Unsatisfied with ME3 ending and EC?

[sobaka770]

So basicly what you have here is a choice between Adolph Hitler and Jesus Christ.

I'm up for constructive feedback on how to improve it. It's hard to come up with 10 different endings in a short time. So yes, it's a paragon/renegade ending with slight variation as it stands right now.
All I was inspired with is previous Bioware work.In DA:O you were almost always a hero even if you die. There were little to no complaints.

 

[TheCommanders]

So to everyone still complaining. I personally think your complaints just show how dissapointed you are that the series ended, and how you personally thought some characters acted out of character, not to your liking or whatever.
There are some things that cannot be controlled. Bioware had a vision for some of the characters, they had a vision for how it should end. They failed to explain their vision properly the first time, but the extended version corrects what was broken. If you're still not happy, I'm sorry to say it's now no longer Bioware's fault, but rather your own feelings about the characters and the universe of Mass Effect.
That is okay, but we can no longer argue that the endings are broken, and I think that's what matters most.

Wow. I had to read this twice to make sure you weren't trolling or being sarcastic. Allow me to briefly address everything you say the Extended Cut fixed:

My main complaints about the ME3 ending was that the choices that were proposed to you, the Catalyst character and well basically the endings were just thrown in your face with little time to understand everything.

That was corrected. The Catalyst takes its time to explain everything, you get to tell it that its reasoning is flawed, and basically there is more time to ponder on the decisions you are about to make.

It is true that you can go all renegade and point out a few flaws in the Catalyst's logic, but the most obvious flaws are still readily apparent and completely unaddressed. If you honestly think that a single word out the stupid kid's mouth makes the slightest bit of goddamn sense, take a look at this googledoc (see below) that picks appart the original conversation. You'll find that the extended cut only acknowledges a few of the problems, and provides reasonable explanations for even less. The fact that you are now allowed to question the Catalyst (which would have been good had it been any sort of a coherent character or narrative device) only serves to reinforce how idiotic the entire situation on the Crucible is. There are also problems with the crucible itself. For example, at what point during its development did one of the creators, apparently with an intimate knowledge of the proportions and physiologies of the first organic thousands of years in the future that would use it (i.e. Shepard, a human), suddenly divine the exact function of the device. They, in fact, figured out it's use so well that they decided to create a set of color coded options, only one of which was applicable to their actually goal: the destruction of the reapers. Not only that, but they also decided not to include in the plans a small note or indication that the device was multifunctional. There is also the issue that no explanation is given for how the hell the catalyst is supposed to work. Correction, there is no GOOD explanation for why jumping in a beam, grabbing two handles, or shooting a tube are the activation triggers for a device that was supposedly built without an intimate knowledge of it's functionality, or why these random acts result in completely predicable results, easily explained by the Catalyst. In addition, the line "The Crucible has changed me, created new possibilites, but I can't make them happen" should be met with a firm "Why the hell not" from Shepard. Also, if the catalyst finds one option preferable (it clearly favors synthesis) it has absolutely no incentive to allow you to access the other two options, which you can only get to from the floating ramps the Catalyst summons after describing all the choices to you. It didn't even have any incentive to tell you the other options exist. Finally, there is a huge problem with the Catalyst existing at all which is that if there is an AI present in the citadel controlling (or at least directing) the reapers, that leaves an huge gaping plot hole where the plot of ME1 used to be. If there was an AI in the citadel, why would the reapers need to send a signal from dark space to activate its power as a Mass Relay? Without a reason for that, no single thing in Mass Effect 1 makes the slightest bit of sense.

NOTE: This doc was originally meant (I believe) to support the indoctrination theory. This is now pretty definitively busted, but the parts where it analyzes the Catalyst's logic are still valid.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QT4IUepvrU1pfv_B95oQj0H84DlCTUmzQ_uQh1voTUs/preview?pli=1&sle=true

The cutscenes were copy-pasted, only changed color, and showed nothing of what would happen to the rest of the galaxy.

That was corrected. You now additionally see your choice affect a Husk's behavior, along with epilogue stills that change depending on your choice.

Hurray, they slightly altered the cutscenes for the various endings, and added a voiceover. The problem is, the endings are no less terrible than they were in the original ending, and explaining what happens in more detail after you were forced to choose from feces, methane, or sulfur flavored ice cream still doesn't excuse not having the option to choose something less shit, like Chocolate or Vanilla.

The endings did not reflect your choices through the series and the last game.

That was also corrected, in various ways. On top of the different epilogue stills you get depending on your choice (Destroy, Control or Synthesis), you get to see characters who survived, and those that died don't show. Those stills change to reflect what your Shepard did during the whole franchise.

Uh, showing Zaheed lying on a beach, and the rest of the Galaxy rebuilding in the exact same fashion in every ending (possibly minus the Quarians, Geth, or both) is not accounting for player choice. No, that is in there because apparently Bioware didn't think about the fact that showing explosions at each Mass Relay would cause many people to think that either everyone is obliterated or at the very least trapped. So no, they do not account for player choice, they just conveniently fix the universe to make room for a sequel. Are there *minute* differences for some of the endings if you played paragon or renegade? Yes, but they are so minute I didn't notice them until one of the developers pointed them out on twitter. Do they give the slightest mention of what happens to your squad mates, what they might do after the end, possibly depending on your relationships with them? (See Dragon Age: Origins or Fallout: New Vegas for an example of what they could have done) No they show you meaningless (if, admittedly pretty) concept art of a few companions, seemingly at random. Do they provide even a slight bit of speculation that if, for example, you left Reave in charge of the cured Krogan alone, there might be more trouble with them in the future? No, because leaving everything "open for interpretation" (see also: too lazy to write anything) is apparently today's storytelling equivalent of bullet time; quick, cheap, and rarely satisfying. Do the rachni even get mentioned in extended cut? Nope, apparently something considered an important enough decision to be one of the only decisions shown on the quite short synopsis of decisions carried over from both ME1 and ME2 doesn't even warrant a cursory glance. Don't even get me started on the fact they they couldn't fucking commit to whether Shepard is alive or dead during the destroy ending, or if the possible implications if he was alive. That's just fucking pathetic. We asked for some sort of insight into what happens to the characters and civilizations we loved and interacted with, not a reassurance that the universe was fixed enough for sequels, which is ultimately all you get.

The ending was broken in that characters just left your side during the race to the beam, and the Normandy was seen fleeing battle for no effin reason.

That was also corrected. Added cutscenes explain how it all went down, and it is done seamlessly.

You are half correct. This was corrected, but it was no where near done seamlessly. For example, we now have the e-fucking-normous question of why the hell Harbinger didn't just shoot the Normandy out of the sky while it was hovering there for a good 30 seconds to a minute. Also, we are shown a scene where Hacket is supposedly informed that someone made it to the beam. Really? Who the hell told him that? It couldn't have been Shepard or Anderson, who despite having working radios never bothered to counterman the order to retreat, despite the fact that Harbinger, the only remaining obstacle to the beam had just left. It couldn't have been Major Coats, as he believed the entire force had been wiped out (side note, decimated does not mean what he seems to think it means). It couldn't have been anyone on the Normandy, as even if they had flown away unbelievably slowly, the last thing they would have seen was Shepard getting hit by a death beam that easily destroys space ships, but for some reason now just blackens Shepard's armor and would have presumed him dead or unconscious at best. So now we have to assume that Hacket has telepathy.

