358 réponses à ce sujet

[Fisterbear]

Wimbini wrote...

-Still plot holes.
-Choices did not matter
-Poor explanation
-Insulting fourth ending
-...

- None that matter
- What choices? What armor you wore?
- Um, most everything was answered.
- Shepard was told time and time again that the fight against the reapers couldn't be won by conventional means. If you wanted to forego using the crucible, the inevitable happened. Your own damn fault.

[mcguireptr1]

thisisme8 wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...

mcguireptr1 wrote...
And were did the catalyst get this information, it could have never happened before because there are still organics. 

The assertion was that synthetics will always try to exterminate organics, and it's based on the Catalyst watching that happen repeatedly over countless cycles, with the Geth being the first known exception.  It's not a matter of whether or not it's logical to assume that it would happen, because the problem is that it did happen, repeatedly.

To further clarify, when talking about organics, that doesn't mean that synthetics systematically wiped out every bit of bacteria, plant, etc. etc. - instead, it means that synthetics wiped out their creators, and possibly other races advanced enough to pose any sort of threat.

IF that is the case then that is the same damn thing the reapers do.  So no logic there.  nice try though

[cavs25]

Geneaux486 wrote...

mcguireptr1 wrote...
And were did the catalyst get this information, it could have never happened before because there are still organics. 

The assertion was that synthetics will always try to exterminate organics, and it's based on the Catalyst watching that happen repeatedly over countless cycles, with the Geth being the first known exception.  It's not a matter of whether or not it's logical to assume that it would happen, because the problem is that it did happen, repeatedly.

You realize that starchild harvested his own creators.....yep the Reapers aren't the problem they are the "solution".

[thisisme8]

mcguireptr1 wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...

mcguireptr1 wrote...
And were did the catalyst get this information, it could have never happened before because there are still organics. 

The assertion was that synthetics will always try to exterminate organics, and it's based on the Catalyst watching that happen repeatedly over countless cycles, with the Geth being the first known exception.  It's not a matter of whether or not it's logical to assume that it would happen, because the problem is that it did happen, repeatedly.

To further clarify, when talking about organics, that doesn't mean that synthetics systematically wiped out every bit of bacteria, plant, etc. etc. - instead, it means that synthetics wiped out their creators, and possibly other races advanced enough to pose any sort of threat.

IF that is the case then that is the same damn thing the reapers do.  So no logic there.  nice try though

Really?  That's all you can see?  If you can't tell the difference, I can't help you.

[pinoy_sav]

I still stuck with destroy. Only thing that bothered me was the breathing scene ither than that EC did its job, if only this scene was more expanded then I think a lot mpre people would be happy. But bioware has me in the middle I'm neutral

[Brockxz]

What new endings? I see the same endings I saw before EC. Here is Hudson's words about endings:
“[It] is not a set of different endings, but rather it’s an expansion of the original story.”
So he admits there is nothing new, just explanation and I don't need explanation of terrible endings. I already understood from their tweets and some text here what they wanted to say about those endings and there were no need for EC if they don't want to change anything.
Now look at this where Joker picks up your squadies and tell me how can you not facepalm at those 30 seconds where Harbinger can just shoot the f*** out of still standing Norrnandy in the middle of battlefield. "naah, man, I will just chill out here, take your time, say goodbyes to everyone. no need to rush". I could post a lot more facepalm scenes here and then tell me if you are still satisfied about all this.

And I will write down their marketing bs here so that everyone look at this and then think about it if it was/is true: “EXPERIENCE THE BEGINNING, MIDDLE, AND END OF AN EMOTIONAL STORY UNLIKE ANY OTHER, WHERE THE DECISIONS YOU MAKE COMPLETELY SHAPE YOUR EXPERIENCE AND OUTCOME.”
For me, it is complete bull**** because no really big decision changed anything in the end (rachni, council, genophage etc) Those are still some numbers that doesn't exclude any ending only change a few slides in the slideshow.

Still not facepalming and still satisfied? Most likely then I'm just more skeptical and demand more from Bioware writing team. Well I already knew I won't be satisfied when they said there is no IT or any other new ending.

[mcguireptr1]

Modifié par mcguireptr1, 27 juin 2012 - 06:55 .

[mcguireptr1]

[quote]thisisme8 wrote...

To further clarify, when talking about organics, that doesn't mean that synthetics systematically wiped out every bit of bacteria, plant, etc. etc. - instead, it means that synthetics wiped out their creators, and possibly other races advanced enough to pose any sort of threat.

[/quote]mcguireptr1 wrote...

IF that is the case then that is the same damn thing the reapers do.  So no logic there.  nice try though[/quote]

[quote]thisisme8 wrote...

