Poll: ME3 EC didn't fix anything

[Jynthor]

I watched the Destroy and Synthesis endings on Youtube and am currently downloading the EC to see Control for myself.
From what I've seen all the plotholes are still there. And it seems to me the endings went from "Everyone dies!" to "Everyone lives a happy life and everything gets rebuilt because we say so!" and "The Normandy crashed on a planet and is nearly destroyed? No Problem, they will fix it in a day and fly away like nothing ever happened because we say so!"
And since when is the Normandy capable of vertical flight?
Whatever.

Edit: And how were we supposed to get any of this from the original endings?

The Normandy has pulled off "vertical flight" before... in multiple occasions, actually. At the "dead" Reaper in ME2 when they were escaping it... at the Collector base...

My bad, I didn't remember. Thanks for pointing it out.

 

[Quakebuttock]

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.

That was possibly the thing I found most irritating about the ending. The game was clearly designed to have a variable success/failure based on War Assets/Galactic Readiness like the loyalty and squad recruitment system in ME2. The promotional interviews & announcments as well as the game its self heavily implied that Galactic Readiness and your War Assets were important. I just assumed that (like ME2) the more you did the better the outcome would be and that if you rushed though and started the final battle with "minimum" war assets you'd lose, just as if you rushed through ME2, you died/your crew got minced/other people died.
After the main missions I spent hours flying around collecting War Assets for the final fight. That's the bit that bugged me most. All that time I spent gunning for the best possible ending, only to be confronted with three identical ones. I pre-ordered and avioded all spoilers and reviews, so this came completely out the blue (or red or green) for me. My own stupid fault, prehaps but I won't be pre-ordering again, in any case.

 

[Quakebuttock]

But I'm reasonably happy with the EC (apart from the obvious ME1/Sovereign plot hole).
The syenthesis ending is still an utter nonesense but I quite enjoy the fact that my insufferably smug moralising and interfereing Shepard can spend the next few thousand years inflicting nausating good deeds on the rest of the galaxy via a flying cyborg space squid army.

Cover the turd in glitter and hope no-one notices the smell.

 

[Monsterfurby]

I have no problem with the EC ending. I appreciate the extra effort they went through, what company would ever do that?

For me, my original choice however will always remain the "original" ending (the ambiguous "good" Destroy ending in ME3). I had actually come to grips with my choice, and inductrination theory seemed quite sound in the end. I was certain that this was actually the only "good" ending that would not end in the cycle continuing.

Now, however, the game tells me that the endings I was wary of were actually good, and that I am ACTUALLY a slave to the Starchild's/Harbinger's wishes. If I disobey, I lose. Even though I chose Destroy again in this one, knowing that the others are now less ambiguous is kind of hard to swallow. Still, it's great that they actually released this version.

 

[Cowabungaa]

I have no problem with the EC ending. I appreciate the extra effort they went through, what company would ever do that?

For no extra charge no less.

I too appreciate it. Yes, it far from fixes everything, that's very true. But you can't expect them to completely change the ending. They have to work with what they've got. And in that regard they did improved it quite a bit. Especially the synthesis ending, while still quite silly, at least makes a bit more sense now. And there's actually a proper epilogue to all the endings.

But yes, we all know that we'd rather have seen all our choices matter, have all the war assets matter, that sort of thing. But for that they have to re-do the entire ending. But for a free fix, well, it's okay.

 

[boag]

ME1 had plot holes which retroactively destroyed the plot of the game, nobody seems to know or give a shit about them. I guess some people give a shit about certain plotholes and not others.

Like what? The only significant one I am aware of is that no one suggests that Saren is planning to attack the Citadel until your meeting with the Council, and then everyone assumes that he must be.

Saren attacked Eden Prime to get to the Prothean Beacon and he needed the Prothean Beacon to find the Conduit, which we later find out is a miniature Mass Relay that offers one way passage to the Citadel.

