Poll: Your thoughts about the ME 3 ending extension.

[BloatedGuppy]

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.

Yes, that's a better way to say it, I suppose. I'd like to applaud it and say it was some next level shit, but I actually think it was a terrible misstep. Like, a FUNDAMENTAL misunderstanding of why people liked those games in the first place. The idea of synthesis is just skin crawling on a fundamentally primal level. I remember Stephen Donaldson had an alien race in his Gap series called the Amnion who were always out to do that exact sort of thing, and the human reaction to it was stark, biological horror. Same with the titular Aliens from the series of the same name. Or the Borg in Star Trek. And on and on. I guess Bioware thought it would be good fun to turn this timeworn theme on its ear and make it the totally awesome outcome to willingly surrender our genetic code to merge with some hostile, unknowable entity from beyond the stars. If the game had been a one-off indie title it would've been a more defensible idea, but they ended up scuttling 95% of what had made the series a huge hit in order to take it in a completely radical and almost wholly unsatisfying direction.

I don't even know why I'm telling you all this, either, you're well familiar with my gripes.

 

[Erttheking]

I'm not sure to be honest, if that fanmade epilouge is anything to go by, salvaging this mess is very possible...it's just that I'm not sure Bioware can pull it off, considering that Casey Hudson thought that the Star Child and Space Magic was a good way to end the triology in the first place.

 

[RJ 17]

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.

Ahhhh but keep in mind, the only reason Sovereign did ANYTHING in ME 1 was because the Protheans succeeded in fucking up the Cycle's Plan A: that being to simply send a remote signal to the Citadel to activate it as a mass relay so the Reaper fleet can pour in, smash the government and infrastructure of the galaxy, isolating all star systems and making the harvest go off as it had always done.

But this didn't work, as such Sovereign had to improvise. Vigil even tells you this: if Sovereign had just made a dash for the Citadel, it would have been wiped out. It needed an army to support it. "Revealing itself to organics would have united the galaxy against it." - Vigil. So it went with something much easier to manipulate: these seemingly benign synthetics. To the Reapers, it doesn't matter how close civilization to creating hostile synthetics. As I mentioned: the Cycle is meant to be preventative, not reactionary. Our cycle hadn't yet created hostile synthetics yet, but according to Javik, the Protheans were already fighting against hostile synthetics when the Reapers first arrived in the Prothean cycle.

It'd be impossible for even the Reapers to predict precisely when a cycle will develop hostile synthetics, so it's likely they calculated that 50,000 years - give or take - is a good standard marker to launch their invasion.

 

[Eamar]

I really, really want them to fix it, but I have absolutely no reason to believe that they will, based on everything they've said the extended cut is (and isn't) going to be.

But hell, it's free. So long as I don't hear REALLY bad things about it I'll probably give it a whirl and see how it goes. Yeah, I guess a bit of me is still clinging on to blind hope

 

[Richardplex]

http://koobismo.deviantart.com/gallery/
The new ending is looking pretty damn awesome to be honest (starts from 6).

 

[RJ 17]

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.

Yes, that's a better way to say it, I suppose. I'd like to applaud it and say it was some next level shit, but I actually think it was a terrible misstep. Like, a FUNDAMENTAL misunderstanding of why people liked those games in the first place. The idea of synthesis is just skin crawling on a fundamentally primal level. I remember Stephen Donaldson had an alien race in his Gap series called the Amnion who were always out to do that exact sort of thing, and the human reaction to it was stark, biological horror. Same with the titular Aliens from the series of the same name. Or the Borg in Star Trek. And on and on. I guess Bioware thought it would be good fun to turn this timeworn theme on its ear and make it the totally awesome outcome to willingly surrender our genetic code to merge with some hostile, unknowable entity from beyond the stars. If the game had been a one-off indie title it would've been a more defensible idea, but they ended up scuttling 95% of what had made the series a huge hit in order to take it in a completely radical and almost wholly unsatisfying direction.

I don't even know why I'm telling you all this, either, you're well familiar with my gripes.

You're telling me this because I specifically asked "How does the ending to ME 3 completely negate the events of ME 1?" And I still have yet to get an answer on how it does.

