5087 réponses à ce sujet

[KitaSaturnyne]

I'm vacillating on this right now because I know the vultures are circling, ready to get me, but here goes. I'll be exploring my thoughts on this more as time goes on.

Is the ending more clear? Yes, it is.

Are the Final Three still at odds with the themes in the story (ie thematically revolting)? Yes, they are. Well, except Refusal, at least in my opinion.

Is the EC a total failure? No. It provides a much needed emotional payoff, clarifies many of the things we wanted addressed, and explains our final choices a bit more, as well as the consequences of those choices. The added scenes of getting your squadmates the hell out of there, as well as Joker struggling with the pull back order were nice touches too. Yes, Joker bugging out flies in the face of everything else that came before, but at least he struggled with it. That went a long way for me. I also really like the idea that the context behind the ending changes depending on your Paragon/ Renegade scores. This gets me curious as to which ending I prefer with a Renegade character.

As for Refusal being a "troll" or whatever, the ending shows that while we didn't win, a future cycle did. The Asari Stargazer scene ended up actually having a point to its inclusion here. So it starts as a downer, but then goes on to show us that we helped someone else pick up where we left off. Which I think is a victory in itself.

Did I enjoy the ending? Yes. I did. I enjoyed it thoroughly. While I still don't agree with the context regarding each of the final choices, the consequences of those choices were satisfyingly depicted. Each ending offers its unique brand of hope, and I'm quite curious to see what's different when my Shepard is a Renegade instead of a Paragon.

These are just expressions of my feelings, not arguments for or against any known facts or impressions about the endings. As I've said, I need more time to be with this before I can really start digging into it.

[jbauck]

The thing with Control, and the reason I believe FM5K's future dystopian ME4 with Evil Reaper Shepard ruling the galaxy with an iron fist ... is simply that we still don't understand exactly what Shepard has become.

The Catalyst, itself, started out as an AI whose purpose was to maintain "balance", and eventually it liquified all organic life and put down all the synthetics, deciding everything was way too messed up and he was just going to push the big giant reset button on the whole thing. I'm just sayin', no matter how Paragon to start, I give it a few hundred millenia or so before Reaper-Shepard just can't care anymore, because Shepard has just made herself something that is so advanced and beyond our ken, organic and synthetic individuals are like ants. The echo of who Shepard was before is just going to get fainter and fainter, until there's no Shepard left ... just Reaper.

I don't trust Shepard with the awesome power of the Reapers if Shepard is going to try to "use it for good" instead of forcing them all to fly into the sun. It's way too much concentrated power.

Though, I readily admit, that's my space magic speculations.

Also, @frypan - allow me to add my slow clap. While that is the unfortunate implication of the Refuse ending that I adore so much ... the fact is, I felt so powerless and full of defeat at the original ending choices, that getting to tell the little monster off was satisfying enough to override the "you're insignificant" message. I really loved that this cycle's fight against the Reapers (which was made possible by the sacrifice the Prothean scientists on Ilos made) becomes the seed from which the next cycle's fight against the Reapers grows. Despite Liara's unfortunate use of the word "failure" (ouch, Liara ... ouch), passing on lessons, warnings, wisdom, hope to future generations so that they can do better than we did is actually very touching - and I far prefer Shepard going out that way than committing one of the RGB atrocities.

Though, I will say that newly-clarified Catalyst was desperately in need of a good old-fashioned logic-bombing: in the same vein as the idea that synthetics will eventually wipe out all organics, organics will eventually be prepared for a Reaper invasion and end his precious cycle. Both are based on non-zero probabilities, so they're both equally inevitable. So ... the Catalyst should really just wipe out >all< organic life (logic bomb ... BOOM), or give up and leave.

[frypan]

Saw you fighting the good fight last night CGG, but I couldnt bring myself to weigh in, for which I apologise. As far as I'm concerned, my issue is with Bioware's themes and not the audience reception.