Really?  That's all you can see?  If you can't tell the difference, I can't help you.
[/quote]

No please help me, I am here to get the clarity that Bioware promised but did not deliver.  what is the difference? the reapers do it in cycles? the synthetics won't let others rise to be threats? They will let plants live? The catalyst turned its creators into synthetic reapers thus killing them.  So where does the cycle begin.  with the catalyst right.  It could not have come before.  right now it seems to me he created a solution for the problem he created.

Modifié par mcguireptr1, 27 juin 2012 - 06:52 .

[Hexxys]

The space toddler is still there. Why is the space toddler still there.

[KnifeForkAndSpoon]

I still don't understand why the Reapers didn't just build the crucible and activate it themselves

Or why they didn't shut down the relay network once they gained control of the citadel

[XXIceColdXX]

Destroy seemed to fit even better into my paragon play through . My paragon Shep never set out to control or merge with the reapers.

Control and synth seem a bit creepy to me.

[Vaktathi]

Fundamentally EC does not address the core issues with the ending, primarily that there's so much that's just nonsensical in terms of how everything plays out and the justifications for everything and the very real change in the Shepard character, coupled with the complete break of the reader-writer contract and narrative paradigm. The whole damn thing still sits there and goes "none of this makes any sense." There's too many very plain logic failures and last minute story shifts (we don't need a half-assed Kubrik-esque ending attempt at the end of our Space Opera thank you) that destroy the immersion and replayability of the series.

Does it flow better and answer a lot of previously un-answered questions? Yeah.

Is it still completely inappropriate to the rest of the trilogy and what the game had been building to over 5 years (7 years of dev time) and 9 figures worth of development/marketing funding? Yes.

And that's the problem.


It didn't help they went out of their way to be passive-aggressive as all hell about it with the Refusal ending.

Modifié par Vaktathi, 27 juin 2012 - 07:20 .

[httinks2006]

I actually had the feeling of hope that Bioware would be able to pull the EC off and was disappointed it was just a perfumed turd hidden under a piece of pretty paper

[Elite Midget]

Refusal's being middle finger to the fanbase was enough to ruin the EC.

[McAllyster]

Are there any new endings? I don't think so. These are the same terrible endings with a new slideshow attached. Plus an insulting middle finger called Reject option.

[thisisme8]

mcguireptr1 wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...

To further clarify, when talking about organics, that doesn't mean that synthetics systematically wiped out every bit of bacteria, plant, etc. etc. - instead, it means that synthetics wiped out their creators, and possibly other races advanced enough to pose any sort of threat.

mcguireptr1 wrote...

IF that is the case then that is the same damn thing the reapers do.  So no logic there.  nice try though

thisisme8 wrote...

Really?  That's all you can see?  If you can't tell the difference, I can't help you.

No please help me, I am here to get the clarity that Bioware promised but did not deliver.  what is the difference? the reapers do it in cycles? the synthetics won't let others rise to be threats? They will let plants live? The catalyst turned its creators into synthetic reapers thus killing them.  So where does the cycle begin.  with the catalyst right.  It could not have come before.  right now it seems to me he created a solution for the problem he created.

Ok, so the simple answer is this:

Preserving humal life as we know it, or your physical body is irrelevent when the reapers can preserve the DNA and genetic memory of the entire race into a synthetic body.  From their perspective, a human reaper is just as good as a whole planet full of humans.  This is a preferrable outcome to complete annihilation from a war with Synthetics.

Modifié par thisisme8, 27 juin 2012 - 07:26 .

[mcguireptr1]

thisisme8 wrote...

mcguireptr1 wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...

To further clarify, when talking about organics, that doesn't mean that synthetics systematically wiped out every bit of bacteria, plant, etc. etc. - instead, it means that synthetics wiped out their creators, and possibly other races advanced enough to pose any sort of threat.

mcguireptr1 wrote...

IF that is the case then that is the same damn thing the reapers do.  So no logic there.  nice try though

thisisme8 wrote...

Really?  That's all you can see?  If you can't tell the difference, I can't help you.

No please help me, I am here to get the clarity that Bioware promised but did not deliver.  what is the difference? the reapers do it in cycles? the synthetics won't let others rise to be threats? They will let plants live? The catalyst turned its creators into synthetic reapers thus killing them.  So where does the cycle begin.  with the catalyst right.  It could not have come before.  right now it seems to me he created a solution for the problem he created.

Ok, so the simple answer is this:

Preserving humal life as we know it, or your physical body is irrelevent when the reapers can preserve the DNA and genetic memory of the entire race into a synthetic body.  From their perspective, a human reaper is just as good as a whole planet full of humans.  This is a preferrable outcome to complete annihilation from a war with Synthetics.

