... sigh, I don't think the ending is perfect but as far as endings in scifi goes, in my 27 years old worth of existence as a scifi and fantasy geek, Mass Effect still rank low on the worst badly written ending ever. Has nobody watch Battlestar Galactica or read Dune series?
Why all this rage?
BSG ending ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
Yep, you went from "The best work of ME 2" straight to "Yet at the end" and ignored a whole sentence.
Ahahah. Very funny. Did you read what he wrote? You actually didn't! So if I select informations to make it clear, you don't get it. But if you want I'll do it :
Mass Effect 2 shifted the series towards being very character focused and driven. The best work of ME2 went into the character stories which happened around a terrible plot. The character focus really carried into the next game. So much of the series was about diversity, getting past old grudges (or not and the consequences of not doing so), and setting aside differences to fight a common enemy. Yet at the end, Shepard is isolated in a room with a new and unknown character and left to make a galaxy altering decision with little information and nobody to talk to. Look particularly at the first game. You had squadmates giving comments about the big decisions. Sure, they were just the game framing your options but it made it feel like a team. This all goes away at the end.
Ah yes it works better, indeed! The whole sentence was about Mass Effect 2 just like I've said and suddenly he talks about the ending without talking about Mass Effect 3.
Seriously, do you really think that it was necessary to do that to make you understand?
You brought up the idea of creator intention. I made a comment about creator intention. What's the problem? My point was that we are not ignoring creator intention but it only takes us so far.
Yes, there is an entire game between ME2 and the end of ME3. That game retained the focus on characters. What is your point?
Shortcut... I was talking about " how can we consider that something is made by someone if we ignore that there is an intention ? " if you don't see how your answer is totally disconnected from what I was talking about, then it's fine.
The focus on characters is the same in Mass Effect 2 and 3. You don't see the difference between the writing of those two games? My point is that you should compare how important is the story in Mass Effect 2 and 3, how many squadmates you have on the Normandy in the two games, compare how you can play Shepard in the two games etc... And you should also consider what is the context of the ending and the co-text of the ending. You totally ignore it, jumping from Mass Effect 2 to Mass Effect 3 ending. Shepard doesn't jump suddenly from the Normandy to the catalyst room. You should consider how the game was written. But as long as you'll think that the writer were drunk guys improvising the writing of the game, it will be hard for you to see how it was written.
Ahahah. Very funny. Did you read what he wrote? You actually didn't! So if I select informations to make it clear, you don't get it.
Yeah, I found it pretty fun, too. Yeah i read it.
Let´s do this fun, bolding thing, you are so fond of.
Mass Effect 2 shifted the series towards being very character focused and driven. The best work of ME2 went into the character stories which happened around a terrible plot. The character focus really carried into the next game.
and now Mass Effect get rebooted again.
We should be so lucky
Hey Ithurael, video games are made by people. They aren't perfect, and are going to make mistakes. There is no such thing as a perfect product. Deal with it.
What you may perceive to be a plot hole the size of a moon crater (enough to break the script), might only be a few centimeters across. A very small error, and not a game breaking one, in other words.
No game is perfect, but ME3 is very, VERY imperfect.
The fact that people are still p*ssed years later and the story has to flee the galaxy to get away from the controversy pretty well illustrates that.
And stop telling people that what they perceive is somehow "wrong"
Considering the endings of Mass Effect 3 involve 3 war crimes:
1-Red: killing your allies(the Geth and probably anyone with implants in them. Unless, of course, the magic beams can tell the difference between techs, which is entirely possible because magic) while also destroying the Mass Relays, which would cause every Alien blocked on Earth to die of starvation (unless, of course, people weren't able to remake 'em [which could be absolutely possible thanks to magic since knowledge of Mass Relays is, i think, scarce at best]
2-Green: then there is making husks, cannibals and the likes into intelligent beings capable of understanding what was done to them. But doesn't matter, Synthesis is best ending ebcause of reasons
3-Blue: doing the above concerning husks and the likes while also basically allowing the cycle to restart....... but eh, who cares, it's a problem for the next generations
Of course there is also the middle finger ending, which is a middle finger
Considering this, yep i can safely say that those are brilliant endings.
