4048 réponses à ce sujet

[AlCord]

Well just finished it (with finally a second playthrough). There are still some questions unanswered and some dialogues of the Reapter child make no sense...

But my question is: why is Kasumi always dead? Were was she, that she died?

[Austin N]

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.

Darn it people, I know there's a lot of posts to go through here, but do we really have to keep bringing up Broken Steel?

[Maz-D]

I'm really disappointed I've wasted time replaying the game for the EC endings. They didn't help the game, and they also had popular endings written by the fans they could of used, but instead they have seemed to make the choice to ignore them.

I just don't understand what they were thinking.

[Austin N]

Voodoo2015 wrote...

Austin N wrote...

Gravbh wrote...

The Edge wrote...

It was fine, and I'm glad they clarified every ending. Seems like the only people that got the shaft were ones that refused Star-childs logic, but with that comes the "lose everything" option.

I have two gripes that stick out to me.

1) How was this not considered the first time? From showing how our decisions affected the ending (which is STILL kept closed within ME3 and not the entire series, IMO) to why Joker was fleeing the Citadel explosion, shouldn't they have been obvious inclusions? Could've saved a hell-of-a-lot of trouble if the Extended Cut wasn't an add-on. Which leads to my next point.

2) Playing through the ending again was completely dragging me down. The first time left a bad taste in my mouth, and having to go through the entire climax again didn't help. The original endings left that big of an impact to dissuade me from wanting to play. (Didn't help that I didn't download completely, so I had to consult the Youtube videos to see everything )

I think I can answer this part. EA rushed them.

No. Dammit, I don't care that this is a four day old post, I'm sick of people blaming EA for the ending. The Final Hours Ap, Patrick Weekes statements, everything points to this being the ending they intended. I know it's hard to understand how they screwed it up that bad, but they did. EA has done plenty of things you can complain about, you don't have to make stuff up.

They own BW so ofcourse they did. They didn't win The "Worst Company In America" Award for they är so good.

Oh please. They may be bad, but them winning that award was fanboy outrage and nothing more.

[WiII PWN 4 KFC]

This is much better than the original ending. The destroy ending still doesn't show what happens after Shepard wakes up, but I guess they're going to expand on that in the next game (Or in dlc, but I don't think that's going to happen).

IMO control is the ideal ending because Shepard lives, the citadel is intact, everything (cities as well as relays) will be rebuild faster with the help of Shepard's pet reapers. Oh, and the new Shepard has a monologue.

Once again, the only thing I thought they really needed to add was a short scene or a string of text explaining what Shepard does after the destroy ending where he lives. I don't quite understand why anyone expected a new ending. They clearly stated that they were just expanding on the endings that were already present.

And about the refuse ending: I guess it was okay... I just think it should have resulted in a game over screen since there's no way to win against the reapers.

[PencilManners]

in short, the EC is a big improvement to the ending, it patches up plot holes, gives star-child scene more depth, and brings closure.

I still hate the star-child, the "out of place" introduction to the topic of synthetics and a happy ending where Shepard lives along with the geth and EDI. But I can accept this as the end of the mass effect trilogy.

[Nasulprak]

AlCord wrote...

Well just finished it (with finally a second playthrough). There are still some questions unanswered and some dialogues of the Reapter child make no sense...

But my question is: why is Kasumi always dead? Were was she, that she died?

Eh?

In 3 of the endings I saw, Kasumi's screenshot showed her mourning Keji in one of two ways.  She lived in all 3 for me.
What do you mean she was dead?
Did you have some Kasumi Loyalty issues in ME2?
Any issues/bugs with Kasumi's Quest in ME3?

[Voodoo2015]

Austin N wrote...

Voodoo2015 wrote...

Austin N wrote...

Gravbh wrote...

The Edge wrote...

It was fine, and I'm glad they clarified every ending. Seems like the only people that got the shaft were ones that refused Star-childs logic, but with that comes the "lose everything" option.

