme: what I said was, "The exact nature of Shepard's wounds are a matter of interpretation."

IMO Shepard's cybernetic implants were the only reason he/she didn't die in a pool of blood by the beam in London. We don’t know how effectively those implants can heal Shepard, but we have seen them pull him/her back from the brink before (Omega poisoning ME2).

You forgot to mention Shepard's labored breathing.

Modifié par Sundance31us, 20 janvier 2013 - 02:10 .

[o Ventus]

Faust1979 wrote...

Have video gamers become so uninmaginative they can't think of things on their own?

I lose respect for people who say this.

Because I wish to know what happened doesn't make me any less imaginative than anyone else. If I wanted to headcanon something, I'll headcanon it. As it turns out, I want to know what happens to Shepard, only I'm not allowed to because the breath scene is so vague (on top of defeating all sense of how the human body would react to the same level of trauma Shepard endured).

If I'm being told a story, I shouldn't be forced to make my own story up (if I wanted to do that, I would write my own story). That's a cop-out of the highest degree because the storytellers either couldn't be bothered to conclude their own story, or because they ran out of ideas. When I'm laying down my own money for a story, it becomes even worse.

Not-so-subtly condescending comments like yours don't make it any better.

[fiendishchicken]

It's the end of a trilogy. I think they should've had the option for the triumphant ending, the bittersweet ending, the bad ending, etc.

Or, as I believe, based on a players decisions and choices through the last trilogy, assign an ending. If you have certain assets that are important, those bolster you to get the happy Reapers destroyed ending.

Seriously, ME is so disjointed sometimes

[o Ventus]

Sundance31us wrote...

I didn't say he wasn’t injured or that his injuries weren't extreme: what I said was, "The exact nature of Shepard's wounds are a matter of interpretation."

IMO Shepard's cybernetic implants were the only reason he/she didn't die in a pool of blood by the beam in London. We don’t know how effectively those implants can heal Shepard, but we have seen them pull him/her back from the brink before (Omega poisoning ME2).

You forgot to mention Shepard's labored breathing.

Being poisoned on Omega is quite a different matter than that which I described. 

I didn't mention Shepard's breathing (even though it's a gasp, not continuous breathing) at the end because it's both irrelevant as well as being one of the least plausible things inflicted upon the human body. 

Also, we aren't even sure whether or not Shepard's implants are capable of repairing tissue at all (in ME2 and 3, it's his armor applying small amounts of medi-gel into his wounds).

Modifié par o Ventus, 20 janvier 2013 - 02:16 .

[Sundance31us]

fiendishchicken wrote...

WWII had a decent ending as well as I recall.

Not for everyone. Getting into specifics would probably violate forum rules.

[vallore]

MikeDraws567 wrote...

Mass Effect doesn't have a happy ending because it's a war story. War stories in general are tragedies where you witness horrible things. It gives gravity to the choices you make. Do you save everybody, change the galaxy and destroy yourself? Do you make everyone live by controlling the threat against everybody? Or do you destroy the threat and risk the cycle happening yet again?

Each of these choices carries the weight of responsibility of changing how everyone will live their lives. This is a choice that many would not want understandably and I think it's the reason why so many gamers didn't like the choices you had to make at the end.

Commander Shepard is the ultimate hero. Not one from fairy tales, but one that has to make terrible choices to save lives. So while you COULD have a happy ending, it would go against what was built up this whole time.

But that's my opinion.

I have to desagree.

Plenty of war stories end with the main character surviving. Returning home after going through the crucible of war  is even a common ending for many war movies.

Further, Shepard death achieves nothing storywise: it is out of the player’s control; it doesn’t changes anything of the endings proper and it happen in all cases, regardless, (minus two seconds of ambiguity).

Shepard does not die to save the galaxy, she saves the galaxy and dies, (a very important distinction), clearly just to add a bit more bitter to the endings…. She doesn’t even save the galaxy on her own terms, but in those her enemy allows her to. Not heroic in any way, in my opinion.

[Sundance31us]

o Ventus wrote...

I didn't mention Shepard's breathing (even though it's a gasp, not continuous breathing) at the end because it's both irrelevant as well as being one of the least plausible things inflicted upon the human body. 

