4048 réponses à ce sujet

[Taboo]

Geneaux486 wrote...

Warlegend17 wrote...

What happens post-credits if you pick the Refuse ending?

I'd laugh if it was still the Stargazer scene, running for its full length, same background, same music, only nobody's standing there or talking.

It's a bird-alien...something.

[Dance Craze]

I so badly wanted to post this as a response to the extended cut but alas I it makes no sense. Well here it is anyway:

[Geneaux486]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...

Warlegend17 wrote...

What happens post-credits if you pick the Refuse ending?

I'd laugh if it was still the Stargazer scene, running for its full length, same background, same music, only nobody's standing there or talking.

It's a bird-alien...something.

Even better, and talking in a language we don't understand.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 26 juin 2012 - 04:37 .

[Subject M]

RinjiRenee wrote...

Subject M wrote...

Just seems strange to me. While it is quite a horrible thing to have new functions added to you without your concent, being killed seems like a worse crime, at least as long as nothing is removed and you can still function and act in accordance to your own will. Its not like the loose their freedom in that sense.

Would you have sacrificed humanity if they where the ones who had to go?

If they had merged with reaper tech, then yes.  If you want to reject the Reapers and their theory, the only way to do that is to destroy them.  And those who choose the destroy ending have to accept that as a consequence, just as the people who choose Synthesis have to accept homogenity and the loss of humanity as a consequence.

First of all, The threat of the Reapers is in what they do to others they want to control or harvest. Not in the technology itself. My Shep too would like nothing more then to reject the Star-childs wild assertions, telling them to go away and giving us a chance to solve the situations ourselves but the situation is as it is and we the newly allied galactic community was never given the chance to build our own future on any other terms then those defined by the catalyst and involving quite hideous procedures involving genocide or different types of vaporization and integration with unknown technologies baring unknown effects.

Syntheis does not mean homogenity, but it does mean change.  Another form of homogenity comes with destroy as only organic life remain.

[Taboo]

Judging from reports here, I'm getting what I wanted, so it's all good.

But yeah, LOL at the bird thing.

[Firecell11]

While I think Refusal ending fits best in the ME series I still like destroy the most though I regret killing the Geth/EDI. Synthesis is still space magic for me and control wasn't that bad but I don't like the whole "become a god" idea. TBH I expected a reuning with my LI (Liara) I know it was implied in destroy but I hate to speculate about things. There are still some parts which confuse me like the breath scene wasn't touched at all or how EDI can die in destroy when she's an AI. All in one the endings are more clear and I lost a few tears while watching the epilogue.

Thank you BioWare you saved the Mass Effect series for me. I can't wait for more singeplayer story.

Modifié par Firecell11, 26 juin 2012 - 04:37 .

[Shatterhand1701]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...

Warlegend17 wrote...

What happens post-credits if you pick the Refuse ending?

I'd laugh if it was still the Stargazer scene, running for its full length, same background, same music, only nobody's standing there or talking.

It's a bird-alien...something.

Maybe it's the Raloi!!!  LOL!  That would be hilarious!!!  The one race that stayed far away from the Reaper conflict manages to survive the war while everyone else is annihilated.  Eat that, galaxy!  *chirp chirp*

[Jackums]

I'm still pro-Control, but Synthesis is unarguably the most beneficial ending.

I think all three were put together very well. Seeing EDI cry in the Synthesis ending was pretty touching. And I loved the image of the Reapers -- previously big, ominous, scary machines of death and destruction -- helping rebuild the relays, flying around casually. It was neat. And I like Shep's god-like speech in the Control ending. Destroy remains my least favourite. If anything, I'd only ever choose it for the chance of Shep living and reuniting with his crew.

But alas, Control has remained my favourite, and I'm pleased and content with EC as a whole.

Modifié par JackumsD, 26 juin 2012 - 04:35 .

[unreadierLizard]

As I said in another thread - while these new extended endings fall far short of what I and others would have wanted, I still feel they are vastly superior to the original endings.

[ryn_wolf]

if you choose to destroy the reapers and you possibly live does that mean EDI dies too?

