Here's a little comedic distraction that I found humorous.
I went to look up the Mass Effect books and typed in 'Revolution' instead of 'Revelation'. This is what I got:
If your plan is to get as big as James, I think you all know what you have to do.
Any way, I was amused.
Now we know how James did it. Good find!!
Well, WiiU version is the latest version, the extended cut is included because if it wasn't, there would be the same reaction seen before ("the ending is rush", "we don't see what happened after", "I don't want the mass relay to explode" blablabla). It would be stupid if they have decided to create a DLC to have a compromise between their vision of the game and people's habit of narration, it would be stupid to create it for Xbox, PS and PC and to not preinstal it in the WiiU game. The original game still Bioware's vision, the extended cut is a compromise. So yes for a lot of people it becomes canonical, but it doesn't mean that it is if you try to understand the developers intentions.
And I think that it costs less and make people happier if it is preinstalled.
IMO the artist's vision is what we have. Given how much they defended their ending I'd say this is fair. I don't view EC as a compromise since they didn't change anything that people wanted change, they only extended what was already there. I don't really care if only a few people view it as canonical, its STILL canon no matter how you look at it. To view it without the context of the full picture does no one any justice.
Also they released the Trilogy only a few days before Wii U and it DIDN'T have the EC pre-installed. So I don't think it was just to keep people from crying.
It was basically focusing on the death of Legion. The death...lets face it...made no real sense given the context of the lore, the story, and the codex. But the moment was just so good we just ran with it.
The audience can usually overlook an oddity or a inconsistency if it is in favor of a good dramatic moment. I know I can. This is most likely how IT gained SUCH favor. Yes, IT - if true - is a retcon on the codex. But the idea of not only a great battle of wills between shepard and harbinger but the promise of a new ending were so great that people overlooked the codex or only focused on one aspect of the codex and the lore and then did everything they could to 'prove' that what they believed was true - mostly via speculation, which was justified (to them) by Walter's "lots of speculation from everyone" quote.
But once we reach the ending...or hell, even priority earth mission itself...narrative coherence just takes a back seat.
Speak for yourself, I hated the geth vs quarian arc and hated that Legion had to die. Lol. 
While I do get your point and don't even necessarily disagree with it, I still stick by my own point. If someone wants to criticize a moment in the ending then they should also criticize other moments in the trilogy where similar events happened. If its happened before in the trilogy then it isn't a problem or fault with the ending - its a fault with the trilogy. Directing the hate specifically at the ending for doing something that the trilogy has already done before isn't fair, imo.
I do want to respond to some of your points as I'm getting the impression that you think I'm attacking you. I'm not TRYING to do that at all. Honestly I'm attempting to help you [whether it's wanted is obviously up for debate ... apologies if I've squished toes].
My apologizes if that is the impression I gave. I don't view it as an attack. My wording could be at fault. It isn't much of a defense, I admit, but all I can say is that its due to me intentionally trying to keep it all as short as possible. It's a topic that I'm, frankly, a bit burnt out on atm. The flaw of this however means much of what I say likely could come across as more blunt then it needs to be which likely aids in implying I'm being harsh or something. I'm not sure. At anyrate, no worries there. I apologize that I gave that impression, please keep in context that my lack of depth in replies is merely me being tired of this specific subject and not wanting to spend as much time on it as I once did.
1. No, it doesn't invalidate the original. It invalidates IT. Though there are other things in the lore, long before EC, that invalidated IT, as Ithurael pointed out, though perhaps not with that specific intent. It's built upon misunderstand of the lore. Mainly about how Indoctrination works in general, really. Though despite this I was willing to overlook it as poor writing, at first, and accept IT as the possible 'true' ending originally. The original ending was so devoid of any content or difference it seemed like they were purposely as vague and short as possible. It begged for us to question it.
EC changes all that. IT has officially been shot down. I'm fine with people still choosing to headcanon it. Play however you desire. I just don't like it when individuals take the stance that the IT is /real/, that its /canon/ and that its the /true/ ending to Mass Effect. It's a self-delusion being perpetuated as lore-fact IT is only headcanon fanfiction. This shouldn't be forgotten.
