981 réponses à ce sujet

[KaiserShep]

Yes, that is correct. Also, it's hard for me to grasp why it seems that people tend to quickly forget how BioWare treated their fanbase, apparently because they whipped out some shiny stuff like the EC and Citadel DLC, which didn't fix anything thematically or meritorically.

 

You say this as though BioWare just slapped together the Extended Cut like it was some kind of trivial add-on, when it actually does provide a substantial amount of content to address the outcome for each of the three main decisions. Whether or not you accept this outcome is neither here or there. The red, blue, green joke that people made of the original ending was completely undone. Let's be honest here. The people who were so thoroughly dissatisfied with the ending to the point of being hostile towards the devs would simply never be happy unless BioWare took everything from Priority: Earth onward and simply rewrote the entire sequence from top to bottom, got rid of the catalyst and completely changed the choices. What they wanted was a complete Alternate Ending, but that isn't really a realistic, or even a reasonable expectation. Changing or "fixing" a theme is not something one should expect something called an "extended cut" to do.

[Mcfly616]

Did a lot more than add content to address the 3 decisions. Coming from someone who hated the original ending.

[Iakus]

You say this as though BioWare just slapped together the Extended Cut like it was some kind of trivial add-on, when it actually does provide a substantial amount of content to address the outcome for each of the three main decisions. Whether or not you accept this outcome is neither here or there. The red, blue, green joke that people made of the original ending was completely undone. Let's be honest here. The people who were so thoroughly dissatisfied with the ending to the point of being hostile towards the devs would simply never be happy unless BioWare took everything from Priority: Earth onward and simply rewrote the entire sequence from top to bottom, got rid of the catalyst and completely changed the choices. What they wanted was a complete Alternate Ending, but that isn't really a realistic, or even a reasonable expectation. Changing or "fixing" a theme is not something one should expect something called an "extended cut" to do.

Yep, EC totally answered:

 

Why shooting a pipe will trigger an explosion that will kill all synthetic life, regardless of it's source and origin.

Why the Shepalyst in Control thinks hanging around ruling the galaxy is a good idea, even if the original Shepard doesn't

What the frak "organic energy" is and how it puts green circuitry in every life form in the galaxy.

 

Oh, and why it's so vital that Shepard has to die in virtually every outcome, despite this being a choice-based narrative.

 

That is Bioware's mistake:  Thy think people are just "confused" and refuse to accept that their ending was just plain bad

 

"There was no mistake, it still serves it's purpose" indeed.

[KaiserShep]

Oversimplifying doesn't really serve well for the discussion.

[ShadowLordXII]

Yep, EC totally answered:

 

Why shooting a pipe will trigger an explosion that will kill all synthetic life, regardless of it's source and origin.

Why the Shepalyst in Control thinks hanging around ruling the galaxy is a good idea, even if the original Shepard doesn't

What the frak "organic energy" is and how it puts green circuitry in every life form in the galaxy.

 

Oh, and why it's so vital that Shepard has to die in virtually every outcome, despite this being a choice-based narrative.

 

That is Bioware's mistake:  Thy think people are just "confused" and refuse to accept that their ending was just plain bad

 

"There was no mistake, it still serves it's purpose" indeed.

 

To be fair, the EC was somewhat doomed when BW choose the "Clarity and Closure" Route. But for what it was, the EC was good and did clear up a decent portion of plot holes and problems. (Mass Relays are heavily damaged instead of exploding; Nobody starves to death; Players see the fate of the galaxy and it's people depending on their choices; Joker doesn't desert or magically teleport your squad to his ship; and Shepard can tell the Star-Child to f#@% off though this does trigger the Reject Ending)

 

If you consider the EC nothing more than an exercise in putting a pretty bow on a stinky cake, then it is a well-made bow. The problem is the approach which BW choose, not necessarily the EC itself.

[Mcfly616]

Yep, EC totally answered:
 
Why shooting a pipe will trigger an explosion that will kill all synthetic life, regardless of it's source and origin.
Why the Shepalyst in Control thinks hanging around ruling the galaxy is a good idea, even if the original Shepard doesn't
What the frak "organic energy" is and how it puts green circuitry in every life form in the galaxy.
 
Oh, and why it's so vital that Shepard has to die in virtually every outcome, despite this being a choice-based narrative.
 
That is Bioware's mistake:  Thy think people are just "confused" and refuse to accept that their ending was just plain bad
 
"There was no mistake, it still serves it's purpose" indeed.

No, it answered much more important questions like, 'what effect did my choice have on the galaxy'. 'Where the hell were my squadmates during and after the beam run'. 'what the hell was the Catalysts motivation'. I could go on, but this has been done before.

You're once again implying that you find it to be "plain bad" just because you don't have a choice in 'living'. You can't cheat death every single time. One way or another your time card gets punched. Most of the time you don't have a say in how you go out. Shepard got to decide the fate of the entire galaxy. You don't play videogames for 'that'. Cool. Maybe try something else.

[KaiserShep]

Oh, and why it's so vital that Shepard has to die in virtually every outcome, despite this being a choice-based narrative.

