Mass Effect 3: The Ending(s) [** Spoilers **]

Ian7

Gbear wrote: »

I don't really think it's very likely but there's nothing stopping you from deciding to make it canon. Until the ending DLC comes out taking the ending as per the IT is perfectly valid as far as I'm concerned.

I like the cut of your jib

degrassinoel

Meesared wrote: »

It is, but from what they have said its only expanding on the existing ending, and not really changing it per say

same thing to me, i think a lot of the arguments around the ending are purely because they were so short and lacked a proper explanation. Cant really judge it until it's been released and played through. Time will tell how good or badly they've done with it.
In fairness to bioware though i'll still be paying for their next game regardless of what i disagreed with in me3. They know how to tell a good story, i'll reserve judgement of the ending until the dlc, but as far as the entire game went, each and every mission was pure class, especially tuchanka and palaven's moon.

hooradiation

pixelburp wrote: »

There’s no logic in comparing Harry Potter or the recent Star Trek reboot; both are passive media; created by the authors, consumed by the users.

Of course there is, in both cases it's asking the creators of works to change it because people don't like how it panned out.
Games and by extension 'gamers' aren't special no matter how often people try and argue otherwise.

"Oh but we have so much invested in Mass effect"
Yeah, so do lots of people in lots of things, still not special.

pixelburp wrote: »

Look at it another way - it’s not about what the gamers deserve, it’s what a lot of them think the mythology deserves. The details & opinions on the content no doubt differ, but the sentiment is the same; Mass Effect got a pretty poor send-off & deserved better. Some spread this message more obnoxiously than others, but the general idea's the same.

Which is fine in and off itself, that an amount of people didn't care for the ending. The problem is that the idea that this dissatisfaction therefore legitimises calls for the ending to be changed to better suit those that have found it less than satisfactory. This is where it turns from fair complaint to entitled whining.

Do you see?

pixelburp wrote: »

Clearly, judging by your tone with other users; it's not really any different from the ranting fanboys you yourself decry.

Aww, bless your delicate sensibilities.
I'll try ever so hard and be more tolerant of other peoples rampant stupidity, but I promise nothing.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

did I seriously just read someone saying mass effect 3 fans had more invested in their product of choice than star trek fans?

seriously?

****ing star trek fans?

there are people out there who can speak klingon for gods sake

gizmo

In fairness, pixelburp is right about the comparison with Harry Potter and other novels being flawed.

A more apt comparison is with those Choose Your Own Adventure style books...

If you choose the destroy the Heretics then turn to page 169.
If you choose to overwrite the Heretics then turn to page 183.

hooradiation

gizmo wrote: »

In fairness, pixelburp is right about the comparison with Harry Potter and other novels being flawed.

A more apt comparison is with those Choose Your Own Adventure style books...

If you choose the destroy the Heretics then turn to page 169.
If you choose to overwrite the Heretics then turn to page 183.

I really don't think it is, if for no other reason than the "but it's not passive!" argument is never applied evenly.

Games are a special case when it comes to stuff like this, but no different to film or television, the so called passive mediums, when it comes to things like, say, portraying violence.

It's a very selective form of special pleading, and it's nonsense.

But even if I were to accept that games like Mass effect are fundamentally different to everything else and every bit as unique are people say, it still boils down to it being amazingly entitled to demand the ending be changed because you didn't like it.

Man, if it ever gets out that not liking the ending is legitimate grounds for having a new one created Stephen King is in so much trouble....

pixelburp

hooradiation wrote: »

Which is fine in and off itself, that an amount of people didn't care for the ending. The problem is that the idea that this dissatisfaction therefore legitimises calls for the ending to be changed to better suit those that have found it less than satisfactory. This is where it turns from fair complaint to entitled whining.

Do you see?

I see perfectly well, but maybe there's simply confusion in differentiating between those who want the ending changed completely so that things play out differently to what we saw, and those who want the ending changed in the sense of expanding out what we see - bringing more closure to events.

