Mass Effect 3.7B: ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL OF THIS FORUM (Story/Spoiler Thread!)

[TheLaughingMan]

Hello and welcDIRECT INTERVENTION IS NECESSARY

YOUR ARGUMENTS HAVE FALLEN, FORUM
AND NOW YOU STAND ALONE

THIS IS WHAT YOU FACE



HOPE IS IRRELEVANT

PROGRESS CANNOT BE HALTED
THIS THREAD IS UNSTOPPABLE

WE ARE THE BEGINNING

SHEPARD

YOU ARE THE END

[Psyren]

Lovely.

I'll kick things off with some HULK SMASH!!

(Warning - lots of capslock in that link)

[Beowulf DW]

Lovely.

I'll kick things off with some HULK SMASH!!

(Warning - lots of capslock in that link)

Well, it's nice to know that the internet is still split along nigh uncrossable fault lines. In other news, the grass is green.

Also, this is from the comments section of a video showcasing the Shadow Broker's different reactions to your companions:

You travel with fascinating companions, doctor.

Thank you for bringing me John Riccitiello. His death will cripple EA.

At least you brought me both Casey Hudson and Mac Walters. Mass Effect fans pay well for those with “Artistic Integrity.”

I'm obliged you brought along Chris Priestly. He was an obnoxious gourmand.

At least you brought me Mike Gamble. The fanbase had enough of his snide insinuations.

Thank you for bringing me Jessica Merizan. I've enough of her disingenuous assertions.

[TheLaughingMan]

Don't tell me you all don't know what to talk about after I make a whole new thread.

[Psyren]

Don't tell me you all don't know what to talk about after I make a whole new thread.

There's not much more to say on the story front until Leviathan debuts. I imagine there'll be plenty to talk about then and the thread will pay for itself (as it were.)

I did find a hidden convo in ME3 that could explain why Harbinger didn't shoot at the Normandy during the beam run though. Can't post the video from here (YT's blocked) but I'll dig it up when I get home.

[Calemyr]

I did find a hidden convo in ME3 that could explain why Harbinger didn't shoot at the Normandy during the beam run though. Can't post the video from here (YT's blocked) but I'll dig it up when I get home.

Was it the Adams/EDI conversation about how EDI is using her Electronic Warfare credentials the entire ME3 game and screwing with the Reapers IFF abilities?

[Psyren]

Was it the Adams/EDI conversation about how EDI is using her Electronic Warfare credentials the entire ME3 game and screwing with the Reapers IFF abilities?

The one where EDI uses a fake Reaper voice - yeah I think that's it. She could have fooled Harbinger just long enough to do a quick pickup.

[Calemyr]

The one where EDI uses a fake Reaper voice - yeah I think that's it. She could have fooled Harbinger just long enough to do a quick pickup.

Quite likely. Besides, Harb's unexplained obsession with Shep also could explain it.

I wish they'd go into more detail about Harb, why he won't shut up about you either while controlling the Collectors or talking to his fellow Reapers... Unfortunately, BioWare is not in the business of using Word of God to answer anything interesting.

[Beowulf DW]

Quite likely. Besides, Harb's unexplained obsession with Shep also could explain it.

I wish they'd go into more detail about Harb, why he won't shut up about you either while controlling the Collectors or talking to his fellow Reapers... Unfortunately, BioWare is not in the business of using Word of God to answer anything interesting.

Yes, they were too busy using it to salvage the ending.

[Calemyr]

Yes, they were too busy using it to salvage the ending.

Salvage the ending? It took 'em two months to say "No, not everyone dies in this massive cluster of unfortunate implications we packed as an ending."

They were too busy telling us how fan reaction hurt their feelings, and that how it was art and so we had no reason to complain.

The only time they have been quick (that I've heard about) in responding was to tell us that the next generation just took Starkid's deal, rendering that entire ending pointless.

[Psyren]

I wish they'd go into more detail about Harb, why he won't shut up about you either while controlling the Collectors or talking to his fellow Reapers... Unfortunately, BioWare is not in the business of using Word of God to answer anything interesting.

