Mass Effect 3 Gets An Ending

[For.I.Am.Mad]

Chrono Trigger had multiple wildly different endings and nobody complained.

 

[xEightBitPlayerx]

I understand that people are upset but this isn't the end of the mass effect series, Hudson said to hang on to our save files. That's why there is only the finite ending for Sheppard and even then I believe that there is an ending that he/she lives? For PC gamers I'm sure there will be a MMO with ME, and for console gamers I'm sure that even a new series will take our save files into account. Maybe there will be a new series about the Krogan wars? There is a million different ways this could go with current/new squadmates. Sure, create some fill for the plot holes at the end but there is downloadable content and new games on the way. You'd be mad to think the series is over, even with this ending mess.

 

[JediMB]

The thing is, here, that the indoctrination theory is just speculation. And if it's true, it instead leaves us with a non-ending where the battle for the Earth and the Citadel isn't over yet. Which leaves us with an incomplete game.

I'd kinda disagree with that - if you see the game as being Shepard's story, then ending when it does makes sense because

Spoiler

that's where Shepard 'dies' unless you get the one ending that has him live. His story ends with him.

Even then the game is stuck in a state of non-ending because there is no actual epilogue.

Not to mention that it's utter madness to end a space opera on that note.

 

[Estelindis]

The ending of ME3 is broken. Fixing something that is broken is generally regarded as desirable. I don't think it would be an artistic mistake for Bioware to make improvements to their ending. I wouldn't have been able to conceive of having that opinion before I finished ME3, but now that I have I find I can't have any other opinion.

There are many reasons why I feel that ME's ending is broken. Here are some, though by no means all.

1) The ending introduces a new central antagonist in the last ten minutes instead of sticking with, for instance, an already-known antagonist like Harbinger concerning whom the player already has significant feelings. The final antagonist comes from out of the blue and, in some ways, usurps Shepard's role as protagonist, since the final outcome of the ending ultimately depends on the choices it decides to give Shepard.
2) The ending does not allow Shepard to challenge the assertions of this new antagonist, even though a) Shepard has no reason to trust the antagonist, b) Shepard has always been able to challenge these kinds of assertions until now, and c) the stories of many missions and characters up to this point showed the assertions to be false.
3) The one previous instance of the destruction of a mass relay of which we know destroyed the whole solar system in which it resided, yet Shepard has no choice but to destroy all mass relays, inflicting untold destruction on the galaxy. Shepard cannot even point this out, even though we know that (s)he is well aware of it because the franchise dedicated more dialogue to the one previous instance of relay destruction than the last antagonist has in total, over all subjects, and the circumstances in which Shepard began the game came as a direct result of that destruction.
4) The type of "energy" released by the choice Shepard makes, in spite of having three different effects on the Reapers, synthetics, and the galaxy at large, has exactly the same effect on the Normandy.
5) The Normandy being able to pick up characters who were part of Shepard's team on Earth makes no sense. The Normandy even wishing to do so makes no sense; these characters have a mission on Earth, while the Normandy has its own role to play in the battle.

I think I'll leave it there for now and edit the post if I wish to add more.

Just to conclude for the time being, this video [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MlatxLP-xs] does a great job of explaining some of the problems with the ending.

 

[Ganath]

I do believe I got the best ending in the game. So..No..everyone didn't die for me. Not even my Shepard, apparently. Well. Eitherway. I enjoyed it. The ending was alright. The game itself is amazing. I still hope they won't yield and change the ending. Though I have to admit, extra closure wouldn't be so bad.

 

[Rylian]

It is not without precedent. The earliest form of storytelling, telling a story orally, were varied with each retelling and popular changes would stick and less popular plot elements fell by the wayside. Even operas would commonly be modified by composers throughout their life, and surely some of those changes had to be in response to feedback from others. Purists should back off and let the process unfold as it does.

I'm. Just saying, a good story is not an artist unleashing his or her creative freedom in a vacuum, but a reverie between audience and storyteller

Detractors don't have a problem with changing parts of the story per se. They have problems with changing them to appease fans. There is an important difference. Usually, when someone tries to change a story specifically to make the audience happier, it completely ruins the story.

