Especially after a BioWare employee explained the ending here: http://gamerant.com/...ive-tao-157961/
Also, do you think of this video which makes a claim that Shepard will definitely be a part of Mass Effect?https://www.youtube....h?v=UaHsWuRPUQI
Lastly, Admiral Hackett is told by the ground team that nobody made it to the conduit (although Shepard and Anderson did). Then why does Hackett contact Shepard on the radio once he's in front of the control panel?
Oh trust me...there was a LOOOOOOOT of confusion, anger, and sadness when it came to the ending of ME3...
That is why we have the IT theory (and its variants) and the game in my sig...neither of which end well I fear.
OP, stop now, lest you open pandora's box.
On topic.
Many did not like the way it ended mechanically, thematically, or narratively. Some genuinely did.
Then the EC came out and the fires settled...kinda. Though the ending is still a bit of a hot topic.
Some are very confused about the happenings of the ending sequence:
EG Anderson getting ahead of you, the normandy evac, the memorial scene with the entire crew, the ramification of low ems that should leave a dead galaxy but dont, and more and more.
Best bet is to just understand that the two writers who wrote this ending were rushed. They honestly did the best they could. No one can begrudge them of that. My best solution is to just fall back into the warm embrace of your own headcanon when it comes to the ending sequences and to let the sweet sweet rule of cool lull you into imagination land.
Addendum: Yeah...just do what God says...in this case he really does know all.
Thanks... And what do you guys think of the next ME? Do you think Shepard will make a surprise appearance? Refer to the video link in the first post to know why it might actually be a possibility...
Shepard won't be in the next game
I hope there's at least some mention of what actually happened. Maybe we'll a hear a narration from one of his/her teammates? You can't start a new chapter without ending the current one. (Unless Chuck Lorre is involved lol)
Again, why is OP talking about Shepard dying/surviving as if that's the reason why people disliked the ending? It's about the Catalyst, his insane logic and the contradiction when you made peace between the Geth and the Quarians and that the ending does not address this contradiction. In the orignal ending the problem was a lack of closure which was fixed but first and foremost the biggest no-no in the ending was always the assertion that Synthetics will always destroy all Organics and how that's untrue based on what the player witnesses in the game, so there was no problem to solve with those 3 end choices because all we've seen so far has been evidence that synthetics used to be at odds with organics but now they're peaceful to each other.
At the very least the organic and synthetic relationships you see in ME3 challenge the viewpoint of the Reapers and it makes no sense to assert that this progression leads to chaos and genocide of organic species... so because of this assertion and the fact that we can't address it we're confused as to what exactly we are missing and why and how this ending happened.
It's its own little bubble that is incoherent with the rest of the story.
The extended cut fixes one thing, and one thing only: closure
In fact, I wasn't COMPLETELY opposed to synthesis before EC but seeing that insulting monologue from EDI talking about "the greatness that was lost" and god knows what the hell she's even talking about--it shows a picture of geth and quarian if you saved both and talks about how they can now "co-exist peacefully", which tells me Bioware is looking directly at the biggest contradiction they made with the ending and then they don't recognize it one ****** bit. That infuriates me.
(at 3:00)
vs this
(at 1:20)
I simply cannot care what happened to any of the characters once the fiction is as completely broken as it is in the ending.
I had kinda given up on the catalyst and IT analysis last year lol... Call me shallow but all I want to know is what happened to Shepard...
Well...he survived in the destroy ending. Beyond that will have to depend on your imagination. 
he survived in the destroy ending and what happened to him is what you interpret. The ending strongly implies that there's hope for him and his Normandy crew to rekindle. Bioware won't ever tell you what happened to him in the form of a new Mass Effect game. It was left open ended for you to interpret, so you decide what actually happened and that's the way it's gonna be.
At the very least the organic and synthetic relationships you see in ME3 challenge the viewpoint of the Reapers and it makes no sense to assert that this progression leads to chaos and genocide of organic species... so because of this assertion and the fact that we can't address it we're confused as to what exactly we are missing and why and how this ending happened.
It's its own little bubble that is incoherent with the rest of the story.
Again, why is OP talking about Shepard dying/surviving as if that's the reason why people disliked the ending? It's about the Catalyst, his insane logic and the contradiction when you made peace between the Geth and the Quarians and that the ending does not address this contradiction.
Agreed, but after reading several comments in different sites plus the popularity of the MEHEM, I would argue that Shepard's death was a big issue for several players.
In my opinion if the goal of the breath scene and hesitation by LI to consider Shepard dead as proof that he survived why not just give us one slide on the otherwise great slideshow showing them together living a more normal life now that the war is over?
I'm waiting for a day on BSN Mass Effect forums when no one will say anything about ME3 endings.
