"Boondoggles" in favor of "fuck-ups," because for some reason titles can't have swearies, but the first word in my thread can no-problem.

And I know there's no actual possibility of that much DLC ever being released, and definitely none that would actually redo parts of the story. It's just a hypothetical.

A catastrofuck.

@Brodehouse said:

A catastrofuck.

That sums things up pretty well.

Very much in favor. I also don't care what "precedent" this sets, which seems to be one of the biggest issues people take with it. It's a unique circumstance, I'll buy in this time, and if another game tries it, that is when I will use my free market vote and not give in.

I have no idea what to think right now. If they fix it with DLC, but charge me for it, I'll feel sour but I'd have to buy it anyways. At the same time, any changes is probably the creative team running backwards after seeing the backlash.

I'm so confused right now. (I finished the game like an hour ago).

I would I mean this game is amazing n if u give me more game to play then I see no reason no to.

I'd feel super conflicted. On one hand, better ending, woo. But that just sets the precedent for developers caving to the complaints of fans and BioWare acknowledging they fucked up. In some ways I'd much rather them stand by their product, even if the ending was a complete mess.

Now if this was their ploy all along, to have an unfinished ending in the game and release an actual ending on DLC, fuck those guys. That would be the best/worst/most evil move to pull in recent gaming history.

No. The best way for them to handle this is to take blame for a lazy ending and then move on. They should not touch the single player anymore. Leave it alone and just focus on the multiplayer.

I believe they should stick with what they got and live with it and move on to the next project. Sure it's a dumb ass ending, but we shouldn't allow them to just cover up how bad it was in the form of a DLC we would have to pay for.

@Marz said:

I believe they should stick with what they got and live with it and move on to the next project. Sure it's a dumb ass ending, but we shouldn't allow them to just patch it up to cover up how bad it was in the form of a DLC we would have to pay for.

Why not? It'd make a significant amount of people happy, and it'd make them money. They're going to make DLC anyway, it might as well be DLC people want.

@Pinworm45 said:

@Marz said:

I believe they should stick with what they got and live with it and move on to the next project. Sure it's a dumb ass ending, but we shouldn't allow them to just patch it up to cover up how bad it was in the form of a DLC we would have to pay for.

Why not? It'd make a significant amount of people happy, and it'd make them money. They're going to make DLC anyway, it might as well be DLC people want.

see the idea of them selling you a proper ending is what is wrong in the first place... it shouldn't have to come to that.

I would lose integrity for bioware and it would create the false precedent that fans can control the outcome of a game.

@Marz said:

@Pinworm45 said:

@Marz said:

I believe they should stick with what they got and live with it and move on to the next project. Sure it's a dumb ass ending, but we shouldn't allow them to just patch it up to cover up how bad it was in the form of a DLC we would have to pay for.

Why not? It'd make a significant amount of people happy, and it'd make them money. They're going to make DLC anyway, it might as well be DLC people want.

see the idea of them selling you a proper ending is what is wrong in the first place... it shouldn't have to come to that.

Why? "The Arrival" was the "real" ending to ME2, what's the difference? I agree it's a little weird if they actually CHANGE the ending, but what if they either just add on it (IE show a scene that gives a reason for Joker fleeing in the middle of the most important battle ever, with crew members that were on Earth)? Or, what I really want, them to go with the Indoctrination Theory - whether they intended it from the start or not - and just continue the game from where it left off?

No and no. I don't like the ending for multiple reasons, but if you do something, let's say artistically, you stick with it. If they don't, they don't have much integrity. The consumers are not the one to decide how the game is, unless the developer asks for opinions while the game is being made.

But hey....money.

@Strife777: It was initially their artistic choice that you couldn't have relationships with Garrus or Tali. Fan opinion changed that. What's the difference?

They're still asking for feedback. Who's to say their artistic choices won't change?

Also, they already DID change the ending due to outside influence - they changed it when the game leaked, and this is when their lead writer moved onto another project (swtor). What would be the difference in doing it another time, except that fans actually want it this time?

Don't you think the fact that the game is all about choices and, quoting them, "building your shepards story", makes this situation a bit different than, say, telling a painter to make a change his painting?

