Mass Effect 3 Fans Will Find Closure June 26th

[The.Bard]

I'll only touch a few salient points in order to be brief; I write like a mofo when left unshackled... =D Most of what I snipped is stuff I agree with you on.

It never ceases to amuse me how people feel the need to tell me how I should feel or think about the ending (I guess I wasn't clear, those were just my opinions on the ending and what they said to us about the upcoming DLC).

My intent wasn't to tell you how you should feel. I apologize if that's what you took from my statement. My intent was to reiterate the age old lesson about judging books by covers. Labeling something as unfixably broken without even seeing how a potential solution performs is at best, a defeatist attitude, and at worse, potentially depriving yourself of joy if it ends up being good.

Good writing can fix everything? Really? How shocking! Unfortunately, they also said that they won't change the ending, so there is nothing they can do to make it better for me (IT sounds pretty unlikely based on what they said, and frankly, I don't think it was that solid in the first place).

Now now, no need to get sarcastic, Cap'n Snarky Pants. Rewriting the ending is NOT necessarily the same thing as changing the lens through which you view it. Observe:

------------------------------
CLIP A:
Dude throws paraplegic man in wheelchair to floor.

Your probable response:
"That dude is a bum!"
------------------------------

------------------------------
CLIP B:
Dude throws paraplegic man in wheelchair to floor... and the man gets up cuz HE WAS FAKING IT!!

Your probable response:
"That big man is a faker! Good on that dude for exposing him!"
------------------------------

The core scene hasn't changed - dude throws big man in wheelchair to the floor - but I have completely redirected your interpretation of it with a simple bit of clarity.

My hope is that this is what the DLC will do. Redirect interpretation, shed new light, and provide us with a shiny new camera lens through which we view the ending. If you WANT to go in with a pessimistic "they can't fix it; it's unfixable" attitude, well, that's on you. But it means you're probably going to hate it whether it's good or not, as you've seemingly already made your mind up in that scenario.

I obviously can't speak to what clarifications Bioware has made, but there are many shifts they can make without changing the spirit of their ending and STILL change your interpretation of it. This applies to Star Child, the 3 choices, the flow... everything.

P.S. You don't know too much about the development of this series. They had just planned to make 3 games, but the story and the ending weren't decided until ME3 development had already started (and not in the early stages of development, either). The original lead writer talked about at least one different ending that was on the table (dark matter theory) before he left to work for SWTOR, just to make an example.

You have thrown me a gem! We have a case in point to show how judging things prematurely and without full knowledge can make you look silly and/or lead to incorrect conclusions.

My specific comment: "ps - the series WAS planned as a trilogy, from the getgo."

Ingesting this, you thought I was declaring the entire story was written from the very first day and this had all been set in stone for a while.

Did I mention when or how they planned the ending? No. And yet, here you are, telling me I don't know much about the development of the series. You took a small kernel of information and extrapolated it in a way that isn't wrong, but also not at all in the way it was intended.

So now, like Bioware, I will clarify my comment for you without changing one word of its original meaning. They DID plan the series as a trilogy, like I said, but I was not speaking to the development of the ending. Yes, the original ending leaked, they had to change it, it was rushed, and most of Drew Karpyshyn's original development was more or less abandoned.

If you had gone in with an open mind, you might have questioned me before stating I didn't know what I was talking about. This would have made you look like a caring, loving, person. Don't you want to be loving?

So by now I'm sure you're most assuredly thinking to yourself, "Ohhhhh, I ASSUMED he was being a jerk, when really he was only trying to let me know that the decision for this to be a trilogy was made when they were developing the first game. Gee, if I was bit more of a Positive Patty, I might have seen that, instead of jumping to the conclusion that he was being a know-it-all jerkyface. Oh, hey, look... I was doing that exact same thing in regards to the DLC, too! WOW, if only I went in with a happy, upbeat attitude all the time, well... golly gee, I might find that I actually like it!!! Thanks, Mr. Bard!"



You're welcome, Timmy!

And now you're thinking, "No, it's Dennis!"

Dennis... Timmy... whatever. You li'l uppity rugrats all need a slap in the face! Get outta my swamp, you kids!!

 

[mdqp]

You start a line with "It never ceases to amuse me" that is one of the most condescending things one can say (it's very often used like that, as far as I know), and then you get bothered if I get sarcastic about the obvious "good writing can fix anything"? Still, I believe I might have overreacted (I am not a native english speaker, I guess I misunderstood, after all), I apologize.

