104 réponses à ce sujet

[Wulfram]

The ending would merely have been noted as a bad one, like a lot of CRPGs have bad endings, rather than an awful one that produces outrage.

[Conniving_Eagle]

*Looks at the ending for what it is*

So the true antagonist of the series is introduced in the last ten minutes, this antagonist who completely dismiss the previous one (the Reapers). Now instead of our protaganist defying/defeating the antagonist, they have to act like they're buddies and help solve the antagonist's problem, if we do that, the antagonist will leave the protaganist and everything they love alone, albeit dying (even though the antagonist isn't much of a character to begin with).

[Conniving_Eagle]

Magiking117 wrote...

I think so long as the Catalyst existed then the outcry would be the same. You would also still have those 3 choices, and you would also have a refuse choice that simply tells you you lose. The EC never changed the ending, so the why would the response change?

^

[saracen16]

TheKillerAngel wrote...

I don't think there would have been, or at the very most, the outcry would have been far quieter. I think a lot of what prevents people from enjoying the EC is the very knowledge of what had come before, and what the writers' original intent was. Knowing these things, it can be very difficult to actually enjoy  what the Extended Cut offers. 

I disagree: people will never be satisfied. The fact that a lot of people on these boards still want some magical and idiotic "conventional victory and/or reunion" option speaks troves about what they really want: a re-write of the entire trilogy to their own bland, uninspired tastes.

[saracen16]

Magiking117 wrote...

I think so long as the Catalyst existed then the outcry would be the same. You would also still have those 3 choices, and you would also have a refuse choice that simply tells you you lose. The EC never changed the ending, so the why would the response change?

Hatred of the Catalyst is getting old and childish, and this cursing against fate won't help anyone. It's immature to think that given the storyline of an unbeatable enemy that has been building up from the first Mass Effect onwards, it is possible to win conventionally without much sacrifice. Every decision in Mass Effect has NEVER been easy, even saving the council in ME1 (with the sacrifice of at least 1/3rd of the Fifth fleet and others as well as humanity continuing to be considered second-rate). It's naive to think that it ever was. To refuse the Catalyst and get the easy way out goes against the theme regarding choices in Mass Effect.

[Chaotic-Fusion]

saracen16 wrote...

TheKillerAngel wrote...

I don't think there would have been, or at the very most, the outcry would have been far quieter. I think a lot of what prevents people from enjoying the EC is the very knowledge of what had come before, and what the writers' original intent was. Knowing these things, it can be very difficult to actually enjoy  what the Extended Cut offers. 

I disagree: people will never be satisfied. The fact that a lot of people on these boards still want some magical and idiotic "conventional victory and/or reunion" option speaks troves about what they really want: a re-write of the entire trilogy to their own bland, uninspired tastes.

What people wanted and still want is a decent ending, that isn't cheesy, doesn't introduce the main antagonist in the last 10 minutes while doing a massive thematic shift, doesn't completely disregard even the basics tenets of good literature (so much exposition as the ending of a trilogy), doesn't force emotion and without blatant and awful religious symbolism.
I don't see how the EC fixed any of these problem. The outcry would have still been largely the same, and justifiably so.

[saracen16]

Chaotic-Fusion wrote...

What people wanted and still want is a decent ending, that isn't cheesy,doesn't introduce the main antagonist in the last 10 minutes while doing a massive thematic shift, doesn't completely disregard even the basics tenets of good literature (so much exposition as the ending of a trilogy), doesn't force emotion and without blatant and awful religious symbolism.
I don't see how the EC fixed any of these problem. The outcry would have still been largely the same, and justifiably so.

All of these are purely your opinion. I personally don't find anything cheesy about the storyline, nor do I think the Catalyst is an antagonist more than he is a proxy for the final choice.

[o Ventus]

saracen16 wrote...

Chaotic-Fusion wrote...

What people wanted and still want is a decent ending, that isn't cheesy,doesn't introduce the main antagonist in the last 10 minutes while doing a massive thematic shift, doesn't completely disregard even the basics tenets of good literature (so much exposition as the ending of a trilogy), doesn't force emotion and without blatant and awful religious symbolism.
I don't see how the EC fixed any of these problem. The outcry would have still been largely the same, and justifiably so.

All of these are purely your opinion. I personally don't find anything cheesy about the storyline, nor do I think the Catalyst is an antagonist more than he is a proxy for the final choice.

The bolded parts are not opinion.

[Chaotic-Fusion]

saracen16 wrote...

Chaotic-Fusion wrote...

What people wanted and still want is a decent ending, that isn't cheesy,doesn't introduce the main antagonist in the last 10 minutes while doing a massive thematic shift, doesn't completely disregard even the basics tenets of good literature (so much exposition as the ending of a trilogy), doesn't force emotion and without blatant and awful religious symbolism.
I don't see how the EC fixed any of these problem. The outcry would have still been largely the same, and justifiably so.