The three choices all involve the destruction of my Shepherd in some way, whether physically or morally. A monstrous "you personally lose" endgame condition, no matter how chirpy the fallout is for others in the game world.

@Kita. Never fear, the fact you enjoyed the end is a good thing, and suggests they went some way to fixing the issues. You're among friends here and the fact you got pleasure out of it is wonderful. 

Modifié par frypan, 27 juin 2012 - 02:21 .

[Palladin123]

frypan wrote...

It is not possible for you, the player, to personally win by rejecting the Starchild, and victory through strength of will and purity of purpose is simply not possible. 

Sad and unfortunate as this is, I think that game plots that use such themes end up being more believable and ultimately, morally uplifting.

Will and purity of purpose are never going to be enough - brute force, howsoever looked down upon, is needed as well. That is the reality of life and any game story that is aiming to touch upon core themes found in human life needs to include this reality. It is fine when a game with fuzzy bears and animals shows its protagonist winning against unsurmountable odds because of his will and righteousness. It is not fine though for a game aimed at a mature audience to have plot devices of this sort. Will and purity of purpose will only carry one so far, and that should be reflected in games that are aiming to tell a compelling storyline.

And I think this makes the theme of the limits of determination and righteousness much more morally uplifting. It is admirable to see a character struggle against unsurmountable odds, knowing there is chance of victory. It is even more admirable though to see the same struggle when there is next to no chance of victory. It shows immense clarity and strength of purpose, where one is refusing to give up his principles and objectives in the face of imminent destruction. The character will go down, maybe in some far way battlefield such that none may even remember him. A last stand against enemy hordes in the wilderness. No plaques or memorials, no one to give company in the final moments. All that will be left would be a tangle of dry bones in the desert. That tangle of bones though held true to his principles till the very last without any expectation of victory or reward, and that, I think is immensely morally uplifting. 

Modifié par Palladin123, 27 juin 2012 - 02:31 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

I just... I just had a headcanonquake. Does that exist? It has to.

I'm Commander Shepard, and this is how I spent my summer "incarceration" on earth.

Can an entire cycle worth of species fake their own deaths? How do the Reapers find colonies? Spaceship signatures? Eezo traces? Certain kinds of generators? Study Ilos. Find out how it managed to stay hidden.

Build dozens of mini-Iloses, and also a lot of what I'd call "New Perns," (there's got to be a better SF analogy but shhh.... headquake!) These are bronze-age colonies composed of cultures from our cycle, disguised to look like some different humanoid group. If they're not spacefaring, they get left alone, right? They don't have anything on their planet... but they do have hidden paper records outlining a rapid scientific development cycle, and cachces of Liara-beacons scattered throughout their solar system.

Now that we've got as many civilians as possible "safely" secreted away, our military can try to fight the Reapers. Fighting the Reapers is plan B. If we win, we go looking for our hidden colonies (we would have destroyed all records, 'cause Indoctrination, but may be left some treasure-hunt-like clues that you'd have to be smarter-than-indoctrinated to figure out.) If we lose, well... the rest of us who can make it out go to a few remaining Mini Iloses (far away from the other ones, because these will be easiest to find),

Liara's holo is changed to imply that we're all dead, so that any indoctrinated remnants and reapers who find fragments believe it: we died. They did their job. They can go home.

The last of us are hidden away, scattered... when the Reapers come back we'll remember. And we'll fight from the shadows, an utterly unpredictable force. The ghosts. The younger races will never know what we did... but we'll know.

Ugh. That's crap. I just really like the idea of an entire cycle just... faking our own deaths.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 27 juin 2012 - 02:31 .

[thisisme8]

@Frypan

Your comparison to Shepard's plight and BioWare as a company is incredibly insightful.

@everyone else
I've come to the conclusion that from this point on, I will offer the same advice to ME fans as I offer to my girlfriend whenever anything comes up: Don't overanalyze it, you'll be disappointed.

[frypan]

@Palladin123.

I would agree with you as well, but for the flipside of that coin, which is that success comes through bowing to the powers that be. Its only one interpretation though - I actually prefer yours as it is more palladin-like!

