[Dalley hussain]

Not only that, it should also be determined by what you have done over the previous 2 games as well.

Most of that stuff is reflected in the war assets. Unless the new ending would include a grand summary of what happens all across the universe in the future like

Spoiler

more consequences for the council dying/surviving in ME1

most of those things shouldn't have any real impact on the ending.

[Taylrea Teodor]

I really doubt BW will go with indoctrination. If they did that, "Destroy" would be the only correct choice at the end of the 'regular' game. That choice requires you to choose to wipe out synthetics - which runs counter to the whole synthetic / organic sentience are of equal value theme that took up at least a third of ME3 and a nice chunk of ME2. It just doesn't make sense to canonize that as the 'correct' choice.

Meh.

Spoiler

I picked Destroy as the most Paragon choice I could find. But that's because (having watched and read a variety of sci-fi over the decades), I didn't have their simplistic idea of what "Synthesis" would entail. So the choices to me were.... Control (side with TIM, the most evil man in the game.... er, no), Synthesis (kill every living thing in the galaxy, then replace them with some new life), or Destroy (just sacrifice one race, rather than all of them). In no way does Synthesis seem like the "right" choice. Yes, it completely blows to kill the Geth (especially since I managed to fix things up between them and the Quarians), but it's still better than the alternatives. And is part of the reason why I see all three choices as "losing" the game, since none of them can be considered success (when you include the additional effects of loss of Relay travel, and all the war fleets being stuck in the Sol region).

This is not to say I support the indoctrination theory. I just think it means the ending was depressing and disappointing.

[Louise Lowe]

TIM is not evil, he just uses what ever means necessary. Well, that was before

Spoiler

he got reaper tech implanted into himself and thus became willfully indoctrinated I suppose the boss of Epic Fails Inc. leads by example

[carla]

TIM is not evil, he just uses what ever means necessary. Well, that was before

Spoiler

he got reaper tech implanted into himself and thus became willfully indoctrinated I suppose the boss of Epic Fails Inc. leads by example

Well obviously not everyone read TIM's backstory,

Spoiler

TIM was sent on a mission by general williams to find out what the turians were doing on a planet during the turian war, he was a human supremacist anyway, the turians had found a reaper artifact, to try and shorten this, he touched it, thats how he got he's eyes, and the beginning of he's indoctrination saren brother and saren were leading the team to recover the artifact and thats where saren also started getting indoctrinated, and this was during the human turian war, long before the event of shepard.

[Wane Peters]

TIM is not evil, he just uses what ever means necessary. Well, that was before

Spoiler

he got reaper tech implanted into himself and thus became willfully indoctrinated I suppose the boss of Epic Fails Inc. leads by example

I call for the so-called Grey's Law, or "any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice."

[Amy Gibson]

I call for the so-called Grey's Law, or "any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice."

Hahahaha.

[SEXY QUEEN]

