6432 réponses à ce sujet

[Paranoidal nemesis]

To be clear, is ending dlc exactly the same as dlc that takes place after the events of me3?

[3DandBeyond]

N7 Lisbeth wrote...

Probably unsurprising to most of you, but ME3 lost on every category for "game of the year." http://www.goldenjoystick.com

It's not because the competition was better so much as ME3's endings caused the loss. Denying it is, obviously, denial.

It so could have been had they just made an appropriate ending and not veered off into fantasy land. 

[3DandBeyond]

Paranoidal nemesis wrote...

To be clear, is ending dlc exactly the same as dlc that takes place after the events of me3?

Well, it can be.

What many of us are asking for is alternate ending or additions to the ending DLC that would fix certain things we think need fixing.  How that could take place is open to debate and discussion.  They could do it so that it just changes what endings you now can get by altering what at least one of them means, says, and shows.  The kid (because they aren't getting rid of him just because we want them to), would have additional dialogue or different dialogue that would also point to say, the crucible being fully intact and able to only target the reapers, so that destruction is limited.  This is one way it could happen.  If it was to be something bigger maybe that would mean the crucible would only weaken the reapers so that the galaxy could defeat them more openly.

But it could also happen as some part of an aftermath where instead of (again use destroy as an example), you see that the crucible only temporarily impacted all synthetics but that it keyed on reapers only for the full force of destruction.  Shepard is seen recovering and with friends.  Ok, this is a more complicated and yet simplistic and perhaps silly way of doing it all and doesn't address the choices at all.

Another thing could be to look at what the kid says (the crucible is largely intact-which means it is not intact) and then have DLC that allows you to get whatever it needs to be fully intact and have that impact all the choices or even remove the choices and just have the crucible do what it may have been intended for.

Anything is open for discussion.  I've even said that I think if they went with one cohesive coherent ending it might open up all kinds of post-ME3 DLC possibilities.

[Xellith]

Endings aside - and I mean this, I truly do. ME3 was bad. Its not that it was terrible. Its just they took what made ME1 and ME2 great and then threw it out.

I mean giving majority of the squad "conversations" simple ( ) like Kasumi and Zaeed from ME2 was just disgustingly bad.

Vanishing weapons/wrong weapons used was said to not be a problem because it only broke immersion (ya know.. because thats not important in an RPG).

The Normandy is pointlessly dark and its layout is just annoying (hello scanner room).

Exploration... where for art thou?!

If Bioware arnt going to fix the ending - then fix the rest of the damn game!

Modifié par Xellith, 30 septembre 2012 - 04:28 .

[MegaSovereign]

Xellith wrote...

Endings aside - and I mean this, I truly do. ME3 was bad. Its not that it was terrible. Its just they took what made ME1 and ME2 great and then threw it out.

I mean giving majority of the squad "conversations" simple ( ) like Kasumi and Zaeed from ME2 was just disgustingly bad.

Vanishing weapons/wrong weapons used was said to not be a problem because it only broke immersion (ya know.. because thats not important in an RPG).

The Normandy is pointlessly dark and its layout is just annoying (hello scanner room).

Exploration... where for art thou?!

If Bioware arnt going to fix the ending - then fix the rest of the damn game!

Aside from the scanner room, I liked the ME3 Normandy.

The squad banter was great and I actually didn't mind the occasional Zaeed-like dialogue.

[Davik Kang]

Xellith wrote...

Endings aside - and I mean this, I truly do. ME3 was bad. Its not that it was terrible. Its just they took what made ME1 and ME2 great and then threw it out.

I mean giving majority of the squad "conversations" simple ( ) like Kasumi and Zaeed from ME2 was just disgustingly bad.

Vanishing weapons/wrong weapons used was said to not be a problem because it only broke immersion (ya know.. because thats not important in an RPG).

The Normandy is pointlessly dark and its layout is just annoying (hello scanner room).

Exploration... where for art thou?!

If Bioware arnt going to fix the ending - then fix the rest of the damn game!

The Kasumi story was out of place and cheesy, while the Zaeed excerpt - at least in my version - was just plain terrible.

ME3 was no-where near perfect.  I did think the ending was incredible though!  What can you do.