Also, in regard to Joker going through the mass relay being chased by the explosion. He was not the last ship to leave (you can clearly see other ships departing after him) so why is the Normandy the only ship that is chased by the explosion, and apparently the only one effected by the space magic?

So in conclusion, I beg to differ. The endings never stopped being broken. If you liked the endings, or are tired of people ranting about them, I understand that, but don't condescendingly dismiss our arguments as the whining of entitled brats who just don't know when to let go. I respect that there was a lot of work put into this extended cut, and would not dismiss it as entirely lazy. You have to remember, the shit ending we are stuck with is not the fault of the entire Bioware staff, but a few select individuals. And once it had been done, it could not have been undone. I haven't even begun to scratch the surface of what's still wrong with the endings, I could rant for quite some time about how the endings are philosophically disparate from the themes of the Mass Effect series up to this point, but this post is getting long as it is. As much as I hate the expression: you can polish a turd, but it's still a turd, and this one isn't even fully polished.

 

[Earlybuddy]

So to everyone still complaining. I personally think your complaints just show how dissapointed you are that the series ended, and how you personally thought some characters acted out of character, not to your liking or whatever.
There are some things that cannot be controlled. Bioware had a vision for some of the characters, they had a vision for how it should end. They failed to explain their vision properly the first time, but the extended version corrects what was broken. If you're still not happy, I'm sorry to say it's now no longer Bioware's fault, but rather your own feelings about the characters and the universe of Mass Effect.
That is okay, but we can no longer argue that the endings are broken, and I think that's what matters most.

Wow. I had to read this twice to make sure you weren't trolling or being sarcastic. Allow me to briefly address everything you say the Extended Cut fixed:

Alright, I read your whole post, and you have the right to your opinion on this, but I'll at least make sure you understand where I stand on this, and explain my thoughts and why I think the ending is no longer "broken" per say.

So here's what's what.
When somebody writes a story or the plot to a movie, they sometimes do it so that everything is seen through the eyes of the main character. Hence, not everything is always understood by the reader, nor by the main character. So when somebody points at plotholes, this person has to be aware exactly what a plothole is, and how detrimental or non-detrimental that plothole is to the overall story. Is it intentional, or unintentional, and does it break the story flow, or is it just there to let the reader or player fill it with his own imagination.

So firstly, when Bioware wrote the ending and f***ed it up, they had left a lot gigantic plotholes, either because they believed the player would be able to just guess it all, or really because they rushed and had no time to perfect their ending. The plotholes before were so big and ridiculous, that they left too much for the player to just guess for him or herself and basically did not provide any kind of closure. The ending missed a few bones for it to stand on its own, and that's what the extended cuts corrected...

So let's start from the beginning.

During the last race to the Citadel beam, your teammates dissapeared and somehow reappeared on the Normandy. That was a huge mistake, a plothole where the designers and programmers did not think things through properly. That got fixed, and now we have Shepard evacuate his teammates. You could go and question his decision to evacuate them when clearly this was always a do or die mission, but then again it also makes sense, as Shepard could want to have a clear mind going to the beam, knowing his team is safe and secure. You could say your Shepard didn't care for that and that it wasn't your decision, but I'll argue that Shepard has always done things that the player himself didn't exactly choose, like killing Saren (you could decide to follow him, but the game won't let you) and so this is nothing new.
You get blown up to bits, you learn that nobody made it to the beam, and you somehow make your way through.

Hackett learns that somebody made it in. How did he learn such a thing? It could be that british soldier you met during the last mission, or it could be somebody else. Somebody like Anderson.

When you beam up, you come out waking up to Anderson's words. He says he followed you in. How did he manage to survive the Reaper attacks? No one will never know, and nobody cares. Some things happen off screen, and it's okay not to show everything to the player. Anderson could have you seen you enter the beam, alert Hackett that you did, and follow you in.

He was beamed someplace else. Again, so what? Nobody knows how the beam functions, and there were probably many spawn areas to accept beam travellers. Anderson gets to the control panel, you do too, and then in comes the Illusive Man. How did he get there? The reapers let him in, he somehow allied himself with them, thinking he would fool them using the Crucible in his own ways. Who knows? It doesn't matter. He got in, and the story of how he did is not interesting.

In the end, both Anderson and Shepard are bloody, yet while you look all wrecked, Anderson dies from being shot with one bullet, and you just fall asleep. Anderson is old, he's been fighting this war a long time, and he's probably not all in top shape. What made you survive then? One could argue that Shepard has a bigger will. Narrative magic, works in every story, nothing surprising.

So here comes the God Child. You learn he's the Catalyst, and through some questioning, the Reaper AI. Why does it look like a child that Shepard saw at the beginning of the game? Unexplained, but you could make it out for yourself. It's possible that Reapers are capable of reading the thoughts of organics in some way. I mean if they can indoctrinate and manipulate their thoughts against you, what says their unique tech can't read your mind?

You then learn what Crucible does. The Catalyst tells you an ancient civilization came with the design. Throughout the game, nobody including you knows how it's going to work. You're given the blueprints to make the crucible, but not the How To Guide. So the Crucible doesn't do exactly what you'd like it to do. That's out of your control, and that's part of the story. You can now refuse to use it, but no matter what, your cycle will lose. That's also out of your control. That's okay, that's how they decided to tell the story, that's how it unfolds, but at least everything is explained.

So the lasers are different colors? You think during construction, Hackett decided to color code shit? No! They didn't know what it would do, they only knew to assemble the pieces. So what could the colors mean? A different kind of energy unleashed by the Crucible. The Catalyst has a technology that is unknown to you. Upon activating the Crucible in a specific way that you decided, it could alter the released energy in ways you don't understand. Nobody cares about the whole science. At that point, what matters is the emotion, and the choice. If they started explaining the whole science live, you'd be bored. That's not a good idea.

The relays don't blow up. They don't create a massive supernova destroying every system, they get slightly disassembled instead. The rings rotating around the Mass Effect core break, and the relays shoot a blast of the released Crucible energy before deactivating. They don't blow up, there's no supernova, nobody dies.

We're shown that the war is over, and the epilogue changes depending on what you did during Mass Effect 3:

Did Mordin survive?
Did Wrex and Bakara survive?
Did Miranda survive?
Did Jacob survive?
Did Zaeed survive?
Did the Geth and/or the Quarians survive?

And so on. The only guys I would liked to see a bit but weren't included was the Rachni, but I'm letting this slide cause you can guess by yourself and it's not critical.

Nobody really cares about what your teammates do following your death. You know them enough by the end of the trilogy that you can figure this out by yourself. It's okay to leave things open-ended. A lot of movies and books do this, and I see no one complaining. Often it's better to leave these things to the player's imagination.

