140 réponses à ce sujet

[Mad-Hamlet]

If it's symbolism because...than it isn't.
Roger Ebert.

[Myrmedus]

While destroying synthetics was a hard pill to swallow (the Geth and
EDI make that choice bittersweet), I was confident like the Catalyst was
that synthetic life would rise once again, but hopefully this time
chaos would not occur

This definitely unwound the argument for me as well - let me explain why:

The Catalyst's logic is blanket logic: it paints every organic and synthetic species the same way, because it presumes no matter how different each cycle's life is organics and synthetics will war and organics will be wiped out.

So, if the birth of new synthetic life post-Crucible does not herald chaos, why should we then believe the synthetic life in existence at the time of the Catalyst's dialogue would herald chaos? What is the essentially difference between synthetic life pre- and post-Crucible?

Nothing.

You cannot have one without the other: either synthetic life is not universally a threat, and the Catalyst's assertions are wrong thus we should be able to argue; or, synthetic life is universally a threat which means we're all screwed post-Crucible anyway sans possibly the Synthesis ending.

In England, the quoted argument is what we would call "having your cake and eating it."

[Squadrito]

TL;DR

Endings still suck and nothing will change that.

Oh and sorry for the TL;DR, but it's seriously way too long for, In my opinion at least, a void argument.

Modifié par Squadrito, 20 mars 2012 - 09:07 .

[XqctaX]

We understand there is a lot of debate on the Mass Effect 3 LORE and we will be more than happy to engage in healthy discussions once more people understand the word LORE. We are listening to all of your Defending.

In the meantime, let's give appreciation to Commander Shepard. Whether you loved the ME3 LORE or didn't or you just have a lot of questions, he/she has given many of us some of the best adventures we have had while playing games. What was your favorite ENDING plothole?

[DemGeth]

I liked the ending


Damn though OP not reading all that.....it's longer than the ending itself lol

[Cgrissom]

 I have 2 points to make.

1: Please format your argument better, it's very hard to read.

2: Bioware should never have claimed it would answer our questions and provide closure if it's supposed to be open and up for interpretation.

[Ieldra]

All right.

As I've said, I like the final choice as a scenario where I get to make a decision based on my own values. Or rather, where I should get one. The problem is, every choice is so riddled with bleak consequences that I cannot find any emotional satisfaction in it. Personally, I'm steeped neck-deep in Enlightenment values, and I find it outright offensive to have no choice about destroying galactic civilization and to be caught in a luddite's dream (as evidenced by the Normandy crash). The choice that would embody my values most closely - the Synthesis - is described in an outright retarded way devoid of even basic logic, mangled by biblical themes and false teleology, and thereby turned from the underlying transhumanist vision of technology-driven self-empowerment and individual re-making of oneself into some kind of "utopia justifies the means" scenario that actually reduces diversity instead of embracing it.

There is NO choice that gives me ANY satisfaction at all. Even worse, any hook for my emotions is either thoroughly tainted or destroyed.

Another point is, why the HELL must I accept the godchild's reasoning? Even if it's some kind of god, I should at least be able to challenge it, even if in the end, I have to accept the choices given me anyway.

I can see that the endings attempted what you, OP, say they do. They don't work on me, because in the one thing where I want a choice, I am not given one. The one choice that would truly embody my values is denied me.

Remove the destruction of the relays from Control and Synthesis, don't force me to be caught in a luddite's dream, and give me a chance to play my Shepard in-character and at least challenge the godchild before accepting the options presented, and I'll forget the rest of the inconsistencies.

In one word, let my Shepard for what he believes in, not for what Bioware says he should believe.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 20 mars 2012 - 09:10 .

[Tony208]

Please edit the post so I can read it without going blind.

I tried to read some of it and you can argue both ways all day but it comes down to it's not what we wanted/expected. And it's not what they advertised. And that's just one of many reasons why so many are angry.

Modifié par Tony208, 20 mars 2012 - 09:12 .

[LordHelfort]

The post is entirely negated by the fact that Bioware's intentions lost out to plain old fashioned laziness and poor writing.

It doesn't make sense, because it was never supposed to be there.

[Mr. C]

kalerab wrote...

Mr. C wrote...

*slow clap* Bravo, sir. An excellent read.
FINALLY someone mentions the Prothean VI on Thessia! It seems these "hold-the-line" folks have either conveniently forgotten that little chat, or weren't paying attention.
The ending makes perfect sense; it's lack of exposition is where it fails, however.

Side note: To all you "It was false advertising!" people- NO company advertises that their game has flaws, NO company would come out and say "None of your previous choices are properly concluded in the ending." The entire point of marketing is to get people interested in their product and willing to pay for it; and you know what? IT WORKED! Your own ignorance of corporate marketing does not make it evil, no matter how loudly you **** to the contrary.

Yeah, while you are forgetting on conversation with Souvereign, Harbringer and Rannoch Reaper. Souvereign said that they are each a nation, they have no beginning and no end and that they are pinnacle of evolution. Other two Reapers claimed that their goal is for organic uncomprehensible. All of this was negated in last 5 minutes of game. We found out that Reapers

a, they have beginning, they were created
b, they are not pinnacle of evolution, they are pawns of some vile AI
c, their goal is easily comprehensible. Problem is that it is bull. And funnily enough writer staff made that contradiction not only during whole franchise (what could be understandable to some degree given changes in writers team), but in same, sole, single game. Just few hours before this "relevation" you (may have) united Geth and Quarians and you found out that Geths didnt revolt against Quarians, but acted in pure self-defence. Common sense 0 - BioWare 1.

So saying - no, it is not deus ex machine because in third game you have one sentence from Prothean device hinting that they are controlled by someone, despite two and half game implying something different won´t fly.

As for NOT advertising game flaws, it is dishonest but too common in todays world. However LYING about the game is not cool, especially for company that wants to interact with its constumers. I am talking about Mike Gamle, Casey Hudson and Ray Muzyka

Specifically:

"...This will result in a story that diverges into widly different conclusions based on players actions in first two chapters."

Casey Hudson

"How could you go through all three campaigns playing as your Shepard and than be forced into bespoke ending that everyone gets?"

Mike Gamble

"Pretty much everything that people want to see wrapped up, or be given answers to, will be."

Ray Muzyka

"It´s not even in any way like the traditional game endings, where you can say how many endings there are or wether you got ending A, B or C."

Casey Hudson

Now from my point of view as customer I was lied about the product I bought. It doesnt matter a squat wether this lie applied to last 5 minutes or whole game, you don´t do that and it borders on illegality. I don´t want my money back as I think that BioWare developers deserve it for 95 percent of game they produced, all I ask for is first explanation and than apology by Casey Hudson, Ray Muzyka, Mike Gamble and all other BioWare and EA staff that lied in public about the ending to ALL fans.

The Reapers ARE each a nation. They are each made of the collective minds of a single species.
Synthesis proves they ARE the pinnacle of evolution. It rewrites everyone's DNA to be 50% synthetic and 50% organic to end the whole debacle once and for all. What are Reapers? A hybrid of organic and synthetic! Just in a different format.
The Reapers we've spoken to thought so little of us that they assumed their grand quest was completely incomprehensible to organics. That's more arrogance than anything.

As for the dev comments, they're not entirely wrong. There are many diverging pathways; the problem is that they are implied early on rather than properly shown at the conclusion.

[Syrellaris]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Renew81 wrote...

This thread is brand new , and just because some people arent reading it , doesnt mean nobody will
this isnt spam this is somebody's opinion about the ending and why they like it..
i dont agree with it but that doesnt mean i will not take the time to read it also if you classify
this thread now as spam by just the few post that are made.. i dont think that fair.. give
both sides a chance.

I have removed all of the "too long didn't read" posts and posts calling for formatting. If I had wanted to remove this thread entirely, I would have locked it or removed it, not announced to all and sundry that I was removing it while leaving it open.

EDIT: When I started removing posts, my previous announcement was the first post on page 4. Now, without all the spam, the thread is less than one page

No offense Stanley, but this post is pretty much unreadable. People asking for the Op to make it slightly better to read, is not spam. Its honest criticism to improve the threads quality. But now that you are here, will you please add some moderation to the OPS post and..make it more readable.

Thank you in advance,

Sy.

ontopic :

I will post something here when I am done reading.

