4048 réponses à ce sujet

[IxSITHxI]

I just thought of something.... the god brat says they didnt attack the crucible because they didnt know the plans survived. Right. theres several issues with this. 1st there are indoctrinated agenst everywhere. 2nd If you send the indocted Rachni onboard theyre there for a while and they eventually turn on the crucible crew. So the Reaper Rachni never reported back to the Reapers " hey theyre building their ultimate death machine over here guys

just more flaws i guess sigh

[Larignome]

DeadlyDodo wrote...

IxSITHxI wrote...

Spartas Husky wrote...

This... so much this


By "Made Nightwing"

So, my lit professor and I are nerds. I throw in 'but the prize' references on my essays about Odysseus and Achilles, he throws in Firefly references in his lectures, we get on great. Now, I've previously mentioned that he disliked the endings EDIT: He dropped in on the forum to correct my paraphrasing of our conversation, so I'm updating the OP to have his infinitely superior original words replace my own feeble attempts:

Drayfish, p.13:

I've never posted on this forum before, so I hope I don't embarrass myself or this discussion entirely – and I apologise for the wall of text that is to follow, but I'm an academic, and tedious tracts of self-important linguistic gymnastics is what we do.

My name is Dr. Dray, and I should start by saying: oh, dear, I've been cited for my nerd indignation. I'm surprised Made Nightwing didn't mention that my little fists were shaking with rage. But they were. They did. With feeble, pointless nerd rage.

I must point out though, that as flattered as I am to be referenced, were I still marking Made Nightwing's work I would have to circle this passage and remind him that these words are not in fact directly attributable to me: his phrasing is a paraphrase of our conversation rather than a quotation. ...However, he has an attentive mind, and I must admit that he has captured the majority of my issues with the ending, my penchant for hyperbole, and the general dislocation of the thematic threads that I felt violated the larger narrative arc of the trilogy. And I'm sad to say I did use the words 'thematically revolting' – although I've watched both the Matrix sequels and Godfather 3, so I've probably said that phrase quite a lot.

If you'll permit me then, I did just want to write quickly in my own words to clarify some of my issues with these endings, and why I thought that they erode the themes heretofore at the core of their series. Of course, all of these arguments have no doubt been stated numerous times by voices far more worthy than mine over the past few weeks, but as someone intrigued by the production and reception of literature in all its forms this has been a fascinating – if disheartening – time to be an enormous fan of this fiction. I'd also like to particularly commend Strange Aeons for the fantastic post. And that analogy: 'It’s like ending Pinocchio with Geppetto stuffing him into a wood chipper'. What an exquisite image!

So, putting aside all of the hanging plot threads that rankled me (where was the Normandy going? why did my squad mates live? Anderson is where now? wait, the catalyst was Haley Joel Osment? etc), I would like to explain why, when I was offered those three repellent choices, I turned and tried to unload my now infinite pistol into the whispy-space-ghost's face. It was not because I was unhappy that my Shepard would not get to drink Garrus under the table one last time, or get to help Tali build a back-porch on her new homestead, nor that I was pretty sure no one was going to remember to feed my space fish – it was because those three ideological options were so structurally indefensible that they broke the suspension of disbelief that Bioware had (up until that point) so spectacularly crafted for over a hundred hours of narrative. Suddenly Shepard was not simply being asked to sacrifice a race or a friend or him/herself for the greater good (all of which was no doubt expected by any player paying attention to the tone of the series), Shepard was being compelled, without even the chance to offer a counterpoint, to perform one of three actions that to my reading each fundamentally undermined the narrative foundations upon which the series seemed to rest.

In the Control ending, Shepard is invited to pursue the previously impossible path of attempting to dominate the reapers and bend them to his will. Momentarily putting aside the vulgarity of dominating a species to achieve one's own ends (and I will get to complaining about that premise soon enough), this has proved to be the failed modus operandi of every antagonist in this fiction up until this point – including the Illusive Man and Saren – all of whom have been chewed up and destroyed by their blind ambition, incapable of controlling forces beyond their comprehension. Nothing in the vague prognostication of the exposition-ghost offers any tangible justification for why Shepard's plunge into Reaper-control should play out any differently. In fact, as many people have already pointed out, Shepard has literally not five minutes before this moment watched the Illusive Man die as a consequence of this arrogant misconception.

The Destroy ending, however, seems even more perverse. One of the constants of the Mass Effect universe (and indeed much quality science fiction) has been an exploration of the notion that life is not simplistically bound to biology, that existence expands beyond the narrow parameters of blood and bone. That is why synthetic characters like Legion and EDI are so compelling in this context, why their quests to understand self-awareness – not simply to ape human behaviours – is so dramatic and compelling. Indeed, we even get glimpses of the Reapers having more sprawling and unknowable motivations that we puny mortals can comprehend...

To then end the tale by forcing the player to obliterate several now-proven-legitimate forms of life in order to 'save' the traditional definition of fleshy existence is not only genocidal, it actually devolves Shephard's ideological growth, undermining his ascent toward a more enlightened conception of existence, something that the fiction has been steadily advancing no matter how Renegadishably you wanted to play. This is particularly evident when the preceding actions of all three games entirely disprove the premise that synthetic will inevitably destroy organic: the Geth were the persecuted victims, trying their best to save the Quarians from themselves; EDI, given autonomy, immediately sought to aid her crew, even taking physical form in order to experience life from their perspective and finally learning that she too feared the implications of death.

And finally Synthesis, the ending that I suspect (unless we are to believe the Indoctrination Theory) is the 'good' option, proves to be the most distasteful of all. Shepard, up until this point has been an instrument though which change is achieved in this universe, and dependent upon your individual Renegade or Paragon choices, this may have resulted in siding with one species or another, letting this person live or that person die, even condemning races to extinction through your actions. But these decisions were always the result of a mediation of disparate opinions, and a consequence of the natural escalation of these disputes – Shepard was merely the fork in the path that decided which way the lava would run. His/her actions had an impact, but was responding to events in the universe that were already in motion before he/she arrived.

To belabour the point: Shepard is an agent for arbitration, the tipping point of dialogues that have, at times, root causes that reach back across generations. Up until this moment in the game the narrative, and Shepard's role within it, has been about the negotiation of diversity, testing the validity of opposing viewpoints and selecting a path through which to evolve on to another layer of questioning. Suddenly with the Synthesis ending, Shepard's capacity to make decisions elevates from offering a moral tipping point to arbitrarily wiping such disparity from the world. Shepard imposes his/her will upon every species, every form of life within the galaxy, making them all a dreary homogenous oneness. At such a point, wiping negotiation and multiplicity from the universe, Shepard moves from being an influential voice amongst a biodiversity of thought to sacrificing him/herself in an omnipotent imposition of will.