@thisisme8

It is only one interpretation at a meta-level, based on the idea that the endgame is a manifestation of the devs worldview and themes of the game. More than happy to have it disproved.

Modifié par frypan, 27 juin 2012 - 02:56 .

[SkaldFish]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Well don't worry... the vast majority of the internet sees absolutely no problem with killing off a sentient species, considers destroy an almost unequivocally happy ending, and really does not care what happens to anyone as long as it's implied they'll reunite with their LI.

I've never felt less like the target audience for something in my life.

This also had to coincide with a particularly bad bout of insomnia, so I'm a little... unstable today. Oh well.

I don't understand how anyone could see those three endings and not feel like... "This didn't have to happen this way. This isn't the best solution, it isn't even a good solution, and I know it."

I guess it's back to books and JRPGs for me. I'm not the kind of person they want playing Mass Effect.

Better atavistic than sciolistic.

[M0keys]

thisisme8 wrote...

@Frypan

Your comparison to Shepard's plight and BioWare as a company is incredibly insightful.

@everyone else
I've come to the conclusion that from this point on, I will offer the same advice to ME fans as I offer to my girlfriend whenever anything comes up: Don't overanalyze it, you'll be disappointed.

what's to analyze? it all looks like crazy gobbledy ****** now. seriously, the broken logic is straight out of some whacko post-modern religions' text books which I've had the chance to glance over in my days abroad. it's just nuts. there's no logic to it, and it has a really devious message to go with it.,

[malakim2099]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Grifman1 wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Well don't worry... the vast majority of the internet sees absolutely no problem with killing off a sentient species, considers destroy an almost unequivocally happy ending, and really does not care what happens to anyone as long as it's implied they'll reunite with their LI.

I don't know why you keept saying this.  You're plain wrong.  Most people that choose destroy are not happy that they have to kill EDI/Geth.  To say that they don't care is just plain false.  Please stop spreading this nonsense.

If you're not happy, I'm not talking about you.

I had terrible insomnia last night, so I was here when the first crop of people were playing, and there were dozens and dozens of people posting essentially "yay, with Destroy now I get my happy ending!" or "Meh, destroy is just a pragmatic sacrifice. You know a few people will die in a war, and that's what happened here." 

If you don't embody either of those viewpoints, then you're not one of the people contributing to my rapidly encroaching madness, and I apologize if I included you inadvertently.

Well, I picked Destroy the first time, because much as I didn't want to lose EDI and the Geth... my Shepard couldn't trust herself to Control the Reapers and not be corrupted as TIM was, and she definitely didn't want to impose her will on the entire galaxy whether it wanted it or not (Synthesis, which boggles me). I would have liked Refuse, but it wasn't there at the time... so I picked Destroy because the Reapers had to be stopped, no matter what the cost. As much as it pained me to kill EDI and the Geth that way... I had to do it.

Personally, I think Refuse should be a viable option if your EMS is high enough (like, say, 10-12K). Because Refuse, really, IS the spirit of the Mass Effect series. Not genocide, not forced eugenics, not joining the Reapers.

We fight or we die, that's the plan!

[KitaSaturnyne]

@CGG

That's totally possible. The Refusal ending is vague enough that it allows for that, and more if you so choose.

[delta_vee]

I'm still running behind - couple options to watch, and stuff to write - but let me join the Genuine Slow Clap Chorus for frypan, jbauck, and Fapmaster5000.

Also, I'm actually heartened by the Refuse option's (surprise) inclusion. At least on a metatextual level.

[Hawk227]

jbauck wrote...

Though, I will say that newly-clarified Catalyst was desperately in need of a good old-fashioned logic-bombing: in the same vein as the idea that synthetics will eventually wipe out all organics, organics will eventually be prepared for a Reaper invasion and end his precious cycle. Both are based on non-zero probabilities, so they're both equally inevitable. So ... the Catalyst should really just wipe out >all< organic life (logic bomb ... BOOM), or give up and leave.

