Bioware forums explode as Mass Effect 3 ending details are leaked. *MINOR SPOILERS*

[mirasiel]

Question spoilered for...spoilers

Spoiler

Someone remind me but in the 'Arrival' DLC...didn't destroying a Mass relay take out the whole fucking star system and every inhabited planet there in?

even if wrecking the relays doesnt nova every star system currently inhabited ...do you understand what happens when you smash the infrastructure that supports a galaxy wide civ? every colony thats not completely self-reliant is dead, I imagine that even homeworlds are pretty boned.

Destroying the relays does not seem like a reasonable course of action to me..how does that kill the reapers? are they in a relay transit at the time? do the relays sustain them somehow? they seemed to survive well enough out in the depths of fucking space for millenia.

It 'frees' us? how? By needlesly sacrificing trillions so we can move away from mass effect tech...because its not like any species are already doing that (Geth and Quarians)

This just doesn't seem to make sense to me, I hope I'm missing some major plot point but it feels like an ass-pull.

I dont care that shepard/garrus/tali die...i *expect* that but this isnt a victory....and the whole plot of the game seems to have been that we *could* win because of the self-sacrifice the Protheans made and our own choices but apparently...no have bad end, kthnxbye

 

[matrix3509]

Seriously though, what better way to end one of the most massively overhyped balls of shit in videogame history?

 

[RC1138]

I just thought of the ultimate Irony. Given the backlash by both biofans and even those that didnt have an interest in the games in and of themselves, EA/Bioware has backed itself in the corner.

Either they can let the game/endings/status of the NPC's remain the way it is, deal with the millions of very perturbed fans, who feel slighted for a variety of reasons (least of which being the lack of apparent choice, effect of choices from the previous games on the endings, and the status of crewmembers who, LI or not, where almost the focus of the game (sure as heck wasn't the combat in 1 and 2)) who may or may not ever invest in a Bioware/EA game again as it's one thing to put out a crappy game, but it's another to blatantly disappoint fans (and the visceral reaction from fans is something I haven't seen since Hal Jordan's fiasco with comics)

or

they can bend to their fans, right or wrong, and provide either a patched ending to fit in with what the general consensus is wanted (galaxy saved, more or less status quo preserved, LIVING peace for all major characters) or provide a "DLC" Ending, which while probably something that'd sell in droves, would ruin it's reputation just as bad.

So.... the irony of leaving Shepard with no real "win" choice, Bioware has done the same for itself. No matter what they do they look very poor in the eyes of a substantial amount of the playerbase.

 

[SajuukKhar]

Millions of fans perturbed?

Ohh the hyperbole.

I doubt most "fans" will actually give two sh*** enough to complain.

Question spoilered for...spoilers

Spoiler

Someone remind me but in the 'Arrival' DLC...didn't destroying a Mass relay take out the whole fucking star system and every inhabited planet there in?

even if wrecking the relays doesnt nova every star system currently inhabited ...do you understand what happens when you smash the infrastructure that supports a galaxy wide civ? every colony thats not completely self-reliant is dead, I imagine that even homeworlds are pretty boned.

Destroying the relays does not seem like a reasonable course of action to me..how does that kill the reapers? are they in a relay transit at the time? do the relays sustain them somehow? they seemed to survive well enough out in the depths of fucking space for millenia.

It 'frees' us? how? By needlesly sacrificing trillions so we can move away from mass effect tech...because its not like any species are already doing that (Geth and Quarians)

This just doesn't seem to make sense to me, I hope I'm missing some major plot point but it feels like an ass-pull.

I dont care that shepard/garrus/tali die...i *expect* that but this isnt a victory....and the whole plot of the game seems to have been that we *could* win because of the self-sacrifice the Protheans made and our own choices but apparently...no have bad end, kthnxbye

That was caused by a meteor crashing into an active Mass Relay.