Some people complain that they did not use the Dark Energy plot they were going with first (it's apparently a fact that this was their first concept). I for my part cannot see how Reapers killing organics = stopping Dark Energy from blowing everything up. They probably decided that line of thinking was not perfect. I think they could use that plotline again in a new Mass Effect Trilogy. So when people say the Reapers are a very tough enemy to replace for a sequel, I say hey: Dark Energy still very awesome and unused. Also it's forshadowed, and it would be awesome to have another series of game tackling something that was mentionned during the first Trilogy. Would make for an awesome reference.

The three endings make it impossible for them to decide which is going to be canon. That would also suck depending on whether you chose for your Shepard that one choice was good over another. I think if they want to do another Mass Effect game, they'll have to change to another galaxy, and in some way, you could say that's what the Stargazer scene points to. There are many possibilities, and there are billions or stars and over, so the next game could take place anywhere you want.

You can analyze the endings as logically as you want. The fact is, this things was built up so that the player would feel emotions. Of course they left science out. Explaining new shit does not make for an impactful ending. But leaving some mystique and some unknowns does. And there is nothing wrong with that. That's what writing a story is like.

 

[TheCommanders]

Alright, I read your whole post, and you have the right to your opinion on this, but I'll at least make sure you understand where I stand on this, and explain my thoughts and why I think the ending is no longer "broken" per say.

First of all, thank you for actually taking the time to write a whole post in response. I get tired of laying out a detailed argument only to have someone later reply something like, "Uh, no, because... you're dumb." If they don't have anything constructive to say, they shouldn't even bother. Anway:

When somebody writes a story or the plot to a movie, they sometimes do it so that everything is seen through the eyes of the main character. Hence, not everything is always understood by the reader, nor by the main character. So when somebody points at plotholes, this person has to be aware exactly what a plothole is, and how detrimental or non-detrimental that plothole is to the overall story. Is it intentional, or unintentional, and does it break the story flow, or is it just there to let the reader or player fill it with his own imagination.

I would agree, however I would add that many of the plot holes I've noticed in the ending simply can't be ignored or filled in, even when I'm in "the zone" of being emotionally involved in the story. They are simply too major, and jerk me right out of the experience, engaging the logical examination reflex that no one not watching a mystery really wants to have to use while experiencing a story.

So firstly, when Bioware wrote the ending and f***ed it up, they had left a lot gigantic plotholes, either because they believed the player would be able to just guess it all, or really because they rushed and had no time to perfect their ending. The plotholes before were so big and ridiculous, that they left too much for the player to just guess for him or herself and basically did not provide any kind of closure. The ending missed a few bones for it to stand on its own, and that's what the extended cuts corrected...
So let's start from the beginning.

Actually the main reasons the ending ended up sucking are twofold. Firstly, the original concept that Bioware had been going with involved dark matter slowing building up because of evolution, and the destruction of civilization was actually postponing the end of the universe as we know it (or something along those lines). This was vaguely prefaced in the mission where you recruit Tali in ME2, where the sun is dying much faster than it should because of dark energy. Having read more into this, I think it could have made a much better ending, but I'll discuss that later. Anyway, early unfinished drafts of this storyline got leaks and fans didn't like it (possibly because it was an early unrefined version). Bioware, in turn, decided to scrap that ending to try to appease the fanbase (funnily enough, this renders the arguments that refusing to alter the ending is a matter of artistic integrity moot as it wasn't the original vison anyway, but again, that's another story). So due to EA's rather inflexible deadlines, the writers had to start from scratch at a point when one would not normally be comfortable doing so in a development cycle. The second reason is that the ending was not subject to the peer review process that the rest of the content in Mass Effect was, which means that it was not the collective visions and efforts of the entire team, but rather the personal ending of Casey Hudson and one of the lead writers.

During the last race to the Citadel beam, your teammates dissapeared and somehow reappeared on the Normandy. That was a huge mistake, a plothole where the designers and programmers did not think things through properly. That got fixed, and now we have Shepard evacuate his teammates. You could go and question his decision to evacuate them when clearly this was always a do or die mission, but then again it also makes sense, as Shepard could want to have a clear mind going to the beam, knowing his team is safe and secure. You could say your Shepard didn't care for that and that it wasn't your decision, but I'll argue that Shepard has always done things that the player himself didn't exactly choose, like killing Saren (you could decide to follow him, but the game won't let you) and so this is nothing new.
You get blown up to bits, you learn that nobody made it to the beam, and you somehow make your way through.

I never questioned the fact that Shepard decided to evacuate his squad mates (in fact, since I had my LI, Liara, in the party, it actually made a lot of sense). What doesn't make any sense is the fact that Normandy is hovering directly in front of Harbinger, who is currently in the process of raining red beamy hell down upon anything that moves in this entire approach to the beam. Yet, during this whole time he doesn't bother to even take a casual potshot a the ship of his greatest (rival? threat? whatever). His beams are shown to be powerful enough to blow tanks apart with a single blast, and destroy dreadnoughts, so it's not an issue of can he, but why the hell didn't he? The part where the Normandy slowly turns before leaving, and Harbinger just sort of stares at them really broke immersion for me. At the very least (if you're going to have the ship protected by protagonist plot shields) have him take a shot or two and miss. Ignoring them is completely nonsensical. Also, how the hell does Shepard survive the direct hit from the beam that is shown seconds before blowing a shielded gunship out of the sky. Whatever, plot armor, I got it, but that just ceases to be enough explanation for me after a while.

Hackett learns that somebody made it in. How did he learn such a thing? It could be that british soldier you met during the last mission, or it could be somebody else. Somebody like Anderson.

The british soldier is Major Coats, and he was the one who gave the order to retreat (despite just before the mission everyone agreeing this was to be an all out assault with no provisions for retreat). He believed the entire force destroyed, so it wasn't him. Both Anderson and Shepard do have working radios (we know this because they are able to communicate with each other). However, neither of them decided to point out that path to the beam was completely clear now, and there was no reason to retreat since Harbinger had left. Since neither of them bothered to communicate this rather important information, we can assume they didn't contact anyone. However, this was one of the plot holes that didn't actually bother me *while* playing the game, so I'm wiling to let it slide.

When you beam up, you come out waking up to Anderson's words. He says he followed you in. How did he manage to survive the Reaper attacks? No one will never know, and nobody cares. Some things happen off screen, and it's okay not to show everything to the player. Anderson could have you seen you enter the beam, alert Hackett that you did, and follow you in. In the end, both Anderson and Shepard are bloody, yet while you look all wrecked, Anderson dies from being shot with one bullet, and you just fall asleep. Anderson is old, he's been fighting this war a long time, and he's probably not all in top shape. What made you survive then? One could argue that Shepard has a bigger will. He was beamed someplace else. Again, so what? Nobody knows how the beam functions, and there were probably many spawn areas to accept beam travellers. Anderson gets to the control panel, you do too, and then in comes the Illusive Man. How did he get there? The reapers let him in, he somehow allied himself with them, thinking he would fool them using the Crucible in his own ways. Who knows? It doesn't matter. He got in, and the story of how he did is not interesting.

I did find it a little strange that Anderson came up after me when he had been almost right behind me at the time when I was knocked out, and then still managed to wait around for me to regain consciousness, struggle towards the beam, fight off a few husks and the now infamous Marauder Shields, and THEN decide to come follow me, but whatever, it's not a plot hole, just strange. I will also say the Illusive Man scene, and the little bit after it with Anderson was pretty much the only part of the ending I liked. Martin Sheen is a terrific actor. I didn't even mention any of this as being problematic. Again it's strange, but not a plot hole, and I didn't even mention it so I'm slightly confused as to why you brought it up.