This is what I'd like, and most others I daresay: hence Bioware's response with the Extended Cut. The wailing masses looking for wholesale changes - I point back to my comment about the ranting, never-satisifed fanboys. But the nature of the medium means you can't simply draw a line over the final product and say "like it or lump it" - if that was the case games would never get patched for one thing.

hooradiation wrote: »

Aww, bless your delicate sensibilities.
I'll try ever so hard and be more tolerant of other peoples rampant stupidity, but I promise nothing.

See, don't see the point in being a sarky, dismissive ass; everyone else can debate the topic without resorting to that kind of ass-hatery, what's your excuse? But thanks for your concern about my sensibilities, you're a star *mwah*

gizmo

hooradiation wrote: »

I really don't think it is, if for no other reason than the "but it's not passive!" argument is never applied evenly.

Games are a special case when it comes to stuff like this, but no different to film or television, the so called passive mediums, when it comes to things like, say, portraying violence.

It's a very selective form of special pleading, and it's nonsense.

But even if I were to accept that games like Mass effect are fundamentally different to everything else and every bit as unique are people say, it still boils down to it being amazingly entitled to demand the ending be changed because you didn't like it.

Man, if it ever gets out that not liking the ending is legitimate grounds for having a new one created Stephen King is in so much trouble....

I was being facetious, quite disappointed it didn't come across as such.

johnny_ultimate

Games are in many ways no different to a book or a film: you're still playing something someone has created. Every piece of content has been predetermined (except, arguably, in something like Minecraft which provides a toolset rather than a finite amount of optional content) by an 'author'. Mass Effect as a series was quite interesting as it seemed to provide dynamic content optimised to the player. It never truly did, though, it was merely a grand illusion: the series was one of binary choices, alternate versions of a predetermined story. You were always playing Bioware's stories, although the series was smartly designed to make it seem as if you were in control. No doubt there were moments when most of us were wholly convinced of that, and the scale of the writing (altering even throwaway lines of dialogue in some cases from player to player) was a worthy and impressive accomplishment. The decisions that the player often thought mattered were ultimately window dressing: for example, if you didn't save Jack in the last game, she was replaced by a different character in ME3. The fundamental overall narrative didn't change at all, just your experience altered slightly.

It was perhaps, then, too grand a task for us to expect anything other than a simplistic three-way ending. The goal of creating a huge variety of satisfying conclusions entirely based on the player's minute-by-minute 'decisions' is likely a task outside the capability of Bioware. Perhaps we forget, that no matter how you played Mass Effect 1, 2 and 3 you were led through the same basic story as everyone else. No matter what, you still attacked the Illusive Man's compound, for example, or invaded the Reaper base at the end of ME2. The overall ending of ME2 had almost the exact same limited breadth of ME3. The only thing it did better was the squadmate survival element: which, as a whole ME3 disappointingly proved, didn't really mean anything at all, bar a few limited cameos from those who made it through the suicide mission (and really: weren't the neutered roles of Miranda, Thane, Jack et al a huge shame given the seeming importance of their survival in ME2?). The limitations of the storytelling were clear from an early stage and throughout. Alas, Bioware just made the illusion less convincing in the final moments. Personally, I'd say that ME3 as a whole was a massive disappointment in regards storytelling and character development, not just the ending.

But to get back to the point I wanted to make before getting all pretentious, Mass Effect was always a story written by Bioware rather than the player. 'Interactivity' distorts the argument somewhat, but is not a complete game changer. So Mass Effect as a series often provided a wholly convincing illusion (delusion?) of choice: but you never had anything resembling free will in the first place. You had nowt but a series of sometimes basic, sometimes complex moral decisions, all funneling you through a pre-existing tunnel. It was only really the colour and shape of said tunnel that changed. The unfortunate thing about the ending was that, for many, it made that truth all too obvious.

hooradiation

pixelburp wrote: »

This is what I'd like, and most others I daresay: hence Bioware's response with the Extended Cut. The wailing masses looking for wholesale changes - I point back to my comment about the ranting, never-satisifed fanboys. But the nature of the medium means you can't simply draw a line over the final product and say "like it or lump it" - if that was the case games would never get patched for one thing.