[D1ck1e]

I just felt it was too much of a opening, and not enough of an ending. If there is another chapter for Shepard that isn't a prequel to be written, I'll give Bioware the benefit of a doubt. I was promised closure as Shepards journey came to an end, this isn't it.

[wrdnshprd]

kalerab wrote...

Mr. C wrote...

*slow clap* Bravo, sir. An excellent read.
FINALLY someone mentions the Prothean VI on Thessia! It seems these "hold-the-line" folks have either conveniently forgotten that little chat, or weren't paying attention.
The ending makes perfect sense; it's lack of exposition is where it fails, however.

Side note: To all you "It was false advertising!" people- NO company advertises that their game has flaws, NO company would come out and say "None of your previous choices are properly concluded in the ending." The entire point of marketing is to get people interested in their product and willing to pay for it; and you know what? IT WORKED! Your own ignorance of corporate marketing does not make it evil, no matter how loudly you **** to the contrary.

Yeah, while you are forgetting on conversation with Souvereign, Harbringer and Rannoch Reaper. Souvereign said that they are each a nation, they have no beginning and no end and that they are pinnacle of evolution. Other two Reapers claimed that their goal is for organic uncomprehensible. All of this was negated in last 5 minutes of game. We found out that Reapers

a, they have beginning, they were created
b, they are not pinnacle of evolution, they are pawns of some vile AI
c, their goal is easily comprehensible. Problem is that it is bull. And funnily enough writer staff made that contradiction not only during whole franchise (what could be understandable to some degree given changes in writers team), but in same, sole, single game. Just few hours before this "relevation" you (may have) united Geth and Quarians and you found out that Geths didnt revolt against Quarians, but acted in pure self-defence. Common sense 0 - BioWare 1.

So saying - no, it is not deus ex machine because in third game you have one sentence from Prothean device hinting that they are controlled by someone, despite two and half game implying something different won´t fly.

As for NOT advertising game flaws, it is dishonest but too common in todays world. However LYING about the game is not cool, especially for company that wants to interact with its constumers. I am talking about Mike Gamle, Casey Hudson and Ray Muzyka

Specifically:

"...This will result in a story that diverges into widly different conclusions based on players actions in first two chapters."

Casey Hudson

"How could you go through all three campaigns playing as your Shepard and than be forced into bespoke ending that everyone gets?"

Mike Gamble

"Pretty much everything that people want to see wrapped up, or be given answers to, will be."

Ray Muzyka

"It´s not even in any way like the traditional game endings, where you can say how many endings there are or wether you got ending A, B or C."

Casey Hudson

Now from my point of view as customer I was lied about the product I bought. It doesnt matter a squat wether this lie applied to last 5 minutes or whole game, you don´t do that and it borders on illegality. I don´t want my money back as I think that BioWare developers deserve it for 95 percent of game they produced, all I ask for is first explanation and than apology by Casey Hudson, Ray Muzyka, Mike Gamble and all other BioWare and EA staff that lied in public about the ending to ALL fans.

pretty much this. 

for those defending the ending.. this really is what it boils down to.  we were blatanly lied to, plain and simple.

thats why it baffles the mind that people are BEGGING for ending DLC they have to PAY for.

i know if bioware wants my respect back, they better release the ending DLC free. 

personally, if you take the endings on their own, WITHOUT the above quotes, im indifferent to the endings.  they didnt blow me away, but i also didnt feel the endings were worthy of an FTC complaint either.  however, because of those statements, i still wouldnt have filed a complaint to the FTC, but i can see why one would.

[Brizcar]

Having only completed the game on Monday i'm still trying to make sense of what happened , i will quite happily read up on both sides of the arguement , however one part of the ending did annoy me and that was "The survivors" . In my playthrough of all 3 games 1 thing was in no doubt by the end,  Garrus was my "Bro" and Liara was my Shep's life , she is what he was really fighting for. There is no way either of those 2 would have left Shep to die alone on Earth , Garrus and Shep had agreed that if "he goes  I go and if i go then he goes" , we would meet each other at the bar and drink for eternity . Liara had also stated that she could never go through having to grieve for Shep again . Yet at the first chance they get they just dump Shep and are off smiling about it at the other end:? , they would've stayed to try and complete the mission or died trying , unless of course i read their characters wrong . Nothing i can do will ever change this , i would be better off just going back to ME1 and playing through as an unsufferable racist  because it seems like no one gives a monkey's about Shep at the end .

Maybe somewhere down the line it'll be explained , maybe it won't , in the meantime i have to just fill in the blanks how i see fit ? So for me that part of the ending is what my Shep would want to see , Garrus and Liara alive and happy , that would make my Shep happy but that would also have to mean that he was dreaming it;)

[Impulse and Compulse]

There was no way they could have gotten off; Harbinger and the Reapers were just flying away as you woke up, there's no way the Normandy could have gotten your squad out of there, (remember, Reaper's have tech that can detect it) and they were nowhere to be found in that landing when you woke up. Unless Scotty beamed them up to the Enterprise, they should not have made it out of there.

I made it about halfway through your non-indented, unorganized rant before giving up. I think that the concept could have worked if there was actually any closure afterwards, and if it didn't completely kill the mood of the game. And I wasn't breathing in space. And my Carnifax didn't have infinite ammo. I could go on and on.

I should go.

[kalerab]

Mr. C wrote...

The Reapers ARE each a nation. They are each made of the collective minds of a single species.
Synthesis proves they ARE the pinnacle of evolution. It rewrites everyone's DNA to be 50% synthetic and 50% organic to end the whole debacle once and for all. What are Reapers? A hybrid of organic and synthetic! Just in a different format.
The Reapers we've spoken to thought so little of us that they assumed their grand quest was completely incomprehensible to organics. That's more arrogance than anything.

As for the dev comments, they're not entirely wrong. There are many diverging pathways; the problem is that they are implied early on rather than properly shown at the conclusion.

The same way geth are. Anyway, that was not point of my post.

Synthesis solution proves are are not pinnacle of evolution. English may not be my primary language but I am very well aware of what word "pinnacle" means. If there is some higher degree of evolution than state in which Reapers are than the lower state of evolution - ie Reapers - can hardly be pinnacle. And since the synthesis affected Reapers as well, ie transformed them with help of Gandalf the galactic wizard to some higher degree they can hardly be pinnacle. Morever pinnacle of anything can hardly be controlled by some lower form of life - in this case Starchild. That is like humanity beeing controlled by bananas (we share 50 percent of DNA with banana).

What they are explaining is not theory of everything, but simple and stupid thing - we must harvest you, otherwise you create synthetic life that will destroy all organic life in the galaxy. See? One sentence, thats it. That is not arrogance, that is grand contradiction to ME franchise.

Please, show me on either of those comments where they are not entirely wrong. They are talking solely about ending, not what happened prior to it and had no affect on it.

[tanisha__unknown]

