Mass Effect 3 ending SPOILERS!

[Zac Sands]

A good ending does leaves you wanting more.

I understand if you want to keep the origin of the reapers and the catalyst a mystery. I even understand if you don't want to tell my how the catalyst arrived at its absurd "Solution". I am ok with a SOME unanswered questions.

But these endings did not answer ANY questions. It literally just cuts off and all of the decisions you made are left hanging with no explanation as to whether or not you made a difference in the galaxy besides interrupting the cycle.

It was evident to me that Shepard would die when both he and the kid burst into flames in his last dream. So I was expecting that. What I was not expecting was to be left hanging completely.

The Mass Effect Trilogy is fundamentally based on decision making. Good and Evil and at each turn your decisions have consequences.

So how can you build a game platform on decision making and not tell me what the outcome of my decisions are? It is ridiculous!

 

[boag]

I honestly like the concept of destroying the Reaper's technology to create your own path. I see how that theme was laid out throughout the entirety of the franchise. The problem is that, in the end, none of your prior decisions matter, your enemy tells you what to do and you can't even attempt to argue his flawed points. Good idea. Poorly executed.

Yes because

-Letting the Rachnai live or not
-curing the genophage
-Killing the geth/quarrians or making peace with them

is negated by the ending?

That was a trick question, because they aren't.

They dont matter, none of the races are in any position to care about what happens to each other because their interaction is completely cut off.

In the span of however many millenia it requires to set up a new Galactic civilization, a ton of different things can happen that alter any decisions you took.

The ending completely sets up another sequel, one where any choices you made can be completely swept under the rug.

 

[jason27131]

The problem presented by the Catalyst wasn't the only problem within the series, it was only an explanation for why The Reapers existed.

You're right, it wasn't the only problem within the series, or the most important. So why was it framed as the final, most important decision?

Because solving that problem would lead to a method of solving the other problems.

The galaxy was like a giant clump of strings all tangled together, each string represents a different problem, and while no one string is really more important then the other, there is always inevitable one string in the ball if you pull could cause the others to unravel also.

Being able to stop the reapers allowed for the ability to end galactic civilizations dependance on them and their technology, another one of the problems however is that civilization as it was was so dependent on it that it was impossible to go back.

Civilization had to be destroyed one more time to allow for races to go down thier own path.

I find it extremely funny that you're the only one in this thread that is defending the ending. No one else is. So, here are my thoughts:

1. You're either the most intelligent person that exists on earth, being able to see the deeper meaning of the ending, and see what everyone else can't, that the "deus ex machina" is actually meaningful and insightful.

or 2. You're a bioware fanboy

or finally, 3. You're an idiot.

 

[synobal]

Buddy, go into Mass Effect 3 and read the codex. It said that during the battle of the Turian homeworld, Turian dreadnoughts were able to destroy several Reaper capital ships, the class of Reaper that SOVEREIGN WAS! And the Turians did that all by themselves. Also I thought that our Prothean weapon was supposed to wipe out all of the Reapers...why couldn't they have just made it so that was EXACTLY what it did?

The weapon wasn't Prothean and no one really understood what it was intended to do.

Also there were a lot of reapers destroying like 4 or 5 doesn't win a war, and it didn't really mention at what cost. Also redesigning alien tech is hard especially when you don't understand what it does.

 

[Erttheking]

Buddy, go into Mass Effect 3 and read the codex. It said that during the battle of the Turian homeworld, Turian dreadnoughts were able to destroy several Reaper capital ships, the class of Reaper that SOVEREIGN WAS! And the Turians did that all by themselves. Also I thought that our Prothean weapon was supposed to wipe out all of the Reapers...why couldn't they have just made it so that was EXACTLY what it did?

The weapon wasn't Prothean and no one really understood what it was intended to do.

Also there were a lot of reapers destroying like 4 or 5 doesn't win a war, and it didn't really mention at what cost. Also redesigning alien tech is hard especially when you don't understand what it does.

The point is, the Reapers can be beaten, the combined forces of the Krogans and Turians were able to drive all of the Reapers at the Turian homeworld back, and the capital ships were the heaviest ships that the Reapers had, the bulk of their fleet was made up of much smaller and less powerful destroyers. The point is, the fleet at the end actually had the sheer numbers and firepower to beat the Reapers. And when I said "why couldn't they make it so that was EXACTLY what it does" I was talking about Bioware. Why didn't they make it so that thing just killed the Reapers? Why did we have to pull some stuff about merging or destroying all Mass Relays out of thin air>

 

[SajuukKhar]

I find it extremely funny that you're the only one in this thread that is defending the ending. No one else is. So, here are my thoughts:

1. You're either the most intelligent person that exists on earth, being able to see the deeper meaning of the ending, and see what everyone else can't, that the "deus ex machina" is actually meaningful and insightful.

or 2. You're a bioware fanboy

or finally, 3. You're an idiot.

synobal seems to agree with me.

also resulting to name calling is something someone with no other possible argument does.

