Mass Effect 3 ending SPOILERS!

[SajuukKhar]

nope, look:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGL9b0i_tpI

it will still be reaper tech, and the galaxy will be enslave by a different race or wipe out by another alien race with no possible way of uniting to fight it since there isnt any MR (or perhaps of the time lost regaining the knoledge of the MR gave the species less time to develop better technologies.

*watches the cutsene*
-Beam shoots out of citadel
-Citadel blows up
-Beam hits Mass Relay
-Beam transfers to other Mass relays
-Joker in Mass Relay jump attempting to escape the beam

From this we can determine that Joker went into the Mass Relay shortly before the beam hit it as an obvious attmept to escape it.
.
.
.
Beyond that there is NO evidence that the galaxy and the other races will eer be enslaved by another race again, it isnt even remotely hinted at.

Also the new rleays MAY be based off of Reaper Tech, but the races of the galaxy don't know 100% how the Mass Relays worked, they have to fill in the missing pieces themselves, they have to make their OWN relays, using their OWN designs, and their OWN methods.

them making the relays for themselves on their own steam is what is important.

 

[feeqmatic]

The wrapping up of the characters story arcs was what you did through out the entirety of Mass effect 3, end very end of Mass effect 3 was for the wrapping up of the plot.

I would agree with you completely if this were a non interactive book or movie. But in a game that specifically allows you to make decisions to shape the story, not having the obviously desired happy ending option is a poor decision by Bioware. Regardless of their vision, they should have known that a good chunk of their fans were playing to seek the happy ending THAT LEAVES THE MASS EFFECT UNIVERSE INTACT! To have that not be the option is severely misguided. I really wish i could have sat in on their meetings about this. They did this properly with EVERY other bioware choose your own adventure type game, i dont see why they would do this.

 

[Sera]

I can understand people being upset, but the entire tone of Mass effect 3 was pretty much setting you up for that choice you didn't want to make. I literally sat in front of my screen for five minutes thinking and then moving towards one and then another option. In the end there were no good options and it takes balls to do that. There were choices and it affected the game, some of the choices that seemed big at the time weren't as big as I thought and some that seemed small turned out to have interesting repercussions.

There is a difference between being upset and all this raging I see going on, it is a perfectly good ending all three of them are. My creative writing teacher paraphrased someone at one point that said this 'the only happily ever after that can happen in a story is where you stop it.' Lets face it Shepherd didn't have a peaceful retirement ahead of him. If he hadn't died in the end, he would of died later in some military operation for the alliance.

In my head, Shepard retires after he, you know, saves the entire universe. Seems like he'd deserve it at that stage.

Anyway, other than having no choice in the matter, my other main problem with the endings is how clumsily they're done. It really does seem like BioWare just ran out of time or something. You shoot a tube, which somehow indicates to the Crucidel that it has to explode all the Relays, wiping out synthetics as it does, or you stick your hands in some electricity, which converts you into a higher level of being which can control all synthetics from somewhere in the void. And then the same cutscene with different coloured waves of light plays.

I think if each of the endings felt different and were done in a more professional manner, there would be less rage over the entire thing. As it stands, they gave us three endings (apparently, I wasn't even aware of the synthesis one; how do you do that one?) which seem to be pretty much the same in ending terms, if not in wider implication.

Also, unrelated, but for the love of god do I wish they hadn't shown Tali's face.

Captcha: "Enjoy Life". Fuck you, captcha.

 

[synobal]

The wrapping up of the characters story arcs was what you did through out the entirety of Mass effect 3, end very end of Mass effect 3 was for the wrapping up of the plot.

I would agree with you completely if this were a non interactive book or movie. But in a game that specifically allows you to make decisions to shape the story, not having the obviously desired happy ending option is a poor decision by Bioware. Regardless of their vision, they should have known that a good chunk of their fans were playing to seek the happy ending THAT LEAVES THE MASS EFFECT UNIVERSE INTACT! To have that not be the option is severely misguided. I really wish i could have sat in on their meetings about this. They did this properly with EVERY other bioware choose your own adventure type game, i dont see why they would do this.

I thought the promise to the players that 'the universe won't be in tact' when the game was over was made from the out set with the whole sale destruction of the civilizations.

The game made this promise to me and it delivered it. If it had went to anything remotely similar to the status que I would of been absurdly upset.