I wasn't referring to that breath. If you listen to Meer's reading he's trying to mimic difficulty breathing as he delivers the lines. I have no idea if Hale does this during her reading.

[Sundance31us]

o Ventus wrote...

Also, we aren't even sure whether or not Shepard's implants are capable of repairing tissue at all (in ME2 and 3, it's his armor applying small amounts of medi-gel into his wounds).

Lazarus Project :

"...it involved attaching cybernetic implants to reconstruct the Commander's skeleton, reconstruction of the skin, and fluids to restart the blood flow and internal organs."

[KiwiQuiche]

o Ventus wrote...

Faust1979 wrote...

Have video gamers become so uninmaginative they can't think of things on their own?

I lose respect for people who say this.

Because I wish to know what happened doesn't make me any less imaginative than anyone else. If I wanted to headcanon something, I'll headcanon it. As it turns out, I want to know what happens to Shepard, only I'm not allowed to because the breath scene is so vague (on top of defeating all sense of how the human body would react to the same level of trauma Shepard endured).

If I'm being told a story, I shouldn't be forced to make my own story up (if I wanted to do that, I would write my own story). That's a cop-out of the highest degree because the storytellers either couldn't be bothered to conclude their own story, or because they ran out of ideas. When I'm laying down my own money for a story, it becomes even worse.

Not-so-subtly condescending comments like yours don't make it any better.

+1

[movieguyabw]

NeroonWilliams wrote...

movieguyabw wrote...

NeroonWilliams wrote...

The death of Shepard was always planned. There was foreshadowing all the way back to ME1 with Shaira. And if you didn't get the message that kept coming at you all throughout ME3, you really weren't paying attention (it comes during Palaven, after Tuchanka, during Thane's death, after Thessia, every time you talk to Garrus on the Normandy, all of the dream sequences, when Liara introduces the time capsule, and a majority of the final talks with your squadmates during Priority:Earth). Shepard was always meant to be a sacrificial hero, because some victories are meant to be Pyrrhic, no matter how well you prepare.

Uhm,  sorry have to ask, what are you talking about with Shaira?  I'm assuming you mean the consort, right?  (I tend to get her confused with the Asari on Feros)

The consort told me I was a survivor and that I'd always be a survivor.  Don't know if she tells you something completely different with a Ruthless character, or a War Hero, but Sole Survivor gives the impression everything's going to turn out well in the end - at least as far as I recall.


As for the message, again, sorry, must not have been paying attention because I didn't notice anything on Palaven, Tuchanka, Thessia, when I talked to Garrus, or the talks with my squaddies on Priority Earth that would suggest Shep would die.

Sure, there's the whole "bar in heaven" exchange with Garrus, but you can take that conversation in a different direction and basically tell Garrus that no one will die today.  Same with all the other Squad dialogues.


Actually, the one place I noticed heavy foreshadowing to Shep's death was when you infiltrate the Geth ship and save Legion.  There are a lot of very close calls with Shep in that mission to the point where it feels like the game is sitting there saying "look at this.  You won't always be this lucky."


But even with that, there's no reason that Shep *needed* to be a martyr.

Maybe I am just a pessimist, but I went into ME3 expecting Shepard to sacrifice him/herself.

Shaira (Yes, the Consort.  The green Asari is named Shiala) tells you that all these things have shaped who you are but they are not who you will become.  This is a common literary precursor to a Messiannic figure

It is entirely possible that I read more into those situations than others.  At the very least, Garrus is not altogether optomistic about our chances every time you talk to him; he's a realist.

But, if you didn't get the message from the final dream sequence (when Shepard burns with the kid), you REALLY are not paying attention to the sledgehammer the writers are using to say that Shepard's days are numbered.

Well, I'm quite a few pages behind in this thread, it looks like       Anyway...


Shaira's comment about all these events shaping you, but not defining who you'll become, are indeed indicative of a "savior" sort of characer - but that does not mean a martyr.  It's essentially the same as Obi-wan telling Luke he has "taken (his) first step into a larger world."  It's a call to adventure, an affirmation that the future will hold many trials for our hero, and that in the end (as is the case in all monomyths) the hero will return from their adventure changed in some way.

