Poll: Your thoughts about the ME 3 ending extension.

[RJ 17]

Really it's hard to say what would happened, as it is Shepard's essence and will that becomes the will of the Reapers. As such, the very nature of the Reapers would change (assuming everything is on the up-and-up and Shepard does indeed gain full control over the Reapers). It would no longer be in their most basic nature to carry on the genocide and harvesting, their most basic nature would become whatever Shepard wants it to be. It's not like the Reapers would forever be saying "We'll do what you want...but we REALLY just wanna go back to harvesting..." and finally Shepard eventually breaks down and lets them get back to business. The question is can someone's will - existing without even their "mind" - be changed without outside influence.

But this conversation is going wwwwwaaaaaaayyyyyy into the realm of post-game speculation that none of us can say for certain what would happen.

Well who knows what a bunch of godlike, immortal, organic-synthetic hybrids start to think about when left to their own devices on the edge of the universe. Nothing good, I bet. They came up with that idiotic cycle idea the first time around. All I'm saying is that 'Shepard's Will" will cease to have any relevance or meaning in fairly short order.

As to speculation, when you design your ending to provoke "LOTS OF SPECULATION" you're fashioning the rod for your own back. At least this is more entertaining speculation than "What the fuck were they thinking" or "Was Casey Hudson on cocaine?".

Cocaine's a hell of a drug...*insert goofy Rick James chuckle*

I do agree, though, that speculating about this type of stuff is fun and does provide more entertainment than the actual ending. I'm just saying that I'm in the Literal Interpretation camp and as such proceed under the assumption that all the endings work as they are described. Even so, I still pick Red, because like I said: you must stay the course and fly true as an arrow. Your two superior officers, Hackett and Anderson, keep saying "YES THEY DESERVE TO DIE! AND I HOPE THEY BURN IN HELL!!!" so who am I to argue? To put it in Halo terms, it's time to finish the fight. Show no mercy, for you shall be given none. Kill those rat-bastard Reapers and be done with it forever.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I'm just saying that I'm in the Literal Interpretation camp and as such proceed under the assumption that all the endings work as they are described.

In which case Red is a godawful ending, and you're just dooming everyone to eventually die via synthetic singularity. Unless some helpful Reapers see it coming and kill you all first to head it off.

 

[RJ 17]

I'm just saying that I'm in the Literal Interpretation camp and as such proceed under the assumption that all the endings work as they are described.

In which case Red is a godawful ending, and you're just dooming everyone to eventually die via synthetic singularity. Unless some helpful Reapers see it coming and kill you all first to head it off.

I know, and I think it's supposed to be designed that way. I've never gone to the Crucible with less than 4500 EMS, but from what I've heard, if you're grossly unprepared for the final battle (very low EMS), the only ending option available to you is Red. If you have a moderate EMS, then Blue becomes available. And finally if you have a respectable EMS then you get access to the Green ending.

Still, fuck dem Reapers. Sorry Geth, you're gonna have to take one for the team on this one, but them sons'a'bitches gotta go!

 

[rigabear]

I guess this is where the faith in Bioware comes in.

One possible outcome:
Red beam/High Effective Military Strength: The Reapers used up a lot of energy trying (and failing) to take over Shepard, and lose the battle of Earth. Shepard is then picked up, becomes even more of a Messiah; the massive moral boost, increased understanding and Reaper disarray leads the Reapers to be stormed out of the galaxy.
Red/Low EMS: Reapers use a lot of energy, but still win the Battle of Earth. Shepard is picked up by stealthy reconnaissance teams and leads a guerilla war against the weakened Reapers. Reapers have the upper hand but all is not lost yet.
Green/High EMS: Reapers use energy (but less), lost battle of Earth. Shepard is resurrected by the victorious forces. During Shepard's victory address to all forces, the Reapers show their hand and reveal him to be indoctrinated, and he proclaims organics doomed. He then kills himself, Saren style (some fight was left in him). The demoralised organics continue the fight versus somewhat weakened Reapers. Upper hand to reapers, but all not lost for a little while.
Green/Low EMS: Reapers win the battle of Earth, recover Shepard (now their asset) - he gives doom speech to all the organics, but kills himself as before. Reapers eventually win out, thanks to weak and demoralised organic forces.
Blue/High EMS: Reapers lose battle of Earth, but during the victory address Shepard goes totally rogue, escapes and then leads the Reapers to crush the organics.
Blue/Low EMS: Reapers recover Shepard, use him as a general, fighter and demoralising icon to utterly crush all organics.
Crucible turns out to be Reaper propaganda for the purposes of drawing enemies into a pitched battle, and in this case, converting Shepard - the true superweapon (...) which may ultimately prove too much for them to handle. This allows scope for scenes of your rainbow coalition to be seen fighting the Reapers (if appropriate) and what happens to your crew afterwards. Only in the Red Scenarios is there any possibility of the player retaining control of Shepard.

