482 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

Honestly, I don't mind the ending so much, in part because I don't really see the Catalyst's concerns as relevant. The whole point is really, to me, more about Shepard and what she's willing to sacrifice; the Catalyst and its motivations are just window dressing. Which, to be sure, isn't exactly the best of ways the trilogy could have ended, but I can make it work reasonably well in my mind.

[Iakus]

Xilizhra wrote...

Honestly, I don't mind the ending so much, in part because I don't really see the Catalyst's concerns as relevant. The whole point is really, to me, more about Shepard and what she's willing to sacrifice; the Catalyst and its motivations are just window dressing. Which, to be sure, isn't exactly the best of ways the trilogy could have ended, but I can make it work reasonably well in my mind.

Sadly, the price is too darn high to derive any enjoyment from it:

1) Slaughter your own allies.  To feed EDI and the geth to the bear just the Council tried to do to Earth.

2) Negotiate a surrender where the Reapers become the galaxy's nannies in exchange for not murdering us all

3) Tell everyone in the galaxy they're no longer allowed to be as they are, to develop along their own paths.  All must conform to the Green Synthesis.

4) Make a principled stand, where the game just laughs at you as everyone dies anyway.

What were the writers on when they thought this was a good idea?  And can I have some?

Edit:  and this is aside from railroading Shepard's death in virtually every outcome.  Talk about insult to injury!

Modifié par iakus, 13 août 2013 - 03:43 .

[3DandBeyond]

iakus wrote...

Indeed. The Catalyst being synthetic is all but irrelevant to the issue.

I mean, imagine if there was no Ai guiding the Reapers, but it was Urdnot Wreav pulling the strings

Or Balak

Or Daro'Xen

Or even David Archer.

The Reapers would be just as great a threat to organic life. More, perhaps, since these are all organics we are not likely to trust with that kind of power.

THAT is the greatest threat to life: irresponsible use of power. That's a failing we have seen in organics and synthetics both. And no, I don't think turning everyone into green-eyed hybrids would help with that either.

Yes exactly.  And the inability to respect others as having valid lives.  This is key to me.  Imagine how different the geth/quarian thing would have been had the quarians not been fearful of what they'd created and how they'd be judged by others in the galaxy.  Consider what might have happened had they instead existed in a reality where they could go and say, "we made a mistake, but the geth are no alive and autonomous and we need to respect that and them."  It's all about being able to adapt and recognize that. 

If you create life, at some point that life might start thinking for itself and want to self-determine.  Gee, what does that sound like?  Any parent knows what this means.  Your child is not you, your child is a separate person and deserving of a certain amount of respect, or just common decency.  The same goes for the geth or whatever life is out there.   It's why TIM's attitude was so wrong.  He and many like him tended to view others as the means to an end with no respect for them as living beings with hearts and minds of their own.

In effect, the advancement of other races was the same thing.  Those who advanced them were like parents, but they didn't respect that life they'd created.  They wanted to control it and when they couldn't, they wanted it destroyed.  But the answer wasn't to have babies with it (unless you're asari).  It was to realize that all life matters.  The Krogan had certain rights.  The Rachni too.  And so did the geth.

You might go from here to thinking then that means that the reapers' lives matter too.  And that's fine, but there is no choice in the game for trying to work hand in hand with the reapers.  There's destroying them, having babies with them, controlling them, or being destroyed by them.  There's no bartered peace to be achieved and no considerate co-existence that can be achieved.  That's far different from the Krogan, Rachni, and geth who merely want to live.  The reapers aren't fighting for their survival.  They're killing for the stupidest of reasons.  And they've indicated they aren't interested in actually discussing the issue.  The kid isn't about brokering a peace-he's about fixing some age old problem that didn't ever make sense.

[3DandBeyond]

iakus wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Honestly, I don't mind the ending so much, in part because I don't really see the Catalyst's concerns as relevant. The whole point is really, to me, more about Shepard and what she's willing to sacrifice; the Catalyst and its motivations are just window dressing. Which, to be sure, isn't exactly the best of ways the trilogy could have ended, but I can make it work reasonably well in my mind.

Sadly, the price is too darn high to derive any enjoyment from it:

1) Slaughter your own allies.  To feed EDI and the geth to the bear just the Council tried to do to Earth.

2) Negotiate a surrender where the Reapers become the galaxy's nannies in exchange for not murdering us all

3) Tell everyone in the galaxy they're no longer allowed to be as they are, to develop along their own paths.  All must conform to the Green Synthesis.

