214 réponses à ce sujet

[RiouHotaru]

Now, let me preface something real quick, before anyone jumps to a conclusion about my title.  I'm not saying that we should've gotten something different than the EC.  I have no doubt in my mind that we weren't going to get much anything different than what we got in the vanilla, and while the EC was "different" in that it took a lighter tone, I'm not entirely sure that was a good thing.  I felt that rather sizeable chunks of the EC were unnecessary and wastes of time and effort.  I still applaud Bioware for taking the time and effort to make it even when they had no obligation too however.

Anyway, on to the specific things I didn't like:

•  The small confirmation pieces

Now, what do I mean by "confirmation pieces"?  These were things like Hackett saying Shepard had made it up to the Citadel, or telling the Fleet that the Crucible was firing so they had to leave in order to justify the scene with Joker fleeing, or the alteration to the destruction of the Relay (and yes, the Relay is destroyed, they just changed the visuals, if you watch the Control ending, the relay is clearly in pieces and being put back together).  My issue with these was that they violated the "show, don't tell" rule.  But it's not really Bioware's fault, these pieces weren't there at the start.  They were added in later.

One could even call the ending slide-shows "confirmation pieces" because the jist of them was to assure people that the galaxy wasn't doomed, and nobody starved to death and it wasn't this permanent bleak dark age that a good chunk of the fanbase delcared it HAD to be.  The point is, the only reason these scenes existed was to tell people either "yes, you were right" or "No, you were wrong."  When anyone willing to take a look at the presented information could come to this conclusion anyway.

I realize that sounds like I'm attacking the intelligence of the fans, and maybe for some of them, I am.  Having been on the board when the s**tstorm was well underway, there were several attempts made to offer alternative explanations to the seemingly bleak and dire outcomes, conclusions drawn from the same information the doomsayers were using.  But for reasons I could never understand the "doomsayers" continued to vehemently insist that the only logical and possible outcome was the dark ones.  Why was it so difficult to believe Joker was leaving because the Crucible was firing?  Why did the destruction of the Mass Relay HAVE to equal an Arrival-style level of fallout despite the difference in the circumstances?  Why was it impossible to believe that conventional FTL wouldn't get people home (a claim made FACT by the EC Destroy ending, by the way).

While these scenes were, individually, incredibly short, it still felt largely like having to tell people what happened outright, which is something a storyteller shouldn't have to do.  To somewhat paraphrase a quote: "Don't give the audience 4, give them 2+2."  But fans asked and insisted on getting 4 instead.

• The Catalyst's Exposition Dump

This is possibly the most egregious thing.  Note that I don't count the Ending Exposition.  I'll cover that later.  The "Exposition Dump" is the dialog wheel where you basically interrogate the Catalyst about himself and the Reapers.  I remember people in the original endings complaining about having the Catalyst info-dumping on players in the last 10 minutes being in poor story-telling taste.  Which makes the EC's exposition even WORSE by comparison.

Shepard apparently, despite the urgency of the situation, magically has enough time to ask the Catalyst questions which, overall, seem to have very, very little impact on the grand scheme of things or the decision you have to make.  I can understand people wanted to know about the Catalyst, but did knowing he was an AI actually change which ending you picked?  Did knowing the Reapers were actually giant archive death machines (confirming that the intellect of any given civilization dwelled within them) actually change your stance?  The question regarding the Crucible feels the most irrelevant because you basically learn nothing you couldn't have deduced on your own, once again making it feel like an NPC is telling you something you could've known anyway.

The worst part is that the EC made people who later got Leviathan feel like the latter was just retroactive foreshadowing for the former, since the information given is largely the same.  If you were one of the few, lucky people who got to play Leviathan first, and then the EC, it feels more like confirmation of speculation, but for most everyone else it felt redundant.  Leviathan's information only served to repeat the Catalyst, which, while confirming that the Catalyst wasn't lying or being decietful, still feels pointless.  But then this happened because Bioware had to rearrange their DLC release schedule for the EC.  It would've been interesting to see what might have been if the EC hadn't been released.