Whoops, got a bit carried away. Basically in answer to you question - that's where my faith comes in. I reckon the IT ending is more salvageable/plausible than what currently exists.

The problem with all those scenarios (other than Star Gazer still being right there flipping you the bird no matter what ending you pick) is that it then implies that the series and Shepard's story ends (as Bioware has emphatically stated that Shepard's story is done) before the war itself ends. If you ask me, that's an even more rage-inducing proposition than the ending as it is. Everything you've said - while it would work - are all things that would happen AFTER the ending to the game. You're making up your own story to serve as an epilogue for the series, and there is absolutely NOTHING in the game that supports such speculation. It can't be proven wrong, but it most specifically cannot be considered correct.

Oh I'm just making crap up as I go along, because yeah, other than the idea that it was all a hallucination, that's all that is possible to do. That or accept that the ending is to be taken literally, which I flat out refuse. It's just too poorly done, and the hints to suggest otherwise too deliberate.
Just curious, why does the idea that Shepard's story ends before the war (the ultimate conclusion of which would be decided as Shepard's story ends) induce rage?

Heh, two(/three) ways of I'd approach the star gazer - a) hallucination - a manifestation of Shepard's hope (i.e. the player's hope - you are hallucinating too) b) They win out in the end and it is legit. OR (even more far-fetched) c) these are the final moments of a man and his son (or grandson) as a Reaper, perhaps even now century old Shepard himself descends on this last remnants of man. The 'going to the stars' refers to the new state of conciousness one experiences as part of the Reaper. Might even be a heaven of sorts.

Ok, I'm going to stop - this is bordering (actually it stopped 'bordering some time ago) on fan fiction.

 

[Tuesday Night Fever]

I voted that at this point I really don't care anymore.

I was pretty unhappy with the ending, but honestly, I had fun with the game as a whole. I've since moved on to other games. I'll always remember Mass Effect as a freaking amazing game trilogy with a disappointing conclusion, regardless of what the DLC contains.

I'd like to be optimistic and hope that the DLC makes things right, but realistically I just don't see that happening. It was such a big deal, and we've had so much time to stew over it, that honestly... whatever the DLC ends up being, I can almost guarantee that it won't meet the ludicrously high expectations that people have of it.

I hope I'm wrong, though.

 

[Mikeyfell]

Another Mass Effect 3 ending thread?
It's motherfucking shot time!

Let's just assume for a second that the Extended Cut DLC is the magical cure all for the ending to the game. (Which to the best of my knowledge means Indoctrination Theory) That might not be the case but let's just pretend that it magically fixed everything that happens after Shepard's hit by Harbinger's lazer.

Mass Effect 3 still would not be a good game.

The problems with ME 3 are so deeply rooted in the core of mechanics and storytelling that fixing any one part doesn't change anything.

The problem with Mass Effect 3 is that it's not a role playing game any more. apart from two decisions (How you handle the Genophage, and how you handle the Quarian/Geth war) Nothing you do or ever did has any effect on the game.