4) Make a principled stand, where the game just laughs at you as everyone dies anyway.

What were the writers on when they thought this was a good idea?  And can I have some?

Edit:  and this is aside from railroading Shepard's death in virtually every outcome.  Talk about insult to injury!

You don't want whatever they were taking.  If it forces you into the same state of depression whoever wrote this was in, you don't want to go there.  Hope is a word they abandoned along with any notion of self-determination, freedom, love, true sacrifice, and doing things for the greater good.  The game promised so much of this and devolved into depression and dementia.

[AlanC9]

3DandBeyond wrote...
The thing is neither organics nor synthetics have ever fully wanted to destroy everyone, nor have they unintentionally even come close, no matter how rat nasty they are or how abused.  We see example after example of people deciding or having the ability to decide to NOT kill.  But in the end we're meant to think some computer with an innocent face and a stupid computer at that is somehow not winning by getting Shepard to do one of 3 things that solve a problem that we've seen solved by better methods.  Banana is apple.

How do Destroy and Control solve his problem, again? The hypothetical destructive synthetics don't exist yet, so Destroy can't stop them at the moment. (Unless the argument is that using Destroy now will somehow make people more willing to use it in the future than they otherwise would have been?) And Control is wholly dependent on Shepard's personality; from the Catalyst's perspective the effects will be pretty much random.

I'm also not clear why the Catalyst thinking that he's won should matter to anyone. Isn't Shepard trying for the most positive outcome for himself, rather than the most negative outcome for the Catalyst?

Modifié par AlanC9, 13 août 2013 - 03:47 .

[Xilizhra]

iakus wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Honestly, I don't mind the ending so much, in part because I don't really see the Catalyst's concerns as relevant. The whole point is really, to me, more about Shepard and what she's willing to sacrifice; the Catalyst and its motivations are just window dressing. Which, to be sure, isn't exactly the best of ways the trilogy could have ended, but I can make it work reasonably well in my mind.

Sadly, the price is too darn high to derive any enjoyment from it:

1) Slaughter your own allies.  To feed EDI and the geth to the bear just the Council tried to do to Earth.

2) Negotiate a surrender where the Reapers become the galaxy's nannies in exchange for not murdering us all

3) Tell everyone in the galaxy they're no longer allowed to be as they are, to develop along their own paths.  All must conform to the Green Synthesis.

4) Make a principled stand, where the game just laughs at you as everyone dies anyway.

What were the writers on when they thought this was a good idea?  And can I have some?

Edit:  and this is aside from railroading Shepard's death in virtually every outcome.  Talk about insult to injury!

Regrettable for you. I'm fine with option 2, as it takes down the enemy behind all of this and lets me use the Reapers as a force for good. Option 3 would be fine as well, but it's just not presented well enough for me to justify RPing it.

[Iakus]

3DandBeyond wrote...

iakus wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Honestly, I don't mind the ending so much, in part because I don't really see the Catalyst's concerns as relevant. The whole point is really, to me, more about Shepard and what she's willing to sacrifice; the Catalyst and its motivations are just window dressing. Which, to be sure, isn't exactly the best of ways the trilogy could have ended, but I can make it work reasonably well in my mind.

Sadly, the price is too darn high to derive any enjoyment from it:

1) Slaughter your own allies.  To feed EDI and the geth to the bear just the Council tried to do to Earth.

2) Negotiate a surrender where the Reapers become the galaxy's nannies in exchange for not murdering us all

3) Tell everyone in the galaxy they're no longer allowed to be as they are, to develop along their own paths.  All must conform to the Green Synthesis.

4) Make a principled stand, where the game just laughs at you as everyone dies anyway.

What were the writers on when they thought this was a good idea?  And can I have some?

Edit:  and this is aside from railroading Shepard's death in virtually every outcome.  Talk about insult to injury!

You don't want whatever they were taking.  If it forces you into the same state of depression whoever wrote this was in, you don't want to go there.  Hope is a word they abandoned along with any notion of self-determination, freedom, love, true sacrifice, and doing things for the greater good.  The game promised so much of this and devolved into depression and dementia.

I'm thinking that since they thought these were good endings, they must have been on soething that induces a powerful sense of suphoria.  Strong enough so even the endings look good.

