So to sum up the Bomb Crew's feelings on the ME 3 ending

@Rasmoss said:

@Animasta said:

@Rasmoss said:

@Grimace said:

If anything, the Bombcast dispelled Arthur Gies' theory that the people who didn't like the ending were an acidic minority. They managed to make an argument (thanks mostly to Brad's unique experience with the game) that Bioware royally bungled the ending without sounding like entitled dicks.

But that's the thing, most people weren't sounding like entitled dicks, that was just a vocal minority that became seen as the voice of the complainers, and therefore it was never taking seriously except for by Bioware themselves. A lot of the criticism was measured and intelligent. That just never really got to be the story back then.

as someone who didn't like the ending but didn't really care one way or they other, they kind of sounded like huge entitled jerks.

Some people, sure. But like I said, there was plenty of more measured response. And it should also be seen in this context: Pretty much NONE of the critics had pointed out the flaws of the ending and the game has a 93 metacritic rating. A lot of people probably didn't feel that the critics were doing there jobs and were feeling frustrated.

The press dropped the ball on ME3 at least as badly as Bioware did.

@Rasmoss said:

@bigsmoke77 said:

@Rasmoss: You need to learn to listen better, Brad said that the Leviathan DLC was "required" to get the most out of the ending, i don't remember him every saying that the extended cut endings were required, if u could provide a time stamp for him saying that then that would be great. Patrick was pissed at the fact that brad was saying Leviathan was key to the story and how either they planned on releasing that as DLC or they didn't have time to put it in the game because EA wanted the game launched.

You say mass effect 3 is a fantastic game? The quest system is a FUCKING JOKE! Bioware should be ashamed of themselves, especially when they accept awards for best RPG. The fact that Shepard solves the galaxy's major problems that have been going on for years in a couple days is fucking ridiculous.

0:53:10: "The original execution of the ending is abysmal. It is vastly improved the way I played the game."

I won't argue against your opinion on the rest of the game, you're certainly entitled to that.

Are you quoting Brad there? The person who didn't have an opinion on the ending before since he hadn't played the game? You're quoting him to prove your point that their opinions changed?

Also... that direct quote can still be attributed to Brad talking about all the DLC, and not just the ending. The additions through DLC have improved the execution of the ending... You can tell that's what he means via the context of that statement. I don't see what your point is. Leviathan alone improved the execution of the ending (even without the Extended Ending).

@bushpusherr said:

What are you people even talking about?? Jeff wasn't bothered by the From Ashes stuff because he didn't get to play through the game with the extra character, he mostly just saw it as a lack-luster mission and a few dialogue wheels, so he didn't feel like he missed anything significant from it. However, you can go back to previous bombcasts around that time period and listen to the other guys as they were making their way through the game with the DLC from the start, and they were telling Jeff that he WAS missing out on something, and that it was really stupid for Bioware to cut that from the standard experience.

Their outrage on the bombcast is coming from all of these problems viewed as a WHOLE, which is a perspective that is only now available to them, and it's their first chance to talk in depth and in detail about it.

You guys are acting like they were white knights for this game, defending it against all comers, and now suddenly they are betraying their loyalty or some stupid shit. This is absurd.

He was defending From Ashes against people that had issue with it feeling like content cut from the game to make up day one DLC, a sentiment some of the other crew came to realise once playing it. Him making that case without actually playing it is worse.

@Wrighteous86 said:

@Rasmoss said:

@bigsmoke77 said:

@Rasmoss: You need to learn to listen better, Brad said that the Leviathan DLC was "required" to get the most out of the ending, i don't remember him every saying that the extended cut endings were required, if u could provide a time stamp for him saying that then that would be great. Patrick was pissed at the fact that brad was saying Leviathan was key to the story and how either they planned on releasing that as DLC or they didn't have time to put it in the game because EA wanted the game launched.

You say mass effect 3 is a fantastic game? The quest system is a FUCKING JOKE! Bioware should be ashamed of themselves, especially when they accept awards for best RPG. The fact that Shepard solves the galaxy's major problems that have been going on for years in a couple days is fucking ridiculous.

0:53:10: "The original execution of the ending is abysmal. It is vastly improved the way I played the game."

I won't argue against your opinion on the rest of the game, you're certainly entitled to that.

Are you quoting Brad there? The person who didn't have an opinion on the ending before since he hadn't played the game? You're quoting him to prove your point that their opinions changed?

Also... that direct quote can still be attributed to Brad talking about all the DLC, and not just the ending. The additions through DLC have improved the execution of the ending... You can tell that's what he means via the context of that statement. I don't see what your point is. Leviathan alone improved the execution of the ending (even without the Extended Ending).

You asked for a Brad quote, so I provided it. I would say that he is clearly talking about both the DLC and the extended cut. He talks a lot about how much the new ending adds a lot of context, but I'm not going to comb through it to find time stamps. If you feel like I'm misrepresenting events, fine. I think I've said my piece.

@SlashDance said:

@haggis said:

@SlashDance said:

@haggis said:

Bioware didn't change the ending, though. The ending was basically the same before and after the extended cut. Unless I played some other version of it than you did. They might have removed some ambiguity, but there was no significant change, only some filled in blanks.

Repairing the relays and allowing the Normandy to take off were pretty massive changes.

I hate the extended endings with passion. It's still as stupid but nowhere near as ballsy.

The status of the relays was ambiguous in the original ending--it was never said that they were destroyed, though clearly a few people thought that was the case (but not all). And the Normandy taking off--again, not a change, just a filled in blank. Both were clarifications, but didn't actually change anything, particularly the plot points that most people actually complained about.

Showing the relay blowing up was ambiguous ? In the extended cut you only see the rings flying off with no explosion, but in the original the thing blew up, no question about it. You should go watch that again. Same thing for the Normandy, the ship was busted in the original ending, I mean full of holes and on fire. When it's still in space you see the engines blowing up, too. There was no way this thing was going to fly again. None of that in the extended cut.

I have watched it. The relay bit still looks ambiguous to me. There's a ball of fire and then ... well, they don't actually show the thing coming apart. And I don't see any difference in the damage shown to the Normandy from one cut to the next. You say it wasn't going to fly again, but ... well, that's interpretation on your part. It's not as if we have a timeframe. Either way, neither of those two bits were chief complaints when it came to the ending.