So here comes the God Child. You learn he's the Catalyst, and through some questioning, the Reaper AI. Why does it look like a child that Shepard saw at the beginning of the game? Unexplained, but you could make it out for yourself. It's possible that Reapers are capable of reading the thoughts of organics in some way. I mean if they can indoctrinate and manipulate their thoughts against you, what says their unique tech can't read your mind?

You then learn what Crucible does. The Catalyst tells you an ancient civilization came with the design. Throughout the game, nobody including you knows how it's going to work. You're given the blueprints to make the crucible, but not the How To Guide. So the Crucible doesn't do exactly what you'd like it to do. That's out of your control, and that's part of the story. You can now refuse to use it, but no matter what, your cycle will lose. That's also out of your control. That's okay, that's how they decided to tell the story, that's how it unfolds, but at least everything is explained.

So the lasers are different colors? You think during construction, Hackett decided to color code shit? No! They didn't know what it would do, they only knew to assemble the pieces. So what could the colors mean? A different kind of energy unleashed by the Crucible. The Catalyst has a technology that is unknown to you. Upon activating the Crucible in a specific way that you decided, it could alter the released energy in ways you don't understand. Nobody cares about the whole science. At that point, what matters is the emotion, and the choice. If they started explaining the whole science live, you'd be bored. That's not a good idea.

I think you're missing the point slightly. Actually, a few points. Firstly, the very fact that a Reaper AI was in (and is show to be able to influence and interact with) the citadel renders the entire plot of the first game moot. Refer to my previous post for the full argument. That is not a matter of scientific explanation, that's a matter of a new, pointless, character they added in this game creates an enormous problem in a previous game. Secondly, no, I don't necessarily want to know how the crucible works, but I want it to make sense, do you see the difference? Why does it work with humans when the previous cycles that built it had no knowledge of us? Why was it built with three options when it only had one purpose. And don't say that the Catalyst came up with new ways to use the existing build, because the control and synthesis "controls" were built into the crucible. That means at some point during the creation process (by the previous cycles) someone came up with these options, yet the Catalyst is saying they only became options when it observed them. Do you see the contradiction? The color coding is just nitpicking, but it doesn't make any sense either. By the way, you seem to think I'm talking about the explosions when I actually mean the red renegade lights illuminate the destroy option, and the blue paragon lights illuminating the control option. I'm aware that Hacket is using blueprints, but someone made those blueprints, and decided to put them in. Explain why, or don't put them there. Also, you didn't address why the Catalyst gives you two options (control and destroy) that it doesn't want you to pick. Why did it tell you them? Why did it raise the platforms that allowed you to access the pannel that destroys it? That doesn't make any sense. It's not about the science, it's about coherence. This lacks any semblance of coherence. Not just for the reasons I've just listed. Every singe thing the Catalyst says raises more questions than it answers, and that is not good writing.

The relays don't blow up. They don't create a massive supernova destroying every system, they get slightly disassembled instead. The rings rotating around the Mass Effect core break, and the relays shoot a blast of the released Crucible energy before deactivating. They don't blow up, there's no supernova, nobody dies.

Yes I know. What I said was: "that is in there because apparently Bioware didn't think about the fact that showing explosions at each Mass Relay would cause many people to think that either everyone is obliterated or at the very least trapped." Basically, in the original ending, many people were confused by the colorful explosions, as the degree of destruction they inflicted on the galaxy was left unknown. In the Extended Cut they simply clarify that everyone is not dead.

We're shown that the war is over, and the epilogue changes depending on what you did during Mass Effect 3:

Did Mordin survive?
Did Wrex and Bakara survive?
Did Miranda survive?
Did Jacob survive?
Did Zaeed survive?
Did the Geth and/or the Quarians survive?

And so on. The only guys I would liked to see a bit but weren't included was the Rachni, but I'm letting this slide cause you can guess by yourself and it's not critical.
Nobody really cares about what your teammates do following your death. You know them enough by the end of the trilogy that you can figure this out by yourself. It's okay to leave things open-ended. A lot of movies and books do this, and I see no one complaining. Often it's better to leave these things to the player's imagination.

Ok, here I have to disagree. Showing us the people that we know died are dead and the people we know are alive are alive does not qualify as changing the ending based on your choices. Have you played Fallout: New Vegas? At the end there is a short slide for each companion character you interacted with. It's just a short little snippet about where they intended to go next, and maybe how they felt about their experience with the Courier. I would completely agree that you don't want to know their life story, just maybe a glimpse into what their life will be like now that the galaxy wide threat has been dealt with, because yes, I do actually care. For example, I can't even imagine what Miranda will be doing with Cerberus abolished, so maybe a hint that she's a fugitive, or granted immunity for her recent actions would be nice. In regard to the rest of the slides, saying that we rebuilt everything to how it was before is just a appeasement to fans who thought everyone was dead. A hint to the future of the galaxy would be a reminder that, say, that after their cure Krogan are still angry regarding the genophage, and without a temperate leader, future war is inevitable, or that because you didn't cure the genophage, the losses they sustained in the final battle might never be recovered from. This is one of the reason I actually like to replay Fallout: New Vegas and Dragon Age: Origins, because they give you an idea of what will happen in the world after you leave AND it's different every time depending on the choices you make along the way, not in the last 5 minutes. Not novels worth of text, but little snippets you can extrapolate from using your imagination. That's ambiguity used correctly. Mass Effect 3 says: Everyone is alive who is alive, most of the stuff is fixed, imagine the rest yourself. The problem is that as you point out, Mass Effect is fundamentally their story not mine, and I would have appreciated their imaginings on where the world and characters are likely to go next, as it is incredibly unlikely we will every see a direct sequel (nor should we).

Some people complain that they did not use the Dark Energy plot they were going with first (it's apparently a fact that this was their first concept). I for my part cannot see how Reapers killing organics = stopping Dark Energy from blowing everything up. They probably decided that line of thinking was not perfect. I think they could use that plotline again in a new Mass Effect Trilogy. So when people say the Reapers are a very tough enemy to replace for a sequel, I say hey: Dark Energy still very awesome and unused. Also it's forshadowed, and it would be awesome to have another series of game tackling something that was mentionned during the first Trilogy. Would make for an awesome reference.

I touched on this earlier. They didn't decide to drop it, not really, it was decided for them by fans when it got leaked prematurely. I don't remember where, I did read an extrapolated plot from the dark energy angle, and it was actually quite similar, in concept, to a terrific science fiction novel. It's interesting and the end decision they had originally planned involving deciding whether to destroy the reapers and risk the catastrophe, find a compromise, or give in to the reapers, sacrificing humanity but possibly saving the universe was much more interesting, if still not consistant with themes in the Mass Effect universe.

The three endings make it impossible for them to decide which is going to be canon. That would also suck depending on whether you chose for your Shepard that one choice was good over another. I think if they want to do another Mass Effect game, they'll have to change to another galaxy, and in some way, you could say that's what the Stargazer scene points to. There are many possibilities, and there are billions or stars and over, so the next game could take place anywhere you want.

