Mass Effect 3: Extended Cut is not victory.

[Shadowkire]

Oooooh, okay. I missed the point then. You know, considering how Bioware has shown how they can change certain aspects of the game depending on choices you made, I wonder how difficult it would be for them to change lots of minor details(ie small parts of conversations) in a sequel to support the ending you chose to explain the overarching "Reapers are gone" theme.

I suspect they will take a page out of their playbook, either the KotOR 2 page or the ME3 page:

KotOR 2: At some point early in the game someone ends up talking about that time the Reapers nearly killed everyone and you end up 'picking' your chosen ending in a conversation.

ME3: Instead of going with any possible outcome, like Earth being destroyed, they decide Earth survives and blah blah blah.

 

[Animyr]

If you ask me, the ME3 ending is flawed at a fundamental level and additional exposition and elaboration could very well make things worse.

We'll wait and see, but trying to work around the ending is just shooting yourself in the foot IMO. There are too many basic things wrong with it besides the plot holes.

 

[Joccaren]

Nobody starves to death because things aren't nearly as bleak for the super fleet as people think:
Unless the Quarians lost most of their liveships(garden ships) they can feed themselves. I don't think Earth's farmland is in that bad of shape because the Reapers focused mostly on population centers. The Quarians are really really good at sustaining a large population without a planet, so they can help everyone else.

Codex states Quarian Liveships were left at Rannoch. Don't ask my why they jump in in the cutscene - I don't know. However, seeing the size of them, they are big, slow, easy targets for the Reapers. However, I am willing to grant Quarian/Turian non starvation. They are the two that will get out of this Ok on the food side.
Now: Asari. They can't eat Quarian/Turian food. Earth is quite literally in flames - entire continents are made of fire ATM [Check the cutscene - behind the Reaper fleet the entirety of I believe America is in flames. Maybe Euro-Africa]. Did the Reapers focus on population centres? Yes. Does that mean farmland survived? Not so much. A lot of potential farmland will have been developed into urban areas pre the invasion, and out of the rest of the planet - forests, jungles and other such areas would likely take up a reasonable amount of the undamaged land. Could Earth produce food? Maybe. Could it produce enough for the 300,000,000 humans on it, the remainder of the systems Alliance fleet, the Asari, the Salarians, the Batarians and the Krogan? I wouldn't hedge my bets on it.

The Normandy crew doesn't have to look for civilization. The Normandy was making a relay jump and then on a world that humans can live on, chances are there is a colony on that planet.

2 things.
1: Not in Relay Transit. Relay Transit is almost instantaneous, and the cutscene goes on far too long for that to happen. The effects around the ship also resemble FTL travel more than Relay travel.
2: Chances are, there isn't a colony on that planet. Many places - like Virmire - would have been left alone due to political turmoil, and many others still wouldn't have been found. Statistically speaking less than 1% of the Galaxy has been explored in ME. The odds are vastly in favour of them landing on an unknown world.

Considering most systems that had relays or need relays are inhabited nobody has to spend 20 years going anywhere. As for how they do it: remember the communication system the Alliance put into the SR2 that allowed Shepard to communicate with anyone in the galaxy in realtime? I think they can make another.

There are a few problems with this:
1. Quantum Entanglement doesn't work that way. Not only is it difficult to create and maintain an entangled pair, but how would you entangle two communicators on opposite ends of the Galaxy?
2. Who is going to be able to build more relays? You would need a ton of Eezo, a lot of knowledge that the galaxy doesn't have and then the other additional resources needed to build one as well. Odds are, ports that are abundant with Eezo AND have good manufacturing centres would be able to make more Relays. To get them to the other side of the galaxy though... problematic. That is a 20+ year journey.
3. Nowhere near most systems with Relays were inhabited. Hell, we hadn't even opened up most Relays. As said, 99% of the galaxy is unexplored. The council put limits on activating new Relays after finding the Rachni when they went round activating them all. Humans trying to reactivate a Relay led to the First Contact War. Now, most systems that would need a relay put in them would be inhabited - but a large number of them would not be self sustained. Many are either stations, industrial or mining colonies, or Residential colonies that rely on farming colonies for food. That food is now cut off. Yet more starving people, and dead, starved people can't rebuild a Relay.

 

[Kahunaburger]

On the other hand, moving on from Mass Effect 3 and donating to the Wasteland 2 kickstarter is victory.

