214 réponses à ce sujet

[RandomGuy96]

AlanC9 wrote...

RandomGuy96 wrote...

Only acceptable ending: high EMS EC Destroy + pretending that the Citadel DLC takes place after it + pretending that Synthesis was just a very transparent attempt to get you to pointlessly kill yourself. That's what I do at least.

You're not alone. A lot of Destroy fans like to make up bad stuff about the other endings. Many are less honest anout it than you.

The people on Earth you've been trying to save? With something like the Citadel blowing up over Earth: Dead. 
 

Why? I suppose eventually the Citadel pieces would enter atmosphere if there aren't enough ships around to keep towing them into a higher orbit,  but they aren't all that big or moving that fast. Hard luck if a chunk lands on your hometown, but there's a lot of hard luck going around in the MEU. The planet would get along just fine.

Err, I don't "make up bad stuff" about other endings (I don't really need to), I just like to pretend that Synthesis doesn't exist in a Schrodinger's Cat kind of way because it makes no frakking sense.


...I mean, even less sense than the other two.

[KaiserShep]

StreetMagic wrote...

You don't have to make anything up to champion Destroy. Giant robots are killing people by the billions and seek your utter distinction. Don't be a ****. That's all you need to know.

edit: Well, censoring my words doesn't help. I guess you guys are out of luck on what I said.

Lets just say it doesn't need to be intellectualized. It's not a "deep" issue. Trying to turn it into one is the dumbest thing about the endings.

I guess this really only applies to people who really cannot accept the implications they feel are inherent with control and synthesis, but cannot really reconcile genocide either. But in any case, I feel the same way you do. I don't care about the catalyst's principles or motives or godly aura; I'm only concerned with killing the big bad and dancing on their 2km long graves.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 02 décembre 2013 - 12:02 .

[NeonFlux117]

I agree. It was a waste. To safe. Not brave enough, and more polishing a turd. But it's still a turd. No matter how much paint you put on it. A turds a turd.

The time and effort could have been put into another MP map pack or another single player DLC.

And yes, I am serious about that.

[KaiserShep]

Being "brave" wouldn't necessarily make it better, or more thought provoking. The end of M. Night Shyamalan's The Village is brave, but also horribly stupid.

[shodiswe]

Even if a lot of my problems with the endgame wern't adressed in the EC, the "closure" was welcome, they also fixed one of the lines between Shepard and the Catalyst.

[KaiserShep]

Which line was that again? I have only gone through the original ending once, and I can't recall all of the differences in that encounter.

[sharkboy421]

NeonFlux117 wrote...

I agree. It was a waste. To safe. Not brave enough, and more polishing a turd. But it's still a turd. No matter how much paint you put on it. A turds a turd.

The time and effort could have been put into another MP map pack or another single player DLC.

And yes, I am serious about that.

That is how I always felt about the endings.  Well rather, the originals were crap but the EC were done well enough but they still suffered from the same problem to me: they weren't Mass Effect.

As polished as the EC was, the ideas were the same and thus for me, the EC was a waste.  Though I did enjoy the LI goodbyes before the beam run.

[KaiserShep]

An extended cut can only amend the current idea, not create an alternate one.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 02 décembre 2013 - 04:00 .

[AlanC9]

RandomGuy96 wrote...

Err, I don't "make up bad stuff" about other endings (I don't really need to), I just like to pretend that Synthesis doesn't exist in a Schrodinger's Cat kind of way because it makes no frakking sense.


...I mean, even less sense than the other two.

Pretending that something didn't exist isn't the same thing as making up bad stuff about it? OK, I guess non-existence isn't technically "bad," so I stand corrected.

[Fixers0]

The extended cut was a waste, seeing as it didn't even came close to addresing the problems it was supposed to fix.

[KaiserShep]

Fixers0 wrote...

The extended cut was a waste, seeing as it didn't even came close to addresing the problems it was supposed to fix.

Which problems exactly? From what I've gathered, the list of problems people have with the ending is rather large, far beyond what something called an "Extended Cut" would ever be intended to rectify. I'm starting to suspect that people read "Extended Cut" and thought "Alternate Ending".

[Fixers0]

KaiserShep wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

The extended cut was a waste, seeing as it didn't even came close to addresing the problems it was supposed to fix.

Which problems exactly? From what I've gathered, the list of problems people have with the ending is rather large, far beyond what something called an "Extended Cut" would ever be intended to rectify. I'm starting to suspect that people read "Extended Cut" and thought "Alternate Ending".

Although it's common, a title of an object doesn't necessarily need to imply what it's content is. that being said, the word "extended" could imply anything from one aditional scene to totally new sequences.

[wright1978]

KaiserShep wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

The extended cut was a waste, seeing as it didn't even came close to addresing the problems it was supposed to fix.

Which problems exactly? From what I've gathered, the list of problems people have with the ending is rather large, far beyond what something called an "Extended Cut" would ever be intended to rectify. I'm starting to suspect that people read "Extended Cut" and thought "Alternate Ending".

Well the thing i'll never forgive about extended cut is its failure to provide proper clarification/closure for live Shep.

