Poll: Your thoughts about the ME 3 ending extension.

Recommended Videos

Chairman Miaow

CBA to change avatar
Nov 18, 2009
2,093
0
0
Jynthor said:
Chairman Miaow said:
Paladin2905 said:
Personally, I thought that the entire game was far, far weaker than the other two in terms of writing- just a linear sequence of soap opera and fan service. The DLC to extend the endings has already been established to not change anything, so I have to assume that they won't be fixing any of the horrendous plot holes.

In conclusion, I expect exactly more of what we already got. Soap opera, fan service, unnecessary MacGuffin. Got to figure they are not going to want to spend that much on a free DLC, so expect the extra content to be very brief (voice acting costs money, and we don't even have a silent protagonist).
Also this. I have said many times it was more soap opera than space opera.

And two words for why the 3rd game should have gone back to the drawing board: Kai. Leng.

Fuck that guy, and whoever wrote him.
In the books(Minus Deception) he was pretty cool. In the game he was just a retard with a sword and plot armour. So yeah, fuck him indeed.
But he stole cereal and doesn't afraid of anything. Deception is awesome.
 

malestrithe

New member
Aug 18, 2008
1,818
0
0
I'll wait and see. I'm way beyond the point of caring about this issue.

It's nice that the most crybabyish of the group got their bottle, but I'm fairly certain that it is not going to placate the most angry. Some have already stated that unless it's 100 percent what they wanted, they will demand it to be changed again. You know the early adopters of the, "Well, then it can't be art because of its mass consumption" argument.
 

NinjaDeathSlap

Leaf on the wind
Feb 20, 2011
4,474
0
0
RJ 17 said:
Adam Jensen said:
I don't think the ending will actually fix anything. As long as the space kid is real in ME3 the game will suck, because it kills the entire plot of Mass Effect 1.
I've heard this argument before, that the ending to ME 3 completely negates ME 1's story and I jjust don't buy it. I didn't like Space Timmy any more than anyone else, but he hardly ruined the entire series. Honestly, please explain to me how/why the little punk is so detrimental that he fucks up the first game of the series.
Well, according to Space Timmy synthetics wiping out organics is inevitable, and he (or whoever created him) created the Reapers to stop that from happening.

So why, when you look at the evidence presented across the rest of the trilogy, do we find that the only time a synthetic race has attacked organics without first being provoked by said organics, was the attacks by the Heretic Geth in Mass Effect 1, which they were doing because a Reaper told them too; An entity who, according to Space Timmy, was created specifically so that wouldn't happen?

This goes beyond the 'Yo Dawg' meme, now this has turned into 'Yo Dawg, I heard you don't like being killed by synthetics, so I made synthetics to talk other synthetics into killing you, giving the original synthetics an excuse to kill you so you won't be killed by synthetics'.

So many levels of stupid...
 

hermes

New member
Mar 2, 2009
3,865
0
0
You forgot one option: "I am totally fine with the ending and has no need of Bioware pulling resources to streamline it, change it or sugarcoat it"
 

hermes

New member
Mar 2, 2009
3,865
0
0
Jynthor said:
Chairman Miaow said:
Paladin2905 said:
Personally, I thought that the entire game was far, far weaker than the other two in terms of writing- just a linear sequence of soap opera and fan service. The DLC to extend the endings has already been established to not change anything, so I have to assume that they won't be fixing any of the horrendous plot holes.

In conclusion, I expect exactly more of what we already got. Soap opera, fan service, unnecessary MacGuffin. Got to figure they are not going to want to spend that much on a free DLC, so expect the extra content to be very brief (voice acting costs money, and we don't even have a silent protagonist).
Also this. I have said many times it was more soap opera than space opera.

And two words for why the 3rd game should have gone back to the drawing board: Kai. Leng.

Fuck that guy, and whoever wrote him.
In the books(Minus Deception) he was pretty cool. In the game he was just a retard with a sword and plot armour. So yeah, fuck him indeed.
To be fair, he was a lousy character on the books too. He has the plot armor at full strength there too, which allowed him to: escape prison twice, kill Krogans with his bare hands, single-handedly infiltrate on Omega, Grissom academy, a stronghold filled with high-level biotics and the migrant fleet, rob a black market auction house and kill everyone inside, get shot in both legs and still be around, being as much of a dick as he was in the game.
 