4 them to make a dlc ending is really just showing that they know they fucked up n they want to fix it n again if people don't want it then just don't buy it that's if they actually go through with this

@Pinworm45 said:

@Marz said:

@Pinworm45 said:

@Marz said:

I believe they should stick with what they got and live with it and move on to the next project. Sure it's a dumb ass ending, but we shouldn't allow them to just patch it up to cover up how bad it was in the form of a DLC we would have to pay for.

Why not? It'd make a significant amount of people happy, and it'd make them money. They're going to make DLC anyway, it might as well be DLC people want.

see the idea of them selling you a proper ending is what is wrong in the first place... it shouldn't have to come to that.

Why? "The Arrival" was the "real" ending to ME2, what's the difference?

No, The Arrival was a bridge between Mass Effect 2 and 3. It was not the "real" ending to 2.

My opinion on the Mass Effect 3 ending is that it wasn't all that great, and I can argue as to why it's an example of a bad ending. However, it hardly sent me into a world of pissed off so bad that I want it changed. I can understand why someone might say that, but that is Bioware's ending. Certainly it sucks but asking them to change it would be akin to asking Dante to rewrite Inferno so that Lucifer actually does something evil/cool/noteworthy at the end. Disappointment and complaining is one thing, but telling the writer that it should be changed because you didn't like it? That's something else entirely, something much worse.

I can't seem to fully articulate myself right now so I should better write this argument later. Or get someone else to do it.

Also, "boondoggles" is a totally fine replacement for "fuck".

If it is free then I wouldn't mind it but if they plan on charging more for the game because they put in a shit ending then I am not interested in it.

No. It doesn't matter what they do, I can never play through Mass Effect 3 for the first time again. The experience won't be the same and it doesn't change how I feel about the current ending, because I'm always going to remember hating it. My Shepard's story is done. The emotional impact will not be there. Also, if they cave in and do offer different endings as DLC then it has to be free. Making me pay extra money to see the real ending to a game opens up a door that should never be opened. People will also immediately assume that they changed the ending because players wanted them to, not because they wanted to. The ending we got is what they thought was good and how they wanted to wrap it up. Altering it is them sacrificing artistic integrity and it will only start up another shit storm where people claim they have lost even more respect for Bioware. 
 
Maybe changing the ending would be good for other people who haven't played it yet, and they will like it more. But if you are mad about it now, then it may already be too late for you.

@believer258: How do you define "real ending"? The end of the story for that game? That's the Arrival. The last playable content? The arrival. The last playable content not counting DLC? Well if it's not counting DLC, then this still works exactly the same. The end to the contained plot in the game? Well, after you destroy the collector base, you see the reapers coming, so that's hardly an end. Especially since The Arrival continues with that, and is also the last story moment to take place in the game. I'm still not seeing the difference.

As for the other points, I raised questions about similiar points to someone else after I responded to you, if you wanted to reply to those

And make us pay for it? Get the fuck outta here.

Also I don't want a new ending, it may be shitty but it's the way it is and it's about time to accept it people.

@Pinworm45 said:

@Strife777: It was initially their artistic choice that you couldn't have relationships with Garrus or Tali. Fan opinion changed that. What's the difference?

They're still asking for feedback. Who's to say their artistic choices won't change?

Also, they already DID change the ending due to outside influence - they changed it when the game leaked, and this is when their lead writer moved onto another project (swtor). What would be the difference in doing it another time, except that fans actually want it this time?

Don't you think the fact that the game is all about choices and, quoting them, "building your shepards story", makes this situation a bit different than, say, telling a painter to make a change his painting?

A lot of people take for granted that this is ''their'' story. It is certainly our Shepard, each one of us, but in the end, we only made choices that changed details to an overall story we have no control over. We all did the same missions, we all mostly went through the same dialogue (even when you take into account the amount of dialogue choices we make) and we all ended up with the same basic outlines (unless your Shepard died in Mass Effect 2, but that doesn't really count if you plan on playing ME3.)

So we might make a lot of decisions in Mass Effect, but those choices are, in the end, limited and written by the developer of the game, not us.

