4048 réponses à ce sujet

[Daedalus1773]

AndrewLBC wrote...

Bioware was given something incredibly rare by an incredibly devoted fan base... the opportunity to throw out the worst ending in video game history... and to replace it with an ending deserving of the name Mass Effect. This meant creating an ending that actually had narrative coherence, didn't introduce a new character, mission objective, and main conflict some 5 minutes before the credits rolled, and most importantly.... was written by a man with a brain... Patrick Weekes.

I still would like to know what led Chris Priestly to send the writers home so he, all by himself, would have the ability to write an ending to Mass Effect that was anything other than a pile of garbage.

Bioware has managed in only 6 months to go from my all time favorite Game Studio to a level on par with 3dRealms.

Yup. The EC ending is a highly polished turd, but a turd nonetheless. I don't hate BioWare per se, but I will never touch another game with Casey Hudson or Mac Walters names on it.

[i am gustavox]

Aj90lfc wrote...

BlackFulcrum wrote...

Well I played trough all of the new stuff, 7200-ish EMS, 100% readiness and I must say, I am pleasantly surprised, it actually works for me.

- The whole reason why your squadmates are not there, they got wounded, Joker picked them up, that works for me, ya okay Habinger didn't shoot the Normandy, don't care, not important enough.

- Hackett notices someone is aboard the Citadel, this I can believe, someone in the fleet probably picked up Shepard or Anderson's active comm signal, I can believe this.

- The Starchilds explenations about himself actually make sence to me, I like the little origin background, that was probably the most important part, who are you and where did you come from, how did you get to wield this power and why?

- The explenations about the endings actually made it harder for me to choose, because Control, and Synthesis suddenly weren't the "I'm selling my soul to the devil" endings anymore.

- Hacketts order to leave the system sounds good to me, you don't know what the Crusible does, only that it's very powerful, getting out would be smart, and yes I know they wouldn't leave me just like that, and you could see that they didn't like to do it, but in the end there's loyalty to Shepard whom they don't know is alive or dead, and being responsible for an entire crew of people near a giant weapon that possibly has the potential to vaporize everything from Earth to the Charon relay, going was a good call, and it was played out well here.


The Endings themselves:

- Reject
Although I knew it was in there, I thought it was a dialoge option, so I was surprised when it activated when I shot the starchild.
The ending itself I think fit, he's willing to work with you, to deviate from his plans to save your misirable species, and you just get angry and shoot him, no wonder he just "deal's off"
It wasn't what I expected from a reject ending, but on the other hand, it's not like he was gonna tell us what his Quantum bluebox is so we can jank him out of the citadels main processor.
What have we learned kids, don't ****** off AI's that have godlike powers over a race of giant biosyntetic spacefaring warships.
The little story at the end being modified I like too, humanity is gone, so some non-descript alien race took everything Liara saved and stopped their cycle from being harvested.

- Destroy (note: this is with 7200 EMS, 100% readiness, best Destroy ending)
Destroy was my ending first time around as it made more sence then the other two.
This time around....it's harder to choose, but I think I still prefer this ending, for the simple fact that there's a few hints that Shepard lives.
In the new extended cut Liara (my LI) holds that plaque with Shepard's name, brushes her hands past it a few times, but never actually hangs it on the wall (note: again this is with 7200 EMS, 100% readiness, best Destroy ending), and then you get the famous "breath" scene.
Sadly it is confirmed that both EDI, and all the Geth die, who I went to a lot of trouble to save, so ya that puts a damper on my party.
What I did like was that everything was eventually rebuild, and all the surviving species were thriving once again on their own power.
I had to giggle when all the citadel alliance ships jumped out, it was like "seeya *trollface*", and then all the reapers exploded.
As for not meeting up with your LI again...I'll scratch that up to either "own interpetation", or cliffhanger, I can live it.

