95 réponses à ce sujet

[someguy1231]

Suppose that  the Extended Cut and Leviathan were a part of Mass Effect 3 at release. How would you have reacted to the ending under such circumstances?

Personally, I'd still be angry by the existence of the Catalyst, the deus ex machina would still be there, and the revelation that the Leviathans are little better than the Reapers and tacitly approve of the Catalyst makes their entire existence pointless. They might as well just be organic Reapers as far as humanity is concerned.  It would also make the destroy option problematic, and since I already consider control and synthesis morally reprehensible, that leaves pretty much no ending that I even consider adequate, except maybe Refuse if I don't metagame. 

Modifié par someguy1231, 15 septembre 2012 - 02:10 .

[Jadebaby]

still bad, it's not just the Catalyst, it's the choices. The whole she-bang.

[thearbiter1337]

I would have probably refused not knowing that i would loose


Then be like "Aw"

[KENNY4753]

It wouldn't have changed anything. The endings are still sh*t in my opinion.

[GreyLycanTrope]

Same way I am now, disappointmented though less rage than a few months ago.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 15 septembre 2012 - 02:10 .

[shepskisaac]

It's granted that there would never be any huge outrage had Leviathan and EC been in the game from start (EC alone would be enough). Some people sure would complain, but I doubt it would be any bigger than complaints about Human Reaper Terminator boss fight or forced Cerberus or "Sovereign was a Geth" by the suddenly blind Council in ME2.

Bioware's biggest mistakes was lack of answers. EC provided a ton of them, giving closure to most stuff. The original ending lacked it heavily. You can't do that at the end of the story. People want answers finally, no more dodging and leaving everything up to imagination of the audience. Ubisoft may make the same mistake in 2 months with AC3 if they don't finally finish Desmond story and answers the important questions at the end.

Modifié par IsaacShep, 15 septembre 2012 - 02:11 .

[spirosz]

IsaacShep wrote...

It's granted that there would never be any huge outrage had Leviathan and EC been in the game from start (EC alone would be enough). Some people sure would complain, but I doubt it would be any bigger than complaints about Human Reaper Terminator boss fight or forced Cerberus or "Sovereign was a Geth" by the suddenly blind Council in ME2.

Bioware's biggest mistakes was lack of answers. EC provided a ton of them, giving closure to most stuff. The original ending lacked it heavily. You can't do that at the end of the story. People want answers finally, no more dodging and leaving everything up to imagination of the audience. Ubisoft may make the same mistake in 2 months with AC3 if they don't finally finish Desmond story and answers the important questions at the end.

On the bolded, I say lack of resources, budget.  

[Taboo]

You wouldn't be stuck with me BSN.

Yeah I know, I was shocked too.

[WhiteKnyght]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

still bad, it's not just the Catalyst, it's the choices. The whole she-bang.

To be fair, the game's final choice would have to be the hardest of all to make.

Every choice has its ups and downs and keeps the resolution bittersweet.

For even one choice to be easy and be perfect would do a disservice to the series and to the player. Yet people believe they are entitled to an ethically correct easy choice with a perfect ending.

[Baa Baa]

I would have been less pissed but still found the idea stupid overall

[shepskisaac]

spirosz wrote...

On the bolded, I say lack of resources, budget. 

It may have been a part of it, but there was stuff like the Catalyst conversation. The kid, Jennifer & Mark were already being paid for that, yet the original conversation was so incredibly, unbelieveably vauge we didn't even know exactly what the Catalyst was before EC came out. And it wasn't just about the amount of lines but how vague the lines were. Even the earlier concepts of the Catalyst conversation (from the leaked beta) were more clear, at least he was clear what he was. Then they deliberately made it much more vague in the final version. While budget & time definitely played a role in the endings, it's also clear to me that they did originally opt for 'mystery' and leaving tons of stuff for audience's imagination. Way too much stuff it turned out.

Modifié par IsaacShep, 15 septembre 2012 - 02:20 .

[Adokat]

I would still have been disappointed, though less so. Isaac, I don't think it's granted that there wouldn't have been any huge outrage. From my impression, you're misstating why many people disliked the ending.

The biggest problem remains the Starchild, and the terrible logic it forces on you or why those three convenient ending buttons are even there in the first place. It was all very, err, inorganic to the story.

The lack of answers was never a major issue for me, and I never felt a lack of closure was a major problem, even though I appreciated some of what the EC added. I also enjoyed the Leviathan DLC, but ultimately those things are just polishing an ending that was seriously flawed the moment that kid started to speak.

