214 réponses à ce sujet

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

tbh before the EC the Galaxy was wiped out because of the exploding relays and the EC changed that.

[ImaginaryMatter]

I thought it was fine except for that Normandy pick-up scene. I think I actually loathe that scene more than the endings themselves.

[sr2josh]

 

Modifié par Makai81, 01 décembre 2013 - 08:50 .

[KaiserShep]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

I thought it was fine except for that Normandy pick-up scene. I think I actually loathe that scene more than the endings themselves.

Thing is, it's no worse than having the beam run squad magically transport back to the Normandy, which is pretty much the only reason why that scene exists.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 01 décembre 2013 - 09:27 .

[Daemul]

DinoSteve wrote...

tbh before the EC the Galaxy was wiped out because of the exploding relays and the EC changed that.

No it wasn't, other wise everyone on the Normandy would have died and the planet they landed on would have been destroyed. The Relays broke apart in the original endings, they didn't have a fast moving asteroid the size of a plant thrown into them.

Btw, watch the Control ending epilogue and look at the damage status of the Mass Relay the Reapers are fixing, it's on the same level of damage the Relays suffered in the original ending, it completely broke apart. That whole thing about the Relays only bring "disabled" in the new endings is nonsense.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

Daemul wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...

tbh before the EC the Galaxy was wiped out because of the exploding relays and the EC changed that.

No it wasn't, other wise everyone on the Normandy would have died and the planet they landed on would have been destroyed. The Relays broke apart in the original endings, they didn't have a fast moving asteroid the size of a plant thrown into them.

Btw, watch the Control ending epilogue and look at the damage status of the Mass Relay the Reapers are fixing, it's on the same level of damage the Relays suffered in the original ending, it completely broke apart. That whole thing about the Relays only bring "disabled" in the new endings is nonsense.

We see in Arrival that when a relay explodes it wipes out a star system and we see in the ending to ME3 the relays exploding and then see the resulting energy wave spreading through out the different star systems. So everything that comes after that scene is bull**** because the whole galaxy has just been wiped out, they fixed that in the EC. The pre-EC ending were badly thought out, and the problem I just described is only the tip of the iceberg.

Modifié par DinoSteve, 01 décembre 2013 - 01:17 .

[wright1978]

KaiserShep wrote...

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

I thought it was fine except for that Normandy pick-up scene. I think I actually loathe that scene more than the endings themselves.

Thing is, it's no worse than having the beam run squad magically transport back to the Normandy, which is pretty much the only reason why that scene exists.

Think it is worse. Not only does it add the stupidity of the evac scene taking place itself. It couples it with retaining the notion that the rest of the squad were hiding in the normandy & too cowardly to come out  and get involved in the fight.

[KaiserShep]

But you know that more than just the two you took with you were whisked away on the Normandy somehow. Take EDI. She took that body out of the Normandy in London too, and if you pick any non-destroy ending and she was not part of the ground team, she still walks out of the ship like she was there all along. The real problem is that damnable Adam & Eve schlock that they tried to put into the original ending. It couldn't be fully removed, so they had to work around it somehow.

[angol fear]

KaiserShep wrote...
 The real problem is that damnable Adam & Eve schlock that they tried to put into the original ending. It couldn't be fully removed, so they had to work around it somehow.

The reference isn't Adam and Eve, it's the Garden of Eden.

[KaiserShep]

Eh, same myth anyway.

[angol fear]

KaiserShep wrote...

Eh, same myth anyway.

Not the same use, not the same meaning.

[KaiserShep]

It doesn't matter. It's still a hokey image.

[AlexMBrennan]

It couldn't be fully removed

And why not? They added a scene showing the Normandy take off again immediately after the crash so it becomes completely pointless.

[AlanC9]

DinoSteve wrote...

We see in Arrival that when a relay explodes it wipes out a star system and we see in the ending to ME3 the relays exploding and then see the resulting energy wave spreading through out the different star systems. So everything that comes after that scene is bull**** because the whole galaxy has just been wiped out, they fixed that in the EC. The pre-EC ending were badly thought out, and the problem I just described is only the tip of the iceberg.

This is silly. Pre-EC we see the Citadel Relay explode. It's a pretty small explosion; not even big enough to destroy the Citadel, let alone Sol system.

[AlanC9]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

It couldn't be fully removed

And why not? They added a scene showing the Normandy take off again immediately after the crash so it becomes completely pointless.

They still wanted the symbolism? Best guess, anyway.

[DeinonSlayer]

angol fear wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...
 The real problem is that damnable Adam & Eve schlock that they tried to put into the original ending. It couldn't be fully removed, so they had to work around it somehow.

The reference isn't Adam and Eve, it's the Garden of Eden.

It is if you pick Synthesis, which the original ending very clearly wanted you to do. 

[Eryri]

KaiserShep wrote...

It doesn't matter. It's still a hokey image.

Especially in the pre EC synthesis ending, with Edi and Joker's nauseating little hug. The obvious interpretation (which may or may not have been intended by Bioware, who knows) was that Edi and Joker were to be mother and father to some brave new world while stuck on Gilligan's planet. Thereby creating the horrible and positively Cronenbergian mental image of Edi cranking out a brood of cyborg babies to populate it.
No wonder they retconned that in the EC.