I think i'll go play some Witcher 3, i need some horrible story telling mixed with idiot characters(that were once multi-dimentional and interesting, basically people) and stupid endings to balance out the awesomeness that is ME3
Thx for clearifing it. I hear that you loved the kind of connection to the characters in ME2 and that you miss that on ME3?
Its also a point of mine. In addition to the isolation, i lost connection to the characters due to "auto dialoge" with only a few player interaction.
I am going to watch the video soon, Edit: Now i did. Seen that before. Now I want a new ending again
Oh ME3 still had the character focus, except for the ending. That's why the ending stands out. The auto-dialogue is a game-play issue and really only applies to this format. The physical isolation is a thematic and tonal issue, which carry into any form of fiction.
Ah yes it works better, indeed! The whole sentence was about Mass Effect 2 just like I've said and suddenly he talks about the ending without talking about Mass Effect 3.
Seriously, do you really think that it was necessary to do that to make you understand?
Shortcut... I was talking about " how can we consider that something is made by someone if we ignore that there is an intention ? " if you don't see how your answer is totally disconnected from what I was talking about, then it's fine.
The focus on characters is the same in Mass Effect 2 and 3. You don't see the difference between the writing of those two games? My point is that you should compare how important is the story in Mass Effect 2 and 3, how many squadmates you have on the Normandy in the two games, compare how you can play Shepard in the two games etc... And you should also consider what is the context of the ending and the co-text of the ending. You totally ignore it, jumping from Mass Effect 2 to Mass Effect 3 ending. Shepard doesn't jump suddenly from the Normandy to the catalyst room. You should consider how the game was written. But as long as you'll think that the writer were drunk guys improvising the writing of the game, it will be hard for you to see how it was written.
I didn't skip. As Dantriges pointed out, I said the shift was in ME2 and both games were character focused and driven. You're right that you have a smaller crew, but how much of that was realizing that 10 or 12 was too many? Or perhaps returning to ME1 size. Each ME2 crewmember has a mission relating to them. There's a character whose only purpose beyond being a gay LI is for Shepard to help him get over a personal problem. You can help EDI discover her "humanity" or not. The emotional climax of the finale was supposed to be Anderson's death, though your mileage may vary on how well it worked.
If I'm still misunderstanding your post about creator intent, then I have no idea what your point was. It could just be the language barrier. Rephrase please.
Might the ME3 Ending be satisficing, if it where changed in the following way:
- Instead of having starchild presenting synthesis in the very end....
-> if it was indoctrination and we fought it and woke up again to continue the fight against the reaper
-> If EDI claimed synthetic life has value too and the reaper too
-> Lets imagine, there where numerous options to choose to view the reaper point of view... (or not if you wish too)
-> if you had a destroy option where you could destroy them by force or bring them to their knees
-> if the reaper would understand, apologize and recognize the pain they created, all the pain of all the lost crew members...
-> and if they offer to help repair the damage as redemption.
-> and if they offer serious peace, where e.g. willing to stop now, repair and share technology and knowledge from earlier races..
Would the presence of a "lets make peace option" (without the borg collective synthesis), be okay for you?
Of course as long as there still was a destroy option, where you could fight them, like in the ME2 finaly.
Curious.
No game is perfect, but ME3 is very, VERY imperfect.
The fact that people are still p*ssed years later and the story has to flee the galaxy to get away from the controversy pretty well illustrates that.
And stop telling people that what they perceive is somehow "wrong"
If you haven't seen the Extended Cut, it shows you that the galaxy was eventually rebuilt. Life did continue afterwards. They aren't going to Andromeda to escape the ending. It was addressed in the Extended Cut.
In my second paragraph you quoted, I didn't say anyone was wrong. Read it again. I said what you might think is something big (10 km crater size), may only be a small problem (size of a quarter). In other words, people who are emotional tend to think things are worse than they really are.
BSG ending ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
Sorry for going a bit off topic but I really liked the ending to BSG (and I really don't like the ending of ME3). Here is the difference IMO:
In BSG the ending themes were consistent with the themes of the series. If you didn't see the whole divine angle (or should I say angel 
) coming, you just were not paying attention. It's all over the place right up from the pilot miniseries. The ME3 ending on the other hand did not do this (at least not for everyone). Granted, it had the additional caveat that - depending on play style - the themes could be very different for different players. A static TV show is much more easy to manage in this regard. Still, they didn't really manage their situation very well and they even recycled a previously resolved plot arc for the main tagged on twist. BSG never did that, it stayed consistent.
