4048 réponses à ce sujet

[BobbyTheI]

I have to say, as more time has gone on and I've let the EC sink in, I honestly have to admit that... I actually like it.

And funnily enough, after reflecting on it, I think the best part of the EC, for my personal tastes, has nothing to do with all the new character moments and the slideshow finale.  It have everything to do with the expansion of the Catalyst dialogue.

I think one problem a lot of people had with the Catalyst was that we were under the assumption that the creators wanted us to take it at its word.  That when it said that organic/synthetic war was inevitable, that this was the writers saying, "Yep, this is exactly the case in the Mass Effect universe.  Now with the help of this wise and generous AI, help fix the problem."  And without a chance for us to get more information or questions its motives.

But with the expansion on the Catalyst backstory, we get a different image: an ancient civilization had come to the conclusion - perhaps correct, perhaps incorrect - that synthetics would inevitably annihilate organics, and programmed an AI to come up with a solution.  And the AI, cold in its logic, came up with the Reaper solution, over the (most likely quite vigorous) protests of its creators.

And with this, we get the picture of the Catalyst not as a wise and completely correct godchild, but as an insane AI who made a big error based on the conclusions its creators had programmed it to have.  And now Shepard cooperates with the Catalyst not because he/she necessarily agrees with its conclusions, but because at this point, it's the only option left.

I do agree with some folks who say that perhaps the ending would have been better if there was some way to win while rejecting the Catalyst, if the EMS was at uber-high levels.  And truth be told, even though I like the EC, the ending to the ME saga is still not great.  But at this time, I'm willing to be generous and call it decent, maybe even go so far as to call it good.

But also, like a lot of folks, while I appreciate the efforts BioWare has taken here, and think they mostly succeeded in their goals of answering a lot of the criticisms of the ending, the bloom has been taken off the rose a little in regards to BioWare for me.  And my days of routinely preordering anything they put out are probably over.

But at the same time... gimme some of that SP DLC, BioWare.  Because ME3 is finally a game I'm willing to revisit.

[Izzamegan]

DelPBCFC wrote...

I think that Bioware has performed splendidly on two levels. 

Firstly, by explaining what happened to your wounded squadmates; why Joker was doing a runner; and that the fleets of the galaxy might not be toast after all, the producers have admitted to making big mistakes with the original.  This takes guts.  But instead of just stopping there and saying, ‘Sorry, folks, it won’t happen again,’ they have taken the time, effort, and not inconsiderable expense to rectify those mistakes, and then given the remedy away for free.  This has demonstrated a heartfelt humility and affinity with customers which is rarely on display in modern capitalism.  I feel somewhat inspired by it. 

Secondly, to have come up with the EC – with all its new lines, cut scenes, artwork, and probably much else besides – in such a short space of time must have taken an incredible effort.  And it was an effort which I, for one,
appreciated enormously: in replaying my ‘destroy’ ending, I was rewarded with exactly the sort of closure that I had been hoping for from the original (which had left me gaping at the screen going, ‘Eh?’!). 

If any of the Bioware team happens across this, I would like to pass on my thanks and congratulations to all involved with this deeply honourable and Herculean effort – I think you can be extremely proud of a rescue
job well done.  

^This with my thanks added.

[ArchDuck]

You did a decent job quick patching some plot holes. I am sorry that you felt the need to not fulfill your original prerelease statements.

It looks like your strategy may have worked as people were so wounded by your original betrayal that they are willing to grasp any half coherent material you throw at them to stay a float.

Bravo, I guess.

[StElmo]

I like how the starkid is now a rogue machine stuck in a logic loop, so cool, like him MUCH MORE now then he was originally presented (like a holier then thou godchild).

[StElmo]

EC was still damn sloppy though, felt like a draft, not a final script.

[Spartas Husky]

yay. Lets like the EC because by explaining they took a dump on your mom's china it makes the actual fact that they took a dump on your mom's china all the more bearable.

horray!

[Aquilas]

Uncle Jo wrote...

Aquilas wrote...

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.

I'm really glad that they brought this option and gave me at least the right to say "NO", even if the outcome, well isn't that good. My canon ending.

Yep, I'm with you 100%.  I was one of the fans who adamantly requested a "Reject" option.  Daniel Nye Griffiths' "The Real Hero of Mass Effect 3..." is my headcanon version of Reject, as I said earlier.  Quite bluntly, it's the only way I can stomach ME3 at all.

Modifié par Aquilas, 30 juin 2012 - 06:23 .