But once again I ask.  How do they know that synthetics will comletely annihilate teh organics.  if they have stopped it everytime, which is the only way organics where around in the first place to be able to create the catalyst.  then they have no proof that it will ever happen.  it is to big of an assumption on the catalyst part.   I don't want to sound like a** h*** but none of it makes sense we keep going around in cirlces on the backwards logic.  I don't want to take you on this ride but these question should have either been answered logically or left alone completly.  We did not need to know the motivations for the reapers.  we did not need the A,B, or C choices.  we definitly did not need the bad patches on the plot holes in the final push.  and if they were going to do a slideshow then it should say what will actually happen in the future and not be so vague.  Dragon age origins did the end perfectly and that epoligue was not hard or expansive to do.  just good story telling.  That did not happen with the original ending or the EC of Mass effect 3

[HellbirdIV]

Mria wrote...

People still unsatisfied with the new endings...why ?

Because it's still a horrible way to end a story that was going in this direction up until now.

Because it treats the audience like they are imbecile children who can't understand what happened without having everything spelled out to them.

Because it paints Synthesis as being the super-happy "Best" ending.

Because by removing the ambiguity of the previous endings they only succeeded in making the endings more trite and less interesting.

Because they hastily explain away the scenes people questioned without understanding why they were being questioned to begin with - like Joker fleeing. Now everyone is fleeing, and it makes sense, right? No, no it doesn't, because Hackett orders a full retreat for no reason and the Reapers don't FTL away when **** goes down? Why? Because Starchild told them it's time to die now?

Because the implications of the super-perfect Synthesis ending are actually still horrible, that you play god by making all people immortal and still allow Krogan to have massive birth rates which means a galactic war for resources is just two, maybe three Krogan generations away? Oh, did I mention that Synthesis makes Husks intelligent? Husks who are nothing but twisted, walking corpses? I'm sure they are really happy to be alive now...

Because the Normandy still crash lands... Only to take off again? So what was the point of crashing to begin with? Ham-fisted symbolism, that's what.

Because Starchild and the Stargazer both still exist in this ending even though they remain extremely detrimental to the ending even if I was willing to forgive all the other horrible implications.

Is the EC better than the original endings?

It depends if you prefer your ending to be clear-cut and obviously spelled out to you. If you do, then yes, it's a bit better.

But if like most people who hated the ending, you hated it because it's a bad ending, then no, it's just as bad, if not worse.

[staindgrey]

Elite Midget wrote...

Refusal's being middle finger to the fanbase was enough to ruin the EC.

I find this thought process amusing. Mind if I pick the brains of people who think this?

I loved the inclusion of the Reject ending. I chose it automatically, not even realizing it was a choice. And you know what? I'm glad the war was lost. We've built the Reapers up as an enemy that cannot be beaten by conventional means. If we don't build the Crucible, we lose. That's why we've sacrificed so many lives and ships to send even one person up to activate it. What do you think will happen when Shepard says, "Okay, **** that. Nevermind."?

The inclusion of another ending that let our Shepards say, "No, I can't choose," was awesome. Had we won the war anyway, it would very likely diminish the value of the Reapers as a threat. Why would anyone choose anything if they could just say no and get the same result?

The game is about choice. People complain that those choices don't have a reasonable impact. Now we get a fairly large impact, and it's a "middle finger". Go figure.

[Big Bad]

I hated the endings because from a thematic standpoint, they are wildly incompatible with pretty much everything else in the series. The EC did not change that, therefore I view it as a failure (although I felt it the extra "closure" stuff was a small improvement).

[mcguireptr1]

thisisme8 wrote...


Ok, so the simple answer is this:

Preserving humal life as we know it, or your physical body is irrelevent when the reapers can preserve the DNA and genetic memory of the entire race into a synthetic body.  From their perspective, a human reaper is just as good as a whole planet full of humans.  This is a preferrable outcome to complete annihilation from a war with Synthetics.

So they prettty much turn us into data and parts that are used for the repears.  if that is the case then why not just do it for every organic.  if there is no difference to them, then why the cycle.  It would be their final solution.  this cannot be.  his purpose was to make sure synthetics did not wipe out organics to he preserves them as synthetics thus making them no longer organics.  If this machine cannot destinguish the two then it would have turned all organics into reapers.  This is just bad writing.  I don't think it can be logically defended.  I hope I am proved wrong, but even if i am that only addresses one of the major issues with the Starchild.

[mcguireptr1]

I hate the star child, so frustrating.

Modifié par mcguireptr1, 27 juin 2012 - 07:43 .

[Elite Midget]

staindgrey wrote...

Elite Midget wrote...

Refusal's being middle finger to the fanbase was enough to ruin the EC.

I find this thought process amusing. Mind if I pick the brains of people who think this?

