4048 réponses à ce sujet

[Crazed Minion]

Cybermortis wrote...

Just to point out the blindly obvious, in case no one else has in the last 90 odd pages, the Reject ending is exactly what we asked for...sort of.

You see back when there were 'discussions' about the original ending there were two often mentioned endings - One the Reapers win, the other being able to shoot the blasted Star Child. They put the two together and gave us the Reject option...so regardless of what you may or may not think about it, they did at least give us some of what was asked for.

The rest...I'm sort of 'Meah' about it. Not bad by any stretch, but maybe not the ending the game really needed either.

I DO think Bioware deserves some credit for even making the expanded ending. And we should give a nod towards all those who worked on it. As things go it IS clearly better than what we had to start with - the old ending gave me the urge to throw my screen at the nearest wall, the new ones don't.

That said the basic problem with the ending and the game as a whole is bad pacing and the lack of the 'Hell yeah!' factor that the first two games had. Short of totally replacing the ending from the attack in London the DLC was never going to be able to solve these problems.

So, thanks for the DLC and all the effort that went into it...but I'll be honest and say that it isn't enough to make me feel like going back and playing all the way through again - which isn't a problem that comes just from the ending - let alone make me consider buy any DLC.
Because of the work that went into the DLC, and because it isn't horrific, I'm willing to remove Bioware games off my personal Blacklist (Do not buy), and instead put them on the 'Grey list' (Consider purchase only after careful investigation of customer comments and reviews).

I find your analysis sound and agreeable. I'm still hoping that Angry Joe was half-right when he felt suspicious that someone other than Bioware slammed their boot down on having an ending where they could tack on DLC. Then again, I wasn't there, so that theory may be misplaced.

[JJ436]

[/quote]

I'm of the opinion that the original Destroy ending (and the new one as well) is basically the same sort of "Screw You!" to fans.  The Destroy ending in essence tells Ghost Boy that you believe he's full of it, and that organics and synthetics will get along just fine if given the chance.  Best guess is that the Writer couldn't risk every last player rejecting his "organics and synthetics can't get along" hypothesis, so he arbitarily tacked on the whole "oh, btw, EDI and the Geth will all die if you destroy the Reapers" bit to force players who actually cared to go with one of the other options instead.
[/quote]

True to every word. They forced their envisioned lame ass endings onto people rather presenting what everyone was expecting.

Modifié par JJ436, 30 juin 2012 - 12:40 .

[Butane9000]

Here's my view. The new endings don't fix everything but make it at least acceptable. They retain their long term ambiguity while fixing some of the most hated parts that simply didn't make any sense. I don't think they did an excellent job and probably never will. However they did enough of a job to where I can now replay the games without feeling like the whole effort will be worthless. Though I only plan to replay it through once more. Specifically my first play through is:

Paragon Shepard - Tali LI - Destroy

My new play through will be:

Paragon Shepard - Liara LI - Reject

So there, at least I get another 150 hours out of the franchise. That is definitely money well spent.

[Accipiter46]

I really liked the extended cut.
Yes, the ending is still flawed. I may not agree with the "artistic choices", but expect a good execution of said choice.

THANK YOU, Bioware, for making it clear that you care about the fans. The people saying this was just a few cutscenes are wrong. The typical ME quality that were missing from the original ending is back. And such a simple thing as the new end message made a huge difference to me.

I don't think is's getting any better, and I'm willing to accept that. Everyone makes mistakes, and I will give Bioware a new chance. Hopefully they've learned something from this mess.

[Butane9000]

Accipiter46 wrote...

I really liked the extended cut.
Yes, the ending is still flawed. I may not agree with the "artistic choices", but expect a good execution of said choice.

THANK YOU, Bioware, for making it clear that you care about the fans. The people saying this was just a few cutscenes are wrong. The typical ME quality that were missing from the original ending is back. And such a simple thing as the new end message made a huge difference to me.

I don't think is's getting any better, and I'm willing to accept that. Everyone makes mistakes, and I will give Bioware a new chance. Hopefully they've learned something from this mess.

I don't really think they care about the fans. Because if they did Casey Hudson and his accomplices would have been outright fired over the massive outrage created by the ending. Also the ending would have been revised completely. And while not everything the fans pointed out would be fixed most of it would be. We'd have our 16 endings reflecting all our major decisions, we wouldn't have the deus ex machina star child, there wouldn't be space magic. One such thing that they wouldn't remove is the possibility of shepard dying which I am completely okay with.

However they did understan that their franchises legacy was at stake and did the bare minimum in order to shore up the series. While what they have made is acceptable the wrong they have commited has not been "wiped clean" and undoubtedly for myself and others any future purchases of Bioware products will require substantial thought before a decision to buy it or not will be made.

[Crazed Minion]

Well, I suppose I'll throw my two cents into the ring...