[GholaHalleck]

I am.. Overall, mostly content with the EC as it stands now. there are some niggling bits of annoyance I would have liked to have seen closed (A preggers Liara for romance would have made my day, Tali building her house with garrus maybe? Baily hugging his kids.) but I can say I like the new cut.

I love how the Reapers change from being god machines to being a monumental 'I Robot' homage. As odd as it sounds, the idea that some poor squid race at the beginning of the universe screwed up the Three Laws and doomed the galaxy to a Roomba-esque death every couple of thousand years tickles my fancies. It works for me. The Catalyst is *supposed* to be flawed, it's not *supposed* to make sense.
It's the Commander Shepard VI with access to a swarm of murder machines.

Hackket's "Holy **** she made it" was probably one of my favorite parts of the new footage.
Taking the LI to the run of death, getting that last little "For you." was well done.
Anderson on the Citadel works now. Anderson wasn't hit by the Harbringer beam. He saw Shepard make it in and ran his tubby ass after her, moving ahead of her while Shepard bled on the floor. He only LOOKS hurt because Tim has already locked him up and he's forced to Shatner stutter until he gets a Carniflex bullet in the belly.

The corners have been uncut, which is what most of us have been asking for. While I'm not all the way happy of how it ended, while I dislike the catalyst taking on that moronic kid's face, it's fixed many of the problems I had. Not all of them, that would require a complete retooling of the ending. and I would not ask that.
These *are* the endings they wanted to tell. They just ran through a cemetery to get there faster. Instead of taking the scenic route we all wanted to see, and that we get, for the most part with EC.

[AwesomeDudex64]

I liked it. Excluding the reject ending.

[The Gman707]

You know what! No other dev would have done what bioware has done. Not only did they listen to their fans winging but they actually gave us an updated ending and 3 batches of dlc free. Anyone else would have charged 2000+ microsoft points for that. The new ending is good and improves a lot on the last one and yet everyone is still complaining. I for one am over tje moon with what biowarw have done for us and wish other devs paid this much attention to its fans.

[Kartzaz]

Now i must say i like that ending, but that reject ending could be better.. but still i must always choose destroy ending. Maybe i'm not lost all of my faith bioware, so i must say keep up the good work, especially when it's done like this

Now i can also think that Shepard story will continue (raising his kids with Tali somewhere nice home on rannoch) So must say "One more story, one more"

That could be also nice if Mass Effect 4 is telling story about Shepard child.

Modifié par Kartzaz, 30 juin 2012 - 06:56 .

[jcmccorm]

Do I think that this was the quality of ending that I expected when I first purchased the game? No. I probably would have been disappointed.

But being a quick re-work of a HEAVILY disappointing ending, this is good enough. I'm satisfied with the DLC. Even if the plot doesn't diverge (besides the final choice) like I thought the devs were saying, at least it provides in-game and out-of-game closure.

I'm no longer an emotionally invested fan. But I'm willing to be a customer again if you've got good stuff,

About the fourth choice, I don't view it as a slap in the face at all. It is a great choice. I wish the choice was rewarded more based on gameplay or had more cinematography based on gameplay. It is a hard-coded failure, which is a bummer, but I guess they didn't have the time/resources to flesh it out. But the choice is very valid. "Give me liberty, or give me death."

Come to think of it, wasn't I one of the people who suggested the new ending? And the replies had suggested incorporating Liara's time capsule as the coda to MP3. I can't be too dissatisfied if I asked for it! social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/9803812/2#9804965

Modifié par jcmccorm, 30 juin 2012 - 07:32 .

[dzero]

DO NOT shoot the frigging star kid in the face for lolz unless you're going for the refusal ending... that was a dirty trick, BioWare.

[v3paR]

While i'm not fan of the ending itself (the kid and his 3 buttons) i do like the EC cinematics.
They really should be in the game from start.

[SamFlagg]

StElmo wrote...

I like how the starkid is now a rogue machine stuck in a logic loop, so cool, like him MUCH MORE now then he was originally presented (like a holier then thou godchild).

This!

Before I felt like there were just massive gaps in logic, and from a narrative standpoint it felt like gaps in logic that couldn't be argued with.

Now I feel like I'm talking to a shackled AI who is commited to its directive, and frankly after hundreds of thousands of years someone finally found the kill switch.  By removing the feeling of complete omnipotence it gave me the sense that I could actually understand what was going on.

It's crazy insane, but actually does follow a twisted logic.  The fact that it reaped is own civilization first suggests to me that some Mordin Solus of the past saw no other solution and unleasehed the reapers upon the galaxy.