But you're right.  Something that powerful would probably really screw up one's brain chemistry

[3DandBeyond]

AlanC9 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...
The thing is neither organics nor synthetics have ever fully wanted to destroy everyone, nor have they unintentionally even come close, no matter how rat nasty they are or how abused.  We see example after example of people deciding or having the ability to decide to NOT kill.  But in the end we're meant to think some computer with an innocent face and a stupid computer at that is somehow not winning by getting Shepard to do one of 3 things that solve a problem that we've seen solved by better methods.  Banana is apple.

How do Destroy and Control solve his problem, again? The hypothetical destructive synthetics don't exist yet, so Destroy can't stop them at the moment. (Unless the argument is that using Destroy now will somehow make people more willing to use it in the future than they otherwise would have been?) And Control is wholly dependent on Shepard's personality; from the Catalyst's perspective the effects will be pretty much random.

I'm also not clear why the Catalyst thinking that he's won should matter to anyone. Isn't Shepard trying for the most positive outcome for himself, rather than the most negative outcome for the Catalyst?

Really?  You ask that again when it's been stated before.  None of the kid's solutions have ever been permanent-neither would synthesis be permanent.  All 3 choices are given by him as solutions-he says this.  He doesn't get angry at any of Shepard's decisions except refuse.  He may not like them as well as synthesis but they do "solve" things for now.

First you have to understand that something that is inevitable can never be stopped.  That is the first indication that anything done will always be temporary.  Synthesis may stop the conflict for now, but it only stops one form of the conflict because it changes one of the variables so it no longer exists.  Synthetics still exist but organics do not.  So synthetics vs organics no longer exists, for now.  However, scientists even now are on the verge of creating organic life in the lab from created amino acids from the same type of primordial stew from which life is said to have originated.  That means that organic life could be created one day even post-synthesis.  And that sets up the possibility for organics again to create killer synthetics.  Other types of conflict will certainly exist before that time, but that's a different matter.  Synthesis does not stop the synthetic vs organic conflict-it delays it.

Control achieves a temporary solution in that it creates a sort of better status quo-I'd say that "better" is imagined because there's no proof that Shepard as Catalyst will be any different from the kid-Shepard will still exist within the same infrastructure as the kid and all.  But let's say it's better.  It still leaves the reapers alive.  It creates a set of circumstances that will still allow conflict to exist but people under the control of reapers controlled by the Shepard Catalyst will be perhaps slower and less able to create synthetics.  They still could and synthetics do still exist, but remember the reapers are there to enforce the peace.  Conflict will happen but slowly under the reapers caretaking (ugh).

Destroy achieves a temporary solution because synthetics that might kill organics are removed for now.  Or greatly damaged.  And galactic society is stunted in the ability to create more synthetics because they have other things to do first other than to create autonomous synthetics.  They have to repair all damaged tech and learn how to do that.  That means ships, relays, the citadel, upgrades, implants, medical facilities, equipment, and so on.  And they will have to avoid other conflicts along the way.  The least of their worries for years to come might be sentient killer synthetics.

All of this pre-supposes that the kid is right (which I don't believe) and that organics will create synthetics that will rebel and kill all organic life inevitabley), but we still come back to that nothing that is inevitable can be avoided.  All choices end up back in the same place-conflict will return.  So anything that slows that down, keeps it from happening for the time being, is a solution.

And part of this is about the Catalyst winning in that that's what's so wrong with the story at the end.  A win for him does not exactly coincide with a win that fit the story, the galaxy's needs, the main goal, nor anything that resonates as rational.  That's always been the problem.  He needs to win something that was never important to this story.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 13 août 2013 - 04:09 .

[Xilizhra]

I think a way to at least help with this is if you don't consider the Catalyst any more important than any other antagonist, or at least don't consider its viewpoints any more important. Again, the focus here is on Shepard and the choices, the Catalyst is just a backdrop.

As for the content of those choices... well, it could have been better, but I consider it a compelling choice regardless.

[3DandBeyond]

Xilizhra wrote...

I think a way to at least help with this is if you don't consider the Catalyst any more important than any other antagonist, or at least don't consider its viewpoints any more important. Again, the focus here is on Shepard and the choices, the Catalyst is just a backdrop.

As for the content of those choices... well, it could have been better, but I consider it a compelling choice regardless.

The problem is he was never the antagonist.  I don't consider him important at all.  That's why his problem is not mine and I darn well am not interested in solving that.  Shepard would not see his issues as relevant and that's what matters to me.  But even so the writers try too hard by adding in Leviathan to try and force us to see that his problems do matter.  No, Leviathan makes them even stupider.

