267 réponses à ce sujet

[Alex_Dur4and]

The first ending was a disapointing and insulting "E". But now it's a borderline unsatisfactory "C".

Modifié par Alex_Dur4and, 16 mars 2013 - 01:02 .

[Village_Idiot]

Insofar as what it was advertised as doing- providing "clarity and closure", I give the EC a pass. There were a few new issues thrown up (the Normandy pickup for example) but most of the issues with the vanilla ending, such as Joker's apparent cowardice and what happened to the victory fleet, were addressed. The ending choices were also clarified, even if the "not changing the endings" claim wasn't entirely true (relay destruction and consequences of Destroy were retconned.) Whilst Shepard's survival in High-EMS Destroy still isn't 100% clear and something of an ambiguous cop-out, the change in its presentation is sledgehammer-subtle allusion that takes severe cynicism to ignore.

The ending overall gets a pass for closure, but a fail for theme. All four choices remain abhorrent, two of which also remain at complete odds to previous themes of the series.

[Nicodemus]

The way I see the EC is in 2 ways:

1) As the ending of a stand alone game with no investment from previous games, it passes.. just. Let's not forget that Bioware stated that this was the "best place to start" for players who had never played ME before. To that end, it's Deus Ex all over again and the ending fits the game... just.

2) As the ending of a trilogy of games where the player has an investment from previous games, it is a resounding FAIL!

This is something that we as fans, who have invested time into the trilogy need to realise, ME3 was designed to accommodate players who had never played the game before to sell more copies. Those who were already invested in the game were an after thought and the DLC we got to a certain degree proves this. Leviathan was added to foreshadow, Omega added to finish off an ME2 storyline and the Citadel was added as a fan service. Those 3 pieces of DLC were designed for the invested player, not the new player.

If ME3 had been designed for the invested player from the start those DLCs would have been part of the core game and missing slides/apperances of war assets at the end of the game would also have been included. It would also have sold less copies.

[tanisha__unknown]

OP: Depends on what you expected of it. It was stated that the EC merely elaborates on the ending and gives additional closure, it was not supposed to change anything.

I guess that wa sachieved pretty well. I am german, when I  look at the customer reviews on Amazon, ME3 gets around three of five stars, which is pretty mediocre for a ME game.

The Amazon download version, which was only available after the release of EC gets between four and five stars.

So, neglecting my own personal experience, I guess that EC was actually a success.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Nicodemus wrote...

The way I see the EC is in 2 ways:

1) As the ending of a stand alone game with no investment from previous games, it passes.. just. Let's not forget that Bioware stated that this was the "best place to start" for players who had never played ME before. To that end, it's Deus Ex all over again and the ending fits the game... just.

2) As the ending of a trilogy of games where the player has an investment from previous games, it is a resounding FAIL!

This is something that we as fans, who have invested time into the trilogy need to realise, ME3 was designed to accommodate players who had never played the game before to sell more copies. Those who were already invested in the game were an after thought and the DLC we got to a certain degree proves this. Leviathan was added to foreshadow, Omega added to finish off an ME2 storyline and the Citadel was added as a fan service. Those 3 pieces of DLC were designed for the invested player, not the new player.

If ME3 had been designed for the invested player from the start those DLCs would have been part of the core game and missing slides/apperances of war assets at the end of the game would also have been included. It would also have sold less copies.

I agree, though I don't really think that Citadel and Leviathan would have or should have been a part of the core game. Omega was blatantly cut out of the game as a means to make money later.

[Hexley UK]

Just FYI most people for whom the EC was a fail don't bother coming here anymore.

[Kia Purity]

It's still an automatic fail because it does not actually address the real issues. Sure, explaining did help "somewhat" but the problem remains with EC is that it does not fix the sudden change in themes and that Shepard is essentially forced to die AGAIN and we, the player are left helpless to do anything. That's the problem, we can't do anything but pick a pretty color and watch slides with fun explanations.

Still doesn't feel like we won at all. More like we were caught by the enemy and forced to the ground with a gun to our head to surrender in a variety of colors.

No thanks.

[dreamgazer]

Hexley UK wrote...

Just FYI most people for whom the EC was a fail don't bother coming here anymore.

In general, most of the players who think it's either a pass or a fail no longer come here, given that it's a year later and all.

[TJBartlemus]

Pass. Barely though. Does improve what was originally released, but isn't the perfect fix I was looking for.