(And lest we forget that the entire character arc of Javik (the 'bonus' paid-DLC character that gives unique context to the entire cycle of destruction upon which this fiction is based) is utilised to reveal that a lack of diversity, the failure to continue adapting to new circumstances, was the primary reason that his race was decimated. ...So I guess we have that to look forward to.)

And this was the analogy I made to Made Nightwing in our discussion (and which I have bored people with elsewhere): this bewildering finale felt as if you had been listening to a soaring orchestral movement that ended in a cacophonous blast, the musicians tossing down their instruments and walking away. I find it hard to conceive how the creators of such a magnificent franchise could have made such a mess of their own universe. The plot holes, thematic inconsistencies and a deus ex machina that was unforgivable in ancient Greek theatre, let alone in any modern narrative, all combine to erode the foundations upon which the rest of the experience resides. (It's a disturbing sign when apologists for such an ending have to literally hope that what they witnessed was just a bad dream in the central character's head.)

I'm sure in my diatribe with Made Nightwing I would have cited Charles Dickens being alert to, and adapting his writing in response to the floods of letters he received from his fans in the serialised delivery of stories such as The Old Curiosity Shop. And I know I mentioned F.Scott Fitzgerald extensively redrafting Tender is the Night for a second publishing after receiving negative critical feedback. Indeed, whatever you think of the final result, Ridley Scott was able to reassert a definitive vision of Blade Runner in spite of its original theatrical release. Despite what critics might burble about artistic vision there is innumerable precedent for such reshaping, even beyond fundamental industry practices such as play-testings and film test-screenings. If a work of art has failed in its communicative purpose (and unless angering and bewildering its most invested fans was the goal, then Mass Effect 3 has done so), then it cannot be considered a success, and is not worthy of regard.

And for those who would respond that I, and fans like myself, are simply upset because the endings do not offer some irrefutable 'clarity' that would mar the poetic mysteries of the ending, I would point out that I am in no way against obscure or bewildering endings: if they are earned. In contrast to a majority of viewers, I happen to love the ending of The Sopranos for precisely this reason – because, despite the momentary jolt of surprise it engendered, that audacious blank screen was wholly thematically supportable. The driving premise of that program was a man seeking therapy (a mobster, yes, but a psychologically damaged man) – indeed, the very first beat in that narrative was Tony Soprano walking into a psychiatrist's office. The principle thematic tie of the entire series was therefore revealed to be a mediation upon the underlying psychological stimuli that produces identity: whether the capacity to interpret and understand one's impulses can impact upon the experience of one's life; whether one can attain agency over one's life.

That ending might have been agonising, but it was entirely fitting that the series ended with a loaded ambiguity, inviting a myriad of interpretations in which we the audience were now placed into the role of the psychiatrist, suddenly compelled to reason out the ending of those final thirty seconds with the cumulative experience of the preceding six years of imagery. Did Tony die? Did he have a second plate of onion rings and enjoy his family's company? Did Meadow ever park that car? In its final act The Sopranos gives over the interpretive, descriptive function of its narrative to its audience, intimately binding the viewer to Tony Soprano's own (perhaps failed) attempts to comprehend himself and attain authorship over his life. ...But the only reason that they could even try this is because every minute of every episode to this point has been propagated upon the notion that Tony Soprano was a man with a subconscious that could be explored, and that motivated his actions whether as a loving father or brutal criminal.

The obscurities in the ending of Mass Effect 3 have not been similarly earned by its prior narrative. This narrative has not until this point been about dominance, extermination, and the imposition of uniformity – indeed, Shepard has spent over a hundred hours of narrative fighting against precisely these three themes. And if one of these three (and only these three) options must be selected in order to sustain life in the universe, then that life has been so devalued by that act as to make the sacrifice meaningless.

And that is why I shall continue to go on shooting Haley-Joel-Osment-ghost in the face.

...Sorry again for the length of this post.

This right here BioWare, this ^

I ratify, agree, endorse, commend and approve this message.

As do I, this post is the perfect summary of my feelings about the endings. No explanation, no extended cutscenes and no argument can change the fundamental flaw the endings bear, which is to completely and utterly invalidate anything Shepard did up to this point.

Having the control ending be promoted as the good and Paragon ending is just another slap in the face, after opposing The Illusive Man so vehemently about it. Similar can be said about Synthesis and Saren.

In the end it boils down to "Hey Shep, should've given up back when Saren was invading the citadel, your fault so many people died since then."

/lurkmode on

Modifié par Larignome, 28 juin 2012 - 09:35 .

[B.Shep]

I really liked the Extended Cut and while the Geth were also destroyed i still think Destroy was the best ending.

[The Vanquished1]

The endings still sucked. It's all true, they never did have an ace up their sleeve,, they really have sold out. Bioware is no more IMHO. They just suck now.

[Althekiller]

Sorry to ask but i just got back online do i have to play through the endings again to see dlc???

[StElmo]

Althekiller wrote...

Sorry to ask but i just got back online do i have to play through the endings again to see dlc???

yep/.

[Althekiller]

StElmo wrote...

Althekiller wrote...

Sorry to ask but i just got back online do i have to play through the endings again to see dlc???

yep/.

LAME

[Vahilor]

I only repeat what I already wrote on other forums:

Ok after watching all endings on youtube and even downloading the EC I feel disappointed and sad.. I even can't bring me to play the EC myself (went playing Dragon's Dogma and Skyrim instead).

Yes they tried to stuff some plotholes and explained some minor issues like the Normandy crash an so on... but it opens again some more questions and plot holes.. and it is sad that the LI so poorly is out of character telling Joker to leave... the person (in my playthrough Ash) who told me earlier she can't lose me again cause that would break her.... so all she did was lying to me.. disappointing.. and liek said before.. in all other games loyal Joker who never hesitated to fly in deepest hell for you... leaves only cause of a order from Hacket ? Sorry didn't know that Joker mutated into a craven....

Starbrat still talks a lot of nonsense and for me the refuse ending is a punch in the face of every fan... and it is like "You don't like our endings.. take this idiots." I'm really ok with a bad "Reapers Win" ending... if I had not played my butt off to geht the highest EMS.. but with high EMS it would have been nice to get a "god" ending with the refuse option.

No reunion with your crew and the LI - I never expected a Scene with my LI having Babys or somthing (in destroy) but it would have been nice seeing some soldiers (or whoever) finding Shep.. it would still have been open what you will do with the LI/crew/ and so on but you would have been able to know that Shep now will survive.

