Mass Effect 3

[Imperial isa]

may be but a import would make my happy by replacing Wreav

you cant import and just recreate the face?

for me i've tried five to import and nothing gets shown

EDIT all so could be another bug i not heard about

[Clamparapa]

For those with PC versions of ME: http://www.masseffectsaves.com/

[Northern Dominus]

You know, plenty of us have spent lots of characters and bandwidth griping and moaning about what they thought was wrong with the game, how Bioware and EA betrayed us all blah blah blah. There is a bigger disappointment here than the general storytelling, and it's not the fault of Bioware or EA or any of the staff involved in developing or distributing the game.

No the disappointment comes from the gamers themselves.

What am I referring to? Why the massive backlash against the inclusion of an openly gay character (Lt. Steven Cortez) and the potential romance of him when playing as a male Shepard. Nevermind the fact that it's completely optional like all paramour stories are. Nevermind that Cortez isn't effeminante or a caricature of homosexuality but a rather critical asset on quite a few missions and a well-rounded character irregardless of how you dictate Shepard interacts with them. The fact he's gay and included at all is such an affront to hyper-masculine gamers that the backlash is both saddening and telling of the rampart immaturity that gaming sometimes lets people get away with.

It's gotten to the point that even though NONE of my Shepard characters have taken the Cortez paramour option, during multiplayer games when pressed it's been the first thing I've mentioned, if only to make some sort of point. To wit, it's disappointing that the fans which rallied around the game when a certain news outlet grossly misrepresented the content have turned insular and raged against the very same product for taking a brave stance through careful and mature storytelling.

So before one casts stones at the faults of anybody else, lest we forget the gaming community is often contradictory or holds some sort of double standard.

[Galla-]

You know, plenty of us have spent lots of characters and bandwidth griping and moaning about what they thought was wrong with the game, how Bioware and EA betrayed us all blah blah blah. There is a bigger disappointment here than the general storytelling, and it's not the fault of Bioware or EA or any of the staff involved in developing or distributing the game.

No the disappointment comes from the gamers themselves.

What am I referring to? Why the massive backlash against the inclusion of an openly gay character (Lt. Steven Cortez) and the potential romance of him when playing as a male Shepard. Nevermind the fact that it's completely optional like all paramour stories are. Nevermind that Cortez isn't effeminante or a caricature of homosexuality but a rather critical asset on quite a few missions and a well-rounded character irregardless of how you dictate Shepard interacts with them. The fact he's gay and included at all is such an affront to hyper-masculine gamers that the backlash is both saddening and telling of the rampart immaturity that gaming sometimes lets people get away with.

It's gotten to the point that even though NONE of my Shepard characters have taken the Cortez paramour option, during multiplayer games when pressed it's been the first thing I've mentioned, if only to make some sort of point. To wit, it's disappointing that the fans which rallied around the game when a certain news outlet grossly misrepresented the content have turned insular and raged against the very same product for taking a brave stance through careful and mature storytelling.

So before one casts stones at the faults of anybody else, lest we forget the gaming community is often contradictory or holds some sort of double standard.

I've literally never heard of this on BW forums.

So it must not be v. massive.

[The Matthew Islands]

Why the massive backlash against the inclusion of an openly gay character (Lt. Steven Cortez) and the potential romance of him when playing as a male Shepard.

Source?

[Divair]

You know, plenty of us have spent lots of characters and bandwidth griping and moaning about what they thought was wrong with the game, how Bioware and EA betrayed us all blah blah blah. There is a bigger disappointment here than the general storytelling, and it's not the fault of Bioware or EA or any of the staff involved in developing or distributing the game.

No the disappointment comes from the gamers themselves.

What am I referring to? Why the massive backlash against the inclusion of an openly gay character (Lt. Steven Cortez) and the potential romance of him when playing as a male Shepard. Nevermind the fact that it's completely optional like all paramour stories are. Nevermind that Cortez isn't effeminante or a caricature of homosexuality but a rather critical asset on quite a few missions and a well-rounded character irregardless of how you dictate Shepard interacts with them. The fact he's gay and included at all is such an affront to hyper-masculine gamers that the backlash is both saddening and telling of the rampart immaturity that gaming sometimes lets people get away with.

