23455 réponses à ce sujet

[jeweledleah]

@ Changer. i don't know about death threats, but I can tell you why fans are unhappy about extended cut.

that's becasue fans didn't ask for clarification. fans asked for a better fitting ending. clarification is so very... condescending, you know "there there, you didn't understand our artistic vision, so we're going to speak very slowly in simple words to explain it to you"

and everything that's wrong about that ending? seems to remain in that ending. why would we be happy about more of the same? free or otherwise? why would we be grateful about being feed even more slop, on top of slop we already didn't like?

FAQ about the "extended cut" directly state that there will be no extra endings, no new endings, no new options, no extra gameplay. we know this much. the only thing we don't know is how many cinematics will be added and what if any additional dialogue.

[Changer the Elder]

katamuro wrote...

this thread is still alive? people still believe that bioware listens? even after all this time?

Every little piece of the game content originating from the forums (Mako discussions, Blasto the hanar Spectre, "quad", quibs on Garrus' calibrations, Shepard's dancing, just to name a few), even the extended cut DLC is a proof they are listening (and having very good ear, considering how insignificant lots of those in-jokes started as).

So to your question, I don't have to believe. They do. If the fans prove they are worth listening to instead of demanding it from them.

[helloween7]

jeweledleah wrote...

@ Changer. i don't know about death threats, but I can tell you why fans are unhappy about extended cut.

that's becasue fans didn't ask for clarification. fans asked for a better fitting ending. clarification is so very... condescending, you know "there there, you didn't understand our artistic vision, so we're going to speak very slowly in simple words to explain it to you"

and everything that's wrong about that ending? seems to remain in that ending. why would we be happy about more of the same? free or otherwise? why would we be grateful about being feed even more slop, on top of slop we already didn't like?

FAQ about the "extended cut" directly state that there will be no extra endings, no new endings, no new options, no extra gameplay. we know this much. the only thing we don't know is how many cinematics will be added and what if any additional dialogue.

Pretty much.

Based on what BioWare has said about this Extended Cut, it will be the same awful ending we have now, only longer. 

[Changer the Elder]

I understand people hating the plot around the Catalyst getting upset. But from what I thought, most people called for more closure, which is exactly what they're going to get. We're going to find out who ended how, What consequenses our actions had, how did the people we were helping the whole three games end up coming out of the war. Probably even the war assets should come into play, showing the outcome depending on the strength of the fleet.

Obviously, those who dislike the plot twist at the climax will not be satisfied. But my reaction was to dae_ex_machina's lack of closure, which obviously, the DLC should erradicate.

I doubt they'll do the same thing again, having "three kinds of the same cinematic, just slightly tweaked". Even that seems to have been an escapist option for the deadline to remain unbroken, and Bioware would have to be suicidal to repeat the same thing causing that much of a backlash.

[Rasofe]

Changer the Elder wrote...

I understand people hating the plot around the Catalyst getting upset. But from what I thought, most people called for more closure, which is exactly what they're going to get. We're going to find out who ended how, What consequenses our actions had, how did the people we were helping the whole three games end up coming out of the war. Probably even the war assets should come into play, showing the outcome depending on the strength of the fleet.

Obviously, those who dislike the plot twist at the climax will not be satisfied. But my reaction was to dae_ex_machina's lack of closure, which obviously, the DLC should erradicate.

I doubt they'll do the same thing again, having "three kinds of the same cinematic, just slightly tweaked". Even that seems to have been an escapist option for the deadline to remain unbroken, and Bioware would have to be suicidal to repeat the same thing causing that much of a backlash.

You don't know. They damn well could be suicidal.

[jeweledleah]

Changer the Elder wrote...

I understand people hating the plot around the Catalyst getting upset. But from what I thought, most people called for more closure, which is exactly what they're going to get. We're going to find out who ended how, What consequenses our actions had, how did the people we were helping the whole three games end up coming out of the war. Probably even the war assets should come into play, showing the outcome depending on the strength of the fleet.

Obviously, those who dislike the plot twist at the climax will not be satisfied. But my reaction was to dae_ex_machina's lack of closure, which obviously, the DLC should erradicate.

I doubt they'll do the same thing again, having "three kinds of the same cinematic, just slightly tweaked". Even that seems to have been an escapist option for the deadline to remain unbroken, and Bioware would have to be suicidal to repeat the same thing causing that much of a backlash.

Shepard still can't say no to godchild, same 3 implausible horrible choices must be picked, Shepard still dies, relays are still destroyed.  Normandy is still stuck on jungle planet, though I suppose they might possibly make it a relatively nearby jungle planet.

"closure" is such a buzz word.

if you watch/read some of the most concise decostructions of the ending and why it doesn't work - ambiguity of the outcome is one of the smaller issues with it.  still an issue, but ending is broken even before we get to "lots of speculation from everyone" part.

here's what I predict will happen.

we will get more cutscenes utilizing assets that we gathered.  this is a good thing.  we will get extra flashbacks utilizing ALl of the LI's.  also a good thing.  we might get extra conversation options with Shepard and Catalyst - YMMV on that one as it seems, in the end, you still end up saying "ok" to it.  we will get an epilogue scenes with surviving victory fleet, after explosions.  we MAY get some sort of explanation why relays didn't blow up the same way as they did in arrival.  we well see more of Joker running away, to give context why he's running away.. I hope.

that's about it though.  and I'm thinking best case scenario here.

Modifié par jeweledleah, 08 avril 2012 - 10:07 .

[Zypxtyl]

Changer the Elder wrote...

katamuro wrote...

this thread is still alive? people still believe that bioware listens? even after all this time?

Every little piece of the game content originating from the forums (Mako discussions, Blasto the hanar Spectre, "quad", quibs on Garrus' calibrations, Shepard's dancing, just to name a few), even the extended cut DLC is a proof they are listening (and having very good ear, considering how insignificant lots of those in-jokes started as).

