Poll: ME3 EC didn't fix anything

[Cowabungaa]

I have no problem with the EC ending. I appreciate the extra effort they went through, what company would ever do that?

For no extra charge no less.

I too appreciate it. Yes, it far from fixes everything, that's very true. But you can't expect them to completely change the ending. They have to work with what they've got. And in that regard they did improved it quite a bit. Especially the synthesis ending, while still quite silly, at least makes a bit more sense now. And there's actually a proper epilogue to all the endings.

But yes, we all know that we'd rather have seen all our choices matter, have all the war assets matter, that sort of thing. But for that they have to re-do the entire ending. But for a free fix, well, it's okay.

 

[boag]

ME1 had plot holes which retroactively destroyed the plot of the game, nobody seems to know or give a shit about them. I guess some people give a shit about certain plotholes and not others.

Like what? The only significant one I am aware of is that no one suggests that Saren is planning to attack the Citadel until your meeting with the Council, and then everyone assumes that he must be.

Saren attacked Eden Prime to get to the Prothean Beacon and he needed the Prothean Beacon to find the Conduit, which we later find out is a miniature Mass Relay that offers one way passage to the Citadel.

Why did Saren need the conduit in the first place? Why expose himself on Eden Prime, why not just go to the presidium as a spectre and have Sovereign and the heretic army do a surprise attack on the citadel?

Of course if that happened Shepard would never have come into the story and nobody would have stopped the Reapers from pouring through the Citadel, thus we have a story with no protagonist and no conflict.

Everyone who says ME2 had bad writing or ME3 had bad writing and that ME1 was the best thing since the pyramids I say suck on it you hypocritical pseudo intellectual sacks of shit.

If you want to pretend to have standards, then at least show some fucking consistency and not act high and mighty like you're above the masses when it suits you.

To be fair ME 2 & 3's plots are more inconsistent, nonsensical and unrealistic. Not saying ME1 isn't guilty of plot silliness as well. My problem with ME2's plot is the part where Shepard dies and comes back two years later with all his memories intact... I still don't understand why this happened.

On that I agree, it was kind of pointless, they could have gone the Robocop route and just make him mortally wounded and in a coma and then have Cerberus come in and spend the next 2 years rebuilding him, it would have been the exact same thing only a hundred times more, "realistic" is the wrong word, I'll say believable; but if that's the biggest problem you have with the story then it just proves my point.

The biggest problem I have with ME3, ending notwithstanding, is the fact that they find the plans for the crucible in the same Prothean Archives they had for 30 years, beyond that, nothing really set off any serious alarms in my brain.

If you're going to be critical, don't be critical just when you feel like it.

Another thing to add to the list for ME3 is Cerberus' involvement in the story. For some reason this black ops organization that virtually no one knew existed before is now in command of an army that rivals pretty much everyone elses' (even after going to Sanctuary I didn't buy it at all), has near limitless resources and political pull and is supposedly supposed to be filling some kind of prophesy-esque role in the Reaper cycle. Cerberus was forced down our throats in places it shouldn't have been simply for the sake of mixing up the enemy types. It bothered me the entire game.

I tried to tie in to the whole refuge scam that was going on, and that they were just grabbing random civilians and turning them into brainwashed super soldiers.

It a really long stretch and the theory isnt sound or explained completely at all.

 

[Acton Hank]

ME1 had plot holes which retroactively destroyed the plot of the game, nobody seems to know or give a shit about them. I guess some people give a shit about certain plotholes and not others.

Like what? The only significant one I am aware of is that no one suggests that Saren is planning to attack the Citadel until your meeting with the Council, and then everyone assumes that he must be.

Saren attacked Eden Prime to get to the Prothean Beacon and he needed the Prothean Beacon to find the Conduit, which we later find out is a miniature Mass Relay that offers one way passage to the Citadel.

Why did Saren need the conduit in the first place? Why expose himself on Eden Prime, why not just go to the presidium as a spectre and have Sovereign and the heretic army do a surprise attack on the citadel?

Of course if that happened Shepard would never have come into the story and nobody would have stopped the Reapers from pouring through the Citadel, thus we have a story with no protagonist and no conflict.