I feel I should preface this by saying that, until the "StarChild" appeared on screen, I enjoyed every minute of Mass Effect 3, both Single and Multiplayer. Even when I frowned and begrudgingly made my final selection for the ending, I thought to myself "Well, hopefully the epilogue will make up for the lost ground." It was only once the credits began rolling that I realized that no epilogue was coming.

Plotholes from the original ending aside, only 2 things got my panties in a serious bunch:
1.) Having absolutely no epilogue to speak of. This universe is populated by the greatest number of characters that I honestly cared for more than any other fictional media out there. Not seeing how the ending ultimately impacted them greatly disappointed me.
2.) Once I found out that the ending cinema scenes were the same from one choice to another, this seriously irked me. This truly made me feel as if none of my choices mattered, a statement that I can say with total earnesty never escaped my lips until the ending.

With all of that out of the way, I can now delve into the Extended Cut improvements (for all 5 of you that managed to read this far).

-"I appreciate the added dialogue while Shepard is calling for the Normandy to evac his injured teammates Bioware, but maybe it would have been smarter for him/her to do that somewhere other than RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE GIANT REAPER SHOOTING LAZORS AT ALL ORGANICS. Just a thought. At least you explained why Shepard's ground-crew is on the Normandy for the crashlanding scene."
-"Guys, Anderson's line of how the keeper tunnels are 'shifing; changing' doesn't explain how he managed to hobble to the same console as Shepard when there is literally NO OTHER ROUTE he could have used to get there. I double-checked: the only way that leads to the Citadel console is the path Shepard takes."
-"Thank the Lord! Shepard finally raises raises his hand and says 'I have a few questions, Mr. StarChild.' I still don't understand the damn kid's logic in the slightest of how man and machine will always quarrel (that analogy he makes to fire not being in conflict really bugs me). I guess Sovereign was right: Their motives WERE beyond my mortal comprehension."
-"Alright. I like that the cinema scenes now incorporate some variety in them depending on which ending you chose. That being said, would it have killed you to show some cinematics of Jack and her students fighting off reaper forces, or Samara kicking some Reaper ass while the Crucible is firing? Still better than what they had before."
-"Very good, Bioware. I actually have NO complaints about how you handled patching up the plothole of Joker fleeing the Crucible's explosion. That was very well executed."
-"Stills? Really guys? I mean, I know you can't cover ALL the choices we made for a DLC expanded ending, but come on. A still can only tell us so much of what happened. If all of the stills had been handled like the one's describing Tuchanka's fate, that would have been pretty effin' cool."
-"Bioware, you missed a golden opportunity when the Normandy's crew is placing Shepard's name plaque on the memorial wall. It may have been a pain in the ass, but I would have given you guys SERIOUS points if you would have putt my Shepard's first name on the plaque instead of 'Commander.' It would have been epic."

Alright. All in all, my opinion on the Extended Cut is a positive one. While it didn't fulfill my expectations (I had my fingers crossed for the Indoctrination Theory), it at least takes care of the bigger plotholes left by the ending and gives us a decent, if too short, epilogue to tie things into a tighter package.

Final Verdict: The Mass Effect 3 ending now gets a C- from me. Still below average, but a markable improvement.

And for the record, I still love the game and the other games to death.
Thanks for reading all this, if you managed to.

[3DandBeyond]

Delaney wrote...

TMPAL wrote...

What I have taken from my disappointments:

The Mass Effect series provided so much rich experiences in the story and the dialogue. The original game was never about how much you could shoot but how the story developed based off of your choices. You could dive into the experience as much as you wanted or as little. Both ME 1-2 are proof of that. If you did not care about someone or cared too much, ME1 introduce the challenge of choice, letting someone die in Ash/Kaidan or Shooting Rex. ME2 added a bit more of shooting and blowing stuff up, however they continued to embrace what made Mass Effect so successful, the ability to make your choices and game play matter and allow you to play how you saw fit. You could involve yourself in your ally’s stories or kill allies by not doing ally sub-missions that ultimately led to their deaths. Again your choices were the driving force behind the story.

The fact that ME3’s ending caused such an up roar should not anger or disappoint bioware writers/Devs etc. But give them prided that the first 2 ½ games provided was so rich that folks cared enough to be concerned when the history/tradition that was embraced in choice and consequences seemed to be abandoned in the final installment of the series and particularly in the last 10 minutes.

It has been argued time and time in the forums and will continue to be argued over. But one thing that cannot be argued is that the nature of choice was what brought the ME series to the blockbuster series that it is. The fact that they abandoned what engaged folks from the beginning is what is so frustrating in the ending of this series and even more frustrating is that an EC was added that did little to address this issue. .

Wise words here ... I agree totally.