Now I know that all of us are adjusting our own headcanons around all this, but I'm someone who believes that the single worst part of the God Child was that he:
1.) Existed
2.) Had next to no information for us.  (Instead of making the absense of information make us heavily question our decisions we were handed decisions that made no sense because it didn't make sense why we were being presented with these choices to begin with)

This could only be solved by either taking a step back and making it all go away, or by drastically expanding the information we had at our disposal.  Heck with the conversation with the catalyst now we know certain things and can infer others.

1.) Catalyst is an AI (Known)
2.) The civilization that built it was reaped because of it, unwillingly (Known)
3.) The decision to do so was not a universal truth, but most likely a decision made by someone who saw no alternative (Inferred)
4.) The Reapers guide all the beings in the galaxy down predetermined technological paths (known)
5.) Almost certainly this is so the reaper solution can not be challenged because the reapers will almost certainly know their own tech better than the denizens of the galaxy. (Inferred)
6.) The Reapers see the crucible and ending the cycle as a threat (Inferred by the fact that when questioned the star child seems annoyed because the reapers were pretty certain they managed to destroy these plans a couple cycles ago.)
7.) Whomever originally designed the crucible knew the reaper connection to the relays (Inferred in building the crucible at all)
8.) Other cycles fought longer than we probably would have, and therefore had more time to study certain things.  (Inferred\\known, the crucible is largely something to buid by the time we get it, and we were going to spend the entire galactic fleet in one battle, it is probable that while other civilizations fell, they managed to make significant progress in studying the reapers and probably have knowledge that surpasses out own, hell the protheans managed to make a mini mass relay.)
9.) There is an outside chance that someone in a cycle somewhere actually figured out that the citadel actually has an AI running the show.  (Long reach inferred, but follow me here, in addition to being a power source, the crucible can change the catalyst, in this cycle the illusive man, even while under near reaper control managed to crack indoctrination.  Presuming that other cycles studied indoctrination as well, it is possible they did similar work on reaper code.
10.) (Long shot inffered) Combining 8 and 9, now you have a situation where someone in a cycle could've inferred that the reapers were controlled by an AI.  Similar to a  queen bee, with enough time to study the reaper code perhaps they found a way to trigger overrides, much like TLI's it was extremely limited (only short range, or one ship) but in this case that would be enough.
11. (Logical leap if 8,9,10 are true) Someone deduced that the citadel was the key to the whole thing, and therefore combined to reaper code modification with the crucible docking.  Granted all they may have thought they were doing was getting citadel overrides similar to what Soverign was doing in our cycle.
12.) The catalyst is dormant much like the reaper fleet.  Soverign's attempt to connect in ME1 was to bring the reaper fleet inbound, but it wouldn't have been Soverign actually opening the arms, it would've been soverign transmitting the wakeup code to the catalyst.  (Long shot)

Now I realize this is a bunch of endless speculation, but I think we've been given enough information to smooth over a lot.  Now many may still not like it, but I do wonder if all this controversy would've happened had the game been released with EC.

[timedagar]

 Hi there Bioware,

First, I will say that you did a decent job with the EC. It did a reasonable job addressing many inconsistancies, clearifying key narritive gaps and allowing me as a player to get more information about what was happening and the end consequences of the choices I made. You truly have made a great series. I loved the direct sequals, the importing of the character and thus the choices and seeing all the little nuances of those decisions playing out throughout the game. You stated what you would do in response to the feed back, and you delivered. well done.

Unfortunately, I am not impressed that you/the company/decision makers have closed your mind to providing additional ending and win scenarios. As much as i respect your position to maintain the artistic integrity and collective vision of the series, I still firmly beleive you have shot yourselves in the proverbial foot. Throughout the game Shepard and cast delivered and thrived on a message of hope and possibility, refusing to compromise oneself, ones ideals. Among them cheifly where the options to uphold individuality, the right of all life to exist without exploitation and subjugation, and many other moral, ethical, and even pragmatic choices to weigh.

However in the end, all the choices presented were of a nature that violated these concepts in the name of compromise, where something, someone, somewhere would have to be sacrificed and it was given over wholy to one individual to act as god and make a choice which was presented by a meglomaniacl mass murduring compationless entity. Even the option to refuse is bereft of any hope or concept of victory through the impossible being made possible.