Everyone who says ME2 had bad writing or ME3 had bad writing and that ME1 was the best thing since the pyramids I say suck on it you hypocritical pseudo intellectual sacks of shit.

If you want to pretend to have standards, then at least show some fucking consistency and not act high and mighty like you're above the masses when it suits you.

To be fair ME 2 & 3's plots are more inconsistent, nonsensical and unrealistic. Not saying ME1 isn't guilty of plot silliness as well. My problem with ME2's plot is the part where Shepard dies and comes back two years later with all his memories intact... I still don't understand why this happened.

On that I agree, it was kind of pointless, they could have gone the Robocop route and just make him mortally wounded and in a coma and then have Cerberus come in and spend the next 2 years rebuilding him, it would have been the exact same thing only a hundred times more, "realistic" is the wrong word, I'll say believable; but if that's the biggest problem you have with the story then it just proves my point.

The biggest problem I have with ME3, ending notwithstanding, is the fact that they find the plans for the crucible in the same Prothean Archives they had for 30 years, beyond that, nothing really set off any serious alarms in my brain.

If you're going to be critical, don't be critical just when you feel like it.

Another thing to add to the list for ME3 is Cerberus' involvement in the story. For some reason this black ops organization that virtually no one knew existed before is now in command of an army that rivals pretty much everyone elses' (even after going to Sanctuary I didn't buy it at all), has near limitless resources and political pull and is supposedly supposed to be filling some kind of prophesy-esque role in the Reaper cycle. Cerberus was forced down our throats in places it shouldn't have been simply for the sake of mixing up the enemy types. It bothered me the entire game.

ME1 had plot holes which retroactively destroyed the plot of the game, nobody seems to know or give a shit about them. I guess some people give a shit about certain plotholes and not others.

Like what? The only significant one I am aware of is that no one suggests that Saren is planning to attack the Citadel until your meeting with the Council, and then everyone assumes that he must be.

Saren attacked Eden Prime to get to the Prothean Beacon and he needed the Prothean Beacon to find the Conduit, which we later find out is a miniature Mass Relay that offers one way passage to the Citadel.

Why did Saren need the conduit in the first place? Why expose himself on Eden Prime, why not just go to the presidium as a spectre and have Sovereign and the heretic army do a surprise attack on the citadel?

Of course if that happened Shepard would never have come into the story and nobody would have stopped the Reapers from pouring through the Citadel, thus we have a story with no protagonist and no conflict.

Everyone who says ME2 had bad writing or ME3 had bad writing and that ME1 was the best thing since the pyramids I say suck on it you hypocritical pseudo intellectual sacks of shit.

If you want to pretend to have standards, then at least show some fucking consistency and not act high and mighty like you're above the masses when it suits you.

To be fair ME 2 & 3's plots are more inconsistent, nonsensical and unrealistic. Not saying ME1 isn't guilty of plot silliness as well. My problem with ME2's plot is the part where Shepard dies and comes back two years later with all his memories intact... I still don't understand why this happened.

On that I agree, it was kind of pointless, they could have gone the Robocop route and just make him mortally wounded and in a coma and then have Cerberus come in and spend the next 2 years rebuilding him, it would have been the exact same thing only a hundred times more, "realistic" is the wrong word, I'll say believable; but if that's the biggest problem you have with the story then it just proves my point.

The biggest problem I have with ME3, ending notwithstanding, is the fact that they find the plans for the crucible in the same Prothean Archives they had for 30 years, beyond that, nothing really set off any serious alarms in my brain.

If you're going to be critical, don't be critical just when you feel like it.

Another thing to add to the list for ME3 is Cerberus' involvement in the story. For some reason this black ops organization that virtually no one knew existed before is now in command of an army that rivals pretty much everyone elses' (even after going to Sanctuary I didn't buy it at all), has near limitless resources and political pull and is supposedly supposed to be filling some kind of prophesy-esque role in the Reaper cycle. Cerberus was forced down our throats in places it shouldn't have been simply for the sake of mixing up the enemy types. It bothered me the entire game.

