Mass Effect 3 Gets An Ending

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 NEXT
 

Fearzone:
It is not without precedent. The earliest form of storytelling, telling a story orally, were varied with each retelling and popular changes would stick and less popular plot elements fell by the wayside. Even operas would commonly be modified by composers throughout their life, and surely some of those changes had to be in response to feedback from others. Purists should back off and let the process unfold as it does.

I'm. Just saying, a good story is not an artist unleashing his or her creative freedom in a vacuum, but a reverie between audience and storyteller

Detractors don't have a problem with changing parts of the story per se. They have problems with changing them to appease fans. There is an important difference. Usually, when someone tries to change a story specifically to make the audience happier, it completely ruins the story.

Also, I think a lot of people are assuming detractors are against the idea of expanding on the ending. Changing an ending has very specific implications and sometimes I doubt the people using the word so easily understand those implications.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MlatxLP-xs

This covers the main issues.

Chrono Trigger had multiple wildly different endings and nobody complained.

I understand that people are upset but this isn't the end of the mass effect series, Hudson said to hang on to our save files. That's why there is only the finite ending for Sheppard and even then I believe that there is an ending that he/she lives? For PC gamers I'm sure there will be a MMO with ME, and for console gamers I'm sure that even a new series will take our save files into account. Maybe there will be a new series about the Krogan wars? There is a million different ways this could go with current/new squadmates. Sure, create some fill for the plot holes at the end but there is downloadable content and new games on the way. You'd be mad to think the series is over, even with this ending mess.

For.I.Am.Mad:
Chrono Trigger had multiple wildly different endings and nobody complained.

I know. So I really don't understand why Mass Effect fans are angry with the endings we already have.

yeah_so_no:

JediMB:
The thing is, here, that the indoctrination theory is just speculation. And if it's true, it instead leaves us with a non-ending where the battle for the Earth and the Citadel isn't over yet. Which leaves us with an incomplete game.

I'd kinda disagree with that - if you see the game as being Shepard's story, then ending when it does makes sense because

Even then the game is stuck in a state of non-ending because there is no actual epilogue.

Not to mention that it's utter madness to end a space opera on that note.

The ending of ME3 is broken. Fixing something that is broken is generally regarded as desirable. I don't think it would be an artistic mistake for Bioware to make improvements to their ending. I wouldn't have been able to conceive of having that opinion before I finished ME3, but now that I have I find I can't have any other opinion.

There are many reasons why I feel that ME's ending is broken. Here are some, though by no means all.

1) The ending introduces a new central antagonist in the last ten minutes instead of sticking with, for instance, an already-known antagonist like Harbinger concerning whom the player already has significant feelings. The final antagonist comes from out of the blue and, in some ways, usurps Shepard's role as protagonist, since the final outcome of the ending ultimately depends on the choices it decides to give Shepard.
2) The ending does not allow Shepard to challenge the assertions of this new antagonist, even though a) Shepard has no reason to trust the antagonist, b) Shepard has always been able to challenge these kinds of assertions until now, and c) the stories of many missions and characters up to this point showed the assertions to be false.
3) The one previous instance of the destruction of a mass relay of which we know destroyed the whole solar system in which it resided, yet Shepard has no choice but to destroy all mass relays, inflicting untold destruction on the galaxy. Shepard cannot even point this out, even though we know that (s)he is well aware of it because the franchise dedicated more dialogue to the one previous instance of relay destruction than the last antagonist has in total, over all subjects, and the circumstances in which Shepard began the game came as a direct result of that destruction.
4) The type of "energy" released by the choice Shepard makes, in spite of having three different effects on the Reapers, synthetics, and the galaxy at large, has exactly the same effect on the Normandy.
5) The Normandy being able to pick up characters who were part of Shepard's team on Earth makes no sense. The Normandy even wishing to do so makes no sense; these characters have a mission on Earth, while the Normandy has its own role to play in the battle.

I think I'll leave it there for now and edit the post if I wish to add more.

Just to conclude for the time being, this video does a great job of explaining some of the problems with the ending.

I don't think they should out right change the ending, I just think it needs to be tightened up and add closure. That's it. Although at this point I don't even really care much anymore. Yeah, it would have been cool so see what Garus (however you spell it), Miranda, Liara and all the others got up to after I saved the galaxy... but I won't go on about it. Ive kinda lost faith in Bioware anyway.