@Wrighteous86 said:

Also... that direct quote can still be attributed to Brad talking about all the DLC, and not just the ending. The additions through DLC have improved the execution of the ending... You can tell that's what he means via the context of that statement. I don't see what your point is. Leviathan alone improved the execution of the ending (even without the Extended Ending).

I think the point was that both Leviathan and the extended cut improved the ending. He played the game with everything, both Leviathan and the extended cut so clearly "the way I played the game" includes both. I don't think you can really pick that apart.

@Elktap said:

@Wrighteous86 said:

Also... that direct quote can still be attributed to Brad talking about all the DLC, and not just the ending. The additions through DLC have improved the execution of the ending... You can tell that's what he means via the context of that statement. I don't see what your point is. Leviathan alone improved the execution of the ending (even without the Extended Ending).

I think the point was that both Leviathan and the extended cut improved the ending. He played the game with everything, both Leviathan and the extended cut so clearly "the way I played the game" includes both. I don't think you can really pick that apart.

But that's exactly what you're trying to do if you say that they are changing their stance on changing the ending. The EE can't be separated from all the other content they released when it comes to backstory now.

Besides, the argument isn't that the game is better for having it. The argument is that it was childish and entitled to act like you deserved it under the assumption that they didn't excise content, but with the knowledge that they did remove content with practically required backstory, it became insulting. Before, people (even those hating on it) gave Bioware the benefit of the doubt that they had presented a complete game, poorly or not. Now we realize that's not the case, and it's insulting that they basically cheated us out of an experience.

@Elktap said:

He was defending From Ashes against people that had issue with it feeling like content cut from the game to make up day one DLC, a sentiment some of the other crew came to realise once playing it. Him making that case without actually playing it is worse.

That's ridiculous. Before the public had access to the DLC (or even he had access to it), he said that he didn't feel like there was a giant Prothean sized hole in the game where they had obviously cut out content to make DLC. Playing it after it came out and he had already finished the game, he said that he didn't feel like he missed out for not having it all along (not knowing how much additional context he provides as a party member throughout different areas in the game, since Jeff got him after the game was over). The rest of the Bombcast then filled him in as they played it and let him know how much he actually missed by not having it.

I have no idea what you find wrong with either of the things he said at either of those times.

It still bugs me that people insist on putting "good" "bad" and "neutral" labels on the endings, especially based on color. They're all pretty evil in one way or another.

Destroying a whole race? yeah pretty evil. Becoming god and creating a new race of people? yes evil. And controlling a massive unstoppable army and saying "I swear I'll only use it for good, I won't be a dictator." No, that's still evil. It's a massive power grab, and if you're playing a good Shepard, is totally against what I think the character is. My "good" shepard would never let anyone have that much power.

Really, they're all too "big," and it just bums me out. It feels like it was written for teenagers with power fantasies.

I'm just glad that Brad(?) came to the same conclusion that I did that Control was probably the least offensive of the endings.

That said, the endings are still crap.

I as a writer, felt betrayed and intellectually insulted that they had to resort to using the starbrat to explain 'everything' right at the end. It brought the game to a screeching halt and it, as they said on the cast, tarnished the name of Mass Effect.

If they do make a Mass Effect 4, however, there is one way they can make it post ME3 without having to creatively bankrupt themselves by making a prequel: just ignore the endings.

If they just ignore the endings, they can show the universe going forward. Besides, making a prequel would be a major copout. Also, it's basically them admitting that they can't go anywhere else but backwards.

@Wrighteous86 said:

Now we realize that's not the case, and it's insulting that they basically cheated us out of an experience.

It was the case from the very beginning with From Ashes. From Ashes isn't really relating to the ending but people have always considered it essential content that provides backstory, depth and more context that the game is worse off without.

@bushpusherr said:

That's ridiculous. Before the public had access to the DLC (or even he had access to it), he said that he didn't feel like there was a giant Prothean sized hole in the game where they had obviously cut out content to make DLC. Playing it after it came out and he had already finished the game, he said that he didn't feel like he missed out for not having it all along (not knowing how much additional context he provides as a party member throughout different areas in the game, since Jeff got him after the game was over). The rest of the Bombcast then filled him in as they played it and let him know how much he actually missed by not having it.

I have no idea what you find wrong with either of the things he said at either of those times.

The problem I have is that the problems people had with From Ashes were dismissed as whining and the DLC was defended with little to no experience at the time. As you say the rest of the crew filled Jeff in later on telling him what he missed out on essentially backing the complaints a lot of people had at the time, the stuff that was just dismissed as whining.

@Kadayi said:

@CaptainCody said:

Personally, I liked the ending. Maybe it's because I try not to over-analyze games and enjoy what I think is the most important part of them, and let me expand on why. 90% of developers do not know how to end games. I'm not sure what gets lost in translation from start to finish where a game just can't fucking end without it being something either horribly ham-fisted or cliffhanger-esque. My whole motivation behind playing a game is to beat it, why do I want to beat it, especially if the game is only okay? Oh yeah, BECAUSE OF THE STORY. So when the story and all that motivation has brought me to the climactic moment and all I get is a fucking Fable 2 style ending, you can bet your ass you done fucked up. Developers need to get their shit together with endings.

Hold up. First you say you don't care about endings because they're all terrible 90% of the time so you're OK with that. Then you finish by saying the developers need to get their act together and write better endings? What gives here exactly?

I never said that, I said 90% of endings are bad. When they are, to me, the most important part and reasoning behind enjoying the story.

@CaptainCody said:

I never said that, I said 90% of endings are bad. When they are, to me, the most important part and reasoning behind enjoying the story.

Yet here you are giving ME3 a pass? An ending that has been the most controversial of the year. What exactly did you like about it?

@Elktap said:

The problem I have is that the problems people had with From Ashes were dismissed as whining and the DLC was defended with little to no experience at the time. As you say the rest of the crew filled Jeff in later on telling him what he missed out on essentially backing the complaints a lot of people had at the time, the stuff that was just dismissed as whining.

I don't remember them being harsh at all about the From Ashes stuff, only the people losing their goddamn minds and filing lawsuits, harassing Bioware employees, etc. Find something specific as evidence, cause right now you guys look like a couple of fools desperately wanting this to be a controversy.

If anything this whole thing just convinces me I put my review trust in the right people. Jeff's review and initial bombcast coverage were spot-on or how I felt. Decent gameplay saved it from a 3/5.