To be honest, I think the Catalyst already knows this and that's why the final scene even plays out. I'll try and break down how the EC convinced me.

When you beat TIM and can't activate the Crucible, you're basically dying on the spot but the Catalyst calls you to him with his magic elevator. He puts on a big charade about his little crazy bigotry and tells you that there are 3 new solutions. Now, there is a 1 in 3 chance that you'll pick Destroy, which is bad for him, but he realizes that given a few more cycles the Reapers are doomed anyway. There's a 1 in 1 chance they die out within 150k years. Now there's also a 2/3 chance you'll do what he thinks is awesome (synthesis) or just keep on trucking (control) which is better odds than letting things play out.

But here's the clincher, when you pick refuse he stops with the charade and goes into Reaper voice (SO BE IT!) and all of the sudden the Reapers start wiping the floor with the galactic fleet. He was giving you the chance to make a choice favorable to him, and put on a charade to make it look legit, but when you refuse he gets pissed and the charade is out the window.

EDIT: I noticed that people who played through it (Me, Kita, jbauck) found a certain degree of satisfaction (if only in Refuse), while people who seem to have watched the youtube videos did not. I'm making a few assumptions here, but I know the videos I've seen lack the Catalyst exposition (where he admits to being a crazy megalomaniac) and the suddenly relevant stargazer scene. So, if you didn't see those parts, I think it's worth tracking them down.

Modifié par Hawk227, 27 juin 2012 - 03:26 .

[Fapmaster5000]

Hawk227 wrote...

jbauck wrote...

Though, I will say that newly-clarified Catalyst was desperately in need of a good old-fashioned logic-bombing: in the same vein as the idea that synthetics will eventually wipe out all organics, organics will eventually be prepared for a Reaper invasion and end his precious cycle. Both are based on non-zero probabilities, so they're both equally inevitable. So ... the Catalyst should really just wipe out >all< organic life (logic bomb ... BOOM), or give up and leave.

To be honest, I think the Catalyst already knows this and that's why the final scene even plays out. I'll try and break down how the EC convinced me.

When you beat TIM and can't activate the Crucible, you're basically dying on the spot but the Catalyst calls you to him with his magic elevator. He puts on a big charade about his little crazy bigotry and tells you that there are 3 new solutions. Now, there is a 1 in 3 chance that you'll pick Destroy, which is bad for him, but he realizes that given a few more cycles the Reapers are doomed anyway. There's a 1 in 1 chance they die out within 150k years. Now there's also a 2/3 chance you'll do what he thinks is awesome (synthesis) or just keep on trucking (control) which is better odds than letting things play out.

But here's the clincher, when you pick refuse he stops with the charade and goes into Reaper voice (SO BE IT!) and all of the sudden the Reapers start wiping the floor with the galactic fleet. He was giving you the chance to make a choice favorable to him, and put on a charade to make it look legit, but when you refuse he gets pissed and the charade is out the window.

I like that approach to the ending.  So much more uplifting than my current "meh" view.  It's good inside and outside of narrative, then.

[jbauck]

@Hawk227

Whoa. In a Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure kind of way ... whoa.

I didn't put those two things together, but yes - he's an insane monster, and the ending has always felt like some kind of trick ... this just fits so nicely. It even makes whether or not he had anything to do with the Crucible's design irrelevant - evil mastermind or cunning opportunist, he's just ... trying to prevent the inevitable destruction of his lunatic cycle at the hands of pissed-off free-willed organics.

[Hawk227]

Also, I just got spontaneous giggle out of how non-chalantly the Catalyst confesses that he Reaperfied his creators ("They did not approve [shrug]").

Modifié par Hawk227, 27 juin 2012 - 03:46 .

[Fapmaster5000]

Hawk227 wrote...