When I began my journey with Shepard, I (miss) understood the concept to be about the cumulative effect of my choices allowing me to either allow for complete success, all out failure, or something in between, and then have a chance to replay, try again, and see how those chocies would aid or hinder my success. regretfully, with your decision to stick to your artistic integrety, and force myself as a player to choose only the narrow options you conceived for "your" story, MY story took the back seat because the option for Complete success has been denied. I did, and still do find this concept very offensive, considering all that led to that last decision.

You took away my shepard, and inserted your own. You showed you can actually build out the ending, by allowing the refusal, and at the same time spit on the concept of self determination, free will, and an infinite universe with infinite possibilities, even though these concepts where front and center of the entire series. While I enjoy the features, quality of story, depth and style, I am extreemly dissapointed. And I am even more disapointed at the pride and arrogance demonstrated by some of the key decision makers. At times, i almost feel as though you are telling me that you know better than I do what I should like. I recognize many hail the EC as a success, and it is in its own right, however the ending is still the ending. It is still ghost in the machine, "choose my options or die", without any respect for something greater, beyond a simple A, B, C or none of the Above.

With respect, as a long time loyal fan begining with Baldur's Gate, your vision has bevome jaded, and your artistic integrity premiss flawed as the ending fails to uphold and tie in the very concept of integrity that is woven through the tapistry of all three games. You have written a story about hope, life, and liberty that concludes with control, genocide, and mutilation.
And when all that was needed to resolve this was to allow for one other solution, one that was none of the above and STILL allowed for success of our protagonist and beloved companions, you said no, and continue to do so....for what? To avoid admitting there was an error? To protect capital gains? To stand on something you cant consistantly demonstrate?

This, I will never understand, and I am not the only one.
http://whatculture.c...an-responds.php

I am truly glad that you have pleased a great number of fans with the Extended Cut. You addressed a significant number of inconsistancies, and I can say honestly that the clearity was needed, should have been there all along, and you deserve a pat on the back for the hard work in fixing it. Even so, In My Humble Opinion, You did not follow through on what was preached throughout the game, and until you realise this, and do something about it, I will continue to be disatisfied.

Its not that I dont appreciate what youve done, Its that I can not justify how youve handled the whole issue, and more importantly, refused to write for us all what should have been there to begin with. Success without sacrifice of everything that makes us who and what we are. Fighting for what you beleive, and succeeding in the process, is the ultimate noble goal of humanity even if it potentially means the end of ones life. To deny even the possibility of success without compromise, and even to live through the ordeal, however remote the chance, is to deny what makes us human, to deny hope, and deny life.

I simply, dont buy into that concept, except when it is presented in a game produced by you with a misleading contradictory "artistic" concept. I destroyed the Abomination that was the reapers. I simply dont apreciate being forced to Also destroy a Race which I fought so hard to save. The alternatives would have requird me to betray everything else My Paragon Shepard believes in.

You forced a Pragmatic decision on the masses after allowing for an altruistic path to be taken. And thats the problem with your artistic vision. There is no Altrusitic choice.

Modifié par timedagar, 30 juin 2012 - 08:49 .

[1ndm3chm4tt]

I really didn't like the original endings, but with the new bits added, they make sense, sorta. They really made the broad concepts work, and the only complaints I have legt are all just nitpicks. I liked that they explained the origins of the star-child, but I still think that the synthesis ending sucks (the lack of self-determination just went counter to my Shepard's beliefs). I did like the extended control ending, and it makes the teaser scene with Shepard breathing make sense in the destroy ending. My favourite is the Refuse ending, because it shows that even if we lose, and die to the last being fighting to stay free ON OUR OWN TERMS, we have already set a plan in motion to have our revenge on the reaping bastards.

Minor nitpick: why wouldn't the star child have been able to just shut down the reapers?

[1ndm3chm4tt]

oops! only complaints I have left, that is.

[AkeasharK]

This is the part that stumps me. People here are going 'Oh, the Starchild is now an insane AI in a logic loop not a space god' while a lot of us that liked and understood the original endings were telling folks this was the case. Its like people needed the extra bit of hand holding and Bioware playing connect the dots for people to understand what the original setup was. It wasn't anything new. It was still an AI operating on clearly faulty logic that made sense to it. Adding in the whole 'I tried, and tried, and tried, and eventually I just went *stuff it* and turned everyone into puree' is a pretty clear knockback to the folks that had been saying that the one aberration in our own cycle meant it should never have occured in the first place.

That said, I do like the changes in the dialogue, that it becomes more of a interaction, and as such does give more expository backstory (like the original intention of what the AI was). Having the surviving fleet making the trip back from the damaged rather than destroyed relays was another nice aspect since it was again Bioware spelling out what people had said would happen.

