dogstile said:
No, they're getting sued for false advertising, not because the ending sucked (even though it did) but because the choices that you had at the ending achieved nothing. Hell, is it even possible to fail mass effect 3? If I rushed through the game and didn't collect war assets, picking the worst choices, I would still beat the reapers.
There wasn't meaningful choices. At all.
You could rescue an ancient race from extinction, or finish the job the krogan started.
You could reunite a race of machines with their creators and end centuries of pointless conflict, or end it with genocide.
You could save a race from slow extinction and give them a new beginning in a new galactic setting, or do the same, but with your mistakes installing in power those who would let history repeat itself.
You could do all this, and more...but in the end, all you need is a heartbeat and a handgun. And hopefully, you're not colorblind. Otherwise, you'd have trouble telling the endings apart.
I personally prefer this theory:
AnarchistAbe said:
Do you REALLY feel they deserved this? Games marketing ALWAYS promises more than the game could deliver. Why is Bioware being singled out?
Alright. Do you have an example? Where official game marketing promises
specific things that are not in the game, that is. "Intense gameplay," "An epic story," and "Vibrant gameworld" are not specific things, by the way. They're subjective traits and are thus
always up for debate.
Promising "the decisions you make completely shape your experience and outcome" is something which is
objectively untrue. Everyone who finished Mass Effect got one of three endings, all of which were alarmingly similar to each other. I won't say it's a
great thing to base a legal complaint on, but it's certainly a thing, which is more than 'this ending sucks' can say.