You ignored my points about the ending, so I guess that you mean that you won't speculate at all on how it might work or not, and will hope it fixes any problems you have with the ending (if you have any problems with it at all).

The endings were either meant to be taken at face value or not. If they were meant to be taken at face value, there is nothing to be done with them for me, because their nature is in itself illogical. You can either tell me that the catalyst is crazy (making the endings absurd... Why would you do what it tells you?), outright a liar (again, what does it make of the endings?), or you put together a convoluted, contrived excuse as to why it is as the author says (making the ending even less tollerable, for me). I didn't tell you what my reaction would be if they weren't meant to be taken at face value, but believe me, you don't want to hear that, it's kind of scary. You can't fix bad writing with good writing if you don't exchange them, at least, not always.

Your example doesn't have a whole story before it, and it doesn't have transparent themes to it, so I don't feel like I can accept it in this situation (the ending has those, instead, and they don't want to touch those).

In the first post you quoted, I wrote that they weren't planned as a trilogy beforehand, but I meant to wrote "They didn't plan the trilogy as a whole beforehand", that's why I thought you meant it was planned as a whole, and for that I went into the "I know more than you" mode, and I apologize for that.

P.S. I kind of assumed it was more or less addressed to me, since you quoted my post, and I got snarky afterward, but I felt like you were belittling me for simply not wanting to get involved with the DLC.

P.P.S. I'll say it again, that's my opinion. I am a very pessimistic person, so maybe that's why I see it this way, but I am not going to care about this (I also don't like where Bioware is going, from ME2, DA2 and ME3, as I said, I have more problems with ME3 than just its ending, so, again, it won't fix things for me).

 

[The.Bard]

Dangit, I can't say no. Just to pump myself up for tomorrow, let's chat the juicy details I sliced out of my other reply...

Suffice to say, MASSIVE SPOILERS BELOW. But I guess anybody concerned about that shouldn't be here...

To elaborate more: if IT isn't true (as I think), then the ending has to be taken at face value. That means that the catalyst presents 3 solutions that (in its own views!) don't solve the problem, as all 3 choices still allow for synthetics to be produced in the future and exterminate all organics.

This is mostly why I question the worth of judging the DLC before it's out. This isn't something I was intended as solely being directed at you... a LOT of people are all "This is stupid, I don't need to play this to know it sucks! Rar rar rar!"

So the question becomes what does "face value" mean in this case? I think it's fair to say the ending we saw before can't be judged anymore, except to say it was insufficient. It effectively no longer exists in my mind, because it's been augmented with content we'll see very soon. Can I accurately judge the extended cut of the Lord of the Rings films having only seen the Theatrical releases? I would say no. So the only thing we have to take at face value is the new DLC, except for those few misguided souls who are so tormented by this that they are happier hating Bioware than giving this a spin. (*cough* my brother-in-law *cough*)

Given how the Reapers have been quite pro-active about this, one has to wonder what has really changed (and don't tell me you buy the idea that Shepard gained the right to make the choice just because he/she got that far: if there was a dog there, would it have gotten the right to make the choice for all organics? If it was just another soldier, would it have been ok? Shepard got there by dumb luck, how is that a good way to pick someone as the one who makes the choice? Do the catalyst compile a list of those who are worthy, and sends the elevator only for them?), to convince them that now it's the time to leave self-determination to organics.

Also, Synthesis isn't even remotely believable to anyone with a modicum of knowledge of biology, and there is nothing that will change that.

I'll play Devil's advocate, just cuz. We'll assume IT is out, and everything happens in the really real world, man. Let's say Star Child is confirmed as a Reaper. They were vague in the "theatrical" release, although he did refer to himself as an "us", so it was a wishy-washy "Is he / Isn't he?" at best. So let's say he is full on 100% Reaper, either Harbinger or some other one. Maybe Harbinger intentionally killed everyone on the battlefield EXCEPT Shepard, thus ensuring He/She is the ONLY one to get up top. Perhaps Anderson was too close to Shepard, so when they dialed the beam damage back, he accidentally survived, too. The Indoctrinated Illusive Man helped deal with that loose end.