It's gotten to the point that even though NONE of my Shepard characters have taken the Cortez paramour option, during multiplayer games when pressed it's been the first thing I've mentioned, if only to make some sort of point. To wit, it's disappointing that the fans which rallied around the game when a certain news outlet grossly misrepresented the content have turned insular and raged against the very same product for taking a brave stance through careful and mature storytelling.

So before one casts stones at the faults of anybody else, lest we forget the gaming community is often contradictory or holds some sort of double standard.

Massive backlash? Where?

[New England and The Maritimes]

You know, plenty of us have spent lots of characters and bandwidth griping and moaning about what they thought was wrong with the game, how Bioware and EA betrayed us all blah blah blah. There is a bigger disappointment here than the general storytelling, and it's not the fault of Bioware or EA or any of the staff involved in developing or distributing the game.

No the disappointment comes from the gamers themselves.

What am I referring to? Why the massive backlash against the inclusion of an openly gay character (Lt. Steven Cortez) and the potential romance of him when playing as a male Shepard. Nevermind the fact that it's completely optional like all paramour stories are. Nevermind that Cortez isn't effeminante or a caricature of homosexuality but a rather critical asset on quite a few missions and a well-rounded character irregardless of how you dictate Shepard interacts with them. The fact he's gay and included at all is such an affront to hyper-masculine gamers that the backlash is both saddening and telling of the rampart immaturity that gaming sometimes lets people get away with.

It's gotten to the point that even though NONE of my Shepard characters have taken the Cortez paramour option, during multiplayer games when pressed it's been the first thing I've mentioned, if only to make some sort of point. To wit, it's disappointing that the fans which rallied around the game when a certain news outlet grossly misrepresented the content have turned insular and raged against the very same product for taking a brave stance through careful and mature storytelling.

So before one casts stones at the faults of anybody else, lest we forget the gaming community is often contradictory or holds some sort of double standard.

Massive backlash? Where?

A few youtube comments=massive backlash.

[Divair]

Massive backlash? Where?

A few youtube comments=massive backlash.

Or a Fox News article, right?

[Ganos Lao]

You know, plenty of us have spent lots of characters and bandwidth griping and moaning about what they thought was wrong with the game, how Bioware and EA betrayed us all blah blah blah. There is a bigger disappointment here than the general storytelling, and it's not the fault of Bioware or EA or any of the staff involved in developing or distributing the game.

No the disappointment comes from the gamers themselves.

What am I referring to? Why the massive backlash against the inclusion of an openly gay character (Lt. Steven Cortez) and the potential romance of him when playing as a male Shepard. Nevermind the fact that it's completely optional like all paramour stories are. Nevermind that Cortez isn't effeminante or a caricature of homosexuality but a rather critical asset on quite a few missions and a well-rounded character irregardless of how you dictate Shepard interacts with them. The fact he's gay and included at all is such an affront to hyper-masculine gamers that the backlash is both saddening and telling of the rampart immaturity that gaming sometimes lets people get away with.

It's gotten to the point that even though NONE of my Shepard characters have taken the Cortez paramour option, during multiplayer games when pressed it's been the first thing I've mentioned, if only to make some sort of point. To wit, it's disappointing that the fans which rallied around the game when a certain news outlet grossly misrepresented the content have turned insular and raged against the very same product for taking a brave stance through careful and mature storytelling.

So before one casts stones at the faults of anybody else, lest we forget the gaming community is often contradictory or holds some sort of double standard.

>Assuming that a handful of homophobic mugus represents the entire gaming community or even any significant part of the fans disappointed in the ending.

[Northern Dominus]

\I've literally never heard of this on BW forums.

So it must not be v. massive.

It's not on Bioware's official forums, most of it can be found on fan sites. Plus apparently you've never been on Xbox Live in...forever. That's where a lot of the homophobia and bigotry comes from.