[quote]If Shepard didn’t make the choices she made in Mass Effect 3’s build-up
to the climax at the end, Shepard couldn’t have even GOTTEN to Earth to
take it back.[/quote]
So it only matters that I decide, but now how? Uh hah.
[quote]but the choice ultimately was made based on what the player’s moral code was[/quote]
Problem is, throughout the whole mass effect series your future actions are determined by what you have done in the past, it was never solely based on what you were up to right at the final moment. No matter how you decided so far, you would have gotten to the exact same place.
[quote]However, this final choice was not supposed to be about what Shepard has
done in the past…it was about what Shepard is going to do right now.[/quote] So why is the whole ****ing rest of the series about what Shepard does?
[quote]Fans arguing against the plausibility of this Catalyst plot seem to
believe the point of all of this needed to be explained. What these fans
do not realize though, is that explaining this would be akin to trying
to answer questions about life beyond Earth and if there is a God…it is
too big of a concept to just give some dialogue about.[/quote]
Mass Effect never any such metaphysical stuff. Sure it was SciFi and any technology that is andvanced enough may not be distinguished from magic. The catalyst may be such a thing, but ending a series which was never about such stuff is at least very bad style.
[quote]This choice actually represents what the role-playing genre of video
games should be all about: the player must make an excruciatingly hard
decision that changes the direction of the game entirely…in this case it
changes the canon of the Mass Effect universe in potentially three very
different ways.[/quote] So you make it and then what? Your insinuating this could be the topic of a new mass effect game, this is unlikely from a practical point of view. However none of this was shown in a kind of epilogue.
[quote]we just don’t get to see that future because we were looking at the
universe through Shepard’s eyes and her story came to a very dramatic
end.[/quote] Technically speaking this is a third-person shooter/RPG. Okay this is nitpicking, but we were not looking at the game from Shepard's perspective directly. Many cutscenes did take place where Shepard was not directly present and showed the outcome of his actions, so,  an epilogue would have been possible.
[quote]Another issue fans have is how could the Normandy have picked up the two
squad mates that were with Shepard before she entered the beam? Again,
here are some points to consider: -There could have been time for the
Normandy to land and get them to safety.[/quote]No she couldn't. Hackett (?) stated the whole squad is down. These are my squadmates, they wouldn't be a mile or so away...
[quote] I realize this is hypothetical and we can’t possibly know what Joker
was doing, but unfortunately this was not explained. Another issue fans
have is how could the Normandy have picked up the two squad mates that
were with Shepard before she entered the beam?[/quote] Yep, make it all up by myself. Why the hell did I buy the game anyway?
[quote]The last message telling people to play DLC and multiplayer cheapens the
experience and is a shameless attempt to get more money out of us. [quote]Mass Effect 2 had amazing DLC…from new characters to bridging the gap
between ME2 and 3, it greatly added to the experience of the storyline.[/quote][/quote] Mass Effect 2 hadn't had the hint in the final scene after the credits, but yeah, the DLC was great. I would be ready to buy DLC for mass effect 3 if it would not be so pointless with the given ending.
[quote]They deserve to try and make profit off of the highly successful game that they have devoted a lot of time and effort on.[/quote]Nobody's blaming them for making money with great games, most people are blaming the for ****ing up a whole franchise and over 100 h of truly outstanding gameplay within 5 minutes. And you have to admit, a day one DLC is suspicious...
[quote]the following had to have happened: The fight against Saren[/quote]Can't deny that, but again, how you achieved everything doesn't matter.
[quote]Project Lazarus and the suicide mission[/quote]I don't think so. Since they changed the story line mass effect 2 does not make a lot of sense? Why do the reapers make the collectors create a human reaper? I don't get it, maybe someone can explain it to me...
[quote]I realize though that more people harbor feelings of irrelevance because
they spent all this time getting invested in a character and didn’t see
any pay off in the form of a “happy” ending.[/quote]Though probably everyone would have favoured at least the option of a happy ending, it appears that many would have little difficulty with an ending right after the death of enderson. Shepard presses the button, activates the crucible, and dies. Reapers destroyed, mass relays intac, but Shepard dead, that would have been at least acceptable. However, everybody seems to have a problem with the reaper child and the normandy scene.
[quote]Shepard’s name is an intentional play on what a Shepard is; through her
actions Shepard led and united others under one common mission and
ultimately delivered them to a brighter future (we hope).[/quote] So you would call the future in the mass effect universe a brighter one now? Interesting point of view...
[quote] “The Shepard.” Considering that Shepard made a God-like decision at the
end of ME3, Shepard being revered as quite omnipotent makes sense.[/quote]It is in fact a godlike decision, which was never the point of a mass effect game. I mean, shaping the appearance of a galaxy - okay, the galaxy is at war. Such times always come with great changes (WWI, WWII). You would expect Shepard's decisions to have an impact on the political shape of the galaxy, but controlling the reapers? Hmmm. The unification opion is way out of line, despite the fact that it is, in my opinion, utter bull***t
[quote] The ending is open to interpretation[/quote] That is sort of an understatement. The Mass Effect series was thought to be a trilogy. The first game posed more questions than it answered which is okay for a first part of a series. The second part, as mentioned, does not really fit in, but the third part should give some closure.
[quote]Were the grandfather and child completely organic? How advanced is space
travel again? The glimpse of the future was purposefully vague so that
players can determine for themselves what exactly was going on.[/quote]Then why buy the game in the first place? Now, after all the build-up fom the first, second and third game all we got was
1.) Shepard dies (more or less)
2.) Reapers are defeated.
3.) Mass relays are destroyed
4.) Crew survives final battle.
[quote]Bioware created a moment where you could ponder the pros and cons of
your choices without wondering how this might affect any preconceived
notions someone had about doing a ‘paragon-only’ play through or getting
just renegade points. Shepard’s humanity and own uncertainty in ME3 is
one of the central themes to the narrative, and when Shepard is reduced
to a broken soldier with only a pistol the game pulls at how the players
would respond to that abrupt turn of events.[/quote]Nothing wrong about this concept, problem is your choice does not seem to matter at all + all the other issues with the ending outlined already a hundred times...
[quote]but it is another possibility that is left open to player interpretation as a result of a wonderfully thought-provoking ending[/quote]The problem is, it is way too open for interpretation and if you make everything up for yourself, why buy the game?
[quote]Those that are trying to take legal action because they didn’t like the
creative choices someone made in an art form ultimately are taking us
back to a time where freedom of expression was not allowed, especially
if a majority of a population disagreed with it.[/quote]Nobody's trying that, even those who filed a FTC complaint only want their money back because the ending of the game is nothing of what was promised. Nobody can force bioware to change the ending, freedom of speech is unharmed.
There are posts out there were people state they like the ending, nobody is denying them this right. Of course, the tone is sometimes aggressive, this is true for both sides, but some people will always step out of line.

Anyway, it is this freedom which grants the right to say the ending sucks, we want a better one.
Buying no DLCs is an expression thereof and will harm Bioware's profit, however most player's will most likely not refuse buying DLC to boycott the enterprise for making such a crappy ending, which by the way would still be legally acceptable (you can't be forced to buy something) but because with such an ending any DLC that happens before Shepard's final decision appears to be  totally pointless.

Sorry, my english is not so good.

Modifié par Jinx1720, 20 mars 2012 - 09:40 .

[Jononarf]

I'll defend the endings as long as there might be some DLC to point out a few things. Like I posted earlier, why was Joker speeding from the mass relay explosion? Who else survived the normandy crasy? did everybody on the citadel die when the reapers moved it or when it was choosing time? Destruction ending, how the hell is shep alive?

That's all I can think of.

[Versus Omnibus]

Holy crap, my eyes were beginning to hurt after reading past the part of you comparing the Catalyst to God...

So to save me a Hospitable visit, I'll break down your argument and allow others a chance to see why I respectfully disagree.

[quote]Taes wrote...

 First of all, the following obviously has spoilers for the ending of Mass Effect 3. You’ve been warned.                 It seems the popular thing to do on the internet recently is to sound in on Mass Effect’s ending. The controversy that has now resulted in not just fundraising petitions but also legal action has ruffled the feathers of fans, “fans” and trolls alike. Many scoff in disbelief that I am in the camp that actually regards the ending as one of the best video game endings in recent history.                 The following are statements that I have read from those who oppose the endings. They are common opinions circulating around the ‘net, and I decided to examine each before giving my own reasons in support of Bioware’s story choices: 
“The ending does not reflect the choices Shepard made through the course of three games.”