What do you mean virtually no one knew existed? I heard the Council say that Cerberus was a sworn enemy of the council in ME2, and pretty much everybody you meet in ME2 knows or has heard about Cerberus. It's explained where they got all their troops from, they kidnap civilians and turn them into those husk troopers. Also there is a year long gap between ME2 and ME3, that's enoug time to raise a reasonably large force. Also they say that the attack on the Citadel was more or less the biggest operation they were capable of, and the sole objective was to kill the council and put Udina in charge. Exactly what political pull are you talking about?
And what the hell do you mean prophesy-esque role in the Reaper cycle?
What on earth are you talking about?

 

[AD-Stu]

What do you mean virtually no one knew existed? I heard the Council say that Cerberus was a sworn enemy of the council in ME2, and pretty much everybody you meet in ME2 knows or has heard about Cerberus. It's explained where they got all their troops from, they kidnap civilians and turn them into those husk troopers. Also there is a year long gap between ME2 and ME3, that's enoug time to raise a reasonably large force. Also they say that the attack on the Citadel was more or less the biggest operation they were capable of, and the sole objective was to kill the council and put Udina in charge. Exactly what political pull are you talking about?
And what the hell do you mean prophesy-esque role in the Reaper cycle?
What on earth are you talking about?

From memory, Javik says that there was a group of Protheans that played a very similar role to Cerberus during the previous cycle so maybe that's it?

Otherwise I agree with you though - all the way back to ME1 (and even before, if you've read the novels/comics) Cerberus has been portrayed as an organisation with plenty of people and plenty of money too.

 

[Acton Hank]

What do you mean virtually no one knew existed? I heard the Council say that Cerberus was a sworn enemy of the council in ME2, and pretty much everybody you meet in ME2 knows or has heard about Cerberus. It's explained where they got all their troops from, they kidnap civilians and turn them into those husk troopers. Also there is a year long gap between ME2 and ME3, that's enoug time to raise a reasonably large force. Also they say that the attack on the Citadel was more or less the biggest operation they were capable of, and the sole objective was to kill the council and put Udina in charge. Exactly what political pull are you talking about?
And what the hell do you mean prophesy-esque role in the Reaper cycle?
What on earth are you talking about?

From memory, Javik says that there was a group of Protheans that played a very similar role to Cerberus during the previous cycle so maybe that's it?

Otherwise I agree with you though - all the way back to ME1 (and even before, if you've read the novels/comics) Cerberus has been portrayed as an organisation with plenty of people and plenty of money too.

So it's my fault that I didn't spend an extra 800 mspoints to get javik.

So a group of protheans tried to take over the Reapers, just like Cerberus did, just like probably a splinter faction of some other race from some other cycle probably tried.

When you have an unstoppable force destroying your galaxy is it really illogical to think that certain people would try to control it for their own purposes rather than destroy it?

I still don't understand why he thinks Cerberus was forced in the story.

 

[Acton Hank]

What do you mean virtually no one knew existed? I heard the Council say that Cerberus was a sworn enemy of the council in ME2, and pretty much everybody you meet in ME2 knows or has heard about Cerberus. It's explained where they got all their troops from, they kidnap civilians and turn them into those husk troopers. Also there is a year long gap between ME2 and ME3, that's enoug time to raise a reasonably large force. Also they say that the attack on the Citadel was more or less the biggest operation they were capable of, and the sole objective was to kill the council and put Udina in charge. Exactly what political pull are you talking about?
And what the hell do you mean prophesy-esque role in the Reaper cycle?
What on earth are you talking about?

From memory, Javik says that there was a group of Protheans that played a very similar role to Cerberus during the previous cycle so maybe that's it?

Otherwise I agree with you though - all the way back to ME1 (and even before, if you've read the novels/comics) Cerberus has been portrayed as an organisation with plenty of people and plenty of money too.[/q

What do you mean virtually no one knew existed? I heard the Council say that Cerberus was a sworn enemy of the council in ME2, and pretty much everybody you meet in ME2 knows or has heard about Cerberus. It's explained where they got all their troops from, they kidnap civilians and turn them into those husk troopers. Also there is a year long gap between ME2 and ME3, that's enoug time to raise a reasonably large force. Also they say that the attack on the Citadel was more or less the biggest operation they were capable of, and the sole objective was to kill the council and put Udina in charge. Exactly what political pull are you talking about?
And what the hell do you mean prophesy-esque role in the Reaper cycle?
What on earth are you talking about?

