104 réponses à ce sujet

[Marauder Shieldz]

A lot of people like me are still disappointed with endings even with the EC. Its better but not by much. So, yeah there still would be a bit of outrage but nothing like the original endings.

[christrek1982]

Ninja Stan wrote...

Yes, absolutely. Some portion of the fanbase would still have found the endings inadequate to complete their Shepard's story.

I do agree that if you hate the consept of the star child and the crucible the no you may never be happy and the EC dose adress a lot of the isues with the end IE the Nomandy however the thing that gets me is that in two and a half game you where able to mold you shepard how you wanted and then in the end you  had no choice or abillity to dicide wether you shepard lived or died just some half hearted breth scean with no closure of any kind.

Modifié par christrek1982, 05 août 2012 - 03:44 .

[BatmanPWNS]

The EC still makes it bad, people wanted reunions, to see the future of our Shepard and closure. No one wanted to speculate what happened to our Shepard.

[Juumanistra]

To answer the OP's question, it really all depends upon why you think there was a Retake Mass Effect 3 movement in the first place: Was it because of the content of the endings or because the original endings felt like they were half-complete and that a lot had been left on the cutting room's floor? If you believe it was because of the latter, then the game shipping with the EC would've never spawned the Retake Mass Effect 3 movement, because fixing the cinematographic follies of the endings was the one thing the EC indisputably did right.

If you thought that the anger of the endings was due to their artsy pretentiousness, thematic vulgarity, atrocious writing, rendering most of the player's choices irrelevant, and generally being insulting of the player's intellect, then there'd still have been massive public anger over the endings. Because while EC fixed the structural problems with the endings, Lord knows it did ******-all to fix the actual narrative problems with it, and there's an old saying about putting lipstick on a pig that applies here. Would've been even worse, in fact, for as someone mentioned up-thread, scads of folks would've chosen the Refuse "ending", and that glorified Game Over screen is one of the most spiteful exercises writing in an RPG I've seen in a long while.

[Memnon]

christrek1982 wrote...

Ninja Stan wrote...

Yes, absolutely. Some portion of the fanbase would still have found the endings inadequate to complete their Shepard's story.

I do agree that if you hate the consept of the star child and the crucible the no you may never be happy and the EC dose adress a lot of the isues with the end IE the Nomandy however the thing that gets me is that in two and a half game you where able to mold you shepard how you wanted and then in the end you  had no choice or abillity to dicide wether you shepard lived or died just some half hearted breth scean with no closure of any kind.

I didn't mind the Crucible, not enough for it to break me out of the immserion of the game anyways. The Catalyst, on the other hand, was awful ... terrible. I felt the last 10 minutes of the game was an insult, so yea ... even with the EC it would have bothered me

[ioannisdenton]

there wiould be dissapointment but not at this level. do not fool yourselves, the abruptness and vagueness was the worst thing about the original ending.

[hoodaticus]

No, there would have been no controversy. Except people annoyed about epilogue slides.

Rushed deadlines are the mother of invention, as it seems IT came entirely from Bioware not having time to finish.

In my industry, rushed deadlines kill.  Just look what happened to Knight Trading when they skipped their QA process and lost half their company's value in 44 minutes of automated trading - around $160,000 were lost per second.

Modifié par hoodaticus, 05 août 2012 - 04:07 .

[christrek1982]

Stornskar wrote...

christrek1982 wrote...

Ninja Stan wrote...

Yes, absolutely. Some portion of the fanbase would still have found the endings inadequate to complete their Shepard's story.

I do agree that if you hate the consept of the star child and the crucible the no you may never be happy and the EC dose adress a lot of the isues with the end IE the Nomandy however the thing that gets me is that in two and a half game you where able to mold you shepard how you wanted and then in the end you  had no choice or abillity to dicide wether you shepard lived or died just some half hearted breth scean with no closure of any kind.

