Did Genesis actually mention that you met her? Otherwise, well, you didn't, despite going through the comic.
Spoiler: Rannoch Priority Mission That was so tragic! I had to kill [crappy Legion stand-in because I didn't have a save gave] and Tali and ALL the Quarians to get the Geth to join my fleet! That was a really tough decision! I love using Tali. She looks cool and I like her accent. Dude.
I imagine it requires the ME1 blackmail sidequest plot flag to be set, as it is possible to recruit Garrus without ever visiting the clinic. From what I gather the Genesis comic only covers the "major" decisions and not even all of them (I gather Feros is entierly omitted?)
This Mass Effect ending debacle is a learning tool for everyone. People express their anger at the ending by donating their money to a charity that supports children. They donate nearly $80,000 to the cause. The charity requests that the RetakeMassEffect movement end the fund raising citing bad press and negative feedback. The movement complies. Did you know that Child's Play was founded by the people who are behind the Penny Arcade? Penny Arcade has been disparaging of RetakeMassEffect. Here is a link that goes into more detail: http://clancop.wordpress.com/2012/03/23/hold-the-line-childs-play-under-attack/ http://clancop.wordpress.com/2012/03/23/hold-the-line-using-a-charity-as-a-shield/ I don't remember much about the controversy surrounding Fallout 3's ending. Was it this ugly? UPDATE: The RetakeMassEffect has found a new charity for fans to donate money. It is called Kids Need To Read. However, this charity is receiving hate mail and they have been requested by some to cut ties with this movement. The longer this drags on, the uglier it gets.
Using a charity to rally people to a largely unrelated cause is pretty shady IMO and I don't blame the Penny Arcade people for wanting to disassociate themselves regardless on what their views of said cause are. And no, the fuss over FO3's ending wasn't much of a fuss at all.
One of the lessons to be learned from the charity issue was if you don't do your research you may find yourself in a bind. By selecting a charity that was founded by people who are associated with the industry and may have an interest in maintaining the status quo, the founders of RetakeMassEffect were sideswiped when the charity turned against them. I agree that this was a risky move that had questionable motives; however, the positive press generated by this move stunted some of the sting of the critics. (I feel the status quo for this situation was for maintaining the ending as it currently exists. "Broken Steel" for Fallout 3 was a rarity.)
^Not the best analogy since Broken Steel didn't change the ending, it simply continued the story in a fairly logical direction. Plus I don't think it came about through direct fan pressure, Bethensda seemed to come up with it all on their own. The equivalent in this case would be a DLC in which Shepard awakens from the dead (again) to help the newly united galaxy wipe out the last vestiges of the Reapers and/or Cerberus. That's not what TBME is asking for, nor is anyone else really.
In Mass Effect 3, the fans have asked for content that clarifies the ending and meets what the developers said in pre-release comments. The press is reporting that Bioware is looking at ways to extend the ending in the form of DLC or a patch. To do this, the ending of Mass Effect 3 will have to change. Many in the industry are opposed to this change. The analogy is similar in that the ending in both games will have additional content after release, and that this content will address issues that were present in the original ending. [Fallout 3 - Fawkes]
Far as I've seen, no one here has suggested that they owe us. By that same token, the customers don't owe them future business, favorable word of mouth or positive reviews.
I don't think there was a fuss. It's just that the ending didn't take into account the most obvious solution to the ending ever. Like they never anticipated something like that happening... and it's only later did they decide to both fix that ending solution in response to that criticism. Of course, they probably had 5 dlc packs planned anyway - to make one of them a post-script probably wasn't that much of a stretch... giving them the chance to change the ending.
^Yeah, that's what I meant. There wasn't a fuss at all, just a common criticism and I suppose there might have been some griping at not being able to free roam post ending. Plus, as I said they didn't change the ending at all, just took out the epilogue that says you died and added new content. The old ending didn't really go anywhere. Mass Effect 3 is a completely different situation.
Well, not to get into spoilers... but it's a fairly big change considering the "finality" of the original ending. And it's not even that people wanted there to be a happy ending or whatever. There was just such a huge inconsistency/plot hole that the ending completely broke for some people (especially if you had a certain companion with you). But yeah, certainly it didn't engender the reaction we got with ME3. But then again, it also wasn't as... problematic, to put it kindly.
I like the assault rifle we get from From the Ashes it kills Husks dead. Can't wait to fry some Cerberus bastards with it
Well, if that was really the case though, and no one thought they were owed anything, threads all over the internet wouldnt be full of people demanding DLC to "improve" or "fix" etc.. the endings. but they are, and they are because people think Bioware "owe" them a particular kind of ending. I can understand not liking what we got as endings, but just because people arent out right going "I am owed a better ending because of ..." doesnt mean they dont think they are owed anything full stop.
Personally, I think something greater beyond the 3 variations on a theme endings is required. And BioWare has encouraged players of the Series all the way back to ME1 to give them feedback, comments and I'm sure that has radically improved the experience from many different angles. The endings are just bad. It's been awhile, but I'm sure many Trek fans wanted something to cancel out These Are The Voyages. But Enterprise was off the air, impossible under the circumstances at the time. For ME3, not impossible, they're planning on doing updates and DLC. The problems can be fixed or mitigated. So they owe it to their fans to do something to fix this mess, because they can.
Wanting something isn't the same thing as thinking that it's owed to you. I'm not really sure where that idea came from.
The Belief in Owing Essentially, what I am getting from those who believe this in the gaming industry, is that we should be grateful for what we are given, and that by asking for more, that we are violating some principle and that we are threatening to upset the order of things. The principle in this case being artistic integrity. The people who make the games are the ones who contribute to the industry, and the consumers are the ones who benefit from their contributions through the pleasure derived from playing the games. To demand more is to be impertinent.
What's wrong with a little impertinence? Seriously though, most of what you've been arguing about are just straw man arguments. The ending(s) of ME3 are demonstrably *bad* (and by bad i mean poorly executed and unsatisfying, not that it wasn't the mega-fun happy ending or the Scooby Doo ending.) As paying customers who were promised something *good* in this regard we are within our rights to make our dissatisfaction known and it's within the interests of the game developers to pay heed. Do some fans take it too far? Sure. Welcome to the internet. But does that negate the validity of the reasonable complaints and constructive criticisms levelled at the game? Speaking as an artist myself, I think I can safely say that artistic integrity doesn't enter into it. Art doesn't exist in a vacuum and has *always* been subject to critical and peer review, doesn't matter if it's a painting, sculpture, musical composition, feature film or video game. People have an odd idea that the artist's vision is always sacrosanct but the reality is that this is simply not the case. Never was. Art is largely done on commission, which means you're doing it because someone wants something specific and is paying you, the artist, to make it a reality. If you fail to do so, or what you produce doesn't meet the agreed upon specifications then you either don't get paid in full or you have to go away and try again. It's the same principle here. Art was commissioned. It came back as a masterpiece with a glaring flaw, akin to a red clown's nose on the Mona Lisa. Kindly go back and fix it.