IF Mass Effect truly is dead, will/should EA/Bioware even announce this?

This is why this franchise must never die

But to be fair, that stuff should have been explained up front.  The game would then have had a better narrative feel from the very start.  We would have known exactly why we made the journey.  It should not have been left to derp ryder to find clues throughout the game.  Exploration on its own does not have the same 'pull' as fighting for survival.

Also... The bad guys designs are really really poor.  Hell the design throughout the game is poor.  Tis a shame they didn't have someone a little more creative on the design front.

Why?  Ryder's personal reasons for making the journey had to do with following his/her dad.  The reasons for the Initiative being created, young Ryder simply did not know because Alec Ryder was not very communicative with his children.

The "fighting for survival" ploy is also more cliche than each NPC, including the PC, having little personal reasons for making the journey.  People having individual reasons for leaving is also more in line with what actually happened historically when different groups of people left Europe for North America.

Also, one of the cons about ME1 that is commonly cited is that the NPCs give out huge info dumps at the beginning of the game.  I thought this method of providing backstory was infinitely more interesting that hearing Tali prattle on about the Quarians or Shepard grilling everyone he met about their history and culture like an FNG "derp" when he/she was potentially born in space and an N7 war hero who should have easily encountered numerous species before then.

Oh for fuck's sake.

Way to completely miss the point. Why not try and go back and read what I originally posted and then come back at me? Or do you want me to quote myself?

No, I'm trying to take all of those scores and come to an objective conclusion.

Except you can't when every individual review score was the result of a subjective bias review since every reviewer uses intangible criteria to judge a game based on what they believe is the criteria for a good game.  The only thing in this situation that can measured objectively is the average of the review scores and that still does not measure the intangible value of the game itself because it varies from person to person based on their own desires and preferences.  Also the fact that review scores themselves are so varied from outlet to outlet shows that it is not something that can be objectively measured.  If it were every single outlet would have the same exact review score and you would not need to average it out. 

Does this thread have anything else to say?

Or is it mostly this? ...

dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/87106516/handbags.gif

You referring to BSN or multiplayer?  

That's fine. If you want me to defend each of those things the same way that you defend this game, that's fine.

I can become a 9/11 truther quick.

If you believe that facts are facts, and are even willing to go so far as to say that all reviews and the reviews as a whole are subjective. That's great.

If you wanna believe the main stream media about 9/11 that a bunch'a Arabs flew into the ARC, that's fine. Just know that I am the only truth teller here.