BioWare Did Right By Us

Dennis Scimeca

New member
Mar 29, 2010
217
0
0
BioWare Did Right By Us

You don?t lose artistic integrity if you?re just trying to get your point across.

Read Full Article
 

saintdane05

New member
Aug 2, 2011
1,849
0
0
Be warned: You said something nice about EA/Bioware. Now expect a bunch of angry people to accuse you of being a whore.

At least, that would happen if you were on /v/.
 

RaNDM G

New member
Apr 28, 2009
6,044
0
0
@saintdane05: Someone will definitely link this thread to /v/ now.

As for me, I don't really care. The game sucks regardless of the ending.

[sub]/smug self-satisfaction[/sub]
 
Aug 3, 2010
185
0
0
I disagree with the notion that the EC works in absolutes (ie: fixes everything/fixes nothing) - what it does is allow emotional satisfaction (by way of the character-centric epilogues) at the expense of intellectual satisfaction (because allowing the Catalyst to elaborate doesn't change how utterly dumb that entire segment is). It's still a net gain overall, though, because it makes the latter tolerable - I still hate the Starchild and everything it represents, but that's not all there is to the ending anymore.
 

Tiamat666

Level 80 Legendary Postlord
Dec 4, 2007
1,012
0
0
I still haven't touched ME3 because I'm still waiting for the smoke to clear.

And because I'm afraid I will be very disappointed from all I've heard about the suckish ending. Maybe it's better to relish the memories of ME1 and 2 and pretend Sheperd died from a ruptured hemorrhoid on a particularly explosive toilet break.
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,596
0
0
The extended cut was better, it was far from perfect, hell it was still only passably good, but at least it didn't fill me with the same rage the original ending did.

Round of applause Bioware for taking a step in the right direction, then turn it into a sarcastic slow clap that they made a mistake of this caliber in the first place.
 

anthony87

New member
Aug 13, 2009
3,727
0
0
All I want to know is why the hell they couldn't have done all that in the first place? IF the content of the EC had been in the game originally then there wouldn't have been the fuss that there was.
 

Scars Unseen

^ ^ v v < > < > B A
May 7, 2009
3,028
0
0
I'm giving the EC ending a wavering hand. Not really quite a resounding "meh," but I certainly think there is more that should have been done. I don't think I'm alone in saying that introducing a new character - especially one that is as influential as the Catalyst - in the last 5 minutes of the game is a Bad Idea.

Now unlike some, I don't necessarily think that the Star Child needs to be taken out, especially now that he has been rewritten into a rogue AI instead of an omniscient Being. But adding some foreshadowing would be good. Even something as subtle as having the Prothean Computer refer to the Catalyst as "he" in the same discussion where it reveals that the Catalyst is the Citadel would be an improvement. Or have the Computer explain that in their search for the Catalyst, the Protheans' analysis revealed that Keeper behavior on the Citadel during their cycle indicated a higher order of reasoning than the Keepers themselves seemed capable of. Really, anything other than "O hai! I'm Zemus the Catalyst. The Reapers are my puppets, yo."

Oh, and one minor nitpick about the EC... I see that in addition to Multi-Core Shielding, we have added some serious Plot Armor to the Normandy. Or did Harbinger just decide that the ship that carries the people that have been screwing with the Reapers' plans at every turn just wasn't worth shooting at? Maybe Joker had a Red Cross painted on the hull?
 

Zagzag

New member
Sep 11, 2009
449
0
0
If I remember correctly Jennifer Hale said that she didn't do any more voice acting for the extended cut, (implying that none was done at all, since her voice is used for Shepard and the Catalyst.) This would imply that all of this content was produced for the game and then cut. If so, then why?
 
Aug 3, 2010
185
0
0
Scars Unseen said:
Oh, and one minor nitpick about the EC... I see that in addition to Multi-Core Shielding, we have added some serious Plot Armor to the Normandy. Or did Harbinger just decide that the ship that carries the people that have been screwing with the Reapers' plans at every turn just wasn't worth shooting at? Maybe Joker had a Red Cross painted on the hull?
I actually attributed that to the Normandy's stealth systems - they've said many times that the only way you could detect the ship would be if you were looking at it, and Reapers don't have "eyes"... :)
 

Scars Unseen

^ ^ v v < > < > B A
May 7, 2009
3,028
0
0
Diana Kingston-Gabai said:
Scars Unseen said:
Oh, and one minor nitpick about the EC... I see that in addition to Multi-Core Shielding, we have added some serious Plot Armor to the Normandy. Or did Harbinger just decide that the ship that carries the people that have been screwing with the Reapers' plans at every turn just wasn't worth shooting at? Maybe Joker had a Red Cross painted on the hull?
I actually attributed that to the Normandy's stealth systems - they've said many times that the only way you could detect the ship would be if you were looking at it, and Reapers don't have "eyes"... :)
The problem with that assumption is that the Reaper-created Collector ship could detect the Normandy just fine, even in stealth mode.
 

anthony87

New member
Aug 13, 2009
3,727
0
0
Scars Unseen said:
Diana Kingston-Gabai said:
Scars Unseen said:
Oh, and one minor nitpick about the EC... I see that in addition to Multi-Core Shielding, we have added some serious Plot Armor to the Normandy. Or did Harbinger just decide that the ship that carries the people that have been screwing with the Reapers' plans at every turn just wasn't worth shooting at? Maybe Joker had a Red Cross painted on the hull?
I actually attributed that to the Normandy's stealth systems - they've said many times that the only way you could detect the ship would be if you were looking at it, and Reapers don't have "eyes"... :)
The problem with that assumption is that the Reaper-created Collector ship could detect the Normandy just fine, even in stealth mode.
That was the original Normandy though. Not the one from Mass Effect 2/3.
 

Dennis Scimeca

New member
Mar 29, 2010
217
0
0
I would like to point out, yet again, that given the proclivity of life in the universe in the Milky Way alone, the glowy fuckwit's logic ends in synthetic lifeforms from another galaxy spreading across the universe and conquering all non-synthetic lifeforms since only the Milky way generated the Reapers. There is no other option. Which means no matter what you do you're screwed in the long term. Or perhaps given how long the cycle has gone on, the short term.
 
Aug 3, 2010
185
0
0
Scars Unseen said:
The problem with that assumption is that the Reaper-created Collector ship could detect the Normandy just fine, even in stealth mode.
True, but the ship wasn't piloting itself - the Collectors could have looked out any window and seen the Normandy. Reapers don't carry crew as such.
 

Scars Unseen

^ ^ v v < > < > B A
May 7, 2009
3,028
0
0
anthony87 said:
Scars Unseen said:
Diana Kingston-Gabai said:
Scars Unseen said:
Oh, and one minor nitpick about the EC... I see that in addition to Multi-Core Shielding, we have added some serious Plot Armor to the Normandy. Or did Harbinger just decide that the ship that carries the people that have been screwing with the Reapers' plans at every turn just wasn't worth shooting at? Maybe Joker had a Red Cross painted on the hull?
I actually attributed that to the Normandy's stealth systems - they've said many times that the only way you could detect the ship would be if you were looking at it, and Reapers don't have "eyes"... :)
The problem with that assumption is that the Reaper-created Collector ship could detect the Normandy just fine, even in stealth mode.
That was the original Normandy though. Not the one from Mass Effect 2/3.
Just checked the Codex entries, and while the Normandy SR2 did receive several upgrades, an improved stealth system(which was already cutting edge) was not one of them.
 

Scars Unseen

^ ^ v v < > < > B A
May 7, 2009
3,028
0
0
Diana Kingston-Gabai said:
Scars Unseen said:
The problem with that assumption is that the Reaper-created Collector ship could detect the Normandy just fine, even in stealth mode.
True, but the ship wasn't piloting itself - the Collectors could have looked out any window and seen the Normandy. Reapers don't carry crew as such.
You can't see a ship outside the window when it's not in visual range.
 
Apr 28, 2008
14,634
0
0
Scars Unseen said:
Diana Kingston-Gabai said:
Scars Unseen said:
Oh, and one minor nitpick about the EC... I see that in addition to Multi-Core Shielding, we have added some serious Plot Armor to the Normandy. Or did Harbinger just decide that the ship that carries the people that have been screwing with the Reapers' plans at every turn just wasn't worth shooting at? Maybe Joker had a Red Cross painted on the hull?
I actually attributed that to the Normandy's stealth systems - they've said many times that the only way you could detect the ship would be if you were looking at it, and Reapers don't have "eyes"... :)
The problem with that assumption is that the Reaper-created Collector ship could detect the Normandy just fine, even in stealth mode.
It's possible that the Normandy didn't have its stealth systems up when the Collector's attacked. That's the only reason I can think of, at least.
 

Scars Unseen

^ ^ v v < > < > B A
May 7, 2009
3,028
0
0
Irridium said:
Scars Unseen said:
Diana Kingston-Gabai said:
Scars Unseen said:
Oh, and one minor nitpick about the EC... I see that in addition to Multi-Core Shielding, we have added some serious Plot Armor to the Normandy. Or did Harbinger just decide that the ship that carries the people that have been screwing with the Reapers' plans at every turn just wasn't worth shooting at? Maybe Joker had a Red Cross painted on the hull?
I actually attributed that to the Normandy's stealth systems - they've said many times that the only way you could detect the ship would be if you were looking at it, and Reapers don't have "eyes"... :)
The problem with that assumption is that the Reaper-created Collector ship could detect the Normandy just fine, even in stealth mode.
It's possible that the Normandy didn't have its stealth systems up when the Collector's attacked. That's the only reason I can think of, at least.
Presley specifically says that they had stealth systems engaged.
 
Apr 28, 2008
14,634
0
0
Scars Unseen said:
Irridium said:
Scars Unseen said:
Diana Kingston-Gabai said:
Scars Unseen said:
Oh, and one minor nitpick about the EC... I see that in addition to Multi-Core Shielding, we have added some serious Plot Armor to the Normandy. Or did Harbinger just decide that the ship that carries the people that have been screwing with the Reapers' plans at every turn just wasn't worth shooting at? Maybe Joker had a Red Cross painted on the hull?
I actually attributed that to the Normandy's stealth systems - they've said many times that the only way you could detect the ship would be if you were looking at it, and Reapers don't have "eyes"... :)
The problem with that assumption is that the Reaper-created Collector ship could detect the Normandy just fine, even in stealth mode.
It's possible that the Normandy didn't have its stealth systems up when the Collector's attacked. That's the only reason I can think of, at least.
Presley specifically says that they had stealth systems engaged.
Oh. Well I don't know, then.
 

Scars Unseen

^ ^ v v < > < > B A
May 7, 2009
3,028
0
0
Irridium said:
Scars Unseen said:
Irridium said:
Scars Unseen said:
Diana Kingston-Gabai said:
Scars Unseen said:
Oh, and one minor nitpick about the EC... I see that in addition to Multi-Core Shielding, we have added some serious Plot Armor to the Normandy. Or did Harbinger just decide that the ship that carries the people that have been screwing with the Reapers' plans at every turn just wasn't worth shooting at? Maybe Joker had a Red Cross painted on the hull?
I actually attributed that to the Normandy's stealth systems - they've said many times that the only way you could detect the ship would be if you were looking at it, and Reapers don't have "eyes"... :)
The problem with that assumption is that the Reaper-created Collector ship could detect the Normandy just fine, even in stealth mode.
It's possible that the Normandy didn't have its stealth systems up when the Collector's attacked. That's the only reason I can think of, at least.
Presley specifically says that they had stealth systems engaged.
Oh. Well I don't know, then.
I'm fairly certain that the intended implication was that even the Normandy's bleeding edge stealth system wasn't good enough to fool Reaper technology.
 

WoahDan

New member
Sep 7, 2011
93
0
0
Bioware did right by us by at least attempting to fix their mess that was the ending, but they would have done even better by us if they had simply made a good ending in the first place.

For me the extended cut didnt fix any of the real problems I had with it, the problem for me was never that the Starkid wasnt explained or didnt provide closure, it was that the Starkid existed in the first place. I understand that it was their choice to do things that way and I respect that, but that doesn't mean that I don't think that that was the wrong choice to make and their work suffers as a whole from it.

Scars Unseen said:
I'm fairly certain that the intended implication was that even the Normandy's bleeding edge stealth system wasn't good enough to fool Reaper technology.
But is the SR2 ever spotted while in stealth mode? I can't remember it being. Plus in ME3 the Reapers only spot you when you use your sensors to scan for stuff, I'm pretty sure that implies that if you hadn't done that they couldn't have detected you.
 

Scars Unseen

^ ^ v v < > < > B A
May 7, 2009
3,028
0
0
WoahDan said:
Bioware did right by us by at least attempting to fix their mess that was the ending, but they would have done even better by us if they had simply made a good ending in the first place.

For me the extended cut didnt fix any of the real problems I had with it, the problem for me was never that the Starkid wasnt explained or didnt provide closure, it was that the Starkid existed in the first place. I understand that it was their choice to do things that way and I respect that, but that doesn't mean that I don't think that that was the wrong choice to make and their work suffers as a whole from it.

Scars Unseen said:
I'm fairly certain that the intended implication was that even the Normandy's bleeding edge stealth system wasn't good enough to fool Reaper technology.
But is the SR2 ever spotted while in stealth mode? I can't remember it being. Plus in ME3 the Reapers only spot you when you use your sensors to scan for stuff, I'm pretty sure that implies that if you hadn't done that they couldn't have detected you.
The SR2 uses the same stealth system as the SR1, or at least there is nothing in the game that explicitly claims an upgrade(while there are several other systems that are listed as having been upgraded). As for the scanning thing, that could be explained by one of two possibilities. It's possible(likely, in fact) that sensors are not as accurate from beyond the range of a single star system, but that active scanning necessarily produces a signal more easily detected. Alternatively, and there is evidence to back this up, Bioware sucks at maintaining consistency from game to game, or even within the same game.
 

WoahDan

New member
Sep 7, 2011
93
0
0
Scars Unseen said:
WoahDan said:
Bioware did right by us by at least attempting to fix their mess that was the ending, but they would have done even better by us if they had simply made a good ending in the first place.

For me the extended cut didnt fix any of the real problems I had with it, the problem for me was never that the Starkid wasnt explained or didnt provide closure, it was that the Starkid existed in the first place. I understand that it was their choice to do things that way and I respect that, but that doesn't mean that I don't think that that was the wrong choice to make and their work suffers as a whole from it.

Scars Unseen said:
I'm fairly certain that the intended implication was that even the Normandy's bleeding edge stealth system wasn't good enough to fool Reaper technology.
But is the SR2 ever spotted while in stealth mode? I can't remember it being. Plus in ME3 the Reapers only spot you when you use your sensors to scan for stuff, I'm pretty sure that implies that if you hadn't done that they couldn't have detected you.
The SR2 uses the same stealth system as the SR1, or at least there is nothing in the game that explicitly claims an upgrade(while there are several other systems that are listed as having been upgraded). As for the scanning thing, that could be explained by one of two possibilities. It's possible(likely, in fact) that sensors are not as accurate from beyond the range of a single star system, but that active scanning necessarily produces a signal more easily detected. Alternatively, and there is evidence to back this up, Bioware sucks at maintaining consistency from game to game, or even within the same game.
Oh, if we are going meta the actual reason is that its a completly different team that handles cutscenes rather than the gameplay/codex. Thats why the cutscenes disregard canon in its totality and always have ( Space battles at ridiculously close ranges! Krogans die after being shot once!).
 

cerebus23

New member
May 16, 2010
1,275
0
0
Tiamat666 said:
I still haven't touched ME3 because I'm still waiting for the smoke to clear.

