Broken Steel wasn't commercial or moral suicide.
broken steel cost $$ at release?
I didn't know that. Huh.
And I think the difference between a Planned IT ending and Broken Steel was that Broken Steel was not planned nor part of the plan. If bio had planned to give us a fake ending and then planned to release the real one for 10-15 bucks...yeah...everything about that makes me feel dirty inside...and I already have no heart.
broken steel cost $$ at release?
I didn't know that. Huh.
And I think the difference between a Planned IT ending and Broken Steel was that Broken Steel was not planned nor part of the plan. If bio had planned to give us a fake ending and then planned to release the real one for 10-15 bucks...yeah...everything about that makes me feel dirty inside...and I already have no heart.
Yeah, Broken Steel was $10.
To be fair, though it did extend the storyline past the confrontation at Project Purity, raised the level cap, and introduced new enemies and perks.
But a ME3 equivalent would have been: Shepard being rescued from the Citadel after making his/her choice (death being retconned away) raising the level cap to, say, 70. With additional abilities. And continuing a storyline where you deal with whatever threats remain in the galaxy: Cerberus remnants, pirates, or whatever. And in the meantime seeing how the galaxy is adjusting to the choice Shepard made at the end.
Also, I gotta say, for an unplanned DLC, Broken Steel sure did more to please the fanbase than the Extended Cut did 
Broken Steel wasn't commercial or moral suicide.
I can't agree with that. Why is it so difficult to think that both Sovereign and Harbringer could've simply lied about their "individuality"?
The way I see it I have two options. I can either throw out everything given to us in the lore up until the last five minutes. Or I can accept that the ending was rushed, poorly thought out and is not perfect. I say the ending is flawed and the reason it contradicts the previous lore is not because the previous lore was all a lie but because the ending is just a rushed mess that had no peer-review.
Coincidentally, even if I was to throw all the lore out the window and just accept the retcon on the reapers the catalyst STILL contradicts the first game's plot.
1. The Keepers are used to activate the relay to darkspace which, as it turns out, is the citadel.
2. The Keepers were modified by the protheans and now won't activate the relay.
3. Sovereign uses Saren and the Geth to assault the Citadel to take over the controls and manually activate the relay.
4. The catalyst, the reaper master, IS the citadel.
Do you not see how much that last thing contradicts all the rest? If the reaper master was on the Citadel the entire time, infact WAS the citadel ("It's a part of me, its my home") then why could it not activate the relay itself? Why do the reapers need to get control of it to gain access to the census data and control the relay network if all this is part of their master? They already had control of the Citadel, their boss IS the citadel.
The existence of the Catalyst doesn't mean the Reapers are all mindless drones. He never says he controls them directly,but instead he gives them a purpose and a task to carry out every 50k years.
"I control the reapers. They are my solution."
"I give them function. They, in turn, give me purpose."
"When fire burns, is it at war? Is it in conflict? Or is it simply doing what it was created to do?"
"You could instead use the energy of the crucible to seize control of the reapers. We will be yours to control and direct as you see fit."
"I do not look forward to being replaced by you, but I would be forced to accept it."
They have no purpose, they have function. They are tools that follow the will of the catalyst. Calling them slaves may be a bit of a stretch... being slaves implies that they have free will in the first place. The reapers are turned into nothing but tools that serve the will of their master.
No,no,and just no. For a trilogy that is all about your choices,that had major story-changing decisions at the end of the first two games,a linear ending where the Crucible docks,all Reapers die and you see the credits roll would cause even bigger complains. Even if they put some variations based on EMS (lets say that the Crucible never manages to dock,or it backfires,etc.) it would still come down to the fate of the galaxy being determined by mere numbers with no direct input from the player whatsoever.
I agree. That's actually one of the flaws of MEHEM, imo. Fine if you only wanted one ending but otherwise... devoid of choice.
That was the original decision chamber. Much better then the A,B,C chamber with mysterious pathways coming out of nowhere,right?
In the original design,all the Reapers were even supposed to break off from the battle with Sword and turn towards Shepard to watch his decision.
That's what I'm talking about. If the Catalyst wasn't so rushed,if the encounter with him was given actual development time or if the devs simply put more thought into what they were doing he wouldn't cause such a huge outcry. Not to mention that having Anderson or squadmates with you Mass Effect 1-style would make things much better as well.
The meeting with the Catalyst just needed a much better design and more creativity outside of just "Yeah look,I control all the Reapers,the Crucible just docked and here are your A,B or C choices. Don't ask any questions."
