Quote:
Originally Posted by StLee
I played and beat Mass Effect 1 over a number of years. I think I own 2 but never yet played it. Therefore, 3 is not quite in my wheelhouse. I know there was controversy about 3, but I never looked at why because I didn't want spoilers in case I do play it one day.
If it means everyone wins/survives, then yes.  In my Fallout universe, I needed more to survive than did in the game or else my ability to grab photos of the Fallout game characters would be limited. That's why I "rewrote" the ending and made all factions play nice and come together to rid the Commonwealth of unproductive factions like general raiders and Gunners and the Forged and Libertalia, as well as the packs of super mutants and feral ghouls and deathclaws and mirelurks. Of course, there are still fringe elements of all these, thus some enemy encounters (next one September 2 or 3 in my random rolls!!!). As far as the factions are concerned, four was the perfect number. I considered doing the same for Nuka World and making the raider factions there come together for good instead of bad, but that did not seem realistic. I wanted Nuka World to be an actual vacation adventure for people of the Commonwealth like it was pre-War. |
Without spoilers, I think a lot of the reason why people dislike it is because the actual ending sequence is kind of thematically a lot like how Fallout 1 and 2 presented the endings. Choices mattered, but because it wasn't "presented" well there was a lot of accusations that all the endings were the same, just with cosmetic differences, but if you think about it, when it comes to literally the end of a franchise (baring the fact that a sequel was announced like this month), ALL differences would just be cosmetic no matter how profound.