Regarding AC3-I'd think it's extremely wishful thinking that they'll wrap up Desmond's story, given how slowly it's crept along till now and Ubisoft's habit of offering yearly games.

[GreyLycanTrope]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

still bad, it's not just the Catalyst, it's the choices. The whole she-bang.

To be fair, the game's final choice would have to be the hardest of all to make.

Every choice has its ups and downs and keeps the resolution bittersweet.

For even one choice to be easy and be perfect would do a disservice to the series and to the player. Yet people believe they are entitled to an ethically correct easy choice with a perfect ending.

And I find making every possible outcome bittersweet instead of a variety  of different emotions to be a disservice. We should have had depressing, happy, and bittersweet, amongst other emotions.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 15 septembre 2012 - 02:27 .

[devSin]

Impossible to say. How many people are placated by the extended cut only because they had to experience the abysmal original ending? When you know just how truly awful something can be, it's hard not to see any change as an improvement, even if it doesn't address the real issues or creates new ones of its own. I'm not sure I can judge things any differently.

I do believe there would be fewer people willing to believe that none of it was even real.

In any event, it's still a horrible ending to the trilogy. That remains clear, even if it has now been made tolerable, so I imagine I would rightly still be unsatisfied with it, even if it shipped that way.

IsaacShep wrote...

Then they deliberately made it much more vague in the final version. While budget & time definitely played a role in the endings, it's also clear to me that they did originally opt for 'mystery' and leaving tons of stuff for audience's imagination.

Not to mention that they were writing Leviathan, which was going to give you some of those answers (as long as you paid for them), eh?

Modifié par devSin, 15 septembre 2012 - 02:32 .

[shepskisaac]

Adokat wrote...

I would still have been disappointed, though less so. Isaac, I don't think it's granted that there wouldn't have been any huge outrage. From my impression, you're misstating why many people disliked the ending.

The biggest problem remains the Starchild, and the terrible logic it forces on you or why those three convenient ending buttons are even there in the first place. It was all very, err, inorganic to the story.

The lack of answers was never a major issue for me, and I never felt a lack of closure was a major problem, even though I appreciated some of what the EC added. I also enjoyed the Leviathan DLC, but ultimately those things are just polishing an ending that was seriously flawed the moment that kid started to speak.

Synthesis was inorganic, Destroy & Control everyone saw from a mile coming, Anderson/Hackett and TIM kept talking about it the entire game.

And the lack of answers was a huge problem. What happens with the galaxy? Did fleets get stranded? Did Tali & Garrus starved on jungle planet? Did Normandy return to Earth? Did Wrex return to Tuchanka? Did Miranda & Jack die in London? DId Quarians return to Rannoch we retook? What exactly is the Catalyst? Who made it? Why? What for? etc etc etc. These question were cluttering BSN for months until EC came out. No one asks them anymore which means EC worked.

Adokat wrote...

Regarding AC3-I'd think it's extremely wishful thinking that they'll wrap up Desmond's story, given how slowly it's crept along till now and Ubisoft's habit of offering yearly games.

People are tired of this story, it barely moved in 4 freaking games. I read it everywhere, nobody wants another cliffhanger. They need to finish it already or they may get the taste of ending outrage Bioware got

Modifié par IsaacShep, 15 septembre 2012 - 02:32 .

[Jadebaby]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

still bad, it's not just the Catalyst, it's the choices. The whole she-bang.

To be fair, the game's final choice would have to be the hardest of all to make.

Every choice has its ups and downs and keeps the resolution bittersweet.

For even one choice to be easy and be perfect would do a disservice to the series and to the player. Yet people believe they are entitled to an ethically correct easy choice with a perfect ending.

To be fair, when did I ever say I want a perfect ending?

And that's bullcrap. Destroy in the vanilla game was the only ending as far as I'm concerned. It's not a hard decision to make when the other two are answers to a problem that doesn't and more importantly, shouldn't exist in the ME universe.

They would be good concepts in another game or film. But not for ME.

thearbiter1337 wrote...

I would have probably refused not knowing that i would loose


Then be like "Aw"

SO true!

[The Night Mammoth]

I would be confused by the complete lack of any sort of importance placed on the Leviathan or what it tells you, as in no one talks about anything you experience or learn after you get back to the Normandy.

I'd also be confused about how the events of Leviathan and the ending have no connection whatsoever. I would assume that after finding and conversing with the the very foundations of the plot and fictional universe, and receiving an information dump more important than f*cking Vigil, that the game would maybe do something about it and follow that direction.

So generally, I'd still be wtf'ing, less about the ending and more about other things.