This is a rough draft of my idea for the ending

Spoiler

So, everything will proceed normally, except for a few tweaks in the space/ ground battle to try to make it as epic as possible. Oh, and if you have the lowest amount of war assets possible then the fleet doesn't even punch a hole. Everyone is killed, Reapers win. Medium/medium-high war assets will do it with heavy casualties, high war assets will be successful. So, the point after you get hit by Harbinger's beam, everything is a dream. This ending is running with indoc. theory, again with a few tweaks to make the sequence even more geared towards indoc. If you choose Control or Synthesis, then you are indoctrinated, and you will either get an ending sequence saying about how you are now a glad Reaper thrall, and the cycle will continue, or the game continues with the Reaper forces being your allies and your forces being enemies. With their leader effectively dead, (even worse) the fleet loses. With medium war assets, you easily overtake the allied forces and continue to serve the Reapers. (Game ends.) With High war assets, the fleets eventually lose, but they put up a good fight and they manage to kill the indoc. Shepard. For indoc with medium assets, Shepard mercilessly slaughters his squadmates as they are horrified at him being indoc. With high assets, Shepard kills multiple squadmates before the combined forces put him down. They still lose, but they put you to rest. They all feel it is what you would want, and they all briefly mourn and apologize to you before Reaper forces kill the rest of them. If you choose Destroy, you resist indoctrination and briefly, Harbinger speaks to you with disappointment, saying you could have been useful. You can say a few words to him. You can ask him questions too, but he answers none, ranting about how you are not worthy, cant comprehend it, etc. Also, he sticks you in an obvious dream on Earth during the beginning of the invasion (a last ditch attempt to weaken your will) with overwhelming Reaper forces attacking, and civilians dying (you cant save them), and that boy is present too. When you are eventually dream-killed, (forces get harder and harder) Harbinger shows you a vision of multiple planets (Earth, Palaven, Tuchanka, etc. as well as fleets and ground forces) all being decimated by Reapers, while talking about how it is inevitable you will lose, and to give yourself in. All that stuff. With medium war assets, there is not enough ships left to distract the Reapers, and you die (though you die having resisted indoctrination). With medium-high/ high and above war assets, you live, and wake up in the rubble. With high assets, some of Hammer team is left, including Anderson, and the last remnants again go into the beam, and Shepard is very wounded. He makes it to the beam, but he is slowly bleeding out. With medium-high, Hammer team is decimated and you are left with like 2 soldiers, Anderson and your one squadmate. You are mortally wounded, limping to the beam. Also, 1 of the 2 squadmembers with you on the final run can die if you have between medium-high war assets. Priority death list yet to be made. Both die with only medium. Live with high. When you get to the beam, you are transported to the Citadel. You limp or walk your way through with whoever is left, and come to a room with the Illusive man. He says that you cant stop him, and he will control the Reapers. It is the only way. You can persuade him to kill himself, but if you fail, then he is the final boss. He will transform to an almost husk like creature, with powerful biotics and combat abilites. You will have help based on how many forces are left. After he is dead, Shepard with medium-high is even more wounded, and very near death. Shepard with high is wounded, but will be relatively ok. You open the Citadel arms, and Harbinger then appears in a hologram station, and you can talk with him again, like the Sovereign conversation, but only with high. Medium-high Shepard will be too busy bleeding, and so a squadmate will chat instead. Regardless, Harbinger announces it is coming to deal with you once and for all. Harbinger and 2 other Reapers make their way to the Citadel, and they will either be damaged/ and or destroyed by the Crucible Shield fleet with high assets, or merely turn their attention to the fleet with medium-high. With medium-high, the shield fleet is almost decimated, but in both high and medium-high they manage to dock the Crucible and it charges to fire. Then Reaper ground forces also beam up to the citadel as the crucible is charging. Paragon shep can try to tell his allies to leave as he holds them off, but that's one order they wont follow. Medium-high Shep with both squadmates alive take only 1 or 2 unnamed soldier casualties. Medium-high Shep with 1 squadmate alive has to choose between Shep or Anderson to stay and hold the final line, when they realize they have to leave, lest they all die. Or something. Rough draft. High asset shep, everyone lives. The crucible then begins to fire. If shep stayed behind, s/he crawls after all forces are gone and dies just as the crucible fires. If anderson stayed, same thing. Again, medium-high with both squadmates and high, both live. The crucible then sends out a giant blast that disables all reapers (doesnt destroy) and incinerates all reaper ground forces, but leaves everything else intact. If you lived, there is a celebration on earth where you can talk to everyone you know (like dragon age end). Also, anderson or some tech guy explains that since the reapers were completely deactivated (including indoctrination field) they were able to access the huge amount of data in their archives. There you can look at tons of information about the reapers and get all your questions answered, etc. Also their technology will be a huge boost. If shep died, you will control anderson instead. and then another dragon age like epilogue with video clips talking about the fate of all the planets/races and the effects of everything you did. Maximum closure. And then perhaps it ends with you just looking out into the sun doing some deep thinking, and maybe your LI goes up to you, asks you what your going to do, etc. If not LI, then all your squadmates. Some epic music then plays and cool camera shots are abound. Ze end.

Remember, that is a very rough draft, pretty much on the spot too. It will likely be changed. Feel free to think of ways it could be better or give feedback.

[Leilene Nessel]

http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=15395

And I agree:

Spoiler

And no, I’m not a believer in the “http://www.gamefront.com/mass-effect-3-ending-anolyzing-the-indoctrination-theory/“. I think that would be better than the ending we got, but I don’t think it it was ever intended by the writers. This theory involves an incredible level of subtle symbolism, which goes against just how ham-fisted the rest of the story is. To wit: If these writers thought Shepard was indoctrinated in the last stage of the game, we would know it.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/9506-Mass-Effect-3-Ending-Controversy

[Assumptah George]

http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=15395

And I agree

Aye, Nu_clear_day posted this in page 1
Very good article.