From memory, Javik says that there was a group of Protheans that played a very similar role to Cerberus during the previous cycle so maybe that's it?

Otherwise I agree with you though - all the way back to ME1 (and even before, if you've read the novels/comics) Cerberus has been portrayed as an organisation with plenty of people and plenty of money too.

Just to be clear, I dont' have a problem with people who prefer ME1 to 2 or 3. I just hate it when stupid pseudo intellectual fanboys shit all over 2 or 3 and people who like them and then refuse to acknowledge any of the big, big, BIG problems with ME1's story or gameplay.

I really don't get where they all came from, when ME2 was released very very very few people had anything but glowing praise to say about it, now I can't go into any ME discussion without seeing some guy act like ME2 is worse than cancer.

 

[userwhoquitthesite]

If they had not been complete and utter dicks to the fans by calling the people disatisfied with the original ending, and I quote "Whiny, homophobic entitled brats", then Yes i would have been satisfied with the EC.

As it stands, I cant wait for Bioware to burn down and join the likes of Bullfrog and Westwood in the graveyard of companies EA has raped to death.

Hey now, Westwood was a great little company. Respect for the dead

 

[boag]

If they had not been complete and utter dicks to the fans by calling the people disatisfied with the original ending, and I quote "Whiny, homophobic entitled brats", then Yes i would have been satisfied with the EC.

As it stands, I cant wait for Bioware to burn down and join the likes of Bullfrog and Westwood in the graveyard of companies EA has raped to death.

Hey now, Westwood was a great little company. Respect for the dead

They were a great little company, after what EA did to them, death was the best possible outcome.

 

[itsthesheppy]

I just got done watching the TUN review of the ending and the recent DLC. I feel the points he made for why the ending is weak and stupid are really strong.

 

[userwhoquitthesite]

If they had not been complete and utter dicks to the fans by calling the people disatisfied with the original ending, and I quote "Whiny, homophobic entitled brats", then Yes i would have been satisfied with the EC.

As it stands, I cant wait for Bioware to burn down and join the likes of Bullfrog and Westwood in the graveyard of companies EA has raped to death.

Hey now, Westwood was a great little company. Respect for the dead

They were a great little company, after what EA did to them, death was the best possible outcome.

For the glory of horrendous, my brother

 

[Acton Hank]

If they had not been complete and utter dicks to the fans by calling the people disatisfied with the original ending, and I quote "Whiny, homophobic entitled brats", then Yes i would have been satisfied with the EC.

As it stands, I cant wait for Bioware to burn down and join the likes of Bullfrog and Westwood in the graveyard of companies EA has raped to death.

Hey now, Westwood was a great little company. Respect for the dead

They were a great little company, after what EA did to them, death was the best possible outcome.

When did they say that?

 

[boag]

If they had not been complete and utter dicks to the fans by calling the people disatisfied with the original ending, and I quote "Whiny, homophobic entitled brats", then Yes i would have been satisfied with the EC.

As it stands, I cant wait for Bioware to burn down and join the likes of Bullfrog and Westwood in the graveyard of companies EA has raped to death.

Hey now, Westwood was a great little company. Respect for the dead

They were a great little company, after what EA did to them, death was the best possible outcome.

When did they say that?

When did who say what?

I dont understand your question here.


oh I see, you are inquiring about the quote.

Go follow the original post and subsequent replies for the anwsers

 

[Acton Hank]

If they had not been complete and utter dicks to the fans by calling the people disatisfied with the original ending, and I quote "Whiny, homophobic entitled brats", then Yes i would have been satisfied with the EC.

As it stands, I cant wait for Bioware to burn down and join the likes of Bullfrog and Westwood in the graveyard of companies EA has raped to death.

Hey now, Westwood was a great little company. Respect for the dead

They were a great little company, after what EA did to them, death was the best possible outcome.