There's a hell of a difference between fixing functional issues (patching) and changing the ending/narrative/whatever which in that case is very much a case of drawing a line under it.

gizmo wrote: »

I was being facetious, quite disappointed it didn't come across as such.

We need more smilies, this will end the problem. Let's start a petition.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

It was perhaps, then, too grand a task for us to expect anything other than a simplistic three-way ending.

At PAX east bioware ran a panel with some designers and writers and such - they mentioned that the plot states grew "insanely" from game to game, practically doubling each time.

Alex, level designer at bioware wrote:

3500 different plot values, in ME1. (Some minor.) ME2 - 6400. ME3 15,000 (fifteen thousand) different plot statesURL="http://masseffect.livejournal.com/1434421.html#cutid1"]transcript[/URL

Honestly, I'm surprised the entire third game managed to keep any kind of coherency about it after learning that.

Mitch Connor

hooradiation wrote: »

Honestly, I'm surprised the entire third game managed to keep any kind of coherency about it after learning that.

So, 15,000 (fifteen thousand) different plot states by the end of ME3 - a company stating the endings would reflect the personal journey of the player, and there are basically 3 endings that cover all of this.

No one was expecting 15,000 different endings, but is it really all that unreasonable for people to have expected Bioware to follow through on promises that were made to the fans, even up to just two weeks before release?

The ending feels very rushed, very cheap and ignores, completely, bit plot points and how the rest of the 3 games played.

I'm not asking for the story to be changed - keep the star child and his reasoning for the Reapers - I'm asking that they add to the ending to make it closer to what they repeatedly promised us. Give us more individualisation, as was promised.

Also, a vast majority of those 15,000 plot points would not be relevant for the ending, there would be few that are imo. Krogan issues, Geth/Quarian issues are two big plot points that really should have been handled in the ending imo - especially the Geth/Quarian as it is a central issue spoken of by the Reapers and the Star Child, but it is completely ignored at the end.

I really don't see how you can be so dead against people being very annoyed that Bioware lied to the fan base, consistently and right up to the release of the game.

johnny_ultimate

hooradiation wrote: »

At PAX east bioware ran a panel with some designers and writers and such - they mentioned that the plot states grew "insanely" from game to game, practically doubling each time.

Honestly, I'm surprised the entire third game managed to keep any kind of coherency about it after learning that.

The scale of the project is certainly impressive, and there has yet to be a game series with any of the consistency of Mass Effect. The line by line variations in the game from player to player is certainly an achievement worth noting. It's the grander scope that is IMO lacking. Perhaps that was what made crafting an 'ending' such a frustration: so many expectations, so many variables, and so many demanding fans.

I definitely think ME2 as a whole felt like a far more convincing player-led story (albeit one where the main story often felt rushed). The final act really was a terrific one: if you were a lazy asshole, you were punished as such. The ending really worked well for me, and that the consequences of it were largely disregarded made ME3 a disappointment from the outset. I remember a few reviews mentioning heartbreaking decisions in the game: none of which I ever came across. There was one where the option was be a racist asshole or let a friend sacrifice himself for the greater good: not quite a heartbreaking set of alternatives.

hooradiation

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I really don't see how you can be so dead against people being very annoyed that Bioware lied to the fan base, consistently and right up to the release of the game.

That is a very nuanced summation of a position I don't hold, well done.

hooradiation

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

The scale of the project is certainly impressive, and there has yet to be a game series with any of the consistency of Mass Effect. The line by line variations in the game from player to player is certainly an achievement worth noting. It's the grander scope that is IMO lacking. Perhaps that was what made crafting an 'ending' such a frustration: so many expectations, so many variables, and so many demanding fans.