I have two gripes that stick out to me.

1) How was this not considered the first time? From showing how our decisions affected the ending (which is STILL kept closed within ME3 and not the entire series, IMO) to why Joker was fleeing the Citadel explosion, shouldn't they have been obvious inclusions? Could've saved a hell-of-a-lot of trouble if the Extended Cut wasn't an add-on. Which leads to my next point.

2) Playing through the ending again was completely dragging me down. The first time left a bad taste in my mouth, and having to go through the entire climax again didn't help. The original endings left that big of an impact to dissuade me from wanting to play. (Didn't help that I didn't download completely, so I had to consult the Youtube videos to see everything )

I think I can answer this part. EA rushed them.

No. Dammit, I don't care that this is a four day old post, I'm sick of people blaming EA for the ending. The Final Hours Ap, Patrick Weekes statements, everything points to this being the ending they intended. I know it's hard to understand how they screwed it up that bad, but they did. EA has done plenty of things you can complain about, you don't have to make stuff up.

They own BW so ofcourse they did. They didn't win The "Worst Company In America" Award for they är so good.

Oh please. They may be bad, but them winning that award was fanboy outrage and nothing more.

They were definitely worth that price. Two things ME endig and NHL12.

[AldarionnEB]

This thread is so monolithic in scope that I cannot possibly read all of the posts in any reasonable amount of time. I would go insane. That said, this stands out.

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 has been quoted multiple times, and I feel it needs to be quoted repeatedly until BioWare acknowledges it and responds to it. It perfectly narrates my feelings on the ending with far more eloquence and attention to detail than I am capable of. It should have a sticky at the top of this forum by itself.

Well said sir.

[Jeb231]

Well I only had time to play through the control ending so far but I really liked the changes. It's amazing what a few additional lines and an epilogue can do. Just remember not to rush the ending of a trilogy if you want to keep consumers happy.

Now, bring on the DLC and ME4. Cheers!

[Direbunny]

Thanks for the EC. I appreciate your efforts and I want you to know that I loved mass effect 1 and 2 so much I actually got ME tattoos.

The EC made things better but I'm sorry to say that I don't think it fixed anything.

[K. S. Black]

AlyCatsaysRAWR wrote...

After viewing all 4 endings (along with the original 3), I decided to take some time to think about and process the now final cut before exploding with a rage-like reaction as my initial reaction was heading towards.

The Mass Effect series is like a house of cards; You build the base and then expand outward and upwards. Eventually, the house you're building must come to an end and, invariably, the end is the final top piece. But this top piece can not just be placed haphazardly, nay! It requires patience and a steady balance to ensure the rest of house does not come down as a result. For most creative works this rule applies incredibly well, moreso with the Mass Effect series. Though it seems the writers failed to heed it. Rather than admit it was rushed and not handled with as much care as it should have been, we are told it was "artistic vision".

"Artistic vision" is a cop-out and an often used excuse for when an artist/creator is called out when they have created something incredibly bad.

We have been given (now) 4 options on how this entire adventure should end:

1) Control - sacrifice yourself to be not just one with the reapers, but the uber-reaper. The king of reapers. A varitable god. In this role you will then indirectly be subjecting all of existence to your ideals and morals. The reapers continue to exist, therefore, they have won.

2) Synthesis - through a form of techno-voodoo and your sacrifice, man and synthetics are elevated to positions of equal understanding, peace and eventual immortality. It doesn't matter that they did not consent to this or that every principle of evolution is now tossed out the window. What matters is that everyone lives (except you, of course). Oh, and the reapers continue to exist, therefore, they have won.

3) Rejection - refuse to submit to the insane, illogical and slightly repugnant Starbrat? Good on you! By the way, EVERYONE DIES. The reapers continue to exist, therefore, they have won.