When did they say that?

When did who say what?

I dont understand your question here.


oh I see, you are inquiring about the quote.

Go follow the original post and subsequent replies for the anwsers

When did Bioware literally call people who were unhappy with the ending: "Whiny, homophobic, entitled brats"?

Sorry for not being clear, my mistake.

 

[blank0000]

I thought the extended content was great!

The choices are more fleshed out, they are explained! The addition of the "what happens after" slide show was really nice, and the new "refusal" option is very interesting! I'm surprised with the quality of the new content considering how much time they had. It seems like they worked really hard to create a more satisfying conclusion.

 

[silver wolf009]

ME1 had plot holes which retroactively destroyed the plot of the game, nobody seems to know or give a shit about them. I guess some people give a shit about certain plotholes and not others.

Like what? The only significant one I am aware of is that no one suggests that Saren is planning to attack the Citadel until your meeting with the Council, and then everyone assumes that he must be.

Saren attacked Eden Prime to get to the Prothean Beacon and he needed the Prothean Beacon to find the Conduit, which we later find out is a miniature Mass Relay that offers one way passage to the Citadel.

Why did Saren need the conduit in the first place? Why expose himself on Eden Prime, why not just go to the presidium as a spectre and have Sovereign and the heretic army do a surprise attack on the citadel?

Of course if that happened Shepard would never have come into the story and nobody would have stopped the Reapers from pouring through the Citadel, thus we have a story with no protagonist and no conflict.

Everyone who says ME2 had bad writing or ME3 had bad writing and that ME1 was the best thing since the pyramids I say suck on it you hypocritical pseudo intellectual sacks of shit.

If you want to pretend to have standards, then at least show some fucking consistency and not act high and mighty like you're above the masses when it suits you.

To be fair ME 2 & 3's plots are more inconsistent, nonsensical and unrealistic. Not saying ME1 isn't guilty of plot silliness as well. My problem with ME2's plot is the part where Shepard dies and comes back two years later with all his memories intact... I still don't understand why this happened.

So people who were picking up the Mass Effect series with number two could decide what they would have done in the first game via that little memory checking segment in the shuttle.

OT: I don't have much in this debate, as I just skipped ME3, but I do feel that the ending's still aren't as good as they could have been. But, if this is what we're getting, it is better. Not good, but better.

 

[RJ 17]

Snip.

Forgive me for showing up late to this topic, and again I apologize if someone has already mentioned this. But as someone who was never "raging" over the original endings (but was rather just very disappointed with them) and as one who defended the Literal Interpretation P suck-it all you Indoctrination Theorists! I predicted the endings in the EC 6 days after the game came out!), I'd like to take a shot at answering your questions.

First and foremost, I'll address pretty much everything revolving around Space Timmy. One thing you have to understand (and something the game attempted to explain) is that Space Timmy isn't a single AI. "I am the collective will of the Reapers." This in emphasized if you choose to tell him to fuck off with his choices and that you'd rather die than make them, he says "So be it." in Harbinger's voice. On a side note, I think they threw in that 4th ending specifically for people who were complaining that all the endings seemed forced, there is no real choice because you're doing what Space Timmy wants you to. This gives you the chance to tell him to piss off, and essentially you sacrifice your cycle so that the NEXT cycle will be the one to stop the Reapers.

Now, as for "Why didn't Space Timmy just activate the Citadel relay himself? Why was Soveriegn even needed?" Ever stop to consider that maybe he couldn't? Perhaps Soveriegn's entire purpose wasn't so much to turn the Citadel into a relay, but rather he was sent to awaken Space Timmy so that HE could open the relay? It's not said that that is the case...but it's certainly not said it isn't. With that suggestion in mind, everything else falls in place: he wasn't there in the beginning. It could be that he didn't even wake up until the Reapers officially took control of the Citadel in ME 3.