Confusion about the endings... yet you focus on the death? Hm. Well, I don't really know why people seem to think Shepard is dead in all endings. Some actually claim they don't count official confirmation from bioware. They want to see it more clearly in the game.
Personally I don't think its that they don't know Shepard survived. I think they're just bitter and upset Shepard isn't riding off in the sunset making babies and popping corks in celebration. They wanted a happier ending so they foam at the mouth like a dog with rabies at the ending. They make up headcanon specifically to hate on the ending. They distort the truth just to give more fuel, because they just want excuses to further hate and rage on the ending because it didn't satisfy them.
Now if you wanted to know where the confusion comes from with everything else... well now that would take more time for me to explain. Lol.
It's about the Catalyst, his insane logic and the contradiction when you made peace between the Geth and the Quarians and that the ending does not address this contradiction.
Because there is no contradiction. Saying there is one doesn't magically make it so. You just don't understand it. Your post does serve as a nice example of that confusion I was just talking about though.
Confusion about the endings... yet you focus on the death? Hm. Well, I don't really know why people seem to think Shepard is dead in all endings. Some actually claim they don't count official confirmation from bioware. They want to see it more clearly in the game.
Personally I don't think its that they don't know Shepard survived. I think they're just bitter and upset Shepard isn't riding off in the sunset making babies and popping corks in celebration. They wanted a happier ending so they foam at the mouth like a dog with rabies at the ending. They make up headcanon specifically to hate on the ending. They distort the truth just to give more fuel, because they just want excuses to further hate and rage on the ending because it didn't satisfy them.
Now if you wanted to know where the confusion comes from with everything else... well now that would take more time for me to explain. Lol.
Because there is no contradiction. Saying there is one doesn't magically make it so. You just don't understand it. Your post does serve as a nice example of that confusion I was just talking about though.
And saying there isn't one, then perhaps you should explain yourself as well. What's your reason for saying the the peace for quarians/geth don't contradict the Catalyst's logic?
I completely understand that he's saying that "in the future" bad stuff will happen but this is a logical fallacy, an appeal to authority. Many indications of synthetic growth we saw from ME1 towards ME3 has been a positive motion. Geth used to be bad, EDI used to be bad. After Rannoch, they're good or dead (Organics killing synthetics wouild be just as big of an issue) and EDI falls in love with Joker. AI and organic not just getting along well, but loving each other.
"Soon your children will create synthetics and then the chaos will come back." GTFO ya eediot!
...oh before you go any further to say I "don't understand" Valmar, I'll have you know I am aware of the paradox that the Catalyst himself is a synthetic created by "creators" and a/the manifistation of the problem he presents to Shepard, and is essentially showing that "we could create reapers in the future"... I get it... I just think it's overly convoluted and not originally the intent before EC.
From the literary perspective the problem is still that the ending is setting up a new central conflict and resolves it in the matter of 10 minutes. That is clumsy, poor, terribad writing to have at the tail-end of a trilogy.
I had kinda given up on the catalyst and IT analysis last year lol... Call me shallow but all I want to know is what happened to Shepard...
What happens to SHepard
Sacrifice!
And FEELS!
And bittersweet!
Is it not artistic!? 
I'm just irritated with the fact that every development brings organics and synthetics closer to understanding each other in the trilogy and in ME3 they get to a more peaceful state than ever, but then apparently if the Reapers didn't exist that peace would suddenly become chaos in a near future. If that was really the case then maybe BIoware should've just shown a negative development between organic and inorganic in ME3.
It sticks out like a sore thumb how poorly the ending connects with what was shown about the theme of synthetics and organics in the rest of the game and it shows Bioware did not think up that crappy ending before they got to the end of the game themselves because then there would've been a more elegant approach to showing us signs of that incoming "chaos".
And saying there isn't one, then perhaps you should explain yourself as well. What's your reason for saying the the peace for quarians/geth don't contradict the Catalyst's logic?
What is the point? I'm 95% certain you already know my reasoning for it. We've had this conversation before. A few times. In great length and detail. Why should I expect you to suddenly understand if I explain it to you again? It isn't like the lore has changed and I have new lore to throw at you for you to ignore. If you ignore it the first hundred times you're probably going to ignore it now.
Now since Dejavu is new here I will offer to explain it (again) simply for his benefit to keep you from feeding him misconceptions. Which is ironic, given the subject of this topic being confusion about the ending. However I'll only explain it (again) if he actually asks for it. I certainly won't be wasting my time explaining it (again) for your benefit since we already know the outcome of that.
Edit: I decided to find that "Catalyst Logic" link I've seen in JasonShepard's signature. I haven't actually read it myself since, based off what I've read of Jason's post, it very likely the topic is just retelling everything I already know. I'd be very surprised if the opposite was true. He seems to know what he's talking about with the catalyst from what little we've spoke and since he linked it I have to assume it follows lore and lays it all out adequately. You could go read that if you wanted a more in depth analysis. In the very least you can have fun hissing at it and chanting "illogical!"
http://forum.bioware...n-dlc/#13006636
Gah, do I really have to browse through earlier threads just to find a counterargument from you against geth/quarian peace contradicting the ending?