I do believe I got the best ending in the game. So..No..everyone didn't die for me. Not even my Shepard, apparently. Well. Eitherway. I enjoyed it. The ending was alright. The game itself is amazing. I still hope they won't yield and change the ending. Though I have to admit, extra closure wouldn't be so bad.

Revolutionaryloser:

Fearzone:
It is not without precedent. The earliest form of storytelling, telling a story orally, were varied with each retelling and popular changes would stick and less popular plot elements fell by the wayside. Even operas would commonly be modified by composers throughout their life, and surely some of those changes had to be in response to feedback from others. Purists should back off and let the process unfold as it does.

I'm. Just saying, a good story is not an artist unleashing his or her creative freedom in a vacuum, but a reverie between audience and storyteller

Detractors don't have a problem with changing parts of the story per se. They have problems with changing them to appease fans. There is an important difference. Usually, when someone tries to change a story specifically to make the audience happier, it completely ruins the story.

Also, I think a lot of people are assuming detractors are against the idea of expanding on the ending. Changing an ending has very specific implications and sometimes I doubt the people using the word so easily understand those implications.

Fine then. Imagine for a moment that you're Dr. Muzyak of Bioware facing this. Massive backlash, etc. What matters more: appeasing your customers by salvaging your studio's reputation and potential future sales or appeasing the egos of some employees by standing up for "artistic integrity"?

When you're making a painting or a sculpture or some other unique piece of art, integrity matters, to a degree.

When you're creating something for consumption by the masses, artistic integrity is bullshit. It doesn't exist because the whole point is to appease your customers and sell them something they'll be happy with.

In the video game industry (less so with indie titles) the business side beats the art side. It beats it every single time. Making money is more important than some ivory-tower ideal.

Rylian:

Revolutionaryloser:

Fearzone:
It is not without precedent. The earliest form of storytelling, telling a story orally, were varied with each retelling and popular changes would stick and less popular plot elements fell by the wayside. Even operas would commonly be modified by composers throughout their life, and surely some of those changes had to be in response to feedback from others. Purists should back off and let the process unfold as it does.

I'm. Just saying, a good story is not an artist unleashing his or her creative freedom in a vacuum, but a reverie between audience and storyteller

Detractors don't have a problem with changing parts of the story per se. They have problems with changing them to appease fans. There is an important difference. Usually, when someone tries to change a story specifically to make the audience happier, it completely ruins the story.

Also, I think a lot of people are assuming detractors are against the idea of expanding on the ending. Changing an ending has very specific implications and sometimes I doubt the people using the word so easily understand those implications.

Fine then. Imagine for a moment that you're Dr. Muzyak of Bioware facing this. Massive backlash, etc. What matters more: appeasing your customers by salvaging your studio's reputation and potential future sales or appeasing the egos of some employees by standing up for "artistic integrity"?

When you're making a painting or a sculpture or some other unique piece of art, integrity matters, to a degree.

When you're creating something for consumption by the masses, artistic integrity is bullshit. It doesn't exist because the whole point is to appease your customers and sell them something they'll be happy with.

In the video game industry (less so with indie titles) the business side beats the art side. It beats it every single time. Making money is more important than some ivory-tower ideal.

I think I would like to tell both artists and customers can go fuck themselves while I go stand for humanity. But then again, I'm an idealist, not a businessman.

Estelindis:

3) The one previous instance of the destruction of a mass relay of which we know destroyed the whole solar system in which is resided, yet Shepard has no choice but to destroy all mass relays, inflicting untold destruction on the galaxy. Shepard cannot even make this objection, in spite of the fact that the franchise dedicated more dialogue to the one previous instance of relay destruction than the last antagonist has in total, over all subjects, and the circumstances in which Shepard began the game came as a direct result of that destruction.
4) The type of "energy" released by the choice Shepard makes, in spite of having three different effects on the Reapers, synthetics, and the galaxy at large, has exactly the same effect on the Normandy.

If taken at face value of being "real" and not of some dream;

3) We know of the "Arrival" level of destruction when a large planetary body is slammed into a Mass Relay. We do not know the level of destruction that occurs when a Mass Relay essentially self destructs after discharging a massive amount of energy off towards the next Mass Relay. In every case, it seems to be two very different destructions.

