Very Long Analysis of ME3 Ending, aka why the ending is great (spoilers)

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

I see some of you have reached the acceptance stage.

Obvious troll is obvious. I mean, when you open a topic with something like "I have a degree in literature and I minored in film studies" you're clearly trying to tell people how your opinion is superior because you have a piece of paper that says how you know more about that stuff than the average person. Yeah, right.

 

[CAMDAWG]

Okay, so I'm going to admit first and foremost, that I didn't read your entire post. Because the second you said that people don't like the endings because we don't understand them, your entire post takes on a pretentious undertone, and that statement is completely superfluous. An appropriate opening would be "people dislike the ending, I think it's good. This is why..." Suggesting that the only reason we dislike it is because we don't understand is supremely arrogant, and I don't care what your qualifications are, it shouldn't be there. I have no desire to read something by someone who thinks so highly of themselves, and so lowly of me, and anyone else who shares my opinion.

However, I did read your section on "entropy", because I read Yahtzee's article as well, and this point makes no fucking sense. For one, "order" and "chaos" are really only mentioned when talking to reapers, and really only in the third game, post-rannoch. So that is less than one sixth of the entire series that actually mentions or alludes to it in any way. That does not qualify for a "main theme".

Furthermore, if one was to take "entropy" as a main theme, especially with regards to inevitability of events, then logic demands that the reapers should lose. Take into account the fact that reapers are supposed to represent order, and organics chaos. Now ask yourself a question. Does order increase in a closed system? Why no it doesn't. Does entropy stay the same in a closed system, representing the maintenance of a status quo? Why no it doesn't. Entropy always increases, and thus is layman's terms, chaos increases.

So if "entropy" is a main theme as you suggest, it contradicts your point within it, where you state that "the reapers always win".

You may also notice that this post is a little condescending, and you may be right. It's one thing to open a discussion with a holier-than-thou attitude, while dismissing your opposition's position because if they don't agree with you, then they must not understand, but it's another thing to do all that with fucking stupid arguments that are self contradictory.

 

[wickedmonkey]

While I've not read everything in the thread I'd like to just throw my thoughts in.

I didn't mind Shepard sacrificing himself - very heroic etc. etc.

I did mind the "Hi, I'm a hastily added God entity and I'm going to give you only 3 choices for 'saving' the universe and no matter what you do the mass effect relays will explode."

"In one scenario they'll explode for no reason, in another they'll make the reapers explode too and in the third on we're going to forcibly rewrite the genetic code of every being in the galaxy via the medium of explosion. (And for some reason, this wont be excrutiatinlgy painful or lethally traumatic for everyone involved.)"

I did mind the idiot cyclical logic as helpfully exhibited by Xzibit (http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m14p0grq6M1qk6yhjo1_500.jpg for those who still have yet to see it.)

I did mind that there wasn't a fourth option where Shepard rounds on the God-kid with something along the lines of "No, you little twerp. We don't need your 'solutions'. Just because you butchered your creators all those millennia ago doesn't mean that other civilisations would have suffered the same fate. Who are you to decide that? We'll decide our own fates thank you very much. Just take your reapers and get lost, go fellate a black hole or examine the insides of a sun for a while and leave us to get on with our lives."

I did mind that somehow all your crew managed to recover from that final reaper attack, dust themselves off, leave the immediate area and get picked up by the Normandy, leave Earth in the middle of the most crucial battles of all time to escape through a mass effect relay.

Also what is Joker hoping to achieve by looking backwards while he's escaping the explosion? From everything I've seen inside the Normandy the only view-port he has is forward facing, is he just making sure the rest of the ship is still there?

Oh and why, after landing is my love interest totally OK with the fact that I've been atomised and they'll never see me again?

I don't mind sad endings, just so long as they make sense and there's some sort of closure, these endings look like someone's gone "The ending should have people escaping from explosions because that looks really cool and then... I don't know, do whatever."

Aaaaand breathe... aaaaand relax... OK, I'm done.

