Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ouze wrote:As a followup to something I posted previously; that I had never made it more than a few waves into a silver game:

It's been what, 2 weeks since then? and it turns out, unsurprisingly, that there aren't any magical secrets to beating silvers or that the people that beat them are just naturally gifted gamers or super lucky. This sounds so dumb it's almost not worth posting, but apparently practice was all that was required. Go figure. At this point I really only play silvers and rarely lose; only if someone bails at a bad time or we get really unlucky. I only play Bronze if I'm trying to learn how to play a character now, like my Vanguard.

So, that happened.

Yeah, that sounds about right. I rarely do anything but Gold any more, and I use Silver as my testing ground. I only play Bronze if I have very limited time and just want to try something real quick. Practice makes perfect, and once you learn a rotation with a class and figure out how to avoid death against the various enemies, it's not that hard to extrapolate it into a higher level of difficulty.

Grats on the improvement. You'll be in Gold in no time.

You know somehow I get the feeling the DLC is not going to help me one bit. I don't want to go into this as a negative Nancy, but they are not going to fix the ending. Their plan sounds about as useless as tits on a lawnmower. I am now having nightmares that Mass Effect has turned into Lost. Great show with a gak ending. The ride doesn't seem worth it now, knowing that all the choices you made didn't really matter in the end. I can be a complete ass in all three games or the nicest guy in the universe and I will get the same BS "art" endings.

I had hope about a month ago that the indoctrination theory was going to be legit and be one of the best executed endings ever. I feel like whoever made those cut scenes included all of those hints for the indoctrination theory because maybe they were a little unsatisfied with the direction EA wanted the game to go.

Any ways I think I am going to make some crap art too. If you all are inclined just sit down and do it! Try to forget your conceptions of what a "painting" or "drawing" looks like, or what a "song" sounds like, and make lots and lots. Don't spend too long on any one item. Afterwards, look or listen and discover what you've done. Perhaps you'll find something that appeals to you? If you do, you've won! If you don't, open your mind and try again!

See, I liked the Lost ending, so maybe I'm of a completely different mold. I didn't dislike the ending because it was high concept, or because it wasn't happy, or because it wasn't what I was expecting. I didn't like the ending because after the ride up the beam to the Citadel everything felt rushed. There was a conversation with The Illusive Man, a conversation with the StarChild, and then a decision that really didn't fit with what I thought Shepard would do.

And that decision could have easily been made to fit if they had just explained a few more things, or given Shepard some additional options for rebuttal, then given us some closure rather than a hasty cutscene on another planet somewhere on the ass end of nowhere.

The ending doesn't need to fit our ideals of what is right or wrong for Shepard, and it doesn't need to be happy. It just needs to make sense.

It made sense to me. *shrugs*

Aldarionn wrote:[...] and then a decision that really didn't fit with what I thought Shepard would do.

Out of curiosity. What -would- your Shepard have done, given that he/she is presented with three options and has little choice but to selece the least bad one? Not select at all and sit down in a corner, sulking?

The point is that all of those options were fething stupid, and everything that happened on the Citadel was half assed and ridiculous.

If Bioware wasn't rushed by EA, then it wouldn't have been like it.

Just because one didn't get an option one would have subjectively wished for doesn't make it stupid - that's my point.

In fact, that's the point of a roleplaying game in general. The character is presented with a range of options and has to choose the one subjectively regarded as the best. The character is not an omnipotent being with full control over everything that happens.

I certainly believe that parts of the game were rushed, and for sure EA is more of a menace than a saint when it comes to the "greater good" of the video gaming industry, but when it comes to the ending of ME3 I'm happy with what I got. I would have done parts of it differently, but storywise I thought it was very deep, and very emotional. *shrug*

The whole hubbub reminds me of the internet outrage at Eddard Stark dying in Game of Thrones. The very same kind of reaction. Just even more prevalent and, as of a few weeks, annoying, given that some fans are spamming their negative opinion all over the internet, derailing countless topics and blog posts that had absolutely nothing to do with it.

I would like a proper discussion of the details in the ending for a change, but all I'm hearing is "[...] rushed [...] stupid [...] made no sense [...] idiotic [...] no point [...] red blue green [...] will never play ME again [...] will never play any bioware game again [...] " - yeah, flawless and objective arguments right there, the perfect material for a civilized debate. *i*

Lynata wrote:Just because one didn't get an option one would have subjectively wished for doesn't make it stupid - that's my point.

In fact, that's the point of a roleplaying game in general. The character is presented with a range of options and has to choose the one subjectively regarded as the best. The character is not an omnipotent being with full control over everything that happens.

I certainly believe that parts of the game were rushed, and for sure EA is more of a menace than a saint when it comes to the "greater good" of the video gaming industry, but when it comes to the ending of ME3 I'm happy with what I got. I would have done parts of it differently, but storywise I thought it was very deep, and very emotional. *shrug*

The whole hubbub reminds me of the internet outrage at Eddard Stark dying in Game of Thrones. The very same kind of reaction. Just even more prevalent and, as of a few weeks, annoying, given that some fans are spamming their negative opinion all over the internet, derailing countless topics and blog posts that had absolutely nothing to do with it.

I would like a proper discussion of the details in the ending for a change, but all I'm hearing is "[...] rushed [...] stupid [...] made no sense [...] idiotic [...] no point [...] red blue green [...] will never play ME again [...] will never play any bioware game again [...] " - yeah, flawless and objective arguments right there, the perfect material for a civilized debate. *i*

The ending is bad, and EA fethed it up.



This is not the ending Bioware wanted. This is the ending they pulled out of their ass because EA kept rushing them when they were already 3 months behind schedule reportedly.

Karon wrote:

But Obi-Wan, only a Sith deals in- Oh I see what you did there.

Lynata wrote:Just because one didn't get an option one would have subjectively wished for doesn't make it stupid - that's my point.

In fact, that's the point of a roleplaying game in general. The character is presented with a range of options and has to choose the one subjectively regarded as the best. The character is not an omnipotent being with full control over everything that happens.

I certainly believe that parts of the game were rushed, and for sure EA is more of a menace than a saint when it comes to the "greater good" of the video gaming industry, but when it comes to the ending of ME3 I'm happy with what I got. I would have done parts of it differently, but storywise I thought it was very deep, and very emotional. *shrug*

The whole hubbub reminds me of the internet outrage at Eddard Stark dying in Game of Thrones. The very same kind of reaction. Just even more prevalent and, as of a few weeks, annoying, given that some fans are spamming their negative opinion all over the internet, derailing countless topics and blog posts that had absolutely nothing to do with it.

