23455 réponses à ce sujet

[Corain]

 i like the indoctrination theory it really dose tie thing together how ever some thing should have been said along the lines of that you are your own worst enemy. with out the indoctrination theory its got loop hole and stupid sick plot twist and half baked idea that make no since. if they do expand the ending showing the reapers defeated and harmony through out the galaxy id be content it a grave site/ memorial on the love intrest home world for shep if she/he dies, happily ever after woudl ba a lil bit to soft i think.

[dfdsgrgre]

NikolaiShade wrote...

ghostbusters101 wrote...

NikolaiShade wrote...

@ghostbusters101

Sorry mate, I don't think given theese endings someone should care about Shepard. Destroying the relays and stranding the fleet in Sol system he became the bad guy, not a hero.


@Vakarian89

We'll find out at PAX, one way or the other

 You didn't get the point. If indoctrination is happening the kid is lying. It didn't happen. Relays were not destroyed. My point is that BW needs to clarify so that everyone understands what actually happened.

I'm an advocate of the Indoctrination Theory, there are too many hints to just dismiss it as some foolish idea, nonetheless until BioWare says if it's true or not, we can only make speculation about the current endings.

I think the indoc theory is clutching at straws ......... but bioware should run with it

[JoeJesus]

hchadw wrote...

Another thing too... i havnt seen anyone mention this.... but.............all that time building the cruicible for it to shed Half the stuff off istelf before inserting itself into the citadel like some big Reaper Sex scene......................... did it feel that way to anyone else............. almost like the reapers wanted us to teach them how to ProCreate and not just Create ?

Naah, that's just Bioware's way how to tell us "We've just f****d you over!" :innocent:

[jeweledleah]

JoeJesus wrote...

Quintefoil wrote...
...
It’s all rather strange.  In fact, that whole end sequence is rather dream-like, with slow motion, Shep accepting weird dream-logic (where you believe what you’re told in a dream without questioning it, even though it makes no sense at all to the waking mind) and the return of scenery and characters from the past (the Child and TIM).  So some fans have come up with The Indoctrination Theory. ...

This and don't forget the fact that the last scene, where you make one of the 3 main choices... ...takes place on the outside of the citadel.. ..in open space.. ..without a helmet..

well, to be fair.... facemasks and belt bras...  (and Javik doesn't even have that >_> )

which is why when people start yelling realism when it comes to "rocks fall everyone dies" endings I have to laugh, becasue at least half the time its the same people who defended Miranda's right to latex and heels, Jack's right to beltbra, Ashley's right to cleavage cutout and hair in her face, most squadmate's rights to facemasks.. in vacuum, or better yet - hazardous enviroment.

if we are going for realism, then by all means, go all out.  but if you are going to embrace pattently unrealistic occurences in one aspect of the game (inlcuding mechanics behind synthesis ending - still cannot figure out exactly how that could possibly work, using Shepard as a template, when Shepard is basicaly organic creature with a whole bunch of synthetic prostetics), why, oh why do you draw the line at Shepard having more options and maybe even living through the war to reunite with the friends?

[Anteocitis]

pX NitmarE wrote...

If they do make a new ending I hope they let you meet up with your crew again, and maybe even your intrest.

which love interest?

the one dead in London?

... or the clone who stepped out of the crashed Normandy *in some other place & time*

*ack*

Bobby was in the shower... it was all a dream!

(Yup you youngsters will need to look that one up!)

[Anteocitis]

JoeJesus wrote...

hchadw wrote...

Another thing too... i havnt seen anyone mention this.... but.............all that time building the cruicible for it to shed Half the stuff off istelf before inserting itself into the citadel like some big Reaper Sex scene......................... did it feel that way to anyone else............. almost like the reapers wanted us to teach them how to ProCreate and not just Create ?

Naah, that's just Bioware's way how to tell us "We've just f****d you over!" :innocent:

it was built by military contractors, OF COURSE more than half of it was over-budgeted junk that provided nothing at all of use.   ¬_¬

[Thelonesomerider]

Indoctrination

[fatality789]

Hello everyone, I'm not such an active member on this board, but am a big Mass Effect fan nevertheless. As with most of you, I couldn't wait to finally get my hands on the 3rd part of the game and see how it ends. However, in the meantime news broke out that the majority of the players were not satisfied with the ending of the game and even demanded for it to be changed. That only made me want to play the game more and see for myself what was it about.

I imported my Mass Effect save into Mass Effect 2 and my Mass Effect 2 save into Mass Effect 3 (a feature that I liked very much) and played the game without looking at the spoilers of any kind, including the general reviews from the media. I wanted a „clean slate“ because I wanted to interpret the story from my own point of view and to try to understand the events without anyone or anything interfering. I played all 3 games the same way - be as „paragon“ as possible, try to complete all the possible side quests, talk with everyone, collect as much information and resources as possible, and ultimately get the „best“ ending which pleases all the involving parties, including myself. That is what I did in Mass Effect 3. 