 

[Von Strimmer]

Maybe I've been playing a different series, because the theme was always "hope" there's always hope no matter how grim things look, defiance and victory through co-operation and diversity. I seriously can't comprehend where people are seeing all this hopeless grim fatality in the series, especially after ME2 where you could walk away with no losses. It smacks of grasping at straws to justify the ending to me.

Unusualstranger nailed it basically, and you claim if we ask any sort of questions about the ending we're what? over-thinking it? under-thinking it? just thinking about it wrong? your claims that we might all be put off by sheps death is a big issue I have with all the pro arguments, I assumed shep wouldn't walk away from ME3 simply because it was to easy a way to leave an impact on the player and end sheperd story arc, but I assumed I would have more say in my end and my actions leading up to my end would be meaningfully shown.

It's a big vague plot hole ridden mess made far worse in that it removes the player from the equation almost entirely which is probably there biggest mistake.

It really feels like one or two people sat down after dismissing the rest of the team and came up with a deliberately vague plot hole mess in a vain attempt at a deep ending with last-ability in the interpretations of the fans. But all anyone can see is how ham-fisted the attempt was.

This chap/chapette gets it. You dont sit there thinking 'sacrifice' for the entire game (if you do then imo you're a depressing person). For me the game is about overcoming the odds, "they dont expect you to survive" fuck that I'm on commander Shepard and I will survive.

People hate the ending for many reasons. Here is the one reason why they hate it for many reasons. THERE IS NO CHOICE IN THE END! The game is about choice! You should have the choice to survive or sacrifice yourself, the option of winning an unwinnable war or losing pending your actions. We didn't get that in the end, all we got was pretty colours and several huge plot holes.

Shepard talks back and cross examines reapers, reporters, spectres, hell even the TIM. Why is it when he meets the god child he just stands there looking stupid being ordered around, it doesnt make sense. Bioware pulled the Chewbacca defence with this one.

Furthermore why does the Normandy run, how did my allies get on the ship when they supposedly died with me making a run for the transport beam. Why does Shepard wake up on Earth if you destroy with ovr 5k war assets? IT IS NOT AN ENDING!

Your review is bad and you should feel bad, you have failed to address all criteria and have made several assumptions which you have not backed up with sources.

EDIT* IMO it doesnt feel like an ending, it feels like a plot point.
EDIT** I have another bit to add. What kind of stupid backwards logic are the Reapers using? Seriously "we (sentient machines) kill people so they wont make sentient machines to kill themselves", that is some seriously flawed logic.

 

[God's Clown]

Spoiler

I should also point out that I have read the indoctrination theory, but I don?t believe enough evidence exists for this theory (but it?s fun, just like the Squall is dead theory for VIII is fun).

How about this to convince you of the theory(or at least that something weird is happening):

Shepard can live if you choose to destroy the Reapers(and have a high EMS).

Shepard is badly injured by Harbinger's beam, shot by Marauder Shields, bleeds for 5-10 minutes, causes the machine to explode(the one you destroy to choose the destroy option) in his face, the cinematic shows the Citadel exploding with him in it, damage from burning up on reentry as he falls to earth, and finally the collision with the ground.

Shepard my be tough but he is not THAT tough.

Edit:
Also, as others have pointed out, sacrifice is not a theme of the series as you can frequently choose options that will let you have your cake and eat it to.

Also to add, if you look at the background behind Shepard when he does his "I am alive breath" there is a blueish aura, and you know what was blue and gave off an aura? That's right, the beam leading to the citadel.

 

[Bvenged]

To be fair, it is a chore to read and you really could try shortening it, but I think I managed to pull together a response:

You're right, it does fit into the 3 recurring themes of sacrifice, entropy and (in some way) forgiveness that has trickled through the series...
...and I fall into the first category you mention, the ones who think the ending cutscene was bad because it was a piece of shoddy-ass crap that rounded up nothing and played as a less-than spectacular eye-candy climax(ish)...
...and I fall into the category who think the entire culmination of the ending is rubbish because it takes few of our decisions into account despite leading nearly every single one of us into such an expectation...
...and I think that the game has an acceptable ending.