Meh, "virtually every outcome" is just another way of saying some or most outcomes. I'm fine with Shepard being able to live under very strict conditions.

[Iakus]

Meh, "virtually every outcome" is just another way of saying some or most outcomes. I'm fine with Shepard being able to live under very strict conditions.

"headcanon" shouldn't be one of those conditions

[KaiserShep]

What headcanon? Shepard lives in one of the endings. Whatever I assume to be the reason why doesn't really matter.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

IMO, the EC while it cleaned up some of the mess created by the original ending, it created a new mess in the process. It was like opening a can of worms. Once you open the can, the only way to re-can them is to get a bigger can. Hence the Leviathan DLC. But that still left more plot holes. "The Intelligence still serves its purpose." Okay we get it. The Leviathans are stupid cuttlefish. They're the Darwin Grand Prize Award Winners. Then there's the Normandy scene where Shepard is abandoned to his/her fate. Wait. What? Yes, abandoned. How did the entire crew get aboard the Normandy? I'm assuming there was another shuttle that picked up the lot you left behind. And now at the most critical point of the mission - getting someone onto the Citadel via the beam, your elite crew leaves. This is a one shot deal. You miss this and the galaxy is f*****. So they take off and go on their merry way and Shepard is fine with the whole idea. Not to mention that EDI is able to troll Harbinger using the IFF from such a short distance. 

 

Well, Harby is no longer firing because the advance of all of the troops has stopped because Shepard has to get his/her waifu on board the Normandy. Harby is so moved by it he's probably shedding reaper tears watching the drama. 

 

And now with the Normandy gone, Shepard is left to face death alone... well except for Anderson who somehow manages to get to the beam unscathed. Coates calls back everyone... wait! What? Fall back and regroup? Harbinger just took off and you're regrouping? 

 

Ah Marauder Shields... the final boss of the story.

 

Then we get that inane conversation with The Illusive Man. I like the renegade version because I think the suicide is a cheap way.

 

Then we get trolled by Starbrat. Now we can argue with him to no avail. I think the GLaDOS post I put up would have been better. It made every bit of sense as the ending. Add the line if you start to the right "Do not go that direction." and have some standing bots shooting at you. "Do not do that. Do not shoot the plasma conduit. You are not being a good test subject." (flames start coming up behind you) "If you continue we will not have cake."

[KaiserShep]

If that Marauder had biotic barriers, his name would not be even half as catchy.

[Eryri]

To be fair, the EC was somewhat doomed when BW choose the "Clarity and Closure" Route. But for what it was, the EC was good and did clear up a decent portion of plot holes and problems. (Mass Relays are heavily damaged instead of exploding; Nobody starves to death; Players see the fate of the galaxy and it's people depending on their choices; Joker doesn't desert or magically teleport your squad to his ship; and Shepard can tell the Star-Child to f#@% off though this does trigger the Reject Ending)

If you consider the EC nothing more than an exercise in putting a pretty bow on a stinky cake, then it is a well-made bow. The problem is the approach which BW choose, not necessarily the EC itself.

Unfortunately the EC also introduced quite a few issues of its own. The scene where Shepard calls down a valuable asset like the Normandy from a pitched battle in orbit in 6 seconds flat just to ferry away a couple of his / her buddies, while Harbinger generously refrains from shooting at them is particularly egregious to me.

[KaiserShep]

Unfortunately the EC also introduced quite a few issues of its own. The scene where Shepard calls down a valuable asset like the Normandy from a pitched battle in orbit in 6 seconds flat just to ferry away a couple of his / her buddies, while Harbinger generously refrains from shooting at them is particularly egregious to me.

 

This kind of leaves the devs between a rock and a hard place. With Cortez potentially being dead by then, you can't have a shuttle to rendezvous with the Normandy, but you can't have have a shuttle flown by NPC #1,257 take them off-site to some unknown location either, because the latter would mean that they're simply removed from the ship. Now, if they're removed from the ship, this reduces the amount of characters you get in the memorial scene. While this might make sense, this is just going to upset some other set of fans, so you're damned either way.

[Iakus]

What headcanon? Shepard lives in one of the endings. Whatever I assume to be the reason why doesn't really matter.

 

Shepard is thoroughly destroyed in every other ending.  And in the "lives" ending we get charred armor taking a breath.  That is hardly equitable.  We have to headcanon Shepard somehow getting out of that situation alive.

[ShadowLordXII]

Unfortunately the EC also introduced quite a few issues of its own. The scene where Shepard calls down a valuable asset like the Normandy from a pitched battle in orbit in 6 seconds flat just to ferry away a couple of his / her buddies, while Harbinger generously refrains from shooting at them is particularly egregious to me.

 

Like I said, the EC mostly fixed everything that it could within the "Clarity and Closure" framework. BW would've been better off retconning Star-Child out of existence and making an entirely new ending.

[grey_wind]

This kind of leaves the devs between a rock and a hard place. With Cortez potentially being dead by then, you can't have a shuttle to rendezvous with the Normandy, but you can't have have a shuttle flown by NPC #1,257 take them off-site to some unknown location either, because the latter would mean that they're simply removed from the ship. Now, if they're removed from the ship, this reduces the amount of characters you get in the memorial scene. While this might make sense, this is just going to upset some other set of fans, so you're damned either way.