I guess I will not spend any mony in Bioware stuff the next time.. probably I'll never buy any Bioware stuff again... cause I allways will be afraid that they will let me down again like they did with ME... ME is is dead for me now... and I'll not buy any further ME product for sure.. and for all DLCs.. Bioware has stated multiple times there will be no post-Ending only Pre-Ending DLCs.. but why should I buy them ? They will not make the ending better, they will not be of any use...even when they are good, probably genius.. but with that flawed ending they will go down like the rest of the games... and for the Levithan DLC-- you tell me in the ending all Reapers are controlled by Starbrat.. ans have a collective mind.. but there we have a individual Reaper ? *only shakes head*

There are other Game developer out there which also make nice games and don't come alonge with high promisses they do not keep and which have pretty nice endings to their games.. also some have bittersweet endings.. but endings fitting their franchis and pretty well done..

Modifié par Vahilor, 28 juin 2012 - 10:20 .

[kalimali21]

After seeing all endings I have very strong feeling, that Bioware is joking with this DLC.
Destroy option is fairly good, except why we had to kill ALL synthetics
Reject is interesting option but looking at Final Battle (and stories told by Javik) reapers can be defeated in conventional fight.
Synthesis and Control endings are outright ridiculous. Reapers helping in rebuilding civilization, sharing knowledge with rest of the galaxy. This looks worse than Soviet propaganda during last century. There are only two options: Bioware terrible writing or they made second fake ending.

[Charoleia]

I think EC is an improvement. But improving doesn't change a bad ending to a good one. It is just a little less bad.

There are still lots of plotholes and absurd scenes.
Though my fangirling was happy for the extra LI scene, I think it was totally out of place. My Shep is deeply in love with Major Alenko, but there's NO WAY she'd jeopardize the fight against the Reapers for the sake of an extra goodbye scene.
And it's not just about my Shep : Commander Shepard, Paragon or Renegade, whatever the LI, whatever background story, WOULD NOT retreat from the final push and risk everything to cuddle his/her teammates. 
I won't even mention the Normandy landing in the middle of a warzone with Harby shooting at everything but the ship, lots have been said about it in the previous pages. When the Normandy showed up, I was like... "Really ? BioWare, REALLY ?"

Would it have been the original ending, I would have think it was bad.
Now, I just don't know.
I feel bitter, I really feared a slideshow at the end, and here it is. And on top of that, not everyone showed up there (I heard BW recognized there was a bug with Jack and Miranda in the Destroy slideshow. Great). And I still don't have closure : what happened to Shep ? Breath scene meaning you're supposed to be alive, tell us where and WHEN ? The Citadel has been rebuilt but Shep is still lying dying somewhere ? <_<
The timeline isn't respected in the slideshow, I got it.

Actually, I can't help but still think that IT is the answer. After all, even the closure leads me to headcanoning and fanfic-ing. So why not ?


Even more since.. ->

Recon911PDW wrote...

I'm sure this has been mentioned before but why did it make a weird sound when Anderson calls Shepard after he gets thrown into the room on the citadel where it has all the bodies? Did anyone else wonder what that was all about and why they added that part in?

Yeah wondered it too. It felt like someone activated the *wake-up-Shep* switch.

Another hint that IT is still an option. That's all I'm saying.

[Seival]

I'm happy that I managed to understand the endings even before EC release. And after completing my current playthrough with EC installed I became even more happy

Thank you, BioWare! You are best of the best

[Falcon084]

I love the endings! Though I feel that I lost something when I watched them, like it spoiled some of the suprise I would have had at the begining of ME3
Stll it was worth the download Thank you bioware!
______________
About the control ending
You see EDE's body but I don't think it is her anymore. If the destroy ending wipes out all tech, then if the same logic applies Shepard (or at least what was once Shep) now controls all tech, including EDE and the Geth! I think that is what bioware was trying to say when Joker left the ship without her when they first crashed.  What do you think?

[element eater]

thearbiter1337 wrote...

IxSITHxI wrote...

Why did Harbinger not kill the Normandy when it was hovering a couple hundred yards away?

Remember the Normandy has a stealth system /and/ the Reaper IFF which might mean that the Harbinger thought the Normandy was a friendly vessel or just didn't see it at all and Jokers flying skills

why didnt they fly to  the beam in the first place then?

[element eater]

daigakuinsei wrote...

Honestly, I liked EC.

With ONE LAST SLIDE with Shep reunited with friends/LI, it would have been perfect. I'd have preferred to see a slide rather than get it through Twitter/BSN. I can headcanon for that.

im glad to see that alot of people seem to feel this way was beggining to think i was going mad only thing in the EC i didnt like

[braisbr1]

I liked the endings, and I have something to say for those who didn't.

Let's get back a couple of months back...

We all knew what was wrong with the endings in the first place: the bad way they were delivered. But as of now I keep listening things like the endings don't get along with the core themes of the franchise. Now, I think that's something that is wrong.

And it is wrong because they are (in line with the core themes, I mean). Shepard is the same Shepard as always, and the reasons that move him to do the things he does are the same. Yes, the scenario presents us with the biggest and most important choice of all the trilogy, but the choice isn't ours. We can choose from four things to do, but three of them are given to us, and the fourth one is the only one we can do something about.

Now, I don't want to argue about the implications of every one of the three major choices - that's something everyone has to think about on their own. But at least the plotholes have been filled - some of them, at least, and now we don't have as many objective reasons to compain. If you didn't like the three choices given to you by the Reaper consensus, then choose the fourth one.

With this said, thank you Bioware for having listened to the fans and tried to fix the endings as best as you could. You've regained a fan.

Thanks

[Deathcall]

*deep, sad sigh*

Bioware...

The Extended Cut has not solved anything. I had hoped that with some tweaking you could actually make something good, but it seems the source material is just too bad.

I just finished playing through the "new" ending...

Do you know how I feel? Disappointed, sad and annoyed.

Not only are the plot holes still there but you have also added new ones... You truly made it so Harbringer just sits around as the Normandy swoops around and scoops up your team-mates? I almost teared off half my hair at that...

The Catalyst remains the same... "I want more details." - Really? Just like that? Are you pulling our legs or does it truly bother you that so many of us didn't like how you ended this trilogy? And don't get me started on the "refuse" ending and the lack of war assets making any sort of appearance.

I picked destroy myself... No animation of EDI or the Geth dying? Not even a mention of them during the "epilogue" (if you can call that half-witted slideshow an epilogue)? Really? I mean... I know you made this for free and all but damn Bioware, that's so... inconsiderate.

Why the hell keep the grandpa and kid scene again? Doesn't even make sense...

All that talk about artistic integrity and keeping true to your ideas... lies all lies. You ended up changing things, not just adding. Now the Relays don't explode, neither does the Citadel. Were we supposed to "interpret" that the huge explosions we saw before the EC didn't truly destroy those things? I'd be ashamed if I were you, if you had kept it as it were, at least you could still hang on to your artistic integrity, however bad the ending was. Now, you provided an ending which is a little less bad, but have lost your "integrity" along with it.