Source?

Here are just a couple. Simply googling Mass Effect 3 and any sort of query into fan reactions to Cortez will reveal far more. And again, simply mention Cortez in any open multiplayer game and you have a higher than average chance of somebody going on a massive homophobic and racist rant.

http://www.officialplaystationmagazine.co.uk/2012/03/06/mass-effect-3-backlash-why-gamers-should-be-ashamed/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-vanord/mass-effect-3-gay_b_1342275.html

There have been quite a few on metacritic and amazon as well, but the admins are actively removing them. On the one hand I understand, but I would leave them up, let the public at large shame and cow those who have a problem with the characterization in the first place as an example for everyone else who might hold those ideas as well.

Or a Fox News article, right?

Surprisingly no, considering just like in ME1 you can engage in more than one tryst and get away with it, not to mention the inclusion of more "Un-family-values_ material, to use a broad euphemism that some particular broadcast agencies have becomes so fond of using themselves.

[Northern Dominus]

>Assuming that a handful of homophobic mugus represents the entire gaming community or even any significant part of the fans disappointed in the ending.

But that's my point. Before we point fingers and gripe and moan about the game, perhaps we should look inward and try and fix what's wrong with the community, or at least make it EXTREMELY clear that they're of a minority opinion.
I know perfectly well that those who legitimately complain about the ending and those who have icky feelings about non-"biblical" relations being made available to players are by and large separate groups by leaps and bounds, but the public at large doesn't, and I'm willing to bet quite a large percentage of the non-dedicated gaming public is made up of LBGT individuals.
Think about it, you have this great game that at least attempts to include your unique viewpoint in the world, and what's the reaction of some of the fanbase? Revulsion, bigotry, taunting, not exactly a welcoming community.

Instead of making sure the house isn't made of glass, a lot of people are perfectly wiling to start hurling projectiles of various consistency

[Ganos Lao]

>Assuming that a handful of homophobic mugus represents the entire gaming community or even any significant part of the fans disappointed in the ending.

But that's my point. Before we point fingers and gripe and moan about the game, perhaps we should look inward and try and fix what's wrong with the community, or at least make it EXTREMELY clear that they're of a minority opinion.
I know perfectly well that those who legitimately complain about the ending and those who have icky feelings about non-"biblical" relations being made available to players are by and large separate groups by leaps and bounds, but the public at large doesn't, and I'm willing to bet quite a large percentage of the non-dedicated gaming public is made up of LBGT individuals.
Think about it, you have this great game that at least attempts to include your unique viewpoint in the world, and what's the reaction of some of the fanbase? Revulsion, bigotry, taunting, not exactly a welcoming community.

Instead of making sure the house isn't made of glass, a lot of people are perfectly wiling to start hurling projectiles of various consistency

The game isn't exactly that really inclusive - I mean, look at Samantha Traynor. She's just Zaeed with a new coat of paint. While I myself have no problem with Cortez being homosexual, I find it was pretty silly to make the character made to appeal to lesbian women rather nondescript. We had to "trigger" conversations with her instead of actually seeing her be a truly developed character. Even Miranda's ass had more development then Traynor's character!

Why not make her well rounded like Cortez with the ability to go out to the Citadel, have actual conversations (with dialogue wheel) and such? It's rather lopsided, don't you think? What was the point of including Traynor at all then? Might as well have made her like those nameless faces manning the irritating security grid. Also, Cortez is just a shuttle pilot. Not necessarily that vital.

Also, "great game"? Honestly, I'd say it really wasn't that great at all, and not just because of the endings, and besides, just because homophobes are present within the fanbase, it doesn't mean that fans not involved in that hokum can't show discontent over the endings.

Hell, Bioware didn't even let MaleShep have a flashback of Cortez (or once again, Traynor) as the endings began. This is part of an even larger issue. You've made the option of love interests avaliable for all people - let alone GLBT players - and you can't even have your Shep remember them? I guess this isn't too much of a big deal, per se, but when people say that the endings are good as is out of their supposed fealty to realism, I can't help but note that remembering one's special someone at the time of death can be pretty realistic.

