those working for sites like gamespot or ign etc are not journalists, this is something i always have to bring up, they hardly do research, are not very knowledgable and their arguments and debates are always poor. they are more like game critics / columnists. calling these people jourmalists is an insult to the industry.
i'm posting this link here for anyone wants to know 5 Things that ARE NOT Why We Dislike The Ending. its very detailed and breaks down any journalist arguments agasint the fans. http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/10506868
@ rhymesmatter, true words my friend. its not like books dont get edited, i mean the latest mass effect novel is undergoing heavy changes becuase of all the mistakes and wrong lore noticed by fans. movies are edited so is art itself, whats the big difference here. If games want to be seen as an art form then they should be able to take aboard criticism and the "critics" should do their job properly.
reading the tweets above and how in general the gaming media have reacted i am very disapponted. You expect them as critics to be able to understand why fans of ME are so upset, instead they ridicule and stand up for bioware, why? for artistic integrity, where was this arguemnt when the same gaming media complained and whined until sucker punch changed the look of Cole McGrath in Infamous 2, where was the respect for sucker punch's artistic integrity. True fans of ME are upset for a reason. putting in 100's of hours and alot of their own money for an ending that doesnt make sense, opens plotholes not only in me 3 but also 1 and 2. if you only played me3 (which seems like quite a few) then you wont care about the engin and wont fully understand becuase ou have invested little in its lore. if this is the case with the critics then i can understand but if they have played all 3 then how can they be happy or even satisified with the ending? it makes no sense.
-Y2J-'s comments