LOL! This. People should be thankful that they got the ending that they got, if I had been the writer, I would have figuratively sat them down and given them a life lesson.
Eh, life lessons are a bit overrated. What I really look for is having more logic that can stand up to a bit more scrutiny. I guess it's no worse than some other parts of the trilogy.
Disdain for life lessons = a step closer towards: 
And no, books and movies are also entertainment, but many of them still focus on the horrors of the real world and people enjoy them. Game of Thrones is one of the most popular shows on TV ffs, and the quote that is used to capture the essence of that show is Ramsay's line "If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention"
Video games aren't just toys for children anymore, it's time for the medium to mature and it's stories to mature alongside it. Thankfully many games are following this path.
I was actually trying to say that it isn't fair to think people should want angst. Like if they want a happy ending then they're childish or need life lessons or need to grow up. If you want misery and depression thats fine. Theres plenty of endings in ME3 that lack that happy outcome you're so against. How is wanting more options in a game that built itself on giving you control of the story a bad thing? Maybe I wanted a cheesy happy ending, whats it to you? Giving me what I want doesn't take away from you having what you want. We can both walk away satisfied without insulting the maturity of the other.
In my opinion a great example of this is ME2's ending. Nearly your entire squad and crew could die on that mission. Hell there are even parts in ME3 that can be very dark like shooting Mordin, Kaidan/Ashley, Wrex... The options are all there if you want that. You could go for all the 'bad' choices and get a really dark and depressing story if you have low EMS. There's a lot of choice for how dark and miserable you want ME3 to play out. Yet that level of variation is lacking if you wanted a more 'happy' outcome. Is it really so unreasonable that some fans wanted the option to achieve a happier outcome if thats what they wanted? It isn't like ME trilogy is on some pedestal of always being dark and gritty with harshness all around.
"Without hope we might as well be machine's, programed to do what we're told." Lol.
Also, video games were never just toys for children - that's just an ancient stereotype that society stubbornly clings to for some ridiculous reason or another.
It should've been impossible to do the Suicide Mission without deaths. Colossal mistake if you ask me.
Just like it is impossible to finish ME3 and save everybody.
Disdain for life lessons = a step closer towards:
It's not a total disdain for life lessons, but rather trying to cram one at the ass end of a space opera where I've been shooting people left and right, possibly for the lulz. Mass Effect was typically a dark-toned cornball machine, so I like a little consistency.
It should've been impossible to do the Suicide Mission without deaths. Colossal mistake if you ask me.
Just like it is impossible to finish ME3 and save everybody.
I sort of agree, though I'm curious as to how this would work out. No doubt Tali and Garrus would be my highest priority. Poor Jacob. He'd never live.
It should've been impossible to do the Suicide Mission without deaths. Colossal mistake if you ask me.
Just like it is impossible to finish ME3 and save everybody.
Well, I think it's already difficult enough. How many people have saved everyone in their first try?
Even in mine (everyone survived), Miranda survived out of dumb luck, because she was unloyal (sided with Jack in their fight, never had a chance to make it up to her).
I sort of agree, though I'm curious as to how this would work out. No doubt Tali and Garrus would be my highest priority. Poor Jacob. He'd never live.
Example: You could assign Garrus as Fire Squad leader, but he would die trying to save 2 characters. Otherwise 2 characters out of your control die (rng).
Well, I think it's already difficult enough. How many people have saved everyone in their first try?
Even in mine (everyone survived), Miranda survived out of dumb luck, because she was unloyal (sided with Jack in their fight, never had a chance to make it up to her).
I did. It was too easy, just get everyone loyal. It's simple.
Also right specialists had longer descritpions. I went with Garrus\Tali, Mordin\Samara\Garrus. Noone died.
My first playthrough of ME2, the suicide mission was crash and burn
When I play the game, unless its a specific playthrough, I only recruit 8 squadmates and have at least 2 or 3 deaths
Well, I think it's already difficult enough. How many people have saved everyone in their first try?
Even in mine (everyone survived), Miranda survived out of dumb luck, because she was unloyal (sided with Jack in their fight, never had a chance to make it up to her).
My first death occured on my 4th run orso of ME2, and it was an unforeseen accident 
The game is so ridiculously clear about who you should pick for each role
Well, I think it's already difficult enough. How many people have saved everyone in their first try?