- Synthesis
I had to say this was better then expected, everyone lives, and everyone is happy and friends, okay Shepard is dead, but for the rest it was a perfect ending, even the reapers are helping rebuild.
I had to laugh at the surprised Husk who got his sentience back, and all the soldiers and reapers staring at each other cause they could suddenly feel one and other.

- Control
Like Synthesis I found Control much better and absolutely not the default evil option anymore, if anything it was the one that saves the most lives while keeping everyone as they always were.
I really like the AI evolved Shepard being the eternal guardian of the galaxy, and her having the reapers repair everything, it was a good choice, tho by the third time she said "the many" my automatic reaction was, "oooh so this is the Spock ending"

So that's it, I am more then satisfied with the new extended cut endings, sure there's some bit and pieces that could be improved upon, but that would be nitpicking, no game is flawless, so I won't ask for ME3 to be that either.

You could have had a valid point. If you could spell and use the correct punctuation. Someone dumb willing to believe a dumb ending; Losing faith in humanity daily.

You do not have correct punctuation.  

[Isichar]

AresKeith wrote...

Isichar wrote...

I enjoyed the EC, definitely left the series on much more of a bittersweet note and not just bitter. If this is the end of the mass effect trilogy I can live with that and still enjoy this series from start to finish without dreading the last 5 minutes.

Thanks Bioware.

Edit: I do wish refuse was handled a little bit better but oh well.

the refuse option should have worked around your war assets

I agree. Even if we still eventually ended up losing it would have been great to have seen the army we acquired go down in a last all ditch effort to stop the reapers. The option itself is mostly painted as bitter and selfish.

I still think it was right to include a refuse option, even if it is unsatisfying.

[Obi-Wan Jacoby]

Wertom Three wrote...

Even if there was a Mass Effect 4, who would buy it?

I would. lol  I mean, sure they messed up the first time with the ending, but they fixed the plotholes and speculation with the endings. (Aside from the Breath scene with the destroy ending.)  Besides, it is not all about how it all ends, it is how you get to the end.  That's how it is with me, anyways.

[AresKeith]

Isichar wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Isichar wrote...

I enjoyed the EC, definitely left the series on much more of a bittersweet note and not just bitter. If this is the end of the mass effect trilogy I can live with that and still enjoy this series from start to finish without dreading the last 5 minutes.

Thanks Bioware.

Edit: I do wish refuse was handled a little bit better but oh well.

the refuse option should have worked around your war assets

I agree. Even if we still eventually ended up losing it would have been great to have seen the army we acquired go down in a last all ditch effort to stop the reapers. The option itself is mostly painted as bitter and selfish.

I still think it was right to include a refuse option, even if it is unsatisfying.

or like if you have the Max number of war assets or more you should win, but if you low EMS you lose, thats how it should have work

the EC still makes War Assets useless again

[DistantUtopia]

So I saw all variations of the 3 endings and they defintely did what they promised; clarity and "closure". Still left a bad taste in my mouth and I still don't feel like replaying the trilogy.

I do agree that the refuse could have been handled better. I was ok with Shepard's cycle dying because he refused to accept the Catalyst logic but to flat out say that the next cycle survived because they used it? That's a slap in the face of the player even if BW didn't intend it. It comes off as:

"Don't like our endings? Fine. The next cycle will still choose it, so nyah!"

[DistantUtopia]

AresKeith wrote...

or like if you have the Max number of war assets or more you should win, but if you low EMS you lose, thats how it should have work

the EC still makes War Assets useless again

Agreed. That's how I would have expected Refuse to work.  But nope.  Artistic integrity and all that.  They really want to push for the RGB ending no matter what.  I smell new universe sequel.

[SupremeLegate]

While I think the new ending could have been better, I personally liked the EC. I actually ended up finishing my Renegade play through, and started another character from the beginning, because of it. So while I still don't understand why we didn't get this from the get go, I'm assuming pressure to rush, BW will no longer be on my 'ignore' list.

[av196vad]

Daedalus1773 wrote...