 

[Erttheking]

I stumbled onto a rather interesting thread regarding this subject, you can find it in the OP. There may be hope

 

[synobal]

I think if each of the endings felt different and were done in a more professional manner, there would be less rage over the entire thing. As it stands, they gave us three endings (apparently, I wasn't even aware of the synthesis one; how do you do that one?) which seem to be pretty much the same in ending terms, if not in wider implication.

Also, unrelated, but for the love of god do I wish they hadn't shown Tali's face.

Captcha: "Enjoy Life". Fuck you, captcha.

You need a military efficiency rating of like 3900 or something to get that option. Which I felt was strange and kinda arbitrary but I guess that is how they reward people for making the most of the games content.

 

[sonofliber]

*watches the cutsene*
-Beam shoots out of citadel
-Citadel blows up
-Beam hits Mass Relay
-Beam transfers to other Mass relays
-Joker in Mass Relay jump attempting to escape the beam

From this we can determine that Joker went into the Mass Relay shortly before the beam hit it as an obvious attmept to escape it.
.
.
.
Beyond that there is NO evidence that the galaxy and the other races will eer be enslaved by another race again, it isnt even remotely hinted at.

Also the new rleays MAY be based off of Reaper Tech, but the races of the galaxy don't know 100% how the Mass Relays worked, they have to fill in the missing pieces themselves, they have to make their OWN relays, using their OWN designs, and their OWN methods.

them making the relays for themselves on their own steam is what is important.

or he was running away from the fight (which is unjoker like due to what is say in the game), and let end it here you have your side i have mine, you like it im ok with that, i would just like that bioware adds a "happy" ending (which basically means relays intact. crew ok (and we get what happen to them + the decision we made) shep + love int. (and its happy if we ignore all the **** that can come later (explained a few post back)) they can consider cannon the other ones i dont care, i just want the choice of having that ending (the poor schmucks deserve it)

 

[feeqmatic]

The wrapping up of the characters story arcs was what you did through out the entirety of Mass effect 3, end very end of Mass effect 3 was for the wrapping up of the plot.

I would agree with you completely if this were a non interactive book or movie. But in a game that specifically allows you to make decisions to shape the story, not having the obviously desired happy ending option is a poor decision by Bioware. Regardless of their vision, they should have known that a good chunk of their fans were playing to seek the happy ending THAT LEAVES THE MASS EFFECT UNIVERSE INTACT! To have that not be the option is severely misguided. I really wish i could have sat in on their meetings about this. They did this properly with EVERY other bioware choose your own adventure type game, i dont see why they would do this.

I thought the promise to the players that 'the universe won't be in tact' when the game was over was made from the out set with the whole sale destruction of the civilizations.

The game made this promise to me and it delivered it.

First off the game never promised anything except for you to choose your own adventure. I dont really remember any marketing or in cannon literature that could have possibly alluded to things turning out the way that they did.

But if that was the promise the game made to you, great you got your wish. I didnt, and in a game that is supposed to be about choice, that is a big mistake. There is no reason why i should be forced to choose the ending you like most and nothing else if the game is supposed to be about choice. It severly kills the replay value knowing that no matter what you do you end up with a pretty crappy result, regardless of whether or not this was the authors design. If that was the case (as many others have said before that you apologists keep skimmng over) THEY SHOULDNT HAVE BASED THE GAME AROUND CHOICE IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!

 

[sonofliber]

I think if each of the endings felt different and were done in a more professional manner, there would be less rage over the entire thing. As it stands, they gave us three endings (apparently, I wasn't even aware of the synthesis one; how do you do that one?) which seem to be pretty much the same in ending terms, if not in wider implication.

Also, unrelated, but for the love of god do I wish they hadn't shown Tali's face.

Captcha: "Enjoy Life". Fuck you, captcha.

You need a military efficiency rating of like 3900 or something to get that option. Which I felt was strange and kinda arbitrary but I guess that is how they reward people for making the most of the games content.

3000 points (not the total mility efficiency the other one)

 

[synobal]

The wrapping up of the characters story arcs was what you did through out the entirety of Mass effect 3, end very end of Mass effect 3 was for the wrapping up of the plot.

