Sorry, Mass Effect 3 complainers

[SonicWaffle]

I would like to go into this for a bit, so the following text is ONE GREAT BIG MASSIVE SPOILER!!!!!!

I left your spoilertags in place for my responses, to be nice. Because I'm like that.

Spoiler

The Blue option gives you control over the Reapers, but you die, so you are vaporised. So basically you play right into the Harbinger's hands by doing this.

Spoiler

Although if Shepard were being indoctrinated, why would that offer even be on the table? Why is Harbinger volunteering to destroy his race's autonomy just to get rid of Shepard, a man who is quite literally on the verge of death? Better to just wait, or even better, kill him while he's totally at your mercy rather than giving him a series of options to pick from, two of which have negative ramifications for the Reapers.

Spoiler

The Green option fuses biology with synthetics and again, you let the Reapers win. Not only do they life, but now everything is part Reaper. Everyone will be indoctrinated.

Spoiler

Thing is, if that was what the Reapers wanted and they had the power to do it all along, why bother with any other option? What's the point in spending countless cycles all-but-eradicating organic life when they had the option to fuse organic and synthetic into one happy family?

Spoiler

The Red option destroys all synthetic life, arguably also the Geth, but this (to me) is the only real "let's save all life" option. The Reapers are destroyed, all other life remains and thusly you are freed from indoctrination and (assuming you did everything perfectly), you get the shot of Sheppard's body down on Earth, gasping for air.

Spoiler

Again, though, assuming that Shepard was indoctrinated, why would the Reapers put him in this situation?! What possible reason could they have for putting him in a situation where he can, if he wants to, blow them all up? I can't see any way for them to gain from this, and if they're controlling his mind and influencing what he does, it's downright moronic of them to say "here's a magic button to kill us, your hated enemies"

I like the indoctrination theory, it's had plenty of thought put into it, but rather than fixing the ending it actually just raises more questions. Specifically, if this is true, then how did the Reapers survive so long despite being functionally retarded?

 

[SonicWaffle]

Personally I don't think they should change the ending. Don't get me wrong I hated it, but if thats the kind of product they put all their effort into I don't want to be a customer anymore.

I enjoyed the bioware products I had up until the very very ending of ME3. If they turn it around I'll give em another try but as of now I currently avoid bioware products.

Not sure how they can turn it around without retcons. All they can do is expand on something people hate, but people will likely be just as pissed off about retcons.

No I mean turn it around as a company. I've lost all my investment in the ME3 universe.

Ah, I see. Well, maybe there will be hope for Dragon Age 3? I've got my fingers crossed, with any luck they'll go back to the way it was in Origins and drop some of DA2's bigger problems.

 

[CrazyGirl17]

I dislike the ending, but I soon got tired of hearing about it.

(And personally, I'm more inclined to blame EA instead of Bioware for the fallout)

 

[SonicWaffle]

The harry potter series have localised covers. Do a 5 min google search. Not all of them have Harry on the cover either.

Fair enough, but having done as you suggested and done a Google image search, those which do feature Harry show him as clearly caucasian.

On a side note, some of the Japanese covers are freaky.

Radcliff as far as I know has never been on the cover. Key to that being the books are made before the movies.

Sure, but his image is so inextricably tied to the franchise that people are more likely to picture him in the role than someone else.

Secondly none of the books describes him as English. He is described in loose terms of Hair, Specs, scar, pale ect. All universally applicable.

Well, yes, the books make it pretty clear he's English. He's born in England, to English parents. Being caucasian and being English are different things, though I take your point.

You are making a false comparison to "an asian person in china". You applied those factors.

I'm not sure what you mean here. You were the one who asked what an Asian kid pictured when they read Harry Potter, and I questioned why you would think they'd be picturing an Asian person when Harry isn't an Asian.

If you read a book set in Japan do you imagine the main character as Japanese unless specifically stated otherwise?

 

[The Human Torch]

I, like you, added a reply to the points you raised. Again with spoilertags.

I would like to go into this for a bit, so the following text is ONE GREAT BIG MASSIVE SPOILER!!!!!!

I left your spoilertags in place for my responses, to be nice. Because I'm like that.

Spoiler

Although if Shepard were being indoctrinated, why would that offer even be on the table? Why is Harbinger volunteering to destroy his race's autonomy just to get rid of Shepard, a man who is quite literally on the verge of death? Better to just wait, or even better, kill him while he's totally at your mercy rather than giving him a series of options to pick from, two of which have negative ramifications for the Reapers.