But that's just it. It's a brash ending and not a conclusion. A conclusion we were all hoping for, lead to believe we were getting, marketed into expecting and one which was delivered in a severely disappointing way so a conclusion seemed non-existent. Mass Effect 3 was supposed to be the conclusion to the Shepard saga and it wasn't. it was just an end to it. WE didn't work hard for a conclusion, we don't deserve it, but it was in Bioware's best interests to deliver it, because it is what they had... in fact, let me put this into game context:

The reapers placed their technology around the galaxy so that emerging civilisations were inclined & subtly encouraged to follow the path the reapers wanted. Bioware did the same thing. They built Mass Effect in such a way that in the first game, all this choice was appealing to us: Sacrifice, entropy and forgiveness. The second game expanded on that in awe-inspiring ways ; and the third game brought a spectacular close to all the choices we had made in the trilogy. This was done in ways so that no 2 Shepards would be the same, so as fans we came to expect an ending in the same perametres of that.

Now, you might say "But that's the beauty of it! The ending is inevitable/reapers didn't do it for the aiding of civilisations (smart, unexpected ending)/etc." That's exactly my point too. The reapers are DETESTED as soon as we find out that their technology was not for our own good, but to make their jobs easier (which was for our own good ???). The same is applied to Bioware. If the reapers HAD done it for the good of organism-kind and not killed everybody, they would be worshipped as amazing beasts... and so would've Bioware if they'd given us all the ending we were lead to expect.

Now, if you were a jackass your Shepard should have such an ending. If your crew distrusted you, they could die like in ME2. Earth could fall if your military light was not great enough, but the galaxy is saved. Or the galaxy/whole races are lost if you failed to unite everybody. Shepard can die in one instance but if you worked hard for it, Shepard could live. All of these were expected endings of Bioware and are completely capable of them to do. So why didn't they do it? Because the scriptwriter tried to be too smart and while we all love clever endings adn stories (see: Bioshock), nobody likes to watch a game turn into some kind of philosophical analysis/literature essay. It's a game. We want fond memories, a smile on our faces and/or a tear in our eyes.

 

[Jimber_Jam]

Quite frankly it seems almost ridiculous to even go through all the examples because they are so numerous, so I?m going to just list them: (1) Sacrificing people on Earth while you escape, (2) Tali (if you side with the Geth and can?t unite the races), (3) Kaiden/Ashley (if you can?t get them to back down), (4) Thane (saving the council), (5) Anderson (staying on Earth to lead the resistance), (6) Primarch?s son (stopping the bomb), (7) the entire quarian race (if you side with geth), (8) entire geth race (if you side with the quarians), (9) Thessia.

I'm not sure you know what sacrifice means. For something to be a sacrifice, there has to be a conscious choice to lose something or someone for the greater good. So several of these are not at all sacrifices. (1) It's not exactly a sacrifice if there was no way you could save them anyway. (4) Thane, on his own, makes the decision to attack Kai Leng. Also, he was- from the beginning- already going to die as he was terminally ill. (5) Anderson makes the decision to stay behind. You can even try to talk him out of it. Also, he survives until the end no matter what. (6) He makes the decision on his own. (9) You try to save Thessia but ultimately fail, you don't choose to let it fall.

 

[Von Strimmer]

Couldn't agree more guys.

Spoiler

Again, it isn't just that the game lacks a happy ending. That is a problem in my opinion, and in case anyone tells me I can't handle a bleak ending I'll point out that I'm a huge Song of Ice and Fire fan. Bleak is fine when it fits. But the overly bleak ending is only a minor problem in comparison to what's really pissing everyone off. From the moment you hear that the Citadel has been taken and moved to Earth, the plot holes and unanswered questions start piling up exponentially.

What happened to the millions of people on the Citadel?

If the Reapers control the Citadel now why aren't they shutting down the Mass Relays?

If they could take the Citadel so quickly and easily, why didn't they do so earlier?

If the Reapers moved the Citadel because they found out about the Crucible, why is it suggested earlier that they'd already begun constructing the beam/conduit/thing-that-I can't-remember-the-name-of?

How did Shepard manage to survive Harbinger's beam?