[ME_RULES08]

Ultimately the extended cut doesn't change much at all and its still a poor way to end an epic trilogy. Sad times......

[WYLDMAXX]

Extended cut Control ending has Shepard sound like the Borg queen.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[Geneaux486]

Shatterhand1701 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...

Warlegend17 wrote...

What happens post-credits if you pick the Refuse ending?

I'd laugh if it was still the Stargazer scene, running for its full length, same background, same music, only nobody's standing there or talking.

It's a bird-alien...something.

Maybe it's the Raloi!!!  LOL!  That would be hilarious!!!  The one race that stayed far away from the Reaper conflict manages to survive the war while everyone else is annihilated.  Eat that, galaxy!  *chirp chirp*

Subtitles:
"So the Shepard had a big gun capable of killing the Reapers, but wouldn't use it?  Why?"
"Historians have debated that question for hundreds of years.  Their best guess is he skipped breakfast that morning.  Seriously, you need that protien.  Helps your brain."
"When will I be killed by the Reaper horde?"
"One day, my sweet!"

Modifié par Geneaux486, 26 juin 2012 - 04:38 .

[Lone Triarii]

Question: why does everyone on the Normandy assume you are dead when they don’t know that?

Also there’s still no context for the breath scene so I don’t think IT is dead.

[Subject M]

WastedHeart wrote...

Subject M wrote...

WastedHeart wrote...

Subject M wrote...

WastedHeart wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

WastedHeart wrote...

I completely disagree that destroy only has one advantage over the others. In synthesis you have still forced the entire galaxy to become synthetic/organic hybrids and not everyone is going to be happy about that. And in control you have to presume that Shepard will be able to control the Reapers forevermore and that people will be happy with the Reapers still being around. Destroy comprehensively ends the threat without having to alter life as we know it in any way and, imo, is what most of the galaxy would have chosen given the option. The geth dying is awful, but that doesn't mean destroy doesn't have certain other advantages over the other ends that have nothing to do with Shepard living.

I don't disagree.

If you believe that picking Destroy is the best option because you don't want to do the hybrid thing or because you're afraid that Control won't end well, then you get to have your cake and eat it too: you get the ending you prefer and you get to live. Everything's coming up millhouse.

I only disagree when people claim that picking destroy is the only way to save the galaxy. It's firmly established that it isn't, so I get frustrated when people say "but trillions would have died if I didn't pick Destroy." That part isn't true.

If you picked Destroy knowing that it wasn't the only possible solution but feeling that the downsides of the other two possible choices were worse, I respect that completely. It's people who speak as if not choosing destory means the Reapers win that I take issue with.

Also, if you think that destroy is just as valid on its own merits as the other endings, then why should Shepard living be correlated with that particular ending? People keep saying that if Shepard lived in any ending other than destroy, that would be "bad," but if Destroy is fine on its own merits, why is that the case?

If I were to guess (because it can only be a guess), I would say it is because BioWare originally intended destroy to be the renegady organics first end. So then it makes sense that Shepard lives only in that one. But a lot of people (including me) don't pick it for that reason. Even if my Shep died in destroy, I'd still choose it because I simply can't quite stomach aspects of the other two. I believe in people having the freedom to make their own destinies and so does my canon Shep, and the majority of the galaxy's races (minus the geth) can do just that in the destroy end without the Reapers' shadow hanging over them anymore . Plus, my Shepard has no God complex so would find it difficult to believe she could control the Reapers for any period of time (nor would she want to) or to believe that she had any right to fundamentally alter all life in the galaxy.

Also, personally I'd have no problem with Shep living somehow in all three. But even if she did, I'd still pick destroy.

I understand, but isnt killing all synthetics, and thus robbing them of everything (not just their freedom) a more grave offence then adding a synthetic element to everyone?

Not to me because I see it as the loss of just one race so the rest can be free. In synthesis everyone is forced through a change that no-one asked for, and there is no way imo that they would all be okay with that. There is nothing in the game to suggest, for example, that the geth want to be part organic. They're happy as they are. And so are organics.

I understand if you have a different opinion from me, but that is how I personally see things.

