Poll: ME3 EC didn't fix anything

Recommended Videos

MetroidNut

New member
Sep 2, 2009
969
0
0
The DLC isn't perfect, but it fixes a lot of plotholes and adds the clarification and closure the endings were desperately lacking. Could there have been a better ending? Yes. But with the expansion, it went from (in my opinion) abrupt, extremely anticlimatic and moderately unsatisfying to abrupt and slightly anticlimactic but overall satisfying. I'm willing to call that Mission Accomplished.
 

Starke

New member
Mar 6, 2008
3,876
0
0
Zhukov said:
Starke said:
Zhukov said:
Fappy said:
Zhukov said:
Also, all endings solve the problems created by the the mass relays exploding (they don't now) and the crew being stranded (they manage to get airborne again).
And they said they weren't changing the endings. Those last two bits are hugely significant. There goes their artistic integrity argument lol
Fuck their artistic integrity.

I'll take improvements, even small ones, any day of the week.
They were focused on that straw man argument of "you just don't like the ending because it's too sad", which was getting parroted off by the Biodrones. Which, of course wasn't the problem at all.
This is not accurate.

They clearly understood many of the complaints. Regardless of our opinions of how well they did it, they did address the issues of closure and (to a lesser degree) differentiating player choice. They also closed up some of the minor plot holes and uncertainties.

Of course, they were clearly too proud to excise the glowing space child and everything that came with him. I don't like that fact, not one little bit, but I do understand it.
Honestly, the major thrust I picked up on was disproving the whole death of interstellar civilizations interpretation, and showing the Normandy recovering from it's crash at the end. And of course control now explicitly states that Shepard is replaced by... whatever. Most of the new material seems to exist solely to say, "hey, look, people you care about survived, it's not as bleak as you thought."

The exception being more exposition from the Starchild, because that's what we all needed.

Shepard: "What is the crucible?"
Starchild: "It's a battery you dumb fuck."
Shepard: "Huh... Cool, Where'd you come from?"
Starchild: "If you don't know what a battery is, how can you understand me being pulled from the producer's ass?"
 

MrHide-Patten

New member
Jun 10, 2009
1,306
0
0
And zero fucks were given that day. Dev throws you a bone and people will bludgeon them to death with it.
All endings suck. I've never seen an ending to some degree that didn't suck so call my opinion bias.
 

Pandabearparade

New member
Mar 23, 2011
962
0
0
...meh.

The extended cut promotes the endings from unforgivable garbage to simply bad. An improvement, but not worth a three month wait and not even close to worthy of capping off Mass Effect.
 

mad825

New member
Mar 28, 2010
3,379
0
0
skywolfblue said:
I loved it. Solved all 3 of my "quibbles" with the original ending
-explaining how your squadmates made it back aboard the normandy
-how the normandy ended up in the relay
Even though the filling for those holes didn't even make sense.

Harbinger seemed to be complied leaving Normandy alone despite everything else going up in flames and how did Hackett know that the Crucible was "armed"? How did he know that the Crucible was going to be a danger?
 

Psychoninja7

New member
Nov 11, 2010
65
0
0
Well I guess some people can't be pleased. Yes the Star Child was a stupid idea. But that's fine. There are plenty of stupid ideas in every form of media. I had mixed feelings to the endings, yes, but I like them more now. I love the Mass Effect series. ME3 endings included. Can't you let a few plot holes slide and enjoy the game? I do that with pretty much every book/movie/game/etc.

Just enjoy what you have and stop complaining. Mass Effect isn't perfect. But it's damn awesome.
 

major_chaos

Ruining videogames
Feb 3, 2011
1,313
0
0
I just finished the synthesis ending (too late too try the others, I need some sleep) and I'm actually much more satisfied than I expected, the core godkid-endingtron 3000 still sucks but they actually managed to make the parts after that not totally awful, as-well as fixing most of the ME3 specific plot holes and some people above me have actually manged at least partially close some of the overarching issues the OP mentioned. All that said, the stargazer scene is still fucking stupid and I'm going to pretend it doesn't exist.
EDIT: forgot to mention, my biggest compliant is that you actions across the series still make only very minor blink-and-you'll-miss-it changes to the endings, but hey its better than the originals.
 

Blackdoom

New member
Sep 11, 2008
518
0
0
I would have liked the Refusal ending more if there was a possibility for winning the war. So say if your Galactic Readiness was 10,000+ then you could win the war but with heavy casualties.
 