I have to be upfront. I do remember your name here and there but I don't remember your counterargument about said thing... unless you're one of those who argue that it changes nothing? If so, can you, one more time explain that to me because to me that makes no sense.
...and what's up with the rallying, Valmar? The only thing I've seen you write on these boards for the past week is how much better you think you understand the ending than others. If that's the case, argue with us, make us understand too.
EDIT:
So I actually read quite a bit and here's probably the part Valmar is refering to:
"Coming back to the previous solutions, this is why the Geth/Quarians and EDI/Joker, who have been friendly (if at all) for less than 1 year, are irrelevant to the overall argument because the Catalyst has seen temporary peace come and go. It has never seen lasting peace, and we are in no position at all to posit our peace examples as exemplars of eternal peace. Rather, our examples suddenly become more interesting, because we WANT the peace to occur, but in the “laws” of the Mass Effect universe, they are doomed to failure in some way. Synthetics, especially after the Reapers, may never find themselves accepted as a whole in galactic society, save a few that Shepard is comfortable with."
I can buy that... and I was never in doubt as to what the Catalyst's viewpoint was... I'm arguing that from a literary viewpoint and regarding how themes are portrayed I just think it's inelegant and hamfisted beyond all belief, and it does not excuse why Shepard ignores it, which is my problem.
If he had brought it up and the Catalyst logically argued against it or simply argues that Shepard has no alternative but to fire the Crucible or accept defeat, then so be it, but Shepard not being able to attempt to argue about the qurian and geth peace is the real problem. The narrative itself ignores it when it is the most challenging counterargument to the logic, and IMO that shows the ignorance towards their own story's coherence and carelessness from Bioware and they never bothered fixing it.
Naturally everyone was confused about it. It's just too inconsistent.
Gah, do I really have to browse through earlier threads just to find a counterargument from you against geth/quarian peace contradicting the ending?
I have to be upfront. I do remember your name here and there but I don't remember your counterargument about said thing... unless you're one of those who argue that it changes nothing? If so, can you, one more time explain that to me because to me that makes no sense.
You remembering me or not remembering doesn't change anything. My argument wouldn't be any different than it was then. The end result would be the same regardless of who I am. If we've already had this conversation why would it be different this time just because you don't remember?
Having this same argument over and over again (not just with you specifically) gets rather tiring after a while. Especially when its with the same people. Its different when its with new faces but when you're rehashing the same old thing over and over again with the same people with the same arguments and the same dismissals... its all for naught. Again, the lore hasn't suddenly changed. It isn't like anything new will be added to it. It'd just be beating a dead horse at this point.
You want it to be contradictory, therefore it will always be contradictory. Nothing will change that, as proved by past discussions on this matter. I'm not sure if I'm a being pessimistic or a realist. Either way, I see it as a waste of effort on both parties.
...and what's up with the rallying, Valmar? The only thing I've seen you write on these boards for the past week is how much better you think you understand the ending than others. If that's the case, argue with us, make us understand too.
Rallying? Who's us? I can't make you understand something you don't want to understand. I, and many others, have argued the point. Rarely does it seem to really get across, though. I don't really know the 'us' is you purpose I think I'm so much better than, though I will admit, arrogantly or not, I do understand it better than some out there. The fact that there are people who actually think Shepard dies in all endings is proof of that. The existence of this topic is proof of that. You arguing about this is proof of that. The issue is that, based off my experience here and the evidence thereof, most of those who don't understand it don't actually want to understand it. They just want to hate it. Hate it they shall.
I'm sure I'll end up talking about the ending and try to correct someones misconception again at some point or another. Bit crazy since it so rarely changes anything but its the curse of being a fanboy I suppose. Though I take solace in knowing I'm not alone in this problem. Regardless of our positions or feelings about Mass Effect all of us here are clearly rather attached to Mass Effect to be still be talking about it. Even if some actually compare it to rape (rather recently too, if you can believe that) due to the ending, clearly they liked something about it if they can STILL be whining about it.
I'm just irritated with the fact that every development brings organics and synthetics closer to understanding each other in the trilogy and in ME3 they get to a more peaceful state than ever, but then apparently if the Reapers didn't exist that peace would suddenly become chaos in a near future. If that was really the case then maybe BIoware should've just shown a negative development between organic and inorganic in ME3.
It sticks out like a sore thumb how poorly the ending connects with what was shown about the theme of synthetics and organics in the rest of the game and it shows Bioware did not think up that crappy ending before they got to the end of the game themselves because then there would've been a more elegant approach to showing us signs of that incoming "chaos".
Retour en haut