4) Destruction - every reaper dies. Every single last one of them. Gone. For good. Comes with a catch - in order for every reaper to die, all synthetic life must die as well. Including yourself. And the data files that AI's are stored on. Oh, and the Geth that uploaded themselves to the Quarian suits to help make their immune system better (who will probably die now as a result). The reapers no longer exist, therefore, you the galaxy has won.


Over the course of 3 games, the mantra has been "destroy the reapers". Ensuring their destruction was Shepard's all encompassing goal and purpose for the entirety of ME3! The logical ending to this is Destruction and only Destruction as the other three options invalidate everything you've done and allow for your fallen friends and squadmates to have died in vain.

As for the additional content in EC (aka "the epilogue") - nothing but poor writing and a severe lack of creativity with nothing that is in any way, shape or form redeeming. A chance was had to create an epilogue of epic magnitude, but that chance was ignored.

With all that said, I love the series. Love it. I have spent more time than I count replaying it and reading the novels. But as far as I'm concerned Bioware, the game ends as soon as the run to the beam begins. 

I'll have to agree with this entire post, more so with the last sentence. The EC still doesn't feel like it gives the Mass Effect trilogy. (I say trilogy because there will most probably be another game of the series now that a lot of people are happy about their closure.) As far as I'm conserned, Syntesis still uses space . The starchild/godchild/starbinger/whatever you want to call it, still basically rules out the plot of ME1 being that Soverign is trying to get to the Citadel to activate the relay to call the Reapers out of dark space, even though that AI is on the Citadel. And ME2 loses it's plot, there's no reason why the Collectors can't just wait to harvest the smaller colonies, creating new Reapers, while the Reapers attack larger colonies during this war where people are more worried about larger colonies and not smaller ones.

Edit: I will say to BioWare though, that I appreciate the work and time it took to add the EC DLC and to give it away free. And we as the fanbase still don't know what is going to happen in the future with DLC, maybe you'll have something up your sleeve to bring my interest back to the series and end.

Modifié par K. S. Black, 01 juillet 2012 - 11:22 .

[jfeth713]

I hated the starkid in the original endings and I still hate him now, however the EC has given me a reason to care again bout the ME universe. I stopped playing after one and half playthroughs of a game in which Shepard dies in all three endings. The breath scene was only available via through playing MP so I didn't consider it canon. I created multiple Shepards including one in which he would be a martyr so I was ready to accept him dieing. I just didn't expect his death to be the only way.

At one point Casey Hudson and company said that they were surprised that fans had interpreted the universe being in a bleak state at the end. IMO the endings gave us so little information to go on that it was real easy to view the state of the galaxy as being incredibly mucked up. And with Shepard being it's easy for me to see why so many people including myself stopped caring and couldn't be brought to play past the first time.

That being said the EC did a lot for me. It gave me a reason to play the game and care again. I finished my second playthrough this time with Tali as my LI, first one was with Liara. Both were Paragon's. Now I'm starting on my third playthrough which will be as a Renegade.

If the EC had been part of the game to begin with then I wouldn't have sat on the game for four months and I wouldn't have had a lot of the problems I had to begin with. I still hate the starchild though.

Modifié par jfeth713, 01 juillet 2012 - 11:31 .

[PossibleCabbage]

I have to say, in all honesty, that in total I preferred the original ending.

While some of the additional closure scenes in the end were well-done and touching (particularly the bit with the memorial wall) there are a lot of things I do not like about the Extended Cut.

1) Tone. I thought the ending was much more effective as haunting, lonely, yet hopeful rather than ridiculously optimistic like the Hacket/Shepard/EDI narration in the Red/Blue/Green endings make it out to be. Especially since the Mass Relays are canonically rebuilt, and quickly, that makes the Stargazer scene significantly less touching; he's now just a crazy old man and "someday, my sweet" refers more to the inability of the old man to afford a ticket than to the possibility of all things, given time and effort.  From an intellectual/artistic perspective, I very much prefered a haunting, yet optimistic ending to seeing the Reapers pick up shovels and help rebuild everything.

