Poll: If the Citadel DLC was the actual ending of ME3

[TheCommanders]

In my head cannon, the Citadel DLC (the stuff after the combat missions) is the end of the game. Aside from one or two little bits of dialogue it actually works pretty seamlessly. I always pick the Destroy ending (as it's the only one that even remotely makes sense). I assume (in my head cannon) that the catalyst was a last reaper trick to try and prevent you from destroying them, and that to pick either of the other options would just kill Shepard. Shepard limps, barely alive, back to the beam transport thingy and then teleports back to earth just before the citadel explodes, landing unconscious in the rubble back in London. I also assume that after the breath ending scene, Shepard's LI comes and finds him/her. After s/he recovers s/he holds the party to celebrate the victory. I explain the melancholy tone at the end as the sadness of Shepard's crew drifting apart after the war. That's an ending I'm ok with. It also means that EDI doesn't die in my head cannon. Yay.

Your version would work if you feel the need to cut out the crucible entirely, but that's hard to justify within the actual confines of the current game, which is my goal whenever I have to create head cannon.

wow, get out of my head!
That's exactly how I see the end of the game!

I will not get out of your head! Also, that number you're thinking of? Add 7, divide by 15, then multiply by 0, and you'll get 0. Uncanny, eh?

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

All I can say about it is that it always amuses me how alternate endings rely completely on completely perverting established characters and lore.

It's funny because that's exactly what the actual ending did. Among other things. And it's pretty widely known. One of the reasons Bioware released the extended cut was so they could fix things like that. Like Joker escaping, Mass Relays blowing up completely etc. But you don't have a problem with that, do you? You don't have a problem with Bioware trying to fix their mistakes. But when fans point out those mistakes you bash them and call them names. Even though the extended cut was based on the feedback from the very fans that you're bashing.
You should try to learn a thing or two about consistency.

 

[Blindrooster]

I'm glad people are talking about this. I just picked up ME3 again, played it using my same character from 1 and 2, then did this dlc right b4 the attack on illusive mans base. Once I milked the dlc for everything it's worth, I set the controller down and was satisfied. It was a great story, and disserved a heartful ending like this. It was the ending to me.

 

[gibbles545]

Really the problem isnt that the dlc would be the ending it deserved. its that the writers wrote themselves into a corner with the second game.

In the first game you discover the threat of the reapers and all sub plots are introduced which was all good. then in me2 the games plot went on a tangent, you spent the entire game dealing with a sympton of the reaper threat, the collectors, rather than finding a way to defeat the reapers. Dont get me wrong i liked ME2 but they wrote themselves into a corner and come me3 they had to resort to deus ex machinima to actually resolve the story, rather than explaining a way to defeat them in the second game.

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

Really the problem isnt that the dlc would be the ending it deserved. its that the writers wrote themselves into a corner with the second game.

In the first game you discover the threat of the reapers and all sub plots are introduced which was all good. then in me2 the games plot went on a tangent, you spent the entire game dealing with a sympton of the reaper threat, the collectors, rather than finding a way to defeat the reapers. Dont get me wrong i liked ME2 but they wrote themselves into a corner and come me3 they had to resort to deus ex machinima to actually resolve the story, rather than explaining a way to defeat them in the second game.

I don't think the existence of the Collectors as Reaper agents really pained them into a corner. Unless you're referring to the period of time that Shep is with Cerberus being what did that (?) and even that could be worked around.

I always accepted that conventional warfare was not going to win the day. Not if everyone previous had failed. Sure the Protheans via Jarvis make a big to-do about how they lacked diversity by making all follow the same mold in various states of subjugation because of their, shall we say unique, view of evolution's mandates. I find it hard to believe that every previous cycle was the same story. Numbers vs. numbers - even with coordination - once you account for strength, the Reapers are going to win. EDI isn't shy about pointing out that "pound for pound" has no relevance here.