The idea was fine,the execution was not.
And can you really blame Bioware themselves for the ending? No. If EA gave them more time and money,you can bet your ass the ending would be spectacular.
Replace the catalyst with Harbinger and you have yourself a deal. Accepting a single hologram that is the embodiment of ALL the collective intelligence of reapers is a bit of a stretch in the lore as it does counter the "each a nation, free independent" aspect. Though I suppose to some extents even Harbinger being the ringleader would be taking a small liberty there. Really, in the end of the day, it all boils down to how the catalyst is presented. It has complete control of the reapers and it is part of the citadel. Remove these two things and it wouldn't be so bad in concept. A bit of a stretch perhaps but no more than what a lot of the game has asked you to accept previously anyway. It would be tolerable.
But no. It controls the reapers and it lives on the citadel, its PART of the citadel. These counter so much lore it hurts. I'm not satisfied. The general idea of the catalyst could work but they'd need to rewrite quite a bit of it. Don't have it to be the supreme ruler in control of all reapers. Don't have it be part of the citadel. While we're at it, make its hologram be that of an actual reaper. Sounds more like a win to me that way. Though that's just me.
I blame EA more than Bioware, sure. That doesn't mean I'm going to completely exempt Bioware, though. After all it was Bioware that spread all the lies and false promises about the game. Did EA push for them to do that? Maybe. It was still sprouted from their mouths, though. They shoulder some of the responsibility for this, regardless of who was whipping their backs during.
I did think the fact that Shepard looking like a husk was kind of a dead giveaway the Reapers were trying to indoctrinate him. I mean, Illusive Man was indoctrinated, and he looks like a husk. Saren was indoctrinated and he looks like a husk. Shepard also has the same eyes as Illusive Man and Saren, but not in the destroy ending. Seems pretty obvious to me.
I'm going to make a wild assumption here an say you played mostly paragon without scars. Why else would Shepard having glowing eyes stand out to you. Even still his eyes glow green multiple times in the trilogy whenever interfacing with an alien object. Big shock having your mind uploaded to the reaper mainframe gives you a bit of a temporary glow.
@ Ithurael
I don't know how you find the energy, man. Don't get me wrong, I love all your points and how you stay strictly in the bounds of the actual lore but... nothing you say is going to change this guy's mind. He wants to believe IT. You're fighting a losing battle. He doesn't want to be swayed he just wants to keep living with his delusion. It's simpler to just agree to disagree. Lol.
I was thinking more in terms of a planned 'real' end DLC, as in IT was the real ending all along but you'd only discover that when you bought the IT DLC. I'd imagine that would have gone down even worse than the original endings did.
I guess Broken Steel was the FO equivalent of the EC, unplanned, but obviously they did a much better job with it. It didn't feel like a band-aid for a gaping gunshot wound......
That is true.
a "real" ending may have caused a great deal of outcry. But I think an "alternate" ending would have been welcomed. Even if it cost money.
@ Ithurael
I don't know how you find the energy, man. Don't get me wrong, I love all your points and how you stay strictly in the bounds of the actual lore but... nothing you say is going to change this guy's mind. He wants to believe IT. You're fighting a losing battle. He doesn't want to be swayed he just wants to keep living with his delusion. It's simpler to just agree to disagree. Lol.
LOL. Thanks for the inspiration and the kind words hehehe.
No, my goal is not to change his view (either Drazen or Wizzy). My goal is to bring up the lore, cite it, and make others aware of it. IT really great as - a fan interpretation. However, the minute someone starts stating their headcanon or their interpretation is what is happening and intended by bio (and that said interpretation contradicts established lore)....well I have to just step in and point out what already exists in the ME universe. Who knows, maybe they can rework their theory to make it work within the confines of the lore. I am ok with that.
I would like to cite a convo I had with Vazgen. In it I stated what happened in the lore and he stated that his solution to it was headcanon. As long as he/she is aware that it is headcanon and isn't stating it was bios intention the entire time - I am fine with that. Hell, I respect and admire that.
They (drazen and wizzy) have their interpretation of how the game ended - that is fine. But everything needs to be kept in reference with the lore AND needs to be checked against it once and a while.
I can't just shoot off one day and say the entire series was a dream after the beacon in ME1...not without proof, and proof that is reinforced by the codex, the lore, the narrative, and the story.
That is true.
a "real" ending may have caused a great deal of outcry. But I think an "alternate" ending would have been welcomed. Even if it cost money.
