Mass Effect 3 - 13: Bet you could really go for a bottle of cool, refreshing Tupari!

[Bit Fiend]

What? Goddess, no. "This story failed at a meta level, but that's okay because it is realistic" is... No.
If a fire fails to burn, it's not a realistic fire because some fires do that. It's a failed fire; not a fire. If a meal fails to nourish it's not a realistic meal because some meals do that. A story that gets wrapped up quickly in a bad way because the person telling it gets told they need to wrap up and go do something else? It is a bad story. Judging it for being bad is perfectly fine.

It did not fail. It just didn't do what you expected it to. "Wrapped up quickly" is a valid complaint about the transition from Thessia to Sanctuary. It's not a a valid complaint about the Catalyst scene. You were building a Deus Ex Machina from the beginning - in the end you got it. I may be in a minority, but I don't think an ending is always supposed to make you feel good about it. Of course this may be just me, as I'm someone who's totally into Gainax Endings.

EDIT: Also, your examples are IMHO flawed. A fire that doesn't burn doesn't exist. A story that ends quickly is still a story. The food example is an interesting case. Food isn't always supposed to nourish. Take a look at molecular cuisine. There are a lot of dishes that have a nutrition value of practically zero. But they have a very interesting taste and texture to them. Does that make them not food? The only thing that all food has in common is that you get something out of eating it. Whether this is nutrition, taste or, considering my own love for crazily spicy stuff, pain and challenge is for each their own to decide. Likewise the only thing all stories have in common is that you get something from reading/watching/experiencing them. Whether this is a feeling of accomplishment, despair, or even frustration depends on personal taste. Yes, there are stories whose sole purpose is to make you feel frustrated about them. Take "Funny Games" for instance. This doesn't make them non-stories, or even bad stories, just stories many won't like.

[Jayngfet]

The obvious issue being that reapers aren't fire though, they were always portrayed as being sentient beings that chose to kill organics and were filled with nothing but contempt for us. The Catalyst giving orders doesn't erase three games worth of smack talk and open hatered. Fire doesn't hate, but reapers do.

[Calemyr]

You know, I think Mass Effect 3 would have worked splendidly if Sovereign's speech was a little different.

Organics. You do not know how often we have had this conversation. With you or something like you. Your impassioned speeches about free will and the desire to forge a destiny of one's own making are an irony you cannot ever truly comprehend. You follow the same path with each and every generation, always bringing yourself to the point of extinction with your hubris. More than this, you endanger your entire galaxy each and every time. To save your galaxy you must be purged, to save your species you must converted. You will resist. You will fail. Your defiance is part of the very cycle you seek to end. You exist because we allow it, you will end because we demand it.

Seriously, if the big guy were just flat out fed up with organics rather than dismissive of them, Starkid's spiel wouldn't have sounded so wrong.

[Psyren]

The obvious issue being that reapers aren't fire though, they were always portrayed as being sentient beings that chose to kill organics and were filled with nothing but contempt for us. The Catalyst giving orders doesn't erase three games worth of smack talk and open hatered. Fire doesn't hate, but reapers do.

I think you're mistaking contempt for hatred. But Starkid does feel contempt too at low EMS, thus it's reasonable he felt that way before as well and his viewpoint is also consistent.

You know, I think Mass Effect 3 would have worked splendidly if Sovereign's speech was a little different.

Organics. You do not know how often we have had this conversation. With you or something like you. Your impassioned speeches about free will and the desire to forge a destiny of one's own making are an irony you cannot ever truly comprehend. You follow the same path with each and every generation, always bringing yourself to the point of extinction with your hubris. More than this, you endanger your entire galaxy each and every time. To save your galaxy you must be purged, to save your species you must converted. You will resist. You will fail. Your defiance is part of the very cycle you seek to end. You exist because we allow it, you will end because we demand it.

Seriously, if the big guy were just flat out fed up with organics rather than dismissive of them, Starkid's spiel wouldn't have sounded so wrong.

I'm not seeing the major difference between this and what Sovereign actually said. Treating your defiance as part of the cycle, or as being irrelevant, are functionally the same thing.

[Xondoure]

I think you're mistaking contempt for hatred. But Starkid does feel contempt too at low EMS, thus it's reasonable he felt that way before as well and his viewpoint is also consistent.



I'm not seeing the major difference between this and what Sovereign actually said. Treating your defiance as part of the cycle, or as being irrelevant, are functionally the same thing.