2) The infodump that the Catalyst gives on the Citadel was, to my eyes, largely unnecessary. There was essentially nothing in there that I didn't already suspect, so it's either condescending or tedious.  It's nice to have everything you suspected confirmed, but if the Catalyst is that much more advanced than you, why is it wasting its time explaining all this stuff?

3) The hot evac in the conduit charge is probably the single most eye-rolling thing in the entire trilogy. I admit the touching goodbye was kind of sweet (particularly with an LI), but did you need to bring the entire frigate to the party? Would a shuttle have not sufficed? Could you not have an evac promised, a tearful goodbye from an injured compatriot telling Shepard to "go, I'll be fine", and then have the evac happen offscreen? The whole "Harbinger refuses to shoot at the Normandy while they're just standing there chatting" stretches the "talking is a free action" trope beyond any credulity.

4) This is minor, but the EC made me sad because it more or less guarantees that there will be no future games in the Mass Effect universe (taking place after Mass Effect 3) since the endings are very mutually incompatible, and all-too rosy. I was very much hoping to get a Mass Effect 4 set several millenia after Mass Effect 3, after which each civilization rebuilt on their own, undergoes significant social and cultural evolution in a relative vacuum, and eventually mastered the technology needed to recreate the relays. I think that would be a fine hook for a game and more appealing to me than any prequels. I know Bioware could pick a canonical ending, but they have studiously avoided doing so in the past, and I hope they continue to do so.

So personally, I'm thinking of just deleting the EC and sticking with the original ending. I do love the memorial wall scene, but I think it would have been better if I didn't see the Normandy taking off soon afterwards. My one question is: "If I delete the EC, will I also lose the single-player EMS fix?" (i.e. it's now possible to get the "Shepard Lives" scene with 50% galactic readiness)?

Modifié par PossibleCabbage, 01 juillet 2012 - 11:50 .

[EnforcerWRX7]

PossibleCabbage wrote...

I have to say, in all honesty, that in total I preferred the original ending.

While some of the additional closure scenes in the end were well-done and touching (particularly the bit with the memorial wall) there are a lot of things I do not like about the Extended Cut.

1) Tone. I thought the ending was much more effective as haunting, lonely, yet hopeful rather than ridiculously optimistic like the Hacket/Shepard/EDI narration in the Red/Blue/Green endings make it out to be. Especially since the Mass Relays are canonically rebuilt, and quickly, that makes the Stargazer scene significantly less touching; he's now just a crazy old man and "someday, my sweet" refers more to the inability of the old man to afford a ticket than to the possibility of all things, given time and effort.  From an intellectual/artistic perspective, I very much prefered a haunting, yet optimistic ending to seeing the Reapers pick up shovels and help rebuild everything.

2) The infodump that the Catalyst gives on the Citadel was, to my eyes, largely unnecessary. There was essentially nothing in there that I didn't already suspect, so it's either condescending or tedious.  It's nice to have everything you suspected confirmed, but if the Catalyst is that much more advanced than you, why is it wasting its time explaining all this stuff?

3) The hot evac in the conduit charge is probably the single most eye-rolling thing in the entire trilogy. I admit the touching goodbye was kind of sweet (particularly with an LI), but did you need to bring the entire frigate to the party? Would a shuttle have not sufficed? Could you not have an evac promised, a tearful goodbye from an injured compatriot telling Shepard to "go, I'll be fine", and then have the evac happen offscreen? The whole "Harbinger refuses to shoot at the Normandy while they're just standing there chatting" stretches the "talking is a free action" trope beyond any credulity.