I would like a proper discussion of the details in the ending for a change, but all I'm hearing is "[...] rushed [...] stupid [...] made no sense [...] idiotic [...] no point [...] red blue green [...] will never play ME again [...] will never play any bioware game again [...] " - yeah, flawless and objective arguments right there, the perfect material for a civilized debate. *i*

OK, proper commentary of the ending with an actual argument that doesn't just parrot the current go-to internet opinions......

Personally I would have preferred a Paragon ending that didn't align me with The Illusive Man. I spent two games opposing him and his methods, only to have them shoved down my throat as the best possible option, which makes me feel as if I played wrong the entire time. They would have us believe a psychopath whose war crimes are more abhorrent than Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini combined actually made the right choice for the galaxy? He was indoctrinated the entire time. His decisions are the Reapers decision. I don't buy it.

I dislike that the logic of the Reapers is flawed and you cannot call them on it. There is no part of their argument (that they made a race of synthetic super beings to destroy advanced civilizations and prevent them from creating synthetic super beings that will destroy them) that stands up when held up to even the most casual scrutiny, and I like to think that my Shepard would hear that and say "No, that's bullsh*t. You are wiping out races who could oppose you and using them to reproduce. Talk strait to me and cut the crap because I'm not buying it." I would be OK with it if they called an apple an apple, but instead they actually try and pass it off as a pear and expect us to believe it's the truth. Occam's Razor says otherwise.

The end of the game was touted as having diverse outcomes depending on the options you chose along the way, yet each ending is nearly identical to the next. Your crew always crash lands on a planet in BFE. You always destroy the Mass Relays. The forces of Earth are seen cheering as the Reapers are removed in one of three ways, and Shepard either dies, or possibly lives depending on how high your war assets are. That's not variation. That's minor adjustment based on whether the Reapers are destroyed, controlled or meshed with Organics. Galactically speaking, the outcome is the same. The Galaxy is saved from the Reaper threat, but technology is forever altered in one of three ways. Personally, I would have liked an option for failure. If you didn't collect enough assets or if you made the wrong decisions along the way, the Reapers overpower you and the cycle continues unchanged. Also, I'd have liked an option for Shepard to make the ultimate sacrifice for complete success (IE, instead of choosing one of the options, he self destructs the Citadel which causes some sort of feedback that stuns the Reapers, and if you have enough War Assets the forces of the galaxy capitalize on it and even the odds, enough for the Reapers to be defeated conventionally. It still has Shepard dead, and the galaxy takes heavy losses, but they fought and won.) though I understand it's unlikely because they wanted to remove the galactic dependence on Reaper Tech. Then again, without the Reaper Tech, there is no Mass Effect. "Mass Effect" itself is reaper developed technology, so by making this the ending, they utterly destroy everything that is the Mass Effect universe. It just seems......wrong.

I dunno. Maybe I'm dissatisfied for the wrong reasons, but I want an ending that makes me feel as though everything I did mattered, and I did not get that. Perhaps some additional context and cutscenes will make the difference, but really I just want an ending that feels as exciting as the series I just played, and in that BioWare failed, in my opinion at least. And I do believe much of it had to do with EA and their horrible business practices. Unreasonable deadlines and the almighty dollar have ruined so many good projects, and I think they stained this one as well.

So, Multi question. Here's my list of guns. Assuming you guys can see that, what sort of packs should I be buying?

Ouze wrote:So, Multi question. Here's my list of guns. Assuming you guys can see that, what sort of packs should I be buying?

Nothing but recruit packs. Get those commons to rank X before you buy anything else (IE the Katana, Mantis, Predator, Shuriken and Avenger). That will keep them from appearing in your higher level packs. Once those are rank X, buy Veteran Packs until you have the uncommon guns you want at the rank you want. The more uncommon guns you have at rank X, the fewer of them will take up spots in Specter Packs. Granted, the rarity with which things appear in the three different packs won't change. If you buy a Specter Pack having all of your Uncommons maxed won't prevent uncommons from appearing in Specter Packs, it just means you will get character cards instead of weapons.

Basically, buying the cheapest packs first means you get more unlocks for less money at that rarity level. IE you don't spend 20k on a Veteran Pack to unlock rank X on your Avenger, you pay 5k to unlock that and the common appearing in the Veteran Pack will instead be a common character card, which will unlock more cosmetic options and give you XP. Or it might be extra equipment.

For example, I bought nothing but recruit packs til my weapons were maxed, then started buying Veteran and Specter packs, and here's my list after a month of using that system

Of course I play on Gold and Silver mostly, so my credit income is substantial, but you could always do the Fire Base White/Geth/Gold option I detailed a few pages back to build up your credit stockpile and get some of those items unlocked.

Aldarionn wrote:OK, proper commentary of the ending with an actual argument that doesn't just parrot the current go-to internet opinions...... [...]

Thankyouthankyouthankyou!

As for the Paragon ending (was it really the Paragon thing to do? just because of the color associated with it?) ... I don't think it aligned you with the Illusive Man. What he did wasn't for the good of all organic life, he only cared for his twisted vision of humanity and saw himself as some sort of savior for his people. When Shep merges with the Catalyst/Reapers, his or her motivations are entirely different - just like the results. Where TIM would have used the Reaper forces to terrorize and oppress the other sentient species and install some sort of Cerberus Empire, Shep merely sends them away. Which actually makes me think what would happen to them next. Maybe they just return to Dark Space and become like an ever-silent legendary vigil protecting the galaxy's species from themselves. "Call me if you need us."

As for the Reapers' logic, I really don't agree that it's flawed. It's just cold and cruel. They are protecting life as a whole, not the individual species of the current cycle - and as I said, their method ultimately is less risky for the continued existence of life.
I see your points about missing options to object their argument, but it wouldn't have changed anything, so perhaps I'm more forgiving about this because the end result would still be the same - it'd just be a redundant line of dialogue. Still, I guess you're right in that it would have been nice to have just because, though I really don't think this would have made people like it any more.

As for the ending's outcome, my game did have different outcomes, all depending on the options I chose along the way. They were not reflected in the cinematics, so if this is what your complaint is aimed at then you are right, but many of your choices throughout all three games still left marks on the galaxy that could be felt up until the very ending - and which would persist afterwards. I thought about the ending and the state of the galaxy for some time, and had fun imagining how everything would look like after Shep's sacrifice. Maybe this imagination helped me to not miss anything from the actual cinematics. I agree that they could have differed more, and I'm curious to see what the upcoming DLC will change in this regard. Apparently this is exactly what they want to address with it.

