The extended cut fixed the flashbacks, but still can't explain how Steve got back on the Normandy
It also pretends Kelly never existed, and was not your romance. Not even a flashback. Or hell, explained if she's Reaper goo or not when the Reapers took the Citadel.
It also pretends Kelly never existed, and was not your romance.
She is in a flashback, just not in one of the 3 when Shepard chooses whatever ending. To see it, she has to be dead.
http://youtu.be/r84I3oC6CXk?t=1m15s
Or hell, explained if she's Reaper goo or not when the Reapers took the Citadel.
That can be said about everyone that's on the Citadel
Someone posted, however long ago, that all named characters on the Citadel survive.
She is in a flashback, just not in one of the 3 when Shepard chooses whatever ending. To see it, she has to be dead.
I'm sorry, but if you read the description, that was added by the person who made the video. It's not in the game. Same with Kasumi and Zaeed.
Well, to be fair, it's more specific you and players with your mind set.
I remember way back when, people were making a big deal over how many people liked the endings in their original form, and those who didn't. And those who didn't really wanted to prove how big their numbers were, and considered themselves the majority. Bioware however, didn't think so, and players thought they were in denial.
The truth is, though I'm positive many do in fact think the original endings were either "ok" or "Meh" or "clearly this isn't put together well" or "WTF just happened?" or "I don't get it?" or "%$^#%%#% you BIOWARE! Making this ending is like stealing me shoes!", the majority were most likely "I don't care about the ending. I liked the game in general".
Or "I rarely finish games period" or "I'm just here for the multiplayer" or "What's logic? I like explosions. Action mode was what I wanted all along". Or "ME3 is my first ME experience, so past choices don't matter to me".
I mean, with ME1 and ME2, you have 50% of players not even beating the game. Meaning they didn't even care about the ending in those games.
It's like Femshep. When you see the buzz online, you think Femshep is the most played character over maleshep. No contest. But then you look at the actual data, 18% play femshep, despite all the marketing.
A large group of people thinking the endings needed fixing in general was the only thing getting us the Extended Cut in the first place. But the things people wanted were all different. They wanted the same endings but wanted their choices to have more meaning, and plotholes to be fixed. They wanted an Indoctrination Ending where the current were just mind tricks. They wanted Dark Energy brought back. They wanted to beat the Reapers with ships. They wanted no Catalyst at all, and the three choices to be removed. They wanted the entire Earth mission to be redone. They wanted their own fan fiction ending to become a reality. etc.
You got to understand, when you say players, you really mean "your" kind of players. And when it comes to a fanbase, there's more the one kind. We're all different and think different things. Hell, some people prefer the endings in their original forms and don't like Extended Cut (I think they're crazy, but that's "me"). Nothing Bioware could do to please everyone. If they made you happy, they'd make me angry. If they made you angry, they make me happy. There's no middle ground.
True enough. You can't please everyone.
But after all that "we are listening" to get EC which really changes nothing except a few cosmetic cleanups, it kinda hits home that the only people they tried to please were the "it was okay but..." crowd, and anyone else they happened to net was a bonus.
I mean, given the feeback I would have expected, at the very least, a replacement for the breath scene.
True enough. You can't please everyone.
But after all that "we are listening" to get EC which really changes nothing except a few cosmetic cleanups, it kinda hits home that the only people they tried to please were the "it was okay but..." crowd, and anyone else they happened to net was a bonus.
I mean, given the feeback I would have expected, at the very least, a replacement for the breath scene.
I'm sorry, but if you read the description, that was added by the person who made the video. It's not in the game. Same with Kasumi and Zaeed.
I have had Zaeed in a flashback a couple of times. At times I've not seen flashbacks of some of the squadmates that have died in my playthroughs.
Except an emp is disruptive to all technology. Again it's the computer vs calculator thing. And then there are cyborgs with implants in their brains and nervous systems.
No, I'm not over-analyzing it. This is a choice that affects the structure of the galaxy. Why I would choose this option has to make sense. Shepard would have to know that this new Catalyst won't start the whole thing all over again. Or do something worse.
And logic goes screwy when emotions are involved. Which can screw up the data its's receiving.
Except we know the Catalyst has been fudging the data. In at least two cycles it has interfered with synthetics to create a self-fulfilling prophecy.
And if parts of an argument that justifies galactic genocide are called into question, yes it's worth questioning the whole thing.
Some I agree with: Order vs chaos, victory through sacrifice, Surviving against the odds.