And because I'm afraid I will be very disappointed from all I've heard about the suckish ending. Maybe it's better to relish the memories of ME1 and 2 and pretend Sheperd died from a ruptured hemorrhoid on a particularly explosive toilet break.
Still me3 is a great game excluding the ending, sitting it out is kind of silly because there is so much great game there only marred by the last 10 15 minutes of it, well if you got the ec i guess it would be 30 to 40 minutes more, then i guess that means u need to play the ec and decide for yourself if it ties things up better or not.
 

NinjaDeathSlap

Leaf on the wind
Feb 20, 2011
4,474
0
0
That one sentence, the "They did not approve." one. That alone explained so much, and yet in a way that didn't feel like a lazy cop-out, that it took away about half of the bad taste left by the original ending all by itself. It's a testament to just how much can be said in so few words, and it was such a relief to know that Bioware still get this, even if it took us a while to get it out of them.

Also, I don't think we're in any danger of having "a George Lucas of video games" just yet. Yes, I believe an artists right to stick by their decisions related to their own work must always be respected no matter how much we may not like it. However, I also believe that Bioware wouldn't have done the Extended Cut just for damage control purposes. I believe that they did want to give us the clarity and closure that we wanted, because they care about people appreciating (if not entirely agreeing) with their work, not just people continuing to pay for it. This, in my opinion, makes everything that was added in the EC just as valid an artistic choice as everything that was in the original.
 

mirasiel

New member
Jul 12, 2010
322
0
0
I'm kind of baffled that Bioware seem to be saying that they didn't understand what their own ending implied using their own lore.

I think that might explain why it ended so...poorly.
 

Innegativeion

Positively Neutral!
Feb 18, 2011
1,636
0
0
I'm happy with some of the changes they made.

Some of them were glaringly forced attempts to appease complaints. Like, the hilarious scene where harbinger patiently waits for the Normandy to rescue your squadmates.

A good deal of the many (MANY) flaws of the original ending were not addressed, such as the catalyst existing as he is (being the citadel, replacing abruptly an established antagonist, taking the shape of that one kid he couldn't possibly know about, lowering the dignity of the reapers, to list some more specific examples).

War assets still meant fuck all.

I still have several personal grievances with each of the endings, like the crucible's intended purpose remaining really obscure, the crucible's destruction wave targeting all synthetics instead of just "stuff shaped like giant crabs" for no reason, synthesis making no goddamn sense and essentially standing as "giving up to the reapers' way of thinking", and control forcing Shepard to ascend to a higher existence to beat the reapers as if the galaxy couldn't do it on its own merits, and the slap in the face that was the refusal ending.

All in all it was "eh...". I'm glad they at least spent resources on a free DLC for us, but I feel it was mostly for good PR. It may have been free, but keeping fans is still an investment opportunity.

I haven't given up on bioware, and provided they don't try to milk Shepard's story any more (IE move on to a new protagonist in a new era either past or future), I'll be more than happy to buy the next installment in the Mass Effect series.
 

Ed130 The Vanguard

(Insert witty quote here)
Sep 10, 2008
3,782
0
0
Tiamat666 said:
I still haven't touched ME3 because I'm still waiting for the smoke to clear.

And because I'm afraid I will be very disappointed from all I've heard about the suckish ending. Maybe it's better to relish the memories of ME1 and 2 and pretend Sheperd died from a ruptured hemorrhoid on a particularly explosive toilet break.
Second that, except the part about the toilet.

But it is a funny way to end the series.
 

VoidWanderer

New member
Sep 17, 2011
1,551
0
0
And this is why the creative idea of a polarizing ending needs to be treated very carefully.

One of the best examples I have seen of a polarizing ending is Infamous 2.

From what I have heard about ME3 and what I read in the article...

Message sent, just not what he wanted.

/sigh
 

Texas Joker 52

All hail the Pun Meister!
Jun 25, 2011
1,285
0
0
The Extended Cut does improve the existing endings, at least enough for my previous ire for the endings to be toned down to very mild dissatisfaction. It'll do, but going off of the quality of the rest of the game, its clear that the endings could have been much better in the first place. They shouldn't have needed an Extended Cut if they had more time, had fewer plot leaks along the way, had a better Project Lead...

I'm still not all that happy about the endings, but the improvements will have to be enough. It'll do.

... I still hate that fucking kid though.
 

gideonkain

New member
Nov 12, 2010
525
0
0
Tiamat666 said:
I still haven't touched ME3 because I'm still waiting for the smoke to clear.

And because I'm afraid I will be very disappointed from all I've heard about the suckish ending. Maybe it's better to relish the memories of ME1 and 2 and pretend Sheperd died from a ruptured hemorrhoid on a particularly explosive toilet break.
To be honest...Yes. That is your best bet. The game isn't bad, it's just not as good as ME1 or ME2 and the ending retroactively makes the whole series look like a F'n joke.
 

gideonkain

New member
Nov 12, 2010
525
0
0
The real shame is that what BioWare "fixed" are all the holes pointed out by their fanbase.

All the species in the galaxy starving to death in Earth orbit. Joker reluctantly leaving instead of cowardly retreating, and an option to say "God Child your choices are really stupid."
 

RobotDinosaur

New member
Feb 27, 2012
57
0
0
Tiamat666 said:
I still haven't touched ME3 because I'm still waiting for the smoke to clear.

And because I'm afraid I will be very disappointed from all I've heard about the suckish ending. Maybe it's better to relish the memories of ME1 and 2 and pretend Sheperd died from a ruptured hemorrhoid on a particularly explosive toilet break.
The original ending was rubbish, the EC in my opinion is satisfactory - not amazing but decent and not worth the grief it's been getting. But the first 3 acts of the game work nicely. If nothing else, you can watch up through killing TIM and the following five or so minutes, turn the game off before you talk to the annoying ghost kid, and write your pretend ending from there.
 

AbstractStream

New member
Feb 18, 2011
1,399
0
0
If only the EC had been the original ending. Not perfect at all, sure, but at least I wouldn't have the bad taste in my mouth the original left.

Zagzag said:
If I remember correctly Jennifer Hale said that she didn't do any more voice acting for the extended cut, (implying that none was done at all, since her voice is used for Shepard and the Catalyst.) This would imply that all of this content was produced for the game and then cut. If so, then why?
I've been really wondering about this. Maybe at the time of Jen's interview she didn't record any new lines, but then they brought her in later. Maybe.
 

RobotDinosaur

New member
Feb 27, 2012
57
0
0
Scars Unseen said:
WoahDan said:
Bioware did right by us by at least attempting to fix their mess that was the ending, but they would have done even better by us if they had simply made a good ending in the first place.

For me the extended cut didnt fix any of the real problems I had with it, the problem for me was never that the Starkid wasnt explained or didnt provide closure, it was that the Starkid existed in the first place. I understand that it was their choice to do things that way and I respect that, but that doesn't mean that I don't think that that was the wrong choice to make and their work suffers as a whole from it.

Scars Unseen said:
I'm fairly certain that the intended implication was that even the Normandy's bleeding edge stealth system wasn't good enough to fool Reaper technology.
But is the SR2 ever spotted while in stealth mode? I can't remember it being. Plus in ME3 the Reapers only spot you when you use your sensors to scan for stuff, I'm pretty sure that implies that if you hadn't done that they couldn't have detected you.
The SR2 uses the same stealth system as the SR1, or at least there is nothing in the game that explicitly claims an upgrade(while there are several other systems that are listed as having been upgraded). As for the scanning thing, that could be explained by one of two possibilities. It's possible(likely, in fact) that sensors are not as accurate from beyond the range of a single star system, but that active scanning necessarily produces a signal more easily detected. Alternatively, and there is evidence to back this up, Bioware sucks at maintaining consistency from game to game, or even within the same game.
Another possible explanation: Harbinger had a lock and was about to blow the Normandy away but was so moved by your last goodbyes to your LI that it held its fire. Because Harbinger is a merciless, unfeeling killing machine, but it's not a complete monster.
 

ShinobiJedi42

New member
May 7, 2012
79
0
0
I personally chose Control. For me, the sacrifice seemed like the natural evolution of my Shepard. However, a friend of mine brought up a good point. Control brings the entire galaxy into a totalitarian dictatorship. Shepard has the entire Reaper force at his/her disposal and if anyone steps out of line, Shepard can just send the ENTIRE Reaper fleet to keep them in check. Shepard doesn't like corrupt mercenaries? He/She can just send the fleet to destroy them. It posits an interesting moral dilemma. Was putting all beings in the galaxy into a perpetual dictatorship truly the Paragon choice? It's an interesting thing to consider.
 

Agayek

Ravenous Gormandizer
Oct 23, 2008
5,178
0
0
Diana Kingston-Gabai said:
I disagree with the notion that the EC works in absolutes (ie: fixes everything/fixes nothing) - what it does is allow emotional satisfaction (by way of the character-centric epilogues) at the expense of intellectual satisfaction (because allowing the Catalyst to elaborate doesn't change how utterly dumb that entire segment is). It's still a net gain overall, though, because it makes the latter tolerable - I still hate the Starchild and everything it represents, but that's not all there is to the ending anymore.
This. 100% this. The EC endings are still based on an incredibly flawed and stupid base premise, but there's a great deal of resolution with the characters and whatnot that the players are invested in, which makes it far easier to forgive the fact that it's completely nonsensical.

There's a marked improvement in the new endings, and it really is a good attempt (probably the best we could get while still sticking with the Catalyst), but the new endings still aren't good. It's a polished turd, little shinier, definitely less abhorrent, but still a turd.
 

Scars Unseen

^ ^ v v < > < > B A
May 7, 2009
3,028
0
0
One thing I hadn't thought of before... With the new changes to the Catalyst's dialogue, it may be possible to save the Geth and EDI in the destroy ending. He specifically says that the technology they rely on will be damaged, but that the survivors will have no problem repairing it. This should mean that they could "reboot" EDI and the Geth if so inclined. I mean, the entire reason that the synthetics are getting wiped out in the first place is because the energy doesn't discriminate, so by the same token, reactivating synthetics should be only slightly more difficult than repairing starships and the like. That might explain why EDI isn't listed among the people that died at the end(as would typical Bioware carelessness).

Just a thought that occurred to me.
 

Hat Man

New member
Nov 18, 2009
94
0
0
I might have liked the extended cut endings better if they were the endings I had when I first played the game, but I didn't.

The EC endings were tainted by the original endings. The only way to work around that would be to either completely scrap the old endings, or to have not released such horrible endings in the first place.
 

NinjaDeathSlap

Leaf on the wind
Feb 20, 2011
4,474
0
0
Scars Unseen said:
WoahDan said:
Bioware did right by us by at least attempting to fix their mess that was the ending, but they would have done even better by us if they had simply made a good ending in the first place.

For me the extended cut didnt fix any of the real problems I had with it, the problem for me was never that the Starkid wasnt explained or didnt provide closure, it was that the Starkid existed in the first place. I understand that it was their choice to do things that way and I respect that, but that doesn't mean that I don't think that that was the wrong choice to make and their work suffers as a whole from it.

Scars Unseen said:
I'm fairly certain that the intended implication was that even the Normandy's bleeding edge stealth system wasn't good enough to fool Reaper technology.
But is the SR2 ever spotted while in stealth mode? I can't remember it being. Plus in ME3 the Reapers only spot you when you use your sensors to scan for stuff, I'm pretty sure that implies that if you hadn't done that they couldn't have detected you.
The SR2 uses the same stealth system as the SR1, or at least there is nothing in the game that explicitly claims an upgrade(while there are several other systems that are listed as having been upgraded). As for the scanning thing, that could be explained by one of two possibilities. It's possible(likely, in fact) that sensors are not as accurate from beyond the range of a single star system, but that active scanning necessarily produces a signal more easily detected. Alternatively, and there is evidence to back this up, Bioware sucks at maintaining consistency from game to game, or even within the same game.
Another possible explanation is that Harbinger just doesn't prioritise Shepard or the Normandy as targets at that time. His main objective is to guard the beam, and while you are evacuating you wounded team you aren't at that moment trying to get to the beam, while there are still several single units that are and thus need to be dealt with first. Just because he's not firing at Shep or the Normandy doesn't mean he's stopped firing altogether.
 

Scars Unseen

^ ^ v v < > < > B A
May 7, 2009
3,028
0
0
NinjaDeathSlap said:
Scars Unseen said:
WoahDan said:
Bioware did right by us by at least attempting to fix their mess that was the ending, but they would have done even better by us if they had simply made a good ending in the first place.

For me the extended cut didnt fix any of the real problems I had with it, the problem for me was never that the Starkid wasnt explained or didnt provide closure, it was that the Starkid existed in the first place. I understand that it was their choice to do things that way and I respect that, but that doesn't mean that I don't think that that was the wrong choice to make and their work suffers as a whole from it.

Scars Unseen said:
I'm fairly certain that the intended implication was that even the Normandy's bleeding edge stealth system wasn't good enough to fool Reaper technology.
But is the SR2 ever spotted while in stealth mode? I can't remember it being. Plus in ME3 the Reapers only spot you when you use your sensors to scan for stuff, I'm pretty sure that implies that if you hadn't done that they couldn't have detected you.
The SR2 uses the same stealth system as the SR1, or at least there is nothing in the game that explicitly claims an upgrade(while there are several other systems that are listed as having been upgraded). As for the scanning thing, that could be explained by one of two possibilities. It's possible(likely, in fact) that sensors are not as accurate from beyond the range of a single star system, but that active scanning necessarily produces a signal more easily detected. Alternatively, and there is evidence to back this up, Bioware sucks at maintaining consistency from game to game, or even within the same game.
Another possible explanation is that Harbinger just doesn't prioritise Shepard or the Normandy as targets at that time. His main objective is to guard the beam, and while you are evacuating you wounded team you aren't at that moment trying to get to the beam, while there are still several single units that are and thus need to be dealt with first. Just because he's not firing at Shep or the Normandy doesn't mean he's stopped firing altogether.
That's a pretty weak explanation(and therefore perfectly within reason for an BiowarEA game). Normandy has weaponry and targeting systems that are sufficient to at least distract Harbinger enough for someone to slip by, which is why the Reaper forces had been destroying or crippling every other vehicle that came close. Aside from that, if there was a single ship that should be prioritized by the Reapers, it would be the Normandy. That ship houses the only people to enjoy repeated success against the Reapers both before the war and throughout it. The ship is grounded and boarding personnel; the shields are down. There would be no easier time to take out Shepard and crew than right then.
 

Sprong

New member
Nov 17, 2009
54
0
0
Scars Unseen said:
... That might explain why EDI isn't listed among the people that died at the end(as would typical Bioware carelessness).
Alas, I just watched the destroy ending - EDI is on the memorial list of the dead, in the right-hand column. I noticed because her name is so much shorter than all the others.
 