-snip-

EDIT: I noticed that people who played through it (Me, Kita, jbauck) found a certain degree of satisfaction (if only in Refuse), while people who seem to have watched the youtube videos did not. I'm making a few assumptions here, but I know the videos I've seen lack the Catalyst exposition (where he admits to being a crazy megalomaniac) and the suddenly relevant stargazer scene. So, if you didn't see those parts, I think it's worth tracking them down.

Alright, I'll give it a go.  I was breaking one of my own rules: enjoy a work in its own context.  Maybe the game will function better inside its own paradigm.  I'll reload one of my saves, blow through some dudez, and see how I feel about the ending then.

[sharkboy421]

@malakim2099
Those were the reasons I picked Destroy the first time around as well.  And the EC did little change my mind; it only reinforced that they all sucked. 

And oh how I wish that refuse could allow for a victory, even if it had to be an insanely high EMS. 

[M0keys]

Hawk227 wrote...

jbauck wrote...

Though, I will say that newly-clarified Catalyst was desperately in need of a good old-fashioned logic-bombing: in the same vein as the idea that synthetics will eventually wipe out all organics, organics will eventually be prepared for a Reaper invasion and end his precious cycle. Both are based on non-zero probabilities, so they're both equally inevitable. So ... the Catalyst should really just wipe out >all< organic life (logic bomb ... BOOM), or give up and leave.

To be honest, I think the Catalyst already knows this and that's why the final scene even plays out. I'll try and break down how the EC convinced me.

When you beat TIM and can't activate the Crucible, you're basically dying on the spot but the Catalyst calls you to him with his magic elevator. He puts on a big charade about his little crazy bigotry and tells you that there are 3 new solutions. Now, there is a 1 in 3 chance that you'll pick Destroy, which is bad for him, but he realizes that given a few more cycles the Reapers are doomed anyway. There's a 1 in 1 chance they die out within 150k years. Now there's also a 2/3 chance you'll do what he thinks is awesome (synthesis) or just keep on trucking (control) which is better odds than letting things play out.

But here's the clincher, when you pick refuse he stops with the charade and goes into Reaper voice (SO BE IT!) and all of the sudden the Reapers start wiping the floor with the galactic fleet. He was giving you the chance to make a choice favorable to him, and put on a charade to make it look legit, but when you refuse he gets pissed and the charade is out the window.

EDIT: I noticed that people who played through it (Me, Kita, jbauck) found a certain degree of satisfaction (if only in Refuse), while people who seem to have watched the youtube videos did not. I'm making a few assumptions here, but I know the videos I've seen lack the Catalyst exposition (where he admits to being a crazy megalomaniac) and the suddenly relevant stargazer scene. So, if you didn't see those parts, I think it's worth tracking them down.

reject isn't a victory, either. the very next cycle chooses the crucible and doesn't rebel against the starchild.

the entirety of the trilogy is a shaggy dog story.

[edisnooM]

Well I just finished the EC, and I haven't read anyone else's posts yet I just wanted to write this before I do, so SPOILERS ahead.


I feel kinda numb. I chose to refuse the Reapers, and I don't know what I expected but more than what I got. When glow-boys voice went all Reapery I thought, hoo-boy now it gets interesting. But then it just fades and Liara's message tells us we failed and that's it. Then we get the after credits that somehow the next cycle beat the Reapers, and I just felt sort of blank.

I went on Youtube and watched the new Destroy ending, thinking maybe they got rid of the whole tacked on losses thing. But nope. So in the end, I can't win. Three games and that's it. They couldn't write that story, and I feel......I don't know, I guess numb about sums it up.


So on the other stuff I saw, how in the hell were we supposed to infer that the Normandy swooped down and picked up our squad pre-EC? I guess they really didn't have a good answer for that, so they threw in that scene. But it still doesn't make any sense, first the Normandy was in orbit but swoops back down to grab them OK I guess, but Harbinger was blasting at every damn thing that moved, but he waits while the Normandy just sits there and lets our squad get on board?