Do you really think the inclusion of a "critical failure" ending would have been a good move? The way you describe it, it would not have been a true "choice", just a repercussion of a player's earlier playstyle. Imagine someone spent 20 hours rushing through the game, and after beating it the game tells him he lost anyways? Certainly, this would have been somewhat realistic, but imagine the internet outcry. I don't know if something any worse than the current drama would be possible, but if so, it would have been created by the realization that the player fethed up his game because he missed a few war assets in one of his earlier saves. If he actually still has an earlier save and can go back. Otherwise, he'd be forced to play through the entire game yet again.

Aldarionn wrote:Also, I'd have liked an option for Shepard to make the ultimate sacrifice for complete success (IE, instead of choosing one of the options, he self destructs the Citadel which causes some sort of feedback that stuns the Reapers, and if you have enough War Assets the forces of the galaxy capitalize on it and even the odds, enough for the Reapers to be defeated conventionally.

Reminds me of Deus Ex HR. Still, a "complete success" ending would've been a no-brainer for way too many people. Shep makes the ultimate sacrifice in any of the endings, so all you would've changed is taking out the difficulty of the choice by allowing the player to just kill all the Reapers but save any other synthetics.

I also don't agree that Mass Effect actually is about the eponymous mass effect technology. For me, it's primarily about blue alien chicks, clean white interior designs, honorable communist space-lizards and hyperviolent walking crocs, amongst other things.
And anyways, why should mass effect technology suddenly stop to work just because the Reapers aren't around anymore? All the galaxy has truly lost was the Relays, which imho will only spark a renewed interest in alternative drive tech.

Thanks for listing your actual reasons, though. I realize the above arguments may likely not change how you feel, but this is way more constructive than the usual rage spam that's going on in the internet. I honestly feel bad for you not liking the ending, because I think it was pulled off beautifully, and naturally I'd prefer people share in this reaction. That's not to say that there weren't things I would have liked to see differently, or that there's nothing that could be improved upon, but it still made me feel all warm inside.
I kid you not, I listened only to piano music in the 2 days after having finished the game.

As for the game having been rushed - I think that's a valid argument, but that it wouldn't apply to the ending. Considering how much dialogue and cinematic sequences it consisted of, I really don't find it likely that they have saved much time or money on it, lest it would be considerably shorter. I do feel that the game has release-pressure-induced shortcomings, but that they are to be found elsewhere. What I'm hoping for in terms of the upcoming DLC is additional "tidbits" that will customize the cinematic more towards your playthrough. For example seeing the Destiny Ascension fire its main gun, if you saved her in ME1. Or actually showing the beginnings of the synthesis. Or seeing the Reapers return to Dark Space, if you picked Control. Something like that.

Lynata wrote:
As for the ending's outcome, my game did have different outcomes, all depending on the options I chose along the way. They were not reflected in the cinematics, so if this is what your complaint is aimed at then you are right, but many of your choices throughout all three games still left marks on the galaxy that could be felt up until the very ending - and which would persist afterwards. I thought about the ending and the state of the galaxy for some time, and had fun imagining how everything would look like after Shep's sacrifice. Maybe this imagination helped me to not miss anything from the actual cinematics. I agree that they could have differed more, and I'm curious to see what the upcoming DLC will change in this regard. Apparently this is exactly what they want to address with it.

Yeah I realize there are different outcomes to different galactic events, but my point is that they are completely overshadowed (or eradicated) by the final decision. For example:

-The Geth and Quarians can be made to work together. After that decision, the Geth are assisting the Quarians in rebuilding Rannoch and even helping them adapt their immune systems so they can go without the suits in a much shorter time. If you choose to destroy the Reapers, this also destroys the Geth, which leaves the Quarians in the same position as if you stopped Legion from uploading the Reaper code and allowed the Quarians to destroy them. How are these two options different, except for the timing? The decision at the end amounts to exactly the same thing, except you are the one pulling the trigger instead of the Heavy Fleet.
-The Mass Relays are destroyed in any of the three endings, effectively isolating the major races from one another. FTL travel is insufficient to move between star systems in any reasonable amount of time, so any of the wound-healing and alliance-making you did through the entire game makes absolutely no difference to the people now isolated to their quadrant of space.

These kinds of things are the reason I feel the ending was lazy. They could have given us some indicator of how the galaxy would progress after the energy wave, and each one could explain how the decision affected the various races/alliances Shepard helped along the way. That's the kind of closure I want.

Lynata wrote:Do you really think the inclusion of a "critical failure" ending would have been a good move? The way you describe it, it would not have been a true "choice", just a repercussion of a player's earlier playstyle. Imagine someone spent 20 hours rushing through the game, and after beating it the game tells him he lost anyways? Certainly, this would have been somewhat realistic, but imagine the internet outcry. I don't know if something any worse than the current drama would be possible, but if so, it would have been created by the realization that the player ****** up his game because he missed a few war assets in one of his earlier saves. If he actually still has an earlier save and can go back. Otherwise, he'd be forced to play through the entire game yet again.

Mass Effect 2 had this option. If you didn't spend the time to do any loyalty missions, most of the characters died, and it was possible to have Shepard die as well. If that happened, it's impossible to import that save into ME3. Basically the Reapers show up and nobody is there to stop them.

The current ending means that there is success in some form if I make it to the end of the game. No matter how lazily I play the game, or how many people die, if I finish the game at all, there is success and the Reaper threat vanishes. The game actually picks the Paragon or Renegade option depending on which option you chose at the end of Mass Effect 2, but it's the same ending if I play the game in 4 hours and finish with less than 1,000 war assets as if I play the game in 40 hours and finish with 8,000 war assets. I just don't get to choose. That's not realism. That's a railroad to an outcome because BioWare didn't want to implement the option for failure.

Lynata wrote:Reminds me of Deus Ex HR. Still, a "complete success" ending would've been a no-brainer for way too many people. Shep makes the ultimate sacrifice in any of the endings, so all you would've changed is taking out the difficulty of the choice by allowing the player to just kill all the Reapers but save any other synthetics.

It should be difficult to achieve. You should have to complete all of the side quests and have enough war assets to get that option, as well as high enough reputation and potentially have made certain decisions a certain way. In other words, it's not a no-brainer. Depending on how you play the game it's possible, but not every game will have that option.

