720 réponses à ce sujet

[congokong]

 
Maybe because the EC didn't fix **** in terms of the real problems?
 
Still meet a holokid? Check.
Still claims it controls the Reapers? Check.
Still spins a logic fail of "yo dawg" proportions? Check.
Still offers you the RGB? Check.
You still capitulate to it like a b!tch? Check. Oh unless you refuse, in which case **** you, everyone dies. Have a nice day.
Space magic waves still carry bullshit consequences (destroy) or just plain bullshit (synthesis)? Check.
Still crash on planet WTF? Check.

What changed? Retconning the relays from inexplicably destroyed to inexplicably "sort of damaged"? Woo-hoo. Same bad decision, only lamer because now it feels like you're awkwardly backing out. Oh, and instead of your squadmates inexplicably teleporting to the Normandy, we have the Normandy inexplicably teleporting to the beam, in the middle of a battle, with ****** Harbinger right there, going "yep, this all seems kosher".

But oh, at least we get some nice new cutscenes that while decent don't add much, and powerpoints, narrated by Lance Henriksen, Mark Meer/Jennifer Hale and Tricia Helfer. Go team.

There are good things about the EC. I personally like the control epilogue, minus the heavy-handedness on babysitting organics. Applied to a mediocre ending the effort of the EC would've shined. But the original was just so, so terrible, the EC was not enough. Nowhere near enough.

 

Thank you for giving some explanation. A lot of those complaints are subjective though.

 

It seems people are unhappy that there is no true happy ending where there's no collateral damage. So? That reflects life. It reminds me of the VS situation where you have to make a hard choice. Someone dies either way. But when there is a way to save everyone the situation is devalued and most go for the happiest scenario (ex: save everyone on the suicide mission). Look how many people on this forum never even lost someone on the SM.

 

I didn't mind the catalyst really. It came across as mercilessly logical which it would have to be to create something like the reapers. Maybe if it wasn't in the form of a holo-kid people would stop bitching but I assumed it just took a form familiar to Shepard. I actually felt its logic was rather sound too but I don't want to start a debate about that.

 

I'm not sure what was going on with the Normandy/beam situation but with ME you have to overlook some things like that. It's certainly not enough to hate the ending.

 

Some of those powerpoints were stupid. The krogan holding their oddly small number of children like its all happy days going forward. Yeah right. I'd be terrified to cure the genophage. I hate the krogan and with good reason.

 

 

Based on what you've said I don't see justifcation for the backlash the ending has gotten.

[justafan]

I've never played a ME3 with a non-import Shep, even though I'm curious about vanilla.

I've never chose a side on Rannoch (see above).

I've never lost a squad mate on the suicide mission, even though I want to see what happens without certain squad dies, Wiks in particular.

I've never shot Mordin.

I've never killed Wrex.

I've never not stabbed Kai Leng (even on the paragon of paragons play through).

Lastly, I've never chosen any ending other than destroy.

[congokong]

I don't think it was a reasonable expectation that BioWare would release an Extended Cut that actually rewrites the entire ending from top to bottom.

 

Anyway, I've never played an engineer. I don't know what it is about this class, but it doesn't interest me much. I've never romanced Jack. Her content is good, but given the circumstances in ME2, it just doesn't feel right somehow.

 

Rewrite the ending? That would be worse IMO. Once its released its canon.

 

The engineer was only fun for me in ME3 but it was weaker than classes like sentinel, vanguard, and infiltrator. It had no real way to hit hard. Its quite bad in ME1 and ME2 and probably the least badass class. Really, sending little drones to do your dirty work? Compare that to the vanguard who charges into an opponent's face and beats them with their fist and then blows their head off.

[Manc4life7]

I have never:

 

- Completed a trilogy run with a FemShep

- Played as default Shep

- Completed a single game in the trilogy as either a 100% paragon or 100% renegade

- Played as an engineer

- Let the Council die

- Killed the Rachni in ME1

- Killed Mordin

- Picked control

[CrutchCricket]

I don't think it was a reasonable expectation that BioWare would release an Extended Cut that actually rewrites the entire ending from top to bottom.

 

Given how much the ending goes against literally everything else in the entire series, yes it's reasonable.

 

It's not reasonable to completely change the mechanics of the ending, i.e. in terms of game resources. I wouldn't have expected a complete revamp of Earth and a Harbinger boss battle, for example. But the real problems could've been fixed within the constraints of the original sequence.