4) The damage caused by the Normandy is due to the zero mass effect space tunnel collapsing, destroying the engines once that barrier threshold was reached (being prematurely pulled back into real space). Since in all 3 colors have the same effect on the Mass Relays (and any currently active space tunnels), all three would have the same effect to the Normandy.

The rest of your points, valid.

Murmillos:

If taken at face value of being "real" and not of some dream;

3) We know of the "Arrival" level of destruction when a large planetary body is slammed into a Mass Relay. We do not know the level of destruction that occurs when a Mass Relay essentially self destructs after discharging a massive amount of energy off towards the next Mass Relay. In every case, it seems to be two very different destructions.

4) The damage caused by the Normandy is due to the zero mass effect space tunnel collapsing, destroying the engines once that barrier threshold was reached (being prematurely pulled back into real space). Since in all 3 colors have the same effect on the Mass Relays (and any currently active space tunnels), all three would have the same effect to the Normandy.

The rest of your points, valid.

These are good counterpoints. Thank you.

I'm still not sure why all three types of energy would have the same effect on the mass relays, though. Is it a function of the energy needed to carry out these various tasks all being drawn from the mass relays, do you think?

et tu Yahtzee?

Revolutionaryloser:

For.I.Am.Mad:
Chrono Trigger had multiple wildly different endings and nobody complained.

I know. So I really don't understand why Mass Effect fans are angry with the endings we already have.

It might have to do with how all the endings were based on the consequences of your actions.
Sure, the timing was a gimmick, but that's part of the decision and in fact THE core principle of the game: Mucking with continuity to try and get the "future" you want.

Hell, the Reptites Rule ending was used as the basis for half the plot in Chrono Cross.

Estelindis:

These are good counterpoints. Thank you.

I'm still not sure why all three types of energy would have the same effect on the mass relays, though. Is it a function of the energy needed to carry out these various tasks all being drawn from the mass relays, do you think?

It's possible to believe that the power required to charge the color coded "pulses" require all of the energy in a Mass Relay, thus the reason it is destroyed in the process.

Murmillos:

It's possible to believe that the power required to charge the color coded "pulses" require all of the energy in a Mass Relay, thus the reason it is destroyed in the process.

I suppose it's possible, but I don't see why it would require the same amount of energy to affect all reapers in the galaxy as it would to affect all organic and synthetic life in the galaxy.

While I appreciate the fact he didn't do anything like Moviebob did. I can still respectfully disagree with Yahtzee here. I don't think he really got the main reasoning behind it all that well, even if he got part of it with the closure stuff.

I completely agree with yatzhee about the theme of the story, He pretty much nailed the motivation of the reapers and idea of entropy, I was actually surprised how much credit he gave the game. But I don't think he understands why gamers are upset, I think really everyone is pissed and rightly so is that Bioware failed to give everyone the non-a-b-c-d ending they were promised, and as someone already said, gamers feel disrespected, In additon to there not being much variation in the endings and a lack of closure.

I personally have no problem with the ending, but then again I didn't read any of the bioware hype on the ending, so I wasn't particularity disappointed. I did really like the theme of the reapers pushing entropy, like yatzhee said, as It did give a form of reason to the reapers. I actually think this goes well with the indoctrination theory, the reapers are showing shepard their reasoning, and if shepard was indoctrinated then he gave in with the blue and green ending. But this is all my opinion.

Ganath:
I do believe I got the best ending in the game. So..No..everyone didn't die for me. Not even my Shepard, apparently. Well. Eitherway. I enjoyed it. The ending was alright. The game itself is amazing. I still hope they won't yield and change the ending. Though I have to admit, extra closure wouldn't be so bad.

Yep, pretty much my thoughts exactly.

Mausenheimmer:

GartarkMusik:

Mausenheimmer:
"Curing the Krogan Genophage implies that the Krogan Rebellions would start again"

No, they wouldn't because Wrex and Eve survived on my playthrough and they were determined to guide the krogan along a different path. Similarly, the geth and quarians started to get along and help each other, undermining the point that synthetics will inevitably fight organics.

But I guess paying attention to differences between playthroughs would require you to spend more than half a week thinking about it. And that requires way more effort than I've come to expect from you.