Sheo_Dagana

New member
Aug 12, 2009
966
0
0
Why did I even click on this thread? Why am I posting in it? I dunno. I was fine with the ending before the EC and I'm sure I'll be fine with it even after. Whatever. Maybe the reason Paul Stanley finally showed up at the end of all things is because... the Crucible was hooked up to the Citadel? And like... maybe once they were the same thing... I mean, no one knows who built it and it was made to go into the Citadel. Maybe it was like... a control center for the Reapers and everyone was trying to figure out how to use it to stop them? I dunno. Probably not.

Don't bother proving me wrong, because it's not like I think that I'm right. I just enjoyed the game for what it was. Ironically, I recently watched a documentary called "the People vs George Lucas" that kind of reminds me of this situation exactly, except spread out over the course of nearly three decades.
 

skywolfblue

New member
Jul 17, 2011
1,510
0
0
mad825 said:
Harbinger seemed to be complied leaving Normandy alone despite everything else going up in flames
Standard plot armor. Yes still a tiny bit silly, but then again virtually every story ever has plot armor situations like that (for example: the fight with the big baddie magically pauses so that the hero can mourn his girlfriend who just got stabbed, etc etc). At least it's an ~explained~ solution now.

mad825 said:
how did Hackett know that the Crucible was "armed"? How did he know that the Crucible was going to be a danger?
I imagine that given the fact that the alliance built the crucible they probably installed sensors inside of it that let them know when it lit up. Even if they didn't they could have just looked out the window at the whole citadel lighting up, that's probably a pretty obvious clue.
 

Aetherlblade

New member
Mar 1, 2010
145
0
0
Z of the Na said:
Well aren't you just precious.

I reserve judgement for Extended Cut until I get off work tonight. I'm one of those weird people who liked the original Mass Effect 3 ending. More clarity to my questions certainly isn't going to hurt, though.

Besides, it is free.
Awesome, so I'm not the only one then who was fine with the originals. Still, this addition is not bad imo.
 

Whateveralot

New member
Oct 25, 2010
953
0
0
Im sorry to say that, even though I realise you're angry for the initial ending, some of your statements are simply shortsighted (probably related to the rage).

You state: "[the] ending based around the assumptions that synthetics will eventually kill all organics even though I spent 3 games proving that little retard wrong."

It's true that, especially in the last game, a lot of AI's are shown as good things. Unshackled EDI that falls in love, Geth that mourn for the deaths of their creators during the initial outbreak. However, this is a simple plot device. Sovereign, Harbinger and all other Reapers assume technological singularity is inevitable. To be honest, I think that -in the long run- it IS inevitable.

However, The Commander single-handedly proves them wrong within Mass Effects timeline. Like I said, the Geth mourn and EDI emotes. It proves that the Reapers are some limited kind of wrong and that this cycle is finally ready to surpass the cycle. The Catalyst understands this, therefor it does not stop Shepard.

You state: "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?"

First of: It doesn't matter if the Starchild can indoctrinate or not. It respects the attempts to end the cycle. It doesn't stop Shepard. It even allows Shepard his own choice to determine the fate of the universe to a limited degree. It's also never stated that the Starchild controls the Citadel. It lives there and it's activated by the Catalyst. However, it's not in control of the Citadel.

It is possible, however, that the Starchild asked Sovereign to activate the signal again. Sovereign (and the other reapers) are each concidered Gods, so the mission could not fail, but it did. In the final battle in Mass Effect 1, where Sovereign was in direct control of Saren (the way Harbinger took control of certain Collectors), and Saren was destroyed by Shepard (a thing Sovereign held impossible), Sovereign lowered its shields and the Human fleet destroyed Sovereign.

This caused the Human race to catch attention of the other Reapers, amongst which was Harbinger. Harbinger is the commanding force behind the Collectors; the synthesized / husk-like forms of the Prothean. They instantly turned their full attention to the Humans. The Human Reaper was supposed to be the final answer to Shepard; until it was discovered prematurely and destroyed, forcing the Reapers (including Harbinger) to travel to Sol the hard way. By simply flying there. It took them a while, but they could finally strike their wrath upon Humanity (and Shepard) where it would hit them the hardest; Earth.

But again, Shepard can overcome this, escape, defeat the Reapers by using the Catalyst and controlling / destroying (or the other options) the Reapers.

It's not as "off" as you make it think it is.
 

Silver Patriot

Senior Member
Aug 9, 2008
867
0
21
Starke said:
No, killing Shepard is poetic justice for all the stupidity they've inflicted in the past two games. A bleak ending is a good thing because these people, all of these people are too dumb to live.
Quoted for Hilarity. Maybe it's just because it's 3 am now, but I laughed way to hard at that. Sadly it's also quite true.

Anyway. I feel this article [http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2012/06/26/mass-effect-3s-extended-cut-too-little-far-too-late/] from Forbes sums it up quite nicely.