As for "Who created Space Timmy?" It was Organics, he says as much. "Why'd they make him?" Again, he specifically says "To be the Catalyst of peace between Organics and Synthetics." Another thing he specifically states is "The Created will always rebel against their Creators." As seen when he explains "The civilization that made me was turned into the first true Reaper. They did not approve, but it was the only way." Sure enough, the cold calculations of an AI determined that in order to follow his programming - create peace between Organics and Synthetics - he must simply remove the organics and synthetics to begin with. There can't be conflict if there's no one to fight. Which means that he, himself, rebeled against his creators to institute his creator's wishes.

"Why didn't the Reapers just hang around and snuff out all AI whenever it arose?" Because that's not what the Catalyst was programmed to do. In his own calculations, organics could be allowed to live and flourish for about 50K years before AI would start being developed. At that point, it's time for a Harvest to wipe the galaxy clean of all life - organic and synthetic (as he mentions in the EC that they harvest synthetics as well) to make way for the next crop of organics to live out their lives becauuse advanced civilizations (if left alive) will just keep making more AI. The Catalyst is doing what it said it'd be doing from the very beginning: imposing Order on the Chaos of organics. Everything happens in patterns, history repeats, yadda yadda yadda. It's all based off the calculations of the Catalyst. In short, the Catalyst wasn't programmed to be an enforcer, he was programmed to ensure there's no conflict between organics and AI. If AI doesn't get developed until approximately every 50K years, then there's no real reason for the Reapers to be hanging around, is there?

As for the Crucible...yeah, the way it implements the three endings is indeed "Space Magic". But what the hell is wrong with that? What's The Force (at least in the original trilogy)? Is that not - by definition - space magic? Does the entire SW story line NOT revolve around space magic? A friend of mine once told me the difference between Star Trek and Star Wars is that Star Trek attempts to be scientific, having specific amounts of energy in weapons to say "Alright, that laser IS powerful enough to blow up an asteriod of that size." where as Star Wars doesn't, it just says "That laser is strong enough to destroy an asteriod that big because we say it is."

In the new Star Trek movie, they shoot a drop of red goo into a planet's core and it creates a black hole. How does that happen? Space magic. In Star Wars, the Death Star has a beam powerful enough to oblitherate a planet. How does it generate that much energy? Space magic.

I don't know when we started demanding scientifically accurate data to support things that occur in SCIENCE FICTION. But if that's the case, you should have been disgusted with the ME series from the very beginning when they said "Initiating Faster Than Light Travel." How do we go faster than light? How do the relays work? Space Fucking Magic. :3

As such, I'm very satisfied with the EC endings. Not just because I predicted them by drawing out the logical conclusion to each ending six days after the game came out, but also because it gave me all I needed for the endings to be good: an epilogue and some closure. I would have liked a bit more closure with the specific characters, but I'm still happy with what I got.

 

[Riff Moonraker]

I watched the Destroy and Synthesis endings on Youtube and am currently downloading the EC to see Control for myself.
From what I've seen all the plotholes are still there. And it seems to me the endings went from "Everyone dies!" to "Everyone lives a happy life and everything gets rebuilt because we say so!" and "The Normandy crashed on a planet and is nearly destroyed? No Problem, they will fix it in a day and fly away like nothing ever happened because we say so!"
And since when is the Normandy capable of vertical flight?
Whatever.

Edit: And how were we supposed to get any of this from the original endings?

The Normandy has pulled off "vertical flight" before... in multiple occasions, actually. At the "dead" Reaper in ME2 when they were escaping it... at the Collector base...

My bad, I didn't remember. Thanks for pointing it out.

No problem!

 

[Murmillos]

I still think that if the Reapers wanted to really control Organics, they would pounce the second one used the mass relay. One or two planets in a solar system, all neatly cleaned up without this mess of tracking them all over the Galaxy, or having some accident happen when you arrive too late and they thrive like a bad rash 'every where'.

But of course, real Reaper logic doesn't make for a good story (or game) so we are left with a open gaping hole of Reaper logic shoehorned to fit in at the last second, so we would all get to enjoy a Reaper 'midichlorian' moment.

But ok, even keeping with "current" ending, a few changes would have made the ending choices more palatable.