The Mass Relays at the end of Me3 use all their energy to enact whatever ending you choose, so they have no energy cores to blow up, the relays just fall apart from the use of all their energy but don't supernova explode because all their energy is used up before.

 

[RC1138]

Okay, thousands, what have you. Even if it's a vocal minority, which it may very well be, be honest, have you ever seen a reaction this FAST to something like this? I mean even a relatively recent "end game let-down" like Halo 3. Remember to two/three days before it came out, the internet was somewhat flooded with "Chief dies!" video's and what have you? People weren't happy (and as it turned out, that wasn't the 'whole' ending, which is why I reserve judgement this time as well) but the reaction wasn't nearly as hate filled, and that is not a hyperbole, there is definite malice in the reactions of people here, Bioware's forums, /v/, N4G, and basically any other major gaming portal. People are *angry* and disappointed. That's... abnormal, even in this community.

I expect to see even more review bombing on metacritic than MW3/BF3/whatever flavor of the month game is fun to a hate this time.

 

[mirasiel]

Millions of fans perturbed?

Ohh the hyperbole.

I doubt most "fans" will actually give two sh*** enough to complain.

Question spoilered for...spoilers

Spoiler

Someone remind me but in the 'Arrival' DLC...didn't destroying a Mass relay take out the whole fucking star system and every inhabited planet there in?

even if wrecking the relays doesnt nova every star system currently inhabited ...do you understand what happens when you smash the infrastructure that supports a galaxy wide civ? every colony thats not completely self-reliant is dead, I imagine that even homeworlds are pretty boned.

Destroying the relays does not seem like a reasonable course of action to me..how does that kill the reapers? are they in a relay transit at the time? do the relays sustain them somehow? they seemed to survive well enough out in the depths of fucking space for millenia.

It 'frees' us? how? By needlesly sacrificing trillions so we can move away from mass effect tech...because its not like any species are already doing that (Geth and Quarians)

This just doesn't seem to make sense to me, I hope I'm missing some major plot point but it feels like an ass-pull.

I dont care that shepard/garrus/tali die...i *expect* that but this isnt a victory....and the whole plot of the game seems to have been that we *could* win because of the self-sacrifice the Protheans made and our own choices but apparently...no have bad end, kthnxbye

That was caused by a meteor crashing into an active Mass Relay.

The Mass Relays at the end of Me3 use all their energy to enact whatever ending you choose, so they have no energy cores to blow up, the relays just fall apart from the use of all their energy but don't supernova explode because all their energy is used up before.

Hmm ok, sounds bullshity to me since that energy has to go somewhere but I'll let that one pass, kinda feel the rest of it stands though.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

*This thread contains minor spoilers about the end. I intended it contain none, but people have been posting minor spoilers anyway.*

The Mass Effect 3 ending details have been data mined due to leaks/early copies and the results are not good at all. The majority of the members on the bioware forums have gone up in flames and are outraged. It's not pretty.

How far can Bioware/EA go to completely alienate their fans?

The fallout from Dragon Age 2 was bad enough. Then Mass Effect 3 DLC controversy was even worse. This looks like it could be the killer.

I don't want to include spoilers in this thread, but if you really want to know, go to the Bioware forums and look at the Mass Effect 3 spoiler thread. You can't miss it.

For those who are fine with very vague spoilers, but don't want to know the actual details:

Spoiler: Unspecific spoiler about endings

All of the possible endings are incredibly depressing and the sense of purpose from the two previous games are destroyed.

Whilst not everyone is outraged at this, this could be enough to really hurt Bioware and force them into some strange DLC fix situation. From the looks of things, people aren't going to live this down.

For discussion:

What are your thoughts on Bioware? Why have they had their foot stuck in knee deep controversy for the last few years? Do you think the reaction to the endings will do serious damage?