This scenario would mean Shepard is there by the Reapers' own intent. Everything Star Child tells you is now questionable cuz he's a Reaper. Remember - throughout the series the Reapers have often expressed interest in humanity. Presumably this was Drew setting up his Dark Matter ending (Haestrom's rapidly dying sun, the Human Reaper, etc)

I would prefer the XCD (Extended Cut DLC) not get into too much detail on WHY they want humanity, as I think they're better served as a shadowy, mysterious threat, but any number of reasons could be concocted as a replacement to give us SOME justification for their actions. Hell, maybe the Reapers didn't build anything, not even the Citadel. Maybe they have subservient races build it for them. Perhaps the Crucible is just the latest Reaper design, and they'd been holding back their forces in order to pose jussssst enough of a threat to keep us motivated. Maybe in the past they'd tried forcing races to work on it, and like all indoctrinated servants, without free will and the use of their own minds, they became drooling puppies before it ever finished. And the culling and growing and culling and growing is just them trying to get better technology to save their own scaly hides, or simply evolve. The Protheans were fairly warlike and domineering, so the Reapers probably saw their cycle as worthless, took the Protheans as genetic slaves, and then waited for the other races to flourish in this cycle.

I'm not saying I implicitly believe any of this, I'm just brainstorming potential game-changing scenarios from the hip. If the whole thing isn't a fight inside Shepard's mind, the Reapers could very well still be trying to indoctrinate him/her. Like Saren, TIM, and Udina. You get one guy/gal who is respected, sacrifice him or her with indoctrination, and then get THOUSANDS to follow before their little candle burns down to the wick.

Explaining why and how the Normandy leaves is something I don't really care too much (I think it's stupid, the way it's presented, but I can ignore it easily). If they show you that the catalyst is lying, then 2 endings make no sense at all. Also, why would it give you the chance to destroy the Reapers? Why doesn't it kill you? Is it lying about being the citadel, too?

It's funny because I'm the opposite. I never was a huge fan of the Reaper storyline, and I can live with the Star Child scene. But something like why the Normandy fled means EVERYTHING to me.

If the intended storyline in any way involves the Reapers dying (which the Dark Matter angle did, I believe), then there are any number of reasons why they would give us an option to kill them.

Maybe they are in pain, and are constantly trying to find a way to make it stop, even if it means leveraging their own destruction. Again, I prefer not humanizing the Reapers too much, but they do present a number of angles from which we can justify Star Child's actions.

Maybe they're hunted by whoever created them. Maybe it's a virus. Maybe it's a flesh eating disease. Maybe they ARE Keepers.

I can plan to make 3 games, but if I don't have an overarching idea for them, what's the point? I can still make 3 good games, mind you, but they are a trilogy in name only, if I shift the focus of the story from one game to another (you probably didn't feel this way about the ME series, this much I can understand, is more of a pet peeve of mine).

For me, I would say the overall story of the trilogy fits well together. ME1 - Stop a Rogue Reaper. ME2 - Stop Collectors from Building Reaper. ME3 - Win War vs Reapers.

The Reaper storyline in 2 & 3 are the weakest for me, so I won't say those are handled perfectly, but the trilogy does work as a trilogy. At no point would I personally say these games suffer from being disconnected. Especially given the vast number of decisions that carry over from game to game.

Just to give you more clarity on this: I would rate ME with an 8; ME2 with a 7 and ME3 with 6, and this without the ending, so I am pretty critical about it).

I'm a bit more mixed. Judging them as Gameplay / Main Plot / Character Story Arcs, I'd go:

ME1: 5 / 10 / 10
ME2: 8 / 6 / 10
ME3: 9 / 5 / 10

I truly loved the first game DESPITE some of the weaker gameplay, but the narrative in the latter two games really stoops to a stupifyingly silly story structure.

 

[The.Bard]

You start a line with "It never ceases to amuse me" that is one of the most condescending things one can say (it's very often used like that, as far as I know), and then you get bothered if I get sarcastic about the obvious "good writing can fix anything"? Still, I believe I might have overreacted (I am not a native english speaker, I guess I misunderstood, after all), I apologize.

You ignored my points about the ending, so I guess that you mean that you won't speculate at all on how it might work or not, and will hope it fixes any problems you have with the ending (if you have any problems with it at all).