So there has to be an element that others lacked - or couldn't activate in time - to have any hope of putting the Reaper threat down for good. Fine, alright, sure. I'm not on board with it having to have been the 'star child' thing we got. There were options there, still, that would have better served the epic story of one person (and their awesome crew of other individuals) and their effect on events that we'd been playing all this time.

What most players seem to either not realize or not want to admit is that - if the only thing we could do with the Catalyst was destroy the Reapers, that would be one less choice - one major choice too mind you - that we got to make. Sure, all the small choices might have gotten more play at the ending and sure that might have been satisfying, but the fact that we're given the choice at the 11th hour to do something other than destroy them has some merit.

Not enough to justify the first ending we got - which was abysmal and I will still rage about it to people who ask my opinion of it, because it lacked any and all sense of closure and was a further slap in the face with the "buy the DLC coming soon" note they got rid of quietly with the extended cut dlc.

Still - is it better to have had a choice to do something other than the obvious or is it not better to have had that choice because of what framed it's coming about that we had one?

OT: I haven't played this DLC yet, been in Skyrim when I should be writing my Senior Thesis (and posting here instead of doing that as well I suppose /sigh).

 

[SlipstreamFirst]

Couple points:

IGN nailed it when they said Citadel would be an Epilogue if it wasn't for "THAT ending" (their words) and if you play Citadel in sequence with the rest of the game, it's jarring. It's actually MEANT to be played after the main campaign, meaning it really is an epilogue.

I actually endorse the rumor that the ending we got was imposed by one or two egotistical glory hounds that felt they knew best, overriding the wisdom of many of the other writers. Considering all the original writers came on board for this DLC, I got the distinct impression this is their apology for the acts of their superiors.

Personally, Citadel doesn't work as the ending, but as an epilogue...but an epilogue to an ending where the Citadel and everyone on board aren't summarily murdered by the reapers after it is teleported to Earth, an ending where all the good you have done on that station is not erased by a single act of a shortsighted writer. The DLC for ME2 worked and sold well because they could be completed during or after the main game. Few people cared about ME3 DLC because it all felt hollow. Imagine if the ending had been appropriate, and Citadel was an epilogue DLC as a final curtain call. I imagine emotions would be running higher than they are now.

Just my two cents...which rounds up to nickel because I'm in Canada.

 

[Fuhrlock]

So there has to be an element that others lacked - or couldn't activate in time

ME1 actually addressed this, every other cycle had their galactic government at the citadel and the reaper advantage in every cycle was gaining control of it immediately and then using it to shut down relays and communications to isolate systems from each other so the reapers could pick them apart one at a time. As strong as the reapers are ME1 made it clear they relied on using the trap of the citadel to gaurantee their victory so I'm really not sure why they needed to invent the stupid crucible subplot when the lynchpin of the reaper stratedgy had been lost.

OT: Personally I found Citadel DLC to be one of my least favourites and while stupid and poorly written as the ME3 ending is I would still prefer it. The DLC comes across more as pandering than anything else, a chance to give people more exposure to the characters they love in humourous ways but with no real story as a backdrop. Personally as much as I liked many of the characters throughout the series, their best and most memorable parts of the games were ultimately story driven and the reason the original ending was so bad for me was not because it didn't show enough of your companions or their fates but instead didn't provide a satisfying conclusion to the overall ME plot.

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

So there has to be an element that others lacked - or couldn't activate in time

ME1 actually addressed this, every other cycle had their galactic government at the citadel and the reaper advantage in every cycle was gaining control of it immediately and then using it to shut down relays and communications to isolate systems from each other so the reapers could pick them apart one at a time. As strong as the reapers are ME1 made it clear they relied on using the trap of the citadel to gaurantee their victory so I'm really not sure why they needed to invent the stupid crucible subplot when the lynchpin of the reaper stratedgy had been lost.