[MegaSovereign]

The Extended Cut was supposed to be an extended ending of the original (duh). It fixes a lot of the narrative coherence issues, but a great deal of what was wrong with the original ending is still there.

The EC was the best outcome out of a bad situation. Given what the EC creators had to work with, I think they passed.

[Reap_ii]

i give them an E for effort

[Hexley UK]

MegaSovereign wrote...

The Extended Cut was supposed to be an extended ending of the original (duh). It fixes a lot of the narrative coherence issues, but a great deal of what was wrong with the original ending is still there.

The EC was the best outcome out of a bad situation. Given what the EC creators had to work with, I think they passed.

So it passes on the basis that it made a fail ending slightly less fail....but still fail nonetheless.

Still sounds like a fail to me.

[MegaSovereign]

Hexley UK wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

The Extended Cut was supposed to be an extended ending of the original (duh). It fixes a lot of the narrative coherence issues, but a great deal of what was wrong with the original ending is still there.

The EC was the best outcome out of a bad situation. Given what the EC creators had to work with, I think they passed.

So it passes on the basis that it made a fail ending slightly less fail....but still fail nonetheless.

Still sounds like a fail to me.

It's a huge improvement from the original.

[Reap_ii]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Hexley UK wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

The Extended Cut was supposed to be an extended ending of the original (duh). It fixes a lot of the narrative coherence issues, but a great deal of what was wrong with the original ending is still there.

The EC was the best outcome out of a bad situation. Given what the EC creators had to work with, I think they passed.

So it passes on the basis that it made a fail ending slightly less fail....but still fail nonetheless.

Still sounds like a fail to me.

It's a huge improvement from the original.

i think what Mega is saying here in essence, after EC it is what has been said so many times before...a polished turd. 

[Hexley UK]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Hexley UK wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

The Extended Cut was supposed to be an extended ending of the original (duh). It fixes a lot of the narrative coherence issues, but a great deal of what was wrong with the original ending is still there.

The EC was the best outcome out of a bad situation. Given what the EC creators had to work with, I think they passed.

So it passes on the basis that it made a fail ending slightly less fail....but still fail nonetheless.

Still sounds like a fail to me.

It's a huge improvement from the original.

Maybe (personally I think it's a minor improvement which in some cases makes the ending even more stupid) but even with the "Huge improvement" it's still rubbish and therefore fail.

Modifié par Hexley UK, 16 mars 2013 - 05:07 .

[MegaSovereign]

I don't see how any of what I said is hard to interpret.

[MegaSovereign]

Hexley UK wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Hexley UK wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

The Extended Cut was supposed to be an extended ending of the original (duh). It fixes a lot of the narrative coherence issues, but a great deal of what was wrong with the original ending is still there.

The EC was the best outcome out of a bad situation. Given what the EC creators had to work with, I think they passed.

So it passes on the basis that it made a fail ending slightly less fail....but still fail nonetheless.

Still sounds like a fail to me.

It's a huge improvement from the original.

Maybe (personally I think it's a minor improvement which in some cases makes the ending even more stupid) but even with the "Huge improvement" it's still rubbish and therefore fail.

If you say so.

[spirosz]

MegaSovereign wrote...

I don't see how any of what I said is hard to interpret.

Volus, speak LOUDER. 

[dreamgazer]

MegaSovereign wrote...

I don't see how any of what I said is hard to interpret.

It's not. You just weren't negative or angsty enough, brah.

[AlanC9]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

What did the EC promise? Simple. 2 things: For us to be able to see the consequences of our choices on the galaxy, and to provide additional closure.

This probably doesn't count as a promise, but another function of the EC was to eliminate some interpretations of the original ending that Bio never intended and wanted to kill off. (As opposed to certain other interprtations that Bio never intended but didn't particularly want to kill.)

Destroy: Basically Hackett’s entire speech is vague. He doesn’t mention the Geth or EDI once. Why not? They have to die in this ending, supposedly. So why not mention them. On that note, why doesn’t he mention Shepard?

I thought the answers to these questions were pretty obvious. They didn't want Hackett dwelling on the negative stuff, so no mention of EDI and the geth. As for Shepard's fate, that's handled by the memorial and breath scenes. I'm not saying that these strategies necessarily ought to work for you, mind; that's an altogether different issue.