Also still, how the hell was TIM controlling Shepard and Anderson? And did anyone tell Shepard that they were going to fall back to a rendevouz point? That seems like a pretty big part of the plan. And did anyone else find the Catalyst's exposition a little lacking? His explanations of things felt hollow, and I honestly can't really remember a lot of it, maybe I'm mentally blocking it. And he says Synthesis can't be forced, but what exactly is Shepard doing?

I haven't watched the blue and green endings yet, I really don't think I can stomach any more right now. But anyway, that's everything I can think of. Maybe I'll think of more later, but for now I think I'll check out other peoples reactions.

[Hawk227]

@ Mokeys

I just rewatched the new Stargazer bit and... you might be right. It's all very vague. If I just killed everyone so the next cycle can choose synthesis that's lame. That's why I didn't like Hologram Liara's dialog (the Crucible didn't work, like we just didn't make it right or something). I don't know, I'm assuming it happened my way (True or not).

Also, I should emphasize I'm giving BW zero credit. I agree refuse is supposed to be a troll, I just think it backfires and actually works (more or less).

@edisnooM

I linked them a couple pages back. They're a trip. That's all I can say.

I liked the Catalyst's new dialog, not because it was good but because it betrayed the fact that he's insane. His poker face slipped up and we saw him for the what he was. All in all, the EC was better than I expected, but mostly because I thought it was going to be outrageously awful. I didn't expect new Catalyst dialog or a 4th option. I just expected to get the expanded Post-Choice stuff.

[Jorji Costava]

WARNING: Lotsa text ahead; apologies in advance.

Just saw the EC, and I hate to say this, but my initial impression is that it's a worse ending.* It's pretty early in the game and my thoughts are malleable at this point, but that's how it struck me. Yes, it's sour grapes to complain about something that's free and optional to download, and I certainly don't mean to step on the toes of anyone who enjoyed it, but I'm just trying to get clear on my own thoughts at this point. I assumed that the worries I had about the themes would simply go unaddressed; instead, I feel like they went out of their way to make the endings more thematically revolting.

I completely agree with Hawk227 that Bioware doubled down on synthetics not really being life (although unfortunately, Michael Gamble tipped their hand a bit early with this tweet). I have no idea if there can actually be synthetic consciousness, but in the context of the story, it does feel like the game is telling me that I was wrong to invest in certain characters. Somehow, I was supposed to be able to recognize that their differences from me made them less valuable as sentient beings. It would be like a story creating a bunch of really interesting characters who are ghosts or demons, and then saying we were wrong to care about these characters because after all, ghosts and demons aren't 'really real.'

The EC does allow you to argue with the catalyst a little bit ("We're at war now!", etc.), but it seems to go out of the way to give the catalyst the last word. The analogy to fire is a non-starter, but is treated as some kind of knockdown argument. Worse, the worries about the Reapers being reduced from implacable menaces to mere pawns are reinforced by this exchange. The comparison to fire seems to suggest that the Reapers are acting in a non-purposeful way, and you can't have evil or mysterious intentions if you have no intentions at all.

The 'refuse' ending struck me as a direct message to those who rejected the whole concept of the ending that they're simply not smart. There's nothing wrong with a losing ending; for instance, if it occurred as a result of low EMS, no problem. Even if the game were structured so that it was the best possible ending that could be achieved (other endings result in both you and future cycles losing), I wouldn't be as bothered by it. My thoughts on this are very similar to the ones frypan has already expressed.

Going back to the 'save game' problem way earlier in this thread, I think that our our experience of the Virmire death is quite different from our experience of the possible squadmate deaths in the suicide mission. In the latter case, because the deaths are avoidable with better choices, you experience them as in part being commentaries on your competence as a leader, and as a player of the game. The bad outcome reflects poorly on the choices you made that led to it. If there are alternatives with better outcomes that you didn't choose, that suggests some lack of foresight (i.e. Jacob died because you should have known to send a tech expert through the vents, etc.).