Scars Unseen

^ ^ v v < > < > B A
May 7, 2009
3,028
0
0
Sprong said:
Scars Unseen said:
... That might explain why EDI isn't listed among the people that died at the end(as would typical Bioware carelessness).
Alas, I just watched the destroy ending - EDI is on the memorial list of the dead, in the right-hand column. I noticed because her name is so much shorter than all the others.
Ah... missed that then. Thanks for the correction.
 

aaron552

New member
Jun 11, 2008
193
0
0
Scars Unseen said:
anthony87 said:
Scars Unseen said:
Diana Kingston-Gabai said:
Scars Unseen said:
Oh, and one minor nitpick about the EC... I see that in addition to Multi-Core Shielding, we have added some serious Plot Armor to the Normandy. Or did Harbinger just decide that the ship that carries the people that have been screwing with the Reapers' plans at every turn just wasn't worth shooting at? Maybe Joker had a Red Cross painted on the hull?
I actually attributed that to the Normandy's stealth systems - they've said many times that the only way you could detect the ship would be if you were looking at it, and Reapers don't have "eyes"... :)
The problem with that assumption is that the Reaper-created Collector ship could detect the Normandy just fine, even in stealth mode.
That was the original Normandy though. Not the one from Mass Effect 2/3.
Just checked the Codex entries, and while the Normandy SR2 did receive several upgrades, an improved stealth system(which was already cutting edge) was not one of them.
If you talk to Engineer Adams in ME3, he mentions that the stealth system was improved, notably, the Normandy SR2 can shift out of FTL without any emissions.
 

The Lunatic

Princess
Jun 3, 2010
2,291
0
0
Scars Unseen said:
Oh, and one minor nitpick about the EC... I see that in addition to Multi-Core Shielding, we have added some serious Plot Armor to the Normandy. Or did Harbinger just decide that the ship that carries the people that have been screwing with the Reapers' plans at every turn just wasn't worth shooting at? Maybe Joker had a Red Cross painted on the hull?
Reaper IFF.

You collected it during ME2.

Reapers think the Normandy is a Reaper ship, apparently.
 

Fr]anc[is

New member
May 13, 2010
1,893
0
0
Almost missed this thanks to the new layout. Yes it is a definite improvement and I give them credit. But Bioware is still circling the drain. Chobot is still there, that Cerberus ninja dude is still there, the gambling based multiplayer is still there. The quality of their games just dropped like a rock. I paid $60 for DA2 based on this sites review, and have never felt more ripped off. Not making that mistake again. Call me when ME3 is in the bargain bin.
 

The Heik

King of the Nael
Oct 12, 2008
1,568
0
0
Dennis Scimeca said:
BioWare Did Right By Us

You don?t lose artistic integrity if you?re just trying to get your point across.

Read Full Article
I disagree with your article Mr. Scimeca.

The Extended Cut DLC was not Bioware doing right by the fans. If this was the case, then Bioware would have put out a formal apology from the get go. This did not happen. They acted all defensive, saying that we missed the point (though we very clearly didn't) and that they had artistic right (which I can and have called bullshit on).

No the EC was made to appease the fans. It's damage control. They really don't care about what we think, they just want to ensure that their company isn't run into the ground by this most inglorious of screw ups. If they had cared about us, then the ending would have been redone from the ground up. It hasn't. All they've done is elaborate on the things that they've already established in the original version, doing as little effort to make the fans stop complaining. And while it is appreciable to finally see the effects of our character's actions, those effects are still based upon the same fundamentally flawed premise of the singularity.

Now that the EC is out my issue with this idea is threefold. It used to be only twofold, but the EC actually managed to add another whole problem to the Singularity premise (see point #2 for that one).

First is the fact that the singularity premise is a paradox. Had it occurred, then it is reasonable to think that the Reapers would never have been created seeing as the Synthetics are supposedly so superior to organics, and as such would have won before the Reapers could have been created to stop them. But the Reapers do exist, so the Singularity never truly occurred. This means that the Reaper cycle, the mass genocide that the eons have wrought, was done over an academic notion. Do you have any idea how much that trivializes this whole sordid affair? Billions upon billions of sentient lives have fought and died over effectively nothing, all because some twits a few million years ago could keep their damn AI in check.

Second is the fact that the Reapers shouldn't have been able to defeat their creators. Reapers are not easy to build. They require a lot of time of resources (people) to create (as was shown in ME2's main plot), and I am damn sure the these precursors would have noticed if millions of their people were being kidnapped and enslaved long before the Reaper force was large or mature enough to face them. And unfortunately the Reapers wouldn't be able to use their usual technological advantage in this case as their opponents would have the very same technological prowess, with the added advantage of being far more numerous from the onset of the confrontation. The Reapers simply would not have won under those conditions.

Third and finally is the simple fact that the Reapers may have actually become the very thing they supposedly are protecting organics against. Think about it. The Reapers are an advanced synthetic-based organization led by artificial intelligence that seeks to (effectively) kill all sentient organic species. That makes their whole endeavor a self-fulfilling prophecy, making the Catalyst's efforts a complete and utter failure. At that point the Reapers stop being a threat and become a tragic joke. And if the primary antagonist in a serious narrative is seen as a joke, then something has gone horrendously wrong and the developer NEEDS to fix it, not simply try and hide it behind some pretty pictures.

So yes, the Extended Cut DLC may have rectified some of the more minor issues with Mass Effect 3's ending, but the underlying problem is still there. This ending does not work within it's own core ideals, and that makes the whole Mass Effect series a failure, even just as a simple idea. And that is really the biggest disappointment with this series. They had almost succeed in reaching the stars with their creation, only to fail because they couldn't see the flaws in their own foundation.
 

Rack

New member
Jan 18, 2008
1,379
0
0
cerebus23 said:
Still me3 is a great game excluding the ending, sitting it out is kind of silly because there is so much great game there only marred by the last 10 15 minutes of it, well if you got the ec i guess it would be 30 to 40 minutes more, then i guess that means u need to play the ec and decide for yourself if it ties things up better or not.
It really really isn't. It's a stodgy mess of terrible writing, nonsensical plot holes and more Deus ex machina than a whole pantheon of gods should be able to handle. If you do try it though I reckon you need to take a whole bunch of anti-depressants for every scene Cerberus appear in and just before as you enter the ship that signals the end of the game, or at least just before you go up the elevator just quit out and watch the refusal ending on youtube. If you really feel like you deserve a happy ending watch destroy but be prepared for another volley of idiotic nonsense.
 

LTK_70

New member
Aug 28, 2009
598
0
0
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought the motivation of the Reapers was perfectly explained by the fact that they just got really stupid orders from their really stupid creators.
 

Dennis Scimeca

New member
Mar 29, 2010
217
0
0
Zagzag said:
If I remember correctly Jennifer Hale said that she didn't do any more voice acting for the extended cut, (implying that none was done at all, since her voice is used for Shepard and the Catalyst.) This would imply that all of this content was produced for the game and then cut. If so, then why?
what i heard was that she mentioned she wasnt contected for voiceacting. but after she made the statement voice actors were called back. although i suspect you may be partially right in that some cut content was added back in.

they fixed it enough for me to ignore the rest of the plotholes.

the only question its raised for me is that if the EC explains what the writers originally intended, how the hell were we meant to guess that from the original ending?
 

NinjaDeathSlap

Leaf on the wind
Feb 20, 2011
4,474
0
0
Scars Unseen said:
NinjaDeathSlap said:
Scars Unseen said:
WoahDan said:
Bioware did right by us by at least attempting to fix their mess that was the ending, but they would have done even better by us if they had simply made a good ending in the first place.

For me the extended cut didnt fix any of the real problems I had with it, the problem for me was never that the Starkid wasnt explained or didnt provide closure, it was that the Starkid existed in the first place. I understand that it was their choice to do things that way and I respect that, but that doesn't mean that I don't think that that was the wrong choice to make and their work suffers as a whole from it.

Scars Unseen said:
I'm fairly certain that the intended implication was that even the Normandy's bleeding edge stealth system wasn't good enough to fool Reaper technology.
But is the SR2 ever spotted while in stealth mode? I can't remember it being. Plus in ME3 the Reapers only spot you when you use your sensors to scan for stuff, I'm pretty sure that implies that if you hadn't done that they couldn't have detected you.
The SR2 uses the same stealth system as the SR1, or at least there is nothing in the game that explicitly claims an upgrade(while there are several other systems that are listed as having been upgraded). As for the scanning thing, that could be explained by one of two possibilities. It's possible(likely, in fact) that sensors are not as accurate from beyond the range of a single star system, but that active scanning necessarily produces a signal more easily detected. Alternatively, and there is evidence to back this up, Bioware sucks at maintaining consistency from game to game, or even within the same game.
Another possible explanation is that Harbinger just doesn't prioritise Shepard or the Normandy as targets at that time. His main objective is to guard the beam, and while you are evacuating you wounded team you aren't at that moment trying to get to the beam, while there are still several single units that are and thus need to be dealt with first. Just because he's not firing at Shep or the Normandy doesn't mean he's stopped firing altogether.
That's a pretty weak explanation(and therefore perfectly within reason for an BiowarEA game). Normandy has weaponry and targeting systems that are sufficient to at least distract Harbinger enough for someone to slip by, which is why the Reaper forces had been destroying or crippling every other vehicle that came close. Aside from that, if there was a single ship that should be prioritized by the Reapers, it would be the Normandy. That ship houses the only people to enjoy repeated success against the Reapers both before the war and throughout it. The ship is grounded and boarding personnel; the shields are down. There would be no easier time to take out Shepard and crew than right then.
If, however, that would allow just one other soldier to get to the beam under Harbinger's nose, then that would be a failure in his eyes. He may well have a personal vendetta against Shepard and the crew of the Normandy, but he's still a Reaper. His purpose is to enact and preserve the cycle no matter what, which makes anyone actively trying to get to the Citadel to activate the Crucible, no matter how small or insignificant they might have been to him before, priority targets over even the Normandy.

Although yes, the meta explanation is basically plot armour. However it's not like there's absolutely no way it can be explained within the context of the game.
 

TsunamiWombat

New member
Sep 6, 2008
5,870
0
0
Stop telling me I'm wrong because my opinion is different from yours. Stop harping on this. Every goddamn mainstream "gaming news" site dog piled on us then, and they're dog piling on us now.

That ending was terrible. Full stop. It ruined the game, full stop. And Bioware made a dogs breakfast of the whole affair by demeaning and offending it's outraged community. FULL. STOP. The arguments have been made innumerable times and in innumerable places. I'm too damned tired to go back into it.
 

Griffolion

New member
Aug 18, 2009
2,207
0
0
Tiamat666 said:
I still haven't touched ME3 because I'm still waiting for the smoke to clear.

And because I'm afraid I will be very disappointed from all I've heard about the suckish ending. Maybe it's better to relish the memories of ME1 and 2 and pretend Sheperd died from a ruptured hemorrhoid on a particularly explosive toilet break.
As much as people will say to the contrary, the ending does not invalidate the previous how-ever-many hours of fun you had previously. I'd say now is the time to play it, since you'll get to experience the EC without having to go through the original ending first like many others did.

I personally am just glad Garrus didn't die.
 

Scars Unseen

^ ^ v v < > < > B A
May 7, 2009
3,028
0
0
TsunamiWombat said:
Stop telling me I'm wrong because my opinion is different from yours. Stop harping on this. Every goddamn mainstream "gaming news" site dog piled on us then, and they're dog piling on us now.

That ending was terrible. Full stop. It ruined the game, full stop. And Bioware made a dogs breakfast of the whole affair by demeaning and offending it's outraged community. FULL. STOP. The arguments have been made innumerable times and in innumerable places. I'm too damned tired to go back into it.
Your opinion does not invalidate his opinion. Complete Cessation of Movement.
 

Crimsane

New member
Apr 11, 2009
914
0
0
The best ending is still alt f4ing at the end of the conversation with Anderson. Most everything beyond that point is still terribad, 'cept Zaeed being boss as always.
 

TsunamiWombat

New member
Sep 6, 2008
5,870
0
0
Scars Unseen said:
TsunamiWombat said:
Stop telling me I'm wrong because my opinion is different from yours. Stop harping on this. Every goddamn mainstream "gaming news" site dog piled on us then, and they're dog piling on us now.

That ending was terrible. Full stop. It ruined the game, full stop. And Bioware made a dogs breakfast of the whole affair by demeaning and offending it's outraged community. FULL. STOP. The arguments have been made innumerable times and in innumerable places. I'm too damned tired to go back into it.
Your opinion does not invalidate his opinion. Complete Cessation of Movement.
Exactly. Stalemate. -These articles are pointless-.
 

Redingold

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Mar 28, 2009
1,641
0
0
Scars Unseen said:
WoahDan said:
Bioware did right by us by at least attempting to fix their mess that was the ending, but they would have done even better by us if they had simply made a good ending in the first place.

For me the extended cut didnt fix any of the real problems I had with it, the problem for me was never that the Starkid wasnt explained or didnt provide closure, it was that the Starkid existed in the first place. I understand that it was their choice to do things that way and I respect that, but that doesn't mean that I don't think that that was the wrong choice to make and their work suffers as a whole from it.

Scars Unseen said:
I'm fairly certain that the intended implication was that even the Normandy's bleeding edge stealth system wasn't good enough to fool Reaper technology.
But is the SR2 ever spotted while in stealth mode? I can't remember it being. Plus in ME3 the Reapers only spot you when you use your sensors to scan for stuff, I'm pretty sure that implies that if you hadn't done that they couldn't have detected you.
The SR2 uses the same stealth system as the SR1, or at least there is nothing in the game that explicitly claims an upgrade(while there are several other systems that are listed as having been upgraded). As for the scanning thing, that could be explained by one of two possibilities. It's possible(likely, in fact) that sensors are not as accurate from beyond the range of a single star system, but that active scanning necessarily produces a signal more easily detected. Alternatively, and there is evidence to back this up, Bioware sucks at maintaining consistency from game to game, or even within the same game.
I could've sworn that Adams said something about the IES having been upgraded to store higher wavelengths of radiation, and being able to store them for longer.

Anyway, there was a fan-made epilogue creator floating around a while back. I say this does a rather better job than the Extended Cut, though the best of both would of course be nice.

http://shannon.users.sonic.net/masseffect/
 

rcs619

New member
Mar 26, 2011
627
0
0
The destroy ending would likely be the canon one if/when they continue the franchise.

Something I noticed, and I wonder if I might be over-analyzing here or not, is that in the destroy ending, they never address EDI, and the geth at all. You'd think the complete destruction of an entire species would be worth a mention by Admiral Hackett. You'd think that if EDI were killed, not only would the Normandy become more difficult to fly, but there'd at least be some hint at Joker mourning.

Considering that Shepard survived with all of of that cyber-stuff hooked into her, and that there's no mention of the geth or EDI being destroyed... I think it's very likely that the Catalyst was full of shit, and that it was only saying those things to try and save itself from complete destruction.

Either way, it would be nice for the geth to survive the destroy ending :) They still need to help the Quarians get out of those suits and such.
 

Atlas13

New member
Jan 4, 2011
64
0
0
I would have preferred Karpyshyn's ending to be honest, it just sounds so much better than what we have now.
The Dark Energy was a force that was going to consume everything. According to Karpyshyn, "The Reapers as a whole were 'nations' of people who had fused together in the most horrific way possible to help find a way to stop the spread of the Dark Energy. The real reason for the Human Reaper was supposed to be the Reapers saving throw because they had run out of time. Humanity in Mass Effect is supposedly unique because of its genetic diversity and represented the universe's best chance at stopping Dark Energy's spread."

The original choice was between killing the Reapers and trying to find a way to stop the Dark Energy threat with what little time was left before it consumed the galaxy, or, "Sacrifice humanity, allowing them to be horrifically processed in hopes that the end result will justify the means."
 