Because up until Starchild there was zero evidence the Reapers gave a crap about organic life other than it's usefulness in creating more reapers. Therefore their purpose being to preserve it has dissonance with what we actually hear (let alone observe.)

[Avilan the Grey]

Because up until Starchild there was zero evidence the Reapers gave a crap about organic life other than it's usefulness in creating more reapers. Therefore their purpose being to preserve it has dissonance with what we actually hear (let alone observe.)

On the other hand they are sentient beings locked into an endless cycle against their will.

[Xondoure]

On the other hand they are sentient beings locked into an endless cycle against their will.

Which takes up maybe .00001% of their time, all things considered.

[Rodin]

Because up until Starchild there was zero evidence the Reapers gave a crap about organic life other than it's usefulness in creating more reapers. Therefore their purpose being to preserve it has dissonance with what we actually hear (let alone observe.)

Huh. I knew they were trying to preserve organic life by the end of the second game. I didn't guess the reason until Starkid told me, but I knew it was a "you are being assimilated for your own good" plot from pretty early on. It's the only way the cycle system makes sense if you aren't going for a "mindless killer robots from deep space" vibe.

[Calemyr]

Because up until Starchild there was zero evidence the Reapers gave a crap about organic life other than it's usefulness in creating more reapers. Therefore their purpose being to preserve it has dissonance with what we actually hear (let alone observe.)

On the other hand they are sentient beings locked into an endless cycle against their will.

Yes and yes. The story was building towards one thing ("The Reapers are our enemies. Period.") then whiplashes into a completely different conclusion ("The Reapers are the misunderstood keepers of galactic continuance, engaging in a necessary (if unfortunate) routine culling of civilizations to maintain peace on a scale of millions of years rather than decades or centuries. They really don't like their job and will readily self destruct if put a new battery in the Citadel.")

Until Leviathan lays down some groundwork to support it, Starkid comes out of nowhere, provides a history and a motive that contradicts everything we've seen to that point (including from the Reapers themselves). If this had any foundation in the previous games (or, hell, how about the first 95% of the third game), it wouldn't be so jarring. But the trilogy never breaks from "They are the enemy. There is no middle ground. Kill their ass.", and as such the last minute turn-around snaps the story's spine.

[Psyren]

Because up until Starchild there was zero evidence the Reapers gave a crap about organic life other than it's usefulness in creating more reapers. Therefore their purpose being to preserve it has dissonance with what we actually hear (let alone observe.)

How is there dissonance between "seeing us as dust" and "contempt?" One is pretty much needed for the other.

Until Leviathan lays down some groundwork to support it, Starkid comes out of nowhere, provides a history and a motive that contradicts everything we've seen to that point (including from the Reapers themselves). If this had any foundation in the previous games (or, hell, how about the first 95% of the third game), it wouldn't be so jarring. But the trilogy never breaks from "They are the enemy. There is no middle ground. Kill their ass.", and as such the last minute turn-around snaps the story's spine.

There is no "turn-around." They are most definitely the enemy from start to finish. But just by successfully installing the Crucible, you have slain that enemy - you have overwritten their program. It was like when EDI gained root access to Eva Core - at that point she won the fight between them, and copying her consciousness into the platform, simply wiping it clean or even triggering it to blow up would have merely been a formality at that point. (Refusal/doing nothing is simply "allowing them to come back.")

[Calemyr]

There is no "turn-around." They are most definitely the enemy from start to finish. But just by successfully installing the Crucible, you have slain that enemy - you have overwritten their program. It was like when EDI gained root access to Eva Core - at that point she won the fight between them, and copying her consciousness into the platform, simply wiping it clean or even triggering it to blow up would have merely been a formality at that point. (Refusal/doing nothing is simply "allowing them to come back.")

How do you mean? You haven't won, you pass out in front of the controls for a still-nonfunctional crucible. The Reject ending is proof that you haven't won by a long shot, as you yourself are quick to point out. The only victory allowed in the game is that which Starkid dictates. He willingly grants you the means to the destruction of the Reapers, apparently for no other reason than you proved they were ineffective - organics still were able to sock away enough tech to be a threat. And the "Destroy" ending, the one they've been pushing since your chat on Virmire? That's painted as the most negative of the three - killing allies for no reason beyond your own spite.

[Psyren]

How do you mean? You haven't won, you pass out in front of the controls for a still-nonfunctional crucible. The Reject ending is proof that you haven't won by a long shot, as you yourself are quick to point out.

My point exactly - you pass out in front of the controls and the guiding intelligence of your enemy is the one that brings you up there and makes sure you don't miss your chance to end the war. It was you installing the Crucible that brainwashed him do that. "The Crucible changed me."