Also, the BSG ending involves the characters. All principle characters of the series are involved in the ending. They have stuff to do and it's all important in some way. The final 5 play a most imporant role of course but also the other cylons and all principle human characters have an involved role in the culmination of the series.
The people we care about in the ME universe on the other hand are shut out of the ending. They have no role to play. Basically, after the good bye scenes at the FOB (or at least after the beam run) they are out of the story and it's only up to Shepard, Anderson, TIM and the star kid to resolve basically everything. Sure, they have a little bit of screen time (more in the EC) but it's just tagged on epilogue stuff. It's got nothing to do with the plot. I think this may be why people were asking for closure so much and why so many were still not satisfied by the EC slides. It's not so much about what we see of the future of those characters but also the fact that they were cut out of the story before the end. In such a character focused story, this is not exactly ideal. By the way, ME2 did this much better with the suicide mission. It was a ingenius way to include the entire cast of the game into the ending itself. I still find it amazing that they didn't just re-use this concept and build on it for ME3.
Might the ME3 Ending be satisficing, if it where changed in the following way:
- Instead of having starchild presenting synthesis in the very end....
-> if it was indoctrination and we fought it and woke up again to continue the fight against the reaper
-> If EDI claimed synthetic life has value too and the reaper too ->This already happens (sortof) in the game (Post Ranoch i believe. I'm not sure if it happens under all circumstances, though)
-> Lets imagine, there where numerous options to choose to view the reaper point of view... (or not if you wish too)
-> if you had a destroy option where you could destroy them by force or bring them to their knees
-> if the reaper would understand, apologize and recognize the pain they created, all the pain of all the lost crew members...
-> and if they offer to help repair the damage as redemption.
-> and if they offer serious peace, where e.g. willing to stop now, repair and share technology and knowledge from earlier races..
Would the presence of a "lets make peace option" (without the borg collective synthesis), be okay for you?
Of course as long as there still was a destroy option, where you could fight them, like in the ME2 finaly.
Curious.
It depends on the presentation. (Also, do you mean completely without Starchild, or just instead of synthesis?)
-I'm still not sure if indoctrination as game concept would really have worked. But that may be because I hate the 'indoctrination'/mind-tampering game sequence at the end of Metro 2033. (From a gameplay perspective)
-Getting the actual in depth Reaper motivation and POV, the option to actually agree or disagree with it (A bit of this is in the extended cut), and appropriate reaction from the AI could have been great, imo. With appropriate reaction I mean something more similar to a real dispute or argument, not this ['You don't know', 'There is no time to explain', 'What you want is irrelevant', 'I don't like it either'] phrases.
-The 'Captain Kirk' option (remorseful AI that self-destructs and/or tries to undo harm caused) would have fitted pretty well into the ME-trilogy. Even though that is not really a great form of story telling, either --at least i haven't seen a not-cringe-worthy application of it yet.
-A non synthesis peace option would also fit very much to the rest of ME3. Totally fine with me.
It depends on the presentation. (Also, do you mean completely without Starchild, or just instead of synthesis?)
thx for your post.
I´d say without starchild and instead with a conversation with Harbinger or a collective reaper mind.
I am really courious if any form of cooperative peace ending would have worked and how.
Of course ALSO with a destroy ending. After all peace with no option, is more like surrendering. It must be free to choose.
thx for your post.
I´d say without starchild and instead with a conversation with Harbinger or a collective reaper mind.
It wouldn't be hard to have an ending without the thing
As I've posted before. Once the arms are fully opened, the crucible fires its bag of goodies throughout the galaxy that destroys the reapers. Or it sends out a pulse that changes the programming of the reapers causing them to stop the harvest and leave the galaxy. Bioware can flip a coin for which one they want to use
Might the ME3 Ending be satisficing, if it where changed in the following way:
- Instead of having starchild presenting synthesis in the very end....
-> if it was indoctrination and we fought it and woke up again to continue the fight against the reaper
-> If EDI claimed synthetic life has value too and the reaper too
-> Lets imagine, there where numerous options to choose to view the reaper point of view... (or not if you wish too)
-> if you had a destroy option where you could destroy them by force or bring them to their knees
-> if the reaper would understand, apologize and recognize the pain they created, all the pain of all the lost crew members...