 

-Beam run, Citadel and Anderson, TIM confrontation stay unchanged. Squadmates get pulled out by Mako as a result of general retreat.

-Holokid model replaced by indefinite form, Avina, or Leviathan's trick of reusing familiar models.

-Catalyst does not control Reapers but is the control VI of the Crucible, evolved over each cycle adding on to the Crucible. Citadel selected as logical dispersal point similar to how the Shroud was selected on Tuchanka.

- Reaper purpose not explicitly defined, and certainly not this pseudo Skynet, Matrix wanna-be plot.

-Choices remain largely intact except for Synthesis, which doesn't affect everyone in the galaxy. Instead Shepard gives up his "energy" to reanimate everyone in the Citadel as techno-organic beings which can then go out into the galaxy and share this state with those who wish it. Yes it's still space-magicy but then again, synthesis pulls out all the stops anyway, so it's unlikely it can be made more realistic. At least we avoid the "galactic genetic rape" charge.

-Destroy I would split into more variations based on EMS, and define the red wave as an EMP type weapon targeting all tech. The variations come in in that with higher EMS you can provide additional programming that focuses more, from all AI (what we currently have) to Reapers only. One way I thought of to accomplish this is to send a virus beforehand. Dumb systems (i.e non-AI tech) would be "infected" instantly but AIs would be able to resist. Anything that resists is a target. For Reapers-only, piggyback the red wave on the control signal

-Shepard can still die but can definitively live in High EMS destroy (i.e we actually see him get dug out/dig himself out etc). He is still ascended in control and sacrificed in synthesis.

-No crash-land on Planet WTF.

 

All of the changes here are exposition only and don't require new game resources.

[Kingthlayer]

Losing the Cerberus crew is easy. Doing the reaper IFF quest with any loyalty missions remaining and a completionist attitude will cost some crew members. The trick is to trust Miranda's instincts and ignore Jacob's. She warns about waiting to get the IFF until the team is strong while Jacob says "why wait?" There was a foreshadowing there. Miranda also suggests waiting until they're ready to do the SM while Jacob wants to go in, prepared or not. He also wants to space Legion. And Jacob volunteers to go through the vents while Miranda warns against it. Yeah, Jacob's an idiot.

 

As for the squad, you can fail a few loyalty missions although that's rare. People tend to reload the game instead of accept a failure. Then there's giving bad calls on the SM. Some might think sending Thane through the vents or having Mordin from STG lead a squad are good ideas. And of course there are the two scuffles. Without very high persuasion it's possible to lose Tali/Legion and Jack/Miranda's loyalty. You can also fail to upgrade the ship like I did in my first playthrough before I knew of planet scanning.

 

Miranda is wrong on the Biotic Bubble part of the suicide mission, saying that any biotic can do it.  She can't.

[JeffZero]

Oh, there are a lot of I've nevers for me. A lot. Here are a few of my more outstanding "accomplishments":

*Ended a file on either Destroy or Refuse

*Completed the Suicide Mission with no casualties

*Romanced Ashley, Kaidan, Garrus, Thane, Jacob, Jack, Samantha, Steve or Kelly

*Sabotaged the genophage cure

*Not made peace between the quarians and geth

*Killed Santiago

*Told Kasumi to keep the data

*Told Javik to look at his memories

*Played as an Adept or Engineer

*Played a non-default male Shepard appearance-wise

*Destroyed the heretic geth

*Killed Oleg Petrovsky

*Killed Balak

[congokong]

Miranda is wrong on the Biotic Bubble part of the suicide mission, saying that any biotic can do it.  She can't.

Technically she can. She just couldn't hold it for the required duration. At that point they were unsure if anyone could. Samara/Jack barely make it. But sure, she'd be better just keeping her mouth shut since she's the weaker biotic and just made things more confusing.

[Reorte]

Thank you for giving some explanation. A lot of those complaints are subjective though.

Of course it's subjective (atlhough there are plenty of things that simply don't make sense). That doesn't make the complaints any less valid though. The success or failure of any work of fiction is entirely subjective. Even if you get a story entirely consistent, everything in character, all the technicalities spot on you've not got a good story - it could still be anything from brilliant to awful.

 

As for the EC, it didn't really change anything, it was just a better presentation of the same thing but all the same issues were still there. The only one it actually fixed was the sudden cutoff.

 

 

It seems people are unhappy that there is no true happy ending where there's no collateral damage. So? That reflects life. It reminds me of the VS situation where you have to make a hard choice. Someone dies either way. But when there is a way to save everyone the situation is devalued and most go for the happiest scenario (ex: save everyone on the suicide mission). Look how many people on this forum never even lost someone on the SM.

