Am About to play Mass Effect 3

[Maze1125]

Wrong.

Anecdotal evidence is only invalid when it's about experience "someone else, somewhere else that I've heard of" had.

What I gave is my experience.

*facepalm*

Anecdotal evidence is invalid because individual examples are completely meaningless to statistics as a whole. That doesn't change if it's you or your best friend's sister's dog that had the experience.
It's true that the latter is even less valid, but that doesn't suddenly make the former valid instead.

Obviously SOME people dislike the endings of their own volition, as some people had to be the ones who started the hate craze. You just happen to be one of those few. What Draech was saying was that he personally believes that, even though a few people dislike it on their own, most people would be okay with it without the input of the internet hate craze.
Your single anecdote doesn't change that in the slightest.

Okay, then his anecdotal evidence is valid, I guess.

Whatever you guys say.

And it's not some people. It's probably the majority of people. Judge it by any means - Reddit, BSN, PAX panel. You can always pull the "vocal minority" card, but that's not a very good argument.

I like how his "Iguess" or "I believe" is better than my anecdote. Didn't know one bad argument can be better than another bad argument.

He gave an opinion, presented it as such, and even explicitly said that he could be wrong.

You explicitly said he was wrong, presented it as a fact and gave no leeway for any possibility that your case might have been an exception.

Can you really not see the difference between those two cases, and how one might require less evidence backing it up than the other?

He stated his opinion as if it was fact, i.e. "I think everyone who hates the ending does it because of group mentality", and I pretty much proved him wrong based on MY opinion that was "I hated the ending before the whole Retake thing or before half of the world even played the game".

Then it was something about me being unable to.. prove that I played the game before? Or that I finished it before 9th of March? Don't know, don't care.

All I know is you think my opinion is worse than his opinion. So I'm pretty much done talking to you.

Except he didn't say that at all.

A far more accurate paraphrasing would be:
"I think most who hate the ending do because of group mentality, but I could be wrong."
Do you honestly not see the difference between that and
"I think everyone who hates the ending does it because of group mentality."?

And no, I don't think his opinion is better than yours.
I think your claim that his opinion is wrong is based on fallacious reasoning. And that's not a matter of opinion at all.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Is all the rage justified? I mean really, unbiased, objectively is the ending THAT BAD that it deserves this kind of unified outrage? I don't think i've ever seen such a massive fallout from how an otherwise much loved series failure.
Thoughts?

Is the rage justified? No.

Is the ending good? No.

It's a fairly dumb ending, but I honestly don't know how or why people were expecting anything different. No matter what EA/Bioware said about the game, it HAD to only have one ending. Modern video game manufacturing dictates it. Anyone who really believed that there would be multiple different endings doesn't understand how games are made today.

Could the ending have been better written? Yeah.

Could it truly have reflected all your choices? No.

So basically, go in expecting the ending to not be very good. Don't go in expecting huge reflections of what you've done up to this point (the entire rest of the game handles that very well - your actions determine lots of stuff up until the last ten or so minutes of the game - at which point everyone gets the same stuff). Also, be ready for some (fairly stupid, and obviously programming-before-plot based) plot holes.

Mass Effect 3 is one of the best games you'll ever play. Enjoy it. And remember, do ALL side-quests possible before you do ANY Priority (read Plot) missions.

Go into the end with lowered expectations, and you should be fine.

The ending sucks, but it doesn't suck enough to hurt the rest of the game (people who say otherwise, I am convince, are being intentionally dumb to justify their ran-rage).

 

[Kron_the_mad wants to be deleted]

did you play the original deus ex? the last 10 minutes is the ending from that but depressing and doesn't fit into the narrative of the game at all. Essentially decide if you like red green or blue and prepare to be confused, insulted and enraged... then remember that you spent money to feel that...

 

[Acton Hank]

To quote MrBtounge on youtube: "I cannot fathom what kind of decision making process could have produced such quality and such faliure in such close proximity".

