BioWare Dropped the Ball: Why the Conclusion to Mass Effect 3 Provides No Closure

Recommended Videos

Falstad007

New member
Feb 9, 2010
7
0
0
As many of you know, a vast majority of the Mass Effect fanbase is neither amused nor satisfied with the ending of the sci-fi trilogy that we have sunk countless hours into. Yet there are those who do not understand why myself and so many others are complaining. After all, the Reapers have been destroyed (or just sorta flew away, that?s a victory right?), and the day has been saved. Your goal from the very beginning of the series was to eliminate the Reaper threat, and you certainly accomplish that in the end (or maybe not so much), so why all the complaining?

I won?t even get into why the different means of ?defeating? the Reapers make no sense (that?s another article for another time), but I will go into why no matter what you do, you won?t find an ounce of what could be considered closure or satisfaction from the ending.

The Normandy and Your Friends


For starters, your crew and loved ones, the people you?ve come to know and bond with from the first game are marooned on a tropical paradise planet. Except for aliens like Tali and Garrus, who?s dextro-amino based DNA would make such a world a poisonous wasteland, unable to eat any food, drink any water, or be exposed to the flora and fauna for too long for risk of a bad allergic reaction that would surely result in death.

Even with them aside, what do we know of the fate of our friends other than they?re stuck almost assuredly forever on a jungle rock with very little supplies? The most closure we can get in that respect is that after the credits, we get the ?stargazer? ending, where a grandfather (voiced by Buzz Aldrin) tells his son (or grandson) the story of ?The Shepard? in a snowy field featuring the same two moons as are visible when the Normandy crashes.

So does that mean that they survived and single-handedly repopulated a planet, or were there other people there already? And if they did repopulate the planet, I damn well want to know if my love-interest had anything to do with it.

It?s entirely possible, because when I saw Liara and Garrus exit the Normandy (I had them in my party during the run to the conduit, how the hell did they get on the Normandy?), they simply stumbled off the ship, staring blankly into the horizon. The first thing I thought when I saw Liara stare off into the distance was ?***** ain?t even crying for me?. I sacrifice myself for the good of the galaxy and I don?t even get to see what the person I?ve carried a meaningful relationship spanning three games thought of my death. Or does she even know I?m dead?

Considering that the game teases you with images of Joker, Anderson, and your love interest as you make the ultimate sacrifice, it almost seems like a slap in the face not to show us what our friends reacted to our loss after we paid the ultimate price to save them.



Rebuilding a Broken Galaxy, and Earth: Why Using the Crucible Wasn?t Worth the Cost



Secondly, with the Reapers gone, the civilizations of the galaxy now have a new, even more daunting task ahead of them; co-operation and rebuilding.
At least, that?s what would?ve happened if using the crucible hadn?t detonate all the mass relays leaving the single largest fleet ever assembled stranded above a ruined Earth. This creates an incredible number of problems, each of which make the Reaper invasion and near genocide of the entire galaxy look trivial in retrospect.
That huge multi-racial fleet with people numbering almost assuredly in the high billions (not mentioning the forces groundside) cannot possibly be sustained on a planet as ravaged and poor as Earth is now, and there are no planets within FTL distance that are habitable.

Everyone is screwed, and there is very little chance of further cooperation now that shit has hit the fan. Every race will undoubtedly look out for themselves, with a large majority of these people either starving to death, or dying in one of the inevitable wars for what little resources there are.

But even barring Earth?s current situation, we have to consider the fate of the rest of the galaxy.

Right off the bat, any space-stations, planets, or anything in a star system that was near the mass relays are gone. Dead. Many people will argue that we don?t know if the destruction of the relays here will be on the same scale as the explosion of the relay in Arrival (which is said to be able to destroy an entire star system), but I?m confident in the fact that if you can see the explosions from outside of the galaxy, it?s pretty fair to say that the death-toll would be staggering.

And what about the planets and peoples that we saved along the way?



With the krogan stuck on Tuchanka, they?ll almost assuredly war with each other again, seeing as how Wrex is stranded on Earth, thus perpetuating the cycle of death and destruction that is so pervasive in Krogan society, especially when there are fertile females to be fought over. We never get to see Krogan babies, or how Wrex and Eve led their people after brokering peace between themselves and the salarians. So they?re doomed.