2. We shall agree to disagree. I rather not go back through five pages to elaborate my perspective. Lol.
3. Perhaps from our limited individual perspective. However it's quite different from the reaper perspective. It's critical to understand the reaper perspective to understand the ending. The game makes it clear to us several times over that they're not killing us all, they're harvesting us. They also explain in the lore, going back to the second game, how and why they consider it anything other than death. You don't have to agree with their perspective to understand it.
4. Despite its wording, it wasn't directed at you personally. You were defending those who believe such and such. I was criticizing them, not you. Yes, though, a simple rewording to "no good explanation" would make a lot of difference. Which would also be something I'd agree with on certain endings. For example I'd agree completely with anyone who says Synthesis has practically no explanation and makes no sense. At the same time I would disagree with someone who says it has no explanation whatsoever. An explanation, regardless of how vague and nonsensical, was given.
The real kicker is that either way, the argument that Bioware messed up still holds true. You can be upset and angry at Bioware for providing a shitty explanation, one doesn't have to pretend they didn't give an explanation. Doing so doesn't help one's argument. It does however help boost the IT agenda, imo, which is likely why people stick with that excuse.
5. Apologizes then, likely a misunderstanding on my part. Again, not my intention to be uncivil, at least to you. I also apologize that I'm so purposely short with all this. IT is a topic that has been... done to death at this point. I rather not spend TOO much time going over it. That's time that could be spent discussion 'real' Mass Effect stuff... or playing some 7 Days to Die. Either or. 
6. I don't disagree with that. I concede the possibility that it is the same child. It's up to personal preference, I suppose. I suggest that all the facts surrounding the catalyst are indicative of it not literally being meant to be the same exact child. I compare all the facts about the child and the situation with what is essentially the only support the catalyst has for being the child - we the player can notice that beneath all the alterations and special effects the model was originally the same as the child. That's all it really has to go on, the fact that if you look beyond the changes you can spot the original model. IT latches onto this and, based off that assumption, goes off to make fantastic claims about the ending.
If you assume that the catalyst is meant to literally be the kid and overlook all the support against it both from an in-game and outside perspective, then the view point that its the reapers reading from Shepard's mind fits. It comes with the additional baggage of having to explain other branching conclusions that come from this implication.
On the other hand if you just assume that its more rational that it isn't meant to literally be the kid and just is a modified art asset re-purposed for their tossed-together, last-moment ending.... You don't get any of these issues. Occam's razor applies.
To summarize my response:-- I'm not intending to attack you. My goal is to try to make you a more effective critic
-- My OWN failings may have contributed to misunderstanding. That is due to sloppiness and not to a lack of ability [or humility :) ]
-- If you're attacking my intelligence [as opposed to lack of sloppiness] then I suggest you re-evaluate your position
-- While I believe your interpretation is largely correct I feel that there are some reasonable arguments that can be made contrary to your [and my] interpretations of ME3
-- I never had that impression and I apologize that I've lead you to such a conclusion. I again do acknowledge that my criticism in this particular topic has not been deeply thorough. Arrogant of me to say this, perhaps, but I am quite capable of being much more... refined about it. The issue is a personal one, it is not so much that I cannot be more effective but rather I don't wish to bother. I have spent so much time, so, so much time talking about this very specific topic of IT. Years. I was even a part of the CleverNoob community at one point, which you may know as being a rather significant component of the IT. Over this time I've been worn out on the ordeal. I just don't have the energy for it anymore. I realize that isn't a good excuse but its the only one I have.
-- I'd argue more of the blame is on my end for not giving this as much as my attention as I should. Though saying that may be akin to me arguing over which one of us is most humble. Myself, of course! (intended ironic joke)
-- Wasn't my intent. I actually respect you.