Organics vs synthetics, however is a peripheral theme at best. It goes largely ignored through the trilogy, and then is only mentioned in regards to the geth.
Similarly "whatever it takes" is only shown as a possible path. I'd say the theme is more "what are you willing to pay for victory?"
No, now it's a case of you making the informal fallacy of drawing the line wanting too specific of an answer and rejecting any that aren't 'precise' enough for you. You're arguing from incredulity now.
I don't know (or care at this point) how technical you think the scenario should be. It is, and it's not going to change. Let's put it this way; the tech is so advanced that we don't have a good way to explain it. You reject that, because you want the ending to make sense in such a manner that the applied setting is invalid so you can feel good about yourself.
And yes, you absolutely are overanalyzing it. You're rejecting any argument or statement or explanation as imprecise out of the hope that you have some means of watching your hero dance over the Reapers corpses with Ashley and friends. There's no explanation that works because you don't want it to work. As I said before, how the hell should I know how the tech works? You took the risk by building the Crucible, and now you're stewing around to question what it does when absolutely no one, not even the best scientists in the galaxy, have any clue? All you're doing is demanding an answer while rejecting any that might fit. You don't want an answer so much as you want to be right. Which, you're not.
Which is why no emotions are taken in. Thought patterns? Maybe. I'm sure a sophisticated, hyper advanced intelligence with over a billion years of history and data to look over can detect the issues with emotions and thought patterns. Maybe your Shepard is psychologically broken and screwed up. Mine isn't. He's as rock solid and chill as ever. Now this is an appeal to emotion where it might not exist for a Shepard.
We don't know how or why or even if the Catalyst has been at all responsible for the data. You're being awfully presumptuous to know the context and meaning of events, technology, and the nature of the Reapers where we've been given almost no information whatsoever. So I call this point into question on relevance. You're making a formal conclusion to a very limited set of inductive answers. Nice to know you know everything. If that was the case, why couldn't you find a way to beat the Reapers conventionally?
Negative, that's not how arguments work. That's actually a fallacy fallacy; you're assuming that since a claim is argued poorly and that a fallacy exists, the entire argument of the Catalyst is wrong. Which is a fallacy.
And no, it's a pretty central theme: hell, you fighting the Reapers proves it. Not just the Geth. As well, you're incorrect in stating that order vs chaos is prominent while synthetic vs organic is not. As it's presented, the latter theme is unanimous with the former theme.
As well, whatever it takes to victory is a theme. Your question has an answer; my theme. Your answer was proven wrong by the ending. By the Reapers. Thus, by the very central theme.
You seem to think just because Bioware threw the hammer at the proverbial nail and hit something must mean they fixed it. Newsflash: all fixes are not created equal. There's fixing something and then there's fixing something PROPERLY, ADEQUATELY. That's the crux of what we're talking about. You even admit that the fixes weren't perfect or without their flaws. That's what I've been telling you since the beginning. You think the fixes are adequate. I don't think they are. And in MY mind, a bad fix is no better than not fixing something at all.
Once again, ironically, you're putting words in my mouth. I did not say the fixes were adequate. I said that they are there. It's all the more annoying that you speak for me in this way given that in the same post you mention how I specifically said they were flawed. I even made a point of mentioning how you don't have to be satisfied with something to acknowledge the facts.
You made an absolute statement, a claim, that no fixes were made in EC, period. That is factually untrue. You're now defending yourself with the argument that because the fix didn't stand up to your preferred standard that it doesn't count at all. That's fine and dandy for you, and at least now you're starting to present it as YOUR view and not THE view. Still, your original comment was clear-cut and absolute. Which is what I was correcting you on in the first place. Don't make absolute statements as if its fact when its just your personal opinion next time and maybe this bickering can be avoided all together. It's more accurate to say you're not satisfied with EC and that it didn't fix the issues you had with it - not that it didn't fix anything at all.
ME3 ending was the best ending! 
I just wish I could've seen more explosions and slow mo, that stuff is so entertaining. Also they should've had buttons for the endings, it's bit boring to slowly crawl over to the ending of your choice, too much work for modern day casual gamer.
I have had Zaeed in a flashback a couple of times. At times I've not seen flashbacks of some of the squadmates that have died in my playthroughs.
Zaeed's chilling out somewhere on a deckchair in one of the slides isn't he?