As do I wholeheartedly.  And the character we cared about the most was the one we created-I felt at the end we cared more about Shepard than they did.  We wanted to see the end to Shepard's story and let Shepard fully participate in it--you know start (ME1) to finish.  They wanted to make something that looked cool and sounded super intellectual.  That was way less satisfying than an ending that included Shepard to the end.  But they abandoned a formula that worked.  Thin skinned all the way.

[3DandBeyond]

Eumerin wrote...

Fireclown2020 wrote...
Also
like to point out, I feel like the new ending, the rejection, felt more
like BioWare were saying, "FU Fans, you don't like our endings, well,
have this, Game Over Screen Ending!"

I'm of the opinion that the original Destroy ending (and the new one as
well) is basically the same sort of "Screw You!" to fans.  The Destroy
ending in essence tells Ghost Boy that you believe he's full of it, and
that organics and synthetics will get along just fine if given the
chance.  Best guess is that the Writer couldn't risk every last player
rejecting his "organics and synthetics can't get along" hypothesis, so
he arbitarily tacked on the whole "oh, btw, EDI and the Geth will all
die if you destroy the Reapers" bit to force players who actually cared
to go with one of the other options instead.

I agree with this.  I believe reject is something that they are using to now sit back and say innocently, "but this was what you wanted," when they know that wasn't the full intent of what anyone had said.

And Destroy with no closure and Shepard treated like garbage (Shepard is the player) is similar, but comments about it have been misleading.  Tweeting that people would have a reunion and then when people found they couldn't, tweeting that sure they could, it was implied and clear Shepard would reunite with friends.  Intentionally misleading people. 

Destroy with no closure and reject are both FUs to players.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 30 juin 2012 - 01:32 .

[Scimal]

I'll throw my hat into the "satisfied" ring.

Despite the initial idiocy that occurred while I was trying to install it on my Xbox 360, after it installed properly I found the EC to be more than I expected.

I really like the final goodbye during Hammer's push towards the beam - it was an excellent moment, and is representative of BioWare when it's on the ball.

The "Filling in the Cracks" about Joker leaving Shepard, the radio chatter, and the little perplexing moments was well enough done. It answered the smaller issues with simple answers.

The elaborated conversation with the Catalyst was a surprise I wasn't expecting, and while most of the answers still smelled of the same "I'm only here as a plot device" logic, it was nice to be able to investigate its existence a bit.

The Reject option is nice.

The ending cinematics are WORLDS better. While they don't address everything I would have like to seen (what, specifically, happens to LI's - for instance), they are what should have been in place from the beginning. I haven't played a BioWare game yet that didn't use an epilogue to explain what happens after the adventure, and when ME3 didn't have one I was flabbergasted.

Overall, I give it a thumbs up. The EC is exactly what I expected the original ending to be, and while it doesn't solve all of the logical fallacies involved with the Catalyst, it at least provides closure since the "artistic" ending couldn't provoke enough thought to not need closure.

Well done BioWare. You're off my 'nix list', but please don't make the same mistake again!

[ashe389]

The EC answers most of the questions that left me so disappointed with the original endings. When I played through the first time, I chose synthesis and watched my Shepherd die for what seemed like no reason. (You win the game!.... except the mass relays are destroyed, stranding countless species in random systems, halting any progress for the Krogans and Quarians, let alone rebuilding the home worlds of every species...) These 'expanded' endings validate Shepherd's sacrifice by showing that the galaxy does recover, regardless of ending choice (albeit a little differently in the refusal option). (The original final screen, inviting players to purchase DLC, was almost insulting after such a meager ending.)

Thanks to Bioware for making each ending differ from one another. After my first (and currently only) play through, I could hardly believe that Bioware, a name that I associate with the best in video game storytelling, would create such similar endings no matter Shepherd's choice. Any complaint I might have now is minor compared to my opinions on the original endings. (BTW, I laughed when I realized that shooting the starchild results in failure for the current galactic civilizations. I could be wrong, but it feels like Bioware was trying to make a joke or comical statement with that addition.) So glad you listened to your fans!

I finally feel like playing a second time through. Thanks for listening, Bioware!

[LostInReverie19]

The EC is band-aid fix to a wound that requires major surgery. The logic, or rather complete lack thereof, throughout the star child's entire spiel is utterly appalling (still) and quite frankly insults the intelligence of anyone with enough brains to see through such a ridiculous argument.

Thanks for trying, BioWare, but it's clear your "artistic integrity" is more like a toddler's spastic finger painting than a Da Vinci or Rembrandt.

If you are pleased with the EC, good for you, but I think you are too easily satisfied. This is a company that no longer truly cares about its fans and no longer knows the definition of the word integrity, let alone art. The way BioWare treated its fans throughout this whole situation is condescending at best and malicious at worst.