I loved the inclusion of the Reject ending. I chose it automatically, not even realizing it was a choice. And you know what? I'm glad the war was lost. We've built the Reapers up as an enemy that cannot be beaten by conventional means. If we don't build the Crucible, we lose. That's why we've sacrificed so many lives and ships to send even one person up to activate it. What do you think will happen when Shepard says, "Okay, **** that. Nevermind."?

The inclusion of another ending that let our Shepards say, "No, I can't choose," was awesome. Had we won the war anyway, it would very likely diminish the value of the Reapers as a threat. Why would anyone choose anything if they could just say no and get the same result?

The game is about choice. People complain that those choices don't have a reasonable impact. Now we get a fairly large impact, and it's a "middle finger". Go figure.

The Reapers were already brain dead and diminished in ME3 as is. Shepard even downs a few Reapers with a much smaller force without too much effort throughout the course of the trilogy.  They aren't invincible and the game proved that they can die just like anything else if you hit it hard enough. Also, it's telling that if you don't play the tune of the Starbrat that you will lose no matter what you did or the choices you made while the other endings always end in victory no matter what you did or the the choices you made.

All in all, it was a rushed addition to show their dissatisfaction over the fan backlash over the base endings. Sure they gave you the option to refuse but they made sure they you were screwed no matter what.  They could have easily just ended it with Shepard looking out as the battle rages on to let headcanon decided what happens. Instead it's a time jump and you lost with no details.

[ed87]

Velocithon wrote...

I still feel no closure. All the "closure" stuff came in the form of powerpoint slides. Which is very cheap and emotionless.

[staindgrey]

Elite Midget wrote...

staindgrey wrote...

Elite Midget wrote...

Refusal's being middle finger to the fanbase was enough to ruin the EC.

I find this thought process amusing. Mind if I pick the brains of people who think this?

I loved the inclusion of the Reject ending. I chose it automatically, not even realizing it was a choice. And you know what? I'm glad the war was lost. We've built the Reapers up as an enemy that cannot be beaten by conventional means. If we don't build the Crucible, we lose. That's why we've sacrificed so many lives and ships to send even one person up to activate it. What do you think will happen when Shepard says, "Okay, **** that. Nevermind."?

The inclusion of another ending that let our Shepards say, "No, I can't choose," was awesome. Had we won the war anyway, it would very likely diminish the value of the Reapers as a threat. Why would anyone choose anything if they could just say no and get the same result?

The game is about choice. People complain that those choices don't have a reasonable impact. Now we get a fairly large impact, and it's a "middle finger". Go figure.

The Reapers were already brain dead and diminished in ME3 as is. Shepard even downs a few Reapers with a much smaller force without too much effort throughout the course of the trilogy.  They aren't invincible and the game proved that they can die just like anything else if you hit it hard enough. Also, it's telling that if you don't play the tune of the Starbrat that you will lose no matter what you did or the choices you made while the other endings always end in victory no matter what you did or the the choices you made.

All in all, it was a rushed addition to show their dissatisfaction over the fan backlash over the base endings. Sure they gave you the option to refuse but they made sure they you were screwed no matter what.  They could have easily just ended it with Shepard looking out as the battle rages on to let headcanon decided what happens. Instead it's a time jump and you lost with no details.

I have to politely disagree. The Reaper Shepard defeated on Rannoch sustained multiple concentrated hits from the entire Quarian fleet-- who has the largest fleet of any of the races-- before it finally went down. And it was a smaller Reaper. The major planets of Earth, Palaven and Thessia, all guarded by their respective fleets, had all fallen while the Reapers were spread out across the galaxy. What's going to happen when all of those Reapers fall back to a single location (Earth) and those fleets, who had failed before and lost numbers, come up against them?

And besides that point, if it were an open-ended ending using headcannon, people would be even more upset, I think. Using Liara's project as a means of closing the Reject ending was a good use of the game's story to close itself. What Shepard did wasn't in vain, because what (s)he accomplished in defeating some of the Reapers and uniting the galaxy put a big enough dent to allow the next cycle to survive. How, we don't know. That's not important, because we aren't invested in that cycle. We're invested in this cycle. And we know from the information given that this cycle's sacrifice was not in vain, even though Shepard refused to use the tool given based on moral grounds.

Regardless of what the starchild meant to the story (it was awful), the choices given to Shepard aren't unreasonable.

- Control the Reapers and solve the problem.
- Destroy synthetics, sacrificing some friends, and solve the problem.
- Synthesis, blah blah... solve the problem.
- None of the above. Solve your own damn problem. (Which, as has been stated many times before, you can't by conventional means.)

Expecting a happy ending when outright refusing to use the Crucible is, IMO, expecting too much. I was happy they included it as it is.