Really not sure how I feel about seeing the effects of the choice on other planets tho. I guess I'd be curious to see the super low EMS destroy ending just to see all life in the universe being wiped out in the purge (like you'd see on Earth in the original ending)

Ah well, Femme Shep survived even if the crew don't know it yet! (since its the repaired Normandy taking off from the garden world just before the revelation that Shep is alive... oddly enough after the scene showing the CItadel rebuilt in Earth's orbit)

[vI Demon Iv]

The Gman707 wrote...

You know what! No other dev would have done what bioware has done. Not only did they listen to their fans winging but they actually gave us an updated ending and 3 batches of dlc free. Anyone else would have charged 2000+ microsoft points for that. The new ending is good and improves a lot on the last one and yet everyone is still complaining. I for one am over tje moon with what biowarw have done for us and wish other devs paid this much attention to its fans.

You do realize that BioWare is a company... If a company angers a huge portion of their customers, they won't be a company very long. BioWare had two choices, had they chosen to do nothing, they'd be out of business shortly after the release of their next game.
Do not thank them for attempting, poorly, to save their company. They did this for them, not us.

[Biotic Budah]

I've gotten a chance to play through all of the DLC. It does address a lot of plot holes, changes a few and some points still leave me scratching my head.

The Evac of the squadmates by the Normandy when making the run on the beam: Ok, Harbinger and his minions are shooting the hell out of the Makos and gunships, and the HUGE Normandy takes no fire at all? It comes in with its broadside facing them, and not one single shot? But Bioware needed an out that wouldn't change their ending, so I guess that will have to do.

I like how they made the Star Child essentially Skynet, turning on its creators. Though I think they missed a huge opportunity here. It could have been so much more. I always pictured them discovering that the Keepers were the Reapers creators enslaved by Harbinger/Star child. To tell you the truth it almost seemed more like the Star child was telling only his side of the story. A cut scene illustrating his creation would have been SO satisfying. The ending cut scenes just didn't do much for me, especially just the pictures.

So bottom line did they deliver on what they promised? Pretty much. They said their ending was awesome then proceeded to tell us why. It was still a crap ending but at least we are a little more clear on what kind of crap it was. I'm hoping they learned their lesson from this debacle and the one from Dragon Age 2. I'm cautiosly optimistic. Best advice, EA, LEAVE BIOWARE ALONE TO DO WHAT THEY DO BEST. MAKE QUALITY GAMES THAT PEOPLE WANT TO BUY AND PLAY AGAIN AND AGAIN!

[SamFlagg]

AkeasharK wrote...

This is the part that stumps me. People here are going 'Oh, the Starchild is now an insane AI in a logic loop not a space god' while a lot of us that liked and understood the original endings were telling folks this was the case. Its like people needed the extra bit of hand holding and Bioware playing connect the dots for people to understand what the original setup was. It wasn't anything new. It was still an AI operating on clearly faulty logic that made sense to it. Adding in the whole 'I tried, and tried, and tried, and eventually I just went *stuff it* and turned everyone into puree' is a pretty clear knockback to the folks that had been saying that the one aberration in our own cycle meant it should never have occured in the first place.

That said, I do like the changes in the dialogue, that it becomes more of a interaction, and as such does give more expository backstory (like the original intention of what the AI was). Having the surviving fleet making the trip back from the damaged rather than destroyed relays was another nice aspect since it was again Bioware spelling out what people had said would happen.

Really not sure how I feel about seeing the effects of the choice on other planets tho. I guess I'd be curious to see the super low EMS destroy ending just to see all life in the universe being wiped out in the purge (like you'd see on Earth in the original ending)

Ah well, Femme Shep survived even if the crew don't know it yet! (since its the repaired Normandy taking off from the garden world just before the revelation that Shep is alive... oddly enough after the scene showing the CItadel rebuilt in Earth's orbit)

I actually don't feel that the "Rouge AI" angle is particulaily well laid out in the original endings, the entire setting feels much more like a space God as opposed to an ancient AI.  When the catalyst says "My solution" in the original ending, it sounds much more like it desceneded from on high to bring order to the galaxy.  In the extended cut it sounds much more like power was deferred to it and it got tired of trying to make peace and decided "No, war is what must happen."  I tend to dislike the broad brush accusing most of us as "Not getting it" and "needing hand holding"