-> and if they offer to help repair the damage as redemption.
-> and if they offer serious peace, where e.g. willing to stop now, repair and share technology and knowledge from earlier races..
Would the presence of a "lets make peace option" (without the borg collective synthesis), be okay for you?
Of course as long as there still was a destroy option, where you could fight them, like in the ME2 finaly.
Curious.
I don't expect the Catalyst or Reapers to realize they've been wrong all along, though it would be cool to show them that they are part of the problem with some alterations to the story. However, I want to show them they are wrong here. I have thought something like convincing President Eden to self destruct in Fallout 3 might work.
I'm talking about the books of course but how was the ending to the Harry Potter series bad?
There wasn't even a Deus Ex Machina, as everything from wandlore to the spells that tied You Know Who and Harry together were established throughout the series.
As to the finale, sometimes people do live happily ever after. It would be a miserable world indeed if the hero had to die every time.
Consistency isn't the common denominator in HP series. In fact, the entire horcrux arc and deathly hallows mythology was rammed into the last book and much of the narrative was again being told rather than being shown and everything was all the matter of convenience rather than careful storycrafting. Harry still hardly did anything much in the fight against Voldermort, he's still just a consistent lucky snowflake who need his friends to do most of the hard work and who can't stay dead for some reason after another. And even the final battle was a mess and are some of the shortest chapters in the entire book. Not surprisingly, Rowling had a hard time letting the ending go.
I'm not hating on the series. I'm relatively fluent in English mostly because of the series but nine years later, I still think its a trainwreck.
Sorry for going a bit off topic but I really liked the ending to BSG (and I really don't like the ending of ME3). Here is the difference IMO:
In BSG the ending themes were consistent with the themes of the series. If you didn't see the whole divine angle (or should I say angel
Also, the BSG ending involves the characters. All principle characters of the series are involved in the ending. They have stuff to do and it's all important in some way. The final 5 play a most imporant role of course but also the other cylons and all principle human characters have an involved role in the culmination of the series.
The people we care about in the ME universe on the other hand are shut out of the ending. They have no role to play. Basically, after the good bye scenes at the FOB (or at least after the beam run) they are out of the story and it's only up to Shepard, Anderson, TIM and the star kid to resolve basically everything. Sure, they have a little bit of screen time (more in the EC) but it's just tagged on epilogue stuff. It's got nothing to do with the plot. I think this may be why people were asking for closure so much and why so many were still not satisfied by the EC slides. It's not so much about what we see of the future of those characters but also the fact that they were cut out of the story before the end. In such a character focused story, this is not exactly ideal. By the way, ME2 did this much better with the suicide mission. It was a ingenius way to include the entire cast of the game into the ending itself. I still find it amazing that they didn't just re-use this concept and build on it for ME3.
The writers already did a lot of damage in season 3 even before the WGA strike in the middle of season 4. So many character arcs were left in limbo and conveniently tied up and forgotten or killed off (remember the Tigh/Caprica Six pairing, Boomer suddenly turning into cartoon villain, the mutiny. Heck, they still don't even explain what Starbuck is.). They suffered serious problem trying to explain the mess of Cylon faith and origins while serving the last ten minutes with even more convoluted arcs without an ounce of clarity. Even if one bit was resolve they open up another set of overarching narrative. I watch the reimagined series, the little minisodes, the movies, Caprica and they all suffered the same infuriating case of plotholes within a friggin plotholes even after multiple attempts of resolving them.
Mass Effect is still nowhere near as pathological as BSG. But synthesis and control ending did dip into that cesspool.
-> If EDI claimed synthetic life has value too and the reaper too ->This already happens (sortof) in the game (Post Ranoch i believe. I'm not sure if it happens under all circumstances, though)
Speaking of Ranoch: I didn´t know that. Thx for mentiond it. Can you tell me more about it?
I also never figured out how geth and quarians can have a peace. I heared somthing about saving the admiral AND doing something at the end of mass effect 2 when legion and tali had an argument. But i never saw the option at the end. any help?
basicly thats what i am interested in, making enemys to friends. Shepard was more like the mediator there. I wonder if it works too, if shepard is part of the conflict. like he against the reaper.