Anyway I played pure, vanilla, $60 Mass Effect 3 and it left me disappointed and uninterested in any more Mass Effect. So I guess if that was EA's/Bioware's goal; get the $60 from me and then flip double middle fingers, well good job guys mission accomplished.

As a rule, I consider the opinion of anyone referring to a metacritic score as a form of proof to be null and void. This is no different. It's almost as though that high aggregate score was the result of people reviewing the game as a whole and not just the last 10 minutes of it. Crazy, I know.

Uncharted 2, Batman: Arkham Asylum, Mass Effect 2, Bioshock, Halo 2 All reviewed very well. All had really shitty endings. I understand the disappointment, but for the love of god, give it a rest

@Wrighteous86 said:

@SlashDance said:

@Rasmoss said:

they pretty much agree with the stuff everone complained about 8 months ago, even though they and the entire gaming press called those people self entitled whiners at the time.

I don't remember them ever saying they liked the ending. What started the whole "entitlement debacle" was everyone freaking out wayyyy out of proportion and making demands and calling Bioware sell outs and sending them rainbow colored cup cakes (that last one was at least pretty clever).

And throwing out sexist insults and comments on a female writer's appearance and nitpicking every piece of information they could find on her while calling her Hamburger Helper as if she was the cause of everything they disliked in the game. Do I think she's a bad writer? Probably, although she was far from the only problem, and didn't deserve the attention she got; but that is a perfect example of the entitled childish inaccurate rage leveled after ME3's release.

That was for Dragon Age 2. It happened before ME3s release.

@DizzyMedal You sure? I remember a lot of talk about how she didn't care about gameplay in games and that being used against her when "story mode" was revealed in ME3.

Eh, looks like you're right. All of that happened just before ME3 was released, in the wake of DAII. That's why I lumped it all together.

@IliyaMoroumetz said:

I'm just glad that Brad(?) came to the same conclusion that I did that Control was probably the least offensive of the endings.

That said, the endings are still crap.

I as a writer, felt betrayed and intellectually insulted that they had to resort to using the starbrat to explain 'everything' right at the end. It brought the game to a screeching halt and it, as they said on the cast, tarnished the name of Mass Effect.

If they do make a Mass Effect 4, however, there is one way they can make it post ME3 without having to creatively bankrupt themselves by making a prequel: just ignore the endings.

If they just ignore the endings, they can show the universe going forward. Besides, making a prequel would be a major copout. Also, it's basically them admitting that they can't go anywhere else but backwards.

This is exactly what the real problem behind the "Mass Effect 3 Endings Debate" is really all about.

Everyone swears they're right, and the sheer possibility of REAL critical analysis and discussion of the endings is completely negated by rabid "fan" reaction or pretentions about knowing what story-telling actually comprises, we should be able to look at the endings and analyze them properly for what their contributions are, while also pondering on the consequences of each choice, but no, Bioware devs and writers apparently were always slaves, submitted by the will of fans' with excessive emotional investment on a series of videogames.

I could probably go on forever, but I'll just tackle the points the post I quoted adresses, hopefully I'll cover everything as much as I can and somehow provide a reasonable defense for what wasn't really the kind of catastrophe people think it is:

First, none of the endings are offensive, and while I certainly do not hold over any reign over the truth, I feel pretty confident in saying that it's highly possible that if you think the ending choices are "inmoral", then you've never had any idea about what kind of game you've been playing all along. Truly, the endings have a merit, they revealed just how many people did not understand one of the most important themes in Mass Effect, to say that making yet another difficult choice was a bad move on the writers really goes to show what the reality mentality of "the fans" was all allong.

Second, why do people so incessantly complain about The Catalyst ? Does he not accomplish the exact same function that both Vigil and EDI did for Mass Effect 1 and 2 respectively ? Even better, since the form in which he appears, acknowledges not only Shepard's humanity, but also his/her physical and mental limitations, as it also implies (with his/her passive attitude) that Shepard has been broken, that he/she doesn't want to fight anymore, but that even at that point, he/she can still do what's necessary.

You could legitimately criticize the function that each of these characters accomplishes as lazy writing, which I can acknowledge, then again, using people or "robots" as exposition devices in Pop Sci-Fi is nothing new at all, if we hunt for Mass Effect, then we might as well go for everyone else.

Third, wether the franchise goes forward or backward can only be defined by the limitations of technology and the amount of effort people can bring to further developing the series, I think it was a mistake to go ahead and green-light Mass Effect 4, as no one is capable of taking charge of going forward with a game that has three massive story-deffining consequences, then again, Casey Hudson said he always had envisioned Mass Effect ending at 3.

The right decision would've been precisely to go ahead and approve prequel games while discussion and cultivation of new ideas for future Mass Effect games set after 3 would've grown into the heads of the developers and writers, nobody would've said no at a game of Garrus' days in C-Sec, a Krogan-Rachni war or Krogan Rebellions game, and if you so desperately need humans, then a First Contact War game would've been a reasonable choice as well.

@feliciano182:

Wow. Your first post and it's summed up in one big 'WHOOSH!". And your defense is pretty feeble based on your opinion.

For one: To analyze the ending on a technical level, they introduced the Starbrat with no preamble and no warning. In good stories, you do not introduce characters THIS pivotal at the last scene. Yes, there are Deus Ex Machina devices that can be used effectively, but this was done terribly. Any writer worth their weight in salt understands this. You remember why people didn't like the Second Matrix movie, aside from how stupid it was? The Architect was the exact same thing as the Catalyst, bringing the action of what you expected in a Mass Effect game to a screeching halt with more information that should have been spread out throughout the game instead of dumping it all over your head in one instant.

Two: I said they were offensive. And that's it. You came up with the whole 'immoral' bent by yourself. So, perhaps you should try and take things at face value or ask me to explain my reasoning instead of judging me from your ivory tower, claiming that you know my thoughts as you put words in my mouth erroneously. And no, they have no merit, because they all go completely against the grain of what you have done, unless you done goofed and ended up getting more people killed by your bad choices, but that's a personal character flaw.

Three: You are wrong about EDI and Vigil being the same as the Catalyst for the following reasons: Neither one of them were introduced after the last combat encounter, EDI had significant exposure throughout the story, and Vigil's purpose was to be a record of the Protheans (not determine the fate of the galaxy).

Fourth: You must be out of the loop, junior. ME4's pretty much confirmed. Casey Hudson even tweeted that he was asking for ideas.