The endings were either meant to be taken at face value or not. If they were meant to be taken at face value, there is nothing to be done with them for me, because their nature is in itself illogical. You can either tell me that the catalyst is crazy (making the endings absurd... Why would you do what it tells you?), outright a liar (again, what does it make of the endings?), or you put together a convoluted, contrived excuse as to why it is as the author says (making the ending even less tollerable, for me). I didn't tell you what my reaction would be if they weren't meant to be taken at face value, but believe me, you don't want to hear that, it's kind of scary. You can't fix bad writing with good writing if you don't exchange them, at least, not always.

Your example doesn't have a whole story before it, and it doesn't have transparent themes to it, so I don't feel like I can accept it in this situation (the ending has those, instead, and they don't want to touch those).

In the first post you quoted, I wrote that they weren't planned as a trilogy beforehand, but I meant to wrote "They didn't plan the trilogy as a whole beforehand", that's why I thought you meant it was planned as a whole, and for that I went into the "I know more than you" mode, and I apologize for that.

P.S. I kind of assumed it was more or less addressed to me, since you quoted my post, and I got snarky afterward, but I felt like you were belittling me for simply not wanting to get involved with the DLC.

P.P.S. I'll say it again, that's my opinion. I am a very pessimistic person, so maybe that's why I see it this way, but I am not going to care about this (I also don't like where Bioware is going, from ME2, DA2 and ME3, as I said, I have more problems with ME3 than just its ending, so, again, it won't fix things for me).

Snap, you are correct. I had truly intended it never ceases to amuse me in its most literal sense - that I find it funny how dismissive people are of the DLC without playing it, but you're right; it is often used snarkily.

I just replied to most of your points with potential POV-altering-but-not-quite-story-altering drivel, so I can put a check in that column, too.

I guess the big thing, which is where we could spend hours spinning our wheels, is WHERE Bioware is drawing the line on "CLARIFICATION" VS "CHANGING". It sounds like some things you would consider to be a change are things I would view - potentially, at least - as clarification.

For instance, in a recent interview, Casey had said they never intended people to infer that all the races are stuck in the Milky Way to starve to death. Which I presume to mean in the new ending we will see HOW and WHY this isn't the case. And if they're changing something on that kind of level, I can see how clarification can fix a good many other things, as well.

At the end of the day, I guess we won't know until it releases!

The last bit of my first comment was less directed towards you, and more my transition from replying to you to replying to the world at large. I can see why you thought I was directly replying.

It's all good. If there's one thing I learned to do a long long time ago, it's to treat all interactions on the internet as if it were standup comedy. It prevents me from ever getting upset in internet conversations. XD

 

[MrBrightside919]

Adding more to the pitiful ending ME3 had was a good start, but Bioware isn't actually changing the ending because of artistic integrity...and I think that is a huge mistake...

So you wanted the ending to be bleak and depressing, but with a small glimmer of hope with the Normandy crew surviving...that's fine...I didn't expect ME3 to have a "Happy" ending. Earth was practically destroyed, tons of "living" beings died in the process of defending it, but you ended the Reaper threat (supposedly) and that is all that mattered.

That being said, Shepard still ends up dying at the end (unless you got the perfect ending that is only obtainable by having a save from the previous games...which A LOT of people didn't) AND death in video games is generally associated with failure...but the game meets it's resolution and ends...so did you really "win" if you ended up dying?

Games don't need a happy ending, in fact there are times where I wish certain games didn't end happily. Here's an example of a game with a very depressing ending, not one i'd call "happy"...

"I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream" is a very disturbing point and click adventure game (probably my favorite adventure game) based off a short story that revolves around a super computer killing off everything on Earth, except for 5 individuals, who are kept alive for over 100 years and tortured by this cynical AI. They can't kill themselves or end their pain, they are forced to endure it. A big concern about the game was that you supposedly couldn't "WIN" the game. There was NO happy ending for these characters, other than they all, unavoidably, meet their end and DIE...only by obtaining the BEST ending is there even a TINY glimmer of hope for humanity as a whole. You could finish the game, but did you really "win" since everyone died during the last section of the game?

I have ABSOLUTELY NO problem with a bleak or depressing ending...

But going back to what I said about Bioware not changing the ending because of Artistic integrity (they didn't wanna ruin their "art"), that was a really bad move on their part. The ending they provided was absolutely pitifully conceived, full of plot holes and generally unsatisfying...not to mention that EVERY ending was pretty much the same (where did my choices during the game come into play?).

What you see as "art" and what I see as "art" and what Bioware sees as "art" are probably all completely different things...

