I am seeing tweets, even from Kevin, for whom I have a lot of respect, calling the ending "great art". I have not seen ANYONE, not one single person explain why this is the case. It's easy to call it "great art" or a "good ending", but has anyone of you attempted to explain: 1 - the plot-holes and lack of inconsistency with the lore. 2 - the lack of closure. (Colored explosions, weee! What then?) 3 - the fact that the ending is not what Bioware promised. I'd like to see you people respond to the comments made by the California Literary Review about the ending, for example. They're more eloquent than I am and are a very good read. All you've really done is ignore the arguments that are critical of the ending and put yourself on an intellectual pedestal built on air. (The Five Stages of Denial? Seriously?) You're assuming these people have no grasp of artistic value? (And I would really like you to prove they're a minority, when every single poll I've seen proves you wrong. Granted, not a scientifically representative sample, but a rather pointed hint). The major gaming media outlets have whiled away their time misrepresenting the movement and avoiding the real argument, recycling each others' words.) These websites depend on ad revenue, exclusive previews and so on. Gamespot has had its history with Eidos written about on Forbes. I can't expect you to be objective, but honestly, you're supposed to inform the consumers, not pander to publishers.
They don't have to change the ending, but there's no doubt it is rather poorly executed. Bioware can say that it wanted people to interpret it differently and discuss it, but unfortunately, it's far, far too open-ended, and not in a good way. There are crucial questions that should have been answered. Things like the synthesis ending don't make sense, not even by the standards of the science fiction in the Mass Effect universe. Arthur C. Clarke once said that sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, and that's what that particular ending feels like. Introducing that idea at the last second doesn't make sense from a story-telling perspective; in simpler, uncouth terms, it looks like an ass-pull, and the lack of explanation doesn't help. I guess the room they left for interpretation is being filled with many opinions; one that seems to have gained attention is the indoctrination theory, the idea that the ending is Sheperd hallucination. If that particular theory is true, and Shepherd never left London in reality, that means we didn't get an ending at all. Wouldn't that be jolly? Bioware doesn't need to change the ending, but it needs to tie up some loose ends. One of those loose ends is the fate of the crewmembers; some of them have been around since the first Mass Effect. (unless you're deliberately going for a Crying of Lot 49 ending, and I don't a reason why anyone would want to do this here).
Haven't played this game yet, but I will, despite the complaints of many people. Rating the game a 5 or less simply because you despise EA or Bioware's recent trends is just idiotic. The game is better than that and we all know it. If you want them to change their ways, then don't buy the game or the DLC, don't pre-order, whatever, but don't put your bias where people are trying to objectively appraise a game. And I'm not sure why people are complaining about homosexuality in a game as if they had a right to; you have no bearing on what characters are introduced in a game or what their stories are, at all. Simple fact, you're not writing the story, and if you want to live a life that's completely homosexual-proof, hole yourself in a bunker and stay there. You can down-rate this comment to hell for all I care, but I'm not going to deny myself the enjoyment of a game because EA is trying to make money.
Well, there are a few developers that have promised they'd rewrite the terms and agreements to give permission for videos of their game on the internet. For game developers/publishers, outlawing videos like this is a bad move, because that's literally their best form of advertisement, one they don't even have to pay for. A notable Youtuber playing and recommending a game can draw a lot of attention to it.
I stayed up till 4am to watch it last year. This year E3 is in the middle of my exams. But that will not stop me! :D @Melas300: There will probably be more details revealed eventually on, like a schedule of where GS will be going or something similar.
Used game sales only seem more terrible than piracy because publishers only care about maximizing profits. Instead of squeezing every inch of money and punishing consumers for buying or renting a used game, make a game everyone wants to buy. People buy used books and DVDs all the time. This wouldn't be happening if publishers didn't have so much control over products we own.
Sony shouldn't be able to do what the hell it wants to a PS3 we own (taking away the OtherOS, for example). All of this is a result of that. If there's someone capable to improving or circumnavigating the software/hardware or a product he or she owns, they should be able to. This will not damage Sony at all; other platforms have been subjected to piracy and they're still kicking.
Xirmi's comments