[Raeyh]

a rather critical asset on quite a few missions

Is he, though? Shepard was completely capable of piloting the Mako/Hammerhead himself up to Mass Effect 3. I mean, he's just another background character. I completely forgot he existed until he blew up and even then, his death didn't have any effect on me.

[Hittanryan]

You know, plenty of us have spent lots of characters and bandwidth griping and moaning about what they thought was wrong with the game, how Bioware and EA betrayed us all blah blah blah. There is a bigger disappointment here than the general storytelling, and it's not the fault of Bioware or EA or any of the staff involved in developing or distributing the game.

No the disappointment comes from the gamers themselves.

What am I referring to? Why the massive backlash against the inclusion of an openly gay character (Lt. Steven Cortez) and the potential romance of him when playing as a male Shepard. Nevermind the fact that it's completely optional like all paramour stories are. Nevermind that Cortez isn't effeminante or a caricature of homosexuality but a rather critical asset on quite a few missions and a well-rounded character irregardless of how you dictate Shepard interacts with them. The fact he's gay and included at all is such an affront to hyper-masculine gamers that the backlash is both saddening and telling of the rampart immaturity that gaming sometimes lets people get away with.

It's gotten to the point that even though NONE of my Shepard characters have taken the Cortez paramour option, during multiplayer games when pressed it's been the first thing I've mentioned, if only to make some sort of point. To wit, it's disappointing that the fans which rallied around the game when a certain news outlet grossly misrepresented the content have turned insular and raged against the very same product for taking a brave stance through careful and mature storytelling.

So before one casts stones at the faults of anybody else, lest we forget the gaming community is often contradictory or holds some sort of double standard.

Considering I didn't have a single problem with Cortez or Traynor, even helping Cortez get over his issues, I don't see how this applies to me.

[Grand America]

Well, let's see. I'm not much involved in this thread, nor do I want to enter a flame war over a video game, so I'm going to give my own opinion, and take whatever fire those that disagree with me want to start puffing out.

I loved the Mass Effect Three ending. It seemed to me that Bioware knew for a fact, like I did, and like I hope we all did, that such a conflict as the one we're facing cannot ending with a happily ever after; It's a war, and not only that, it's a genocidal war. It's like saying Gears of War Three should end with a happily ever after. We're facing the strongest enemy we've ever seen, and we expect to see everything be all right?

Now, I know, that's only one thing I've heard to be a base for a complaint against the ending, and there are many more, but I'm not done just yet. I do know of several others, of which I will post here, and then, proceed to respond, professionally.

So, I've looked up some of the reasons why Mass Effect Three's ending sucked. I'm sure these aren't exactly all of your reasons, and I'll be more than happy to respond to you, personally, should you feel I left out a reason.

I'm assuming we all know this thread is full of spoilers, but, regardless, I'll think of those who do not. And so, I'll put it into a nice little spoiler:

1.) OK, so one of the reasons I located was that the endings will always be the same, no matter what you chose in the previous two chapters. I can't deny that this is true, obviously, as it is. However, I can justify it. See, putting aside the fact that it would further strain Bioware's budget, and their capability to create the game to begin with (something that many of you might disregard entirely), you also have to think that none of the previous choices could affect how you got here. I might be wrong about this, and I'll be glad to go into a controlled conversation about it with anyone else, but I feel that none of the previous decisions made by Shepard could really affect how the story ends; at least, not in this game. Sure, maybe that's part of the problem in your eyes, but maybe that's just the way it has to end. Your mission has always been to defeat the Reapers, and that's never been hidden. What if the options given were the only way to do so? What if, no matter what you did, in any of the chapters, you ended up in the exact same spot? Would it matter to you then?