I don't expect the Catalyst or Reapers to realize they've been wrong all along, though it would be cool to show them that they are part of the problem with some alterations to the story. However, I want to show them they are wrong here.
Thats kind of a condition for making peace. You, I, we(?) want them to realize that currently (the harvest) is a VERY bad solution and that they deepy understand that they never ever do it again.
what would have been nessecar for us, not just in the ending, but in the entire story, that an peacefull cooperative ending or at least an end to the hostilities with the reaper, would be possible? (like with quarians and geth ending the hostlities)
I also never figured out how geth and quarians can have a peace. I heared somthing about saving the admiral AND doing something at the end of mass effect 2 when legion and tali had an argument. But i never saw the option at the end. any help?
You should check the ME wiki, lots of useful info there 
But here is what you need to do for the truce, taken from the wiki.
The writers already did a lot of damage in season 3 even before the WGA strike in the middle of season 4. So many character arcs were left in limbo and conveniently tied up and forgotten or killed off (remember the Tigh/Caprica Six pairing, Boomer suddenly turning into cartoon villain, the mutiny. Heck, they still don't even explain what Starbuck is.). They suffered serious problem trying to explain the mess of Cylon faith and origins while serving the last ten minutes with even more convoluted arcs without an ounce of clarity. Even if one bit was resolve they open up another set of overarching narrative. I watch the reimagined series, the little minisodes, the movies, Caprica and they all suffered the same infuriating case of plotholes within a friggin plotholes even after multiple attempts of resolving them.
Mass Effect is still nowhere near as pathological as BSG. But synthesis and control ending did dip into that cesspool.
Thank you. This saves me the trouble of a shitpost.
ME3's ending was clearly rushed and certain permutations of it are stupid, but it didn't slaughter my IQ like BSG's ending. That series' universe also has problems with lore rewrites and character derailment that make Pinnochio geth and amnesiac Wrex look like literary masterpieces by comparison, and I'm a huge fangirl of it saying this.
mass effect 3's ending was clearly rushed. Who can forget squadmates turning up on the SR2 who were with you during the beam run? Who can forget the three colours? Who can forget The destruction of the Mass Relays (which starjar says will happen....) and the end of pretty much everything?
The whole game had a pretty rushed feel, with poor editing of cutscenes etc..
Also.... 2D sprites. Oh dear.
Thank you. This saves me the trouble of a shitpost.
ME3's ending was clearly rushed and certain permutations of it are stupid, but it didn't slaughter my IQ like BSG's ending. That series' universe also has problems with lore rewrites and character derailment that make Pinnochio geth and amnesiac Wrex look like literary masterpieces by comparison, and I'm a huge fangirl of it saying this.
Seems i didn´t miss much, when i stopped watching the series.
Thats kind of a condition for making peace. You, I, we(?) want them to realize that currently (the harvest) is a VERY bad solution and that they deepy understand that they never ever do it again.
what would have been nessecar for us, not just in the ending, but in the entire story, that an peacefull cooperative ending or at least an end to the hostilities with the reaper, would be possible? (like with quarians and geth ending the hostlities)
It depends on what you mean by "peace." If you mean the Reapers see that they are wrong and go away, either in total peace or even if they are watching for the predicted doom Synthetics and will come back to say "I told you so," then not much change is needed.
If you mean that everybody is happy and becomes friends, then you would need a lot. We'd have to be shown that the Reapers are attempting to solve a real and serious problem that could possibly make the Harvest necessary. Something like how in an old plot idea, using Mass Effect technology was leading to the death of the galaxy itself. Then the Reapers are trying to preserve themselves as well as others.
We'd have to be able to show the Catalyst that it's wrong and it has to accept this. Then there would have to be some plan going forward. Finally, there would have to be some way to turn off Indoctrination.
Consistency isn't the common denominator in HP series. In fact, the entire horcrux arc and deathly hallows mythology was rammed into the last book and much of the narrative was again being told rather than being shown and everything was all the matter of convenience rather than careful storycrafting. Harry still hardly did anything much in the fight against Voldermort, he's still just a consistent lucky snowflake who need his friends to do most of the hard work and who can't stay dead for some reason after another. And even the final battle was a mess and are some of the shortest chapters in the entire book. Not surprisingly, Rowling had a hard time letting the ending go.
I'm not hating on the series. I'm relatively fluent in English mostly because of the series but nine years later, I still think its a trainwreck.
