@AiurFlux said:

@DeShawn2ks said:

I don't remember having to play the multiplayer to get the "best" ending. My bar was filled before I did the last couple of missions maybe even before that. I didn't mess with the multiplayer until I was going for the defender acheivement.

You don't remember having to, but if you want the best one you MUST play multiplayer. And in the best ending you

SPOILER WARNING: Click here to reveal hidden content.

destroy synthetic life, Earth doesn't all go to shit, and Shepard apparently lives because it closes in on someone wearing burnt N7 armour taking a deep breath in.

And as I said, you need 100% Galactic Readiness and a minimum of 5000 points. This is a documented fact. They blatantly lied about being able to get the best ending without having to play multiplayer just as they blatantly lied about From Ashes being developed when the game went into certification (all assets are on the disc and you can unlock it on the PC by altering a .ini file, that's it). They did a massive amount of shady shit with ME3, and I'm not happy to see BioWare getting all the flak for it since it's clearly EA exploiting them, the franchise, and the gamers. Yet again. Them asking for feedback on twitter is nothing more than a ploy to placate people giving them false hope.

No, you misunderstand.

You can get way more than 5000 points, so you need a readiness percentage which puts your effective force at 5000 or more. (Actually, I think you get the "Shepard lives" snippet at 4000)

Please help our game trend.

@rebgav said:

@AiurFlux said:

@DeShawn2ks said:

I don't remember having to play the multiplayer to get the "best" ending. My bar was filled before I did the last couple of missions maybe even before that. I didn't mess with the multiplayer until I was going for the defender acheivement.

You don't remember having to, but if you want the best one you MUST play multiplayer. And in the best ending you

SPOILER WARNING: Click here to reveal hidden content.

destroy synthetic life, Earth doesn't all go to shit, and Shepard apparently lives because it closes in on someone wearing burnt N7 armour taking a deep breath in.

And as I said, you need 100% Galactic Readiness and a minimum of 5000 points. This is a documented fact. They blatantly lied about being able to get the best ending without having to play multiplayer just as they blatantly lied about From Ashes being developed when the game went into certification (all assets are on the disc and you can unlock it on the PC by altering a .ini file, that's it). They did a massive amount of shady shit with ME3, and I'm not happy to see BioWare getting all the flak for it since it's clearly EA exploiting them, the franchise, and the gamers. Yet again. Them asking for feedback on twitter is nothing more than a ploy to placate people giving them false hope.

No, you misunderstand.

You can get way more than 5000 points, so you need a readiness percentage which puts your effective force at 5000 or more. (Actually, I think you get the "Shepard lives" snippet at 4000)

I know you can. My buddy finished with over 7000 points. But again, you MUST play multiplayer to boost that number up otherwise it will be lowered because of Galactic Readiness. I'm pretty sure it is mathematically impossible to get the 5000 or even 4000 points without doing so. At the absolute most you can get 7500 to 8000 total points, and that is a picture perfect playthrough from 1 to 3 meticulously crafted from beginning to end to get the absolute best point statistic for the final game. At that point it's less of choose your own adventure and more of follow this flowchart. I could be wrong with the Readiness rating having to be at 100%, but there's so much shit out there that it's hard to discern fact from fiction. All I do know is that it is impossible, or damn near impossible, to get the full ending playing single player alone. From a series known for single player, built on single player, and pushing a true single player experience to do this seems like a slap in the face to everyone that followed the series before it launched. Just because people don't want to play multiplayer to get the best ending doesn't mean they should be punished. And my point about time still stands, what in the hell is someone going to do 5 years down the line when nobody is playing it? If they're on PC they can hack it or use a trainer, but what about a console with backwards compatibility? What about when the servers go offline? They're stuck. It's a stupid idea that never should have been implemented and hopefully it's a lesson for developers everywhere. Single player is single player, multiplayer is multiplayer, and one should never factor into the other outside of co-op, which is optional. Anyway, this entire point is stupid. We all know they're going to release DLC for the ending and continue to slap their customers and fans in the face. Nothing out of the ordinary for EA. I love Mass Effect and games in general, but business practices like this make me think I need a new hobby because it's blatant exploitation that they're doing. And sad thing is they're getting away with it. It breaks my heart to see my childhood in games like Super Mario World and Donkey Kong Country be reduced to the ashes of 15 dollar map packs, content on the disc that is locked that you must pay for, and money taking incentive over creativity and innovation. Everyone's looking for that billion dollar princess to beat Call of Duty instead of that million dollar gem that can inspire a generation.

@Pinworm45 said:

@Arker101 said:

Fans enraged by game, instead of threatening no more purchases, want to pay more for them to fix what should have been in there already? There's no way in hell that can be right.

That's how much people care about this series. If it was just an average game series, no one would give a shit and shrug it off. They delivered something that was significantly inferior to both what we know they can deliver, and what they DID deliver prior to that ending.

People are invested in the series and that's why they'll see it through to the end, even if they tack 15$ onto that (and there's no reason to suspect this until that's what they announced. They could add onto it for free if they want).

If this is tried again, it won't work unless the market dictates that it's worth it. That's why I really don't care about the "precedent" this sets.

I hope your right, but I can still see all of this easily happening again to DA3. I hope this is just a unique situation, but there is that screen that pops up once you finish ME3 that tells me that BioWare might do it. I want to be wrong, though.

If BioWare can't see the problem with the ending, then I guess they've been indoctrinated by EA.

I seen a link to one of the bioware tweeters on the bioware forums, it was something like :

Fan: Hey guys loved the ending, any news on the colour blind patch?

Bioware: I'll talk to the devs.

Fan: Thanks, I was only getting one ending.

@dekkadekkadekka said:

If BioWare can't see the problem with the ending, then I guess they've been indoctrinated by EA.

Oh man... I hate to be a total dick, but this.

When I saw that the endings are mostly a hue change in difference, I couldn't help feeling bummed. It ends up feeling like LOST, and I'm the kind of person that subscribes to the idea that the writers for that show should feel ashamed of themselves for having no fricking clue what they were doing or where things were going.

That's not speaking to the idea that getting the points needed for the "true" ending is currently either insanely difficult or impossible without playing multiplayer, given that a number of the side quests are impossible for most, if not all, to finish because they're bugged.

But what the heck does feedback amount to at this point? The ending shouldn't be retconned. They should be even more ashamed if they feel the need to change things. They could use it on future projects, but I doubt that will do much good. I find it hard to believe they didn't know what they were doing when they ended the game in the way that they did.

Although I agree with the general sentiment in this thread, I must point something out:

It is possible to get the best ending without playing multiplayer. You just have to beat the game twice with the same character. The second playthrough will always get the "alive" ending regardless of War Assets heading into the final battle. That probably makes the multiplayer even more pointless. Oh well.