If you hadn't opened the arms so they could plug in the Crucible, that would be it, game over. Which is of course why TIM shooting you before you can open the arms is a game over.

The only victory allowed in the game is that which Starkid dictates. He willingly grants you the means to the destruction of the Reapers, apparently for no other reason than you proved they were ineffective - organics still were able to sock away enough tech to be a threat.

You are the one forcing him to "allow" you anything. He makes this particularly clear if your Crucible is too damaged for Synthesis - he is pissed off, but has no choice but to explain the options that remain even though he finds both to be undesirable. Because you dethroned him the moment you opened the station arms.

[Calemyr]

My point exactly - you pass out in front of the controls and the guiding intelligence of your enemy is the one that brings you up there and makes sure you don't miss your chance to end the war. It was you installing the Crucible that brainwashed him do that. "The Crucible changed me."

If you hadn't opened the arms so they could plug in the Crucible, that would be it, game over. Which is of course why TIM shooting you before you can open the arms is a game over.

You are the one forcing him to "allow" you anything. He makes this particularly clear if your Crucible is too damaged for Synthesis - he is pissed off, but has no choice but to explain the options that remain even though he finds both to be undesirable. Because you dethroned him the moment you opened the station arms.

I'd almost buy that if it weren't for the Reject ending. He can and will wipe you out if you don't play according to his rules. He likes Synthesis because it is a solution to the problem he was tasked to solve: how to stop organics and synthetics from fighting.

As for "forcing" him, we only have his word for it. We only have his word for any of it. Until Extended Cut we didn't even have any corroboration after the fact that anything he said was at all true, and he left out critical details (oh, by the way, the Mass Relays will blow up if you pick red or green or even blue half the time, hope that doesn't screw with your moral calculus). All we know is that this thing adopted the guise of Shep's recurring nightmare and the dream embodiment of his/her failures is telling him that he won and these are the prizes he gets to pick from.

[Psyren]

I'd almost buy that if it weren't for the Reject ending. He can and will wipe you out if you don't play according to his rules.

You're acting like there is active malice behind it, when the reality is that he is just reverting to his original programming in the absence of user input. This is no more hostile than your computer choosing to Start Windows Normally because you spent too much time dithering at the Safe Mode options screen.

As for "forcing" him, we only have his word for it. We only have his word for any of it.

You also only have his word that shooting a pipe will lead to Destroy, so this objection is silly. And again I ask, when have any of the Reapers lied to Shepard before? They literally do not see the point in doing so.

[Jayngfet]

How do you mean? You haven't won, you pass out in front of the controls for a still-nonfunctional crucible. The Reject ending is proof that you haven't won by a long shot, as you yourself are quick to point out. The only victory allowed in the game is that which Starkid dictates. He willingly grants you the means to the destruction of the Reapers, apparently for no other reason than you proved they were ineffective - organics still were able to sock away enough tech to be a threat. And the "Destroy" ending, the one they've been pushing since your chat on Virmire? That's painted as the most negative of the three - killing allies for no reason beyond your own spite.

I hate to be the crabby negative one(ok that's a lie, being needlessly hostile to you people is my one joy in life), but I think Starbrat had a backup plan he conveniently didn't mention. He had the crucible's plans for millions of years and an army of keepers to install or alter anything he wanted on the citadel. A backup of himself would be old hat and he's under no obligation to tell the whole truth. Hell, he could have just ejected in the chaos and went off to plan the reapers 2.0 on a world with an unconnected relay nobody's heard of. I mean the citadel is a mass relay nobody understands after all.

That'd be a sketchy thing for Bioware to do, after all, but it'd also be a convenient way to write out having to destroy all synthetic life and I have no trust in them to follow through at this point.

I mean hell, I'll be surprised if we didn't see a geth during E3 somewhere.

[SiuiS]

You know, I think Mass Effect 3 would have worked splendidly if Sovereign's speech was a little different.

Organics. You do not know how often we have had this conversation. With you or something like you. Your impassioned speeches about free will and the desire to forge a destiny of one's own making are an irony you cannot ever truly comprehend. You follow the same path with each and every generation, always bringing yourself to the point of extinction with your hubris. More than this, you endanger your entire galaxy each and every time. To save your galaxy you must be purged, to save your species you must converted. You will resist. You will fail. Your defiance is part of the very cycle you seek to end. You exist because we allow it, you will end because we demand it.