Guest_draezen_*
IT helped fans cope with the rushed ending...and bioware saw something to mitigate the nerdrage and increase sales
The game was supposed to be released in late 2011. It was pushed back to March 2012. If it was rushed, it would have been released in 2011, not 2012. Every game or product that has ever been worked on has limited resources to work with.
I've seen plenty of games which had 5 years in development turn out worse than those with 2 1/3 years like ME3 (started in November 2009, finished in March 2012). It's not about working longer with more time, it sometimes has to do with decisions made, or other things that people don't see behind the scenes. I did play one game that had only 18 months in development, and it was very enjoyable.
The game was supposed to be released in late 2011. It was pushed back to March 2012. If it was rushed, it would have been released in 2011, not 2012. Every game or product that has ever been worked on has limited resources to work with.
I've seen plenty of games which had 5 years in development turn out worse than those with 2 1/3 years like ME3 (started in November 2009, finished in March 2012). It's not about working longer with more time, it sometimes has to do with decisions made, or other things that people don't see behind the scenes. I did play one game that had only 18 months in development, and it was very enjoyable.
When I say rushed I mean it was pushed out by EAs fiscal year. Our 2011/2012 (EG Jan -Dec) doesn't matter to them. They need to report X number of earnings by the end of their fiscal year (which ends in March ironically) for their stockholders to be happy.
http://investor.ea.c...eleaseID=671113
The EA FY (fiscal year) Begins in April 1st and ends March 31st.
EA definitely had a hand is pushing bioware to deliver ME3 by or before end of FY (fiscal year) 2012. They probably gave them plenty of people, a sizable budget, but not enough time to build out the game to meet not just fan expectations...but developer release statements as well.
Development time is a critical factor when making any kind of game. A simple platformer can be made in a few weeks whereas a AAA title would take 2-3 years. ME1 was made in about 4 years, ME2 in about 3 and ME3 was made in about 2 years (the 1/4 months was more or less just making from ashes DLC and bug testing). Why is the biggest and most complicated game given the least amount of development time? And yeah, I have seen 5 year or even 12 year etc long development time be just horrible games. Though we would really have to know the difference between actual start of development for some of these games and it being in development hell.
I can only imagine how amazing ME3 could have been if it had 4 years to be developed...
Also, The ending was blatantly rushed because the original ending was leaked online. This forced Casey and mac to scramble to make a new one ASAP. They wrote it and did not have it peer reviewed (as evidenced by Patrick Weeks post)
http://www.gameranx....versial-ending/
"I have nothing to do with the ending beyond a) having argued successfully a long time ago that we needed a chance to say goodbye to our squad, 
having argued successfully that Cortez shouldn't automatically die in that shuttle crash, and c) having written Tali's goodbye bit, as well as a couple of the holo-goodbyes for people I wrote (Mordin, Kasumi, Jack, etc).
No other writer did, either, except for our lead. This was entirely the work of our lead and Casey himself, sitting in a room and going through draft after draft.
And honestly, it kind of shows."
ME3 screams of rushed content. As evidenced by these two reviews:
= takes on the concept of 'art' and videogames
= looks at the gameplay and design of the game
ME3 needed about 6 more months of development At Least...even then...I am not sure it could deliver on what the devs were promising or the fans were expecting.
Now if you wanted to give a choice from hell at the end, and I mean a real choice from hell, you have the reapers behave like terrorists. They've moved the Citadel next to Earth for the harvest. You've just attached the Crucible to it, and made it up the beam, had the confrontation with The Illusive Man, and are now ready for the epic ending. Shepard collapses, and is transported to the decision chamber, but she's really laying unconscious on the floor. It's due to the cybernetics in her body that the Intelligence is able to communicate.
* Has conversation with Starbrat and is given the three choices, makes one of them, and dies. Shooting the tube does nothing but explode and kill Shepard. Control and Synthesis work.
* Refuses and wakes up, realizing that Starbrat was attempting to indoctrinate her. You now have another choice. 1) use the fleet blow up the Citadel and sacrifice Earth (it's a huge explosion and sends this thing crashing in a degenerating orbit and then it's a mass relay too) but end the reapers (they're networked to the Intelligence, and when the Intelligence is destroyed the reapers stop firing and become dumb and can no longer indoctrinate because it was the control signal that was doing it all along) - Shepard and named characters escape thus keeping the theme of the series that there are few problems that cannot be solved with large explosions; or 2) allow the harvest to continue giving the current refuse ending leaving it to the next cycle.