I would agree with you completely if this were a non interactive book or movie. But in a game that specifically allows you to make decisions to shape the story, not having the obviously desired happy ending option is a poor decision by Bioware. Regardless of their vision, they should have known that a good chunk of their fans were playing to seek the happy ending THAT LEAVES THE MASS EFFECT UNIVERSE INTACT! To have that not be the option is severely misguided. I really wish i could have sat in on their meetings about this. They did this properly with EVERY other bioware choose your own adventure type game, i dont see why they would do this.

I thought the promise to the players that 'the universe won't be in tact' when the game was over was made from the out set with the whole sale destruction of the civilizations.

The game made this promise to me and it delivered it.

First off the game never promised anything except for you to choose your own adventure. I dont really remember any marketing or in cannon literature that could have possibly alluded to things turning out the way that they did.

But if that was the promise the game made to you, great you got your wish. I didnt, and in a game that is supposed to be about choice, that is a big mistake. There is no reason why i should be forced to choose the ending you like most and nothing else if the game is supposed to be about choice. It severly kills the replay value knowing that no matter what you do you end up with a pretty crappy result, regardless of whether or not this was the authors design. If that was the case (as many others have said before that you apologists keep skimmng over) THEY SHOULDNT HAVE BASED THE GAME AROUND CHOICE IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!

No the game did promise that the end of the trilogy was going to be game changing for the universe. It practically screams it, it even comes out and says it a few times.

 

[Sera]

You need a military efficiency rating of like 3900 or something to get that option. Which I felt was strange and kinda arbitrary but I guess that is how they reward people for making the most of the games content.

The whole readiness ratings and so on annoyed me, too. Seemed like a stupid decision to put it in, but whatever.

I'm on a roll now, not about the ending so much, and it has been brought up before.

I was upset that none of my choices in the previous games really made much of a difference. Not going so much into curing the genophage/peace with the Geth/saving the Rachni (the Geth peace in particular hit me very hard emotionally, which is another reason why I was so pissed off with the endings; they get fucked over in all of them, and it raises the question of why bother in the first place?), but the smaller things.

For example, when I ran into Major Kirahee on Surkesh, I thought "Oh that's neat, I'll be doing the final battle and I'm about to have a big fight with something, and then him and his STG squad will snipe it to death, and he'll cheerfully salute me and run off to do something else". You know, just something that would change the way the game happened, and if I hadn't saved Kirahee and his team on Virmire, I would have had to fight the big thing. I just expected my choices in the previous games to make more of a difference than giving me, what, 25 extra war asset points? Whoopdedoo.

I loved Mass Effect 3 so fucking much, but some of the stuff in it just makes me rub my head and despair. The fun thing about Mass Effect was that you could play it several times, and it probably wouldn't be the same experience. Knowing that no matter what I do, I am going to get the same two (three if you do a lot of side missions) endings, no matter what I do, just makes me not want to play it again. And that makes me really, really sad.

But if that was the promise the game made to you, great you got your wish. I didnt, and in a game that is supposed to be about choice, that is a big mistake. There is no reason why i should be forced to choose the ending you like most and nothing else if the game is supposed to be about choice. It severly kills the replay value knowing that no matter what you do you end up with a pretty crappy result, regardless of whether or not this was the authors design. If that was the case (as many others have said before that you apologists keep skimmng over) THEY SHOULDNT HAVE BASED THE GAME AROUND CHOICE IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!

This, essentially.

 

[synobal]

You need a military efficiency rating of like 3900 or something to get that option. Which I felt was strange and kinda arbitrary but I guess that is how they reward people for making the most of the games content.

The whole readiness ratings and so on annoyed me, too. Seemed like a stupid decision to put it in, but whatever.

I'm on a roll now, not about the ending so much, and it has been brought up before.

I was upset that none of my choices in the previous games really made much of a difference. Not going so much into curing the genophage/peace with the Geth/saving the Rachni (the Geth peace in particular hit me very hard emotionally, which is another reason why I was so pissed off with the endings; they get fucked over in all of them, and it raises the question of why bother in the first place?), but the smaller things.

For example, when I ran into Major Kirahee on Surkesh, I thought "Oh that's neat, I'll be doing the final battle and I'm about to have a big fight with something, and then him and his STG squad will snipe it to death, and he'll cheerfully salute me and run off to do something else". You know, just something that would change the way the game happened, and if I hadn't saved Kirahee and his team on Virmire, I would have had to fight the big thing. I just expected my choices in the previous games to make more of a difference than giving me, what, 25 extra war asset points? Whoopdedoo.