Frankly the endings as originally presented did not have enough information to actually make a judgement on what we were dealing with.  Now we do.  That and I think it is a bit difficult for all of us to really know what the full intention of all of the endings at the time bioware released them actually was.  I'm sure that they were reading just as many of the posts explaining why people liked the endings as didn't.  Once they knew that they were going to work within the existing framework of the ending that were there, it makes sense that they would try to codify things that the people who originally liked it had headcanoned at that point because hopefully it wouldn't require too much explanation to set up.  I think we can probably agree that some things that were direct refutations of doom were probably things that simply didn't cross anyones mind while the ending was first written.  (some of the doom which I'm sure I was a part of, though a civil part)

I think the most likely situation always was the ending got rushed and details that actually are fairly important were simply not really thought of.  The backlash was completely unexpected, and there was an existing framework for what the endings were.  Working within those parameters it was always more likely that the persons who headcanon'ed everything working out fine were going to be 'right' than the people who inferred holocaust. 

For a large portion of us, it was like the scene where Shepard and Garrus tell each other than they're sure their families are going to be ok.  In absense of any detail it was hard to not believe the worst once you started accepting 1 or 2 of the underlying premises to be probable.  (For instance, original ending - Normandy going through a relay jump trying to beat the beam-fact.  Normandy crash lands-fact. Normandy has Dextro Crew Members - Fact, Planets can only support one type of life (as it relates to the dextros or everybody else)-fact.  Logical inference-Normandy is stranded, relays damaged-fact, logical inference-Normandy knocked off course, Normandy rescue improbable depending on where they ended up in the galaxy-debatable inference.  If above are true either the dextros starve or everyone else does.  Now this isn't the galaxy wide holocaust, its just the normandy,  The problem is once we started down a couple of those inferences (which I would submit several were more probable than the alternatives) you end up in the doom crowd.

The fact that the Normandy isn't Crash landed, and just pretty much regular style landed I think speaks to this one.  I'm not saying it was wrong for you and those that were ok with the original endings to have made the presumptions you did, I'm just saying in some cases those on the otherside were making fairly reasonable presumptions that as you started to add them up started to cascade.  (Well that and other people just wanted to burn the house down)


THAT BEING SAID.............I'm onboard with the EC.

[Penguinlover]

Played the new ending just now, the first time I have replayed the game (well just the ending) since I completed it months ago. I quite enjoyed the new endings to be honest and I think you allowed me to have the good ending without having to play multiplayer - which I love, thank you. Thank you for taking the time to listen to the community and improving on those incomplete endings.

It is a massive shame that when I saw the new ending I kept thinking that you only do this because the fans made you and that kind of left a raw taste in my mouth, but the content was free and it feels like a complete game now. The conversations make more sense and I feel that I can play the game again now that it is complete.

Personally, I like the fact there is no happily ever after ending though the ending I received is probably the closest you will get to one. I beg you, two things:

1) Do not let multiplayer be a necessity to endings in future games - that really annoyed me.
2) Keep up the great romance stuff in your games, nobody does it better, especially the same sex stuff.

from a (re)satisfied customer

[Denora]

Once I got the game working after the installing EC (still crashes alot). I found I enjoyed the new ending. Expanded upon and clarified the ending as well as improved dialog with the catalyst. Cleverly done I believe, they gave a sense where the ME universe was heading without setting the future in stone allowing contemplation and possibly even future content. Bravo I say, Bravo.

[DeadlyDodo]

Spartas Husky wrote...

This... so much this


By "Made Nightwing"

So, my lit professor and I are nerds. I throw in 'but the prize' references on my essays about Odysseus and Achilles, he throws in Firefly references in his lectures, we get on great. Now, I've previously mentioned that he disliked the endings EDIT: He dropped in on the forum to correct my paraphrasing of our conversation, so I'm updating the OP to have his infinitely superior original words replace my own feeble attempts:

Drayfish, p.13:

I've never posted on this forum before, so I hope I don't embarrass myself or this discussion entirely – and I apologise for the wall of text that is to follow, but I'm an academic, and tedious tracts of self-important linguistic gymnastics is what we do.

My name is Dr. Dray, and I should start by saying: oh, dear, I've been cited for my nerd indignation. I'm surprised Made Nightwing didn't mention that my little fists were shaking with rage. But they were. They did. With feeble, pointless nerd rage.

