Also, for those bashing the "recall" movement, I gotta ask, what is wrong with giving the players what they want/payed for/you promised?
Fully explained here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy0kAf…
Oh and a video on how to do endings (in general) right: youtu.be/h0JVUpMNIn0
And a "Where are they now?" ending: www.youtube.com/watch?v=vG4Eyf…
And check out my version of the End to Mass Effect 3. It starts here: thewonderingsword.deviantart.c…
Update: The Refusal Ending from the EC DLC- www.youtube.com/watch?v=czKq9H…
Koobismo speaks of comics, Leviathans and how to write a damn good story: fav.me/d5d7f66
And before you jump into a defense of the original ending, ignoring that fact that this is a meme, take a look at this: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wj9q8r…
My final thoughts (so far) on the whole ending business and why people still seem to drag it/defend it- www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIm8vV…
(The ending, not you.)
In a sane world, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with delivering on what you promised. But that’s not where we live today…
The demand for a better ending was very easily skewed by those who stood by the original ending (and the new ending DLC) saying that Bioware has a right to do whatever it wants with their product. That there was a message and intent to the way they ended it. So what was the intent of encouraging players to create their own characters and invest in a multi-game storyline that takes into account the major decisions you make only to take that all away at the very end?
Maybe it’s just me but the message I got was “fuck hope.”
Some defenders of Bioware’s endings also claim that the hero always surviving in the end is too cliché. Well, so is the hero always dying.
Hell, clichés are too cliché now.
The ad campaigns led you to believe that the ending would reflect your choices and in a (KEY WORD ALERT) "technical" way it did. But that final option negated all previous actions, good or ill. Ideally the multiple endings (or just the three if that’s all you could manage) should have ranged from best to worst. What was really demanded was the possibility for a happy ending. If you got a bad or “meh” one, you could replay it until you got the one you were happy with. There are still such gamers out who are completionists, who grind for all possible scenarios and endings. Imagine their disappointment when they found out the only major change was a pallet swap with accompanying mood music and narration to disguise it.
There are many other points to make but others have already made them (some far more eloquently than me) but I’ll conclude my mini rant with this:
I highly doubt that Bioware would have ended Mass Effect the way they did (and treated their fanbase the way they did) if Electronic Arts did not own them.
They call it artistic integrity.
I call it a failed attempt at Torch the Franchise and Run…
I also believe that the EC and specially the Citadel DLC were designed to split the fandom and manipulate it, specially catering to the shippers.
Yes, you could see the EA's corporate influence seep in into BioWare products as far back as Dragon Age: Origins and ME2. But as far as this controversy goes, well, this is what I have to say about it (not that I dissagree with what you wrote. After all I've gone so far as to create not only my own ending, but three fan fic series based on it) - www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIm8vV…
Everything just stops, all the Reapers cease their destruction, and the entire galaxy awaits your decision.
I guess this is what happens in terminator, but in the future.
But hey, if you want to believe that, go ahead. Sure, because when I think of "preserving" something, the first thing that comes to mind is "blast/enslave/liquify" everything within reach, rinse and repeat every 50k years.
but the previous cycles species are acting as reapers controlled by the catalyst and have a consciousness much like the geth.
Again, the Starbrat can believe anything he wants, use whatever insane troll logic it chooses, but there is no reason for the writers to then re-configure the story to make this the rule of their universe. The Leviathans just add a new layer of idiocy to the whole thing, trying to retcon this and failing miserably.
or maybe Harbringer was just out of the loop.
It's also important to know that this isn't what Shepard believes. The only option he doesn't have (counting only what is within Shepard's power) is to let the Reapers continue their cycle (unless you count the choice of "rejecting" the Catalyst but even here Shepard says he is against it too). With that knowledge it would be fair to say that BioWare doesn't agree with the Reapers either. Yet that is EXACTLY what I hear tons of people saying. They even state it as the reason why they dislike the ending. There are plenty of reasons to dislike the ending but this isn't one of them.
Who represents BioWare more? Shepard or those who built the Crucible? Several people at BW mention Shepard as their favorite character because the choices he can make is based on the choices the people of BioWare might choose between if in the same position. I've already told you Shepard's beliefs, and not ONE outcome agrees with the reapers logic as the best solution. The outcomes merely accepts the limitations of the Crucible.
What would you have done in that situation? Do you feel there's an option missing? Because the only missing option I can think of is Shepard going "What a great idea! How come I never thought about killing most current organic life for the purpose of saving all future organic life?!"