As you say their decision to move deckchairs on the titanic(extension) was never going to fix the trainwreck ending.

[KaiserShep]

Fixers0 wrote...
Although it's common, a title of an object doesn't necessarily need to imply what it's content is. that being said,
the word "extended" could imply anything from one aditional scene to totally new sequences.

In this case, it does. You can't call something an extended cut, but then have it be a completely new ending that totally restructures the conclusion of the game. There needs to be a clear distinction between an alternate ending and something that simply extends upon the concepts of the original product.A few retcons here and there are the extent to which they can pull this off without it becoming a totally new ending altogether.

In any case, it may not have helped everyone, but I'd chance a guess that it still helped quite a lot when it came to how they saw the endings, myself included.

wright1978 wrote...

Well the thing i'll never forgive about extended cut is its failure to provide proper clarification/closure for live Shep.

As you say their decision to move deckchairs on the titanic(extension) was never going to fix the trainwreck ending.

Yeah, I don't really find that scene particularly satisfying either. I suspect that BioWare wanted to keep the Shepard lives reveal as brief as possible with only the alternate memorial scene supplementing it to keep some kind of balance.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 02 décembre 2013 - 07:22 .

[Iakus]

KaiserShep wrote...

Yeah, I don't really find that scene particularly satisfying either. I suspect that BioWare wanted to keep the Shepard lives reveal as brief as possible with only the alternate memorial scene supplementing it to keep some kind of balance.

Not to mention getting even that much of a scene forces Shepard to slaughter synthetic life wholesale.

What, was the billions already dead not enough for this blood magic ritual?

[ShadowLordXII]

To a degree, I agree with the OP.

There's a lot of stuff in the EC that works and a lot that doesn't work or isn't needed. Overall, it did the best job that it possibly could to fix the ending considering all of the inherent restrictions that the "clarity and closure" route would entail.

Most of the changes to the ending centered on restoring the importance of Shepard and cast to the overall situation; displaying clear and explained consequences to our choices (both at the end and throughout the game) and the retcon of a few major problems with the original ending such as people acting out of character, destruction of the mass relays, everyone being stranded and starving to death, and where each of the three endings is actually the same ending, but with a different color to the explosions.

In short, the EC is good, but it couldn't fix a broken narrative foundation.

[Rasofe]

StreetMagic wrote...

iakus wrote...


What, was the billions already dead not enough for this blood magic ritual?

I'm OK with the synthetics dying choice, but that is a good way of putting it. It's how I've come to see Walters' writing tastes (at least outside smaller character storyarcs). Stacking up body count = Depth.

Nah, they just didn't want people to pick destroy. Joke is on them. And on us.
To be honest I think nobody came out winning out of the endings.

[AlanC9]

StreetMagic wrote...
I'm surprised, if that's the case. That's placing quite a lot of confidence in EDI and the Geth. Those elements are liked well enough, but they're fooling themselves if they think a lot of people love them that much. They've got a greater commodity in the player character (Shepard) and over a dozen companions besides EDI and Legion. As well as different motivations for wanting to live (romance, relaxation, the satisfaction of surviving near extinction, actually letting Shepard have a life for a change, all that good stuff). If they really betted on the majority of people commiting suicide for some robots, they must be smoking some good weed (it is Canada though, after all).

Hmmm..... unless Bio had long-term plans to continue the MEU in a Synthesis version, I don't really see why they'd bother to be particularly interested in whether or not a majority picked Synthesis. What's the difference?

I can see them wanting to make the choice hard without particularly caring how it turned out, in which case Destroy still wasn't bad enough.

Modifié par AlanC9, 02 décembre 2013 - 08:56 .

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

Hmmm..... unless Bio had long-term plans to continue the MEU in a Synthesis version, I don't really see why they'd bother to be particularly interested in whether or not a majority picked Synthesis. What's the difference?

Because it's pretty clear that Synthesis was made with the assumption that it would be the "optimal" ending.

Which is just one sign showing how badly they misread their audience.

[Den3107neo]

The Extended Cut in fact not contradict but gives more support to the The Indoctrination Theory. I stick to it before EC and I'm continuing to do so especially after watching "The Indoctrination Theory - A Documentary | Extended Cut" video https://www.youtube....?v=oeJkR683Sas. There is too much issues and holes in both original ending and EC with only The Indoctrination Theory can cover. So I really hope that EA/Bioware are done making money on speculations and will give due respect to their true fans by making final real ending that we all deserve.

[JamesFaith]

Den3107neo wrote...

The Extended Cut in fact not contradict but gives more support to the The Indoctrination Theory. I stick to it before EC and I'm continuing to do so especially after watching "The Indoctrination Theory - A Documentary | Extended Cut" video https://www.youtube....?v=oeJkR683Sas. There is too much issues and holes in both original ending and EC with only The Indoctrination Theory can cover. So I really hope that EA/Bioware are done making money on speculations and will give due respect to their true fans by making final real ending that we all deserve.

Oh, great, another "true fans" speaker and now you even have to be IT to become one of them.