Shepard's personality is hardly even up to you anymore. 90% of your dialog choices come down to whether you want to continue the conversation in a happy or angry way. Renegade Shepard isn't even an Asshole any more because Shep treats anyone who survived the suicide mission like his/her BFF (Except Miranda, but honestly did anyone actually let that ***** survive ME 2)


So fix the ending, fix all the little nit picky things that people complain about. Fix Tali's face, fix Diana Allers, fix the quest tracking, fix the controls, fix the Galactic Readiness bullshit, it still won't make the game any good. Because it wasn't Mass Effect 3, it was Corporate Meddling 3: How to Screw a Fanbase.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

I don't think the ending will actually fix anything. As long as the space kid is real in ME3 the game will suck, because it kills the entire plot of Mass Effect 1.

I've heard this argument before, that the ending to ME 3 completely negates ME 1's story and I jjust don't buy it. I didn't like Space Timmy any more than anyone else, but he hardly ruined the entire series. Honestly, please explain to me how/why the little punk is so detrimental that he fucks up the first game of the series.

Because why doesn't he simply activate the Citadel himself?

Because he changes the point of the game from:

"Unite everyone and stop the Reapers, regardless of the cost"

To:

"Resolve the metaphysical conflict between organics and synthetics and the fact that synthetics will probably destroy everything".

Not only that, but there is absolutely no way for the space kid to KNOW that synthetics will always rebel against their creators. He doesn't even have a logical argument to assume that something like that will always happen. Or that it would ever happen. Someone had to create the space kid. It was either a synthetic race or an organic race.

But wait? Why would a synthetic race create an entity that would keep synthetics from destroying organics? Wouldn't that mean that the synthetic race that created the space kid and the Reapers doesn't want organics destroyed? If that's the case then the assumption that synthetics will always want to destroy all organics is a false one.

If an organic race created the space kid that doesn't make any sense either. Why would an organic race create a synthetic race of Reapers to harvest all organic life every 50,000 years? Why not simply destroy the synthetic race that threatens all organics? It would be a lot easier and it would make a lot more sense. Or why not make the Reapers come every 50,000 years and wipe out all synthetics instead of all organics. If Reapers want to save organics from synthetics why not just kill the synthetics?

I'll tell you why. Because the entire ending was made in less than 5 minutes. The original and awesome dark energy plot was scrapped to make room for this nonsense. The dark energy plot would also explain why the first race decided to harvest itself into the Reaper form. But when you scrap that plot you have to ask yourself how in the hell was the first Reaper created and why?

Did organics create the space kid and then the space kid decided on his own that the best course of action is to create Reapers and harvest it's creators to save them from synthetics? In that case the space kid is retarded because he is the actual cause of synthetics vs. organics argument. Which is even more ridiculous.

The more you think about the ending the more you realize how stupid it is. What I'm about to say is a fact: people who liked the ending are idiots without the ability to think logically. There is no rational justification for the ending. It simply doesn't make any logical sense however you look at it. So, as I said in an earlier post, as long as the space kid is real and not just some hallucination, the game will suck.

 

[RJ 17]

Oh I'm just making crap up as I go along, because yeah, other than the idea that it was all a hallucination, that's all that is possible to do. That or accept that the ending is to be taken literally, which I flat out refuse. It's just too poorly done, and the hints to suggest otherwise too deliberate.
Just curious, why does the idea that Shepard's story ends before the war (the ultimate conclusion of which would be decided as Shepard's story ends) induce rage?

Heh, two(/three) ways of I'd approach the star gazer - a) hallucination - a manifestation of Shepard's hope (i.e. the player's hope - you are hallucinating too) b) They win out in the end and it is legit. OR (even more far-fetched) c) these are the final moments of a man and his son (or grandson) as a Reaper, perhaps even now century old Shepard himself descends on this last remnants of man. The 'going to the stars' refers to the new state of conciousness one experiences as part of the Reaper. Might even be a heaven of sorts.

Ok, I'm going to stop - this is bordering (actually it stopped 'bordering some time ago) on fan fiction.

And see I'm in the camp that believes the only way for anything to make sense is with a literal interpretation, despite all the atrocious plot holes. The IT does a great job at explaining everything BUT the ending, at which point nothing it says about the ending actually fits with what we see. But I fully admit that the literal interpretation explains even less than the IT does about the ending...and yet it's the only way the ending can make sense.