Seriously, if the big guy were just flat out fed up with organics rather than dismissive of them, Starkid's spiel wouldn't have sounded so wrong.

That might have done it, aye.

I'm not seeing the major difference between this and what Sovereign actually said. Treating your defiance as part of the cycle, or as being irrelevant, are functionally the same thing.

It's almost impossible to guess processes from just outputs. The end result of Billy goats Gruff is that three goats crossed a bridge and killed a troll. The details are more interesting. The end result of what sovereign actually said, at the very end when you have hindsight, may seem like this, but the details are different.

How similar these are in hindsight doesn't matter.

How is there dissonance between "seeing us as dust" and "contempt?" One is pretty much needed for the other.

This is wrong. Apathy and distaste don't exist together. You must care about something to have contempt for it. Apathy is lack of caring.

I hate to be the crabby negative one(ok that's a lie, being needlessly hostile to you people is my one joy in life),

Careful, this sounds like a as hominem offense, if not considered a joke.

but I think Starbrat had a backup plan he conveniently didn't mention. He had the crucible's plans for millions of years and an army of keepers to install or alter anything he wanted on the citadel. A backup of himself would be old hat and he's under no obligation to tell the whole truth. Hell, he could have just ejected in the chaos and went off to plan the reapers 2.0 on a world with an unconnected relay nobody's heard of. I mean the citadel is a mass relay nobody understands after all.

That'd be a sketchy thing for Bioware to do, after all, but it'd also be a convenient way to write out having to destroy all synthetic life and I have no trust in them to follow through at this point.

I mean hell, I'll be surprised if we didn't see a geth during E3 somewhere.

The reapers didn't have access to the crucible plans. If they did they would likely destroy them. They don't have access to synthesis until the end of a highly successful rebellion; it doesn't exist until you finish building it.

It did not fail.

A story that does not tell the tale it intended, does not have the impact it intended, and reads with the entirely wrong set of cues and assumptions fails to tell itself well.

Yes, my not liking it doesn't mean it fails. But it's possible I don't like it because it failed.

How do you propose they provide you information on the Crucible's functions without... knowing the Crucible's functions?

Gimme a $20,000 programming budget and I'll work out the details for you, or completely disprove the possibility. I'm not interested in debating my writing skill specifically as if it was relevant unless there's a paycheck and a new ending involved.


The story itself did not fail, only the (initial) presentation did.[/quote]

That is what makes a story succeed. That is what separates a story from bullet points. A story is how it is told, not just what it tells. If it was not, there wouldn't be such an industry behind it.


You can hold to "a bunch of equations without an effective delivery is a good story and thus a success" if you want, but it's flimsy.

[Jayngfet]

The reapers didn't have access to the crucible plans. If they did they would likely destroy them. They don't have access to synthesis until the end of a highly successful rebellion; it doesn't exist until you finish building it.

They did destroy them, they just could never destroy every copy in every cycle. It always just pops up again in some hidden cache or whatever, but the actual plans are always there. The plans are something he's been aware of for millions of years and has probably examined firsthand a few times. Just because he blew up one copy doesn't mean the others stop existing.

[KillianHawkeye]

So........... is it just impossible now to get the multiplayer medals for Weekend Challenges? I only started playing the multiplayer like 6-7 months ago, but I haven't heard about a single Weekend Challenge ever occurring in that time. Do they just not do them anymore? How is anybody supposed to earn the medals?

[Dhavaer]

So........... is it just impossible now to get the multiplayer medals for Weekend Challenges? I only started playing the multiplayer like 6-7 months ago, but I haven't heard about a single Weekend Challenge ever occurring in that time. Do they just not do them anymore? How is anybody supposed to earn the medals?

They haven't had one in maybe a year, I think. So yes, those medals are no longer available.

[Psyren]

It's almost impossible to guess processes from just outputs. The end result of Billy goats Gruff is that three goats crossed a bridge and killed a troll. The details are more interesting. The end result of what sovereign actually said, at the very end when you have hindsight, may seem like this, but the details are different.

How similar these are in hindsight doesn't matter.

But the details don't matter to them either. Struggle or not, fight back or not. They've already planned for the former, so if we opt for the latter great, but their response doesn't change all that much either way.

This is wrong. Apathy and distaste don't exist together. You must care about something to have contempt for it. Apathy is lack of caring.

But this is not apathy. Apathy would be if they were trying to do something completely unrelated to us (say, crack open our planets to eat the juicy innards), we just happened to be in the way, and they had no interest in a given planet's population if we managed to evacuate in time.