Also this:
http://www.google.it/imgres?q=mass+effect+3+morpheus+ending&hl=it&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=TwO&rls=org.mozilla:en-GBfficial&biw=1280&bih=707&tbm=isch&tbnid=_XgCO0Iff0fDGM:&imgrefurl=http://maintankadin.failsafedesign.com/forum/viewtopic.php%3Ff%3D46%26t%3D27724%26start%3D570&docid=mqK3YIW2MFGZJM&itg=1&imgurl=http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/272/516/477.jpg&w=682&h=536&ei=qkaIT46vOcLm4QTx0LDnCQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=599&vpy=282&dur=1891&hovh=199&hovw=253&tx=30&ty=223&sig=108380442058309431303&page=1&tbnh=150&tbnw=184&start=0&ndsp=15&ved=1t:429,r:12,s:0,i:90

Oh and to anyone who says the journey is more important than the conclusion, while that's true for some, it's not true for everyone:
http://www.google.it/imgres?q=mass+effect+3+ending+morpheus&hl=it&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=Wnj&rls=org.mozilla:en-GBfficial&biw=1280&bih=707&tbm=isch&tbnid=ukxleaC2l1vp2M:&imgrefurl=http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/279173-mass-effect-3-endings-reception&docid=9ga0v7JxCcr4AM&imgurl=http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/279/173/5b9.jpg&w=492&h=412&ei=gkmIT6mFC83Nswbf0pn4Cg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=849&vpy=148&dur=5963&hovh=205&hovw=245&tx=43&ty=225&sig=108380442058309431303&page=4&tbnh=163&tbnw=220&start=58&ndsp=20&ved=1t:429,r:3,s:58,i:204

Good grief, man. Was TinyURL down when you wrote this post? My freakin' eyes.

Sorry, I would post pictures if my crappy pc would let me.

 

[gordonsinext]

It's pretty damn bad, I didn't really feel angry about the ending at first because it didn't make any sense, and then I went online and found out it wasn't just me who didn't know what happened. It felt like there wasn't really an ending at all, the game got to the point where I felt "Good, awesome ending, bittersweet, kind of peaceful, time for an epilogue." and then the bullshit began. Basically it was Bioware/EA not letting me finish the game that made me angry, 100+ hours of awesomeness and then I got blueballed in the last ten minutes does not a happy camper make.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Honestly avoiding hyperbole, IMHO, the ending doesn't work, it fails to communicate what I wanted to and instead opens up a huge amount of questions. So it is pretty dire. Really really dire. But some people don't mind it, indeed I think one or two people like it.

Really I think part of it depends on investment, if you find the ME series to be so so then you won't mind too much. If you really liked them, bought the merchandise, etc, you will probably feel insulted by it.

Wow - a very well stated response. With one flaw - I am very invested in the series, I own merchandise, all the novels, and developed a table top RPG version of ME.

I found the ending disappointing, but I saw what they were going for. So your "investment" idea doesn't really work.

The real issue, I find, is that a lot of people aren't willing to try to understand what Casey Hudson was going for. When you say it fails to communicate, I think that was a brilliant way to say it - but if you go back and pick through it, there are some good ideas there. They're just presented really badly.

The other issue is people not understanding that the personal choices of the player could really ONLY be shown before the ending (as they are) or in an ending Epilogue (which Bioware is adding). Having them appear in the ending itself is not technically possible. There are too many variables - I mean, it literally took the ENTIRE REST OF THE GAME to go through them all. The branching endings, possible in older RPGs, just aren't possible in modern, fully voiced games.

Also, I've seen a lot of people who just aren't paying attention.

Spoiler: Game end details that most people seem to miss

Yes, it has previously been established that exploding relays are bad. However, the relays clearly are not exploding with the same force as in Arrival. Instead, they are shooting out a burst of energy, then self-destructing on a much smaller scale. No planets (or star systems) are being destroyed, no matter what the previous canon says. We see the radiation hit earth and (if your score is high enough) no ill effects occur. People cheer - they are not vaporized by the exploding relay.