 
It is entirely accurate to make this statement: the end of the game presents you with three choices and those choices do not change no matter what you do before that point. However, this final choice was not supposed to be about what Shepard has done in the past…it was about what Shepard is going to do right now. Shepard held the fate of all known organic and synthetic life in her hands (which is how I view the pistol symbolism…Shepard either lays it down to embrace synthetics or shoots it to oppose them). The reason this choice was so difficult and felt so weighted is because not only was there no paragon option, but the choice ultimately was made based on what the player’s moral code was. Let me put this into context by using my endgame as an example. I had played as a paragon Shepard for three games, uniting galaxies and uplifting the hope and spirits of everyone. I hated Cerberus and I hated the Illusive Man’s ideas of controlling Reapers. At the end of the game, staring down those choices, I had to sit and think about which one was right. I knew that the Reaper threat would be stopped, Shepard would die and the relays would be destroyed. In theory this choice will have the same immediate outcomes, but Shepard is ultimately rewriting generations of life in the future! This choice is bigger than one individual can truly comprehend no matter how epic of a hero they were previously. The way I played Shepard reflected her desire for free will and her hope that organic life’s ability to control their destiny will prevail. With those morals in mind, I chose the option to destroy synthetic life and not break the cycle permanently. I reasoned this as the best option because now Shepard once again gave humanity and other civilizations a chance to fight like she did. While destroying synthetics was a hard pill to swallow (the Geth and EDI make that choice bittersweet), I was confident like the Catalyst was that synthetic life would rise once again, but hopefully this time chaos would not occur.So you see this ending was not about where Shepard has been, or even about what happens ten minutes after Shepard makes her decision. It is about what kind of person Shepard, and by extension the player, is. This choice actually represents what the role-playing genre of video games should be all about: the player must make an excruciatingly hard decision that changes the direction of the game entirely…in this case it changes the canon of the Mass Effect universe in potentially three very different ways. Mass Effect 4 (if set in the future after Shepard dies) cannot ignore Shepard’s choice; either we will see the Reaper cycle beginning again, Reapers being controlled in some form, or all life will now be a synthetic-organic hybrid made to resemble Shepard. Those are three very different outcomes…we just don’t get to see that future because we were looking at the universe through Shepard’s eyes and her story came to a very dramatic end. There is also another, much less long-winded reason why Shepard’s choices were not going to reflect the end game. Shepard’s choice reflected the journey she took; yes Shepard got to destroy the Reapers, but how did she do it? Did she resolve the turian/krogan conflict peacefully? Were the geth destroyed, or were the quarians? If Shepard didn’t make the choices she made in Mass Effect 3’s build-up to the climax at the end, Shepard couldn’t have even GOTTEN to Earth to take it back. The game did an excellent job of showing cause and effect and tying up loose ends from the previous two installments. I never went into the end of the game expecting whether I saved the Rachni or not to be the ultimate decision-maker in how this finished.
[/quote]

Symbolism is a very powerful tool for in stories, but this so far only proves how the ending works for you. This ending also shows a sign of Shepard we never seen in Mass Effect before: how he/she is powerless to make a choice. Throughout all the games Shepard has gone against odds that any other person can never hope to do; but as soon as we get to this ending Shepard's willpower is suddenly gone. For the first time we see Shepard forced into a making a choice set out before him/her, instead of seemly making the choice herself. It's clear Shepard disagrees with the Catalyst's logic but for some reason she goes along with it anyway. Regardless of all the time we put into gathering War Assets, no matter how large a fleet we bring it all went to waste not because they were powerless to stop the Reapers but because we were forced to make preset choices we all know Shepard would never accept.[/quote]


[quote]
 2. “The ending makes no sense and has too many large plot holes!” The ending makes perfect sense; after the mission on Thessia we learned that there is some greater AI controlling the Reapers. A master plan akin to the theory of intelligent design has been in motion since way, way before the current events in the game. Basically, this AI has been preserving space by controlling the organics that cause chaos in the form of space discovery and creating synthetics while allowing simpler organic races to develop. In Mass Effect 1 and 2, Shepard showed the Reapers that humans were not a simple race…perhaps we could argue that the attention humanity got from them really was all Shepard’s fault (along with those who discovered the mass effect technology in the first place). Fans arguing against the plausibility of this Catalyst plot seem to believe the point of all of this needed to be explained. What these fans do not realize though, is that explaining this would be akin to trying to answer questions about life beyond Earth and if there is a God…it is too big of a concept to just give some dialogue about.[/quote]
 
That scene on Thessia only revealed the Crucible wasn't a Prothean design, but of one of many civilizations that chose to fight the Reapers. This pattern in no way hinted towards a higher creation; machines always follow a pattern, they wouldn't be considered machines otherwise if they could break this pattern on their own free will.

It isn't like the Catalyst just created itself, so comparing it to God is foolish. We've seen machines in the Mass Effect universe be able to create their own kind, the best example being the Geth. And why does the Reapers have to be compared to some supernatural element? Sure, the Reapers say they have always existed, but they also believe their so called "solution" isn't a contradiction. The Reapers and the Catalyst are simply machines and nothing more.


[quote]
The Catalyst and intelligent design are similar concepts that are largely open to interpretation of the individual playing Shepard…for Bioware to create a story and universe that makes players question their own humanity and reason for existing in space is nothing short of magnificent. Now I’ll examine the plot holes that many fans are pointing out. In the ending cinematic, several things are shown including the Normandy jumping through a relay, the mass relays being destroyed, and Shepard’s squad landing on an unknown planet. The first question people have been asking is why was the Normandy in a relay jump? The Normandy was holding the front lines with the rest of the naval fleets flying about above Earth. We see the Crucible activated and charging up to fire…I can only assume that the following happened: -Fleets were told to retreat for fear of being destroyed by the Crucible…no one knew what exactly it would do beyond destroy the Reapers somehow.-Joker was escaping in fear of the Crucible’s power like everyone else. [/quote]

This is only your assumption, and based on your words there seems little proof to prove you right. By looking outside I could still see the fleet fighting the Reapers, which makes sense: if the fleet fled the Crucible would be valnerable to attack. This assumption is debatable at best.


[quote]
The Normandy had Hackett still on board and I’m guessing he gave commands to retreat from the Crucible after it activated. I realize this is hypothetical and we can’t possibly know what Joker was doing, but unfortunately this was not explained.[/quote]

Which is one of many reasons we dislike the ending: little to nothing is explained.


[quote]
Another issue fans have is how could the Normandy have picked up the two squad mates that were with Shepard before she entered the beam? Again, here are some points to consider: -There could have been time for the Normandy to land and get them to safety.  -However Cortez managed to make it out, the other squad mates possibly did the same thing…maybe there was a shuttle they used or maybe the Normandy itself landed on Earth. We don’t know how long it took for Shepard to make it to the Citadel controls and activate the Crucible.[/quote]
 
But even then, it still took Shepard time to reach the beam after getting hit by Harbinger's attack, and the squad wasn't anywhere to be found. The only logical choice for this sudden disappearance is they died in the charge, but that can't be true because as you said they reappear on the Normandy. Even if Cortex broke some record for fastest pick-up he would have been shot down way before he made it to the LZ.

[quote]
I personally have difficulty in believing the Normandy landed that close to the beam to pick up people, but again it is not a plot hole exactly because there could easily have been an explanation.[/quote]

One of many that wasn't given.

[quote]
 Finally, there is the matter of the mass relays exploding. These relays are said to wipe out star systems when destroyed as discussed in the Arrival DLC. We know though the relays did not explode in a predictable manner since they were destroyed not by brute force, but by the Crucible. Some unknown that no one could account for is the reason Joker and the squad survived…again, I know that this seems like a threadbare explanation, but it is one nonetheless.[/quote]
 
Just because the Relays weren't hit by an asteroid doesn't disclose the fact the explosion was massive enough to be seen far outside the Galaxy. The Relays crumbled much as the same as that time in Arrival, so regardless what can be said the systems in one way or the other are ruined.

And before somebody tells me "then why would run if that was established as fact in the universe?" Because he didn't know the Crucible would make the Relays explode.


[quote]
Much like everyone else I would love for Bioware to comment on these particular parts of the ending, but unlike everyone else I am not calling it a plot hole until the ending is proven to contradict canonized information which so far there is no evidence to support or refute anything that occurred.[/quote]

You also forgot to mention how the Illusive Man or Anderson somehow reached the beam before you did. Unless Shepard was out for hours, which is doubtful, the amount of time between Harbinger's attack and Shepard reaching the beam doesn't logically explain any of these.


[quote]
 3. “The last message telling people to play DLC and multiplayer cheapens the experience and is a shameless attempt to get more money out of us!” Mass Effect 2 had amazing DLC…from new characters to bridging the gap between ME2 and 3, it greatly added to the experience of the storyline. No one complained when ME2’s ending came with an option to keep playing to experience DLC or to start a new game plus. Bioware wants people to remember that though the story of Shepard has ended, Mass Effect as a whole has not. DLC will come and probably expand an already rich story with new missions. Multiplayer’s influence on the end game is something I haven’t seen for myself yet and personally I want to make that happen. I also estimate that if Bioware even has a vague idea for a Mass Effect 4, eventually DLC like the Arrival will bridge some transition. Bioware has provided excellent reasons for fans to keep playing Mass Effect even after the story has ended…it isn’t a crime for them to want to remind you of that. They deserve to try and make profit off of the highly successful game that they have devoted a lot of time and effort on.[/quote]

No argument. I loved ME2's DLC and ME3's multiplayer.