The only information I searched for online is how much Effective Military Strength did I need to collect in order to achieve the best outcome. It was then that I realized that in order to score the maximum number of EMS points (and get the best ending), I needed to play the multiplayer mode. I didn't like this at all, namely because I'm not such a big fan of the deathmatch-setup-type-game the multiplayer mode offers. Therefore, I decided to leave that alone and try to do my best only in single-player mode and see what happens. The main part of Mass Effect that interested me was the story. (Although I played it on „normal“ difficulty.)

I played the entire game (and enjoyed it very much) believing that the more EMS points I score, the more „paragon“ choices I make, the more parties I please, the ending will better - the galaxy will be saved, all the ones I care about will live etc. Only later I figured out that this was only partially correct. I also believed that the general ending will not be your average-type-jolly-Hollywood-movie-style ending but something different. I approved that as I'm fed up with all the classic happy endings we see every day.

The final mission in London was about to end, and I thought that once I get into the beam, I will find myself on the ravaged Citadel, fighting my way to whatever place the controls for the Citadel were. I was surprised (and a little shocked) to how the events unfolded afterwards. There was lot of stuff going on there and when I finished the game, I needed some time to „process“ everything that I heard and saw. I had around 3400 EMS points and chose the „synthesis“ ending as it seemed to me as a natural choice after all I've done up to this point. After some „processing“ and searching for information online (namely, what was going to happen if I got one of the other possible endings, reactions of others and others’ views of the story) I sat down and wrote this ...ahem... note with some of my points of view about what I think what happened. I must remind you that this is just how I see things. Some may like it, some may not, and some may even think its total crap and that it doesn’t make any sense. And that’s ok! People have different opinions. I would like to engage in a discussion with anyone who has to say something about what I had written. But please, read the entire thing if it’s not so hard for you. I originally intended this note to be as short as possible but as I was thinking more and more about it, the more thoughts and words found their way here. I just hope you’ll appreciate my effort, because I can’t remember if any game (or any work of art, in fact) made me think so much about it.

• THE FINAL 3 CHOICES - My initial mission in this game was to free the galaxy of the reaper threat. For the most of the time played, I went on with the thought that the only possible and logical way for me to do this was to destroy them using the Crucible as it was suggested in the majority of the game-play time. At the mere ending, I found out that I have 2 other, different choices. When this came up, I was caught by surprise. Was destruction the best option? I thought about it for some time before making the decision. It was said that the synthesis was the final stage of evolution in which all of the races will live in peace and harmony while the other two choices will have repercussions. 
If you choose to control the reapers, you will die and lose everything you have, but you will be able to command the reapers away from the galaxy, ending the threat (and taking Godchild’s place, perhaps?). But the chaos will eventually emerge again and without anyone to interfere, organics will be destroyed. Your only options then would be to use the reapers you control to do the same thing they are trying to do now or to let the chaos overcome. This wish to control the Reapers may be the mistake the Godchild made when it was offered this choice long time ago and from that moment on it must clean the galaxy every 50 000 years hoping someone similar to him will eventually show up and make the right choice. It indoctrinated the Illusive Man because he also wanted to control the reapers and it couldn’t let him make the same mistake again. 
The choice to destroy the Reapers is, in my opinion, even worse than to control them. The energy released from the Crucible travels through the mass relays, destroying the Reapers on the way. However, this will only destroy the Reapers in the Milky Way. It is known that they come from outside the Milky Way, which means there will be more Reapers outside the galaxy who are not destroyed and they could easily come and finish what the destroyed ones couldn’t. Plus, the fact that the total chaos will happen in the future would still be an issue.  
Bioware obviously intended to end this game in one definite way and these 3 choices are just variations of that ending. What you did during the game is reflected in how many of these 3 choices you get to choose from. Regardless of what choice you make, the reaper threat is over and your goal is achieved. But only the synthesis ending gives you what you hoped to achieve in the long run - an ever-lasting harmony for everyone. There would be no chaos and the Reapers would lose their purpose, therefore probably ceasing to exist, because they are made up of the earlier races “converted” to reaper form. There would be no need to harvest anyone anymore.