BioWare will no longer enjoy any of my money. Should I feel the urge to play one of their title in the future, I will make sure to buy it from another source, so as not to fatten their paychecks any more than they already have been.

This is goodbye, BioWare. It will be interesting to see the sales figures for your next title.

[PineappleSalad]

I wasn't displeased with the Extended Cut. Although the endings still aren't great, they are much better than what we were left with before, and since I had left my expectations for the EC incredibly low after hearing the words "clarification" and "artistic integrity" over and over, I was pleasantly surprised when the new endings did just that, and actually did manage to make the ending better. Yes, the starkid is still there, and I still hate it, but at least it's explained a little bit, even if it is silly. Yes, synthesis is ridiculous, but you can simply ignore that part of the conversation, choose a different path, and pretend it was never suggested. Yes, the refusal option is basically a "screw you for hating our endings" game over, but it's really, really funny ( at least, I thought so).

The things that bothered me the most were fixed. Not everyone on the Citadel died a horrible death, the relay explosions didn't cause a supernova that destroyed all of civilization (unless your EMS was too low, you monster), and your team isn't stranded on some random jungle planet while Garrus and Tali starve to death. It still doesn't make sense for Shepard to live in Destroy, but I like that the ending is open for the player's imagination (I like to think that the crew went back to Earth to look for Shepard, and found her). Control was much better, now that we know Shepard actually is a reaper, and what she chooses to do with her power. Even refusal was kind of nice, because with the Stargazer ending, we see a new species that has presumably destroyed the reapers after seeing Liara's beacon. The new cutscenes were nice, and I was happy to see that the faces that appear during Shepard's last moments were fixed.

No, it's not perfect, but it's better than I expected, and I can tell that a lot of hard work and effort went into the new endings, and for that I am thankful. Now I am actually looking forward to the new DLC, and will probably go through all three games again. Hell, now that the endings are actually really different, I might even do a screw-up playthrough, where Shep makes the worst decisions possible and manages to cause the deaths of each and every teammate (without actually killing any of them himself), then chooses low-EMS destroy to screw over the galaxy. Before, I didn't feel like there was any point in doing something silly like that. Now? Heck yes.

Thank you, Bioware, for listening to the fans and making the EC. I'm really happy for all the hard work you guys put into it, especially since it was free content. There will always be people who don't like the ending, and they have the right to complain about it (and everyone is free to their own opinion), but I personally think you guys reached a great compromise between sticking with the material that was already in the game and giving the fans what they want, especially with the time and budget restraints you were working under.

[Therefore_I_Am]

Bunch of whiny monkeys here... Take off your diapers please?

>>>Anyway, Control ending for me. That had to be the best.

[TMPAL]

Sintaris wrote...

Just to play devil's advocate...  

Regarding the choices, and how they operate therein...  I think it's fair to say that the Mass Effect series has introduced choice in a way that no game trilogy has EVER done before.  It's not like twelve developers do this cross-game-consequences thing regularly and Bioware had a clear path to follow in.  They broke ground with this series, which a LOT of people seem to forget in all of their anger, and I'm willing to give them something of a pass for not having choices and choices all the way through the ending.

From panels and interviews, I think it's fair to say Bioware had no idea what they were REALLY signing up for back when they made Mass Effect 1.  So when they started working on ME2, I think it started to become clear to them just how much extra content needed to be done.  As they are pioneers in this kind of thing, I'm willing to give them some slack for trying to reach the stars and coming up a few inches short.  I'm not defending the writing of the ending as it now stands, but I do think it's somewhat unrealistic to expect the same level of choice/consequences that the earlier parts of the series provided.  Even if they DID have the time to do that, the game would only be like 4 hrs long, as they'd run out of room due to having some 12,405 variant endings to place on the disc.

Case in point, they provided some facts during the PAX Panel in April:   start talking about it 17 mins 30 seconds in...  

ME1

136 Convos on Normandy

23 Designers

3500 Variable Plot Values

3k Rules for Animation Handling (Emotional States, Facial Expressions, etc)

ME2

172 Convos on Normandy

55 Designers

6400 Variable Plot Values

15k Rules for Animation Handling (Emotional States, Facial Expressions, etc)

ME3

300 Convos on Normandy (150 of which are ambient)

57 Designers

15000 Variable Plot Values

64k Rules for Animation Handling (Emotional States, Facial Expressions, etc)

Looking from 1 to 3, that's a pretty massive jump across the board.  I sort of assumed that - for the most part - the arc of Mass Effect would most likely resemble a butterscotch candy wrapper.  Everyone starts out in the same place, we make all our crazy choices in the middle, and then the end would wrap up in a pre-ordained way.  A larger version of this:   <==>

So I don't mind at all that the ending was boilerplated down to several limited choices.  Yes, I think the handling of some things has been questionable.  On several levels, they are in a cage of their own making.  Just listening to the explanations of how they wrote the Genophage scene...  "One potentially dead character is talking to another potentially dead character, who then has to interact with this other character who could also be dead, and then..."   It really isn't as simple as "Write this scene."  It's more like "Write this scene 150x with one or two minor variables to account for in each."  I doubt many of us would get past the 25th iteration before our eyes started bleeding.