To be fair, answering details like that now means that (a) there's less interesting mysteries to explore in future installments, and/or (b) they could be forced to contradict/retcon previous explanations if they change their minds about how something should work or be explained. In their position, I'd want to answer as little as possible too.

They were too busy telling us how fan reaction hurt their feelings, and that how it was art and so we had no reason to complain.

You're right, they didn't think our grievances were legitimate at all, which is why they didn't give us 2 gigs worth of free DLC to provide clarification and closure over the most poignant questions regarding the ending. Nope.

[TheLaughingMan]

You're right, they didn't think our grievances were legitimate at all, which is why they didn't give us 2 gigs worth of free DLC to provide clarification and closure over the most poignant questions regarding the ending. Nope.

To be fair, BioWare can be all pissy and EA can be the one ordering an ending DLC, or vice-versa. We don't quite know anything that went on behind the corporate curtain.

Heck, EA could've mandated that BioWare make an ending like that super-popular Deus Ex whatever that just came out, because hey, Eidos did it and it was super-popular, right?

[Calemyr]

You're right, they didn't think our grievances were legitimate at all, which is why they didn't give us 2 gigs worth of free DLC to provide clarification and closure over the most poignant questions regarding the ending. Nope.

Oh, yes. They did do that. After two months of doing nothing but display shock and dismay that their gorgeous piece of art wasn't given the proper respect it deserved, they did indeed set out to explain it. Not fix it (except for editing out the most unfortunate implications), but to explain it. And you know what? I can respect that. Sticking to their guns, taking that awful mess and making something actually pretty epic out of it... But they have never said anything about how the backlash had some legitimate points. The only person going on the record (that I have heard of) to make that point is Lance Henriksen, and he's a voice actor.

The EC was a good PR stunt and the right thing to do, but it was by no means an admission of error. I personally would have favored a "Yeah, we didn't really think of those points." over the EC any day. And I like EC.

[Psyren]

I guess we'll never agree on how much of an admission of error the EC constituted or not. I think it's self-evident.

Anyway, I had another interesting thought. There was another protagonist who fought against all the odds, fought destiny itself, and won. And at the end of his game, he was also presented with a railroad choice. Yet somehow, that never seemed to have incited quite as much rage. Why is that?

[Trazoi]

Don't tell me you all don't know what to talk about after I make a whole new thread.

I've mainly been keeping up with these threads because I like discussing game design and writing - learning from what Bioware did right and what they did wrong with Mass Effect. And it feels like we've dissected ME3 completely multiple times. Plus it's been so long since I've played the game the details are a grey blob in my mind.

I'm sure there will be more to talk about when the new DLC story packs come out. I'll need someone to provide summaries though as I doubt I'll get them.

To be fair, BioWare can be all pissy and EA can be the one ordering an ending DLC, or vice-versa. We don't quite know anything that went on behind the corporate curtain.

I don't know what was going on internally either but I'm sure plenty if not most of the Bioware devs were unhappy with the ending they had to ship - not necessarily the whole Starkid thing, but the rushed ending sequences that didn't provide closure that they fixed with the EC. My hunch is a lot of the point of releasing the EC was to make everyone happier inside Bioware as well as appeassing miffed fans.

Heck, EA could've mandated that BioWare make an ending like that super-popular Deus Ex whatever that just came out, because hey, Eidos did it and it was super-popular, right?

Speaking of design mandates: It's evident someone along the chain mandated that ME3 be designed for new players, presumably those into more shooty games like Call of Duty. Hence all the "Take Back Earth" focus and stripping down of references to the previous games (poor Harbinger. ) But I don't know whether this was Bioware's idea or an EA mandate down from on high. I suspect the latter but I can't say for sure.

Anyway, I had another interesting thought. There was another protagonist who fought against all the odds, fought destiny itself, and won. And at the end of his game, he was also presented with a railroad choice. Yet somehow, that never seemed to have incited quite as much rage. Why is that?

For those who don't want to click a link to know what game Psyren is talking about, it's Half-Life 1. And the ending of HL1 was the one thing that was ragged on the most, although that was mostly the entirety of the whole jump puzzle weirdness that is Xen.