Shame we never saw what happened to Bailey and the rest on the Citadel when it was taken. I know SOMEONE said that they survived, but I would have preferred to not have to meta game to find that out.
He is.
I'm talking about the flashbacks during the epilogue showing the squadmates that have died.
He is.
I'm talking about the flashbacks during the epilogue showing the squadmates that have died.
There needed to be an update on what happened to the Queen of Omega. That's quite a big omission.
Once again, ironically, you're putting words in my mouth. I did not say the fixes were adequate. I said that they are there. It's all the more annoying that you speak for me in this way given that in the same post you mention how I specifically said they were flawed. I even made a point of mentioning how you don't have to be satisfied with something to acknowledge the facts.
You made an absolute statement, a claim, that no fixes were made in EC, period. That is factually untrue. You're now defending yourself with the argument that because the fix didn't stand up to your preferred standard that it doesn't count at all. That's fine and dandy for you, and at least now you're starting to present it as YOUR view and not THE view. Still, your original comment was clear-cut and absolute. Which is what I was correcting you on in the first place. Don't make absolute statements as if its fact when its just your personal opinion next time and maybe this bickering can be avoided all together. It's more accurate to say you're not satisfied with EC and that it didn't fix the issues you had with it - not that it didn't fix anything at all.
I never stated it my view as THE view to begin with. That was just you jumping the gun with a knee-jerk reaction.
I don't know (or care at this point) how technical you think the scenario should be. It is, and it's not going to change. Let's put it this way; the tech is so advanced that we don't have a good way to explain it. You reject that, because you want the ending to make sense in such a manner that the applied setting is invalid so you can feel good about yourself.
And yes, you absolutely are overanalyzing it. You're rejecting any argument or statement or explanation as imprecise out of the hope that you have some means of watching your hero dance over the Reapers corpses with Ashley and friends. There's no explanation that works because you don't want it to work. As I said before, how the hell should I know how the tech works? You took the risk by building the Crucible, and now you're stewing around to question what it does when absolutely no one, not even the best scientists in the galaxy, have any clue? All you're doing is demanding an answer while rejecting any that might fit. You don't want an answer so much as you want to be right. Which, you're not.
You realize "space magic" is one of the problems with the ending, right? "It's like, really advanced, so don't think about it too hard. It just works" Is a very poor way to explain an answer that comes out of nowhere. I had the same problem with the Lazarus Project
Please pay attention, Massively. I specifically gave a scenerio YOU THOUGHT WAS WORSE THAN WHAT WE GOT that I would have found perfectly acceptable because it would have made sense as a sacrifice to stop the Reapers. So stop with the "beating the Reapers with the power of HEROISM"
I reject answers given because they don't fit. I also don't solve jigsaw puzzles with hammers. I am not God (like you, apparantly) I can't just rewrite things to suite my purposes.
As well, whatever it takes to victory is a theme. Your question has an answer; my theme. Your answer was proven wrong by the ending. By the Reapers. Thus, by the very central theme.
A theme, sure. But about half the possible responses also include "There are lines we shouldn't cross" Your stone-cold True Neutral Byronic Anti-Villain (did I miss any adjectives) gets his ending, dancing over teh Reaper corpses with Miranda. But there's a whole other path to the game that, frankly got screwed. I don't care if you think they were "doing it wrong" I don't even care how you played your game. Both paths were, throughout the game considered valid up until the last few moments.
You realize "space magic" is one of the problems with the ending, right? "It's like, really advanced, so don't think about it too hard. It just works" Is a very poor way to explain an answer that comes out of nowhere. I had the same problem with the Lazarus Project
Please pay attention, Massively. I specifically gave a scenerio YOU THOUGHT WAS WORSE THAN WHAT WE GOT that I would have found perfectly acceptable because it would have made sense as a sacrifice to stop the Reapers. So stop with the "beating the Reapers with the power of HEROISM"
I reject answers given because they don't fit. I also don't solve jigsaw puzzles with hammers. I am not God (like you, apparantly) I can't just rewrite things to suite my purposes.
A theme, sure. But about half the possible responses also include "There are lines we shouldn't cross" Your stone-cold True Neutral Byronic Anti-Villain (did I miss any adjectives) gets his ending, dancing over teh Reaper corpses with Miranda. But there's a whole other path to the game that, frankly got screwed. I don't care if you think they were "doing it wrong" I don't even care how you played your game. Both paths were, throughout the game considered valid up until the last few moments.