I understand what you mean when it comes to changing it, but I'm of the opinion that you can change something as long as it is in production, not after. If you're gonna say you're done with it, be done with it. In the case of video games, I can understand adding more content via DLC, give a bit more to the player, but I do emphasis the ''adding'', not changing. I suppose you could say putting in the ''real'' ending as DLC could qualify as adding, but I personally think that when it comes to a stories conclusion, adding means changing. Unless they had already planned to do that way in advance, but that would be crass if you ask me.

@Strife777: I get that, and I'm not suggesting that they should either do everything the fans want, or listen to everything they say, or compromise their vision because of it (although I do consider their vision already compromised, if that's what they'll release.. but that's neither here nor there). I was merely saying that to point out that this is a different medium, and this is definitely an unusual situation (sort of - It HAS happened with Broken Steel and Prince of Persia), and as such, I think different rules should apply.

As for the last paragraph about adding/changing the endings. What about The Arrival? That was absolutely adding on to the end of Mass Effect 2, did that, in your opinion, compromise their vision? Did it "change the end"? (keep in mind, I am asking for them to purely add on to it by pretty much copying the Indoctrination theory - not to change it. That is definitely a different beast) Or did it merely add on to it? Wouldn't this be adding on to it too, rather than changing it, if they went with that Theory?

@Pinworm45 said:

@Marz said:

@Pinworm45 said:

@Marz said:

I believe they should stick with what they got and live with it and move on to the next project. Sure it's a dumb ass ending, but we shouldn't allow them to just patch it up to cover up how bad it was in the form of a DLC we would have to pay for.

Why not? It'd make a significant amount of people happy, and it'd make them money. They're going to make DLC anyway, it might as well be DLC people want.

see the idea of them selling you a proper ending is what is wrong in the first place... it shouldn't have to come to that.

Why? "The Arrival" was the "real" ending to ME2, what's the difference? I agree it's a little weird if they actually CHANGE the ending, but what if they either just add on it (IE show a scene that gives a reason for Joker fleeing in the middle of the most important battle ever, with crew members that were on Earth)? Or, what I really want, them to go with the Indoctrination Theory - whether they intended it from the start or not - and just continue the game from where it left off?

Arrival wasn't "my" real ending, since i didn't buy it... the big difference is that it's completely optional and not important to Mass Effect 2 (it was also a piece of shit from what i've heard)... while Mass Effect 3 was advertised as the end of the trilogy and the ending should remain the end product... not in some DLC they charge 15$ and sucker in people for more money. at that point they may as well make a Mass Effect spinoff game.. which they probably are already doing and i'd rather they do that instead.

@Pinworm45 said:

@believer258: How do you define "real ending"? The end of the story for that game? That's the Arrival. The last playable content? The arrival. The last playable content not counting DLC? Well if it's not counting DLC, then this still works exactly the same. The end to the contained plot in the game? Well, after you destroy the collector base, you see the reapers coming, so that's hardly an end. Especially since The Arrival continues with that, and is also the last story moment to take place in the game. I'm still not seeing the difference.

As for the other points, I raised questions about similiar points to someone else after I responded to you, if you wanted to reply to those

The ending of Mass Effect 2, the climax of its plot and the culmination of all its themes, ideas, and issues, happens during the endgame Suicide Mission. The Arrival actually doesn't have much to do with any of that, so it can't be its "real ending" other than in the sense that it happens, chronologically, after the events of 2 and requires the player to own 2.

To put this more simply, just because they release a DLC with events that happen after 2 doesn't mean that the "real ending" is that DLC. Like I said, The Arrival bridges Mass Effect 2 and 3. That was its expressly stated purpose. That was all it was ever meant to be.

@Pinworm45 said:

@Strife777: I get that, and I'm not suggesting that they should either do everything the fans want, or listen to everything they say, or compromise their vision because of it (although I do consider their vision already compromised, if that's what they'll release.. but that's neither here nor there). I was merely saying that to point out that this is a different medium, and this is definitely an unusual situation (sort of - It HAS happened with Broken Steel and Prince of Persia), and as such, I think different rules should apply.