Now, that's not to say the EC didn't have things I liked.  I actually liked a few things too:

• The Evacuation

Probably my favorite part of the EC overall.  Setting aside the complaints that the Evacuation made less sense (because there's been a very good theory, supported by the scene itself, that explains why Harbinger didn't shoot down the Normandy that went around, which satisfies that possible dilemma) the scene as a whole was great.  Probably one of the few "confirmation pieces" that didn't rub me the wrong way, because the farewell was so touching and emotional.  As a devout Shakarian, getting Garrus to finally say "I love you" was totally worth it.  But then I am a bit biased in that regard

• Catalyst Ending Exposition

Remember when I said I'd get to this later?  This is the portion of the confrontation with the Catalyst where he goes into more detail about what each choice entails as a whole.  The original endings, while to the point, still left some parts unanswered.  While I found the change in dialogue for Destroy rather odd (He changes his line from "all synthetics will be destroyed, including the geth" to "all synthetics will be targeted", a change I can't understand), overall the individual explanations, and Shepard's reactions to them, were great.

It's especially nice if Shepard denounces an ending.  If they denounce Destroy (by stating they'll destroy them anyway), the Catalyst points out the obvious (that you can't, you don't have the resources left to do so).  Denounce Control, and he expresses his own displeasure at the idea of being replaced (which I felt was probably the best line of the Control exposition; shows that even the Catalyst isn't entirely on board with the idea, but he has no choice in the matter anymore).  The explanation of Synthesis certainly feels a bit less bizarre than the original, which was the most vague thing ever.  Whether you feel it was appropriate for the Synthesis decision to rest solely in Shepard's hand aside, I won't deny that the EC did a much better job trying to make sense of it.

• Ending Slides

Now I know I said earlier than the ending slides could be seen as "confirmation pieces", and it's true, but that doesn't mean they were entirely a bad thing.  I won't lie and say I prefer them.  I was find with the original's vague outcome.  I could even understand it from a development standpoint.  Bioware could go anywhere they wanted because there was such a gap left behind.  It might feel unfulfilling, but then you can't continue a series on a death spot.  But, the EC slides weren't too shabby, some glorious artwork, and Hacket/EDI's dialog was rather nice as far as showing what happened.  And the memorial scene wasn't bad either, especially in high EMS Destroy (which, despite what I'm sure you here, basically says that Shepard lives.  There'd be no reason to include it otherwise).

As a whole, while I liked what the EC offered in some parts, I just generally felt like it was a placation that wasn't needed.  I realize this puts me in a likely a very small minority of people.  But I don't think that my opinion (or anyone else's opinion) isn't worthwhile just because I share an opinion that's either a popular or an unpopular one.  Overall, my only real regret with the trilogy, and ME3, is that it's come to an end, and we have to move on to different people and different parts of the MEU as a whole.  And while I relish the idea of exploring other parts of the franchise, both future or past, I'll miss the things we got, and likely won't see anytime soon again.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

It was needed. It supplied footage for modding.

[NeonFlux117]

Yes. The EC was placating. It was an attempt to polish a turd. But it's still a turd.

Somethings were really well done- squad evac scene. But the slides (that's how you end a 5 year 100 hour plus series??? with f*ckin' slides, lol) and the convo and refuse option with the catalyst just felt lazy and a slap in the face of those that didn't like BioWare's Deus ex narrative and Macguffin (Catalyst). Refuse was a direct slap in the face of the re-taker movement- you have to play OUR game to "win" the game type of thing.

It was a waste. And did not do anything for me.

Except confirm some things......

Modifié par NeonFlux117, 17 octobre 2013 - 06:11 .

[RiouHotaru]

NeonFlux117 wrote...

Yes. The EC was placating. It was an attempt to polish a turd. But it's still a turd.

Somethings were really well done- squad evac scene. But the slides (that's how you end a 5 year 100 hour plus series??? with f*ckin' slides, lol) and the convo and refuse option with the catalyst just felt lazy and a slap in the face of those that didn't like BioWare's Deus ex narrative and Macguffin (Catalyst). Refuse was a direct slap in the face of the re-taker movement- you have to play OUR game to "win" the game type of thing.

It was a waste. And did not do anything for me.

Except confirm some things......

I disagree on the turd thing.  But again, I'm apparently one of those absolutely crazy people of incredibly low taste (there were worse insults thrown around at the time) who actually liked the original endings.