Instead, we see them issuing instructions to our world leaders to send our populations inside them - that's not apathy. They're running concentration camps where they offer rewards to those of us who report escape attempts - still not apathy. They are farmers attempting to maximize yield - do ranchers have apathy for their cattle?

That is what makes a story succeed. That is what separates a story from bullet points. A story is how it is told, not just what it tells. If it was not, there wouldn't be such an industry behind it.

You can absolutely tell a story with bullet points. You can tell a story with two sentences. Delivery is indeed part of a story, but a horse with one broken leg does not stop being a horse.

[Anteros]

You're nit-picking individual wordings instead of countering their argument. The overarching point was that the way they delivered their story sucked, and dramatically lowered the quality of the story itself. A bad story may still be a story, but it's also still bad.

[Psyren]

You're nit-picking individual wordings instead of countering their argument. The overarching point was that the way they delivered their story sucked, and dramatically lowered the quality of the story itself. A bad story may still be a story, but it's also still bad.

One aspect of something being bad may make the whole thing bad, but then again it may not.

Considering that most people were satisfied with Extended Cut, then the obvious conclusion to draw is that the presentation, not the underlying story, was the key problem. The plot itself was fine.

[Rodin]

One aspect of something being bad may make the whole thing bad, but then again it may not.

Considering that most people were satisfied with Extended Cut, then the obvious conclusion to draw is that the presentation, not the underlying story, was the key problem. The plot itself was fine.

Firmly agreed. The bit that stands out for me even now is Starkid - I don't know anybody who likes him. It's so incredibly out of character for Shepard to get utterly broken up over one kid when you've seen huge amounts of death and destruction (and presumably a number of other dead kids, even lthough we don't see them on-screen). To then have this random kid be plucked from Shepard's sub-conscious for the finale instead of the dead crew-mate from Virmire, or your dead love interest, or Mordin, or Legion, or...

Doing the Virmire crew-mate is one additional recording of the dialogue, and it's a huge improvement in terms of delivery.

Besides that, pretty much every complaint that I have about the ending comes down to the nuts and bolts of how they presented it. No Quarians or Geth seen in the final battle, no way to save Anderson (your reward for all those tough reputation checks is an alternate manner of taking out the Illusive Man after it's too late), the limping Shepard on the Citadel bit takes a bit too long...etc. etc.

There was a lot of cool stuff that they could have done with the ending, but didn't.

On the plus side, I now have a mental image of the final explanation being delivered by Mordin. Oh, what could have been...

[Math_Mage]

You can absolutely tell a story with bullet points. You can tell a story with two sentences. Delivery is indeed part of a story, but a horse with one broken leg does not stop being a horse.

You can tell a two-sentence story in two sentences. For that matter, you can tell a six-word story in six words, as Hemingway proved: "For sale: baby shoes, never worn."

That doesn't mean you can call the bullet-point outline of a story's plot "the story", though. A short story is not the same as a story outline.

SiuiS' claim was that the details of presentation add up to an emotionally unsatisfying experience. From her perspective, your assertion that the nuts and bolts of the plot were sound (debatable) only makes the failure to produce a good story from those nuts and bolts all the more problematic.

[Jayngfet]

Firmly agreed. The bit that stands out for me even now is Starkid - I don't know anybody who likes him. It's so incredibly out of character for Shepard to get utterly broken up over one kid when you've seen huge amounts of death and destruction (and presumably a number of other dead kids, even lthough we don't see them on-screen). To then have this random kid be plucked from Shepard's sub-conscious for the finale instead of the dead crew-mate from Virmire, or your dead love interest, or Mordin, or Legion, or...

Doing the Virmire crew-mate is one additional recording of the dialogue, and it's a huge improvement in terms of delivery.

Besides that, pretty much every complaint that I have about the ending comes down to the nuts and bolts of how they presented it. No Quarians or Geth seen in the final battle, no way to save Anderson (your reward for all those tough reputation checks is an alternate manner of taking out the Illusive Man after it's too late), the limping Shepard on the Citadel bit takes a bit too long...etc. etc.

There was a lot of cool stuff that they could have done with the ending, but didn't.

On the plus side, I now have a mental image of the final explanation being delivered by Mordin. Oh, what could have been...

Heck, depending on your backstory earth might not even be the second worst day of Shepards life. That earth kid just did not work on any level.

[Anteros]

One aspect of something being bad may make the whole thing bad, but then again it may not.

Considering that most people were satisfied with Extended Cut, then the obvious conclusion to draw is that the presentation, not the underlying story, was the key problem. The plot itself was fine.