To be fair if your only connection to Mass Effect is being in the same galaxy, you might as well start a new IP, but that's a whole different issue. I'm always one to cry foul when franchises overstay their welcome, and this being a definite end to the series is not something I have a problem with. It's that it was a terrible ending.

You can analyze the endings as logically as you want. The fact is, this things was built up so that the player would feel emotions. Of course they left science out. Explaining new shit does not make for an impactful ending. But leaving some mystique and some unknowns does. And there is nothing wrong with that. That's what writing a story is like.

Again, science isn't the important part. The ending needs to make sense though, which - objectively - it doesn't. That failing, it needs to be emotionally engaging, and the new extended cut with the voice overs is cheesy beyond belief, which renders that moot as well. I mentioned above that mystique and mystery are different than not telling anything. If the writers want the gamer to use their imagination, then it's their responsibility to set them on the right direction, which this ending fails to do. Lastly, regarding the ambiguity over Shepard's death (the breath scene) saying that not explicitly telling whether he is alive or dead is better storytelling is like saying that leaving it a mystery as to whether or not Luke Skywalker made it out of the Death Star before it blew up would make Star Wars a better story. No. No it fucking wouldn't. As you mentioned, they don't need to really worry about cannon, because having 3 endings negates the possibility of continuing this story canonically, so they have no excuse for omitting this detail.

 

[Earlybuddy]

First of all, thank you for actually taking the time to write a whole post in response. I get tired of laying out a detailed argument only to have someone later reply something like, "Uh, no, because... you're dumb." If they don't have anything constructive to say, they shouldn't even bother. Anway:

That is one hell of a post. I'll try and answer every single one of your issues. And thank you very much. I love a good debate, and you seem to be totally worth the time. So I'll try not to dissapoint.

I would agree, however I would add that many of the plot holes I've noticed in the ending simply can't be ignored or filled in, even when I'm in "the zone" of being emotionally involved in the story. They are simply too major, and jerk me right out of the experience, engaging the logical examination reflex that no one not watching a mystery really wants to have to use while experiencing a story.

Well you haven't mentionned "which" plotholes in particular, but I imagine I'll find out pretty soon reading the rest. All I have to say here is that some people really do need to understand everything in order to enjoy a narrative experience. I don't know if that's your deal, if you can't stand elements in a story that can't be explained. Either way that's fine. I personally didn't mind, but I think that's pretty clear. So let's see what didn't work for you...

Actually the main reasons the ending ended up sucking are twofold. Firstly, the original concept that Bioware had been going with involved dark matter slowing building up because of evolution, and the destruction of civilization was actually postponing the end of the universe as we know it (or something along those lines). This was vaguely prefaced in the mission where you recruit Tali in ME2, where the sun is dying much faster than it should because of dark energy. Having read more into this, I think it could have made a much better ending, but I'll discuss that later. Anyway, early unfinished drafts of this storyline got leaks and fans didn't like it (possibly because it was an early unrefined version). Bioware, in turn, decided to scrap that ending to try to appease the fanbase (funnily enough, this renders the arguments that refusing to alter the ending is a matter of artistic integrity moot as it wasn't the original vison anyway, but again, that's another story). So due to EA's rather inflexible deadlines, the writers had to start from scratch at a point when one would not normally be comfortable doing so in a development cycle. The second reason is that the ending was not subject to the peer review process that the rest of the content in Mass Effect was, which means that it was not the collective visions and efforts of the entire team, but rather the personal ending of Casey Hudson and one of the lead writers.

Huh, didn't know about all that. Well, whatever the case, I still don't see how dark energy builds up because of evolution. That still doesn't make sense to me...
In the end they decided to go with something else. I never had a problem with the "singularity" issue, I thought that was rather brilliant, considering how the center of many conflicts since the first game is always the Geth (and of course the Reapers), and how the Reapers are robots themselves... it just makes a lot of sense to go with that.

I never questioned the fact that Shepard decided to evacuate his squad mates (in fact, since I had my LI, Liara, in the party, it actually made a lot of sense). What doesn't make any sense is the fact that Normandy is hovering directly in front of Harbinger, who is currently in the process of raining red beamy hell down upon anything that moves in this entire approach to the beam. Yet, during this whole time he doesn't bother to even take a casual potshot a the ship of his greatest (rival? threat? whatever). His beams are shown to be powerful enough to blow tanks apart with a single blast, and destroy dreadnoughts, so it's not an issue of can he, but why the hell didn't he? The part where the Normandy slowly turns before leaving, and Harbinger just sort of stares at them really broke immersion for me. At the very least (if you're going to have the ship protected by protagonist plot shields) have him take a shot or two and miss. Ignoring them is completely nonsensical. Also, how the hell does Shepard survive the direct hit from the beam that is shown seconds before blowing a shielded gunship out of the sky. Whatever, plot armor, I got it, but that just ceases to be enough explanation for me after a while.

Well, yes... one could argue that this is all due to plot armor, but there are good explanations that help justify all this.
Firstly, the Normandy has a stealth system. Now obviously, Harbinger has eyes, since it's capable of shooting humans running towards the beam, so that shouldn't be a problem. It could have shot the Normandy, but in the end, it's possible it did not, because it didn't feel it was necessary. They were fleeing, not running towards the beam, so the Reaper AI controlling it didn't care.
Shepard did not get the Reaper red laser straight in the face. In fact I think they modified the cutscene in such a way that you see it hit in front of him. So Shepard is not hit, but the following explosion does put him in a bad way. And of course, there is plot armor, and wanting to make this whole last chapter of the return to the Citadel all dramatic. They wanted Shepard to be severely damaged but not killed.

The british soldier is Major Coats, and he was the one who gave the order to retreat (despite just before the mission everyone agreeing this was to be an all out assault with no provisions for retreat). He believed the entire force destroyed, so it wasn't him. Both Anderson and Shepard do have working radios (we know this because they are able to communicate with each other). However, neither of them decided to point out that path to the beam was completely clear now, and there was no reason to retreat since Harbinger had left. Since neither of them bothered to communicate this rather important information, we can assume they didn't contact anyone. However, this was one of the plot holes that didn't actually bother me *while* playing the game, so I'm wiling to let it slide.

If Major Coats decided to retreat despite their past decisions, it's because orders can change, and characters have flaws. Now, why did Shepard not contact Coats? Probably because he was all beat up and focused on getting in the beam. Following him in, Anderson could have contacted Coats (who signals Hackett) and then jumped in the beam. Harbinger probably left because it thought every soldier was down, so one could go and theorize that Anderson was in hiding and the only one left alive after the attack, after Shepard of course.

I did find it a little strange that Anderson came up after me when he had been almost right behind me at the time when I was knocked out, and then still managed to wait around for me to regain consciousness, struggle towards the beam, fight off a few husks and the now infamous Marauder Shields, and THEN decide to come follow me, but whatever, it's not a plot hole, just strange. I will also say the Illusive Man scene, and the little bit after it with Anderson was pretty much the only part of the ending I liked. Martin Sheen is a terrific actor. I didn't even mention any of this as being problematic. Again it's strange, but not a plot hole, and I didn't even mention it so I'm slightly confused as to why you brought it up.