[Davik Kang]

-Draikin- wrote...
That's only one of the many mistakes made. And their fix for that opened up even more plotholes, with Harbinger just sitting there politely waiting for the Normandy to take off. Also, how does it make any sense for Shepard to stop in the middle of what's supposed to be a "no retreat" charge towards the beam. Also, why didnt the Reapers just turn off the beam to the Citadel? Uh. The whole run is even more ridiculous now than it was before, all because Bioware AGAIN didn't think things through. Really, I could write pages and pages off stuff that didn't make sense in the ending and the EC but there's six months worth of threads on that anyway. Here's but one of those:

Yeah there were plotholes.  I think many can be explained but I don't want to derail this thread.  As a general thing, I will say that plot holes in sci-fi are gonna happen.  That's not to defend them, but if you have a popular piece of sci-fi, it would be really amazing to write it in such a way that plot realism issues were few and far between.

Your next point I guess would be that a lot of the plot mistakes are really bad.  Well I think how bad does depend on your interpretation of the game.  I agree that the Normandy evac addition created a whole bunch of new problems, but that does also warn us that it might be better not to continue to tamper with ME3 in case it makes it demonstrably worse.

Again, I'm not trying to say ME3 is perfect, just that not all of us thought these issues were mistakes, that a lot of them were good things, and that 'doing the right thing' is to leave the game be.

[CaIIisto]

The main obstacle against any additional lines/slides/scenes to the destroy ending or any other isn't really how much (or little) effort it would take them. It's that they don't want to have an ending where Shepard is definitely alive. IMO. That's a policy shift rather than a resource issue, and much harder to overcome.

[Ozida]

N7 Lisbeth wrote...

Probably unsurprising to most of you, but ME3 lost on every category for "game of the year." http://www.goldenjoystick.com

It's not because the competition was better so much as ME3's endings caused the loss. Denying it is, obviously, denial.

I didn’t believe they deserved "Game of the Year" award, and I am glad they didn’t received it. Not with that kind of quality (I mean check the latest patch report on how many issues there were). Endings harmed it too, but it is nowhere fans’ fault. BioWare was given tons of chances from customers to “make piece” and all they had to lose for that was their “artistic pride”. 
Well, let me give it a conclusion: BioWare, you have lost a lot of players because you wanted your game be treated like a piece of art. Apparently, it is a a very poor piece of art because it did not receive an award of recognition in your own industry. Your last chance is to try for Pulitzer award...

Modifié par Ozida, 30 septembre 2012 - 05:01 .

[Iakus]

Bester76 wrote...

Must admit, I do find it ironic that we seem to be seen as 'the enemy' by pro-enders. 

I would wager that the only reason that most of the 'negative' brigade are still here, six months later, is due to their love of their franchise as a whole. Personally, whilst I feel that that endings disappointed me, and soured the overall experience of the franchise, there's still a lot of goodwill here, and it wouldn't take a great deal to bring me back on board. I live in hope that they do eventually. If they don't, then fair enough, at some point I'll bid adieu, but that day's some way off yet. 

It's a shame that so many of the pro-enders would like us to follow the example set by those who hated the game and the ending so much that they've left, probably never to return. 

I look at it that we're here for the same reason that Luke Skywalker tried right up to the end to redeem Darth Vader.

Even after all the terible things done in recent years, he started out a good man.  And there was still good in him, he could still turn back from his chosen path.

[Davik Kang]

Bester76 wrote...

The main obstacle against any additional lines/slides/scenes to the destroy ending or any other isn't really how much (or little) effort it would take them. It's that they don't want to have an ending where Shepard is definitely alive. IMO. That's a policy shift rather than a resource issue, and much harder to overcome.

It's controversial, no doubt.  It was very risky making an ending which was bound to upset a lot of people.

The only thing I can say is that, in one of the endings, Shepard does appear to have survived, which should give you hope.  But a lot of players won't have got this ending, or will have felt misled by the narrative as to how to keep Shepard alive.

[MegaSovereign]

Ozida wrote...

N7 Lisbeth wrote...

Probably unsurprising to most of you, but ME3 lost on every category for "game of the year." http://www.goldenjoystick.com

It's not because the competition was better so much as ME3's endings caused the loss. Denying it is, obviously, denial.

