@Enundr I took this quote(the one in the spoiler tag) from the Mass Effect wiki. I know that sometimes wikis are not to be trusted, I'm quite aware of that, but I also remember that it was said in the DLC that it is a special relay. It's not only the oldest known relay, but it has enhanced capabilities as well. [spoiler] "Outwardly the Alpha Relay appears to be a standard mass relay, differing little, if at all, from the rest of the mass relays scattered throughout the galaxy. However, it is unusual in its potential range and versatility. Alpha usually sends and receives mass at the range of a normal secondary relay, but if certain controls are adjusted, it becomes powered by an unprecedented amount of dark energy that could send cargo to sixteen other relays and even across a great distance to the Citadel. The Batarian Hegemony has long been aware of Alpha's capabilities, but has covered them up to avoid retaliation by other races who would view the relay as a direct threat to their territories." [/spoiler]
@Enundr You do know that the Alpha Relay in the DLC was a special relay, and that the destruction of that relay greatly differs from what happens at the end of ME3, right? Also, there are secondary relays throughout the galaxy, not related at all to the primary relays that were shown(?) to be destroyed. The reason why I put that question mark is that we don't really know what we are shown in the ending cinematic, so this lore error complaint is pretty much just an interpretation.
Also I read from the GS staff reactions that this issue brought out the the ugly side of the gaming community. While this is certainly true, it brought out some of the most engaging discussions among fans. And I'm referring to the BSN community, not other boards. The posts containing analysis of the ending, with it's good and bad traits in relation to the franchise, were a most interesting read(in most cases).
*CONTINUING FROM BELOW But the main thing the fans are asking is filling the too numerous plot holes, and offering closure depending on the choices they made in the previous games. Why is this a problem now and wasn't in the previous games? Because this is the final chapter of the trilogy and the ending should conclude the entire trilogy(well at least according to traditional story telling). So additional content would be the best move in my opinion, so to answer the question posed by the article: everybody would win. Bioware would retain its integrity as author of the story, and fans would get what they want. Well....most fans...:p The other option of change would be replacing or changing the 3 choice part. Adding other choices to the existent ones or plain replacing the entire scene. That would be a bad move from Bioware as an author in my opinion as that would compromise its integrity. And again to answer the question: it's unclear who would win, Bioware certainly won't, and there's no guarantee that the fans will like the new ending.
I think this question is premature, since we don't know what those eventual changes will be, but it's an interesting topic nonetheless. If Bioware will put out additional content, to actually show the consequences of the choice made in the previous games, but not altering the 3 changes, then it's still a change right. It's not replacing the original content, but adding to it. Just like with Witcher 2 Enhanced edition, where new content will be added. So I think additional content would resolve this issue. Some complain about lore errors, which is a bit stretched, because those alleged lore errors are just results of ambiguity. I think people who have these complaints know what I'm talking about, so I won't address it in this post, but I'm available for a debate.
*continuing from below I saw these issues as problems of the ending, so I wanted to address them, but these are not the real reasons. The real reason is the lack of consequence. In an interactive environment, where your choices count, the lack of them is frustrating, and the promise of it is a lie(and that is the biggest problem: the lie part). Based on the fact that there is a lie in there, Bioware should change the ending. You could argue that technically there is choice and consequence...like the variation of the EMS bar influences if Anderson or Shepard dies or the amount of choices you have in the end. But those consequences are just out of context and totally unrelated. Now the article...if we accept the premise that ME3 is art, or has at least has artistic parts, then I my opinion is that only the literary merit and to a certain degree the visuals can be considered as such. Although mediocre, it still has artistic value, so I give you that. Laura you said that the work of art is done. What fans are asking for is an addition, which by definition means that if Bioware complies, then the work of art is not done. Also fans are not asking for specific things, so an addition to the ending in ME3 would be still the expression of its creators. So should Bioware add something to answer the fans? Definitely, the first argument is that they lied(as said above), and the second is that doing so they would not render their previous artistic work meaningless, they would enrich it.
There are lots of issues that hang in the air surrounding this "ending" incident... First is the lore....people are saying that the explosions of the relays, should've produced similar results as in "Arrival"...except, that in Arrival, the Alpha Relay is presented as a gigantic relay, quite different from all the other relays in the galaxy. All its feats are just vastly more powerful, therefore it's destruction has significant differences. Not to mention that the manner of destruction matters as well. So in the end it's a matter of interpretation and memory. For me there was no problem with the lore, as my I think that my interpretation works well within the established universe. The other is the plot-hole of the Catalyst...which is too simplified...there are subtle references as to how the Crucible allows new methods of dealing with the cycle, as it was designed around the Catalyst. So the fact that there are suddenly different methods for the Allmighty Reaper, is because the Crucible presents him valid options. Also the fact that he appears in the end was foreshadowed in the game, as it was implied that there was someone controlling the Reapers. PS: I made this post a bit long, the rest is a few posts up ^^;
I think the endings should be in there as well and probably as the most important reason for all this internet rage... However the Metacritic scores were low even before anyone had the chance to finish the game...
Such behaviour is typical of the internet, so there's not much to comment... But the idea itself that Hepler suggested is not that brilliant to be honest...because what she suggests is already in the game, but in another form, and that is difficulty levels. Want to enjoy the story more? Then choose sandbox or easy whatever. Much like, and funny how this idea comes from Bioware itself, the Mass Effect 3 Demo. There were 3 modes, story, normal, and action. You got to choose, easy peasy. However there's another thing I would like to comment on...and that is the action or the difficulty of the gameplay is not that far away from the story. When a story is written, there's a narrative, characters and the world where all the events take place. Correct me if I'm wrong, but difficult gameplay makes the world more immersive, and after a difficult boss fight, or maybe after a fight in which you just charged in without thinking, but managed to get out, you can relate to your character more, therefore it makes the story more believable. I wouldn't believe the hero nature of the Grey Wardens for example, if I wouldn't know that they actually struggle to keep the darkspawn in check. PS: of course I'm talking about difficulty within reason...
benelori's comments