A lot of people claim "relays destroy solar systems when destroyed, thus Shep just killed billions" but that clearly does NOT happen. Just because Arrival says that (and remember, everyone HATED arrival for it's silly plot) doesn't make it so. You can see that star systems are NOT being destroyed, so saying that they are is just fan-tantrum because the magical space glow-sticks behaved differently in DLC than in the main game. The fact that this isn't explained (or lamp-shaded) is an example of bad writing, but the insistence that things that are clearly shown to NOT have happened happened because of pre-established tech canon is a very silly reason to be upset.

Another point - the Normandy is using FTL drive (standard for flying around star systems) NOT making a Relay Jump. The blue glow around the ship is always seen during FTL (look out a window during any of the games to see it), and Relay jumps are nearly instantaneous (as seen during the Omega 4 Relay jump in ME2). So Joker wasn't fleeing the Sol system - he was just flying around.

Also, if the Normandy was just flying around, then the "shock wave" thing likely happened to the entire Fleet, not just the Normandy. Which means that the fleet/earth won't starve, because the fleet has been scattered across the entire Local Cluster. Plus, FTL still works (see the Normandy) so any ship that didn't crash into a planet (or whatever) should still work for local star travel. Any other ship from the fleet could pick the Normandy crew up. Or, for that matter, land there and collect food/resources.

And finally, the Reapers have been claiming that they were "saving" us since ME2. Harbinger repeatedly states that "you're only hurting yourselves" and "why do you resist salvation?" and other crazy sounding shit like that. Harbinger seems honestly confused why Shepard doesn't WANT to be turned into a Reaper. This is called foreshadowing people - when it was stated that the Reapers were preserving civilizations in Reaper form (ie, melting people down and turning them into Reapers to preserve their DNA) that made perfect sense with what we learned in ME2. The Reapers aren't killing everyone - they're "saving" them in the only way they know how. Is it stupid? Sure - but it's stupid in that super logical synthetic life sort of way that has been established in ME all along. Basically, every 50,000 years, the Reapers turn everyone into the organic/synthetic hybrids the only way they know how - making more Reapers. Anyone who says that THIS part of the ending was stupid or didn't make sense hasn't been paying attention - this part has been forshadowed the ENTIRE series up to this point. For me, this was the only GOOD part of the ending - it was the payoff I've been waiting for ever since I saw the Human Reaper in ME2.

A lot of people are dead-set that the Reaper's have been about killing everyone, and this "saving" them is introduced in the ending, but that isn't true at all. It was introduced on Horizon in ME2, the first time Harbinger talks to you. It is lampshaded at the time to make your think that the Collector General is talking about making people into husks, but we learn later than the Collector General can't actually talk - it is Harbinger, the Reaper, speaking through him about turning humans into Reapers.

Of course, this doesn't fill in ALL the plot holes - how did your crew members get back to the Normandy? Why did they go there? What exactly IS Joker doing (fleeing? Attempting a suicide-charge of a Reaper/the Citadel? Attempting to do a fly-by blast of a Reaper at insane FTL speeds?)? What is the situation on the Citadel (is everyone dead, or just those in the Presidium?

Nor does it deal with the "Shepard can't argue" issue (While I didn't have a problem being forced into 3 endings, it would have been nice if Shep could at least COMPLAIN about that fact. If Shepard could yell about it, and be told "too bad, you're stuck with it now" and be brought to a grudging acknowledgement, at least the player could feel like they tried to protest. As is, Shep just sort of doesn't care, which feels out of character.) And, as noted above, while plot-consistent, the Reaper logic is also AI-literal absurdist - Shep should be allowed to point that out rather than sit there and nod her head.

So yes, there are obvious flaws, and some really stupid ones, but the goal of the reapers and the destruction of the relays aren't bad. The relays don't blow up star systems and the reapers behave just like they did in ME2. People bitching about those two points really bug me, because THOSE people clearly weren't invested enough to pay attention to the foreshadowing or the cut-scene that shows the relays not exploding with the same force as in Arrival.