And refuse?  I liked it.  You had the option of telling him 'No, I don't like this at all'.

As for whether Refuse was an insult or not, I think taking it as a personal attack is reading way too much into it.  But that's just me.

[wright1978]

Really, the evacuation stuff was by far and away the most comically bad part of the EC. I was incredulous that rather than deal with the issue they created that embarassing scene.

I'm still bitter they refused to provide any clarification & closure for live shep, reserving it solely for dead shep.Overall i always worried EC since it was going to be free would largely be a superficial tying of a red ribbon round the trainwreck of an ending & my fears were realised. I'll be grateful for it simply because they did something when they could have done nothing i suppose & that it is integral to the MEHEM mod. Without that the moving of some deckchairs around the titanic feeling would be the sole feeling i would get from the EC.

[KaiserShep]

Eh, the original ending is still an order of magnitude worse for me. Having a space opera end on a such a sour and abrupt note no matter what was a huge mistake, in my opinion.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 17 octobre 2013 - 06:18 .

[NeonFlux117]

RiouHotaru wrote...

NeonFlux117 wrote...

Yes. The EC was placating. It was an attempt to polish a turd. But it's still a turd.

Somethings were really well done- squad evac scene. But the slides (that's how you end a 5 year 100 hour plus series??? with f*ckin' slides, lol) and the convo and refuse option with the catalyst just felt lazy and a slap in the face of those that didn't like BioWare's Deus ex narrative and Macguffin (Catalyst). Refuse was a direct slap in the face of the re-taker movement- you have to play OUR game to "win" the game type of thing.

It was a waste. And did not do anything for me.

Except confirm some things......

I disagree on the turd thing.  But again, I'm apparently one of those absolutely crazy people of incredibly low taste (there were worse insults thrown around at the time) who actually liked the original endings.

And refuse?  I liked it.  You had the option of telling him 'No, I don't like this at all'.

As for whether Refuse was an insult or not, I think taking it as a personal attack is reading way too much into it.  But that's just me.

Yeah. To each their own. The EC and endings are weak to me. If they're good for you, that's cool. 

[CronoDragoon]

RiouHotaru wrote...
Anyway, on to the specific things I didn't like:[list][*] The small confirmation pieces

I prefer to think of them as caulk. These scenes fill in some gaps of logic and link the preceding and following scenes more smoothly, in my opinion. The evacuation scene counts, too. Whether or not you considered the need for these scenes as "plotholes" they serve a different purpose than the slides, in my opinion.

When anyone willing to take a look at the presented information could come to this conclusion anyway.

Disagree. I consider myself an intelligent person, but the theories that assert that the allied forces could all get home fine predicate themselves on helium and eezo deposits, the ease of circumnavigating the galactic core, the distance between Sol and say the quarian system, etc. You are claiming that in order to understand the implications of an ending a fan must either be knowledgeable of these topics or peruse forum threads and read theories which are by no means agreed upon. Thus the slides were necessary for those of us who didn't play this game for the science.

Shepard apparently, despite the urgency of the situation, magically has enough time to ask the Catalyst questions which, overall, seem to have very, very little impact on the grand scheme of things or the decision you have to make.

But they make a significant difference in how we understand Mass Effect on a meta-level. Understanding how the Catalyst was created and what went wrong situates the final confrontation for me: I now understand how the cycles were created and what they mean thematically and philosophically. This is something the original Catalyst conversation failed to convey, because the language used was too vague and impenetrable, and because it failed to situate itself in the history of Mass Effect, coming across as more of 4th Dimension being assessing what the series meant.

I find your points well-argued and thought out, but still disagree in these few respects.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 17 octobre 2013 - 06:21 .

[RiouHotaru]

StreetMagic wrote...

I like the original low EMS Destroy ending. That's pretty good. Boom! Stark, and to the point. The end.

Problem is, most of the original endings were stark and to the point. To me, it only works if you deserved it.

That's probably what I feel a lot of people didn't like: was the abrupt and somewhat jarring end the vanilla game had.  I mean, we're use to more triumphant conclusions (ME1 and 2), so to have an ending that stops on a huge question mark was definitely different.