Finally: And no. From a technical standpoint, to go backwards after coming this far is counter productive. Why? Because we all know how it ends, with Casey Hudson and Mac Walters trying, and failing, to emulate 2001: A Space Odyssey. You may like such a decision, but I, and presumably others, will not.

@IliyaMoroumetz

There is no inherent rule carved on a stone that says you can't introduce a new character at the final moments of a story.

First, you're entitled to your opinion, you're entitled to dislike such a thing, but to firmly argue, to pretend that this is somehow basic "101 story-telling" is nothing short of delusional; it is even worse when you're wrong, there's preamble to The Catalyst, the writers simply meant for it to be a twist that this particular "thing" The Crucible required was a highly advanced artificial intelligence (a crucial element of the ending that many people have yet to understand).

Second, The Catalyst is not a Deus Ex Machina, the character doesn't provide an abrupt solution to an impossible problem, all it does is provide the necessary exposition which allows the players to know and familiarize themselves with the decision they're about to make. Now The Crucible is the actual Deus Ex Machina of ME3, but that's another discussion you can perfectly be wrong about.

Third, it is unnecessary to even clarify that everything that is offensive to "x" individual is precisely because said person considers the offending object or subject to be morally reprehensible, thus, immoral. Even if they were, by some bizarre case, to be different things, the point is the same, people who think there's anything that "offends them" about those choices is the kind of person who was clearly playing different games, Mass Effect has always been, among many things, about the difficult decisions and the dark paths that define history and society, about the times where a choice can't be black and white and where someone will irreparably get hurt, it is about the tiny letters of the social contract which allows for civilizations to be at peace.

All that said, If you somehow thought that Mass Effect 3 was going to end with Shepard firing The Crucible, and there being absolutely no consequences, and no irreparable damage to the galaxy, then you were deffinitely playing something else back when ME1 and ME2 came out.

Fourth, so you would've been perfectly okay with The Catalyst if say, he had been introduced before ? At any point before the final moments ? Let me go ahead of you and answer no.

In reality, time is irrelevant, both Vigil and EDI accomplish the exact same functions as The Catalyst does, this criticism about introducing a character at the final moments of a story is nothing more than further cannibalization of something you didn't like.

Five, two things to mention here, first being do not call me "junior", and second, read what I wrote.

Six, that is completely asinine, by that logic, no prequel ever made can ever be justified.

Whether there's a rule or not, most stories that indulge bringing in a new character that late in the game are seldom good, for the aforementioned reasons. We have no reason to care. You want to defend it, that's you prerogative.

It is Deus Ex Machina and you can spin it all the ways until the cows come home, it does not change the general purpose of it: To come out of nowhere and magically give you an ending. That's what it does. The Crucible's a macguffin because throughout the game, we've been doing our best to put it together, but that's another subject you can be condescending, and wrong, about.

It was unnecessary because you were putting words in my mouth. Because I had the sheer audacity to come out and say that the ending was bad on a technical level, you had to come out of nowhere to not only tell me I'm wrong, but to insult me too. But since we're getting into this subject, how is it 'not' offensive to force Synthesis on the galaxy ? Or to completely kill EDI and the Geth just after their gained sentience? Or to become the basic code of the very things you've been fighting since ME1?

That argument is moot on account that there was no indication of a Crucible from ME1 or 2. Did I have a feeling that the galaxy was going to be irrevocably changed at the end of the story at the time? Of course. Seeing the status quo change is a staple of stories in video games.

Not only are you putting words in my mouth again, you're being an ass about it. And yes, I would have been ok with it, because if that was the case, the story would have changed to have been us fighting against the Catalyst's stupid paradigms from day one or something of that variety.

Time has everything to do with it. In addition, purpose, which I see you've casually glossed over since it doesn't suit your argument. We understand the purpose of characters the longer exposure we have with them. You can't sympathize or like a character on a personal level when you've only met them for five to ten minutes. And no, we were not supposed to sympathize with Vigil on account he had nothing to sympathize with.

You must have read wrong, because Mass Effect 4 is a surety, which pretty much refutes your point on this matter. And bear in mind; you were the one that came out of the gate swinging.

Prequels are rarely, if ever, justified.

@Kadayi said:

@CaptainCody said:

I never said that, I said 90% of endings are bad. When they are, to me, the most important part and reasoning behind enjoying the story.

Yet here you are giving ME3 a pass? An ending that has been the most controversial of the year. What exactly did you like about it?

I'm a sucker for the protagonist dying in games. But, to sum it up, I would say I'm happy that it actually ENDED. Something that is becoming a marvelously impossible feat to do in so many videogames.

@IliyaMoroumetz

Once again, you're free to dislike it, that does not mean that the story was inherently bad, it only means you would prefer it if characters were not introduced at the final stages of the story, nothing more, nothing less.

Bludgeoning your take on it does not make for a valid opinion friend, once again, The Catalyst is not a Deus Ex Machina, it does not provide an abrupt solution to an impossible problem, once again, it is only an expository device meant to provide information to the audience about a decision they're about to make, thus it accomplishes exactly the same function both Vigil and EDI served respectively in each game.

I did not insult you, if you believe it as such then that is your own problem, the only thing I did was to clarify that there's little to no difference between thinking the ending is immoral or offensive, nothing far beyond that. Also, you have not criticized the ending on a "technical level", but only in regards to what your standards are for a good or bad ending, which quite frankly, are just as opinionated as anyone else's.

Also, the entire argument of how the choices at The Crucible are "offensive" is absurd, there's a difficult decision ahead, and you have to make it, criticizing the writers for the nature of the decision itself is like saying it's an attack on your moral integrity that the game makes you choose between killing or releasing the rachni queen, or letting the council die or sacrificing human lives to save it; it is absurd to criticize the ending on those terms, specially since you've had three games doing the same thing without any complaint, again, this is nothing more than cannibalizing from "the fans".

To expand, Synthesis is not immoral, for the reality is as follows:

Every single sentient space-faring species in the galaxy has put all their efforts into The Crucible, everyone has made their bets, and everyone has gambled on the prothean device, thus, Shepard has to fire The Crucible, to pretend there's any other choice is irresponsible, there's no guarantee the fleets will survive against The Reapers, and as we saw in hindsight with the refusal ending, absolute failure for the cycle is deffinitive if the prothean device is not activated.