I must point out though, that as flattered as I am to be referenced, were I still marking Made Nightwing's work I would have to circle this passage and remind him that these words are not in fact directly attributable to me: his phrasing is a paraphrase of our conversation rather than a quotation. ...However, he has an attentive mind, and I must admit that he has captured the majority of my issues with the ending, my penchant for hyperbole, and the general dislocation of the thematic threads that I felt violated the larger narrative arc of the trilogy. And I'm sad to say I did use the words 'thematically revolting' – although I've watched both the Matrix sequels and Godfather 3, so I've probably said that phrase quite a lot.

If you'll permit me then, I did just want to write quickly in my own words to clarify some of my issues with these endings, and why I thought that they erode the themes heretofore at the core of their series. Of course, all of these arguments have no doubt been stated numerous times by voices far more worthy than mine over the past few weeks, but as someone intrigued by the production and reception of literature in all its forms this has been a fascinating – if disheartening – time to be an enormous fan of this fiction. I'd also like to particularly commend Strange Aeons for the fantastic post. And that analogy: 'It’s like ending Pinocchio with Geppetto stuffing him into a wood chipper'. What an exquisite image!

So, putting aside all of the hanging plot threads that rankled me (where was the Normandy going? why did my squad mates live? Anderson is where now? wait, the catalyst was Haley Joel Osment? etc), I would like to explain why, when I was offered those three repellent choices, I turned and tried to unload my now infinite pistol into the whispy-space-ghost's face. It was not because I was unhappy that my Shepard would not get to drink Garrus under the table one last time, or get to help Tali build a back-porch on her new homestead, nor that I was pretty sure no one was going to remember to feed my space fish – it was because those three ideological options were so structurally indefensible that they broke the suspension of disbelief that Bioware had (up until that point) so spectacularly crafted for over a hundred hours of narrative. Suddenly Shepard was not simply being asked to sacrifice a race or a friend or him/herself for the greater good (all of which was no doubt expected by any player paying attention to the tone of the series), Shepard was being compelled, without even the chance to offer a counterpoint, to perform one of three actions that to my reading each fundamentally undermined the narrative foundations upon which the series seemed to rest.

In the Control ending, Shepard is invited to pursue the previously impossible path of attempting to dominate the reapers and bend them to his will. Momentarily putting aside the vulgarity of dominating a species to achieve one's own ends (and I will get to complaining about that premise soon enough), this has proved to be the failed modus operandi of every antagonist in this fiction up until this point – including the Illusive Man and Saren – all of whom have been chewed up and destroyed by their blind ambition, incapable of controlling forces beyond their comprehension. Nothing in the vague prognostication of the exposition-ghost offers any tangible justification for why Shepard's plunge into Reaper-control should play out any differently. In fact, as many people have already pointed out, Shepard has literally not five minutes before this moment watched the Illusive Man die as a consequence of this arrogant misconception.

The Destroy ending, however, seems even more perverse. One of the constants of the Mass Effect universe (and indeed much quality science fiction) has been an exploration of the notion that life is not simplistically bound to biology, that existence expands beyond the narrow parameters of blood and bone. That is why synthetic characters like Legion and EDI are so compelling in this context, why their quests to understand self-awareness – not simply to ape human behaviours – is so dramatic and compelling. Indeed, we even get glimpses of the Reapers having more sprawling and unknowable motivations that we puny mortals can comprehend...

To then end the tale by forcing the player to obliterate several now-proven-legitimate forms of life in order to 'save' the traditional definition of fleshy existence is not only genocidal, it actually devolves Shephard's ideological growth, undermining his ascent toward a more enlightened conception of existence, something that the fiction has been steadily advancing no matter how Renegadishably you wanted to play. This is particularly evident when the preceding actions of all three games entirely disprove the premise that synthetic will inevitably destroy organic: the Geth were the persecuted victims, trying their best to save the Quarians from themselves; EDI, given autonomy, immediately sought to aid her crew, even taking physical form in order to experience life from their perspective and finally learning that she too feared the implications of death.

And finally Synthesis, the ending that I suspect (unless we are to believe the Indoctrination Theory) is the 'good' option, proves to be the most distasteful of all. Shepard, up until this point has been an instrument though which change is achieved in this universe, and dependent upon your individual Renegade or Paragon choices, this may have resulted in siding with one species or another, letting this person live or that person die, even condemning races to extinction through your actions. But these decisions were always the result of a mediation of disparate opinions, and a consequence of the natural escalation of these disputes – Shepard was merely the fork in the path that decided which way the lava would run. His/her actions had an impact, but was responding to events in the universe that were already in motion before he/she arrived.