4) This is minor, but the EC made me sad because it more or less guarantees that there will be no future games in the Mass Effect universe (taking place after Mass Effect 3) since the endings are very mutually incompatible, and all-too rosy. I was very much hoping to get a Mass Effect 4 set several millenia after Mass Effect 3, after which each civilization rebuilt on their own, undergoes significant social and cultural evolution in a relative vacuum, and eventually mastered the technology needed to recreate the relays. I think that would be a fine hook for a game and more appealing to me than any prequels. I know Bioware could pick a canonical ending, but they have studiously avoided doing so in the past, and I hope they continue to do so.

So personally, I'm thinking of just deleting the EC and sticking with the original ending. I do love the memorial wall scene, but I think it would have been better if I didn't see the Normandy taking off soon afterwards. My one question is: "If I delete the EC, will I also lose the single-player EMS fix?" (i.e. it's now possible to get the "Shepard Lives" scene with 50% galactic readiness)?

The first ending left the entire galaxy in a state of disarray because the writers FORGOT to tell us that it was "ok" and the galaxy will re build.

Maybe they wanted us to assume that but it was extremely poor story telling.  I rolled my eyes at the Normandy landing 2 feet in front of that reaper as well.  However, the EC ending it better as it removes all the assumptions that we "were supposed to make".  The first ending was condescending BS.  At least the EC is space magic and star child with some explanations.  (Not that its a better ending.  Both are deus ex machina endings and extremely poorly thought out.)

[EnforcerWRX7]

AldarionnEB wrote...

This thread is so monolithic in scope that I cannot possibly read all of the posts in any reasonable amount of time. I would go insane. That said, this stands out.

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 has been quoted multiple times, and I feel it needs to be quoted repeatedly until BioWare acknowledges it and responds to it. It perfectly narrates my feelings on the ending with far more eloquence and attention to detail than I am capable of. It should have a sticky at the top of this forum by itself.

Well said sir.

Yes, extremely well said.

I like to point out to Bioware that at the end of the game you are forced to pick from extreme choices, something which commander shepard has been fighting against the whole time.

"I'll find another way."

Looks like Bioware didn't even follow their own advice.

And no one on the planet can follow the illogical circular logic of the catalyst.  No one can.  Its pure stupidity.  
And why is the catalyst prepared for the crucible?

The EC is a small step forward in terms of story telling but still emphasizes a wholly illogical solution and and even more illogical villian.

Its too bad Bioware wrote themselves into a corner.  If they had kept some of the better writers on the staff, I don't think this would have happened.

[PossibleCabbage]

EnforcerWRX7 wrote...

The first ending left the entire galaxy in a state of disarray because the writers FORGOT to tell us that it was "ok" and the galaxy will re build.

Maybe they wanted us to assume that but it was extremely poor story telling.  I rolled my eyes at the Normandy landing 2 feet in front of that reaper as well.  However, the EC ending it better as it removes all the assumptions that we "were supposed to make".  The first ending was condescending BS.  At least the EC is space magic and star child with some explanations.  (Not that its a better ending.  Both are deus ex machina endings and extremely poorly thought out.)

I'm pretty sure that the Stargazer scene was the writers telling you that everything was going to be "okay" , life would go on, and the galaxy would rebuild.

I don't see how the first ending was condescending.  It was certainly vague (and I enjoy vague to "happily ever after" generally, in my endings) but I don't think that you can really label either ending "Deus ex Machina" since the Prothean superweapon was foreshadowed as far back as Illos.  You were always going to need to defeat the Reapers non-conventionally, they tell you this in the first 15 minutes of the game.  So the fact that it comes down to "fire the doomsday device and see that it does" never bothered me in the slightest.

I do think the premise of the "Refusal" ending, however, is kind of stupid.  I cannot, for the life of me, from a roleplaying perspective, figure out why Shepard would choose that, over, say, "destroy."  Unless of course Shepard suspects everything the Catalyst says is a lie, but it's hard to put aside that I, personally, know for a fact that it is not.