Just seems strange to me. While it is quite a horrible thing to have new functions added to you without your concent, being killed seems like a worse crime, at least as long as nothing is removed and you can still function and act in accordance to your own will. Its not like the loose their freedom in that sense.

Would you have sacrificed humanity if they where the ones who had to go?

Yep. It doesn't make any difference to me which race it is. I just cannot get behind synthesis or control so that leaves me with only one option: destroy.

Synthesis to me is wrong because it's done to EVERYONE in the whole galaxy without their consent and destroys diversity (to an extent). Also, it is playing God and implies the only way for people to get along is for everyone to be the same. Cos similar people never fight....*cough*

Destroy is also awful, but it effects a far lower number. Personally, I'd rather die than be fundametally altered, and I'm completely serious when I say that.

I agree synthesis is a violation of everyone, but I do actually consider killing entire and unique spices worse then giving people a common feature against their will, at least as long as it is not some sort of malign feature (kill switches, thought control brain chips etc). Diversity is still there, just as organic races are diverse, although the share the common feature of being organic.

Modifié par Subject M, 26 juin 2012 - 04:41 .

[Nashiktal]

It lessens the blow of the pre-extended scenes, but otherwise it kinda feels like a confused mess.

Like they couldn't decide if they wanted to retcon or not. They explain plotholes, change entire scenes, but then they change little after that.

I am not sure how I feel here. Its better, but... I don't know. Maybe I just lost my passion for Mass Effect, and thus pleasing me is impossible at this point.

[humes spork]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Judging from reports here, I'm getting what I wanted, so it's all good.

But yeah, LOL at the bird thing.

After having done synthesis with my canon Shepard and control with my evil adept Shepard, I'm pleasantly surprised and happy with EC.

I did get a very hearty laugh out of "WTF? Husk" in synthesis.

And, Harbinger just standing there letting the Normandy fly around was...surreal.

Modifié par humes spork, 26 juin 2012 - 04:46 .

[ArchDuck]

Wait wait, if in the synthesis ending it gives synthetics a full understanding of organics (which somehow stops them from wanting to wipe out organics... I would have thought the exact opposite would happen) then why do people need to be made glowy and creepy? Would not just that be enough?

Or is it about playing god and not about solving the catalyst fake problem?

Modifié par ArchDuck, 26 juin 2012 - 04:43 .

[Langeman]

 

Taboo-XX wrote...

It's a bird-alien...something.

Looks like som sort of asari-hybird to me. 

Lone Triarii wrote...

Question: why does everyone on the Normandy assume you are dead when they don’t know that?

Also there’s still no context for the breath scene so I don’t think IT is dead.

In the destroy ending LI hesitates to put your name on the wall, in the other endings LI puts your name on the wall, so Destroy = your alive and might reunite.

[Rinji the Bearded]

Subject M wrote...

First of all, The threat of the Reapers is in what they do to others they want to control or harvest. Not in the technology itself. My Shep too would like nothing more then to reject the Star-childs wild assertions, telling them to go away and giving us a chance to solve the situations ourselves but the situation is as it is and we the newly allied galactic community was never given the chance to build our own future on any other terms then those defined by the catalyst and involving quite hideous procedures involving genocide or different types of vaporization and integration with unknown technologies baring unknown effects.

Syntheis does not mean homogenity, but it does mean change.  Another form of homogenity comes with destroy as only organic life remain.

The threat of the Reapers is that they assumed that organic and synthetic life could never peacefully coexist.   This is inherently a patronizing and outdated view point that they enforce by controlling and harvesting organic life.  As we now know, however, that view point is completely incorrect.  Synthesis is in agreement with the Reapers' viewpoint, which is why many people reject it as being a viable ending.  Yes, you seem to find the most peaceful solution, but at what cost to humanity?  EDI even mentions in the ending that mortality may cease to exist.  That's all fine and dandy, but mortality should not be viewed as a negative consequence of living.  It's how all living things evolve and change.  Choosing the Destroy ending finally allows life to spiral forward with hope.  And, who knows?  Who says that hybrid organic/synthetic life would not be possible in the future?