I know you didn't. I just brought it up to try debunk any "plothole" one might come across. Also agree with everything you're saying here. To me the ending could have ended just there with you sitting next to Anderson, both of you dying while the Crucible fires (or doesn't). It's an excellent scene.

I think you're missing the point slightly. Actually, a few points. Firstly, the very fact that a Reaper AI was in (and is show to be able to influence and interact with) the citadel renders the entire plot of the first game moot. Refer to my previous post for the full argument. That is not a matter of scientific explanation, that's a matter of a new, pointless, character they added in this game creates an enormous problem in a previous game.

Wait up. The Reaper AI is situated in the Citadel, and is capable of contacting the Reapers and directing them no matter where they are. So it's a really awesome server with awesome wireless control. No problem here.
I get the feeling you're saying that the Reaper AI could have opened the portal to dark space in the first game, because it's in the Citadel, and should have control of everything.
However let's remember one important plot point. The Catalyst/AI says it can't make Crucible fire by itself. It's not that it's impossible for the Catalyst to make the decision, but that it's impossible for the Catalyst to activate the Crucible at all.
The Citadel works through the bug guys whose name I forget... ... anyway, in the first game, they are the ones would have received a signal and opened the relay to dark space. The Reaper AI is situated in the Citadel, but it can't control it. Something physical has to operate the Citadel, like those bug things (curse their name) and the Reapers for example, who move it near Earth towards the end of the game.

Secondly, no, I don't necessarily want to know how the crucible works, but I want it to make sense, do you see the difference? Why does it work with humans when the previous cycles that built it had no knowledge of us? Why was it built with three options when it only had one purpose. And don't say that the Catalyst came up with new ways to use the existing build, because the control and synthesis "controls" were built into the crucible. That means at some point during the creation process (by the previous cycles) someone came up with these options, yet the Catalyst is saying they only became options when it observed them. Do you see the contradiction? The color coding is just nitpicking, but it doesn't make any sense either.

What do you mean why does it work with humans? There is nothing human-specific about it...
The Crucible was not built with options. You'll notice the options are actually situated on the Citadel. It was shifting and changing to accept the Crucible and see what it could do with it, so when you meet the Catalyst, it shows to you how you have three ways of using the Crucible (how you can manipulate its energy basically), but those were not designed along with the Crucible, it's just the way the Citadel reacted.
Also, the Catalyst does not decide any of it. The Citadel is reprogrammed for the Crucible, but it does so automatically and without the Catalyst's control (because it has none anyway). It basically adapts to the new situation.
Since the Crucible is a massive energy source (according to Catalyst), your only option is to basically release it, but the Citadel adapted in such a way that it provides you with three ways to release it, 2 out of 3 necessitating your personal input on a cellular level.
So you can unleash it as an undiscriminating synthetic destructive blast, unleash it as an electrical blast that carries your memories and thoughts, or unleash it as a DNA altering blast. Look, the last two sound stupid and farfetched, but so does the Element Zero and Mass Effect explained throughout the games. It's science-fiction, and if they wanted, they could give you Codex explanation of the Crucible's adaptive energy source, but that's not what they were going for.

By the way, you seem to think I'm talking about the explosions when I actually mean the red renegade lights illuminate the destroy option, and the blue paragon lights illuminating the control option.

In some way they make sense. The "Renegade" option destroys all synthetics including your own squadmate EDI. The "Paragon" option only kills you, but "ensures" peace throughout the galaxy.
The final "middle" option actually ensures peace through the understanding of synthetics and organics (and due to their full understanding of each other, none of them mind of the ultra DNA change, that is basically seamless it would seem). That wasn't all clear and obvious before the extended cut, but I think it's much more evident now. The "Renegade" says F*** this and blows the Reapers sacrificing companions, the "Paragon" says I will sacrifice myself to ensure everyone survives and remains unchanged.

I'm aware that Hacket is using blueprints, but someone made those blueprints, and decided to put them in. Explain why, or don't put them there. Also, you didn't address why the Catalyst gives you two options (control and destroy) that it doesn't want you to pick. Why did it tell you them? Why did it raise the platforms that allowed you to access the pannel that destroys it? That doesn't make any sense. It's not about the science, it's about coherence. This lacks any semblance of coherence. Not just for the reasons I've just listed. Every singe thing the Catalyst says raises more questions than it answers, and that is not good writing.

Again, the Catalyst does not raise the platforms or do anything for you. It simply observes how the Citadel adapted and tells you what's what. The choices appeared with the Citadel and were not in the blueprints. Of course that's all theories, but that's how I see it.

Yes I know. What I said was: "that is in there because apparently Bioware didn't think about the fact that showing explosions at each Mass Relay would cause many people to think that either everyone is obliterated or at the very least trapped." Basically, in the original ending, many people were confused by the colorful explosions, as the degree of destruction they inflicted on the galaxy was left unknown. In the Extended Cut they simply clarify that everyone is not dead.

Ahhh, I didn't break down your post last time, so I just answered after getting the general feel of what you were saying. I missed that I guess.

Ok, here I have to disagree. Showing us the people that we know died are dead and the people we know are alive are alive does not qualify as changing the ending based on your choices. Have you played Fallout: New Vegas? At the end there is a short slide for each companion character you interacted with. It's just a short little snippet about where they intended to go next, and maybe how they felt about their experience with the Courier. I would completely agree that you don't want to know their life story, just maybe a glimpse into what their life will be like now that the galaxy wide threat has been dealt with, because yes, I do actually care. For example, I can't even imagine what Miranda will be doing with Cerberus abolished, so maybe a hint that she's a fugitive, or granted immunity for her recent actions would be nice. In regard to the rest of the slides, saying that we rebuilt everything to how it was before is just a appeasement to fans who thought everyone was dead. A hint to the future of the galaxy would be a reminder that, say, that after their cure Krogan are still angry regarding the genophage, and without a temperate leader, future war is inevitable, or that because you didn't cure the genophage, the losses they sustained in the final battle might never be recovered from. This is one of the reason I actually like to replay Fallout: New Vegas and Dragon Age: Origins, because they give you an idea of what will happen in the world after you leave AND it's different every time depending on the choices you make along the way, not in the last 5 minutes. Not novels worth of text, but little snippets you can extrapolate from using your imagination. That's ambiguity used correctly. Mass Effect 3 says: Everyone is alive who is alive, most of the stuff is fixed, imagine the rest yourself. The problem is that as you point out, Mass Effect is fundamentally their story not mine, and I would have appreciated their imaginings on where the world and characters are likely to go next, as it is incredibly unlikely we will every see a direct sequel (nor should we).

About Miranda, she is featured in the epilogue stills, so we know what she's doing depending on your choice. We could argue she is running and working with her sister away from society during Control and Destroy, but during Synthesis, they show her working on plans to build new things along with the rest of society, showing the additional understanding of the synthetics allowed her to fit right back in, because everyone understands each other on a whole different level now.
Sadly, the rest of your argumentation here is very much personal feelings and how you would have liked things to be. I didn't play New Vegas, so I didn't experiment your ending nor can relate on how it would feel or whatever. So it's all a matter of opinion here. They wanted to leave it open ended, you would have liked more. I still believe I know my crew enough that I know what they'll do next. I didn't feel the need for further explanation.