-- In many areas, I agree. When it comes to Bioware's intended ending, however, I argue nay. They've made it very clear and have even come directly voicing their stance on it. I see no room for interpretation on something even Bioware acknowledges is only fanfiction. It isn't the intended ending. That isn't saying, of course, that there's anything wrong with people who prefer it or headcanon it. It's only against those who have the audacity to proclaim it is the truth, that it is the real factual ending and that anyone who disagrees has been indoctrinated.
@Valmar: BTW: I'm not picking on you when responding directly to your posts mostly. I just view you as someone I can have a rational discussion with and thus are "worth it". If I ever get the feeling someone isn't going to be rational or "worth my time" I often won't bother. Also there's nasty time constraints. Silly work getting in the way of my responding to everyone with good points
Ah, shucks, you could make a krogan blush. I try my best and I do appreciate your efforts - I hope my simplicity in this particular subject doesn't stop future conversations in other subjects.
@Valmar: No problem at all. I tend to be a little too stubborn & bull-headed for my own good. I just can't let something go and apparently I just have to have the last word 
Guest_burak_*
I don't view EC as a compromise since they didn't change anything that people wanted change, they only extended what was already there.
They did give the fans a firm answer though, even if they didn't want to hear it. On multiple occasions (FAQs, Twitter, etc).
IMO the artist's vision is what we have. Given how much they defended their ending I'd say this is fair. I don't view EC as a compromise since they didn't change anything that people wanted change, they only extended what was already there. I don't really care if only a few people view it as canonical, its STILL canon no matter how you look at it. To view it without the context of the full picture does no one any justice.
Also they released the Trilogy only a few days before Wii U and it DIDN'T have the EC pre-installed. So I don't think it was just to keep people from crying.
Ok you don't care about my opinion and the writing of the game but the reason Mass Effect trilogy has not got the extended cut pre installed is because it was on xbox360, ps3 and PC, so the DLC is already here. For the WiiU, they would have to put it on the store. I don't think it's free to put DLC on the store... (I've said : "And I think that it costs less and make people happier if it is preinstalled." the other part of what I've said still valid though)
They did give the fans a firm answer though, even if they didn't want to hear it. On multiple occasions (FAQs, Twitter, etc).
Yes, they did. Though I don't recall ever implying otherwise, did I?
Ok you don't care about my opinion and the writing of the game but the reason Mass Effect trilogy has not got the extended cut pre installed is because it was on xbox360, ps3 and PC, so the DLC is already here. For the WiiU, they would have to put it on the store. I don't think it's free to put DLC on the store... (I've said : "And I think that it costs less and make people happier if it is preinstalled." the other part of what I've said still valid though)
What gives you that impression? You shouldn't take my comments so personally.
Yes, cost might be an issue. There are many factors to consider. I didn't argue against that, I merely pointed out that it specifically isn't likely to be just to make players happy. I also mentioned it was just my opinion - I'm not the word of law on Bioware's motivations.
You did mention it could costs less, and indeed it likely does, but you also spent the bulk of that post saying the cause was likely to keep fans satisfied. You also implied that the EC isn't necessarily canonical - which I disagree with for reasons mentioned previously. I also disagree with the notion that the EC is a compromise and not Bioware's vision. If that was true I imagine fans would be a lot happier since its Bioware's vision people have so many problems with in the first place.
Extended Cut is just as its name implied, an extended version of their vision. Personally I refuse to view EC as a 'compromise' since all it does is further glorify their vision instead of making concessions to addressing some of the bigger issues that fans had with it, issues that required rewriting. The link Burak provided above is good proof for this, they made it clear that it wasn't going to be a rewrite and that they're not changing their vision. Unfortunate, imo, as there are many things I felt should had been completely dropped from the ending.
Extended Cut is just as its name implied, an extended version of their vision. Personally I refuse to view EC as a 'compromise' since all it does is further glorify their vision instead of making concessions to addressing some of the bigger issues that fans had with it, issues that required rewriting. The link Burak provided above is good proof for this, they made it clear that it wasn't going to be a rewrite and that they're not changing their vision. Unfortunate, imo, as there are many things I felt should had been completely dropped from the ending.