After reading the alleged datamined endings, and finding that there's no MLP happiness and rainbows ending, I'm fine with all of that.
What else do you expect when taking on a race of beings that perpetually wiped out ALL life in the universe and stopping a galactic lifetimes worth of genocide? Welcome to gritty reality, even in sci-fi.
God, pathetic and sad, yet no one had this reaction to Red Dead Redemption's ending.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

3 games just to get doom and gloom endings =/ i have friends that play their shephard characters to specific morals and they will be mighty pissed when they find their character will probably die.

Everybody dies.

...

...

...

...incidentally, this is the thing I don't get about the backlash. The fact that Shep doesn't end up living in the space suburbs with his/her space waifu and their blue children doesn't invalidate the fact that Shep kinda sorta saves the galaxy.

I know. I mean, the first game established that you are facing badass genocide machines that never fail. Did anyone really expect there to be a perfect ending? Losing or a victory with very heavy losses seems like the only way to do it that makes sense.

Civilization as it is, was screwed the second they started using the Mass Relay network and basing technology off of it.

This ending frees civilization from the reapers chains and allows them to start over along a path that they chose for themselves.

It's not about wanting a "perfect" ending, it's not about wanting a "realistic" ending, it's not about "waifuism" (believe me, I'm a Talimancer and would gladly have accepted her death in the game outside of this silliness).

Mass Effect's primary selling point, back when it was very first announced, was that "your actions would have consequences."
It's not that hard to understand ok?

Yes, the reapers are nigh invincible killing machines. Heavy losses would be natural.
But instead of letting the players choices matter, we get three endings with the same outcome.

Look at Mass Effect 1, depending on Paragon or Renegade you either doom or save the council, you recommend either Udina or Anderson for human representative. Mass Effect 2, members of your crew live or die AND you decide whether or not the Collector Base is preserved or not.

tl;dr - It's not about happy endings, it's about CHOICE.

Indeed. Which has effectively been taking out of our hands. The endings boil down too: A. Galaxy is sent back technologically 20,000 years or so with the loss of the Relays and most Citadel based Tech while also being cut off from one another. B. Shepard assumes control of the Reapers and Becomes a God, effectively. Mass Relays Still Get Destroyed, Galaxy cut off, loss of tech, etc. C. All life becomes Synthetic Hybrids (i.e. Cylons) Relays still get destroyed, etc, etc. And the Extras: Normandy crew screwed in some way in every ending.

There is no choice in that. It's effectively, you loose, for the most part, regardless, but how *badly* do you want to loose? How is that kind of choice reflective of the options given in the previous games?

I like it. I like how you tried desperately to change an inevitable outcome, but it is all for naught. I can see why having the choice minimized would bug you, though.

 

[RC1138]

God, pathetic and sad, yet no one had this reaction to Red Dead Redemption's ending.

Playing the devils advocate. How some would feel, using that analogy; Red Dead Redemption did not have you play through 2 other games, in which it would have seemed (and did in those games) where you're decisions had lasting, distinct, and unique consequences, both on the micro and macro of the games finale and what went on DURING the game (saving wrex in ME1 caused the interactions in ME2 to be different/Doing this squad quest saved this squad member from dying). Moreover Red Dead Redemption did not have relationship building (read not just LI, but even friendships and comrades) as a central DRAW and design feature and mechanic of the game. ME did. And the way it would seem that ME3 ends, and how they treat the central characters and overall setting, somewhat diminishes how in control you felt. And yes, perhaps its spoiled, but many gamers of this series APPEAR to feel slighted that control was taken away.

I don't think anyone's WRONG in this situation. You, me, Bioware, perturbed fans, anyone. I don't feel anyone's wrong, but I feel that that there was a gross lack of communication and understanding between the developer and the fans about what the draw to the series was.