So to your question, I don't have to believe. They do. If the fans prove they are worth listening to instead of demanding it from them.

You ever get into a fight with someone and their response is "I listen-I can totally repeat every microscopic detail of what you said!" but they miss the big picture?  This is like that.  Blasto, calibrations, and Shepard's dancing are not what make the me games great-they add to the games and the games probably wouldn't be as good without them but what makes the franchise great are the characters and the choices-the things that should have been in the ending but weren't.  Keeping Blasto but putting in the ending they did isn't listening, it's paying lip service and "offering" to "extend" the ending is condescension.

[Ghettohawk25]

Happy Easter Bioware. Choose one. They're all HOLLOW.

The extended cut better answer a whole lot of unanswered questions.

Modifié par Ghettohawk25, 08 avril 2012 - 10:33 .

[Changer the Elder]

[Note: This is me trying to keep a dialogue. These words are meant in a somewhat curious, yet friendly manner. Since I fail at language subtleties, so please, take it as me being daft rather than being agressive. I sincerely do not mean that.]

Well, say no to Catalyst and then... watch the whole fleet getting torn apart, Reapers finishing the harvest and returning to dark space? Possible, yes, but doesn't sound right with Shepard as a character to come this far just to say "okay whatever" and give up.

Shepard doesn't have to die, and even if s/he did, the writers are entitled to keep that, it doesn't go against the lore/rules of the world. Think of Red Dead Redemption. Or InFamous 2. Or anything else. If the game had a perfect happy ending, it would get criticized for having a bland usual hollywood run-off-the-mill happy ending. Either way, someone would still be upset about it.

Relays are just a technology. They can be rebuilt, or they can be replaced by finding an alternative. It's not the end of the world. Hardship, sure, but not the end. Citadel can survive, after all, who says we can't build the relays again?

And well, it is science fiction. Why doesn't it work is usually just as valid as why does it work. In this case, I haven't found a reason why shouldn't it work. I'm not closed to alternatives, but besides the crewmembers hit by Harbinger magically appearing safe and sound aboard the Normandy, I haven't found any problem even remotely serious enough to spit venom on its creators.

[EugeneBi]

Changer the Elder wrote...

katamuro wrote...

this thread is still alive? people still believe that bioware listens? even after all this time?

Every little piece of the game content originating from the forums (Mako discussions, Blasto the hanar Spectre, "quad", quibs on Garrus' calibrations, Shepard's dancing, just to name a few), even the extended cut DLC is a proof they are listening (and having very good ear, considering how insignificant lots of those in-jokes started as).

So to your question, I don't have to believe. They do. If the fans prove they are worth listening to instead of demanding it from them.

In this case fans do not have to prove anything. BioWare was free to make the game anyway they see fit until they promised something. Now they are bound by that promise and fans have the right to demand - we paid them based on what we heard after all.

[EugeneBi]

Changer the Elder wrote...

[Note: This is me trying to keep a dialogue. These words are meant in a somewhat curious, yet friendly manner. Since I fail at language subtleties, so please, take it as me being daft rather than being agressive. I sincerely do not mean that.]

Well, say no to Catalyst and then... watch the whole fleet getting torn apart, Reapers finishing the harvest and returning to dark space? Possible, yes, but doesn't sound right with Shepard as a character to come this far just to say "okay whatever" and give up.

Shepard doesn't have to die, and even if s/he did, the writers are entitled to keep that, it doesn't go against the lore/rules of the world. Think of Red Dead Redemption. Or InFamous 2. Or anything else. If the game had a perfect happy ending, it would get criticized for having a bland usual hollywood run-off-the-mill happy ending. Either way, someone would still be upset about it.

Relays are just a technology. They can be rebuilt, or they can be replaced by finding an alternative. It's not the end of the world. Hardship, sure, but not the end. Citadel can survive, after all, who says we can't build the relays again?

And well, it is science fiction. Why doesn't it work is usually just as valid as why does it work. In this case, I haven't found a reason why shouldn't it work. I'm not closed to alternatives, but besides the crewmembers hit by Harbinger magically appearing safe and sound aboard the Normandy, I haven't found any problem even remotely serious enough to spit venom on its creators.

This is very convincing and nice, as long as you forget how the game has been advertized. There were very specific details what to expect in the ending. If BioWare employees kept their mouths shut, your logic would be OK, but they didn't.

[StillOverrated]

[quote]Changer the Elder wrote...

StillOverrated: Thank you for your wall of text. This is proving to be an... englightening experience indeed! As it happens, I again forgot half my points while forging the answer, so feel free to poke and prod on everything you feel like it deserves it.[/quote]
As longas you promise to do the same with my inane ramblings, commander. Discourse is fun.

[quote]Changer the Elder wrote...
The pattern was "roughly" 50 000 years, designed by evolution. But it wasn't exactly the same. And it was always prompted by some event - that's why one Reaper (Sovereign/Nazara in this cycle) was left behind; not only to open the backdoor to the dark space, but to observe. The final straw for this cycle is said to have been the original geth/quarian war from 300 years ago. Considering it usually takes more than a century to harvest all the space-faring races and that the Reaper invasions seem to be thoroughly planned to count in every possible failure they can (except Shepard, of course), it makes sense it didn't come suddenly overnight, but rather is a result of slow, step-by-step preparations.[/quote]
I won't argue this point partly because it was bad fact-gathering on my part and partly because that, I can actually see. It'd still have been nice if we had the chance to at lest ask Holokid where he got these numbers from, if only to satisfy the nitpicker ones of us (like me). Moreso considering this was the dev team's original intention.