Half-Life 1's feature was that it told its entire story unbroken through the first person perspective. You the player were Gordon Freeman and did all the actions. But it was still a completely linear story where you had to do all the right actions to advance the game. There were plenty of points where you would get a mission critical failure, like letting an important character die, and have to reload a save and try again. The "bad ending" is another one of those. Hardly anyone complained about that because providing multiple solutions and story paths wasn't what Half-life 1 was trying to do.

Mass Effect the series however was all about choices, at least for the first two games. In Mass Effect 2 there were heaps of little touches where the decisions you made in the first game came back and were shown to have consequences - not big changes, but enough to give some flavour that there was a difference. ME3 however choked on this, where all those decisions amounted to was points on a scoreboard. Even really big choices like what to do about the Collector Base were eventually revealed to only matter for +/- 10 points difference.

Then there was the (original) ending, where the culmination of three whole games worth of choices was a few minutes of exposition from a Deus Ex Machina Starkid and the colour of the explosion. It broke the expectation of the series and of Bioware games in general

That's the difference as I see it. Half-Life 1 remained true to what it aimed to achieve, whereas Mass Effect 3 didn't and ended up a total mess because of it.

[Psyren]

Mass Effect, not linear? Did you really have an alternative to "stop the Reapers?" Even death couldn't knock you off those rails.

I think you're conflating true choice, with the illusion of choice. Shepard can certainly choose how he accomplishes certain lesser objectives, but your overarching path is set the moment you land on Eden Prime.

[Trazoi]

I think you're conflating true choice, with the illusion of choice.

Actually I fully agree with this - Bioware games are all about the illusion of choice, and it was what they used to do very well. The earlier Bioware games used to be a solid linear story path that allowed the player to bend it to a number of different interpretations to give it their own particular spin. It was a good combination of the strength writers can give to a linear story with some bending to player choices so they feel like they have some degree of agency.

But Bioware botched the illusion in ME3. All those little decisions didn't seem to amount to anything but a score on your EMS sheet, and the EMS didn't amout to anything but unlocking endings. It was pulling the sheet off the apparatus at a magic show so you could see how it works from the inside. It's exactly the same mechanically but it ruins the whole show.

That's why Half-Life 1's ending choice isn't comparable, because Half-Life 1 didn't pretend to be all about choice.

[TheLaughingMan]

Mass Effect, not linear? Did you really have an alternative to "stop the Reapers?" Even death couldn't knock you off those rails.

There are points between "linear" and "blank page," comrade. Strictly technically speaking, Mass Effect has always given the player a level of control over the course of the game that exceeds Half-Life I by a fair margin. Mass Effect (and really all games) have some degree of control over what happens during their runtime, from Half-Life to Mario Bros. If we were to begin arguing that Mass Effect is a linear game on par with Half-Life because we have no choice but to go save the galaxy, then you might as well say pretty much any game outside of things like Minecraft are all horribly linear, because there's no option to pants everyone in San Andreas.

tl;dr: You knew perfectly well what he meant, comrade. Arguing semantics just makes things tedious.

(And on a side note, sorry for not getting back to you with that reply I promised. I just figured everyone had already said everything I wanted to say).

[darksolitaire]

Coming late to the ME3 ending and seeing it discussed, dissected and debated trough all over the internet, I really don't have anything to say that hasn't been said by others better then I could.

However, the discussion has been centered on the fan reaction and Bioware not understanding it, while I'm curious about another thing; not understanding Bioware.

What events led to ME3 having the ending it did? Why did Bioware and their 150-strong production team decide to include the final ending in the game? What did they hope to gain with it? Did they honestly think that it would be well received? Clearly they had invested more to the game then players, having developed the series for eight years. Was that really the best possible ending to their epic trilogy?

Checking this poll, "the vocal minority" who didn't like the ending is in fact very much a majority.

Spoiler

Show

[Psyren]

That's why Half-Life 1's ending choice isn't comparable, because Half-Life 1 didn't pretend to be all about choice.

I think it was more that the degree to which you believed ME was "all about choice" is at fault here.

In short, Bioware promised you a journey. It's not their fault you took that to mean you could choose your destination as well.

tl;dr: You knew perfectly well what he meant, comrade. Arguing semantics just makes things tedious.