Well when you extend something you change it.
First, you may have noticed that during the extended cut, you have the music and some scene that create the feeling of glory. There's nothing like that on the original ending, it only insisted on devastation. People didn't like that, so they changed it.
Second, the ending was about high level, so the ending was supposed to end on this note but when you put put the voice telling you what happens after, and you see that, you go back to the human scale. From that point of view the original ending is coherent but the extended cut isn't. People wanted epilogue without asking themselves why there isn't one in the original ending. Bioware put an epilogue to please people, once again. from the narration point of view these two ending are opposed.
So it may give the impression that it didn't change the ending while actually it's a real rewrite of it, it's a compromise between their ending and what people want from an ending. Whenever you extend something, you rewrite it.
PS : when they said that they would not change their vision of the ending it was about the catalyst that people wanted to be removed. People wanted a totally different ending (something like MEHEM), that's why they said it. They said that they didn't change their vision because they kept the elements of their ending. But actually the narration shows that they changed their vision of the ending to turn into a compromise.
hang on a mo. looking at the literal ending, the extended cut gave a few answers, but it also raised far more questions than it answered.
Relays? Still go Boom (although with a slightly reduced and retconned boom, rendering 'Arrival' as completely redundant)
Normandy? Gets from the heat of battle to Commander Shepard in 5 seconds.... Seems Legit. (ultimate facepalm)
Still crashes for some reason on Jungle Planet. Explosive Decompression? Not in the Mass Effect universe... apparently.
Reapers? No Change. Still going to kill everyone if you don't destroy them.
Oh... We get slideshows showing the consequences of our decisions. None of which make any sense.
Galaxy? Still red, blue or green apparently.
Starjar? Still utterly invalidates the first game.
Synthesis? Yay. Lets all be friends with intergalactic ethnic cleansing machines... Indoctrinating everyone.... good idea.
Control.... Shep still melts. Reapers still there. Indoctrination still exists.
and the Destroy ending with high ems is still the best ending (but now has added soundtrack up to the breath)
Lets face it. Their vision sucks.
the catalyst (by definition) is shepard.... he is the one who can make a change.
"Lol, come on now, have people not seen the sci fi movie Contact, where the alien takes the form of the protagonists deceased father? The Catalyst has clearly taken the form of the kid from Shepard's head..."
So you believe that the Catalyst is inside Shepard's mind, but indoctrination still isn't a possibility? Considering the Indoctrination Codex specifically mentions that the Reaper gains control of the Limbic System, and the Limbic System holds access to memories, I find this quite odd. And I don't just mean you, I mean to everyone that thinks the two aren't linked.
But hey, there's still that one in X chance that the Catalyst just used that image by coincidence. Mmmhmm..
hang on a mo. looking at the literal ending, the extended cut gave a few answers, but it also raised far more questions than it answered.
Relays? Still go Boom (although with a slightly reduced and retconned boom, rendering 'Arrival' as completely redundant)
Normandy? Gets from the heat of battle to Commander Shepard in 5 seconds.... Seems Legit. (ultimate facepalm)
Regarding these 2 points:
I agree about the rest, though.
hang on a mo. looking at the literal ending, the extended cut gave a few answers, but it also raised far more questions than it answered.
Relays? Still go Boom (although with a slightly reduced and retconned boom, rendering 'Arrival' as completely redundant)
Normandy? Gets from the heat of battle to Commander Shepard in 5 seconds.... Seems Legit. (ultimate facepalm)
Still crashes for some reason on Jungle Planet. Explosive Decompression? Not in the Mass Effect universe... apparently.
Reapers? No Change. Still going to kill everyone if you don't destroy them.
Oh... We get slideshows showing the consequences of our decisions. None of which make any sense.
Galaxy? Still red, blue or green apparently.
Starjar? Still utterly invalidates the first game.
Synthesis? Yay. Lets all be friends with intergalactic ethnic cleansing machines... Indoctrinating everyone.... good idea.