Emiscary

New member
Sep 7, 2008
990
0
0
Bioware- Ya gotta give us back our fans! Our executives are walking on thin ice!
Public- Hey next time listen to them.
Bioware- But I don't *want* to!

 

Jynthor

New member
Mar 30, 2012
774
0
0
hermes200 said:
Jynthor said:
Chairman Miaow said:
Paladin2905 said:
Personally, I thought that the entire game was far, far weaker than the other two in terms of writing- just a linear sequence of soap opera and fan service. The DLC to extend the endings has already been established to not change anything, so I have to assume that they won't be fixing any of the horrendous plot holes.

In conclusion, I expect exactly more of what we already got. Soap opera, fan service, unnecessary MacGuffin. Got to figure they are not going to want to spend that much on a free DLC, so expect the extra content to be very brief (voice acting costs money, and we don't even have a silent protagonist).
Also this. I have said many times it was more soap opera than space opera.

And two words for why the 3rd game should have gone back to the drawing board: Kai. Leng.

Fuck that guy, and whoever wrote him.
In the books(Minus Deception) he was pretty cool. In the game he was just a retard with a sword and plot armour. So yeah, fuck him indeed.
To be fair, he was a lousy character on the books too. He has the plot armor at full strength there too, which allowed him to: escape prison twice, kill Krogans with his bare hands, single-handedly infiltrate on Omega, Grissom academy, a stronghold filled with high-level biotics and the migrant fleet, rob a black market auction house and kill everyone inside, get shot in both legs and still be around, being as much of a dick as he was in the game.
I did say "minus deception" I don't even consider it canon since the writer knew jack shit about Mass Effect. Most of the stuff you named was from that.
When he got to Grissom Academy all students were in the cafeteria as well as most of the guards. Grayson walked in before him caused quite a bit of trouble.
I don't see why it should be hard to infiltrate Omega, everyone goes there with ease. He was undercover. And he was an N7 Operative(which were the best soldiers in the entire Systems Alliance)
 

Kiardras

New member
Feb 16, 2011
242
0
0
Bioware have done a lot for me in gaming over the years. I'm willing to give them an unbiased chance to set right. If they don't, well, thats that.
 

RJ 17

The Sound of Silence
Nov 27, 2011
8,687
0
0
Leon Declis said:
Because why doesn't he simply activate the Citadel himself?
Who's to say he could? Personally my theory is that Space Timmy doesn't existed and had never existed until you plug in the Crucible, at which point the "coding" - for lack of a better term - of the Citadel is altered and it creates a projection for Shepard to speak with. "The Crucible has presented new alternatives, but I cannot pick one" or whatever.

Because he changes the point of the game from:

"Unite everyone and stop the Reapers, regardless of the cost"

To:

"Resolve the metaphysical conflict between organics and synthetics and the fact that synthetics will probably destroy everything".
I'd argue that the point of the series has been to survive the Reaper invasion and ensure the continuation of civilization. Quite specifically: to end the Cycle of Destruction. Granted, common wisdom would dictate that the way this is accomplished is by destroying the Reapers, but since I disagree with the Indoctrination Theory (I think it has some merit, but the fact that you get the Star Gazer scene at the end no matter which ending you pick makes the IT impossible to be true), clearly it is as the Catalyst says: there are now new options.

Which would be fine, except for a few points:
1) We just got the Geth and Quarians working together. EDI and Joker are working together fine. It turns out, that synthetics and organics work together fine. Hence, no need for him.
2) The entire plot is given to you in just 14 lines of dialog. The first goal had 2 games and 98% of the third devoted to "Survive together".
3) (And this is the most important one) Shepard cannot refuse, question, argue with, leave or flat out sit on his ass and do nothing. (S)He accepts this randomly and awkwardly introduced character from nowhere, accepts their logic (whether he is anti-Geth, pro-human, pro-life, self-sacrificing or selfish, Paragon or Renegade) and YOU, the player, have no choice in the matter. Even in ME2, you could pick whether you'd destroy the place, who would survive, who you trust, so on. ME3, you get none of this.
1: I do agree that I called BS on this part of the plot for that very reason, and the fact that I had to play Devil's Advocate against myself to justify this is certainly not a sign of good story telling, but it could be said that despite the recent examples of cooperating, it remains an inevitability that actively and openly hostile synthetics will at some point be made. This is a weak argument, I know, but it still barely fits as justification. But even still, this does not negate the first game.