Why did Saren need the conduit in the first place? Why expose himself on Eden Prime, why not just go to the presidium as a spectre and have Sovereign and the heretic army do a surprise attack on the citadel?

Of course if that happened Shepard would never have come into the story and nobody would have stopped the Reapers from pouring through the Citadel, thus we have a story with no protagonist and no conflict.

Everyone who says ME2 had bad writing or ME3 had bad writing and that ME1 was the best thing since the pyramids I say suck on it you hypocritical pseudo intellectual sacks of shit.

If you want to pretend to have standards, then at least show some fucking consistency and not act high and mighty like you're above the masses when it suits you.

To be fair ME 2 & 3's plots are more inconsistent, nonsensical and unrealistic. Not saying ME1 isn't guilty of plot silliness as well. My problem with ME2's plot is the part where Shepard dies and comes back two years later with all his memories intact... I still don't understand why this happened.

On that I agree, it was kind of pointless, they could have gone the Robocop route and just make him mortally wounded and in a coma and then have Cerberus come in and spend the next 2 years rebuilding him, it would have been the exact same thing only a hundred times more, "realistic" is the wrong word, I'll say believable; but if that's the biggest problem you have with the story then it just proves my point.

The biggest problem I have with ME3, ending notwithstanding, is the fact that they find the plans for the crucible in the same Prothean Archives they had for 30 years, beyond that, nothing really set off any serious alarms in my brain.

If you're going to be critical, don't be critical just when you feel like it.

Another thing to add to the list for ME3 is Cerberus' involvement in the story. For some reason this black ops organization that virtually no one knew existed before is now in command of an army that rivals pretty much everyone elses' (even after going to Sanctuary I didn't buy it at all), has near limitless resources and political pull and is supposedly supposed to be filling some kind of prophesy-esque role in the Reaper cycle. Cerberus was forced down our throats in places it shouldn't have been simply for the sake of mixing up the enemy types. It bothered me the entire game.

I tried to tie in to the whole refuge scam that was going on, and that they were just grabbing random civilians and turning them into brainwashed super soldiers.

It a really long stretch and the theory isnt sound or explained completely at all.

 

[Acton Hank]

ME1 had plot holes which retroactively destroyed the plot of the game, nobody seems to know or give a shit about them. I guess some people give a shit about certain plotholes and not others.

Like what? The only significant one I am aware of is that no one suggests that Saren is planning to attack the Citadel until your meeting with the Council, and then everyone assumes that he must be.

Saren attacked Eden Prime to get to the Prothean Beacon and he needed the Prothean Beacon to find the Conduit, which we later find out is a miniature Mass Relay that offers one way passage to the Citadel.

Why did Saren need the conduit in the first place? Why expose himself on Eden Prime, why not just go to the presidium as a spectre and have Sovereign and the heretic army do a surprise attack on the citadel?

Of course if that happened Shepard would never have come into the story and nobody would have stopped the Reapers from pouring through the Citadel, thus we have a story with no protagonist and no conflict.

Everyone who says ME2 had bad writing or ME3 had bad writing and that ME1 was the best thing since the pyramids I say suck on it you hypocritical pseudo intellectual sacks of shit.

If you want to pretend to have standards, then at least show some fucking consistency and not act high and mighty like you're above the masses when it suits you.

To be fair ME 2 & 3's plots are more inconsistent, nonsensical and unrealistic. Not saying ME1 isn't guilty of plot silliness as well. My problem with ME2's plot is the part where Shepard dies and comes back two years later with all his memories intact... I still don't understand why this happened.

On that I agree, it was kind of pointless, they could have gone the Robocop route and just make him mortally wounded and in a coma and then have Cerberus come in and spend the next 2 years rebuilding him, it would have been the exact same thing only a hundred times more, "realistic" is the wrong word, I'll say believable; but if that's the biggest problem you have with the story then it just proves my point.

The biggest problem I have with ME3, ending notwithstanding, is the fact that they find the plans for the crucible in the same Prothean Archives they had for 30 years, beyond that, nothing really set off any serious alarms in my brain.