Tedious? I find it quite interesting, myself. I specifically brought up Half-Life to spark this sort of discussion.

Checking this poll, "the vocal minority" who didn't like the ending is in fact very much a majority.

Of course a BSN poll is going to have more disgruntled folks than not. It's BSN.

[Trazoi]

I think it was more that the degree to which you believed ME was "all about choice" is at fault here.

In short, Bioware promised you a journey. It's not their fault you took that to mean you could choose your destination as well.

Sorry Psyren, I'm going to have to agree with LaughingMan's tl;dr above there. You're ignoring or misconstruing all my arguments. Do you want to discuss ME3 in comparison to Half-Life? Or why there was a reason why many die-hard fans created dozens of Shepards to import into ME3? I don't want to spend the time phrasing and typing my arguments if they're not wanted.

[Aotrs Commander]

In short, Bioware promised you a journey. It's not their fault you took that to mean you could choose your destination as well.

Yes. Yes, it IS.

Because that IS what they "promised." I don't think I need to repeat the oft-mentioned sixteen totally different ending that they said we'd get, or that it wouldn't come down to pressing a button for endigns A, B or C...

And even if it wasn't, it was a ridiculously shoe-horned, contrived and nonsensical ending. Even after polishing the turd to a mirror-like golden sheen with the DLC (and so polish it they did, which I will give them credit for).

So Bioware can harp all they like about "artistic integrity" and "this is the story we wanted to tell" and I reserve the right to say "it's still crap" and "it's not the story I wanted to hear, nor the story you started to tell¹, and furthermore, I'm paying you good money to listen."

"Artistic" does not mean "automatically good."



(In fact, to be brutally honest, if "artistic integrity" is going to be used as an excuse to peddle preachy elitist crap (i.e. "you're (the complainants) all too dumb to understand it",) as is touted by some defendants of the endings on the internet (not meaning you, Psyren; despite our differences, you've been reasonable about it, as I hope I have at least passably been!) it can frankly go die in a fire.)



¹Because you actually can't say "this was the story we planned to tell from the beginning", because, you know, you didn't (change of chief writers between games, at least one disgarded ending theory etc etc.)

[Psyren]

Sorry Psyren, I'm going to have to agree with LaughingMan's tl;dr above there. You're ignoring or misconstruing all my arguments. Do you want to discuss ME3 in comparison to Half-Life? Or why there was a reason why many die-hard fans created dozens of Shepards to import into ME3? I don't want to spend the time phrasing and typing my arguments if they're not wanted.

Just because I'm not quote-streaming every single point you make, doesn't mean I'm ignoring them. You say that Bioware "botched the illusion" just because they converged the choices in the final installment. I posit that instead, the illusion was meant to come apart at this stage of the series. The choices we made had to converge at some point, else there would be too many parameters to track and chaos would result.

Nor do I think ME was pretending to be all about choice the way you say. Choice certainly played a large part in the journey, but the specific point at which I compared HL and ME was the destination - i.e. the ending. Just as the first ME can only end with thwarting Sovereign, the first HL can only end with taking G-Man's offer.

As far as "die-hard fans importing dozens of Shepards," I'm not certain that means what you think it means. I am a die-hard fan, and I did that too, despite fully expecting my Paragon Shepard to die. The prospect of losing my Shepard did not make it not worth importing him in the slightest, and I doubt I'm alone in that sentiment.


@Aotrs: You've been plenty reasonable, as has everyone in the Playground

[Trazoi]

Just because I'm not quote-streaming every single point you make, doesn't mean I'm ignoring them.

You were glossing over that you asked a very specific question, which was the differences between Half-Life 1 and Mass Effect 3 and why so many fans had more issues with the ending of the latter over the former. They're very different games.

When I played Half-Life 1, I wasn't after any plot or character decisions, as the game never sold itself as aiming to achieve that. What Half-Life 1 was was a FPS based around environmental puzzles and occasional gunplay sections, with a paper thin plot told through an unbroken first person perspective. I didn't have any problems with the ending choice because it did not register as a choice at all - it wasn't the "good ending" vs. the "bad ending", it was the "ending" vs. a non-standard game over screen. And that's fine, for Half-Life 1.