Thus, we are left with three choices, none of them nice, but still necessary; among these choices we have Synthesis, which is the re-writing of the code of all sentient species, organic and non-organic alike, made for the purpose of erasing the dividing line between both categories of living beings, thus making the reapers obsolete and eliminating the cycle of extinction. If one believes Control is too much of a risk, and Destroy too immoral and unreliable, then Synthesis is a good choice, considering what I've said, I can't honestly find anything offensive about that.

Ah ! Now we get to The Crucible, the real Deus Ex Machina of Mass Effect 3, and on this point I will agree, yes, there's a problem with that device itself, it comes up at an incredibly convenient time, and it does become the key to solving the cycle of extinction, quite dissapointing.

However.......

The Crucible also introduces many interesting questions: Who made it ? What's it's purpose ? What does it have to do with The Reapers ? Why wasn't it fired and made earlier ? And what is probably my favorite: Is it really a weapon ? That much is worthy of consideration by anyone that calls themselve an analytical, rational human being.

As for "putting words in your mouth again", I was describing the nature of most of fans towards the ending, maybe you weren't among those, and I congratulate you, but I read posts on the BSN about people speculating about how the wedding was going to be between their Shepard and their LI, and wether we were going to get to see the kids. That is the kind of mentality with which ME3 was approached with, like it or not, the inmense majority of people who hated the ending did so because they wanted a happy ending, they wanted to see a victory parade and a celebration of their victory against The Reapers, as I said, there was a lot of people who had no idea about what kind of games they were playing.

As for me being an ass ? Well, I apologize for indulging myself from time to time, it happens when people have heavily opinionated arguments and accuse others of doing so. As for you liking The Catalyst in that manner, that is also another problem with how people have framed this ending, rather than seeing it as a conflict, or an issue that needs to be solved, they need an evil mustache-twirling vilain to satisfy their needs for a plot they can like, rather than meditating on the flawed logic of The Catalyst, people choose to verbally assault the writers and creators, missing the point entirely of that last scene. So excuse me friend, but while you may like your plots to conform and restrict themselves to over-used tropes, I'd rather see experimenting and creativity at work.

Time has everything to do with it to you, but again, that does not make the character inherently bad. As for purpose, I have not neglected that argument at any moment, you have pulled that out of your behind at this time and then accused me of ignoring it, no matter, I address it by first claiming it's all opinionated dislike.

It is not necessary to understand a character's purpose by the amount of exposure you have with them, that is simply untrue, and it has nothing to do with what we're talking about, we're speaking of timing, is the story affected by the introduction of a character at later stages of the plot ? That is different than basically saying "we needed more time to know him to understand his purpose", also untrue, I understood everything about the character with his dialogue with Shepard, and I didn't have to like him or sympathize with him, again, not a requirement for any type of character, and the same argument you're making for Vigil.

As for Mass Effect 4, I said before:

"I think it was a mistake to go ahead and green-light Mass Effect 4, as no one is capable of taking charge of going forward with a game that has three massive story-deffining consequences, then again, Casey Hudson said he always had envisioned Mass Effect ending at 3."

What part of that implies I said Mass Effect 4 wasn't a confirmed or that it wasn't a "surety" ?

All this shit about the Mass Effect 3 ending, but NOBODY complained about the Jak 3 ending! You want some half-assed, out-of-left-field horseshit, there you go...

Very well, tell me of a well done, enjoyable, and a memorable story where a vital character appeared at the end of a story? Because I sure can't think of any. You know why? It's sloppy. It says, "I can't think of any other way to fill the plot holes I made myself with the established characters, so, I have to bring in another character out of nowhere."

You say the Catalyst is not a DEM, when you go on to list EXACTLY what it does! It provides the solution! It brings forth the answers! I can cannot conceive how anyone would not be able to make the connection. Or are you rewriting the definitions of things as we speak just so you can be right?

You were, have been, and still are, being insulting by the condescending tone and ignoring the parts of my arguments that dare stand up to your 'opinions'.

This has nothing to do with what I consider to be or not to be immoral, again another point that you came to by yourself. The fact that it just so happens that every one of those choices comes with a caveat seems like they were, again, trying to hard to be 'profound' or other such nonsense. It took everything you worked for and condensed it down into something that instead of providing you with a sense of accomplishment, if leaves you feeling sick to your stomach and disgusted with the writers. Oh yes, and the Refusal Ending, which can be compared to Casey Hudson, stomping his feet, giving you the bird because you can't appreciate his 'artistic vision' and pretty much says "Rocks Fall, everybody dies'. Yeah, that's quality story telling right there.

Just so happens that what makes Synthesis so egregious is the fact that you are FORCING this state on the rest of the galaxy. I could name another action of forcing one's self upon another, but that's a dicey subject enough as it is, but that's how it seems and what I've seen it compared to. I mean, seriously, I think you're giving the writers far too much credit.

Considering that most of the DLC that's been available does little more than patch up the holes the original ending did speaks quite a bit.

And no, I was not one of those demanding the ending be changed. I was ready to go about my way and enjoy other games that wouldn't insult my intelligence by pretending to be something it's not and bid the whole series and the company good bye. Really; I've been told that they guys at Bioware were surprised at the reaction and to that, I want to hold my hands to my face and wonder what they were thinking.

Considering how little they built up the MacGuffin Crucible, they don't really make me care about where it came from. Because all the revealed plot points have made me wonder if they even knew how to finish this game in the first place; which makes me believe the rumor that Hudson and Walters did the ending themselves with no peer review at all, has some basis in reality.

And thank you for acknowledging your ass-hatery. I'm sure the Bioware writers and staff are happy you're coming to their defense after their delicate feelings were hurt after discovering people weren't falling head over heels in love with a plot twist that would sicken M. Knight Shyamaylan.

And since when did I ever claim that I wanted overused tropes? Score another for 'you came to that on your own'. Might want to remember that most stories nowadays are comprised of overused tropes. It's the execution of the story that matters. And before you say anything, this minor point is about tropes, not stories themselves.

If you're referring to any kind of story where some one can be as abstract as they want, they can do that. They can be as 'artistic' as they want, however, when you're making a commercial product, you have to be very careful with how you present you 'vision' and, considering the condescending and arrogant tone of both the gaming press and Bioware itself, we're just mental plebeians who should just take what we're given and never complain.

Really, the crux of your entire argument is that we should have just said nothing and allow the 'one ending/three colors' to stay as it was. I hate pulling this view out, but this is one of the few times where the consensus was right. That ending sucked. You can twist words as much as you like, defend it to your dying breath, but it will not change the fact that something which was meant to make people satisfied garnered such a negative reaction was nothing less than bad.

