Poll: Does the "Extended-Cut" satisfy you?

[Innegativeion]

Impossible to judge without seeing it, IMO.

HOWEVER granted its description of "expanding" on the established endings rather than revising them or adding new (a) new ending(s), I'm not optimistic. The main issues people had with the endings would take a LOT of supplemental justifications to make them tolerable. I'm not confident in Bioware's ability to do this, as they've written themselves into a corner with all the plotholes, contradictions, poor theme conveyance, and the existence of a literal deus ex machina.

 

[Tono Makt]

Hyperbole cat is the worst cat that ever did cat a cat. Hyperbole poster should stop wearing hyperbole cats collar.

Actually Hyper-space is pretty much right.

Now a days gamers rage if every little detail isnt explained in full.

No. He's not. It's stupid hyperbole and does nothing but cause posts like mine in response, which causes stupid posts in response to the stupid response, and stupid arguments. Why? Because I'm the exception to his hyperbole, ergo I prove him wrong simply by existing.

He describes an extreme stereotype within the gaming community (which is over-represented on internet forums, making it seem like they exist in greater numbers than they actually do) and applies it to the entirety of the gaming community with that hyperbole.

This is the problem with gamers expectations when it comes to video-game stories, they are in this constant need of explanation of EVERYTHING, unless they invalidate it through their own interpretation.

Hyperbole. Gamers are not in constant need of explanations for everything. Gamers are quite willing to overlook alot in their games as long as there is some explanation in the game they can latch onto. Gamers will ask (demand, whine for, beg for, however you want to describe it) for explanations for things that they feel do not have an explanation in game. It can be debated whether there is an adequate explanation in game for what they want, but gamers are remarkably capable of putting two and two together to come up with four.

Gamers are also more likely to approach mysteries in game with an open mind. When faced with something new in a game, they are more likely to be accepting at face value, wait for an explanation but form their own hypothesis, knowing full well that they could be mistaken. If they are proven mistaken, most gamers will abandon their own hypothesis and accept the game's explanation, adjust their own theories of the game and make a more educated hypothesis the next time a mystery arises. Gamers will differ on how much they enjoy these revelations, but gamers are more likely to accept a games explanation (however tenuous) than to invalidate the game's explanation with their own interpretation of the information.

Gamers want closure for every aspect of the story, including minor technical details and shit, leaving things up to interpretation impossible because we will just assume the worst.

Hyperbole again. Gamers don't require closure for every aspect of the story. Most gamers will not get to every aspect of the story, particularly in large games like Mass Effect, Fallout, Final Fantasy and Skyrim, because the world is too large for most gamers to explore fully. Gamers will vary on what aspects of the story they want closure on - in Mass Effect, some people won't care a bit that the customer finally gets his 15 credit refund after three years of working at it (and three games), nor will they care that Michael and Rebecka's child is now old enough to be in day care with other kids. Some gamers who have played all three Mass Effect games will have no idea who I'm talking about. Some gamers will be like me, and will be amused by running into these minor characters again and again and will see their story progress. It's sprinkles on frosting on the cake, not the cake itself.

This is even more applicable for the technical details of the game - gamers don't need the minor technical details explained as long as the major ones are. The Mass Effect can raise or lower the mass of an object; that's good enough for most of us to explain why our spaceships fly, why our guns fire, and how we can go from star system to star system in a matter of in game hours. We don't need to know how these same things can go perfectly straight even when they're so light that a small wind should have them blowing about uncontrollably, or to know how long the mass effect effect lasts on a tiny sliver of metal from a sniper rifle; how long until it reverts back to its normal mass? Will it always be heavier than it should be? If I was to use a mass effect on myself, could I permanently make myself 1.5 my mass (and be tougher in hand to hand combat) or 0.5 of my mass (and become a champion rock climber)? Etc., etc., etc.

tl:dr - Hyperbole cat applauds your shenanigans, but still wants his hat back.