• THE CRUCIBLE - A device that was built by countless races and over many galaxy cycles. The way I see it, for the Reapers (or to whoever they serve), the Crucible was an indicator to how far the galaxy has progressed. Completing it required the ultimate co-operation of all the races, ending long time feuds, and uniting everyone to a single cause even under significant pressure. Something Protheans failed to do. In each passing cycle the Crucible was nearer and nearer its completion. However, it was never done as the unity among the races has not been achieved in time and they were wiped out. After reaping the galaxy, the Reapers would remove every trace of each race they took so that the coming races wouldn’t know of their existence. But, they always left the plan for the Crucible around for some new race to find it and to continue with its development from the point where the old race has stopped. This proves my theory of the Crucible as a galaxy-progress indicator. A complete Crucible meant that maybe the galaxy was ready for a “new age” in which there would be no discord and in which the inhabitants of the galaxy would be able to resolve chaos by themselves and not by a third party. However, a “new age” would also require the will of everyone in the galaxy to be unified (hence the “maybe”) - something reapers wanted to induce by attacking the entire galaxy and making themselves a huge threat for everyone. They thought if all the races see them as something that could destroy everyone and everything, they will get past all their misunderstandings and commit themselves to a unique cause. This is backed up by the fact that if you do not collect as many war assets as needed (meaning - if you do not get everyone to work together), you wouldn’t be given a choice of synthesis, only the two others which result in something you generally wanted to achieve but with negative by-products.

• THE CATALYST - I think that the idea of the Catalyst is much more profound than what it seems at first sight and I believe many elements of the game take form of the Catalyst. First of them, the most obvious one, is the Citadel which is needed for the Crucible to work as planned and free the galaxy of the Reaper invasion. The second is the entity who controls the reapers and who ascends Shepard to the place where he is to make the final choice (to Shepard, it is represented by the Godchild). Only after its approval were the walkways to the platforms raised and Shepard was able to make the choice. I perceive the third form of the Catalyst as Shepard himself. Not only because he was the one who had to sacrifice himself in order for the Crucible to fire its beam (the Godchild couldn’t do it, because he already did it once), but because he was the one who had to get the whole galaxy unified for the cause - he brokered alliances, he resolved conflicts, he went on the suicide mission, he made the tough decisions - he had to trigger the events that were to make all the races come together. And finally, the child could be perceived as some kind of catalyst for Shepard, as he represents everything that was sacrificed during this battle and a reason he needs to move on and not to give up.

• THE GODCHILD - the entity who made the Reapers and who controls them with the intention of preserving order in the galaxy. While confronting Shepard, it takes the form of the child that Shepard saw get killed by the Reapers while he was leaving Earth, because, as I mentioned earlier, he is the Catalyst for Shepard. It is clear that we’re talking about a being of the utmost power, someone who is above everything. However, that being is not the creator of all things, but someone who observes the events and has the power (and the means) to make corrections. It is concerned about the chaos that will happen when synthetics rebel against their organic creators because it believes if things go out of control, synthetics will destroy all organic life. That wouldn’t be a problem if the Godchild was the creator - it could make a fresh start, wipe everything and create new organic life-forms. However, it is convinced (or better to say, it was convinced until the end of the game) that the organics wouldn’t understand its logic because they, naturally, wouldn’t want to be destroyed and would have totally ignored its explanation. But, the Godchild was somewhat right. Proof - the war between the Quarians and the Geth. This war wasn’t started by the Geth who simply rebelled against the Quarians for no reason. The true incentive for the war was the Quarians’ fear of what might happen if things got out of control. Although it wasn’t all of the Quarians who thought this way, they were outnumbered by the ones who did. This is the simple explanation of the Godchild’s theory - the organics (still) didn’t have enough reason in them to see the full consequences of their actions and are, therefore, doomed to be destroyed by the synthetics they created themselves. I do not believe the Godchild is purely evil as the indoctrination theory suggests, but merely necessary radical in its ways of preventing the chaos from happening. (Although, I find the indoctrination theory very interesting and quite legitimate.)

• THE DESTRUCTION OF MASS RELAYS - I read that many people complained about the fact that the mass relays were destroyed. I think the explanation for their destruction is quite simple. They were the tools the Reapers used to channel the progress of the galaxy. They helped the races find about other races and other parts of the galaxy more quickly because that’s what the Reapers wanted. The energy of the Crucible destroys them whatsoever but what happens afterwards is a matter of the choice you make at the end of the game. 
If you chose control, you would eventually leave with the reapers for good and never come back OR realize that the chaos will still prevail, wipe out the advanced races like the Godchild before you, and build new mass relays for the same purpose they had before. Therefore, you wouldn’t make any real positive changes in the galaxy. One outcome would be the chaos and the other would be the same situation as before but with Shepard in Godchild’s place.
If you chose destruction, the beam destroys everything in the galaxy that’s Reaper made, including mass relays. However, new Reapers would come from beyond the Milky Way, finish what was started, and build new mass relays (like they did at the beginning of the first cycle). In the long run, everything would be the same.
If synthesis is chosen, the “new age” of harmony will begin and there would be no need for the Reapers and their technology anymore. Mass relays were used to make the races of Milky Way develop the ways the Reapers wanted, but now when they have reached the final stadium of evolution and are able to fully take care of themselves, this is no longer needed - they are free to develop in every which way they please. And since they will become so evolved (because nobody will destroy them at some point), they could certainly invent some other, similar way of traveling through the galaxy (and even beyond).