*deep, sad sigh... again*

Thank you for Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 2. Curse you for Mass Effect 3. I don't know who is to blame for this decadent piece of a story you conjured up for the end of this trilogy, so I have to hate all of you Bioware. First you ruined Dragon Age, now Mass Effect, and I hear you Star Wars MMO is going free-to-play soon. Perhaps you should sit and rethink a couple things?

I only hope all the talented people at Bioware get to show us their potential once more in other games (perhaps a redeeming ME sequel or prequel), but right now, I hate your "anonymous" guts, and will tell everyone who cares to hear how you ruined what could have been our era's Star Wars.

With deep sadness and despair. Once more, thank you for ME1 and 2... curse you for ME3.

[AmstradHero]

braisbr1 wrote...
We all knew what was wrong with the endings in the first place: the bad way they were delivered. But as of now I keep listening things like the endings don't get along with the core themes of the franchise. Now, I think that's something that is wrong.

And it is wrong because they are (in line with the core themes, I mean). Shepard is the same Shepard as always, and the reasons that move him to do the things he does are the same. Yes, the scenario presents us with the biggest and most important choice of all the trilogy, but the choice isn't ours. We can choose from four things to do, but three of them are given to us, and the fourth one is the only one we can do something about.

I don't think you've understood the arguments, or miscontrued what is meant by theme. I'll draw on ONE specific example to illustrate.

Thematically, the ending attempts to impress upon the player the futility of their struggle. It presents a fairly nihilistic view of the galaxy, indicating that life WILL be wiped out if it is not protected from itself. No matter what happens, that cycle of creating synthetic life that will kill off organic life is presented as an inevitability. This is the premise on which the entire ending is based. This means that individual choice does not matter, that the universe and the forces within it are bigger than any individual, or even any group of individuals.

However, the entire series and the ending itself also convey an conflicting theme. The entire series indicates the difference that can be made by a single individual. Shepard unites races, faces down Reapers and much more besides. Shepard also seems amazingly resilient in resisting indoctrination despite prolonged and repeated exposure to Reaper technology and Reapers themselves. In the end, Shepard is even given the ability to decide the fate of the galaxy, and what's more, even given the option to be the ingredient to synthesize all life into an organic/synthetic hybrid. All these points show that Shepard is "special" and is unique amongst the individuals of this cycle, and potentially from all previous cycles.

How is it possible for the ending to attempt to present and promote these two utterly conflicting and opposite themes within the same sequence? The ending both reinforces the futility of the actions of the individual, and simultaneously makes Shepard and this cycle the "one true hero". Such thematic contradiction undermines any potential philosophical meaning that was intended to exist within the end, and instead turns it into an incoherent and inconsistent mess.

This is merely one example of how the ending does not fit thematically with the rest of the series, and it would be quite easy to draw out a lot more, but BioWare simply don't care or don't actually understand what they've written.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 28 juin 2012 - 11:32 .

[DeadlyDodo]

Spartas Husky wrote...

This... so much this


By "Made Nightwing"

So, my lit professor and I are nerds. I throw in 'but the prize' references on my essays about Odysseus and Achilles, he throws in Firefly references in his lectures, we get on great. Now, I've previously mentioned that he disliked the endings EDIT: He dropped in on the forum to correct my paraphrasing of our conversation, so I'm updating the OP to have his infinitely superior original words replace my own feeble attempts:

Drayfish, p.13:

I've never posted on this forum before, so I hope I don't embarrass myself or this discussion entirely – and I apologise for the wall of text that is to follow, but I'm an academic, and tedious tracts of self-important linguistic gymnastics is what we do.

My name is Dr. Dray, and I should start by saying: oh, dear, I've been cited for my nerd indignation. I'm surprised Made Nightwing didn't mention that my little fists were shaking with rage. But they were. They did. With feeble, pointless nerd rage.

I must point out though, that as flattered as I am to be referenced, were I still marking Made Nightwing's work I would have to circle this passage and remind him that these words are not in fact directly attributable to me: his phrasing is a paraphrase of our conversation rather than a quotation. ...However, he has an attentive mind, and I must admit that he has captured the majority of my issues with the ending, my penchant for hyperbole, and the general dislocation of the thematic threads that I felt violated the larger narrative arc of the trilogy. And I'm sad to say I did use the words 'thematically revolting' – although I've watched both the Matrix sequels and Godfather 3, so I've probably said that phrase quite a lot.

If you'll permit me then, I did just want to write quickly in my own words to clarify some of my issues with these endings, and why I thought that they erode the themes heretofore at the core of their series. Of course, all of these arguments have no doubt been stated numerous times by voices far more worthy than mine over the past few weeks, but as someone intrigued by the production and reception of literature in all its forms this has been a fascinating – if disheartening – time to be an enormous fan of this fiction. I'd also like to particularly commend Strange Aeons for the fantastic post. And that analogy: 'It’s like ending Pinocchio with Geppetto stuffing him into a wood chipper'. What an exquisite image!

So, putting aside all of the hanging plot threads that rankled me (where was the Normandy going? why did my squad mates live? Anderson is where now? wait, the catalyst was Haley Joel Osment? etc), I would like to explain why, when I was offered those three repellent choices, I turned and tried to unload my now infinite pistol into the whispy-space-ghost's face. It was not because I was unhappy that my Shepard would not get to drink Garrus under the table one last time, or get to help Tali build a back-porch on her new homestead, nor that I was pretty sure no one was going to remember to feed my space fish – it was because those three ideological options were so structurally indefensible that they broke the suspension of disbelief that Bioware had (up until that point) so spectacularly crafted for over a hundred hours of narrative. Suddenly Shepard was not simply being asked to sacrifice a race or a friend or him/herself for the greater good (all of which was no doubt expected by any player paying attention to the tone of the series), Shepard was being compelled, without even the chance to offer a counterpoint, to perform one of three actions that to my reading each fundamentally undermined the narrative foundations upon which the series seemed to rest.

In the Control ending, Shepard is invited to pursue the previously impossible path of attempting to dominate the reapers and bend them to his will. Momentarily putting aside the vulgarity of dominating a species to achieve one's own ends (and I will get to complaining about that premise soon enough), this has proved to be the failed modus operandi of every antagonist in this fiction up until this point – including the Illusive Man and Saren – all of whom have been chewed up and destroyed by their blind ambition, incapable of controlling forces beyond their comprehension. Nothing in the vague prognostication of the exposition-ghost offers any tangible justification for why Shepard's plunge into Reaper-control should play out any differently. In fact, as many people have already pointed out, Shepard has literally not five minutes before this moment watched the Illusive Man die as a consequence of this arrogant misconception.