As for the last paragraph about adding/changing the endings. What about The Arrival? That was absolutely adding on to the end of Mass Effect 2, did that, in your opinion, compromise their vision? Did it "change the end"? (keep in mind, I am asking for them to purely add on to it by pretty much copying the Indoctrination theory - not to change it. That is definitely a different beast) Or did it merely add on to it? Wouldn't this be adding on to it too, rather than changing it, if they went with that Theory?

The Arrival was a piece of DLC meant to bridge Mass Effect 2 and 3 and does not alter the ending of the core of Mass Effect 2. This theoretical ME3 DLC, however, would drastically alter the ending that shipped with the game; the ending that was meant to serve as the ending to the entire trilogy. The Broken Steel comparison doesn't work because all Bethesda had to do to change the ending was add dialogue choices to make your radiation-resistant companion enter the death room and enter the code in your place. Then you wake up after the point that the game originally ended and can continue on your merry way. And as far as Prince of Persia is concerned, from what I understand, wasn't that DLC planned from the start?

@Hailinel said:

@Pinworm45 said:

@Strife777: I get that, and I'm not suggesting that they should either do everything the fans want, or listen to everything they say, or compromise their vision because of it (although I do consider their vision already compromised, if that's what they'll release.. but that's neither here nor there). I was merely saying that to point out that this is a different medium, and this is definitely an unusual situation (sort of - It HAS happened with Broken Steel and Prince of Persia), and as such, I think different rules should apply.

As for the last paragraph about adding/changing the endings. What about The Arrival? That was absolutely adding on to the end of Mass Effect 2, did that, in your opinion, compromise their vision? Did it "change the end"? (keep in mind, I am asking for them to purely add on to it by pretty much copying the Indoctrination theory - not to change it. That is definitely a different beast) Or did it merely add on to it? Wouldn't this be adding on to it too, rather than changing it, if they went with that Theory?

The Arrival was a piece of DLC meant to bridge Mass Effect 2 and 3 and does not alter the ending of the core of Mass Effect 2. This theoretical ME3 DLC, however, would drastically alter the ending that shipped with the game; the ending that was meant to serve as the ending to the entire trilogy. The Broken Steel comparison doesn't work because all Bethesda had to do to change the ending was add dialogue choices to make your radiation-resistant companion enter the death room and enter the code in your place. Then you wake up after the point that the game originally ended and can continue on your merry way. And as far as Prince of Persia is concerned, from what I understand, wasn't that DLC planned from the start?

I was basically going to respond exactly that :P. Thank you for saving me from typing I guess.

I would also add that I think the problem (or at least, one of them) a lot of people had with the original Fallout 3 ending, was that they couldn't continue exploring the world, it just ended. Bethesda just added DLC to let them do that, but I might be wrong.

When it comes to Prince of Persia, the original ending was a cliff-hanger, and the DLC ending was a cliff-hanger, so whatever.

I'm fine with the ending. It felt like a triumph right up until they did something involving interstellar travel that has very serious, very grave implications. All I would want out of a "DLC ending" is elaboration and clarification on what the ending already says and shows.

So yeah, give it to me. People who don't want that, don't buy it.

I know it sounds stupid and crazy but... *sigh* that ending, I would totally pay for a new one if it was actually good. I imagine I'm not the only one who feels this way and yes we are terrible people because I really don't want devs getting the idea in their heads they can ship a product with a shit ending and just fix it with dlc but ME3s ending needed to be better, it had to be better and if it costs me money to see that happen then so be it.

This whole thing reminds me of back when Evangelion ended and everyone raged to the point of sending hundreds of hand written letters to Gainax and the Director and they totally made a retcon movie to replace the series ending. Madness.

They don't have to retcon anything. They just have to confirm Indoctrination theory.

the ending made me not want to buy anymore bioware products

The ending itself wasn't all that bad, I just feel they stopped the game short by about 15-20 minutes. Just another couple of cutscenes to show the consequences of what happened is all that it would take. Perhaps showing the different races rebuilding their homeworlds, having someone at least mention the fact that all the Mass Relays are destroyed and this fuck-ton of an army is now stuck in Sol. A memorial scene for Shepard, celebrations of some sort,  anything to show that life is continuing in the galaxy.