So perhaps probably this is a failing on my part, but I can't help but think that the refuse ending is structurally similar the possible squadmate deaths in ME2 (or worse, the Shepard dies ending in that game). Because the concrete outcomes of that ending are so much worse than any of the alternatives, the implication seems to be that you lacked judgment in choosing it. Insisting on your free will and rejecting the catalyst is apparently a failing on a par with neglecting to spend resources to upgrade the Normandy's armor. In other words, this cycle lost because you lacked the wisdom to recognize the utter correctness of the catalyst's perspective.

The final insult is the catalyst's suggestion that the idea for the crucible was originally developed by the catalyst and his cohorts (whoever they are). The one redeeming feature about the Crucible as a plot device was the idea that it represented the lasting legacy of every past cycle, with which we are now entrusted. Now, even this is taken away.

I'm certainly not going to demand any further changes, or anything more from Bioware to address my complaints. But I had to rant for a bit; hope you'll indulge me.

*Full disclosure: I didn't pursue any of the romances, and my two favorite characters, Mordin and Legion, had already gotten a measure of closure during the course of the game, so I suppose 'clarity and closure' wasn't going to be catering to my needs at the outset. If your mileage varies from mine with that stuff, that's perfectly okay, and I certainly hope you were able to get something out of the EC that I wasn't.

[deliphicovenant42]

Wow...I really don't know if there is a simple way to state all of the ways that the EC didn't help matters. Frypan, jbauck, Fapmaster, Hawk and everyone else have done phenomenal jobs of capturing what was wrong so well that I'll try to focus on a few of my own thoughts rather than tread the same ground.

I agree with those who said that if these had been the original endings there would have been less ire from most quarters, but I also further agree that the endings remain thematically disconnected from the rest of the series and revolting in their own right. With that said Bioware simultaneously doubled down on what was bad as well as backtracked in ways that make it even more tough to figure out what they were going for in the first place. Take Destroy: while they did not remove the genocide of the Geth and the death of EDI from the equation per se, they sure downplayed it so much that you have to actually draw the conclusion yourself, and in the video I saw its only really clear that EDI's gone. To a certain extent you could just as easily assume the Geth somehow survived and they didn't get picked for the watercolor images we were given in the epilogue. At the very least Hackett could say they were lost or something to make sure you realize you committed genocide, but no. Whereas the original Destroy ending was setup with the potential (based on prior choices) to be a tough decision by setting the cost of genocide right in front of you, that cost is so glossed over now that the whole situation is laughable. While I'm sure there are people who are writing off the Geth as a casualty of war, I'm also sure there's a lot of people who may not even realize they're dead in Destroy as far as the EC shows it.

And I also want to say that Bioware's "fix" for the squad members being on the Normandy plot hole is absolutely ridiculous. I actually laughed out loud when Harbinger is shown just standing there passively while you chat away without a care in the world despite just charging across a killing field while watching your entire force get blown to pieces. They might as well have shown Harbinger tapping his foot and rolling his eyes waiting for you to get them on the ship and say your goodbyes since he goes without so much as firing a shot at ANYONE right after demolishing the rest of Hammer. Bioware honestly thought having the Normandy just hovering in plain view for a ridiculously long stretch of time HELPED their cause? And to top if off we get another gratuitous heart string tug if you happen to have your LI in your party in a vain attempt to get you to overlook the abject absurdity of the scene.

And since you don't see the Normandy damaged during its "race from the space magic" makes the crash another head scratcher.

I'm also a bit upset that Bioware seemed so emphatic about picking a save before the Cerberus base mission since I saw nothing different at all until the Normandy set itself up as a pinata for Harby. Was I wrong to assume Bioware's insistence implied something new would crop up like the missing Rachni, or other war assets? Or was that just to be sure that the EMS check that the Cerberus mission triggers takes into account the new, reduced totals you need?

And talk about over-blowing the idea of "varied" endings again. I can see where some of the epilogue slides may vary slightly based on prior decisions, but most of them are so empty of actual information or fly by so quick that trying to tie any one slide to a specific prior decision seems like a fool's errand. Its nice to see people survived and got on with their lives, and if that was how Bioware sold it I would be fine, but again you have Casey spouting off about "varied" endings in the EC interview and I just don't see how that's supported by the evidence in any meaningful way. So far the only real variation seems to be what has been brought up about a renegade vs paragon Control ending.