 

[SajuukKhar]

On the other hand, moving on from Mass Effect 3 and donating to the Wasteland 2 kickstarter is victory.

Anything Chris Avellone works on is good.

However we must hope his presence doesn't make the game a buggy unplayable mess much like...... every game he has ever worked on ever.

He may not be the direct source but buggy games are drawn to him. It is the cancer that kills the good plots the games he works on have.

 

[Kahunaburger]

On the other hand, moving on from Mass Effect 3 and donating to the Wasteland 2 kickstarter is victory.

Anything Chris Avellone works on is good.

However we must hope his presence doesn't make the game a buggy unplayable mess much like...... every game he has ever worked on ever.

He may not be the direct source but buggy games are drawn to him. It is the cancer that kills the good plots the games he works on have.

To misquote Shigeru Miyamoto, a buggy game is eventually patched. A bad game is bad forever.

 

[SajuukKhar]

To misquote Shigeru Miyamoto, a buggy game is eventually patched. A bad game is bad forever.

If only New Vegas was patched to fix its bugs, or Alpha Protocol, or NWN2, or KOTOR 2.

But unfortunately they are still buggy messes that require fan patches to work even most of the time.

 

[distortedreality]

Deus Ex and it's diverse three endings begat Invisible War. It can be done, doesn't mean it will be good. I always thought that they would make more games in the Mass Effect universe but not directly relating to the trilogy.

Wait, you're kidding, right? Mass Effect 3's endings follow the same formula as Deus Ex. Choose Control, Integrate, or Destroy(A, B, or C), your previous choices don't matter for shit, enjoy a tiny chunk of unique cutscene that lasts less time than it takes me to piss(Bioware went the "extra mile" and padded each ending with a few more minutes of copy/paste since theirs was even shorter) and then sit back and bask in the glorious rushed bullshit you were just handed because the developer ran out of time and/or money. The only reason Deus Ex gets away with this, and continues to get away with this, is because it was sadly the best we had at the time.

My point was merely that three different endings do not prevent a "sequel" being made. Deus Ex had three "canon" endings, all three were neutered and crammed into the sequel's "canon". They could do the same to Mass Effect. (Or maybe not, I'm speculating because I haven't played ME3)

Oooooh, okay. I missed the point then. You know, considering how Bioware has shown how they can change certain aspects of the game depending on choices you made, I wonder how difficult it would be for them to change lots of minor details(ie small parts of conversations) in a sequel to support the ending you chose to explain the overarching "Reapers are gone" theme.

And speaking of Deus EX,didn't the prequel have a better ending?

Nooooooooo.

HR was worse regarding endings than the original.

OT - what sucks about all this the most is that this forum is probably going to continue along in this vein until well after the DLC is released.

 

[Kahunaburger]

To misquote Shigeru Miyamoto, a buggy game is eventually patched. A bad game is bad forever.

If only New Vegas was patched to fix its bugs, or Alpha Protocol, or NWN2, or KOTOR 2.

But unfortunately they are still buggy messes that require fan patches to work even most of the time.

And the fan patches solve the remaining problems that most people never encounter anyway. Game is then even more fun to play. See also: Elder Scrolls, The.

 

[Kingjackl]

Why does it have to be about 'victory'? The 'retake Mass Effect' business isn't a war, it's a very loud, very organised temper tantrum. Bioware had NO obligation to address any of these complaints, and yet they were still good enough to come out with free-of-charge DLC that attempts to address the fans complaints without completely changing the ending, which would have been expensive, time-consuming and impractical. The biggest problem with the ME3 endings was that they were rushed and badly presented, and Bioware have made it clear those are the issues they're willing to fix. Which is really more than any of the screaming howler monkeys calling themselves Mass Effect fans deserve.

 

[SajuukKhar]

And the fan patches solve the remaining problems that most people never encounter anyway. Game is then even more fun to play. See also: Elder Scrolls, The.

Well Bethesda is actually attempting to fix Skyrim, they have put out more bug fixing patches for it then they did Fallout 3, Oblivion AND Morrowind combined.

 

[Ihniwid]

This whole thing says more about the fans of the series than the company that made it. We saw this occur earlier in the year when the Mass Effect book was released and there was a petition to change various lore issues that were discovered.

Contributing to fandom does not inherently provide the consumer with creative rights to a given product. This is especially true of "art forms" which, I think, most Mass Effect fans would argue the video game is aspiring towards. Consumerism simply provides the ability to consume the product.