• SHEPARD’S DREAMS - I believe that the 3 dreams Shepard has represent his personal struggle in this battle. While leaving Earth he witnesses the boy getting killed by a reaper and that feeling of not being able to help the boy has haunted him ever since. In his dreams he chases the boy with the intention to save him, but is too slow to catch him. On his way he sees shadows and hears the voices of the ones who have already fallen in this long battle. (I watched some other videos of the dreams on YouTube, and the voices are not always the same. In my dreams, I clearly distinguished Mordin and Legion, who died prior to the dreams.) When he finally reaches the child, he realizes that is too late to save him (and also that terrible fact that it was too late all the time) and the kid burns as one more sacrifice of the battle with reapers. But in the last dream, he encounters himself by the boy and for a moment, he thinks that he managed to finally save him, only to find that both Shepard and the boy burn moments after. This is a clear sign, which Shepard unconsciously realizes, that he must be sacrificed as well. From this moment on, he knows that death awaits him at the end of this mission, no matter what. However, the dream doesn’t say if Shepard will fail to do anything in the end and just simply die trying, or will he be forced to sacrifice himself for the good of the entire galaxy. This is decided at the mere ending when he has to make the final choice.

• NORMANDY IN THE END OF THE GAME - The most puzzling part of the ending for me. I believe this part will be addressed in some future DLC or something. However, here’s my theory. When Harbinger blasted Shepard and all that were with him in front of the beam and left, a voice on the radio said that everyone was decimated. Upon hearing this, everyone believed that Shepard had died and couldn’t reach the Citadel and install the Crucible. I believe they all lost most of their hope and continued fighting even though they knew they would not win. But, when the Citadel opened and the Crucible attached itself on it, hope was restored, and Joker picked up the squad and flew the Normandy towards the Citadel to extract Shepard because now they knew he was alive. While Normandy was on the way from Earth to the Citadel, the Crucible fired its beam towards the Earth and Joker thought that was the beam of destruction (regardless of its color - he didn’t know about the 3 choices) and turned Normandy around to escape. The beam was faster and it caught up with the Normandy, blasting it through the mass relay and transporting it to an unknown planet. That planet represents Eden, a new beginning.

• WHAT I CAN’T FIGURE OUT - When you make your final choice and the final series of cinematics start, you see three images of three characters in semi-sepia mode looking towards the camera. What determines who appears on these images? And, after the Normandy crash-lands on the unknown planet in the end, we see Joker stepping out first, and after that EDI (in the synthesis ending). But in the other two endings the person who steps out second is different. Also, there is a third person stepping out after that and this person varies from ending to ending and depends on (what I think, at least) what you did throughout the game. What determines who appears when? And is this important and why?

And there you have it! Thanks for sticking by through this long post, but I felt the need to express my point of view. I know that it probably has a lot of holes and it's probably not anywhere near the truth, but hey, maybe that was Bioware initial decision - to spark a supposed controversy and get the people to think and talk about it. 

Modifié par fatality789, 22 mars 2012 - 08:54 .

[Epoch Sentinel]

While I can respect that you claim you are listening, how it comes across to fans as has been posted is you will only explain the ending to us. We do not want to ending explained, we want it fixed. The Ending is not a reflection of the choices we made. Example.
- I saved the Rachni
- I saved the Geth heretics
- My entire crew from ME2 survived
- I destroyed the collector base
- I also saved the council

Well if I had chosen to pick the opposite then I could have still achieved the same ending. That's fairly sad considering what we were promised. No that's not 'artistic integrity' that's false advertisement and if anything it is far from the artistic vision of a game where decisions matter.

Modifié par Epoch Sentinel, 22 mars 2012 - 08:55 .

[ElMuchu]

Reit Fox wrote...

I'm basically just echoing what most people have already said, but I honestly loved every second of the game until I got to the end.

It seemed to me like there was this fantastic, blockbuster of a game with a very hastily tacked on ending which barely felt relevant. I can see that there was probably some big idea behind the omniscient child thing but in the game we don't get any explanation of who this child is or where they came from.  Is the child supposed to symbolise God? Is it some ancient Ai?  Is Shepard simply hallucinating? We have no idea.

Also, the being states that they created the Reapers as a solution to the chaos. The chaos being that synthetics will always destroy organics?  So, they created synthetics to destroy organics to prevent synthetics from destroying organics? That's a ridiculously contradictory way of thinking.  It is especially irritating after Shepard resolves the whole Quarian/Geth conflict, proving Synthetics and Organics can co-exist.

I don't like not knowing what happens to my squad members either.  The only squad members I saw at the end of my game were; EDE, Joker and Liara - what happened to the rest of my squad?  Are they on the Normandy?  Did they die on Earth?  This is the type of thing I really feel should have been included in the game, especially since ME3 is the final Shepard game.  There was no closure.