OT: Personally I found Citadel DLC to be one of my least favourites and while stupid and poorly written as the ME3 ending is I would still prefer it. The DLC comes across more as pandering than anything else, a chance to give people more exposure to the characters they love in humourous ways but with no real story as a backdrop. Personally as much as I liked many of the characters throughout the series, their best and most memorable parts of the games were ultimately story driven and the reason the original ending was so bad for me was not because it didn't show enough of your companions or their fates but instead didn't provide a satisfying conclusion to the overall ME plot.

I disagree in part. I think what ME 1 established was that the Reapers had used the Citadel to make their job easier because it was a handy tool to get the surprise attack. As Zevran from Dragon Age points out - if you cripple or disable your opponent, it just makes any follow up combat that must simpler. It took them hundreds of years to wipe out the Protheans world by world even with the "crippling" blow delivered, granted, but they were so advanced they could transfer massive amounts of information and knowledge by touch alone.

I think it's a bit of a leap of logic to assume that because that's what they'd done before it's what has to happen for them to achieve success. Clearly, having to travel from Dark Space was a delay, but they were pretty well mopping the floor with most of the galaxy map only - what, no more than a few months in given the timespan of ME 3 - not to mention the fact that some governments are more critical to the running of the galaxy than others over the cycles no doubt. Having co-ordination didn't give our cycle that much of an advantage when we had to bend over backwards to get anyone to cooperate even with the threat having knocked in their front door already to get people to chip in.

I'm sure they could have managed given a few centuries to make up the lost advantage they don't seem to have really needed so much as had enjoyed in the past.

 

[Fuhrlock]

I think it's a bit of a leap of logic to assume that because that's what they'd done before it's what has to happen for them to achieve success. Clearly, having to travel from Dark Space was a delay, but they were pretty well mopping the floor with most of the galaxy map only - what, no more than a few months in given the timespan of ME3

Ok I'll agree the Citadel trap was never said to be essential just that it was always the crippling blow, the point I try to make is that personally I felt it would have been better to the plot to place more emphasis on this and as a result have the reaper invasion progress be slower and the rallying of forces more meaningful. ME3 in my opinion (outside of tuchanka) made the reapers look too strong and unstoppable when in ME1 sure sovereign was powerful, but he purposely divided the council fleet and sheilded himself with a fleet of geth before ultimately being destroyed by one human fleet. Maybe it is just my perspective but I always thought ME1 established that sure the reapers were powerful but their main threat was to suprise, seperate and sabotage (through indoctrination) of the enemy and without that in ME3 sure they should still be a threat but without those providing a gauranteed victory a slim but possible means to defeat them should exist. I guess it's needless to say the entire crucible plot I didn't like (mostly because I feel it was responsible for creating the ME3 ending) and I always thought that my approach to them was a viable way of bringing in the reapers in ME3 without making them too OP that they need to invent a crucible-like plot device.

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

I think it's a bit of a leap of logic to assume that because that's what they'd done before it's what has to happen for them to achieve success. Clearly, having to travel from Dark Space was a delay, but they were pretty well mopping the floor with most of the galaxy map only - what, no more than a few months in given the timespan of ME3

Ok I'll agree the Citadel trap was never said to be essential just that it was always the crippling blow, the point I try to make is that personally I felt it would have been better to the plot to place more emphasis on this and as a result have the reaper invasion progress be slower and the rallying of forces more meaningful. ME3 in my opinion (outside of tuchanka) made the reapers look too strong and unstoppable when in ME1 sure sovereign was powerful, but he purposely divided the council fleet and sheilded himself with a fleet of geth before ultimately being destroyed by one human fleet. Maybe it is just my perspective but I always thought ME1 established that sure the reapers were powerful but their main threat was to suprise, seperate and sabotage (through indoctrination) of the enemy and without that in ME3 sure they should still be a threat but without those providing a gauranteed victory a slim but possible means to defeat them should exist. I guess it's needless to say the entire crucible plot I didn't like (mostly because I feel it was responsible for creating the ME3 ending) and I always thought that my approach to them was a viable way of bringing in the reapers in ME3 without making them too OP that they need to invent a crucible-like plot device.

