Mass Effect 3 Ending Discussion

[Typhoid]

Instead of comparing it to art, compare it to a car that you drive and you know a way to improve it. Or a comic you read and you have a great idea for a volume.

A car is not a story that is worked on by people who are proud of what they have accomplished, and want to share their idea of an amazing science-fiction Universe with everyone.
I'm not comparing the game to art. it is art.


But okay, let's put you in that comic-book writers' shoes.


Say you write a comic. You're - let's say 4 years into it's creation. Suddenly on the last few comics you start getting fan complaints that they didn't like what you were making. So you think "Oh, that's a shame that they didn't like what I created, and have poured time into."

But now imagine that those loyal fans that you had who love and read your comic attempt to take legal action on you so you legally have to alter your own creation.

I think this means we're getting old

Fuck, tell me about it.
I catch myself legitimately saying "Kids these days", and "damn kids". Yesterday I told kids to get off my lawn. I was not joking.

[Angrist]

What about the movie comparison?

[Typhoid]

Or what about all those directors that come up with multiple endings to their movies? Think of The Butterfly Effect. There's the "director's cut" ending which not too many appreciated. Then there's the alternative one which the director made the standard ending in European cinemas: people felt better about that ending and the director gave in. It's good business for him.
The director's cut can still be found for people who prefer it.

I see what you're getting at.

Mass Effect is built with those multiple endings in the game. All of those alternate deleted scenes that you're talking about are part of Mass Effect already. Just like they are part of the Butterfly Effect. The Butterfly Effect has a static story. 1 path, 1 movie, 1 ending. Mass Effect has many paths spread over 3 games, and variations of 3 endings.

The director of Butterfly effect giving in on his own is different than if he legally had to do it, and wasn't planning on changing his creation. How many writers/directors have changed the ending of their movie post-release because of bad feedback (in modern times)? I assume it's probably just The Butterfly Effect and less than a dozen others.. There are exceptions to everything, though.



The creators of Mass Effect shouldn't have to change anything in their game for a few reasons:

1: They made it. It's their choice. Not the consumer. The creator. This isn't the food industry.

2: The alternate routes are part of the game. Don't view 'Mass Effect' as 3 individual games. View it as 1 large game on 3 discs. 1 movie-story in 3 parts. Does Mass Effect 3 give you lots of choice compared to the other 2 games? No. Not really. Mass Effect 3 is the ending of a movie. It's the big fight scene right before 20 minutes before the credits. It's the Skywalker reunion. It's the sum of all of your previous 2 games of choices.

3: Who's to say they weren't planning DLC for after the ending was released. (Maybe they legitimately weren't, but being Bioware, and EA - I assume they had a plethora of DLC ready, or planned from day 1) Why suddenly on this game is the ending "the ending", but with other games people accept that DLC will be probab;y released after the game - but this time nobody thought logically like "Yeah, they might release DLC. They love DLC" and said "What, THAT was it? What the fuck. I didn't like that. I can't believe there isn't more than that. What a joke. I'll complain until they change it so I like it better."


Because at this point it doesn't matter who liked the game, or the story, or ending they presented. It only matters if they can shut up the spoiled kids who've never been told "no". Squeaky wheel gets the grease. In all of that what is being entirely lost is that there are people who completely love the game and the series for what it was. People that have nothing to complain about other than the other people complaining about it.

[Angrist]

Maybe I missed the part where they legally have to change it.

The way I see it is that they want to keep their good reputation and not let it be besmeared by something their buyers can't appreciate (or are too stupid to understand?).
I also assume they partly agree with the criticism. This isn't one of those "the main character dies but that's the beauty of the story" things, it's more of a weird choice that has no deeper meaning.
Bioshock or whatever the developer is called apparently cares enough to add to the ending.

Edit:

Originally Posted by Typhoid

This isn't the food industry.

Nice anology by the way. Perhaps the game industry is becoming more like the food industry. You have so much choice that you just pick the food/game you like. If everybody thinks the bread of McDonalds tastes like rubber, perhaps they should change it to keep their customer base.