 

[SajuukKhar]

Okay, thousands, what have you. Even if it's a vocal minority, which it may very well be, be honest, have you ever seen a reaction this FAST to something like this? I mean even a relatively recent "end game let-down" like Halo 3. Remember to two/three days before it came out, the internet was somewhat flooded with "Chief dies!" video's and what have you? People weren't happy (and as it turned out, that wasn't the 'whole' ending, which is why I reserve judgement this time as well) but the reaction wasn't nearly as hate filled, and that is not a hyperbole, there is definite malice in the reactions of people here, Bioware's forums, /v/, N4G, and basically any other major gaming portal. People are *angry* and disappointed. That's... abnormal, even in this community.

I expect to see even more review bombing on metacritic than MW3/BF3/whatever flavor of the month game is fun to a hate this time.

I see this exact same reaction, at this exact same speed, all the time.

EVERY SINGLE TIME bioware announces ANYTHING, BSN explodes over what they consider "the biggest betrayal ever".

Hmm ok, sounds bullshity to me since that energy has to go somewhere but I'll let that one pass, kinda feel the rest of it stands though.

I just told you, the power is used to enact whatever choice you made.

You want to destroy the Reapers, the energy does that, want to merge organics and synthetics, the energy does that, want to control all the reapers, the energy is used so you can do that.

 

[RC1138]

I'd agree to a point. The Day 1 DLC for example, something I didn't particularly care about either way, had a somewhat visceral reaction, but given what the problem was over, an EXTRA piece of the game not available to everyone (as in, you have to buy it/correct edition) it wasn't something that would directly effect every player. In fact it was the lack of effect it had on players that bothered them (not having something they believed they should by default). This on the other hand seems to be an issue with more of the core mechanics of the game. If you were to define the core mechanic of the series of the whole, as in, what set it apart from other games, was choices affecting actions and relationships within the universe. These endings, right wrong or otherwise, do take away a degree of control and choice. AND this effects EVERYONE who plays, not just those who pay/did not pay a separate charge for content. No matter what version you get you will have to enjoy/endure these endings, and and thus it is a far broader problem, for lack of a better word.

 

[SajuukKhar]

And if you think about it, 99% of the choices you made in the series WOULDN'T affect anything past the immediate, and the choices that WOULD affect things over time, STILL DO.

The choices that would have a impact for over the long term such as,
-saving the Rachnai
-killing the Geth/Quarrians
-Curing the Genophage
-etc etc.

Still have an affect on each of those species.

And you have to wonder who will humanity be remembered to each of those species, saviors? murders? how do you think the races will react to seeing them in the future?

It sets up so many possible outcomes.

 

[soulfire130]

From what I read, I like the ends. I am happy than atleast SOMEONE has the guts to make such endings.

People are just pissed at all their effort went up in smoke.

 

[RC1138]

You're missing the point and you don't understand how people, as a general (very general, but general) rule think. They care about what they SEE, not what they COULD see. What people see, is a character/characters they've worked on, worked with, and grown fond of and cared about, more or less tossed by the wayside. That's what they see, and they're very unhappy.

 

[mirasiel]

Okay, thousands, what have you. Even if it's a vocal minority, which it may very well be, be honest, have you ever seen a reaction this FAST to something like this? I mean even a relatively recent "end game let-down" like Halo 3. Remember to two/three days before it came out, the internet was somewhat flooded with "Chief dies!" video's and what have you? People weren't happy (and as it turned out, that wasn't the 'whole' ending, which is why I reserve judgement this time as well) but the reaction wasn't nearly as hate filled, and that is not a hyperbole, there is definite malice in the reactions of people here, Bioware's forums, /v/, N4G, and basically any other major gaming portal. People are *angry* and disappointed. That's... abnormal, even in this community.

I expect to see even more review bombing on metacritic than MW3/BF3/whatever flavor of the month game is fun to a hate this time.

I see this exact same reaction, at this exact same speed, all the time.

EVERY SINGLE TIME bioware announces ANYTHING, BSN explodes over what they consider "the biggest betrayal ever".

Hmm ok, sounds bullshity to me since that energy has to go somewhere but I'll let that one pass, kinda feel the rest of it stands though.