What happened to the squad members who joined you in the assault?

How is Shepard managing to breath in an area that appears exposed to open space?

If the Catalyst controls the Reapers as is implied, what was the purpose of Sovereign?

Why couldn't the Catalyst simply activate the Citadel's Mass Relay? Why tie that function to the Keepers?

Why does the Catalyst look and sound like the little boy? Is it reading Shepard's mind, or was the kid a hallucination from the beginning?

Why are the writer's re-introducing the synthetics are dangerous angle from ME1 when all of our interations with synthetics besides the Reapers since then has indicated that they're simply misunderstood? The OP mentions that the Reapers probably have proof of their assertion. Okay, but that's pretty meaningless unless we can see the proof as well. For all we know the Catalyst is lying, or just straight up wrong.

For that matter are we now meant to believe that the Reapers aren't synthetics? Is the Catalyst not an AI? If they are, how come they haven't destroyed all organic life?

Why don't we get any chance to argue with the Catalyst? Yeah I get that Shepard is probably on Death's door at that point, but it's still really out of character.

How is the Crucible doing all the things it does? This applies mostly to the Synthesis/Green ending. Mass Effect has always provided some sort of explanation for the more unusual technologies, but making an entirely new replacement for DNA and retrofitting every single synthetic and organic in the entire galaxy with it is way beyond anything we've seen before. For that matter how does that effect AIs that don't have physical forms? For example, EDI wasn't just inhabiting Eva Core's body, so is the Normandy part organic now? Just the AI core behind the med-bay? And what's to stop these new synth-organics from creating an all-synthetic lifeform later? Man, the Synthesis ending just keeps throwing up new questions the more I think about it, so I'll just stop there.

Why is Joker running away, and how did your squad members get from London to the Normandy?

What happened to Mass Relays exploding with the force of a supernova when destroyed? The blast wave pretty clearly damages the Normandy, so did Shepard just kill pretty much everyone? I mean, those blast waves are visible from above the freaking galactic plane.

In two of three endings the Reapers aren't destroyed. Where do they go? Back to dark space to hibernate for eternity?

If Shepard survives the destroy ending, he doesn't seem to be on the Citadel anymore. Are we meant to believe that someone who was already just about dead managed to survive entry into Earth's atmosphere with ruined armour and no oxygen supply? The last time something like this happened to Shepard it took the Lazarus Project to bring him back to life, and this goes beyond even that.

You see Joker and two squad members get off the Normandy. What happens to the rest of the crew? Assuming they all survived, the Normandy has a crew of maybe forty people. Is that even enough genetic diversity to start a viable colony? Even if it is, pretty much everyone is going to have to get breeding, even the gay crew members. Do the dextro characters just straight up starve to death? If they don't, then do the levo characters starve? Does the result of the synthesis ending make these problems a non-issue? To make something clear, it's this plus the exploding relay stuff that makes me, and presumably a lot of other "haters", think that the ending is too bleak. If there weren't so many horrifying implications surrounding the ending I'd probably be satisfied with the ending's tone. Well probably not satisfied exactly, but certainly a hell of a lot less frustrated.

Assuming the relays didn't kill nearly everyone, how does galactic civilisation recover without the relays? FTL travel is dependant upon fuel supplies and locations suitable for discharging drive cores, and even without those concerns, doesn't it still take about three decades to go from one side of the galaxy to the other? At the very least anyone living in isolated locations dependant upon imported food stuffs are probably screwed.

How does the genophage cure play out? Does Krogan culture mellow out, or is there a repeat of the Krogan rebellions?

Yeah I can still think of more stuff so I'm just going to stop now. Like that Plinkett style review that's floating around points out, by the time the game is over narrative cohesion has gone on permanent vacation. While it is possible to guess at answers for these questions, for most, if not all of them, we really shouldn't have to. There's leaving some questions unanswered to create a sense of mystery, and then theres just not making any sense. There are just so many loose ends, so little closure, and so little consistency.

Could you email all of that to Bioware and put their answer/s on a thread? It would be interesting trying to see them answer that logically.