[Vampyr]

Hey guys I know I'm a slowpoke, but I finally finished the game!

The ending was bad. Really bad.

And it wasn't bad because it was "sad", or because I died or anything like that. It was bad because it didn't make any sense with the rest of the lore. It was bad because of gaping plot holes. It was bad because it ignored your decisions.

It isn't even an opinion that the ending was bad. It was quantitatively bad. I can give you facts as to why it was bad. Anyone who says it wasn't bad is wrong.

Anyway, I chose the "control the reapers" ending. I didn't choose synthesis because it didn't seem right to make people into things they aren't. I didn't choose destruction because I don't accept genocide (killing the Geth) as a "good" ending. It bothers me that that ending is considered the "good" one - the one you have to have the most assets to unlock.

I've been reading into the indoctrination theory. What a longshot that is. If Bioware does end up using it in the epilogue I'm pretty sure it will be due to fan reaction and not because they actually planned on that being the ending.

[Combine 017]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

I've been reading into the indoctrination theory. What a longshot that is. If Bioware does end up using it in the epilogue I'm pretty sure it will be due to fan reaction and not because they actually planned on that being the ending.

I agree, although I would still accept it and semi-forgive them if they use that, but then be mad for making me purchase an unfinished game.

[Vampyr]

I would too, honestly.

They just left that universe in such a terrible state.

1. I created the synthetic reapers to destroy all organics so that organics wouldn't create AI to destroy them. WTF.

2. All the Mass Relays were destroyed.

2a. If this is like in the Arrival DLC, so were a ton of solar systems including Sol System, where everyone is

2b. If it wasn't like Arrival, there are an enormous amount of people stranded in Sol system who are eventually going to die of starvation

3. How did Liara/Garrus/etc get back on the Normandy. Makes no sense.

If it turns out that the entire end sequence was a dream and that the crucible actually worked, that would be A-OK with me. Then let player choices play out in how the different characters and galactic politics behave in the epilogue.

I just want my Shep to have blue babies with Liara.

[Typhoid]

It isn't even an opinion that the ending was bad. It was quantitatively bad. I can give you facts as to why it was bad. Anyone who says it wasn't bad is wrong.

I enjoyed the game, and the ending of it.
Prove my perception and opinion wrong.

I want to see these facts of yours, though.


(While I'm listening to the radio I just [of course] want to question/comment a couple things you said - just gives me something to talk about.)

They just left that universe in such a terrible state.

So? Is utter galactic devastation really so far-fetched when trying to comprehend a pretend alien invasion centred around harvesting all sentient life?

2b. If it wasn't like Arrival, there are an enormous amount of people stranded in Sol system who are eventually going to die of starvation

Again - so? Let those cunts starve, they were the expendable part of war. Maybe they are stranded to make you feel bad for them - because you as the player know that while the Universe is saved, they're ultimately fucked. Unless you chose to fuck the Universe - then they're fucked anyhow.

3. How did Liara/Garrus/etc get back on the Normandy. Makes no sense.

How does it make no sense to you? I don't mean that dickishly - just to you - where do the major flaws lie.
I just took that part as the "feel good" part of the ending. I banged Liara, and when she showed up on that planet with Joker and EDI I felt good, because I was like "Well awesome, at least they all didn't get screwed in that shockwave-thing that would have destroyed the ship fucking them all, and they actually randomly jumped somewhere to live out in peace, like ______ was talking about earlier in the game. And at least Liara has EDI's company and can eat Joker after he dies because she lives for another 700+ years. And at least Joker can get some sweet robot and alien sex in before he gets eaten."

I just assumed the game plopped in your best buddy at the end to show you someone you enjoyed playing with in the game didn't die, so you didn't have a complete empty death-hole left in your heart.


--------------------------------------

Again, about indoctrination.
I don't WANT to believe it. I like to have taken the game literally. What happened, happened.

But things make me think - like if the indoctrination thing wasn't a thing, then what was any of the fucking point of that little fucking kid who explodes in the ship, then shows up in all of your dreams running away from you and burning while smiling, and that kid also seemingly being the kid used as the catalyst.

