I think that it's perfectly obvious that Bioware really didn't put a whole lot of effort and time into coming up with multiple vastly different endings, with adequate prologues that tie up all the loose ends and results in closure for all the characters you met along the way (the ones that survived, that is), endings that are wholly determined based on your choice of actions for major events in the first two games and all the up until the end of #3.

I guess it would have been too difficult and time consuming for them to do this even though their staff for this game was huge.

This is the most disappointing part of the game. At the climax of the whole saga, all of my choices meant nothing at all. It's the same ending, but a different light show. And with no prologue. The game is just over. Let the credits roll. Thanks for your $60, folks.

Wholly unsatisfying.

Just because you "didn't like it" doesn't make it a plothole, sorry.

Jankarcop

It's not a plot hole because I don't like it. It's a plot hole because it doesn't make sense, it's inconsistent, and it's ignoring events and explanations that were revealed to the player in the first game. It's a very simple question to ask since it was such a huge part of the plot: why did Sovereign have to stay behind in the galaxy when the Catalyst is really controlling the Reapers? Why couldn't the Catalyst just turn on the mass relay on its own?

If those big questions cannot be answered by what is presented to us in the story, then it is a plot hole. Sorry.

Its not to stop synthetics from killing them, its to stop synthetics from killing all organics to ever exist in the Milky Way.

The only way to ensure this is to purge all advanced societies every 50k years.

Made sense to me.

Jankarcop

Really? Because I thought it was really lame and non-sensical, especially since it's synthetics that are supposedly "saving" organics from synthetics.....by killing organics. Yeah, that makes sense. So did the Protheans have a large population of synthetics that necessitated their destruction? Or was it just a matter of time and assumed by the Catalyst that they would definitely create synthetics and bring about their own destruction? Seems like a lame assumption.

The whole explanation for the cycle is stupid, especially after what the player learned by conversing with Sovereign in the first game who made it clear what the intentions of the Reapers were: that they believe organic life is a genetic mutation and an accident, that the Reapers themselves were the "pinnacle of evolution and existence", that the Reapers allowed primitive civlizations to progress and develop along the paths that THEY desire, that they allowed them to reach their apex and then they extinquish it. That conversation with Sovereign, one of the highlights of the first game, is now ruined because the TRUE intentions of the Reapers in the third game is revealed to be nothing more than an insurance policy to "protect" organic life in the universe and that they are controlled by the Catalyst who appears as some child VI thing, which again is contradictory to what Sovereign said....that each Reaper was a nation, independent and free of all weakness. Unless, of course, that weakness is on the Catalyst with three options color coded by blue, green and red.

I liked the idea that the Reapers were the true masters of the galaxy, lingering on its edges patiently waiting like some predator stalking its prey. Soulless, destructive killing machines with a great feeling of superiority. Rather than snuff out all life, they allow it to develop, progress, advance, and then when the time is right and they can themselves benefit from it they extinguish those civilizations and harvest it for their own ends.

If the Catalyst was on the Citadel the whole time, why did Sovereign need to hang around the galaxy for 50,000 years to ensure the Citadel relay would open so that the Reapers could invade? If the Catalyst "controlled" the Reapers, and the Catalyst is on the Citadel, um....why did Sovereign need to stay? A huge plot hole if there ever was one.

Really disappointed with the ending. All the actions and decisions I made in the course of three games, all the side quests I completed, resources gathered, allies made, loyalty achieved, relationships with characters, war assets, etc. all of it didn't matter in the end. It all boiiled down to three color choices for endings that, for all intents and purposes, were exactly the same. The only difference was that mass relays exploded in a different colored light show and the reapers either fell down or left the planet depending on the choice you made. Oh yeah - and if you choose the "Red" ending EDI doesn't exit the downed Normandy ship on some far-off planet, indicating she died because all synthetic life was wiped out.

So the endings would have been the same no matter what. Save or let the Council die, doesn't matter. Destroy or use the Collector base, doesn't matter. What if I wanted an EVIL ending so that I had the option of totally controlling the Reapers so that I could rule the galaxy unopposed? That would have been a nice option to have. I assumed for the longest time that Bioware would allow gamers this option if they so desired. Hell, we had an option to kill characters off or let them live, so whatever.

I felt very unfulfilled when I completed this - no closure and you don't know what happens with all the characters who survived. It doesn't bother me that Shepard died per say, just that all three endings just were so generic and similar, my choices in the previous two games not mattering at all, and there was no adequate and meaningful prologue to just tie up all the loose ends and answer questions.

I really feel that Bioware fumbled the ball at the 1 yard line on this one. The entire saga was absolutely fantastic.....up until the final 5 minutes when some god-like child spirit ruined the whole thing for me by forcing me to make three colored choices so I could see the galaxy explode in a shade of blue, green or red. Joy.

This is a tough question as personal bias greatly factors into it, but I have to say the SNES was the best one. No other console dominated its generation on the sheer amount of quality, memorable games and also enjoyed a tremendous graphical, and audio, edge on the competition. That's just my personal opinion though.

I'm sure people will say the PS2 is the best ever, and that would be a good console to argue for.

I honestly don't know why they care so much. The PS3 is a strong console with lots of support and great games, and this isn't going to change. The PS3 is a great console on its own merits, with a lot to offer. They should only be disappointed if the PS3 is WAY behind the 360 with a small install base and doesn't get any support at all. It's not like it's the Jaguar. How does the PS3 being "1st place" in sales make their gaming better? Just don't think about it - it's irrelevant. Both consoles are now considered "old" with each having a strong amount of market share.

If they want to rationalize it, then price has a lot to do with it - 360 has always been the cheaper alternative to the PS3, and that has helped Microsoft's numbers.

This is just a gross exaggeration. The industry is robust enough for games to come out that cater to a whole bunch of tastes.

One other thing to take into account is that the so-called "hardcore" games that everybody here loves takes time, talent, and money to meet the incredibly high expectations of quality that gamers expect today. It has nothing to do with Microsoft making some kind of marketing and business decision to throw their efforts behind developing and marketing so-called "casual" games. That is just a ridiculous assertion. These so-called "casual" games that people here like to decry take less time, take less talent, and cost far less to develop, thus there is a higher frequency of these being released. There is only so much talent and so much capital that the industry has - these are finite resources.

If you want to blame something, then blame the high costs of developing games today and your own lofty expectations.

I've always liked Final Fantasy VI's graphics for SNES.

[QUOTE="Giant_Panda"]

Most people can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p on normal sized screens. So have fun arguing over a resolution that most consumers won't be able to tell apart from 1080p. It is a non-factor and you know it TC.

ocstew

The difference is, people don't sit three feet away from their huge television screens like they do with monitors. The closer you are to a screen, the easier it is to discern pixels. Also, when you change to a lower resolution from the NATIVE on a flat-screen LCD, or plasma, it will, of course, look a lot worse. LCD's and plasmas have a fixed raster, and thus don't do a good job of displaying a lower resolution from their natives like, for example, a CRT does.

I have a 50-inch 720p screen, that sits 10 feet away from my couch; I have a friend that has a 1080p screen that also sits 10 feet away from his couch. My television looks better when watching Blu-Ray because it produces better color reproduction and its contrast and black levels are superior. Simply put, at a certain distance the human eye just can't tell the difference.