Case in point: why would Shepard's story being over before the war is over be rage inducing? Well think about it. Assume that the IT theory is true, and that the game perfectly reflected this. There's no holes, no missing evidence, no questions. The IT is the truth. Wouldn't you be pretty pissed off if, after all the adventures you had in these 3 games, you find out "Yeah, Shepard lost. He/She failed to stop the Reapers no matter what you do. It's someone else's problem now. The end." I know I'd be pretty damned pissed off, because such an ending would do even more to negate everything you've done in the past 3 games than the current ending does.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Case in point: why would Shepard's story being over before the war is over be rage inducing? Well think about it. Assume that the IT theory is true, and that the game perfectly reflected this. There's no holes, no missing evidence, no questions. The IT is the truth. Wouldn't you be pretty pissed off if, after all the adventures you had in these 3 games, you find out "Yeah, Shepard lost. He/She failed to stop the Reapers no matter what you do. It's someone else's problem now. The end." I know I'd be pretty damned pissed off, because such an ending would do even more to negate everything you've done in the past 3 games than the current ending does.

Indoc theory allows for the possibility that the ending never really happened, but also allows for the possibility that Shepard can still snap out of it/be snapped out of it and continue the fight. It creates a Tabula Rasa scenario for the ending, and frees you from the constraints of ghost child and the technological singularity. Mass Effect gets all its myriad themes and possible outcomes back.

It's not hard to see why some people cling to it.

 

[Scabadus]

While I'm certainly looking foreward to the DLC, it's less like looking forward to epic storytelling and more like looking forward to a fireworks display put on by Tenpenny and the Toxin General from C&C Zero Hour. As long as you have the forsight to put on a gas mask and stand weeeell back (in this metaphor, meaning "not getting your hopes up") the result is going to be spectacular.

Seriously though, it will be interesting to see what Bioware do with an almost 4 month (ish?) time limit. They say they're only adding what is essentially a final video sequence, but with things like the indoctrination theory just sitting there to be taken, if it wasn't planned all along, combined with points such as the star kid saying that synthetics and organics can never get along, which many Shepards could have disproven by pointing upwards, leaving the other hand free to continue giving the little bastard the finger, means that Bioware would have to be fairly uniquely stupid to only add an epilogue and not alter the ending even a bit.

But then again they actually released the current confused mess instead of firing the writer and keeping a copy for the "how to not make vdeogames" guide, so I guess all bets are off.

 

[Whitewillow]

A friend of mine told me to play up to the final battle and make it up from there myself. That works for me.

 

[RJ 17]

Case in point: why would Shepard's story being over before the war is over be rage inducing? Well think about it. Assume that the IT theory is true, and that the game perfectly reflected this. There's no holes, no missing evidence, no questions. The IT is the truth. Wouldn't you be pretty pissed off if, after all the adventures you had in these 3 games, you find out "Yeah, Shepard lost. He/She failed to stop the Reapers no matter what you do. It's someone else's problem now. The end." I know I'd be pretty damned pissed off, because such an ending would do even more to negate everything you've done in the past 3 games than the current ending does.

Indoc theory allows for the possibility that the ending never really happened, but also allows for the possibility that Shepard can still snap out of it/be snapped out of it and continue the fight. It creates a Tabula Rasa scenario for the ending, and frees you from the constraints of ghost child and the technological singularity. Mass Effect gets all its myriad themes and possible outcomes back.

It's not hard to see why some people cling to it.

Oh I can see why people cling to it. It certainly does do well to trace the entire premise from the first game till the bitter end. It manages to fill in and answer most of the plot holes left by the literal interpretation. However the problem still remains that no matter how you slice it, even best-case-scenario, the game, series, and Shepard's story all end before the war with the Reapers ends. So assuming that everything in the Citadel is a hallucination and Marauder Shields is really Shepard's disgruntled imaginary friend...that still doesn't change the fact that if you fail the test (pick blue or green) you end up Indoctrinated and fail the entire series. If you pass the test (pick Red), then you wake up and are critically injured after getting blasted by Harbinger. You're still in the middle of a battle where your allied forces are being absolutely decimated. There's no "Well the good guys could recover Shepard after he/she breaks free of Indoctrination, patch him/her up, and go on to win." The Reapers were winning the ground battle, the allied forces were getting absolutely decimated. This is what they were talking about when countless leaders told you "We'll never defeat the Reapers in a head-on battle."