To belabour the point: Shepard is an agent for arbitration, the tipping point of dialogues that have, at times, root causes that reach back across generations. Up until this moment in the game the narrative, and Shepard's role within it, has been about the negotiation of diversity, testing the validity of opposing viewpoints and selecting a path through which to evolve on to another layer of questioning. Suddenly with the Synthesis ending, Shepard's capacity to make decisions elevates from offering a moral tipping point to arbitrarily wiping such disparity from the world. Shepard imposes his/her will upon every species, every form of life within the galaxy, making them all a dreary homogenous oneness. At such a point, wiping negotiation and multiplicity from the universe, Shepard moves from being an influential voice amongst a biodiversity of thought to sacrificing him/herself in an omnipotent imposition of will.

(And lest we forget that the entire character arc of Javik (the 'bonus' paid-DLC character that gives unique context to the entire cycle of destruction upon which this fiction is based) is utilised to reveal that a lack of diversity, the failure to continue adapting to new circumstances, was the primary reason that his race was decimated. ...So I guess we have that to look forward to.)

And this was the analogy I made to Made Nightwing in our discussion (and which I have bored people with elsewhere): this bewildering finale felt as if you had been listening to a soaring orchestral movement that ended in a cacophonous blast, the musicians tossing down their instruments and walking away. I find it hard to conceive how the creators of such a magnificent franchise could have made such a mess of their own universe. The plot holes, thematic inconsistencies and a deus ex machina that was unforgivable in ancient Greek theatre, let alone in any modern narrative, all combine to erode the foundations upon which the rest of the experience resides. (It's a disturbing sign when apologists for such an ending have to literally hope that what they witnessed was just a bad dream in the central character's head.)

I'm sure in my diatribe with Made Nightwing I would have cited Charles Dickens being alert to, and adapting his writing in response to the floods of letters he received from his fans in the serialised delivery of stories such as The Old Curiosity Shop. And I know I mentioned F.Scott Fitzgerald extensively redrafting Tender is the Night for a second publishing after receiving negative critical feedback. Indeed, whatever you think of the final result, Ridley Scott was able to reassert a definitive vision of Blade Runner in spite of its original theatrical release. Despite what critics might burble about artistic vision there is innumerable precedent for such reshaping, even beyond fundamental industry practices such as play-testings and film test-screenings. If a work of art has failed in its communicative purpose (and unless angering and bewildering its most invested fans was the goal, then Mass Effect 3 has done so), then it cannot be considered a success, and is not worthy of regard.

And for those who would respond that I, and fans like myself, are simply upset because the endings do not offer some irrefutable 'clarity' that would mar the poetic mysteries of the ending, I would point out that I am in no way against obscure or bewildering endings: if they are earned. In contrast to a majority of viewers, I happen to love the ending of The Sopranos for precisely this reason – because, despite the momentary jolt of surprise it engendered, that audacious blank screen was wholly thematically supportable. The driving premise of that program was a man seeking therapy (a mobster, yes, but a psychologically damaged man) – indeed, the very first beat in that narrative was Tony Soprano walking into a psychiatrist's office. The principle thematic tie of the entire series was therefore revealed to be a mediation upon the underlying psychological stimuli that produces identity: whether the capacity to interpret and understand one's impulses can impact upon the experience of one's life; whether one can attain agency over one's life.

That ending might have been agonising, but it was entirely fitting that the series ended with a loaded ambiguity, inviting a myriad of interpretations in which we the audience were now placed into the role of the psychiatrist, suddenly compelled to reason out the ending of those final thirty seconds with the cumulative experience of the preceding six years of imagery. Did Tony die? Did he have a second plate of onion rings and enjoy his family's company? Did Meadow ever park that car? In its final act The Sopranos gives over the interpretive, descriptive function of its narrative to its audience, intimately binding the viewer to Tony Soprano's own (perhaps failed) attempts to comprehend himself and attain authorship over his life. ...But the only reason that they could even try this is because every minute of every episode to this point has been propagated upon the notion that Tony Soprano was a man with a subconscious that could be explored, and that motivated his actions whether as a loving father or brutal criminal.

The obscurities in the ending of Mass Effect 3 have not been similarly earned by its prior narrative. This narrative has not until this point been about dominance, extermination, and the imposition of uniformity – indeed, Shepard has spent over a hundred hours of narrative fighting against precisely these three themes. And if one of these three (and only these three) options must be selected in order to sustain life in the universe, then that life has been so devalued by that act as to make the sacrifice meaningless.

And that is why I shall continue to go on shooting Haley-Joel-Osment-ghost in the face.

...Sorry again for the length of this post.

This post really needs to be kept alive.