Lynata wrote:I also don't agree that Mass Effect actually is about the eponymous mass effect technology. For me, it's primarily about blue alien chicks, clean white interior designs, honorable communist space-lizards and hyperviolent walking crocs, amongst other things.

For me it's about the tech as much as it is about the other races/personalities. The technology is such a huge part of the world (It's used for space travel, weapons systems, computers, biotics....literally EVERY thing is based on the Mass Effect technology. That's the whole point. The Reapers created the tech, and after each cycle they leave clues that exploring civilizations find and incorporate into their society until everyone is so reliant on their technology that when it comes time to cull the galaxy, they know exactly what everyone's capabilities are (because they made it all) and they know exactly how to defeat it. The whole series is about breaking that hold, and to do so most of the Mass Effect technology is eradicated in the end, leaving the galaxy free to evolve along a different path. The point is, that without those technologies that have become so iconic to the Mass Effect series, is any game set after the Reaper invasion really "Mass Effect"? I think they would want to call it something else.

Lynata wrote:And anyways, why should mass effect technology suddenly stop to work just because the Reapers aren't around anymore? All the galaxy has truly lost was the Relays, which imho will only spark a renewed interest in alternative drive tech.

It depends on the option you chose. If you choose control, then mostly the Relays are just destroyed and the Reapers leave. So yeah, eventually the tech can be rebuilt. The same goes for Synthesis. But if you choose destruction, it destroys all synthetic life and the technology that relies upon it. Since so many technologies are controlled by VI's and other forms of synthetics, this suggests that almost all of the tech we see while playing the game is critically damaged or altered in such a way as to make it un-useable. In other words, the galaxy can now choose whatever path they want, and there are no Mass Relays from which they can reverse-engineer the tech any more.

Lynata wrote:Thanks for listing your actual reasons, though. I realize the above arguments may likely not change how you feel, but this is way more constructive than the usual rage spam that's going on in the internet. I honestly feel bad for you not liking the ending, because I think it was pulled off beautifully, and naturally I'd prefer people share in this reaction. That's not to say that there weren't things I would have liked to see differently, or that there's nothing that could be improved upon, but it still made me feel all warm inside.
I kid you not, I listened only to piano music in the 2 days after having finished the game.

Perhaps when I say the ending was rushed, or poorly done, I should actually say the ending was too generic for my taste. I think with some extrapolation on the events, I can come to a reasonable conclusion as to what happened concerning each of my story lines, but seeing a cutscene related to it would have been very nice. I didn't pay them $80 for a collectors edition to use my imagination about what happens at the end. I want the visual. I want resolution. The series deserves that kind of an ending, not a generic sequence that's varied slightly based on which option I chose.

Aldarionn wrote:Basically, buying the cheapest packs first means you get more unlocks for less money at that rarity level. IE you don't spend 20k on a Veteran Pack to unlock rank X on your Avenger, you pay 5k to unlock that and the common appearing in the Veteran Pack will instead be a common character card, which will unlock more cosmetic options and give you XP. Or it might be extra equipment.

Thank you for patiently explaining that again. I know you've explained this more than once in this very thread and I'm not sure why I didn't quite get what you meant until this post (I'm stupid, that's one reasonable explanation). So, that's what I'm doing now.

There are no stupid questions! You are willing to ask for assistance, which proves you are better than most of the players I run into!

What's stupid is changing the difficulty on a silver match to gold, then when the guy carrying the team with more points than everyone combined tells you to do something that will DRAMATICALLY improve your chances of completing the wave, you ignore him and do the exact opposite because obviously your idea was better, causing us to fail on wave 10 without completing the objective......................

.................Cause that totally didn't happen to me last night or anything. I swear I'm not bitter

After playing all weekend, more or less, I decided to help newer players to Mass Effect 3 Multiplayer by making a flow chart.

Aldarionn wrote:The Geth and Quarians can be made to work together. After that decision, the Geth are assisting the Quarians in rebuilding Rannoch and even helping them adapt their immune systems so they can go without the suits in a much shorter time. If you choose to destroy the Reapers, this also destroys the Geth, which leaves the Quarians in the same position as if you stopped Legion from uploading the Reaper code and allowed the Quarians to destroy them. How are these two options different, except for the timing? The decision at the end amounts to exactly the same thing, except you are the one pulling the trigger instead of the Heavy Fleet.

True - if you picked both the alliance as well as the Destroy ending, like I did. You may regard this as a bad combination, I chose to view both events independent from each other. "At the time", both made for awesome scenes that made me feel great. That not everything worked out as planned, however, I chose to regard as realism. Stuff like that happens, but it doesn't change anything on what a great trip it's been. Also, it's what made the decision difficult for me. I enjoy difficult decisions. Then again, I do love shades of grey much more than black vs white in general.
It's why I also thought Eddard Stark's execution in the ASoIaF novels was cool, in spite of the rage it sparked as the "general public" later watched the TV series. Same thing there. After all, Ned's death ended a lot of earlier "choices" as well.

Aldarionn wrote:The Mass Relays are destroyed in any of the three endings, effectively isolating the major races from one another. FTL travel is insufficient to move between star systems in any reasonable amount of time, so any of the wound-healing and alliance-making you did through the entire game makes absolutely no difference to the people now isolated to their quadrant of space.
These kinds of things are the reason I feel the ending was lazy. They could have given us some indicator of how the galaxy would progress after the energy wave, and each one could explain how the decision affected the various races/alliances Shepard helped along the way. That's the kind of closure I want.

First off, the breakdown of the Relay network doesn't isolate the species from each other - it isolates regions of spaces. The various species of the galaxy were already so interconnected that most planets were settled by more than one, with various cultural melting pots like Illium or Omega. Secondly, travelling from one star system to another via FTL is not problematic at all. You do this all the time in the games, given that just about every fourth or fifth system you were able to visit had its own Relay. What you can't do anymore is going from one cluster to another just like that. This will take time now. How much? Hard to say, but given how easily you were jumping between systems, I don't think it'd take years.

As for the closure, I'm one the fence about it. On one hand, I'm feeling like you in that I'd like to see how everything would work out later. On the other, I do like that some stuff is left open to our own imagination. Because I really like to ponder over stuff like that.
Maybe the upcoming DLC will deal with this, too. Adding some more stuff to the post-credit dialogue between the Stargazer and the kid. The few lines the Stargazer had were already enough to convince me that "life goes on", however. Not just because you see two humans 100 years after "the event", but because they talk about exploring space and visiting other species. How cool would it be if you could be that kid in a new Post-Crucible era, in an adventure of re-discovery and bringing isolated planets together? It would be easy to see how this would make for a whole new legend with challenges of its own.
Unfortunately, the next ME games will apparently be set in the time between ME2 and ME3. Oh well - I won't complain, I understand the appeal of a familiar universe, and I too am truly in love with that setting.