[Amysaurusrex]

Aye, Nu_clear_day posted this in page 1

[leigh stewart]

Because it's "artistic" and as such they need to avoid the cliché of a happy ending by employing the even bigger cliché of an artificially miserable ending.

I can't remember if I read about it on one of these ending discussions, or on the BSN, or even if I found it by myself while randomly surfing (I'll look for the source article if its necessary), but I recall an article mentioning one of the writers dropping a subtle bomb in a forum on how apparently Casey, as well as another writer took it upon themselves to write the ending themselves, and not accepting input from the rest of the writers.

[Alexandra walker]

Which is an absurd overreaction. It would be an apt comparison had Kathy Bates been upset and posted a blog post about how upset she was. It strikes me as utterly ridiculous to argue "people are being too extreme in their disappointment" by making an extreme comparison to a character who abducted and tortured a man.

Comparing this to a film is missing the mark, I think. Games aren't movies. Especially games of this sort where the direction of the narrative can be influenced by the player in ways big and small. Again how is this any different from criticizing game mechanics? No one has ever defended criticism of game mechanics by saying, "Hey, it's artistic license. If they implemented mechanics differently it wouldn't be their real artistic vision." Why does writing get to hide behind "it's art"?

The point I was trying to make was the distinction between criticism, and demanding a change. Kathy Bates in Misery is not simply voicing her disapproval of how a popular book series was ended - she demanded that James Caan change the book to suit her needs, and held him captive to her whims until he did what she wanted.

I mean, that's a pretty clear parallel (and why the comparison gets thrown around a lot in regards to this controversy.)

For the record - I'm critical of the ending. I'm just on the fence about Bioware re-writing it. Now that (maybe?) it looks like there might be some form of revision of additional content in reaction to this, I'm not going to look a gift horse in the mouth and not download a different ending if it gets offered.

However - I'm not sure that I'm comfortable with this precedent. At what point does a game designer get to take a stand for their own artistic integrity, and at what point are they just being forced to write fan fiction? Sure, you don't get to hide behind "artistic integrity" as a defense against criticism - but when a group of angry fans is demanding the story be changed, that's a very different matter than criticizing a work, as I see it. And that's where artistic integrity plays into the conversation.

Anyway - my Wife just finished the game. She actually liked the ending (at least until I explained my position, and she can see my side. I was very careful to not even talk about it until after she'd played through the game - I didn't want to have to spoil a game she really cared for just as much as I did.) What really irked her, though, was that somehow she must have missed an important conversation with Kaiden, her romantic interest through the whole series (she has a crush on the guy who does his voice - not so much the actual guy, as the voice itself, I think.) So really the main thing she cared about never quite came through, there.

Myself, I was still on board through about 95% of the entire ending. I was totally behind it up until the "Starchild" showed up. (Even then - I didn't have a problem with what I interpreted as an advanced consciousness manifesting as something from my subconscious - a la Contact, I guess.) And I was only a little thrown when the multiple choice test reared it's ugly head (seriously, Bioware - name me one game where that's turned out to be well-recieved.) What really took me aback was no matter what I chose, it was only just opening up a whole new slew of questions out of nowhere, with not even a nod to resolve them.

I just hope that if Bioware does make some revisions, that it's less out of a need to please some angry internet denizens - and more form a realization that they're capable of better. I loved the writing and story arcs in this latest installment. They had every opportunity for this to be the most epic videogame ending ever - to set the bar for what the medium is capable of, really. And they just didn't get there.

[Barbequtie]

I can't remember if I read about it on one of these ending discussions, or on the BSN, or even if I found it by myself while randomly surfing (I'll look for the source article if its necessary), but I recall an article mentioning one of the writers dropping a subtle bomb in a forum on how apparently Casey, as well as another writer took it upon themselves to write the ending themselves, and not accepting input from the rest of the writers.

Yeah. Chris Priestly has claimed that it's a fake, but I'm not sure anyone is really convinced: it was posted using the account of one of the writers and seemed to have quite a lot of inside knowledge. Of course neither guarantees it was written by a Bioware staff member, but it certainly looks plausible. It would certainly explain why the quality of the ending's writing is rather different from the rest of the game, and the lack of being reviewed would also explain the amount of discontinuity. There has to be some reason why the game's ending feels entirely different and separate to the rest of the game.