I just told you, the power is used to enact whatever choice you made.

You want to destroy the Reapers, the energy does that, want to merge organics and synthetics, the energy does that, want to control all the reapers, the energy is used so you can do that.

Oh dear, I think thats more disappointing than the fact that you

Spoiler

personally cause the death of most of the galactic population

.

I'm kind of legitimately disappointed that this is the route Bioware have taken than, I seem to be wasting my time* now making up replacement save games (360 hd died) ..... which in the end mean fuck all, nothing I do actually changes the way things end.

I kind of feel like they realised that at some point during the design of mass effect that they couldn't actually pull off the great multi-part, multiple path, multiple ending story they thought of.

Or worse yet that wanker Zeel was right and they plan to milk the shit out of the 'trilogy' with DLC and expansions.


*please don't anyone do the 'lol ofc you wasting time video games no cure cancer!!!123344 wit!' because I don't want to have to hunt you down and feed you your own keyboard.

 

[samaugsch]

Maybe you could determine the ending depending on whether Shepard is Paragon or Renegade at the end:

Paragon - He sacrifices whatever to ensure that the universe is safe and sound and blah blah blah.

Renegade - Make it so Shepard becomes the new leader of the Reapers somehow, possibly becoming one himself somehow. Or something like that. Basically, make it an ending where you win and everyone else loses.

If these endings are too extreme or too cliche or whatever, then make one up yourself. Hell, everything I know about the ME universe is from playing ME2 and snippets of info from the wiki. For all I know, one of the endings wouldn't be as possible as I think.

 

[CJ1145]

From what I read, I like the ends. I am happy than atleast SOMEONE has the guts to make such endings.

People are just pissed at all their effort went up in smoke.

The whole reason people PLAYED this game was to see their efforts pay off. This sort of ending is exactly the opposite of what most people playing the game want. In that way, BioWare has completely failed its fanbase.

 

[Krion_Vark]

go to the Bioware forums and look at the Mass Effect 3 spoiler thread. You can't miss it.

Done.

Reading reactions...


Angry biodrones everywhere

The general reaction:

"BAAAWWWWW! I can't ride off into the sunset with my space waifu!"

Considering how the past 2 games have pretty much set up for that kind of ending I am not surprised or pissed about it.

Spoiler

Soverign in the first game even flat out said the MASS EFFECT relays were their tech and seeing as how they are going to die you would kind of expect there to be no more mass effect tech at all.

 

[Krion_Vark]

3 games just to get doom and gloom endings =/ i have friends that play their shephard characters to specific morals and they will be mighty pissed when they find their character will probably die.

Everybody dies.

...

...

...

...incidentally, this is the thing I don't get about the backlash. The fact that Shep doesn't end up living in the space suburbs with his/her space waifu and their blue children doesn't invalidate the fact that Shep kinda sorta saves the galaxy.

I know. I mean, the first game established that you are facing badass genocide machines that never fail. Did anyone really expect there to be a perfect ending? Losing or a victory with very heavy losses seems like the only way to do it that makes sense.

Civilization as it is, was screwed the second they started using the Mass Relay network and basing technology off of it.

This ending frees civilization from the reapers chains and allows them to start over along a path that they chose for themselves.

It's not about wanting a "perfect" ending, it's not about wanting a "realistic" ending, it's not about "waifuism" (believe me, I'm a Talimancer and would gladly have accepted her death in the game outside of this silliness).

Mass Effect's primary selling point, back when it was very first announced, was that "your actions would have consequences."
It's not that hard to understand ok?

Yes, the reapers are nigh invincible killing machines. Heavy losses would be natural.
But instead of letting the players choices matter, we get three endings with the same outcome.

Look at Mass Effect 1, depending on Paragon or Renegade you either doom or save the council, you recommend either Udina or Anderson for human representative. Mass Effect 2, members of your crew live or die AND you decide whether or not the Collector Base is preserved or not.

tl;dr - It's not about happy endings, it's about CHOICE.