That's been pointed out as wrong numerous. times. The fact that no losses is highly implausible doesn't mean that any loss chucked in is therefore plausible and / or fitting to the story. We got negatives that were thrown in simply for the sake of there being some negatives, not because they should sensibly be there. Indeed, once you've got a device capable of doing something like Synthesis in your hands there's no practical limit on what it could do without negative consequences.

[CrutchCricket]

Thank you for giving some explanation. A lot of those complaints are subjective though.
 
It seems people are unhappy that there is no true happy ending where there's no collateral damage. So? That reflects life. It reminds me of the VS situation where you have to make a hard choice. Someone dies either way. But when there is a way to save everyone the situation is devalued and most go for the happiest scenario (ex: save everyone on the suicide mission). Look how many people on this forum never even lost someone on the SM.

 

No. Collateral damage is fine, if it makes sense. No one complained about Mordin's death even though it had way more emotional impact that any other forced death event, save perhaps for Thane for Thanemancers. The reason? It made sense given the context. But tacking on death simply because you need to bring something down is not OK.

I have no problem with Shepard dying. But I think there should be an option for him to survive as well. Maybe it's harder. Maybe other things have to be sacrificed. That's fine. I have no problem with sacrificing whole races, if it makes sense in the context. But in the endings it does not. And the ambiguity of the breath scene is unnecessary. That's the kind of after-credits scene you set up as a teaser for a sequel. Except Bioware keeps saying no more Shepard. So what's the point? If you allow him to live, then let him live damn it.
 

I didn't mind the catalyst really. It came across as mercilessly logical which it would have to be to create something like the reapers. Maybe if it wasn't in the form of a holo-kid people would stop bitching but I assumed it just took a form familiar to Shepard. I actually felt its logic was rather sound too but I don't want to start a debate about that.

 

It's anything but. It's been discussed to death but it's neither logical, nor familiar.
 

I'm not sure what was going on with the Normandy/beam situation but with ME you have to overlook some things like that. It's certainly not enough to hate the ending.
 
Some of those powerpoints were stupid. The krogan holding their oddly small number of children like its all happy days going forward. Yeah right. I'd be terrified to cure the genophage. I hate the krogan and with good reason.
 
 
Based on what you've said I don't see justifcation for the backlash the ending has gotten.

 

It's not so much general suspension of disbelief in a game situation as it is an example of the laziness/quick fix with spit and glue that's become the signature of ME3. The fans presented a problem (that should've been obvious in the brainstorm room, let alone gold release). Instead of tracing the roots of the problem, Bioware just addressed the symptom, which only caused more problems. If this becomes a pattern, what hope is there for quality product, no, for good stories and enjoyable experiences in the future? 
 
As for the krogan, curing the genophage is no picnic, and there's no reason to fear the krogan. I've discussed this at length before but in a nutshell, they lack the resources and infrastructure to even sustain themselves if they're not careful, let alone start the Rebellions 2.0. In a very real sense curing the genophage is testing them on their own survival. Either they mature and learn to manage their own population or they go extinct. It's a return to the natural order, before salarian interference.
 

Rewrite the ending? That would be worse IMO. Once its released its canon.

 

Normally, I'd agree and I dislike retcons reboots and rewrites. But if they happen they do change canon. And the ending is so, so bad...

[Reorte]

As for the krogan, curing the genophage is no picnic, and there's no reason to fear the krogan. I've discussed this at length before but in a nutshell, they lack the resources and infrastructure to even sustain themselves if they're not careful, let alone start the Rebellions 2.0. In a very real sense curing the genophage is testing them on their own survival. Either they mature and learn to manage their own population or they go extinct. It's a return to the natural order, before salarian interference.

 

I almost hate to say this but what the krogan might do in the future is exactly the sort of thing where the story should leave us with speculation. Still, it's all part of the bit of ME3 which IMO was the best part of the entire trilogy. Such a shame, when it got things right it could get them so right...

[JeffZero]

Although I enjoy the other EC endings. Crutch just hit the biggest reason I dislike Destroy immensely squarely on the head with that one. I'm already not enjoying having to sacrifice one of my favorite characters as well as sacrificing everything my other favorite character fought to achieve. Now I'm supposed to be happy with a prerendered inhalation? Shepard may as well still be dead, and in exchange I blew away all my beliefs.