[FlamingBoy]

badly, the whole thing is still pretty stupid

[Conniving_Eagle]

"How would you have reacted if the endings were good?"

All other questions concerning the subject are irrelevant.

There is only one acceptable "What If".

Modifié par Conniving_Eagle, 15 septembre 2012 - 02:41 .

[Slayer299]

It wouldn't have made the ending any prettier, nothing short of a flamethrower or nuking it from orbit (it's the only way to be sure), would have helped it.

[KENNY4753]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

The Grey Nayr wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

still bad, it's not just the Catalyst, it's the choices. The whole she-bang.

To be fair, the game's final choice would have to be the hardest of all to make.

Every choice has its ups and downs and keeps the resolution bittersweet.

For even one choice to be easy and be perfect would do a disservice to the series and to the player. Yet people believe they are entitled to an ethically correct easy choice with a perfect ending.

To be fair, when did I ever say I want a perfect ending?

And that's bullcrap. Destroy in the vanilla game was the only ending as far as I'm concerned. It's not a hard decision to make when the other two are answers to a problem that doesn't and more importantly, shouldn't exist in the ME universe.

They would be good concepts in another game or film. But not for ME.

thearbiter1337 wrote...

I would have probably refused not knowing that i would loose


Then be like "Aw"

SO true!

Yeah I would have refused too at first.

But yeah I agree, Control and Synthesis shouldn't have even been there. You spend all 3 games trying to destroy the reapers and fighting against TIM for wanting to control them. Synthesis was just a bullsh*t way for EAware to give us the A, B, C ending they didn't promise us. At no point in the Mass Effect trilogy did Shepard even consider that. Hell, you fought against Saren in ME1 and that's what he was after. So why is doing what Saren and TIM wanted a good thing to have in the ending when it completely goes against what Mass Effect stood for.

and what the hell is the problem with wanted a "happy ending". You spend 5 years and 100+ hours on a story about a person who does the impossible time after time but when people talk about a happy ending pro-enders get pissed. So why can't he defeat the Reapers without a DEM and why can't he reunite with his friends and crew?

Modifié par KENNY4753, 15 septembre 2012 - 02:47 .

[Iakus]

does Shepard still die alone and in pain doing something terrible to the galaxy?

Pretty much same reaction then.

[Red Dust]

If those two items were in the game at launch (along with Javik), the uproar would never have been nearly as loud. It's not perfect, but it's much better and passable.

[WhiteKnyght]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

The Grey Nayr wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

still bad, it's not just the Catalyst, it's the choices. The whole she-bang.

To be fair, the game's final choice would have to be the hardest of all to make.

Every choice has its ups and downs and keeps the resolution bittersweet.

For even one choice to be easy and be perfect would do a disservice to the series and to the player. Yet people believe they are entitled to an ethically correct easy choice with a perfect ending.

To be fair, when did I ever say I want a perfect ending?

And that's bullcrap. Destroy in the vanilla game was the only ending as far as I'm concerned. It's not a hard decision to make when the other two are answers to a problem that doesn't and more importantly, shouldn't exist in the ME universe.

They would be good concepts in another game or film. But not for ME.

On whose authority? Yours? I think the people who made the game, who have a bit more insight and context into their creation than you or any one of the haters, would be more fit to say what is or isn't a good concept.

Destroy means forsaking Legion's sacrifice and/or screwing over EDI because you either want to live for your LI or just don't trust the Catalyst.

Control means turning the Reapers into a force for good at the cost of carrying the burden for all eternity.

Synthesis means equality and freedom for everyone at the cost of your own life.(It is actually the easiest choice to make)

Each has a different moral aspect attached to it.

And I was saying exactly what the Extended Cut showed about Control and Synthesis before it even came out. Because I studied the facts, studied the lore, and kept an open mind. But I got mocked for it, and the EC was sweet vindication.

[N7 Lisbeth]

someguy1231 wrote...

Suppose that  the Extended Cut and Leviathan were a part of Mass Effect 3 at release. How would you have reacted to the ending under such circumstances? 

Actually, I didn't play Mass Effect 3 until just a month ago. So, yeah, I never played the vanilla version of ME3, I've only played the Extended Cut. I'll be honest with you, I'm just as angry and depressed and heartbroken as anyone that played the vanilla game.

"Hi, I'm the Catalyst. Which colour would you like to kill all of your friends and loved ones with today?" 

I purchased Leviathan. I still haven't played most of it. Every time I boot up ME3, I end up feeling depressed about how it won't matter and quit out without having accomplished anything in the Leviathan missions.

I won't purchase any other DLCs until the endings changed. Which means no more ME3 for me. :-/