 

[synobal]

The problem presented by the Catalyst wasn't the only problem within the series, it was only an explanation for why The Reapers existed.

You're right, it wasn't the only problem within the series, or the most important. So why was it framed as the final, most important decision?

Because solving that problem would lead to a method of solving the other problems.

The galaxy was like a giant clump of strings all tangled together, each string represents a different problem, and while no one string is really more important then the other, there is always inevitable one string in the ball if you pull could cause the others to unravel also.

Being able to stop the reapers allowed for the ability to end galactic civilizations dependance on them and their technology, another one of the problems however is that civilization as it was was so dependent on it that it was impossible to go back.

Civilization had to be destroyed one more time to allow for races to go down thier own path.

I find it extremely funny that you're the only one in this thread that is defending the ending. No one else is. So, here are my thoughts:

1. You're either the most intelligent person that exists on earth, being able to see the deeper meaning of the ending, and see what everyone else can't, that the "deus ex machina" is actually meaningful and insightful.

or 2. You're a bioware fanboy

or finally, 3. You're an idiot.

Excuse me but I'm in here as well thank you.

You can't call it deus ex machina since you spent the entire game gathering fleets to protect this 'weapon' and gathering resources and people to build it. The entire game no one seems to understand what it is or what it will do. It does seem like a weapon (because it is designed to output a lot of energy) but no one is really sure what it is. Its a Plot twist not a Deus Ex Machina. Also there was foreshadowing with regards to what happens so much so that when I got to the end I was like 'oh no you didn't I knew you would and you did! You bastards'

I can personally say I'm not a Bioware fanboy, I was very unhappy with what happened with dragon age 2, so much I didn't bother finishing it.

3 I don't think he is an idiot, I think he is one of the few people who is sufficiently versed enough in story telling and who are willing to resist the knee jerk reaction to such a surprising end with no obvious 'good ending'.

 

[ifihadashotgun]

Buddy, go into Mass Effect 3 and read the codex. It said that during the battle of the Turian homeworld, Turian dreadnoughts were able to destroy several Reaper capital ships, the class of Reaper that SOVEREIGN WAS! And the Turians did that all by themselves and at the end of the game, you've gathered the biggest fleet in the history of the galaxy. Also I thought that our Prothean weapon was supposed to wipe out all of the Reapers...why couldn't they have just made it so that was EXACTLY what it did?

Because that wouldn't be "dark" or "gritty" enough. The ending was written by people who seem to think that there is some correlation between how dark a work of fiction is with how "good" it is, and this probably stems from the fact that a lot of critically acclaimed films, novels, and television series have fairly mature themes.

These are also the people who write shitty video game tie-in novels.

 

[jason27131]

I find it extremely funny that you're the only one in this thread that is defending the ending. No one else is. So, here are my thoughts:

1. You're either the most intelligent person that exists on earth, being able to see the deeper meaning of the ending, and see what everyone else can't, that the "deus ex machina" is actually meaningful and insightful.

or 2. You're a bioware fanboy

or finally, 3. You're an idiot.

synobal seems to agree with me.

also resulting to name calling is something someone with no other possible argument does.

Na. It's more like I realized no matter how many arguments everyone brings up, you simply ignore them, so I simply gave up on trying to convince you of otherwise.

Everyone else hates the way the ending works, you don't. You won't change your mind, but you really can't change our mind either since the ending DID suck. Therefore, stalemate.

 

[SajuukKhar]

Because that wouldn't be "dark" or "gritty" enough. The ending was written by people who seem to think that there is some correlation between how dark a work of fiction is with how "good" it is, and this probably stems from the fact that a lot of critically acclaimed films, novels, and television series have fairly mature themes.

These are also the people who write shitty video game tie-in novels.

Actually the only novel in the ME universe considered "bad" by the fans was written by someone who doesn't work at bioware.

 

[SajuukKhar]

Na. It's more like I realized no matter how many arguments everyone brings up, you simply ignore them, so I simply gave up on trying to convince you of otherwise.

Everyone else hates the way the ending works, you don't. You won't change your mind, but you really can't change our mind either since the ending DID suck. Therefore, stalemate.

How is using evidence from the game to show why the endings follow with the themes of the series "ignoring" the arguments, when said arguments are about just that?