The Destroy ending, however, seems even more perverse. One of the constants of the Mass Effect universe (and indeed much quality science fiction) has been an exploration of the notion that life is not simplistically bound to biology, that existence expands beyond the narrow parameters of blood and bone. That is why synthetic characters like Legion and EDI are so compelling in this context, why their quests to understand self-awareness – not simply to ape human behaviours – is so dramatic and compelling. Indeed, we even get glimpses of the Reapers having more sprawling and unknowable motivations that we puny mortals can comprehend...

To then end the tale by forcing the player to obliterate several now-proven-legitimate forms of life in order to 'save' the traditional definition of fleshy existence is not only genocidal, it actually devolves Shephard's ideological growth, undermining his ascent toward a more enlightened conception of existence, something that the fiction has been steadily advancing no matter how Renegadishably you wanted to play. This is particularly evident when the preceding actions of all three games entirely disprove the premise that synthetic will inevitably destroy organic: the Geth were the persecuted victims, trying their best to save the Quarians from themselves; EDI, given autonomy, immediately sought to aid her crew, even taking physical form in order to experience life from their perspective and finally learning that she too feared the implications of death.

And finally Synthesis, the ending that I suspect (unless we are to believe the Indoctrination Theory) is the 'good' option, proves to be the most distasteful of all. Shepard, up until this point has been an instrument though which change is achieved in this universe, and dependent upon your individual Renegade or Paragon choices, this may have resulted in siding with one species or another, letting this person live or that person die, even condemning races to extinction through your actions. But these decisions were always the result of a mediation of disparate opinions, and a consequence of the natural escalation of these disputes – Shepard was merely the fork in the path that decided which way the lava would run. His/her actions had an impact, but was responding to events in the universe that were already in motion before he/she arrived.

To belabour the point: Shepard is an agent for arbitration, the tipping point of dialogues that have, at times, root causes that reach back across generations. Up until this moment in the game the narrative, and Shepard's role within it, has been about the negotiation of diversity, testing the validity of opposing viewpoints and selecting a path through which to evolve on to another layer of questioning. Suddenly with the Synthesis ending, Shepard's capacity to make decisions elevates from offering a moral tipping point to arbitrarily wiping such disparity from the world. Shepard imposes his/her will upon every species, every form of life within the galaxy, making them all a dreary homogenous oneness. At such a point, wiping negotiation and multiplicity from the universe, Shepard moves from being an influential voice amongst a biodiversity of thought to sacrificing him/herself in an omnipotent imposition of will.

(And lest we forget that the entire character arc of Javik (the 'bonus' paid-DLC character that gives unique context to the entire cycle of destruction upon which this fiction is based) is utilised to reveal that a lack of diversity, the failure to continue adapting to new circumstances, was the primary reason that his race was decimated. ...So I guess we have that to look forward to.)

And this was the analogy I made to Made Nightwing in our discussion (and which I have bored people with elsewhere): this bewildering finale felt as if you had been listening to a soaring orchestral movement that ended in a cacophonous blast, the musicians tossing down their instruments and walking away. I find it hard to conceive how the creators of such a magnificent franchise could have made such a mess of their own universe. The plot holes, thematic inconsistencies and a deus ex machina that was unforgivable in ancient Greek theatre, let alone in any modern narrative, all combine to erode the foundations upon which the rest of the experience resides. (It's a disturbing sign when apologists for such an ending have to literally hope that what they witnessed was just a bad dream in the central character's head.)

I'm sure in my diatribe with Made Nightwing I would have cited Charles Dickens being alert to, and adapting his writing in response to the floods of letters he received from his fans in the serialised delivery of stories such as The Old Curiosity Shop. And I know I mentioned F.Scott Fitzgerald extensively redrafting Tender is the Night for a second publishing after receiving negative critical feedback. Indeed, whatever you think of the final result, Ridley Scott was able to reassert a definitive vision of Blade Runner in spite of its original theatrical release. Despite what critics might burble about artistic vision there is innumerable precedent for such reshaping, even beyond fundamental industry practices such as play-testings and film test-screenings. If a work of art has failed in its communicative purpose (and unless angering and bewildering its most invested fans was the goal, then Mass Effect 3 has done so), then it cannot be considered a success, and is not worthy of regard.

And for those who would respond that I, and fans like myself, are simply upset because the endings do not offer some irrefutable 'clarity' that would mar the poetic mysteries of the ending, I would point out that I am in no way against obscure or bewildering endings: if they are earned. In contrast to a majority of viewers, I happen to love the ending of The Sopranos for precisely this reason – because, despite the momentary jolt of surprise it engendered, that audacious blank screen was wholly thematically supportable. The driving premise of that program was a man seeking therapy (a mobster, yes, but a psychologically damaged man) – indeed, the very first beat in that narrative was Tony Soprano walking into a psychiatrist's office. The principle thematic tie of the entire series was therefore revealed to be a mediation upon the underlying psychological stimuli that produces identity: whether the capacity to interpret and understand one's impulses can impact upon the experience of one's life; whether one can attain agency over one's life.

That ending might have been agonising, but it was entirely fitting that the series ended with a loaded ambiguity, inviting a myriad of interpretations in which we the audience were now placed into the role of the psychiatrist, suddenly compelled to reason out the ending of those final thirty seconds with the cumulative experience of the preceding six years of imagery. Did Tony die? Did he have a second plate of onion rings and enjoy his family's company? Did Meadow ever park that car? In its final act The Sopranos gives over the interpretive, descriptive function of its narrative to its audience, intimately binding the viewer to Tony Soprano's own (perhaps failed) attempts to comprehend himself and attain authorship over his life. ...But the only reason that they could even try this is because every minute of every episode to this point has been propagated upon the notion that Tony Soprano was a man with a subconscious that could be explored, and that motivated his actions whether as a loving father or brutal criminal.

The obscurities in the ending of Mass Effect 3 have not been similarly earned by its prior narrative. This narrative has not until this point been about dominance, extermination, and the imposition of uniformity – indeed, Shepard has spent over a hundred hours of narrative fighting against precisely these three themes. And if one of these three (and only these three) options must be selected in order to sustain life in the universe, then that life has been so devalued by that act as to make the sacrifice meaningless.

And that is why I shall continue to go on shooting Haley-Joel-Osment-ghost in the face.

...Sorry again for the length of this post.

We need to keep this post alive friends, get it seen by Bioware!

[Falcon084]

What is wth all the complaints. Duh there is going to be questions at the end. ME4 is when they will be answered! If they told us everything that happens nex there would be no point in buying the next one!