Wow, that spoiler tag got a lot longer than I planned. I'm just annoyed about the arguments presented therein. I am able to point out that those parts (while presented badly) were perfectly logical and plot worthy events because I am invested in the story.

Anyway... I've been writing this for like an hour, so I think I'll stop now.

Edit: Damn spoiler tag. **fixes**

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Well ya of course its all cool. They can both be dicks to each other and since we all know they will never be able to resist the next bioware game it all works out in the end.

I guess that's true. It's not like there's a long history of developers hitting a wall of declining sales and subsequently going out of business. Certainly not ones owned by EA, at any rate.

 

[hermes]

Just play the game. Its a good game.

Let me put it this way: if you are the kind of person that wants to see every possible outcome and reloads the game to a previous point in search of the ideal ending, you will be disappointed.

If you are the kind of person that plays the game once and live with the consecuences of your actions as they are presented; or even if you replay it later, don't force the illusion of freedom by undoing your process, you will be just fine.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Come on now. Its been proven again and again that no matter how many people say they will boycott a game and not buy it the vast majority still do.

No, that's a perception. What's been proven "time and time again" is that game developers can and do go out of business...even prominent ones that once seemed unstoppable. What has also been proven time and time again is that many of said developers were bought by EA, who subsequently meddled in counterproductive ways, causing an inevitable dip in quality. Sales crashed, and the developers in question were devoured.

Surely it could never happen again though!

 

[iLazy]

Might want to have tissues on the side lines. Sometimes... it just hits you. Really, really hard.

And I hope you made some good choices in the previous games. I won't say what, but... oh god D: IT HURTS!! IT HURTS!! TT^TT

 

[370999]

Wow - a very well stated response. With one flaw - I am very invested in the series, I own merchandise, all the novels, and developed a table top RPG version of ME.

I found the ending disappointing, but I saw what they were going for. So your "investment" idea doesn't really work.

Thank you.

On the investment issue, I'm not trying to imply that by being a passionate ME fan you will automatically hate it but rather that you're more likely to get emotional over it.A hypothetical scenario to illustrate it would be: Lets say you and I go see Dragon Ball: Evolution. I never watched DBZ while you were a passionate fan. As I believe that movie is very bad, the one most likely to be upset is you while I might dislike the film but it won't be a big deal to me as I don't hold the source material in high regard

Do you get what I'm saying?

The real issue, I find, is that a lot of people aren't willing to try to understand what Casey Hudson was going for. When you say it fails to communicate, I think that was a brilliant way to say it - but if you go back and pick through it, there are some good ideas there. They're just presented really badly.

I actually slightly disagree, now I am biased here but to me, while the ending did contain some very interesting ideas, the problem was that I found them either unnecessary or actually in conflict with the preexisting ideas of the series.

The other issue is people not understanding that the personal choices of the player could really ONLY be shown before the ending (as they are) or in an ending Epilogue (which Bioware is adding). Having them appear in the ending itself is not technically possible. There are too many variables - I mean, it literally took the ENTIRE REST OF THE GAME to go through them all. The branching endings, possible in older RPGs, just aren't possible in modern, fully voiced games.

I would raise the issue here that sometimes by having very limited but very well informed choices it can work far better as it allows for many different interpretations and reason for whatever your choice is. ME 1 does this wonderfully IMHO.

I think part of the problem with the ending choices was that the ramifications of them were well hard to comprehend, as well as the scale of consequence beyond reckoning.

Also, I've seen a lot of people who just aren't paying attention.

And my retort is that I feel a lot of the ending was left very much up in the air and forced people to try and guess the consequences.

Spoiler: Game end details that most people seem to miss

Yes, it has previously been established that exploding relays are bad. However, the relays clearly are not exploding with the same force as in Arrival. Instead, they are shooting out a burst of energy, then self-destructing on a much smaller scale. No planets (or star systems) are being destroyed, no matter what the previous canon says. We see the radiation hit earth and (if your score is high enough) no ill effects occur. People cheer - they are not vaporized by the exploding relay.