AndrewLBC wrote...

Bioware was given something incredibly rare by an incredibly devoted fan base... the opportunity to throw out the worst ending in video game history... and to replace it with an ending deserving of the name Mass Effect. This meant creating an ending that actually had narrative coherence, didn't introduce a new character, mission objective, and main conflict some 5 minutes before the credits rolled, and most importantly.... was written by a man with a brain... Patrick Weekes.

I still would like to know what led Chris Priestly to send the writers home so he, all by himself, would have the ability to write an ending to Mass Effect that was anything other than a pile of garbage.

Bioware has managed in only 6 months to go from my all time favorite Game Studio to a level on par with 3dRealms.

Yup. The EC ending is a highly polished turd, but a turd nonetheless. I don't hate BioWare per se, but I will never touch another game with Casey Hudson or Mac Walters names on it.

^ Yeah I pretty much agree.

[BeastSaver]

majinstrings wrote...

LumbercracK wrote...

Ya me3 punishes you slightly for me3. But in now way do my actions in 1 or 2 negatively affect me in any way. My one regret is not saving wrex. What did it change. I had to deal with Wreave who I did not like. Apart from that the story remained the same. ME3 strong arms the franchise to fit its moronic story and ignores anything I did prior.

Unfortunately, it would be just about impossible to change entire missions and especially the whole story based on all or even some of the choices you made in 2 previous games.

Sure, some of the choice differences are ridiculous, like Kill the Rachni Queen in ME1, there's a new Reaper Rachni Queen or Legion dies or is sold to Cerberus in ME2, Legion 2.0 is on the Geth Dreadnought...just to name a couple...

Of course everyone would like for every choice to make a noticeable difference on the overall story...but it's just too much for a video game at this time...

We might see another Mass Effect-type game series in the future where you get to import choices into each entry and make a truly unique experience and story...but this type of storytelling in video games is still young...you can't make huge dramatic changes to a game's story and missions based on a series of choices made throughout it's predecessors; not yet, anyway...that day may come (hopefully sooner rather than later) but it's not here yet.

I think Bioware did a great job considering the current limits of the medium.

...Wait a minute...what does this have to do with the extended cut?

But there ARE consequences for your two examples of the Rachni Queen and Legion. If you save the Reaper Rachni Queen and send workers to the Crucible, they run amuck. If you don't have Legion, you can't reconcile the Geth and the Quarians.

[BeastSaver]

Obi-Wan Jacoby wrote...

Wertom Three wrote...

Even if there was a Mass Effect 4, who would buy it?

I would. lol  I mean, sure they messed up the first time with the ending, but they fixed the plotholes and speculation with the endings. (Aside from the Breath scene with the destroy ending.)  Besides, it is not all about how it all ends, it is how you get to the end.  That's how it is with me, anyways.

I would certainly consider it. I think ME3 has probably (hopefully) been a learning curve for Bioware.

Modifié par BeastSaver, 04 juillet 2012 - 08:06 .

[AresKeith]

BeastSaver wrote...

majinstrings wrote...

LumbercracK wrote...

Ya me3 punishes you slightly for me3. But in now way do my actions in 1 or 2 negatively affect me in any way. My one regret is not saving wrex. What did it change. I had to deal with Wreave who I did not like. Apart from that the story remained the same. ME3 strong arms the franchise to fit its moronic story and ignores anything I did prior.

Unfortunately, it would be just about impossible to change entire missions and especially the whole story based on all or even some of the choices you made in 2 previous games.

Sure, some of the choice differences are ridiculous, like Kill the Rachni Queen in ME1, there's a new Reaper Rachni Queen or Legion dies or is sold to Cerberus in ME2, Legion 2.0 is on the Geth Dreadnought...just to name a couple...

Of course everyone would like for every choice to make a noticeable difference on the overall story...but it's just too much for a video game at this time...