But would Wrex be able to stop them? What if a majority of the krogan want revenge for the Genophage? Wrex may be a respected leader, but he's just one krogan. If they all want blood, he may not be able to stop it happening. And let's not even get started if Wrex didn't survive and Wreav took over.........

Well, I'm pretty sure you haven't played Mass Effect 3 yet. But the game goes out of its way to make it clear that Wrex and Eve (the krogan female whose tissue was used to cure the genophage) cause a cultural paradigm shift in the krogan. Furthermore, they pretty much explain that the unintended consequence of the genophage was 1400 years of nihilism and hopelessness for the Krogan. An end to the genophage means that krogan have a tomorrow to fight for and will actually focus on rebuilding their culture again rather than fighting as hired muscle.

I could never bring myself to pull the trigger on Wrex, but from what I've read, Wreav's violent tendencies are kept in check by Eve's influence. But if Eve and Wrex are dead, then you're right. There would be no culture shift and then history would repeat itself.

But that's the problem with the ending and why everyone hates it. All of that diversity of choice is completely meaningless. The game couldn't be bothered to tell you what happens on Tunchanka after the Reaper invasion. Or anywhere else. So long as you get your 2800 Effective Military Strength in whatever way you deem fit, you have your three endings carved in stone.

Uh, I'm actually on my third playthrough of ME3, and Eve herself even said that Wrex is only one krogan, and that if the majority wants blood, he may or may not be able to stop it. I'm not saying that Wrex wouldn't bring peace to the krogan, (disregard the ending for a sec) but there would still be some krogan that need to be convinced that peace is the best option, or eliminated.

JDLY:
Am I the only person who finished it without "everyone dying"?

I mean, yeah a lot of people died; nameless people of all species if that's what you mean. But it seems like for everyone, all of their teammates died as well, when all of mine lived.

I thought the same thing. I wasn't even sure that the Mass Relays were all done for. Maybe we played the game so well we got the :D ending! You know what's strange is this point of contention that really confuses me. I thought that the big issue many people, including Yahtzee, point out is that all the endings are essentially the same. You just get variations of the same ending. How is that an A, B, C ending and not variation of just A, thus not getting a B or C. Choices in the game always mostly seemed limited to choosing up to three responses and would result to the same outcome - the continuation of the story. The only thing that might change is how different factions help or feel about you in latter missions and possibly what resources are available to you.

tautologico:
I think I'm much more into Mass Effect than Yahtzee, but I still don't think the ending is a heinous crime against humanity.

The general idea of the ending makes sense in the setting, although it was badly executed. It's another game/trilogy with a kinda-bad, rushed ending, not the end of the world.

Amen.

Atmos Duality:

Revolutionaryloser:

For.I.Am.Mad:
Chrono Trigger had multiple wildly different endings and nobody complained.

I know. So I really don't understand why Mass Effect fans are angry with the endings we already have.

It might have to do with how all the endings were based on the consequences of your actions.
Sure, the timing was a gimmick, but that's part of the decision and in fact THE core principle of the game: Mucking with continuity to try and get the "future" you want.

Hell, the Reptites Rule ending was used as the basis for half the plot in Chrono Cross.

I'm still not getting you. The whole of Mass Effect 3 is a culmination of the consequences of your actions.

Revolutionaryloser:

I'm still not getting you. The whole of Mass Effect 3 is a culmination of the consequences of your actions.

Well, the ending you get in Chrono Trigger depends on the consequences of your actions.
It's just that there are fewer actions that matter.

Besides, if you're comparing them on the premise that most actions should matter, you're comparing two games with two different promises.

Bioware said that your actions would matter in Mass Effect and the games are designed to do so (until the end of 3 anyway).
The culmination of your decisions in Chrono Trigger wasn't the focus, nor was it really the promise. You saved the world through time travel shenanigans...

In that, it's not a fair point of comparison if you're actually addressing the ME3 controversy, because Squaresoft didn't make the same promises Bioware did.

Sandytimeman:

SonOfVoorhees:

Sandytimeman:
Almost 300+ hours of game play to give me some depressing ass story where everyone fucking dies. Could have saved myself 80 bucks and 35 hours if I had just let shepard die in ME2.

Freedom has a price. It was both disappointing and awesome. Would have hated a "Wow we beat the reapers and everyone is happy" ending. I guess they didn't want a generic Paragon/Renegade ending. But seems everyone did. I sold my copy and have zero interest in any new ending.