In fact, I remember a certain asari matriarch who suggested studying them, and she was essentially laughed at, which makes sense, considering the relays are reaper tech; the reapers wouldn’t want any organics to learn their secrets. So we can assume there has been next to no studying of relays. How would the decimated survivors be able to study and build them? A better question: how would they coordinate linking the relays, without the communication necessary to do so?

These are a bit silly. It's common knowledge that the protheans did figure out how to design relays; so much for them being Reaper secrets. As for communications, QECs don't depend on relays, so they're still working. Clusters without a working QEC are cut off until ships get there via standard FTL. If Reaper FTLs can be reverse-engineered -- and there are plenty of them lying around -- a ship can cross the galaxy in a decade. If not, it's still doable but a good deal slower, since you'll have to find discharge points and refuel from gas giants.

the crucible explodes in an explosion measured to be more powerful than several nuclear weapons

Measured how? By whom?

2. The crucible does in fact discriminate, and will only target reapers. This in turn means the Guardian was lying to you.

There's no lie; he never said that Control wouldn't discriminate.

Refuse: This is an extremely vague ending “choice”. It raises about as many questions as synthesis. The reason many people can’t really achieve consensus about this ending is because it is too vague to make conclusions about.

Wait.... people are confused about everyone and everything getting slaughtered by the Reapers in Refuse? I've seen a couple of posts where people say that maybe our cycle won, but they were desperately trying to headcanon something that they knew wasn't in the game.

We fought a battle (and lost horribly) so the next cycle could win 50000 years later? Makes no sense.

Yep. Refuse = Epic Fail. Shepard screws up, and Liara saves the next cycle. My big problem with Stargazer 2 is that they still think Shepard's a hero. OTOH, nobody ever knows that he had victory literally in his hands and threw it away.

 So, it implies they set off the device before the reapers so up at all, which obviously would not do anything useful; they would be out of range. Well, except for the Guardian.

How could they be out of range? They're at the end of a relay link, and the weapon propagates its effect through the relays, but they're out of range?

My point is, synthesis is a no win scenario. If it does not rewrite people, then Javik, Hackett, logically EDI, and many others would continue to fight the reapers.

Assuming folks want to fight Reapers for no rational reason -- I think EDI would be more rational, but I'll let you assume the others if you like -- how would they actually do it? The Reapers have no reason to fight anymore, and since they have ships that are twice as fast as Citadel ships and no bases to defend, there's simply no way to bring them to battle if they don't want to fight you.

Modifié par AlanC9, 16 mars 2013 - 05:40 .

[Ithurael]

the EC makes more problems than it does fixes.

what I was led to believe with the mass effect franchise:
Shepard --> Choices-->Consequences -->victory/defeat

what I got:
Shepard -->Catalyst -->victory
Shepard --> choice --> defeat

In the end we get retcons, bad (or confusing) writing, and Speculations. Seeing a slideshow doesn't help this. In the end nothing matters.

[Galbrant]

They wasted their time with the extended cut. Yes they actually gave us endings but they are contrived bull@#$%. None of them fit with the narrative and only added more plotholes than they fixed. I for one cannot get over that idiotic evacuation scene that scene alone especially with EDI. The Extended Cut made the endings worse... that's how bad it is.

[ruggly]

For what they had to work with, they did a pretty decent job, especially for it being free. With that said, I guess my expectations of what I wanted the ending to be are holding me back from liking it.  So it brought the endings up from absolutely horrible to absolutely meh.

Modifié par ruggly, 16 mars 2013 - 06:37 .

[Legion of 1337]

Again, I can't vote on this unless it's clarified exactly what you consider the goal of the EC to be.

If it's making it "better", then it's a pass. If it's changing the ending to something more tonally correct with less plot holes, then it's a fail.

[Raizo]

I honestly don't know how to respond to this.

On one hand the EC fixes some of the more blatant plot holes from the original ending ( how Shepard's squad mates got back the Normandy, did the alien fleets and soldiers get stranded on Earth after the Relays got destroyed, did the Normandy and its crew get off that planet they crashed on, etc ), they also made an effort to show what life would have been like after the R/B/G endings.

On the other hand the EC still falls well short of what I consider to be closure. I wanted to know what happened to each squad mate after ME3 came to an end. I wanted a better understanding of where each race stood after ME3 ( have the Salarians made peace with the Krogans or are they still but hurt about the curing of the Genophage, where do the Asari now stand now that everyone knows the were withholding protean technology in order to make themselves more advanced then the other races ). The EC still falls short of what of what a true ending to such an epic series. The ME series deserved a better ending.