Right, but that's due to mistakes on the part of the player. Contrast this with a Suicide Mission where characters die because it's necessary to continue the mission, and it sends a different message.
Right, but that's due to mistakes on the part of the player. Contrast this with a Suicide Mission where characters die because it's necessary to continue the mission, and it sends a different message.
It would actually be a suicide mission.
See, that wasn't so toughI sort of agree, though I'm curious as to how this would work out. No doubt Tali and Garrus would be my highest priority. Poor Jacob. He'd never live.
See, that wasn't so tough
Honestly I don't have a problem with everyone surviving the SM. First time I played ME2, I fully expected to see some sacrifices cause... well... suicide mission. But through sheer dumb luck everyone survived, and I felt pretty good about that.
Indeed.
That feeling of getting though alive with your friends because you all were smart enough, or tough enough, or just plain crazy-prepared, that's the feeling I think players wanted from ME3's ending. Only bigger.
But for too many of us, the response was "No"
[...]
Maybe I wanted a cheesy happy ending, whats it to you? Giving me what I want doesn't take away from you having what you want. We can both walk away satisfied without insulting the maturity of the other.
[...]
I don't agree. A classic happy ending would have greatly reduced the "drama" of the other endings. There's a massive difference between killing characters because you can (ME2 suicide mission) and because you can't do differently (Kaidan/Ash on Virmire) That's why i think the "ultimate sacrifice" from DA:O is more a dumb suicide than an actual sacrifice.
About ME3:
-Remove the breathing scene. This is useless, confusing, ludicrously clichéd.
-Replace starbrat with someone a bit more meaningful (Anderson would be perfect, or maybe something like the Leviathan DLC with several people who died during the game (Mordin, Thane, Legion, Wrex etc...)
-Change those nonsense nightmares. Running after a child in a forest at night is not a nightmare. That's just creepy as hell. A great nightmare about how shepard can't save everyone on Earth would be: Shepard spawns in the middle of a warzone with several Anderson surrounded by dozens of canibals/marauders/whatever. You fight as hard as you can but there's always more foes and eventually you and Anderson die.
Indeed.
That feeling of getting though alive with your friends because you all were smart enough, or tough enough, or just plain crazy-prepared, that's the feeling I think players wanted from ME3's ending. Only bigger.
But for too many of us, the response was "No"
I should have added to my post that lately as I've been playing ME2, I've been purposely manipulating the suicide mission to get a few deaths, and, well... I don't want to say I enjoy the game more because of it, because that's not really the case, but I do want to say that a few deaths here and there don't seem out of place either.
Not to take away from what you've said, but the same would probably apply to ME3 too. I would have been amazed if, at the end of ME3, shep climbed out of the rubble, stood up, brushed her hands and smiled, and there was much rejoicing. I would have loved it, no question... and then the next time I played the game, I would have manipulated the end-game circumstances so that didn't happen, and I'd have been okay with that too.
I should have added to my post that lately as I've been playing ME2, I've been purposely manipulating the suicide mission to get a few deaths, and, well... I don't want to say I enjoy the game more because of it, because that's not really the case, but I do want to say that a few deaths here and there don't seem out of place either.
Not to take away from what you've said, but the same would probably apply to ME3 too. I would have been amazed if, at the end of ME3, shep climbed out of the rubble, stood up, brushed her hands and smiled, and there was much rejoicing. I would have loved it, no question... and then the next time I played the game, I would have manipulated the end-game circumstances so that didn't happen, and I'd have been okay with that too.
Being able to manipulate events like that is, imo, what a choice-based narrative is all about. Telling different stories with different outcomes. Even I have a "minimalist" run in ME2. Not that I ever got around to importing it I've done all four endings to DAO, and while I have a preference, I don' think any of them are the less for being able to choose another outcome. Even the Ultimate Sacrifice.
It would have taken more than SHepard climbing out of the rubble to make me "like" the endings. They have a lot more problems than just that. But having that be a potential outcome would have been a huge step in the right direction.
Good question, because I've wondered the same thing... I mean there have to be some good ideas, right? I see a couple here. First, I’m not offended if others have different ideas or preferences- so don't be if I'm on a different page, no offense is intended.