Control.... Shep still melts. Reapers still there. Indoctrination still exists.
and the Destroy ending with high ems is still the best ending (but now has added soundtrack up to the breath)
Lets face it. Their vision sucks.
AFAIK bioware was trying to answer the BIGGEST questions that the fans were shouting on the forums, mainly:
- Relays go boom = death of galaxy (see arrival)
- Normandy Running = chronologically impossible
- Teleporting Squadmates = actually impossible
- Catalyst logic = nonsense
- Effect of choices on galaxy = Did not exist
Now...BIoware did fix most of these:
- Relays go boom = death of galaxy (see arrival)
- in high ems the relays are only damage...however...in low ems they still go boom. Which as we know will destroy the system that relay is in
- Normandy Running = chronologically impossible
- This was explained by the command from Hackett to meet at the rendezvous. While it breaks character, they do at least give a reason for it.
- Teleporting Squadmates = actually impossible
- HAHA now we are getting into some fun....This then required the normandy to literally teleport down from the space battle (using what I can theorize is a Mass Effect corridor) to get to the beam run. Now, this raises a few questions...Why didn't we just do this in the first place? Harbinger isn't shooting at the Normandy and most cite that because of the reaper IFF. Also, using a mass effect corridor the normandy could actually teleport into the citadel...so...lol. So while we have fixed the "how did my squadmates get on the normandy" problem we now have. How did the normandy get there so fast? If we could get there so fast, why didn't we just drop off shep and crew to the beam (the reapers can't see the normandy), and If we can teleport the ship using a mass effect corridor, why not just jump into the citadel? I thought the codex said the normandy SR2 could not land on planets...
"Its state-of-the-art Kodiak shuttle can make landings the original Normandy could not attempt."
http://masseffect.wi...ps_and_Vehicles
Whoopsie
Then, we see - in the memorial scene - our ENTIRE crew on the normandy....Wait a minute...How did our whole crew now get on the normandy? It just came down to pick up those two members because of...reasons.
This is a win one, lose 5.
- Catalyst logic = nonsense
- This was given a lot of treatment via new dialog. However, it is largely expository dialog and still is as contrived as anything. Also, when you sort through all of it...you come to one line: "You would not know them, and there is not enough time to explain". When I got to that I threw my hands up and rofl'd again (the normandy evac made me do it the first time). But nothing was changed here - really. It was just extended. So the problems the catalyst creates on the lore and the history of the ME games is still present. However, at least they give enough expository dialog to fix the fans complaint about "it not making sense" and then they made a $10 DLC to justify it further
- Effect of choices on galaxy = Did not exist
- I will give bioware props for this. It is nice to see that they at least give a glimpse of what life is like post-reaper war. However, the slides (at least in low to mid ems) make no sense and should not be there. We know that if a relay is destroyed...it WILL destroy the system it is in. End of Line. There should be no slides. Also, we know that the fleets would be stranded. While FTL travel would be possible, it would take a bit too long I should think. Also, another problem with the slides is that they have no real meaning. You see a picture of Jacob at a classroom....ok...soooo what? What does that mean? Or another: You see a picture of Grunt and Wrex standing together on Tuchanka...How long did it take to get there? Wouldn't wrex be dead from old age? You see the Krogan rebuilding or going to war. While I do like the sentiment of this. It again makes no sense. Wreav can go to war all he wants, but with no relays...he is not going anywhere for a while lol.
The endings require massive amounts of headcanon and suspension of disbelief to work. And while ROC seems to play a role in almost every story these days, it seems to be the only real explanation for the events and the epilogue.
Bio did their best with the EC...but nothing can make a pile of crap, not a pile of crap.
MrBTounge did a great review of the EC. Though not as in depth a Smudboy (or as vitrolic)
Guys, just roll with it!
*Does the Shepard Shuffle*
...
...
That should have been the true ending. Shepard fires the Crucible triggering a massive intergalactic rave. 