I admire how much they've really, genuinely tried to appease the community.  It's unfortunate they've set an impossible goal to shoot for, but the hope that I am clinging to is that everything they mentioned on the social networks will be true once we've played ALL the DLC.  The numerous endings, the closure, the sense of being able to say goodbye....  It can ONLY be properly handled through single player DLC, which gives them the time and resource bandwidth to do it up properly.  Given how many tweets and statements they've made imploring people to keep their saves and how painful it is we can't see what they have planned, allow hopeful li'l ol' me to outline what I'm HOPING the case is:

- They KNEW they couldn't end the series properly for launch, especially after the story leak forced them to change things up on a super-crunched time table.  So the extended cut provides the "What they intended out of the box" ending - which still extensively supports IT, I might add. 

- A large amount of new content coming down the line will be SP post-ending content to fully wrap all the loose ends up.  Think about it.  They supported ME1 & 2 for about a year after launch, but were always moving on to the next game in the series.  There IS no next game in the series anymore  (at least not with Shep).  It's not impossible that we could get up to 2 yrs of DLC to support this game, especially since there will probably not be another Mass Effect game on 360/PS3 on account of nextgen consoles.  They also said with the new team supporting the  game they can get DLC out faster, so I'm hopeful they made the smart choice and said "What if we just break this thing up and deliver closure over the course of several MEANINGFUL pieces of post-ending DLC."  Based on their comments across the social networks, I think this is very possible.  Perhaps the crew goes to find out what happened to Shepard, and we get more of an idea of what happened to the Citadel during the whole catalyst laser thing.  Maybe IT is correct and some new content will show what really happened after Shep wakes up in London.

Mostly, I'm hoping that a fully developed DLC will give them the time and the resources to properly deal with the save state variables and provide an ONGOING conclusion.  Hell, I'd love it if they release some content that doesn't even have combat in it.  Just let us visit with different people, like Bailey on the Citadel, and get some closure / info on what happened to them.
Sorry for the length - I don't do concise very well, unfortunately.    I just think Bioware has earned enough goodwill over the years that I refuse to judge the conclusion of this series until they announce "We are no longer supporting the game with DLC."  When that day comes, I will look back across ALL the DLC, and only then will I judge the series as a whole.
Bioware, if you're reading this, PLEASE PLEASE PLEAAAAAAAAAASE make some awesome post-ending content.   A few pieces here and there that show the state of the galaxy beyond a photo montage and more deeply explore our choices.  


Hell, maybe even some flashbacks...  do like the Lord of the Rings Extended Editions did, and insert some new flashback scenes to more properly flesh out some characters and give us a window into things we never saw before.  Maybe one DLC can take place during the events of ME1 & we play as Saren going through the indoctrination process.  Show him talking to Sovereign and slowly losing his mind, maybe he deals with the Catalyst on the Citadel after jumping from Ilos....  draw some nice little visual comparisons to the end of ME3 & finally prove if IT is in fact what's going on...  some cool little pieces to help bridge the gap and reveal new insights.  Everyone will love you for it...  
Or maybe we find out that everything post-Arrival was an Indoct attempt, and that Shepard can stop the Reapers from every showing up at all, but only if he has a 100% EMS score in ME3!     Or maybe  do some he-said she-said narrative, and you give us the entire ending as DLC from the PoV of another squadmate.  So we don't learn of the indoct attempt through Shepard, but from the people around him.  And if it's reflective of the choice you made at the end of the game, then it would be SUPER awesome.

So many choices...  Mmmmmm... choiiiiiiiiiiiiiiices.

Yes they made it more difficult however the problem is not
the majority of ME3 it is the endings or rather the last 10 minutes.  It wasn’t
that it was unattainable but rather lackluster in its design.  I will not go into major details because it
has been the basis for arguments since the game was completed by its first
players and since then.

 

It is simply that they abandoned the choice in the end.  Choice was the premise of what this game sought
to elicit in its players and up until ME3 provided, a story based on your
choices.  Obviously there are limits to
those choices and outcomes however ME 1 & 2 embraced choice throughout the
game.  What we were given and what we
were promised were drastically different from promotions like you will not get
an ABC ending to adding a DLC which includes the ABCD endings.  Yes they explained further some plot holes
with the EC but again the success of this blockbuster has always been placed on
the choices and consequences of the previous games.  ME3 simple disregards those choices you do
not receive anything really different if you played and made choices in ME 1 or
2 let alone anything in the third installment’s choices.