Because 0 of that makes sense if you take the game literally. That's what makes me think about the game differently now, than the way I took it as while I was playing it.

But if he WAS indoctrinated, then that kid was simply an implant from a Reaper - as was the Catalyst - and the entire thing was a massive setup to attempt to get Shep to prolong the cycle on the Reapers behalf.

[Vampyr]

Those were just things I didn't personally like about the ending, not the reasons why it's bad (other than Liara and Garrus and everyone being on the Normandy, that's a legitimate reason it's bad).

I like how you're entire reason for liking the ending is that some parts made you feel good and some parts made you feel bad. If that's your criteria than this argument is already over and I have no chance of winning.

However, for the sake of argument, here is why the ending is bad:

1. The crew ended up back on the Normandy with Joker even though they were right behind me running to the beam. This is what we call a plot hole. It doesn't matter how it makes you feel - it's a plot hole. It is a quantitatively bad characteristic, not a subjective one.

2. The relays explode as soon as you make your decision. There's no way that Joker got the Normandy that close to the relay without leaving the crucible...which it's pretty safe to assume he didn't chicken out and run away.

3. You "save" the galaxy by having the reapers leave, one way or the other, but you either doomed thousands of people to being stranded at Earth or the explosions of the relays actually destroyed entire systems. You basically did the reapers job for them. Which is fine, if that's how they want to end it, but it's opposed to anything Sephard would have actually done. It goes against every choice you've made up until that point. It makes no sense.

4. It was really short. It treated the us, the gamers, like we were too stupid to understand a proper ending. After 5 years of sticking with this franchise and making hundreds of choices, we are given three choices with nearly identical end results and not told how anything turns out different. May be fine in another game, but not in Mass Effect where choice is paramount and the game was advertised as having endings that would be affected by your choices made through all three games.

[Typhoid]

I like how you're entire reason for liking the ending is that some parts made you feel good and some parts made you feel bad. If that's your criteria than this argument is already over and I have no chance of winning.

That's not why I liked the end, and I never said "I like the game because some parts make me feel good, and some parts make me feel bad" (Although if you break it down, isnt that why anyone likes or dislikes anything, because it makes you feel happy, or angry?)
I said I justified those parts as simply being bullshit "feel good" parts that are in most cheesy action movies at the end to give the viewer a sense of good, when all else is destroyed.

Also - what argument? Maybe this discussion would be better off from point A if you stop viewing each conversation where not everyone involved is a Yes Man as an "argument".

1. The crew ended up back on the Normandy with Joker even though they were right behind me running to the beam. This is what we call a plot hole. It doesn't matter how it makes you feel - it's a plot hole. It is a quantitatively bad characteristic, not a subjective one.

I never said it wasn't a plot hole. And I never defended the bad writing with "I enjoyed the game". I said I took the fact that everything 'worked out' for a handful of characters as a "feel good moment". The moment the hero comes back to the family after the building he was in explodes. That type of thing.

2. The relays explode as soon as you make your decision. There's no way that Joker got the Normandy that close to the relay without leaving the crucible...which it's pretty safe to assume he didn't chicken out and run away.

Isn't there a chance they could have just done some random lightspeed jump thing to take them to a random place in space - and not even use the Relay?
I don't mean that tongue-in-cheek. I'm not sure if that fake ship - The Normandy had the possibility to jump in space on it's own and would just wind up at a random location. I swear you did that in the last game to get away from Reapers or something.

3. You "save" the galaxy by having the reapers leave, one way or the other, but you either doomed thousands of people to being stranded at Earth or the explosions of the relays actually destroyed entire systems. You basically did the reapers job for them. Which is fine, if that's how they want to end it, but it's opposed to anything Sephard would have actually done. It goes against every choice you've made up until that point. It makes no sense.

.....in a series where there is no 'correct' plotline, and everyone has a different character - how can you "Know what Shepard would have actually done", especially when those are the only options given.
You know what your Shepard would have done.
You don't know what little Jimmy's would have done. Maybe little Jimmy's Shepard is a cunt and wants to destroy the entire Universe from day one. Then it makes complete sense.