Also, if you paid attention to the dialog with glowjob, you will notice that it attempted synthesis before and it failed. (It is inferred this is the reapers). So...the catalyst does NOT need shepard to enact synthesis. Hell, it could just get a keeper to grab one of those dead bodies and throw it into the beam...or it could have gotten one of the humans in the citadel to throw into the beam. When looking at the ending critically and objectivley we find TONS of issues, errors, and questions...
The catalyst needs Shep for synthesis. Shep seems to be the “signal” that now the organics are ready. (Imo the catalyst is wrong with this assumption. )
The Catalyst has clearly taken the form of the kid from Shepard's head(something it seems to have learnt from the Leviathan), and is not using its true form, whatever that may be.
So you believe that the Catalyst is inside Shepard's mind, but indoctrination still isn't a possibility? Considering the Indoctrination Codex specifically mentions that the Reaper gains control of the Limbic System, and the Limbic System holds access to memories, I find this quite odd. And I don't just mean you, I mean to everyone that thinks the two aren't linked.
The Kid is an AI (highly evolved, but made by Leviathan) embodying the collective intelligence of all Reapers. Does this mean that it can indoctrinate someone? I thought that just Reaper and Leviathans could do this. How can it extract memories from Sheps mind (assuming that its appearance is the kid from Vancouver)?
And regarding the conversation with Leviathan. I don´t think it´s indoctrination but then it has to be a hallucination. Shep sees 3 humans instead of 3 Leviathans, is walking around instead of being in an atlas and is no longer in the ocean but in some “room”. And if Levi can do this why shouldn´t the Reapers can do this, too? Just a question.
What´s about the people on Mahavid? Is it simply mind-control? After destroying the artifact they are released missing 10 years of their life.
And concerning destroy option: “Technology you rely on will be affected”. Does this include ships, toasters, playstations etc. as well or does it affect only “living” synthetics? EDI exist primarily within the Normandy. Why is she going to die but the Normandy can escape?
I guess I´m missing some informations and I would appreciate it if someone can tell me.
Great!
Wouldn't be great if BW did Mass Effect 3 as part 1,2 and 3? The game looks so unpolished as it is now, it killed any kind of replayabilty for me.
First of all: No Mars Archives Crucible. Liara would find there some way to transform ordinary matter in dark energy. Tali would come in with her research of Haelstrom. Now we have a Haelstrom Sun's Dark Energy Bomb!
Second: No Geth's Pinocchio Syndrome. It killed the only real Alien species on Mass Effect. Instead, Legion's sacrifice could be explained that he wanted to create a kind of firewall in the Consensus against the Reapers and he would have to abandon his platform, and therefore interaction with the "real world"
Third: This flowchart
The Kid is an AI (highly evolved, but made by Leviathan) embodying the collective intelligence of all Reapers. Does this mean that it can indoctrinate someone? I thought that just Reaper and Leviathans could do this. How can it extract memories from Sheps mind (assuming that its appearance is the kid from Vancouver)?
That's the point. The Kid isn't an AI, it's Harbinger inside your head trying to indoctrinate you. The Kid is just an hallucination, it always had been, it was never seen or heard by anyone, even Anderson when he was just 2 feet away from its position. Harbinger is using the same image, just blurring it and making it more 'AI-like' to try and evoke an emotional response from Shepard.
Well when you extend something you change it.
First, you may have noticed that during the extended cut, you have the music and some scene that create the feeling of glory. There's nothing like that on the original ending, it only insisted on devastation. People didn't like that, so they changed it.
Second, the ending was about high level, so the ending was supposed to end on this note but when you put put the voice telling you what happens after, and you see that, you go back to the human scale. From that point of view the original ending is coherent but the extended cut isn't. People wanted epilogue without asking themselves why there isn't one in the original ending. Bioware put an epilogue to please people, once again. from the narration point of view these two ending are opposed.
So it may give the impression that it didn't change the ending while actually it's a real rewrite of it, it's a compromise between their ending and what people want from an ending. Whenever you extend something, you rewrite it.
Are continuity errors 'high level'?