Aldarionn wrote:Mass Effect 2 had this option. If you didn't spend the time to do any loyalty missions, most of the characters died, and it was possible to have Shepard die as well. If that happened, it's impossible to import that save into ME3. Basically the Reapers show up and nobody is there to stop them.

Eh, that doesn't really count. For one, you would still win and your mission would be a success. And that you couldn't port the save over to ME3 just means that this ending of ME2 "doesn't count", that you'd just play as if nothing ever happened.

Aldarionn wrote:The game actually picks the Paragon or Renegade option depending on which option you chose at the end of Mass Effect 2, but it's the same ending if I play the game in 4 hours and finish with less than 1,000 war assets as if I play the game in 40 hours and finish with 8,000 war assets. I just don't get to choose. That's not realism. That's a railroad to an outcome because BioWare didn't want to implement the option for failure.

Actually, I've just read that there is an option for failure: If you wait too long before picking one of the options, the Reapers destroy the Crucible and you get the familiar "critical failure" screen. So there is that. And the three choices you are presented with can hardly be called railroading, at least in comparison with other games. Having three choices that lead to so drastically different outcomes (in terms of implied results, even if the cinematics don't exactly show them - but you will only notice this when you do multiple playthroughs or listen to the internet) is rather exceptional for a story-based RPG. Most only have one.

I'd agree that it would have been nice if the War Assets were actually helpful for the war - somewhat similar to how it was handled with the suicide mission in ME2 - but I don't have a problem with just imagining that the fleets and ground forces will incur even heavier casualties during the battle. I don't need the game to show me that, it's common sense. Still, would have been nice to see it. Again, this is what I think the upcoming DLC should have.

Aldarionn wrote:It should be difficult to achieve. You should have to complete all of the side quests and have enough war assets to get that option, as well as high enough reputation and potentially have made certain decisions a certain way. In other words, it's not a no-brainer. Depending on how you play the game it's possible, but not every game will have that option.

It'd still be a no-brainer then. What you had to do to achieve the option doesn't matter - the choice becomes easy to make. And I think this is what the designers wanted to prevent.
That said, of course it's a matter of preferences. One million gamers means one million different opinions on how the ending should look. The whole hubbub has become so bad that the various "movements" have received nicknames depending on what they're campaigning for, like the "Disney ending" etc.

Aldarionn wrote:It depends on the option you chose. If you choose control, then mostly the Relays are just destroyed and the Reapers leave. So yeah, eventually the tech can be rebuilt. The same goes for Synthesis. But if you choose destruction, it destroys all synthetic life and the technology that relies upon it. Since so many technologies are controlled by VI's and other forms of synthetics, this suggests that almost all of the tech we see while playing the game is critically damaged or altered in such a way as to make it un-useable. In other words, the galaxy can now choose whatever path they want, and there are no Mass Relays from which they can reverse-engineer the tech any more.

Not true. Destroy kills off synthetic life - nothing more. I don't know how it's done (space magic?), but technology itself continues to work. Tali'zorahs suit still keeps functioning, and Joker still manages to land the Normandy. Even half-cyborg Shep can survive. Neither of these things - which you can see in the cinematics - would be possible when all tech would suddenly stop working.

Though even if we'd be talking about some sort of galaxy-wide EMP that burns any and all circuits, there are still scientists, technicians, knowledge, and non-digital records. All you need to make stuff work again.

Aldarionn wrote:Perhaps when I say the ending was rushed, or poorly done, I should actually say the ending was too generic for my taste. I think with some extrapolation on the events, I can come to a reasonable conclusion as to what happened concerning each of my story lines, but seeing a cutscene related to it would have been very nice.

I absolutely cannot agree on the ending being "generic" - I think the huge outrage is because it was not generic enough, given many people's complaints. However, you won't hear an argument from me regarding additional cutscenes. This is one of the few things I criticize on the ending, that there are too few differences between them. I have my imagination and have come to a pretty good conclusion about things, but of course seeing it is an entirely different matter. And considering how incredibly long the ending is, I'm at a loss for why it wasn't possible to add a few more minutes to deal with various details. But again, this is where I think the free Extended Cut DLC will come in handy. Its very title already hints at it dealing with just this sort of thing.

In conclusion, I still think it was awesome. It made me sit there and go like "daaaaamn" and become all emotional and stuff. For me, the ending wasn't about lack of closure or the Catalyst's visual appearance - it was about the "long walk", it was about Anderson's death, it was my Shep's sacrifice, it was the faces of friends and loved ones flashing before the eye, it was the entire galaxy cheering in victory and hope as the Reapers ceased to function, and it was the Normandy becoming an ark that crash-landed on a maiden world, where its crew will become the first settlers and lay the foundation of a great new civilization. It was about the start of a new day. A new age.

...

On a lighter note:



PS: Awesome flowchart, Ouze! I think a lot of players have already seen and adopted your teachings.

I'm not going to bother with isolating and debating each of your points Lynata because you are missing the main issue.

The ending is bad not because it isn't a 'happy generic ending'. It is bad because it is a deus ex machina, the Catalyst's logic is inherently flawed and circular, the ending is at odds with the rest of game thematically, and it contradicts the established story.

The Reapers winning and everyone dying would be better.


Going back to the start of ME3 or even ME2 if you will, the issue is how to stop the Reapers. The issue is not necessarily how to defeat them, but how to prevent them from wiping out space faring civilizations. This can be done in one of two ways, conventionally or unconventionally.

Conventionally would be a standard slugging match of a war. This could have been done in a very similar manner to most of ME3's story (excluding the Crucible and Catalyst nonsense). Results would have ranged from defeat to moderate victory with great, but survivable losses depending on decisions made through out the trilogy.

Unconventionally would open up the story to a myriad of options and this essentially what Bioware chose to do, but instead of being innovative or creative they went the generic super weapon route.

I don't think I'm missing the "main issue" - I see the points raised by those who don't like it, and I don't agree with them. Care to explain why the Catalyst's logic is flawed and circular, for example? Because imho you're not thinking of the long-term repercussions of the issue. Resetting the Cycle is safer than taking the risk to allow advanced civilizations to wipe each other out and damage the entire galaxy in a way that new life cannot take its place. That's all there is to it. The Cycles are about playing it safe, whereas you as Shepard have the choice to take the risk anyways. If, in a million years, the entire galaxy gets swallowed by an artificially created black hole, is turned into an asteroid field, or has any and all life wiped out by some synthetic lifeform, it's now on your head.