Humanity will rebuild on the colony worlds. Omega can be built to take over the duties of the Citadel.
Guest_draezen_*
EA definitely had a hand is pushing bioware to deliver ME3 by or before end of FY (fiscal year) 2012. They probably gave them plenty of people, a sizable budget, but not enough time to build out the game to meet not just fan expectations...but developer release statements as well.
When you release a product, it's more like this. Did you like the game? Why or why not? Give reason to improve things. There is no contract stating they have to satisfy their fans expectations or give you an enjoyable product. For some people it was satisfying, but not everyone. That is true for everything you buy. I go watch a movie, and think it's the best thing ever. Some other guy watches the same movie and thought it was utter crap for various reasons.
As for the advertising statements, I think Bioware was cleared of that back in 2012. So that issue was resolved. Dead and done. They even released a free DLC that added roughly 40 different ending slides, each triggered by your actions in previous games.
"I have nothing to do with the ending beyond a) having argued successfully a long time ago that we needed a chance to say goodbye to our squad,
No other writer did, either, except for our lead. This was entirely the work of our lead and Casey himself, sitting in a room and going through draft after draft.
And honestly, it kind of shows.
Don't believe everything you hear on the internet.
So someone hacked his account specifically to post a criticism of the ending?
So someone hacked his account specifically to post a criticism of the ending?
I think the most likely explanation is that he did write it, but was forced to backtrack...because you know, job security. Publicly criticizing an employer usually doesn't end well. That seems far more likely that someone hacking an account he's known to use and then posting something plausible about what went on internally with the crafting the ending.
It seems to me like the EA Overlords got anxious and wanted the game wrapped up and sent to publishing, so Bioware were forced into writing an ending that they probably didn't want, just to fit things into the time constraints. There can't be any other reason, really. The ending is just bad. I can justify it as Indoctrination, but then there's arguments for and against it, certain things that clash no matter how you look at it. It's just badly written and rushed; obviously so. A poor ending to an otherwise awesome series of games.
It was clear from the moment the production started on ME3: The development cycle was overly ambitious, AKA short, as in 1.5 years compared to 3 and 2.5 years respectively for the other two.
The problem though, is that the writers didn't do their job quickly enough. I don't judge here. You'd be hard pressed to wrap up all the loose ends they decided to in one plot, but as a result the script was postponed from august 2011 to november 2011 (confirmed by Martin Sheen who was supposed to record TIM's final lines of dialogue in august). That was clearly a sign that they had trouble with how to write the ending or just didn't have enough time.
The story files were leaked in november 2011 when the game's private beta leaked on XBL and dataminers found the entire script in there revealing what happened at the end and several other things. They hated it and Bioware took that as an opportunity to alter things slightly. Casey's decision was to cut out stuff instead of actually change things much. The team cut out lines from the final conversation in the game to make it more vague in an attempt to cause debate and polarization amongst players on "what the ending actually meant?" -- that is what I believe given the facts.
TLDR; They were pressed for time so when they saw an early reaction from the leaked script, they cut out important details in the ending that made it almost unintelligible, then later re-added some of those lines with Extended Cut as well as new dialogue. But they were pressed for time; that's why it failed
PS. they also had a hack as Lead writer, so there goes a big part of the blame.
Regarding the endings...I think the biggest mistake the dev team had was not knowing how they were going to wrap up the series back while Mass Effect 1 was in production. I think they should have come up with a rough idea of how the series was going to end with the first game, and then worked towards that from there. Make it up as you go caused some of the problems with ME3's finale.
When you release a product, it's more like this. Did you like the game? Why or why not? Give reason to improve things.
What? What are you talking about? Your posts (shown above) were arguing that ME3 was NOT rushed. I then cited that ME3 was still released in EA's fiscal year to ensure that 2012 would have a good sales margin. Look at Linkski's post for more info:
http://forum.bioware...hts/?p=18444415
So now you are shifting the convo to whether or not I liked the product...? The first convo we had revolved around IT. I then cited lore, codex, images, and even a psychology study showing how IT could not and does not work.
Then you stated that ME3 was not rushed because it could have been released in 2011 and not 2012 (as if that makes a difference) to which I then cited that - for EA - they wanted ME3 to be released at the end of the fiscal quarter to post high earnings (something ME3 did very well). I then cited the article from Patrick Weeks. I THEN cited two reviews of ME3 that explicitly point how how and why the game is and was rushed.