To be honest, I only think people were satisfied with it in comparison with the giant pile of terrible they were given before. I'm someone who waited for the DLC to play the game, and as a result my first experience with the ending was the extended cut...and in my opinion was an absolutely terrible, nonsensical ending that taints what is otherwise one of the best (gaming) stories ever told.

[Jayngfet]

To be honest, I only think people were satisfied with it in comparison with the giant pile of terrible they were given before. I'm someone who waited for the DLC to play the game, and as a result my first experience with the ending was the extended cut...and in my opinion was an absolutely terrible, nonsensical ending that taints what is otherwise one of the best (gaming) stories ever told.

This. I also only got ME3 after the extended cut came in and it was still kind of lacking in many, many ways. It's just a handfull of digital paintings and some quickly re edited footage. I mean hell, you don't even get the first name you entered on the plaque, it's literally just "commander shepard" to people you've known for years. It's not a good thing standing on it's own, it's a barely mediocre patch onto something that the audience had every right to reject as it did, and even then had to pry out of Bioware's cold, dead hands to acquire.

Now, I understand all too well how a looming deadline can make work less than you'd like, but the entire concept of the starkid wouldn't have been that great even with more time added to it. It doesn't work in any real context since it conflicts with a bunch of other stuff said or implied and you have to make a series of wild suppositions to make sense of it. Or else to get the barest hints of what it's supposed to mean, you need to spent an extra ten to twenty dollars on DLC.

[Psyren]

You can tell a two-sentence story in two sentences. For that matter, you can tell a six-word story in six words, as Hemingway proved: "For sale: baby shoes, never worn."

That doesn't mean you can call the bullet-point outline of a story's plot "the story", though. A short story is not the same as a story outline.

SiuiS' claim was that the details of presentation add up to an emotionally unsatisfying experience. From her perspective, your assertion that the nuts and bolts of the plot were sound (debatable) only makes the failure to produce a good story from those nuts and bolts all the more problematic.

Even so, bullet points can tell a story. (Greentext memes come to mind.) Literally anything can, if you're creative enough.

Also, "sound" doesn't mean "timeless classic." They weren't writing War & Peace here. It doesn't take as big a push as you imply to mess things up, just an impatient and money-grubbing publisher.

To be honest, I only think people were satisfied with it in comparison with the giant pile of terrible they were given before. I'm someone who waited for the DLC to play the game, and as a result my first experience with the ending was the extended cut...and in my opinion was an absolutely terrible, nonsensical ending that taints what is otherwise one of the best (gaming) stories ever told.

The mere fact that neither version satisfied you means you're not a member of the very group whose thoughts you claim to know. There are a number of folks like you, yet you are a minority all the same - just like I, someone who was generally optimistic/happy about the original and had all that faith rewarded by the EC, am also part of a minority. So we are cancelling each other out, leaving the majority of disappointments-turned-satisfactions to stand.

Besides that, pretty much every complaint that I have about the ending comes down to the nuts and bolts of how they presented it. No Quarians or Geth seen in the final battle, no way to save Anderson (your reward for all those tough reputation checks is an alternate manner of taking out the Illusive Man after it's too late), the limping Shepard on the Citadel bit takes a bit too long...etc. etc.

Agreed, Anderson in particular made me sad. All those reputation checks for TIM but no, he ends up on the memorial wall no matter what you do.

What makes it worse is that the plot flag was called "AndersonSaved" (or something along those lines) and the Prima guide also believed you saved him if you passed all the checks. Maybe you did originally.

On the plus side, I now have a mental image of the final explanation being delivered by Mordin. Oh, what could have been...

Something something seashells.

[Rodin]

Something something seashells.

Harbinger infected with Varren scale itch. Implications...unpleasant.

[Jayngfet]

The mere fact that neither version satisfied you means you're not a member of the very group whose thoughts you claim to know. There are a number of folks like you, yet you are a minority all the same - just like I, someone who was generally optimistic/happy about the original and had all that faith rewarded by the EC, am also part of a minority. So we are cancelling each other out, leaving the majority of disappointments-turned-satisfactions to stand.

Throw out statistics or stop throwing bull. If you're gonna pull the "but most people liked it!" card than you better back that up with a poll, if nothing else. Multiple, preferable, given the nature of the issue.

The fact that his comment was immediately echoes shows right off that he isn't a one-off and every other thread I've checked hear and off site still has serious and legitimate complaints. So I'm calling you out, back up what you say with actual evidence, or stop talking.