We might see another Mass Effect-type game series in the future where you get to import choices into each entry and make a truly unique experience and story...but this type of storytelling in video games is still young...you can't make huge dramatic changes to a game's story and missions based on a series of choices made throughout it's predecessors; not yet, anyway...that day may come (hopefully sooner rather than later) but it's not here yet.

I think Bioware did a great job considering the current limits of the medium.

...Wait a minute...what does this have to do with the extended cut?

But there ARE consequences for your two examples of the Rachni Queen and Legion. If you save the Reaper Rachni Queen and send workers to the Crucible, they run amuck. If you don't have Legion, you can't reconcile the Geth and the Quarians.

you mean the Breeder or the actual Queen?

[BeastSaver]

AresKeith wrote...

BeastSaver wrote...

majinstrings wrote...

LumbercracK wrote...

Ya me3 punishes you slightly for me3. But in now way do my actions in 1 or 2 negatively affect me in any way. My one regret is not saving wrex. What did it change. I had to deal with Wreave who I did not like. Apart from that the story remained the same. ME3 strong arms the franchise to fit its moronic story and ignores anything I did prior.

Unfortunately, it would be just about impossible to change entire missions and especially the whole story based on all or even some of the choices you made in 2 previous games.

Sure, some of the choice differences are ridiculous, like Kill the Rachni Queen in ME1, there's a new Reaper Rachni Queen or Legion dies or is sold to Cerberus in ME2, Legion 2.0 is on the Geth Dreadnought...just to name a couple...

Of course everyone would like for every choice to make a noticeable difference on the overall story...but it's just too much for a video game at this time...

We might see another Mass Effect-type game series in the future where you get to import choices into each entry and make a truly unique experience and story...but this type of storytelling in video games is still young...you can't make huge dramatic changes to a game's story and missions based on a series of choices made throughout it's predecessors; not yet, anyway...that day may come (hopefully sooner rather than later) but it's not here yet.

I think Bioware did a great job considering the current limits of the medium.

...Wait a minute...what does this have to do with the extended cut?

But there ARE consequences for your two examples of the Rachni Queen and Legion. If you save the Reaper Rachni Queen and send workers to the Crucible, they run amuck. If you don't have Legion, you can't reconcile the Geth and the Quarians.

you mean the Breeder or the actual Queen?

The breeder created by the Reapers

[Bitterfoam]

This might be a long shot, else it might not be.

Does anyone in this thread know how the game calculates squadmate "favor," or otherwise decides what squadmate shows between Anderson and the LI (in this case, if it matters, during the Destroy segment) and who exits the Normandy along with Joker and the LI?

In my case, I had EDI flash between Anderson and Liara (the LI), and then Javik exit the Normandy following Joker and Liara. I'm amazed I had more "favor" with those two than I did my main Turian Garrus, though it isn't impossible, I suppose. In that case, it's understanding the how and why that concerns me.

[DeadpoolBub]

Bitterfoam wrote...

This might be a long shot, else it might not be.

Does anyone in this thread know how the game calculates squadmate "favor," or otherwise decides what squadmate shows between Anderson and the LI (in this case, if it matters, during the Destroy segment) and who exits the Normandy along with Joker and the LI?

In my case, I had EDI flash between Anderson and Liara (the LI), and then Javik exit the Normandy following Joker and Liara. I'm amazed I had more "favor" with those two than I did my main Turian Garrus, though it isn't impossible, I suppose. In that case, it's understanding the how and why that concerns me.

I think if you have Javik he always comes out at the end of Destruction.

As for who shows up in your last moments, it's someone on your squad who's died. For me it was EDI (since she died during this ending) & I've seen Ashley/Thane pop while watching endings on YT.

I personally really liked the endings. Sure it's not what I wanted (aka no Space Magic). But it's a million times better than what we originally got & if I just look at the epilogue, it's essentially what I wanted minus Shepard's reunion with his LI. Though, that's likely to happen in the Destruction ending.