This was a VIDEO GAME. One of the ends of video games are meant to bring enjoyment, as it is a hobby. You know what happens when a game I play does the kind of stupid things ME3 does? I go elsewhere and never look back because they have lost my trust and their subsequent actions have lost me as a customer.

I distinctly recall you speaking against ME4, but you've since edited your first post and now I can't prove it.

With that; good night. I'm tired of arguing with apologists.

@Rasmoss said:

The long and the short of it: The complainers were right, and BioWare improved the game by changing it. I just think a bit of fair dues are in order.

Wait, what?

If two people differ in opinion on the quality of some thing, and that thing is later improved upon to a point where both parties can agree that it is now better, the person who thought it was bad before isn't retroactively awarded the correct opinion

@Rasmoss said:

they pretty much agree with the stuff everone complained about 8 months ago, even though they and the entire gaming press called those people self entitled whiners at the time.

I think they have a pretty low opinion of the average gamer, which feeds into them being dismissive of gamers' opinions. But maybe I'm just projecting after years of putting up with mostly-trash MMO communities.

When your story ends with an autistic child granting wishes, you lose all right to defend your story.

@CaptainCody said:

I'm a sucker for the protagonist dying in games. But, to sum it up, I would say I'm happy that it actually ENDED. Something that is becoming a marvelously impossible feat to do in so many videogames.

Pretty sure most story driven games END as a rule (I'm hard pressed to think of any that don't, that's for sure), so I'm not seeing much in terms of the way of a defence (for wont of a better word) being offered up here.

@haggis said:

@SlashDance said:

@haggis said:

@SlashDance said:

@haggis said:

Bioware didn't change the ending, though. The ending was basically the same before and after the extended cut. Unless I played some other version of it than you did. They might have removed some ambiguity, but there was no significant change, only some filled in blanks.

Repairing the relays and allowing the Normandy to take off were pretty massive changes.

I hate the extended endings with passion. It's still as stupid but nowhere near as ballsy.

The status of the relays was ambiguous in the original ending--it was never said that they were destroyed, though clearly a few people thought that was the case (but not all). And the Normandy taking off--again, not a change, just a filled in blank. Both were clarifications, but didn't actually change anything, particularly the plot points that most people actually complained about.

Showing the relay blowing up was ambiguous ? In the extended cut you only see the rings flying off with no explosion, but in the original the thing blew up, no question about it. You should go watch that again. Same thing for the Normandy, the ship was busted in the original ending, I mean full of holes and on fire. When it's still in space you see the engines blowing up, too. There was no way this thing was going to fly again. None of that in the extended cut.

I have watched it. The relay bit still looks ambiguous to me. There's a ball of fire and then ... well, they don't actually show the thing coming apart. And I don't see any difference in the damage shown to the Normandy from one cut to the next. You say it wasn't going to fly again, but ... well, that's interpretation on your part. It's not as if we have a timeframe. Either way, neither of those two bits were chief complaints when it came to the ending.

Maybe so, but those were the two redeeming qualities that made me and a bunch of people like them. My problem with the extended cut is that it's a giant fuck you to those who liked the original. Not saying it was a perfect ending that made complete sense, but I think it was better than just resetting the whole universe to pre Mass Effect 1.

@Kadayi said:

Frankly I don't think anyone believed that Bioware would change the ending of ME3, but by vocalizing their displeasure at it I imagine the hope was by many people that future Bioware titles might avoid the same degree of hubris when it comes to outright narrative dissonance. It's important to remember that the last Bioware title before ME3 was DA2, which didn't exactly set the world a light in terms of response and had something of an awkward ending to it (though nowhere near as egregious as ME3 in my view).

With respect to the outcry I think it's a situation of 'Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, shame on you' in effect with regard to fan reaction. Albeit Mass Effect & Dragon Age are actually different development teams within Bioware inevitably it was going to be a case that most people don't see/understand that, and therefore it was always going to be the case that the ME3 team really needed to bring the ship in safely with the games ending.

As regards the overall negative response by large swathes of the gaming press to the fan reaction, well that was a bit of an eye opener tbh. I don't hold with the idea that people were paid off etc (the rabbit hole of 'industry' corruption is for the conspiracy theorists) more that there's a disconnect between what the audience of a Bioware title value (cohesive narrative) Vs what most game reviewers value (game play). After all the former likely have played and replayed the games multiple times, where as for the latter it's just another game they need to review before moving onto the next title. I think certain 'journalists' felt the need to try and validate their assessments in light of the furore and rather tragically did themselves no favours publicly by snapping at the fans, Vs questioning their own approach to game assessment (storyline matters to people).

Haven't played either the EC or the DLC, though I'm tempted to replay ME3 once the final DLC is out to see what they changed/retconned. I'm not holding out for much in terms of the ending being any more palatable in truth (you can stick a hat on a pig, but it's still a pig at the end of the day) but I'm interested to see the differences.

That Bioware chose to address the ending criticism deserves some props (they weren't obliged to in truth), though obviously their motivation was to win back favour with the disenfranchised. to some degree. The positives from this are likely to be a lot more focus placed on good storytelling with future Bioware titles. EA management are likely acutely aware that another ME3 will sink Bioware reputation entirely, so DA3 is going to need to deliver on all fronts and I expect they'll give it the requisite time to achieve that.

I'd say that's a pretty fair assessment. In terms of gameplay, it was considered a big thing for Vinny to try out something as outlandish as a non Soldier (and still just the hybrid combat/tech Infiltrator class) in ME2, cause you know its a shooter so you should shoot vs hey it's a crazy interesting universe use the powers unique to this setting. And it seems only in ME3 did some of the other Bombcrew start using other classes. That and the people that are deep in the fiction screaming at the podcast over fluff inaccuracies or heck the very fact that most of the Bombcast freely admit to not remembering things from previous games. Which of course is perfectly understandable given both the number of disparate games they play and the fact they do not have the luxury to freely absorb a game but instead go in generally intending to critically analyze it, but yeah speaks to probably not quite being as emotionally invested into the series as much as its biggest (and likely most vocal) fans.

@feliciano182 said:

There is no inherent rule carved on a stone that says you can't introduce a new character at the final moments of a story.