I loved Mass Effect 3 so fucking much, but some of the stuff in it just makes me rub my head and despair. The fun thing about Mass Effect was that you could play it several times, and it probably wouldn't be the same experience. Knowing that no matter what I do, I am going to get the same two (three if you do a lot of side missions) endings, no matter what I do, just makes me not want to play it again. And that makes me really, really sad.

Ya I think the war assets could of been more cleverly done, perhaps a big narration before the attack on earth about just what you achieved by bringing these people together but really it isn't bad. The game did a really good job with the missions they all felt really good and meaningful and impactful I teared up a few times and even shouted and cheered. If you take the time to read the updates and stuff you get some of the sense that they were trying to achieve with the game.

 

[wicket42]

I can understand people being upset, but the entire tone of Mass effect 3 was pretty much setting you up for that choice you didn't want to make. I literally sat in front of my screen for five minutes thinking and then moving towards one and then another option. In the end there were no good options and it takes balls to do that.

They absolutely were going for the feeling that at the end of all of these tough choices to make, you were presented with a choice that you did not WANT to make.

The trouble is they weren't smart enough to pull off this ending.

The Catalyst makes no logical sense whatsoever, read this post from Atraiyu Wrynn on the Bioware forums, he explains it better than I can.

He explains:

You don't even need the Quarian Geth Conflict (or EDI for that matter) to disprove the Catalyst's theory that synthetic life will always destroy organic life. He himself disproves his theory. We know that the Catalyst is a synthetic life-form. In fact, for his theory to have any validity, he would have to be the first, otherwise organic life would have already been wiped out. So we can surmise that he was created, came in conflict with his creators, and with his super intellect came to the conclusion that he needed to wipe them out.

Apparently this bothered him to some extent, because instead of outright annhilation, he preserved them in reaper form. He carries this onto all future organic life. He intentionally, does not wipe out most of the organic life in the galaxy. He, the orginal synthetic life form, does not wish to destroy organic life. Yet he manages to conclude that synthetic life will "ALWAYS" annihilate ALL organic life.


end quote.


The entire thing is a massive logical failure.

It. Makes. No. Sense.

 

[feeqmatic]

No the game did promise that the end of the trilogy was going to be game changing for the universe. It practically screams it, it even comes out and says it a few times.

Please point out some instances when it does. Did you play a paragon play through? in my play through Shep and everyone constantly stays positive and talks about how they are going to beat this and save the galaxy etc then come back to celebrate etc. They never mentioned that the galaxy was not going to be the same after it was all done except that it would be for the better not set a few centuries back. Dont get me wrong i can see how that is bravado, and recognize that this may not have been the authors vision, but if it was all about the authors vision they shouldnt have given me a choice since ME1 (there i go again mentioning a point that you will omit to address)

 

[TophatEmperor]

i am going to be quite honest...at the ending of the game (just beat it)

my Brain Actually Exploded, it feels numb and scattered... well i am afraid that i might have some Weird ass Dreams for a few nights...

 

[feeqmatic]

I can understand people being upset, but the entire tone of Mass effect 3 was pretty much setting you up for that choice you didn't want to make. I literally sat in front of my screen for five minutes thinking and then moving towards one and then another option. In the end there were no good options and it takes balls to do that.

They absolutely were going for the feeling that at the end of all of these tough choices to make, you were presented with a choice that you did not WANT to make.

The trouble is they weren't smart enough to pull off this ending.

The Catalyst makes no logical sense whatsoever, read this post from Atraiyu Wrynn on the Bioware forums, he explains it better than I can.

He explains:

You don't even need the Quarian Geth Conflict (or EDI for that matter) to disprove the Catalyst's theory that synthetic life will always destroy organic life. He himself disproves his theory. We know that the Catalyst is a synthetic life-form. In fact, for his theory to have any validity, he would have to be the first, otherwise organic life would have already been wiped out. So we can surmise that he was created, came in conflict with his creators, and with his super intellect came to the conclusion that he needed to wipe them out.

Apparently this bothered him to some extent, because instead of outright annhilation, he preserved them in reaper form. He carries this onto all future organic life. He intentionally, does not wipe out most of the organic life in the galaxy. He, the orginal synthetic life form, does not wish to destroy organic life. Yet he manages to conclude that synthetic life will "ALWAYS" annihilate ALL organic life.


end quote.