[quote]
 4. “The ending makes everything that happened in three games irrelevant!” This is perhaps the argument that makes the least bit of sense. Over the span of three games Shepard discovered the Reapers, the origin of mass relays, the truth behind the Citadel, and that there is a cycle that purges all organic life for reasons unknown (until ME3 that is). In order for Shepard to even have gotten to the end of the trilogy, the following had to have happened: -The fight against Saren-Project Lazarus and the suicide mission-Uniting the races to take back Earth If even one of those failed, Shepard would have never gotten to the beam.[/quote]
 
The final battle with Saren had to end with Saren's defeat; otherwise the other two games canonically could never happen. Just like save files from ME2 where Shepard died couldn't be ported over because the story all together ended there. Also, the Lazarus Project was ME2's beginning and was a story-based explaination for Shepard's powers to be reset. And besides, the player never had control over that moment, so to say we had "choice" that time doesn't make sense. At least with Saren's battle we had more control over how that ending played unlike in ME3.


[quote]
That is pretty obvious. I realize though that more people harbor feelings of irrelevance because they spent all this time getting invested in a character and didn’t see any pay off in the form of a “happy” ending.[/quote]
 
Or any other ending besides the one Bioware seemingly forced on us despite repeatingly saying otherwise. Honestly the only huge difference these endings have is their colors or effect on the Reapers. Everything else is the same word for word.


[quote]
Obvious foreshadowing through the game hinted at Shepard’s death and by extension the player also dies. The ending continues a story that was never just about Shepard, but the fates of all races and synthetics in the Mass Effect universe.[/quote]

Whose fate remains unknown despite being so important for some reason.

 
[quote]
I won’t go into more detail about how Shepard was ultimately the vehicle of a much larger story, but know that the ending was achieved thanks to plot cohesion in three games. Now I shall give my evidence in support of the ending’s brilliance: The ending was a very gratifying final nod at the symbolism of Shepard.[/quote]

Sadly, that symbol went very dark and grim based on what I saw from the ending. Nothing I can interpret can overcome the sheer amount of depressing facts surrounding Shepard's choice, a choice she was forced to make against her will.



[quote] No one really talks about why Shepard was chosen as the name of our protagonist.[/quote]


No, I found out it means someone who protects a herd of animals from outside forces and could even be a reference to Jesus.


[quote]
It doesn’t take a genius to figure it out either. Shepard’s name is an intentional play on what a Shepard is; through her actions Shepard led and united others under one common mission and ultimately delivered them to a brighter future (we hope).[/quote]
 
Hope is one thing, but when a massive quantum machine explodes and cripples if not destroy Galactic Society forever and strand your team and friends on an unknown planet with no way off or hope of rescue that future seems bleak.


[quote]
Shepard first was the leader of humanity in ME1, and then the leader of a group of unlikely allies in ME2…in ME3 Shepard led galaxies to rise up against the Reapers. Did you catch the scene after the credits though? The child in the scene referred to our commander as “The Shepard.” Considering that Shepard made a God-like decision at the end of ME3, Shepard being revered as quite omnipotent makes sense.[/quote]

He/she is being called "The Shepard" because she/he has become an iconic legend with possible different interpretations. Bioware's done this before. I doubt people worship Shepard.
 

[quote]
Depending on what ending you chose Shepard became either the leader of the Reapers, the leader of an entirely new species that is synthetic and organic, or Shepard delivered the organic races into a time of peace much like herding sheep to safer pastures.[/quote]

Or he/she is just laying off somewhere to catch her/his breath. Again, Bioware reframed from providing answers to that, at least not yet.


[quote]
 2. The ending is open to interpretation and leaves the plot ripe for expanding in future games. Though Shepard was informed of the immediate results of her actions, the sonic boom-like impact her choice has on all life in space will be felt for centuries. We don’t know how the future will be though; what will happen when the cycle starts again if you chose the right path? How does controlling the Reapers change things for humanity if you chose the left? What will a generation of synthetic-organic hybrids be like if you chose the path straight ahead? Consider how far into the future that scene after the credits was. What was really going on in that moment? Were the grandfather and child completely organic? How advanced is space travel again? The glimpse of the future was purposefully vague so that players can determine for themselves what exactly was going on.[/quote]

With little concrete evidence to balance out the negative effects of the endings; all that scene did was ignore what happened afterwards it would seem.



[quote]
 3. The end game decision had no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ choice. There was no red or blue text to tell you how to respond. There was no dialogue wheel to show which choice was the paragon move or which was a renegade ending. Bioware created a moment where you could ponder the pros and cons of your choices without wondering how this might affect any preconceived notions someone had about doing a ‘paragon-only’ play through or getting just renegade points. Shepard’s humanity and own uncertainty in ME3 is one of the central themes to the narrative, and when Shepard is reduced to a broken soldier with only a pistol the game pulls at how the players would respond to that abrupt turn of events.[/quote]
 
One of Mass Effect's charms was to see how your different choices affected the game, and this ending either ignores that or does it lazy. The fact that I didn't have the choice to ignore and go against the Catalyst's logic and find another way to destroy the Reapers contradictes the whole idea of leaving the ending up to me.


[quote]
Regardless of how people felt about the ending, I doubt anyone can say they didn’t hesitate in choosing a decision without some serious thought first.[/quote]

At wondering why Bioware gave us so little choices over deciding the ending of the game.



[quote]
 4. A masterful narrative shift occurs, making this not an ending but a new beginning. The way the ending was planned could not have been acted out more brilliantly. The Reaper beam rips through the charging group of ragtag survivors as they attempt to make an all-out footrace to the beam. Players watch this happen and get the first jolt of panic when they realize Shepard for the first time will not be okay. The controls, no matter how forcefully you hit the buttons, simply direct a limping commander towards their goal.[/quote]
 
And for the first time in Mass Effect you have no choice except to watch a decision made for you, not by you.


[quote]
Shepard sluggishly lifts an arm to shoot a pistol at oncoming husks and staggers into the Citadel. I cannot be the only one who wanted to scream at Shepard to shake it off and sprint ahead to find Anderson, but that is exactly what we are supposed to feel. It is obvious in this moment that Shepard’s story is ending as she struggles to point her gun at the Illusive Man and falls onto the controls of the Citadel shutters. When the Catalyst begins to speak, the change from Shepard’s story to one that is about just the Mass Effect universe begins. Shepard has little time to speak to the Catalyst before prompted with a decision; she is confused and suddenly seems small when confronted with a vastly superior AI and an opportunity to rewrite destiny appears in the form of three paths leading to her ultimate demise.[/quote]
 
Like in ME2 and 2, but this time you have no control over what happens next.


[quote]
I didn’t feel like I was even playing Shepard in those moments; I felt like I was playing God and that to give someone that responsibility seemed unfair. Through this entire process Shepard has been filled with the hope and support of everyone she rallies…would anyone support her now as she changes the fates of all organic and synthetic life?[/quote]

What was unfair was how after everything Shepard did to win the war he or she is battered and broken and forced into a decision we all know she would never make.


[quote]
 As we watch Shepard die, the ending doesn’t just stop there…it continues the story as we see Joker and the squad crash land on an unknown planet. Seeing them climb out and simply take in a new world that appears unsullied by technology is like a clean slate or a breath of fresh air. Playing Shepard feels like a first-person narrative even though players of video games are always viewers of a story…this definitive switch to being an observer of uncontrollable events is Bioware’s way of saying “but wait, there’s more.” After the credits ended I felt an even greater sense of new beginnings when an unknown child looks up at the universe Shepard once navigated and hopes that maybe they too can become a hero.[/quote]

The Star Gazer ending indeed supports the idea that humanity survived, but the rest of the galaxy is unknown. The grandfather never gave hints to wanting to be a hero, but simply telling his grandchild a story unlike any before.



