5087 réponses à ce sujet

[CARL_DF90]

And all were still thematically revolting. Sorry Bioware but even with the EC the endings are horrid. To quote a YouTuber, "any expansion upon this premise will be throwing good writing after bad". Truer words were never spoken. So, what now? I'm still figuring that out.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

One thing the EC did do was this: I now legitimately consider all the original endings equally terrible. I used to prefer control and synthesis slightly over destroy, just because I have a singularly strong objection to genocide. Now, at this point, I don't even care. Nothing matters. It's all terrible. Might as well commit genocide. Got nothing better to do.

[RollaWarden]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

One thing the EC did do was this: I now legitimately consider all the original endings equally terrible. I used to prefer control and synthesis slightly over destroy, just because I have a singularly strong objection to genocide. Now, at this point, I don't even care. Nothing matters. It's all terrible. Might as well commit genocide. Got nothing better to do.

Allow me to begin here, CGG, as I concur regaring this series.  Because I feel this way as well, I know that I will immediately begin my departure from the Mass Effect series.  I need...distance.

And by the way, hello, everyone.  I used to post here on occasion.

What can I post that has not already been posted?  Perhaps I will simply add my voice to the chorus, and note my agreement with you, CGG, delta_vee, Hawk227, and MrFob.  Perhaps delta_vee's comment about disconnecting resonates most with me.  When I finished the EC DLC early this morning, I instinctively chose "refusal," then stood--once again, as I did this past March, open-mouthed at the developer's insult, as I saw it.

And, to repeat another of delta_vee's ideas, although I admit that I was hopeful, I believed that the ME3 endings were beyond repair.  And I'm not surprised at all by the developers' doubling-down (what an apropos assessment).  But oh, I so no longer wish to debate "what the developers might have meant."  Whatever they might have meant has long sense collapsed by what they did.  No stopping the slide in the storytelling sinkhole.  The alliterative hissing sound was deliberate.

Please allow me to close by waxing emotive about how much I have learned from all of you, and how much I have enjoyed--nay, been enriched by the conversations on this thread, though my presence was only occasional, and my recent absence has been long.  But this at times wonderful BSN bus stop that has sustained me, and where I have waited for the developers to pick up the pieces of what they broke and repair them--or perhaps make something new, and so much better--is signaling that my ride is at last here.  If I may belabor the metaphor, I hope there's a destination somewhere in cyberspace where many of us can continue to discuss the vital need of storytelling, in all its forms, for the human intellect, soul, and collective need to connect.  And share our experiences with other stories.

I'll quote E.M. Forster's Margaret Schlagel in Howard's End: "Only connect."  I hope we continue to do so.

But for me and Mass Effect?  I must choose DISCONNECT.

Cheers--

[tardis_type_40]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Yes they've made the results of your various collaborations with evil more interesting and emotionally resonant, and yes they've given you the ability to refuse, but that refusal is just another opportunity for them to say "no, collaboration with the evil was the right way to go.

Thing is, neither the Reapers or the Catalyst are evil. The Catalyst is an AI construct programmed with a specific purpose. Based on our own set of moral values, their actions are wrong. But the intention of their actions is not that of evil.

Modifié par tardis_type_40, 27 juin 2012 - 03:36 .

[Locutus_of_BORG]

tardis_type_40 wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Yes they've made the results of your various collaborations with evil more interesting and emotionally resonant, and yes they've given you the ability to refuse, but that refusal is just another opportunity for them to say "no, collaboration with the evil was the right way to go.

Thing is, neither the Reapers or the Catalyst are evil. The Catalyst is an AI construct programmed with a specific purpose. Based on our own set of moral values, their actions are wrong. But the intention of their actions is not that of evil.

Their intention is summed up in a 15 min long chain of logical fallacies... So basically, they are evil, considering how machines are suposed to be incapable of illogical* thought. Note I specifically mean illogical, not non-rational (eg: emotional) thought. The Catalyst and the Reapers are operating in a mode that is foreign and opposite to their fundamental nature, so if that's not evil, I don't know what is.

This isn't to say that the EC fixed everything. The ending as a whole is still fundamentally flawed.

Modifié par Locutus_of_BORG, 27 juin 2012 - 03:47 .

[Tallestra]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

When it all comes down to it... the moral and theme of the Mass Effect ending is appeasement, acquiesence, and horror.

The moral of the story is that you can't be free, you can't make anything better, the best solution to any problem will always be unavailable. Decisions don't come from the minds of the creative, the strong, the hopeful, or the brave. They're handed down by the insane, the evil, and the stupid. Denying that or trying ot make anything better is nothing but foolishness.