I didn’t believe they deserved "Game of the Year" award, and I
am glad they didn’t received it. Not with that kind of quality (I mean check
the latest patch report on how many issues there were). Endings harmed it too, but
it is nowhere fans’ fault. BioWare was given tons of chances from customers to “make
piece” and all they had to lose for that was their “artistic pride”.
Well, let
me give it a conclusion: BioWare, you have lost a lot of players because you
wanted your game be treated like a piece of art. Apparently, it is a a very
poor piece of art because it did not receive an award of recognition in your
own industry. Your last chance is to try for Pulitzer award...

Your signature gave me cancer.

[hiraeth]

Xellith wrote...

Endings aside - and I mean this, I truly do. ME3 was bad. Its not that it was terrible. Its just they took what made ME1 and ME2 great and then threw it out.

I mean giving majority of the squad "conversations" simple ( ) like Kasumi and Zaeed from ME2 was just disgustingly bad.

Vanishing weapons/wrong weapons used was said to not be a problem because it only broke immersion (ya know.. because thats not important in an RPG).

The Normandy is pointlessly dark and its layout is just annoying (hello scanner room).

Exploration... where for art thou?!

If Bioware arnt going to fix the ending - then fix the rest of the damn game!

oh scanner room, you are simultaneously pointless, annoying, and amusing

[Iakus]

Davik Kang wrote...

And did they really say that people were misinterpreting the ending?  This does lend a lot of credance to the less literal interpretations of the endings.

they claimed they never expected people to believe that all the relays exploded in Arrival-style detonations.  Or that the quarian and turian fleets would starve in the Sol system

But then there are the rumors that the stargazer scene was supposed to be set after a ten thousand year dark age...

[Paranoidal nemesis]

Chris Priestly wrote...

futurepixels wrote...

Mr.BlazenGlazen wrote...
Why leave Shepard's story so open-ended and ambigious if you don't have any plans to follow up on it? 

This is a VERY good question, and Bioware should answer it, Chris.

I do not feel it is open ended. In most endings Shepard dies. Hard to be more definitive than death. I think people who cling to hope that there will be more see "open ended ambiguity" where it doesn't exist.

Thats where I hate to say, there is a great disconnect between Bioware and the fans.  I for one feel that the endings of synthesis and control, despite the fact that Shepard dies, hardly provide closure (I have a thread called the antithesis of synthesis about this).  Don't get me wrong, I did enjoy the knew endings (except Synthesis) but for the fallowing reasons, I don't think there is closure.


Javik mentions the races of the past never came togeather like the
ones of Shepards cycle.  With self awarness, how would these "preserved
civilizations" not have hostilites against the other reapers/"preserved
civilizations" that saught to conquer them?

Harbinger is the last
thing that should be given free will.  The Leviathans themselves were
extremely narssistic, powerful and highly sentient beings.  Long before
the reapers, didn't the Leviathans "entrall" the "lesser" races into
serving them?  How many Leviathans were harvested to create Harbinger? 
Thousands, hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions.  Imagine what
sort of effects the harvesting would have on a species psychologically. 
Millions of dead souls that went through such a horrifying and tramatic
experience as being processed into a reaper, speaking or screaming as
one voice.


 We have speculated based on the knowledge given to us from the previous games, thats where this exists.  Thats where this "open ending ambiguity" comes from.  It may not exist in the minds of the writers, but then again didn't they have to replace the mass relays ing destoryed with the mass relays instead being damaged? 

Leviathan was a pretty good dlc, but I couldn't enjoy it to its fullest extent knowing that it wouldn't affect the final battle.  It didn't actually provide any insight that couldn't be assertained based on the codex and the dialouge with the catalyst. 

As an artist I can respect artistic integrity, but I also understand the importance of a critique.  If the team wants to release dlc that serves as a prequel, retconning and forshadowing things that we already knew, or should have been told during its initial release, fine, but I don't belive the ending I percieve (based on the reasons I mentioned above) is the same ending you do.

[Iakus]

Davik Kang wrote...

It's controversial, no doubt.  It was very risky making an ending which was bound to upset a lot of people.

The only thing I can say is that, in one of the endings, Shepard does appear to have survived, which should give you hope.  But a lot of players won't have got this ending, or will have felt misled by the narrative as to how to keep Shepard alive.

After those terrible choices, I don't want "hope"  I want certainty.

[3DandBeyond]

Xellith wrote...