(Which, yes, involve trusting the Catalyst, forcing the galaxy into genetic alteration in order to enforce peace, etc. I've heard it all before, you don't need to remind me of what I already know)

[congokong]

No. Collateral damage is fine, if it makes sense. No one complained about Mordin's death even though it had way more emotional impact that any other forced death event, save perhaps for Thane for Thanemancers. The reason? It made sense given the context. But tacking on death simply because you need to bring something down is not OK.

I have no problem with Shepard dying. But I think there should be an option for him to survive as well. Maybe it's harder. Maybe other things have to be sacrificed. That's fine. I have no problem with sacrificing whole races, if it makes sense in the context. But in the endings it does not. And the ambiguity of the breath scene is unnecessary. That's the kind of after-credits scene you set up as a teaser for a sequel. Except Bioware keeps saying no more Shepard. So what's the point? If you allow him to live, then let him live damn it.
 

 

It's anything but. It's been discussed to death but it's neither logical, nor familiar.
 

 

It's not so much general suspension of disbelief in a game situation as it is an example of the laziness/quick fix with spit and glue that's become the signature of ME3. The fans presented a problem (that should've been obvious in the brainstorm room, let alone gold release). Instead of tracing the roots of the problem, Bioware just addressed the symptom, which only caused more problems. If this becomes a pattern, what hope is there for quality product, no, for good stories and enjoyable experiences in the future? 
 
As for the krogan, curing the genophage is no picnic, and there's no reason to fear the krogan. I've discussed this at length before but in a nutshell, they lack the resources and infrastructure to even sustain themselves if they're not careful, let alone start the Rebellions 2.0. In a very real sense curing the genophage is testing them on their own survival. Either they mature and learn to manage their own population or they go extinct. It's a return to the natural order, before salarian interference.
 

 

Normally, I'd agree and I dislike retcons reboots and rewrites. But if they happen they do change canon. And the ending is so, so bad...

The breath scene leaves Shepard's fate up in the air. A lot of stories do that. It's open to interpretation.

 

I don't think the catalyst's logic is dead wrong despite your certainty.

 

I don't believe the krogan can manage their population besides something that reduces birthrates like... the genophage. And there's plenty of reason to fear them. They're aggressive as hell and can easily repeat history.

 

The collateral damage makes sense to me. A beam that destroys synthetics. Discrimination would be too convenient for my tastes.

 

 

If these are the complaints people have with the ending I'll never understand them or agree with them.

[congokong]

Although I enjoy the other EC endings. Crutch just hit the biggest reason I dislike Destroy immensely squarely on the head with that one. I'm already not enjoying having to sacrifice one of my favorite characters as well as sacrificing everything my other favorite character fought to achieve. Now I'm supposed to be happy with a prerendered inhalation? Shepard may as well still be dead, and in exchange I blew away all my beliefs.

(Which, yes, involve trusting the Catalyst, forcing the galaxy into genetic alteration in order to enforce peace, etc. I've heard it all before, you don't need to remind me of what I already know)

 

That's what I like about it. It challenges how far you'll take idealism. You're expecting to have your cake and eat it too. Often life doesn't work that way. Why is it such an injustice to find Shepard in a situation where they have to go against their morals for the greater good? Why is the situation Shepard is put in so inconceivable in the ME universe? 

[JeffZero]

I dunno. I dig it too.

[Reorte]

The breath scene leaves Shepard's fate up in the air. A lot of stories do that. It's open to interpretation.

That's why it's lousy. Just because a lot of stories do doesn't make it good.

 

I don't think the catalyst's logic is dead wrong despite your certainty.

Really? All the Catalyst has is a far-fetched scenario that it acts on as if it's a certainty, using means of rather questionable efficiency.

 

 

I don't believe the krogan can manage their population besides something that reduces birthrates like... the genophage. And there's plenty of reason to fear them. They're aggressive as hell and can easily repeat history.

I'm sceptical about the krogan myself, but took the view that we ain't going to beat the Reapers without them. It's a good choice that raises interesting questions though.

 

 

The collateral damage makes sense to me. A beam that destroys synthetics. Discrimination would be too convenient for my tastes.

The lack of discrimination is too convenient. It's about on par with writing a virus that could work on anything from EDI down to Babbage's Analytical Engine. Targetting a known weakness in specific hardware is far easier. Targetting synthetic life but not other high-tech equipment would require an incredibly complicated system and is a much harder task than just hitting the Reapers.

[congokong]

That's why it's lousy. Just because a lot of stories do doesn't make it good.