The only way I can see the IT actually is if Bioware was taking an EXTREMELY risky gamble in having an ending in which the good guy most specifically DOESN'T come out on top. Just a big "Shepard dies. Fuck you. The End."

And as I've stated a couple times, the biggest thing that disproves the IT is the presence of Star Gazer no matter which ending you pick.

 

[Zac Smith]

I had no problem with the ending, I just accepted it as it was. It's like if I watch the film and I don't like the ending, but enjoyed the 99%, doesn't mean the whole film was a waste of my time. Yes It wasn't perfect, but I've yet to play a game with what I would consider a perfect story arc

 

[rigabear]

Oh I can see why people cling to it. It certainly does do well to trace the entire premise from the first game till the bitter end. It manages to fill in and answer most of the plot holes left by the literal interpretation. However the problem still remains that no matter how you slice it, even best-case-scenario, the game, series, and Shepard's story all end before the war with the Reapers ends. So assuming that everything in the Citadel is a hallucination and Marauder Shields is really Shepard's disgruntled imaginary friend...that still doesn't change the fact that if you fail the test (pick blue or green) you end up Indoctrinated and fail the entire series. If you pass the test (pick Red), then you wake up and are critically injured after getting blasted by Harbinger. You're still in the middle of a battle where your allied forces are being absolutely decimated. There's no "Well the good guys could recover Shepard after he/she breaks free of Indoctrination, patch him/her up, and go on to win." The Reapers were winning the ground battle, the allied forces were getting absolutely decimated. This is what they were talking about when countless leaders told you "We'll never defeat the Reapers in a head-on battle."

The only way I can see the IT actually is if Bioware was taking an EXTREMELY risky gamble in having an ending in which the good guy most specifically DOESN'T come out on top. Just a big "Shepard dies. Fuck you. The End."

And as I've stated a couple times, the biggest thing that disproves the IT is the presence of Star Gazer no matter which ending you pick.

I don't think he necessarily 'snaps out it' and continues fighting. Clearly the blast buried him in rubble (at which point he began his hallucinations, so the theory goes). If you pick red and have a high EMS, he survives the beyond the fighting (on the surface, anyway). As I've said, this is where the faith in Bioware comes in - what they need to provide is the connection between Shepard rejecting the indoctrination and ultimate victory in the space above Earth. I'm sure they can come up with something - perhaps the Reapers were so invested in the indoctrination that the rejection actually physically weakened them. Who knows. Or perhaps I'm completely off bat - but yes you rightly point out that is the missing link that needs to be made for IT to work.

Star Gazer can just be an extension of the hallucination. You pick red - it actually happens. Pick blue or green then it was a hallucination of hope - just like the vision of the Normandy landing on that planet.

snip

As I see it, the star child is just a convenient mouth piece for the Reapers they scrapped together (hence why the voice is a mix of MaleShep, FemaleShep and the child). But the explanation would be the same.
Honestly, I love it; it seems so cold, mathematical and machine-like:
The Reapers sole reason for existence is to ensure organic life continues indefinitely. Sufficiently advanced organic life creates artificial intelligence ? and there exists the possibility that AI will destroy organic life at some point (it almost happened to them). Policing life is too hard and the resource requirements impossible - so the only logical conclusion is that organic life at that technological level must be destroyed. The cycle system makes sure it all happens at the same time, so it can be performed in one convenient, resource efficient invasion.

 

[GameMaNiAC]

Honestly, I'm hoping for a good ending. I'm praying they fix it somehow. Anyhow. I just want to like it.

But then again, a part of me expects them to just feed me more of their bullshit. So yeah...

The ending DLC is the only reason I still have ME3 on my PC.