I can see and appreciate your viewpoint on this issue.

Recall though that Sovereign, though powerful and a Reaper, was one unit apart from the massive force that are The Reapers, left behind only to watch and signal the strike force when appropriate - an embedded sleeper agent of sorts. You can actually compare it to Shep in that regard - she/he is just one soldier who has vulnerability despite being powerful when he/she is alone, once the team rallies around him/her Shep's much more bad-ass, and with the whole galaxy rallied, basically invincible (survive a Reaper beam lately?)

The Reapers are supposed to be outlandishly OP - they aren't some semi-equal force, their capabilities as a whole are beyond measure at this point - how many many cycles have they built their strength compared to the paltry single cycle we have had? How many quadrillions of intelligences combine to make up their might? Whole harvested civilizations for countless cycles are going to be OP and that's the idea of the threat, that's supposed to be the scale (unwinnable, we're trying anyway). I always felt that was the over reaching theme of The Reaper Threat myself.

The Citadel and even the Star Child aren't wholly responsible for the poor quality of the ending - as plot devices they aren't honestly that terrible (they aren't the most clever and inventive either, but they aren't the shit sandwich people have perceived them to be). What really spoiled the ending was the writer's lack of appreciation for the player's emotional and intellectual investment in their agency in this story and that resulted in them failing to provide us a graceful exit from the stage with proper closure.

 

[Fuhrlock]

The Reapers are supposed to be outlandishly OP - they aren't some semi-equal force, their capabilities as a whole are beyond measure at this point - how many many cycles have they built their strength compared to the paltry single cycle we have had? How many quadrillions of intelligences combine to make up their might? Whole harvested civilizations for countless cycles are going to be OP and that's the idea of the threat, that's supposed to be the scale (unwinnable, we're trying anyway). I always felt that was the over reaching theme of The Reaper Threat myself.

By ME3 I agree reapers are definitively OP (except to a thresher which really should have been able to get through the reapers kinetic barriers, just throwing that one out there), its just that in ME1 and arguabley ME2 (the human reaper was surely being produced to replace sovereigns role) they seem so much more in favour of trying to hide their existance and act through agents until they could roll with the citadel relay insta-win. It just made me think throughout those games that the reapers clearly see organics as some form of threat why else try to keep up amonymity and subtlety if they are so OP nothing can stand against them anyway? If a cycle could never hope to challenge them what would it matter if they knew the reapers were coming or not and why try to set up a scenario designed to cripple the enemy before they can respond? As for how a cycle could rise to be more powerful than the reapers well that would be speculation but I'd probably go with the fact reapers are essentially a dead end in terms of advancing for synthetic and/or organic life.

But anyway I still think the Reapers would have been threatening even without being 'plot device to kill only' OP, mostly because it would give the forces you raise to fight them more meaning outisde of acting as reaper fodder (seriously not sure why the reapers didnt just ignore the fleets barely scratching them and open fire on the crucible) so the stop the reapers button could be pressed. I guess I just wanted the reapers to more menacing through cunning and stratedgy (I mean they can indoctrinate afterall imagine the possibilities) than pure brute force, not that they had to be on par with the galactic forces but it just didn't sit right with me how Op and numberous they suddenly appeared in ME3 only then to quickly throw you a plot device that ultimately nullifies this.

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

The Reapers are supposed to be outlandishly OP - they aren't some semi-equal force, their capabilities as a whole are beyond measure at this point - how many many cycles have they built their strength compared to the paltry single cycle we have had? How many quadrillions of intelligences combine to make up their might? Whole harvested civilizations for countless cycles are going to be OP and that's the idea of the threat, that's supposed to be the scale (unwinnable, we're trying anyway). I always felt that was the over reaching theme of The Reaper Threat myself.