2: Lame as it was, the final "major plot twist" had to be revealed somehow. It doesn't negate anything to learn the ultimate motivation of the Reapers.

3: This is true, the conversation should have/could have been longer. But again, this doesn't negate the events of ME 1.

While all the points you've brought up are indeed valid reasons for why the ending was less than spectacular, they haven't explained to me how the ending negates ME 1 yet.

NinjaDeathSlap said:
Snip since my post is already big enough as it is. :p
The answer is simple: just because there aren't openly and actively hostile synthetics in this cycle doesn't mean that there never will be. The purpose of the Reaper cycle is to harvest organics BEFORE a race of super synthetics is created and wipes out all organics.

Funny as it is, I've never bought the "Yo Dawg" motivational posters. Why are they using synthetics to harvest us and prevent us from being wiped out by other synthetics? Because synthetics are immortal and thus are the only things capable of self-replicating the Cycle over thousands and thousands of years. The purpose of the cycle is to ensure that organic life will always be around, the Reaper logic is "Better that we harvest advanced civilizations (that is, only some races) that are on the cusp of fucking themselves over with uncontrollable synthetics than to let those synthetics be developed and kill ALL organics."

Convoluted as it is, it still makes sense. One thing the Reapers have been saying since the first game is "We are your salvation through destruction." which translates to "Yeah, we're gonna fuck you up. We're gonna fuck you up HARD. But your race will be preserved as a big fat Reaper and organic life will continue."
 

Antitonic

Enlightened Dispenser Of Truth!
Feb 4, 2010
1,320
0
0
hermes200 said:
You forgot one option: "I am totally fine with the ending and has no need of Bioware pulling resources to streamline it, change it or sugarcoat it"
I thought I'd be the only one to raise this point, but if you're serious, then fair play to you, sir.
 

hermes

New member
Mar 2, 2009
3,865
0
0
Jynthor said:
hermes200 said:
Jynthor said:
Chairman Miaow said:
Paladin2905 said:
Personally, I thought that the entire game was far, far weaker than the other two in terms of writing- just a linear sequence of soap opera and fan service. The DLC to extend the endings has already been established to not change anything, so I have to assume that they won't be fixing any of the horrendous plot holes.

In conclusion, I expect exactly more of what we already got. Soap opera, fan service, unnecessary MacGuffin. Got to figure they are not going to want to spend that much on a free DLC, so expect the extra content to be very brief (voice acting costs money, and we don't even have a silent protagonist).
Also this. I have said many times it was more soap opera than space opera.

And two words for why the 3rd game should have gone back to the drawing board: Kai. Leng.

Fuck that guy, and whoever wrote him.
In the books(Minus Deception) he was pretty cool. In the game he was just a retard with a sword and plot armour. So yeah, fuck him indeed.
To be fair, he was a lousy character on the books too. He has the plot armor at full strength there too, which allowed him to: escape prison twice, kill Krogans with his bare hands, single-handedly infiltrate on Omega, Grissom academy, a stronghold filled with high-level biotics and the migrant fleet, rob a black market auction house and kill everyone inside, get shot in both legs and still be around, being as much of a dick as he was in the game.
I did say "minus deception" I don't even consider it canon since the writer knew jack shit about Mass Effect. Most of the stuff you named was from that.
When he got to Grissom Academy all students were in the cafeteria as well as most of the guards. Grayson walked in before him caused quite a bit of trouble.
I don't see why it should be hard to infiltrate Omega, everyone goes there with ease. He was undercover. And he was an N7 Operative(which were the best soldiers in the entire Systems Alliance)
I don't have such a problem with Deception. It sure was the weakest of the books, but for the most part wasn't that bad (even for videogame based novels).
When he went to Grissom, he faced an entire squad of Turian swats, and killed them all. When I mention he infiltrated Omega, I don't just mean he entered the station, he went into a heavily guarded apartment flat, killed all the guards, entered the apartment of Aria T'Loak's daughter (a powerful biotic herself) and killed her. He faced Grayson, a reaper powered super biotic and live to tell the tale. He was shoot by Anderson in both legs, yet soon he is still as badass as ever (walking with his hands, I presume). He even went to the migrant fleet (a place I would assume its fairly hard to go unnoticed) and escaped. Did I mention that he was alone, unarmed and unharmed during most of those stuff...
Yes, the plot shield was strong on that one, indeed. During all the books he is in (3 out of 4) I kept thinking "why don't they just kill this asshole", its like a reverse James Bond... I could almost thank Bioware for the chance to kill him myself. The moment I impale a sword through his chest was one of my most satisfying moments in gaming in recent memory.
 