Scene setup:
Earth -- (get rid of EC Normandy Shot, get rid of Harbinger blasting Shepard)
Shepard makes to his beam and with his squad mates, they battle their way to the "control room" where they meet Anderson and TIM with gun drawns at each other. There is a quick debate, in which depending on dialog choices (along with supporting points), either just TIM gets shot, or Anders & TIM get critically shot & Shepard wounded.

Shepard Activates the Crucible which (space magic) sets up a solar wide damping field that basically kills all Mass Effect functionality -- the war is at a stand still (but Earth still burns) and Harbinger invites Shepard up to the top. (squad mates at this point do not join, but still are communication linked to Shepard, who patch his conversion to the 'fleet' whom listen in.)

A final verbal debate against Harbinger (the master and 1st Reaper), aka Shepard vs Sovereign "2" begins, Harbinger alludes that the Crucible was the weapon created by their Creators in an attempt to destroy the 'Reapers' (hence the choices for Absolute control, destroy and "merge*" -- yet I still don't know how to make "merge" work)), but lost and the "Cycle" has continued in a perverse logic of controlling/protecting the Galaxy ever since (but still presented in Sovereign style -- this is what we do, we have no desire to explain it to you, you will submit to our will). The conversion also would have over tones of the just completed Geth/Quarians war (depending if you allow one side to die or save them both).

But at least Shepard would feel more in control about the endings, and why/how they exist.

We still have the 4 endings, our 3 color coded choices and the kicked in the nuts refusal (Shepard deactivates the Crucible).. but I would also include a 5th ending, a 2nd refusal, that if you have a high enough war assets, you eventually beat the Reapers, but the ending is just bleak/gloom, 99% of all space ships are destroyed in battles with the Reapers, Earth and every other major planet burns in ruins, Civilizations that once numbered in the trillions can barely number in the single digit millions. To top it off, the last of the Reapers being being hunted down performed scorched Earth policies on hundreds of possible "Eden worlds".

 

[Murmillos]

I don't know when we started demanding scientifically accurate data to support things that occur in SCIENCE FICTION. But if that's the case, you should have been disgusted with the ME series from the very beginning when they said "Initiating Faster Than Light Travel." How do we go faster than light? How do the relays work? Space Fucking Magic. :3

The problem with the ME series is that it goes from being Star Trek in ME1 (everything tries to have a science logic behind it) to Star Wars at the end of ME3 (where it just makes up random space magic because fuck.. real endings are hard).

And even tho ME1 has "space magic" with FTL, they tired to reason it with a logical reason;
FTL: The 'Mass Effect' can lower the mass of any object, even to zero. When mass reaches zero, we can then push something up to the speed of light.
Relays: The 'Mass Effect' allows to relays to set a corridor of negative space which allows ships to travel between with greater ease and speed.

Yes, its all space magic, but it tired to be smart/thinking space magic. Casey didn't understand this and just started pulling crap out of his ass for the funkyjunk of it.

MrBtounge explains Mass Effect really well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MlatxLP-xs

edit: Because Mass Effect wanted to the smart and logical Science Fiction, it's the reasons all those codec exist in the manner that they did. If Mass Effect just wanted to be Star Wars, those codec would not have mattered (or existed).

 

[Savagezion]

ME1 had plot holes which retroactively destroyed the plot of the game, nobody seems to know or give a shit about them. I guess some people give a shit about certain plotholes and not others.

Like what? The only significant one I am aware of is that no one suggests that Saren is planning to attack the Citadel until your meeting with the Council, and then everyone assumes that he must be.

I like the part where Sovereign takes off from Eden Prime without Saren, but shortly after we see Saren on-board Sovereign

how about the one where Saren Attacks Eden Prime to look for the mcguffin that would enable him to use another mcguffin so he can infiltrate the Citadel because he is branded a traitor for Attacking Eden Prime?

This is actually only true because of the sequels. The beacon on Eden Prime wasn't a Mcguffin until further events of the story turned it into one. This could have been used later on, if any effort was ever put into the plot of the series. However, Bioware is mostly only concerned with dialogue it seems and the plot takes a backseat to it.

How about a canon female character despite canon Shepard being male. (?) Yeah, that a brain fuck for a plot hole. I think Bioware needs to quit using the term canon. I don't think it means what they think it means.