 

Unfortunately, Bioware and EA decided it was more important
to include shooting as the primary focus and not the story and the choices that
made the series so successful to begin with.

Modifié par TMPAL, 30 juin 2012 - 04:52 .

[Mordin.Solus]

I did Control the first time but choose Destroy this time after hearing the Starchild explain everything to me. Obviously it would be sad to see the Geth and EDI go but I could not bring myself to be a part of them or choose the crappier Synthesis ending.

Overall, the endings were an improvement because they added insight but they weren't an improvement in that the starchild was still there. Overall, a C+ for this DLC.

[Spartas Husky]

Mordin.Solus wrote...



Overall, the endings were an improvement because they added insight .

Didn't realize explaining why your soup has cow poop in it makes it taste any better. Go figure.

[Javo2357]

I was very pleased with the endings, thank you BW. Sure, it wasn't perfect but it closed the story and I really appreciate all the time and effort you guys put into it.

[Archonsg]

An open question to all whom have finished the game with the ECDLC installed.
The question is; "After speaking with the Catalyst, did you find it flawed, insane and homicidal or did you think it was trust worthy?"

Seriously.
The reason I want to ask this is because apparently with the addition of a few lines, people suddenly think the options given by it are acceptable? Really?

Without meta knowledge of the events that follows, Shepard at the time when speaking with the Catalyst can only form and make decisions based on what he or she learns from speaking to the Catalyst. So my question dtands. "Did you think it was trust worthy? If not, would you have accepted anything it offers especially if it tells you that you need to die?"
And if the answer is "No." Why did you take any other choice then to reject it?

Just putting this out there.

Modifié par Archonsg, 30 juin 2012 - 07:34 .

[Spartas Husky]

He was never trust worthy to begin with. His logic is flawed since the very beginning. He stumbles on his logic over and over and over. There is no reasont o believe anything he i saying.

He now admits he's an AI who turn his creators into reapers against their will. Continuously disregards the proof that we have seen and lived on synthetics and organics coexisting imply because of bad writting.

he lies about the endings. Not to mention they are bad in writting. Deus Ex machina moments weren't acceptable 2000 years ago by the greeks... seriously why would they be acceptable now.

Controling the reapers with 1 human mind through some magic button completely lays to waste the effort and time we spent in horizon. TIM prooved they could be controled but not through some magic mind connection. But through massive infrastructure capable of harnessing the reapers aw inspiring power. Which through it doesn't diminish their intelligence or collective will.

With destroy it has been explained at length, he lies, shepard survives, if he survives we know the geth did too, the ships are still running so it isn't synthetics galaxy wide getting wiped out is only the reapers. Its impossible to belief, and ridiculous premise that u cannot send a destruction signal to the reapers. But before that is just bad writting to find a magic button that turns them all off to begin with. It again undermines the effort of the last 2 games. It undermines the lifes lost.

And the greenie goo now explained... still even worse than before.
"explain to me how it works"
"your energy will be disperse"
.............................................................. that is an awesome explanation
Aside from the morality issues and what not. Synthesis is what the reapers wanted all along. A way to manipulate organics. Pay close attention to what EDI talks at the end, and then listen to every dialogue harbinger and soverign say. it is the exact same idea. "a realm of existance so far beyond what we imagined"..."only now I am trully alive"

EDI said she was alive 30 minutes ago... so why would she say she is alive again? that isn't the same EDI.

[Frakel]

In short:
The reasoning of the catalyst is clearly flawed, but that doesnt mean that the story is flawed. On the contrary, the insane ´machine-god´ is an interesting adversary and the ultimate challenge for Shepard.


The semi-long explanation:
Many people seems to equate the reasoning of the catalyst with the reasoning of the writers. They interpret the worldview and logic of the "all knowing plot device"  as the worldview and logic of the writers. I don think that this is so at all.

As many others have stated, the logic of the catalyst is clearly flawed in several ways. Id like to add, that the catalyst is also racist and totalitarian in his way of reasoning. Honestly people: the reapers have been portraied as horryfying, slaughtering, indoctrinating, monsters through the entire series. How could you expect the AI that controls them to be any different? As I interpret the catalyst, it is indeed an "insane space Hitler".

And this is your ultimate challenge as commander Shepard. You have fought the minions, your have dodged, evaded and even destroyed some of the monsters themselves. Now you finally face the insane AI behind it all. The only question and ultimate challenge is this: how do you cope with insane space Hitler? Remember that he has the power to destroy all life in the galaxy... It certainly isn´t all-knowing, but it is very close to being all-powerful!