I think it might go some way to explaining the decisions that were made with regard to the last five minutes of the game. When you have so much to resolve that can vary so much from person to person there's a lot to be said for just "wrapping it up". Simply because the alternative is unfathomably complex. And expensive. And lord knows when it'd eventually get released.

As far as I'm concerned the bulk of ME3 is the "ending" - there is so much goddamn payoff and repercussions from what happened in the preceding two games and it's done so well that while the last five minutes are serviceable at best it really pales in insignificance to what's come before.
Sure, it could have been done better, but that's true of damn near everything.

johnny_ultimate

hooradiation wrote: »

I think it might go some way to explaining the decisions that were made with regard to the last five minutes of the game. When you have so much to resolve that can vary so much from person to person there's a lot to be said for just "wrapping it up". Simply because the alternative is unfathomably complex. And expensive. And lord knows when it'd eventually get released.

A valid point indeed: for all the complaining, I've heard very few practical or convincing alternatives. It may simply be that Bioware got ahead of themselves: unable to match their ambition with a coherent ending. There's an argument that, yes, the ending we got wasn't particularly coherent, although is it really preferable to one where Shepard simply saves the world and high-fives Garrus as the game freeze frames and a 'Don't You Forget About Me' plays?

Actually, I kind of want that ending now.

As far as I'm concerned the bulk of ME3 is the "ending" - there is so much goddamn payoff and repercussions from what happened in the preceding two games and it's done so well that while the last five minutes are serviceable at best it really pales in insignificance to what's come before.
Sure, it could have been done better, but that's true of damn near everything.

If I was to complain about the game as a whole, I would have liked more unexpected consequences from the last game over the endless shooting corridors we did end up with (a massive design flaw, IMO, that has barely been commented upon). But yes, there were some moments of note in the last act. The simple scene where Shepard says 'goodbye' to all his companions was actually a pretty rousing one: a rare moment in the game where all those hours of gameplay and relationship building actually felt like they meant something. More moments like that and ME3 could have been more than a moderately enjoyable space opera where you shoot things.

hooradiation

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

A valid point indeed: for all the complaining, I've heard very few practical or convincing alternatives. It may simply be that Bioware got ahead of themselves: unable to match their ambition with a coherent ending. There's an argument that, yes, the ending we got wasn't particularly coherent, although is it really preferable to one where Shepard simply saves the world and high-fives Garrus as the game freeze frames and a 'Don't You Forget About Me' plays?

Actually, I kind of want that ending now.

I think that when this "extended cut" DLC drops, we'll end up seeing the endings subdivided into four main groups as a result of the 'closure' we'll be getting (unofficially that is)

You done fucked up - earth is toast, everyone you knew is dead or soon will be. Even though the reapers are gone it's like they did their job anyway. good going hero.

Pyrrhic victory - You end the reaper threat (however you see fit) but the damage done is immense, several species are on the brink of extinction, generally the universe is pretty, but not irrevocably, fucked.

Standard Victory - heavy losses, sacrifices were made but you did it. It'll take a long time but life will return to normal for the universe and people are ready to have a future without being subject to the cycle.

Best Victory minimal losses, Shepard even manages to live.. um... somehow.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

If I was to complain about the game as a whole, I would have liked more unexpected consequences from the last game over the endless shooting corridors we did end up with (a massive design flaw, IMO, that has barely been commented upon). But yes, there were some moments of note in the last act. The simple scene where Shepard says 'goodbye' to all his companions was actually a pretty rousing one: a rare moment in the game where all those hours of gameplay and relationship building actually felt like they meant something. More moments like that and ME3 could have been more than a moderately enjoyable space opera where you shoot things.

Honestly, I loved the combat mechanics but I've always placed a great importance on that aspect of RPG's. It's part of the reason why I loathe JRPGS almost universally.