Anyway, I need to head to bed, but I had to vent some of my frustration before turning in.

[awpdevil]

edisnooM wrote...

Well I just finished the EC, and I haven't read anyone else's posts yet I just wanted to write this before I do, so SPOILERS ahead.


I feel kinda numb. I chose to refuse the Reapers, and I don't know what I expected but more than what I got. When glow-boys voice went all Reapery I thought, hoo-boy now it gets interesting. But then it just fades and Liara's message tells us we failed and that's it. Then we get the after credits that somehow the next cycle beat the Reapers, and I just felt sort of blank.

I went on Youtube and watched the new Destroy ending, thinking maybe they got rid of the whole tacked on losses thing. But nope. So in the end, I can't win. Three games and that's it. They couldn't write that story, and I feel......I don't know, I guess numb about sums it up.


So on the other stuff I saw, how in the hell were we supposed to infer that the Normandy swooped down and picked up our squad pre-EC? I guess they really didn't have a good answer for that, so they threw in that scene. But it still doesn't make any sense, first the Normandy was in orbit but swoops back down to grab them OK I guess, but Harbinger was blasting at every damn thing that moved, but he waits while the Normandy just sits there and lets our squad get on board?

Also still, how the hell was TIM controlling Shepard and Anderson? And did anyone tell Shepard that they were going to fall back to a rendevouz point? That seems like a pretty big part of the plan. And did anyone else find the Catalyst's exposition a little lacking? His explanations of things felt hollow, and I honestly can't really remember a lot of it, maybe I'm mentally blocking it. And he says Synthesis can't be forced, but what exactly is Shepard doing?

I haven't watched the blue and green endings yet, I really don't think I can stomach any more right now. But anyway, that's everything I can think of. Maybe I'll think of more later, but for now I think I'll check out other peoples reactions.

I just finished it as well a bit ago, and I feel much better about it, now that we actually see how life goes on after the whole conflict. There are still some far stretches and some holes as well, that still haven't been plugged, but I guess I can somewhat look past that knowing everyone is safe and sound now.

I would agree the scene where Normandy comes in for an evac was a bit of a stretch, but then again, the samething happened in the beginning of the game. Reaper standing over the Normandy, and Shep is sitting there arguing with Anderson.

As far as TIM controlling Anderson, not sure how, but with Shep I guess that I could somewhat see it, given his upgrades.

I felt as though the explanations and reactions could have been better between Shep and the kid as well. I guess it's nice they added some, but I think there could have been some better/more questions. I would have liked to hear the kid's reaction to how things ended between the Geth and Quarians, but they still never included it, he was still very "this is how it goes, and will be, no exceptions."

So with that all said, I am more satisfied with the extended cut, but there are still things I felt that could have been improved/changed. I personally chose control this time, and was happy enough with that choice. Everyone who didn't get killed in battle rebuilds, and they have a grand protector/architect to lead them into the future.

Modifié par awpdevil, 27 juin 2012 - 04:26 .

[edisnooM]

Just wanted to say good posts over the last couple pages.

@KitaSaturnyne

Traitor!

That was a joke. :-)

@osbornep

I don't think glow-boy specifically says that they created the Crucible plans, and actually says that they tried to eradicate them.



Also thought of a few more irks, Garrus ditching me. Yeah thanks for that. And no Rachni.

And they did change things, like the Normandy damage, and the Relay and Citadel explosions. I guess so it made sense that the Normandy could still fly, and the Relays and Citadel weren't scattered halfway across the systems or crashing to Earth.

And where was the rendevouz point exactly? It seems like the Relay/Citadel repairs would still take a lot of time so they must of had a whole lot of food stockpiled there.


Anyway I feel completely drained physically and mentally, and I have to get to bed. Maybe things will look better in the morning.

Night all.