Its their world, and we have to live in it. All we can ever hope to do, the best we can achieve with our lives, is to collaborate with evil in the least harmful way. Just shut down the part of your brain that once dreamed of a happy ending, shut down the part of your soul that feels that something about this is wrong and collaborate with evil.

The end.

It's not logically inconsistent.

But I hate stories like that. Hate hate hate them. I think they're responsible for a huge number of the problems in society - for apathy, lack of hope, and a willingness to hurt anyone just to get what's yours. If the system is corrupt and we can't win, well then we might as all be blighted selfish sociopathic pragmatists, mightn't we?

Crow is happy, at least.

Yes they've made the results of your various collaborations with evil more interesting and emotionally resonant, and yes they've given you the ability to refuse, but that refusal is just another opportunity for them to say "no, collaboration with the evil was the right way to go. Thinking that personal morality means anything at all is laughable in this grimdark world of the future." 

Whatever. That's their moral. That's the story they wanted to tell.

This is what saddens me the most, that this is the message  BW choose to send with their story. I really do not understand how writers do not see it, are they so wrapped in their own vision that they do not realize possible interpretations? And considering how many people are now happy with RBG endings, I don't know if it's sad or disturbing.

I wanted happy ending for my Shepard, but even more I wanted the ending where we could win without compromising our core values, even if it would mean Shepard, or even Normandy were killed (they all were prepared for it). But no, as CGG said, remaining true to yourself means you lose and die anyway, you are punished for doing the right thing.  

[staindgrey]

Revisited this OP now that the EC is out, and I can safely say that the core issues he spelled out did not change.

However. This is why I love the refusal ending so much. It's Shepard saying that, despite the impending doom the Reapers represent, it's still not enough to turn her (or him, but my Shep was a her, so roll with it) into a different breed of monster to defeat a monster. She will not be a genocidist; she will not give into the same temptation and narcissistic belief that she can control the Reapers herself for the greater good; she will not enforce her will upon every individual in the galaxy to be changed at the core into some sort of utopian hybrid.

Instead, she'll take the godkid's offer, and say "no". She won't compromise who she is, who this cycle is, in order to win the war. She will bite the hand that feeds her because that hand's owner was wrong to begin with. Her cycle will lose the war, but with a united front, they'll put such a big dent into the Reaper threat that a future cycle will, at last, survive on their own terms.

There was a lot of talk about how the original endings were bittersweet, and I always failed to believe that. The Refusal ending, though... that was beautifully bittersweet.

Modifié par staindgrey, 27 juin 2012 - 04:58 .

[Fapmaster5000]

Alright, I have a moment here to expand on my thoughts about the ending from my rapidly degrading post-chain last night. Sleep, time, and other duties have given time for the sediment in my brain to settle out, and bring "clarity" to why the EC bothers me, so very, very much.

First, these endings ARE better than what we got. The most obvious holes are patched over, the logical flaws and gameplay failures are addressed, and the endings expand on the "why" and "what next" questions raised by the original endings. These endings are appropriate, on target, and thematically consistent with a solitary vision of the ending. I still don't believe that theme and vision matches with the rest of the series, but this is an ending that I should dislike not and ending that should send me cackling away from my keyboard with black humor and sarcastic antipathy.

For those who don't know me, my reaction to "hate" is not anger, or fury. It manifests as a sudden dismissal, a "you aren't even worth my time" sneer and a string of sarcastic comments in response to every word spoken or written. I will not give you, or your progeny, the time of day. You are not worth my hate, so I make you object of derision, an un-person who produces pathetic un-things. This is probably not a healthy reaction, but it's the reaction I felt towards the EC, from the moment "we failed" was contrasted with the sunshine and rainbows of synthesis, and I had to know why I turned on it. I was relatively hopeful going in. I'd constructed threads discussing how to patch over the ending, how they might do it. The main one was "Threading the Needle", and I was correct on MANY points of the "how" they would fix it. So why did it bother me so much?

The answer is in the "why", or rather, the "where did this come from".

For some of you, you may remember a long winded and (surprisingly) emotional post I made in this thread, weeks ago, about a long-derailed campaign I had run. For those of you who are new to this thread, or simply saw the size of that post and decided "screw that", I'll break it down, quickly. I ran a long-term, story and character driven game with friends. It was reputed as one of the best games in town/college, and I took pride in it. Eventually, though, I attempted something that proved foolhardy, an "artistic" arc and ending that drove a spike into the players' hearts. The game broke down, violently, and friendships ended. I was left wondering, "What the hell just happened? That was the most ambitious and awesome thing I've ever run!"

