Nepenthe

Bah, there's nothing established about the endings, they were a last minute ass-pull which went terribly wrong. If it'd been their intention since, say, the beginning of ME3 development, never mind the whole trilogy, this would never have happened. Instead, it's something Walters and Hudson decided a couple of months ago when they were dead-ended. This also shows in the execution.

It was changed via the Broken Steel DLC (instead of dying, you just get sick and the game continues). IIRC, there were other changes, too, but this is the one I am particularly referring to. Well, I don't have the sales numbers for Broken Steel and the ultimate edition of FO3, but I've been under the impression that they were both profitable, well-received ventures Apart from that, I can't help but feel you're answering somebody else, as it has nothing to do with what I was saying (the core problem with ME3's ending being that it sucks, and not really that differently from FO3, artistic pretensions notwithstanding).

Didn't seem to be a problem with Fallout 3,

Tempted to dub that the "sales have been in a flat spin since week 2" press release. Gonna be interesting to see what they do, if the artistic integrity stuff is there to signal that it'll be some $ 5 end slides or to keep this from happening with every game with a plot from now on.

... But dose abs!

IIRC the population of one planet nukes themselves rather than become husks, and it does come up in some other situation I can't remember, but, fruitless.

Frankly, at this stage, neither of those is really news. DA3's been known for ages, and the utter silence since that last (not bad) DLC came out has pretty much suggested that there will be no more. Frankly, the only news here is that they actually were planning AN EXPANSION for the game in silence. Mike Laidlaw's been moved to a different position (he never was the project director aka casey hudson of DA2 in any case, just the one to give the project a face), but I doubt that anything barring no auto attack in the console versions can be really laid (heh) at his door. Yeah, I've been taking massive amounts of **** for defending Bio for years, yet I've suddenly realigned myself for no reason? The problem with ME3 isn't that it's bad, it's that it's a really good game with a ****ING TERRIBLE ending, with the added bonus of being the final solution to a trilogy. It's like Return of the Jedi ending right when they are attacking the Death Star only to immediately reveal that Darth Vader used to be a whiny kid and two different miserable actors before fading to black

Shepard being on a Reaper-trip is really the most rational explanation to the end mumbo jumbo. Shep can wake up face down in some London back alley feeling like after shore leave while swinging a predator and surrounded by Cannibals and it'd still make more sense than what took place. Was in Brussels yesterday, so couldn't reply even to stuff that was directly asked of me, and now can't quote either so... Tale, the collector stuff's been mentioned in several places, I haven't been keeping track of bio social (I doubt anyone could right now, even if they tried), so it's buried somewhere. I suppose it could be linked to the final hours documentary? Nukes were gone over at some point in detail, in fact it's described that some nuclear explosions go off when Earth is invaded, but really, this whole back and forth arguing about what makes sense and what doesn't when most people haven't read 10 % of the background material is just, well, useless.

Death Knights of Krynn?

Not sure, but it's more or less confirmed that a part with collectors was cut from the final game. Those assets are a popular choice in "fake ending" conspiracy theories and helpful suggestions of how Bio should dig themselves out of a hole.

http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/260/index/10245444/1 Not trying to turn attention to other things, are they? Kind of an unceremonious end to DA2, and about as close to an admission of ****ing up I've yet seen from Bioware. Looks like humble pie's on the menu at Koutouki this week.

There's more than the one cruiser, cut content from ME3. It's inferred to in ME2, but always a bit unclear.

Funny you should mention that. Ive noticed several times that after getting my ass handed to me by a boss the first time that the second attempt seems much easier even though I havent changed my strategy at all. Ive often wondered if there is a background counter on bosses that makes the encounter easier with each subsequent attempt. I dont really think its smart enough for that but it sure seems like it. Never happened, generally just found myself paying more attention. Sometimes had to wait for 15 minutes for those SP boss buffs to come back, too. Act 1 ending was especially reloady.

There are no sweet bits there, the attempt is to make some of the uproar calm down. As someone pointed out, some of the more visible criticism towards the ending (Forbes) is starting to leak to the front pages in search engines even in general searches for Mass Effect 3, and not just Mass Effect 3 Endings. I think it's slowly dawning on them that a big part of their good customers are now spitting mad, and this isn't just a vocal minority making waves. I'm sure their assessment of the situation is still "oh, it'll blow over, it always does", but there are starting to be aspects that are difficult to ignore. Frankly, if they don't grab this opportunity to make a DLC/"Enhanced Edition" that's gonna sell like hotcakes, they are more arrogant and less cynical than I'd dared assume. Edit: Fail on my part, I assumed sweet bits in the post. Raithe points out the sweet bits in the game, but the ending is indeed devoid of them.

