Quote:
|
I don't see how that is relevant. Different game, different story, different motivation for changing it. The main change was that the player gets to continue after the main story end, which makes a ton of sense in an open world game that keeps adding new content. That was the main motivation for it.
|
The ending was also changed
because it made no freaking sense. You're asked to activate a device in a room filled with lethal levels of radiation. A similar event happened earlier in the game, and you survived by asking a radiation-resistant NPC companion to enter the room for you. At the end of the game, though, even if you have the very same NPC companion with you who could just as easily enter the room without problem, the developers forced the player's character to die for no reason because they wanted a bittersweet ending where the protagonist has to sacrifice himself/herself.
Now, I have no problems with bittersweet endings. In fact, I think an ending of that style was the only appropriate way to finish the Mass Effect trilogy. But I did expect the ending to be well-written and logically consistent. Fallout 3's original ending was not, nor was ME3's.
If it worked for you and you enjoyed it, then consider yourself lucky. You are most definitely in the minority. It didn't work for me and I hated it. And my opinion has nothing to do with groupthink or anything else. I stayed 100% spoiler-free and didn't read anything about the game until after I was done with it. I didn't even know there was an "ending controversy" until I started reading forum threads after I had finished the game.