As for the whole looming sense of "we're not going to make it" pervading the game - I suggest taking a look at any heroes journey.  Rewatch Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, or anything really.  There's always the sense that the heroes won't make it - that their opposition is insurmountable, and that they'll lose everything.  This is rarely the case, however.  Normally one (maybe two) important characters will be killed off, but usually the majority of the main characters make it out alive - and the protagonist will almost *always* survive.

The story would be pointless if the hero thought everything was going to be a walk in the park.  And on the other side of the coin, death of protagonists are usually saved as a form of redemption for the character; only realy used when the character has done something horrible and the only way to redeem them to the audience is for them to die.  This sort of thing is common in Westerns, and in stories where the protagonist is pretty dispicable.  It's not common in heroic monomyth-styled trilogies, however.  In fact, only trilogy that comes to mind where a protagonist dies martyr-styled would be the Matrix.   Funny, since I remember a lot of people not really liking the ending of Matrix: Revolutions, either.


Now, for the dreams - I got that Shepard didn't think he/she would make it, or at the very least, that they were fighting against something so powerful and they had no idea if they could save everyone or not.  I never saw this is a definitive "Shepard will not survive the game!"  message, as it's just a dream.  It's a glimpse into Shepard's psyche - a way of externalizing their internal conflict brought upon by their inability to save everyone.  In all honesty, I feel something like this would only affect a Paragon character - I still don't see why a Renegade would care so much about the characters they didn't save, but I digress.

My point is, Shepard's not psychic.  This was not a prophecy of what's to come, but a way to convey Shepard's feelings about the situation they were in, without outright stating it.  At least, this is how I always viewed the scenes.

And even if these were presented in a way that would appear prophetic, I'm sure most people would still reject the notion that Shepard had to die.  Shepard has always been up against impossible odds; from Saren, to the Suicide Mission, to uniting the galaxy, to stopping the Reapers.  The entire trilogy was about saying "F- you!" to the odds.  How does it suddenly become implausible that he/she could defeat the Reapers and survive?  Especially given the fact that they live in a fictional, technological wonderland where all-purpose healing gel is a thing, and people can make mini-black holes with a thought.   Why the insistance that Shepard *should have* died in every circumstance, no-questions-asked?  Just a curiosity I've had for a while. 

[dreamgazer]

KiwiQuiche wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Faust1979 wrote...

Have video gamers become so uninmaginative they can't think of things on their own?

I lose respect for people who say this.

Because I wish to know what happened doesn't make me any less imaginative than anyone else. If I wanted to headcanon something, I'll headcanon it. As it turns out, I want to know what happens to Shepard, only I'm not allowed to because the breath scene is so vague (on top of defeating all sense of how the human body would react to the same level of trauma Shepard endured).

If I'm being told a story, I shouldn't be forced to make my own story up (if I wanted to do that, I would write my own story). That's a cop-out of the highest degree because the storytellers either couldn't be bothered to conclude their own story, or because they ran out of ideas. When I'm laying down my own money for a story, it becomes even worse.

Not-so-subtly condescending comments like yours don't make it any better.

+1

The disparity between sides is unfortunate, because I empathize with both.

I feel interpretation (and a little headcanon) are essential at this juncture; however, I also agree that players needed better, more clearly realized anchors with which to base their viewpoints.

[Reorte]

vallore wrote...

Shepard does not die to save the galaxy, she saves the galaxy and dies, (a very important distinction), clearly just to add a bit more bitter to the endings…. She doesn’t even save the galaxy on her own terms, but in those her enemy allows her to. Not heroic in any way, in my opinion.

Never thought of it in that way but it's a very good point.

[TheRealJayDee]

KiwiQuiche wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Faust1979 wrote...

Have video gamers become so uninmaginative they can't think of things on their own?

I lose respect for people who say this.

Because I wish to know what happened doesn't make me any less imaginative than anyone else. If I wanted to headcanon something, I'll headcanon it. As it turns out, I want to know what happens to Shepard, only I'm not allowed to because the breath scene is so vague (on top of defeating all sense of how the human body would react to the same level of trauma Shepard endured).