[quote]
 5. Foreshadowing and clever story decisions lead to the final, encompassing theme that has always been present in each game: Space is full of infinite possibility. Mass Effect isn’t as cut and dry of a trilogy as many might think it is. Sure, we are largely invested in Shepard’s story to a point where we forget that everything happening is larger than life.[/quote]
 
The story of Mass Effect was simply a tale of one human who stood up against cosmic forces for a reason determined by you. The games were about you shaping a story in your image with a character that you define and a destiny you picked for yourself. What you said here is simply you overthinking these themes.


[quote]
Most heroes in video games save the world; Bioware best gives a representation of what it is like to save an entire universe.[/quote] 

Mass Effect only takes place in a single Galaxy, not the entire universe. Other games have done this and more as well. The big difference is their endings offer a conclusion, not more questions.


[quote]
 *snip*[/quote]

I just cut this part out sense you only summarized what happened in the trilogy.


[quote]
The ending draws in so many theoretical and hypothetical thoughts it makes sorting through the information a little difficult, but I don’t believe this is a result of vague storytelling…I think Bioware intentionally created a situation where the player is supposed to be confused. I don’t think anyone has gone their entire life without asking one of the following questions: -Is there life out there in space besides Earth?-Is there a God, or a master plan? Is this all some intelligent design at work?-What is the value of a life?-Do we control our destiny?-Are there alternate realities? All of these questions are central themes that all float around the largest theme of Mass Effect: space is ****ing big and will always be an unknown.[/quote]

I think you put to much thought into this then Bioware wanted....


[quote]
 Did anyone catch EDI’s dialogue about 1+1=3? She actually does a great job pondering the existence of parallel universes and alternate timelines. Shepard doesn’t know what to say to the AI and neither would I if someone dropped that information on me.[/quote]
 
What does this have to do with anything?

[quote]
EDI and the geth are two examples of weighing in on what constitute life, and what it means to be alive. The Illusive Man’s goal to control the Reapers seemed flawed and evil ever since ME2, but in ME3 we have to ask ourselves in the very end if really he was right all along: the Reapers indoctrinate organics to allow lesser races evolve and this technically keeps them alive. Certainly controlling the Reapers would advance humanity, too.[/quote]
 
Indoctrination was an evil means for the Reapers to turn life into a slave. Killing people so that a select few can live isn't evolution; it's genocide. That is what makes the Reapers and the Catalyst wrong in my books.


[quote]
Even Saren’s thought process may have some valid points since he was really just an example of indoctrination before The Illusive Man. The exploration in the Cerberus base also brings up quite an interesting moment where Shepard questions if she is already indoctrinated as a result of project Lazarus. I began to wonder the same thing, especially after seeing the Catalyst and after the Catalyst comments on how synthetics have made Shepard’s entire journey possible.[/quote]
 
The Catalyst only said Shepard was part synthetic. And Lazarus was about bringing Shepard back to life and Indoctrination wasn't used as a means to do that.


[quote]
There is a great theory about this that I won’t elaborate upon (look it up on the internet…you’re bound to find it) but it is another possibility that is left open to player interpretation as a result of a wonderfully thought-provoking ending.[/quote]

I know this theory and it also potentially proves that everything in the ending is fake and therefore renders everything about the old ending false.


[quote]
 There it is…seven pages of Word document about just the ending of one of my favorite games (and I didn’t even get into any of the indoctrination theories circulating around). I respect the opinions of others, and I would love to participate in healthy discussion about why others liked or disliked the endings. That being said, I have one final message I wish to deliver directly to the vocal minority viciously attacking Bioware: please, please stop. While certainly vocalizing a view point and desiring for commentary from Casey Hudson and the creative team behind him is a harmless want, there is a right and wrong way to go about it. I would love to see more expansion in the form of DLC (particularly an interactive epilogue) on the events at the end of Mass Effect 3 because I welcome more detailed information on my favorite game universe. Those that are trying to take legal action because they didn’t like the creative choices someone made in an art form ultimately are taking us back to a time where freedom of expression was not allowed, especially if a majority of a population disagreed with it. This is not the first time you may disagree with how a story ends, and it won’t be the last; unfortunately changing endings to satisfy your selfishness is the biggest slap in the face anyone could deliver to art mediums and storytelling in previously unconventional forms like video games. Lord knows there are things I dislike in Mass Effect…Liara’s entire character is one of them. That doesn’t mean I want Liara removed from the games and replaced with some other asari. Let’s show some tolerance, everyone, and move on from this.[/quote]

We aren't a vocal minority. 50,000 members on Facebook alone prove that much. Our movement is simply a group of people providing Bioware similar feedback: a different ending. Asking us to stop and stay quiet is an insult to not only us but Bioware as well.

I respect your opinion about the ending, but everything I heard is mostly you're day dream to be honest. To me simply saying "it's all your interpretation" is a horrible way to end a trilogy. It provides no closure and makes the journey seem like a waste of time. I apologize if I seem at all rude in this response, it was never intentional. I glad you enjoyed Mass Effect 3 and I hope for an outcome to both parties will benefit from.

Versus Omnibus
Holding the Line!!

[Skyblade012]

[quote]Taes wrote...

 First of all, the following obviously has spoilers for the ending of Mass Effect 3. You’ve been warned.                 It seems the popular thing to do on the internet recently is to sound in on Mass Effect’s ending. The controversy that has now resulted in not just fundraising petitions but also legal action has ruffled the feathers of fans, “fans” and trolls alike. Many scoff in disbelief that I am in the camp that actually regards the ending as one of the best video game endings in recent history.                 The following are statements that I have read from those who oppose the endings. They are common opinions circulating around the ‘net, and I decided to examine each before giving my own reasons in support of Bioware’s story choices: 
“The ending does not reflect the choices Shepard made through the course of three games.” It is entirely accurate to make this statement: the end of the game presents you with three choices and those choices do not change no matter what you do before that point. However, this final choice was not supposed to be about what Shepard has done in the past…it was about what Shepard is going to do right now. Shepard held the fate of all known organic and synthetic life in her hands (which is how I view the pistol symbolism…Shepard either lays it down to embrace synthetics or shoots it to oppose them). The reason this choice was so difficult and felt so weighted is because not only was there no paragon option, but the choice ultimately was made based on what the player’s moral code was. Let me put this into context by using my endgame as an example. I had played as a paragon Shepard for three games, uniting galaxies and uplifting the hope and spirits of everyone. I hated Cerberus and I hated the Illusive Man’s ideas of controlling Reapers. At the end of the game, staring down those choices, I had to sit and think about which one was right. I knew that the Reaper threat would be stopped, Shepard would die and the relays would be destroyed. In theory this choice will have the same immediate outcomes, but Shepard is ultimately rewriting generations of life in the future! This choice is bigger than one individual can truly comprehend no matter how epic of a hero they were previously. The way I played Shepard reflected her desire for free will and her hope that organic life’s ability to control their destiny will prevail. With those morals in mind, I chose the option to destroy synthetic life and not break the cycle permanently. I reasoned this as the best option because now Shepard once again gave humanity and other civilizations a chance to fight like she did. While destroying synthetics was a hard pill to swallow (the Geth and EDI make that choice bittersweet)[/quote]

Which might count if EDI didn't not clearly survive the ending.

[quote], I was confident like the Catalyst was that synthetic life would rise once again, but hopefully this time chaos would not occur.So you see this ending was not about where Shepard has been, or even about what happens ten minutes after Shepard makes her decision. It is about what kind of person Shepard, and by extension the player, is.[/quote]
 
And, as the players have pointed out, repeatedly, both them and Shepard are the type to say "Screw you" to the self-righteous godchild who thinks he has the only possible explanation of the cosmos.

[quote]This choice actually represents what the role-playing genre of video games should be all about: the player must make an excruciatingly hard decision that changes the direction of the game entirely…in this case it changes the canon of the Mass Effect universe in potentially three very different ways. Mass Effect 4 (if set in the future after Shepard dies) cannot ignore Shepard’s choice; either we will see the Reaper cycle beginning again, Reapers being controlled in some form, or all life will now be a synthetic-organic hybrid made to resemble Shepard. Those are three very different outcomes…we just don’t get to see that future because we were looking at the universe through Shepard’s eyes and her story came to a very dramatic end.[/quote]

Bullfeathers.  You could easily have created three different endings that reflect the choices.  You could witness the breakdown of synthetics, watch Joker mourning EDI, watch the geth ships crumbling.  You could actually demonstrate synthetic-organic fusion, and have Joker step out of the Normandy without limping like a cripple.  What good does synthesis do if it can't even fix brittle bones?  You could actually show differences in the endings, rather than technicolor explosions.

