Poll: ME3 EC didn't fix anything

[boag]

If they had not been complete and utter dicks to the fans by calling the people disatisfied with the original ending, and I quote "Whiny, homophobic entitled brats", then Yes i would have been satisfied with the EC.

As it stands, I cant wait for Bioware to burn down and join the likes of Bullfrog and Westwood in the graveyard of companies EA has raped to death.

First, Bioware never called fans that.

2nd, did they fuckin kill your family member? The fuck is wrong with you, calm down. Bioware is more than a corporate entity; it's a collection of people. And those people, to put it in a cliche, have feelings.

Don't be an asshole

1.- If you followed the Shitstorm and if you read my previous comments, then you would know what im talking about, go look up my post as I went into details to post links.

2.- Precisely because its a corporate entity I can wish it to go fuck itself without any god damn remorse.

Dont be a Biodrone

It's easy to think of a corporation and be mad at it and forget that there are good, honest people who work there (except banks), and it's also easy to call me a "Biodrone" like a goddamn child who thinks they're clever.

Both are ways of dehumanizing your opponent and writing off everything they say. I'm not gonna look at your comment (LOOK AT HOW LONG THIS DAMN THREAD IS!), you could just be calm and and NOT AN ASSHOLE.

Its easy to try and defend corporation by playing up the humanity card, and saying that there are good honest people working there, that fucking corporate wouldnt mind cutting down in a second to "Trim the fat" when the next quarterly earnings report is coming up, its also easy to call someone an "asshole" and pretend you arent like you are some sort of internet saint.

Both are ways of fishing for sympathy and hypocritical since you are fine with throwing out insults but not keen on being on the receiving end.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

smart post

This is a very good post. Listen to this man.

Now, I would have no problem even with the existence of starchild if I could defeat the Reapers by refusing to accept Catalyst's faulty logic. That's the biggest problem in the game. Bioware is forcing us to accept something that is based on a logical fallacy if we want to win. Refusal ending is just a slap in the face to everyone who disagrees with their shitty writing.

 

[violent_quiche]

The only annoyance is that the should have shipped the game that way in the first place, otherwise the endings were ok. IMO the overarching ME story went off the rails the moment the credits rolled on ME1 so maybe I wasn't as cut up as some because I didn't expect to be blown away.

ME2: Cerberus spends billions bringing a man back from the dead because of his immense symbolic value, then sends him on a series of highly dangerous missions that the majority of the galaxy knows nothing about, culminating in a suicide mission to the centre of the galaxy.

ME3: "oh look, designs for a big fuckoff gun in some ruins we have been studying for decades", "OMFG, A LIVE PROTHEAN!!!!", Cerberus is now big enough to take on the entire fucking Citadel, Kai Leng- otherwise the most useless big bad in the history of big bads- is suddenly unstoppable when it suits the narrative....

But I loved it anyway

I cared about the characters first and ME3 delivered well enough for my liking. My choices and actions made a huge difference to the outcomes for former and current squad mates, the krogan*, the quarians and the geth. The character deaths were generally noble and well handled- one so heartbreaking that I had to revert to a previous save and replay three hours just to get it right. Not the great game I hoped for, but good enough for me.

*if you care to, start a fresh ME3 character and deal with Wreav. My choices were very different

 

[Alex Mac]

Now, I would have no problem even with the existence of starchild if I could defeat the Reapers by refusing to accept Catalyst's faulty logic.

And ending which would clash with the narrative we've been dealing with the whole game. And despite themes of risk and reward throughout the series, the series has offered plenty of cynical interpretation of the theme before now. If the main issue you have is that your ideal scenario is impossible, I'd say that's partially the point that's hammered again and again in the series and ME3 in particular. Change entails risk. It requires sacrifice and blood and sweat and tears. And it is never, ever easy.

So ignoring that an ending in which conventional warfare winning the day outright nullifies the narrative of the game, it's pretty thematically vapid. As it stands, the Refusal ending is the ending you want. Just not in the details. Shepard doesn't compromise (although I'd stress that Shepard's moral compass and beliefs are very much variable to the player), they don't accept the Catalyst's logic or any of the potential solutions (although I'd additionally stress that the narrative doesn't ever really imply that these are merely choices that the Catalyst is handpicking for you but rather new ways to combat the Reapers created by the union of the Crucible and Citadel that even it did not anticipate), and even though it means the end of a cycle, it becomes a sacrifice that actually does allow the Reapers to be defeated "normally". You simply don't like the sacrifice.

And not to potentially denigrate your character, as it is certainly not my intention to presume too much but it seems like your don't enjoy the notion of victory having any type of cost narratively. Yet, this is entirely anathemic many of the IP's core values and themes. There's definitely a reason why the big MacGuffin of the game, which facilitates the final choice of the game, is called the Crucible.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Now, I would have no problem even with the existence of starchild if I could defeat the Reapers by refusing to accept Catalyst's faulty logic.