Endings aside - and I mean this, I truly do. ME3 was bad. Its not that it was terrible. Its just they took what made ME1 and ME2 great and then threw it out.

I mean giving majority of the squad "conversations" simple ( ) like Kasumi and Zaeed from ME2 was just disgustingly bad.

Vanishing weapons/wrong weapons used was said to not be a problem because it only broke immersion (ya know.. because thats not important in an RPG).

The Normandy is pointlessly dark and its layout is just annoying (hello scanner room).

Exploration... where for art thou?!

If Bioware arnt going to fix the ending - then fix the rest of the damn game!

I agree the problems started from the opening scene.  The dialogue between Shepard and everyone from the outset is juvenile and off base.  Shepard sitting in detention was stupid.  It indicates the Alliance is totally inept especially in the face of something they know is coming (Hackett knew it if Leviathan is to be believed).  And in the face of knowing this all, they did nothing except have a scientist look for the Leviathan and then plans for the crucible.  So, the military sat on their hands and the only ones preparing were Cerberus and even mercs and Batarians. 

But ok, let's forget about all that.  Fine.  The Normandy is so darn dark for what reason, to set a tone or so you can't see the expressions of their faces when they say "WTF, another stupid fetch quest".  Wow, the game is so serious and mature that it actually has kiddie fetch quests.  Or maybe the Normandy is so dark so that you never really get a good look at Shepard's face so who cares if it's torso Shepard at the end?  And then there's the lovely "halo" effect to Shepard's head every time she talks to Javik in his quarters.  I have a Shepard with short hair and it's like her hair is not attached to her head and her head stops just above her forehead. 

I still get some wild rotating eyes and characters are sometimes not even talking to each other or Shepard's head is rotated around in a very painful twist, apparently keyed on looking at Glyph.  They fixed some of that, but not all of it.

And some of the other dialogue is just a joke.  Some of the choices you do pick really have nothing to do with what Shepard then says.  I had to reload a section more than once because of dialogue that didn't fit with what I picked.

But, I still could have gotten past all of that and I wouldn't really have examined them or cared so much about them if the endings had just maintained the emotion of certain stories in ME3 and ME1 and 2.  There's no emotion at the end and you aren't even playing it.  How many other games are like that-that you don't actually play the ending? 

I didn't want some work of art.  I wanted a game that was fun to play.  I didn't want social commentary.  There was enough alluded to in the game to get me to think about stuff-but I've lived long enough to be able to think about all that on my own.  ME was for mature audiences so I'm pretty sure we are able to think about social ills and the value of responsible research and technology and of the value of conflict with a purpose or contracting from conflict when appropriate.  I am sure we can form opinions on all of this without a game's endings being foisted on us in some way to comment on such things, if that was the case here.  I get enough real life in real life, but respect those that can comment on it and do it well.  If that was intended in ME3, it was not done well at the end. 

[Davik Kang]

iakus wrote...
they claimed they never expected people to believe that all the relays exploded in Arrival-style detonations.  Or that the quarian and turian fleets would starve in the Sol system

But then there are the rumors that the stargazer scene was supposed to be set after a ten thousand year dark age...

Ah ok, I agree with Bioware and the rumours.

On your second post, personally I find hope more uplifting than certainty, but I'm not disagreeing with you, I can see why some people would prefer a certain ending.

[Chardonney]

iakus wrote...

Davik Kang wrote...

It's controversial, no doubt.  It was very risky making an ending which was bound to upset a lot of people.

The only thing I can say is that, in one of the endings, Shepard does appear to have survived, which should give you hope.  But a lot of players won't have got this ending, or will have felt misled by the narrative as to how to keep Shepard alive.

After those terrible choices, I don't want "hope"  I want certainty.

God, you took the words right out of my mouth. 

[Ozida]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Your signature gave me cancer.

Glad to help.

iakus wrote...

After those terrible choices, I don't want "hope"  I want certainty.

+1. Kill Shepard for good or just prove that he/ she's alive.

[3DandBeyond]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Xellith wrote...

Endings aside - and I mean this, I truly do. ME3 was bad. Its not that it was terrible. Its just they took what made ME1 and ME2 great and then threw it out.

I mean giving majority of the squad "conversations" simple ( ) like Kasumi and Zaeed from ME2 was just disgustingly bad.