For Mass Effect 3, I was expecting a game similar to the other Bioware games: an RPG with action sections (third person shooter in Mass Effect's case) with a strong mostly linear story (i.e. optional ordering of chapters) and plenty of the character-based decisions (Paragon/Renegade, Light Side/Dark Side, Heroic/Jerkass) that is Bioware's trademark. I also expected payback for all the major decisions I had made through the other two games, as they promised through all those loading screens in ME1 and ME2 that told me to hold on to my saves for import. That's why, when the game glossed over those decisions and started to impose Bioware's writer's will on Shepard's characterisation, I was disappointed.

Now you can argue that Bioware didn't explicitly make any promises about character agency in ME3 (although I'm sure I or others can find direct quotes that say otherwise. ), but that doesn't actually matter. Bioware implicitly made those promises by the previous games in the series and by their signature style in their games. I buy Bioware games for that Bioware style of linear story bent to character personality choice, so I was annoyed when they took that away. Theoretically Bioware might have got away with it as a deliberate artistic choice, but for it to work that had to nail it so exquisitely that players like me would be in awe with their artistic skill. It was impossible for them to do when they half-assed the writing of the ending (or in the case of the original cut, fully-assed it).

(Additional: I only have one Shep, but I know some die-hard fans made a point of saving all different kinds of permutations of decisions so they could see all the differences who were crushed when they realised the answer was "not much". I know I spent a while considering what option to pick at the end of ME2 regarding the Collector Base, so I was annoyed to know it makes no real difference. If I replay ME2 every Shep will destroy that base because there is no reason not to. One of the biggest issues with ME3 is that it's killed a lot of the replay value of the entire series; there's no point in seeing how it plays differently, because it all ends up the same.)

[Calemyr]

Coming late to the ME3 ending and seeing it discussed, dissected and debated trough all over the internet, I really don't have anything to say that hasn't been said by others better then I could.

However, the discussion has been centered on the fan reaction and Bioware not understanding it, while I'm curious about another thing; not understanding Bioware.

What events led to ME3 having the ending it did? Why did Bioware and their 150-strong production team decide to include the final ending in the game? What did they hope to gain with it? Did they honestly think that it would be well received? Clearly they had invested more to the game then players, having developed the series for eight years. Was that really the best possible ending to their epic trilogy?

Checking this poll, "the vocal minority" who didn't like the ending is in fact very much a majority.

Spoiler

Show

Here's the prevailing theory for ME3's ending as I understand it. This is one fool's take on events he has nothing to do with, so take it as you will.

1) The ME trilogy was originally designed based off a blueprint created by one guy: Drew Karpyshyn.

2) For unknown reasons, Karpyshyn was shifted to the Star Wars: The Old Republic project instead. Then he left the company completely.

3) ME3 had a good ending that was consistent with the original two games, called the "Dark Energy" ending. Short version of it is that the Mass Effect has a brutal environmental side effect (black holes and solar decay), and the Reapers are using the cycle to both limit its impact and create more Reapers in the hopes of brainstorming a more permanent solution. Harbinger would have believed a human Reaper would have been the ultimate resource for to that end.

4) Microsoft got stupid and released a demo of the multiplayer before they'd properly cleaned the code. People hacked the demo and pulled out the script, or at least enough of it to royally spoil the conclusion to about a decade of really hard work.

5) The team leads (minus Karpyshyn) attempted to write a new ending. Since the leak occurred very late in the development cycle, they didn't have much time and they were paranoid of leaks. They worked alone, to limit the risk of leaks, and completed it using as few outside resources as possible (only the kid and both Shepards were needed for voice acting).

6) Because it was written in isolation and in a hurry, the ending did not go through any sufficient critical review process. It was rushed out not only to meet the projected release date, but also to minimize the risk of spoilers. As such, nobody had the time or opportunity to say "this is stupid" or "this makes no sense" or "but this and this imply some pretty bad stuff".

7) It came out, and got the reception it did. For the first couple weeks, Bioware was under strict orders not to talk about the spoilers, so all they were able to actually do was act hurt and tease the "wonderful" DLCs they had been working on since it went gold but could not actually talk about either.

