I was also frustrated with how and why I had gotten the "bad" ending. I was disappointed by the ending of Witcher 3 - I felt the final act with the villain was rushed and felt flat. The only other time I have felt that that strong was probably at the end of Witcher 3 Blood and Wine. I became so invested in all of them that by the end, I felt really sad and like I was saying goodbye to life-long friends. I laughed, loved, and cried so much over that whole thing. I don´t know if anyone else feels that way, but I also thought that the DLC (Citadel in particular) was like a farewell to the characters. I also saw the entire game as an ending and I thought there were many great moments along the way that wrapped up storylines of different characters. That sense really stuck with me throughout the 3 games. I loved Mass Effect 3 thanks to its characters and atmosphere. If they tried to end everything on the last mission, it would all feel rushed. It's different from Mass Effect 2 where finishing a loyalty mission could still affect the ending in ME3, once some arcs were done, nothing else happened to them. I don't think arguing that the whole game is an ending is dismissing what didn't work in the last mission, just that there's also a discussion on how well some arcs concluded. Even so, it's ending parts of the story in the second act, right?
I do get the point that it was also marketed as a game for newcomers who could use the Genesis comics if they wanted. When you add it all up, it's impossible to close everything in 20-30 minutes. To expand on why I'm asking that, the reason me and others (and I'm assuming some developers as well) argue that the whole game is an ending is because each Mass Effect game in the trilogy is at least 30 hours. What I meant was, do you see only that last mission as the ending of Shepard's story? I think we can mostly agree on plot holes being bad, unless they're later recontextulised in an intelligent way.Ĭlick to shrink.Sorry, I think I wasn't very clear. It's similar to how I would never tell someone they're wrong for finding the actual ending meaningful in some ways because that's also subjective, but I would point out objective plot holes. "The last 20 minutes doesn't really matter because *~*the whole game was the ending!*~*" is something you only say when your ending sucks - or, at least, when a lot of people think it does. I just feel that "excuse" is the best word to use simply because I don't think this discussion would even be happening had the ending been widely liked. I'm not saying the game doesn't contain ending to certain plot lines or that you're not allowed to feel the way you want about what it meant to you - just about the developer making claims that I think are very revisionist.
It's about the objective fact that the game was at least partly developed and marketed around serving as an effective entry point and standalone title.