By ME3 I agree reapers are definitively OP (except to a thresher which really should have been able to get through the reapers kinetic barriers, just throwing that one out there), its just that in ME1 and arguabley ME2 (the human reaper was surely being produced to replace sovereigns role) they seem so much more in favour of trying to hide their existance and act through agents until they could roll with the citadel relay insta-win. It just made me think throughout those games that the reapers clearly see organics as some form of threat why else try to keep up amonymity and subtlety if they are so OP nothing can stand against them anyway? If a cycle could never hope to challenge them what would it matter if they knew the reapers were coming or not and why try to set up a scenario designed to cripple the enemy before they can respond? As for how a cycle could rise to be more powerful than the reapers well that would be speculation but I'd probably go with the fact reapers are essentially a dead end in terms of advancing for synthetic and/or organic life.

But anyway I still think the Reapers would have been threatening even without being 'plot device to kill only' OP, mostly because it would give the forces you raise to fight them more meaning outisde of acting as reaper fodder (seriously not sure why the reapers didnt just ignore the fleets barely scratching them and open fire on the crucible) so the stop the reapers button could be pressed. I guess I just wanted the reapers to more menacing through cunning and stratedgy (I mean they can indoctrinate afterall imagine the possibilities) than pure brute force, not that they had to be on par with the galactic forces but it just didn't sit right with me how Op and numberous they suddenly appeared in ME3 only then to quickly throw you a plot device that ultimately nullifies this.

Good points. I'm inclined to agree too.

Given what we do have though - I speculate that The Reapers keep in the background throughout the cycle for a) ease of conquest later and b) to avoid influencing the civilizations on the rise. Star Child's goal seems to be the preservation of such civilizations as they've grown naturally, so I think that is a factor in why the Reapers stay out of things until the cycle peaks and is ripe for harvest. Societies would shape themselves differently in light of an eminent threat I think, or maybe decline from rising at all in some attempt to continue their existence if they knew a harvesting was the result of Mass Relay flight discovery. One of the ambient radio transmissions on the Citadel (in the Spectre room I think) talks about a recent space-flight civilization withdrawing their application to become a Citadel species in the hopes that the Reapers will pass them over, for example.

We were misled. That can be a source of discontent in itself, but it does seem appropriate that we would be misled along with the game inhabitants into thinking the Reapers.

I also speculate that the Star Child, if it really does inhabit the Citadel, may give every cycle a chance to present a different solution scenario - which might explain why they don't go straight to the Citadel and take it before the Illusive Man even tells them it's the Catalyst. Because that's what I would do if I were the Reaper controller - straight to the Citadel, wipe the government out, do what the crippling blow would have done if a bit delayed - but they don't do that.

 

[excalipoor]

You say that now, but either option mentioned in the OP would have resulted in an even bigger shitstorm. Would you really prefer A) no closure or B) total defeat to what we originally got?

My only problem with the ending is that after three games of working for the war effort, the only way to win is on the Reapers' terms. And really, the whole series we get it shoved down our throats what an amazingly spectacular human specimen Shepard is, yet at the end all s/he can do is submit. Bioware spent so much time blowing the player, and then they just called it quits before the climax. It's orgasm denial.

 

[Fuhrlock]

... might explain why they don't go straight to the Citadel and take it before the Illusive Man even tells them it's the Catalyst. Because that's what I would do if I were the Reaper controller - straight to the Citadel, wipe the government out, do what the crippling blow would have done if a bit delayed - but they don't do that.

I always assumed in ME3 the reason the reapers never went for the citadel earlier was because of how valuable it was to their usual cycle extermination plans (that probably nees some explaination so let me try). So come the start of ME3 all the races know the reapers exist and are here (probably hearing news from as early as the batarians being attacked) so at that point the council are very likely to accept everything Shep told them about the citadel being a relay, so if the reapers did arrive to seize it they run the risk that the council races attempt to sabotage and/or destroy the citadel so that they couldn't use it as they normally would (in this cycle or maybe even future cycles). In a 'normal' extinction cycle the reapers arrive, wipe out the leaders and isolate systems before anyone can work out what they are and how they arrived let alone their plans involving the citadel, so the races wouldn't have any reason to try and sabotage or destroy the citadel. But again I'm just throwing out my take on things.