2.) Another thing I've heard is that the little kid, or the Catalyst, who is the leader of the Reapers (or rather, their creator) told Shepard his options, and that Shepard confided in him entirely, without thinking of another way out. Here's where the Indoctrination Theory comes in; people say that that's exactly what happened. There's no way to deny that Shepard trusted the Catalyst too easily, nor did he ask questions, or feel confused upon finding out the true reason for the Reaper's existence. The idea is that Shepard had been indoctrinated, and that entire scene was him under indoctrination. Him being "controlled", to a point. He was presented with a choice - Do what he has always wanted, to destroy the Reapers, do what TIM wanted, to control them, or a new option, merge organic and synthetic DNA into one. What's the major characteristic in two of those endings that manage to not only be mutual among themselves, but also benefit the Reapers? Control and Synthesis; The Reapers are spared. At this point, it's rather safe to say that everyone knew the war could be won, and that it was only a matter of time. Shepard and his new fleet was too powerful, even for the Reapers. In a prolonged fight, sure, we'd have lost, but that's not what we had planned to begin with. We wanted to get to the Catalyst, link it up to the Crucible, and destroy the Reapers once and for all. The Reapers knew this, and those two options were the only way to ensure that they could survive. Then came destroy, a gamble. They had hoped that the indoctrination would control Shepard, and ensure that he didn't choose what he had initially wanted to do. Then, upon closer inspection, when choosing Control or Synthesis (to me, anyway), you see the Catalyst, and you can notice that it's grinning, as if he is victorious, yet, when you choose to destroy, he leaves rather quickly. He doesn't grin, and he's not victorious. My theory (and one that I'm sure other people think of as well) is that, if you choose to destroy, he's failed in his mission to control the legendary Commander Shepard, and, because of so, leaves, knowing his Reapers - his "solution"- are doomed. At least, that's what I can make out of the situation.

3.) Another problem that has seen an amazingly large amount of attention would be the fact that Shepard is neither wearing a breathing apparatus, nor is taking note of the fact that he's got a gravitational pull one what appears to be a station without proper Mass Effect Field Generators active. This ties in with the previous answer; The Indoctrination Theory. If he's "dreaming" about it all, it doesn't really matter in the slightest, does it? And if someone were to manage to explain to me why the Indoctrination Theory is invalid, then, I would likely find some way to be capable of responding, but, as of yet, this is the way I see it. You're welcome to disagree, and you're welcome to professionally express your views on the matter. What you're not welcome to is to start picking apart my internal organs with petty insults like I've seen on other websites. I'm not sure just how professional the Mass Effect crowd in NationStates is, so I'm taking my chances, but I'm just telling everyone now, to be sure we all understand.

I'm not sure if I've hit all of the points. If not, you're welcome to reply, or send me a telegram, and we'll have a conversation. Either way, I expect full professionalism, and if such a thing cannot be achieved, then neither can my reply. Just so we're all clear.

[Seangoli]

Also, "great game"? Honestly, I'd say it really wasn't that great at all, and not just because of the endings, and besides, just because homophobes are present within the fanbase, it doesn't mean that fans not involved in that hokum can't show discontent over the endings. I don't know what you're trying to do, but it's pretty silly to be honest.

I really don't get why all the critics have been falling head over heels for it. You'd think it's the second coming of Christ or something. The game is solid, but it is hardly great in any sense of the word. The gameplay is above average, but not stellar. They failed to really do anything truly innovative. The mission of of varying consistency, with some being quite good and the rest being utterly forgettable if not boring (Cerberus base, I'm looking at you). Truth is, ME3 failed to really deliver anything approaching a unique and very well developed experience. It stayed the course in almost every aspect, which does not make a great game. In certain parts it was utterly lacking and seemed rather unfinished and done as an afterthought (Scanning planets anyone? War assets that do absolutely nothing?). Truth is, it's a rather run of the mill game with a whole lot of pointless busy work that adds nothing to the experience of the game, and a great many unpolished and half-finished concepts. For a game with the amount of time and money that was pumped into it as ME3 you'd simply expect a bit more. Hell, for any regular game you'd expect a bit more than a very short main mission line with some rather uninspired side missions and a massively time-consuming resource procurement system tacked on top of it to inflate the gameplay value.