[Toshiro M]

I have completed Mass Effect 3 with Extendend Cut few days ago. In my opinion EC is disappoiting and the ending is still bad.
Disadvantages and my short thoughts about EC:
1. Conversation with godchild is a little better. We now have the option to reject or to learn more. However, In my opinion, his dialogues still are chaotic and without sense.
2. The option to reject or 4 ending is great idea, but unfortunately the EMS does not matter. In my opinion this is the end of wasted potential.
3. Slideshow is fine, but it was better to see some short cutscenes. But it is better than nothing.
4. Memorial scene is fine, but it would be nice to see  companions from Mass Effect 2 too.
5. Breathing scene, unfortunately, not developed. I had hope that it will be shown how Shepard gets out of the rubble. Still his/her location is unknown.
This is probably a citadel, but I have about this too much but, for instance: lots of concrete ruins. I was hoping Shepard after this scene will be on Normandy and will surprise crew or something like that.
6. 1.9 GB. In spite of weight It does not have as much. Considering how much weighed Shadow Broker DLC I was hoping for a more cutscenes.
7. It still have plotholes, for example, why Shepard can breathe freely while citadel arms are open, control center was originally in Citadel Tower and many other plotholes.
8. Not much scenes with or about LI.
9. No Boss Fight.
10. Still, Is better to be "saved" by Marauder Shields than see the ending.
EC is going to be the last DLC about the ending but I believe that the IT is not dead, Bioware officially did not say that IT is nonsense.
I agree with some users that, after the DLC's like  Leviathan or Omega we can expect ending DLC. EC does not destroy all evidence on IT. Last ten minutes of Mass Effect 3 just not fit to whole series and Extended Cut did not changed that.

[mopotter]

Austin N wrote...

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.

Darn it people, I know there's a lot of posts to go through here, but do we really have to keep bringing up Broken Steel?

Well, if people wouldn't say no company has ever changed an ending, there wouldn't be any reason to bring it up.  But they do and Broken Steel did.  So yes, Broken Steel will probably continue to pop up.
 
Edit - Actually it will probably be brought up no matter what because they did what some of us would have liked BW to do, and BW could have done it even with leaving the other choices there for those who like them.

Modifié par mopotter, 02 juillet 2012 - 12:37 .

[EnforcerWRX7]

PossibleCabbage wrote...

EnforcerWRX7 wrote...

The first ending left the entire galaxy in a state of disarray because the writers FORGOT to tell us that it was "ok" and the galaxy will re build.

Maybe they wanted us to assume that but it was extremely poor story telling.  I rolled my eyes at the Normandy landing 2 feet in front of that reaper as well.  However, the EC ending it better as it removes all the assumptions that we "were supposed to make".  The first ending was condescending BS.  At least the EC is space magic and star child with some explanations.  (Not that its a better ending.  Both are deus ex machina endings and extremely poorly thought out.)

I'm pretty sure that the Stargazer scene was the writers telling you that everything was going to be "okay" , life would go on, and the galaxy would rebuild.

I don't see how the first ending was condescending.  It was certainly vague (and I enjoy vague to "happily ever after" generally, in my endings) but I don't think that you can really label either ending "Deus ex Machina" since the Prothean superweapon was foreshadowed as far back as Illos.  You were always going to need to defeat the Reapers non-conventionally, they tell you this in the first 15 minutes of the game.  So the fact that it comes down to "fire the doomsday device and see that it does" never bothered me in the slightest.

I do think the premise of the "Refusal" ending, however, is kind of stupid.  I cannot, for the life of me, from a roleplaying perspective, figure out why Shepard would choose that, over, say, "destroy."  Unless of course Shepard suspects everything the Catalyst says is a lie, but it's hard to put aside that I, personally, know for a fact that it is not.

Regardless of which one you like better, the first version was just unfinished.  It was just an infinished product and they know it.  It was a total letdown.  I'm glad you like you better (as you are entitled to you own opinion) but as for a story telling it was even worse than the EC.