I felt trapped at the end of the game.  I've heard it said that ME3 was supposed to have a really diverse range of endings dependant on so many different things.  But as far as I can tell it really, really doesn't.  You either control, destroy or synthesise.  And even given these three choices, I really felt as though I didn't have any options.  Control was always presented as the bad thing to do, and my Shepard always spoke out against it.  It would have made no sense for me to suddenly pick that at the end of the game.  Destroy was what I intended to do all along, but then I'm told it would take out other Synthetics?  I wasn't prepared to sacrifice the Geth and EDE, not after all we'd been through.  So I was emotionally blackmailed into Synthesis.  I'm not even entierly sure how Synthesis is even supposed to work or why the idea was only thrown at me at the end of the game but that's what I picked, and only because I had no other choice.

Also, I've heard the indoctrination theories.  If you spend your entire game Pargon-ing then suddenly the "control" option is presented as blue (Paragon) and the "destroy" option is presented as red (renegade), choosing to destroy breaks Shepard free of indoctrination.  Then, Shep wakes up in London and re-joins the fight.  I really, really hope this isn't the case, as it would mean ME3 is an unfinished game.  Although, this is the only possible explanation (ignoring Synthesis) currently presented for the end of the game which makes sense.

There are more issues I have with the end of the game, but I don't want to go on for any longer than I already have.  I would like to say I am so happy that Bioware are actually listening and responding to fan feedback though.  It's outstanding, and more than most games companies these days would be doing.  Much respect guys, and thankyou for bringing us such an awesome game series.


Oh, best moment? "That was for Thane, you son of a b*tch!"
Yeah, I cried like a baby when Thane died.  It felt good to take down Kai Leng.

I mostly agre with you. On my side, I like very much this game, probably more than ME2 and ME1 until the apparition of the starchild. I feel depressed because our choices do not really mater and also because of the endings range.
What I would like to see is simply the same kind of possibilities than ME2 endings:
- a happy one where we are living (at a cost: Mordin is dead, Legion is dead, Thane is dead, maybe Tali too) with some of the crew members
- a middle one where we did not completely succeed (like the current ME3 endings): relays explode, synthetic beings are killed....
- a sad one where Shepard sacrifies itself and everybody comes back to middle age.
I will not be satisfied by just the addition of new explanation on plot holes. I want our choices to have a positive or negative influence on the endings and to have the possibility to kick Reapers ass as promised during trailers and interviews.
For this point, have you noticed that on the contrary to ME1 and ME2 we do not talk with Hartbinger? Strange isn'it? I miss this dialogue (for instance, when Hartbinger tells Shepard that he is a bactery).

Bioware, please listen their fans and customers until the end and do not choose easiest solution: do not only provide further explanations on current endings. We will be even more disappointed. Once agin, I repeat, except the end, I like this game, probably the best I ever played with the other ones of Mass Effect series. That is why reactions are so strong.

[hchadw]

Epoch Sentinel wrote...

While I can respect that you claim you are listening, how it comes across to fans as has been posted is you will only explain the ending to us. We do not want to ending explained, we want it fixed. The Ending is not a reflection of the choices we made. Example.
- I saved the Rachni
- I saved the Geth heretics
- My entire crew from ME2 survived
- I destroyed the collector base
- I also saved the council

Well if I had chosen to pick the opposite then I could have still achieved the same ending. That's fairly sad considering what we were promised. No that's not 'artistic integrity' that's false advertisement and if anything it is far from the artistic vision of a game where decisions matter.

yeah ... I had a **** Renegade shepard that was an ass to everyone.... Bioware saved me an extra playthrough... Cause my Good Paragon Shepard did everything right and got the ****ty ending so im good LOL

[CptSpectacu1ar]

I won't take long in saying like most the game was a straight 10 until the last little bit. I will say that most the objections are in the lack of choice and plotholes. While I completely agree on the plotholes, I was stunned how in a short amount of time a completely new and undertermined cause of the events of the entire series was introduced. In ME2 everything you did, from the loyalty missions to the normandy upgrades, all showed up in way form or another in the conclusion of your game. In ME3 I was looking forward to seeing just added things showing up in the last levels, not even just the personally disturbing star-child ending. The Biotic class of jack in the background shielding troops or attacking (depending on if I saved and if I said they were ready to fight). The Vol Dreadnaught I was so excited to see in the space battle. Quick cut-scenes of the Rachni helping release the panels as they docked with the citidel. All the assets I worked so hard to acquire (and which seemed easy and short additions for the emotional payoff much like the 2nds ending) basically were no-shows. That and the fact that the major plot points (the geth/Qunari and salarian/krogan reconciliations, old character cameo's ect) that were resolved brilliantly during the game are seemingly undone or just plain moot after the newly discovered star-child resets the universe to a new garden of eden apparently.... I am a sad heart-broken panda..