The reply I quickly drew up, was that I'd forgotten the most important piece of the puzzle, the players. They'd been ground under by ambition and artistry, and snapped under a miserable theme and context. (Go read about it if you want to see it, it was bad.) Some reached out to me, I reached out to more, and apologies were exchanged all around, and eventually, most came back (one left town, but still tries to stay in contact). I rebooted the game, and we all learned some lessons. As the DM, the man behind the curtain, I learned the most, on how to respond better to what the players wanted, how to make a better game, and strike a better balance between my desires and the desires of the players around the table. We all have a lot more fun, because of that.

So I look at the EC, and I see shades of that, but not quite. I spent time, little money, and emotional self-analysis to meet the players in the middle, to see if from their perspective, and deliver my universe in a way that they could enjoy, to make it our story. They spent a lot of time and money, trying to explain to us why they were correct.

If I'd come to my players, or waited until they'd come to me, and then broken down, step by step, why they were simply incorrect, and the ending I'd planned was the perfect one, they'd have walked right back out, and had every right to. No one likes being treated like that, especially when they are correct in their objections. Yet, that's what Bioware did! They spent money (so much money) and time, bringing the actors in, developing cut scenes, risking their very series... to explain that we were wrong.

This is so wrong headed it makes me ill. Hubris and willful ignorance collide into a murky soup. They addressed the surface of what was wrong "oh, Joker left you because he was ordered to, but completely ignored the meat of the objections: the thematic break, the sudden, soul-crushing and inconsistent tenor of the endings. They made them mechanically better. They fixed the guts of their art, but they never confronted the chief objection that their "art" had betrayed their audience, and indeed, their own prior works.

The amount of resources, the quality of polish, only compound this. How much money did they spend, how much time was devoted, into a arrogantly informing us that we were wrong and they were right? The hubris only increases when you consider that they are gambling the possible future of their company on the idea that they do not need to address their audience, and that the problem with Mass Effect 3 was not in anything they did, but totally and completely upon our failure to understand their brilliance.

It's not in the game alone. The game alone, when held in an isolated thought bubble, only hints of this (as Hawk and jBauck were able to enjoy the game by ignoring the metatext), but when combined with the authorial intent expressed in the metatext, paints a disturbing portrait of arrogance and dismissal.

• Rejection does not solve anything. You die alone, wrong, and a coward for your principles, and you all lose.
• The next cycle uses the Crucible that you were too stupid not to.
• The next cycle uses the VERY SAME CRUCIBLE that you left behind, because the Reapers thought you, the player, was so stupid that they didn't even destroy it.
• The interview with Hudson, Walters, and Merizan was such a fapfest that it broke corporate spin records, but that was to be expected. Everyone spins. The problem was the direction of the spin. It was more "people didn't understand" and "people wanted more of our awesome". There was no acknowledgement of validity in the complaints.

This list goes on, a slew of slights and grievances, all minor on their own, but which showcase a distressing worldview.

They did not do any soul searching. There was no admission of failure, or even of culpability to the endings. The fault was entirely upon the audience, and they deigned to lowered themselves from their cloud, not to meet with us, but to dispense more of their wisdom. And why? Not to address our concerns, our concerns were below addressing,but to make the clamoring mob shut up and eat their cake. It was the noise they heard, not the words, and it was the noise they addressed, and now wait for praise.

They didn't have to do this. They went out of their way to make Reject a slap in the face. They could have just had it lose, and that would have been fine, but they colored that loss in the worst shades of "you failed" they possibly could. IF THEY WENT THROUGH THE TROUBLE OF ADDING THAT CHOICE, TO ADDRESS THOSE WHO ASKED FOR IT, WHY DID THEY THEN GO OUT OF THEIR WAY TO SPITE IT?

This boggles my mind! In their response to fan criticism, they took the hardest road: they added gameplay, in direct response to critique, but then spent their resources to deliberately make that new option not address the concerns it was ostensibly aimed towards. Then, when that proved to not be enough, they clarified in metatext that EVEN THAT WAS NOT ENOUGH, and you still lost even the point you stood upon, after you'd lost everything else, since the next cycle did what you were too dumb to do.

They changed nothing, but they spent capital, time, and reputation to do so. If they'd simply wanted to stick to their guns, they could have, should have, done that with simple interviews or metatext. "This was our story, this was our point. It may not be for everyone, but here's how and why we did it." That would have been fine. I'd have disagreed, but accepted.

Instead, they spent this vast investment, to extend the narrative and slap me across the face for not properly appreciating what they'd done. It's a betrayal of the fans, and the greater that fan's appreciation for themes and insight, the greater the power of the slap. This was the opposite of what I did with my group of friends. When they held out a hand, I took it, and we addressed the problem together. When we held out our hand, they spat in it, insulted us, and pushed us aside.