The quarians have finally taken back Rannoch, and depending on what you did, possibly with the help of the Geth. For the sake of my argument, I?ll assume the Geth and quarians kissed and made up. I speculate that since the Reapers left Rannoch alone for the most part, maybe the Quarians decided to leave a good deal of their people groundside, and with the help of the Geth, maybe they have begun rep-opulating and rebuilding their long lost homeworld.



That is if the blast from the crucible didn?t destroy the Geth like the god-child told you it would. If that is the case, then not only do the Quarians not have the extra help, but you have effectively comitted genocide against a race that had just found a place among the other civilizations of the galaxy.

But as it is, significant number of their population (including civilian ships) are stranded over by Earth. It looks to me like the Quarians got off easy.



Thessia is in ruins. Not a single asari remains there. It is a smoking corpse and a charred shell of what it once was.



Omega was right next to a mass relay?



Palaven was again, not only taken by the Reapers, but like the asari, most of their people now reside on or above Earth. Again, no happy ending here.



The other races, like the salarians, get off rather easy, with their planets still managing to have a stable number of people and an un-raped/pillaged planet as far as we know.



However, all considered, with the mass relays gone, the galaxy can no longer function as it did previously. Everything about the Mass Effect universe has been undone, and the races and various civilizations of the galaxy are doomed in a huge way.



So there you have it, the most disappointing ending to not only a wonderful sci-fi trilogy, but for all intents and purposes, also the ending to the Mass Effect universe itself.



The Mass Effect universe is, in not only my opinion but many others too, one of the most unique and expansive sci-fi universes that I?ve been able to interact with and influence, but the chances of seeing anything Mass Effect related in the future is now effectively zero.



It?s the most flat and disappointing ending to not only a trilogy, but an expansive IP as well. A double-critical failure on such a level that has fans clamoring for a change, and while BioWare has responded that they?ll do what they can to expand upon the ending and provide more closure, the question of whether or not it will be satisfactory still remains.




Here are but a few things I wanted to see either during the course of Mass Effect 3 or in the epilogue:

My love interest and I settling down (Where are my blue babies?)
Krogan babies
Tali working with her people and the Geth working toGether
The civilizations of the galaxy rebuilding
Hanging out on the beach with Garrus
Earth healing
Aria taking back Omega

Instead all I got for my troubles is a cutscene where grandpa tells little Billy that ?the Shepard? was a pretty cool guy.
Thanks, BioWare.
 

TimeLord

For the Emperor!
Legacy
Aug 15, 2008
7,508
3
43
You seem to miss one important point. The Star child told Shepard that whatever his choice was that it would end the current cycle of the universe.

There are no fleets because the Star child stated that the blast would destroy nearly all technology, and indeed we see that it almost ruined the Normandy. Therefore everyone in space is effectively dead without a way to land their ships or any kind of life support.

Shepard's choice wasn't meant to preserve anything, it was meant to start a new cycle from near-scratch like the Reapers had done for millennia, but this time they wouldn't be destroyed in 50,000 years time.
 

Nimcha

New member
Dec 6, 2010
2,383
0
0
You know, this is what is known as an open ending. There is not meant to be any closure.
 

endtherapture

New member
Nov 14, 2011
3,127
0
0
TimeLord said:
You seem to miss one important point. The Star child told Shepard that whatever his choice was that it would end the current cycle of the universe.

There are no fleets because the Star child stated that the blast would destroy nearly all technology, and indeed we see that it almost ruined the Normandy. Therefore everyone in space is effectively dead without a way to land their ships or any kind of life support.

Shepards choice want meant to preserve anything, it was meant to start a new cycle from near-scratch like the Reapers had done for millennia, but this time they wouldn't be destroyed in 50,000 years time.
And this is why the ending sucks.

Shepard was not fighting for some obscure end to "the cycles" and "the Reapers. He was fighting for his family, his friends, his crew, and the races and cultures we had grown to love over the course of the 3 Mass Effect games.
 