[dfdsgrgre]

If theres any one whos done law in university ..... would a case of false advertising stand up? =P

[Waldschatten]

Anteocitis wrote...


Bobby was in the shower... it was all a dream!

(Yup you youngsters will need to look that one up!)

Made more sense than ME3, probably helped that I never really liked that show though.

[xaurabh123]

Bioware did make a mistake and they are hesitant to accept it. The ending doesn't make any sense. So their announcements to make a dlc to "explain " the ending but not to alter it is not acceptable.

Hold the line people.

[sweetiedarling]

Dear BioWare,

I love Mass Effect. I love all three games and DLC's, the characters, the storytelling, gameplay etc. It's a game series unlike any other I have ever played.. and probably ever will.

Mass Effect 3 is an amazing game and for me, it's very close to perfection.. but I have to join the huge majority of fans on this forum and say that the ending was a disappointment and it did not make sense (especially "Starchild"). It left me confused, empty and upset. Also, the current ending and the lack of choices (i.e. one ending) kills the replay value of this game, which is a great shame considering all the hard work you put into it. I finished the game a week ago and have not been able to go back. That's a first. With the previous two I started a new playthough as soon as I finished the first one. Anyway.. I'll keep this short because there are lots of great posts here explaining all the obvious plotholes and giving great suggestions how to fix things better and more eloquently than I ever could. I'll just end with this:

Please fix the ending and give us different scenarios how to finish the game. Make our choices really matter. This is not how Shepard's story should end.

[AdamMeyers]

Warning: this is long.

As a creative professional, I just wanted to post what I think is the heart of the problem people have with the Mass Effect 3 ending.  I know a whole lot's already been said and I agree with most of it, but the problem runs deeper.  After all, there have been stories that ended with the hero dying and galactic civilization being destroyed that peopled loved.  No, the reason we hate what they did  to Mass Effect is that thematically and narratively, it isn't the ending to the game we played. 

The Mass Effect series is based on some very specifiic plots, themes and ideas:

We unite a galaxy, proving unity is our greatest strength against our enemies.

We end conflicts that go back centuries to create friends from enemies, even proving the Geth conflict was completely avoidable if you did the mission with Legion.

We prove that good dialogue, whether it be kindness or intimidation, can accomplish more than bullets.

We prove loyal friends and teammates are our greatest strength.

We show how the will to live and fight can overcome any obstacle, even death itself.

We demonstrate how the choices of one man or woman, whatever they may be, can change the face of the galaxy.

On top of that, we spent three games building the idea that this is a story about standing up in the face of conflict and surviving against all odds.



But then we got to the ending (speaking about everything from boarding the Citadel on,) and all of that gets thrown out the window:

We board the Citadel alone, undercutting that whole teammates and friends theme, with the exception of Anderson who's just their for someone to talk to.  

Uniting the Galaxy has nothing more to do with the story, and with the destruction of the Mass Relays, all that effort amounts to nothing.  Galactic civilization, with the exception of the extranet and a bunch of fleets stranded at earth, has ended.

Yes we make a choice at the end, but with no epilogue explaining the results of that choice, it was as if that choice wasn't there at all.  Plus with no epilogue explaining the results of previous choices, the game undercut every long-lasting choice we made.

Diplomacy makes a difference with stopping the Illusive Man, but that felt like an aside and could have been removed completely from the ending without much of a real narrative difference.  

And instead of a great conflict where we heroically prove one man's ability to stand up to impossible odds, (like what happened at the end of the last two games,) that idea isn't really addressed.  I'll admit, most of us were hoping to fight the Illusive man like we did Saren, or to blow up Harbringer like we did the Collector base, but instead the climax of a great action game was... nothing whatsoever to do with action.

So if we didn't address the themes of the game we played, what themes did the ending actually address?

We meet Robo-Child-God, who explains the whole reason for the Reapers is that he doesn't like chaos, which he defines as when Synthetics fight Organics.  It's not just the lack of logic (no other wars or conflicts count as chaos, just Synthetics vs Organics?  And the answer to stopping that is galactic genocide every 50,000 years?  Really?) but it's the fact that Synthetics vs Organics hasn't been a central theme since ME 1.  It was a theme for a couple missions in the second and third game,  but the entire point of these missions and EDI conversations was pointing out that it's NOT THE TRUTH!  We spend two games learning that there is NO inherent conflict between Synthetics and Organics, and then suddenly it's the focal point of the whole series?

And we're suddenly introducing Robo-Child-God?  The way he's presented he's at least thematically the equivilant of the god of the Reapers/galaxy, but that makes no sense given the rest of the series.  Sure we've discussed the Reapers in a religious context with the Geth before, but again, that hasn't been a central theme since the first game.  And yet all of a sudden, we're talking to the citidel like its god and talking about re-writing the DNA of all organic life.  Evolution is suddenly given a religious context with the whole Synthesis option, but that kind of goes against the rest of the series, especially since ME 2 told us that's what Reapers were: a mix of synthetic and organic components.  Honestly, the first time Robo-Child-God told me about that option I thought he was telling me to turn everyone into reapers.