This is a story of hubris. This is a story of dismissal. The ending is appropriate. To Bioware, or at least the Mass Effect team, the lesser party must obey the greater. There is no hope, there is no compromise, no mutual respect. You accept what your given, mongrel, and enjoy it, be it starby's twisted solution or the writer's twisted expansion.

Well, good people, I reject you, both in and out of game, and while inside your playbox, you are God and the devil, able to rig the endings, you have no such say over my mind. There, I am sovereign, and I reject years of your work that I've let colonize my thoughts. I have my own thoughts, my own works. I'll stick to those. I have my own world, my own goals. I'll chase those.

I reject you, all your works, and all your empty promises.

I'm done.

ADDENDUM:

Some spare thoughts while I sip my coffee and check for errors: Only now do I truly grok to the title of this thread. Before, I hated the endings. Now I despise them, and for me, there is a difference. The original endings were incomplete, incorrectly delivered, and much of their damage was done through failure. Here, and now, we see the successful conclusion to their vision, and the only way I can describe my revulsion to it is this: A better delivered atrocity is not a better atrocity.

Modifié par Fapmaster5000, 27 juin 2012 - 05:10 .

[BalianOfIbelin]

Wow, huge reaction. I can't say I disagree, but your reaction seems final, as though you would not play any of the ME games again, and that it was all for nothing. To that I would just say that there are too many amazing moments to give up on the series as a whole just because of the ending (I know it's important, but it's not everything). I too am upset because I loved the series so much, but feel the ending came up short.

You are intelligent and creative, find your own way to make it right. That's what I did, I wrote my own alternate ending and it provided me with Catharsis. Check it out if you want:
http://social.biowar.../index/11739343

Modifié par BalianOfIbelin, 27 juin 2012 - 05:08 .

[jbauck]

tardis_type_40 wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Yes they've made the results of your various collaborations with evil more interesting and emotionally resonant, and yes they've given you the ability to refuse, but that refusal is just another opportunity for them to say "no, collaboration with the evil was the right way to go.

Thing is, neither the Reapers or the Catalyst are evil. The Catalyst is an AI construct programmed with a specific purpose. Based on our own set of moral values, their actions are wrong. But the intention of their actions is not that of evil.

That's not the difference between evil and not evil.  That's the difference between immoral and amoral.

[Fapmaster5000]

BalianOfIbelin wrote...

Wow, huge reaction. I can't say I disagree, but your reaction seems final, as though you would not play any of the ME games again, and that it was all for nothing. To that I would just say that there are too many amazing moments to give up on the series as a whole just because of the ending (I know it's important, but it's not everything). I too am upset because I loved the series so much, but feel the ending came up short.

You are intelligent and creative, find your own way to make it right. That's what I did, I wrote my own alternate ending and it provided me with Catharsis. Check it out if you want:
http://social.biowar.../index/11739343

Why?

That's the critical question.  The work still has merits, but its creators (not Mr. Karpashyn, mind you), have clearly shown their disregard for my input, my worldview, and even my intelligence.  Why should I do them the courtesy of regarding anything they have produced with any less disdain?  Why should I honor them, when they clearly want nothing to do with me?

Better, then, to simply leave this corpse-thing lying on the ground, occasionally poking it to see where it went wrong, or pointing out what it once got right (because it did), then to drag it about and zombify it.  It's done, the magic is gone, and like a bad breakup, I've got better things to do with my time then throw good intellectual capacity after bad.

I will reply to their metatext with my own.  I will put the game down, and refuse their conclusion.

Modifié par Fapmaster5000, 27 juin 2012 - 05:14 .

[delta_vee]

@FM5K

I will reply to their metatext with my own. I will put the game down, and refuse their conclusion.

In a very strange way, I almost appreciate that Refuse doomed the galaxy as it stood. I wanted no more part of it - so having it burned away in favor of someone else's story, someone else's triumph, lets me walk away with something closer to pity than disdain.

It saddens me that there seems to be so little of that soul-searching you mention at Bioware. Frankly, though, I didn't see enough of the right kind of self-reflection and self-correction during the remainder of the game to hold much hope. (Now that I've had the chance to poke the corpse, that is.)

[KitaSaturnyne]

It's a little bit odd that people seemed to expect the EC to change the endings completely, when they said that the purpose of it was to elucidate a bit on what was already there. And to that end, I think the EC was a total success. And yes, I enjoyed watching the endings.

That doesn't necessarily mean that they're good, but take from that what you will.

TANGENT:
As far as Refusal goes, I still think that whoever down the line finally defeated the Reapers did so without the Crucible. It's kind of a matter of logic. Liara basically says in her last little monologue/ transmission:

"We built the Crucible, but it didn't work. Here are records of what we did so you don't repeat our mistakes."