But you didn't get freedom, you actually just fucked the galaxy over and killed everyone.

I don't think anyone who makes this argument. (Besides those that say the Mass Relays blowing up would do that. But thats a different argument) Actually paid attention to what went into the final battle if you saved the Quarians. People say the Turians and Quarians are both dead but thats illogical because the Quarians brought their civilian fleet and live ships with them so they can still live even if they don't have a planet to live on. They can also probably make food for at least some of the Turians that came to survive. Also not ALL the Turians came to Earth. there are still all the ones back on Palavin.

Atmos Duality:

Revolutionaryloser:

I'm still not getting you. The whole of Mass Effect 3 is a culmination of the consequences of your actions.

Well, the ending you get in Chrono Trigger depends on the consequences of your actions.
It's just that there are fewer actions that matter.

Besides, if you're comparing them on the premise that most actions should matter, you're comparing two games with two different promises.

Bioware said that your actions would matter in Mass Effect and the games are designed to do so (until the end of 3 anyway).
The culmination of your decisions in Chrono Trigger wasn't the focus, nor was it really the promise. You saved the world through time travel shenanigans...

In that, it's not a fair point of comparison if you're actually addressing the ME3 controversy, because Squaresoft didn't make the same promises Bioware did.

I'm pretty sick of this whole "every ending is the same" rubbish anyway. No, the ending isn't the same. Before the very end you see how every single plot thread in the story is resolved in a unique way exclusive only to your playthrough. Furthermore, the last choice leads to massively different endings with huge consequences and implications. What's more, each of those resolutions is largely open-ended leaving plenty of room for you to understand how the game ended for you instead of having to settle for one supersolid decisive ending no matter who you were.

Bioware didn't lie. They may have been ambiguous, but then again I don't think they would have made many fans happy by spoiling the fucking endings in the marketing campaign. Why can't people admit already that this is just about fans projecting insanely ridiculous expectations on a few vague words that no functional human being could interpret as a "promise"?

Krion_Vark:

Sandytimeman:

SonOfVoorhees:

Freedom has a price. It was both disappointing and awesome. Would have hated a "Wow we beat the reapers and everyone is happy" ending. I guess they didn't want a generic Paragon/Renegade ending. But seems everyone did. I sold my copy and have zero interest in any new ending.

But you didn't get freedom, you actually just fucked the galaxy over and killed everyone.

I don't think anyone who makes this argument. (Besides those that say the Mass Relays blowing up would do that. But thats a different argument) Actually paid attention to what went into the final battle if you saved the Quarians. People say the Turians and Quarians are both dead but thats illogical because the Quarians brought their civilian fleet and live ships with them so they can still live even if they don't have a planet to live on. They can also probably make food for at least some of the Turians that came to survive. Also not ALL the Turians came to Earth. there are still all the ones back on Palavin.

The Quarian liveships are barely able to sustain their population. It's the reason they control their population so carefully. Even with the number of dead Quarians, you're still looking at 100's of thousands, or even millions of Turians. There will be mass starvation. Mass starvation doesn't exactly make people happy. Add in the Krogan, a ravaged Earth, and several other races who will be in a mass panic, what with the whole "what the fuck just happened why did the relays blow up" mindset that you can pretty much guarantee everyone's gonna be in, and you have the makings of a really, really bad thing. When mass hysteria happens nowadays, it causes a whole host of problems. Now crank that dial up to "dystopic near apocalypse" and see what happens.

Oh, and also, there's almost nobody left on Palavan. They've evacuated almost everyone. There's even a codex entry about it. Basically, the Reapers fell for the oldest trick in the book(what kind of super AI falls for a feint?!).

Revolutionaryloser:
I'm pretty sick of this whole "every ending is the same" rubbish anyway.

You and both, mate.

As for the degree of similarity between the endings; I'm only giving you the differences in the advertised premises there, because Chrono Trigger had NONE of the fan buildup or pre-established emotional baggage going into the game, so there was nothing established to potentially ruin or screw up (no, the SEQUEL did some of that regardless, which is why few like it except as a comparison to Trigger).

I'll let the fans who beat the game rage about it. Me? I'm just tired of the issue, yet it's the only thing people seem to really talk about lately.