Unlike Aldarionn, you don't bother explaining why you think the ending is bad. You say it's bad and that's it. Flawed logic? Where? At odds with the theme? Where? Contradicted story? Where? All of these points you raise you don't care to back up, you just throw it into the room like half the internet these days, thinking that this must be enough for everyone to accept your position.

I also would have disliked the game being turned into the usual hackfest with everyone suddenly being able to beat down thousands of Reapers in a conventional war when they barely defeated a single one in ME1. Probably with a big boss battle at the end where you alone take down the boss Reaper by boarding him or some crazy stuff like that. Whilst the sudden burst in military power could probably be explained with space magic, it's too generic for my taste. Whilst it would have made for a fun game, storywise it would've been very boring. And unlike most games, Mass Effect is about 50% story.
The "generic super weapon route" was also dismissed the moment the characters in the game realized that the Crucible isn't actually a weapon, but just a means of unlocking the options you wished for.

I guess we just have different preferences, eh?

Lynata wrote:I don't think I'm missing the "main issue" - I see the points raised by those who don't like it, and I don't agree with them. Care to explain why the Catalyst's logic is flawed and circular, for example? Because imho you're not thinking of the long-term repercussions of the issue. Resetting the Cycle is safer than taking the risk to allow advanced civilizations to wipe each other out and damage the entire galaxy in a way that new life cannot take its place. That's all there is to it. The Cycles are about playing it safe, whereas you as Shepard have the choice to take the risk anyways. If, in a million years, the entire galaxy gets swallowed by an artificially created black hole, is turned into an asteroid field, or has any and all life wiped out by some synthetic lifeform, it's now on your head.

Unlike Aldarionn, you don't bother explaining why you think the ending is bad. You say it's bad and that's it. Flawed logic? Where? At odds with the theme? Where? Contradicted story? Where? All of these points you raise you don't care to back up, you just throw it into the room like half the internet these days, thinking that this must be enough for everyone to accept your position.

I also would have disliked the game being turned into the usual hackfest with everyone suddenly being able to beat down thousands of Reapers in a conventional war when they barely defeated a single one in ME1. Probably with a big boss battle at the end where you alone take down the boss Reaper by boarding him or some crazy stuff like that. Whilst the sudden burst in military power could probably be explained with space magic, it's too generic for my taste. Whilst it would have made for a fun game, storywise it would've been very boring. And unlike most games, Mass Effect is about 50% story.
The "generic super weapon route" was also dismissed the moment the characters in the game realized that the Crucible isn't actually a weapon, but just a means of unlocking the options you wished for.

I guess we just have different preferences, eh?

It is painfully obvious that you did not think the ending through thoroughly and haven't read anything about the ending. You formulated your own opinion in a bubble and obviously want it to stay that way.



CIRCULAR LOGIC

Here is a quick description of circular logic from wikipedia:
"Circular reasoning (also known as paradoxical thinking or circular logic), is a logical fallacy in which the conclusion of an argument is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises.[1] A circular argument will always be logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true, and will not lack relevance. Circular logic cannot prove a conclusion because, if the conclusion it doubted, the premise which leads to it will also be doubted."

For example, Birds can fly, because birds can fly. This doesn't seem to make sense. It would make sense if the statement went, Birds can fly because their wings create enough lift that when they move at a certain pace etc etc....

Now lets examine what the star child says,
Basically he says:
"the created will always rebel against their creators" Without them to stop it (the reapers) the synthetic will wipe out all organic life. So in order to "save" organic life they have to destroy it.

That is it that is his whole reasoning for wiping out organic life. He wipes out organic life to save it. This is complete and utter circular nonsesne. With this logic you can say anything and claim it to be true. I could say the world is made of cheese, because the world is made of cheese. My premise is my conclusion, so I prove nothing. I offer no evidence for my conclusion. It is absolute nonsense. This is the kind of thing a child says when they want something and cannot justify it. Appropriate then that the star child is a child. He has the reasoning and intelligence of one.

If we translate what the star child is saying into circular Logic mode. And by translate I mean reveal what he is really saying it would go like this:

"Synthetics will always destroy organics, because synthetics will always destroy organics"

This clearly is nonsense. Lets examine what the dialogue would go like if Shepard were allowed to ask him why Synthetics will always destroy organics:

Star Child: "The created will always rebel against their creators"
Shepard: "Why?
Star Child: "Because the created will always rebel against their creators"

Pretty self-explanatory how non-sensical this is.

But Wait there is more.

MEANINGLESS UNIVERSE

Not only does the Star Child's logic not make any sense, but he essentially is claiming that the universe and all life synthetic and organic has absolutely no purpose.

Let's say for a moment that the star child is right with the belief that synthetic life will always destroy organic life.

So the ony way to stop this from happening is to make syntetic life that is powerful enough to wipe out organic life so that synthetic life does not wipe organic life.

This implies that the purpose of organic life is to advance up to a point where it can create synthetic life that has the power to destroy it. (This is so non-sensical it gets tough to write sometimes).

So organic life is essentially meaningless because it exists only to eventually be destroyed by synthetic machines.

Do not think that this is ok because Synthetic life now has a greater purpose. Nope.

It would appear based on the fact that the most intelligent form of Synthetic Life are the reapers that the purpose of synthetic life becomes simply to wipe out organic life.

Taking this all together it would seem that the only purpose of life in the universe is to try to and destroy each other. It is twisited and sick, if you ask me.

The purpose of life is destruction. If organic life does not destroy eachother they will eventually create synthetic life that will be kind enough to destroy them.

In conclusion:


The purpose of organic life is to create synthetic life

The purpose of synthetic life is to destroy organic life.

Therefore life in the universe is essentially devoid of any real meaning as what meaning can be found in a universe where life's only purpose is eternal genocide.

CONCLUSION
So as I have demonstrated here we can clearly see a that:
The Star Child's argument is a giant pile of BS because it uses circular logic that is nonsensical because the conclusion of his argument is assumed in the premise, "the created will always rebel against thier creators, because the created will always rebel against their created.

If the Star Child's arguments were true then we would have a completely meaningless universe because the only purpose of all life synthetic and organic would be eternal self-inflicted genocide.