And I won't deny I wasn't left blinking a little, but again, it didn't bother me at all.  Sometimes I wish it had bothered me though.  I actually lost friends because I wasn't furious about the endings like they were.  But that's a different story.

[Fixers0]

Fictional writers quite frequently have a tendency to use 2+2=5. After all, they are the creators and the controllers of the fictional world and can do practiclly anything with them, even contradicting seemingly basic logic.

[Skvindt]

The original endings were like watching someone walk up to a beautiful brand new Ferrari 458, bring out a sledgehammer and proceed to beat the crap out of it.  Afterwards, said individual would then slash the tires, ram a chainsaw into the engine bay, and then key it.  And then, just when you thought the horror was over, it's finished off with the person taking a leak all over the poor thing before walking off and giving you the finger (buy more DLC).

EC was like having a mechanic try and repair it, which is nice and welcome.  But at the end of the day, the damage had been done and what had been seen cannot be unseen.  You are scarred for life.

[Reorte]

RiouHotaru wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

I like the original low EMS Destroy ending. That's pretty good. Boom! Stark, and to the point. The end.

Problem is, most of the original endings were stark and to the point. To me, it only works if you deserved it.

That's probably what I feel a lot of people didn't like: was the abrupt and somewhat jarring end the vanilla game had.  I mean, we're use to more triumphant conclusions (ME1 and 2), so to have an ending that stops on a huge question mark was definitely different.

And I won't deny I wasn't left blinking a little, but again, it didn't bother me at all.  Sometimes I wish it had bothered me though.  I actually lost friends because I wasn't furious about the endings like they were.  But that's a different story.

What are you left with with the EC installed for a low EMS ending? Adding anything to that would be inappropriate; for a low EMS finish telling you "You screwed up badly" and slamming the door in your face is good. Or perhaps you should get Refuse for that, minus the speech but with the Crucible / Catalyst failing to do anything at all. A bad playthrough should really hit you hard with how much you've messed it up.

[Dubozz]

Kudos to Bioware for the efforts. I think EC did a lot of good things. For someone who is not me.

[Iakus]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

It was needed. It supplied footage for modding.

+1

[RiouHotaru]

CronoDragoon wrote...
I prefer to think of them as caulk. These scenes fill in some gaps of logic and link the preceding and following scenes more smoothly, in my opinion. The evacuation scene counts, too. Whether or not you considered the need for these scenes as "plotholes" they serve a different purpose than the slides, in my opinion.

Point taken.  Perhaps I was just frustrated by people insisting that there was no legit reason for Joker to be fleeing the scene.  I remember being part of the crowd that argued he fled because he was ordered to leave, because it made sense to leave when the Crucible fired.  I suppose I could have felt vindicated by the inclusion of a scene that confirmed my theory.

Disagree. I consider myself an intelligent person, but the theories that assert that the allied forces could all get home fine predicate themselves on helium and eezo deposits, the ease of circumnavigating the galactic core, the distance between Sol and say the quarian system, etc. You are claiming that in order to understand the implications of an ending a fan must either be knowledgeable of these topics or peruse forum threads and read theories which are by no means agreed upon. Thus the slides were necessary for those of us who didn't play this game for the science.

I'll disagree with you here as well.  I'm not knowledge on these topics either, but I believed they could make it home on conventional FTL.  The codex even makes specific mention of conventional FTL being 37 (or so) light-years a day.  While it's impossible to gauge exact distance based on the galactic map, Palaven doesn't appear so far away that the Turians couldn't take their own fleet home, for instance.  I don't feel you had to be a physics expert to arrive at the conclusion.  I won't lie, I did feel like people were ignoring presented information in favor of personal bias.

The most prevelant of this was the idea that the explosion used in the original ending for the relay meant everyone died because Arrival showed what happens when a Relay is ruptured.  But then even the Codex entry about Arrival states that it's only based on that one instance, and that one instance only occurs because a very large object collides with a relay while the relay is ACTIVE.  Admittedly, it takes a bit more work to reach the conclusion, but I didn't feel it was impossible to say that Arrival was different from the Original Endings.

But they make a significant difference in how we understand Mass Effect on a meta-level. Understanding how the Catalyst was created and what went wrong situates the final confrontation for me: I now understand how the cycles were created and what they mean thematically and philosophically. This is something the original Catalyst conversation failed to convey, because the language used was too vague and impenetrable, and because it failed to situate itself in the history of Mass Effect, coming across as more of 4th Dimension being assessing what the series meant.