But yeah, everything on earth, I felt, was very well done. I would liked to see more of the minor races I'd managed to recruit, Elcor, Drell and even the goddamn Batarians. And while I didn't have the Rachni on my side, it'd be nice to see them show up as well.
Maybe for this DLC? Who knows.

johnny_ultimate

hooradiation wrote: »

Honestly, I loved the combat mechanics but I've always placed a great importance on that aspect of RPG's. It's part of the reason why I loathe JRPGS almost universally.

The mechanics themselves I have absolutely no issue with - I think it's a truly confident mesh of shooting and RPG mechanics (far more so than Fallout 3, anyway). You could say it hasn't advanced much from ME2, but I don't really care as they were rock-solid in ME2.

The situations themselves are what I had issue what. A lack of variety, a number of enemies that were frustrating bullet and power sponges, the fact that every mission ultimately played out the same way... I think the powers and shooting pack a real punch and gel nicely with the under-the-hood RPG stats, but I think Bioware's level design needs an awful lot of work. Especially in a game so heavily focused on conversation as well as combat, that every mission eventually funnels you down a series of almost identical corridors is a shame.

Retr0gamer

I'm in the I don't get the outrage camp as well here. I've played lots of games with awful endings and never felt the need to have anything more than an internet forum rant about it and then move on. I usually completely disagree with hooradiation about gamers sense of entitlement being ridiculous but this Mass Effect 3 thing is kind of embarassing. I don't really get it, it's not like Mass Effect is some kind of narrative masterpiece, more like a really entertaining space opera. It bought into the Matrix sequels and experienced the awfulness of Halo 2's ending. There wasn't as big an outcry for them, why now especialyl considering that outside of the ending Mass Effect 3 is rather excellent by all accounts?

hooradiation wrote: »

Honestly, I loved the combat mechanics but I've always placed a great importance on that aspect of RPG's. It's part of the reason why I loathe JRPGS almost universally.

You've been playing the wrong JRPGs. Games like Persona 4, Grandia, SMT Lucifers Call and Xenoblade are all about the combat mechanics. Of course if your own experience of JRPGs is something like the earlier FF games with very simple combat mechanics then that's understandable. Western RPGs to me just feel like waiting for the dice rolls in the background to complete. Mass Effect changed that by being more and more like a third person shooter but I always felt it was a poor mans third person shooter. Combat was the weakest part of the game for me. Just like with all WRPG's for me it was everything outside the combat that made the game interesting.

hooradiation

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

The mechanics themselves I have absolutely no issue with - I think it's a truly confident mesh of shooting and RPG mechanics (far more so than Fallout 3, anyway). You could say it hasn't advanced much from ME2, but I don't really care as they were rock-solid in ME2.

They were pretty good, but they weren't Gears of war good (which I'm holding as the pinnacle of 3rd person manshooting and I'll fight anyone who says otherwise)
But it's an amazingly petty complaint, as it's still stands well above some games that are actually meant to be third person shooters and nothing else.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

The situations themselves are what I had issue what. A lack of variety, a number of enemies that were frustrating bullet and power sponges,

I've heard that ME3 on insanity is the least ridiculously bent of all three games on that difficulty setting, so I think they've scaled down the bullet sponge aspect.
Then again, fucking banshees.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

the fact that every mission ultimately played out the same way... I think the powers and shooting pack a real punch and gel nicely with the under-the-hood RPG stats, but I think Bioware's level design needs an awful lot of work. Especially in a game so heavily focused on conversation as well as combat, that every mission eventually funnels you down a series of almost identical corridors is a shame.

Given the genre it's in, that not unexpected - but I often found there was plenty of room in levels for manoeuvring. More so than in, say, Call of duty (to pick a pure shooter)
Maybe it's got a bit to do with the classes, I played as soilder - so having my squadmates keep the enemies attention while I flanked them was order of the day. However if you're a Vanguard Vangod then ricochetting around the place like an avatar of unstoppable fury, while effective, is going to make it seem more narrow.

That said, when the combat engine is that specialised mixing it up in any significant way would probably have been viewed as more trouble than it's worth.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

You've been playing the wrong JRPGs.