[quote]Changer the Elder wrote...
Well, we know very little of the Reapers' and Catalyst's origin, but his... programming? seems to be taken from bitter experience. We don't exactly know how many cycles came before and what options (if any) have they tried prior to resolving to harvesting. Maybe they tried killing just synthetics only to find out people just build more. And nature's... ahem... nature has pretty much always been about resolving things with violence. Of course there are those who could have peace. Under Shepard's leadership/influence, it's likely that this cycle's generation (and a few of those to follow) would keep the peace between organics and synthetics. But what of those who'd come next, when Shepard descends into memory and becomes just a part of the lore? Would they remember? The "don't build synthetics" message is the same case, pretty much. For the coming generations, it would've been a myth. Myth many would follow, but someone would eventually try and break. I don't even have to go that far for an example, humanity's own current history is filled with things being presented as "no-nos" and "don't-dos" so long that people forgot why it's been like it. In the name of progress, the paradigm was forcefully shifted. And they either gained progress or got burned.

But here, getting burned would mean the end of evolution as we know it. Which has to be prevented at all costs, therefore the lack of argument or "what-if" scenarios on the Catalysts part.  Also, it's a bit of an enforced way of clear-cutting the universe. Get rid off the old branches to give a chance to the younger sprouts (and before the old branches have a clever idea like nuking the place).[/quote]

I figured Shepard was sort of a once-in-a-million-years kind of miracle person... thing, considering all he/she accomplished but we can argue here
that these people have much better ways of keeping records than we
have. The Prothean VIs lasted a long time (of the ones that were found only the ones in Ilos were irreparably damaged. Then, again, we only saw three, maybe?), not to mention the pod that held Javik. And
I'm guessing that, assuming Shepard succeeded here, they would make sure
to save as much information about this event (via things like Liara's time capsule) as possible to ensue anything like it happens again. They had bought themselves the time to perfect their record-keeping thechnology, after all. Though whether this would work or wouldn't depends on the fact that life is unpredictable. At some point someone would probably turn Shepard's fight with the Reapers into a philosofical story of how the Reapers are the unbeatable and blah blah blah. But, and this goes back to my theory that ME is about freedom of choice, if these people get burned, it'll be their own choice. Though this would probably mean someone else would build Reaper-esque Eldritch abominations and the cycle will repeat itself again and again. Or maybe it won't. Or maybe I'm talking crazy. And in circles.

[quote]Changer the Elder wrote...
Here, I'm willing to say that history is written by victors and depends on the point of view. We don't have anything but Javik's word as a proof that "they would've won". Considering it comes from a member of a race who doesn't consider loosing an option and considering their final plan was wait in the stasis for the Reapers to go away again, I don't think they were that close to victory. I mean, judging from the epilogue of ME2, there were literally hundreds of Reapers. That's nowhere near even getting a stalemate, let alone winning.
Javik seems to be genuinely believing it, but I don't. Even though it seems like they would've indeed won, if they found the Catalyst, but that would be the same situation, only 50 000 years sooner.[/quote]
Actually, I was refering to the Prothean war agains their own AI Javik mentioned rather than their fight with the Reapers. We all know they had no chance of winning that one. Then, again, I might have read your statement wrong. Please correct me if I did.

[quote]Changer the Elder wrote...
I think I covered that in the paragraphs above. Shepard might be an exception, but he's hardly everlasting or omnipresent. And being said that he's pretty much an exception going against the main stream...
I also wish there was more time to talk to the Catalyst, but then again, sitting down and having an hour-long philosophical discussion with an AI-ish thing when there is your fleet getting massacred right outside the Citadel would be... weird. Both story-wise and gameplay-wise. But truth is, additional sentence or two of Shepard at least trying would've been nice.[/quote]
Regardless of Shepard being everlasting, he/she doesn't have any evidence of the Holokid's logic being well... logical. In fact, according to Shepard's experience, it's quite the opposite. It makes no sense Shepard isn't able or willing to argue that there is always a way for all species to coexist peacefully. Especially so if Shepard is played as a paragon. It's just too big a character derailent for me not to be miffed about.

[quote]Changer the Elder wrote...
It's actually invoked in-universe that the Reapers are so deep in it that they're inadvertedly causing the cycle to repeat. They let the civilizations evolve along the paths they desire to have an easy harvest, yet they probably fail to realize they're pretty much dooming them at the same time. That's why they have such a hard time with the geth (who despite being machines remain independent in 95% of their... computing capacity? and therefore defy the Reaper doctrine by their very existence) who want to forge their path.
Yet again, even if you could sit down with the all million-years-old machines for an hour or two to make them see that, there would still be solid chance that it will fail and the Catalyst's worst case scenario comes to happen. And the imperative printed in on the Catalysts mind seems to be preventing it at all costs.[/quote]
But then couldn't Shepard use that against them? If your renegade/paragon score is high enough, you should be able to "talk them to death", like you did with Saren and TIMmy. It's just extremely baffling that you don't get the chance to, at least, question them considering all the information Shepard has to use against them. I know I'm repeating myself with this issue, but the thing I like the most about Mass Effect (or any BW game) is that dialogue is about as important as double-headshoting things with. That they ignored this so hard in the ending it hurts is a pity, really.

[quote]Changer the Elder wrote...
[quote]Then there's the fact that they never explain just how any of Shepard's options work. They explain to you every other thing in the universe, even going as far as explaining how biotic implants in Adepts give them the ability to create mini-black holes but they don't even touch this? This is the most important decision you have to make in the game, and they refuse to tell you just how it will work. (...)[/quote]I think it's still within the fine mantinel of science fiction. It's not like we were ever explained how turning people into creeper juice can fuse together a synthetic starship, metal plating included. Who knows what science the Reapers have.
Maybe synthesis is something like husk-ification. Nanites. Or maybe it's a completely different branch of science beyond human comprehension. It's what Harbinger said, after all [/quote]
Maybe, maybe not. But it would have been nice to know what I was playing with. I wouldn't even think of touching something I'm not used to unless I knew exactly what it did, so why should Shepard? Maybe this is nitpicking, but since they decided to explain the Reapers' motivations (I'd rather they hadn't. I liked thinking they were doing what they did for ****s and giggles) anyway, why not just go all the way and explain me how the green beam of light travelling through the Mass Relays turns everyone into a borg, and how does it use Shepard's DNA? Or how is Shepard part synthetic when he/she has no brain implants and EDI tells Shepard he/she's still fully organic? Far as I remember, the only implants Shepard had were the ones that helped with the broken spine and other assorted bones. I might be wrong, again. It's been known to happen. More often than not, actually.