Spoiler

I never said that the options made any sense. That's the whole problem with ME3's ending. No matter how we spin the explanation behind the 3 endings, none of them make any sense. Which is why people are complaining about monstrous plotholes. I just think that the Harbinger did this because he has no choice. Sheppard will do something, since he is driven. Sheppard is the one foe that the Harbinger could never corrupt 100%. Only nudge Sheppard in whatever direction that the Harbinger prefers. This is just my take on it though.

Spoiler

Thing is, if that was what the Reapers wanted and they had the power to do it all along, why bother with any other option? What's the point in spending countless cycles all-but-eradicating organic life when they had the option to fuse organic and synthetic into one happy family?

Spoiler

Again, I know it doesn't make any real sense, but it's the most that I could make from it. I am not saying it's ideal, even the Reapers might not think that it's ideal. But given that one of the other options is complete eradication, they might just opt for plain survival.

Spoiler

Again, though, assuming that Shepard was indoctrinated, why would the Reapers put him in this situation?! What possible reason could they have for putting him in a situation where he can, if he wants to, blow them all up? I can't see any way for them to gain from this, and if they're controlling his mind and influencing what he does, it's downright moronic of them to say "here's a magic button to kill us, your hated enemies"

Spoiler

Because I think that the Reapers know that they can't force Sheppard to spare the Reapers, beneath all that indoctrination, Sheppard still wants them gone. And they don't say: "This button kills us, we are the enemy." They wrap it up in such a way, that it appears as a bad choice. The Star Child is talking into him. Making every option appear like the worst. And with all options being equally horrible, which one do you pick?

I like the indoctrination theory, it's had plenty of thought put into it, but rather than fixing the ending it actually just raises more questions. Specifically, if this is true, then how did the Reapers survive so long despite being functionally retarded?

I am with you here, it's a nice theory, but it has so many plotholes and weird loops that it doesn't make much sense. That's the whole issue with ME3. Indoctrination is arguably the best theory that was thought of, but it's like putting a bandaid over a large gaping wound, it may stop some of the bleeding, but does not solve the problem at all.

Bioware jumped the shark with this ending. No matter how you look at it, no matter how many theories/explanations are devised: IT. NEVER. MAKES. SENSE.

This pissed me off so much. My girlfriend watched me play all the Mass Effect games from time to time including the ME3 ending, where you land on Earth and you do your final talks to your teammates and she was completely into it. Like watching a very good movie or TV-series. She could not play the game itself, because she hates action games, but she loved seeing me play, how all the team mates replied to my Sheppard and how the world reacted to Sheppard's presence.

To her this was all just one of the best sci-fi series she has ever seen, and she sure loves her sci-fi. Then she saw the ending. And she facepalmed herself so hard, she toppled backwards over the couch.

 

[jklinders]

A lot of people formed an opinion on the fan base without fully understanding the fuss.

Just like in any other uproar there were a few histrionic idiots stinking up the joint for folks who actually were being reasonable about there complaints. The news loves to pick up on that and exaggerate it.

Always better to form your own opinion rather than listen to the haters on both sides of any issue. Anyway, welcome to any brother or sister in suffering to our little fold.

 

[Legion]

Welcome to my world. I started off angry and ranting on the Bioware forums. Then I thought "Fuck it, even if they fix it I will always remember the disappointment I felt when I finished it anyway".

Now I just tend to try not to think about the series and play better ones, from developers who favour quality control over riding on the companies reputation for sales.

My poor friend was like you too, he couldn't understand why I wouldn't want to ever play it again, he assumed I was just being dramatic, and then he played it himself, without me having to say a word he pointed out everything I hated about it.

 

[Iron Criterion]

This is why it would be great if people didn't whine about those who disliked the ending being "Entitled" or "Childish" until they actully played through it or at least watched it on youtube or something.

But what if one did play through the game, and still held that opinion?

OT: I imagine it'll kick off again when this new ending DLC comes out, so don't get too lovey-dovey just yet. I'll be preparing the bunker...

 

[Legion]

But what if one did play through the game, and still held that opinion?

Depends.

Do they think everybody who hated the ending is childish/entitled? Or only those who outright demand that their dislikes are addressed/changed?