That's the point. The Kid isn't an AI, it's Harbinger inside your head trying to indoctrinate you. The Kid is just an hallucination, it always had been, it was never seen or heard by anyone, even Anderson when he was just 2 feet away from its position. Harbinger is using the same image, just blurring it and making it more 'AI-like' to try and evoke an emotional response from Shepard.
If its all just to evoke an emotional response then why is it blurred at all? Why isn't it literally the same kid? Why does it go through all the trouble making the form distinct by adding all kinds of glowing, swirling special effects and overlaying the voice twice? Wouldn't it be more suitable to take an approach akin to the Leviathans where the form looks real and not like a hologram projection?
Here's a little comedic distraction that I found humorous.
I went to look up the Mass Effect books and typed in 'Revolution' instead of 'Revelation'. This is what I got:
If your plan is to get as big as James, I think you all know what you have to do.
Any way, I was amused.
That is how I gained 100lbs of muscle in one year! James is a tiny pipsqueek compared to me.
Guest_burak_*
- Normandy Running = chronologically impossible
- Teleporting Squadmates = actually impossible
I've watched a lot of shows where the writers didn't explain every little thing. I mean, some of this stuff is common sense. Normandy running away with your squad on it? There was roughly 20 minutes or so from the time you last saw your squad, to the time that the Crucible fires. So it's common sense that they were picked up and carried off. They didn't explain how Shepard got from the Prothean Beacon in ME1 to the Normandy med bay where you see him next. It's logical that the Normandy came by, picked you up, and took you down to get checked out.
Every story, be it a game, movie, etc, requires some level of input on the viewer's part. Otherwise, you'd end up with a movie that is originally 2 hours, turning into 3-4 hours because of things they didn't explain. Or in the case of ME3, a few extra DLC packs (Leviathan, Extended Cut, etc), which add several more hours of information to the game that, in my opinion, is optional and not necessary in order to finish the campaign. You can complete the game without it.
- Effect of choices on galaxy = Did not exist
I count 16 endings depending on how you played the series, just as they said would happen. The endings may not have been impacted by things like the Council, Genophage choice, etc. How the Reapers are dealt with, Shepard's fate, as well as the Normandy are.
I think people had set personal expectations on how their choices would impact the end, and they simply weren't met. Some expressed the end of ME3 to be like ME2's suicide mission on steroids or something along those lines. They were disappointed because the finale of ME3 didn't play out like this (see flowchart above).
I've watched a lot of shows where the writers didn't explain every little thing. I mean, some of this stuff is common sense. Normandy running away with your squad on it? There was roughly 20 minutes or so from the time you last saw your squad, to the time that the Crucible fires. So it's common sense that they were picked up and carried off.
Can you explain how Steve Cortez got back on the Normandy after his shuttle crashed in time to have a holobye at the forward operating base?
I've watched a lot of shows where the writers didn't explain every little thing. I mean, some of this stuff is common sense. Normandy running away with your squad on it? There was roughly 20 minutes or so from the time you last saw your squad, to the time that the Crucible fires. So it's common sense that they were picked up and carried off. They didn't explain how Shepard got from the Prothean Beacon in ME1 to the Normandy med bay where you see him next. It's logical that the Normandy came by, picked you up, and took you down to get checked out.
It's possible that the characters could end up on the Normandy (although given the ME tech that window of time would be impossible, then again most of that stuff is ignored at the end: like the sudden removal on the limits of Relay travel), plus the amount of time it would take to find everyone scatted all over London with combat still going on. Still the question is what motivations would lead to this. If it was specifically just the squadmates why would they just leave? If all the ground troops were retreating what happened after Coats gave the order to regroup at the buildings, instead of attacking the now unguarded conduit (like Anderson)? Why is everyone retreating after the half dozen speeches about not retreating? Who would divert the airpower for this evacuation. Who evacuated all the Normandy people, especially if Cortez is dead?
The situation in ME3 is infinitely more complex than your example from ME1. Characters are breaking... well, character. The time frame and logistics don't make much sense either.
Retour en haut