A lot of people claim "relays destroy solar systems when destroyed, thus Shep just killed billions" but that clearly does NOT happen. Just because Arrival says that (and remember, everyone HATED arrival for it's silly plot) doesn't make it so. You can see that star systems are NOT being destroyed, so saying that they are is just fan-tantrum because the magical space glow-sticks behaved differently in DLC than in the main game. The fact that this isn't explained (or lamp-shaded) is an example of bad writing, but the insistence that things that are clearly shown to NOT have happened happened because of pre-established tech canon is a very silly reason to be upset.

Another point - the Normandy is using FTL drive (standard for flying around star systems) NOT making a Relay Jump. The blue glow around the ship is always seen during FTL (look out a window during any of the games to see it), and Relay jumps are nearly instantaneous (as seen during the Omega 4 Relay jump in ME2). So Joker wasn't fleeing the Sol system - he was just flying around.

Also, if the Normandy was just flying around, then the "shock wave" thing likely happened to the entire Fleet, not just the Normandy. Which means that the fleet/earth won't starve, because the fleet has been scattered across the entire Local Cluster. Plus, FTL still works (see the Normandy) so any ship that didn't crash into a planet (or whatever) should still work for local star travel. Any other ship from the fleet could pick the Normandy crew up. Or, for that matter, land there and collect food/resources.

And finally, the Reapers have been claiming that they were "saving" us since ME2. Harbinger repeatedly states that "you're only hurting yourselves" and "why do you resist salvation?" and other crazy sounding shit like that. Harbinger seems honestly confused why Shepard doesn't WANT to be turned into a Reaper. This is called foreshadowing people - when it was stated that the Reapers were preserving civilizations in Reaper form (ie, melting people down and turning them into Reapers to preserve their DNA) that made perfect sense with what we learned in ME2. The Reapers aren't killing everyone - they're "saving" them in the only way they know how. Is it stupid? Sure - but it's stupid in that super logical synthetic life sort of way that has been established in ME all along. Basically, every 50,000 years, the Reapers turn everyone into the organic/synthetic hybrids the only way they know how - making more Reapers. Anyone who says that THIS part of the ending was stupid or didn't make sense hasn't been paying attention - this part has been forshadowed the ENTIRE series up to this point. For me, this was the only GOOD part of the ending - it was the payoff I've been waiting for ever since I saw the Human Reaper in ME2.

A lot of people are dead-set that the Reaper's have been about killing everyone, and this "saving" them is introduced in the ending, but that isn't true at all. It was introduced on Horizon in ME2, the first time Harbinger talks to you. It is lampshaded at the time to make your think that the Collector General is talking about making people into husks, but we learn later than the Collector General can't actually talk - it is Harbinger, the Reaper, speaking through him about turning humans into Reapers.

Of course, this doesn't fill in ALL the plot holes - how did your crew members get back to the Normandy? Why did they go there? What exactly IS Joker doing (fleeing? Attempting a suicide-charge of a Reaper/the Citadel? Attempting to do a fly-by blast of a Reaper at insane FTL speeds?)? What is the situation on the Citadel (is everyone dead, or just those in the Presidium?

Nor does it deal with the "Shepard can't argue" issue (While I didn't have a problem being forced into 3 endings, it would have been nice if Shep could at least COMPLAIN about that fact. If Shepard could yell about it, and be told "too bad, you're stuck with it now" and be brought to a grudging acknowledgement, at least the player could feel like they tried to protest. As is, Shep just sort of doesn't care, which feels out of character.) And, as noted above, while plot-consistent, the Reaper logic is also AI-literal absurdist - Shep should be allowed to point that out rather than sit there and nod her head.

So yes, there are obvious flaws, and some really stupid ones, but the goal of the reapers and the destruction of the relays aren't bad. The relays don't blow up star systems and the reapers behave just like they did in ME2. People bitching about those two points really bug me, because THOSE people clearly weren't invested enough to pay attention to the foreshadowing or the cut-scene that shows the relays not exploding with the same force as in Arrival.