First, you're entitled to your opinion, you're entitled to dislike such a thing, but to firmly argue, to pretend that this is somehow basic "101 story-telling" is nothing short of delusional; it is even worse when you're wrong, there's preamble to The Catalyst, the writers simply meant for it to be a twist that this particular "thing" The Crucible required was a highly advanced artificial intelligence (a crucial element of the ending that many people have yet to understand).

etc, etc

How about maybe presenting a convincing argument (cite some famous popular stories that eschew the traditional narrative structure), rather than labeling anyone who disagrees with you as 'delusional' and 'wrong'.

@Kadayi said:

@feliciano182 said:

There is no inherent rule carved on a stone that says you can't introduce a new character at the final moments of a story.

First, you're entitled to your opinion, you're entitled to dislike such a thing, but to firmly argue, to pretend that this is somehow basic "101 story-telling" is nothing short of delusional; it is even worse when you're wrong, there's preamble to The Catalyst, the writers simply meant for it to be a twist that this particular "thing" The Crucible required was a highly advanced artificial intelligence (a crucial element of the ending that many people have yet to understand).

etc, etc

How about maybe presenting a convincing argument (cite some famous popular stories that eschew the traditional narrative structure), rather than labeling anyone who disagrees with you as 'delusional' and 'wrong'.

How is the existence of the AI hard to understand? The AI existed in the Citadel the entire time and was the guiding force behind the Reapers through all three games. That it only revealed its true nature at the end makes perfect sense from a storytelling point of view. I understood this even before Leviathan came out. One of my problems with the writing at the end was how damned heavy handed it got spelling all this out.

There were no new characters introduced at the end of ME3. We were merely being shown what the Citadel actually is--a respository for the Catalyst.

@haggis said:

How is the existence of the AI hard to understand? The AI existed in the Citadel the entire time and was the guiding force behind the Reapers through all three games. That it only revealed its true nature at the end makes perfect sense from a storytelling point of view. I understood this even before Leviathan came out. One of my problems with the writing at the end was how damned heavy handed it got spelling all this out.

There were no new characters introduced at the end of ME3. We were merely being shown what the Citadel actually is--a respository for the Catalyst.

If the Catalyst was on the Citadel all the time (and has been since time immemorial). How is it that Sovereign needed to attack the the Citadel in order to bring the reapers out of Dark space in Mass Effect 1? Couldn't the Catalyst just of pulled them out itself? Or are we to presume that an AI that's capable of changing the very fabric of the universe was somehow incapable of doing this?

It's all very well to introduce new concepts to an ongoing story, but the have to be consistent with what's come before.

I thought the ending was fine. After the whole furor over it I was expecting it to be way worse than it was. I actually liked the idea of the relays getting destroyed and everything being reset with Shepard sort of being a supreme galactic guardian. It was a good way to end it. The whole extended cut took a lot away from it I thought. I mean, I liked that the choices were explained more and that the effects of those choices were more fully explored, but I didn't like the change in the story. Also, a lot of people complain about the Star Child being some terrible thing, yet most movie critics would argue that 2001: A Space Odyssey is the best sci-fi movie of all time and that Star Child ending made way less sense than the Mass Effect one. Kubrick did it so why can't Bioware? Not every ending needs to be completely clear and tie up every loose end. Sometimes a vague ending is better. Maybe the best ending in film history, Pan's Labyrinth left you with a major question and it was the very fact that they didn't explain it that made it the most critically acclaimed movie of last decade. Your choices obviously had a major effect on the galaxy going forward. Those choices didn't need to be explained to death. I guess the only complaint I can kind of agree with was that none of those choices were directly influenced by what you had done up to that point. But you did effect the course of the war throughout the game and those choices were in turn effected by your actions in previous games, so I didn't feel cheated that way either. I think the story of the first game is easily the best, but I enjoyed the story in 3 just as much as the story in 2.

So I'm sure there are people like me who liked it. Not sure how many there are but there are some and I feel like the whining from fans was disgusting. I think people don't take into account that the only reason people cared so much about the ending was that the dozens of hours leading up to it across all three games were brilliant. Games have terrible endings all the time. Hell many game stories don't make a lick of sense whatsoever. No one complains about those games, though, because the story just wasn't good from the start. It speaks volumes to the quality of the series, including the third game, that people cared so much. It meant they were attached to the characters and the universe. So even if the ending was bad, I still think the overall series was excellent and the fact that fans forget the quality of the games just because of a bad ending is just too bad.

Also, one other thing. A lot of people complained when the Bioware doctors quit and blamed EA for it. I don't think EA had anything to do with it. I think they felt betrayed by their so called fans who turned on them at a moment's notice. Any artist can tell you how much of yourself goes into your art. These guys, and everyone at Bioware, put their heart and soul into these games. These guys don't do it for the money. The doctors sold Bioware to EA for hundreds of millions of dollars. They never need to work another day in their life. They did it solely because they loved doing it and because they wanted to make great games. And to then have fans insult them personally, and attack their game and their company, and most of all to say they ruined it for the money, it must have broken their hearts. You all put a couple days worth of time into this game. These guys put two years of their lives into it. Gamers can be truly horrible people. These companies are not soulless corporate entities. People make these games. People with feelings. Would you say what you have said about Bioware to your friends or family? It's okay to be upset about the quality of a game, but the hate spewed towards Bioware is incredibly hurtful to the people that work there. They simply deserve better.

If you've worked in industry for any amount of time you'll understand that when high ranking people suddenly out of the blue elect to step away from a job to 'pursue other interests' or 'spend more time with their family' etc, etc it's rarely a case that it's because they actually choose to, it's more a case of being encouraged to leave Vs being let go (go out with your pride & reputation intact Vs in tatters). DA2 didn't go across well, TOR turned into a money pit for EA and ME3 got lambasted by the fans all on their watch. You think EA upper management have much confidence in them to continue to steer the Bioware ship? Maybe they did elect to leave, however I'm skeptical about it. As regards the 'lots of money thing' one things that's generally noticable about rich people, is they like making more money.