[quote] There is also another, much less long-winded reason why Shepard’s choices were not going to reflect the end game. Shepard’s choice reflected the journey she took; yes Shepard got to destroy the Reapers, but how did she do it? Did she resolve the turian/krogan conflict peacefully? Were the geth destroyed, or were the quarians? If Shepard didn’t make the choices she made in Mass Effect 3’s build-up to the climax at the end, Shepard couldn’t have even GOTTEN to Earth to take it back. The game did an excellent job of showing cause and effect and tying up loose ends from the previous two installments. I never went into the end of the game expecting whether I saved the Rachni or not to be the ultimate decision-maker in how this finished.[/quote]

Then maybe the devs shouldn't have stated "the decision to save the Rachni has huge consequences, even in just the final battle to fight the Reapers".  I, on the other hand, wonder why I bother.  I was given a bodyguard of Geth Primes.  Where the hell are they on Earth when I need them?  Where are the other Spectres, or Kirrahe's STG forces, who promised to support and fight alongside me?  I get to see Wrex, yay, but his Krogan never do any fighting.  It feels as though everything you did was for nothing.  You gather the forces of the galaxy, and they sit upstairs and let you do everything.

[quote] 2. “The ending makes no sense and has too many large plot holes!” The ending makes perfect sense;[/quote]
 
Uh, no.  Just WRONG.

How did Anderson follow Shepard through the beam, and come out in front of her?  Why was the force commander (ie, not a front line soldier) even charging the beam?  Why was Anderson describing things that aren't visible?  How did he and TIM reach the control panel without being seen in a room with no other entrances?  Why were Reapers sending humans to be processed inside the Citadel, and yet have no forces inside to actually process them?  Why would the processing beam send humans to literally the only place they can stop the Reapers?  Why is business as usual going on in the background of the wards?  Why are the three options set up and ready to go, with neat devices dedicated to each on the Citadel, if these "new possibilities" had not been around, or even conceived of, before?  Why would Shepard trust the godchild?  Why would Shepard believe that shooting a critical power junction is how you get the Crucible to activate?  Why does shooting a power junction get the Crucible to activate?  How is it that the final confrontation takes place in a location clearly visible from space that has remained undetected for millions, if not billions, of years?  If the purpose is to prevent synthetics from destroying organics, why does Sovereign decide to give the geth a Reaper body, thus giving synthetics all the power they need to eliminate organics?  How did the victory fleet even reach Earth when control of the Citadel allows the Reapers to block others from using the relays?

I can go on, but I think I've made my point.  Plotholes up the wazoo.

[quote]after the mission on Thessia we learned that there is some greater AI controlling the Reapers.[/quote]
 
"We are each a nation.  Independent, free of all weakness."

Oh, wait, they're all being controlled by a greater AI.

[quote]A master plan akin to the theory of intelligent design has been in motion since way, way before the current events in the game. Basically, this AI has been preserving space by controlling the organics that cause chaos in the form of space discovery and creating synthetics while allowing simpler organic races to develop.[/quote]
 
You don't get any of that from Thessia.  The organic/synthetic war situation from previous cycles was touched upon more in the "From Ashes" OPTIONAL DLC than ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE GAME.  You don't find out any of the Catalyst's motivations until you meet the Catalyst.

On Thessia, you find out that the cyclical nature of the galaxy is beyond the Reapers, that's all.  The Catalyst's information, that he controls and dictates the cycle, actually argues against his own claims.  If, as indicated on Thessia, the cycle is responsible for the repeated patterns, including the recurrence of psychotic, killer AI, than the godchild being the source of the cycle means that the godchild is propagating the harmful agents he claims to stop.

[quote]In Mass Effect 1 and 2, Shepard showed the Reapers that humans were not a simple race…perhaps we could argue that the attention humanity got from them really was all Shepard’s fault (along with those who discovered the mass effect technology in the first place). Fans arguing against the plausibility of this Catalyst plot seem to believe the point of all of this needed to be explained. What these fans do not realize though, is that explaining this would be akin to trying to answer questions about life beyond Earth and if there is a God…it is too big of a concept to just give some dialogue about.[/quote]
 
Picking on humans first is fine, especially after all Shepard has done.  Doing so while leaving the Citadel alone is moronic, given that not only does the Citadel offer control of the relays, but it is also the location of your driving intelligence.  It is literally leaving a gun pointed right at your head.  One crazy batarian bomb could have elminated the Reapers completely.  Seizing the Citadel should have been the first objective.

[quote]The Catalyst and intelligent design are similar concepts that are largely open to interpretation of the individual playing Shepard…for Bioware to create a story and universe that makes players question their own humanity and reason for existing in space is nothing short of magnificent.[/quote]

Which they did before the ending, and actually did well, instead of claiming new themes, and giving them to the players as absolutes, instead of allowing the players to explore them themselves the way they did EVERY OTHER PHILISOPHICAL THEME IN THE GAME.

[quote] Now I’ll examine the plot holes that many fans are pointing out. In the ending cinematic, several things are shown including the Normandy jumping through a relay, the mass relays being destroyed, and Shepard’s squad landing on an unknown planet. The first question people have been asking is why was the Normandy in a relay jump? The Normandy was holding the front lines with the rest of the naval fleets flying about above Earth. We see the Crucible activated and charging up to fire…I can only assume that the following happened: -Fleets were told to retreat for fear of being destroyed by the Crucible…[/quote]

By who?  And if the rest of the fleet is fleeing, why do we see the rest of the fleet being hit by the blast along with the Reapers?

[quote]no one knew what exactly it would do beyond destroy the Reapers somehow.-Joker was escaping in fear of the Crucible’s power like everyone else. The Normandy had Hackett still on board and I’m guessing he gave commands to retreat from the Crucible after it activated. I realize this is hypothetical and we can’t possibly know what Joker was doing, but unfortunately this was not explained.[/quote]
 
Thus making it another plot hole.

[quote]Another issue fans have is how could the Normandy have picked up the two squad mates that were with Shepard before she entered the beam? Again, here are some points to consider: -There could have been time for the Normandy to land and get them to safety.[/quote]

Bull.  Harbinger was sitting right on top of your squadmate's location, and if the defenses were that pitifully weak, why didn't the Normandy just drop you there in the first place?

[quote] -However Cortez managed to make it out, the other squad mates possibly did the same thing…maybe there was a shuttle they used or maybe the Normandy itself landed on Earth. We don’t know how long it took for Shepard to make it to the Citadel controls and activate the Crucible. I personally have difficulty in believing the Normandy landed that close to the beam to pick up people, but again it is not a plot hole exactly because there could easily have been an explanation.[/quote]

Cortez didn't make it out, he crashed.

"Could have been" and "is" are too very different things.  Sure, you can claim "space magic", but that doesn't mean it isn't a plot hole.  If travel to and from the beam is so easy, why would we fight through 95% of London to get to it?

[quote] Finally, there is the matter of the mass relays exploding. These relays are said to wipe out star systems when destroyed as discussed in the Arrival DLC. We know though the relays did not explode in a predictable manner since they were destroyed not by brute force, but by the Crucible.[/quote]
 
Right.  While I actually don't care much about the system-demolishing explosion thing, as I can understand this point, you have no evidence to indicate that the Crucible blows them up with any less force than an asteroid.

[quote]Some unknown that no one could account for is the reason Joker and the squad survived…again, I know that this seems like a threadbare explanation, but it is one nonetheless.[/quote]
 
Um, no.  "Some unknown" is the definition of "plot hole".