It really makes me wonder what they were doing during the two years of development time, as ME2 had a similar amount of time for development and provided a great deal more interesting concepts and ideas. Really, the most disappointing thing about ME3 is that it is utterly mediocre, or just above average at best. It has the unfortunate distinction of providing less than the previous installment, while the content it does provide seems largely half baked and uninspired.

[Thyce]

a rather critical asset on quite a few missions

Is he, though? Shepard was completely capable of piloting the Mako/Hammerhead himself up to Mass Effect 3. I mean, he's just another background character. I completely forgot he existed until he blew up and even then, his death didn't have any effect on me.

I think, in a way, he was an apology to the gay community from Bioware. If I'm remembering completely.. and its been a while.. There was no gay love option in ME 1 or 2? Pretty sure in ME 1, not sure about 2. Yet there was a 'lesbian' option. I figured they just threw him in to add some more sadness to the story, apologize to the gay community and maybe give them a bit of comfort.. showing the community that in the (their) future, not only can two men marry, but talk about it openly ,as if its no big deal, while serving in the military:-).

It was no big deal to me.. the conversation with kaiden on the citadel.. now THAT was awkward:-). My friends make fun of me for saving kaiden in ME1.. since of course they saved the hot chick.. but to me, RPing it through, decided it made more sense strategically to save him. But it just seemed to come out of no where. And when i had to turn him down, he got all weird. Felt bad.

[Ganos Lao]

I loved the Mass Effect Three ending. It seemed to me that Bioware knew for a fact, like I did, and like I hope we all did, that such a conflict as the one we're facing cannot ending with a happily ever after; It's a war, and not only that, it's a genocidal war. It's like saying Gears of War Three should end with a happily ever after. We're facing the strongest enemy we've ever seen, and we expect to see everything be all right?

It's still very interesting to note that the endings' defenders have to keep on calling anyone who disliked them "people who just wanted a happy ending," when it's obviously not true at all. I personally would've wanted the option of having a wide spectrum of endings, depending on how you did during your playthrough, ranging from the Reapers winning if you messed up way too much to the ultimate good ending if you excelled too much. People hate the endings because they clash with the overall tone of the series, contradict pre-release statements made during the game's promotion, and retroactively have invalidated the series for people - I mean, why did they need Sovereign or Saren or the Geth?

The Catalyst could've just kicked back, relaxed, and let his solution proceed with the mere flick of a wrist. The indoctrination Theory is a load of crap. It's just an elaborate coping mechanism designed by people with buyers' remorse, that they invested all this time into the franchise to be given as little attention to their wishes as Bioware gave to Tali's looks. Besides, if the Indoctrination Theory is true, Bioware still sold us an incomplete game and lied to us about it providing closure upon reaching the ending you attained.

Not only that, but if the endings are realistic just because they're set within the context of a genocidal conflict, why do your squad mates teleport on the Normandy? How does green light make people half-synthetic? Why can't the Reapers win if you mess up too much? This is war, right? So naturally you should be able to lose the war as well as win it.

The endings are just the culmination of Bioware's attempts to create lots of speculation instead of abiding by what they had promised, and it backfiring on them epically. That's all there is to it.

[Thyce]

Also, "great game"? Honestly, I'd say it really wasn't that great at all, and not just because of the endings, and besides, just because homophobes are present within the fanbase, it doesn't mean that fans not involved in that hokum can't show discontent over the endings. I don't know what you're trying to do, but it's pretty silly to be honest.