I do agree with you, though, that the "Ultimate Utopian Ending" of Synthesis is just utterly unappealing to me. "It is our differences that make us great." is a paraphrase from a conversation between Shepard and Javik when discussing why the Protheans lost their war: there was absolutely no diversity amongst the Empire, "All subjects conformed to one doctrine." While I can see how the Control ending actually has the brightest outlook (if it is to be taken literally as I believe it is, that is Shepard's will becomes the motivational force...the very WILL of the Reapers), I just can't let TIM be correct. As such, I've always gone with Destroy All Synthetics. Not just because Shepard can survive it, but because I agree with everyone else: you must stay the course. We didn't come here to compromise with the Reapers. We didn't come here to dominate the Reapers. We came here to fucking destroy them.

 

[Aprilgold]

They're not going to satisfy the people who spearheaded the whole retake effort in the first place unless they completely redo the entire last mission of the game for free. They can't be reasoned with since they weren't reasonable with their reaction in the first place.

I expect this to mostly take care of the "extra closure" that people have brought up. I doubt they'll retcon things like the Catalyst so the retakers will have to live with 29 hours 50 minutes of an awesome 10/10 game and 10 minutes of ruining the franchise forever if that's all they can see.

Weren't reasonable was them pretty much begging for a DLC that would be anywhere from free to standard DLC price to redo the last mission.

Yes, its super un-reasonable for people to want to pay the company money to get something fixed.

------ --------------------------- ------------------------- ---------------------- ----------

This won't fix their reputation and honestly, they would be better off just doing what everyone has been asking which is to just straight up cut the ending out and make a new one from scratch, because everything about it was objectively bad, just clearing up one point doesn't stop the fact that Space-Boy is still there and Shephard being a pussy and not arguing or fighting back against his shitty options.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

You're telling me this because I specifically asked "How does the ending to ME 3 completely negate the events of ME 1?" And I still have yet to get an answer on how it does.

The answer to that has always been simple. It's a fundamental rule of storytelling that a bad ending can ruin an entire piece. It doesn't suddenly make ME1 and ME2 bad games, but it makes the experience as a whole unfulfilling in the extreme.

I do agree with you, though, that the "Ultimate Utopian Ending" of Synthesis is just utterly unappealing to me. "It is our differences that make us great." is a paraphrase from a conversation between Shepard and Javik when discussing why the Protheans lost their war: there was absolutely no diversity amongst the Empire, "All subjects conformed to one doctrine." While I can see how the Control ending actually has the brightest outlook (if it is to be taken literally as I believe it is, that is Shepard's will becomes the motivational force...the very WILL of the Reapers), I just can't let TIM be correct. As such, I've always gone with Destroy All Synthetics. Not just because Shepard can survive it, but because I agree with everyone else: you must stay the course. We didn't come here to compromise with the Reapers. We didn't come here to dominate the Reapers. We came here to fucking destroy them.

Control is just as dodgy as synthesis, IMO. Shepard is seen undergoing that creepy-as-fuck "Reaperization" process. To think Shepard's will survives that process intact and unchanged, nevermind that Shepard will still be Shepard in 50,000 years, requires some serious logical calisthenics. That the fucking Catalyst informs us it's all totally above board and we should just trust him and shit isn't terribly reassuring either.

 

[JEBWrench]

I think that adding more to the ending for free is about the only reasonable way to handle it. Give me brief rundowns of what happened to other characters. That will satisfy me enough.

All that really hurt the ending was poor presentation (likely rushed towards the end, like just about every other AAA game ending). Expanding on what we have is likely the best effort to fixing that.

This is why I thought when I played it. Having not had access to forum vitriol while I was playing it prevented me from getting subjected to groupthink on the whole shenanigan.

 

[RJ 17]

You're telling me this because I specifically asked "How does the ending to ME 3 completely negate the events of ME 1?" And I still have yet to get an answer on how it does.

The answer to that has always been simple. It's a fundamental rule of storytelling that a bad ending can ruin an entire piece. It doesn't suddenly make ME1 and ME2 bad games, but it makes the experience as a whole unfulfilling in the extreme.

I do agree with you, though, that the "Ultimate Utopian Ending" of Synthesis is just utterly unappealing to me. "It is our differences that make us great." is a paraphrase from a conversation between Shepard and Javik when discussing why the Protheans lost their war: there was absolutely no diversity amongst the Empire, "All subjects conformed to one doctrine." While I can see how the Control ending actually has the brightest outlook (if it is to be taken literally as I believe it is, that is Shepard's will becomes the motivational force...the very WILL of the Reapers), I just can't let TIM be correct. As such, I've always gone with Destroy All Synthetics. Not just because Shepard can survive it, but because I agree with everyone else: you must stay the course. We didn't come here to compromise with the Reapers. We didn't come here to dominate the Reapers. We came here to fucking destroy them.