And ending which would clash with the narrative we've been dealing with the whole game. And despite themes of risk and reward throughout the series, the series has offered plenty of cynical interpretation of the theme before now. If the main issue you have is that your ideal scenario is impossible, I'd say that's partially the point that's hammered again and again in the series and ME3 in particular. Change entails risk. It requires sacrifice and blood and sweat and tears. And it is never, ever easy.

So ignoring that an ending in which conventional warfare winning the day outright nullifies the narrative of the game, it's pretty thematically vapid. As it stands, the Refusal ending is the ending you want. Just not in the details. Shepard doesn't compromise (although I'd stress that Shepard's moral compass and beliefs are very much variable to the player), they don't accept the Catalyst's logic or any of the potential solutions (although I'd additionally stress that the narrative doesn't ever really imply that these are merely choices that the Catalyst is handpicking for you but rather new ways to combat the Reapers created by the union of the Crucible and Citadel that even it did not anticipate), and even though it means the end of a cycle, it becomes a sacrifice that actually does allow the Reapers to be defeated "normally". You simply don't like the sacrifice.

And not to potentially denigrate your character, as it is certainly not my intention to presume too much but it seems like your don't enjoy the notion of victory having any type of cost narratively. Yet, this is entirely anathemic many of the IP's core values and themes. There's definitely a reason why the big MacGuffin of the game, which facilitates the final choice of the game, is called the Crucible.

I have no problem with sacrifice. I don't have a problem with Shepard dying, or his friends dying (if it's done right) as long as I can win without having to accept faulty logic as absolute truth. That's what bothers me. Accepting something that makes no freakin' sense. Sure, we should lose if we don't have enough EMS and choose refusal. But having the option to win if you have enough EMS would actually make EMS matter. Which would fix another Bioware mistake. I shouldn't be forced to lose the game after acquiring all those war assets just because I can actually see how nonsensical presented options are.

 

[NortherWolf]

In my ending shephed slaps the star child and tells him to get the hell out of our universe!!!!

And then what? You get the Refusal ending, and everyone dies. Heh.

OT: The EC was okay. It fixed some of the things that bothered me and gave some closure. But the ending itself is still pretty weak. I expected much better from BioWare.

If it worked for Captain Sheridan with forces far more lethal than the Reapers, it'll work for Commander Shephard.

 

[V da Mighty Taco]

Christ you people are bitter about nothing.

It's cool that you love the Mass Effect series and all, but in actuality, it's not all that important to throw a fit over.

Just make up your own ending for your Shepard if it bothers you that much.

In that case...

Shepard calls in Applejack (yes, THAT Applejack) and while he beats the everloving shit out of the starchild Applejack goes back to Earth and singlehoofedly kills off the entire Reaper army with nothing but her cowgirl hat, a Cerebral Bore, and a throwing knife. Afterwards, Mehrunes Dagon goes back to Oblivion and everyone lives happily ever after. Also, we get a glimpse of Tali playing Half-Life 3 after the closing credits.

(Btw I don't play Mass Effect, but couldn't resist doing this )

On Topic: While I don't play ME, the fact that Bioware flat-out lied about the ending numerous times AND revolved much of the games marketing around the ending has always irked the crap out of me. I never believed that the ending needed to be any good, but they should not have explicitly promised things that weren't going to be in the game. At this point though, my interest in how Bioware and EA fix this mess has waned quit a bit (probably due to me not being a ME fan anyways). I am still tired of the industry being full of dishonest, greedy pricks though.

 

[JWC1993]

I saw EC endings on YouTube, and now I'm here to vent.

Endings didn't fix any of the major problems. Plot holes that retroactively destroy the trilogy are still there. These endings were designed to satisfy emotional players who wanted character closure and who don't give a flying fuck about logic behind it all. BECAUSE THERE IS NO LOGIC! It's still the same shit it was before. It's still A, B, C, and now D ending based around the assumptions that synthetics will eventually kill all organics even though I spent 3 games proving that little retard wrong.

The starchild has, as far as the story goes, seen the synthetic/organic faux paux occur "countless" times. I doubt our ability to broker a peace between the Quarians and Geth really factors in to its decision as the efficacy of long-term synthetic/organic relations. The exception does not invalidate the norm.

Why are so many people happy with this? Did you all forget that the existence of starchild practically turns the entire plot of Mass Effect 1 into one giant plot hole? Why did Sovereign need Saren to fix the Citadel signal if starchild was always there? How did the protheans manage to sabotage the Citadel if the starchild has the ability to get into your head? Should we simply assume that a bunch of protheans were able to do all that and there was nothing the starchild could have done to stop them? We shouldn't assume that, because most people know by now what the original plot was supposed to be. And there was never any starchild in it.

