Mass Effect 3 Ending Discussion

[Combine 017]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

This will become a very, very slippery slope.
Jesus Christ, what have they done...

Ya, next we will make Valve make the next Half-Life.
Then we will petition Halo to show the Chiefs face.
And after that, make every game have the same style of multiplayer as call of duty.
Ahahahahahaaa!

[BreakABone]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

This will become a very, very slippery slope.
Jesus Christ, what have they done...

I don't think its a slippery slope.. I mean no one.. complains about them changing the ending of Fallout 3... or have we seen petitions on this level before...

And don't think there has been a franchise.. as ambitious as ME .

[Combine 017]

Originally Posted by BreakABone

I don't think its a slippery slope.. I mean no one.. complains about them changing the ending of Fallout 3... or have we seen petitions on this level before...

And don't think there has been a franchise.. as ambitious as ME .

They changed the ending of Fallout 3? I thought they just added to it with dlc.

[Ginkasa]

Originally Posted by Combine 017

They changed the ending of Fallout 3? I thought they just added to it with dlc.

Originally your character died at the end of the game which meant you couldn't explore the Wasteland or complete any additional missions afterward. It could also be a bit of a plot hole. Your character died of radiation poisoning because you had to walk into some radiation to do something (I forget). You would be forced to do this even if you had a Super Mutant companion who could totally do the thing handle the radiation without dying standing right next to you.

Eventually it was changed so you miraculously survived or something (its possible you could also choose to have that Super Mutant companion do it; I can't remember). This change was tacked on to a piece of DLC that also added a bunch of stuff, so...

[Bond]

That blog from the BBB is clearly maintained for the sole purpose of generating positive PR for that organization.

The marketing jargon that was used by Bioware to promote ME3, and similar wording that Typhoid cited, is all puffery as defined by the FTC ("term frequently used to denote the exaggerations reasonably to be expected of a seller as to the degree of quality of his product, the truth or falsity of which cannot be precisely determined").

This is ridiculous.

[Angrist]

I don't know where I stand on the topic.

On one hand: yeah it's pretty weird that a game developer has to change his game because the fans didn't like it.

On the other hand: a) It apparently works, the developer has to think about his image, and b) the fans know the developer is capable of doing much better and they suggest they use their potential.

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.

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.

[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.

[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.