I didn't mind the Crucible, not enough for it to break me out of the immserion of the game anyways. The Catalyst, on the other hand, was awful ... terrible. I felt the last 10 minutes of the game was an insult, so yea ... even with the EC it would have bothered me

I sopse that is where we differ I do agree that the star child is crap but it's no totaly game braking for me my three big Issuess with the end.

1 the forced death of shepard.
2 the relays
3 the Normandy.

[Shepard Wins]

Od course there would be controversy, though maybe not this much.But there would definitely be a rage over iPhoto slides.

[Memnon]

christrek1982 wrote...

Stornskar wrote...

christrek1982 wrote...

Ninja Stan wrote...

Yes, absolutely. Some portion of the fanbase would still have found the endings inadequate to complete their Shepard's story.

I do agree that if you hate the consept of the star child and the crucible the no you may never be happy and the EC dose adress a lot of the isues with the end IE the Nomandy however the thing that gets me is that in two and a half game you where able to mold you shepard how you wanted and then in the end you  had no choice or abillity to dicide wether you shepard lived or died just some half hearted breth scean with no closure of any kind.

I didn't mind the Crucible, not enough for it to break me out of the immserion of the game anyways. The Catalyst, on the other hand, was awful ... terrible. I felt the last 10 minutes of the game was an insult, so yea ... even with the EC it would have bothered me

I sopse that is where we differ I do agree that the star child is crap but it's no totaly game braking for me my three big Issuess with the end.

1 the forced death of shepard.
2 the relays
3 the Normandy.

I don't think we differ that much - while I specified the Catalyst, I also include most of what you point out in my "final 10 minutes are awful" comment. The forced sacrifice, the symbolism of the options that was so blatant it was like being punched in the face with it, etc ...

[Reorte]

EC or not there would've been an ending contoversy simply because it's so badly done but not as strong. The EC is almost as atrociously bad as without it, it's simply presenting the same atrociously bad writing in a much better manner. If released with it from day 1 I think the reaction would be more about trying to forget it and concentrate on the rest of the game, rather like Reaper Baby in ME2, but somewhat worse.

[CrazyRah]

The controversy would totally still happen but i don't think it would've the same magnitude as it got without the EC

[LanceSolous13]

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.

Yes, its hard to please everyone.

No, Its not hard to please the majority when you spent two games laying down groundwork for this final game.

Honestly, There are so many issues with the ending that isn't not about 'Oh, You just didn't please this small group here' but its definatly 'You really don't know how to write an ending'.

I find endings a lot easier to write than beginnings. Its not hard in the slightest. Closure is very easily created as you just simply take the Plot Bricks you created from previous games and, look at that, build a wall with them.

Through the last two games, We're told its not impossible to kill the Reapers, just very dificult and that it'll take the entire galaxy to do so (Vigil, Mass Effect 1). Mass Effect's Theme is uniting everyone to defeat a threat to all.

This is dropped in ME3 completely. Wat?

[AlanC9]

Shepard Wins wrote...

Od course there would be controversy, though maybe not this much.But there would definitely be a rage over iPhoto slides.

Plenty of other RPGs have used slides.

[What a Succulent Ass]

Dav3VsTh3World wrote...

There would still be those who hate it, but it would be nowhere near as big, there will always be those who prefer to have the Call of Duty style: Bad guys died humans saved the day ending.

Because obviously a story isn't meaningful or well-written unless everyone dies.

[AlanC9]

LanceSolous13 wrote...
Through the last two games, We're told its not impossible to kill the Reapers, just very dificult and that it'll take the entire galaxy to do so (Vigil, Mass Effect 1). Mass Effect's Theme is uniting everyone to defeat a threat to all.

This is dropped in ME3 completely. Wat?

Funny. I don't remember any sort of plan, realistic or otherwise, to defeat the Reapem armada we see at the end of ME2.

[What a Succulent Ass]

Random Jerkface wrote...

Dav3VsTh3World wrote...

There would still be those who hate it, but it would be nowhere near as big, there will always be those who prefer to have the Call of Duty style: Bad guys died humans saved the day ending.