[fear_me]

I just beat the extended cut on insanity and ended up choosing synthesis. I then watched the other 3 endings destroy, control, and refusal on youtube. I consider synthesis still the best ending because it offers the most possibilities for advancement for all races/species. everyone gains the knowledge from all the previous cycles paying respect to the protheans and all the countless other harvested species. the knowledge everyone would have would bring peace to all worlds and the technological upgrades and advances in science would essentially cure all diseases/pain/suffering, crime would go to a halt, edi even hints at the possiblity of advancing far enough to achieve immortality. it almost sounds too perfect.

[20x6]

Congratulations, Bioware!

Yes, the EC was what I was looking for (for the most part). It provided closure which is what everyone finishing a trilogy expects and it also provided the "F-U Catalyst" ending.


But, the damage is done and the original ending still stays burned in my memories.
The complete disappointment in your company as story-tellers (you see... that's what you do) has brought me to still waiting for your titles to drop to the bargain bin.

You see, you thought that your ending was good as it was - and stated it numerous times.
All that tells me is that we don't see eye-to-eye on what a good product is. We used to...

It would be like buying a truck from Ford. Hey - they know trucks!
Only, when I get the truck delivered, the V-8 is a straight 4, the interior is pink and frilly, and the tires are four ply.

Sure... it's still a truck, but I want my money back and you take your truck back.

Since the gaming industry is a "leap of faith" industry for consumers, and you obviously don't "get" your customer base anymore, or are simply trying to get a new customer base.....

Well, you can keep your pink frilly trucks from now on.

[phototed]

Larignome wrote...

DeadlyDodo wrote...

IxSITHxI wrote...

Spartas Husky wrote...

This... so much this


By "Made Nightwing"

So, my lit professor and I are nerds. I throw in 'but the prize' references on my essays about Odysseus and Achilles, he throws in Firefly references in his lectures, we get on great. Now, I've previously mentioned that he disliked the endings EDIT: He dropped in on the forum to correct my paraphrasing of our conversation, so I'm updating the OP to have his infinitely superior original words replace my own feeble attempts:

Drayfish, p.13:

I've never posted on this forum before, so I hope I don't embarrass myself or this discussion entirely – and I apologise for the wall of text that is to follow, but I'm an academic, and tedious tracts of self-important linguistic gymnastics is what we do.

My name is Dr. Dray, and I should start by saying: oh, dear, I've been cited for my nerd indignation. I'm surprised Made Nightwing didn't mention that my little fists were shaking with rage. But they were. They did. With feeble, pointless nerd rage.

I must point out though, that as flattered as I am to be referenced, were I still marking Made Nightwing's work I would have to circle this passage and remind him that these words are not in fact directly attributable to me: his phrasing is a paraphrase of our conversation rather than a quotation. ...However, he has an attentive mind, and I must admit that he has captured the majority of my issues with the ending, my penchant for hyperbole, and the general dislocation of the thematic threads that I felt violated the larger narrative arc of the trilogy. And I'm sad to say I did use the words 'thematically revolting' – although I've watched both the Matrix sequels and Godfather 3, so I've probably said that phrase quite a lot.

If you'll permit me then, I did just want to write quickly in my own words to clarify some of my issues with these endings, and why I thought that they erode the themes heretofore at the core of their series. Of course, all of these arguments have no doubt been stated numerous times by voices far more worthy than mine over the past few weeks, but as someone intrigued by the production and reception of literature in all its forms this has been a fascinating – if disheartening – time to be an enormous fan of this fiction. I'd also like to particularly commend Strange Aeons for the fantastic post. And that analogy: 'It’s like ending Pinocchio with Geppetto stuffing him into a wood chipper'. What an exquisite image!

So, putting aside all of the hanging plot threads that rankled me (where was the Normandy going? why did my squad mates live? Anderson is where now? wait, the catalyst was Haley Joel Osment? etc), I would like to explain why, when I was offered those three repellent choices, I turned and tried to unload my now infinite pistol into the whispy-space-ghost's face. It was not because I was unhappy that my Shepard would not get to drink Garrus under the table one last time, or get to help Tali build a back-porch on her new homestead, nor that I was pretty sure no one was going to remember to feed my space fish – it was because those three ideological options were so structurally indefensible that they broke the suspension of disbelief that Bioware had (up until that point) so spectacularly crafted for over a hundred hours of narrative. Suddenly Shepard was not simply being asked to sacrifice a race or a friend or him/herself for the greater good (all of which was no doubt expected by any player paying attention to the tone of the series), Shepard was being compelled, without even the chance to offer a counterpoint, to perform one of three actions that to my reading each fundamentally undermined the narrative foundations upon which the series seemed to rest.

In the Control ending, Shepard is invited to pursue the previously impossible path of attempting to dominate the reapers and bend them to his will. Momentarily putting aside the vulgarity of dominating a species to achieve one's own ends (and I will get to complaining about that premise soon enough), this has proved to be the failed modus operandi of every antagonist in this fiction up until this point – including the Illusive Man and Saren – all of whom have been chewed up and destroyed by their blind ambition, incapable of controlling forces beyond their comprehension. Nothing in the vague prognostication of the exposition-ghost offers any tangible justification for why Shepard's plunge into Reaper-control should play out any differently. In fact, as many people have already pointed out, Shepard has literally not five minutes before this moment watched the Illusive Man die as a consequence of this arrogant misconception.

The Destroy ending, however, seems even more perverse. One of the constants of the Mass Effect universe (and indeed much quality science fiction) has been an exploration of the notion that life is not simplistically bound to biology, that existence expands beyond the narrow parameters of blood and bone. That is why synthetic characters like Legion and EDI are so compelling in this context, why their quests to understand self-awareness – not simply to ape human behaviours – is so dramatic and compelling. Indeed, we even get glimpses of the Reapers having more sprawling and unknowable motivations that we puny mortals can comprehend...

To then end the tale by forcing the player to obliterate several now-proven-legitimate forms of life in order to 'save' the traditional definition of fleshy existence is not only genocidal, it actually devolves Shephard's ideological growth, undermining his ascent toward a more enlightened conception of existence, something that the fiction has been steadily advancing no matter how Renegadishably you wanted to play. This is particularly evident when the preceding actions of all three games entirely disprove the premise that synthetic will inevitably destroy organic: the Geth were the persecuted victims, trying their best to save the Quarians from themselves; EDI, given autonomy, immediately sought to aid her crew, even taking physical form in order to experience life from their perspective and finally learning that she too feared the implications of death.

And finally Synthesis, the ending that I suspect (unless we are to believe the Indoctrination Theory) is the 'good' option, proves to be the most distasteful of all. Shepard, up until this point has been an instrument though which change is achieved in this universe, and dependent upon your individual Renegade or Paragon choices, this may have resulted in siding with one species or another, letting this person live or that person die, even condemning races to extinction through your actions. But these decisions were always the result of a mediation of disparate opinions, and a consequence of the natural escalation of these disputes – Shepard was merely the fork in the path that decided which way the lava would run. His/her actions had an impact, but was responding to events in the universe that were already in motion before he/she arrived.

