Thaurin
SasqWatch
That settles it. It was all a dream! (No, don't answer that lest you give it away for real. )
Personally, even though I have not played the game yet (for various reasons - see above), I think Bioware should be commended for their willingness to take a risk and to make open endings where players/gamers would have to think for themselves what happens next in the game.
Agree with this. In a game like this that spans several games you have to have solid endings. You can't pull an open ending that "allows people to imagine what the ending could be". It's a cop out. They did this so they could add DLC missions at the end. People are actually going to have to pay for an ending to the game they already paid for.I think it is more like making room for further DLC$.
I doubt they intended to pull a broken steel, any future dlc is likely designed to be played before the final missions, the game even autosaves to that state when you finish it and lets you keep playing,
There's a rumor that there is going to be a DLC mission for the planet the Normandy landed on. Makes sense considering how it doesn't make any sense for the Normandy to crash land there.I disagree, not every saga needs an epilogue and detailing future consequences of issues likewould diminish the importance of the final victory. A traditional vignette epilogue might have been more satisfying to some gamers, but it would also have been tackier.genophage, synthetics, reaper control, mass relays, reconstruction
I doubt they intended to pull a broken steel, any future dlc is likely designed to be played before the final missions, the game even autosaves to that state when you finish it and lets you keep playing, although they've been known to alter their initial designs due to fan pressure(gay male shepard).
You are right that consistency isn't exactly the hallmark of ME's writing but changing the ending because a section of the fanbase dislikes it is equally absurd. You can't un-play what you've already experienced - and we shouldn't try.
Hudson said he likes its mystery and interpretation possibilities, and having a reactive ending is better than one that falls flat and fades out. "I didn't want the game to be forgettable, and even right down to the sort of polarizing reaction that the ends have had with people — debating what the endings mean and what's going to happen next, and what situation are the characters left in — that to me is part of what's exciting about this story."
Well here is a little quote from Joystiq.
Agree or disagree. I'm getting DA2 flashbacks.
It seems like they buy their BS. Hey everyone hates the ending of your game. Oh that's a good thing because people will remember it. It sounds like they couldn't come up with a good ending that would be memorable. I just can't believe they can be so in denial and think their shit don't stink.Well here is a little quote from Joystiq.
Agree or disagree. I'm getting DA2 flashbacks.
Ding, ding, ding!I think it is more like making room for further DLC$.
You know, that's an opinion. I actually love the ending(s).
That's probably because I know that hearing whispers and seeing moving inky-shadows only happens if you are not exactly right in the head…
Remember Broken Steel, Divinity 2: Flames of Vengeance, Neverwinter Nights 2: Mask of the Betrayer and countless others?
As far as i know, the ending for Divinity 2 was planned differently, but cut due to cost reasons. At least that's how I've understood it.
But yes, the effect is basically the same …