Control is just as dodgy as synthesis, IMO. Shepard is seen undergoing that creepy-as-fuck "Reaperization" process. To think Shepard's will survives that process intact and unchanged, nevermind that Shepard will still be Shepard in 50,000 years, requires some serious logical calisthenics. That the fucking Catalyst informs us it's all totally above board and we should just trust him and shit isn't terribly reassuring either.

Personally I don't think the ending was so horrendous as to undo the countless hours of fun and entertainment that I've gotten out of the series. Is the fact that the ending to a fantastic series was so shitty horribly depressing? Certainly. But that doesn't ruin the series for me.

I'm talking about people saying that everything that happens in the first game is utterly irrelevant because of the ending to the 3rd game. That's the question that I'm wanting answered.

And yeah...I gotta say watching Shepard melt like he/she was staring at the open Ark of the Covenant was pretty....extreme. But, under the assumption that everything is indeed on the up and up (that's a lot of benefit to be giving the doubt, I know), it really does seem like the best option (Shepard could use the Reapers to do LOTS of good things...most specifically speeding the reconstruction of the relay network.

But yeah, I think the ending of ME 3 had caught Dragon Age 2 syndrome: just as they tried a gutsy innovation with DA2 and people rebelled, they tried the same with the ending to ME 3 and it backfired even worse than the entire game of DA2. Meant to put this in my last post but figured I'd just wait to put it in my next one.

 

[Zhukov]

They've already confirmed that they won't be fixing it properly. Best case scenario, they manage to get it from "series-destroying monstrosity" to "merely a shit ending".

...

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.

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.

The problem - y'know, other the presence of a glowing exposition-spouting space child whose existence invalidates the entire series - is that they don't allow the player/Shepard to rebel or reject. Story wise, there's nothing inherently wrong with having an antagonist motivated by flawed logic. However, it all goes pear-shaped when everyone just goes along with it because the writers didn't notice those flaws.

Ahhhh but keep in mind, the only reason Sovereign did ANYTHING in ME 1 was because the Protheans succeeded in fucking up the Cycle's Plan A: that being to simply send a remote signal to the Citadel to activate it as a mass relay so the Reaper fleet can pour in, smash the government and infrastructure of the galaxy, isolating all star systems and making the harvest go off as it had always done.

But this didn't work, as such Sovereign had to improvise. Vigil even tells you this: if Sovereign had just made a dash for the Citadel, it would have been wiped out. It needed an army to support it.

Sovereign could have bum-rushed the citadel any time he wanted. The fact that he didn't is just a huge plot hole.

He was impervious to everything the citadel fleet could throw at him. He was only destroyed after that oh-hey-killing-robo-Saren-makes-shields-blowout-how-convenient bullshit.

RJ 17, the fact that you're having to perform these mental gymnastics to justify the plot holes and inconsistencies just highlights how bad the writing was.

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?

Have you ever considered that you might be taking the whole Ashley romance thing a bit far?

You bring it up with disquieting regularity and, well... gettin' a tad creepy there mate.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Personally I don't think the ending was so horrendous as to undo the countless hours of fun and entertainment that I've gotten out of the series. Is the fact that the ending to a fantastic series was so shitty horribly depressing? Certainly. But that doesn't ruin the series for me.

I'm talking about people saying that everything that happens in the first game is utterly irrelevant because of the ending to the 3rd game. That's the question that I'm wanting answered.

And yeah...I gotta say watching Shepard melt like he/she was staring at the open Ark of the Covenant was pretty....extreme. But, under the assumption that everything is indeed on the up and up (that's a lot of benefit to be giving the doubt, I know), it really does seem like the best option (Shepard could use the Reapers to do LOTS of good things...most specifically speeding the reconstruction of the relay network.

But yeah, I think the ending of ME 3 had caught Dragon Age 2 syndrome: just as they tried a gutsy innovation with DA2 and people rebelled, they tried the same with the ending to ME 3 and it backfired even worse than the entire game of DA2. Meant to put this in my last post but figured I'd just wait to put it in my next one.

There's some debate as to whether or not the ending of ME3 was confusing/nonsensical enough to qualify as a Shaggy Dog story. The fact a cogent argument can even be made that it does is deeply distressing. It doesn't undo the fun you had playing those past games...but as those games were viewed by many as parts of a whole, if you sully the whole, you've sullied the memory of the parts, as well.

I know two people who were huge Mass Effect fans. One is 43 and a father of two. He played the games ritualistically once every few months. He's probably done 20+ replays of ME2 at this point. He feels completely numb towards the series now and can't see himself ever replaying it again, and is bitter enough he's not even willing to give the extended cut a look. He's not given to whining about games, either. He's very much an adult. It was just flat out ruined for him.

The other is my girlfriend, who is 30 this year, and was about the biggest Bioware fangirl on earth. She's ridiculously sour on Bioware now, to the point where I had to cancel our TOR subs because she refused to play after ME3. Even saying the word "Bioware" in her presence is now verboten. Now, she IS prone to getting emotional about these things, but I would never have believed her cast-iron affection for Bioware could be so badly broken.

I argued vehemently for weeks on these forums that the ending was shit wrapped in poison, and I'm the calmest of the lot, and the most optimistic about the extended cut salvaging that mess. It's pretty amazing to me, actually, just HOW betrayed some people felt by that ending. I've never seen die hard fans go sour so fast. It's got to be some kind of record. They had the easiest job in the world, really . All they had to do was walk the ball into the endzone, and they somehow managed to fall on it and break their dick instead.

As for DA2, that game had a very problematic ending, but it ran circles around ME3's. What they did wasn't "gutsy". They cut corners, and made stupid decisions. It was lazy, and they deserve the beating they've taken.

The problem - y'know, other the presence of a glowing exposition-spouting space child whose existence invalidates the entire series - is that they don't allow the player/Shepard to rebel or reject. There's nothing inherently wrong with having an antagonist motivated by flawed logic. However, it all goes pear-shaped when everyone just goes along with it because the writers didn't notice those flaws.

Yep. Shepard has spoken with our voice for the whole of the series. And at the climax of the piece, when our voice is saying "The fuck is this nonsense!?", Shepard is saying "Makes sense...where do I sign?".

 

[3quency]

I just started the game on Sunday, so all it'll really mean for me is that I'll consider playing the game reeeeeeeally slowly to get the full package at once.

 

[boag]

I no longer even give a fuck, ive already moved on to other games, but from now on I will wait for reviews to hit the net and Lets plays to be posted before I even consider buying another biowre product.

 

[RJ 17]

Snip

A few posts ago I specifically mention the fact that me having to play devils advocate and come up with better writing than what the series presented is most assuredly a sign of a poorly written ending. I am in no way disputing that fact.

But you're wrong about Sovereign, he may have seemed invincible, but without a fleet of Geth ships at his back, the fleets of the Citadel would have been able to focus-fire and blast him out of space. Again, this is based specifically off what Vigil tells you: "Even a Reaper couldn't stand up to the united forces of the galaxy" or something along those lines.

More Snipping.

Oh I've no doubt that it shattered people's opinion of Bioware (not everyone, but there's plenty out there who now spit at the name Bioware, as it seems the two people you mentioned now do). I went through something similar with Blizzard when they announced that they were splitting SCII into 3 games for no fucking reason. But I'm going to ignore that rant as I've made it numerous times and this isn't the topic to do it again in.

Anyways, I'm not debating whether or not people think the ending ruined the entire series. For me, it didn't, but I don't doubt that for plenty of others it did. All I'm saying is that from a plot/story standpoint, the ending to ME 3 does not negate the events of ME 1.

Though really, I'm not amazed at all at how betrayed people felt by the ending. Like you, I normally don't get all worked up over things. I'm like your 43 year old friend in that I was absolutely OBSESSED with the ME franchise. Had I not had an excessive addiction to WoW for a few years, ME 1 would be by far the game I sunk the most time into. I've got about 12 characters each with over 100 hours of playtime over numerous playthroughs...that goes for ME 1 and 2. I LOVE the series, when I found out that not only would ME have a sequel, but actually be a trilogy...AND carry over your saved information? Yeah, I was completely consumed hook, line, and sinker. And when I saw the ending to ME 3 I just felt disappointed. No rage, no thrown controllers, no litany of curses. Just a heavy sigh and "Well that was fucking disappointing..."

Then I turned on my iTunes and played some Warriors Orochi 3 to let my mind rest after what it had just been through. But again, it didn't ruin the whole series for me, it just ruined the ending to the end of the series.

 

[Ironbat92]

At this point, what's the point. Even if Bioware does actually cave in and change the ending, fans will still just keep complaining that it didn't end "their way." Biware is getting unnecessary hate all over a stupid ending. It's sad that a great company known for making great games is being called "horrible" just because the last 5 minutes of 1 game. I'll download the ending extension for curiosity sakes, but it won't fix any thing. Fanboys will still complain.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

But again, it didn't ruin the whole series for me, it just ruined the ending to the end of the series.

Can you see yourself replaying 1 and 2 with the same level of investment and zeal, now that you know how it all ends? Now that you know there's a ghostly child behind the whole thing? And that the ultimate best outcome is synthesis? And that Joker and your crew abandon you for no apparent reason at the zenith of your mission? And on and on.

I have trouble writing that shit out of my memory. I can't enjoy the original games like I used to, because the shadow of that crap ending is hovering over them. That's what people are saying, I think, when they say it retroactively ruined the games for them.

Bioware is getting unnecessary hate...

Define "unnecessary". This isn't JUST a case of bad creative decisions. That wouldn't have created the perfect storm of backlash that we saw. That ending had all the hallmarks of being hack job as well, completely rushed, possibly even deliberately mutilated in order to promote future DLC modules. Hence the "lots of speculation" tag line from the developers. When you backtrack aggressively on your marketing promises, and you end your game with Buzz Aldrin's somnolent croaking in front of a windows screensaver followed by a crass entreaty to continue your adventures via DLC, you're going to have a hard time hiding behind the great company/failed art umbrella. People quite unsurprisingly see the tentacles of EA in this, reaching into their pockets as they are wont to do. If it had just been an earnest misstep it would have been forgivable. But it was lazy and slipshod and possibly also greedy and vaguely sinister, which isn't anything anyone should be rushing to defend them for.

And don't even tinfoil hat me over this bullshit, EA has been pulling this crap for years. We have heard this song from them before, MANY TIMES.

 

[Major Chip]

I don't care if they intended it or not, the only way to save some face is the indoctrination theory. Please, feel free to steal it. They can at least expand on Shephards potential survival, shown in the destruction ending.


I figured something was up after I had to wait two minutes to get in and out of the War room, despite it all being on one floor. That and the fact that the Rachni Queen (who I eagerly anticipated the return of through the series) didn't need saving, because they stuck a different one in anyway if you chose otherwise. The difference? One gets you three digits on a statistics board, another dosen't.

 

[RJ 17]

But again, it didn't ruin the whole series for me, it just ruined the ending to the end of the series.

Can you see yourself replaying 1 and 2 with the same level of investment and zeal, now that you know how it all ends? Now that you know there's a ghostly child behind the whole thing? And that the ultimate best outcome is synthesis? And that Joker and your crew abandon you for no apparent reason at the zenith of your mission? And on and on.

I have trouble writing that shit out of my memory. I can't enjoy the original games like I used to, because the shadow of that crap ending is hovering over them. That's what people are saying, I think, when they say it retroactively ruined the games for them.

Oh and I understand that argument completely, but what I've been trying to say is that I've seen people saying stuff like "The actions of the Catalyst make the actions of Sovereign pointless, he sacrificed himself for absolutely nothing" and things along those lines. Like I said, I fully sympathize with people that feel the ending has mucked up any appreciation they can have towards replaying the series. Knowing how it ends (and ends badly) can indeed do that. But from a purely plot vs plot standpoint, I don't see how ME 3's ending negates ME 1, that's what I'm asking: How does what the Catalyst says and does make Sovereign's attack pointless? You may not have the answer, and it could be a minority of people who feel this way, but that's what I'm wanting to know.

To answer your question though, yes, actually. Once I completely my Insanity run on ME 3 (which is playthrough #7 for me) I plan to do what I had planned all along: start ME 1 with a brand new character and play all 3 games back to back to back. ME 3's ending honestly has not tarnished my love or thoughts on the first 2 games.

 

[Avalanche91]

Fact is that the godchild undermines pretty much every theme mass effect has set in it's entire runtime.

Dialogue isn't a option. I think someone pointed out that the godchild is supposed to explain everything in a total of 14 sentences.
You don't have the option to deny the godchild, so there goes your free will. You HAVE to make one of the stupid choises.
NONE of the choises you've made makes any significant diffrence whatsoever, which was the huge selling point of the series
And instead of 'stop the reapers', your suddenly supposed to resolve the organics/synthetics issue, which you already resolved on Rannoch.

And the worst thing is? Bioware/EA thinks that we just think the ending is 'to grim/sad/dark', or that we just don't plain understand it.
And with that false assumption in mind, they make the new ending, still far away from the themes that made Mass Effect......

so part of me is expecting even more plotholes to pop up to cover up the old one, and that the reapers now explode in sunshine and unicorns.

Being the incredible optimist that I am however, I will try it out. If only to see if my pre-emptive disappointment is justified.