 

[RJ 17]

Oh I can see why people cling to it. It certainly does do well to trace the entire premise from the first game till the bitter end. It manages to fill in and answer most of the plot holes left by the literal interpretation. However the problem still remains that no matter how you slice it, even best-case-scenario, the game, series, and Shepard's story all end before the war with the Reapers ends. So assuming that everything in the Citadel is a hallucination and Marauder Shields is really Shepard's disgruntled imaginary friend...that still doesn't change the fact that if you fail the test (pick blue or green) you end up Indoctrinated and fail the entire series. If you pass the test (pick Red), then you wake up and are critically injured after getting blasted by Harbinger. You're still in the middle of a battle where your allied forces are being absolutely decimated. There's no "Well the good guys could recover Shepard after he/she breaks free of Indoctrination, patch him/her up, and go on to win." The Reapers were winning the ground battle, the allied forces were getting absolutely decimated. This is what they were talking about when countless leaders told you "We'll never defeat the Reapers in a head-on battle."

The only way I can see the IT actually is if Bioware was taking an EXTREMELY risky gamble in having an ending in which the good guy most specifically DOESN'T come out on top. Just a big "Shepard dies. Fuck you. The End."

And as I've stated a couple times, the biggest thing that disproves the IT is the presence of Star Gazer no matter which ending you pick.

I don't think he necessarily 'snaps out it' and continues fighting. Clearly the blast buried him in rubble (at which point he began his hallucinations, so the theory goes). If you pick red and have a high EMS, he survives the beyond the fighting (on the surface, anyway). As I've said, this is where the faith in Bioware comes in - what they need to provide is the connection between Shepard rejecting the indoctrination and ultimate victory in the space above Earth. I'm sure they can come up with something - perhaps the Reapers were so invested in the indoctrination that the rejection actually physically weakened them. Who knows. Or perhaps I'm completely off bat - but yes you rightly point out that is the missing link that needs to be made for IT to work.

Star Gazer can just be an extension of the hallucination. You pick red - it actually happens. Pick blue or green then it was a hallucination of hope - just like the vision of the Normandy landing on that planet.

And that's actually my other problem with the IT, the belief that everything you see in the ACTUAL ending is just more hallucinations. If Shepard is officially and completely indoctrinated...there'd no longer be any reason to placate him/her. (S)He is already under their control, no more need for mind games, there'd be no reason at all to give him/her the visions of all the Reapers flying away (as when (s)he wakes up to start obeying their commands...(s)he'll...kinda...be able to see them still sitting right there telling him/her to do stuff.) So all the ending "visions" don't make sense except in a literal interpretation.

As for putting your faith in Bioware that they could/will provide a missing link between rejecting indoctrination and winning in the battle above, you forget the fact that 1: every military making up the galactic fleet has already been hit very hard by the Reapers and 2: it has been quite specifically and emphatically stated throughout all 3 games that you can't win against the Reapers in a conventional fight. It doesn't matter how big your fleet is. You might be able to give the Reapers one hell of a bloody nose, but in the end you lose. This is why the Crucible was needed in the first place. If it was such a simple matter as just pooling all the fleets together and meeting the Reapers head-on, I'd imagine that would have been the first order of business.

No, there can be no victory in the space above Earth because the Reapers won't lose an all-out direct fight. It took 3 full fleets to bring down Sovereign, and that was just a single Reaper...and even he only died because his consciousness was inhabiting Saren when Saren died...again. How many fleets would it take to bring down an entire fleet of THOUSANDS of Reapers? Undoubtedly with hundreds (if not thousands) of Sovereign-Class Reaper capital ships.

If the IT is true, then Shepard never reaches the Citadel and all ground forces are annihilated. If no one gets to the Citadel, the Crucible is never fired. If the Crucible is never fired, all hope for this Cycle is lost. Better luck in 50,000 years.

 

[psicat]

As long as they don't change the ending with the extension, just add some closure or whatever people where crying about, then it should be fine. But, I also thought the endings where more than fine as they where.

 

[Aarowbeatsdragon]

im gonna be honest, i love the ending for mass effect 3 and im glad they arnt changing the ending, only adding a few cutscenes and an epilouge.