8) Bioware released the Extended Cut, which takes the abomination of an ending and polishes it until it's merely mediocre, possibly even a bit epic. The outrage is quelled and some good will is restored. Hard feelings remain and resentment continues, but in a relatively subdued manner.

9) We are here. ME3's first post-release, paid, content-based DLC is arriving fast. Will public interest and good will carry the DLC to profitability? Or will Bioware's rep be so tarnished that even the DLC for a genuinely awesome game (with a decidedly mediocre conclusion) will be received with suspicion? I honestly don't know.

Also, don't take that poll as gospel. It's an internet poll, and as such voting multiple times is not unheard of. If anything, it could be used to gauge the depth of passion in the response, if not the actual numbers.

[Aotrs Commander]

One of the biggest issues with ME3 is that it's killed a lot of the replay value of the entire series; there's no point in seeing how it plays differently, because it all ends up the same.

I think that's probably as big a danger for the future DLC as well.

Curiousity: shows of hands. Who here is going to buy the Levithan DLC straight away, who is going to wait until other people have had a look, and who's not interested at all?

I'm pretty much in the latter category, unless Levithan is something particularly spectacular. (And I mean, really, REALLY spectacular.) I mean, I've seen how it all ends - badly - so I don't, at this juncture, see what I have to gain by seeing another part that won't really affect anything. (Unless, of course, it does, in which case Bioware is playing a rather dangerous game...! That would be cutting very close to the former accusations of "pay to get ending.")

It's that same sort of sensation I get when I've played a game of Civ to the "win" stage. I know I could carry on, and, say, conquer the world, but whatever, I just seem to lose all enthusiasm once I'm past that magic point. It's sorta like that with ME now. I've seen the final, final ending, and my interest has cooled off almost completely.

[Beowulf DW]

I think that's probably as big a danger for the future DLC as well.

Curiousity: shows of hands. Who here is going to buy the Levithan DLC straight away, who is going to wait until other people have had a look, and who's not interested at all?

I'm pretty much in the latter category, unless Levithan is something particularly spectacular. (And I mean, really, REALLY spectacular.) I mean, I've seen how it all ends - badly - so I don't, at this juncture, see what I have to gain by seeing another part that won't really affect anything. (Unless, of course, it does, in which case Bioware is playing a rather dangerous game...! That would be cutting very close to the former accusations of "pay to get ending.")

It's that same sort of sensation I get when I've played a game of Civ to the "win" stage. I know I could carry on, and, say, conquer the world, but whatever, I just seem to lose all enthusiasm once I'm past that magic point. It's sorta like that with ME now. I've seen the final, final ending, and my interest has cooled off almost completely.

Same here. Unless the DLC is truly awesome, I'm saving the money for a different game. Maybe I'll buy a used Pokemon Soul Silver and ride the nostalgia train for a while.

[TheLaughingMan]

Tedious? I find it quite interesting, myself. I specifically brought up Half-Life to spark this sort of discussion.

You asked why Half-Life's ending worked while Mass Effects did not. You did not ask whether or not Mass Effect can be considered an open world game. As such, it looks a bit like you're heading down rabbit trails, comrade.

I think that's probably as big a danger for the future DLC as well.

Curiousity: shows of hands. Who here is going to buy the Levithan DLC straight away, who is going to wait until other people have had a look, and who's not interested at all?

On the one hand, the only reason I'm interested is to see what kind of discussion it spawns, as the ending blunts any chance of real character development or really any plot relevance this might have. So probably some sort of BC hybrid.

On the other hand, I'm quite eager to see if BioWare can pull a Mask of the Betrayer and make up for the game proper by sheer force of good writing. Probably not, but as I am not currently a psychic of any sort I'll just have to wait and see with the rest of you.

[Joran]

I think that's probably as big a danger for the future DLC as well.

Curiousity: shows of hands. Who here is going to buy the Levithan DLC straight away, who is going to wait until other people have had a look, and who's not interested at all?

Day 1 purchase. I've been playing a crapton of ME3 Multiplayer and I've enjoyed enough of the Mass Effect series to want to play more of it.

BTW, interesting numbers from Bioware: Mass Effect 2 has the highest completion rate over all of Dragon Age/Mass Effect series at only 56%.