The entire thing is a massive logical failure.

It. Makes. No. Sense.

Cosign. Anyone want to explain this otherwise?

 

[synobal]

I can understand people being upset, but the entire tone of Mass effect 3 was pretty much setting you up for that choice you didn't want to make. I literally sat in front of my screen for five minutes thinking and then moving towards one and then another option. In the end there were no good options and it takes balls to do that.

They absolutely were going for the feeling that at the end of all of these tough choices to make, you were presented with a choice that you did not WANT to make.

The trouble is they weren't smart enough to pull off this ending.

The Catalyst makes no logical sense whatsoever, read this post from Atraiyu Wrynn on the Bioware forums, he explains it better than I can.

He explains:

You don't even need the Quarian Geth Conflict (or EDI for that matter) to disprove the Catalyst's theory that synthetic life will always destroy organic life. He himself disproves his theory. We know that the Catalyst is a synthetic life-form. In fact, for his theory to have any validity, he would have to be the first, otherwise organic life would have already been wiped out. So we can surmise that he was created, came in conflict with his creators, and with his super intellect came to the conclusion that he needed to wipe them out.

Apparently this bothered him to some extent, because instead of outright annhilation, he preserved them in reaper form. He carries this onto all future organic life. He intentionally, does not wipe out most of the organic life in the galaxy. He, the orginal synthetic life form, does not wish to destroy organic life. Yet he manages to conclude that synthetic life will "ALWAYS" annihilate ALL organic life.


end quote.


The entire thing is a massive logical failure.

It. Makes. No. Sense.

If villains in stories were completely logical and reasonable people they wouldn't be villains. It makes sense to the reapers, and for all we know the catalyst by any standard AI or Organic is bat shit crazy.

I'd go through explaining what I think is the "logic" behind it but I already posted it some where in this massive thread.

 

[SajuukKhar]

How do we know the Catalyst's creators didn't build what because The Reapers, who then killed off most of their race, the few remaining ones pulled a Prothean and built a "save the futures ass device" aka The Catalyst, who took control of The Reapers and used them to prevent other races from doing the same thing they did.

OR

The race who built The Catalyst/Reapers could have been a race of super advanced observers who saw the same cycle of synthetics destroying all organic life, only for them(the observers) to then remove the synthetic life, only for Organic life to grow again and repeat the same mistake?

OR

The race could be like the first ancestral race of the Neon Genesis Eva series, and have the catalytic as a super advanced fail-safe device for what they knew, using their godlike intellect, would happen as a parallel to the Lance of Longinus.

 

[sonofliber]

well i found this on the BSN:

"The Reapers' goal was to find a way to stop the spread of Dark Energy which would eventually consume everything. That's why there was so much foreshadowing about Dark Energy in ME2.

The Reapers as a whole were 'nations' of people who had fused together in the most horrific way possible to help find a way to stop the spread of the Dark Energy. The real reason for the Human Reaper was supposed to be the Reapers saving throw because they had run out of time. Humanity in Mass Effect is supposedly unique because of it's genetic diversity and represented the universe's best chance at stopping Dark Energy's spread.

The original final choice was going to be "Kill the Reapers and put your faith in the races of the galaxy in finding another way to stop the spread with what little time is left" or "Sacrifice humanity, allowing them to be horrifically processed in hopes that the end result will justify the means."

The SomethingAwful guy then goes on to say that all the foreshadowing about dark energy in ME2 (including Haestrom) is never brought up again in ME3.

 

[wicket42]

If villains in stories were completely logical and reasonable people they wouldn't be villains. It makes sense to the reapers, and for all we know the catalyst by any standard AI or Organic is bat shit crazy.

I'd go through explaining what I think is the "logic" behind it but I already posted it some where in this massive thread.

A truly good villain has a good grasp of logic. His actions make sense. The difference between a good character and an evil character is their morality. How to solve a problem in an altruistic manner versus a selfish one.

The problem is, well, the problem itself. There is no problem. No conflict here. The reasoning is invalid. Totally invalid. Shepard could have explained the faulty logic in about a minute, the catalyst would have facepalmed and went, hey you're right, I'll send the reapers into the heart of the sun!