4. It was really short. It treated the us, the gamers, like we were too stupid to understand a proper ending. After 5 years of sticking with this franchise and making hundreds of choices, we are given three choices with nearly identical end results and not told how anything turns out different. May be fine in another game, but not in Mass Effect where choice is paramount and the game was advertised as having endings that would be affected by your choices made through all three games.

I've never disagreed with that. The only thing I am, is content with the ending I received through my experiences playing the game.
I even said I felt like my choices in this game meant shit, and I felt like I was A(E)ffecting no Mass.
I came to terms with the fact that this game wasn't about choice - but about showing me my choices from the other games unfold - very early.
I agreed this game didn't feel like a Mass Effect game, and felt more like the MGS4 of it's series.
But I'm okay with that, and I'm allowed to be okay with that. I enjoyed the game(s) I played, I enjoyed the ridiculous amount of cutscenes I watched. I enjoyed the Universe they presented me, and they way they let me immerse myself in it, and interact with it.

Could the ending have been better? Of course. Hindsight's fantastic, and I never said the ending was amazing. I only said I was okay with it. That doesn't mean it's great.

A lot of parts of this game felt like cheese to me. Ultra 80's action movie cheese. They would put on some violin music, and Shepard would spew a few paragraphs of cheese while talking to Tali about her planet, Liara about...Liara, or Garrus about all the shit you've done in the previous two games. It had a lot of after-school-special moments. A lot of "Holy fuck, the Universe might end, let's declare how much we like eachother all the time" moments.

Maybe they thought it would go over really well, and it would make their fans think on a deeper level and appreciate the fact that no matter the choices they made, many people from many species still had to die to save everyone as a whole, and would look at the series as the big picture of all 3 games as 1 amazingly-intertwined story, rather than focusing on the ending of the series - where even the best outcome is still horrifyingly devastating - and wouldn't be upset that loose holes like how people got on ships mattered.

[Combine 017]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

Isn't there a chance they could have just done some random lightspeed jump thing to take them to a random place in space - and not even use the Relay?
I don't mean that tongue-in-cheek. I'm not sure if that fake ship - The Normandy had the possibility to jump in space on it's own and would just wind up at a random location. I swear you did that in the last game to get away from Reapers or something

Yes, the Normandy could have used its FTL drive to randomly jump to some point in space, but it didnt do that, it used the Mass Relay, and due to the relay exploding the warp tunnel destabilized and cause the Normandy to crash.

And why must you constantly state that this is "pretend" or "fake"? Clearly you arent very deep into the Mass Effect lore.

[Fox 6]

FTL and the Mas Relays are 2 different things. FTL is for like shorter ranges between stars in the same system. The mass relays are for longer jumps like across the entire galaxy. He wouldnt be crashing from the mass relays exploding if he wasnt using them in the first place.

[Ginkasa]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

Anyway, I chose the "control the reapers" ending. I didn't choose synthesis because it didn't seem right to make people into things they aren't. I didn't choose destruction because I don't accept genocide (killing the Geth) as a "good" ending. It bothers me that that ending is considered the "good" one - the one you have to have the most assets to unlock.

Just to clarify here (not that it really matters, I guess), but the "choice" that requires the most assets is synthesis. Being able to choose destroy actually requires the least amount of assets.

The reason its considered the "good" ending is because of an extra scene that can occur during the destroy sequence if you have uber amounts of assets. Basically, Shepard takes a breath back on Earth. Destroy is kind of interesting because it actually has a few versions of it depending on your assets. If you have few enough then destroy will be your only option and it will actually also destroy Earth along with the Reapers.

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by Ginkasa

Just to clarify here (not that it really matters, I guess), but the "choice" that requires the most assets is synthesis. Being able to choose destroy actually requires the least amount of assets.

The reason its considered the "good" ending is because of an extra scene that can occur during the destroy sequence if you have uber amounts of assets. Basically, Shepard takes a breath back on Earth. Destroy is kind of interesting because it actually has a few versions of it depending on your assets. If you have few enough then destroy will be your only option and it will actually also destroy Earth along with the Reapers.