If I'm being told a story, I shouldn't be forced to make my own story up (if I wanted to do that, I would write my own story). That's a cop-out of the highest degree because the storytellers either couldn't be bothered to conclude their own story, or because they ran out of ideas. When I'm laying down my own money for a story, it becomes even worse.

Not-so-subtly condescending comments like yours don't make it any better.

+1

Yup, totally agreed.

I refrained from commenting on this "unimaginative gamers" quote myself, because my response would probably not have been as calm as yours. By now I've just heard too many... how to put this without using unfriendly words... well, let's say I've heard too many comments about how people who criticize the endings and the missing closure lack imagination and want/need everything spoon-fed to them. It's really obnoxious and tiring...

[AlanC9]

o Ventus wrote...
We have:

-Possible fragmentation 
-3rd degree burns from the melted armor and Harbinger's gun
-A gunshot wound in the shoulder
-Walking into an explosion (assuming the Destroy ending is chosen; disregard if not applicable)

Realistically speaking, he would be more dead than he was at the beginning of ME2.

Shouldn't worry about the non-Destroy endings. We see Shepard disintegrated in Synthesis, and the Sheplyst's speech in Control doesn't leave much room for thinking there's another functioning Shepard around.

But what does "realistically" have to do with anything?

[Jadebaby]

o Ventus wrote...
We have:

-Possible fragmentation 
-3rd degree burns from the melted armor and Harbinger's gun
-A gunshot wound in the shoulder
-Walking into an explosion (assuming the Destroy ending is chosen; disregard if not applicable)

Realistically speaking, he would be more dead than he was at the beginning of ME2.

and after Destroy those 3rd degree burns now cover 100% of their body.

Dead.

[Ultranovae]

Gamers need to read more. Thousand of stories have been written with vague ambiguous events. Hell, ever read the book foxfire, the last you see of that group doesn't even make physical sense. I really lose respect for people who need to be spoon fed evey detail of a narrative, you're simply missing the point If what is being said.
Take the breathe scene as a perfect example. It really doesn't matter how you got there. I like to think that the flames from the tube only caused some superficial burns. From the there, the starchild as a last act decides to return Shepard by returning him to earth through the beam, which is why we find Shepard back in London.
How he survived is not important. What's important is the reason for why he survived.
Shepard, by sacrificing the geth and EDI is able to keep his/her life. Not a fair trade? Of course not, this is a war. A war leaves scars one does not easily come back from. In a war the cost of your preference may be horrendously high, and you may have to live with it or the rest of your life.
What's important is the interpretation of the vague event.

[Necrotron]

As far as I can tell, the theme of the ending seems to be 'crap happens that is outside of your control and sometimes the only thing you can do is accept a dramatic compromise and drop the atomic bomb to stop a war'.

At least, that's the feeling I get out of it. There isn't any sense of victory to be had from the ending, only the sense of incredible sadness one has from doing something terrible for the greater good. It's very dramatically different from any theme ever presented before in Mass Effect.

As for why we can't have a happy ending? Well, does it matter? That's not how they wrote the story, so our feedback is really pretty irreleveant. It's written, it's done. It's futile. No amount of goodwill, constructive and comprehensive feedback, donations to charity, etc. etc. will ever change it. It's their story.

I think what happened is they wanted to put in some of the classic Bioware 'non ideal' 'morally grey' choices at the end that make you think, but they faltered in the manner in which they created the catalyst character and their assumption in how players would interpret this character. I think they thought players would see him solely as a fascilitator for their final decision, a machine solely bent on solving a problem. What they neglected to consider well enough was how irrational all of the arguements the catalyst makes (they're based upon logical fallacies and absolutes that cannot possibly be true) and how players would react when being asked to commit suicide based solely upon the trust of the Reaper's word. But that's all just guesses on my part.

[Necrotron]

Ultranovae wrote...

Gamers need to read more.
What's important is the interpretation of the vague event.

The problem was the interpretation that many people got from that vague event is 'you lose'.  Which goes hand in hand with why so many people do not like the ending.

Modifié par Bathaius, 20 janvier 2013 - 05:16 .

[dreamgazer]

Ultranovae wrote...

Gamers need to read more.

Ugh. That's really not a factor here.

Although, yeah, everyone should strive to read more.