@Raven10 said:

Also, one other thing. A lot of people complained when the Bioware doctors quit and blamed EA for it. I don't think EA had anything to do with it. I think they felt betrayed by their so called fans who turned on them at a moment's notice. Any artist can tell you how much of yourself goes into your art. These guys, and everyone at Bioware, put their heart and soul into these games. These guys don't do it for the money. The doctors sold Bioware to EA for hundreds of millions of dollars. They never need to work another day in their life. They did it solely because they loved doing it and because they wanted to make great games. And to then have fans insult them personally, and attack their game and their company, and most of all to say they ruined it for the money, it must have broken their hearts. You all put a couple days worth of time into this game. These guys put two years of their lives into it. Gamers can be truly horrible people. These companies are not soulless corporate entities. People make these games. People with feelings. Would you say what you have said about Bioware to your friends or family? It's okay to be upset about the quality of a game, but the hate spewed towards Bioware is incredibly hurtful to the people that work there. They simply deserve better.

I'm pretty sure Pachter or somebody else said the exact same thing. Blamed the "entitled fans" for scaring them away. How we'd never get any of those good games any more.

We were never going to get those games anyways. Dragon Age 2 was bad, that's strike 1. TOR was godawful, that's strike 2. ME3 was a fuckup for the ages, and that's 3 strikes too many. They clearly either "got EA'd" or lost the touch on their own.

Their products were bad. They SHOULD feel bad. Much smaller people are destroyed utterly after fucking up once, why do they get to shovel out 3 abysmal games cashgrabs in a row without any consequences?

@thabigred said:

@Rasmoss said:

they pretty much agree with the stuff everone complained about 8 months ago, even though they and the entire gaming press called those people self entitled whiners at the time.

They disliked the ending that Bioware created for ME3 but they hated even more editing the ending because changing it after the fact is worse.

Especially when they're doing so to please their crowd.

I mean sure Bioware were all about listening to their audience but that should only go so far. And Bioware/EA seem to forget that some people will never see the new DLC endings/general story edits, so they may not get the next story plots in the next game. Even if it is going to be a completely seperate but linked storyline.

@Baillie said:

@Kadayi MW2 had a good story along with some very exciting gameplay moments. Please stop beating a dead horse which is very much alive.

I'm sorry but the 'No Russian' level is an insult to peoples intelligence. The entire premise that Makarov effectively and personally participates in an airport massacre in order to leave your corpse at the scene of the crime beggars belief. It means the man knew that he would personally emerge from the entire event unscathed before going head to head with innumerable response units and that you wouldn't turn your gun on him yourself, it's just plain ludicrous on a number of levels.

Sure the MP was fun, but let's at least have the balls to acknowledge that the SP story-line was BS. MW1 was high stakes stuff, but it at least possessed some semblance of possibility when it came to story-line.

The point though is to emphasize the fact that this kind of thing isn't something that gets much truck when it comes to reviews. By on large story-line and narrative coherence isn't something that's given much emphasis by reviewers (The plot makes even the later seasons of 24 look like Shakespeare). The average gamer is mid thirties now, isn't it about time we started getting games that treat us according?

@MikeGosot said:

Hey, bro. I bet you have heard about the fan reaction to Mass Effect 3. Do you think after that the industry is going to treat us like adults? I mean, we still have some games like Catherine and The Walking Dead but holy shit, we're certainly not helping our image.

Stoner much?

@MikeGosot said:

Hey, bro. I bet you have heard about the fan reaction to Mass Effect 3. Do you think after that the industry is going to treat us like adults? I mean, we still have some games like Catherine and The Walking Dead but holy shit, we're certainly not helping our image.

Stoner much?

@TorMasturba said:

@thabigred said:

@Rasmoss said:

they pretty much agree with the stuff everone complained about 8 months ago, even though they and the entire gaming press called those people self entitled whiners at the time.

They disliked the ending that Bioware created for ME3 but they hated even more editing the ending because changing it after the fact is worse.

Especially when they're doing so to please their crowd.

I mean sure Bioware were all about listening to their audience but that should only go so far. And Bioware/EA seem to forget that some people will never see the new DLC endings/general story edits, so they may not get the next story plots in the next game. Even if it is going to be a completely seperate but linked storyline.

There's a fine line between your own 'artistic vision' and 'a product to sell' that needs to be paid attention to. While I agree that companies need to make their products the way they do in order to make a profit, they should never forget, however, that the customers should have a part in it or should at least be considered/consulted with, since it's their money they intend to part with.

It's a dangerous balancing act.

I'm just glad Brad was able to play the DLC during the game and inform the rest of the bomb crew how lacking the ending was in hindsight. The EC and Leviathan should have been part of the game. Had they waited however many months they needed to implement that content in the final game then we wouldn't have had the situation that we're in now.

The series as a whole was damaged because of EA (let's accept that it was rushed) so lets just hope that developers everywhere took this sad tale as an example.

@Raven10 said:

I thought the ending was fine. After the whole furor over it I was expecting it to be way worse than it was. I actually liked the idea of the relays getting destroyed and everything being reset with Shepard sort of being a supreme galactic guardian. It was a good way to end it.

Wouldn't the mass relays being destroyed cause a supernova that would essentially destroy all life in that sector as per The Arrival DLC in ME 2? Wouldn't this mean that in the original endings, before the extended cut, that all life would've been wiped out instead of things being reset.

8 months ago people were acting like whiny idiots. To start petitions, and threaten to sue a company over an ending to a stupid video game is insane. The msot I got out of there discussion is that the ending was bad and there are other parts mishandled as well but overall it was still a great game. Still baffles me how people will claim its bad over 10 minutes when the rest of it is really quite good.

@Kadayi said:

@CaptainCody said:

I'm a sucker for the protagonist dying in games. But, to sum it up, I would say I'm happy that it actually ENDED. Something that is becoming a marvelously impossible feat to do in so many videogames.

Pretty sure most story driven games END as a rule (I'm hard pressed to think of any that don't, that's for sure), so I'm not seeing much in terms of the way of a defence (for wont of a better word) being offered up here.

If you had been playing video games for the past few years rather than trying to be smug you'd realize such is not the case. Technically, all games end, no shit. How many of them actually provide RESOLUTION is a different story. insert every game bent on making endless sequels here (Assassins Creed for an example).

@Rawrz said:

8 months ago people were acting like whiny idiots. To start petitions, and threaten to sue a company over an ending to a stupid video game is insane. The msot I got out of there discussion is that the ending was bad and there are other parts mishandled as well but overall it was still a great game. Still baffles me how people will claim its bad over 10 minutes when the rest of it is really quite good.

Because the resolution is just as important as the hook in the first ten minutes. If you can't hook people in, then you've got a bad game. If you've no good resolution to make people feel like the time they used was well spent, then you have a bad game. Granted, 'good' can be a relative term, but you get the idea.