O.K. Everything important has already been said by other posters, so I've got nothing more to add...
Maybe just say, thank you Eddie Mack-ooh (@eddienoteddy)! You are fighting the good fight with these articles about Witcher and CD Projekt Red. Keep 'em coming!
Awesome! I mean everything!... Yeah, everything about this article is pretty awesome:
the CD Projekt, the Witchers, the fact that they are getting better and better financially,... even this comment section is pretty awesome. So many people giving credit to an amazing series and studio and even more people agreeing with them and liking their comments...
This article has really put a smile on my face, which is not such a commonplace. Good job everyone - the Reds, the people who have bought their games, Gamespot / Eddie Makuch, who is promoting Witcher / CDPR and last but not least, the Witcher fans...
@syafiqjabar I would say that it would come down to what do you want to get from the extended ending.
If you are more or less O.K. with the ideas behind the current endings such as the twist with Catalyst or with the explanation why the Reapers were doing what they were doing and would just like the execution to be more coherent or would like to see how your choices have turned out, then I think that you have a good chance to be satisfied or at least to consider the EC to be improvement.
I mean, 2 gigs, that's probably quite a lot of room for various cutscenes and dialogues and whatnot, so the chances that this time around, the consequences of our choices will really vary to some degree (such as seeing various allies fighting) and that some dialogues won't feel that rushed are decent. Though, it remains to be seen.
If however, you for example think that the twist with the Catalyst cheapens the feeling of accomplishment of stopping the Reapers or don't like / believe his explanation of inevitable destruction of all organics by synthetics or are one of the people who wanted at least one completely happy ending without casualties, then I would say, that your chances to consider EC to be a significant improvement over vanilla ending are low.
Don't take my word for it though. But that's the way I see it based on what is known about EC and based on the most common complaints that I have seen.
@kiopta1 Depends on whether you think that he is supposed to be right or not.
1. If he is NOT supposed to be right (for example like Saren or Illusive Man weren't), then apparently, the option to question his logic and argue with him is missing, because all that Shepard says about his claims is "maybe".
2. If he IS supposed to be right, then I see at least two problems with it.
2.1. - we have little to no knowledge about real life A.I.s and how they are supposed to work, so the notion that A.I.s will always eventually decide to destroy all organic life is very abstract at best. It just does not work very well and is pretty hard to relate to in real life. Especially since Catalyst states it as if it was supposed to be some kind of rule rather than individual examples of some A.I's rebelling.
2.2. More importantly, the lore itself does not support his claims very well, because practically all A.I.s we have seen in Mass Effect's universe (save for the ones from Protheans' era, IRC) were either:
2.2.1. willing to settle for some kind of peace with organics (EDI, Geth), not to mention that many times it were the organics who started the conflict... or
2.2.2. far from being capable of destroying organics (heretics, Citadel A.I., EVA, lunar base - EDI) as Catalyst suggests. Or both. So it's really hard to just take his word for it. Especially since his solution is so drastic.
For some reason my comment has disappeared before (or is it just my browser?). Either here is a repost with my take on it. If it is there already, pls tell me so that I can delete one.
Depends on whether you think that he is supposed to be right or not.
1. If he is NOT supposed to be right (for example like Saren or Illusive Man weren't), then apparently, the option to question his logic and argue with him is missing, because all that Shepard says about his claims is "maybe".
2. If he IS supposed to be right, then I see at least two problems with it.
2.1 - we have little to no knowledge about real life A.I.s and how they are supposed to work, so the notion that A.I.s will always eventually decide to destroy all organic life is very abstract at best. It just does not work very well and is pretty hard to relate to in real life. Especially since Catalyst states it as if it was supposed to be some kind of rule rather than individual examples of some A.I's rebelling.
2.2 More importantly, the lore itself does not support his claims very well, because practically all A.I.s we have seen in Mass Effect's universe (save for the ones from Protheans' era, IRC) were either:
2.2.1. willing to settle for some kind of peace with organics (EDI, Geth), not to mention that many times it were the organics who started the conflict... or
2.2.2. far from being capable of destroying organics (heretics, Citadel A.I., EVA, lunar base - EDI) as Catalyst suggests.
Or both. So it's really hard to just take his word for it. Especially since his solution is so drastic.
@Enundr Well, just to explain myself and my reaction better. I am always trying to divide my complaints into two categories:
1. The things, that I am missing or don't like in games, but their existence or absence does not necessarily mean, that the game is bad or flawed because of that.
Usually, it just means that the developers wanted to do something else than what I would have loved to see - e.g. removal of some RPG elements or dialogue options or like you said, absence of boss fights and such. I would love to see them, but the game can't be objectively described as bad if it does not have them.
2. The things, that show that developers did not accomplish what they wanted to do themselves - e.g. insufficient explanation of some parts of the story or lack of variety in choices and consequences or lack of proper answers and closure.
The difference is, that these are the tasks that developers undertook to accomplish themselves and they did not deliver. And they can usually be "objectively" described as flaws, because "we" know that they were part of developers' goals and by judging them, we are playing be the rules set by developers themselves.
And I thought that too many points made by @Steba93 would fall into the first category while (s)he omitted many relevant from the 2nd one. Other than that, I can mostly agree with you.
@Steba93 There's a lot of speculation on your part and the things may or may not have played out the way you described (e.g. Quarians might get help from their civilian ships if they are alive, Turians might get help from Quarians if they are alive, or for all we know, humans or Geth might be able to produce food for different species, ...).
Besides, ending on a sour note would not be a flaw per se. Especially since the Reapers were portrayed as extremely powerful enemies which can do a ton of damage before they die. So a LOT of casualties were to be expected one way or the other.
And if there is one thing that was not actually promised, it is the happy ending. Bioware promised us to have a lot of variations, very personalised endings and answers for our questions, none of which they delivered properly. But happy endings? No. A lot of variations does not have to mean, that they have to range from happy to dark (think of Virmire choice).
And last but not least, your criticism takes away spotlight from actually much more "objective" flaws of the ending such as poor explanation of Reapers' / Catalyst's logic, of how the Crucible changes them / him or lack of explanation of some of the final scenes (why was Normandy so far away, how did squadmates entered the ship) or Shepard's behaviour (no questions for Catalyst, no counterexamples for his theses) which out of context didn't make much sense and of course, lack of closure in general.
@demondayzzz But what if they do manage to justify some of those things? :)
I know, they probably won't be able to make sense of everything (e.g. Catalyst's logic or how does crucible "change" him) and some things will need some suspension of disbelief or acceptance on our part (I imagine that explanation of how Normandy managed to pick up Shepard's squadmates from Earth on time would be barely passable), but they still do have a good chance of addressing some of the complaints like lack of closure or lack of variations in ending cutscenes or maybe can even give us better discussion with Catalyst.
Not perfect, but come on, Mass Effects have always had their fair share of "What?" moments like Lazarus Project, Human Reaper which didn't look like any other one, sudden galaxy-wide switch to thermal clips, Kai Leng and his gimmicky ninja fighting style,... And despite that, a lot of people considered it to be a quite a fun ride up to the part before the ME3's end. So, IMO, this can only help.
SciFiRPGfan's comments