 

[Innegativeion]

You're just assuming things from a series of unexplained plot-points, you assume that it is simply a plothole or that there was no restriction in the Star-child's control over the reapers. You could assume that the Star-child could not reach the Conduit (because it was independent from the rest of the network and was built by the Protheans), making the entire thing seem more plausible, just as easily as you could assume it is simply a plot-hole.

Starchild is in no way "minor technical details and shit", as it is the supposed orchestrator of ALL of Mass Effect's major events. No character in Mass Effect would even exist without its reapers destroying previous cycles.

When one must make grasping assumptions about a plot point that shifts the perspective of an ENTIRE story, especially when said plot point receives no foreshadowing and is explained in no more than 2 minutes, to adequately understand the plot point, one may be justified in calling bullshit on the story.

 

[A.I. Sigma]

Unless they somehow fix all the plot holes, give closure, and fulfill the promises of the wildly different endings, no. But I guess I'll wait and see.

 

[SajuukKhar]

snip

He said gamers want everything explained.

He did not say all gamers, he did not say X group of gamers, he said gamers, which could mean any sub-group and not specifically all.

He did not imply all gamers were like that and thus you being different does not make him wrong.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

Hyperbole cat is the worst cat that ever did cat a cat. Hyperbole poster should stop wearing hyperbole cats collar.

Actually Hyper-space is pretty much right.

Now a days gamers rage if every little detail isnt explained in full.

No. He's not. It's stupid hyperbole and does nothing but cause posts like mine in response, which causes stupid posts in response to the stupid response, and stupid arguments. Why? Because I'm the exception to his hyperbole, ergo I prove him wrong simply by existing.

He describes an extreme stereotype within the gaming community (which is over-represented on internet forums, making it seem like they exist in greater numbers than they actually do) and applies it to the entirety of the gaming community with that hyperbole.

This is the problem with gamers expectations when it comes to video-game stories, they are in this constant need of explanation of EVERYTHING, unless they invalidate it through their own interpretation.

Hyperbole. Gamers are not in constant need of explanations for everything. Gamers are quite willing to overlook alot in their games as long as there is some explanation in the game they can latch onto. Gamers will ask (demand, whine for, beg for, however you want to describe it) for explanations for things that they feel do not have an explanation in game. It can be debated whether there is an adequate explanation in game for what they want, but gamers are remarkably capable of putting two and two together to come up with four.

Gamers are also more likely to approach mysteries in game with an open mind. When faced with something new in a game, they are more likely to be accepting at face value, wait for an explanation but form their own hypothesis, knowing full well that they could be mistaken. If they are proven mistaken, most gamers will abandon their own hypothesis and accept the game's explanation, adjust their own theories of the game and make a more educated hypothesis the next time a mystery arises. Gamers will differ on how much they enjoy these revelations, but gamers are more likely to accept a games explanation (however tenuous) than to invalidate the game's explanation with their own interpretation of the information.

Gamers want closure for every aspect of the story, including minor technical details and shit, leaving things up to interpretation impossible because we will just assume the worst.

Hyperbole again. Gamers don't require closure for every aspect of the story. Most gamers will not get to every aspect of the story, particularly in large games like Mass Effect, Fallout, Final Fantasy and Skyrim, because the world is too large for most gamers to explore fully. Gamers will vary on what aspects of the story they want closure on - in Mass Effect, some people won't care a bit that the customer finally gets his 15 credit refund after three years of working at it (and three games), nor will they care that Michael and Rebecka's child is now old enough to be in day care with other kids. Some gamers who have played all three Mass Effect games will have no idea who I'm talking about. Some gamers will be like me, and will be amused by running into these minor characters again and again and will see their story progress. It's sprinkles on frosting on the cake, not the cake itself.