If you look at the catalyst as an adversary and a challenge that Shepard has to mitigate, then the four choices offered in the ending becomes very interesting and very meaningfull (at least to me):

Control, Destroy, Synthesis: Even if Shepard disagree with the reasoning
of insane space Hitler, I think it is also also a very prudent choice
not to ****** him off by renouncing him openly. He still holds the power to destroy all life, remember? My point is that Shepard can choose one of the options laid before him/her due to his own reasons. You dont have to accept the reasoning of the catalyst to choose either of the three.
Many others have discussed these ending in great length, so I wont go further into them...

Rejection: But then, Sheppard can also reject the reasoning and the choices of the catalyst openly. You stand tall and free. You make the ultimate sacrifice for your ideals: all sentient life in this cycle is harvested. But the cycle ISNT continued. The next cycle is able to overcome the threat of the reapers, through the accumulated knowledge of all cycles before them. The protheans came close to defeating the reapers. Sheppard and this cycle came closer, and becomes one in a link of resistance against insane space Hitler, that spanns countless cycles. Until, finally, the next cycle finishes the job.
To me as a fan, this is certainly not a slap in the face from Bioware. I find it to be an interesting, and very fulfilling story.


EDIT: Just one more thought...

The real succes of the ending is those people actually discussing the pros and cons of each of the four choices. And many do... Just look at the huge threads claiming that this ending or that ending is "the best". All four choices have pros and cons, and I think this is the real merit of the final dilemma that Shepard faces. From my point of view the story makes sense in the context of an insane machine-god, but the choices also causes players to reflect and discus. That gives points to the writers IMO...

Modifié par Frakel, 30 juin 2012 - 08:55 .

[Ieldra]

I think the Extended Cut totally saved the ending, the game and the whole trilogy. It removed the feeling of depression I had from the original, seeing everything I fought for ruined, instead giving me the feeling that I won and that there will be a bright future in some way in every of the three major endings. It even reconciled me with Destroy, an ending I previously wouldn't have touched with a ten-foot pole because of the neo-Luddite, reactionary vibe I got from it.

Having said that, the EC doesn't remove THE major problem with the ending and its premise: the theme shift. The notion of inevitable conflict which cannot be mitigated by understanding is newly introduced into the story, Also, there is an underlying current in the ending sequences that synthetic life isn't real life, embodied by one of the now most annoying autodialogue lines of Shepard "You're just an AI" and the implication of the Synthesis epilogue where EDI says "I am alive" as if she wasn't before. Both elements were totally absent from the rest of the trilogy. Sure, we've seen throughout the trilogy that synthetics wanted to understand organic life and often failed in the end, but even if you believed that synthetics are not true life before, if you made peace on Rannoch or sided with the geth the story hammered the point home that this is false. EDI, too, comments at the FOB that she now feels alive, and synthetics throughout the trilogy behaved in a very understandable way, fighting for things any human would understand. The message is clearly "synthetics are true life" and "understanding enables coexistence".

Which means that in hindsight, the whole trilogy feels like setting out to prove the Catalyst wrong and succeeding, until the ending comes and says we've gotten it all wrong. It's not a logical inconsistency, since of course the Catalyst may still be right - even understanding may not be enough to prevent conflict once synthetics have surpassed organics too far. But it's an epic narrative inconsistency the likes of which I have rarely seen in any medium. On an emotional level, the ending premise feels like it invalidates the most sublime moment in ME3 - the moment where the geth become "true life" and peace is achieved on Rannoch. What saves the Extended Cut version of the ending is that any of the futures you can choose is good enough that you can justify it without having to accept the ending premise, emotionally invalidating what has come before.

So....yes. I'm happy with the Extended Cut. As far as I'm concerned, it made the best of a bad situation. It couldn't fix the theme shift without totally replacing the ending, which would have in turn invalidated other things in the game, but it gave me a story I can enjoy and makes it possible to play again without feeling ever increasing dread as I approach the ending. I even replay the ending epilogues because I like them so much.

But the theme shift still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It's almost like in the fantasy tetralogy I recently read, where the protagonist of the first three volumes, who I had come to care for quite a bit, was suddenly totally sidelined in the last.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 30 juin 2012 - 09:40 .

[KustomDeluxe]

To throw my thoughts in:

I am...not disappointed by the EC.
That said, I'm not particularly happy with it either. Perhaps it'd be easiest if I kept it short and to the point.

The Good to me:
----A lot of the plot holes that were gaping wide in the original endings were put to rest, and in most cases with a good deal of skill. How the Normandy suddenly was in hyperspace - check, accounted for. Joker not being out of character relating to saving Shephard - check, accounted for. Relays not flash-frying the universe - check, accounted for.
----I, for one, was very impressed by the cinematics and such put into the EC. It's obvious a lot of work went into it and it shows.
----The added bits of explanation given on aspects of the player's choice was appreciated (see "the Bad" below)
----Chance to put a bullet into the Ancient-Alien-God-child-Deus-Ex-Machina-jerkface-Keeper-of-the-Tricolored-Endings.