RobotDinosaur

New member
Feb 27, 2012
57
0
0
Atlas13 said:
I would have preferred Karpyshyn's ending to be honest, it just sounds so much better than what we have now.
The Dark Energy was a force that was going to consume everything. According to Karpyshyn, "The Reapers as a whole were 'nations' of people who had fused together in the most horrific way possible to help find a way to stop the spread of the Dark Energy. The real reason for the Human Reaper was supposed to be the Reapers saving throw because they had run out of time. Humanity in Mass Effect is supposedly unique because of its genetic diversity and represented the universe's best chance at stopping Dark Energy's spread."

The original choice was between killing the Reapers and trying to find a way to stop the Dark Energy threat with what little time was left before it consumed the galaxy, or, "Sacrifice humanity, allowing them to be horrifically processed in hopes that the end result will justify the means."
I like the Dark Energy plot as well, but the big issue is that it doesn't end Shepard's story - you'd really need a Mass Effect 4 now to see how the dark energy stuff gets sorted out, and they wanted to end Shepard's story with ME3. It's not a good ending for a trilogy, but at the same time doesn't seem to leave enough left for a very good ME4.
 

Candidus

New member
Dec 17, 2009
1,095
0
0
Spoilers follow.
For me, the extended cut fixed very little, unfortunately.

The way that Shepard calls down the Normandy to collect ONE injured squadmade from right in front of the beam was stomach turning. Think about it. Never mind the fact that the beam is being defended by Harbinger and a second reaper because it's THAT important, and the Normandy just strolls right up... the real problem is that Commander Shepard appears to use the privilege of being Shepard to call the Normandy down from a battle in space (which takes less than 10 seconds), to collect ONE of the tens of thousands of people being wounded in the fight against the reapers right then and there.

What. The. Fuck? All this did was prove that absolutely no thought was given to the problem before it was pointed out by people who were dissatisfied with the ending. I think I liked the question more than the answer in this case, and I hated the question. But at least it wasn't blatantly character breaking.

And the big kicker for me all along; the Star Child (ugh, that name) is the Reaper God-AI. It is the citadel. I'm supposed to believe that it can't open the arms of the citadel itself? Funny, there are no reapers connected to it as Sovereign sought to be when it SHUTS the arms prior to the final battle. And I'm supposed to believe it couldn't monitor the life using it as the centers of their civilisations either?

No, sorry, the Star Child still totally wipes out the premise of the first game. Sovereign was just unnecessary.

You don't deal a deathblow to a significant portion of your own lore and retain your artistic integrity, but I guess I appreciate the effort. That's the most I can say for the DLC.
 

The Floating Nose

New member
Dec 5, 2010
323
0
0
Tiamat666 said:
I still haven't touched ME3 because I'm still waiting for the smoke to clear.
It's been 3 months and people are still complaining. So if you wait for the smoke to clear, you'll probably have a chance to play it hummm....when the next COD comes out or next year...
 

samaugsch

New member
Oct 13, 2010
595
0
0
Tiamat666 said:
I still haven't touched ME3 because I'm still waiting for the smoke to clear.

And because I'm afraid I will be very disappointed from all I've heard about the suckish ending. Maybe it's better to relish the memories of ME1 and 2 and pretend Sheperd died from a ruptured hemorrhoid on a particularly explosive toilet break.
Or you could mentally rewrite the last 10 minutes of the game. :3
 

samaugsch

New member
Oct 13, 2010
595
0
0
Irridium said:
Scars Unseen said:
Irridium said:
Scars Unseen said:
Diana Kingston-Gabai said:
Scars Unseen said:
Oh, and one minor nitpick about the EC... I see that in addition to Multi-Core Shielding, we have added some serious Plot Armor to the Normandy. Or did Harbinger just decide that the ship that carries the people that have been screwing with the Reapers' plans at every turn just wasn't worth shooting at? Maybe Joker had a Red Cross painted on the hull?
I actually attributed that to the Normandy's stealth systems - they've said many times that the only way you could detect the ship would be if you were looking at it, and Reapers don't have "eyes"... :)
The problem with that assumption is that the Reaper-created Collector ship could detect the Normandy just fine, even in stealth mode.
It's possible that the Normandy didn't have its stealth systems up when the Collector's attacked. That's the only reason I can think of, at least.
Presley specifically says that they had stealth systems engaged.
Oh. Well I don't know, then.
Maybe the Collector ship had heat sensors.
 

Lunar Templar

New member
Sep 20, 2009
8,225
0
0
anthony87 said:
All I want to know is why the hell they couldn't have done all that in the first place? IF the content of the EC had been in the game originally then there wouldn't have been the fuss that there was.
i agree.

i don't see why they could not have done what they did with the EC first

fanboys would still ***** of course, you'll never stop that, but it wouldn't have been the month long embarrassment it was
 

Dennis Scimeca

New member
Mar 29, 2010
217
0
0
The EC is only better than the original cut because these were things that SHOULD have been there from the start. This wasn't a case of ambiguity, these things were basic storytelling mistakes that Bioware should have not even had in the released copy of the game.

As for the story itself, it's still poorly written and the new added "REJECT" ending reeks of passive aggressive bitchiness on Casey Hudson's part.
"Oh, you don't like the shitty choices that we give to you? FINE, EVERYONE DIES. DEAL WITH IT!"

Nice, Bioware, real classy.
 

Apollo45

New member
Jan 30, 2011
534
0
0
The EC did improve the game a lot. It's still a crappy ending, but at least it's not story-breaking anymore. I can play through the last ten minutes without a constant urge to smash my controller into the screen. There are still some issues - like the Crucible being nothing more than a giant power plant, for instance, which only makes less sense than before - but it's a marked improvement overall.

Still, the PR debacle beforehand, the fact that the ending is still shitty overall, and everything else that's gone on means that I'm not buying any more BioWare games right off the shelf for quite a while.
 

tmande2nd

New member
Oct 20, 2010
602
0
0
Still has a stupid author avatar that pulls major BS out of its ass in the end?
Check.
Still have ending A/B/C where you choices dont matter?
Check.
Still is a giant smelly turd that spits on its own lore, ignores everything you did and ends with a rip off of Deus Ex?
Check.
Still shits on the universe so Hack Walters, and Clueless Hudson get to write their amazing fanfiction?
Check.
Still has Starbrat and his "logic" being shove in your face?
Check.

Sorry, its to little, to late, and it changed squat.
In the end since there wont be any post ending DLC, there wont be anymore of my money, and qute a few of my friends dollars heading to Bioware.

Why invest money into something that is shit?
 

Mylinkay Asdara

Waiting watcher
Nov 28, 2010
934
0
0
I haven't been able to bring myself to play it yet. Even though I fought for it and waited for it... I am gun-shy I guess. I will know what I feel when I know what it is, but just the fact that I am leery of going through what I did with the first ending again is a statement about the series - to be interpreted either positively or negatively, I guess, but I want it to be enough.
 

Dennis Scimeca

New member
Mar 29, 2010
217
0
0
Diana Kingston-Gabai said:
I disagree with the notion that the EC works in absolutes (ie: fixes everything/fixes nothing) - what it does is allow emotional satisfaction (by way of the character-centric epilogues) at the expense of intellectual satisfaction (because allowing the Catalyst to elaborate doesn't change how utterly dumb that entire segment is). It's still a net gain overall, though, because it makes the latter tolerable - I still hate the Starchild and everything it represents, but that's not all there is to the ending anymore.
This is exactly how I feel about it. Well said. Yay, my crew live happily ever after, it's just too bad the Mass Effect universe is that much dumber for the Star Child's existence.

Somehow though I was even more upset and angry after the EC than before. I guess now it feels like the Reapers win no matter what you do since Refusing to compromise with them = Game Over. Irritated me, I suppose.
 

Solracziad

New member
Jun 18, 2012
8
0
0
The Lunatic said:
Scars Unseen said:
Oh, and one minor nitpick about the EC... I see that in addition to Multi-Core Shielding, we have added some serious Plot Armor to the Normandy. Or did Harbinger just decide that the ship that carries the people that have been screwing with the Reapers' plans at every turn just wasn't worth shooting at? Maybe Joker had a Red Cross painted on the hull?
Reaper IFF.

You collected it during ME2.

Reapers think the Normandy is a Reaper ship, apparently.
Then why didn't the Normandy just fly Shepard directly to the beam? You can't have it both ways. Either the reapers can detect the ship or it can't. Also, does that mean that the Reapers can't see any of the Geth since they uploaded the Reaper code into their system? Imho the EC created as many plotholes as it tried to fix.

edit for stupid mistake(s) =P
 

Talvrae

The Purple Fairy
Dec 8, 2009
896
0
0
Fr said:
anc[is]Almost missed this thanks to the new layout. Yes it is a definite improvement and I give them credit. But Bioware is still circling the drain. Chobot is still there, that Cerberus ninja dude is still there, the gambling based multiplayer is still there. The quality of their games just dropped like a rock. I paid $60 for DA2 based on this sites review, and have never felt more ripped off. Not making that mistake again. Call me when ME3 is in the bargain bin.
Leng is in the novels since the secound one, who was written by Drew Kapensky, it's not surprising that "ninja dude" get there as well as Kahlee Sanders.
 

Dennis Scimeca

New member
Mar 29, 2010
217
0
0
Talvrae said:
Fr said:
anc[is]Almost missed this thanks to the new layout. Yes it is a definite improvement and I give them credit. But Bioware is still circling the drain. Chobot is still there, that Cerberus ninja dude is still there, the gambling based multiplayer is still there. The quality of their games just dropped like a rock. I paid $60 for DA2 based on this sites review, and have never felt more ripped off. Not making that mistake again. Call me when ME3 is in the bargain bin.
Leng is in the novels since the secound one, who was written by Drew Kapensky, it's not surprising that "ninja dude" get there as well as Kahlee Sanders.
Poor excuse. One shouldn't be forced into reading cash in novels to understand why the story in a GAME is doing what it does.
 

Savber

New member
Feb 17, 2011
262
0
0
Solracziad said:
Then why didn't the Normandy just fly Shepard directly to the beam? You can't have it both ways. Either the reapers can detect the ship or it can't. Also, does that mean that the Reapers can't see any of the Geth since they uploaded the Reaper code into their system? Imho the EC created as many plotholes as it tried to fix.

edit for stupid mistake(s) =P
Close your eye and picture that for a second. Harbinger is sensing Normandy as a friend due to the Reaper IFF when suddenly it propels forward and dropping an organic right next to the beam. I don't know but I'm willing to bet that alarm would have went off in which Harbinger blasts the Normandy and probably Shepard out of the sky. I doubt Shepard would have allowed such a risky maneuver otherwise as after all, he wanted to make sure "someone made it out alive" so sending his beloved ship directly into the Reaper's faces was pushing it.

Also the Reaper code isn't the same as having a Reaper IFF. The geth had Reaper advancement which made it smarter but that does not equate having an IFF system.
 

FFHAuthor

New member
Aug 1, 2010
687
0
0
Exposition about bad logic does not make it good logic, it merely makes it well talked about bad logic.
 
Aug 3, 2010
185
0
0
Mcoffey said:
This is exactly how I feel about it. Well said. Yay, my crew live happily ever after, it's just too bad the Mass Effect universe is that much dumber for the Star Child's existence.

Somehow though I was even more upset and angry after the EC than before. I guess now it feels like the Reapers win no matter what you do since Refusing to compromise with them = Game Over. Irritated me, I suppose.
Well... I guess it depends on how you played the game (or rather, what values you attached to your avatar). For me, there was never any deliberation or hesitation: my Shepard chooses Destroy, every time, because it's the only ending in which she does not compromise with the Catalyst. The Reapers are obliterated, their horrors are purged from the galaxy, and the Catalyst's precious cycle will never hurt another living thing again. Sure, it's unfortunate that EDI and the geth are killed as well, but even Paragon Shepard wipes out a batarian colony to delay the invasion back in "Arrival". So I see that as the very last sacrifice she could make, the last time she would ever have to be put in that position of deciding who lives and who dies.

And for me, a lot of the frustration I experienced with the original ending was ameliorated by the EC, because Hackett acknowledges what I'd always hoped to be true: they'll rebuild. The geth are gone, but the quarians have Rannoch again. EDI is dead, but Samara and her daughter have been reunited. You can't save Anderson, but the Citadel is rebuilt (and since the Wards and the Presidium weren't completely destroyed, maybe people you cared about like Liara's father and Conrad Verner survived). And at the very end, Garrus doesn't put her name up on the wall, because somehow he just knows.

These are the things I wanted to see both as a player (in terms of how my choices affect the galaxy) and as someone experiencing the story (because yes, I cried when I saw Bakara holding a baby krogan in her arms, knowing what that meant and remembering that Mordin died to make that possible). And if I had to endure another iteration of the Architect's rambling nonsense from the second "Matrix" movie, at least this time Shepard is able to openly proclaim that it's just a screwy AI and therefore you don't have to take anything it says at face value.

It's not perfect, not by a long shot. But at least now we actually have endings and consequences, rather than just inferring and extrapolating.
 

bullet_sandw1ch

New member
Jun 3, 2011
536
0
0
Scars Unseen said:
Diana Kingston-Gabai said:
Scars Unseen said:
Oh, and one minor nitpick about the EC... I see that in addition to Multi-Core Shielding, we have added some serious Plot Armor to the Normandy. Or did Harbinger just decide that the ship that carries the people that have been screwing with the Reapers' plans at every turn just wasn't worth shooting at? Maybe Joker had a Red Cross painted on the hull?
I actually attributed that to the Normandy's stealth systems - they've said many times that the only way you could detect the ship would be if you were looking at it, and Reapers don't have "eyes"... :)
The problem with that assumption is that the Reaper-created Collector ship could detect the Normandy just fine, even in stealth mode.
im sure the reapers tech is advanced enough to sense a ship, even if its the best of the best.
 

Solracziad

New member
Jun 18, 2012
8
0
0
Savber said:
Solracziad said:
Then why didn't the Normandy just fly Shepard directly to the beam? You can't have it both ways. Either the reapers can detect the ship or it can't. Also, does that mean that the Reapers can't see any of the Geth since they uploaded the Reaper code into their system? Imho the EC created as many plotholes as it tried to fix.

edit for stupid mistake(s) =P
Close your eye and picture that for a second. Harbinger is sensing Normandy as a friend due to the Reaper IFF when suddenly it propels forward and dropping an organic right next to the beam. I don't know but I'm willing to bet that alarm would have went off in which Harbinger blasts the Normandy and probably Shepard out of the sky. I doubt Shepard would have allowed such a risky maneuver otherwise as after all, he wanted to make sure "someone made it out alive" so sending his beloved ship directly into the Reaper's faces was pushing it.

Also the Reaper code isn't the same as having a Reaper IFF. The geth had Reaper advancement which made it smarter but that does not equate having an IFF system.
....But Harbinger wasn't there until they did their whole lets charge everything we got towards the beam blah blah blah, he was in space....battling the Fleets. So what I am to assume here is that, if they had just dropped Shepard and Co. at the beam before any of the Sovereign-class reapers realized it they could have prevented the deaths of....like a shit-ton of people and saved me having to wade through waves upon waves on Reaper trash. I'm sorry it just doesn't work and if they didn't have that endlessly slow limping part, the player wouldn't have a crap ton of time to be pondering all the shit writing.

Edited for slightly better clarity.
 

Zeckt

New member
Nov 10, 2010
1,085
0
0
You know what? I'll admit to being angry at bioware enough that I won't even give the extended cut a glance. They wanted to end an epic trilogy with a piss poor ending that was so bad it not only dissapointed me it downright disgusted me. If thats the way they want to end trilogies then let them, I will never pay any attention to their shit ever again. Why even PLAY their games anymore if they don't respect not only their fans but their own franchises?