If you don't like the product, the only recourse you have is to ask for a refund.

This basic fact is altogether missing in the hive-mind that encapsulates the Mass Effect fan base.

Or maybe the fans hadn't given up on BioWare just yet and were saying "We don't like what you gave us for the amount we spent on it, we would appreciate it if changes were made to make things better."

One thing you anti-fan whiners always miss is that if most of the fans get refund/stop buying BioWare games BW will go out of business. Then not only will we have a bad game and maybe missed out on a few good games but we would lose one of the few RPG developers in the market. The fans were trying to create a situation where everyone wins, instead of your crap solution of everyone losing.

Well, I think my first question is what you meant by "anti-fan whiners." Do you mean an anti-fan who also whines, or an individual who is against fans who happen to whine?

But I digress... The way consumerism (and the overarching framework of capitalism) works is pretty simple. If the fans stopped purchasing products from Bioware on the basis that the company did not take the story line or plot elements seriously enough, then yes, Bioware "could potentially" go out of business. From what I understand, however, the game sold very well, even by modest estimates of gross sales to date. So... there's that.

Your, umm, conclusion that the fans are trying to save Bioware from some sort of possible corruption or bankruptcy does not make any sense. The fans simply want something they did not get. It's a purely selfish request and has nothing to do with saving Bioware from financial or public ruin.

 

[Ihniwid]

Your use of a "broken game" here is interesting. Because, it is true, a game can be broken. There can be debilitating bugs, crashes or significant framerate loss. But, how can a game be broken on a story level? You make a leap in your argument to simply prove that your dislike of the game ending is inherently a gameplay issue. From where I am standing, it is not a gameplay issue, it is a creative issue. A story issue.

I'd prefer a glitch or bug in the game's core systems, as opposed to a collapse of the narrative in the final minutes.

To me, a story falling apart is just as "broken" as a piece of the game's underlying software malfunctioning. Both detract from the quality of the game and, since the story is part of the game (a big part of this one in particular), it stands to reason that faltering in that area could, rationally, be construed as a failure of the system itself.

At least that's how I see it.

I think the inherent difference, though, that you are not acknowledging is that a story is a subjective experience. If there is a bug in a game that causes it to be broken, that is a mechanical issue. Everyone who experiences the game will note and dislike this bug. A story, on the other hand, is a totally different matter. Each person interprets and relates to a story in different ways. Just because a story is "broken" for one player, does not mean it is broken for another.

For example, let's turn to Twilight...

 

[Tsun Tzu]

I think the inherent difference, though, that you are not acknowledging is that a story is a subjective experience. If there is a bug in a game that causes it to be broken, that is a mechanical issue. Everyone who experiences the game will note and dislike this bug. A story, on the other hand, is a totally different matter. Each person interprets and relates to a story in different ways. Just because a story is "broken" for one player, does not mean it is broken for another.

For example, let's turn to Twilight...

Well, naturally whether you like a story or not is subjective, as are most things. I can't really argue with you there, but I'd seriously question the reasoning someone had for being satisfied with the endings as they've been presented. That said...

Some bugs are hilarious and I'd rather they remain than be purged, but it's not up for debate that they and their ramifications for the game as a whole aren't what was intended. Thus the patching system. The same could be argued for ME3's ending. Most folks seem to notice that the ending is problematic and doesn't gel with the rest of what's been offered.

In the case of Twilight: The story isn't broken. It follows its own internal logic (loosely used term, mind) throughout and doesn't really deviate from it in any glaring way that would either invalidate or run counter to the thrust of the rest of the "work". That's not the case with ME3, as has been detailed more times than I can count in forum after forum, post after post.

It's not a question of whether the ending is "good" or not. It's a question of whether the narrative and mechanics surrounding it failed to meet the requirements and logic set forth by its own universe, the game itself, and previous entries in the series...which it did.

I hope I'm being clear here. Quite tired.

 

[Metalix Knightmare]

This whole thing says more about the fans of the series than the company that made it. We saw this occur earlier in the year when the Mass Effect book was released and there was a petition to change various lore issues that were discovered.

If you don't like the product, the only recourse you have is to ask for a refund.

*sigh*

You missed the important bit in that story - there was big fan outcry over the book and within a few days Bioware had committed to fixing it and republishing the book.