Honestly, anyone who still hates the ending with a passion is just salty that they didn't get their way.

[Bitterfoam]

Okay, so it IS a dead squadmate. I had thought so, but someone I was speaking with earlier said it wasn't, and that it was based on favor. Although, EDI technically wasn't dead at that point - and I'm assuming the game must not dig up ME1 deaths at that point, maybe? I got Legion and Thane later on in the ending, when Hackett was talking about the lives lost along the way, but never Kaidan or Wrex.

If Javik always comes out with Destroy, it's new to the EC. When I first beat the game months ago, I had Liara and Garrus, AKA the squadmates with me on Earth, enter everyone *****ing and moaning as to how they got on the Normandy.

I appreciate the EC for what it is. The cinematics are beautiful. The Catalyst dialogue is superfluous and over-explaining, but I guess that's what people wanted, since they couldn't figure it out themselves. It wasn't impossible to intuit, ever. I enjoy the endings as they are now as I enjoyed them before. (And now people can go back to beating the dead horse.)

[Shepard108278]

Wertom Three wrote...

Even if there was a Mass Effect 4, who would buy it?

*raises hand*

[Sangheili_1337]

I feel that the EC is a massive improvement over the original endings and I now consider the endings tolerable. I appreciate the fact that Bioware went out of their own way to try to appease the fan base but the bitter taste of my initial reaction to the endings means that they are going to have long road ahead of them if they want me to purchase another Bioware product.

[Nifil]

One of the problems of the control ending still applies:
If the shepard was an renegade A--hole who enjoyed killing without a second thought, and snoo snooed everything he/she finds remotely attractive, would you really want him/her to have absolute control of the most powerful beings in the galaxy?

[LumbercracK]

On the issue of squad favor. It's dead guys that you talked to allot. But my question is how in the hell did the game decide that I wanted James in all of my cutscenes. I hate that douche. I didn't see Garrus once. GARRUS HAS NEVER LEFT MY ****ING SIDE!
3 ****fing ignores the characters I enjoy in favor of characters I hate.

On the issue of consequences. Oh yay. So the global implications of the extinction of a race is not that the race ceases to exist but instead that they slightly hurt an arbitrary number by sabatoging a clearly undefensible death machine.

Illusion!

Don't present me a choice over something like the existance of a race if my choice will not effectively change the existance of said race.
Apples are not oranges and mass effect is not choice driven.

The part that bothers me is how much the core of ME3 creates the problems they say are unavoidable.

Do you want to have more character playtime? DONT INVENT NEW CHARACTERS AND WASTE BUDGET ON GUYS WE HAVEN'T CARED ABOUT FOR TWO GAMES BEFORE.
Do you want a coherent plot line? DON'T REDEFINE THE VILLAIN AND TIE YOURSELF TO A VERY ILLIOGICAL PLAN OF ATTACK.
do you want to be able to have choices matter? DON'T HINGE THE GAME ON A MECHANIC THAT GIVES MORE COMTENT BASED ON NUMBER OF MISSIONS COMPLETED THUS FORCING YOURSELF TO BE UNABLE TO DROP MISSIONS BASED ON PREVIOUS CHOICES.
Do you want players to care about your characters? DON'T RETCON THEM INTO BIMBOS
do you want to a avoid public outcry? DONT RELEASE AN UNFINISHED GAME WITH A PLOT MADE OF PEGBOARD.

Do you want your fans to trust you ever again? BE HONEST. APPOLIGIZE. EXPLAIN WHAT HAPPENED.

me 1&2 were 20$ each on steam
They were deep games with great characters
They had choices that were profound and could change the universe
They had great stories
They were the best games I had played since the n64

Me3 was a 70$ game on origin
It had a moronic meta game
It had a forced tie in to multi player
It ruined one character
It introduced a useless meatbag who belongs on MTV
It mitigated all of my favorite characters to one off missions where they were visible in cutscenes.
A few of them were on the ship long enough to **** once or twice
The bad guy was Cerberus NOT the reapers
The story stopped making sense.
The game stopped being mass effect.