But it'd be nice for life in that universe to finally choose their own path instead of it having it chosen for them, wouldn't it?

[GMLP]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Hey, I just realized that with the "I don't want to decide for the galaxy" ending, they really match the Deus Ex: Human Revolutions endings now

Bloody hell. Now you've mentioned it. Bioware and Eidos Montreal are like neighbours, aren't they? Gotta play God in the Control ending. Shame couldn't see Liara or my blue baby girls . Well off to Dawnguard now I suppose )

[wheelierdan]

i watched all 4 endings on youtube and i have to say of the big three, i fought back tears on every one, and each one would make me say THIS is the ending. They were all equally valid and meaningful.

A tiny part of me is still a little upset over the original, but this was closure.

[Lone Triarii]

Langeman wrote...

In the destroy ending LI hesitates to put your name on the wall, in the other endings LI puts your name on the wall, so Destroy = your alive and might reunite.

Thanks didn’t notice that. It’s all about subtlety.

[BalianOfIbelin]

Here are a couple of reasons the endings are better this time around (still do not live up to the A+ grade of the franchise, but changed the ending from unbearable to tolerable):

1) Original ending I literally had to say to myself out loud, "It's ok, this is just some kind of plot scheme to lead to the true ending later on. It's not real, don't worry about how awful it is because the real ending will be that much sweeter." This time, my reaction was: "Oh, ok. That was not terrible."

2) Catharsis. Showing how events unfold after your decision provides closure, something I had none of after the original ending. At least I know the fate of the galaxy now, and I didn't just watch different colored explosions.

Problems remaining:
1) If my reaction is "Oh, ok. That was not terrible", and Mass Effect is my favorite game franchise, then BioWare needs to seek a better response.

2) Decisions are still irrelevant. With all the variables that were pulled in from ME1 through your campaign in ME3, there was so much riding on this epic conclusion. I am not saying we needed 1000x conclusions, merely that there could have been variability to the already produced ones. For example: if you have 99% Systems Alliance through multiplayer, but only 50% Terminus, then most alien races and colonized planets in the Terminus should be extinguished while Earth and Systems Alliance colonies remain fairly unscathed (shown through cutscenes). Or, if you betray the Krogan and they stand alone against the Reapers as a result, show Tuchanka being extinguished. The possibilities here are endless, and only need one slide in a cutscene...not asking too much.

3) There needed to be an epic space battle. Why else did we gather every fleet in the galaxy and spend all of ME3 running around playing diplomatic war hero? The battle in the opening scene to the assault on Earth was great, but needed expansion deeply. Furthermore, why not try to implement a little RTS in the game? Nothing too complex, but give us an expanse of space to command our fleets to fight the Reapers. Give the player the chance to fight the Reapers head on, and decide their fate through combat and not gimmicks with the Catalyst. This could have brought another interesting and distinguishing element to the game that would help it outdo its predecessors.

4) Too many variables for a sequel. With the vast differences in the endings, it will be difficult to have a sequel that moves forward in time from the events of ME3 which fans probably want and would make record amounts of money (profit incentive!).

A while back I wrote an alternate ending based on the original endings. Please read it if you want and leave your comments.

To BioWare: I don't think anything aside from the ending I wrote (or something similar) would have made me happy and still rate this franchise an A+. So I apologize that I am not satisfied with the Extended Cut, but thank you for trying.

Link to my alternate ending: http://social.biowar...index/11739343

Modifié par BalianOfIbelin, 26 juin 2012 - 04:50 .

[Langeman]

Just a thought in general;

Is the Catalysts "solutions" more alignment-based? 



Destroy is Chaotic, 

 - Choosing not to use the reapers as an asset?


Synthesis is Law and, 

 - Forcing everything to become one, creating a straight line out of diversity?


Control is Neutrality.

 - Using the reapers as a means to keep the universe as it is? 


and Rejection is... well another way of Chaos I guess...

(just finished PS:T while waiting for EC so I'm abit focused on aligement right now )

Modifié par Langeman, 26 juin 2012 - 04:58 .