Let's say I wanna be an artist, so I reach up my ass and pull out a piece of poop. I take that piece of poop and smear it all over this nice wall. Then, I take a picture frame and place it around my poop smear, calling it a piece of art. I may call that smear "ART", but does that really mean it is "ART"? I'm sure you won't see it as "art"...

Now, let's say Bioware wants to be an artist. They take a piece of poop (the ME3 ending) and smear it all over a very nice wall that people probably enjoyed up until that poop even came close to touching the wall (ME3 as a whole)...and then they call that poop "ART"...does that mean it's true? In this case, no one except Bioware thought it was art. We all saw it as a giant shit stain on an otherwise very good/great game/series...and we wanted it cleaned up...

Just because some calls that shit stain "ART" doesn't mean it's anything other than a shit stain...and when someone smears their shit all over a wall, it's common sense to expect them to clean it up...

...artistic integrity or not...it's still shit...

Well, that's just what I think anyways...that's how I see it...
.
.
.
.
Did that make any sense to anyone other than myself?

Probably not...

 

[pandorum]

Its going to be OK even if it is a pile of sloppy dog poo, they will either change the ending or watch as EA throws them away to save itself the money it will loose from DLC not being brought.

Captcha: sandy beach, me and Garrus feet up on a dead reaper, my LI giving me a well earned beer, Garrus pulling a face my Shep going "I've got one for you,its dextro based", Garrus says "well we did it, what do we do now?" Shepard looks up at the sunny sky fade to black.... find out from the future addition content, for the story is over.... for now.... quick shot of omega cut to credits. If only if only.

 

[Amaror]

What are Mass Effect fans going to do if they actually like this new ending? They're already donated thousands of dollars to charity and sent them cupcakes out of anger originally. So if they like it, then what?

Since they send cupcakes when they hated it, they will propably send some nukes when they like it.

 

[votemarvel]

For instance, in a recent interview, Casey had said they never intended people to infer that all the races are stuck in the Milky Way to starve to death. Which I presume to mean in the new ending we will see HOW and WHY this isn't the case. And if they're changing something on that kind of level, I can see how clarification can fix a good many other things, as well.

Assuming you mean stuck in the Sol System I don't see how we were meant to infer anything else.

With the relays destroyed the ships are going to have to rely on conventional FTL to get them anywhere. We have no idea how long it is going to take the quarians and turians to reach a system with food they are able to eat or if their ships are going to be in a suitable state of repair to be able to make the trip in the first place.

The likelihood is that a great many of their survivors did starve.

That being said, Shepard still ends up dying at the end (unless you got the perfect ending that is only obtainable by having a save from the previous games...which A LOT of people didn't) AND death in video games is generally associated with failure...but the game meets it's resolution and ends...so did you really "win" if you ended up dying?

Even if you import 1>2>3 you still can't get that 'hidden' scene unless you play either the multi-player or the iPhone apps.

 

[MrBrightside919]

That being said, Shepard still ends up dying at the end (unless you got the perfect ending that is only obtainable by having a save from the previous games...which A LOT of people didn't) AND death in video games is generally associated with failure...but the game meets it's resolution and ends...so did you really "win" if you ended up dying?

Even if you import 1>2>3 you still can't get that 'hidden' scene unless you play either the multi-player or the iPhone apps.

Really? I didn't know that...

...I just ended up playing the multiplayer anyways since some people wanted to play it with me...

That's pretty messed up tho...

 

[votemarvel]

That being said, Shepard still ends up dying at the end (unless you got the perfect ending that is only obtainable by having a save from the previous games...which A LOT of people didn't) AND death in video games is generally associated with failure...but the game meets it's resolution and ends...so did you really "win" if you ended up dying?

Even if you import 1>2>3 you still can't get that 'hidden' scene unless you play either the multi-player or the iPhone apps.

Really? I didn't know that...

...I just ended up playing the multiplayer anyways since some people wanted to play it with me...

That's pretty messed up tho...

There weren't enough war assets in the game at the default Galactic Readiness of 50% to unlock that scene.

Apparently they've changed that with the Extended Cut, so hopefully everything will now be available from single player alone.

 

[CarlMin]

By now, I'm actually more upset with the ME3 reactions over the net. It has grown out of hand.

Mass Effect fans are like an obsessive ex who, alternatively hate and obsess over his significant other whom he feels betrayed by, but at the same time just can't forget and leave behind.