And now you are saying...?
When you release a product, it's more like this. Did you like the game? Why or why not? Give reason to improve things.
OK...Well let me first correct you. Before you release a product you have to ...develop it. If you have a limited development time for a very complicated product it will suffer for it. Trust me - I know. I butt heads with my corporate management all the time on this. So, if you cut the time it takes to develop a very complex product in half...there will have to be some cut corners...and ME3 in gameplay and design shows this:
- A button/Spacebar does EVERYTHING!!
- Hitboxes
- Sidequests
- Bland facial animations
- Poor romance arcs for non-liara romancers
- Tali's freakin face
- Inability to import custom faces on release
- Very poor enemy AI
- Difficulty all over the map
- Constantly reused combat environments
- Total nerf of the dialog wheel
and oh...I could go on...and on...and on about the story
Give reason to improve things.
We tried...we yelled, screamed, and banged plates together for weeks at a time. We donated money to charity, sent them cupcakes, sent them M&M's, Sent them mail and some of the most devout of us made Youtube reviews of the game and its ending. And in the end...bioware completly missed the target. They clung to the idea that then ending was too sad or too intellectual for us. They thought that they 'underestimated' our attachment to shepard and were too grieved by his death. Hell, even Walters (the lead writer) believed that the reason fans did not like the ending was because we were too saddened by shepards death (comparing it to Breaking Bad)
Here are the videos I remember seeing plastered all over biowares twitter, facebook and forums.
TUN: Vanilla Ending
TUN Pre EC Review (of just the announcement)
TUN: Extended Ending
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NNUImNL9Ok
Smud: Original Ending:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiN8gL40d84&list=PLEE7764FAB908A8FB
Smud: Extended Analysis:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nVf_yDYftY&list=PLiWzMOLohpMmyaUhp8hva3Vxa8Y9jsLRD
The original Ending, via the TUN reviews, abandoned:
Genre
Character Focus
Central Conflict
The abandonment of these three items in the vanilla ending via writer fiat resulted in the loss of
Narrative Coherence == this is where a LOT of players questions and issues are coming from...
And it isn't JUST the ending....the ENTIRE GAME had massive problems
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGFJ43jv4eg = Rageaholic gameplay review
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M-jtGoYX_Q = Another mechanic and design review
And in the end, bioware - like any company - tried to address the low hanging fruit.
- Relays go boom == Dead galaxy
- Normandy Escape
- Squadmates on normandy
- Catalyst exposition
- Epilogue of galaxy post choices
That is it...but here is the problem with that...the first four of those are a result of abandoning the big three cited in MrBtounges vid...Those first four are part of Narrative Coherence...And the loss of Narrative Coherence is a symptom of the abandonment of Genre, Character Focus, and Central Conflict.
The EC did what it could...but it was a bandaid on a decapitation.
There is no contract stating they have to satisfy their fans expectations or give you an enjoyable product. For some people it was satisfying, but not everyone. That is true for everything you buy. I go watch a movie, and think it's the best thing ever. Some other guy watches the same movie and thought it was utter crap for various reasons.
No...bioware is not contractually obligated to satisfy fan expectations or deliver an enjoyable product. I am sure they wanted to though. And yeah...the pew pew part of the game was great! And there were some moments of the story that really were great. But...when you take a step back from it all and put the blind fanboism aside...you see horrifyingly glaring flaws...Yeah...nothing is perfect but still these are huge flaws in the core of the design itself. And another thing, some fans found the product satisfying for...conditional reasons...EG they thought IT was the developer intention so thus...they bought all the DLC and touted bioware as the greatest company ever..that is...until priestly kicked all the ITers off the BSN right before the release of the final DLC. lol
As for the advertising statements, I think Bioware was cleared of that back in 2012. So that issue was resolved. Dead and done. They even released a free DLC that added roughly 40 different ending slides, each triggered by your actions in previous games.
For most there is a LOT more wiggle room...save one...
http://popwatch.ew.c...-3-mac-walters/
"[The presence of the Rachni] has huge consequences in Mass Effect 3. Even just in the final battle with the Reapers."
Now...without headcanon...can you tell me exactly what gameplay difference or cutscene difference the rachni made in the mission Priority Earth? Where were they shown? Did their presence make a difference in the enemies you face? The types of enemies? The cutscenes you get? Who lives/dies? Anything? Anything at all?