[AB Souldier]

fiendishchicken wrote...

It's the end of a trilogy. I think they should've had the option for the triumphant ending, the bittersweet ending, the bad ending, etc.

Or, as I believe, based on a players decisions and choices through the last trilogy, assign an ending. If you have certain assets that are important, those bolster you to get the happy Reapers destroyed ending.

Seriously, ME is so disjointed sometimes

I agree with you. The end of a trilogy and BW goes for the bittersweet ending just feels like a slap in the face to me.

[Motherlander]

MikeDraws567 wrote...

Mass Effect doesn't have a happy ending because it's a war story. War stories in general are tragedies where you witness horrible things. It gives gravity to the choices you make. Do you save everybody, change the galaxy and destroy yourself? Do you make everyone live by controlling the threat against everybody? Or do you destroy the threat and risk the cycle happening yet again?

But that's my opinion.

I don't really agree with your conclusion. 

There are plenty of war stories where the good guys win and the protagonist survives. Especially WW2 movies made in the 1980s and before.

Where the war takes place in the sci-fi genre, even more so. In original Star Wars trilogy, the good guys win and all the protagonists survive. In the original Battlestar Galactica movies, the good guys escape and the protagonists live.

In Wing Commander, the enemy is defeated and the protagonist survives. So there are plenty of examples of happy endings in sci-fi war stories.

[78stonewobble]

vallore wrote...
Shepard does not die to save the galaxy, she saves the galaxy and dies, (a very important distinction), clearly just to add a bit more bitter to the endings…. She doesn’t even save the galaxy on her own terms, but in those her enemy allows her to. Not heroic in any way, in my opinion.

Arf that is one of the points I was trying to make. Very nicely put there.

The ending we have is not a good (in the sense of quality) bittersweet ending because of this.

Had it been a good bittersweet ending you would have felt happy about saving the galaxy and sad about the loss of shephard (and others). Such an ending of quality would have let you experience both emotions (rather than little emotion) but ALSO made a very good point in making the player believe it was the only way, and in a way that made it wholly obvious and natural.

[Motherlander]

Bathaius wrote...

As far as I can tell, the theme of the ending seems to be 'crap happens that is outside of your control and sometimes the only thing you can do is accept a dramatic compromise and drop the atomic bomb to stop a war'.

At least, that's the feeling I get out of it. There isn't any sense of victory to be had from the ending, only the sense of incredible sadness one has from doing something terrible for the greater good. It's very dramatically different from any theme ever presented before in Mass Effect.

As for why we can't have a happy ending? Well, does it matter? That's not how they wrote the story, so our feedback is really pretty irreleveant. It's written, it's done. It's futile. No amount of goodwill, constructive and comprehensive feedback, donations to charity, etc. etc. will ever change it. It's their story.

I think what happened is they wanted to put in some of the classic Bioware 'non ideal' 'morally grey' choices at the end that make you think, but they faltered in the manner in which they created the catalyst character and their assumption in how players would interpret this character. I think they thought players would see him solely as a fascilitator for their final decision, a machine solely bent on solving a problem. What they neglected to consider well enough was how irrational all of the arguements the catalyst makes (they're based upon logical fallacies and absolutes that cannot possibly be true) and how players would react when being asked to commit suicide based solely upon the trust of the Reaper's word. But that's all just guesses on my part.

Brilliant post. I think you are right in most of your deductions.

[Motherlander]

vallore wrote...

Further, Shepard death achieves nothing storywise: it is out of the player’s control; it doesn’t changes anything of the endings proper and it happen in all cases, regardless, (minus two seconds of ambiguity).

Shepard does not die to save the galaxy, she saves the galaxy and dies, (a very important distinction), clearly just to add a bit more bitter to the endings…. She doesn’t even save the galaxy on her own terms, but in those her enemy allows her to. Not heroic in any way, in my opinion.

Great comment. I agree with this completely. I especially like the part where you say that Shep saves the galaxy and dies rather than dying to save the galaxy.

This is why people dislike the ending in my view.

A happy ending is not necessarily Shep surviving. It is about giving her death context and meaning. both on a galactic and personal level. It can be argued that ME3 more or less succeeds with the first (galactical) part, but fails badly on the second (personal) part.