An easy fix would have been to just have the characters left injured and immobile on the ground while Shepard makes it to the beam. If Cortez is alive, he picks them up as well as any other survivors. If he isn't, then it's just a generic shuttle pilot. Whoever it is, the squadmates get transported to the Normandy for reasons (easier to swallow than the Normandy itself coming down to pick them up).

 

Granted we don't get the goodbye scene, but I'm willing to sacrifice that if it means less of a headache in regards to coherency.

[KaiserShep]

An easy fix would have been to just have the characters left injured and immobile on the ground while Shepard makes it to the beam. If Cortez is alive, he picks them up as well as any other survivors. If he isn't, then it's just a generic shuttle pilot. Whoever it is, the squadmates get transported to the Normandy for reasons (easier to swallow than the Normandy itself coming down to pick them up).

 

Granted we don't get the goodbye scene, but I'm willing to sacrifice that if it means less of a headache in regards to coherency.

 

Personally I kind of like the idea of the fate of whoever goes with you depending on whether or not Cortez is alive. I know some people would hate it (but to be honest the sadist in me would probably derive pleasure from that too).

[ImaginaryMatter]

The EC was about the best BioWare could have done in terms of polishing the ending and from that perspective it was a good DLC given what it had to work with, especially considering the time frame and limitations the developers had to work with.

 

Unfortunately the EC also introduced quite a few issues of its own. The scene where Shepard calls down a valuable asset like the Normandy from a pitched battle in orbit in 6 seconds flat, just to ferry away a couple of his / her buddies while Harbinger generously refrains from shooting at them is particularly egregious to me.

 

I think that's one example. The squadmates ending up fleeing on the Normandy was a terrible development. The time frame was an issue but the bigger problem was why the squadmates were all aboard the Normandy after a number of speeches about not retreating and everyone fighting with Shepard until the end. The pick-up scene explained how two of the squadmates made it back aboard andI think the awkwardness of the scene (why is Harbinger not firing? why are we evacuating EDI's RC body? how did the rest of the squad get aboard?), plus it's tension dissolving slowness, demonstrates why the retreating squadmates was such a bad idea in the first place. The EC didn't have much leeway on this, one way or another the squadmates had to end up on the Normandy no matter how jarring it was going to be.

[grey_wind]

Personally I kind of like the idea of the fate of whoever goes with you depending on whether or not Cortez is alive. I know some people would hate it (but to be honest the sadist in me would probably derive pleasure from that too).

Speaking of sadistic tendencies, personally I wanted the two companions you pick for the final run to simply die. Granted people would game the system on later playthroughs, but it'd be quite shocking the first time.

[Eryri]

This kind of leaves the devs between a rock and a hard place. With Cortez potentially being dead by then, you can't have a shuttle to rendezvous with the Normandy, but you can't have have a shuttle flown by NPC #1,257 take them off-site to some unknown location either, because the latter would mean that they're simply removed from the ship. Now, if they're removed from the ship, this reduces the amount of characters you get in the memorial scene. While this might make sense, this is just going to upset some other set of fans, so you're damned either way.

That is very true, to be fair. While I hate the illogical nature of that scene, a small, mushy part of me does enjoy the goodbye scene if you bring Shepard's LI on the beam run.

Funnily enough, TV tropes actually has a name for what happens when a writer tries to fill one plot hole with another. It's called a "voodoo shark" apparently - http://tvtropes.org/...ain/VoodooShark

Guess what they use as one of the examples from the world of video games to illustrate it ...

[KaiserShep]

Speaking of sadistic tendencies, personally I wanted the two companions you pick for the final run to simply die. Granted people would game the system on later playthroughs, but it'd be quite shocking the first time.

 

Poor EDI and Kaidan. They'd never stand a chance in my subsequent playthroughs.

[Eryri]

Speaking of sadistic tendencies, personally I wanted the two companions you pick for the final run to simply die. Granted people would game the system on later playthroughs, but it'd be quite shocking the first time.

I actually though that might happen on my first play though. That's why I brought EDI's disposable avatar and a suicidal Prothean.

[SwobyJ]

My FailShep will certainly 'kill' Liara and James there, on the Beam Run. EDI is going out via Vaporize Destroy, Tali on Rannoch or ME2, Garrus in ME2, Kaidan/Ashley on Virmire and Citadel Coup, and I'll have to assume Javik will off himself after all this.

[von uber]

I actually though that might happen on my first play though. That's why I brought EDI's disposable avatar and a suicidal Prothean.

 

Same here:

 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Speaking of sadistic tendencies, personally I wanted the two companions you pick for the final run to simply die. Granted people would game the system on later playthroughs, but it'd be quite shocking the first time.

 

I agree with that ideal. David moaned and stamped his feet over it once when the topic came up, since he didn't like Liara possibly dying and 'players should not be punished for bringing characters they like'. Which made it all the more desirable. I'd have been fine if the game made the squadmate deaths at that junction a fixed event. It nails in the morbid randomness of war and who it chooses as its next victims.