To belabour the point: Shepard is an agent for arbitration, the tipping point of dialogues that have, at times, root causes that reach back across generations. Up until this moment in the game the narrative, and Shepard's role within it, has been about the negotiation of diversity, testing the validity of opposing viewpoints and selecting a path through which to evolve on to another layer of questioning. Suddenly with the Synthesis ending, Shepard's capacity to make decisions elevates from offering a moral tipping point to arbitrarily wiping such disparity from the world. Shepard imposes his/her will upon every species, every form of life within the galaxy, making them all a dreary homogenous oneness. At such a point, wiping negotiation and multiplicity from the universe, Shepard moves from being an influential voice amongst a biodiversity of thought to sacrificing him/herself in an omnipotent imposition of will.

(And lest we forget that the entire character arc of Javik (the 'bonus' paid-DLC character that gives unique context to the entire cycle of destruction upon which this fiction is based) is utilised to reveal that a lack of diversity, the failure to continue adapting to new circumstances, was the primary reason that his race was decimated. ...So I guess we have that to look forward to.)

And this was the analogy I made to Made Nightwing in our discussion (and which I have bored people with elsewhere): this bewildering finale felt as if you had been listening to a soaring orchestral movement that ended in a cacophonous blast, the musicians tossing down their instruments and walking away. I find it hard to conceive how the creators of such a magnificent franchise could have made such a mess of their own universe. The plot holes, thematic inconsistencies and a deus ex machina that was unforgivable in ancient Greek theatre, let alone in any modern narrative, all combine to erode the foundations upon which the rest of the experience resides. (It's a disturbing sign when apologists for such an ending have to literally hope that what they witnessed was just a bad dream in the central character's head.)

I'm sure in my diatribe with Made Nightwing I would have cited Charles Dickens being alert to, and adapting his writing in response to the floods of letters he received from his fans in the serialised delivery of stories such as The Old Curiosity Shop. And I know I mentioned F.Scott Fitzgerald extensively redrafting Tender is the Night for a second publishing after receiving negative critical feedback. Indeed, whatever you think of the final result, Ridley Scott was able to reassert a definitive vision of Blade Runner in spite of its original theatrical release. Despite what critics might burble about artistic vision there is innumerable precedent for such reshaping, even beyond fundamental industry practices such as play-testings and film test-screenings. If a work of art has failed in its communicative purpose (and unless angering and bewildering its most invested fans was the goal, then Mass Effect 3 has done so), then it cannot be considered a success, and is not worthy of regard.

And for those who would respond that I, and fans like myself, are simply upset because the endings do not offer some irrefutable 'clarity' that would mar the poetic mysteries of the ending, I would point out that I am in no way against obscure or bewildering endings: if they are earned. In contrast to a majority of viewers, I happen to love the ending of The Sopranos for precisely this reason – because, despite the momentary jolt of surprise it engendered, that audacious blank screen was wholly thematically supportable. The driving premise of that program was a man seeking therapy (a mobster, yes, but a psychologically damaged man) – indeed, the very first beat in that narrative was Tony Soprano walking into a psychiatrist's office. The principle thematic tie of the entire series was therefore revealed to be a mediation upon the underlying psychological stimuli that produces identity: whether the capacity to interpret and understand one's impulses can impact upon the experience of one's life; whether one can attain agency over one's life.

That ending might have been agonising, but it was entirely fitting that the series ended with a loaded ambiguity, inviting a myriad of interpretations in which we the audience were now placed into the role of the psychiatrist, suddenly compelled to reason out the ending of those final thirty seconds with the cumulative experience of the preceding six years of imagery. Did Tony die? Did he have a second plate of onion rings and enjoy his family's company? Did Meadow ever park that car? In its final act The Sopranos gives over the interpretive, descriptive function of its narrative to its audience, intimately binding the viewer to Tony Soprano's own (perhaps failed) attempts to comprehend himself and attain authorship over his life. ...But the only reason that they could even try this is because every minute of every episode to this point has been propagated upon the notion that Tony Soprano was a man with a subconscious that could be explored, and that motivated his actions whether as a loving father or brutal criminal.

The obscurities in the ending of Mass Effect 3 have not been similarly earned by its prior narrative. This narrative has not until this point been about dominance, extermination, and the imposition of uniformity – indeed, Shepard has spent over a hundred hours of narrative fighting against precisely these three themes. And if one of these three (and only these three) options must be selected in order to sustain life in the universe, then that life has been so devalued by that act as to make the sacrifice meaningless.

And that is why I shall continue to go on shooting Haley-Joel-Osment-ghost in the face.

...Sorry again for the length of this post.

This right here BioWare, this ^

I ratify, agree, endorse, commend and approve this message.

As do I, this post is the perfect summary of my feelings about the endings. No explanation, no extended cutscenes and no argument can change the fundamental flaw the endings bear, which is to completely and utterly invalidate anything Shepard did up to this point.

Having the control ending be promoted as the good and Paragon ending is just another slap in the face, after opposing The Illusive Man so vehemently about it. Similar can be said about Synthesis and Saren.

In the end it boils down to "Hey Shep, should've given up back when Saren was invading the citadel, your fault so many people died since then."

/lurkmode on

+23

[Falcon084]

People you do realise there is more to the end than the voice over:
You can see it in the pics, wrex has a child, Jacob seems to be leading "his people" + more, go take a look!

[sistersensei]