All of these are purely your opinion. I personally don't find anything cheesy about the storyline, nor do I think the Catalyst is an antagonist more than he is a proxy for the final choice.

They introduced a new character, an important character, in the last 10 minutes of a trilogy. They provided an ending full of exposition with little resolution or closure. You do not end a story using exposition. That is without a doubt bad writing. This is a fact. Exposition is used at the beginning to provide background information, and it is the quickest way to kill a plot's momentum.

[AlexMBrennan]

Yes. The problem is, simply out, Godchild. The EC still features Godchild.

[Brovikk Rasputin]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

No. It wouldn't have been nearly as bad. And Bioware should have known that. The original endings was a disaster.

You were the one who had in signature, don´t change the original endings because they are good. Now you are saying that original endings are disaster, what a surpise...

Uhm, no? My signature went something like "Don't change the ending, it's perfect as it is", which was AFER the EC. Try harder.

[saracen16]

Chaotic-Fusion wrote...

They introduced a new character, an important character, in the last 10 minutes of a trilogy.

He's not a new character. A new character would be something totally out of the blue. We expected mention of something called the Catalyst from the very beginning of the game when Liara was introducing the Crucible blueprints to the Council. We heard that the Reapers have a Master from Vendetta on Thessia. Hell, the whole game was spent trying to find the Catalyst esp. near the end. Nothing "new" about him. 

They provided an ending full of exposition with little resolution or closure. You do not end a story using exposition. That is without a doubt bad writing. This is a fact. Exposition is used at the beginning to provide background information, and it is the quickest way to kill a plot's momentum.

Again, that is YOUR opinion. Exposition in this setting actually kept the plot going, and raised questions even after the game. Good writing, from what I learned as a writer myself, does not necessarily follow a convention. It does not have to tie in all plot points, and closure is not necessarily a good thing if given 100%. The fact that the ending leaves questions and answers grips you further into the universe instead of disconnecting you from it. The real disconnect is if you are just too passive and want everything spelled out for you.

As for closure, it has been given sufficiently even prior to the EC: you get to see the final outcomes of what happens to the geth and the quarians as well as the krogan. If you reunite the geth and the quarians, you learn from Tali that geth have uploaded themselves into volunteer suits and help them reacclimate to Rannoch, etc. etc.

[Thaa_solon]

Yes the controversy would still linger, since the narrative is broken, shatterd......it really doesn't make any sense.

[davepissedatending]

That's a hard question but no I don't think so. Still tho I think the Shepard seen where he lives for 2 secs they should of took it out its just daft if thats the last we R gonna see off Shepard

[jstme]

I agree. It still would be pretty lame ending ,but there would be much much less people raging on the net.

[o Ventus]

saracen16 wrote...

He's not a new character. A new character would be something totally out of the blue. We expected mention of something called the Catalyst from the very beginning of the game when Liara was introducing the Crucible blueprints to the Council. We heard that the Reapers have a Master from Vendetta on Thessia. Hell, the whole game was spent trying to find the Catalyst esp. near the end. Nothing "new" about him.

But the Catalyst is never referred to or implied to be an actual person or an AI. In context, the Catalyst is a new character, much in a similar fashion to the "new" Conduit in ME3 being totally and wholly separated from the ME1 Conduit. Stop arguing with semantics. 

Again, that is YOUR opinion. Exposition in this setting actually kept the plot going, and raised questions even after the game. Good writing, from what I learned as a writer myself, does not necessarily follow a convention. It does not have to tie in all plot points, and closure is not necessarily a good thing if given 100%. The fact that the ending leaves questions and answers grips you further into the universe instead of disconnecting you from it. The real disconnect is if you are just too passive and want everything spelled out for you.

As for closure, it has been given sufficiently even prior to the EC: you get to see the final outcomes of what happens to the geth and the quarians as well as the krogan. If you reunite the geth and the quarians, you learn from Tali that geth have uploaded themselves into volunteer suits and help them reacclimate to Rannoch, etc. etc.

Regardless of your opinion, you do not dump exposition in the closing moments of the falling action, especially during the 3rd act in a trilogy. Do that in a writing class and you will be dropped like a brick (I dare you to try it). Not all writing follows a static set of conventions, but there are general rules of thumb that authors tend to follow so that their writing doesn't look like a 4 year old made it.

The unanswered questions wouldn't be so bad... If there were another game to fill in the blanks. Being the last piece of a set of works, it is generally expected of the author or authors to provide as much information as possible. People don't ask "Why did so and so happen..." because they like having to speculate on it, they're asking because they want to know. 

As to your bit about closure, that's purely subjective (never mind only two plot points out of a series that has a hundred, if not more)

[Chaotic-Fusion]

saracen16 wrote...

Chaotic-Fusion wrote...

They introduced a new character, an important character, in the last 10 minutes of a trilogy.