Spoiler

On the mass Relays, I can very much understand people saying "wait won't this kill everything?" as we are agin acting on incredibly limited knowledge here. It's one of the things that need to be explained IMHO.

On the Reapers; I feel the problem here is what the Reapers are saving people from. See I was always in the camp that the Reapers saw this as a harvest, they got waht they wanted and some lucky civilization got the chance to become like them. From their point of view that was great. Of course I was wrong as we have the whole Star Kid reasoning...

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Wow, that spoiler tag got a lot longer than I planned. I'm just annoyed about the arguments presented therein. I am able to point out that those parts (while presented badly) were perfectly logical and plot worthy events because I am invested in the story.

Anyway... I've been writing this for like an hour, so I think I'll stop now.

I actually think this is a reasonably cogent post, but I do want to address a few things, which I'm going to have to do in my own spoiler tag, unfortunately. And I'm going to be a little argumentative about it, and I don't want you to think it's because you made a bad post or I felt like being a dick. It's because you made a GOOD post, and actually tried to be objective, which I appreciate.

Spoiler

Yes, it has previously been established that exploding relays are bad. However, the relays clearly are not exploding with the same force as in Arrival.

Clearly? It's not clear at all. You're speculating.

Instead, they are shooting out a burst of energy, then self-destructing on a much smaller scale.

Speculating.

No planets (or star systems) are being destroyed, no matter what the previous canon says.

Which makes it a confusing canonical violation. What was the point of showing us the consequences of an exploding relay in Arrival if they were going to give us a completely different effect in ME3?

We see the radiation hit earth and (if your score is high enough) no ill effects occur. People cheer - they are not vaporized by the exploding relay.

Which is even more confusing. If your effective military strength is high enough, the radiation is less deadly?

Another point - the Normandy is using FTL drive (standard for flying around star systems) NOT making a Relay Jump. The blue glow around the ship is always seen during FTL (look out a window during any of the games to see it), and Relay jumps are nearly instantaneous (as seen during the Omega 4 Relay jump in ME2). So Joker wasn't fleeing the Sol system - he was just flying around.

Speculation. You go on to later say yourself it's totally unclear WHAT Joker is doing. I've heard it argued passionately by defenders of the ending that he IS using the relay, just as you're arguing passionately here that he's not. The only thing we know for sure is that we don't know, which makes it something of a jarring continuity gaffe. If he scooted down to pick everyone up off the planet, that was something they might've wanted to show us. Not that everyone bailing at that precise moment in time makes a hell of a lot of sense, but at least it would be chronologically consistent.

The fact that this isn't explained (or lamp-shaded) is an example of bad writing, but the insistence that things that are clearly shown to NOT have happened happened because of pre-established tech canon is a very silly reason to be upset.

But the BAD WRITING is WHY people are upset. At the very least, it's why I'm upset. That's what a canon violation is. It's bad, sloppy writing. I'm not unhappy because I was married to the idea that exploding relays kill everyone. I'm unhappy because they hand waved their own rules, which means we're back to "space magic", which makes everything boring and stupid.

Also, if the Normandy was just flying around, then the "shock wave" thing likely happened to the entire Fleet, not just the Normandy. Which means that the fleet/earth won't starve, because the fleet has been scattered across the entire Local Cluster. Plus, FTL still works (see the Normandy) so any ship that didn't crash into a planet (or whatever) should still work for local star travel. Any other ship from the fleet could pick the Normandy crew up. Or, for that matter, land there and collect food/resources.

All speculation. Cogent speculation, but speculation nonetheless.

And finally, the Reapers have been claiming that they were "saving" us since ME2.

It's true. But they also said their motives were beyond our comprehension, and then the Catalyst explains everything in about 2 minutes of dialogue, and Shepard says "okay" and starts shooting pillars or grabbing switches. The Reapers can be credited with many things, but I don't think consistency is one of them.