Really? All the Catalyst has is a far-fetched scenario that it acts on as if it's a certainty, using means of rather questionable efficiency.

 

I'm sceptical about the krogan myself, but took the view that we ain't going to beat the Reapers without them. It's a good choice that raises interesting questions though.

 

The lack of discrimination is too convenient. It's about on par with writing a virus that could work on anything from EDI down to Babbage's Analytical Engine. Targetting a known weakness in specific hardware is far easier. Targetting synthetic life but not other high-tech equipment would require an incredibly complicated system and is a much harder task than just hitting the Reapers.

So basically we disagree about everything. Understood.

[Reorte]

That's what I like about it. It challenges how far you'll take idealism. You're expecting to have your cake and eat it too. Often life doesn't work that way. Why is it such an injustice to find Shepard in a situation where they have to go against their morals for the greater good? Why is the situation Shepard is put in so inconceivable in the ME universe? 

The concept of that might be OK (I don't think it does work particularly well here as a concept either) but that doesn't mean the implementation of it is remotely decent. If Destroy worked but would take time, during which the Reapers might well mulch the populations of dozens more worlds although ultimately ending the Reaper threat for definite, whereas Control would be a quick end with no further losses but a big question about the future then we would've had an interesting decision.

[Reorte]

So basically we disagree about everything. Understood.

Er, no. The krogan. And you'll have to say more than that if you want me to think you've actually got a rational point. Of course maybe you don't care what I think but if so why bother posting here at all?

[CrutchCricket]

I almost hate to say this but what the krogan might do in the future is exactly the sort of thing where the story should leave us with speculation. Still, it's all part of the bit of ME3 which IMO was the best part of the entire trilogy. Such a shame, when it got things right it could get them so right...

 

My conclusion is based on logical extrapolation of what the games present. I was tipped off to it by EDI's analysis of the logistics of getting the krogan into the fight. Applying it in general, for after the war gets you my conclusion.

 

I also assume the other races wouldn't be dumb enough to just give the krogan what they need again. Which is the how the first rebellions were possible.

 

I don't believe the krogan can manage their population besides something that reduces birthrates like... the genophage. And there's plenty of reason to fear them. They're aggressive as hell and can easily repeat history.

 

The collateral damage makes sense to me. A beam that destroys synthetics. Discrimination would be too convenient for my tastes.

 

The krogan can be as agressive as they like with a dying planet and no infrastucture. They're not a threat to anyone. They adapt or they die.

 

And what you don't realize is that the beam already descriminates between AIs and non-AIs. How? Space magic. The very definition of convenient.

[jtav]

The problem I have with the ending is that it's not grounded in the story. Synthetics in 2 and 3 are not presented as alien and unknowable. The geth can make peace with the quarian, which doesn't logically disprove the Catalyst, but is a pretty big narrative blow. If synthetics are people too, then Synthesis is insulting and Destroy is horrific. And, if the ending's conception of synthetics is true, then Legion died for nothing and EDI's development is a sham.

[congokong]

Er, no. The krogan. And you'll have to say more than that if you want me to think you've actually got a rational point. Of course maybe you don't care what I think but if so why bother posting here at all?

I just don't want to pointlessly debate with someone who has polar opposite opinions with me. I'll give you valid points that I've used on the boards before but I'm not going to spend my day trying to change your mind.

 

 

My defense for the catalyst:

http://social.biowar...17774888-1.html

 

My defense for the genophage:

http://social.biowar...17881795-1.html

 

In addition, something a poster named PirateMouse once said:

 

PirateMouse said:

 

Well, since this thread has risen from its grave, I will reiterate my own take on this, which is very similar actually to Dean's: to wit, hell no I wouldn't cure it, and in fact I'd go to the same extreme lengths I went to in order to stop the Reapers to prevent a cure, because it's a similarly galaxy-level threat.  I wouldn't even cure it if krogan culture changed, because honestly I don't care what your culture is like, 1,000 viable births per year times about 1,000 years per krogan female with each offspring living potentially around 1,000 years as well is a recipe for unqualified, unmitigated disaster the likes of which we cannot truly even properly comprehend.

At most, I would consider a reworking of the genophage, but that was never given in-game as an option.  Frankly, I would wipe out every single last krogan before I'd outright cure the genophage if for some reason those were my only two options ... because that would ultimately be a choice between genocide of one species (krogans) or genocide of all non-krogans.