What part of you would think, "they tried this Crucible thing and it didn't work. Well, let's build us a Crucible"?

People have said that the Reapers left the Crucible behind, which we all know is a massive hole in logic, but, more importantly, is not supported by the text. Neither is the idea that any future generation may have used the Crucible to end things themselves.

I still see it as a three-pronged victory: We stuck to our morals and principles; we refused to commit atrocities in order to acheive our goal; the Reapers were defeated.

We may not have personally dealt the finishing blow, but we still had a hand in helping the denizens of future cycles do that very thing. And I think that in that way, we too were victorious.

I will readily admit though, that the new Stargazer scene really throws a monkey wrench into the works here. The new Stargazer is an ASARI. A resident of the current cycle. But, what is it implying? That the current cycle won after all but we didn't get to see it? That a few Asari survived over the eons, and one is now telling the story of Shepard thousands upon thousands of years later?

As to the original endings, something about their "things turn out to be just fine, no matter what" doesn't sit well with me. I still enjoyed watching them and I like how they wrap things up to a great extent, but they do feel quite "hand wavey". Also, please bear in mind that my experience of the endings thus far is high EMS Paragon male Shepard with no multiplayer played. (though I meant to Seijin8, sorry) It also doesn't excuse the moral repugnance behind these choices, which some part of me thinks is what they were aiming for.

TL;DR
We need to be aware of what our expectations were for the EC vs. what we were promised and what we got. Also, Refusal is my new favorite ending because it allows for more of a victory than people want to see. Sure, it's shorter and lacks the nifty keen new epilogue stuff, but at least we get to stick to our morals and defeat the Reapers in another way.

[Big Jack Shepard]

I just finished watching the new endings. Despite what the Mythbusters say, you can not polish a turd.

I won't be playing the single player campaign again. I am quickly growing bored with the multiplayer and its bugs.

Is this how you run a business?

[CulturalGeekGirl]

I wasn't expecting changes. When they originally announced the EC I was hopeful, but when they hammered the "no changes" note over and over, I lost hope. Honestly, there are far, far more changes than I think they implied, including the reject ending... which is so, so close to being something of value. If it just cut without Shepard looking all sad and defeated, if it cut with her looking determined and like she still had some fight in her, and if the end holo had been... different. Less specific, more open-ended.

The thing is, with the kind of changes they did make (joker pickup scene, etc), I think they could have made more changes of a similar stripe that would have fixed a lot of the thematic issues. They could have chosen to focus the altered dialogue on the fact that the solutions as presented came from past cycles of organics, and weren't the catalyst's own. They could have removed, or made irrelevant his approval or disapproval this way, and removed the collaboration undertones.

That said, they originally said they weren't going to add any more endings... but then they did add another ending, one that is very, very similar to things many people asked for, but they did it in the most profoundly negative tone I think they thought they could get away with. If they were going to add an ending, they might as well have added one they actually thought a significant amount of people would like. You do see a lot of people picking it because it's the only decision that feels like their Shepard, but I don't think any of them would have objected if, at very very high EMS, maybe even multiplayer-requiring EMS, there had been more of a victorious feeling to it.

And if they were adding endings on that scale, I don't see why they couldn't have added one where you just talk the starkid into... going away.

"Ok, look. I'm fully prepared to pull the trigger on the red option, but I'd really prefer not to have to kill all synthetics. So why don't you just... go? Let us evacuate the citadel, pack up your reapers, and leave? It'd be a lot less pain for all of us. Or, I could replace you with another AI... I know a good one, a real multi-tasker. But... why do we have to do this? Why do you insist on these prices? If you've failed, why not just... stop.

I was expecting pretty much what we got, minus the new refuse addition. But the new phrasing, the new implications, they somehow actually make this... darker. Heavier. Maybe it's just because there's no hope for change in the future. We're staring at a static failure, unchanging, a dead game.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 27 juin 2012 - 11:03 .

[Hawk227]

@CGG

That is part of it, for sure, but I think the delivered clarity is the main culprit (for me, anyway). Before we had ambiguity that we could color however we wanted. It could be IT, synthesis might not be that bad, maybe they weren't actually trying to tell that thoroughly depressing story where you can only win through acquiescence, maybe they just didn't recognize what their work was saying. But with the arrival of the EC, that ambiguity disappeared. We got a bunch of new content that above all managed to fully clarify their artistic vision. They really were telling that story. Their artistic vision was exactly what we feared. It wasn't a hopeful story about free-will and self-determination beating out imposed order despite impossible odds. It was a story about futility and intolerance. A story about abandoning your principles and siding with the enemy to achieve victory. It was Star Wars if Luke had cut down Vader and taken the Emporer up on his offer.