Joccaren

Elite Member
Mar 29, 2011
2,601
3
43
Nimcha said:
You know, this is what is known as an open ending. There is not meant to be any closure.
It is the trope known as 'No ending'. No closure at all is given, and really that isn't acceptable.
Sure, give a cliff hanger open ending, make us eagerly await an explanation, but in the end to an expansive trilogy? You don't do an open ending. You give closure. If you don't, you've done something wrong.
Its like handing in an Essay without a conclusion in English. Tell the teacher its an open essay, and they can speculate about what you would have written, and they won't be happy. Likewise, don't conclude a story for fans, and they won't be happy.
In addition to a lack of closure, there wasn't even a 'cooldown' period in the story. It ended on the climax. You don't end on the climax. You bring things back down, and then you end it.
A lot of people's problem with this part of ME3 is that there is no ending - the story hasn't finished. Until it is closed, and things are explained, the story has not ended. For example, this as the end of Star Wars VI: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_hyYXcnVB4
Not a good ending.

Bioware should've expected flack the second they refused to provide an end to a game that was literally all about the end of this story. The fans bought this to conclude the story. You don't conclude the story, yo have seriously done something wrong when the whole point was to conclude the story. Dear god.
 

Nimcha

New member
Dec 6, 2010
2,383
0
0
Joccaren said:
Nimcha said:
You know, this is what is known as an open ending. There is not meant to be any closure.
It is the trope known as 'No ending'. No closure at all is given, and really that isn't acceptable.
Sure, give a cliff hanger open ending, make us eagerly await an explanation, but in the end to an expansive trilogy? You don't do an open ending. You give closure. If you don't, you've done something wrong.
Its like handing in an Essay without a conclusion in English. Tell the teacher its an open essay, and they can speculate about what you would have written, and they won't be happy. Likewise, don't conclude a story for fans, and they won't be happy.
In addition to a lack of closure, there wasn't even a 'cooldown' period in the story. It ended on the climax. You don't end on the climax. You bring things back down, and then you end it.
A lot of people's problem with this part of ME3 is that there is no ending - the story hasn't finished. Until it is closed, and things are explained, the story has not ended. For example, this as the end of Star Wars VI: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_hyYXcnVB4
Not a good ending.

Bioware should've expected flack the second they refused to provide an end to a game that was literally all about the end of this story. The fans bought this to conclude the story. You don't conclude the story, yo have seriously done something wrong when the whole point was to conclude the story. Dear god.
The story is concluded with an open ending. It's not that hard and it's an age old narrative technique. You might not think it's appropriate but frankly, that is completely irrelevant.
 

Joccaren

Elite Member
Mar 29, 2011
2,601
3
43
Nimcha said:
The story is concluded with an open ending. It's not that hard and it's an age old narrative technique. You might not think it's appropriate but frankly, that is completely irrelevant.
Well, it actually is relevant, considering a majority of people who's opinions are known agree with me in that sentiment. As the customer, our opinions are 100% relevant. We don't like what they do, we don't do business with them again, and they lose a lot of money. They lose enough money, EA repurposes them into generic shooter makers, or something of the like.

Ending with an open ending is fine - so long as the important things are still concluded. Inception as an example. Its climax is done, its cooled down, we know how everyone got out of the situation, and Mr Protagonist sees his kids again. Then the spinning top. Somewhat open ending, yet everything that needed to be concluded was concluded. Open endings can be good where appropriate. Its a common consensus online, and IRL from most people I've talked to, that this was not an appropriate place for so open an ending. Imagine Star Wars ending like it does in that vid I posted, Wrath of Khan ending when Kirk Rams Khan, when the Enterprise explodes in the Search for Spock, Once Frodo drops the ring in LOTR. The endings would feel empty, and if shown would look like a joke. It was a poor decision on Bioware's part.
 

Tomo Stryker

New member
Aug 20, 2010
626
0
0
Joccaren said:
Nimcha said:
The story is concluded with an open ending. It's not that hard and it's an age old narrative technique. You might not think it's appropriate but frankly, that is completely irrelevant.
Well, it actually is relevant, considering a majority of people who's opinions are known agree with me in that sentiment. As the customer, our opinions are 100% relevant. We don't like what they do, we don't do business with them again, and they lose a lot of money. They lose enough money, EA repurposes them into generic shooter makers, or something of the like.

