Poll: ME3 EC didn't fix anything

Recommended Videos

Starke

New member
Mar 6, 2008
3,877
0
0
fezzthemonk said:
everythingbeeps said:
No, the problem with the ending is that there's no happy ending whatsoever.
This is the only reason everyone is mad. I don't care how they dress it up, it all boils down to "But i didn't want my Shepard to die"
No, no, by the time the ending of 3 rolled around, murdering Shepard to put an end to the stupid seems like a pretty fair trade. The problem isn't that Shepard dies at the end. If that was a problem no one could start up a playthrough of ME2, because Shepard dies at the beginning there. It's not that the ending is sad. It's that it is incurably retarded. The new DLC makes it even dumber.

Now, not only do we have Shepard randomly taking bullshit from the Starchild, now they're actually asking the little fuck for more irrelevant exposition. And when everyone asked, "where the fuck did that thing come from?" they didn't mean, tell me it's origin story, they meant "where was this when the ending was being set up. Of course, Bioware gave us an origin story instead. And of course, now the exposition proves that the brightest minds in Mass Effect's galaxy cannot recognize a battery when they are goddamn building one. Nevermind that no one noticed it was designed to latch onto the Citadel way back before Timmy stole it.

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.

The problem is the ending is utter gibberish that doesn't resolve a damn thing outside of a flat out deus ex machina. Seriously, Star Trek Voyager's obsession with mashing the reset button until their hand fell off resulted in better endings than this.
 

Hattingston

New member
Jan 22, 2012
96
0
0
It fixed two things:
How did my squadmates get to the Normandy?
and
Why is the Normandy leaving the battle?
I still couldn't challenge the bs logic of god-child, the Shepard-breathing isn't further addressed.

It did explain what happened to the Krogan and Humanity, which was nice, but not the Turians...or Quarians...or Asari...or Salarians...etc (don't know about Geth, chose destroy, my Shepard doesn't believe god-child).

So, overall, still shit. Marginally less putrid shit, but still putrid enough.
 

Zhukov

The Laughing Arsehole
Dec 29, 2009
13,769
5
43
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.
 

Asita

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Jun 15, 2011
3,261
1,118
118
Country
USA
Gender
Male
fezzthemonk said:
everythingbeeps said:
No, the problem with the ending is that there's no happy ending whatsoever.
This is the only reason everyone is mad. I don't care how they dress it up, it all boils down to "But i didn't want my Shepard to die"
...Actually, given that many of the people you're disparaging have expressed appreciation for the Refusal ending, commenting that it was the only choice that seemed consistent with the main character's characterization? I'm going to have to go ahead and say you're rather objectively wrong in your generalization. There are probably some people out there who take that stance, but I've seen little indication from either the initial reaction or the reaction to the EC that 'Shepherd dies' is the crux of the issue for most. On the contrary, it seems rather telling that one of the more popular fan edits of the ending (before the EC) simply cut out everything between Anderson and Shepherd bleeding out and the Destruction ending. IE, a very strong implication that Shepherd died, the reapers destroyed and no starchild sequence. Honestly, given that and the general focus of the criticism it seems more than a little disingenuous to use an accusation like your own to describe the disaffected.
 

MattRobinson

New member
Dec 21, 2011
9
0
0
Well with the new choice we now have four options
A. Genocide (Destroy)
B. Totalitarianism (Control)
C. Ethnocide (Synthesis)
or D. Extinction
And this is ignoring the gaping plot holes and the fact that the mass relays don't work (instead of being destroyed which still negates the whole point of the series), the catalyst and his faulty logic, and all the other problems with the game (like choices from the previous 2 games not mattering at all despite what the developers said)
 

008Zulu_v1legacy

New member
Sep 6, 2009
6,019
0
0
Vegosiux said:
But that's incorrect. Players weren't expecting "a happy ending", just an ending that makes a sliver of sense, an ending that wraps up teh saga; even if the best possible ending on the new EC refusal option was a phyrric victory that sets the entire galaxy 50,000 years back anyway, it would still be just fine. Instead, what happened was a deus ex machina followed by an Endingtron 3000, pick-your-color thing that was full of plot holes.
That's exactly my point. You don't play the game and put in all this effort only for the best possible outcome to be slightly ahead of losing completely. When you save the galaxy you're supposed to get a parade, confetti and the girl.

Either that or most RPGs up until this point have lied to use and we shouldn't be rewarded for a job well done.
 

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
3,877
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
1,309
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
1,314
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
1,514
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.