The funny thing is you NEVER had this choice. This was ALWAYS the outcome. IF YOU KILL THE REAPERS.
Soverign in the fist game says that the Mass Effect system is set up so that the species of the universe will go the way that they want them to. No reapers = no mass effect. PERIOD. You destroy what is controlling/powering the thing and you don't get to use it anymore.
Yeah its a shit ending but its also 100% in your face from the first game.

 

[roguewriter]

*This thread contains minor spoilers about the end. I intended it contain none, but people have been posting minor spoilers anyway.*

The Mass Effect 3 ending details have been data mined due to leaks/early copies and the results are not good at all. The majority of the members on the bioware forums have gone up in flames and are outraged. It's not pretty.

How far can Bioware/EA go to completely alienate their fans?

The fallout from Dragon Age 2 was bad enough. Then Mass Effect 3 DLC controversy was even worse. This looks like it could be the killer.

I don't want to include spoilers in this thread, but if you really want to know, go to the Bioware forums and look at the Mass Effect 3 spoiler thread. You can't miss it.

For those who are fine with very vague spoilers, but don't want to know the actual details:

Spoiler: Unspecific spoiler about endings

All of the possible endings are incredibly depressing and the sense of purpose from the two previous games are destroyed.

Whilst not everyone is outraged at this, this could be enough to really hurt Bioware and force them into some strange DLC fix situation. From the looks of things, people aren't going to live this down.

For discussion:

What are your thoughts on Bioware? Why have they had their foot stuck in knee deep controversy for the last few years? Do you think the reaction to the endings will do serious damage?

After reading the alleged datamined endings, and finding that there's no MLP happiness and rainbows ending, I'm fine with all of that.
What else do you expect when taking on a race of beings that perpetually wiped out ALL life in the universe and stopping a galactic lifetimes worth of genocide? Welcome to gritty reality, even in sci-fi.
God, pathetic and sad, yet no one had this reaction to Red Dead Redemption's ending.

But, that's the point sir. Mass Effect was never cast from the same mold as Red Dead Redemption. There was never this sense that it was a hard universe where victory would come at a high cost or that our Hero would not get a happy ending. In RDR there was this constant sense that Marston's quest to save his family would end in tragedy of some-kind, the game hammered that home at nearly every turn. It was an ugly world, with ugly people, where ugly things happened. As such, it's ending fit; hence, no enraged reactions to what happens to John and his family.

On the flip side, Mass Effect was a Heroic Action Adventure that while containing great Drama was never intended to be seen as overly "realistic" to the same extent as games like RDR. ME was, for all intents and purposes, a new Star Wars of a sort. Much like that original sci-fi trilogy no one ever really believed, for a moment, the the heroes wouldn't live to see the bad guys fall. If George Lucas had gone that route, with the Death Star and the Emperor being destroyed but at the cost of the Rebellion and Han, Luke, or Leia movie goers and fans would have imploded in rage because it would have been a choice that didn't mesh with everything that had come before. In an early draft of "Jedi" Lucas had actually intended to kill off Han Solo. He didn't, and the reason for that was because it would have smacked of tragedy for tragedy's sake and of no justification with the narrative.

That's what we have with these endings for ME3. They don't reflect anything that came before. In ME1: Heroic Ending. In ME2: Heroic Ending -if you made smart choices-, and now, in ME3, the Galaxy is left decimated and nearly in ruin even with the enemy destroyed or controlled and the Heroes are possibly forever lost. Again, if ME had walked in the narrative footsteps of RDR then this choice in resolution would have been understandable; possibly still disappointing, but not unexpected. But when you have your Hero save the Galaxy once, then again, then turn around and say, "Not this time," flies in the face of good sense and good storytelling; it smacks of wanting tragedy for tragedy's sake.