There is no choice that works toward what Shepard wanted to do.  No authentic one because they all serve a problem that was not Shepard's.  And you can't separate the kid out as if his views aren't there front and center.  He's nothing until he's there at the end and then he is the helpful antagonist that Shepard has tea with.  The catalyst is no more a backdrop than Shepard is, once he says he controls the reapers.  And make no mistake, there is no such thing as an unimportant antagonist.  In stories, the reader is set up to form relationships with protagonists and antagonists.  They are very important. 

The fact that the kid is so crappy as an antagonist is a big part of what is wrong here.  I loathe him, but for some of the wrong reasons.  I should hate him and want him dead because he's what Shepard's been fighting all along.  I do hate him but because he is dropped in at the end AS IF he was what Shepard's been fighting all along AND because he's not a true antagonist at the end.  He's part of the solution if you go with this.  And in order to end the game, you have to.  It's the worst kind of thing to do at the end of a story that I've ever seen.  Forget about cliff hangers or ambiguity.  Removing the horrendous antagonists from the equation, substituting and antagonist who offers the solution for the real antagonist, and then showing that he's demented, really doesn't make for a good ending.

And I'm not against even showing that someone controls big bad monsters in space-in theory.  In practice, this was horribly done.  Clearly he's still the antagonist but one Shepard must somewhat agree with, must believe is offering real solutions. And then Shepard must mostly suicide for this kid while helping solve his problem.  It's impossible to deny the "importance" of the kid.

[Xilizhra]

There is no choice that works toward what Shepard wanted to do. No authentic one because they all serve a problem that was not Shepard's. And you can't separate the kid out as if his views aren't there front and center. He's nothing until he's there at the end and then he is the helpful antagonist that Shepard has tea with. The catalyst is no more a backdrop than Shepard is, once he says he controls the reapers. And make no mistake, there is no such thing as an unimportant antagonist. In stories, the reader is set up to form relationships with protagonists and antagonists. They are very important.

But its views aren't important to Shepard, at least not mine. They might drive the plot forward, but how right or wrong they are doesn't really matter to the PC, and hence they don't to myself, the player.
Also, all of its solutions are line with what Shepard wanted to do: stop the cycle. The question is how you do it.

And I'm not against even showing that someone controls big bad monsters in space-in theory. In practice, this was horribly done. Clearly he's still the antagonist but one Shepard must somewhat agree with, must believe is offering real solutions. And then Shepard must mostly suicide for this kid while helping solve his problem. It's impossible to deny the "importance" of the kid.

Clearly it's not, as I've done just that. Again, I don't believe that what he says matters to Shepard, or to the end of the cycle, which is what this is all leading up to; it's just a background motivation to begin the cycle to begin with. It's more or less an infodump of the big bad's motivations put at the very end, which isn't a great place, but I don't see it as a catastrophe.

[3DandBeyond]

Xilizhra wrote...

There is no choice that works toward what Shepard wanted to do. No authentic one because they all serve a problem that was not Shepard's. And you can't separate the kid out as if his views aren't there front and center. He's nothing until he's there at the end and then he is the helpful antagonist that Shepard has tea with. The catalyst is no more a backdrop than Shepard is, once he says he controls the reapers. And make no mistake, there is no such thing as an unimportant antagonist. In stories, the reader is set up to form relationships with protagonists and antagonists. They are very important.

But its views aren't important to Shepard, at least not mine. They might drive the plot forward, but how right or wrong they are doesn't really matter to the PC, and hence they don't to myself, the player.
Also, all of its solutions are line with what Shepard wanted to do: stop the cycle. The question is how you do it.

And I'm not against even showing that someone controls big bad monsters in space-in theory. In practice, this was horribly done. Clearly he's still the antagonist but one Shepard must somewhat agree with, must believe is offering real solutions. And then Shepard must mostly suicide for this kid while helping solve his problem. It's impossible to deny the "importance" of the kid.

Clearly it's not, as I've done just that. Again, I don't believe that what he says matters to Shepard, or to the end of the cycle, which is what this is all leading up to; it's just a background motivation to begin the cycle to begin with. It's more or less an infodump of the big bad's motivations put at the very end, which isn't a great place, but I don't see it as a catastrophe.