inzesky

New member
Oct 28, 2009
35
0
0
From the information gathered so far I believe the EC has the potential to elevate the ending from "one of the most god-awful conclusions to a story I've seen" to "just merely bad". And honestly I'm fine with that, it is still better than Mac "Speculation for EVERYONE!" Walters' current artistic diarrhea.
 

BloatedGuppy

New member
Feb 3, 2010
9,572
0
0
RJ 17 said:
Convoluted as it is, it still makes sense. One thing the Reapers have been saying since the first game is "We are your salvation through destruction." which translates to "Yeah, we're gonna fuck you up. We're gonna fuck you up HARD. But your race will be preserved as a big fat Reaper and organic life will continue."
I agree that it makes a certain kind of sense. To a Reaper.

The big problem with that is that we're meant to embrace this philosophy, and none of us are Reapers. None of us that I know of anyway. To the human beings playing the game, this philosophy is appalling and barbaric. We instinctively rail against it. We're horrified by the mechanics of the harvest. How brutal and vicious it is, how it seems DESIGNED to sow the maximum amount of chaos and terror. If their purpose is to help out organics, they really could've chosen a more compassionate way to go about it then chasing you through field and den with a bunch of bio-mechanical monstrosities they crafted out of the skin of your loved ones.

It's a pretty ballsy move to make the motivation of your primary antagonist the theme of your space opera. Especially when your primary antagonist is an organic-synthetic hybrid that is beyond all human comprehension. Is it really a surprise, at that point, when everyone rejects it? Even the people who understand it?
 

hermes

New member
Mar 2, 2009
3,865
0
0
BloatedGuppy said:
RJ 17 said:
Convoluted as it is, it still makes sense. One thing the Reapers have been saying since the first game is "We are your salvation through destruction." which translates to "Yeah, we're gonna fuck you up. We're gonna fuck you up HARD. But your race will be preserved as a big fat Reaper and organic life will continue."
I agree that it makes a certain kind of sense. To a Reaper.

The big problem with that is that we're meant to embrace this philosophy, and none of us are Reapers. None of us that I know of anyway. To the human beings playing the game, this philosophy is appalling and barbaric. We instinctively rail against it. We're horrified by the mechanics of the harvest. How brutal and vicious it is, how it seems DESIGNED to sow the maximum amount of chaos and terror. If their purpose is to help out organics, they really could've chosen a more compassionate way to go about it then chasing you through field and den with a bunch of bio-mechanical monstrosities they crafted out of the skin of your loved ones.

It's a pretty ballsy move to make the motivation of your primary antagonist the theme of your space opera. Especially when your primary antagonist is an organic-synthetic hybrid that is beyond all human comprehension. Is it really a surprise, at that point, when everyone rejects it? Even the people who understand it?
I think its a great move on part of Bioware to make them that way. For once, they are aliens. Almost by definition they need to be hard to understand. And even when understood, hard to agree with, no matter how flawless their logic might be.
Also, they are almost a force of nature. True, they tend to use our own worst fears and insecurities to maximize victims, but that is because they are looking for the most efficient way to do their job. And in that sense, they can't be bargain with, negotiated with, controlled with, empathized with, and they just couldn't care less whether we see them as cruel or brutal...
 