Vanishing weapons/wrong weapons used was said to not be a problem because it only broke immersion (ya know.. because thats not important in an RPG).

The Normandy is pointlessly dark and its layout is just annoying (hello scanner room).

Exploration... where for art thou?!

If Bioware arnt going to fix the ending - then fix the rest of the damn game!

Aside from the scanner room, I liked the ME3 Normandy.

The squad banter was great and I actually didn't mind the occasional Zaeed-like dialogue.

What did you play the game on-PC, PS3, or xbox.  I played on PS3 and xbox.  On the PS3, it's possible to lighten up the Normandy so you can see people's faces and it looks fine.  On the xbox, once you start lightening it up, and I tried everything from gamma to just playing around with every setting I could find, the graphics become really pixelated.  On the PS3, Shepard's face will be smooth, the walls of the Normandy blended from one color to the next.  On the xbox, you can see lines of color banding.  It's terrible.  You either have to play it incredibly dark or just get used to spost on Shepard's face.  In Shepard's cabin the wall goes from a shade of grey to purple to darker gray to even darker gray and it's unblended-as an example.

The scanner room seems to be there for one thing only-to extend the supposed gameplay time.  I can't see why it couldn't be the same as the one on the Citadel that you walk right through.  It reminds me of ME2 on the citadel where you go past customs through csec and the guy there says, "sorry for the inconvenience, ma'am" or some such thing, twice every time.

[3DandBeyond]

Davik Kang wrote...

iakus wrote...
they claimed they never expected people to believe that all the relays exploded in Arrival-style detonations.  Or that the quarian and turian fleets would starve in the Sol system

But then there are the rumors that the stargazer scene was supposed to be set after a ten thousand year dark age...

Ah ok, I agree with Bioware and the rumours.

On your second post, personally I find hope more uplifting than certainty, but I'm not disagreeing with you, I can see why some people would prefer a certain ending.

Those aren't rumors but fact.  The 10k timeframe was pulled from a text dump and goes along with the final hours saying the crucible was to create a galactic dark ages.  Mac Walters said that post ME3 the galaxy would be a wasteland.  It all got retconned on twitter.  It's like someone really wanted to trash the whole thing so they had a reason to start a whole new series and maybe make it darker and more supposedly intense.  The endings on the one hand are dark, but then they are made laughable by the gratuitous insertion of happy slides to make it look to players like they did a good thing in making a choice.  Look at happy green eyes, reapers fixing relays, and listen to Hackett's happy narration.  All that was put in there to mollify players and to say, "look stupid players, we never meant for the galaxy to be destroyed.  Where'd you get that idea?  This is what we meant all along."  When the game said the galaxy would be destroyed, and the devs said so themselves.  But, yes we're stupid.  We believed they actually knew their own story.

Things they said or wrote outside the game said the galaxy would be destroyed.
2 things in the games pointed to the galaxy being destroyed.  1 has been retconned.  1 never has been and conflicts with the sappy slide shows.  Read the Desperate Measures codex and then look at the relay in the destroy epilog.

Then listen to the EC announcement interview where Hudson and Walters said they didn't know why fans thought the galaxy would be destroyed, when they clearly never meant that.  That's what they think about fans, apparently.  Or they just can't remember everything in the games or even what they themselves have said.

If they are to fix any of this, they may want to really look back at all of this and how disingenuous they have been and vow to do better.  Or they are doomed as a company.  Maybe they want to be.  Who knows.

[N7 Lisbeth]

3DandBeyond wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Xellith wrote...

Endings aside - and I mean this, I truly do. ME3 was bad. Its not that it was terrible. Its just they took what made ME1 and ME2 great and then threw it out.

I mean giving majority of the squad "conversations" simple ( ) like Kasumi and Zaeed from ME2 was just disgustingly bad.

Vanishing weapons/wrong weapons used was said to not be a problem because it only broke immersion (ya know.. because thats not important in an RPG).

The Normandy is pointlessly dark and its layout is just annoying (hello scanner room).

Exploration... where for art thou?!

If Bioware arnt going to fix the ending - then fix the rest of the damn game!

Aside from the scanner room, I liked the ME3 Normandy.

The squad banter was great and I actually didn't mind the occasional Zaeed-like dialogue.