Too late to save face bioware, especially after feeding us DA2. Bioware, your so bad now its laughable. You have no respectable franchises anymore and I hope you lose millions upon millions now that you realize ending your ip's like this leaves you with NO IP'S! they reap what they sow, and its a massive harvest of feces. Bioware and their garbage 800 ms hour long dc's are boycotted. Forever. And they deserve it for kicking their fans in the balls for the last damn time. #$%#% bioware. 12 dollar hour long dlc's? 4 of them is only equal to 4 hours. Your better off buying cod full price and only playing the single player then you are with bioware dlc and that goes beyond bad to just downright wretched and pathetic. How's KOTOR treating you bioware? I'm laughing at you for losing so much money because its what you deserve!
 

Savber

New member
Feb 17, 2011
262
0
0
Solracziad said:
....But Harbinger wasn't there until they did their whole lets charge everything we got towards the beam blah blah blah, he was in space....battling the Fleets. So what I am to assume here is that if they had just dropped Shepard and Co. at the beam before any of the Sovereign-class reapers realized it they could have prevented the deaths of....like a shit-ton of people and saved me having to wade through waves upon waves on Reaper trash. I'm sorry it just doesn't work and if they didn't have that endlessly slow limping part, the player wouldn't have a crap ton of time to be pondering all the shit writing.
Wrong, Harbinger have already begun the rapid descent down to Earth after the Destroyer was knocked out.

Oh and did you forget about that Destroyer? The big Reaper that was shooting down everything in front of the beam, deflecting every shot? You can't exactly fly past it and stop long enough for a drop-off.

As for shit writing, the fact that we're arguing about this is kinda proving otherwise. Shit writing would be the original ME3 ending in where it was utterly non-nonsensical in every fashion and form.

Zeckt said:
Bioware and their garbage 800 ms hour long dc's are boycotted. Forever. And they deserve it for kicking their fans in the balls for the last damn time. #$%#% bioware. 12 dollar hour long dlc's? 4 of them is only equal to 4 hours.
Bioware hasn't price a single DLC since its release so what the hell are you talking about? And who cares? An entertainment company disappointed you.. cry me a river. There are better companies out there like CDPR and Valve so why be complaining about things that you have already decided on? Why the HELL are you wishing that normal people that work at Bioware lose their JOBS and livelihood?

Seriosuly grow up... Bioware might have failed in YOUR eyes but there's no reason to wish misfortune on the people that worked on it.
 

Ziame

New member
Mar 29, 2011
249
0
0
eh, i just hoped for a twist. IT or something else, but oh well. Refusal is half assed but it's the best ending. grim.
 

Solracziad

New member
Jun 18, 2012
8
0
0
Savber said:
Solracziad said:
....But Harbinger wasn't there until they did their whole lets charge everything we got towards the beam blah blah blah, he was in space....battling the Fleets. So what I am to assume here is that if they had just dropped Shepard and Co. at the beam before any of the Sovereign-class reapers realized it they could have prevented the deaths of....like a shit-ton of people and saved me having to wade through waves upon waves on Reaper trash. I'm sorry it just doesn't work and if they didn't have that endlessly slow limping part, the player wouldn't have a crap ton of time to be pondering all the shit writing.
Wrong, Harbinger have already begun the rapid descent down to Earth after the Destroyer was knocked out.

Oh and did you forget about that Destroyer? The big Reaper that was shooting down everything in front of the beam, deflecting every shot? You can't exactly fly past it and stop long enough for a drop-off.

As for shit writing, the fact that we're arguing about this is kinda proving otherwise. Shit writing would be the original ME3 ending in where it was utterly non-nonsensical in every fashion and form.
Oh? So the Destroyer can see the Normandy...? Is it not a Reaper? If it cannot then the Normandy would not have had to be worried about being shot down. If it can, then Harbinger could have seen it and would have shot it down. Also, Harbinger started coming down when things were getting intense on the ground and Organic forces began to make a push for the beam. This is said by Anderson.

No. Just because people are having a discussion about it does not mean the writing is not shit. If that was true then Twilight is not shit since people discuss that online as well.
 

major_chaos

Ruining videogames
Feb 3, 2011
1,314
0
0
Atlas13 said:
I would have preferred Karpyshyn's ending to be honest, it just sounds so much better than what we have now.
The Dark Energy was a force that was going to consume everything. According to Karpyshyn, "The Reapers as a whole were 'nations' of people who had fused together in the most horrific way possible to help find a way to stop the spread of the Dark Energy. The real reason for the Human Reaper was supposed to be the Reapers saving throw because they had run out of time. Humanity in Mass Effect is supposedly unique because of its genetic diversity and represented the universe's best chance at stopping Dark Energy's spread."

The original choice was between killing the Reapers and trying to find a way to stop the Dark Energy threat with what little time was left before it consumed the galaxy, or, "Sacrifice humanity, allowing them to be horrifically processed in hopes that the end result will justify the means."
So you can roll over and die, admitting that the whole series was a pointless futile struggle, or you can gamble all of creation on the slim to none chance that you can somehow quickly come up with a solution to problem you most likely don't even fully understand? somehow that actually sounds worse then the magic pick-a-color endings.

OT: I actually like the EC while it still has the big problem of the core stupidity of the catalyst, it actually makes everything after that fairly decent. is it a literary masterpiece? no, but it does mange to provide closure and satisfaction, especially compared to the awful original endings.
 

Whispering Cynic

New member
Nov 11, 2009
356
0
0
Candidus said:
No, sorry, the Star Child still totally wipes out the premise of the first game. Sovereign was just unnecessary.

You don't deal a deathblow to a significant portion of your own law and retain your artistic integrity, but I guess I appreciate the effort. That's the most I can say for the DLC.
Yep, that pretty much sums up all of my biggest complaints about ME2 and 3. Bioware took the time and effort to craft a complex universe from ground up, with a lot of underlying lore to provide solid foundation for it, then they started consistently shitting all over it. From things like lore contradictions and idiotic retcons in ME2 to glaring fuck ups like the endings of ME3. Artistic integrity, suuuure, just not the integrity of people who actually created the universe, but only of those who took the time and effort to fuck it all up.

It's over Bioware, either you entirely lost your touch, or some scum that slithered in from EA has destroyed all that made you what you used to be. You will be mourned.
 

JayDeth

New member
Dec 18, 2009
138
0
0
"And the Refusal ending is downright chilling."

Insulting is how I would describe it.

I got to say, I clicked on this article expecting lots of BioWare nob gobbling as I'm in the camp that despises everything about the endings and thinks the EC was just polishing a turd, but there wasn't. Kudos, sir. However, I think your title is a little misleading. Better, perhaps. Right? Ha. That's a good one.
 

I.Muir

New member
Jun 26, 2008
599
0
0
They were not required to do anything to their ending but they decided to do so anyway
However they made the mistake of thinking that the problem with the ending was that it was sad or something
The only real issue here that is still here is that bloody star child catalyst which just messes up that story
So yeah they didn't have to but it will be a better ending after I get that mod that erases the little piece of shit
I imagine somebody would have gone ballistic if they removed that stupid catalyst so it's the team that's broken
 

jamesbrown

New member
Apr 18, 2011
163
0
0
Scars Unseen said:
One thing I hadn't thought of before... With the new changes to the Catalyst's dialogue, it may be possible to save the Geth and EDI in the destroy ending. He specifically says that the technology they rely on will be damaged, but that the survivors will have no problem repairing it. This should mean that they could "reboot" EDI and the Geth if so inclined. I mean, the entire reason that the synthetics are getting wiped out in the first place is because the energy doesn't discriminate, so by the same token, reactivating synthetics should be only slightly more difficult than repairing starships and the like. That might explain why EDI isn't listed among the people that died at the end(as would typical Bioware carelessness).

Just a thought that occurred to me.
When I did destory I did see EDI on the memorial
 

Dreadjaws

New member
Nov 29, 2011
48
0
0
Well, I've always disagreed with the notion that Mass Effect 3 is a great game up until the last five minutes. I think it's a mediocre game spiced with spectacular parts. Everything pertaining to the main plot is rubbish at best and insulting at worst, but the side-stories? Those are wonderful.

So yeah, I played the Extended Cut, and while I'm glad to have seen some plot holes being filled (though some of them half-assedly), some other plot holes were actually created, and I knew some of the main problems were never going to go away because they were part of the game since the beginning (such as the Crucible) and some others because then they'd have to come up with new endings instead of ripping them off from Deus Ex. And let's face it, most of the story problems were there because the Bioware who made ME 2 and 3 is not the same that made ME 1, and there's no fixing that.

And while the EC did make me feel a little better (specially since they removed that "buy our DLC" sign at the end), I still don't feel very good. We all know this is nothing but damage control. No one could have possibly believed most people would have been satisfied by the original endings. They simply, in their huge egos, thought people would just buy anything they were sold, and that they'd even pay to get longer endings. Of course, all the backlash forced their hands into actually put a little work into the ending.

The worst part is, had they put some effort into it in the beginning, none of this would have happened. People wouldn't be regretting purchasing their games and swearing never to do it again. People wouldn't have backlashed. And the'd be loved right now instead of despised.

Also, what's up with the scene of Shepard breathing in the rubble showing up in what appears to be at least weeks or maybe even months after the Reapers' destruction? Am I supposed to believe Shepard was unconscious under all that rubble for that long? OK, let's not dwell in the new plot holes right now.
 

jamesbrown

New member
Apr 18, 2011
163
0
0
The Heik said:
Dennis Scimeca said:
BioWare Did Right By Us

You don?t lose artistic integrity if you?re just trying to get your point across.

Read Full Article
...
First is the fact that the singularity premise is a paradox. Had it occurred, then it is reasonable to think that the Reapers would never have been created seeing as the Synthetics are supposedly so superior to organics, and as such would have won before the Reapers could have been created to stop them. But the Reapers do exist, so the Singularity never truly occurred. This means that the Reaper cycle, the mass genocide that the eons have wrought, was done over an academic notion. Do you have any idea how much that trivializes this whole sordid affair? Billions upon billions of sentient lives have fought and died over effectively nothing, all because some twits a few million years ago could keep their damn AI in check.

Second is the fact that the Reapers shouldn't have been able to defeat their creators. Reapers are not easy to build. They require a lot of time of resources (people) to create (as was shown in ME2's main plot), and I am damn sure the these precursors would have noticed if millions of their people were being kidnapped and enslaved long before the Reaper force was large or mature enough to face them. And unfortunately the Reapers wouldn't be able to use their usual technological advantage in this case as their opponents would have the very same technological prowess, with the added advantage of being far more numerous from the onset of the confrontation. The Reapers simply would not have won under those conditions.

Third and finally is the simple fact that the Reapers may have actually become the very thing they supposedly are protecting organics against. Think about it. The Reapers are an advanced synthetic-based organization led by artificial intelligence that seeks to (effectively) kill all sentient organic species. That makes their whole endeavor a self-fulfilling prophecy, making the Catalyst's efforts a complete and utter failure. At that point the Reapers stop being a threat and become a tragic joke. And if the primary antagonist in a serious narrative is seen as a joke, then something has gone horrendously wrong and the developer NEEDS to fix it, not simply try and hide it behind some pretty pictures.
...
your first point is proving the reapers, the starkid and subsentuently the reapers were the AI that civilization created and it did wipe them out; and it is quite believable that if an group created the starchild AI for solving the sythetics and orgainics problem became rogue in a faciticty advanced and remote enough, it could cause quite a lot of damage; as we saw in the "overlord" DLC

for your second point: just like the alliance (humanity's representive government in space) in ME2 sent so many people to help the colonies who were being harvested (they didn't send anyone, cerberus was the one who sent people; and very few people actually believed the harvested story who weren't on shepard's crew)

third point: from the starchild AI standpoint they aren't killing, they are making the civilizations into an advanced life form (an reaper), and that is the conclusion the AI made; kind of an "protecting them from themsleves, even to go as far as they did; they are still protecting them" a f***ed conclusion, but still an conclusion; what shepard proved to the AI is that the conclusion in question needs to be ratified; which is why in the converstation with the AI he says " new varibles have been introduced " or something of the sort
 

RJ Dalton

New member
Aug 13, 2009
2,285
0
0
Commander Shepherd totally shot first. It's what makes his character bad-ass. :D
 

Tumedus

New member
Jul 13, 2010
215
0
0
It's sort of nice that BW tried to fix some of the glaringly stupid plotholes the original ending created in the game. Not sure I would go so far as to say they "did right by us". There was so much backlash, even with 90% of the video game sites defending them, that I am not sure they really had much of a choice.

The game is still an ABC ending affair, now with a hidden refusal ending that feels more like a big middle finger to everyone who complained about the stupid star child scenario in the first place. Further, as much as they have the ending stills, the endings are completely independent from your decsions up to that point.

The existance of Star Child still invalidates pretty much the entire first game. Its still a stupid character, doesn't fit the lore, comes out of nowhere, and doesn't explain why it would manifest in that form.

The synthesis ending still doesn't survive even cursory fridge logic, not that the other two are much better.

It opens up entire new plotholes: one example is the crash landing. Now apparently they just fix the ship up and leave in spite of the clear "starting over" type of implication that existed before. So what was the point of the crash landing in the first place? If the damage was serious, how could they possibly fix it, if it was so minor that on ship supplies were enough to do a patch up job, then why did they even crash.

I could go on, but the ending failed in so many ways that adding a bit extra to the existing ones cannot really "fix" it. To give an idea, I played the first game many many times. Well into double digits full playthroughs. I played part 3 once and even with thid DLC couldn't muster the strength to even load the final battle to see the endings. I just watched them on youtube.
 

The Human Torch

New member
Sep 12, 2010
750
0
0
The Heik said:
I disagree with your article Mr. Scimeca.

The Extended Cut DLC was not Bioware doing right by the fans. If this was the case, then Bioware would have put out a formal apology from the get go. This did not happen. They acted all defensive, saying that we missed the point (though we very clearly didn't) and that they had artistic right (which I can and have called bullshit on).

No the EC was made to appease the fans. It's damage control. They really don't care about what we think, they just want to ensure that their company isn't run into the ground by this most inglorious of screw ups. If they had cared about us, then the ending would have been redone from the ground up. It hasn't. All they've done is elaborate on the things that they've already established in the original version, doing as little effort to make the fans stop complaining. And while it is appreciable to finally see the effects of our character's actions, those effects are still based upon the same fundamentally flawed premise of the singularity.

Now that the EC is out my issue with this idea is threefold. It used to be only twofold, but the EC actually managed to add another whole problem to the Singularity premise (see point #2 for that one).

First is the fact that the singularity premise is a paradox. Had it occurred, then it is reasonable to think that the Reapers would never have been created seeing as the Synthetics are supposedly so superior to organics, and as such would have won before the Reapers could have been created to stop them. But the Reapers do exist, so the Singularity never truly occurred. This means that the Reaper cycle, the mass genocide that the eons have wrought, was done over an academic notion. Do you have any idea how much that trivializes this whole sordid affair? Billions upon billions of sentient lives have fought and died over effectively nothing, all because some twits a few million years ago could keep their damn AI in check.