This is worse than the three button ending, because it's the three button ending combined with diabolus ex machina, failed leaps of logic and, well, ****. Re: comparison to ME2 ending, remember how DAO suddenly became awesome when DA2 came out? It's part nostalgia, part reaching new levels of fail. Again, you have to play it to understand it, and you have to be invested to feel it. Can't tell if you haven't played it, in which case you can't really say which is personally worse to you, or you played but didn't notice it, which, well, is answer enough. Personally only noticed really one case of railroading (Thessia aftermath), but it wasn't the thing that took away my enjoyment - the ending was.

... overanalysis...

Well, I'm going to address this in two ways. First, remember how somebody said that Bioware just stole the Crown for most disappointing ending away from Obsidian and the combination of KOTOR2 and NWN2OC? Secondly, if you haven't played the game, how about you don't ****ing think you know better than those who have?

This, more than anything, seems to hit the nail on its head IMO. Volourn, you mention how many of Bio's previous games have no variety in their endings either, but I don't think that is where people's problems with ME3's ending(s) lie. They had certain expectations of the trilogy's finale, and these expectations were based on their experiences in ME1 and 2 as well as Bio's marketing of the game... One quick look at the About / Interactive Story section of the official site shows a perfect example of this: "Experience the beginning, middle, and end of an emotional story unlike any other, where the decisions you make completely shape your experience and outcome." And what people got was, for many, clearly the exact opposite of what they expected and/or what they felt they were promised. In BG1 I never expected anything more than a confrontation with Sarevok at the end of the game. That was what the whole game worked towards. Same with BG2 and Irenicus -- I was never promised anything more, and never expected anything else than the ability to confront him for what he did to us. With ToB I did expect something special, because it was the final chapter, but I don't remember if BioWare promised anything specific in that regard, and the choice between godhood and remaining a mortal was awesome in my book and provided a fitting and satisfying conclusion to the Child of Bhaal saga. I never expected multiple endings or, for example, for my conversation with Portalbendarwinden in BG1 to factor into my final confrontation with Melissan in ToB... Because the presedence for that kind of stuff was never set in the previous games in the series, and Bio never promised anything along those lines. But they have plastered "your choices matter!" all over the ME series for years now so people had, understandably, great expectations of its ending(s). I am indifferent to the game, but it seems pretty clear to me that BioWare, in large part, has themselves to blame for the negative backlash. Just like with the whole multiplayer-affects-your-singleplayer-exprience and Day 1 DLC debacles. Hear, hear.

I'm pretty sure Vigil explains it towards the end.

They actually only take off at the end of ME2, so less than that. The Citadel's purpose is twofold, first it allows them to decapitate the society with a surprise attack to its nerve centre, second it gives them control of the mass relays. So the difference this time is that they can't wipe out the council and everybody else before anybody has realised they exist and that Shepard can travel around gathering forces for a single attack instead of allowing the reapers to destroy spacefaring races system at a time.

I agree with that part, but it's the problem big publishers face, they can't rise the price (ok, they can, see From Ashes, but...). With Kickstarter, people will voluntarily pay more. Too tired to really make a good point, I admit.

The Krogan Solider is fun once leveled up. Run in and headbutt everything. If the Krogan Battlemaster unlocks after this weeks obfuscating multiplayer event, I might start playing MP at least.

Funny how this past week has made me look at gaming "journalists" in an entirely new light. It's like they are terrified of the concept of the gamers having a direct input in games, as seen here and in the response of several major outlets towards the fan furore over the ME3 endings. I'm wondering if they're afraid of losing their position or if whoever's footing the bills is driving this. Unfortunately gamers have always had an input into games development. It's why adventure games and space simulators(personal favorite) have basically gone the way of the dodo. It's why every year we get a new CoD yet we will never see another big budget Freespace/Wing commander/Myst. I think that's proof of the opposite, where a publisher will only cater to the mass market instead of aiming for a niche. The beauty of the kickstarters has been that the same guys who bitch about day one dlc, online passes and whatnot will happily lay down $ 100-200 for a kickstarter. Clearly there's some untapped potential outside the CoD crowd.

Funny how this past week has made me look at gaming "journalists" in an entirely new light. It's like they are terrified of the concept of the gamers having a direct input in games, as seen here and in the response of several major outlets towards the fan furore over the ME3 endings. I'm wondering if they're afraid of losing their position or if whoever's footing the bills is driving this.