Hm.  When you put it that way, you're right.  On a meta-level I found the Catalyst conversation very interesting.  But then, we could've had that information in Leviathan if Leviathan had come before the EC.  We could've concluded that the "Intelligence" and the "Catalyst" were one in and same, but since neither specifically confirms the other we'd still speculate.

But speaking strictly from the view of the Original Endings, and setting aside Leviathan since it didn't exist yet, I can see what you mean.  I just feel the exposition may have telling TOO much.  We went from incredibly vague (the original ending) to the complete other end of the exposition scale (EC).  Maybe it's just me, but it felt like TOO much information to give out at one time.

I find your points well-argued and thought out, but still disagree in these few respects.

Thank you.  I always felt worried about expressing my opinion because of how isolated my opinion likely is compared to the general fanbase on the forum board.

[RiouHotaru]

Fixers0 wrote...

Fictional writers quite frequently have a tendency to use 2+2=5. After all, they are the creators and the controllers of the fictional world and can do practiclly anything with them, even contradicting seemingly basic logic.

I'll go out on a limb here and say what happened with ME3 was that we got 2.5+2.5 and people forgot the decimal point and got 50 instead of 5.  I mean the reveal of the Catalyst didn't come as a shock to me, well not in the sense of feeling like some story-telling rule had been broken.  It was a surprisingly plot-twist, but I wasn't upset, nor did I feel it came out of left field.

I felt the hints were there that the Catalyst was more than just a static device to be plugged in.  But perhaps the hints were too subtle?  Same with the Catalyst's "organic/synthetic" argument.  Hints were there as far back as ME1, but I suppose as a theme it wasn't upfront enough for people to consider it relevant enough.

[KaiserShep]

Regarding FTL, the problem is that FTL travel in the MEU still requires conventional fuel sources to function. The eezo core reduces the mass of the vessel, but it still needs the standard thrusters for motive power. Because of that, there's no way the ships, as they are, can reach the various homeworlds without a relay. Heck the Normandy can run out of fuel just jumping from system to system in a single cluster. 

Modifié par KaiserShep, 17 octobre 2013 - 06:43 .

[RiouHotaru]

StreetMagic wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

I actually lost friends because I wasn't furious about the endings like they were.  But that's a different story.

Hmm, yeah, you probably should fix that. What happens if you disagree on more serious things like politics? Or people get drunk and flirt with your girlfriend? Does everyone start killing each other then?

There wasn't much to fix.  I got insulted and yelled at because I tried to placate them over the original endings.  I was told my opinion was an insult to their intelligence and they promptly blacklisted me.  I've not spoken to them since ME3 came out.

To be fair, if they were willing to get that upset with me because I didn't happen to share their view they weren't really good friends then were they? 

[KaiserShep]

Lol seems pretty ridiculous for someone to get all aggressive over someone liking the original ending. I'm not sure if I'd care to stay friends with someone who gets so carried away over something so petty.

[RiouHotaru]

KaiserShep wrote...

Regarding FTL, the problem is that FTL travel in the MEU still requires conventional fuel sources to function. The eezo core reduces the mass of the vessel, but it still needs the standard thrusters for motive power. Because of that, there's no way the ships, as they are, can reach the various homeworlds without a relay. Heck the Normandy can run out of fuel just jumping from system to system in a single nebula.

The problem I have with this argument is that you wind up equating a game mechanic (the fuel meter) to in-game lore, which contradicts that.  The 37 light-years a day was also listed as the cruising speed for a frigate, which could go FASTER if pushed.

If fuel concerns were so prevelant, there'd be something in the lore about it.  But then I don't know why they felt the need to include a fuel meter in ME2 to begin with, since all it amounted was a few spare minutes spent going to a depot to restock.

[Kel Riever]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

It was needed. It supplied footage for modding.

I like this human.  She gets it!

[NeonFlux117]

wow. you lost friends cuz of it???

Lame. Those people need to like, you know, get a life.

I had some friends, not many tho, kinda like the endings or don't agree with IT. But I never got upset about it.