I touched on this earlier. They didn't decide to drop it, not really, it was decided for them by fans when it got leaked prematurely. I don't remember where, I did read an extrapolated plot from the dark energy angle, and it was actually quite similar, in concept, to a terrific science fiction novel. It's interesting and the end decision they had originally planned involving deciding whether to destroy the reapers and risk the catastrophe, find a compromise, or give in to the reapers, sacrificing humanity but possibly saving the universe was much more interesting, if still not consistant with themes in the Mass Effect universe.

Again, I could see this coming in a sequel. I'm sure they didn't drop the idea

To be fair if your only connection to Mass Effect is being in the same galaxy, you might as well start a new IP, but that's a whole different issue. I'm always one to cry foul when franchises overstay their welcome, and this being a definite end to the series is not something I have a problem with. It's that it was a terrible ending.

I'll argue that Mass Effect wasn't about the milky way galaxy so much as it was about the people, the science, that Babylon 5 feel that people often reference (I didn't watch the show), and that's something we could see in another galaxy, using roughly the same science. Of course, there wouldn't be any humans, unless one human manages to travel to another galaxy, and that becomes our new hero

Again, science isn't the important part. The ending needs to make sense though, which - objectively - it doesn't. That failing, it needs to be emotionally engaging, and the new extended cut with the voice overs is cheesy beyond belief, which renders that moot as well. I mentioned above that mystique and mystery are different than not telling anything. If the writers want the gamer to use their imagination, then it's their responsibility to set them on the right direction, which this ending fails to do. Lastly, regarding the ambiguity over Shepard's death (the breath scene) saying that not explicitly telling whether he is alive or dead is better storytelling is like saying that leaving it a mystery as to whether or not Luke Skywalker made it out of the Death Star before it blew up would make Star Wars a better story. No. No it fucking wouldn't. As you mentioned, they don't need to really worry about cannon, because having 3 endings negates the possibility of continuing this story canonically, so they have no excuse for omitting this detail.

Agreed on that last part. That last breath scene was a little retarded. But I think they left it like that so that people wouldn't pick "Destroy" as a canon ending. If it was clear Shepard was alive and well (as in more than just a breath), everybody would jump on the destroy ending, and that would just kill the whole mystery and "what happens now" feeling you get from all endings.
Again, for me it did the job, for you it didn't. I think I addressed every single one of your issues, providing good explanation for each of them, but if there's something more, do go ahead and tell.
Again, what I liked you didn't, and that's normal. I don't want to force down your throat that this ending was somehow beyond Awesome and you should kneel to Bioware you know. Everybody's got different tastes, and I have to respect that.

 

[Nathan Josephs]

dear still complaining mass effect fans:

STFU.

sincerely,
the internet.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

No, but then I'm still refusing to buy anything with EA's name on it so I haven't seen the original or the extended cut ending. Which is a considerable sacrifice since I like Bioware's games, although I'm not impressed with the look of ME3 and from the sounds of it I'm not missing much.
EDIT:

dear still complaining mass effect fans:

STFU.

sincerely,
the internet.

Second!

 

[TheCommanders]

That is one hell of a post. I'll try and answer every single one of your issues. And thank you very much. I love a good debate, and you seem to be totally worth the time. So I'll try not to dissapoint.

-snip-

Again, what I liked you didn't, and that's normal. I don't want to force down your throat that this ending was somehow beyond Awesome and you should kneel to Bioware you know. Everybody's got different tastes, and I have to respect that.

Well, I feel like we could keep going back and forth for quite some time, and probably become less cordial as things progressed to I'll just wrap up by trying to sum up why I don't like the ending in 2 reasons, and these are definitely opinons.

1. For me, Story Collapse Occurred.

This is term that I saw coined (as far as I know) by a guy who wrote an enormous article on the problems with Thieves' Guild quest line in Skyrim. Now the link is below, but if you're not interested in Skyrim then here's the important quote:

I?ve written before about ?story collapse?. That?s the process where some plot hole or nonsensical event irritates you and causes you to analyze the story more closely, which reveals more problems, which leads to more scrutiny, until the whole thing falls apart.
(Link for full story: http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=14422 )

This is what happened for me. At this point I'd be hard pressed to remember the first little annoyance or inconsistency that caused me to look closer, but whatever it was, it caused me to notice problem after problem, which compounded to ruin the ending for me. Individually, yes, many of these problems could probably be explained away (although explained satisfactorily is entirely a matter of opinion), however as they accrue it makes the entire thing harder and harder to go along with, and at some point my suspension of disbelief broke down to the point where I no longer believed it could be happening the way they said it was, which meant I could no longer be emotionally involved, which meant to me the endings feel hollow. This is why it is important to me that stories be told in a way that is clear and makes enough sense that I never feel the need to examine it. I suspect many other stories (in games, films, or otherwise) that I like have similar numbers of problems, but they were told in a way that I never felt like they caused a problem. In Mass Effect 3, for me, they did.

2. A choice at the end of a game throws out player agency

Even if all the choices had been brilliant and I had felt comfortable with the concept of the crucible and catalyst, it ultimately wouldn't have mattered, because a choice centric game shouldn't have a choice at the end. A good ending to a game about choice should be showing the results of the players choices playing out. Making choices and seeing their consequences is what creates player agency in a game like this. Take the Witcher 2. Regardless of some problems I had with that game, it knew how to handle player choice. Most of the major decisions were made either early on, or midway through the game. This meant that near the end you were experiencing the results of your choices, which made them feel that much more important. In Fallout: New Vegas, towards the end there were few options for branching story lines, because all the choices you'd made up until that point culminated in the events that then played out. Maybe it's a matter of preference, but putting a choice at the end of a game which is independent of all the choices you've made up to that point, and is also the single most important choice of the game just smacks of rendering all the other decisions worthless by comparison. That is why no matter how intricate, well written, and thematically relevant a final choice could have been on the crucible, the fact that it was independent of the rest of the game made it something I could never connect with or care about.

Good debate.

 

[DigitalAtlas]

You know how I dealt with these things?

I got over it.

That was the best response to a long book-like post I've ever seen.

OP:.... I didn't know we had a fan-fiction forum....?

 

[Zaik]

Or you could just stop giving bioware money for being bad.

They haven't been good writers for a long(LONG) time, and the gameplay part of their games has always been bad. At best, they can do spacefuture gears of war.

 

[Erttheking]

dear still complaining mass effect fans:

STFU.

sincerely,
the internet.

Such elegance and grace you have there (sarcasm)

 

[Earlybuddy]

Well, I feel like we could keep going back and forth for quite some time, and probably become less cordial as things progressed to I'll just wrap up by trying to sum up why I don't like the ending in 2 reasons, and these are definitely opinons.