Look, I know this is your hobby horse, but seriously, I've not been "playing the wrong ones" or whatever. The gods of androgynous protagonists and creepily sexualised minors aren't going to have an apocalyptic shitfit if you let people not liking JRPGS slide every now and again.

Retr0gamer

hooradiation wrote: »

Look, I know this is your hobby horse, but seriously, I've not been "playing the wrong ones" or whatever. The gods of androgynous protagonists and creepily sexualised minors aren't going to have an apocalyptic shitfit if you let people not liking JRPGS slide every now and again.

I will when ignorant people stop making gross generalisations about it.

johnny_ultimate

hooradiation wrote: »

They were pretty good, but they weren't Gears of war good (which I'm holding as the pinnacle of 3rd person manshooting and I'll fight anyone who says otherwise)
But it's an amazingly petty complaint, as it's still stands well above some games that are actually meant to be third person shooters and nothing else.

I'd mostly agree, if only with the slight addendum that Vanquish took the GoW foundation and added the welcome variable of speed and maneuverability

Then again, fucking banshees.

Yup.

Given the genre it's in, that not unexpected - but I often found there was plenty of room in levels for manoeuvring. More so than in, say, Call of duty (to pick a pure shooter)
Maybe it's got a bit to do with the classes, I played as soilder - so having my squadmates keep the enemies attention while I flanked them was order of the day. However if you're a Vanguard Vangod then ricochetting around the place like an avatar of unstoppable fury, while effective, is going to make it seem more narrow.

That said, when the combat engine is that specialised mixing it up in any significant way would probably have been viewed as more trouble than it's worth.

Perhaps it is too much to ask: there are after all only a handful of RPGs that feature anything other than straightforward corridor or dungeon crawling. But ultimately I grew bored as the game progressed, and the mechanics while consistent didn't always receive the work out they deserved. Multiplayer, somewhat bizarrely, actually seems to be where the combat system actually does get the chance to shine. Alas, the lack of gamemodes and level variety ultimately bores too.

hooradiation

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I'd mostly agree, if only with the slight addendum that Vanquish took the GoW foundation and added the welcome variable of speed and maneuverability

Vanquish is not my cup of tea, but fair enough.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Perhaps it is too much to ask: there are after all only a handful of RPGs that feature anything other than straightforward corridor or dungeon crawling. But ultimately I grew bored as the game progressed, and the mechanics while consistent didn't always receive the work out they deserved. Multiplayer, somewhat bizarrely, actually seems to be where the combat system actually does get the chance to shine. Alas, the lack of gamemodes and level variety ultimately bores too.

I'd agree on multiplayer, and this is as someone who really does not like playing online as a general rule of thumb.
And the resurgence pack added some much needed variety to classes, weapons and two new arenas, but I guess it's difficult to keep producing content for that and do this extended cut DLC at the same time, assuming that most of the ME3 team has been shifted to new projects since ME3 went gold.

I do hope it sees some kind of regular updates from bioware, but that'll ultimately be down to how profitable that mode is. So far it seems to be making them $Texas but I'm not sure how long that'll last.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I will when ignorant people stop making gross generalisations about it.

Well, when you come across examples of that do feel free to let me know.

Ian7

hooradiation wrote: »

I'd agree on multiplayer, and this is as someone who really does not like playing online as a general rule of thumb.
And the resurgence pack added some much needed variety to classes, weapons and two new arenas, but I guess it's difficult to keep producing content for that and do this extended cut DLC at the same time, assuming that most of the ME3 team has been shifted to new projects since ME3 went gold.

I do hope it sees some kind of regular updates from bioware, but that'll ultimately be down to how profitable that mode is. So far it seems to be making them $Texas but I'm not sure how long that'll last.