Oh, and as for the star gazer scene...OBVIOUSLY that was the "its ok" scene.  I was talking about the immediate future and all the fleets around Earth.

Modifié par EnforcerWRX7, 02 juillet 2012 - 12:31 .

[AlCord]

Destroy and refusal...

I just don't get it.

Reaper child says that if you choose destroy all synthetics are destroyed but soon they will be recreated and all starts again. This just doesn't make sense because:

If you refuse all options the "next" cycle is warned by Liara's machines and it doesn't happen again - seems like a good ending after all...

... BUT...
...in destroy ending the people can tell their children about the Reapers and so on... so there are no hostilities against synthetics. This is even better because all people live and the technology can be recreated... without Reapers.

[PossibleCabbage]

AlCord wrote...

Destroy and refusal...

I just don't get it.

Reaper child says that if you choose destroy all synthetics are destroyed but soon they will be recreated and all starts again. This just doesn't make sense because:

If you refuse all options the "next" cycle is warned by Liara's machines and it doesn't happen again - seems like a good ending after all...

... BUT...
...in destroy ending the people can tell their children about the Reapers and so on... so there are no hostilities against synthetics. This is even better because all people live and the technology can be recreated... without Reapers.

I understand what's repugnant about the Destroy ending (You're wiping out the Geth, as well as EDI) but if you just do a base Utilitarian Calculus comparing the Destroy option to the Refusal option, the choice is sort of obvious.  I mean, on one hand you're sacrificing the Geth and EDI to beat the Reapers, and on the other hand you're sacrificing all Humans, Turians, Asari, Krogan, Salarians, Quarians, Geth, Hanar, Volus, Elcor, Drell, Batarians, Geth, and EDI so that somebody else can beat the Reapers.

I just don't understand why you would choose the latter option.

[PossibleCabbage]

EnforcerWRX7 wrote...


Regardless of which one you like better, the first version was just unfinished.  It was just an infinished product and they know it.  It was a total letdown.  I'm glad you like you better (as you are entitled to you own opinion) but as for a story telling it was even worse than the EC.

Oh, and as for the star gazer scene...OBVIOUSLY that was the "its ok" scene.  I was talking about the immediate future and all the fleets around Earth.

Well, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the "ending was just unfinished".  Personally, I thought the "Fade to black" ending of the Sopranos was fantastic and I was glad to see Mass Effect do something similar.

I think the broader message of the ending was that, when you pull back to a cosmic scale, it doesn't matter what happens immediately following the ending or right after the ending.  In the grand scheme of things, all of the non-Asari and Krogan who awere alive for the conflict with the Reapers were going to be dead within two centuries of the ending, and it doesn't matter that much about whether a specific character dies within a year or a hundred years after that, since Shepard's accomplishment was much more important than saving the lives and securing the fortunes of individual contemporaries.  Shepard's accomplishment was to secure a future for all species in the galaxy, which would otherwise be denied to them.  This is an accomplishment that only really comes into focus on a timescale in which everybody in these games would be dead anyway.

I think, that in not focusing at all on the immediate future, the original ending was stronger as it allows the player to "write their own ending" (a la the Muppet Movie) since on the scale that the ending was concerned with, it doesn't matter what sorts of things that the player dreams up happening in the immediate vicinity of the ending.

[TekFanX]

I just finished ME3 again. One time with Synthesis and one time with Control.

I have to give some credit to BioWare: The EC fixes some gaping holes in the ending of ME3, gave each ending more diversity and gave some resolution to the decision made.

The reluctant evacuation of both squadmates was good.

Still, there are things that made me raise my right eyebrow in disbelief.
For example:
The Normandy, the ship that caused the most trouble for the Reapers, is hovering directly in front of Harbinger.
Harbinger doesn't react. A large frigate with Thanix-cannons(which may pose the biggest threat to Harbinger on the battlefield around it) is just being ignored.