As for the Reapers staying in the background, ok I cant dispute it makes for an easier conquest, it just seems like alot of effort to put in (because they arn't entirely silent/dormant throughout the cycle, eg the Rachni) for what seems like a gauranteed win anyway. As for not wanting to influence the way a society develops, the thing is they do that already by providing the mass relays and citadel just covering it as a gift from the previous cycle. As for knowledge of the reapers repressing civilisations advancement, it could be argued that the threat of eventual (as they may have 1000's of years from going space flight to the end of the cycle) is more likely to motivate a society to reaching a greater peak, since afterall everyone will want to put time and effort into scientific research if it helps stop the killer army of synthetics. My stance is that the reapers destroy all evidence of their invasions and stay covert because despite the fact they are powerful they are worried that a cycle that is prepared for their arrival would be able to simply stop them, guess the rejection ending wasted the oportunity to show if the next cycle crucibled the reapers (I don't think Liara made the probe things before the catalyst was known) or defeated them straight up.

Oh well it's too difficult to work out what Star Child wants or doesn't want from civilisations, obviously enough influence to lead them culturally and scintifically via mass relays but you can't really know beyond that. Makes me miss the vagueness of Sovereign in ME1, I think I would have been happier if they had just left the reaper motives as 'beyond organic comprehension'.

 

[Tom Waits' hat]

Put the 3 choices, indoctrinate theory aside.

Take it at face value, I actually prefer the original ending. The Mass relay got destroyed in the process. The organic races put aside their differences and defeat the Reapers, but in the end they can never go back to their home planet.

I like that sort of realistic gloomy ending. I also don't like the fact BioWare changed their ending just because fans are unhappy. But again, that's another discussion.

As much I want to play those ME3 DLCs, I can't do it. For me at least, the ME3 story is over, I just don't see myself replaying everything from start just to play the DLCs. It would be more of an easy sale if they leave ME3 story open.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

One of the reasons Bioware released the extended cut was so they could fix things like that. Like Joker escaping, Mass Relays blowing up completely etc. But you don't have a problem with that, do you?

And if you really believe that someone trying to flee from the shockwave of the Crucible (especially when Joker doesn't get away in time) and the idea of the Crucible not having the exact same effect as smashing an asteroid into a mass relay are lore inconsistencies, then you're just trying to delude yourself.

I never said that. I mentioned those two examples for different reasons.
Joker escaping was out of character for him, and mass relays exploding meant that all the fleets were basically stranded in Sol system and some of them can't eat the same food as us. Those aren't just plot holes, that's the finest example of godawful writing.
And considering the rest of the game, it is pretty fuckin' obvious that the rest of the writing staff didn't participate in the ending. It's pretty common knowledge that Deus Ex is one the favorite game of Casey Hudson. And then there's Patrick Weekes' post on Penny Arcade explaining who wrote the ending and how. It came from his account! And no, his account wasn't hacked. They didn't even try to officially confirm that it was. An actual writer slammed the ending, and you think you can defend it?

Let's give that post another look, shall we?

Spoiler

I have nothing to do with the ending beyond a) having argued successfully a long time ago that we needed a chance to say goodbye to our squad, b) having argued successfully that Cortez shouldn?t automatically die in that shuttle crash, and c) having written Tali?s goodbye bit, as well as a couple of the holo-goodbyes for people I wrote (Mordin, Kasumi, Jack, etc).

No other writer did, either, except for our lead. This was entirely the work of our lead and Casey himself, sitting in a room and going through draft after draft.

And honestly, it kind of shows.

Every other mission in the game had to be held up to the rest of the writing team, and the writing team then picked it apart and made suggestions and pointed out the parts that made no sense. This mission? Casey and our lead deciding that they didn?t need to be peer-reviewe.d

And again, it shows.