Okay, I was just going on what my wife was telling me when I was making my decision. She must have meant that destruction + surviving requires the most assets. That is the ending she got.

I debated a lot between synthesis and control. If I do the ending again I may choose synthesis - I watched the ending on youtube and I kind of like the moment with EDI and Joker at the end. I wasn't expecting everyone to look like the Illusive Man, I as expecting everyone to fuse together in weird robot/organic hybrids (basically turning them into reapers anyway).

.....in a series where there is no 'correct' plotline, and everyone has a different character - how can you "Know what Shepard would have actually done", especially when those are the only options given.
You know what your Shepard would have done.
You don't know what little Jimmy's would have done. Maybe little Jimmy's Shepard is a cunt and wants to destroy the entire Universe from day one. Then it makes complete sense.

Whether you played renegade or paragon Shephard your goal was still to stop the reapers and save the galaxy - that didn't change based on your decisions. The only thing that changes is your methods of doing so.

But doing something that destroys the galaxy regardless is out of character for both Shephards.

[Typhoid]

Whether you played renegade or paragon Shephard your goal was still to stop the reapers and save the galaxy - that didn't change based on your decisions. The only thing that changes is your methods of doing so.

But doing something that destroys the galaxy regardless is out of character for both Shephards.

So you're telling me that if I wanted to play the game with the goal of destroying the Universe and aiding the Reapers - my goal is still to destroy the Reapers and save the galaxy?

I'm just saying I don't think there is a "right" way to 'be' Shepard. Meaning there is no "correct" thing Shepard would do, and no base personality to compare the way you play to. Nothing is out of character for him, because there is no character of him/her.

The more I read your comment the more it makes me think (Because I was never angered by the end, it didn't make me feel 'good', I was simply content with the way the final chapter [third game] tied the previous games together, and really enjoyed the game itself) - but maaaybe the writers were going for the whole "even the best option is still horribly devastating" thing.
Like dropping nukes on Japan to stop the war, you know. Many people died - but how many did it save?
I found a lot of options in ME3 were "save this person, these people die"/"save those people, this person dies".
It's like they went out of their way several times to attempt to make you think about saving the herd, or saving a goat, and the tough choices involved with leaving people behind in war, or self-sacrifice in order to save other people. I remember so many scenes where people just needlessly die - or sacrifice their own life to finish the mission, and everyone has to just move on to complete the missions because if they don't, that person died for nothing in the larger scale of the Reaper attack.

That just sort of seemed like a pretty big theme to me - and that theme didn't seem to be lost in the final choice. I remember actually standing there for a good 3 minutes at the end choice because I had a "Jesus Christ, what the fuck do I do" moment.
The gravity of the choice seemed so large to me. It didn't matter to me if there wasn't a "save everyone, save the Relays, permanently Destroy the Reapers" option, because I wouldn't have viewed that as 'too realistic' in the Universe it's presented in, especially when the backdrop is currently Earth being blown up and invaded by Reapers.

And why must you constantly state that this is "pretend" or "fake"? Clearly you arent very deep into the Mass Effect lore.

Personal comedy. I usually throw a "fake" into things when talking about video games. I always refer to playing NHL 12 as "fake hockey". Yet I love hockey lore.

I find it funny to debate (in a serious manner) the capabilities of a spaceship that doesn't exist. So to ease my own nerves and make myself giggle at the dumb shit I feel like I am talking about, I throw a "fake" in there.

FTL and the Mas Relays are 2 different things. FTL is for like shorter ranges between stars in the same system. The mass relays are for longer jumps like across the entire galaxy. He wouldnt be crashing from the mass relays exploding if he wasnt using them in the first place.

I just wasn't sure if they jumped by the relays before they exploded, or just did a "Heys guys', lets getses outsa's heres'" type thing and just pressed the "panic" button.
Isn't it a possibility (I'm not saying I believe this, hence the 'possibility') that they'd randomly jump to a random point in space? Maybe it's 100% shown that it's the Mass Relay they take. I'm not sure if them flying away from the shockwave is them in the Mass Relay, or simply FTL-ing away from the shockwave. I just like factual clarification.