 

[rigabear]

And that's actually my other problem with the IT, the belief that everything you see in the ACTUAL ending is just more hallucinations. If Shepard is officially and completely indoctrinated...there'd no longer be any reason to placate him/her. (S)He is already under their control, no more need for mind games, there'd be no reason at all to give him/her the visions of all the Reapers flying away (as when (s)he wakes up to start obeying their commands...(s)he'll...kinda...be able to see them still sitting right there telling him/her to do stuff.) So all the ending "visions" don't make sense except in a literal interpretation.

Perhaps interpreting as though they feed all these visions to Shepard in the instant he connects to the crucible (in his hallucination), before he wakes up. As for that Stargazer vision - perhaps created to placate any residual resistance/realisation - after all presumably Shepard would be most useful as not a brainless zombie but as a willing ally (or so Shepard would think).
Furthermore, the player would have no view of what the indoctrinated Shepard sees or thinks - so really it's the player being fed these morsels. Hmm, this would require more thought.

As for putting your faith in Bioware that they could/will provide a missing link between rejecting indoctrination and winning in the battle above, you forget the fact that 1: every military making up the galactic fleet has already been hit very hard by the Reapers and 2: it has been quite specifically and emphatically stated throughout all 3 games that you can't win against the Reapers in a conventional fight. It doesn't matter how big your fleet is. You might be able to give the Reapers one hell of a bloody nose, but in the end you lose. This is why the Crucible was needed in the first place. If it was such a simple matter as just pooling all the fleets together and meeting the Reapers head-on, I'd imagine that would have been the first order of business.
No, there can be no victory in the space above Earth because the Reapers won't lose an all-out direct fight. It took 3 full fleets to bring down Sovereign, and that was just a single Reaper...and even he only died because his consciousness was inhabiting Saren when Saren died...again. How many fleets would it take to bring down an entire fleet of THOUSANDS of Reapers? Undoubtedly with hundreds (if not thousands) of Sovereign-Class Reaper capital ships.
If the IT is true, then Shepard never reaches the Citadel and all ground forces are annihilated. If no one gets to the Citadel, the Crucible is never fired. If the Crucible is never fired, all hope for this Cycle is lost. Better luck in 50,000 years.

See, there the precedent. The broken connection with reanimate Saren brought down the shields. And reanimated Saren was a just a glorified husk. But Commander Shepard... this is the ultimate bad ass we're talking about. Not only that, but this is a bad-ass whose mind is filled with Protean god-knows what. A bad-ass for whom standard indoctrination was not nearly enough; his conversion required an elaborate process spanning all three Mass Effects with a final trick offering the very destruction of the Reapers...

Anyhow, the point is that there is precedent for the process actually physically weakening the Reaper forces - which would allow a victory in space. Yes before it was impossible, but Shepard's choice makes it possible.

Also, a quick point - the Mass Effect wiki informs me that the Prothean scientists who thought the crucible could be used to control the Reapers were indoctrinated. I don't remember that detail, from whatever game.

And if you'd allow me to put on my tin-foil hat for a second: perhaps the Prothean mind-transfer business from Mass Effect 1 is key - perhaps THAT was the real Prothean super weapon - they developed away to use the indoctrination process against the Reapers. Well that would be awesome. But again, pure speculation.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

Where is the option for "The ending was fine and the DLC is completely unnecessary"?

I mean it's free content, so I'll take it, but give me more poll options. Not everyone agrees here.

I'd edit the poll, but the question wasn't "Do you think this Extended Cut is necessary?" It was "Are you looking forward to the Extended Cut?" to which there's really only four ahem, 3 possible answers: Yes, No, and "At this point I really don't care."

I can appreciate that you liked the ending...personally I didn't think it was all as horrible as most people did (hence my stating that it most specifically did NOT ruin the entire series for me), but the nature of this topic is simply whether or not you're looking forward to the Extended Cut being released.

I can appreciate what you are saying, but the wording of the choices presupposes that the person clicking doesn't like the ending what with the "Yes" option being "I think they can set things straight", and the "No" option being "Dish out more bullshit".

It's really just an issue of semantics.

To be honest, I actually AM looking forward to it. Even though I am one of the EXTREMELY few people who liked the ending, it was still by no means perfect.