1. Starchild did not directly control the Reapers, recall that when Shepherd was face to face with the dying Reaper, it spoke of itself as being the pawn of a bigger player - but still distinct from that bigger player. Each Reaper was the embodiment of several selves (similar to the Geth) and the repository of the knowledge of all past cycles. The Reapers were, at least in some relevant sense, sapient. Starchild might have been calling the shots, but it still relied on a complex keeper/Reaper/citadel relationship to signal the end of a cycle.
2. The Protheans counted in genetic variation in the keepers, something which the non-omniscient starchild was both unable to foresee and correct with due brevity.
3. The starchild truly believed it had the best interests of organics in mind when it initiated the cycles, it isn't impossible that it was letting the Protheans work in order to study the effect of it.

Who created the starchild? Organics? Then why doesn't he simply protect the organics against the synthetics? Why don't the Reapers simply destroy the synthetics? Why are they waiting in dark space? Wouldn't it be easier for them to just roam around the galaxy making sure we don't create A.I.? Seems like an easier solution. And a more logical one.
What if synthetics created the Catalyst? That's even dumber. Synthetics created an A.I in order to protect the organics against the synthetics by killing organics.

1. It is apparent from the conversation options that starchild was a program developed to facilitate relations between a synthetic and an organic species. Eventually, after seeing the failures of open discourse, it decided that the cycle-system was a more effective means of preserving organic life. Think I-Robot, where the A.I. is given a simple instruction to protect human life, and eccentrically introduces a totalitarian regime of robots in order to objectively fulfill the instruction.
2. The Reapers do not destroy synthetics because they know it is a ridiculously temporary solution, the starchild disambiguates this very clearly when you ask about the destroy ending. 3. It would be cumbersome to roam the galaxy ubiquitously in massive space ships as galactic weapons inspectors, asking if anyone's seen any A.I. lately.
4. No, it seems apparent that organics created the starchild.

What about the Crucible? It's still space magic. It still doesn't make any god damn sense.

No, it is not really space magic. No one was suggesting that it was, but no one was suggesting that they understood its function. The concept of it apparently arose hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years prior to the current cycle, so it's by no means a plot hole that it's precise function is unclear.

Can't you see? As long as the starchild exists, the entire plot of Mass Effect makes no sense. And it's not like Bioware didn't have the easy way out. Jesus fuckin' Christ what a mess.

It's a little bit ad hoc, I agree, but the ending is palatable.

 

[A Distant Star]

God you people are whiny.

 

[Scars Unseen]

smart post

This is a very good post. Listen to this man.

Now, I would have no problem even with the existence of starchild if I could defeat the Reapers by refusing to accept Catalyst's faulty logic. That's the biggest problem in the game. Bioware is forcing us to accept something that is based on a logical fallacy if we want to win. Refusal ending is just a slap in the face to everyone who disagrees with their shitty writing.

You mean that thing you can do by choosing the Destroy option? The option that the Catalyst explicitly tells you is a bad idea because of his flawed perception of organic/synthetic relations? Yes, I know that this option also kills off EDI and(if they are still alive), the Geth. So what? Just because the choice has some negative side effects does not mean that you are accepting his logic.

As for the Refusal ending, I find that I feel better about it if I compare it to 8-bit Theater's Now Shut Up episode. Frankly, I'm surprised the devs didn't also go to the effort to thumb their noses at the Indoctrination Theory while they were at it. Maybe the writers secretly like that one too much to crash that party.

 

[GameMaNiAC]

If it worked for Captain Sheridan with forces far more lethal than the Reapers, it'll work for Commander Shephard.

Apparently not [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXTCwZMOJIU].

 

[kuolonen]

snip

Congratulations for your first post being spot-on. I dont get why people whine about plot holes not being fixed when they are. Team members got picked up at the finish (although that bit was done pretty clumsily) joker escapes because its apparently Hackets order to get away from the possibly deathly super weapon that's firing. Space child explains why he does what he does. And ass JWC1993 stated single Geth-Quarian success between synth-bio does not mean all is eternally happy. Starchild has probably seen this happen hundreds of times, and the times when synthetics go against bios outnumber times when they dont. Even if they didnt, it only takes one synthetic race to feel murderous and all bios are fucked.

My major problem with endings was the "go ahead and imagine what happens after" -approach they took with them. Seemed bloody lazy. Now there is some knowledge as to what happens after.