:\

Sandytimeman:
Yeah, I feel like most journalists / critcs are on a completely different wave length then us gamers.

That being said I don't think bioware should have to remake the ending I just don't want to buy anything they sell ever again. Almost 300+ hours of game play to give me some depressing ass story where everyone fucking dies. Could have saved myself 80 bucks and 35 hours if I had just let shepard die in ME2...

TL;DR fuck bioware and don't buy from them anymore.

Dragon Age:Orgins, Jade Empire,Baldur's gate 1&2,Neverwinter Nights 1&2,Starwars:KOTAR 1&2, Shattered Steel, Mass Effect 1&2( Which are still great games.)
There you have it A list of why you should know what a company makes before damning it for one good game with an ending that didn't sit well with only one part of the fan base and that makes sense.

neon_samurai:
Dragon age:origins, Starwars:KOTAR 1&2, Jade Empire,Neverwinter Nights 1&2, Baldur's Gate 1&2,Shattered Steel, Mass Effect 1&2(both still amazing games.)
There you have it a list of why you should know what a company makes rather than just damn it for one really good game with a ending that makes sense but does not sit well with a part of the fan-base.

EVERY GAME

you just mentioned, was written or worked on by Drew...

Not the lead writer of ME 3 that's Mac W. Drew was put on the MMO, and left the company at the beginning of the year. He also "created" the ME universe.

He also said, "it will be interesting to see how they handle this", as CLEARLY this was NOT the game he had in mind... but some "artist" had a "vision" and needed to make a "simple sequel" "deep", and faff'ed about, wasting time and money, took a rainbow dump in the box... and there ya go.

Art

Revolutionaryloser:

Atmos Duality:

Revolutionaryloser:

I know. So I really don't understand why Mass Effect fans are angry with the endings we already have.

It might have to do with how all the endings were based on the consequences of your actions.
Sure, the timing was a gimmick, but that's part of the decision and in fact THE core principle of the game: Mucking with continuity to try and get the "future" you want.

Hell, the Reptites Rule ending was used as the basis for half the plot in Chrono Cross.

I'm still not getting you. The whole of Mass Effect 3 is a culmination of the consequences of your actions.

No, actually, it isn't. The end takes place inside a bubble completely immune from any of your previous actions (and ripped right out of Deus Ex). No matter whether you got the quarians killed or destroyed the Rachni or any host of other paths which were open to you, you will still get to choose from the exact same A, B, or C endings so long as you have enough military strength. No consequences.

I'm suprised at Yahtzee's article. The issues here are that they delivered a technically weak ending (no biggie) and they lied about what they were going to do.

I'm a software consultant. If I tell my client I'm going to build a series of software components that, when combined, will provide features A, B and C. Then, after they've purchased every component, they get feature Z instead, they are not going to be happy.

We don't own Shepard or the ME franchise or the ME story. Just don't lie and keep quiet about it when people ask why you didn't deliver what you promised. It's called being a responsible business entity. Talk about artistic integrity all you want. The fact is you sold it for profit and we bought it based on what you said you were going to deliver.

We are still waiting for you to deliver.

I actually might not play through it with my other 2 people now that i'm done. it just doesn't feel right. its almost like i just need to accept the ending and move on...*COUGH SPOILER i chose synthesis COUGH COUGH COUGH*
and i actually liked it. oddly enough. the "Solution" is actually logical. but the one thing i wish i could have said to the
*COUGH COUGH SPOILER Catalyst at the end is that Chaos is inevitable. none of your "Solutions" would prevent life from continuing or the galaxy to be a bad place. we just need to coexist and move on and NOT slaughter each other. The Quarians and Geth were a perfect example of that. COUGH COUGH**

I'm done.

I won't worry, the ending was fine by me. Life goes on. That was the mission and I completed it. Great effing game.

I think they just tried to get too crazy with the ending and probably ended up writing themselves into a corner with the whole child-god final choice thing and ended up with the pallete swap endings. It's only a small part of the game though.

The cutscene of the start of the final battle on earth is now my new definition of "epic space battle".

The showdown with the illusive man was totally boss.

Every other story arc along with the gameplay was a total blast and that 30 hours (not even including multiplayer) I played isn't defined by that 10 minutes. It's an important 10 minutes, but not the whole game. It's still a 10/10 GOTY for me and most critics. Deal with it.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here