[Casey]

The whole artistic integrity arguement is a load of crap, artistic integrity goes out the window then a guy walks up to you and hands you a cheque, these guys arent working for the glory of artistic recognition its for a pay cheque, if they are told, pull that scene we dont have time in the game, and the person just goes ok, artistic integrity is gone, this is an industry they sell their skill to that business and they use their skills the way they want, or they dont get paid, if you want real artistic integrity, go freelance and work for yourself and make your own choices about your own work. The first person to leak about the game will be about the only person who has an integrity at all in this.

[Sasha Brown]

The whole artistic integrity arguement is a load of crap, artistic integrity goes out the window then a guy walks up to you and hands you a cheque, these guys arent working for the glory of artistic recognition its for a pay cheque, if they are told, pull that scene we dont have time in the game, and the person just goes ok, artistic integrity is gone, this is an industry they sell their skill to that business and they use their skills the way they want, or they dont get paid, if you want real artistic integrity, go freelance and work for yourself and make your own choices about your own work. The first person to leak about the game will be about the only person who has an integrity at all in this.

^This^
It's seriously becoming sad to how far into personal delusion someone will go to defend something that makes them money, no matter how bad it may be (*cough*cough*Nintendo too*cough*cough*).

[Britta Gronkowski]

Have Indoc folks taken note on that the Prothean VI on Thessia notes that Protheans found out the Reapers aren't the masters of the cycle, but a servant to a greater power? While this alone does not seem like much it does subvert Sovereign's dialogue and if something is said in a video game, it is said for a reason.

[Richard Dixon]

Snip

The game was sold to fans under the guise that "you're able to help write Shep's adventure". . .only to have all creative control yanked away from you in the final five minutes for no logical reason. The game was sold as your choices will have consequences in the end. They don't. Even your actions within ME3 have almost no effect on the end.

I mean, they want us to buy DLC set in a universe they just obliterated. Isn't that a bit odd? Why do I care anymore? I just completed 30 fetch quest for people on the Citadel -- all of whom have just been reduced to an incinerated pile of goo. Why would I want to do more missions in a galaxy I know is just about to collapse?

Did Bethesda intentional ruin its 'artistic vision' with Broken Steel, or were they just content on milking the game for more $$$?

Myself, I was still on board through about 95% of the entire ending.

It didn't bother you that the rachni reappear, even if you wiped them out in ME1? It didn't bother you that they have no effect on the end? It didn't bother you that were almost no consequence to keeping vs. destroying the collector base in ME2? Saving the base v. destroying it nets you an extra 10 galactic readiness points. Isn't that unbelievably lazy? Isn't the whole idea of the crucible a lazy plot contrivance? Dozens of races adding pieces to a machine when they have no idea how it functions? Isn't it unbelievable lazy that Shep accepts StarChild's warped logic without question? Isn't it unbelievable lazy that crew members that were with Shep 5 min ago have been beamed onto the Normandy and thrown through a mass relay for no reason?

Seems like laziness - not artistic vision - to me.

[Horse gal smithe]

http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=15395

Yeah, I can get behind most of that.

I mean, they want us to buy DLC set in a universe they just obliterated. Isn't that a bit odd? Why do I care anymore? I just completed 30 fetch quest for people on the Citadel -- all of whom have just been reduced to an incinerated pile of goo. Why would I want to more missions in a galaxy I know is just about to collapse?

That, too. I can't imagine wanting to get any story-based DLC (more multiplayer maps? Perhaps. And yes - isn't that the thing people complain about CoD... all the people buying pack after pack of MP maps. Whee!), as I can't even work up the motivation to play the game again. What's the point? It'll all end in fire and ruins.

[BRAD MONTGOMERY]

Did Bethesda intentional ruin its 'artistic vision' with Broken Steel, or were they just content on milking the game for more $$$?

I think Broken Steel had not been planned beforehand and was rushed after the release to accommodate user needs, so while BS was pretty much BS, Bethesda did it with honest intentions.

[Tyrel]

The whole artistic integrity arguement is a load of crap, artistic integrity goes out the window then a guy walks up to you and hands you a cheque, these guys arent working for the glory of artistic recognition its for a pay cheque, if they are told, pull that scene we dont have time in the game, and the person just goes ok, artistic integrity is gone, this is an industry they sell their skill to that business and they use their skills the way they want, or they dont get paid, if you want real artistic integrity, go freelance and work for yourself and make your own choices about your own work. The first person to leak about the game will be about the only person who has an integrity at all in this.