The Horcrux arc fully began in the Half Blood Prince, it was the one after all in which the resurrection stone was de-horcruxed.
On the Hallows you have a point but even then the most important one, the Elder Wand, operates under the same wandlore as any other. Personally what I didn't like about them was that they seem to have been created in order to give Harry and Voldemort a family tie.
Personally I don't have an issue with Harry being a lucky devil. He wasn't the best magically, that was Hermione, and he needed Ron to keep him grounded. He stayed alive because he was the Horcrux Voldemort didn't know he had created and that You Know Who remade his body using Harry's blood, thereby ensuring his mother's charm stayed intact. The fourth book makes note that Dumbledore has something like a look of victory when Harry mentions the taking of his blood.
Hallows aside of course, everything for the 7th book was established throughout the series.
The Cursed Child is something I'm looking forward to. I hope it is made into a proper novel and not just the script they are selling. It sounds like an interesting story, with Harry's son dealing with the legacy of not only his father but the two names he carries from Hogwarts Headmasters, Albus Severus.
What can i say. I'm a Harry Potter FanBoy.
@Natureguy85, a smaller crew, some characters who say that they join but they are not playable (Kasumi and Zaeed), other friends who say that they will help but they don't join the Normandy crew, a crewmember who is hospitalized so not playable for some times in the game, I think that it's enough to say that there is a real difference between Mass effect 2 and 3.
We can also see that while Mass Effect 1 was a story with important characters, Mass Effect 2 was character focused (almost no story). But Mass Effect 3 is actually closer to Mass Effect 1. It's not like Mass Effect 2 where recruitment and loyalty missions are 90% of the game. Mass Effect 3 is more about the story than Mass Effect 2 (not really hard!) and the characters are actually part of the story. It's very different from what we had in Mass Effect 2.
And did you notice that during the dream sequences Shepard is alone trying to reach the kid. There's no friend with him.
So it's quite hard to say about a game which is story driven, that's it focuses on its characters. the characters are part of the story that's why Ashley isn't playable for some time, that's why the Krogan don't come on the Normandy etc... Sure there are interaction, and there's a lot of them but to say that it's character focused and driven, it's actually saying that you don't care about the story and never asked yourself why it was written this way, why it was so different from Mass Effect 2, why less importance of the characters in the story. Mass Effect 2 was characters focused and driven. What you're talking about in Mass Effect 3 is kinda optional. You can play the whole trilogy without sleeping with anyone. You can play without trying to make EDI more "human". In Mass Effect 2 if you don't do the missions which are characters related, there's no game! Take a look at the structure of the games : Mass Effect 2 is the only one which has its second part being loyalty missions! In Mass Effect 1 and 3 there is no loyalty missions, I mean it's not separated and as visible as it is in Mass Effect 2. In Mass Effect 2 you have almost half the game which is just "The reapers will have to wait, I'll be busy with my loyalty missions".
If you haven't seen the Extended Cut, it shows you that the galaxy was eventually rebuilt. Life did continue afterwards. They aren't going to Andromeda to escape the ending. It was addressed in the Extended Cut.
In my second paragraph you quoted, I didn't say anyone was wrong. Read it again. I said what you might think is something big (10 km crater size), may only be a small problem (size of a quarter). In other words, people who are emotional tend to think things are worse than they really are.
I have seen the Extended Cut. Frankly, it's insulting. It doesn't address the very unpleasant implications of the endings, and instead tells the audience "it's all good"
"Sure, you genocided an entire from of life, but everyone's glad you did."
"Congrats on enslaving the galaxy, but don't worry, everyone's happy with Big Brother Cthulhu lurking in the background of their lives."
"Don't sweat forcing gene therapy on everyone, they're glad for it. It's not like they have a choice about it""
But hey, be get a slide of Zaed chilling on a lawn chair, so that makes up for all of it, right? 
And of course, if you don't care for these options, you get to make an awesome "I fight for freedom, mine and everyone's" You get a huge middle finger from Bioware for daring to speak out.
So yeah, don't tell me EC "fixed" anything. Except provide modders with more material to work with.
As for your other point, the reverse can also be true. What you see as a small problem is in fact a major issue for a lot of other people. So don't try to trivialize the concerns of others. It makes you sound condescending.
Retour en haut