Yes, I realize that the lack of explanation as to the technical functions for the Crucible are lacking. However, it is our onus to speculate on how it might work technologically. You refuse to do so. Maybe we can't come up with a technical answer; the game is, after all, set 170 years in the future. I can try to give explanations for concepts that may or may not be true in the course of the game, running on technology we don't yet understand. You're stating that any of the concepts are untrue on principle. That's where the fault come in. You're assuming that since they don't make sense now, they can never make sense. That's untrue. If more people thought like you did, we'd have never gone to the moon.
I noticed. You gave me a solution that you think would work better because 'at least you're not a genocidal monster'. It's not about sense, it's about making you feel good. Also, while I feel that your ending is worse than the final conclusion, I'm no less willing to enact it if the situation necessitates it.
And yes, you reject answers that don't fit. Why? Because you don't like them. You don't try to fill the blanks at all with speculative science and inferring. You want a real physical piece that wasn't made, and you want to reject any other pieces that you can make to fit for not being specific enough for your standard. And as I've been saying, it shows. Yes, I can. I will. I can make things work. You can't . Or, as I suspect, won't.
And at almost every opportunity, when presented with lines, it's shown that the ones that are crossed have the more tangible and physical benefits. Maybe your response was part of theme, but it was never the correct answer. The whole other path got screwed, because that was the only logical place for it to go. You weren't willing to be practical, or to do whatever it took. And when the situations arose where you couldn't spam the upper left option on the dialogue wheel, you got upset.
Thus, I postulate that your perspective (not the style of play) was inherently invalid.
Mainly because this game was based more on a realistic moral/ethical setting of universal and objective amorality. In which case the limited nature of your rules become very apparent and hindering.
Yes, I realize that the lack of explanation as to the technical functions for the Crucible are lacking. However, it is our onus to speculate on how it might work technologically. You refuse to do so. Maybe we can't come up with a technical answer; the game is, after all, set 170 years in the future. I can try to give explanations for concepts that may or may not be true in the course of the game, running on technology we don't yet understand. You're stating that any of the concepts are untrue on principle. That's where the fault come in. You're assuming that since they don't make sense now, they can never make sense. That's untrue. If more people thought like you did, we'd have never gone to the moon.
I noticed. You gave me a solution that you think would work better because 'at least you're not a genocidal monster'. It's not about sense, it's about making you feel good. Also, while I feel that your ending is worse than the final conclusion, I'm no less willing to enact it if the situation necessitates it.
And yes, you reject answers that don't fit. Why? Because you don't like them. You don't try to fill the blanks at all with speculative science and inferring. You want a real physical piece that wasn't made, and you want to reject any other pieces that you can make to fit for not being specific enough for your standard. And as I've been saying, it shows. Yes, I can. I will. I can make things work. You can't . Or, as I suspect, won't.
And at almost every opportunity, when presented with lines, it's shown that the ones that are crossed have the more tangible and physical benefits. Maybe your response was part of theme, but it was never the correct answer. The whole other path got screwed, because that was the only logical place for it to go. You weren't willing to be practical, or to do whatever it took. And when the situations arose where you couldn't spam the upper left option on the dialogue wheel, you got upset.
Thus, I postulate that your perspective (not the style of play) was inherently invalid.
Mainly because this game was based more on a realistic moral/ethical setting of universal and objective amorality. In which case the limited nature of your rules become very apparent and hindering.
The game can't even come up with an answer on how it might work with the 170 years in the future technology we were already told about. The space magic doesn't fit the space magic we already had!
Which leads to my next point: I reject aqnswers that don't fit because they don't fit. You think I'd feel good about trashing the technology that unites teh galaxy? Wrong. It would still be pretty sucky, but it's a suckage that fits. There's rhyme and reason to it. Being a genocidal monster because that's the arbitrary blood sacrifice Mac demanded doesn't fit, and I reject it.
And nice job attacking play styles you don't agree with. I see you going after people for doing the same thing. Nice house you got there, what kind of glass is it made of? Please put the stones down before you answer.
Oh, and no, it's not invalid. Or at least, it wasn't until about five minutes before the game ended. Crow all you want about being "in the right" it was only an arbitrary happenstance. It was blue/red video game morality. With a few instances of "Evil for the Lulz" in the red section and Lawful Stupid in the blue ssection. Otherwise both were perfectly valid options.
ME3 ending was the best ending!
Finally someone with a sense of humor. Thanks! Lmfao.
Retour en haut