If it's the former then they are not worth listening to, if they are the latter then I can agree with that, as somebody who doesn't like the ending. There are an awful lot of childish people both sides of the fence.

 

[boag]

Let me get this straight, you were complaining about complainers without having actually seen the freaking ending?

Yes. One does not necessarily require the other. I found it surprising that people were acting in such extreme ways as announcing BioWare boycotts, demanding different endings, and spewing vitriol across every message board they could because they didn't like the ending of a game.

Having now played the ending, I have a better understanding of why everyone is so upset. That doesn't mean I approve of the idiotic behaviour some people engaged in, just that I'm more aware of what drove them to it.

Well excuse me for rubbing your nose in the dirt now.

You Whiny entitled homophobic brat, the ending is perfect and you cannot questions Biowares Glorious Artistic Integrity

Oh look, an inability to discuss things in an adult fashion. Shocking. No, I'm not going to excuse you for acting like an ass, sorry. And homophobic? Where on earth did you pull that little gem from?

Im not sure if you missed then entire fallout of the event, but at first some people were just dumbfounded by it all.

The shit escalated heavily and speedily into trainwreck status when Bioware and huuuuge number of people including most major game review sites started condeming and dismissing anyone disappointed with the ending as whiny entitled brats.

The last slur is an ironic statement, since that was what anyone with a dissenting opinion on the ending was called by Bioware and reviewers, for not appreciating the Artistic Integrity of Bioware.

Homophobic was added when EA got named worst company in the US, a few hours after receiving the award, they made official statements about how they were getting flooded with letters from anti gay lesbian groups, trying to spin the whole thing as if all dissatisfied customers were just Homophobic people.

 

[Anti Nudist Cupcake]

Yes I was EXACTLY like you. Well actually just mostly. I decided before playing the game "how bad could it really be? I'm sure it isn't as bad as people make it out to be. I'll decide for myself" and boy did I, WHAT THE FUCK BIOWARE? WHAT HAPPENED TO ALL THOSE IDEAS YOU HAD TOLD US ABOUT FOR THE ENDING? Bioware actually talked about multiple video game endings being too similar to each other and that they wanted to make an ending where every choice you made during the series would have an impact on the ending, no two people's endings would be the same and there would of course be an ending where the reapers simply destroy us all or one where shepard wins and a bunch of other endings that played differently depending on your choices. They said the different endings WOULDN'T come down to what color you chose so WHY THE FUCK DID THEY DO THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT THEY SAID? I read somewhere that all the writers usually get together and decide TOGETHER how a big piece of story plays out but this time Casey Hudson locked just about ALL of them out of the loop and quickly made his own ending. I read somewhere that the other writers had a completely different idea of how it should have played out but instead we get this.

Casey Hudson, if you are reading this. Fuck you.

 

[Dandark]

This is why it would be great if people didn't whine about those who disliked the ending being "Entitled" or "Childish" until they actully played through it or at least watched it on youtube or something.

But what if one did play through the game, and still held that opinion?

OT: I imagine it'll kick off again when this new ending DLC comes out, so don't get too lovey-dovey just yet. I'll be preparing the bunker...

If they played through the game or looked it up on youtube to see what all the fuss is about then that would just be there opinion, it would be fine. It's just annoying that people did that without even seeing what was complained about, if they did see it and still think that those complaining are entitled or whatever then that's fine but at least watch it first you know?

 

[Legion]

But what if one did play through the game, and still held that opinion?

Depends.

Do they think everybody who hated the ending is childish/entitled? Or only those who outright demand that their dislikes are addressed/changed?

If it's the former then they are not worth listening to, if they are the latter then I can agree with that, as somebody who doesn't like the ending. There are an awful lot of childish people both sides of the fence.

In the end it is how they want to go about it.

I dont like fighting games, that doesn't mean I get to choose how they should be made.
Same should apply to this ending.

True enough. One thing to remember though, would be that game developers need to stop making promises that they cannot or choose not to keep.

If Bioware had not made all these outlandish claims, then 90% of the arguments against the ending could be brushed away with "This is how they wanted it, get over it". Sadly Bioware still have not learnt to keep their mouths shut and had to tell everybody all these amazing different things the ending would include, which in the end, it didn't.

Personally I like Valves policy with Half Life, yes it's frustrating that they never give us any real information, but on the other hand, they aren't promising anything that will lead to fans having elevated expectations.