I want to add some comments that might allow thoughtful consideration. However, it's clear many people are simply interested in being right, telling everyone else they are wrong, and not considering any other views. Welcome to the Internet, human nature is exhibit #1... There is a quote about a million monkeys banging away on typewriters will eventually produce the complete works of Shakespeare. The Internet is proving that wrong.
Seriously though. I will say having played the whole trilogy 3-4 times, I can see any number of points where they were building towards the eventual climax. I see what they were trying to do. You have to consider that in discussing the ending. Was it perfect? No. Was the ending executed well? Not really (although the DLC helps somewhat). Let’s move past those questions. It is OKAY to have different ideas here.
(IMHO The biggest issue with the ending seems to be Casey Hudson – running around telling everybody in interviews that they could architect their own personal endings, setting the expectation that ME was not driving towards a specific end to the story arc. Doh!)
So what to do differently? I think the whole trilogy leads towards resolving the (supposedly inevitable) conflict between synthetic and organic for all time. Lots of ways to cop out on that. I mean it’s ambitious, and we can see a lot of players don’t like or accept the ramifications. The Reaper program was just the immediate ("we're gonna melt your ass down") symptom. There is more than just "blow up bad guys" going on here.
So a major point of contention seems to be: Any ending which does not address the big question is not adequate, and there are only so many ways to answer that. Lots of people pivot one way or another off this; I mean some face that and others avoid/reject it. I see narrow questions (like the appearance of Star Child vs. Harbinger as catalyst) as minor but interesting tweaks to consider. So we can discuss both smaller tweaks and The Big Picture.
(Original) Premise: the conflict is inevitable, lead to Reapers/cycle, which are practically unbeatable, to resolve that you will have to use some incredible power/hand of god to rewrite the rules.
Leads to Original Endings:
1- Synthesis. Is actually presaged by Saren, ME1 climax (after being made a cyborg by Sovereign) when he claims "I am the future- with all the benefits of both organic and synthetic and none of the flaws of either". Yes, Shepard dismisses this as a result of Indoctrination at the time- and NO I don't mean Saren was on the right track. Easy to overlook as it was so early, and I missed this the first time. Also, presaged with semi-cyborg Shepard (but they don't make it obvious).
(Lots of problems with this option if you question the 'hand of god' required to enact it galaxy-wide on ALL LIFE.)
RESULT: it joins the groups and circumvents the problem. "Understanding the enemy” will prevent future conflict. Arguable, but okay if you want to pick it.
2- Control. staged in ME2 obviously. Many reject the solution as “TIM is a bad guy" and thus this ending must be rejected by association. Or again, just a result of Indoctrination.
RESULT: It's valid, but sort of returns Reapers/Shepherds to their original role, right? Supercops. Supposedly that did not work out the first time, but with Shep guidance maybe this time... Ok.
3- Destroy. Remove immediate threat of the Reapers AND all Synthetics (for now).
RESULT: Punt. Just break out of the trap. The future can role the dice, i.e. Synthetics may/will rise again. Results in the most "freedom" but probably least long-term security.
... so I see those as valid at least, if you accepted the original premise. I mean they are some kind of answer to the big problem. I wish they had all been executed a bit better. None really guarantees a happy ending. Plenty of people hate when Hollywood falls back on the cheap happy ending in a film, right? So having framed why those are OK, I might add:
Alternative Premise: it isn't inevitable, synthetic and organic can combine forces and cooperate. Problem: means you have to save the geth to get there (removing play options/choices).
Leads to:
4- Total Alliance. Develop the Geth a little better (join Council, etc.). Synthetic and Organic Alliance plus a super-weapon forces a recalculation by the Reapers, who stop cycle program. Reapers stand down, go back to dark space and monitor (sort of their original mode).
RESULT: Reapers/Leviathans were wrong, show the conflict is not inevitable, and that the Reapers will listen. Shepard’s leadership is critical.
… sure there are problems with this one too. It may not satisfy either, and leaves tension. I am just saying it’s an alternative that seems to fit with the overall challenge and still has Shepard in a central role.
5- Alternate Destroy: Sort of the shields-down and Reapers blowed up real good… but leaves Geth/EDI unharmed. Again, it maybe avoids the primary conflict issue and is more a standard ending. But it could be a variation on the previous option too (if done right). It sounds like this would make more people happy.