[quote]Changer the Elder wrote...
Actually, the assets are important, but the numbering's set in a way that it's very hard to fail with them, especially with importing a save. There is an ending where the Crucible backfires and takes everything in its vicinity down with the Reapers and even an ending where it just explodes and doesn't do a thing (if you have too small war asset count, it's going to get damaged on its way to the Citadel, because a puny fleet is not able to protect it). True, the war asset system could've been used much better and seems like a largely missed chance on behalf of the devs.[/quote]
But the thing is, they don't do anything. They're just numbers. Maybe it's because I had been spoiled by the suicide mission, but I felt my war assets were just sitting there, twiddling their thumbs. Why weren't there krogan ground forces with Shepard when he/she made the final push to the conduit? Why didn't the Rachni Queen send her soldiers to bolster the ground forces' ranks? The only acknowledgement that there's anything other than humans fighting you get is Joker mentioning them. It was lackluster. This is just my opinion, though.

[quote]Changer the Elder wrote...
That's what we'll presumably be getting from the Extended cut. Of course, I'm not arguing on the fact that it should've been in the basic game. But the schedule didn't permit it.[/quote]
For the love of anything and everything that is holy, I'm hoping you're right. Since we're stuck with Holokid, anyway, I'm guessing at least this much should be done.

[quote]Changer the Elder wrote...
And of course, there's that. It's been fairly obvious the devs ran out of time and that one is a pity (hence why I consider the endings subpar in execution).[/quote]
Now I know the game had been pushed back once and I was practically banging my head against a wall due to pure impatience, but I wouldn't have minded at all, and I'm pretty sure a lot of people agree with me here, if they'd pushed the release date back again in order to deliver us the best-quality product they can. If no one does, then I just made myself look like an idiot (what else is new?).


[quote]Changer the Elder wrote...
That is true, they shouldn't. But considering most fan reactions, where there are a couple of strong reasonable voices able to discuss something with an open mind (like yourself) surrounded by a howling cacophony of people either just jumping the hate-wagon because they can or not being able to give any better answer than "u suck because I say so!" (and who are, sadly, a large portion, if not a majority), I imagine it's hard to try and sort things out in this turmoil. But considering the reactions to their goodwill gesture (which the Extended cut is, they really didn't have to do anything, like so many people before them) were usually just more shouting and insults, we fans managed to drop the ball ourselves, too.
[/quote]
I'm not saying either side is completely right or wrong, and you're right; The Extended Cut DLC is an olive branch of some sort but from what I've read of it, it's not gonna do much to quell the masses, be it because some think "too little, too late" or because they announced right from the get-go that there will be no gameplay additions (I'm assuming dialogue is included here). I don't agree with the borderline violence on either side, though, regardless of how short-tempered and impulsive I might be (not a very good combo, I know. I'm trying to change it).

I still think we should just pick the best minds of either side and sit them down to see if they can reach an agreement. I know it's an unrealistic and utopic idea, but nothing's ever been accomplished by screaming and flinging rocks at each other and it's clear that the most noticeable people, be them the majority or not, aren't interested in anything but, hence the small select group of people. 

I think Paragon Shepard would approve, anyway.

Modifié par StillOverrated, 08 avril 2012 - 10:25 .

[Naugi]

You took away everything that was important to us in every other moment of the Mass Effect saga. Our companions. The team. Our love interests. It was never about Shepard alone with no regard for our faithful friends. With the ending you threw that out the window.

It's ok that Shepard had to make the final choices, but not that we didnt get to see in any way what effect this had on everyone that has meant something to us in the trilogy. I didnt even see James, Ashley, Garrus, Wrex, etc in the ending. How does that make sense? Why did you make us form a massive emotional attachment to dozens of characters and then remove them from the equation?

Not only did you remove the people you have expected us to care about for years from the equation, in some cases you outright undid what we had previously done with them, our victories, our finest moments, the very things we enjoyed the most. We made peace with the Geth and Quarians, we gave the Quarians back their homeworld, we cured the Genophage at Mordins expense (and we cried in real life) so that the Krogans could repopulate Tuchanka ... and then you wiped out all synthetic life killing the Geth and with the Mass Relay explosions left the Quarians unable to access Rannoch, the Krogan unable to access Tuchanka, for that matter, why did we fight so hard to save Palaven, the Turians cant get back there ... crazy. What were you thinking?

We all wanted to see our War Assets in action, Asari commando squads, Geth fighting side by side with Quarians against Reaper forces, Krogans shouting 'I am Krogan!' while headbutting brutes ... there are fan videos and endings all over the internet suggested by people who love the saga and more importantly get it, understand it, and havent lost touch with it that are waaay better than your ending.

Truly saddened by what you did with the ending. You cant destroy the 200 hours of fun I got from ME1, 2 and 3, but you have left me bitterly dissapointed and unhappy. ME3 is not something I will remember fondly like I do ME1 and ME2, as it was far too dark, grim and harrowing in the end, which I know was partly your intention, but come on, its a game ... it wouldnt hurt for the ending to have felt good.

[Changer the Elder]

Zypxtyl wrote...

You ever get into a fight with someone and their response is "I listen-I can totally repeat every microscopic detail of what you said!" but they miss the big picture?  This is like that.  Blasto, calibrations, and Shepard's dancing are not what make the me games great-they add to the games and the games probably wouldn't be as good without them but what makes the franchise great are the characters and the choices-the things that should have been in the ending but weren't.  Keeping Blasto but putting in the ending they did isn't listening, it's paying lip service and "offering" to "extend" the ending is condescension.