This is even more applicable for the technical details of the game - gamers don't need the minor technical details explained as long as the major ones are. The Mass Effect can raise or lower the mass of an object; that's good enough for most of us to explain why our spaceships fly, why our guns fire, and how we can go from star system to star system in a matter of in game hours. We don't need to know how these same things can go perfectly straight even when they're so light that a small wind should have them blowing about uncontrollably, or to know how long the mass effect effect lasts on a tiny sliver of metal from a sniper rifle; how long until it reverts back to its normal mass? Will it always be heavier than it should be? If I was to use a mass effect on myself, could I permanently make myself 1.5 my mass (and be tougher in hand to hand combat) or 0.5 of my mass (and become a champion rock climber)? Etc., etc., etc.

tl:dr - Hyperbole cat applauds your shenanigans, but still wants his hat back.

agreed, the problem with the mass effect ending (not calling it endings, it doesn't dignify that) is not "minor technical details", it's complete opposite of that, especially considering that's what the games have building up to all these years...when you fuck that up, it's going to raise quite a few "WTF's", not to mention when you break your own lore, literally.

 

[SadisticBrownie]

I doubt it will, but there's no point in railing on at Bioware now, just gotta wait and see what they come up with. Fingers crossed it's something good.

 

[Tono Makt]

snip

He said gamers want everything explained.

He did not say all gamers, he did not say X group of gamers, he said gamers, which oculd mean any sub-group and not specifically all.

He did not imply all gamers were like that and thus you being different does not make him wrong.

Oh please. This is a rather pedantic response and entirely ignores the rest of my post to point out that you didn't interpret his use of the word "gamers" to mean "all gamers" because he didn't use the world "all", when the post was quite obviously making a general comment about gamers that is an equivalent to saying "all gamers". It's the same sort of argument people who like the ending of ME3 use when they point out that the endings are different because one has red explosions, one has green explosions and one has blue explosions, ergo they are all different.

Care to try again? Maybe look at more of the points I've made, and put a bit more thought into it?

 

[Seanfall]

As long as godchild is in the game I will not be satisfied. HE IS THE PLOT HOLE! You can't fix plot holes without getting rid of the little shit.

This is what the DLC will be like. Imagine hiring a hooker, only to find out that it's a transvestite. So in order to satisfy you, the dude cuts his own dick off and says "there, happy now?" It doesn't make it any better. If anything, it only creates a bigger mess and makes you doubt all future hookers.

Except nothing about the Ctalysts existence is a pothole, his motivations may be a plot hole, which they aren't, but he himself is not.

Oh god it's you....your like a none Troll version of Zeel. Your in every ME3 thread about the ending. Your not insulting people like he did. But god damn if arguing with you isn't a waste of time. Can't you just let us have our opinions and not fling the same arguments around every time?

The ending doesn't make sense. Just...accept it man.

 

[Baneat]

I'm angry at the ending being shitty on release, I don't care about it being changed, the fact that they thought they could get away with it is all I'm pissed off about. Augment it, change it, whatever - damage was done, the shit ending is the ending of ME3.

 

[SajuukKhar]

Oh god it's you....your like a none Troll version of Zeel. Your in every ME3 thread about the ending. Your not insulting people like he did. But god damn if arguing with you isn't a waste of time. Can't you just let us have our opinions and not fling the same arguments around every time?

The ending doesn't make sense. Just...accept it man.

The ending makes sense.

It just doesn't fit with the themes of the series, wasnt forshadowed at all, and the presentation was garbage.

The fundamental logical behind the catalysts reasoning is solid though, its a logical ending but one that doesn't belong with THIS game.

 

[Zen Toombs]

In a different poll that I made about how I consider The "Extended-Cut DLC" not a victory one user posted (Zen Toombs) saying we should have a vote. So as the OP of the thread, I'm making one.

For those that were angered by the ending of Mass Effect 3, does this new announcement of an Extended-Cut of the ending, which will entail a series of Cutscene's and a very small select number of possible dialogue, satisfy your anger with BioWare and its EA overlords?

So, when I saw this thread I had every intention to come in and be all "hey, we should wait and see. I mean, it'll probably be terrible, but Bioware made multiplayer work in Mass Effect. Wait and see, the thing isn't even out yet."

Then I saw you mention me by name. That was pretty cool.

*NOTE*I will create a similar poll, Post-DLC.

This is also a great idea.

 

[Innegativeion]

The ending makes sense.