If you're going to be critical, don't be critical just when you feel like it.

Another thing to add to the list for ME3 is Cerberus' involvement in the story. For some reason this black ops organization that virtually no one knew existed before is now in command of an army that rivals pretty much everyone elses' (even after going to Sanctuary I didn't buy it at all), has near limitless resources and political pull and is supposedly supposed to be filling some kind of prophesy-esque role in the Reaper cycle. Cerberus was forced down our throats in places it shouldn't have been simply for the sake of mixing up the enemy types. It bothered me the entire game.

ME1 had plot holes which retroactively destroyed the plot of the game, nobody seems to know or give a shit about them. I guess some people give a shit about certain plotholes and not others.

Like what? The only significant one I am aware of is that no one suggests that Saren is planning to attack the Citadel until your meeting with the Council, and then everyone assumes that he must be.

Saren attacked Eden Prime to get to the Prothean Beacon and he needed the Prothean Beacon to find the Conduit, which we later find out is a miniature Mass Relay that offers one way passage to the Citadel.

Why did Saren need the conduit in the first place? Why expose himself on Eden Prime, why not just go to the presidium as a spectre and have Sovereign and the heretic army do a surprise attack on the citadel?

Of course if that happened Shepard would never have come into the story and nobody would have stopped the Reapers from pouring through the Citadel, thus we have a story with no protagonist and no conflict.

Everyone who says ME2 had bad writing or ME3 had bad writing and that ME1 was the best thing since the pyramids I say suck on it you hypocritical pseudo intellectual sacks of shit.

If you want to pretend to have standards, then at least show some fucking consistency and not act high and mighty like you're above the masses when it suits you.

To be fair ME 2 & 3's plots are more inconsistent, nonsensical and unrealistic. Not saying ME1 isn't guilty of plot silliness as well. My problem with ME2's plot is the part where Shepard dies and comes back two years later with all his memories intact... I still don't understand why this happened.

On that I agree, it was kind of pointless, they could have gone the Robocop route and just make him mortally wounded and in a coma and then have Cerberus come in and spend the next 2 years rebuilding him, it would have been the exact same thing only a hundred times more, "realistic" is the wrong word, I'll say believable; but if that's the biggest problem you have with the story then it just proves my point.

The biggest problem I have with ME3, ending notwithstanding, is the fact that they find the plans for the crucible in the same Prothean Archives they had for 30 years, beyond that, nothing really set off any serious alarms in my brain.

If you're going to be critical, don't be critical just when you feel like it.

Another thing to add to the list for ME3 is Cerberus' involvement in the story. For some reason this black ops organization that virtually no one knew existed before is now in command of an army that rivals pretty much everyone elses' (even after going to Sanctuary I didn't buy it at all), has near limitless resources and political pull and is supposedly supposed to be filling some kind of prophesy-esque role in the Reaper cycle. Cerberus was forced down our throats in places it shouldn't have been simply for the sake of mixing up the enemy types. It bothered me the entire game.

What do you mean virtually no one knew existed? I heard the Council say that Cerberus was a sworn enemy of the council in ME2, and pretty much everybody you meet in ME2 knows or has heard about Cerberus. It's explained where they got all their troops from, they kidnap civilians and turn them into those husk troopers. Also there is a year long gap between ME2 and ME3, that's enoug time to raise a reasonably large force. Also they say that the attack on the Citadel was more or less the biggest operation they were capable of, and the sole objective was to kill the council and put Udina in charge. Exactly what political pull are you talking about?
And what the hell do you mean prophesy-esque role in the Reaper cycle?
What on earth are you talking about?