Also, I think a lot of people are assuming detractors are against the idea of expanding on the ending. Changing an ending has very specific implications and sometimes I doubt the people using the word so easily understand those implications.

Fine then. Imagine for a moment that you're Dr. Muzyak of Bioware facing this. Massive backlash, etc. What matters more: appeasing your customers by salvaging your studio's reputation and potential future sales or appeasing the egos of some employees by standing up for "artistic integrity"?

When you're making a painting or a sculpture or some other unique piece of art, integrity matters, to a degree.

When you're creating something for consumption by the masses, artistic integrity is bullshit. It doesn't exist because the whole point is to appease your customers and sell them something they'll be happy with.

In the video game industry (less so with indie titles) the business side beats the art side. It beats it every single time. Making money is more important than some ivory-tower ideal.

 

[Murmillos]

3) The one previous instance of the destruction of a mass relay of which we know destroyed the whole solar system in which is resided, yet Shepard has no choice but to destroy all mass relays, inflicting untold destruction on the galaxy. Shepard cannot even make this objection, in spite of the fact that the franchise dedicated more dialogue to the one previous instance of relay destruction than the last antagonist has in total, over all subjects, and the circumstances in which Shepard began the game came as a direct result of that destruction.
4) The type of "energy" released by the choice Shepard makes, in spite of having three different effects on the Reapers, synthetics, and the galaxy at large, has exactly the same effect on the Normandy.

If taken at face value of being "real" and not of some dream;

3) We know of the "Arrival" level of destruction when a large planetary body is slammed into a Mass Relay. We do not know the level of destruction that occurs when a Mass Relay essentially self destructs after discharging a massive amount of energy off towards the next Mass Relay. In every case, it seems to be two very different destructions.

4) The damage caused by the Normandy is due to the zero mass effect space tunnel collapsing, destroying the engines once that barrier threshold was reached (being prematurely pulled back into real space). Since in all 3 colors have the same effect on the Mass Relays (and any currently active space tunnels), all three would have the same effect to the Normandy.

The rest of your points, valid.

 

[Estelindis]

If taken at face value of being "real" and not of some dream;

3) We know of the "Arrival" level of destruction when a large planetary body is slammed into a Mass Relay. We do not know the level of destruction that occurs when a Mass Relay essentially self destructs after discharging a massive amount of energy off towards the next Mass Relay. In every case, it seems to be two very different destructions.

4) The damage caused by the Normandy is due to the zero mass effect space tunnel collapsing, destroying the engines once that barrier threshold was reached (being prematurely pulled back into real space). Since in all 3 colors have the same effect on the Mass Relays (and any currently active space tunnels), all three would have the same effect to the Normandy.

The rest of your points, valid.

These are good counterpoints. Thank you.

I'm still not sure why all three types of energy would have the same effect on the mass relays, though. Is it a function of the energy needed to carry out these various tasks all being drawn from the mass relays, do you think?

 

[sifffffff]

et tu Yahtzee?

 

[Atmos Duality]

Chrono Trigger had multiple wildly different endings and nobody complained.

I know. So I really don't understand why Mass Effect fans are angry with the endings we already have.

It might have to do with how all the endings were based on the consequences of your actions.
Sure, the timing was a gimmick, but that's part of the decision and in fact THE core principle of the game: Mucking with continuity to try and get the "future" you want.

Hell, the Reptites Rule ending was used as the basis for half the plot in Chrono Cross.

 

[Murmillos]

These are good counterpoints. Thank you.

I'm still not sure why all three types of energy would have the same effect on the mass relays, though. Is it a function of the energy needed to carry out these various tasks all being drawn from the mass relays, do you think?

It's possible to believe that the power required to charge the color coded "pulses" require all of the energy in a Mass Relay, thus the reason it is destroyed in the process.

 

[Estelindis]

It's possible to believe that the power required to charge the color coded "pulses" require all of the energy in a Mass Relay, thus the reason it is destroyed in the process.

I suppose it's possible, but I don't see why it would require the same amount of energy to affect all reapers in the galaxy as it would to affect all organic and synthetic life in the galaxy.