Me3 made me cry after it was over. Not because the ending was sad. But because it was over. And then I played the ending again. And again. Finally I stopped. I went back. I tried to up my assets to see if it got better. I played an iPhone game for 5 days straight. Timers reminded me to reset my fleets. The ending got worse. It got even more hole ridden. And I got mad.

I have many mor characters all waiting to be imported into 3. I can't do it. I slaved through a second play on my renegade fem shep. I stopped when I realized I was reciting the exact game. Nothing changed. Sure I shot paddock wiks and betrayed wrex. I burnEd the fake rachni queen alive. But none of it matered. The game was identical regardless of my past 60 hours of gameplay on this character. I can't play the best games of my life because 1/3 of them completely invalidates them.

I can watch the endings on YouTube and not worry. There's no difference that matters. Garrus isn't in mine despite being my #1 guy. Miranda died because I hated her so she was the last person I wanted to see. James littered my ending. EDI hid inside the ship because she only comes out for synthesis. Everything gets rebuilt. and a ****ty slideshow rolls past with pictures based on myme3 choices.

I just want this to end but I keep coming here. I haven't played a single player game since. I can't.
I'm not afraid to admit that ME3 is still a bad game.
I'm afraid to admit that I can't fix that.

[hangmans tree]

The whole concept of the Catalyst is a curious thing. He was created by Original Race which in time was turned into first reapers, against their will I might add. As an only solution.

Here we have a Catalyst to be a mediator between organics and synthetics... From what experience did he draw the conclusion that harvesting was the only option? How many conflicts were there to compute that organics will be eradicated? At which point did 'HE' decide that his masters and creators will lose this war/conflict/argument to turn them into reapers? To me it seems as Catalyst is a rogue VI / AI that turned against his creators in good faith, to preserve the world/universe. Another machine with flawed mesianic operating system like Matrix or Skynet.

Shepard subjugated a demigod, enslaved or destroyed it.

After creating original reapers Catalyst became a prime being itself, with nothing to preceed him/it/whatever. His status is one of a kind, an omnipotent overseer that shapes the galaxy, bending it to his will every 50 000 years. Shering that knowledge and unifying races in Synthesis it is said that organics ascended and achived immortality.
Ok, I like the thought of transhumanism, immortality and transcending but why then the old geezer talking to the child is... old. Furthermore he says the story happened a loong time ago (in a galaxy far away) and most of it is forgotten.
Really? In the dawn of a new era, with reaper tech available to store all cultural data and history, consciousness and whatnot... they cant recall how reaper wars ended? The child is assured that one day maybe he will too travel among stars. Huh? So they dont?

I'm a little bit lost here tbh. I would like to find some sense it this EC 'splaining things for us. But apart from touchy scenes from and with the npcs we are already emotionally bonded as gamers and audience there is nothing substantial in the new material. Just an new paintjob methinks. A new shiny wrapping paper on the same old stuff that confuses. And sometimes 'retcons' like the relays not exploding but merely beraking down and loosing few parts in the processs.

inconsistencies I see, my young padawan. I think the work BW put ion making was 'afterefects' and was based exclusively on our feedback rather on what was planned and concived at the begining. I think so because the whole new content does not sit well with me.

Why did BW decide to put few extra cinematic shots in control ending and not to do the same for other is beyond me. It looks as if that one deserved an extra mile from the devs, which is wierd - synthesis needed highest EMS value to be unlocked. And nothing cool happens there. Colour me dissapointed.

On a sidenote I have to say I begin to notice the trend - most of gamers moved on, stopped caring...

Modifié par hangmans tree, 05 juillet 2012 - 09:50 .

[LumbercracK]

Control needed an epilouge to explain how and what Sherppards continued existance is. Synthesis was a terrible mess that can't be explained well so everyone just got green eyes.