 

[Callate]

I agree that at this point there's probably nothing much to be done with regard to Mass Effect. Even if Bioware caved completely and wrote an entirely new ending, not only would there be a different set of people complaining with equal vehemence about how they'd betrayed art and set a precedent that would set the medium back and (yatta yatta), but a) the "old ending" would still be in players' minds and b) the new ending would probably still fail to satisfy at least a significant portion of those who hated the old one.

That said, I don't think the uproar was without merit, and it may have some good effects in the long term.

Certain people love to talk about "the artist" as if they were an entity of independent grandeur, creating greatness out of whole cloth without any sort of obligation or relation to the tawdry commercial realm or the plebeian desires of their audience. But that's only true of creations that remain in the artist's closet and are never seen by anyone else. The moment someone lets their work have an audience, at the very least it's subject to interpretations other than those the creator intended.

The ending of ME3, from most accounts, smacks of a belief that the creators' only obligation was to create something that they appreciated, and I think that's incredibly wrongheaded. A single work, perhaps, can be whatever the artist wants; after all, they're presenting it in isolation, and the audience has the ability to take or leave it. And I'll grant that it's true, frequently, that a creator who tries only to create "what the audience wants" is likely to end up both burning themselves out and failing in that goal.

But when you create a commercially successful series, we need to stop pretending that its nature remains exactly the same as that single portrait on the wall or that single book on the shelf. A series owes its existence to the commercial success of its preceding chapters, and the expectations of those who allowed it to come into being deserve to be taken into account. Bioware encouraged that community that had made the series a success to take a sense of ownership in the game, right down to the whole "FemShep" question bouncing around on Facebook before the game's release. In light of that, the ending presented was a slap in the face.

I don't think the audience deserved that. I don't think the creators were in the right to feel that they could "get away" with that without repercussions. And I genuinely hope that in the future creators will recognize that satisfying their audience is not a demeaning requirement, but part of the partnership they agreed to when that audience agreed to come with them on an extended journey.

 

[Mikeyfell]

ME 3 thread= Yet another morning shot.

Sorry, you lost me. What's a morning shot?

Oh, I take a shot every time I see a new thread about Mass Effect 3 (Or specifically about the end) I was going to start with Skyrim, but then ME 3 came out and nobody talks about Skyrim anymore, so shifted my Escapist Forums Drinking Game over to threads about the Mass Effect End.

Sorry for lack of context.

I'm afraid for the fix too mostly because I'm not convinced that it couldn't get worse from here.

What I've read about the "fix" is that it's just an expansion/clarification of the ending we've had already. I don't understand how that's meant to be a good thing; we're just going to be given more detail about something that already sucks. They're not changing anything, just telling us why we ought to appreciate what we've got.

Yes, it very easily could get even worse than it is right now.
at least at this point we have plausible deniability that the Indoctrination Theory might really be true.
If they crush that hope I don't even want to know about the "Extended Cut DLC"

Expansion and clarification sounds like they're giving the hologram kid more lines which is most of the problem right there. Without the Indoctrination Theory they would have to explain what the kid is there for, what exactly the Crucible is and who made it, and what for. and ...

[spoiler-You know what. Just watch this]
[/spoiler]

Well there's a lot of stuff that the Extended Cut has to answer for.

I did hear that Kaiden, Hacket and EDI were recording more dialog, so that makes me... Um, skeptical. Which is as close to hopeful as I'm willing to get.

 

[SonicWaffle]

Oh, I take a shot every time I see a new thread about Mass Effect 3 (Or specifically about the end) I was going to start with Skyrim, but then ME 3 came out and nobody talks about Skyrim anymore, so shifted my Escapist Forums Drinking Game over to threads about the Mass Effect End.

Morning drinking games? Hardcore. Although basing a take-a-shot game off things that make geeks angry will probably leave you with some serious liver function issues...

I did hear that Kaiden, Hacket and EDI were recording more dialog, so that makes me... Um, skeptical. Which is as close to hopeful as I'm willing to get.

Kaiden died on Virmire. True fact.

As for the DLC, going by the fact they've got those voice actors back in the studio, I imagine it'll be more about picking up right after the ending. You know, explaining what happens to all the poor bastards who got stranded light-years from home without any food they were capable of eating and on the same ships as long-standing enemy races with whom they've just made an extremely tentative peace pact.