Second is the fact that the Reapers shouldn't have been able to defeat their creators. Reapers are not easy to build. They require a lot of time of resources (people) to create (as was shown in ME2's main plot), and I am damn sure the these precursors would have noticed if millions of their people were being kidnapped and enslaved long before the Reaper force was large or mature enough to face them. And unfortunately the Reapers wouldn't be able to use their usual technological advantage in this case as their opponents would have the very same technological prowess, with the added advantage of being far more numerous from the onset of the confrontation. The Reapers simply would not have won under those conditions.

Third and finally is the simple fact that the Reapers may have actually become the very thing they supposedly are protecting organics against. Think about it. The Reapers are an advanced synthetic-based organization led by artificial intelligence that seeks to (effectively) kill all sentient organic species. That makes their whole endeavor a self-fulfilling prophecy, making the Catalyst's efforts a complete and utter failure. At that point the Reapers stop being a threat and become a tragic joke. And if the primary antagonist in a serious narrative is seen as a joke, then something has gone horrendously wrong and the developer NEEDS to fix it, not simply try and hide it behind some pretty pictures.

So yes, the Extended Cut DLC may have rectified some of the more minor issues with Mass Effect 3's ending, but the underlying problem is still there. This ending does not work within it's own core ideals, and that makes the whole Mass Effect series a failure, even just as a simple idea. And that is really the biggest disappointment with this series. They had almost succeed in reaching the stars with their creation, only to fail because they couldn't see the flaws in their own foundation.
I agree completely with this statement, and will add something to it myself:
Adding those stills feels like BioWare surrendering a little artistic vision and pandering to the audience. That's the Pandora's Box opened by post-release narrative changes. The last thing we need is a George Lucas of videogames inspiring debates about whether Commander Shepard shot first or not.
Stop being such a Bioware apologist by throwing out the 'artistic vision' defense. It's not some shield that a writer can use to validate his/her crappy writing.
Games are art, yes, but they are not art like books, movies and paintings. Games are an interactive, fully adapative narrative, that adjusts itself to the players style and choices. Even with that being said, if a series (whatever series), has many plotholes and nonsensical magical McGuffins, than it deserves to be put on a pedestal and have rotten tomatoes thrown at it.

The difference between Mass Effect and Star Wars, is that the first trilogy of Star Wars was a perfectly functional and highly praised series, there was no rage whatsoever about these movies. And then George Lucas started changing random things left and right, and people were like: "Why? Why would you do that? It serves no purpose!" That what sparked the debate.

Mass Effect's ending was doomed from the start, when the developers decided to allow the game to go gold with this kind of crappy ending. I don't get it, really. Was there NO ONE in Bioware's development team or the EA management that said: "wait, this is really bad, we can't release this".

Changing a succesfull series of books/movies/games for no other reason than 'personal preference', that can deserve you the ire of it's fans, depending on how poorly the changes are executed. Refusing to change a horrible ending, that has been proven to be full of plotholes, unexplainable actions and generally something that was shat out of a typewriter, and even defending it...that takes a whole new level of stubborn asshole. And definitely not 'artistic vision'.
 

Kennian

New member
Apr 20, 2009
41
0
0
i'd kill to see where they went with the original ending, they'd have had to add 5 or 6 hours to deal with the twist... it would have been awesome!

the EC helps, but it's still sugar on a dollop of horse poo
 

Dennis Scimeca

New member
Mar 29, 2010
217
0
0
RaNDM G said:
@saintdane05: Someone will definitely link this thread to /v/ now.

As for me, I don't really care. The game sucks regardless of the ending.

[sub]/smug self-satisfaction[/sub]
He will get the same reaction anywhere else on the internet. There's just no sugarcoating and passive aggressiveness on /v/.
 

chiefohara

New member
Sep 4, 2009
985
0
0
Zeckt said:
You know what? I'll admit to being angry at bioware enough that I won't even give the extended cut a glance. They wanted to end an epic trilogy with a piss poor ending that was so bad it not only dissapointed me it downright disgusted me. If thats the way they want to end trilogies then let them, I will never pay any attention to their shit ever again. Why even PLAY their games anymore if they don't respect not only their fans but their own franchises?

Too late to save face bioware, especially after feeding us DA2. Bioware, your so bad now its laughable. You have no respectable franchises anymore and I hope you lose millions upon millions now that you realize ending your ip's like this leaves you with NO IP'S! they reap what they sow, and its a massive harvest of feces. Bioware and their garbage 800 ms hour long dc's are boycotted. Forever. And they deserve it for kicking their fans in the balls for the last damn time. #$%#% bioware. 12 dollar hour long dlc's? 4 of them is only equal to 4 hours. Your better off buying cod full price and only playing the single player then you are with bioware dlc and that goes beyond bad to just downright wretched and pathetic. How's KOTOR treating you bioware? I'm laughing at you for losing so much money because its what you deserve!
Seriously buddy, Watch the EC endings. It doesn't fix everything, but it will take a fair chunk of that bitter taste out of your mouth and hugely alleviates the sense of betrayal you feel. Its still got its share of mistakes, but it also has a more proper sense of closure to it. If anything its a better way to say goodbye to your Shepard.
 

chiefohara

New member
Sep 4, 2009
985
0
0
Personally im happy.

I got endings with better closure, and i got them for free. Sure they still have flaws, but I got to say goodbye to my Shep and i got closure from the characters if not the universe. They delayed paid DLC, paid wages to staff, called back voice actors and spent a 40,000 dollar download fee to give us this EC ending because of the backlash, if you add the two free multiplayer patches/maps since then to smooth things over while we waited for the EC DLC that's a 120,000 dollars, they've spent on just facilitating patches with XBOX Live alone. This wasn't painless for them, Getting a corporate entity to give out things for free, much less invest money back into customers who declared publicly and loudly that they wouldn't dare shop with them again would not have been an easy job for Bioware to do. This entire thing has cost them a fortune in Man hours, lost revenue, and direct investment back into the customers happiness when all the 'bobby Kotick types' in EA would have been screaming 'screw the consumer, we've got their money'. Quite Frankly im amazed its happened at all.

At the risk of being flamed, im damn grateful. It wasn't easy for them, and they did it anyway. So Kudos to Bioware, and Kudos to EA Execs for letting them do this.

I Loved DA:Origins, was disappointed with DA2, ME3 had me wavering about Bioware a little, but the EC endings have brought me back into the fold. Bioware and EA learned a damn good lesson here, and i'm sure they will treat their products and IP's with a bit more care now. Particularly the endings of them.

I see the EC endings as a genuine investment back into the fanbase, so the least i can do is be open minded enough to give Bioware another chance.
 

Mirrorknight

New member
Jul 23, 2009
223
0
0
If Bioware did right by us, they shouldn't have had to edit the ending in the first place.

The BioWare name used to mean I could go out and buy a game with their name on it without knowing anything about the game, and know that it would, at the worst, be merely a good game.

Now. Well, I'm not going be like some people and be B0YCOT!!!11!!!, but after Dragon Age 2 and the ME ending fiasco, I'm sure not buying any more of their games day one anymore. Even if they're from trusted IP's. (Sorry, Jade Empire 2)
 

The Heik

King of the Nael
Oct 12, 2008
1,568
0
0
jamesbrown said:
The Heik said:
Dennis Scimeca said:
BioWare Did Right By Us

You don?t lose artistic integrity if you?re just trying to get your point across.

Read Full Article
...
First is the fact that the singularity premise is a paradox. Had it occurred, then it is reasonable to think that the Reapers would never have been created seeing as the Synthetics are supposedly so superior to organics, and as such would have won before the Reapers could have been created to stop them. But the Reapers do exist, so the Singularity never truly occurred. This means that the Reaper cycle, the mass genocide that the eons have wrought, was done over an academic notion. Do you have any idea how much that trivializes this whole sordid affair? Billions upon billions of sentient lives have fought and died over effectively nothing, all because some twits a few million years ago could keep their damn AI in check.

Second is the fact that the Reapers shouldn't have been able to defeat their creators. Reapers are not easy to build. They require a lot of time of resources (people) to create (as was shown in ME2's main plot), and I am damn sure the these precursors would have noticed if millions of their people were being kidnapped and enslaved long before the Reaper force was large or mature enough to face them. And unfortunately the Reapers wouldn't be able to use their usual technological advantage in this case as their opponents would have the very same technological prowess, with the added advantage of being far more numerous from the onset of the confrontation. The Reapers simply would not have won under those conditions.

Third and finally is the simple fact that the Reapers may have actually become the very thing they supposedly are protecting organics against. Think about it. The Reapers are an advanced synthetic-based organization led by artificial intelligence that seeks to (effectively) kill all sentient organic species. That makes their whole endeavor a self-fulfilling prophecy, making the Catalyst's efforts a complete and utter failure. At that point the Reapers stop being a threat and become a tragic joke. And if the primary antagonist in a serious narrative is seen as a joke, then something has gone horrendously wrong and the developer NEEDS to fix it, not simply try and hide it behind some pretty pictures.
...
Ok before we start could you please do a grammar and syntax proofread for me before you do your next post because your current one is simply a mess. Half the time I spent on my current post was trying to figure out what the heck you were saying and that's not a good thing for either side of the conversation.


jamesbrown said:
your first point is proving the reapers, the starkid and subsentuently the reapers were the AI that civilization created and it did wipe them out; and it is quite believable that if an group created the starchild AI for solving the sythetics and orgainics problem became rogue in a faciticty advanced and remote enough, it could cause quite a lot of damage; as we saw in the "overlord" DLC/
No My first point was that the Reapers are a situational paradox. Either they were created for something that didn't exist or they couldn't have been created fast enough and in enough numbers to combat the supposed Synthetic threat.

Besides, have you any idea how many fail safes and kill switches exist in our current society alone? Let me put it this way: The United States of America has arguable the largest and most powerful nuclear stockpile in the world. However, it is protected by so many levels of security and protocols that the only feasible way for those nukes to be used en masse is that an actual nuclear war occurs. I cannot believe that such an advanced society as the one that made the relays came to dominate the galaxy without firmly establishing doctrine on how to cover it's ass. The minute that the Catalyst started to go rogue the precursors would have started locking down the electronic bugger or bombing it into smithereens should the former fail.

Besides, the Catalyst itself stated that they began harvesting their creators long before the Singularity had ever occurred, so the Reapers are canonically a solution to a non-existent problem.

jamesbrown said:
for your second point: just like the alliance (humanity's representive government in space) in ME2 sent so many people to help the colonies who were being harvested (they didn't send anyone, cerberus was the one who sent people; and very few people actually believed the harvested story who weren't on shepard's crew)
Ok you are doing a lot of speculation in regards the state of the civilization that the Reapers came from. The Alliance only sent token help over to the Terminus colonies because the colonies were not in it's jurisdiction. They couldn't send a battle fleet to investigate without starting a war with all the pirates and mercenaries in the Terminus systems and as such tying up all the resources they sent over there to help with the missing colonists. The Alliance was Catch 22'd with a vengeance.

The Precursors though have built the mass relays all across the universe, so it's pretty safe to assume that their influence extended to the areas those relays existed in (and seeing as the relays are EVERYWHERE in the Milky Way galaxy, they pretty much owned the damn thing). As such any place where their people began missing would be within their jurisdiction, so they could send any and all necessary forces and resources to deal with said situation. And trust me, while a few thousand going missing isn't that big, the millions upon millions necessary to even start making the Reaper fleet would be noticed and as such the Catalyst and his friends would eliminated long before the Reapers made a fleet substantial enough to fight what is effectively THE galactic superpower in history.

jamesbrown said:
third point: from the starchild AI standpoint they aren't killing, they are making the civilizations into an advanced life form (an reaper), and that is the conclusion the AI made; kind of an "protecting them from themsleves, even to go as far as they did; they are still protecting them" a f***ed conclusion, but still an conclusion; what shepard proved to the AI is that the conclusion in question needs to be ratified; which is why in the converstation with the AI he says " new varibles have been introduced " or something of the sort
[/quote]

Here's the thing though, just because the Catalyst and the Reapers think that they're "saving" the people they harvest doesn't mean that this what they are actually doing. Lets analyze what happens to an individual when they are harvested. As seen on the collector base in ME2, they are "digested" into a gray paste, thereby destroying their mortal coil. That would kill any living creature I know of, ME universe included, and as much as the Reapers say that they are saving the civilizations they harvest those civilizations are no less dead because of it.

So despite their intention the Reapers still are a primarily synthetic species being led by a synthetic individual in the eons long act of killing all sentient organics. Spin whichever way you want to, that sounds exactly like the very thing the Reapers wanted to prevent. So again the Reapers have become a galactic joke, so incompetent that they actually failed their goal from the get go.
 

Zeckt

New member
Nov 10, 2010
1,085
0
0
chiefohara said:
Zeckt said:
You know what? I'll admit to being angry at bioware enough that I won't even give the extended cut a glance. They wanted to end an epic trilogy with a piss poor ending that was so bad it not only dissapointed me it downright disgusted me. If thats the way they want to end trilogies then let them, I will never pay any attention to their shit ever again. Why even PLAY their games anymore if they don't respect not only their fans but their own franchises?

Too late to save face bioware, especially after feeding us DA2. Bioware, your so bad now its laughable. You have no respectable franchises anymore and I hope you lose millions upon millions now that you realize ending your ip's like this leaves you with NO IP'S! they reap what they sow, and its a massive harvest of feces. Bioware and their garbage 800 ms hour long dc's are boycotted. Forever. And they deserve it for kicking their fans in the balls for the last damn time. #$%#% bioware. 12 dollar hour long dlc's? 4 of them is only equal to 4 hours. Your better off buying cod full price and only playing the single player then you are with bioware dlc and that goes beyond bad to just downright wretched and pathetic. How's KOTOR treating you bioware? I'm laughing at you for losing so much money because its what you deserve!
Seriously buddy, Watch the EC endings. It doesn't fix everything, but it will take a fair chunk of that bitter taste out of your mouth and hugely alleviates the sense of betrayal you feel. Its still got its share of mistakes, but it also has a more proper sense of closure to it. If anything its a better way to say goodbye to your Shepard.
I'm sorry, I am intensely bitter with Bioware. I know that the reaper's were a near impossible threat to deal with I never asked for a happy ending where Shepard takes off in a normandy that farts rainbows I could of dealt with the ending being sad sad endings are actually my favorite but the way they ended it originally was not sad or happy but downright disrespectful and BAD.

I won't ever get over the bitterness of the original mass effect 3 ending, after already being dissapointed by dragon age 1 dlc and da 2 as a whole. I would prefer to remember the ending as the way they wanted to end it. Awful and franchise ending. Thats what they wanted thats what they get from me.
 

ryo02

New member
Oct 8, 2007
819
0
0
Irridium said:
Scars Unseen said:
Irridium said:
Scars Unseen said:
Diana Kingston-Gabai said:
Scars Unseen said:
Oh, and one minor nitpick about the EC... I see that in addition to Multi-Core Shielding, we have added some serious Plot Armor to the Normandy. Or did Harbinger just decide that the ship that carries the people that have been screwing with the Reapers' plans at every turn just wasn't worth shooting at? Maybe Joker had a Red Cross painted on the hull?
I actually attributed that to the Normandy's stealth systems - they've said many times that the only way you could detect the ship would be if you were looking at it, and Reapers don't have "eyes"... :)
The problem with that assumption is that the Reaper-created Collector ship could detect the Normandy just fine, even in stealth mode.
It's possible that the Normandy didn't have its stealth systems up when the Collector's attacked. That's the only reason I can think of, at least.
Presley specifically says that they had stealth systems engaged.
Oh. Well I don't know, then.
Pressly also says they had been searching the area for 4 days

Joker says 3 ships had gone missing in the last month

the Collectors have used trap style tactics during ME2

my guess is the Collectors destroyed a few ships in that area deliberatly to lure the Normandy. then just hung around long enough for the Normandy to get close.
or do something to show where they are IE venting the stored heat or exiting FTL they did that just prior to being attacked by the way.
the stealth systems came online AFTER exiting FTL for a brief moment the collectors wouldve been able to see them.
 