I don't know if you actually read what you typing or not.

 

[jason27131]

The problem presented by the Catalyst wasn't the only problem within the series, it was only an explanation for why The Reapers existed.

You're right, it wasn't the only problem within the series, or the most important. So why was it framed as the final, most important decision?

Because solving that problem would lead to a method of solving the other problems.

The galaxy was like a giant clump of strings all tangled together, each string represents a different problem, and while no one string is really more important then the other, there is always inevitable one string in the ball if you pull could cause the others to unravel also.

Being able to stop the reapers allowed for the ability to end galactic civilizations dependance on them and their technology, another one of the problems however is that civilization as it was was so dependent on it that it was impossible to go back.

Civilization had to be destroyed one more time to allow for races to go down thier own path.

I find it extremely funny that you're the only one in this thread that is defending the ending. No one else is. So, here are my thoughts:

1. You're either the most intelligent person that exists on earth, being able to see the deeper meaning of the ending, and see what everyone else can't, that the "deus ex machina" is actually meaningful and insightful.

or 2. You're a bioware fanboy

or finally, 3. You're an idiot.

Excuse me but I'm in here as well thank you.

You can't call it deus ex machina since you spent the entire game gathering fleets to protect this 'weapon' and gathering resources and people to build it. The entire game no one seems to understand what it is or what it will do. It does seem like a weapon (because it is designed to output a lot of energy) but no one is really sure what it is. Its a Plot twist not a Deus Ex Machina. Also there was foreshadowing with regards to what happens so much so that when I got to the end I was like 'oh no you didn't I knew you would and you did! You bastards'

I can personally say I'm not a Bioware fanboy, I was very unhappy with what happened with dragon age 2, so much I didn't bother finishing it.

3 I don't think he is an idiot, I think he is one of the few people who is sufficiently versed enough in story telling and who are willing to resist the knee jerk reaction to such a surprising end with no obvious 'good ending'.

I don't give a shit that it's a sad ending. I like them as well. The way it was implemented sucked.

Here's how plots work. Normally there is a conflict, the hero tries to solve this conflict, there exists a climax, then the calming down after the climax. That is the definition of a plot.

Mass Effect 3 works BEAUTIFULLY up to the climax, then it gets cut off. Everything after the climax (anderson's death) sucked both in implementation and logic.

 

[Deathninja19]

Why are people moaning about a downer ending? I'm happy there's an actual downer ending. It beats the usual romp of Hollywood and other industry giants just giving deus ex machina endings or having a happy ending when really, there shouldn't be. At least Bioware isn't stuck to outside rules in having to change things to make the majority happy like with 'Terminator: Salvation'.

Really? "Downer ending" does not necessarily equal bad writing. The writing might be bad, and the ending might be a downer, but the two do not correlate necessarily. Personally, I'm glad the ME series didn't have a happy ending - because there is absolutely no fucking way things could possibly end happily if we're trying to be even remotely realistic.
So there. My two cents. Maybe I'm just a misguided crazy bastard suffering from Huntington's or some such shit.

I'm not taking sides here but it seems to me the people who have the most issue with the ending is how poorly written in terms of logic it is. Really I don't think anyone would have a problem with a downer ending if it was done right but it seems to me that people have a problem of how it was done not why.

Again don't care about the ending I just thought the strongest argument against is being looked over.

Captcha: Crash and burn, yep that sounds about right

 

[synobal]

Buddy, go into Mass Effect 3 and read the codex. It said that during the battle of the Turian homeworld, Turian dreadnoughts were able to destroy several Reaper capital ships, the class of Reaper that SOVEREIGN WAS! And the Turians did that all by themselves. Also I thought that our Prothean weapon was supposed to wipe out all of the Reapers...why couldn't they have just made it so that was EXACTLY what it did?

The weapon wasn't Prothean and no one really understood what it was intended to do.

Also there were a lot of reapers destroying like 4 or 5 doesn't win a war, and it didn't really mention at what cost. Also redesigning alien tech is hard especially when you don't understand what it does.

The point is, the Reapers can be beaten, the combined forces of the Krogans and Turians were able to drive all of the Reapers at the Turian homeworld back, and the capital ships were the heaviest ships that the Reapers had, the bulk of their fleet was made up of much smaller and less powerful destroyers. The point is, the fleet at the end actually had the sheer numbers and firepower to beat the Reapers. And when I said "why couldn't they make it so that was EXACTLY what it does" I was talking about Bioware. Why didn't they make it so that thing just killed the Reapers? Why did we have to pull some stuff about merging or destroying all Mass Relays out of thin air>

It wasn't thin air, in Mass Effect 1 Sovereign throws down huge fore shadowing about the fact that you're going to have to destroy the Mass Relays to defeat them. and in arrival you destroy one to delay them. Also in Mass Effect 1 you have to keep Sovereign from activating the citadel as a Mass Relay, the relays were always super important to defeating or slowing down the reapers every single time.