I really don't get why all the critics have been falling head over heels for it. You'd think it's the second coming of Christ or something. The game is solid, but it is hardly great in any sense of the word. The gameplay is above average, but not stellar. They failed to really do anything truly innovative. The mission of of varying consistency, with some being quite good and the rest being utterly forgettable if not boring (Cerberus base, I'm looking at you). Truth is, ME3 failed to really deliver anything approaching a unique and very well developed experience. It stayed the course in almost every aspect, which does not make a great game. In certain parts it was utterly lacking and seemed rather unfinished and done as an afterthought (Scanning planets anyone? War assets that do absolutely nothing?). Truth is, it's a rather run of the mill game with a whole lot of pointless busy work that adds nothing to the experience of the game, and a great many unpolished and half-finished concepts. For a game with the amount of time and money that was pumped into it as ME3 you'd simply expect a bit more. Hell, for any regular game you'd expect a bit more than a very short main mission line with some rather uninspired side missions and a massively time-consuming resource procurement system tacked on top of it to inflate the gameplay value.

It really makes me wonder what they were doing during the two years of development time, as ME2 had a similar amount of time for development and provided a great deal more interesting concepts and ideas. Really, the most disappointing thing about ME3 is that it is utterly mediocre, or just above average at best. It has the unfortunate distinction of providing less than the previous installment, while the content it does provide seems largely half baked and uninspired.

Here's the thing for me.. and i think its why the game is getting so much crap.. ME was never an innovative game series.. gameplay wise. They made a messy shooter with bad AI in ME 1. ME 2 got better, gameplay wise because they all played GoW and decided to make the control scheme more like it. The gamplay and the control themselves are not anything special. What had me play ME 1 five times and ME 2 six times was the artistic part of it. The music, the writing, the voice acting, the story telling. This is what sold a game that was not anything new.

Thats why the back lash is so harsh. During the final act the actors farted, vomited, then fell off the stage. had they not... we would only be talking about how wonderful all of it was.

[Seangoli]

The Catalyst could've just kicked back, relaxed, and let his solution proceed with the mere flick of a wrist. The indoctrination Theory is a load of crap. It's just an elaborate coping mechanism designed by people with buyers' remorse, that they invested all this time into the franchise to be given as little attention to their wishes as Bioware gave to Tali's looks. Besides, if the Indoctrination Theory is true, Bioware still sold us an incomplete game and lied to us about it providing closure upon reaching the ending you attained.

Actually, a few pages back I adressed one slight piece of evidence which does seem to definitively indicate that there is at least a kernal of truth to the indoctrination theory. Short answer is that under control/synthesis the designers made the very conscious choice to alter the eyes of Shepard to those of a husk or an indoctrinated individual (See TIM's eyes: Shepards eyes taken on the exact pattern as TIM's). Destroy it's perfectly normal. Now, what exactly they are doing I don't know. But it does seem pretty evident that Shepard was indoctrinated during Control/Synthesis (Most obvious with synthesis).

Of course, then I have to wonder at something. Bioware's actions during all of this seems a bit odd. A Forbes article I read yesterday gave an interesting possibility. It is entirely possible that the ME3 team had very little idea of how to fully end the series. They had some roughed out concepts, but didn't know which would please the customers the most. So what they did was release a vague an ambiguous ending with just enough to support a few different possibilities, and wait to see the fan speculation before they finalized the end. Now this is just speculation, and I don't give much weight to it, but the way Bioware has been acting about the situation does raise an eyebrow.

[Ganos Lao]

The Catalyst could've just kicked back, relaxed, and let his solution proceed with the mere flick of a wrist. The indoctrination Theory is a load of crap. It's just an elaborate coping mechanism designed by people with buyers' remorse, that they invested all this time into the franchise to be given as little attention to their wishes as Bioware gave to Tali's looks. Besides, if the Indoctrination Theory is true, Bioware still sold us an incomplete game and lied to us about it providing closure upon reaching the ending you attained.

Actually, a few pages back I adressed one slight piece of evidence which does seem to definitively indicate that there is at least a kernal of truth to the indoctrination theory. Short answer is that under control/synthesis the designers made the very conscious choice to alter the eyes of Shepard to those of a husk or an indoctrinated individual (See TIM's eyes: Shepards eyes taken on the exact pattern as TIM's). Destroy it's perfectly normal. Now, what exactly they are doing I don't know. But it does seem pretty evident that Shepard was indoctrinated during Control/Synthesis (Most obvious with synthesis).