The fundamental logical behind the catalysts reasoning is solid though, its a logical ending but one that doesn't belong with THIS game.

I take it you didn't get the geth/quarian peace resolution?

...or think about the implications of magically making all life cyborgs (which in no way prevents the creation of more synthetics) for more than a minute?

Oh, there's more I could point out. If you want to hear, by all means, let me know.

 

[Zen Toombs]

Hyperbole cat is the worst cat that ever did cat a cat. Hyperbole poster should stop wearing hyperbole cats collar.

This made me giggle, and I completely agree.

Thanks for brightening my day!

The ending makes sense.

It just doesn't fit with the themes of the series, wasnt forshadowed at all, and the presentation was garbage.

The fundamental logical behind the catalysts reasoning is solid though, its a logical ending but one that doesn't belong with THIS game.

I see where you're coming from, but I believe you are incorrect. While the God Child/Reaper King/Catalyst's logic was soundvalid[footnote]my bad, I meant valid. The Reaper King's conclusion followed from his premisies, but his premisies were wrong.

For example, the whole Geth-Quarian peace thing.[/footnote], the ending doesn't make sense because it violates established canon. If the catalyst was there all along, things would have played out differently - for example, Sovereign would have never needed to activate the Citadel Relay for the Reapers to pour through. The Reaper King would just send them all in. Also, Synthesis makes no sense. While I can get behind Destruction and Control within the realm of the series, synthesis is nothing but space magic in a series that otherwise has no space magic (the most the Reapers ever do is be extra durable, have really powerful guns, turn people into cyber-zombies, brainwash people and be able to make precise hyperspace jumps. All of these things are entirely reasonable and require no space magic.)

 

[Seanfall]

Oh god it's you....your like a none Troll version of Zeel. Your in every ME3 thread about the ending. Your not insulting people like he did. But god damn if arguing with you isn't a waste of time. Can't you just let us have our opinions and not fling the same arguments around every time?

The ending doesn't make sense. Just...accept it man.

The ending makes sense.

It just doesn't fit with the themes of the series, wasnt forshadowed at all, and the presentation was garbage.

The fundamental logical behind the catalysts reasoning is solid though, its a logical ending but one that doesn't belong with THIS game.

....No...no it doesn't. Magical Space child uses colored beams to change the galaxy = wtf. And you admit that it doesn't fit the themes....isn't that enough for it to not make sense? I think...your just in denial. Or your just obsessed with being someone who 'gets it'. And Like I said it's a waste of time Arguing with you. So....god speed, have a nice day.

 

[SajuukKhar]

....No...no it doesn't. Magical Space child uses colored beams to change the galaxy = wtf. And you admit that it doesn't fit the themes....isn't that enough for it to not make sense? I think...your just in denial. Or your just obsessed with being someone who 'gets it'. And Like I said it's a waste of time Arguing with you. So....god speed, have a nice day.

There is a difference between not making sense and not fitting with the themes of a series.

Sauron from Lord of the Rings could have said his motivation was "I'm killing people because they pollute and pollution is ruining the planet yet no one seems is even attempting to stop so I'm killing people to save the world" which is a motivation that makes sense, but it doesn't fit with the themes of the series.

The logic behind it isn't wrong, it just has nothing to do with the series. All I have ever odde is point out how the fundamental logic behind The Catalysts motives is right.
.
.
Also the control and destroy beams aren't that hard to explain, you can send data through energy pulses that can be decoded.

It is entirely possible Shepard, depending on the action, sent a control override or start self destruct command in the pulse waves.

The green beam is, admittedly, stupid, but it to can be explained using the same actions the markers in Dead space use adding in some Reaper nano-machines, in that it sends out a recombinant DNA sequence that alters organic DNA.