Dennis Scimeca

New member
Mar 29, 2010
217
0
0
Hey everyone, I frequent this site but until now I have been on the sidelines but I thought I'd chime in here with my own opinion.

I just beat Mass Effect 3 with Extended Cut DLC. What I mean to say is, I've never played Mass Effect 3 before the EC DLC version and I didn't spoil anything though it was impossible to avoid all the hubris over the ending in the past few months.

I thought the story was perfect, and the endings were very good. I have viewed the non-extended DLC versions on youtube and while I understand they have some plotholes I think this entire issue is ridiculously exaggerated. The main complaints are

1) No closure, plot holes that don't explain what happened to our crew members.

-Does not apply to me because my first play through was with extended cut! lol. That being said, I could understand the frustration over this but it was fixed with this DLC and I don't think it was big enough an issue for people to rise in arms like they did. The real issue was..

2) Our choices had no impact on the ending.

-This is wrong. I think people went in with the mindset that depending on their choices they'd get massively different endings. But how can people say our choices had no consequences? My choices had massive consequences on me personally, because most of the choices we made affected the characters we made the journey with.

What characters you've lost/affected/lives you've changed by the end is the biggest difference of all, this is where the variation was. It was in the small details that showed the repercussions of your changes on the world; the Geth and Quarians living in peace, or not. The Rachni being utterly exterminated, the Genophage being cured. On your ship, your crew members are in different parts of the ship at different moments, reacting to past adventures depending on how they played out. There are so many of these instances that show the effect you've made on the galaxy that it's unfair to expect them all to make an utterly different ending for them to please you.

Maybe this is just my opinion because Mass Effect, to me, was never about defeating the reapers. It was the journey I had with all the very interesting characters, races, enemies and worlds I encountered along the way, and the fact that all your choices affect all of these things after and before the ending is exactly what I hoped Bioware would give us. The complaint would also hold merit if the ending was bad. I don't think it was, what was wrong with it? We knew that this was the general plot line before it was explained in detail in the end.


I think that in the end, people are mostly upset because Mass Effect is over. It is over, and for most of the endings your Shepherd is gone and his story is finished. It is very difficult for us to let go of our Shepherd after over a hundred hours of exciting adventures with him/her. I know that was what upset me most about the ending, that I know it was really the end.

And that doesn't deserve scorn, it deserves applause. Never have I been this invested into a video game, nor have I ever seen a fanbase so invested. Well done Bioware, thank you for a very memorable trilogy.
 

Mr Companion

New member
Jul 27, 2009
1,534
0
0
I would describe the non-extended ending as more like a sentence missing some paragraphs, and I love the quote from Bioware saying something like 'People seemed to think our ending indicated everybody explodes and starves which we never intended'. Odd really. I mean it seems pretty obvious considering all the mass relays exploded and earth definitely doesn't have the resources to feed a whole fleet of varying species. You would have thought when they were writing this they would notice something so stupid but then again after the main plot missions of Mass Effect 2 I don't expect much out of them (never bought ME3 just watched the endings for giggles).

I mean if you're writing a sci fi story and you end with 'And then every star in the galaxy went supernova' you might look at the paper and think "well thats pretty grim". It just seems a little bit blind.
 

TastyCarcass

New member
Jul 27, 2009
141
0
0
I'm not going to read anymore of your comments about "artistic integrity" in a game that does this:
http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/4853/biowarequality.jpg


They are not artists. They are a business and, with KotOR, a service provider. I don't even know how you can defend this as an artistic vision when it's clear that no one in the writing team had a clue about the story.

I have never in my life seen a company treat their own fans as poorly as Bioware and EA do and act like they're saviours while doing it. This whole thing has just proven which video game "journalists" are the most spineless. ME3 is a terrible game, and by diverting all the hate towards the ending, Bioware's damage control has succeeded.
 

Dennis Scimeca

New member
Mar 29, 2010
217
0
0
Dead_Lee said:
I'm not going to read anymore of your comments about "artistic integrity" in a game that does this:
http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/4853/biowarequality.jpg


They are not artists. They are a business and, with KotOR, a service provider. I don't even know how you can defend this as an artistic vision when it's clear that no one in the writing team had a clue about the story.

I have never in my life seen a company treat their own fans as poorly as Bioware and EA do and act like they're saviours while doing it. This whole thing has just proven which video game "journalists" are the most spineless. ME3 is a terrible game, and by diverting all the hate towards the ending, Bioware's damage control has succeeded.


.....ahaha I'm sorry, I cant take anything that lists "modeled after a transexual" as a mark against "artistic integrity" seriously.
 

Dennis Scimeca

New member
Mar 29, 2010
217
0
0
undeadsuitor said:
Dead_Lee said:
I'm not going to read anymore of your comments about "artistic integrity" in a game that does this:
http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/4853/biowarequality.jpg


They are not artists. They are a business and, with KotOR, a service provider. I don't even know how you can defend this as an artistic vision when it's clear that no one in the writing team had a clue about the story.

I have never in my life seen a company treat their own fans as poorly as Bioware and EA do and act like they're saviours while doing it. This whole thing has just proven which video game "journalists" are the most spineless. ME3 is a terrible game, and by diverting all the hate towards the ending, Bioware's damage control has succeeded.


.....ahaha I'm sorry, I cant take anything that lists "modeled after a transexual" as a mark against "artistic integrity" seriously.
The "Perfect Woman" is modeled after a transsexual.
 

Pickles

That Ice Ain't Nice
May 15, 2020
116
0
0
Country
Australia
I think if I'd played the game with the EC originally Id be okay with it. Not entirely satsified, but I don't know if I'd complain much. In a way that's kind of the dumb part, without much extra effort the original game could have ended in a passable way, and avoided all the hate.
 

Flight

New member
Mar 13, 2010
687
0
0
I must respectfully disagree. In the long run, I don't believe the EC really fixed anything. Yes, the endings are better, but that's like saying being struck by lightning is better than being set on fire. There are still massive plot holes, most notably with the Refusal ending (which was also passive-aggressive - something that doesn't help BioWare now), and we still have the wholly unnecessary Starchild to deal with in that universe, making the setting all the poorer for it. Furthermore, the fact that the endings to such a formerly brilliant series needed to be fixed doesn't speak well of the situation to begin with.
 

Dennis Scimeca

New member
Mar 29, 2010
217
0
0
llagrok said:
undeadsuitor said:
Dead_Lee said:
I'm not going to read anymore of your comments about "artistic integrity" in a game that does this:
http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/4853/biowarequality.jpg


They are not artists. They are a business and, with KotOR, a service provider. I don't even know how you can defend this as an artistic vision when it's clear that no one in the writing team had a clue about the story.

I have never in my life seen a company treat their own fans as poorly as Bioware and EA do and act like they're saviours while doing it. This whole thing has just proven which video game "journalists" are the most spineless. ME3 is a terrible game, and by diverting all the hate towards the ending, Bioware's damage control has succeeded.


.....ahaha I'm sorry, I cant take anything that lists "modeled after a transexual" as a mark against "artistic integrity" seriously.
The "Perfect Woman" is modeled after a transsexual.

1) The "Perfect Woman" in ME would be Miranda. Since she was genetically made to be perfect. The picture that was posted was Ashley, the gruff, manly, mostly unemotional military girl.



2) Why does it matter.



3) Why does it matter.
 

TastyCarcass

New member
Jul 27, 2009
141
0
0
undeadsuitor said:
1) The "Perfect Woman" in ME would be Miranda. Since she was genetically made to be perfect. The picture that was posted was Ashley, the gruff, manly, mostly unemotional military girl.
Well she was manly and gruff, until they turned her into a babe and included characters that look straight out of Jersey Shore in order to get a wider audience.

I didn't make the image I posted, it's just the one that goes around the internet. The other points still stand however.
 

Aldarionn

New member
Dec 18, 2011
2
0
0
There was a post on the BioWare Social Network that perfectly illustrates why I feel the endings are terrible, and the extended cut really didn't change that. I did not write the following post, but I agree with it wholeheartedly. Note - it's VERY long but extremely well written. I sincerely hope everyone takes the time to read it:

By "Made Nightwing"

So, my lit professor and I are nerds. I throw in 'but the prize' references on my essays about Odysseus and Achilles, he throws in Firefly references in his lectures, we get on great. Now, I've previously mentioned that he disliked the endings EDIT: He dropped in on the forum to correct my paraphrasing of our conversation, so I'm updating the OP to have his infinitely superior original words replace my own feeble attempts:

Drayfish, p.13:

I've never posted on this forum before, so I hope I don't embarrass myself or this discussion entirely ? and I apologise for the wall of text that is to follow, but I'm an academic, and tedious tracts of self-important linguistic gymnastics is what we do.

My name is Dr. Dray, and I should start by saying: oh, dear, I've been cited for my nerd indignation. I'm surprised Made Nightwing didn't mention that my little fists were shaking with rage. But they were. They did. With feeble, pointless nerd rage.

I must point out though, that as flattered as I am to be referenced, were I still marking Made Nightwing's work I would have to circle this passage and remind him that these words are not in fact directly attributable to me: his phrasing is a paraphrase of our conversation rather than a quotation. ...However, he has an attentive mind, and I must admit that he has captured the majority of my issues with the ending, my penchant for hyperbole, and the general dislocation of the thematic threads that I felt violated the larger narrative arc of the trilogy. And I'm sad to say I did use the words 'thematically revolting' ? although I've watched both the Matrix sequels and Godfather 3, so I've probably said that phrase quite a lot.

If you'll permit me then, I did just want to write quickly in my own words to clarify some of my issues with these endings, and why I thought that they erode the themes heretofore at the core of their series. Of course, all of these arguments have no doubt been stated numerous times by voices far more worthy than mine over the past few weeks, but as someone intrigued by the production and reception of literature in all its forms this has been a fascinating ? if disheartening ? time to be an enormous fan of this fiction. I'd also like to particularly commend Strange Aeons for the fantastic post. And that analogy: 'It?s like ending Pinocchio with Geppetto stuffing him into a wood chipper'. What an exquisite image!

So, putting aside all of the hanging plot threads that rankled me (where was the Normandy going? why did my squad mates live? Anderson is where now? wait, the catalyst was Haley Joel Osment? etc), I would like to explain why, when I was offered those three repellent choices, I turned and tried to unload my now infinite pistol into the whispy-space-ghost's face. It was not because I was unhappy that my Shepard would not get to drink Garrus under the table one last time, or get to help Tali build a back-porch on her new homestead, nor that I was pretty sure no one was going to remember to feed my space fish ? it was because those three ideological options were so structurally indefensible that they broke the suspension of disbelief that Bioware had (up until that point) so spectacularly crafted for over a hundred hours of narrative. Suddenly Shepard was not simply being asked to sacrifice a race or a friend or him/herself for the greater good (all of which was no doubt expected by any player paying attention to the tone of the series), Shepard was being compelled, without even the chance to offer a counterpoint, to perform one of three actions that to my reading each fundamentally undermined the narrative foundations upon which the series seemed to rest.

In the Control ending, Shepard is invited to pursue the previously impossible path of attempting to dominate the reapers and bend them to his will. Momentarily putting aside the vulgarity of dominating a species to achieve one's own ends (and I will get to complaining about that premise soon enough), this has proved to be the failed modus operandi of every antagonist in this fiction up until this point ? including the Illusive Man and Saren ? all of whom have been chewed up and destroyed by their blind ambition, incapable of controlling forces beyond their comprehension. Nothing in the vague prognostication of the exposition-ghost offers any tangible justification for why Shepard's plunge into Reaper-control should play out any differently. In fact, as many people have already pointed out, Shepard has literally not five minutes before this moment watched the Illusive Man die as a consequence of this arrogant misconception.

The Destroy ending, however, seems even more perverse. One of the constants of the Mass Effect universe (and indeed much quality science fiction) has been an exploration of the notion that life is not simplistically bound to biology, that existence expands beyond the narrow parameters of blood and bone. That is why synthetic characters like Legion and EDI are so compelling in this context, why their quests to understand self-awareness ? not simply to ape human behaviours ? is so dramatic and compelling. Indeed, we even get glimpses of the Reapers having more sprawling and unknowable motivations that we puny mortals can comprehend...

To then end the tale by forcing the player to obliterate several now-proven-legitimate forms of life in order to 'save' the traditional definition of fleshy existence is not only genocidal, it actually devolves Shephard's ideological growth, undermining his ascent toward a more enlightened conception of existence, something that the fiction has been steadily advancing no matter how Renegadishably you wanted to play. This is particularly evident when the preceding actions of all three games entirely disprove the premise that synthetic will inevitably destroy organic: the Geth were the persecuted victims, trying their best to save the Quarians from themselves; EDI, given autonomy, immediately sought to aid her crew, even taking physical form in order to experience life from their perspective and finally learning that she too feared the implications of death.

And finally Synthesis, the ending that I suspect (unless we are to believe the Indoctrination Theory) is the 'good' option, proves to be the most distasteful of all. Shepard, up until this point has been an instrument though which change is achieved in this universe, and dependent upon your individual Renegade or Paragon choices, this may have resulted in siding with one species or another, letting this person live or that person die, even condemning races to extinction through your actions. But these decisions were always the result of a mediation of disparate opinions, and a consequence of the natural escalation of these disputes ? Shepard was merely the fork in the path that decided which way the lava would run. His/her actions had an impact, but was responding to events in the universe that were already in motion before he/she arrived.

To belabour the point: Shepard is an agent for arbitration, the tipping point of dialogues that have, at times, root causes that reach back across generations. Up until this moment in the game the narrative, and Shepard's role within it, has been about the negotiation of diversity, testing the validity of opposing viewpoints and selecting a path through which to evolve on to another layer of questioning. Suddenly with the Synthesis ending, Shepard's capacity to make decisions elevates from offering a moral tipping point to arbitrarily wiping such disparity from the world. Shepard imposes his/her will upon every species, every form of life within the galaxy, making them all a dreary homogenous oneness. At such a point, wiping negotiation and multiplicity from the universe, Shepard moves from being an influential voice amongst a biodiversity of thought to sacrificing him/herself in an omnipotent imposition of will.

(And lest we forget that the entire character arc of Javik (the 'bonus' paid-DLC character that gives unique context to the entire cycle of destruction upon which this fiction is based) is utilised to reveal that a lack of diversity, the failure to continue adapting to new circumstances, was the primary reason that his race was decimated. ...So I guess we have that to look forward to.)

And this was the analogy I made to Made Nightwing in our discussion (and which I have bored people with elsewhere): this bewildering finale felt as if you had been listening to a soaring orchestral movement that ended in a cacophonous blast, the musicians tossing down their instruments and walking away. I find it hard to conceive how the creators of such a magnificent franchise could have made such a mess of their own universe. The plot holes, thematic inconsistencies and a deus ex machina that was unforgivable in ancient Greek theatre, let alone in any modern narrative, all combine to erode the foundations upon which the rest of the experience resides. (It's a disturbing sign when apologists for such an ending have to literally hope that what they witnessed was just a bad dream in the central character's head.)