1. For me, Story Collapse Occurred.

This is term that I saw coined (as far as I know) by a guy who wrote an enormous article on the problems with Thieves' Guild quest line in Skyrim. Now the link is below, but if you're not interested in Skyrim then here's the important quote:

I?ve written before about ?story collapse?. That?s the process where some plot hole or nonsensical event irritates you and causes you to analyze the story more closely, which reveals more problems, which leads to more scrutiny, until the whole thing falls apart.
(Link for full story: http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=14422 )

This is what happened for me. At this point I'd be hard pressed to remember the first little annoyance or inconsistency that caused me to look closer, but whatever it was, it caused me to notice problem after problem, which compounded to ruin the ending for me. Individually, yes, many of these problems could probably be explained away (although explained satisfactorily is entirely a matter of opinion), however as they accrue it makes the entire thing harder and harder to go along with, and at some point my suspension of disbelief broke down to the point where I no longer believed it could be happening the way they said it was, which meant I could no longer be emotionally involved, which meant to me the endings feel hollow. This is why it is important to me that stories be told in a way that is clear and makes enough sense that I never feel the need to examine it. I suspect many other stories (in games, films, or otherwise) that I like have similar numbers of problems, but they were told in a way that I never felt like they caused a problem. In Mass Effect 3, for me, they did.

2. A choice at the end of a game throws out player agency

Even if all the choices had been brilliant and I had felt comfortable with the concept of the crucible and catalyst, it ultimately wouldn't have mattered, because a choice centric game shouldn't have a choice at the end. A good ending to a game about choice should be showing the results of the players choices playing out. Making choices and seeing their consequences is what creates player agency in a game like this. Take the Witcher 2. Regardless of some problems I had with that game, it knew how to handle player choice. Most of the major decisions were made either early on, or midway through the game. This meant that near the end you were experiencing the results of your choices, which made them feel that much more important. In Fallout: New Vegas, towards the end there were few options for branching story lines, because all the choices you'd made up until that point culminated in the events that then played out. Maybe it's a matter of preference, but putting a choice at the end of a game which is independent of all the choices you've made up to that point, and is also the single most important choice of the game just smacks of rendering all the other decisions worthless by comparison. That is why no matter how intricate, well written, and thematically relevant a final choice could have been on the crucible, the fact that it was independent of the rest of the game made it something I could never connect with or care about.

Good debate.

Yeah, see that really depends on how you experience a story, and what matters to you the most. I played Skyrim, and in some way, I thought one of the most interesting main quest lines was actually the Thieves Guild. I never analyzed the whole thing too deeply (cause to me it was a magical world where a lot of shit happened anyway), so it never bothered me.

I get the feeling you wouldn't like Doctor Who. Cause you know, I'm the type of guy who can just relax and enjoy the show on an emotional level and ignore the minor plotholes, and Doctor Who is still a show that pisses me off all the time

I agree with number 2. In the end, it would have been awesome for each and everyone of us to get a very different ending reflecting how we played, but I get a feeling they decided the choices at the end were a better idea, probably because they thought players would complain about not getting the ending they wanted, that it didn't reflect their character path very well. Reflecting the main character correctly in an ending when you have no idea how the player is experiencing his Shepard inside his head, that can be very complicated.

In the end, there are a lot of design choices and sacrifices they made we will never know about :S

Good talking with you

 

[Khazoth]

So basicly what you have here is a choice between Adolph Hitler and Jesus Christ.

I would like to tell you all a story. When I initially made this post, I was reacting to his post because I had skipped through his post to read the walkthrough, because I thought it was a walkthrough of the actual Extended Cut.


Yep, maybe i'm thick, or maybe Bioware's reputation has sunken so low that i'd honestly believe that they wrote what amounts to fanfiction.


No offense, guy, your ending is still more thought out then theirs was.

 

[Kasten]

@Earlybuddy

Regarding Doctor Who, the Doctor himself actually comments on several of the plotholes many times over the new series, and several are actually important plot elements.

(Amy not knowing what a Dalek is)

(Daleks always coming back)

(Why the Weeping Angels haven't killed the entire universe yet.)

 

[Nuke_em_05]

I don't need as convoluted a solution.

Follow canon through the confrontation with Anderson and the Illusive Man on the Citadel. Depending on which "survives" (Anderson or the Illusive Man) you can use that control panel to open the Citadel and either destroy or control the reapers. EC endings follow with two exceptions: control doesn't involve "Meta-Shepard" and Synthesis isn't an option, because fuck Synthesis.

It has the closure of EC, and takes care of the biggest problem: The Catalyst being the Master Reaper AI. Because fuck Starchild.

Spoiler: Longer explanation of Fuck Synthesis

1. No Catalyst as Starchild to suggest it in my version.
2. Forcing all organics to become hybrids whether they like it or not seems pretty much like the Reaper MO.
3. The sheer mechanics of it just break suspension of disbelief.
4. What the hell does it imply for the Husks? I mean, Jesus Christ, the psychological horror.

Spoiler: Longer explanation of Fuck Starchild

1. If the Master Reaper AI was on the Citadel the whole time, ME(1) doesn't make any sense. Refusal ending indicates it is connected to Harbinger, who could contact/control the Collectors from Dark Space to the Galactic core, so why would the Keeper Signal be necessary at all?
2. It says it needs a new "solution", but if you choose not to play, it goes back to the old solution. However, it also would allow you to destroy the reapers even though it believes that wouldn't be a viable "solution".
3. How does it know to take the form of the little boy unless it was somehow in Shepard's head already?

 

[Delock]

I like that you say 99% of people didn't like the ending based on the internet outcry. What about the people that didn't bother to weigh into the whole thing and just backed off purely because of the huge shit storm the ending caused?

Also, why was this such a controversy when I felt more betrayed by Deus Ex: HR, KoTOR 2, Demon's Souls, or, if you want a sci-fi trilogy that really got gutted by the publisher in terms of direction of the ending, Xenosaga 3.

You want to talk about a series with a bad ending, let's look at one planned for 6 games cut to 3 while the third game was in development. Let's look at a game where the ENTIRE plot had to be redone to allow for it to be an ending, transforming what could have been a good story arc for the third into an overly long section that drags on for too long towards the middle, kills off most of the cast in order to wrap things up, drops five important subplots, brings back characters too early without enough buildup, and after all that still has to end with a "To Be Continued" esque ending where the survivors basically end up cut off and alone trying to search for the rest of the cast, with the question of whether or not the universe's end has really been averted or not.

Bear in mind these are JRPGs full of side missions to explore, so to go through a single playthrough of each game with an average amount of sidequesting will put you over the amount of time invested in a single playthrough with heavy sidequesting of the Mass Effect series.

Oh, and the fun part is that this was originally planned to make up for Xenogears' second disc, meaning it's four games worth of buildup here.

So tell me again, how badly did ME3's ending where you meet either the proxy of or the demi-deity responsible for everything and get to make a choice that definitively changes everything through the failsafe of the cycle's predetermined options that are tailor made for any species strong enough to beat the cycle to utilize let you down?

 

[White_Lama]

Haven't gotten the EC because I like the original ending and game as it was

 

[Z of the Na'vi]

dear still complaining mass effect fans:

STFU.

sincerely,
the internet.

As soon as the Bronies do the same, you got it.

OT: I haven't gotten around to playing Extended Cut yet, and have avoided the spoilerific videos. I didn't have a problem with the original endings, so I'm sure I'll enjoy seeing my choice explained a bit more all the same.