Basically, if there were any degree of logic behind it, the Extended Cut would just be a huge battle between the different races over who gets control of Earth's resources

 

[SonicWaffle]

The reliance on day one sales is what is hurting the industry the most, because it is dependent on hype.

Aren't day-one sales the ones that they really need, though? After the first few weeks there will be trade-in copies, and smart consumers will stop buying new copies of the game. If there isn't an aggressive push in those first few weeks to sell as many units as possible, the company probably loses out on a lot of cash.

"If you read a book set in Japan do you imagine the main character as Japanese unless specifically stated otherwise?"

Chances are .... yes. Books specifically have the point of having us identify ourselves with specific chars and when we read about features that we then apply to a framework that we already know.

That's not really what I meant, so let me re-phrase. Let's say you are an English person, because for all I know, you are. You read a book about a man, born and raised in Japan, having adventures. In Japan. When you picture the character, do you picture him as a Japanese man, or do you run it through the framework of your own experience and picture him as a caucasian man?

I think Asian kids reading Harry Potter, being aware that Harry is English, would imagine him that way rather than picture him as an Asian kid.

All the information you arn't specifically told. Where did that come from? It came from you. Your own experiences will fill the gaps. Your interpretation.

The reason I picked Harry Potter and a Chinese kid was because it is the kind of book where the reader is supposed to identify with the protagonist so the likelyhood off a child imagining that Harry Potter is a lot like him is pretty big.

Ah. I think I see the issue here. Do you mean they imagine him behaving in ways they are more used to, and conforming to their social norms whenever not expressly stated otherwise? Because I took what you said to mean physically, ie that Asian kids would picture Harry Potter looking Chinese or Pakistani or whatever.

EDIT:
Relation to the topic. The whole thing is to demonstrate how games are not that different from other pieces of art when it comes to audience participation. The only real difference is that Games will deny you access if you are not "good" enough. Again a power that is set only with the artist.

I dunno, I think games require a lot more active audience participation than most other forms of art. Those tend to be passive - movies, books, paintings etc just sit there, whether or not you're directly interacting with them. Whereas a game, if you're not interacting with it, just...stops.

 

[ShadowsofHope]

I would like to go into this for a bit, so the following text is ONE GREAT BIG MASSIVE SPOILER!!!!!!

I left your spoilertags in place for my responses, to be nice. Because I'm like that.

Spoiler

The Blue option gives you control over the Reapers, but you die, so you are vaporised. So basically you play right into the Harbinger's hands by doing this.

Spoiler

Although if Shepard were being indoctrinated, why would that offer even be on the table? Why is Harbinger volunteering to destroy his race's autonomy just to get rid of Shepard, a man who is quite literally on the verge of death? Better to just wait, or even better, kill him while he's totally at your mercy rather than giving him a series of options to pick from, two of which have negative ramifications for the Reapers.

Spoiler

The Green option fuses biology with synthetics and again, you let the Reapers win. Not only do they life, but now everything is part Reaper. Everyone will be indoctrinated.

Spoiler

Thing is, if that was what the Reapers wanted and they had the power to do it all along, why bother with any other option? What's the point in spending countless cycles all-but-eradicating organic life when they had the option to fuse organic and synthetic into one happy family?

Spoiler

The Red option destroys all synthetic life, arguably also the Geth, but this (to me) is the only real "let's save all life" option. The Reapers are destroyed, all other life remains and thusly you are freed from indoctrination and (assuming you did everything perfectly), you get the shot of Sheppard's body down on Earth, gasping for air.

Spoiler

Again, though, assuming that Shepard was indoctrinated, why would the Reapers put him in this situation?! What possible reason could they have for putting him in a situation where he can, if he wants to, blow them all up? I can't see any way for them to gain from this, and if they're controlling his mind and influencing what he does, it's downright moronic of them to say "here's a magic button to kill us, your hated enemies"

I like the indoctrination theory, it's had plenty of thought put into it, but rather than fixing the ending it actually just raises more questions. Specifically, if this is true, then how did the Reapers survive so long despite being functionally retarded?

If I may try to answer those based upon what I've read from BSN so far:

Spoiler

Essentially, the Reapers (or Harbinger) in the form of the child that represents what humanity Shepard couldn't save from the Reapers are attempting to manipulate a partially indoctrinated Shepard into becoming a full on Saren number-two, and completely break the Alliance's morale Shepard spent the entire game building up until that point. However, to do so, the Reapers need to make that "final choice" as convincing and authentic as possible in order to keep Shepard from eventually taking note of any Reaper-influenced patterns within the illusion, which is why they give you the options of Control and Synthesis alongside Destroy.