That's the impression I get when I see mile-long threads with thousands of posts with people (ironically) announcing that they don't care about the franchise anymore.

 

[votemarvel]

That's the impression I get when I see mile-long threads with thousands of posts with people (ironically) announcing that they don't care about the franchise anymore.

I'm not done with the franchise or Bioware games in general.

What has gone however is the "buy without question" mentality that I used to have with Bioware games.

I didn't like the changes in combat in Mass Effect 2. I thought Dragon Age 2 was pretty poor in every area except its characters. Couldn't play more than a month on the Old Republic it was so dull and there wasn't much in Mass Effect 3 I liked.

Bioware have burned me, so my pocket now treats them with the same sceptical nature I look at every other developer with.

That being said the Extended Cut could 'redeem' ME3 in my eyes. A great final act can pretty much save anything, so I'm hoping they can get it right in the DLC.

 

[mdqp]

The snip to end all snips

I guess it was all a little misunderstanding, then. And as for what's in the DLC, we'll see soon enough, no need to think about what it could or couldn't do anymore, I guess.

I actually kind of agree with your votes for the games, it's just that I generally value the narrative more than other parts, in RPGs that aren't sandboxes (I don't expect anything great storywise from an elder scroll game, just to name a famous series), but I expected a lot more from ME, especially since the game is lightweight in the RPG mechanics. I kind of wanted a trade-off (and I think I had it in the first ME).

I would say that I would just evaluate ME gameplay higher, because it had a lot of flaws, but it was particularly fun for me (the Mako was a ***** to control, especially if you tried to climb a mountain? True, but it was fun to go around fighting tresher maws, exploring small worlds to find something new or interesting. It was one of the few "exploration" you could do in the game, and they killed it).

The fighting was a little clunky, but I found it fun, too. The fights weren't as predictable, for once: the first time on Noveria, when I met the rachni for the first time, I was genuinely surprised: I didn't expect a fight there, with almost no covers!

The weapon had the cooldown mechanic, which I thought was cool, and compared to the other 2 games, a lot less generic. Also, you and your enemies could both overload the weapons, it was tactically more interesting, in my opinion.

Biotic should have been nerfed down a little, I agree, but wasn't stasis awesome, tactically? Why remove it in ME2 (they ended up bringing it back in TLOTSB, and ME3, but still...)?

Ammo as a skill... WTF?! And while I could agree for cooldown for each type of skills, having a single cooldown for everything it's just lame...

Also What's the point of having ammo instead of a cooldown, if I can replenish them so easily? At least the cooldown kept you on the edge, most of the times...

The inventory was poorly done in ME, but not having it at all was... Overdoing it? Same with the weapon restriction, ME already had a nice system to give your specialization a special feel, no need to lockdown weapons (this was better in ME3, though, with the encumbrance system).

I liked the interrupts during scenes, though, I thought they were a really nice touch, especially for renegade playthroughs (Just shooting in the face an enemy who's going on and on about this or that feels perfectly in role with a ruthless approach, like a renegade should be).

And the main plot narrative was too fucked up in ME2 (death and resurrection + working for Cerberus just like that= me going "WTF!?" over and over again) and ME3 (poorly handed tear-jerking death child in the first minutes + crucible "we-don't-know-what-it-really-does-quick-let's-put-everything-we-have-into-building-it" and more nonsense about multiple races building it over time withou knowing what does it do + lots and lots of the game doesn't care what you did before, you'll just get a nod of acknowledgement for them= me going "not again?"),for me, with a lot of lines that felt stupid, for me. Characters kept things afloat in ME2, but I feel like they were put aside most of the times in ME3, which was left with nothing in the story department, as a result.

 

[MrMan999]

So, how much do you guys wanna bet that it's a giant "Fuck You" To the fans who didn't like the first ending?

 

[votemarvel]

So, how much do you guys wanna bet that it's a giant "Fuck You" To the fans who didn't like the first ending?

The guys who have played it over on the Mass Effect 3 board of xbox.com are saying it's not a middle finger but it is funny rather than exciting new content.

Just got to wait until EA can be bothered to put it on Origin before I can get a go.