Honestly, it feels like the reason they made Shepard die at the end of ME3 was because without the death of someone important to the player (aka Shepard, which by the way undercuts the survivalist theme of the whole series) the player wouldn't be emotionally involved in the ending at all.  It just is built on ideas that haven't been involved for most of the series.  

It's like the ending of ME3 was written for a completely different game than the one we played.  One that involved the Covenant from Halo, a theme of sacrifice and individualism instead of a theme of unity and survival, and one where synthetic vs organic was a central theme of the entire series, not a conflict of the first section that was undercut by the rest of the games and made moot by the fact the Reapers aren't really synthetics.

That's a more fundamental reason than the ones most people are giving, but creatively speaking I think it's at the heart of the reason for the disappointment.  We want the ending to the series we invested in, not the ending to a game we didn't play.

Modifié par AdamMeyers, 22 mars 2012 - 09:09 .

[Lord vergil]

 I have open this bioware account to let you know how I felt about the mass effect 3 ending. First off I love mass effect. Once I beat a game I always sell it but the mass effect series I have always kept. I have enjoyed everything up unroll the ending of mass effect 3. I even loved the idea of why the reapers exists. I even struggled with the 3 choices we were given. What I hated about the ending was no closure on my choices. I wanted to see Shepard with a family with Ashley. Or see Shepard old with grand children telling of the eventures. I wanted maybe a reunion with the crew. I wanted to know what happens to my crew. Gaurrs and I were best friends I was hoping we would continue being d friends. I was wondering what did everyone do with all mass relays destroyed. I felt like there was no real reason with my choices and it was all pointless. I deserve to know what have I caused by allowing the genophase to happen or allowing the ranchi queen go free and live.  Mass effect 3 was to be all about choices and the ending made it seem like all the choices from mass effect 1 to 3 really didn't matter at the end of the game. Thank you for listening   

[Tezzajh]

to many things wrong with the indoctanation theory to accept that as the truth, seems like a desperate attempt, if everything went fine and it was a happy ending I bet you wouldnt try and argue that was indoctranation.

you say the destruction ending is the one where shep passes the trial at the end but the kid clearly states that he will live if he chose that path. If you were a reaper hopeing to control shepard would you tell him that the other two choices will kill you but this one will let you live? thats like asking which would you rather swim, water or lava.

and at the end of each choice you see the crew crash landing, if you chose the 2 apparently bad choices why would we see this? because at that point shep would be dead he wouldnt be dreaming this which could only mean it is actually happning

[OneDrunkMonk]

OK, I haven't finished the game and have been avoiding spoiling it for myself, but I just wanted to say this:

If, and again I don't know yet, this is about Shep dying in the end well I'm OK with that. I wouldn't feel it necessary to conclude the trilogy. For that matter why "kill" Shepard in ME2 and then reanimate him/her (which still seems highly improbably from a story point of view and I believe was only done so that gamers could redo the skill trees for the 2nd game) only to kill off Shep end ME3? I could see how people would be pissed about that...You just spent like 100 hours keeping Shep and co. alive only to have him/her go down anyways. This is why I don't watch Chinese action films any more, but I digress.

I do however feel that it's within the story writers' right to end their story as they see fit. Sure some fans have a clue (Han shot first) but most video game fans are not creators, they're consumers, and shouldn't be overly catered to (Tali romance *cough) lest you end up ruining the artistic integrity of the game/story, not to mention logic (thermal clips *cough).

At any rate I wanted to say that I feel overall BioWare did a great job providing a fun and adventurous Sci-Fi action-RPG video game. Seriously, Mass Effect is in a league above all Sci-Fi video games that have preceded it. Sure it wasn't perfect, and I don't see how the EA merger did anything for ME3 but turn the game into a giant cash cow and make it more friendly to shooter fans who think dialog is the noise a character makes when they get shot at or when their character stomps on an enemy's head, but again overall Mass Effect is perhaps the best Sci-Fi video game released to date.

Don't know the ending yet so I can't really say much. If the ending really was that "wrong" then I welcome DLC to assist it, but at the same time I don't think fans should have their every whim catered to. I hope this isn't a case where people aren't just being shallow and narrow minded.

Modifié par OneDrunkMonk, 22 mars 2012 - 09:09 .

[ArkOllie]

OneDrunkMonk wrote...