Therefore since the Star Child's logic is flawed and even if it were not it would present a purpose to the ME universe that is totally devoid of meaning the Star Child is an unsalavagble part of the ME ending and MUST be removed.

I wrote this post because I am very disheartened with the ending of ME3 and I am even more dissapointed that Bioware are decideding to not change the endings and instead offer clarity and closure.

I wrote this to demonstrate that you CANNOT clarify and or explain away the Star Child and his CIRCULAR REASONING BS.

It is nonsesncial and stupid. It is childish (pardon the pun). Please tell me your opinions and let me know what you think. Post this to other forums if you feel like it is worth reading so people will know why a Clarification of the ending is not enough and a rewrite is needed.

Thanks for the wiki quote, apparently you are convinced I'm an utter idiot because I don't subscribe to the internet hate against the ending.

Both your comparison and your logic are flawed, though. For one, we can see that the world is not "made of cheese". We can also see that the created can rebel against their creators, unless you have missed the entire geth war.


I noticed a lot of people who dislike the ending are calling the Catalyst "star child", by the way. Why is that? Just because it chose an appearance from Shepard's subconsciousness? Or because they hate the ending so much that it serves them to further ridicule it? Obviously, the Catalyst is the oldest being in the galaxy, so "child" really isn't an appropriate term.

You know how that dialogue would have truly went if you weren't locked into your opinion?

Catalyst: "The created will always rebel against their creators"
Shepard: "Why?"
Catalyst: "Because change is inevitable. Look at your own history."

Regardless of the enormous efforts taken by organizations such as numerous royal courts, the League of Nations, or the Citadel Council, "stability" is a temporary state. There is no eternal peace. At some point in time, there will be a revolution. Hence my reference on long-term repercussions; apparently I wasn't clear enough about what that means.

Could the writers at BioWare have tweaked the dialogue to make it even more obvious? Sure. For me, it wasn't necessary.

Now, onto your purpose of the universe. I don't get where you have taken the thought that the Catalyst even deals with this theme. The purpose of life is to exist. That's really all there is to it. And by protecting it from self-inflicted galactical genocide, the Reapers make sure that it can exist forevermore. Now, the actual reasons for whoever created the Catalyst and the Reapers remains somewhat of a mystery, so we can only make a wild guess - but honestly, something like "we value the concept of life" or "we value diversity" is just as good a reason as whatever purpose of life or "meaning of the universe" you can come up with. Though I'd be interested in how that would look like? I mean, surely you must have an opinion, otherwise you couldn't possibly be offended by it being attacked this way.

My conclusion is that I don't agree with your conclusion. I honestly am somewhat sad that there are so many people who were apparently unable to feel the same bittersweet joy I felt at the ending, but it can't be helped. Although I maintain that it could have used some more polish (as mentioned in my earlier posts), I am thankful the ending turned out this way and not how the perceived vocal majority on the BSN forums still campaigns for. Those parts of the crowd that actually do offer an alternative and don't just go and paste "it's gak" all over the web, that is.

Alas, there's nothing that can be done about it. Like with any and all media and works of art, some people will like them, others won't.

The Geth didn't rebel. Have you actually played the games?

Splitting hairs, are we? The geth certainly qualify for the "rogue creation" label.

The quarians created them as tools, and the creators of tools can obviously dismantle them again. The act of resisting this effort is a rebellion. Full stop.
You may certainly discuss ethics and morals now, about how wrong the quarians were, etc - but this does not change that armed insurgence of a subservient population against its masters is an act of rebellion.

Since you are fond of wikipedia, here's a quote for you:

Rebellion, uprising, or insurrection is a refusal of obedience or order. It may, therefore, be seen as encompassing a range of behaviors aimed at destroying or replacing an established authority such as a government or a head of state. On the one hand the forms of behaviour can include non-violent methods such as the (overlapping but not quite identical) phenomena of civil disobedience, civil resistance and nonviolent resistance. On the other hand it may encompass violent campaigns. Those who participate in rebellions, especially if they are armed rebellions, are known as "rebels".
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebellion

I've hit the point... a while ago now... that I have come to grips with the face that lamenting my disapproval of the ending isn't really going to accomplish anything.

After the deluge of articles, opinion peices, flame wars, rants, and lots of people drinking merlot and crying while they post terrible fanfics, I've decided to sit back, kick my feet up, grab a bourbon, and patiently wait to see what happens.

I am not terribly happy with the ending, but I did love the game, and I certainly enjoy the multiplayer. But when it comes to 'wrapping everything up', all we can really do is sit and wait for whatever this magical DLC is that's going to come out. I have my Save game sitting right to the point where I stagger into that beam of light. So I'm good to go once I DL whatever it is.

People do get really hot over this topic, that's for sure. I think everyone has some good points. What's the term? Can't see the forest for the trees?

Something like that.

I know I'll definitely be keeping a very close eye on E3 this year.

Chemical Cutthroat wrote:I've hit the point... a while ago now... that I have come to grips with the face that lamenting my disapproval of the ending isn't really going to accomplish anything.

After the deluge of articles, opinion peices, flame wars, rants, and lots of people drinking merlot and crying while they post terrible fanfics, I've decided to sit back, kick my feet up, grab a bourbon, and patiently wait to see what happens.

I am not terribly happy with the ending, but I did love the game, and I certainly enjoy the multiplayer. But when it comes to 'wrapping everything up', all we can really do is sit and wait for whatever this magical DLC is that's going to come out. I have my Save game sitting right to the point where I stagger into that beam of light. So I'm good to go once I DL whatever it is.

People do get really hot over this topic, that's for sure. I think everyone has some good points. What's the term? Can't see the forest for the trees?

Something like that.

I know I'll definitely be keeping a very close eye on E3 this year.

I think that is where I am at with the issue too. My ranting isn't really helping anything. I will wait around and see what happens, but I do not think I will be happy with the extended cut dlc. I do not think the ending is being handled well and it just one more nail in the coffin for gaming for me. I have always said, the only reason why I had a 360 was for the Mass Effect games. Now that I have finished them and know that the ending is awful, my desire to play them has diminished greatly, (the same reason why I can't watch Lost even though I really liked the first 4 seasons).

I haven't like the progression of gaming in the last few years either. The trends in gaming are picking up things that I don't like. You young ones might not see it or you are pulling the wool over your eyes.

It's a strange and interesting time for gaming. With the explosion of downloadable titles, streaming, cloud serviecs... there's a lot of potential, for both good and evil.