That's just one example of many in this series where Bioware have done exactly what fans asked for. They've established that asking for a refund isn't the only recourse their fans have. Bioware dug this hole.

So it's wwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy too late to be pretending fans are being delusional by asking for something to be changed - they're just doing what has worked pretty much every time in the past.

I've gotta say, I REALLY think they should've just called that book Non-Canon and washed their hands of it. As it stands, they've set a pretty bad precedent. Don't like how something ended or went? Complain loud enough to get your way! Might as well start up Re-take Chrono Cross, Re-Take Xenogears, and Re-Take Cowboy Bebop while you're at it.

Also, considering this DLC is free an piggybacking with some rather good Multiplayer content, I'm not surprised there is not much in it. You get what you pay for after all.

 

[Metalix Knightmare]

Mass Effect 3 doesn't need an Extended Cut.

It needs a Renegade Version [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highlander_II:_The_Quickening#Home_video_releases].

Okay, let's not say things we can't take back. ME3 had a cruddy ending. Highlander II completely sodomized a series within the first 30 minutes. ANY comparison between the two is unnecessary.

 

[DeadYorick]

Cant we all just forget about Mass Effect? Play some other games? Legend of Grimrock is coming out soon cant we all just forget Bioware existed and play that instead?

I don't mean to get all hippy but this is just getting a little boring now. Cant we all just get along, not buy Bioware`s next money grab and see how sorry they feel for making a bad ending? I mean if they didn't want to make a good ending the first time do you really expect they`d just make a better one willy nilly?

Come on guys, there are new games coming out. Just advertising ME3 all over the internet is what EA wants.

Mass Effect 3 doesn't need an Extended Cut.

It needs a Renegade Version [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highlander_II:_The_Quickening#Home_video_releases].

Okay, let's not say things we can't take back. ME3 had a cruddy ending. Highlander II completely sodomized a series within the first 30 minutes. ANY comparison between the two is unnecessary.

He means it needs to be recut, he`s not comparing it to Highlander 2. Highlander 2 had a fanmade recut that made the plot make sense and removed all the continuity errors. He`s just saying make a recut of ME3 thats more renegade.

 

[Metalix Knightmare]

Oh look, more whining about Mass Effect 3's ending.
Can't you guys just get the fuck over it already? You didn't like the ending to a game, that's unfortunate. Now move on with your lives. If trying to get the ending of a game change seriously means that much to you. You need to get your priorities straight and ***** about something that matters.

Like bitching about people bitching about Mass Effect 3. If you don't like a thread/topic, stay the hell out of it and go donate money for some starving childeren.

Well we would, except these people KEEP MAKING THE BLOODY THINGS! Seriously, how many main topics on this subject do we frigging NEED!? If this was the Something Awful forums there would be a subpage just for this topic by now!

 

[thememan]

Your use of a "broken game" here is interesting. Because, it is true, a game can be broken. There can be debilitating bugs, crashes or significant framerate loss. But, how can a game be broken on a story level? You make a leap in your argument to simply prove that your dislike of the game ending is inherently a gameplay issue. From where I am standing, it is not a gameplay issue, it is a creative issue. A story issue.

I'd prefer a glitch or bug in the game's core systems, as opposed to a collapse of the narrative in the final minutes.

To me, a story falling apart is just as "broken" as a piece of the game's underlying software malfunctioning. Both detract from the quality of the game and, since the story is part of the game (a big part of this one in particular), it stands to reason that faltering in that area could, rationally, be construed as a failure of the system itself.

At least that's how I see it.

I think the inherent difference, though, that you are not acknowledging is that a story is a subjective experience. If there is a bug in a game that causes it to be broken, that is a mechanical issue. Everyone who experiences the game will note and dislike this bug. A story, on the other hand, is a totally different matter. Each person interprets and relates to a story in different ways. Just because a story is "broken" for one player, does not mean it is broken for another.

For example, let's turn to Twilight...

Actually, it is entirely possible for a story to be objectively broken, regardless of whether people like it or not. ME3's story is most certainly objectively broken in the sense that it has broken every fundamental rule that exists within story telling. The rules don't necessarily need to be followed, mind you, but in order to successfully break from the fundamentals takes a great deal of care and precision, neither of which exists in ME3.

Really, ME3's ending is a broken ending pretty much objectively. Whether people like it or not, or why they do, is entirely subjective.