I'm sure in my diatribe with Made Nightwing I would have cited Charles Dickens being alert to, and adapting his writing in response to the floods of letters he received from his fans in the serialised delivery of stories such as The Old Curiosity Shop. And I know I mentioned F.Scott Fitzgerald extensively redrafting Tender is the Night for a second publishing after receiving negative critical feedback. Indeed, whatever you think of the final result, Ridley Scott was able to reassert a definitive vision of Blade Runner in spite of its original theatrical release. Despite what critics might burble about artistic vision there is innumerable precedent for such reshaping, even beyond fundamental industry practices such as play-testings and film test-screenings. If a work of art has failed in its communicative purpose (and unless angering and bewildering its most invested fans was the goal, then Mass Effect 3 has done so), then it cannot be considered a success, and is not worthy of regard.

And for those who would respond that I, and fans like myself, are simply upset because the endings do not offer some irrefutable 'clarity' that would mar the poetic mysteries of the ending, I would point out that I am in no way against obscure or bewildering endings: if they are earned. In contrast to a majority of viewers, I happen to love the ending of The Sopranos for precisely this reason ? because, despite the momentary jolt of surprise it engendered, that audacious blank screen was wholly thematically supportable. The driving premise of that program was a man seeking therapy (a mobster, yes, but a psychologically damaged man) ? indeed, the very first beat in that narrative was Tony Soprano walking into a psychiatrist's office. The principle thematic tie of the entire series was therefore revealed to be a mediation upon the underlying psychological stimuli that produces identity: whether the capacity to interpret and understand one's impulses can impact upon the experience of one's life; whether one can attain agency over one's life.

That ending might have been agonising, but it was entirely fitting that the series ended with a loaded ambiguity, inviting a myriad of interpretations in which we the audience were now placed into the role of the psychiatrist, suddenly compelled to reason out the ending of those final thirty seconds with the cumulative experience of the preceding six years of imagery. Did Tony die? Did he have a second plate of onion rings and enjoy his family's company? Did Meadow ever park that car? In its final act The Sopranos gives over the interpretive, descriptive function of its narrative to its audience, intimately binding the viewer to Tony Soprano's own (perhaps failed) attempts to comprehend himself and attain authorship over his life. ...But the only reason that they could even try this is because every minute of every episode to this point has been propagated upon the notion that Tony Soprano was a man with a subconscious that could be explored, and that motivated his actions whether as a loving father or brutal criminal.

The obscurities in the ending of Mass Effect 3 have not been similarly earned by its prior narrative. This narrative has not until this point been about dominance, extermination, and the imposition of uniformity ? indeed, Shepard has spent over a hundred hours of narrative fighting against precisely these three themes. And if one of these three (and only these three) options must be selected in order to sustain life in the universe, then that life has been so devalued by that act as to make the sacrifice meaningless.

And that is why I shall continue to go on shooting Haley-Joel-Osment-ghost in the face.

...Sorry again for the length of this post.
I know it's extremely long but it is well worth a read and I sincerely hope this persons message is heard by BioWare.
 

Mr Companion

New member
Jul 27, 2009
1,534
0
0
Sseth said:
Hey everyone, I frequent this site but until now I have been on the sidelines but I thought I'd chime in here with my own opinion.

I just beat Mass Effect 3 with Extended Cut DLC. What I mean to say is, I've never played Mass Effect 3 before the EC DLC version and I didn't spoil anything though it was impossible to avoid all the hubris over the ending in the past few months.

I thought the story was perfect, and the endings were very good. I have viewed the non-extended DLC versions on youtube and while I understand they have some plotholes I think this entire issue is ridiculously exaggerated. The main complaints are

1) No closure, plot holes that don't explain what happened to our crew members.

-Does not apply to me because my first play through was with extended cut! lol. That being said, I could understand the frustration over this but it was fixed with this DLC and I don't think it was big enough an issue for people to rise in arms like they did. The real issue was.
I never played ME 3 (did play the others) but here is the thing, rewind time and imagine you played it without the extended cut first. You've just had a massive adventure spanning three long games growing to love the characters and the world around them. Then at the very end no matter what you do all the mass relays explode and kill every living thing, assuming that didn't happen all the relays are gone anyway so all the trade lines and communication are scuppered leading to terrible strife, the whole fleet that fought desperately and heroically to save the galaxy are now stranded floating above a ravaged earth. And even assuming the ending somehow didn't indicate any of these things the worst thing is not being able to know. No closure at all. A tiny dialogue tree leading to three non-choices full of plotholes. Then the developers explain its "artistic" or "open to interpretation" or "bittersweet" although I struggle to see whats so sweet amongst all the bitter but kay. The old endings seem fine to you because you know what they all mean and how it's supposed to end, but when left in the dark a player is understandably frustrated (time money and care investment not paid back).

Anyway all that aside these new fully fleshed out endings are good. The endings never needed to be happy snugglefun where everything is fine forever but they needed what they got, an explanation.
 

Mr Companion

New member
Jul 27, 2009
1,534
0
0
Aldarionn said:
I know it's extremely long but it is well worth a read and I sincerely hope this persons message is heard by BioWare.
That was fantastic, its astonishing how even now we learn more and more reasons why the standard endings (and even the extended endings) are fail to deliver. Its like the awfulness is so prevalent in every aspect of its design it becomes a multifaceted gem where every time you turn to look at it from a different angle you discover more flaws, new depths of wrongness to research and examine in full. Light catches it from another angle here or we see something in a facet there and suddenly we locate another thing wrong with it so deeply stupid we feel compelled to write a massive report about it. In a way the Mass Effect ending debacle has caused such dedicated study/rampant fury from every fan even remotely related to it that it has sparked interest and passion from the community in ways that go about halfway to refunding the misplaced emotional investment it trashed in the first place. Actually pretty cool when you think about it!
 

I.Muir

New member
Jun 26, 2008
599
0
0
The amusing thing to me is that is still worth talking about
The root of their problem was the star child and vague attempts to be meaningful but managing to leave plot holes caused by this character unaddressed and giving unknowable vaguely cthulian horrors a purpose at all was a mistake - everybody should know this by now
The extended cut DLC did not fix this massive problem it only made the endings less sad overall which is a major miscommunication or just bioware being deluded. They did this even though just removing the star child makes the whole thing into an above average ending and they could have handed the whole plot into a primary school English teacher and have been told much the same.
I just don't understand how anybody could not see these things as a problem bioware fans or not

Of course if the star child was gone we wouldn't be able to choose what color the ending was but without the stupid little speech beforehand how much of a difference would this have made. I think this is kind of stupid in itself that you didn't spend the entire game building up to the choice rather than being informed by bastard mcplothole in the last twenty minutes. Just goes to show the ending was some last minute shite thrown together because who would purposefully miss out on building that kind of suspense.
 

putowtin

I'd like to purchase an alcohol!
Jul 7, 2010
3,452
0
0
Of course Shepard shot first,

and with "lot's of big guns!"
 

-Dragmire-

King over my mind
Mar 29, 2011
2,821
0
0
Out of curiosity, does the Catalyst explain why he's showing himself in the form of Shepard's nightmare kid now? Maybe that info was already there and I missed it but I'm pretty sure that doesn't come in conversation, which is odd.
 

Neonsilver

New member
Aug 11, 2009
289
0
0
Scars Unseen said:
Diana Kingston-Gabai said:
Scars Unseen said:
Oh, and one minor nitpick about the EC... I see that in addition to Multi-Core Shielding, we have added some serious Plot Armor to the Normandy. Or did Harbinger just decide that the ship that carries the people that have been screwing with the Reapers' plans at every turn just wasn't worth shooting at? Maybe Joker had a Red Cross painted on the hull?
I actually attributed that to the Normandy's stealth systems - they've said many times that the only way you could detect the ship would be if you were looking at it, and Reapers don't have "eyes"... :)
The problem with that assumption is that the Reaper-created Collector ship could detect the Normandy just fine, even in stealth mode.
And that the shuttles that were used to bring sheppard and the rest of the ground forces were shot down. If I remember it right at some point in the game it's said that since me2 those shuttles got the same stealth system the normandy has.
 

TastyCarcass

New member
Jul 27, 2009
141
0
0
I.Muir said:
The extended cut DLC did not fix this massive problem it only made the endings less sad overall which is a major miscommunication or just bioware being deluded.
THIS

For the love of god Bioware needs to understand this. It was not a bad ending because it was a sad or unhappy ending in the sense that The Godfather had a bad ending, it was a bad ending because it was a terrible ending that contradicted the themes of all three games up to that point and made absolutely no sense.

I.Muir said:
They could have handed the whole plot into a primary school English teacher and have been told much the same.
More like primary school student.


-Dragmire- said:
Out of curiosity, does the Catalyst explain why he's showing himself in the form of Shepard's nightmare kid now? Maybe that info was already there and I missed it but I'm pretty sure that doesn't come in conversation, which is odd.

The Indoctrination theory was confirmed as being the original idea, which would have made sense. It still wouldn't have worked with the themes of the games story, as the long post on this page pointed out, but it would have made sense. Apparently it was cut, although I'm not sure why. I also read that the Prothean had much more to do with the story originally, as the Illusive Man was supposed to kidnap him, but because they made the decision to use him as DLC, they could no longer make him directly related to the game's plot.
 

Neonsilver

New member
Aug 11, 2009
289
0
0
Dead_Lee said:
The Indoctrination theory was confirmed as being the original idea, which would have made sense. It still wouldn't have worked with the themes of the games story, as the long post on this page pointed out, but it would have made sense. Apparently it was cut, although I'm not sure why. I also read that the Prothean had much more to do with the story originally, as the Illusive Man was supposed to kidnap him, but because they made the decision to use him as DLC, they could no longer make him directly related to the game's plot.
Where did you get that information?
 

TwistednMean

New member
Nov 23, 2010
56
0
0
You can go to great lengths about why Bioware did a great job with extended cut, I'm sure. Only it doesn't make the story any more gratifying for those people why didn't like the idea of an ass-pulled character coming along at the very end of the series coercing the player character into arbitrary and extremely morally ambiguous decisions. All the while saying that synthetic and organic lifeforms will be ultimately at odds with each other even though Geth throughout the series are a very convincing example of how this is not the case.

This totally destroys the Reapers motivation, which as dark and scary as long as it has been unknown and now they look like complete morons, who can't even make out what's wrong with wiping all organics out, who could produce synthetics, who could wipe them out. And the most disturbing thing is Shepard swallowing this load of crap and going along with what Catalyst suggests.

Yeah, I almost forgot to mention the new endings with "the cycle continues". That one almost made me feel like Bioware needed to justify their stupid original ending by stating that either you agree or you die. Would have been all right if it was a book. But since it's an freaking role-play game they just totally spoil the fun of a person grinding through the whole series just to get to a point where everyone dies. Seriously, it would have been a lot better if they never implemented this ending at all, because it does have the sort of spit-in-the-face feel to it.
 

TotalerKrieger

New member
Nov 12, 2011
376
0
0
After watching the extended cut endings, it really struck me just how amateurish and incomplete the original endings actually were. The new endings were a big improvement but certainly had a "band-aid" feel to them at times. The epilouge sequences to synthesis and destroy made me cringe a bit due to all the unwavering bullshit. Control, previously my least favorite ending, was awesome, the space-guardian angle was the right way to go.

In the end, I still felt compelled to uninstall ME1, ME2 & ME3 from my hard drive. Another playthrough of the trilogy just isn't worth my time at this point. My original disappointment with the endings has permanently marred the series, and no attempt to fix them, even if fairly competent, will change this.
 

Dennis Scimeca

New member
Mar 29, 2010
217
0
0
Neonsilver said:
Scars Unseen said:
Diana Kingston-Gabai said:
Scars Unseen said:
Oh, and one minor nitpick about the EC... I see that in addition to Multi-Core Shielding, we have added some serious Plot Armor to the Normandy. Or did Harbinger just decide that the ship that carries the people that have been screwing with the Reapers' plans at every turn just wasn't worth shooting at? Maybe Joker had a Red Cross painted on the hull?
I actually attributed that to the Normandy's stealth systems - they've said many times that the only way you could detect the ship would be if you were looking at it, and Reapers don't have "eyes"... :)
The problem with that assumption is that the Reaper-created Collector ship could detect the Normandy just fine, even in stealth mode.
And that the shuttles that were used to bring sheppard and the rest of the ground forces were shot down. If I remember it right at some point in the game it's said that since me2 those shuttles got the same stealth system the normandy has.
"You do realize that just heat emissions are masked right? The geth could look out of a window and see us coming" (ME2)

As for why they do not shoot at the normandy; I suspect the reapers were saving the best harvest for last, or planning to make shepard beg to be harvested after the rest of the galaxy is, starchild said that they were not aware of the crucible, if they were then they would have shot down the normandy. Either that or they knew that with the advanced shielding, kinetic barriers and armor they would not be able to bring down the normandy directly anyway!
 

Atmos Duality

New member
Mar 3, 2010
8,473
0
0
Catalyst-Starchild still exists so...really, this is just damage control.
Good effort, but I think the damage is irreparable simply because it betrayed the series' original ambition ("Your decisions matter"...well, maybe TWO decisions matter now).

ME3 will eventually go down as something for hipsters and business geeks to argue over; an obvious case of business and greed overtaking the creative ambitions of its creators.

(the huge sudden emphasis placed on multiplayer in what was a personal story; the DLC money-packs associated with the multiplayer, the rushed hugely contrived "twist" ending.)

Priorities changed between ME2 and ME3, and it shows.

doggie015 said:
As for why they do not shoot at the normandy...*snip*
Just looking at all the explanations, I'm calling it a plot hole.

Why? If every explanation requires personal interpretation and blind assumption in order to work, then the outcome is ambiguous.

Which is fine for regular plot points and twists (even unintended ones *cough*Blade Runner*cough*); but not potential plot holes.
 

KrabbiPatty

New member
Jan 16, 2008
131
0
0
I'm gonna' say this right now, as someone who was as deep in the Retake trenches as anyone and who is still bitter at BioWare, I have to admit that they DID do right by the fans.

The ending is still stupid and ignorant and fucked up and the Baby Jesus bullshit is still insulting and forced...BUUUUT at least now it's a stupid, ignorant, fucked up, insulting, forced ending that MAKES SENSE.

And really that's all I personally wanted.

I said it before, if they at least explain why the Mass Relays blowing up didn't destroy the galaxy (here, they don't blow up, so the point is moot) why Joker left the battle (he was ordered) and if everyone starved to death or not (no, they didn't) then I'd be happy.

That doesn't make this a GOOD ending. I've read the original idea for the ending, it's better...the Indoc ending is better, and it's just "Loose Change: The Game of the Movie"...but that being said Bioware did the right thing.

And why shouldn't they: if they ACTUALLY cared about artistic integrity then they'd try and fix the plot holes...which they did. So they do. So at least I know Bioware didn't actively screw people over for money, to sell DLC as I had feared, they just did it because they genuinely, by no fault of their own, wrote a shitty ending due to ignorance and complacency (and due to politicking between Casey Hudson and his peers too) so I can forgive that, since God only knows I've made tremendous fuck ups in the past. I'm not one to talk.

So as far as I'm concerned, Bioware did the right thing, I'm not happy about it--I'd prefer if it had never been necessary in the first place--but I'm happy they owned up. It shows me they care about their fans and that matters to me, as a consumer.

So good on you Bioware, you did the capital letters Right Thing and that's what counts.