The Bad to me:
----Honestly, I have to admit, I thought I'd have something more solid to put here. I can't think of anything "bad" in the EC.
HOWEVER
I feel this would be the place to put a few points that need to be reiterated, though they don't relate to the ending directly.
----The added bits of explanation given by the Tricolor-Ending-Keeper don't really serve to sort out the atrocious logical fallacies that seem to pop up like a mole on a wack-a-mole machine. The Xzibit meme about the Reapers being synthetics killing organics to stop organics from making synthetics that end up killing organics STILL SUMS UP THE LOGIC HERE. That was a major problem before, and it is just as major a problem now.
----Connected to the above, even with the ability to "shoot" the logical-fallacy-spewing genocidal maniac that is the Starchild, we don't really get to confront it on how insane it is. I mean, I know it's cliche and not artsy any more but why exactly can't one point out to the machine that was apparently created to keep synthetics from destroying organics that it is a synthetic destroying all organics?
----I'm sorry but these "artistic" endings you folks made still give me an air of pseudo-intellectual hipster gunk that doesn't seem to have any cogent message. I just fail to see what exactly the theme is supposed to be, even with the EC. The created always rebel against their creators? That's been done to death and I'd think it'd be able to be disregarded for being too cliche alone. So is man's purpose in the universe to die a noble death? That's a bit better, but not entirely coherent with everything...

I dunnow, it seems like, if done with more subtlety (or through a different medium) these ending could've been very "artistic" because the narrative could've been supplemented with a little more narration than is allowed via a multimedia format like a video-game. As it was, I felt like I was being bludgeoned with what was supposed to be a deep and insightful ending, which made me react negatively because it felt like the ending was far too arrogant for what it was, if that makes any sense.

Anyhow, thanks for the EC in any case. I'll consider purchasing Bioware products in the future.

[SamFlagg]

Archonsg wrote...

An open question to all whom have finished the game with the ECDLC installed.
The question is; "After speaking with the Catalyst, did you find it flawed, insane and homicidal or did you think it was trust worthy?"

Seriously.
The reason I want to ask this is because apparently with the addition of a few lines, people suddenly think the options given by it are acceptable? Really?

Without meta knowledge of the events that follows, Shepard at the time when speaking with the Catalyst can only form and make decisions based on what he or she learns from speaking to the Catalyst. So my question dtands. "Did you think it was trust worthy? If not, would you have accepted anything it offers especially if it tells you that you need to die?"
And if the answer is "No." Why did you take any other choice then to reject it?

Just putting this out there.

I believe with everything added the Catalyst becomes relatively truthful, but not trustworthy.  Specifically I believe the things he tells me are factual, but I ignore the value judgements the Catalyst is making.

Honestly I think what the extended cut actually does is make it considerably more likely that the catalyst is much less omnipotent/all knowing than the original cut seems to imply.  I believe instead of faulty logic with holes, we're actually given tortured logic of a being that can't concieve of a world where this pattern doesn't happen.  It's an AI who reaped its own original civilization (which did not want to be reaped)

[Aquilas]

Here’s a great article with links to others:
 
Letting Go of Mass Effect 3
 
Note the Rob Munsch quote. BSN fans aren’t the only ones who think Reject is a slap in the face.

Modifié par Aquilas, 30 juin 2012 - 10:15 .

[Sintaris]

KustomDeluxe wrote...
<snip>

----The added bits of explanation given by the Tricolor-Ending-Keeper don't really serve to sort out the atrocious logical fallacies that seem to pop up like a mole on a wack-a-mole machine. The Xzibit meme about the Reapers being synthetics killing organics to stop organics from making synthetics that end up killing organics STILL SUMS UP THE LOGIC HERE. That was a major problem before, and it is just as major a problem now.

<snip>.

I agree with a lot of what you say, there's just one little niggling thing that sends me into spasms on the floor everytime I see it...  the "logic fallacy" / Xzibit exhibit.  

Everyone says how stupid that plotpoint of ME3 was, but it's simply not accurate.  They do not kill all organics with synthetics in order to keep them from being killed by synthetics.

They cull the herd...  they take the most scientifically advanced races and help them "ascend" into Reaper form, leaving the others to grow.  
If you want to call that killing, fine, but it's still not ALL organics, otherwise humans, salarians, turians, krogans, and everyone else would have been killed in the last cycle.  And clearly they weren't.

Think of it like fighting a wildfire.  A wildfire can take out an entire neighborhood.  But...  firefighters will actually set things on fire so that fire doesn't burn the whole thing down.  It's often referred to as a controlled burning.

Sorry to jump on your back, but dear God, I want that Xzibit meme to..  well, I want it to die in a fire.