Explosion > Jungle is just a little too vague for something I've stuck by over 5-6 years and put 150+ hours into. Still, this game is fantastic and the negative reaction towards the ending shouldn't scare people away from buying it.

As frustrating as this whole thing is, something doesn't sit right with me about trying to force someone into changing their "vision" on something they have evidently put a lot of hard work and attention into.

You know, I'm probably half-way through this game and there has been nothing with the story that I have really hated. There are bits I didn't much care for (the kid dream sequences for example) but I have had problems with every ME game. Actually, I have problems with the stories in every game and nearly every movie. You know why? Creative products are not often perfect. I'm not sure what people were expecting from ME 3 but, so far, the insane backlash seems fucking crazy to me. Maybe I'll feel differently when I hit this apparent devastating ending but it would have to be pretty damn bad for me to hate what was done in ME 3.

...so I guess what I'm saying is 'No' for now but I'll be more definitive when I'm done with the game.

I think its super gross for people to demand an alternate ending. If you don't like an ending or agree with what's presented, that's your prerogative. If I don't like certain elements in a book I'm reading, I either think about its place in the story it or dismiss the fiction and stop reading. Seems really insulting to go to an author and demand they rewrite parts of the story because NO SIR, I DIDN'T LIKE IT.

@JasonR86: At this point you're prepared for a bad ending though. Not saying you were 100% always going to hate it but everyone who's up in arms was obviously dedicated and beat it as quickly as possible. The games does not build up to that ending in a convincing fashion at all. Either way it's still a great game and hope you enjoy it. I just wish I was as braced for a bad ending as you are.

Maybe if it is free.

No. The ending's trash and they should keep it that way. Them changing the ending won't eliminate what I had to experience before.

I really don't care about endings. Endings have always been poor in everything. I enjoyed Mass Effect 3 a hell of a lot. More than the first two. The ending doesn't bother me.

Weird that everyone assumes I'm talking about the ending only. There's plenty more weird decisions and bad writing throughout the game. It's mostly good, of course, but there's some really bad stuff in there.

Said Yes. Although perfect story telling up too that point, and I understand the ending. The ending does need to be re-done. Simply because I want the universe to continue.

@Jasta said:

The ending itself wasn't all that bad, I just feel they stopped the game short by about 15-20 minutes. Just another couple of cutscenes to show the consequences of what happened is all that it would take. Perhaps showing the different races rebuilding their homeworlds, having someone at least mention the fact that all the Mass Relays are destroyed and this fuck-ton of an army is now stuck in Sol. A memorial scene for Shepard, celebrations of some sort, anything to show that life is continuing in the galaxy.

Explosion > Jungle is just a little too vague for something I've stuck by over 5-6 years and put 150+ hours into. Still, this game is fantastic and the negative reaction towards the ending shouldn't scare people away from buying it.

As frustrating as this whole thing is, something doesn't sit right with me about trying to force someone into changing their "vision" on something they have evidently put a lot of hard work and attention into.

My sentiments exactly. The ending was just too...brief.

Very much in favor. I also don't care what "precedent" this sets, which seems to be one of the biggest issues people take with it. It's a unique circumstance, I'll buy in this time, and if another game tries it, that is when I will use my free market vote and not give in.

They should do it, 1 because the ending blows, and 2 because I love the precedent it'd set, of creators being held accountable to fans emotional investement. Might not be a good precedent to set, but it'd shake the gaming world up in an interesting way to watch.

Do you know what I want from Bioware? I want them to move on from Mass Effect. I didn't dislike it, but I'm not 100% satisfied, to say the least. That doesn't matter, though. The story they told is the story they told. What I want them to do is craft a new game. Maybe it's a new, improved trilogy set in the Mass Effect universe (which they spent an awful amount of time crafting), maybe it's something else. All I really want is something new and exciting and (obviously) good.

... that would involve remaking the entire game.

what are you even talking about. let's remake ME2 while we're at it cos that could have done with another pass with the story.

the ending is a bummer but is the ending. you cant undo what has been done. i'll always know that this was the ending they created and the ending that i saw. anything else will just be fake.

Only if it was free, if not, that would be very stupid of you.

ehh, if they do a good job then sure.

If it's better, then yes, if not, then no.