 

[AD-Stu]

What do you mean virtually no one knew existed? I heard the Council say that Cerberus was a sworn enemy of the council in ME2, and pretty much everybody you meet in ME2 knows or has heard about Cerberus. It's explained where they got all their troops from, they kidnap civilians and turn them into those husk troopers. Also there is a year long gap between ME2 and ME3, that's enoug time to raise a reasonably large force. Also they say that the attack on the Citadel was more or less the biggest operation they were capable of, and the sole objective was to kill the council and put Udina in charge. Exactly what political pull are you talking about?
And what the hell do you mean prophesy-esque role in the Reaper cycle?
What on earth are you talking about?

From memory, Javik says that there was a group of Protheans that played a very similar role to Cerberus during the previous cycle so maybe that's it?

Otherwise I agree with you though - all the way back to ME1 (and even before, if you've read the novels/comics) Cerberus has been portrayed as an organisation with plenty of people and plenty of money too.

 

[Acton Hank]

What do you mean virtually no one knew existed? I heard the Council say that Cerberus was a sworn enemy of the council in ME2, and pretty much everybody you meet in ME2 knows or has heard about Cerberus. It's explained where they got all their troops from, they kidnap civilians and turn them into those husk troopers. Also there is a year long gap between ME2 and ME3, that's enoug time to raise a reasonably large force. Also they say that the attack on the Citadel was more or less the biggest operation they were capable of, and the sole objective was to kill the council and put Udina in charge. Exactly what political pull are you talking about?
And what the hell do you mean prophesy-esque role in the Reaper cycle?
What on earth are you talking about?

From memory, Javik says that there was a group of Protheans that played a very similar role to Cerberus during the previous cycle so maybe that's it?

Otherwise I agree with you though - all the way back to ME1 (and even before, if you've read the novels/comics) Cerberus has been portrayed as an organisation with plenty of people and plenty of money too.

So it's my fault that I didn't spend an extra 800 mspoints to get javik.

So a group of protheans tried to take over the Reapers, just like Cerberus did, just like probably a splinter faction of some other race from some other cycle probably tried.

When you have an unstoppable force destroying your galaxy is it really illogical to think that certain people would try to control it for their own purposes rather than destroy it?

I still don't understand why he thinks Cerberus was forced in the story.

 

[Acton Hank]

What do you mean virtually no one knew existed? I heard the Council say that Cerberus was a sworn enemy of the council in ME2, and pretty much everybody you meet in ME2 knows or has heard about Cerberus. It's explained where they got all their troops from, they kidnap civilians and turn them into those husk troopers. Also there is a year long gap between ME2 and ME3, that's enoug time to raise a reasonably large force. Also they say that the attack on the Citadel was more or less the biggest operation they were capable of, and the sole objective was to kill the council and put Udina in charge. Exactly what political pull are you talking about?
And what the hell do you mean prophesy-esque role in the Reaper cycle?
What on earth are you talking about?

From memory, Javik says that there was a group of Protheans that played a very similar role to Cerberus during the previous cycle so maybe that's it?

Otherwise I agree with you though - all the way back to ME1 (and even before, if you've read the novels/comics) Cerberus has been portrayed as an organisation with plenty of people and plenty of money too.[/q

What do you mean virtually no one knew existed? I heard the Council say that Cerberus was a sworn enemy of the council in ME2, and pretty much everybody you meet in ME2 knows or has heard about Cerberus. It's explained where they got all their troops from, they kidnap civilians and turn them into those husk troopers. Also there is a year long gap between ME2 and ME3, that's enoug time to raise a reasonably large force. Also they say that the attack on the Citadel was more or less the biggest operation they were capable of, and the sole objective was to kill the council and put Udina in charge. Exactly what political pull are you talking about?
And what the hell do you mean prophesy-esque role in the Reaper cycle?
What on earth are you talking about?

From memory, Javik says that there was a group of Protheans that played a very similar role to Cerberus during the previous cycle so maybe that's it?

Otherwise I agree with you though - all the way back to ME1 (and even before, if you've read the novels/comics) Cerberus has been portrayed as an organisation with plenty of people and plenty of money too.