The goal wasn't to stop the cycle.  That wasn't even some big known thing all along or even considered.  It was to destroy the reapers.  The kid explicitly wants you to think the reason behind them was good-the writers want you to think that.  In fact, the EC gives us a lot more kid dialogue and then Leviathan DLC exists to try and make that case.  It's impossible to just ignore that that's what all of the ending wants you to believe.

I don't believe it by the way.  Nothing the kid says, nothing that the writers put into him and Leviathan makes me think he's right in any way and I can and do consider his thoughts as irrelevant.  As a part of the story at the end, I cannot ignore though how he was presented and what he's meant to do.

As a part of the story that came before and as a way to end the whole story, I do however not see anything he says as relevant at all and I do see all this from Shepard's point of view.  That all entails me knowing full well that none of it makes enough sense for Shepard to believe the choices are real without more independent verification, that Shepard would make a decision on his/her own, that Shepard would not argue about this, not bring up the geth, not even try to confront the enemy.  And none of this means that the Shepard I played would make one of these choices without better explanation of what they will do (with the previous proof as I said) and how they'd lead to good things. 

Some people would rather die than be handed a loaded gun and be told by their enemy that pointing it at their loved ones and pulling the trigger will actually do something good.  This does lead to refuse but the writers worked very hard to make people hate that.

[Xilizhra]

The goal wasn't to stop the cycle. That wasn't even some big known thing all along or even considered. It was to destroy the reapers. The kid explicitly wants you to think the reason behind them was good-the writers want you to think that. In fact, the EC gives us a lot more kid dialogue and then Leviathan DLC exists to try and make that case. It's impossible to just ignore that that's what all of the ending wants you to believe.

Destroying the Reapers was the most obvious way to stop the cycle, but believing that that was an end in and of itself is simple shortsightedness and focus on vengeance rather than the actual beneficial results.

As a part of the story that came before and as a way to end the whole story, I do however not see anything he says as relevant at all and I do see all this from Shepard's point of view. That all entails me knowing full well that none of it makes enough sense for Shepard to believe the choices are real without more independent verification, that Shepard would make a decision on his/her own, that Shepard would not argue about this, not bring up the geth, not even try to confront the enemy. And none of this means that the Shepard I played would make one of these choices without better explanation of what they will do (with the previous proof as I said) and how they'd lead to good things.

The reason why Shepard doesn't confront the Catalyst is because there's not really much point to doing so and no time in which to do it. Sometimes, such as with TIM when he's got you paralyzed, talking is all you can do to get out of a situation... but here, the Catalyst is giving you a chance to end this war, time is crunched quite badly, and it's an AI that hasn't wavered from its mission in millions of years, so sweet-talking it simply doesn't seem likely to work. And if you take too long trying to make a decision, it's game over, so there's enough proof of the time crunch.
As for whether the decisions would lead to good things... well, if the Catalyst is lying, you're probably boned no matter what decision you make and it doesn't really matter. So the only sensible thing to do if you want to make a choice at all is to assume truth on the Catalyst's part, as that's the only way you have any information.

Some people would rather die than be handed a loaded gun and be told by their enemy that pointing it at their loved ones and pulling the trigger will actually do something good. This does lead to refuse but the writers worked very hard to make people hate that.

That's fine, but less fine when, say, the room is full of poison gas, everyone's dying anyway, and your enemy's said that pulling the trigger will save them. It may sound ridiculous, but if he's lying, it's not like it makes a difference to the final outcome, and it's not worse than doing nothing.

[CronoDragoon]

3DandBeyond wrote...

The goal wasn't to stop the cycle.  That wasn't even some big known thing all along or even considered.  It was to destroy the reapers.

Because that was the only way known to stop the harvest. It's easy to demonstrate that stopping the harvest is the underlying goal by presenting two hypothetical scenarios:

1. You destroy the Reapers but don't stop the harvest (it doesn't matter how the harvest continues for this hypothetical)
2. You stop the harvest but don't destroy the Reapers.

Shepard is picking 2 if he wants to save the galaxy.

The kid explicitly wants you to think the reason behind them was good-the writers want you to think that.

The kid, yes. The writers, not necessarily.

In fact, the EC gives us a lot more kid dialogue and then Leviathan DLC exists to try and make that case.  It's impossible to just ignore that that's what all of the ending wants you to believe.

Leviathan does the opposite of what you claim. By situating the Catalyst in a historical context, it grounds the Catalyst. It makes him more conditional, more fallible. He's not a Transcendental Moral Figure, he's an A.I. He doesn't know for a fact that synthetics will always rebel: this is a premise programmed into him by the Leviathans. Etc.