Like delta_vee, RollaWarden, and others, this realization has been fairly cathartic for me though. I know the author's intent, and I reject it. But there is enough in the Refuse option that allows me to salvage the trilogy's replay value. I can still have my Mass Effect, but Bioware will never again make any money off me (Even if those Armor Hoodies are awesome).

Modifié par Hawk227, 27 juin 2012 - 11:21 .

[MrFob]

Well, it looks like I am in the unfortunate position of having to correct or rather retract my statements from last night regarding the refusal endings.
When I finished the dialogue with the kid, I misinterpreted some of the dialogue wheel texts and only reached this ending by shooting the kid (understandably always my first reaction ). Doing so, I reached the refusal ending without context and without a word from Shepard. Only this morning I discovered via youtube that there is a way to reach this same outcome with fialogue and in that case, Shepard actually explains his/her reasons.
It is not exactly the grand speech I was hoping for but it is close enough for me to be more contempt with the refusal ending and as such with the EC over all.
I also agree with KitaSaturnyne in that the refusal ending is far more ambiguous than people make it out to be. All we hear is Liara’s statement, and one she must have recorded before we ever knew what the crucible even was. How people can infer her stance toward Shep’s final decision or even implications for future cycles from that is beyond me.
The rest of my criticism on the EC stands though and I also want to point out that the fact that the refusal ending is acceptable to me does not change my attitude towards the current ME writing team since this was clearly a very reluctant addition, caused by the creativity of fans rather then their own vision.

The other point that stands (and this goes into a slightly different direction) is the fact that I still think everything in the EC evolves around the player, not the story or it’s characters. You can clearly see the intent to “sell” the original endings to the players and the new one is only there because they demanded it. There are new scenes in place that disregard the story completely in order to explain inconsistencies to the player. And finally as delta_vee pointed out, the refusal ending as it stands is most powerful as a metatextual decision, made by the player. When a story has to be so blatant in it’s attempt to sell itself to the audience, it is a clear sign of its inability to stand on its own and the EC cements that impression.

As for KitaSaturnyne’s, recommendation to see the EC in terms of what we could expect, I think I got exactly what I expected. Unfortunately my expectations were really low to begin with and with the more contextualized refusal ending, I’d say the EC just barely met them. I guess I was still hoping for BW to surprise me. Well, they did not.

[Tallestra]

From the point of view of the Catalyst destroy ending makes no sense at all. Why offer it, but not the simple withdrawal? For centuries Catalyst nurtured Reapers and now he's willing to throw them away, but he is not capable of just walking away? Why, why? It could be so easy to make it a moral victory for Shepard, to convert her enemy into her believes, you know, the kind of victory many of us wanted.

The more I think about the more I become convinced that entire concept of the ending, its themes and possible solutions are build around Synthesis. I think writers were so in love with this idea that they created a conflict that was specifically tailored to this perfect (in their mind) solution.They really do not understand that some of us might perceive synthesis as a violation of free will.

And frankly, this constant droning by EDI that now she's alive just confirms that BW never really considered Geth and her to be true life form. Well, for me she was life form from the moment I knew that she's an AI, different, not organic, but true life. That is why I also do not understand how people can believe that they can rebuild EDI and Geth, You can combine the details again, but the personality that was forged through experience and interaction with other people is gone, dead.

[edisnooM]

Well after sleep, food, and work, I find I don't feel much better about it all. I still feel rather sick about the ending. I thought I was better prepared for this, I truly did, but I guess I let my optimism get too high and now its March all over again. Worse though since this is it, the final curtain, here our story ends.

I guess I don't know what I expected going in, that maybe all the conflicting statements on Destroy would result in a high enough EMS variation where only the Reapers bought it. That maybe we could actually talk to the Catalyst and have it mean something, that I didn't play three games just to end up losing.

I'm not trying to rain on anyone else's parade, and for those that found something satisfying in the EC, I am truly, truly happy for you, and I absolutely envy you. And to those to whom the EC allowed you to divorce fully from Mass Effect, much the same. This is probably where I'll end up but it will take a while I think.

I wrote a mini rant a while back that if the EC didn't really change anything I would walk away and not care anymore, and dangnabbit I thought that would be true. But I still do care about this universe, and all the people we met on our journey. I wanted desperately for it to end in a way that didn't leave me wondering what the point of playing was.

Thinking back to ME1, the optimism and ridiculous hero pose at the end, then ME2 with the victory walk through the Normandy without a loss of life. Then ME3. Apparently they couldn't write that story a third time.


Also apparently there is some info in the EC files that indicates a future DLC with the Leviathan of Dis, and recruiting it as an ally http://social.biowar.../index/12777408. But I'm not really sure what the point is.