Of course, then I have to wonder at something. Bioware's actions during all of this seems a bit odd. A Forbes article I read yesterday gave an interesting possibility. It is entirely possible that the ME3 team had very little idea of how to fully end the series. They had some roughed out concepts, but didn't know which would please the customers the most. So what they did was release a vague an ambiguous ending with just enough to support a few different possibilities, and wait to see the fan speculation before they finalized the end. Now this is just speculation, and I don't give much weight to it, but the way Bioware has been acting about the situation does raise an eyebrow.

But how does synthesis even work? Green light can't inexplicably make people half-synthetic. Not only that, but it makes me wonder why Joker would seem happy to be stranded upon Gilligan's Planet if you chose to jump into the green light. Why would he be happy?

I think the strongest theory for me is that they were too enamoured with causing speculation amidst the fans that they lost sight of what they should've done - fulfilled their promises. I was expecting closure, the culmination of all my choices. Not waiting for DLC which may not even "fix" the endings that good anyways. There's the possibility that BioWare's "fixes" might cause even more anger with fans. Had they just done a simple wide spectrum of endings, ranging from the Reapers winning to ultimate victory and everything in between, we would not have this problem.

[Seangoli]

Here's the thing for me.. and i think its why the game is getting so much crap.. ME was never an innovative game series.. gameplay wise. They made a messy shooter with bad AI in ME 1. ME 2 got better, gameplay wise because they all played GoW and decided to make the control scheme more like it. The gamplay and the control themselves are not anything special. What had me play ME 1 five times and ME 2 six times was the artistic part of it. The music, the writing, the voice acting, the story telling. This is what sold a game that was not anything new.

Thats why the back lash is so harsh. During the final act the actors farted, vomited, then fell off the stage. had they not... we would only be talking about how wonderful all of it was.

Which is perfectly fine and dandy. I'm not saying ME1 and ME2 were perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but there was at least some variety to the gameplay and the missions were all fully realized and reasonably well varied in terms of structure and actual gameplay.

The problem with ME3 is that not only is the gameplay mediocre, and the variety in the mission lackluster, but the character development overall was average at best throughout most of the game. To me there are far more issues with ME3 than the last 15 minutes or so. The characters presented are rather shallow and uninteresting (I don't even remember Freddy Prinze Jr.'s character's name. He did a fine job voice acting him, but was left almost completely undeveloped as an interesting character). EDI was only shallowly developed, with only a minor amount of attention payed to the character. Ashley was utterly forgettable as always, and really was just a throw-away character so they could say "SEE! We integrated ME1 into the game! Tee-hee!". The few memorable characters in your crew were massively undeveloped. A romance with Tali is utterly disappointing, even in the dialogue options. Garrus' few scenes were noteworthy and very good, but few and far between. Liara was the only decently developed character, and even she was less interesting than in the first game.

Fact of the matter is, everything about ME3 was mediocre to slightly above average at best, and half-baked concepts were rampant throughout, including much of dialogue and story. Some of the gameplay issues in ME1 and ME2 were poorly executed, but at least they were fully realized ideas that were poorly executed. In ME3, the bad ideas are not only bad but also unfinished (See: War Assets). Really, the game was largely unpolished and unfinished in many regards that are not at all to do with the end.

[Norstal]

The multiplayer for ME3 was pretty fun. :\

Shame you can't buy stuff individually. It has to be in goddamn packs.

[Ganos Lao]

The multiplayer for ME3 was pretty fun. :\

Shame you can't buy stuff individually. It has to be in goddamn packs.

Meh. I thought it was needlessly tacked on and blandly repetitive. They could've had modes like Team Deathmatch, Capture the Flag, etc. As it stands, it's just a wannabe Call of Duty Survival Mode where the perks are replaced with biotics.

[New England and The Maritimes]

A few youtube comments=massive backlash.

Or a Fox News article, right?

>Implying they're dissimilar.