But where is the line then? Art has always been about finding a balance between commercialism and artistic vision. And videogames are far from the only medium where the story and plot are created by a number of people working together. Even if you go freelance - you're still trying to get paid for your work.

Michelangelo didn't paint the Sistine Chapel for free, after all. (Heck, he didn't even want the job originally - and the poor guy who hired him never even lived to see it finished.)

If I don't like how the upcoming Avengers movie ends - do I now have a right to call up Joss Whedon and demand that he change it for me? (Though, obviously, that'll never happen - as Joss is God... )

That's why the whole "are videogames art" thing gets brought into this. Because if games are art: then either I now have a right to demand creative control over movies, books, and paintings - or videogames should have the same protection.

(And again - I'm not saying anything against being critical of a work. Or even returning the game to the store, or deciding to never again support the work of an artist who's done you wrong.)

I just wonder where the line gets drawn here. If fans have a prerogative to demand ret-cons for a videogame, then can it be art?

It didn't bother you that the rachni reappear, even if you wiped them out in ME1? It didn't bother you that they have no effect on the end? It didn't bother you that were almost no consequence to keeping vs. destroying the collector base in ME2? Saving the base v. destroying it nets you an extra 10 galactic readiness points. Isn't that unbelievably lazy? Isn't the whole idea of the crucible a lazy plot contrivance? Dozens of races adding pieces to a machine when they have no idea how it functions? Isn't it unbelievable lazy that Shep accepts StarChild's warped logic without question? Isn't it unbelievable lazy that crew members that were with Shep 5 min ago have been beamed onto the Normandy and thrown through a mass relay for no reason?

Seems like laziness - not artistic vision - to me.

Actually, no. Most of that didn't bug me all that much.

At least not at the time. Like I said - I'm critical of the ending. I'm also critical of a lot of things to do with Mass Effect over the whole series. Doesn't mean I didn't enjoy them all the same, though. That's just me.

I don't believe they put quite as much thought into the ending of the game as they did the build-up (and like I'd said in an earlier post - I'm more a fan of knowing where you're going ahead of time in storytelling, but I do believe either method is equally valid, artistically.)

That I don't really think they had all of this planned out from the beginning is really the only reason I'm okay with a demanded change.

That's just where I fall on this. I think in a more perfect world, I would have been more comfortable with Bioware reacting to criticism of their game, realizing they could have done better on their own, and then releasing a ret-con on their own initiative. It's not the criticism that bothers me at all. It's the idea that fans can demand from a company that things be changed that I'm not terribly comfortable with.

I just happen to see a really big difference between the two concepts (though, of course, mileage will vary from person to person.)

[matt]

Well, I just finished the game and I have to say that I am disappointed with the ending...especially since, in my opinion, it's such a big contrast to the game itself, which I found to be amazing.

I don't even know where to start...

Spoiler

Lack of closure...did Bioware want an "open ending" so that everyone would write their own story on what happened to the characters? Did they do this so that people wouldn't jump on them saying "Hey, I wanted Garrus to do this or that, not what you made it out to be!!" It seems far fetched...and cowardly. I really wanted closure and my questions asked. I would have liked my LI to be with me at the end (even if it means death for us) taking my hand, reassuring me and telling me that "we do this together"

I didn't like that my strong Shep turned into a weakling at the end, willing to listen to the creator of the Reapers. WHAT. THE. HELL?!? So I stick it to Reapers all this time, telling them to go to hell, then in the end I'm so willing to comply? "Yeah, sure, I'll do what you say" Sure, I'm a wreck in the end, maybe I lost almost all hope, but I'm still ME!

All that running around, collecting stuff and allies, being Paragon or Renegade sums up to only a number, for God's sake! How much EMS you have...Take for example the Rachni...I thought there was going to be something bigger in store, some true consequence...but it all goes down to that number again...save or kill the Rachni, you either get +points or -points...no real impact, because the number you get or loose is quite small.

The Reaper creator says that his plan is no longer working...ummm, maybe I didn't understand that, but why? "Yeah my plan is no longer working" me: "Why" child: "Ummmm....well...Because...." me: "So why did you use that fancy magic-elevator to bring me here, when you could have just left me to die and go on with your plan?" child "Ummmm....beacuse?...."

Anyway, I choose the Destroy ending because it seemed like the Reaper God Child favored that the least and I wanted to stick it to him.