Modifié par edisnooM, 28 juin 2012 - 12:40 .

[deliphicovenant42]

As far as the possible Leviathan DLC: if its true, I really don't get why Bioware would even bother giving the player more reason to hope they can beat the reapers when the endings already preclude that from being a possibility. Its as if Bioware really wants to rub our noses in their bleak vision of RGB determinism. After 2+ games of overcoming insurmountable odds, with Shepherd and company always rising to the occasion, Bioware really wants to make sure the player realizes that all that effort was for nothing.

Plus adding war assets at this point is just more salt in the wound. Its one more pointless number on a screen that has no tangible impact on the ending besides a few more digits in the EMS.

Speaking of the lack of use of the War Assets, that was one more thing that chaffed me during my replay of Priority:Earth last night. I had forgotten exactly how many missed opportunities there were to tip the hat to the player, to reward us for all our time in the game to that point. Add in the fact that Bioware didn't even bother to find a way to include the audio files fans uncovered in the original game files of the Geth Primes, Zaeed and all the others...its astonishing. They didn't even have to add animations, just squeezing in the audio would've been a huge bone to throw the fans given how central the lack of war assets were to the criticism. Again, it shows how the EC was more about Bioware telling us we were fools not to see the beauty that is synthesis than actually listening to what the fans said.

[MrFob]

Hawk227 wrote...
[...]Before we had ambiguity that we could color however we wanted. It could be IT, synthesis might not be that bad, maybe they weren't actually trying to tell that thoroughly depressing story where you can only win through acquiescence, maybe they just didn't recognize what their work was saying. But with the arrival of the EC, that ambiguity disappeared. [...]

Wait, are we defending "speculation for everyone" now? Don't misunderstand, I was close to typing words with this very same message myself last night but occurred to me that ambiguity is not better then even the worst form of clarity. Not for the final ending f a story anyway.

We got a bunch of new content that above all managed to fully clarify their artistic vision. They really were telling that story.

Is it? Seeing the new content I can't help but feel that they caved in to what they thought were the demands of the enraged community. If you look at the original endings, could you really infer from that that everything would work out in any case like we see it happening in the EC? The original endings did not really convey that message from what I could see. At best, they left the chance that everything would be all right ... maybe if we are really lucky.
Now we have the established situation of 3 happy endings and ithat is what a lot of people (not in this thread but in others) were asking for. At least on superficial review we do. If you go a bit deeper, CGG is absolutely right. The new content solidifies the validity of the three horrid actions we can choose from. It cements the message that working against your beliefs, that being the ultimate pragmatist is the only way to solve the problem.
It does the opposite of what e.g. the IT fans (tI count myself as a fan of the concept as well) were asking for. Instead of winning by reusal (that would have been the real way to win in an IT scenario, rather then the destruction option IMO), the only morally valid choice is now the way to defeat and the outcome is in fact no different from what would have happened f Shepard just died during a simple mission any time after Liara finished the time capsules.

But I cannot see this as the writers original intent so either they did change it with the EC in which case they might have rewritten the ending entirely just as well or their original delivery of their intent was even more horrible and misleading then I thought. Not to mention that the intent of the story itself as it comes across now is discgusting (as CGG portayed very well in this thread).

[Hawk227]

MrFob wrote...

Wait, are we defending "speculation for everyone" now? Don't misunderstand, I was close to typing words with this very same message myself last night but occurred to me that ambiguity is not better then even the worst form of clarity. Not for the final ending f a story anyway.

Hey MrFob,

No, i"m not defending "speculation for everyone". I think that the EC endings are more effective in every way than the original endings. I was just sort of explaining why I thought many people (Like CGG, edinooM, and even myself to an extent) feel rather burned by the EC. Before we could imagine Bioware wasn't telling a depressing, nihilistic tale, but now we know for sure that they were.

We got a bunch of new content that above all managed to fully clarify their artistic vision. They really were telling that story.

Is it? Seeing the new content I can't help but feel that they caved in to what they thought were the demands of the enraged community. If you look at the original endings, could you really infer from that that everything would work out in any case like we see it happening in the EC? The original endings did not really convey that message from what I could see. At best, they left the chance that everything would be all right ... maybe if we are really lucky.
Now we have the established situation of 3 happy endings and ithat is what a lot of people (not in this thread but in others) were asking for. At least on superficial review we do. If you go a bit deeper, CGG is absolutely right. The new content solidifies the validity of the three horrid actions we can choose from. It cements the message that working against your beliefs, that being the ultimate pragmatist is the only way to solve the problem.
It does the opposite of what e.g. the IT fans (tI count myself as a fan of the concept as well) were asking for. Instead of winning by reusal (that would have been the real way to win in an IT scenario, rather then the destruction option IMO), the only morally valid choice is now the way to defeat and the outcome is in fact no different from what would have happened f Shepard just died during a simple mission any time after Liara finished the time capsules.