Just to be clear, I dont' have a problem with people who prefer ME1 to 2 or 3. I just hate it when stupid pseudo intellectual fanboys shit all over 2 or 3 and people who like them and then refuse to acknowledge any of the big, big, BIG problems with ME1's story or gameplay.

I really don't get where they all came from, when ME2 was released very very very few people had anything but glowing praise to say about it, now I can't go into any ME discussion without seeing some guy act like ME2 is worse than cancer.

 

[userwhoquitthesite]

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.

Hey now, Westwood was a great little company. Respect for the dead

 

[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.

Hey now, Westwood was a great little company. Respect for the dead

They were a great little company, after what EA did to them, death was the best possible outcome.

 

[itsthesheppy]

I just got done watching the TUN review of the ending and the recent DLC. I feel the points he made for why the ending is weak and stupid are really strong.

 

[userwhoquitthesite]

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.

Hey now, Westwood was a great little company. Respect for the dead

They were a great little company, after what EA did to them, death was the best possible outcome.

For the glory of horrendous, my brother

 

[Acton Hank]

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.

Hey now, Westwood was a great little company. Respect for the dead

They were a great little company, after what EA did to them, death was the best possible outcome.

When did they say that?

 

[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.

Hey now, Westwood was a great little company. Respect for the dead

They were a great little company, after what EA did to them, death was the best possible outcome.

When did they say that?

When did who say what?

I dont understand your question here.


oh I see, you are inquiring about the quote.

Go follow the original post and subsequent replies for the anwsers

 

[Acton Hank]

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.

Hey now, Westwood was a great little company. Respect for the dead

They were a great little company, after what EA did to them, death was the best possible outcome.

When did they say that?

When did who say what?

I dont understand your question here.


oh I see, you are inquiring about the quote.

Go follow the original post and subsequent replies for the anwsers

When did Bioware literally call people who were unhappy with the ending: "Whiny, homophobic, entitled brats"?

Sorry for not being clear, my mistake.

 

[blank0000]

I thought the extended content was great!

The choices are more fleshed out, they are explained! The addition of the "what happens after" slide show was really nice, and the new "refusal" option is very interesting! I'm surprised with the quality of the new content considering how much time they had. It seems like they worked really hard to create a more satisfying conclusion.

 

[silver wolf009]

ME1 had plot holes which retroactively destroyed the plot of the game, nobody seems to know or give a shit about them. I guess some people give a shit about certain plotholes and not others.

Like what? The only significant one I am aware of is that no one suggests that Saren is planning to attack the Citadel until your meeting with the Council, and then everyone assumes that he must be.

Saren attacked Eden Prime to get to the Prothean Beacon and he needed the Prothean Beacon to find the Conduit, which we later find out is a miniature Mass Relay that offers one way passage to the Citadel.

Why did Saren need the conduit in the first place? Why expose himself on Eden Prime, why not just go to the presidium as a spectre and have Sovereign and the heretic army do a surprise attack on the citadel?

Of course if that happened Shepard would never have come into the story and nobody would have stopped the Reapers from pouring through the Citadel, thus we have a story with no protagonist and no conflict.

Everyone who says ME2 had bad writing or ME3 had bad writing and that ME1 was the best thing since the pyramids I say suck on it you hypocritical pseudo intellectual sacks of shit.

If you want to pretend to have standards, then at least show some fucking consistency and not act high and mighty like you're above the masses when it suits you.

To be fair ME 2 & 3's plots are more inconsistent, nonsensical and unrealistic. Not saying ME1 isn't guilty of plot silliness as well. My problem with ME2's plot is the part where Shepard dies and comes back two years later with all his memories intact... I still don't understand why this happened.

So people who were picking up the Mass Effect series with number two could decide what they would have done in the first game via that little memory checking segment in the shuttle.

OT: I don't have much in this debate, as I just skipped ME3, but I do feel that the ending's still aren't as good as they could have been. But, if this is what we're getting, it is better. Not good, but better.