I used those examples as the fact that they are actually reading these forums and they are taking our own five cents' worth of ideas to the brainstorming sessions. But as I mentioned earlier, to listen doesn't mean having to follow the speaker's every whim. (in my language, there are two distinctly different words, so that might make it easier to me. Just guessing though).

But even though the game made sure the player has as much influence as possible, the path has always been beaten for us. We can't choose whether to go through the Omega 4 relay. We can't choose whether to stand and face the Reapers. The path does have slight variations (slight  in comparison to the great scale of things), but it's still the writers, not us telling the bigger story.

Such as that, it's their call to decide where the story will head next. And it's a good thing. As Liara (at least I think it was her) mentioned, put three humans in a room and you'll get six opinions. So far, it's not possible for each player to tailor their game to their expectations, as much as they'd like to. You could call paying lip service to the fact that no matter what you do, they're not changing Legion dying. Or Joker not being romanceable. And still, people are calling for it hard. But it's their decision as the storytellers to do it.

[readysetpanic]

I just finished Mass Effect 3 tonight (I was a little behind because I started my epic 1-3 run a bit late and ME2 took much longer than anticipated - in a good way) and I guess I just wanted to throw my 2 cents in, for what they're worth.

This may be an unpopular opinion, but I found people demanding BioWare change the ending of the game really entitled. It's always "we the fans" as if one person speaks for everybody that's held a copy in their hands, but you know what? I'm a fan, and yet I don't want a new ending.

This doesn't mean that I don't have issues with the endings, because I do. But they're not dire. They're not burn down the internet bad, and definitely not bad to the point I'd call for somebody to renege on their artistic integrity for my personal opinion. Because whether you like, hate, or REALLY hate the endings, that's ultimately your own opinion. There may be people who generally share it, but let's face it: you'll never please everybody. We all have our own little specific wants for what we want to see happen.

I found the choices at the end of the game intriguing actually. There's no clear cut "right" choice. Some more dubious than others but for the most part, various shades of grey. And that's how it should be I think. To resolve a story as big and as dire as this, it should never come down to an "everybody goes home happy" magic button. There has to be an element of sacrifice.
Controlling the Reapers is probably the most dubious choice, and yet - The Illusive Man or Saren weren't exactly Shepard, were they? Maybe he could succeed where they failed. Destroy makes the most sense in canon, and yet the Geth and EDI would be sacrificed, among other forms of synthetics. And Synergy seems a bit too perfect, and yet Shepard has to make the ultimate sacrifice. I was discussing the choices with somebody I know and he said "but Shepard wouldn't choose to control the Reapers! That's not a choice!" like it wasn't valid. Well, I wouldn't think Shepard would sell out the Krogan and have Wrex killed, but it's possible.

What it comes down to is that I don't need to be spoonfed everything. I can accept some things just are. I can accept the Catalyst AI destroys higher forms of intellectual life to keep all life generally in order. An artificial intelligence that enslaves biological life to keep it safe from itself is actually a pretty old sci-fi trope.
I don't need to know technically how biological and synthetic life can merge, but a little bit of why wouldn't hurt. Why should I merge, why do I need to die to do this, why does this kill all synthetic life, why do I need to die to control the reapers.

That's my main misgiving with the endings - not the choices but the lack of explanation, or the lack of follow through. I want to know more about the deals I'm making with the devil, I want to see the aftermath and the fall out. It'd be nice to see the knock-on affect the final choices make on the rest of the characters, races and planets I've encountered. That's all, really.

Other than that, great game, one of the best I've played. Had me hook line and sinker most of the way through.
Any other misgivings are pretty small in comparison.

(Wanted more Shiala! Also an Armistad Banes resolution. Somebody from ME2 as a party member. Gianna Parasini. Billy the serial killer. Would have liked to see a Volus riding a gun mounted Elcor dropping out of the bomb hatch of an aircraft. Space hamster loyalty mission)

[jeweledleah]

Changer the Elder wrote...

[Note: This is me trying to keep a dialogue. These words are meant in a somewhat curious, yet friendly manner. Since I fail at language subtleties, so please, take it as me being daft rather than being agressive. I sincerely do not mean that.]

Well, say no to Catalyst and then... watch the whole fleet getting torn apart, Reapers finishing the harvest and returning to dark space? Possible, yes, but doesn't sound right with Shepard as a character to come this far just to say "okay whatever" and give up.

Shepard doesn't have to die, and even if s/he did, the writers are entitled to keep that, it doesn't go against the lore/rules of the world. Think of Red Dead Redemption. Or InFamous 2. Or anything else. If the game had a perfect happy ending, it would get criticized for having a bland usual hollywood run-off-the-mill happy ending. Either way, someone would still be upset about it.

Relays are just a technology. They can be rebuilt, or they can be replaced by finding an alternative. It's not the end of the world. Hardship, sure, but not the end. Citadel can survive, after all, who says we can't build the relays again?

And well, it is science fiction. Why doesn't it work is usually just as valid as why does it work. In this case, I haven't found a reason why shouldn't it work. I'm not closed to alternatives, but besides the crewmembers hit by Harbinger magically appearing safe and sound aboard the Normandy, I haven't found any problem even remotely serious enough to spit venom on its creators.

I'm amused that your examples involve games of very different genre.  red dead redemption is a western.  those are not known for being kind to their heroes, throughout.  so thematicaly, the ending there - fits.  infamous - much darker, dystopian game.

Mass effect is a space opera.  its Star treck mixed with Star wars of our generation.  and those are generaly uplifting.  Mass Effect 1 has an uplifting ending.  mass Effect 2 has an uplifting ending.  the theme throughout the games seems to be - overcming impossible odds.

who is to say that fleet will be torn apart if you say no to the Catalyst, apparently ME3 reapers are not nearly as smart as Sovereing was, not to mention - they seem to have aquired a weeks spot - their firing lazer.

  rebuilding the relays.. how long will it take? they would have to do a lot of back pedaling with the relay thing to make it work.  Citadel only survives control ending.