Anyway, this was a good read, but unfortunately most of it is fan fiction. You and I are basically writing our own endings, which I suppose is fun in a "lots of speculation!" way, but also maddening, in a "lots of speculation!" way. I would rather have spent the last month debating complex themes, reliving momentous plot events, and cheerfully imagining what was next for the universe, instead of trying to cobble together a coherent denouement for the trilogy by grasping at shaky and frequently contradictory visual cues. I actually really appreciate the work you and folks like Nimcha and Sajuuk have put into trying to make sense of the ending, but it's actually left me more frustrated with Bioware than before. This isn't Mad Libs. We shouldn't be providing our own ending, that's what we were paying them for.

 

[ProtoChimp]

OK, so My copy of Mass Effect 3 comes tomorrow, And I've managed to avoid having the ending spoiled for me so far, all I know is that it is apparently disappointing to the point where my comrades-in-arms are all polymorphed into Giant Squids of Anger. What I have to ask is this.

Is all the rage justified? I mean really, unbiased, objectively is the ending THAT BAD that it deserves this kind of unified outrage? I don't think i've ever seen such a massive fallout from how an otherwise much loved series failure.

Thoughts?

As of writing I just beat and am still watching thr credits. And I fucking loved the eneding, do not care what people say I loved it and thought it was brilliant.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

On the investment issue, I'm not trying to imply that by being a passionate ME fan you will automatically hate it but rather that you're more likely to get emotional over it.

Do you get what I'm saying?

Ah, yes, fair enough.

I would raise the issue here that sometimes by having very limited but very well informed choices it can work far better as it allows for many different interpretations and reason for whatever your choice is. ME 1 does this wonderfully IMHO.

I think part of the problem with the ending choices was that the ramifications of them were well hard to comprehend, as well as the scale of consequence beyond reckoning.

True, but I get the impression that a lot of people wanted VASTLY different endings. To use your example, the end of ME1 has one result with some minor details changes. Did the Council live or not? Either way, who is the new human counselor? Bam - done. That was it. The "save the council" choice and "Anderson or Udina" choice was the "Endingtron 3000" of ME1. And no one freaked out over that.

I think people went in expecting Chrono Trigger and... well, that just wasn't possible. Even if it is what Bioware implied. Peter Molyneux falsely advertises how much choice is available in his games all the time, and no one has sued him yet.

And my retort is that I feel a lot of the ending was left very much up in the air and forced people to try and guess the consequences.

Oh, no argument there. The presentation is awful. I just don't think the content itself is that bad.

A little more dialogue (and some text boxes) would seriously help. And when text-boxes would improve your ending, you know you've fucked up.

Spoiler

On the mass Relays, I can very much understand people saying "wait won't this kill everything?" as we are agin acting on incredibly limited knowledge here. It's one of the things that need to be explained IMHO.

On the Reapers; I feel the problem here is what the Reapers are saving people from. See I was always in the camp that the Reapers saw this as a harvest, they got waht they wanted and some lucky civilization got the chance to become like them. From their point of view that was great. Of course I was wrong as we have the whole Star Kid reasoning...

Spoiler

Except that there is actually a cut scene that shows the (blue) rays from the relay hitting earth and now blowing it up (at least in Control). Ergo, none of the other blue rays from the other relays blow up their star systems.

It might be harder to tell in Destroy, since Red Radiation probably looks a lot like fire from the Galaxy map. But Green or Blue, it's really obvious that no star systems were destroyed.

I understand people saying that the "why" is never explained - and that Shep never comments. A quick lampshade would have helped a lot.

Starkid: "and the relays will be destroyed"
Shep: "But won't that blow up all those star systems?!"
Starkid: "No, because **technobabble**"

And problem solved. That they didn't do that is a sign of poor writing (you should anticipate "buts" and lampshade them) but isn't inherently wrong, just lazy and stupid. Which is BAD, but then they did give you a cut-scene that shows earth (and therefore all other planets) being fine.

As to Reaper Logic - all that is is the reason why the Reapers harvest all life into themselves. Because they're afraid that AIs will kill everyone.