Solvemedia: I want control... Too right mate,

 

[Aurgelmir]

Perhaps in order to get Synthesis ending you must have allied with the Geth or reunited the Geth and the Quarians. Maybe, for control ending you have to save Miranda's evil father so he gives you the intelligence on how to control the reapers. Then destroy ending is simply based on war assets. I think that would be good, but that's not what Bioware picked and it doesn't bother me to the extent it bothers other people. I do see it as a valid point though.

Actually you have to have a certain amount of readiness to get the synthesis ending.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Commander Shepard killed a robot 'god'.

Commander Shepard is the person who bring everyone back from a suicide mission alive.

Commander Shepard can unite races that have had hundreds upon hundreds of years of conflict.

Overcoming insurmountable odds is what Shepard does best.

'You must choose destruction, control or synthesis'

'Fuck you, I'm Commander Shepard, I refuse to choose any of your silly convoluted options'

 

[TitanAtlas]

I like Angry Joe's Theory, that Sheperd was indocrinated.

Spoiler: In case if you are interested

Everything in it makes sense (except the kid), and makes me more hopefull that bioware is working in ending the series properly.

 

[Dwarfman]

It could be that I'm paranoid or something. But is it a little wierd that this is this person's first post. Escpecially when they're name shows up in the Bioware Community Network? Then again I'm sure most of our names show up on that network one way or the other. This long yet articulate OP however does seem to lean on the 'party' line a fair bit.

I'm sensing a Cerberus agent...Or maybe I'm just paranoid.

 

[MrFalconfly]

Oh not this again.

Listen. As long as we are talking about a story (videogame or otherwise) it is subject to the subjective opinions of whoever reads/watches/plays it.

Some may think a story has plotholes, others think those "plotholes" give space for discussion later on (I for example am one of the loonies who like an open ending because it gives me space to philosophize over what will happen to the characters after the text starts rolling).

Some think the ME3 ending was good others that it was bad.

BTW wasn't that what the ME3 writes set off to do at the start? Polarize people?

 

[AbstractStream]

You have some good points OP (and frankly, I can't believe I read the whole thing). My problem was never about Shepard sacrificing him/herself though. I started up the game thinking she was gonna die. Which sucked because I had grown attached, but hey. It was for the galaxy.

Anyway, before I start rambling on, I can't just disregard the whole end cutscene. Are you serious? That's part of the ending even if you say otherwise. If completely ignoring the last cutscene makes it a great ending, then I think I'm missing something.

 

[Britisheagle]

I'm not bothered so much that Shepard dies, there are plenty of games where the protaganist dies that I have enjoyed, in fact I think it can make one hell of a conclusion and was one of the reasons why I wasn't fond of the Gears ending.

My complaint is that not enough was explained, too many questions where raised. Also I just want, like Yahtzee suggested, a sort of mini conclusion for each of my squadmates even if it is just to show them being turned by the reapers or blown to pieces.

Good read though, many points where raised and hopefully will make people accept the endings more.

 

[Loethlin]

SNIP!

I like this and I like you. You pretty much summed up my own opinions on this.

As for the OP... several things.

Friend, asserting your right by telling us "I have a degree!" is about as valid as this:

It's tacky...

You seem to be misapplying themes to several events in the game, too, as many people pointed out.

And then, there's the fact that you seem to be thinking people don't like the ending ONLY because Shepard dies... Which not only is incorrect (Shep can live) but also incredibly arrogant.

 

[OniaPL]

I still feel like I was lied to. They promised me this, but did I get it? Nope. Fucking liars.

 

[Riff Moonraker]

but what about all the plot holes? You're kinda missing the point of why people didn't like the ending

Exactly... I agree completely with you. Also, another thing that infuriated me to no end was being FORCED to play the multiplayer. If you want all the achievements, you have no choice but to play the multiplayer. But that isnt the true wrong here. I think it was completely ridiculous to force the players to get your galaxy readiness up high enough (only through multiplayer... I did EVERYTHING possible on my playthrough and it still wasnt high enough) to get the brief glimpse of of shepard "breathing". That ROYALLY pissed me off.