 

[sabercrusader]

While I appreciate the fact he didn't do anything like Moviebob did. I can still respectfully disagree with Yahtzee here. I don't think he really got the main reasoning behind it all that well, even if he got part of it with the closure stuff.

 

[Nicolairigel]

I completely agree with yatzhee about the theme of the story, He pretty much nailed the motivation of the reapers and idea of entropy, I was actually surprised how much credit he gave the game. But I don't think he understands why gamers are upset, I think really everyone is pissed and rightly so is that Bioware failed to give everyone the non-a-b-c-d ending they were promised, and as someone already said, gamers feel disrespected, In additon to there not being much variation in the endings and a lack of closure.

I personally have no problem with the ending, but then again I didn't read any of the bioware hype on the ending, so I wasn't particularity disappointed. I did really like the theme of the reapers pushing entropy, like yatzhee said, as It did give a form of reason to the reapers. I actually think this goes well with the indoctrination theory, the reapers are showing shepard their reasoning, and if shepard was indoctrinated then he gave in with the blue and green ending. But this is all my opinion.

 

[Nicolairigel]

I do believe I got the best ending in the game. So..No..everyone didn't die for me. Not even my Shepard, apparently. Well. Eitherway. I enjoyed it. The ending was alright. The game itself is amazing. I still hope they won't yield and change the ending. Though I have to admit, extra closure wouldn't be so bad.

Yep, pretty much my thoughts exactly.

 

[GartarkMusik]

"Curing the Krogan Genophage implies that the Krogan Rebellions would start again"

No, they wouldn't because Wrex and Eve survived on my playthrough and they were determined to guide the krogan along a different path. Similarly, the geth and quarians started to get along and help each other, undermining the point that synthetics will inevitably fight organics.

But I guess paying attention to differences between playthroughs would require you to spend more than half a week thinking about it. And that requires way more effort than I've come to expect from you.

But would Wrex be able to stop them? What if a majority of the krogan want revenge for the Genophage? Wrex may be a respected leader, but he's just one krogan. If they all want blood, he may not be able to stop it happening. And let's not even get started if Wrex didn't survive and Wreav took over.........

Well, I'm pretty sure you haven't played Mass Effect 3 yet. But the game goes out of its way to make it clear that Wrex and Eve (the krogan female whose tissue was used to cure the genophage) cause a cultural paradigm shift in the krogan. Furthermore, they pretty much explain that the unintended consequence of the genophage was 1400 years of nihilism and hopelessness for the Krogan. An end to the genophage means that krogan have a tomorrow to fight for and will actually focus on rebuilding their culture again rather than fighting as hired muscle.

I could never bring myself to pull the trigger on Wrex, but from what I've read, Wreav's violent tendencies are kept in check by Eve's influence. But if Eve and Wrex are dead, then you're right. There would be no culture shift and then history would repeat itself.

But that's the problem with the ending and why everyone hates it. All of that diversity of choice is completely meaningless. The game couldn't be bothered to tell you what happens on Tunchanka after the Reaper invasion. Or anywhere else. So long as you get your 2800 Effective Military Strength in whatever way you deem fit, you have your three endings carved in stone.

Uh, I'm actually on my third playthrough of ME3, and Eve herself even said that Wrex is only one krogan, and that if the majority wants blood, he may or may not be able to stop it. I'm not saying that Wrex wouldn't bring peace to the krogan, (disregard the ending for a sec) but there would still be some krogan that need to be convinced that peace is the best option, or eliminated.

 

[Shiro No Uma]

Am I the only person who finished it without "everyone dying"?

I mean, yeah a lot of people died; nameless people of all species if that's what you mean. But it seems like for everyone, all of their teammates died as well, when all of mine lived.

I thought the same thing. I wasn't even sure that the Mass Relays were all done for. Maybe we played the game so well we got the ending! You know what's strange is this point of contention that really confuses me. I thought that the big issue many people, including Yahtzee, point out is that all the endings are essentially the same. You just get variations of the same ending. How is that an A, B, C ending and not variation of just A, thus not getting a B or C. Choices in the game always mostly seemed limited to choosing up to three responses and would result to the same outcome - the continuation of the story. The only thing that might change is how different factions help or feel about you in latter missions and possibly what resources are available to you.