He's not a new character. A new character would be something totally out of the blue. We expected mention of something called the Catalyst from the very beginning of the game when Liara was introducing the Crucible blueprints to the Council. We heard that the Reapers have a Master from Vendetta on Thessia. Hell, the whole game was spent trying to find the Catalyst esp. near the end. Nothing "new" about him.

They provided an ending full of exposition with little resolution or closure. You do not end a story using exposition. That is without a doubt bad writing. This is a fact. Exposition is used at the beginning to provide background information, and it is the quickest way to kill a plot's momentum.


Again, that is YOUR opinion. Exposition in this setting actually kept the plot going, and raised questions even after the game. Good writing, from what I learned as a writer myself, does not necessarily follow a convention. It does not have to tie in all plot points, and closure is not necessarily a good thing if given 100%. The fact that the ending leaves questions and answers grips you further into the universe instead of disconnecting you from it. The real disconnect is if you are just too passive and want everything spelled out for you.

As for closure, it has been given sufficiently even prior to the EC: you get to see the final outcomes of what happens to the geth and the quarians as well as the krogan. If you reunite the geth and the quarians, you learn from Tali that geth have uploaded themselves into volunteer suits and help them reacclimate to Rannoch, etc. etc.

When Liara introduces the crucible she says it releases a lot energy. I don't know how you figured out the catalyst back then, you must have been paying more attention than me. Right, Vendetta, 3-4 hours before the end of the 3 game in a trilogy, tells us the reapers might have a master. That is after going through 2.9 games knowing them to be "each a nation" and independent. Nope, foreshadowed, obviously. Not a new character.
No it is not an opinion. Exposition kills momentum. It has no place in the ending of a trilogy. None.

[Festilence]

Ghost1017 wrote...

Probably but not as big.

This pretty much sums up my thought.

It wouldn't be as bad because a bit more is explained and shown but there a lot of common complaints that still remain, such as Refusal arguably being an FU (don't agree), confusion over what the story is truly about, reunions yes/no, the "Space Magic" of Synthesis etc.

[kobayashi-maru]

TheKillerAngel wrote...

I don't think there would have been, or at the very most, the outcry would have been far quieter. I think a lot of what prevents people from enjoying the EC is the very knowledge of what had come before, and what the writers' original intent was. Knowing these things, it can be very difficult to actually enjoy  what the Extended Cut offers. 

If I'm honest I think there would have been less controversy because the differing implications of EC would have prevented Bioware from doing some aspects of the original ending. The ending was supposed to be somewhat bleak with a chance at rebuilding, but I don't believe for a second that the crash of the Normandy was supposed to be anything other than a way of sidelining and stranding the main characters ala Lost to allow a more fluid ME4 to be produced.

Normandy being fixed and flying off kind of renders the whole crash null and void so it probably would not have been included in first place - or maybe have crashed on Earth. The same goes for the rebuilding of relays which was never intended but in EC it suddenly was.

[hostaman]

It's notoriously difficult to please everyone with an ending (Sopranos, Lost, BSG anyone?) so I think the same people would have complained either way. I would also say this would have been true if the ending had been more like the Suicide run. Haters would just be saying the ending was duff as it was just the same as ME2.

You just can't win with endings, and I think here lies the lesson for game makers.

[Allen Spellwaver]

Bad writing?Is someone kidding?

[RavenEyry]

Yes, just not quite as major. The endings are still horrible, just less obviously so.

[Memnon]

saracen16 wrote...

TheKillerAngel wrote...

I don't think there would have been, or at the very most, the outcry would have been far quieter. I think a lot of what prevents people from enjoying the EC is the very knowledge of what had come before, and what the writers' original intent was. Knowing these things, it can be very difficult to actually enjoy  what the Extended Cut offers. 

I disagree: people will never be satisfied. The fact that a lot of people on these boards still want some magical and idiotic "conventional victory and/or reunion" option speaks troves about what they really want: a re-write of the entire trilogy to their own bland, uninspired tastes.

I don't know, a lot of people were satisfied with Baldur's Gate, Baldur's Gate 2, NwN, KOTOR, Dragon Age, Mass Effect 1, Mass Effect 2 ...

[RavenEyry]

saracen16 wrote...
a re-write of the entire trilogy to their own bland, uninspired tastes.

Wanting to feel like you won after finishing a game is bland and uninspired? Wow, you must be a depressing person to meet.

[Memnon]

hostaman wrote...

It's notoriously difficult to please everyone with an ending (Sopranos, Lost, BSG anyone?) so I think the same people would have complained either way. I would also say this would have been true if the ending had been more like the Suicide run. Haters would just be saying the ending was duff as it was just the same as ME2.

You just can't win with endings, and I think here lies the lesson for game makers.

Those three series are actually great examples - well, I never watched Sopranos, so I can only speak to Lost and BSG - they were shows that started off great and were interesting and fun; then at some point, the writers tried to be cute and 'profound' and went off the deep end of artsy symbolism, ignoring what made them fun and entertaining to begin with. That was my opinion of them, anyways