*Spoilers* Mass effect 3 extended cut
- Thread starter Kragg
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yeah, in the insane kind of way. Like, she understood something we could never truly comprehend. The thing I hate most about the synthesis ending (besides the fact they never explain what synthesis means in the practical sense) is that they try to be something all 2001: space oddysey or something else all "old scifi", but Bioware seems to forget that:Loop Stricken said:
A: Mass Effect was a thought-provoking game, but not in that sense, and
B: Mentioning the synthesis isn't the same as elaborating a conceptual philosophy upon it. How is it good? what old concepts (such as tribal mentality, individuality, and human nature) are kept? are any kept? how can we learn to comprehend what they're talking about if you don't give us any clue on what they're talking about? What train of thought it "organic"? why is it bad? what train of thought is synthetic? why is it good? do people just suddenly go "wow, I was so wrong! synthetics are amazing!", and synthetics do the opposite? if you're going to give us a thought-provoking question, make sure you set up the basics.
Lol, this is downright facepalm worthy. They brought in Generic scenes like the "meet at the rendezvous point" scene only to serve to further cement the plot holes. They didn't clear up anything people weren't already speculating. It still doesn't change the fact that your crew abandoning you and the Normandy stranding you is in contradiction to the previous game you had been playing where these people were willing to die for you and your cause. Space magic is still there. Pretty much every plot hole is not only still there but solidified as well. They were handed IT on a silver platter and they decided to cement the version that runs inconsistent with the rest of the story. The reason the IT held so much potential is because it gave merit to everything in the story pulling a 180 and caving back in on itself. Now, it's confirmed - it's just a nonsensical ending that does a 180 and caves in on itself due to bad writing.
In both cases there was damage that could be fixed? People just assumed they were stuck there forever 'cause ohmahgud the ending is so bad.boag said:
The relays, at both times, were "destroyed", aka they could not be used. Now they tell you that yes, they can be repaired, when before people just assumed that they can't be repaired, for some silly reason.
oh mr condecension, you are so witty, since you are asking for silly ill give you silly.OniaPL said:
DURRRR SPACE MAGIC FIXES EVERYTHINH HYUUUUURRR.
There are you satisfied now?
Yes they can use space magic to fix the normandy and the mass relays in the original ending.
Space Magic? Wut space magic?boag said:
I may not be in a position to speak about this stuff since i have not read the books and whatnot and derped around Bioware forums talknig about Tali's sweat, but I don't see why it's so impossible to think that they could repair the Relays.
in the original ending, they blow up.OniaPL said:
During the time of the shitstorm surrounding the ending, people were arguing back and forth about this, and many people came to the conclusion that you could REBUILD THEM, not fix them. I personally brought this up a couple of times in the discussions that were held here.
But why is it "space magic" that they fix them? Why is it even bad that the relays blow up? I don't just get it.boag said:
Don't ge me wrong,I'm not trying to pick a fight here. From my point of view, I've seen people complain about things like "The Relays explode" which is something they personally don't like, not inherently bad storytelling.
The places where they argued that the writing was bad were things like "People teleported on the Normandy".
While the different endings were quite similar, the implications were different, which was enough for me. I can understand others being miffed about that, but not as far as people took it.
Space magic is mostly a joke, because space magic is used to Destroy, Control or Synthesize with the reapers.OniaPL said:
The reason why I disliked the relays exploding in the original ending, is because it left a dire issue at hand that wasnt even expanded on by the ending, something that has been addressed now.
As it was, the original ending had the relays exploding with the possibility of getting rebuilt, but the logistics of it would have crippled the galactic community for thousands of years.
i think we might be starting to get our thoughts confused, I am talking about the retcons that address some issues that the original ending left unanswered, just to be clear.
THIS... also I think the extra shots make the endings less crappy than before, finally I can move on and forget I ever played ME3 - and Dragon Age 2 :S - and probably won't buy anymore Bioware gamesKragg said:
I declare this canon ending
I understand your view on the Relays explode/disabled- retcon, as to be honest, I had forgotten that they actually exploded to pieces.boag said:
I like open endings in general, I did not have a problem with it left unaddressed however; I realized that it would take a long, long time, but I felt content with creating a world with a future. To me it would be fine if the repairs would take thousands of years.
I'm just in a difficult position here, as I personally thought that the endings were fine, and so many people said that they were absolutely horrible. I kind of mistook you for another raging lunatic who was extremely upset that the ending was not to his taste. For this I apologize.
About this whole ending- debacle, what has bothered me, and gets me on the edge in many of these discussions, is that in many cases people seem to claim that it is bad writing that the story does not fulfill their personal tastes. And to me, the endings were different enough.
So, I have to wonder why they felt the need to add that "someone got on to the citadel" part. Anderson is already there, ahead of you(especially after the retarded thing on the run down), and yet they go and imply that it is just one person.
And then at the end they already have Anderson's name up on the monument thing, how the shit did they even know he died if he was not only on the Citadel, but apparently completely unaccounted for? It kind of makes sense to assume Shepard is toast, there was direct communication between him and Hackett, which ended in him obviously blacking out. Anderson doesn't really ride on the Normandy either, so it's not really a "missing passenger" type situation.
So...just more shit writing or intentionally left plot holes to tease people who jumped on the indoctrination theory?
And then at the end they already have Anderson's name up on the monument thing, how the shit did they even know he died if he was not only on the Citadel, but apparently completely unaccounted for? It kind of makes sense to assume Shepard is toast, there was direct communication between him and Hackett, which ended in him obviously blacking out. Anderson doesn't really ride on the Normandy either, so it's not really a "missing passenger" type situation.
So...just more shit writing or intentionally left plot holes to tease people who jumped on the indoctrination theory?
This. They should've either cut the damn breath scene or actually done something with it. That being said, the EC made the endings decent enough for me to actually feel like playing through ME3 a couple more times.Saegrim said:
Also, Baby Krogan are adorable.
Well like ive stated in other threads, my hatred for EA doesnt come from the endings themselves, but the cocky pompous condescending attitude that was ripe back then, by Gaming sites and EA/Bioware outright mocking and belittling anyone that was disappointed with the endings.OniaPL said: