Mass Effect 3 - Out Now!

[RocShemp]

Don't get me wrong, MerrickG. I acknowledge that it's a total retcon. But it's one that fits with what's been stated before, despite redefining everything. However, yes, it's still unfortunately a Deus Ex Machina.

Maybe Bioware will next make EC's for ME1 and ME2 (and fix the Conrad glitch from ME2?) to make it all more cohesive. I know, "yeah right..."

[Terjyn]

Originally Posted by RocShemp

You forget that the Codex is written as if it is information from the Human Alliance. Since when are they Reaper experts? So the Codex needs to be taken with a grain of salt and viewed as "educated guesses" when it comes to anything related to the Reapers and the Protheans.

So you are actually trying to claim that Bioware's own story is a lie? Yeah, good luck with that.

Yes you can. Hence the refusal ending

[Show spoiler](which can be achieved during the conversation or by shooting the Starkid after the conversation).

That's you saying FU to the Starkid and going out on your terms. And even then, like the other three, the ending is bittersweet

[Show spoiler](since there is still hope for a future Cycle).

There's a world of difference between arguing with Starkid and refusing him.

It does hold up. You just don't like it. Which is just fine, albeit disappointing for you.

No wonder you think it holds up if you decide to hand-wave away Bioware's own in game statements because it suits your position better.

For some of us, it does not hold up.

I'm not even going to respond to you again with claims like this.

[Icemage]

The Extended Cut is most certainly a retcon. Quite a large one, as a matter of fact.

I do like the modified endings 1000% percent more than the completely nonsensical original ending (non-plural on purpose), however.

[RocShemp]

Originally Posted by Terjyn

So you are actually trying to claim that Bioware's own story is a lie? Yeah, good luck with that.

Not claiming it's a lie. Rather that the Codex isn't omniscient. Go back to ME1 and read the Codex. Then read the Codex from ME2. Finally check the Codex from ME3. They're based on supositions from the Human Alliance. The Codex is written as something Shepard (and any Alliance member) would have access to. The best example is how the Reapers go from a superstition to a fact in each game's Codex.

Originally Posted by Terjyn

There's a world of difference between arguing with Starkid and refusing him.

Did you not try the new conversation options? Shepard does argue with the Starchild. Unfortunately, the Sharchild remains stubborn as a mule. So you're left with accepting one of the three options he presents or simply giving him the middle finger.

Sure, I would have preffered a fifth option where I not only get to symbolically flip him off but also beat him in a hard won and grueling victory. Sadly, we weren't given that option. But you can still argue your point (and unfortunately lose).

Originally Posted by Terjyn

No wonder you think it holds up if you decide to hand-wave away Bioware's own in game statements because it suits your position better.

Not hand waving anything. As I acknowledged, it's a total retcon. But you can tell they at least cling to the admittedly barest of threads to make it seem plausible.

Originally Posted by Terjyn

For some of us, it does not hold up.

And that's why I said "You just don't like it. Which is just fine, albeit disappointing for you." My point is, you're entitled to your opinion. I'm just stating mine and why I think it works. I'm not trying to deny you yours.

Originally Posted by Terjyn

I'm not even going to respond to you again with claims like this.

Just because we have a difference of opinion is no reason to get upset. I like the new ending whereas you hate it. It is what it is and that's no reason to cause any animosity between us.

Originally Posted by Icemage

The Extended Cut is most certainly a retcon. Quite a large one, as a matter of fact.

Indeed. But the main problem comes from their choosing to explain the Reapers. I think more people would have been satisfied if the endgame scenario only hinted at the Reapers' motivations while still keeping everyone very much in the dark.

Of course, for that to work, we'd need a final boss fight instead of a final conversation.

Which makes me wonder, why was there no final boss fight? In the ME3 artbook, they show a mutated Illusive Man and mention he was the originally intended final boss. However, they decided to keep him more human looking because they wanted us to face him as someone more familiar looking (albeit with noticeable enhancement scarring all over his face). However, you still don't fight him. You just either

[Show spoiler]push him to suicide or shoot him yourself.

Originally Posted by Icemage

I do like the modified endings 1000% percent more than the completely nonsensical original ending (non-plural on purpose), however.

You mean you didn't like the original "choose your favourite Skittles" ending?

[PA_Kid]

Originally Posted by MerrickG

I'm sorry RocShemp, but Terjyn is right, the starchild is NEVER hinted at nor is it EVER hinted at that the Reapers are being controlled by some higher force. It was always assumed that Harbinger was "in charge." Depending on how it played out in ME3, the dark energy thing MIGHT have worked, but I don't feel that it was hinted at enough in ME1 or ME2 to be completely plausible.

Have to disagree a little here. While the starchild wasn't hinted at, the citidel's continued existence over cycles and its maintence creatures stuck out to me. There never seemed to be a good explanation of who built it or why it was here. At first you're told the protheans built it, but later you hear it predated them - that it predated at least several cycles.

the fact that it was safe throughout several cycles (along with the relays) made me suspicious that it we more significant than was being let on. It would have been nice if they had hinted more about the oddities of the citidel and maybe even the starchild, but I wasn't shocked that the citidel was closely tied to the reapers once that reveal occured.

It's kinda like B4 in Babylon 5. At first you just hear the 4th station vanished without a trace. Later you hear about how in the last war a station was suddenly and miraculously delivered to the lesser races by the vorlons at their greatest hour of need. At the time the station is actually sent back into the past, it does seem a little deus ex machina, but they did give us as many hints as they could without spelling it out ahead of time.

Having said all of that I would have been perfectly happy if I had had the OPTION to

[Show spoiler]
destroy the reapers AND
save EDI and the Geth AND
Have Shepard survive and reunite with my love interest

However, the breathing scene for the Destroy option DOES leave open the possibility of the reuniting.

See this I completely disagree with. You can still have a good story without fulfilling everything that you personally want to see. Your "perfectly happy" ending would have been a cop out to me. Good pathos and drama is about difficult choices and not being able to have it all. And a story can be structurally and critically good even if you don't like a tragic or sophie's choice ending.

Personally I'd have prefered an ending that forced you to choose only getting 1 or 2 of the things you want

[Show spoiler]so maybe you can save shepard and his love while beating the reapers but only at the cost of EDI and the geth - or save EDI, the geth, shepard, and his love but only at the cost of not decisively stopping the reapers

but no everything.

[RocShemp]

I still don't get why Bioware says you have to start from Illusive Man's base. I honestly didn't see anything new there. I was hoping we'd get a cinematic showing

[Show spoiler]the Reapers take over the Citadel (and maybe even have such a scene change with regards to who lives/dies depending on how many of the Citadel defense sidequests you accomplished)

but the whole part plays out exactly the same as before. Now from Citadel: The Return onward the changes are obvious.

Originally Posted by PA_Kid

Have to disagree a little here. While the starchild wasn't hinted at, the citidel's continued existence over cycles and its maintence creatures stuck out to me. There never seemed to be a good explanation of who built it or why it was here. At first you're told the protheans built it, but later you hear it predated them - that it predated at least several cycles.

I must admit that I forgot about that. They did acknowledge the Citadel was a Reaper trap and the Keepers kept it running. But beyond Sovereign, you would have to figure someone/something else was running the show.

I think the writers had a vague idea where they wanted to go with this since ME1, expanded a bit with ME2, but never truly started to flesh it out 'til ME3. Which explains why, for instance, Cerberus went from minor threat from sidequests to fullblown presense in ME2, and finally outright main antagonists in ME3.

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by PA_Kid

Have to disagree a little here. While the starchild wasn't hinted at, the citidel's continued existence over cycles and its maintence creatures stuck out to me. There never seemed to be a good explanation of who built it or why it was here. At first you're told the protheans built it, but later you hear it predated them - that it predated at least several cycles.

The Reapers built the Citadel. This was CLEARLY answered in ME1 and was a major plot twist. The keepers were there to open up the citadel at the beginning of each cycle, but the protheans did something that prevented that from happening. I can't remember all the details but someone like Icemage can fill it in. What is a plothole is how they needed Sovereign in ME1 if the Starchild was there all along! Just ONE more reason why the Starchild was a stupid idea.

Originally Posted by PA_Kid

See this I completely disagree with. You can still have a good story without fulfilling everything that you personally want to see. Your "perfectly happy" ending would have been a cop out to me. Good pathos and drama is about difficult choices and not being able to have it all. And a story can be structurally and critically good even if you don't like a tragic or sophie's choice ending.

Personally I'd have prefered an ending that forced you to choose only getting 1 or 2 of the things you want

[Show spoiler]so maybe you can save shepard and his love while beating the reapers but only at the cost of EDI and the geth - or save EDI, the geth, shepard, and his love but only at the cost of not decisively stopping the reapers

but no everything.

Ok, you see it is as a cop out. That's fine, but why shouldn't it be an OPTION?

That's right. An option. Meaning a choice, not something forced on you. Meaning you can have you have your less than perfect ending and I can have my perfect ending that I worked hard to achieve. I am sorry, but I like happy endings. The real world is full of crap (watch the news and you see earthquakes, wars happening, jobs being lost, gas prices rising etc.) and I play video games like Mass Effect to ESCAPE that crap, why does the game HAVE to resemble that?

I don't buy into this "its more dramatic blah blah blah" crap to make a less than happy ending. Besides you miss the point that billions have died and that a happy ending wouldn't truly be a "happy" ending. The fact that the Reapers were stopped and were able to build a new life with your love interest without having to destroy a race isn't a Disney ending.

I don't see why having the OPTION of having a happy ending is a cop out. If its an option its not forced on you.

[RocShemp]

Originally Posted by MerrickG

The Reapers built the Citadel. This was CLEARLY answered in ME1 and was a major plot twist. The keepers were there to open up the citadel at the beginning of each cycle, but the protheans did something that prevented that from happening. I can't remember all the details but someone like Icemage can fill it in. What is a plothole is how they needed Sovereign in ME1 if the Starchild was there all along! Just ONE more reason why the Starchild was a stupid idea.

The Protheans altered the Keeper signal. And you're right about the Starchild creating a plot hole. That's why he was retconned in the EC. He now states that he's the colelctive consciousness of the Reapers (or something to that effect) and that the Citadel is a part of him (which is now fancy talk for “Reaper tech” rather than the original meaning of “the Catalyst, Citadel, and Starchild are the same thing”).

Originally Posted by MerrickG

Ok, you see it is as a cop out. That's fine, but why shouldn't it be an OPTION?

That's right. An option. Meaning a choice, not something forced on you. Meaning you can have you have your less than perfect ending and I can have my perfect ending that I worked hard to achieve. I am sorry, but I like happy endings. The real world is full of crap (watch the news and you see earthquakes, wars happening, jobs being lost, gas prices rising etc.) and I play video games like Mass Effect to ESCAPE that crap, why does the game HAVE to resemble that?

I don't buy into this "its more dramatic blah blah blah" crap to make a less than happy ending. Besides you miss the point that billions have died and that a happy ending wouldn't truly be a "happy" ending. The fact that the Reapers were stopped and were able to build a new life with your love interest without having to destroy a race isn't a Disney ending.

I don't see why having the OPTION of having a happy ending is a cop out. If its an option its not forced on you.

Here I totally agree. It's like the "happy" ending of Max Payne 2. As of Max Payne 3 it's no longer canon but it's my prefered ending and I busted my ass to get it. Something similar should be included for ME3.

[PA_Kid]

Originally Posted by MerrickG

Ok, you see it is as a cop out. That's fine, but why shouldn't it be an OPTION?

That's right. An option. Meaning a choice, not something forced on you. Meaning you can have you have your less than perfect ending and I can have my perfect ending that I worked hard to achieve. I am sorry, but I like happy endings. The real world is full of crap (watch the news and you see earthquakes, wars happening, jobs being lost, gas prices rising etc.) and I play video games like Mass Effect to ESCAPE that crap, why does the game HAVE to resemble that?

I don't buy into this "its more dramatic blah blah blah" crap to make a less than happy ending. Besides you miss the point that billions have died and that a happy ending wouldn't truly be a "happy" ending. The fact that the Reapers were stopped and were able to build a new life with your love interest without having to destroy a race isn't a Disney ending.

I don't see why having the OPTION of having a happy ending is a cop out. If its an option its not forced on you.

Originally Posted by RocShemp

Here I totally agree. It's like the "happy" ending of Max Payne 2. As of Max Payne 3 it's no longer canon but it's my prefered ending and I busted my ass to get it. Something similar should be included for ME3.

I'm not saying that a perfect happy ending can't ever be included, but I am saying that excluding that option does not make the ending garbage or of a lower quality.

Sometimes part of the point of a story or narative is about making hard choices. Allowing the "perfect happy ending" devalues that. And I do not believe - if that was the intent of the designer - that a perfect happy ending should be shoe-horned in just because some people don't like that that was the narative they were trying to tell.

Look at Infamous 2 - adding a third ending to that where Zeke and Cole and everyone else on the planet survived and lived happily ever after would have completely devalued the narative.

Originally Posted by MerrickG

The real world is full of crap (watch the news and you see earthquakes, wars happening, jobs being lost, gas prices rising etc.) and I play video games like Mass Effect to ESCAPE that crap, why does the game HAVE to resemble that?

Because whether you want to admit it or not, games like this are pointless if there is no pathos or drama. When all is said and done though, your attachment to these particular characters makes their imperfect ending sting a little more to you. The reality is that just about all adventure games and RPGs speak to the human condition to a degree. If you didn't really want that to some degree I imagine you'd be sticking to puzzle games or other things that aren't built around a story of human interaction and strife.

I understand where you're coming from though - Mordin's arc (and it's end) was an emotional punch to the gut to me. But while part of me wishes it could end different, another part of me realizes that it's a necessary part of the narative and changing it would also fundamentally change the character of Mordin - and that would be even worse in my opinion.

Then again, I'm also a sucker for good tragedies. I rank Legends of the Fall up there as one of my favorite movies.

[RocShemp]

I get where you're going with this but, though I'm fine with the deaths that occurred, you can still have a “happy” (or at least “happier”) ending and still have pathos. After all, there were still plenty of losses throughout the game and you just couldn’t save everyone, just as Garrus warned.

But, given it's still very much a game, a bonus non-canon ending could be included for those that prefer everything end neatly with a bow on top.

That said, I agree with the conclusion to Mordin's arc. It hit me hard but I liked that he went out like a champ. And the alternatives, which I saw on YouTube after I finished the game, didn't sit right with me one bit.

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by PA_Kid

I'm not saying that a perfect happy ending can't ever be included, but I am saying that excluding that option does not make the ending garbage or of a lower quality.

I never said this. I absolutely NEVER said this. I felt the endings for Mordin and Thane were fitting. I have seen unhappy endings that were perfect, because they were consistent with the theme. I felt Red Dead Redemption had a great ending, because it was a fitting end to Marston. Mass Effect on the otherhand was always about "beating the odds" when you made the correct choices. That theme was abandoned at the end of the game to force you into an A,B,C choice in which none of them allowed you to reunite with your love interest and see everyone you worked so hard to save come to fruition.

Originally Posted by PA_Kid

Sometimes part of the point of a story or narative is about making hard choices. Allowing the "perfect happy ending" devalues that. And I do not believe - if that was the intent of the designer - that a perfect happy ending should be shoe-horned in just because some people don't like that that was the narative they were trying to tell.

Mass Effect was ALWAYS about making hard choices and seeing how those choices affected everything around you. It had PLENTY of hard choices. But the OPTION should have been there to see ALL of those choices pay off in a way leads to the ending that I mentioned.

Originally Posted by PA_Kid

Look at Infamous 2 - adding a third ending to that where Zeke and Cole and everyone else on the planet survived and lived happily ever after would have completely devalued the narative.

How so? I fail to see at all with how it would devalue the narrative, because it doesn't take out the original endings. I think it would have been awesome to have a secret ending that was only available after a third playthrough and such, but Infamous 2 was never a game about beating the odds or seeing your choices pay off. It was a fairly linear game in which the game designers had a story to tell and you played little part in affecting the narrative. You had some minor effects, but it was a good guy doing good things and going from A to B or a bad buy doing bad things going from A to B.

Originally Posted by PA_Kid

Because whether you want to admit it or not, games like this are pointless if there is no pathos or drama. When all is said and done though, your attachment to these particular characters makes their imperfect ending sting a little more to you.

Seriously? Are you trying to say that a happy ending would eliminate all drama? Im sorry, but that is just silly. PLENTY of movies and video games had happy ending and had plenty of drama. Mass Effect had PLENTY of drama. Moments like saving Wrex, saving your crew in ME2. Those are moments in the game that are tense/dramatic and could result in someone's death OR it could result in saving someone. The drama didn't disappear because you saved them. Not to mention the Geth/Quarian peace. There was PLENTY of drama even if you made peace. In fact, I would argue that the moment was more dramatic and more touching when you made peace because you had to work VERY hard to make that happen.

I understand where you're coming from though - Mordin's arc (and it's end) was an emotional punch to the gut to me. But while part of me wishes it could end different, another part of me realizes that it's a necessary part of the narative and changing it would also fundamentally change the character of Mordin - and that would be even worse in my opinion.

I was ok with Mordin and Thane's ending, eventhough many people weren't. Plus, there was the option to save Mordin, even if it resulted in sabotage.

Then again, I'm also a sucker for good tragedies. I rank Legends of the Fall up there as one of my favorite movies.

[RocShemp]

Mass Effect 3 Extended Cut Thoughts (Spoilers) - YouTube

[SethRex]

Hey, I just want to verify. The highest you can get in your readiness is 50% correct? Without playing Multi-Player? Is that enough to get the 3-4 choices? And for that matter is that enough to get the destroy reaction without it looking like it's killing the humans as well?

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by SethRex

Hey, I just want to verify. The highest you can get in your readiness is 50% correct? Without playing Multi-Player? Is that enough to get the 3-4 choices? And for that matter is that enough to get the destroy reaction without it looking like it's killing the humans as well?

That seems to be correct. 3100 is what you need.

[SethRex]

alright thanks.

Edit: I got over 3100 and was at 50% and I still got only the destroy ending...and the one where it kills synthetics and organics. My EE was a short one to say the least.

[Snicket]

What's the secret to getting your Paragon/Renegade rating high enough to not have your final dialogue choice greyed out? I just did a 100% Paragon run doing all the side quests and avoiding the Renegade options like the plague and I still didn't have enough.

After Rannock I had only a small sliver of my bar showing at the very top but even after getting a bunch of Paragon and reputation points it would not move even a little, so I assumed it was maxed out.

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by Snicket

What's the secret to getting your Paragon/Renegade rating high enough to not have your final dialogue choice greyed out? I just did a 100% Paragon run doing all the side quests and avoiding the Renegade options like the plague and I still didn't have enough.

After Rannock I had only a small sliver of my bar showing at the very top but even after getting a bunch of Paragon and reputation points it would not move even a little, so I assumed it was maxed out.

Did you alternate between paragon and renegade dialogue during any of your previous conversations with you-know-who? Apparently you have to stick to one side the whole way. Other than that, I don't know...

[VaporX94]

Originally Posted by Snicket

What's the secret to getting your Paragon/Renegade rating high enough to not have your final dialogue choice greyed out? I just did a 100% Paragon run doing all the side quests and avoiding the Renegade options like the plague and I still didn't have enough.

After Rannock I had only a small sliver of my bar showing at the very top but even after getting a bunch of Paragon and reputation points it would not move even a little, so I assumed it was maxed out.

Originally Posted by MerrickG

Did you alternate between paragon and renegade dialogue during any of your previous conversations with you-know-who? Apparently you have to stick to one side the whole way. Other than that, I don't know...

I know I've went through the game twice now and was full paragon at the end, going full paragon dialogue choices, and both paragon/renegade dialogue options were grayed out for me as well. Maybe it has to do with the war readiness? I never did the MP and only got up to about 6,900/50/3,500ish and so maybe that's the missing key. I could be totally wrong, though.

[Snicket]

Originally Posted by MerrickG

Did you alternate between paragon and renegade dialogue during any of your previous conversations with you-know-who? Apparently you have to stick to one side the whole way. Other than that, I don't know...

I never did a Renegade dialogue option with anybody ever through the entire play through.

What does it change? Anybody even know?

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by Snicket

I never did a Renegade dialogue option with anybody ever through the entire play through.

What does it change? Anybody even know?

It honestly changes NOTHING. Thats not taking a shot at the ending, but it really changes nothing.