OK, I haven't finished the game and have been avoiding spoiling it for myself, but I just wanted to say this:

If, and again I don't know yet, this is about Shep dying in the end well I'm OK with that. I wouldn't feel it necessary to conclude the trilogy. For that matter why "kill" Shepard in ME2 and then reanimate him/her (which still seems highly improbably from a story point of view and I believe was only done so that gamers could redo the skill trees for the 2nd game) only to kill off Shep end ME3? I could see how people would be pissed about that...You just spent like 100 hours keeping Shep and co. alive only to have him/her go down anyways. This is why I don't watch Chinese action films any more, but I digress.

I do however feel that it's within the story writers' right to end their story as they see fit. Sure some fans have a clue (Han shot first) but most video game fans are not creators, they're consumers, and shouldn't be overly catered to (Tali romance *cough) lest you end up ruining the artistic integrity of the game/story, not to mention logic (thermal clips *cough).

At any rate I wanted to say that I feel overall BioWare did a great job providing a fun and adventurous Sci-Fi action-RPG video game. Seriously, Mass Effect is in a league above all Sci-Fi video games that have preceded it. Sure it wasn't perfect, and I don't see how the EA merger did anything for ME3 but turn the game into a giant cash cow and make it more friendly to shooter fans who think dialog is the noise a character makes when they get shot at or when their character stomps on an enemy's head, but again overall Mass Effect is perhaps the best Sci-Fi video game released to date.

Don't know the ending yet so I can't really say much. If the ending really was that "wrong" then I welcome DLC to assist it, but at the same time I don't think fans should have their every whim catered to. I hope this isn't a case where people aren't just being shallow and narrow minded.

when you get to the end, you'll understand what we're all talking about

[thegame30]

Anteocitis wrote...

pX NitmarE wrote...

If they do make a new ending I hope they let you meet up with your crew again, and maybe even your intrest.

which love interest?

the one dead in London?

... or the clone who stepped out of the crashed Normandy *in some other place & time*

*ack*

Bobby was in the shower... it was all a dream!

(Yup you youngsters will need to look that one up!)

lol

[soulscope]

BioWare, just remember that people are only complaining about the ending so much because they really, really love your work and played the games with such great passion!

Thanks for listening.

[Anteocitis]

dfdsgrgre wrote...

If theres any one whos done law in university ..... would a case of false advertising stand up? =P

Ethically? Yes.
Legally? No.

[GabrielK]

A lot of my feelings are already echoed by previous posts, but here are my random thoughts and impressions regarding the ending:

Like many people, the problems I have with the ending aren't related to the fact that Shepard dies. I'm fine with that. What I'm not fine with is the fact that ultimately everything I endured (and my companions endured) means pretty much nothing. So much was made of the fact that your choices would matter, there would be consequences. Obviously people feel that this was not the case.


Re: indoctrination theory...eh, EVEN if that were Bioware's intentions (and it looks like it wasn't), that still leaves things unsatisfying to me.  Sure if there was more stuff that followed after the whole "indoctrination" portion, you could salvage it and come to a satisfying resolution.


What makes the ending all the more painful (and not in a good way) is that so much of the game prior to that was just flat out brilliant. It's like running a marathon, being ahead of the pack, and then during the last twenty meters, stumbling and falling, unable to get up again. Mordin died. Man that sucked, but he went out doing the right thing. On his own terms. Brilliant. Legion died. Man that sucked, but he went out doing the right thing. It would open the door for peace. Brilliant. Thane died. Man that sucked, but he was already dying when we met him, and he wanted to use his remaining time for something that mattered. And he did. And in ME3 even though he was still dying, he came through for us when we needed him. And his actual death scene was quite touching. BRILLIANT.

But in the end, all of those sacrifices proved meaningless and irrelevant. It all comes down to "what color lights do you want to see?"


And something that makes the ending so dangerous is it might cause some people on the staff to point to the outrage and proclaim (proudly), "See, people are upset! That means we did something right because they care!" That's a dangerous path to take IMO, because it's missing a crucial point. People are not upset because your masterfully crafted ending was so powerful and profound--we are upset because their was an understanding (granted it may have been a more implicit than explicit one, but you can't deny it was forged over the last five years in large part by you, the developers), and people feel it was not upheld (I hesitate to call it false advertising however--again I prefer to think of it more as a failure to fulfill the implicit understanding held by the fan base).


There was another thread I saw here asking what the theme of the game was. With the game as it currently stands, the theme I gather is that struggle is irrelevant, and everything is ultimately futile. I highly doubt that's what Bioware wants us to take away from the game, especially when 99% of the series seems to say just the opposite. The ending cheapens and invalidates every victory achieved, every obstacle overcome, every sacrifice made.


There's a lot of talk going on about how BW wanted the ending to generate speculation and/or controversy. I can't keep track of things so I don't know if that's actually the case or just rumors. But really it doesn't matter, because if any franchise SHOULD have a definitive ending, I think Mass Effect is one.


Anyway I apologize if I jumped around from point to point without tying things together. As I said, just a collection of random thoughts. I also apologize for the length and not including a TL;DR summary.