NinjaDeathSlap

Leaf on the wind
Feb 20, 2011
4,474
0
0
RJ 17 said:
big ol' snip
I've always got how the Reaper cycle makes sense in a fucked up, machine logic sort of way, but it's the part with Sovereign and the Heretics that bugs me.

Alright. The Reaper think that a synthetic rebellion is inevitable, even though we see no evidence to support their claim. Fine. But the only reason why there is conflict between organics and synthetics in Shepard's cycle is because Sovereign, a Reaper, instigated it. Why would it do that?

If the Geth had just randomly decided to start attacking colonies in the Traverse, and Sovereign had woken up while this was all going on, that'd be a different story, but as it is, the Geth only ever acted in self-defense (going as far as to isolate themselves from the rest of the Galaxy so they wouldn't have to fight anybody) until he showed up, and even then he was only able to persuade a fraction of them to go to war. This is hardly what I'd call grounds to conclude that this cycle had reached its cutting off point. Things would have been fine for hundreds, maybe thousands more years if the Reapers hadn't just decided to fulfill their own prophecy anyway.
 

BloatedGuppy

New member
Feb 3, 2010
9,572
0
0
hermes200 said:
Also, they are almost a force of nature. True, they tend to use our own worst fears and insecurities to maximize victims, but that is because they are looking for the most efficient way to do their job. And in that sense, they can't be bargain with, negotiated with, controlled with, empathized with, and they just couldn't care less whether we see them as cruel or brutal...
Actually that's the LEAST effective way to do their job, because it guarantees a maximum level of resistance. For a species that is so heavy on indoctrination and controlling the way organic life develops, you'd think they'd work to instill in them a sense of wonder and awe and appreciation for this process. It's not like organics aren't vulnerable to suggestion. If they saw the Reapers as benevolent Gods, half the population would probably be lining up to get harvested. Instead they're such violent idiots about it you've got them fighting tooth and nail to survive at any cost.
 

RJ 17

The Sound of Silence
Nov 27, 2011
8,687
0
0
BloatedGuppy said:
RJ 17 said:
Convoluted as it is, it still makes sense. One thing the Reapers have been saying since the first game is "We are your salvation through destruction." which translates to "Yeah, we're gonna fuck you up. We're gonna fuck you up HARD. But your race will be preserved as a big fat Reaper and organic life will continue."
I agree that it makes a certain kind of sense. To a Reaper.

The big problem with that is that we're meant to embrace this philosophy, and none of us are Reapers. None of us that I know of anyway.
Blast! You've found out my secret!!! Err, ahem, I mean of course we're all just soft, fleshy, inferior humans...no Reapers here... >.>

To the human beings playing the game, this philosophy is appalling and barbaric. We instinctively rail against it. We're horrified by the mechanics of the harvest. How brutal and vicious it is, how it seems DESIGNED to sow the maximum amount of chaos and terror. If their purpose is to help out organics, they really could've chosen a more compassionate way to go about it then chasing you through field and den with a bunch of bio-mechanical monstrosities they crafted out of the skin of your loved ones.

It's a pretty ballsy move to make the motivation of your primary antagonist the theme of your space opera. Especially when your primary antagonist is an organic-synthetic hybrid that is beyond all human comprehension. Is it really a surprise, at that point, when everyone rejects it? Even the people who understand it?
And this all ties into yet another thing the Reapers have been saying since game 1: "You cannot possibly comprehend the magnitude of our motivations."

I don't think their mistake was making the main theme being the primary motivation for the antagonist, but rather having that motivation being something specifically designed for us to rebel against, as you said. By default this means that the theme itself was specifically designed for us to rebel against it.
 

Vrex360

Badass Alien
Mar 2, 2009
8,379
0
0
There needs to be an option for 'hopeful but not too hopeful'. Because that's where I am, like I've said before I honestly care more about the Mass Effect 3 Play Arts Kai figures than I am the EC. Because action figures just are what they are whereas there is too much uncertainty with the EC.

For what it's worth finding out my beloved Ashley was returning to do some voice recording for the extended cut (as well as Garrus, EDI and Kaidan) has given me some reason to be hopeful, because maybe Shepard and Ash really will reunite after all and wouldn't that be nice? But then that's probably being way too optimistic given that the Relay destruction and Starchild seem to remain intact.