Ending with an open ending is fine - so long as the important things are still concluded. Inception as an example. Its climax is done, its cooled down, we know how everyone got out of the situation, and Mr Protagonist sees his kids again. Then the spinning top. Somewhat open ending, yet everything that needed to be concluded was concluded. Open endings can be good where appropriate. Its a common consensus online, and IRL from most people I've talked to, that this was not an appropriate place for so open an ending. Imagine Star Wars ending like it does in that vid I posted, Wrath of Khan ending when Kirk Rams Khan, when the Enterprise explodes in the Search for Spock, Once Frodo drops the ring in LOTR. The endings would feel empty, and if shown would look like a joke. It was a poor decision on Bioware's part.
Now I really don't want to start arguing with Nimcha, because I've read multiple posts by them and I frankly disagree. But I do agree that an open ending is a narrative style for writing, but after three games and 100+ hours into that kind of universe? Besides, the ending wasn't written by the whole team, Casey Hudson took it upon himself to write it with one else to review it.

http://www.gameranx.com/updates/id/5695/article/mass-effect-3-writer-allegedly-slams-controversial-ending/

Proof.
 

somonels

New member
Oct 12, 2010
1,209
0
0
Because it was NOT an ending. Eat the indoctrination theory.
Prepare the $/?10. This was a dicker move that screwing up the end of the trilogy.
 

Sparrow

New member
Feb 22, 2009
6,848
0
0
Yeah, a bad ending I don't actually think I would have been that angry about. The fact that they openly screwed their own lore is a little iffy to me, though.

Nimcha said:
You know, this is what is known as an open ending. There is not meant to be any closure.
Sure, it's an open ending. There are still a shitload of plot holes, though.
 

w00tage

New member
Feb 8, 2010
556
0
0
Sargent Hoofbeat said:
There needs to be a plinket reveiw

"What? This DOESN'T MAKE SENSE! wanna pizza roll?"
Yes. I would pay money to see this. I'm going to go comment this on the Plinkett site right now.
 

Joccaren

Elite Member
Mar 29, 2011
2,601
3
43
Tomo Stryker said:
Now I really don't want to start arguing with Nimcha, because I've read multiple posts by them and I frankly disagree. But I do agree that an open ending is a narrative style for writing, but after three games and 100+ hours into that kind of universe? Besides, the ending wasn't written by the whole team, Casey Hudson took it upon himself to write it with one else to review it.

http://www.gameranx.com/updates/id/5695/article/mass-effect-3-writer-allegedly-slams-controversial-ending/

Proof.
Not exactly proof, but reason to be cautious. Apparently that guy officially has said that these statements weren't made by him - but I'm taking everything with a grain of salt - that proof, Hudson's defence: Everything.
Really, there is only one thing that will satisfy a lot of us now: A complete rewrite of the ending. Earlier, I would have settled for simply another option added in, an epilogue, and some scenes showing your war assets in action. Now, after Bioware's treatment of this whole thing, nothing short of a complete rewrite will fix this.
Its sad, I could handle this better than Bioware ATM. You made a product Bioware, artistic integrity has Jack to do with it. Fix your product, or lose your fans. Sadly, reviewers can be bought. Casual fans come and go. Your core fans? You have to earn their loyalty, and if you lose it you can never properly regain it. Personally I think Bioware will have lost a lot of its core fans over this. If they stick to their guns, and lose out overall and go silent except for generic FPSs - I'll respect them. They held onto their beloved artistic integrity, even though it meant the end of them. If this happens and they then rewrite the ending, I'll buy it, but nothing more now. Their artistic integrity would thereby obviously come second to money. This is assuming their core fanbase is big enough to take a significant hit out of their profits. That remains to be seen. All I know is either they rewrite the ending, or a lot of people are walking.
 

Joshimodo

New member
Sep 13, 2008
1,956
0
0
TimeLord said:
There are no fleets because the Star child stated that the blast would destroy nearly all technology, and indeed we see that it almost ruined the Normandy. Therefore everyone in space is effectively dead without a way to land their ships or any kind of life support.
No, it destroyed synthetic life. Ships and tech are fine. Geth would die, as would the Reapers, and EDI. Possibly VIs, but they aren't life.
 

Falstad007

New member
Feb 9, 2010
7
0
0
Nimcha said:
You know, this is what is known as an open ending. There is not meant to be any closure.
I understand that, but we were promised not only closure, but that we wouldn't have to simply pick from endings A, B, or C.

Except in the end, that's all we did. We got to choose between three different flavors of space magic.

And as a couple other people have already said, who ends such an expansive trilogy (one that you can shape no less) on such a vague note?