 

[mdqp]

I saw the endings... And I still don't like them. The endings remain stupid for the most part, and the game seems to confirm that the catalyst has pretty much free will so it could easily:

1)Instead of control, simply do what Shepard asks him to do (no dying);

2)Instead of destroy, simply self destruct/fly away/whatever (no need to risk death for Shepard);

3)Synthesis justification is so stupid I don't want to discuss it, but for the sake of making my point clear, it says that it tried something like that on its own, but failed... WTF?! And it says that something like organics weren't ready, or some other bullshit like that... This comes from the most advanced AI in existance, supposedly, the collective consciousness of the reapers couldn't do it, but now by dumb luck Shepard fits the bill;

This doesn't explain why the EMS affects the ending at all, and doesn't address the fallacy of the catalyst (appeal to probability), but we can consider it crazy, after all (it goes on explaining its origins, and says something stupid... Again: that it was created by someone that feared the problem between organics and synthetics couldd arise, and he was to be a mediator of sorts, but the problems happened multiple times... This means that its creator created synthetics multiple times and never were destroyed? So it is wrong by its own admission, and its creator were morons, I guess. It also created the first reaper from its creators against their will, possibly being the first AI to get close to what it claims that synthetics might do.

In Bioware defense, I think that people that wanted just closure will be happy with it, and that if this was the ending from the beginning, they wouldn't have received that much negative feedback.

As for myself, it does nothing to fix it for me (as I said before), in fact it makes a few things worse. I guess I wasn't their target to begin with, and this is just more proof I don't fit with their games anymore...

P.S. Captcha: One way... I think there is a captcha guy somewhere, and he must be stalking me... ;p

P.P.S. I must also admit that I lolled hard at some of the explanations, so I got something from the extended cut, in a sense...

 

[darkbshadow]

I just played through Three out of four of the endings and I do have to say it's better. It's an actual ending, it gives closure, and fills majority of those glaringly bad plot holes. You are able to actually ask questions of the blue kid and are able to find out more of what the hell is happening. It's really what made the extended cut worth playing through.

It's not the best ending, however it is an ending now. Plus you're able to shoot the stupid blue kid and it gives it's own ending. While it being a pretty bad ending I still got the satisfaction of putting a bullet through that stupid blue glowing face of his. In punishment of not telling me what the hell was happening the first time I played through the game.

If they had this included when the game went live I think a lot more people would be happy with the ending of the game. Now I think whatever ending they made your still going to see a huge backlash from fans saying that it's not enough or it's not what they were looking for. Personally I'm satisfied with it and glad Bioware didn't change it, but instead just added onto the end.

Still I wish the Indoctrination Theory was correct.

 

[Masterdebator]

I'll maybe watch the "explanations" on Youtube. Honestly, I've just lost interest in/ respect for Bioware as a developer.

The trilogy was ruined by the original ending and Bioware outed themselves as hypocritical morons in doing this damage control DLC (whatever happened to that "artistic integrity"/ "games are art" mantra/s they so valiantly preached?), on top of selling an incomplete and clearly rushed game with glaring plot holes to begin with.

There's little doubt in my mind the eventual Dragon Age 3 will just continue Bioware's descent into mediocrity, until EA takes the company out back, and puts a bullet in their head when they can't squeeze a buck out of them any more.

 

[Kevin7557]

They should just release the real ending of the game instead of expanding the crappy chopped ending that is in game. I didn't even get the game because I knew EA would somehow mess it up and now I'm never getting the game.

Way to kill Mass Effect EA.

I'll maybe watch the "explanations" on Youtube. Honestly, I've just lost interest in/ respect for Bioware as a developer.

The trilogy was ruined by the original ending and Bioware outed themselves as hypocritical morons in doing this damage control DLC (whatever happened to that "artistic integrity"/ "games are art" mantra/s they so valiantly preached?), on top of selling an incomplete and clearly rushed game with glaring plot holes to begin with.

There's little doubt in my mind the eventual Dragon Age 3 will just continue Bioware's descent into mediocrity, until EA takes the company out back, and puts a bullet in their head when they can't squeeze a buck out of them any more.

Bioware is a marketing brand of EA. This was EA's decision all the way. Bioware is just a souless corpse at this point.

 

[votemarvel]

Honestly after playing through the Extended Cut with the Destroy ending my only real complaint is why the hell wasn't this the ending that shipped with the game.

It's still not perfect by any means, what is after all, but it is infinitely better than what was there originally.

Things are cleared up, scenes extended when they needed to be and even the Star-Child actually starts making a little sense with its expanded dialogue.

Bioware if you can make the ending of Mass Effect 3 this good why oh why didn't you do it in the first place?