The Catalyst is still there...with that harbinger-voiced "So be it.".
I didn't like that thing from the start, for being the literal deus ex machina.
And it turns out: Cata-Kid is an AI, the underlying consciousness that controls the Reapers.
Built by some race, that wanted it to guarantee peaceful relations between organics and synthetics.
Didn't turn out well.
De facto, this deus ex machina is just like VIKI from I Robot.
Re-interpreting it's directives to fullfill them in a new way.
A little dull, I must say.
It's good to have something more than "I am the Catalyst." but I honestly thought BioWare was going to create a new and mind-blowing story-writing when I first played ME1.
I had this trust in them, but then again, I can't expect them to re-invent the wheel, as you would say in my line of work.

I would have loved to see an ending where Shepard is united with the crew and the synthetics still in existance.
My optimal ending would be synthesis with Shepard not being dissolved.
The lack of a happy ending is unfortunate, but with the EC, the Endings are no longer that disappointing regarding the coherence of the events.

However, regarding statements like:

TullyAckland wrote...

Simotech wrote...
...

Mass
Effect 3: Extended Cut represents the definitive version of the endings
to the Mass Effect trilogy, and the final resolution of Commander
Shepard’s journey. We have no plans to release further content related
to the endings.

This bewilders me a bit. 
Of course, I can respect that and if it's the case, so be it.
On the other hand I recall comments in interviews about Shepards romance-options for Tali and Garrus.
The team at BioWare didn't implement it in ME1, since both characters are so alien. They didn't even think about it.
Still they decided to implement it in ME2 and continue it in ME3 when they saw the feedback from the fans.
Seeing many people who want a happy-ending, I think BioWare could start planning:whistle:.

In short:
The EC fixed a lot on the endings. It didn't fix everything and it didn't make the endings perfect for me.
I think it's not possible to provide everyone with the ending he or she wants.
However, the EC was a step in the right direction.

For the future I can just hope the following:
-More Dialogue-wheels with cinematic view of the characters and no auto-dialogue from high above the characters anymore.
-BioWare warming up to the idea of a happy ending with Shepard, organics and synthetics alive.
-Some mini-games like the server-restart on Noveria in ME1 or the hacking in ME2.

[EnforcerWRX7]

PossibleCabbage wrote...

EnforcerWRX7 wrote...


Regardless of which one you like better, the first version was just unfinished.  It was just an infinished product and they know it.  It was a total letdown.  I'm glad you like you better (as you are entitled to you own opinion) but as for a story telling it was even worse than the EC.

Oh, and as for the star gazer scene...OBVIOUSLY that was the "its ok" scene.  I was talking about the immediate future and all the fleets around Earth.

Well, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the "ending was just unfinished".  Personally, I thought the "Fade to black" ending of the Sopranos was fantastic and I was glad to see Mass Effect do something similar.

I think the broader message of the ending was that, when you pull back to a cosmic scale, it doesn't matter what happens immediately following the ending or right after the ending.  In the grand scheme of things, all of the non-Asari and Krogan who awere alive for the conflict with the Reapers were going to be dead within two centuries of the ending, and it doesn't matter that much about whether a specific character dies within a year or a hundred years after that, since Shepard's accomplishment was much more important than saving the lives and securing the fortunes of individual contemporaries.  Shepard's accomplishment was to secure a future for all species in the galaxy, which would otherwise be denied to them.  This is an accomplishment that only really comes into focus on a timescale in which everybody in these games would be dead anyway.

I think, that in not focusing at all on the immediate future, the original ending was stronger as it allows the player to "write their own ending" (a la the Muppet Movie) since on the scale that the ending was concerned with, it doesn't matter what sorts of things that the player dreams up happening in the immediate vicinity of the ending.

Then you and Casey have something in common.  In the narrative of the series, the previous version of the endings were extremely out of place.

Modifié par EnforcerWRX7, 02 juillet 2012 - 01:11 .