Shepard only lives if you either mod coalesced, or play multiplayer.  I suppose they could make that breath less ambigious and redice reqired number of assets.  alhough... why does EDI and the Geth have to die then?

I honestly don't feel like repeating myself and others yet again, throughout this thread, many people listed all the issues with the ending.  the entire London sequence even.

P.S.  what exactly is wrong with uplifting ending to a generaly uplifting thrilogy?  a piece of sapce opera, a piece of entertainment?

Modifié par jeweledleah, 08 avril 2012 - 10:40 .

[FairfaxLessee]

Changer the Elder wrote...

[Note: This is me trying to keep a dialogue. These words are meant in a somewhat curious, yet friendly manner. Since I fail at language subtleties, so please, take it as me being daft rather than being agressive. I sincerely do not mean that.]

Well, say no to Catalyst and then... watch the whole fleet getting torn apart, Reapers finishing the harvest and returning to dark space? Possible, yes, but doesn't sound right with Shepard as a character to come this far just to say "okay whatever" and give up.

Shepard doesn't have to die, and even if s/he did, the writers are entitled to keep that, it doesn't go against the lore/rules of the world. Think of Red Dead Redemption. Or InFamous 2. Or anything else. If the game had a perfect happy ending, it would get criticized for having a bland usual hollywood run-off-the-mill happy ending. Either way, someone would still be upset about it.

Relays are just a technology. They can be rebuilt, or they can be replaced by finding an alternative. It's not the end of the world. Hardship, sure, but not the end. Citadel can survive, after all, who says we can't build the relays again?

And well, it is science fiction. Why doesn't it work is usually just as valid as why does it work. In this case, I haven't found a reason why shouldn't it work. I'm not closed to alternatives, but besides the crewmembers hit by Harbinger magically appearing safe and sound aboard the Normandy, I haven't found any problem even remotely serious enough to spit venom on its creators.

Rejecting a series of equally bad choices isn't the same as "to say 'okay whatever' and give up."  The fact that you can't just cuts against everything ME has stood for up to now-that Shepard DOESN'T have to take the assigned path or make the "obvious" decisions, that solutions exist outside the bounds set up by others.  But, no apparently when you're short and acaporial, Shepard has to listen to you.  It in fact usually says more about a character to have them REJECT the choices presented than the go along and chose one of them, and depending on how you've played the game, a rejection of the obvious is more true to "your" Shepard.

Also, let's go into the problems with the ending (aside from the polite waiting of the beam):
1: If the created *always* rebel against the creators, why haven't the Reapers rebelled against Godchild?
2: In ME1 we learned that the Citadel was the gateway for the Reapers into the galaxy, now the Godchild lives there and he couldn't just go on and push a button and let the Reapers in?
3: On that same note, from what's been said in ME3, before the Illusive Man told them, the Reapers didn't know Godchild was the catalyst-am I to believe that Godchild created these things, has missed the blueprints for the Conduit for how many millions of years, and the Reapers don't know where to find the little bugger?
4: Again, on the same note, if the Reapers were Godchild's "final solution" [yes I understand the context of that reference] why did he let the blueprints for the Crucible survive through pretty much every galactic cycle?
5: What the hell IS the Godchild anyway?  Is he the sole survivor from the first advanced civilization?  Is he THE god?  Is he just some whiny little kid whose parents grounded him and he said "I'll show you!  I'm going to make BIG machines to kill you all and turn you into more machines!"?
6: Where has the Godchild BEEN the last three games?  This is BASIC storytelling-you do not introduce a character central to the plot 6:47 before you're going to end.
7: What do you mean there can never be peace between synthetics and organics?  You're telling me that in an infinite universe of infinite possibilities, there is not one in which synthetics and organics can coexist?  What the hell did I just do on Rannoch then?
8: "YO Dawg-I hear you don't want to get destroyed by synthetics, so I made a bunch of synthetics to come and kill you every 50K years so you don't get killed by synthetics."

And those are just what I can think of off the top of my head.

 

Modifié par FairfaxLessee, 08 avril 2012 - 10:46 .

[LogicGunn]

I've changed my mind. Emergency Induction Port is my favourite moment of ME3.

[Naugi]

LogicGunn wrote...

I've changed my mind. Emergency Induction Port is my favourite moment of ME3.

Haha that was great

Just a shame Tali ends up on a planet with Joker even though she was right behind me on Earth as we approached the beam, there goes building a house with her on Rannoch, because if I even knew where she was, and why she left on the Normandy without me, we couldnt get to Rannoch together anyway thanks to the Mass Relay explosions. Just another example of how the ending ruins everything good that happened before it.

[hipfan]

I just want to say i love the Mass Effect Series but if there isn't an ending where Shepard lives it will be a waste. He's a survivor! I don't want more cut scenes, this game needs a completely different ending!

And to anyone who insults Bioware staff because they're mad over an ending of a video game needs to get some perspective and probably a life.

[Gothmog_Ultra]

Well, I just finished the game (it toke me so long cause I waited weeks for a import face fix and then I luckily rebuilt my Shepard PERFECTLY spending an hour to do it) and for sure the ending is low in front of the big saga Mass Effect is. Well, it's not THAT bad as the rumours I heard before made me think, but honestly........ the last part of the game just doesnt count ANYTHING cause of what you did in the other 2 games, endings should have been a lot more various counting all what you did before, like for example if you saved collector's Base maybe a particular ending in which Misterious Man would have take the power to control Reapers, making Humans the new nemesi of the Galaxy. That's just an example. Or an ending in which you would have survived and reunite with the crew. At all, the bare final moments are always the same. Too poor variety for a saga choice-based.

My favourite moment... Well if I have to choose one (it was full of epic moments) I simply vote for the drunken Tali, it made me laugh a lot both at the bar and when Tali annoyed Javik xD

Modifié par Gothmog_Ultra, 08 avril 2012 - 11:09 .

[Butane9000]

Changer the Elder wrote...