The Turians never reclaimed Palivan even with the Krogan they fought them and slowed them down and then they had to recall their forces from Palavin to protect the crucible because Palavin was lost unless they did defeat the Reapers.

 

[ifihadashotgun]

Actually the only novel in the ME universe considered "bad" by the fans was written by someone who doesn't work at bioware.

And a large number of people consider almost every single video game tie-in novel to be pandering pulp fiction.

 

[Vegosiux]

also resulting to name calling is something someone with no other possible argument does.

I agree.

The only "mistake" was releasing a game with good endings to a bunch of over-entitled and whiny gamers who complain over anything that isn't some overly drawn out ending dialog about everything your companions did, including what lunch they ate, for the next 36 years.

Posted by you, about 7 and a half hours ago.

You were saying?

QED.

 

[SajuukKhar]

I'm not taking sides here but it seems to me the people who have the most issue with the ending is how poorly written in terms of logic it is. Really I don't think anyone would have a problem with a downer ending if it was done right but it seems to me that people have a problem of how it was done not why.

Again don't care about the ending I just thought the strongest argument against is being looked over.

Captcha: Crash and burn, yep that sounds about right

The thing is though, the endings make complete sense if you payed attention to the overall themes of the game.

 

[MortisLegio]

I've played through all the Mass Effects and I am utterly disappointed by the ending. Other than the fact their is no happy ending, I at least wanted my Shepard and Liara to be together at the end. Was a happy ending to much to ask for?

 

[SajuukKhar]

also resulting to name calling is something someone with no other possible argument does.

I agree.

The only "mistake" was releasing a game with good endings to a bunch of over-entitled and whiny gamers who complain over anything that isn't some overly drawn out ending dialog about everything your companions did, including what lunch they ate, for the next 36 years.

Posted by you, about 7 and a half hours ago.

You were saying?

QED.

I never said I didn't do it also when I have no argument at the time.

never once did I imply I was somehow above the faults that all people share.

I've played through all the Mass Effects and I am utterly disappointed by the ending. Other than the fact their is no happy ending, I at least wanted my Shepard and Liara to be together at the end. Was a happy ending to much to ask for?

How is being able to free the galaxy from continued genocide, while at the same time freeing civilization from technological dependance not a happy ending?

 

[Sp3ratus]

I find it extremely funny that you're the only one in this thread that is defending the ending. No one else is. So, here are my thoughts:

1. You're either the most intelligent person that exists on earth, being able to see the deeper meaning of the ending, and see what everyone else can't, that the "deus ex machina" is actually meaningful and insightful.

or 2. You're a bioware fanboy

or finally, 3. You're an idiot.

synobal seems to agree with me.

also resulting to name calling is something someone with no other possible argument does.

I agree with you too, I thought the ending was fantastic. I might have made some negative posts earlier, but I've time to mull it over and reading your, Nimcha and some other posters' posts, all of it makes sense now and makes for an amazing ending to an amazing game. I wouldn't have the ending any other way.

The problem presented by the Catalyst wasn't the only problem within the series, it was only an explanation for why The Reapers existed.

You're right, it wasn't the only problem within the series, or the most important. So why was it framed as the final, most important decision?

Because solving that problem would lead to a method of solving the other problems.

The galaxy was like a giant clump of strings all tangled together, each string represents a different problem, and while no one string is really more important then the other, there is always inevitable one string in the ball if you pull could cause the others to unravel also.

Being able to stop the reapers allowed for the ability to end galactic civilizations dependance on them and their technology, another one of the problems however is that civilization as it was was so dependent on it that it was impossible to go back.

Civilization had to be destroyed one more time to allow for races to go down thier own path.

I find it extremely funny that you're the only one in this thread that is defending the ending. No one else is. So, here are my thoughts:

1. You're either the most intelligent person that exists on earth, being able to see the deeper meaning of the ending, and see what everyone else can't, that the "deus ex machina" is actually meaningful and insightful.

or 2. You're a bioware fanboy

or finally, 3. You're an idiot.

Not all of us, who actually like the ending, post. I think SajuukKhar is doing a brilliant job of it, no need for me to add something that's already been said to the discussion. Also, insutling people, because the disagree with you and present their side of the argument is not a good way of making people see your side of things.