And so ends this strange chapter in video game history, where a beloved series had an ending so bad, fans demanded a better one. And they got it. Though oddly enough, the best finale was one they imagined themselves.
At least I have Dawnguard.
 

IrritatingSquirrel

New member
Jul 2, 2011
44
0
0
Adam Jensen said:
There's been some development. Fans have already found something interesting in some of the DLC files that might hint to another DLC focusing on the origins of the Reapers, featuring a rogue Reaper and possibly a new squad mate. Now the only question is, is this going to be a DLC, a full expansion or a new game? Or maybe nothing. And if it is a DLC, is it a prequel or post-end DLC. Check it out it's interesting.
http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/12777408/5

Want to bet this one will actually cost money?
Bioware have pretty much confirmed it will - they said MP DLC would be free, but single player would be paid
 

Lancer723

New member
Dec 12, 2008
346
0
0
Oh, Bioware.

I give you credit, you stuck to your guns, the 3 endings are ultimately the same, fewer plotholes now though the big ones still loom to me. It was your work and you stuck to it.

It's still big ole pile of crap as far as I'm concerned, it just stinks a little less now.

But hey most of the series is excellent so you've got that going for you.

Unfortunately this whole escapade has done nothing but convince me that Bioware has had serious Story-writing issue, probably largely related to the departure of Drew Karpyshyn.

Everyone is going to have their own opinions on this and there is going to be some heated arguments over the next few days, but it's ultimately over. Bioware has stood up for its (in my opinion, shoddy) endings, but cleared up the gaping plot holes that should have been solved in revisions.

At the end of the day, Bioware is on thin ice with me for it's next product, so this next year or so is gonna be gut-check time.

Show me what you got Bioware.

P.S.

Does anyone else find the new "Refusal Ending" hilarious? Bioware HUUUUUUUUGGGGGEEEE troll ending.
 

mad825

New member
Mar 28, 2010
3,379
0
0
skywolfblue said:
mad825 said:
Harbinger seemed to be complied leaving Normandy alone despite everything else going up in flames
Standard plot armor. Yes still a tiny bit silly, but then again virtually every story ever has plot armor situations like that (for example: the fight with the big baddie magically pauses so that the hero can mourn his girlfriend who just got stabbed, etc etc). At least it's an ~explained~ solution now.
The best explanation would be pure laziness to implement it. I wasn't expecting for it to get totally damaged but at least for fucks sake someone throw a pea at it. Normandy from that scene had ghost mode on.

What you are taking about is used for dramatic effect; typically it's the opposite of The Armor Is Useless or as a example

mad825 said:
how did Hackett know that the Crucible was "armed"? How did he know that the Crucible was going to be a danger?
I imagine that given the fact that the alliance built the crucible they probably installed sensors inside of it that let them know when it lit up. Even if they didn't they could have just looked out the window at the whole citadel lighting up, that's probably a pretty obvious clue.
You're kidding right? They didn't have a frigging clue on what they were building. There's no way Hackett could've known that it was a wide spread energy burst. Even we didn't know until the last minute. Logic dictates you get to a reasonable distance, you don't stand in front of it nor you stand next to it but you don't leave the area.

It was like an alien that could work out with pure intuition on how to place and detonate dynamite in real life.
 

Khazoth

New member
Sep 4, 2008
1,227
0
0
When you shoot the Starchild, you get an ending dedicated to Bioware telling you that you suck, your opinions suck, and how dare you not like godchild.


If not for the godchild this EC would've been alright but.. He just illustrates how awful the story is, and how irrepairable it is.

Edit: I just finished watching the Synthesis ending all the way through. Unquestionably powerful ending, but.. Dear god there is still that godchild and he is still so irrevocably out of place, and still so terrible. I wanna like this so.. so.. bad..
 

m72_ar

New member
Oct 27, 2010
145
0
0
I'm happy with it. It's not perfect but it's definitely a vast improvement.

And for those who complain about not enough DARKNESS, there is the dumbass ending now if you prefer to doom everyone
 

Valdus

New member
Apr 7, 2011
343
0
0
So the DLC makes the ending a little better? That's not hard by the way...

They could have made the DLC just a gif of EA employees laughing at you for 10 minutes and it still would have made more sense than the original ending (and been a lot more honest as well).
 

m72_ar

New member
Oct 27, 2010
145
0
0
While on that note, has anybody see any ending version where you completely fucked the Krogan over (Dead Wrex, Dead Matriarch, No Genophage Cure)? do they have special slides or do they just remove the Krogan slides ?

I picked destroy and there are no geth slides in my ending and I was wondering if it's handled the same way