I understand people hating the plot around the Catalyst getting upset. But from what I thought, most people called for more closure, which is exactly what they're going to get. We're going to find out who ended how, What consequenses our actions had, how did the people we were helping the whole three games end up coming out of the war. Probably even the war assets should come into play, showing the outcome depending on the strength of the fleet.

Obviously, those who dislike the plot twist at the climax will not be satisfied. But my reaction was to dae_ex_machina's lack of closure, which obviously, the DLC should erradicate.

I doubt they'll do the same thing again, having "three kinds of the same cinematic, just slightly tweaked". Even that seems to have been an escapist option for the deadline to remain unbroken, and Bioware would have to be suicidal to repeat the same thing causing that much of a backlash.

Yo,

I actually got on the forums to check a bug and saw a thread complaining about how bad the ending was. I managed to avoid most spoilers but it was unsettling. So when I finally got to the ending I was shocked over the lack of closure and basically the entire thing. However it wasn't till I came on the forums to voice my opinion of the ending that I realized the forum goers have it right.

The ending IS terrible. Sure nearly everyone starts out wanting more closure, and it's fantastic Bioware is giving us closure. However the rest of the ending is still bad and the forums have pretty much outlined why this is so. The problem lies now that A, yes we wanted closure but also B, now that we know the ending and all the things wrong with it we'd like it fixed.

However Bioware has stated they are going to keep their ending. That means a Deus Ex Machina cop-out ending instead of an actually intellectually thought out ending. What I mean is, sure they can keep their god in the machine starchild catalyst. But it will forever tarnish their writers credentials for not coming up with a legitimate ending based on the lore and storied history of the series. The things people will point to in the future:

Character Assassination: Shepard just bowing down and accepting the catalysts circular genocidal logic was so completely out of character everyone was taken aback. Here's the protagonist, who has ALWAYS denounced the Reapers and their motives at every turn suddenly throwing in the towl?

Catalyst: The catalyst who a major plot point throughout the game and up until the ending it was fine. But by making the Catalyst become a deus ex machina (god in the machine, plot element implemented last second to tie up loose story bits) is simply a failure of writing. This decision will haunt Bioware for years and it's sad considering the writing potential they have displayed over the years.

Apart from that people will point to the horrible logic he used. So he created the Reapers, gigantic synthetic (artificial) life forms the size of battleships made out of varied organic races to kill organics every 50,000 years when organics obtain the level to create synthetic life forms (Ai/Robots) so they wont be killed by synthetics? Apart from being so inanely stupid in presentation it's also completely mired in genocide. The reapers harvest and kill organics but those same organics fight and kill reapers. So that means those reapers we killed during the game were actually the records of their civilizations and species meaning we're mass murderers!

Closure: Bioware's truly signature failure for the entire series though has got to be the egotistical short sightedness they displayed with the final ending cinematics. They didn't know there was a demand for closure of our choices, characters and war assets? How ignorant could they be! If you accept their logic that means they finalized the ending and went "No one will have questions after this!" which we all know to be utter rubbish. Aside from the lack of closure the other issues is with the final cinematics.

It shows: Joker (okay cool, even if some people didn't like him), Anderson (awesome, nearly everyone loved Anderson) and your LI (unless if was anyone from ME2 in which case it defaults to Liara). So they basically spat on anyone who chose a love interest from the second game and then spat of the rest of the fans for assuming Bioware which it's rich history of story telling would realize their fanbase and all gamers would want to know what happens to the friends they've made.

The Lies: All the blatant pre-release lies about Mass Effect 3. As you've no doubt heard one person put in a complaint against Bioware at the Better Business bureu for false advertising. If you have any questiosn I refer you to this thread: http://social.biowar...ex/10204263/1In

That contains all the lies we were told. After reading it you cannot disagree that Bioware lied their pants off to get people to buy the game and then delivered a subpar product.

PAX: The Bioware PAX panel was a golden opportunity for Bioware to open up and explain their reasoning behind their ending. Why did they choose a Deus Ex Machina ending? Why did we not fight Harbinger at all even though he was the main antagonist? Why did they completely nullify major decisions from ME1 and ME2? And so many more! However they shut down all questions about the ending and instead tried to get people to talk about what they liked. This was a major let down for people who want to see a proper and well written ending for a game series most of us love dearly.

The fact is, the Pax panel shows us the Bioware is not listening. That Mr. Hudson and the other managers at Bioware simply don't want to address their failings. If youve browsed the forums at all the last month or so I have no doubt that you have seen varuious fan re-writes and ideas behind new endings. Some of them are amazing compared to what Bioware delivered. If Bioware doesn't detract from it's current course with the extended cut DLC and address their own mistakes then I truly feel their company is doomed.

I currently plan to see what this extended cut DLC has to offer on new endings but as it stands now I do not plan on buying anything more from Bioware. It's sad to see this company begin it's descent downhill when they've willfully removed the brakes.

[Disciple888]

r u listening bioware? r u rly listening?

[CountDrunku]

readysetpanic wrote...

I just finished Mass Effect 3 tonight (I was a little behind because I started my epic 1-3 run a bit late and ME2 took much longer than anticipated - in a good way) and I guess I just wanted to throw my 2 cents in, for what they're worth.

This may be an unpopular opinion, but I found people demanding BioWare change the ending of the game really entitled. It's always "we the fans" as if one person speaks for everybody that's held a copy in their hands, but you know what? I'm a fan, and yet I don't want a new ending.

This doesn't mean that I don't have issues with the endings, because I do. But they're not dire. They're not burn down the internet bad, and definitely not bad to the point I'd call for somebody to renege on their artistic integrity for my personal opinion. Because whether you like, hate, or REALLY hate the endings, that's ultimately your own opinion. There may be people who generally share it, but let's face it: you'll never please everybody. We all have our own little specific wants for what we want to see happen.