[uncertainsky]

Does any ending leave Shepard alive? I just finished synthesis then went back again and shot the ghost kid

[Misfiring]

Bioware should expand again on this with "Extended Cut 2" or a simple update on the current one. Don't get me wrong, I like the improved ending sequences, but I believe that many more can be added to make it more complete. I don't think it's very difficult for Bioware to perform these fixes since it just involves additional scenes and more dialog, just like the EC. But I believe these fixes I suggested will solve many plotholes that players complain about, all with less resources needed than EC itself.

It's not possible for a game to have it's content changed after release, I understand this, thus I came up with some ideas that bioware can expend upon. It's not my ideal solution, but simply some logical fixes that I can think of based on the EC.

- When the Normandy arrives in front of Harbringer, an additional scene could be use to show Shepard commanding the surrounding soldiers to distract the Harbringer. This alone will solve the "why Harbringer didn't shoot the Normandy" problem.

- When the Normandy starts to escape after extraction, the Harbringer will attempt to shoot it, but Cortez will arrive and block it with a scuttle or gunship, thus sacrificing himself and allows the Normandy to take off. If Cortez did not survive the landing, the Normandy will take a hit and one of the squad will die, but it'll escape nonetheless. Sorry that it involves more deaths but players want better logic on the extraction sequence so this is it. Remember: you can't change what is already in EC. Of course, you can explain the presence of Cortez by showing him as one of the gunships.

- The control room could be added with pathways beside the one Shepard come in. It doesn't have to be explorable, just to show that Anderson does indeed come from different paths. It'll solve the "why Illusive Man appear out of nowhere" problem too, and I believe its an easy fix for game designers.

- Many players hated the Catalyst, mainly because it is the one that presents the players on how to use the Crucible. The one that commands the Reapers is telling you how to use a device that ends them. This gives the impression that the players have to submit to the Catalyst's choices. I believe that it isn't the case, but many players don't understand this "relationship" between the Catalyst and the Crucible. Also, because the Catalyst isn't actually the Crucible, it can't explain properly how the Crucible actually works, thus some players refer to it as "space magic".

I respect Bioware's choice of introducing this concept to the ending, however because players do not understand what actually happened and why, thus many of them are still unsatisfied with the EC. Scan the forum, Bioware. Some players are satisfied with the EC, but many more has found new plotholes and/or believes that the "root" problem, which is the Catalyst, is not solved.

Continual improvements are one of the things that Bioware does best, isn't it? Thus, the next post of mine shall details my idea on how to extend upon the scenes with the Catalyst. It does not change how the game will end, but players will have a different (and that means better) impression on what Catalyst actually is. Stay tuned.

[Aloren]

DistantUtopia wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

or like if you have the Max number of war assets or more you should win, but if you low EMS you lose, thats how it should have work

the EC still makes War Assets useless again

Agreed. That's how I would have expected Refuse to work.  But nope.  Artistic integrity and all that.  They really want to push for the RGB ending no matter wzhat.  I smell new universe sequel.

Well, I kinda understand why they didn't bother, I don't think it's really because of artistic integrity, especially since it would have been really easy to just kill Shepard in a conventional victory.

The thing is, they required a quite high EMS to get the best ending before EC, and people cried and cried again ... consequently, they insanely lowered the required EMS to get the best ending.
Adding a successful refusal ending based on EMS would have required a much much higher EMS to make any sense, and they would have had to face people complaining again : either they give it to everyone and nobody would pick any of the other endings, and people would complain that the endings are useless and that EMS is not meaningful enough, or they make it hard to reach and people will complain that they can't get the best ending without MP or whatever. Because that's basically the problem, everyone wants the best ending without effort.

Now knowing that, I would have probably done the same : why waste time and resources to build a complete long new ending from scratch when you know that, whatever you do, it's going to backfire anyway ? Instead, they did what they could to improve the three existing endings and just gave us a chance to say "no".