What did you play the game on-PC, PS3, or xbox.  I played on PS3 and xbox.  On the PS3, it's possible to lighten up the Normandy so you can see people's faces and it looks fine.  On the xbox, once you start lightening it up, and I tried everything from gamma to just playing around with every setting I could find, the graphics become really pixelated.  On the PS3, Shepard's face will be smooth, the walls of the Normandy blended from one color to the next.  On the xbox, you can see lines of color banding.  It's terrible.  You either have to play it incredibly dark or just get used to spost on Shepard's face.  In Shepard's cabin the wall goes from a shade of grey to purple to darker gray to even darker gray and it's unblended-as an example.

The scanner room seems to be there for one thing only-to extend the supposed gameplay time.  I can't see why it couldn't be the same as the one on the Citadel that you walk right through.  It reminds me of ME2 on the citadel where you go past customs through csec and the guy there says, "sorry for the inconvenience, ma'am" or some such thing, twice every time.

I play on the PC, so I adjust shadow settings through the GamerSettings.ini, mostly with how far, how dense, how sharp, and how dark those shadows are. The shadows were definitely worse in ME3, and there was an overall colour tint applied (sort of like the Matrix uses green inside the system and blue outside) that was a little disorienting at first. Easily modified by the time you get around to the third game (three games to hone/practice with), but I agree, at this point it shouldn't be necessary.

I know I'll be happy to see Bioware moving away from the Unreal engine though (DA3 and ME4 to be using Frostbite2). Time to give that thing (UE) a rest, oof. What a buggy system with poor mechanics. Misplaced gazes and roaming eyes, poor clipping, ugly shadowing effects (until modified heavily), graphic bottlenecks (probably why they downsampled all of the textures to such low resolution), even the marionette wasn't that adeptly implemented. Good for its time maybe, but I'm glad that we're moving on.

Modifié par N7 Lisbeth, 30 septembre 2012 - 05:31 .

[Iakus]

Chardonney wrote...

iakus wrote...

Davik Kang wrote...

It's controversial, no doubt.  It was very risky making an ending which was bound to upset a lot of people.

The only thing I can say is that, in one of the endings, Shepard does appear to have survived, which should give you hope.  But a lot of players won't have got this ending, or will have felt misled by the narrative as to how to keep Shepard alive.

After those terrible choices, I don't want "hope"  I want certainty.

God, you took the words right out of my mouth. 

Makes me wish I knew how to make banner sigs 

[Iakus]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Those aren't rumors but fact.  The 10k timeframe was pulled from a text dump and goes along with the final hours saying the crucible was to create a galactic dark ages.  Mac Walters said that post ME3 the galaxy would be a wasteland.  It all got retconned on twitter.  It's like someone really wanted to trash the whole thing so they had a reason to start a whole new series and maybe make it darker and more supposedly intense.  The endings on the one hand are dark, but then they are made laughable by the gratuitous insertion of happy slides to make it look to players like they did a good thing in making a choice.  Look at happy green eyes, reapers fixing relays, and listen to Hackett's happy narration.  All that was put in there to mollify players and to say, "look stupid players, we never meant for the galaxy to be destroyed.  Where'd you get that idea?  This is what we meant all along."  When the game said the galaxy would be destroyed, and the devs said so themselves.  But, yes we're stupid.  We believed they actually knew their own story.

Things they said or wrote outside the game said the galaxy would be destroyed.
2 things in the games pointed to the galaxy being destroyed.  1 has been retconned.  1 never has been and conflicts with the sappy slide shows.  Read the Desperate Measures codex and then look at the relay in the destroy epilog.

Then listen to the EC announcement interview where Hudson and Walters said they didn't know why fans thought the galaxy would be destroyed, when they clearly never meant that.  That's what they think about fans, apparently.  Or they just can't remember everything in the games or even what they themselves have said.

If they are to fix any of this, they may want to really look back at all of this and how disingenuous they have been and vow to do better.  Or they are doomed as a company.  Maybe they want to be.  Who knows.

Indeed.  Compare the EC scenes of all the smiley faces, Hackett's narration, the ending slides, the Normandy lifting off.  Then cut to the scene of Shepard breathing, which is the same scene as the original ending:  a trashed Citadel, empty and dead.  A body lying in debris drawing a single breath.    That was supposed to be a "happy" ending?  Maybe it worked better inthe original endings.  But with EC only emphasises the melancholy of the scene for me.