I found the choices at the end of the game intriguing actually. There's no clear cut "right" choice. Some more dubious than others but for the most part, various shades of grey. And that's how it should be I think. To resolve a story as big and as dire as this, it should never come down to an "everybody goes home happy" magic button. There has to be an element of sacrifice.
Controlling the Reapers is probably the most dubious choice, and yet - The Illusive Man or Saren weren't exactly Shepard, were they? Maybe he could succeed where they failed. Destroy makes the most sense in canon, and yet the Geth and EDI would be sacrificed, among other forms of synthetics. And Synergy seems a bit too perfect, and yet Shepard has to make the ultimate sacrifice. I was discussing the choices with somebody I know and he said "but Shepard wouldn't choose to control the Reapers! That's not a choice!" like it wasn't valid. Well, I wouldn't think Shepard would sell out the Krogan and have Wrex killed, but it's possible.

What it comes down to is that I don't need to be spoonfed everything. I can accept some things just are. I can accept the Catalyst AI destroys higher forms of intellectual life to keep all life generally in order. An artificial intelligence that enslaves biological life to keep it safe from itself is actually a pretty old sci-fi trope.
I don't need to know technically how biological and synthetic life can merge, but a little bit of why wouldn't hurt. Why should I merge, why do I need to die to do this, why does this kill all synthetic life, why do I need to die to control the reapers.

That's my main misgiving with the endings - not the choices but the lack of explanation, or the lack of follow through. I want to know more about the deals I'm making with the devil, I want to see the aftermath and the fall out. It'd be nice to see the knock-on affect the final choices make on the rest of the characters, races and planets I've encountered. That's all, really.

Other than that, great game, one of the best I've played. Had me hook line and sinker most of the way through.
Any other misgivings are pretty small in comparison.

(Wanted more Shiala! Also an Armistad Banes resolution. Somebody from ME2 as a party member. Gianna Parasini. Billy the serial killer. Would have liked to see a Volus riding a gun mounted Elcor dropping out of the bomb hatch of an aircraft. Space hamster loyalty mission)

I was like that too XD
The first time I completed the game :3
The journey was so great, the ending, no matter how it ended, didn't really effect me.
Until, I reflected on it.
And this article,
http://kotaku.com/58...nvested-players
Completely explains what happened to me XD
The more you know about the Mass Effect Universe, the more the ending doesn't quite fit
I had three characters, they basically did the same thing, none drastic. The three choices perfectly matched my three characters. One would pick this one, the other pick that one, and the character would pick that one!
I thought, I had it good. That, ha! Whew knew there would be three choices, good thing I had three characters
I honestly thought people were jealous of me

Then, I started to trace my characters path through the games . . . it was all downhill . . .
I'm totally sad to say this . . . anyone ever played Shadow the Hedgehog on gamecube?
I mean, it was setup like this
http://sonichideaway...ulti/stages.jpg
Each stage had a choice, whatever choice you picked, it would go on a path. Here's a picture of the stages.
A really crappy picture lol XD
http://s3.hubimg.com...346578_f520.jpg
Anyone, your choice, picked which stage you would go to, until, you got to the end. And whatever end that was, even thought they weren't all that different, felt different. You even fought a different person, like evil fought Sonic and good fought Eggman.

I am sad to say, this game did a better job at wrapping up a choice driven game than Mass Effect 3 lol XD
Am I being too harsh?
I mean, the choices were totally different. I didn't like one thing however.
I chose to control the Reapers the first time because I was Paragon. I don't care what anyone said, the thing was blue. And I am not the Illusive Man, I am Paragon Shepard. They would've listened to me >:c I would've said, no. Plus, that kept the Geth alive.

I didn't like Synthesis. I thought it was something about the cycle would be restarted, and it would begin a new DNA. If anyone could please enlighten me, that would be great lol XD Or I can just look up . . . I wanted everyone to not be affected by this. I wanted everything to just, go back to normal. And the only way to do that was controlling the Reapers because I didn't care about the synthetic vs organic problem. It didn't have merit for me lol XD

The Geth and the Quarians worked well together, very well in fact. So, that little kid was wrong >:c
So, I was utterly pissed off on the synthesis part when the REAPERS FLEW AWAY. What on Earth? What not on Earth  It was the ending of control, added with Synthesis?! What is the difference between the two? Did the Reapers not have an objective when Shepard chose Synthesis, they were just turned off? Who the hell?

I felt, that my choice of control, after knowing the Synthesis was . . . gone. I discussed with a friend and he chose synthesis . . . And it was the control ending with a little more impact cause the whole DNA thing. There should have been only two choices then

Then, destroy reapers . . . I mean, why the hell was Joker running XD And the reapers go down! YEAH!
Mission complete . . . too bad the Geth died  And, I'm guessing VI's died as well . . . said all synthetic life. What is considered synthetic? My computer?! It was really vague . . . It was more vague than not having an ending at all XD At least there wasn't a whole lot of questions . . .

I hope you don't get to where I am at,  readysetpanic , it is a disappointing place XD
I'm pretty much drained of everything going on . . . if BioWare considers me just a number . . . a person who bought the game . . . they've lost it . . .
I finally got up the courage to express my feedback XD

I just want to forget this all . . . but I never will . . .
This whole thing boils down to Ruthlus Calculus . . . the world runs on money.
I'm just consider a whiny person who gives money now
I looked at BioWare symbol going, at least they made the game now, they're do me right
Now, their name isn't good enough . . . and that makes me sad . . .
There is only two companies I'll blindly follow now,
Bethesda and Sega ( wooo Elder Scrolls and Sonic   )

[No_MSG]

I have a big problem with Shepard having to die in the endings. Not the fact that Shepard is dying, that should happen, given certain variables. It just felt really, really forced. Same with the choices. They didn't flow right, it seemed more like they HAD to have choices, so here you go. And that's all Deus Ex Machina vas Genocide gives you. You MUST die, because you have to. You MUST choose, because you have to. So, I have three equally repulsive choices, and all three lead with my death. How about... no.