Online mode resulting in big bucks for the games company and platform, DLC from day one, a contract for an online gold pass, all on top of the initial purchase fee, (possible option of buying an online pass for the multiplayer mode), an online mode which we apparently need to get the "best" ending, all with the expectation that we get a decent service or as discussed here, a decent ending..........and it's somehow unreasonable for us the 'end-user' to demand some form of closure even though the majority of us are in agreement that the ending is **** no matter how much of our good money we have paid?

Jesus, i don't know why I even replied here. some dose of trolling going on. hook, line and sinker.

degrassinoel

Ian7 wrote: »

Jesus, i don't know why I even replied here. some dose of trolling going on. hook, line and sinker.

you said it bro!

Ian7

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I'm in the I don't get the outrage camp as well here. I've played lots of games with awful endings and never felt the need to have anything more than an internet forum rant about it and then move on. I usually completely disagree with hooradiation about gamers sense of entitlement being ridiculous but this Mass Effect 3 thing is kind of embarassing. I don't really get it, it's not like Mass Effect is some kind of narrative masterpiece, more like a really entertaining space opera. It bought into the Matrix sequels and experienced the awfulness of Halo 2's ending. There wasn't as big an outcry for them, why now especialyl considering that outside of the ending Mass Effect 3 is rather excellent by all accounts?

Because there exists a medium and focus to do so. Facebook, boards.ie for example. There has always been disdain over poorly executed films, tv shows, and games but now the internet is becoming the forefront of protest and/or feedback. Films as an example are a more solid piece of work and are by their nature more difficult to alter to suit negative feedback but not totally imune to it either, now compare them to computer games which now and will more and more so require a certain amount of paid-for DLC and get constant updates and patches. If anyone is at fault here, its the industry and it's online policy. It's not that hard to understand how this situation and even the "retake" campaign has come about. It should have been expected if anything.

Gbear

Just finished for the 2nd time and I made sure to keep my eye out for details and assorted nonsense.

- Using models from the Shadow broker ship in the design on the citadel
- Shephard holding his side in the same spot where he shot anderson
- The gun with infinite shots and no reloading (first play through I died because I kept reloading)
- The often mentioned Normandy running away
- With war assets near 8000 Shep survived. How the **** did he survive the citadel blowing up and how did he end up back on earth?

It's either child-like incompetence, utter insanity or at least a few elements of the indoctrination theory or some other tinfoil hat theory are true and they're bull****ting about not having more DLC beyond the "context" they've been larking on about.

hooradiation

Ian7 wrote: »

Online mode resulting in big bucks for the games company and platform, DLC from day one, a contract for an online gold pass, all on top of the initial purchase fee, (possible option of buying an online pass for the multiplayer mode), an online mode which we apparently need to get the "best" ending, all with the expectation that we get a decent service or as discussed here, a decent ending..........and it's somehow unreasonable for us the 'end-user' to demand some form of closure even though the majority of us are in agreement that the ending is **** no matter how much of our good money we have paid?

Jesus, i don't know why I even replied here. some dose of trolling going on. hook, line and sinker.

Yep, those are certainly words you typed there.
No doubt about that.

However I have no goddamn clue what kind of point you're trying to make though and I suspect neither do you.

degrassinoel

hooradiation wrote: »

Yep, those are certainly words you typed there.
No doubt about that.

However I have no goddamn clue what kind of point you're trying to make though and I suspect neither do you.

It was quite apparent to me what he was saying, maybe you need to read it again?

Gbear

As a person who's happy to dive into the lore and explore things in detail i'm a sucker for videos like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MlatxLP-xs

Essentially it's a look at the narrative failings of the ending. It's very good and not because it confirms what I feel but because it looks at the game in terms of it's technical story-telling value. It assesses it as you could do with any other story.

Indeed he references and gives a nod to that series of Star Wars prequel reviews that are kinda funny.

Edit - A take on the ending after Bioware announced their "we're not chamging anything" DLC. (the video's much shorter than the other one).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jT_x64921ls

degrassinoel

Pretty long, very detailed and I agree with him on most of it. Had to laugh when he said "You really shot mordin? you asshole!"