And as for those that favor the Indoctrination theory, I noticed some things during

Spoiler

The final run to the beam. The run is downhill, but the streams of water the are present run uphill. Maybe it's just the wind blowing from the beam or a glitch I don't know...but it seemed weird. Also, there are black shrubs appearing from the ground, and I don't mean that they are present, they rise from the ground as you run towards the beam.

[Kristian Perez]

All ill say is the word they should have used was artistic vision.

[Kirsty Collins]

The point I was trying to make was the distinction between criticism, and demanding a change. Kathy Bates in Misery is not simply voicing her disapproval of how a popular book series was ended - she demanded that James Caan change the book to suit her needs, and held him captive to her whims until he did what she wanted.

I mean, that's a pretty clear parallel (and why the comparison gets thrown around a lot in regards to this controversy.)

I heard Hitler didn't like some stuff and forced change too. Oh! Just like people who are disappointed in the ME3 ending!

Except it's not. If the only example someone can find is in a kidnapper/torturer/murderer, then maybe it's best to simply not make the comparison. If you think people shouldn't have any power to dictate what a company does with it's product then say that. What purpose does it serve to compare them to Kathy Bates other than to imply they are just like this one psychopath lady? I mean, it's ridiculous. "These people's demands are too extreme. I know! I'll make a comparison that's even more extreme! That'll get them to stop being so extreme!"

However - I'm not sure that I'm comfortable with this precedent. At what point does a game designer get to take a stand for their own artistic integrity, and at what point are they just being forced to write fan fiction? Sure, you don't get to hide behind "artistic integrity" as a defense against criticism - but when a group of angry fans is demanding the story be changed, that's a very different matter than criticizing a work, as I see it. And that's where artistic integrity plays into the conversation.

Can I demand the inventory be fixed from Mass Effect 1? Maybe the developer was trying to convey the idea of giant bundles of clutter being tedious to shift through. Artistic integrity! Can I criticize the incredible dull planet scanning in Mass Effect 2? Scanning planets takes hours of repetitive work, this reflects that. Artistic integrity!

Unless your argument is that criticism itself (and the implied "fix this" that comes with it) is not okay, I don't see any difference between the former examples and the reaction to Bioware's ending. Someone spent just as much time designing the game mechanics, implementing them, polishing them, as the writers took to type up some exposition and record some voices. They are no more above their mistakes than anyone else. That's the point I'm making. You can't simply arbitrarily hold up writing as some sort of untouchable while being totally cool with proposed fixes for other game elements.

If I don't like how the upcoming Avengers movie ends - do I now have a right to call up Joss Whedon and demand that he change it for me? (Though, obviously, that'll never happen - as Joss is God... )

Absolutely yes. And he absolutely has the right to say, "Not gonna happen." Now if everybody called up Joss Whedon and demanded a change, he can still say no, though he might have more incentive to follow through on their request. Art doesn't shield you from the demands of the marketplace. You can stick to your guns or you can cave to demand. Theirs no shame in either, but your ending was still stupid.

[LijLuva]

Absolutely yes. And he absolutely has the right to say, "Not gonna happen." Now if everybody called up Joss Whedon and demanded a change, he can still say no, though he might have more incentive to follow through on their request. Art doesn't shield you from the demands of the marketplace. You can stick to your guns or you can cave to demand. Theirs no shame in either, but your ending was still stupid.

Actually a really excellent example, Joss Whedon and Serenity, they made a movie because of marketplace demands, they screwed up right royally by axing the show, it'll go down as a huge mistake, best option for the guys who did it ritual suicide to at least save face, that is a good example of where the demands of the marketplace should have overcome network executives they were wrong, but Whedon had enough of them and who could blame him, and that is an actual case of Artistic Integrity, he told em to shove it.

[GLOW...]

Way to go slyme, you godwin'd the thread before we reached post 100. *golf clap*

I have to be honest, I think you missed nu_clear's points.

Look, I don't much care for the illogic of the very end of the game. I can crank about it, pick it apart. I am utterly disappointed in Bioware for not actually having an ending to a great series and wish it was different. Some people are feeling a bit more... militant about it, but I am with Nu_clear on this one. I am not sure how I feel about Bioware just kind of wind-milling about the blowback they have gotten for this. If they felt strongly about their game and how it ended, they should just say "yeah, well, this is how we wanted it to end". Their somewhat mixed up response to angry fandom tells me that whoever did the ending probably did it in a bubble and seemingly in some haste. They really should have known how their series was going to end and worked toward that. It would have been stronger.