But I cannot see this as the writers original intent so either they did change it with the EC in which case they might have rewritten the ending entirely just as well or their original delivery of their intent was even more horrible and misleading then I thought. Not to mention that the intent of the story itself as it comes across now is discgusting (as CGG portayed very well in this thread).

I think you may have misinterpreted me, because the parts I've bolded were more or less my point.

Other than a Refuse option that many have taken as a slap in the face, the new content just reinforces the original ending. It clarifies that bioware really didn't think synthetics were valid, that they really didn't value standing on your principles, and that they really did think Synthesis was super awesome. All of these things were present in the original ending, but they weren't concrete. We had to speculate at the extent to which they felt this, but now we know. With all this clarity, their intent has come in to focus, and that intent is rather... unappealing.

[3DandBeyond]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

One thing the EC did do was this: I now legitimately consider all the original endings equally terrible. I used to prefer control and synthesis slightly over destroy, just because I have a singularly strong objection to genocide. Now, at this point, I don't even care. Nothing matters. It's all terrible. Might as well commit genocide. Got nothing better to do.

I always considered all of them abhorrent-chose destroy for the first time I played ME3 and felt empty and stupid for killing EDI and the geth for no reason, but I would imagine that didn't happen at all.  On other playthroughs I either quite or waited for the critical mission failure since I couldn't make a choice.

Now the choices have been explained more and they sound even stupider to me.  The kid seemed crazy before but now he's even crazier. 

No possible win-win for Shepard so the selfishness of a Shepard that has already sacrificed too much for a lot of ungrateful people will now allow her to kill the only people that were never ungrateful about anything.  Thanks for that.  I think your commander called, she wants her burned up torso back in full working (gasping) condition.

[edisnooM]

Welp, I bit the bullet and watched blue and green.

Blue, it has things I can see as somewhat nice. I like the fact that Shepard sacrificed him/herself and all that, but the whole I will use this for good just made me think of all the times in human history that dictators have risen to power with good intentions. As the saying goes the path to hell is paved with them.

And Green, yeah. So I guess synthetics weren't alive after all. How BioWare managed to convince us all otherwise I'm not to sure. Apparently the whole "Does this unit have a soul", and EDI's "Only now do I feel truly alive" lines weren't supposed to be interpreted the way we all seem to have.

And now Synthetics and Organics can coexist, you know because that was impossible before.

Also Keiji's back, that's weird.

And EDI was alone? Umm, my Shepard accepted her, the crew seemed to accept her, Joker definitely accepted her.

[3DandBeyond]

MrFob wrote...

snipped....

Wait, are we defending "speculation for everyone" now? Don't misunderstand, I was close to typing words with this very same message myself last night but occurred to me that ambiguity is not better then even the worst form of clarity. Not for the final ending f a story anyway.

Actually, as stupid as this will sound, I'd almost rather it was still "speculation for everyone".  As it is it's only speculation if you wanted some reunions for a very alive Shepard and speculation for those that are really thinking the rest of this through.

Control-now the reapers can come to your neighborhood and help clean up.  So what if just last week they turned your family into goo.  Shepard the new reaper commander will keep them in control and will have them take care of anyone that tries to give them a Cain suppository.

Synthesis-wow, everybody wants to be perfect.  People made of organic material are full of self-loathing and seek perfection with tech, because who in their right mind would really want to be this imperfect mess that organics are?  And synthetics, those devils, well they just want to be perfect and want to get to know organics better.  They want to understand organic people.  Both organics and synthetics want to be advanced beyond their current state of evolution, because when has that ever caused any problems before?  Tell the Krogan in the corner to shut up.

Destroy-well now Mr. Mouthy is kind of quiet.  Before the EC upgrade he used to tell Shepard useless stuff like this would kill the geth and Shepard wondered if that might mean it would kill EDI, too.  Well, put on your speculation hats because now there's no doubt it kills EDI, but there's no information as to what happens to the geth-we can guess they are destroyed, but well speculation is fun.  And also now everyone somehow knows Anderson is dead, but no one knows about Shepard.  So, what's that I hear, a gasp?  Wow this is radically different.  And we return to speculation mode as the Normandy flies off hopefully on a Where's That Torso search.

The 4th choice, well since it's not authentic and is there to poke at complainers, it's done in the most revolting way.  Insta-death for all and someone in the future gets to decide which stupid choice to make, except they don't seem to get to reject the choices, but I don't know so I'd have to speculate.