Remember, the Starkid doesn't consider Reaper-fication to be death. So, to the Starkid, he is saving all Organic life (in Reaper form) before it can create synthetics to kill itself.

Again, no Shep dialogue option to say "But I just made peace between the Geth and Quarians, plus EDI is happy and in love - so clearly you're wrong, asshole." is really the problem. Again, it's a matter of lampshading. Shep should be upset about this - she should point out that people consider Reaper-fication to be death. But she doesn't - which causes the player to lose Agency, and thus be frustrated.

Shep doesn't even need to succeed in the argument. Starkid can say "Too bad, my programming doesn't allow for reconsidering my logic. I can only do as I have done (because I am a synthetic lifeform running on a program). But you - you can change things. These are the ways you can change things with the hardware available. Choose." Then at least the ending would be based on "hardware limitations" rather than arbitrary "because I say so" choices.

I mentioned Agency before. The main issue with the ME3 ending isn't the story, it's the lack of agency. Shep doesn't feel like an extension of the player in the ending - she feels like a very stupid character who doesn't speak her mind going through the motions. This might technically have something to do with severe burns and blood loss, but come on, we've seen Shepard deal with worse than this.

Or, to put it another way, it isn't the Endingtron 3000 that's the problem, it's that Shepard just nods and goes along with whatever Starkid says - no protest, no questions, no personality. The player feels like the control was yanked out of their hands during the last five minutes of the game, even though they get to make the choice.

So yeah, Agency. There's an Extra Credits episode about that, I think.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Speculation.

No, observation.

In each point where you said speculation, what I've said is clearly visible in the cut-scene footage.

Spoiler

The earth is hit by blue radiation and does not blow up.
The other relays sent out waves of blue energy that are visible from the galaxy map.
Ergo, if the blue rays did not destroy earth, they do not destroy anything else.

Also, the Normandy is glowing blue. It is clearly visible as glowing blue.
Play ME2. Open the windows on the observation deck where Samara sits. The ship is glowing blue in flight. That is what normal FTL flight looks like.
Play the end of ME2. The ship goes through the Omega 4 relay. It does not glow blue, but instead shows speed-lines. That is a Relay jump.
Ergo, the Normandy was in flight, not in a relay jump.

I don't care how passionately anyone argues - anyone who says that the ship was making a Relay jump is provably wrong.

So yeah, neither of those points were speculation. I watched the cut scenes, observed what happened, and made the only logical conclusions available based on the evidence.

I am convinced that the main protests to this are Memetic - someone (incorrectly) stated their observations on the internet, and everyone went "Wait, is that what I saw?! That's awful!" and jumped to the same conclusions.

The ending sucks, don't get me wrong. It is badly written. It just may not be badly written for the reasons some people seem to think it is.

 

[Acton Hank]

Speculation.

No, observation.

In each point where you said speculation, what I've said is clearly visible in the cut-scene footage.

Spoiler

The earth is hit by blue radiation and does not blow up.
The other relays sent out waves of blue energy that are visible from the galaxy map.
Ergo, if the blue rays did not destroy earth, they do not destroy anything else.

Also, the Normandy is glowing blue. It is clearly visible as glowing blue.
Play ME2. Open the windows on the observation deck where Samara sits. The ship is glowing blue in flight. That is what normal FTL flight looks like.
Play the end of ME2. The ship goes through the Omega 4 relay. It does not glow blue, but instead shows speed-lines. That is a Relay jump.
Ergo, the Normandy was in flight, not in a relay jump.

I don't care how passionately anyone argues - anyone who says that the ship was making a Relay jump is provably wrong.

So yeah, neither of those points were speculation. I watched the cut scenes, observed what happened, and made the only logical conclusions available based on the evidence.

I am convinced that the main protests to this are Memetic - someone (incorrectly) stated their observations on the internet, and everyone went "Wait, is that what I saw?! That's awful!" and jumped to the same conclusions.

The ending sucks, don't get me wrong. It is badly written. It just may not be badly written for the reasons some people seem to think it is.

To draw logical conclusions about what's happening based on incomplete input is speculation.