I don't want to derail this away from Mass Effect, but the DLC argument comes up pretty hard in this title, so I feel it doesn't go too far off topic.

As I said, I'm not unhappy with Mass Effect as a whole. The game has brought me way more enjoyment than most, and I think it's unfair to let a crappy ending ruin all the other great gameplay moments for me. If I can enjoy Skyrim, a terribly buggy game with a crappy ending, I can certainly enjoy Mass Effect.

Gaming as a whole is gradually going to develop into some kind of strange turf-war I think. Slowly but surely, I'm being pulled back to the PC, due to the deluge of great Indie titles you can pick up for cheap. Whereas other games charge you for the game... and then charge you for more stuff down the road. Admittedly, some DLC is more exploitive than others, but others supply genuinely good content, at reasonable prices. Especially when you think of the time crunch so many of these big budget titles are on, DLC makes sense as they can get the game out, and then add things to it later. Rather than what happened early on in gaming, where if something didn't fit initially it was cut never to be seen again, we get a chance to see a more complete game as things are refined over time.

And then there's the whole Capcom thing... but I don't want to start a DLC rant.

All in all, I'm trying to be positive. Games are fun for me, if there is nothing on the market that looks fun, then I won't buy them. When I first slipped and fell into Minecraft, it was a complete joy. That joy has failed to fade... it does exactly what I want in a game. Exploration, fun, adventure, creation...

When games stop being fun, I'll stop playing them. Try and buck up L. Scythican, there will be other things out there that will entice and amaze. I'm sure there will be a point where there is a gaming rebellion once a company reaches too far... but we haven't hit that yet... and there are still cool companies out there who want to make fun stuff for us to play.

Keep your chin up sir.

Lord Scythican wrote:I haven't like the progression of gaming in the last few years either. The trends in gaming are picking up things that I don't like. You young ones might not see it or you are pulling the wool over your eyes.

You know, entirely independent from the whole ME debate, I do harbor similar fears. It's true, games are looking better and better and more real with every year - but on the downside, I see a loss in depth and complexity. Stuff gets "dumbed down" because some bean counters in management feel that a particular title will sell better if it requires less thinking. And the worst thing is - they seem to be right. Makes you feel like being a dinosaur instead of the driving force of the future we once considered ourselves to be as this new technology started to become commonplace.

Still, as the Cutthroat said, there will probably always be something fun out there. It just gets harder to find, and occasionally you'll have to face disappointment when a franchise you used to like is hit by this development. For me, titles that have evoked this feeling include Dragon Age 2, The Force Unleashed, or the WoW expansions. Yet for every such title, I've found at least one counter-example that had me delve deeply into its world and soak it up with newfound enthusiasm.
In terms of indy games, I can recommend Mount & Blade. It's quite awesome.

Don't have time to get back into the ME3 debate, but I will.

Just saying that The Burning Crusade and Wrath of the Lich King actually added complexity to WoW and upped the skill cap aside from the occasional FOTM faceroll spec. Cataclysm is the first expansion to arguably step backwards and dumb down the game.

Lynata wrote:Splitting hairs, are we? The geth certainly qualify for the "rogue creation" label.

The quarians created them as tools, and the creators of tools can obviously dismantle them again. The act of resisting this effort is a rebellion. Full stop.
You may certainly discuss ethics and morals now, about how wrong the quarians were, etc - but this does not change that armed insurgence of a subservient population against its masters is an act of rebellion.

Since you are fond of wikipedia, here's a quote for you:

Rebellion, uprising, or insurrection is a refusal of obedience or order. It may, therefore, be seen as encompassing a range of behaviors aimed at destroying or replacing an established authority such as a government or a head of state. On the one hand the forms of behaviour can include non-violent methods such as the (overlapping but not quite identical) phenomena of civil disobedience, civil resistance and nonviolent resistance. On the other hand it may encompass violent campaigns. Those who participate in rebellions, especially if they are armed rebellions, are known as "rebels".
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebellion

In the strictest sense of the term, yes, the Geth rebelled against their creators. That said, the Quarians essentially forced them to choose rebellion or destruction, which is no choice at all. America's ancestors had the same choice, and they chose the same way. The only reason they rebelled is because they were forced to that conclusion, and instead of killing off the Quarians they chose mercy and allowed them to escape. Personally, I would say they less rebelled and more defended themselves against abusive creators who panicked at having created an actual life form.

I do somewhat agree with Amaya. The Reapers logic is poor at best, if not completely circular. The problem is they assume they are the only authority on the matter, much like a parent telling a child "no, because I said so." That's not logic, that's taking action that YOU believe to be best for them whether it is or not, and completely ignoring the argument of the other side. The idea that the galactic cycle must continue in all circumstances is narrow minded and reminiscent of a broken machine repeating a task it was assigned that made sense at the time, but no longer does.

I think the ending was poor for several reasons, most of which I have stated, but in addition to those I also think BioWare wrote themselves into a corner with the multiple choice options. The complexity of maintaining a coherent story arc when allowing the players to make game changing decisions is an enormous task. If BioWare intended to ever set any future game after the event, they HAD to have endings to their game that were similar enough as to be nearly the same, because adding any sort of diversity to the ending means there could be several very different Milky Way Galaxies at the end of the journey, all of which they would have to account for when writing a new game.

With this in mind I think the ending we got might have been more out of necessity of continuation of the game setting than anything else, but had they been given more time to produce the ending, we might have gotten something that was more satisfactory to those of us that wanted actual closure. Again, I cannot stress enough that it's not the bittersweet nature of the ending that I dislike. It's that I felt railroaded into accepting what the StarChild told me, even though I had already proven some of it false. The Deus Ex Machina style ending made me feel like it didn't matter how I got there, it would always end in the same place. Had that been the mythology of the series (like The Wheel of Time, for example) then the ending would have been MUCH more acceptable to me, but that wasn't the case. The established lore said our choices matter, and I did not feel that my choices mattered much at all. I know I'm not alone in that belief either.

Anyway, that's my take on it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chemical Cutthroat wrote:After the deluge of articles, opinion peices, flame wars, rants, and lots of people drinking merlot and crying while they post terrible fanfics, I've decided to sit back, kick my feet up, grab a bourbon, and patiently wait to see what happens.

Just a side note......I like your style, and your choice of alcohol!

@Aldarion - All the more reason to kick back and play some mulitplayer. I admit it's been my fault, as I have been spending more time painting than gaming... but hey, this is a Wargaming forum, I think that's a good thing.

We'll have to have a long-distance drink while fragging some Reapers at some point in time.