I see where you're coming from, but I believe you are incorrect. While the God Child/Reaper King/Catalyst's logic was soundvalid, the ending doesn't make sense because it violates established canon. If the catalyst was there all along, things would have played out differently - for example, Sovereign would have never needed to activate the Citadel Relay for the Reapers to pour through. The Reaper King would just send them all in. Also, Synthesis makes no sense. While I can get behind Destruction and Control within the realm of the series, synthesis is nothing but space magic in a series that otherwise has no space magic (the most the Reapers ever do is be extra durable, have really powerful guns, turn people into cyber-zombies, brainwash people and be able to make precise hyperspace jumps. All of these things are entirely reasonable and require no space magic.)

As has been pointed out The Catalyst could have had any number of reasons, mostl ikely failsafes, to explain why he didnt do obvious actions.
.
.
The Quarrian/Geth peace proves nothing at all, there is no indication said peace owuld last, and that peace does not prevent what The Ctalayst said from coming true eventually.

you are trying to take one example of synth and organic peace as being what will happen in all future occurances of synthetics.

It is like saying because i flipped a coin and got tails once I will always get tails.

it is a flawed argument.

 

[Seanfall]

....No...no it doesn't. Magical Space child uses colored beams to change the galaxy = wtf. And you admit that it doesn't fit the themes....isn't that enough for it to not make sense? I think...your just in denial. Or your just obsessed with being someone who 'gets it'. And Like I said it's a waste of time Arguing with you. So....god speed, have a nice day.

There is a difference between not making sense and not fitting with the themes of a series.

Sauron from Lord of the Rings could have said his motivation was "I'm killing people because they pollute and pollution is ruining the planet yet no one seems is even attempting to stop so I'm killing people to save the world" which is a motivation that makes sense, but it doesn't fit with the themes of the series.

The logic behind it isn't wrong, it just has nothing to do with the series. All I have ever odde is point out how the fundamental logic behind The Catalysts motives is right.
.
.
Also the control and destroy beams aren't that hard to explain, you can send data through energy pulses that can be decoded.

It is entirely possible Shepard, depending on the action, sent a control override or start self destruct command in the pulse waves.

The green beam is, admittedly, stupid, but it to can be explained using the same actions the markers in Dead space use adding in some Reaper nano-machines, in that it sends out a recombinant DNA sequence that alters organic DNA.

....I'm not doing this....I'm not arguing with you. Good day sir...I SAID GOOD DAY! I'm not saying your right, (your not) but I'm not doing this. I've tried it's like trying to describe color to a creature without eyes. (yes that is from ME2. )

 

[SajuukKhar]

....I'm not doing this....I'm not arguing with you. Good day sir...I SAID GOOD DAY! I'm not saying your right, (your not) but I'm not doing this. I've tried it's like trying to describe color to a creature without eyes. (yes that is from ME2. )

Yes because using examples from other sci-fi series to explain how what happened may not be as as "space magicy" as people think it is makes me wrong?

I find it funny earlier you said I was in denial yet all you have done is deny examples about how said stuff isn't as flawed as you make it out to be.

the irony

 

[SwagLordYoloson]

I hope they bring closure to Marauder Shields. A back story to his great struggle would be appreciated, possibly we could get a cinematic of how his family reacts to his untimely demise, to his lost cause, to his great sacrifice. Only then would this game be complete. I think it is good that the developers are finally going into depth of this wonderful core character.

 

[wintercoat]

As long as godchild is in the game I will not be satisfied. HE IS THE PLOT HOLE! You can't fix plot holes without getting rid of the little shit.

This is what the DLC will be like. Imagine hiring a hooker, only to find out that it's a transvestite. So in order to satisfy you, the dude cuts his own dick off and says "there, happy now?" It doesn't make it any better. If anything, it only creates a bigger mess and makes you doubt all future hookers.

Except nothing about the Ctalysts existence is a pothole, his motivations may be a plot hole, which they aren't, but he himself is not.

Oh god it's you....your like a none Troll version of Zeel. Your in every ME3 thread about the ending. Your not insulting people like he did. But god damn if arguing with you isn't a waste of time. Can't you just let us have our opinions and not fling the same arguments around every time?

The ending doesn't make sense. Just...accept it man.

Tells you to accept others opinions...by calling your opinion wrong.