Why exactly I should not be content? The control ending with a full renegade Shepard is chocolatepuddingbanana tasty goodness with Shepard turning into a god-emperor.

and while I would never choose the refuse ending, I did see it on youtube, and found it bloody hilarious. Imagine if Hacket were to contact Shepard then:

Hacket: Shepard?! Whats wrong why isnt crucible firing?!
Shepard: Ah Hacket, you see, I have with me here 3 options to end the war in an instance but I just feel that we should instead win with good-old-fashioned superior firepower and manly balls. Also I disliked the tone of the "How to end reaper threat" -manualAI.
Hacket: ... You are of course aware that this entire battle was planned in order to use the crucible?
S: Why yes.
H: And that we have sacrificed many ships just to protect the damm thing? While being outnumbered from the start?
S: We sure have.
H: And that we have used all of our ship-building resources on this one project instead of churning out dreadnaughts?
S: And with me directing most of those efforts lol!
H: And now, as we are committed to this final battle and halfway through the plan, you decide to spit on all of that, because you disliked the tone of the firing mechanism of the crucible? All this after everyone and their mothers have told you that we cannot win reapers with our current forces by conventional means, even if we had actually gone to battle trying to do so from beginning?
S: Thats about the tall and short of it Admiral!
H: Shepard..
S: Hacket?
H: You *******************************************************!!!
S: Hey now! What have I done to deserve such abuse?

 

[veloper]

EA prolly figured none of the original endings allowed for another ME sequel without some serious retconning and they want more milk.

The synhthesis ending shouldn't exist at all.
The reapers don't show any signs of having anywhere near that technology level of galaxy wide molecular control and there's no reason why it would solve anything.

A cyborg is still an organic. Aliens and humans with glowy bits tacked on would still have use for robots and such and should still be able to build full synthetics thus (following the in-game logic) organics would eventually get wiped out by them without the reaper cycle.
Suppose instead all the brains are replaced by computer chips through the green magic, then you effectively have androids and the synthetic outcome that all parties including the reapers were trying to avoid in the first place.

The destroy ending now works though with space travel through relays still being possible now and makes for the more likely sequel material.
The control ending has always worked, but is not a very obvious choice for a sequel, since shepard is now all powerful.

 

[Dendio]

Just look at the poll. Most people are happy with the EC. Complainers don't have a leg to stand on.

EC was damn fine imo and my only wish is that they could have released the original game with the EC ending. Well bioware better late than never!

 

[lunavixen]

for me it cleared up some of the confusion, but not all of it, i'm okay with the endings (i still favour destroy [sorry Geth and EDI!!])

 

[Imthatguy]

Christ you people are bitter about nothing.

It's cool that you love the Mass Effect series and all, but in actuality, it's not all that important to throw a fit over.

Just make up your own ending for your Shepard if it bothers you that much.

TOO FANFICTION.NET!

 

[bossfight1]

I'm only displeased because it wasn't a happy ending. Yes, this is very petty. But the Destroy ending and the clip of Shepard taking a breath hints that he survived, would it have caused Bioware to cough up blood to make a sequence where your Shepard is living a happy life with their love interest?

 

[Vegosiux]

The Reapers do not destroy synthetics because they know it is a ridiculously temporary solution, the starchild disambiguates this very clearly when you ask about the destroy ending.

Well, that makes it all even worse, because the only difference between killing off the synthetics and killing off the organics is who got killed off. In other words: the brat's current "solution" is just as ridiculously temporary, with the added layer of ridiculousness in form of "Killing off the organics in order to protect them from synthetics."

Seriously.

It would be cumbersome to roam the galaxy ubiquitously in massive space ships as galactic weapons inspectors, asking if anyone's seen any A.I. lately.

Must not make a comment about what would happen if any police force went "You know, this is too cumbersome, let's just kill 'em all every thirty years."

No, it is not really space magic. No one was suggesting that it was, but no one was suggesting that they understood its function. The concept of it apparently arose hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years prior to the current cycle, so it's by no means a plot hole that it's precise function is unclear.

It comes out of nowhere, and the player has no choice but to depend on it.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Just look at the poll. Most people are happy with the EC. Complainers don't have a leg to stand on.

Really? You think this is a valid argument? Most people like it, therefore logical fallacies are fine? Most people voted for Bush two times as well. The majority of people have always been irrational. I'm not saying that people who like the ending are irrational, I'm saying that just because majority approves of something doesn't mean the majority is right.

 

[Lybs]

It's fun to think that the ending we got WASN'T the original ending Bioware planned for the series, the real ending was scraped because it was leaked so we instead got this 3 different endings instead.
Given that fact and that EA wanted the multiplayer cashcow we already got screwed because of over eccentric fans and they where forced to begin from square one again.
TEC does explain the plotholes that exist and just because the IDT turned out to be wrong doesn't mean that several points it took up actually where thrown out the window, just use the process of elimination and you might even figure it out yourselves.