I originally chose Synthesis, and I chose it again in the EC. But only after choosing it did I realize I made the wrong decision twice in a row.
I disregarded Control both times, and I will again every time. Choosing Control makes you no better than TIM. Besides, if you talk to Javik, at one point, he tells you that the indoctrinated people of his time supported Control. Even if you don't believe the indoctrination theory, this option is the "indoctrinated option", like it or not. Besides, a god-like Shepard AI? For me, that was about as un-canon as an ending as I could get.
With Synthesis: sure, it seems like the "happily ever after" ending. Edi and Joker get to be together! The quarians and geth get to work together to rebuild Rannoch! (And, was that really an unmasked quarian I saw or was that my imagination?) The Reapers are even helping to rebuild! Everyone survives! With the ever-increasing trend of one person sacrificing themselves for the good of everyone in this series, it seemed like the obvious and most paragon ending.
But think about it. The starchild tells you, "we tried this once before". When? With Saren. Saren was the ONLY organic other than you that united the geth under him. Yes, that had a lot to do with the Old Machine influence and all that. But that doesn't change that Saren was a partly synthetic spectre who united the synthetics for a happy ending.
If you choose Synthesis, you're no better than Saren--the other heavily indoctrinated force who you must stop. This makes Synthesis another "indoctrinated option".
Besides, with all those glowing green eyes and how you turned everyone into cyborgs if you chose this option? Did that remind anybody else of Skynet commercials from the Terminator? Everything looks happy and peaceful, the machines coincide with the humans...but there's a horrific, terrifying undertone to the whole thing. It's way too good to be true. Yes, I loved Edi's voice-over speech. Yes, it seemed like the only properly happy ending. But it seemed like all I had done was set the galaxy up for a worse mess than before. Plus, one more thing: WHERE in the ME universe has ANYTHING like Synthesis been presented as even a remote possibility??
There's always Reject. But someone else has already written a brilliant post on why this is a fantastic ending.
Finally, Destroy. This, to me, seems like the only option in which Shepard (and therefore, you) wins the game. The tagline of the game? "Take Earth Back". If you destroy the Reapers, that's the only way they really leave. You haven't messed with powers that are beyond your control. "Humans aren't ready," Shepard tells TIM, over and over again. For three games, your soul purpose has been to destroy the Reapers. It's only at the very end, when you're on your deathbed and the starchild is messing with your head, that you even consider other options. Why should you change your goal now? You defeated Saren and Sovereign--your first success against the Reapers. You DIED and were brought back--to defeat the Reapers. You left Earth to create an army to DEFEAT the Reapers. Why would you stop that now? Why would you choose to harness a power that, according to Shepard all along, you can't control?
There's still a lot more discussion that can be had. And by no means were the endings perfect. I actually was okay with the fact that originally, Garrus and Tali (my favorite squadmates, for three games straight), went down with me. Shepard and Vakarian, until the end. Tali supported me as a kid, when I was with Cerberus, and after I gave her people back their homeworld. It's only fitting, if depressing, that my squad goes down with me. Bringing the Normandy into the middle of the fight was a mistake. And I still don't think the whole ending makes a lot of sense if presented as reality--it still makes a lot more sense as a dream sequence, but that's a completely different argument.

[Festilence]

IxSITHxI wrote...

So I finished watching all of the ending with 2 different Sheps.

First I would like to say that the EC overall gets a C+

There are things they did very well to improve the game and make the ending tolerable, HOWEVER there are several MAJOR flaws left. Some were created through the EC some still remained.
 
The Flaws:

The first MAJOR flaw was during the charge down the hill. When the Normandy comes to evac your squadmates, Harbinger just chills there. The Normandy is sitting perfectly still as they are loaded aboard and Harbinger does nothing. Why wouldnt he just blow the Normandy out of the sky? This is the ship that has caused all of the problems for the Reapers and he does nothing. Then as the Normandy flies away, he stares them down.
 This is such a massive flaw that it took me completely out of the game.

The second MAJOR flaw was with the destroy ending. It shows everyone rebuilding the Citadel and what not and all of that other good stuff, but everyone is mourning Shepard as if he was dead, yet we still get the breath scene. I simply dont understand how they can still have this scene but act like he is dead. Theres no way they would not have found his body and saved him.

A lesser flaw was during the run down the hill. The way in which your squadmates need to be evacuated could have been handled in a much better way. The truck that explodes and flips in between them never actually hits them. There was no reasson for them to have been that badly injured. They should have had a bit of shrapnel hit one of them and the other squadmate helps them to the ship. It is a lesser flaw, but it bothered me a lot. Especilly since it was Tali who was badly bloodied. (Note they are fine after the Normandy crashes)

The Normandy still crashes...yea... sigh

You cant tell the god child that the Quarians and Geth are getting along fine.

Hackett knows that you made it up the beam. How does he not know Anderson is up there? Where did Anderson (and the Illusive Man for that matter) come from?

There are lines of hidden dialogue (taken from the code) hinting at DLC. Therefore its possible that we wont see the full extended cut without purchasing more DLC

The Pros:

The scene with the God Child became engaging with the use of dialogue. They explain who he is, where the Reapers came from, and what the crucible did. They also explain what the three choices do, and they give you the option to tell the kid to f*** off. I wish there was and ending in which you could defeat the Reapers with this ending but what ever.

The scenes after the choice were all pretty good, yet vague enough for a little speculation.

Your choices (somewhat) seem to matter and are sort of shown.

The Conclusion:

All in all, had they delayed the game to now, they could have avoided the massive wrath of the fans. There would have still been complaints, but the number would have been vastly smaller.

BioWare managed to keep their ending intact while making it relatively logical. They made synthesis make much better sence and by explaining the choices we know what we're picking.

They did a good job overall, but there is room for improvement. If they mess around with the evac scene, and expand on the fact that Shepard survives and they show him surviving the ending. They should also add the one PERFECT ending in which you did every single thing correct and your forces are able to defeat the Reapers without the Crucible. With all of that, the EC in my opinion, would go from a C+ to a B-.

I still didnt care fo the ending particularly and there was still a lot wrong with it, but I guess its tolerable. There was still soo much more they couldve done with the Earth mission and a lot of other missed opportunites.... sigh

You make some interesting points.

In regards the Breath Scene, whilst I must admit I can't remember for certain, I think the crew member who goes to put the Commander Shepard plaque on that Memorial Wall on the Normandy doesn't end up putting it on, possibly implying that the crew members go out to find Shepard?

I don't have a problem with the Normandy crashing.  For some reason, it's taken me until the EC to realise that even before EC it makes sense.  The crew members were never not going to try and survive if possible, so when you're in a ship as capable as the Normandy, you're gonna try and evade damage from such an explosion to survive.  Obviously they aren't going to know that Red, Green or Blue Explosion = that's the Crucible, don't worry about trying to survive, chill out bros!

It could have been interesting if Shepard was like "but I've just done X, I've just done Y" etc in regards to getting Quarians and Geth to be together and not in conflict etc when talking to the Catalyst, but considering the Catalysts' use of logic, one presumes he would just say "yeah well it won't last, they'll be in conflict again soon".

About the Hackett knowing Shepard made it to the Citadel bit, I don't have a problem with it.  I got the impression that because he says "Holy Sh*t, he/she made it" and then says "...someone made it to the Citadel", I assumed that his initial reaction was to assume that person was Shepard, but it would've been Anderson first?  Very minor either way.

I personally think they had to be a sacrifice attached to all Endings and they couldn't be a "Perfect" Ending.  That's what makes the choices all the more interesting and makes you think a lot more about which one to pick (at least for your Head-Canon choice).  I can kinda understand the idea of rewarding those who have played all the games as thoroughly as possible with a Perfect Ending, but the problem is it isn't really difficult.  In fact, I'm sure a good portion of people who play through these games try to play through them as thoroughly as possible, so if anything it's more difficult to not do most things.  You have to intentionally ignore Missions to do rubbish basically.