[AlanC9]

What's wrong with cyborg babies?

[DeinonSlayer]

Eryri wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

It doesn't matter. It's still a hokey image.

Especially in the pre EC synthesis ending, with Edi and Joker's nauseating little hug. The obvious interpretation (which may or may not have been intended by Bioware, who knows) was that Edi and Joker were to be mother and father to some brave new world while stuck on Gilligan's planet. Thereby creating the horrible and positively Cronenbergian mental image of Edi cranking out a brood of cyborg babies to populate it.
No wonder they retconned that in the EC.

I don't think their thought process went much beyond that. Gee, we've got a crew that needs two distinctly different food sources permanently stranded on an uncharted planet. We knew they never leave because we see space grandpa and The Brat there generations later. How were people supposed to reach any conclusion other than Team Dextro starving to death?

For whatever reason, they wanted to keep the "Adam & Eve on Nowheria" sequence in the EC, so they had to write around it.

[KaiserShep]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

It couldn't be fully removed

And why not? They added a scene showing the Normandy take off again immediately after the crash so it becomes completely pointless.

If the scene was removed entirely, then this is no longer an "extended cut", but rather a rewrite of the ending. Let's say they remove the crash scene entirely. Where does the Normandy go now? Anywhere other than the planet is technically an alternate ending, which is something I would've preferred, but whatever. Save for some retcons like the relays, this is all to patch up holes wherever they can, not make completely new scenarios. I'm guessing that BioWare is not keen on doing a significant rewrite of a finished product that's already in everyone's hands (and admitting greater defeat). Hell the EC as it is already stretches this quite a bit with all the content it adds, and things it alters.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 01 décembre 2013 - 04:21 .

[Rotward]

RiouHotaru wrote...

The small confirmation pieces. My issue with these was that they violated the "show, don't tell" rule. 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? 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 "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.

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. 

I'm finally taking the time to read through this whole thing.

For context, I originally played through half of the first mass effect, then became frustrated. I'd just played kotor, and I felt like mass effect was just a way for bioware to make star wars without paying royalties. Years later I watced advertisments for mass effect 3, and thought, "zombies in space, meh." Then the ****storm about me3's ending hit, and I felt I'd dodged a bullet by avoiding the series. When I heard about the EC, I was impressed that Bioware cared enough to address their mistake, and decided to give the series a second try. So, I never played the original ending, and I played Leviethann before the EC. 

In the original ending, bioware gave us 2+3, and the fans responded with 5. In this case, the reapers were just handing us victory. The catalyst could have left Shepard to die, and finished the harvest, instead of giving shepard the power to either control or kill the reapers. The whole sequence screams trap. Bioware, realizing that they wanted us to respond with 4, gave us an answer key. We might not agree with the solution, but at least we know what it's supposed to be. 

The exposition dump I see as necessary. On Vermire, the reapers were some unstoppable force of nature. In mass effect 1, I would have believed the catalyst's line about the reapers being like fire. Bioware ****ed up in mass effect 2, though. There, we spoke to Harbinger as a threat, not as a niuisance. Once the reapers were portrayed as a villain, not as a force of nature, they needed an explanation

I can see your point with the leviethan dlc, and I'm glad I played it before the ending. 

Modifié par Rotward, 01 décembre 2013 - 06:18 .

[Linkenski]

AlanC9 wrote...

AlexMBrennan wrote...

It couldn't be fully removed

And why not? They added a scene showing the Normandy take off again immediately after the crash so it becomes completely pointless.

They still wanted the symbolism? Best guess, anyway.

I'm gonna quote Mac's infamous notes here. The idea of the whole "garden of eden planet" scene was meant to show a "Brave new world". In all three endings you somehow change the shape of the universe because no matter what, it'll be free of the Reapers' scheme for control for the growth of organic civilization, and the mass relays will be gone, and in context to synthesis, the Control and Destroy options are also meant to reflect on the fact that you "didn't choose Synthesis" hence the scene feels a little emptier when EDI and Joker are no longer clinging to show their "full understanding of each other" etc.

Initially I thought it was very cheesy that they just left after crash-landing in the EC as well, but I wouldn't call the scene completely pointless. That's just the way I interpret it though.

[Linkenski]

I'm almost dead-seriously sure Mac is in favor of destroy. All interviews with him regarding the ending are all about "Players disliked that Shepard had to die" and in general he's often a little single-minded from what I can tell from interviews... and his comics.

I don't want to throw this too off-topic now, but I feel like stressing yet again that I really think Mac violated Anderson's character. He made Anderson sound incredibly americanized and one-sided. ME1 Anderson would've been like "we stop the reapers, even if it takes sacrifices, but also even if it means they can't be outright destroyed. They just need to be halted so they don't cause more destruction" whereas Mac wrote him to be very ignorant-y "Bullsh*t. We destroy them, or they destroy us" in a very one-size-fits-all kind of way. Furthermore TIM calls him out on this calling him "an old soldier stuck in his ways, only able to see the world down the barrel of a gun" Whatever happened to the fair-minded and insightful Anderson of ME1??? DREW COME BACK!

Modifié par Linkenski, 01 décembre 2013 - 07:14 .