[PinkysPain]

Xilizhra wrote...
The reason why Shepard doesn't confront the Catalyst is because there's not really much point to doing so and no time in which to do it. Sometimes, such as with TIM when he's got you paralyzed, talking is all you can do to get out of a situation... but here, the Catalyst is giving you a chance to end this war, time is crunched quite badly, and it's an AI that hasn't wavered from its mission in millions of years, so sweet-talking it simply doesn't seem likely to work. And if you take too long trying to make a decision, it's game over, so there's enough proof of the time crunch.
As for whether the decisions would lead to good things... well, if the Catalyst is lying, you're probably boned no matter what decision you make and it doesn't really matter. So the only sensible thing to do if you want to make a choice at all is to assume truth on the Catalyst's part, as that's the only way you have any information.

As a game writer it's trivial to create a situation where eating a **** sandwich is the only reasonable course of action ... but I don't pay them money to make me eat **** sandwiches.

[Wayning_Star]

ME4= Operation Dead Horse?

put dead horse in the header and get more replies and hits... very interesting stuff too. (sarcasm)

[KaiserShep]

Xilizhra wrote...
Destroying the Reapers was the most obvious way to stop the cycle, but believing that that was an end in and of itself is simple shortsightedness and focus on vengeance rather than the actual beneficial results.

Destroying them most certainly has beneficial results, results that would very likely last quite a long time. Regardless of what some might argue, the cycle breaks regardless of your choice. The only difference is that one has a phantom caveat with zero guarantee. As far as risks go, I would consider it negligible. But I think this also depends on how you view suicide and the cause behind it.

[Jadebaby]

3D, I love ya but youre putting way too much energy into this stuff.

Wayning_Star wrote...

ME4= Operation Dead Horse?

put dead horse in the header and get more replies and hits... very interesting stuff too. (sarcasm)

yes, because it would have nothing to do with the topic being discussed.. No way...

[WolfyZA]

I as many never liked the endings, AT ALL. It bothered me for months on just how sloppy the endings are and how they we're just shrugged it off by BW/EA as to say "Wha you didnt like the ending, DEAL WITH IT!" which made me furious to say the least. What bothered me more was that MOST users that accepted the endings got confused with the changing the ending movement.. Thinking we just didnt want to say good bye to our characters, forgetting that we JUST WANTED THE GOD DAMNED ENDINGS CHANGED!

I can't remember how many blogs and forums I commented on where other users just assumed we just wanted to play with the same characters until one of them died of old age. Which wasn't the case.

I just wanted an awesome Star Wars meets Pacific Rim ending that left me breathless. Not the ending we all got... Call me old fashioned, but if you wanna make an action based movie or game.. IT has to have a bad ass epilogue.. Not a RGB color ending with a slide show explaining the aftermath of the war...

I think thats where most fans were like... WTF?!?! This is nothing like what the suicide mission was on ME2.. And thats what most people we're expecting. Ending the game on a bang!!

Now I just see this as a failed trilogy... nothing more.

Modifié par WolfyZA, 21 août 2013 - 01:21 .

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

I accepted a fan-made ending months ago, and I'm much happier with it.

I abandoned SP a year ago because of the ending, and I haven't looked back. No reason to.

[Iakus]

tickle267 wrote...

WolfyZA wrote...
Now I just see this as a failed trilogy... nothing more.

this.

if I had known how the trilogy was going to end, I wouldn't have started playing it.

+1

I wonder how many others feel this way, and how it will effect the next Mass Effect's marketing and sales?


Once bitten, twice shy, and all.

Modifié par iakus, 21 août 2013 - 04:37 .

[Br3admax]

If you don't like the game, why do you keep talking about it? Are you trying to convince others that they don't like it either?

[dreamgazer]

iakus wrote...

tickle267 wrote...

WolfyZA wrote...
Now I just see this as a failed trilogy... nothing more.

this.

if I had known how the trilogy was going to end, I wouldn't have started playing it.

+1

I wonder how many others feel this way, and how it will effect the next Mass Effect's marketing and sales?


Once bitten, twice shy, and all.

I don't feel this way. 

But I don't hold petty grudges or allow a flawed ending blown out of proportion in a series full of flawed writing to ruin an experience, and I gauge games on a per-work basis. 

[Br3admax]

Yeah really, in any of the games none of your choices mattered towards the ending, and all the endings were exactly how you thought it would be. Bland and tasteless.