ME1: 40%
ME2: 56%
ME3: 42%
DAO: 36%
DA2: 41%

http://www.joystiq.com/2012/08/13/ma...agon-age-seri/

Talk about a silent majority.

[Psyren]

You were glossing over that you asked a very specific question, which was the differences between Half-Life 1 and Mass Effect 3 and why so many fans had more issues with the ending of the latter over the former. They're very different games.

Are they, though? Are they really? From a story perspective, that is. We're coming back to the "illusion" point again. How much do appearances ultimately matter to the reality? I posit that the differences are more academic/cosmetic than you appear to believe.

Spoiler

Show

When I played Half-Life 1, I wasn't after any plot or character decisions, as the game never sold itself as aiming to achieve that. What Half-Life 1 was was a FPS based around environmental puzzles and occasional gunplay sections, with a paper thin plot told through an unbroken first person perspective. I didn't have any problems with the ending choice because it did not register as a choice at all - it wasn't the "good ending" vs. the "bad ending", it was the "ending" vs. a non-standard game over screen. And that's fine, for Half-Life 1.

For Mass Effect 3, I was expecting a game similar to the other Bioware games: an RPG with action sections (third person shooter in Mass Effect's case) with a strong mostly linear story (i.e. optional ordering of chapters) and plenty of the character-based decisions (Paragon/Renegade, Light Side/Dark Side, Heroic/Jerkass) that is Bioware's trademark. I also expected payback for all the major decisions I had made through the other two games, as they promised through all those loading screens in ME1 and ME2 that told me to hold on to my saves for import. That's why, when the game glossed over those decisions and started to impose Bioware's writer's will on Shepard's characterisation, I was disappointed.

All right; let's talk about some of those other Bioware games.

Jade Empire - aside from the Water Dragon, your other major choices included Tien's Landing, Chai Ka vs. Ya Zhen, and how to handle Death's Hand. Yet not one of those choices truly impacted the ending, or was even really represented; only the Water Dragon choice impacted your ending, because it was the one thing that truly mattered.

DA:O - Lots of big choices here, like the Dwarven king, Dwarves vs. Golems, Elves vs. Werewolves, Templars vs. Mage Circle etc. In the end these also amounted to little more than War Assets, with the only real choices being reduced to Logain and Morrigan.

These games showcase what I've been saying all along - that the journey is where those narratives find meaning, not the destination. Just because the ending of the game doesn't incorporate every thread that has come before, doesn't make those threads meaningless. There's still a great deal there to contemplate, debate and ponder.

Now you can argue that Bioware didn't explicitly make any promises about character agency in ME3 (although I'm sure I or others can find direct quotes that say otherwise. ), but that doesn't actually matter. Bioware implicitly made those promises by the previous games in the series and by their signature style in their games. I buy Bioware games for that Bioware style of linear story bent to character personality choice, so I was annoyed when they took that away. Theoretically Bioware might have got away with it as a deliberate artistic choice, but for it to work that had to nail it so exquisitely that players like me would be in awe with their artistic skill. It was impossible for them to do when they half-assed the writing of the ending (or in the case of the original cut, fully-assed it).

As I pointed out above, "Bioware's signature style" is not what you remember it to be. They certainly weave fantastic tapestries of the journey, but when it comes to tying up all those threads only a handful of choices truly matter in terms of the result you get. And this is a necessity to keep the universe(s) manageable.

(Additional: I only have one Shep, but I know some die-hard fans made a point of saving all different kinds of permutations of decisions so they could see all the differences who were crushed when they realised the answer was "not much". I know I spent a while considering what option to pick at the end of ME2 regarding the Collector Base, so I was annoyed to know it makes no real difference. If I replay ME2 every Shep will destroy that base because there is no reason not to. One of the biggest issues with ME3 is that it's killed a lot of the replay value of the entire series; there's no point in seeing how it plays differently, because it all ends up the same.)

I consider this to be highly unreasonable. You wanted deep and significantly different permutations based on decisions like the Collector Base, or the Council choice - but for those choices to be truly meaningful would mean crafting separate games for each. At some point the threads need to converge, for simplicity's sake if no other reason.