If Shepard does choose either of these options, it symbolizes Shepard finally giving into the Reapers endgame, and handing over the galaxy to full Reaper contol/actualization. This is supported by the speculation from the cutscene's where it appears that when Shepard is jumping into the beam or grabbing the.. electrocuted rods in either control or Synthesis, his/her body starts to deteriorate into almost a husk-like appearance before he/she finally vanishes, Saren/TIM-esque eyes and all. Also, if you notice the Starchild in the background, he simply stands as watches in almost a victorious manner as you are choosing these endings. However, if you choose Desstroy, the Starchild vanishes as you are shooting a.. pipe, that you know.. somehow blows up the Reapers and "apparently" EDI and the Geth (not convinced).

If you choose the Control or Synthesis option, IT speculates that Shepard/the player sees the same results as if the endings were literal, but rather than those endings actually happening, Shepard/the player is simply seeing an illusion of the scenario the Starchild just explained would happen if he/she picked them. Though you wouldn't "lose", specifically, Shepard would just have to try to fight against (more or less) full indoctrination in this scenario when confronted by Alliance forces in order to "win" the fight that the Destroy Shepard would awaken to without indoctrination. However, if you choose Destroy, it symbolizes Shepard winning the fight against the Reapers over his/her partially indoctrinated mind, and "waking up" from the illusion, which IT speculates starts right after Harbinger fries you with his laser.

Not that I completely agree with the IT, persay, but it would be pretty damned interesting of an ending if it was true. However, that would also mean that Bioware also had us pay for an unfinished game and ending, which just stinks either way. Also, it means Casey Hudson and Mac Walters did not intend the endings literally, which does not seem to be the case either. Unfortunately.

..Goddamnit. :/

 

[SonicWaffle]

Im not sure if you missed then entire fallout of the event, but at first some people were just dumbfounded by it all.

The shit escalated heavily and speedily into trainwreck status when Bioware and huuuuge number of people including most major game review sites started condeming and dismissing anyone disappointed with the ending as whiny entitled brats.

The way I saw it was not that anyone disappointed with the ending was being a "whiny brat", but those who were actively harassing BioWare to make changes were indeed being childish. My point was that, now that I've played through the game and seen the ending, I can understand why people were so pissed off, although I still don't support a lot of the behaviour I've seen from gamers over the issue.

The last slur is an ironic statement, since that was what anyone with a dissenting opinion on the ending was called by Bioware and reviewers, for not appreciating the Artistic Integrity of Bioware.

Homophobic was added when EA got named worst company in the US, a few hours after receiving the award, they made official statements about how they were getting flooded with letters from anti gay lesbian groups, trying to spin the whole thing as if all dissatisfied customers were just Homophobic people.

Ah. That could have been clearer - it seemed as though you were straight-up insulting me.

 

[rob_simple]

Actually, I'm still of the opinion that some - some! - of the complainers are being childish and acting like brats. I've seen forum posts screaming about how they deserve more than this, how BioWare are "stupid fags who hate their customers", how they will never ever buy a BioWare game again because this one was worse than the Holocaust, etc. It's hard to argue that behaviour like that isn't the work of entitled children.

This is still pretty much my feeling on the subject, and I never even finished ME2. I wouldn't speculate on the quality of the ending until I had played it, but it was the way many people were saying 'we were promised this, we were promised that, we deserve it' that really rubbed me up the wrong way. As I said at the time, there isn't a single game dev in history who hasn't promised more than they delivered (my personal favourite being the claims that Black was going to revolutionise the FPS genre and ended up being boring as shit) so I didn't understand why people were so pissed at ME3.

It's like as soon as I heard Resident Evil 5 was going to be co-op I knew I wasn't going to buy it, even though RE4 is one of my favourite games of all time. I played the demo of RE5 and it was horseshit and I was proved right in my decision; if I'd been anticipating ME3 I'd have waited, read the reviews and subsequent furore, maybe rented or borrowed it so I could see for myself, then got on with my life. I honestly don't understand the attachment people have to video games, they're not that important; that's what makes it seem childish to me.

Oh, and in regards to the why, someone did tell me that apparently a member of the dev team went ahead with an ending without running it by the writers first but I don't know how much truth there is in that.