From there, I'll just repost my response to this topic before, which began with my feelings about the Dalatrass:

The Dalatrass is not really a character in the game; she's just a poorly disguised strawman propped up by Bioware's writers to attempt to make an irrational position more sympathetic. The angry, dismissive attitude, the way she suggests the krogan are no longer "useful" ... she could have been wearing a black top hat and twirling a pencil-thin moustache, and it wouldn't have looked out of place.

She's a symptom of what the writers pull throughout that arc, using cheap emotional tricks to manipulate and pressure the player at every turn ... and small wonder. They faced an impossible task, to present an argument that outright curing the genophage would be a good idea in spite of everything we knew (or at least could know) by then about the krogans and their horrifyingly rapid default birthrate.

Logic and reason were against them, so they resorted to the one thing they had left: emotional appeal. And don't underestimate emotional appeal! Such a powerful thing it is, so insidious and seductive. Just reading these forums, you can quickly get a sense for how easily most people are roped into terrible decisions if you tug at their emotions in the right ways. It's an excellent illustration of why the kind of power to make such enormous decisions does not belong in the hands of most people ... not so much just because power corrupts but because emotional appeal easily tempts most people into using that power in terribly short-sighted ways.

My favorite part is when people say things like, "If Wrex is in charge, it'll be fine." "I trust Wrex." "Cure if Wrex is in charge, sabotage otherwise."

In reality, Wrex being in power (yes, even with Eve there too) is a red herring.

Think about it: ONE krogan is supposed to not only change the behavior of all krogan forever but also somehow change them so much that they're able to, as a total species, self-regulate their entire population ... forever? Even though no species, including our own, has ever been able to do this as a total species? It would be an utterly ridiculous notion even if the krogan were a peaceful and enlightened species! Animals simply don't manage their reproduction in this way -- not even the sapient ones like humans.

It's moot, of course. Wrex loses power about five minutes after the war with the Reapers is won.

Or weren't you paying attention? His power base was built around control of access to fertile females. That evaporated the moment you cured the genophage, and once they no longer have a big bad enemy to fight to keep their attention, the other krogan are going to realize this. Since Wrex's ideas were hardly popular, most of them will probably abandon him overnight. Even though some may choose to remain loyal, the real force behind his unification and reformation effort is gone -- it no longer has teeth. And his relatively peaceful krogan will most likely be quickly wiped out by another more aggressive "traditional" clan.

Basically, Wrex has always been doomed. He dies on Virmire if you can't talk him down (and this is actually the best possible outcome since it makes it possible to talk Mordin down later), he dies on the Citadel if you sabotage the genophage cure, and he most likely dies later amidst the shattered remnants of his no-longer-relevant clan if you cure the genophage. Viewed from that perspective, his death can be seen as an unfortunate but inevitable consequence of his blind obsession.

I sabotaged the cure ... not because the Dalatrass was convincing but because it's simply the right thing to do. I was there to protect the galaxy, not doom it.

 

--- END

 

Take from this what you will.

[Reorte]

Right, yes, that's all about the point I don't actually entirely disagree with you on. I don't entirely agree, and my initial decision was down to pragamtism for now (no point in worrying about the future if there's not going to be one) but none of those points are invalid. The Dalatrass was very poorly done, the genuine concerns about the krogan really needed to have been raised by a valid character not, as you say, a strawman.

[CrutchCricket]

The krogan have nothing.

 

What are they gonna do, headbutt a dreadnaught?

 

That entire wall of text is moot. Unless you want to say that you sabotage the cure to keep the krogan alive. Because if it's true and they don't change, they die. Simple. Except we're told they're already dying because of their behavior. So they're dead anyway.

 

I for one am in favor of letting nature take its course/letting each species decide their own fate.

[JeffZero]

I can't say as I blame them for not wanting to get into it further. I left this place for almost two years because it was poisonous to claim enjoyment of the endings. It still is, really, and it's not particularly fun (to me anyway) to be constantly boxed in by ten times as many people who dislike them.

The ratio there and its potential relevance to the "objective" quality of the endings neither escapes me nor do I feign it does, but my enjoyment of Synthesis and to a lesser extent Control does not hinge on consensus, nor should it of course.

The only things I have against Synthesis are a couple of the points the user jtav has made over the years. But I've read the maelstrom and I continue to, on occasion, read the maelstrom. I'm familiar with why the endings, specifically my favorites, are so reviled.

If I wanted to dedicate eight hours of my life to formulating a lengthy, beefy paper on why I dig what I dig only to have it all shot down by a group of likeminded colleagues, though, why, I would get into politics.