If you?d asked me the themes of Mass Effect 3, I?d break them down as:

Galactic Alliances

Friends

Organics versus Synthetics

In my personal opinion, the first two got a perfunctory nod. We did get a goodbye to our friends, but it was in a scene that was divorced from the gameplay ? a deliberate ?nothing happens here? area with one turret thrown in for no reason I really understand, except possibly to obfuscate the ?nothing happens here?-ness. The best missions in our game are the ones in which the gameplay and the narrative reinforce each other. The end of the Genophage campaign exemplifies that for me ? every line of dialog is showing you both sides of the krogan, be they horrible brutes or proud warriors; the art shows both their bombed-out wasteland and the beautiful world they once had and could have again; the combat shows the terror of the Reapers as well as a blatant reminder of the rachni, which threatened the galaxy and had to be stopped by the krogan last time. Every line of code in that mission is on target with the overall message.

The endgame doesn?t have that. I wanted to see banshees attacking you, and then have asari gunships zoom in and blow them away. I wanted to see a wave of rachni ravagers come around a corner only to be met by a wall of krogan roaring a battle cry. Here?s the horror the Reapers inflicted upon each race, and here?s the army that you, Commander Shepard, made out of every race in the galaxy to fight them.

I personally thought that the Illusive Man conversation was about twice as long as it needed to be ? something that I?ve been told in my peer reviews of my missions and made edits on, but again, this is a conversation no writer but the lead ever saw until it was already recorded. I did love Anderson?s goodbye.

For me, Anderson?s goodbye is where it ended. The stuff with the Catalyst just? You have to understand. Casey is really smart and really analytical. And the problem is that when he?s not checked, he will assume that other people are like him, and will really appreciate an almost completely unemotional intellectual ending. I didn?t hate it, but I didn?t love it.

And then, just to be a dick? what was SUPPOSED to happen was that, say you picked ?Destroy the Reapers?. When you did that, the system was SUPPOSED to look at your score, and then you?d show a cutscene of Earth that was either:

a) Very high score: Earth obviously damaged, but woo victory

b) Medium score: Earth takes a bunch of damage from the Crucible activation. Like dropping a bomb on an already war-ravaged city. Uh, well, maybe not LIKE that as much as, uh, THAT.

c) Low score: Earth is a cinderblock, all life on it completely wiped out

I have NO IDEA why these different cutscenes aren?t in there. As far as I know, they were never cut. Maybe they were cut for budget reasons at the last minute. I don?t know. But holy crap, yeah, I can see how incredibly disappointing it?d be to hear of all the different ending possibilities and have it break down to ?which color is stuff glowing?? Or maybe they ARE in, but they?re too subtle to really see obvious differences, and again, that?s? yeah.

Okay, that?s a lot to have written for something that?s gonna go away in an hour.

I still teared up at the ending myself, but really, I was tearing up for the quick flashbacks to old friends and the death of Anderson. I wasn?t tearing up over making a choice that, as it turned out, didn?t have enough cutscene differentiation on it.

And to be clear, I don?t even really wish Shepard had gotten a ride-off-into-sunset ending. I was honestly okay with Shepard sacrificing himself. I just expected it to be for something with more obvious differentiation, and a stronger tie to the core themes ? all three of them.

 

[Olas]

A better ending? I don't know, perhaps. I'm one of those weird guys who doesn't actually hate the original ending, and I feel the ending to Mass Effect needs to be something big, epic, and world shifting which doesn't sound like Citadel from how it's been described. But I guess if latching onto this makes fans feel better and gives them more closure maybe it would be better. However, I bet fans would throw a hissy over this one as well if it really was the games original ending. Let's face it any ending where you don't stick it to Harbinger personally is a little lame.

My Shepard died trying to shag Morinth at the end of ME2, whatever endings the rest of you try to come up with to justify something I refuse to acknowledge exists is all gravy.

So I guess that means the reapers win? Since Shepherd dying at the end of ME2 is a valid ending to the game I've always wondered what would have happened in ME3 without him. They should have at least had a cutscene or something for that scenario.