[quote]Much like everyone else I would love for Bioware to comment on these particular parts of the ending, but unlike everyone else I am not calling it a plot hole until the ending is proven to contradict canonized information which so far there is no evidence to support or refute anything that occurred. 3. “The last message telling people to play DLC and multiplayer cheapens the experience and is a shameless attempt to get more money out of us!” Mass Effect 2 had amazing DLC…from new characters to bridging the gap between ME2 and 3, it greatly added to the experience of the storyline. No one complained when ME2’s ending came with an option to keep playing to experience DLC or to start a new game plus. Bioware wants people to remember that though the story of Shepard has ended, Mass Effect as a whole has not. DLC will come and probably expand an already rich story with new missions. Multiplayer’s influence on the end game is something I haven’t seen for myself yet and personally I want to make that happen. I also estimate that if Bioware even has a vague idea for a Mass Effect 4, eventually DLC like the Arrival will bridge some transition. Bioware has provided excellent reasons for fans to keep playing Mass Effect even after the story has ended…it isn’t a crime for them to want to remind you of that. They deserve to try and make profit off of the highly successful game that they have devoted a lot of time and effort on. 4.[/quote]
 
The DLC comment merely felt tacky in combination of an incredibly poor ending that lacked closure.  Moving on.

[quote]“The ending makes everything that happened in three games irrelevant!” This is perhaps the argument that makes the least bit of sense. Over the span of three games Shepard discovered the Reapers, the origin of mass relays, the truth behind the Citadel, and that there is a cycle that purges all organic life for reasons unknown (until ME3 that is). In order for Shepard to even have gotten to the end of the trilogy, the following had to have happened: -The fight against Saren-Project Lazarus and the suicide mission-Uniting the races to take back Earth If even one of those failed, Shepard would have never gotten to the beam. That is pretty obvious. I realize though that more people harbor feelings of irrelevance because they spent all this time getting invested in a character and didn’t see any pay off in the form of a “happy” ending.[/quote]
 
The irrelevancy of everything you do isn't because Shepard dies, it is because, literally, none of it matters.  You create a peace between the turians and the krogan, yay!  Except that they are never going to see each other again because there are no mass relays.  There is no major instellar travel.  We're talking decades to get between clusters, assuming nothing goes wrong.  Everything you did is pointless.  Who cares that you are going to take Omega back?  Without the relays, everyone on Omega will starve to death in a week.  Who cares about Grissom Academy?  No relays, so supplies, no food, no survivors.  Nothing matters because the entire Mass Effect galaxy is built upon the relays.  Without them, everything, including everything you did before, falls apart.

[Syrellaris]

wrdnshprd wrote...

kalerab wrote...

Mr. C wrote...

*slow clap* Bravo, sir. An excellent read.
FINALLY someone mentions the Prothean VI on Thessia! It seems these "hold-the-line" folks have either conveniently forgotten that little chat, or weren't paying attention.
The ending makes perfect sense; it's lack of exposition is where it fails, however.

Side note: To all you "It was false advertising!" people- NO company advertises that their game has flaws, NO company would come out and say "None of your previous choices are properly concluded in the ending." The entire point of marketing is to get people interested in their product and willing to pay for it; and you know what? IT WORKED! Your own ignorance of corporate marketing does not make it evil, no matter how loudly you **** to the contrary.

Yeah, while you are forgetting on conversation with Souvereign, Harbringer and Rannoch Reaper. Souvereign said that they are each a nation, they have no beginning and no end and that they are pinnacle of evolution. Other two Reapers claimed that their goal is for organic uncomprehensible. All of this was negated in last 5 minutes of game. We found out that Reapers

a, they have beginning, they were created
b, they are not pinnacle of evolution, they are pawns of some vile AI
c, their goal is easily comprehensible. Problem is that it is bull. And funnily enough writer staff made that contradiction not only during whole franchise (what could be understandable to some degree given changes in writers team), but in same, sole, single game. Just few hours before this "relevation" you (may have) united Geth and Quarians and you found out that Geths didnt revolt against Quarians, but acted in pure self-defence. Common sense 0 - BioWare 1.

So saying - no, it is not deus ex machine because in third game you have one sentence from Prothean device hinting that they are controlled by someone, despite two and half game implying something different won´t fly.

As for NOT advertising game flaws, it is dishonest but too common in todays world. However LYING about the game is not cool, especially for company that wants to interact with its constumers. I am talking about Mike Gamle, Casey Hudson and Ray Muzyka

Specifically:

"...This will result in a story that diverges into widly different conclusions based on players actions in first two chapters."

Casey Hudson

"How could you go through all three campaigns playing as your Shepard and than be forced into bespoke ending that everyone gets?"

Mike Gamble

"Pretty much everything that people want to see wrapped up, or be given answers to, will be."

Ray Muzyka

"It´s not even in any way like the traditional game endings, where you can say how many endings there are or wether you got ending A, B or C."

Casey Hudson

Now from my point of view as customer I was lied about the product I bought. It doesnt matter a squat wether this lie applied to last 5 minutes or whole game, you don´t do that and it borders on illegality. I don´t want my money back as I think that BioWare developers deserve it for 95 percent of game they produced, all I ask for is first explanation and than apology by Casey Hudson, Ray Muzyka, Mike Gamble and all other BioWare and EA staff that lied in public about the ending to ALL fans.

pretty much this. 

for those defending the ending.. this really is what it boils down to.  we were blatanly lied to, plain and simple.

thats why it baffles the mind that people are BEGGING for ending DLC they have to PAY for.

i know if bioware wants my respect back, they better release the ending DLC free. 

personally, if you take the endings on their own, WITHOUT the above quotes, im indifferent to the endings.  they didnt blow me away, but i also didnt feel the endings were worthy of an FTC complaint either.  however, because of those statements, i still wouldnt have filed a complaint to the FTC, but i can see why one would.

I disagree. Specially on the points of them lying. They didnt lie. Having read the the ops opening post and ofcourse finished the game myself, I found that a lot of points are explainable. A lot of your open plot holes from ME1 and 2 were closed in those games already, whatever was still left, got quickly closed off in ME3.

ME3 created 1 or 2 new plotholes that leave a mystery behind. Which are really only the Joker flies in a Relay and crash lands and the information behind the catalyst. If you call that lying..well so be it. I don't.

Also they have given you different endings. Not perse in the cutscenes though and they never said it would be a cutscene ending that is different. Depending on your EMS scores and choices your ending will be different in the choices you can make nd the cutscenes change to reflect those ending choices.

That the choices are not up to your liking that is a whole different matter and is frankly an opinion, not fact. and here again, bioware did not Lie.

I am not completely defending the ending as there are things I would love to see different, but a lot of the ending does make sense.

[Larryboy_Dragon]

I like the idea of the technological base everyone has been relying on being pulled out from under them.
The new universe would be one where species have to figure out space travel on their own without relays. It means Mass Effect 4 can essentially have a whole new galaxy without changing the setting. It was well played


Also 'LOL' at Anyone using dialogue from Reapers as ‘evidence’ that ME3 contradicts canon. Of course the reaper is going to say its good like with no beginning and the pinnacle of life. It’s hardly likely to say, “Aw, no bro – we’re so totally lame that a worm can take us out… when you shoot us, aim for the eyes”.

I have issues with how reapers are portrayed and crucible, but it’s not a problem with the ending. The whole plot from ME3 is a total mess. The crucible is the lamest plot device I’ve seen in a game, ever. The freaking halos from Halo was better.
Seriously, it was a total hatchet job.

[DashRunner92]

Shepard's name was not chosen in reference that he's some sort of savior O_o They didn't even have the ending planned during ME1.

Modifié par DashRunner92, 20 mars 2012 - 09:33 .

[Qutayba]

I like mysterious and open endings. I don't need all the plot and lore holes filled. But I expect those mysterious endings to somehow fit the character and the story that has come before. The ME3 ending was weird for the sake of weird. And it's just so unlike BioWare, which is usually a master story-teller. A hall-of-famer making a rookie mistake.

What I will agree with you on is that some (though just some) of the Retakers engage in bad tactics - creepy Twitter harassment, vindictive ratings bombs, and forum trolling. I think a lot of us call that out when we see it. That is not representative. I want BioWare to be persuaded by our arguments, not be forced to acquiesce to them. Maybe that's naive, but unlike what Shepard is forced to do at the end, I'm not going to throw my principles to the wind.

[danistrad]

I'm sorry, but your post did not even address the plot holes introduced by the ending. Basically what I got from you is that you like the speculation. OK, that's fine. But to me, and many others (including literary critics), that just seems like a weak way to complete an epic story--it was out of touch with the themes and lore of the world. Also, it was blatantly different from what consumers were promised before the release.

On a side note, please reformat your post to make it more easily readable.