Because obviously a story isn't meaningful or well-written unless everyone dies.

And the heroes die in CoD, by the way.

[hostaman]

LanceSolous13 wrote...

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.

Yes, its hard to please everyone.

No, Its not hard to please the majority when you spent two games laying down groundwork for this final game.

Honestly, There are so many issues with the ending that isn't not about 'Oh, You just didn't please this small group here' but its definatly 'You really don't know how to write an ending'.

I find endings a lot easier to write than beginnings. Its not hard in the slightest. Closure is very easily created as you just simply take the Plot Bricks you created from previous games and, look at that, build a wall with them.

Through the last two games, We're told its not impossible to kill the Reapers, just very dificult and that it'll take the entire galaxy to do so (Vigil, Mass Effect 1). Mass Effect's Theme is uniting everyone to defeat a threat to all.

This is dropped in ME3 completely. Wat?

Only in your interpretation.

It DOES take all the races to unite in order to propel Shep to the one place where he can "defeat" the reapers. I.e the Citadel - where he is the only one able to make the tough decision required. The theme of choice.

I'm willing to agree that the bulk of ME players did not like this ending, but Bioware thought they were writing something interesting and different. The fact they failed is a shame, but I still aplaud what they attempted no matter how much the haters try to troll my opinions into oblivion.

I accept that Bioware failed, if you can accept that some people actually liked what they did.

[SpamBot2000]

Bad catalyst is bad. May have been fewer people paying attention to it if the EC endings had been in place. But probably not that many.

[Conniving_Eagle]

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.

That you, Casey?

[FellishBeast]

Yep. The themes are still contradictory to everything we've come to know and love in the previous games.

[AlanC9]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Bad catalyst is bad. May have been fewer people paying attention to it if the EC endings had been in place. But probably not that many.

I'm not certain the Catalyst per se is the problem. Fans have swallowed bizarre twists and illogic from Bio before without a protest. The emotional energy driving the attack seems to come from people finding the ending choices morally offensive. Of course, the EC didn't do anything to change that, so I agree that these folks would still be mad.

[Jassu1979]

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. 

There would have been some sense of disappointment (for some of us at least), but nothing even remotely similar to what we got with the original ending in all its nonsensical, color-coded glory.

I think the material we got in the Extended Cut would have been a tolerable ending - not great, but not bad enough to actually cause a huge outcry.

HOWEVER, as all the flaws inherent to the very concept of the ending were already well-known by the time the EC was created, it is impossible to enjoy it. That ending did not need "additional clarification and closure". It needed a rewrite, and nothing else.
The EC is a typical case of too little, too late. A PR-move masquerading as a compromise and "giving the fans what they want", when in fact it achieved nothing of the sort.

[JPN17]

saracen16 wrote...

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.

The decisions in Mass Effect weren't easy that's true. But going back and replaying ME2 again I've found that they're qutie a bit easier now that I know none of them matter. Nothing changes if you save/destroy the council in ME. It plays out exactly the same. Sure the council may be comprised of different people, but nothing in the game is altered. You can't expect people to be happy with something like that in a game where "choice matters." The hatred of the catalyst is not old and childish. It was a ridiculous "twist" implemented by people who have no clue how to write a story. The backlash is completely understandable from people who expect better from a company who supposedly puts the story as the most important part of their games.

Stornskar wrote...

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 ...

Exactly. People complain about "haters"  but let's be realisitc here. While none of those games were perfect and all had their flaws that got talked about, none of those games even came close to having the same amount of backlash as ME3. The only game that I can think of that you could even put in the same ballpark is DA2, for obvious reasons.

Modifié par JPN17, 05 août 2012 - 07:13 .

[wright1978]

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. 

There still would have been an outcry it just wouldn't have had the same breadth, depth and ferocity. EC improves upon endings so it is just about passable imo but still rather poor and lacking. Bioware probably could have weathered storm if EC had of been the original version though.