The rest of the pre release dev quotes can be waded around with absolute minimalist thinking and a quick citation from the mission.
Here are the rest of them:
http://indoctrinatio...eveloper-quotes
Wow...you seriously believe Chris Priestly?
Are you trolling or just very very new here? (looks at number of posts) Eh, I will take the benefit of the doubt and just say you are new (nothing wrong with that, in fact welcome!)
No, CP (chris priestly) has been caught many MANY times lying to fans or being contradicted by the material released. And this is second hand info, from a historically very dishonest bioware rep. I hate to poison the well on this one but yeah...CP is NOT a good source to cite - at all.
Now, if you could find a quote from Patrick Weeks' twitter or a post from him on the forums saying it wasn't him that would be pretty concrete. He is a straightforward guy.
But if you seriously think that priestly is telling the truth...or you believe him in the slightest....well....I have a business proposition! I will sell you the Golden Gate Bridge if you pay me the small price of $1,000,000 dollars!
I'll agree with others on one thing ... I don't think anyone is going to be able to "prove" IT or "disprove" IT --- it's hard to prove a dream one way or another. Even if you're not looking for proof I doubt that one hardcore fan is going to change the mind of another hardcore fan 3 years after the fact. Oddly enough the other position is basically "the game was so bad / rushed I could explain anything away that I want". I contend it's equally difficult to "prove" the game-was-so-bad point.
If the last game wasn't rushed [along with a laundry list of other failings in the series] it may be a lot more clear which viewpoint is way-more-likely-to-be-correct Given the situation we have I wouldn't waste my energy arguing hard either way.
OK...Well let me first correct you. Before you release a product you have to ...develop it. If you have a limited development time for a very complicated product it will suffer for it. Trust me - I know. I butt heads with my corporate management all the time on this. So, if you cut the time it takes to develop a very complex product in half...there will have to be some cut corners...and ME3 in gameplay and design shows this:
- A button/Spacebar does EVERYTHING!!
- Hitboxes
- Sidequests
- Bland facial animations
- Poor romance arcs for non-liara romancers
- Tali's freakin face
- Inability to import custom faces on release
- Very poor enemy AI
- Difficulty all over the map
- Constantly reused combat environments
- Total nerf of the dialog wheel
and oh...I could go on...and on...and on about the story
People are kidding themselves if they believe Liara's romance arc is somehow better than others, yet alone good in itself. It has the most well-made sex scene and Liara is forced on the player in a lot of cutscenes, but romancing her rarely ever changes those scenes. She has the least dialogues of all the ME3 companions. I think she has like 2-3 cutscenes but almost no banter on the normandy. It's always "Hello, Shepard." or "It's so good to see you"
I agree completely linkenski.
But you cannot deny that even with how poor her romance arch was...every other romance got the shaft...and I don't mean the vertical graves from where the expression originates...nono. I mean they all got thrown down an elevator shaft. I mean...god do I want to replay the entire trilogy to experience the greatness of the Miranda arch...or...OMG how bout dat Jacob romance?? amirite!
That me3 promo showing the start of the thessia mission (which I had never seen before) was a bit... troubling.
Really? Never seen that or even heard of that
Really? Never seen that or even heard of that
Oh God do I love this....
One of the best comments in the original YT layout was my fav:
- "This trailer is a total lie...hilarious"
But no no...it's us the FANS fault for expecting too much... 
I can't agree with that. Why is it so difficult to think that both Sovereign and Harbringer could've simply lied about their "individuality"? I
Because they have no reason to.
I have a better headcannon that yours, one that doesn't destroy reapers as supposdely "omnipotent" beings.
The catalyst programmed them to think so.
We have no beggining we have no end etc etc. No reason to lie in order to intimidate someone when you don't even have to talk to him. You gain less by doing so.
BUT they think they are so powerful it doesn't matter.
So the closest thing to a logical answer is, they have been programmed to think like that. By the Catalyst.
I agree completely linkenski.
But you cannot deny that even with how poor her romance arch was...every other romance got the shaft...and I don't mean the vertical graves from where the expression originates...nono. I mean they all got thrown down an elevator shaft. I mean...god do I want to replay the entire trilogy to experience the greatness of the Miranda arch...or...OMG how bout dat Jacob romance?? amirite!
I played Miranda romance on my vanilla trilogy run. I love her romance in 2 except for the actual sex-scene and I loved her continuation in ME3. On my second playthrough I tried Liara and it just fell completely flat in 3.
Retour en haut