Other options I can come up with reduce Shepard’s role... like Reaper factions (Prothean ghosts in the machine), etc. all simply side-step the primary critical issue. I am okay with Shepard sacrifice, however. Self-sacrifice is nearly always a compelling development and I didn’t expect Shep to live to see the Epilogue. The best epic heroes have tragic endings.
Really, I’m not offended if you have other ideas or preferences. I’d like to be respectful and consider them, maybe update my opinion, etc. if people can offer more than “UR stooped!”
So... I guess some arm waving should be expected. This is kind of like asking “If you could write the last 3 Star Wars films what would you do differently?” Flame on!
1- Synthesis. Is actually presaged by Saren, ME1 climax (after being made a cyborg by Sovereign) when he claims "I am the future- with all the benefits of both organic and synthetic and none of the flaws of either". Yes, Shepard dismisses this as a result of Indoctrination at the time- and NO I don't mean Saren was on the right track. Easy to overlook as it was so early, and I missed this the first time. Also, presaged with semi-cyborg Shepard (but they don't make it obvious).
(Lots of problems with this option if you question the 'hand of god' required to enact it galaxy-wide on ALL LIFE.)
RESULT: it joins the groups and circumvents the problem. "Understanding the enemy” will prevent future conflict. Arguable, but okay if you want to pick it.
Saren was indoctrinated. He believed the reapers couldn't be stopped, that extinction was inevitable, so he wanted to help them accomplish this and thought he'd be rewarded for his efforts. That's not synthesis. That's surrender.
5- Alternate Destroy: Sort of the shields-down and Reapers blowed up real good… but leaves Geth/EDI unharmed. Again, it maybe avoids the primary conflict issue and is more a standard ending. But it could be a variation on the previous option too (if done right). It sounds like this would make more people happy.
I don't know why this wasn't an option if you had, say full paragon/renegade and full EMS. I wanted to destroy the reapers put I hated the way I had to destroy EDI and the Geth due to my Shepard's actions in getting them to form an alliance, and EDI's actions in ME3. I know a lovely 100% happy ending with only the reaper's dying and Shepard surviving with injuries, recovering and retiring to a Geth and quarian owned Rannoch with Tali would have been as corny as ****, but I would have found it a hell of a lot more satisfying than the current endings. I think it should have been an option, at least.
Also the alliance' option you said was good as well, say you had to get the Geth/Quarians to Co-operate and talk to EDI a certain number of time so you could convince the Star Child that organics and synthetics can co-operate (as the whole trilogy basically showed us. When I choose destroy, I like to think that EDI and the Geth can be rebuilt (the SC said that synthetics would 'rise again') but only an ME3 sequel will properly clarify this.
Saren was indoctrinated. He believed the reapers couldn't be stopped, that extinction was inevitable, so he wanted to help them accomplish this and thought he'd be rewarded for his efforts. That's not synthesis. That's surrender.
That is not the point.
That is not the point.
What am I missing?
How i could end ME3? First of all, i might remove this stupid line at the end of ME2. "That you know as reapers, are salvation through destruction" Then remove from scripts to ME3 God Child.
Later? I was still keeping reapers as evil force, like Bioware did in ME1 and in ME2 until the end. In ME3 might be more war efforts saw, less talking. Cerberus might didin't play major role, i guess might be got a secondary role like Geth in ME3 got.
How to end? Still final at earth, but no playing with Crucible etc.
How to end? Still final at earth, but no playing with Crucible etc.
LOL! This. People should be thankful that they got the ending that they got, if I had been the writer, I would have figuratively sat them down and given them a life lesson.
Why would you take life lessons from people who write stories akin to fairy tales anyways. Modern stories for adults, especially RPG's, should focus on letting you learn your own lessons and form your own opinion. The ending should be about the objective you want to achieve and the price you are willing to pay for it. Fallout New Vegas is a good example for this (best written game I`ve played). You choose wildcard and you gain freedom and independence for Vegas at the cost of stability and security. You side with House and you gain efficiency at the cost of freedom and so on. You decide what's most important. A grim ending by default isn't any better than a happy ending by default, completely useless in this regard.
Retour en haut