We wanted to see Shep win by an act of defiance like there was at the end of ME1 and ME2. There was none of that in ME3. But there was no defiance as Shep just meekly accepted options given by the Catalyst.

If Shep dies, we wanted to feel it was a choice that Shep makes, even if the the sacrifice was inevitable. There was no sense of that.

And finally, we want to feel the sacrifice Shep makes on a personal level. This is completely missing. There is no personal communication just before the moment of sacrifice.. There are the farewell scenes in London, but these are at least 2 hours in game time (which could be days in real time) between the farewell scenes, so they have no impact on the final scene.

I think the lack of direct personal contact with a chosen crew member was the the biggest failing in the ME3 ending.

An ending like in Armageddon where Shep could have spoken with one chosen crew member could have redeemed the ending for some of us, even with its faults. It would have allowed us to define who that final Shep really was and give a nod to our favourite or most significant crew member in that particular playthrough.

Because that is all we really wanted. At the end we wanted to be able to give Shep in each playthrough a distinct personality and the end should have allowed us to express and see that personality at the moment of climax. That would have made many of us happy.

But unfortunately, BW dud not understand this. They did not understand their own creation, their own hero and many of their own fans.

It is so sad.

Modifié par Motherlander, 20 janvier 2013 - 09:26 .

[78stonewobble]

Note: I haven't said I, personally, needed a happy ending to the game. Rather I wanted a good ending.

However since we do have a supposed choice of 3 endings and with added variations based on what you did through out the game it does seem a bit wasted that all 3 endings and, what was it, 25 permutations on them should all be bittersweet.



Personally I would have preferred something like the following:

Win1(rare and hard): Shepard does everything right. Manages to unite the galaxy, build and use the win device and deafeats the reapers and walks away from it even though the cost was high.

It's the 0.000001 % chance of winning against the reapers taken to the 0.00000001 chance of winning against reapers and surviving. It's not a stretch when you add magical win devices anyway.

Win2(normal win): Shepard did all he could but it wasn't enough. There just wasn't enough time to build the win device. The reapers were just too powerfull. He had to sacrifice the galaxy's worlds, his friends, himself but in the end he did win. He made it possible for others to survive and win.

The realistic/logical scenario without adding a magical win device. Instead it has liberal use of sacrifice during the ending. A long defeat scenario. You loose everything but makes sure others win. Basically you make sure you had down the crucible information in a way that helps the ones in the next cycle to defeat the reapers. Liara's timecapsule (which I liked) but done right.

Loose: The same as win2 but without even getting the information to the next cycle. Basically guaranteeing the cycle will continiue for many hundreds of thousands of years if not millions.

Then you add paragon / renegade spice them up.

Win1 paragon: Shepard retires and lets the existing species continue their unique ways but inspired by him.
Win1 renegade: Shepard doesn't retire and takes a forcefull role in shaping the galaxy to his ideas (could be either benevolent or malevolent dictator like).

Win2 paragon: Shepard manages to save a few people. Friends and family. In stasis chambers or hiding fleets. They help the next cycle win.
Win2 renegade: Shepard sacrifices some others. Friends and family? To survive himself and helps the next cycle win.



I wouldn't say theese are indicative of me wanting only a happy end or being in anyway unrealistic. I'd even say it was even more realistic and engaging than what we got.

There's really sad and empty. Theres a really bittersweet and theres really happy over a broad spectrum of feelings. Rather than in a narrowband around indifferential.

It doesn't even need the "logic" of the star child to explain the reapers. In a sense it's just a continuation of what we knew about the reapers fom the end of me2 coming to their logical conclusion without introducing new stuff.

PS: I also don't demand or expect bioware to fix/repair the endings (if they even need to be fix'ed/repaired depending on your point of view). They allready put out the dlc which did improve the the ending we have.

It's hindsight now of, what I think, would have made for a better ending if it had been in the game from the start or release.

And also a way of me to let other people know (there could be a bioware employee lurking. Who knows) what I think makes a good ending so in future bioware game endings would be more to my taste.

Perhaps even better in the oppinions of other people than me.

Modifié par 78stonewobble, 20 janvier 2013 - 09:35 .